Historicity of the Jewish Holocaust

[Darorinag]

I repeat and repeat, it is NOT by using denialist materials that you will "prove" there was no Shoah.

You are in no position to tell me what I can use and what I cannot use to prove that there was no "$hoax"... Because if I can't use "denialist" material, then you can't use exterminationist material, which means that you can't use the "eyewitness" testimonies or any of the documents presented by the Allies and Soviets, because clearly they came from exterminationist sources and could've easily been forged, as has been proven in the case of many of the documents. So what are we left with? Science is neither revisionist nor exterminationist. Scientific testings have shown that the gas chambers could not have existed. Until you can unveil a new scientific technique that enables you to have a more accurate or completely different result that proves that there WERE gas chambers, according to the cyanide residues, I am afraid you cannot claim that the chambers existed. You can cry and whine that the results come from "denialist" sources, but it doesn't matter. The results have been confirmed by many neutral chemists. Also, what do you expect, that we blindly take exterminationists' findings for granted without looking at the other side, or that I use exterminationists' claims in my proofs? Both Pressac and Van Pelt showed wrong scientific findings and data.

And for the record, it's revisionism. Denialism is a term mostly used to intimidate people and to gain sympathy and support from the observers. Oh look, he's denying the entire holocaust!! blah blah blah. The term is revisionism, and it IS the term generally used to refer to the other side of the argument. Anyway, doesn't matter. I guess I shouldn't have mentioned this either, since you're gonna use this as an excuse to get off-topic yet again.

You still haven't addressed any of the outlined points I mentioned. And that was an outline. I haven't proven them all yet, so don't twist my words.

[Fadix]

Originally posted by Darorinag 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..

Danny boy reverting to personal attacks? Danny boy, you are playing this game not me, You claim that the book is not an evidence... OK debunk those evidences go ahead... just bring one evidences from the book(which could not be found on your denialist sites) and debunk it...

Danny boy, yet again you are lost… I am telling you that you can NOT “prove” the non-existence of something. And again you don’t understand. The reason why you can not use denialist materials is because it is my side that is supposed to “prove” the existence of something, it is my evidences you have to disprove… you can not use denialist materials because they might or might not disprove my evidences, and there is “might nots” in that list which are not covered in those denialist materials. So I repeat. YOU DON’T KNOW!!! The evidences I will be bringing, so YOU CAN NOT USE materials which debunk evidences that were NOT mine. Now finally do you understand or not?

[Fadix]

Originally posted by Darorinag
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..

Have you read his last book? If not, you are in no position to criticise an author which the work you have not read. If you have read it, tell me what in the work made you think what you do think about him.

[Anonymouse]

Moderator, I move for a motion to delete every post on this thread after page 5.

[Darorinag]

Originally posted by Fadix Have you read his last book? If not, you are in no position to criticise an author which the work you have not read. If you have read it, tell me what in the work made you think what you do think about him.

I have not read the book, no, but I've taken a look at its contents and I know what it's about. And this is not about Finkelstein either. You are using this opportunity to change the subject. We are neither talking about Finkelstein's nor Hilberg's books, and in fact, not even about Rudolf's book. We are NOT discussing books per se. We are discussing the scientific findings and evidence used in those books. And Hilberg doesn't do that. Finkelstein's book is not holocaust evidence. It's holocaust literature.

[Darorinag]

Danny boy, yet again you are lost… I am telling you that you can NOT “prove” the non-existence of something.

Says who? The gas chambers did not exist. If they did exist, the scientific findings would've been different. Period. If you can prove that those experiment results were manipulated, go ahead and do it. But it's proven that they weren't gas chambers. Unless you come up with newly discovered gas chambers, the remaining ones have all been disqualified as gas chambers. That IS proof of non-existence, and it IS a valid proof. You can prove the non-existence of something. Oh wait, though, weren't you claiming that you could prove the non-existence of race? Duh!!

