What kind of religion sanctions deception and immorality for the sake of 
political goals? Orthodox Talmudic Judaism. The Babylonian Talmud 
encourages Jews to cheat and deceive Gentiles whenever necessary! In fact, 
"by way of deception" is the motto of Israel's spy agency Mossad. Official 
license to deceive and even commit sexual immorality was seen in Israel 
this week.   Eminent 
<http://www.themedialine.org/news/news_detail.asp?NewsID=30188>Orthodox 
Rabbi Ari Shvat responded to a female student's question about the morality 
of seducing and sleeping with an enemy. " I was asked a question by a 
student of mine who was a religious girl that had been recruited by the 
Mossad. She wanted to know if a woman was allowed to do this kind of work." 
Shvat ruled yes and published an essay in Tehumin, an annual collection of 
articles on law and modernity. The Jewish World summarizes: "A new Halachic 
study ruled that seducing an enemy for the sake of national security is an 
important mitzvah" It is, in fact, an "utmost mitzvah" (legal command). 
Shvat's work was published by the Tzomet Institute, a non-profit 
organization dedicated to "seamlessly merging Judaism with modern Israeli 
life."   In the ruling, Shvat says women can be "used to seduce enemy 
agents in order to cajole information out of them or see them captured." 
Jewish World says such women were used to capture nuclear whistleblower 
Mordechai Vanunu and to assassinate a senior Hamas operative in Dubai last 
January. Such deception, says the rabbi, is "Halacha," or binding Talmudic 
law. Even with homicidal intent, he writes, "sexual intercourse with a 
Gentile for the sake of a national cause is not only sanctioned, but is a 
highly important mitzvahOur Sages of Blessed Memory elevate such acts of 
dedication to the top of the Halacha's mitzvahs pyramid."   Rabbi Yisrael 
Rosen, head of Tzomet Institute and editor-in-chief of Tehumin, called the 
study "daring and importantAlthough it is highly unlikely that Mossad 
agents will seek rabbinical advice, this essay is very important and 
courageous. The author is versed in religious discourse and even 
conservative rabbis would surely agree with his thesis."   Shvat's ruling, 
reported by a major Jewish news agency, is presented without criticism. It 
reveals a disturbing, even ominous fact: Talmudic Judaism encourages Jews 
to ensnare and deceive Gentiles in order to advance Jews and Jewish causes, 
as long as they can get away with it. If they are caught and Israel is 
embarrassed, the "holy name of God" (synonymous with Israel's good 
reputation) may be blasphemed. If that is a real possibility, the Talmud 
tells Jews to back off. But in order to save the Jewish nation it is even 
morally permitted to murder and commit adultery.   God "Outlawed" the 
Gentiles   The Talmudic position concerning deception of Gentiles is 
embodied in the Halachic dictum, "It is permitted to deceive a goy 
(Gentile)." [1] In legal and business matters, the Talmud says Gentiles are 
beneath equality with Jews. As the 1905 Jewish Encyclopedia explains [2], 
the Gentiles were "outlawed" by God from the beginning.   The passage in 
Moses' farewell address: 'The Lord came form Sinai, and rose up from Seir 
unto them; he shined forth from Mount Paran'. . . indicates that the 
Almighty offered the Torah to the Gentile nations also, but, since they 
refused to accept it, He withdrew His 'shining' legal protection form them, 
and transferred their property rights to Israel, who observed His law. A 
passage in Habakkuk is quoted as confirming this claim: 'God came from 
Teman, and the Holy One from Mount Paran. . .He stood and measured the 
earth he beheld, and drove asunder ["outlawed"] the nations.' . . .the 
Talmud adds that He had observed how the Gentile nations steadfastly 
refused to obey the seven moral Noachian precepts, and hence He decided to 
outlaw them." (Baba Kama 38a).   The rabbis believed Gentiles demonstrated 
their stupidity by thinking their own laws were worthy of obeying. The 
Talmud denies the Gentile status as a "man," so they are also excluded from 
being the Jews' neighbor.   Another reason for discrimination was the vile 
and vicious character of the Gentiles... With such a character it would 
naturally be quite unsafe to trust a Gentile as a witness He could not be 
depended upon to keep his promise or word of honor like a Jew." (Bek. 13b) 
A Gentile. . . is not a 'neighbor' in the sense of reciprocating and being 
responsible for damages caused by his negligence; nor does he watch over 
his cattle. Even the best Gentile laws were too crude to admit of 
reciprocity.   The meaning of these passages is obvious: As animals cannot 
