Re: Mens rea
 

The state may not have the moral right to confine whom it wills, but it always has the unlimited legal right to do so unless the state somehow subjects itself to an even higher authority.

Re: Mens rea
 

Why, then, are we arguing about legal authority if the state can do whatever it pleases? What are your intentions in aruging this?

Live some more
 

[ QUOTE ]
You ... 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.

[/ QUOTE ] On the contrary, I responded by pointing out that your whole post (which you placed as a response to mine) is full of platitudes. And again, I say, pick one phrase at random : voilà, a platitude.

If you choose, now, to see your output in a more kind light, that's your parental prerogative. I see it differently. I see it as platitude-fest.

[ QUOTE ]
You asserted that I made some kind of argument for Israel in this thread, and I did no such thing.

[/ QUOTE ] You wrote a long thumbsucker about anti-semitism and placed it under my post. I took it to imply that I am an anti-semite. And I responded that, for you, most probably, anyone who dares say anything that is not "good" to Jews or to Israel must be an anti-semite. That's how Israel got into this.

[ QUOTE ]
My posts simply exposed you for what you are.

[/ QUOTE ] And this is precisely what I have been challenging you to come out and say: Are you accusing me of anti-semitism ?

Let's see you say so, clearly. And then try to prove it.

[ QUOTE ]
This thread wasn't about Israel - either you weren't paying attention, or your preconceptions are clouding your judgment... It was about the holocaust ... Why on earth are you bringing Israel into this discussion?

[/ QUOTE ] It was not me who brought Israel into the forefront of this thread, which is about the Holocaust. Either you weren't paying attention, or your preconceptions are clouding your judgment. It was actually Gamblor who disputed my point about the astonishing, if limited, approaches made by Zionists towards the Nazis, in order to collaborate in evacuating Europe towards Palestine.

But it was you who chose to extend this into a dozen posts about "anti-semites"!

Keep posting.

Long-suffering keyboard
 

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

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

[/ QUOTE ]

Woa, I missed that gem! [img]/images/graemlins/grin.gif[/img]

...Keep posting.

Poland
 

What has disappeared even more "mysteriously" than the Polish Jews from Poland is the mention of the long-standing and extremely harsh anti-semitism "tradition" in Poland! A significant number of Poles were enthusiastic collaborators of the Germans in the hunting down, betraying to the authorities or participating in the killing itself of Polísh Jews.

If things had improved in post-WWII Poland, at least as much as things have improved in post-WWII West Germany, for Jews, then one could allow bygones to be bygones. But the Poles have a lot of catching up to do, so this hush-hush remains a "mystery"...

[ 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.

[/ QUOTE ] I recall no reliable census for such a figure. Could please provide a reference ?

M for Murder
 

I disagree with Gamblor on almost anything about the modern state of Israel and its politics -- but on this, Gamblor is absolutely correct. The deaths of the Jews caused by the Nazis in WWII are murder. Arguing against this is not even good shysterism.

Hypothetical scenario, even on the individual (as opposed to mass) level of murder:

- I shoot you with a gun.
- I force you to march across two countries. You die from exhaustion.
- I force you to march across two countries and place you in internment in a third, inside a decrepit "house" and have you work 12 hours a day (did I say 12 hours? make it 16 hours). You die as a result.
- I beat you to death.
- I conduct scientific experiments on your body, such as repeatedly choking you to near asphyxiation, plunging you in iced water for long periods of time, etc. (Note : I did not put the words "scientific experiments" in the previous phrase inside quotation marks because there have been, alas, scientific discoveries made out of those beastly affairs. But we are not supposed to get our scientific discoveries that way.) You die in the course of such an experiment, even though I considered you to be an interesting human specimen.
- You are forced by me to live in sub-zero degrees Celsius conditions for months. You are being fed and sheltered, albeit poorly. You die as a result.
- You are made by me to live in crowded, extremely unhealthy conditions, where you are continuously harassed physically and psychologically, so your health deteriorates to the point of dying. You do die eventually, either from an epidemic that breaks out in your quarters or from your own health failing.

