Re: Prefer ya gone
 

Actually it was my poor attempt at sarcasm. I thought you knew I support the Holocaust revisionists' efforts (the honest ones anyway) yet I don't consider either them or myself haters of any sort.

The dudes prancing around with swastikas, though, are another story.

Re: Prefer ya gone
 

>>I thought you knew I support the Holocaust revisionists' efforts (the honest ones anyway) <<

Well, looking back over the thread it seems that there were a couple of different issues - one being historical revisionism per se, the other being the laws in some EU countries criminializing such attempts at revisionism.

First of all, I personally have no problem with legitimate historical scholarship. Secondly, criminalizing 'revisionism' is a dangerous and misguided policy, it may lead to criminalizing legitimate historical inquiry.

I prefer to let people make their own arguments freely and let them be judged in the court of public opinion.

Re: Prefer ya gone
 

Fair enough.

Zipo tail alight
 

It could be just my imagination, but are you trying to say something? If you do, you better make it absolutely clear. Generalities and platitudes won't wash.

For the record, and in case you were insinuating anything, I stand behind every statement I've made into this thread, both from a moral and a historical viewpoint. L'haim.

Re: Zipo tail alight
 

>>platitudes won't wash<<

What "platitudes" are you referring to?

>>L'haim<<

?

Re: Zipo tail alight
 

>>If you do, you better make it absolutely clear.<<

Or what? You'll have me dragged off and gassed?

To life
 

[ QUOTE ]
What "platitudes" are you referring to?

[/ QUOTE ] If you pretend not to know, I have nothing more to say. If you truly don't know, I could have been mistaken about your insinuations.

platitude

Re: Holocaust Denial
 

On which of these points was Ernst Zundel convicted after due process of law?

None, considering he is not a Canadian Citizen. In fact, he wasn't actually charged with any of those things (since I only posted them to show what he actually did was illegal). He was deported because his visitor's visa expired. Simple as that. He made a frivolous refugee claim by applying for refugee status from his native Germany and was rejected. The end. Simple, no?

Why did he spend several years in prison for an unconvicted offense that at the most would lead to two years of imprisonment?

Because as a foreign non-Canadian citizen he is not entitled to the rights of a Canadian citizen under the Charter. He spent several years while the courts permitted him his due process by arguing his status in Canada, whether he was to be conferred Canadian citizenship, and whether he was a security threat as a result of his denial and messages of Jew-hatred, alleging a global "conspiracy" of Jewish blah blah blah.

And finally, the facts above may make you cry out of sadness, but which of them is false?

"We know with certainty that the numbers of Holocaust victims were purposely inflated right after World War II by Zionist groups to gain sympathy in their formation of Israel. There use to be a plaque at Auschwitz that said "8 million died here" which was changed to 6 million, then 4 million, and then it disappeared altogether. The Soviets purposely inflated Nazi crimes to cover up their own."

Please show me pictures of the plaque showing these modifications.

"The Iranian Prime Minister is stating a half truth by implying that the Holocaust is a lie. What is true is that numbers were purposely inflated to gain international sympathy in forming the state of Israel (1948) which is an injustice against the arabs."

"implying"? He explicitly stated as such. Furthermore, a Holocaust is a holocaust, no matter how many are killed.

The only injustice was the eviction of all those jews 1500 years ago, before there even were any "Arabs". More importantly, there has been a continuous significant Jewish community in Israel since the dawn of history. The move of the european jews there was immigration, not colonization. Those people did not set the arabs to work in their fields or force on them slave labour, they simply created their own communities independent of the existing arab communities.

Re: Holocaust Denial
 

Holocaust denial is idiotic, for sure. But laws banning holocaust denial are just as dumb.

Will

Nakba
 

You were doing well until the very end of the tirade. (I am pointing it out even though I shiver at the thought of Zipo unleashing his witty commentary on us again!.. [img]/images/graemlins/smirk.gif[/img])

[ QUOTE ]
The only injustice was the eviction of all those jews 1500 years ago, before there even were any "Arabs".

[/ QUOTE ]

Quotation marks or no quotation marks around their name, the Arabs suffered the second injustice (if indeed one should call them thus) about sixty years ago. What to one people is God's Promise, to the other people is a Catastrophe. (This is actually how Palestinian Arabs refer to the creation of the state of Israel in 1948 and their subsequent, continuous troubles.)

