pomegranate said: How do you KNOW that it is a Jew?
You're right.......It's probably another Nazi he's ready to shoot..........gimme a break.
be it illegal to deny the holocaust?
by comforter 71 Replies latest jw friends
-
-
roybatty
They also could be pictures of those who starved to death because the allies bombed all the supply lines coming into the main roads that supplied the camps.
Hey Rizo,
Where are all the pictures of the starving German soldiers who guarded the camp? Looks like the German soldiers in each picture look pretty healthy to me.
And what if you're right, that most of these people died from disease and not the gas chamber? Is it any less of a crime to imprison a group of people and let them die of starvation and disease?
-
jws
Out of curiosity, how would these laws on false histories be applied to "historical" movies? Take for example one of my favorites: Braveheart. Forget all the details, but I know there are quite a few historical errors. The queen in the movie, for instance, would have no way been a contemporary of William Wallace. Similar liberties were taken with other historical characters.
Would such a movie be allowed to play in France, given it "revises" history or presents a "false" history? Or is it considered a work of fiction from the start? Are they required to put visible disclaimers at the beginning of the film (not the barely readable disclaimer at the end of the credits) that say something to the affect of all dialog and some events being fictionalized?
Though thouroughly enjoying such films, I somewhat have a problem with them in that people sometimes remember their history based on films. While, myself included, can't remember offhand all the historical facts out of history books, I can remember the movie quite vividly. And that contributes to misconceptions. Yes, it's fiction and we all know that. But sometimes we get things stuck in our head and don't remember where we got that notion. Thus such films can be as misleading as a book with false facts written as non-fiction.
As for this debate that's going on....
I think the important thing here is that some very bad things happened in Germany during WW2. To deny these things is to fly in the face of victims. What if somebody 50 years from now tries to tell you the World Trade Centers collapsed on their own? Or that nobody was hurt or that the buildings were empty? B.S. It's a slap in the face to anybody who lost somebody in that tragedy. It doesn't sound like Jim is saying nothing happened however.
I don't know whether 5 or 6 million really died. In a way, it doesn't matter. There were far too many victims, whatever the exact number is. And those people were victims of things that should not have been done to them. They should not have been dehumanized. They should not have had their rights taken away from them in the 1930's. There should have been no mass-roundups, deporations, seperation of families, exile, murders, slavery, or experiments.
But what if the numbers are exagerated? What if some of the crimes were not committed to the extent we think they were? What if some of the worst horrors were a very small percentage or localized to a few madmen? What if more died of starvation and sickness and less died of gassing than we currently think (still the fault of the Nazis for not feeding/caring for them)?
I don't know whether these questions have merit or not. But closing the door to discussion and investigation and vehemently denying all criticism sounds a bit too much like the way a certain religious organization I used to belong to handled things. Don't discuss it. You can only see it our way. And if you question us, we will go after you.
We know, or at least I've read documentation on how the JWs have exagerated the numbers of their own victims. In fact, at the rate they were exagerating, they probably have 5 or 6 million by now too.
Let's at least keep an open mind to the possibility that maybe some of what we accept as fact could be wrong. Or that some of our perceptions are not entirely accurate. History is usually never completely settled.
What was the final total for the WTC? Somewhere in the 3000 range. First reports were as high as 7000. Perhaps investigation may prove there were only 4 million casualties during WW2. Is it wrong to investigate the facts?
The only thing that is wrong, in my opinion, is to try to exhonerate those responsible. If you are trying to minimalize the guilt of the Nazis or trying to stir up hatred towards Jews, then finding exagerated numbers still doesn't matter. There were still far too many killed by racists. (ANY is actually too many)
But if your interest is to merely discover and present the truth, with no judgement, why not? If some exageration is found, it still doesn't wipe out the great inhumanity. We should not be afraid of it and I don't believe it lessens any of the horror we feel at what happened. Any questioning or attempt to reduce the horrors is often viewed as anti-semitism. I have no doubts that this is often the case. But the two need not go hand-in-hand.
It is appalling that people are accused of anti-semitism if they say anything that in any way even hints that some things might not be as bad as they are portrayed.
-
pomegranate
You're right.......It's probably another Nazi he's ready to shoot..........gimme a break.
