Holocaust Denial, Holocaust Exaggeration, Holocaust discussion

 Pages PREV 1 2 3 4 5 NEXT
 

Blablahb:

At the same time, being a Christian was mandatory for SS membership. Atheism was banned and openly doubting the existance of the Christian god could get you in a lot of trouble. Requirement for the SS was that you were a protestant, catholic or 'believer in god', meaning you were of a remaining Christian denomination.

In addition, the SS operated the SS Reich secret service, part of the SS-Reichssicherheitshauptamt, whose sole purpose was to root out and arrest heretics who questioned Christianity.

I've delved into that stuff rather extensively as I used to hang out in circles of extremist Christians...

You clearly have not delved into the SS even half as much as you claim, because that's very misleading.

What you need to understand is that effectively the 'religion' of Nazi ideology was one with its 'god' as Germany. The Nazis did not much like Christianity because it was international (thus multicultural and multiethnic), espoused values the Nazis neither liked nor respected, and perhaps worst because it formed an alternative ideological power base to their Germany-first ultranationalism.

Christianity was tolerated and occasionally nominally supported basically for two reasons. Firstly, because the Nazis were arch believers in traditionalism and German folk values, and so Christianity being the traditional religion of Germany made it some part of the German psyche. Secondly, on a very practical basis, as over 90% of Germans were Christian it was politically expedient. However, the Nazis in fact spent nearly all their time undermining Christianity, particularly by crippling the power and influence of organised churches. Nazi totalitarianism demanded Christianity was to be utterly subordinated to Germany: including destroying whatever of it was not appropriate to Nazi ideology.

And the SS very much reflected this - it was largely interested in weakening Christianity. It was run secularly - chaplains were banned. The Nazis attempted to install Germanic paganaism through it. And the SS was well known to have directorates dedicated to destroying Christian (especially Catholic) influence, including amongst its members.

It is certainly true that the SS banned atheists. This, however, was not about supporting Christianity - any religion and higher power would do. It was done because the Nazis thought that atheists were dangerous independent thinkers who might put themselves ahead of Germany.

Blablahb:
There doesn't seem to be a link between pro-pally anti-semitism and other forms of racism and that. Also it's rather offtopic, so perhaps it should be dropped.

I do not think that pro-pally anti-semitism exists, or even can exists. It would amount to the argument "I hate these people, hence I want them to have a homeland." Pretty irrational.

Blablahb:
The SS runes were not Germanic runes, but an immitation of those written in the 20th century. The swastika is of course a hinduist symbol with an entirely different meaning. Some claim the nazi swastika was a version of the wolfsangel, but that's untrue. Those look distinctly different, and had been used in coat of arms are other places for centuries.

The Sig rune was indeed one of the Younger Futhark runes. As I understand it is called "sowilo" in that context, was in use before christ, and was indeed a scandinavian (proto-viking) rune.

The swastika is far too widespread to be described as a "hinduist" symbol, it did find use by ancient european civilizations (BCE celtic artifacts display images almost identical to the "modern" version). Regardless of where the Nazis found it (Since it was pretty much everywhere), one thing it most certainly is not: Christian.

Also explain that whole pagan sun worship the children in the Hitler's Young did. You conveniently cut that out of your thorough refutation.

Blablahb:

Driekan:
Yet the occult interest in the Teutonic Knights is about as christian as the interest of Aleister Crowley in the Knights Templar. It's appropriation, not obeisance.

Still, nothing except a Christian movement would bother to create an asociation between themselves and crusaders. This wasn't just "Ha, we got your building now". Himmler wanted the SS to actually resemble a crusading order by confiscating the things such an order typically has

[/quote]

Are you saying, then, that the Ordo Templi Orientis and all other occult groups born from it (Heck there's too many to number) were fascinated with the Knights Templars because they were good, devout christians?

Three letter answer: l.o.l.

People can find power and symbolism in ancient things, especially things that had power and mysticism surrounding it - such as the crusading orders. What a lot of people remember of these orders were the long stories of mystery, occultism, accusations of heresy and witchcraft. When people appropriate these symbols, it generally denotes a fascination with the mystique of it, as opposed to faithful following of the order's original cause.

Blablahb:
Nope. There's a whole host of reasons to restrict information, from copyright considerations to national secrecy to basic decency. I've always agreed with my country's ban on holocaust denial for instance. The supreme court correctly reasoned that holocaust denial is not a form of expression, and considering the circumstances, the sole motive is to grieve others, making it fall under a law that handles 'group insults' which apply for instance if one goes propagating racism or other serious offenses.

Still, only two cases did they ever throw the book at it. Siegfried Verbeeke, a prominent holocaust denier, neonazi propagandist and xenophobe (his case set the jurisprudence in 1995) and the AEL in 2008, which is an Arab supremacist group which engages in hatespeech on a systematic level and had published holocaust denying cartoons on their website.

It's used to ensure such a political rewriting of history can't gain momentum in a way that it may fool many. Which is a good thing, otherwise a country could end up like Japan; "no, we never ever did anything wrong in the war. Nothing at all. Ha, the silly idea that a Japanese could ever commit a crime.... hilarious".

On the bit about copyright protection... You must have a very faint awareness of how copyright law functions if you think it involves keeping information hidden. The truth is that it revolves on the opposite: You register stuff by going public with it (Generally in a public office... At least in most countries), making it openly available to be studied by anyone with the means and the curiosity. You then gain exclusive rights to economically exploit what you created, not exclusive rights to know it. See? No information restriction, only restriction on the economic exploitation of information.

I can almost agree with bit about common decency, though I would disagree on methodology. I believe people should be accountable for their actions, and thus act responsibly. Saying something harmful is punishable, in the same way as doing something harmful. That's it, no strangely-specific laws. Blanket-illegalizing discussion or study of a subject doesn't do anyone any good, it just drives speculation about it underground, where it will usually fester into something worse.

To be honest, the illegality in a host of countries to even broach the subject has probably done neonazi groups a real favor. Lacking modern evidence to refute them, and a strong air of mystery and taboo on which to build and find followers.

It is actually remarkable how almost every country which prohibits speech about this issue has much larger, better established neonazi groups than almost every country that doesn't. Admitedly, the only countries I looked into concerning this as comparisons were Austria, Germany, France (On the illegality side) and USA, Brazil and Italy on the non-illegal side. Small sample, I know, but I strongly suspect the pattern will hold if you extend it further.

Allowing for open, honest discussion and research doesn't enable false views to spread: It hampers it, by offering plentiful, reliable, unbiased information to refute it. The reason that history revisionism is so widespread in Japan isn't because people sit down every day and honestly research and discuss what happened during World War 2, it is because people don't. It is taboo with the force of a law that enables that.

Blablahb:
No, every word of that was meant seriously. It's both an attempt to help you as an attempt to judge if you're telling the truth or not. You took a point of view that's been utterly undefendable for decades, is provably untrue, and the only people that have argued it have done so out of a desire to spread hatred and not for any desire to find facts. Not just that but they always cry "But I have researched it" and "This is based on facts".

So for you to avoid being written off as 'oh, just another silly neonazi' by just about everyone, it's essential to back up that claim. And dodging the question like that doesn't bode well...

So where are those sources?

So I suppose Yehuda Bauer, a jew, respected authority on the holocaust, living in Israel... Is somehow a neonazi anti-Semite. Because it's not just the nazis who were bad guys from GI Joe episodes, it's also everyone who has any historical interest in that period of history. You know. Including the victims.

Helmholtz Watson:
More semetic that Israelis? Maybe, seeing as its not just ethnic Jews that live their but Jewish converts(ethnic gentiles) and gentile immigrants as well. Now, more Semitic than ethnic Jews? Hardly. The traditional rules of Judaism made it so that Jews stayed within their own group and were not accepting of converts. This isn't to say that there were no converts, just that Orthodox Judaism gives you a hard time if you try to convert and when you're in the process of converting, they openly encourage you to abandon your desire to become a Jew. Needless to say, there is a reason why despite being older than Christianity and Islam, Judaism is significantly smaller the the other two.

I hear you, mate, and I'm aware of all that. The argument is more that Palestine, as an entity (As a whole, as a nation, whatever way you prefer to define it) is more semitic than Israel - as a whole, as an entity, as a nation etc.

