Obama slams Holocaust deniers at concentration camp

Alex Libman · Jun 13, 2009

Agent Ferris said:
No it was not, after the fall of the Ottoman Empire the territory of Palestine which is Israel, the West Bank, Gaza, the Golan Heights, and Jordan came under the authority of the British Empire, and under that authority they gave 90% back to the Arabs and 10% to the Jews who had a sizable population size and a large immigration rate there too. But even 90% of the Mandate of Palestine was to much for them.

Once again, you use words like "authority" and "mandate" to justify acts of violence (as I've already explained in more detail on another thread).

Agent Ferris said:
No it had less business, as we payed for Hawaii and today Hawaii is free and prosperous and we didn't slaughter them, in the Philippines we were in a war against the Spanish to release Cuba from their empire as well as the Philippines, took the Philippines and had to fight an insurgency to help protect the fledgling Constitutional Republic that we had created, an insurgency not unlike the one in Iraq.

You're still failing to make a rational distinction between the American annexation of Hawaii and the Japanese annexation of Taiwan, for example. The "paid for Hawaii" argument is pure slavery. All governments look for ways to expand their power and then influence the public opinion in those areas to their advantage. What Japan was doing did not justify aggression any more than America's westward expansion a 1-2 centuries earlier.

Agent Ferris said:
Hitlers concept of life unworthy of life Lebensunwertes Leben existed long before the war had even begun, to suggest that his intentions were not to slaughter the Jews is simply historically inaccurate.

Yeah, Hitler was obviously one evil dude, but his intentions for the Jews changed over time. The "final solution" started out as eviction, not murder. Remember that even the Nazis have to sell themselves as a benevolent government to their subjects. Heck, they were all about animal rights dontchyaknow... :roll:

Agent Ferris said:
lol the U.S. didn't enter the war until 2 years later.

Yeah, I screwed up when I changed that sentence and forgot to edit out the United States.

Agent Ferris said:
Furthermore; if you have ever heard of the sequel to Mein Kampf you would know that war with the U.K., the U.S., and France were always on the agenda, it seems to me that you think further appeasement of Hitler was the right cause of action even though he had already violated the Czech deal and had invaded Poland with the Communists through the secret protocol of the Ribbentrop-Molotov pact.

Zweites Buch is very likely to be an outright forgery, since very little pre-1945 references to it exist. Besides, it was a futurist vision that saw an alliance between Greater Germany and the British Empire, and war with the United States only a distant eventuality. This fits the Madagascar Plan or a similar eviction scenario perfectly.

And then you use the word "appeasement" - which is precisely what the United States is now doing to China and North Korea, but it's not what non-interventionism would entail. When two sharks called Fascism and Communism start to bite each-other, you just get out of the way and watch them bleed, while sticking to free market capitalism yourself and thus surpassing them both evermore economically. And you accept any and all refugees, which would have prevented the Holocaust outright.

Agent Ferris said:
The U.K. would have fallen or been forced to capitulate the Soviets would have taken Berlin and then set their cites to the west and in all probability the Manhattan Project couldn't have happened without a total war driven industrial complex leaving the U.S. sitting ducks.

The U.K. had declared war on Germany, not the other way around. And the idea that USSR could have held out more than a month without western aid is ridiculous - their system was on the verge of collapse even without Hitler.

Agent Ferris said:
Furthermore; the Jews never attacked Germany the Japanese attacked the U.S. and we never did anything like what the Germans did. Not even the British with the Boers did what the Germans did.

Japan is a nation with an army. Jews are a religious and ethnic group, which contained certain movements within it, some perfectly innocent, some dangerous, and some downright criminal. You can't compare the two because they don't attack the same way.

Agent Ferris said:
So was Hitler so are you probably if you go back far enough who gives a ****? Do Jews somehow act differently than other human beings?

Why ask me? I'm only explaining Hitler's thinking, I'm not agreeing with him.

Agent Ferris said:
I meant they were born Christian.

I was born Soviet. So what?

Agent Ferris said:
No he didn't that is just what he used for his will to power, claim there's an outside foreign entity out to get you and use it to gain more power to stop this imaginary foe.

Yes, that's a possibility too. Most politicians lie, they just aren't as great actors as Hitler. He really had the world convinced that he was a genuine nut. :lol:

Agent Ferris said:
Quite frankly sir I don't think that you have ever even read Mein Kampf.

That's true. I downloaded it on audio book, but it was so incoherent I never made it past the first 20 minutes or so.

