Historicity of the Jewish Holocaust

[loseyourname]

Originally posted by dusken It is unrealistic to think that there will be a "change in public discourse." The so called public discourse is dependant on emotional value and accepts what has been said for so long. In highschool, I was in the habit of looking to see what was said about Armenia in any given World History book I had. It was common that a two sentence paragraph would address the Turkish heavy hand and an entire section of the book would be dedicated to the alleged Jewish holocaust. It would not take more facts to change the public; it would take the publicizing of the facts that we have and that will never happen. I would love to see a Hollywood movie discussing the points mentioned here but that is an impossiblity. We have to watch trash like Shindler's Queef, The Queefist, Queef of Anne Frank, Apt Queef, etc. etc.

Why is it unrealistic? The truth always comes to light, if indeed the evidence had is enough to constitute proof. Obviously, I don't trust you, as you very obviously strongly dislike the Jewish people. But if you're right, and there already exists proof that revisionists have in their possession, then I am confident that their message will be heard at some point. If the inquisitions of the medieval church couldn't keep the truth from coming out, I don't see how ostracizing and blacklisting in the modern world will do so.

[dusken]

Originally posted by loseyourname Why is it unrealistic? The truth always comes to light, if indeed the evidence had is enough to constitute proof. Obviously, I don't trust you, as you very obviously strongly dislike the Jewish people. But if you're right, and there already exists proof that revisionists have in their possession, then I am confident that their message will be heard at some point. If the inquisitions of the medieval church couldn't keep the truth from coming out, I don't see how ostracizing and blacklisting in the modern world will do so.

I do not have a strong dislike for Jews and my Jewish friends Adam, Becca, John and Micah can vouch for it, in addition to the fact that some of my favorite people in history were Jews (e.g. Rothko, Mendelson, LaVey, etc.). Plus, there is nothing much that I have said that you really need to trust and I was not asking you to do so; everyone else was posting the facts.

I wish I had as much faith as you do in the lightening of the truth but I do not. Maybe it will happen; I do not have a crystal ball and even if I did it would not tell me anything because it is a crystal ball. Who knows? But I am sure it will not be happening anytime soon. The inquisitions could not manipulate the media.

[Anonymouse]

Originally posted by loseyourname Why is it unrealistic? The truth always comes to light, if indeed the evidence had is enough to constitute proof. Obviously, I don't trust you, as you very obviously strongly dislike the Jewish people. But if you're right, and there already exists proof that revisionists have in their possession, then I am confident that their message will be heard at some point. If the inquisitions of the medieval church couldn't keep the truth from coming out, I don't see how ostracizing and blacklisting in the modern world will do so.

This is a misunderstanding of "truth". Just because there is truth doesn't mean it will be socially acceptible. To disseminate truth one must be in possession of information outlets, which is not in our possession. Obviously there is a reason why there are hate crime laws against questioning this, and why the media is largley represented by Jews. This is not "hating Jews" this is simply facts. What's wrong with stating them? You are in essence using the very claim many Jews use that since to speak against the Holocaust or Israel, or present evidence of disproportionate Jewish influence in the media and Hollywood, one must be Jew hater. In order for "truth" to come out, it takes time and a slow process. Obviously the truth that Bush knew about Sept 11 or is friends with bin Laden is never discussed in the media, or the truth that it was America that incited the Gulf of Tonkin incident that led to the conflict of Vietnam, or for that matter the Gulf War in 91, or having prior knowledge of September 11th, or the billions of dollars of mysterious stock transactions. Truth does not necessarily surface in our world. To assume that since it is truth it must surface is a fallacy. That is non-sequitur.

[loseyourname]

Originally posted by Anonymouse You are in essence using the very claim many Jews use that since to speak against the Holocaust or Israel, or present evidence of disproportionate Jewish influence in the media and Hollywood, one must be Jew hater.

Please cite one instance of me doing this.

In order for "truth" to come out, it takes time and a slow process. Obviously the truth that Bush knew about Sept 11 or is friends with bin Laden is never discussed in the media, or the truth that it was America that incited the Gulf of Tonkin incident that led to the conflict of Vietnam, or for that matter the Gulf War in 91, or having prior knowledge of September 11th, or the billions of dollars of mysterious stock transactions. Truth does not necessarily surface in our world. To assume that since it is truth it must surface is a fallacy. That is non-sequitur.

The Gulf of Tonkin incident is discussed plenty. Everything else you cited happened rather recently. Give it a chance. I still think history has shown that truth surfaces eventually. It isn't non-sequitur.

