Forum FAQ

Preferences

Watched Topics

Watched Forums

Revisionism

Goto page Previous 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6 Next

Shanghai Expat Forum Index » Community Discussion Forums » News and Opinion

Author

Message

hammerforlife
Fire-eater

Joined: May 24, 2004
Posts: 2701

Posted: Feb 01, 2007 - 08:21 PM

frenchlover1999 wrote:

Zyklon B is so highly toxic that everyone in the camp, including the guards, would have died.

Any evidence to back that up? I understand that Zyklon B is basically Hydrogen Cyanide which is used as a fumigant in many places, even involving foodstuffs. Here is an example of a review held of its use by the UN / WHO.

http://www.inchem.org/documents/jmpr/jmpmono/v65apr09.htm

hammerforlife
Fire-eater

Joined: May 24, 2004
Posts: 2701

Posted: Feb 01, 2007 - 08:25 PM

Googling says this:

"Zyklon B, referred to here merely as Zyklon, is a very effective pesticide consisting of liquid hydrogen cyanide (HCN, an acid) absorbed into some inert material such as wood pulp, with an irritant added to warn bystanders of its presence. HCN is also called "prussic acid" and in German "Blausaüre" (blue acid), because it is commonly used in blue dyes and tends to leave blue stains where it is used.

In its gaseous or liquid form HCN is very deadly and is used in American execution gas chambers, where it is traditionally generated by mixing an acid (normally sulfuric acid) with potassium cyanide or sodium cyanide, resulting in rapid release of HCN in its gaseous form."

frenchlover1999
Shanghai Royalty

Joined: Sep 18, 2004
Posts: 8730

Posted: Feb 01, 2007 - 08:44 PM

Good you posted this. Now you can research how American gas chambers operate - how many people can get it, how long it taked to kill someone, safety precautions before, during, after - long after - execution, etc. And see why it could not have been used for mass execution on an industrial scale in prisoners' camps.

_________________
That was no shark. That was my personal submarine. But enough of this polite conversation. What is the purpose of your visit?

hammerforlife
Fire-eater

Joined: May 24, 2004
Posts: 2701

Posted: Feb 01, 2007 - 08:47 PM

frenchlover1999 wrote:

I'll leave that to you. I have demonstrated that your claim that it would have killed everyone including the guards was false. You can demonstrate that the logistics of mass killing were impossible.

Over to you. I will be genuinely interested in your reply.

underh20
Shanghai Royalty

Joined: Sep 27, 2006
Posts: 9641
Location: EOA Seminar

Posted: Feb 01, 2007 - 08:49 PM

hammerforlife wrote:

In its gaseous or liquid form HCN is very deadly and is used in American execution gas chambers, where it is traditionally generated by mixing an acid (normally sulfuric acid) with potassium cyanide or sodium cyanide, resulting in rapid release of HCN in its gaseous form."

I seem to recall that after an execution in the gas chamber, prison officials cannot remove the body for approximately 1/2 hour until the gas is completely nuetralized. They say the process to neutralize this gas is extremely complex and requires the use of special air filters. Could this have been accomplished in Nazi gas chanbers so efficiently without killing even Nazi staff?

_________________
بارك الله ، بارك الله

hammerforlife
Fire-eater

Joined: May 24, 2004
Posts: 2701

Posted: Feb 01, 2007 - 08:53 PM

underh20 wrote:

I genuinely don't know the answer. It would be nice to get the facts of what would actually be involved, rather that a glossing over of the facts to support the viewpoint of whichever poster was replying.

If however HCN is used as a fumigant, even today, then I would imagine that the process cannot be that complicated.

underh20
Shanghai Royalty

Joined: Sep 27, 2006
Posts: 9641
Location: EOA Seminar

Posted: Feb 01, 2007 - 08:54 PM

hammerforlife wrote:

I have demonstrated that your claim that it would have killed everyone including the guards was false.

No, you have not demonstrated that. You have merely shown that the gas can be deadly. We already knew that.

