Holocaust-denying bishop scuffles with reporter

The pope has since insisted that Williamson recant before he can be recognized as a Roman Catholic bishop. Williamson apologized to the pope for stirring controversy, but has not disavowed his comments.

Because he appears to truly believe in what he said, he would be lying if he immediately recanted.

In fact, what he said is that he will first have a closer look at the evidence, and then decide. This is what any true Christian would do.

I am hoping that the attention Bishop Williamson is getting will open many people's eyes to the lies of the holocaust industry.

sabiwabi,

I am hoping that the attention Bishop Williamson is getting will open many people's eyes to the lies of the holocaust industry.

What specific and provable lies to which are you referring? Specifics, please...

What you really need to understand clearly is when you are attempt to 'revise' what is known as fact, you have to back up these revisions. You cannot claim revisions and then ask everyone else to show you why your revisions are wrong. For example, the modern world believes the earth revolves around the sun. If a 'revisionist' comes along and tells us we have been fed a 'lie' and that the fact is that the sun revolves around the earth. It is up to the revisionist to prove their case.

You claimed Max Warburg a Jewish banker was backing the Nazis and you even claimed he was living well in nice hotels and traveling freely around Germany through out the war. You were absolutely and completely wrong as he was in the US after he had been forced to sell his bank and emmigrated to the US in 1938. In addition, he under no circumstances was "backing" the Nazis.

On this forum, you have never been able to provide any specific evidence about any of your claims. When I finally have gotten you to be specific, your information is incorrect. For example, your incorrect suggestion about Max Warburg. So, why should anyone believe anything you write?

Hitler who is probably half or a quarter Jewish (check the video). If you want more: Rudolf Hess (Reich Minister, half Jewish), Joseph Goebbels (Propaganda Minister, Jewish), Alfred Rosenberg (Editor of the official Nazi paper “Volkisher Beobachter;” Reich Minister for Eastern occupied territories; Jewish) Hans Frank (legal council of the Nazi party; Jewish), Reinhard Heydrich (Security chief and Second in command of SS, Jewish), Admiral Wilhelm Canaris (Chief of German Intelligence; Jewish), Abram Goldberg a.k.a. Julius Streicher (Editor of the weekly Nazi paper “Der Sturmer;” Jewish), and Adolf Eichman (SS Officer; prosecutor; Jewish).

None of the people listed are actually Jewish. I could make a similar list claiming Anpanman, Doraemon (aka Doraeman), 8-Man and Hello Kitty (aka Betty Friedman) are all really Jewish. None of those people listed have any Jewish ancestry whatsoever. Since we have now determined the top Nazis you claimed were Jewish, were not in fact Jewish. Could you give us the names of these people you claim were top Nazis and were Jewish/Zionist?

For more than three years now, you have claimed top Nazis were Jewish and were Zionists. Yet, when asked for proof you declined to be specific for more than three years. During which time, you have suggested that it wasn't the Nazis that wanted to take over the world, that it was the Zionists. In addition, during this same time period, you have also suggested that you would not be surprised to find out that Hitler was a 'nice guy'. Now, you claimed (completely incorrectly, of course) that top Nazis, including Hitler were Jewish. In fact, you provided a complete list of people who were not Jewish at all. You cannot back up anything you have claimed with actual facts clearly, simply and specifically. Instead, you merely insist I should watch a 147 minute long video by Jim Condit who is one of those nuts who claims the Catholic church has been taken over by 'crypto-Jews' (run! run! the cryto-Jews are coming!), so his credibility is extremely questionable as is his ability to be impartial.

Why would the "evil nazis" destroy the crematoria?

In the above quote of yours, you put "evil nazis" in quotations, which I assume means you don't think they were so evil. (If you don't think this, why did you put "evil nazis" in quotation marks?) If you don't seem to to think they were evil, why have you been claiming they were Jewish/Zionists? You have suggested that it wasn't the Nazis that wanted to take over the world, that it was the Zionists. In addition, during this same time period, you have also suggested that you would not be surprised to find out that Hitler was a 'nice guy'. Now, you claimed (completely incorrectly, of course) that top Nazis, including Hitler were Jewish. In fact, you provided a complete list of people who were not Jewish at all. Which is it? Were the Nazis bad or good in your eyes?

Lastly, you often make claims of only 200,000 to 300,000 Jewish people killed by the Nazis. However, why is it when I asked you in another thread specifically how you felt about Nazis policies and suggested that it seemed at times as though you were supportive of those policies, you then asked me how I could suggest 'you would support the Nazi murder of 6 million Jews'?

You claim you are not referring to Jews when you say certain people control the present (media etc), yet you are often complaining that Jews control western media and governments. Sorry, consistency begins 'at home'.

You have made claims of 200,000 to 300,000 Jewish people killed. What specifically is this fiqure based on?

You have claimed the Nazis were Zionists.

Specifics, please...Who are these people?

You have claimed some of the top Nazis were Jewish.

Specifics, please...Who are these people?

You have claimed Hitler was 1/2 or 1/4 Jewish.

Specifics as to why you have claimed this, please...

You have other specific questions about your incorrect claims that you have also left unanswered. However, why don't we start with the questions in this post first, shall we?

Most everyone has seen the pictures of the piles of bodies. Even 1 person being treated and dying like that is too many. Only 200-300 thousand dying in gas chambers! Very outrageous statement which must be condemned by all people of good will. Never Again!

answer the questions

sabiwabi,

You really should calm down. It is simply a matter of not believing your incorrect claims. I find it very telling that after all these years of making incorrect claims, when the moderators have graciously given you an opportunities to answer specific questions (that others on this forum also expressed interest in seeing you attempt to finally answer) that you demur and decline to be specific. It seems you really have not thought things through nearly as much as you would have others believe. In fact, as time goes on, it really does seem like you have not even read up on the subjects about which you make your incorrect claims

I am not intentionally preventing discussion of the Holocaust. Quite the opposite actually. In fact, I am specifically seeking to discuss the Holocaust. Why would you have a problem with that?

It seems neither Bishop Williamson nor you feel much like answering questions about your claims. This leads to the conclusion you both have not really thought through what you have claimed.

MANY OF WHICH I HAVE ADDRESSED

Just to add, actually, you have not addressed them. That is why I am trying to further the conversation by asking you for specific and clear evidence of what you have been claiming.

Sabiwabi links please to show that the nazi's were teletubbies and the Jews were behind the Holocaust "scam" But i guess you think that the inquisition was a fun organisation which BBQ practises were missunderstood.

How embarrassing for the bishop and sabiwabi. Seriously, can we see some evidence that millions of Jewish people weren't murdered as the whole world believes (except for a few nutcases). I suppose Stalin didn't kill millions of Russians, the Japanese didn't kill hundreds of thousands of Asians and that the Rwanda genocide never occurred. I have to agree with the very sane Kinniku, whose tete-a-tete with Sabiwabi I have thoroughly enjoyed. It is most definitely up to the deniers to present some legit evidence to back up their despicable claims.

Most everyone has seen the pictures of the piles of bodies.

Indeed what happened in the camps during the closing stages of WWII was terrible, nobody denies that. But please realize that allied forensic teams could not find one body that died from cyanide (Zyklon B) poisoning. In fact there is no solid evidence proving that anyone was gassed in the camps, except for eyewitness testimonies, many of which make outrageous claims that are scientifically impossible. If you look carefully at any room claimed to have been a gas chamber, you’ll see that it could not have been one (see www.codoh.com or www.vho.org). Despite the absence of any solid evidence, people are FORCED to believe in the holocaust story.

Only 200-300 thousand dying in gas chambers!

That is not what he said. He said that (according to the serious revisionists) 200-300 thousand is the number of Jews who died in the camps, and that not one has died in a gas chamber.

Anyway, what is interesting is the treatment that he has been getting. Think about it, he cannot be Bishop, he is kicked out of Argentina (the visa is just an excuse, in my opinion), and the pope has to visit Israel, all because he said that (after looking at the evidence) he believes that nobody died in gas chambers! That is the kind of treatment many people have been getting throughout the world. In Canada, the manager of a large crematorium lost his job when he said that the cremation rates claimed in the holocaust story are impossible. In many European countries, revisionists are imprisoned for years. Quite amazing, no?

Checked out Sabiwabi's websites of codoh.com and vho.org. Do you have any sources for your claims that aren't propagandist crap? BTW, I made the mistake of typing in vho.com accidentally and discovered it is a video porn site. Whoops!

sabiwabi,

Although it seems you do not have time to discuss questions you have left unanswered, it seems you have brought up more questions.

