Vatican: Bishop's apology on Holocaust not enough
The requested article has expired, and is no longer available. Any related articles, and user comments are shown below.
JAPAN NEWS AND DISCUSSION
-
U.N. Security Council blames Syrian gov't for Houla killings
( 4 )
-
U.S. drones kill 5 militants in Pakistan
( 9 )
-
NATO has fight on its hands in Afghanistan - Panetta
( 6 )
-
Iran may rethink 20% enrichment: spokesman
( 0 )
-
Egypt's uprising activists weigh Brotherhood vote
( 0 )
-
- 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
-
- ALT - Mie Prefecture - Yokkaichi City - June start
- NPO法人グローバル教育推進機構（GLAD), Mie
- Salary: ¥230,000 / Month For a full working month. Some months differ.
-
- Business Teaching Positions - Part-time - Kanto Region
- Interac, Tokyo
- Salary: ¥3,000 ~ ¥5,000 / Hour
Order by Time Order by Popularity
37 Comments
Login to comment
0
sabiwabi
Its high time for Catholics to reflect seriously about the teachings of Jesus Christ and ignore the jokers in the vatican.
Who cares!
I doubt very much the last part is true. Who wrote this article?
0
kinniku
sabiwabi,
To which teachings of Jesus Christ would you be referring?
Ignoring the Bishop's comments about the Holocaust for a moment, how do you feel about his other reported comments? They do neither seem like the words a religious leader would use nor are they words that one would think Jesus Christ would use.
For one, the Jewish groups seem to care...just as Muslim groups did when they felt affronted by the Vatican.
Archbishop Marcel Lefebvre did oppose the liberalizing reforms of the Second Vatican Council. Are you disagreeing about the outreach comment or the whole comment?
0
sabiwabi
I found nothing wrong with what he said in the two videos I have seen of him. From his written statements, I checked out a few and did not find anything much different from what Jesus himself would have said.
Are you familiar with the New Testament?
I wrote: "I doubt very much the last part is true." In other words, I was referring to "particularly its outreach to Jews" or more specifically to "particularly".
0
kinniku
Yes, however you did not answer my question.
To which teachings of Jesus Christ would you be referring?
That is what I thought you meant. I was just checking.
0
bebert
It is never enough.
0
kinniku
bebert,
People have a right to react honestly to other people and their statements. I assume you see nothing wrong with the Bishop's behaviour and/or statements. Why is this? Do you truly think his deeds and words are that of a true disciple of Jesus? The Vatican does not and neither do many other people.
0
sabiwabi
kinniku,
I already mentioned that Christianity places much importance on truth. Another thing that pops up several times is "Don't be a hypocrite". This and other tings give me the feeling Bishop Williamson is more of a Christian than the current pope.
I would recommend you review the New Testament. I found downloading segments on mp3 files and listening to it during my commute to work quite effective.
0
kinniku
sabiwabi,
Actually, I think I have quite a good grasp of the New Testament. Jesus's teaching have very important lessons that, if taken seriously and truthful, could be very healing for the Bishop. However, I completely differ with your opinion and think the Bishop seems to have forsaken the teachings of Jesus. Please let me explain clearly and specifically. When Jesus was asked what the greatest commandment, according to the gospel of Mark, stated that these two were the greatest:
One should love "Yahweh" with one's entire heart, soul, mind, and strength and One should love one's neighbour as one would love oneself
I know you have heard of these teachings. I would assume Williamson has as well. Well, his words of anger and nastiness toward those he disagrees are in direct conflict with loving your neighbour as one would love oneself. In fact, his comments strike me as very self-centered and self-involved. When Jesus' followers were angered that members of a village did not want to follow Jesus' teaching, Jesus instructed his followers that they were not to punish or chastise those that chose not to follow him. Williamson is the one who needs your mp3's for it seems he has truly lost his way.
0
sabiwabi
OK, so lets take this lesson from Jesus seriously and truthfully.
If I were wrongfully accused of committing a terrible crime (e.g., gassing millions of Jews), I would definitely speak out. So a good Christian would be expected to speak out if his “neighbor” was wrongfully accused. Similarly, if my relatives died during WWII, I would want to know how and why. Were they exterminated in gas chambers as part of an extermination program or from disease due to the poor conditions at the end of the war?
Christians who believe that there were no homicidal gas chambers and no extermination program should speak out and put an end to this lie. The pope is telling Bishop Williamson to ignore the lie and go along with it!