I believe this is fairly unarguable and that thus throwing the "anti-semite" label on pro-palestine groups is kinda retarded. That's my whole argument on this.

Helmholtz Watson:
While I won't deny that its not as uncommon now for Jews to marry out, traditionally that hasn't been the case do to the religious rules against it and Judaisms discouragement for gentiles to convert. As I said before, I don't doubt that in the past people gave up Judaism and married out to who ever they choose, I just don't think it was as common in the past as it might be now.

As for my comparison, because I have seen it brought up when discussing if Jews had/have a right to have their own country and where they should go if Israel never existed/was dismantled, I was just preemptively making a point that Jews are not 'indigenous" to Europe just because they have lived there for a period of time.

I think there is a matter of scale at work: Temporal and spacial scale. It is easy to imagine entire regions of europe where only one or two jewish families lived, possibly with almost no contact with one another (Distances back in medieval and ancient times were a bitch). You leave them there for a couple millenia, and... Stuff happens.

I personally live in a country with a strong Iberian descent, and at least in the cultural background I'm inserted in, the concept of jews converting, marrying christians and pretty much going full christian for generations is seen as almost mundane. The reasons why that originally happened, I suspect, were not always very... Erm... Nice reasons, but... It happened.

I know several families who only recently (Last couple of generations) realized the full extent of their jewish ancestry and started working towards recovering it. Meaning... Their grandparents and beyond probably had only a very vague awareness that they even were (partially?) jewish.

I believe that we'll never know the full extent of the Holocaust, nor that we will ever be able to comprehend it. Millions of life annihilated in the heart of (in the terms of the time) civilizations, according to the most modern principles of management and the most modern technologies. Joseph Conrad wrote about a journey to the heart of darkness, a primordial, corrupting place where each and all are eventually stripped of civilization. The Holocaust shows that we never had to travel to find it.

However, at the same time, I feel that the "crime" of Holocaust denial should not be a crime at all. It sanctifies a tragedy and turns it into dogma. I feel that the truth, the cold horrible truth of the matter, needs no legal protection. The evidence is there, even though the mind retreats at the overwelming horror of the evidence.

The ultimate horror of the Holocaust (or Shoah, since "sacrificial fire" is, in my eyes, a wrong metaphor) is its ultimate banality. However tempting to ascribe the Shoah as the product of a select group of very powerful, very evil men, the truth is that it was made possible by normal human beings.

However, at the same time I feel that "we", the West, should move on. I often get into arguments with German friends on how much of a taboo it still is in Germany. For many in the West the Shoah has become a (post)modern "Original Sin", but it's the "sin of our fathers." It must be allowed to become history.

Driekan, I find your insistence about antisemetism also being about Arabs is unreasonable. It's "reclaiming a word" in a way, which is to defuse the very tense background to the term of antisemetism. I find it extremely unpleasant to hear about it. There is no correlation between the two. The term is exclusive to the Jews, and an attempt to change that is to pass some revisionist history and to defuse a valid allegation against certain groups and movements. It's the same way people say that groups who criticize Israel are not 'antisemetic' but 'antizionist', while in fact, some of them are clearly antisemetic and they are merely hiding behind criticizing Zionism. Case in point, Iran's president says he's not antisemetic, but only antizionist, and he proved that by meeting with a few Jews that oppose the state of Israel and make a few pictures. I find it completely retarded myself to see this sort of apologetic behavior from you, as you should clearly know that what you are doing is simply stopping valid criticism against certain groups and defusing the term 'antisemetism' because it carries a lot of baggage. So no, antisemetism has nothing to do with other semetic people, as it had always been a way to reference the deep-rooted hatred of Jews that got its scientific credentials in the 19th century (I think... am I right about the dates? I don't know).
Trying to back up this claim by saying that Palestinians are "more semetic" than Jews is ridiculous. In linguistics, the Semetic group is a group of languages including Arabic, Hebrew and others. It is not an ethnicity, as it was considered to be during the early stages of racial biology (when semetic people were a mix between white, black and yellow people. Yes. German science). The term of antisemetism did not come from this, but was a in fact a politicizing of current (of the time) racial theories. "The League of Anti-Semetism" was clearly against Jews in particular, as it was perceived that way. Claiming relations between this fuck-up in Germany at the time and the linguistic super-group of Semites is both dishonest and underhanded.
In short, you either lie or do not understand where this term came from... and no, you should not "reclaim the word", the same way you should not "rewrite history".

History is already known. You can read it, you can research it, and do it all at your leisure time. You can research events within the holocaust, the holocaust itself, study more about it, etc. but there is a significant difference between curiosity or research to digging into shit that disguises itself as proper academic study. So yes, there should be laws in place to stop people from rewriting history because frankly, a lot of people have been trying to do that. One of these groups are Arabs, that have inherited racial antisemetism from dear fascist Germany and adapted it over the years. Not too long ago I read about one of Egypt's officials, responsible for picking editors for the nation's newpapers, saying how the holocaust was a Zionist hoax and that all of the six million Jews were brought to the USA and it's all a US-Zionist conspiracy.

This shit happens all of the time. This shit is often masqueraded as proper academic research. It is not. So yes, there should be freedom, but this shit should be burnt because we cannot allow such a horrible stain on our history to be rewritten and forgotten. Do you want to tell me about other genocides and massacres? I remember them as well. I also remember that this had been the more industrialized form of genocide ever to be seen on such a massive scale, a pursuit of a single people from dozens of countries across entire continents for the sake of an ideology that called for their removal, one way or the other (A side-note, the Gypsies can also be put over here). There is an active movement to remove this piece of history for various reasons (bringing legitimacy back to national-socialism, discrediting Jews and Zionism, painting the Germans in a better light).

There is also a movement to change other aspects of history. You shouldn't feel discouraged when people lie to you about history because they want to brainwash you. It happens all of the time. Just ask my teachers I had when I was in high-school. I self-taught myself and saw a lot of discrepancies.

Offering this wealth of information to the wide audience is not such a grand idea. As you have seen in this video, information can be used and manipulated to change the view of people. This had all been real information (for the most part), but the omitted facts made it entirely different. Leave research to students and professors (that can fail if they do shit research), and if you want to have a read just grab a few books written by different historians. Each has his/her own view of the world. Always know the background of your academic scholar, so you will recognize his/her ideas and brainwashing creeping into facts.

Oh, and one last note - the debacle in Spain/Portugal that was the Inquisition and the 1492 expulsion of Jews from the Spain is not proof to Jewish intermarriage in the slightest. Those who converted (by choice or by force), remained in the area and "forgot" about their heritage are not something that was common across Europe - On the contrary. During this time Jewish communities across Europe were essentially ghettos. They all lived in closed off communities because of their special religious needs and their religious taboo of inter-marriage with gentiles. Jewish 'emancipation' only came around the 19th century and it was during that time that you had some Jews (the upper class) tried to lose their traditions (and religion) in exchange for being accepted to the local high circles of society. Before that they were banned from having formal education and going to universities. Lower class Jews didn't marry other Jews outside of their communities (for the most part).

At the core of the issue unless you want to start locking people up for what they say or think, then they're entitled to say what they think, and then the onus is on everyone else to deal with that rationally and maturely. Words have no meaning and can't hurt people unless they let them, so if people want to question The Holocaust, and perhaps think about it critically, you know what evidence is there? How can I be sure what I'm told is true etc etc? Then let them. People should be allowed to ask questions because nothing good can come from saying the issue is closed we know for certain etc.

As for myself I've looked into the Holocaust quite a bit, I've actually been to Auschwitz myself and looked at the ruins, I actually took this picture whilst visiting there through the LSA (Lessons from Auschwitz) project as part of the Holocaust Educational Trust.
image

Not to mention spoken to four Holocaust survivors of which one of them was with us whilst we visited the camp, who might I add broke down crying at the sight, and having read books on the subject and actually spoken to people who claim they were there, I can pretty much say yes it did happen. Now I don't know why people would deny it happened, but that's there prerogative and they're entitled to their opinion, and if you believe in freedom of speech then you have to uphold it especially when you don't like what people have to say.

