Posts by Abaddon

45

Holacaust Denier Gets 3 Years In Prison In Austria!

by minimus in

jw
friends

can you believe that "historians" are trying to deny that such an event ever occured??

this guy was getting 300 letters a week because of his anti-jewish stand.

makes me sick!

Abaddon

If Hitler didn't understand International relations, it's funny how he played the brinkmanship game so well he pulled the same routine three times before War was declared, took full advantage of US reluctance to be involved, created yet more treaties of convenience to buy himself time on the Western front, which he than broke (effectively pulling the same trick four times - Austria, Czechoslovakia, Danzig, Eastern Poland), and created links with his only potential allies in Japan.

As for him not knowing about the Holocaust, the fact is BEFORE the war he said if Jews caused war again (the propoganda was they'd started WWI) he would wipe them out. I can find the quote; it's quite unambiguous and was repeated on other occasions.

It is also very true to say that if Hitler had allowed MORE free reign to his General and not been such a control freak, Germany may have won the war before the US got involved, of have fared far better after the US did get involved.

45

Holacaust Denier Gets 3 Years In Prison In Austria!

by minimus in

jw
friends

can you believe that "historians" are trying to deny that such an event ever occured??

this guy was getting 300 letters a week because of his anti-jewish stand.

makes me sick!

Abaddon

jstalin

This ignores the responsibility of the acting agent.

No it doesn't. No where do I address the punishment for acting on such propoganda as such punishments are not being dusputed here. What is being disputed is whether punishment for propoganda designed to lead others to violence is appropriate..

I can say all day that I hate Jews or blacks or white folks from Michigan, but I'm not killing them. If some wanker decides he likes what I say and decides to kill someone, the killer is responsible for the murder. Placing blame on what someone says and not on the actual murderer's act is the same logic that the Nazis themseleves used.

The murderer and the one inciting to murder both have responsibilities.

"Hitler ordered me to do it! It wasn't my fault! I was only following orders!" No, it doesn't work that way. We all have ultimate responsibility for our actions.

Yes, I agree we all have ulitinate responsibility for our actions. The one following the orders, the one giving the orders, and the ones creating propoganda ro create an environment where such orders could be carried out.

That is why propogandists connected with the Rwandan genocide have been sent to jail, even if they never said 'hit that man' or weilded a machette themselves.

Saying something negative about a person doesn't harm that person.

Simplistic spherical objects. If nothing results from saying something negative about a person then they are unharnmed by such speech. You also miss out an important factor. This isn't "Monty Lovering is a bad boy". This is, ultimately "Jews are stinking evil scum who deserve what they get as they're trying to take over the world".

This isn't some personal assault based on something someone may or may have not done. This is race-based hate speech direcetd against millions of innocent people not even known to the author of that speech, based on fantasy, speech that not only CAN lead to violence against Jews, BUT DOES LEAD TO VIOLENCE AGAINST JEWS.

Basic human rights don't include the right not to be offended.

This is not about offence.

Draw silly pictures of Allah, Jesus and Abraham in a circle jerk for all I care. No Westerner has killed a Muslim because some Dane drew a picture of the prop[het Mo' with a fuse coming out of his turban.

This is about how some forms of speech lead to violence or injustice against others.

Whereas there are those whom Irving has given lectures to, there are those who consume his writings, there are those who are members of groups he has contacts with... they have acted violently based upon the lies in his lectures and writings.

Once we squelch speech, we only make it more attractive to engage in. I never considered burning a flag, but if it was illegal here, I would promptly burn one, just because it is a violation of my natural rights to restrict my speech where no one is harmed by it.

Again, you seem to be mixing up acts which harm no one (flag burning) and acts which can reasonably lead to violence (inciting racial hate). Chalk and cheese old chap. There's a direct link between Irving and violent neo-Nazi's, what else do you want?

And STILL not a single word from anyone about how the alternative (letting scum like Irving spread their propoganda) unavoidably infringes the freedoms of the group targetted by such propoganda.

Why is everyone so concerned about the freedom of speech of people like Irving and are not even willing to answer questions regarding the rights of groups whose freedoms are infringed by such speech?

