Historicity of the Jewish Holocaust

[Darorinag]

Originally posted by Fadix Hey Jerk, if you want to start a book competition here and have your head on the sand, go ahead, I have Irvings book just next to me... try me ignoramus...

And that means what? You still didn't answer my questions, Fadi boy. So tell me a bit about Milch, and how exterminationists deal with this issue, Fadi boy. Enlighten someone who has "not read exterminationist material."

As for the plaster... I repost.

"Ignoramus, how deep more you want to fall? I am telling you go READ the reports before coming here and playing your smart. The plasters taken by Cracow have nothing to do with the plaster wall that Rudolf supposes have existed. Rudolf supposes that a plaster wall which increased the PH was responsible of the reaction when he compared with his Church theses. THERE WAS NO SUCH PLASTER WALL that ever existed. How far will you show your ignorance Dan one just wonder? Now the next time come back after you have read the reports because obviously you have not the slightest idea of what you are talking about."

In case you didn't notice, I already replied to this.

I have Irvings book just next to me...

Which book are you referring to? I have 2 books in mind.

[Darorinag]

Doug Christie fries yet another liar (bring em all to Christie!! )

Mr. Rudolf Vrba is a Slovakian Jew who escaped from Auschwitz in 1944. He wrote an "eyewitness account" about the camp, and this was published in November of the same year.

In one of his books (I Cannot Forgive) published in 1964, he mentions how "in January 1943, to commemorate the visit by SS Reichsführer Heinrich Himmler, the first crematory in Auschwitz-Birkenau was initiated by gassing 3,000 Jews."

Fact: the first crematory in Birkenau was put into operation in March and not in January of 1943.

Fact: Himmler's last visit was in July of 1942

Vrba testified for the prosecution in the Zündel trial in 1985, and he was grilled by Christie during cross-examination. Here you go, some of the ridiculous things Vrba said:

Christie: I would like to ask you, if you actually saw him arrive in January 1943, or is this only a.....

Vrba: In September 1943 or in January?

Christie: In your book it says January 1943.

Vrba: No, I saw him in July 1943 and then in 1943....

Christie: But here it says January 1943.

Vrba: That must be a mistake.

Christie: A mistake?

Vrba: Yes.

Christie: Well, well. But on this occasion you saw him arrive?

Vrba: The first time, I saw him arrive because he was as close to me as you are now. (...) Out of courtesy he came a step closer.

Christie: Well, well.

Vrba: The second time I saw him in a car, the same one as in the first time.(...) Maybe it was him, maybe it was only his deputy, I don't think it matters. (...)

Christie: You are telling this court, you really saw Heinrich Himmler looking through a peephole into a gas chamber?

Vrba: No, I never claimed I was present when he looked into the gas chamber, only that I put a story together which I have heard many times from numerous people who were present and told me everything. (...)

Christie: But in your book you write, YOU saw everything and you don't mention that you are writing hearsay.

Vrba: In this case, I wrote hearsay.

http://www.russgranata.com/testimony-eng.html

And here's some more from Doug "I send exterminationist liars to school" Christie :

Christie: You gave us the figure of 1,765,000 corpses who were gassed in your War Refugee Board Report. Correct?

Vrba: That's right.

[...]

Christie: Now, you told us in the War Refugee Board Report that there were thirty-six furnaces -- yes, thirty-six -- and it took an hour and a half to burn three corpses in each furnace. Right?

Vrba: That's right.

Christie: You later said, having seen the plans, I suppose, that there were fifteen crematorium ovens. Right?

Vrba: No. Where did I say so?

Christie: In your book. We went over that yesterday.

Vrba: Mm-hmmm.

Christie: Do you deny it today?

Vrba: I don't deny anything.

Christie: All right. Well, just deal with the truth. I am asking you whether today you are denying that yesterday you agreed that in your book you came to the conclusion there were fifteen ovens.

Vrba: Would you show it in my book?

Christie: You don't remember?

Vrba: No.

Christie: Well, then, how can you not remember from one day to the next what you say, and yet you can tell us what you counted forty-five years ago?

Vrba: Because what I have seen with my eyes is firmly embedded in my memory. This means when I have counted 1,765,000 people, I saw them, but inside of the crematoria I didn't see.

Christie: Yes. So you saw 1,765,000 people.

Vrba: According to my count.

Christie: Yes. They were Jews, though; right? Just Jews, according to the War Refugee Board Report that you tell us in your count.

Vrba: That's right.

Christie: So they weren't gentiles; these were Jews.

Vrba: Yes.

Christie: You can tell the difference and you made the distinction between Jews and gentiles in that number?

