JAPAN NEWS AND DISCUSSION
-
Which do you think is best: iPhone or Android?
( 27 )
-
Google versus Facebook for dominance of the web. Who has the upper hand?
( 19 )
-
Should prefectures outside the Tohoku area accept tsunami rubble for incineration or disposal?
( 41 )
-
Do you think Tokyo Electric Power Co (TEPCO) should be nationalized?
( 13 )
-
Do you think credit ratings on countries from companies such as Standard & Poors, Moody’s and Fitch carry too much weight?
( 13 )
-
- English Instructor (Osaka, Kyoto, Kobe)
- Berlitz Japan, Inc. (ベルリッツ・ジャパン株式会社), Kansai
- Salary: ¥125,000 ~ ¥250,000 / Month
-
- FT English Teachers for Kids - Osaka
- Kohgakusha Co., Ltd. （株式会社興学社）, Osaka
- Salary: ¥255,000 ~ ¥275,000 / Month Travel Expenses, Encouragement of Japanese learning*
-
- Translator
- ZAIHON, Inc. (日本財務翻訳株式会社), Tokyo
- Salary: ¥6.0M / Year Negotiable
Order by Time Order by Popularity
164 Comments
Login to comment
0
MeanRingo
Only so much as stupidity should be a crime.
0
JoeBigs
Those that think freedom of speech is a crime should lose that right for a bit and see if they like what they preach. Sure to disagree with someones thoughts and ideas is common. But to wanting to censor those thoughts is down right Fascism or maybe hard line Communism, you decide where you fix and tell the world. Hell dont be ashamed not to post you thoughts. You voted but did not post a reply now that is just sad. If you vote for it talk about. Or are you scared that others will think ill of you? Or is it that you love censorship so much that you will not speak up?
Cowards hide behind their monitors and point fingers, sad folks who just don't speak up. The less you speak the more you empower the oppressors of the world.
0
UnagiDon
Much as I despise Holocaust denial, I voted "No" because offensive opinions like Holocaust denial should be in the public eye so that they can be ridiculed and shown for the garbage that they are.
As I'm sure many of fellow JTers will demonstrate on this topic...
0
namabiru4me
I voted "NO" for the same reasons as most have voiced above... However, it is interesting that ignorance and stupidity have never been a defense for breaking the law.
0
SezWho2
History is revision. However, revision does not imply undoing the truth. While holocaust denial is an extreme opinion, insistence upon any particular version of the holocaust is equally extreme. Accurate revision can only find its way when all forms of opinion are allowed.
0
sabiwabi
Only lies need to be protected by law! Instead of imposing laws to keep people quite, they could simply prove revisionists wrong with evidence. But they can't, so they resort to other tactics. Bradley Smith (codoh.com) has made numerous attempts to at least have an open debate on the holocaust, but he faced much resistance.
Revisionist opinions cannot be ridiculed. If anything is offensive its the decades of baseless accusations the German people have been subjected to.
0
seggahme
there was no any holocaust, it was proofed by a number of competent scientists. its only attempts to shut their mouths up with such laws.
0
SezWho2
Holocaust denial, it seems to me, is only censorship of the truth if it is an official policy and if those who affirm the holocaust are not free to express their opinions.
0
ronindave
I say NO for the sake of the freedom of speech and to make it a crime would give Holocaust Deniers a persecution/martyr complex and gives it a form of seriousness. They would think their theories are criminal because the "truth" needs to be suppressed. These nutters would use this to their advantage.
The way to deal with Holocaust Denial is either to ignore it completely or ridicule it. If you truly dislike Holocaust Denial, DO NOT indulge in a rational debate because many of them are not seeking any kind of meeting of the minds. You cannot persuade them to see logic or show compassion or even tact. What they want is their theories to have some kind of legitimacy and people who argue with them just enable them. They should be treated like the tinfoil-hat-wearing nutters that they are and kept in the outer wasteland of Lunancy.
0
sabiwabi
... you might learn something and realize that you have been lied to.
I am amazed at how some people can be so convinced that revisionist are wrong and not be able to provide any evidence for the homicidal gassing. They don't even know what the revisionists are claiming, many assume (wrongly) that revisionists ("deniers") say that nothing happened. To avoid exposing their ignorance (or their deception) they resort to name calling (lots of it above) or saying that revisionists should be ignored.
0
earthcreature
Yea freedom of speech.... but why would anyone deny it?? I just don't see why deny history? We should embrace our history and learn from it.
0
sabiwabi
Are you so sure the history they are teaching you is correct? You would be very surprised to see what kind of evidence it is based on. Unfortunately, few people bother to look at the evidence and just follow the crowd ...
0
earthcreature
Of course I always look at the evidence, if it's something that's very compelling and appeals to my interest. Which is the case. I have study bot world wars, and I have never found any evidence to deny it ever happening. Could you prove me with some? I have study military history and I have done an extensive amount of research on the WWII topic.
0
Razor
sabiwabi
I don't know how people like you can deny the Holocaust. In the 1970s, I spoke with a German guard in a concentration camp who told me what he saw (and probably took part in himself), I have met numerous survivors from the camps, I visited Auschwitz, saw the films taken when the camps were liberated, studied the Nuremberg trials and the trials of the concentration camp guards and doctors. There is no doubt it happened. The only doubt is why people like you continue to deny it.
It happened and it happened on a monstrous scale. Are you clear on that now? Can I take it that there will be no more denial by you? Or do we need to invent a time machine and take you back so you can see for yourself?
Are you clear on this point? The Holocaust happened and millions died. Got it?
0
sabiwabi
earthcreature,
It seems then that you are not familiar with revisionists, I have not seen any revisionist claim that nothing happened. The use of the word "denier" is very deceptive.
Learn what the revisionists actually say, rather than what their detractors would have you believe they say. To question an historical event is not to deny that the event happened. We all know that is what scholars do in every field; they question the received record, unless they are prevented from doing so by law, or by taboo. That is what revisionists do. Take a look.
0
sabiwabi
Razor,
I guess if you say so, it must all be true then.
BTW, you saw the films of when Auschwitz was liberated? If you know so much then, can you inform me about where I can see one homicidal gas chamber, just one, that was used to kill many people.
0
kinniku
I voted 'no', because the people denying the holocaust have absolutely no evidence to back up their claims. For example:
sabiwabi,
You have written many times that "backers of the Nazis were Jewish", that "top Nazis were Jewish" and that Hitler was 1/2 or 1/4 Jewish.
Sorry, I do not believe you. I have asked you specifically who these top Nazis who you claim were Jewish were. If you cannot simply answer the questions, it stands to reason you don't have the answers and were just saying you do.
You claimed Max Warburg a Jewish banker was backing the Nazis and you even claimed he was living well in nice hotels and traveling freely around Germany through out the war. You were absolutely and completely wrong as he was in the US after he had been forced to sell his bank and emmigrate to the US. In addition, he under no circumstances was "backing" the Nazis. I think that is the reason you refuse to be specific. There are no specifics. You are wrong, plain and simple...
made claims of 200,000 to 300,000 people. What specifically is this fiqure based on?
You have claimed the Nazis were Zionists.
Specifics, please...Who are these people?
You have claimed some of the top Nazis were Jewish.
Specifics, please...Who are these people?
You have claimed Hitler was 1/2 or 1/4 Jewish.
Specifics as to why you have claimed this, please...
0
Razor
sabiwabi
You can see gas chambers at Auschwitz where they have been preserved. I find your views vile, thoroughly despicable. The Nazis would be proud of you. I know people like you so well. Someone says 2 plus 2 equals 4, you say it equals 5. They say night is dark, you say it is light. It would be fascinating to see the results of an encephalogram on Holocaust deniers such as yourself to see what's going on up top.
Moderator: Readers, we are aware this is an emotionally-charged topic, but please do not let your emotions run away with you.
0
sabiwabi
kinniku, I told you very clearly where you can get all the information you need about who the Nazis were and who was backing them. If you're not satisfied with it, too bad.
The truth is, we have debated the holocaust for a very long time (years), and you have NEVER been able to show me a nazi gas chamber that was used to gas people. You always find some sneaky way to avoid doing so.
Where is this mountains of evidence that everyone is talking about?
0
smartacus
sabiwabi
Ha, you don't know when you're licked, do you? As a reader points out above, there are gas chambers in Auschwitz. I've also visited there. Why don't you take a trip there and see for yourself?
0
Badsey
Funny logic:
How can something be a crime when it never happened?
This is a logic dilemma and not a criminal dilemma.
What about the Tokyo firebomb Holocaust or A-bomb holocaust, Roman Holocausts, Palestinian Holocausts. >Name Your Holocaust Here< 2009 Depression Holocaust!
0
mechadamuramu
Denying history isn't criminal, it is however proof that you're a dumbass. Also the act of voicing an oppinion being a crime is a very slippery slope.
0
sabiwabi
As Bishop Williamson said, historical truth goes by evidence and not by emotions.
So if you are truly interested in learning the truth, relax and have a closer look at the evidence. Auschwitz does indeed have rooms which are alleged to have been homicidal gas chambers. But what is the evidence that they were gas chambers? The evidence is very weak, it does not stand up to scrutiny.
You should then read up on what revisionists claim, the serious ones (stay away from people like David Duke, Rense or Stormfront).
0
LFRAgain
I voted "no."
I can sympathize with the German people's need to implement such a law and can respect their concerns, but right is right and wrong is wrong.
No, it's expression of an opinion. An idiotic, unsupported, pulled-from-one's-nether-regions opinion, certainly, but an expression of free thought nonetheless. In no way does denying the Holocaust censor the prevailing truth that it happened. See the past couple of threads regarding a certain Catholic Bishop Williamson and his denials for an example of how denial in no way stifles a dissenting opinion. Deniers didn't slow me down a bit and all the websites I scoured for data to support my view are still up and running fine, even in the face denials.
As for outlawing opinions different from our own, I can’t think of anything more damaging to human liberty. If someone believes something to be true and feels compelled to share that view with others in a public manner, that's freedom of speech, regardless of the content of the message. Now, to forbid the same person from expressing that opinion, no matter how offensive we might find it, THAT is censorship. And it's wrong.
Rights don’t magically stop being rights depending on whether or not our delicate sensibilities are offended. I may not agree with Holocaust deniers, but I will always support their or anyone's inalienable right to be openly stupid.
0
LFRAgain
You're on the wrong thread, Sabiwabi.
Which reminds me of another important thing to be said about rights and freedom in particular. The inherent value of our freedom is best found and demonstrated in the human capacity to exercise it responsibly. Knowing the proper time and place for expressing ourselves is what separates us from anarchists and small children.
0
sabiwabi
I hope you realize that what is being passed off as original gas chambers at Auschwitz was revealed by the senior curator to have been modified after the war. You can see the interview in David Cole's video, check it out.
Many seem to be making a big deal about visiting the camps. But if I remember correctly, it was discovered during Ernst Zundel's first trial in Canada that Raul Hilberg, possibly considered the top holocaust researcher, never actually visited (other than to attend a ceremony) the camps when preparing his "authoritative" work. Hilberg was thoroughly humiliated during that trial. The exterminists do not want open debate, because their evidence does not stand up to scrutiny.
At that trial, Hilberg was also asked to name one report by a scientist (German, post-war, Allied, Soviet, any source at all) who examined physical evidence that showed the existence of gas chambers anywhere in Nazi-occupied territory. Hilberg, the great holocaust expert, was not aware of any such report!!! BTW, Zundel now rots in a German prison.
How can people be so convinced of knowing the absolute truth when the evidence is so weak.
