Historicity of the Jewish Holocaust

[dusken]

Fadix: That is all well and good, but what would you say to someone who did not deny that genocidal measures were taken but that the extent is exaggerated?

[Fadix]

Originally posted by dusken Fadix: That is all well and good, but what would you say to someone who did not deny that genocidal measures were taken but that the extent is exaggerated?

I always said that 6 million was an exagerated figure and that the gassing and burning was rather an exeption(compared with the other methods of killings) than the rule.

But still, there really was about 4 million Jews that died(that is my opinion), only the shooting on the Soviet front alone was numbering about a million or so Jews and that from the organization official documents.

The problem with the Shoah is that it was regarded as a tragedy of mystical proportion, in the cases of the Armenian genocide, the denial was so intense that right now only good quality evidences which could not be disputed are left. The denial brought tragicaly something positive, that means that what is writen is more closer to the truth. In the cases of the Shoah, since no one was permited to dispute what happened, the Shoah has been viewed like an indisuptable event paralleled with no other evidents... this is changing now.

[Anonymouse]

The Einsatzgruppen definitely committed murders. No one has said otherwise. It is only obvious that the main targets of the Einsatzgruppen were not Jews but all those that were partisans, rebels, communists, or other fringe groups. And since Jews have a historic disproportionate flirting with Communism, ( Marx, Lenin, Trotsky, Bolsheviks, etc., ), one would obviously expect more Jews on the eastern lines. The Einsatzgruppen was nothing special as all sides during the war had such special units to deal with the partisan fringe groups. That we can now look in hindsight and cherry pick Einsatzgruppen, as having "committed crimes" ignores the fact that others engaged in it as well, and from what I remember under the Hague, it was totally legal, I'd have to double check on this.

[Darorinag]

Am I attacking you by calling you a jerk? Well, if you feel attacked that is your problem.

It's ironic to hear that coming from you - your own moderators over at the other forum suspended my membership for the same reason, supposedly. Of course, I could just say that if people felt offended by what I said, it is their problem... So whose side are you on NOW, Fadi boy?

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

I am not lying. But we shall see what you have "shown" below. It's gotta be interesting.

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.

Fadi boy, we are not talking about laws. We are talking about what PROVES and what doesn't. Just because there is a confession / testimony doesn't mean that it did happen. And yes, it is up to you to prove that the testimony is correct.

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.

And that means what, Fadi? It doesn't show anything about them being guilty or not guilty. We are not talking about laws here. We are talking about proofs. Concentrate. And if it were up to YOUR logic, all suspects would be in jail. How do YOU like rotting in jail just cos there is no evidence that the "eyewitness" who claims he saw you stabbing someone was lying? So you see, Fadi, if it were that way, every single suspect would be convicted.

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.

Fadi boy, there are MANY MANY reasons for Jews to inflate not the world population numbers, but the alleged victim numbers. So when there is doubt, you must prove it, Fadi.

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.

Yes, both were your claims, and therefore you must prove them. You said Kremer was telling the truth. You must therefore prove that he was. You said Jews inflated the population numbers. You must therefore prove that they did.

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.

I think you just accurately described what you are doing, Fadi boy. As I demonstrated in previous threads, your double standards are preposterous.

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.

Yes, and by doing that, I would also be proving that the numbers exterminationists present are inaccurate.

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.

Fadi boy, those numbers come from neutral Swiss sources, as well as other reliable sources such as the World Alamanac. Assuming that the numbers were inflated by 3 million, 4 million net additions in 10 years is still impossible.

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?

Do you have any evidence that his confessions were not extracted by torture? If not, his testimony is null and void, Fadi boy.. Again, we are not talking about whether or not according to the laws of the court at the time it would've served as "evidence." We are talking about the historicity of the holocaust story, Fadi boy. So yes, you have to prove that his confessions were not extracted by force. Do you have any proof?

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.

The "testimonials", Fadi boy, hardly coincide. And even if it were legal to use confessions to convict the "criminals," it still does not mean that they were really guilty of those crimes. You do know that there is a difference between just justice and unjust justice, right? And the difference between law and justice, right? It might be "lawful" to convict those people based on their confessions, but it is UNJUST, because it does not prove that those events occured. So even assuming that the confessions were "evidence" in court against those men, it still is not evidence that the holocaust did take place. I already pointed this out in my previous thread, but you conveniently ignored it.