...Each of the above is murder.

And when conducted in the course of a war, it is a war crime. In a mass scale, it is mass murders. In a huge scale, it is a crime against humanity.

The latter describes the holocaust of the Jews, and other unfortunates, at the hands of the Nazis in World War II.

--Cyrus

Re: M for Murder
 

Is the apocalypse near? Gamblor and Cyrus (and me) in agreement on something?

This is why I am curious as to what Peter's intentions are with his persistent claim that the those who died in prison camps because of the Nazis' crimes are not victims of first degree murder. The aggravating circumstances certainly outweigh any mitigation by the indirectness of their death.

Re: M for Murder
 

I think his intentions are to get the facts straight when there are so many powerful entities who have distorted them for so long.

I'm no expert on the Holocaust but I'm pretty damn good at logic and I do understand what first degree murder is.

If it's true that the purpose of keeping the prisoners was mainly to get free labor out of them, then the purpose of the camps was not to kill them. If you kill someone without that being your intention then you are not guilty of first degree murder. It's really not that hard and so I don't see the point of bringing in all the legal gobbledygook, although I did get a chuckle from the Canadian code getting copied here.

The only point worth debating, and the crux of it all, is what really happened at the camps, what were the Nazis' genuine intentions etc. Trying to show off by how much legal mumbo jumbo we've packed into our state-obedient, non-independent-minded heads is less than constructive if our goal is to come closer to finding the truth.

Re: M for Murder
 

This concept of "war crimes" is a farce and just illustrates the pathological self-righteousness of America and other western powers who endorse it.

War is a state of affairs in which there are no rules -- anything goes, kill or be killed, use everthing you've got to destroy the enemy.

When there are no rules, there is no such thing as a crime. The definition of a crime is relative to a set of rules.

Of course if the masses will buy it and therefore you can get mileage out of it, there's no reason why you couldn't pretend there's something called war crimes and use it to manipulate people to behave as you'd like them to behave. Propaganda is, after all, an important element of overall strategy and a so good warrior is wise to use it whenever it's advantageous.

But to believe such a thing exists as an objective concept universally applicable to all parties is simply deluded.

Re: M for Murder
 

[ QUOTE ]
If it's true that the purpose of keeping the prisoners was mainly to get free labor out of them, then the purpose of the camps was not to kill them.

[/ QUOTE ]
That wasn't the sole purpose and many camps had several functions. Almost all (if not all) were designed to dispose of the inhabitants when they were no longer useful at the whim of a few men.

[ QUOTE ]
If you kill someone without that being your intention then you are not guilty of first degree murder.

[/ QUOTE ]
Intentionally putting someone in a situation from which there is slim to no hope of escape/life and often times being directly responsible for the death is first degree murder. And even if you don't believe they're first degree, the sheer number and methods of people being killed wipe out any mitigation of guilt from the murders not being first degree.

[ QUOTE ]
The only point worth debating, and the crux of it all, is what really happened at the camps, what were the Nazis' genuine intentions etc.

[/ QUOTE ]
Then please, debate. What were the Nazis' intentions?

Re: M for Murder
 

[ QUOTE ]
War is a state of affairs in which there are no rules -- anything goes, kill or be killed, use everthing you've got to destroy the enemy.

[/ QUOTE ]
Life has no "rules". We, in societies, set rules for ourselves to follow. War is no different, nor should it be.

Re: M for Murder
 

[ QUOTE ]
Life has no "rules". We, in societies, set rules for ourselves to follow. War is no different, nor should it be.

[/ QUOTE ]

The thing about war is that there are at least 2 different societies involved. If they agree on a set of rules, then fine, but what if they don't? Why should only one side's idea be right?

Re: M for Murder
 

[ QUOTE ]
The thing about war is that there are at least 2 different societies involved. If they agree on a set of rules, then fine, but what if they don't? Why should only one side's idea be right?

[/ QUOTE ]
Often times, a set of rules can have a positive impact. Rules like generally treating prisoners with respect may actually make it easier to extract information out of them.