You see, its all a question of truth. It is the duty of all good Christians to seek the truth by seriously looking at both sides of the argument, and then act accordingly.
0
kinniku
sabiwabi,
Your lesson has nothing to do with Jesus's teachings of loving your neighbour (all neighbours, not just the ones your agree with). You merely discuss accusing your neighbour. You neglect to realize that Williamson language about people of other faiths does not follow Jesus' teachings. Since you and no one else has proven any 'lie', it is inappropriate to already call people liars. This goes against both the teachings of love and of truthfullness. Based on his teachings, Jesus would not approve of this type of language nor this type of behaviour. Maybe it is because you agree with the nasty language Williamson has used that you do not see it as bad language. However, he is not showing love toward his neighbors. As Jesus said, you must love your neighbour as you would love yourself. He did not say your neighbor must agree with everything you say in order to be loved.
For your part, you have not shown one provable purposeful lie (that is what a 'lie' is by the way). Neither has Williamson...
Maybe he really does need those mp3's. Bad eyes, perhaps?
0
kinniku
sabiwabi,
Again, you may agree with Williamson, but his words are against the teachings of Jesus...
Willaimson called "Jewry" the "enemies of Christ" and urges their conversion to Catholicism.
This goes specifically against Jesus' instructions to his followers that they were not to punish or chastise those that chose not to follow him.
In fact, Willliamson seems to conveniently forget (or not want to know) that Jesus died a Jew, his last supper being the traditional Jewish feast of 'Passover'.
Anyway, this is not what is meant by 'loving your neighbour' and if Williamson would like to be a true disciple of Jesus, he should first better learn exactly what Jesus taught and then actually put the words into practice as a loving member of the world.
0
sabiwabi
Oh, but its OK to wrongfully accuse the Germans for something so terrible? And it is a wrongful, baseless accusation. The Nuremberg trails were a farce as well as everything else that followed.
Loving your neighbour is not simply giving everyone a hug, it is also helping those who suffer injustice.
0
kinniku
sabiwabi,
One, your comments do not at all speak to Williamson's words or actions. That is who we are talking about now. He acted inappropriately. As I correctly pointed out, he did not follow Jesus' example and teachings. He cannot consider himself a disciple of Jesus if he is not willing to follow the teachings of Jesus. Neither you nor Williamson ca make up your own rules about this. Jesus' teachings are there for us all to see. Williamson is denying the basic and greatest commandment by chastising what he refers to as 'Jewry'.
Two, we (certainly you have not) have not specifically and clearly proven that 'the Germans' (the word you are looking for is 'the Nazis', by the way) were wrongly accused. In addition, you certainly have not proven any specific, purposeful lie.
Well, our conversations have shown you cannot back this up...at all...
Again, I do not believe your name is Jesus. Please do not begin to attempt to revise what Jesus has taught us. You are not qualified to do such a thing. The words are there and Williamson has gone against them.
What is this provable, purposeful 'lie' you go on about?
By the way, the Nazis were certainly not an 'innocent' party in the racist ways that they went about running their country. I am not sure that defending such actions is what Jesus had in mind when he suggested loving your neighbour. Forgiving bad behaviour is one thing, however defending it in the way you seem to be is not following the teachings of Jesus either. If you were so concerned with injustice suffered in WWII, it would seem you would think more of the victims locked up in camps for no reason other than they were not Nazis (and in many cases specifically because they were Jews). Odd that you only mention this when you want to incorrectly claim that Nazis were Jewish/Zionist...Sorry, Jesus does not teach us to speak and act this way at all...
0
sabiwabi
I don't care too much for the alleged quotes provided by Abe Foxman. I am referring to Bishop Williamson’s interview that started this chatter, where he clearly stated that according to serious revisionists there were no homicidal gas chambers.
When one becomes aware of such an injustice (made against both sides), one should speak out. This is particularly the case for Christians, who value truth and as you pointed out loving their neighbour. Just because you were able to find (Google?) something that could be used (misused) to support you views does not make you an expert in Christianity.
Remaining quiet about the holocaust would have made him a hypocrite and only prove that he does not care for his “neighbours”.
WTF are you talking about? When has Bishop Williamson (or I) ever shown support of Nazi policies? He is simply saying that 6 million were not murdered and that none were killed in gas chambers. For you to make the association between this and supporting Nazi policies just puts you on the same level as people like Abe Foxman.
So you are basically saying that we must go along with all the lies of the holocaust for the sake of the victims of this injustice. That is such a warped view! We would do everyone (except for those who are exploiting the holocaust) a favor if we got the truth out into the public. Its people like you who are trying to stifle the truth.
