Hello, Bob, you forgot to mention... The Jewish Role in the Native American Genocide – Part I The Native American genocide was the biggest and longest lasting genocide in human history. It went on for 500 years, with a death toll of 100 million lives. That beats even world record holder Joseph Stalin’s Ukrainian genocide of 70 million Ukrainians conducted by Christian-hating Jewish Bolsheviks. https://brutalproof.net/2018/01/the-jewish-role-in-the-native-american-genocide/ ------ We all know how brutal the Jews can be as they have demonstrated on the ethnic Germans in Poland and for the last 70+ years in Palestine.
I didn't know about that. I've looked at a lot of stuff about WW2 and I think I've got a good idea of why it was fought. Hitler's War What The ‘ Historians’ Neglect To Mention https://archive.org/details/hitlers-war-what-the-historians-neglect-to-mention_202008 Who Started World War II? by Viktor Suvorov https://www.youtube.com/results?search_query=Who+Started+World+War+II?+by+Viktor+Suvorov I wonder if both the allies and the axis knew about the oil reserves in Libya at the time. That would explain why they fought so hard in North Africa. I'm still trying to figure out why WW1 was fought.
Never claimed he was a socialist. However, it does seem like you are claiming that National Socialism had nothing to do with the holocaust. Is that true?
So, according to you, open doors are fortifications. Just take the top definition from Google. Oh, wait that's even worse for your case. Yep, ad hominem - the last refuge of someone who has lost an argument.
Here's an online book I've been too lazy to read. http://ihr.org/books/rassinier/debunking.shtml The Holocaust Story and the Lies of Ulysses [Former title: "Debunking the Genocide Myth"] A Study of the Nazi Concentration Camps and the Alleged Extermination of European Jewry by Paul Rassinier Introduction by Pierre Hofstetter Translated from the French by Adam Robbins The Noontide Press Newport Beach, California
Yes it is. Socialism leads to mass democide. It just does. At this point, I realize that most likely you are a Marxist Socialist and you are upset that I am pointing out this obvious fact. You want to make everyone believe that the slaughter of people by Marxist Socialist regimes didn't really happen and that the only mass slaughter was by Hitler who only killed Jews. To top this you want to claim that Hitler was a capitalist despite the reality that he wasn't. What you really don't want people to know is that Hitler's socialism is what caused the death of the Jews. You came here to defend Marxist Socialism - not discuss the holocaust or Middle East. This is a case in point. There was no private enterprise in Hitler's Germany. This is absurd and bogus.
Your first link is dead. The second link indicates that Abraham Lincoln was a secret Jew which is absurd. For this reason, I believe the dead link was also likely to an equally absurd article. Karl Marx was an anti-semite as most socialists are. Hitler believed that Marxist Socialists were Jews. And it seems like you are continuing that belief. While I don't agree with Israel's embrace of certain aspects of National Socialism, they haven't gone to the extremes of Hitler's Germany, yet.
Check out the comments below this article. https://therealistreport.com/holocaust-education-necessary-to-combat-anti-semitism/
Re: Since the Holocaust Industry and its complicit Hollywood - MSM control much about what you see and can find on the internet, there's a good reason that you didn't know that it was strictly verboten for the Germans to abuse work camp inmates(1). Actual German guards and soldiers had little contact with the inmates so most of the abuses were committed by fellow inmates in positions of power. I've known several honest Holocaust survivors and WW 2 Veterans from both sides and a Russian woman who was a "White" Russian (vs Red) was held captive by armies of several nationalities and claimed that she received the best treatment under the Germans. As always, thanks for the links. (1) “Punishment of Germans, by Third Reich authorities, for mistreatment of Jews (1939-1945)” https://robertfaurisson.blogspot.com/2002/06/punishment-of-germans-by-third-reich.html EXCERPT “The German army severely punished its own soldiers for crimes committed against the civilian population, including Jews. Examples are given, such as a case in the spring of 1944 occurring when a German anti-aircraft battery on its way to Budapest was held over and the soldiers stayed in a house belonging to Jews. Permission was granted to the men by the commander of the battery, a young sub-lieutenant, to confiscate various items from the house, including jewellery and radio sets. A Jewish woman who wanted to report this crime was killed. The sub-lieutenant was sentenced to death and executed for this crime, and several NCOs and service personnel received long prison terms.” CONTINUED
