Holocaust Revisionists Lawyer Sentenced to 3 1/2 Years!

reply to post by IAmTetsuo


Thank you

Of course we shouldn't forget that the US has recently passed a resolution making it illegal to deny the Armenian Genocide - I don't agree with these laws, I think they miss the point. The last thing that we want is this rolled through history - how about we just prosecute people for commiting these atrocities in the first place?

It is my opinion that all the European Genocides of the 20th century, from Armenia onwards, should be taught as one unit of history, not excluding the genocide of the Jews by the Nazis. The only thing that is unique about the holocaust is the attempt on the part of the Germans to conduct it as humanely as possible and to develop a machinery of murder (and profit). With that exception all the genocides are relational and for there to be wider understanding of just what occurred, and for us to move forward, we need to give each episode equal weight. Each life is as valuable as the next, the magnitude of death toll to each designated group is irrelevant.

The Armenian Genocide set a precendent for the twentieth century, nationalism became entwined with ethnicity and it was believed that the only way to achieve national identity and unity was to create a completely homogenized people. Same race, same religion, same cultural identity. All the genocides of the first half of the twentieth century were framed by these beliefs.

A terrible chain reaction swept Europe. Where victim became victimizer. The Ukrainians victims of genocide by the Soviets, then participated in the genocide of the Jews, assisting the Nazis and out stripping them in brutality. They were by no means unique, the genocides of Serbian orthodox Christians was exacted by their neighbours the Ustasha Catholics and Bosniac muslims. People who had lived side by side for decades cast as enemies by the state. It never ceases to amaze me how little encouragement man needs to kill his fellow human beings. The consequences of the genocides in the Balkans are still being played out.

Race is an ideology invented in the mid 19th century that bears no relation to scientific fact or theory. Those familiar with the work of Count Gobineau will be all too glaringly aware of how the genocides of Europe corresponded almost identically with his division of the races and particularly of those areas that he earmarked as being mainly made up of the degenerative races. Gobineau’s racial concept was based upon his experiences as a product of colonial France, and naturally assumed the supremacy of the white ‘race’. Those people who’s skin was white but bore facial characteristics that differed from his own northern European looks were deemed the product of ‘racial contamination’ or ‘racial interbreeding’.

It is often ignored that the real reason that the Jewish holocaust receives more study time than any other is because a significant proportion of the victims were white northern Europeans. They were also Jews, but even to the Nazis this was secondary to their ‘racial characteristics’. Goering famously said, when told by another Party member that someone in his employ was a Jew “I decide who is Jewish here.” One of Hitler’s mentors was in fact married to a Jewess, he dined with her, enjoyed her company. She was a white northern European Jew. The sad fact cannot be ignored that history remembers most keenly the white victims. The Jews and Slavs of Poland, Slovakia, Ukraine, Serbia etc etc are secondary because they are not deemed to be white – not by the Nazis and not by the western world.

Millions of Germans who were afraid to speak their mind could have stopped the Holocoust but a fascist regime kept them in line with fear.


I think most of the german population didn´t knew about the Holocaust during WWII, most of the ~6 million jews which were killed came from east-europe and russia etc.




[edit on 21-1-2008 by Chris_2008]

Originally posted by neformore
More intriguingly, you said this;

Originally posted by benign.psychosis
I think we can attribute that to a faulty perception of the reader.

"We"?

You do like referring to yourself in multiple terms.

Are you schizophrenic by any chance?

inclusive:
5. grammar including speaker and person addressed: describes a pronoun such as "we" that includes the speaker and the person or persons spoken to

Hope that helps.

edit:

It's funny that you would question if I was schizophrenic by using an inclusive we, while another poster, after I asked "Should we start making the world safe for idiots?" today asked me this:

What's this "we" stuff, white man? Groupthink again, huh. Your every expression betrays both your cryptofascist collectivism and your innate fear.

I was not aware that the majority did not understand grammitical inclusiveness.

