Muscatine

The Talmud specifically defines all who are not Jews as non-human animals, and specifically dehumanises gentiles as not being descendants of Adam. We will now list some of the Talmud passages which relate to this topic:

"The Jews are called human beings, but the non-Jews are not humans. They are beasts."
Talmud: Baba mezia, 114b

---

"The Akum (non-Jew) is like a dog. Yes, the scripture teaches to honour the the dog more than the non-Jew."
Ereget Raschi Erod. 22 30

---

"Even though God created the non-Jew they are still animals in human form. It is not becoming for a Jew to be served by an animal. Therefore he will be served by animals in human form."
Midrasch Talpioth, p. 255, Warsaw 1855

---

"A pregnant non-Jew is no better than a pregnant animal."
Coschen hamischpat 405

---

"The souls of non-Jews come from impure sprits and are called pigs."
Jalkut Rubeni gadol 12b

---

"Although the non-Jew has the same body structure as the Jew, they compare with the Jew like a monkey to a human."
Schene luchoth haberith, p. 250 b

---

"If you eat with a Gentile, it is the same as eating with a dog."
Tosapoth, Jebamoth 94b

---

"If a Jew has a non-Jewish servant or maid who dies, one should not express sympathy to the Jew. You should tell the Jew: "God will replace 'your loss', just as if one of his oxen or asses had died"."
Jore dea 377, 1

---

"Sexual intercourse between Gentiles is like intercourse between animals."
Talmud Sanhedrin 74b

---

"It is permitted to take the body and the life of a Gentile."
Sepher ikkarim III c 25

---

"It is the law to kill anyone who denies the Torah. The Christians belong to the denying ones of the Torah."
Coschen hamischpat 425 Hagah 425. 5

---

"A heretic Gentile you may kill outright with your own hands."
Talmud, Abodah Zara, 4b

---

"Every Jew, who spills the blood of the godless (non-Jews), is doing the same as making a sacrifice to God."
Talmud: Bammidber raba c 21 & Jalkut 772

---

 

How does a Jew prepare for his crime?

Moed Kattan 17a . If a Jew is tempted to do evil he should go to a city where he is not known and do the evil there.
 

Hitting a Jew is the same as hitting God

Sanhedrin 58b. If a heathen (gentile) hits a Jew, the gentile must be killed.
 
 

O.K. to Cheat Non-Jews

Sanhedrin 57a . A Jew need not pay a gentile ("Cuthean") the wages owed him for work.
 

Jews Have Superior Legal Status

Baba Kamma 37b. "If an ox of an Israelite gores an ox of a Canaanite there is no liability; but if an ox of a Canaanite gores an ox of an Israelite...the payment is to be in full."
 

Jews May Steal from Non-Jews

Baba Mezia 24a . If a Jew finds an object lost by a gentile ("heathen") it does not have to be returned. (Affirmed also in Baba Kamma 113b). Sanhedrin 76a. God will not spare a Jew who "marries his daughter to an old man or takes a wife for his infant son or returns a lost article to a Cuthean..."
 

Jews May Rob and Kill Non-Jews

Sanhedrin 57a . When a Jew murders a gentile ("Cuthean"), there will be no death penalty. What a Jew steals from a gentile he may keep.

---

Baba Kamma 37b. The gentiles are outside the protection of the law and God has "exposed their money to Israel."

---

Jews May Lie to Non-Jews

Baba Kamma 113a. Jews may use lies ("subterfuges") to circumvent a Gentile.
 

Non-Jewish Children are Sub-Human

Yebamoth 98a. All gentile children are animals.

---

Abodah Zarah 36b. Gentile girls are in a state of niddah (filth) from birth.

---

Abodah Zarah 22a-22b . Gentiles prefer sex with cows.

