Historicity of the Jewish Holocaust

[Anonymouse]

Even Better Than A
Schindler's List - Holocaust Mania
By Jason Roth
Save The Humans.com
3-24-4


What we need is a 24-hour Holocaust channel. Five Oscar-nominated Holocaust movies a year isn't enough. We need 365 days a year of Holocaust movies. With Holocaust commercials. For things like Holocaust theme parks, Holocaust dance clubs, and Holocaust-flavored breakfast cereals.

Just to make sure we don't forget the Holocaust, we should tattoo the word "Holocaust" underneath the eyelids of newborn babies. For little boys, a Holocaust ceremony could replace circumcision. It could be the "Holocausting", followed by a ceremonial viewing of the Holocaust memorial video, followed by a drive back home over the Holocaust Memorial Bridge. To hurry home and eat the turkey. Cooked "Holocaust style", of course.

We need Holocaust Awareness Educational Facilities. Not schools, where you learn how to add and spell, but places where you learn all about the Holocaust. At lunch, kids could be locked in the cafeteria, and cartoon animals could reenact the Holocaust. Kids could play Holocaust games. They could invite each other to Holocaust-themed birthday parties. They could take home Holocaust goodie bags, and go home, eat dinner, and have just enough time to do their Holocaust homework for Holocaust History.

We could make laws to force us to remember the Holocaust. We could throw everyone in a gas chamber if they forget the Holocaust. We could throw everyone in a gas chamber if they remember the Holocaust. (Just so they don't forget the Holocaust.)

We could have miniature Holocausts within the Holocaust, so no one forgets why we're having another Holocaust. If anyone escapes from one of the miniature Holocausts inside the big Holocaust, we could throw them back in the miniature Holocaust, or just leave them outside in the big Holocaust.

We could have competing Holocausts. We could have Holocaust superbowls, where Holocausts vie against other Holocausts for Holocaust world championships.

We could build Holocaust societies, and even alternate Holocaust realities, where Holocausts walk around, have jobs, and die in the Holocaust.

Here's another idea:

If you're going to make me relive the Holocaust, at least give me a fragment of understanding that will help me prevent it from happening again.

[dusken]

That was very funny.

[Fadix]

Look Danny, Mr. Rudolf book is available in his own personal web-site here for quite some times now : http://vho.org, for someone that claims having searched for long and finally found it… I must say that you discredit yourself as someone having done a research on the subject. And no, revisionist materials were not censured from the search engine you use (google).

Regarding the challenge you are in NO position to offer me any challenge Danny boy, I am the one that is supposed to bring evidences to support the existence of something, your claim of the non-existence, you can not PROVE the non-existence of something, what you can do is to reject the evidences brought, YET!!! I have presented NO evidences, so you have NO cases at ALL.

As for your university, you can use the interloaning system, you have just to submit a demand for a book, your university will track it from anywhere in the world and will bring it to your hand for a little charge.

DAN!!! STOP LYING!!!! YOU DID NOT READ THAT BOOK!!! Go ahead just name me the 4 special problems, tell me how the book is started, go ahead… THIS IS NOT a book reading competition. You claim having done a research and you can “prove” that the Shoah never happened, so I just referred to a book that is known to be the Bible, and when I asked if you have read it you said yes! I just asked you a question you have diverted it again and again and again and again… and no! I never asked anyone to read those books I have asked for just ONE!!! You can not use revisionist materials to claim that you can debunk the Shoah, what you must do is to debunk the evidences from the materials that bring the evidences… because revisionist materials will treat few evidences and try to discredit them, while the large majority of the materials brought as evidences will be ignored in those works.

“Having read or not read that book or any other book is irrelevant. As long as I can prove something using credible scientific findings, there's nothing much you can do about it.”

This is ridiculous Dan, it is not irrelevant, for you to disprove something it require that you know the “prove” in question. You don’t know it, you can certainly not disprove it… so again Dan, for the LAST time, I ask you, have you or have you not read the book Dan? If you admit not having read it I will understand, on the other hand if you still claim you have read it and refuse to discuss about it I will conclude you are lying. Don’t play the same guy you played on the other board by denying being Den and lying and lying and lying… you only destroy your own credibility here.

“Who are you to set "prerequisites" for any discussion? If I can argue and prove my point of view without having ANY knowledge of WWII, does it matter if I haven't read anything?”

Yeh! And I will read a book regarding the multiple micro-dimensional theories of the orbital of an atom written by someone that claims that basic Quantum mechanic is not a prerequisite to master the subject he covers.

“Prove that it's a "full load of trash accumulation." Go ahead. O, but you're not gonna waste time with an "ignorant" psychotic, eh? That is enough to prove that the "shoah" took place, no? Let's not get emotional here. I am trying to be as detached from subjectivism as possible. I am ready to take a look at what anti-revisionists have to offer, and if possible, try to disprove them. So far, you have not provided anything. All you have done is try to "test" my knowledge of a book. ”

Dan, from someone that claims having read Hilbergs book, it is surprising from your part to say that you want to see what anti-revisionists have to offer… you claimed you have read both sides no?