Since we're all about establishing facts here etc, then here is a news article from BBC Manchester in regards to the LSA and our visit to Auschwitz back in 2008, I'm listed as Bradley Jamieson, hence my username Jamieson 90, and my fellow college member was Sana Cheema
http://www.bbc.co.uk/manchester/content/articles/2008/09/29/290908_auschwitz_teenagers_feature.shtml

As for the picture it can be found on my Flickr account which is different to my account here, but if you access my profile you can see the account is linked to it, hence it's mine.

Driekan:
Also explain that whole pagan sun worship the children in the Hitler's Young did. You conveniently cut that out of your thorough refutation.

Never heard of anything like that. Easter is the Christianised version of that though, which they will have celebrated obviously. Maybe your source got stuff confused because the German word for easter 'ostern' is much more similar to Ostara/Eostre and those celebrations from pre-Christian times, or gotten confused because Wiccans resurrected the practise and celebrate the spring equinox under that name?

The bulk of the Hitlerjugend membership in the early years before membership became compulsory, came from Christian groups that had merged with the Hitlerjugend. For instance they had barely 100.000 members, while they merged with Christian groups that had 200.000-600.000 members.

Driekan:
Are you saying, then, that the Ordo Templi Orientis and all other occult groups born from it (Heck there's too many to number) were fascinated with the Knights Templars because they were good, devout christians?

I don't see how that group is related to the discussion, because it predates nazism by decades and also comes from another place. But as a rule, masonic cults and other secret societies were strongly Christian indeed. Masonic membership these days still requires being religious. Atheists are not welcome.

Driekan:
People can find power and symbolism in ancient things, especially things that had power and mysticism surrounding it - such as the crusading orders. What a lot of people remember of these orders were the long stories of mystery, occultism, accusations of heresy and witchcraft. When people appropriate these symbols, it generally denotes a fascination with the mystique of it, as opposed to faithful following of the order's original cause.

Not in this case, since the SS pretty much followed the exact same modus operandi as the crusading orders. Invading the 'godless' eastern Europe and Russia to cleanse it of heretics. It was exactly what the Levonic and Teutonic order did. They campaigned in the Baltic states and modern day Poland and Russia to purge it of non-Christians. In exactly the same fashion the SS waged a religious conflict. They actually had recruitment posters that said "Up against godless boljevism, join the Waffen SS" and the anti-semitic magazine Der Stürmer ran editorials that equated boljevism, being jewish and being 'godless' as pretty much being the same thing.

Driekan:
To be honest, the illegality in a host of countries to even broach the subject has probably done neonazi groups a real favor. Lacking modern evidence to refute them, and a strong air of mystery and taboo on which to build and find followers.

"Lacking modern evidence to refute them" in regards to conspiracy theories that deny the holocaust, effectively means you stating there's no evidence that the holocaust happened.

Did you mean to write that or was it phrased incorrectly?

Driekan:
Allowing for open, honest discussion and research doesn't enable false views to spread: It hampers it, by offering plentiful, reliable, unbiased information to refute it.

Open honest discussion is already allowed and all information is too. Holocaust denial however is forbidden.

Driekan:
The reason that history revisionism is so widespread in Japan isn't because people sit down every day and honestly research and discuss what happened during World War 2, it is because people don't. It is taboo with the force of a law that enables that.

Except in that case you're forgetting that Japan has no laws that punish for historical revisionism, so that and xenophobic and nationalist tendencies, and Japan's a revisionist country.

Heck, they even still teach a different version of human evolution that denies the normal theory, and views the Japanese as a sort of master race that evolved separetely from the rest of humanity, and certainly had nothing to do with migrating to Japan from elsewhere, let alone from what's now Korea.

Agema:
You clearly have not delved into the SS even half as much as you claim, because that's very misleading.

What you need to understand is that effectively the 'religion' of Nazi ideology was one with its 'god' as Germany. The Nazis did not much like Christianity because it was international (thus multicultural and multiethnic), espoused values the Nazis neither liked nor respected, and perhaps worst because it formed an alternative ideological power base to their Germany-first ultranationalism.
Christianity was tolerated and occasionally nominally supported basically for two reasons. Firstly, because the Nazis were arch believers in traditionalism and German folk values, and so Christianity being the traditional religion of Germany made it some part of the German psyche. Secondly, on a very practical basis, as over 90% of Germans were Christian it was politically expedient.

I don't see why you claim I was being misleading, when you then proceed to agree with my assertion that nazism was a very Christian movement. It seems contradictory to acknowledge that and then claim they were just tolerating Christianity, while in the same post you correctly observe they were a Christian movement and promoted Christian values.

Heck, even after the takeover you could clearly see Christian ideology in the nazi regime. Like for instance medals for women who had many children. Regarding women as mere breeding machines is more Christian than Jesus to paraphrase an expression.

Agema:
However, the Nazis in fact spent nearly all their time undermining Christianity, particularly by crippling the power and influence of organised churches.

Like I already said, that's not undermining Christianity. It's underming the political power of churches. It's what totalitarian regimes do, because churches are political rivals, but faith and religion itself are usefull tools and ideological allies.

Same can be seen in present day China: Some claim the China communism is anti-religious. That's not true. They're anti-churches. The Chinese regime runs it's very own catholic church including bishops and priests. What sort of anti-religious regime would found its very own church?

Agema:
Nazi totalitarianism demanded Christianity was to be utterly subordinated to Germany: including destroying whatever of it was not appropriate to Nazi ideology.

You can't support that with any evidence. The nazist ideology was the same as Christianity, Christianity was a pillar of it. How on earth would a movement call for its own destruction?

Agema:
And the SS very much reflected this - it was largely interested in weakening Christianity. It was run secularly - chaplains were banned.

But as I already said, being a Christian was mandatory before you could join the SS. Paganism would get you refused, and quite likely arrested and sent to a concentration camp.

Agema:
The Nazis attempted to install Germanic paganaism through it. And the SS was well known to have directorates dedicated to destroying Christian (especially Catholic) influence, including amongst its members.

Another thing that's a myth which you can't back up with evidence.

Why don't you provide us with archive pieces of orders to ban all Christian worship (meaning: Christianity, not as in, banning influence of churches) and impose worship of Germanic gods?

If what you say is more than a myth, it shouldn't be hard to find a couple thousand pieces of SS propaganda that claim the Christian god doesn't exist and Christians are teh evilz.

Let me start off by digging up an Christian SS poster. You see a red army soldier with a torch destroying a Christian cross. The caption reads "Europe forms up. With the volunteer legion Flanders, in the battle against bolsjevism". That was a recruiting poster for the Flemish Legion, a part of the SS that recruited among the Flemish population of Belgium. They also had a Wallonian Legion.

And another poster. The text calls to join the SS obviously, but the third bit of text reads "Our famous forefathers will indict us before God's judgement [godsgericht] if our people fall behind now". What sort of pagan organisation would use the judgement of the Christian god against those that don't join as a recruitement stategy. The tiny text at the bottom states the image has been approved by the occupational government.

Blablahb:
I don't see why you claim I was being misleading, when you then proceed to agree with my assertion that nazism was a very Christian movement. It seems contradictory to acknowledge that and then claim they were just tolerating Christianity, while in the same post you correctly observe they were a Christian movement and promoted Christian values.

This is your problem, Blab. You just don't actually read and think about what people write, you simply choose what fits your erroneous preconceptions.

The Nazis were manifestly not a Christian movement. They were a political movement which made use of certain aspects of Christianity. Islam too incorporates certain traditions and beliefs of Christianity, but no-one pretends Islam is a Christian movement.

Heck, even after the takeover you could clearly see Christian ideology in the nazi regime. Like for instance medals for women who had many children. Regarding women as mere breeding machines is more Christian than Jesus to paraphrase an expression.

Firstly, Christianity obviously does not theologically regard women as mere breeding machines. You think it does because you hate Christianity and as per the first sentence, you have neither the capability nor willingness to think outside your self-imposed intellectual box. This is a shame for you, but you don't need to bore me with your irrational prejudices as if they are a worthwhile point.

Furthermore, one can find similar attitudes around the world, they were very common. You may as well argue Hindu Indians who believe women are mere breeding machines are Christian ideologists too. Just to demonstrate how absurd your logic is there.

Like I already said, that's not undermining Christianity. It's underming the political power of churches. It's what totalitarian regimes do, because churches are political rivals, but faith and religion itself are usefull tools and ideological allies.

