Holocaust Denial - split from 9-11 Truthers suing Glenn Beck!!

[bill smith]

Note the pissed-off Holocaust-denier in the comments:

"anarchists," "terrorists" and as persons denying the Holocaust."

I see a little bit of Zionist manipulation in this phrase. People who question the extent of German persecution of the Jews before and during WWII are not necessarily "anarchists" and "terrorists." But this phrasing suggests they are all in the same category.

Most people at least question the figure of six million. In any case, why does only Jewish persecution merit special attention and a special name, i.e. THE HOLOCAUST. When millions get slaughtered in Asia or Africa, it's just another day.

Note that no-one at all disagrees with him.

It's prettty obvious by now that the label 'Holocaust Denier' has lost most of it's power. Some think that The Pope was respnsible for this.

To explain-several months ago the Pope took one Bishop Williamsson back into the Holy Roman Church after years of him being excommunicated. This caused great fury in certain circles as Williamson is considered a Holocaust Denier in some circles. He is also sympathetic to the 9/11 Truth Movement.

Anyway moves were initiated behind the scenes to get the Pope to retract his apparent support for the Holocaust-denying Bishop and to remove any perception that the Pope himslf might feel that way.

But you can't win in a diplomatic battle with the Vatican- they've got two thousand years of diplomacy behind them. So eventually the Pope agreed to make a statement.

He got up and said in a public speech that Holocaust denial or minimisation can never be tolerated. Or minimisation....? Now there is a two-speed holocaust. The full six million or any figure of your choosing in between. So the power of the label Holocaust Denier' to castigate is greatly reduced if not exploded altogether. Viva Il Papa.

[Carll68]

It's prettty obvious by now that the label 'Holocaust Denier' has lost most of it's power. Some think that The Pope was respnsible for this.

To explain-several months ago the Pope took one Bishop Williamsson back into the Holy Roman Church after years of him being excommunicated. This caused great fury in certain circles as Williamson is considered a Holocaust Denier in some circles. He is also sympathetic to the 9/11 Truth Movement.

Anyway moves were initiated behind the scenes to get the Pope to retract his apparent support for the Holocaust-denying Bishop and to remove any perception that the Pope himslf might feel that way.

But you can't win in a diplomatic battle with the Vatican- they've got two thousand years of diplomacy behind them. So eventually the Pope agreed to make a statement.

He got up and said in a public speech that Holocaust denial or minimisation can never be tolerated. Or minimisation....? Now there is a two-speed holocaust. The full six million or any figure of your choosing in between. So the power of the label Holocaust Denier' to castigate is greatly reduced if not exploded altogether. Viva Il Papa.

Are you able to validate this quote? If not, why?

If so, what do you think is meant by by " Holocaust denial or minimisation can never be tolerated." ? I will ask again later, as I know you are prone to not only ignore questions, but also (prone to) ignorance on relevant topics.

It is pretty clear slick. If indeed this was said, and if indeed your story is true (I am simply not interested enough to chase down your bone...sorry kid) ... then what is meant is exactlly as stated.

For the delusional 911 twoof bunch, who have trouble with the written word, English comprehension and sentence structure (that is all of them).....what is being said is we should not tolerate those who minimize the number of dead.

What do you think he meant?

[Dr Adequate]

He got up and said in a public speech that Holocaust denial or minimisation can never be tolerated. Or minimisation....? Now there is a two-speed holocaust. The full six million or any figure of your choosing in between. So the power of the label Holocaust Denier' to castigate is greatly reduced if not exploded altogether. Viva Il Papa. Let me ask you a question. Do you agree with the statement "Holocaust denial or minimization can never be tolerated"?

If you answer "Yes", then you agree with the Pope. If you answer "No, Holocaust minimization can be tolerated", then you find yourself in agreement with those who seek to minimize the Holocaust.

[bill smith]

Let me ask you a question. Do you agree with the statement "Holocaust denial or minimization can never be tolerated"?

If you answer "Yes", then you agree with the Pope. If you answer "No, Holocaust minimization can be tolerated", then you find yourself in agreement with those who seek to minimize the Holocaust.

In Eupope some people have gone to prison for Hocaust Denial- even recently . After the Pope's statement future prosecutions wil most likely fail. For how can you jail somebody for disputing the numbers involved in any event ? That is obviously now a matter for bean counters and not the law.

Now Holocaust Denial means what it should have meant all along- saying that it actually never happened at all. Nobody is likely to do that so nobody is likely go to prison for it.

Personally and legally I do not mind if somebody thinks that less than six million were murdered in the gas chambers. Why would I ? I might not believe it myself but I would fight for his right to believe it and say so if he wanted to.

[Justin39640]

In Eupope some people have gone to prison for Hocaust Denial- even recently . After the Pope's statement future prosecutions wil most likely fail. For how can you jail somebody for disputing the numbers involved in any event ? That is obviously now a matter for bean counters and not the law.

Now Holocaust Denial means what it should have meant all alng- saying that it actually never happened at all. Nobody is likely to do that so nobody is likely go to prison for it.

Personally and legally I do not mind if somebody thinks that less than six million were murdered in the gas chambers. Why would I ? I might not believe it myself but I would fight for his right to believe it and say so if he wanted to.

what about the ones who were shot, stabbed, or beaten to death in the street?
burned alive in the warsaw ghetto and other places?
or died during death marches?

[Foolmewunz]

It's prettty obvious by now that the label 'Holocaust Denier' has lost most of it's power. Some think that The Pope was respnsible for this.

To explain-several months ago the Pope took one Bishop Williamsson back into the Holy Roman Church after years of him being excommunicated. This caused great fury in certain circles as Williamson is considered a Holocaust Denier in some circles. He is also sympathetic to the 9/11 Truth Movement.

Anyway moves were initiated behind the scenes to get the Pope to retract his apparent support for the Holocaust-denying Bishop and to remove any perception that the Pope himslf might feel that way.

But you can't win in a diplomatic battle with the Vatican- they've got two thousand years of diplomacy behind them. So eventually the Pope agreed to make a statement.

