First  Prev  1  2  3  4  5  6  7  Next  Last
Holocaust Denial
10652 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
20 / F / Indonesia Raya
Offline
Posted 10/8/09

DomFortress wrote:

It's because of the way you're going at it can only generate more heated discussions, when you used political soundbites like comic strips to support your views.

India, Israel and Pakistan never signed the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty back in 1968, that's how they continued to manufacture their nuclear weapons without UN interventions to disarm them. North Korea withdrew their stands from the said treaty since 2003, and that's how they became the first nation to have nuclear weapon with a history of NPT in 2005. Iran OTOH while still a nation under the treaty, is now capable of launching tactical missile, with their plutonium enrichment research program aimed to produce "military" grade enriched plutonium for "medical" purpose. Just what disease are they planning to cure using "military" grade enriched plutonium? And how? Well their president didn't even let us know about that, when military grade enriched plutonium 240 is too dangerous to use as medicine.

Keep in mind that even while they committed war crime against Gaza, Israel never launched a single nuclear weapon. Because they kept their words that as long as Iran don't possess nuclear weapons, they will not launch a nuclear strike against only Iran.

Now let's review the principle of the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty on it's three basic components. And how they interject themselves in the case of Iran, who BTW did signed the treaty. They are: 1) non-proliferation, 2) disarmament, and 3) the right to peacefully use nuclear technology. Under component 1) Iran is not to allow to have nuclear weapons. And any attempt for Iran to have nuclear weapons will be disarmed by the United Nations Security Council(who BTW are the only nations to have nuclear weapons as agreed per component 1)) of China, France, Russia, United Kingdom, and United States of America due to component 2). But Iran can develop nuclear technology for peaceful purposes such as industrial and medical, under component 3).

So as a member of the United Nations Security Council, president Obama of US has agreed to negotiate with Iran at the request of Israel. And president Obama is "not interested in talking for the sake of talking". What this means that at the end of this negotiation either Iran must withdraw themselves from the NPT, so they can keep their nuclear weapon program, all the while Israel will be too happy to have a reason to nuke Iran to kingdom come. Or Iran had better start explaining themselves just exactly what and how are they gonna do with military grade enriched plutonium 240 for peaceful medical purpose, so the rest of the United Nations Security Council can help them with their research.

Now does any of that sounds bias, baseless, or even cruel to you? So the Iranian president Ahmadenijad can act like a victim while playing dumb, being vague, acting incompetent, and asking the wrong question: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mIc2fhDYG78&feature=channel

Not to mention is the fact that the Iranian president Ahmadenijad had been denying the WWII Holocaust of Jews for nearly 4 years and counting:
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/middle_east/4527142.stm(Wednesday, 14 December 2005)
http://www.jpost.com/servlet/Satellite?cid=1253198152301&pagename=JPost%2FJPArticle%2FShowFull(Sep 18, 2009)


oh, still biting. If you still have something to say, go to appropriate thread. So we can have proper heated argument, well something I like to people that always forgetting what I've been said and repeating same question after a while.
Just stay tuned on Oct 24. The date, IAEA will investigate Iran again and again.

"That's why you don't get it (Understand Iran), because you're lacking love." (Izumi Konata, 2007)
ah, forgot to facepalm.


10452 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
27 / M
Offline
Posted 10/9/09 , edited 10/9/09

Yei wrote:

This goes for both the Nazi and Japanese Holocausts, what do people hope to achieve by denying they happened?

I had a big argument with a Holocaust-denier in school today, and I still can't understand what the point of doing it is. So they don't have to feel sorry for the people that died?


I think there are two kinds of holocaust deniers. The first are type are typically, but not always, Christian. They’re usually the more racist of the two types and deny the holocaust only because of their blind hatred of the Jews.

The other kind of holocaust deniers are mostly, but not all, Muslim. Actually, I have yet to meet a Muslim who acknowledges the holocaust. Then again, most of the Muslims I’ve met are anti-Semites. Whatever the case, obviously not all Muslims are racist and not all deny the holocaust. In fact, I think the issue isn’t so much about religion and racism as it is about politics.

People constantly, non-stop use the holocaust to justify the nakba. To me, this isn’t a very strong argument. It makes the nakba understandable, but not necessarily acceptable. Kind of like Malcolm X in his earlier years, during The Nation of Islam. He, at that time, wanted to wage a race war against the whites. Considering the discrimination he faced I understand why he would feel that way but it’s still not something we should advocate just because we understand where he’s coming from. Think about all the Malcolm X fans who try to deny that he ever went through a phase of being racist. Even though Malcolm acknowledged before he died that, yes, he’d been racist and now he regretted it.

How does this relate? Well, people try to use the holocaust to justify the nakba. One way to attack that argument is to deny the premise. How can something that never happened justify something else? It obviously cannot. Secondly, if you begin to investigate the issue you’ll find that the argument, while unconvincing, actually has some meat when expanded upon.