Pleasuredome

I love the fact he was hoist by his own petard. Again - the UK court case in which he was so severelty criticised by the court was actually a libel action he bought against someone who called him a holocaust revisionist, LOL.

He's a nasty, racist old man whose hate has financially ruined him and turned him into a pariah amongst all but those who hang upon his words. He was banned from entering Austria, he broke the ban in additon to breaking the law back then. I don't know if it was hubris or a misguided attempt to bolster sales of his books by getting publicity. As I mentioned earlier, entering court he was making damn sure people got a good pack shot of Hitler's War. This book in itself is a good indication of his true atttitudes. Later editions of the book have had all mention of the Holocaust and Death Camps removed. And he denies he's a revisionist! LOL.

45

Holacaust Denier Gets 3 Years In Prison In Austria!

by minimus in

jw
friends

can you believe that "historians" are trying to deny that such an event ever occured??

this guy was getting 300 letters a week because of his anti-jewish stand.

makes me sick!

Abaddon

slimboyfat

His speech IS incitement to harm others NOW. He is essentially a propoganda officer for violent neo-nazis. The entire philosophy his revisonism supports ends in violence. There is no 'Shiny Happy National Socialism' movement; Irving is directly associated with people who support the use of terror in Germany to destabilize the given social and political system to pave the way to a new NS revolution.

There are similar links between Irving and violent neo-Nazis as there are between the mad Muslim Priest with a hook (jailed in the UK last week) and violent Jihadies.

Don't fall for the neo-nazis pleas for freedom of speech; the speech they seek to defend is not protected as free speech as it is as important a part of the call to violence as "Kick the Yids in!". Don't be fooled that this is about 'closing history books'; the revisonists paint it as such, but scholarly research is not curtailled by this, nor is discussion. What is prevented is LYING.

What is restricted, in the two countries where Hitler and Naziism spawned, is denying the past as to do so attracts the disaffected ignoramouses of the present. There are still groups that would overthrow the German goverment by any means possible and restore a 'Greater Germany' where Hitler was a secular saint and non-Aryans were 'cleansed'. Do some research.

And do remember, they might whine about their infringed rights, but people with such politics would only give you the right to kiss the sole of their boot as they stamp on your face.

35

Mormons: Bedrock of a Faith Is Jolted

by AMNESIAN in

compare: "1914" and "no-blood" bedrock doctrines of the wbts:

http://www.latimes.com/news/local/la-me-mormon16feb16,0,5561316.story?coll=la-home-headlines

from the time he was a child in peru, the mormon church instilled in jose a. loayza the conviction that he and millions of other native americans were descended from a lost tribe of israel that reached the new world more than 2,000 years ago.. .

Abaddon

Ocmbr

I give you the straight dope and don't treat you like a simpleton or a child. You might prefer molley-coddling but I see no good in it. If I 'tweak you nose' through caustic humour, realise I'd do this to your face, and I often do it to try and get you to stop using the thought stopping techniques you unconciously resort to when your beliefs are challenged. I'm also not going to lie about what I think about some beliefs; I did enough of that as a Dubbie.

I've made it clear I don't think that this is about brains, indeed tried to make it clear belief is largely about HOW you have been trained to think - or trained NOT to think. At the end of the day if I didn't care I wouldn't do it. It's not about what I get out of this, it's about what I hope you might get out of changing the way you analyse facts, as currently your programming only allows you to come up with the answers you're 'meant to', rather than a genuine examination of the availabe facts.

At the end of the day I guess our already decided upon worldview will inform what evidence we accept or reject and what particular spin we put on it.

True.

But if your worldview stems from reliable rules about what is a fact, what is falacious, what is reliable evidence, what is a decent method of scientific enquiry ... if ones worldview is based on things like that, then there is an immediate link between fact and worldview. It is a worldview based on external evidences which in turn provide more detail for the worldview.

A worldview of 'if BOM says x and science says y I will believe x, or try to attack y without using the same criteria to attack x' is a self-supporting world view based on INTERNAL factors. It's got nothing to do with right or wrong in the real world.

