Historicity of the Jewish Holocaust

[nairi]

It's not about whether the holocaust took place or not. It's about never letting something like that happen again. As Armenians we should know what that implies.

[Darorinag]

Originally posted by nairi It's not about whether the holocaust took place or not. It's about never letting something like that happen again. As Armenians we should know what that implies.

That still doesn't prove that it happened. And besides, you are ASSUMING that it happened. Who says it happened? And did the "holocaust" recognition prevent the Rwanda genocide? That is irrelevant, and is clearly zionist propaganda to get Armenians on the side of Jews, while the Zionists themselves secretly (or not so secretly, which also demonstrates how dumb some Armenians are) side with Turkey in denying the Armenian genocide, because it suits their holocau$t interests and agendas. So no, it's not about letting something like that happen. Fact is, the American invasion of Iraq could be counted as a holocaust. So can the A-bombing of Hiroshima and Nagasaki. Ditto for the fire-bombing of Dresden. Letting something happen is irrelevant to historical truth. Claiming that it didn't happen and trying to prove it, is in no way meant to encourage any genocidal acts. That is a fallacy that is meant to prevent people from asking questions about the "holocaust." It is also a fallacy that as Armenians, we should not question the "holocaust" or be revisionists. The two are obviously two separate, unrelated events. Just because one didn't happen doesn't mean the other didn't either. Revisionism is for historical truth, against historical distortions. It does not seek to revise or deny ALL genocidal acts just because they are genocidal acts. It is not a movement that sides with crime. It is a movement that wants historical truth to be the norm rather than the exception. Historical distortions are not only an offense to the Jews who died of disease (rather than exterminated by Nazis), it is also an offense to all the TRUE victims of genocides. Revisionism does not undermine any of that. It seeks historical truth, nothing more, nothing less. It is not a political agenda, despite what many make it out to be. It is in no way affiliated with white supremacy or neo-Nazism. If revisionist arguments are used by the mentioned two groups, it does not mean that revisionism is neo-Nazism. Anyone can use anything for any political agenda. That does not mean that historical truth should be sacrificed for that.

[Anonymouse]

Originally posted by nairi It's not about whether the holocaust took place or not. It's about never letting something like that happen again. As Armenians we should know what that implies.

As it rightfully should be, but the idea of "learning from history" and "not letting it happen" is a fallacy. It assumes that by learning we can prevent it. No amount of learning prevented from Rwandan's getting massacred. As long as governments continue to exist, you can bet they will engage in genocidal policies.

The problem I have with the Holocaust, unlike Dan, is not that Jews died, it is the method, the exaggeration, and many lies that have surrounded it, as well as Israel and the Washington Holocaust Memorial, for somehow proclaiming themselves as 'eternal victims' yet allying with Turkey and denying the Genocide themselves. This is stupid. Just read the book by Norman Finklestein The Holocaust Industry.

[nairi]

Instead of wasting your time trying to prove or disprove an event or analyzing and criticizing what those damn kikes, kaks and niggers think and do, you could be spending it trying to prevent one. Dan, you sound Hitlerite.

[Anonymouse]

Okay, folks, let's get things into perspective. For the nth time, when someone questions the validity Holocaust story he/she is not denying it. The Holocaust is not one big giant thing. Like all history it is a series of events. There are many events that are inside the frame of what we call the Holocaust. It is not a point in time, it is a process, just like everything else.

I do not deny the Nazi exclusionary policy, the confiscations, the forced labor camps, and yes even executions by the Einsatsgruppen, however these were all catalysts acting outside the general frame of the government. If I claim that Jews did die, and roughly a million, and not 6 million, as they suggest, I am not a "denier". If I claim Jews died of typhus, starvation, and execution style shootings, but not the holy gas chambers, I am not a "denier". Moreover, the definition is misleading, there is nothing about a great fire and large pits, today no one claims that they threw live bodies in these large pits.

Ask yourself why there are laws that prevent people from questioning the Holocaust, why billions in reparations have gone to the terrorist state of Israel which now uses the Holocaust as a political leverage to persecute Palestinians and create a Nazi type Zionist state? Ask yourselves why they deny the Armenian Genocide? The Holocaust was the founding tenet of the modern State of Israel, that is why it cannot be questioned, because this gives them as the 'eternal victims' the right to do whatever they want, create a Zionist, exclusionary State, no different than what Nazis did. I am against Nazi's and Nazism, however, I am also against Zionism. The two are inseperable to anyone familiar with history.