Re: To life
 

"What "platitudes" are you referring to?"

>>If you pretend not to know, I have nothing more to say.<<

You make an issue of supposed "platitudes" in my posts in this thread, and even provide a link to a dictionary definition of 'platitude', so you should then know the meaning of the word.

Then, when put on the spot, you simply refuse to justify your comment, and instead divert/obfuscate/deny the issue.

Honestly, why should we give weight to any of your words?

Your behavior in this instance is that of a troll. Are you indeed nothing more than a troll, or is this just a behavior you adopt when your arguments and assertions are proven to be irrational, false, or untenable?

Sugar on top
 

[ QUOTE ]
"What "platitudes" are you referring to?"

[/ QUOTE ]Your whole post is full of platitudes! Pick a phrase in it : bingo, a platitude.

An' check this out : This is about your 4th or 5th post in this thread and despite my asking you as many times to clarify/elaborate what the hell you are talking about, you are still whistlin' Hava nagila.

So, once more, with lotsa feeling, and sugar on top : Do you have anything the f*ck to say?

Re: Holocaust Denial
 

Zundel was deported to Canada from the US for overstaying his visa. He was a legal landed immigrant in Canada since 1958. He was "deported" to Germany for being an "alleged security threat" to Canada with only "alleged" evidence as stated in the verdict!!! Considering Canada is a haven for drug kingpens and illegal immigrants who are shooting up the streets in Toronto (the Jamaican gangs) while their cases are being heard in immigration court, the hypocrisy is ridiculous.

This is nothing but a blatant attack on free speech.

And since you asked, here is some photographic evidence for the disinformation regarding Auschwitz:

http://www.picturehosting.org/images...uschwitz02.jpg

http://www.picturehosting.org/images...uschwitz01.jpg


Estimates have gone from 9 million to 1 million in regards to the Auschwitz camps. The real question is: of those who died, how many were deliberately murdered, and how many died of different causes such as typhus?

Re: Sugar on top
 

My later replies to you in this thread were designed to test the hypothesis I presented earlier, namely: "Your behavior in this instance is that of a troll. Are you indeed nothing more than a troll, or is this just a behavior you adopt when your arguments and assertions are proven to be irrational, false, or untenable?"

That hypothesis has been adequately confirmed.

Case closed.

Re: Holocaust Denial
 

Estimates have gone from 9 million to 1 million in regards to the Auschwitz camps. The real question is: of those who died, how many were deliberately murdered, and how many died of different causes such as typhus?

Are you suggesting that there's any difference? There is not a system of law on earth that doesn't equate direct intent with oblique intent. That is, if you stick a gun in someone's face and pull the trigger, it doesn't matter whether you actually intended them to die or not, you knew death was a certainty. You can't claim that you only wanted to break his nose.

Re: Holocaust Denial
 

[ QUOTE ]
The real question is: of those who died, how many were deliberately murdered, and how many died of different causes such as typhus?

[/ QUOTE ]

This is a false question. If they were forcibly detained in a camp, then they were murdered since they did not receive adequate medical care for diseases contracted there, and there was no justification for their detention. Plus the Nazi intention was to either murder them or work them to death anyway.

Unless of course you think Dr. Joseph Mengele provided adequate care or that the Nazis were justified in putting Jews in camps.

Re: Holocaust Denial
 

Of course there is a difference, and it should be blatantly obvious. That's why we have 3 degrees of murder and different degrees of manslaughter.

If Germany at the end of the war is going through famine and an outbreak of disease, naturally prisoners in a weakened state are going to die first or not get first dibs on available medicine that is going to troops.

If German citizens are dying of these things, naturally prisonsers will also die of these things. It is true that these prisoners should not be put in camps to begin with, which makes the Nazi's culpable of their deaths, but not to the degree of first degree murder.

Re: Holocaust Denial
 

[ QUOTE ]
It is true that these prisoners should not be put in camps to begin with, which makes the Nazi's culpable of their deaths, but not to the degree of first degree murder.

[/ QUOTE ]
For the ones that weren't killed outright, but later died of "natural causes", it is, at best, depraved indifference. They put them in a perilous situation with little to no chance of escape or help.

