• 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.

General Holocaust Denial Discussion Part II

Status
Not open for further replies.
Charles Traynor said:
It is a historical FACT that Belsen was surrendered to the British, and I'd be hiding too if I had seen my comrades being brutalized in front of my eyes.
Click to expand...
You seem to be having problems with the whole "chain of events" thing.
Charles Traynor said:
Just because a POW is scared is not an excuse to shoot him in the legs or hips.
Click to expand...
Once again: if they were hiding, they were not POWs.
 
Charles Traynor said:
It is a historical FACT that Belsen was surrendered to the British, and I'd be hiding too if I had seen my comrades being brutalized in front of my eyes.
Click to expand...

Apparently you don't know what a POW is, nor how one goes from being a belligerent combatant to being a POW.

Just because a POW is scared is not an excuse to shoot him in the legs or hips.
Click to expand...

Of course they were scared - they'd just helped participate in genocide and mass murder, and were scared of being held accountable for their actions. That's why they hid instead of surrendering.
 
Last edited:
CT - when was your last lesson on LOAC?

Lawful combatants become PWs only when they surrender personally surrender as a formed body or are rendered hors de combat by injuries.

Disguising ones self as a DP to evade capture is not a legal tactic, that renders one into an unlawful combatant if you engage in acts of war (as you are not in uniform), or can lead you to being treated as a spy. If the SS guards were in disguise trying to evade capture then they were not PWs, but rather spies or at best unlawful enemy combatants.
 
Border Reiver said:
CT - when was your last lesson on LOAC?

Lawful combatants become PWs only when they surrender personally surrender as a formed body or are rendered hors de combat by injuries.

Disguising ones self as a DP to evade capture is not a legal tactic, that renders one into an unlawful combatant if you engage in acts of war (as you are not in uniform), or can lead you to being treated as a spy. If the SS guards were in disguise trying to evade capture then they were not PWs, but rather spies or at best unlawful enemy combatants.
Click to expand...

Like these escaping prisoners.
 
Straw Man said:
Charles Traynor said:
Again, picking, picking, picking. Yes I did write it, and I'm going to leave it as such. I'm not going to start going changing stories.

I know who I am, where I served and what I did, and obviously you are not aware that people can move throughout the world. You are entitled to your opinion, even if it's a load of old pony. Your pathetic attempt of an attack on my good self means absolutely nothing.
Click to expand...
Click to expand...


The other posters here are either deluded fools or holohoax propagandists; that I can live with. [SNIP]

Edited by kmortis: 
Removed personal comment
 
Last edited by a moderator:
Charles Traynor said:
Ok, I’ll play along. Not everyone I named as defending Irene Zisblatt this Saturday 21st may have specifically gone out of the way to write a post defending her. I didn’t have the time or inclination to go back through all the posts from weeks ago looking for the guilty individuals.
Click to expand...

In other words, you made up something and now you are barely admitting that you did so.

However, I consider everyone who I mentioned on Saturday to be an enemy of truth.
Click to expand...

Yes, and we all know what one should do with enemies.

Consider this: why has none of the deniers in this thread brought a single shred of evidence against the consensus ? Look at dogzilla and his dodgings and unsupported assertions. Look at Moore, with incredulity as his sole argument. Then look at yourself. Do you think you are a champion of truth ? If so, then what kind of truth and evidence did you contribute here ?

Truth is not about saying what you think and assuming that it is true, and that people must prove you wrong. For instance, Clayton's apparent beef with us is solely focused on his inability to calculate how so many people can be killed in such an amount of time. Does that solve this case ? Of course not. Deniers are in the unenviable position of pitting themselves against all of the world's historians, to name only them.

If you want to be taken seriously, you need to do more than simply say you don't believe the Holocaust happened. You need to show it. And by show it, I don't mean show it like you would show a kid or teenager. You are up against people who know their history, the methodology, and the evidence at hand. The least you can do is be specific, rigorous and objective.

And polite. Saying your opponents are trolls or enemies of truth for the simple crime of disagreeing with you or pointing out, for instance, that rhetoric isn't evidence, is childish, and will get you nowhere. If that's all you want to do, there are forums where people will just gobble up anything you throw at them. Here, perhaps you would consider being more considerate.
 
Charles Traynor said:
Ok, I’ll play along. Not everyone I named as defending Irene Zisblatt this Saturday 21st may have specifically gone out of the way to write a post defending her. I didn’t have the time or inclination to go back through all the posts from weeks ago looking for the guilty individuals.

However, I consider everyone who I mentioned on Saturday to be an enemy of truth. Anybody who trolled this thread, asked inane questions, asked me to prove Zisblatt was a liar without first reading the BPs etc. is guilty of crimes against truth as far as I’m concerned.

Edited by kmortis: 
Removed personal comments
Click to expand...

Translation: As you did with Spielberg, in the case of the "defenders of Zisblatt" you just made up what you needed to in order to fit your story. You are too lazy to do research - and too lazy even to check this thread to make sure you are not lying about members posted here. Both are examples of shameful, but common, denier behavior.
 
Charles Traynor said:
My serious research efforts are conducted whilst investigating the alleged Final Solution. I have zero interest in looking through old posts at JREF for individuals who were too lazy or ignorant to read the BPs re. Irene Zisblatt.
Click to expand...

Which doesn't stop you from making claims about these individuals? You have zero interest in confirming what is in these posts - yet you make untrue charges against the individuals making them. Beautiful - very much a piece with your "serious research" and posting history.
 
Charles Traynor said:
You will now show where I have ever claimed to be a tough guy.
Click to expand...

You claimed not to be fazed by the pictures of emaciated bodies being bulldozed. Had you been there, I doubt seriously that you would have remained calm.

We are not talking about psychopaths and empathy here. We are talking about a serious breakdown in military discipline, which led to POWs being shot in the legs and hips for fun, according to Straw’s description of the activities of the 8th battalion the Rifle Brigade regiment at Belsen.
Click to expand...

Yes, I appear to have missed part of the discussion with Cyrix686. I'll retract my comment.
 
I hope Mr. T Traynor manages to Put up at some point. I'd rather read arguments than fauxrage. Which does contradict his claims to stoicism.
 
Charles Traynor said:
The regular labelling of holocaust revisionists as anti-Semites or right wing extremists is another questionable tactic and a means of attempting to silence those who question the official version of WWII history. Have you no shame?
Click to expand...

I believe I've already asked you to name a single denier who didn't harbour serious misgivings about Jews. If memory serves, you didn't answer that. Or did I ask someone else ?
 
Charles Traynor said:
Name one serious holohoax argument I have made that you or anyone else has shredded or buried in any back yard since I came here. When it comes to the serious stuff all you guys can do is troll.
Click to expand...

Oh, well, I personally can't name a serious argument you've made. As to the unserious ones, let's start with Spielberg - you shredded that one yourself. Zisblatt's defenders - ditto. Shall we keep going?
 
Charles Traynor said:
The regular labelling of holocaust revisionists as anti-Semites or right wing extremists is another questionable tactic and a means of attempting to silence those who question the official version of WWII history. Have you no shame?
Click to expand...

Making an observation - 99.44% (an estimate, by the way, as the real % is probably closer to 100%) of the time fitting - is not an attempt to silence anyone. Why on earth should far right extremists and antisemites, by the way, so lack the courage of their convictions that naming them properly would silence them? Are these Mr Moore's spineless deniers, cowed into silence because their opinions might land them in trouble or meet with disapproval?
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Back
Top Bottom