NationStates Jolt Archive

If you want to play silly buggers with sematics then my assertation of 9 million is still correct as it would have hit 9 at some point before getting to 11.

I notice you didn't bother to answer the question either.since YOU want to compare Genocides (BTW.. IMO comparing Genocides is a bad idea.. that is why I would not call this or that Genocide "THE worst genocide in history.") based on the number of deaths...

At least get your numbers straight.. and bring your proof too.

Uh, I'm sorry - my history books say the same thing as "hollywood".then it must be true :rolleyes:

since YOU want to compare Genocide (BTW.. IMO comparing Genocides is a bad idea.. that is why I would not call this or that Genocide "THE worst") based on the number of deaths...

At least get your numbers straight.. and bring your proof too.

How else would you compare them?

When have I ever quoted the number as 11 million anyway?

I don't understand why denying the Holocaust is illegal in so many European countries. These laws only increase anti-Semitism. Apparently these Jews enjoy their victim status, so they are afraid that facts may ruin it. If the Holocaust was as factual as Europe claims, then what does anyone have to fear from a complete investigation?


Huh I thought it was only actualy illegeal in Germany?

How else would you compare them?

When have I ever quoted the number as 11 million anyway?it was one of the numbers posted yesterday.. and it is different from yours..

But lets take "your" number for a second..
Are you going to say that you know for a fact how many of these 9 million were Roma, Slavs, Gays, Gypsies, etc ,etc..

and how can you know for a fact the religion(Catholic? Orthodox? Lutheran? Jewish? Atheist?) of the unearthed skeletons?

then it must be true :rolleyes:

No, but sources and survivor reports generally point to the systematic eradication of untermenschen by the German government, aided by the compliance of other European nations.

Though it might be helpful to examine the nature and extent of the Holocaust, the denial of the holocaust has mostly been used to glorify the Nazi regime or as part of an anti-Semitic rant.

Huh I thought it was only actualy illegeal in Germany?Austria an Lithuania has been mentioned..
but the definition of "Holocaust Denial" may vary from Country to Country.

Though it might be helpful to examine the nature and extent of the Holocaust, the denial of the holocaust has mostly been used to glorify the Nazi regime or as part of an anti-Semitic rant.the problem is:
some people (in Austria, Germany and other places) think:
"Examining the nature and extent of this Genocide" constitutes "Holocaust Denial"

it was one of the numbers posted yesterday.. and it is different from yours..

But lets take "your" number for a second..
Are you going to say that you know for a fact how many of these 9 million were Roma, Slavs, Gays, Gypsies, etc ,etc..

and how can you know for a fact the religion(Catholic? Orthodox? Lutheran? Jewish? Atheist?) of the unearthed skeletons?

I don't say that I know for a fact which of the skeletons belonged to which religion and I haven't said I do. I'm curious what relevence that has to the overall number though.

And you still haven't answered the question, how would you compare genocides other than by number?

the problem is:
some people (in Austria, Germany and other places) think:
"Examining the nature and extent of this Genocide" constitutes "Holocaust Denial"

Well, it depends on the political goals, if any, of the researcher doesn't it?

Can you name another that took 9 million lives over the space of a few years?

Stalin's purges killed a lot more than that, although maybe that can't be exactly defined as genocide, seeing as he killed his victims more or less randomly. Maybe that's why he got away with it; even though he killed a lot of people, at least he wasn't racist.

Another good one is the destruction of the Aztecs by the Spanish conquistadors. A lot of it may have been unintentional, and it's hard to define the casualty numbers directly caused by the Spanish, but they still effectively wiped out the Mesoamerican cultures. As macabre as it may sound, the Holocaust only killed a lot of people; the Jews as a people, a culture, and a religion live on. After a century or two, when those directly affected by the Holocaust are dead and forgotten, that is what will matter. So no, the Holocaust is not special among genocides.

Stalin's purges killed a lot more than that, although maybe that can't be exactly defined as genocide, seeing as he killed his victims more or less randomly. Maybe that's why he got away with it; even though he killed a lot of people, at least he wasn't racist.

Another good one is the destruction of the Aztecs by the Spanish conquistadors. A lot of it may have been unintentional, and it's hard to define the casualty numbers directly caused by the Spanish, but they still effectively wiped out the Mesoamerican cultures. As macabre as it may sound, the Holocaust only killed a lot of people; the Jews as a people, a culture, and a religion live on. After a century or two, when those directly affected by the Holocaust are dead and forgotten, that is what will matter. So no, the Holocaust is not special among genocides.

What were the time frames for those? What makes the Holocaust stand out is the sheer speed with which it was carried out and the way the whole process was industrialised. The 9 million figure I used only takes into account a fairly conservative estimate of those killed in camps, if we start adding on all the others killed in streets shootings for example then the figure creeps up alot closer to that of Stalins reign and in a much shorter period.

I reckon that care for the feelings of the survivors may be more important than free speech in a matter generally agreed upon. Nonetheless we should be able to examine the holocaust freely, but with care. Note that this does not equal denial.

I don't say that I know for a fact which of the skeletons belonged to which religion and I haven't said I do. I'm curious what relevence that has to the overall number though.why relevant? why am I talking about this?

one of the things I dont like about this issue.. is the following:

-The other Victims(Roma,Gays,slavs,Poles,Gypsies) of this Genocide.. have been comparatively (/historically) ignored by the media.

-On this issue..the average Joe think only of the Jews.. probably because their only "History source" is Hollywood.
But Hollywood has never presented any proof.. they dont-know-for-a-fact the unearthed skeletons were of what religion.

the Worst genocide in History?
why is this genocide THE worst?
Hollywood ?

There have been worse mass killings (Mao comes to mind), but this was the worst case of genocide.

Stalin and Mao each killed more people than Hitler, but most of their killings can't be classified as genocide whereas the Holocaust was genocide.

why relevant? why am I talking about this?

one of the think I dont like about this issue is the following:

-The other Victims(Roma,Gays,slavs,Poles,Gypsies) of this Genocide.. have been comparatively (/historically) ignored by the media.

-On this issue..the average Joe think only of the Jews.. as the only "History source" most of them use is Hollywood.
But Hollywood has never presented any proof.. they dont-know-for-a-fact the unearthed skeletons were of what religion.

So are you of the opinion that a couple of generations of historians have just made up the figures?

So are you of the opinion that a couple of generations of historians have just made up the figures?my opinion is that no one of your "historians" can tell the Religion of thousands of unearthed skeletons.. in mass graves.

#1 This Genocide happened.. there is no question about it in my mind.

#2 There is no reason to kill Free speech on this (or any other) Genocide.. there is no question in my mind about this either.

why relevant? why am I talking about this?

one of the things I dont like about this issue.. is the following:

-The other Victims(Roma,Gays,slavs,Poles,Gypsies) of this Genocide.. have been comparatively (/historically) ignored by the media.

-On this issue..the average Joe think only of the Jews.. probably because their only "History source" is Hollywood.
But Hollywood has never presented any proof.. they dont-know-for-a-fact the unearthed skeletons were of what religion.

What is your point? that the average Joe is ignorant... big suprise...

Or that that Jews did not form a large part of those deported people that died, because sadly they did. The Nazi's and other European administrations left enough documentation to support the clam that Jews were victim to this genocide.

Jews were victim to this genocide.Jews were one-of-the-victims to this genocide.

Jews were one-of-the-victims to this genocide.

that is what I said, earlier I agreed that they were not the only victims

still:
"Jews were victim to this genocide"

no exclusion of other groups there

that is what I said, earlier I agreed that they were not the only victims

still:
"Jews were victim to this genocide"

no exclusion of other groups theremy mistake.
also.. I need to take a break.
/going AFK in 2'

Jews were one-of-the-victims to this genocide.

They represented a little over half of the total victims. Without a doubt, they suffered more than any other group.

There are reasons why they get special attention.

While others were killed, they were the ones who were subjected to pogroms and ghettos. They were the primary target of the Nazis.

The Jews get attention because of the numbers. The percentage of Jews in the world killed by the Holocaust are simply beyond belief. Over 2 thirds of all Jews in Europe were killed by the Holocaust. The 6 million dead Jews represented 40% of the pre-Holocaust Jewish populations. Even today, we as a people have yet reached the pre-Holocaust Jewish population levels.

The 6 million dead Jews how do you know-for-a-fact there were 6 million?
We have never truly figured the total Holocaust number.. and somehow you know-for-a-fact how many of those skeletons are of Jewish faith???

There are reasons why WE (Jewish) get special attention.edited for clarity.. changed "they" for "we"
unless.. you are no longer Jewish..

