Merged Does Elie Wiesel have a tatoo, or not?

[Craig4]

The stundie would actually go to Loss Leader who believes that Elie Wiesel is telling the truth when he writes that 1) a pit filled with dead bodies is going to be able to maintain a fire hot enough to incinerate the corpses without an external heat or fuel source, 2) babies were collected by the lorry load and dumped into a separate burning pit, and 3) that adult Jews would slowly walk single file to the edge of a giant flaming pit and then fall in without any protest but would like to find out that what Elie Wiesel wrote is false because then his relatives who disappeared seventy years ago in Europe will reestablish contact.

Try to remember that with you being a holocaust liar we can simply dismiss you without fear of consequence intellectual or otherwise.

 

[Cl1mh4224rd]

In general, Jewish law doesn't allow tattoos, although exceptions can be made. If Elie Wiesel is really an observant Orthodox Jew and he was not tattooed against his will in Auschwitz, he wouldn't be able to intentionally get a tattoo unless he had a good reason. What that good reason would be is something between Elie and his rabbi.

I'm no expert on Jewish law but I don't think "because I want to deceive fellow Jews into believing I was in Auschwitz when I wasn't" would pass as a good reason.

That would imply that his alleged lies are not part of the evil Jewish agenda you fantasize about. If they were, that would of course be "a good reason" to get a tattoo.

But if they're not, then, at worst, you have an individual Jewish man lying about his experiences. How, then, can that possibly be used as evidence in support of your fantasy that the Holocaust never happened?

At best, you can claim that the Holocaust never happened to Elie Wiesel. And if you're reduced to chiseling away at the Holocaust one person at a time (and this one so many decades after the event), then you've got several centuries of work ahead of you...

 

[TSR]

And you can, of course quote a post in which I said anything about facts not being important or that I'm just trying to justify my hate?

No?

I thought not.

PS: I didn't say you. I said people like you. You need to understand you're not the center of the universe.

.
I never said said that you *said* this.

Your denial of the Holocaust does it for you.

And what specific quality of mine leads you to believe that people "like" me only care if Wiesel can make the Holocaust "sound bad?" Please cite the *specific* posts of mine which you feel support this.
.

 

[Dogzilla]

That would imply that his alleged lies are not part of the evil Jewish agenda you fantasize about. If they were, that would of course be "a good reason" to get a tattoo.

What 'evil Jewish agenda' are you talking about? My fantasies involve scantily clad identical twins with large breasts. I'm not familiar with the evil Jewish agenda fetish.

But if they're not, then, at worst, you have an individual Jewish man lying about his experiences. How, then, can that possibly be used as evidence in support of your fantasy that the Holocaust never happened?

Why do you think that disproving one insignificant little fact peripherally related to the holocaust is tantamount to disproving the whole thing? You must not have very much faith in the veracity of the holocaust if you think that proving Elie Wiesel lied about something is going to be all it takes to bring down the whole house of cards.

At best, you can claim that the Holocaust never happened to Elie Wiesel. And if you're reduced to chiseling away at the Holocaust one person at a time (and this one so many decades after the event), then you've got several centuries of work ahead of you...

Yeah, so why fear it? Just say Elie Wiesel is a liar. His holocaust experiences never happened. So what? It's not as if he's the public face of holocaust survivors or anything like that.

 

[Dogzilla]

.
I never said said that you *said* this.

Your denial of the Holocaust does it for you.

And what specific quality of mine leads you to believe that people "like" me only care if Wiesel can make the Holocaust "sound bad?" Please cite the *specific* posts of mine which you feel support this.
.

OK, but first you cite the *specific* posts of mine which in which I *deny* the holocaust.

 

[Cl1mh4224rd]

Why do you think that disproving one insignificant little fact peripherally related to the holocaust is tantamount to disproving the whole thing? You must not have very much faith in the veracity of the holocaust if you think that proving Elie Wiesel lied about something is going to be all it takes to bring down the whole house of cards.

Sorry, no... That would be your peer, Saggy.

Yeah, so why fear it? Just say Elie Wiesel is a liar. His holocaust experiences never happened. So what?

Because that hasn't been proven.

 

[Roadtoad]

You know, from all I've read, there's more support for Weisel's work being factual than there is for his detractors claims that he's a fraud. For the most part, it's the deniers that scream about Weisel being a liar, not those who acknowledge the factual occurrence of the very real Holocaust.

The point, of course, is that if they can break the story of one, they have a chance of saying that it was all a lie, even though the National Archives have nearly every salvageable document from the Third Reich in regards to the Final Solution, there are the written and recorded testimonies of those who survived, there are the trial records of those who perpetrated it, who declared solemnly that they were simply following orders, and there are the photographs, the recordings, the films and the eyewitness declarations of those who liberated the camps. One of the most civilized nations in the world perpetrated one of the most horrific crimes of humanity, ever. It followed the example of the Turks against the Armenians, and it's been replicated by the Killing Fields of Cambodia, and by the bloodbath in Rwanda.

We remember the Third Reich not just because of the enormity of the crime, but because Germany was (and still is) one of the most civilized of nations, and the fact that it was Germany that fell to this indicates that no one is immune.

Germans have learned from history. This is one of the reasons why Germany is a civilized nation. The deniers have learned nothing, and proudly declare their stupidity. This is why so many cringe when they hear these lies, and why it's almost everyone on the board fights to avoid actions which could result in their suspension. It's maddening to read denials, veiled and otherwise, and hard to not start thinking of the words appropriate to the degradation these "scholars" perpetrate.

To deny the Holocaust is not just to deny the crime against the Jews. It's also to deny the crime committed against the Romany, against the Communists, against the Trade Unions, against the ill, the aged, the infirm, the mentally incapacitated. It is to offer a blessing to the crimes committed against the indigenous Americans, the Irish, the African nations, the Indians, the Indonesians. It's to ignore the lessons of history, and to damn Humanity to more of the same.

Sorry. Don't accept it. Do not want.

If you choose to lie to yourself, don't come crying because the rest of the world looks at you as the fool you are.

Peace, out.

 

[TSR]

OK, but first you cite the *specific* posts of mine which in which I *deny* the holocaust.

.
Nup. You made the first claim, you support yours first. That's how things work around here.

*Then* we can talk about your body of work, while not quoting you explicitly "denying" the Holocaust, but JAQing off and then running away from the answers. For example, my question on 12 December 2010 about what *specific* evidence you require to counter your "questioning" of the Holocaust. And why you refer to teaching the history you are trying to claim you do not deny as "indoctrination." Or that your claim that anyone who claims to have seen a family member selected for the gas chambers and marched in the direction we know from other sources the gas chambers were, to a person, "wrong." Or your suggestion that the intentionalist / functionalist debate somehow justifies doubt about the Holocaust itself. Or that a definition of the Holocaust which includes all of the innocents murdered is 'meaningless.' Or your questioning (as a non-German speaker) that the meaning of "Endlösung" by the Nazis was ambiguous. Or that the status of Vienna as a major railway hub is somehow in doubt. Or that the 'ironclad rule of the Holocaust' is that "what you say about the holocaust doesn't need to be true as long as it sounds really bad."

The ball is in your court, apparently the only ball you can lay claim to: what qualities you can document that I have which lead you to believe that "people like me" only care about how "bad" a single individual can make the Holocaust appear?

D*mn, I wish I hadn't promised L that I'd curb my use of the term *sshat in public...

Thread closed. Please see the general thread here.

Posted By: LashL

.