You see, the Arabs and Muslims states and people alike participated in the holocaust just as naively as the Jews participated in the nakba. It’s not really their fault, in my opinion. The Jews in the nakba had been taught by the Europeans that nobody lived in Palestine when they started showing up in the 1880s, that the Arabs came after. The Jews wrongly believed they were in the right. The Muslims, similarly, were drilled with lies from European powers and from extremists amongst their own numbers. Is it their fault that they were deceived?


Yet, deceived they were. The Arab-Muslim states and leaders supported Hitler and the holocaust. Nasser and Sadat both offered to help Rommel get through North Africa so that he could reach the Greater Middle East and eradicate the 900,000-1,000,000 Jews living there. The Head of the Arab Higher Committee, a member of the Waqf Committee, Grand Mufti of Jerusalem, and President of the Grand Muslim Council Muhammad Amin al-Husayni was perhaps the most famous example of Muslim leaders trying to bring the holocaust to the Middle East. He’d been orchestrating genocidal campaigns against the Jews long before he attained his positions. On the Jewish holiday of Passover in 1920, Husayni spread rumors of Jewish violence and incited the first race riots which culminated in the murder of Jews praying at the Wailing Wall. Husayni instigated the 1929 massacres in Jerusalem, Hebron, Motza, and Safed. By 1937 he’d already publically announced his fervent support of the Nazi’s, and even relied on the Third Reich for financial support. In 1941 he visited Bagdad, Syria to aid a pro-Nazi revolt before spending the rest of WWII as Hitler’s honored guest in Berlin. During this time period Husayni launched a radio campaign advocating the eradication of the Jews.

Now, Husayni’s a bit debatable. He did hold a lot of positions and di have some support, clearly. However, part of what allowed him to get into a position of power was not Arab support but British support. It was the British who got him to the position of Grand Mufti, for example. Some historians argue, while others disagree, that he didn’t have all that much support among the Arabs. However, polls showed that 88% Palestinian Arabs favored Nazi Germany and only 9 percent Britain [source: Morris, Benny. 1948: A History of the First Arab Israeli War. Yale University Press, New Haven and London, 2008, 524 pages. page 21].

The point is that it wasn’t just the Germans or the Japanese. The Muslims were Hitler’s unwitting pawns. So, they’ll deny the holocaust for the same reason a Christian might deny or minimalize the inquisition. Why an atheist might deny that, during the French Revolution, atheists slaughtered, drowned, burned, falsely imprisoned, tortured, and decapitated thousands of innocent religious people in the name of secularism, reasoning, and “Lady Logic.”

That’s their motive. That’s also why you hear all this stuff about how the Jews secretly orchestrated the Holocaust themselves, or how they were cooperating with Hitler’s campaign and the Muslims were the real victims. It’s a way to twist the information so as to keep the Muslims from having to take credit for their historical screw up.

So, to summarize:
In general terms you have two kinds of holocaust deniers. The traditional racist holocaust deniers who deny the holocaust only because they hate the Jews. Most of these are Christians, and I’ve already written an essay about Christianity’s history of anti-Semitism. Then you have the political holocaust deniers. Most of these are Muslims or Muslim sympathizers and most are also racist, but the real motive for denying the holocaust is the Palestine v. Israel argument. The holocaust is often misused as a propaganda tool by the pro-Israel camp so the anti-Israel denies it. They do this not to degrade the Jews but to usurp the pro-Israel and often anti-Muslim arguments.

The reason the later group is mostly Muslim is not because Islam is a bad religion. It’s the same motive behind holocaust denial amongst the Germans. It’s because the Muslim leaders and nations at that time happened to be pro-Nazi supporters. Germans don’t want to dwell on the sins of their primogenitors. Neither do Christians, Muslims, Jews, ext. But we make a bigger deal of the holocaust than any other massacre in history, and so it's not really fair.
Posted 10/9/09

SeraphAlford wrote:


Yei wrote:

This goes for both the Nazi and Japanese Holocausts, what do people hope to achieve by denying they happened?

I had a big argument with a Holocaust-denier in school today, and I still can't understand what the point of doing it is. So they don't have to feel sorry for the people that died?


I think there are two kinds of holocaust deniers. The first are type are typically, but not always, Christian. They’re usually the more racist of the two types and deny the holocaust only because of their blind hatred of the Jews.

The other kind of holocaust deniers are mostly, but not all, Muslim. Actually, I have yet to meet a Muslim who acknowledges the holocaust. Then again, most of the Muslims I’ve met are anti-Semites. Whatever the case, obviously not all Muslims are racist and not all deny the holocaust. In fact, I think the issue isn’t so much about religion and racism as it is about politics.

People constantly, non-stop use the holocaust to justify the nakba. To me, this isn’t a very strong argument. It makes the nakba understandable, but not necessarily acceptable. Kind of like Malcolm X in his earlier years, during The Nation of Islam. He, at that time, wanted to wage a race war against the whites. Considering the discrimination he faced I understand why he would feel that way but it’s still not something we should advocate just because we understand where he’s coming from. Think about all the Malcolm X fans who try to deny that he ever went through a phase of being racist. Even though Malcolm acknowledged before he died that, yes, he’d been racist and now he regretted it.