Re: Holocaust Denial
 

>>It is true that these prisoners should not be put in camps to begin with, which makes the Nazi's culpable of their deaths, but not to the degree of first degree murder. <<

Incredible.

Re: Holocaust Denial
 

Of course there is a difference, and it should be blatantly obvious. That's why we have 3 degrees of murder and different degrees of manslaughter.

I can't believe you really want to go into this, but i'll happily oblige for the masses.

Again, there is no difference between oblique intent and direct intent.

Let's start from scratch. There are 5 levels of intent: direct intent, oblique intent, recklessness, negligence, and no intent. You'll see why this matters in a minute.

Anyone who causes the death of another person, directly, or indirectly, by any means, commits homicide. There are two kinds of homicide: culpable and non-culpable. Any homicide that is non-culpable can't be penalized. Any homicide that is culpable (culpable being through an unlawful act, criminal negligence, causing fear that leads to suicide, or actually scaring to death) is divided into first degree murder, second degree murder, or manslaughter.

Now listen to this part, here is where you'll want to pay attention:
Culpable homicide is murder when either a person means to cause his death or means to cause him bodily harm that he knows is likely to cause his death, and is reckless whether or not death ensues, or where a person, in committing a crime, does anything that he knows or ought to know is likely to cause death, and thereby causes death to a human being, notwithstanding that he intended to commit another crime without causing bodily harm or death.

This second instance is called "constructive murder". And there isn't a legal system on earth that doesn't equate constructive murder with murder.

Murder can only be reduced to manslaughter if done in the heat of passion, is provoked, or the crime you were originally committing is not certain or highly probable to cause death.

Basically, the point of this all is to show you that if you're committing an act that is inherently dangerous or criminal and death is a certainty or is of high probability, even if you don't directly intend it, you will be charged with murder.

Interning the Jews in concentration camps, underfeeding them, overworking them slave labour, and not providing adequate medical treatment is a near guarantee of deadly diseases and death.

Murder is murder. So if 50% were first degree murder, and 50% second degree murder, that's still a hell of a lot of jail time.

Re: Holocaust Denial
 

It should also be noted that massive amounts of Jews were killed long before the war even began, nullifying your ridiculous "lack of resources" argument.

Re: Holocaust Denial
 

And how does any of this contradict what I said?

Re: Holocaust Denial
 

The Nazis killed many types of people before the war, particularly political dissidents, but nothing compared to the numbers claimed were killed in the concentration camps at the end of the war.

Re: Holocaust Denial
 

I'll dumb it down a shade for ya, since you don't really seem to understand the concept.

When actively participating in an unlawful activity that is certain to cause death, and someone dies in the process of that activity, you are committing murder in every Court in the free world, even if there is no intent to actually kill.

In other words, the Nazis, in committing the atrocities they did (the unlawful activity), and creating conditions that were certain to cause death, if not from the gas then from disease, are guilty of one count of murder for each person they killed.

Manslaughter is only when the activity is not so inherently dangerous as to cause certain death, for example, a fistfight, hunting animals, or driving negligently. Everything else is murder. Of course, this only applies to the people who weren't already in the gas chambers, the gallows or within firing range.

Re: Holocaust Denial
 

If you really want to know, it wasn't until after the war started that the Nazis began to actually save lives, because they needed the free labour.

And cream too
 

[ QUOTE ]
My later replies to you in this thread were designed to test the hypothesis I presented earlier, namely: "Your behavior in this instance is that of a troll."

[/ QUOTE ]A troll is someone who is posting only for the sake of creating arguments ad nauseum, long threads, etc. (I now see that you're projecting!)

You have been challenged to provide any evidence of such behavior and you failed completely to do so. Yet you proclaim victory and leave.

Sounds like something you should be suggesting to your man in the White House.

[ QUOTE ]
Is this just a behavior you adopt when your arguments and assertions are proven to be irrational, false, or untenable?

[/ QUOTE ] What position of mine have you ever refuted? I recall none.

Especially on matters of modern Israeli history, Zionist politics, the Holocaust, etc. It may be upsetting you to have to confront adults who provide and seek substance in an argument, as opposed to your chaff, but there you are. This is the kitchen. And it's damn hot.