In fact there is no solid evidence proving that anyone was gassed in the camps, except for eyewitness testimonies,

This is factually completely incorrect. Not only is there scientific evidence of the homicidal gas chambers being used as such, there is also correspondence between top Nazis referring to the use of gassing as a solution. In addition, there is the fact that the Nazis thought the homicidal gas chambers and the crematoria were incriminating enough to have them blown up and destroyed before retreating from the Soviets. Lastly, it is very telling that there has been absolutely no response from Holocaust deniers, calling themselves 'revisionists', to these latest pieces of research.

many of which make outrageous claims that are scientifically impossible.

How so? What kind of specific testimony that was taken in a courtroom or under oath was 'scientifically impossible'? Specifics, please...and before you pass off those unscientific websites, I would prefer that we stay in the world of actual facts and not videos that have narrations designed to 'guide' the viewer in how they should feel about what is being said.

He said that (according to the serious revisionists) 200-300 thousand is the number of Jews who died in the camps, and that not one has died in a gas chamber.

Well you have mades similar claims as well. What is this figure specifically based on?

about it, he cannot be Bishop, he is kicked out of Argentina (the visa is just an excuse, in my opinion),

He cannot be a bishop because he broke the rules of his church. If he would like to be a member of a religion, logic dictates he must follow the rules of that religion. He did not. He was in Argentina at the pleasure of the Argentinian government. That same government now finds his presence distasteful, so it is within there rights to ask him to leave. They specifically stated that they found his statements '“an insult” to humanity', so although you claim it is 'just an excuse', it seems to be one specific and clear reason. The Argentinian government seems to be quite straightforward about this, so there is no need to guess an opinion.

Quite amazing, no?

Actually, quite frankly, what I find quite amazing is that in the very same thread (this one) that you are complaining about a lack of free speech, you were attempting to shut down my free speech. That is amazing and quite telling...it seems you only agree with 'free speech' when it is speech you agree with.

He cannot be a bishop because he broke the rules of his church.

Exactly, the rule that one MUST believe in the holocaust story, in the way it is presented. Now, why would the Catholic Church have such a rule? And why would the pope feel the need to placate Jewish leaders?

there is also correspondence between top Nazis referring to the use of gassing as a solution.

That's funny, Raul Hilberg (a leading holocaust authority), under oath in Zundel's first trial in the 1980's had to admit there was no such document. I guess there must have been some recent discoveries, or are you just guessing again, as you have already admitted doing in the past?

In fact, it was during that same trial that Hilberg admitted under oath that he was unaware of any scientific investigation of any gas chamber!!!

I would prefer that we stay in the world of actual facts and not videos that have narrations designed to 'guide' the viewer in how they should feel about what is being said.

I know you don't like videos, but I do. For example, in One Third of the Holocaust, they clearly show in the text of leading holocaust books (eg, Raul Hilberg’s “authoritative” volumes) claims made by prominent witnesses, and they show you the camps and one quickly understands that these testimonies are BS. Raul Hilberg himself, when asked about claims by one prominent witness, admitted under oath in Zundel’s first trial that a certain witness tends to get excited (i.e., exagerate).

If he would like to be a member of a religion, logic dictates he must follow the rules of that religion.

Not quite. If he wants to be part of the Catholic Church, which now appears to be completely corrupted, he must follow its rules. The Christian religion which he follows places much importance on truth, and I believe Bishop Williamson is more worthy of being called Christian than the current pope. A true Christian should (MUST) always seek the truth.

Argentina’s government on Thursday ordered the traditionalist Catholic bishop to leave the country or face expulsion for failing to declare a job change as required by immigration law.

Interestingly, similar immigration technicalities were used to get Ernst Zundel and Germar Rudolf out of the US and finally into German prisons. In all three cases, they were not expelled for holocaust "denial".

Islamic terrorist supporters like Sabiwabi, who seek the destruction of Israel, are typically holocaust-deniers as well. This is simply their attempt to de-legitamize Israel. This is why Iran holds holocaust-denial meetings with neo-Nazis. Completely predictable.

Reporters and papparazi need to back off and do their job. Getting into altercations with people is not their job and looks unprofessional.

The reason people are "forced" to accept the Holocaust, particularly in Germany, Austria and France, because it happened and because it was so huge and ugly and because it has affected everyone in this world in some way (if you are not a survivor, you know a survivor and someone who perished, if you don't know either, you know someone who knows one or the other or both).

The question has to be asked is not whether the Holocaust happened but why intelligent people like Bishop Williamson deny it, even to the point of self-destruction.

Funny that my father used to bad mouth Jews until family records started turning up showing that he was Jewish. It was a well guarded secret as my great grandfather fled Germany to the US. There are so few left with our family name because our entire family was nearly wiped out in the holocaust. For people to deny the holocaust is simply irresponsible.

This story is very misleading:

He is not denying the holocaust. He is denying supposed facts of the holocaust.

=the holocaust still happened, just not to the extent that it is believed to have happened.

He is not denying the holocaust. He is denying supposed facts of the holocaust.

From the article:

He was quoted as asserting that “the Jews created the Holocaust"

Sounds like denial to me.

sabiwabi,

It seems you still have not found the time to respond to my queries. However, contrary to this, I will respond to your questions. When you have time, could you also do the same for me regarding the above questions?

why would the pope feel the need to placate Jewish leaders?

For the very same reason, the Pope also apologizes to Muslims. I wonder...did you also voice this kind of reaction when the Pope did so? (Pssst! The answer is you did not!) Why would you only be specifically concerned when the Pope 'placates' Jewish people and not seem to be concerned at all when he 'placates' Muslim people? Personally, I like the fact he is willing to build bridges and bonds with other religions. Obviously, you don't seem to think so with regard to Jewish people. Maybe when you get around to answering the above questions, you will give a clearer idea of why this is the case...

That's funny, Raul Hilberg (a leading holocaust authority), under oath in Zundel's first trial in the 1980's had to admit there was no such document.

Actually, what is 'funny' is that it seems again that you have not even read the very court transcripts you are claiming to quote. That was not specifically what was asked and that was not specifically what the respected Hilberg answered in the trial of Zundel, a reputed neo-Nazi who lost both of his court cases. However, that is neither here nor there, there are actually documents at which one can look. For example, there is correspondence between Dr. Sigmund Rascher and Himmler in which Rascher suggests testing gas chambers on human subjects. It is interesting you do not know about such documents and in fact claim they don't exist...

In fact, it was during that same trial that Hilberg admitted under oath that he was unaware of any scientific investigation of any gas chamber!!!

Well, your record of factually being able to quote people and relay events certainly appears to be questionable. However, Hilberg never made claims of being an expert in gas chambers...as I wrote he was an extremely forthright and honest person... In fact, the man carried himself honestly and professionally throughout the entire trial and then there is the fact that he was respected, believed and trusted by Norman Finkelstein. Since you have used Finkelstein as an expert and you judge him to be of sound character, one would think you would take a second look at Hilberg.

are you just guessing again, as you have already admitted doing in the past?

I made an educated guess that researchers used the latest DNA tests on a piece of soap based on both the fact that the article we were discussing said they had used the latest tests and the fact that in the past pieces of soap had been tested using the latest technology. You pointed out in your next comment that the article did not specifically state that the 'latest tests' (it might have said latest technology, I haven't looked at that article for a while) were DNA tests and you proceed to claim I was somehow lying. In my very next post (not several or even a couple of posts) I said I was basing my educated guess on the fact that previous pieces of soap had been tested using DNA testing. Since this is not how you just suggested the discussion went, it seems you are again incorrect. By the way, you often claim that I 'admitted to making stuff up' in that conversation, when I did no such thing. Why the need to be so misleading? In addition, my making an (read that as 'one') educated guess about DNA testing based on solid knowledge of previous testing can in no way be compared to the numerous incorrect claims you have made that you seem so shy about backing up. If you really want people to take you seriously, why don't yo make yourself clear?

they clearly show in the text of leading holocaust books (eg, Raul Hilberg’s “authoritative” volumes) claims made by prominent witnesses, and they show you the camps and one quickly understands that these testimonies are BS.

Aside from continuing to advertise suspect and obviously biased videos, what are you specifically claiming is 'BS'? Specifics, please...

Raul Hilberg himself, when asked about claims by one prominent witness, admitted under oath in Zundel’s first trial that a certain witness tends to get excited (i.e., exagerate).

Well, again, I am not sure your ability to quote court records can be relied on. However, I will suggest this. You also tend to get 'excited' (as you seemed to do in this very thread). Does this mean you are 'exaggerating'? If so, it certainly would explain a lot...

If he wants to be part of the Catholic Church, which now appears to be completely corrupted, he must follow its rules.

Yes, I am sure you share Jim Condit's view that the Catholic church has been taken over by 'cypto-Jews' (Help! Help! The 'crypto-Jews are after me!). However, I find it strange that you think members of a faith should not be required to follow that faith and follow the leadership of that faith. Did you also disagree when the Pope apologized to the Muslim community? (Pssst! As I already mentioned, you did not seem to have a problem with that. So it would seem you only have a problem with the Catholic church getting along with the Jewish community.)

