9/11-investigator explains the Holocaust

[Nonpareil]

Derail and yet more delusion.

 

[Simon39759]

Well, well, where is Hitler when you need him? Under him this multiculti desaster wouldn't have happened. Hitler, the greatest admirer Britain ever had (I think he overdid it), who had even offered to support Britain in maintaining it's global empire with German troops, who deliberately let the Brits escape from Dunkirk (there never was a 'miracle of Dunkirk') was destroyed by a fat alcoholic, paid by London Jews to do the dirty work for them.

That goes to show how utterly retarded your Fuhrer was, to be so completely defeated by such a worthless opponent...


Meh; I agree with the majority here.
9/11 does not live in our world, hence, our arguments can not make sense to him...

 

[9/11-investigator]

That goes to show how utterly retarded your Fuhrer was, to be so completely defeated by such a worthless opponent...

Britain represented 5% of the war effort. It was the USSR that did the heavy lifting (80%) followed by the US (15%).

Meh; I agree with the majority here. 9/11 does not live in our world, hence, our arguments can not make sense to him...

And what about the opinion of the British war veterans who openly resent what has become of their country? That they implicitly admit that they had prefered to live in a ethnic homogeneous society as advocated by Hitler rather than what is advocated by the likes of you? It's easy to label me as a 'nazi', whatever that may mean in 2009. But you can't label these veterans as such. Hence you prefer to stay silent on the subject and rather pretend to speak from the high moral ground and announce to 'go wash yourself in acetone'...

 

[Nonpareil]

Still derailing... seriously, peeps. Read the sign: do not feed.

 

[carlitos]

suggestion

:
metaphorically, of course

 

[Simon39759]

Britain represented 5% of the war effort. It was the USSR that did the heavy lifting (80%) followed by the US (15%).

But then again YOU were the one saying that Churchill "destroyed" Hitler...
I know if it's not true in the real world, but it might have been so in yours...


Apart from that, about the passage you quoted:
-I have no reason to believe that the quotes are representative. You have posted misrepresenting quotes before.
-The article says that 'immigration tops the list', not having the letters under the eyes, I can not comment but, among the many quotes in the article, few have to do with immigrations. Most of the complaints seem to be about Europe and corruption.
-Even if that was true, there is a sharp contrast between being opposed to immigration and thinking that it would have been better to let Hitler win. Some of these people may be racists, it's quite likely the case, indeed, but that does not mean that they are Nazi-apologetists.

When you use the expression 'implicitely admit', YOU are the one implicitly admitting that you have to make ***** up to defend your delusion.
But then, it has been clear for several pages now that you have nothing to say and no arguments left and the best I can do is not to let myself by baited anymore.

 

[Matthew Ellard]

It's certainly not going in your direction, that's for sure and hence your decision to call it a day. Matthew, who confided earlier that he had been 'destroyed' (#2409) by a revisionist before, now throws the towel in the ring. For a second time. A pity since he was not the dummest around. Now I am stuck with Trojan and his doctored Krema V picture.

Not really. I post on the Skeptic Society Holocaust Denial forum and it has "challenges" that are absent in your posts. I prefer arguing with the the "pros" rather than the "kiddies".

 

[Trojan]

It would be nice to see this get back on point, but the investigator is obviously trying to hide behind a smoke screen.

 

[Wowbagger]

Imagine someone still trying to claim that heavier-than-air machines can never fly. If you tell them about the billion dollar airline industry that has emerged, in the past century, they will explain how it was all a hoax, probably to gain lots of land to build "airports", or something, but those "airports" are really the private mansions of airline executive conspirators.

Every plane in the sky is called a clever hoax.
Every airport is a lie.
Every flight schedule would be a false document.

You can even take them on a trip in an airplane, and they will claim it was all just a simulation. Everyone was really riding in a fancy bus the whole time!

How, exactly, is that attitude supposed to help us recognize what humanity has been, and could still be, capable of?

 

[Uzzy]

That wasn't a majority of WW2 veterans. That was a hundred and fifty veterans, of whom some mentioned disillusionment with the current state of affairs in the UK. And it's something quoted from the Daily Mail, a notoriously right wing paper, so it's easy to imagine how they'd focus on that aspect, and those veterans in particular. It's also an incredible derail.