_________________
بارك الله ، بارك الله

underh20
Shanghai Royalty

Joined: Sep 27, 2006
Posts: 9641
Location: EOA Seminar

Posted: Feb 01, 2007 - 08:59 PM

hammerforlife wrote:

underh20 wrote:

Obviously your imagination doesn't hold up well with age. Or, put another way, the US Bureau of Prisons might say your imagination is overactive. Wink

Quote:

At postmortem, an exhaust fan sucks the poison air out of the chamber, and the corpse is sprayed with ammonia to neutralize any remaining traces of cyanide. About a half an hour later, orderlies enter the chamber, wearing gas masks and rubber gloves. Their training manual advises them to ruffle the victim's hair to release any trapped cyanide gas before removing the deceased (Weisberg, 1991).

Now you know the answer.

_________________
بارك الله ، بارك الله

hammerforlife
Fire-eater

Joined: May 24, 2004
Posts: 2701

Posted: Feb 01, 2007 - 09:05 PM

So you are agreeing with frenchlover that it was impossible to use this gas without killing everyone including the guards?

underh20
Shanghai Royalty

Joined: Sep 27, 2006
Posts: 9641
Location: EOA Seminar

Posted: Feb 01, 2007 - 09:07 PM

As a bonus:

Quote:

Meticulous maintenance of the chamber is therefore vital, as a leak could have fatal consequences to staff and witnesses. It is estimated that to build a new gas chamber would cost at least $300,000.

This is talking about a gas chamber large enough to execute one person and the $300k refers to circa. 1980 dollars.

http://www.richard.clark32.btinternet.co.uk/gascham.html

_________________
بارك الله ، بارك الله

frenchlover1999
Shanghai Royalty

Joined: Sep 18, 2004
Posts: 8730

Posted: Feb 01, 2007 - 09:10 PM

Quote:

I have demonstrated that your claim that it would have killed everyone including the guards was false.

I must have missed something. Or did you edit your post?

Underho is correct in his quote above. Zyklon B gets everywhere, in the hair, clothes, under the bodies, etc. Its very hard to remove and still highly toxic. The logistics of executing one person in a US gas chamber is very complicated. But we all know that Germans are organization geniuses - they managed to build gas chambers to kills hundreds per day. And managed to destroy all evidences of this prodigious infrastructure before the allies liberate the camps. With all due respect to the Chosen People and their ethnic genius, you have to admit the Aryans were rather resourceful.

_________________
That was no shark. That was my personal submarine. But enough of this polite conversation. What is the purpose of your visit?

underh20
Shanghai Royalty

Joined: Sep 27, 2006
Posts: 9641
Location: EOA Seminar

Posted: Feb 01, 2007 - 09:10 PM

hammerforlife wrote:

So you are agreeing with frenchlover that it was impossible to use this gas without killing everyone including the guards?

Reading problems?

English is a very clear and concise language and revising what I wrote I see no statements or implications that I think anything is impossible except for your dubious claims that the cleansing process is not that complicated.

I will say that FL has presented more of a believable argument than you have so far.

_________________
بارك الله ، بارك الله

underh20
Shanghai Royalty

Joined: Sep 27, 2006
Posts: 9641
Location: EOA Seminar

Posted: Feb 01, 2007 - 09:16 PM

What I also question is whether the Nazis had over a million dollars to build, let alone maintain, each gas chamber.

_________________
بارك الله ، بارك الله

frenchlover1999
Shanghai Royalty

Joined: Sep 18, 2004
Posts: 8730

Posted: Feb 01, 2007 - 09:17 PM

Anyway, are you calling Nobel Prize winner Elie Wiesel, a well-respected man, advisors of many presidents, in fact a holy man, a liar? He wrote an eye-witness account a few years after being freed from Auschwitz and doesnt mention any gas chambers. He talks about pits where people were thrown alive in large fires. That was the Western propaganda version of German atrocities. The Soviet had another story - gas chambers. The Soviet story was more credible and the zionists decide to use it instead. Wiesel changed his story a few years later... but you can still find his first books... which describe the bonfires in great detail. What happened to the Jews - and to MANY MORE non-Jews - is very sad and unacceptable. But there was no gas chambers and its no excuse for making up myths to serve political purposes.

_________________
That was no shark. That was my personal submarine. But enough of this polite conversation. What is the purpose of your visit?

hammerforlife
Fire-eater

Joined: May 24, 2004
Posts: 2701

Posted: Feb 02, 2007 - 01:08 AM

frenchlover1999 wrote:

Quote:

I have demonstrated that your claim that it would have killed everyone including the guards was false.