How does this relate? Well, people try to use the holocaust to justify the nakba. One way to attack that argument is to deny the premise. How can something that never happened justify something else? It obviously cannot. Secondly, if you begin to investigate the issue you’ll find that the argument, while unconvincing, actually has some meat when expanded upon.

You see, the Arabs and Muslims states and people alike participated in the holocaust just as naively as the Jews participated in the nakba. It’s not really their fault, in my opinion. The Jews in the nakba had been taught by the Europeans that nobody lived in Palestine when they started showing up in the 1880s, that the Arabs came after. The Jews wrongly believed they were in the right. The Muslims, similarly, were drilled with lies from European powers and from extremists amongst their own numbers. Is it their fault that they were deceived?


Yet, deceived they were. The Arab-Muslim states and leaders supported Hitler and the holocaust. Nasser and Sadat both offered to help Rommel get through North Africa so that he could reach the Greater Middle East and eradicate the 900,000-1,000,000 Jews living there. The Head of the Arab Higher Committee, a member of the Waqf Committee, Grand Mufti of Jerusalem, and President of the Grand Muslim Council Muhammad Amin al-Husayni was perhaps the most famous example of Muslim leaders trying to bring the holocaust to the Middle East. He’d been orchestrating genocidal campaigns against the Jews long before he attained his positions. On the Jewish holiday of Passover in 1920, Husayni spread rumors of Jewish violence and incited the first race riots which culminated in the murder of Jews praying at the Wailing Wall. Husayni instigated the 1929 massacres in Jerusalem, Hebron, Motza, and Safed. By 1937 he’d already publically announced his fervent support of the Nazi’s, and even relied on the Third Reich for financial support. In 1941 he visited Bagdad, Syria to aid a pro-Nazi revolt before spending the rest of WWII as Hitler’s honored guest in Berlin. During this time period Husayni launched a radio campaign advocating the eradication of the Jews.

Now, Husayni’s a bit debatable. He did hold a lot of positions and di have some support, clearly. However, part of what allowed him to get into a position of power was not Arab support but British support. It was the British who got him to the position of Grand Mufti, for example. Some historians argue, while others disagree, that he didn’t have all that much support among the Arabs. However, polls showed that 88% Palestinian Arabs favored Nazi Germany and only 9 percent Britain [source: Morris, Benny. 1948: A History of the First Arab Israeli War. Yale University Press, New Haven and London, 2008, 524 pages. page 21].

The point is that it wasn’t just the Germans or the Japanese. The Muslims were Hitler’s unwitting pawns. So, they’ll deny the holocaust for the same reason a Christian might deny or minimalize the inquisition. Why an atheist might deny that, during the French Revolution, atheists slaughtered, drowned, burned, falsely imprisoned, tortured, and decapitated thousands of innocent religious people in the name of secularism, reasoning, and “Lady Logic.”

That’s their motive. That’s also why you hear all this stuff about how the Jews secretly orchestrated the Holocaust themselves, or how they were cooperating with Hitler’s campaign and the Muslims were the real victims. It’s a way to twist the information so as to keep the Muslims from having to take credit for their historical screw up.

So, to summarize:
In general terms you have two kinds of holocaust deniers. The traditional racist holocaust deniers who deny the holocaust only because they hate the Jews. Most of these are Christians, and I’ve already written an essay about Christianity’s history of anti-Semitism. Then you have the political holocaust deniers. Most of these are Muslims or Muslim sympathizers and most are also racist, but the real motive for denying the holocaust is the Palestine v. Israel argument. The holocaust is often misused as a propaganda tool by the pro-Israel camp so the anti-Israel denies it. They do this not to degrade the Jews but to usurp the pro-Israel and often anti-Muslim arguments.

The reason the later group is mostly Muslim is not because Islam is a bad religion. It’s the same motive behind holocaust denial amongst the Germans. It’s because the Muslim leaders and nations at that time happened to be pro-Nazi supporters. Germans don’t want to dwell on the sins of their primogenitors. Neither do Christians, Muslims, Jews, ext. But we make a bigger deal of the holocaust than any other massacre in history, and so it's not really fair.


I guess I will trow this is in did you know that Walt-Disney and Henry ford where also antisemitic?
10452 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
27 / M
Offline
Posted 10/9/09 , edited 10/10/09

CecilTheDarkKnight_234 wrote:I guess I will trow this is in did you know that Walt-Disney and Henry ford where also antisemitic?


Actually, I did. Walt Disney was racist against pretty much everybody. Disney Cartoons are pretty racist in content.

Fantasia: I think this picture says it all:



Even in a tropical paradise of mythical creatures the black-torso centaurs are the giddy servants of Caucasian-torso centaurs. Later versions of fantasia simply removed the black centaur, but she was there and it was racist.

Dumbo: We all remember the crude black stereotype crows. To make it worse, the voice actors were actually white guys putting on their best black voice. A bit like how in the motion picture with sound, “The Jazz Singer,” the black characters were played by white men with black face. Except, of course, Dumbo came late enough that people should’ve known better by now.

