This is topic In their own words -- Nazi documentation of the holocaust to be made public in forum Books, Films, Food and Culture at Hatrack River Forum.
11 countries and the ICRC have been keeping these records intact mainly for people hoping to discover the fate of missing relatives. Now, 60 years after the war, the documents may be made public.
quote:The Nazis recorded everything; from the number of lice on a prisoner's head to the exact moment of execution.
The record contains 17 million names.
Posted by Stephan (Member # 7549) on :
Thank you for posting that. I have never known where to start searching for info on my great-grandparents. My grandfather came over in the mid to late 30's for an international soccer tournament, and he got a letter from them begging him to stay. That was the last he heard from them.
Posted by CaySedai (Member # 6459) on :
I bet there are still people who will claim the Holocaust is a hoax.
Posted by King of Men (Member # 6684) on :
Oh, records can be faked, and if you check the archives you will see that at least three names are repeated, so therefore the '17 million' must actually be around a few hundred thousand; and besides, it's all a conspiracy by the Zionist Jewish world leadership to make Israel look good. And incidentally, there's no intermediate forms for the human eye.
Posted by starLisa (Member # 8384) on :
No joke. There's even a semi-regular on this forum who is one of them. He posts as "nato".
Posted by BaoQingTian (Member # 8775) on :
quote:Originally posted by King of Men: And incidentally, there's no intermediate forms for the human eye.
Hehe, KoM. Subtly bringing re-education doctrine to your screen since 2005 Posted by starLisa (Member # 8384) on :
And as a Jew who has been left out of the World Zionist/Jewish Conspiracy and all the banking and media goodies, I want my share, dammit! I mean, what's the good of living under a Zionist Occupation Government if you don't even get a cut? I ask you.
Posted by Stephan (Member # 7549) on :
Sure, but I don't get a "Click to Sign Up" button. What's that about?
Posted by Stephan (Member # 7549) on :
Don't worry, your on the membership list. The Elders of Zion make sure of it.
Posted by aspectre (Member # 2222) on :
" 'Click to Sign Up' button. What's that about?"
Lightning bolts fly from your computer screen to give ya the mandatory bris sose ya can join the InternationalJewishConspiracy. It won't work for you, starLisa. Women don't need a bris -- ie they're all born into the IJC -- which is why Holocaust deniers are almost exclusively men.
The real question is: who were those eleven governments and the ICRC protecting by keeping victims' names secret? Since the InternationalCommittee of the RedCross is involved, I'd start my list of suspects with Swiss banks looting the accounts of Holocaust victims by withholding information from Holocaust survivors and next-of-kin. I very much doubt that other nations' banks were meaningfully more forthcoming about wealth owed to heirs. Then there is all the real estate/property owned by Holocaust victims, then confiscated and now illegally held by non-heirs.
[ May 16, 2006, 03:42 PM: Message edited by: aspectre ]
Posted by King of Men (Member # 6684) on :
quote:Originally posted by BaoQingTian:
quote:Originally posted by King of Men: And incidentally, there's no intermediate forms for the human eye.
Hehe, KoM. Subtly bringing re-education doctrine to your screen since 2005
Actually, I signed up in 2004. And holocaust denial has the same level of credibility as evolution denial.
Posted by aspectre (Member # 2222) on :
Less credibility. The Theory of Evolutionary was founded on interpretations of prehistoric evidence. The Shoah is a comparatively recent event of still living memory.
Posted by starLisa (Member # 8384) on :
Ooo...! Fight! Fight!
Posted by King of Men (Member # 6684) on :
And which would you rather have, plague or cholera? However, we can watch evolution happening today, both in the lab and in the wild, while the Holocaust depends on those (now dying out) living memories, and on the historical record. You can do an actual experiment to test evolution, this is not true of the Holocaust.
Posted by aspectre (Member # 2222) on :
Try Darfur.
Posted by Stephan (Member # 7549) on :
Its just like anything else that some people deny. You could throw evidence at me all day long that China exists, but unless I actually go there, there could always be some doubt.
Posted by King of Men (Member # 6684) on :
Darfur is proof that genocides can happen, certainly. It does not prove that the specific genocide we refer to the Holocaust happened. On the other hand it is a splendid proof of evolution : It plainly selects for not living in Africa.
Posted by Phanto (Member # 5897) on :
Umm...Stephan, I went to "China" once. In reality it was all a big hoax. Yeah, the people looked "Chinese" and spoke "Chinese." But then I overheard one of them switching into flawless English! Not only that, I once pretended to fall asleep, and overhead them saying "Can we take the masks off?" "Yeah. About time -- I'm getting hot!"
And then I snuck a peek. They were Australians.
China is an Austrlian prank.
Posted by starLisa (Member # 8384) on :
I knew it!
Posted by Stephan (Member # 7549) on :
quote:Originally posted by Phanto: Umm...Stephan, I went to "China" once. In reality it was all a big hoax. Yeah, the people looked "Chinese" and spoke "Chinese." But then I overheard one of them switching into flawless English! Not only that, I once pretended to fall asleep, and overhead them saying "Can we take the masks off?" "Yeah. About time -- I'm getting hot!"
And then I snuck a peek. They were Australians.
China is an Austrlian prank.
I knew it!!!
Posted by ketchupqueen (Member # 6877) on :
I'm just glad I'm Mormon. Since we're obviously not Christians, the Jews won't want my babies' blood to make matzos.
Posted by starLisa (Member # 8384) on :
I think there are some authorities who are lenient about that, KQ. Plain old gentile blood might be okay.
And for those of you who doubt, why do you think matzah is red?
Posted by Stephan (Member # 7549) on :
quote:Originally posted by ketchupqueen: I'm just glad I'm Mormon. Since we're obviously not Christians, the Jews won't want my babies' blood to make matzos.
Don't you worry about that. I'm pretty sure most Jews would agree disagree with that statement. Do you have any babies?
Posted by ketchupqueen (Member # 6877) on :
Why do you want to know? Are you a Jew who plans to eat them? :glares suspiciously:
Posted by starLisa (Member # 8384) on :
Don't worry, KQ. The Princess is safe. Stephan, remember your diet.
Posted by BlueWizard (Member # 9389) on :
Of course the Holocaust is a lie.
The many firsthand survivors, the countless miles of film footage, the moutains of photographs, the witness of many assorted and varied Allied troops, the witness of many assorted civilians, the witness of many Nazi soldiers, the nearly 50 million documents of the Nazi's actions, the countless mass graves with starved bodies stacked like cordwood, and that fact that you can still go to these places and see them, all add up to it being completely false.
He said with a note of sarcasm.
Steve/BlueWizard
Posted by Artemisia Tridentata (Member # 8746) on :
quote:I think there are some authorities who are lenient about that, KQ. Plain old gentile blood might be okay.
But, But, Jews are gentiles, if you are a Mormon!
Posted by SteveRogers (Member # 7130) on :
quote:Originally posted by ketchupqueen: I'm just glad I'm Mormon. Since we're obviously not Christians, the Jews won't want my babies' blood to make matzos.
You know, I've heard it argued that the Mormon church could actually be considered a Christian faith.
Posted by kwsni (Member # 1831) on :
Wow, really?
Ni!
Posted by Tatiana (Member # 6776) on :
Mormons aren't gentiles, and neither are Jews. Are there Mormons who call Jews gentiles?
Posted by Jon Boy (Member # 4284) on :
quote:Originally posted by Artemisia Tridentata:
quote:I think there are some authorities who are lenient about that, KQ. Plain old gentile blood might be okay.
But, But, Jews are gentiles, if you are a Mormon!
I realize this is a joke, but I have never in my life heard someone refer to all non-Mormons as gentiles.
Posted by Glenn Arnold (Member # 3192) on :
No, no, no.
Australia is a british prank. And I might add, a really nasty one.
You know all those criminals they put on boats and sent over to the other side of the earth to a place called (snort) "Australia?"
You didn't really believe that such a place exists do you? I mean, why did they take them there in boats? (splash)
But there are some people who just refuse to believe the truth. They insist that Australia actually exists. After all, no one could be that evil.
Posted by ketchupqueen (Member # 6877) on :
I have heard urban Mormon legends about Jews being called "gentiles". But they're always "my brother's roomate at BYU told him that someone in his hometown..." kinda stories, and so really lack credibility.
Posted by Nato (Member # 1448) on :
quote:Originally posted by starLisa: No joke. There's even a semi-regular on this forum who is one of them ["Holocaust deniers"]. He posts as "nato".
StarLisa, please stop. I have never denied that the holocaust exists. In fact, I am quite sure that terrible atrocities did occur at the hands of the Nazis. I have on a couple occasions linked to several essays and news stories written by other people pointing out that organizations such as the International Red Cross have revised their estimates of the number of holocaust dead downward over the years, and we are not absolutely sure of what happened in the Nazi camps.
I hope the release of these records helps clear a lot of the facts up. The holocaust was a terrible, terrible event, and I feel that the main point of remembering it today is to make sure another event like it never has a chance to happen. I feel that something similar occurred in Rwanda in the mid-90s and that something similar is occuring today in Sudan. I view all massacres of innocent peoples as terrible and preventable tragedies, and I think preventing them should be a high priority for many of the governments of the world.
Posted by Juxtapose (Member # 8837) on :
quote:the holocaust exists.
It's too bad the only evidence we have of it are some plaster footprint casts and a few bits of matted hair.
-----------
I went to "China" once when I was a little kid, and was terribly traumatized when I saw some of the "Chinese" take off their heads*! I followed them around the corner and lo and behold...the moon landing set!
*They were actually Mexican.