The process of fumigation of ships and warehouses is not difficult. It happens all the time using Hydrogen Cyanide (Zyklon B). And of course these places are big. Certainly big enough to accomodate many people.

If you examine the instructions for use you will see that all is required after fumigation is ventilation for a period of time. 48 hours in this example.

http://www.tru.ca/hsafety/procedures/pesticide/pestprocedures.html

But I doubt that the Germans had COSHH statements or health and safety at work people visiting on a regular basis.

But we are missing the real reason for argueing against the holocaust. The number or means of people being killed is not the issue. The holocaust deniers are against the Zionist agenda of today and work backwards to try to demolish the arguements or why Israel was founded in the first place.

No one queries for example how 500,000 Rwandans were killed during the genocide of 1994 with Machettes and whether that was logistically possible. Why not? For the reason that the Rwandans have no agenda today.

Borodino

Reacher

Joined: Jan 03, 2007
Posts: 316

Status: Offline

Posted: Feb 02, 2007 - 07:34 AM

OK. This whole 'the gas chambers were impossible' nonsense has to end, and it has to end because they existed. You're quite right that Zyklon B gets everywhere: the hands, the hair and the clothes. It IS everywhere in Auschwitz. It has permeated the bricks that remain; they remain toxic. It has permeated the soil. The empty cans of Zyklon B -- which you can buy on EBay! -- are also toxic. Is it possible -- maybe -- that a Nazi Death Camp has fewer health and safety regulations than an American prison? What do ya reckon? Maybe?

The idea that the chambers is an engineering impossibility is an old canard of the deniers. Irving denied it, was accused of being intellectually inauthentic, brouhgt his accuser to court for libel -- and lost. Here's the transcript. As you can see, it deals specifically with the question of whether the guards would also have been poisoned.

***

MR RAMPTON: Maybe. I do not know that I think that that is an
answer to his Lordship's question. Perhaps that is no
business of mine. He goes on: "Additionally, if the gas
eventually did fill the chamber over a lengthy time period
those throwing Zyklon B in the roof vents and verifying
the death of the occupants would themselves die from
exposure to H C N".
A. I would have thought it was rather unscientific also.
Q. It is complete rubbish, is it not? H C N is slightly
heavier than air, is it not, and they wore gas masks, and
all they did was lift up the vents and drop the pellets in
and quickly close the vents?
A. The ones on top of the roof, right.
Q. So what is left of this report, Mr Irving?
A. The forensic statistics which are what I base my
conclusions on.
Q. Which is precisely consistent with what Professor
Markievitch found in 1994, and what Krakov found in 1945,
is it not?
Q. Small traces?
A. What I have always said, Mr Rampton, is that the report is

. P-117

flawed and in my letters to associates I clearly said what
a pity Leuchter started speculating about things that were
beyond his ken when the chemical figures are all that can
be relied upon and that speak the real language.
Q. Mr Irving, the position is this, is it not? You know as
well as I do that this Leuchter report is not worth the
paper it is written on. You know that he got the crucial
concentration completely the wrong way round and therefore
drew false conclusions from it. You know that the true
measurement of concentration is consistent with what
Krakov found in 1945 and with what Markievitch found in
1994. Your only way round that is to assert that these
were indeed gas chambers, but not for killing people. Is
that not right?
A. Designed as, yes. But what I do not accept is your
suggestion that the Leuchter report is totally valueless.
The most important part of the Leuchter report was the
forensic results which were done in fact not by
Mr Leuchter but by Dr Roth.
Q. Which is precisely consistent with the kinds of
concentrations in residue which you would expect to find
if on the one hand there are low residue areas with
homicidal gas chambers, and on the other hand the high
residue areas were delousing chambers?
A. Not entirely. That is going to extremes and you are not
entitled to go to total extremes like that.