0
kinniku
sabiwabi,
No, you linked an 147 minute video. Sorry, I do not believe the answers you claim are there are in the 147 minute video you are now expecting me to watch. If you cannot simply answer the questions, it stands to reason you don't have the answers and were just saying you do. Considering you have been parroting the same claims for more than four years, one would assume you actually know the specific answers to my questions. Interesting, as I pointed out earlier, when you were specific, you were completely incorrect. You claimed Max Warburg a Jewish banker was backing the Nazis and you even claimed he was living well in nice hotels and traveling freely around Germany through out the war. You were absolutely and completely wrong as he was in the US after he had been forced to sell his bank and emmigrate to the US. In addition, he under no circumstances was "backing" the Nazis. I think that is the reason you refuse to be specific. There are no specifics. You are wrong, plain and simple...
To another poster you wrote:
Well, Iran's news agency IRNA refers to Holocaust deniers as 'Holocaust Deniers'. Since they had a conference (you know, the one where absolutely nothing new was discussed and old recycled rumours and the like from the 80's and 90's was displayed as if it had just been thought of), I think they must know what to call them, right?
Well, first of all, it is you making the claims for all these years. You have never been able to back up even one of them all these years. I showed you a gas chamber in Dachau that was specifically designed to kill human beings. You do not deny the design is for that purpose. You also cannot show me proof that I am mistaken. In fact, when we first discussed in January and February of 2007, you even suggested that 'at the very most, it was used for medical experiments. So, you have admitted the possibility. Remember, it was and is you that claims and has claimed that holocaust deniers had proven the 'Holocaust false'. Yet, you have no proof of your claims. When asked for specifics you balked almost every time. When you finally do reveal your 'evidence', it is incorrect. This leads me to believe you don't actually have any evidence whatsoever.
Right back at you. You never seem to provide any specific proof of your claims.
Actually it is quite strong and more to the point, recent. Holocaust deniers have not made any counter-arguments to tests done in Auschwitz. Holocaust deniers simply repeat their outdated and flawed theories. Not very good science at all.
Well, I have read what you claimed and I ask you these specific questions:
You have made claims of 200,000 to 300,000 Jewish people killed. What specifically is this fiqure based on?
You have claimed the Nazis were Zionists.
Specifics, please...Who are these people?
You have claimed some of the top Nazis were Jewish.
Specifics, please...Who are these people?
You have claimed Hitler was 1/2 or 1/4 Jewish.
Specifics as to why you have claimed this, please...
I doubt you are remembering correctly, given your reknowned selective memory. However, you just wrote he did visit the camps in the same sentence you wrote he didn't. Your qualification is meaningless because you do not know or say whether he did anything else at the camps besides attend ceremonies.
Quite the opposite actually, as you probably know. Witness for Zundel, John Ball, who claimed to be an aerial photography expert, was shown to be an unqualified and untrained amateur and it was the 'evidence' on the part of Holocaust deniers that did not 'does not stand up to scrutiny'. Interestingly, consistently neither does your evidence. Also, interestingly, you forgot to mention Zundel lost his court case. It was overturned by the Supreme Court of Canada, but not because of Holocaust denier testimony or evidence. It was simply because the law he had been charged under (reporting false news) was ruled unconstitutional. So the court did not in any way support what Zundel wrote or any of the Holocaust deniers evidence. On that front, Zundel lost in the trial.
0
ronindave
And here we go ---- into Insanity! HDers will have you down to the point of the discussing the dust bunnies of Dachau while ignoring the elephant in the room. Don't fall for their tricks - many of them are prepared to lure a person in by a seemingly innocuous statement/counter-statement then out comes the so-called evidence by discredited scholars or scholars who don't have any cred to begin with and voila! suddenly there's an honest-to-gosh debate going on as though Holocaust Denial were a serious topic worthy of discussion and not the equivalent of arguing that the moon is made of bleu cheese.
And all the while the "debate" is smothered with a cool condescending arrogance of some HDer who thinks/pretends they know something that others don't. I have rarely encountered an HDer (online - never face to face as they are generally cowards who hide behind anonymity) who did not have the same smarmy oily charm that just oozes arrogance and creepiness. The cold arrogance is a tactic designed to make it look like they are knowledgable when in fact they are embittered hatefilled ignorant individuals parroting rhetoric they have read which fits with their askewed perceptions of the world. The aura of creepiness which surrounds such indivifuals is just a natural byproduct that they cannot mask.
0
LFRAgain
Sabiwabi,
Again, wrong thread, champ. The question was: Should Holocaust denial be a crime?
Stick to the topic and take your "cause" to the two threads that are currently set aside for such a discussion.
0
sabiwabi
Indeed, Raul Hilberg visited the camp only to attend a ceremony. He never bothered to look at the alleged gas chambers. He was also unaware of any scientific analysis of any alleged gas chamber anywhere in Nazi-occupied territory. Strange, considering he was a top (THE top?) holocaust expert.
You keep on bringing up the Dachau gas chamber as if its important when not even Wikipedia or the Dachau camp's own website mention it. I know you apparently found a place where the chamber is mentioned; it might be true but it clearly is not given much importance. I might have missed it, but I believe you still haven't mentioned how many people you think were gassed in that chamber. Was anyone gassed there?
I take it you never bothered to look at Jim Condit Jr.'s video The Final Solution to Adolf Hitler. Suit yourself, but your missing out on a lot of very relevant information.
0
ronindave
Also be careful with Holocaust Denial Deniers - ie people who seem to be arguing against Holocaust Deniers when in fact they are enabling them and making the issue appear to have validity.
The most basic tactic in this is to set up a counter-argument which sounds overly-emotional and filled with inaccurate details. Then the HDer steps in to cooly and easily defeat their counterpart's argument in the hopes that it will give them and their argument some clout. Their opponent of course is really that person or one of their cronies.
A forum I frequent was awashed with Holocaust Denial debates a few years ago. Our forum had attracted attention from a StormFront-esque site and they came over with their ridiculous arguments. After a while, the regular forum members generally ignored them and their topics got buried.
Then what one member later dubbed "Holocaust Denial Deniers" started appearing to argue against the Holocaust Deniers. At first, it seem as though this new group was earnest in their arguments until it was noticed that all these arguments did was make sure all the Holocaust posts were kept on the front page. Soon after the "debates" began spilling into unrelated threads.
The members went thru the pangs of freedom of speech issues until it just got way out of hand (as this page probably will as well). Finally our mods took action and banned both groups making the topic bannable because it had literally overrun what was a political/travel/social forum.
0
sabiwabi
BTW kinniku, I checked out IRNA's website and searched "holocaust denier" and "holocaust denial". Both searches failed to give any hits. Making stuff up again?
Holocaust "denial" is deceptive because it implies (wrongly) that we believe that nothing happened.
0
Honen
Holocaust denial should not be a crime, but holocaust deniers should have loads of scorn heaped upon them, harshly and publicly.
0
sabiwabi
Why such hate and intolerance?
May he who can prove the gas chamber story throw the first scorn!
0
moonbeams
I'm a Jew and I say no, people should have the freedom to believe what they want.
0
sabiwabi
Oh my! Of course, what I meant was:
The word "denial" is deceptive because it implies (wrongly) that we believe that nothing happened. Use of the word "denial" is deceptive, not the "deniers" themselves.
0
mareo2
The logic of your argument convinced me to vote no. Thanks for your contribution to the disscusion.
0
sailwind
Boy, Had a hard time with this one.
Voted yes.
Hear me out on this one. I support a persons right to free speech, always have, always will, however I do not support free speech that has the express purpose of inciting hate toward a certain race, group, or religion.
The U.S has laws on the books that does seperate hate speech and free speech, mainly using the standard that the speech violated the persons civil rights.
I based my vote on that standard, but before I did I asked myself the following questions.
Do Holocaust deniers through their so called 'arguments' promote racism and hatred toward the Jewish people?
I had to answer yes to that. Oh, I'm sure they will 'deny' that also but at the end of day they're so called revision research only leads to that.
The victims of the holocaust died in a Genocide based on the official Nazi policy of promoting racism and hatred toward the Jews, a policy they pursued for years to seed the ground in the publics mind that this was now acceptable and the 'Final Solution' was now the answer to the 'Jewish Problem'.
To have a Holocaust denier in the modern era who tries to be clever and hide his incitement of hate under 'Historical Revisionist' is just as insidious.
I voted yes because the spirits of the dead in the ground don't deserve to be victimized twice by racist hate, and the Jewish people that have the precious gift of life now should never have to subjected to it in the first place.
That is why we have our hate speech laws on the books.
This was a very tough call, but thanks J.T, very good question. Good discussion and good reasoning and my respect for those whose opinion compelled them to vote no on this also.
0
JoeBigs
Censorship is given freely to the oppressor by those that think that they will be protected. To surrender one's freedoms all in the name of thinking that you will be safer is a bad joke that will never go away.
Never surrender what is a right, many people have fought and died for those rights. How often we are willing to gag someone or some group because they just do not think the way we think.
Whenever I hear or read about folks wanting to censor anyone's views this poem by Pastor Martin Niemöller comes to mind.
When the Nazis came for the communists, I remained silent; I was not a communist.
When they locked up the social democrats, I remained silent; I was not a social democrat.
When they came for the trade unionists, I did not speak out; I was not a trade unionist.
When they came for the Jews, I remained silent; I was not a Jew.
When they came for me, there was no one left to speak out.
0
ronindave
Bigs, you've practically ennobled Holocaust Denial under the ideal of freedom of speech. And using the poem in this context is rather distasteful.
Your arguments read as a "just add water" insta-argument. You have to look at the situation and not just blindly lead a crusade for the holy sanctity of the freedom of speech. You could have just easily wrote the same for the right to shout "Fire" in a crowded theater. Both your argument and the fire in the theater arguments are cliches that people lazily use so as to avoid real thinking.
I voted no but for a very different reason - I don't want to give those nutters any sense of validity or that underground conspiritorial complex. As I said before they should be harshly ignored or harshly ridiculed.
0
Zurg
No - denial should not be a crime. It would be like saying the world is round not flat and being burned on a stake for going against the church. However, if you deny that the mass organized murder ever took place, then you might as well as say that Jesus was never born. It’s ridiculous.
0
ca1ic0cat
The debate has to be held continuously to try to prevent a similar occurance in the future.
Of course places like Bosnia, Rawanda, and Cambodia show that words are not enough. Unless the civilized world is willing to act crimes similar to the holocaust will be repeated.
The deniers will have to be shown up as the fools they are in every generation. It can't be avoided.
0
kinniku
Heh, since you cannot support your claims that I have asked you about above, it does seem that you are indeed "making stuff up". However, as you can see, I have never made anything up and this is true here as well. Enjoy:
You really do not seem to be able to use the internet. That explains a lot. It also seems that you have never been to IRNA before. Their homepage does not keep articles for more than a few days. You must use the archive to find older articles. Maybe you should actually look at information beyond Holocaust denial websites and you will learn how to use the internet properly.
I am still waiting for your answers, BTW...
0
kagunlapell
in some countries (Germany) it is a crime, in fact (sorry if I'm repeating it).
0
JoeBigs
I do not believe so, you believe that censorship is right in certain circumstances to things you find distasteful. What would you say if someone tried to censor you for something that you were in favor of and tried to speak about it?
To try to take someone's freedoms is criminal, not speaking up about it is worse. Look closer at that poem and you will be surprised that it means more than you may think. If you do not help those that you do not like, then one day they will not be there to help you. Freedoms must be protected, even if you do not like them.
Freedom of speech and freedom of stupidity are two totally different things. I like the way you use the standard right wing catch phrase.
But that one is getting so old, how about next time using "it's for the public good", or "Public safety demands that we do this". LOL
Those are always so funny. But what I find even funnier are the folks that fall for those catch phrases, Hook line and re-education camp.
0
kinniku
sabiwabi,
Given the fact you have been incorrect on so many occasions. I am having trouble believing what you have written is true. What are you basing your claims on specifically?