Sure. The Nazis believed religion, or spirituality, was a tool for the furtherance of the German people and state. However, there's plenty of evidence Christianity was viewed as unfit for purpose; ultimately they wanted a new religion ditching a load of Christian ideology.

You can't support that with any evidence. The nazist ideology was the same as Christianity, Christianity was a pillar of it. How on earth would a movement call for its own destruction?

Of course I can support with evidence. Look at the Nazi top brass's interest in paganism and occultism, which is anthetical to Christianity. Or reports of Hitler's many expressions of distaste for Christianity (in private, of course - too unpopular for public consumption).

Nazi ideology was the same as Christian ideology? Do you realise how ridiculous that statement is? Did Jesus call for lebensraum and massacring Jews, gypsies and the disabled, then? It's not in any Bible I've read.

If I tear down a temple and build a new one with the pillars of the old, is it the old temple? Surely not. The old temple is part of the new in some sense, but the old and new are different temples.

Another thing that's a myth which you can't back up with evidence.

Why don't you provide us with archive pieces of orders to ban all Christian worship (meaning: Christianity, not as in, banning influence of churches) and impose worship of Germanic gods? If what you say is more than a myth, it shouldn't be hard to find a couple thousand pieces of SS propaganda that claim the Christian god doesn't exist and Christians are teh evilz.

This is just a very tedious straw man, indicative that you can't find a way to argue against the facts I presented...

Let me start off by digging up an Christian SS poster. You see a red army soldier with a torch destroying a Christian cross. The caption reads "Europe forms up. With the volunteer legion Flanders, in the battle against bolsjevism". That was a recruiting poster for the Flemish Legion, a part of the SS that recruited among the Flemish population of Belgium. They also had a Wallonian Legion.

...a straw man that is even more tedious given I had already stated that the Nazis saw Christianity as politically expedient.

It seems odd to me you have not imagined that a corrupt regime might use religiosity to manipulate people whilst neither liking, respecting, nor believing in a specific religion. Well, you possibly have. Unfortunately, as such a concept is inconvenient to your real passion - a visceral abhorrence of religion almost certainly formed by an overreaction to the social milieu of your upbringing - you are simply trying to pretend the idea doesn't exist.

Agema:
The Nazis were manifestly not a Christian movement. They were a political movement which made use of certain aspects of Christianity. Islam too incorporates certain traditions and beliefs of Christianity, but no-one pretends Islam is a Christian movement.

Then how come their policies were a strict reflection of Christian morals at the time? It's not 'some elements', their policies were more Christian and imposed on many more things than political parties that identify as Christian parties.

You just can't keep pretending it was some cherry picking if they did the Christian thing in every political decision that could be influenced by religion.

Agema:
Firstly, Christianity obviously does not theologically regard women as mere breeding machines.

Lovely. I look forward to seeing your bible quotes that prove women have other roles than that. Untill then I'm going to stick with what is biblically, theologically and historically accurate though: Women as nothing but property, childbreeders and housekeepers.

And just because other cultures had the same expectation pattern, doesn't mean the nazis weren't imposing the Christian ideals. You know that argument doesn't fly; 'People also destroy buildings for urban redevelopment. Therefore Al Qaida is not a terrorist movement but a real estate agency'?

Agema:
Sure. The Nazis believed religion, or spirituality, was a tool for the furtherance of the German people and state. However, there's plenty of evidence Christianity was viewed as unfit for purpose; ultimately they wanted a new religion ditching a load of Christian ideology.

So you'll have no trouble given a dozen examples of that, which identifyably are not about political power, or where very liberal interpretations of Christianity conflicted with nazism.

Agema:
Of course I can support with evidence. Look at the Nazi top brass's interest in paganism and occultism, which is anthetical to Christianity. Or reports of Hitler's many expressions of distaste for Christianity (in private, of course - too unpopular for public consumption).

Except that's a myth. Like I stated before, that was Himmler, and Himmler alone. Hitler himself was a faithfull Christian who thought he was following the example of Jesus, and was 'doing the work of the Lord' to quote the man from Mein Kampf.

That's not proof, that's trying to support one empty claim with another empty claim.

Agema:
Did Jesus call for lebensraum and massacring Jews, gypsies and the disabled, then? It's not in any Bible I've read.

No, but his old man did on many occasions. The bible is quite clear that heretics and followers of other religions must be killed. Deuteronomy goes a bit further and even states that any city with at least 1 non-Christian it it must be completely exterminated.

Agema:
This is just a very tedious straw man, indicative that you can't find a way to argue against the facts I presented...
...a straw man that is even more tedious given I had already stated that the Nazis saw Christianity as politically expedient

You claimed the nazis and the SS were both anti-Christianity. I have proven this to be untrue. So, your turn to provide sources for your claims. It's a bit disappointing that I go through the trouble of digging up sources like that, and you just ignore them and keep repeating the nazis weren't a Christian movement, while you're yet to present the first-ever proof for that. It's not really constructive.

Agema:

Of course I can support with evidence. Look at the Nazi top brass's interest in paganism and occultism, which is anthetical to Christianity.

Well, not quite. Alfred Rosenberg was well involved in Norse mythology IIRC, and Himmler had some non-professional interest in astrology and occultism, but it was hardly a powerful force in Nazi politics. That would be to exaggerate its influence.

On a side-note, I'm really finding something quite disgusting: the continued tendency to equate pro-Palestinian views with anti-Semitism and an endorsement of violence. That's really not OK.

Blablahb:

It's different when an incompetent command sacrifices 100.000 conscripts in a war, or there's a systematic genocide on 100.000 innocent civilians.

Plus of course, it wasn't quite so bad that those 'godless bolsjeviks' died. That was how people thought about it during and just after the war, then came the Cold War and the Soviet Union was quite closed in regards to information. In short: Russians are a lot 'cheaper' to remember because of the way their country has been behaving the past century.


Captcha is the master of irony: Lukoil

I quite honestly would respect the Russians who died in the war effort more than Holocaust victims. You know why? Because they fought back. For the most part (with some small exceptions), the victims of the Holocaust marched to their deaths without putting up a shred of resistance. The Soviets weren't having any of that.

Ravinoff:

Blablahb:

It's different when an incompetent command sacrifices 100.000 conscripts in a war, or there's a systematic genocide on 100.000 innocent civilians.

Plus of course, it wasn't quite so bad that those 'godless bolsjeviks' died. That was how people thought about it during and just after the war, then came the Cold War and the Soviet Union was quite closed in regards to information. In short: Russians are a lot 'cheaper' to remember because of the way their country has been behaving the past century.


Captcha is the master of irony: Lukoil

I quite honestly would respect the Russians who died in the war effort more than Holocaust victims. You know why? Because they fought back. For the most part (with some small exceptions), the victims of the Holocaust marched to their deaths without putting up a shred of resistance. The Soviets weren't having any of that.

Er, Soviet PoWs made up a large proportion of victims of the Holocaust.

thaluikhain:

Ravinoff:

Blablahb:

It's different when an incompetent command sacrifices 100.000 conscripts in a war, or there's a systematic genocide on 100.000 innocent civilians.

Plus of course, it wasn't quite so bad that those 'godless bolsjeviks' died. That was how people thought about it during and just after the war, then came the Cold War and the Soviet Union was quite closed in regards to information. In short: Russians are a lot 'cheaper' to remember because of the way their country has been behaving the past century.


Captcha is the master of irony: Lukoil

I quite honestly would respect the Russians who died in the war effort more than Holocaust victims. You know why? Because they fought back. For the most part (with some small exceptions), the victims of the Holocaust marched to their deaths without putting up a shred of resistance. The Soviets weren't having any of that.

Er, Soviet PoWs made up a large proportion of victims of the Holocaust.

Not to mention that alot of people who died on the Russian side were just used as cannon fodder. Hardly "fighting back".

I would also recommend against trying to blame the victims of the holocaust for "not fighting back". There were actually several attempts to take over camps. The process however seeped the strength and the will of a lot of the victims. That was one of the reasons why the Holocaust was so terrible. It killed, but it also dehumanized.

Ravinoff:

Blablahb:

It's different when an incompetent command sacrifices 100.000 conscripts in a war, or there's a systematic genocide on 100.000 innocent civilians.

Plus of course, it wasn't quite so bad that those 'godless bolsjeviks' died. That was how people thought about it during and just after the war, then came the Cold War and the Soviet Union was quite closed in regards to information. In short: Russians are a lot 'cheaper' to remember because of the way their country has been behaving the past century.


