9/11, 7/7 & the War on Freedom :: View topic - Understanding 911

FAQ

Memberlist

Chat

Usergroups

Calendar

Profile

Understanding 911 - Does The Holocaust Matter?
Goto page Previous 1, 2, 3, 4, 5 ... 14, 15, 16 Next

This topic is locked: you cannot edit posts or make replies.

9/11, 7/7 & the War on Freedom Forum Index -> Other Controversies

View previous topic :: View next topic

Author

Message

Alulim
Validated Poster

Joined: 18 Dec 2007
Posts: 290
Location: New Albion

Posted: Wed Feb 13, 2008 1:54 pm Post subject:

ian neal wrote:

LFJ wrote:

..... people who questioned it would be pitied as educationally subnormal....

call it evidence of the public has been brainwashed if you want but this is precisely how the vast majority of British people view holocaust deniers

And you perpetuate the lie.
_________________
"When the people fear their government, there is tyranny; when the government fears the people, there is liberty." ~ Thomas Jefferson
"Those who would give up Essential Liberty to purchase a little Temporary Safety, deserve neither Liberty nor Safety." ~ Pennsylvania Historical Review (1759)

Alulim
Validated Poster

Joined: 18 Dec 2007
Posts: 290
Location: New Albion

Posted: Wed Feb 13, 2008 2:32 pm Post subject:

Dogsmilk wrote:

I'd personally say Churchill vastly exaggerates the role of Jews in Bolshevism and its secular nature means it isn't exactly 'Judaic'.

So Einstein wasn't Jewish? He certainly wasn't a believer in the Torah.

Dogsmilk wrote:

There are differences, sure, but I really do wonder why people seem to avoid at all costs the similarity of the narratives and the way they are invoked.

Anachronistic?

Dogsmilk wrote:

Irving (who again is where you got this from. Is he your hero?) seems to have a thing about notable people who said things about Jews, particularly in private. He seems to think it somehow gives them legitimacy and particularly somehow legitimises his own comments.

It's called legitimate scholarship. Irving and Rudolf typically provide more references to original sources on one page of their works than orthodox historians provide in an entire book. The quote from Churchill which is what we are discussing, is not from something said "in private". Note that I did not quote Irving I merely used the material he made available.

When I worked with the White House staff, none of them were Moslems. Feith was one of the prime movers in instigating and planning the war on Iraq. Feith is an ardent Zionist. Similarly with Wolfowitz, Perle, Herbits, Wurmser, etc. Silverstein, Lauder, Lowy and Eisenberg are all prominent Zionists. These are not baseless speculations. These are well publicized facts available on the Zionist's own websites.
_________________
"When the people fear their government, there is tyranny; when the government fears the people, there is liberty." ~ Thomas Jefferson
"Those who would give up Essential Liberty to purchase a little Temporary Safety, deserve neither Liberty nor Safety." ~ Pennsylvania Historical Review (1759)

ian neal
Angel - now passed away

Joined: 26 Jul 2005
Posts: 3140
Location: UK

Posted: Wed Feb 13, 2008 2:46 pm Post subject:

Alulim wrote:

The problem is that trying to get people to even think about the subject is a good way to be excluded from any medium of communication.

This is true but I wonder why you think this is so?

Why do you think holocaust revision is so emotive and sensitive?

Could it be that the holocaust revisionist movement is so closely associated and entwined with neo-nazi, far-right, fascists?

And could it be that whilst those supporting the call for a renewed debate on the holocaust and WWII repeatedly fail to denounce the fascists and racists in their midst they will always be lumped together with these fascists?

Repeatedly on this site a few posters have posted links to articles and speeches by people such as

Eustace Mullins or
the Winkler article I objected to earlier in this thread or
to sites which link to and so promote the work of people like ex KKK wizard David Duke

and numerous posts have been made in praise of the Ahmadinejad Holocaust conference which gave a prominent platform to David Duke.

And amongst those users who start holocaust and zionism related discussion precious little complaint was made despite the fact that by posting these links users were perpuating the association between holocaust revision and neo-nazism. So allow me to give you the opportunity to draw a clear line in the sand

Do you or do you not have a problem with holocaust revisionism being associated with fascists and nazis such as Eustace Mullins, David Duke and Winkler?

Why the holocaust?

It is widely acknowledged that the powers that be are seeking to associate 9/11 truth with holocaust denial and neo-nazism. Those provoking a debate on HR on this forum need to understand why it is such an emotive issue and why I and many others in the truth movement will automatically be suspicious of HR community until it puts its own house in order and refuses to work with people like David Duke and be associated with neo-nazis.

Which is why I continue to ask why does the holocaust matter?

There are plenty of other examples like USS Liberty and events of today that will better expose the power, criminality and deviousness of MOSSAD and zionist war criminals like PNAC which avoid associating the truth movement with nazis and hitler sympathisers.

ian neal
Angel - now passed away

Joined: 26 Jul 2005
Posts: 3140
Location: UK

Posted: Wed Feb 13, 2008 2:52 pm Post subject:

Alulim wrote:

ian neal wrote:

LFJ wrote:

..... people who questioned it would be pitied as educationally subnormal....

call it evidence of the public has been brainwashed if you want but this is precisely how the vast majority of British people view holocaust deniers

And you perpetuate the lie.

Is it a lie?

Whilst I wouldn't use the words educationally subnormal, I do consider nazis and fascists as emotional and intellectual cripples and until the holocaust revisionist movement takes clear action to disassociate itself with fascists and hitler sympathisers it will deserve to be shunned

Alulim
Validated Poster

Joined: 18 Dec 2007
Posts: 290
Location: New Albion

Posted: Wed Feb 13, 2008 3:05 pm Post subject:

ian neal wrote:

Alulim wrote:

The problem is that trying to get people to even think about the subject is a good way to be excluded from any medium of communication.

This is true but I wonder why you think this is so?

Why do you think holocaust revision is so emotive and sensitive?

That's how religious dogmas are maintained in the face of evidence to the contrary.

ian neal wrote:

Could it be that the holocaust revisionist movement is so closely associated and entwined with neo-nazi, far-right, fascists?