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

Using such words have no place in intellectual discussions. Period. So you are losing your calm, or are not as intellectual as you are claiming to be. You've been calling me names for the past 18 pages.

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.

You are making a claim. Prove it.

What I posted (the Sept. 2 entry), Fadi boy, is a translation from the original (German) - document NO-3408, National Archives. Nice try, Fadi boy. Your next ignorant claim?

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.

As I demonstrated above, it was not indeed translated by FAUrisson.

And if you were referring to the "old farms" part, then it was taken from Hermann Langbein's Der AuschwitzProzess / Eine Dokumentation (The Auschwitz Trial / A Documentation).

And the testimony was cited from "KL Auschwitz seen by the SS SS Hoess, Broad, Kremer", Museum w Oswiecimu.

The only reason why you can not quote the rest is because YOU DO NOT HAVE the rest, you just copy pasted it

I did not. Nice try anyway.

you did even not bother reading the rest of the Judge interrogations. So much of our Jerk having read both sides.

I suppose you were in my pocket when I was reading it... Stop making such unfounded claims. You are losing any credibility that might be left in you...

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…

It is FAURISSON, not Flaurisson, FYI, and I shall keep on correcting you until you change it (). And you are wrong. I am not Den. I have read Hilberg's book. I have read Irving's books. Nice try though. You have not proven anything. And stop bringing your issues from the other forum to this forum and especially this thread.

I have no order to receive from you, I decide to post it how I want, when I want…

Ooooh... in that case, I will be assuming, and for good reasons, that you are avoiding taking my challenges. Nice excuses.

you have lied having taken it from a book, and you have lied of having read it…

Prove it.

Jerk, tell me which edition have you read if you have read it?

I already said I am not going to play this game about books. if you've got evidence to post from that book, post it. Otherwise, quit wasting database space while trying to avoid the challenges I am asking you to face.

The fact of the matter is that there is no translation transcript that would translate it exactly like the Flaurisson English version

See above for document number.

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.

That is a rather lame excuse to call one a jerk, is it not? You are yet to prove that I have lied with regards to anything.

Jerk, a Bunker is obviously outside, you have used the word “outside” in order to question him being witness of the gassing.

So just because the bunker was outside, and he said he went outside, it meant he was going to the bunker? Sheesh, Fadi, do you realize how dumb that sounds? This is in defiance of all the rules of logic. And as I stated before, his testimony and his diary are two separate things and the testimony cannot be used to interpret the diary. If you can't prove that the diary referred to the bunker by "outside" (without the testimony), then you can either use the diary as evidence, or the testimony. Choose whichever works in your favour - obviously the "testimony."

You have copied this argument from revisionist sites without even using your neurons to see if it makes sense.

I am debating this with you. I don't have a revisionist in my pocket 24/7 to "help me" with the arguments I am presenting.

Now if you will start questing that the Bunker was outside, that is your problem, you will only make yourself look like a fool.

Where did I question that the bunker was outside? I said just because the bunker is outside doesn't mean he was talking about that in his diary entry when he said "outside."

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.

First part is correct. Second part is wrong. The bunker being outside, he had to go outside. But just because he said "outside" doesn't mean he was going to the bunker. There are many other things outside besides the bunker. How do you know he went to the bunker? (and like I said, testimonies are post-war, diary is pre-war, two different emotional/intellectual/psychological states).

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.”

How do you know "sonderaktion" referred to one particular "special action"? Maybe it was a different thing, and this time it was something else? Moreover, how can you compare the Oct. 12 and Sept. 2 entries? They are separate entries. What he said in one does not necessarily apply to the other. Two different situations. Quit using false analogies. You are fooling no one.

So he himself equals the bunker as “Sonderaktion” and that in his own diary.

Not according to the Sept. 2 entry. And there is absolutely no proof that there weren't different "sonderaktion"s..

[Darorinag]

This is not an interpretation, it is clear, only a blind or a bigot won’t see anything here.

This is an interpretation, it is not clear, only an exterminationist would see something 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.

That Oct. 12 entry, btw, does not say anything about him going TO the bunker, only that there was a "horrible scene" in front of the last bunker (you would know what the last bunker is referring to, I suppose, having read all the material you claim to have read). And I repeat, he had to go outside for the bunker, but he didn't necessarily have to go to the bunker if he went outside, did he?

