Time to ban A_Nony_Mouse?

FurryCatHerder
Theist
FurryCatHerder's picture
Posts: 1253
Joined: 2007-06-02
User is offlineOffline
Time to ban A_Nony_Mouse?

Greets,

As I've said a number of times, my primary interest in this site is the science posts.  The number of high quality references to recent scientific discoveries is very high and I enjoy reading links about various discoveries.  I read about the pending announcement of the Higg's boson here before any other non-news websites I visit, and the recently announced ability to view the inside of living cells hasn't made it to any other website I visit.

During a number of conversations about purchasing a new web server, I also mentioned that I felt that the "secular humanism" mission of this website was an admirable goal, and I've offered publicly and privately to provide some amount of financial support, provided various conditions are met, to that end.  In my experience, when people of widely divergent world-views agree on something, it seems to have a much better chance of being a "good idea" (assuming all parties agree it is a "good idea&quotEye-wink than not.

It's also been my observation that when people of divergent opinions think that something is a "bad idea", or a person is a "bad person", there's a very good chance that others would likewise agree than not.

That seems to be the case with A_Nony_Mouse -- the number of people who are decrying his naked bigotry isn't small.  His willingness to attack people as puppets of Jews simply because they call him out on his bigotry is evidence that his bigotry knows no bounds.  If he just attacked Jews, I'd be fine with that -- Jews seem to get used to it after a while -- but anyone who doesn't cower to his repeated attacks is labeled a sympathizer and a puppet of the Jews.  His willingness to make absurd claims that are not, in any way, based on Scientific evidence is inconsistent with what seems to be the approach this website takes: presenting clearly supported scientific evidence as a way of combating ignorance.

Between his bigotry and anti-Science stances on the subject of his bigotry, his attitudes seem to be completely inconsistent with two key goals: present clearly supported scientific evidence about the nature of reality, and creating a society that's free from the types of hatred that he spews on a regular basis.

For these reasons, I would like to suggest that he be banned, or at the very minimum given a nice long vacation.

"Obviously I'm convinced of the existence of G-d. I'm equally convinced that Atheists who've led good lives will be in Olam HaBa going "How the heck did I wind up in this place?!?" while Christians who've treated people like dirt will be in some other place asking the exact same question."


Atheistextremist
atheistSilver Member
Atheistextremist's picture
Posts: 5095
Joined: 2009-09-17
User is offlineOffline
You are rather prone to the straw man

A_Nony_Mouse wrote:

Atheistextremist wrote:
that Hitler said one thing and did another, that he claimed to be non aggressive but in domestic and foreign policy, he acted in a highly aggressive manner.

For the record over the years I have learned from the most important political leaders of the world that Hitler was no worse than Saddam Hussein, Yassar Arafat, Milosevic, or Amadinejad. From Israel I have learned assimilation and women praying at the Wailing Wall are worse than Hitler.

 

 

 

and the appeal to emotion, Non.

I don't love being involved in wars, I simply think WW2 had to be fought and I think that Germany's aggression was the catalyst for the conflict. There are crimes of commission and omission. Allowing Hitler to turn continental Europe into a military dictatorship with all the apparatus of that dictatorship, the crushing of the media and the universities, unleashing the secret police, the death camps, introducing the murder of the disabled, minority groups and dissenters, would have been unconscionable conduct.

This does not mean I'm unaware Britain has committed crimes herself, the colonial governing of India and plenty more. There's no question Indian nationalists were imprisoned, tortured and murdered by the British, something that still causes plenty of breast beating now, as it should. But these mistakes do not absolve Britain of the responsibility she took on in 1939. 

I also wonder how it is we should decide which military interventions have some sort of moral imperative. Do we fight any nation that fails to fall in with a proscribed set of standards of individual freedom? Do we fight none at all because we have a splinter in our nation's eye? At what point do we defend our neighbours? Do past mistakes annul the sacrifices of today, or in the case of the British, the sacrifices of 1939?

A dishonourable peace would have saved hundreds of thousands of British and Commonwealth lives. But the oppression would have had to have been opposed by some one at some time, there is no doubt whatever of this. Europe under Germany was in perpetual revolt. 

It seems to me that on the basis of particular national wrongs, you lose your basis for moral consistency. If the Brits colonised India then they deserved whatever befell them and in whatever grim manner it befell, and presumably, so did the rest of non-German Europe for depending on Britain to fight once they were conquered. None of the German conquests took up arms against the allies after D-Day. Instead they pitched in and helped fight Germany. 

As regards the Soviet Union, I think the issue is more nuanced than you suggest. I think Hitler was the first and most obvious danger. He made enemies of everybody. I can't imagine there were no conversations about what to do with the Soviets after the war ended, in the midst of the Berlin Airlift. Of course there were. Should the Soviet regime have been opposed? Yes, morally it was a monster. 

I don't think you can endlessly decry Israel's crimes in Palestine and ignore German wrongs against their own citizens and the citizens of their neighbours in Europe '39-'45. Crimes against humanity have to be judged as universally wrong or your appeals to morality are completely worthless. Obviously, this goes both ways. Those wailing women are not Hitler but they are complicit in the dispossession of a people's land. 

 

 

 

"Experiments are the only means of knowledge at our disposal. The rest is poetry, imagination." Max Planck


A_Nony_Mouse
A_Nony_Mouse's picture
Posts: 2880
Joined: 2008-04-23
User is offlineOffline
.

Atheistextremist wrote:
A_Nony_Mouse wrote:
Atheistextremist wrote:
that Hitler said one thing and did another, that he claimed to be non aggressive but in domestic and foreign policy, he acted in a highly aggressive manner.

For the record over the years I have learned from the most important political leaders of the world that Hitler was no worse than Saddam Hussein, Yassar Arafat, Milosevic, or Amadinejad. From Israel I have learned assimilation and women praying at the Wailing Wall are worse than Hitler.

and the appeal to emotion, Non.

And using the H-word is not? I assume the world is recovering from its late 1980s revival of the Nazi menace metaphor and returning to the sanity of the 1950s.

Quote:
I don't love being involved in wars, I simply think WW2 had to be fought and I think that Germany's aggression was the catalyst for the conflict.

1) We agree Britain and France spread the conflict beyond Poland.

2) We know from history that in ignoring Soviet aggression against five countries including Poland means the current view in the history books is nothing more than successful Allied propaganda which in the process rewarded Soviet agression with Eastern Poland.

2a) Because the Soviet recovery of territory lost as a consequence of Brest-Litvosk is acceptable so also is the recovery of Germany territory as a consequence of that same treaty.

3) Once Russia is off the hook so also is Germany.

Quote:
There are crimes of commission and omission. Allowing Hitler to turn continental Europe into a military dictatorship with all the apparatus of that dictatorship, the crushing of the media and the universities, unleashing the secret police, the death camps, introducing the murder of the disabled, minority groups and dissenters, would have been unconscionable conduct.

You mean exactly what the Bolsheviks had done to the entire ex-Russian empire in the course of operating a dictatorship.

You mean like the dictatorships the British and French had in operation around the world encompassing nearly 1 billion oppressed by just those two foreign powers.

4) You accuse Germany of wanting to do what three of the four major Allies had already done including one which attacked four countries in addition to Poland.

4a) In accusing Germany of wanting to do what three of the Allies were like before the war started you again vindicate Germany.

Quote:
This does not mean I'm unaware Britain has committed crimes herself, the colonial governing of India and plenty more. There's no question Indian nationalists were imprisoned, tortured and murdered by the British, something that still causes plenty of breast beating now, as it should. But these mistakes do not absolve Britain of the responsibility she took on in 1939.

I thoroughly agree it means Britain is absolutely at fault for escalating the war in Europe and I would not absolve France either. As for the responsiblity Britain and France assumed that is also for engulfing all of Europe and North Africa over the forceful dissolution of Brest-Litvosk to the detriment of the Polish dictatorship.

Quote:
I also wonder how it is we should decide which military interventions have some sort of moral imperative. Do we fight any nation that fails to fall in with a proscribed set of standards of individual freedom? Do we fight none at all because we have a splinter in our nation's eye? At what point do we defend our neighbours? Do past mistakes annul the sacrifices of today, or in the case of the British, the sacrifices of 1939?

The criteria for a "just war" have been debated for centuries. WWII does not qualify any more than the first Iraq war. ALL the propaganda reasons raised by Britain for its selective war on Germany applied four times over the Russia. That eliminates any possibility of a moral basis for the its chosen war on Germany.

5) Poland was not a neighbor.

6) Poland was also a military dictatorship. This negates any possible claim to playing good neighbor and leaves only England's national interest in hegemony over Europe -- to be able to create borders and nations which would bind tens of millions to governments at the whim of whomever was most successful at pandering to British voters.

6a) So the war was declared to once again force Germans to live under a Polish dictatorship.

Trust me I can understand Britains love of friendly dictators and sending off "king and country" indoctrinated peasants to preserve them. What I do not understand is an adult today not seeing through the Walt Disney level propaganda that was mounted against Germany.

Quote:
A dishonourable peace would have saved hundreds of thousands of British and Commonwealth lives. But the oppression would have had to have been opposed by some one at some time, there is no doubt whatever of this. Europe under Germany was in perpetual revolt.

I would rather speculate upon the opinion of the forced to fight (the US called it a draft which is how it raised 94% of its wartime military) honorable dead what they think of being dead. Again, why too much Dr. Who chintzy patriotism.

To repeat your characterization of Europe as under Germany is false. The entire former Austro-Hungarian empire plus Italy had voluntarily allied with Germany in the 1930s. Note the word voluntary. It was the anticommunist pact, a pact Britain was too stupid to join. There was no revolt nor any reasonably foreseeable as a consequence of this voluntary alliance.

BUT if there were that would have been their business not Britain's.

Quote:
It seems to me that on the basis of particular national wrongs, you lose your basis for moral consistency. If the Brits colonised India then they deserved whatever befell them and in whatever grim manner it befell, and presumably, so did the rest of non-German Europe for depending on Britain to fight once they were conquered. None of the German conquests took up arms against the allies after D-Day. Instead they pitched in and helped fight Germany.

To repeat learn what non-German Europe was really like not the crap they lead you to believe as a schoolboy.

Quote:
As regards the Soviet Union, I think the issue is more nuanced than you suggest. I think Hitler was the first and most obvious danger. He made enemies of everybody. I can't imagine there were no conversations about what to do with the Soviets after the war ended, in the midst of the Berlin Airlift. Of course there were. Should the Soviet regime have been opposed? Yes, morally it was a monster.

Again Europe was not as in your childhood history lessons.

Quote:
I don't think you can endlessly decry Israel's crimes in Palestine and ignore German wrongs against their own citizens and the citizens of their neighbours in Europe '39-'45. Crimes against humanity have to be judged as universally wrong or your appeals to morality are completely worthless. Obviously, this goes both ways. Those wailing women are not Hitler but they are complicit in the dispossession of a people's land.

Excuse me. When have I failed to draw the Nazi-Zionist comparison? I have often pointed to the Zionist-Nazi cooperation with the Ha'Avara, Havara, Transfer Agreement. I have been one of the few who calls the Occupied Territories for what it is, a Jewish military dictatorship over oppressed millions.

I have not noticed Britain declaring war on Israel as a consequence. Have you folks become immoral since 1939?

Nor can you claim Britain was only prepared to get its ass whipped by Germany, raise it as a humanitarian and moral issue and then exclude war on Russia out of practical necessities. 

It was fought by Britain and France to preserve their power to control the political landscape of Europe.

 

Jews stole the land. The owners want it back. That is all anyone needs to know about Israel. That is all there is to know about Israel.

www.ussliberty.org

www.giwersworld.org/made-in-alexandria/index.html

www.giwersworld.org/00_files/zion-hit-points.phtml


Atheistextremist
atheistSilver Member
Atheistextremist's picture
Posts: 5095
Joined: 2009-09-17
User is offlineOffline
War weariness sets in...

 

On the one hand you lament ethnic germans living under a polish dictatorship, on the other you are happy for Poles, Russians, French and all the rest to live under a German dictatorship. 

I don't recall having said the Soviet Union was blameless in all this. But their crimes do not absolve Germans of their responsibility to avoid random invasions of their next-door neighbours. 

British crimes and repression elsewhere do not excuse German excesses in Europe. I do think Britain and France tolerated their former ally, the Soviet Union, wrongly but through expediency.

What was the cold war all about if not the fall-out from Russia's performance during and after WW2? Russia was a pariah after world war 2 and still is. 

Again with the endless ad hominem.

Germany was the aggressor in WW2, the allies were not prepared to fight, did not want to fight, were bankrupt, were in the process of losing their empires, quickly lost or shut down their empires after the war. Gassed no millions. Put no nations to the sword. 

I'll cheerfully agree the allies had done wrong but that does not mean their wrongs are comparable to Nazi Germany. Your claims represent a false dichotomy in which all nations that are not Switzerland; no, sorry, the Nazi gold, make that Sweden; are exactly like Germany was under Mr Schikelgruber and the freakish Himmler. 

You are aware what Germany was like in the lead up to, and during the second world war, are you not? The murders, the pograms, the repression of church and press. And during the war, the same but worse. The hangings and torture all so on. 

I won't argue that all nations are morally inconsistent and when Israel invades 4 or 5 countries and starts gassing millions of muslims with Zyklon-B, then sure, I'll agree they are just like the Nazis. Until then you are appealing to emotion. 

Do I like Israel topping Iranian scientists - no, not a lot. Regardless, the conduct of an Israel that did not exist in 1939 doesn't come into to the Western Allies' decision to fight Germany after it invaded Poland. 

Stop going on with the schoolboy bullshit. I'm sure my war library is as good or better than yours. Give me a single historian of note who supports your contention Germany was not the aggressor in WW2 and that Britain started it in order to repress poor wee Germany. I can't find a single one. 

 

 

 

 

 

"Experiments are the only means of knowledge at our disposal. The rest is poetry, imagination." Max Planck


A_Nony_Mouse
A_Nony_Mouse's picture
Posts: 2880
Joined: 2008-04-23
User is offlineOffline
.

Atheistextremist wrote:
On the one hand you lament ethnic germans living under a polish dictatorship, on the other you are happy for Poles, Russians, French and all the rest to live under a German dictatorship.

I have never said that. I said it was none of Britain's business. You said Britain was so far out-classed militarily that there was nothing Britain could have done about it. As it could do nothing about it, it hardly excuses or justifies Britain's warmongering much less ennoble near-terminal stupidity.

We both agree Britain expanded the war beyond a three-way conflict in the Baltic, the natural sphere of influence of Russia and Germany.

The Poles were sent back to WWI Poland where they came from. What is wrong with that? It was called the General Government of Poland and administered by Germany, yes, as a dictatorship. So? All the war participants in 1940 ran dictatorships including Britain and France. Because of that dictatorship cannot be discriminatory criteria as all were the same in this regard. It was the Allies who massacred the Polish officer corp and intelligensia.

I have no idea what you expect to accomplish bringing up the common feature of dictatorship.

Quote:
I don't recall having said the Soviet Union was blameless in all this. But their crimes do not absolve Germans of their responsibility to avoid random invasions of their next-door neighbours.

Of course you did not say that. I said Britain chose to ignore the communist crimes and aided in covering up the massacres. I introduced it to demonstrate Britain did not give a damn about Poland per se but as a pretext for a selective war with Germany.

Quote:
British crimes and repression elsewhere do not excuse German excesses in Europe. I do think Britain and France tolerated their former ally, the Soviet Union, wrongly but through expediency.

To repeat, I am pointing out any British pretension to a moral high ground is for children to read in their schoolbooks. Expediency negates a moral position.

Quote:
What was the cold war all about if not the fall-out from Russia's performance during and after WW2? Russia was a pariah after world war 2 and still is. 

Again with the endless ad hominem.

Which means Germany cannot be singled out by the British for the same "evils" as the British were guilty of. When all parties are the same, including Britain's gratuitous war on Germany, you can't get by the Winstons' 1984 or 1940s propaganda unless you want to believe your country was conscripted to the side of the angels.

Quote:
Germany was the aggressor in WW2,

One ordinarily determines who is the agressor by who attacks who. Germany did not attack Britain. Germany was not an agressor against Britain. Britain was the aggressor against Germany. Again everyone is an aggressor, there is no discriminant in that matter. Everyone but Poland, the Baltics and Finnland which was just fine with Britain where Russia was concerned. It will take a while for you to get over the years of indoctrination. It takes a while for everyone.