0
kinniku
sabiwabi,
Let's get right down to it...what is this specific, provable and purposeful lie you have been going on about?
0
sabiwabi
Where in the world (or elsewhere) have you been all this time? For one, which is a major part of Bishop Williamson's statement and which I have mentioned countless times, Jews were not killed in gas chambers. There is no proof of homicidal gas chambers. Those rooms that are claimed to have been homicidal gas chambers have been completely refuted by revisionists, including the one you linked to a few years ago.
This is one reason I don't enjoy discussing with you, I have to keep on repeating the same things over and over again.
0
kinniku
sabiwabi,
You seem to not understand the very language you use... a lie is a purposeful and specific effort to tell a falsehood. Please show me EXACTLY where you can prove a person has LIED. You are discussing differences of opinion in the above post. However, what you are constantly claiming is that people are KNOWINGLY lying. Yet, you never seem to be able to show this. Just because you disagree with the vast majority of people in the world (Christian or otherwise) that does not mean we are 'lying'. So, again, I ask: what is this specific, provable and purposeful lie you have been going on about? Specifically, who purposefully lied? When? Where? How did they react when their 'lie' was revealed?
You suggested (quite honestly and frankly) that you were not sure if the Nazis were good or bad (hint: they were bad and Jesus would not have approved of their actions at all) and went on to suggest it was possible they were 'patriots' trying to protect Germany. That is clearly suggesting you supported their actions...
However, those 'revisonists' (commonly referred to as Holocaust deniers by the Iranian Islamic Republic News Agency)have been completely and specifically refuted by the rest of the historical and scienctific community, not to mention average everyday normal people...Revisionists have been unable to prove any of their claims. Interestingly, neither have you...
0
kinniku
Just to add:
This statement singling out Christians as somehow being superior in being truthful to other religions also goes against Jesus' teachings. You certainly have spunk to declare that being truthful is somehow more valued by Christians than other religions. People of every faith (not including cults, which are a different story obviously) I have every met value truthfulness and being kind to other people. However, you and Williamson do have that in common. He has also written about the superiority of his faith and looked down on the faiths of others. Jesus would not approve. You do not have to be an 'expert' in Christianity to see this. Merely being a caring person is enough...
0
sabiwabi
What are you talking about, I never said they are superior. All I know is that in Christianity, which is the religion I am most familiar with, puts great importance on truth. I am not saying Christians are the most truthful, but I suspect other groups (e.g., atheists) on average may not be as truthful as a typical committed Christian. Are you saying all other religions or nonreligious people place an equal value on truth? I know I have heard Bishop Williamson himself mention "truth" many times.
Are you suggesting that the homicidal gassing story might have arisen by an honest mistake? I agree that many people today honestly believe in the homicidal gas chambers. Amazingly many also continue to believe in the human lamp shade and soap story! Those who do honestly believe in it are simply wrong. Those who are liars are those who don't believe in the holocaust story but use deception, lies, bullying, and laws to silence revisionists and stifle debate. Honest debate is the last thing they want.
They most certainly have not! Also, has IRNA used that term in other articles, or just in that one?
0
kinniku
sabiwabi,
You did say that very thing. You wrote that:
This statement is specifically singling out Christians as somehow being superior in being truthful to other religions also goes against Jesus' teachings. You used the word "particularly". Other religions and even atheists value truth. Who are you to say otherwise? Jesus teaches us not to chastise people who do not believe the same as we do. Here you are suggesting particularly the people of your faith (as compared to others) value truth. I do not think you have the right to make such a judgement, neither would Jesus...
Basically...yes. I would say so. I would never suggest one religion places more value on the truth than another. This is religious discrimination and I am not interested in such things...
No, I am suggesting there is no "lie". You certainly has not shown any specific, provable and intentional lie.
Again, I ask...who are these "liars"? What lies have they told? You are wonderful at vague accusations, but not very convincing when it comes to actual facts...
We have had an honest debate for more than two years now and you have not shown one specific, provable and intentional lie. Still waiting...
Yes, they have. You have just not read the research. In fact, the "revisionists" have never even responded to the newest research in the mainstream historical and scientific community. They have no response, because they are wrong.
Yup. Every time there is a story about such people that is the term they use. I thought you were interested in Iran. Don't you read IRNA? What Middle Eastern media do you look at?
0
sabiwabi
How so?