Peter Pan: Why does the red man say “How?!” Well, actually he doesn’t. That’s a strange ass invention of Hollywood. Why is the red man red? Well, a long time ago an ‘Injun,” kissed a woman and blushed and it’s been a part of the red man’s skin color ever since. You know, because white is the normal color of a human and the rest of you guys are abnormalities who have to explain how you were corrupted from your pure, Caucasian roots. Also, “Injun,” is the equivalent of the “N-word,” for Native Americans.

Aladin: This one jumps straight into racism. Right off the back they start singing about how Arabs will “Cut off your ear if they don’t like your face,” and that’s an actual quote.

Though, the song does follow up by saying: "Arabian Knights! Like Arabian Days! More often than not! They're hotter than hot! In a lot of good ways!" So the Arabs may be ear slicing barbarians, but damn it, they're sexy!



Screw you, that's a sexy ass cartoon!
516 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
26 / F / Florida
Offline
Posted 10/24/09
It's actually Arabian Nights, not Arabian Knights.
4053 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
M / Yo Mommas House
Offline
Posted 10/26/09 , edited 10/26/09
People can say what they want about anti-semtism involving this but I agree with Ansar on another thread unless it can actually be proven anti-semitism then your statement is bogus. Fact finders or truth seekers ah yes I like that term better and will now replace it with holocaust denial. The holocaust wouldnt be such a center of a attention if you wasnt constantly reminded on it on a daily basis by certain "countries and groups of people" when you criticize their wicked behavior.

So if someone would have asked me if the holocaust did happen I would say yes indeed there was a holocaust. Jews and others were killed in a wicked way and reparations was rightfully paid to the victims of the holocaust nobody can deny this. Hitler was evil and had to be stopped. Now if the holocaust happened in the way I was taught now this is where I get confused at. I really dont know what to believe now because of the two sides of the story I am hearing. Right now I am leaning towards no the reason because I have been lied to numerous times about history and continue to be lied to today. I am open for anything now. If I can just find a good holocaust debate that would be most interesting in forming my opinion. Right now most debates are just name calling anti-semtism left and right to the point the essence of the topic is never discussed. To me although some people fall into that trap of agreeing with the name callers who doesnt successfully refute anything, I can see right threw it and it looks like a big waste of time. Even when there are gatherings around the world with people who have different views immiediatly most media outlets goes to attack mode. They dont even know why they are disagreeing but they just simply putting it because they hate jews. Unbelievable your the news network your suppose to report information not throw your bias opnions in there.

Never in my wildess dreams did I think I would even dare question this event. As growing up, in school I was taught WW2 and the holocaust only. In fact thats all I knew about WW2 was there was hitler. I had no idea asains were being slaughtered as well. Just Hitler massacuring Jews that was my only history of WW2. I seen many holocaust movies all were sad and believe it or not I was scared. I use to have dreams about hiding under floors and creeks and people breaking down doors looking for me. Rounding me up either shooting me point blank on the head in the streets or sending me away to some camp for forced labor. Nobody can deny that some of the things the Jews and other victims went through the holocaust wasn't bad. But also as I am reading some of the things that happened was either exaggurated or never even happened at all. My friend is very good at this but I am not like I said so untill I am comfortable I will keep my info to myself.

It wasnt untill the aftermath of the holocaust and the events taking place had me wonder because it felt like some people are abusing it to get political grounds. Some people are even becoming rich off the holocaust. To me this is spitting on many of the peoples graves who been through it. You are using them to advance your own selfish interest. Pretty much you are happy that the holocaust happened because if not you wouldnt be in the state of power you are in now. I dislike this being the only event where you speak about it you are jailed. I dislike the name calling to silence people. All this like I said earlier makes this event a little fishy and I would like to hear what these truth seekers found and why the even bothered to research it in the first place. Imagine if there was an open debate or conversation of this issue it would clear a lot of misunderstandings up.
1718 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
65 / M / Croatia
Offline
Posted 10/26/09 , edited 10/26/09
I completely agree on the last paragraph. I read this debate, and every time I wanted to write those words, but I didn't have courage.
Well, to start, I just want to point out who was on Hitlers murder list:

1. Mentally disabled - all people with mental and body disadvantages were killed in order "not to taint the supreme race".
2. Homosexuals
3. Free Masons
4. Jewish people
5. Gypsies - "Indo - European wandering people". Now they were completely exterminated (accept in Spain and parts of Balkan), since they dont live anywhere else but in Europe, but you don't see them having trillions of euros for suffering. Or complaining about how all Germans are devils, and how they hate all Germans like Jewish people do (but that doesn't stop them from living there, or taking German money) - and that is what I don't like, and can not respect.

I feel that Jewish people, by making holocaust "their own", neglected millions of others who suffered and died there, thus neglecting holocaust in their own way. Is their suffering really bigger then the suffering of others? And this I find biased and unforgivable.