--Cyrus

Mirror, mirror
 

[ QUOTE ]
It seems to me that there are several varieties of idiocy, who have in common a deep sense of hatred toward intelligence.
<font color="white"> . </font>
Some of the idiots are adherents of 'the big idiocy' - that is, "everyone can say everything, it is all relative anyway". And, besides, "there are no proofs, really!"
<font color="white"> . </font>
Others are minimizers - they acknowledge that something is correct and something is wrong, according to certain rules of logic, but they try to chip away at the scope and scale of logic and common sense anyway.
<font color="white"> . </font>
Then there are the obfuscators - those who try to muddy the waters and raise extaneous and tangential issues in an attempt to divert and distract from any issue that is being discussed.
<font color="white"> . </font>
Some of these types are easy to spot. They are trolls, plain and simple, and are obvious to all.
<font color="white"> . </font>
Others are more insidious - they understand how most decent people would be appalled at those who attempt to lie about, minimize, distort, and obfuscate historical facts, and strangle logic. So they cloak their idiocy and their agendas with a veneer of civility and politeness.
<font color="white"> . </font>
Observant ones will not be fooled.

[/ QUOTE ]

FYP. I did not realize it was a self-portrait.

(Kinda like one of those self-portraits of the old masters, hidden underneath other, innocuous paintings. [img]/images/graemlins/smirk.gif[/img])

Re: Holocaust Denial
 

Anybody who knows anything about the history of WWII knows that the vast majority of murders took place during the war, especially against Jews, Russian POW's and Poles.

Re: And cream too
 

&gt;&gt;You have been challenged to provide any evidence of such behavior and you failed completely to do so.&lt;&lt;

What occurred was that you were offered a length of rope, with which you could hang yourself if you were foolish enough to do so.

We were not disappointed.

Re: German efficiency : \"Endlösung der Judenfrage\"
 

[ QUOTE ]
There has been no proper/scientific determination of the number of European Jews murdered by the Nazis. And as I already said, it may turn out that the Jews that perished were much less than Sxi Million, e.g. that they were in fact Three And A Half Million.

[/ QUOTE ]

Over 3 million documented Jews lived in Poland at the start of the war. After the war less than 3,000. This is documented. Most did not show up somewhere else. They did not mysteriously vanish in thin air. They were murdered. The figure of six million is probably a fair estimate. Another six million gypsies, homosexuals, etc were killed as well as 40-50 million solders and civilians.

Re: And cream too
 

[ QUOTE ]
We were not disappointed.

[/ QUOTE ]

Is there a mouse in your pocket?

Re: Holocaust Denial
 

[ QUOTE ]
The guy did his own research and backed up his claims with his own findings. I'd say anyone who prefers blindly believing the media vs. thinking for himself can't be a very good poker player.

[/ QUOTE ]

Yea, I have a regular revisionist/holocaust believer game every thursday. Some of the analytical revisionists are solid, only they tend to not to believe the strenght I represent. You should see the game on the anniversary of Kristallnacht, regular magoo fest.

Live and let live
 

[ QUOTE ]
What occurred was that you were offered a length of rope, with which you could hang yourself if you were foolish enough to do so.

[/ QUOTE ]That's your way of seeing things and it's your privilege to see things as is your fancy. Live and let live, I say.

But the way I see things, you are incapable of reasoned argument and a prime example of that deficiency is your reflexive reaction to anyone who dares dispute "what's best for Israel" : He or she is an anti-semite.

A well known but no longer working gambit. Which I rarely bother to refute either. Usually those who employ it bankrupt their argument by doing so. As you just did.

Keep posting.

Re: Holocaust Denial
 

As I asked before, where does that contradict anything I have said?

You should not bother to dumb down anything for me because you are too dumb to see that I never said the Nazi's are not guilty of murder.

Re: Holocaust Denial
 

As I asked before, where does that contradict anything I have said?

Peter666's stupid post #3

[ QUOTE ]
The real question is: of those who died, how many were deliberately murdered, and how many died of different causes such as typhus?

[/ QUOTE ]

Once again you've missed the point. What I've been trying to explain to your for a half dozen posts is that there's no difference, so your question amounts to "of those who died, how many were deliberately murdered, and how many were deliberately murdered?"