Ask yourself, if BOM was being tried in a court of law, would it be found true, untrue or (to give the option available in Scots law) unproven?

I'm in a position of defense which automatically reinforces kinship with what is being attacked.

If you're aware of this, fight it. This is why I am so direct - I can see you are increasingly aware of HOW and WHY you react. Being aware of WHY you do things is very important as it means one has to be more honest with ourselves. Realising we are being asked to think in ways that can lead to intellectual dishonesty is an important part of disengagement from a high control group.

Having your viewpoint attacked doesn't mean you are right, yet you admit yourself being put on the defensive reinforces your beliefs! If you're smart enough to figure that out, you're nearing an important step.

45

Holacaust Denier Gets 3 Years In Prison In Austria!

by minimus in

jw
friends

can you believe that "historians" are trying to deny that such an event ever occured??

this guy was getting 300 letters a week because of his anti-jewish stand.

makes me sick!

Abaddon

So, no one supporting Irving's 'freedom of speech' has any comment about;

the unavoidable restriction of freedoms to those targetted by his speech? What about their freedom ladies and gentlemen?
the fact that there are recognised restrictions on freedoms of speech when they can result in harm?
why it's okay to infringe human rights to defend the West, but not to defend Jews?

sixsixsixtynine

He did not deny that Jews were killed,

No one said he did. He did say;

I don't think there was any overall Reich policy to kill the Jews. If there was, they would have been killed and there would not be now so many millions of survivors.

This is a LIE. It is not an opinion. Just as a physicist saying g=3.4 m/s/s at sea-level would be lying, and demonstrably so, so to someone making this statement is lying, and demonstrably so. If is not a protected freedom of speech, as lying about facts for gain is fraud, not freedom of speech.

Don't think I am opposed to freedom of speech; I just think those who apply it to Holocaust denial are missing the point. For example; as a student journalist he claimed the media were run by the Jews, called Hitler 'Herr Hitler', supported apartheid in South AFrica, and was quoted as describing himself as a 'mild facist'. Now, all of this is freedom of speech, valid expression of opinion, even if it makes him a scumbag.

Here's a poem he wrote for his daughter;

I am a Baby Aryan
Not Jewish or Sectarian
I have no plans to marry an
Ape or Rastafarian.

That's freedom of speech. Makes him contemptable, but it's his freedom.

A quote from a speech referencing the UK's first black news anchor, Trevor McDonald;

I am not anti-coloured, take it from me; nothing pleases me more than when I arrive at an airport, or a station, or a seaport, and I see a coloured family there — the black father, the black wife and the black children.... When I see these families arriving at the airport I am happy, and when I see them leaving at London airport I am happy.
But if there is one thing that gets up my nose, I must admit, it is this — the way…the thing is when I am down in Torquay and I switch on my television and I see one of them reading our news to us. It is our news and they’re reading it to me. If I was a chauvinist I would say I object even to seeing women reading our news to us.
...But now we have women reading out news to us. If they could perhaps have their own news which they were reading to us, I suppose [laughter], it would be very interesting.
For the time being, for a transitional period I'd be prepared to accept that the BBC should have a dinner-jacketed gentleman reading the important news to us, following by a lady reading all the less important news, followed by Trevor McDonald giving us all the latest news about the muggings and the drug busts...

He is perfectly at liberty to tell people what a misogynistic racist piece of shit he is.

All of this is different from LYING, DECEPETION & FRAUD, for example;

I don't see any reason to be tasteful about Auschwitz. It's baloney, it's a legend. Once we admit the fact that it was a brutal slave labour camp and large numbers of people did die, as large numbers of innocent people died elsewhere in the war, why believe the rest of the baloney?

I say quite tastelessly, in fact, that more women died on the back seat of Edward Kennedy's car at Chappaquiddick than ever died in a gas chamber in Auschwitz.
Oh, you think that's tasteless, how about this? There are so many Auschwitz survivors going around, in fact the number increases as the years go past, which is biologically very odd to say the least. Because I'm going to form an Association of Auschwitz survivors, survivors of the Holocaust and other liars, or the ASSHOLS.