Captcha is the master of irony: Lukoil

I quite honestly would respect the Russians who died in the war effort more than Holocaust victims. You know why? Because they fought back. For the most part (with some small exceptions), the victims of the Holocaust marched to their deaths without putting up a shred of resistance. The Soviets weren't having any of that.

That is a pernicious and slanderous myth. Jews resisted fiercely in whatever ways they were able to, which wasn't much because their rights had been eroded long before the extent of Hitler's Final Solution was known.

And it certainly isn't fair to compare civilians already living as second-class citizens with the trained, armed military of a sovereign nation.

EDIT: Not to mention that there were over half a million Jews serving in the Red Army, and at least 142,500 of them died. The more i think about this post the more it disgusts me.

Does it really matter if the Nazis got their evil from atheism, Christianity or a magical leprechaun?

Even if tomorrow a document was dug up that conclusively proved the Nazis were a Christian organisation who were acting for Jesus, would that change anything? Would it all of a sudden make Christianity less valid? Would it make the people who really believed change their faith? I doubt it. Evils have been committed under the name of everything from God to the Sun. To argue with one another about this is entirely pointless.

Anyway, the Nazi party were a political party. They weren't a religious cult. Did they use religion to further their point and to help them reach goals? You bet they did - they'd be mad not to. But that doesn't discredit or credit religion in any way at all. It's almost irrelevant.

Ravinoff:

Blablahb:

It's different when an incompetent command sacrifices 100.000 conscripts in a war, or there's a systematic genocide on 100.000 innocent civilians.

Plus of course, it wasn't quite so bad that those 'godless bolsjeviks' died. That was how people thought about it during and just after the war, then came the Cold War and the Soviet Union was quite closed in regards to information. In short: Russians are a lot 'cheaper' to remember because of the way their country has been behaving the past century.


Captcha is the master of irony: Lukoil

I quite honestly would respect the Russians who died in the war effort more than Holocaust victims. You know why? Because they fought back. For the most part (with some small exceptions), the victims of the Holocaust marched to their deaths without putting up a shred of resistance. The Soviets weren't having any of that.

Tell that to the dozens of thousands who were murdered once Germans occupied the territory because of their status. Special units executed these people to prevent a resistance/revolution from happening. They were killed no differently than the Jews who were also annihilated in former Soviet territory once Germans took over.

Yes, the Jews didn't resist when they were put in camps. So didn't the Japanese when they were put in camps in the USA. I wonder why.

Silvanus:

Agema:

Of course I can support with evidence. Look at the Nazi top brass's interest in paganism and occultism, which is anthetical to Christianity.

Well, not quite. Alfred Rosenberg was well involved in Norse mythology IIRC, and Himmler had some non-professional interest in astrology and occultism, but it was hardly a powerful force in Nazi politics. That would be to exaggerate its influence.

On a side-note, I'm really finding something quite disgusting: the continued tendency to equate pro-Palestinian views with anti-Semitism and an endorsement of violence. That's really not OK.

Palestinian human rights Organization (MONITOR) had an article by its chairman of Advisory Council (and a professor of international law). He wrote that the Holocaust was a myth. So yes, fuck the Palestinians, because every other Pro-Palestinian organization I see have antisemitic tendencies. (That's not to say all of them.)
http://www.pal-monitor.org/Portal/news.php?action=view&id=550&spell=0&highlight=%C7%E1%E5%E6%E1%E6%DF%E6%D3%CA
This is an article written about the Zionist entity (Israel)and how it should compensate Egypt for the damages in property is caused over the years, claiming it should cough up 500 Billion Dollars. It calls the holocaust a 'myth' or a 'fairy tale'.

This isn't disgusting. The fact that you are not aware of this facade is disturbing. More often than not these depraved bastards have a different history than the ordinary, and that includes the holocaust being a myth orchestrated by Zionists, or something along those lines. They just can't stomach the facts. So fuck them. Fuck their cause. That is all.

Glasgow:

Palestinian human rights Organization (MONITOR) had an article by its chairman of Advisory Council (and a professor of international law). He wrote that the Holocaust was a myth. So yes, fuck the Palestinians, because every other Pro-Palestinian organization I see have antisemitic tendencies. (That's not to say all of them.)
http://www.pal-monitor.org/Portal/news.php?action=view&id=550&spell=0&highlight=%C7%E1%E5%E6%E1%E6%DF%E6%D3%CA
This is an article written about the Zionist entity (Israel)and how it should compensate Egypt for the damages in property is caused over the years, claiming it should cough up 500 Billion Dollars. It calls the holocaust a 'myth' or a 'fairy tale'.

Are you serious? Because a lot of the Palestinian representative organisations are bigoted and unfit for purpose (as they were in the 40s), "fuck the Palestinians"? That's an incredible leap, to lay the blame at the people themselves. Netanyahu is a madman and a breaker of international law, but I recognise that it would be utterly unfair to lay the blame for Israeli national policy at the feet of the Israeli people.

Glasgow:
This isn't disgusting. The fact that you are not aware of this facade is disturbing. More often than not these depraved bastards have a different history than the ordinary, and that includes the holocaust being a myth orchestrated by Zionists, or something along those lines. They just can't stomach the facts. So fuck them. Fuck their cause. That is all.

I'm well aware of the "facade", I wrote a dissertation on this subject. I said it was sick to blame a people for the actions of the organisations that self-proclaimedly represent them. To claim that only ignorance could lead me not to stereotype an entire people... it's beyond belief.

It becomes very easy to ignore forcible relocation, mass murder etc, if the victims can be stereotyped as such. "Their organisations are bigoted, they must be tacitly supporting holocaust-revisionism. No matter that most of them only worry about where their next meal is coming from, or why their children haven't come back".

Silvanus:

Glasgow:

Palestinian human rights Organization (MONITOR) had an article by its chairman of Advisory Council (and a professor of international law). He wrote that the Holocaust was a myth. So yes, fuck the Palestinians, because every other Pro-Palestinian organization I see have antisemitic tendencies. (That's not to say all of them.)
http://www.pal-monitor.org/Portal/news.php?action=view&id=550&spell=0&highlight=%C7%E1%E5%E6%E1%E6%DF%E6%D3%CA
This is an article written about the Zionist entity (Israel)and how it should compensate Egypt for the damages in property is caused over the years, claiming it should cough up 500 Billion Dollars. It calls the holocaust a 'myth' or a 'fairy tale'.

Are you serious? Because a lot of the Palestinian representative organisations are bigoted and unfit for purpose (as they were in the 40s), "fuck the Palestinians"? That's an incredible leap, to lay the blame at the people themselves. Netanyahu is a madman and a breaker of international law, but I recognise that it would be utterly unfair to lay the blame for Israeli national policy at the feet of the Israeli people.

Glasgow:
This isn't disgusting. The fact that you are not aware of this facade is disturbing. More often than not these depraved bastards have a different history than the ordinary, and that includes the holocaust being a myth orchestrated by Zionists, or something along those lines. They just can't stomach the facts. So fuck them. Fuck their cause. That is all.

I'm well aware of the "facade", I wrote a dissertation on this subject. I said it was sick to blame a people for the actions of the organisations that self-proclaimedly represent them. To claim that only ignorance could lead me not to stereotype an entire people... it's beyond belief.

It becomes very easy to ignore forcible relocation, mass murder etc, if the victims can be stereotyped as such. "Their organisations are bigoted, they must be tacitly supporting holocaust-revisionism. No matter that most of them only worry about where their next meal is coming from, or why their children haven't come back".

I am serious. These organizations act on their behalf. The Palestinian people is partially in diaspora, and had been used as a political tool for bloody decades. From 'saving the children' to 'training militant groups', these guys had been instruments in the cold war and in regional wars, and have also recently been used to push Israel even further. I said before that Israel is a glorified satellite, and it's a pariah state like it had always been. This only serves to aggravate its poor position. So yeah, lets see more antisemetic MPs in Hungary and Ukraine... I'm fucking ashamed of that. When the cause of Palestinians becomes the cause of another holocaust on the Jews I stop giving a shit about their plight that their Arab neighbors forced upon them.