Vrba: I didn't make the difference in that number. I only said that 1,765,000 Jews were gassed in the gas chambers. The difference between Jews and non-Jews was made by Nazis and not by me, as you know.

[...]

Christie: You asked me where in the book you said fifteen ovens. I am showing you where it says in my copy. We have to go through this procedure every time of checking with your copy, but do that if you will.

Vrba: So it is written fifteen ovens which could burn three bodies each simultaneously in twenty minutes.

Christie: That's right.

Vrba: And how many ovens were there, in your opinion?

Christie: I am asking you because you are the witness, and you said it in the War Refugee Board Report.

Vrba: Yes.

Christie: All right. What made you change your mind from thirty-six ovens to fifteen, if you haven't been there since?

Vrba: The fifteen are here. Where is the thirty-six?

Christie: In the War Refugee Board Report it says thirty-six.

Vrba: Would you show it to me in the War Refugee Board Report? I have a copy of it here. You show it to me.

Christie: Page 14, last paragraph.

[reads the passage: A huge chimney rises from the furnace room around which are grouped nine furnaces each having four openings.]

Christie: Right. If you never went back and you never looked at a plan, what made you change your mind about all this?

Vrba: I still do not see any difference between one statement and the other.

Christie: Oh, you don't see a difference between thirty-six and fifteen. Right?

Vrba: Fifteen in one crematorium.

Christie: We were talking about one crematorium in the case of the thirty-six ovens, sir.

Vrba: You are completely confusing me. I can't find anything of that sort what you are saying in this report.

Christie: Sir, you gave us a description in the War Refugee Board Report, page 14. You also gave us a diagram.

[...]

Vrba: As I explained to you yesterday, it was quite clear that the graph which we enclosed to the War Refugee Board was made from hearsay. We were not inside. In other words, we cannot ---


---

Good God, I hope I'd get the chance to meet Christie one day!!! I would thank him for all the work he's done in exposing those liars for all the world to see.

--

[Darorinag]

Witness indecisive: Lawyer challenges crematoria theory
by Kirk Makin

Toronto, January 12, 1985

ERNST Zundel's lawyer challenged the testimony of a Holocaust survivor yesterday, telling the man he couldn't have seen concentration camp chimneys belch smoke and flames from exterminated Jews because crematoria don't emit anything.

"I suggest it is quite impossible for smoke to come from a crematoria from human beings," said Doug Christie, whose client is charged with spreading false news. "What do you say about that, sir?"

"Nothing," Arnold Friedman, prisoner number B14515, initially replied. "If you're talking of crematoria in Toronto and crematoria in Auschwitz, those are two different things. In Birkenau (part of Auschwitz complex), smoke came out of the chimney."

"I put it to you that you don't really understand anything about crematoria, to say: 'Aha, that is a crematorium,' because that is quite wrong, sir," Mr. Christie said.

Many observers in the packed courtroom were left shaking their heads or fidgeting uncomfortably as Mr. Friedman, 56, then agreed that perhaps Jews were not being burnt in the chimneyed buildings.

Over a two-day span, Mr. Friedman has testified repeatedly to seeing thousands of boys herded toward the crematoria, and of seeing trainloads of people unloaded near the ominous buildings.

He told of how he and other internees even thought they could tell whether fat or skinny people, Ukrainians or Poles, were being cremated by looking at the color of the smoke.

Mr. Friedman's sudden indecision in the face of Mr. Christie's forceful questioning touched off an almost-perceptible shockwave in the courtroom. "Couldn't there have been other explanations (for the smoke and flames)?" Mr. Christie asked, pressing home his advantage.

"Yes, there could have," Mr. Friedman replied. "If I had listened to you at the time when I was listening to other people (in the camp), I might have listened to you. But at the time I listened to them."

The dramatic testimony took place at the trial of Ernst Zundel, who has pleaded not guilty to two charges of knowingly publishing false news which caused or was to cause damage to social and racial tolerance.

In one of two articles forming the subject of the charges, the author maintains information on the Holocaust has been grossly exaggerated or faked. One of the Crown's tasks is to prove Mr. Zundel knew the articles were false.

---

So what do you say to these testimonies and confessions, Fadi boy? Surely they weren't extracted from them in some separate interrogation room where they could've been tortured to hell and back if they refused to say anything? Surely you would agree that the processes of interrogation and cross-examination of today are more democratic in a sense? How does one explain their admission of being "witnesses" by hearsay?

Surely you can prove that there were exterminations, using eyewitness accounts, Fadi boy? Now present your best "eyewitness", and let's do a cross-examination, shall we?