He got up and said in a public speech that Holocaust denial or minimisation can never be tolerated. Or minimisation....? Now there is a two-speed holocaust. The full six million or any figure of your choosing in between. So the power of the label Holocaust Denier' to castigate is greatly reduced if not exploded altogether. Viva Il Papa.

I do so like it when people show their true colors. As Doc A said, we'd sure like to see your source for that quote. I'd equally like to see where your get your news. This is a flagrant retelling (does the word "revisionist" mean anything to you) of what happened in this case.

You are trying to make it sound as though Benedict had specifically planned to reinstate Williamson The Holocaust Denier. He was not, and he and his advisors and several others stated that he was not aware that in addition to his other transgressions Williamson was a Holocaust denier.

And just why can't you understand that the word minimalize doesn't mean "differ slightly". To minimize something is to make it totally insignificant in the context being discussed, e.g. history.

So Il Papa having read up on the games the neo-nazi trash play, was removing a convenient denialist loophole. "Oh, I don't say it never happened, I just think the ___________ (insert evil world hegemony group of your choice) have overplayed the numbers for dramatic effect." They then go on to explain that Dachau was a happy friendly place where Jews and Gypsies and other sub-humans were sent for their own good.

Get it?

[FineWine]

It's prettty obvious by now that the label 'Holocaust Denier' has lost most of it's power. Some think that The Pope was respnsible for this.

To explain-several months ago the Pope took one Bishop Williamsson back into the Holy Roman Church after years of him being excommunicated. This caused great fury in certain circles as Williamson is considered a Holocaust Denier in some circles. He is also sympathetic to the 9/11 Truth Movement.

Anyway moves were initiated behind the scenes to get the Pope to retract his apparent support for the Holocaust-denying Bishop and to remove any perception that the Pope himslf might feel that way.

But you can't win in a diplomatic battle with the Vatican- they've got two thousand years of diplomacy behind them. So eventually the Pope agreed to make a statement.

He got up and said in a public speech that Holocaust denial or minimisation can never be tolerated. Or minimisation....? Now there is a two-speed holocaust. The full six million or any figure of your choosing in between. So the power of the label Holocaust Denier' to castigate is greatly reduced if not exploded altogether. Viva Il Papa.


In "some" circles, denying the Holocaust is considered Holocaust denial. Those circles are, perhaps coincidentally, round.

[leftysergeant]

Whatever the Holocaust deniers want to call themselves, they are all trying to say that Hitler was not really all that bad.

They are stupid or lying. Hitler was that bad, and I can see no reason for saying that he was not, other than to posthumously rehabilitate him. And the only reason I can see for anyone to want to posthumously rehabilitate that waste of two people's DNA is to make his politcs seem less than totally offensive to the young people of today.

Well, I see no reason to tolerate anyone who wants to do that. Only the laws against assault and battery prevent my putting a fist in their faces when they say it in my presence, but I will and often do exercise my right to call them several varieties of vermin for suggesting such a thing.

I will even put it in print in public and attach specific names to it. I will call people like Bollyn and Hufschmid vermin and enemies of humanity and there is nothing they can do about it. No law suit can touch me.

Truth is an absolute defense.

Twoofers have brought a picnic knife to a gun fight.

[bill smith]

Whatever the Holocaust deniers want to call themselves, they are all trying to say that Hitler was not really all that bad.

They are stupid or lying. Hitler was that bad, and I can see no reason for saying that he was not, other than to posthumously rehabilitate him. And the only reason I can see for anyone to want to posthumously rehabilitate that waste of two people's DNA is to make his politcs seem less than totally offensive to the young people of today.

Well, I see no reason to tolerate anyone who wants to do that. Only the laws against assault and battery prevent my putting a fist in their faces when they say it in my presence, but I will and often do exercise my right to call them several varieties of vermin for suggesting such a thing.

I will even put it in print in public and attach specific names to it. I will call people like Bollyn and Hufschmid vermin and enemies of humanity and there is nothing they can do about it. No law suit can touch me.

Truth is an absolute defense.

Twoofers have brought a picnic knife to a gun fight.

Are you saying that it is better to leave a potentially inaccurate historical record in place for political reasons rather than to correct the historical record and reveal the literal truth of the matter ? A kind of situatonal Truth telling ?

[Orphia Nay]

Are you saying that it is better to leave a potentially inaccurate historical record in place for political reasons rather than to correct the historical record and reveal the literal truth of the matter ? A kind of situatonal Truth telling ?

You're saying it's a potentially inaccurate historical record, yet you're also saying it needs to be corrected. Conspiracy theorists' cognitive dissonance perfectly demonstrated.

[jhunter1163]

Bill, would the Holocaust be any less abhorrent if only three million Jews were killed, instead of six million?

I'll answer that for you. No.

My point is that trying to turn the Holocaust into a mathematical abstraction is just as bad as saying it never happened at all. The world can never and should never forget just how evil Hitler and his ilk were, and any attempt to obscure that is indefensible.

I wish I had Dr. A's language skills to express what I'm feeling more accurately.

Full disclosure: I'm not Jewish, just sickened by Holocaust deniers and minimizers.

[bill smith]

Bill, would the Holocaust be any less abhorrent if only three million Jews were killed, instead of six million?

I'll answer that for you. No.

My point is that trying to turn the Holocaust into a mathematical abstraction is just as bad as saying it never happened at all. The world can never and should never forget just how evil Hitler and his ilk were, and any attempt to obscure that is indefensible.

I wish I had Dr. A's language skills to express what I'm feeling more accurately.

Full disclosure: I'm not Jewish, just sickened by Holocaust deniers and minimizers.

I only call for the Truth. If that Truth is something that interferes with a perception then so be it. Tell me where I am wrong about this ?

[tuc0]

It's prettty obvious by now that the label 'Holocaust Denier' has lost most of it's power. Some think that The Pope was respnsible for this.

