201. Comment #181772 by alan baylis on May 18, 2008 at 7:51 am

ASS Marques

181334. I said [edit]

This is because those other douche-bags in the expelled camp are trying to propagate the myth that Darwinism led to the holocaust!

You've been trolling this site for weeks, so if you don't understand this reference, it is further evidence that your total obsession with your conspiracy theory is unhinging you.

I assure you they're every bit as credulous as you yourself are.

But I'm not so credulous as to believe the garbage that you've steeped yourself in for years, eh skid.

Other Comments by alan baylis

202. Comment #181779 by ASMarques on May 18, 2008 at 8:37 am

Said Baylis:

ASS Marques

[Baylis self quote] This is because those other douche-bags in the expelled camp are trying to propagate the myth that Darwinism led to the holocaust!

You've been trolling this site for weeks, so if you don't understand this reference, it is further evidence that your total obsession with your conspiracy theory is unhinging you.

Well, it would seem you meant those who confuse biological Darwinism and what is often referred to as Social Darwinism, but it didn't occur to me you might be referring to that "Expelled" movie. Sorry, I haven't been following and the title didn't even occur to me in the H hoax context you were talking about.

But I'm not so credulous as to believe the garbage that you've steeped yourself in for years, eh skid.

Do you really think vulgarity brings the water to your mill? Suit yourself: each one, his own style. Just tell me what is it exactly that you "don't believe," and I'll throw in a few slow motion explanations more, if you wish.

Other Comments by ASMarques

203. Comment #181806 by MaxD on May 18, 2008 at 9:39 am

ASMarques,
I stopped reading your post when you accused me of this little error.

Let me try to explain to you how your Newspeak-style usage of the word short-circuits your brain and impeaches your understanding of what you yourself are saying:

I am not speaking in any Newsspeak style. I am not lost in shifty definitions. Your tone indicates to me that may be you are going to play semantic games to let the Nazis off for what a large body of historians agree are the party's crimes. I am all for letting them off if, indeed, the Holocaust (extermination of the Jews, 4 to 6 million, homosexuals, gypsies, and slavick peoples of numbers I am not remembering) is a simple hoax. Or rather one of the more complex ones in human history. But I still think your camp has all its work ahead of it to prove that particular, and particularly problematic thesis.

I am also quite in favor of hardening definitions so we are all speaking about the same things. I would have been fine if you had suggested ways in which the current defintion of Nazi policies, and my understanding of them was flawed. However, I won't be called a liar, and that is exactly what NewsSpeak is. I won't be called intellectually dishonest by someone as smarmy as you. Especially when I know my mind is actually open on the subject.

Accusing people of being closed minded and engaging in Orwellian Newsspeak is simple obfuscation on your part, an attempt to deflect the very real criticisms of your ideas. Acting as if your position has not problems and treating other arguments as if they have been made by 9 year olds is completely silly. It is even more silly considering much of your argument boils down to "No holes, no holocaust!" (Faintly reminiscent of the "If it doesn't fit, you must aquit!")

The holocaust revisionism amounts to an incredible claim considering the evidence against it seems so strong. Even if you are right the burden of proof rests on you to prove it. And to do this you cannot take what amounts to a creationist approach to data collection. This seems by an large, on my layman's reading of the controversy, what your side of this argument consistently does. It does your side no good at all that much of it is populated by racist crackpots of one stripe or another. You may not think that makes it a fair hoop for yourside to jumpt through. I suspect it probably is a fair thing. I know I am suspicious a group and a position for whom a large number of its adherants also find Hitler something of a heroic figure.

I am not accusing you of thinking Hitler is a heroic figure. So please don't hurl that back at me as if I said it was you.

Other Comments by MaxD

204. Comment #181955 by Iruhazuganai on May 18, 2008 at 10:30 pm

I enjoyed this interview a lot. I think some of the criticism of the interviewer is a bit harsh. She was asking questions that may have seemed simple but they allowed Richard to make his points well. I loved the part about New Orleans,'judicious heart attack',great stuff.

