• 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.

Merged General Holocaust denial discussion thread

Status
Not open for further replies.
Nick Terry said:
How many have noticed there is no definitive work on anything in history?

Certainly not Holocaust deniers, that's for sure.
Click to expand...

There is the Nuremburg tribunal which transcripts are all over the internet.

They do not talk about any six million dead and only mention gassing in trucks.

So where are you getting your sacred beliefs? What is your source? Stories your mother told you?

Grow up!
 
Matt Giwer said:
There is the Nuremburg tribunal which transcripts are all over the internet.

They do not talk about any six million dead and only mention gassing in trucks.

So where are you getting your sacred beliefs? What is your source? Stories your mother told you?

Grow up!
Click to expand...

Uh, Matt, way to miss the point. I said:

How many have noticed there is no definitive work on anything in history?
Click to expand...

Now we will conduct an elementary control exercise. Name me a book about Stalin's Great Terror.
 
Matt Giwer said:
Israel is only the scene of the zionist crimes. All Zionists are murderers and thieves. Post to the thread in my sig if you think you can show otherwise.

You can guess as you wish. <snip>
Edited by Locknar: 
Moderated content removed.
Click to expand...

This is not actually responsive to what I wrote. You seem to believe that mentioning Israel is a cue for you to begin yet another one of your rants. You then sidestep a major point made in the post you were ostensibly replying to, and then repeat the same blether as before.

<snip>
Edited by Locknar: 
Edited, breach of rule 11.


Holocaust threads aren't Israel vs Palestine threads. You sidestepped my point that

Note that expressing an opinion on the Holocaust which is contrary to revisionist dogma does not make one a 'Zionist'. Acceptance of the historical record of what happened in Europe between 1939-45 implies absolutely nothing about someone's views on the Middle East.
Click to expand...

Maybe you disagree. If so, you didn't exactly make your point clear on this one. So perhaps you should answer my posts properly, and engage with the discussion instead of going off on a rant as usual.

You also have said nothing about my final point

By contrast, Holocaust deniers are de facto apologists for National Socialism.
Click to expand...

Now it may well be the case that you deny the Holocaust primarily for some other reason, such as your evidently rabid hatred of Jews. But you end up also apologising for Nazism as a result. That makes you at the very least, a useful idiot for neo-Nazis.

I suspect that like Saggy you have no knowledge of T4, the fate of Soviet POWs or any of the other atrocities which the Nazi regime committed against non-Jews. But if you are to be taken seriously on the subject of the mass murder of European Jews then you will have to confront these crimes as well.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
Matt Giwer said:
Excuse me but the accusation of nazi is as bad as if not worse than the accusation of communist or zionist.

I have been moderated for accusing people of being zionists.

As there is no difference among the three I do not see your point.

If you wish to attempt to defend the murderous zionists the link is my sig to the discussion here is in my sig.

I have invited dozens of people to debate in that forum and not a single one has shown the absence of human feelings to attempt to defend the zionists.

There is a legitimate thread in these forums in which to try to defend the zionists. There has been no refutation of the premise that zionists are by definition murderers and thieves.

I do invite you to try to demonstrate otherwise in the appropriate thread.
Click to expand...
Who are these evil "Zionists"?
 
Nick Terry said:
And rightly so, if they did not express any opinion on Israel.

Note that expressing an opinion on the Holocaust which is contrary to revisionist dogma does not make one a 'Zionist'. Acceptance of the historical record of what happened in Europe between 1939-45 implies absolutely nothing about someone's views on the Middle East.

So I'm guessing you slung around your favourite insult inappropriately, and were called on it.

By contrast, Holocaust deniers are de facto apologists for National Socialism.
Click to expand...

Well said. Take heed Matt,I understood that and I'm a dumb Zionist. Surely a smart denier like you will have no trouble with it.
 
Matt Giwer said:
So where are you getting your sacred beliefs? What is your source? Stories your mother told you?
Click to expand...

From history books and my Uncle who saw things that nobody should have to see. You should try opening a history book sometime,they are far more gripping than Mein Kampf.
 
Quote:

By contrast, Holocaust deniers are de facto apologists for National Socialism.
Click to expand...

Exactly. Whatever the deniers motivations, they are going to bat for the Nazis. There is no way around this fact.

