XPost: alt.revisionism, soc.culture.jewish, alt.conspiracy
XPost: alt.law-enforcement
From: roger@
In one age, called the Second Age by some,
(an Age yet to come, an Age long past)
someone claiming to be Seneca wrote
in message
:
>"Roger" wrote in message
>news:2bf64e87790b5b435ee8135c33afa03a@news.teranews.com...
[snip]
>> >> > > >Do Jewish researchers and scholars who question much of the
>> >> > > >Holocaust mythology also have "Jew hatred" in your opinion?
>> >> > > Your question is too vague: to which *specific* questions about
>> >> > > the
>> >> > > historical facts (it's not myth, no matter how many times you post
>> >> > > that lie) of the Holocaust are you referring, and by whom?
>> >> > Gas chambers, for starters.
>> >> What Jewish scholars and researchers question the fact of gas chambers?
>> >David Cole? Dennis Cole? Not sure of the name; IIRC he's a Jewish
>> >researcher
>> >who "believes in the Holocaust" but not in the gas chambers. Of course I
>> >understand that to you that's an impossibility, since anyone not
>> >swallowing the gas chambers story line must be a "Holocaust denier."
>> Of course, that David Cole describes *himself* as a having been a
>> denier, in the same statement that he acknowledges, "I would like to
>> state for the record that there is no question in my mind that during
>> the Holocaust of Europe's Jews during World War II, the Nazis employed
>> gas chambers in an attempt to commit genocide against the Jews"
>> doesn't seem to have registered on seneca's radar...
>I read that statement *attributed* to David Cole and found it remarkable.
>None of his 46 questions about the gas chambers, which were the foundation
>of his disbelief in them, were ever answered, were they?
On what basis do you question the attribution?
Yes, each point he raised has been answered.
>He does not say
>they were in his alleged statement, and seems to have forgotten all
>about them.
No, he has completely recanted his lies on the topic. Ahem.
>Reading that statement I was reminded of nothing so much as Galileo's
>recanting (before the Inquisition, wasn't it?) his theory that the earth
>revolved around the sun, rather than the other way around. In both cases the
>apologies were abject, and in neither case did the penitent offer any
>*logical reason* for changing his mind. But we know why Galileo recanted,
>don't we? He'd probably have been burned at the stake if he had not. Why did
>David Cole recant (if he did), one wonders?
Only if one assumes foul play for which there is *no* evidence to make
a person "confess" what is already well known. Cole's interview with
Piper, for example, has been shown to be an exercise in deceit and
distortion.
>Was it because the JDL made thinly veiled death threats against him on their
>web site, published his photo and offered a money reward to anyone who could
>reveal Cole's whereabouts?
Funny that the only ones that have ever seen this page are deniers.
None of the various archival sites around, despite having seemingly
complete site snapshots of the JDL site, reference this page at all...
What *objective* proof do you offer that any such ever happened?
>The JDL in fact *bragged* about their
>responsibility for it the very day after Cole made his recantation, did they
>not?
No, they did not. Think about it: why Cole? Why has the JDL never
"made thinly veiled death threats" against anyone else -- even higher
profile (or lower profile) deniers?
>And this is the kind of vicious filth you're *proud* of, Roger?
When have I ever made that statement, liar?
>> > I really think it all begins and ends with gas chambers. That seems to
>> > be
>> > the cornerstone of the whole Holocaust mythology. That's the part that
>> > must
>> > be defended at all costs, lest the whole patchwork pile of bullshit come
>> > tumbling down.
>> Rubbish.
>>
>> You have it exactly backwards. Gas chambers are the component of the
>> Holocaust which deniers must attack at all costs.
>That's like saying "flatness of the earth is the component of cosmology that
>deniers must attack at all costs."
Only in that they both use a similar sentence structure.
>The difference, of course, is that the
>Flat Earth concept never served any political, geopolitical, commercial or
>economic purpose, was never the focus of huge propaganda efforts over half a
>century, and can readily be disproven.
And so could the gas chambers, if it weren't for all those pesky
contemporary documents, the statements of the Nazis themselves about
this and so forth.
Too bad for seneca these all exist in support of the *facts* of the
gas chambers.
>Disproving gas chambers amounts to proving a negative, which is impossible.
No, it amounts to having to deny or distort a mountain of evidence
which contains not a single contradictory item to refute the use to
which the gas chambers were put.
Which is why the deniers fail so miserably trying to deny that use.
>> The construction and use
>> of such facilities make it very difficult for deniers to deny
>> intentionality, one of the other components of the Holocaust.
>Indeed that would be so, if there had ever been any.
And yet seneca objects to being named a denier...
--- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
* Origin: you cannot sedate... all the things you hate (1:229/2)
|