(I'm going to skip the rest - either because I've already addressed it, or because the discussion has lost its original context. I'm not here to defend Axis tyranny, I'm here to criticize government as an institution. If the United States wasn't the greatest nation on Earth, then I wouldn't be living here, but "the lesser of multiple evils" is not necessarily "good".)

CaptainCourtesy · Jun 14, 2009

Alex Libman said:
I have, but your pro-government bias is causing you to fail to recognize them as facts. Think harder.

No you haven't. All you have posted is your anti-government rhetoric. Absence of substantiation and spin based on your bias is all I see.

I do want criticism, which is why I post.

Good.

Um, that argument can be used to justify pretty much anything - "plantation owners weren't forcing their slaves to do anything, but refusal to work had consequences"... :screwy

And in that context, that statement is accurate. I thought you were an anarchist? Perhaps you are a "selective anarchist".

[/QUOTE]

Scarecrow Akhbar · Jun 14, 2009

Alex Libman said:
What Japan was doing did not justify aggression any more than America's westward expansion a 1-2 centuries earlier.

You mean outside of the fact that the United States PAID CASH for the Louisiana territories, graciously PAID CASH Mexico for the California and New Mexico territories after Mexico lost the war it started, PAID CASH for the Gadsden Purchase, and PAID CASH for Alaska?

Our "aggressions" were similar to Japan's? How much cash did the Japanese pay China for Manchuria before they invaded? How much cash did Japan pay Britain for Singapore. How much were the Dutch offered for Indonesia?

Hmmmm?

Alex Libman · Jun 14, 2009

CaptainCourtesy said:
No you haven't. All you have posted is your anti-government rhetoric. Absence of substantiation and spin based on your bias is all I see.

It seems that the difference between "substantiation" and "rhetoric" for you is whether an argument fits your preconceived notions, which were clearly shaped with a pro-government bias... It will take some time and effort, but you need to learn to think critically and overcome this bias. Willful failure to do so, popular or not, can only be described as intellectual dishonesty!

CaptainCourtesy said:
And in that context, that statement is accurate. I thought you were an anarchist? Perhaps you are a "selective anarchist".

Um, I'm not understanding what you wrote there, but it seems like it comes from ignorance of what Anarcho-Capitalism is and isn't.

Scarecrow Akhbar said:
You mean outside of the fact that the United States PAID CASH for the Louisiana territories, graciously PAID CASH Mexico for the California and New Mexico territories after Mexico lost the war it started, PAID CASH for the Gadsden Purchase, and PAID CASH for Alaska? [...]

Ah, paying for your slaves makes slavery a-OK... :roll:

(And many of those intergovernmental purchases were made under a threat of violence, but that's beside the point.)

It looks like the government apologists here just ran out of excuses and will now boil in their cognitive dissonance for a while. Enjoy.

Glinda · Jun 14, 2009

Mira said:
The Gypsies are a race but suppose that they aren't does that justify the genocide against them without much attention given to the tragedy by the rest of the world ? How about the Armenians ? Before starting the Holocaust Hitler said "Go, kill without mercy. After all, who remembers the Armenians?"

It's the Poles everyone forgets.

If you're like most people, you believe that Hitler invaded Poland because he wanted to kill Jews. Not so.

It was all about:

Lebensraum (German for "habitat" or literally "living space") served as a major motivation for Nazi Germany's territorial aggression. In his book Mein Kampf, Adolf Hitler detailed his belief that the German people needed Lebensraum – for a Großdeutschland, land, and raw materials – and that it should be taken in the East. It was the stated policy of the Nazis to kill, deport, Germanize or enslave the Polish, and later also Russian and other Slavic populations, and to repopulate the land with reinrassig (racially pure) Germanic peoples. The entire urban population was to be exterminated by starvation, thus creating an agricultural surplus to feed Germany and allowing their replacement by a German upper class.

In fact, Hitler specifically announced that his intention was to kill Poles, and did not mention Jews at all.

Before the Nazis invaded Poland, Hitler announced, “The destruction of Poland is our primary task.” He also commanded, “Kill without pity or mercy all men, women, and children of Polish descent or language. Only in this way can we obtain the living space we need.” Hitler’s head of secret police, Heinrich Himmler, promised that “all Poles will disappear from the world.” --3 Million Holocaust Victims Were Non-Jews

As for annihilation:

Poland lost one-quarter of its population in the war. Portions of Poland were polluted by Nazi invaders who built their largest extermination camp on Polish soil. Virtually every Polish family tasted the bitter taste of displacement, death, pauperization and, after the war, total powerlessness.