. P-118

Q. Broadly consistent?
A. I do not think even broadly so.
Q. You have known this since ----
A. The total discrepancy in these figures is so eclatant, is
to dramatic, that there has to be some explanation for them.
Q. So you say. You can put that to Professor van Pelt.
A. So I say and so I believe.
MR JUSTICE GRAY: Can I go back to an answer you gave a minute
ago? Mr Rampton asked this question: You know that the
measurement of concentrations is consistent with what was
found in 1945 and 1994; your only way round that - this is
the question - is to assert that these were indeed gas
chambers but not for killing people, is that not right?
And then you said "designed as, yes". Can you elaborate a
little on that?
A. We do not know to what degree they were then subsequently
used.
Q. Do you mean by that that these chambers were designed as
gas chambers for killing people?
A. No, I did not mean that, my Lord. I meant that we know
that this particular one, the crematoria 2, the one which
interests me, Leichenkeller 1, the mass one where
Professor van Pelt says 500 thousand people died, that the
documentary evidence shows that it was also designed with
dual functions as an air raid shelter and as a fumigation

. P-119

chamber. We do not know whether it was used in either of
those capacities.
Q. Designed as a fumigation chamber?
A. That is what I should have spelt out. We have not really
been told what these other reports say yet.
Q. No, I am waiting to hear.
MR RAMPTON: There is one other part of this report, Mr Irving,
which is not dealt with in that list of the bullet points
-- I would say that they were blanks rather bullets - - in
Mr Leuchter's report. It is incineration capacity.
A. Yes.
Q. He got that completely wrong, did he not?
A. Incineration capacity has been a matter of great debate
among...
Q. I know that, but answer my question. Leuchter got it
wrong, did he not?
A. I would not be surprised if he got it wrong.
Q. Completely wrong?
A. I would not be surprised if he got it wrong. There are
very widely different opinions. Even the experts cannot
agree what the capacities were.
Q. Notwithstanding this catalogue of fundamental errors in
Leuchter, you publicly, in your public role, have adhered
to it as though it was the gospel of St John, have you
not?
A. If you have read correctly what I said in my public

. P-120

utterances, I have always relied on the chemical forensic
part of the Leuchter examinations and not on any of his
other rather absurd statements which I regarded as if --
in fact, I never even read those statements except when I,
in general, took on board the fact that he was an engineer
and he was venturing outside his proper field.
Q. Well, you knew that at the time, did you not?
A. Knew what at that time?
Q. That he was venturing outside his expertise which was
extremely limited?
A. Well, I said so in my correspondence at the time. I said
if only ----
Q. Correspondence, I am not interested in your
correspondence.
A. Well, the correspondence shows my state of mind at the
time, Mr Rampton, which is material in this court.
Q. So, in private, in your mind, I suggest to you, you had
received material from Beer, Crabtree, Wegner, which, in
effect, completely discredited Leuchter, but you never
gave that any public notice at all, did you?
A. I was not under any compulsion to give private
correspondence public notice. When you are an author, you
are constantly receiving letters from members of the
public suggesting you have got things wrong. Sometimes
you ignore them, and I know a lot of people ignore lots of
things. A lot of the experts in this case have ignored

. P-121

lots of documents until they finally come up in this
trial. But when you are conscientious, then you will put
those objections to other people who are probably better
informed than yourselves and say, "What do you say about
this?" This is precisely what I did.
Q. Mr Irving, I have got very little left on this Auschwitz
question now. Can you tell me this, because the answers
to these questions, I am not going to cross-examine you
about them if your answer be yes. I leave you to raise
them with Professor van Pelt by way of rebuttal of what
I would characterize as the overwhelming evidence in
favour of his thesis.
First, do you see the coke supplies at Auschwitz
as being significant?
A. Coke?
MR JUSTICE GRAY: "Coke" did you say?
MR RAMPTON: Coke, C-O-K-E, which in those days meant what it said!
MR JUSTICE GRAY: I think I assumed that.
MR RAMPTON: You are going to raise that with Professor --
I need to know because he has to prepare himself, you see?
A. Yes.
Q. Are you going to raise the question of coke supply?
A. We shall raise that because if Holocaust denial is said to
be minimising or reducing the scale of the tragedy in a
numerical sense, then we are entitled to look at the coke

