Re: seen evidence of Holocaust in museums?

Arne Vogel wrote:
> Matt Giwer wrote:
> 
>>Arne Vogel wrote:

> [snip]

>>>What is an izzielover? 

>>      Israel lover. Based upon the common nickname used by people named Israel. 
>> "Izzy Kadetz's 
>>Deli" used to have the best corn beef in Cincinnati.

> Ok. I'm not an "Izzielover", except when you mean I accept Israel's 
> statehood, it's international rights, the human rights of its citizens etc.

        I do not support it claim to the right to be the only racist nation in the 
world. I do 
not accept its right to treat Palestinian citizens like "niggers in the old South." 
Nor do 
I accept their right to prevent the return of the original residents of the land to 
reclaim their property. Nor do I accept its "right" to occupy another people under any 
pretext.

        Nor do I question the right of resistance to occupation possessed by all 
occupied people 
since Nuremberg. Nor do I question their right to resist by killing any member of the 
IDF 
at any time, in or out of uniform, whether or not on active duty. There are no time 
outs.

        Nor do I hold them responsible for collateral damage to civilians. Nor do I 
question 
their right to destroy equipment used by the IDF in particular the destruction of 
buses 
which Israel uses to transport troops while they operate on their normal civilian 
routes 
transporting civilians. It is the responsibility of the occupying power to stay away 
from 
civilians to avoid civilian collateral damage.

        I presume you agree.

> If you think that already makes an "Izzielover" (I guess so), then 
> please also call me a Chinalover, New Zealandlover and, whatever, 
> Botswanalover.

        One is not a Nazi lover if one accepts the rights of the Poles and French and 
Greeks and 
Russians to resist the occupying power. There are similar issues between the IRA and 
England, Kosovars and Serbia, Chechnyans and Russia, Iraqis and America, as there is 
between the Palestians and Israel.

>>>And how can one call others "holohuggers" and 

>>      As in tree hugger. Its their mission in life. Fanatics in the face of reason.

> Actually, I didn't ponder (maybe en passant) the Shoah for a long time 
> until RR and you came along.

        One hopes your knowledge of the subject has a greater basis than TV, movies, 
and stories 
designed to excite a purient sado-masochistic interest. One hopes also you have not 
been 
suckered into the political use of it to justify Israel's on-going atrocities.

>>>suggest *not* to be a holocaust denier or anti-Semite?

>>      If you are willing to discuss it seriously ...

>>      And up front antisemitism has a definition. Hate is not in that definition but 
>> the 
>>inflamatory propagandists, see tree huggers, always shove it in. So I will not avoid 
>>using 
>>it.

> American Heritage Dictionary:
> anti-Semite, n.
> One who discriminates against or who is hostile toward or prejudiced 
> against Jews.

> hate, n.
> 1a. To feel hostility or animosity toward. b. To detest. 2. To feel 
> dislike or distaste for: hates washing dishes.

> animosity, n.
> 1.. Bitter hostility or open enmity; active hatred. 2. A hostile feeling 
> or act.

> and:
> Enmity is hatred such as might be felt for an enemy: the wartime enmity 
> of the two nations. Hostility implies the clear expression of enmity.

> Merriam-Webster Dictionary:
> anti-Semitism, n.
> hostility toward or discrimination against Jews as a religious, ethnic, 
> or racial group

> hate, n.
> 1 a : intense hostility and aversion usually deriving from fear, anger, 
> or sense of injury b : extreme dislike or antipathy : LOATHING <had a 
> great hate of hard work>
> 2 : an object of hatred <a generation whose finest hate had been big 
> business -- F. L. Paxson>

> etc.

> Someone who hates Jews may thus be called an anti-Semite,

        May is the most you can say.

> and your 
> holocaust denial, "holohuggers", "izzielover" etc. go a long way in 
> showing that you do.

        That is the connection you have to make.

> And don't say that you don't hate *all* Jews. Even 
> (other) Nazis had Jewish wives.

> Also, you discriminate against Jews and are prejudiced against them.

        You know my hiring policy? You saw me chase them to the back of the bus?

>>      No one denies there is a Christmas. It is in the papers every year. There is 
>> abundant 
>>evidence of it. But it is just a name that means different things to different 
>>people. If 
>>a person says Jesus was not the son of god does that mean they deny Christmas? Is 
>>the 
>>person who says that an anti-Christian? hate Christians? That would make some 4.5 
>>billion 
>>Christian haters including one subset of holohuggers.

> No, but calling them "christhuggers" and "crucifixlovers" may help.

        And I refer to fundies as droolers, flatliners, braindeads in addition to the 
more 
traditional rednecks and bible thumpers. Am I an anti-fundite? And shouldn't everyone 
be?

>>      So how do you get from the observation of the absense of physical evidence of 
>> gas 
>>chambers to denying the thing named Holocaust and being antisemitic? I am asking for 
>>the 
>>logical steps without any "only an antisemite would ..." kind of assuming the 
>>conclusion 
>>or any kind of circular reasoning or guilt by association or any other logical 
>>fallacy. I 
>>am not asking for an exercise in creating an argument to support the conclusion.