A true Christian should (MUST) always seek the truth.

Exactly. This is the very reason the Pope apologizes to other religions when he feels he or his church has created a rift between them. That seems to be the mark of a pretty good leader.

Interestingly, similar immigration technicalities were used to get Ernst Zundel and Germar Rudolf out of the US and finally into German prisons. In all three cases, they were not expelled for holocaust "denial".

What is interesting is that it still seems you have not read the complete article above. It has been a while, you might want to actually read it before commenting. He was in Argentina at the pleasure of the Argentinian government. That same government now finds his presence distasteful, so it is within there rights to ask him to leave. In this very article, they specifically stated that they found his statements '“an insult” to humanity', so although you claim that the visa issue is 'just an excuse', it seems to be one specific and clear reason and his comments seem to specifically be another. The Argentinian government seems to be quite straightforward about this.

However, I find it strange that you think members of a faith should not be required to follow that faith and follow the leadership of that faith.

I don’t know what faith you follow but Bishop Williamson follows the teachings of Jesus Christ (i.e, Christianity), in which truth is given much importance. For the pope to react in the way he did in forcing him to recant only exposes him as not being a true Christian (maybe Condit is onto something). For many years Bishop Williamson and a few others seemed happy with not being part of the Catholic Church because they did not share the same views.

Why would you only be specifically concerned when the Pope 'placates' Jewish people and not seem to be concerned at all when he 'placates' Muslim people?

The pope “placating” Jewish leaders is related to the issue of Bishop Williamson, apologizing to Muslims is not.

there is correspondence between Dr. Sigmund Rascher and Himmler in which Rascher suggests testing gas chambers on human subjects.

Wasn’t Rascher arrested and executed by the SS for some medical experiments he did with criminals who had been sentenced to death (camps also had hardcore criminals). And there is no indication he singled out Jews. Why would they execute Rascher if there was an extermination plan?

jeancolmar,

The reason people are "forced" to accept the Holocaust, particularly in Germany, Austria and France,…

…Canada, the US, and now Argentina.

…because it happened and because it was so huge and ugly and because it has affected everyone in this world in some way (if you are not a survivor, you know a survivor and someone who perished, if you don't know either, you know someone who knows one or the other or both).

What happened in the camps was indeed terrible. But that does not mean we MUST believe a scientifically impossible story in its entirety without any proof other than eyewitness accounts, many of which have been confirmed to be lying.

What I find sad is that Germans have gone through decades of undeserved guilt and “holocaust survivors” have gone through life believing they barely escaped from a Europe-wipe extermination program. Even in recent years such survivors have been reunited with family, for several decades both sides thought the other side had been gassed.

The question has to be asked is not whether the Holocaust happened but why intelligent people like Bishop Williamson deny it, even to the point of self-destruction.

Certain people are indeed trying to destroy him, but this is not self-destruction. From what I hear, the last days of Jesus were not very pleasant either.

Well, your record of factually being able to quote people and relay events certainly appears to be questionable.

OK, here goes:

I want you to tell me, repeated Christie, if you know of one scientific report of the analysis of gas chambers that was used in conjunction with Zyklon B (hydrocyanic acid) for the killing of people?

"No, I don't know of any such report unless it is, you know, somewhere in the records of the Soviet Polish Investigation Commission of Lublin, Majdanek, because you have to remember that aside from the Lublin chambers, otherwise known as Majdanek, and the one Auschwitz chamber still in existence, there wouldn't be any -"

Judge Locke interrupted: "Doctor... do you know of such a report?"

"No," replied Hilberg.

So, it seems Leuchter was the first. His analysis was later confirmed by Rudolf.

Aside from continuing to advertise suspect and obviously biased videos, what are you specifically claiming is 'BS'? Specifics, please...

How are they biased? They show you the text in the books describing the witness accounts, and they show you the location where the alleged actions took place.

If you want to see bias, go to an exterminist site. They'll shoe you a picture of a child's shoe with a caption saying that its the shoe of a child that was gassed. Or they'll shoe you some people lined up, with a caption saying that they're on their way to the gas chamber. They play with your emotions, but provide no proof.

And I guess if you're familiar with the Zundel trial, you must already know about Irving's testimony, under oath:

Irving testified that at Nuremberg, the "prosecution witnesses, the witnesses who appeared on behalf of the prosecution were cosseted. They were flown in by special plane; they were housed in the few remaining luxury hotels in Nuremberg. They were lavishly fed. They were well paid and they were promised jobs in the American zone of Germany." On the other hand, he testified: "The defence witnesses were universally badly treated. They were housed in the criminal wings in the Nuremberg Palace of Justice. They were housed in cells with no windows; in winter in unheated cells. They were very poorly fed. They were subjected to coercion and physical maltreatment." Said Irving: "I think that not only I but I think reputable lawyers around the world are rather ashamed about the Nuremberg proceedings. Certainly Justice Robert H. Jackson, the American chief prosecutor, was ashamed about them as is quite evident from his private diary...I've examined it. I've had privileged access to that diary in the Library of Congress...I have made a copy of it which I could make available if necessary...Shortly after Robert H. Jackson was given the job by President Truman of conducting the American prosecution at Nuremberg, he learned of the American plans to drop the atomic bombs and from that moment on, he became very uneasy with what he, himself, was doing. Prosecuting for one nation, crimes it had committed, being fully aware that the United States was about to commit and indeed committing a crime of an even greater magnitude."

The unfairness of the Nuremberg proceedings extended to the manner in which documentary evidence was handled. "The procedure with documents [at] Nuremberg was rather rare," said Irving. "The prosecution obtained all the documents for its own purposes and the defence was then allowed to build up its case entirely on the basis of the prosecution collection of documents. No collection of documents by the defence was made possible by the authorities in Nuremberg. They were allowed very limited access to the documents collected exclusively for the purposes of the prosecution."

sabiwabi,

I don’t know what faith you follow but Bishop Williamson follows the teachings of Jesus Christ (i.e, Christianity), in which truth is given much importance.

Hmmm...I do not recall Jesus Christ suggesting people be rude to those of other faiths as Bishop Williamson had been. In addition, nothing in Bishop Williamson's has been shown to be true at all. This goes against Jesus Christ's teachings of understanding and forgiveness to others.

For many years Bishop Williamson and a few others seemed happy with not being part of the Catholic Church because they did not share the same views.

Yes. He has said some extremely nasty things and any reasonable person, organization or church would want to distance themselves from such vitriol.

The pope “placating” Jewish leaders is related to the issue of Bishop Williamson, apologizing to Muslims is not.

However, both are related to the issue of the Pope and both are completely related to your question as to why the Pope would want to build bridges and bonds with other religions. You were obviously attempting to make it seem that the Catholic church was somehow taken and made to 'bow down' to the Jews. I merely pointed out the Pope has been working with members and leaders of many different faiths. As I explained it is for the very same reason the Pope also apologizes to Muslims. I wonder...did you also voice this kind of reaction when the Pope did so? (Pssst! The answer is you did not!) Why would you only be specifically concerned when the Pope 'placates' Jewish people and not seem to be concerned at all when he 'placates' Muslim people? Personally, I like the fact he is willing to build bridges and bonds with other religions. Obviously, you don't seem to think so with regard to Jewish people. Maybe when you get around to answering the above questions, you will give a clearer idea of why this is the case... Since you did not see fit to answer this question as well, yet you managed to comment on it, I ask you again...

Wasn’t Rascher arrested and executed by the SS for some medical experiments he did with criminals who had been sentenced to death (camps also had hardcore criminals).

No, that was not the reason he was executed. The 'criminals' you claim were sentenced to death were regular inmates.

And there is no indication he singled out Jews.

What specifically are you basing this on? Specifics, please...

Why would they execute Rascher if there was an extermination plan?

Simply the two things were not mutually exclusive. Thus your question has no meaning.

In fact, it was during that same trial that Hilberg admitted under oath that he was unaware of any scientific investigation of any gas chamber!!!

Well, your record of factually being able to quote people and relay events certainly appears to be questionable. Could you please link the court transcripts so that they may be check to see if they are authentic? However, as I said before, Hilberg never made claims of being an expert in gas chambers...as I wrote he was an extremely forthright and honest person... In fact, the man carried himself honestly and professionally throughout the entire trial and then there is the fact that he was respected, believed and trusted by Norman Finkelstein. Since you have used Finkelstein as an expert and you judge him to be of sound character, one would think you would take a second look at Hilberg. In addition, Zundel lost both trials on the evidence he presented.

So, it seems Leuchter was the first. His analysis was later confirmed by Rudolf.