To explain-several months ago the Pope took one Bishop Williamsson back into the Holy Roman Church after years of him being excommunicated. This caused great fury in certain circles as Williamson is considered a Holocaust Denier in some circles. He is also sympathetic to the 9/11 Truth Movement.

Anyway moves were initiated behind the scenes to get the Pope to retract his apparent support for the Holocaust-denying Bishop and to remove any perception that the Pope himslf might feel that way.

But you can't win in a diplomatic battle with the Vatican- they've got two thousand years of diplomacy behind them. So eventually the Pope agreed to make a statement.

He got up and said in a public speech that Holocaust denial or minimisation can never be tolerated. Or minimisation....? Now there is a two-speed holocaust. The full six million or any figure of your choosing in between. So the power of the label Holocaust Denier' to castigate is greatly reduced if not exploded altogether. Viva Il Papa.


It's good to see you finally show your true colors, all the while exhibiting your usual lack of logic. Your whole post doesn't make any sense whatsoever. The "minimisation" bit the pope used was in reference to Williamson, who used the old "I'm not denying it, it's just the numbers that are wrong" routine you so love.

But even if you didn't completely misunderstand the context, in what world would "Holocaust denial or minimisation can never be tolerated" mean that "the power of the label Holocaust Denier' to castigate is greatly reduced if not exploded altogether"??!?!?

That. Does. Not. Make. Sense.

[tuc0]

I only call for the Truth. If that Truth is something that interferes with a perception then so be it. Tell me where I am wrong about this ?


Try calling for truth instead of Truth. That would be a major first step in the right direction.

[leftysergeant]

Are you saying that it is better to leave a potentially inaccurate historical record in place for political reasons rather than to correct the historical record and reveal the literal truth of the matter ? A kind of situatonal Truth telling ?
No. I'm saying that a bunch of lying weasels are trying to convince us that they are just correcting the historical record when they are, in fact, out to vandalize it.

Too many of the dirtbags whom I have seen at work in this regard will say as an aside that it is too bad Schickelgruber didn't get more of them.

Their plan is, ultimately, to ammend that mistake.

That's part of why I own firearms.

[bill smith]

No. I'm saying that a bunch of lying weasels are trying to convince us that they are just correcting the historical record when they are, in fact, out to vandalize it.

Too many of the dirtbags whom I have seen at work in this regard will say as an aside that it is too bad Schickelgruber didn't get more of them.

Their plan is, ultimately, to ammend that mistake.

That's part of why I own firearms.

Why not recommend a full scale enquiry that examines all the threads of evidence then ? What would be unreasonable about that ?

[Alt+F4]

Why not recommend a full scale enquiry that examines all the threads of evidence then ? What would be unreasonable about that ?

Yeah, cause "subpoena power" is more effective than waterboarding at getting at "the troof".

[A W Smith]

Why not recommend a full scale enquiry that examines all the threads of evidence then ? What would be unreasonable about that ?


Why? what would it matter? 6 million?, 4 million? 3 million?, Lets compare to 9/11. 3 thousand?, 2900?, 2800?, 2000?, Is it any less a horror? We see right through your attempt at revisionism BS. The only reason to revise the numbers is to deny the tragedy. Has nothing to do with truth.

[bill smith]

Why? what would it matter? 6 million?, 4 million? 3 million?, Lets compare to 9/11. 3 thousand?, 2900?, 2800?, 2000?, Is it any less a horror? We see right through your attempt at revisionism BS. The only reason to revise the numbers is to deny the tragedy. Has nothing to do with truth.

I agree- it WAS a tragedy.It WAS disgusting. And it's good to see that you seem to accept that the numbers may have been exaggerated for whatever reason.

[A W Smith]

I agree- it WAS a tragedy.It WAS disgusting. And it's good to see that you seem to accept that the numbers may have been exaggerated for whatever reason.


I don't know who's post you were reading when you accidentally quoted mine. As I do not accept that the numbers "may have been exaggerated." My point was that Holocaust deniers (that's you) need to minimize the numbers to help support their/your revisionism.

[bill smith]

I don't know who's post you were reading when you accidentally quoted mine. As I do not accept that the numbers "may have been exaggerated." My point was that Holocaust deniers (that's you) need to minimize the numbers to help support their/your revisionism.

No. The words ' Holocaust Denial ' in the Engish language mean literally denying that the Holocaust ever took place. A dispute about the numbers killed is therefore by definition not 'Holocaust Denial'.

It is no different than you saying that Stalin killed 40 million Russians and me saying that he only killed twenty million. This is clearly a matter of opinion and no sin or crime.

[fitzgibbon]

BS,

You familiar with what's meant by the axiom in English about "the thin edge of the wedge" or "slippery slope"? Are you completely incognisant that this revisionism you champion represents exactly the most negative applications of the aforementioned axioms?

What great good is served by arguing how many angels can dance on the head of a pin?

[DavidJames]

I agree- it WAS a tragedy.It WAS disgusting. And it's good to see that you seem to accept that the numbers may have been exaggerated for whatever reason.Simple question Bill. In a thread on 9/11 CT's, why is the number of killed in the holocaust important?

[A W Smith]

No. The words ' Holocaust Denial ' in the Engish language mean literally denying that the Holocaust ever took place. A dispute about the numbers killed is therefore by definition not 'Holocaust Denial'.

It is no different than you saying that Stalin killed 40 million Russians and me saying that he only killed twenty million. This is clearly a matter of opinion and no sin or crime.

http://www.wordwebonline.com/search.pl?w=Holocaust+Denial+

Holocaust denial is the claim that the genocide (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Genocide) of Jews (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jew) during World War II (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/World_War_II)—usually referred to as the Holocaust (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Holocaust)[1] (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Holocaust-denial#cite_note-definition-0)—did not occur at all, or in the manner or to the extent as historically recognized.

[bill smith]

BS,

You familiar with what's meant by the axiom in English about "the thin edge of the wedge" or "slippery slope"? Are you completely incognisant that this revisionism you champion represents exactly the most negative applications of the aforementioned axioms?

What great good is served by arguing how many angels can dance on the head of a pin?