[edit on 21-1-2008 by benign.psychosis]

Calling yourself "we" or "us" as though you are more than one person is nothing unusual

Have you never heard of Newfoundland.

"pass us the peanut butter"

Originally posted by KilgoreTrout
Of course we shouldn't forget that the US has recently passed a resolution making it illegal to deny the Armenian Genocide - I don't agree with these laws,

I really don't want to derail the thread, but can you tell me which resolution this is? It worries me, and is probably unconstitutional if it's a law.

Originally posted by Johnmike

Originally posted by KilgoreTrout
Of course we shouldn't forget that the US has recently passed a resolution making it illegal to deny the Armenian Genocide - I don't agree with these laws,

I really don't want to derail the thread, but can you tell me which resolution this is? It worries me, and is probably unconstitutional if it's a law.

I am sorry but I think that I may have got that wrong or mis-stated the implication at least (should've checked before posting) - the US passed a bill recognising that it was a genocide. The implication is though that the US courts can now be used to try anyone who denies that it was a holocaust.

There is a thread discussing the issue here, it is worth a read.

www.abovetopsecret.com...

reply to post by KilgoreTrout


I see. But this doesn't try and make it illegal, does it? I'd imagine that it'd be illegal due to the first amendment to the Constitution. Not that's stopped Congress before.

[edit on 21-1-2008 by Johnmike]

Originally posted by benign.psychosis
I was not aware that the majority did not understand grammitical inclusiveness.

[edit on 21-1-2008 by benign.psychosis]

Its not that people don't understand it, its that the use of it in a thread conversation between two people implies that one person is speaking for a group, and not as an individual.

Any other use of it is really rather patronising. Because it implies either that you are talking down and trying to belittle, or that you are trying to subvert, because "we" obviously don't agree.

Of course, being a writer, you understand that.

Language is such a clever device don't you think? A few subtle changes here and there and things can be made to read so much differently.

Originally posted by KilgoreTrout
reply to post by IAmTetsuo

 

Of course we shouldn't forget that the US has recently passed a resolution making it illegal to deny the Armenian Genocide - I don't agree with these laws, I think they miss the point.

Strangely enough, I don't agree either. All I want (like I said before) is denial of all genocides to be treated equally by the law. That means no legal penalties, whatsoever. Let the Holocaust or Armenian Genocide deniers hang themselves with their own rope. They are fools; let's not make them martyrs as well.

The last thing that we want is this rolled through history - how about we just prosecute people for commiting these atrocities in the first place?

Harder than it looks. The only reason why it was easy to prosecute Nazi war criminals (and their Japanese and Italian equivalents) was the total defeat, occupation, and rebuilding of Germany.

It is my opinion that all the European Genocides of the 20th century, from Armenia onwards, should be taught as one unit of history, not excluding the genocide of the Jews by the Nazis.

Good idea; genocides seem to belong to three patterns:

Conquest by expanding foreign power - aboriginal peoples
Traditional ethno-tribal hatreds - Hutu/Tutsi, Armenian/Turk. Serb/Croat
Ideological and religious - all communist genocides/democides

The Nazi Holocaust can arguably fit in all three categories. Most of the victims lived in Poland, Russia, Ukraine rather than Germany. There was a certain amount of traditional anti-semitism in Germany, particularly the south where most of the Nazi leaders originated.

The Armenian Genocide set a precendent for the twentieth century, nationalism became entwined with ethnicity and it was believed that the only way to achieve national identity and unity was to create a completely homogenized people. Same race, same religion, same cultural identity. All the genocides of the first half of the twentieth century were framed by these beliefs.

Blood-and-soil nationalism is far older than that, and is still pervasive. The newer, more civilized "citizenship nationalism" started out in western Europe and spread to North America. Citizens of a nation were simply citizens regardless of ancestry, race, or religion.

That could explain why the traditionally-hostile Flemings and Walloons of Belgium never slaughtered each other in the same way as Serbs and Croats. The early 20th century in Central and Eastern europe saw the decline of great land-based empires: German Second Reich, Tsarist Russia, Austria-Hungary, Ottoman Turkey. The resulting small nations had to "nationalize" in a few years, not centuries as did France.

