Originally posted by bigyin The Jews seem to have no idea how pityful they sound as they protest about the documented facts of the holocaust.

Compare it with the more than documented facts, even video evidence of the holocaust they created in Gaza and they are denying it happened.

Should it not be a crime to deny the holocaust in Gaza ?

If it were most Jews should now be in jail.

FRIGGING HELL!

The world's press and I must have missed the building of extermination camps and their gas chambers in Gaza.

The world's press and I must have missed the rounding up of millions of Arab men, women and children.

The world's press and I must have missed all the trains going to the death camps.

What Holocaust are you talking about?

Originally posted by fritz
What Holocaust are you talking about?

although the language of holocaust is volatile, there is a valid reason to feel that the aggressive expansionist policy of the isrealis as well as the restrictions imposed upon palestinian arabs is a form of ethnic cleansing.

reply to post by fapython[/url]

It's called reparation, my friend.

Germany was made to pay vast somes of money to [notably] France and Belgium after WWI, under the treaty of Versailles.

This was one of the reasons that a certin Adolf Hitler came to power and promised the German people that Germany would be great again.

After WWII, the Germans did indeed pay billions of marks in reparation for what their country did to most of Europe between 1937 and 1945.

To put a modern spin on things, Iraq has to pay millions of dollars to Kuwait for the invasion of and the occupation of that country.

So please, if you are going to post facts, at least try to get them half right.

reply to post by KRISKALI777[/url]

I am sorry, but you do not seem to have a grasp on the realities of world history.

For that reason and your continued ranting about the state of Israel, I have decided, albeit reluctantly, to press my 'Ignore' button.

A long time ago, owing to family history, I began researching the history of the Middle East. From it's beginning, right up to the invasion and occupation of Iraq.

The one thing that never, ever ceases to amaze me Neformore, are the idiots who trawl throughout the web, looking for places to plant their misguided seeds and grow discontent.

I have often asked pro Arab posters why, when the combined Arab countries have over 250 billion square kilometers, they want to eradicate tiny Israel with a border measuring just 15,000 or so kilometers? I have never received an answer, from any of them.

There have been plenty of them bleating about the way Israel has treated the Arabs but the funny thing is, when a suicide bombers goes up in a puff of smoke killing and maiming [more often than not] innocent women and children, they remain silent.

I also ask these same people why the countried of Lebanon, Syria and Jordan keep the 'so called' Palestinian refugees in camps and not in proper housing? Again, never an answer.

Finally, I ask them why the world's press never report on new Arab settlements on the West Bank and Gaza? Surprisingly, I have never received any reply.

I used to be an Israeli supporter, especially after Egypt and Syria launched their attacks during Yom Kippur.

Not now. I deplore Israel's actions in the Gaza Strip, Khan Yunis and the Western Bank and Israel must be brought to account.

By denying the Holocaust took place and belittling the quantity of human life so bestially slaughtered, does little to enhance their misguided arguaments.

[edit on 29-6-2009 by fritz]

Originally posted by KRISKALI777
Yet the interests in America knew the needed an inital foothold in the middle-east.

America, or rather Standard Oil, had already signed a 60 year agreement with the Bin Saud's for drilling rights. It was Britain that required the foothold or rather the alliance in the Middle East. Jerusalem is strategically important to the defence of the Suez Canal. If you know even a tiny bit about geo-politics you will know the significance of the Suez to Britain. A friendly, preferably anglo-friendly Israel was essential to post-colonial Britain, they were careful not to allow the US to get too involved, which is why they were palmed off on the Bin Saud's.





[edit on 29-6-2009 by KilgoreTrout]

Originally posted by fritz

I have the BNP's Manifesto booklet in colour.

Forgive the slght OT detour...but that has got to be the funniest freudian slip I've heard in a long while

Even if we ignore certain topics, some simply will not disappear. So it is with the Holocaust, and it is futile to adopt an unrealistic attitude and hope the Holocaust will simply go away.There has to be a reason why the Holocaust is THE taboo of our times. The slightest violation of this taboo enrages the entire world of historians, jurists, politicians, and media people to the point of utter panic. I think that Holocaust revisionists are most relentlessly persecuted because those in power know that what they do is to challenge the ideological foundation upon which their abuse of power rests – their amoral foundation.

One of the important characteristics of evil is that it forbids questioning and
it taboos or criminalizes the candid search for answers.

In Europe censorship of revisionism is quite differentiated. For example, many states such as Italy, Portugal, England, Ireland, and the Scandinavian countries do not impose any censorship. Most of the eastern and south eastern European countries do not have similar laws, but there are initiatives under way to change this. For example, any country that wishes to join NATO must have on its books some law that will criminalize “Holocaust denial.” In January 1999 Poland enacted such laws, and then in April 1999 it joined NATO. Spain and Holland have such laws, but they are not rigorously enforced. Holland perhaps does not enforce its law because a revisionist movement as such does not exist there. Energetically enforced laws are to be found in Poland, France, Belgium, and in the German-speaking countries. Austria punishes revisionist statements with a maximum of ten years, Germany with a maximum of five years (as does Israel), then Poland and Switzerland up to three years, followed by France and Belgium with a maximum of one year prison.

The surprising thing about censorship in western democracies is the fact that a large majority of the population in those countries either accepts such censorship measures or is at best indifferent to them. This in spite of the fact that only a small percentage of citizens nurture any radical views that are fanatically inclined to suppress unwanted views. This powerful and unified front against any major revision of historiography can be understood if we consider the interests of those groups who demand and support this censorship most intensely.