... this is lying with a deliberate end in mind; recruitment of people to his 'cause' of anti-Semetic, nazi-apologism, Holocaust denial. And the end product of those causes is VIOLENCE.

rather he disputed major parts of accepted history (i.e. gas chambers at Auschwitz,

He said there weren't any when he knew the Germans blew them up before Auschwitz was captured.

how much Hitler knew about the killings, etc.).

He redefines a word used by Hitler in speeches about dealing with the Jews from 'kill' to 'stamp-out', when that word has always meant 'kill'.

These are not matters of opinion. They are matters of fact.

Why is it okay for other professionals who lie for gain to be punished legally, but not okay to punish someone legally when (in a professional capacity) they lie about the deaths of millions of people for gain? Why won't anyone deal with this point?

He also admitted that he no longer believed many of the things he said, in the 1989 speech that he was tried for.

The guy has lied in court (in Canada) before. This is the judgement from the UK case, which leaves no doubt about his truthfullness or lack of it;

Irving has for his own ideological reasons persistently and deliberately misrepresented and manipulated historical evidence; that for the same reasons he has portrayed Hitler in an unwarrantedly favourable light, principally in relation to his attitude towards and responsibility for the treatment of the Jews; that he is an active Holocaust denier; that he is anti-Semitic and racist, and that he associates with right-wing extremists who promote neo-Nazism

The court apparently believed he was lying again.

Even on the steps of the court he was still refusing to describe the deaths of Jews in WWII as the Holocaust, as he persists in his revisonist belief the Holocaust has been used as a money making scheme by Jews(he calls it a 'brand name'), so one can't blame the court for treating him like the lying scumbag he is.

I don't agree with his views on the subject, but I don't find it anymore offensive that the bullshit history I was taught in school.

When did you get told a lie at school comparable to "six million people didn't die, those who did died of disease rather than gassing, no one planned it, especially not Hitler, and the Jews had it coming and are still trying to control the world"? What school did you go to!

glitter

But those who accept this nonsense already must have some pretty extreme views toward the Nazis and Jews.

Incitement is incitement. The fact some people are more vulnurable to it than others is not the point.

He's not "purposely espousing lies", as he most certainly believes what he speaks and writes.

So, if a Muslim SINCERELY advocates the deaths of Christians due to his beliefs, using lies to attract an audience of likely supporteres, that's okay? And you seem to be happy to accept his good character, despite evidence he has none (based on accuracy of previous statements to courts).

I don't agree with his beliefs, but I think it's dangerous to "close the history books", and not let anyone have a differing opinion from the "accepted" version of events

Unfortunately if you believe this is about differing opinions you have fallen for the story Nazi revisonists use to justify their denial of fact. There is, nor has there been, nor will there be any limit of scholarly research into WWII and the Holocaust. The Holocaust revisonists make it out that this is what it is about. It isn't.

What this is about is stopping people lying about established fact so as to deceieve others and get them involved in anti-Semetism.

minimus

It is irresponsible to be a "historian" purposely espousing lies that do have an effect upon young and older minds like neo-nazis. Adding fuel to their fire is wrong.

Yup.

MungoBaobab

Maybe we should just round up all the holocaust deniers into some kind of camp so we can concentrate them all in one area. That wouldn't be the least bit hypocrital.

Why not answer the points I made and show me what he does is a justified use of freedom of speech? I know sarcasm is easy, how about a little structured debate?

45

Holacaust Denier Gets 3 Years In Prison In Austria!

by minimus in

jw
friends

can you believe that "historians" are trying to deny that such an event ever occured??

this guy was getting 300 letters a week because of his anti-jewish stand.

makes me sick!

Abaddon

I would disagree with the assesment that this is free speech.

Point one;

This is expensive speech. And as with any hate speech - whether directed at 'the West', 'America', 'Blacks', whilst you might argue those saying it have a freedom to say it, what of those who PAY for that freedom?

Are we going to defend one person's freedom of speech if it means their speech will unavoidably restrict the right to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness of those targetted by that 'freedom' of speech? What about the victim?