Other Comments by Iruhazuganai

205. Comment #181997 by ASMarques on May 19, 2008 at 4:54 am

Said: MaxDI

I am not speaking in any Newsspeak style. I am not lost in shifty definitions. [...] the Holocaust (extermination of the Jews, 4 to 6 million, homosexuals, gypsies, and slavick peoples of numbers I am not remembering)

See what I mean?

[If you still don't get it, I think you may as well give up. No problem with me. I certainly have better things to do than repeat myself. Anyway, thanks for providing me with a good example of what I've been saying. Others may profit from it and gain a little more understanding of the truly abysmal impact of totalitarian semantics on the human psyche.]

Other Comments by ASMarques

206. Comment #182052 by MaxD on May 19, 2008 at 6:52 am

ASMarques,
What an excellent way to ignore the bulk of my post.

EDIT: No I don't "see what you mean." If you think I have something wrong then fucking state it plainly. Then we can move the conversation forward. Also address all my points and not some imagined slight.

Other Comments by MaxD

207. Comment #182099 by ASMarques on May 19, 2008 at 8:14 am

MaxD:

No I don't see what you mean.

G-A-S C-H-A-M-B-E-R-S: ever heard?

MaxD, I hate leaving anyone in the dark, and I have nothing against you, but I must go. Read my long series of posts, if you feel they may be useful to you (click "Other Comments by ASMarques"). Good luck.

Other Comments by ASMarques

208. Comment #182103 by ThoughtsonCommonToad on May 19, 2008 at 8:17 am

ASMarques

gain a little more understanding of the truly abysmal impact of totalitarian semantics on the human psyche.

You anti-semantic bastard.

Other Comments by ThoughtsonCommonToad

209. Comment #182292 by gr8hands on May 19, 2008 at 3:40 pm

MaxD, you are wasting your breath on ASMarques, who has shown himself incapable of proving even the simplest of his assertions, and to be a hypocrite (as a quick review of our interchange clearly demonstrates for anyone who is not mentally challenged).

He shows his ignorance by appearing to be convinced the Holocaust was only about jews -- ignoring how many jehovah's witnesses were murdered (he can ask them to provide proof, which they have no problem supplying); the homosexuals (his so-called information is grossly in error); the Gypsies, the handicapped and a number of other groups.

He is not worth your time. Censor him? No, he doesn't deserve that. Simply ignore him.

Other Comments by gr8hands

210. Comment #182335 by MaxD on May 19, 2008 at 6:50 pm

Gr8hands,
What I noticed was that he won't address my points.

Other Comments by MaxD

211. Comment #182417 by ASMarques on May 20, 2008 at 4:01 am

Said MaxD,

He shows his ignorance by appearing to be convinced the Holocaust was only about jews -- ignoring how many jehovah's witnesses were murdered (he can ask them to provide proof, which they have no problem supplying);

Couple of quick references:

http://www.revisionists.com/revisionists/felderer.html
http://www.ihr.org/books/kulaszka/13felderer.html

Quote: "Felderer's research put him on a collision course with the sect; the leadership in New York warned members that they were not allowed to speak to him. In a subsequent Yearbook published by the Jehovah's Witnesses, however, they conceded that only 203 people were killed during the war. (18-4226 to 4229; 4645)"

"Killed," of course, means actually "dead," much from the same motives other internees died, and not exactly "executed." Oh, and by the way:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jehovah's_Witnesses_and_the_Holocaust

Quote [*]: "The religion's doctrine of political neutrality has led to the jailing of Witnesses who refused conscription (for example in Britain during World War II and afterwards during the period of compulsory national service). During the world wars, Jehovah's Witnesses were also targeted in the United States, Canada and many other countries because they refused to serve in the military or help with war efforts. In Canada, Jehovah's Witnesses were interned in camps along with political dissidents and people of Japanese and Chinese descent."

the homosexuals (his so-called information is grossly in error);

Care to point out the errors?

the Gypsies,

Same.