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.

Where? Btw, the name is Szlama.

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.

Where? Post for all to see.

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…

No, but Dragon had multiple personality disorder, and changed his name numerous times. But that is irrelevant.
Do you know what Pravda reported on Feb. 2, 1945, Fadi? And do you know where, how, and why, the allegations of extermination by combat gas, electic baths, hammers, etc. disappeared? I suppose ALL the witnesses suddenly shut up about it... So if there were no coordinated plan for the testimonies, Fadi boy, how do you explain the sudden disappearance of all these claims?

Rupert Butler, Fadi. Concentrate. You want to talk about Hoess? We can talk about Hoess, Fadi boy.

Here's what Rupert Butler has to say in his book "Legions of Death."

"Hoess screamed in terror at the mere sight of the British uniforms. Clarke yelled: 'What is your name?' With each answer of 'Fritz Lang', Clarke's hand crashed into the face of the prisoner. The fourth time that happened, Hoess broke and admitted who he was... He was then dragged naked to one of the slaughter tables, where it seemed to Clarke the blows and screams were endless... It took three days to get a coherent statement out of him."

Note that Clarke was a Jewish sergeant by the name of Bernard.

Who was Rupert Butler, Fadi boy? Did you know his books are anti-Nazist? Did you also know he took all his sources from the Imperial war museum in london, the Institute for contemporary history, and the Wiener library? In addition to that, Butler knew Clarke...

Some facts for Fadi boy to digest:

-Hoess confessed to gassing 2.5 million people, with a total death count of 3 million.

-Hoess mentions an extermination camp, Wolzek.

Where is camp Wolzek, Fadi boy?

Could it be that Hoess's memory failed him for a second, while he remembered in exact detail the number of people who were gassed?

Why Wolzek and not the real camp name, Fadi? Could it be that Hoess didn't know? How is that possible, Fadi boy? Are you getting grilled already? Do you want me to stop?

Oh those allies, what conspirationists they are, writing a story and giving them to those poor poor Germans.

Like the commies accused the Nazis of the Katyn massacre, Fadi? Eh?

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.

Those are not "conspiracy theories." Those have been reported. Rupert Butler, as I stated, is an anti-Nazi. How do you explain THAT? Oh wait, you will find some reason to disqualify his claims, eh? Or more likely, you will compare it to the countless number of men who confessed that they had gassed Jews.

Moreover, let me ask you this, Fadi. Since you "proved" through the confessions that there were indeed gassings, what are you waiting for to prove, chemically/forensically that the gassing did take place in those chambers?

I can go on and on and on… with other SS, they just all lied, the allies were beating them…

Weren't they?

Revisionists and Mr. Jerk even reject Hoss memoirs and claim that he was beaten and was forced to tell a story…

Memoir dated Nov. 1946. Wrote it before the war had ended? Gee, I wonder why he felt compelled to leave to the entire world a "proof" that would cause feelings of guilt and shame to countless generations of Germans, the same Aryan nation they had waged war for! Damn! I guess German children should thank daddy Hoss for all his contributions to their country, eh?

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?

Ahhh, now Fadi, who was denying that there was torture, is using the torture excuse to justify his own claims... hmm.. Fadi, choose which argument you want to make. Either they tortured him, or they didn't. If they tortured him, you are therefore admitting that the confessions could've been taken under torture or as a result of it. Why did they torture him, Fadi? If he were so willing to "confess", which did they torture him? Perhaps because he wouldn't "confess" to the things he was told to admit? Can you see how highly interpretative this is, Fadi? Can you see that the interpretation can go either way? Can you therefore see that it cannot be used as a "proof" that the gassings took place?

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?

Perhaps he was beaten up in order to include those parts as well? Who knows what hidden agenda they had in including those tortures, Fadi boy. Perhaps it was to validate the memoir as "truthful" and correct?

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?

Indeed!! Why would he have? And why would have have confessed and put the blame on so many people if he knew he could take his secrets with him to the grave, Fadi boy? You walked right into that one. So now suddenly you are saying that Hoess was a man of such great conscience that he couldn't bear the thought of dying without telling the truth?

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 that proves what, Fadi? No one claims the Allies wrote Kremer's diary.

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.

