Hamas IslamoNazi FILTH leader engages in classic anti semetism and Holocaust denial.

[sealadaigh]

Since you asked, Seal: I have NEVER once seen 'Holocaust revision' stop with the perfectly legitimate questioning of an actual 'exact' number.

i did not ask about "holocaust revision", nor did i mention it, nor am i even sure what it is.

i said the numbers didn't matter to me. i do not visit "holocaust revisionist" sites. they do not interest me. i am quite capable of thinking for myself, thank you.

i resent the implication of "since you asked" and followed by your long tirade that somehow i may have been or am now a proponent of such sites. i for the most part agree with your assessment of them.

Seal, you're resenting something I did not intend to suggest in any way. The 'implication' of 'since you asked' was simply and ONLY that you had asked very nicely - as opposed to some instances where people have demanded someone reply.

Why don't you try just simply asking me 'What did you mean by that?' next time, Seal? And I'll do the same for you?

To quote probably the finest human being who's ever crossed my path "There's always time to get angry, later".... An estimated 85% of 'issues' are due to simple misunderstandings. And the written word alone counts for only 7% of the content that a 'face-to-face' conversation would have.

then apparently i misunderstood, and i have no doubt most people would. i am also beginning to suspect your questionable editing of the posts in your responses.

her is my first post...

http://www.usmessageboard.com/5770003-post22.html

it is merely a responde to roudy and irose questioning their "meticulous" sources, which really aren't so meticulous at all or whatever, i say nothing at nall about holocaust revision or enial or aanything at all of that nature. i acknowledge , in fact, the tragedy of the holocaust.

your response...the "since you asked" response is below,,,

http://www.usmessageboard.com/5770184-post24.html

it is a long lecture almost exclusively on holocaust denial or revision and i think any resonable person would conclude that there is a clear implication there.

so, what did you mean by that, and what did you mean by that quote?

and what do you think of roudy's and iroses's contention that the meticulous records prove the 6,000,000, which seems contrary to "the holocaust project" site you link to and even contrary to your own words on the subject it seems. also, i should add, to you and hoss, that children are, at least when my son was in school and my nieces, and as far back to when i was in school, that 6,000,000 did die in the camps, as well by other people, mainly jewish people, in a similar forum, as little as two years ago. perhaps this new trend of balancing the books on the figures is a new type of revisionist history, don't you?

at any rate, i still do not think the numbers are important...and i feel a little dirty talking about the dead in such a way.

 

[eots]

The Nuremburg trial documents and records are 'primary sources' - the 'film' above is at best a 'tertiary' source.

They where caught red handed in their lies...

Nazi lunatics like you will believe and say just about anything. That's because you're illiterate and ignorant and looking for somebody or something to blame your pathetic life on.

The people in this film lied about their experiences...deal with it

 

[Roudy]

They where caught red handed in their lies...

Nazi lunatics like you will believe and say just about anything. That's because you're illiterate and ignorant and looking for somebody or something to blame your pathetic life on.

The people in this film lied about their experiences...deal with it

No, you deal with it, Nazi boy.

Nuremberg Trials

 

[sealadaigh]

Hi, PatCat - I was simply trying to explain to Seal that so very much of the time, 'questioning the '6 million' figure' is the thin edge of a wedge.

I continued with the broader topic of Holocaust Revisionists, etc to illustrate the problem I have encountered in EVERY SINGLE such site which makes a big deal of the exact numbers.

BTW, here is a link to a site which may provide some answer to that initial question of 'Where'd the number come from?'

</title> </head> <!doctype html public "-//W3C//DTD HTML 3.2//EN"> <html> <head> <title>

Criticism of Holocaust denial - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

i you perhaps would even read your own link, particularly this one...

</title> </head> <!doctype html public "-//W3C//DTD HTML 3.2//EN"> <html> <head> <title>

you would also accuse "the holocaust project" as the also the same "thin edge of the wedge" as they say exactlly the same thing i have said and they fly directly in the face of those who claim that 6,000,000 is writ in stone.

it also seems that a number of 600,001 (see below) may be some threshold limit...below that number and you are a "holocaust denier."

"3. It is not, however, legitimate to argue that since these estimates are so wide the true figure could be much smaller (or, for that matter, much bigger) - say, by a factor of ten or more." (the holocaust project. linked above.)

i am glad we were able to resolve this amicably. thank you for the sites. as i have said, the numbers aren't important to me and i think those who fascinate and obsess about how many died diminish the magnitude ot the true horror of what hitler did, not only to the jew, but his holocaust of other targeted groups as well. it is almost as though they were tattooing the numbers on the forearms of those innocent souls all over again.

 

[MHunterB]

I wasn't paying attention to what Roudy or Rosie had posted, and I don't really think it matters what I would think of whatever they said. People don't always continually update their 'studies': if you were to survey people who're neither NA tribal members nor NW archaeologists, you'd probably get a lot of outdated 'information' on the arrival of humans to the New World from Asia or the Arctic.

If it's as unimportant to you as you keep saying to tally exact numbers of the martyrs of the Third Reich, I would hope you would understand why I'm not goiong to freak out if some people are using a 'hard' number rather than a range.


I think you still didn't get my point, so I'll try to make it plainer. The 'six million' figure has always been an estimate and depending on exactly how one is counting it's never going to be exact.

The deniers like to claim something on the order of "f it turned out to be 5,999,990 Jews who were killed, then the ENTIRE idea of the deaths being due to intentional and deliberate Nazi genocide is thereby challenged". This, btw, is exactly how 'absolutel literalist Christians' view their version of 'the Bible'.

If ten people lied, then that means ten people lied. Unless someone has got a way to study such things, there isn't going to be any way of determining if more surviviors are embellishing their accounts of their experiences in the Holocaust, than WW2 GI's or Vietnam era vets or any other large group of people recounting a very stressful and traumatic experience decades later.

Of course there are some fakes and frauds - with a few hundred thousand individual stories, I suspect it's inevitable that some will, for whatever individual reasons, associate themselves with this horrific aspect of history.

 

[MHunterB]

The tattooing was only done at the Auschwitz complex:

Tattoos and Numbers: The System of Identifying Prisoners at Auschwitz

 

[irosie91]

For the record I have never in my life suggested that the number Six million is an EXACT number of jews who nazis murdered The person who made the claim that I have have expressed the idea that "six million" is an "exact" figure is a vulgar and disgusting and filthy liar. It amazes me that people are willing to post such idiotic lies In fact I cannot imagine how anyone could arrive at an "exact number" because I am not stupid