As you can see from my text above, I wont ever deny holocaust, but there were other people suffering and being killed (lots of them Germans themselves ... btw lots those Jews were also Germans), and I was shocked that they teach that in Europe, but Americans are so ignorant about all of it. Everything else that I feel was said by drizza in last paragraph.
10452 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
27 / M
Offline
Posted 10/26/09


I lived in Germany for years and I don’t think that they teach that only Jews suffered in the holocaust. In the United Kingdom there’s been a recent controversy because many public schools have stopped teaching the holocaust at all because it offends Muslim students.

I’ve also lived in America for years and I do not believe that we teach this here either. Everybody knows that other people suffered. It’s common knowledge. It’s not like you had to scourge your local library to discover this yourself. You already knew it. Without any research you could come on here and state that fact assuredly because it’s common knowledge.

I think that what happens is that you we have a lot more source information and images of Jewish suffering so it becomes the subject of more popular media. For example, we have the Diary of Anne Frank, a twelve year old Jewish girl who was killed by the Nazis along with her family. We don’t have a Roma equivalent of this.

Actually, that you’re asking the question:


Is their suffering really bigger than the suffering of others?


Tells me that there are people who’re either exaggerating the suffering of the other ethnic groups or downplaying that of the Jews because the answer is a resounding yes.

Historians agree that some 11 million people were massacred in by the Nazi regime. About six million of these people were Jewish. That means that the Jews alone make up more than half of all the victims and that the suffering of all the other victims combined was statistically a smaller industry then the suffering of this specific ethnic group.

Also, there’s some confusion on this whole topic because if you take a trip to the Wikipedia page on the holocaust you’ll see that the actually historical definition is debated. Holocaust is actually a word and was used many times before World War II to describe various genocidal campaigns. The term was later applied to the Nazi’s genocidal campaign against the Jews. After that it was applied to the Nazi campaign in general. Some historians even go so far as to include the killing of Russian civilians during urban warfare during battles like the fight for Stalingrad.

The Hebrew term, “Shoah,” is often translated to “Holocaust,” but this is confusing because the Shoah is the Jews referencing their own unique suffering not the overall Nazi campaign. But most people use the term against its historical context with its popular meaning which is in fact the overall Nazi campaign.

So we have to solidify our terms, but in daily use and most debate we don’t do this. Even in textbooks they automatically make the assumption that people know the historical meaning of the term and not just the popular meaning, but the vast majority of us do not.

I also think that the ethnic cleansing of nearly 900,000 Jews throughout the Greater Middle East should be included amongst the numbers in the holocaust because the political Islam campaign against the Jews was just an extension of the Nazi holocaust and in fact much of it was directly funded by the Third Reich. But we don’t include these people suffering either because it wasn’t done directly by the Nazi. So you see the term is slippery?

Should we include the Jews killed by the Nazi? Should we include everyone killed by the Nazi? Should we include everyone killed by the Nazi and their allies? In this case we’d also have to include the soldiers of the various nations. Should we include everyone who died in the war? That would mean millions of Nazi and German civilians as well as millions of Japanese civilians and soldiers were all victims of holocaust the number of people we who’s death we accredit to the holocaust more than doubles.

The British bombings of German cities during one six month period caused a civilian casualty count greater than the combined civilian and military casualties of the initial blasts in both Nagasaki and Hiroshima.

I agree with you that we should also acknowledge the suffering of the other millions of people but your own list didn’t include the soldiers, the civilians, and various other casualties of the conflict. So I COULD (not that I do,) say that you’re neglecting the suffering and death in your own way and that THIS is bias and unforgivable.

Do you see what I’m saying?
10452 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
27 / M
Offline
Posted 10/26/09 , edited 10/26/09

drizza wrote:
So if someone would have asked me if the holocaust did happen I would say yes indeed there was a holocaust. Jews and others were killed in a wicked way and reparations was rightfully paid to the victims of the holocaust nobody can deny this. Hitler was evil and had to be stopped. Now if the holocaust happened in the way I was taught now this is where I get confused at. I really dont know what to believe now because of the two sides of the story I am hearing. Right now I am leaning towards no the reason because I have been lied to numerous times about history and continue to be lied to today. I am open for anything now. If I can just find a good holocaust debate that would be most interesting in forming my opinion. Right now most debates are just name calling anti-semtism left and right to the point the essence of the topic is never discussed. To me although some people fall into that trap of agreeing with the name callers who doesnt successfully refute anything, I can see right threw it and it looks like a big waste of time. Even when there are gatherings around the world with people who have different views immiediatly most media outlets goes to attack mode. They dont even know why they are disagreeing but they just simply putting it because they hate jews. Unbelievable your the news network your suppose to report information not throw your bias opnions in there.

Never in my wildess dreams did I think I would even dare question this event. As growing up, in school I was taught WW2 and the holocaust only. In fact thats all I knew about WW2 was there was hitler. I had no idea asains were being slaughtered as well. Just Hitler massacuring Jews that was my only history of WW2. I seen many holocaust movies all were sad and believe it or not I was scared. I use to have dreams about hiding under floors and creeks and people breaking down doors looking for me. Rounding me up either shooting me point blank on the head in the streets or sending me away to some camp for forced labor. Nobody can deny that some of the things the Jews and other victims went through the holocaust wasn't bad. But also as I am reading some of the things that happened was either exaggurated or never even happened at all. My friend is very good at this but I am not like I said so untill I am comfortable I will keep my info to myself.