[Anonymouse]

Originally posted by nairi Instead of wasting your time trying to prove or disprove an event or analyzing and criticizing what those damn kikes, kaks and niggers think and do, you could be spending it trying to prevent one. Dan, you sound Hitlerite.

Spending my time by trying to prevent one? How so dear? By taking my a$s to Rwanda right in betwen the Tutsi's and the Hutus? It would be a matter of time before my white a$s got sliced by a macheti.

[Darorinag]

Anonymouse, I am not denying that Jews died during WWII. I am arguing that there were no mass scale extermination acts. Ergo no holocaust.

[Anonymouse]

What do you mean no mass scale. A million dead Jews is still genocidal, you can't say they weren't rounded up, because clearly there was anti-Jewish sentiment, just like now in Israel there is anti-Arab sentiment.

[Fadix]

You answered waiting an hour ? Dan, you are really an obsessed sick kid, go seek some help. You are on the internet nearly 24/24 waiting for my posts like this obsessed with “race” “revisionism” etc… any such subjects… have you a life beyond this hate and obsession? You are logged on the internet and your forum pass 2 AM?

Dan, the work DOES NOT debunk Hilberg, you can not just do a google research take the first pseudo work without reading it and present it as “evidence” debunking Hilbergs book, everyone can write works that supposedly debunk, before claiming it debunk you should read the work. You DID NOT, neither have you read Hilberg(I will show you later my evidence why you did not read it). As for Gilles Karmasyn, your justification for not having read his debunking might work for the typical reader that does not know the language of the author, but not for the “searcher” you claim to be in this domain. You should have asked a translator to do it, or you could have used a translator, in my research I had to read Russian, German, Spanish, Italian, Turkish etc… research as well include finding a translator and getting them translated, so if you have not read Gilles answers, you can possibly not claim that Hilbergs book was debunked. And more, the supposed book the author debunk is the 1967 edition, while Hilberg in his last edition of 1985 he call it the “final” and true real version… in that version there is things that were changed and your author use those specific “things.”

“You are yet to produce any such "evidence" of either the gas chambers, etc. or any evidence that they have "debunked" Rassinier, or Graf, or any other revisionist. You are using the same tactics Hilberg uses - that it's been proven, yet you don't show any proof... this is nothing new to me...”

LIAR!!! Hilberg does not use such tactics as it is being proven, since it is his work that is supposed to prove. You are making that up. Beside that my research on Rassinier only concerns his so-called statistical analysis I compare with McCarthys population stable application in his so-called methodology, if I post that you would take it as Chinese and claim later that it does not prove anything. You see Dan, given that you have shown on the other thread to act like a total psychotic, I do not expect to change your mind here. You work as: “I hate the Jews, so the Shoah must be a hoax.” Or: “I hate the Blacks, so the Blacks must be retards.” Etc… you are on the web obsessed with those things that you place as first priority, before anything else, being at school you jump on the first computer that has access to internet just to come and read and answer me, or visit such sites with such a sick obsession. Dan, Dan, you are not here to have a debate, this must be clear for everyone that has read you… on the other thread I was bringing researches published in medical journals and you were supposing that all were manipulations and was asking me to prove they were not, you were supposing that the scientific community was in a kind of cover-up war and now you claim using science. GOW UP!!!

Here we come with the trials… Danny, have I talked about Hilberg and the trials? I AM TALKING ABOUT HIS BOOK NOT THE TRIAL… you can not use the trials to discredit the book.

So, Danny wants to use Rudolf the chemist? OK! Danny let see if Rudolf has “debunked” the gassings as a chemist that by accident find out that it was impossible, or that if in fact he was a liar(like you). Here some description of Rudolf from my personal research about him, and not google(your only source). I may provide more later.

Now this is the Chemist, that joined in 1985 Germanys right Republican Party which he left the next year, and then in 1989 he rejoined this same party because in his opinion it was the only party which supported the notion of German reunification (reunification? Yep, it was with this same term Hitler took power), see: Germar Rudolf, "Vom Eros der Erkenntnis," in Kardinalfragen zur Zeitgeschichte (Berchem, Belgium, 1996), p. 10. In 1991 he again left the party because it was obvious that his revisionism was a political action, so he was forced to quit to hide that fact.(the Right Republican Party is known to have Holocaust denialists onboard). In his verdict against Rudolf, Judge Mayer after the analysis of the cases concluded that Rudolf left the party because he realised that he could not achieve with it the radical aims that he has fixed himself. But more to that, Rudolf had(and still has links) close contact with the far right Wings NPD and, Dekert, with whom he exchanged letters. When the police raided his house in Sep. 1993 they found out drafts of two letters under pseudonyms that he was to publish in the Deutsche Stimme(NPD publication, see: Landgericht Stuttgart, Strafsache gegen Germar Scheerer geb. Rudolf: 32.)