The reason why you can not use denialist materials is because it is my side that is supposed to “prove” the existence of something

Oh, so I am supposed to sit and listen to you? OK, then go ahead. Prove it. But then I have the right to debunk your claims one by one, and hence prove that you are wrong, AND, in addition, prove that I am right. So go ahead. This is what I've been waiting for, and this is exactly what you've been trying to delay. Do post your claims and your best proofs. I'm challenging you.

just bring one evidences from the book(which could not be found on your denialist sites) and debunk it...

So just cos those "evidences" are posted on denialist sites, I can't disprove them? Please, Fadi, you know you're in a losing position... That is just fallacious. I can claim whatever I want as long as I provide evidences, and so far, you haven't said anything that I can debunk. Provide scientific findings on gas chambers. Go ahead. Fact is, we can discuss the political events that took place during WWII, but that won't get us anywhere with regards to proof that the exterminations did indeed occur. The crux of the holocaust is not in the deportations, but in the alleged exterminations. Exile is not holocaust. Slavery is not holocaust. Extermination is holocaust. To prove that the holocaust did indeed take place, you must prove that mass extermination took place. Go ahead, prove it. I am waiting. I did not enter this thread to discuss political history and the development of National Socialism or the "verbal" evidence of orders or plans for extermination. When it comes to that, you are right in that YOU are supposed to prove that your "verbal" orders were indeed given. As for me proving the non-existence of gas chambers, I am free to do that. Why? Because it is already accepted as "facts", and had it been up to YOU (or the Jews) to prove that the gas chambers existed, those now-facts wouldn't have become facts in the first place. So if we go by your insistence that YOU are the one who's supposed to prove stuff, then you should also prove the existence of gas chambers, and no exterminationist has been able to do that.

[Fadix]

Originally posted by Darorinag I have not read the book, no, but I've taken a look at its contents and I know what it's about. And this is not about Finkelstein either. You are using this opportunity to change the subject. We are neither talking about Finkelstein's nor Hilberg's books, and in fact, not even about Rudolf's book. We are NOT discussing books per se. We are discussing the scientific findings and evidence used in those books. And Hilberg doesn't do that. Finkelstein's book is not holocaust evidence. It's holocaust literature.

Dan, I fail to really understand you... you claim you have read Hilbergs book you claim there is no evidences in it, I bring Hilbergs book as my first evidence... you claim it is not an evidence... yet you have to demonstrate me that it is not an evidence... go ahead start debunking it Dan... And later on you ask me to not start copy pasting, since every thing I post you consider it as copy pasting(since you believe people do what you do), you are placing barrier at me to even present the documents comming from Hilbergs book...

What you do has no sense at all.

First you claim there was no Shoah and that you can prove it.

Second, I ask you if you have read Hilbergs book which IS an evidence... you answer yes!

Third, I ask you a simple question to start the discussion, because now that you have claimed having read the book I understood that I did not need to repost all the evidences but just refer to them, since you having read the book would know of what I am talking about.

Forth, Danny ignored me and changed the subject... Danny every discredited hilberg without any bases.

Fifth, Danny want to onyl discuss regarding the points he brought, what this means is that there is no possible discussion since he set the evidences and the counter-evidences... so how could a discussion even be possible?

Sixt, Danny even forbidden me to bring the evidences here.

Eight, Danny discuss about Finkelstein when he himself admit having not read his book...

The question is, how can one claim to prove anything, when he tries to prove the non-existance of something anf that he choose himself the evidences?

[Fadix]

Dan, says who ? COMMON SENSE DAN !!! If something does not exist you can not bring evidences to “prove” its non-existence… before playing the bonehead once more, just think about it for an instant. If something DOES NOT exist how can you bring evidences to prove its non-existence? Explain me how? And yet! again you are telling me what to prove and disprove… you can not do that… I can “prove” everything I want, it is to you to disprove what I bring and not for me to disprove. So here again, I have not discussed about the Gas chambers… you claimed there was no policy of extermination and that the NZI did not attempt to exterminate the Jews… this is the whole point here, Gas chambers are methods etc… the central point here is if yes or not the NAZI had a policy of extermination and it is for me to bring evidences and for you to disprove them…

The rest of your post has no relevancy, now I repeat, debunk the evidences presented in Hilbergs book, since you claim he bring no evidences, disprove those evidences then… here I assume you have read it, if you admit having not read it, I will post them here.