Both of their 'research' have been trumped and refuted completely by Green. You are aware that Irving was going to present Rudolf's research as evidence. However, when he saw Green's research and report in response that was to be presented, Irving withdrew Rudolf's report from evidence. Even if nothing else was convincing (and there are many other aspects that are completely and specifically convincing)the fact that Irving felt that not only would Rudolf's report not help his case, but in fact would hurt it and as such withdrew it is completely convincing that Rudolf's report was lacking in factual accuracy.

They show you the text in the books describing the witness accounts, and they show you the location where the alleged actions took place.

That is not particularly specific, now is it? What specifically are you claiming is incorrect? Specifics, please...

If you want to see bias, go to an exterminist site.

Since I have not sent you to any 'extremist' sites, this has no connection with our discussion.

But that does not mean we MUST believe a scientifically impossible story in its entirety without any proof other than eyewitness accounts, many of which have been confirmed to be lying.

What scientifically impossible story are you talking about? Specifics, please...

Which eyewitnesses were/are lying? Specifics, please of specific and intentional lies...

And I guess if you're familiar with the Zundel trial, you must already know about Irving's testimony, under oath:

I am actually familiar with both Zundel and Irving's trials. They both lost...Irving has now stated clearly that he was wrong about the homicidal gas chambers and he now states that he believes they did exist.

So, you use the testimony of a man who lost his trial to defend a man who lost his trial to defend your own theories? Rather weak...

So, I believe I have been gracious in responding to your queries. I think it would be nice if you were to do the same. Could you now please answer the questions I have posed to you in this discussion?

Wasn’t Rascher arrested and executed by the SS for some medical experiments he did with criminals who had been sentenced to death (camps also had hardcore criminals). No, that was not the reason he was executed. The 'criminals' you claim were sentenced to death were regular inmates.

What specifically are you basing this on? Specifics, please..

Why was he executed then?

And there is no indication he singled out Jews. What specifically are you basing this on? Specifics, please..

I read the document you were referring to, where he suggests testing combat gases on humans. It says nothing about Jews. Do you have anything to indicate it was part of a program to exterminate Jews?

Also, if they had done the alleged tests, I can't see why they would in the end settle for Zyklon (or diesel). Carbon monoxide was readily available and probably a much better choice.

How do you know Irving's reasons for not using the Rudolf report. Specifics, please...

How did Green refute Rudolf's report? Specifics, please...

I remember in the past discussing this with either you or jeancolmar, whoever it was, was not very convincing.

I don't know why you keep mentioning that Hilberg behave well and honestly in court. I never accused him of lying in court. All I am saying is that Hilberg, who at the time was the number one holocaust researcher, wrote a book that became the holocaust Bible, and he prepared the book without ever having seen any scientific reports of the alleged gas chambers and had not even visited them himself. He was indeed honest under oath in court, but his admissions should make reasonable people ask questions regarding the validity of his book.

So, I believe I have been gracious in responding to your queries. I think it would be nice if you were to do the same. Could you now please answer the questions I have posed to you in this discussion?

I have also very graciously responded to most of your numerous questions. If you are still not happy with those answers, though beans! I will respond to unanswered questions in due time; believe it not, I actually have things to do.

sabiwabi:

Rascher arrested and executed by the SS for some medical experiments he did with criminals who had been sentenced to death (camps also had hardcore criminals).

kinniku:

No, that was not the reason he was executed.

Why was he executed then?

Well, since you brought it up, you should be providing specifics. He was arrested for the illegal adoption and registration of a child. He was executed in Dachau just before the liberation. It certainly was not because of his experiments, which were known throughout by his superiors as shown in correspondences.

The 'criminals' you claim were sentenced to death were regular inmates.

What specifically are you basing this on? Specifics, please..

I read the document you were referring to, where he suggests testing combat gases on humans. It says nothing about Jews. Do you have anything to indicate it was part of a program to exterminate Jews?

Ummm...the Rascher was suggesting in the document using the homicidal gas chamber to kill humans...you have read the document that you know suggests using homicidal gas chambers on humans, yet you just claimed no such documents exist...that is quite a problem for you, isn't it...

Also, if they had done the alleged tests, I can't see why they would in the end settle for Zyklon (or diesel). Carbon monoxide was readily available and probably a much better choice.

Ummm...you said documents that show the existence of homicidal gas chambers and the intent of use didn't exist, and you have now admitted you know these documents do exist and that you know about them. Thank you. That is one small positive step for you.

How do you know Irving's reasons for not using the Rudolf report. Specifics, please...

He withdrew it immediately after seeing Green's rebuttal. Irving's case was going badly and in fact he did end up losing. Can you think of some other logical reason? He certainly would have used it if he though it would have helped him.

How did Green refute Rudolf's report? Specifics, please...

Nope. Sorry, I will not go into detail about Green's report again with you. You did however admit to me that you agreed with parts of Green's report in our discussions two years ago. However, you have not answered my politely asked questions. So, I will not continue with details of scientific reports until you do.

I don't know why you keep mentioning that Hilberg behave well and honestly in court.

As I said, Hilberg was not an expert on homicidal gas chambers, was not a scientist and never claimed to be either. I wonder if you were aware that your hero Bradley Smith never even visited Europe. That certainly has not stopped the garbage he has written on his holocaust denier's website. There has been quite a lot of expertise about homicidal gas chambers and one such instance is the Green report that made Irving run scared and withdraw Rudolf's report.

I have also very graciously responded to most of your numerous questions. If you are still not happy with those answers, though beans! I will respond to unanswered questions in due time; believe it not, I actually have things to do.

You have been saying you will answer my questions for more than three years. I think it is time for you to start. It is only fair if you truly believe what you write. I guess you don't. I don't blame you...what you write is pretty unbelievable.

sabiwabi,

I thought I would get you started in preparing to finally address the questions that have been posed to you for quite some time. You mentioned above that you had answered some of my questions. This is actually not quite true. What you did was again steer the conversation in the direction you chose and I complied and responded to more of your claims. I have asked you quite a few questions about your as yet unexplained claims These are some of the questions that I have asked (as you know there are actually quite a lot more questions you have not answered, but let's start here, shall we?) :

Why would the "evil nazis" destroy the crematoria?

In the above quote of yours, you put "evil nazis" in quotations, which I assume means you don't think they were so evil. (If you don't think this, why did you put "evil nazis" in quotation marks?) If you don't seem to to think they were evil, why have you been claiming they were Jewish/Zionists? You have suggested that it wasn't the Nazis that wanted to take over the world, that it was the Zionists. In addition, during this same time period, you have also suggested that you would not be surprised to find out that Hitler was a 'nice guy'. Now, you claimed (completely incorrectly, of course) that top Nazis, including Hitler were Jewish. In fact, you provided a complete list of people who were not Jewish at all. Which is it? Were the Nazis bad or good in your eyes?

Lastly, you often make claims of only 200,000 to 300,000 Jewish people killed by the Nazis. However, why is it when I asked you in another thread specifically how you felt about Nazis policies and suggested that it seemed at times as though you were supportive of those policies, you then asked me how I could suggest 'you would support the Nazi murder of 6 million Jews'? Why?

You claim you are not referring to Jews when you say certain people control the present (media etc), yet you are often complaining that Jews control western media and governments. Why?

You also claim you have no anti-Semitic feelings and yet you have written that: "Muslims have quite a lot of respect for Jesus, unlike those who crucified him and who continue till this day to spit at Christian church officials." and here in this thread you wrote: "Certain people are indeed trying to destroy him, but this is not self-destruction. From what I hear, the last days of Jesus were not very pleasant either". Now, I have asked you a few times and you have never responded. So, let me ask again. Who are "these people"about whom you are talking? It certainly seems pretty clear you are speaking about Jews. Is that where your dislike for Jews and Jewish related business comes from?

If you could, please start with these specific questions. There is no need for taking time out of your busy day to "research" as these are your personal claims and one would think you already know why you feel as you do and would not need to research your own feelings and thoughts on the matter.

you put "evil nazis" in quotations, which I assume means you don't think they were so evil. (If you don't think this, why did you put "evil nazis" in quotation marks?)

To many people (you included) the nazis are evil; they are known as evil nazis.

Which is it? Were the Nazis bad or good in your eyes?

In my eyes? I have not made up my mind yet. I used to think they were evil, until I realized the holocaust story was not true and that the media were liars. This is something that I am quite certain of. I then set out to figure out what truly happened and figuring out which of the alternative media is honest. This is something I haven’t quite figured out yet. Was Hitler a true patriot trying to rescue his country or was he placed there to create a “Jewish homeland” in Palestine (and wreck Germany). I haven’t made up my mind yet, but I did find the Condit’s video (The Final Solution to Adolf Hitler) quite compelling; it’s a shame you refuse to see it.

In fact, you provided a complete list of people who were not Jewish at all.