[dusken]

FYI: "non sequitur" is not hyphenated. It is a Latin phrase, not an English compound.

Screw Tonkin. Let us just accept that I am right and move on. It is better that way.

[loseyourname]

Originally posted by dusken FYI: "non sequitur" is not hyphenated. It is a Latin phrase, not an English compound.

Would ya give me a god damn break? I type fast. Don't make me point out all of your grammatical errors.

Screw Tonkin. Let us just accept that I am right and move on. It is better that way.

As long as you don't disagree with me, you can be right all you want. Most of the time, it seems you don't, so we'll leave it at that.

[dusken]

Originally posted by loseyourname Don't make me point out all of your grammatical errors.

Please feel free. It will take very little of your time.

I congratulate you for your agreeing with me most of the time.

[loseyourname]

All right Dan, I've checked most of your links. There's some good stuff there. Of course I'd like to see the actual studies and reports, not just Rudolf ranting about them, but you don't need to link anything. I'll find that myself.

Do you have anything else about the Nuremberg confessions and the defense strategy? As of now, all you've posted is the testimony of two men, one of whom isn't even an eyewitness. Given that you've said the eyewitness testimony of thousands of US and Soviet soldiers, in addition to the accounts of Jewish survivors, doesn't prove anything, hopefully you realize that the same standard must be applied to your own allegations regarding the implication of superiors by the Nuremberg defendants.

[Darorinag]

Originally posted by Seapahn Although I promised myself I wouldn't get into this, I just can't hold this one back.

I simply hope that those people who are actually taking the time to read all this and aren't necessarily as "expert" on the subject as some of the participants, will realize a very striking parallel here ... just replace all the instances of "Jew" with "Armenian", all the 6's with 1.5's and all the "Germans" with "Ottomans" and all of a sudden this thread pretty much turns into how the more sophisticated Armenian genocide denialists have been trying to reword (or prove - I hate that word in this context) the fundamentals of what has happened in the past.

Wow, I leave for a lecture for 2 hrs, and look where this thread has reached....

The holocaust and the Armenian genocide were 2 separate events. Denying one doesn't mean denying the other. The numbers were different, the times were different, the entire event was different. Replace "10 Palestinians died by Israeli gunfire in the occupied territory" with "10 Frenchmen died by Israeli gunfire in the occupied territory," and the statement will be false. Your comparison doesn't hold. That the holocaust photos were faked doesn't mean that Armenian genocide photos were necessarily faked. The revisionist position in and of itself is not universal. They are not "revisionists" because they are anti-semetic, they are revisionists because they are for historical truth, not historical distortions. And if the Armenian genocide has proofs, revisionists will have no problem with it. They don't go around revising genocides just because they are genocides. If it's supported by evidence, they admit that it's happened. So no, your comparison doesn't hold. Nice try though.

And this thread is not about revisionism. It's about the holocaust. So let's address that, rather than going off-topic.

[Darorinag]

Originally posted by loseyourname All right Dan, I've checked most of your links. There's some good stuff there. Of course I'd like to see the actual studies and reports, not just Rudolf ranting about them, but you don't need to link anything. I'll find that myself.

I think you misunderstood there. The link about the confessions was from Zundel. He's in jail for that publication. Rudolf IS the one who conducted those studies. I alread provided the link to his 16 MB book that has all the studies and results of cyanide residues, etc. It IS THE book to read if you want scientific insight on the holocaust. Robert Van Pelt's claims and findings have been proven to be not-so-scientific. This can be found in The Rudolf Report, the link to which I also provided. You can download the e-books for free.

As of now, all you've posted is the testimony of two men, one of whom isn't even an eyewitness. Given that you've said the eyewitness testimony of thousands of US and Soviet soldiers, in addition to the accounts of Jewish survivors, doesn't prove anything, hopefully you realize that the same standard must be applied to your own allegations regarding the implication of superiors by the Nuremberg defendants.

We are not talking about quantity here, we're talking about quality. It doesn't matter if the whole world said it, if it can't be proven, it can't be proven. Confessions are irrelevant, as they can be (and HAVE BEEN) extracted by torture and other techniques. Bottom line is, exterminationists cannot prove that the gas chambers existed. The best they could do was with the Van Pelt report, which was completely debunked by Germar Rudolf. Moreover, the Allies were there when they liberated the camps. That gives little or no insight into what had actually happened before they got there.