Mass Murder and Forcible Relocation? If you're talking about the war in the mandate of Palestine, then I will say you're wrong. War is war, and this 'Mass Murder and Forcible Relocation' had been pushed on both sides, as it is always done when two civilian populations violently clash against each other. The fact that the Jewish side had come victorious while the Palestinian Arabs were gobbled up by their neighbors doesn't make Israel or its leaders war-criminals as much as it makes Palestine and its leaders war criminals. Hell, their supposed leader (of the PLO) isn't even elected! He had been sitting in his chair for three years without elections, while its rival political organization sits snugly in the Gaza Strip, feeding off sympathy from one end and hording stockpiles of weapons on the other. Now their economy is collapsing because what the hell did you expect when every other official is stealing money, or when the government pays money to families of suicide bombers, or works hard to preserve a culture of glorifying martyrs and murderers that their sole greatest feat was killing Jews... Countries promise to give them funds and they don't, but it's ok as long as you blame Israel, because the Jews! They control all of the money... I hate this. Every other Palestine supporter I come by is either antisemitic or comes so close he can just smell the smoke coming from the incinerators. So excuse me when I doubt people's integrity when I hear they support the Palestinians. I've been burnt more than once.

I'm sorry for my outburst.

Glasgow:
SNIP

This is a litany of vile acts by militant Palestinian organisations, yes. And the Palestinians as an ethnic group are responsible for this!? For politics that many of them are uninvolved in, for politics many of them do not understand? For actions that would have been carried out "on their behalf" before many of them ever heard about it?

You're condemning an ethnic group. Saying that these people, civilians and children, have earned their oppression by the crimes of the organisations that exploit them. I can't believe I'm even reading this.

When I say "mass murder and forcible relocation", I mean exactly that, perpetrated against civilians on the basis of ethnicity, politics and religion.

Silvanus:

Glasgow:
SNIP

This is a litany of disgusting by militant Palestinian organisations, yes. And the Palestinians as an ethnic group are responsible for this!? For politics that many of them are uninvolved in, for politics many of them do not understand? For actions that were carried out "on their behalf" long before many of them ever heard about it?

You're condemning an ethnic group. Saying that these people, civilians and children, have earned their oppression by the crimes of the organisations that exploit them. I can't believe I'm even reading this.

I condemn them. These are politics that allow educational institutions to call the Holocaust a myth that are being run in Gaza Strip, and monitored by the UN. They elected those movements into power, although I know they didn't have much of a choice. I hold no shred of respect or sympathy for people who endorse or support these despicable actions.

These are the sins of their fathers, the sins of their politicians, the sins of their guardian brother nations and the sins of them as well. Those people who go out to the streets and throw rocks and fuel bombs are not innocent. That little child who will grow up in a toxic environment of hating the Jew could just as well become a murderer, just so he could take the life of Jews as he was taught. This generation of hatred is being propagated to fight against the Jews, so no, I hold no sympathy for them. "Peace Talks" can continue till infinity and beyond, but so far the Palestinians haven't moved an inch. So they want their own country? Prove that you can deserve it - don't use donations made for education and health to buy bombs and pay for soldiers, and don't preach hatred. Those leaders who claim half of the holy city don't care if their people suffer. Their sick corrupt administration doesn't help the people or benefit them. The economy is crashing because of them, and when the riots come they... guess who will blame? They claim borders that have nothing to do with the Palestinians - but with the Jordanian Legion and its marvelous capabilities in the first Arab-Israeli war, as well as the Egyptian military. A war-torn nation such as that cannot sustain itself on its own. Its decline in recent years due to the global financial difficulties is proof of that. Too much donations taken, no actual internal industry or infrastructure created.

This can't end peacefully. People will die on both sides. Neither side will agree to peacefully be under the other's heel. If only god will have mercy on their souls, but I am no god.

Silvanus:

When I say "mass murder and forcible relocation", I mean exactly that, perpetrated against civilians on the basis of ethnicity, politics and religion.

I am aware of these first three. The fourth is new to me.

I said that they had lost. The irregular Palestinian Arab troops were also civilians when not carrying weapons. Villages were a part of the offensive, and some were completely torn apart or emptied in the war. Jewish villages were also damaged and some were emptied. I mean exactly that. This isn't the only example, as the fighting went on. Looking at this as if the Palestinian Jews had some ethnic cleansing genocidal master plan is both rewriting history is incredibly biased. This is a war that was fought very differently in its beginning, with armed irregular civilian populations pitched against each other. A village was also the home of soldiers, and it supplied and gave it shelter. Villages also stood in strategic locations and on roads. Some Palestinian Arab communities were left intact and weren't harmed as they didn't fought or supported the fight against the Jews. This is war.

You seem to be under the impression that I'm praising one side over another. That's not my purpose here. I'm well aware of ethnic murder perpetrated against Jews throughout the Mandate and after; as I said, I wrote a dissertation on Palestinian violence and many other essays besides. My point is, it was also, and with absolutely no greater legitimacy, perpetrated against the Palestinians. It was perpetrated by terrorist organisations in an atmosphere of racial, political and religious fear. And you are claiming an entire racial group has earned the mass death and displacement that has befallen it, long before war began and long after it ended.

"This is war". The classic defense of the ethnic cleansing of civilians, both during war and during peace. I would be entirely, horrendously wrong to lay the blame for the actions of the IZL or the Stern Gang at the feet of the Jewish people.

Palestinian Arabs are differentiated, ethnically, from the Jews and Bedouins and others in the area. Thousands of civilians, children etc, are the target of ethnic cleansing on this basis. You do not even deny this-- you merely state that the Palestinians, as an ethnically-distinct group, deserve it. Deserve ethnic cleansing.

"They" had the chance. "They" missed it. For christ's sake, man, "they" are an entire people, diverse and varied in reality. Can you not see what racism does to your sense of perspective? It's lost, and the lives of innocents have become meaningless to you. "It's war". A town of dead Palestinians is no cause for concern, regardless of what they felt or believed, their ages or innocence, because Al Husseini was a monster and Hamas is comprised of fanatics.

As I said above, the sickening acts of the Palestinian terrorist organisations do not reflect on every Palestinian, just as the sickening acts of the Jewish terrorist organisations do not reflect on every Jew.

You apply a standard to one ethnically-distinct group apart from all others. You believe an entire people guilty of the crimes of organisations that purport to act on their behalf. This is bigotry.

Ravinoff:
I quite honestly would respect the Russians who died in the war effort more than Holocaust victims. You know why? Because they fought back. For the most part (with some small exceptions), the victims of the Holocaust marched to their deaths without putting up a shred of resistance. The Soviets weren't having any of that.

You're aware that entire Soviet armies numbering into the millions of soldiers surrendered (almost) without a fight in the early days of Operation Barbarossa right?

Also you should be aware that Jews in eastern Europe and Russia had been discriminated against for centuries already. The local population was often all too happy to help the 'holocaust by bullets', the mass executions in eastern Europe that preceeded the concentration camps.

Silvanus:
Palestinian Arabs are differentiated, ethnically, from the Jews and Bedouins and others in the area. Thousands of civilians, children etc, are the target of ethnic cleansing on this basis. You do not even deny this-- you merely state that the Palestinians, as an ethnically-distinct group, deserve it. Deserve ethnic cleansing.

"They" had the chance. "They" missed it. For christ's sake, man, "they" are an entire people, diverse and varied in reality. Can you not see what racism does to your sense of perspective? It's lost, and the lives of innocents have become meaningless to you. "It's war". A town of dead Palestinians is no cause for concern, regardless of what they felt or believed, their ages or innocence, because Al Husseini was a monster and Hamas is comprised of fanatics.

As I said above, the sickening acts of the Palestinian terrorist organisations do not reflect on every Palestinian, just as the sickening acts of the Jewish terrorist organisations do not reflect on every Jew.

You apply a standard to one ethnically-distinct group apart from all others. You believe an entire people guilty of the crimes of organisations that purport to act on their behalf. This is bigotry.

I think I missed the time where I said that they deserved what happened to them in the war. You surely remember it, because you keep coming back to it. I've argued that it was war, and both sides suffered from it. The difference between the two is that while the Jews came out independent and victorious, the Palestinian Arabs lost and were gobbled up by their Arab nations neighbors.