The holocaust is one of the best documented events in history. We have eye witness accounts from Germans, Jews, Gypsies, Nazis, whites, blacks, gentiles, victims, and victimizers alike. Many of the Nazi generals actually admitted to their war crimes. In many cases the holocaust is actually downplayed. Rommel, for example, is considered by many to be a chivalrous and liberal general but German historians have recently produced a documentary showing that in all reality this was just a propaganda rumor. We have photos, videos, documents, we have people with scars and the tattoos placed on their skin during their time in the concentration camps.

You can’t just say that we’re labeling you and silencing you if we call you ignorant for denying or questioning fact. That’s like saying that we’re trying to silence you for calling you ignorant when you say pigs are a species flying felines. The fact is they’re not and the fact is that the holocaust happened rather you want to accept it or not.

I hate to say it but if you doubt the holocaust you’re ignorant. There’s more documentation of the holocaust than there is of any other genocide in history. There’re living witnesses to this very day. There’s more documentation of the suffering of the Jews than there is evidence Muhammad (pbuh,) ever existed.

The fact is that while not all holocaust deniers are anti-Semites, most anti-Semites are holocaust deniers and vice versa.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5Z6Uolqm6gI&feature=related


U.S. Army staffers organizing stacks of German documents collected by war crimes investigators as evidence for the International Military Tribunal.


Discretion advised:


Why do people call you a anti-Semite when you start talking about how the holocaust ‘didn’t happen at all,’ or was ‘exaggerated,’? Well, do you question that we bombed Nagasaki and Hiroshima? Do you question that hundreds of thousands of Palestinians were ethnically cleansed? No, and no again. You don’t, you’ve made that much quite clear. Yet there is more evidence that the holocaust happened at the girth in which it happened than there is for any of those events, and yet you deny it, you disbelieve it.

You don’t deny that the war itself happened, yet most of the research and historical documentation about the war is centered around the holocaust.

You don’t question that people died in Stalingrad, yet there’s more evidence of the gas chambers in the concentration camp which your friend the ‘physics major,’ denies than there was of the civilian casualties there.

Posted 10/26/09
Never deny history. Millions of people died in World War II and other situations because of very petty things.
4053 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
M / Yo Mommas House
Offline
Posted 10/26/09 , edited 10/26/09
Does anyone here remember me saying the holocaust didnt happen? I am quite sure I mentioned that if someone asked me if there was a holocaust I would say Yes There Was One. Seraph and I already said I am not debating any holocaust issues because my mind is not made up of yet with the facts. Simply is what I am stating is what I heard. So far I havent heard any anti-semtism coming from truth seekers accept those people who just hate jews all together. I could care less about your views I just hate it when people try to force something on me. I examine both sides and will come up with a conclusion but thanks for your information you posted that I already knew waay back in high school. And please dont mention my friend if you want to talk to him he is still waiting on you on the other thread.
1718 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
65 / M / Croatia
Offline
Posted 10/27/09

SeraphAlford wrote:



I lived in Germany for years and I don’t think that they teach that only Jews suffered in the holocaust. In the United Kingdom there’s been a recent controversy because many public schools have stopped teaching the holocaust at all because it offends Muslim students.

I’ve also lived in America for years and I do not believe that we teach this here either. Everybody knows that other people suffered. It’s common knowledge. It’s not like you had to scourge your local library to discover this yourself. You already knew it. Without any research you could come on here and state that fact assuredly because it’s common knowledge.

I think that what happens is that you we have a lot more source information and images of Jewish suffering so it becomes the subject of more popular media. For example, we have the Diary of Anne Frank, a twelve year old Jewish girl who was killed by the Nazis along with her family. We don’t have a Roma equivalent of this.

Actually, that you’re asking the question:


Is their suffering really bigger than the suffering of others?


Tells me that there are people who’re either exaggerating the suffering of the other ethnic groups or downplaying that of the Jews because the answer is a resounding yes.

Historians agree that some 11 million people were massacred in by the Nazi regime. About six million of these people were Jewish. That means that the Jews alone make up more than half of all the victims and that the suffering of all the other victims combined was statistically a smaller industry then the suffering of this specific ethnic group.

Also, there’s some confusion on this whole topic because if you take a trip to the Wikipedia page on the holocaust you’ll see that the actually historical definition is debated. Holocaust is actually a word and was used many times before World War II to describe various genocidal campaigns. The term was later applied to the Nazi’s genocidal campaign against the Jews. After that it was applied to the Nazi campaign in general. Some historians even go so far as to include the killing of Russian civilians during urban warfare during battles like the fight for Stalingrad.

The Hebrew term, “Shoah,” is often translated to “Holocaust,” but this is confusing because the Shoah is the Jews referencing their own unique suffering not the overall Nazi campaign. But most people use the term against its historical context with its popular meaning which is in fact the overall Nazi campaign.

