Hitler wasn't a jew - jews aren't a "race", it's a belief, a religion which Hitler didn't subscribe to. (To put it mildly)
************************************************************ ******************************

It's both

Hitler wasn't a jew - jews aren't a "race", it's a belief, a religion which Hitler didn't subscribe to. (To put it mildly)
************************************************************ ******************************

It's both

************************************************************ ******************************

Not from a genetics point of view.
There's nothing that separates jews genetically.

>>...the just have become portrayed as the despots, and the villains the heroes...<<

****

The ancient Persians were "just" and the ancient Spartans were "villains" -- again, your black & white bias is clear. But these astonishingly broad strokes have even less to do with history than Miller's 300.

****

>>The Americans were invading Afghanistan to force cities unwilling to submit to their Imperial rule to do just that, and the Taliban repelled them.

Would you accept a sentence like that in isolation? Because it is factual in many ways, but not quite the whole story, is it? Amazing things facts - content taken out of context always distorts reality.<<

American Imperial rule? That's factual in many ways, is it? Yes, amazing.

The Persian Empire conquered other peoples by force for land, taxes, goods, resources, etc. -- nothing especially unusual in its time. Some peoples, including some Greeks, didn't mind paying tribute and being led by tyrants (old meaning of the word) chosen by the Persians, as long as they could partake of the benefits of that Empire. But other peoples, not just the Greeks of famous repute, rebelled against the Persians because they wanted indepedence. Whether those peoples were "heroes" or "villains" judged by subjective criteria is entirely different point. They wanted to rule themselves, they wanted to fight for that freedom, and that's what they did.

Good to know. I'll make sure to tell that to Tay-Sachs and Cystic Fibrosis,
and maybe they will leave us alone.

http
://www.jewishvirtuallibrary.org/jsource/Health/genetics.html

That a group have a certaint trait doesn't make a 'race'. If so, scandinavians would qualify for any number of reasons.

That link was just stupid.

Much easier to say that Jews are both an ethnic group (as opposed to "race") and a religion. There is more than religion to it, as there are quite a few secular jews. And if you're not ethnically a jew (at least partially) it is very difficult to be accepted as a convert. Unlike christianity and islam, judaism doesn't proselytize.

The term "race" has been used about jews so long, that it is perhaps difficult to realise that it's a very loose use of the term "race" that in the modern vernacular is best covered by "ethnic group".  In terms of what we generally see as "racial characteristics" of outward appearance, Jews span a continuum that exceeds that of the entire Caucasian "race". It in fact goes into all three of the major "race" subdivisions.

But this is just a digression from a digression of a digression. The point being that whatever we define a Jew as being, there is no credible evidence that Hitler was one.

I was responding specifically to your assertion that there was no
distinction for jews genetically, and I responded specifically with a post
about genetic diseases among Ashkenazi Jews. Which is why I quoted
you saying 'genetics' and 'genetically' and not the bit about 'race,' which I
wasn't commenting on.

Stupid? The link, as my father would say, is of average intelligence. At
any rate, a search under 'ashkenazi genetic diseases' turns up a mere
60,000 responses, so I guess you're right: no genetic differences. The
next time my wife brings home a brochure from the doctor telling me all
of the wonderful things I'm possibly heir to, I'll tell her that Mikael from
the Byrne forum says it's stupid.