I know it makes me extremely uncomfortable to hear any sort of doubt. It's not exactly rational or scientific, but for example I can't look at the Stormfront website because I get that upset.
Weakling. :p You seem to handle doubt on part of the lefties here though regarding our favoured economic system quite well. :)



I see no reason why spreading every kind of crap should be allowed. After all, a state also has an obligation to properly educate its people.
Btw, it should be obvious to you why Germany has laws to punish holocaust denial.
Then the US government should outlaw denying evolution. No debate on the matter. It, after all, has an obligation to properly educate "its people" (as if it were some sort of parent...). And if it believes 9/11 was not a conspiracy and that denying this is denying the truth, this should be outlawed AS well (since Government gets to decide what is The Truth™)!

A law against holocaust denial is not a censorship of ideas that a society finds offensive or disagreeable. It is a law against bullshit. And that's fine by all standards. The holocaust is a FACT. There is nothing to have an idea or even debate about it. It is not fact because the government says so, but because the holocaust did in fact happen. It is NOT a matter of opinion. :rolleyes:
Just like the abovementioned examples.

God, if there were truly a law against bullshit, most of the population would be serving time by now...

What were the time frames for those? What makes the Holocaust stand out is the sheer speed with which it was carried out and the way the whole process was industrialised. The 9 million figure I used only takes into account a fairly conservative estimate of those killed in camps, if we start adding on all the others killed in streets shootings for example then the figure creeps up alot closer to that of Stalins reign and in a much shorter period.
No it doesn't. If one considers more ambitious estimates of how many Stalin killed, in moves into the vicinity of 40 - 50 million. A third of Russia's population. And anyway, if you wanna talk about efficiency, I think the Aztecs had that one down - 20 000 sacrifices of enemies within 3 days (which included ritualistic removal of the heart, using primitive techniques (the heart removal was estimated to be carried out within 3 minutes or so)!

There have been worse mass killings (Mao comes to mind), but this was the worst case of genocide.
Yep, he holds the world record there.

What were the time frames for those? What makes the Holocaust stand out is the sheer speed with which it was carried out and the way the whole process was industrialised. The 9 million figure I used only takes into account a fairly conservative estimate of those killed in camps, if we start adding on all the others killed in streets shootings for example then the figure creeps up alot closer to that of Stalins reign and in a much shorter period.

So the Nazis were in a hurry. That would make sense, with a war to fight on several fronts and all that. Besides, the Germans are known for their efficiency.

Let's see... Germany's antisemitic policies were put into effect so gradually that I don't know when the Holocaust officially began, but it seems to me that Stalin's purges didn't go on for much more than ten years. Annihilating the Aztecs took the Spanish 60 years, but they actually got the job done, which is quite a feat when attempting genocides. I think that the only thing that the speed of the process shows is that the Germans were good at it, nothing else. Also, a genocide on a national level always needs the support of the government anyway.

When I was in elementary school, I vaguely remember being taught that 6-6,5 million people were killed in the camps, 5,5 million of whom were Jews. A couple of million were killed elsewhere; of course this depends entirely on the definition of the Holocaust. I'm personally inclined to believe the more conservative estimates, because I'm sure that the Allied researchers rounded up and exaggerated every time they got the chance. I base this assumption on the facts that they were majorly pissed off, they had no reason not to, and that I probably would have done the same.

What were the time frames for those? What makes the Holocaust stand out is the sheer speed with which it was carried out and the way the whole process was industrialised. The 9 million figure I used only takes into account a fairly conservative estimate of those killed in camps, if we start adding on all the others killed in streets shootings for example then the figure creeps up alot closer to that of Stalins reign and in a much shorter period.

okay what about Stalins forced famine of the Ukraine? 7,000,000 between 1932-33 http://www.historyplace.com/worldhistory/genocide/stalin.htm

so it may be 100% true (as told by hollywood.. 6 million and all).. or.. may not be as told by the people writing your History books..
yet you (Germans) are going shut down the door on any possible debate on the issue.. by making it illegal.You willfully misrepresent the issue. Why? You can debate whatever you want in regard to the holocaust, its origins, reasons, details, numbers, impacts, or whatever (within reason). But you just may not claim that it did not happen at all.
Why would you doubt that, anyways? Never been to a former KZ ?
Would you also doubt the current Iraq war?

how do you know-for-a-fact there were 6 million?
We have never truly figured the total Holocaust number.. and somehow you know-for-a-fact how many of those skeletons are of Jewish faith???

One can count recorded deportations rather than skeletons
edited for clarity.. changed "they" for "we"
unless.. you are no longer Jewish..
Whether IDF is Jewish does not matter nor does it contribute to this discussion :)

how do you know-for-a-fact there were 6 million?
We have never truly figured the total Holocaust number.. and somehow you know-for-a-fact how many of those skeletons are of Jewish faith???
The estimates range from about 5 to 7 million. Six million is generally accepted as historical fact by most people who have brains.

Now I know you dislike Jews, but that shouldn't stop you from being able to read up on the subject.

edited for clarity.. changed "they" for "we"
unless.. you are no longer Jewish..I am Jewish, but I used "they" to reference the victims of the Holocaust. To say "we" in that case would be incorrect for I was not a victim.

since Government gets to decide what is The Truth™Since when does a government determine what is history and what is not? The fact that the holocaust did in fact happen has nothing whatsoever to do with any government's decisions.
Would you deny that G.W. Bush was ever elected president of the US? Because you think someone is fabricating history?

Because there have already been many complete investigations by multiple groups for the past 61 years. The facts are that the Nazis murdered between 6 and 12 million people; there is no debate on whether or not it happened, and there is no debate that the Nazis killed millions of people.


12 million???

Jews 3 millions, goys 3 million = 6 million, that a big enough figure.

As long as that freedom is not abused.

What do you mean by abused?

Since when does a government determine what is history and what is not?
Well it's certainly not a position I maintain (that is, that it ought to do so). However, you did say that a government has an obligation to properly educate its people; in order to do so, it must have an idea of what a proper education is, ergo what the truth is. It can either allow debate on the matter, or impose its view.

The fact that the holocaust did in fact happen has nothing whatsoever to do with any government's decisions.
Would you deny that G.W. Bush was ever elected president of the US? Because you think someone is fabricating history?
I wouldn't, but neither would I punish someone for doing so. That is my point.

I wouldn't, but neither would I punish someone for doing so. That is my point.

Neither would I, but I can understand why one would for the sake of the surviving victims

when does a government determine what is history and what is not? right after they win a war. (and the following months)

The Germans/Japs lost the War?.. our Gov gets to write history.

weird. i learned in school last year that about 22 million people were killed.. 7-8 mil being jewish and the rest being a blend of russian POWs, gypsies, gays, retarded people, political dissidents and physically handicapped people.
maybe my history teacher just sucks balls.
btw, IDF, i respect you quite a bit for not blowin up at some of these assholes.

Can you name another that took 9 million lives over the space of a few years?

No, but like I posted, I can name one that took about 7 million lives in about 2 years (1932-1933)...

it was one of the numbers posted yesterday.. and it is different from yours..

But lets take "your" number for a second..
Are you going to say that you know for a fact how many of these 9 million were Roma, Slavs, Gays, Gypsies, etc ,etc..

and how can you know for a fact the religion(Catholic? Orthodox? Lutheran? Jewish? Atheist?) of the unearthed skeletons?

The only way we know of the religion/ethnicity or any of that is from the meticulous records that the Nazis kept on their proceedings. As much as they were ruthless, they did keep very good records. So, even if we can't tell by just looking at the remains, we can examine the records left behind.

Of course, in some cases, as with death marches, they may have not recorded exact information, which would leave a hole in their records.

okay what about Stalins forced famine of the Ukraine? 7,000,000 between 1932-33 http://www.historyplace.com/worldhistory/genocide/stalin.htm

Oh, it looks like someone else is mentioning this as well...

right after they win a war. (and the following months)

The Germans/Japs lost the War?.. our Gov gets to write history.
Yes. On its own this isn't much of a danger (although it can contribute to misinformation). It becomes problematic though when this is marketted as The Truth, and opposing views treated as false opinions that are to be silenced.

Why would you doubt that, anyways?
Would you also doubt the current Iraq war?I doubt your historians can unearth a million skeletons from huge mass graves.. and determine which ones are Catholics, which ones are Orthodoxes, which ones are Atheists.

Would you also doubt the current Iraq war?No.. but if your so called historians unearth a million skeletons from huge Iraqi mass graves.. and tell me they can tell which ones are Shiites and which ones are Sunnis.. I WILL doubt ..
Wouldn't you doubt it too?

I doubt your historians can unearth a million skeletons from huge mass graves.. and determine which ones are Catholics, which ones are Orthodoxes, which ones are Atheists.

No.. but if your so called historians unearth a million skeletons from huge Iraqi mass graves.. and tell me they can tell which ones are Shiites and which ones are Sunnis.. I WILL doubt ..
Wouldn't you doubt it too?

Wtf??? Why would the Nazis explicitly lie about what type of people they killed, what reason would they have? Why would they bother making vast amounts of vigorous records of the exact ethnicity/religion of the people they killed, never intended to be released to the public, if it was all a big lie?