So we have to solidify our terms, but in daily use and most debate we don’t do this. Even in textbooks they automatically make the assumption that people know the historical meaning of the term and not just the popular meaning, but the vast majority of us do not.

I also think that the ethnic cleansing of nearly 900,000 Jews throughout the Greater Middle East should be included amongst the numbers in the holocaust because the political Islam campaign against the Jews was just an extension of the Nazi holocaust and in fact much of it was directly funded by the Third Reich. But we don’t include these people suffering either because it wasn’t done directly by the Nazi. So you see the term is slippery?

Should we include the Jews killed by the Nazi? Should we include everyone killed by the Nazi? Should we include everyone killed by the Nazi and their allies? In this case we’d also have to include the soldiers of the various nations. Should we include everyone who died in the war? That would mean millions of Nazi and German civilians as well as millions of Japanese civilians and soldiers were all victims of holocaust the number of people we who’s death we accredit to the holocaust more than doubles.

The British bombings of German cities during one six month period caused a civilian casualty count greater than the combined civilian and military casualties of the initial blasts in both Nagasaki and Hiroshima.

I agree with you that we should also acknowledge the suffering of the other millions of people but your own list didn’t include the soldiers, the civilians, and various other casualties of the conflict. So I COULD (not that I do,) say that you’re neglecting the suffering and death in your own way and that THIS is bias and unforgivable.

Do you see what I’m saying?


OK, so I lived in Germany, Italy, US, and I am citizen of Croatia. So, when I wrote about holocaust knowledge, and how I was amazed that people dont know about it, I was talking about my time in US, not Europeans. There I spent my time with doctors mostly (funny how people congregate by occupation), and I was not amused when i found out that so highly educated people know holocaust only as "killing of Jews". It was not targeted to Jews only. In Balkan, Croats (yes, we fought on the nazi side, not proud of it) tried to exterminate Serbs, Bulgarians tried to eradicate Macedonians, Italians were killing off Croats (communist fighters), etc.
So, what is really angering people is that while all the people made peace with what happened, acknowledged crimes and punished the guilty, Jews still can not let go. They are opening old wounds, and they dont miss one opportunity to say: we were killed, and all of you are guilty. Now I could write tons of pages of my own experiences how europeans are irritated about it. Little example: there was huge exhibition in Vienna related to Donau - all the countries through which river flows participated. Final exhibition was in old abandoned jewish theater. And then, uninvated they show up, saying how current Austrian government is Nazi because it was jewish theater, and they wont give them money to build new theater etc... and then there was talk about holocaust.
Every exhibision with Israel - holocaust. Every jewish sponsored movie festival - holocaust. Was there one word about people helping them there? No. One word of at least acknowledging other victims? no. To them, it just became tool by wich they control public opinion, and take HUGE amounts of money. After all the people killed in WWII - why only them? What is so special about them that after 60 years they can not let go. Or at least stop taking money, and commercially exploit all the dead? Maybe start to bloody respect them?

As for the other victims in WWII - yes, there were plenty. Yes, Germans bombed towns, in Balkans whole villages were slaughtered bacouse there were hiding or helping resistance or there was one german soldier killed. Allied bombing of civil targets, german bombing of GB,...

And the true horror of Eastern front - where 80% of germans forces were fighting against Russia. Yes it was all horrible, and I know what you mean, but here we are talking about holocaust and people who died in camps. And that is why I made the list, and why I talked about camps only.

And, since you lived in Germany, I think you know that WWII was only continuation of WWI, for witch most of the Germans believe was plot of GB to destroy German industry (success) and deny them colonies (success), and French to take Alzaise and Loraine (success). - sorry, unrelated.
244 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
24 / M / Pittsburgh
Offline
Posted 10/27/09
Me neither =/ My guess is it has something to do with underlying prejudice, because as I understand it it's pretty much been proven beyond a doubt that Hitler did murder Jews. The exact number is disputed a lot but it's hard to find someone who denies it altogether, unless they are secretly anti-semetic. Another reason that some people deny these things is just ignorance that it ever happened; not too many people are educated about the holocaust the Japanese committed towards the Chinese during WWII, so they just don't know it happened o_o or because they love Japan so much lol.
10452 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
27 / M
Offline
Posted 10/27/09

OK, so I lived in Germany, Italy, US, and I am citizen of Croatia. So, when I wrote about holocaust knowledge, and how I was amazed that people dont know about it, I was talking about my time in US, not Europeans. There I spent my time with doctors mostly (funny how people congregate by occupation), and I was not amused when i found out that so highly educated people know holocaust only as "killing of Jews". It was not targeted to Jews only. In Balkan, Croats (yes, we fought on the nazi side, not proud of it) tried to exterminate Serbs, Bulgarians tried to eradicate Macedonians, Italians were killing off Croats (communist fighters), etc.