Plus it shows that we're above animals. Bushido, chivalry, honor; all have developed in various different advanced cultures while barbaric people cling to the "no rules" way. You don't have to agree down to every detail, as long as there's respect.

Re: M for Murder
 

[ QUOTE ]
[Intentionally putting someone in a situation from which there is slim to no hope of escape/life and often times being directly responsible for the death is first degree murder.

[/ QUOTE ]

Not if you don't know in advance that it will lead to death. First degree murder requires pre-meditation of the intention to kill. The key question is what the Nazis true intentions were.

I'm not in any position to debate the issue because I never studied the subject, but the revisionists' position seems fair and believable to me. Is there any part of it which you consider not believable? If so, which part?

Here is a summary.

What I am saying is that P666's statement that the Nazis did not commit first degree murder is consistent with his version of the facts. If you want to show that the Nazis did commit first degree murder, then you are better off debating the facts of what went on at the time rather than talking about the definition of first degree murder.

I realize that it was Gamblor who mostly talked about that but since you endorsed it I figure I could reply to your post just the same.

You guys seem to regard US (or Canadian) law as some sort of sacred scripture or gospel. For the definition of a legal term that was coined in the US it may be, but for a broader scale debate like this Holocaust issue, it is tangential at best.

Re: M for Murder
 

[ QUOTE ]
I'm not in any position to debate the issue because I never studied the subject, but the revisionists' position seems fair and believable to me. Is there any part of it which you consider not believable? If so, which part?

Here is a summary.

[/ QUOTE ]
You've got to be kidding. That "summary", in an age where you can link to other sites with actual evidence, is a terrible piece of evidence. It's blatantly contradictory. First it says that the Holocaust should be called the Jewish Holocaust (which is wrong because many other "undesirables" were rounded up and killed too) and then goes on to say that the Holocaust wasn't really the Holocaust but just the Germans helping the Jews move out of Europe. I'll take what most credible historians think over a few crackpot anti-semites think, thank you.

[ QUOTE ]
If you want to show that the Nazis did commit first degree murder, then you are better off debating the facts of what went on at the time rather than talking about the definition of first degree murder.

[/ QUOTE ]
How can I show whether Nazis committed first degree murder without first agreeing to what that means? Besides, my first post in here said that if what the Nazis did wasn't blatant first degree murder (and many are guilty of that), then it was depraved indifference at the least, which is still murder. And because of the scale of the murders it is far, far worse than just a few planned out murders. I don't understand the obsession you and Peter have with this "first degree" stuff. It makes litle difference when you consider the vastness of it all.

Re: M for Murder
 

How about the part about no evidence of gas chambers? That's a pretty strong statement which should be easy to disprove, if untrue. Is there any evidence of gas chambers that you know of?

The issue of first degree murder is important because if it's not, then it diminishes the holocaust as the number one "crime against humanity" of the 20th century, as many media outlets have tried to portray it while pretending to be 100% objective.

Truly objective media would focus on murderous regimes in proportion to the number of lives exterminated. Using this benchmark, Stalin's Soviet Communists are by far the number one serial killer of the 20th century, followed by Communist China, with Hitler and his Nazis coming third.

An innocent bystander who gets his info. from the media, however, is left with the impression that Hitler was by far the number one bad guy and from all objective accounts this is simply wrong. Working on trying to correct this gross error is a noble pursuit IMO.

Re: M for Murder
 

[ QUOTE ]
How about the part about no evidence of gas chambers? That's a pretty strong statement which should be easy to disprove, if untrue. Is there any evidence of gas chambers that you know of?

[/ QUOTE ]
This Zundel guy hasn't heard of google, I guess...
http://www.rudyfoto.com/hol/mau-gaschamber.jpg
http://www.rudyfoto.com/hol/bir-gaschamber5.jpg
Demolished by the Nazis as they fled...

http://www.rudyfoto.com/hol/maj-gaschamber.jpg
Guess how long these took to find? According to google, it was .36 seconds.