---

Insults Against Blessed Mary

Sanhedrin 106a . Says Mary  was a whore: "She who was the descendant of princes and governors played the harlot with carpenters." Also in footnote #2 to Shabbath 104b of the Soncino edition, it is stated that in the "uncensored" text of the Talmud it is written that Jesus mother, "Miriam the hairdresser," had sex with many men.
 
 

Horrible Blasphemy Against Jesus Christ

Gittin 57a. Says Jesus is being boiled in "hot excrement."

Sanhedrin 43a. Jesus deserved execution: "On the eve of the Passover, Yeshu (Jesus) was hanged...Do you suppose that he was one for whom a defense could be made? Was he not a Mesith (enticer)?"
 
 

Talmud Attacks Non jews beliefs

Rosh Hashanah 17a. Christians (minnim) and others who reject the Talmud will go to hell and be punished there for all generations.

---

Shabbath 116a. Jews must destroy the books of the Christians, i.e. the New Testament.

---

Dr. Israel Shahak of Hebrew University reports that the Israelis burned hundreds of New Testament Bibles in occupied Palestine on March 23, 1980 (cf. Jewish History, Jewish Religion, p. 21).

---

Sick and Insane Teachings of the Talmud

Yebamoth 63a. States that Adam had sexual intercourse with all the animals in the Garden of Eden.

---

Yebamoth 63a. Declares that agriculture is the lowest of occupations.

Sanhedrin 55b. A Jew may marry a three year old girl (specifically, three years "and a day" old).

---

Sanhedrin 54b. A Jew may have sex with a child as long as the child is less than nine years old.

---

Kethuboth 11b. "When a grown-up man has intercourse with a little girl it is nothing."

---

Yebamoth 59b. A woman who had intercourse with a beast is eligible to marry a Jewish priest. A woman who has sex with a demon is also eligible to marry a Jewish priest.

---

Abodah Zarah 17a. States that there is not a whore in the world that the Talmudic sage Rabbi Eleazar has not had sex with.

---

Hagigah 27a. States that no rabbi can ever go to hell.

---

Baba Mezia 59b. A rabbi debates God and defeats Him. God admits the rabbi won the debate.

---

Pesahim 111a. It is forbidden for dogs, women or palm trees to pass between two men, nor may others walk between dogs, women or palm trees. Special dangers are involved if the women are menstruating or sitting at a crossroads.

---

Menahoth 43b-44a. A Jewish man is obligated to say the following prayer every day: Thank you God for not making me a gentile, a woman or a slave.

---

Lies of a Roman Holocaust

Here are two early "Holocaust" tales from the Talmud: Gittin 57b. Claims that four billion Jews were killed by the Romans in the city of Bethar. Gittin 58a claims that 16 million Jewish children were wrapped in scrolls and burned alive by the Romans. (Ancient demography indicates that there were not 16 million Jews in the entire world at that time, much less 16 million Jewish children or four billion Jews.... that tells us about today's modern Jew's lies about those 6 million jews killed by Nazis ?????

 

Abodah Zarah 70a. The question was asked of the rabbi whether wine stolen in Pumbeditha might be used or if it was defiled, due to the fact that the thieves might have been gentiles (a gentile touching wine would make the wine unclean). The rabbi says not to worry, that the wine is permissible for Jewish use because the majority of the thieves in Pumbeditha, the place where the wine was stolen, are Jews. (Also cf. Gemara Rosh Hashanah 25b).

Genocide Advocated by the Talmud

Minor Tractates. Soferim 15, Rule 10. This is the saying of Rabbi Simon ben Yohai: Tob shebe goyyim harog ("Even the best of the gentiles should all be killed").

This passage is from the original Hebrew of the Babylonian Talmud as quoted by the 1907 Jewish Encyclopedia, published by Funk and Wagnalls and compiled by Isidore Singer, under the entry, "Gentile," (p. 617).

This original Talmud passage has been concealed in translation. The Jewish Encyclopedia states that, "...in the various versions the reading has been altered, 'The best among the Egyptians' being generally substituted." In the Soncino version: "the best of the heathens" (Minor Tractates, Soferim 41a-b].