It really does not matter how much 'importance' is given to it. That fact remains that a homicidal gas chamber built by the Nazis exists in the Dachau camp. You claimed Holocaust deniers had proven that it didn't exist. You were incorrect.
Again, given the fact you have been incorrect so many times. Why should I waste my time again watching an 147 minute video when you could easily give me the names of the people? I think it is because you don't have any names. Am I right? Since you will not specifically answer, I must be. By the way, Condit is one of those nuts who claims the Catholic church has been taken over by 'crypto-Jews' (run! run! the cryto-Jews are coming!), so his credibility is extremely questionable as is his ability to be impartial.
You have been caught being incorrect in your claims about many things, recently Warburg and now IRNA reports. Maybe it is time for you to answer specifically.
0
nisegaijin
having an opinion cannot be a crime.
0
OssanAmerica
I voted no. In a democracy, having an opinion or belief, no matter how insane or running against common sense or the views of the majority or the goverment, by itself can not be a crime. Acting upon it may be a totally different issue.
0
sailwind
Freedom of speech and freedom of stupidity are two totally different things. I like the way you use the standard right wing catch phrase.
"fire in a theater" But that one is getting so old, how about next time using "it's for the public good", or "Public safety demands that we do this". LOL
Those are always so funny. But what I find even funnier are the folks that fall for those catch phrases, Hook line and re-education camp.
"The Jews are our Misfortune"......NAZI catch phrase.
Funny how folks fall for those catch phrases, Hook line and Genocide.
0
sabiwabi
Sailwind,
How about inciting hate toward the German people? Like when Elie Wiesel wrote: "Every Jew, somewhere in his being, should set apart a zone of hate -- healthy, virile hate -- for what the German personifies and for what persists in the German."
How about if revisionists asked for laws to keep holocaust believers quiet?
As most posters on this thread, you are assuming that the holocaust story is true, while not even knowing why. On this forum, nobody has been able to provide any strong evidence to support the holocaust story, despite the "mountains of evidence". I think most revisionists started out believing the holocaust story. But once you carefully look at the evidence, there is usually no turning back.
0
Beelzebub
To their credit, the German foreign ministry and Deutsche Welle web sites go out of their way to affirm Germany's involvement in the Holocaust. The text below is from this link, under the heading "Facts about Germany: http://www.tatsachen-ueber-deutschland.de/en/geschichte.html
From the very beginning political persecution went hand in hand with racist mania. This was based on the myth of a “northern” race, and developed via thoughts about people being “unworthy of life”, because they did not conform to ideal perceptions about life, leading to systematic euthanasia. Whereas the latter was conducted covertly for fear of protest, anti-Semitic excesses were carried out in public. Before the eyes of the general public, Jewish citizens were excluded from everyday life, humiliated, removed from public office, threatened with their lives and ultimately systematically persecuted. In 1938, synagogues and other Jewish buildings were destroyed in a pogrom. In many cases it was beyond people’s imagination to imagine what the Nazi thugs did to the Jews who had been sent to concentration camps: “Extermination” by means of inhuman accommodation and exhaustion from work, medical experiments that showed no respect for human life, and ultimately in the final years the murder of all Jews, especially those in the conquered territories in the East, who fell into the hands of the regime. An estimated six million men, women and children were murdered in just a few years.
0
kinniku
What is the context of that quote? When did he say it? Specifics, please...
On this forum, you have never been able to provide any specific evidence about any of your claims. When I finally have gotten you to be specific, your information is incorrect. For example, your incorrect suggestion about Max Warburg. So, why should anyone believe anything you write?
0
sabiwabi
Beelzebub, if you change "Jewish citizens" to "anyone who publicly questions the holocaust" in the above sentence, it will describe the current situation in Germany and many other European countries. My, we have indeed made much progress!
0
sailwind
Kinniku
I'll help, Swabi sure won't provide it.
It comes from a book he wrote called 'Night'. It's a semi-autobiography of his life in the camps and his experiences of despair, hatred and hopelessness, and bitterness at God, Man and the whole gambit of the hell of that experience.
In the book he also wrote;
Quote 20: "'I've got more faith in Hitler than in anyone else. He's the only one who's kept his promises, all his promises, to the Jewish people.'" Chapter 5, pg. 77
Can you imagine the total lack of faith in the goodness in humanity he must have had at that point? He consider himself nothing more than a walking corpse.
Hitler Had kept his promise.
That's the context of the quote that he's using his personal experiences in the camps and a typical 'revisionist' trick to take a Nobel Bell Prize winner, given that award for combating racism and intolerance completely out of context and to try to turn it into something completely different.
http://www.bookrags.com/notes/nit/QUO.html
0
kinniku
Well, if you change 'anyone who publicly questions the Holocaust' to 'anyone who utters racist comments publicly' it would also describe the situation in much of the world. So, yes, we have made some progress in isolating hate and racism. This is a good thing. While speech should be free, so should the reactions to said speech.
0
kinniku
sailwind,
Thank you very much for that as context is very important. I also agree that sabiwabi was not intending to give any context. Partial quotations is a common trick amongst Holocaust deniers. In fact, sabiwabi did the very same thing with a quote from Bishop Williamson as well.
That is why, for me, I think it is good that people can see these false arguments by Holocaust deniers for what they are. Whenever the Holocaust denier's arguments are examined closely, they are found to be completely lacking.
0
nigelboy
No. Simply because it's been overplayed and exaggerated too much to a point where it needs to be reexamined without these Holocaust Inc. mobs crying "denial"!!! everytime someone disagrees just some part of their claims.
0
sabiwabi
kinniku,
There is nothing racist or hateful in one saying that he/she believes the evidence does not support the gassing story. And since nobody on this forum (or elsewhere) has been able to provide any strong evidence to support the gassing story, it seems the revisionists are actually correct.
0
kinniku
sabiwabi,
If that is where it ended, maybe not. However, it is always coupled to ridiculous claims of Jews or Zionists backing the Nazis, the Nazis being Jewish themselves, complaints of Jews controlling media or governments and even claims (like you have made) that Jews killed Jesus. That is where the hate and racism become perfectly clear.
0
kinniku
nigelboy,
See above.
0
kinniku
sabiwabi,
You must be joking. You just provided a quote completely out of context to support an incorrect argument. You have claimed so many things that have been proven incorrect that it would take a year just to write them all out. If you are any example of revisionists (and I think you are a perfect example) then claiming that revisionists are correct could be nothing further from the truth.
Try answering my questions.
0
kinniku
nigelboy,
To be clear, I in no way was intending to suggest you agree with such things.
Also, I do agree with you when you say we should be looking at what 'deniers' say. Whenever what they say is examined, it turns out to be incorrect.
0
sabiwabi
I have provided many answers, but you always seem to find some childish excuse ignore them. Why don't you try providing answers, for a change.
Despite Wikipedia ignoring the Dachau "gas chamber" and Dachau camp's own website essentially doing the same, you brought up the Dachau "gas chamber" many times without saying anything about why you think it is a real Nazi-built homicidal gas chamber. I you also never stated how many people you think were gassed in it. Specifics please!
Sorry, but your simply stating that something is incorrect is not considered proof. Simply stating others are incorrect and continually claiming to successfully prove this or that is just childish; grow up already.
If you are any example of an exterminist (and I think you are a perfect example) then its easy to understand why they want to make revisionism illegal. They are completely unable to support their story. They must resort to name-calling, deception, distortions, and other childish behaviour.
0
sabiwabi
There are many sources of Jews or Zionists backing the Nazis, one you might trust is a famous speech given by Samuel Untermyer, look it up. And Jews controlling the media? Wow, what an outrageous idea!
0
sabiwabi
As Bishop Williamson said: “Our Lord said: The truth will make you free; the corollary of which is: lies will enslave you!”
He and I, and probably most revisionists, are simply interested in the truth. That’s where its at, lies or truth. As I mentioned above, I think most revisionists started out believing the holocaust story. But once you carefully look at the evidence, there is usually no turning back. Once you start seeing the lies and learning the truth, you also see other lies and you become free. The powers that be don’t want that; they don’t want you to be free.
0
uperjer
i prefer freedom of speech.
0
kinniku
You do not provide answers. You ask people to watch 147 minute video and ask them to figure out what part of the 147 minute video was your answer. Sorry, that is not answering questions, that is avoiding them.
In our original conversation about Dachau back in January and February 2007, I did indeed discuss that very thing. In fact, you suggested that it was possible that it was used for medical experiments on humans by the Nazis. Memory loss?
However, I did not 'bring up' the subject. You did. You claimed revisionists had proven that there were no homicidal gas chambers in Germany. I merely pointed out that there was one in Dachau that is recognized to have the specific design of a homicidal gas chamber. In other words, I was responding to your claims, as I am here now too. You are making the claims and as such you must provide specifics if you want to be taken seriously.
You were wrong about Warburg and you were wrong here about Elie Wiesel and what he meant. That is considered proof, thank you.
I have never been deceptive and I have never distorted anything in our discussions. Please point out where I have done such a thing. You, on the other hand, misrespresented Max Warburg and Elie Wiesel. You were specifically deceptive and distorted the facts in both of these instances and then ignored corrections by myself and others. If it were an error, surely you would have responded and/or apologized. Instead, you jumped on to something else. As to what you consider 'childish', you expect others to look when you use mainstream sources, yet you turn around and refuse to do the same for others when they use the same sources calling them 'extremist, zionist' or whatever. Sorry, you have to either play by the same rules and let others do the same or you cannot use those sources. That is fair, not being childish.
I looked the man up. He was an American. He certainly was not 'backing the Nazis'. I am sorry, I have no idea what you are talking about. Could you answer the questions specifically now, please?
Then it would probably help if when you write about something or someone that you actually write the truth.
0
kinniku
Here again you are making a claim. I ask you, please explain specifically what specific 'lies' you have seen?
0
kinniku
Hey, I found the speech by Samuel Untermyer. As I suspected, he was not a backer of the Nazis, as you claimed. The truth certainly does set us free. That is why I love it when so called 'revisionists' actually are specific. For it is then that we can see that they don't know what they are talking about. It is a bit long but, here is part of his speech:
The appointment of Adolf Hitler as chancellor of Germany on January 30, 1933, provided Untermyer with another opportunity to serve the Jewish people. Untermyer had no doubt as to Hitler's true intentions toward German Jewry. He made this abundantly clear on April 13 at a luncheon given in his honor by the American Friends of the Hebrew University. Untermyer had provided the funds for the auditorium on the university campus in memory of his late wife. In his speech Untermyer reflected that,
Nothing could better illustrate the long-sustained suffering and ultimate despair and the blighting, brutalizing after-effects of a disastrous war upon a once prosperous, enlightened nation than the ascendancy to power of a bigoted brute of the Hitler type and the tame submission to his yoke of a proud, self-respecting people. Deep is our pity for the persecution, akin to that of the Dark Ages, of our unfortunate brethren, it should be still greater for the remaining ninety-nine per cent of the German people who are thereby relegated to semi-barbarism.
It is now definitely established that there is deep-seated, continuing official propaganda to minimize and mislead the Jews and the rest of the civilized world as to the extent of the persecution with the deliberate purpose of withdrawing interest and support ....
But we are not without means of defense. The first step of world Jewry must be to find ways to care for our disfranchised men, women and children, and more particularly to so enlarge the scope of the Hebrew University to receive our youth to whom the doors of the German universities have now been closed by this brutal decree.
under no circumstances should a Jew, from this day forth, buy or use merchandise manufactured in Germany or support Germany industry in any form. The action taken in that respect by the Jewish shopkeepers in London should be followed the world over
0
sabiwabi
If you’re asking me how many people I think were gassed in it. The answer is I believe it is probably ZERO! If it’s the same “gas chamber” that has a sign stating that it was never used, then I would say most definitely ZERO. Is that specific enough? That Wikipedia and the Dachau camp’s own website have essentially ignored the gas chamber is something I find quite telling.