[Ducati]

i think jews are deceving people...everything that happend in WW2 was their dumb fault...no one but their own..

[Darorinag]

Of course, I am not saying that the Nazis were good fruit, but certainly, they were not guilty of the crimes they were accused and found guilty of.

I will write some more on the different aspects of this case.

I am still writing replies to the questions asked on Nizkor...

[Fadix]

As expected, bunch of replies from a Jerk boy that has the internet as sole life. Am I attacking you by calling you a jerk? Well, if you feel attacked that is your problem. If you want me to stop attacking you stop lying Dan and I will stop. New lies? Yes new lies as I will show the readers(excluding you, because unless you are in another acute phases of psychosis, I think you know you have lied).

So here we go. Dan, Dan, Dan, jerk boy, in a court of law when someone admit of his crimes and that others testify about it; that person is considered as guilty, now if you want to rewrite how the jurisdictional system work just tell us it should work like that and not start farting what it is, because obviously IT IS NOT what you claim it is. That person testified, it is for you to bring evidences that he lied, if we were to apply your logic, 90% of those in prisons will be out. Stop repeating the same trash all over again Dan and turn everything in your advantages. Your twisted sick mind (I said sick? Yes! I will demonstrate later how only a sick mind could write what you have written in one of your most recent posts) work as that: “I hate this, it must not be true, so I can revert and twist the point in order to support my theses.” For instance you claim that the numbers published regarding the Jewish World population is accurate, when I bring the argument that the Jews had all the reasons in the world to inflate their numbers to justify a bigger Israel you claim that I must “prove” what I bring as argument. While if you were to make the same argument you did in the cases of Kremer you will ask me to “prove” that this was not what they did. From one hand you ask me to “prove” Kremer has not lied, on the other hand you ask me to “prove” that the Jews inflated their own numbers. You are contradicting your own arguments. You are even not making arguments at all, you are just turning everything in a direction to support your preestablished belief. Now, let take the first theses coming from you. I must “prove” that Kremer has not lied… OK suppose that it is to the person that presents the “evidence” to “prove” that the evidence is the truth; that would mean that it would be to you to “prove” that the numbers are accurate. Have the Jews counted their own population, was there any census? If there was, present me that as evidence for the number, if you can’t then from your own logic you could not “prove” those numbers. But I do expect from a Jerk like you to tell us it is not the same thing. And now you present us Hoss confession. Have I talked about Hoss? Hoss confessed. Have you any evidences he lied? Have you any evidences that someone forced him to invent a story?

“Getting up on the witness stand and weaving a story in no way means it is the correct one, and in case you didn't know, in any just justice system, people are not sent to prison based on such testimonies if there is no forensic proof supporting the case. Not enough evidence to support charges. Have you ever heard of that, Fadi boy?”

Jerk, when someone admits his crimes and those other testimonials supports his admission; there is no any Jury that will conclude non-guilty. Yet, you have to demonstrate that they have all lied. Can you? In a court of law, testimonies are part of the evidences, and when the accused as well testify, it end there.

“Jerk? Hmmm, seems like you're losing your calm... What's the matter, Fadi boy?”

Losing my calm? How calling a Jerk a Jerk is losing my calm?

“Post the trial version then, and quit b*tching. It is the same one. And FYI, it was taken from a book. There are different translation versions of it. Now post your version, and let's compare them. ”

Here we come with a new lie, Jerk, this translation does not come from a Book, this translation is translated from French, from Flaurisson works, and those works are not available in book format in English. So you ARE lying, you could not possibly have taken it from a book, because the version you have has been translated from flaurisson works, and there is no book that contain that version. That version of Flaurisson is only quotations and not the trial translation… so obviously you do not have the rest of the quote, you were just lying. The only reason why you can not quote the rest is because YOU DO NOT HAVE the rest, you just copy pasted it; you did even not bother reading the rest of the Judge interrogations. So much of our Jerk having read both sides.

“I have read it all. Quit your interrogation style tactics to make it seem like you're on the winning side.”

Yes! Like you have read Hilberg, like you were not Den, like you have read Irving, like you have copied the quote from a Book etc… stop farting Dan, the odour might not be too good for the health of your computer. You have read nothing more than this quotation that was the translation from the French translation by Flaurisson…

“Post it. Prove that I lied. Prove that I took it out of context. GO! Do it. ”

I have no order to receive from you, I decide to post it how I want, when I want… you have lied having taken it from a book, and you have lied of having read it… Jerk, tell me which edition have you read if you have read it? The fact of the matter is that there is no translation transcript that would translate it exactly like the Flaurisson English version, which will even contain the accolades added by him. Pathological liar. Now you see why I call you a Jerk? You are a pathological liar, you lie like you breathe. If you want me to stop attacking you stop lying then.