“Look here, we are not questioning who knows more and who knows less here. So stop questioning like we're in an interrogation room. I don't have to answer any of your questions that "test" my knowledge. Put forth your theories and claims, and I will disprove them. Is that too hard? Start point by point. You are trying to manipulate me by getting an answer from me in advance before you post your "proof", so that, if possible, you can hold my reply against me. But that's not gonna work here. Play by the rules of discussion. Rules are, no interrogation. No personal attacks. No inflammatory remarks. No intimidations. ”

But Danny boy, the only reason I was asking you questions from that book was because you claimed having read it… and now you tell me you don’t have to answer any of my questions… if you did not want me to ask you questions about a fundamental book regarding the subject, you had only to tell the truth right away and not play the game you played like the one with your Den alias.

“We are not talking about the history of what COULD'VE happened - that is speculation. We are talking about whether or not it did happen. Whether or not the gas chambers existed. Either you can prove that they existed, or you can't prove. Take your pick. ”

Danny boy, where have I talked about the gas chambers? You insinuate that you can disprove what I bring yet! you have no idea of what I might bring.

“Again, intimidation. Trying to gain sympathy from the observers. I will refrain from arguing with you about what I think about your "proofs" in the other thread, as that would take the thread off-topic, which is what you are trying to do in order to avoid replying to my claims. Of course, you don't have to (if you don't want to), it's just that it would be more fun. ”

I know of what you think of the “proof” I brought by the most credible journals… what you though about them like I previously said was a psychosis.

“Don't bother posting anything. I have read the book. I know what you are talking about. Start a new thread if you want to talk about books themselves rather than the claims they make. Both are strictly historical speculations, and they provide no proof whatsoever about the existence of any of the methods of extermination. I have read almost all of Irving's books. And that, too, is irrelevant, as it doesn't prove much both ways. ”

OK! You know of what I am talking about, so why not giving your opinion then? Go ahead… so you have read Irvings books? What do you think of his theory regarding Himmler in his work regarding Hitler? Do you agree?


“People lie. Science doesn't.”

Not so long ago you have accused the entire scientific community of conspiration, and now you claim that science does not lie, take your pick Dan.

Now stop diverting and answer me.

[Anonymouse]

Fadix is in a conversation with himself. He creates his own discussion standards and he wins the discussion in his own mind. Can we get a bit more serious and back on topic as opposed to childishness, as is usually the case where Fadix goes?

[Darorinag]

Anonymouse, the only way to do that is to ignore Fadi's intimidations, which is what I am doing. As soon as he posts something other than book title and content technicalities (having read it or not, etc.), I will reply in kind to him. Otherwise I will keep on ignoring him. He is talking about what qualifies as a discussion about the holocaust more than talking ABOUT the holocaust. This thread went off-topic as soon as he posted in it, with intimidations of the most common sort.

Anyway, I welcome any serious posts about the holocaust, as long as they deal with what I outlined. That is what I want to talk about in this thread. Anything other than the things I outlined, I will not answer to in this thread, for the sake of not opening a million fronts about the holocaust.

It is quite ironic that Fadi refers to a holocaust denier (as declared by the courts) in his reply...

Anon, speaking of that article you posted, that was quite funny. On a similar note, now I know what is beyond the "anti-semetic" vandalism that's been going on in Toronto - it's ironic how in 2 days' time, the Jewish Congress organised a 3000 participant rally. It's also ironic that during the "rally" at the Jewish Community Center, the executive VP of B'nai Brith stressed the need for government funding for the protection of Jewish institutions (so that they'd feel even more unique than they do as things stand right now...). Here's what The Toronto Star writes about this:

While government leaders have said "all the right things" in condemning anti-Semitism, Dimant said the next step is to ask for financial support to protect Jewish institutions.

"It shouldn't be the responsibility of the Jewish community, it should be the responsibility of the greater community," he said. "We pay taxes, too, plus we have to support our own education systems and our own security."

http://www.thestar.com/NASApp/cs/ContentServer?pagename=thestar/Layout/Article_Type1&c=Article&cid=1080169814589&call_pageid=968332188492&col=968793972154

---

"We pay taxes, too" - yes, and your point, Mr. Dimant? So does everyone else. I don't see the Armenian community asking for special protection funding. But then again, Jews must get the extra thing cos they've been "victimised".... And I don't see how spray-painting swastikas is considered anti-semetic, considering that there really is no proof that the deportations were sparked by anti-semetism rather than political unrest and the Jewish uprisings, political manipulations, and boycotts... I mean, I heard that the swastikas were painted on Catholics' doors too, so what is so especially anti-semetic about it?