[ QUOTE ]
The issue of first degree murder is important because if it's not, then it diminishes the holocaust as the number one "crime against humanity" of the 20th century

[/ QUOTE ]
The Final Solution is the evidence of first degree murder. Individual Nazis who took part in it are culpable for bringing it to be either by actively participating in it or doing nothing to stop it (depraved indifference). I won't get into an argument over whether it was the "number one crime against humanity in the 20th century", because there's no point to doing so.

[ QUOTE ]
Truly objective media would focus on murderous regimes in proportion to the number of lives exterminated. Using this benchmark, Stalin's Soviet Communists are by far the number one serial killer of the 20th century, followed by Communist China, with Hitler and his Nazis coming third.

[/ QUOTE ]
So...maybe we should all just say "Weeeelllll, Hitler wasn't really that bad. Stalin was worse." See how stupid this is? All three dictators are all the some of the most awful people to walk the earth.

[ QUOTE ]
An innocent bystander who gets his info. from the media, however, is left with the impression that Hitler was by far the number one bad guy and from all objective accounts this is simply wrong. Working on trying to correct this gross error is a noble pursuit IMO.

[/ QUOTE ]
Drop the media-phobia. If you aren't getting your information from personal interviews, you're getting it from some sort of medium.

Re: Poland
 

[ QUOTE ]
[ 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.

[/ QUOTE ]

I recall no reliable census for such a figure. Could please provide a reference ?

[/ QUOTE ]

Polish Jews

"On the eve of World War II, an estimated 3,351,000 Jews lived in Poland, more than in any other country; they constituted about 10% of the Polish population and nearly 20% of world Jewry. During the course of the Nazi occupation (1939–45), nearly 3,000,000 Polish Jews were killed, many of them in extermination camps such as Auschwitz (Os ´wiecim), near Cracow. Most of the survivors had fled to the USSR; at the end of the war, only about 55,000 Jews remained in Poland. Repatriation raised the total Jewish population to 250,000 in 1946. However, the establishment of the State of Israel in 1948, combined with a series of anti-Semitic outbreaks in Poland (including a government-led campaign in 1968–69), induced most Jews to emigrate. By 1998, Poland had only about 10,000 to 30,000 Jews living in the country."

Re: M for Murder
 

In the first picture I can't see anything which resembles a gas reservoir or pumping apparatus, and in the second I see what could be someone's neglected garage.

My info. comes from travelling, looking around, talking to people about their own experiences, and reading peoples' own personal accounts in books and/or on the internet. Sure, the books and the internet are technically media, but you have to know I'm talking about organized networks with paid editors and not just physical media which do nothing more than physically transmit data.

Ah, ok, now I see the first of the three pictures after the edit. That one is interesting.

Re: M for Murder
 

[ QUOTE ]
In the first picture I can't see anything which resembles a gas reservoir or pumping apparatus

[/ QUOTE ]
Well, if you're trying to trick the people inside the chamber that they're actually in a shower, it doesn't make much sense to put a big fat tub of Zyklon B in the center, now does it?

[ QUOTE ]
and in the second I see what could be someone's neglected garage.

[/ QUOTE ]
Funny, it was originally a garage before it was turned into a gas chamber. And then it was destroyed as the Germans retreated to cover up the evidence.

Re: M for Murder
 

Darryl,

see this for a thorough examination into the evidence whether the gas chambers in Dachau were actually used.

Conclusion:
"Neither the reports by the U.S. Army, Father Hess nor Sack prove conclusively that the homicidal chamber was used to kill people. Until further evidence is discovered, historians will have to conform themselves with the knowledge that it was technically possible to have murdered human beings with poison gas in that room, and that the room, some 16x16x12ft high, was designed for the exclusive purpose of carrying out such a grim task. This circumstance does not free the perpetrators of their crimes. No matter in what manner the tens of thousands of unfortunate people in Dachau lost their lives, they were murdered as surely as if they had been placed in a gas chamber and asphyxiated with hydrogen cyanide gas. The intentional destruction of human life by whatever means is still murder. It is quite sufficient, for the moment, to demonstrate that the Nazis intended to use a homicidal gas chamber in Dachau, and that they designed, built and equipped such a chamber in the Dachau Concentration Camp."