Is that what your TV told you?

ian neal wrote:

And could it be that whilst those supporting the call for a renewed debate on the holocaust and WWII repeatedly fail to denounce the fascists and racists in their midst they will always be lumped together with these fascists?

http://vehme.blogspot.com/2007/12/911-truth-is-anti-fascist-respnse-to .html

ian neal wrote:

Repeatedly on this site a few posters have posted links to articles and speeches by people such as

Eustace Mullins or
the Winkler article I objected to earlier in this thread or
to sites which link to and so promote the work of people like ex KKK wizard David Duke

As opposed to former Marxist, Trotskyist Kristol?

ian neal wrote:

and numerous posts have been made in praise of the Ahmadinejad Holocaust conference which gave a prominent platform to David Duke.

Prominent in the media.

ian neal wrote:

And amongst those users who start holocaust and zionism related discussion precious little complaint was made despite the fact that by posting these links users were perpuating the association between holocaust revision and neo-nazism. So allow me to give you the opportunity to draw a clear line in the sand

Do you or do you not have a problem with holocaust revisionism being associated with fascists and nazis such as Eustace Mullins, David Duke and Winkler?

I don't know that your characterization of these people is accurate. Duke was in the KKK over 30 years ago. I object to knee-jerk sensationalism being used to squelch legitimate discussion.

ian neal wrote:

Why the holocaust?

One Big Lie begets another.

ian neal wrote:

Which is why I continue to ask why does the holocaust matter?

Ask Victoria Ashley what I said about that. I assure you she does not have the integrity to provide you with an honest answer, but I welcome the opportunity to be proven wrong. And, yes, since she is one of the 9/11 gatekeepers, and my comments were made several months ago, it matters.
_________________
"When the people fear their government, there is tyranny; when the government fears the people, there is liberty." ~ Thomas Jefferson
"Those who would give up Essential Liberty to purchase a little Temporary Safety, deserve neither Liberty nor Safety." ~ Pennsylvania Historical Review (1759)

Alulim
Validated Poster

Joined: 18 Dec 2007
Posts: 290
Location: New Albion

Posted: Wed Feb 13, 2008 3:18 pm Post subject:

ian neal wrote:

My guess is that Germar Rudolf has an IQ above 160.
_________________
"When the people fear their government, there is tyranny; when the government fears the people, there is liberty." ~ Thomas Jefferson
"Those who would give up Essential Liberty to purchase a little Temporary Safety, deserve neither Liberty nor Safety." ~ Pennsylvania Historical Review (1759)

LFJ
Banned
Banned

Joined: 03 Feb 2008
Posts: 79

Posted: Wed Feb 13, 2008 3:26 pm Post subject:

ian neal wrote:

call it evidence of the public has been brainwashed if you want but this is precisely how the vast majority of British people view holocaust deniers

Ok that sounds like a great idea we call it what we want and then you call it what you want.. bit like cowboys and Indians.. can I have the fastest horse?
I was like the vast majority of British people who viewed it like a religion that has been spoon fed to us from birth till I realized most of what I "assumed" was untrue.. The "Vast Majority of British People" would realize the same which is why the "Facts must be suppressed and the Propaganda stepped up"

ian neal wrote:

Whilst I wouldn't use the words educationally subnormal, I do consider nazis and fascists as emotional and intellectual cripples and until the holocaust revisionist movement takes clear action to disassociate itself with fascists and hitler sympathisers it will deserve to be shunned

What nonsense Ian... your starting to sound like George Bush "Your either with us or your with the Terrreriirrssssssttt!!!"
More Zionist propaganda.. every revisionist is a Nazi or Fascist.. yawn!!
I'm no Nazi! Aber Ich haben fur 8 Jahren in Berlin gewohnt und verstehen
scheisse sprachen wahn ich horen...
_________________
LFJ is no antisemite or 9 11 truth critic He's anti Zionist Anti A Jones - its not his fault this heavily censored little forum has too many people calling themselves stupid titles & manufacturing self importance - any more than 2 people running this little audio less forum is absurd...

ian neal
Angel - now passed away

Joined: 26 Jul 2005
Posts: 3140
Location: UK

Posted: Wed Feb 13, 2008 3:28 pm Post subject:

Alulim wrote:

ian neal wrote:

Why the holocaust?

One Big Lie begets another.

There are many many big lies you could choose to focus on but HR is associated with neo-nazism which is why I ask the question

LFJ
Banned
Banned

Joined: 03 Feb 2008
Posts: 79

Posted: Wed Feb 13, 2008 3:35 pm Post subject:

ian neal wrote:

There are many many big lies you could choose to focus on but HR is associated with neo-nazism which is why I ask the question

Stay on Topic Ian don't demonize, moralise or look for excuse's to go off on some tangent!....
_________________
LFJ is no antisemite or 9 11 truth critic He's anti Zionist Anti A Jones - its not his fault this heavily censored little forum has too many people calling themselves stupid titles & manufacturing self importance - any more than 2 people running this little audio less forum is absurd...

Alulim
Validated Poster

Joined: 18 Dec 2007
Posts: 290
Location: New Albion

Posted: Wed Feb 13, 2008 3:44 pm Post subject:

Before you dismiss this as completely inane have a look at We Have Some Planes

Quote:

http://www.therockalltimes.co.uk/2002/04/22/sharon-trial.html

That Arial Sharon war crimes trial in full
EXCLUSIVE: We obtain first draft of script
by Lester Haines

Following Israel's recent incursions into the West Bank and Gaza, and amid international calls for an enquiry into its army's conduct there, The Rockall Times can exclusively reveal that Hollywood scriptwriters have already completed a first draft for the Ariel Sharon war crimes trial, and have submitted it for approval to the US State Department.

And we can confirm that the 4,000-page document — assuming there are no last-minute rewrites — will ensure peace in the Middle East and justice for the Palestinians. We reproduce an extract here for the first time:

Scene: INT. DAY. A packed and hushed courtroom as the trial against Adolph Sharon approaches its climax. Sharon, flanked by two US marines, looks unconcerned as the judges review the evidence for the final time.

JUDGE: And so, Mr Sharon, would you please repeat to the court your movements on the night of 15-16 April 2002?

SHARON: As I have said already, I was playing Mah Jong with my mother's sister.