I am not claiming that Kremer's testimony was truthful, Fadi. You are. So prove that it was, Fadi boy. Remember, we are using your own logic here, dear lad. And for the nth time I repeat, testimony does not necessarily mean TRUTH!!!

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.

The initial statement about the validity of Kremer's testimony was brought by you. You claimed that his testimony "is something that happened." Now you prove it. Stop evading it.

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).

Material evidence, Fadi? Where? Oh no, not the diary again!

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.

I never implied that "not being able to prove it is correct" implies that it is wrong. I only said it means that you can't use it as "proof." If you can't prove it, it's not proof. A proof is something that is proven. Period.

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.

We are not talking about trials per se, here. The courts might've been right in sentencing those men to death based on these "evidence", but that still doesn't prove that these proofs were correct. Now taking this out of the context of a court into a discussion about the historicity of the holocaust, you must prove that these testimonies are accurate. And besides, what are you afraid of? If you're so sure they were right and that there were material evidences supporting those confessions, why don't you prove it?

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.

Pathological liar, Fadi? Is that the newest term that you acquired from your psychological readings?

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.

Now how's THAT for an unfounded claim? How can you prove that, Fadi boy? Are you telling me that by the same logic, there can't be a case where someone who believes that homosexuality is unnatural also believes that gays should be given the right to marry under state equality law?

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.

Prove that there is a direct correlation, Fadi boy. I never mentioned ANY hatred of Jews in this thread. All my claims were backed up. In addition, I never claimed blacks were "dumb." So stop twisting my words.

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…

I am still waiting for the proofs. The proofs, Fadi, the proofs. Where are they? Concentrate.

someone that passes his entire day on the net even if he claims having exams and homework to do.

Yes, I am so stuck in my hatred that I am ruining myself even for the sake of expressing my hatred of Jews through denialism. Indeed... Now stop doing a character analysis and start "debunking" my claims, Fadi boy. My character has nothing to do with my arguments.

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.

This whole thing is irrelevant. What is your point? If you have a point to make from this with regards to the historicity of the holocaust, do make it clear. Otherwise, it is irrelevant.

[Fadix]

Hmmm... I came back to this board, as expected he has answered... I guess his heart was pumping in full speed and he could have ended up in a panic attack that could send him in ER if he were to wait a little longer.

Jerk, I have to go out right now and have to do many things(I have a life,, something that could not be said about you) so I will be unswering tomorrow or the day after... so I will only answer one thing here for everyone to see how a pathological liar you are.

"What I posted (the Sept. 2 entry), Fadi boy, is a translation from the original (German) - document NO-3408, National Archives. Nice try, Fadi boy. Your next ignorant claim?"

I leave everyone to see that and read and reread it.

Jerk, the translation from the original German was done by Flaurisson, as I said, a text from him translated from French. You are trying to twist the judge statment with the report of sep. 2 nice try Dan, but go try to sell your cheap tricks elsewhere.

Here is the link for everyone to read your fart.

http://www.ihr.org/jhr/v02/v02p103_Faurisson.html

The quote from Flaurisson:

"Therefore, here is the text translated from the original German (see document NO-3408 in the National Archives):"

So Jerk, you have taken the sentence back from there, exactly from where I told you did, this text was submited by Flaurisson in French to be translated and published in the "The Journal for Historical Review." Exactly like I told you. So you just confirm here that you did not read the text Dan the liar, you just quoted exactly from where I said and even with the accolades that the author himself added.

You can still continue farting and adding more lies regarding this issue, but it is clear for the rest of the readers, and I am sure even your friend anon, that you are lying here.

Another thing I find interesting, I just saw in your post you are denying being Den... Dan Jerk, I will not repeat this yet again Jerk... you have logged with your IP address from Liverpool with the two different logins Jerk. There is bunch of evidences proving that both of you are the person, many such as your profile philosophy forum, and Den materials comming from there, the IP, many many evidences... if you want to be embarassed here go ahead Jerk the pathological liar.

How amuzing it is to read someone lying so much and still contue lying when beside him everyone else knows he is lying.

OK... quit with that, I will be answering tomorow and the day after for the rest.

[Anonymouse]

Moderators, maybe this belongs in the Jokes & Humor.

[Darorinag]

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.

Given to him by who?

Jerk, it is not my “proof” procedure, but rather the “proof” procedure generally accepted in the non-psychotic world.

So then use it.

