What is a saggy? I've just been writing about truth vs. the lies and frauds of sniveling,maladjusted slime crawling pieces of filth like the nazi's and seeing as I pass over other posts trash scattered occasionally in the thread near what are mostly remarks much similar to what I have written. But occasionally that word pops up. Why? I'm not interested enough to go back through and check, just vaguely curious about it. (As I said, I am not that worried, I just did not think anybody was mentioning Kipling and the Just-So stories so wondered vaguely as I wandered vaguely: what does the Saggy-Baggy Elephant have to do with the Holocost? And I cannot think of a thing.)
-
Security incident: ISF was recently accessed by intruders. Please change your password, and change it anywhere else you used it. Read more
There is not a single mass grave of holohoax victims.
- Thread starter Saggy
- Start date
-
- Tags
- holocaust denial
- Status
Skwinty
Philosopher
- Joined
- Jun 16, 2008
- Messages
- 5,593
[FONT=Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif]Serve the German with all your heart; Your reward will be a fart. [/FONT]
[FONT=Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif]Polish saying
[/FONT]ETA: Here is another one:
[FONT=Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif]He's like a German. He can't understand a reasonable man.
Lithuanian saying [/FONT]
Last edited:
Alareth
Philosopher
I've seen creationists try to disprove gravity because if the is no gravity, evolution is a lie.
Skwinty
Philosopher
- Joined
- Jun 16, 2008
- Messages
- 5,593
It's called intelligent falling for the creationists and for saggy it's unintelligent failing.
Gawdzilla Sama
TImeToSweepTheLeg
It's called intelligent falling for the creationists and for saggy it's unintelligent failing.
or flailing or something. I'm pretty sure on that one - and I am certain on the Holocost. And I am not Jewish (raised Methodist but always was agnostic/atheist), just logical and a good student of history and evil in it.
As, unfortunately we seem to have a lot of people who missed it and want to see it happen again. It will be very unfortunate for many (I hope all) of them if they try.
Gawdzilla Sama
TImeToSweepTheLeg
It's called intelligent falling for the creationists and for saggy it's unintelligent failing.
@Saggy
"There is not a single mass grave of holohoax victims."
The holocaust is usually understood to be the murder of millions of European Jews. Beside this there were many more people murdered and you wont be able to distinguish them looking into graves easily. Anyway, I guess you are rather referring to Nazi mass-murder in general, so here we go.
First of all concerning the graves: Of course they exist and most Holocaust-denier won´t deny them because it would make them look ridiculous. There is proof of graves, there are bones, there are ashes, there are pictures of open burnings, supported by remarks made by eye witnesses. And it´s not only ashes you will find: In 1967 e.g. people where exhumated in the concentration camp of Mauthausen (2nd picture refers to Mauthausen but was taken earlier as you can probably see)
So far so good. The question in my opinion is another: What means "proof" to the denier? And as far as I know the Holocaust-denial-scene "proof" means anything if it doesn´t support the own thesis, including rejecting arguments made in the past if flawed and still holding onto their opinion without any doubt.
I actually not only strongly believe that there were gravesites that have been mistakenly identified as "german" - I know. And its obvious how it happened: After war it was easy to be less accurate and to blame the Nazi regime for all without backing things up scientifically. We all remember Auschwitz being called the place where 6 Mio. Jews were killed, or Dachau another place of mass extermination (concerning gas chambers). We remember myth about RJF soaps to contain the human fat of murdered jews. Lots of these erroneous accounts have been clarified, Auschwitz is one good example, Katyń is another. Anyway there are a lot of gravesite you can unequivocally count to the Nazi ones taken all evidence you can find. Again, most deniers would not even think about denying this fact, cause they would have to deny the crematoria as well. And honestly, why would they? They don´t need to deny them to claim there was no holocaust. I guess you didn´t understand that and unfortunately tapped into this argument. And I guess something else: After leaving this thread and letting some time pass you won´t ever think about referring to the "gravesite-argument" but still go on denying the Holocaust. This would of course proof my argument made at the beginning. I think there is one basic reason why you are here opening this thread: Fear. Otherwise you would have done the research on your own, including accounts of other denier that would actually admit that there are graves.
***
Lara
"There is not a single mass grave of holohoax victims."
The holocaust is usually understood to be the murder of millions of European Jews. Beside this there were many more people murdered and you wont be able to distinguish them looking into graves easily. Anyway, I guess you are rather referring to Nazi mass-murder in general, so here we go.