“It doesn't say anything about the BUNKER being outside. Nor does it say in that specific entry in the diary, that it was a bunker. And if he was referring to a bunker, why would he take special care to say it was outside? Isn't a bunker outside a room anyway? Answer my question. Quit giving evasive answers. ”

Jerk, a Bunker is obviously outside, you have used the word “outside” in order to question him being witness of the gassing. You have copied this argument from revisionist sites without even using your neurons to see if it makes sense. Now if you will start questing that the Bunker was outside, that is your problem, you will only make yourself look like a fool. So if the Bunker was outside, obviously he had to go outside, so the word outside only confirm the gassing and him as being a witness and not the contrary.

“See above, Fadi boy. bunker was outside. he didn't say "bunker" in the diary. He said it in the testimony. The diary only has the word "outside." In other words, he gave an exterminationist twist to his testimony, by willingly interpreting his own writing to refer to "outside" as "bunker." And assuming that he was right in saying that, how does that prove that there was a gassing in the bunker? What makes you sure that he didn't lie in ONE of his claims, while saying the truth in another of his claims? What makes you so sure, Fadi? This is no proof. If it can be questioned, it's not a proof. It's an interpretation.”

“Exterminationist twist”? Jerk, he does use the word bunker in his diary entry of October 12, and call what was in as the tenth “Sonderaktion,” what was happening in the Bunker from his own diary was the “Sonderaktion,” on the other entry, he says he had to go outside for the “Sonderaktion.” So he himself equals the bunker as “Sonderaktion” and that in his own diary. This is not an interpretation, it is clear, only a blind or a bigot won’t see anything here. So obviously he had to go outside for the bunker, because this special action was done in the bunker, since he himself tells us in his own diary that the special action was done in the bunker. Beside that, Slom Dragon, the Sonderkommando during his testimony as well referred to the Bunker as being used for a special operation that from his words were the mass gassing of people. He confirmed that during the investigations, at that time he had no idea of Kremers testimonies neither his diary, still he has reported the same exact thing being done in the Bunker. I guess he lied. It must have been that Dragon was a psychic that was able to read Kremers mind, and took those lies to repeat them… or that it was an allied conspiration, and those allies gave a paper with kremer “allegations” to dragon in order for him to repeat them during the investigations. Oh yeh, not only Dragon was a psychic, but as well Pery Broad, the SS which was a prisoner that was neither in contact with Kremer and neither Dragon, and report the same things having happened in the Bunker. Oh those allies, what conspirationists they are, writing a story and giving them to those poor poor Germans. Yah, Josef Klehr another SS, oh poor him, he had to repeat those allies lies, yeh he was beaten, smashed, and had to learn a story to repeat them… How predictable Jerk will be trying to find a conspirations everywhere. I can go on and on and on… with other SS, they just all lied, the allies were beating them… yeh!!! Revisionists and Mr. Jerk even reject Hoss memoirs and claim that he was beaten and was forced to tell a story… but one wonder if they forced him to say those things and they forced him to write his own memoirs, why on Earth does Hoss report in his own memoirs those beatings and how badly he was treated? One just wonders, will he dare writing those things in his own memoirs? If his memoirs were read by those allies that were forcing him to write it, will he not be beaten because he described how badly he was treated? Beside that, one read in his memoirs that he knew what was to happen to him(he expected to be killed). Why would he lie and invent a story, when he thought he was to be killed? Yeh, he lied, the others too… Kremer diary was not about the gassing… it was about nothing, he was talking about insects, those women were sent to be cleaned because the nice NAZI have installed for them a place to wash themselves. Yes! Nothing absolutely nothing was said in his Diary, because if there were to be more details in his diary, Jerks will claim that it was the allies whom forced him to write his diary, like they claim regarding Hoss memoirs. How predictable, really.