Re: Holocaust Denial
 

Do you understand the difference between first degree murder and all the other things you yourself pointed out as murder?

Mens rea
 

[ QUOTE ]
Do you understand the difference between first degree murder and all the other things you yourself pointed out as murder?

[/ QUOTE ]

We already went through that here.

In the last post, I proved that those deaths are murder. Now you want me to prove that they're all first degree murder too? Sounds like fun.

In Canada, first degree murder is defined in section 231 of the Criminal Code, as any homicide that is proven to be murder and is also planned and deliberate. You'll want to pay special attention to subsection (5), part e:

(5) Irrespective of whether a murder is planned and deliberate on the part of any person, murder is first degree murder in respect of a person when the death is caused by that person while committing or attempting to commit an offence under one of the following sections:
(a) section 76 (hijacking an aircraft);
(b) section 271 (sexual assault);
(c) section 272 (sexual assault with a weapon, threats to a third party or causing bodily harm);
(d) section 273 (aggravated sexual assault);
(e) section 279 (kidnapping and forcible confinement); or
(f) section 279.1 (hostage taking).


Now, if you don't happen to think that Jews in concentration camps were forcibly confined, you have much bigger problems than legal semantics. But let's continue down the section to see what other types of murder constitute first degree murder:

in the same section, subsection (6):
(6) Irrespective of whether a murder is planned and deliberate on the part of any person, murder is first degree murder when the death is caused by that person while committing or attempting to commit an offence under section 264 and the person committing that offence intended to cause the person murdered to fear for the safety of the person murdered or the safety of anyone known to the person murdered.


section 264? (1) No person shall, without lawful authority and knowing that another person is harassed or recklessly as to whether the other person is harassed, engage in conduct referred to in subsection (2) that causes that other person reasonably, in all the circumstances, to fear for their safety or the safety of anyone known to them.

Basically, murder also becomes first degree murder if you harrass someone and make them fear for their lives before they die. No Jew was not harassed and caused to fear for their lives while in the camps, even if that particular few only ended up dying of typhus, which is still murder for the reasons stated in the last post.

In other words, any way you slice it, it's first degree murder.

Re: Mens rea
 

Good job in trying to obfuscate the matter Alan Dershowitz wannabe. Despite the fact that it is stupid to bring up current Canadian law in this matter, forcible confinement cannot apply to a state excercising its legal authority to confine those it deems appropriate. If this were the case, every criminal in a prison who dies of whatever cause is murdered in the first degree. That is patently stupid.

Your application of the Canadian Criminal Code has absolutely no binding power on any nation outside of Canada anyway, and we must look at the legal standards of the time to determine the degree of intent and wrongdoing of the Holocaust crimes.

Your point on harrasment is also stupid. If I dress up like a ghost and say "boo, you're gonna die" and three days later you die of a heart attack, I guess that makes me a murderer too according to your less than stellar legal opinion.

Re: Mens rea
 

[ QUOTE ]
forcible confinement cannot apply to a state excercising its legal authority to confine those it deems appropriate.

[/ QUOTE ]
The State does not have unlimited right to forcibly confine whomever they please.

Re: Live and let live
 

&gt;&gt;But the way I see things, you are incapable of reasoned argument&lt;&lt;

You, Cyrus, took great offense and reacted emotionally in the extreme to my posts, and accused me of using "platitudes" in this thread - and then refused to offer a single example of the 'platitudes' to which you took such great offense. This is simply not reasonable. My posts simply exposed you for what you are.

&gt;&gt;your reflexive reaction to anyone who dares dispute "what's best for Israel" : He or she is an anti-semite.&lt;&lt;

This thread wasn't about Israel - either you weren't paying attention, or your preconceptions are clouding your judgment. It was about the holocaust - in which catholics, jews, homosexuals, political dissidents, russians, poles, and gypsies were systematically exterminated. Why on earth are you bringing Israel into this discussion? Is this your idea of "reasoned argument"?

&gt;&gt;Usually those who employ it bankrupt their argument by doing so&lt;&lt;

You objected to my use of 'platitudes', and did not offer a single example of such. You asserted that I made some kind of argument for Israel in this thread, and I did no such thing. It is your arguments that are bankrupt - and they have been conclusively exposed as such.