Simply ignore him.

"Do as I desperately say, not as I desperately do" ?
___________________________

[*] I quote the Wikipedia, not because I trust it on controvesial matters such as the "Holocaust," but because the quote is reasonably consensual and spares me the task of looking elsewhere.

Other Comments by ASMarques

212. Comment #182418 by ASMarques on May 20, 2008 at 4:04 am

Said Gr8hands,

What I noticed was that he won't address my points.

How about addressing everybody's point since 1945 (in fact since earlier than that, earlier even than the alleged date of the beginning of the gassings!):

G-A-S C-H-A-M-B-E-R-S, ever heard?

Or is it simply "anything goes" when the victim is German, i.e. non-Jewish?

Now, what kind of truth, of honour, of objective inquiry, of scientific spirit, of loyal debate, of fair judgement is that?

We may start, for instance, with the terrible Sachsenhausen-Oranienburg gas chamber:

http://forum.codoh.com/viewtopic.php?t=4976

Quote:
____________________________

"The construction works went on for about 14 days. When Dipl.-Ing. Dörbeck and I realised what was being built, we went to the political officer and told him that we refused to undertake any further work. The political officer, Lieutenant-Colonel Kolowantienkow, spoke - often heatedly - with Dörbeck for about fifteen minutes in Russian. Dörbeck later told me that the political officer had said that we would be summarily shot if we ceased to do any further work or let slip one word about it. The political officer said furthermore that we were receiving good rations (which was true) and that he - Dörbeck - would later be required to explain the installation to groups of Soviet visitors. The political officer also said that we would be well-treated in the future and receive good rations. As we were unable to prevent the construction of the installation, it seemed to make sense to us that we should continue the work and, in this way, learn what was being made there.

"After completion, at about the end of October 1945, Dipl.-Ing. Dörbeck was brought before the political officer alone and received precise instructions about the explanations he was to give to Soviet groups of visitors. He had to say the following: This installation, which was built by the Nazis, served to kill [Vernichtung] Jews and Soviet officer prisoners. Each day some 200 people were gassed and about twenty-five were shot. This went on from 1943 till 1945 (April).

"From about December 1945 until the end of 1947 an average of two tours a week, each consisting of some thirty to forty Soviet men, mostly soldiers and people from the GPU, and women, were escorted by Dörbeck round the installation. There were often officers amongst them who quite openly expressed doubts about the age of the installation because they saw that the concrete was new, that there were no bullet holes from the executions in the concrete wall and that the blood stains (red paint) were very meagre and unconvincing."
____________________________

Note that the building faked as a gas chamber by the Soviets was later blown up by the East Germans, and the ruins since then, indeed up to this day, are presented at the Memorial Site as a "gas chamber, disguised as a shower room, used to kill prisoners":

http://www.scrapbookpages.com/sachsenhausen/ConcentrationCamp/GasChamber.html

Then we may proceed to Auschwitz via Dachau. Is that okay with you? The interesting thing about Dachau is the presence of a gas chamber, complete with faked showers, that "was never put to use," according to the local museum information on display. Now, I wonder why would that be? And why would the Germans leave the brand new gas chamber that was never put to use in its pristine form for the Americans to take it over and show it to the World?