Point two;

It is agreed that shouting 'Fire!" in a crowded theatre is not an exercise of free speech. As the lies and apologisms of Holocaust deniers and Nazi apologists are quoted the next day on websites representing active violent anti-Semetic gangs, some of whom enage in terrorist activity as well as other race-motivated attacks, there is as direct a link to harm as shouting 'Fire!' in a crowded theatre. Based on imparted data others act in a way liable to lead to the injury of third parties.

Many happily accept that some human rights must be infringed to protect the West against terror. The 'intellectual' fire-brands forming the philosophy and agendas of violent Islamist gangs are identical to Irving in their importance to violent Islamic groups. Many would gladly see the incitement and agitation caused by such people nutralised by imprisonment. The fact that such action would infringe freedom of speech is considered acceptable in view of the risk such people represent.

If such infringement of freedom of speech is okay to defend the West, why not to defend Jews?

Personally, I feel such things as Guantanamo Bay represent things going too far... but some people there are as 'innocent', if not more so, than Irving - and much of the world feels their human rights are not being respected. If you support such actions in the name of the 'War on Terror', you can't be consistent in your attitudes if you maintain Irving's in jail unjustly.

Point four;

Just as with any group using 'toxic thinking', once you've accepted the first few 'facts' (the West hate Muslims, the Jews control the world (if you're a Muslim fundy), there wasn't a Holocaust and they had it coming as they were taking the world over and they're doing it again (if you're a neo-Nazi)), you are ultimately lead to a conclusion which supports violent action against the target group of the hate speech. These are sets of beliefs that can cannot support themselves independently. They are packages of beliefs that act as a call to violence. Those like Irving, or the mad Muslism Priest with a hook that got chucked in jail in the UK last week, they sell the package. They're the heart of the tumour. You can't ignore them.

Point five;

It is not credible to believe the nazi-apologists attempting to present themselves as credible professionals don't know the effect their words have - those Muslims who incite violence know the desired outcome of their actions. The only real difference is the Nazi's spin their message more, make it more palitable. Fity years more experience at PR.The violent Muslims don't spin, LOL. But, when you get down to it, ff the government protects the stupid by putting warnings on cigatettes, why can't they protect the stupid by putting those that would mislead them to harmful ends in jail?

For me, if someone acting in a professional capacity by their words or actions causes harm or is liable to cause harm (politician, doctor, plumber), they are legally responsible. If a accountant would go to jail for lying to people about the past so as to get them as a client, why can't a person presenting themsleves as a professional go to jail for lying to people about the past so as to attract their allegence?

Point six (important);

We are all on the 'same side' here, this is just a discusssion.

45

Holacaust Denier Gets 3 Years In Prison In Austria!

by minimus in

jw
friends

can you believe that "historians" are trying to deny that such an event ever occured??

this guy was getting 300 letters a week because of his anti-jewish stand.

makes me sick!

Abaddon

nicolaou

I don't disagree with your assessment of this guy, in fact I agree with you that he got his "come-uppance for spreading Holocaust denial, i.e. spreading lies." My only question is to whether he should be defined as a criminal for expressing his views - as offensive as they are.
The Watchtower preach that 6 billion men, women and children will soon be rightly killed by god, a view I have come to regard as offensive in the extreme but do I think that Watchtower leaders should be jailed .. for publishing . . their . . views . . worldwide...?
Hang on, I need to think this over.....

I think lies about something that did happen are worse than lies about things that could happen.

"we will make you millions <with small print>" is a fair comment. So to is "the end is near <with small print>". They couldn't be proven when spoken, are couched in ways that will ultimately evade responsibility. They're opinions.

But 'there was no Holocaust', could be proven to be a wilful rejection of fact when spoken - it's not like there's any real change in the evidenec for the millions who died in the Holocaust in the last 17 years (since he said it). It was couched in unambiguous terms. It's deception, or incompetence whilst acting in a professional capacity.

Different, or so I think.

glitter

Unless he was actually inciting others to commit crimes against Jewish people or others - then he was just expressing an incorrect and distasteful opinion, and it's ridiculous that the penalty for that is 10 years and that he got 3 years.