The best way to do it is to keep the facts in mind, the real history, and review them every time you hear some patriotic, self-congratulatory claim about the war. There are many good reasons why certain stories, camp fire tales by the village elders, are never told together. The most obvious example is the fall of France and Dunkirk. There are others. They are all neatly packaged tribal tales. Peasants are not supposed to look at the real events and real chronology or the real geopolitics of the time. Refusing to look set you folks up for 2003 in Iraq completely against the wishes of almost everyone. And there was no mutiny. The peasants went off once more to do their duty and die for the interests of their betters.

Quote:
the allies were not prepared to fight, did not want to fight, were bankrupt, were in the process of losing their empires, quickly lost or shut down their empires after the war. Gassed no millions. Put no nations to the sword.

We have agreed declaring war on Germany with no hope of success was an abysmally stupid thing to do. Clearly it brought on the fall of France and the battle of Britain and the submarine blockade for openers. It did not end until some 44 million were dead in the European theater. I don't see it was worth the lives of so many English and Scottish peasants just to please the potentially mentally impaired Chamberlain nor to satisfy the whims of the mentally disabled alcoholic who replaced him. Look at where all if his drunken decisions lead the country.

As to millions Gandhi attributed 8 to 12 million dead from starvation in India due to Britain stealing food for its use. A million here a million there, pretty soon you are talking a real holocaust to use the currently popular liturgy.

Quote:
I'll cheerfully agree the allies had done wrong but that does not mean their wrongs are comparable to Nazi Germany. Your claims represent a false dichotomy in which all nations that are not Switzerland; no, sorry, the Nazi gold, make that Sweden; are exactly like Germany was under Mr Schikelgruber and the freakish Himmler.

So far the only claim you have presented about Germany's wrongs are they they were 75% to 80% less than Russia's in this case. That does not come close to a justification.

All I have been doing is undermining the juvenile propaganda that attempts to justify Britain's chosen war.

Quote:
You are aware what Germany was like in the lead up to, and during the second world war, are you not? The murders, the pograms, the repression of church and press. And during the war, the same but worse. The hangings and torture all so on.

Lead up to the war? What might that be? Supporting the Zionists was certainly morally reprehensible if that is what you mean. OTOH, what Germans do to Germans is the business of Germans only.

During the war is not of interest as there is no way of knowing what might have happened had Britain not started a war with Germany. For a fact I would some day like to see if there was ever an impartial examination of what Germany really did during the war completely separate from all the 1984 propaganda. I do know India would have no part of the Nuremberg trials for the absence of proper legal evidence, at least that is what it said in less polite terms and for even more reasons.

You might some day actually read the charter of the IMT and learn it does not rise to even the most elementary standard of justice. You might also learn the charges were for violations of ex post facto laws. Of course as a loyal peasant you fully support the Nuremberg findings even though it was not a court of law in even the English sense. Even though you were taught to like the results they were not in accordance with any system of law and contrary to existing systems of law, i.e. both arbitrary and capricious.

Quote:
I won't argue that all nations are morally inconsistent and when Israel invades 4 or 5 countries and starts gassing millions of muslims with Zyklon-B, then sure, I'll agree they are just like the Nazis. Until then you are appealing to emotion.

Excuse me sir but I have offered many times to discuss those supposed crimes based upon the available world jewish population statistics showing a slight increase in the world jewish population over the war years. Until that is addressed no claim of gassing millions can be established. Remember the offer to debate is open only to gassing millions and that physical evidence is the only basis for discussion and there is no evidence of any population decrease in the first place.Like everyone else, you have declined the challenge.

You will do better to explain how the stories continue to exist contrary to the population data.

Quote:
Do I like Israel topping Iranian scientists - no, not a lot. Regardless, the conduct of an Israel that did not exist in 1939 doesn't come into to the Western Allies' decision to fight Germany after it invaded Poland. 

Stop going on with the schoolboy bullshit. I'm sure my war library is as good or better than yours. Give me a single historian of note who supports your contention Germany was not the aggressor in WW2 and that Britain started it in order to repress poor wee Germany. I can't find a single one.

Nor do I expect Britain to return to its high moral standards of 1939 and declare war on Israel.

What one calls a thing is not what a thing is. I really do not give a damn about what any court historian says in violation of the seventy year rule on writing history. Simply no history is to be written until at least 70 years after the event, until the generation that was involve in it is dead. People live longer these days so it should be more than 70 years.

The fact of British and French agression against Germany is in all the history books. That court historians declare it was German aggression is why they are court historians. They record one set of facts and then call it something else.

It is still too soon to be writing a legitimate geopolitial history of that war. It has become a laughable cloak of piety for the west, a view not shared by Russia, never was, is not to this day.

There are even Russian military historians who find Germany engaged in a preemptive strike against Russia just days before Stalin was ready to order an invasion of Germany. That the Russian troops had moved into attacking positions is not in question when it comes to their findings. In any event, Russia had ceded the Ukraine to Germany in 1917. Britain did not like that and reversed it in its great, empire loving tradition.

Go rent A Man Called Intrepid for a broad brush treatment of the bribery and blackmail, read criminal activity, ordered by Britain's Drunken Master in the US.

All of this over Hitler who was no worse than Slobadan Milosevic. Amazing what you peasants accept from your betters.

 

Jews stole the land. The owners want it back. That is all anyone needs to know about Israel. That is all there is to know about Israel.

www.ussliberty.org

www.giwersworld.org/made-in-alexandria/index.html

www.giwersworld.org/00_files/zion-hit-points.phtml


Atheistextremist
atheistSilver Member
Atheistextremist's picture
Posts: 5095
Joined: 2009-09-17
User is offlineOffline
Interesting points

 

A_Nony_Mouse wrote:

During the war is not of interest as there is no way of knowing what might have happened had Britain not started a war with Germany. For a fact I would some day like to see if there was ever an impartial examination of what Germany really did during the war completely separate from all the 1984 propaganda.

Excuse me sir but I have offered many times to discuss those supposed crimes based upon the available world jewish population statistics showing a slight increase in the world jewish population over the war years. Until that is addressed no claim of gassing millions can be established. Remember the offer to debate is open only to gassing millions and that physical evidence is the only basis for discussion and there is no evidence of any population decrease in the first place. Like everyone else, you have declined the challenge.

Amazing what you peasants accept from your betters.

 

I'm going to assume you are saying Germany committed none of the atrocities she is accused of during WW2 - there were no slaves, no Gestapo, none of any of this. In fact Germany was just an ordinary old dictatorship functioning in the normally expected way a dictatorship will and suddenly and without provocation of any kind she was set upon by Britain and France, who pretended they were intervening on behalf of the Poles, having already failed to intervene on behalf of the Czechs, but who really wanted a European Empire. You can see how keen Britain is to be the centrepiece and ruler of Europe event to this day. Or is it some one else?

Excuse me Sir Nony, but it appears that what you are saying is that you're not going to believe any atrocities took place in Germany or countries conquered by Germany until population fall supports the claims. Jews were definitely not gassed until the demographic statistics, which were oh so reliable back then, bear the claims out. This is an interesting position that probably just masks your haulocaust denial. But rather than ground on that sandbank and just to even things up, let's try this.

You are now unable to claim there was any enslavement of British Indians, no robbery of treasure, no deaths through famine caused by unworkable civil policies, manipulation of crops and taxation. None of this happened until such time as you can show that during the British Raj - say, 1850 to 1947, India's population fell. The demographics show that far from falling, India's population grew 2 and a half times during the period.

According to the immutable logic of Nony, these numbers prove there were no crimes against Indians in that once upon a reality. The reports you read are just the wild assertions of modern Indian Nationalists trying to garner support in their domestic squabbles. Britain is therefore pure and blameless in relation to its conduct on the Indian subcontinent. 

Again with the adhom. The false dichotomy that disagreement with Nony is peasant-hood. If it comes to that, my great grandfather began his career as a wood cutter, the son of a peasant farmer, and died a supreme court judge. That's interesting. 

 

 

 

 

"Experiments are the only means of knowledge at our disposal. The rest is poetry, imagination." Max Planck


iwbiek
atheistSuperfan
iwbiek's picture
Posts: 3327
Joined: 2008-03-23
User is offlineOffline
A_Nony_Mouse

A_Nony_Mouse wrote:

Czechoslovakia does not exist today. The Czechs and Slovaks are free of each other today as they were under Germany.

whoa whoa whoa.  czechs and slovaks are not "free" of each other now, nor were they under the germans.  the 1992 split was nothing but power politics by two populist leaders, vaclav klaus and vladimir meciar (two of the biggest motherfuckers in central europe), and was almost totally divorced from the will of the people.  otherwise, why was no referendum held?  the american reporters of the early '90s who painted czechoslovakia as another yugoslavia ready to erupt were either misinformed of dishonest.  no surprise, since a lot of western european leaders--helmut kohl, for one--were all for the split, and the white house was only too happy to oblige.

i've lived in slovakia now for 8 years and i've been to the czech republic countless times.  i've never yet met a single slovak or czech of any age who will outright say the split was a good thing.  many are apathetic about it, and many (particularly slovaks) regret it.  the usual comment is that it probably wasn't a good idea because a larger country is a stronger country.

as for the first slovak state under that nazi-fellating fascist tiso, the only slovaks who are not embarrassed of it today are ignorant nationalists like slota, kotleba, and their ilk.  the only "freedom" there was temporary, as everybody knows that once hitler was finished with the jews, gypsies, etc., the slavs were next on his list.  as for the czechs being in any way "free" under the germans, i dare you to go anyplace in the czech republic and say that.  you'll probably get your face smashed in, since the czechs were outright occupied. 

"I asked my father,
I said, 'Father change my name.'
The one I'm using now it's covered up
with fear and filth and cowardice and shame."
--Leonard Cohen


A_Nony_Mouse
A_Nony_Mouse's picture
Posts: 2880
Joined: 2008-04-23
User is offlineOffline
.

Atheistextremist wrote:
A_Nony_Mouse wrote:
During the war is not of interest as there is no way of knowing what might have happened had Britain not started a war with Germany. For a fact I would some day like to see if there was ever an impartial examination of what Germany really did during the war completely separate from all the 1984 propaganda.

Excuse me sir but I have offered many times to discuss those supposed crimes based upon the available world jewish population statistics showing a slight increase in the world jewish population over the war years. Until that is addressed no claim of gassing millions can be established. Remember the offer to debate is open only to gassing millions and that physical evidence is the only basis for discussion and there is no evidence of any population decrease in the first place. Like everyone else, you have declined the challenge.

Amazing what you peasants accept from your betters.

I'm going to assume you are saying Germany committed none of the atrocities she is accused of during WW2 - there were no slaves, no Gestapo, none of any of this.

It is good you announce your intention to deliberately misrepresent what I posted before attacking what I did not say. It is refreshingly honest.

Quote:
In fact Germany was just an ordinary old dictatorship functioning in the normally expected way a dictatorship will and suddenly and without provocation of any kind she was set upon by Britain and France,

That is what the facts of history demonstrate. That you wish to declare "war is peace" is another issue. That was one of Orwell's insightful slogans summing up the Brit propaganda of making war to make peace.

Quote:
who pretended they were intervening on behalf of the Poles, having already failed to intervene on behalf of the Czechs, but who really wanted a European Empire.

You must also address the Slovaks not just the Czechs. You must also addressed the British interest in including the German Sudetenland in the imperial Czechoslovakia against the wishes of Czechs, the Slovaks and the Sudentens. Remember the Brit creation was only forced under the Russian and British tyrannies.

Quote:
You can see how keen Britain is to be the centrepiece and ruler of Europe event to this day. Or is it some one else?

I said nothing about today only about 1939. England still wants to dominate Scotland today if that is what you mean. All with the best of intentions of course. I am certain you agree.

Quote:
Excuse me Sir Nony, but it appears that what you are saying is that you're not going to believe any atrocities took place in Germany or countries conquered by Germany until population fall supports the claims.

That is what any rational person does. Otherwise one is considered either a child or gullible.

Quote:
Jews were definitely not gassed until the demographic statistics, which were oh so reliable back then, bear the claims out. This is an interesting position that probably just masks your haulocaust denial. But rather than ground on that sandbank and just to even things up, let's try this.

Excuse but if you can show populations statistics were unreliable in 1939, considering the Domsday Book is a bit older and is today considered reasonably accurate, I will be interested in reading what you have to say on the subject.

However you have a problem in rejecting them. Where did the magic 6 million come from if NOT based upon valid data? Was it also based upon worthless information? I do have a copy of vanity press edition, Destruction of European Jewry. I do find an actuarial basis for such a number there either.

As there is no actuarial basis for the number, where did the number come from? Out of a Russian black hole?

Quote:
You are now unable to claim there was any enslavement of British Indians, no robbery of treasure, no deaths through famine caused by unworkable civil policies, manipulation of crops and taxation. None of this happened until such time as you can show that during the British Raj - say, 1850 to 1947, India's population fell. The demographics show that far from falling, India's population grew 2 and a half times during the period.

I did say, in so many words, the pot and the kettle should not engage in name-calling.

However if you are saying 9 million (15 - 6) could produce 6 million infants in a mere ten years you should research Gefilte fish as a combined aphrodisiac and fertility drug as well as consider the possibility jewish women have three wombs. For the record I consider both highly unlikely.

You need to learn to think through your rationalizations. The first ones to come to mind are rarely ever rational much less reasonable.

Quote:
According to the immutable logic of Nony, these numbers prove there were no crimes against Indians in that once upon a reality. The reports you read are just the wild assertions of modern Indian Nationalists trying to garner support in their domestic squabbles. Britain is therefore pure and blameless in relation to its conduct on the Indian subcontinent.

Reasoning with numbers is what separates the numerate from the innumerate.

Quote:
Again with the adhom. The false dichotomy that disagreement with Nony is peasant-hood. If it comes to that, my great grandfather began his career as a wood cutter, the son of a peasant farmer, and died a supreme court judge. That's interesting. 

If you can in fact produce the world population data used to create the 6 million claim then you can proceed. Absent that you have no basis for anything.

Trying to argue against the existing evidence is mere argumentation. Physical evidence trumps argumentation every, repeat EVERY time. Argumentation in the face of evidence is just plain stupid.

 

Jews stole the land. The owners want it back. That is all anyone needs to know about Israel. That is all there is to know about Israel.

www.ussliberty.org

www.giwersworld.org/made-in-alexandria/index.html

www.giwersworld.org/00_files/zion-hit-points.phtml


A_Nony_Mouse
A_Nony_Mouse's picture
Posts: 2880
Joined: 2008-04-23
User is offlineOffline
.

Pardon if I edit to get to the issue relevant to the subject.

iwbiek wrote:
...

i've lived in slovakia now for 8 years and i've been to the czech republic countless times.  i've never yet met a single slovak or czech of any age who will outright say the split was a good thing.  many are apathetic about it, and many (particularly slovaks) regret it.  the usual comment is that it probably wasn't a good idea because a larger country is a stronger country.

...

You have lived in both. There are two. There were two under the Nazis. They were separate political units under the Austro-Hungarian Empire.

Therefore I have demonstrated the point I was making.

What the man in the street thinks about it is something separate from political will. Were there a political movement in both countries to reunite as the Brits demanded I can only assume it would happen, US willing or EU willing or Putin willing, whomever is running things these days. Little countries are rarely masters of their fate.

I agree separation can be short sighted. The US would have been per capita stronger and faster if it had accepted the secession of the Southern states and wished them good luck. It would have economically dominated the CSA from the beginning and slavery would have dissolved on its own in another 30 years or so without nearly a million dead to advance the inevitable result a few decades. Slavery had been around for at least 6000 years before 1861. Another few decades in a backward part of the world would not make much difference. (Before someone else's ignorant indignation is posted, freed share-croppers lived worse than slaves. Real equality did not appear until the 1980s which is 160 years after the war.)

I enjoy well developed What-If science fiction stories. All of the "fate worse than death" political scenarios of alternate history do not rise the elementary requirements of SF. I have been waiting for the "if Britain had not declared war on Germany" scenario to rear its facetious head. So far my Scot opponent has exhibited wisdom in not attempting it. Long before Pat Buchanan published his book on the subject I was saying the same thing.

 

Jews stole the land. The owners want it back. That is all anyone needs to know about Israel. That is all there is to know about Israel.

www.ussliberty.org

www.giwersworld.org/made-in-alexandria/index.html

www.giwersworld.org/00_files/zion-hit-points.phtml


A_Nony_Mouse
A_Nony_Mouse's picture
Posts: 2880
Joined: 2008-04-23
User is offlineOffline
.

to the rest

iwbiek wrote:
A_Nony_Mouse wrote:
Czechoslovakia does not exist today. The Czechs and Slovaks are free of each other today as they were under Germany.

whoa whoa whoa.  czechs and slovaks are not "free" of each other now, nor were they under the germans.  the 1992 split was nothing but power politics by two populist leaders, vaclav klaus and vladimir meciar (two of the biggest motherfuckers in central europe), and was almost totally divorced from the will of the people.  otherwise, why was no referendum held?  the american reporters of the early '90s who painted czechoslovakia as another yugoslavia ready to erupt were either misinformed of dishonest.  no surprise, since a lot of western european leaders--helmut kohl, for one--were all for the split, and the white house was only too happy to oblige.