be "neighbors" to men and as the behavior and laws of the animal world do 
not require observance by humans, so the Gentile world is beneath the 
Jewish. This source confirms: "The Torah outlawed the issue of a Gentile as 
that of a beast."   In a Jewish Courtroom   Jewish contempt for Gentile law 
was best illustrated in the courtroom. Imagine a Jewish court in Babylon in 
350 A.D. as the Jewish Encyclopedia describes:   It sometimes happened that 
the Gentile, wishing to take advantage of the liberal Jewish laws, summoned 
his Jewish opponent to a Jewish court. In such cases the Gentile would gain 
little benefit, as he would be dealt with by the Jewish or Gentile laws, as 
might be least advantageous to him. The judge would say: 'This is in 
accordance with our law' or 'with your law' as the case might be. If this 
was not satisfactory to the Gentile, legal quibbles and circumventions 
might be employed against him.   The primary source for the above quote, 
Baba Kama 113a (Soncino edition), elaborates:   Where a suit arises between 
an Israelite and a heathen, if you can satisfy the former according to the 
laws of Israel, justify him and say: 'this is our law'; so also if you can 
justify him by the laws of the heathens justify him and say (to the other 
party): 'This is your law; but if this cannot be done, we use subterfuges 
to circumvent them. This is the view of R. Ishmael, but R. Akiba said that 
we could not attempt to circumvent them on account of the sanctification of 
the Name.   However, the same source comments: "but were there no 
infringement of the sanctification of the Name, we could circumvent him."   By 
"sanctification of the Name," Rabbi Akiba refers to the dignity and 
reputation of God's name in the eyes of the world. If lying in the court 
may bring disrespect to Israel and thus to the God of the Hebrews will, 
then it had better not be done. The real question about perverting justice 
against a Gentile is whether a Jew can get away with it. The Jewish 
Encyclopedia summarizes the majority opinion, stating: "The Mishnah. . 
.declares that if a Gentile sue an Israelite, the verdict is the for 
defendant; if the Israelite is the plaintiff, he obtains full damages." [3]   
The Divine Right of Cheating   Outright robbery of a Gentile is not 
endorsed, but the Talmud makes broad provision for indirect thievery; a Jew 
doesn't need to return a lost article to a Gentile. Baba Kama 113b 
continues: "And with all lost things of thy brother's: it is to your 
brother that you make restoration, but you need not make restoration to a 
heathen."   As Rabbi Akiba warned, the Jew must avoid bringing God's name 
into dishonor by cheating Gentiles. Yet, as a passage in B.K. 113b, 114a 
reveals, Rabbi Samuel was not above cheating a Gentile out of the full 
price of a gold bowl, while Rabbi Kahana cheated a Gentile out of both the 
number and price of a quantity of barrels.   A passage from the Talmud 
describes with praise how the head of a famous Talmudic academy cheated a 
Gentile out of a gold bowl for less than even a copper one was worth. This 
passage continues with examples of cheating from the likes of Rabina and 
Ashi, sages from the academy at Sura in Babylonia, and the two most 
important figures in the final editing of the Talmud.   "Public Property"   
Despite 
the fear that defrauding Gentiles might bring dishonor God's name, the 
Talmud generally upholds the right of Jews to Gentiles' property. God 
"outlawed" Gentiles at Mt. Sinai and their property rights were now 
Israel's. The Rabbis by their own decree could at least theoretically 
declare the property of Gentiles to be ownerless. The Jewish Encyclopedia 
(p. 621) summarizes:   All retaliation or measures of reprisal are based on 
the Jewish legal maxim of eminent domain, 'the judicial authority can annul 
the right to the possession of property and declare such property 
ownerless.'   Pharisees: The Original Racists   Perhaps the most remarkable 
feature of Rabbinic bias against the Gentile was that, in most cases, there 
is no mention of the possibility that the "goy" is doing his best or is the 
rightful owner of his property. He is viewed as a member of a class with 
known characteristics: The Jew is good, the Gentile bad; the Jew must be 
acquitted, the Gentile convicted. An essentially racist view of human 
nature was assumed. Indeed, the Pharisees were the original racists. Few 
religions possess such racist undertones as rabbinic Judaism.   The bad 
example of the most respected sages of Israel had a widespread and 
corrosive effect on the relations of Jews with their neighbors. One wonders 
if the Gentiles were aware of their position as fair game to predatory 