If you do any research into Holocaust denial, you'll find that such claims are incitement to those who accept them. It is a whole chain of spurious claims; that the Holocaust didn't happen/was vastly smaller, that it wasn't planned, it was as much due to disease and malnutrition as gassing, that the Jews deserved it for (variously) being Communists/controlling big business/trying to run the world clandestinely.

Those accepting one part are as trapped as anyone accepting one part of the chain of lies that keep any cultic group, or group characterised by toxic thinking, going. The first leads you to the last. You accept the first few and then suddenly Jews are wicked evil people trying to control the world, and 'something should be done!!!' It's an entire hateful philosophy that would ultimately sanction another attempt to wipe out Jews (or in its mutated forms, other groups), given room to live and breed.

All this coverage of the prosecution is just free publicity for Holocaust deniers - I wonder how many Austrians (and other nationalities) looked into the anti-Holocaust "evidence" due to all this.

If they want to hate people badly enough, they'd have found a reason anyway. Why not attack (legally, using the system) those who would gladly attack the group they are opposed to by any means they could get away with - and who do, many times each year. Anti-semtism, including violence is a problem. Ignoring those who make it worse is not a solution, 'Final' or otherwise.

theinfamousone

Beautiful, good for you.

45

Holacaust Denier Gets 3 Years In Prison In Austria!

by minimus in

jw
friends

can you believe that "historians" are trying to deny that such an event ever occured??

this guy was getting 300 letters a week because of his anti-jewish stand.

makes me sick!

Abaddon

This isn't about freedom of speech. This is about freedom to deceive. If a plumber or doctor can go to jail for deception, why not another person making himself available in a professional capacity based upon his knowledge?

Millions of Jews were killed in an industrial process planned from the early days of WWII, if not before. Fact.

Irving, having been branded a holocaust revisionist, anti-Semite and racist by the Courts in the UK (in a case HE took to Court, LOL), now gets his come-uppance for spreading Holocaust denial, i.e. spreading lies. How fricking wonderful!

Three years... nice start to retirement for him (he's 69).

He tried to get off it by admitting he was mistaken and now he accepts there were gas chambers and that millions of Jews died. Court wasn't convinced. I saw him on the steps of the Court today on TV. He was holding his book (Hitler's War) so you could see its front cover. Nice, very commercialy aware...

He claimed he wasn't a Holocaust expert - this has never stopped him acting like he was one. He also (when asked if he agreed the Holocaust HAD happened) said "I don't like brand names". By this he really damned himself.

On one hand he is saying 'Oh, yes, it happened' (to try and get off), whilst out of his mouth come the language used in the tired accusations that Zionists, Jews, whoever, whatever, have used the Holocaust like a commerical brand, as a money makiing scheme - the accusations any stinking neo-Nazi/Nazi apologist will make if you give them enough time... a liar, lying to avoid punishment for lying, tripping over his own lies by using the same words used to describe the Holocaust by other liars whilst saying "Oooo, sorry Judge, I know better now". What a loser.

23

A question for my atheist friends.

by PaNiCAtTaCk in

i can certainly understand why many turn atheist but what would you tell your 5 year old daughter who was conscience but dying on a hospital bed looking into your eyes?

would you be inclined to give her some hope of a better place even though you didnt believe it yourself?

thanks in advance!

Abaddon

Depends on the five-year old.

At that point I'd try and do what I saw as good for them.

35

Mormons: Bedrock of a Faith Is Jolted

by AMNESIAN in

compare: "1914" and "no-blood" bedrock doctrines of the wbts:

http://www.latimes.com/news/local/la-me-mormon16feb16,0,5561316.story?coll=la-home-headlines

from the time he was a child in peru, the mormon church instilled in jose a. loayza the conviction that he and millions of other native americans were descended from a lost tribe of israel that reached the new world more than 2,000 years ago.. .