Dachau was a camp in Germany and is often referred to by the revisionists. There is plenty evidence that the gas chambers were actually put in use in the camps outside of Germany (such as Auschwitz). There are a lot of in depth articles on the site on this theme, go read it.

Mass murder
 

[ QUOTE ]
This Zundel guy hasn't heard of google, I guess...
(image)

[/ QUOTE ]
The Holocaust revisionists'/deniers' argument (and it's partly plausible) is that most, if not all, of the discovered gas chambers were used to fumigate the inmates on account of the typhoid epidemic (which has been, indeed, medically documented to have broken out in various camps).

Again, I say, SO WHAT?

IMHO, there is no need to discuss this too much. Even if the revisionists' "technical" arguments turn out to be mostly kosher (pun intented), i.e. even if the gas chambers were mostly used for medical purposes, the killing machine made up of the camps in Treblinka, Mauhausen, Bergen-Belsen, Auschwitz, Maidanek, Dachau and so many other places of infamy, was operating through many means: shooting, starving, gassing, choking, hacking, "medically epxerimenting on", etc etc.

It all amounted to treating human beings as physical bodies and no more, i.e. treating people as good either for a day's work or for a "medical experiment". This is tantamount to murder - and, on the scale that the murder was perpetrated upon the Jews and all those other unfortunates in WWII, to a crime against humanity.

* * *

The film Judgement At Nuremberg, 1961, (somewhat wearing its heart on its sleeve, by today's standards) is required viewing for those seeking a quick way to understand the moral outrage.

The German non-Nazi judge Jannings (Burt Lancaster) who is a defendant in a trial with other German judges, for helping the Holocaust process by sending innocent German civilians to the camps on account of being sick or deficient, or sending them to forced sterilisation under the same eugenic laws, forms an unspoken bond with the tough, honest, stand-up American judge (Spencer Tracy - as if needed to be said).

The German is otherwise impeccable in his morality and politics, yet he obeyed the laws that were proclaimed by the Nazis and sent people to the camps or to sterilisation. After he is found guilty, he seeks a private audience with the American judge. He states that he does not care about the judgement, but only of the American's personal opinion, seeing as he is someone who moral authority the German respects.

"Judge Haywood... the reason I asked you to come. Those people, those millions of people... I never knew it would come to that. YOU must believe it, YOU MUST believe it."

The American judge, played of course with superb understatement and authority by Tracy, burdens the German with an even greater weight than he thought. Tracy responds "Herr Janning, it came to that the first time you sentenced a man to death you knew to be innocent."

Re: M for Murder
 

"This is why I am curious as to what Peter's intentions are with his persistent claim that the those who died in prison camps because of the Nazis' crimes are not victims of first degree murder."

And where did I say this? This is proof that when it comes to the Holocaust, logic and unemotional objectivism go out the window.

I was making the point that not all murder is first degree murder, and in the case of the Holocaust we have to question the motives of the hierarchy of the Nazi's involved to determine the level of their crimes.

And yet, when somebody brings up the Holocaust, like Pavlov's dogs there is an immediate judgment made that all Nazis are the incarnation of evil and to even question this is some sort of betrayal of humanity.

With the right kind of media propaganda, the vast majority of people will unthinkingly say yes to whatever the authority wants them to do. Modern man has the same mentality as Nazi Germany.

Re: Mens rea
 

It is Gamblor who brought up legality in trying to denounce the Nazis, not me.

Re: Live some more
 

>>I responded by pointing out that your whole post (which you placed as a response to mine) is full of platitudes. <<

You keep asserting this, and yet you have not provided a single specific example. Of course, you are pointedly refusing to provide a specific example because your contention is not supportable. I am enjoying watching you wriggle and squirm in a desperate attempt to avoid this issue - so simply, if you are indeed something more than a mere troll, provide specifics. Put up or shut up.