If you quote something and cherry pick only what you want from it you will be called out. That is intellectually dishonest. In regards to your childish and purile comment asking me if I was frightened of a person with a bare chest who invaded Congress was just that, childish and purile. Its not an ad hominem attack, it points out your stupid reference. What I feel about any of the assailants and whether they are bare chested or not is absolutely irrelevant to the determination as to whether they forcefully trespassed onto the Congressional buildings to threaten and engage in violence, property damage and call out to break the laws of the US. If you try ridicule a serious issue by making childish disparaging comments that understate what these individuals did I will call it out for what it is. Hiding behind the words ad hominem is ironic. The whole intent of your asking how I felt about the trespasser was an argument or reactio directed against me and how I feel andrather than the issue-the trespass on Congress. You in fact engaged in the ad homminem attack and I responded to it. I did not initiate it...but hey I am glad we could have that clarified for you. Here is the definition you continue to cherry pick: siege /sēj/ noun a military operation in which enemy forces surround a town or building, cutting off essential supplies, with the aim of compelling the surrender of those inside. "Verdun had withstood a siege of ten weeks" Similar: blockade beleaguerment encirclement investment investment in road-building" data-hw="investment" data-lb="archaic" data-tae="true" data-te="false" data-tl="en-US" data-tldf="" data-url="/search?q=define+investment&forcedict=investment&dictcorpus=en-US"> besiegement Opposite: relief raising an operation in which a police or other force surround a building and cut off supplies, with the aim of forcing an armed person to surrender. a prolonged period of misfortune. "I've been having a siege of headaches" The Cambridge Dictionary gives a clear example of how seige can be used to mean an attack and occupation by someone other than the police or military: https://dictionary.cambridge.org/dictionary/english/siege "the surrounding of a place by an armed force in order to defeat those defending it: The siege of Mafeking lasted for eight months. The soldiers laid siege to (= started a siege of) the city. The castle was under siege for months. figurative That whole weekend at Cannes, Brigitte Bardot was under siege by photographers. The Oxford dictionary clearly states in its second example of seige: " 2. a situation in which the police surround a building where people are living or hiding, in order to make them come out The siege was finally brought to an end when the terrorists surrendered." Seige is shortened down from the term "beseiged" besiege verb [ T often passive ] UK /bɪˈsiːdʒ/ US /bɪˈsiːdʒ/ surround a place, especially with an army, to prevent people or supplies getting in or out: If we go to: https://www.macmillandictionary.com/dictionary/british/under-siege it states" under siege DEFINITIONS AND SYNONYMS PHRASEMAINLY JOURNALISM DEFINITIONS1 1 being criticized or attacked by a lot of different people at the same time The industry is currently under siege from the press. also: https://www.collinsdictionary.com/dictionary/english/under-siege under siege PHRASE If someone or something is under siege, they are being severely criticized or put under a great deal of pressure. Here are examples of how the term seige was used in regards to the incident we refer to: https://indianexpress.com/article/explained/us-capitol-hill-siege-explained-7136632/ https://www.forbes.com/sites/carlie...mp-protestors-breach-capitol/?sh=684a5b4f4f29 https://news.abplive.com/news/world...-riot-zone-as-trump-supporters-protest-bidens https://www.businessinsider.com/photos-show-the-aftermath-of-a-siege-on-capitol-building-2021-1 You really want to play semantics about how to use the word seige? Enough.[/QUOTE]
If true you're welcome to point out where I did. Good. So you admit that National Socialism has at least something to do with the Holocaust. That means that discussing National Socialism in a thread titled "About the Holocaust" where people are also talking about the Holocaust is also appropriate. Discussing the precursors to National Socialism and some of the ideologies of associated with National Socialism would also be appropriate.
Stop deflecting. You know damn well what we were debating and that was your raising the Ayatollah in the context of Hitler and that Ayatollah of being socialists. I suggest you stop deflecting and trying to slide out of the context of your arguments and change the subject when you can't defend your nonsensical comments. Next you brought up the regime in Iran to suggest it hates Jews and kills because its socialist like Hitler's regime. You want to deny that now? Try. I was debating you playing idiotic games as to defining Hitler, and all the other political events you listed as being the result of socialism. This is why you brought Iran up. Anyone can see the sequence of your comments. By the way the fact that Iran is anti-semitic and denies the holocaust and most Arab League nations also still argue the holocaust was manufactured, exaggerated, or not a reason for Jews to come to Israel is one of many factors attached to the anti-semitism inter-twined with the ME conflict. Please don't try lecture me or tell me what I need to know. You are doing a piss poor job of explaining anything. Thanks I can read for myself. I also lived in the ME and I lived with and know many Iranian refugees. I prefer their knowledge to yours.
Start a thread on National Socialism. Your use of National Socialism is to deflect from your comments taking a series of genocides and blaming them all on socialism which you then could not defend. Your deflection failed and now you try deflect again.
