Sobran's Jewish Obsession

I wrote
"He lies about Jewish theology and equated Judaism with communism,http://www.sobran.com/jewid.shtml "
Sangamin Kid responded:
And which, I might ask, are the lies about Jewish theology? Care to expound about those?

By such reasoning as Wistrich’s, it would be easy to blame the Jews for bringing persecution on themselves. After all, they have been unpopular not only in Christian countries, but in pagan and Muslim lands. Cicero, Tacitus, Juvenal, and other Roman authors inveighed against them. They have repeatedly migrated to Christian countries and have been repeatedly expelled, for reasons that have usually had little to do with theology — though the obscene blasphemies against Christ and his mother in the Talmud, unique in religious literature, besides reflecting oddly on Jewish demands for Christian tolerance and for the cleansing of offensive passages in the Gospels, have done nothing to endear the Jews to Christians.

Not true. Jesus is not mentioned in the Talmud.
He also tries to show that Judaism support Communism, a patently false claim.

Thank you for quoting David Irving's site and associated lies. Are you out to prove that you are an anti-Semite, or does it just slip out?

Without getting into all of the other crap, why did Pat own a Mercedes while screaming America First?

Excellent question. Which brings up another funny little factoid: someone recently brought to my attention that the Palestinian Authority (yes, good ol' Arafat) owns about 27% of the company.

He also tries to show that Judaism support Communism, a patently false claim. Post #282

Thank you for quoting David Irving's site and associated lies. Are you out to prove that you are an anti-Semite, or does it just slip out?Post #283

Sorry about the delay in responding back...got caught up in some other argument on another thread.

I also received notice from the forum administrator that David Irving's site is basically off-limits. I have no problem with that, but I don't think you should have concluded I am antisemitic because I linked to his site. What have I said that gave you or anyone else the impression that I hate the Jewish people? I have never read any of Irving's stuff, but was more interested in Churchill's letter (if it is authentic as Irving claims). All along (in this thread) I have been attempting to determine if Joe Sobran actually denied the Holocaust, and nobody is willing to step forward with evidence. He has been linked to alleged unsavory types, but as of yet, no one wants to step up to the plate and provide proof that Sobran said as much.

Regardless of the Sobran thing, and despite the problems with David Irving and the crowd he runs with, what is your take on the Churchill letter? I understand that evil men may attempt to "sanctify" their twisted views by wrapping themselves in the the words of others who are generally honored, in this case, Churchill, but doesn't Churchill at least present a more balanced view of the battle within the European Jewish community? He seems to at least address the issue of opposing factions, Zionism, which he sees as good, and Bolshevism, which he sees as evil. Are his arguments and insights reasonable?

And as per the Talmud issue, I will have to defer to you seeing as that I am not familiar with that particular religious text.

Looking forward to your response.

I also received notice from the forum administrator that David Irving's site is basically off-limits. I have no problem with that, but I don't think you should have concluded I am antisemitic because I linked to his site. What have I said that gave you or anyone else the impression that I hate the Jewish people? I have never read any of Irving's stuff, but was more interested in Churchill's letter (if it is authentic as Irving claims). All along (in this thread) I have been attempting to determine if Joe Sobran actually denied the Holocaust, and nobody is willing to step forward with evidence. He has been linked to alleged unsavory types, but as of yet, no one wants to step up to the plate and provide proof that Sobran said as much.
1. David Irving has been proven a liar in court. He is also a Holocaust Denier so he is hardly a unbiased source. Perhaps, you don't know of his history. I would suggest that you look it up.
2. To the best of my knowledge, Sobran has never DENIED that Holocaust. Rather he questions the numbers and claims that Jews use it to oppress Christians.His schtik on the Judeo-communist holocaust of Ukranians is vile revisionism. He ignores taht fact that Jews were also slaughtered.

Regardless of the Sobran thing, and despite the problems with David Irving and the crowd he runs with, what is your take on the Churchill letter? I understand that evil men may attempt to "sanctify" their twisted views by wrapping themselves in the the words of others who are generally honored, in this case, Churchill, but doesn't Churchill at least present a more balanced view of the battle within the European Jewish community? He seems to at least address the issue of opposing factions, Zionism, which he sees as good, and Bolshevism, which he sees as evil. Are his arguments and insights reasonable?
I question the authenticity of the letter.
Churchill was an early Zionist and a lifetime opponent of communism. In so far as he saw Zionism and Communism as the two solutions of the "Jewish question" in Eastern Europe, he was correct in historic terms. Churchill understood taht communism and zionism are inherently incompatable and the communism is the death of Judaism.

Thank you for your reasonable response. I was beginning to believe that more vitriol was used on this thread than salt in a bowl of popcorn.