Palestinians Arabs are a nationality. Arabs are an ethnicity (Mashriq and Maghreb. Beduins are Arabs). I think you can safely call them a race. Palestinian Arabs are not different by ethnic or racial means from their Arab counterparts.

I said that I can't support them, and as far as I see it, they can all fuck off. If these are the things they are taught in school, then they will grow up to be good little holocaust deniers. I can't have sympathy for a people who need to erase another's tragedy in order to make themselves more morally superior.

That wasn't ethnic cleansing. That was war. Difference between the two is that the territory the Jews held had more Arabs than the territory that the Arabs held had Jews. There is also the issue of Arab Palestinians remaining where they were unscathed if they didn't participate in the hostilities. I wouldn't call it ethnic cleansing.

...Why do you keep coming to my emotions? It's annoying. I told you what I thought about this even before and what you repeat in your writings is not what I believe in.

I could dump my redpill or /pol/ folders, but I will spare you of the truth. You must find out yourself.

Glasgow:

I think I missed the time where I said that they deserved what happened to them in the war. You surely remember it, because you keep coming back to it. I've argued that it was war, and both sides suffered from it. The difference between the two is that while the Jews came out independent and victorious, the Palestinian Arabs lost and were gobbled up by their Arab nations neighbors.

And massacres, and forcible relocation, were perpetrated outside wartime, as you're well aware. Unless you're classing the entire period of violence during the mandate and after 1948 as "war", and thus stating that every atrocity is somehow justified.

Glasgow:
Palestinians Arabs are a nationality. Arabs are an ethnicity (Mashriq and Maghreb. Beduins are Arabs). I think you can safely call them a race. Palestinian Arabs are not different by ethnic or racial means from their Arab counterparts.

Uh-huh. I said above that within Palestine, they are differentiated from the Jewish and Bedouin and others, on ethnic grounds, and massacres were carried out on this basis (just as Jews were distinguished by race and murdered for that, as well). You're not even denying that these things were carried out on an ethnic basis within Palestine, either; you're simply trying to distract the issue.

Glasgow:
I said that I can't support them, and as far as I see it, they can all fuck off. If these are the things they are taught in school, then they will grow up to be good little holocaust deniers. I can't have sympathy for a people who need to erase another's tragedy in order to make themselves more morally superior.

Yes, you've stated several times above that the entire people can just "fuck off", because their education system is broken and their leaders are fanatics.

Glasgow:
That wasn't ethnic cleansing. That was war. Difference between the two is that the territory the Jews held had more Arabs than the territory that the Arabs held had Jews. There is also the issue of Arab Palestinians remaining where they were unscathed if they didn't participate in the hostilities. I wouldn't call it ethnic cleansing.

Remaining where they were, unscathed, if they didn't participate, was not always an option. Thousands did, and lost their homes or lives anyway. Just like countless Jewish civilians lost their lives and livelihoods without ever committing an act of violence. You've got a very rosy, black-and-white view of what went on back then, really; that the Palestinians brought everything on themselves, the women and children, and those that were never politically involved too. That it was "villain and victim", through and through.

And I don't agree that describing a period of violence and destruction as war (when the powers were not actually at war) justifies atrocities perpetrated. I can't see how it possibly does.

Glasgow:
...Why do you keep coming to my emotions? It's annoying. I told you what I thought about this even before and what you repeat in your writings is not what I believe in.

It's what you excuse. You're clearly showing that whatever massacres befall the Palestinian people, they brought it on themselves. You show mindblowing bigotry towards a group on ethnic grounds, and have stated the opinion that they can all "fuck off", and "fuck their cause", when we're discussing their right not to be murdered on ethnic grounds or forcible relocated.

Silvanus:

Glasgow:

I think I missed the time where I said that they deserved what happened to them in the war. You surely remember it, because you keep coming back to it. I've argued that it was war, and both sides suffered from it. The difference between the two is that while the Jews came out independent and victorious, the Palestinian Arabs lost and were gobbled up by their Arab nations neighbors.

And massacres, and forcible relocation, were perpetrated outside wartime, as you're well aware. Unless you're classing the entire period of violence during the mandate and after 1948 as "war", and thus stating that every atrocity is somehow justified.

Glasgow:
Palestinians Arabs are a nationality. Arabs are an ethnicity (Mashriq and Maghreb. Beduins are Arabs). I think you can safely call them a race. Palestinian Arabs are not different by ethnic or racial means from their Arab counterparts.

Uh-huh. I said above that within Palestine, they are differentiated from the Jewish and Bedouin and others, on ethnic grounds, and massacres were carried out on this basis (just as Jews were distinguished by race and murdered for that, as well). You're not even denying that these things were carried out on an ethnic basis within Palestine, either; you're simply trying to distract the issue.

Glasgow:
I said that I can't support them, and as far as I see it, they can all fuck off. If these are the things they are taught in school, then they will grow up to be good little holocaust deniers. I can't have sympathy for a people who need to erase another's tragedy in order to make themselves more morally superior.

Yes, you've stated several times above that the entire people can just "fuck off", because their education system is broken and their leaders are fanatics.

Glasgow:
That wasn't ethnic cleansing. That was war. Difference between the two is that the territory the Jews held had more Arabs than the territory that the Arabs held had Jews. There is also the issue of Arab Palestinians remaining where they were unscathed if they didn't participate in the hostilities. I wouldn't call it ethnic cleansing.

Remaining where they were, unscathed, if they didn't participate, was not always an option. Thousands did, and lost their homes or lives anyway. Just like countless Jewish civilians lost their lives and livelihoods without ever committing an act of violence. You've got a very rosy, black-and-white view of what went on back then, really; that the Palestinians brought everything on themselves, the women and children, and those that were never politically involved too. That it was "villain and victim", through and through.

And I don't agree that describing a period of violence and destruction as war (when the powers were not actually at war) justifies atrocities perpetrated. I can't see how it possibly does.

Glasgow:
...Why do you keep coming to my emotions? It's annoying. I told you what I thought about this even before and what you repeat in your writings is not what I believe in.

It's what you excuse. You're clearly showing that whatever massacres befall the Palestinian people, they brought it on themselves. You show mindblowing bigotry towards a group on ethnic grounds, and have stated the opinion that they can all "fuck off", and "fuck their cause", when we're discussing their right not to be murdered on ethnic grounds or forcible relocated.

I am not justifying a thing. I oppose calling the war and what happened as ethnic cleansing. When referring to the war, I am talking about the violence between 1947 and 1949. A conflict that was forced upon the Jews by the Arab leadership. Even before that there were conflicts between the two sides that cost the lives of hundreds.

I am denying this happened on an ethnic basis. The Palestinian Arabs were largely the enemy of the Jewish residents in Palestine within the mandate until the declaration of independence of the state of Israel. I am not justifying any act on either side. It was war. The goals of the Jews was surviving, and the goals of the Arabs was killing or subjugating all of the Jews to stop a Jewish state from existing.

This whole thing started when you were disturbed to see how people think supporting Palestine and practicing antisemetism go hand in hand. I agreed, and said that Palestinians and Palestinian supporters are largely antisemtites, and even go as far as denying the holocaust and pulling elders of zion style conspiracy theories. This is so rooted in their culture today that I don't care about their cause anymore. I have been burnt enough times personally, and I won't support them in any case. I said "fuck them, and fuck their cause". Now you somehow made me a supporter of "massacres and forcible relocation". So this is how it is now? I don't support the cause of the Palestinians and suddenly I support murder? I explained to you why I don't support them, and you still continue with this attitude. What's next, call me a zionazi?

GriffinStallion:
I could dump my redpill or /pol/ folders, but I will spare you of the truth. You must find out yourself.

Thanks, at least now I won't have to clean my eyeballs with soap after reading it. You've done a great service to us.

Glasgow:

I am not justifying a thing. I oppose calling the war and what happened as ethnic cleansing. When referring to the war, I am talking about the violence between 1947 and 1949. A conflict that was forced upon the Jews by the Arab leadership. Even before that there were conflicts between the two sides that cost the lives of hundreds.

I am denying this happened on an ethnic basis.

Ah. Well, you should be well aware that massacres and murder occurred many times throughout the Mandate and after the end of the war. And when Arab villages are targeted by terrorist organisations in retaliation for the actions of other, unrelated Arab organisations, that's violence on an ethnic basis. When Jews are targeted and killed by Arab organisations in retaliation for actions of unrelated Jewish organisations, this is violence on an ethnic basis. To deny this is to whitewash the reality of the situation. It was not relegated to wartime. And it was far from limited to those responsible themselves.