First of all concerning the graves: Of course they exist and most Holocaust-denier won´t deny them because it would make them look ridiculous. There is proof of graves, there are bones, there are ashes, there are pictures of open burnings, supported by remarks made by eye witnesses. And it´s not only ashes you will find: In 1967 e.g. people where exhumated in the concentration camp of Mauthausen (2nd picture refers to Mauthausen but was taken earlier as you can probably see)
So far so good. The question in my opinion is another: What means "proof" to the denier? And as far as I know the Holocaust-denial-scene "proof" means anything if it doesn´t support the own thesis, including rejecting arguments made in the past if flawed and still holding onto their opinion without any doubt.
I actually not only strongly believe that there were gravesites that have been mistakenly identified as "german" - I know. And its obvious how it happened: After war it was easy to be less accurate and to blame the Nazi regime for all without backing things up scientifically. We all remember Auschwitz being called the place where 6 Mio. Jews were killed, or Dachau another place of mass extermination (concerning gas chambers). We remember myth about RJF soaps to contain the human fat of murdered jews. Lots of these erroneous accounts have been clarified, Auschwitz is one good example, Katyń is another. Anyway there are a lot of gravesite you can unequivocally count to the Nazi ones taken all evidence you can find. Again, most deniers would not even think about denying this fact, cause they would have to deny the crematoria as well. And honestly, why would they? They don´t need to deny them to claim there was no holocaust. I guess you didn´t understand that and unfortunately tapped into this argument. And I guess something else: After leaving this thread and letting some time pass you won´t ever think about referring to the "gravesite-argument" but still go on denying the Holocaust. This would of course proof my argument made at the beginning. I think there is one basic reason why you are here opening this thread: Fear. Otherwise you would have done the research on your own, including accounts of other denier that would actually admit that there are graves.
***
Lara
Last edited:
Jack by the hedge
Safely Ignored
- Joined
- Oct 14, 2009
- Messages
- 27,516
There is no point to concede.
The sane people know from the evidence and testimony produced by both sides that the bodies initially buried at Treblinka were exhumed and burned, and so were the subsequent corpses, in their hundreds of thousands, producing a vast amount of ash, as documented. You know that and we know that.
So your claim that there was no holocaust because there are no mass graves there is as defiantly idiotic as claiming man never went to the moon because the astronauts aren't there now.
What kind of imbecile do you think could take your 'argument' seriously?
@Saggy
Another remark as I just read the recent development of the thread.
"In Wiernik's phantasmagoria bodies are burned to provide heat. In the real world it takes a substantial amount of fuel, wood or petrol, to burn a body... cursory googling reveals 'It takes about 100 kilograms of wood to create a fire that is hot enough to cremate an average human body'. But in Weirnik's world none is necessary at all .... all you need is women's bodies..."
Just want to show how you don´t bother to argue logically. No need to accept the Holocaust as given, but just imagine WHAT IF there would have been a mass murder in Treblinka. Would you seriously believe one of the survivor would write about his experiences in 1945 without any emotions? A simple yes or no would be enough. You will contradict yourself anyway. If you don´t understand how, just ask.
Another remark as I just read the recent development of the thread.
"In Wiernik's phantasmagoria bodies are burned to provide heat. In the real world it takes a substantial amount of fuel, wood or petrol, to burn a body... cursory googling reveals 'It takes about 100 kilograms of wood to create a fire that is hot enough to cremate an average human body'. But in Weirnik's world none is necessary at all .... all you need is women's bodies..."
Just want to show how you don´t bother to argue logically. No need to accept the Holocaust as given, but just imagine WHAT IF there would have been a mass murder in Treblinka. Would you seriously believe one of the survivor would write about his experiences in 1945 without any emotions? A simple yes or no would be enough. You will contradict yourself anyway. If you don´t understand how, just ask.
And one technical question:
"Now, believe it or not, out of 20,000 or so camps and detention centers, there are only 6 hoax 'extermination camps'. So, the holohoax took place at these camps. This is where the mass graves should exist.
But, there are no mass graves at the extermination camps."
Why would one have mass graves if he or she can burn the dead into ashes? There are several reasons why the extermination camps mostly had crematoria. Here just some of them:
- corpses are poisoneous
- corpses need a lot of space
- pictures of mass graves cause outrageous reactions in the country and abroad
1. point made was the reason why corpses were exhumated in Auschwitz (II as i remember) 1942 and burnt in open spaces. But the burnings turned out to be worse because it took much longer and a lot of space was needed, because you couldn´t easily burn corpses on piles. The crematoria were the economic solution of this "problem" - they would have been there even if there were no gaschambers at all.