A long time ago I learned to keep my mouth shut on local politics of anyone else or of any other time. That was before the neo-conservatives changed the meaning of conservative. It was when I discovered conservatives in Canada and in the US championed contradictory ideas. A conservative in the US was a liberal in Canada and vice versa in policy matters.

As to American reporters in the 90s on this matter, while I pay attention the issue was so minor and back burner that I first heard of the separation after the fact. I have talked to otherwise well-informed Americans who did not know of the separation as recently as last year.

Quote:
...

as for the first slovak state under that nazi-fellating fascist tiso, the only slovaks who are not embarrassed of it today are ignorant nationalists like slota, kotleba, and their ilk.  the only "freedom" there was temporary, as everybody knows that once hitler was finished with the jews, gypsies, etc., the slavs were next on his list.  as for the czechs being in any way "free" under the germans, i dare you to go anyplace in the czech republic and say that.  you'll probably get your face smashed in, since the czechs were outright occupied. 

Excuse but National Socialism was a proven method to get a country out of the Depression. When all else fails people decide with three meals a day, four if in Europe.

As to face smashing, I assume the same would have happened in 1936 Berlin if I had said Hitler Sucks. I do not see a difference other than in the indoctrination. Now if you set up a meeting with people who actually lived it rather than people born after it was over who were educated by the communists, who were worse by every measure, I am certain we could come to some agreed points if the Czech version of the NKVD no longer exists in any form which I doubt.

As to "hitler was finished with the jews" and so forth, world population figures are required to establish anything happened in the first place. You have also avoided producing the physical evidence upon which the original claim was based if any did in fact ever exist.

Please feel free. The number was first produced in late 1945. There must have been world population data at that time else the number had no evidentiary basis at the time it was produced. A rational person would expect documentation of the number to be the primary footnote to every text on the subject. It is in fact the notably absent footnote.

 

Jews stole the land. The owners want it back. That is all anyone needs to know about Israel. That is all there is to know about Israel.

www.ussliberty.org

www.giwersworld.org/made-in-alexandria/index.html

www.giwersworld.org/00_files/zion-hit-points.phtml


iwbiek
atheistSuperfan
iwbiek's picture
Posts: 3327
Joined: 2008-03-23
User is offlineOffline
A_Nony_Mouse wrote:Excuse

A_Nony_Mouse wrote:

Excuse but National Socialism was a proven method to get a country out of the Depression.

and into enormous debt.  hitler's social policies for aryans were more lavish and irresponsible than anything the soviet union or the warsaw pact countries ever came up with.  no, i don't have the data at hand but it is summarized nicely by richard overy in the dictators.  hitler's scrambling for central european land was as much about funding his social policies as about any kind of ideology.

A_Nony_Mouse wrote:

Now if you set up a meeting with people who actually lived it rather than people born after it was over who were educated by the communists, who were worse by every measure, I am certain we could come to some agreed points if the Czech version of the NKVD no longer exists in any form which I doubt.

i rub elbows with people who lived it every day.  my wife's grandparents were born under the first czechoslovak republic, they clearly remember the war and tiso's first slovak state, and of course they spent most of their lives under the czechoslovak socialist republic.  her grandfather lived within 10 yards of a jewish family.  he used to light their fires on the sabbath.  he remembers their deportation.  my wife's second cousin lives in a house that used to be a jewish-owned store.  the village had a whole jewish neighborhood.  now there's not a single jewish family here. 

her grandfather can recount--and has on many occasions--walking by the railroad tracks and seeing boxcars loaded with jews, their hands extended, offering rings and watches for a cup of water.  holocaust education was never a big issue in czechoslovak education under the communists, and even if it was, he doesn't have much of an education anyway.  his primary education was definitely pre-socialist.  he was not indoctrinated with anything concerning the jews.  in fact, if you can get an elderly slovak to talk straight (i have, on one occasion), they'll tell you they were so addled with guilt over their pillaged property--property they retained under the communists--that the whole country just tried to forget the jews had ever been there.

very few people in either czech or slovakia have a hostile attitude to the old socialist regime.  it's mostly apathetic or nostalgic.  they will tell you straight out they didn't believe all the propaganda, but that everyone had a job, a place to live, and enough to eat.  very few people other than political dissidents and certain christians remember feeling politically or ideologically constrained.  what most people were irritated with were the travel restrictions and the dearth of american movies and music, but anyone will tell you (and has told me) this hardly made life intolerable.

what i objected to was your choice of words, specifically "free of each other."  no one ever anything less than "free," at least not on account of living in a multinational state.  while there were certainly disagreements at times, to this day czechs and slovaks consider each other "brothers."  also, it's an oversimplification to say czechs and slovaks were politically separate under the habsburgs.  the czechs were more or less part of austria and the slovaks hungary, and in slovakia you will find immeasurably more bitterness about hungarian domination than about czech or communist domination, much of it first-hand (there are a lot of very old people in slovakia).

fyi, the czechoslovak version of the nkvd were the štb, and no, they no longer exist.  i hardly think the czech republic and slovakia would manage to be members of nato, the eu, and the schengen zone (and slovakia is in the eurozone) if there were still repressive state organs in place.  please remember that czech and slovakia are both geographically and culturally far-removed from the soviet union and the balkan.

finally, in what way were the czechoslovak communists "worse by every measure" than the nazis or the hlinka guards?  i'd really like to see the data and analyses that support this, since you're the first person i've ever met who holds this opinion, and as far as i know you've never been to this part of the world.  maybe you can teach me something i don't know about the country i've lived, built a home, and raised a family in for nearly a decade.

if not, kindly bow out and cease mentioning an area you know very little about.

"I asked my father,
I said, 'Father change my name.'
The one I'm using now it's covered up
with fear and filth and cowardice and shame."
--Leonard Cohen


A_Nony_Mouse
A_Nony_Mouse's picture
Posts: 2880
Joined: 2008-04-23
User is offlineOffline
.

iwbiek wrote:
A_Nony_Mouse wrote:
Excuse but National Socialism was a proven method to get a country out of the Depression.

and into enormous debt.

Absolutely! Yet today damn near every country survives with a national debt. I think it sucks but socialists love deficit spending. That was the one Nazi invention that should never have happened. The other is interesting, capitalizing labor. I have not heard of any other country trying it.

Quote:
hitler's social policies for aryans were more lavish and irresponsible than anything the soviet union or the warsaw pact countries ever came up with.  no, i don't have the data at hand but it is summarized nicely by richard overy in the dictators.  hitler's scrambling for central european land was as much about funding his social policies as about any kind of ideology.

We will never know as Britain's war came before economic collapse. The West has been in deficit mode since the 1940s and only now is there a serious problem. Collapse like for communism is not in the wind for Europe.

Speculation on economics hardly matters here. By 1936 Germany was importing workers, labor deficit, negative unemployment. That is all people saw. Of course they would vote with their wallet.

Quote:
A_Nony_Mouse wrote:
Now if you set up a meeting with people who actually lived it rather than people born after it was over who were educated by the communists, who were worse by every measure, I am certain we could come to some agreed points if the Czech version of the NKVD no longer exists in any form which I doubt.

i rub elbows with people who lived it every day.  my wife's grandparents were born under the first czechoslovak republic, they clearly remember the war and tiso's first slovak state, and of course they spent most of their lives under the czechoslovak socialist republic.  her grandfather lived within 10 yards of a jewish family.  he used to light their fires on the sabbath.  he remembers their deportation.  my wife's second cousin lives in a house that used to be a jewish-owned store.  the village had a whole jewish neighborhood.  now there's not a single jewish family here.

Just a few blocks where I spent most of my childhood there were three neighborhood streets that converged on a synagogue. The story was that just a few decades before Jews lived in every house on those streets. There were none in my childhood. Yet I have never read of the great holocaust of Cincinnati, Ohio, USA. I recount the same facts as you.

In any event WORLD population statistics are required. I have no idea where those in Slovakia or in Cincinnati went. While I doubt Americans were dumb enough to go to Israel Slovakians might have been.

If you do not have world population data from before and after the war you don't have jack. Anecdotes are hardly worth discussing.

Quote:
her grandfather can recount--and has on many occasions--walking by the railroad tracks and seeing boxcars loaded with jews, their hands extended, offering rings and watches for a cup of water.  holocaust education was never a big issue in czechoslovak education under the communists, and even if it was, he doesn't have much of an education anyway.  his primary education was definitely pre-socialist.  he was not indoctrinated with anything concerning the jews.  in fact, if you can get an elderly slovak to talk straight (i have, on one occasion), they'll tell you they were so addled with guilt over their pillaged property--property they retained under the communists--that the whole country just tried to forget the jews had ever been there.

very few people in either czech or slovakia have a hostile attitude to the old socialist regime.  it's mostly apathetic or nostalgic.  they will tell you straight out they didn't believe all the propaganda, but that everyone had a job, a place to live, and enough to eat.  very few people other than political dissidents and certain christians remember feeling politically or ideologically constrained.  what most people were irritated with were the travel restrictions and the dearth of american movies and music, but anyone will tell you (and has told me) this hardly made life intolerable.

what i objected to was your choice of words, specifically "free of each other."  no one ever anything less than "free," at least not on account of living in a multinational state.  while there were certainly disagreements at times, to this day czechs and slovaks consider each other "brothers."  also, it's an oversimplification to say czechs and slovaks were politically separate under the habsburgs.  the czechs were more or less part of austria and the slovaks hungary, and in slovakia you will find immeasurably more bitterness about hungarian domination than about czech or communist domination, much of it first-hand (there are a lot of very old people in slovakia).

fyi, the czechoslovak version of the nkvd were the štb, and no, they no longer exist.  i hardly think the czech republic and slovakia would manage to be members of nato, the eu, and the schengen zone (and slovakia is in the eurozone) if there were still repressive state organs in place.  please remember that czech and slovakia are both geographically and culturally far-removed from the soviet union and the balkan.

As I said, I try to refrain from commenting upon the politics of other countries. But when others comment on the "evil" of the Nazis in Czechoslovakia I mere point out another side to it. The whole Hungarian thing is another complication. War time Hungary was larger than post war Hungary. Resenting the domination was somewhat ameliorated with territory. It would not surprise me to find professors who have made careers teaching the details of the matter. I have no opinion on the matter. I merely observe the facts. In democracies there is no fact that does not have supporters.

Quote:
finally, in what way were the czechoslovak communists "worse by every measure" than the nazis or the hlinka guards?  i'd really like to see the data and analyses that support this, since you're the first person i've ever met who holds this opinion, and as far as i know you've never been to this part of the world.  maybe you can teach me something i don't know about the country i've lived, built a home, and raised a family in for nearly a decade.

if not, kindly bow out and cease mentioning an area you know very little about.

I said communists in general. Even if every allegation of murder by Hitler is correct, Stalin murdered more Ukrainians in the first two winters he was Chancellor. That is only Ukrainians and only those two winters. The Moscow archives were for sale for nearly a decade to make up for the lack of paychecks. Black Book of Communism, U of Hawaii Press. Lenin gets credit for 8 million these days.

Pick a category and put the Nazis and Communist accomplishments side by side. Absolute numbers, percentages, I have yet to find a category where Communists do not win.

And here is an important consideration. It is impossible to imagine an average person with a free choice between living under Nazism or Communism choosing Communism. No thought police. No commisars. No political indoctrination. But instead an standard of living worthy of the name rather than under communism. The classic distinction between right and left wing dictatorships was in play. Keep out of politics and the right leaves you alone. The right also profits by ripping off businesses so it promotes improving the economy by any means that work not requiring business to conform to ideology regardless of the consequences.

To me they both suck. Libertarian myself. But that does not prevent a rational evaluation of the two on elementary human costs against accomplishments. The Nazis ended the Depression in Germany in two years at no significant human cost. Communism created a perpetual depression in the Russian empire almost as soon as it gained power and imposed it at the cost of millions of lives. If there are only two choices, the choice is a no-brainer.

 

 

Jews stole the land. The owners want it back. That is all anyone needs to know about Israel. That is all there is to know about Israel.

www.ussliberty.org

www.giwersworld.org/made-in-alexandria/index.html

www.giwersworld.org/00_files/zion-hit-points.phtml


Atheistextremist
atheistSilver Member
Atheistextremist's picture
Posts: 5095
Joined: 2009-09-17
User is offlineOffline
Bizarro Nony

 

A_Nony_Mouse wrote:

We will never know as Britain's war came before economic collapse.

 

As we've argued this I've sought far and wide for references to Britain's war of aggression against poor victimized Germany and found none. Nothing from Germans, nothing from Russians, nothing from anyone. 

I wonder if iwb could help me out here and reveal if those in his homeland blame Britain for an act of commission or omission as far as their subjective sense of international morality goes. I think I know the answer. 

 

"Experiments are the only means of knowledge at our disposal. The rest is poetry, imagination." Max Planck


iwbiek
atheistSuperfan
iwbiek's picture
Posts: 3327
Joined: 2008-03-23
User is offlineOffline
Atheistextremist

Atheistextremist wrote:

 

A_Nony_Mouse wrote:

We will never know as Britain's war came before economic collapse.

 

As we've argued this I've sought far and wide for references to Britain's war of aggression against poor victimized Germany and found none. Nothing from Germans, nothing from Russians, nothing from anyone. 

I wonder if iwb could help me out here and reveal if those in his homeland blame Britain for an act of commission or omission as far as their subjective sense of international morality goes. I think I know the answer. 

 

no one i've ever met in europe considers britain an aggressor.  i haven't been to germany enough to accurately gauge the opinion there.  as far as the former czechoslovakia goes, the germans are seen as a conquering army.  which, on the czech side especially, they were.  i don't care how many sudeten germans there were, there was no need to sack prague and annex all of bohemia and moravia.

furthermore, there were always sizeable communities of ethnic germans living in slovakia, particularly in the eastern central part, and we have no evidence they were harmed any less by masaryk and his government than the germans in the sudetenland.  why didn't hitler roll over slovakia and "liberate" them?  oh yeah, because they were patsies and the czechs weren't... 

"I asked my father,
I said, 'Father change my name.'
The one I'm using now it's covered up
with fear and filth and cowardice and shame."
--Leonard Cohen


A_Nony_Mouse
A_Nony_Mouse's picture
Posts: 2880
Joined: 2008-04-23
User is offlineOffline
.

Atheistextremist wrote:
A_Nony_Mouse wrote:
We will never know as Britain's war came before economic collapse.

As we've argued this I've sought far and wide for references to Britain's war of aggression against poor victimized Germany and found none. Nothing from Germans, nothing from Russians, nothing from anyone.

I wonder if iwb could help me out here and reveal if those in his homeland blame Britain for an act of commission or omission as far as their subjective sense of international morality goes. I think I know the answer. 

This is getting more than a little weird. You have agree Britain and France declared war on Germany. You have agree the British Expeditionary Force was in France to invade Germany.

Yet you appear to not to understand the meaning of aggression in the military sense. To rest of us declaring war is aggression. Preparing is invade is aggression.

Could you please me the definition of aggression you are using? That might clear things up.

Jews stole the land. The owners want it back. That is all anyone needs to know about Israel. That is all there is to know about Israel.

www.ussliberty.org

www.giwersworld.org/made-in-alexandria/index.html

www.giwersworld.org/00_files/zion-hit-points.phtml


A_Nony_Mouse
A_Nony_Mouse's picture
Posts: 2880
Joined: 2008-04-23
User is offlineOffline
.

iwbiek wrote:
Atheistextremist wrote:
A_Nony_Mouse wrote:
We will never know as Britain's war came before economic collapse.

As we've argued this I've sought far and wide for references to Britain's war of aggression against poor victimized Germany and found none. Nothing from Germans, nothing from Russians, nothing from anyone. 

I wonder if iwb could help me out here and reveal if those in his homeland blame Britain for an act of commission or omission as far as their subjective sense of international morality goes. I think I know the answer. 

no one i've ever met in europe considers britain an aggressor.  i haven't been to germany enough to accurately gauge the opinion there.  as far as the former czechoslovakia goes, the germans are seen as a conquering army.  which, on the czech side especially, they were.  i don't care how many sudeten germans there were, there was no need to sack prague and annex all of bohemia and moravia.

furthermore, there were always sizeable communities of ethnic germans living in slovakia, particularly in the eastern central part, and we have no evidence they were harmed any less by masaryk and his government than the germans in the sudetenland.  why didn't hitler roll over slovakia and "liberate" them?  oh yeah, because they were patsies and the czechs weren't... 