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 is not clarified in the diary. So from the diary, you cannot deduce that those women were supposed to be gassed/killed. Period.

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.

Where? When? How? I don't see any such "exposition."

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.

You never mentioned it wasn't an e-book. E-books are searchable.

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.

You said:
"I will give you the page from the French version of his works… that will require me having the books right?"

You never said you had the works on print. I am not a psychic.

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.

I am aware that many revisionists consider him the #1 revisionist. But it is only people's judgement. Jesus Christ.... it's nothing universal! It's not universal truth.. Sheesh, it's like they're giving you the absolute secret of existence when saying he's the #1 revisionist (/#1 exterminationist w.r.t Hilberg)... And when did I ignore Hilberg? I don't consider him the #1 exterminationist. I consider him a delusional Jew at best.

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.”

And that "proves" what?

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?

Stop "forcing" me to reply about books. I already stated (and I said this from the beginning of the discussion, going all the way back to page 2 or 3 that I will not discuss who has read what. That is irrelevant. If you can disprove my claims, do it. It doesn't matter, does it? On the contrary, it would be easier for you if I haven't read those books, right? Easier to "debunk" my claims, right, Fadi? I don't see why you are stuck on the book issue, Fadi boy. Is it because of your insecurities, Fadi boy? Can you not conduct a discussion based on more than Hilberg's book? I will not discuss who has read what books - period.

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.

Hahaha... this is great. Excellent. I thought you were saying that we could use testimonies to complement the diary, no? The testimony with regards to Sept. 2 mentions that, Fadi boy. You ought to have understood this, I reposted it more than once... Are you telling me now that I cannot use the testimony with the diary? Double standards, Fadi boy?

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.

Fadi boy, this Dr. Said, how is he relevant to the discussion about the Jewish holocaust?

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.

How do you know there were no ventilations available? And I wasn't only referring to "short moment" with regard to the opening of the doors, but also with regards to the removal of the corpses.

Continuing that sentence from the court proceeding:

"The bodies were removed by some prisoners and were destroyed by cremation."

So let me get this straight. A short moment after the gassing, the doors were opened, and the bodies were removed... And the gas is Zyklon B.... OoooooK....... it seems like at least *I* am not the one who needs to return to planet Earth and connect with reality...

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

The prisoners who took them out, Fadi, were not wearing any masks. Are we to assume that Kremer, who paid attention to the smallest details forgot to mention that the prisoners were wearing masks?

Here you go (from the court):

"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. The bodies were removed by some prisoners and were destroyed by cremation. During the events described above the accused was seated in the Health Service car, which was stopped in the immediate vicinity of the gas chambers. Whether he had left his car and whether he had taken an active part in the murderous action could not be proved. The accused kept himself however in the car, in accordance with the mission that had been given to him, prepared for a case where something would happen to the SS man certified by the Health Service who was handling the Zyklon B poison; he would bring him immediate help with the oxygen inhalator. He had himself admitted that in all good faith. But that accident in reality never happened."

Hmmm... the bodies were removed by some prisoners.... I suppose they were wearing gas masks and protective clothing to protect the skin from HCN, eh, Fadi boy?

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…

He never says IN the bunker. He says there was a terrible scene in front of the bunker. Moreover, how do you know this special action was the same as the other special action?

Jerk, what “proof” do you have that typical diesel engines would have been used? What you know about engines in the first place?

Answering my questions with answers does not answer my question, Fadi. Now concentrate. What proof do you have that they made modifications?

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, I am after the truth. So do "enlighten" me. Besides, where in his diary does he mention CO? Where in his testimony does he mention CO? CO was not the gas used for the Sept. 2 gassing. Period. That closes the case.

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.

See above w.r.t removal of bodies.

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.

I already did. Now disprove it. But of course, you always have a way of "disqualifying" it without having to disprove it, eh?

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…

I went all the way back to the thread, and nowhere does it refer to the Sept. 5 entry. The Sept. 5 entry was about the gassing of the women and the 24 deaths recorded in the death book.

I claimed he sat in the car while the gassings took place. And I asked the question of how it was possible for him to describe the scene in such detail (and say that Dante's inferno would be like a comedy compared to that one)?

And you told me I was making it up. So I posted the whole thing. And then you said, "This is the Sep 2 report not Sep 5. So yes! you were making it up." Nowhere did I mention the Sept. 5 report. Go back and read what I said.