 

[Harpo]

That wasn't a majority of WW2 veterans. That was a hundred and fifty veterans, of whom some mentioned disillusionment with the current state of affairs in the UK. And it's something quoted from the Daily Mail, a notoriously right wing paper, so it's easy to imagine how they'd focus on that aspect, and those veterans in particular. It's also an incredible derail.

The same Daily Mail that was so supportive of Hitler and Mosley in the 1930's.

"In early 1934, Rothermere and the Mail' were editorially sympathetic to Oswald Mosley and the radical National Socialist British Union of Fascists. Rothermere wrote an article entitled "Hurrah for the Blackshirts", in January 1934, praising Mosley for his "sound, commonsense, Conservative doctrine."

Source: wikipedia (you can follow the references from there)

Also Lord Rothermere (in charge of the Daily Mail from about 1922) was personal friends with Hitler and Mussolini and this influenced the editorial policy of the paper until 1939.

 

[9/11-investigator]

It's so easy to debunk lefty NWO-ers ('Skeptic' I believe is the new code word):

http://express.lineone.net/posts/view/142286/Immigration-is-bad-for-UK-say-voters

The poll, by research firm Angus Reid Public Opinion, is a clear signal that mass immigration will be a key issue among voters at next year’s general election. It also exposed widespread scepticism about all three major Westminster parties’ immigration policies.

A spokesman for Angus Reid Public Opinion said: “The survey shows that immigration is important to voters and the level of concern over both legal and illegal immigration is particularly high in Britain at this point.”

So this is not some internet poll. These numbers are in line with numerous other publications everywhere in Europe and America. Nobody likes to give his country away to strangers. The economy is now tanking and will not recover in decades (if ever). This means that progressive politics are no longer possible since the neo-marxist state will not have the means to buy off all the tensions and differences that are inherent to a multicult-society. The next stage will be like post-Kathrina New Orleans... on a continental scale. The West is sailing out of the Weimar period into something uhhh... different. The financial desaster that befell the US is only a small sign of things to come. Far worse will be the (permanent) energy crisis, which will mean the end of the car age, the end of the industrial age, the end of Suburbia and the end of mass transport by plane. Megacities have no future. The majority of you will not drive a car in 3-10 years time. The internet is here to stay though and will constitute the backbone of the future economy.

The future is local.
The future is tribal.
NWO RIP.

(Discussing the holocaust may prove to be a waste of time in the light of things to come. With the demise of the marxist state everything that came with it, like to holocaust religion, will start to become irrelevant, regardless whether it happened or not.)

 

[9/11-investigator]

Interesting interview with holocaust believer Deborah Lipstadt:

Says La Lipstadt: Deniers will say that the very fact that there are so many survivors proves that the Holocaust couldn't have been as ruthlessly efficient as we say it was, because if the Germans were all-powerful and utterly determined to kill every last Jew, how did more than a million Jews survive?" You counter that by saying that there were a lot of miraculous escapes, because the Jews were plucky and determined and learned to jump off the transport trucks just in the nick of time... Holocaust denial is pervasive, growing, and doomed. It is incredibly serious that it is taking over, but at the same time utterly trivial and quite meaningless. We must ignore it and crush it - right away.

 

[9/11-investigator]

http://globalfire.tv/nj/09en/politics/ahmadinejads_war_on_holocaust.htm

Well, I'll be darned. Ahmadinejad had written a book titled "The Collapse of the Holocaust-Myth". Will soon be translated in English and Arabic.

So far only David Frum has reported on it:
http://www.frumforum.com/ahmadinejads-holocaust-denial-book

Very likely this book will receive eager reception among the Islamic masses. Soon the world will have another 1billion+ holocaust deniers. Lots of work to do for Deborah.

P.S. maybe some caution is asked for. Frum is known as a notorious liar and no references to the alleged book are to be found on the internet other than on Frum's shabby little site.

 

[Praktik]

Britain represented 5% of the war effort. It was the USSR that did the heavy lifting (80%) followed by the US (15%).

Though if Britain caved in 1940, what base of operations would there be for the US to mount any kind of effort in the west?

Seriously, that 5% really undervalues the importance of Britain standing strong after the fall of france against pretty tall odds.