Not only did the perpetrators of the Holocaust keep extremely detailed records .... I've met survivors with the number tatooed on their arms. Holocaust denial is based on something other than facts.

extremely detailed records .... I've met survivors with the number tatooed on their arms.
What is your point? that the average Joe is ignorant... big suprise...

Or that that Jews did not form a large part of those deported people that died, because sadly they did. The Nazi's and other European administrations left enough documentation...looks like a lot of documensts..
maybe someone should bring those extremely detailed deportation records.. take pictures of the tattoos and bring it to the Holocaust conference.

weird. i learned in school last year that about 22 million people were killed.. 7-8 mil being jewish and the rest being a blend of russian POWs, gypsies, gays, retarded people, political dissidents and physically handicapped people.
maybe my history teacher just sucks balls.
btw, IDF, i respect you quite a bit for not blowin up at some of these assholes.

If you're going to post, please refrain from calling people assholes. Even if their opinions make them assholes, it's no reason to start with name calling in a thread that remained rather civil.

Secondly, using the term 'gypsies' is politically incorrect. They are actually known as Roma (or Romany). From the word 'gypsy' we get 'gyp', hence, in the English language, the word 'gypsy' when referring to the Roma is considered derogatory.

Beyond the Jews, there were also Slavs, Serbs, Soviets, Intelligentsia in Poland, Asians (Japanese exempt as they were allies), Africans, dissenters, Jehovah's Witnesses, Free Masons, Communists, homosexuals (this didn't women, just men)... (Victims (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Holocaust_victims))

Poland, home of the largest Jewish community in the world before the war, had had over 90% of its Jewish population, or about 3,000,000 Jews, killed. The penalty imposed by the Germans for hiding Jews was death, and this was carried out mercilessly. In spite of this some Poles hid Jewish children and families and saved their lives at risk to their own families.

Greece, Yugoslavia, Hungary, Lithuania, Bohemia, the Netherlands, Slovakia, and Latvia each had over 70% of their Jewish population destroyed. Belgium, Romania, Luxembourg, Norway, and Estonia lost around half of their Jewish population, the Soviet Union over one third of its Jews, and even countries such as France and Italy had each seen around a quarter of their Jewish population killed. Denmark was able to evacuate almost all of the Jews in their country to nearby Sweden, which was neutral during the war. Using everything from fishing boats to private yachts, the Danes whisked the Danish Jews out of harm's way. Some Jews outside Europe under Nazi occupation were also affected by the Holocaust and treatment from the Nazis.

In all, more than 60% of the Jews in Europe were murdered in the Holocaust. The world's Jewish population was reduced by a third, from roughly 16.6 million in 1939 to about 11 million in 1946.[2] Even sixty years later, there are still fewer Jews in the world today than there were prior to 1940.

That should give you a rough idea of how many Jews there were before and after the genocide.

Wiki copy-pasteI love Wikipedia.. because Wikipedia is very democratic.
Wikipedia pages are basically: "information people is willing to post.. backed up by some media.. any media."
Wiki is not proof by in itself.. It only the mirror of other information floating around.

Secondly, using the term 'gypsies' is politically incorrect. They are actually known as Roma (or Romany). From the word 'gypsy' we get 'gyp', hence, in the English language, the word 'gypsy' when referring to the Roma is considered derogatory.

Interesting. In England it's considered politically correct to call them 'Gypsies' (note the captial 'G') or 'Travellers' (again, capped up).
http://www.travellerslaw.org.uk/issues.htm

Most people, of course, continue to call them gyppos, pikeys, or do-as-you-likeys.

As long as that freedom is not abused.
If it's subject to that sort of restriction then it isn't freedom.

That's like saying you're allowed to decide what you want for breakfast, but if you choose anything other than eggs we'll only give you eggs. The guy who chooses eggs didn't have any more choice than anyone else.

weird. i learned in school last year that about 22 million people were killed.. 7-8 mil being jewish and the rest being a blend of russian POWs, gypsies, gays, retarded people, political dissidents and physically handicapped people.
maybe my history teacher just sucks balls.
btw, IDF, i respect you quite a bit for not blowin up at some of these assholes.

AND, please, how many people did the komunists killed under Staline?

OcceanDrive, just stop posting now while you're behind. Every time you post on a topic about either Israel or the Jews you make yourself out to be a complete asshat. Why don't you just save yourself the embarrassment and not post on topics that you know jackshit about. I know you won't listen to this advice since you're an anti-semite, but oh well.

OcceanDrive, just stop posting now while you're behind. Every time you post on a topic about either Israel or the Jews you make yourself out to be a complete asshat. Why don't you just save yourself the embarrassment and not post on topics that you know jackshit about. I know you won't listen to this advice since you're an anti-semite, but oh well.

And this is yet another broad sweeping statement from IDF. It's easy to point fingers. How about you cite the posts where OceanDrive displays this bald-faced assholery? And what in his posts makes him an anti-semite?

If it's subject to that sort of restriction then it isn't freedom.

That's like saying you're allowed to decide what you want for breakfast, but if you choose anything other than eggs we'll only give you eggs. The guy who chooses eggs didn't have any more choice than anyone else.That's just so dumb and narrow-minded bullshit. It's more like the following restriction: you may not go around shooting people. That's not freedom then, either.

And this is yet another broad sweeping statement from IDF. It's easy to point fingers. How about you cite the posts where OceanDrive displays this bald-faced assholery? And what in his posts makes him an anti-semite?
http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showthread.php?t=498949

He seems to buy anti-semitic propaganda that everything is Jewish conspiracy.

Also read his posts on the Holocaust. He's a Holocaust revisionist.

http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showthread.php?t=498949

He seems to buy anti-semitic propaganda that everything is Jewish conspiracy.

Also read his posts on the Holocaust. He's a Holocaust revisionist.
That thread had Deep Kimchi in it. Brings back memories...

I love Wikipedia.. because Wikipedia is very democratic.
Wikipedia pages are basically: "information people is willing to post.. backed up by some media.. any media."
Wiki is not proof by in itself.. It only the mirror of other information floating around.

You haven't exactly proven the information is false.

An opinion is not proof either.

http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showthread.php?t=498949

He seems to buy anti-semitic propaganda that everything is Jewish conspiracy.

Also read his posts on the Holocaust. He's a Holocaust revisionist.
Ok, so he gave the thread a really asinine title.

You still haven't provided any proof. I am not the one saying that this person has done all this. You are the one who has.

I think you should direct us to obvious posts, otherwise methinks it's a case of you having it for OD2. After all, you didn't chew out me for a couple of random Jewish jokes, and yet you're telling OD2 he should STFU without quoting any posts and using a thread that in the OP doesn't even mention Jews, but has a stupid title.

I don't find myself in agreement with OD2, but I think that unless you can find posts that FULLY support your point, I'll be of the opinion that you blow out your ass for sheer joy. In fact, I find myself in disagreement with you frequently because I can't stand extremists, but, I try to at least debate you civilly, though, I'd prefer not to because it's like talking a kid with his fingers in his ears most of the time.

Weakling. :p You seem to handle doubt on part of the lefties here though regarding our favoured economic system quite well. :)
Yep. I normally handle criticisms and challenges quite well. But not in this case.

Don't worry about IDF, he juts thinks anyone who opposes Israeli foreign policy and dislikes Zionism to be an anti-Semite, in reality the Zionists are the worst ethnic-ultranationalists since Apartheid and Nazism. In reality he believes in that Ben Gurion rhetoric about subjugation of the Arabs, and just for the record IDF how much did the Jews pay the Palestinians for the land?

Fact remains, where did the holocaust happen? Europe. Then why do the Palestinian people have to suffer on their own soil because some Jews (a minority I remind you compared with all the other civilians who died) decided that the holocaust justified them in annexation of Palestine and subjugation of it's people.

By its nature, Zionism concentrates ultra-nationalism, chauvinism and racial intolerance, excuse for territorial occupation and annexation, military opportunism, cult of political promiscuousness and irresponsibility, demagogy and ideological diversion, dirty tactics and perfidy... Absurd are attempts of Zionist ideologists to present criticizing them, or condemning the aggressive politics of the Israel's ruling circles, as antisemitic.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=r9us1jl23Rk

Remember people, this is the founder of Israel speaking below, the role model of Israel and IDF.


“We must use terror, assassination, intimidation, land confiscation, and the cutting of all social services to rid the Galilee of its Arab population.”

“We must expel the Arabs and take their places.”

- David Ben-Gurion, Founder of Israel.

I'm adding to what Andaras has written, since they made an excellent post.

Don't worry about IDF, he juts thinks anyone who opposes Israeli foreign policy and dislikes Zionism to be an anti-Semite, in reality the Zionists are the worst ethnic-ultranationalists since Apartheid and Nazism. In reality he believes in that Ben Gurion rhetoric about subjugation of the Arabs, and just for the record IDF how much did the Jews pay the Palestinians for the land?