. P-122

supplies.
Q. Are you going to deal with incineration capacity?
A. Cremation capacity, the various crematoria.
Q. I am talking about burning corpses in ovens or in pits.
A. Well, in my side of the courtroom you call it "cremation"
rather than "incineration".
Q. Call it what you like. Are you going to raise that with
Professor van Pelt?
A. I think so, yes.
Q. Are you going to raise the question of the Hensley
decrypts?
A. Yes, but also I shall be doing that with Dr Jean Fox as
well.
Q. I am sure you will. Are you going to raise the question
of the so-called "death books"?
A. Yes.
Q. Are you going to raise the question of the supplies of
Zyklon B to Runinberg and also to Auschwitz?
A. I am going to be raising the general question of the
production rate of Zyklon B by the factory.
Q. I am sorry?
A. And its delivery and to specific quantities delivered to
various camps, yes. I shall also be raising the question
of the authenticity of the eyewitnesses.
Q. Certainly.
A. Their integrity.

. P-123

MR JUSTICE GRAY: Yes. I think what Mr Rampton was really
doing, if I understand him right, was investigating with
you what other positive pointers you feel exist towards
the non-existence of gas chambers.
A. The eyewitnesses come into that. I suppose that is
negative. That is negative.
Q. You say they are negative. I think what Mr Rampton really
would like you to say is, is there anything else that you
are positively relying on, as it were, against the
existence of gas chambers? Do you understand the
question? I hope it is not ----
A. I do not really understand that.
Q. --- obscure.
A. Yes.
Q. Well, I think you agreed with me that Mr Rampton has just
run through various topics which you are going to raise
because in your ----
A. Of course, we are relying on the architectural evidence,
my Lord, what Mr Rampton will call the archeological
evidence.
Q. Right.
MR RAMPTON: That is fine, my Lord. With your Lordship's
leave, at present -- I may come back to it by way of
re-examination -- I see no purpose in my dealing with
those what I call rebuttal topics in cross-examination.
If your Lordship wishes me to do so, I easily can, but it

. P-124

will take time and we are going to go round the houses all
over again when Professor van Pelt gives evidence because
what I put in cross-examination is only what Professor Van
Pelt will say from the witness box.
A. Will Professor van Pelt be actually giving
evidence-in-chief or will he be relying on his report?
MR JUSTICE GRAY: That is a question for me and the answer is
he will be relying on his report.
MR RAMPTON: I am going to ask his Lordship about that in a
moment because I have now finished, my Lord, so far as
Auschwitz is answered.
MR JUSTICE GRAY: No, but, I mean, in answer to the question,
750 pages is enough to speak for itself.
MR RAMPTON: I am not going to read it all out your Lordship --
which your Lordship has read once, if not more often. It
seems to me that, really, we have reached the position
now, if your Lordship agrees, where all I really need to
do -- I had had in mind a sort of nice graphic demo and
screens and all that kind of thing for Professor van Pelt,
but I no longer think it necessary because, apart from
this question of concentration and the chemical analysis
results, it seems to me, I may be wrong, that really
Mr Irving has abandoned Mr Fred Leuchter and his report in
toto. That being so, I do not need to go through the proofs.
MR JUSTICE GRAY: I think that is probably right. You will

. P-125

though, presumably, have to deal, and I think probably in
general terms only, with the other bodies of evidence,
categories of evidence, for the existence of the gas
chambers? For example, we have had a bit of evidence
about eyewitnesses, but we have not had anything, for
example, about the drawings made by -- I cannot remember
his name, the Frenchman.
MR RAMPTON: Dayaco and Eiffel who were two of the Auschwitz
architects.
MR JUSTICE GRAY: No, I was thinking actually of the inmate.
MR RAMPTON: Oh, Dave Olaire.
MR JUSTICE GRAY: Olaire. Things of that kind will have to be
put in general terms, will they not, as to whether
Mr Irving knew about them, whether he attached any
credibility to them.
***

Now piss off.

dfoo

Post Roaster

Joined: Jan 19, 2005
Posts: 4140

Status: Offline

Posted: Feb 02, 2007 - 08:41 AM

Very interesting post -- although the formatting is a bit crap Smile

Makes the holocaust denier look like a complete buffoon, no?