[ May 17, 2006, 02:52 AM: Message edited by: Juxtapose ]
Posted by starLisa (Member # 8384) on :
quote:Originally posted by Nato:
quote:Originally posted by starLisa: No joke. There's even a semi-regular on this forum who is one of them ["Holocaust deniers"]. He posts as "nato".
StarLisa, please stop. I have never denied that the holocaust exists. In fact, I am quite sure that terrible atrocities did occur at the hands of the Nazis. I have on a couple occasions linked to several essays and news stories written by other people pointing out that organizations such as the International Red Cross have revised their estimates of the number of holocaust dead downward over the years, and we are not absolutely sure of what happened in the Nazi camps.
I hope the release of these records helps clear a lot of the facts up. The holocaust was a terrible, terrible event, and I feel that the main point of remembering it today is to make sure another event like it never has a chance to happen. I feel that something similar occurred in Rwanda in the mid-90s and that something similar is occuring today in Sudan. I view all massacres of innocent peoples as terrible and preventable tragedies, and I think preventing them should be a high priority for many of the governments of the world.
Weasel.
Posted by Scott R (Member # 567) on :
sL, knock it off.
I haven't kept up on Nato's stance on the Holocaust, but you sniping at him is uncalled for.
Posted by starLisa (Member # 8384) on :
Scott, I have. And weaseling is exactly what he was doing. What the deniers do (except for the most extreme) is say, "Oh, I don't deny the Holocaust happened. But the numbers involved have been adjusted and adjusted and the whole six million thing has been completely disproven, and oh, right, there's killing all over the place that's just as bad as what happened during WWII."
They usually wind up claiming that there were maybe a couple hundred thousand people who died, most of whom died of diseases. They compare two warring populations, one of which behaves barbarically and genocidally, to separating out a specific ethnic group and methodically processing them for extermination.
They aren't as stupid as they once were. They know that sane people see them for the scum that they are, so only the most lunatic among claim that nothing at all happened.
Do I have to go through nato's old posts and show you what he is?
Start here. Read through that thread. Don't skip this one. He quotes Rense.com, which is well known for Holocaust denial.
Posted by Scott R (Member # 567) on :
Please remember that I never posted anything calling into question the number of people murdered by the Nazis.
In fact, my statement has NOTHING to do with the the Holocaust. Instead, it addresses the fact that you behaved poorly because you don't like someone's opinion.
Please be civil.
Posted by Stephan (Member # 7549) on :
Lisa, it does sort of make you look bad. I agree with you on this topic probably 99.9% of the time. However those that wish to deny the events took place, underestimate them, or even just say they want to "expose the truth" generally know that most Jews will lose their temper rather quickly. That is the worst thing we can do, it gives them legitamacy.
Posted by TomDavidson (Member # 124) on :
quote:Oh, I don't deny the Holocaust happened. But the numbers involved have been adjusted and adjusted and the whole six million thing has been completely disproven, and oh, right, there's killing all over the place that's just as bad as what happened during WWII.
Does it matter, Lisa? Is there really some cachet involved in being tied by race or belief to the worst massacre in human memory, as opposed to, say, the second-worst? Or can we just all agree that it's bad to kill lots of people in horrible ways? When you're reduced to railing against "deniers" who concede that the Holocaust happened and agree that it was immoral, but want to quibble with you over the numbers, you've pretty clearly won the larger argument.
Posted by Artemisia Tridentata (Member # 8746) on :
Yes, many Mormons did refer to all nom-mormons as gentiles up until modern times. For references you might check the autobiography of Maurice Warshaw, "Life more sweet than bitter", at one time that was billed as "the rest of the story" for Fiddler on the Roof. Also, Maurice Abravanel, long time conductor of the Utah Symphony Orchestra mentions in his memors the confusion he had moving to SLC(His Rabbi is reported to have exclaimed "My God Maurice, thats west of Denver" when he took the job.) and being identified as a gentile. Neither of these gentlemen was ever my brother's roommate.
Posted by starLisa (Member # 8384) on :
quote:Originally posted by Scott R: Please remember that I never posted anything calling into question the number of people murdered by the Nazis.
I never suggested that you did. Unless you're also Nato.
Posted by TomDavidson (Member # 124) on :
I'm still curious why questioning the number of people murdered by the Nazis is something for which someone might be expected to feel guilty.
Posted by starLisa (Member # 8384) on :
quote:Originally posted by TomDavidson:
quote:Oh, I don't deny the Holocaust happened. But the numbers involved have been adjusted and adjusted and the whole six million thing has been completely disproven, and oh, right, there's killing all over the place that's just as bad as what happened during WWII.
Does it matter, Lisa? Is there really some cachet involved in being tied by race or belief to the worst massacre in human memory, as opposed to, say, the second-worst? Or can we just all agree that it's bad to kill lots of people in horrible ways? When you're reduced to railing against "deniers" who concede that the Holocaust happened and agree that it was immoral, but want to quibble with you over the numbers, you've pretty clearly won the larger argument.
Tom, they start by pushing the numbers down (in dishonest ways, mind you), and continue on to their main point, which is that there was no deliberate attempt at extermination. That maybe a few hundred thousand people died because they got sick while in work camps.
That's the issue. I don't care if they say there were 12 million Jews who died in the Holocaust. The issue isn't the numbers; it's the reason they keep trying to downplay the numbers. It's the basic denial that there was ever a planned and methodical attempt to kill us all. And that does matter.
Posted by starLisa (Member # 8384) on :
quote:Originally posted by TomDavidson: I'm still curious why questioning the number of people murdered by the Nazis is something for which someone might be expected to feel guilty.
I've answered that.
Hell, Tom, I question the numbers, too. The six million figure comes from Nazi records, and they counted anyone with a single Jewish grandparent as Jewish. So from a religious point of view, I also have a problem with the six million figure. But there's no question but that they killed six million people they thought were Jewish.
Posted by TomDavidson (Member # 124) on :
And Nato, as far as I can tell, freely concedes the existence of a methodical attempt to kill Jews (if not all Jews) and openly agrees that the massacre was immoral. He's not doing what you're accusing "deniers" of seeking to do.
I'm not sure that the best way to make this point is to try to throw up a firewall in front of some disputed number. The battle worth fighting is the acknowledgement that the planned incarceration and extermination of a people is unforgivably evil; everything else is gloss.
Posted by Stephan (Member # 7549) on :
Nato, might I ask you a few questions to hopefully get your stance straightened out?
1. Do you agree that Nazi Germany's central government set up and executed a plan to systematically murder Jews and other undesirables?
2. Why does it matter to you whether or not 1.5 million or 4 million were killed at Auschwitz? (as posed to Lisa in reverse)
Posted by starLisa (Member # 8384) on :
quote:Originally posted by TomDavidson: And Nato, as far as I can tell, freely concedes the existence of a methodical attempt to kill Jews (if not all Jews) and openly agrees that the massacre was immoral. He's not doing what you're accusing "deniers" of seeking to do.
I disagree. And in fact, the link that he provide in this post includes:
quote:Auschwitz is central to the Holocaust legend.
quote:Working side by side with inmate staff, Christophersen saw, firsthand, day-to-day life at Auschwitz and, in postwar years, was astounded to hear the stories of "gassings" and all the tall tales that we today associate with Auschwitz.
quote:Although we have been told Zyklon B was used to gas millions of Jews to death, Lindsey shows that the compound was used as an insecticide and disinfectant to delouse not only the Auschwitz inmates but also SS members running the camp and to fumigate their clothes, bunkhouses etc. Zyklon B, in short, was used to maintain and sustain human life-not to end it.
And the guy who wrote the page Nato linked to also claims not to be a Holocaust denier. Spare me.
Posted by Scott R (Member # 567) on :
Hmm.
Nato acknowledges that the Holocaust occurred in his post earlier in this thread, so your assertion that he is denying the Holocaust is irrational.
The link he linked to in that other thread appears to be written by a crackpot.
But that crackpot quotes what appear to be historically verifiable records.
Instead of blackballing and namecalling, you might consider engaging the community in a discussion. Some links supporting your position, or civily refuting his, would be most helpful.
Posted by TomDavidson (Member # 124) on :
Well, as I understand it, sL and Nato actually have the same position: that the Nazis were exterminating the Jews, that this was wrong, and the actual number of deaths doesn't matter all that much. I suppose Nato could post to further clarify this, though.
Posted by starLisa (Member # 8384) on :
You keep attributing views to Nato that he hasn't said. And you're doing so in an attempt to show that I'm misjudging him.
Until Nato himself states here that he acknowledges that the Nazis deliberately planned to exterminate the Jews and carried out a policy of doing so by means of gassing Jews to death in Auschwitz and other death camps, I'm going to stick with the obvious fact that he's a Holocaust denier.
It's hard for you to believe that there are people so vile that they would try and turn that into a matter of dispute. I get that. But don't claim that he's said the Nazis were trying to exterminate the Jews when he hasn't said anything of the sort.
Posted by Scott R (Member # 567) on :
quote:I'm going to stick with the obvious fact that he's a Holocaust denier.
Nato said on page 1:
quote: I have never denied that the holocaust exists. In fact, I am quite sure that terrible atrocities did occur at the hands of the Nazis.
Posted by Nato (Member # 1448) on :
quote:Originally posted by Stephan: Nato, might I ask you a few questions to hopefully get your stance straightened out?
1. Do you agree that Nazi Germany's central government set up and executed a plan to systematically murder Jews and other undesirables?