Anyway, this is kinda off-topic, but I thought it very ridiculous. And not even a month ago, a Jewish university professor was caught spraypainting her own car with swastikas, and then called the cops to report "hate crime."

[Fadix]

"Anyway, I welcome any serious posts about the holocaust, as long as they deal with what I outlined. That is what I want to talk about in this thread."

Ehee... Danny boy you claimed "scientifcally" proving... outlining some evidences and trying to discredit them is NOT scientifically proving, it is fighting "a nonexistent opponent in order to claim a victory." This is a well known tactic by revisionists to selectivly choose the "evidences" and try to discredit them, most of the time the evidences are even not claimed by the specialists of the Shoah themselves(see: "Gnawing at history: the rheoric of Holocaust denial" by James Najarian published in "The Midwest Quarterly, Vol. 39, 1997) like explained by James Najarian in his essay on revisionist tactics(see my parantheses).

So finally, have you or have you not read the book Dan. stop diverting the question Danny boy.

[Anonymouse]

Is there any physical evidence of gas chambers? Why did Jewish survivors lie about "human soap" when now it is claimed there was no such thing? Why did they lie that people were gassed and exterminated in Dachau during Nuremberg, when now it is confirmed that the chambers at Dachau were only for delousing purposes? Questions need answers. People were tried convicted and killed during Nuremberg when these lies were established.

[Darorinag]

I already answered that question, Fadi. And I said I'm not going to talk about that book. That book doesn't prove anything. When you get over that book, let me know, and then we can hold a serious discussion. As it stands now, from my perspective, you're only increasing your post count while repeating the same thing over and over again.

[Fadix]

Originally posted by Darorinag I already answered that question, Fadi. And I said I'm not going to talk about that book. That book doesn't prove anything. When you get over that book, let me know, and then we can hold a serious discussion. As it stands now, from my perspective, you're only increasing your post count while repeating the same thing over and over again.

Dan stop this pathetic game. You say you have read the book, OK then... I therefore affirm that the evidences I bring are in that book... now you claim this book is not a proof... OK then... debunk the evidences in the Book Dan then... go ahead debunk them... until you do that, this book will still be considered as a valid evidence.

Look Dan, for you to disprove the evidence as I repeat, you must know the evidences and the basic should be to read them. If you go at the Turkish board I participated, an idiot came up with full load of books dating in the 20s,30s,40s,50s etc... with a very limited access and used them as evidences... I have read every books he has used and answered with 60 pages of evidences to debunk his claims by using his own evidences...

I have claimed McCarthy being a corrupted scholar, that has manipulated and even forged in his book by footnoting references that says the contrary of what he affirms etc... when I claimed that McCarthy was not credible I have written a work of over a hundred page just about him, in the work EVERY BOOK he has writen were debunked one by one...

This is the only way you can claim having "proven" there was no Shoah... I repeat and repeat, it is NOT by using denialist materials that you will "prove" there was no Shoah. You have yet to "prove" that you did disprove the evidences... as for you to do that you must in the first place "prove" that you know what are the evidences in the first place...

... So that brings us to the square one... FIRST EVIDENCE I PRESENT!!! Is Hilbergs book mind you here Dan that Hilberg is one of the few researchers that Finkelstein claim respecting.

So ----- Danny, I REPEAT!!! Have you YES OR NOT READ THAT BOOK??? Be Honest, look Dan, if you did not read it, I will help you, I will take the evidences and repost them here, don't forget that by claiming you have read it you took off any justification there might be for me to post evidences that you supposedly know about... So answer please Dan and stop being the bonehead.

[Darorinag]

Originally posted by Anonymouse Is there any physical evidence of gas chambers? Why did Jewish survivors lie about "human soap" when now it is claimed there was no such thing? Why did they lie that people were gassed and exterminated in Dachau during Nuremberg, when now it is confirmed that the chambers at Dachau were only for delousing purposes? Questions need answers. People were tried convicted and killed during Nuremberg when these lies were established.

Indeed. The Nuremberg "trials" were staged. It was all drama. Acting. Nothing more. There is absolutely no proof that the "confessions" were correct. The human soap was confessed to be a truth. So were the gas chambers. No attempts were made to study the gas chambers, etc. It was all taken as a "given." And people were sentenced to death based on those unproven allegations. To use Hilberg's book to prove the existence of gas chambers or any other extermination acts is like using the bible to prove that God doesn't exist...

Esheg, I've read the book. Stop your intimidations. The book does not present any evidence that I am aware of. And please, don't make this into a copy and paste match, I'm not interested in that.

Please... Finkelstein is at best a writer of popular non-fiction. He is a moderate, trying to impress both sides. He makes some good political points, but he's in no way a holocaust historian. He still claims that there were exterminations. You mention his name like he's God, and if he thinks that Hilberg is credible, then Hilberg must be credible... please, Fadi, no more of this game..