JUDGE: And so you had no knowledge of events inside the Jenin refugee camp which resulted in the slaughter of hundreds of Palestinians?

SHARON: How could I have? Like I said, we played Mah Jong and then watched Fiddler on the Roof.

JUDGE: Yes, I very much enjoyed Topol's performance. Do you have the soundtrack album?

SHARON: I'm sorry, I lent it to Yasser Arafat.

JUDGE: I see. Therefore, Mr Sharon, it is safe to say that — occupied as you were with Mah Jong and Fiddler on the Roof — you could not possibly have had any influence over events on that fateful occasion?

SHARON: No.

JUDGE: Would it not be reasonable to suggest that, as Israeli Prime Minister, you might have in fact had intimate knowledge of your own country's military activities?

SHARON: [Irritated] I received a call from the commander-in-chief and he said: "Adolf, I'm just off to get me some of those suicide-bombing folks." I told him to take care and be careful with the bulldozers.

JUDGE: But is it not also the case that you were responsible for the massacre of hundreds of Palestinian civilians in the Sabra and Chatila camps 18 years ago which saw you removed from government at the time?

SHARON: Ach. That was just a couple of the boys getting carried away. Which is what we did to most of the bodies — carried them away [laughs].

JUDGE: I must say, Mr Sharon, that I find your petulant and dismissive attitude to these charges completely incredible.

Sharon jumps angrily to his feet and is about to launch into a diatribe when he is pre-empted by a furious Slobodan Milosevic.

MILOSEVIC: [Via interpreter] This trial is a farce. You have no jurisdiction over events in sovereign territory.

JUDGE: Mr Milosevic, you are in the wrong court. You trial is next door.

MILOSEVIC: B*llocks to that. I refuse to recognise the authority of this fuc*king court and the fuc*king court next door. You are the spawn of the mothers of Satan and the earth is scorched with the acid of the lies pouring out of your throat. I call as my first witness Attila the Hun...

Milosevic's mike goes dead and he is led from the room muttering ancient Serb curses.

SHARON: I'm with Slobba on this one. You seem to have forgotten one crucial thing — the Nazis murdered six million Jews in the 40s, so we can do what we fuc*king well like.

JUDGE: By God, you're right. Case dismissed.

SHARON: Hold on a minute. What about some compensation?

JUDGE: Agreed. I award the defendant 10 years' unconditional US military and political support, plus immunity from censure in perpetuity.

The court erupts in wild cheering and a hearty rendition of If I were a rich man, da da da da da da da da da da da da da da da...

_________________
"When the people fear their government, there is tyranny; when the government fears the people, there is liberty." ~ Thomas Jefferson
"Those who would give up Essential Liberty to purchase a little Temporary Safety, deserve neither Liberty nor Safety." ~ Pennsylvania Historical Review (1759)

simplesimon
Moderate Poster

Joined: 08 Nov 2007
Posts: 249

Posted: Wed Feb 13, 2008 5:20 pm Post subject:

Bushwacker wrote:

Quote:

Poor confused simplesimon, the answer is on the web page, where you obviously missed the statement, "Of the three-hour speech, only the five and a half minutes presented in this movie concerns the destruction of the Jews" and the complete text is the complete text of the part of the speech that is in the movie. Simple really, simon.

It is plainly, manifestly deceptive. Yes I did miss that statement, focussing as I was on the blatant lies no-one can fail to notice. Since you mention it though, 5 1/2 minutes of 3 hours? 3.1% ? Mmmm....

Dogsmilk wrote:

Quote:

If I were to write a list of all the simple questions of mine that have been ignored over time, my fingers would be sore from typing.

So, I can only assume that the answer to my question is "none at all".

Quote:

Quote:
Makes sense to me.

Could you elaborate?

Ausrottung (aus=out, rottung=rooting). Out-rooting. The German isn't very different from English.

Quote:

Himmler uses "evacuation" and "extermination"

Or "uprooting".

Quote:

in the same line because "the evacuation of the Jews" was like sending them "to the East", or like "special action", "special treatment". - it's a euphemism.

Euphemism? You mean he was talking in code of some sort?

Quote:

The fact

It is an allegation which, the more I look into, the less credible it seems.

Quote:

Himmler links this with extermination so explicitly (and it actually makes more sense this way than to say "evacuation" then clarify it as "uprooting")

Only if you are a holocaustian. Seems otherwise to me, as I lose my faith. "Uprooting" seems to me to be an appropriate metaphor for "remove from our society", which is quite different.

Quote:

is one of the reasons deniers need to make this speech mean something other than it so f*cking obviously does.

Well with all these "euphemisms" and so much "coded speech", there would seem to be plenty of room for different interpretation. "Sending them to the East" apparently doesn't obviously mean send them to the er, East. Who holds the key to this mysterious code?

From "Hoax or Holocaust", Jurgen Graf:
There are no original texts of the speeches. Himmler is allegedly supposed to have
had the text of these (and other) speeches written down later with a typewriter -- for
whom? For posterity? To ensure that posterity would finally possess unequivocal
proof of a Holocaust? As noted by the British historian David Irving, the critical
passages, i.e., the passages which "prove the Holocaust", were inserted later, as may
be seen from the different indentations on the pages concerned (25).

BTW I'll be quoting from others on this topic much more from now on. It's so much quicker. It's all very well for you to respect my using my "own arguments rather than just posting or linking to someone else's", and I'm suitably flattered, but frankly that is starting to look like part of your strategy. Not flattery so much, but to make work for others.

So if someone else's work seem to me to make sound arguments, and make claims of fact which seem relevant, well, it's just less work.

Of course I don't know if it is a "fact" that the indentation is different on the pages concerned, just as you don't know otherwise "as a fact".

Quote:

This is core denier methodology -
You take each piece of evidence, rip it from its context and must make it mean something else. Ideally, you change the meaning in such a way you can add an entirely new context.

Like change uproot and throw out to "exterminate".

Quote:

deniers will be apt to say "it's a fake" or "this section has been carefully edited to make him say these things"

Whereas holocaustians would have us believe that fakery for propaganda purposes is a recent development.