Jews. Choschen Ham spells out some of the ground rules for exploiting 
Gentiles:   If a Jew is doing good business with an Akum [Gentile] it is 
not allowed to other Jews in other places to come and do business with the 
same Akum. In other places, however, it is different, where another Jew is 
allowed to go to the same Akum, lead him in, do business with him and to 
deceive him and take his money. For the wealth of the Akum is to be 
regarded as common property and belongs to the first who can get it.   And 
again:   If a Jew is doing business with an Akum and a fellow Israelite 
comes along and defrauds the Akum, either by false measure, weight, or 
number, he must divide his profit with his fellow Israelite, since both had 
a part in the deal, and also to help him along. [4]   Secret Hatred   Just 
as the Talmud gives Jews the right to cheat Gentiles, so any inquiry into 
its true teachings by Gentiles is answered deceptively. This continues 
today. Jews must maintain a well-meaning appearance in order to dwell and 
trade among Gentiles. A commentary in Abodah Zarah (I, 2, fol. 7b) laments: 
"Since we are in captivity, we cannot live without trading with them, and 
we depend upon them for our food, and we must fear them. . . ." (Pranaitis, 
p. 65) For this reason, Jews were encouraged to practice philanthropy, even 
toward Gentiles. "Needy Gentiles may be helped as well as needy Jews," for 
the sake of peace. [5] Yet such expedients are to be employed only when 
there is no alternative. "Therefore," the Talmud says,   If you enter a 
town and find them celebrating a feast, you may pretend to rejoice with 
them in order to hide your hatred. Those, however, who care about the 
salvation of their souls, should keep away from such celebrations. You 
should make it known that it is a hateful thing to rejoice with them, if 
you can do it without incurring their enmity. [6]   Also:   No one is 
allowed to praise them or say how good an Akum is. How much less to praise 
what they do or to recount anything about them which would redound to their 
glory. If, however, while praising them you intend to give glory to God, 
namely, because he has created comely creatures, then it is allowed to do 
so. [7]    Gentiles: Keep Out   Separatism between Jew and the corrupting 
Canaanites had a divinely sanctioned purpose in the time of Joshua. But the 
Pharisees nourished and intensified racism long after its usefulness was 
done. Gentiles were forbidden from becoming acquainted with the Jewish 
religion-an instruction never given by God. The Pharisees considered a 
Gentile so far beneath a Jew that hospitality or religious instruction were 
forbidden to him. In Sanh. 104a, "Hezekiah b. Hiyya deduces from II Kings 
XX.18 that he who shows hospitality to a heathen brings the penalty of 
exile upon his children." The Jewish Encyclopedia article on "Gentiles" (p. 
621) heartily agrees:   The Talmud comments on the untruthfulness of 
Gentiles (a band of strange children whose mouth speaketh vanity, and their 
right [in raising it to take an oath] is a right hand of falsehood) and 
contrasts it with the reputation of a Jew: The remnant of Israel shall not 
do iniquity nor speak lies; neither shall a deceitful tongue be found in 
their mouth. (Zeph. iii. 13) [8]   Such holiness may be facilitated by 
following this suggestion from the Talmud as related by the Jewish 
Encyclopedia, p. 617, "Judah ben Illai recommends the daily recital of the 
benediction 'Blessed be thou who hast not made me a goy.'"   Why Have Jews 
Been So Persecuted?   What if these passages from the Talmud weren't 
written in the Talmud by authority of the Pharisees but in the New 
Testament by authority of Jesus? If they were, Jesus' followers would have 
become the most despised and mistrusted of men. Christians (if any 
survived) would have faced discrimination and even banishment from 
civilized society. People today would laugh at any Christian reply that 
their sufferings were caused by bigoted nations. 

On Saturday, November 15, 2014 3:11:22 PM UTC-6, Travis wrote:
>
>
>
>
>
>  
>
> Lying in Islam
>
> November 14, 2014 <http://nocompulsion.com/lying-in-islam/> mkamal 
> <http://nocompulsion.com/author/mkamal/> Reply 
> <http://nocompulsion.com/lying-in-islam/#respond>
>
> [image: Lies (1)] 
> <http://nocompulsion.com/wp-content/uploads/2014/11/Lies-1.gif>
>
>  
>
> Like most religions, Islam in general, forbids lying. The Quran says, 
> “Truly Allah guides not one who transgresses and lies.” Surah 40:28. In the 
> Hadith, Mohammed was also quoted as saying, “Be honest because honesty 
> leads to goodness, and goodness leads to Paradise. Beware of falsehood 
> because it leads to immorality, and immorality leads to Hell.”
