geni
Anti-homeopathy illuminati member
- Joined
- Oct 14, 2003
- Messages
- 28,209
Yes!
SS members were tattooed with their blood group as part of the elite.
Except the very small number (less than thirty) of british memebers.
Yes!
SS members were tattooed with their blood group as part of the elite.
According to your logic, someone who was locked up in a concentration camp and suffered all corresponding abuse, was not a victim?
DDT wrote:
They are victims, yes, but not proof of Nazi genocide. That they are alive and have a tattoo from Auschwitz, points to there not being an extermination plan. In a way, they're living proof of that.
In the light of this book, A) makes way more sense.
And in your logic, then poof, the holocaust didn't happen. Forgetting the wealth of evidence there is.They are victims, yes, but not proof of Nazi genocide. That they are alive and have a tattoo from Auschwitz, points to there not being an extermination plan. In a way, they're living proof of that.
Ah, the old arguments from ignorance. It's exactly like your arguments about 1940s dressing fashion. Age wasn't the only criterion. And 15-year olds are perfectly fine laborers. 19th C. child labor laws typically first outlawed children under 12 to work in factories.We hear that the ones unfit for work were immediately gassed. So how then would one explain the footage of all the little kids pulling up their sleeves to display a tattoo? And if Anne Frank made the cut-off at 15 years old, to not be gassed at Auschwitz, then who did they kill? People over 65? And the rest were largely worked to death? What kind of quality work are you going to get from people being worked to death and starving to death? You want people in that state working on munitions?
Only when you keep yourself deliberately ignorant.The holocaust story just doesn't make sense.
I'm definitely not going to watch your videos. But I guess the clincher, in your opinion, is that she wasn't properly dressed?Well, the point is that most people think tattoos are proof of Nazi genocide. The general public largely believes that. And "survivors" seem to believe that. Take this video:
http://www.holocaustdenialvideos.com/donahue_a.html
http://www.holocaustdenialvideos.com/donahue_b.html
At one point a woman holds up her arm to show a tattoo. As proof of Nazi genocide.
Well, the point is that most people think tattoos are proof of Nazi genocide. The general public largely believes that. And "survivors" seem to believe that. Take this video:
http://www.holocaustdenialvideos.com/donahue_a.html
http://www.holocaustdenialvideos.com/donahue_b.html
At one point a woman holds up her arm to show a tattoo. As proof of Nazi genocide.
Of course the fact that Jews were not suposed have body markings like tattoos would suggest that few of them got tattoos for a "sob story'
The link so thoughtfully provided by mondial shows some pictures of young Israelis with tattoos, so that's that argument...erm...ignored. I generally assume that holocaust revisionists are rabid anti-semites, so you're asking him to imagine that people 'capable' of such a 'hoax' wouldn't be above getting a forbidden tattoo to bolster it. The fact that many of those labelled 'jew' for extermination would have been non-orthodox or to some degree 'not-jewish' in their jewishness, would alas only give him another out - they'd have no qualms about concocting an elaborate tattoo hoax. They'd have considerably less motivation, of course...
When dealing with the alleged "holocaust" (see www.holocaustdenialvideos.com and www.codoh.com ) most people would be familiar with stories of tattoos used for identification purposes. But are concentration camp inmates with tattoos proof of mass murder or are they just another holocaust sob story? www.cwporter.com/tattoo1.htm
Are Tattoos Proof of a Nazi Genocide?
No. The Nazi program of mass murder is supported by other evidence, and lots of it. What the tattoos prove is that someone was a victim of that program.
I hope that clears up your confusion.
Actually the tattoos argue against extermination. Why tattoo if you are immediately going to kill them?
Actually the tattoos argue against extermination. Why tattoo if you are immediately going to kill them?
This brings us into that "valuable blue collar labor" that the Nazis couldn't have got from any other group.![]()
Prestige wrote:
Wouldn't a victim of an extermination program be dead? And not someone alive with a tattoo?
-------------------------------
TSR wrote
Wouldn't a victim be someone killed in a camp as part of the holocaust?
-------------------------------
Slimething wrote
No but given the fact she's alive, wouldn't that mean that her tattoo is in fact not proof of a plan to murder Jews?
When dealing with the alleged "holocaust"