Now, how Rudolf concluded that there was no gassing? Was it the result of his researches? NO!!! He himself claimed that three publications were responsible of this. The first one: “Was ist Wahrheit?” German version of Rassiniers famous work, “Im xxxxicht der Vergangenheitsbewaltigung”by Armin Mohler(which BTW is fallacy from top to bottom) and of course Leuchter Report. All his denialist claims turn around what he calls "chemical-historical questions." So again, Rudolf denial of the Shoah is not the result of his so-called analysis but rather his own racist ideologies and other materials he has read. By calling him a racist, am I telling the truth? Well, I will let the readers’ judge by themselves.

The first time Rudolf published his work it was discredited by many chemists (he himself revised his work many times and now claim readers to not take account of his previous revisions). To counter those specialists he started creating many pseudonyms to review positively his own work… pseudonyms such as Dr. Ernst Gauss, Dr. Rainer Kretschmer(I suggest you Dan to read the reviews coming from this pseudonym in particular), Dr. Rainer Scholz, Dr. Christian Konrad, etc… when exposed he claimed that he used them as mean of self-protection… YEH RIGHT!!!

From his home in Kent, Rudolf run the "Stiftung Vrij Historisch Onderzoek”(which read as “Institute of Free History Research”) which was previously in the possession of the Belgian far rightist fascist AND racist Herbert Verbecke. Ah and he is responsible of the “Castle Hill Publishers.”

Now, let continue and expose more who this “Chemist” is. He is the founder (founded in 1997) of the revolutionary journal: “Viertelsjahreshefte fur freie Geschichtsforschung” (VffG) In 2000(Rudolf, "Von der Angst und wie man sie uberwindet," in VffG 2/2000. Original: "In der Tat, da[beta] Heiko Klein noch am Leben ist, grenzt schon an ein Wunder und beweist, wie harmlos die ganze deutsche `Szene' tatsachlich ist. Ein Befreiungskrieg lie[beta]e sich mit derartigen Freiheitskampfer nicht gewinnen".) he published an article that showed his true intention, in which he claimed that Germany needed a revolution, in the same article he incite hatred against the Jews and ask the removal of the Chief Public Prosecutor in Germany, he writes about him: "The fact that Heiko Klein is still alive borders on a miracle, and demonstrates how harmless the German scene really is. A war of freedom isn't possible to win with freedom fighters of this type."

I can continue long and long like this Danny boy, if you think that by your google you will be able to counter me you are really dreaming in color boy. Rudolf is a joke, his theses is a joke, stop asking from the “proves” of that, he himself each times change his versions and ask people to ignore the previous ones. His references of the “Church example” is been debunked by anyone and he still maintain it; his “plaster theses” is a joke that even revisionists try to divert.

So, has Leuchter Report or Rudolf Report “proved” there could not have been gassing of Jews? Let see.

The Insistute of Forensic Research in Cracow planned to conduct a research for quite some times, actually the researches had to be conducted with some intervals of times… the first one was conducted in 1990, two years after Leutcher report that at that time was practically unknown. The institute found traces of cyanide like it was expected and the research contradict Leutcher theses, while the authors of the theses did even not know of the existence of Leuchter Report…

What happened later? Oh yeh! Since a report contradict Leuchter the engineer, the deniers needed a “chemist” so in 1993 a year before the scheduled next and final research by the Institute of Forensic Research in Cracow to contradict the potential conclusion of the Insistute, Rudolf publish his report(nota bene before this examination, years before that, Rudolf was a prominent denialist still… it is not his scientific research that made him one). Later in 1994, the Institute conclude; they find traces of cyanide in every central areas where there was claimed to be gassing of people, supporting the eyewitnesses claims. In this same report published by the Institute we find out that in the one year prior publication of Rudolf there was elementary mistakes in basic chemistry facts… what happens? Well Rudolf revises his versions and after few publications and helps in 1997 publish what is supposed to be his last and final version (not yet, since he still modify them). As with his 1997 so-called final work (which finally was not) he claims that his work of 1994 should not be considered.