Just as with 9/11 the Truth is paramount. In our own interests the Truth is paramount. Applying your 'thin edge of the wedge'' comment we can never allow the powers that be force us to live in a total lie. Who knows where that would end ? No, we should expose everything and let the chips fall where they may.

[T.A.M.]

Why? what would it matter? 6 million?, 4 million? 3 million?, Lets compare to 9/11. 3 thousand?, 2900?, 2800?, 2000?, Is it any less a horror? We see right through your attempt at revisionism BS. The only reason to revise the numbers is to deny the tragedy. Has nothing to do with truth.

To the Holocaust deniers, it is important because it "Chips away" at the event. Chip a bit here, a number there, an account here and there, and before you know it, they have successfully reduced the account to something their warped, ill informed minds can live with...even if it is further from the truth then the original account. Anything to make "dem nasty jews" look like liars, or at the very least exaggerators, right???

TAM:)

[A W Smith]

http://skepdic.com/holocaustdenial.html

Holocaust denial

The mass extermination of the Jews and other “undesirables” at the hands of the Nazis during World War II is referred to as the Holocaust. It has become a symbol of evil in our time. Like many symbols, the Holocaust has become sacrosanct. To many people, both Jews and non-Jews, the Holocaust symbolizes the horror of genocide against the Jews. Some modern anti-Semites have found that attacking the Holocaust causes as much suffering to some Jews as attacking Jews themselves. “Holocaust denial” refers to attacking the accuracy of any aspect of the symbology or history of the Holocaust.

[bill smith]

http://www.wordwebonline.com/search.pl?w=Holocaust+Denial+

Good. I hope all dictionaries are soon updated to encompass this fuller definition.

[A W Smith]

Chipping away at Bs's BS

Just as with 9/11 the Truth is paramount. In our own interests the Truth is paramount. Applying your 'thin edge of the wedge'' comment we can never allow the powers that be force us to live in a total lie. Who knows where that would end ? No, we should expose everything and let the chips fall where they may.

To the Holocaust deniers, it is important because it "Chips away" at the event. Chip a bit here, a number there, an account here and there, and before you know it, they have successfully reduced the account to something their warped, ill informed minds can live with...even if it is further from the truth then the original account. Anything to make "dem nasty jews" look like liars, or at the very least exaggerators, right???

TAM:)

[tuc0]

No. The words ' Holocaust Denial ' in the Engish language mean literally denying that the Holocaust ever took place. A dispute about the numbers killed is therefore by definition not 'Holocaust Denial'.


Only on the strange planet you seem to inhabit.

This would be Stundie material if it wasn't so disgusting.

[A W Smith]

Good. I hope all dictionaries are soon updated to encompass this fuller definition.


they do not need updating. That is the definition of holocaust denial. look it up.

[bill smith]

Chipping away at Bs's BS

But what are you really saying here ? Do not question ? If it is true it should be impregnable to any attack. This would make the story even stronger. Instead of which there seems to be an attempt to stifle any debate which increases any doubts there may be.

[bill smith]

http://skepdic.com/holocaustdenial.html

'' Holocaust denial” refers to attacking the accuracy of any aspect of the symbology or history of the Holocaust.''

Says who ?

[Whiplash]

I only call for the Truth. If that Truth is something that interferes with a perception then so be it. Tell me where I am wrong about this ?


Oh please.

If you suspect that the current information we have on the holocaust is not truthful, then present evidence to the contrary. Back up your position. All you are doing here is using bumber sticker type feel good slogans. Yes yes, you just seek the truth. Please. Talk about completely intellectual dishonesty.

[A W Smith]

'' Holocaust denial” refers to attacking the accuracy of any aspect of the symbology or history of the Holocaust.''

Says who ?


the world (http://www.google.com/#q=holocaust+denial&hl=en&safe=off&sa=N&start=10&fp=1&cad=b)

[bill smith]

the world (http://www.google.com/#q=holocaust+denial&hl=en&safe=off&sa=N&start=10&fp=1&cad=b)

I think this little video gives a better idea.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_embedded&eurl=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.911blogger.com%2F&hl=en&v=KZeiSKnhOBc&gl=US

[leftysergeant]

Why not recommend a full scale enquiry that examines all the threads of evidence then ? What would be unreasonable about that ?

Because it has been done and a few of the people responsible (far too few of them, in my opinion) got their necks stretched all out of parameters.

Sometiumes I think twoofers aree just using 9/11 to throw mud in people's eyes and convince them that, since government cannot tell the truth about things we all saw happening in NYC, then the stories of what happened out of sight and out of mind in the hinterlands of occupied Poland are probably lies, too. That is what Nazi scum like Dylan and Chris Bollyn had in mind to start with.

[Myriad]

Though it might come as a surprise to several people posting in this thread, there is an entire category of people who investigate and evaluate past events. Most of them are professionally trained; many are employed by colleges and universities. They spend years investigating questions of interest. Depending on the question, that research might include interviewing large numbers of witnesses, searching for previously un-noted primary documents, performing statistical analyses, and mapping (and sometimes even excavating) historical sites. Their primary task, though, is researching as much documentary information about an event as possible, from every available side, so as to synthesize the best-supported narrative possible in the face of inevitably incomplete, biased, and conflicting source information. They publish and defend their findings in peer reviewed papers in journals, conference presentations, and fully referenced monographs, all of which are heavily scrutinized by their professional peers, especially those who take contrary positions on controversial questions in their field.

They're called historians.

Just as with scientists, the weight that is given their assertions is based not on their degrees or titles, but on the quality of the research they present. Just as with scientists, anyone can call himself or herself an historian and declare a conclusion for which there is actually consensus in the field to be "controversial" or "disputed" or "in question," but such declaration does not make it so.

Throwing random numbers around for how many holocaust victims there "might have been" without reference to any historical research establishing those numbers, and without specific challenge to the methods and results achieved over decades by the body of mainstream historians investigating and answering the question, might not be holocaust denial if historians and the study of history did not exist. If all we had to go by is somebody's wild guess, then there'd be nothing wrong with proposing an alternative wild guess and questioning why one guess is believed more than another.

