An Interesting angle on the Columbine thing

RolandTD20Kdrummer

lazymoon13 wrote:

I had you all wrong. good post. and I apologize for being such a dick in the middle east thread. cheers

So you agree that over 1 million Iraq's have been killed from the result of the US occupation? I have to say I would find that very surprising.

lazymoon13

RolandTD20Kdrummer wrote:

So you agree that over 1 million Iraq's have been killed from the result of the US occupation? I have to say I would find that very surprising.

what does this have to do with anything?

RolandTD20Kdrummer

lazymoon13 wrote:

what does this have to do with anything?

I knew I was right..

Strangest Tribe

those that win the wars write the history books

lazymoon13

Strangest Tribe wrote:

those that win the wars write the history books

but the nazi's wrote alot of the history and they lost.

Strangest Tribe

lazymoon13 wrote:

but the nazi's wrote alot of the history and they lost.

my point is... we never studied the Nazi historians in my High School but we were forced to read the Diary of Anne Frank in Literature class

...just sayin now, don't go judging me anti-semetic or anything, don't send the JDL goons down on me

Strangest Tribe

It's like when you go to church and you ask certain questions like...."who created god...because I'm having trouble wrapping my mind around this concept?"

Then the minister and the congregation think you're either an idiot or a comedian.

I'd like to think that some of the Holocaust tales are a little scetchy (now don't blast me) because I find it unbelievably hard to conceptualize that an entire country could be so blinded by patriotism that such would ever occur.

Perhaps it's denial, I'm not a defender of the Nazi's....not ever...but I understand Roland's m.o. (to a degree) to not blindly accept all historical "facts".

Like he said it is interesting to view differing perspectives. It's not always black and white. It doesn't mean that you have to accept those views. We can all draw our own opinions.

Anyway the best lesson of WWII is that we should never blindly follow our government and it's oppressive whims.

Byrnzie

lazymoon13 wrote:

I had you all wrong. good post. and I apologize for being such a dick in the middle east thread. cheers

Cheers. No hard feelings.

catefrances

Strangest Tribe wrote:

my point is... we never studied the Nazi historians in my High School but we were forced to read the Diary of Anne Frank in Literature class

...just sayin now, don't go judging me anti-semetic or anything, don't send the JDL goons down on me

and the nazi ideology being seen as abberant amuses me.

Byrnzie

catefrances wrote:

and the nazi ideology being seen as abberant amuses me.

Que?

catefrances

Byrnzie wrote:

Que?

im sure a lot of people look at what the nazis did and see it as something that could not happen elsewhere. and would never happen elswhere. i'm not necessarily talking about the actual actions involved in the shoah. we've seen genocide happen before and after. what im talking about is that the ideas behind those actions are not aberrant, no matter how heinous we find them. what happened in germany and europe didn't suddenly appear out of the blue. twasn't as if hitler and pals woke up one morning and decided that the aryan race was the pinnacle of evolution. they were standing on the shoulders of others. yes they took it to the extreme, but they did not come up with the idea of racial purity.

Byrnzie

catefrances wrote:

im sure a lot of people look at what the nazis did and see it as something that could not happen elsewhere. and would never happen elswhere. i'm not necessarily talking about the actual actions involved in the shoah. we've seen genocide happen before and after. what im talking about is that the ideas behind those actions are not aberrant, no matter how heinous we find them. what happened in germany and europe didn't suddenly appear out of the blue. twasn't as if hitler and pals woke up one morning and decided that the aryan race was the pinnacle of evolution. they were standing on the shoulders of others. yes they took it to the extreme, but they did not come up with the idea of racial purity.

Then It depends on whether you believe that Nazi Germany and the holocaust can be reduced simply to the idea of racial purity.
I don't. I think there's a lot more to it than that.

even flow?

jeffbr wrote:

Right. I am not into jailing people for saying stupid shit. I am for making fun of people saying stupid shit, though. And Zundel has said his share of stupid shit. So in addition to believing he shouldn't be jailed, I also believe that nobody should use him as a credible source for anything.