So, how many do you think were gassed there and why do you think it was built by the Nazis and not after the war?
How was I wrong about Wiesel? Those were his words, not mine. I don’t see how the other quotes make his words less racist.
No, playing by your rules is childish in that there is no source that you will find acceptable. You always find some excuse to ignore my sources while insisting that I continue to provide specifics (while not providing any yourself when asked).
About Samuel Untermyer, I made a mistake when I brought him up. What I should have written is: There are many sources indicating that Jews or Zionists were backing the Nazis, one you might trust is a famous speech given by Samuel Untermyer, look it up. In other words, it isn’t that Untermyer was backing the Nazis, as might be interpreted from the way I initially wrote it, but instead he clearly states in his famous speech who were backing the Nazis.
But again, with all these distractions, in the past several days (and years) nobody has yet provided any proof of the gassing story despite the “mountains of evidence”. And yet some are asking to make questioning this story illegal. What chutzpah!
0
kinniku
sabiwabi,
You wrote:
Then you wrote:
Are you joking??? You are not quoting me. You wrote both of these quotes. Are you now going to start to have conversations by yourself? I can see how much you pay attention to detail!
Why is that? As I mentioned you discount both Wikipedia and Holocaust related sites on a regular basis. So, it would not matter what they said to you. In addition, as I have already pointed out, the Dachau Camp website does mention it. I don't know what site you went to.
Nope. Before I answer those questions (that I actually have already answered, which lead you to comment that in your opinion "at the most it was used for medical experiments on humans"), could you please give me the name of one top Nazi that was Jewish? You have been claiming this since 2005. Don't you know the names by now?
You were wrong because by quoting the way you did (as you did with Williamson's quote) you made it seem as though he were talking about "Germans", when he was specifically talking about Nazi Germany. That is why it is not racist.
One, that is the game you have been playing since you came on to JT. You never accept mainstream websites as evidence, except if it supports your views. Other than those times, you discount them outright. As you have many times with Wikipedia in Holocaust discussions.
I agree.
Please give me one name who you are claiming backed the Nazis. It is a simple question. What is your answer? (For the millionth time)
No, it does not work that way. You have claimed that "revisionists have proved that the Holocaust is a hoax" and you have claimed you came to see "lies". Specifically, what did revisionists prove? When did they prove it? Who proved it? Specifics, please...
Well, I voted "no". So you are not talking about me. I think it is fascinating to see how a "revisionist" cannot backup their claims. Even more interesting is that the few times they are specific, they are competely incorrect, such as your claiming Max Warburg was a Nazi backer in Germany staying in nice hotels etc when he emigrated to the US in 1938. Keep'm coming!
Before I forget:
Not only is it incorrect, but even if it were correct, basing your opinions on people solely on their religion etc is racist. Welcome to the real world.
0
SuperLib
I'm a bit torn... Naturally it's silly to jail someone for saying something isn't true...but....it would take Sabi off of the boards for quite some time.
Good and bad, I suppose.
0
sabiwabi
Well, I already provided one name, Hitler who is probably half or a quarter Jewish (check the video). If you want more: Rudolf Hess (Reich Minister, half Jewish), Joseph Goebbels (Propaganda Minister, Jewish), Alfred Rosenberg (Editor of the official Nazi paper “Volkisher Beobachter;” Reich Minister for Eastern occupied territories; Jewish) Hans Frank (legal council of the Nazi party; Jewish), Reinhard Heydrich (Security chief and Second in command of SS, Jewish), Admiral Wilhelm Canaris (Chief of German Intelligence; Jewish), Abram Goldberg a.k.a. Julius Streicher (Editor of the weekly Nazi paper “Der Sturmer;” Jewish), and Adolf Eichman (SS Officer; prosecutor; Jewish).
So, how about the Dachau gas chamber?
Here’s a simple answer: The Bank House Mendleson and Company in Amsterdam made two transfers totaling 25 million USD; Kuhn Loeb and Company in New York; J P Morgan and Company in New York; and Samuel and Samuel of London. Also, Royal Dutch Shell sent 10 million Guilders as late as 1937.
Also, Otto Strasser confirms in Douglas Reed’s book, Prisoner of Ottawa, that in 1929 his group was overwhelmed by Hitler, who seemed to suddenly have unlimited funds at his disposal. Strasser was competing with Hitler to lead Germany in the 1920s. Strasser fled Germany and was never allowed to return.
There’s more if you bother to look at the video.
0
Mark_McCracken
Japanese Constitution:
Article 19 upholds freedom of thought.
Article 21 guarantees free speech.
Holocaust denial is clearly protected by the Constitution is not a crime.
0
JoeBigs
In your post on the Holocaust you had forgotten to mention the others that were exterminated.
These numbers are approximate numbers. No one really know how many were never found. Btw the Soviets also put allot of folks in mass graves but let us not change the subject.
Soviet POWs 2.5 million
Ethnic Poles 2 million
Romanies 1.5 million
Disabled 250,000
Freemasons 200,000
Homosexuals 15,000
There were many killed in the Holocaust and many more forgotten. Speak out for those that do not have a voice. Speak out for freedom of speech!
0
flammenwerfer
There is a saying: Everyone is entitled to an opinion - even it is stupid ignorant and wrong.
0
sailwind
Just some food for thought joe
George Orwell
The revisionists goal in a nutshell..... Why it voted yes, never let em control the past.
0
kinniku
Thank you for that list. I have certainly been waiting a long time for it. There is only one problem...None of the people listed are actually Jewish. I could make a similar list claiming Anpanman, Doraemon (aka Doraeman), 8-Man and Hello Kitty (aka Betty Friedman) are all really Jewish. None of those people listed have any Jewish ancestry whatsoever.
Well, that is a simple answer. The only problem is to whom was the money sent and why? Just because money was sent does not neccessarily mean it was sent to the Nazis to back the Nazi party.
How does this neccessarily mean Hitler was backed by Jewish people? I am sorry, I don't see any connection.
I think I am not regretting not watching that 147 minutes of video if this is the kind of 'evidence' in it. Thanks for taking the time to write what you wrote though.
0
sabiwabi
Indeed, and who is it that controls the present? Who prints the money, who has most of the money, who controls the press (media, publishers,...), who can push the pope around, ....?
Indeed, that is why people who believe in the gassing story are entitled to do so. But it would be nice if they at least knew why they believed it (i.e., they knew the evidence supporting it).
0
sabiwabi
Holocaust denial is legally protected in Japan, but have a look at what happened to the Japanese magazine Marco Polo in the mid 1990's after it published an article doubting the gas chamber story. It seems there is not all that much freedom of expression in Japan.
0
kinniku
Well, according to you, it is Jews.
As you wrote above:
People are also free to react to free speech. That is what free speech is all about. Boycotts against businesses people disagree with are in fact quite common and a very peaceful way to protest. Also, to be clear, the article was not 'doubting' the gas chamber story. It was claiming there were no gas chambers. They had a right to print and people had a right to protest it.
0
sabiwabi
Indeed, Marco Polo, a respectable magazine, had the write to print people had the right to protest. Those who protested had a lot of power, but not because they represented a large number of people. This only further confirms who controls the present. Its time to break this control that a very small group has (no, not the Jews) and free the people.
0
kinniku
Actually, one of the reasons most people feel free speech is important is specifically because it allows minorities to voice their opinions. Having the right to free speech should not be limited to only those that represent a large number of people.
Anyway, so who specifically are you claiming controls the present? Could you give us a name? You say it is not the Jews. Well, certainly the list of Nazis who you claimed were Jews were not, in fact, Jews. However, it is still quite puzzling that you complain about Jews controlling the media and then claim it is not about Jews.
Maybe if you are specific we can understand which Jews you don't like...
0
sabiwabi
Many times I have told you who they are and stated clearly that the Jews as a whole are being screwed by this same group. You know very well who they are, and you know that I am not referring to THE Jews!
So, how many people do you think were gassed at Dachau? After years of trying to defend the exterminist side, will you finally provide ONE proof of the gassing story? Just one.
0
kinniku
If you are not referring to Jews, why would you complain about Jews supposedly controlling western media and governments? I do not understand. Who specifically are you referring to? One name, please.
As I stated, I will discuss Dachau after you have answered my question. You answered with the names of people who were not Jewish. Even stranger, in your list of banking institutions, you even listed (actually I know you cut and paste it as the same sentences word for word can easily be found on the internet) included JP Morgan. It seems you are not aware that he was not even Jewish. I am beginning to wonder if you understand what the word 'Jewish' means...
I will say this about Dachau. You claimed revisionists had proven that there were no homicidal gas chambers in Germany. They have not proved that the Dachau homicidal gas chamber was not a homicidal gas chamber. Unless you have some sort of proof that it is not a homicidal gas chamber, one can only assume it is one. Remember, you made the claim first...
0
projectaw11
everything is propaganda believe nothing... the soviets killed more people in WWII than we will ever know and Germany was made the scape goat for all the atrocity committed by all sides during that war such as the atomic attacks on Japan by the USA. there is no innocence in wars from all sides but one thing is for sure Japan and Germany got the worst of it, even though they did not do all that much bad. With that aside the world would be a better place if Deutschland won the war! Clearly time shows how both the Japanese and Germans have display great superiority over all other races.
0
sabiwabi
We are to believe that the Dachau “gas chamber”, disguised as a shower room with obviously fake shower heads, is exactly in the same state as the US Army found it when the camp was liberated. We are now told that it was never used. The Nazis are said to have spoken in code to hide the evidence of their extermination program, yet the guards at Dachau, who knew well in advance the Americans were on their way, left the gas chamber room, which had never been used as a gas chamber, in a state that unashamedly points to its homicidal purpose.
Note that the height of the ceiling in the Dachau “gas chamber" is presently 7.6 feet. However, in Document L-159, No. 47 of the 79th Congress, 1st Session (Exhibit NO. USA-222; IMT, XXXVII, p. 621), which details the U.S. Army's investigation of the Dachau camp after liberation, the ceiling of this room is measured at 10 feet high. The obviously fake shower heads in the currently exhibited chamber are made of sheet metal, while document No. 47 describes the 10 foot high ceiling as having "brass fixtures". In other words, a 10-foot high ceiling with brass fixtures became a 7.6-foot high ceiling with cone-shaped sheet metal fake shower heads!
Me thinks it was a shower room. In many European countries, if I expressed this publicly I would most likely be thrown in jail.
0
kinniku
Interesting. According to you when homicidal gas chambers are partial destroyed, this means they did not exist and when they are intact, this means they did not exist. Wow, win-win for you...not.
You seem to have a link to Document L-159, No. 47 of the 79th Congress. Care to share it? It would probably be good to make sure it is authentic.
Anyway, could you give me those names of Jewish people you claim were top Nazis (note I am asking for people who were actually Jewish). In addition, could you please give us the name of these mysterious people who you claim control the present? Could you give us a name? If you are not referring to Jews, why would you complain about Jews supposedly controlling western media and governments? I do not understand. Who specifically are you referring to? One name, please.
0
likeitis
http://www.briancuban.com/nazi-jews-a-historical-paradox/
I know its not the names you want kinniku. I want to know too. But this is a start.
A big problem is who we define as Jewish. The Nazis had some bizarre definitions. Even our own are often a little strange. And the Jews themselves have specific rules about it.
0
kinniku
likeitis,
Thanks for that! Very interesting indeed. However, it is not a start of what a certain poster was claiming. However I suspect that the poster in question is not really interested in truth as much as attempting to convince someone/anyone that 'a certain group of people' have always been out to take over the world.
Keep in mind that according to the article:
Anyway, again thank you. It was a very interesting story.
0
Nessie
Like "Assen-gay the uden-jay and omani-ray"?