Israelis annually take part in a national pilgrimage to the grave of Simon ben Yohai, to honor this rabbi who advocated the extermination of non-Jews. (Jewish Press, June 9, 1989, p. 56B).

On Purim, Feb. 25, 1994, Israeli army officer Baruch Goldstein, an orthodox Jew from Brooklyn, massacred 40 Palestinian civilians, including children, while they knelt in prayer in a mosque. Goldstein was a disciple of the late Brooklyn Rabbi Meir Kahane, who told CBS News that his teaching that Arabs are "dogs" is derived "from the Talmud." (CBS 60 Minutes, "Kahane").

University of Jerusalem Prof. Ehud Sprinzak described Kahane and Goldstein's philosophy: "They believe it's God's will that they commit violence against goyim, a Hebrew term for non-Jews." (NY Daily News, Feb. 26, 1994, p. 5).

Rabbi Yitzhak Ginsburg declared, "We have to recognize that Jewish blood and the blood of a goy are not the same thing." (NY Times, June 6, 1989, p.5).

Rabbi Yaacov Perrin said, "One million Arabs are not worth a Jewish fingernail." (NY Daily News, Feb. 28, 1994, p.6).

Moses Maimonides: Advocate of Extermination

"Moses Maimonides is considered the greatest codifier and philosopher in Jewish history. He is often affectionately referred to as the Rambam, after the initials of his name and title, Rabenu Moshe Ben Maimon, "Our Rabbi, Moses son of Maimon." [Maimonides' Principles, edited by Aryeh Kaplan, Union of Orthodox Jewish Congregations of America,, p. 3].

Here is what Maimonides (Rambam) taught concerning saving people's lives, especially concerning saving the lives of gentiles and Christians, or even Jews who dared to deny the "divine inspiration" of the Talmud:

Maimonides, Mishnah Torah, (Moznaim Publishing Corporation, Brooklyn, New York, 1990, Chapter 10, English Translation), p. 184: "Accordingly, if we see an idolater (gentile) being swept away or drowning in the river, we should not help him. If we see that his life is in danger, we should not save him." The Hebrew text of the Feldheim 1981 edition of Mishnah Torah states this as well.

Immediately after Maimonides' admonition that it is a duty for Jews not to save a drowning or perishing gentile, he informs us of the Talmudic duty of Jews towards Goyim, and also towards Jews who deny the Talmud. Maimonides, Mishnah Torah, (Chapter 10), p. 184:

"It is a mitzvah [religious duty], however, to eradicate Jewish traitors, minnim, and apikorsim, and to cause them to descend to the pit of destruction, since they cause difficulty to the Jews and sway the people away from God, as did Jesus of Nazareth and his students, and Tzadok, Baithos, and their students. May the name of the wicked rot."

 

Bible Commands Christians to Kill Nonbelievers

One often hears that it is not religious belief itself that is problematic but religious extremism. This sounds appealing until one realizes that the presence of religious believers, including religious moderates, is what often shields religious extremists from criticism. That is, the presence of religious moderates provides a context in which religious extremism doesn't seem nearly as irrational and dangerous as it should. Moderate believers makes it far more difficult to question even the most extreme religious beliefs.

But isn't it a bit of an exaggeration to say that religious extremism is actually dangerous? Maybe Islamic extremists are dangerous, but surely there is nothing wrong with their Christian counterparts! I mean, isn't their "holy" book mostly about how they should be nice to others?

Let's examine the Christian bible:

 

Deuteronomy 17
If there be found among you, within any of thy gates which the LORD thy God giveth thee, man or woman, that hath wrought wickedness in the sight of the LORD thy God, in transgressing his covenant; 17:3 And hath gone and served other gods, and worshipped them, either the sun, or moon, or any of the host of heaven, which I have not commanded; 17:4 And it be told thee, and thou hast heard of it, and enquired diligently, and, behold, it be true, and the thing certain, that such abomination is wrought in Israel; 17:5 Then shalt thou bring forth that man or that woman, which have committed that wicked thing, unto thy gates, even that man or that woman, and shalt stone them with stones, till they die.