But they do exist, so doing those things is simply holocaust denial.

For which I have yet to conceive any possible motives except anti-semitism and the desire for political rehabilitation of the philosophy of the Third Reich.

Anyone whose concern is for the accuracy of the historical record is welcome to join the historians' intellectual pursuit (if not their actual community -- Gravy is an example of one who has done the work of an historian regarding events of 9/11, but does not regard himself as an historian) and make a case, backed by evidence, for an alternative conclusion. But making an assertion from ignorance -- "we don't know for sure, exactly, so I think the number might be too high" -- does not qualify, and does not demonstrate an admirable concern for the accuracy of the historical record. Quite the contrary.

Respectfully,
Myriad

[bill smith]

Though it might come as a surprise to several people posting in this thread, there is an entire category of people who investigate and evaluate past events. Most of them are professionally trained; many are employed by colleges and universities. They spend years investigating questions of interest. Depending on the question, that research might include interviewing large numbers of witnesses, searching for previously un-noted primary documents, performing statistical analyses, and mapping (and sometimes even excavating) historical sites. Their primary task, though, is researching as much documentary information about an event as possible, from every available side, so as to synthesize the best-supported narrative possible in the face of inevitably incomplete, biased, and conflicting source information. They publish and defend their findings in peer reviewed papers in journals, conference presentations, and fully referenced monographs, all of which are heavily scrutinized by their professional peers, especially those who take contrary positions on controversial questions in their field.

They're called historians.

Just as with scientists, the weight that is given their assertions is based not on their degrees or titles, but on the quality of the research they present. Just as with scientists, anyone can call himself or herself an historian and declare a conclusion for which there is actually consensus in the field to be "controversial" or "disputed" or "in question," but such declaration does not make it so.

Throwing random numbers around for how many holocaust victims there "might have been" without reference to any historical research establishing those numbers, and without specific challenge to the methods and results achieved over decades by the body of mainstream historians investigating and answering the question, might not be holocaust denial if historians and the study of history did not exist. If all we had to go by is somebody's wild guess, then there'd be nothing wrong with proposing an alternative wild guess and questioning why one guess is believed more than another.

But they do exist, so doing those things is simply holocaust denial.

For which I have yet to conceive any possible motives except anti-semitism and the desire for political rehabilitation of the philosophy of the Third Reich.

Anyone whose concern is for the accuracy of the historical record is welcome to join the historians' intellectual pursuit (if not their actual community -- Gravy is an example of one who has done the work of an historian regarding events of 9/11, but does not regard himself as an historian) and make a case, backed by evidence, for an alternative conclusion. But making an assertion from ignorance -- "we don't know for sure, exactly, so I think the number might be too high" -- does not qualify, and does not demonstrate an admirable concern for the accuracy of the historical record. Quite the contrary.

Respectfully,
Myriad

'' For which I have yet to conceive any possible motives except anti-semitism and the desire for political rehabilitation of the philosophy of the Third Reich.''

I beg to differ. Perhaps you should think a little more deeply. If there is any question of the numbers having been exaggerated then we must know the reason for the exaggeration. We need to know whether this potential exaggertion, the notion of which is supported by millions, if not hundreds of millions particularly in the middle east had any cynical motive. This might be an incomfortable Truth for you but the need to know is nevertheless a Truth.

[tfk]

Hey lefty,


Whatever the Holocaust deniers want to call themselves, they are all trying to say that Hitler was not really all that bad.

They are stupid or lying. Hitler was that bad, and I can see no reason for saying that he was not, other than to posthumously rehabilitate him. And the only reason I can see for anyone to want to posthumously rehabilitate that waste of two people's DNA is to make his politcs seem less than totally offensive to the young people of today.


I gotta disagree a bit.

First let's distinguish racists from deniers.
There's a lot of overlap between the two, but some definite (& IMO, hopeful) distinctions.

The racists:
The racists are attempting to rehabilitate the legacy of Hitler. But only as it justifies their own hatred to themselves.

They ARE justifying his politics.
Specifically:
"Blame the Jews, the Gypsies, the French, the Russians, whomever. THEM. THEY did this to us",
"THEY are subhuman & we can do anything we want to them",
"God wants us to rule everyone, and any means to this end is justified",
"Racial purity"
"Killing is natural"
"It is natural for the strong to subjugate the weak."
"They'll do all this to us if they have the chance. The only way to prevent that is to mercilessly subjugate them first."

And these unthinking idiots will adopt any argument that justifies their hate. Holocaust denial is just another convenient one, no different than perverted biology, perverted history or perverted theology. Who cares about these morons, except to point fingers & laugh at them when they (rarely) grow the nads to show their faces in public anymore. And to smack 'em down when they work up the courage to gang up on someone...


The deniers:
The deniers seem to push few of the above agendas. I don't hear very many deniers calling for the US (or whatever country in which they reside) to take over the world. Or to exterminate sub-cultures. Or to justify killing of "undesirables", etc.

There seems to be two consistent issues for the deniers:
The media, historians, political leaders, etc. all lied to us. (i.e., conspiracy)
"The Jews."

I see a lot of young 9/11 CTers who might adamantly (perhaps even honestly) deny being racist, but accept completely holocaust denial, media & historical conspiracy & "the Jews dunnit". Without accepting most of the racist crap above.

It is to society's enormous good fortune that most of these kids will grow out of this temporary insanity called "adolescent rebellion". Or in the case of lefties, Lefty, "prolonged adolescent rebellion". :D


Twoofers have brought a picnic knife to a gun fight.


True dat.

tom

[Horatius]

I agree- it WAS a tragedy.It WAS disgusting. And it's good to see that you seem to accept that the numbers may have been exaggerated for whatever reason.


''For which I have yet to conceive any possible motives except anti-semitism and the desire for political rehabilitation of the philosophy of the Third Reich.''