“And what exactly does that prove, Fadi? Do you have proof that the Armenian genocide took place? Again, you want double standards in what you can present as proof and what I cannot. You are saying, how could Kremer have lied in his testimony? I am asking you, why would he have not? Again, Fadi, you see, your double standard techniques don't work here, Fadi boy. You can use that on denialist Turks (who know nothing yet deny the genocide - which is downright dumb) but not on revisionists who have spent considerable amounts of time studying these things. ”

Jerk, you are the one making the claim, it is for you to bring the evidences. Kremer testimony is something that happened; he claimed something. You claim he lied (even if his testimony is collaborated by his own diary and other SS as well), it is for you to present the evidence he lied. History is written on testimonies, declarations, witnesses etc… this is how it works, some times there are material evidences(which in this cases there is). Karabekir in his memoirs writes he intended to destroy Armenia, Halil writes in his memoirs that he tried to wipe out the Armenians… if we were to apply your sick logic we would have to conclude that the Armenian genocide did not happen, because from your dumb retarded logic, we must prove that all those admissions by Turks during the military tribunals were all just fake and in order to “prove” it happened we must prove they have not lied. This is not how it works; here we are not talking about how you want the system to work in order to support your psychotic beliefs; but simply how the system REALLY is.

“I am yet to see any proof that he did not. So you see, Fadi boy, it's my word against yours. Which disqualifies any such testimonies, Fadi boy. You ought to know that. You can't see the fine line between "it's been proven that it happened because he confessed about it" and "he was sentenced for life in prison because he confessed about it." Confessions do not necessarily imply truth, Fadi. ”

My words against yours? Jerk, that would mean, the words of a pathological liar against mine. Again, if we were to apply your logic we would have to liberate about 90% of those in prison.

“It IS a question of interpretation. That you and I can interpret it in two completely different ways is proof to that. It IS highly interpretative. And no, it does not qualify as proof. Of course, in the Zundel trial, the Nuremberg documents could not qualify as proof used by the defense, because they were "incomplete." So you see, Fadi, justice is a highly manipulated system, Fadi boy. Why were the Nuremberg documents barred from being used, Fadi boy? If they were so complete as to prove the holocaust and send so many men to their deaths, why were they not allowed to use it to defend themselves?”

Jerk, the only reason you interpret else is because of your hate against the Jews and not because it could be interpretated in another way. Here there is a direct correlation between your hate for the Jews and the fact that you deny the Shoah. The same way there was a direct correlation between your hate for Blacks and you considering them as dumbs. You are not here as someone searching for the truth, I dough that even anon will claim you are trying to search for the truth. In your sick mind you believe there was no such thing, so it is end of the story, every material that one will present, the sick you are will go on google type the word and search in revisionist sites what they say about it and come here and post their claims. You have shown to not having read anything from the “other” side like you have claimed, you have shown to be a pathological liar, a hater, a hateful character a sick individual obsessed with the Jews, the Blacks etc… someone that passes his entire day on the net even if he claims having exams and homework to do. Look Dan, honestly, don’t take that wrong, I am trying to help you here. I really believe that you need to get a life, find a boyfriend, go outside a little, and when I say outside I mean I exclude those manifestations you participate in, go watch some movies with your friends.

[Fadix]

“The "fact" that they were destroyed? Where is that leaflet, if I may ask? Does he provide a copy of it along with his diary? And besides, you claim he was not aware of the numbers. According to his testimony and other diary entries, he seems to be aware of the numbers, 1600 arrivals, 800 deaths, yada yada. ”

Jerk, those numbers are known because they were given to him, he did not count them… you used the fact that he was detaching himself to claim that it was like he was not part of it.

“I was referring to the Muslim women who had volunteered to do camp service. Now, according to your "proof" procedures, it's up to you to disprove my claim that it is the truth. So prove that my proof is wrong, Fadi. Fact is, you can't. You can only do that by providing an interpretation of the diary. ”

Jerk, it is not my “proof” procedure, but rather the “proof” procedure generally accepted in the non-psychotic world. Here you are claiming that they were Muslims, while in his testimony it was clear that “Muslims” had nothing to do with believers of Islams, it is even clear in his own diary when he say that those women were known as Muslims… they were NOT volunteers, they were women sent to be killed.

“It seems like you have found a new personal attack word. Congratulations. Your English is improving by strides. As for being "exposed" for not having read any of the works, that is yet another one of your intimidation tactics. You have not exposed anything I have said so far. ”

Yes! You are right, I learn new words every time I encounter a new psychiatric cases. Jerk, I have not exposed you only in your delusional mind. You have claimed to have read many things, from those things you have claimed having read, it ended up that there was nothing in fact you have read. So yes you have been exposed.

“That doesn't prove that you have read the book, does it? There is a difference between copying and pasting, and having read the entire book. “

Jerk, read one more time what I wrote, you are so obsessed with the internet that you use as sole source of information, that when someone tells you he has the work, you think that he has it from the internet. Jerk, I am telling you I have the works on prints, with the paginations, I guess I will pay for them only for the pleasure of having them without reading them.