They paid nothing because the British 'liberated' it from Turkey during the First World War. It became the British Mandate of Palestine and they allowed for Jews to emigrate there. Those who went were authorised by the authorities. Others came illegally.

And IDF will tell you how there were Nazis in Palestine, ignoring that during the 1936-1939 Arab Revolt, there were a handful of Jewish groups; the Haganah was one of the groups that formed, and though not officially recognized by the British, the British let it assist in the quelling of Arab peasants.

Among the groups were Jewish Settlement Police, Jewish Auxiliary Forces and Special Night Squads, all formed with the British. There was a smaller version of the Haganah, the Irgun, which adopted a policy of revenge and retaliation and they targeted civilians.

Fact remains, where did the holocaust happen? Europe. Then why do the Palestinian people have to suffer on their own soil because some Jews (a minority I remind you compared with all the other civilians who died) decided that the holocaust justified them in annexation of Palestine and subjugation of it's people.

They suffered because the west while feeling guilty about letting the genocide happen, didn't want to take in a bunch of Jews no one wanted, so, to make themselves feel better and to think they had tried to help, they used the British Mandate of Palestine. At the same time, the British tried to control the amount of immigration there, but there were far too many illegal immigrants going there than they could help.

The Jews then banded together to rebel.

The 1947 UN Partition Plan backfired because of small factions in both groups that found this to be distatseful. The Jews, under their paramilitary of Haganah "stop" the 1947 Jerusalem Riots. The Arab Committee had declared a 3 day strike, which had started the riots.

They had intended to march on Zion Square but were stopped by the British. Having been turned away, they focused their protest anger on the city, turning on buildings and shops in a commercial district of the city. It lasted for two days before the Haganah stepped in and decided to end it.

It used force again Arab civilians and launched a bombing campaign on Arab villages in the area.

By its nature, Zionism concentrates ultra-nationalism, chauvinism and racial intolerance, excuse for territorial occupation and annexation, military opportunism, cult of political promiscuousness and irresponsibility, demagogy and ideological diversion, dirty tactics and perfidy... Absurd are attempts of Zionist ideologists to present criticizing them, or condemning the aggressive politics of the Israel's ruling circles, as antisemitic.

Interesting description you give. The only other politically driven world that I can think of that also fits that description is 'Nazism'. No, I'm not saying they are like the Nazis, I'm simply pointing out how similar the two words are.

The Jews could have easily had a home if the Zionist movement hadn't been so aggressive and if the 1947 UN Partition Plan had been done right.

http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/thumb/0/02/1947PartitionPlan.PNG/306px-1947PartitionPlan.PNG

Here we go with this shit again... :rolleyes:

http://www.camera.org/images_user/1_000058-.jpg

That's just so dumb and narrow-minded bullshit. It's more like the following restriction: you may not go around shooting people. That's not freedom then, either.
Let's examine this on a closer level: If someone is denying the Holocaust with the specific aim of spreading hatred towards Jews, then yes your example is more apposite. However, if someone is merely expressing an opinion (however ignorant, shallow and stupid it may be) without such intention, then Llewdor is perfectly correct.

if someone is merely expressing an opinion

The vast majority of Holocaust deniers are bigots trying to spread bigotry.

I don't see why protecting the expression of a particular nonsensical opinion held without bigotry by a tiny portion of the population is worth permitting the other Holocaust deniers to spread hatred.

I don't see why protecting the expression of a particular nonsensical opinion held without bigotry by a tiny portion of the population is worth permitting the other Holocaust deniers to spread hatred.
If the facts do indeed support the argument that the Holocaust occured - to the point that one may say argument is not even necessary - dealing with such individuals should be no issue. As I said, those who specifically spread hatred ought to be punished for it (especially those who link the Holocaust to some Jewish conspiracy theory); those who are merely expressing an opinion ought not to be.

those who specifically spread hatred ought to be punished for it

Then they will always claim that they aren't really spreading hatred, and are just trying to promote rational discussion... while, of course, ignoring all counterevidence.

Thankyou Europa Maxima for once again proving my point, just as IDF does every time with his emotion driven 'anyone who doesn't like Israel is teh anti-semite!', truth is, the 'Holocaust' has been hijacked and perverted to fulfill the racist and intolerant agenda. Why is that Israel has broken every single agreement it has ever made in the region, every agreement about not building more imperialist colonies in the West Bank etc, more agreements broken by Israel than any Arab state.

And moreover, and refering to my previous quotes, who can take a country seriously whos Founder and first PM said such intolerant and racist remarks about Arabs. Israel has no credibility.

Here we go with this shit again... :rolleyes:

http://www.camera.org/images_user/1_000058-.jpg

Way to escape debating a topic....

truth is, the 'Holocaust' has been hijacked and perverted to fulfill the racist and intolerant agenda.

So what?

What does that have to do with Holocaust denial?

The term "Holocaust denier" is sort of a misnomer. Most "Holocaust deniers" don't actually deny the Holocaust, just certain commonly believed details about it. If they are blaming the Jews for any misinformation, then it is hate speech, but if not, their opinions should be tolerated.

So what?

What does that have to do with Holocaust denial?

Indeed, how very off-topic this has become. I doubt the actions of the nation Isreal has anything to do with the subject of denying that the Holocaust did or didnt occur...

'holocaust denial' does not exist

Um, yes, it does.

So what?

What does that have to do with Holocaust denial?

Point is, 'holocaust denial' does not exist, it is just that the Zionists like to frame opposition to their policies as anti-semitic.

Point is, 'holocaust denial' does not exist, it is just that the Zionists like to frame opposition to their policies as anti-semitic.

Holocaust denial exists.

Saying otherwise is like me saying you're not a jackass.

Patently untrue.

Way to escape debating a topic....
Want to debate the topic? Then make a relevant thread about Israel, Zion, conspiracy theories et c. I am emotionally indifferent to the subject-matter, but it does wear itself thin.

Holocaust denial, denial....

(Don't blame me.. I got the link.. to the site.. that said it.. here)

Then they will always claim that they aren't really spreading hatred, and are just trying to promote rational discussion... while, of course, ignoring all counterevidence.
In which case they will come across as the fools they are (does anyone take Creationists more seriously because they refuse to accept evidence contrary to their beliefs?). Silencing them simply sends them the signal that they are right, and because one cannot handle their arguments one must resort to shutting them up.

Point is, 'holocaust denial' does not exist, it is just that the Zionists like to frame opposition to their policies as anti-semitic.

While Holocaust Denial is a fact of life, the Zionists do up-play the nature of the genocide and continue to play the 'victim' even when they break the rules, or speak of inciting acts of (state sanctioned) terrorism. The Zionists have hijacked the tragedy that is the Holocaust for their own agenda, toning down the suffering of other victims.

Whether the 'holocaust' happened or not is totally irrelevant today, why should the Palestinians suffer for something that happened in Europe?

While Holocaust Denial is a fact of life, the Zionists do up-play the nature of the genocide and continue to play the 'victim' even when they break the rules, or speak of inciting acts of (state sanctioned) terrorism. The Zionists have hijacked the tragedy that is the Holocaust for their own agenda, toning down the suffering of other victims.

I have to agree.

Whether the 'holocaust' happened or not is totally irrelevant today, why should the Palestinians suffer for something that happened in Europe?
Because they be ebel |\/|05li|\/|5!!!!1111!!!!1one

While Holocaust Denial is a fact of life, the Zionists do up-play the nature of the genocide and continue to play the 'victim' even when they break the rules, or speak of inciting acts of (state sanctioned) terrorism. The Zionists have hijacked the tragedy that is the Holocaust for their own agenda, toning down the suffering of other victims.

Ugh. This thread makes me feel unclean.

LAVA (http://www.worth1000.com/entries/249500/249574XDgc_w.jpg) Soap.. it's hard core.

(does anyone take Creationists more seriously because they refuse to accept evidence contrary to their beliefs?)

Lots of people take Creationism seriously, because it's ideologically convenient for them.

The difference is that Creationism doesn't really do much harm.

Ugh. This thread makes me feel unclean.
Bah, same old. Watch this (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gubiP3mP3Ds&mode=related&search=) if you are in need of feeling emetic. :)

Lots of people take Creationism seriously, because it's ideologically convenient for them.

The difference is that Creationism doesn't really do much harm.

How about this.. something no one has seemed to have heard of :rolleyes: .. I believe God created Evolution. .. Made everything to evolve and shit.

What's a good name for that.. Evoeationism? Creavolution?

Whether the 'holocaust' happened or not is totally irrelevant today, why should the Palestinians suffer for something that happened in Europe?
I have to agree.

I believe I already addressed this in anothe post of mine. The Palestinians, and Muslims had direct participation in it. Because of this well-documented fact, I hope you forgive me for having very little sympathy for these people.

