An Interesting angle on the Columbine thing

Collin wrote:

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.

The statistical difference is how many people died via gas chamber vs disease or starvation. Most historians agree that between 5.1 million to 5.9 million Jews where killed during the Holocaust. There is no debating that stat. To me it doesn't really matter in the manner which they where killed all that matters, and should matter, is that they where. Sitting here debating the manner in which they died is not trying to uncover some hidden truth, it's a means to try to revise history to support your agenda. I agree that we should never settle for the status quo but strive to for more. We should never blindly trust what is thrust in our face and accept that as truth but when it comes to the holocaust many of the details are supported by mountains of documentation. Armies of historians have spent a life time gathering information from all sources to pain an accurate picture. The exact number of Jews killed will never be known but the estimates they do have are certainly damn close. So it is really necessary to debate wether 5.1 or 5.9 millions Jews where killed? I think not.

RolandTD20Kdrummer wrote:

Actually I am talking about exaggerations, and I just pointed one out.

he doesn't understand these things. or what the main point of a post is

mammasan wrote:

The statistical difference is how many people died via gas chamber vs disease or starvation.

Come on dying from disease really is not the same as people being led to a gas chamber everyday.

One is wilful intent the other is not. So if indeed millions were not gassed then i think it is important.

spiral out wrote:

Come on dying from disease really is not the same as people being led to a gas chamber everyday.

One is wilful intent the other is not. So if indeed millions were not gassed then i think it is important.

Are you kidding me. These people where purposely placed in deplorable living conditions with insuffecient food, clothing, and medicine. Forced to work past the point of exhaustion left in their barracks to die once diseases and infection set in and that is not willfull intent.

These people where singled out because of their ethnic/religious difference. Stripped of everything and thrown into camps to die by what ever means best suited the Nazi's be it hanging, firing squad, gas chamber, disease or starvation. The means by which these people met their end is not as important as the fact that they where intentionally killed.

mammasan wrote:

Are you kidding me. These people where purposely placed in deplorable living conditions with insuffecient food, clothing, and medicine. Forced to work past the point of exhaustion left in their barracks to die once diseases and infection set in and that is not willfull intent.

These people where singled out because of their ethnic/religious difference. Stripped of everything and thrown into camps to die by what ever means best suited the Nazi's be it hanging, firing squad, gas chamber, disease or starvation. The means by which these people met their end is not as important as the fact that they where intentionally killed.

Fair point, i was looking at it from the point of view of leading people to a gas chamber to intentionally kill them, as a posed to people dying from disease due to not having the right medicine.

Did you ever read the red cross reports?

mammasan wrote:

The statistical difference is how many people died via gas chamber vs disease or starvation. Most historians agree that between 5.1 million to 5.9 million Jews where killed during the Holocaust. There is no debating that stat. To me it doesn't really matter in the manner which they where killed all that matters, and should matter, is that they where. Sitting here debating the manner in which they died is not trying to uncover some hidden truth, it's a means to try to revise history to support your agenda. I agree that we should never settle for the status quo but strive to for more. We should never blindly trust what is thrust in our face and accept that as truth but when it comes to the holocaust many of the details are supported by mountains of documentation. Armies of historians have spent a life time gathering information from all sources to pain an accurate picture. The exact number of Jews killed will never be known but the estimates they do have are certainly damn close. So it is really necessary to debate wether 5.1 or 5.9 millions Jews where killed? I think not.

My agenda? What are you talking about?

Anyway, I've heard 4 million were killed and I've heard 6 million were killed. That's a huge difference. But does the difference matter? Not really. But why would you not want to give the most accurate number?

You say the consensus is the number was between 5.1 and 5.9 million. I'd say that's very reasonable, we'll never know the exact number.

What I'm trying to say is, why wouldn't we want to present accurate information? If the nazis let more than half starve to death, why say they gassed most of them (this is just an example, not something I believe)?

Maybe you're satisfied with only knowing half of the story (that they were killed). But I'm also interested in how they were killed. I'm interested in history. I think it's relevant information, and that doesn't mean I have some agenda.

Collin wrote:

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.

...
I get what you're saying... but, let's suppose that 60 years from now... future revisionists look back at September 11, 2001 and say...
"Well, only 800 people died as a direct cause of the al Qaeda members. That is, 800 people died from the direct cause of the planes, crashing into the buildings.
Some people actually killed themselves by jumping out the windows... and fire fighters and police officers... who weren't there when the plance actually crashed into the buildings, rather, they arrived afterwards and died rushing into the building or were crushed when the buildings collapsed."
...
Even if that were true... al Qaeda and those hi-jackers need to be held responsible for all 2,900 of those lives they took. And the attacks of September 11, 2001 would remain as a terrible act that demonstrates the horrible nature Man can reveal himself to be... right?