“#1 revisionist according to who? There are many great revisionists. who decides who's better? You're saying the same thing as you did in the case of Hilberg. Anyway, this will be my last reply with regards to the issue of who has read what.”

Jerk, he is considered as #1 revisionist, yet again, it is obvious you ask such a question, because you have read nothing from him. Jerk ignores it like he ignored even the existence of Hilberg not so long ago.

Jerk, even your revisionist sites admit him being the #1

Here is what one of your sites tells Jerk:

“Robert Faurisson is Europe's leading Holocaust revisionist scholar.”

So that will be your last replies regarding who has read what? Why Dan? Tired of lying and being exposed for having read nothing you say having read?

Dan, dan, dan… you have reposted the September 2 entry… where in that entry it says that the bodies were taken out without masks? So yes! You are mixing.

“If it is impossible, it is impossible. Period. Doesn't matter in whose case it was (Armenian, Jew, etc.). Note, Fadi, what was mentioned in the court: ”

Jerk, who are you to tell us what is possible or impossible? Are you a chemist? No! So no one give a thing of what you believe being possible or impossible, Dr. Said colleagues reported and testified, the taking out of the corps was witnessed by many; do us all a favour, hit your head on the walls, maybe there might be some hope that you could return to planet Earth and connect with reality Dan.

“"When no more sign of life was shown, the defendant was taken back to his lodging by the Health Service car. The gas chambers were opened a short moment afterwards."

Short moment, Fadi? Zyklon B? Ventilation, perhaps? Ooops, I suppose they forgot. Damn...”

Jerk, it was in a Bunker outside, and the gassing was done there because there was no yet ventilations available, so this quote says nothing… your opinion here is just a recycled retard BS.

“No need to call me a "jerk," Fadi. As presented above. Concentrate now. You are making huge claims, Fadi. And it is up to you to prove that there were two different testimonies, right? By your logic of "proof" systems. Right, Fadi? ”

Jerk, I have seen nothing on that testimony regarding not wearing masks… where is it?

“How does the diary prove that he was going outside BECAUSE the bunker was outside? He only says outside. He doesn't say both outside and bunker. Does he? As I said, diary came before the war. Testimony came after the war. Two different circumstances, Fadi. Two different psychological states, Fadi. You cannot mix the diary with the testimony without admitting that the problem of interpretation comes in. ”

Jerk, he says he was going outside for the special action, in this same diary on another entry he clarify that the special action was done in the bunker…

“But you forget, Fadi, that we are not talking about IFs and WOULD HAVE's here. We are talking about what really happened. So tell me, Fadi. What proof do you have that they made modifications? ”

Jerk, what “proof” do you have that typical diesel engines would have been used? What you know about engines in the first place? The dumb you are have copy pasted a trash regarding CO that any student in chemistry in his first semester will learn is wrong… so given that you have shown to be a total illiterate on what concerns gas concentration, you are in no position to ask anything regarding the gassing. It only shows how you are after the “truth.”

“No-o, Fadi, you see, you cannot have double standards, can you? It's up to you to prove that it wasn't referring to that. Right? ”

Jerk, show me where is he stating that? SHOW ME!!! I show something from his diary that is clear for anyone beside jerks like you, on the other hand you interpret something that there is even no sentences saying it. It is not for me to “prove” what you are suggesting, but for you to show me the evidence. You are claiming it right? So now be glad to show it to me.

“Hold on, hold on, Fadi. I think you are confused (note that I would be considered paranoid if I said you were trying to confuse me)... I was not referring to the women's gassing. I was referring to Sept. 2, the first sonderaktion Kremer was present at.”

Jerk, we were discussing about Sep 5 report, you brought the September 2 report in order to discredit the September 5 report, you were trying to pass those two as one…

“And what, Fadi? So they built swimming pools for the spies they would catch?”

Hey Jerk, before the war, after 1933 it was forbidden for the Jews to use the swimming pools… I guess the NAZI were so good that they have build swimming pools when the alleged users were forbidden to use them under their own policies.

“Where did I say I didn't know the name?”

Hey farter, I asked you to give me the name so many times, you diverted and diverted and diverted… now that I give the name… Mr. know finally the name… yeh right.