As for suffering, it is largely self-induced. The Palestinians are their own worst enemy. They have refused every compromise with Israel. They continually support terrorism against Israel. Bluntly put, they are more interested in killing Jews than making peace with them and living normal lives. Sad, but true.

If anything, the Jews who immigrated to Israel during the pogroms would have helped the Palestinians due to the economic benefits of agricultural and industrial development. As a matter of fact, prominent Arab leaders welcomed Jewish immigration initially because they themselves realized the benefits this would bring. Doesn't sound like persecution to me.

While Holocaust Denial is a fact of life, the Zionists do up-play the nature of the genocide and continue to play the 'victim' even when they break the rules, or speak of inciting acts of (state sanctioned) terrorism. The Zionists have hijacked the tragedy that is the Holocaust for their own agenda, toning down the suffering of other victims.

I'm actually glad you posted this. It brings up the question of why exactly is the Holocaust so important when so many other ethnicities suffered during the war. And here's why.
The "Final Solution" was designed to exterminate every single Jewish man, woman and child. The only Jews who would have conceivably survived had Hitler been victorious were those who somehow escaped discovery by the Nazis.
Jewish birth (actually mere evidence of "Jewish blood") was sufficient to warrant the punishment of death. This feature distinguished Jews from Poles and Russians who were killed because there were too many of them, and from "Aryans" who were not singled out unless they chose to single themselves out. With the possible exception of Gypsies, he adds, Jews were the only people killed for the "crime" of existing.
The extermination of the Jews had no political or economic justification. It was not a means to any end; it was an end in itself. The killing of Jews was not considered just a part of the war effort, but equal to it; thus, resources that could have been used in the war were diverted instead to the program of extermination.
The people who carried out the "Final Solution" were primarily average citizens. They were ordinary job holders with an extraordinary job. They were not perverts or sadists. Someone else once wrote that Germany was the model of civilized society. What was perverse, then, was that the Germans could work all day in the concentration camps and then go home and read Schiller and Goethe while listening to Beethoven.
Other examples of mass murder exist in human history, such as the atrocities committed by Pol Pot in Cambodia and the Turkish annihilation of the Armenians. But none of those other catastrophes, contain more than one of the characteristics described above.


Jews do not need to compete in a morbid contest as to who has suffered the most in history. It is important, however, to explain why the Holocaust is a unique part of human history.

The difference is that Creationism doesn't really do much harm.
Does denying the Holocaust do much harm nowadays either? And I do not mean emotional trauma to the survivors; rather, has it induced people in the masses to go out persecuting Jews? Sure, some Holocaust deniers do suggest action against Jews, but then this is clearly hate speech.

Lots of people take Creationism seriously, because it's ideologically convenient for them.

The difference is that Creationism doesn't really do much harm.

On the contrary, I think that impeding science and progress does a great deal of harm. Creationism doesn't exactly encourage scientific investigation, if you get my drift.

On the contrary, I think that impeding science and progress does a great deal of harm. Creationism doesn't exactly encourage scientific investigation, if you get my drift.
That's true too. After all, it has been one of the biggest obstacles to scientific advancement in the US.

nowadays

Not really... but the point is to keep it that way.

Such notions have a danger of causing harm if they ever escape the marginalized position they are presently in.

On the contrary, I think that impeding science and progress does a great deal of harm.

Only it doesn't. Nobody serious pays it much attention - any more than serious Holocaust scholars are in danger of being converted to Holocaust denial.

After all, it has been one of the biggest obstacles to scientific advancement in the US.

Um, no, it hasn't been. It's just another illustration of the idiocy of the fundamentalist Christians.

Bah, same old. Watch this (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gubiP3mP3Ds&mode=related&search=) if you are in need of feeling emetic. :)

You know why Hannity and Phelps had to conduct the interview by link-up?

Because if two such dense objects were brought into contact they'd reach critical mass.

You know why Hannity and Phelps had to conduct the interview by link-up?

Because if two such dense objects were brought into contact they'd reach critical mass.
Haha good one. :p I can't believe the hypocrisy though; it's not as if Hannity and his ilk are innocent of hate-preaching themselves.

Bah, same old. Watch this (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gubiP3mP3Ds&mode=related&search=) if you are in need of feeling emetic. :)

The human brain is an amazing thing.

Not really... but the point is to keep it that way.

Such notions have a danger of causing harm if they ever escape the marginalized position they are presently in.

"Marginalized" at the point of a gun is not really marginalized, just suppressed.

Trials like the David Irving libel trial where he was fully exposed as a liar, anti-semite, and general scoundrel are far more effective than a blanket law banning discussion of a topic.

In fact, the ban fuels the anti-semitic fantasies of those who think the subject is being suppressed for political reasons.

"Marginalized" at the point of a gun is not really marginalized, just suppressed.

So? It amounts to the same thing.

Trials like the David Irving libel trial where he was fully exposed as a liar, anti-semite, and general scoundrel are far more effective than a blanket law banning discussion of a topic.

The people who think about these things reasonably do not need the help, and those that don't won't gain anything from it.

Any Holocaust denier can be exposed, and countless numbers of them have been. It's not worth the effort; if reason worked with people like that, they wouldn't believe what they believe in the first place.

In fact, the ban fuels the anti-semitic fantasies of those who think the subject is being suppressed for political reasons.

People who look for fuel generally can find it.

Let's examine this on a closer level: If someone is denying the Holocaust with the specific aim of spreading hatred towards Jews, then yes your example is more apposite. However, if someone is merely expressing an opinion (however ignorant, shallow and stupid it may be) without such intention, then Llewdor is perfectly correct.No. If you shoot someone it doesn't really matter whether you did it on purpose or because you are just dumb. The outcome is the same.
And as I said before, there is no way to have the "opinion" that the holocaust didn't happen. The occurrence of the holocaust is no matter of opinion. Is the occurrence of the current war in Iraq a matter of opinion? Can you claim there has been no war? No, because that's beyond your personal judgment and opinion. And it is thus not because any government decides so, but because facts do not depend on personal position. And European states are perfectly right to protect the facts from being denied to sinister ends. Europeans have learned from past mistakes, that's why they do consider consequences. Which is something the US obviously never does.

the Worst genocide in History?
why is this genocide THE worst?
Hollywood ?

Apart the numbers of victims.
Apart the sheer speed of execution.
Apart the fact that it seems that for some of the leaders of the nazist party the "final solution" was more important than the war.
What makes this genocide is THE worst in history is how it was executed.
It was an industrialized attempt at mass murder.
Research was conducted to estabilish what were the means of most efficently killing vast numbers of people and efficently get rid of the bodies.
It's documented (not by Spilberg ;)) that before they started with Cyklon-B the SS experimented (on the deformed and retarded) various other methods, motor exausts proved the most efficent then.
If the amount of cold blodedness needed to plan and perform something like this so that it was efficent doesn't frighten you...
Notice that today not even cattle is treated like this, inhumane handling (even if for the sake of efficency) the animal before it's slaughter is, at least in some countries, forbidden by law.

the problem is:
some people (in Austria, Germany and other places) think:
"Examining the nature and extent of this Genocide" constitutes "Holocaust Denial"

Are you austrian or german? Do you live in either Austria or Germany?
Strangely enough most of the people i meet with that are austrian or german (by the way, I live in Italy and Czech Republic) seem to understand the difference between "Examining the nature and extent of this Genocide" and "Holocaust Denial" and do not think that those are the same thing.

Do i get to meet only the smart ones? :D

Apart the numbers of victims.
Apart the sheer speed of execution.
Apart the fact that it seems that for some of the leaders of the nazist party the "final solution" was more important than the war.
What makes this genocide is THE worst in history is how it was executed.
It was an industrialized attempt at mass murder.
Research was conducted to estabilish what were the means of most efficently killing vast numbers of people and efficently get rid of the bodies.
It's documented (not by Spilberg ;)) that before they started with Cyklon-B the SS experimented (on the deformed and retarded) various other methods, motor exausts proved the most efficent then.
If the amount of cold blodedness needed to plan and perform something like this so that it was efficent doesn't frighten you...
Notice that today not even cattle is treated like this, inhumane handling (even if for the sake of efficency) the animal before it's slaughter is, at least in some countries, forbidden by law.
Not to downplay the Holocaust one iota, but the forced starvation of millions of people throughout eastern europe by the soviets is a pretty close rival of anything the germans managed.

It was not as elaborate but managed to kill as many (or more) people in the same time frame, in just as horrific a way.

In addition - again not to downplay how the jews were treated, but the way the holocaust is covered leads many to believe that jews were the only ones persecuted - a lot of people have no idea that millions of homosexuals, gypseys and other groups the Nazis hated on ended up as ash. The coverage also leaves many ignorant of other mass killings like the Soviets.

why relevant? why am I talking about this?

one of the things I dont like about this issue.. is the following:

-The other Victims(Roma,Gays,slavs,Poles,Gypsies) of this Genocide.. have been comparatively (/historically) ignored by the media.