The presence of railroads (for mass deportation) and machine guns (for easy killing of unarmed masses) also made genocide easier in the 20th century as opposed to the 19th or 18th.

People who had lived side by side for decades cast as enemies by the state. It never ceases to amaze me how little encouragement man needs to kill his fellow human beings. The consequences of the genocides in the Balkans are still being played out.

Peoples who live side-by-side are as often ancient enemies as friends. The anti-Israel hysteria pumped out by governments and pressure groups in the Middle East is intended to give an artificial scapegoat to tribes to keep them from hating each other.

Race is an ideology invented in the mid 19th century that bears no relation to scientific fact or theory. Those familiar with the work of Count Gobineau will be all too glaringly aware of how the genocides of Europe corresponded almost identically with his division of the races and particularly of those areas that he earmarked as being mainly made up of the degenerative races.

Race is nothing more than pseudo-science. One could divide humanity into "races" based on genetic criteria other than skin colour, and be just as valid/invalid.

BTW, the northwestern Europeans were not the only ones obsessed with race/colour. The caste system of India was originally based on colour as well; the light-skinned Persian conquerers of India were on the top, and the dark-skinned natives on the bottom.

It is often ignored that the real reason that the Jewish holocaust receives more study time than any other is because a significant proportion of the victims were white northern Europeans.

That is one reason. There are others, which I'll elaborate elsewhere.

They were also Jews, but even to the Nazis this was secondary to their ‘racial characteristics’. Goering famously said, when told by another Party member that someone in his employ was a Jew “I decide who is Jewish here.” One of Hitler’s mentors was in fact married to a Jewess, he dined with her, enjoyed her company. She was a white northern European Jew. The sad fact cannot be ignored that history remembers most keenly the white victims.

Many of these white northern european Jews were fully-assimilated middle-class Germans who did not "look Jewish" at all, spoke fluent German. They thought of themselves as Germans first. Many of their family members fought and died for the Fatherland in the last war. So obviously these Jews would have a strong sense of personal betrayal - Kaiser Bill honoured them, but Hitler wanted to gas them.

The Jews and Slavs of Poland, Slovakia, Ukraine, Serbia etc etc are secondary because they are not deemed to be white – not by the Nazis and not by the western world.

The Nazis considered Croats to be white (and non-Slavic). After Pearl Harbour, the Nazis classed Japanese as Aryans, and even had some good words to say about Native Americans. Such was the "science" of Nazi racism.

Many Americans in the 1840s didn't consider the Irish to be white, either, even if factually they were at least as white as the English. "No dogs or Irish" signs adorned bars in New York and Boston.

Interesting outcome eh? Lock up the lawyer as well as the defendant?

Is the German government trying to prevent any lawyer from defending future holocaust deniers?

In Germany it is against the law to display the Nazi symbol or deny the holocaust.
Punishable by prison time - as we can see- for not only you, but your Lawyer :O

Originally posted by benign.psychosis
So you are assuming that all of those people never heared of the Holocaust, or of any other Genocide? If so it appears that they all were performing the first Genocide in history, as far as they knew?

You are thinking too simplistic here my friend. It is not just knowing, but teaching the evils of genocide. Everyone might know about genocide, but do they see genocide as an incredibility evil act or just an efficient tool to use. As far as I know the Holocaust teaches and shows that it is an incredibility evil act, and I do not find this a bad thing to do. Your list shows it was just an efficient tool for them to use, and so I would say they didn’t get the holocaust memo that it is evil.

Now if you say they should all be taught in detail then that would require the Holocaust detail to be pushed back significantly. Do you consider that fair, or somehow trying to trivialize the Holocaust as well as anti-semitic?

Because others, such as China, Japan, Russia, Africa countries, do not teach the evils of the atrocities that have affected them I do not see this as a reason to not teach the holocaust and it just so happens that the holocaust is much more relatable to the people in the western world. You can argue this point all day…I do believe other holocaust should be right next or even above the holocaust, but most others are buried with only generic facts known about them. I don’t blame this on the Jews, and I don’t blame the Jews for wanting the holocaust to not go the same direction as so many other atrocities have gone.

