COUSCOUS

I love how the shills are , well, shilling, lol (wipes tear from eye) pushing forth either irrelevant banter or deeply personnal 2nd hand emotional conditioning. None, will answer the basic question here, why is someone arrested for questioning an official narrative? Why should this be acceptable anywhere or anytime? And please no emotional bollocks about saving people pain etc. That sticks in my craw. History should be examined, repeatedly if necessary and all the skeletons should be allowed out to air and see a change of scenery. There is only one reason to forbid research and questions, and that is that someone wants to hide something.

COUSCOUS

LOL, i prefer the saying "the truth shall make you Fret" hehe and it does!

shmegegy

how is this conspiracy?

COUSCOUS

How do you wipe your pimply butt? With a rag on a stick?

shmegegy

so tension

much divide

COUSCOUS

I shouldn't be so hard. you did post a good article about Ukraine. So, have a smiley face. :)

COUSCOUS

ooh, look someone that thinks they are edgy. LOL. doge dog is old hat loser. Probably why you cannot learn new tricks. (i feel i must explain here for the dummy, old dog / can't learn new tricks. LOL i am so funny, i should open an extermination camp. I would slay them.

superwookee

My grandfather was one of the first into Auschwitz. I have second hand knowledge that everything about the Holocaust is real.

This woman has been deceived and the fact that she has been deceived for a long time does not matter.

Now should her terribly misconstrued construction of a past that doesn't shame her be forbidden by law? Never! Free speech includes the right to speak untruths and is far more important that any movement that lies about history. Does that mean that anyone should believe her? Certainly not.

TTrns

My grandfather was one of the first into Auschwitz. I have second hand knowledge that everything about the Holocaust is real.

Did he see the electrocution conveyor-belt, the blast furnace, or the gas chambers on the wrong side of the camp? That's what the Soviets claimed, in Pravda, after they captured Auschwitz . Needless to say, these claims are not compatible with what historians now believe about the alleged extermination facilities there.

Does that mean that anyone should believe her? Certainly not.

This has nothing to do with belief -- at least, for other people. All of the arguments of revisionist scholars are backed by evidence .

If you're going to comment, perhaps you should (at least) understand what revisionists are saying? The link above should prove useful, although this is probably an easier entry point, as is this .

superwookee

I understand what they say and deny every misled statement.

My grandfather was 6"10 and almost 300 lbs. A beast of a man that feared no one. I only saw him cry once.

He broke down crying the only time he spoke to me of what he saw. I believe him beyond anything a revisionist says, period.

He fed an inmate and watched him die because he was so malnourished. He saw the horror that was visited on the Jewish race and it scarred him for life. The Holocaust is real and to deny it is simply naive or purposefully forgetful.

I do not care one iota for the "historical inaccuracies" that are drummed up by those who don't want to believe.

COUSCOUS

you do not care for the historical inaccuracies??? wow, So with that rationale, why bother studying anything? LOL,Hey class, who was the first president? Nah, don't bother studying, just put down what some emotional guy tells you. LOL

TTrns

He broke down crying the only time he spoke to me of what he saw

But did he ever say he saw a gas chamber? If so, how did he describe it? That's what this about.

All troops who captured the German camps were primed, by their nation's propaganda, to believe that they were extermination camps -- even the British and US troops who captured camps which historians now don't believe were centers of killing. This was done, in part, to motivate the troops to kill, by reducing their enemies to caricatures of evil monstrosity -- it happens in all wars. A malnourished former prisoner, to a solider primed by such propaganda, becomes evidence of German weapons of mass destruction -- even as no evidence of such a weapon is provided to him.

superwookee

Holy Fuck! Are you serious!?

Why the fuck does it matter if they were gassed or shot or strangled? They were killed by the millions.

You are seriously delusional and need to actually look at the historical record instead of inventing what you want and then looking for evidence.

COUSCOUS

what historical record? How many where killed with a sexual torture machine? How many dies in non-existent gas chambers? How many have lied? Tell me, did you watch Oprah and her heartfelt show of two love-birds meeting over the wire? And tell me, Did you see the reaction from both the guy involved and the zionist fraternity? When not one peice of the evidence stands up to scrutiny, then there is something rotten lurking in the background.

TTrns

Why the fuck does it matter if they were gassed or shot or strangled? They were killed by the millions.

It matters because if, as the evidence suggests, the gas chambers were a repeat of WWI atrocity propaganda, then millions were not killed. (Note: in 1916 it was claimed that Austrians gassed 700,000 people. It was also claimed the Germans turned corpses into soap, and operated "factories of death." Sound familiar?)

I've examined the historical record, friend, including criticisms of the narrative pushed by the victorious governments. Can you honestly say the same?

superwookee

Yes. And I have spoken to 11 members of the US military that personally witnessed atrocities on the scale described. Do I have details of where everything was located and what actually happened? No. But you don't either, and slight differences in historical records are not necessarily indicative of tampering. Historical records are notoriously inaccurate from that time. What isn't inaccurate is 11 men hardened by war that cannot speak without crying about what they saw.