Actually, we have had a debate for more than two years now and you have not shown one specific, provable evidence to support the homicidal gas chambers or the systematic murder of millions of Jews. You tried a few years ago, and that failed miserably.
The only time there ever was a real debate between real holocaust revisionists and holocaust historians was at Zundel's first trial in Canada. Yes, I know, Zundel lost the trial, but some important truths got out. At that point, the exterminist side said "never again", and we have never had a real debate since. There was another chance in Iran, but most of the exterminists refused to attend and many revisionists were either in jail or refused visas by Germany.
Such as? I have trouble believing there is a real scientific study (e.g., peer reviewed paper) proving the gassing story. I hope its not simply another story with little detail from some obscure newspaper, such as the soap story we discussed years ago.
Also, its a bit difficult to respond when you're in jail.
And how can it be research when the outcome is already decided. Don't forget, any evidence that contradicts the holocaust storyline is ILLEGAL.
0
kinniku
This question is an excellent example of how you seem to think your religion is superior to other religions. It seems you cannot imagine anyone who does not follow the same religion as you do being able to value truth. Again, Jesus would not approve and that is not what he taught us to believe.
Not true. I have successfully shown both proof of the desire on the part of the Nazis and the methods and I have even shown proof for the decline in population. In fact, you helped me in the other thread when you admitted you knew about the letter asking for permission to start using the Dachau homicidal gas chamber on inmates. You claimed there was no homicidal gas chamber there and yet you knew about the letter...Are you also familiar with other documents specifically regarding how Jews were to be 'dealt with'? You don't seem to have time to fact check at all.
Anyway, I will not get into details again until you tell who are these "liars" you are always going on about. What lies have they told? You are wonderful at vague accusations, but not very convincing when it comes to actual facts...We have had an honest debate for more than two years now and you have not shown one specific, provable and intentional lie. The onus is on you for you are claiming there are lies. I say there are not. What specific, purposeful and provable lies are you referring to? It should be so easy for you as you have been claiming the lies exist for more than four years. Could it be you actually don't think there are any lies. It sure looks that way!
Nope. After Zundle completely lost his trials, Irving then lost his too...completely...
Nope. You are the 'expert'. Please attempt to do your own research on the subject you often claim you know about. That you don't know this research exists tells much about the fact you are not really interested in the truth. You are merely trying to sell your version of events, over and over...
Again, that lack of an attempt at research on your part...they went to jail quite a while after the material I am talking about was available to them. They merely ignored it, as do you it seems.
So, what are these lies you go on and on about? How many years will it take before you will be able to honestly and frankly discuss them? Are you so afraid you will be proven wrong that you prefer to hint vaguely when you could just tell what you think these specific, purposeful and provable lies are? Yes, it seems so...
0
sabiwabi
How does that make it "nope"? Irving is not a holocaust revisionist. The fact remains that the first and last time there ever was a real debate between real holocaust revisionists and holocaust historians was at Zundel's first trial in Canada in the 1980's.
No you didn't. Making stuff up again, I see.
No, all you did was mention some Almanac. Amazing how little seems to be required for you to consider your points as proof!
You were certain that this guy was not executed for his experiments, but you never explained why he was executed. Interesting, no?
Well I do know about Hitler clearly stating at some point during the war that he wanted the Jewish question to be completed AFTER THE WAR!!!! (i.e., it was not an extermination, most likely moving them to Palestine).
Indeed, I am the expert, and I know there are no peer-reviewed scientific reports proving the gassing story. I see you're making stuff up again (or "just guessing"?).
0
kinniku
sabiwabi,
You are right. He is what is known (and the Iranian Islamic Republic News Agency refers to) as a holocaust denier. As are people such as Zundel (who even other 'revisionists' refer to as a neo-Nazi)...He lost his trial so badly it was amazing how little evidence either Zundel or Irving were able to bring to their trials. Not to mention the absolutely horrible witnesses. It was a laughing stock for the 'revisionist' community. What is so funny is you think these two losing their trials is actually something to bring up to prove how 'right' you are! Do you happen to have any other people who have been disproven to use as evidence? Let's keep the laughs coming!
The fact remains you are incorrect. There was a real debate in the Irving trial as well and he lost completely. He and his team were so sure that Rudolf's report would further sink there chances of winning that they withdrew it upon seeing Green's report in response to it. This was again proof that 'revisionists' (or holocause deniers as the Iranian Islamic Republic News Agency refers to them) could not compete in a real debate on the subject. They just did not have the evidence and proof needed.