Damn! Right on! You are making the case George Orwell did spot on so to speak. He who controls the past controls the present. As long as control the history books saying contrary to the physical evidence that Britain was not the aggressor the present says Britain was not the aggressor.

Historians are immaterial as they are not yet detached from the event nor the controlled history.

If I might interject two examples.

Today one can meet any place in Europe in private and praise Hitler. In fact as long as in private that has always been possible. After Waterloo it was a crime all over Europe to meet even in private and praise Napoleon at least until the 1880s. These days it is possible to actually publish good things about Napoleon without summary arrest. How does Napoleon differ from Hitler save the laws in their time made Napoleon worse than Hitler?

The other is the conqueror of France who was never expelled and which today the French sort of praise exepct Astertix. I speak of Gaius Julius Caesar of course. By every objective measure he was worse than Hitler, Rome worse than Nazi Germany. Who today condemns Caesar as an early Hitler? He was worse in every way. Why the difference?

The difference is quite simple. Good always triumphs because the victor writes the history.

For those who disagree I direct your attention to the Western and the Soviet versions of the good which triumphed and do not expect a rational reply much less actually comparing the two conflicting goods which not only triumphed but comprised the substance of the Cold War.

When you look at religions and reject them for lack of physical evidence you cannot rationally accept political history for which the physical evidence contradicts the written history.

Appealing to the opinion of historians is no different from appealing to the opinion of rabbis, priests and ministers. If historians are correct, appeal to authority, then appeal to theologians is equally correct. Equally laughable of course.

Look at the evidence and decide for yourself be it religion, gods or political history.

Decide for yourself. It is the only freedom you truly have.

Jews stole the land. The owners want it back. That is all anyone needs to know about Israel. That is all there is to know about Israel.

www.ussliberty.org

www.giwersworld.org/made-in-alexandria/index.html

www.giwersworld.org/00_files/zion-hit-points.phtml


iwbiek
atheistSuperfan
iwbiek's picture
Posts: 3327
Joined: 2008-03-23
User is offlineOffline
A_Nony_Mouse wrote:Decide

A_Nony_Mouse wrote:

Decide for yourself. It is the only freedom you truly have.

i already have, which is why i'm not interested in convincing you of anything.

"I asked my father,
I said, 'Father change my name.'
The one I'm using now it's covered up
with fear and filth and cowardice and shame."
--Leonard Cohen


A_Nony_Mouse
A_Nony_Mouse's picture
Posts: 2880
Joined: 2008-04-23
User is offlineOffline
.

iwbiek wrote:
A_Nony_Mouse wrote:
Decide for yourself. It is the only freedom you truly have.
i already have, which is why i'm not interested in convincing you of anything.

Don't think about it too much then. If you do you will have to conclude the Allies never at any time promulgated any untrue war propaganda. Upon doing that you will have to address the massacre of tens of thousands of Poles by the Allies.

 

Jews stole the land. The owners want it back. That is all anyone needs to know about Israel. That is all there is to know about Israel.

www.ussliberty.org

www.giwersworld.org/made-in-alexandria/index.html

www.giwersworld.org/00_files/zion-hit-points.phtml


Atheistextremist
atheistSilver Member
Atheistextremist's picture
Posts: 5095
Joined: 2009-09-17
User is offlineOffline
Mmmm

 

A_Nony_Mouse wrote:

The other is the conqueror of France who was never expelled and which today the French sort of praise exepct Astertix. I speak of Gaius Julius Caesar of course. By every objective measure he was worse than Hitler, Rome worse than Nazi Germany. Who today condemns Caesar as an early Hitler? He was worse in every way. Why the difference?

 

I often think angrily of Rome and it's destruction of my ancestral culture, language and religion. Importantly in terms of comparison with Hitler, we have a more detailed coverage of the 1930s and 40s than Caesar's Gallic War. 

 

 

 

"Experiments are the only means of knowledge at our disposal. The rest is poetry, imagination." Max Planck


Atheistextremist
atheistSilver Member
Atheistextremist's picture
Posts: 5095
Joined: 2009-09-17
User is offlineOffline
You again

A_Nony_Mouse wrote:

Atheistextremist wrote:
A_Nony_Mouse wrote:
During the war is not of interest as there is no way of knowing what might have happened had Britain not started a war with Germany. For a fact I would some day like to see if there was ever an impartial examination of what Germany really did during the war completely separate from all the 1984 propaganda.

Excuse me sir but I have offered many times to discuss those supposed crimes based upon the available world jewish population statistics showing a slight increase in the world jewish population over the war years. Until that is addressed no claim of gassing millions can be established. Remember the offer to debate is open only to gassing millions and that physical evidence is the only basis for discussion and there is no evidence of any population decrease in the first place. Like everyone else, you have declined the challenge.

Amazing what you peasants accept from your betters.

I'm going to assume you are saying Germany committed none of the atrocities she is accused of during WW2 - there were no slaves, no Gestapo, none of any of this.

It is good you announce your intention to deliberately misrepresent what I posted before attacking what I did not say. It is refreshingly honest.

Quote:
In fact Germany was just an ordinary old dictatorship functioning in the normally expected way a dictatorship will and suddenly and without provocation of any kind she was set upon by Britain and France,

That is what the facts of history demonstrate. That you wish to declare "war is peace" is another issue. That was one of Orwell's insightful slogans summing up the Brit propaganda of making war to make peace.

Quote:
who pretended they were intervening on behalf of the Poles, having already failed to intervene on behalf of the Czechs, but who really wanted a European Empire.

You must also address the Slovaks not just the Czechs. You must also addressed the British interest in including the German Sudetenland in the imperial Czechoslovakia against the wishes of Czechs, the Slovaks and the Sudentens. Remember the Brit creation was only forced under the Russian and British tyrannies.

Quote:
You can see how keen Britain is to be the centrepiece and ruler of Europe event to this day. Or is it some one else?

I said nothing about today only about 1939. England still wants to dominate Scotland today if that is what you mean. All with the best of intentions of course. I am certain you agree.

Quote:
Excuse me Sir Nony, but it appears that what you are saying is that you're not going to believe any atrocities took place in Germany or countries conquered by Germany until population fall supports the claims.

That is what any rational person does. Otherwise one is considered either a child or gullible.

Quote:
Jews were definitely not gassed until the demographic statistics, which were oh so reliable back then, bear the claims out. This is an interesting position that probably just masks your haulocaust denial. But rather than ground on that sandbank and just to even things up, let's try this.

Excuse but if you can show populations statistics were unreliable in 1939, considering the Domsday Book is a bit older and is today considered reasonably accurate, I will be interested in reading what you have to say on the subject.

However you have a problem in rejecting them. Where did the magic 6 million come from if NOT based upon valid data? Was it also based upon worthless information? I do have a copy of vanity press edition, Destruction of European Jewry. I do find an actuarial basis for such a number there either.

As there is no actuarial basis for the number, where did the number come from? Out of a Russian black hole?

Quote:
You are now unable to claim there was any enslavement of British Indians, no robbery of treasure, no deaths through famine caused by unworkable civil policies, manipulation of crops and taxation. None of this happened until such time as you can show that during the British Raj - say, 1850 to 1947, India's population fell. The demographics show that far from falling, India's population grew 2 and a half times during the period.

I did say, in so many words, the pot and the kettle should not engage in name-calling.

However if you are saying 9 million (15 - 6) could produce 6 million infants in a mere ten years you should research Gefilte fish as a combined aphrodisiac and fertility drug as well as consider the possibility jewish women have three wombs. For the record I consider both highly unlikely.

You need to learn to think through your rationalizations. The first ones to come to mind are rarely ever rational much less reasonable.

Quote:
According to the immutable logic of Nony, these numbers prove there were no crimes against Indians in that once upon a reality. The reports you read are just the wild assertions of modern Indian Nationalists trying to garner support in their domestic squabbles. Britain is therefore pure and blameless in relation to its conduct on the Indian subcontinent.

Reasoning with numbers is what separates the numerate from the innumerate.

Quote:
Again with the adhom. The false dichotomy that disagreement with Nony is peasant-hood. If it comes to that, my great grandfather began his career as a wood cutter, the son of a peasant farmer, and died a supreme court judge. That's interesting. 

If you can in fact produce the world population data used to create the 6 million claim then you can proceed. Absent that you have no basis for anything.

Trying to argue against the existing evidence is mere argumentation. Physical evidence trumps argumentation every, repeat EVERY time. Argumentation in the face of evidence is just plain stupid.

 

 

imply here that an impartial consideration of the atrocity facts would produce different findings from the 1984-like accusations made against Germany. I'm justified in suggesting you are an apologist for German war crimes. You also continue to suggest that German actions pre-war were unblemished and that Britain and France were the ones culpable for intervening on behalf of conquered nations.

You say they should have stayed out or risk being entirely responsible for all war crimes. Your sense of morality is profoundly paradoxical. You also suggest that they are responsible for all Germany's war conquests in Western Europe. Appealing to credulity as I am, I find it hard to take any of this seriously.

On the topic of numbers it's not a game-changer for me if 6 million Jews or 4 million or 2 million, or 100,000 were killed - it's still a lot of people to blithely murder because nasty old Britain declares war on you. 

 

 

 

"Experiments are the only means of knowledge at our disposal. The rest is poetry, imagination." Max Planck


A_Nony_Mouse
A_Nony_Mouse's picture
Posts: 2880
Joined: 2008-04-23
User is offlineOffline
.

Atheistextremist wrote:
A_Nony_Mouse wrote:
The other is the conqueror of France who was never expelled and which today the French sort of praise exepct Astertix. I speak of Gaius Julius Caesar of course. By every objective measure he was worse than Hitler, Rome worse than Nazi Germany. Who today condemns Caesar as an early Hitler? He was worse in every way. Why the difference?

I often think angrily of Rome and it's destruction of my ancestral culture, language and religion. Importantly in terms of comparison with Hitler, we have a more detailed coverage of the 1930s and 40s than Caesar's Gallic War. 

You mean your innocent, peace-loving ancestors who were constantly raiding in Italy and once got so far as to lay siege to Rome? As to religion although there is no surviving record as to why Rome did attempt to exterminate the Druids. Today's best guess is because of human sacrifice. I can also ask which of the three major languages you are talking about or did you have a fourth in mind?

But at least they were not innocent Poles, I guess. Or is it all menhirs and Asterix?

But the issue with Caesar is he was worse than Hitler. Why are both not universally condemned? And you avoid Napoleon whose legacy at the time was considered worse than Hitler's has ever been yet people actually say good things about him these days. In fact discovering he was once so condemned was a bit of happenstance for me. Same question as with Caesar. And the records for Napoleon are all over Europe and fill local archives so information is not an excuse.

He is Big Brother. Obligatory denunciations are still standard political fodder. There is no important political leader today who participated in WWII and the few who were alive during the war were kids. They know nothing but war movies and propaganda and schoolbooks written to reflect that same propaganda.

 

Jews stole the land. The owners want it back. That is all anyone needs to know about Israel. That is all there is to know about Israel.

www.ussliberty.org

www.giwersworld.org/made-in-alexandria/index.html

www.giwersworld.org/00_files/zion-hit-points.phtml


A_Nony_Mouse
A_Nony_Mouse's picture
Posts: 2880
Joined: 2008-04-23
User is offlineOffline
.

Atheistextremist wrote:

A_Nony_Mouse wrote:

Atheistextremist wrote:
A_Nony_Mouse wrote:
During the war is not of interest as there is no way of knowing what might have happened had Britain not started a war with Germany. For a fact I would some day like to see if there was ever an impartial examination of what Germany really did during the war completely separate from all the 1984 propaganda.

Excuse me sir but I have offered many times to discuss those supposed crimes based upon the available world jewish population statistics showing a slight increase in the world jewish population over the war years. Until that is addressed no claim of gassing millions can be established. Remember the offer to debate is open only to gassing millions and that physical evidence is the only basis for discussion and there is no evidence of any population decrease in the first place. Like everyone else, you have declined the challenge.

Amazing what you peasants accept from your betters.

I'm going to assume you are saying Germany committed none of the atrocities she is accused of during WW2 - there were no slaves, no Gestapo, none of any of this.

It is good you announce your intention to deliberately misrepresent what I posted before attacking what I did not say. It is refreshingly honest.

Quote:
In fact Germany was just an ordinary old dictatorship functioning in the normally expected way a dictatorship will and suddenly and without provocation of any kind she was set upon by Britain and France,

That is what the facts of history demonstrate. That you wish to declare "war is peace" is another issue. That was one of Orwell's insightful slogans summing up the Brit propaganda of making war to make peace.

Quote:
who pretended they were intervening on behalf of the Poles, having already failed to intervene on behalf of the Czechs, but who really wanted a European Empire.

You must also address the Slovaks not just the Czechs. You must also addressed the British interest in including the German Sudetenland in the imperial Czechoslovakia against the wishes of Czechs, the Slovaks and the Sudentens. Remember the Brit creation was only forced under the Russian and British tyrannies.

Quote:
You can see how keen Britain is to be the centrepiece and ruler of Europe event to this day. Or is it some one else?

I said nothing about today only about 1939. England still wants to dominate Scotland today if that is what you mean. All with the best of intentions of course. I am certain you agree.

Quote:
Excuse me Sir Nony, but it appears that what you are saying is that you're not going to believe any atrocities took place in Germany or countries conquered by Germany until population fall supports the claims.

That is what any rational person does. Otherwise one is considered either a child or gullible.

Quote:
Jews were definitely not gassed until the demographic statistics, which were oh so reliable back then, bear the claims out. This is an interesting position that probably just masks your haulocaust denial. But rather than ground on that sandbank and just to even things up, let's try this.

Excuse but if you can show populations statistics were unreliable in 1939, considering the Domsday Book is a bit older and is today considered reasonably accurate, I will be interested in reading what you have to say on the subject.

However you have a problem in rejecting them. Where did the magic 6 million come from if NOT based upon valid data? Was it also based upon worthless information? I do have a copy of vanity press edition, Destruction of European Jewry. I do find an actuarial basis for such a number there either.

As there is no actuarial basis for the number, where did the number come from? Out of a Russian black hole?

Quote:
You are now unable to claim there was any enslavement of British Indians, no robbery of treasure, no deaths through famine caused by unworkable civil policies, manipulation of crops and taxation. None of this happened until such time as you can show that during the British Raj - say, 1850 to 1947, India's population fell. The demographics show that far from falling, India's population grew 2 and a half times during the period.

I did say, in so many words, the pot and the kettle should not engage in name-calling.

However if you are saying 9 million (15 - 6) could produce 6 million infants in a mere ten years you should research Gefilte fish as a combined aphrodisiac and fertility drug as well as consider the possibility jewish women have three wombs. For the record I consider both highly unlikely.

You need to learn to think through your rationalizations. The first ones to come to mind are rarely ever rational much less reasonable.

Quote:
According to the immutable logic of Nony, these numbers prove there were no crimes against Indians in that once upon a reality. The reports you read are just the wild assertions of modern Indian Nationalists trying to garner support in their domestic squabbles. Britain is therefore pure and blameless in relation to its conduct on the Indian subcontinent.

Reasoning with numbers is what separates the numerate from the innumerate.

Quote:
Again with the adhom. The false dichotomy that disagreement with Nony is peasant-hood. If it comes to that, my great grandfather began his career as a wood cutter, the son of a peasant farmer, and died a supreme court judge. That's interesting. 

If you can in fact produce the world population data used to create the 6 million claim then you can proceed. Absent that you have no basis for anything.

Trying to argue against the existing evidence is mere argumentation. Physical evidence trumps argumentation every, repeat EVERY time. Argumentation in the face of evidence is just plain stupid.

imply here that an impartial consideration of the atrocity facts would produce different findings from the 1984-like accusations made against Germany. I'm justified in suggesting you are an apologist for German war crimes. You also continue to suggest that German actions pre-war were unblemished and that Britain and France were the ones culpable for intervening on behalf of conquered nations.

You say they should have stayed out or risk being entirely responsible for all war crimes. Your sense of morality is profoundly paradoxical. You also suggest that they are responsible for all Germany's war conquests in Western Europe. Appealing to credulity as I am, I find it hard to take any of this seriously.

I made no protestation of morality at any time. I merely observed England started the war against Germany for it national interests in Europe. There is no morality in geopolitics. There are only national interests. You attempt to phrase it in moral terms. For the life of me I have never come across a single person or group professing to teach morality who was not a fruitcake self-declared messenger from some god or other. Even then in all their fruitcake goodness it has always been personal never national.