0
likeitis
Glad you liked it and can appreciate its points. I think one thing important to remember about the Nazis is that they were more than just Jew killers and haters. Other things attracted people to the party, including, I believe, German and Austrian Jews. The Nazis embodied things Germanic peoples could admire, including patriotism (however warped), and I can understand how Jews could try to overlook the anti-Semitism and want to join. Anti-semitism was but one aspect of the party.
In the same way, one may not agree with one aspect of the Republican party, but join anyway. For example, it seems KKK members lean Republican. Should a black man not become a Republican then? Even a KKK member and a black man can agree on some things, despite the huge difference of opinion on one special point.
0
kinniku
Nessie,
I had no idea you spoke coded-German.Wundervoll!
0
kinniku
Hi again, Likeitis,
I appreciate your contribution to this thread.
The article makes me think it was less overlooking the anti-Semitism than the 'Jews' in question not considering themselves Jewish. Since they weren't Jewish, the issue was not of concern to them. Then again, today we would ask how anyone can put up with any kind of discrimination, even if it doesn't directly concern them.
As I suggested above, since it does not seem like the people in question considered themselves Jewish, I am not sure these analogies apply to this situation. However, you do bring up an interesting point about how people decide what they are and how they are defined by others. For example, how bizarre for the practicing Christians who were (from the article) : "Germans of partial Jewish descent who had practiced Christianity all of their lives, were suddenly classified as a “Mischling,” Jews under Hitler’s racial classification laws. They were suddenly stripped of most rights under German law."
0
sabiwabi
My reason for rejecting the existence of homicidal gas chambers was NEVER their partial destruction. Making stuff up again? I rejected them for several other reasons which I am sure you know since you seem to be aware of my old posts.
BTW, I take it you agree with the part about the Dachau "gas chamber" never having been used, as is recognized by the exterminist side. Or do you know something they don't?
Anyway, the camp was not overtaken by surprise. They would have certainly destroyed the room if it was truly a gas chamber. But there would be absolutely no reason to destroy a shower.
I'm sure with your superior internet navigation skills, you can easily find that document.
0
timesup
To those who voted "yes" you are all severely mentally impaired if you want to criminalize somebody's thoughts whether an event in history happened or not. This is usually the same crowd that is in favor of the Fairness Doctrine and silencing anybody who has a different view than them. These people are also usually the first to cry foul at the slightest infringement of any of their rights. Bottom line if you don't think the holocaust happened then your a kook. But you have a right to be a kook. I am not a hypocrite and while I disagree with you I certainly believe in your right to hold an opposite opinion.
0
YangYong
If Germany herself states --as historical fact-- that the Holocaust occurred, that the Nazi regime ran an extermination program, including camps specifically built and used for death, along with labor camps and in turn has made the denial of these facts a crime... then who are YOU to argue against? Case closed. America banned cross burning and the wearing of KKK masks. Why?
0
timesup
YangYong, Unfortunately for you the case isn't closed. When we start criminalizing the thoughts and views of people how far do you suppose that will go? Just this past year Al Gore and company were likening Global Warming skeptics to Holocaust deniers. If I don't want to believe in either WHO ARE YOU to say I am a criminal? You can say i'm wrong you can call me a kook. But a criminal for holding those beliefs? Be careful traveling down that road. It doesn't end well.
0
kinniku
Really, then why write this in this very thread? You complain when they are complete and you complain when they are modified.
As anyone can see, I am not the one with the credibility problem. Still waiting for your list and that link, by the way...
0
kinniku
sabiwabi,
You have claimed on not a few occasions that I am 'making stuff up'. Interestingly, you can never show any evidence of me doing so. On the other hand, you have claimed top Nazis were Jewish and were Zionists. Yet, when asked for proof you declined to be specific for more than three years. During which time, you have suggested that it wasn't the Nazis that wanted to take over the world, that it was the Zionists. In addition, during this same time period, you have also suggested that you would not be surprised to find out that Hitler was a 'nice guy'. Now, you claimed (completely incorrectly, of course) that top Nazis, including Hitler were Jewish. In fact, you provided a complete list of people who were not Jewish at all. You claimed on this thread that IRNA does not refer to 'revisionists' as Holocaust deniers and went so far as to again claim I was 'making stuff up'. However, yet again, you were proven incorrect. You claim you are not referring to Jews when you say certain people control the present (media etc), yet you are often complaining that Jews control western media and governments. Sorry, consistency begins 'at home'.
So, can I please have that list of names and link to Document L-159, No. 47 of the 79th Congress? It would probably be good to make sure it is authentic. This is especially true considering your previous lists and names have been shown to be incorrect.
You mentioned a sign at Dachau. First, that is your proof? A sign you claim was there in the 80's which one would assume was put there (if it was there at all, which considering your record of factual incorrectness, is unlikely) by the very people you claim you do not trust because they are 'extremists'.
So, if you could, please explain why nothing you write is very consistent. Of course, except for the one area that everything in the end gets somehow blamed on Jews...
0
TravelingSales
Free speech is the base on which all democratic societies must be built. We should only restrict incitement to violence, and even then only in circumstances where such incitement creates a clear and immediate danger of harm to life or property.
As for the ignorant little scumbags who want to deny the Holocaust, bring them out into the open where they can be exposed to general public revulsion and disgust. Let them say whatever they want. Trying to shut them down ives credence to their lies and claims of conspiracy. Sunlight is the best disinfectant.
0
sabiwabi
But please note that a holocaust denier is anyone who doubts any part of the official story. I don’t know of anyone who says that nothing happened.
And imagine if one day they made it illegal to doubt that 911 was committed by 19 Saudis with box cutters.
Very true indeed! But the exterminist side does not want that, especially after Raul Hilberg’s humiliation during Zundel’s first trial in the 1980’s in Canada.
0
sabiwabi
Kinniku,
Partial destruction is what the Nazis did to some air raid shelters (called “gas chambers” today) prior to abandoning Auschwitz as the Russians were approaching. This is completely different from adding certain features to an existing room after the war to make it look like a gas chamber.
Indeed, anyone can see for themselves the curator making those admissions in a video (David Cole’s video). You would have some credibility if, after years of defending the exterminist side, you would finally provide one proof of the gassing story.
0
sabiwabi
sabiwabi,
Yes, many times indeed. You are constantly stating what you call facts, and I usually don’t bother to check up on them, but a few times when I have, they have been shown to be bogus, at which point you sometimes pretend not to understand the meaning of a simple word (e.g., necessarily, much). Must I really remind you again of the time you INSISTED that a researcher used the latest DNA testing technology to test a piece of soap. I realized you were BSing again and continued to push you on that “fact” until you finally, after several posts, stated that you were “just guessing that they would have used DNA testing”.
Many times I have told you who I am referring to and stated clearly that the Jews as a whole are being screwed by this same group. You know very well who they are, and you know that I am not referring to THE Jews! Notice the word “THE”. I know you are trying to make me look like someone who blames all Jews, it’s not working.
0
kinniku
sabiwabi, (Despite what you just wrote above, that is 'your name' not 'mine'. Again that lack of attention to detail rears its head.)
Not exactly. You deny most if not all of the 'official story' and you have on quite a number of occasions called it a hoax or 'the big lie'.
You neglect again to mention that Zundel lost that first trial and that it was not actually Hilberg that was humiliated, but it was Zundel and his horribly unprepared, unqualified and untrained witness John Ball. Bottom line, Zundel lost the trial on the facts.
Proof that they were 'air raid shelters' as you claim. Specifics, please. Could you also explain why the Nazis would take the time before escaping to attempt to destroy simple air raid shelters? Specifics, please...
You only seem to mention one (which I will get to after this). What are the others?
Sorry, I don't remember those...In fact, I am sure you are incorrect. I have not written anything that was 'bogus'. What have you checked that I have written that has been bogus? I think that unlike my specifically describing your incorrect statements, it is extremely telling that you are unable to be specific at all. Specifics, please...
I did not 'insist' that researchers used the latest DNA tests on a piece of soap based on both the fact that the article we were discussing said they had used the latest tests and the fact that in the past pieces of soap had been tested using the latest technology. You pointed out in your next comment that the article did not specifically state that the 'latest tests' (it might have said latest technology, I haven't looked at that article for a while) were DNA tests and you proceed to claim I was somehow lying. In my very next post (not several or even a couple of posts) I said I was basing my educated guess on the fact that previous pieces of soap had been tested using DNA testing. Since this is not how you just suggested the discussion went, it seems you are again incorrect. By the way, you often claim that I 'admitted to making stuff up' in that conversation, when I did no such thing. Why the need to be so misleading?
I don't understand then why you mention 'Jews' so much in many of your posts. Why complain that 'Jews' control western media and western governments? The word 'the' has nothing to do with my question, by the way. If Jews have nothing do with what you want to say, one would think you would never mention them in your complaints. Yet you do. It is a simple question, why do you complain about Jews so much?
You still have a bunch of questions you have left unanswered in favor of your writing more incorrect things. Maybe you should stick to attempting to explain what you have written thus far...
You have claimed top Nazis were Jewish and were Zionists. Yet, when asked for proof you declined to be specific for more than three years. During which time, you have suggested that it wasn't the Nazis that wanted to take over the world, that it was the Zionists. In addition, during this same time period, you have also suggested that you would not be surprised to find out that Hitler was a 'nice guy'. Now, you claimed (completely incorrectly, of course) that top Nazis, including Hitler were Jewish. In fact, you provided a complete list of people who were not Jewish at all. You claimed on this thread that IRNA does not refer to 'revisionists' as Holocaust deniers and went so far as to again claim I was 'making stuff up'. However, yet again, you were proven incorrect. You claim you are not referring to Jews when you say certain people control the present (media etc), yet you are often complaining that Jews control western media and governments. Sorry, consistency begins 'at home'.
So, can I please have that list of names and link to Document L-159, No. 47 of the 79th Congress? It would probably be good to make sure it is authentic. This is especially true considering your previous lists and names have been shown to be incorrect.
You mentioned a sign at Dachau. First, that is your proof? A sign you claim was there in the 80's which one would assume was put there (if it was there at all, which considering your record of factual incorrectness, is unlikely) by the very people you claim you do not trust because they are 'extremists'.
So, if you could, please explain why nothing you write is very consistent. Of course, except for the one area that everything in the end gets somehow blamed on Jews...
0
kinniku
Not that it matters too much but I should have written above:
I did not 'insist' that researchers used the latest DNA tests on a piece of soap. I merely wrote that they had used the latest DNA tests based on both the fact that the article we were discussing said they had used the latest tests and the fact that in the past pieces of soap had been tested using the latest technology.
0
ronindave
well, was I right or was I right? I said way up near the top something like this would happen.
It's typical with Holocaust Deniers. They are not out to win an argument. They desperately want to try and give their hatefilled tinfoil-hat conspiracy some ounce of validity. They'll try to mask this by claiming ennobled causes like freedom of speech and the quest for truth but the reality is that they are far removed from both.
0
kinniku
In case I was not clear... You never actually proved that DNA testing was not used in that specific case. You merely pointed out it didn't say so in that specific article. I did not disagree with you and I explained my reasoning was based on previous DNA tests on other pieces of soap (a fact about which you did not dispute). I am sure you will attempt to use this same conversation again in the future to claim 'I said I was making stuff up'. However, if you do, I will be happy to explain it again to you as I have done now. Now, it is your turn to explain yourself...
0
kinniku
ronindave,
Yes, you certainly did call it correctly.
0
sabiwabi
Kinniku, in our soap discussion you went on and on, trying to defend your view while constantly confusing hydrolysis and denaturation of DNA, and in the end you stated that you were “just guessing that they would have used DNA testing” (your words, not mine).
How is that "not exactly"? Why did you omit the second part of my quote "I don’t know of anyone who says that nothing happened." Bishop Williamson, myself, and all the revisionists I know of have clearly stated that something did take place. Why do you always have to come whining every time I point out that revisionists do not say that nothing happened.