For most deniers the underlying motivation is Jew hatred pure and simple often, but not always, covered by the thin fig leaf of "anti-Zionism." For others it begins with Hitler hugging and progresses to full-scale Holocaust denial, David Irving being the prime example.

There are a few contrarians in the mix whose desire is to shock and confront like the Jewish ex-denier David Cole, but if you peer into the depths of fetid souls of most deniers, you'll smell the rank odor of racial hatred and Nazi love.

(Btw, I'm working on a You Tube upload of a documentary about the David Irving- Deborah Lipstadt libel trial. It's an hour show and needs to be cut into 14 minute segments for You Tube and edited. I hope to have it ready in a few days and will post it here when it's available for viewing.)
 
Can someone explain why there are no references to gas chambers in the wartime and post war writings/speeches of Eisenhower, Churchill, or de Gaulle?
 
Clayton Moore said:
Can someone explain why there are no references to gas chambers in the wartime and post war writings/speeches of Eisenhower, Churchill, or de Gaulle?
Click to expand...

According to who - the only person who has actually claimed to have read everything the three wrote is this man

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Robert_Faurisson

However Churchill wrote this on 24th July 1944

'There is no doubt this is the most horrible crime ever committed in the whole history of the world, and it has been done by scientific machinery by nominally civilised men in the name of a great State and one of the leading races of Europe. It is quite clear that all concerned in this crime who may fall into our hands, including the people who only obeyed orders by carrying out the butcheries, should be put to death after their association with the murders has been proved.'


Then on April 18 1945 in the House Of Commons, Churchill announced the following

'The matter is of urgency, as of course, it is not possible to arrest the processes of decay in many cases. In view of this urgency, I have come to the conclusion that eight members of this House and two members of the House of Lords should form a Parliamentary Delegation and should travel out at once to the Supreme Headquarters, where General Eisenhower will make all necessary arrangements for their inspection of the scenes, whether in American or British sectors.'
​


​
 
MG1962 said:
According to who - the only person who has actually claimed to have read everything the three wrote is this man

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Robert_Faurisson

However Churchill wrote this on 24th July 1944

'There is no doubt this is the most horrible crime ever committed in the whole history of the world, and it has been done by scientific machinery by nominally civilised men in the name of a great State and one of the leading races of Europe. It is quite clear that all concerned in this crime who may fall into our hands, including the people who only obeyed orders by carrying out the butcheries, should be put to death after their association with the murders has been proved.'


Then on April 18 1945 in the House Of Commons, Churchill announced the following

'The matter is of urgency, as of course, it is not possible to arrest the processes of decay in many cases. In view of this urgency, I have come to the conclusion that eight members of this House and two members of the House of Lords should form a Parliamentary Delegation and should travel out at once to the Supreme Headquarters, where General Eisenhower will make all necessary arrangements for their inspection of the scenes, whether in American or British sectors.'
​


​
Click to expand...

Then you'll be eager to provide a few.
 
Oh, Jesus H. Christ.

Let me ask you a question: What difference does it make whether three men, all of whom served on the Western Front or were in government there, talked about gas chambers in their memoirs? Let's say Stalin didn't write about them either. Or that he did. Does that somehow have an influence on whether they existed?

Anyway, Ike wrote about them in Crusade for Peace. Does that change your mind?
 
Wroclaw said:
Oh, Jesus H. Christ.

Let me ask you a question: What difference does it make whether three men, all of whom served on the Western Front or were in government there, talked about gas chambers in their memoirs? Let's say Stalin didn't write about them either. Or that he did. Does that somehow have an influence on whether they existed?

Anyway, Ike wrote about them in Crusade for Peace. Does that change your mind?
Click to expand...

I guess the difference would be that they, the gas chambers, never existed and that the THREE leaders didn't want their descendants and history to prove them liars.


So what's the deal with implying "Ike" wrote that book?

Crusade for peace;: Eisenhower's presidential legacy, with the program for action [Hardcover]
Robert Rosamond (Author)
 
Last edited:
Clayton Moore said:
I guess the difference would be that they, the gas chambers, never existed and that the THREE leaders didn't want their descendants and history to prove them liars.
Click to expand...


Well Ike had you covered

The things I saw beggar description...The visual evidence and the verbal testimony of starvation, cruelty and bestiality were...overpowering...I made the visit deliberately in order to be in a position to give first-hand evidence of these things if ever, in the future, there develops a tendency to charge these allegations merely to 'propaganda.'
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Back
Top Bottom