>>I took it to imply that I am an anti-semite. <<

I asserted no such thing in this thread. Again, if you can refute this, provide an example of where called you an anti-semite. It seems that I struck a very raw and tender nerve of yours here. Again, put up or shut up.

>> It was not me who brought Israel into the forefront of this thread, which is about the Holocaust.<<

You directed a pointed remark toward me, in which you claimed my abhorrence of the crimes committed by the Nazis and their collaborators was related to my supposed support of Israel. Please point out a single instance in this thread in which I related the holocaust to israel. Put up or shut up.

Of course, I don't really believe that you will address the substance of these issues and provide examples to back up your assertions. I have pointed out how the claims and assumptions you have made about my remarks in this thread are unreasonable, irrational, and unsubstantiated.

You won't provide specifics, because you can't support your arguments and claims with facts. All you can do is obfuscated, divert, and duck the facts.

The real question is - are you interested in genuine discussion, or are you nothing more than a troll? I would say 'put up or shut up' again, but I know trolls will neither shut up, or provide specific examples and facts to back up their arguments.

Zipo dervish
 

[ QUOTE ]
You keep asserting [that my whole post is full of platitudes] and yet you have not provided a single specific example.

[/ QUOTE ]You want a "single specific example"? Didn't I tell you to choose any phrase, at random, from your thumbsucker of a post? Here, I'll do it for you. Pick an integer from 1 to 10... [img]/images/graemlins/grin.gif[/img]

[ QUOTE ]
You directed a pointed remark toward me, in which you claimed my abhorrence of the crimes committed by the Nazis and their collaborators was related to my supposed support of Israel.

[/ QUOTE ] You are imagining things. This never happened.

And then on the basis of your hallucinations, you are throwing around insults. Then you backtrack away from the insults.

You are something else.

What I did accuse you of, is that for you anyone who says something "bad" about Israel or the Jews, ends up being accused of anti-semitism.

[ QUOTE ]
>>I took it to imply that I am an anti-semite. <<

I asserted no such thing in this thread.

[/ QUOTE ]
Do spin yourself around some more; it's higly entertaining.

[img]/images/graemlins/smirk.gif[/img]

Correct link
 

[ QUOTE ]
Darryl,

see this link for a thorough examination into the evidence whether the gas chambers in Dachau were actually used.

[/ QUOTE ]

Re: Zipo dervish
 

>>You want a "single specific example"? Didn't I tell you to choose any phrase, at random<<

More twisting, squirming, and ducking. The more I crank up the heat, the faster you dance - hilarious. You claim my earlier posts were full of platitudes. Offer up one - just one - any one - and we'll compare it to the dictionary definition of 'platitude' you provided earlier and see if it holds up to your characterization.

But you won't. Because you can't. Because you would humiliate yourself when it became clear after all your dodging, ducking, and squirming that you simply can't back up your words. That's the real reason you won't provide a clear example.

OK, get ready for another flogging. Earlier I wrote:

"You directed a pointed remark toward me, in which you claimed my abhorrence of the crimes committed by the Nazis and their collaborators was related to my supposed support of Israel."

You replied to that specific quote in your last post:

" You are imagining things. This never happened."

I submit a quote from your earlier post #4188240 in this thread:

"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."

Try and squirm out of that one lol.

Re: Holocaust Denial
 

"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."

1) 1500 years ago is a long time to remedy an injustice, is it not? And how can it be the "only" injustice when hundreds of thousands of native lost their homes in 1948?

2) Why the e of quotation marks for "Arabs"?

3) There were Jews at the dawn of history? In any event, the vast majority of the population of Palestine at the start of Zionism (I mean Herzl's Zionist) was not Jewish. It was Palestinian.

4) Of course Zionism was colonization. It was advertised as a colonial enterprise by the founders of Zionism from the get-go.

5) There is plenty of evidence to contradict your rosy picture of the impact of Zionism on the natives. One doesn't have to rely on Arab propaganda, one can read Ahad Ha'am or other early Zionist settlers, Jabotinsky, Buber or other Jewish sources from a variety of political perspectives.