Nobody is saying that the Jews were the only people targeted by the Nazi forces. We all know that the Jews weren’t the only people who died in that time period. However, the term Holocaust was applied specifically to the Jews. That’s what the historical term references. The confusion comes in because why the historical term is specific to the Jews the popular term has been extended to include everybody. So when you ask an educated person about it and they say that it was “Killing of the Jews,” they’re right. That doesn’t necessarily mean they don’t know that other people suffered, millions of other people did suffer, but the term itself is referencing a specific genocide not all the death that happened at the hands of the Nazi party.

Let’s use a less controversial but similar historical example. The Spartans kept slaves from war, but only some of these slaves were helots. The helots were a social class of conquered people. You see, Sparta was originally four Laconian villages. These villages united and conquered all the other villages throughout southern Laconia. The villages that came willingly became citizens of the Spartan Demos, or peroikoi. (I’m not sure on the spelling but it translates to “Dwellers about.) Those Laconian villages that resisted were degraded to helots, which were slaves. So, if you ask me what a helot was I may say, “A slave in Sparta,” and that’s true. I may also say, “a Laconian prisoner of war forced to servile labor,” and that’s still correct because not all the people enslaved by the Spartans were helots, but all the helots were slaves in Sparta.

So, not all the people killed by the Nazi were victims of the holocaust, though they were victims of the Nazi regime, but all holocaust victims were victims of the Nazi. You see? It’s not saying that nobody else suffered. It’s simply debating the meaning of the word ‘holocaust.’

I, personally, feel we should extend the term to include many other groups we often ignore. However, for historical reasons many scholars think it’s more specific than that and is referencing the Jewish genocide in particular.

It’s not saying that nobody else died. It’s saying that the holocaust is the term applied to the Jewish suffering. We all know other people suffered, but if you look up the definition of the term it has historically been used to designate the particular genocide amongst a fit of genocides taking place at the time.


So, what is really angering people is that while all the people made peace with what happened, acknowledged crimes and punished the guilty, Jews still can not let go.

So people are angry because the Jews don’t want to forget that an entire third of their race was obliterated in a matter of years? That sounds like racial animosity to me. If it was our people we’d certainly remember it, and so we do. Women remember a history of being defined as inferior. Blacks remember slavery. Native Americans remember the Sandcreek Massacre.

I don’t think anybody else has moved on. I think we all remember the terrible things other people have done to us and we SHOULD. Those who don’t learn from history are doomed to repeat its mistakes, and if you ‘move on,’ if you start pretending like it didn’t happen, how’re you supposed to learn from it?

Think about the Japanese Relocation Camps in America. The Japanese Americans are still collecting money for that trespass to this very day. Every survivor is being granted tens of thousands of dollars.


I know what you mean, but here we are talking about holocaust and people who died in camps. And that is why I made the list, and why I talked about camps only.


So now only those who were killed in the camps count? What about the Gypsies, the Jews, the blacks, gays, deaf, and dumb who were just shot in the street? Why’re you neglecting their suffering?

The point is that the historical term holocaust IS the killing of the Jews by the Nazi. That’s what it means.


And, since you lived in Germany, I think you know that WWII was only continuation of WWI, for witch most of the Germans believe was plot of GB to destroy German industry (success) and deny them colonies (success), and French to take Alzaise and Loraine (success). - sorry, unrelated.


Most Germans don’t seem to have any idea what went on. They seem to know that there was a war. They know they lost. They know they were in the wrong and did terrible things to various people, and that’s about it. I went to German public schools and we never covered World War II. It was like a big missing chunk in the text books from the year 1930-1948.
10452 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
27 / M
Offline
Posted 10/27/09

drizza wrote:

Does anyone here remember me saying the holocaust didnt happen? I am quite sure I mentioned that if someone asked me if there was a holocaust I would say Yes There Was One. Seraph and I already said I am not debating any holocaust issues because my mind is not made up of yet with the facts. Simply is what I am stating is what I heard. So far I havent heard any anti-semtism coming from truth seekers accept those people who just hate jews all together. I could care less about your views I just hate it when people try to force something on me. I examine both sides and will come up with a conclusion but thanks for your information you posted that I already knew waay back in high school. And please dont mention my friend if you want to talk to him he is still waiting on you on the other thread.


You’re the one who brought him up, Drizza. You didn’t say you didn’t think the holocaust happened. You did say you agree with Ansar, and Ansar is of the opinion that it didn’t happen and everyone who believes it did is part of some vast international conspiracy to silence you ‘truth seekers.’

That term doesn’t even describe you. Drizza, you just look for what you want to believe is true and if it turns out to be so you’re happy. And if it turns out to be obviously false then you declare yourself agnostic.

I mean, come on. How’re you legitimately going to buy into anything Ansar said? The entire thread about the Zeitgeist discussion was total bullshit. I feel like we’re looking at two completely different things. I don’t see how you can stare down at human excrement and claim to see aesthetic mountains unless you’re intentionally diluting yourself to make the bullshit that’s really there look like the evidence you want to see.

I don’t think you’re being truthful, I think you’re being dishonest and disguising it as being truthful under a banner of agnosticism. You're not being intellectually honest with me or yourself or anyone else.
First  Prev  1  2  3  4  5  6  7  Next  Last
You must be logged in to post.