“He did that after Green's attempts to discredit him and ruin his name. Moreover, he uses a professional engineer's words to support his claims, which i think is very relevant to chemistry. we are talking about science here, we are talking about engineering possibilities and impossibilities, as well as chemical possibilities and impossibilities. SOmething you have NOT yet brought. Again, you claimed that it is YOU who should prove that the gas chambers existed. So now do. There is NOT ONE person who has been able to prove it.”

Either you are an idiot or a bigot, I give you the choice here Dan. Green does not need to discredit or ruin his name… Rudolf did that himself with his publications regarding the “future” of Germany, or his stupid opinions regarding the present Jewish commerce’s in Germany. Of course Danny ignores all of those, because Danny is Mr. google. Danny boy, I told you you can have access to any work you want by using your university interloaning system, just submit a demand on his periodicals and find a German translator and you will see that he does not need anyone to ruin his name, that man does that to himself. As for engineering possibilities, Danny idiot (as in ignorant), now don’t cry because I am calling you an idiot, I am using the word idiot as it is defined in the dictionary. Read Leutcher report, and don’t tell me you have read it, he does a fundamental mistake on the conversion to cyanide that Mr. Rudolf tries to hide in his pillow, but even then mr. Rudolf blinded by his bigotry has been fooled by Leutcher when he just recopied it in his 1994 report and later on advised the readers to ignore because obviously he made a fool of himself. Now don’t tell me to “prove” that just go read the 5 subsequent reports and the fact is right on your face to see. But of course Danny will not read them, Danny will play the same game asking for “proves” and when finally I present them here he will do exactly like he did in the race thread.

“He uses MANY MANY sources, most of which from certified chemists. He also brings in Peters, with regards to Zyklon B and disinfestation. He brings MANY chemical sources. But way to fool those who haven't read the book. Of course, not knowing German, you probably don't understand many many of the titles of the books, and many of them are chemical studies. In addition, he does not avoid citing Pressac and arguing against him. ”

Yes! most of them are certified chemists, but he does not use them to support the point that there was no gassing of people, he supposes that the walls were covered by moulds and organic substances and apply the hypotheses of those chemists, when in the first place there is no such evidences, and to justify his claim he invent the “plaster theses.” The plasters have never been found on those chambers, so either there was no plasters or they were removed. If there was no plasters Rudolfs entire theses fall apart, if there was but were removed, the evidences that Rudolf ask have been removed during the removal of the supposed plasterm, so again, in both cases Rudolf makes no sense.

[Fadix]

(answer continued)

Ah and, only the fact that you are unaware of Greens answer show how a “searcher” you are Danny boy, I won’t show you where you have just to type both names on google and you will have the answer right on your face.

“No it was not. Nice try though. I will refer to this in my next post.”

IDIOT!!! Before talking about things which you ignore read those materials so maybe you could understand of what I am talking about… the mistakes that Green refers to are those that later on Rudolf revise by changing his “plaster theses.”

“And has Leuchter been proven to be wrong? ...”

Read the two reports following his, you will have the answer right on your face.

“If you had read Rudolf's book, you wouldn't have said that. Rudolf mentions countless of possibilities and disqualifies them all, using the results.”

You have no clue of what you are talking about again Danny boy… Danny boy go learn what “results” mean in the realm of science before farting nonsense. Rudolf claim of the non-probability of the gas chambers being used to gas peoples… but yet he has no explanation regarding the fact that there was no plasters found and as well he says nothing about the fact that if they were removed it will discredit his entire theses right away. And here I am even not referring to his “Iron theses” when Rudolf present one possibility for the cyanide reaction when there is over five. So again Danny boy, don’t talk about things which you ignore you will only look like the fool you were looking like on the other thread.

“One fact could destroy Rudolf's thesis? Oh wow, that's magical indeed. The walls were being washed? I am assuming that the walls being washed would've eliminated the evidence, eh? Heh... The eyewitness accounts could not have been possible with the cyanide residues found on the walls. THAT is a PROVEN fact. No anti-revisionist has proven, using science, that the eyewitness accounts of gas chambers were correct. None. Nada. Null. ”

YES!!! It would, read Rudolf reference to the church to justify his hypotheses Danny boy, this example is considered by chemists a very rare phenomenon, now washing it would entirely wash out the traces. Only the fact that you have claimed such a thing yet again show that you have no clue of what you are talking about Danny. Green refers to the neutral PH, Rudolf divert that by claiming that it does not have to be neutral, yet water has a neutral PH, the witnesses report the washing… and the washing was elementary Danny boy, giving that gassing by ZyklonB will contract the intestines and fill the entire place of excrements. I guess Danny ignored that eh? Beside that Danny, how do you explain that cyanide was found on every major locations the witnesses claimed there was gassing… ?

