General Holocaust Denial Discussion Part II

[TSR]

Which wars are you referring to? I am unaware of any war that cites Holocaust atrocities as the justification.

That would be any war which Mondial can pretend in any way shape or form benefits Israel or anyone that again, can possibly be classified as a Jew.

 

[Clayton Moore]

Fake atrocities? Were the camps carefully set up while WWII was being waged by agent provocateurs and phony orders sent from the nazi government to divert resources so that the Allies could win and score propaganda points?



Which wars are you referring to? I am unaware of any war that cites Holocaust atrocities as the justification.



Because hyperbole has never been used to demonize the other ever before in human history! I'm sure that the propaganda employed by the Saxon merchants of Transylvania would never have stooped to exageration in their pamphlets about Vlad Dracula, or the west in describing German soldiers as "the Hun", or about 15 years of referring to Napoleon as the "Corsican Ogre" those were statements of facts, correct?

The Holocaust is a giant scam. Follow the money.

 

[Tomtomkent]

The Holocaust is a giant scam. Follow the money.

Hmmm. Who exacctly do you think profits?
And why did you not answer the question you quoted. Were the camps set up during the war as part of the hoax?

 

[000063]

I don't have any problem with the Muhammad cartoons as I support freedom of expression for everyone. But some people have pointed out that these cartoons could be labelled racist as they depicted him wearing a turban and wearing traditional Arab attire.

You mean, exactly like most depictions of Mohammed, who was, in fact, an Arab? Yes, how horribly racist of those Danes.

http://www.hf.uib.no/religion/popularikonografi/exhib02.html
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Mohammed_kaaba_1315.jpg
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Mohammed_receiving_revelation_from_the_angel_Gabriel.jpg
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Maome.jpg

Not only were they, then, not racist, they also did not promote violence based on race.

Tales of the Holohoax is a satire just as the Muhammad cartoons are a satire. People should not go to jail for satire.

No, they shouldn't. They should go to jail for trying to incite racist violence, as the gents in question were declared to be, in court. Straw man. Again.

No, they were convicted of inciting racial hatred. And pretty much lost evrey appeal of the conviction, which could have been overturned by showing the factual nature of their publications (which factual basis they were spectacularly unable to demonstrate) -- but did get their sentences reduced slightly, which speaks against the conspiracy you and little clayton posit.

Did they argue, in court, that they were merely making a satire, or issue any statements to that effect? Because if they could've successfully done that, they might've gotten away with it.

Just like I predicted, you're still desperately trying to get away from the fact that there is no conclusive evidence Your Boy was killed for Holocaust Denial. And you still haven't gotten around to actually answering TSR's questions. We can all tell you're evading.

 

[TSR]

The Holocaust is a giant scam. Follow the money.

Oh *you* mean the money made by Weber, Rudolf and Zundel?

Or shall we discuss Irving and his little talking tours -- you know, the ones he doesn't pay taxes on what he earns from?

Some real winners on your side of the coin, wouldn't you say?

 

[Border Reiver]

The Holocaust is a giant scam. Follow the money.

Victims of the Holocaust to Nazi Germany

Done. The Nazis confiscated the proprty of their victims, and utilized them for slave labour. and after death made sure they had nothing left of value (gold teeth, eyeglasses, clothing, etc)

 

[Nessie]

The Holocaust is a giant scam. Follow the money.

A giant scam needs giant proof.

I am pretty new to this topic of revisionism.denial of the Holocaust, but so far I have found nothing approaching a giant proof. Just some nibbling away at the edges.

 

[uke2se]

I see that our Hitler-huggers have reverted to the age old debating tactic of stomping their feet really hard.

 

[A'isha]

And Snakey seems to have disappeared again.

 

[LemmyCaution]

The Holocaust is a giant scam. Follow the money.

Uni profs enriching themselves? LOL

 

[LemmyCaution]

And Snakey seems to have disappeared again.

Dogzilla presumably off doing next year's taxes, whilst SnakeTongue is re-taking algebra I?

 

[Clayton Moore]

A giant scam needs giant proof.

I am pretty new to this topic of revisionism.denial of the Holocaust, but so far I have found nothing approaching a giant proof. Just some nibbling away at the edges.

http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showpost.php?p=8374702&postcount=2533

http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showpost.php?p=8375579&postcount=2549

http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showpost.php?p=8378993&postcount=2587

If you want the truth search this thread and the thread it was split from using the advanced option.

User Name: Clayton Moore

 

[TSR]

http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showpost.php?p=8374702&postcount=2533

http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showpost.php?p=8375579&postcount=2549

http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showpost.php?p=8378993&postcount=2587

If you want the truth search this thread and the thread it was split from using the advanced option.

User Name: Clayton Moore

... and then make sure you read the responses to see how little clayton's "truth", where relevant is demonstrated to be wrong and and where correct, is shown to be irrelevant.

To take two examples from cm's post at random: let's posit that there is something hinky about Wiesel's tattoo, just for the sake of argument.

The response is "so what?"?

He counters this with a rant which boils down to "every Jewish person and ever historian should spend full condemning this fraud" (which, it should also be noted, has never actually *been* proven) -- an unreasonable standard and one which cm expects only of those he can pretend benefit from the Holocaust.

That folks like David Irving, who has been shown in court to be a mendacious bigot, making far more that Wiesel, get a pass because they are on the "proper side".

Secondly he harps on Eisenhower, DeGalle and Churchill's not mentioning gas chambers, but can never quite get around to telling us why they should since their books are not meant to be comprehensive studies of the war in Europe, but recountings of their personal experiences -- and not one of them every visited any of the sites known to have had homicidal gas chambers.

