The issue was NEVER credibility but whether or not Orwell modelled what Winston did on his own job during WWII. I have demonstrated that fact. The rest is for another topic which you refuse to start.

I can only conclude you are working your ass off to look like an idiot. Do you see the Mexican army occupying the US and defending Mexican squatters?

You really must have some kind of inbred genetic brain malfunction that you cannot see a difference.

Does the word RUSE mean nothing to you?

Warning? What basis might you be asserting for discussing a warning? Please be specific in your answer.

And of course the mythical nature of Abraham, Moses, David, Solomon, and his temple and all of biblical Israel and biblical Judah, all of which first apppear in a work of fiction called the Septuagint in mid 2nd c. BC at the earliest. And the mythical nature of Judean and Christian monotheism pre-Mohamed too. And of course the Yahweh cult currently called Judaism being invented in Alexandria under Ptolemaic sponsorship in the mid 2nd c. BC.

Why do you give such a narrow presentation of atheism in a POLITICAL forum? What is the threat you are making? Are you really saying the defense of Jewish crimes is an apolitical mandate?

The only thing I have said about race is that Jews are not a race. Therefore I have only posted about religionists. Why do you LIE about my posts?

You the singular PTB? If so, good to meet the Wizard of Oz. You are still naked. You are clearly a fake atheist who does nothing but hate non-Jews.

Tyranny is to condemned from the rooftops every place it raises it head.

I have no problem with any warning you wish to issue IF and only IF you recite the violation of rule which merits the warning.

Are you going to warn me AGAINST attacking a religion?

Are you going to warn me AGAINST attacking members of a religion?

What rule here prohibits attacking religions, members of religions or the acts of members of religions?

Please cite the rule.

My guess is you will NEVER recite why in any credible manner but simply ban me just because as a good Jew you can not bring yourself to overcome you hatred of a non-Jew.

But that claim is patently false, and your single minded crusade would remove only one of dozens of religious threats to society, whilst allowing the others to gain strength on the losses of the jews.

It's like there were a hundred black holes heading our way, but instead of attempting to divert ALL of them, you just focused all your energy on the oldest of them hoping that diverting it would divert the others, even though a couple of the others are much bigger and more massive; and have more than enough mass and momentum to arrive here on their own.

I'm in disagreement with a warning. Yes, he's a one-track argument, and yes he has vicious attacks ready for anyone who opposes his view (or even questions portions of it in an attempt to understand his position), and yes it is old and repetitive; but he helps us too. When he posts and condemns the jews, or Watcher does against moslems, and we atheists respond against him, we show repeatedly that we are not a group of anti-theist bigots who irrationally hate all religions without reasonable cause. That we are quite willing and able to destroy irrational atheist arguments as much as we are irrational theist arguments.
I would miss having such an example of our willingness to condemn unhelpful and harmful arguments.
That said, it's just my opinion, and I'm not going to hold anyone to it. I just felt it should be expressed.

Destroying all religions is a noble goal of an atheist website. Why do you object? Judaism is the EASIEST target. Destroying Judaism also gives the most bang for the buck. Eliminate the religion of 3-4 million people (not counting fake Jews or 13 million tops if you do) and the religion of 2.6 BILLION people collapses. That would free nearly half the world population from religious tyranny. Obviously not overnight but you have to start some place.

The loss of any religion is a gain for atheism. Getting rid of any religion is a gain for atheism. Are you another fake atheist? Disappearing religions is an atheist goal. Atheists do not mediate between religions. They all suck as do all their members. If people are stupid enough to die for their religion then give them a Darwin Award. It is no brighter than jumping off a roof flapping your arms. Chalk up the unnecessary death to a self-inflicted wound motivated by religion.

Who mourns Adonis?

"Judaism is the EASIEST target."

No, it isn't. It's actually the hardest, because it's had the most time to adapt, and survived the most brutal assaults against it. There are many ways to attack christians and moslems that don't apply to jews.

And, destroying the jewish faith wouldn't hurt christians or moslems in the slightest. They would reap significant benefit by the removal of a competitor.

By concentrating soley on the jews, you do more damage to atheists than help.