-On this issue..the average Joe think only of the Jews.. probably because their only "History source" is Hollywood.
But Hollywood has never presented any proof.. they dont-know-for-a-fact the unearthed skeletons were of what religion.

The average Honza (in Czech Republic) knows about the other victims.
The average Beppe (in Italy) knows about the other victims.
The average Otto (in Germany) knows about the other victims.
The average Jean (in France) knows about the other victims
The average Ivan (in Russia)...
Well the average european knows about the other victims.

You know, USA are not the majority of the world.
If the only "history source" for the average Joe is Hollywood then the problem is of the US's history teaching method. There are no laws against Holocaust denial in the USA, are they? So, instead of preaching unto us, go out and use your freedom of speech to inform the average Joe.

Incidentally:

the gays, retarded and deformed are not a national, racial, political, or cultural group and therefore cannot be genocided http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/genocide. In this case you speak, I think, of mass murder (just semanthics, this doesn't mean that I approve it);
the poles are slavs, as are russians, czechs, slovaks, serbians, etc... You seem to be convinced otherwise;
the media in Czech Republic are, just in these days, speaking a lot about the Holocaust, but guess what? They are speaking exclusively about the Rom!
http://www.ceskenoviny.cz/domov/index_view.php?id=232569

And again I ask who were the persons responsible of the komunist massacres under Staline?
Survivors?

the problem is:
some people (in Austria, Germany and other places) think:
"Examining the nature and extent of this Genocide" constitutes "Holocaust Denial"
No. That's only what you think. You know, Germans and Austrians live in the countries where it happened, they don't have only school books to learn, they have survivors and culprits. And since Germans and Austrians know about the nature and extent of this mass murder there is no real need for further examination (which has already been performed very thoroughly since the 60ies) and that's also why denying the holocaust there is pointless and why those who try to deny it though are immediately unveiled as uneducated retards and utter human scum that tries to spread misinformation to advance far right political aims.

No. If you shoot someone it doesn't really matter whether you did it on purpose or because you are just dumb. The outcome is the same.
Expressing an opinion is not analogous to shooting someone. Trying to suggest it is will not work. And for the record, accidentally shooting someone does in fact attract a lesser punishment than doing so with the intent to kill them.

And as I said before, there is no way to have the "opinion" that the holocaust didn't happen. The occurrence of the holocaust is no matter of opinion.
So are many other things. No one bans denying them.

And European states are perfectly right to protect the facts from being denied to sinister ends.
Any fact can be denied to an allegedly sinister end. Unless hatred is specifically preached, the State has no role in silencing people. It's made even worse by the hypocritical nature of European governments (e.g. the coverup of CIA abductions).

the hypocritical nature of European governments
And of any usian who denies Jews were the people in charge of the Russian communist party and the same who liberated the "death camps"... and quickly destroy them before any one else could see how were done these f*king camps.

1 + 1 = ?

the problem is:
some people (in Austria, Germany and other places) think:
"Examining the nature and extent of this Genocide" constitutes "Holocaust Denial"Nope. The exhibit of the Sachsenhausen concentration camp is undergoing revision to root out the propaganda added by the Soviets and East Germans, and the people responsible aren't being arrested for it.

And of any usian who denies Jews were the people in charge of the Russian communist party and the same who liberated the "death camps"... and quickly destroy them before any one else could see how were done these f*king camps.

1 + 1 = ?

From what little I could glean from that, I'm glad I didn't understand the rest.

Nope. The exhibit of the Sachsenhausen concentration camp is undergoing revision to root out the propaganda added by the Soviets and East Germans, and the people responsible aren't being arrested for it.
As if OcceanDrive2 would ever come to a concentration camp site...

Expressing an opinion is not analogous to shooting someone.Yes it is. It hurts and even kills understanding. And holocaust denial is not the expression of an opinion. It is the expression of non-fact.

And of any usian who denies Jews were the people in charge of the Russian communist party and the same who liberated the "death camps"... and quickly destroy them before any one else could see how were done these f*king camps.

1 + 1 = ?

That's the most incoherent pile of steaming bullshit I've ever had the displeasure of reading. Not only is that blindingly ignorant, but it makes your average raving street-corner lunatic look remarkably sane. If you wanted to shove your ignorance down our throats, you could have at least learned some command of the English language so it doesn't appear as though you've strung random words together...

And of any usian who denies Jews were the people in charge of the Russian communist party and the same who liberated the "death camps"... and quickly destroy them before any one else could see how were done these f*king camps.

1 + 1 = ?

So was the rabidly anti-Semitic Stalin a Jew? Was Trotsky attacked with great virulence in the leadership for his being Jewish?

So was the rabidly anti-Semitic Stalin a Jew? Was Trotsky attacked with great virulence in the leadership for his being Jewish?

Yep, you can tell by the moustache.

*Saddam Hussein used to wear hats before his demise - he must be Jewish!! (uncovers conspiracy theories from the US government and writes a novel about it, involving the Grail, and a cryptograpgher, Dave Logan, respected Oford scholar)*

Yep, you can tell by the moustache.

*Saddam Hussein used to wear hats before his demise - he must be Jewish!! (uncovers conspiracy theories from the US government and writes a novel about it, involving the Grail, and a cryptograpgher, Dave Logan, respected Oford scholar)*

I'm lost:confused:

Can you see any landmarks, and ill try to help you out, give you directions from the mental map.

There's the David Logan part that I swear was in the "Story" thread for a start...

I'm lost:confused:

Can you see any landmarks, and ill try to help you out, give you directions from the mental map.

There's the David Logan part that I swear was in the "Story" thread for a start...

really...:eek:

I never realised i slipped him in there utterly by mistake.

No im not trying to stop this heated debate/arguement/shout match/pub brawl/full out war by confusing and hi-jacking the thread :p

And of any usian who denies Jews were the people in charge of the Russian communist party and the same who liberated the "death camps"... and quickly destroy them before any one else could see how were done these f*king camps.

1 + 1 = ?

You are a failure. A big one.

You are a failure. A big one.

GRR i really just cannot hi-jack this can i?

And of any usian who denies Jews were the people in charge of the Russian communist party and the same who liberated the "death camps"... and quickly destroy them before any one else could see how were done these f*king camps.

1 + 1 = ?

Ummmmmm.....okay. As a descendent of American Jews (though personally happily ensconced in my ivory tower of Secular Humanism) I only WISH my family had the influence B COBETCKON POCCNN that you ascribe to us. I would be a LOT richer and probably a lot happier with my life, considering that I would be sitting in the Kremlin sipping Estonian Vodka and nibbling on Black Sea caviar served on precious minerals mined by my russian slaves from the virgin Siberian wilderness. Sadly, however I must sit in my squalid, Doestoevskian dormitory room typing this out on an outdated Dell still running Windows 2000......OH THE MISERY!

And because I can't resist taking one last pot shot at the OP.....

You're right, of course. The Jews as a group never CEASE reminding all of the rest of us how HORRIBLE THEY HAVE IT! :rolleyes: Sheesh.

I'll let you know the next time I see a Jew walk into a 7-11 and guilt the clerk into giving away a Slurpee and Big Bite because of the suffering his people underwent in the Holocaust.

*Note: I'm sorry for the horrible representation of Cyrillic letters, but I don't have a translation engine handy, and I'm too lazy to google one.

1 + 1 = ?

Your IQ.

[QUOTE=Raksgaard;12364967]Ummmmmm.....okay. As a descendent of American Jews (though personally happily ensconced in my ivory tower of Secular Humanism) I only WISH my family had the influence B COBETCKON POCCNN that you ascribe to us. I would be a LOT richer and probably a lot happier with my life, considering that I would be sitting in the Kremlin sipping Estonian Vodka and nibbling on Black Sea caviar served on precious minerals mined by my russian slaves from the virgin Siberian wilderness. Sadly, however I must sit in my squalid, Doestoevskian dormitory room typing this out on an outdated Dell still running Windows 2000......OH THE MISERY!

And because I can't resist taking one last pot shot at the OP.....

You're right, of course. The Jews as a group never CEASE reminding all of the rest of us how HORRIBLE THEY HAVE IT! :rolleyes: Sheesh.

I'll let you know the next time I see a Jew walk into a 7-11 and guilt the clerk into giving away a Slurpee and Big Bite because of the suffering his people underwent in the Holocaust.

OH DAMN!!!! You just got a can of intellectual whup-ass opened upon you! As a Jew who only is alive in America because ONE ancestor survived the Russian Revolution, I must give props eternal to Raksgaard, for a truly legendary post.

You're right, of course. The Jews as a group never CEASE reminding all of the rest of us how HORRIBLE THEY HAVE IT! :rolleyes: Sheesh. Quit trying to guilt us into giving you money for a new dorm!

And of any usian who denies Jews were the people in charge of the Russian communist party and the same who liberated the "death camps"... and quickly destroy them before any one else could see how were done these f*king camps.