Right, so how about that chosen people bullshit? A little stretched I would think.

mammasan

Byrnzie wrote:

I was always of the opinion that approx 10 million were killed, not the customary figure of 6 million.
Anyway, how do you kill 6 - 10 million people through disease alone. I don't buy it.
Have you seen the documentary 'Shoah'? There's first hand testimony there from both sides - Nazi's and Jews - about what went on.
And also, we need to keep in mind what the Nazis did prior to the gas chambers being built - i.e, mass shootings. They shot 33,000 in the quarry at Babi Yar in Bellorussia alone. You think that after all the hundreds of thousands, if not millions, of mass shootings, that the Nazis then decided to use 'disease' as a method of mass extermination? I don't buy it. If the gas chambers were a myth then what happened to all the women and chilren who when they arrived at the Death camps? Most were dead within 24 hours.

I believe the 11 million figure includes the Russians, ethnic Polish, Slavics, disabled and gay Germans, and Jehovah's Witnesses. Many of then where executed and slaughtered by the thousands.

my2hands

mammasan wrote:

I believe the 11 million figure includes the Russians, ethnic Polish, Slavics, disabled and gay Germans, and Jehovah's Witnesses. Many of then where executed and slaughtered by the thousands.

it was exaggerated

































































:rolleyes:

jeffbr

even flow? wrote:

Right, so how about that chosen people bullshit? A little stretched I would think.

I don't understand. I don't think people should be jailed or killed for believing they're the chosen people either. I think all religions at some level are goofy. But they didn't deserve to be rounded up and exterminated. So I'm not sure what your point is.

catefrances

Byrnzie wrote:

Then It depends on whether you believe that Nazi Germany and the holocaust can be reduced simply to the idea of racial purity.
I don't. I think there's a lot more to it than that.

then please by all means steve, share your thoughts.

Collin

mammasan wrote:

The problem with that is that there are mountains of documents supporting the current beliefs of what transpired during the holocaust. Eye witness testimonials, Nazi's documents, etc... I understand progressive thinking and not settling for what the status quo is, but when it comes to an event in history that is very well documented there is need. Have there been some events and statistics that may have been exaggerated, I'm sure their is. Where the remains of Jews used to make lampshades, soap, wallets, etc... maybe maybe not. Where 1.1 million Jews killed at Auschwitz by gassing or was it only 600,000 and the rest died of disease and starvation? All this study of nuance doesn't change the fact that the Nazi's where responsible for the murder of millions of innocent civilians simply based on their religion and/or ethnicity. It doesn't matter if they where starved, shot, or gassed. It was done deliberetly and mercilessly and that is all that really matters. People like Cole and Irving aren't out there to try to discover some hidden truth. They are out their to discredit a historical event by any means necessary. They will nit-pick at things such as the bar of soap at the museum and use that as a basis to further their cause.

I think it does matter. I think the truth matters. You said you're sure some of the events and numbers were exaggerated. And you're ok with that as long as the message is conveyed? Well, I'm sorry but I don't agree with that at all.

I think we should strive for objective, factual information and not settle for half-truths. If we knowingly allow mistakes, half-truths and lies into our history, then how can we ever trust that history? Where and how do you draw the line?

Is it ok to say the bombings on Nagasaki and Hiroshima killed 500.000 people or even 2 million people? Or is it ok to say 'only' 800 people died on 9/11 as long as we stress it was a heinous act?

We agree that the heinous acts of the nazis were indeed deliberate and merciless. And I also agree that the difference between starvation as a method to kill or gassing people is not as important as the fact that they were killed deliberately and systematically.

I just think it's important that we know the truth, whatever it is. I think it's important that we don't compromise on history and truth because the issue is a sensitive one.

catefrances

what did stalin say? one death is a tragedy, a million deaths is a statistic.

Collin

catefrances wrote:

what did stalin say? one death is a tragedy, a million deaths is a statistic.

Exactly