How do you know they weren’t if you did not watch Condit’s video (The Final Solution to Adolf Hitler)

Lastly, you often make claims of only 200,000 to 300,000 Jewish people killed by the Nazis.

I NEVER claimed that “only 200,000 to 300,000 Jewish people killed by the Nazis”. That is roughly the number of Jews (or people) who DIED in the camps. They were not killed by the nazis; they died, mainly from disease.

You also claim you have no anti-Semitic feelings…

You should know by now that my “feelings” are very much PRO-Semitic, I am very much anti-criminal. More specifically, I am against a very small number of criminals, many of whom (not all) are Jewish (or call themselves Jewish) and the vast majority of them are NOT Semites.

However, why is it when I asked you in another thread specifically how you felt about Nazis policies and suggested that it seemed at times as though you were supportive of those policies, you then asked me how I could suggest 'you would support the Nazi murder of 6 million Jews'? Why?

I don't remember your exact question, but I suspect you probably phrased your question in your usual deceptive way. For example, when you write about my claims of the media or banks being controlled by THE Jews. I’ve pointed this out to you many times already, but you continue to use this deceptive tactic (in a recent post). There would be no reason to do so if you had a solid argument.

You claim you are not referring to Jews when you say certain people control the present (media etc), yet you are often complaining that Jews control western media and governments. Why?

I also explained this many times. For example, if US media was owned or controlled by people of Italian decent; that in itself is nothing to complain about. But once you realize that they never report on crimes committed by the Italian Mafia or by the “evil” Italian government, then it is perfectly normal for one to point this out. Coming back to reality: one cannot seriously refute that US media is extremely biased towards Israel (I know you’ll try to deny this). Has there ever been a Muslim at the head of the federal reserve? A Buddhist? A Christian? Also, Carter has stated clearly that no president can, while in power, criticize Israel or have policies that go against Israeli interests.

I wrote "Certain people are indeed trying to destroy him, but this is not self-destruction. From what I hear, the last days of Jesus were not very pleasant either". I also wrote about Bishop Williamson following the teachings of Jesus Christ. Did Jesus crucify himself? Obviously not. In the same way that Williamson is not destroying himself. Jesus would not have been crucified if he obeyed his "leaders", and we would not have Christianity today.

Also, I already mentioned to you that what I wrote about Jews killing Jesus was in response to Helterskelter. You recently criticized me because I criticized the pope’s placating Jewish leaders but I didn’t criticize him for apologizing to Muslims (was this ever discussed on JT?). But while you seem to be obsessed with attacking me whenever I am critical of people who are Jewish, I have never noticed you criticize Helterskelter’s obviously anti Islamic posts. I wonder why. And considering that during the recent Gaza carnage, the only criticism you had of Israel was that they did not let foreign journalists into Gaza and you expressed “concern” about their deadly attack against the UN school. Any normal person should therefore have serious doubts about your objectivity in discussing the holocaust.

sabiwabi,

Wow...first, let me say I appreciate your frank response. I am not sure why it had to take this long. It is a shame that you had to add your usual suggestion that I was "deceptive" in your response. Why is that response so ubiquitous for you? I have never been deceptive and I have always encouraged you to let me know if I am in error. You never respond specifically to what you find "deceptive". I merely repeat what you have said in the past and you always refer to this as deceptive. Why would you do this instead of explaining if you think I am incorrect? In addition, based on your response here, it does seem that I have been accurate and fair in my descriptions of your past and present views. Anyway, let me respond specifically...

In my eyes? I have not made up my mind yet. I used to think they were evil, until I realized the holocaust story was not true and that the media were liars.

It seems you attempting to make up your mind if the Nazis were good or bad based solely on what, in your mind, might have been the reasons the Nazis came to power. However, this ignores the actions of the Nazis which were, without a doubt, racist in nature. They singled out members a particular religion, (Judaism, of course) to be the target of widespread racist policies and actions. I do not see how there can be any debate about these actions. In my opinion, they were bad.

Now, I would like to specifically ask you what, in your opinion, was the first "lie" that made you realize the "Holocaust story" was not true? Could you describe it?

Was Hitler a true patriot trying to rescue his country or was he placed there to create a “Jewish homeland” in Palestine (and wreck Germany).

Why is it you refuse to entertain the idea that the Nazis were wrong and that the Jews were victims of Nazi racist policies? That seems to be the only possibility you refuse to even consider. Why is that? Are you so sure that their actions were appropriate?

In fact, you provided a complete list of people who were not Jewish at all.

How do you know they weren’t if you did not watch Condit’s video (The Final Solution to Adolf Hitler)

Let me see if I can explain it simply...if I see a dog in the street, I have seen many dogs in the past and I know many dogs exist in the world, it does not matter to me if Jim Condit makes a video explaining in detail that dogs are extinct. In other words, I have the ability to research the backgrounds of people just as well as anyone. He is incorrect. May I ask...have you actually checked his sources yourself and confirmed they are correct or are you just basing your opinion on this person's video as is? The people you listed were not Jewish. There is no question about this. In addition, I am assuming you got Max Warburg's name from Condit as well. Since that information was incorrect, that should at least make you wonder if he is a reliable source of factual information.

Lastly, you often make claims of only 200,000 to 300,000 Jewish people killed by the Nazis.

I NEVER claimed that “only 200,000 to 300,000 Jewish people killed by the Nazis”. That is roughly the number of Jews (or people) who DIED in the camps. They were not killed by the nazis; they died, mainly from disease.

I stand corrected in what I claimed was your opinion. However, I am sure you are aware that this clarification will make you seem even more extreme to many people on JT's discussion board...

You also claim you have no anti-Semitic feelings…

You should know by now that my “feelings” are very much PRO-Semitic, I am very much anti-criminal. More specifically, I am against a very small number of criminals, many of whom (not all) are Jewish (or call themselves Jewish) and the vast majority of them are NOT Semites.

Well, I do not think you have the right to decide who is or is not a member of a religion. To be clear, anti-semite and related terms are used to describe negative feelings towards members specifically of the Jewish faith. You are using the term too literally and in turn incorrectly. In addition, there are many Jews and Muslims are not "semitic". In fact, the largest population of Muslims is in Indonesia. I doubt they would be pleased if you attempted to claim they were not as Muslim as other Muslims. I am sure Jewish people around the world would feel the same as would Hindu or Buddhist people. Would I be correct in specifically describing your feelings as generally anti-Jewish? Would that be the reason for the comments you have often made about Jews and governments and the media?

However, why is it when I asked you in another thread specifically how you felt about Nazis policies and suggested that it seemed at times as though you were supportive of those policies, you then asked me how I could suggest 'you would support the Nazi murder of 6 million Jews'? Why?

I don't remember your exact question, but I suspect you probably phrased your question in your usual deceptive way. For example, when you write about my claims of the media or banks being controlled by THE Jews. I’ve pointed this out to you many times already, but you continue to use this deceptive tactic (in a recent post). There would be no reason to do so if you had a solid argument.

Again, I have not been deceptive and I really think you should not use this word so frivolously. If you feel I am incorrect, just say so. Let me describe the situation specifically...(it was only a couple of weeks ago, I am actually surprised you don't remember it yourself) I specifically suggested you consistently seem to support Nazis policies against the Jews in Europe. You responded, and I quote, "How can you suggest that I would support the Nazi murder of 6 million Jews?" You then ask the moderator to remove my post, which they did. To be completely honest, I was very surprised that you wrote what you did knowing how you feel about the subject for all these years...That is why I asked...

You claim you are not referring to Jews when you say certain people control the present (media etc), yet you are often complaining that Jews control western media and governments. Why?

I also explained this many times. For example, if US media was owned or controlled by people of Italian decent; that in itself is nothing to complain about. But once you realize that they never report on crimes committed by the Italian Mafia or by the “evil” Italian government, then it is perfectly normal for one to point this out.

However, there are two problems with this. One, US media does report on things that Israel does (I assume that is what you are talking about with your mafia analogy). You have even quoted CNN and BBC often in their reports. I doubt there is one person unaware of the suffering of the Palestinian people. In addition, cricism based solely on religion, ethnicity or race is racism. It is fine to complain about content, but I think the line is crossed over to racism when the criticism is based on solely on religion, ethnicity or race. When you point out the religion of people, as you do, that is what you are doing...

Coming back to reality: one cannot seriously refute that US media is extremely biased towards Israel (I know you’ll try to deny this).

No, I will not outright "deny" it. Some media lean one way, some another. I do know Sharon tried to sue Time Magazine (more than once if I am not mistaken) years ago for a negative story they ran and he lost the libel suit in a US court... Humans have bias...US media favored Iraq in the Iraq/ Iran War. They favor South Korea over North Korea etc...However, there was quite a lot of negative press for Israel in its last attacks on Gaza. However, the problem with your comments is that you focus on the religions of people. Why don't you say "pro-Israel" or "bias toward Israel"? Why do you tend to focus on who is Jewish or not?