This is so damn simple to understand it is ridiculous…

So why attempt to trivialize it? It looks like you are even attempting to defend it by saying that Sweden did it too. What gives?

I'm not; you wrongly used it as an influence in Hitler’s decision making process and I was showing it had nothing to do with Hitler. It also seems you continually use the US as your platform for the underlining cause of the holocaust and Sweden was just another example to show that you like to pick and choose your data based on that.

I'm not suggesting it. You may want to read a little more about the man, and about America's dark past of Eugenics. Hitler studied American Eugenics laws, he has said, "I have studied with great interest the laws of several

Once again America's dark history didn't round up most of the Jews in Europe and 3 million others and then after taking everything they had started to systemically kill them all.

It doesn't fit in at all with Hitler.

Those other countries were not purposely created in the religious holy land of another nation for the purpose of perpetual upheavel.

How many countries are in existence today and how many borders have been determined because of brute force over the indigenous population, or by decisions made by the stronger force who assumed ownership? I think there is a good case over every country in the Americas and not just with the Indians, but also the Spaniards. What created every country in Africa and their borders? Why is Iraq not three different countries? I can go on, but the point is today we have rather firm lines separating every country in the world and to jump on the podium about Israel being squatters is ridicules unless you want to include the majority of the world too.

How about somewhere where they are not unwanted? Israel is like an injured insect in the middle of an ant colony, only that it is holding bug spray (nukes)... and maybe some claws to kill ants with.

How long have Jews lived in that part of the world...I rest my case

That is nothing but a large generalization and it has nothing to do with what I think.

You do not think Israel is illegally on lands they should not have? If you do then my past post stands.

He merely instigated the latent anti-semitic attitude that had already overcome Europe. He didn't implant software into robots or hypnotize anyone to hate Jews. He came to power, he was a natural orator and he captured the hearts of the people. It can be argued that he had some bad ideas, as well as good ones.

"Merely"??? I agree he had great charisma and had good ideas, but killing and enslaving the majority of the Jews in Europe I would say was one of his bad ideas, don't you?

He captured the hearts AND MINDS of his people and that is why to remember is important. Cambodia went from a normal country to one that was killing and torturing millions because they happened to be the educated faction of the country.

Blaming Hitler for the actions of the Germans and the Nazi's amounts as much to blaming violent behavior on video games or movies.

Do you blame Bush for the Iraq war or do we blame that on video games too.

So, you have not answered me yet...Do you believe there was some form of Jewish genocide? You hint that you do with the excuses for Hitler and to his reasons you keep putting out. First he was influenced by America ideals to do it and now it was out of his control …which one was it?

There is no evidence to show that the Holocaust was all part of a big initial plan. There is more evidence that points towards wanted to exile the Jews, to move them to the east - perhaps Asia... Perhaps a future Zionist state (a concept that he was familar with)

I do agree that the initial plan didn't have death camps in place, but as you look at the time line you can see the ever increasing discrimination against the Jews to the point they had lost all ownership in property, then followed by the ghettos, and then the final solution.

But again, what we are really discussing here is why it's illegal to question the Holocaust, or more generally restriction of freedom, like why Germany is proposing the banning of a religion, namely scientology. Would the rest of the world follow their example?

No idea...and it is not something I agree with in anyway. But then go to most countries outside of America, Candia, Down under, and a few in Europe and they ALL have restrictions they we look at as wrong or even criminal.


[edit on 21-1-2008 by Xtrozero]

reply to post by Beelzebubba


OK, I think the position is repugnant, but I still believe in free speech. Wasn't that a trademark of the Nazis? Incarcerate you or worse for what race you are or the things you say? OK, this isn't nearly as bad, but what about the concept of freedom? So holocaust revisionists shouldn't have legal representation either?