Remember it was not the Soviets who liberated Dachau, so how come we have a gas chamber there too? Could it be that the Western Allies were every bit as capable of faking evidence as the Soviets were? Hint:

http://www.ihr.org/jhr/v10/v10p261_Leuchter.html

[Find within page: ANNOTATED BIBLIOGRAPHY Compiled by Robert Faurisson II. Dachau]

Quote:
____________________________

Common Sense (New Jersey, USA), 1 June 1962, p. 2, republished from Combat, London, England, "The False Gas Chamber":

"The camp had to have a gas chamber, so, since one did not exist, it was decided to pretend that the shower bath had been one. Capt Strauss (U.S. Army) and his prisoners got to work on it. Previously it had flag stones to the height of about four feet. Similar flag stones in the drying room next door were taken out and put above those in the shower bath, and a new lower ceiling was created at the top of this second row of flag stones with iron funnels in it (the inlets for the gas)."
____________________________

I repeat: what kind of truth, of honour, of objective inquiry, of scientific spirit, of loyal debate, of fair judgement is that?

Then on to the "rebuilt" Auschwitz Main Camp gas chamber they show to the chidren they force to go there in order to have their delicate minds washed with the special Rein Jüdisches Fett soap for infantile brains:

http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/life_and_style/education/article3300819.ece

And on to the Birkenau epicenter of the "Holocaust" and the, oops... no-holes that should have been there but are not, because apparently the Nazis -- as David Irving judiciously put it, when he summarised Van Pelt's theory -- "in the last frantic days of the camp, when they were in a blue funk, would have gone around with buckets of cement filling the holes that they were going to dynamite." See:

http://www.ihr.org/jhr/v20/v20n5p33_Renk.html

Now, given the falsified evidence and the lopsided record of the post-war show-trials-- and, well yes, the judicial prohibition and punishment of any further investigations by the outlawed revisionist side! -- wouldn't it be fair to say that both the strict physical possibility and the moral obligation to objectively investigate beyond doubt those (non-existent!) holes and prove their case would rest with the exterminationist side of this extraordinarily one-sided "debate," i.e. with your side rather than mine?

Ah yes. I forgot, sorry... The word "Holocaust" -- never mind what it means -- has "already been proved" over and over and over, because there are many, many, many eyewitnesses, and lots, and lots, and lots of evidence...

Yeah. sure. That's what I call the "Shermer standard of proof" or "proof of a nonsense word by nonsensical word repetition." But the whole thing still looks like a silly, silly, silly lie to me.

And I'm still all ears. I'm still waiting to hear the news. Like, say, "oh, come on, the "Holocaust" word has nothing to do with any gas chamber slaughterhouses..." [!!!]

Other Comments by ASMarques

213. Comment #182491 by MaxD on May 20, 2008 at 8:48 am

AsMarques,

And I'm still all ears. I'm still waiting to hear the news. Like, say, "oh, come on, the "Holocaust" word has nothing to do with any gas chamber slaughterhouses..." [!!!]

No you are still not all ears. You have never been. That isn't what Shermer did (I know because I am, inspired by the debate here and the short-shrift you give his argument, re-reading his bit on Holocaust revisionism in WPBWT. He is in fact being quite reasonable. He has leveled legitamate critiques of the leaders in Holocaust Revisionism, you just don't want to see them. But since you seem to be quoting more hard line elements of revisionism, I can only conclude you don't care about debate, or listening.

Does this sound like anyone you know?
"The wild fables about gas chambers loosely grouped under the Orwellian Newsspeak heading of the 'Holocaust' have become the informal state religion in the West. The government, the public schools and the corporate media promote the imposistion of this morbid, funeral home of the mind on young people to instill guilt as a form of group libel/hate propaganda against the German people." (House 1989 pg 15 taken from Shermer 1997) House's book is called Tales of the Holohoax

I quote the full text of that because ASMarque's seems almost to parrot those lines whenever any one disagrees or offers evidence that contradicts him. For my own part what seems to be the most salient feature of the atrocities against the Jews, homosexuals, gypsies, slavs (but particularly Jews) is the fact that it does indeed seem to be deliberate top down policy. Whether it was primarily through gas chambers, working them to death, starving them, lining them up an shooting them (often referred to under the unpleasant euphamism, liquidating) is less important than the fact that it was systematic.
Maybe you will be right about the gas chamber business, but I fucking doubt it. You seem to think that no gas chambers would exculpates the Germans of WWII who participated in the inhuman treatment of their jewish prisoners. I'm not sure how that is. Or why you think that anyone hates the Germans now, or thinks of them as evil. I mean do caucasian americans hate themselves over what happened to the Native Americans? No I don't think so. It is a legitimate part of our countries history though and needs to be faced squarely.