[Darorinag]

go ahead start debunking it Dan

I am not going to debunk a complete book. I didn't ask you to debunk Rudolf's book. The topic is not about a certain author's claims. The topic is about claims about gas chambers, and other extermination methods that, if proven to have existed, would prove that there was a holocaust. Present your arguments on those, even using Hilberg's book (which you claim provides evidence), and I will debunk them one by one.

I am not preventing you from using those documents. You were trying to interrogate me about the book. I am not going to play that game. Use Hilberg's "evidence" to prove your points. I never said that's invalid. I said I don't consider Hilberg to have presented ANY evidence at all. But if you consider it evidence, then go ahead, post your best, and I shall debunk it all.

And later on you ask me to not start copy pasting

Look, I'm trying to keep this as simple and as little time consuming as possible. Obviously, neither of us has huge amounts of time to dedicate to this, and so let's keep any source posts to less than 1 page (1 post at most). OK? I'm not trying to prevent you from posting stuff. If you've got documents, etc. post them. I'm not preventing you. If you've got links, post them. I'd be glad to look at them. But let's not all start copying and pasting stuff, because the real discussion will then get lost behind it. Just paste the relevant parts of the articles / evidence, and provide a link to the source page if possible, or just mention the book title and author name.

Third, I ask you a simple question to start the discussion, because now that you have claimed having read the book I understood that I did not need to repost all the evidences but just refer to them, since you having read the book would know of what I am talking about.

Look, we're not starting from point zero here. I've got no time for that. Our purpose here is to check the historicity of the holocaust. If the holocaust did indeed take place (and I mean on a mass-scale), the gas chambers should've existed no? And all the other claims about ovens, etc. If they didn't exist, there wouldn't be HOLOCAUST per se. Maybe anti-semetism and persecution yes, and occasional shootings perhaps, but no holocaust. That is why I'm trying to stick to proving/disproving extermination claims (gas chambers, etc.). The existence or creation of ghettos does not prove anything, and I'm not even going to discuss any of that, not the Warsaw ghetto, not the Lodz ghetto, not the Terezin ghetto, nothing. None. I'm not talking about ghettos, and ghettos are irrelevant to any discussion about gas chambers. So let's ASSUME that Jews were transferred from ghettos to camps, for extermination. Now prove that they were systematically exterminated, by gas chambers or any other large scale methods. If you can prove using the ghetto discussion that the extermination did take place, go ahead. I'm not dictating you. I am telling you what I will answer to, and what I won't. You're certainly free to post about ghettos in this thread, I can't do anything about it if you do post them, but I'm not going to address them as I don't have the time, and want to spend whatever time I have on discussing whatever happened in the concentration camps. You could start a new thread on the ghettos, I'd be glad to take a look at it and discuss them if I have the time, but all you'd be doing if you post it here is blowing the thread to 20 pages when I'm just gonna ignore them. If you feel that it does prove that there was an extermination, do post them, and I will read them. Otherwise I won't. I think I'm pretty clear in what I mentioned I'm interested in discussing in this thread. You can hold ghetto discussions with other members in this thread if you'd like, but then discussions will get caught up and the thread will become huge. Anyway, your choice. And my choice to reply or not too.

Danny ignored me and changed the subject

I did not change the subject. I am still on-topic. I am talking about the historicity of the holocaust, and the holocaust could not be considered a holocaust if the extermination claims are debunked. The main part of the "holocaust" is, whether you like it or not, the extermination acts. I am not avoiding talking about them. You are. You KNOW that I am stubborn and will refuse to absolutely change the topic of this thread to discussions of ghettos and what Hilberg is claiming about "dummy camp." That is why you are insisting that I do. And I'm rather bored with this repetition and going in circles. We are talking about the HOLOCAUST, not what led to it. The ghettos alone cannot be counted as holocaust. Get to your point.