Quote:

Quote:
I would say that "the moderators are letting us down", but I'm for free speech, against censorship, and for letting readers make their own minds up.

How are the moderators letting us down? Who has censored you?

I was paraphrasing Stefan in another thread, who seemed to be advocating censorship.

Quote:

What the f*ck is a "holocaustian" website?

One which is holocaustian in nature and outlook. Obvious really.

Quote:

Why do you keep saying Chutzpah?

–noun Slang.
1. unmitigated effrontery or impudence; gall.
2. audacity; nerve.

"Chutzpah".
As in to title a page "The Complete Text of the Poznan Speech" and in the first sentence slip in that it's nothing of the sort. As in to say "what you are hearing" when you're reading. As in to shift the question of whether the ICRC report mentions gas chambers to whether it denies gas chambers. As in to say 'Whether it happened or not is not subject to debate'. As in to burn books in the name of freedom. As in to compare debate about what happened during the war to debate about whether the earth is a globe. As in to say that children today can be "eye witnesses" to what happened 60 odd years ago. Etc. etc. etc..

Quote:

I'd personally say Churchill vastly exaggerates the role of Jews in Bolshevism...

Henry Ford would not agree, and apparently neither would plenty of others at the time... perhaps you will say they were just nasty racists or something, in which case you will of course provide evidence.

.......George Pitter-Wilson, of the London Globe, who wrote early in April, 1919, "Bolshevism is the dispossession of the Christian
nations of the world to such an extent that no capital will remain in the hands of the Christians, that all Jews may jointly hold the world in their hands and reign wherever they choose."

........The Chicago Tribune, however, on Saturday, June 19, 1920, printed in the first column of the first page a cable dispatch from John Clayton, its special correspondent, under the heading: "Trotsky Leads Jew-Radicals to World Rule. Bolshevism Only a Tool for His Scheme." The first paragraph reads as follows:

"For the last two years army intelligence officers, members of the various secret service
organizations of the Entente, have been bringing in reports of a world revolutionary
movement other than Bolshevism. At first these reports confused the two, but latterly the
lines they have taken have begun to be more and more clear."

The Dearborn Independent, various 1920.

Members Jews Percentage
The Council of the Commissaries of the People 22 17 77.2%
The Commissariat of War 43 33 76.7%
The Commissariat of Foreign Affairs 16 13 81.2%
The Commissariat of Finance 30 24 80.0%
The Commissariat of Justice 21 20 95.2%
The Commissariat of Public Instruction 53 42 79.2%
The Commissariat of Social Assistance 6 6 100.0%
The Commissariat of Work 8 7 87.5%
Delegates of the Bolshevik Red Cross to
Berlin, Vienna, Varsovie, Bucharest, Copenhagen 8 8 100.0%
Commissaries of the Provinces 23 21 91.3%
Journalists 41 41 100.0%

[The Dearborn Independent, issue of 25 September 1920]

In the American Hebrew, for September 10, 1920, an article appears which not only acknowledges
and explains the part which the Jew plays in the present unrest and upheaval, but justifies it -- and
justifies it, curiously enough, by The Sermon on the Mount.
The writer says that "the Jew evolved organized capitalism with its working instrumentality, the
banking system."
This is very refreshing, in view of the numerous Jewish denials of this economic fact.
"One of the impressive phenomena of the impressive time is the revolt of the Jew against the
Frankenstein that his own mind conceived and his own hand fashioned * * *" If this is true, why is
Jewish "organized capital with its working instrumentality, the banking system" supporting the revolt?
"That achievement (referring to the Russian overthrow), destined to figure in history as the
overshadowing result of the World War, was largely the outcome of Jewish thinking, of Jewish
discontent, of Jewish effort to reconstruct."

Perhaps this last writer was "self hating". Who can say?

All of which proves nothing of course, just as your extracts from holocaustian sources prove nothing.

ian neal
Angel - now passed away

Joined: 26 Jul 2005
Posts: 3140
Location: UK

Posted: Wed Feb 13, 2008 5:44 pm Post subject:

LFJ wrote:

ian neal wrote:

There are many many big lies you could choose to focus on but HR is associated with neo-nazism which is why I ask the question

Stay on Topic Ian don't demonize, moralise or look for excuse's to go off on some tangent!....

Oh but that is entirely the subject

Since the topic is about zionist propaganda

And part of that propaganda is to associate 9/11 truth with HR and to associate HR with neo-nazism.

Now until HR puts its own house in order and refuses to work with fascists the connection between HR and neo-nazism is wholly justified. It is even demonstrated on this thread by the posting of Andrew Winkler's antisemitic article.

So like I say until HRers disassociate themselves with fascists I will keep asking why this lie (when there are so many other lies to talk of)

Cui bono

The very zionists you suupposedly denounce, that's who

ian neal
Angel - now passed away

Joined: 26 Jul 2005
Posts: 3140
Location: UK

Posted: Wed Feb 13, 2008 6:48 pm Post subject:

LFJ wrote:

ian neal wrote:

Nonsense yourself.

I'm not saying every revisionist is a nazi. I'm saying that the failure of HR movement to draw a clear line in the sand and disassociate themselves from the nazis in their midst means that HR is rightly associated with the far-right and fascism.

Or are you honestly saying that the connections between HR and neo-nazi groups is all zionist propaganda.

LFJ
Banned
Banned

Joined: 03 Feb 2008
Posts: 79

Posted: Wed Feb 13, 2008 7:14 pm Post subject:

ian neal wrote:

Since the topic is about zionist propaganda
And part of that propaganda is to associate 9/11 truth with HR and to associate HR with neo-nazism.

I speak for myself not Nazi new or old, or Fascism either I'm just a guy who want's to know what's really going on... but I am not so sure about what your saying... and the fact that I have heard the "Oh their gonna associate 9/11 truth with HR" over and over from the same disinfo source's that keep shouting "oh their gonna go into Iran next " which of course is BS designed to buy time by distraction for Iraq..Im thinking is it possible this is some kind of pre-emptive disinfo being put out to try and polarize these 2 groups? Basicly HR and 9 11 truth have a common enemy and the revisionist's have been fighting it a lot longer than 9 11 truth!
>Z I O N I S M<
_________________
LFJ is no antisemite or 9 11 truth critic He's anti Zionist Anti A Jones - its not his fault this heavily censored little forum has too many people calling themselves stupid titles & manufacturing self importance - any more than 2 people running this little audio less forum is absurd...