Yes, we all know Zundel lost the trial (so did Galileo). But Raul Hilberg, the No1 expert of the holocaust at the time, was in fact humiliated and refused to show up at later trials. When he was cross examined, he admitted that although he had never inspected any of the gas chambers, he only visited one camp but only to attend a ceremony, not to study the facilities. He also admitted that he was unaware of any scientific study of the gas chambers. If I remember correctly, that was also the first and last time that an actual eye witness was cross examined under oath (I wonder why!).
I know you'll continue to irritate everyone by reposting your long list of questions, but I will no longer address them until you provide some proof of the gassing story. That should be easy if there are mountains of evidence.
0
kinniku
sabiwabi,
Incorrect, again. We went on and on (not 'I' but 'We') about whether it would be possible to actually detect DNA in a piece of soap. I did not wait until to the end of our discussion to explain that I guessed that they used DNA testing in order to come to their conclusions based on previous DNA testing of pieces of soap. Our discussion actually ended when you left the discussion refusing to discuss specifics, as you seem to be doing now with the list of names and the requested link...
Because it is meaningless since you deny the part of the Holocaust that everyone is discussing...
So did Irving. So have every one of these 'historians'.
I guess that means we should not take your claims seriously as you cannot back them up, huh?
0
kinniku
sabiwabi,
Thought I would give you some more comments...
What I am saying is that it is not that you just deny 'a part' (as if it is something minor). You deny most if not all of the 'official story' and you have on quite a number of occasions called it a hoax or 'the big lie'. Nobody is suggesting you have said 'nothing happened'. I specifically am suggesting that you are claiming the Holocaust did not happen. I am sure you would be willing to admit there was a war (you are, right?) and that people were killed. However, basically that is where your agreement ends.
As I said, it was Zundel who lost. His witnesses were horrible, as was his evidence. The same with the Irving trial in England. Irving was even so scared of counter testimony that he actually withdrew Rudolf's paper on the gas chambers when he show the other sides reports refuting Rudolf's report. You claim what Hilberg said, however, since you have in this very thread been incorrect when you claimed top Nazis were Jewish and Zionists. In addition you made a claim that a Jewish banker was backing the Nazi Party and went as far as to suggest he was staying in nice hotels in Germany through out the war when the man emigrated to the US in 1938. Why should we believe Hilberg was humiliated when Zundel lost the trial?
You go on and on about me assuming DNA tests were done on a piece of soap based on the fact (FACT, not guess) that DNA tests were done on previous pieces of soap. What I find interesting is that I was not purposefully misleading in any way. I was quite straightforward in my explanation and in my logic. In addition this one educated guess on my part does not change the content of the discussion we had one bit. However, when you claim top Nazis were Jewish and Zionists, that is a main part of the content of the discussion. Especially since you then proceeded (after more than three years of being asked for an answer) to give me a list of people who were not Jewish at all...
My making an educated guess about DNA testing based on solid knowledge of previous testing can in no way be compared to the incorrect claims you have made. If you really want people to take you seriously, why don't yo make yourself clear?
0
kinniku
Actually, I should write, you claim Hilburg was somehow 'humiliated'. Since the man carried himself honestly and professionally throughout the entire trial and then there is the fact that he was respected, believed and trusted by Norman Finkelstein. Since you have used Finkelstein as an expert and you judge him to be of sound character, one would think you would take a second look at Hilberg.
0
sabiwabi
How would you feel if, after everything I wrote, I would now write that I was just guessing that many top Nazis were Zionist or Jewish or part Jewish; or that I was just guessing that homicidal gas chambers did not exist?
If you want to know about who the Nazis were, just look at the video (Final Solution to Adolph Hitler, by Jim Condit Jr).
I just find extremely strange that Raul Hilberg, the No1 expert of the holocaust at the time, had to admit under oath that in preparing what became the Bible of the holocaust industry he had never inspected any of the gas chambers. He only visited one camp but only to attend a ceremony, not to study the facilities. I find it very hard to believe that he would not inspect any of the gas chambers. Don't you? Hilberg also admitted that he was unaware of any scientific study of any gas chamber.
0
kinniku
Pretty much the same way I feel about what you have written already...What is your point? Are you 'guessing' about these things? Are they educated guesses as mine was and as I clearly explained to you at the time and have continued to explain? Or are they merely guesses not based in reality which is in stark contrast to my educated guess which was based in the solid fact of the researchers using DNA technology in previous tests?
No, I don't think I will waste 147 minutes on a video that inspired you to make a list of top Nazis that you claimed were Jewish who were, in fact, no at all Jewish... Could you give me your list instead, please? That and the link to Document L-159, No. 47 of the 79th Congress?
After all, you want to show you are right, correct? I would assume you would want us to understand your claims are actually based in reality.
The man never made claims of being an expert in gas chambers...as I wrote he was an extremely forthright and honest person...
Now, let's get back to your claims, shall we?
You have written so many incorrect claims that it must be hard for you to keep track. Let me refresh your memory...
I don't understand then why you mention 'Jews' so much in many of your posts. Why complain that 'Jews' control western media and western governments? The word 'the' has nothing to do with my question, by the way. If Jews have nothing do with what you want to say, one would think you would never mention them in your complaints. Yet you do. It is a simple question, why do you complain about Jews so much?
You still have a bunch of questions you have left unanswered in favor of your writing more incorrect things. Maybe you should stick to attempting to explain what you have written thus far...
You have claimed top Nazis were Jewish and were Zionists. Yet, when asked for proof you declined to be specific for more than three years. During which time, you have suggested that it wasn't the Nazis that wanted to take over the world, that it was the Zionists. In addition, during this same time period, you have also suggested that you would not be surprised to find out that Hitler was a 'nice guy'. Now, you claimed (completely incorrectly, of course) that top Nazis, including Hitler were Jewish. In fact, you provided a complete list of people who were not Jewish at all. You claimed on this thread that IRNA does not refer to 'revisionists' as Holocaust deniers and went so far as to again claim I was 'making stuff up'. However, yet again, you were proven incorrect. You claim you are not referring to Jews when you say certain people control the present (media etc), yet you are often complaining that Jews control western media and governments. Sorry, consistency begins 'at home'.
So, can I please have that list of names and link to Document L-159, No. 47 of the 79th Congress? It would probably be good to make sure it is authentic. This is especially true considering your previous lists and names have been shown to be incorrect.
Lastly, why did you claim Max Warburg was backing the Nazis and was staying in nice hotels in Germany through out the war, when the man was forced to emigrate to the US in 1938?
I know it is hard to back up so many incorrect claims. However, I am only responding to claims you have made. If you find it difficult to back to these claims with actual facts, it might be a good idea for you to rethink your claims...Hey, even Irving rethought his claims...Even Bishop Williamson said he was willing to take a look at things again since the last time he even looked at any was in the 80's.
0
ronindave
WTF!? HA! HA! HA! HA! Seriously, how can anyone honestly debate with people who dare to make such laughable ridiculous comparisons?
0
sabiwabi
No, they were educated conclusions, not guesses.
The part about who the Nazis were is an educated conclusion reached after watching Jim Condit's video, and listening and reading other related material. It certainly explains a lot about what happened.
And the part about the gas chamber is an educated conclusion reached after realizing that there is NO evidence of large scale gassing other than from eye witness accounts, many of which are clearly scientifically impossible. This conclusion is supported by the fact that revisionists are imprisoned in Europe for doubting the official version. My conclusion is further supported by the fact the nobody on this forum has been able to provide ONE proof of the gassing story.
0
kinniku
Yet, you cannot simply backup these 'educated conclusions'.
Yet, for three years you refused to answer who the top Nazis you claim were Jewish were. When you finally did in this thread, you listed people who were not Jewish at all. So, it would seem it is a waste of time to watch Jim Condit (who also believes the Catholic church has been invaded by what he calls "Crypto-Jews") or to listen or read other related material you suggest.
0
jeancolmar
Well I actually don't think Holocaust denial should be a legal crime (however it is a moral crime) but I voted "Yes" to show my distaste for Holocaust denial.
In this tread we have seen again what a frustrating business it is to argue with the Holocaust deniers. Truth and logic don't work with them; they always come back with some fiction like the Nazis were Jewish, etc. or just another pointless denial. It is beneath contempt.
Saying this, criminalizing Holocaust deniers makes them martyrs. It puts civil libertarians in the unfortunate position of defending the rights of these people in the name of freedom of speech. Being criminalized gives the Holocaust deniers power as underdogs in the moral debate over free speech and can make them look legitimate in the eyes of the naive. Best to give them free reign and refute them until they lose any possible credibility.
But having qualified by "yes" with a "no" I have to say I understand why nations that had to live with Nazism--Germany, Austria, France--would outlaw Holocaust denial. The past is still too real and there is a genuine terror that a force like the Nazis might come back.
Of course, it is pleasant to imagine denial of war crimes being outlawed. Jail for the LDP for its lying textbooks. Jail for the American neocon Bush lovers. Jail for the entire Israeli government for its denial of Israel's racist murder of Palestinians. Jail for the Turks for denying the Armenian Holocaust. It won't happen. And it shouldn't. Curtailing freedom of speech creates a climate whereby any act of dissent can be silenced. If I bring up the Armenian Holocaust in Turkey I am a criminal for insulting Turkishness.
Refuting the Holocaust deniers does require you to become educated about the Holocaust. So there is a small good thing to come out of the rantings of the the deniers. A lot of people who would not otherwise become sensitized to the Holocaust do so. Seeing that people do not forget the Holocaust is a very worthy cause.
0
goodDonkey
Unbelievable. I can't possibly understand how people could put such little value on freedom of speech. People who claim to put such value in patriotism. Patriotism means you suck it up when you can't stand what other people are saying. This has nothing to do with yelling fire in a theater. There is no eminent danger imposed by denial, lies or even hate speech. We also have defamation laws to recover civil injuries caused by others who are spreading falsehoods.
Freedom of speech is precious. Give it away at your own peril.
0
johancohen
of course denial is a blatantly, patent crime. is this a bonafide exemptable question or not? prepondering the unfathomable is simply too complex to redistribute these illegitimate, pseudo-questions on the one and only true original holocaust or shoah.
pure, incontravertibly real and true madness begins and ends with self-hypnotic narcosis where the nazis (sic) are mistaken for zionists.
0
goosage
The details of history will and should always be questioned. For the press to blatantly call this "Holocaust denial" is simply a way to judge their readership levels and is wrong.
0
JackBerstein
I am skeptical of how the Holocaust is presented. But I am not all that familiar with Holocaust revisionism. I listened to the bishop's interview and he sounded reasonable, I can't see how his words could be considered a crime.
Correct me if I missed it, but in this thread and in recent threads about the bishop, I did not see any posts refuting what he said. Surely if the holocaust was all true, something could be shown to shut up the man other than calling him names and expressing shock at his "disgusting views". Instead of making his views illegal, experts could easily write an article saying the bishop was referring to ..., and he was wrong because... as shown here ...
0
jeancolmar
Jack, the evidence of the Holocaust is out there and overwhelming, as others and I have been pointing out in Japan Today for years. The Bishop spoke of Jews and Masons involved in some sort of conspiracy and used proven bogus evidence to question the Holocaust. That is not reasonable.
The Bishop is the Catholic Church's problem. The Pope has told him to recant and the dude has so far refused. I suppose if you are going to be a full-time career bishop in the Catholic Church you have do what the boss says. Since he hasn't the boss has got to can him or do something else with him.
Holocaust denial is against the rules if you're working for the Catholic Church, and that's fine. As I said I am opposed to outlawing Holocaust denial. It won't make it go away. What is needed is more Holocaust education. And more anti-racist education, because that is the true source of Holocaust denial, not honest scepticism.