Has there ever been a Muslim at the head of the federal reserve? A Buddhist? A Christian?

Yes, there have. Didn't you ever check? Before I speak specifically to your question, allow me to reiterate my feelings on your seemingly constant focus on the religions of people. Why should they matter so much? Who really cares if people are good? If they are not good, it is not because they are of a certain religion or that the religion is bad, it is that they are bad. Would not it be better to keep the focus on people rather than religion etc? Okay, now to your question...

There have been 14 Chairman of the US Federal Reserve. Of these 14, at least 8 were not Jewish...This is not a national secret of the US government. Why not check it out? Personally, if they were Muslim, Buddhist or whatever, I would not or could not care any less...

Also, Carter has stated clearly that no president can, while in power, criticize Israel or have policies that go against Israeli interests.

Carter has a right to his opinion. As do you and I. That does not mean he is completely correct in his opinion...it also does not mean what he said is always true...

Also, I already mentioned to you that what I wrote about Jews killing Jesus was in response to Helterskelter.

Well, it seems I was correct in taking the meaning I did from what you said. You should be aware, however, that Jesus was killed by the Romans...all of the Jews of the Roman Empire were under the heavy thumb of the Roman Empire, that included Jesus.

You recently criticized me because I criticized the pope’s placating Jewish leaders but I didn’t criticize him for apologizing to Muslims (was this ever discussed on JT?).

Yes, there have been several articles in the last few years detailing the Pope's efforts to smooth things over with Muslim leaders and the Muslim community at large. Although there were many (of course I was not one of them) who did comment negatively about the Pope supposedly pandering to the Muslim community. I felt it was a good thing that he was building bridges of understanding. You did not comment either way on the matter.

But while you seem to be obsessed with attacking me whenever I am critical of people who are Jewish, I have never noticed you criticize Helterskelter’s obviously anti Islamic posts.

Actually, I have been equally very critical of anti-Islamic posts and probably have been just as "obsessive" about pointing out other people's words in that regard as well. In fact, I am clearly against any sort of racism or discrimination.

Here are just a few examples of my participation is such discussions:

In November 2007, I was the first to comment on the article "Rights group challenges U.S. over visa refusal for Muslim scholar" and then proceeded to clearly and specifically defend scholar Adam Habib from what I considered being targeted simply for being a Muslim and his being profiled and prevented from entering the US.

Also in November 2007, I defended Islam and sharia law in a heated discussion about the article, "Democratic candidates blast Saudi rape victim's punishment".

More recently, this year in May, I participated in discussion about the article, "commentsPublisher to suspend cartoon sales after Muslims say it insults Islam" in which I specifically questioned why other posters were 'bashing Islam'. When other posters suggested that there was no bashing, I proceeded to copy and paste the bashing comments and I specifically and clearly defended Islam, as it should have been defended. You also participated in that discussion. Unfortunately, you only used the discussion to talk about the Jewish religion...

A year ago, I participated in the discussion about the article " 17 Danish newspapers print controversial Mohammed cartoon" in which I specifically wrote that I saw no need to reprint the cartoon and that I thought it was wrong to be purposefully offensive to Islam...

I do not write on JT as much as I used to and we do not always comment on the same articles. However, my record of critcism of racism and discrimination knows no bounds or limitations. I hope you will now understand this to be the case.

And considering that during the recent Gaza carnage, the only criticism you had of Israel was that they did not let foreign journalists into Gaza and you expressed “concern” about their deadly attack against the UN school.

Israel is a different conversation, no matter how much you would like to claim otherwise. I expressed concern about more than what you described. I think Israel was heavy handed and extremely careless...I deplore the killing of any innocent. It is my sincere hope that the recently reported moves toward Palestinian unity will actually come true and that soon after talks between Israel and the Palestinians. Unfortunately, Natanyahu has been appointed Prime Minister (to my dismay), so I don't hold out too much hope for the near future...My attitude towards Israel is simple. I agree with some of their actions and disagree with others. I feel the same way about most nations...

Any normal person should therefore have serious doubts about your objectivity in discussing the holocaust.

I don't see why or how. My feelings about the racist policies of the Nazis have nothing to do with any country existing presently today. I disagree with racism...It is that simple.

I do appreciate you giving me a chance to see what you really think about things. I would hope you might consider dropping the word "deceptive" in your discussions with me in favor of "incorrect". If you ever feel I am in error, just specifically tell me where you feel this is the case. I have tried to comment on what you wrote specifically. If you would like some clarification of my feelings or opinions, please feel free to ask.

I would also like to add my appreciation to the moderating staff for allowing this kind of discussion to take place.

Kinniku

Who really cares if people are good?

This should have been "Who really cares as long as people are good?"

I am not sure why it had to take this long.

It didn't. Essentially everything I have written in that post, I had written before, some many times.

It is a shame that you had to add your usual suggestion that I was "deceptive" in your response. Why is that response so ubiquitous for you?

It is only ubiquitous for me when I describe YOUR statements. I usually don't use it when dealing with others.

You never respond specifically to what you find "deceptive".

I certainly have, many many many times!!!

I merely repeat what you have said in the past and you always refer to this as deceptive.

You VERY often reword my statements, and it is usually very obvious what new meaning you are trying to give them (i.e., DECEPTION).

It seems you attempting to make up your mind if the Nazis were good or bad based solely on what, in your mind, might have been the reasons the Nazis came to power.

No.

They singled out members a particular religion, (Judaism, of course) to be the target of widespread racist policies and actions. I do not see how there can be any debate about these actions. In my opinion, they were bad.

That was indeed bad, but when I am talking about good or bad, it is relatively speaking. All major powers during WWII did some terrible things. The US (and Canada) also rounded up people of Japanese descent. The Russians were far more terrible than the nazis. The British also did some terrible things. When I say that the nazis might have been good, I do not mean that they did nothing bad, just that they might have done much good and their bad actions were nowhere close to the reputation they have.

Was Hitler a true patriot trying to rescue his country or was he placed there to create a “Jewish homeland” in Palestine (and wreck Germany).

Why is it you refuse to entertain the idea that the Nazis were wrong and that the Jews were victims of Nazi racist policies? That seems to be the only possibility you refuse to even consider. Why is that? Are you so sure that their actions were appropriate?

I don’t refuse that option. That is exactly one of the two possibilities I envisage. The creation of a “Jewish homeland” in Palestine was something that the great majority (>90%?) of European Jews opposed. If this was Hitler’s role, his goal was to give European Jews the desire to move to Palestine. The ordinary Jews suffered tremendously, I do not deny that they were victims, but I am convinced there was no plan to exterminate them.

In other words, I have the ability to research the backgrounds of people just as well as anyone. He is incorrect.

But you don’t bother looking at the video. Seems you only look at sources that point in one direction.

In addition, I am assuming you got Max Warburg's name from Condit as well.

I might have gotten “Warburg” from Condit. But I think “Max” came from you!

To be clear, anti-semite and related terms are used to describe negative feelings towards members specifically of the Jewish faith.

Indeed, anti-Semite is commonly used to refer to anti-Jew; but I usually don’t care too much about what is popular or common. I view anti-Semite as being against Semites.

In addition, there are many Jews and Muslims are not "semitic".

Indeed, the vast majority (maybe 80-90%) of Jews are not Semitic. That is one reason why I feel the term anti-Semitism is inappropriate when referring to anti-Jewish behavior.

In fact, the largest population of Muslims is in Indonesia. I doubt they would be pleased if you attempted to claim they were not as Muslim as other Muslims.

Those non-Semitic Jews are still Jews, so I don’t get your logic.

Would I be correct in specifically describing your feelings as generally anti-Jewish?

No! I don’t want to explain that again.

I specifically suggested you consistently seem to support Nazis policies against the Jews in Europe. You responded, and I quote, "How can you suggest that I would support the Nazi murder of 6 million Jews?"

If I wrote that, it was probably because I felt you had written in a particular way that might be interpreted as my supporting the murder of 6 million Jews. How convenient that the mod deleted your post! I guess there is no point discussing that, then.

However, there are two problems with this. One, US media does report on things that Israel does (I assume that is what you are talking about with your mafia analogy). You have even quoted CNN and BBC often in their reports. I doubt there is one person unaware of the suffering of the Palestinian people.

Indeed the media bias is not as obvious as it has long been. It was extremely biased for a very long time. The recent coverage of the Gaza carnage did include some mention of Israeli actions, but my feeling is that they now must do that to retain some credibility since many people are now getting their information from the internet and international news sources. However, although more people are now aware of the suffering of the Palestinians, very few understand the full extent of it.

Yes, there have [been a Muslim at the head of the federal reserve? A Buddhist? A Christian?]. Didn't you ever check?