“You said: the NAZI took the decision after their defeat from the Soviet front…

Operation Barbarossa was not the result of a defeat, but a change in strategies. You clearly referred to defeat. Stop changing your words. ”


Oups, I realised I have made a mistake in typing in my last post, this was what I wanted to write:

[Fadix]

“When I referred to the defeat in the Soviet front I was not talking about the major defeat but rather when Germany tried to invade to realise that it was impossible after it lunched its Barbarosa operation by sending the Einsatzgruppem in late June 1941 when it was decided upon that the concentration camps which were not build to exterminate will be used to kill.” I was alluding to the Winter of 1941 before the Wansee Conference. I admit this entire sentence must be rewritten, I had not reread myself. The whole point here is that the NAZI after their defeat at the Soviet front in the Winter of 1941, decided in Jan. 1942 to finally exterminate the Jews totally. So here, I am not changing my words it is called a defeat. I am not the only calling it defeat: http://www.battlefield.ru/library/bo...genwinter.html So here I am not changing my word.

“I know what EinsatzgruppeN is. So stop your unfounded accusations.”

Yes! After searching it on google that is. Jerk, I was asking you to name me the “shooting organization” in question, I told you countless numbers of times to name it to me… you even denied the shooting and told me to prove it, and now Jerk is telling me he knew the name. Yeh right, go fool yourself, I guess this was why when I asked you to name it countless numbers of times you were not able to do it.

“They weren't? Are you saying that Jews were given guns? How weren't they in contact? Weren't there hospitals in the camps?
And if they weren't in contact, what then explains the fact that the Nazis contracted typhus and other such diseases? Wouldn't that PROVE (and you just walked right into this), that they too didn't have enough nutrition and lived in the same conditions as the Jews? (note Kremer's reference to flies, etc.,) ”

Jerk, run a search on google regarding the KAPO before making such comments. Jerk the NAZI contradicted those diseases for the prisoners not because of malnutrition.

“ am not counting the number of times you said "jerk" in this thread, but if I did, it would not be more than the number of Jewish victims of "extermination plans".”

Make that one more… Jerk.

“"Jews who fled to the Soviet Union (after 1939) from Poland: 1,250,000. (those were evacuated further east when the Nazis invaded)"

This is subtracted from the overall number of Jews in Europe. That means that the report is not considering the Soviet Union to be part of Europe. And it was not. The Jews in the Soviet Union were moved further east after the German offensive. Again, the Jews who were shot by the Germans were Bolsheviks. And that is covered by the conventions of war. If your enemy is resisting, you can shoot them. Fair and square. Similar to what happened in many of the ghettos. This is covered by the rules of warfare, incuding in the rules of British and American warfare. I already mentioned, "100,000 were killed by Germans as partisans and Bolshevik commissars. The 100,000 figure includes non-Jews as well." The rest of the Jews survived. ”

Hey Jerk, 1,250,000 Jews having fled to the Soviet Union is a bullcrap that you copypasted from the work: “id Six Million Really Die?” It has no any ground. Of course Danny does not need to support the trash he copy past, but ask evidences from the other side that no any prosecutor can furnish in our actual juridical system. Danny boy, do you have any evidences that there was any 1,250,000 Jews that fled to the Soviet Union. I am afraid that the work from where you copy pasted it has no references to support the claim, the work go on and on telling that it will be addressed, after having read the entire work it has not been addressed. So Danny Jerk, explain us how come the Danny searching for the truth and asking for evidences that in no cases it is possible to provide you present us numbers that there is no any single document supporting it. And let alone mention that from this trash work from where you copypasted that thing, if we were to add all the Jews under NAZI occupation we would found about seven million and a half.

Now, coming to the sickest part in your post, after you have written that Danny, I have lost any respect for you, and I really now believe that you must be medicated with anti-psychotics and if you have stopped then you should return on your medications. You really lost touch with reality. JERK!!!! NOT SO LONG AGO YOU WERE ASKING ME PROVE THAT SUCH AN ORGANIZATION EXISTED AND THAT IT WAS REALLY SHOOTING AT PEOPLE!!! Just now having done a google research and finding out that for you it would be impossible to deny something that these days we find still MASS GRAVES that shows of the horrors… now Jerk, no better yet psychotic, actually yes schizophrenic, sorry but what you have said Danny boy is really disgusting, if I knew your mother I would call her and tell her how perturbed kid you are. DANNY!!! HOW CAN YOU SAY SUCH A THING? Psychotic kid, the Einsatzgruppen has special unites and systems to shoot at women and children on villages, cities, witnessed by the rest of the population, dumped in mass graves… Sick, WHAT RULES OF WAR??? The files of the Einsatzgruppen were found, the orders, the lists of numbers of murdered, yet this is documented and is available in German archives, THOSE ARE NOT NUREMBERG FILES!!! Sick Jerk, THERE IS NO RULE OF WAR that permit one to go cities to cities, villages to villages rounded people and shooting them in mass. The killers actually even recorded the numbers of killed to the last digit. Are the killings of women, children and elderly protected by the rules of wars? You must really be a delusioned sick kid to write what you have just written. Jerk, go ask for a lobotomy, and here don’t go cry that I am attacking you, with what you have just written you worth no respect from anyone, you have just shown what a perturbed psychiatric cases you are. Jerk, have you an idea why Rassinier in his supposed calculation of Jewish victims he was forced to place the minimum numbers of victims to 1.5 million? Oh I know, evident, you have even not read him. Jerk it was because even in his forgeries he could not have shown so low as a number because only the list of the Einsatzgruppen will make the number jump to a million.