I beg to differ. Perhaps you should think a little more deeply. If there is any question of the numbers having been exaggerated then we must know the reason for the exaggeration. We need to know whether this potential exaggeration, the notion of which is supported by millions, if not hundreds of millions particularly in the middle east had any cynical motive. This might be an incomfortable Truth for you but the need to know is nevertheless a Truth.


Come now bill, tell us what you really think.


Saying that the numbers were "exaggerated" implies that the numbers were inflated on purpose, rather than by accident. If it was done on purpose, it had to be done by someone, or some group, right? Perhaps, oh, I don't know, some group in the "Middle East" who could profit from it? Who had a "cynical motive"? "Motive", again implying that the numbers were inflated on purpose.

Now, gee, let me think, who could you possibly be trying to implicate here? You wouldn't be trying to suggest, every so subtly, that it was the Jews, would you? No, that couldn't possibly be your motive, could it?

Not unless you were like all the other Holocaust deniers, who seek to establish by implication what they are too chicken **** to come right out and say, that is.


You see, this is why Holocaust Denial, or even "Minimization" as you would have it, is despicable. It's just plain old Nazism with a scared look on its face.


As Myriad said, there are legitimate researchers looking into the actual history of the Holocaust, but those like you, who imply that it is some secret plot by "someone" to "exaggerate" the numbers aren't fit to shine their shoes.

[BenBurch]

No. I'm saying that a bunch of lying weasels are trying to convince us that they are just correcting the historical record when they are, in fact, out to vandalize it.

Too many of the dirtbags whom I have seen at work in this regard will say as an aside that it is too bad Schickelgruber didn't get more of them.

Their plan is, ultimately, to ammend that mistake.

That's part of why I own firearms.

"Those who can make you believe absurdities can make you commit atrocities." -Voltaire

[FineWine]

I only call for the Truth. If that Truth is something that interferes with a perception then so be it. Tell me where I am wrong about this ?



No, you don't "call for the Truth." You eagerly embrace flagrant, egregious lies that support your bizarre political agenda.

[FineWine]

But what are you really saying here ? Do not question ? If it is true it should be impregnable to any attack. This would make the story even stronger. Instead of which there seems to be an attempt to stifle any debate which increases any doubts there may be.


Your style is to make absurd assertions that are easily shown to be errors or falsehoods. You slink away only to resurface and repeat the same nonsense. What you do can't be characterized as debating because you know nothing and aren't capable of learning. There are no "doubts" about the number of Jews killed by the Nazis (recent analyses have moved the six-million estimate up, not down). There are irrational Jew-haters who deny reality for their own sick emotional reasons.

[tfk]

No. The words ' Holocaust Denial ' in the Engish language mean literally denying that the Holocaust ever took place. A dispute about the numbers killed is therefore by definition not 'Holocaust Denial'.

It is no different than you saying that Stalin killed 40 million Russians and me saying that he only killed twenty million. This is clearly a matter of opinion and no sin or crime.


And the tally of all those people who are say "Hitler didn't kill 6 million Jews. He only exterminated 3 million" comes to ZERO.

Now that we've dispensed with that little piece of misdirection, let's tally the tens of thousands who say:

"there was no Holocaust."
"only about 30,000 people were killed."
"The Jews asked for it."
"Rothschild paid Hitler to exterminate the Jews."

Including one very proximate person who, lacking the nads to express it himself, repeatedly states all the above thru puppets.
___

THAT's where the line is drawn on this issue. Not the difference between 6 million Jews (actually 12 million people) vs. 3 million.

[Whiplash]

I beg to differ. Perhaps you should think a little more deeply.


Bill, this is advice you should never, ever give anyone else, ever. Because you demonstrate that you don't think things through just about every time you post, as I will demonstrate:


If there is any question of the numbers having been exaggerated then we must know the reason for the exaggeration.


The ultimate point of what you are saying here can not be taken as anything other than an attempt to demonize jews, or at least certain jews.

Let's walk it through, step by step, ok?

Why would anyone ever desire to "exaggerate" the numbers? Clearly this would be an attempt to manipulate world opinion into one of sympathy towards the group of people who were the victims. You say as much yourself, in questioning why it was exaggerated.

These people, in your mind, are lying and manipulating in order to decieve. Hence, they are completely untrustworthy and bad people.

Where else can it go from there Bill? Honestly?

I submit it leads to exactly what Myriad was suggesting, that it ultimately comes down to how the Third Reich wasn't really all that bad. These people are decietful and trying to manipulate the whole world. It's not so bad that someone tried to stop them once. Right?

But I'm sure you will just proclaim that you are driven only by making sure history is as completely accurate as possible. All the while making simple statements like you did above, about the "exaggerating", that completely expose your inner beliefs and motivations quite clearly.


We need to know whether this potential exaggertion, the notion of which is supported by millions, if not hundreds of millions particularly in the middle east had any cynical motive.


And again, you've been told about a million times, it doesn't matter how many people believe something, if it's incorrect or wrong. It doesn't matter if the entire world belives it.


This might be an incomfortable Truth for you but the need to know is nevertheless a Truth.


And then, maybe the truth was already out there, and known, since right after the war. You know, based on the actual evidence at hand in the aftermath of the war.

And since then, we've had generations of bigots and jew haters who have invented this so called "exaggeration" as nothing more than a further means to allow them to demonize Jews. There is no logical reason to question whether someone exaggerated the numbers other than to make a case that they are untrustworthy and manipulating the world.

What next? Clearly they are lying and untrustworthy, right Bill? What next? Where do you plan to take us? Let's say we agree, so what's the next step Bill?

ETA: I see Horatius already beat me to this line of reasoning. You are as transparent as glass, Bill. Or possibly just a very naive and obstinant person. I'll give you the benefit of the doubt and assume the latter, and further assume that you simply lack the courage to break from what you currently believe or admit to yourself you were fooled into believing nonsense.

[tfk]

Why not recommend a full scale enquiry that examines all the threads of evidence then ? What would be unreasonable about that ?
.
The EXACT same thing that is "unreasonable" about a new 9/11 inquiry.

