Holocaust Denial

[Robbe]

[ QUOTE ]
We were not disappointed.

[/ QUOTE ]

Is there a mouse in your pocket?

[callmedonnie]

[ 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.

[Cyrus]

[ 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.

[Peter666]

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.

[Gamblor]

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?"

[Peter666]

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

[Gamblor]

[ 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.

[Peter666]

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.

[BCPVP]

[ 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.

[zipo]

>>But the way I see things, you are incapable of reasoned argument<<

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.

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

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"?

>>Usually those who employ it bankrupt their argument by doing so<<

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.