0
kinniku
"Jack",
I was wondering if you would decide to make an appearance to assist Sabiwabi...
I am having a very difficult time believing you. If you are not at all familiar with Holocaust revisionism, how is it that you have come to the conclusion what the Bishop said is "reasonable"? What specifically makes you think what he said is so reasonable?
Consider yourself corrected. As Jean pointed out, the comments have been refuted here and in other JT discussions.
0
Beelzebub
In his book "Why People Believe Weird Things," Michael Shermer does a masterful job of pointing out how Holocaust Deniers dissemble -- such as by pouncing vociferously on minor inconsistencies in data that emerged from the fog of war -- and then using these differences as "proof" that nothing happened at all. (Or that millions of people died of a typhus epidemic.) The gullible people who get most of what they know from talk shows and blogs are easy prey to such assertions.
Considering that Holocaust Denial is conducted not so much with the intent of righting historical inaccuracies than it is with the aim of defaming its victims (or for personal profit), I think Germany and Austria (in particular) have a strong case for criminalizing it.
0
kinniku
I realize you wrote "not all that" as opposed to "not at all". However, my comments remain the same...
0
sabiwabi
Kinniku,
They most certainly have not. Nobody has been able to show us a believable gas chamber. You tried once, years ago, but it was one that had been totally refuted by revisionists and I pointed out several things wrong with it; you have since refused to provide another one.
The truth is, the main thing the exterminist side has are witnesses. And if you have a close look at them, so many have been shown to make impossible claims. Revisionist videos demonstrate this quite effectively (eg One Third of the Holocaust).
0
sabiwabi
I find strange that the Pope would "boss" his Bishop this way. I wonder what could possibly be influencing the pope. Hmmm, could Bishop Williamson be onto something when he says that the Catholic Church has been perverted.
I couldn't agree more. But real education where students are given ALL the facts, not indoctrination where the students MUST believe believe one version. Some people still believe in the human lampshade and soap stories!
0
kinniku
Actually, it was not totally refuted and more to the point, revisionists seem stuck in the 80's and 90's with absolutely no responses to research done after their claims. You personally are not even able to back up your own claims even in this very thread. So, I hardly think you are a reliable source of information. You still have not provided a true list of people who were top Nazis and were Jewish. The video you relied on was incorrect in that the list you provided in this thread was completely incorrect. Not one of the people listed was Jewish at all...In addition, you claimed you had evidence about a gas chamber in Document L-159, No. 47 of the 79th Congress, but you can't seem to provide a link to such a document...
Lastly, in attempting to claim homicidal gas chambers were air raid shelters, you actually tried to claim Nazis would have been willing to take time out from escaping the allies to destroy simple air raid shelters. It makes absolutely no sense whatsover.
0
gooner
the kinniku vs sabiwabi debate continues, ho hum...can you 2 go find somewhere else for your squabbles and leave this post for the freedom of speech debate?
i voted no
0
sabiwabi
Well actually, they've been stuck in jail. But Germar Rudolf should be liberated this summer. I wonder if he'll continue.
I don't know what revisionists say about this, but I find it perfectly normal to take a minute or two to blow up an air raid shelter to prevent your enemy from using it to defend themselves. Blowing up other things, (e.g., swimming pool, library, theater...) would not have had any strategic benefit, but the air-raid shelter, yes.
0
likeitis
To heck with posting. I want to see this on Celebrity Death Match!
0
YangYong
If Germany herself states --as historical fact-- that the Holocaust occurred, that the Nazi regime ran an extermination program, including camps specifically built and used for death, along with labor camps and in turn has made the denial of these facts a crime... then who are YOU to argue against? Case closed. America banned cross burning and the wearing of KKK masks. Why?
0
Yelnats
Human beings,,,,well should try to act human. But then again, we are animals and power crazy. Ask my wife.
0
kinniku
Again, it does not make sense that they would destory air raid shelters What possible benefit would the air raid shelters have been to the red army at that point? The Nazis were beating a hasty retreat, yet they also took the time to destroy the crematoria before escaping. I don't believe a supposed air raid shelter nor crematoria would have been any benefit to the red army. Even if it were only a minute or two (I would think it would be longer than that) to get the exposives, set them and discharge them, why bother if you have nothing to hide. One would think saving their own hides would be the first priority. What do you think?
0
ptolemy
Only if freedom of thought, intellectual freedom, and academic liberty mean nothing any more. People can believe in the flying spaghetti monster all day, but other people have the right to ask for evidnece. The problem with debates today, many believe without question what teachers, ADL, and others tell them.
There is nothing wrong with a healthy dose of analytical skepticism, and asking for evidence other than "so and so who was a survivor said so". Especially after many of these "survivor and eye witness" accounts have turned out to be bogus.
0
Beelzebub
Right, ptolemy, and the numbers tattooed on their forearms were really just their girlfriends' keitai numbers.
0
TokyoHustla
It already is a crime in civilized nations, and will always be a crime.
0
sabiwabi
Yet we are to believe that during this hasty retreat, Elie Wiesel and his dad were given the choice between heading east with the retreating Germans or wait for the Russians. The two of them had time to talk it over, and they decided to go with the Germans! Yes, the same Germans who were gassing thousands of Jews daily and doing who knows what else to the others. If the Germans were giving the inmates these choices and taking them with them, they certainly had time to blow up a few buildings which they thought could be a strategic benefit to the Russians.
For their own sake, citizens in those countries should have a good look at their governments, and figure out who their leaders are really working for.
0
Nessie
You can't legislate against stupidity or ill will.
0
USARonin
Absolutely not.
What's next? Global warming deniers?
0
kinniku
sabiwabi,
I am sorry. I don't think the conversation should get derailed into a conversation about Elie Wiesel again just yet (especially since you were misleading when using a quote of his earlier in this discussion)...Let's stay with our talk about "air raid shelters" and crematoria, shall we?
What possible "strategic benefit" would supposed "air raid shelters" and what everyone admits were crematoria be to the Russians?
So, I ask you again...
Who are these "people" or this "group" you are talking about?
Jewish and were Zionists. Yet, when asked for proof you declined to be specific for more than three years. During which time, you have suggested that it wasn't the Nazis that wanted to take over the world, that it was the Zionists. In addition, during this same time period, you have also suggested that you would not be surprised to find out that Hitler was a 'nice guy'. Now, you claimed (completely incorrectly, of course) that top Nazis, including Hitler were Jewish. In fact, you provided a complete list of people who were not Jewish at all. You claimed on this thread that IRNA does not refer to 'revisionists' as Holocaust deniers and went so far as to again claim I was 'making stuff up'. However, yet again, you were proven incorrect. You claim you are not referring to Jews when you say certain people control the present (media etc), yet you are often complaining that Jews control western media and governments. Sorry, consistency begins 'at home'.
So, can I please have that list of names and link to Document L-159, No. 47 of the 79th Congress? It would probably be good to make sure it is authentic. This is especially true considering your previous lists and names have been shown to be incorrect.
0
kinniku
Of course, my questions above start with your incorrect claim that top Nazis were Jewish and were Zionists.
0
kinniku
Oh, what the heck! I'll comment a little bit. But I am still waiting for your answers to questions that have been asked to you for more than three years...
Interesting (misleading) interpretation of the forced march west of 6,000 camp inmates...quite like your misleading quote of Elie Wiesel earlier in this discussion. These kinds of inaccuracies certainly are not very convincing for your side of the argument.
0
sabiwabi
Again, you childishly claim I am correct and ask for more questions while never contributing anything to this discussion. The fact is that Wiesel himself states clearly in his book, that he and his father was given the choice to go with the Germans (the same ones who allegedly murdered millions of Jews) or wait for the Russians. Wiesel wrote that they choose to go with the Germans rather than wait for the Russians!!! Also, Wiesel had undergone foot surgery at the camp's hospital, yes the same camp that was allegedly gassing so may Jews, also had a hospital to treat the sick.
I don't know why they destroyed the crematoria. Why do you find that suspicious? Camps are expected to have them.
0
kinniku
sabiwabi,
I am claiming you are 'incorrect'(you were even incorrect here in responding to my post), and you were incorrect about your list of top Nazis you claimed were Jewish. They were not at all Jewish. You were incorrect in your claim that Max Warburg was staying in nice hotels in Germany throughout the war, when he was actually in the US. You were very misleading in your quote of Elie Wiesel earlier in this discussion when you claimed he was racist against Germans when the man was writing about the Nazis from a concentration camp. As to Elie Weisel in the book 'Night', he writes that he was forced on a death march (of which there were many as the Soviets advanced). Why would you be misleading? Why is it you cannot seem to rely on facts, but must distort reality to suit your argument?
What I find suspicious is that neither what you claimed to be 'air raid shelters' nor crematoria would have in any way been of benefit to the advancing Soviets. Thus, there is no reason to destroy them unless the Nazis had something to hide...Do you have evidence of Nazis similarly destroying civilian (outside the camps)air raid shelters or crematoria?
Now, how about answers the questions I have been posing to you for quite some time. It would seem that if you have so much interest in the subject and you are so willing to make claims about the subject, you should be willing to discuss your claims honestly and freely.
Let's look at your incorrect list of top Nazis you claimed were Jewish again, shall we?
None of these people were at all Jewish...neither were they Zionists at all. Why is it you were write such a completely incorrect statement?
Since we have now determined the top Nazis you claimed were Jewish, were not in fact Jewish. Could you give us the names of these people you claim were top Nazis and were Jewish/Zionist?
Also, it would be great if you could address the other questions in my post above.
0
sabiwabi
Quit whining and grow up already. There is no need to constantly make a long list of things I write that you simply state are incorrect. How do you I am incorrect if you don't even bother checking out my sources. I say you're incorrect, so there.
So, even assuming the holocaust story is all correct. Why would the "evil nazis" destroy the crematoria? What is wrong with having crematoria in a camp of that size? What would they be hiding?
Anyway, Wiesel was given a choice to wait for the Russians or go with the Germans. He was in the hospital, recovering from surgery, he had the option, and he chose to go with the Germans.
But they had time to march away with the inmates? Somewhat inconsistent, no?
Moderator: Please do not tell other readers to "grow up." If you can't post in an civil manner, then don't post at all.
0
kinniku
sabiwabi,
I am hardly 'whining'. I am asking you questions about your claims. Why is it you have so much trouble backing up what you claim? I thought you were interested in this discussion. Why wouldn't you want to specifically and clearly explain yourself?
Actually, there is a need. You have not address the questions posed to you about your claims. I am not simply stating you are incorrect. You are incorrect. I have backed up my claims with specific reasons. I then asked you questions for clarifactions. You have not as yet responded to these specific questions...Don't you have any answers to back up what you have been saying?
My response is simply that what you wrote was incorrect. The list of top Nazis you claimed were Jewish, were not Jewish at all. It would follow that your sources were also incorrect. I am sorry, I will not waste my time on a 147 minute video that based on what you have written is full of incorrect information.
In response, I again ask you, What I find suspicious is that neither what you claimed to be 'air raid shelters' nor crematoria would have in any way been of benefit to the advancing Soviets. Thus, there is no reason to destroy them unless the Nazis had something to hide...Do you have evidence of Nazis similarly destroying civilian (outside the camps)air raid shelters or crematoria?
See, the thing is, Elie Weisel in the book 'Night' writes that he was forced on a death march (of which there were many as the Soviets advanced). Why would you be misleading? Why is it you cannot seem to rely on facts, but must distort reality to suit your argument?
Not particularly, if forcing them to march away would help cover up something. Just as destroying homicidal gas chambers and crematoria would also have helped cover up something. You see, these would be of benefit to the fleeing Nazis. Supposed 'air raid shelters' and crematoria would not have been of any benefit to the Soviets as you suggest.
So, are you ready to answers the above questions? I hope so.