“There is absolutely no proof of those. ANd I am not lying. You are trying to intimidate me and sway public opinion against me.”

Har! Har! Har! Are you denying the mass shootings Dan?

“Again, there is nothing other than interrogating and trying to "test" my knowledge that you can do, can you? Does it matter what I know and what I don't? I have proven that Hilberg was lying. I have proven that gas chambers did not exist. You have NOT presented any proof. NONE. All you are doing is going round and round and insisting that either you will talk about Hilber or not talk at all. ”

YES IT MATTER!!! You claim YOU CAN PROVE, yet now you ask me if it makes a differences whatever or not you know those things… Danny boy you don’t know the only NAZI killing machine that beside Irving no one tried to touch and the only thing Irving was able to do is to claim that Hitler was even not aware of this organisation action. So Danny, I ask you, what was the name of this organisation? You researched and can debunk the Shoah right? So I ask you, what is the name of one of the “alleged” NAZI killing machine? Yet you don’t even know its name. Is it because there is no mention of it on your revisionist sites?

“Again, that they deported and placed "non-threatening' people in ghettos does not mean that there were any extermination plans or that these plans were being carried out. So now I am supposed to "accept" your argument because you used Irving to support your claims? That's utter BS. Irving is not an authority on the extermination acts. He is a historian and can look at documents, but he cannot prove that there was a holocaust or that there was not. I would not use IRving in any of my arguments to prove that there was no holocaust. he is not an authority. and no, denialism is not the same as revisionism. In fact, denialism does not exist, because there was no holocaust in the first place. once there is proof that there wasn't any holocaust, it's not denialism, it's revisionism - and revisionism means - revising the truth, or what used to be taken for truth. ”

It is obvious that you have not read Irving Danny Boy, … I must say that it is quite amusing to read you, it makes me laugh how hard you try to hide your ignorance Danny boy. The next time you claim to be able to “prove” something go beyond google for your “research.” Danny what happened with the ghettos when the NAZI decided to close them? Tell me Danny boy? Are you denying that the NAZI even tried to close those ghettos? I will repeat Danny boy, what was the name of the “shooting” organisation… I am telling you once you will find it, unless you are a sadomasochist, you will close your bigoted mouth out of amazement that your revisionist sources have hidden that from you.

“And I am talking exactly about gas chambers. What are you so afraid of? Bring on all your evidence, including dr. green. I shall provide more scientific findings to prove how and why they were wrong.”

Who are you to tell me what evidences I have to present Danny boy? Danny, learn to make the difference between your mouth and anus before reading some scientific papers, this is a friendly advice.

“Again, I thought it was up to you to bring the proofs. You said so in one of your posts above. That if you make a claim, it's up to you to prove it, and up to me to disprove it. No? So then, bring them in. I shall debunk them. Just like Hilberg was completely debunked, and not just by a historian and expert in the "holocaust', but by a lawyer.”

Danny boy, you claim having read both sides, and now you have been exposed to ignore totally what the claims are… how can you claim that you can debunk WITHOUT even knowing the evidences? As for Hilberg, his book was never debunked… let stick to his book, if in fact Hilberg was debunked by a lawyer, so was Rudolf from your logic since he perjured on a court. So will you be using the same standards to claim that Rudolf was debunked? You see here I could have used how he made himself look like a fool on courts and how he was exposed lying… but I have limited myself with his activities and his work rather than that. On the other hand you have presented the court cases to discredit the work, and presented a joke work which you have even not read to support your claim.

“Where did I say anything about deciding what arguments you can use? I said I am not going to talk about the plans to exterminate jews. I said I am interested in whether or not the exterminations actually took place. If you feel you can prove that the exterminations took place by using extermination plan "documents" then by all means, post them. As for the rest, I didn't prevent you from posting anything. I said if you do post them, I will just ignore them. Again, you are using this as an excuse not to post them. We both know. I think anyone who's been following this thread already knows this. It's pure and simple logical deduction. ”

BBBWWWAAAHHHAAAAAAAAAAHAAAAAAAAA!!! I just fell from my chair of laughter… how predictable Dan, you just made my day, no better yet, you made the whole week, or even the month, no, let make that the year. Danny boy, you started the discussion by presenting the argument of the adversary and say you can debunk them… at that time I have even not presented any arguments yet… when I told you regarding Hilberg you farted your lie(like we shall see later). You claim that I am finding excuses to not post them… Danny boy, I presented my first argument you have not said why it was not an argument, in fact you have no idea what the argument is because you HAVE EVEN NOT READ the argument which you claimed having read.