Abaddon

Qcmbr

All I want is your evidence of Narnia

Are you mad? It's children's fiction written as a Christian allegory. At no point have I said there is real evidence for Narnia. I HAVE said that Narnia has "plenty of proofs if you want to interpret the evidences in a certain way", but the quoted sentence is your own.

You made this claim about the beliefs of the LDS. And the "evidences" are? A book without reputable provenance that is claimed to be inspired even in absense of any proof.

You're ignoring the FACT that the only difference between Joe Smith and C S Lewis is that one author admitted he made it up and the other claimed he didn't.

In terms of proof, as in physical evdience. there is as much evidence for Lehi and the wonderful imaginary pre-Colombian world of Joe Smith as for Edmund, Lucy, Susan and Peter.

The fact you can't see this validate all my comments about your ability to think critically/runny cheese head.

The LDS church claims its the only right one,

Yes, like many other cults.

so it couldn't possibly be a niche IF it was right as it would need to fulfill Daniel's prophecy ergo - not a niche but clearly dominant

But you can't prove it is right, therefore it is indistinguishable from other niche cults in all respects including it's claim to being right - a claim ALL cults have.

Legend of the white, bearded God who would return.

Not proof. It is not certain this myth was interpretted this was by the Aztecs until the Spanish came; Quetzalcoatl is increasingly identified as Venus and thus talk in prophecy of 'appearing in the West' is likey a reference to the calander. Also, Quetzalcoatl is in pre-Colombian art hundreds of years before Jesus. In any case, any claim about this legend being based upon Jesus visit to North America (ya know, inbetween going to Glastonbury and taking Mary Magdelene to France to found a dynasty there ) ignores the fact that Jesus was as white as Yassar Arafat.

Wall murals showing white skinned people and dark skinned people

Haven't you ever heard of 'ebony and ivory work together in perfect harmony'? LOL. Again, this isn't proof. It is nasty racist nonsense to imply that any Israelites who made it to the America as described in the Book of Mormon were white. They weren't.

Possible baptismal fonts found (maybe just a jacuzzi:)

Possible is not proof.

Statues of bearded people.

This is not evidence that the BOM is accurate!

Records written on metals (In both New and Ancient world)

I assume you don't mean the Gilden Plates, as they ain't proof unless you can show me. I'm glad you bought up metallurgy though, as accodring to the Book of Mormon steel was in use by the ancient inhabitants of America; thius would be a BIG suprise to them!!! No proof whatsoever.

Evidence of horses before Europeans arrived.

This isn't desputed by anyone; they died out prior to 10,000 years bp, although relic populations may have persisted until 2,500 year bp. Either way, it is not evidence that the BOM is accurate!

Appearance of fully formed cultures.

This is not evidence that the BOM is accurate!

Tree of Life motif in Central America.

This is not evidence that the BOM is accurate!

Usage of the symbol of cross predating Europeans.

This is not evidence that the BOM is accurate!

Legends of a people who came by boat.

This is not evidence that the BOM is accurate!

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pre-Columbian_trans-oceanic_contact

Los Lunas Decalog - hebrew style inscription found in Americas

Interesting but inconsistent with any claim made in the book of Mormon, the language of the claimed Israelite immigrants, and the 'Reformed Egyptian' the book of Mormon was claimed to have been written in. It is plausable evidence, like a few other things, of pre-Colombian contact between the New World and the Old World. But everyone has already agreed there WAS pre-Colombian contact! This is not evidence that the BOM is accurate!

Wheels - Toys found with wheels . BOM mentions chariots. Most argued against wheels for Americas.

Mmmmm... there's no proof of practical applications of the wheel (like wheel transport) prior to Colombus. The Olmecs seemd to have discovered the wheel and used it as a toy, much as the Chinese did with gunpowder... This is not evidence that the BOM is accurate!

Usage of cement in some settlements.

Cement was developed several times in different places using suitable local materials. This is not evidence that the BOM is accurate!

Usage of chiasmus in BOM
Usage of hebrew idomatic style (O that thou wouldst be like this valley)

I sayest unto thou Qcmbr, doth thou not know that if this Joe Smith a charlatan was, Hebrew style is like unto the play of a child to imitate! Yay, I sayest, as Hebrew style is like unto childsplay to imitate, if Joe Smith a charlatan was, he would have found it like unto a child's play to imitate.