Nope. "Making stuff up" would be like when you claimed Ari Fleischer was an ordained rabbi (LOL!)or Aljazeera was owned by Fox News (LOL!) or that Max Warburg was staying in nice hotels in Germany throughout WWII when he was actually in the US from 1938 (LOL!). In fact, you have raised 'making stuff up' to being an art form! I have successfully shown both proof of the desire on the part of the Nazis and the methods and I have even shown proof for the decline in population. In fact, you helped me in the other thread when you admitted you knew about the letter asking for permission to start using the Dachau homicidal gas chamber on inmates. You claimed there was no homicidal gas chamber there and yet you knew about the letter...Are you also familiar with other documents specifically regarding how Jews were to be 'dealt with'? Nah...probably not. You don't really like real facts to get in the way of your arguments after all.
LOL! 'Some almanac! Good memory there, huh? Actually the 'some almanac' is the very same one both sides use. You see it is an actual factual piece of evidence that is recognized as such. What is your proof? It seems it is merely whatever comes to mind at any given moment...
Ummm...maybe you better get caught up on phonics because you asked and I already answered that question. So, no, it is not particularly 'interesting'. What is interesting is that you cannot seem to keep up with our debate enough to read the answers I give to your questions. Please search our previous conversations and then get back to me if you have additional questions. The fact remains you knew about the letter asking for permission to use the homicidal gas chamber (quite a long time before he was executed mind you) and you still claimed their was no evidence that homicidal gas chambers existed. It does seem like you enjoy 'making stuff up', doesn't it...
One: Quote, please...your record of accuracy requires me to ask you for a link to such a quote of Hitler's. Two: So, basically Hitler wanted to get rid of the Jews by the end of the war. Thanks for that. It confirms what most of the world has already known. I appreciate your confirmation.
LOL! Speaking of making stuff up again!
All of the reports submitted by mainstream historians and scientists are peer-reviewed. Welcome to reality! Nice to see you. Reports by Holocaust deniers (as the Iranian Islamic Republic News Agency refers to them) have also been peer-reviewed and their material, unsurprisingly, have been found extremely lacking. This is the reason 'revisionists' are considered jokes amongst their peers...
Now, So, what are these lies you go on and on about? How many years will it take before you will be able to honestly and frankly discuss them? Are you so afraid you will be proven wrong that you prefer to hint vaguely when you could just tell what you think these specific, purposeful and provable lies are? Yes, it seems so...
Who are these "liars" you are always going on about? What lies have they told? You are wonderful at vague accusations, but not at all convincing when it comes to actual facts...For more than two years now, you have not shown one specific, provable and intentional lie. The onus is on you for you are claiming there are lies. I say there are not. What specific, purposeful and provable lies are you referring to? It should be so easy for you as you have been claiming the lies exist for more than four years. Could it be you actually don't think there are any lies. It sure looks that way! In fact, since you still haven't answered the question, it really must be that way!
0
sabiwabi
You mean a report prepared by a scientist that has been reviewed by his/her peers, i.e., other scientists. Me think not!
Irving did bring it up at Zundel's trial. I am sure you can find it.
I see you continue to pretend not to understand very simple words in order to prove your point. I even wrote in capital letters "AFTER THE WAR" and you interpret this as "by the end of the war"; very smooth...
No you are incorrect. Irving is not a holocaust revisionist, according to Irving himself and according to revisionists.
The fact remains that the first and last time there ever was a real debate between real holocaust revisionists and holocaust historians was at Zundel's first trial in Canada in the 1980's.
0
kinniku
sabiwabi,
As I mentioned earlier, All of the reports submitted by mainstream historians and scientists are peer-reviewed. Welcome to reality! Nice to see you! Reports by Holocaust deniers (as the Iranian Islamic Republic News Agency refers to them) have also been peer-reviewed and their material, unsurprisingly, have been found extremely lacking. This is the reason 'revisionists' are considered jokes amongst their peers...
Again, quote, please...in addition, a link to the Zundel trial transcripts,please...
Sorry, yes, I see. Thank you for confirmation that Hitler wanted to continue killing Jes after the war as well. I appreciate your confirmation. In addition, with the wording you used, my interpretation is also perfectly logical...
