Why Do Jewish Leaders Want to Censor Mel Gibson? (page 2)

Simon

the Amercian colonialists had a reasonable grievance

Please explain

The 'grievance' I imagine you are thinking of is the supposed tax levied on British tea from India. However, the reality is that the rich plantation owners didn't like the fact that the British removed the tax and were thus undercutting their prices.

Also, they didn't like that the British government had agreed treaties with the native people limiting the expansion of the colonies and agreed that they would not expand past the appeletion mountains. Again, the rich landowners didn't like this - they wanted the land.

Finally, they also didn't like the political changes in Britain and Europe where slavery was being abolished. They had slaves. Their whole economy was built on slavery.

Tyranny yes, but they were the tyrants.

scotsman

Simon, that's off topic!

Abaddon

Simon:

The 'grievance' I imagine you are thinking of is the supposed tax levied on British tea from India. However, the reality is that the rich plantation owners didn't like the fact that the British removed the tax and were thus undercutting their prices.

True; funiliy enough the reason I put 'reasonable grievance' was I simply could not be arsed discussing the American War of Independance, anbd thought by doing that I'd stop the immediate regurgitation of the popular version of the events... whoops...

Also, they didn't like that the British government had agreed treaties with the native people limiting the expansion of the colonies and agreed that they would not expand past the appeletion mountains. Again, the rich landowners didn't like this - they wanted the land.

Yeah, but then you'll get people making out how the English were terrible to the Indians - which they were, along with the French - which somehow pops out of the toaster everytime the topic comes up as the Americans were far worse once they got going in their own right (divine mandate my hairy arse (calm down Mon3ey, that's THE divine mandate, not "A divine man date"... )) and I've all-too-often seen a discussion on those lines generate...

Finally, they also didn't like the political changes in Britain and Europe where slavery was being abolished. They had slaves. Their whole economy was built on slavery.

Wrong; 1776 was well before there was a major threat to slavery; the trade was banned in 1807 and actual slavery in 1833 (although there was a long-standing convention that lead to slavery on the British mainland being pretty much unknown by the mid-18th C.).

Tyranny yes, but they were the tyrants

Way to go in not giving ammo to the "Simon is anti-American" lobby. Doesn;t matter whether you are or not, they're likely to use that to death...

Simon

he he he ... I like to throw the dogs a few crumbs every now and then

Besides, what people were describing as "anti-American" a year ago is now very American now that the population seems to be changing it's views on the situation and what they were told.

Before you know it, I'll be president ...

Guest 77

Ruby your on the right track when you used the word 'monoply.' Control is the name of the game, follow the money, follow the money.

Are the Jews really responsible? There's a book by Eustace Mullins titled, 'The Curse of Canaan' that would be worth checking out.

Revelation Books P.O. Box 1105 Staunton Virginia 24401 or Christian Research P.O. Box 385 Eureka Springs Ark. 72632

Exra Pound a political prisoner for over 13 years furnished valuable information to Mr. Mullins.

Guest 77

Sneaky Russian

Its ironic.

In 1994, the 80 year old Lady Jane Birdwood was arrested and prosecuted in a criminal court in London, England for the "crime" of publishing in her pamphlet, The Longest Hatred, the truthful statement that the Talmud contains anti-Gentile and anti-Christian passages. (She was accused of violating the Public Order Act of 1986).

However, today, the 'longest hatred' has become a documentary discussing hatred of Jews, anti semitism, produced in VHS and book format. It discusses the hatred of Jews by Christians and Muslims.

The latter has not been censored out, I don't know why that is.

Mel Gibson's film paints ~Jews as the people who killed Jesus, then it is bound to cause the more fundamental of Christians to feel anti semetic.

Abaddon

Guest 77; I diagree. It is very clear from any examination of the The Lion, the Witch and the Wardrobe books that the wicked witch is responsible for Aslan's death...

... oh, hang on, that's a story based on THE story. The Jews responsible for Jesus death? Errr... yeah, if you believe the Bible is accurate, you should believe that, it's what is says. So

Mel Gibson's film isn't going to change that, or suddenly make loads of Jews become Christians.