Danny want to onyl discuss regarding the points he brought, what this means is that there is no possible discussion since he set the evidences and the counter-evidences... so how could a discussion even be possible?

Not really. As long as it's about the extermination acts, it's fine. I'm not interested in discussing how Hitler came to power, or what talks Himmler and Heydrich had about the creation of ghettos. You claimed to have evidence that the holocaust did take place. The holocaust means mass extermination. Ghettos != mass extermination. Get to your point. I am NOT going to repeat this again. I am done with the repetition. If you've got evidence that the holocaust took place, post it. Otherwise I will ignore you (and you're certainly free to post!). UGH, I don't even know why I'm replying to you at this point. I keep saying I won't reply to you, and you take that opportunity to attack me, so that I'd reply again... Feel free to say the nastiest things about me, even call me a pscyho, I'm not going to reply to you if you don't get serious about this and stop those games. We've typed 5 pages about this and we've not yet gone into discussing the HOLOCAUST. Get to the point if you want me to continue this discussion with you. Otherwise, I'd be more than glad to continue it with loseyourname or anyone else who might wish to debate the evidence with me.

Danny even forbidden me to bring the evidences here.

I did not forbid you to do anything. YOU were the one forbidding people to participate in the discussion if they hadn't read Hilberg's book, and now you're telling me I can't post my evidence because they've been posted on "denialist" websites...

Danny discuss about Finkelstein when he himself admit having not read his book...

I said I recently had the chance to flip through the book. I understand that's not the same as reading it, but he does NOT present any proof. It's a politically oriented book. But again, if you have evidence from his book, feel free to bring it in...

The question is, how can one claim to prove anything, when he tries to prove the non-existance of something anf that he choose himself the evidences?

Choose the evidence? Fadi, the books I get my evidence from cite both revisionist and anti-revisionist / exterminationist books. They address both sides, and they certainly do disprove the claims in anti-revisionist books. Revisionist websites/books quote Pressac, Hilberg, Van Pelt, etc. Anti-revisionist websites (Nizkor) quote the ADL (a zionist hate organisation). Hey, you could also check out the new ADL hate filter. I posted a link to it.

I'm done "arguing" with you, Fadi. If you've got something to say about the holocaust, say it, otherwise, I am going to ignore you (I know you don't care, but if you want to talk to yourself, certainly, go on like this).

[Darorinag]

If something does not exist you can not bring evidences to “prove” its non-existence…

Yet you were doing the same thing in the Race thread, weren't you? Heh, funny how the tables turn, isn't it?

I am not claiming that the chambers that are claimed to have been "gas chambers" do not physically exist. The chambers exist. They are not gas chambers though. That is what I mean by "gas chambers have been proven not to have existed." The HCN residues on the walls of the chambers that are claimed to have been used fpr gassing have been proven not to be gas chambers.

If something DOES NOT exist how can you bring evidences to prove its non-existence? Explain me how?

Maybe you should explain how you can prove that race doesn't exist then? Again, see above. I am not claiming that the chambers did not PHYSICALLY exist. I am claiming that they weren't gas chambers, i.e. not used to gas people.

the central point here is if yes or not the NAZI had a policy of extermination and it is for me to bring evidences and for you to disprove them…

OK, bring proof that the Nazis had any "policies," and I will disqualify them. But what do you mean by "policies"? Holocaust policies do not necessarily imply that the holocaust took place. Those policies might have been put off and not applied. Also, there is a fine line between giving orders and the orders being carried out. That is why I am concentrating on the extermination acts themselves, because neither the proofs of policies nor the proofs of orders prove that the orders were carried out and that there was an extermination. But if you feel they do prove it, go ahead and post the evidence, and also post how one implies the other.

I repeat, debunk the evidences presented in Hilbergs book, since you claim he bring no evidences, disprove those evidences then…

As you said, I cannot prove the non-existence of non-existing "evidence", can I? I repeat, I am not going to debunk a book. Post your claims and support them with Hilberg's evidence, and if it's relevant, I will debunk it. *I* am not the one avoiding posting evidence for the longest time.