Originally posted by Fuggle
Good! She got what she deserved.

People should not be allowed to question "__________".

perfect example of ignorance. I wish I could give out a negative star for comments like this. Take this type of mentality to the fox forums, or better yet - stormfront.

Originally posted by IAmTetsuo
Harder than it looks. The only reason why it was easy to prosecute Nazi war criminals (and their Japanese and Italian equivalents) was the total defeat, occupation, and rebuilding of Germany.

I am not sure that this is the point really. We prosecuted the WW2 'war criminals' on the indictments of the Nuremberg war Trails tribunal that were created AFTER the events. With the exception of the treatment of Prisoners of war and transportation of foreign nationals for use in the war effort, none of the laws that were prosecuted against these groups existed at the point of the 'crime' being committed. Therefore it can be argued that the perpetrators did not KNOW that they were committing war crimes.

We now of course have human rights legislation that sets out relatively clearly what constitutes a war crime and what does not. It should be easier not harder to prosecute.

Originally posted by IAmTetsuo

Conquest by expanding foreign power - aboriginal peoples
Traditional ethno-tribal hatreds - Hutu/Tutsi, Armenian/Turk. Serb/Croat
Ideological and religious - all communist genocides/democides

The Nazi Holocaust can arguably fit in all three categories. Most of the victims lived in Poland, Russia, Ukraine rather than Germany. There was a certain amount of traditional anti-semitism in Germany, particularly the south where most of the Nazi leaders originated.

The important point here is anti-semitism, not anti-Jewishness. The propaganda churned out by the Nazis clearly isolated the semitic Jews and slavs of the East. It was purely an issue of racial unity.

In the Balkans it was purely a matter of religious unity.

Originally posted by IAmTetsuo
Blood-and-soil nationalism is far older than that, and is still pervasive. The newer, more civilized "citizenship nationalism" started out in western Europe and spread to North America. Citizens of a nation were simply citizens regardless of ancestry, race, or religion.

Nationalism was by no means new but at the turn of the 20th century, much of Europe was still divided along tribal lines. Certainly in Northern Europe and to some extent Western Europe there was a fixed idea of what is was to belong to a particular nation but in the Blakans these ideas were more based upon religious lines and your ethnicity was determined by which Church you belonged to. This was in large part because of who you paid your taxes to, only in the secular states like Prussia and Britain where the tax was collected by the state did you have what you term modern citizenship. It was the transistion to the secular system or to support of and by the state that created such divide - in the Balkans the RCC wanted to have greater influence over state than the Orthodoxy. In these areas the persecution of the Jews was almost secondary and an after thought.

Originally posted by IAmTetsuo
Peoples who live side-by-side are as often ancient enemies as friends. The anti-Israel hysteria pumped out by governments and pressure groups in the Middle East is intended to give an artificial scapegoat to tribes to keep them from hating each other.

The problem though with Israel is that it was an experiment in social engineering with both native muslims, jews and christians becoming marginalised. The immigrants were not in anyway shape or form the same people as those that had lived in relative peace side by side. Mass immigration rarely works and it is always the native people that suffer. The immigrants were western educated and they imported the west with them. Culture shock on boths sides and doomed to rapid conflict.

Originally posted by IAmTetsuo
BTW, the northwestern Europeans were not the only ones obsessed with race/colour. The caste system of India was originally based on colour as well; the light-skinned Persian conquerers of India were on the top, and the dark-skinned natives on the bottom.

Absolutely, in the UK there was a recent article in one of the papers that claimed that some 'low caste' British/Indians feel that the Brahmins are acting in prejudice against them here. It was quite an eye opener.

Originally posted by IAmTetsuo

It is often ignored that the real reason that the Jewish holocaust receives more study time than any other is because a significant proportion of the victims were white northern Europeans.

That is one reason. There are others, which I'll elaborate elsewhere.