2. Why does it matter to you whether or not 1.5 million or 4 million were killed at Auschwitz? (as posed to Lisa in reverse)
1. As far as I know, there was an attempt to rid Germany and the world of Jews, Bolsheviks, homosexuals, etc. I'm not an expert on the holocaust, but from what I've read, I think it was a terrible crime in many ways. I also believe simply rounding up and imprisoning people based on their race, sexual preference, or religion is wrong, so even if there were nobody dead from what the Nazis did, I would still be against them.
2. It doesn't specifically matter to me how many people were actually murdered. The program as a whole would have been terribly evil even there were very few deaths. Nevertheless, we should try to find out as accurate a history as possible, using the available resources (such as the archive linked from the first post of this thread). Anything less than telling the true story (whatever that may be) would be a dishonor to those who died. The point for me is that we remember the Holocaust and make sure it never happens again.
quote:starLisa: I disagree. And in fact, the link that he provide in this post includes:
Lisa, rense.com is not a holocaust denial site, although sometimes there are essays posted there by people you would call "deniers." The site is aimed at free speech. If you're interested, you should read the disclaimer.
quote:from the disclaimer:
Disclaimer and Fair Use
The idea of a free press in America is one that we hold in the highest regard. We believe in bringing our site visitors and program listeners the widest possible array of information that comes to our attention. We have great trust and respect for the American people, and our worldwide audience, and believe them to be fully-capable of making their own decisions and discerning their own realities.
Among the thousands of articles posted here for your consideration, there will doubtless be some that you find useless, and possibly offensive, but we believe you will be perceptive enough to realize that even the stories you disagree with have some value in terms of promoting your own further self-definition and insight. Our site is a smorgasbord of material...take what you wish and click or scroll right past that which doesn't interest you.
We suggest you don't make 'assumptions' about our official position on issues that are discussed here. That is not what this site is about. We believe it to be unwise to sweep controversy under the carpet. We also firmly believe people should not only read material which they agree with. The opinions expressed through the thousands of stories here do not necessarily represent those of Mr. Rense, his radio program, his website, or his webmaster, Mr. James Neff.
Furthermore, I quoted that story as a source for several bits of information from news stories that I didn't have the time to look up. I don't necessarily agree with his conclusions, only some of the claims upon which he rests to make those conclusions. My ultimate feelings about the holocaust are different from that particular writer.
quote:Well, as I understand it, sL and Nato actually have the same position: that the Nazis were exterminating the Jews, that this was wrong, and the actual number of deaths doesn't matter all that much. I suppose Nato could post to further clarify this, though.
Thanks, Tom.
Since I have also been called anti-Semitic directly in other threads, I would like to clarify my position in general. I have no dislike for anybody based on their race, religion, sexual preference, or gender. I myself am an athiest/agnostic, but I do not wish to deny anybody their religion. I do object to many of the policies of the current Israeli government, but I feel that it does not stand for Jews in general, or even all of Israel's citizens, just like I feel the current US administration does not represent the position of many Americans. If anybody believes this position is anti-Semitic, I hope you will reconsider.
Posted by starLisa (Member # 8384) on :
quote:Originally posted by Scott R:
quote:I'm going to stick with the obvious fact that he's a Holocaust denier.
Nato said on page 1:
quote: I have never denied that the holocaust exists. In fact, I am quite sure that terrible atrocities did occur at the hands of the Nazis.
And he's made clear what meaning lies behind his use of the term "Holocaust". And atrocities... hell, Columbine was an atrocity.
Nato is quite capable of writing. And also of laughing his a** off watching you all try and answer for him.
Posted by starLisa (Member # 8384) on :
You're still weaseling, Nato. "Ridding the world" is a cute way out. (1) Did the Nazis or did they not plan to methodically kill all the Jews? (2) Did they march Jews into gas chambers and kill them with poison gas?
Don't muddy the waters with Roma and gays, either. That's not the question.
A simple "yes" or "no" will do for each question. I'm willing to lay odds that you won't answer yes to either of them.
Posted by Nato (Member # 1448) on :
starLisa, it's unfair to say that I think that genocide and school shootings are on the same level. When wide-scale murder becomes the policy of a government, it's a very different thing than a local tragedy.
quote:You're still weaseling, Nato. "Ridding the world" is a cute way out. (1) Did the Nazis or did they not plan to methodically kill all the Jews? (2) Did they march Jews into gas chambers and kill them with poison gas?
I don't know. I would like to see more conclusive research into what happened at the concentration camps. I have read conflicting evidence, and I'm still not sure what happened. I believe the Nazis intention was to eliminate the Jews, but I don't know exactly how they did it or how far they got. I didn't go so far to make the statements you are demanding I make, because I am not sure if they are true. It seems that they probably are true, but again, I am not an expert in the matter, and I hope real experts continue to research the matter and let me know what they find out. I do know a lot of people died and terrible crimes were committed, but I don't profess to know the exact scope or method.
I still believe the main lesson from the Holocaust for us today is to make sure it doesn't happen again. To that end, I would also be interested in learning more about how the German population didn't rise up against such crimes being committed by their government. I would hope there would be an uprising to stop such things if they were to happen again.
Posted by TomDavidson (Member # 124) on :
quote:(1) Did the Nazis or did they not plan to methodically kill all the Jews? (2) Did they march Jews into gas chambers and kill them with poison gas?
You know, sL, I'm not sure that the first statement depends on the second for its truth.
Posted by starLisa (Member # 8384) on :
That's okay, Tom. I didn't say it did. But as I suspected, Nato avoided giving either one of them a "yes".
Posted by Scott R (Member # 567) on :
quote:Nato is quite capable of writing. And also of laughing his a** off watching you all try and answer for him.
I wish you'd provide links and data to back up your opinion.
We've seen what Nato calls evidence-- do you have something to offer to the discussion besides disdain for Nato's opinion?
Posted by TomDavidson (Member # 124) on :
Nato, would you be willing to affirm that the Nazis certainly planned to methodically kill a huge number of innocent Jews, and successfully killed some consequential number of them?
Posted by Nato (Member # 1448) on :
Yes, I do believe that happened.
---
starLisa, I have a question for you. You said:
quote:Don't muddy the waters with Roma and gays, either. That's not the question.
Why not? Do you believe the Nazis' desire to eliminate gays was all that different from a desire to eliminate Jews? It seems that all of these groups was just a part of their ethnic cleansing project.
I understand you simply may not be interested in those parties, but why should we exclude them from our consideration of the crimes of the Holocaust?
It seems to me that creating a dichotomy between the Jewish Holocaust and all other forms of genocide or identity-based systematic murder is counterproductive. I don't want any of these things to happen again ever, so why not acknowledge all aspects of the Holocaust and work toward making it not happen again?
I think our quarrel may come from different aims. I am looking toward the future, while you seem to want a recognition of the specific historic events. Why is that so important to you?
I don't mean to suggest that the truth of the Holocaust isn't important; like I've said above, I think the matter should still be looked at and recognized for its horribleness. But I still feel the point of looking at it is for the present and the future, and in order to best learn from it, we should have as accurate a picture as possible. If you have evidence showing that you know accurately what happened, present it. I have seen dozens of essays expressing doubt about specific elements of that account, and I don't think the matter is completely cleared up yet. I hope the unveiling of this archive will assist us in developing a complete understanding of how the Holocaust happened, how much the German people knew about it, and how it could have been stopped. All so that we will be prepared to stop it again if we need to.
Posted by King of Men (Member # 6684) on :
Let me point out that the existence of 'dozens of essays' is a highly misleading form of argument, because it ignores the hundreds, even thousands, of essays, witness statements, and now Nazi documents that do not doubt the Holocaust. It's like picking out the dozen or so websites that support Creationism, and calling that evidence against evolution.
Posted by Nato (Member # 1448) on :
I'm sorry, that point wasn't very clear. I'll see if I can find some examples sometime this evening.
The sort of argument I'm talking about are those that say things like "the gas chambers at Auschwitz would not have had the capacity to kill as many people as claimed," or claims that many victims in the concentration camps died of starvation and being worked to death (which I think is no less evil than a gas chamber).
I am sure many of these people are wrong at least in part, but my point is that doubt remains about what actually happened, and we should use these newly released records to come closer to an accurate account.
Edit: Here'sone essay, about a holocaust denial trial. Here's another commentary. I don't agree with all these essays, but I point to the fact that they do exist as evidence that there is significant doubt about the official account. I think that we should continue looking into the matter while recognizing that no matter what the exact details were, that this was a terrible crime against humanity.
Posted by starLisa (Member # 8384) on :
quote:Originally posted by Nato: Yes, I do believe that happened.
---
starLisa, I have a question for you. You said:
quote:Don't muddy the waters with Roma and gays, either. That's not the question.
Why not? Do you believe the Nazis' desire to eliminate gays was all that different from a desire to eliminate Jews?
Actually, yes I do. Read Mein Kampf. Read German records. First and foremost, they wanted to wipe out the Jews. As long as they were doing so, they figured they'd wipe out other people they didn't like.
It's of little comfort to a gay man or a Roma that they were being murdered as a second thought. I'm quite aware of that. Dead is dead. Murder is murder. Genocide is genocide. But you need to learn a little history.
quote:Originally posted by Nato: I understand you simply may not be interested in those parties, but why should we exclude them from our consideration of the crimes of the Holocaust?
I never said anything of the sort. But I know where sicko Holocaust deniers (excuse me, "minimizers") are coming from.
quote:Originally posted by Nato: It seems to me that creating a dichotomy between the Jewish Holocaust and all other forms of genocide or identity-based systematic murder is counterproductive.
I certainly do make a distinction between the Holocaust and Darfur, for example. Or between the Holocaust and Bosnia.
quote:Originally posted by Nato: I think our quarrel may come from different aims. I am looking toward the future, while you seem to want a recognition of the specific historic events. Why is that so important to you?