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.

You claimed the camps were not intended to be used for extermination and that's why the swimming pools were built. Now you are saying, "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." So why did they build them? And what you said still doesn't answer my question. I repeat my question: "So they built swimming pools for the spies they would catch?"

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.

I said I was not going to be "quizzed." That still doesn't prove anything.

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

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

Previously you said: 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 so it lunched its Barbarosa operation

Now if it were me who made that mistake, you would've said that was the result of not having read the book and not knowing history. Anyway, glad you corrected it.

I was referring to your mention of "defeat" within your faulty statement, which implied that they were defeated before launching the Barbarossa Operation. All clear now.

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.

How do you know that there was such a decision?

[Darorinag]

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.

I told you I was not going to answer to quiz-type questions. Anyone who knows some history would know what the Einsatzgruppen is... And no, I did not deny the shootings. Asking for proof and denying something are two different things. completely different.

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.

And I could not run a google search if I wanted to? Sheesh, Fadi.... I understand your confidence in yourself, but please, do not undermine your "enemies" in an argument. There's nothing worse than being sent to school by someone you claimed not to know what the Einsatzgruppen is.

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.

My point was exactly that. If they had done it on purpose, would they not have thought about the possibility of contracting such diseases? Hmmm.. Makes one think, eh? Seems like the Germans (who supposedly masterminded the entire "holocaust") didn't have enough sense to think that their soldiers could suffer from an epidemic if they had done such things)...

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?”

I already cited the source. Your point?

It has no any ground.

O, doesn't it? How so?

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.

I didn't copy paste, if you noticed. I put it in a more understandable format. This means I have read it more than once and knew as well as understood the significance of the numbers. So no, it was not just copy & paste. And since you are claiming that it is 'trash,' why don't you prove it? YOU are violating your own idea of the justice system, Fadi boy. I present this as proof to the court. It is up to you to prove that this is "trash," no?

Danny boy, do you have any evidences that there was any 1,250,000 Jews that fled to the Soviet Union.

Fadi boy, from what I understood, this is the number I presented to the courts, in your justice system. Do you have any evidence that this number I have provided is incorrect?

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.

Fadi boy, breathe. The numbers emigrated do not count. Please provide the calculations of how you arrived to such a number. I am willing to take a look at it and admit that what I provided is wrong if it makes sense.

NOT SO LONG AGO YOU WERE ASKING ME PROVE THAT SUCH AN ORGANIZATION EXISTED AND THAT IT WAS REALLY SHOOTING AT PEOPLE!!!

That doesn't mean I denied its existence.. duh...

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…

Mass graves, Fadi boy? No one has been able to point to any mass grave so far. Point to one mass grave.

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…

Oh really? Damn, I must really read more of your psychotic books that have been revised now to exclude all the other claims that came with gas chambers, including the following (WARNING: GRAPHICAL)

-Mass graves expelling geysers of blood
-Acid or boiling‑water baths to produce human skeletons
-Injections into the eyes of inmates to change their eye color
-Out of pity for complete strangers ‑ a Jewish mother and her child ‑ an SS‑man voluntarily leaps into the gas chamber at the last second to die with them
-Soap production from human fat, solemn burial of soap
-Underground mass extermination in enormous rooms by means of high voltage electricity
-Mass graves with hundreds of thousands of bodies, removed without a trace within a few weeks; a true miracle of improvisation on the part of the Germans
-Gas chambers on wheels in Treblinka, which dumped their victims directly into burning pits; delayed‑action poison gas that allowed the victims to leave the gas chambers and walk to the mass graves by themselves
-SS bicycle races in the gas chamber of Birkenau
-Muscles cut from the legs of executed inmates contract so strongly that it makes the buckets jump about
-Introduction of Zyklon gas into the gas chambers of Auschwitz through shower heads or from steel bottles
-Manufacture of sausages of human flesh by the SS in the crematoria
-Mummified human thumbs used as light switches in the home of Ilse Koch, wife of concentratoin camp commander Koch (Buchenwald)

http://www.cwporter.com/absurdities.htm

Tell me now, Fadi boy, would you or would you not be absolutely horrified if these were found out to be lies and conveniently forgotten? Wake up, Fadi. The truth is out there. All you have to do is reach out and grab it.

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!!!