Now if you mean anthropological sources of the human social species, war is a normal state of affairs.

The closest I have come to "morality" is respond to your claims couched in moral terms with counter-examples along the lines of "he who is without sin" and "the mote in the eye of his brother" to expose the hypocrisy of trying to apply individual morality to group behavior.

As to the western European war conquests, I did nothing but point out the tactical and strategic necessity for them in the light of well advertised and imminent attack by Britain and France. That is not morality. That is how one fights a war.

Quote:
On the topic of numbers it's not a game-changer for me if 6 million Jews or 4 million or 2 million, or 100,000 were killed - it's still a lot of people to blithely murder because nasty old Britain declares war on you. 

The idea of making a special claim due to magnitude is therefore false and not a consideration and cannot be levelled against Germany.

As to the deliberate murders without cause or for political motivation the largest established are some 40,000 Poles, the officer corp and the intelligensia by the Communists. (I will not defend 40,000 as I have no idea where that came from only that Poland has been using that number since liberation.) The Communists were the allies of the Brits. To this day Russia has not released the location of any bodies beyond those the Germans discovered. There is something to be said for unrepentant.

That is what exists in the physical evidence. What Winston Smith wrote or Winston Chuchill speechified has no evidentiary merit.

If you want to condemn someone for mass murder, there is no evidence against Hitler or any German while there are some 17,000 corpses in evidence against Stalin and the Russians.

If your statement of principle regarding magnitude is true then you have only grounds to condemn the Russian ally.

And the answer is, you have been so propagandized all your life that you cannot refocus your "hate" based upon the physical evidence. A further answer is, your view of the morality of the war has been so shaped by baseless propaganda that you cannot think about the war absent that perversly formed sense of morality.

=====

As a courtesy head's up. Over in politics on a thread on jobs in America I made a reference to you without using your handle. Seems there are a couple who are castigating the US for its military expenditures. I pointed out it is to maintain a battle ready military unlike before WWII. I referred to a castigation of the US not jumping to the defense of Britain even though unprepared for war at the time. I
left it with a wish for consistent criticism.

 

Jews stole the land. The owners want it back. That is all anyone needs to know about Israel. That is all there is to know about Israel.

www.ussliberty.org

www.giwersworld.org/made-in-alexandria/index.html

www.giwersworld.org/00_files/zion-hit-points.phtml


iwbiek
atheistSuperfan
iwbiek's picture
Posts: 3327
Joined: 2008-03-23
User is offlineOffline
A_Nony_Mouse wrote:The other

A_Nony_Mouse wrote:
The other is the conqueror of France who was never expelled and which today the French sort of praise exepct Astertix. I speak of Gaius Julius Caesar of course. By every objective measure he was worse than Hitler, Rome worse than Nazi Germany. Who today condemns Caesar as an early Hitler? He was worse in every way. Why the difference?

he was worse in every way????

That is the most moronic statement I’ve read in a long time. The romans conquered in order to gain tribute or open up trade routes.   they did not as a rule transplant their populations outside Italy, except for garrison soldiers, while hitler’s clearly expressed purpose was forcibly deporting (or murdering) whole populations to leave their lands open for german settlers. 

The romans encouraged the arts, they were multicultural and multilingual, they were religiously synchretistic and only fucked with religions when those religions fucked with their money. That’s why they went after druids, Christians, jews, etc., and even then they didn’t go after private devotion or popular religious expression, but contented themselves with destroying the main cultic center and wiping out the priestly caste (so, for example, the Jerusalem temple was destroyed and Jerusalem made off-limits to jews, but synagogues all over palestine were left unmolested). Everywhere they went, the romans brought sanitation, running water, policed roads, public baths, public safety, and economic security to the native populations. The Nazis wanted to bring these things with them, but only for the german volk, and the natives could scrub the toilets or fuck off and die.

 

For the three centuries or so of its apex, and particularly during the reign of augustus and the pax romana, right after the time of Caesar, literally almost nobody, except religious fanatics and disinherited native nobility, had any problem living under the romans.

 

Oh, and something else the romans didn’t have: FUCKING DEATH CAMPS.

 

And just who the fuck would ever compare Caesar to hitler? Caesar was a brilliant military strategist; hitler was a wounded corporal who monumentally fucked things up anytime he tried to take direct control of military affairs. Caesar was a helluva writer (I know, I translated his latin in college): his commentaries are fascinating and engaging, while mein kampf is a frustrated, rambling snooze. And let’s not forget that the commentaries are all about what a great man had already done, while mein kampf is all about what an incarcerated, manic failure wanted to do. Shit, even as a teenager, Caesar escaped from kidnapping pirates, got a group of soldiers together, and went back and crucified every fucking one of them—after they laughed at him when he told them that was precisely what he was going to do. Hitler, as I recall, spent most of his youth unemployed and generally getting the shit kicked out of him. No way would I ever compare Caesar to hitler. I wouldn’t compare Caesar to napoleon either, though I think Alexander would be an apt comparison to napoleon. No, the only people I’d ever think of comparing Caesar to would be the Indian emperor asoka, henry v, or otto von Bismarck (who, had he been alive in the 1930s, would never have allowed a sniveling toad like adolphus hitler so much as the honor of spit-shining his boots).  

 

but please, give me an itemized fucking list of how caesar was worse than hitler in every way.  and tread lightly.  there aren't too many things i know more about than late republican/early imperial rome.   

 

 

 

 

"I asked my father,
I said, 'Father change my name.'
The one I'm using now it's covered up
with fear and filth and cowardice and shame."
--Leonard Cohen


ProzacDeathWish
atheist
ProzacDeathWish's picture
Posts: 3625
Joined: 2007-12-02
User is offlineOffline
iwbiek wrote:  ... there

iwbiek wrote:

  ... there aren't too many things i know more about than late republican/early imperial rome.   

 

                                     Sounds interesting iwbiek.    Hopefully Nony won't abandon this thread like he did his "does anti zionism = anti semitism?" thread.

I'm a right wing atheist because I enjoy being hated by everyone.

"When a man loves cats, I am his friend and comrade, without further introduction." Mark Twain.


Kapkao
atheistSuperfanBronze Member
Kapkao's picture
Posts: 4121
Joined: 2010-01-12
User is offlineOffline
Sapient wrote:Quote:That

Sapient wrote:
Quote:
That seems to be the case with A_Nony_Mouse -- the number of people who are decrying his naked bigotry isn't small.  His willingness to attack people as puppets of Jews simply because they call him out on his bigotry is evidence that his bigotry knows no bounds.  If he just attacked Jews, I'd be fine with that -- Jews seem to get used to it after a while -- but anyone who doesn't cower to his repeated attacks is labeled a sympathizer and a puppet of the Jews.  His willingness to make absurd claims that are not, in any way, based on Scientific evidence is inconsistent with what seems to be the approach this website takes: presenting clearly supported scientific evidence as a way of combating ignorance.

Yup, you sum it up well.  He's clearly not all there, but we don't have a rule against that.  I don't just make judgement calls and ban anyone I think is crazy, it rarely happens.  If I did, too many people would have to go.  You don't like what he's saying?  Tell him why he's wrong.  After you have done so your post will remain on the site for others to read right alongside his.  People might hate him, but this site is about letting people determine that for themselves.  At least as much as possible.

(Mind the usual sycophant remark but Eye-wink You sum it up even more effectively.

 

We start banning people because they actively 'hate' someone or something else... might as well ban me.  I hate Zionism because I believe it has become a justification for tyranny and lying to friends (meaning... feeding America false intel in 2007.)

Other than that... "I could give a shit".  Nony (apparently) thrives on the thought that one day a 'free' Palestine will emerge from the smoking ashes of Tel Aviv, and will somehow be better for it. If so, it shows how little he understands.

For him, his rationale for Palestinian freedom appears largely antisemitic. So he meets up with Neterei Karta and decides he can bury the hatchet for some of the "Chosen People". 

Frankly, I wouldn't mind seeing a few bombs dropped/fired on Israel every time it hurts Palestinians, AND... I would not mind them being American in origin. However, that isn't going to happen any time soon. Just my two copper pieces worth.

“A meritocratic society is one in which inequalities of wealth and social position solely reflect the unequal distribution of merit or skills amongst human beings, or are based upon factors beyond human control, for example luck or chance. Such a society is socially just because individuals are judged not by their gender, the colour of their skin or their religion, but according to their talents and willingness to work, or on what Martin Luther King called 'the content of their character'. By extension, social equality is unjust because it treats unequal individuals equally.” "Political Ideologies" by Andrew Heywood (2003)


Atheistextremist
atheistSilver Member
Atheistextremist's picture
Posts: 5095
Joined: 2009-09-17
User is offlineOffline
Some of

 

A_Nony_Mouse wrote:

 

That is what exists in the physical evidence. What Winston Smith wrote or Winston Chuchill speechified has no evidentiary merit.

If you want to condemn someone for mass murder, there is no evidence against Hitler or any German while there are some 17,000 corpses in evidence against Stalin and the Russians.

 

 

the points you make seem consistently odd. You are saying here there is no evidence at all of any German mass murders during world war 2 - no physical evidence at all - am I right?

As far Caesar and Napoleon are concerned in comparison to Hitler, I agree. These guys where conquerors who set out to beat the crap out of their neighbours and seize control of their lands. 

I'm sure we both agree that attacking your neighbours without warning or provocation is always wrong. I don't think Germany was blameless in WW2 nor do I think a declaration of war against an aggressor can always be called the first aggressive act. 

You seem to apply to sets of rules here. One to Germany and another to Britain. Germany was fine to attack her neighbours because there were some Germans living there. Britain and France were wrong to attack Germany in retaliation. 

And you can't compare the acts of Hitler, Caesar, Napoleon to those of the British PM in 1939, can you. Britain was hardly setting off on world conquest. You could argue she was defending an existing empire in terms 

Hong Kong and Singapore against the Japanese, and India, as well as supporting the Commonwealth. But there was no intent to get more and India gained sovereignty 2 years after the war ended.

As Britain's empire broke apart there were no vast massacres, no huge battles. Many Brits stayed on after Indian independence and Indian Brits are the UK's largest and wealthiest minority so you could not say there was deep hatred in that relationship.

I'm pretty sure it wasn't the Scots who sacked Rome - those goths or huns or vandals or visigoths were probably central Europeans. My ancestors were at home eating porridge and whining about the weather. My beef with Rome is that it imposed a

monoculture that cost many nations their identities. But that probably would have happened anyway, given time.  

 

 

"Experiments are the only means of knowledge at our disposal. The rest is poetry, imagination." Max Planck


A_Nony_Mouse
A_Nony_Mouse's picture
Posts: 2880
Joined: 2008-04-23
User is offlineOffline
.

iwbiek wrote:

A_Nony_Mouse wrote:
The other is the conqueror of France who was never expelled and which today the French sort of praise exepct Astertix. I speak of Gaius Julius Caesar of course. By every objective measure he was worse than Hitler, Rome worse than Nazi Germany. Who today condemns Caesar as an early Hitler? He was worse in every way. Why the difference?

he was worse in every way????

That is the most moronic statement I’ve read in a long time. The romans conquered in order to gain tribute or open up trade routes.   they did not as a rule transplant their populations outside Italy, except for garrison soldiers, while hitler’s clearly expressed purpose was forcibly deporting (or murdering) whole populations to leave their lands open for german settlers.

On the other hand in my reality Rome built Roman cities for Romans in the lands they conquered. Upon retirement Legionaires were given parcels of the best farmland formerly owned by the conquered. These farmers further romanized the conquered lands. Usually instead of becoming farmers they sold the land to wealthy Romans who set up huge farms and controlled the local price of the food they raised which was as high as they could get away with. Roman also controlled the currency and therefore controlled the trade. The Romans who then dominated local agriculture and trade, being citizens, were exempt for taxes while the local "competition" paid taxes.

I can go on.

As for the deporting, there were two examples. The first was reinstating German nationals who, as a consequence of being forced to live under a Polish dictatorship were themselves displaced by Poles. The second was the Ukraine, ceded to Germany by Russia in 1917 and which had populated by Germanic people since the 16th c., but that was largely limited to executing the Kommisars who had forced starvation upon some ten million. The only good communist is still a dead communist.

As to extermination, I extend to you the challenge of showing a pre and post war decrease in world population of any group you care wish to claim was exterminated. So far everyone has declined the challenge or conceded the evidence is contrary to the mythology. Please be the first to produce evidence in support of the belief system.

Quote:
The romans encouraged the arts, they were multicultural and multilingual, they were religiously synchretistic and only fucked with religions when those religions fucked with their money. That’s why they went after druids, Christians, jews, etc., and even then they didn’t go after private devotion or popular religious expression, but contented themselves with destroying the main cultic center and wiping out the priestly caste (so, for example, the Jerusalem temple was destroyed and Jerusalem made off-limits to jews, but synagogues all over palestine were left unmolested). Everywhere they went, the romans brought sanitation, running water, policed roads, public baths, public safety, and economic security to the native populations. The Nazis wanted to bring these things with them, but only for the german volk, and the natives could scrub the toilets or fuck off and die.

You are the first to claim Rome encouraged the arts. Please tell me more. The closest thing I can think of is their buying power resulted in the literal mass production of "art" in Greece. Perhaps you could simply provide one or two examples of Roman contribution to the arts. I look forward to your reply.

While there were a few problems with some religions, the best guess for attempting to exterminate the Druids is human sacrifice.

The city-state of Judea set off the revolt. They retreated to Jerusalem and then to their temple (whereever it was built) for their last stand in both revolts. It was only after second that the city was rebuilt and Judeans prohibited entry. In both revolts Galileans and Samarians supported Rome and often pled for protection from the marauding Judeans. BTW: Jews means Judeans according to Josephus. The Galileans and Samaritans had been conquered and forced to convert in the mid 2nd c. BC. They hated the Judeans for good cause. In any event while it may have been religious fanatics behind the revolt, it was the revolt itself not the religion that Rome dealt with.

As to your hypotheticals as to what Germany wanted or intended, it is perhaps unfortunate they lost as due to losing such claims can never be never be distinguished from propaganda. What we do know for a fact is what you describe as Germany wanting only for the Germans the communists did not want even for the Russians. And when they took over eastern Europe they destroyed what existed either actively by carrying it away or letting rot.

As to the arts, what today we consider the classics were fully supported. As most of it was from the Austro-Hungarian empire the music, for example, would likely be indistinguishable from any classical music station today. For the allies at one geographic extreme there was Hollywood and at the other fat women in uniform singing about the glorious people's revolution. Jazz was equally unsavory on both sides of the war.

When you make a claim you can expect me to point out where it is not related to my reality.

Quote:
For the three centuries or so of its apex, and particularly during the reign of augustus and the pax romana, right after the time of Caesar, literally almost nobody, except religious fanatics and disinherited native nobility, had any problem living under the romans.

Such an idyllic reality you live in. In my reality there was a minor fracas in the Teuton forest that for the most part convinced the Romans to stay on their side of the Rhine. There was a wall across the Tin Islands to keep out people clamoring to live under the Romans. The guy who built the wall also rebuilt Jerusalem. That covers the first 150 years from Agustus becoming emperor. I am not too well versed on the next 150 years other than the continuing Sythian and Syrian revolts. 

Quote:
Oh, and something else the romans didn’t have: FUCKING DEATH CAMPS.

I do invite you to present world population data, pre and post war, to preface any claims of death camps. However I am familar with the Roman gulags mainly in the mines if that it what you mean. Do gladiators count in your reality?

Quote:
And just who the fuck would ever compare Caesar to hitler?

Anyone who condemns the defensive move of conquering France certainly has address all conquerors of France, no? And then is not it reasonable to compare then and ask why the worst conqueror, Caesar, is not condemned as being worse than Hitler? Did the Gauls line their streets with trees so Romans could march in the shade?

Quote:
Caesar was a brilliant military strategist; hitler was a wounded corporal who monumentally fucked things up anytime he tried to take direct control of military affairs.

It is not clear if you are blaming Germany's defeat upon him personally and would have preferred a win.

Quote:
Caesar was a helluva writer (I know, I translated his latin in college): his commentaries are fascinating and engaging, while mein kampf is a frustrated, rambling snooze.

Perhaps but did he have a ghost writer? FDR gave a hell of a speech after Pearl Harbor but he did not write it. Anyway may I ask what writing skills have to do with conquering Gaul?

Quote:
And let’s not forget that the commentaries are all about what a great man had already done, while mein kampf is all about what an incarcerated, manic failure wanted to do.