>
> However, unlike most religions, within Islam there are certain provisions 
> under which lying is not simply tolerated, but actually encouraged. The 
> book “The spirit of Islam,” by the Muslim scholar, Afif A. Tabbarah was 
> written to promote Islam. On page 247, Tabbarah stated: “Lying is not 
> always bad, to be sure; there are times when telling a lie is more 
> profitable and better for the general welfare, and for the settlement of 
> conciliation among people, than telling the truth. To this effect, the 
> Prophet says: ‘He is not a false person who (through lies) settles 
> conciliation among people, supports good or says what is good.”
>
> In exploring this puzzling duplicity within Islam, we will examine first 
> some examples from recent and ancient Islamic history. These examples 
> demonstrate that lying is a common policy amongst Islamic clerics and 
> statesmen.
>
> In June of 1967 Egypt was defeated by Israel and lost the Sinai Peninsula 
> during the “Six Day War.” Subsequently, Egypt’s primary focus became to 
> regain the lost territory. President Nasser, and then, President Sadat, 
> adopted the motto: “No voice should rise over the voice of *The Battle*.” 
> The soldiers that had been drafted in 1967 were kept in service and 
> remained on high alert in the expectation that at any day “the battle” 
> would ensue. Nonetheless, years pasted and Egypt’s people became disgruntle 
> with the political hype and the “no peace, and no war” status. In 1972 
> Sadat proclaimed with finality that it was to be the year for the long 
> anticipated battle. Throughout the year he swore, “*I swear to you by my 
> honor that this year will not pass by, before we launch The Battle*.” 
> People believed him because he was staking his reputation and honor through 
> an oath. To everyone’s amazement the year passed without a single shot 
> being fired. As a result many, inside and outside Egypt, began to dismiss 
> him as a “hot air bluff”. This opinion was confirmed in the following year 
> of 1973. He made no further mention of his oath about the battle. Many of 
> the draftees were released and numerous officers were given vacation 
> furloughs. Then without warning, in October of 1973, he launched the attack 
> and what was known as the Yom Kippur war began.
>
> As a military commander, Sadat was expected to use the element of surprise 
> to trick the enemy. As a devout Muslim, Sadat was not the least bit 
> concerned about his un-kept oath. He understood that the history and 
> teachings of Islam would exempt him from spiritual accountability if he 
> used lies as a foundation for a strategic military maneuver.
>
> This point is proven by many incidences in the life of Mohammed. He often 
> lied and instructed his followers to do the same. He rationalized that the 
> prospect of success in missions to extend Islam’s influence overrode 
> Allah’s initial prohibitions against lying. A good example of sanctioned 
> lying is the account of the assassination of Kaab Ibn al-Ashrf, a member of 
> the Jewish tribe, Banu al-Nudair. It had been reported that Kaab had shown 
> support for the Quraishites in their battle against Mohammed. This was 
> compounded by another report that infuriated Mohammed. It was alleged that 
> Kaab had recited amorous poetry to Muslim women. Mohammed asked for 
> volunteers to rid him of Kaab Ibn al-Ashraf. As Mohammed put it, Kaab had 
> “Harmed Allah and His Apostle.” At that time Kaab Ibn al-Ashraf, and his 
> tribe were strong, so it was not easy for a stranger to infiltrate and 
> execute the task. A Muslim man by the name of Ibn Muslima, volunteered for 
> the murderous project on the condition that Mohammed would allow him to 
> lie. With Mohammed’s consent, Ibn Muslima, went to Kaab and told him 
> fabricated stories that reflected discontent about Mohammed’s leadership. 
> When he had gained Kaab’s trust he lured him away from his house one night 
> and murdered him in a remote area under the cover of darkness.
>
> [image: liiiersss] 
> <http://nocompulsion.com/wp-content/uploads/2014/11/liiiersss.jpg>A 
> similar example can be found in the story of killing Shaaban Ibn Khalid 
> al-Hazly. It was rumored that Shaaban was gathering an army to wage war on 
> Mohammed. Mohammed retaliated by ordering Abdullah Ibn Anis to kill 
> Shaaban. Again, the would-be killer asked the prophet’s permission to lie. 
> Mohammed agreed and then ordered the killer to lie by stating that he was a 
> member of the Khazaa clan. When Shaaban saw Abdullah coming, he asked him, 
> “From what tribe are you?” Abdullah answered, “From Khazaa.” He then added, 
> “I have heard that you are gathering an army to fight Mohammed and I came 
> to join you.” Abdullah started walking with Shaaban telling him how 
> Mohammed came to them with the heretical teachings of Islam, and complained 
> how Mohammed badmouthed the Arab patriarchs and ruined the Arab’s hopes. 