1. The question has been absolutely, unequivocally answered. By eye-witnesses, hard evidence and experts.

2. You're lying about your motives in the first place. And I'm not inclined to support conniving liars. You're no more interested in "Holocaust truth" than you are in "9/11 truth". You're interested in your perverse theater or selling trinkets.

[Horatius]

ETA: I see Horatius already beat me to this line of reasoning. You are as transparent as glass, Bill. Or possibly just a very naive and obstinant person. I'll give you the benefit of the doubt and assume the latter, and further assume that you simply lack the courage to break from what you currently believe or admit to yourself you were fooled into believing nonsense.



I believe the term is "useful idiots": those who can be manipulated into supporting an abhorrent philosophy by those who truly support it.

[FineWine]

.
The EXACT same thing that is "unreasonable" about a new 9/11 inquiry.

1. The question has been absolutely, unequivocally answered. By eye-witnesses, hard evidence and experts.

2. You're lying about your motives in the first place. And I'm not inclined to support conniving liars. You're no more interested in "Holocaust truth" than you are in "9/11 truth". You're interested in your perverse theater or selling trinkets.

Bang! Direct hit!

[tfk]

In Eupope some people have gone to prison for Hocaust Denial- even recently . After the Pope's statement future prosecutions wil most likely fail.

I wasn't aware that Europe was composed of a bunch of theocracies that derived the interpretations of their laws from the proclamations of the pope...

Or is this just more of your personal, plentiful wishful thinking...?

Typical bs.

[bill smith]

I wasn't aware that Europe was composed of a bunch of theocracies that derived the interpretations of their laws from the proclamations of the pope...

Or is this just more of your personal, plentiful wishful thinking...?

Typical bs.

If say the Austians try to jail someone for Holocaust Denial' that person may invoke the minimisation argument. If he does nd they still jail him will they issue at the same time an international arrest warrent for the Pope ? Even though that is not exactly what the Pope said it is implied. The perception is home and dry.

[Justin39640]

lol. You get smaller by the day T. No offence.

Actually the Holocaust thing for me is a statement of the principle involved . I have no personal animosity towards Jews at all having had an Israeli partner for years.

I cannpt say the same about 9/11 though. For me that's close-up and personal.

you know bill the total killed in the holocaust was about 11 million when you add in non-jewish victims
just like the 911 victims you spit on the grave of those souls for reasons that are beyond me

why do you question the number killed?
it took years of research by thousands of people to reach those figures
and you just casually blow it off

dont forget about the mobile gas trucks the nazis used
the victims who died during slave labor
the medical experiments
disease and starvation

[Justin39640]

Let's be honest. You could care less about the "Truth". You simply wont be satisfied until you hear the answer that YOU want to hear. If the "Truth" movement was granted a second investigation by the Government they wouldn't be satisfied unless the conclusion was made that explosives were used. This simply wont happen.

NIST (an organization full of engineers mind you) performed a perfectly thorough investigation on the basis of the evidence, science and physics. None pointed towards controlled demolition. If all evidence points towards the alternative but you still insist on ignoring it on the basis of your "movement" and writing any facts off as being false then this movement is about anything but the "Truth" but a selfish need to be right at all cost.

I dont think the "truth" truley understands why the NIST exists and its reasoning for its investigation

its quite simple
they figure out why and how the buildings collapsed
then to make recommendations to improve on designs to make them less susceptible to similar failures

if they lied it would have been huge
real scientists, engineers, and professionals from all over the world would cry foul
the lil band you always refer to represents .0000001 of that population (guess, probably even less)
as the recommendations would be based on junk science
if 911 "truth's" accusations had any real merit
indictments would have been handed down long ago

[Whiplash]

lol. You get smaller by the day T. No offence.

Actually the Holocaust thing for me is a statement of the principle involved . I have no personal animosity towards Jews at all having had an Israeli partner for years.

I cannpt say the same about 9/11 though. For me that's close-up and personal.



Ahh, so you figure you can just "lol" and lie your way out of your previous statements. Yes, I'm sure you had an Israeli partner. You got it. You just question "exaggerations" of the numbers on principle. :rolleyes:

Bill, you can't be serious, who do you think you are fooling? Do you really come and go from here thinking you are perfectly answering every charge or question? Seriously?

[Juniversal]

I dont think the "truth" truley understands why the NIST exists and its reasoning for its investigation

its quite simple
they figure out why and how the buildings collapsed
then to make recommendations to improve on designs to make them less susceptible to similar failures

if they lied it would have been huge
real scientists, engineers, and professionals from all over the world would cry foul
the lil band you always refer to represents .0000001 of that population (guess, probably even less)
as the recommendations would be based on junk science
if 911 "truth's" accusations had any real merit
indictments would have been handed down long agoGood points. Truthers incessentaly try to marginalize NIST and there investigation while offering no tangible or reasonable alternative.

[Dave Rogers]

I beg to differ. Perhaps you should think a little more deeply. If there is any question of the numbers having been exaggerated then we must know the reason for the exaggeration. We need to know whether this potential exaggertion, the notion of which is supported by millions, if not hundreds of millions particularly in the middle east had any cynical motive. This might be an incomfortable Truth for you but the need to know is nevertheless a Truth.

It's funny, I've noticed in the past, how loathsome neo-Nazi scum suppose that there is only one possible direction of error for the numbers killed in the Holocaust. A truly skeptical investigator would consider three possibilities:
(1) The number of Jews who died in the Holocaust has been significantly overestimated.
(2) The number of Jews who died in the Holocaust is known to approximately the right number.
(3) The number of Jews who died in the Holocaust has been significantly underestimated.
A serious historian would consider all three possibilities, then study the evidence to determine which one most accurately describes the situation. Loathsome neo-Nazi scum, however, completely ignore the third possibility, and then perform a bizarre act of mental gymnastics by which the fact that the first is even capable of being stated in the English language is somehow grounds for elevating it to a serious concern.