1 + 1 = ?
Are you trying to make a point?

Yes it is. It hurts and even kills understanding. And holocaust denial is not the expression of an opinion. It is the expression of non-fact.
Saying Santa Claus exists to little kids (or even other adults) hurts and even kills understanding. It is the expression of a non-fact.

...

Haha good one. :p I can't believe the hypocrisy though; it's not as if Hannity and his ilk are innocent of hate-preaching themselves.

Of course, if OJ had the opportunity to denounce someone who was even more guilty of murdering his ex-wife than he was he'd certainly do so at every opportunity.

Some people would say the truth hurts. For me the only thing that matters where the truth is concerned is the degree of acceptance the truth incurs.

Think about it:
http://theuglytruth.wordpress.com/2007/02/23/anti-semite-moi/

Think about it:
http://theuglytruth.wordpress.com/2007/02/23/anti-semite-moi/

Wow, vitriol dripping from my monitor screen.
OK, 'anti-Semitic' is a misleading term. Abe Foxman is not personally responsible for it, nor is he responsible for the crucifixion of Jesus, or any of the other past and present wrongdoings which that article refers to.

Why are people still honking on about the Jews being 'Christ-killers' anyway? I never hear anyone blaming the Italians for it, even though Judaea was a puppet state of the Romans.

Well if anyone is stupid enough to deny the biggest crime in history then I think that they deserve to be locked up. They are obviously Nazis and there is no room for scum like that in European society. Lay off the Jews for gods sake, they've been persecuted for centuries. They deserve some sympathy.

Well if anyone is stupid enough to deny the biggest crime in history then I think that they deserve to be locked up. They are obviously Nazis and there is no room for scum like that in European society. Lay off the Jews for gods sake, they've been persecuted for centuries. They deserve some sympathy.How does persecution justify sympathy?

Saying Santa Claus exists to little kids (or even other adults) hurts and even kills understanding. It is the expression of a non-fact.
...See? That's exactly what I talk about. Santa Claus tales are complete and utter crap.
And is Santa Claus something you can have an opinion about regarding its existence? Surely not.

Quit trying to guilt us into giving you money for a new dorm!

DAMN! My nefarious plot has been uncovered......:rolleyes: oh well. Back to the synagog....I mean drawing board.

Well if anyone is stupid enough to deny the biggest crime in history then I think that they deserve to be locked up. They are obviously Nazis and there is no room for scum like that in European society. Lay off the Jews for gods sake, they've been persecuted for centuries. They deserve some sympathy. Firstly, you can join the frogs on their little anti-free-speech crusade if you want to go against everything the Enlightenment stood for.

Secondly, are we going to ban people who doubt the extent of the Irish famine, the African slave trade or the persecution of the Huguenots? After all those were persecutions!

Don't forget the Armenian Genocide. That one's a bit more relevant, and a bit more controversial :D

GRR i really just cannot hi-jack this can i? You can't.

Why are people still honking on about the Jews being 'Christ-killers' anyway? I never hear anyone blaming the Italians for it, even though Judaea was a puppet state of the Romans.
Aaah! All jews must be killed, because they killed our Lord (never mind he was a jew himself and ought to be killed by this logic anyway)!



Back on the topic: I can't tell what is more hilarious - Holocaust itself or laws making having a wrong opinion on it a crime. Probably the latter, as nazis at least didn't pretend to be civilized anyway.

See? That's exactly what I talk about. Santa Claus tales are complete and utter crap.
And also a non-fact, and harmful to understanding.

And is Santa Claus something you can have an opinion about regarding its existence? Surely not.
I'm probably going to get blasted for this (*puts on flameproof suit*), but the abrahamic God is no more real than Santa Claus, at least based on evidence. If one wants to completely ban the expression of non-facts, should one then restrict religion too?

And also a non-fact, and harmful to understanding.


I'm probably going to get blasted for this (*puts on flameproof suit*), but the abrahamic God is no more real than Santa Claus, at least based on evidence. If one wants to completely ban the expression of non-facts, should one then restrict religion too?The ones with the abrahamic God (i.e. the one fabricated by Jews 1500 years after Abraham's time), definitely, if you ask me. I's ban all religions based on the biblical ideology.
However, religion in general deals with things we just don't know, it contains half-truths and speculation. The holocaust on the other side is something we do know about and its occurrence is beyond speculation.

The ones with the abrahamic God (i.e. the one fabricated by Jews 1500 years after Abraham's time), definitely, if you ask me. I's ban all religions based on the biblical ideology.
At least you're consistent... Well, there's no real point in further discussing this. We'll have to agree to disagree on this one.

At least you're consistent... Well, there's no real point in further discussing this. We'll have to agree to disagree on this one.
This has nothing to do with holocaust denial, though.

This has nothing to do with holocaust denial, though.
Then what does it have to do with?

Then what does it have to do with?
I don't know. You brought up Santa Claus and then the abrahamic God. So you should tell me.
The holocaust is a fact. The only reason to deny its occurrence is the pursuit of political aims that can only be characterized as far-right, racist and ideological sinister in nature. Holocaust denial is baseless and harmful. Someone with "Europa" in the nick should understand that....

I don't know. You brought up Santa Claus and then the abrahamic God. So you should tell me.
:rolleyes: I thought you'd realise when an analogy is being used, and furthermore a reductio ad absurdum.

The holocaust is a fact. The only reason to deny its occurrence is the pursuit of political aims that can only be characterized as far-right, racist and ideological sinister in nature. Holocaust denial is baseless and harmful. Someone with "Europa" in the nick should understand that....
And as I have repeatedly stated, Evolution (amongst other things) is a fact. Denying it does not get one silenced. Now, unless hatred is specifically preached, denying a fact should be no more punishable than expressing any other opinion. This is my last say on the matter.

:rolleyes: I thought you'd realise when an analogy is being used, and furthermore a reductio ad absurdum.What analogy? Santa Claus is a purely fantastical figure. A non-existing thing people pretend to exist. The holocaust is not at all fantastical. A real thing some people try to deny. The exact opposite.

And as I have repeatedly stated, Evolution (amongst other things) is a fact. Denying it does not get one silenced. Now, unless hatred is specifically preached, denying a fact should be no more punishable than expressing any other opinion. Denying evolution has no racist basis.

This is my last say on the matter.Very good.


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

So you oppose Holocaust Denial? Doesn't that have a racist bias?

If there's one reason I don't come onto NS General more than once a month, it's this: no thread is actually about what it says it is, and all of them are about bullshitting, omitting, manipulating, lying, and arguing for dozens of pages. It never ceases to amaze me how foolish some of these disputes can be. Here's my two cents on the actual issue.

The Holocaust happened. Read some Holocaust revisionist theories: they're total crap. The smartest one I've read says that typhoid in "work camps" killed the Jews. Next, there's the fact that Nazis throughout the German power structure confessed to their crimes. There is no advantage whatsoever to telling your enemies that you were involved in genocide; therefore it had to have been true. Then there's the gas chambers and crematoria themselves which still exist. And there's the testimony of millions of survivors. If you wanted you could argue about the Jews using the Holocaust as a shield, making themselves look like victims, but at least give up this ridiculous idea that there's a vast conspiracy to hide the truth and make the Jews look innocent or whatever.

Denying evolution has no racist basis. And that's a really good distinction to ban denying one and not the other? Denying evolution generally has a religious basis; you could argue that religion has caused more harm than racism. That's completely moot, as is the motives of people denying the holocaust - the issue is of free speech.

I see no immediate life-threatening danger in letting people spew whatever they want to about historical facts. What are you afraid of, ordinary people buying these theories and rushing off to crucify a Jew?

If there's one reason I don't come onto NS General more than once a month, it's this: no thread is actually about what it says it is, and all of them are about bullshitting, omitting, manipulating, lying, and arguing for dozens of pages. It never ceases to amaze me how foolish some of these disputes can be. Here's my two cents on the actual issue.

The Holocaust happened. Read some Holocaust revisionist theories: they're total crap. The smartest one I've read says that typhoid in "work camps" killed the Jews. Next, there's the fact that Nazis throughout the German power structure confessed to their crimes. There is no advantage whatsoever to telling your enemies that you were involved in genocide; therefore it had to have been true. Then there's the gas chambers and crematoria themselves which still exist. And there's the testimony of millions of survivors. If you wanted you could argue about the Jews using the Holocaust as a shield, making themselves look like victims, but at least give up this ridiculous idea that there's a vast conspiracy to hide the truth and make the Jews look innocent or whatever.

The argument is about whether people should be allowed to deny it happened.

My opinion being that although those denying it are idiots/arseholes, people have a right to be idiots/arseholes if they wish.

And I think that if the Holocaust is an easily verifiable fact, then laws do not need to be passed to make denying it a crime. Laws on speech are there to protect lies, not truth.

And don't flame me, because I reject all the Holocaust-denial bullshit. The Armenian genocide happened as well. But I should be within my rights to say that they didn't happen, no matter how wrong I might be.