It was the foolishness of Goering and Hitler to start bombing london that saved Britain in the Battle of Britain, granting their fighters a desperately needed reprieve.

It really was close. And if it weren't for the brits, the Soviets may have been able to sweep all the way to the Atlantic, or Germany would have been too powerful to stop even in the east.

Then again, I'm arguing against arbitrary numbers that really have been plucked out of thin air. So maybe this is a useless cause.

 

[Nonpareil]

It's official. He has nothing left but derail attempts.

 

[9/11-investigator]

Though if Britain caved in 1940, what base of operations would there be for the US to mount any kind of effort in the west?

You seem to have forgotten that it was Britain who declared war on Germany. Germany was forced to invade in Western Europe after Britain prepared to invade Norway cutting vital German supply lines. As we all remember WW2 was started by Britain after the British government declined to come up with a solution for Danzig (a 97% German city that wanted to return to the Reich).

Seriously, that 5% really undervalues the importance of Britain standing strong after the fall of france against pretty tall odds.

Ridiculous. Germany never seriously wanted to invade Britain. Hess flew to Britain to try to make peace. In vain since Churchill was in charge.

It was the foolishness of Goering and Hitler to start bombing london that saved Britain in the Battle of Britain, granting their fighters a desperately needed reprieve.

It was Britain that started bombing civilian targets in Germany. In the end Hitler was forced to retaliate. This is not what you learn in school. And don't give me this cr*p about Rotterdam and a few other places that were bombed indeed as part of the invasion provoked by Britain.

http://www.ihr.org/jhr/v02/v02p381_Wesserle.html

"There can be no comparison between the brutality of the Anglo-American bomber offensive, on one hand, and the minimality of the German-Italian efforts, on the other...

Anglo-American strategic bombers, according to official sources of the West German government in 1962, dropped 2,690,000 metric tons of bombs on Continental Europe; 1,350,000 tons were dropped on Germany within its 1937 boundaries; 180,000 tons on Austria and the Balkans; 590,000 tons on France; 370,000 tons on Italy; and 200,000 tons on miscellaneous targets such as Bohemia, Slovakia and Poland. By contrast, Germany dropped a total of 74,172 tons of bombs as well as V-1 and V-2 rockets and "buzz bombs" on Britain -- five percent of what the Anglo-Saxons rained down on Germany...

Observers indubitably British, such as the late Labour Minister Crossman, the scientist and writer C.P. Snow, and the Earl of Birkenhead, have demonstrated that it was not Germany but Britain that, after May, 1940, unleashed an official policy of unrestricted and unlimited raids on civilian populations under its new Prime Minister, Winston Churchill, and his science advisor, Dr. Lindemann...

Winston Churchill and his advisors deserve to rank among the maddest mass murderers in history."


If you know this than it becomes clear that the Allies had to invent a holocaust in Nuremberg to cover up their own crimes.

Henry Makow on the bombings.

It really was close. And if it weren't for the brits, the Soviets may have been able to sweep all the way to the Atlantic, or Germany would have been too powerful to stop even in the east.

It was indeed a close call, even if the Germans were outnumbered 7 to 1. But in the end the giants lost and the little people (that's you) won. The sort of people that will stand on chairs to cheer and clap hands if some of their phony leaders (in between being serviced by some White House intern) enthusiastically anounces that in 20 years time they themselves will become a minority in their own lands. How shall we call these sort of people? Hamburger eating surrender monkeys?

Then again, I'm arguing against arbitrary numbers that really have been plucked out of thin air. So maybe this is a useless cause.

These numbers are somewhat arbitrary indeed but if we consider that for every American 50 Soviets lost their lives and that the Anglo's joined the party when it was almost over (June 1944), not counting some skirmishes in Africa, than we can easily see that these figures are not far off the mark.

I'm not going to say more on this off-topic subject. We may address the issue of WW2 in a later thread. Don't have the time now.

 

[Nonpareil]

...And none of this has anything to do with the Holocaust. At what point does this cross the line from "annoyance" into "reportable"?

 

[Amazer]

...And none of this has anything to do with the Holocaust. At what point does this cross the line from "annoyance" into "reportable"?

I think we crossed that line about 75 pages ago.

 

[Arkyrion]

My god. Is this thread still alive?

How many times must we say it? DON'T FEED THE ******* TROLLS.

That is all.