“You are saying the exact opposite of what you were supposed to say. You claimed that the Soviet Union was not considered part of Europe in order to minimize the number of Jews in Europe, and then you compare that to the Turkish case where Anatolia was considered part of the Ottoman empire in order to minimize the Ottoman Armenian population.

Either you're trying to play the fool by making false analogies, or your language being French is not helping you at all. Either way, clarify your point, please. ”

Jerk, I am not saying the opposite of what I was saying, denialists tactics are to ignore the Jewish population in the Soviet Union, like the Turks do by passing the Armenian population of Anatolia as the total Ottoman Armenian population.

“The Jews inflated their world population to justify the construction of Israel? What proof do you have of that? And wouldn't that also mean that anyone who is able to lie about the overall population would also lie about the number of victims? Do the Jews admit this? And what proof do they present that it is THIS number that they manipulated rather than the holocaust number? ”

Jerk, you already claim the Jews lied about their numbers of victims… but when they claim what you want to hear they are not lying. Actually, the Jews tell the truth only when it supports your preconceived belief. Jerk, if the Jews are liars at presenting numbers, then you can not use their numbers to support your claims. Either they lie about numbers either they don’t. you can not claim they say the truth in one case and not the other, only because in one case you like the number.

“Oh now it's the number of emigrating people who is inflated. Decide, Fadi. You can't compare apples to oranges. Even taking their own deflated victim numbers, the birth rate is still impossible.”

Jerk, emigrated peoples are supposed to be part of the total numbers… don’t write only to show us you have something to write.

“Quit making the comparisons between the two. You obviously have biased reasons for being an exterminationist. don't worry, the two are separate events. You don't have to spend so much time and energy to defend the Jewish cause (in vain), just because the Turks are doing the same thing. And the Turks doing the same thing doesn't mean that what holocaust revisionists are doing is wrong and not the truth. There is a good AND a bad use to everything. ”

Biased? Hey Jerk, for what reason would I want to claim the Shoah happened? I neither like or dislike Jews, I live in the society connected with reality, where it is people in individual bases that is important, I do not give a thing of the labels attached to them, such as Jews, Arabs etc… on the other hand, you have shown in more than one occasion that not only you despise Jews, but that you hate them with a blinded sick hate… elsewhere you have shown how you hate the Backs… on the other hand, neither do I like or hate groups of peoples, I like and hate people individually, this is how things works. It has nothing to do with a Jewish causes, it has to do with NAZI Germany sick policy and invasion, their sick policy that cost the lives of tens of millions of peoples. Here you are trying to revise history, for what? Because Mr. Jerk hate the Jews, one of the victims were Jews, so it must have been fake, if it were not the Jews, it would have been true.

Hey Jerk, NAZI policy cost more Slavic lives then Jewish lives, what have you to say on the policy against the Serbs, Europes third largest concentration camps, where Serbs were killed by hundreds of thousands… will Jerk review the entire story? Sick… really sick.

And FOR THE LAST TIME DAN!!!! THERE WAS NO PLASTER WALL FOUND!!! Don’t fart to show you have something to say, I am telling you to go read the reports, the Church had a Plaster wall, there was no such plaster wall in the chambers… Quit this game with me.

[Anonymouse]

I am not an expert on the Holocaust but I have a basic question about the existence of physical evidence in the Holocaust death camps of the said murder weapon. Presumably, there are no remains of the alleged mass graves for the millions of bodies or the gas chamber. Nor do I recall any such evidence being provided regarding Auschwitz in the Irving/Lipstadt trial or any other Holocaust trial. Were the Nazis so clever as to make cover-ups that are totally undetectable by scientific instruments?

[Fadix]

No one can deny the existance of the Einsatzgruppen and what it was doing... one just wonder, it was clear what it was doing, and it was in Soviet front... killing Jews villages to villages, witnessed by everyone, ... even today mass graves are found.

So the question is, is it rational to think that the NAZI did nothing with the Jews that were under their hands(those in the camps) when they had 4 special unites sent elsewhere to shoot them in mass.