There's chiasmus and idomatic style for you; does this mean I am inspired of god too...? Such things prove nothing... whilst the absense of any proof of a Semitic language being used by established cultures in the Americas is yet another glaring piece of evidence pointing to the contrived nature of Joe Smiths book; he just subscribed to the theories of the time and supposed Native American languages were related to Semetic languages!!

Identification of different authours of BOM by computer analysis.

Ah! So more than one person faked it? Maybe several had a hand in coming up with ways to turn the ideas expressed in View of the Hebrews, a book written by Ethan Smith (no kin to Joe) into an 'inspired book'. You do know about that book I suppose? Written 5 years BEFORE the Book of Mormon? Maybe the Book of Mormon is inspired... of Ethan...!

Asiatic combat styles and political systems described.

Please specify how this could be proof.

An accurate consistent description of the effects of guerilla warfare and how it was defeated.

Anyone familiar with the War of Independence could create such a fictional account. This is not evidence that the BOM is accurate!

DNA evidence that backs up the BOM assertion that the Americas were populated by Asiatics mainly.

Mmmmm... of course, that BOM assertion has changed over the years. Just as 'generation' has changed beyond all recognition in Dubbie doctrine, so to has 'principle' changed in Mormom doctrine. Before there was evidence to show the Americas were largely populated from Asia, 'principle' meant 'leading genetic contributors'. Nowadays there is no evidence for any Semetic ancestry in any First Nation people, 'principle' means something different. How convenient! How like a cult! If what you used to say was wrong, change the meaning of the words used so you are no longer wrong!!!

P.S. Of course to the LDS non of these mean a fig since this isn't where we are expected to get our proof.

No, of course not.

Since when do leaders of a religious cult direct their members to think independently and only believe in things that have reasonable scientific evidence?

They tell you to accept it out of faith - just like every bunch of charlatans since the first shaman figured out manipulating memners of his tribe was a far easier life than suporting himself.

Double Edge

As a student of American history, let me say that the mormons weren't different in their 'status' belief of black people than any mainstream American Christian church in the 19th and early 20th century.

Correct. Almost all churches were deeply racist, with many backing the ethnic cleansing of the West with rubbish like 'Manifest Destiny' as justification.

I'd say from my reading of the LDS history, the 'flavour' of LDS that became predominant was intrinsically racist to a far, far greater depth (no priests) than many churches, and persisted in this for getting on for a decade longer than most churches dared. Other versions of LDS did not become as racist. There are definately passages in the book of Mormon that show some equality is possible;

"[the Lord] denieth none that come unto him, black and white, bond and free, male and female; and he remembereth the heathen; and all are alike unto God, both Jew and Gentile". (Second Nephi 26:33).

However, it ain't all that peachy, and as you point out, is typical of the religionists of the day - catch the last word of thios quote;

"O my brethren, I fear that unless ye shall repent of your sins that their skins will be whiter than yours, when ye shall be brought with them before the throne of God. Wherefore, a commandment I give unto you, which is the word of God, that ye revile no more against them because of the darkness of their skins; neither shall ye revile against them because of their filthiness..." (Book of Jacob 3:8-9).

You ask;

Why bring something up that's 'ancient' and hasn't been a doctrine for a generation or so? That too is either ignorant, stupid or silly. my 2 cents..... continue the carnage....

1978 - 2006 is just about a generation.

Just as the mealy mouthed WTBS never apologise when they revise doctrine, even if people suffered as a result of the old doctrine, so to have the LDS never apologised for their old doctrine to those who suffered as a result of it.

If someone is claiming that their faith is the real deal, the truth, yadda-yadda, highlighting the doctrinal changes that show their 'truth' is just as variable and subject to revision as any other 'truth' (and therefore it's impossible for them to claim it is absolute truth) is obviously pertinent.

You're doing the equivalent of suggesting the revision of transplantation or vaccination policy by the WTBS is not usable in criticising them as it was too long ago.