“How many times have you asked this? ANd how many times have I answered you? Why do you care if I have read it? Assuming that I have not read it, does it mean that you can't use the evidence? And yes, I have read it. For Christ's sake, now post your evidence. ”

This was your last chance, you gave me no choice then bringing the evidence that you have not read it… you will see later in my post what I mean Danny.

“I am not going to debunk anything. It is your claim, and you have to prove that it existed, it's not up to me to prove that they didn't exist before you prove that they existed in the first place. And note that by saying that, I am not denying their existence. I might, later on, depending on your evidence. So far, you have presented none. ”

More you post more you fell… Danny are you claiming that you ignore this “claimed” organisation? Just by a yes or a no… answer and I will show you how stupid you sound like.

“Again, we are not talking about common sense here. Common sense might've told us that planning to kill off 5 million jews during a war and expecting to win that war at the same time (internal war with jews, and external war with allies) would've been logically impossible, a suicide, a madness. that doesn't mean there were no plans. again, i am not claiming that there were plans. i am bringing in an example. common sense and proof are two different things. if you can't prove that there were any extermination plans in deporting jews and creating ghettos, etc., you can't imply that common sense would've said so. that is exactly what Hilberg does throughout his book. he constantly asks subtle questions of why would he have done this or that if there were no extermination plans or acts, etc. that is not proof, Fadi. ”

That is not what Hilberg does in his book Danny boy, you have no idea what is in Hilbergs book, just wait at the end of my post Danny boy you will see what I mean. I will ignore the rest of this part of your answer right now, you shall see later why.

“And you proved that I am "den"? Again, you are bringing irrelevant things from other forums, which have no place in this forum OR in this thread. Nice try. And again, what difference does it make? Suppose I had not read the book? What is your point? ”

Den, I mean, Dan, you are Den… it is not irrelevant Dan, you are playing the same game, the same thing. I have the prove you are Den, if you want to be embarrassed just tell me I will embarrass you…

So here goes my evidences that you have not read the book Dan, you see I left you the chance to admit it, but the bonehead you were still maintained you did read the book. You see Dan all that was so predictable, if you go at the Turkish board which I participate you will learn my “cheap tricks”(OK I admit they are cheap tricks) , I use those similar tactics, I know that the other will always claim to have read those works, because if they don’t they will sound ignorant, so I always mislead people about a book and let them discuss about it, and later show them that if they have read in fact the work they would have corrected me.

This time my information about the page and the Volume regarding the book was accurate, as well as the four special problems… where I have hit Danny boy was regarding “the” book, I have even presented you clues in a parentheses to be sure that when you were referring to the book you were really thinking that it was one book. But you maintained and maintained and maintained that you have read “the” book. Dan, you could not have read the book, because the book Danny was three books, Hilbergs work was three books Danny boy… and I have even given you clues many times, when I referred to Volume 2, and EVEN in a parentheses. The one having read the book would understand what I was trying to do in that particular parentheses, but you on the other hand did not knew it. You maintained again and again that you have read “the” book not the books… I have repeated and repeated and repeated “the book” and you took that for granted. So Dan you have not read Hilbergs books and even less Irving books. If you really have read Irvings works you would know of what organization I am talking about. Dan, you are a pathological liar, you have not searched both sides, you have in fact not read most of your own materials, even less the “other side” which you claim having read. You are doing exactly like your Den alias slandering moderators and asking them to prove it and even trying to make them look like idiots, when you logged with both account from your Liverpool IP address.

You see Dan, I have no problem to discuss with someone that knows of what he is talking about, this is why usually I ask always to someone that want to discuss about the issue. Have you read that book, or this book? This is a guaranty for me that the person knows of what he is talking about. Here you came and claimed you can debunk this or that, the Almighty Danny trying to expose the World Jewish conspiration, the savour of humanity. Yet, you have no idea of the evidences, you have read not a single book bringing those evidences… if you did not read the evidences you can possibly not disprove them.

The question here now is, will you finally admit Dan that you did not read the book?