I know. As I mentioned earlier, he is what is known (and the Iranian Islamic Republic News Agency refers to) as a holocaust denier (in fact, Irving's trial certified precisely the fact that he was a holocaust denier). As are people such as Zundel (who even other 'revisionists' refer to as a neo-Nazi)...Both of them lost their trials so badly it was amazing how little evidence either Zundel or Irving were able to bring to their trials. Not to mention the absolutely horrible witnesses. It was a laughing stock for the 'revisionist' community. What is so funny is you think these two losing their trials is actually something to bring up to prove how 'right' you are! Also funny is that in this thread and on February 24th, you use Irving and his words as supposed evidence for your extremely weak arguments. So, it seems you are admitting you use people as evidence that you don't even think are qualified. No surprise! (LOL!)Do you happen to have any other people who have been disproven to use as evidence? Let's keep the laughs coming!
Now, So, what are these lies you go on and on about? How many years will it take before you will be able to honestly and frankly discuss them? Are you so afraid you will be proven wrong that you prefer to hint vaguely when you could just tell what you think these specific, purposeful and provable lies are? Yes, it seems so...
Who are these "liars" you are always going on about? What lies have they told? You are wonderful at vague accusations, but not at all convincing when it comes to actual facts...For more than two years now, you have not shown one specific, provable and intentional lie. The onus is on you for you are claiming there are lies. I say there are not. What specific, purposeful and provable lies are you referring to? It should be so easy for you as you have been claiming the lies exist for more than four years. Could it be you actually don't think there are any lies. It sure looks that way! In fact, since you still haven't answered the question, it really must be that way! In fact, with the very fact that you have not been able to respond with even one specific, provable and intentional lie shows anyone that you actually do not believe such lies exists.
0
sabiwabi
And you actually think that an extermination program with gas chambers could have continued after the war? My, you are getting desperate. If you really had a leg to stand on, you would not need to resort to this.
There are NO peer-reviewed scientific papers proving the gassing story. If there was, you would certainly point me to it.
0
kinniku
Ummm...according to your as of now yet undocumented quote, Hitler thought this...Why? If Nazi Germany had won (thankfully they did not) what would have stopped them from continuing the program? The answer: nothing. Again, thanks for the confirmation.
As I mentioned earlier, all (that means all, by the way, which is the opposite of 'none')of the reports submitted by mainstream historians and scientists are peer-reviewed. Welcome to reality! Nice to see you! Reports by Holocaust deniers (as the Iranian Islamic Republic News Agency refers to them) have also been peer-reviewed and their material, unsurprisingly, have been found extremely lacking. This is the reason 'revisionists' are considered jokes amongst their peers...
Now, so I ask again, what are these lies you go on and on about? How many years will it take before you will be able to honestly and frankly discuss them? Are you so afraid you will be proven wrong that you prefer to hint vaguely when you could just tell what you think these specific, purposeful and provable lies are? Yes, it seems so...
Who are these "liars" you are always going on about? What lies have they told? You are wonderful at vague accusations, but not at all convincing when it comes to actual facts...For more than two years now, you have not shown one specific, provable and intentional lie. The onus is on you for you are claiming there are lies. I say there are not. What specific, purposeful and provable lies are you referring to? It should be so easy for you as you have been claiming the lies exist for more than four years. Could it be you actually don't think there are any lies. It sure looks that way! In fact, since you still haven't answered the question, it really must be that way! In fact, with the very fact that you have not been able to respond with even one specific, provable and intentional lie shows anyone that you actually do not believe such lies exists.
In fact, it seems that you really do not believe what you have been writing all this time as you cannot back any of it up specifically and clearly...
0
sabiwabi
It is a genuine document, which is in the German government archives today of the war-time Ministry of Justice, in which Franz Schlegelberger (Head of the German Justice Ministry) wrote a memo about a conversation with the Head of the German civil-service, saying ""Mr Reich Minister Lammers informed me that **the Führer had repeatedly declared to him that he wants to hear that the Solution of the Jewish Problem has been postponed until after the war is over. That being so, the current discussions are of purely theoretical value, in Mr Reich Minister Lammers' opinion. He will moreover take pains to ensure that, whatever else happens, no fundamental decisions are taken without his knowledge in consequence of a surprise briefing by any third party**"
There is no way this can be reconciled with the alleged extermination plan.
You can see the document here:
http://www.fpp.co.uk/Himmler/Schlegelberger/DocItself0342.html
So, I see there are still no peer-reviewed scientific papers proving the gassing story. Making stuff up again I see. There is nothing in the "scientific community" proving the gassing story.
0
kinniku
sabiwabi,
OMG! LOL! You actually are using the man who was certified in the trial he lost as a Holocaust denier David Irving's website as evidence!? You just wrote in this very discussion that the man was not "a real revisionist" (you were correct, he is a real Holocaust denier). I was asking, and still am for a legitimate link, not some old 1998 website by a man who lost his trial and even you have suggested does not know and did not know what he was talking about...