I have finally found another person who bothered to actually read it. Care to give some examples of what you found to object to? You go first. [That is not a raise, that is a call.]

Quote:
Shit, even as a teenager, Caesar escaped from kidnapping pirates, got a group of soldiers together, and went back and crucified every fucking one of them—after they laughed at him when he told them that was precisely what he was going to do.

Frankly I find it hilarious when today we know who really writes official histories and why people think it was different in the good old days. Plutarch would no more write something negative than anyone today would publish the blunt truth about Churchill. As to the pirates he caught them at anchor with a superior force. I could do that. Plutarch's vignette is hardly praise. It is brutal in its frankness. BTW: Would you take the time to explain how taking men out of prison and crucifying them is praiseworthy? Do you run these things through a Braveheart filter before posting? I could do that too.

Quote:
Hitler, as I recall, spent most of his youth unemployed and generally getting the shit kicked out of him. No way would I ever compare Caesar to hitler. I wouldn’t compare Caesar to napoleon either, though I think Alexander would be an apt comparison to napoleon. No, the only people I’d ever think of comparing Caesar to would be the Indian emperor asoka, henry v, or otto von Bismarck (who, had he been alive in the 1930s, would never have allowed a sniveling toad like adolphus hitler so much as the honor of spit-shining his boots).

So Napoleon who was reviled worse than Hitler is today almost until the turn of the 20th c. you would compare to Alexander. You sure love military dictators. Bet you loved Britain's enslavement of 750million on the Indian subcontinent too. The wogs did need their betters to civilize them and all that. Be that as it may, who the fuck was Alexander to impose his will upon anyone else? Who the fuck was he to roam over Asia slaughtering anyone who dared to resist? If that is your idea of an admirable person you are irredeemable.

Quote:
but please, give me an itemized fucking list of how caesar was worse than hitler in every way.  and tread lightly.  there aren't too many things i know more about than late republican/early imperial rome.

You are impressed by man doing little more than travelling as a passenger with an experience naval squadron who happened to have the good fortune to catch the pirate ship at anchor. If you had read the only available information you would have learned he was a poet who ranked up there with Nero as one the great lights of the arts. You know he lead the slaughter in Gaul to further his political career in Rome which you think is praiseworthy. His political acumen was so great that he gave Cleopatra a claim to ruling Rome via their son and he let her live in Rome to flaunt that claim. I can go on. He was assassinated for very good reasons. Simply because Shakespeare portrayed him as sympathetic does not make it more than a dramatic contrivance.

 

 

Jews stole the land. The owners want it back. That is all anyone needs to know about Israel. That is all there is to know about Israel.

www.ussliberty.org

www.giwersworld.org/made-in-alexandria/index.html

www.giwersworld.org/00_files/zion-hit-points.phtml


A_Nony_Mouse
A_Nony_Mouse's picture
Posts: 2880
Joined: 2008-04-23
User is offlineOffline
.

Atheistextremist wrote:
A_Nony_Mouse wrote:
That is what exists in the physical evidence. What Winston Smith wrote or Winston Chuchill speechified has no evidentiary merit.

If you want to condemn someone for mass murder, there is no evidence against Hitler or any German while there are some 17,000 corpses in evidence against Stalin and the Russians.

the points you make seem consistently odd. You are saying here there is no evidence at all of any German mass murders during world war 2 - no physical evidence at all - am I right?

As you know I produced pre and post war world population figures and invited anyone including you to produce world population data showing a population reduction instead of a slight increase which is commensurate with any claim of mass murder.

As you know, none has been produced. No rational person accepts anything, including god and Santa Claus, without physical evidence. www.giwersworld.org/holo3/virginia-holocaust.phtml

Quote:
As far Caesar and Napoleon are concerned in comparison to Hitler, I agree. These guys where conquerors who set out to beat the crap out of their neighbours and seize control of their lands. 

I'm sure we both agree that attacking your neighbours without warning or provocation is always wrong. I don't think Germany was blameless in WW2 nor do I think a declaration of war against an aggressor can always be called the first aggressive act.

That you choose to disagree with the defintiion is your choice.

Quote:
You seem to apply to sets of rules here. One to Germany and another to Britain. Germany was fine to attack her neighbours because there were some Germans living there. Britain and France were wrong to attack Germany in retaliation.

You have failed to misquote me as a preface to attacking what I did not say.

In any event in this case I can only direct you to any English dictionary to learn the meaning of the word retaliation. If you are going do that Alice thing and not words be your master we do not share a common language.

Quote:
And you can't compare the acts of Hitler, Caesar, Napoleon to those of the British PM in 1939, can you. Britain was hardly setting off on world conquest. You could argue she was defending an existing empire in terms

To remind you, I compared your attitude towards the same or worse actions.

As to the Brits and their OPEN discussion of their natural fitness to rule the world that is not a secret. What is a secret is any evidence Germany had any such intention as all we have is war time propaganda making that claim. Please QUOTE such intentions. By QUOTE I mean the standard English meaning of the word.

It isn't the things you don't know that are the problem. It is the things you know that aren't true.

You can only know physical evidence. You may then accept the consequences of that physical evidence. To be honest I used to believe much the same things you apparently do. Eventually I found time to look into the basis for those beliefs and found none. As always, I may have missed the basis for these things I was told to believe. That is why I constantly ask people like you for the physical evidence they have found. I have been asking for nearly twenty years and so far no one has found anything I missed.

Quote:
Hong Kong and Singapore against the Japanese, and India, as well as supporting the Commonwealth. But there was no intent to get more and India gained sovereignty 2 years after the war ended.

So? The fact they were not soveign for so long is indictment.

Quote:
As Britain's empire broke apart there were no vast massacres, no huge battles. Many Brits stayed on after Indian independence and Indian Brits are the UK's largest and wealthiest minority so you could not say there was deep hatred in that relationship.

And we are supposed to ignore the huge atrocities in putting down the Sepoy rebellion because of this?

Quote:
I'm pretty sure it wasn't the Scots who sacked Rome - those goths or huns or vandals or visigoths were probably central Europeans. My ancestors were at home eating porridge and whining about the weather. My beef with Rome is that it imposed a monoculture that cost many nations their identities. But that probably would have happened anyway, given time.

The word MY also has a standard English meaning.

 

Jews stole the land. The owners want it back. That is all anyone needs to know about Israel. That is all there is to know about Israel.

www.ussliberty.org

www.giwersworld.org/made-in-alexandria/index.html

www.giwersworld.org/00_files/zion-hit-points.phtml


Atheistextremist
atheistSilver Member
Atheistextremist's picture
Posts: 5095
Joined: 2009-09-17
User is offlineOffline
I think this is balanced coverage

 

 

Could all the lurkers please chase this link. Nony will criticise this post but it's an open view.

Personally, I think it's worth trying to establish what can be known in the face of Nony's endless denial. he won't alter his position but we can better understand our own. 

 

Here's a particularly relevant pull-out quote:

 

Jewish population

One Holocaust denial argument is the comparison of the population of Jews before and after the Holocaust. They state that the 1940 World Almanac gives the world Jewish population as 15,319,359, while the 1948 World Almanac gives the world Jewish population as 15,713,638. They therefore claim that either the figures are wrong, or the Holocaust, meaning the deaths of millions of Jews, cannot have happened to any extent similar to the claimed 6 million. Ken McVay writes:

Only in 1949 are postwar estimates employed, the figures given are for estimates made in 1948. A year or two lag seems to be common for various other population estimates given by the World Almanac. The difference between the 1938 and 1948 figures is thus 4,481,491. In 1949, however, the World Almanac gives a revised 1939 population of 16,643,120 giving a difference of between 1938 and 1947 of 5,376,520. Where the extra population between 1938 and 1939 came from is not cited, though one might speculate that it was based upon the Nazi estimates made in 1942 for the Wannsee Conference. Despite the apparent exactness of the numbers listed, the World Almanac warns that all numbers listed are estimates.[53]

Other sources confirm similar numbers—and earlier than the 1949 World Almanac—for the Jewish population before and after the war. The 1932 American Jewish Yearbook estimate the total number of Jews in the world at 15,192,218, of whom 9,418,248 resided in Europe. However, the 1947 yearbook states: "Estimates of the world Jewish population have been assembled by the American Jewish Joint Distribution Committee (except for the United States and Canada) and are probably the most authentic available at the present time. The figures reveal that the total Jewish population of the world has decreased by one-third from about 16,600,000 in 1939 to about 11,000,000 in 1946 as the result of the annihilation by the Nazis of more than five and a half million European Jews. In Europe only an estimated 3,642,000 remain of the total Jewish pre-war population of approximately 9,740,000." These numbers are also consistent with the findings of the Anglo-American Committee of Inquiry, Appendix III, in 1946.

 

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Criticism_of_Holocaust_denial

 

 

 

"Experiments are the only means of knowledge at our disposal. The rest is poetry, imagination." Max Planck


Kapkao
atheistSuperfanBronze Member
Kapkao's picture
Posts: 4121
Joined: 2010-01-12
User is offlineOffline
Out of curiosity, anyone

Out of curiosity, anyone care to remind me how much Israel and it's concept of "Eretz Yisrael" has cost America, it's #1 ally and longtime cold-war friend?

Just... a floating point followed by an annotation number would work.

I believe if we Americans can declare war on tyrannical regimes simply because they are anti-American, we should consider at least cutting these deeply entrenched diplomatic ties to Israel.

 

edit; We won't, however... because of Mossad. It's our #1 'Asian' intelligence asset.

“A meritocratic society is one in which inequalities of wealth and social position solely reflect the unequal distribution of merit or skills amongst human beings, or are based upon factors beyond human control, for example luck or chance. Such a society is socially just because individuals are judged not by their gender, the colour of their skin or their religion, but according to their talents and willingness to work, or on what Martin Luther King called 'the content of their character'. By extension, social equality is unjust because it treats unequal individuals equally.” "Political Ideologies" by Andrew Heywood (2003)


Kapkao
atheistSuperfanBronze Member
Kapkao's picture
Posts: 4121
Joined: 2010-01-12
User is offlineOffline
cj wrote:Vastet wrote:And

cj wrote:

Vastet wrote:
And Israel has been JUST as unwilling to pursue peace as the Palestinians. For decades they've violated multiple international laws on human rights and building more colonies and hammering the civilian populace with an overwhelmingly powerful military that has yet been completely ineffective at preventing return fire from hamas and other organisations. Both sides are at fault. If Israel wanted peace they'd restore independence to the Palestinians and remove ALL colonies built illegally. I'd comment on what Palestinians would do if they wanted peace but you already did well enough in that regard. And your example of Germany is flawed. It got crushed because Hitler bit off more than he could chew, not because he was exterminating a supposed culture. Opening a front with Russia lost him the war. No other single action can be pointed to which caused Germany so much hardship. Germany is also one of the strongest countries in the world today, so it clearly didn't hurt them for long.

 

Finally, someone with sense.  Thank you.

Too bad very few people will listen to us.

 

Oh, I listen. I just don't care for humanitarian morality. IMO, it has no place in the 21st century, because it is an abject failure based on a self-satisfying argument.

“A meritocratic society is one in which inequalities of wealth and social position solely reflect the unequal distribution of merit or skills amongst human beings, or are based upon factors beyond human control, for example luck or chance. Such a society is socially just because individuals are judged not by their gender, the colour of their skin or their religion, but according to their talents and willingness to work, or on what Martin Luther King called 'the content of their character'. By extension, social equality is unjust because it treats unequal individuals equally.” "Political Ideologies" by Andrew Heywood (2003)


A_Nony_Mouse
A_Nony_Mouse's picture
Posts: 2880
Joined: 2008-04-23
User is offlineOffline
.

Atheistextremist wrote:
Could all the lurkers please chase this link. Nony will criticise this post but it's an open view.

Personally, I think it's worth trying to establish what can be known in the face of Nony's endless denial. he won't alter his position but we can better understand our own. 

Here's a particularly relevant pull-out quote:

You are so Efing gulllible.

Quote:
Jewish population

One Holocaust denial argument is the comparison of the population of Jews before and after the Holocaust. They state that the 1940 World Almanac gives the world Jewish population as 15,319,359, while the 1948 World Almanac gives the world Jewish population as 15,713,638. They therefore claim that either the figures are wrong, or the Holocaust, meaning the deaths of millions of Jews, cannot have happened to any extent similar to the claimed 6 million. Ken McVay writes:

Who is Ken McVay and why do you believe him? Please be specific in your response.

Quote:
Only in 1949 are postwar estimates employed, the figures given are for estimates made in 1948.

6 million was introduced in October 1945. By this claim it is clearly a made up number.

Quote:
A year or two lag seems to be common for various other population estimates given by the World Almanac. The difference between the 1938 and 1948 figures is thus 4,481,491. In 1949, however, the World Almanac gives a revised 1939 population of 16,643,120 giving a difference of between 1938 and 1947 of 5,376,520. Where the extra population between 1938 and 1939 came from is not cited, though one might speculate that it was based upon the Nazi estimates made in 1942 for the Wannsee Conference. Despite the apparent exactness of the numbers listed, the World Almanac warns that all numbers listed are estimates.[53]

Other sources confirm similar numbers—and earlier than the 1949 World Almanac—for the Jewish population before and after the war. The 1932 American Jewish Yearbook estimate the total number of Jews in the world at 15,192,218, of whom 9,418,248 resided in Europe. However, the 1947 yearbook states: "Estimates of the world Jewish population have been assembled by the American Jewish Joint Distribution Committee (except for the United States and Canada) and are probably the most authentic available at the present time. The figures reveal that the total Jewish population of the world has decreased by one-third from about 16,600,000 in 1939 to about 11,000,000 in 1946 as the result of the annihilation by the Nazis of more than five and a half million European Jews. In Europe only an estimated 3,642,000 remain of the total Jewish pre-war population of approximately 9,740,000." These numbers are also consistent with the findings of the Anglo-American Committee of Inquiry, Appendix III, in 1946. 

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Criticism_of_Holocaust_denial 

Please provide the professional credentials for the author(s) of this diletant article.

One would think even you would notice there are NO SOURCES for the numbers used.

I find it incredible anyone could read a discussion of why the world population data in unusable until 1949 and then invent based upon no cited source at all a number for 1946.

Should you ever find actuarial world population data instead anonymous claims you be sure to post it.

 

Jews stole the land. The owners want it back. That is all anyone needs to know about Israel. That is all there is to know about Israel.

www.ussliberty.org

www.giwersworld.org/made-in-alexandria/index.html

www.giwersworld.org/00_files/zion-hit-points.phtml


A_Nony_Mouse
A_Nony_Mouse's picture
Posts: 2880
Joined: 2008-04-23
User is offlineOffline
.

Kapkao wrote:
Out of curiosity, anyone care to remind me how much Israel and it's concept of "Eretz Yisrael" has cost America, it's #1 ally and longtime cold-war friend?

Just... a floating point followed by an annotation number would work.

I believe if we Americans can declare war on tyrannical regimes simply because they are anti-American, we should consider at least cutting these deeply entrenched diplomatic ties to Israel.

edit; We won't, however... because of Mossad. It's our #1 'Asian' intelligence asset.

The Mossad is a terrorist organization. Most recently exposed was using US passports, claiming to be CIA, hiring Iranian dissidents to conduct terror attacks in Iran. That costs the US a lot although assigning to dollar figure to an intangible is notoriously difficult. If it leads to Iran attacking the US in retaliation and that leads to war then the entire cost of the war and the lives is the cost of Israel.

Given the Israeli agents in the US who promoted the war on Iraq it is reasonable to put the entire cost of that war as a cost of Israel. Excuse me, not Israeli agents. Rather people indistinguishable from Israeli agents.

As for Mossad as intelligence, never has been. It is a source false information to support Israeli foreign policy. Always has been. For example it was the primary source for reams of intelligence about Iraq's nonexistent WMD programs including nuclear, chemical, biological and voodoo. Do you know what happens to a city bombarded wtih goofer dust?

 

Jews stole the land. The owners want it back. That is all anyone needs to know about Israel. That is all there is to know about Israel.

www.ussliberty.org

www.giwersworld.org/made-in-alexandria/index.html

www.giwersworld.org/00_files/zion-hit-points.phtml


A_Nony_Mouse
A_Nony_Mouse's picture
Posts: 2880
Joined: 2008-04-23
User is offlineOffline
.

Kapkao wrote:
...

We start banning people because they actively 'hate' someone or something else... might as well ban me.  I hate Zionism because I believe it has become a justification for tyranny and lying to friends (meaning... feeding America false intel in 2007.)