Dogsmilk
Mighty Poster

Joined: 06 Oct 2006
Posts: 1616

Posted: Wed Feb 13, 2008 7:50 pm Post subject:

Alulim wrote:

Dogsmilk wrote:

I'd personally say Churchill vastly exaggerates the role of Jews in Bolshevism and its secular nature means it isn't exactly 'Judaic'.

So Einstein wasn't Jewish? He certainly wasn't a believer in the Torah.

Dogsmilk wrote:

There are differences, sure, but I really do wonder why people seem to avoid at all costs the similarity of the narratives and the way they are invoked.

Anachronistic?

Dogsmilk wrote:

I'd say whether Einstein was Jewish or not is ultimately up to him in terms of how he saw his identity. As it is, there's nothing intrinsiclly 'Jewish' about Bolshevism which is its own basically athesistic ideology.

Anachronistic - I'd say an awful lot of ancient fairy tales are kicking around here.

If book A has more footnotes than Book B it does not follow that the content of book A will be superior.
You know as well as I do that both these chumps have been caught quote-mining, distorting and outright lying more times than Pete Doherty has said he's quitting drugs.

None of them were Muslims - and?
I'd agree there are a lot of people with Zionist beliefs in the American administration - I just don't think it's the be-all and end-all.
I also think there are a lot of people with Nazi beliefs in the Holocaust denial scene - something you don't seem to want to face up to.

Slightly nonsense reply there chief, but I just wanted to get a response to ss in in without ignoring you.

Simplesimon -

Look sparky, you go rewriting German all you like and totally ignore the resulting incoherence if it makes you happy. I mean, for f*cks sake,

Quote:

So you have trouble following what they're saying and it's some kind of "deception"? I wasn't deceived and neither was Bushwacker because it's pretty f*cking obvious what they mean.
Do you really, really think you (and HHP) want three hours of Himmler speaking with the interesting five minutes stuck somewhere in the middle????
For God's sake, they even tell you how you can get a copy of the whole thing if you're that bothered.
There is nothing deceptive whatsoever. You have simply ignored everything else but the fact you can't get your head round the concept of there being a five minute excerpt from a three hour speech and deciding it's some kind of deception. What blatant lies?

Quote:

So, I can only assume that the answer to my question is "none at all".

Assume away. you'd be wrong, except I don't really think in terms of "conspiracies" more in terms of things that don't stack up for me.

Quote:

Splash out, buy some key texts, and study the f*cking subject.

Quote:

From "Hoax or Holocaust", Jurgen Graf:
There are no original texts of the speeches. Himmler is allegedly supposed to have
had the text of these (and other) speeches written down later with a typewriter -- for
whom? For posterity? To ensure that posterity would finally possess unequivocal
proof of a Holocaust? As noted by the British historian David Irving, the critical
passages, i.e., the passages which "prove the Holocaust", were inserted later, as may
be seen from the different indentations on the pages concerned (25).

See - there we go - this is exactly why HHP are keen to point out the recording has not been edited.
On one hand you're saying the speech is perfectly innocent, on the other it's a fake. Typical denier logic.
On one hand there's no evidence for the Holocaust, on the other incredulousness that such evidence exists - despite the fact it's - er - totally innocent. Typical denier logic.
Just chucking out assertions with no concern whatsoever as to whether they're consistent with one another because truth is simply not your concern. You're learning this Holocaust denial malarky fast, I'll give you that.

Quote:

BTW I'll be quoting from others on this topic much more from now on. It's so much quicker. It's all very well for you to respect my using my "own arguments rather than just posting or linking to someone else's", and I'm suitably flattered, but frankly that is starting to look like part of your strategy. Not flattery so much, but to make work for others.

Actually that was a perfectly genuine compliment. I've always kinda liked Rodin, despite his messed up views, because he constructed his own arguments based on 'evidence' and I think that's actually debating rather than just posting something and saying "read that" and pretending you're making a case.
But "part of your strategy" What the f*ck is that supposed to mean? Can you actually have a conversation without trying to read something into everything anyone says??? No wonder you can't follow HHP's website -you're probably too busy trying to deduce the malign subtext 'they' put there just for you.

Quote:

holocaustian.

For God's sake...

Quote:

Like change uproot and throw out to "exterminate

Jesus...

Quote:

One which is holocaustian in nature and outlook. Obvious really.

For crying out loud...

You know why I asked you why you keep saying Chutzpah.

Quote:

As in to shift the question of whether the ICRC report mentions gas chambers to whether it denies gas chambers.

I haven't read the ICRC report so don't know much about it. I realise you find them 'suspicious' on the grounds they're international - you presumably would prefer the Nationalist Isolationist Red Cross - if it's happening abroad, that's their problem! - yet did you actually read the same article as me? You originally said the same thing -

Quote:

So when I read of the Red Cross report in which apparently there is no mention of gas chambers, I was curious. You won't be surprised to learn that I haven't read the report. I might do one day. In the meantime I searched google with <red cross no mention gas chambers>.

The first result was from Nizkor (100% affirmers)
http://www.nizkor.org/ftp.cgi/people/l/lipstadt.deborah/ftp.py?people/ l/lipstadt.deborah//citations/red-cross.report

There is much talk of “long a staple part of the denial diet”, “scholastic duplicity” and the like. If one reads it quickly and without care, one could come away with the impression that Nizkor assert that the report DOES mention gas chambers.

Yet the article in question says -

Quote:

Harwood could make this claim only by ignoring key sections of the
ICRC report. The Red Cross was absolutely specific about the Jews'
fate. It made reference to the Nazi attempt to annihilate them,
observing that under Nazi rule Jews had been transformed into
'outcasts condemned by rigid racial legislation to suffer tyranny,
persecution and _systematic extermination_.'<49> ...Most important,
the ICRC specifically delineated how systematic annihilation was
carried out: 'They were penned into concentration camps and
ghettos, recruited for forced labour, subjected to grave
brutalities and sent to _death camps_ without anyone being allowed
to intervene in those matters.'<50> These were not the ICRC's only
references to death camps or systematic annihilation." (Lipstadt,
114-115)

Which is simply not saying what you're saying it does.