You again do not read. For someone who wrote me and told me to read properly can you? I provided only one link to explain why your contention Iran was socialist is bullshit: https://www.pbs.org/wgbh/pages/fron...ic-economy-come-from-and-where-did-it-go.html
To see you now call out Israel as embracing National Socialism on a thread where you tried to trivialize the holocaust as just another socialist genocide speaks for itself. Considering you called Hitler a socialist insulting the thousands murdered by him for being socialist why would you now calling Israelis Nazis be any different? https://ohpi.org.au/antisemitism-israel-nazi/ "When used in the context of Jews or Israel, it’s not just a really poor comparison; its use is designed to cause distress to those who survived the Holocaust or who grew up as the children of survivors. It’s like disagreeing with someone eating meat, and knowing they are a rape victim, choosing to make your point by comparing eating meat with rape and saying that someone who had been raped should know better. It’s not just a bad analogy, it’s applying a different standard to someone because they are a victim, making them a victim a second time."
I did no cherry picking I took the first definition which appeared twice. No other definition would support the absurdity posted. AoC described how she was afraid and she wasn't even in the building. When a person dresses like a clown, it becomes clear that forcing surrender was not the motive. When no one came armed, that reinforces that no one was trying to seige the capitol. The bare-chested man did not forcefully trespass, engage in violence, property damage, or call out to break the laws of the US (other than trespassing and interrupting the business of the US senate.) There were those who engaged in violence and property damage, but the majority were simply guilty of trespassing and unknowingly so, since the doors were open - not a single door was busted down. Claiming it was siege is a childish disparaging comment. Insisting that it was a siege despite all evidence to the contrary is increasingly childish. Pointing out how ludicrous someone's statements are is not childish. You're highlighting synonyms and figurative language which still does not even remotely describe what happened that day. Riot would be a good description. Or what some would call "protest, mostly peaceful". What you have brought up reinforces my point that calling it a siege is absurd.
Some people really like to order people around. You seem adamant that I said something I did not. I should have made my posts more clear. Iran hates the Jews because the Quran tells them to. They are simply following their religion. I brought the leader of Iran up because you said that National Socialism had nothing to do with the ME. The Holocaust is a definitely important to ME politics and so National Socialism is as well. Maybe I should have connected the dots for you. Now you resort to cussing.
No, I took on those who were holocaust deniers. They are unwilling to state whether Hitler was a National Socialist or whether National Socialism promotes the creation of a racial state because they know doing so would acknowledge the Holocaust. And socialism is the primary cause of the democide.
Oh, so now you do agree that socialists cause genocides. I, in no way, tried to trivialize the holocaust. Saying so is simply a lie. I have always kept the same 6 million number most agree with. Understanding why and how certain types of governments commit democide is one of the keys to prevent future democide. Hitler did not murder people for being socialists, he murdered socialists who openly opposed him. Socialists murder other socialists all the time. It is very common for children who were abused by their parents to abuse their own children. Pointing this out is not victimizing them. Israel has, in fact, created a set of laws which favor those of one race over another. One might argue that this is religious-based instead, but their laws definitely promote one group of citizens over another.
You never addressed this satisfactorily. http://politicalforum.com/index.php?threads/about-the-holocaust.552312/page-88#post-1072758448
So, you believe that the racial state Germany's National Socialists promised to build was only talk. They didn't actually plan to do it? That would mean that National Socialism did not actually promise to build a racial state. Doesn't matter. Race doesn't exist and is a social construct. So declaring some to be of "Aryan Blood" and others not is a definite sign that the holocaust was happening. Otherwise, why care enough to personally make those declarations as Hitler did? https://www.latimes.com/archives/la-xpm-1996-12-24-mn-12209-story.html Now I understand why you are spending time arguing that it wasn't a pure racial state. Race is made up. Pure race and race is the same thing. They can do exactly what Goering did - the mother had an affair with another man. The mother only thought she was Jewish when in fact she was adopted. You're bringing up minutia that doesn't prove anything except that for the National Socialists, race was very important which once again shows the motivation for the Holocaust. The madman Hitler idea came from german military generals like Halder who unfortunately were allowed to write the history books in the U.S. "It wasn't my fault, it was madman Hitler's fault." This idea was also well liked by Marxist Socialists. I do not hold to the "madman Hitler" theory. There was no complexity in his wanting the Jews to be eliminated and the desire to set up a racial state. He repeated this several times.
It's too easy to refute and not worth the effort. https://encyclopedia.ushmm.org/content/en/article/remaining-jewish-population-of-europe-in-1945
Simply posting another source that says something different is not a refutation. How do we know which source is bogus? Why didn't the Red Cross report mention gas chambers? Why didn't Eisenhower mention gas chambers in his memoirs? There seems to be some good physical evidence that there were no gas chambers. http://politicalforum.com/index.php?threads/about-the-holocaust.552312/page-88#post-1072758448 I've never seen it satisfactorily refuted. How much of this info have you looked at? http://politicalforum.com/index.php?threads/about-the-holocaust.552312/page-91#post-1072768325
