Historicity of the Jewish Holocaust

[dusken]

Originally posted by Anonymouse I agree...

And the moon has been full twice this month.

[Darorinag]

Originally posted by loseyourname We'll see. If that is indeed the case, then that fact will have to come to light eventually. History has shown that truth, in particular scientifically established truth, can only be suppressed so long.

Indeed.

So now that I have stated my views on this, what would you like me to disprove? Any believers in the holocaust, come forward.

Also, check out the material on the revisionist forum, because the scope of this thread would be limited and wouldn't address all the aspects of the holocaust. Not gonna place a link cos maybe Admin wouldn't appreciate that, but just do a google search on "revisionist forum."

[dusken]

Originally posted by loseyourname ...so unfortunately, it lies on the revisionists to prove that it didn't happen.

No. Denying that there is no reason to believe it happened to the claimed degree is illogical and, technically, does not need to be addressed.

Originally posted by loseyourname There is nothing logically inconsistent about what I said. Disproving the existence of gas chambers and showing that the number of Jews killed couldn't have been as high as claimed does little to disestablish a planned extermination.

Again, you are making it seem like it is our mistake for arguing extent when there is no set aspect of historicity specified.

[dusken]

And let us stop claiming that threads are going chatroom style. So what if the individuals participating in a thread are on at the same time. If someone has a response to something they will post it. Who actually refrains from posting their response to another post for a length of time to avoid chatroom claims?

[loseyourname]

Originally posted by dusken And let us stop claiming that threads are going chatroom style. So what if the individuals participating in a thread are on at the same time. If someone has a response to something they will post it. Who actually refrains from posting their response to another post for a length of time to avoid chatroom claims?

You're right. Never mind. If it's on-topic, chat away.

[Sip]

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.

[loseyourname]

Originally posted by dusken No. Denying that there is no reason to believe it happened to the claimed degree is illogical and, technically, does not need to be addressed.

You might be able to sit around in your satisfaction, knowing you're right, but you'll still have to present a preponderance of evidence to incite any real change in public discourse. Nobody is denying that you can claim it didn't happen to the degree cited. Again, I don't really care what the degree is. If there was a planned extermination of Jews, and Jews were killed under this plan, that is a holocaust, regardless of the extent. Even if they were only enslaved, and died from neglect and hardship and disease, not through first degree murder, that is still wrong, though it wouldn't qualify as a holocaust. It does little good to cite Japanese internment as justification, as the interning of the Japanese was wrong, too.

[loseyourname]

Originally posted by Seapahn 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.

If that's true, perhaps I'll find some of that and post the evidence against the Armenian genocide sometime in the future, and see what the revisionists here have to say about it.

[dusken]

Originally posted by loseyourname You might be able to sit around in your satisfaction, knowing you're right, but you'll still have to present a preponderance of evidence to incite any real change in public discourse.

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.

[Anonymouse]

The Armenians under the Ottomans and the Jews under the Germans, are entirely two different things, and nature of events. The manner, style, and circumstance the Armenians had found themselves in cannot be compared to the Jews. The numbers that are said to have died is also not religious. Whether it was the Armenians, the Ukrainians, the Cambodians, or the Rwandans, all generally have lost roughly around a million causalties, whereas only the Jewish one is the Kabbalistic 6 million figure. The manner in which Armenians were killed is far more logical - executions, shootings, hangings, rape, forced conversion, marched off to the desert to die of thirst; whereas the Nazis had to spend millions to somehow elaborately construct gas chambers and crematoria ovens. I am not ruling out Jews having been killed by Nazis, but I am questioning the methods. I don't see a connection, nor similarities, but I am open to hear what Seapahn would say. Why go through such an elaborate process which is something so easy to accomplish?