> They continued in conversation until they arrived at Shaaban’s tent. 
> Shaaban’s companions departed and Shaaban invited Abdullah to come inside 
> and rest. Abdullah sat there until the atmosphere was quiet and he sensed 
> that everyone was asleep. Abdullah severed Shaaban’s head and carried it to 
> Mohammed as a trophy. When Mohammed sighted Abdullah, he jubilantly 
> shouted, “Your face has been triumphant (Aflaha al- wajho).” Abdullah 
> returned the greeting by saying, “It is your face, Apostle of Allah, who 
> has been triumphant. (Aflaha wajhoka, ye rasoul Allah).”
> Provisions for lying in Islam
>
> Most Muslims are familiar with the principles of Islam that will justify 
> lying in situations where they sense the need to do so. Among these are:
>
> ·         War is deception.
>
> ·         The necessities justify the forbidden.
>
> ·         If faced by two evils, choose the lesser of the two.
>
> These principles are derived from passages found in the Quran and the 
> Hadith.
> *In the Quran, Allah, allegedly, says:*
>
> *” Allah will not call you to account for what is futile in your oaths, 
> but He will call you to account for your deliberate oaths: for expiation, 
> feed ten indigent persons, on a scale of the average for the food of your 
> families; or clothe them; or give a slave his freedom. If that is beyond 
> your means, fast for three days. That is the expiation for the oaths ye 
> have sworn. But keep to your oaths. Thus doth Allah make clear to you His 
> signs, that ye may be grateful.” Surah 5:89*
>
> *“Allah will not call you to account for thoughtlessness (vain) in your 
> oaths, but for the intention in your hearts; and He is Oft-forgiving, Most 
> Forbearing.” Surah 2:225*
>
> *“Any one who, after accepting faith in Allah, utters Unbelief, except 
> under compulsion, his heart remaining firm in Faith – but such as open 
> their breast to Unbelief, on them is Wrath from Allah, and theirs will be a 
> dreadful Penalty.” Surah 16: 106*
>
> The noted Islamic commentator, Al-Tabary explained Surah 16:106 as a verse 
> that had been revealed to Mohammed after he learned that Ammar Ibn Yasser 
> was forced to deny his faith in Mohammed when kidnapped by the Banu Moghera 
> tribe. Mohammed consoled Ammar by telling him, “If they turned, you turn.” 
> (Meaning: if they again capture you, you are allowed to deny me again.)
>
> *These and similar passages from the Quran clearly reveal that Muslims’ 
> unintentional lies are forgivable and that even their intentional lies can 
> be absolved by performing extra duties. It is also clear that if forced to 
> do so, Muslims can lie while under oath and can even falsely deny faith in 
> Allah, as long as they maintain the profession of faith in their hearts.*
>
> *In the Hadith, Mohammed, emphasizes the same concept.*
>
> From “Ehiaa Oloum al-Din,” by the famous Islamic scholar al-Ghazali, Vol. 
> 3: PP.284-287:
>
> One of Mohammed’s daughters, Umm Kalthoum, testified that she had never 
> heard the Apostle of Allah condone lying, except in these three situations:
>
> 1.    For reconciliation among people.
>
> 2.    In war.
>
> 3.    Amongst spouses, to keep peace in the family.
>
> One passage from the Hadith quotes Mohammed as saying: “The sons of Adam 
> are accountable for all lies except those uttered to help bring 
> reconciliation between Muslims.”
>
> Another says, “Aba Kahl, reconcile among people.”(Meaning: even through 
> lying.)
>
> The following quote demonstrates the broadness of situations in which the 
> prophet permitted lying. “The sons of Adam are accountable for all lies 
> with these exceptions: During war because war is deception, to reconcile 
> among two quarreling men, and for a man to appease his wife.”
> The principle of Al-Takeyya
>
> The Arabic word, “Takeyya”, means “to prevent,” or guard against. The 
> principle of Al Takeyya conveys the understanding that Muslims are 
> permitted to lie as a preventive measure against anticipated harm to one’s 
> self or fellow Muslims. This principle gives Muslims the liberty to lie 
> under circumstances that they perceive as life threatening. They can even 
> deny the faith, if they do not mean it in their hearts. Al-Takeyya is based 
> on the following Quranic verse:
>
> *“Let not the believers Take for friends or helpers Unbelievers rather 
> than believers: if any do that, in nothing will there be help from 
> Allah: except by way of precaution (prevention), that ye may Guard 
> yourselves from them (prevent them from harming you.) But Allah cautions 
> you (To remember) Himself; for the final goal is to Allah.” Surah 3: 28*
>
> [image: Islam blog pic] 
> <http://nocompulsion.com/wp-content/uploads/2014/11/Islam-blog-pic.jpg>According
>  
> to this verse a Muslim can pretend to befriend infidels (in violation of 
> the teachings of Islam) and display adherence with their unbelief to 
> prevent them from harming him.