Quote:

Henry Ford would not agree,

Look Simon, if you seriously think I am going to get into some debate about whether the Internationalf*ckingJew was some sort of accurate reflection of da jooos you are seriously dreaming. What next? the Rabbi's speech?! Houston Stewart Chamberlain? the eternal Jew?

I have better things to do than kick around the 911 Nazi fun palace.

It's Ian Neal I really feel for.
_________________
It's a man's life in MOSSAD

brian
Validated Poster

Joined: 18 Aug 2005
Posts: 611
Location: Scotland

Posted: Wed Feb 13, 2008 8:00 pm Post subject:

Jürgen Graf: An Interview Written by Richard Widmann Tuesday, 12 February 2008 In January, I was fortunate to be able to conduct the following interview with leading Swiss revisionist researcher, author, and scholar Jürgen Graf.-- http://www.ziopedia.org/articles/holocaust%10revisionism/j%c3%bcrgen_g raf%3a_an_interview/

LFJ
Banned
Banned

Joined: 03 Feb 2008
Posts: 79

Posted: Wed Feb 13, 2008 8:22 pm Post subject:

Dogsmilk wrote:

I'd say whether Einstein was Jewish or not is ultimately up to him in terms of how he saw his identity. As it is, there's nothing intrinsically 'Jewish' about Bolshevism which is its own basically athesistic ideology.

Hmm?... is there anything intrinsiclly 'Jewish' about Neo conservatism but then again the Provisional IRA didn't really consult their Catechism books when they were blowing the * out of the British mainland.. but I suppose you could say they weren't "intrinsically Catholic" even though they were exclusively Catholic.. as the Neocons were/are exclusively Jewish(C'mon there's bound to be a crypto!).... So (just to annoy you!) apart from Stalin can you name me a Bolshevik leader that wasn't Jewish?
_________________
LFJ is no antisemite or 9 11 truth critic He's anti Zionist Anti A Jones - its not his fault this heavily censored little forum has too many people calling themselves stupid titles & manufacturing self importance - any more than 2 people running this little audio less forum is absurd...

Anthony Lawson
Validated Poster

Joined: 20 Feb 2007
Posts: 370
Location: Phuket, Thailand

Posted: Thu Feb 14, 2008 5:23 am Post subject: Clarity

Clarity

ian neal wrote:

It means whatever you want it to mean

What I mean by it is that we should be the change we wish to see in the world and that fear should play no part in our thinking. It means the individuals that make up the truth movement should treat others as they would wish to be treated themselves.

"No fear. Become the campaign and change you want to see and it will be done."

If you are using "change" as a noun, it really requires an article to make it clear that it is not a verb with its object missing. A comma before the final "and", would also help, and "Have" at the beginning would round things off.

Have no fear. Become the campaign and the change you want to see, and it will be done.

Maybe even "Resist fear..."

It is still a pretty ambitions hope, but the meaning is now less obscure.
_________________
The truth won't set you free, but identifying the liars could help make the world a better place.

karlos
Validated Poster

Joined: 26 Feb 2007
Posts: 2516
Location: london

Posted: Thu Feb 14, 2008 6:51 am Post subject:

LFJ wrote:

I was like the vast majority of British people who viewed it like a religion that has been spoon fed to us from birth till I realized most of what I "assumed" was untrue

me too
i used to believe as well
but any sane person who looks at the facts soon realises the official story is propaganda and therefore a lie

why not give examples of Jews such as Norman Finklstein and Naturei Karta who are obviously not nazis but agree the official story is wrong
cooked up by New York lawyers and powerul peole like the Bronfmans.
_________________

Anthony Lawson
Validated Poster

Joined: 20 Feb 2007
Posts: 370
Location: Phuket, Thailand

Posted: Thu Feb 14, 2008 9:13 am Post subject: Guilt by Association?

Guilt by Association?

ian neal wrote:

Alulim wrote:

The problem is that trying to get people to even think about the subject is a good way to be excluded from any medium of communication.

Here we go again, those of us who believe that there is a requirement to justify the history “record”, as it is recounted by those who have something to gain by some of its more obvious inaccuracies, are being lumped together with alleged extremists who may have a completely different agenda.

Ian Neal asks questions which seem to be thinly disguised statements, because he appears to believe that holocaust revisionism is “closely associated and entwined with neo-nazi, far-right, fascists”, but ignores the fact that not all people who doubt the historical accuracy of the 6,000,000-million-gassed-to-death-Jews story are “neo-nazi, far-right, fascists” as the Anti Defamation League would have everyone believe. Had he not wished to convey this thought, then he should have pointed out what I have just done.

He then goes on to imply that, in order not to be associated with these divisive elements, it is a requirement of anyone who wants to know the truth—about anything, I presume—to continually denounce those who might be seeking it—the truth—in order to bolster their own agendas, even if the independent truth-seeker has little or no idea of what these agendas are, or how potentially dangerous to any given society they may be.

Dogsmilk wrote:

Irving (who again is where you got this from. Is he your hero?) seems to have a thing about notable people who said things about Jews, particularly in private.

That is another example of being tarred-by-question: Quoting someone whose views on certain issues are not universally approved does not make that person “your hero” and Dogsmilk knows it, but still goes ahead with the intended slur against Alulim. I have read some of Irving’s work, and I do not think of him as a Nazi sympathiser. He seems to admire what Hitler was attempting to do for Germany, which does not mean that he admired or condoned all of his methods, and there are many passages in “Hitler’s War” which demonstrate this. I also admire Irving for standing up to his detractors and for helping to keep the idea that the historical record may not be as accurate as some people would like us all to believe. Of course he may be quite wrong, in some instances, but that should not mean that he deserves to be put on trial for his sincerely held views, which also goes for Zundell, Faurisson, Rudolf and all of the others who have fallen foul of the ADL’s henchmen and women.

The second part of Dogsmilk’s quote is another attempted slur on Irving, and possibly Alulim, but, when closely examined, it is totally meaningless: He is singling out things said about Jews in private, when there are probably more things said in private about all kinds of people, as well as about any subject you care to think of than are said publicly or published. Big Deal!