The additions (that may not be in the final version) from some whcked out mystic that greatly enhanced the anti-semeticness of the story are what caused chief concerns. If you read up on the story, you'd know this.

Sneaky; have you posted here before? Your writing reminds me of someone; if you haven't posted here before, welcome anyway.

Anyway, the law the woman was convicted under was one whereby something considered likely to incite people to violence or illegal activity is considered illegal. It's very common in Europe... anti-hate speech legislation. Obviously this is a restriction of freedom of speech, but as it's restricting the freedom to incite to crime or violence, it's not seen as that big a restriction, and one that is beneficial to society as a whole.

If you can prove she was convicted for making a truthful statement regarding the content of the Talmod, you no doubt have the evidence handy to post here.

Did you answer my question about Nazi war attrocities in that other thread by the way?

Anyway, the idea is saying "The Jewish leadership sonsipired to kill Jesus: is fine, but "The Jewish leadership conspired to kill Jesus and let's face it, Jews are evil, go kill one now" is not fine. Obviously I'm using hyperbole, but I'm sure you get my drift.

Obviously the pamphlet was considered hate speech and the other material wasn't; there's no need to assume it's a fix-up unless you have some evidence to support your assertions

RubyTuesday

Jewish leaders want a monopoly over the spiritual life of the Jewish people, and do not want them to learn about the liberating faith of Christianity because Jewish leaders would lose their power.

This is a quote from the link I posted, I have not formed an opinion on it yet...wanted to see what you thought and need to see the movie.

Panda

First I adore Mel Gibson. Not for his serious stuff like Braveheart (which I admit swooning at) but the fluff of Lethal Weapon films. Gibson is a fine actor and I'm sure any project he's involved with will be popular, if for no other reason than his acting. I predict that my christian friends will be all over me with reasons to go see this film. But in the end wouldn't you all agree that it's the emotions that draw you in? Many who like the film are already christian, so this is a dramatization of their deeply held beliefs. Personally I say religion sucks the big one. There will always be "the other" who is guilty of all manner of ills. Imagine if everyone stopped looking for a scapegoat. Read "The Origins of Satan", Pagel

If you really want to see a young guy torn apart by religion watch "Believer" Its a film based on the life of a young jewish guy from NY. In the film he joins a neo-Nazi group (I know, right!!!) It's a fantastic film with a young actor in the lead who deserves some accolades for his acting. Oh, by the way the film did not get general release because the rabbis who viewed it panned the work ... even though it was based on a true story run in the NY Times... go figure.(The true story took place around 1986)

Simon, You, You brat... You just wish your ancestors had been colonists, admit it. Actually my grandparents got here around 1900 so "not guilty to all charges" well except for that thing in India and also Turkey, but let's forget those.

And the tea tax was not the reason Americans wanted to throw off the British yoke.

Many products would be shipped to England from lands closer to the colonies just to obtain a tax stamp. This, of course, drove prices higher. And where did that tax money go? King George III and his royal entourage.(to be fair to the German monarch he did suffer from a physically debilitating disease).

The colonists also complained about paying for magistrates whom they had no choice but to accept and pay ( in America its about $$$) British soldiers were permitted to barrack in the colonists homes...how would you like that?

People in the North had been phasing out slaves even while under colonial rule. The south was highly aggrarian and slavery remained an institution because of ... you guessed it $$$. And who was buying all of that cotton and tobacco produced by slaves... by golly it was England. Which btw required all raw materials to be sent to England in order to be processed and the final product shipped back to the colonies ... at, you guessed it, much higher prices.

And to whoever mentioned the Nazi's ... No group of Lutherans or Protestants or Presbyterians or Roman Catholics or Communists (or bankers, because that's a kind of religion too) cared about the Shoah in Nazi controlled Poland, Czechoslovakia, or Germany.

Nobody cared because it had always been "ok, wink wink" to hate the Jews. Once again religion rears it's ugly head.

"Imagine no religion, it isn't hard to do"JL

czarofmischief

I hereby surrender the Revolutionary War and return all the thirteen colonies to their rightful owner:

KING SIMON!

Czar of the Grandfather Emigrated From London in 1950 Klass

Why Do Jewish Leaders Want to Censor Mel Gibson?

Share this