How did you go with the prussic acid challenge, Armchair Critic?

Or are you not game to put your money where your mouth is?

Pffftt.. Lol
Yep I did and I'm I'm still thirsty...

Attack me but none of my arguments...
When it really comes down to it all you people have are insults.
You guys are essentially exactly what you are trying to suggest that I am, when I'm not.
You wouldn't dare engage in discussion over any of the arguments themselves.

//Pffftt.. Lol
Yep I did and I'm I'm still thirsty...//

Yeah, because lying is really going to help your case...

The LD50 for ingested HCN is 1-3 mg/kg body weight. If you had drunk HCN you would be dead. And there would be much rejoicing. The very fact that you are still here trying to convince us that HCN - counter to all the scientific data on the subject - is a harmless insecticide which is not highly toxic to humans demonstrates how full of crap you are.

This is why people don't want to argue with you: most people on this forum make up arguments to fit with known facts. You do it the other way around: you start with the argument and then make up facts to fit with your argument. It's impossible to have any kind of meaningful debate with the sort of person who will pretend that HCN is non-toxic because HCN being toxic doesn't fit with his argument.

It feels as though you are deliberately trying to bait me into saying something hateful towards you Toni so you call produce a real reason to scream 'anti-semite' to everyone and try to point to proof.
You may want me to drink acid and hope for me to die and rejoice in my death and feel as though some kind of extra priveligde allows you to do that but I have to be really honest here and say that I really dont hate you anyway sorry Toni.
I pity you.. I really do.

My last comment was sarcasm in case you didnt figure that out.
You should be grateful I even took the time to respond to your petty crap.

As for the fact I question some of the things from the World Wars..
Yeah so what.. Whats the big deal?

That I think Rothschild Zionists may have conspired to start or at least played a part in funding England in WW1 and that its very reasonable that one of the aims of the Zionist congress after it was formed was the re-establishment of the state of Israel - based upon its

biblical boundaries, meaning they want ALL the Palestinian land.

That as for WW2 if its a level of compassion and sympathy you ask from the world in regards to that war then is it not unreasonable in judging a level of compassion to ask how complicit the Zionists or Jews were in starting or provoking that war - given Jewish

bankers funded Hitler, and that Jews declared war against Germany in 1933.

Its not unreasonable.

Also is not unreasonable that I look at some of the things Israel has done in the past in order to try to judge its moral character and decide what sort of a nation I think Israel is?

I look at the false flag attacks.
You deliberately tried to sink a US ship (and pretended it was an attack by Egypt) in order to have the US attack Egypt.
This shows that Israel will willingly stage attacks if it furthers it Imperial ambitions.
It calls into question whether what reportedly goes on in Palestine actually does the way they say it does.
How do we know that Israel doesnt stage rocket attacks on itself for its own purposes in Palestine? (with that track record)?

Deliberately targeting kids with airstrikes?

Or Hospitals when you know they don't have any weapons in them?

And why should it be a big deal that I question things in history and you try so hard to have "an official story"?
Even right now Israel is trying to do exactly that (change the version of history) by trying to stop or oppose the UN HRC report on Gaza and distribute their own report.
They dont like that report because it implicates them in war crimes against children.
Maybe they'll be put on a bad country list and wont be able to recieve funding (rob) billions of dollars every year from the US taxpayer.
And Palestine is taking them to the International Criminal Court, and I won't be surprised if Netanyahu sends tanks into Gaza because its all he seems to know is punishment and creating fear.

So even after Israel commits atrocities, it itself tries to hide them or manipulate the story.
This most certainly shows that Israel will change the official story if it suits it's purposes.
Is it not unreasonable to suggest Israel also changed or manipulated the official story of other conflicts to suit its own agenda?

You make a big thing about me being 'anti-semite' simply because I question things from WW2.

As for the "Holocaust".
I dont accept or deny it.
To be honest I've never heard the word "Holocaust" used in a different context, so for me it seems that if I say I accept or agree, then I am agreeing to the "Holocaust" being whatever it is that you say it is.
- And I'm sorry but I do question the official story.

And if I say I disagree, you say I'm an 'anti semite'.

So basically what you are saying is that "I have to agree with whatever you say, or I'm an anti-semite"

And even if I do question some parts of the official story that does not automatically mean that I support what Hitler was purported to have done in the concentration camps, or that I support National Socialism or the Nazi's.

People in this forum have a real bad habit of doing stuff like this I've noticed.
Trying to suggest that if you support or oppose this, then you must be this.
I just judge individual issues on their own merits.

I know that millions of people died and were displaced as a result of these wars (and that Jews were the subject of gruesome medical experiments) and I don't willingly wish that any human being nor do I believe or support that anyone should have been deprived of

their liberty in any way whatsoever.

For the record my interest isnt even in anything that happened in the past, its in whats going on in the present and future.
I'm not concerned with anything in the past as there is no point worrying about things you cant change.