There are of course others, but in the wake of the World War two, most of the other victims were nicely tucked away behind the iron curtain and effectively silenced for 40 odd years. What is important to realise is that the Genocides committed by the Nazis can be classed as independent actions, not one combined ideology. What happened in the East is not the same as what happened to the "western Jews". Different reasons and different forces. The reason that it is given greater weight is because these people were in the West, they had a voice and they were encouraged to use it. Many of those from the East who survived the forced labour camps were sent back east only to be interred by Stalin.

Originally posted by IAmTetsuo
Many of these white northern european Jews were fully-assimilated middle-class Germans who did not "look Jewish" at all, spoke fluent German. They thought of themselves as Germans first. Many of their family members fought and died for the Fatherland in the last war. So obviously these Jews would have a strong sense of personal betrayal - Kaiser Bill honoured them, but Hitler wanted to gas them.

The important thing is that they were German Jews, not Jewish Germans. It was not a question of assimilation, judaism is a religion after all not a nation or a race. They did still lose many of their rights of citizenship, they were not permitted to intermarry and in some cases they were sterilised. And eventually many of them were deported and put to death.

Hitler himself was highly relunctant to send these people East, for any number of reasons, however it was at the insistance of Party members and their financial backers that they were eventually deported. Why is anyones guess, but I estimate it had much to do with the fact that the Germans knew that the war was lost and felt that a dead Jew was better than a live one that could testify and ask for its possessions back.

Originally posted by IAmTetsuo
The Nazis considered Croats to be white (and non-Slavic). After Pearl Harbour, the Nazis classed Japanese as Aryans,

The Nazis though you will note, never treated the Japanese as equals, and Hitler very rarely dealt with them in person. Rather naively he thought that he could trust such transactions to Himmler. The Japanese were considered to be essential in creating an asian invasion force against Russia. All other relations and shows of fealty were diplomatic and not based on true comradeship. The Germans may have considered the Japanese to be the true "yellow" race (according to Gobineau's classification) but they still considered the German race to be superior.

Originally posted by IAmTetsuo
Many Americans in the 1840s didn't consider the Irish to be white, either, even if factually they were at least as white as the English. "No dogs or Irish" signs adorned bars in New York and Boston.

I don't know whether they considered them to be not white - I do think that they considered them to be of a lower class, which is not quite the same thing. The English and the Irish have history which was simply translated to the US, plus the sectarian division is always an issue, and at that time the US was pretty anti-Catholic.

Very nice talking to you.

reply to post by KilgoreTrout


The Armenian Genocide is an interesting point. At the head of the American groups denying the Genocide is the ADL.

Abdullah Gul needed a favor. It was February 5 of this year, and the Turkish foreign minister was fighting a push in the U.S. House of Representatives to recognize the Turkish murder of over one million Armenians during World War I. In past years the House had placated Turkey by dropping similar resolutions. But now, with the American-Turkish alliance weakened by the Iraq war, the resolution had found renewed support. Gul summoned representatives from the Anti-Defamation League and several other Jewish-American organizations to his room at the Willard Hotel in Washington. There he asked them, in essence, to perpetuate Turkey’s denial of genocide.

Abraham Foxman’s ADL acquiesced, and in so doing, performed the pièce de résistance of Foxman’s highly effective, if unintentional, decades-long campaign to demoralize Jewish America and send young Jews scurrying for the communal exit doors. The ADL chief is a danger to the future of the community, and it is a scandal that he remains at the head of a major Jewish organization. Foxman must go. And the organization he has done so much to shape must either change or go with him.

Soon after the meeting with Gul, the ADL joined three other American Jewish organizations—the American Jewish Committee, B'nai Brith International, and the Jewish Institute of National Security Affairs—to deliver to Congress a written plea from the Jews of Turkey that the U.S. not recognize the Armenian Genocide. Turkish Jews are more vulnerable now than at any time in recent history as they struggle to reassert their place in a society polarized by the competing visions of Turkey’s Islamists and secular nationalists, so it is hardly surprising that they would parrot their government’s denialist claims. By dutifully passing their letter to Congress, the Jewish American groups cynically exploited a small, frightened Jewish minority.