As a note Israel was not formed based on the atrocities committed during the holocaust. This was a much longer running agenda. For example, the formation of a Jewish state was discussed during the treaty of Versailles after WWI.

dfoo

Post Roaster

Joined: Jan 19, 2005
Posts: 4140

Status: Offline

Posted: Feb 02, 2007 - 08:48 AM

Here is an interesting article on the lengths to which holocaust deniers will go in this fruitless attempt to deny what has patently occurred. Note in this case cheating, lying and relying on bad science.

http://www.wsws.org/articles/2000/mar2000/deat-m06.shtml

underh20
Shanghai Royalty

Joined: Sep 27, 2006
Posts: 9641
Location: EOA Seminar

Posted: Feb 02, 2007 - 09:38 AM

Borodino wrote:

The idea that the chambers is an engineering impossibility is an old canard of the deniers. Irving denied it, was accused of being intellectually inauthentic, brouhgt his accuser to court for libel -- and lost. Here's the transcript. As you can see, it deals specifically with the question of whether the guards would also have been poisoned.

Your problem, or at least one of them, is that you pull together so many different stories and try to assemble them all into one puzzle -- and do it half-***ed at that.

Contrary to your personal beliefs, there are several reputable historians and death camp survivors who refute the claims that a large number of victims were gassed to death. In fact, the only homicidal gas chamber at Dachau was, most camp survivors and historians agree, never used.

Oh, and Howard Zinn is not a reputable historian. Wink

It is true that Zyklon B leaves traces everywhere. However, if the possibility of Zyklon B residue being discovered in significant quantities in numerous places is your conclusive proof that gas chambers killed -- and you never claim how many, by the way -- a significant number of Nazi camp victims, please turn in both your white coat and Volkswagen.

Of all the gas chambers discovered, the ratio of delousing chambers and homicidal chambers is something like four, or more, to one. Your claims do more to support the fact that the Nazis deloused umpteen millions of articles of clothing to combat the very real typhus issues they were facing in camps.

There are a lot of half-***ed, half-baked theories. There is nothing to suggest that yours isn't one of them. Nor, to be fair, FL's.

While I wouldn't think the Nazis would have gone to the effort of building homicidal gas chambers because they had an overabundance of spare time and other resources, many reputable historians and camp survivors seem to believe they were not used much for their intended purposes.

Oh, and real historians are quick to claim that the magical number of 6 million murdered jews is an extremely rough guess. The only amount they can quote with even near scientific accuracy is less than half that amount.

While I don't believe everything FL claims, I do believe he is less full of $hit than you.

Now I would usually say something glib and articulate, such as you, like piss off. But I know you won't so why even say it. Rolling Eyes

_________________
بارك الله ، بارك الله

theAutumn45
Rocker
Rocker

Joined: Oct 28, 2005
Posts: 796

Posted: Feb 02, 2007 - 10:57 AM

It’s a good discussion on this thread, but interestingly you don’t see much debate like this in North America. With holocaust museum being built in every major city, it has been concluded that holocaust existed, so were the gas chambers. On this issue, Shanghai seems provided a much neutral ground for dialogue.

But no mater six thousands or six millions, it’s morally wrong systematically slaughtering an ethnic group. In fact, the rich and powerful had long gone, only the poor and helpless left being murdered.

What I can’t understand is how a long suffering group of people can infringe the same pain and suffering to another helpless group of people, and the logic of placing a tiny nation among the hostile neighbors of historical hatred.

What would happen if China were building the Museum of Rape of NanJing all over the world, or at least one in Tokyo? Compared to Japan, I have to say that German have paid their dues of apologizing.

China did have chance to force Japan to do more, which was right after the Second World War. China could have asked for war compensation like Japan had done to China after the war of 1895, and more sincere apologize. But then the leader of China, Chiang Kai Shek decided to do otherwise, which was repaying the historical hatred with love and forgiveness ( 以德报怨). So he left the myth of his legend, and a mess for the future generations to unfold.

_________________
Loved the beauty of Autumn and the peace of 1945, all are quiet in that Autumn day, only cheer of the living, and soul searching for better communication, cooperation and understanding. And may the peace remain, and may the world be one Question

underh20
Shanghai Royalty

Joined: Sep 27, 2006
Posts: 9641
Location: EOA Seminar

Posted: Feb 02, 2007 - 12:17 PM

theAutumn45 wrote:

But no mater six thousands or six millions, it’s morally wrong systematically slaughtering an ethnic group.