>
> Under the concept of Takeyya and short of killing another human being, if 
> under the threat of force, it is legitimate for Muslims to act contrary to 
> their faith. The following actions are acceptable:
>
> ·         Drink wine, abandon prayers, and skip fasting during Ramadan.
>
> ·         Renounce belief in Allah.
>
> ·         Kneel in homage to a deity other than Allah.
>
> ·         Utter insincere oaths.
> The implications of the principle of Al-Takeyya
>
> Unfortunately, when dealing with Muslims, one must keep in mind that 
> Muslims can communicate something with apparent sincerity, when in reality 
> they may have just the opposite agenda in their hearts. Bluntly stated, 
> Islam permits Muslims to lie anytime that they perceive that their own 
> well-being, or that of Islam, is threatened.
>
> In the sphere of international politics, the question is: Can Muslim 
> countries be trusted to keep their end of the agreements that they sign 
> with non-Muslim nations? It is a known Islamic practice, that when Muslims 
> are weak they can agree with most anything. Once they become strong, then 
> they negate what they formerly vowed.
>
> The principle of sanctioning lying for the cause of Islam bears grave 
> implications in matters relating to the spread of the religion of Islam in 
> the West. Muslim activists employ deceptive tactics in their attempts to 
> polish Islam’s image and make it more attractive to prospective converts. 
> They carefully try to avoid, obscure, and omit mentioning any of the 
> negative Islamic texts and teachings.
>
> An example of Islamic deception is that Muslim activists always quote the 
> passages of the Quran from the early part of Mohammed’s ministry while 
> living in Mecca. These texts are peaceful and exemplify tolerance towards 
> those that are not followers of Islam. All the while, they are fully aware 
> that most of these passages were abrogated (cancelled and replaced) by 
> passages that came after he migrated to Medina. The replacement verses 
> reflect prejudice, intolerance, and endorse violence upon unbelievers
>
> *In conclusion, it is imperative to understand, that Muslim leaders can 
> use this loop-hole in their religion, to absolve them from any permanent 
> commitment. It is also important to know that what Muslim activists say to 
> spread Islam may not always be the whole truth. When dealing with Muslims, 
> what they say is not the issue. The real issue is, what they 
> actually mean in their hearts.*
>
> By Abdullah Al Araby
>
>  
>
>
> __._,_.___
>  ------------------------------
> Posted by: "beowulf" <[email protected] <javascript:>> 
> ------------------------------
>  
>
>  Visit Your Group 
> <https://groups.yahoo.com/neo/groups/grendelreport/info;_ylc=X3oDMTJmYmFkc2duBF9TAzk3MzU5NzE0BGdycElkAzIwMTk0ODA2BGdycHNwSWQDMTcwNTMyMzY2NwRzZWMDdnRsBHNsawN2Z2hwBHN0aW1lAzE0MTYwMDU2MzA->
>  
>    
>    
>  [image: Yahoo! Groups] 
> <https://groups.yahoo.com/neo;_ylc=X3oDMTJlOXM5aHJxBF9TAzk3NDc2NTkwBGdycElkAzIwMTk0ODA2BGdycHNwSWQDMTcwNTMyMzY2NwRzZWMDZnRyBHNsawNnZnAEc3RpbWUDMTQxNjAwNTYzMA-->
>  
> • Privacy <https://info.yahoo.com/privacy/us/yahoo/groups/details.html> • 
> Unsubscribe <javascript:> • Terms of Use 
> <https://info.yahoo.com/legal/us/yahoo/utos/terms/> 
>  
> __,_._,___
>
>
>

-- 
-- 
Thanks for being part of "PoliticalForum" at Google Groups.
For options & help see http://groups.google.com/group/PoliticalForum

* Visit our other community at http://www.PoliticalForum.com/  
* It's active and moderated. Register and vote in our polls. 
* Read the latest breaking news, and more.

--- 
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups 
"PoliticalForum" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email 
to [email protected].
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.

Reply via email to