Rules of land warfare, Fadi boy. The Einsatzgruppen documents do not show why Jews were shot. There were non-Jews shot as well. They were Bolsheviks or otherwise sympathizers with the cause.

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.

Mmmhmm, and that is not what the Commies did? How many Slavs murdered, Fadi boy? And how many Christians? I don't see "holocaust" commemoration and such a hoopla for the victims of communism....
And the fire-bombing of Dresden was justified under the conventions, right, Fadi boy? What is your point, Fadi boy? Yes, they did shoot people, and that was not allowed, but that hardly means that they had any extermination plans, or that they killed them in huge numbers. I never denied that the Einsatzgruppen had shot people, including Jews. So what are you saying?

The killers actually even recorded the numbers of killed to the last digit.

Oh wow, I suppose they had too much time on their hands!!!

Are the killings of women, children and elderly protected by the rules of wars?

No. They are not. But that doesn't prove that they killed them. Do you have any reliable links that contain these documents and reports of women and children killed? (by reliable I mean, not from geocities, etc.)

You must really be a delusioned sick kid to write what you have just written.

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.

Is there any proof that the Einsatzgruppen were acting according to orders, which also corresponded to the "orders" of liquidation of Jews in concentration camps?

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.

OK, now the sentence is clearer. Thank you for clarifying.
The Jews in the Soviet Union were moved further East (as ANY historian would agree with what I just said), and they suffered little if any losses. A maximum number of 850,000 Soviet Jews were under German control (Reitlinger). 100,000 were killed (for being Bolsheviks and Soviet commissars). It is in no way underestimating the losses in Jewish lives in the Soviet Union.

Dan: “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? ”

Fadi: 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.

Where did I say they claimed what I wanted to hear? And where did I say they weren't lying?

Actually, the Jews tell the truth only when it supports your preconceived belief.

Again, where did I say the Jews were telling the truth? I didn't even make any statements. All I did was ask questions. WTF?

Jerk, if the Jews are liars at presenting numbers, then you can not use their numbers to support your claims.

Where did I say I should use their numbers? I said something to the effect of: assuming they were not lying and thus using their numbers, etc.

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.

Where did I say that?

Dan: “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.”

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

Yes, so inflating the number of emigrated people would mean an increase in the population, unless the number of victims is reduced. Are you saying that the number of victims has been reduced TO 6 million? And that it's actually more than that?

Biased? Hey Jerk, for what reason would I want to claim the Shoah happened?

For reasons that any neutral observer of this conversation would've noted in many of your sentences and comparisons. Need I even mention it? I will let you guess it.

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…

You don't, eh? And who was the one calling people Nazis and supremacists left and right? What makes YOUR judgement of people's value the right one? Anyway, don't bother replying to this, as I won't reply to this again, because it is irrelevant.

on the other hand, neither do I like or hate groups of peoples, I like and hate people individually, this is how things works.

Are you saying you don't hate Nazis and white supremacists?

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…

Where? Not in this thread anyway. So it is irrelevant. if I have not let my hatred come into this discussion, it doesn't matter. After all, *I* am NOT the one INTERPRETING things. I am presenting solid proofs. YOU are the one who is interpreting diaries, etc., and so YOU are the one who should be worried about BIAS.

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.

You just contradicted yourself in saying that you don't hate any groups.

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.

I am trying to revise "history" for the sake of truth. For the sake of history. Of course, you don't have a blurry past , do you? You don't know what it means and how important it is for some people. Do you? DO YOU, Fadi? Quit making assumptions. I already stated that I do have personal reasons for being a revisionist, but not the same reasons you mentioned. Do you think I would spend so much time reading and writing about this just because I hate Jews? There are other ways of making my hatred of Jews known, trust me. I am not interested in that.

Hey Jerk, NAZI policy cost more Slavic lives then Jewish lives

And Allied policies didn't cost 500,000+ lives in the Dresden fire-bombings? Or the A-bombing of Hiroshima and Nagasaki? What are you trying to say? That is irrelevant. I am interested in the holocaust and whether or not there were any extermination plans, as well as acts.

what have you to say on the policy against the Serbs, Europes third largest concentration camps, where Serbs were killed by hundreds of thousands…

My interest is not in defending the Nazis and "proving" that they were angels. I already stated that the Nazis were not "good fruit" at any rate (neither were the Allies & Soviets)

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.