Re: Holocaust Denial
 

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

What difference would this make? Was not the intention of the camps to rid Germany of its "parasitic" Jewish population? The American Indian holocaust was mostly effectuated through disease. We do not, however, excuse deliberate extermination because of this, do we?

Zipo as baton expert
 

[ QUOTE ]
Earlier I wrote:
<font color="white"> . </font>
"You directed a pointed remark toward me, in which you claimed my abhorrence of the crimes committed by the Nazis and their collaborators was related to my supposed support of Israel."
<font color="white"> . </font>
You replied to that specific quote in your last post:
<font color="white"> . </font>
" You are imagining things. This never happened."
<font color="white"> . </font>
I submit a quote from your earlier post #4188240 in this thread:
<font color="white"> . </font>
"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."



[/ QUOTE ]

How much of a fool will you make of yourself?

Numero Uno : My remark (in bold) was clearly referring to an earlier "exchange" we had, where you ended up accusing me of anti-semitism. It was not in THIS thread (at least not yet, we still have a-ways to go... [img]/images/graemlins/smirk.gif[/img])...

Numero Due : Where O Where did I write that your abhorrence of the crimes committed by the Nazis and their collaborators was related to your support of Israel? For what it's worth, and FYI, I do not think that. What I do think (and I will repeat it slowwwwly as I do for fools and children) is simply that, for you, anyone who dares dispute "what's best for Israel" is an anti-semite.

Which is exactly what appears in your quote of my text! [img]/images/graemlins/grin.gif[/img]


[ QUOTE ]
You claim my earlier posts were full of platitudes. Offer up one - just one - and we'll compare it to the dictionary definition of 'platitude'.

[/ QUOTE ] Since you refuse to pick a number for me [img]/images/graemlins/smirk.gif[/img], I guess I'll have to do all the work. Here we go, I close my eyes and pick . . .

[ QUOTE ]
There are several varieties of Holocaust deniers, who have in common a deep sense of hatred and bigotry toward Jews.

[/ QUOTE ] [ QUOTE ]
plat·i·tude n.
A trite or banal remark or statement, especially one expressed as if it were original or significant.


[/ QUOTE ]

Twirl that around a bit. [img]/images/graemlins/grin.gif[/img]

Re: Holocaust Denial
 

[ QUOTE ]
The American Indian holocaust was mostly effectuated through disease.

[/ QUOTE ]

Disease ran rampant in all populations before the 20th century. That you suggest that most indians died of disease is an admission that most indians were not killed by an American genocide, since deliberate usage of disease to kill was a very infrequent practice.

You try to stretch two cultures in conflict into genocide. How unfair of you, and a true distortion of history.

Re: Miss me?
 

the devil

No quotation marks this time?

Re: Zipo as baton expert
 

Keep dancing Cyrus - lol.

Re: Mens rea
 

For the sake of all of our sanities, I'll ignore the fact that you once again missed the point that the Canadian Criminal Code was being used only to explain the legal principles that underlie the claim of murder and not as the binding legislation by which the Nazis ought to have governed themselves. I'll further refrain from pointing out to you that almost all Western Democratic Criminal Codes are derived from the Common Law criminal jurisprudence of 16th through 19th century Great Britain, which were the best codification of legal principles before they began to be legislated by statute.

I'll instead focus on this sentence: 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.

That's not even murder in Canada, unless the victim is particularly old and frail, or an infant. The harrassment issue takes effect when the threat is reasonably credible, such as a credible threat to expose you to the world as a Nazi, which in turn would alienate you from all you hold dear, and you take your own life.

War?
 

[ QUOTE ]
This concept of "war crimes" is a farce and just illustrates the pathological self-righteousness of America and other western powers who endorse it.

War is a state of affairs in which there are no rules -- anything goes, kill or be killed, use everthing you've got to destroy the enemy.

When there are no rules, there is no such thing as a crime. The definition of a crime is relative to a set of rules.

Of course if the masses will buy it and therefore you can get mileage out of it, there's no reason why you couldn't pretend there's something called war crimes and use it to manipulate people to behave as you'd like them to behave. Propaganda is, after all, an important element of overall strategy and a so good warrior is wise to use it whenever it's advantageous.