I note that bill smith's argument here bears a striking resemblance to that typically advanced by loathsome neo-Nazi scum. This should be something of a concern for him. However, clearly if he were to accept that there is an equal possibility that more Jews were killed in the Holocaust than history records, then no stigma could be attached to his views.

Dave

[Justin39640]

It's funny, I've noticed in the past, how loathsome neo-Nazi scum suppose that there is only one possible direction of error for the numbers killed in the Holocaust. A truly skeptical investigator would consider three possibilities:
(1) The number of Jews who died in the Holocaust has been significantly overestimated.
(2) The number of Jews who died in the Holocaust is known to approximately the right number.
(3) The number of Jews who died in the Holocaust has been significantly underestimated.
A serious historian would consider all three possibilities, then study the evidence to determine which one most accurately describes the situation. Loathsome neo-Nazi scum, however, completely ignore the third possibility, and then perform a bizarre act of mental gymnastics by which the fact that the first is even capable of being stated in the English language is somehow grounds for elevating it to a serious concern.

I note that bill smith's argument here bears a striking resemblance to that typically advanced by loathsome neo-Nazi scum. This should be something of a concern for him. However, clearly if he were to accept that there is an equal possibility that more Jews were killed in the Holocaust than history records, then no stigma could be attached to his views.

Dave

ive read that those official figures may indeed be underestimated
entire neighborhoods, extended families, records, etc were wiped out forever
the deniers always point to gassing
countless people (of all faiths) died in countless indescribable ways
to lessen this is truly disgusting

[drkitten]

[QUOTE=bill smith;4811232]No. The words ' Holocaust Denial ' in the Engish language mean literally denying that the Holocaust ever took place. /QUOTE]

And the words "lightning bug" in the English language mean literally a bug capable of generating hundreds of millions of volts of electricity. And the word "ambitious" literally means "walking around."

... which is why few people take the literal meaning of stereotyped phrases at all seriously. If you want an in-depth analysis of what the phrase 'Holocaust Denial' means in English, look at Irving v. Lipstadt, which covered that question in depth. If you don't like reading trial transcripts, Lying about Hitler is a good book-length treatment.

[Chaos]

[shameless plug]
http://skepticwiki.org/index.php/Holocaust_Denial
[/shameless plug]

[beachnut]

I only call for the Truth. If that Truth is something that interferes with a perception then so be it. Tell me where I am wrong about this ? Are you trying to be good neoNAZI and quote Hitler to support your love of lies on 911? Is this why you support Holocaust deniers? Your lack of knowledge is a ruse for your true purpose bigotry and holocaust denial. Why not tell everyone what you really think on the subject instead of beating around the bush like you do on 911.

You do not call for the truth, you remain in ignorance because you support neoNAZI ideas and can't do better than spew junk ideas and quote Hitler. Your implied lies on the Holocaust match your lies on 911.

[Jono]

I've read through this thread and tried to see where the argument, not the labels, is. So, either I'm half-passed asleep (which is quite possible considering the time here, hence my reading-comprehension has taken a toll) or there aren't any specified arguments made.

Bill, lefty, others, where's the actual argument?

[George152]

I think this little video gives a better idea.


I'd recommend a trip to Bad Arolsen and a German/English translator...
But then you'd have to face the horrible fact that you are promoting Holocaust denial!

[Architect]

I think Bill is getting a little upset because some European countries jail the worst of the deniers. In the UK, we just let the daft eejits sue for libel and then bankrupt them.

However, for the avoidance of doubt, this does not impinge on academic debate around actual numbers and methods. Just saying "I think it was 5 million, not 6" will not get you marched off the the gaol.

[Foolmewunz]

If say the Austians try to jail someone for Holocaust Denial' that person may invoke the minimisation argument. If he does nd they still jail him will they issue at the same time an international arrest warrent for the Pope ? Even though that is not exactly what the Pope said it is implied. The perception is home and dry.

Bill,
Not that your other posts are necessarily models of clarity and logic, but the above is particularly nonsensical, I'd say.
Firstly, the Pope doesn't make law - outside of the rules of his own organization, and even there I'm sure he gets some help and has some bureaucratic process to go through.
Secondly, and far more important, Pope Benedict is not trying to minimize or minimalize th Holocaust in any fashion. He is saying that others who try to do so OR who are abject deniers, should not hold positions in his church.
So just where does this fantasy of indicting the Pope come from?

That's like saying, "Barack Obama is against murder, so the next time someone is arrested for murder, will they indict Obama, too?"


(I'd nominate for Teh Stundie, but it's so convoluted that most of us just glossed over the illogic.)

[Ysidro]

Bill,
Not that your other posts are necessarily models of clarity and logic, but the above is particularly nonsensical, I'd say.
Firstly, the Pope doesn't make law - outside of the rules of his own organization, and even there I'm sure he gets some help and has some bureaucratic process to go through.
Secondly, and far more important, Pope Benedict is not trying to minimize or minimalize th Holocaust in any fashion. He is saying that others who try to do so OR who are abject deniers, should not hold positions in his church.
So just where does this fantasy of indicting the Pope come from?

That's like saying, "Barack Obama is against murder, so the next time someone is arrested for murder, will they indict Obama, too?"


(I'd nominate for Teh Stundie, but it's so convoluted that most of us just glossed over the illogic.)

Not to mention he's suggest one nation press charges against the sovereign of another state for... what exactly? Something he didn't do?

Come to think of it, this really IS stundielicious. Don't hold back, Foolmewunz!

[Thunder]

there is no rational, logical, scientific, or historical reason to doubt that millions of Jews and others were murdered by the Nazis and their co-conspirators.

however, the exact number, is in question. whether 4.5 million or 6.5 million jews were killed, may never be known.

but did only 200,000 jews die? BS. no way. only haters and bigots think that. because this theory relies on a bigoted conspiracy theory as explenation.

[dropzone]

Trying to ignore Twoofers whose claims would deny several GENERATIONS of my familiy's reality.

I do not understand why some people are allowed to post their crap here. I suppose it has to do with claims wrt unsubstantiated claims of Twoofers.