It's not. Quite frankly, I'm personally sick to death of the Holocaust. I don't watch Holocaust movies, and I won't go to talks about the damned thing, either. There's a very disturbing tendency in some parts of the Jewish community (primarily non-religious ones) to have a "Jewish history begins at Auschwitz" worldview.
But then I see people like you quoting Jeff Rense and his band of haters and I get a sense of why it's so important to keep it from being forgotten.
Maybe you're just a naif who quoted some things from Rense without realizing that they're only pieces of a propaganda campaign that is absolutely anti-semitic. But maybe you're not.
Posted by Stephan (Member # 7549) on :
Both of those links posted by Nato were blocked as being hate speech by Allstate Insurance's internet system.
Posted by Nato (Member # 1448) on :
That's interesting. I found these links on a quick Google search and scanned them for material I wouldn't want to link from here. I found them relatively innocuous.. Perhaps incorrect in parts, but not hate speech.
Here's a list of book reviews on some of these topics. Can you get to that?
quote:starLisa: I certainly do make a distinction between the Holocaust and Darfur, for example. Or between the Holocaust and Bosnia.
Why should we do this? Shouldn't all genocides be met with the same reaction: resistance?
Posted by Stephan (Member # 7549) on :
quote:Originally posted by Nato: That's interesting. I found these links on a quick Google search and scanned them for material I wouldn't want to link from here. I found them relatively innocuous.. Perhaps incorrect in parts, but not hate speech.
Here's a list of book reviews on some of these topics. Can you get to that?
quote:starLisa: I certainly do make a distinction between the Holocaust and Darfur, for example. Or between the Holocaust and Bosnia.
Why should we do this? Shouldn't all genocides be met with the same reaction: resistance?
That site is blocked as well. It's probably not the individual essays, but the main sites themselves. I'll take a peek when I get home.
Posted by camus (Member # 8052) on :
quote:Actually, yes I do. Read Mein Kampf. Read German records. First and foremost, they wanted to wipe out the Jews. As long as they were doing so, they figured they'd wipe out other people they didn't like.
The motive, method, and result were all the same, so what exactly is the difference, the level of desire, the intensity? Should that have any bearing on the severity of the crime? I don't see why creating a distincion between the different groups is all that important.
quote:I never said anything of the sort. But I know where sicko Holocaust deniers (excuse me, "minimizers") are coming from.
Is a Holocaust "maximizer" someone that places the attack on Jews above every other similar atrocity?
quote:I get a sense of why it's so important to keep it from being forgotten.
You may have missed it, but it seems that Nato has that same desire.
Posted by Nato (Member # 1448) on :
quote:It's not. Quite frankly, I'm personally sick to death of the Holocaust. I don't watch Holocaust movies, and I won't go to talks about the damned thing, either. There's a very disturbing tendency in some parts of the Jewish community (primarily non-religious ones) to have a "Jewish history begins at Auschwitz" worldview.
But then I see people like you quoting Jeff Rense and his band of haters and I get a sense of why it's so important to keep it from being forgotten.
And from my side, I would certainly love to leave the Holocaust and the whole concept of genocide in the past, as a failed ideology that does nothing but hurt human existence, but I see too many examples of how people haven't learned the lesson I take from the holocaust: that racial or religious discrimination, segregation, and murder shouldn't happen.
I just watched Hotel Rwanda a couple weeks ago and saw their account of how genocide erupted out of a situation westerners created and how the international community was utterly negligent in attempting to stop it.
I just read about how Israel will deny its citizens the right to live with their spouse in Israel if that spouse is Palestinian.
I see reports of ethnic cleansing-style attacks on villages in Sudan and too little effort to step in and stop it. How many people have to die before we have to do something?
Posted by Nato (Member # 1448) on :
quote:Originally posted by Stephan: That site is blocked as well. It's probably not the individual essays, but the main sites themselves. I'll take a peek when I get home.
It's interesting to see essays questioning details of the Holocaust labeled as "hate speech." Such inquiry is what the First Amendment protects, in an attempt to bring the truth to all people. I personally have no problem with this sort of discussion, because the worst-case scenario is that these "deniers" are wrong, and we won't be able to find that out if we can't evaluate their claims.
In a free country, being wrong isn't a crime. I don't see any malice behind the words of these essays, only a desire to correct what these people see as an error in our history books. I don't think anybody who advocates for true hatred of the Jews would ever get very far these days, precisely because the Holocaust showed us the terrible results of allowing hatred or racial discrimination to make your decisions. I (perhaps too optimistically) believe that we can someday eliminate racial hatred. I at least think it is necessary for us to make significant social progress on the global scale. I believe that the Holocaust can be a painful, yet instructive chapter in our history books, and I hope we learn its lessons well.
Posted by starLisa (Member # 8384) on :
quote:Originally posted by Nato: That's interesting. I found these links on a quick Google search and scanned them for material I wouldn't want to link from here. I found them relatively innocuous.. Perhaps incorrect in parts, but not hate speech.
Here's a list of book reviews on some of these topics. Can you get to that?
Rather than read swill like this:
quote:Why Spielberg didn't hit the "holocaust" theme harder is anyone's guess. It's my hunch he intuits how weary American audiences are of blatant holohoax operas. He chose to advance his agenda by less transparent means.
quote:This film is a botched job, to the extent that Spielberg subverts his own agenda in a concluding cemetery scene and reveals a terrible truth about the Jewish mentality in the process.
Of course, everywhere he uses the term "Holocaust", he puts in in quotes.
quote:It all kinda makes you wonder what the white Americans and the white Nazis could have accomplished ...........together.
Ooo... nice one.
Rather than read garbage of that sort, why not check out Ken McVay's Nizkor.org site. In particular, read this. It's common for Holocaust deniers to pretend that they aren't. Because they know that sane and moral people will be disgusted with them. So they lie. Plain and simple. They start with "I don't deny the Holocaust", and continue with denial of that the Holocaust happened. Fools fall for it.
Nato, you are fooling no one.
Posted by starLisa (Member # 8384) on :
quote:Originally posted by Nato: I just read about how Israel will deny its citizens the right to live with their spouse in Israel if that spouse is Palestinian.
The Palestinians have been on the record as publically wanted to wipe Israel off the map for decades now. I think we have a right to prevent enemies from entering our country at a time of war.
How do you suppose these marriages happened in the first place? They happened outside of Israel. And they can live happily ever after outside of Israel. What they're doing is similar to someone marrying a US citizen for the sole purpose of gaining entry to the US. The difference is, we're talking about a population of people who perpetrate and celebrate the murder of innocents.
And I'm not sure what kind of moral viper would bring a simple safety precaution that harms no one into a discussion about genocide. Oh, actually that's not true. I know exactly what kind of moral viper would do that.
Posted by King of Men (Member # 6684) on :
About 'harms no one' : I take you agree, then, that a US law against gay marriage likewise harms no one, since gays are perfectly free to live happily ever after - with papers, no less - in most of Europe?
Just askin'.
Posted by starLisa (Member # 8384) on :
I can see why you'd ask. After all, you can't even go into a grocery store these days without having your bags checked to make sure that you aren't one of those homosexual suicide bombers.
Grow up.
Posted by King of Men (Member # 6684) on :
I'm not objecting to the law, as such. The harm that it does could quite conceivably be less than the harm it avoids. I was merely objecting to the statement that it does no harm at all.
Posted by Stephan (Member # 7549) on :
quote:Originally posted by starLisa: I can see why you'd ask. After all, you can't even go into a grocery store these days without having your bags checked to make sure that you aren't one of those homosexual suicide bombers.
Grow up.
That was the most alien part of being in Israel, having to go through a security check to enter a shopping mall.
Posted by starLisa (Member # 8384) on :
Here are some examples of the deceit used by Nato and people like him.
Quoting from Wikipedia, just because it's well written:
quote:A much-quoted instance of disputing the toll is the "Breitbard Document" (actually a paper by Aaron Breitbart), [6] which describes a commemorative plaque at Auschwitz to the victims that died there, which read, Four million people suffered and died here at the hands of the Nazi murderers between the years 1940 and 1945. In 1990, a new plaque replaced the old one. It now says, May this place where the Nazis assassinated 1,500,000 men, women and children, a majority of them Jews from diverse European countries, be forever for mankind a cry of despair and of warning. The lower numbers are due to the fact that the Soviets "purposely overstated the number of non-Jewish casualties at Auschwitz-Birkenau," according to the Simon Wiesenthal Center. Holocaust Deniers seize on this discrepancy and insist that the number of Jews killed must be immediately brought down at least 2.5 million. If their presumption that Historians had used this statistic to reach their overall estimate was correct they would be partly right, however, they ignore the facts that
the 4 million figure of the Soviets included almost 2 million non-Jews, and
historians in any event did not use the 4 million figure in calculating the total number of Jews killed.
quote:A number of other common Holocaust denial claims about gas chambers rely on misdirection, similar to the Auschwitz plaque example given above. For example, the Institute for Historical Review has claimed that Holocaust testimony on gas chambers is unreliable, because, in the words of the IHR: "Hoss said in his confession that his men would smoke cigarettes as they pulled the dead Jews out of the gas chambers ten minutes after gassing. Isn't Zyklon-B explosive? Highly so. The Hoss confession is obviously false." This claim is clearly false, as the Nizkor Project and other sources has pointed out, the minimal concentration of Zyklon-B to be explosive 56,000 parts per million, while the amount used to kill a human is 300 parts per million, as is evidenced in any common reference guide to chemicals, such as the "The Merck Index" and the "CRC Handbook of Chemistry and Physics". In fact, the Nazis' own documentation stated "Danger of explosion: 75 grams of HCN in 1 cubic meter of air. Normal application approx. 8-10 grams per cubic meter, therefore not explosive." (Nuremberg document NI-9912)
quote:The Institute for Historical Review publicly offered a reward of $50,000 for verifiable "proof that gas chambers for the purpose of killing human beings existed at or in Auschwitz." Mel Mermelstein, a survivor of Auschwitz, submitted proof, which was then ignored. He then sued IHR and won the $50,000 reward, plus $40,000 in damages for personal suffering as well as having the court declare the occurrence of the Holocaust a legally indisputable fact.
quote:Deniers consider one of their stronger arguments to be the population of Jews before and after the Holocaust. They claim that the 1940 World Almanac gives the world Jewish population as 15,319,359, while the 1949 World Almanac gives the world Jewish population as 15,713,638. In their view this makes it impossible that 6 million Jews died, even given an extremely high birth rate. They therefore claim that either the figures are wrong, or the Holocaust, meaning the deliberate extermination of millions of Jews, cannot have happened.