Actually, I didn’t check. But I am aware of who started the Fed (and how they did it) and who has been in it in recent history. I’ll check later into those 8 you mentioned.

Why should they matter so much?

PING-PONG ATTARI (i.e., BINGO!!!) That is exactly the point, it should not matter. But it does seem to matter to the Fed. If Jews make up about 2% of the US population, one would normally expect the top positions of the Fed (or media, or president advisors, …) to be occupied by Jews about 2% of the time, it clearly is not. And couple that with the government policies and media coverage that results from this…

Also, Carter has stated clearly that no president can, while in power, criticize Israel or have policies that go against Israeli interests.

Carter has a right to his opinion. As do you and I. That does not mean he is completely correct in his opinion...it also does not mean what he said is always true...

One should definitely value his opinion infinitely more than yours or mine about this issue. He clearly would know much more about it than most people. And he is not the only ex-politician to say such things.

Well, it seems I was correct in taking the meaning I did from what you said. You should be aware, however, that Jesus was killed by the Romans...all of the Jews of the Roman Empire were under the heavy thumb of the Roman Empire, that included Jesus.

Yeah, but who controlled the Roman media? (just joking!)

I would recommend a good video that explains this, but I know how you feel about videos… Anyway, just like the US has been attacking certain counties, it was not in the interest of the American people.

Although there were many (of course I was not one of them) who did comment negatively about the Pope supposedly pandering to the Muslim community. I felt it was a good thing that he was building bridges of understanding. You did not comment either way on the matter.

I do not have any problem with the pope improving relations with Muslims. I have often commented that there has long been an anti-Muslim campaign, trying to vilify them. It seems someone is trying (quite successfully, in fact) to get the west to fight the Muslims. But I did not notice Muslim leaders pushing the pope around as the Jewish leaders have done.

Actually, I have been equally very critical of anti-Islamic posts and probably have been just as "obsessive" about pointing out other people's words in that regard as well.

That’s a bit hard to believe…

In fact, I am clearly against any sort of racism or discrimination….However, my record of critcism of racism and discrimination knows no bounds or limitations.

But it seems you did not agree with the fact that Israel has racist policies. None Jews do not have equal rights, even if they are Israeli citizens (check out Israel Shahak’s stuff).

I think Israel was heavy handed and extremely careless...I deplore the killing of any innocent.

The carnage in Gaza was sick and disgusting. The attack of the UN school, just to mention one example, was clearly an intentional murder of civilians. And yes, with their new leader, things do not look very promising. But I see the world finally waking up, and Israel finally getting the scorn they deserve.

I would hope you might consider dropping the word "deceptive" in your discussions with me in favor of "incorrect".

When you try to interpret my statements, I usually see the distortions that take place as intentional deception. If it isn’t, it might be because of a preconceived opinion that I am racist, which I am definitely not. Why else would I see the same distortions. Try reading my posts as if I am an intelligent, rational, truthful human being and I’ll try to do the same with yours.

sabiwabi,

I am not sure why it had to take this long.

It didn't. Essentially everything I have written in that post, I had written before, some many times.

No, you never wrote that frankly and that specifically. You have tended to dodge the question when it has been posed to you.

It is a shame that you had to add your usual suggestion that I was "deceptive" in your response. Why is that response so ubiquitous for you?

It is only ubiquitous for me when I describe YOUR statements. I usually don't use it when dealing with others.

However, you have never specifically said what was "deceptive". In fact, in your post above, you have specfically confirmed what I quoted you as writing.

You never respond specifically to what you find "deceptive".

I certainly have, many many many times!!!

You never have. When I ask you for specifics of what you think I have been deceptive about, you ignore the question.

I merely repeat what you have said in the past and you always refer to this as deceptive.

You VERY often reword my statements, and it is usually very obvious what new meaning you are trying to give them (i.e., DECEPTION).

I have NEVER (read that as not even once) reworded anything I have quoted of your writings. Please show me one reworded statement of yours that I have written. I am quite careful when quoting you and even go as far as giving you the article title and date of your comments, so that you can confirm you have indeed written what I have quoted. For you to suggest otherwise is completly incorrect.

It seems you attempting to make up your mind if the Nazis were good or bad based solely on what, in your mind, might have been the reasons the Nazis came to power.

No

That is all you have mentioned. How I am mistaken?.

They singled out members a particular religion, (Judaism, of course) to be the target of widespread racist policies and actions. I do not see how there can be any debate about these actions. In my opinion, they were bad.

That was indeed bad, but when I am talking about good or bad, it is relatively speaking. All major powers during WWII did some terrible things. The US (and Canada) also rounded up people of Japanese descent. The Russians were far more terrible than the nazis. The British also did some terrible things. When I say that the nazis might have been good, I do not mean that they did nothing bad, just that they might have done much good and their bad actions were nowhere close to the reputation they have.

Sorry, this does not make sense. Racism is wrong. Justifying racism is wrong. In addition to you suggesting the Nazis might have done much good and that their bad actions were nowhere close to the reputation they have is in direct contrast, you have been attempting to suggest that the Nazis were actually Jewish and/or Zionist and as such were bad. So, all it seems is that your only real goal in these discussions is to at any given moment and any way you are able to give the impression that Jews were not the victim. It does not seem to matter to you that your story changes with the wind and does not follow logic or reason.

Was Hitler a true patriot trying to rescue his country or was he placed there to create a “Jewish homeland” in Palestine (and wreck Germany).

Why is it you refuse to entertain the idea that the Nazis were wrong and that the Jews were victims of Nazi racist policies? That seems to be the only possibility you refuse to even consider. Why is that? Are you so sure that their actions were appropriate?

I don’t refuse that option. That is exactly one of the two possibilities I envisage. The creation of a “Jewish homeland” in Palestine was something that the great majority (>90%?) of European Jews opposed.

Where do you get this figure 90% from? If you are going to deal in statistics, please give us your sources of information.

If this was Hitler’s role, his goal was to give European Jews the desire to move to Palestine.

This is a completely baseless argument and in the end still attempts to blame Jews for backing Hitler. You know this is not what I meant by my question. My question is, how can you completely discount the Nazis (not backed by Jews/Zionists/Aliens etc) made Jews the targets of their racism, plain and simple? It is not as if pogroms had never happened in the past to Jews. Why are you so sure it did not happen again.

The ordinary Jews suffered tremendously, I do not deny that they were victims, but I am convinced there was no plan to exterminate them.

Well, your words can be extremely confusing. You have on many occassions, suggested that Hitler did not have such a big hate for the Jews. You have also suggested that you would not be suprised to find out Hitler was not such a bad guy. So, your only two choices seem to be, one, the Nazis were good and they were trying to help Germany and Europe or two, the Nazis were bad, but only because they were Jewish and Zionist and they were backed by Jews and Zionists. You do not leave room for the possibility that both of these theories are incorrect. Again, I ask you why? In addition, what specifically has convinced you there was no plan to exterminate Jewish people? You say you are convinced? What specifically has convinced you? As I asked, what was the first specific provable lie that started to lead you on this path of belief?

In other words, I have the ability to research the backgrounds of people just as well as anyone. He is incorrect.

But you don’t bother looking at the video. Seems you only look at sources that point in one direction.

That doesn't make sense. The video does not give you specifics. If it did, you certainly would have presented them.

In addition, I am assuming you got Max Warburg's name from Condit as well.

I might have gotten “Warburg” from Condit. But I think “Max” came from you!

Meaning what, exactly? Why be so coy? Say what you want to say specfically. This is what I meant when I was surprised by the frankness of your previous post. You tend to make suggestions of "deceptions", but give no specifics. You tend to give hints that you feel a certain way, but decline to provide specifics. Don't you want your opinions to be easily examined? By your question to me, as you attempting to say you meant a different "Warburg"? Sorry, I do not believe you. You responded to my specific questions and information about Max Warburg attempting to defend your incorrect claim that Max Warburg was backing the Nazis and was staying in nice hotels in Germany throughout the war when he was actually in the US and had been there since emigrating in 1938. I find it disengenuous for you to now after weeks of discussing the man to suddenly say, "Hey, I wasn't talking about "that" Warburg". Yes, you were and you were incorrect. If you got the information from Condit's video, as it now seems you did, he was wrong as well. So, one can assume the man does not actually do factual research and as such his videos are worthless.

To be clear, anti-semite and related terms are used to describe negative feelings towards members specifically of the Jewish faith.

Indeed, anti-Semite is commonly used to refer to anti-Jew; but I usually don’t care too much about what is popular or common. I view anti-Semite as being against Semites.

Well, you are wrong and your definitions of who is a Jew are also wrong as are the incorrect DNA tests you attempt to use to try to say who is a Jew or not. Your experts only use one DNA marker, which any professional knows is not good science.

In addition, there are many Jews and Muslims are not "semitic".