They were created so that people who are offended by people saying "YOUR ANCESTORS WERE NEVER KILLED BY HITLER!!!" could not be offended anymore. Trust me, when free speech is challenged by offense, the offended always win.

The argument is about whether people should be allowed to deny it happened.

My opinion being that although those denying it are idiots/arseholes, people have a right to be idiots/arseholes if they wish.

Oh, I agree, they have that right. It just irritates me.:)

My opinion being that although those denying it are idiots/arseholes, people have a right to be idiots/arseholes if they wish.Not in public.

Not in public.

Why?

Why?

it offends people... and that is bad.

it offends people... and that is bad.and it leads to other people offending even more people. and then offending by words may even become offending by deeds.
as i said before, in the said countries the laws against holocaust denial are not so much targeted at the actual lying about facts but rather at the consequences that spring from this lying. holocaust denial is not done out of opinion or because of scientific disagreement. holocaust denial is done for purposes that do not even necessarily need a connexion to the actual past holocaust at all, but to present and future aims by justifying or relativizing past crimes.

and it leads to other people offending even more people. and then offending by words may even become offending by deeds.
as i said before, in the said countries the laws against holocaust denial are not so much targeted at the actual lying about facts but rather at the consequences that spring from this lying. holocaust denial is not done out of opinion or because of scientific disagreement. holocaust denial is done for purposes that do not even necessarily need a connexion to the actual past holocaust at all, but to present and future aims by justifying or relativizing past crimes. So your basic argument is that if people are allowed to deny the holocaust, they will eventually decide to go and stab a Jew?

I'm still trying to figure out the causative stage of this.

it offends people... and that is bad.

Generally, when people are offended by the opinions of others, it's their own problem. If the government begins to criminalize opinions based on their offensiveness, this will lead to two possible conclusions: either nobody will be allowed to say anything, because anything can theoretically be offensive to someone, or the government will decide which people are worth protecting from offences and which are not.

Both of these cases are as strongly against free speech as is possible. After all, the whole point of free speech is to allow people to express themselves without fear of consequences, even if they happen to offend someone. I, too, would like to know how exactly letting people deny the Holocaust would lead to violence against the Jews. "Sticks and stones may break my bones, but your words will never hurt me," I believe the saying goes.

What analogy? Santa Claus is a purely fantastical figure. A non-existing thing people pretend to exist. The holocaust is not at all fantastical. A real thing some people try to deny. The exact opposite.
:confused: I think I'm going to have to go through this step-by-step. Santa Claus is a non-fact. That the Holocaust did not occur is a non-fact. Put 2 and 2 together, and there is your answer. It's an ANALOGY. You said that the expression of non-facts harms understanding - I showed you where that reasoning leads to. It's not difficult to understand.

Denying evolution has no racist basis.
And neither does denial of the Holocaust a priori.

Generally, when people are offended by the opinions of others, it's their own problem. If the government begins to criminalize opinions based on their offensiveness, this will lead to two possible conclusions: either nobody will be allowed to say anything, because anything can theoretically be offensive to someone, or the government will decide which people are worth protecting from offences and which are not.

Both of these cases are as strongly against free speech as is possible. After all, the whole point of free speech is to allow people to express themselves without fear of consequences, even if they happen to offend someone. I, too, would like to know how exactly letting people deny the Holocaust would lead to violence against the Jews. "Sticks and stones may break my bones, but your words will never hurt me," I believe the saying goes.

True, but this situation reminds me a lot about the girl in Arizona that didn't wanna read Huckelberry Finn since it had the "n" word in it. As I said, when it's free speech against offended people, the offended win. While a lot of people say "I don't care, let them do what they want," really no one has free speech, or else I could scream racial slurs at people and get away with it. I can't so that gets rid of free speech. The government has the obligation to listen to those that are offended and put an end to it.

As I said, when it's free speech against offended people, the offended win.

Unfortunately true, but I'm sure we all know how things are. This discussion is about how things should be.

While a lot of people say "I don't care, let them do what they want," really no one has free speech, or else I could scream racial slurs at people and get away with it.

I also believe that cases of personal insult like that should be up to the parties concerned to solve, and leave the government out of it.

The government has the obligation to listen to those that are offended and put an end to it.

That sounds nice in theory, but like I said, to have any consistency at all, that system would require the government to ban highly offensive things altogether, or decide which groups can be offended and which cannot. After all, I'm willing to bet that most people who object to legalizing Holocaust denial here, wouldn't approve if the government banned, for example, gay marriage simply because the concept offends so many Christian conservatives.

The government has the obligation to listen to those that are offended and put an end to it.

So anything that offends anyone shoud be censored? That won't leave us with a great deal. It would be possible to have a government department which decided what was and wasn't offensive enough to be banned. However, the system would be wide open to abuse. George Orwell Ministry of Truth kind of abuse.

I don't understand why denying the Holocaust is illegal in so many European countries. These laws only increase anti-Semitism. Apparently these Jews enjoy their victim status, so they are afraid that facts may ruin it. If the Holocaust was as factual as Europe claims, then what does anyone have to fear from a complete investigation?

I'm uncertain whether you honestly don't know better, or if you're a Neo-Nazi wannabe.

The only event of World War II worse than the Holocaust, was when the United States of America dropped the Nukes on Hiroshima and Nagasaki.

And, as everyone knows, that was the formal end of the war.


The reason Holocaust Denial is illegal, is because denial is to clam that 6 million people did not die in long since confirmed Death Camps.
I care not what religious groupies want to say "we were slaughtered".

Holocaust Denial is the equivalent of saying Hitler did not invade Poland, France, and parts of Africa.


On a similar note, Holocaust "Revisionism" is allmost just as bad, because most of the "Revisionists" are Neo-Nazi wannabes, who want the world to forget that the Holocaust ever occurred in any form whatsoever.

Now then, Repent of your filthy ways you filthy Heretic. Repent, or the Allmighty God will never love you.

*Aries strikes Kohlstein with a Dead Nazi, then wanders off to wreak havok elsewhere*

And neither does denial of the Holocaust a priori.Yes it does. Because holocaust denial is based entirely on the position that the holocaust was made up. Made up by some kind of Jewish conspiracy.

Next, there's the fact that Nazis throughout the German power structure confessed to their crimes.
Who?

The reason Holocaust Denial is illegal, is because denial is to clam that 6 million people did not die in long since confirmed Death Camps.
Nobody said that.

Denial is NOT to deny 6 million jews were killed in death camp by german soldiers.

They were not 6 million.
They were not all jews.
They were not all german soldiers.

The denial is to refuse the credit of martyrdrome to the jews.



PS:
very easy to: ""Remove thine Enemies from the face of the Universe!""

Who?


Nobody said that.

Denial is NOT to deny 6 million jews were killed in death camp by german soldiers.

They were not 6 million.
They were not all jews.
They were not all german soldiers.

The denial is to refuse the credit of martyrdrome to the jews.



PS:
very easy to: ""Remove thine Enemies from the face of the Universe!""

Well, actually, it was around 6 Million Jews, plus another 4-5 Million (POWs, Political Prisoners, Mentally/Medically Disabled etc) As for the executors not being Germans, a large number were; you can quibble and say many were soldiers of the German satellites, but they still followed German orders.

Well, actually, it was around 6 Million Jews, plus another 4-5 Million (POWs, Political Prisoners, Mentally/Medically Disabled etc) As for the executors not being Germans, a large number were; you can quibble and say many were soldiers of the German satellites, but they still followed German orders.

Don't forget the Gypsies and Homosexuals

The only event of World War II worse than the Holocaust, was when the United States of America dropped the Nukes on Hiroshima and Nagasaki.

And, as everyone knows, that was the formal end of the war.
300,000 deaths and an end to WW2 is worse than 8 million + deaths?

300,000 deaths and an end to WW2 is worse than 8 million + deaths?


Yes, because of the Radiation.


Why does no-one ever seem to understand that Radiation Fallout caused more deaths? No, it's only ever however many died when the nuke went off.

Yes, because of the Radiation.


Why does no-one ever seem to understand that Radiation Fallout caused more deaths? No, it's only ever however many died when the nuke went off.
That said, it is estimated that as many as 140,000 had died in Hiroshima by the bomb and its associated effects,[1][2][3] with the estimate for Nagasaki roughly 74,000.[
[wikipedia]
On August 6, 1945, at 9:15 AM Tokyo time, a B-29 plane, the "Enola Gay" piloted by Paul W. Tibbets, dropped a uranium atomic bomb, code named "Little Boy" on Hiroshima, Japan's seventh largest city. In minutes, half of the city vanished. According to U.S. estimates, 60,000 to 70,000 people were killed or missing, 140,000 were injuried many more were made homeless as a result of the bomb. Deadly radiation reached over 100,000. In the blast, thousands died instantly.
http://www.vce.com/hironaga.html