Link

I made a thread on this topic some time ago.

Fire Foxman!

Originally posted by Xtrozero

As far as I know the Holocaust teaches and shows that it is an incredibility evil act, and I do not find this a bad thing to do. Your list shows it was just an efficient tool for them to use, and so I would say they didn’t get the holocaust memo that it is evil.

oh contraire mon frair, I believe that it is you who is thinking to simplisitic and perhaps trying to promote a completely unrealisitic ideal.

I would say they didn’t get the holocaust memo that it is evil.

I love how you can say that in all seriousness. The scope of the whole thing must blow your mind away because you can not connect to it on a practical level. People innately know killing is wrong, and that it causes suffering, but they do it to achieve a goal that they find more important - such as getting drugs, money, self-defense, clearing out an entire region of people that harbor political dissenters, murdering an entire village that doesn't fall in line with your dictorial idea of authority, killing a race that is slowing down your plans of world domination or, more importantly, in the case of genocide, following military orders.

This isn't the bible, buddy. It has nothing to do with some type of subjective "Good" and "Evil," it has to do with goals, drive, and dedication to a cause. As it has always been, when one attempts to unite a region under a single rule, there has always been genocidal tendancies and massive casualties.

You see, genocidal dictators are humans too, and it is not going to kill you to put yourself in their shoes and see things their way - can you do that? Otherwise, you are operating from a very limited perspective and may start to say things like "I guess they didn't get the evil memo!"

Now if you say they should all be taught in detail then that would require the Holocaust detail to be pushed back significantly. Do you consider that fair, or somehow trying to trivialize the Holocaust as well as anti-semitic?

I do believe other holocaust should be right next or even above the holocaust, but most others are buried with only generic facts known about them. I don’t blame this on the Jews, and I don’t blame the Jews for wanting the holocaust to not go the same direction as so many other atrocities have gone.

This is so damn simple to understand it is ridiculous…

The problem with your thinking is that in reality, we can teach more about those other atrocities. They have not been "forgotten" or "lost". They have merely been more or less ignored, and not taught - masses of information is readily available. The only reason it appears to have been burried is because we don't teach it. This can easily change. You seem to think that they've fallen down some deep dark pit and can not be retrieved, and your argument is that you don't want the Holocaust to do the same thing, which does not fall in line with reality.

If you truely wished genocide should be taught as much as you profess, then don't you think it would be better for the Holocaust to be little more than a stub in scope of WWII, and devote an entire lesson to genocides in general? The Holocaust was only as much a part of the war as the actions of the allies contributed to it - otherwise, it was an internal matter. Just the same, we don't teach detail after detail after detail about Japanese internment camps - it was an internal matters.

I'm not; you wrongly used it as to an influence in Hitler’s decision making process and I was showing it had nothing to do with Hitler. It also seems you continually use the US as your platform for the underlining cause of the holocaust and Sweden was just another example to show that you like to pick and choose your data based on that.

The problem here is that you didn't read the information that I presented. Hitler never professed to studying or being inspired by Swedish laws, African laws, Chinese Laws, but he did mention American laws. Your argument is as invalid as saying that you have been inspired by every basketball player, everywhere, ever, to learn to play basketball.

Once again America's dark history didn't round up most of the Jews in Europe and 3 million others and then after taking everything they had started to systemically kill them all.

I was applying it overall to the Nazi euthanasia program.

we have rather firm lines separating every country in the world and to jump on the podium about Israel being squatters is ridicules unless you want to include the majority of the world too.

It's a matter of practicality and perpetual upheavel that has sparked world wide terrorism... and blowback from the blindsided US support in the region.

How long have Jews lived in that part of the world...I rest my case

The argument of seniority and non-seniority is absurd.

So, you have not answered me yet...Do you believe there was some form of Jewish genocide? You hint that you do with the excuses for Hitler and to his reasons you keep putting out. First he was influenced by America ideals to do it and now it was out of his control …which one was it?

Both.

You guys take your debate elsewhere. This topic is about Zundel's lawyer.