Indeed, the vast majority (maybe 80-90%) of Jews are not Semitic. That is one reason why I feel the term anti-Semitism is inappropriate when referring to anti-Jewish behavior.

Well, I suggest you start reading dictionaries and learning to use language in the way people actually use it and not just how it sounds in your own mind. However, if you would prefer, I will now specifically use the term anti-Jewish. Would that better describe your general feelings?

In fact, the largest population of Muslims is in Indonesia. I doubt they would be pleased if you attempted to claim they were not as Muslim as other Muslims.

Those non-Semitic Jews are still Jews, so I don’t get your logic.

I don't get yours either, however I am glad you now (suddenly?) understand my point that they are all Jewish. Thank you for that. So, it would be good if from now on you refrain from suggesting that they are not Jewish.

Would I be correct in specifically describing your feelings as generally anti-Jewish?

No! I don’t want to explain that again.

It seems you should. You have specifically mentioned Jews in your criticism and your criticism is based on their being Jewish. You have even gone so far as to once extremely incorrectly suggest Ari Fleischer was an ordained rabbi and you went on to suggest this was proof that "religion" had taken over the US government. How can you explain such a statment. Before you jump on the deception band wagon, please remember, I would be happy again to paste your words if you have forgetten them.

I specifically suggested you consistently seem to support Nazis policies against the Jews in Europe. You responded, and I quote, "How can you suggest that I would support the Nazi murder of 6 million Jews?"

If I wrote that, it was probably because I felt you had written in a particular way that might be interpreted as my supporting the murder of 6 million Jews.

That is possible that that is what you meant.

How convenient that the mod deleted your post! I guess there is no point discussing that, then.

It is not a matter of convenience. You asked them to remove it as you have attempted to do recently with my other posts. It seems you only like free speech when it is speech you agree with.

However, there are two problems with this. One, US media does report on things that Israel does (I assume that is what you are talking about with your mafia analogy). You have even quoted CNN and BBC often in their reports. I doubt there is one person unaware of the suffering of the Palestinian people.

Indeed the media bias is not as obvious as it has long been.

Sorry, you can't have it both ways. You were wrong. They show both sides of the conflict. They always have.

It was extremely biased for a very long time.

Well, coming from someone who still hasn't made up his mind if the Nazis were bad or not, I am not sure if you are the best person to speak of bias.

The recent coverage of the Gaza carnage did include some mention of Israeli actions, but my feeling is that they now must do that to retain some credibility since many people are now getting their information from the internet and international news sources.

No, there has been very little change in the style of reporting. Your claims do not mirror reality.

However, although more people are now aware of the suffering of the Palestinians, very few understand the full extent of it.

Very few people understand the extent of any suffering unless they are suffering themselves. Your claims of bias do not change this.

Yes, there have [been a Muslim at the head of the federal reserve? A Buddhist? A Christian?]. Didn't you ever check?

Actually, I didn’t check. But I am aware of who started the Fed (and how they did it) and who has been in it in recent history. I’ll check later into those 8 you mentioned.

That fact that you consistently write incorrect claims without checking is extremely telling. You were incorrect on this and even before answering you did not make an attempt to check the information. You are so busy trying to get people to worry about Jews, that you don't even seem to care if what you write is factually accurate. The founder of the Fed was also not Jewish. Why even attempt to claim he was? Your policy seems to be blame Jews first and ask questions later. That is not how a factual thought process should work.

Why should they matter so much?

PING-PONG ATTARI (i.e., BINGO!!!) That is exactly the point, it should not matter.

Yet, to you, it consistently does. You consistently and almost constantly are bringing the fact people are Jewish (even incorrectly). Why constantly bring up people's religion? Why this seeming obsession with Jewish people?

But it does seem to matter to the Fed. If Jews make up about 2% of the US population, one would normally expect the top positions of the Fed (or media, or president advisors, …) to be occupied by Jews about 2% of the time, it clearly is not.

That is, quite frankly, a ridiculous notion. Are you now going to complain about certain races being more prominent in US sports, too? Maybe you will even start complaining that there about certain races being overly prominent on TV or movies, too? I am curious, does your "percentage" theory work with other fields, as well? What percentage of Jewish people attended institutions of higher learning during these times to which you are referring? What part of the US did most of the Fed Chairs come from? What was the percentage of Jewish people in those areas? Maybe you should give things more thought before making what again to be complaints about Jews in any position of power or influence.

And couple that with the government policies and media coverage that results from this…

Well, considering you have made incorrect suggestions that people were Jewish and even that they were rabbis, I am not sure you can look at government policies or media coverage in an objective fashion.

Also, Carter has stated clearly that no president can, while in power, criticize Israel or have policies that go against Israeli interests.

Carter has a right to his opinion. As do you and I. That does not mean he is completely correct in his opinion...it also does not mean what he said is always true...

One should definitely value his opinion infinitely more than yours or mine about this issue. He clearly would know much more about it than most people. And he is not the only ex-politician to say such things.

The man was not perfect. He made mistakes and his opinion is but one opinion on the matter. Speaking of which, I could not find the quote you wrote of his anywhere on the Internet. Could you please give me your source for him saying specifically what you quoted him as saying?

Well, it seems I was correct in taking the meaning I did from what you said. You should be aware, however, that Jesus was killed by the Romans...all of the Jews of the Roman Empire were under the heavy thumb of the Roman Empire, that included Jesus.

Yeah, but who controlled the Roman media? (just joking!)

Lol! Thanks for that! I seriously enjoyed it. (Really!)

I would recommend a good video that explains this, but I know how you feel about videos… Anyway, just like the US has been attacking certain counties, it was not in the interest of the American people.

OMG, were you joking or not?...

Although there were many (of course I was not one of them) who did comment negatively about the Pope supposedly pandering to the Muslim community. I felt it was a good thing that he was building bridges of understanding. You did not comment either way on the matter.

I do not have any problem with the pope improving relations with Muslims.

I have often commented that there has long been an anti-Muslim campaign, trying to vilify them.

Yes, and you seem to blame it mostly on Jews. I know, I know.

But I did not notice Muslim leaders pushing the pope around as the Jewish leaders have done.

Then you were not paying attention as they did not accept his apologies initially. You really need to read more.

Actually, I have been equally very critical of anti-Islamic posts and probably have been just as "obsessive" about pointing out other people's words in that regard as well.

That’s a bit hard to believe…

Again, since you obviously have made no effort to look at the articles I mentioned I discussed, your finding something hard to believe has not basis in factual reality. Look at what I have written first, then comment, please...

In fact, I am clearly against any sort of racism or discrimination….However, my record of critcism of racism and discrimination knows no bounds or limitations.

But it seems you did not agree with the fact that Israel has racist policies.

I believe there racism in Israel, just as there is in most countries. I never said there wasn't. Quite frankly, I find your needing to bring up who is Jewish (even when they are not) racist, as well.

None Jews do not have equal rights, even if they are Israeli citizens (check out Israel Shahak’s stuff).

Again, I have no idea what you are even trying to say. "Jews don't have writes even if they are Israeli citizens"? Do you even read what you write? Could you speak to specifics and please stop attempting to speak broadly?

I think Israel was heavy handed and extremely careless...I deplore the killing of any innocent.

The carnage in Gaza was sick and disgusting. The attack of the UN school, just to mention one example, was clearly an intentional murder of civilians.

I disagree that there is proof there was intentional killings on the part of the Israelis. Funny that you don't see any intentional killing of Jews by the Nazis for which there is specific proof, yet you can say specifically in this case that the Israelis specifically targeted and tried to kill civilians. Prove it, please...

And yes, with their new leader, things do not look very promising. But I see the world finally waking up, and Israel finally getting the scorn they deserve.

Again, that is where you are incorrect. Natanyahu deserves scorn if he continues on the same path he trod when he was PM before. Israelis do not deserve such scorn anymore than average Palestinians do.

I would hope you might consider dropping the word "deceptive" in your discussions with me in favor of "incorrect".

When you try to interpret my statements, I usually see the distortions that take place as intentional deception.

I have quoted what you wrote word-for-word and even provide you with the article and date so you may check it for yourself. That is not deception, that is quotation.

If it isn’t, it might be because of a preconceived opinion that I am racist, which I am definitely not.

You single out Jews. Singling out a certain people for scorn or blame is the definition of the word. What you write tends to fit this definition.

Why else would I see the same distortions.

Again, I have merely quoted what you wrote. I have not changed the wording. That is not distortion, that is quotation. They are your words, you have to live with them, not I.

Try reading my posts as if I am an intelligent, rational, truthful human being and I’ll try to do the same with yours.

I would appreciate that. However, when you write factually incorrect things, I will continue to call them to your attention. This is not distortion. It is conversation.

kinniku,

You are incorrect.

sabiwabi,

How so?