He is also silent on the question, frequently put him, of whether he believes that since the Battle of the Bulge is not mentioned by any of these men, that never happened either...

So that is pretty much Holocaust denial (especially as practiced by cm): one long exercise in special pleading and distortions in service of a hatred expressed as apologia for the only government in modern history to have enshrined that hate as a national policy, dressed up as historical revisionism but supported mostly by a profound and willful ignorance of the events involved.

 

[Clayton Moore]

... and then make sure you read the responses to see how little clayton's "truth", where relevant is demonstrated to be wrong and and where correct, is shown to be irrelevant.

To take two examples from cm's post at random: let's posit that there is something hinky about Wiesel's tattoo, just for the sake of argument.

The response is "so what?"?

He counters this with a rant which boils down to "every Jewish person and ever historian should spend full condemning this fraud" (which, it should also be noted, has never actually *been* proven) -- an unreasonable standard and one which cm expects only of those he can pretend benefit from the Holocaust.

That folks like David Irving, who has been shown in court to be a mendacious bigot, making far more that Wiesel, get a pass because they are on the "proper side".

Secondly he harps on Eisenhower, DeGalle and Churchill's not mentioning gas chambers, but can never quite get around to telling us why they should since their books are not meant to be comprehensive studies of the war in Europe, but recountings of their personal experiences -- and not one of them every visited any of the sites known to have had homicidal gas chambers.

He is also silent on the question, frequently put him, of whether he believes that since the Battle of the Bulge is not mentioned by any of these men, that never happened either...

So that is pretty much Holocaust denial (especially as practiced by cm): one long exercise in special pleading and distortions in service of a hatred expressed as apologia for the only government in modern history to have enshrined that hate as a national policy, dressed up as historical revisionism but supported mostly by a profound and willful ignorance of the events involved.

Which means he's a freaking fraud. All the Holocaustics who don't pursue him as a fraud are complicit in his fraud.

 

[TSR]

Which means he's a freaking fraud. All the Holocaustics who don't pursue him as a fraud are complicit in his fraud.

See what I mean?

What say you to the question of whether David Irving should also be hounded, by anyone on the denier side, cm?

Which, of course, is leaving aside that you have not actually proven any fraud, while Irving was quite soundly trounced in court.

Nor how this one man, pursued or not, fraud or not, has any effect at all on the Historicity of the Holocaust.

And by the way, under what definition of "Holocaustics" is in incumbent that they do so?

 

[LemmyCaution]

Which means he's a freaking fraud. All the Holocaustics who don't pursue him as a fraud are complicit in his fraud.

You seem to have missed a) the hypothetical (which means let's pretend he's a fraud) and b) where, regardless, some of us have said we have no time for Wiesel and others of us have said we haven't even read his stuff. This really is a curious obsession you have.

 

[Aulus Agerius]

Which means he's a freaking fraud. All the Holocaustics who don't pursue him as a fraud are complicit in his fraud.

I've been a long time lurker on this thread, mostly because most of the poster have a level of knowledge about the history of the holocaust which I cannot hope to approach and their replies to CM, Snakey and the other occasional denialists are pretty much comprehensive and convincing.

This comment by CM is a pretty good example of why CM and his ilk are unconvincing. So there is an allegation, unproven, that this fellow Wiesel is a fraud, but there is no convincing proof and no apparently relevance to CM's central denialist contention.

On the one hand CM denies the occurrence of the holocaust - the murder of millions, evidenced by extensive testimonial, documentary and forensic evidence and complains when people expose this denial as false. Yet, he demands investigation and exposure of one single person, who he thinks may have lied about his personal history? Talk about ignoring the log in your own eye...

And a little note to CM: You aren't convincing anyone who doesn't already believe in denial. You are unable to respond coherent to criticism of your arguments (such as they are). You don't cite evidence for facts you claim to be true. Most of your "arguments" are little more than rhetorical quibbles. They didn't convince the judge in the Irving trial and they won't convince anyone else who doesn't already believe.

And to the rest of the regular contributors here, keep up the good work. I essentially read this thread for your expositions of the history (and the occasional CM stundie).

 

[000063]

...

On the one hand CM denies the occurrence of the holocaust - the murder of millions, evidenced by extensive testimonial, documentary and forensic evidence and complains when people expose this denial as false. Yet, he demands investigation and exposure of one single person, who he thinks may have lied about his personal history? Talk about ignoring the log in your own eye...

I'd like to point out that Clay has explicitly claimed, multiple times, that the evidence for the existence of 3 million people and their murders were all fabricated. All of it. He's kinda vague about by who and when, though.

 

[Border Reiver]

Which means he's a freaking fraud. All the Holocaustics who don't pursue him as a fraud are complicit in his fraud.

And if say someone fraudulently claimed military service, all members of the military must pursue that person as a fraud or are complicit in that persons offenses?

Or if someone claimed a well known historical event didn't happen and was proven to have fraudulently done so because it furthered monetary or ideological aims then if we didn't hound the fraud mercilessly we'd be complicit?

 

[TSR]

And a little note to CM: You aren't convincing anyone who doesn't already believe in denial. You are unable to respond coherent to criticism of your arguments (such as they are). You don't cite evidence for facts you claim to be true. Most of your "arguments" are little more than rhetorical quibbles. They didn't convince the judge in the Irving trial and they won't convince anyone else who doesn't already believe.

But, but. but -- AA! It's the Jooos!

Good post, BYW

And to the rest of the regular contributors here, keep up the good work. I essentially read this thread for your expositions of the history (and the occasional CM stundie).

I know this is more aimed at folks like Lemmy and Nick, but thank you.