By definition zionism is a political philosophy of murder and theft as its means of existence. Either we accept the entire Zionist enterprise was willing to be voted out of existence in the first election in Palestine or we accept the necessary intention was to expel the Palestinians by force. Expulsion necessarily entails murder to get them to leave so their land can be stolen.

That is all there is to know about zionism.

Quote:
Other than that... "I could give a shit".  Nony (apparently) thrives on the thought that one day a 'free' Palestine will emerge from the smoking ashes of Tel Aviv, and will somehow be better for it. If so, it shows how little he understands.

Whatever kind of government the Palestinians choose for themselves is strictly their business. That the Palestinians have the absolute moral and legal right to kill off the Israelis is all I have observed. That the Jews are operating a criminal dictatorship is also not in question.

I simply work to put the facts on the table and let people decide for themselves. Getting the facts on the table necessarily entails eliminating more than a century of zionist lies. The fact that there is more than a century of it eliminates any connection to WWII and the murderous intentions of the zionists. See the "hit points" link in my sig.

Quote:
For him, his rationale for Palestinian freedom appears largely antisemitic.

Just to suggest supporting the elementary human right to self-determination is antisemitic when Jews are involved is as damning as anything I have ever said. Do god's chosenites have right superior to the cattle?

Quote:
So he meets up with Neterei Karta and decides he can bury the hatchet for some of the "Chosen People".

Matter of fact over the years the Naturei Karta folks have always supported me. I picked up some of my bluntest statements from them. They have been at it longer than I have.

Quote:
Frankly, I wouldn't mind seeing a few bombs dropped/fired on Israel every time it hurts Palestinians, AND... I would not mind them being American in origin. However, that isn't going to happen any time soon. Just my two copper pieces worth.

I still advocate giving Haifa a good nuking over the mass murder on the USS Liberty.

Ever notice Israel refuses live fire naval exercises with the US? Misidentification is a bitch.

 

Jews stole the land. The owners want it back. That is all anyone needs to know about Israel. That is all there is to know about Israel.

www.ussliberty.org

www.giwersworld.org/made-in-alexandria/index.html

www.giwersworld.org/00_files/zion-hit-points.phtml


Atheistextremist
atheistSilver Member
Atheistextremist's picture
Posts: 5095
Joined: 2009-09-17
User is offlineOffline
Where is your detailed actuarial

 

A_Nony_Mouse wrote:

 

You are so Efing gulllible.

Should you ever find actuarial world population data instead anonymous claims you be sure to post it.

 

 

world population data that the jewish population of Europe did not fall from nine and half million to just over three and a half million between 1939 and 1945. You completely ignore the German data which suggest 1.2 million Jews were murdered in 1942 alone. So far all we have seen from you is a facsimile of figures that are barely legible and that cannot be considered the definitive source you demand I provide. You repeatedly insist no Jews died in German hands in the period under consideration. Regardless of the wrongs of the Israeli state, this belief marks you as a person of extreme bias whose position on the topic under consideration will always be completely devoid of balance and credibility. 

 

"Experiments are the only means of knowledge at our disposal. The rest is poetry, imagination." Max Planck


Atheistextremist
atheistSilver Member
Atheistextremist's picture
Posts: 5095
Joined: 2009-09-17
User is offlineOffline
Even German historians aren't as blind as Nony

 

 

German Foreign Office complicit in Nazi Holocaust, historians prove

25 October 2010

A task force of historians commissioned in 2005 by then German Foreign Minister Joschka Fischer has found that during the Nazi-era many diplomats at the Foreign Office were in the Holocaust and covered up their involvement in the crimes after the end of World War II. Fischer said he was “disgusted” by the revelations. A report by four historians confirms that diplomats actively assisted in the prosecution and killing of Jews by the Nazis, contrary to impression conveyed by the German Foreign Office after the war of a ministry that disapproved of the Nazis’ actions and tried preserve a certain distance to the Hitler regime.

"The Foreign Ministry was a criminal organization," the news magazine ‘Der Spiegel’ quoted the chairman of the historians’ panel, Eckart Conze, as saying. After five years of probing diplomatic archives, Conze said the German Foreign Office had supported Nazi violence at every point and played a key role in the killing of Jews across Europe. Claims that officials had resisted the will of the Nazi Party were false, Conze said. In fact, the ministry usually helped the Nazis even before it was asked to do so.

The 880-page report entitled ‘The Office and the Past’ was written by Conze and fellow historians Norbert Frei (Germany), Peter Hayes (USA) and Moshe Zimmermann (Israel). It will be published as a book this week. In one chilling document, the Nazi-era official in charge of Jews, Franz Rademacher, justified why he had to travel on an official mission to Belgrade. "Liquidation of Jews in Belgrade and talks with Hungarian envoys in Budapest," he wrote.

German Foreign Minister Guido Westerwelle hailed the report as "an important work" that would help the ministry to know itself. His predecessor, the current opposition leader Frank-Walter Steinmeier, said it was "incredible" that it took 60 years to launch the inquiry. Diplomats had refused to look into the Foreign Office’s past until Fischer complained that the ministry was writing admiring obituaries for former Nazis.

 

 

 

 

 

"Experiments are the only means of knowledge at our disposal. The rest is poetry, imagination." Max Planck


Kapkao
atheistSuperfanBronze Member
Kapkao's picture
Posts: 4121
Joined: 2010-01-12
User is offlineOffline
I value you, Nony... because

I value you, Nony... because you give definite answers in the face of questions most people would choose to hide from behind a curtain of pretenses or "read-between-the-lines" morality clauses.

I hope you value my input, as I am one of a tiny few remaining antiIsrael conservatives in my country, largely because most are either kooks or aging 60s military vets in terms of "causality". Some are more rational in their... preferences. cj's remark "two unwinnable wars" comes to mind readily, and she is not the one to have originally coined the term "unwinnable war". Everyone, believe me when I say it isn't Israelis I hate... it's Israel itself. Too many pointless conflicts caused by a singular, xenophobic entity without much concern for the 'second class citizens' living outside a 'preferred religious faith class', for my taste.

Everyone else: "walk a mile in (his) shoes", and I am almost certain he will be glad to walk a mile in yours. Chances are (I believe)... you're too chicken shit to do it. No appeals to having spent time in Peace Corps... or some other NGO-related nonsense, please!

-Kapkao, proud citizen of "The Great Satan"

“A meritocratic society is one in which inequalities of wealth and social position solely reflect the unequal distribution of merit or skills amongst human beings, or are based upon factors beyond human control, for example luck or chance. Such a society is socially just because individuals are judged not by their gender, the colour of their skin or their religion, but according to their talents and willingness to work, or on what Martin Luther King called 'the content of their character'. By extension, social equality is unjust because it treats unequal individuals equally.” "Political Ideologies" by Andrew Heywood (2003)


A_Nony_Mouse
A_Nony_Mouse's picture
Posts: 2880
Joined: 2008-04-23
User is offlineOffline
.

Kapkao wrote:
I value you, Nony... because you give definite answers in the face of questions most people would choose to hide from behind a curtain of pretenses or "read-between-the-lines" morality clauses.

If I do not give a direct answer as to why I think my conclusions are correct there is no way for anyone to give relevant alternate view or criticism. If there is not an open and rational exchange what is the point of participating?

Quote:
I hope you value my input,

I thought that was obvious in the form of my responses.

[edit] That means yes.

Quote:
as I am one of a tiny few remaining antiIsrael conservatives in my country,

Conservatives remain conservatives. That the common usage of the word has changed, particularly with the Morxists claiming to be neo-conservatives does not change what conservative means. That Reagan added segregationist democrats to Republican voters does not mean redneck fundies are conservatives.

Quote:
largely because most are either kooks or aging 60s military vets in terms of "causality". Some are more rational in their... preferences. cj's remark "two unwinnable wars" comes to mind readily, and she is not the one to have originally coined the term "unwinnable war". Everyone, believe me when I say it isn't Israelis I hate... it's Israel itself. Too many pointless conflicts caused by a singular, xenophobic entity without much concern for the 'second class citizens' living outside a 'preferred religious faith class', for my taste.

For more insight into zionism consider it is not only an atheist political movement but also firmly grounded in Marxism. That is why it has no normal behavior.

The proletariat is cannon fodder for wars of conquest.

They went to Palestine with the sole intent of killing or expelling Palestinians. The marxists created a Joshua complex for the simpleton Jews.

Simpleton?

A zionist is a Jew who collects money from another Jew to send a third (simpleton) Jew to Palestine.

That is a century old jewish joke.

Quote:
Everyone else: "walk a mile in (his) shoes", and I am almost certain he will be glad to walk a mile in yours. Chances are (I believe)... you're too chicken shit to do it. No appeals to having spent time in Peace Corps... or some other NGO-related nonsense, please!

-Kapkao, proud citizen of "The Great Satan"

As Stephen Colbert would ask, Great Satan or Greatest Satan? I'll put down Greatest.

 

Jews stole the land. The owners want it back. That is all anyone needs to know about Israel. That is all there is to know about Israel.

www.ussliberty.org

www.giwersworld.org/made-in-alexandria/index.html

www.giwersworld.org/00_files/zion-hit-points.phtml


A_Nony_Mouse
A_Nony_Mouse's picture
Posts: 2880
Joined: 2008-04-23
User is offlineOffline
Atheistextremist

Atheistextremist wrote:
A_Nony_Mouse wrote:
You are so Efing gulllible.

Should you ever find actuarial world population data instead anonymous claims you be sure to post it.

world population data that the jewish population of Europe did not fall from nine and half million to just over three and a half million between 1939 and 1945. 

Nor have you presented any physical evidence that it did. Are you so stupid as to think I will not notice you presented nothing any value whatsoever?

At the risk of Sapient's wrath, you are a fucking idiot.

Jews stole the land. The owners want it back. That is all anyone needs to know about Israel. That is all there is to know about Israel.

www.ussliberty.org

www.giwersworld.org/made-in-alexandria/index.html

www.giwersworld.org/00_files/zion-hit-points.phtml


Atheistextremist
atheistSilver Member
Atheistextremist's picture
Posts: 5095
Joined: 2009-09-17
User is offlineOffline
Well Nony

 

A_Nony_Mouse wrote:

Atheistextremist wrote:
A_Nony_Mouse wrote:
You are so Efing gulllible.

Should you ever find actuarial world population data instead anonymous claims you be sure to post it.

world population data that the jewish population of Europe did not fall from nine and half million to just over three and a half million between 1939 and 1945. 

Nor have you presented any physical evidence that it did. Are you so stupid as to think I will not notice you presented nothing any value whatsoever?

At the risk of Sapient's wrath, you are a fucking idiot.

 

You just proved the point of this thread. When challenged to support your claims with anything that refutes the vast library of data from Germany's own records, the confessions of Germans themselves, British radio interceptions, eye witness testimony, photography and archaeology you call on a single set of figures that are nebulous at best and insist they represent the only knowable truth. You then resort to insult. You will only consider evidence from the one source that supports your contention no jews ever died in German mass murders. You ignore all modern methods of forensic investigation and depend on estimated figures and call this 'physical proof'. No other evidence of any kind has ever penetrated your 20 years of confirmation bias. You are immune to testable explanation. Why am I not surprised. 

 

A recent study using the latest above ground techniques is here:

 

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/magazine-16657363

 

If any one wants to see some photographic evidence of German mass murders check this:

 

http://holocaustcontroversies.blogspot.com.au/2010/10/mass-graves-and-dead-bodies.html

 

And to read about the physical evidence of remains found by actual researchers at the actual sites of major German death camps read this...

 

http://holocaustcontroversies.blogspot.com.au/2010/05/mass-graves-at-nazi-extermination-camps.html

 

500 mass grave sites found in Ukraine so far replete with German bullet casings...

 

http://www.memorialdelashoah.org/upload/medias/fr/DP_Ukraine_eng.pdf 

 

 

 

 

 

"Experiments are the only means of knowledge at our disposal. The rest is poetry, imagination." Max Planck


Atheistextremist
atheistSilver Member
Atheistextremist's picture
Posts: 5095
Joined: 2009-09-17
User is offlineOffline
Yes

A_Nony_Mouse wrote:

 you are a fucking idiot.

 

I'm an idiot to waste my time talking to a grub like you. 

"Experiments are the only means of knowledge at our disposal. The rest is poetry, imagination." Max Planck


Kapkao
atheistSuperfanBronze Member
Kapkao's picture
Posts: 4121
Joined: 2010-01-12
User is offlineOffline
At the risk of pissing

At the risk of pissing everyone off...

“A meritocratic society is one in which inequalities of wealth and social position solely reflect the unequal distribution of merit or skills amongst human beings, or are based upon factors beyond human control, for example luck or chance. Such a society is socially just because individuals are judged not by their gender, the colour of their skin or their religion, but according to their talents and willingness to work, or on what Martin Luther King called 'the content of their character'. By extension, social equality is unjust because it treats unequal individuals equally.” "Political Ideologies" by Andrew Heywood (2003)


Kapkao
atheistSuperfanBronze Member
Kapkao's picture
Posts: 4121
Joined: 2010-01-12
User is offlineOffline
A_Nony_Mouse wrote:[edit]

A_Nony_Mouse wrote:

[edit] That means yes.

I am glad. Understand that in many Nato countries INCLUDING "the greatest satan" there are many people atheist and theist alike that are sympathetic to 'your' side of the wall. Perhaps I have said this before but you should never forget it.

/done_here

“A meritocratic society is one in which inequalities of wealth and social position solely reflect the unequal distribution of merit or skills amongst human beings, or are based upon factors beyond human control, for example luck or chance. Such a society is socially just because individuals are judged not by their gender, the colour of their skin or their religion, but according to their talents and willingness to work, or on what Martin Luther King called 'the content of their character'. By extension, social equality is unjust because it treats unequal individuals equally.” "Political Ideologies" by Andrew Heywood (2003)


A_Nony_Mouse
A_Nony_Mouse's picture
Posts: 2880
Joined: 2008-04-23
User is offlineOffline
.

Atheistextremist wrote:
A_Nony_Mouse wrote:
you are a fucking idiot.
I'm an idiot to waste my time talking to a grub like you. 

At least we agree on the idiot part.

 

Jews stole the land. The owners want it back. That is all anyone needs to know about Israel. That is all there is to know about Israel.

www.ussliberty.org

www.giwersworld.org/made-in-alexandria/index.html

www.giwersworld.org/00_files/zion-hit-points.phtml


A_Nony_Mouse
A_Nony_Mouse's picture
Posts: 2880
Joined: 2008-04-23
User is offlineOffline
Still no physical evidence of a world population decrease

Atheistextremist wrote:
A_Nony_Mouse wrote:
Atheistextremist wrote:
A_Nony_Mouse wrote:
You are so Efing gulllible.

Should you ever find actuarial world population data instead anonymous claims you be sure to post it.

world population data that the jewish population of Europe did not fall from nine and half million to just over three and a half million between 1939 and 1945. 

Nor have you presented any physical evidence that it did. Are you so stupid as to think I will not notice you presented nothing any value whatsoever?

At the risk of Sapient's wrath, you are a fucking idiot.

You just proved the point of this thread. When challenged to support your claims with anything that refutes the vast library of data from Germany's own records, the confessions of Germans themselves, British radio interceptions, eye witness testimony, photography and archaeology you call on a single set of figures that are nebulous at best and insist they represent the only knowable truth. You then resort to insult. You will only consider evidence from the one source that supports your contention no jews ever died in German mass murders. You ignore all modern methods of forensic investigation and depend on estimated figures and call this 'physical proof'. No other evidence of any kind has ever penetrated your 20 years of confirmation bias. You are immune to testable explanation. Why am I not surprised. 

A recent study using the latest above ground techniques is here:

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/magazine-16657363

If any one wants to see some photographic evidence of German mass murders check this:

http://holocaustcontroversies.blogspot.com.au/2010/10/mass-graves-and-dead-bodies.html

And to read about the physical evidence of remains found by actual researchers at the actual sites of major German death camps read this...

http://holocaustcontroversies.blogspot.com.au/2010/05/mass-graves-at-nazi-extermination-camps.html

500 mass grave sites found in Ukraine so far replete with German bullet casings...

http://www.memorialdelashoah.org/upload/medias/fr/DP_Ukraine_eng.pdf 

Do you really think quantities of irrelevant URLs are going to substitute for world population data? [thousands of miraculous cures] [[tens of thousands of UFO sightings]]

Of course you do. That is why we agree on the idiot part. [therefore there is a god] [[therefore were are being visited]]

 

Jews stole the land. The owners want it back. That is all anyone needs to know about Israel. That is all there is to know about Israel.

www.ussliberty.org

www.giwersworld.org/made-in-alexandria/index.html

www.giwersworld.org/00_files/zion-hit-points.phtml


A_Nony_Mouse
A_Nony_Mouse's picture
Posts: 2880
Joined: 2008-04-23
User is offlineOffline
Kapkao wrote:At the risk of

Kapkao wrote:

At the risk of pissing everyone off...