However, as is typically the case, the evidence given by Holocaust deniers does not stand up to closer scrutiny. In fact, the 1949 World Almanac gives the world Jewish population as 11,266,600. Moreover, it revises its estimate of the World Jewish population in 1939 upwards, to 16,643,120. Thus, according to the 1949 World Almanac the difference between the pre and post war populations is over 5.4 million.
And it goes on and on. The problem is, there is a vast amount of literature substantiating the fact that the Nazis deliberately murdered upwards of 11 million, 6 million or so as Jews, and that even more were to be killed, had the Allies not won the war. Deniers will find sources that are most easily twisted or misrepresented, and focus on them. In order to dispute them, you have to recapitulate 6 years worth of research and evidence. Which makes it a waste of time. Some people have taken up the challenge. Ken McVay, who isn't even Jewish, thought it worthwhile. Me, I think the proper response to Holocaust deniers is the same as it is to any anti-semites. Mockery or abuse.
Posted by starLisa (Member # 8384) on :
quote:Originally posted by King of Men: I'm not objecting to the law, as such. The harm that it does could quite conceivably be less than the harm it avoids. I was merely objecting to the statement that it does no harm at all.
You did so in a childish way. I'm a US citizen, as is my partner. Telling us we can't marry is a far sight different than telling someone we were charitable enough to grant citizenship to that they can't just cross the border, marry one of our enemies, and then use that clever technique to bring the enemy back into Israel.
Posted by starLisa (Member # 8384) on :
quote:Originally posted by Stephan:
quote:Originally posted by starLisa: I can see why you'd ask. After all, you can't even go into a grocery store these days without having your bags checked to make sure that you aren't one of those homosexual suicide bombers.
Grow up.
That was the most alien part of being in Israel, having to go through a security check to enter a shopping mall.
I know. I used to work at an industrial park across from Malcha Mall in Jerusalem. You'd cross the street to get and get something to eat, and you'd have to stand in line while they checked every last person going in. If you had a backpack, you learned to have it open and ready for inspection by the time you got to the door.
It becomes a way of life. For years, there were no public trashcans. Why? Because the damned Arabs kept tossing bombs into them. I remember when they announced that they'd found special bomb-proof trashcans that they were going to buy to put around the city.
Because Israel is foolish enough to let the Arabs be there at all, and because there's no way to distinguish between the animals who toss bombs into trashcans and throw molotov cocktails at pregnant mothers driving with their children on the one hand, and Arabs who aren't spending their time trying to figure out how to spill more Jewish blood, we have to live under siege in our own land.
Posted by King of Men (Member # 6684) on :
Um. I seem to recall that you have lived for a while in Israel. Were you born a US citizen? Or is the US, perchance, being 'charitable enough' to grant you citizenship? But in any case, I do not deny that the cases are different. I am merely trying to trim your hyperbole down the slightest tad.
Posted by starLisa (Member # 8384) on :
I was born in Chicago. I lived for about a year on an Air Base in Louisiana (Barksdale AFB) when I was 2-3. We moved back to Chicago and spent a short time in the city before moving to Skokie, where we lived from 1966 to 1972. Then we moved to Highland Park, a little further north.
I went to college in St. Louis. After I graduated in 1985, I spent a year in Israel (I'd spent the summer of 1980 there prior to that).
In 1987, I moved to Israel. In 1995, I moved to New York. In 1997, I moved to California. At the end of that year, I moved back to Israel. In early 2001, I moved back to the US. I've spent about 12 years living in Israel. I should be there right now, and bitterly regret not being able to be there.
I have Israeli citizenship along with my US citizenship, granted under the Law of Return.
Oh, and good luck with that "trimming", considering that I wasn't engaging in any hyperbole. The harm in question is self-inflicted, and not being perpetrated by Israel. You might as well say that a bank robber is being "harmed" not just when he's imprisoned for his crime, but merely because he's prevented from carrying it out in the first place.
Posted by pH (Member # 1350) on :
I am not understanding why the fact that the Holocaust also involved homosexuals and other groups is less important than the fact that it involved Jews. Will someone please explain?
-pH
Posted by camus (Member # 8052) on :
quote:Originally posted by starLisa:
quote:Originally posted by Nato: I just read about how Israel will deny its citizens the right to live with their spouse in Israel if that spouse is Palestinian.
The Palestinians have been on the record as publically wanted to wipe Israel off the map for decades now. I think we have a right to prevent enemies from entering our country at a time of war.
Are Palestinian emigrants and refugees all considered enemies, or does this law not apply to some of them?
Posted by starLisa (Member # 8384) on :
It's not less important. It was primarily aimed at Jews. As witness the fact that of 11 million people murdered, 6 million of them were Jews. That's about a third of the entire Jewish population of the world at the time, mind you.
Furthermore, the aim of Holocaust deniers is not homophobia; it's anti-semitism. Their literature is steeped in it.
Posted by King of Men (Member # 6684) on :
quote:Oh, and good luck with that "trimming", considering that I wasn't engaging in any hyperbole. The harm in question is self-inflicted, and not being perpetrated by Israel. You might as well say that a bank robber is being "harmed" not just when he's imprisoned for his crime, but merely because he's prevented from carrying it out in the first place.
You are seriously asserting that there cannot possibly be a single good-faith marriage between Israeli and Palestinian?
Posted by starLisa (Member # 8384) on :
I am serious asserting that we don't have any moral requirement to take such a possibility into account when doing so would put our own lives at risk.
Posted by starLisa (Member # 8384) on :
quote:Originally posted by camus:
quote:Originally posted by starLisa:
quote:Originally posted by Nato: I just read about how Israel will deny its citizens the right to live with their spouse in Israel if that spouse is Palestinian.
The Palestinians have been on the record as publically wanted to wipe Israel off the map for decades now. I think we have a right to prevent enemies from entering our country at a time of war.
Are Palestinian emigrants and refugees all considered enemies, or does this law not apply to some of them?
They are all potential enemies. As members of a nation which considers itself at war with us and is devoted not merely to defeating us, but to wiping us off the map, yes, they are all serious risks.
But all we're doing is saying, "Stay out". It's not like we're shooting at them. They can live and be well elsewhere. And if they want to live with their spouses who have Israeli citizenship, well, nothing is preventing them from doing so. There's just no reason why we should endanger ourselves by letting them in.
Furthermore, it's not only an issue of actual intent to harm us. There's a demographic issue at play here as well. Arabs have been a solid majority in the Galilee for decades now. And yes, there've been demands that not only should they be entitled to Judea and Samaria, but to the Galilee as well. They sit there, receiving social benefits from the State of Israel, possessed of more rights than any Arabs in Arab countries, and merely by having babies, further the cause of those who want to eliminate Israel.
So we let them. Because we don't want people to be angry with us. But this internal population increase is bad enough. We'd have to be more insane than we already are to allow them to add to it by immigration.
Posted by TomDavidson (Member # 124) on :
quote:It's not less important. It was primarily aimed at Jews.
Does that matter? Is there some kind of pecking order involved?
Posted by King of Men (Member # 6684) on :
quote:Originally posted by starLisa: I am serious asserting that we don't have any moral requirement to take such a possibility into account when doing so would put our own lives at risk.
I agree that you don't. That's not the issue. The question is whether the law causes any harm at all. If there are good-faith marriages, then those people are being harmed by not being allowed to live together, yes or no? You don't have to agree that this harm is greater than the harm of letting Palestinians into the promised land, I don't necessarily think it is. I just want to know if you can admit to the existence of any harm, at all.
Posted by El JT de Spang (Member # 7742) on :
quote:Me, I think the proper response to Holocaust deniers is the same as it is to any anti-semites. Mockery or abuse.
Why limit yourself to just one? Oh yeah, you don't.
Posted by starLisa (Member # 8384) on :
quote:Originally posted by King of Men:
quote:Originally posted by starLisa: I am serious asserting that we don't have any moral requirement to take such a possibility into account when doing so would put our own lives at risk.
I agree that you don't. That's not the issue. The question is whether the law causes any harm at all. If there are good-faith marriages, then those people are being harmed by not being allowed to live together, yes or no?
I'd written:
quote:And I'm not sure what kind of moral viper would bring a simple safety precaution that harms no one into a discussion about genocide. Oh, actually that's not true. I know exactly what kind of moral viper would do that.
I find nothing wrong with that. It's not the safety precaution that's harming them. There is no "right to live in Israel" that is being taken away from them.