Glasgow:
The Palestinian Arabs were largely the enemy of the Jewish residents in Palestine within the mandate until the declaration of independence of the state of Israel. I am not justifying any act on either side. It was war. The goals of the Jews was surviving, and the goals of the Arabs was killing or subjugating all of the Jews to stop a Jewish state from existing.

You speak again of an entire people, many of them children, many of them apolitical. That was the goal of many (but still, not all) of the Palestinian organisations.

Just like the goals of the IZL and the Stern Gang were not just to "survive", but to commit extreme acts of terrorism and murder, as well. But I recognise that the actions of these organisations do not reflect on the Jewish people one bit, because it would be bigoted of me to pretend they did.

You have an incredibly one-sided view of what went on back then.

Glasgow:
This whole thing started when you were disturbed to see how people think supporting Palestine and practicing antisemetism go hand in hand. I agreed, and said that Palestinians and Palestinian supporters are largely antisemtites, and even go as far as denying the holocaust and pulling elders of zion style conspiracy theories. This is so rooted in their culture today that I don't care about their cause anymore. I have been burnt enough times personally, and I won't support them in any case. I said "fuck them, and fuck their cause". Now you somehow made me a supporter of "massacres and forcible relocation". So this is how it is now? I don't support the cause of the Palestinians and suddenly I support murder? I explained to you why I don't support them, and you still continue with this attitude. What's next, call me a zionazi?

You've said above that they "had their chance" and "missed it". You've tarred an entire people. You've shown time and again that you don't give a shit what happens to people of Arab ethnicity in Palestine, regardless of innocence or ignorance.

I'm not asking that you support Palestinian statehood. I'm asking that you recognise the atrocities committed against Palestinian civilians for what they are, and not something unworthy of concern.

Silvanus:

Glasgow:

I am not justifying a thing. I oppose calling the war and what happened as ethnic cleansing. When referring to the war, I am talking about the violence between 1947 and 1949. A conflict that was forced upon the Jews by the Arab leadership. Even before that there were conflicts between the two sides that cost the lives of hundreds.

I am denying this happened on an ethnic basis.

Ah. Well, you should be well aware that massacres and murder occurred many times throughout the Mandate and after the end of the war. And when Arab villages are targeted by terrorist organisations in retaliation for the actions of other, unrelated Arab organisations, that's violence on an ethnic basis. When Jews are targeted and killed by Arab organisations in retaliation for actions of unrelated Jewish organisations, this is violence on an ethnic basis. To deny this is to whitewash the reality of the situation. It was not relegated to wartime. And it was far from limited to those responsible themselves.

Glasgow:
The Palestinian Arabs were largely the enemy of the Jewish residents in Palestine within the mandate until the declaration of independence of the state of Israel. I am not justifying any act on either side. It was war. The goals of the Jews was surviving, and the goals of the Arabs was killing or subjugating all of the Jews to stop a Jewish state from existing.

You speak again of an entire people, many of them children, many of them apolitical. That was the goal of many (but still, not all) of the Palestinian organisations.

Just like the goals of the IZL and the Stern Gang were not just to "survive", but to commit extreme acts of terrorism and murder, as well. But I recognise that the actions of these organisations do not reflect on the Jewish people one bit, because it would be bigoted of me to pretend they did.

You have an incredibly one-sided view of what went on back then.

Glasgow:
This whole thing started when you were disturbed to see how people think supporting Palestine and practicing antisemetism go hand in hand. I agreed, and said that Palestinians and Palestinian supporters are largely antisemtites, and even go as far as denying the holocaust and pulling elders of zion style conspiracy theories. This is so rooted in their culture today that I don't care about their cause anymore. I have been burnt enough times personally, and I won't support them in any case. I said "fuck them, and fuck their cause". Now you somehow made me a supporter of "massacres and forcible relocation". So this is how it is now? I don't support the cause of the Palestinians and suddenly I support murder? I explained to you why I don't support them, and you still continue with this attitude. What's next, call me a zionazi?

You've said above that they "had their chance" and "missed it". You've tarred an entire people. You've shown time and again that you don't give a shit what happens to people of Arab ethnicity in Palestine, regardless of innocence or ignorance.

I'm not asking that you support Palestinian statehood. I'm asking that you recognise the atrocities committed against Palestinian civilians for what they are, and not something unworthy of concern.

I don't give a shit about Jewish people either, and I don't give a shit about most people outside of my circles for that matter. So no, stop badgering me.

Glasgow:

I don't give a shit about Jewish people either, and I don't give a shit about most people outside of my circles for that matter. So no, stop badgering me.

Then that's where we differ.

I'll take this to mean you want to stop our argument; that's good for me, because I do too. I didn't mean to give offense.

Silvanus:

Glasgow:

I don't give a shit about Jewish people either, and I don't give a shit about most people outside of my circles for that matter. So no, stop badgering me.

Then that's where we differ.

I'll take this to mean you want to stop our argument; that's good for me, because I do too. I didn't mean to give offense.

This was disappointingly pointless and time-consuming. Lets stop this, we're going in circles. You declare me to be the antichrist and I try to say that I can't support a cause with people who deny the holocaust.

Blablahb:
Then how come their policies were a strict reflection of Christian morals at the time?

That's just ridiculous, on many levels.

On one hand, no such monolithic Christian morality exists in the way you are trying to make out: the Westboro Baptist Church and the Quakers are the same religion and have radically different views on moral conduct.

Simply wrong anyway, because Christianity of the time was largely against, for instance, mass slaughter and slavery, two things the Nazis enthusiastically engaged in. Pope Pius XI thoroughly condemned Naziism.

So you'll have no trouble given a dozen examples of that, which identifyably are not about political power, or where very liberal interpretations of Christianity conflicted with nazism.

Try reading "Mit brennender Sorge", from a Christian perspective. That's got several.

Or we could look at it from the Nazi point of view: all the opinions that can be found from the diaries and writings of Hitler's top circle (e.g. Goebbels, Bormann, Speer) seem to think Hitler didn't like Christianity at all, and thought it encouraged unhealthy attitudes.

"The heaviest blow which ever struck humanity was Christianity; Bolshevism is Christianity's illegitimate child. Both are inventions of the Jew." - Hitler

"The law of selection justifies this incessant struggle, by allowing the survival of the fittest. Christianity is a rebellion against natural law, a protest against nature. Taken to its logical extreme, Christianity would mean the systematic cultivation of the human failure". - Hitler

"The Ten Commandments have lost their validity. Conscience is a Jewish invention, it is a blemish like circumcision." - Hitler

"National Socialism [Nazism] and Christianity are irreconcilable" Martin Bormann

And there are plenty of other ones. He dismissed a field marshal saying (paraphrased) "like all Christians, he wants to pray not fight".

Except that's a myth. Like I stated before, that was Himmler, and Himmler alone. Hitler himself was a faithfull Christian who thought he was following the example of Jesus, and was 'doing the work of the Lord' to quote the man from Mein Kampf.

Well, no, it wasn't just Himmler. Plenty of Nazis, including many at the top, were involved to some extent.

lol! How funny, that even after I've warned you about taking propaganda tracts at face value, you seek to claim that it necessarily reflects his true feelings.

No, but his old man did on many occasions. The bible is quite clear that heretics and followers of other religions must be killed. Deuteronomy goes a bit further and even states that any city with at least 1 non-Christian it it must be completely exterminated.

Don't be ridiculous. Christians didn't exist when Deuteronomy was written.

You claimed the nazis and the SS were both anti-Christianity. I have proven this to be untrue. So, your turn to provide sources for your claims. It's a bit disappointing that I go through the trouble of digging up sources like that, and you just ignore them and keep repeating the nazis weren't a Christian movement, while you're yet to present the first-ever proof for that. It's not really constructive.

You've proven nothing at all, provided no compelling sources (just a couple of propaganda posters), and said nothing that's agreed with by acclaimed historians of Hitler and Naziism.

Pathetic. No wonder you repeatedly get things so wrong, when those are your evidential standards.

 Pages PREV 1 2 3 4 5 NEXT

Reply to Thread

This thread is locked