 

Fairly clear, isn't it? A book, claimed by many to be "holy" in some way, instructs people to murder persons who do not believe in their god. Why haven't we heard more about this? Because many Christians are content to ignore certain parts of their bible while obsessing about others (i.e., cherry picking). And what of those who do not ignore such parts of their "sacred" text? We call them extremists...or worse.

 

THAT'S A BURN!!!!!

Please, please, please.   You are not answering my question in it's entirety.  You are cherry picking to suit your preconceptions and agenda again.

 

First Off, Where is your proof that your statement is in deed fact.

 

Even Westerners who have never opened the book - especially such people, perhaps - assume that the Koran is filled with calls for militarism and murder, and that those texts shape Islam.

Unconsciously, perhaps, many Christians consider Islam to be a kind of dark shadow of their own faith, with the ugly words of the Koran standing in absolute contrast to the scriptures they themselves cherish. In the minds of ordinary Christians - and Jews - the Koran teaches savagery and warfare, while the Bible offers a message of love, forgiveness, and charity. For the prophet Micah, God's commands to his people are summarized in the words "act justly, and love mercy, and walk humbly with your God" (Micah 6:8). Christians recall the words of the dying Jesus: "Father, forgive them: they know not what they do."

But in terms of ordering violence and bloodshed, any simplistic claim about the superiority of the Bible to the Koran would be wildly wrong. In fact, the Bible overflows with "texts of terror," to borrow a phrase coined by the American theologian Phyllis Trible. The Bible contains far more verses praising or urging bloodshed than does the Koran, and biblical violence is often far more extreme, and marked by more indiscriminate savagery. The Koran often urges believers to fight, yet it also commands that enemies be shown mercy when they surrender. Some frightful portions of the Bible, by contrast, go much further in ordering the total extermination of enemies, of whole families and races - of men, women, and children, and even their livestock, with no quarter granted. One cherished psalm (137) begins with the lovely line, "By the rivers of Babylon we sat and wept"; it ends by blessing anyone who would seize Babylon's infants and smash their skulls against the rocks. 

http://www.boston.com/bostonglobe/ideas/articles/2009/03/08/dark_passages/

 

There is difference, and some confusion about the term Muslim extremist, and one which the media are all too often keen to highlight.
I know plenty of Muslims who would be called extreme, extreme in how they view their religion, but haven't got a hateful bone in their body, and are some of the most peacful people around; what they are, is just fundamental in how they live their faith, which is quite normal in my view. Where the problem lies, for me, is how the media label Muslims, with those who commit attrocious acts of violence, and bunches them altogether under the term "Muslim". It creates an overall image of anyone who wants to act on their faith, as being like those who are violent, or hateful.

 

depends on your definition of "extreme muslims" you appear to be making an incorrect value judgement against an entire religion. Perhaps you mean muslims who avocate violence? If so, that is a subset of muslims, not a definition of muslims.
I think the problem here is the term "extreme" implies "devout" or "fundamentalist"....which, to be accurate, would be the most peace loving group of people.
I think you've allowed yourself to assume that the religion supports violence in and of itself. Instead, there are adherents who happen to be muslim and who happen to be violent terrorists. But, the two things are not inextricably linked by definition.

Basically you are an indoctrinated statist who believes the lies spread by the military industrial complex's corporate owned propaganda machine called the mainstream media. The wars are completely based on lies for corporate gain. The jihadist were in fact, created, trained and armed by the western intelligent agencies to give a reason for more wars. In fact, Zbigniew Brzezinski admitted to creating Jihadist to draw Russia into a Vietnam style war with Afghanistan in 1979 in an interview. The government(bush admin) and the media both lied about WMDs in Iraq, to drum support for war with Iraq and then at a dinner bush made jokes about it. They get away with it because of people like you, who continue to believe their lies!