To the extent that there is harm, and I'll stipulate that there might be some, it's not the safety precaution that's causing the harm. It's what the safety precaution is addressing. And on that point, I'm completely on their side. I think the Arabs should cease their endless war against Israel.
quote:Originally posted by King of Men: You don't have to agree that this harm is greater than the harm of letting Palestinians into the promised land, I don't necessarily think it is. I just want to know if you can admit to the existence of any harm, at all.
Bait and switch [Edit: strawman, rather]. I didn't deny "any harm". I denied harm being caused by the precautions.
Posted by Bob_Scopatz (Member # 1227) on :
Wow, this thread has taken an interesting turn.
sL: I'm going to assume that you realize the difference between someone ACTUALLY saying or doing something and their use of data from a source you despise.
I think you've ascribed motives to nato without any real proof other than your own beliefs about "holocaust deniers."
While your negative viewpoint might be instructive to nato on how to approach the topic in the future, to adequately distinguish his views from those of the people you're lumping him in with, I think you've gone more than just a little bit over the top in blasting him for opinions he has yet to express.
As for the marriages between Israeli and non-Israeli Palestinians, I can understand every bit of your view except the part where you say it causes no harm to the couples who must choose between living together as a married couple and living inside the borders of Israel. You've gone from saying they ALL have it in for Israel to saying that concern over the ones that really ARE good-faith marriages is secondary to Jewish security inside the borders of Israel.
I think you're stopping just short of honesty here. What I think you mean to say, and should just come out and say it, is that you don't give a darn about their pain and suffering and consider it neglible in comparison to the fear of harm that Jews feel.
Unless I've totally missed what else you are saying, this is really the logical conclusion from your statements, is it not?
If so, it'd be more correct to acknowledge the harm this policy may be doing to innocent people, but simply come right out and say "too bad, I don't care" than to try to deny that the harm exists (and, by the way, is a direct result of the policy...)
[ May 17, 2006, 06:54 PM: Message edited by: Bob_Scopatz ]
Posted by King of Men (Member # 6684) on :
Oh, I see. You're saying that the precautions are caused by the attacks, so any harm is caused by the attacks, not the precautions. Well, ok, it's a possible way to use the language, but it wasn't the first interpretation that came to my mind.
Posted by Rakeesh (Member # 2001) on :
I don't believe that Nato should be reviled the way you're doing, starLisa. I think it's wrong, inappropriate, unfair, and unjustly malicious. I think it demeans you to do it, and I wish you would stop.
For all of that, though, I can empathize with your deep frustration and anger about this. Because frankly Nato, many of your arguments are very, very similar to people who are what starLisa claims you are being. You routinely call into question the number of Jews murdered by the Nazis, the methods, and the seriousness of this horrible crime.
Yes, by bringing into doubt the number of Jews massacred, you are diminishing the crime or attempting to do so. Murdering two people is a more serious crime than murdering one person. Murdering ten people is a much more serious crime than murdering one person.
One has to wonder: in what way exactly does believing a supposedly artificially high number of Jewish deaths in the Holocaust (and really, you should find better sources than ones which also include writings by people who put that word in quotes) dishonor those who actually died? For one thing, they're dead and you're a self-identified atheist/agnostic. So the feelings, the 'honor' of the dead, shouldn't be very relevant. But setting that aside...how are they dishonored by believing a too-high figure?
Let's just suppose for the sake of argument that Nato and the websites he has referenced are correct (although they appear to be making different claims, fortunately): the number of Jews murdered in the Holocaust was substantially lower than the one commonly accepted. Doesn't acknowledging this 'fact' diminish the Holocaust, and thus weaken your stated goal of inspiring resistance against future genocides, Nato? The Holocaust is...well, the poster-child for genocide in the Western world. When a Westerner thinks 'genocide' they usually think first of the Holocaust.
Something to be reviled, rejected, fought against in the future. Feelings you say you wish to inspire in others regarding genocide. And yet for some reason, you say because doing otherwise 'dishonors the dead', you want to dilute the impact of the Holocaust in people's minds.
Consider this my personal question to the question of those who continue to ask, "Does it matter what the Nazi's priorities were when picking out whom to exterminate?"
Posted by TomDavidson (Member # 124) on :
quote:Something to be reviled, rejected, fought against in the future. Feelings you say you wish to inspire in others regarding genocide. And yet for some reason, you say because doing otherwise 'dishonors the dead', you want to dilute the impact of the Holocaust in people's minds.
Doesn't this directly intersect Katie's distinction between something real and something useful on the other thread?
Posted by pH (Member # 1350) on :
quote:Let's just suppose for the sake of argument that Nato and the websites he has referenced are correct (although they appear to be making different claims, fortunately): the number of Jews murdered in the Holocaust was substantially lower than the one commonly accepted. Doesn't acknowledging this 'fact' diminish the Holocaust, and thus weaken your stated goal of inspiring resistance against future genocides, Nato? The Holocaust is...well, the poster-child for genocide in the Western world. When a Westerner thinks 'genocide' they usually think first of the Holocaust.
Something to be reviled, rejected, fought against in the future. Feelings you say you wish to inspire in others regarding genocide. And yet for some reason, you say because doing otherwise 'dishonors the dead', you want to dilute the impact of the Holocaust in people's minds.
Consider this my personal question to the question of those who continue to ask, "Does it matter what the Nazi's priorities were when picking out whom to exterminate?"
I really, really don't think it matters. And on top of that, while to some, murder of ten might be worse than murder of one, when we're talking about something on such a large scale, the precise numbers really don't make the entire thing have less of an impact just because they may be fewer.
On TOP of that, later discovery that misinformation might be involved actually MIGHT lessen the horror of the Holocaust in the eyes of some.
I'm not saying that I agree or disagree with any of the numbers.
And as for the population of Jews and saying that that is big in deciding that it's somehow a bigger deal that Jews were involved than other people, what is the total percentage of the population that is Jewish? What was the percentage in the areas from which the Jews were forcibly taken? And given that, is the percentage of Jews significantly less than the percentage of homosexuals?
I really don't know any of these statistics. I'm just saying that they should be considered.
And am I the only person who was always given the impression that the Germans were systematically working their way through the people they wanted to get rid of? As in, first they went after Jews, then another group, then another...
-pH
Posted by starLisa (Member # 8384) on :
quote:Originally posted by Bob_Scopatz: I think you're stopping just short of honesty here. What I think you mean to say, and should just come out and say it, is that you don't give a darn about their pain and suffering and consider it neglible in comparison to the fear of harm that Jews feel.
It's true that I don't give a hoot if they feel put upon. But that doesn't detract from the fact that the State of Israel is not harming them. Harm implies that something is being taken away from them that is theirs by right.
Posted by starLisa (Member # 8384) on :
quote:Originally posted by pH: And am I the only person who was always given the impression that the Germans were systematically working their way through the people they wanted to get rid of? As in, first they went after Jews, then another group, then another...
Apparently, it's like peanuts. Or Jay's Potato Chips. It's habit forming.
Posted by TomDavidson (Member # 124) on :
quote:Harm implies that something is being taken away from them that is theirs by right.
And, to clarify, no one should feel that it is their right to live with their spouse in their country of origin?
Posted by Bob_Scopatz (Member # 1227) on :
sL:
You know, it is true that I have a view of this that you may not subscribe to. I get my view of this sort of thing from the Declaration of Independence which may not be a document that holds a lot of water with respect to Israel.
But, for what it's worth, I do believe that each of is born with inalienable rights, and among them are life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness.
And, just so long as individual Palestinians are not causing anyone harm inside of Israel, then denying them liberty and the pursuit of happiness seems to me to palpable harm instituted by the state.
If you'd prefer a different set of inalienable rights, or none at all, I think we'll just have to disagree. I find your stance to be dishonest in that you excuse your lack of caring by saying "it's not really harm." Only arising from your uncaring attitude does this situation equate to "no harm." You may feel as if the state doesn't owe a Palestinian person anything, but the only way you can get to that conclusion is by first concluding that they have fewer rights than other citizens in your society. That means that they are ipso-facto treated as sub-human.
It doesn't matter how many rights they might enjoy compared to others OUTSIDE of Israel, the point is that an Israeli Jew can marry a non-Israeli and that person can come and live inside of Israel. But a Palestinian cannot.
Inequity in the law is a grave problem. If you establish a systematic and permanent underclass, you will never have security or peace inside your own borders. Forget what the outside world does to you. Israel will disintegrate from within without any assistance from the rest of the world.
Posted by starLisa (Member # 8384) on :
quote:Originally posted by TomDavidson:
quote:Harm implies that something is being taken away from them that is theirs by right.
And, to clarify, no one should feel that it is their right to live with their spouse in their country of origin?
If you know in advance that X is not allowed into the country, then no, you shouldn't feel that you have a right to go and marry X elsewhere and then bring X into the country.
Posted by starLisa (Member # 8384) on :
quote:Originally posted by Bob_Scopatz: But, for what it's worth, I do believe that each of is born with inalienable rights, and among them are life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness.
You do get that that's the American Declaration of Independence, right? And you do get that "pursuit of happiness" != "happiness", right?
quote:Originally posted by Bob_Scopatz: And, just so long as individual Palestinians are not causing anyone harm inside of Israel, then denying them liberty and the pursuit of happiness seems to me to palpable harm instituted by the state.
They used to put blinders on horses so that they could only see what was directly in front of them. Human beings are capable of more than that. You are capable of more than that. Most of the atrocities carried out by the Arabs against Israel (other than the several wars of annihilation they've tried) have been carried out by Arabs walking unimpeded through Israel cities. They know they're at war with us. I don't get why you're blind to that fact.