It would be really interesting to know, in simple words, what Ian Neal and Dogsmilk actually think about the legitimacy, or otherwise, of perpetuating myths which may not have any basis in fact.
_________________
The truth won't set you free, but identifying the liars could help make the world a better place.

blackcat
Validated Poster

Joined: 07 May 2006
Posts: 2376

Posted: Thu Feb 14, 2008 10:19 am Post subject:

LFJ wrote:

they were blowing the * out of the British mainland

Or more specifically the English mainland. That is how stupid the IRA movement is. Scotland and wales are innocent in their eyes and only the English (whover they are) are to blame for their problems.
_________________
"The conflict between corporations and activists is that of narcolepsy versus remembrance. The corporations have money, power and influence. Our sole influence is public outrage. Extract from "Cloud Atlas (page 125) by David Mitchell.

ian neal
Angel - now passed away

Joined: 26 Jul 2005
Posts: 3140
Location: UK

Posted: Thu Feb 14, 2008 11:48 am Post subject: Re: Guilt by Association?

Anthony Lawson wrote:

Guilt by Association?

ian neal wrote:

Alulim wrote:

The problem is that trying to get people to even think about the subject is a good way to be excluded from any medium of communication.

1) I do point out that not all those who question official accounts of the holocaust are neo-nazis, just that some are.

2) I do say HR is entwined with neo-nazism and fascism. Are you seriously denying that this is the case? Do you really need me to go away and dig up examples of fascist groups promoting HR

Whilst it suits the ADL's purposes that criticism of Israel and HR is associated with far-right groups and it is entirely plausible these far-right groups are infiltrated by agents of zionism for this purpose, this does not mean that these links are not there and that they are not real.

The fact that there are posters here who question whether this association is real says it all. "Alleged extremists"? No, there are real life extremists, nothing alleged about them, that promote HR.

3) So if the HR movement does not wish to be seen to be endorsing fascism the simplest solution is don't work with fascists. So for example do not attend HR conferences which give platforms former KKK grand wizards. Do you imagine the organisers of Ahmadinejad's conference were unaware of David Duke's history, why he is so controversial and how this would reflect very badly on HR? Get real

If individuals don't want this association to be applied to them then don't post links to people like Andrew Winkler or Eustace Mullins and don't pretend that the links between HR and fascism (1) don't exist and (2) that these links with fascism are just pure ADL propaganda.

Sure the ADL milk it for all its worth but the HR movement give them plenty of rope to hang themselves by.

My advice (which you are free to take or leave) is if you want to expose the crimes of zionists focus on the USS Liberty and not the holocaust.

If you insist on banging on about the holocaust, do so by avoiding any writers, researchers, websites or groups that are associated with fascism.

Cui bono from attempts to link HR with 9/11

The very zionists that are supposedly being exposed.

ian neal
Angel - now passed away

Joined: 26 Jul 2005
Posts: 3140
Location: UK

Posted: Thu Feb 14, 2008 12:22 pm Post subject: Re: Guilt by Association?

Anthony Lawson wrote:

.....I have read some of Irving’s work, and I do not think of him as a Nazi sympathiser. He seems to admire what Hitler was attempting to do for Germany, which does not mean that he admired or condoned all of his methods, and there are many passages in “Hitler’s War” which demonstrate this..

But such thinking would lead people to believe Irving is a nazi sympathiser, since the modern day equivalent would be finding things to admire in what Bush is trying to do for the US as if Hitler and Bush were seriously trying to do anything positive for either Germany or the US.

I dare say Hitler had some positive things to say about the environment or vegetarianism, but that pails in significance next to his war crimes

LFJ
Banned
Banned

Joined: 03 Feb 2008
Posts: 79

Posted: Thu Feb 14, 2008 3:43 pm Post subject: Re: Guilt by Association?

ian neal wrote:

Why do you think holocaust revision is so emotive and sensitive?
Could it be that the holocaust revisionist movement is so closely associated and entwined with neo-nazi, far-right, fascists?
And could it be that whilst those supporting the call for a renewed debate on the holocaust and WWII repeatedly fail to denounce the fascists and racists in their midst they will always be lumped together with these fascists?

Ian you ask a question and then run off with your suggestion's
Could it be because the holocaust and Nazi are mentioned constantly in the media on a daily basis to suitably demean us?
Could this be why there are so few Germans living in the UK?
and because they notice it and we don't?
Could it be that we just think its normal to have it mentioned constantly every single day in Film's News items quiz programe's, documentries awards ceremonies, soap opera's,... always there drip drip.. to demean us! ......... Its called Psy-ops plain and simple.... which is why imo its almost impossible to have a rational discussion about it with a normal person...
_________________
LFJ is no antisemite or 9 11 truth critic He's anti Zionist Anti A Jones - its not his fault this heavily censored little forum has too many people calling themselves stupid titles & manufacturing self importance - any more than 2 people running this little audio less forum is absurd...

Anthony Lawson
Validated Poster

Joined: 20 Feb 2007
Posts: 370
Location: Phuket, Thailand

Posted: Thu Feb 14, 2008 3:58 pm Post subject: Being tarred with the same brush, again.

Being tarred with the same brush, again.

Ian Neal wrote:

If you insist on banging on about the holocaust, do so by avoiding any writers, researchers, websites or groups that are associated with fascism.

Well now, does that include any factual material that these people refer to, or have uncovered? A truth spoken by someone you perceive as being a bad person is still a truth, isn’t it? Or have I missed something, somewhere?

The way other people use facts cannot be my all-consuming concern, and I am not conscious of “banging on” about the holocaust, and I certainly do not accept that it is my responsibility to continually challenge Fascists or Neo-Nazis for the way they use their research, if it is valid, or the research of historians who have no political axes to grind.

I have previously written, in this thread: “Discrimination is the root of all racist-related evils, and individuals as well as states and religions which teach or preach it deserve no quarter, until it is renounced by those individuals, states and religions.”

I also wrote: “One should not have to defend one's right to detest, or to be ‘anti’ those who practice discrimination, whether because of personal beliefs or because it is the policy of the state in which they live or because it is encouraged and condoned by the so-called sacred teachings in which they collectively believe.”

