Why the term "holocaust denier" is meaningless; and why so many still don't get it.

I agree here. Irving was onto something and they wanted him silenced. Others have been imprisoned for asking similar questions and pointing out similar things. It makes it all the funnier when I read posts here how Lipschitz proved the holocaust. Total joke, really.

 

Denying the holocaust?

Whatever credibility you may have had...well...you have none.

 

The Holocaust happened, its factual. To pretend otherwise is blatant disregard for reality. It's heavily documented. To cling to one shred of evidence that supports your idea, while ignoring the massive amounts of evidence that destroy your idea that it didn't happen is utterly ridiculous.

It's like you think if you can catch one lie, one mistake, one misspoken word, you can disprove everything lolol.

Utterly laughable.

- - - Updated - - -

Free speech is freedom from prosecution from the government for your speech. That's it. It does not mean that stupid comments cannot or should not be shunned.

 

your making my point.

you dont counter logically - just with statements with no documentation.

the questions are simple and straight forward such not addressing them is very blatant.

leaping to conclusions.

I do not deny the holocaust, i want two questions answered:
1. what's up with the design of the gas chamber
2. where are the plans

from all the clips i have seen of actual 'deniers' - they aren't denying the holocaust so much as saying 1. the number of deaths are exaggerated and 2. many different kinds of people perished and 3. typhus or whatever was the reason people looked emaciated

my question to you is, why in the world you be against an archealogical audit of the facts? that seems plain as day.

 

What I'm against is the techniques used by holocaust deniers to further that agenda. That involves questioning one specific thing, finding fault and then inferring the rest of the evidence must also be bad. Wether or not your questions have an answer or not, plays little part in the fact the Holocaust did in fact occur.

 

See? This is what happens every time with these threads. People come on here claiming things, but provide no evidence. It's like they can't distinguish between a claim and evidence. Anyways, if you ARE THE ONE WHO CAN POST THE EVIDENCE, please do so. If it is true that there is "massive amounts of evidence" as you suggest, wouldn't you figure that it would have been posted by now?

No! It is not like that at all. All the evidence that has been posted supports three important conclusions.

1) The 6 million number is a lie that has been around since they first started floating it in the 1800s.

2) No extermination plan was ever discovered and every document, memoir, journal of the time, etc. suggest that the so called final solution was one of deportation.

3) The gas chambers that we are told exterminated millions of Jews could not have done what they claim... as in physically impossible.

 

the Jews have been claiming the Nazis killed around 6 million Jews during WW2, since the 1800s???

LOL!!!!

Adolf Eichmann admitted to Hitler's extermination order in his interview with Sassen, several years before he was captured by the Israelis.

 

I can respect that you would have issue with shady techniques. that's not the spirit of what you conveyed earlier though.

I think if a certain part of the holocaust is disproven, we figure out what that means by fitting it back into historical context. It's probably impossible for people to not take the topic personally - i get that, but i dont think that is reason enough not try to confirm what we believe to be true.

 

I can agree with that.

 

So you deny that there is massive amounts of evidence that support the fact the Holocaust happened ?

 

The real question is why you believe the Holocaust to be a fundamentally negative event. Do you deny the existence of the Jewish Problem? Do you think that Jews were kicked out of countries hundreds of times throughout history because everyone else was evil except for the poor, innocent Jews?

 

This is another thing. It's really a trick question. Of course there is a massive amount evidence, but from what we have seen, it's more like:



1) We have seen confessions both from torture, and also where the admission was so extreme that it was obvious that it was intended so it what be completely unbelievable.

2) We have seen obviously faked photos, photos that came from other atrocities that were presented as they were from nazi Germany, and photos SUPPOSEDLY showing mass graves from gassing humans that were in reality photos of typhus victims, the majority of which came after the allies bombed the hell out them and they no longer could provide the food and medicine that they provided for the Jews throughout the war TO KEEP THEM ALIVE!

3) We have seen "eyewitness" accounts from liars and crazy people. Both Hilberg and Arad use these people as sources.

That is all we have seen for "evidence."

On top of that there were three important pieces written after the war that must be considered in this discussion.

General Eisenhower's, Crusade in Europe, published in 1948

Winston Churchill's, The Second World War, which was 1000s of pages and had to be published in 6 volumes from 1948-1954, and

General de Gaulle's, Mémoires de guerre, published in 3 volumes from 1954-1959.

In all of that you will find not one mention of Nazi gas chambers.

If you have something else, please post it.

 

It should be noted regarding "eyewitnesses" that many times their media beats us over the head with these people, but later, when they finally reveal the truth, their media is silent.

Couple examples:

 

The facts are obviously troubling for some. Let's go ahead and just rely on Hollywood propaganda for our information.

Look at all the lies we have to choose from...

 

Huh? What?

 

Crcata?

 

Something else you wont laern from the Hollywood version:

“Holocaust” declared 7 years before there was a “Holocaust”

False alarm bells regarding the deaths of “millions of Jews” rang during both World War I and the Russian Civil War which followed. During the loud sound and smoky fury of wartime, such tall tales of genocide at least appeared to be somewhat plausible to the superficial reader. But during the peacetime of the 1930’s, even the most dim-witted newspaper worshipper would never believe such tales. Yet, as we shall soon see, that didn’t stop the audacious Zionists from trying....
http://www.thetruthseeker.co.uk/?p=108260

 

If Hitler had wanted to get rid of the Jews he should have had King Leopold II of Belgium do it instead of the slacker Adolf Eichmann. King Leopold II killed 10-12 million black Africans in the Congo and no one said squat about it and no one talks about it. Heck, just the other day some guy who claimed to have been in a Nazi concentration camp died and he was 103 years old.

 

I want to thank Drew Bedson for posting this article, but it was on the wrong thread, so I want to bring it over here for our readers that are still confused. It does a great job, using mainstream sources, of showing what they did with the numbers and brings other obvious, yet rarely spoken of points to life,

Enjoy:
http://www.whatreallyhappened.com/WRHARTICLES/holofour.php

 

this kind of idiotic hateful conspiracy holohoax crap has been thoroughly debunked literally dozens of times around here and yet there are some that even when confronted with undeniable facts, even when their slimy tactics are pointed out to them, even when their "experts" are laughably incompetent amateurs, they insist on regurgitating such vileness.

Its all about hating jews - PERIOD. No noble quest for "answers" that have been provided to them repeatedly, but nothing more than the profound deafness of bigotry.

<Mod Edit>

 

you hit the nail on the head.

this (*)(*)(*)(*) is about hating Jews, plain and simple.

how do we know? follow the track record and follow the trends.

they speak for themselves