Furthermore, no one is denying them liberty. The alien spouses are not entitled to anything whatsoever, and the citizens are at liberty to go and live with their spouses.
This is an issue of them needing to make a choice. To claim that you're not at liberty because you have to choose is infantile. Quite literally. It's a child's way of looking at the world. It's not as though the belligerents in this war are wearing uniforms. They have put us in a situation where in order to protect ourselves, we must generalize. Since they, as a group, have made this choice, they, as a group, must live with the repercussions of that choice. Given that, if an Israeli citizen who is Arab makes the choice to marry a non-citizen Arab, they have to live with the fact that Israel has no obligation to endanger itself.
Quite frankly, they are fully conscious of what they are doing. At least some of them. Those who quite honestly fall in love and get married, without bad intent... well, they still have to live with their choices. They didn't get married inside of Israel, which means they were able to marry wherever they did. They can live there as well.
You have this blind outlook that results in Israel having to endanger itself for the sake of principles which do not apply. And completely devoid of context.
quote:Originally posted by Bob_Scopatz: If you'd prefer a different set of inalienable rights, or none at all, I think we'll just have to disagree. I find your stance to be dishonest in that you excuse your lack of caring by saying "it's not really harm."
You lie, sir. I've gone to the trouble of requoting exactly what I said. Do I need to do it again? You are the second person to misrepresent me as saying "it's not really harm". What I said is that the precautions cause no harm. And they don't. They save lives.
When a person chooses to rob a liquor store, stopping him, or punishing him after the fact, cannot be sanely considered "harm". It was his choice to rob the store, and the harm lies on his head as well.
quote:Originally posted by Bob_Scopatz: Only arising from your uncaring attitude does this situation equate to "no harm." You may feel as if the state doesn't owe a Palestinian person anything, but the only way you can get to that conclusion is by first concluding that they have fewer rights than other citizens in your society. That means that they are ipso-facto treated as sub-human.
"Non-equal" does not equate to "sub-human". And since I don't have the patience to deal with someone dishonest enough to equate them, I'll stop here.
Posted by Bob_Scopatz (Member # 1227) on :
Question:
How focused is this law?
Does the law apply to any foreigner or is it only Palestinians from outside Israel who can't marry into the country?
If an Arab person was from Kuwait or Lebanon, for example, could they come in?
What if they were a Christian Palestinian?
What if a Jew living inside Israel fell in love with and married a Palestinian who lives outside Israel?
If a Jew living in the West Bank marries a Palestinian woman living inside Israel, can he move into the country?
What if a Palestinian converted to Judaism and then married -- could he or she get into the country then?
How about a non-Jew, non-Palestinian citizen of Israel marrying someone from outside the country, but who isn't Arab?
Posted by Bob_Scopatz (Member # 1227) on :
quote:"Non-equal" does not equate to "sub-human".
It may as well from the perspective of the persons being maltreated.
And, as for harm, you've said repeatedly it causes no harm and even if it does, you don't care. I don't think I've misrepresented your position a bit. If you'd like to clarify, then go ahead.
As for the US Declaration of Independence, yes, of course I know that -- didn't I say that it probably doesn't hold much regard in Israel.
Too bad. It's as good an universal a governing vision as has ever been produced by mankind.
Pursuit of happiness may not mean a right to happiness, but it does mean that the government doesn't go around putting up barriers, especially ones that apply unequally to different segments of the population.
quote:When a person chooses to rob a liquor store, stopping him, or punishing him after the fact, cannot be sanely considered "harm". It was his choice to rob the store, and the harm lies on his head as well.
You have a lot of nerve accusing me of mis-equating things if you think that marriage between Palestinians (one inside and one outside Israel) equates to robbing liquor stores.
Posted by Sabrina (Member # 9413) on :
Frankly, I often wonder if more "mixed" marriages wouldn't help. Or am I being naive?
Posted by Stephan (Member # 7549) on :
I was under the impression that there is no civil marriage in Israel to begin with. Since only Orthodox Judaism is acknowledged, and Orthodox Rabbis won't perform interfaith ceremonies, aren't ALL interfaith marriages pretty much null and void there? Right or wrong (fitting for another debate) at least it tells me in this case they are at least not just targeting Palestinians.
Posted by Stephan (Member # 7549) on :
quote:Originally posted by Sabrina: Frankly, I often wonder if more "mixed" marriages wouldn't help. Or am I being naive?
If all religions acknowledged that all religions are legitimate you would be correct. Take it from someone in one, and struggling to make it work.
Literal Jewish doctrine does not acknowledge it as a legal marriage, strict Christian doctrine says if you don't accept Christ there is no heaven for you, and I'm sure Islam has something similar to one or the other. How can someone truly following strict doctrine in any of those circumstances enter into a mixed marriage?
Posted by ElJay (Member # 6358) on :
I'd like to put this thread on pause for a moment, and ask everybody to take a look at how it devaulved from a conversation about a recent news story into yet another thread with Lisa playing the part of Israeli fanatic V. everyone else.
Did it strike anyone else as bizzare that Lisa's first post in the thread was throwing out an accusation against Nato that she had to know would start this very fight?
Do you remember how she's said in the past that she enjoys arguments like this? There hasn't been one on the front page for a couple of days now. Were you just feeling bored, Lisa, and figured you'd whip the usual suspects up into a froth for a little on-line distraction?
I whistled your first post as soon as I saw it, Lisa. I don't think unprovoked attacks on other members of the community are appropriate here. I believe that what you say about what Holocaust deniers do is accurate, but I don't believe Nato has done those things yet. I think you've seized on him as a convenient adversary, who you know you can tickle into playing with you when you want a fight. And your accusations against him are so weak that of course others are going to defend him, and turn the thread into exactly the mud wallow you were looking for all along.
Of course, the rest of you might be enjoying this, too. And if this is the kind of conversation you value and want to have on Hatrack, then I will quietly bow out of this thread and let you all have your fun. But some of you seem to be frustrated and incredulous, not having fun. I ask you to consider that Lisa knows exactly what she's saying, and exactly how you're going to respond to it, in feelings if not in words. She's manipulating this thread and this community to give herself a playground, to set herself up as the lone person with all the wisdom/information/insight against all her naive/bleeding heart/dishonest/foolish detractors. Sure, there are places on the web that are much more in tune with her way of thinking, but it would be no fun doing it where people agreed with her.
The original topic of the thread pretty much hasn't been mentioned since half-way down the first page. That's not so unusual. What I find more telling is that since about that same time, no one has addressed anything to anyone but Lisa, except for a few posts asking Nato to clarify his position so the rest of us can better respond to. . . Lisa. Huh. Imagine that.
Posted by camus (Member # 8052) on :
Ok then, back on topic. I can see the value that opening these archives would have to family members and for statistical analysis, but what other benefits are there? I think the victims' privacy is still a very important concern, and I'm not sure that all of this information should be made completely public quite yet.
Posted by ElJay (Member # 6358) on :
I think it depends on what kind of information we're talking about. Names, dates, causes, and locations of death? Absolutely. Photographs where people are identifiable? Depends on the content, and if the person's identity is know, the family's wishes. Camp reports? Also certainly. I hope there will be a review board who will treat the information with dignity and sensitivity, while still getting the vast majority of it out there for historians.
Posted by Stephan (Member # 7549) on :
I do see some potential trouble if collaborators are still alive...
Posted by starLisa (Member # 8384) on :
quote:Originally posted by Bob_Scopatz: And, as for harm, you've said repeatedly it causes no harm and even if it does, you don't care. I don't think I've misrepresented your position a bit. If you'd like to clarify, then go ahead.
No clarification necessary. Just repetition:
quote:And I'm not sure what kind of moral viper would bring a simple safety precaution that harms no one into a discussion about genocide. Oh, actually that's not true. I know exactly what kind of moral viper would do that.
You need to learn how to read. I was quite precise with my words, and cannot be blamed for your distortions.
Posted by starLisa (Member # 8384) on :
quote:Originally posted by Bob_Scopatz:
quote:When a person chooses to rob a liquor store, stopping him, or punishing him after the fact, cannot be sanely considered "harm". It was his choice to rob the store, and the harm lies on his head as well.
You have a lot of nerve accusing me of mis-equating things if you think that marriage between Palestinians (one inside and one outside Israel) equates to robbing liquor stores.
You really are something, aren't you. I equated bringing potential enemy combatants (since they don't wear uniforms and we're not psychic, we have to err on the side of caution, if at all) into Israel with robbing liquor stores.
Though you're right. In liquor store robberies, when fatalities occur, they usually aren't on the scale that the Palestinians aim for.
Posted by starLisa (Member # 8384) on :
quote:Originally posted by Stephan:
quote:Originally posted by Sabrina: Frankly, I often wonder if more "mixed" marriages wouldn't help. Or am I being naive?
If all religions acknowledged that all religions are legitimate you would be correct. Take it from someone in one, and struggling to make it work.
Literal Jewish doctrine does not acknowledge it as a legal marriage, strict Christian doctrine says if you don't accept Christ there is no heaven for you, and I'm sure Islam has something similar to one or the other. How can someone truly following strict doctrine in any of those circumstances enter into a mixed marriage?
Actually, the insane State of Israel, in its unceasing efforts to accomodate those who hate us, has determined that the child of a Muslim father and a Jewish mother, who is considered Muslim by the Muslims and Jewish by the Jews, is marked as legally Muslim.
Posted by starLisa (Member # 8384) on :
quote:Originally posted by ElJay: Did it strike anyone else as bizzare that Lisa's first post in the thread was throwing out an accusation against Nato that she had to know would start this very fight?