After my grandfather told me the stories I decided to write a paper on the Holocost for school.

The pain and horror I witnessed in the eyes of men far stronger than me is more evidence in my mind than any historical record.

I understand that you haven't experienced that and that I am just a guy on the internet, but I am convinced beyond a shadow of a doubt that the Germans in WWII attempted the extermination of the Jewish race.

PS Your argument that guards were brainwashed to believe they were doing something that they were not is just asinine. Please take an actual reasoned look at the record and possibly talk to someone who experienced it first hand. It will change your mind.

COUSCOUS

you know, you really shouldn't use the "my grandfather" argument. It is a very weak form of evidence, which you merely back up with more of the same. If you cannot prove what you are stating, then do not use it as evidence. for example, (this is true) My father went through the camps, and he told me the gas chambers and the holocaust mainstream narrative where complete fabrications (He is Dutch). And when I was younger and first joined my lodge, I met an old (pre) NKVD soldier, and he also told me that even though millions on both sides died, and there where absolute nutters on both sides, the Holocaust is a fantastic lie.

But as I can in no way substantiate these claims, I cannot use them as a crutch as you do when you bring out the emotional conditioning. Seriously, if you wrote an essay on the holocaust, then I hope you added a few more points and hard evidence than that emotional crap. Otherwise, in the real world, you would get an F.

grandmacaesar

Neither your grandfather nor the 11 members of the US military you spoke to saw 6 million dead bodies. Neither did they see any document from Hitler ordering the death of jews. And they did not see an operating gas chamber. These three claims are propaganda. Rather than blathering on, take the time to follow the links that TTms has provided. A person barely has to scratch the surface to see!

TTrns

Yes

Really? Which revisionist writers have you read, and how would you respond, specifically , to what you see as their strongest arguments?

And I have spoken to 11 members of the US military that personally witnessed atrocities on the scale described

Did any of them claim to have seen "gas chambers"? If so, how did they describe them?

What isn't inaccurate is 11 men hardened by war that cannot speak without crying about what they saw.

Human tragedy, i.e. incarceration + the collapse of the state which incarcerated you =/= extermination by way of a forensically undocumented weapon of mass destruction. That's what we're talking about. I don't doubt that it was traumatic to enter those camps.

I am convinced beyond a shadow of a doubt that the Germans in WWII attempted the extermination of the Jewish race.

I'm just pointing out that you haven't actually done your responsible due diligence here. You dismiss the revisionist perspective without actually bothering to understand the arguments being put forward -- they would surprise you, if you were actually to follow those links.

nokilli

To learn who rules over you, simply find out who you are not allowed to criticize.

-- [name deleted]

COUSCOUS

I see what you did there.

shmegegy

the vatican?

TTrns

<eyeroll> Yes, the Vatican controls US Middle Eastern policy, and those who criticize it are subject to censorship and persecution.

shmegegy

no one expects the spanish inquisition!

COUSCOUS

Maybe not, but pretty much everyone expects knobheads.

TTrns

My POV is that these laws are uncivilized and have been lobbied for and passed in order to censor free speech. Corporate and public media are complicit in the misrepresentation of Holocaust revisionist activism, and it's informal trial in the public arena -- compare the full interview with this 2 minute segment which the German network aired.

TTrns

See also:

[Regarding Günter Deckert's trial...] His first judge, Dr. Rainer Orlet, was threatened to be prosecuted for violating the law – his sentence was considered to have been too mild – but was eventually only forced to retire.[1] Deckert’s publication about this affair,[2] together with other “thought” crimes like writing naughty letters to Jewish representatives and selling prohibited revisionist literature – were prosecuted as well and, together with his first conviction, led to an accumulated prison term of more than five years. Eventually, even his defense lawyer Ludwig Bock was prosecuted and sentenced for too vigorously defending Deckert by asking for permission to introduce revisionist evidence . This was considered criminal behavior because Bock allegedly indicated with this that he identifies himself with revisionist thoughts.[3] In a similar case, the late German right-wing defense lawyer Jürgen Rieger was put on trial in 2000, because during the proceedings against one of his clients in summer 1996, he had filed a motion to introduce me as an expert witness as evidence for the fact that his client’s revisionist claims were well founded. Though Rieger was initially acquitted by the Hamburg District Court,[4] the German Federal Supreme Court subsequently overturned this verdict, demanding the sentencing and punishment of every lawyer who dares to ask for, or introduce, evidence challenging the common “knowledge” about the Holocaust.[5] Thus, it is clear that every judge who dares to hand out lenient sentences to revisionists at least risks an abrupt end of his career, and defense lawyers trying to defend their clients effectively may themselves be prosecuted for that.

More here .