0
sabiwabi
What could blowing up crematoria possibly cover up?
0
kinniku
The burning of an unusual amount of dead people leading to unwanted questions about how they died.
Your turn...
What possible "strategic benefit" would supposed "air raid shelters" and, what everyone admits were crematoria, be to the Russians? Do you have evidence of Nazis similarly destroying civilian (outside the camps)air raid shelters or crematoria?
You also have a long list of questions above that I would like you to answer if you could...
0
sabiwabi
I am not an expert in military strategy, but I suspect the shelters could potentially benefit the Russians in the same way they benefited the Germans, the reason for which they were built. The war was still on, wasn't it?
But the important question is what evidence do you have that they were gas chambers?
No. Do you have evidence of Nazis NOT destroying civilian (outside the camps)air raid shelters or crematoria?
Also, what is the evidence that it was the nazis who destroyed those facilities in the camps? Could they have been destroyed after the nazis left.
I find strange that you do not see the inconsistency in your reasoning. While you state that they couldn't afford the few minutes to blow up a few small buildings and that "saving their own hides would be the first priority", they decided to march the inmates with them. Imagine how much that slowed down their retreat. What do you think?
Anyway, Wiesel clearly states in his book that he was given a choice to wait for the Russians or go with the Germans. He was in the hospital, recovering from surgery (he was not gassed when he could not work), he had the option, and after discussing it with his father, he chose to go with the Germans. This is clearly written in his book. If you are so confident he says differently, I suspect he changed it in later editions. Maybe someone pointed out to him how it did not fit with the holocaust story.
As for Jim Condit's video, The Final Solution to Adolf Hitler, indeed it is a long video, but its not like you have to view the entire video and wait for the final punchline. Except for the first minute, its basically Condit showing various sources (e.g., books) and describing what they say about who the Nazis were. If you don't want to watch it, suit yourself.
How are you so sure that the top nazis have no Jewish ancestry? Specifics please!
0
kinniku
sabiwabi,
First, what you really need to understand clearly is when you are attempt to 'revise' what is known as fact, you have to back up these revisions. You cannot claim revisions and then ask everyone else to show you why your revisions are wrong. For example, the modern world believes the earth revolves around the sun. If a 'revisionist' comes along and tells us we have been fed a 'lie' and that the fact is that the sun revolves around the earth. It is up to the revisionist to prove their case.
Now on to some of your points:
You are neglecting the fact that both homicidal gas chambers (which you are claiming were 'air raid shelters') and crematoria were destroyed by the Nazis. There seems to be no evidence of the Nazis destroying civilian air raid shelters or crematoria. So, your theory that they were destroying things that might have been of benefit to the Russians makes little sense, especially with regard the crematoria.
Sorry, it does not work that way. You cannot ask others to explain your case for your. This is particularly true when I don't believe your claims are correct. It is you claiming the Nazis destroyed the gas chambers and crematoria because they would have been of benefit to the Russians. If that were true, they would have destroyed civilian air raid shelters and crematoria. It is you that needs to prove this is true, not I...Remember, you made the claim.
No inconsistency at all. The Nazis wanted to force march as many witnesses as they could. They wanted to hide what they had been doing. When it came to saving their own necks, taking more time to round up witnesses makes perfect sense. Destroying supposed 'air raid shelters' and crematoria does not makes sense if the only reason you claim is that you think it would have been of benefit to the Russians at that point in the war. I don't think it would have. Do you have any specific proof that the Nazis thought air raid shelters and crematoria would have been of benefit to the Russians?
However, speaking of complete inconsistencies, above you put "evil nazis" in quotations, which I assume means you don't think they were so evil. )If you don't think this, why did you put "evil nazis" in quotation marks?) If you don't seem to to think they were evil, why have you been claiming they were Jewish/Zionists? You have suggested that it wasn't the Nazis that wanted to take over the world, that it was the Zionists. In addition, during this same time period, you have also suggested that you would not be surprised to find out that Hitler was a 'nice guy'. Now, you claimed (completely incorrectly, of course) that top Nazis, including Hitler were Jewish. In fact, you provided a complete list of people who were not Jewish at all. Which is it? Were the Nazis bad or good in your eyes?
Let's be clear. He was put on a forced death march in which many inmates died or were killed. What edition of the book 'Night' are you referring to? What page is the quote you are claiming is there on? Your 'suspicions' aside, I prefer to deal in specific facts and not just your claims.
Speaking of which, you still haven't given me a link to Document L-159, No. 47 of the 79th Congress. You claim to have been quoting from it. So, could I please have the link?
No, it does not work that way. You made the claims that top Nazis were Jewish. They were not. You cannot just type any names you want and expect people to take you seriously. You have to be able to back up what you write. Can you? It seems you cannot. You should not expect me to back up your claims for you. One would think after making such claims for more than three years you would have something clear and specific to back it up with. It seems not. Hardly surprising though since you were incorrect in your claim that Max Warburg was staying in nice hotels in Germany throughout the war, when he was actually in the US.
So, it seems you have made a lot of claims but you can't actually back any of them up with specifics.
0
sabiwabi
These are not my revisions. The revisionists have backed up their claims, but I will not copy everything on this forum just for your happiness. If you choose to ignore them suit yourself. What you call "facts" is essentially based on eye-witness testimony (not much else), much of which can be quickly understood to be impossible if you look at serious revisionist information (www.codoh.com www.vho.org).
I believed in the holocaust story until a few years ago, when I looked at these sites, and others (including the exterminist ones). I used to think Zundel was a nut when he was in the news decades ago, but I don't think that anymore.
Sorry, indeed, but you are the one who brought up that they did not destroy the civilian ones. In fact, this was in Poland, right? Did the nazis build civilian air raid shelters for Polish civilians? Don't expect me to spend my time answering your questions, I don't work for you. If air raid shelters are not of any use during a war, why have them? They were built for a specific purpose and they could be used by the Russians for the same purpose; just give it some thought and you'll eventually get it.
Anyway, I see that you are still trying to distract from the real question, what evidence is there that these were gas chambers?
I did not just type names. I told you exactly where to go for the evidence. I certainly will not transcribe the entire video (Jim Condit's The Final Solution to Adolf Hitler) on this forum just to make you happy.
Seems those who believe the holocaust story are those who simply refuse to look at revisionist information.
0
kinniku
sabiwabi,
Sorry, I see your name on the post with these claims. They are your claims and you are the one making them. It is merely that you cannot seem to back them up.
They have not backed up one thing and, more to the point, neither have you. In fact, whenever you have graced this and other discussions with something you suggest backs up your claims, it is just another incorrect supposition on your part.
You might find it interesting to note that David Cole stated specifically on the Donahue Show (you can see it on youtube) that he thought Zundel was a "neo-Nazi". I am inclined to agree with this sentiment.
I asked you a question. It was a simple question. I merely asked you if it was common practice for the Nazis to blow up and destroy civilian air raid shelters and crematoria so that the would not be of benefit to the Russians. You claimed it made sense for the Nazis to destroy homicidal gas chambers, which you claimed were "air raid shelters" and the crematoria because they would be of benefit to the Russians. I responded that it only made sense if the Nazis were trying to hide something as the, what you refer to as, "air raid shelters" and crematoria would have been of no possible benefit to the Russians. So, do you know if it was common practice for the Nazis to blow up and destroy civilian air raid shelters and crematoria so that the would not be of benefit to the Russians? It seems you do not. This weakens your already considerably weak case even further.
Again, it seems you cannot back up your claims. If you could, you were be able to answer simple questions about your claims that you have been making for over three years, simply, clearly and specifically.
I never suggested air raid shelters were not of any use during a war. I was explaining that at that point in the war, they would have been of little or no use. Had the Nazis thought they were of such importance, they would have destroyed all of the civilain air raid shelters and crematoria (I notice you keep ignoring that both of these were destroyed in the camps). Again, do you have some sort of specific proof that this is the case. Do you have some specific proof that destroying air raid shelters and crematoria was a part of a specific plan so that they would not be of benefit to the Russians? If you do not, your theories become even weaker.
They were built for a specific purpose and they could be used by the Russians for the same purpose; just give it some thought and you'll eventually get it.
Well, again, I have given it some thought and what I "get" is that you seem to not be able to say that the Nazis also destroyed civilian air raid shelters and crematoria. So, your theories seem quite weak.
As I stated, you are the one attempting to "revise" historical facts to suit your theories. It is up to you to back up what you say. It seems that you cannot.
Unless you can back up with specific and clear evidence to back up the names you typed, all you have done is typed a bunch of incorrect information. The fact that you still cannot manage to simply answer the question posed to you leaves the exact impression that you just typed names with no basis in reality. In fact, none of the people are Jewish at all.
No, you asked me to watch a 147 minute video by a nut who thinks the Catholic church has been invaded by what he calls "Crypto_Jews". I simply ask you to back up your incorrect list of top Nazis you incorrectly claimed were Jewish. There should be no need for someone who, for more than three years, has been making the claim that top Nazis were Jewish to rely on a video. One would think you would actually know what is on the video and be able to simply explain and back up your list. Since you cannot, one can only believe your list is incorrect.
It is not a matter of believing what you refer to as the "Holocaust story"> It is simply a matter of not believing your incorrect claims. I find it very telling that after all these years of making incorrect claims, when the moderators have graciously given you an opportunities to answer specific questions (that others in this discussion also expressed interest in seeing you attempt to finally answer) that you demur and decline to be specific. It seems you really have not thought things through nearly as much as you would have others believe. In fact, as time goes on, it really does seem like you have not even read up on the subjects about which you make your incorrect claims
Speaking of complete inconsistencies, above you put "evil nazis" in quotations, which I assume means you don't think they were so evil. )If you don't think this, why did you put "evil nazis" in quotation marks?) If you don't seem to to think they were evil, why have you been claiming they were Jewish/Zionists? You have suggested that it wasn't the Nazis that wanted to take over the world, that it was the Zionists. In addition, during this same time period, you have also suggested that you would not be surprised to find out that Hitler was a 'nice guy'. Now, you claimed (completely incorrectly, of course) that top Nazis, including Hitler were Jewish. In fact, you provided a complete list of people who were not Jewish at all. Which is it? Were the Nazis bad or good in your eyes?
0
kinniku
Sorry, the one of the quotes above should have looked like this:
Well, again, I have given it some thought and what I "get" is that you seem to not be able to say that the Nazis also destroyed civilian air raid shelters and crematoria. So, your theories seem quite weak.
0
sabiwabi
I guess the take home message is that despite all the posts in this and other holocaust-related threads, nobody has yet provided any evidence proving the mass murder of Jews by gassing. How can anyone seriously consider making doubting the holocaust story illegal. (I know doesn't doesn't)
0
smartacus
sabiwabi
You were soundly defeated on the first day of this thread by myself and several other readers. You just don't know when you are licked. Sensible readers have long given up on you. The world says 2 plus 2 equals 4, you say it equals 5. Weird.
And please, no retort rehashing your lame arguments.
0
kinniku
smartacus,
Exactly. The actual take home message is that it would continue to seem as though sabiwabi cannot back up even one of his claims on these and the many other threads on which he has posted his incorrect claims.
0
sabiwabi
kinnitacus,
Have you provided any proof? A few have alluded to mountains of evidence, yet none was provided.
0
kinniku
sabiwabi,
Who are you talking to? There aren't any posters by the name of 'kinnitacus'. Much evidence has been provided actually. It seems that in addition to difficulties in reading poster's names and typing them correctly, you have trouble reading posts and digesting their content. This is simply demonstrated by your seemingly lack of ability to specifically, simply and clearly answer questions about your incorrect claims.
-1
Rafa Falati
I've heard that Japan's media often denies the Holocaust...geez, wasn't the Nanjing Massacre and the other Asian atrocities enough for you guys?
Back to top