I had to know that pointing out Nato's Holocaust denial would lead to people comparing Israel's refusal to allow unlimited immigration of an enemy population to Nazi atrocities?
You give me far too much credit. In my wildest dreams I could not have imagined that.
Posted by starLisa (Member # 8384) on :
quote:Originally posted by Sabrina: Frankly, I often wonder if more "mixed" marriages wouldn't help. Or am I being naive?
Heh. Beyond naive.
Posted by Sabrina (Member # 9413) on :
quote:Originally posted by starLisa:
quote:Originally posted by Sabrina: Frankly, I often wonder if more "mixed" marriages wouldn't help. Or am I being naive?
Heh. Beyond naive.
Can't blame me for trying.
Posted by kmbboots (Member # 8576) on :
quote: strict Christian doctrine says if you don't accept Christ there is no heaven for you
Not sure what you mean by strict, but it isn't Catholic doctrine.
Posted by Stephan (Member # 7549) on :
quote:Originally posted by kmbboots:
quote: strict Christian doctrine says if you don't accept Christ there is no heaven for you
Not sure what you mean by strict, but it isn't Catholic doctrine.
Just generalizing (which I know I shouldn't do), but will Catholic priests marry someone who admits they want to bring their kid up in 2 faiths?
Posted by Scott R (Member # 567) on :
There is something starkly magical about the public release of these names.
It's like when they read all the names of those killed in 9/11 at the one year anniversary. They rang a bell for each name, and the tedium of reading 2500 names, standing and listening to them all, until your knees shake, and your mind numbs... all these words that were once people, that are now memories that are not yours.
Terrible old things; they are nightmares and dead wishes, written in murderer's ink. What do we do with them? What do we do with the words "Jacob Van Der Meer, Auschwitz, May 1940?" What are we to make of the lists of his clothes, his birthdate, these mundane things that we once called a person, a soul? We cannot do anything with this magic, we stumble at it, our hands glide along the sterile pages, our minds can't grasp the list and what it means...
And thank God for that, that we cannot know what it means, to be the murdered. Yet we press our minds against the blunt stone edge of the fact of their genocide, so that we get a sense of the senselessness. So we can grasp at futile, unmagic, words and try to explain to eachother what we felt from the stone.
Or we find a name that matches our own, or our maternal grandmother's father's name. Dodd. Klein. The stone edge sharpens, and we willingly cut ourselves on it. It's not a list any longer. It is a spell. The magic awakens, even if this isn't one of our people, even if we are far removed from the German or Polish or Austrian, or Italian branch of our family. We are ridden by the magic, and we glimpse...something. Grand and terrible. Mud and thunder.
These were not my fathers-- but my heart longs for them, the noble and the knave alike.
Posted by kmbboots (Member # 8576) on :
Stephen, I believe so, although it isn't recommended.
Gosh darn Catholics always being more liberal then they are supposed to be....
Posted by Ozymandias (Member # 9424) on :
im sorry, i was reading the 2nd page where they were fighting about whether or not the Holocaust actually happened.
Posted by kmbboots (Member # 8576) on :
sssshhhh...it's a secret. Don't tell the Pope.
Posted by TomDavidson (Member # 124) on :
quote: Actually, the insane State of Israel, in its unceasing efforts to accomodate those who hate us, has determined that the child of a Muslim father and a Jewish mother, who is considered Muslim by the Muslims and Jewish by the Jews, is marked as legally Muslim.
I submit that the need to mark anyone as "legally" Muslim or "legally" Jewish is indeed insane, and the State of Israel should stop even caring about the distinction.
Posted by starLisa (Member # 8384) on :
quote:Originally posted by TomDavidson:
quote: Actually, the insane State of Israel, in its unceasing efforts to accomodate those who hate us, has determined that the child of a Muslim father and a Jewish mother, who is considered Muslim by the Muslims and Jewish by the Jews, is marked as legally Muslim.
I submit that the need to mark anyone as "legally" Muslim or "legally" Jewish is indeed insane, and the State of Israel should stop even caring about the distinction.
<yawn>
Posted by Scott R (Member # 567) on :
Is there a legally blonde distinction?
Posted by TomDavidson (Member # 124) on :
You yawn? Perhaps you consider it self-evident that worrying about being "legally Jewish" prior to the return of the Messiah is pretty stupid?
Posted by pH (Member # 1350) on :
quote:Originally posted by starLisa:
quote:Originally posted by Bob_Scopatz:
quote:When a person chooses to rob a liquor store, stopping him, or punishing him after the fact, cannot be sanely considered "harm". It was his choice to rob the store, and the harm lies on his head as well.
You have a lot of nerve accusing me of mis-equating things if you think that marriage between Palestinians (one inside and one outside Israel) equates to robbing liquor stores.
You really are something, aren't you. I equated bringing potential enemy combatants (since they don't wear uniforms and we're not psychic, we have to err on the side of caution, if at all) into Israel with robbing liquor stores.
Though you're right. In liquor store robberies, when fatalities occur, they usually aren't on the scale that the Palestinians aim for.
Well, by that logic, EVERYONE is a potential enemy combatant.
Also:
quote: Lisa playing the part of Israeli fanatic V.
Did anyone else stop reading there and not notice the reset of the sentence at first?
-pH
Posted by camus (Member # 8052) on :
quote:When a person chooses to rob a liquor store, stopping him, or punishing him after the fact, cannot be sanely considered "harm". It was his choice to rob the store, and the harm lies on his head as well.
But what about the person who, because of his ethnicity, isn't allowed into the store at all because you’ve determined that he has a chance of being a thief? There are many other stores that he can go to, so he can surely be happy going to those stores. And since you've warned that ethnicity beforehand that you won't allow them into the store, they shouldn't expect the right to enter the store, thus, no harm done, right?
Posted by starLisa (Member # 8384) on :
quote:Originally posted by camus:
quote:When a person chooses to rob a liquor store, stopping him, or punishing him after the fact, cannot be sanely considered "harm". It was his choice to rob the store, and the harm lies on his head as well.
But what about the person who, because of his ethnicity, isn't allowed into the store at all because you’ve determined that he has a chance of being a thief? There are many other stores that he can go to, so he can surely be happy going to those stores. And since you've warned that ethnicity beforehand that you won't allow them into the store, they shouldn't expect the right to enter the store, thus, no harm done, right?
It's not a matter of ethnicity. This was done specifically with regards to the Arabs in Hamastan, where terror and atrocities are the national sport.
Don't compare it to the US, which hasn't ever had to deal with such things.
Posted by starLisa (Member # 8384) on :
You should read this blog entry by Robert Avrech. The people he is describing are the people who aren't being allowed to claim automatic Israeli citizenship by virtue of having married an Israel Arab. If you have a problem with that, you're daft.
Posted by TomDavidson (Member # 124) on :
You sure you linked to the right entry, sL? He's basically griping about peace movements and Palestinians in general. I saw very little mention anywhere in the entry about marriage.
Posted by Glenn Arnold (Member # 3192) on :
quote:Originally posted by pH:
quote:Originally posted by starLisa:
quote:Originally posted by Bob_Scopatz: [qb]
quote:When a person chooses to rob a liquor store, stopping him, or punishing him after the fact, cannot be sanely considered "harm". It was his choice to rob the store, and the harm lies on his head as well.
You have a lot of nerve accusing me of mis-equating things if you think that marriage between Palestinians (one inside and one outside Israel) equates to robbing liquor stores.
You really are something, aren't you. I equated bringing potential enemy combatants (since they don't wear uniforms and we're not psychic, we have to err on the side of caution, if at all) into Israel with robbing liquor stores.
Though you're right. In liquor store robberies, when fatalities occur, they usually aren't on the scale that the Palestinians aim for.
Well, by that logic, EVERYONE is a potential enemy combatant.
Especially gays. That's why they can't be allowed in the military.
This forum really needs threaded messages.
Posted by Glenn Arnold (Member # 3192) on :
quote:Originally posted by starLisa:
quote:Originally posted by Sabrina: Frankly, I often wonder if more "mixed" marriages wouldn't help. Or am I being naive?
Heh. Beyond naive.
Spot on. Insular behavior is what causes these problems. I'd go so far as to say that mixed marriages are an essential part of the solution.
There must be a word that has the same value as naive, but means someone who oversimplifies in a way that assumes the worst about a person, rather than the best about a person. Paranoid doesn't quite make it.
Posted by King of Men (Member # 6684) on :
"Prejudiced"? "Bigoted"?
Posted by Glenn Arnold (Member # 3192) on :
Again, close, but these don't carry the message of "simple-minded" quite the way naive does.
Posted by Bob_Scopatz (Member # 1227) on :
quote:You really are something, aren't you. I equated bringing potential enemy combatants (since they don't wear uniforms and we're not psychic, we have to err on the side of caution, if at all) into Israel with robbing liquor stores.
Well, seeing as you admit it's an error, I'm satisfied.
Posted by Dagonee (Member # 5818) on :
quote:Originally posted by starLisa: Scott, I have. And weaseling is exactly what he was doing. What the deniers do (except for the most extreme) is say, "Oh, I don't deny the Holocaust happened. But the numbers involved have been adjusted and adjusted and the whole six million thing has been completely disproven, and oh, right, there's killing all over the place that's just as bad as what happened during WWII."[/URL]. He quotes Rense.com, which is well known for Holocaust denial.
If that's what the deniers do then Nato obviously isn't one, because HE DIDN'T DO THAT!
![[Wink]](wink.gif)
![[Smile]](smile.gif)
And holocaust denial has the same level of credibility as evolution denial.