Amon is the first, the eldest god of Egypt, there were no other gods before him. He was also the model for Yahweh. His name, amen, ends both jewish and christian prayers.

One should not degrade the Norse gods with such despicable model.

Jews stole the land. The owners want it back. That is all anyone needs to know about Israel. That is all there is to know about Israel.

www.ussliberty.org

www.giwersworld.org/made-in-alexandria/index.html

www.giwersworld.org/00_files/zion-hit-points.phtml


Atheistextremist
atheistSilver Member
Atheistextremist's picture
Posts: 5095
Joined: 2009-09-17
User is offlineOffline
You

A_Nony_Mouse wrote:

Atheistextremist wrote:
A_Nony_Mouse wrote:
Atheistextremist wrote:
A_Nony_Mouse wrote:
You are so Efing gulllible.

Should you ever find actuarial world population data instead anonymous claims you be sure to post it.

world population data that the jewish population of Europe did not fall from nine and half million to just over three and a half million between 1939 and 1945. 

Nor have you presented any physical evidence that it did. Are you so stupid as to think I will not notice you presented nothing any value whatsoever?

At the risk of Sapient's wrath, you are a fucking idiot.

You just proved the point of this thread. When challenged to support your claims with anything that refutes the vast library of data from Germany's own records, the confessions of Germans themselves, British radio interceptions, eye witness testimony, photography and archaeology you call on a single set of figures that are nebulous at best and insist they represent the only knowable truth. You then resort to insult. You will only consider evidence from the one source that supports your contention no jews ever died in German mass murders. You ignore all modern methods of forensic investigation and depend on estimated figures and call this 'physical proof'. No other evidence of any kind has ever penetrated your 20 years of confirmation bias. You are immune to testable explanation. Why am I not surprised. 

A recent study using the latest above ground techniques is here:

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/magazine-16657363

If any one wants to see some photographic evidence of German mass murders check this:

http://holocaustcontroversies.blogspot.com.au/2010/10/mass-graves-and-dead-bodies.html

And to read about the physical evidence of remains found by actual researchers at the actual sites of major German death camps read this...

http://holocaustcontroversies.blogspot.com.au/2010/05/mass-graves-at-nazi-extermination-camps.html

500 mass grave sites found in Ukraine so far replete with German bullet casings...

http://www.memorialdelashoah.org/upload/medias/fr/DP_Ukraine_eng.pdf 

Do you really think quantities of irrelevant URLs are going to substitute for world population data? [thousands of miraculous cures] [[tens of thousands of UFO sightings]]

Of course you do. That is why we agree on the idiot part. [therefore there is a god] [[therefore were are being visited]]

 

 

Nony, claim to be an empiricist of some description and yet refuse to except the findings of research carried out on the ground. All you will believe are population figures gathered we know not how and we know not how accurate. Please direct me to research that coherently supports your assertions Germany never committed any acts of mass murder in WW2 and that effectively refutes the testimony of hundreds of thousands of people. That explains the nature of death camp sites, that refutes the testimony of locals. And explain why the research at Treblinka is wrong. Whose are those bones. Try to get an actual forensic archaeologist involved if you possibly can. 

And yeah we all agree with you. No coherent research, no valid arguments and nothing of any value has ever been published or re-published on the Internet. Every URL is automatically false so please, no one else link to a URL in future. Or make an argument here in this false world of lies. Why would I believe your unsupported arguments and 'proofs' Mr. http://www.rationalresponders.com/forum/31197 ? You can hardly be called an unbiased source. 

 

 

 

 

 

"Experiments are the only means of knowledge at our disposal. The rest is poetry, imagination." Max Planck


A_Nony_Mouse
A_Nony_Mouse's picture
Posts: 2880
Joined: 2008-04-23
User is offlineOffline
.

Atheistextremist wrote:

A_Nony_Mouse wrote:

Atheistextremist wrote:
A_Nony_Mouse wrote:
Atheistextremist wrote:
A_Nony_Mouse wrote:
You are so Efing gulllible.

Should you ever find actuarial world population data instead anonymous claims you be sure to post it.

world population data that the jewish population of Europe did not fall from nine and half million to just over three and a half million between 1939 and 1945. 

Nor have you presented any physical evidence that it did. Are you so stupid as to think I will not notice you presented nothing any value whatsoever?

At the risk of Sapient's wrath, you are a fucking idiot.

You just proved the point of this thread. When challenged to support your claims with anything that refutes the vast library of data from Germany's own records, the confessions of Germans themselves, British radio interceptions, eye witness testimony, photography and archaeology you call on a single set of figures that are nebulous at best and insist they represent the only knowable truth. You then resort to insult. You will only consider evidence from the one source that supports your contention no jews ever died in German mass murders. You ignore all modern methods of forensic investigation and depend on estimated figures and call this 'physical proof'. No other evidence of any kind has ever penetrated your 20 years of confirmation bias. You are immune to testable explanation. Why am I not surprised. 

A recent study using the latest above ground techniques is here:

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/magazine-16657363

If any one wants to see some photographic evidence of German mass murders check this:

http://holocaustcontroversies.blogspot.com.au/2010/10/mass-graves-and-dead-bodies.html

And to read about the physical evidence of remains found by actual researchers at the actual sites of major German death camps read this...

http://holocaustcontroversies.blogspot.com.au/2010/05/mass-graves-at-nazi-extermination-camps.html

500 mass grave sites found in Ukraine so far replete with German bullet casings...

http://www.memorialdelashoah.org/upload/medias/fr/DP_Ukraine_eng.pdf 

Do you really think quantities of irrelevant URLs are going to substitute for world population data? [thousands of miraculous cures] [[tens of thousands of UFO sightings]]

Of course you do. That is why we agree on the idiot part. [therefore there is a god] [[therefore were are being visited]]

Nony, claim to be an empiricist of some description and yet refuse to except the findings of research on the ground.

Nothing establishes anything near 100,000 total. Nothing establishes the religion of the bodies. Nothing establishes who killed them. Nothing establishes the reason they were killed. So you have 0 bodies towards your magical 6 million. Obviously you did not take the time to read the crap you linked. Why are you wasting everyone's time on this farce?

Quote:
All you will believe are population figures gathered we know not how. Please direct me to research that coherently supports your assertions Germany never committed any acts of mass murder in WW2.

Please have the common decency to stop lying about what I said. Not only stupid but a common liar. Neya Kulturnie.

Quote:
Explain why the research at Treblinka is wrong. Whose are those bones. Try to get a major university involved if you possibly can. 

One has to be an idiot to appeal to anonymous "authorities" in hopes people will not notice the total absence of any and all evidence of any reduction of population over the war years.

It certainly explains your holohugging fake atheism. You are willing to believe anything anyone says without those you worship ever having to produce any physical evidence.

Serious question. Are you dumb enough to take yourself seriously?

Are you ready to admit you cannot find any physical evidence supporting your 6M fantasy?

How about Kommandant of Auschwitz which was such an obvious forgery that no respectable publisher would touch so it only appeared in the US by a publisher of romance, western, detective paperbacks. You are aware that paperback publishers were not even semi-respectable until the 1970s are you not? Of course not.

 

Jews stole the land. The owners want it back. That is all anyone needs to know about Israel. That is all there is to know about Israel.

www.ussliberty.org

www.giwersworld.org/made-in-alexandria/index.html

www.giwersworld.org/00_files/zion-hit-points.phtml


Atheistextremist
atheistSilver Member
Atheistextremist's picture
Posts: 5095
Joined: 2009-09-17
User is offlineOffline
Just for the record

A_Nony_Mouse wrote:

Atheistextremist wrote:

A_Nony_Mouse wrote:

Atheistextremist wrote:
A_Nony_Mouse wrote:
Atheistextremist wrote:
A_Nony_Mouse wrote:
You are so Efing gulllible.

Should you ever find actuarial world population data instead anonymous claims you be sure to post it.

world population data that the jewish population of Europe did not fall from nine and half million to just over three and a half million between 1939 and 1945. 

Nor have you presented any physical evidence that it did. Are you so stupid as to think I will not notice you presented nothing any value whatsoever?

At the risk of Sapient's wrath, you are a fucking idiot.

You just proved the point of this thread. When challenged to support your claims with anything that refutes the vast library of data from Germany's own records, the confessions of Germans themselves, British radio interceptions, eye witness testimony, photography and archaeology you call on a single set of figures that are nebulous at best and insist they represent the only knowable truth. You then resort to insult. You will only consider evidence from the one source that supports your contention no jews ever died in German mass murders. You ignore all modern methods of forensic investigation and depend on estimated figures and call this 'physical proof'. No other evidence of any kind has ever penetrated your 20 years of confirmation bias. You are immune to testable explanation. Why am I not surprised. 

A recent study using the latest above ground techniques is here:

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/magazine-16657363

If any one wants to see some photographic evidence of German mass murders check this:

http://holocaustcontroversies.blogspot.com.au/2010/10/mass-graves-and-dead-bodies.html

And to read about the physical evidence of remains found by actual researchers at the actual sites of major German death camps read this...

http://holocaustcontroversies.blogspot.com.au/2010/05/mass-graves-at-nazi-extermination-camps.html

500 mass grave sites found in Ukraine so far replete with German bullet casings...

http://www.memorialdelashoah.org/upload/medias/fr/DP_Ukraine_eng.pdf 

Do you really think quantities of irrelevant URLs are going to substitute for world population data? [thousands of miraculous cures] [[tens of thousands of UFO sightings]]

Of course you do. That is why we agree on the idiot part. [therefore there is a god] [[therefore were are being visited]]

Nony, claim to be an empiricist of some description and yet refuse to except the findings of research on the ground.

Nothing establishes anything near 100,000 total. Nothing establishes the religion of the bodies. Nothing establishes who killed them. Nothing establishes the reason they were killed. So you have 0 bodies towards your magical 6 million. Obviously you did not take the time to read the crap you linked. Why are you wasting everyone's time on this farce?

Quote:
All you will believe are population figures gathered we know not how. Please direct me to research that coherently supports your assertions Germany never committed any acts of mass murder in WW2.

Please have the common decency to stop lying about what I said. Not only stupid but a common liar. Neya Kulturnie.

Quote:
Explain why the research at Treblinka is wrong. Whose are those bones. Try to get a major university involved if you possibly can. 

One has to be an idiot to appeal to anonymous "authorities" in hopes people will not notice the total absence of any and all evidence of any reduction of population over the war years.

It certainly explains your holohugging fake atheism. You are willing to believe anything anyone says without those you worship ever having to produce any physical evidence.

Serious question. Are you dumb enough to take yourself seriously?

Are you ready to admit you cannot find any physical evidence supporting your 6M fantasy?

How about Kommandant of Auschwitz which was such an obvious forgery that no respectable publisher would touch so it only appeared in the US by a publisher of romance, western, detective paperbacks. You are aware that paperback publishers were not even semi-respectable until the 1970s are you not? Of course not.

 

 

a forensic archaeologist using the latest methods found evidence of mass murder at Treblinka including vast numbers of bones and ash pits, this material evidence is supported by eye witness reports of survivors, escapees, locals and former guards, as well as evidence from the Germans themselves including the Hoefle Telegram decoded by the Enigma cryptographers at Bletchley. You can read about this on the Internet.

 

Hoefletelegram.jpg

 

Again, Nony, you refer to your population figures, the only form of evidence that's sanitary enough to be tolerable to you, and then you slide inexorably off into ad hominem. As I've said before, I don't care about the 6 million. It could be any number at all. And I never read a romantic detective story about about the Kommandant of Auschwitz and his adventures with Larry and Stretch. I've read Martin Gilbert's excellent Tragedy of the Jews, however. Why not read it yourself? It's a compelling drama. 

I contend the evidence for the Holocaust is overwhelming and its weight cannot be undone by your cherry picking a single line of data. If this case was to be heard in the supreme court anywhere, it could not be proved using a population almanac. 

Personally, I don't have a problem with your criticising Israel. But I do think criticism must be balanced and if it is clearly slanted against one group of people without consideration of the crimes of any others then it must be considered inconsistent. It's hard to take your criticism of Israel seriously Nony, when you hold these additional views about a group of people who were quite obviously slaughtered long before Israel ever existed to make the moral errors you abhor only in them

 

 

"Experiments are the only means of knowledge at our disposal. The rest is poetry, imagination." Max Planck


A_Nony_Mouse
A_Nony_Mouse's picture
Posts: 2880
Joined: 2008-04-23
User is offlineOffline
.

Atheistextremist wrote:
...

a forensic archaeologist using the latest methods found evidence of mass murder at Treblinka including vast numbers of bones and ash pits, this material evidence is supported by eye witness reports of survivors, escapees, locals and former guards, as well as evidence from the Germans themselves including the Hoefle Telegram decoded by the Enigma cryptographers at Bletchley. You can read about this on the Internet.

Dear dumbshit, vast is not a number. How was their religion established? How was the cause of death established? WHO or WHAT was the cause of death? Have you never was a single episode of any of the CSI shows?

Hoefletelegram.jpg

Care to translate? Or does anything in German cause you to cry and hide under your covers? Do not forget to fill in the ...rest missed... or come up with a non-delusional rationale for it not mattering.

Quote:

Again, Nony, you refer to your population figures, the only form of evidence that's sanitary enough to be tolerable to you, and then you slide inexorably off into ad hominem. As I've said before, I don't care about the 6 million.

Which is why you pretend to a generic concern while so desperately trying to established some miraculous jewish number.

Quote:
It could be any number at all.

By what you have presented so far that number can be zero. If you do not care why are you so desperate to believe in a non-zero number? The only established massacre is still by the Allies.

Quote:
And I never read a romantic detective story about about the Kommandant of Auschwitz and his adventures with Larry and Stretch. I've read Martin Gilbert's excellent Tragedy of the Jews, however. Why not read it yourself? It's a compelling drama.

You love fiction. No wonder you love holohuggery.

Quote:
I contend the evidence for the Holocaust is overwhelming and its weight cannot be undone by your cherry picking a single line of data. If this case was to be heard in the supreme court anywhere, it could not be proved using a population almanac.

If in fact the evidence is overwhelming why is it you cannot produce any of it? Fiction is not evidence.

Now if you want to call ZERO dead a holocaust then I have to conclude you are just plain silly in addition to being stupid and a liar.

Quote:
Personally, I don't have a problem with your criticising Israel. But I do think criticism must be balanced

Lets have some balance on the Nazis then. Why the Izziehugging? Balanced with what? What other criminal occupation is there? What other foreign dictatorship is there? I have always stipulated Israel is no better than any other criminal occupation and dictatorship problem is I haven't found any to compare the sanctimonious scum to without retreating to WWII for the only credible comparison. You don't want to discuss that obvious comparison.

I have given you all the opportunity possible to produce a comparison and you have not been able to do so.

Quote:
and if it is clearly slanted against one group of people without consideration of the crimes of any others then it must be considered inconsistent.

To repeat, YOU have never found anything comparable. Why do you expect me to find what you cannot?

Quote:
It's hard to take your criticism of Israel seriously Nony, when you hold these additional views about a group of people who were quite obviously slaughtered long before Israel ever existed to make the moral errors you abhor only in them.

There is nothing comparable to the sanctimonious scum and their criminal occupation and jewish military dictatorship.

You try to foist your fantasy life about zero dead on others. You try to pretend there is something comparable to the atrocities of Israel.

You can pretend there is a Santa Claus all you want. Adults do not have to take you seriously.

 

Jews stole the land. The owners want it back. That is all anyone needs to know about Israel. That is all there is to know about Israel.

www.ussliberty.org

www.giwersworld.org/made-in-alexandria/index.html

www.giwersworld.org/00_files/zion-hit-points.phtml


A_Nony_Mouse
A_Nony_Mouse's picture
Posts: 2880
Joined: 2008-04-23
User is offlineOffline
.

Atheistextremist wrote:
...

Personally, I don't have a problem with your criticising Israel. But I do think criticism must be balanced and if it is clearly slanted against one group of people without consideration of the crimes of any others then it must be considered inconsistent.

Which other foreign military dictatorship should I compare to Israel's foreign military dictatorship? Please be specific in your response.

 

Jews stole the land. The owners want it back. That is all anyone needs to know about Israel. That is all there is to know about Israel.

www.ussliberty.org

www.giwersworld.org/made-in-alexandria/index.html

www.giwersworld.org/00_files/zion-hit-points.phtml