In 1939, Hitler said: "The destruction of Poland is our primary task. The aim is not the arrival at a certain line but the annihilation of living forces. . ." (Lukas 4) Before Jews became the primary target, Poles were shipped to Auschwitz by the tens of thousands.150,000 Polish Catholics went to Auschwitz. In Sachsenhausen, 20,000 Poles perished, in Mauthausen, 30,000, in Neuengamme, 17,000 (Lukas 38); 35,000 went to Dachau, 33,000 Polish women went to Ravensbrück many of them to be experimented upon, with glass and other objects implanted in their uteruses.

Unlike those Jews who survived the Holocaust and moved to the West, Poles remained captives of the Soviets for 45 years. Unlike the Jews, Poles were never individually compensated by Germans for forced labor and camp atrocities. Tens of thousands of Poles were executed for helping Jews. In the Belzec concentration camp alone, 1,000 Poles died solely and exclusively for having been caught helping the Jews (Lukas 150). In 1944, after the fall of the Warsaw Uprising, the Germans ordered the entire population of Warsaw man, woman, child to leave the city, somewhat like the Khmer Rouge leaders who did the same to the capital of Cambodia Phnom Penh in the 1970s. Two hundred thousand Catholic civilians died in that uprising, of those who survived, 50,000 were shipped to concentration camps.

The Germans closed all scientific, artistic and literary institutions in Poland. Some 2250 periodicals ceased publication. Polish university professors were shot or sent to concentration camps. Calorie allotment for those Poles who were not shipped to concentration camps was 669 calories per day. --The Forgotten Holocaust

TBone · Jun 14, 2009

American said:
Here we go with another closet lefty posing as an "Indepedent". :doh

good come back, an insult. Still trolling American?

TBone · Jun 14, 2009

Blackdog said:
I have to admit I am kind of tired of the many liberals here who try and say they are moderate all the time ranting about the right. To be honest I am probably more moderate then most of them.

Anyway, this is derailing the thread.

Obama did a good thing with bashing Holocaust deniers, no doubt.

Honest question, how do you define a Moderate?

celticlord · Jun 14, 2009

TBone said:
Honest question, how do you define a Moderate?

Someone who offends more than one kind of extremist.

TBone · Jun 14, 2009

sazerac said:
You accept the use of "Whacko Tacko right?"

Don't you think American has a right to be resentful of comments like that?

certain types of speech are not protected;

firstamendmentcenter.org: Speech FAQs

Scarecrow Akhbar · Jun 14, 2009

TBone said:
Honest question, how do you define a Moderate?

The most common definition is a Democrat of any type or a Republican sounding like a Democrat.

No one espousing individual freedom, personal responsibility, or self-control can possibly be a moderate in the eyes of the fools using the word.

Mira · Jun 14, 2009

Glinda said:
It's the Poles everyone forgets.

If you're like most people, you believe that Hitler invaded Poland because he wanted to kill Jews. Not so.

The Genocide of the Armenians was between 1915 and 1916, wer're not talking about the same thing.

Agent Ferris · Jun 14, 2009

Meh I'm done with it I refuse to continue this little charade I will say one thing before I end this argument, my revisionist opponent has already been listed in the ultra right/extreme left/Islamist convergence. No amount of dialogue or facts will change the mind of this defender of the axis.

Alfons · Jun 14, 2009

Tashah said:
Source: Reuters

Additional commentary be me is superfluous. I basically just wanted this event and these words chronicled here at Debate Politics.

Mr. Mahmoud Ahmadinejad isn't a Holocaust denier, he is a idiot!

CaptainCourtesy · Jun 14, 2009

Alex Libman said:
It seems that the difference between "substantiation" and "rhetoric" for you is whether an argument fits your preconceived notions, which were clearly shaped with a pro-government bias... It will take some time and effort, but you need to learn to think critically and overcome this bias. Willful failure to do so, popular or not, can only be described as intellectual dishonesty!

Not in the least. You are writing a book, it seems. You are going about it the wrong way. When doing research on a topic, it is best to follow a research formula. First come up with a hypothesis, then do your research, then reach a conclusion based on your research, either confirming the hypothesis, or proving it wrong. You are reverse engineering it. You have already made up your mind as to your conclusion, so you are cherry picking information, and spinning things to fit your premise...your anti-government bias. Very poor research. That is why all you are spewing is rhetoric. You have substantiated nothing...all you have done is say "I hate the government" every way possible. It is you who are being intellectually dishonest.