But to believe such a thing exists as an objective concept universally applicable to all parties is simply deluded.

[/ QUOTE ]

This argument is useless in this context unless you strongly believe there was an existing war between the Nazis and the Jews long before they began interning and killing them off. You would have to question whether the Jews, by virtue of their Jewishness, posed a legitimate threat to the "German way of life". That the Jews were already subject to numerous restrictions and limitations on their freedoms may be evidence of that.

By the way, this was basically Hitler's argument, that the Jews' codes of morality were an assault on the German way.

Re: Holocaust Denial
 

[ QUOTE ]
"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."

1) 1500 years ago is a long time to remedy an injustice, is it not? And how can it be the "only" injustice when hundreds of thousands of native lost their homes in 1948?

[/ QUOTE ]

It is. But that doesn't mean it can't be remedied. Considering 1948 was long long after the major Jewish immigrations to Palestine, I don't see how there is a direct correlation between the Jewish immigration and the loss of homes.

[ QUOTE ]
2) Why the e of quotation marks for "Arabs"?

[/ QUOTE ] Because the Arab "nation" was not a term used at the time (first century).

[ QUOTE ]
3) There were Jews at the dawn of history? In any event, the vast majority of the population of Palestine at the start of Zionism (I mean Herzl's Zionist) was not Jewish. It was Palestinian.

[/ QUOTE ]
Since the dawn of recorded history in Canaan, arguably.

Regardless, Palestinian was a term used to refer to the Jews of Palestine, the Arabs referred to themselves as Arabs/Syrians/Egyptians/whatever. So by calling the population of Palestine "Palestinians" is a grave miscarriage of the word.

[ QUOTE ]

4) Of course Zionism was colonization. It was advertised as a colonial enterprise by the founders of Zionism from the get-go.

[/ QUOTE ]

Calling it "colonization" was the only way to convince the European powers that be to allow the Jews to move there. There's little doubt that unless there was a European interest the immigration would never have been allowed, and the evidence that most land that became Jewish was purchased and not appropriated until after the War of Independence and the establishment of the seige on the Jews. It is also ridiculous to assert colonization when the non-Jewish natives were not interned or enslaved, or shipped back to England to serve under the King.

[ QUOTE ]
5) There is plenty of evidence to contradict your rosy picture of the impact of Zionism on the natives. One doesn't have to rely on Arab propaganda, one can read Ahad Ha'am or other early Zionist settlers, Jabotinsky, Buber or other Jewish sources from a variety of political perspectives.

[/ QUOTE ]

See response to Q4.

\"in trying to denounce the Nazis\"
 

As if they needed any more "denouncement", or their actions were ever NOT capable of being denounced!

[ QUOTE ]
It is Gamblor who brought up legality in trying to denounce the Nazis, not me.

[/ QUOTE ]

It was brought up because you questioned whether their actions constituted "murder", which required a legal definition. The portion of this world ignorant of mundane details such as the definition of murder are happy to call it "killing".

Re: Holocaust Denial
 

The Nazis wanted to get rid of the Jews, but there are different ways to get rid of people. The official documents show that the intent was deportation.

I'm sure there were Nazis in the hierarchy who just intended to kill undesirables off, and many were. But this was not official policy. And like Beer and Pizza said, there is a difference between intentionally spreading disease and it happening due to circumstances. I don't think it was Nazi policy to go around coughing on undesirables and thereby eliminate them this way.

Re: Holocaust Denial
 

"I don't see how there is a direct correlation between the Jewish immigration and the loss of homes."

-If not for the Jewish immigration those people would still have their homes.

"calling the population of Palestine 'Palestinians' is a grave miscarriage of the word."

-I'll let that statement stand on its own.

"It is also ridiculous to assert colonization when the non-Jewish natives were not interned or enslaved, or shipped back to England to serve under the King."

A colony is a land settled or conquered by an outside nation and controlled by it. The Jews defined themselves as a nation, albeit an unusual one without a land. They colonized Palestine.