The question was not about the wall having plaster or not, Fadi. And yes, the walls were plastered.

[Darorinag]

Originally posted by Fadix "What I posted (the Sept. 2 entry), Fadi boy, is a translation from the original (German) - document NO-3408, National Archives. Nice try, Fadi boy. Your next ignorant claim?"

I leave everyone to see that and read and reread it.

Jerk, the translation from the original German was done by Flaurisson, as I said, a text from him translated from French. You are trying to twist the judge statment with the report of sep. 2 nice try Dan, but go try to sell your cheap tricks elsewhere.

Here is the link for everyone to read your fart.

http://www.ihr.org/jhr/v02/v02p103_Faurisson.html

The quote from Flaurisson:

"Therefore, here is the text translated from the original German (see document NO-3408 in the National Archives):"

So Jerk, you have taken the sentence back from there, exactly from where I told you did, this text was submited by Flaurisson in French to be translated and published in the "The Journal for Historical Review." Exactly like I told you. So you just confirm here that you did not read the text Dan the liar, you just quoted exactly from where I said and even with the accolades that the author himself added.

How does that prove that the text was translated from the French?

Faurisson says: "For this first date of 2 September, I have cited three versions."

The one you are referring to with regards to it being the French translation, is the Sept. 5 entry, Fadi boy. Read carefully. Googling skills are not enough.

And it is FAURISSON, Fadi. Get it right, Fadi. You can do it, Fadi. Yes, just delete the 'L'.

You can still continue farting and adding more lies regarding this issue, but it is clear for the rest of the readers, and I am sure even your friend anon, that you are lying here.

Here is what Faurisson says, Fadi, read carefully:

I reproduce here the text of the entry of 2 September 1942 (Diary of Johann Paul Kremer) after the photocopy of the original as it is found in the National Archives in Washington (Doc. #NO-3408). Some Exterminationist works reproduce the photograph of this entry among other entries from the diary. But the reader has little chance to go about deciphering each word of the German handwriting of Dr. Kremer. He will be inclined to have confidence in the printed reproduction that they will propose to him, for example, in the margin; that is the case with KL Auschwitz, Arbeit Macht Frei, edited by the International Auschwitz Committee, 96 pages (not dated). On page 48 there appears a photograph of a manuscript page of the diary on which are found three entries relating to five dates (1 through 5 September 1942). In the margin, you discover the alleged printed reproduction of the single entry of 2 September. That reproduction appears in French, English and German. In French and English the text is outrageously distorted. In German, it was very difficult to distort the text in a similar way since the photocopy of the manuscript is available to the reader. But we must have unlimited confidence that the Exterminationists will falsify texts that embarrass them. The International Auschwitz Committee has found a solution thanks to a typographical trick. After the word Sonderaktion the authors of the book have printed in the same typeface the following parenthesis, as if it were from Dr. Kremer: "So wurde die Selektion und das Vergasen genannt" ("Thus did they refer to selection and gassing"). Either the reader, as is highly probable, will not notice the difference between the manuscript text and the printed text and then will believe it to be a confidence imparted by Dr. Kremer, which will appear to him to be all the more normal since, according to an Exterminationist myth, the Nazis spent their time inventing a coded language in order to cover up their crimes; or else the reader will see the difference between the texts and then the authors will plead a simple and innocent typographical error. Serge Klarsfeld, as I said above, has used this fallacious page in his Memorial of the Deportation of the Jews from France.

Another thing I find interesting, I just saw in your post you are denying being Den... Dan Jerk, I will not repeat this yet again Jerk... you have logged with your IP address from Liverpool with the two different logins Jerk.

How would I have an IP address from Liverpool?

There is bunch of evidences proving that both of you are the person, many such as your profile philosophy forum, and Den materials comming from there, the IP, many many evidences... if you want to be embarassed here go ahead Jerk the pathological liar.

What IPs did you compare? How did you have two IPs from me? And how do you know my IP? I always thought IP sharing is illegal?

Anyway, you can't prove anything. Yes, I am interested in philosophy. Yes, I am English. So what does that prove? And take this off this thread. Your issues with someone else don't have any place in a discussion with me, especially in this thread.

How amuzing it is to read someone lying so much and still contue lying when beside him everyone else knows he is lying.

You know about me "lying" as much as you knew about Operation Barbarossa.