The most glaring example of censorship is Germany. German censorship – the prohibition, confiscation, and total destruction of material through German court orders – also remains a secret to most citizens, because these judgments are published in secret lists that the German Federal Bureau of Investigation collects. Anyone who thinks about getting prohibited material for distribution, production, importing, exporting, storing, offering, reviewing, selling, or bringing it into circulation in any other way, will receive a visit from the police.

Anyone who tries to publish anything prohibited about the Shoa will be prosecuted for “stirring up the masses” and “inciting to hatred.” They will be put on trial and their book will be confiscated and burnt under police supervision.

Do we really believe that in order to "prevent something like this from ever happening again" we must persecute people and burn books?


In German legal procedures against revisionists public prosecutors merely assert that it is “common knowledge” that revisionists are factually wrong.
There is, therefore, no need to prove the case against a revisionist. The defendant, on the other hand, has no right to prove his case because the judges follow the public prosecutor and declare that it is “common knowledge” that the defendant is always wrong. If the defendant still insists on proving his case, then this attracts a more severe sentence because the defendant is seen not to show any “insight” or “fails to learn,” because he repeats his thought crime in court instead of showing remorse.

continued (...)



[edit on 29-6-2009 b

[edit on 29-6-2009 by D377MC]

Historians and forensic experts are always rejected, because “common knowledge” predetermines that they are wrong, no matter what they would have to say.
Next, if these experts do not shut up, they are prosecuted as well, and during their trials, they are prevented from submitting their own works in their own defense. They are convicted because their views, which they are not allowed to voice in court are considered wrong on account of “common knowledge.”

How can the judges know that the defendants are wrong if they do not listen to what they have to say? It seems that “common knowledge.” makes them infallible...

We are far from being finished with this grotesque story, because defense
lawyers who dare to present evidence that casts doubt on the truthfulness of the Holocaust are subject to prosecution as well . And since the lawyer’s
views are wrong due to “common knowledge,” he has no right to defend
himself with the evidence he intended to present on behalf of his client either.

Revisionists are doubly condemned before they even enter a court:
first, it is predetermined by infallible “common knowledge” that revisionists
are wrong and therefore guilty, and second, it is “common knowledge” that revisionists are morally inferior individuals acting out of malicious motives.

Up to the beginning of the 1990s, no defense team even attempted to introduce evidence that would contradict the Holocaust. Defense lawyers merely wanted to get acquittals or mild verdicts for their clients, and the only way to achieve this was by not antagonizing the judges, that is to say, by agreeing to the general historical picture. But when the introduction of evidence contradicting this general historical picture was tried since the year 1991, German politicians and judges saw to it under brutal violation of procedural, penal, and constitutional law that this historical taboo is now legally unassailable.

Do we want to eliminate the most fundamental civil rights just in order to make some left-wing Zionists feel more comfortable, so that they do not have to face critical questions and a possible refutation of some aspects of their ideology? And since when is ideological “comfort” a civil right?

What logic permits simple criminal law to overrule or suspend fundamental human rights? Who ultimately determines which opinion is allowed and which is not?

The logic goes like this: claiming that the Holocaust is a lie will lead to
people blaming the most likely culprit for such a lie: the Jews. As a next step, people will be inclined to see the inventors of this ultimate lie as the ultimate evil, and thus will strive to deny them their human dignity by persecuting them all over again.

Is that a good arguement to justify continuously supporting a lie?

Basically, what we are looking at is this: the civil rights of a certain group
are expanded so far that it limits the civil rights of other groups: in practice
they have the right to distort, lie, and exaggerate at will and nobody is allowed to challenge their claims.

There is something terribly wrong with that...

Suppressing discussions on undesirable topics is the final reason why
populations in totalitarian countries lose their trust in their own authorities.
Hence, if we wish to prevent totalitarian developments from taking place, then we are duty bound to discuss taboo topics seriously and to put them in the service of democracy so as to prevent any misuse.

The truth does not need a prison sentence to protect it. Lies do.


Source "GERMAR RUDOLF, LECTURES ON THE HOLOCAUST"





[edit on 29-6-2009 by D377MC]

[edit on 29-6-2009 by D377MC]

Ignorance with some is treated like a gift; having stood at Nazi concentration camp ovens and seen the charred bones still inside, having stood at the foot of eight foot tall piles of human teeth, shoes and other personnel items, having smelled the still lingering smell of death and read the letters incased in glass wherein the SS BRAGGED of raping, torturing and murdering their Jewish ‘cattle’, I have no doubts of the Nazi horrors.

Originally posted by SGTChas
Ignorance with some is treated like a gift; having stood at Nazi concentration camp ovens and seen the charred bones still inside, having stood at the foot of eight foot tall piles of human teeth, shoes and other personnel items, having smelled the still lingering smell of death and read the letters incased in glass wherein the SS BRAGGED of raping, torturing and murdering their Jewish ‘cattle’, I have no doubts of the Nazi horrors.

Forgive me if I don't quite believe you. Or rather, your 'rendering' of what is presumably a visit to one of the camps leaves no doubt about what you were told. At first glance, a collection of objects should be taken only for what it proves: somebody has collected them. Such a collection says very little about the fate of their former owners.

Oh no they ARE God's chosen people and you and many like you are going to soon find that out to your horror.

Go ahead and convince me of that. Biblically I mean.

Thanks for the insight. I'm beginning to understand western democracy a bit more now.

No such thing I am afraid. It's just becoming more evident as everything falls apart.



[edit on 29-6-2009 by D377MC]

[edit on 29-6-2009 by D377MC]