> 1. The "absence of physical evidence of gas chambers" is a lie: 
> http://www.physics.niu.edu/~morphis/holo/gas_chamber_evidence.html

        In what manner does that constitute physical evidence of gas chambers? It 
doesn't even 
refer to anything satisfying those (very) minimal requirements at any camp.

        Certainly finding "gas tight door" which looks exactly like the bomb shelter 
doors used 
during the war is one thing. Failure to mention it was found on a dump 200 yards away 
from 
a crematorium and show no signs of ever having been associated with it is deceptive to 
say 
the least.

> 2. The term "physical evidence" alone implies a huge Zionist conspiracy 
> (oh yes, I forgot about the "not all Jews" defense).

        Would you describe in reasonable manner how one implies the other? As noted 
elsewhere 
evidence and physical evidence mean the same. I use it because so many people are dumb 
enough to think testimony is evidence. Which lets them gloss over the absense of sworn 
testimony under penalty of perjury to gas chambers. The most they are refering to is 
story 
telling.

> 3. Your insults of others as "holohuggers" and "izzielovers".

        Not only accurate but also clever descriptors. There are tens of millions of 
braindead 
fundies who call themselves christian zionist. As you seem to have an issue with Jews 
they 
are a minority of the self declared zionists or izzielovers. I also use izziehuggers 
at 
times. Of course Natural Kartei and Not in Our Name are very anti-Israel and 
anti-zionist. 
But they are not Christians.

> 4. Ethnic: "Today's Jews are adhering to a social form that died out in 
> the civilized world thousands of years ago." -- Matt Giwer

> 5. Ethnic: "I don't know how to indentify [sic] jews.  Why don't you 
> tell me? The nose, the funny hats, the names, the beards, the 'I want a 
> Mercedes' whine? How are they identifiable?" -- Matt Giwer

        Do you have an answer? I still don't. Do they look like this? 
http://www.giwersworld.org/hilberg.jpg the thick glasses? the nose?

> 6. Religious: "You lovers of a hyphenated god need to grow up." -- Matt 
> Giwer

> That should suffice for now.

        You certainly have noticed the propensity for g-d. That is hyphenated. It is 
the feigned 
reverence by not spelling out the name of god. The joke of course is the name of the 
Old 
Testament god is not god but YHWH. Hyphenate that!

        Some people just don't have a sense of humor.

>>      If gas chambers are essential to that thing named the holocaust then is not 
>> the divinity 
>>of Jesus essential to the thing named Christmas? I cannot make any argument to 
>>condemn 
>>saying there is no evidence Jesus is god leading to denying the existance of 
>>Christmas nor 
>>any way to connect it to hatred of Christians.

> If you wouldn't lie for argument's sake, this could make sense.

> http://www.nizkor.org/hweb/people/g/giwer-matt/mantra-chanting-fool.html

        Why do you believe a welfare queen turned forger?

>>      But I do see a way to apply any fallacious arguments leading to antisemitism 
>> or hatred of 
>>Jews to hatred of Christians.

> Would saying "Today's Christians are adhering to a social form that died 
> out in the civilized world thousands of years ago." make me an 
> anti-Christian? I think so. What's your opinion on this interesting subject?

        They do adhere to such an form but for them it thousands of years out of date. 
And it is 
also very primitive compared to the Greek, Roman and Egyptian gods. As with the hebrew 
god 
the christian god actually has a side to fight on. The Hebrew god actually demanded 
war, 
slaughter, genocide, rape, pillage and other things the civilized Greek and Roman gods 
never did. The judeo christian god is very primitive going back to form we only find 
today 
in primitive tribes studied by anthropologists and sociologists.

        I don't see your problem.

>>>Without being a worthless hypocrite, I mean.

>>      Why should people be permitted to question the cherished beliefs of Christians 
>> and not 
>>those of holohuggers? Is that not hypocrisy? How about the cherished beliefs of the 
>>150 
>>million or so creationists in the US alone? How about the cherished belief in the 
>>efficacy 
>>of entreating the gods of some 95+% of the human race? Where does hypocrisy end and 
>>a 
>>demand for special treatment [sic] begin?

> A person that says things about Christians that are similar to those you 
> say about Jews would have an anti-Christian attitude.

        I say the same about Christians and Islam and Buddhism and any other form of 
religion 
that insists upon intruding itself into a exchange of ideas on the net.

>>      I agree all the above is a modern argument. Questioning the divinity of Jesus 
>> was once 
>>worth an express trip to the gallows.

> Just like questioning the infallibility of the Führer.

        Not on record so far as I am aware. What we have indicates was rather 
lackadaisical in 
leadership and took more insubornation than Churchill tolerated. There was certainly 
never 
a claim of infallability.

        If you want to talk about real buggers the noble ally Stalin murdered some 20 
million for 
political reasons in addition to the 40 million for religious reasons. But he was a 
good 
guy. This focus on Hitler from WWII still mystifies me when the Allies were worse in 
every 
way than Hitler and multiple times worse. It is perhaps ironic when we read of 
England, 
which did rule the world, accusing Germany of wanting to rule the world. We read of 
the 
evil of Hitler attacking a country many times times worse than he is accused of when 
it is 
perhaps the only unquestionably good thing he ever did. At least he tried.

-- 
In America immigrants can support any foreign country
they want as long as it is Israel.
        -- The Iron Webmaster, 2934