As I have consistantly mentioned earlier, all of the reports submitted by mainstream historians and scientists are peer-reviewed. Welcome to reality! Nice to see you! Reports by Holocaust deniers (as the Iranian Islamic Republic News Agency refers to them) have also been peer-reviewed and their material, unsurprisingly, have been found extremely lacking. This is the reason 'revisionists' are considered jokes amongst their peers...
Making stuff up" would be like when you claimed Ari Fleischer was an ordained rabbi (LOL!)or Aljazeera was owned by Fox News (LOL!) or that Max Warburg was staying in nice hotels in Germany throughout WWII when he was actually in the US from 1938 (LOL!). In fact, you have raised 'making stuff up' to being an art form! I have successfully shown both proof of the desire on the part of the Nazis and the methods and I have even shown proof for the decline in population. In fact, you helped me in the other thread when you admitted you knew about the letter asking for permission to start using the Dachau homicidal gas chamber on inmates. You claimed there was no homicidal gas chamber there and yet you knew about the letter...Are you also familiar with other documents specifically regarding how Jews were to be 'dealt with'? Nah...probably not. You don't really like real facts to get in the way of your arguments after all.
There are the reports by actual qualified people and they are peer-reviewed. This is something that Holocaust deniers cannot match...Just because you have never even read these reports does not mean they do not exist. Well, it is hardly surprising that you don't know about them as you don't even seem to read the links you suggest as with the one above...Irving's website...LOL!
0
sabiwabi
Indeed, he is not a holocaust revisionist, both according to himself and according to holocaust revisionist. Just because he is labeled "holocaust denier" does not make him a holocaust expert or holocaust revisionist. However, Irving is an expert on Hitler and the Nazis.
Until you show us a peer-reviewed scientific report proving the gassing story, we'll have to assume you're making stuff up again.
0
kinniku
No, he is just a Holocaust denier. In fact at the trial he lost that is exactly what he was determined to be. You still have not provided a legitimate link to the quote. It seems you don't have one...what a surprise...not (LOL)
LOL! Making stuff up" would be like when you claimed Ari Fleischer was an ordained rabbi (LOL!)or Aljazeera was owned by Fox News (LOL!) or that Max Warburg was staying in nice hotels in Germany throughout WWII when he was actually in the US from 1938 (LOL!). In fact, you have raised 'making stuff up' to being an art form! I have successfully shown both proof of the desire on the part of the Nazis and the methods and I have even shown proof for the decline in population. In fact, you helped me in the other thread when you admitted you knew about the letter asking for permission to start using the Dachau homicidal gas chamber on inmates. You claimed there was no homicidal gas chamber there and yet you knew about the letter...Are you also familiar with other documents specifically regarding how Jews were to be 'dealt with'? Nah...probably not. You don't really like real facts to get in the way of your arguments after all.
As I have consistantly mentioned earlier, all of the reports submitted by mainstream historians and scientists are peer-reviewed. Welcome to reality! Nice to see you! Reports by Holocaust deniers (as the Iranian Islamic Republic News Agency refers to them) have also been peer-reviewed and their material, unsurprisingly, have been found extremely lacking. This is the reason 'revisionists' are considered jokes amongst their peers...
Now, so I ask again, what are these lies you go on and on about? How many years will it take before you will be able to honestly and frankly discuss them? Are you so afraid you will be proven wrong that you prefer to hint vaguely when you could just tell what you think these specific, purposeful and provable lies are? Yes, it seems so...
Who are these "liars" you are always going on about? What lies have they told? You are wonderful at vague accusations, but not at all convincing when it comes to actual facts...For more than two years now, you have not shown one specific, provable and intentional lie. The onus is on you for you are claiming there are lies. I say there are not. What specific, purposeful and provable lies are you referring to? It should be so easy for you as you have been claiming the lies exist for more than four years. Could it be you actually don't think there are any lies. It sure looks that way! In fact, since you still haven't answered the question, it really must be that way! In fact, with the very fact that you have not been able to respond with even one specific, provable and intentional lie shows anyone that you actually do not believe such lies exists.
It is interesting that whenever I have checked almost everything you have ever written, it inevitably turns out to be incorrect. You don't even provide much of a challege. In fact, it seems that you really do not believe what you have been writing all this time as you cannot back any of it up specifically and clearly...