You ask why you wont find massgraves like in Mauthausen in Auschwitz although it is obvious why there weren´t at the end of WWII: It would have been entirely stupid for the Nazi NOT to burn the dead bodies.
So another one:
"The fact that these prisoners were alive at or near the end of the war is not proof of the holohoax, it directly contradicts the holohoax, which states that Jews were killed immediately on arrival at the camp. Had there been an effort to exterminate Jews, these Jews would have been long dead. Also, there was no selection of Jews at the camps, and only a percentage of the typhus victims were Jews."
If you would have read the sources any other proper holocaust denier would read you would know that the capacities of the crematoria and gas chambers were considerable lowered after the uprising and consequently when the approaching troops of the Red Army caused panic and miscoordination. There were no resources to kill everybody in a second. That´s why.
Generally it is not true that "special treatment" was ALWAYS implemented immediately. It was literally impossible if you consider (as most of your fellow denier will claim) that not more than "some hundreds" could be gassed and burnt within some hours. Some parts of the camp were reserved for those to be killed in the future as the process took a lot of time. Mexiko...how does that sound to you?
"Now, believe it or not, out of 20,000 or so camps and detention centers, there are only 6 hoax 'extermination camps'. So, the holohoax took place at these camps. This is where the mass graves should exist.
But, there are no mass graves at the extermination camps."
Why would one have mass graves if he or she can burn the dead into ashes? There are several reasons why the extermination camps mostly had crematoria. Here just some of them:
- corpses are poisoneous
- corpses need a lot of space
- pictures of mass graves cause outrageous reactions in the country and abroad
1. point made was the reason why corpses were exhumated in Auschwitz (II as i remember) 1942 and burnt in open spaces. But the burnings turned out to be worse because it took much longer and a lot of space was needed, because you couldn´t easily burn corpses on piles. The crematoria were the economic solution of this "problem" - they would have been there even if there were no gaschambers at all.
You ask why you wont find massgraves like in Mauthausen in Auschwitz although it is obvious why there weren´t at the end of WWII: It would have been entirely stupid for the Nazi NOT to burn the dead bodies.
So another one:
"The fact that these prisoners were alive at or near the end of the war is not proof of the holohoax, it directly contradicts the holohoax, which states that Jews were killed immediately on arrival at the camp. Had there been an effort to exterminate Jews, these Jews would have been long dead. Also, there was no selection of Jews at the camps, and only a percentage of the typhus victims were Jews."
If you would have read the sources any other proper holocaust denier would read you would know that the capacities of the crematoria and gas chambers were considerable lowered after the uprising and consequently when the approaching troops of the Red Army caused panic and miscoordination. There were no resources to kill everybody in a second. That´s why.
Generally it is not true that "special treatment" was ALWAYS implemented immediately. It was literally impossible if you consider (as most of your fellow denier will claim) that not more than "some hundreds" could be gassed and burnt within some hours. Some parts of the camp were reserved for those to be killed in the future as the process took a lot of time. Mexiko...how does that sound to you?
Last edited:
dafydd
Banned
- Joined
- Feb 14, 2008
- Messages
- 35,398
Other Neo-Nazis.
Here you are again: the amazing self-refuting Holocaust denier. So I guess you're going to continue to post evidence that debunks your position, and then just kind of sneer at it. That's okay. Less work for us.
Howie Felterbush
Bow Tie Daddy
This guy doesn't seem to have got the message.
Nice to see that saggy's clothing donation to the Haitian relief fund finally made it.
Read the Auschwitz museum web site ...
http://en.auschwitz.org.pl/m/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=109&Itemid=8
In general, the people whom the Nazis deported to Auschwitz were either
1. murdered immediately upon arriving in Auschwitz
...or....
2. registered in the camp
The Nazis wrote a death certificate when a registered prisoner died and the deaths were summarized in death books. These records show that more Roman Catholics died at Auschwitz than Jews, and that the total number of deaths were on the order of 60,000. Thus, the hoax deaths all occurred immediately on arrival.
HTH
Gawdzilla Sama
TImeToSweepTheLeg
No fair asking him for an honest opinion. He's saving that cherry for something special.
- Status