Exactly. Whether they are Jews, Chinese, American Indians or even from RawFish's planet, the fact is that killing members of one group is no more morally reprehensible than killing those of others.

So why do we have all this drivel of The Holocaust thrown up every day in our faces yet nobody barks incessantly about other, even worse, holocausts?

theAutumn45 wrote:

What I can’t understand is how a long suffering group of people can infringe the same pain and suffering to another helpless group of people, and the logic of placing a tiny nation among the hostile neighbors of historical hatred.

Ah, this is easy to understand and Woodrow Wilson told us why a long time ago. In a nutshell, the reason is this: Victims of a$$$holes often become even worse a$$$holes than their victimizers.

Unfortunately, although he wanted to, Wilson hadn't the political balls to stand up to them.

_________________
بارك الله ، بارك الله

PennyCrayon

Lurker

Joined: Feb 02, 2007
Posts: 23

Status: Offline

Posted: Feb 02, 2007 - 05:52 PM

Forced starvation, gas, bayonet....Whats the big deal how they died?

Why is one groups suffering used to excuse anothers today?

frenchlover1999
Shanghai Royalty

Joined: Sep 18, 2004
Posts: 8730

Posted: Feb 03, 2007 - 01:54 PM

Autumn45 and this new Penny guy got the point. I did not expect Bolino and the other mollusc to get it.

_________________
That was no shark. That was my personal submarine. But enough of this polite conversation. What is the purpose of your visit?

frenchlover1999
Shanghai Royalty

Joined: Sep 18, 2004
Posts: 8730

Posted: Feb 03, 2007 - 02:01 PM

As for zionism starting long before WW2, of course! Thats how the zionists actually cooperated with Hitler. But Palestine was just one of the possible destination. They just wanted their own country. By the way, fundamentalist Jews dont think they should move to Israel - it should be God's decision, not theirs. Same problem with the US christians who think by helping Jews to settle in Israel they will speed up the second coming of Christ... They think they can force God's hand! This is blasphemy to real fundamentalists (Jews or Christians) - thats why the fundamentalist Jews are anti-sionists, by the way ("NOT seen on TV").

_________________
That was no shark. That was my personal submarine. But enough of this polite conversation. What is the purpose of your visit?

Borodino

Reacher

Joined: Jan 03, 2007
Posts: 316

Status: Offline

Posted: Feb 04, 2007 - 06:06 PM

Irving's trial is important precisely because 1. he could not call any serious evidence against the existence of the gas chambers; 2. was shown to have deliberately mistranslated or selectively read original sources, 3. was shown to have ignored physical evidence such as the production of Zyklon B in massive quantities (for which there is a meticulous paper trail) and 4. because he himself admits, under oath, that the sole academic treatise pertaining to the implausability of the gas chambers (Leuchter 's) was "not very scientific" and disproved by every other scientific study of the camps. It was Leucter, incidentally, who proposed that the gas chambvers were in fact delousing chambers. In court, this assertion fell apart so quickly bystanders almost got hit by the shrapnel. The concentrations of Zyklon B discovered in the brickwork by all subsequent studies proved this speculative piece of fiction wrong -- and rightly so.

The point is that there are no serious academic deniers of the holocaust, and not because of some Jewish conspiracy to silence them. There are no serious doubters for the same reason that there are no serious doubters of the battle of Hastings or the existence of Constantinople: because all the evidence suggests that these things actually happened and those who deny it are, like Irving, intellectually irresponsible when it comes to the evidence itself. That's why they get annihilated when it comes to court.

Read the frickin trial. I know it's aw'fy long, but it's also aw'fy important. And unless you're willing to, I -- again -- don't see how one is qualified to make pronouncements on what the most people quite correctly consider to be a world-historical atrocity. Like Stalin's terror famines, the Great Leap Forward or the Khmer Rouge, it deserves attention and respect. It does not deserve the floating and careless speculations of a dyed-in-the-wool conspiracy theorist with an abject hatred of the Jews.

Display posts from previous:

Jump to:

All times are GMT + 8 Hours