To the above I would add: I believe I have the right to independently question anything I want to, without, by inference, being automatically linked to Fascists or Nazi sympathisers who may hold similar doubts to mine about the holocaust. I have not quoted any of the people you have mentioned, but I defend the rights of others to do so. If there are consequences, then that is their affair.

You earlier responded to Alulim:

Ian Neal wrote:

Do you or do you not have a problem with holocaust revisionism being associated with fascists and nazis such as Eustace Mullins, David Duke and Winkler?

That is a loaded question. Hitler was fond of dogs, does that make anyone else who is fond of dogs a Nazi? The same applies to the views of someone like David Duke (I am not too familiar with the beliefs of Eustace Mullins): believing that the so-called holocaust is being used as a political tool by Zionists does not mean that my views on race or religion, or anything else for that matter, are anywhere close to Duke’s views on those subjects. Is that too difficult a concept for you to grasp? Perhaps I am wrong, but from a cursory reading of his other posts, it does not appear to apply to Alulim views, either.
_________________
The truth won't set you free, but identifying the liars could help make the world a better place.

Alulim
Validated Poster

Joined: 18 Dec 2007
Posts: 290
Location: New Albion

Posted: Thu Feb 14, 2008 6:01 pm Post subject:

The reasoning (sic) goes like this: "The holocaust" happened. That is not open to debate or question. There is no need to examine the evidence or the methodology used to establish this "self-evident" fact. Anybody who questions "The Holocaust" is suggesting that the Nazis may not have been as bad as they have been made out to be. These "deniers" are therefore "Nazi sympathizers". Nazi sympathizers threaten to facilitate the re-emergence of Nazism and are therefore no better than Nazis. It thus follows that anybody who questions "The Holocaust" wants to rip little Jewish babies from the arms of their crying mothers and throw them into ovens screaming. All of this is, of course, self-evident, and not open to debate or question. _________________ "When the people fear their government, there is tyranny; when the government fears the people, there is liberty." ~ Thomas Jefferson "Those who would give up Essential Liberty to purchase a little Temporary Safety, deserve neither Liberty nor Safety." ~ Pennsylvania Historical Review (1759)

ian neal
Angel - now passed away

Joined: 26 Jul 2005
Posts: 3140
Location: UK

Posted: Thu Feb 14, 2008 6:24 pm Post subject: Re: Guilt by Association?

Once more, really slowly

ian neal wrote:

Note I do NOT say (1) official accounts of the holocaust are not open to revision OR (2) that ALL holocaust revisionists are nazis, just that same are.

LFJ
Banned
Banned

Joined: 03 Feb 2008
Posts: 79

Posted: Thu Feb 14, 2008 7:05 pm Post subject: Re: Guilt by Association?

ian neal wrote:

Once more, really slowly

ian neal wrote:

Note I do NOT say (1) official accounts of the holocaust are not open to revision OR (2) that ALL holocaust revisionists are nazis, just that same are.

Why not just set your hypothetical geography lesson aside ...and deal with the here and now in real time.. not with what people could be or or what could happen... mentioning Nazi and Fascist at every opportunity even in a hypothetical context can only be seen as grandstanding to an audience and not objective thread comment.
_________________
LFJ is no antisemite or 9 11 truth critic He's anti Zionist Anti A Jones - its not his fault this heavily censored little forum has too many people calling themselves stupid titles & manufacturing self importance - any more than 2 people running this little audio less forum is absurd...

Alulim
Validated Poster

Joined: 18 Dec 2007
Posts: 290
Location: New Albion

Posted: Thu Feb 14, 2008 7:53 pm Post subject: Re: Guilt by Association?

LFJ wrote:

ian neal wrote:

"sanity is not statistical" ~ Orwell, 1984

http://news.google.com/news?q=Sudeten
Results 1 - 6 of about 7 for Sudeten. [Only one appears to even hint at reality.]

"Expulsion"? That's a strange word for mass extermination. What my grandmother told me about her distant cousins who were sill in Germany before the war is "There was nobody and nothing left. They killed everybody. It was a bad place to be German".

The hushed-up tragedy of the ethnic Germans in Czechoslovakia

Something which allegedly happened 60 years ago:
http://news.google.com/news?q=holocaust
Results 1 - 10 of about 9,073 for Holocaust.

Something which clearly happened 6 years ago and is central to issues of contemporary geopolitical significance:
http://news.google.com/news?q=9/11
Results 1 - 10 of about 19,890 for 9-11

http://news.google.com/news?q=Nazi
Results 1 - 10 of about 8,973 for Nazi

http://news.google.com/news?q=zionist
Results 1 - 10 of about 3,290 for zionist

Now, correct me if I'm wrong, but the Nazi Party has been defunct for 60 years. OTOH, one of the most influential regimes on the planet today is unabashedly Zionist. Which qualities as newsworthy? And let us not forget that the Zionist movement was inextricably involved in the events of Nazi Germany.

http://news.google.com/news?q=Sylvia+Stolz
Results 1 - 4 of 4 for Sylvia Stolz.
_________________
"When the people fear their government, there is tyranny; when the government fears the people, there is liberty." ~ Thomas Jefferson
"Those who would give up Essential Liberty to purchase a little Temporary Safety, deserve neither Liberty nor Safety." ~ Pennsylvania Historical Review (1759)

Alulim
Validated Poster

Joined: 18 Dec 2007
Posts: 290
Location: New Albion

Posted: Fri Feb 15, 2008 1:05 am Post subject:

I would kill for her! Link Link _________________ "When the people fear their government, there is tyranny; when the government fears the people, there is liberty." ~ Thomas Jefferson "Those who would give up Essential Liberty to purchase a little Temporary Safety, deserve neither Liberty nor Safety." ~ Pennsylvania Historical Review (1759)

Display posts from previous:

	9/11, 7/7 & the War on Freedom Forum Index -> Other Controversies	All times are GMT Goto page Previous 1, 2, 3, 4, 5 ... 14, 15, 16 Next
Page 4 of 16

Jump to:

You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum
You cannot vote in polls in this forum
You cannot attach files in this forum
You can download files in this forum