This comment has been moved here.

Disproving the abrahamic religions is never difficult. And that's the point. Despite centuries of proof to the contrary, and tonnes of self refuting statements in all the holy books, all three religions are still here.

The jews have survived not because they were allowed to by islamics and christians, but because they were capable of surviving. The christians especially have made efforts to wipe both the jews and the moslems out, they just never had enough power to accomplish it.

Whether or not jews actively recruit people to their faith is irrelevant to their status as a competitor. Every religion is competition to every other religion by sheer existence. Their presence and communication of a message contrary to another faith weakens the other faith with every dissenting voice. And weakens it further by the existence of people who don't share and pass on the faith they don't follow.

Not by me.
Justice is found in having equal standards for all. If I kill someone for killing my friend, then the chances one of his friends will kill me in response skyrockets. It ends only when revenge is not sought as a solution.
The only exception to the rule is absolute annihilation of ALL the opposition. Which is simply not possible today (and would have been bloody well near impossible to pull off even when it was possible). The rest of the world won't let either side achieve victory through genocide. WWIII would happen first.

The only detractor of exported tyranny on this site.

Everyone else here thinks it is a great idea for Palestine and Israel to stop the occupation of each other's country. They are hopelessly delusional and unconnected with reality.

Wow, for someone who  calls me a Jew as a slur, and for someone who equates some support of Israel to total support of Israel "Izziehugers" I find this laughable.

It would fall on def ears(yours) to agree with you that that comment was way out of line.

Have you not noticed there is no geopolitical alignment in place or even contemplated that could result in WWIII? The US and Russia might not see eye to eye but there is no animosity at present. Nor does any nuclear power have a vital national interest in the survival of Israel.

For the US the end of Israel would remove a huge burden from the political process and vastly improve its diplomatic options. But the US is bound by treaty with NATO. Is it credible the US would abandon NATO in favor of Israel? But even it it does, what is the other side of this WWIII you imagine?

Britain remembers 20+ years of Jewish terrorism during mandate times. Just a few years ago Israel tried to put a prominent memorial plaque on the King David Hotel honoring the terrorists who bombed it. After a call from the PM it was reduce to a 8x10 and put in an obscure location. The Brits remember.

The France's primary interest is in Lebanon which Israel has only made difficult over the years. Its short time sponsorship disappeared after it caved to Eisenhower to get the hell out of Egypt ruining it's deal with Britain to retake the Suez from Nassar.

Russia's interest has always been with the Arab countries after Israel's early dealings with Stalin fell through and Israel aligned with its second choice of foreign protector, France.

China's interest in Israel was only for the time period it was selling classified US technology. Once the US found out and stopped it China went back to being China.

India (has nukes) was only interested in Israel during the two years the racist Hindu party was in power. That was when fitting the A-6s with wing fuel pods was considered so the had a chance flying on after nuking Iran and bailing out over India. Even then the only target in range was Natanz which is OBE. And without the racist party in power they would extradited to Iran for war crimes.

The idea of Pakistan giving a shit is a joke.

That is all seven countries which could respond to an Israeli nuke attack. Of them the first three are NATO which will respond to an attack on one as an attack on all. Russia is also in range and has already been openly threatened with nukes by Israel. Given what I know of Russia military policy it has had missiles targeting Israel since then and they will respond the instant they know a missile has been sent there way. And Russia is the country Israel tries to imitate with overkill. Russia might not spare Jerusalem where the NATO countries probably would.

So please tell me the sides in this WWIII you imagine.

This comment has been moved here.

Genocide has a legal definition. It does not cover Jews or Palestinians no matter how you look at it or try to contort it.

There is only one three sided war in history but at the moment which is was escapes me. There have been no wars with more than three. Miracles do not happen to support beliefs.

The issue here is simply the number of Israeli nukes. They are expensive to produce and expensive to own as they are high maintenance weapons. You don't just warehouse them. They have to be constantly monitored and maintained.

The Cold War overkill was three per target. There are not 80 credible targets in all the middle east if you count from Tunisia to Iran. Therefore it is intended to target Europe which includes Russia.

That means Israel's Sampson strategy is suicide by cop.