psketti wrote:
Because he was persistent in us accepting that the official figures may not be accurate, I'm willing to accept that but it leaves me with the oft repeated question.

In my experience a certain type of person questions such 'facts'. As I've alluded to, I've yet to come across anyone demanding proof of Stalin's atrocities. And if 1 Jew or 6 million Jews, 1 gay or 6 million gays, 1 gypsy or 6 million gypsies were killed it was 1 too many. Why people obsess over 1 particular figure is bizarre to my mind.

dogsmilk wrote:
WWII happened over 65 years ago. They are still finding the names of people who died? And they're at 3 million? I find that strange, since the Jews in the camps were tattoed with numbers, which were catalogued in a program by IBM. Who went where, if they were Khazar, Ashkenazi, etc, where they were from -- all recorded numbers. This should be easy to figure out in that respect. The world Almanac shows no decrease in the Jewish population between 1933 and 1950, but they do show an increase. Other census records do show a decrease of anywhere from 1 - 3.5 million. I just think of the World almanac as being neutral. You may nnot.

I think it's something to do with the numbers of 5-6 million Jews dying, there is some significance to that. According to this website

globalfire.tv/nj/03en/history/secretholo.htm

There was a "secret Holocaust" in 1993-94 where 5 million Jews disappeared, and they have the census numbers to back it up, and also in 1919, there was a Holocaust in the Ukraine, that 6 million Jews died in as well.

This is a quote from a German based Jewish paper, found in the above link

That's 17 million Jews in total between 1919 and 1994, according to the above.

Another quote from the above link;

That's a lot of Jews exterminated in the span of 76 years. 17 million apparently, which exceeds the numbers of the Jewish population world wide. There shouldn't be any Jews left in the world.

morris108.wordpress.com/2009/02/23/1919-...the-american-hebrew/

That's an article from American Hebrew, from a different source, with a quote from the NY Governor at the time. 6 million Jews in a Holocaust in 1919. I can't find any other info about the 5 million in 1993-94 except the above, but leaving that out, that means 12 million Jews between 1919 and 1945. That 6 million number is significant.

I have read all kinds of things about the Holocaust, most of it the "official" line we all have access to. The people who changed my mind were anti Zionist Jewish Rabbi's and others in Israel, who claim Israel is illegal, and that the terror campaign was largely constructed to drive Eastern European Jews to Israel, where they went en masse in 1948. They also said that many Jews who wanted out of Israel prior to the influx were also sent to camps awaiting travel to North America. They were given a hard time for wanting to leave, and those in camps from Eastern Europe who still refused to go to Israel AFTER WWII, were killed in camps, tortured, detained longer than 2-3 years..... the works. If you wanted to go to Israel, you went. Those who wanted out, and those European Jews who wanted to go to NA, were treated brutally by the "good guys".... weird huh? That info is available from more sources that just Ahron Cohen and the anti Israel, anti Zionist Jews.

Guevarista wrote:
Glad to see you here too.

By the way... if you are the same mo0n5tar: don't you also have a forum, to which you invited me a couple of years ago?

Frog wrote:
I'd have no interest in starting a thread about it.

a/What for? So the Holocaust happened...and er that's it - discuss

b/II'd generally prefer to stay away from that whole subject after having discussed it online for years which gets pretty boring. So I won't bring it up myself.

My standard question to Holocaust deniers - (which I've put to some minor 'name' deniers like Wilfred Heink and Fritz Berg who couldn't answer it) is this - why do you believe in a history nobody saw happening at the time?

Take the Treblinka. We know what happened there in reasonanle detail. The only possible way to know that detail is because people described it - like 99% of the history we know about anything, ever. So we know what happened when people got off the trains to when they were burned up. We know the routines, we know little anecdotes, we know descriptions of little incidents, we know how they burned the bodies.

Holocaust deniers say irt was a transit camp and they went 'to the east'. Except nobody can find them. Nobody saw this happening. Nobody can say a damn thing about how this here transit camp worked - becaues everyone involved with it says it was a death camp.

So Holocaust deniers pick at the details.
Some people said they used a diesel engine to gas people
Other people said they used a petrol engine.

Fritz Berg's big thing was claiming diesel isn't sufficiently toxic to gas people. This is actually debatable but he does have a point. So which is more ewnsible.

a/On the balance of probabilities, the people who said petrol were probably right. Afterall, these happened to be people with more intimate knowledge of the engine and it's easy to be mistaken about what sort of engine any given engine is. At the end of day, everyone agrees people were gassed with an engine - exactly what engine really isn't very important.

b/If people disagree on what sort of engine, that means there was no engine at all, everybody was bullshitting about everythoing and the Jews all went to some mystery location instead. The end.

Holocaust deniers go for b/. And they do this sort of thing routinely. They can't give you their real account of history though - because everybody involved in that history contradicts them. Theirs is a history nobody saw happening at the time.