0
sabiwabi
What? You can even see a copy of the actual document. Even your beloved Nizkor talks about it. The existence of that document is not questioned.
It is a genuine document, which is in the German government archives today of the war-time Ministry of Justice, in which Franz Schlegelberger (Head of the German Justice Ministry) wrote a memo about a conversation with the Head of the German civil-service, saying "Mr Reich Minister Lammers informed me that the Führer had repeatedly declared to him that he wants to hear that the Solution of the Jewish Problem has been postponed until after the war is over. That being so, the current discussions are of purely theoretical value, in Mr Reich Minister Lammers' opinion. He will moreover take pains to ensure that, whatever else happens, no fundamental decisions are taken without his knowledge in consequence of a surprise briefing by any third party"
There is no way this can be reconciled with the alleged extermination plan.
Yes, I also find "interesting" how you decide that everything I write is incorrect. You just come along and simply state that I am incorrect, without backing anything up, and without providing anything to the discussion. You are not very convincing. If you had a leg to stand on you would be able to do much better than that.
0
kinniku
sabiwabi,
Again, you have not provided a legitimate link to the document to which you are referring. If it exists and is recognized to exist, please provide a legitimate link. Otherwise, the existence of the document is in question...
I do not know what you are talking about...I have never discussed Nizkor, nor have a linked them...Do you think you could stay within the bounds of what we actually discuss rather than what you imagine? It would be very helpful...
Until you successfully provide a legitimate link (I have asked several times now and you have not managed to do it.), its existence certainly is in question. So, please provide a legitimate link...
It is interesting that whenever I have checked almost everything you have ever written, it inevitably turns out to be incorrect.
Simply this is because everything (or nearly everything) you write is incorrect. I have backed up all of my assertions to your incorrectness. Witness this list of your incorrect statments:
You were completely incorrect when you claimed Ari Fleischer was an ordained rabbi (LOL!)or Aljazeera was owned by Fox News (LOL!) or that Max Warburg was staying in nice hotels in Germany throughout WWII when he was actually in the US from 1938 (LOL!). In fact, you have raised 'making stuff up' to being an art form! I have successfully shown both proof of the desire on the part of the Nazis and the methods and I have even shown proof for the decline in population. In fact, you helped me in the other thread when you admitted you knew about the letter asking for permission to start using the Dachau homicidal gas chamber on inmates. You claimed there was no homicidal gas chamber there and yet you knew about the letter...Are you also familiar with other documents specifically regarding how Jews were to be 'dealt with'? Nah...probably not. You don't really like real facts to get in the way of your arguments
See above...
Actually, you are the one who is alone in your views here. Let's be clear about this...Now again, what are these lies you go on and on about? How many years will it take before you will be able to honestly and frankly discuss them? Are you so afraid you will be proven wrong that you prefer to hint vaguely when you could just tell what you think these specific, purposeful and provable lies are? Yes, it seems so...
Who are these "liars" you are always going on about? What lies have they told? You are wonderful at vague accusations, but not at all convincing when it comes to actual facts...For more than two years now, you have not shown one specific, provable and intentional lie. The onus is on you for you are claiming there are lies. I say there are not. What specific, purposeful and provable lies are you referring to? It should be so easy for you as you have been claiming the lies exist for more than four years. Could it be you actually don't think there are any lies. It sure looks that way! In fact, since you still haven't answered the question, it really must be that way! In fact, with the very fact that you have not been able to respond with even one specific, provable and intentional lie shows anyone that you actually do not believe such lies exists.
It is interesting that whenever I have checked almost everything you have ever written, it inevitably turns out to be incorrect. You don't even provide much of a challege. In fact, it seems that you really do not believe what you have been writing all this time as you cannot back any of it up specifically and clearly...
0
kinniku
sabiwabi,
I thought you would enjoy reading about more Holocaust deniers, on IRNA (you know where you denied they use the term "Holocaust Denier". You see, in Iran, they understand that this is about denying the Holocaust...
Berlin, Feb 27, IRNA -
Earlier this week, a state court in the southern German city of Munich sentenced a far-right activist to a six-year prison term for denying the Holocaust.
Horst Mahler was found guilty of anti-Semitic hate speech and distributing books written by German Holocaust denier Germar Rudolf.
(Psst! The words you are searching for above are: "Holocaust Denier".)
So, what were those "lies" again? Who were those "liars"? Since you cannot answers these and other questions, one can only believe the fact that there actually are no lies and that there are no liars.
Back to top