You think only Jews were shot by Nazi's in this fashion? You think only Jews were dumped into ditches by Nazi's in this fashion? I ask again, by this photo ALONE, can you conclusively say that the one being shot is a Jew?
YOU CANNOT.
You're bloody ignorant, and you have NO CLUE that this is a Jew. You have been show this picture and TOLD "this is a Jew" and you accept it WITHOUT proof or substantiation.
You don't deserve a break.
Edited by - pomegranate on 19 November 2002 16:52:9
-
pomegranate
Where are all the pictures of the starving German soldiers who guarded the camp? Looks like the German soldiers in each picture look pretty healthy to me.
Duh. Food in storage goes to prison personel, food in storage does NOT go to prisoners.
And what if you're right, that most of these people died from disease and not the gas chamber? Is it any less of a crime to imprison a group of people and let them die of starvation and disease?
Typhus was being treated by Zyklon, food shortage didn't become an issue till the end of the war. Cutting off ALL food into Germany was OFFICIAL USA policy. Go read history. And other threads where it is proven already. -
pomegranate
I don't know whether 5 or 6 million really died. In a way, it doesn't matter.
Yeah it does matter. Because if something isn't true IT'S A LIE. If a lie has been fabricated, then SOMEBODY IS BENEFITTING from that lie. Lie's are told to benefit the source of the lie. It's ALL ABOUT MONEY.
-
Crazy151drinker
Prom?
Typhus was being treated by Zyklon, food shortage didn't become an issue till the end of the war. Cutting off ALL food into Germany was OFFICIAL USA policy. Go read history. And other threads where it is proven already
Where do you come up with this madness?? Zyklon B to treat Typhus? Well I guess it worked too well as it got rid of the Jews as well as the Typhus. I sure dont remember hearing about the Nazi's treating themselves with Zyklon B...hmmmm I wonder why?????? And whats this crap about cutting off all the food into Germany??? Are you saying we should feed the people who are trying to kill us? Should we have sent them tanks and planes?? What about fuel? I know, lets give them the A-bombs so we can even it out! You say your a pacifist but yet you stick up for the Nazi's who had to be some of the cruelest bastards in History. The same Nazi's that started a World War that killed over 50 MILLION People. You are such a great Pacifist. Acording to the Geniva Convention, all prisoners are supposed to be fed. You didnt see the U.S. (who you so continually slam as some evil regime) starve the German and Italian prisoners. Your attempt to legitamize their actions is pathetic. You make tons of sense Prom, Stop the killing but Starve the Prisoners.....and blame it all on the the U.S. (since we started the war anyways right???).
-
Crazy151drinker
Sargon,
Ghandi's pacifist resistence was in no means 'winning a war'. There was no war. He was sticking up for the rights of his people, the same as Martin Luther King. Yes, the British killed many Indians but in no way was it a war. Do you think Ghandi's tactics would have defeated say Hitler? or Stalin? Ceaser? Hannible? Of course not. Hitler would have rounded them all up and gassed them just like he did the Jews. Ghandi's accomplishments were indeed great, but he did not defeat anyone. On an Economic note, the English (although they were quite cruel) help form India into what it is today.
Prom,
Pacifism a practice? A practice that causes more death. So you would just sit there and watch the Jews get killed?? Thats sick. Your not a Pacifist-your a coward. If you want to see your family whiped out and do nothing about it then you are a fool. But thats ok, I guess it's just survival of the fittest once again.
-
Crazy151drinker
JJ,
Please explain the Pics of the Starving Kids. Are you saying there Jewish parents forgot to feed them? The pics of the massive graves, did those people die from evil Lice?? I guess the Zyclon B didnt work eh??
The Sick SS Bastards kept RECORDS of the people they killed! Hello! Are you saying they where lying???
Wake up JJ
Personally, I dont give a shit if you Love the Jews, Hate the Jews, are a Jew, etc...etc...etc... The problem is with your Denial of the Tragedy, or trying to deflate it by saying that it wasnt that bad.
Edited by - crazy151drinker on 19 November 2002 17:47:54
-
ApagaLaLuz
JJ May I invite you to talk to my father, who was an 8 year old boy at the time and saw a man beheaded in the street. No pictures, his own eye witness to it.
Though many atrocities happen everyday worldwide and are not as widely published, I refuse to deny the severity of teh Holocaust