Try doing some actual research and show some substantiation for your position. So far, you have not.

Um, I'm not understanding what you wrote there, but it seems like it comes from ignorance of what Anarcho-Capitalism is and isn't.

No, I believe you identified yourself as an anarchist in the past. I did not know that you identified yourself as an anarcho-captialist. I do now. Similar to pure libertarianism, great in theory, completely sucks and unworkable in practice. But I'd imagine you know that.

Agent Ferris · Jun 14, 2009

Alfons said:
Mr. Mahmoud Ahmadinejad isn't a Holocaust denier, he is a idiot!

The two are not mutually exclusive:

"They have fabricated a legend, under the name Massacre of the Jews, and they hold it higher than God himself, religion itself and the prophets themselves...If somebody in their country questions God, nobody says anything, but if somebody denies the myth of the massacre of Jews, the Zionist loudspeakers and the governments in the pay of Zionism will start to scream." -- Mahmoud Ahmadinejad December 2005

Alex Libman · Jun 15, 2009

CaptainCourtesy said:
[...] your anti-government bias [...]

You mean my unwillingness to be a slave to a violent institution that has murdered hundreds of millions of people and has cut the post-industrial economic growth in half. Voluntarianism is the natural state of human interaction. The word "bias" does not apply.

CaptainCourtesy said:
No, I believe you identified yourself as an anarchist in the past. I did not know that you identified yourself as an anarcho-captialist. I do now. Similar to pure libertarianism, great in theory, completely sucks and unworkable in practice. But I'd imagine you know that.

You're making a baseless claim in spite of economic evidence to the contrary. Economic freedom (i.e. free market capitalism) has proven itself advantageous in countless examples throughout history. All arguments to the contrary have only been successful at a point of a gun, which is how the "government didn't cause the Great Depression, FDR helped end it" lies come about. Advances in human knowledge make government force ever less justifiable.

I guess there's a fundamental psychological difference between people like me and people like you. Some people strive for accomplishment, do their research, take personal risks when necessary, and so on - like for example the Wright brothers. Others just stand in the sidelines, ridicule, claim it will never fly, but when they're proven wrong they benefit from the innovation nonetheless.

CaptainCourtesy · Jun 15, 2009

Alex Libman said:
You mean my unwillingness to be a slave to a violent institution that has murdered hundreds of millions of people and has cut the post-industrial economic growth in half. Voluntarianism is the natural state of human interaction. The word "bias" does not apply.

You just proved my point. Nothing but anti-government bias and rhetoric. You really should drop your blinders a bit, but obviously you've come to your conclusions. Shame you have no evidence to support what you say...except if you spin it that way.

You're making a baseless claim in spite of economic evidence to the contrary. Economic freedom (i.e. free market capitalism) has proven itself advantageous in countless examples throughout history. All arguments to the contrary have only been successful at a point of a gun, which is how the "government didn't cause the Great Depression, FDR helped end it" lies come about. Advances in human knowledge make government force ever less justifiable.

My claim has far more substantiation than yours does, and it is obvious that you do not understand how human psychology overrules any of these neat little socio-political economic theories that you adhere to. That is why they hold no water and you can't substantiate.

I guess there's a fundamental psychological difference between people like me and people like you. Some people strive for accomplishment, do their research, take personal risks when necessary, and so on - like for example the Wright brothers. Others just stand in the sidelines, ridicule, claim it will never fly, but when they're proven wrong they benefit from the innovation nonetheless.

No the difference between people like you and I are some walk around with blinders on, mired in their own biases, refusing to look at things objectively, trying to live in a castle in the air. These folks don't take risks. They act out. While others live in reality.

Obama slams Holocaust deniers at concentration camp

Alex Libman

CaptainCourtesy

I'm a Jedi Master, Yo

Scarecrow Akhbar

Alex Libman

Glinda

You kids get off my lawn!

TBone

Well-known member

TBone

Well-known member

celticlord

Well-known member

TBone

Well-known member

Scarecrow Akhbar

Mira

Agent Ferris

Alfons

CaptainCourtesy

I'm a Jedi Master, Yo

Agent Ferris

Alex Libman

CaptainCourtesy

I'm a Jedi Master, Yo