 

You want my anwser, then I say your question is fundamentally wrong and completely based on lies.

 

Still waiting for you to prove this is false!

 

In June of 2014 the world watched in shock as an Islamic militant group operating under the name of the Islamic State of Iraq and Syria (or ISIS), took control of Mosul, Baiji and Tikrit and began pushing south to Baghdad. Fallujah has been under their control since January.

Iraqi military and police put up very little resistance in spite of the fact that they greatly outnumbered the militants. Most fled their posts and left their uniforms and weapons behind, those who didn't were killed.

ISIS, whose stated goal is to erase the border between Syria and Iraq, to establish an Islamic Caliphate encompassing both countries, and to impose sharia law, already holds vast swaths of territory, and they are rapidly gaining ground.

How did this happen?

That's an extremely important question. How you answer it will determine what comes next, and not just in Iraq. That's why the media spin doctors and politicians are out in force attempting to rewrite history, and turning reality completely on its head in the process.

For example we have people insisting this is happening because the U.S. and NATO failed to intervene in Syria.

Well that's a convenient answer isn't it?

The U.S. and NATO have been actively working to topple Assad by arming and funding the Syrian rebels since 2011. This has developed into a bloody civil war which has attracted Jihadists from all over the world. It has also created a vacuum of power which enabled groups like ISIS, Al-Qaeda and Al-Nusra to organize and establish physical strongholds.

The U.S. claims to only be arming the "moderate" rebels, however, the leadership of the Free Syrian Army (aka the FSA) has stated that they regularly carry out joint operations with Al-Qaeda and its affiliates. Up until recently ISIS was a branch of Al-Qaeda. In February of this year Al-Qaeda's official leadership publicly disavowed ISIS due to their brutal tactics. That's why ISIS is referred to as a splinter group. Furthermore, we know for a fact that the majority of the weapons and funding from the U.S. and its allies are ending up in the hands of Jihadists, and U.S. officials have been aware of this since 2012. But don't take my word for it, go read this article from the New York Times yourself.

Do the math folks. ISIS would have never gotten a foothold Syria if the U.S. hadn't weakened the Syrian government, and the weapons they are using right now... were most likely paid for with your tax dollars.

But wait, this isn't just about Syria is it? It's also about Iraq. Which brings us to the other deranged narrative that is being promoted right now: that this chaos is unfolding because U.S. military withdrew prematurely in 2011.

You see Iraq is in ruins and unable to defend itself, because the U.S. military left the party too early. It's not because the Bush administration and the mainstream media convinced the public that Saddam had weapons of mass destruction and was planning to use them. It's not because the U.S. invaded Iraq on these false pretenses, disbanding the Iraqi army and police, and reducing the country to rubble in an attempt to put down the resulting insurgency. No, it's because eight years of military occupation wasn't enough.

To those who fought there, it's a punch in the gut to see your sacrifice was for nothing, but the occupation of Iraq was never going to end well, and the Bush administration knew that it wouldn't. But don't take my word for it. Let's take a look at this clip of Dick Cheney from 1994.

That was very astute Dick. You accurately predicted the mess you were going to help create in 2003. I would even venture to say that your predictions were more accurate than those who warned against this adventure. I'm impressed.

Now you'll notice that the talking heads of the left and the right are all trying to frame this crisis as the fault of the other side. They're both right.

Both sides of the aisle have blood on their hands, and this goes way beyond Bush and Obama. The United States has been tinkering in Iraq for a long, long time. In fact it was the CIA that put Saddam Hussein in power in 1963. Don't take my word for it, go read this article from the New York Times.

The U.S. government also backed Saddam in 1980 when he launched a war of aggression against Iran, even though they knew that he was using chemical weapons. But again don't take my word for it, go read this article by Foreign Policy magazine.

