• Quick note - the problem with Youtube videos not embedding on the forum appears to have been fixed, thanks to ZiprHead. If you do still see problems let me know.

9/11-investigator explains the Holocaust

Status
Not open for further replies.
9/11-investigator said:
Finally some rare sanity.
Click to expand...


Oh... I feel dirty now.


Well, while I have your attention, let me mention that:
Hitler's (and the Nazis') taste was mostly ****** though.


And, more importantly, the whole Holocaust denialism is, of course, about worthless as historical scolarship goes. Like all denialisms, it is but a fragile edifice of wishful thinking, cherry picking and misinterpretation of evidences destined to bring an inconvenient but stubborn reality back into the fold of a pre-decided conclusion and the most honest a denialist can ever be is when he merely lies to himself.

In the case of Holocaust denialism, the motivation behind the presupposed conclusion, the willingness to make Nazism more acceptable, is but a disgusting layer of hater surrounding the profound academic failure.


Please do not compliment me, even in jest, I have nothing but disdain for short-trousered Hitlerjugendist of your ilk!
 
Last edited:
funk de fino said:
Why do the germans have so many memorials for the holocaust and why do they admit something that did not happen?
Click to expand...

Because it is forbidden by law. And Germany is still an occupied country. People who deny the holocaust go to jail. Well the prominent deniers, that is.
 
Last edited:
This fellow has started to bore me. Someone press the 'Liquidate' button supplied to all conspiracy members.
 
Well, several of the allied powers (the US, British, and French on one side and the Soviet on the others) had a military presence in post-war Germany, especially Berlin.

Of these, I believe, but my memory is hazy, only the US remain.
 
dudalb said:
Yes, but it's pretty dated, A LOT of new material has come out since 1960.
Click to expand...

True, but for me it's fascinating to read an account of the Third Reich by someone who was actually there at the time and saw it develop. It was the first historical work I read on the subject (apart from schoolbooks), and I think it was a good one for that purpose.
 
9/11-investigator said:
Weber is tired.

He wants to be 'respected'. He wants a job, a good income, respect. He is tired of the holocaust.
Click to expand...

I'd agree that he's tired. It's because his game of Holocaust denial is proving more untenable in the world of growing access to information and the availability of said information to show the "argue from the gaps" methodology those like you follow to be incredibly wanting.

9/11-investigator said:
Weber cannot prove that there were gas chambers:

I asked him the unavoidable question: did the gas chambers ever exist? “There may have been gas chambers,” he said.

There may have, there may not have, indeed.

But as it is the forensic data does not lead any such conclusion.

Keep looking for us.
Click to expand...

Weber has no desire to look for gas chambers. Of course, he doesn't need to, since they've already been found.

9/11-investigator said:
For people who do not know Weber here is a classic radio show where Weber is interviewed about the holocaust by a (Jewish) talk show host:

http://www.ihraudio.dreamhost.com/revisionism_on_kfi_am640.mp3

Representatives of the Wiesenthal center were also invited but they chickened out at the last moment. They know that they don't have a chance in hell.
Click to expand...

You're now resorting to dated material as if Weber's more recent statements don't exist. Since he's learned the futility of playing the "missing gas chambers" card he's moved on from that bit of nonsense (much like David Cole has), yet deniers like yourself refuse to accept it. Whether you accept it or not has no bearing on the reality that these supposed "Holocaust scholars" have backpedaled (in Weber's case) or recanted (in Cole's case) on their earlier arguments.

9/11-investigator said:
From the IHR audio site:

With its 24-hour 50,000-watt signal, and enormous listening audience in the Los Angeles metropolitan area, KFI is easily the biggest talk-radio station on the west coast. And Ted O'Keefe and Mark Weber were scheduled for a live in-studio debate with Aaron Breitbart, senior researcher from the Los Angeles-based Simon Wiesenthal Center. Breitbart chickened out at the last minute, so for over 2 hours — from 7:30 PM until 10:00 PM — on the evening of December 17, 1990, roughly a million KFI listeners from as far away as Oregon and Texas got an unforgettable dose of history in accord with the facts. This is probably the most effective case for Holocaust revisionism ever carried over the airwaves.

A very good introduction!
Click to expand...

You seem to be suffering a very severe case of confirmation bias, ignoring the facts of today and clinging tenaciously to the backpedaled claims of years past. Not a very convincing argument on your part.

You still have yet to present a cohesive argument stating and then supporting your case. Why haven't you yet made your case in over a dozen pages?
 
dudalb said:
I 100% agree, but still, Irving's performance in the courtroom acting in his own defense added an extra dimension of idiocy to his case.
Click to expand...

It's worse.

Irving wasn't "acting in his own defense." He was the plaintiff, remember?

He was the one who brought the action. He was the one who planned the whole thing from the start. If he didn't know that he couldn't afford a lawyer, he was a fool who didn't think things through and shouldn't have brought the action. If he knew that he couldn't afford a lawyer and brought it anyway, he's a foll who didn't think things through and shouldn't have brought the action.

In actual fact, he planned from the beginning to act as his own attorney (proving the adage about "having a fool for a client"), hoping that in this case as in so many other worthless cases that he has brought, Penguin and Lipstadt would give in and throw money at him.

He guessed wrong. Which makes him a fool who didn't think things through and shouldn't have brought the action.
 
drkitten said:
It's worse.

Irving wasn't "acting in his own defense." He was the plaintiff, remember?

He was the one who brought the action. He was the one who planned the whole thing from the start. If he didn't know that he couldn't afford a lawyer, he was a fool who didn't think things through and shouldn't have brought the action. If he knew that he couldn't afford a lawyer and brought it anyway, he's a foll who didn't think things through and shouldn't have brought the action.

In actual fact, he planned from the beginning to act as his own attorney (proving the adage about "having a fool for a client"), hoping that in this case as in so many other worthless cases that he has brought, Penguin and Lipstadt would give in and throw money at him.

He guessed wrong. Which makes him a fool who didn't think things through and shouldn't have brought the action.
Click to expand...

It is even dumber than this excellent post. He had to have known that if it went to court, he would have to produce the documents and the facts to support his position. He failed. He was supposed to be in command of these facts...as our Nazi friend would have it, the preminent historian of the period...and he didn't make his case. What he and his Nazi supporters hoped for was a Scholarly slam dunk...instead they got blasted.

It's that old Nazi arrogance. Trips you up every time.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Back
Top Bottom