Now if you want to start a thread explaining to me how that isn't crazy, you be my guest.

oioioi wrote:
See, from where I'm sitting, what you perceived as 'persistent' I perceived as an opinion. Hence why I haven't understood why you mentioned it so many times.

So is that what all this is really about?

Do you consider, in your experience, that frog is this 'certain type of person'?

In fact, that question goes out to all contributing to this thread as it might explain a few things to me if that's where people's mindsets have ended up due to one thing and another.

oioioi wrote:
I was persistent? Pray tell where I mention any numbers in this thread? My point was about discussing issues with people who hold an extreme view period! Are we in the same universe let alone thread? FFS.

psketti wrote:
That's what I am trying to ascertain.

I'm genuinely ready to accept that 6 million Jews didn't die during WWII (it's such a round figure it begs to be questioned) but I really am at a loss as to why anyone still would be obsessing over such a minute detail of such a grand atrocity against the whole of humankind..

Frog wrote:
Well you are persistently not telling me what should we do with this info?!

dubmeup wrote:
This is where the people who run the DI Forum totally admit they're in on it... It's just beyond believe how deceitful and twisted those bastards are. Now I have no doubt, I also saw Sean doing it when Dogsmilk pointed it out last month.

Listen to this:

night_gaunt confronts I_am on the issue of spreading hatred, saying:
To which I_am reponds:
Did you see that?... You clearly tell them they are allowing anti-Semitic hatred (hatred towards the Jews; it never had other meaning) to be fomented on the forum, and they answer on something totally different dodging to the issue towards racism (which is also allowed anyway, and I'll explain latter exactly when and how)!

Why don't they address the real question: why the hell is hatred against the Jews, not only allowed, but backed up and David Icke and his employees?

Can't be any clearer!!!

Flyermay wrote:
You'll just get a reply saying 'report it then!'.
When you say you already have they'll say you didn't.
If you persist in saying you already have then you get banned for questioning moderation on the forum.

ronisron wrote:
No, that's a hyperbolic article saying they're 'crying for bread'. There are numerous other newspaper articles from the same period citing different figures of Jewsat risk. so what?

If that's Jews Against Zionism, they come ourt with a right load of bullshit to fit their politics. Which is a shame as they could easily be critical of Zionism without resorting to bullshit. Palestine was controlled by the British - how in God's name could Jews be 'forced' to go there by what the Nazis were doing when the British controlled how many Jews were allowed in? An entire passenger liner fuill of Jews, the Struma, went down after the British refused to let them in.
In actual fact, the Nazis originally intended to dump all the Jews in Siberia somewhere - but of course Operation Barbarossa didn't go exactly according to plan.
Never heard of that other stuff.
Though my memory is hazy, I seem to recall hearing about holocaust survivors not actually being treated that well in Israel and not totally welcomed with open arms.

oioioi wrote:
Where has he been obsessing? That's a strong word.

dogsmilk wrote:
WTF?
The Germans invaded Russia just to drop off some jews in Siberia? LOL!!

Nice one lol.

psketti wrote:
Well that's been the general thrust of his posts on this thread regarding that particular matter.

Flyermay wrote:
Pasting them here just in case they mysteriously dissapear from the DIF....

andyh wrote:
How do I report I_am and Sean for being so full of shit?... to whom?... David Icke? I'm pretty sure it's all well run like David Icke likes; the Neo-Nazi market must be buying a lot of ticket and books (they certainly love his forum).

Kumatora wrote:
Thanks, I just wish I could get in contact with night_gaunt and tell him to get I_Am on that anti-Semitic issue before the thread is closed; which it will be... If not evidences exist, no one will know the truth (unless you join this forum )

andyh wrote:
If only Franz Kafka were alive today.

Kafka - the DIF

- in which an unnamed man tries to report antisemitism on the DIF and faces a nightmare bureaucracy whereby he is told he should report it, but he isn't allowed to know exactly how he can go about this because if he reports it by the regular channels, he discovered it hasn't actually been reported. So he reports that he reported it, only to discover that he has been banned for reporting he reported it when he really should have just reported it in the first place. Except he didn't because they don't have that report.

andyh wrote:
Of course that isn't why they invaded Russia in the first place. It's just something they could have done when they conquered it - which they assumed they would.

oioioi wrote:
Yes simply because it was and is totally irrelevant to my input! Surely you can manage to to grasp that simple and very distinct fact!? It's no biggie because people who read and think for themselves understand and frankly that's all I'm bothered about. It's that type of BS that makes be wonder off a sniff about - hopefully others will do like wise.

Do you seriously think people think I was obsessing over anything, other than the fact that I kept establishing what I said and it's relevance? The obsession label could be applied to more than one or two people in this thread. Any members of the pack who wish to don that cap can wear it with pride.