Fast forward to 1990. Saddam Hussein was embroiled in a dispute with Kuwait over oil prices and borders and he was considering taking action. Given America's support in the war against Iran, Saddam had no reason to believe that Kuwait would be any different, but just to be sure, he decided to consult with Washington first.

On July 25th of 1990 U.S. ambassador to Iraq April Glaspie met with Saddam Hussein. In the meeting Saddam described his case against Kuwait and told Glaspie that he viewed their activities as an act of military aggression. Glaspie responded by saying “We have no opinion on the Arab-Arab conflicts, like your border disagreement with Kuwait”, and she reinforced this by saying "this issue is not associated with America" Naturally Saddam interpreted this as a green light, and eight days later he invaded.

Later, when questioned in hearings, Glaspie claimed that though this quote was accurate, she had followed it up by insisting that Iraq settle its dispute non-violently.

However that's not what shows up in the transcripts of the conversation released by the New York Times. According to the transcript she said "All that we hope is that these issues are solved quickly."

But maybe this was just an innocent diplomatic blunder right? Well not quite.

As soon as Saddam entered Kuwait the U.S. government launched a very interesting propaganda campaign to build up public support for a war. They claimed that Iraqi troops were slaughtering little babies by throwing them out of their incubators in hospitals, and they brought in teary eyed witnesses who testified to having seen the massacres.

Just one problem… the entire event was fabricated. It never happened. This woman who presented herself as a witness was actually the daughter of the Kuwaiti ambassador to the United States and her testimony was part of a public relations campaign organized by a company called Hill and Knowlton.

Once public support for the war was strong, the incubators story was dropped, and never mentioned again.

The U.S. invaded Iraq in 1991. During that war the U.S. military utilized approximately 640,000 pounds of Depleted Uranium ammunition. The Iraq was decimated, but the U.S. left Saddam in power.

The war didn't ever really end though. The U.S. kept Iraq under a draconian sanctions regime that resulted in the deaths of hundreds of thousands of children. Clinton kept those sanctions in place for the entire duration of his presidency, and they knew what was happening.

You know how they say "those who don't know history are destined to repeat it"? That's really not an exaggeration.

Fast forward to 2003 and the Kuwaiti incubator story was swapped out for stories of mobile missile silos and yellow cake uranium.

And when it turned out that those weapons of mass destruction didn't exist, they acted like it was no big deal.

Then of course came Obama, riding in on promises of hope and change. But we saw how Obama toppled Libya in 2011, leaving that nation in utter chaos. Gaddafi was then killed in a rather gruesome fashion.

Before NATO brought down Gaddafi Libya had the highest standard of living in all of Africa. Now it's a perpetual war-zone. And of course we've seen how Obama has funded and armed the Syrian rebels in an attempt to bring down Assad.

Obama is operating from the same playbook, and yes there is a playbook.

Fortunately the future is not set in stone. We can influence the outcome, and we already are. We proved that in 2013 when both the left and the right dropped their petty bickering and unified against Obama's proposal to use airstrikes against Assad.

The pattern of deceit was the same, but this time the people didn't fall for it. The fact that we had the U.N. investigator Carla Del Ponte come out to say that the Syrian rebels were behind the sarin gas attacks helped, the fact that Putin short circuited the U.S. diplomatically helped, but the determining factor was the popular resistance, particularly the signs of discontent from within the military. You see, the ruling class is very hesitant to take a nation to war if the people and the military strongly oppose it. That's why the first casualty of war is always the truth.

What's going on in Iraq right now is horrific. ISIS is already committing atrocities against civilians on a massive scale. Inexplicably the Obama administration did not provide the Iraqi military with immediate air support even after the fall of Mosul. I say inexplicably, not because I support airstrikes, but because on June 12th, the U.S. Military conducted its second drone strike this month in Pakistan. Why would Obama refuse to act in Iraq when civilians are being massacred, while employing drones in Pakistan without hesitation?