This is no less so of the WWII Germany.

Other Comments by MaxD

214. Comment #182496 by al-rawandi on May 20, 2008 at 9:06 am

MaxD,




Ignore this guy. He has some bigoted conclusions he needs to support, and evidence is selected on this basis alone.

He isn't interested in history, he is interested in his conclusions. Don't waste your time.

Other Comments by al-rawandi

215. Comment #182583 by ASMarques on May 20, 2008 at 3:07 pm

Said MaxD:

Maybe you will be right about the gas chamber business, but I fucking doubt it.

Well, regardless of your opinion on the authenticity of the gas chambers shamelessly exhibited to the tourists and used to indoctrinate and instill guilt / self-hate in non-Jewish children from all over the World, do you think the allegedly planned industrial genocide that rests on their existence is an unimportant matter we should not concern ourselves with?!

It seems to me that large massacres such as the ones at Liepaja / Liebau (in Latvia) or Mizocz (in Ukraine), did in fact happen. Probably the one at Baby Yar (near Kiev) too, though not by a long shot involving the ridiculous figures claimed by the Soviets. And in many of those cases there were unlawful armed "resistance" events preceding the killings (certainly in both the Mizocz and Baby Yar cases) [1].

But those tragic events look more like the killing rampage by, say, the US in the Philippines from 1895 to 1900, than the unique, incomparable, indeed greatest crime in history that Jews require the rest of the world to recognise in order to justify their occupation of Palestine, in reality based on nothing but their alleged racial and religious uniquely "chosen" status.

Don't you think there is a difference between the alleged massive chain-gassings at Auschwitz and, say, the killing rampage at My Lay?

You seem to think that no gas chambers would exculpates the Germans of WWII who participated in the inhuman treatment of their jewish prisoners. I'm not sure how that is.

Some people went through both the Allied and the German camps. They seem to believe the Allied camps were the worst. Of course, they mean the normal regime of the camps, not the very unusual catastrophic conditions of late 1944 and 1945.

Take Margarete Buber-Neumann, a German Jewess who was in a Soviet camp from 1937 to 1940 (it didn't get any better after Stalin turned into an Allied angel, nor must it have been much worse than the murderous camps of the Western Allies from late 1944 to 1947), and then in Ravensbrück from 1940 to 1945:

http://www.ihr.org/books/hoggan/07.html

Quote from "The Myth of the Six Million" by the American revisionist historian David Hoggan:

Margarete Buber, Under Two Dictators, (London, 1950), presented the memoirs of a German-Jewish woman who was sent to the German concentration camp at Ravensbrück in August, 1940, after spending several years in the brutal and primitive conditions of a Russian concentration camp. She was considered to be too dangerous to be given her freedom in Germany, and she noted that she was the only Jewish person in her contingent of deportees from Russia who was not released forthwith by the Gestapo. She found that conditions in Ravensbrück presented a striking contrast to the filth, disorder, and starvation of her Russian camp.

German concentration camps in August 1940 were few and far between, and the number of prisoners was small in contrast to the vast camps of the Soviets. The number of inmates in all German camps at the outbreak of war in September 1939 has been previously cited at 21,300. Most of these inmates were the usual types of criminals, and there was only a small percentage of Jewish people. After one year of war, the total concentration camp population was still less than 40,000 in contrast to the many millions detained in the USSR camps.

The camp the heroine entered at Ravensbrück was immaculately clean with spacious lawns and flower beds. Regular baths, and a change of linen every week seemed sheer luxury after her earlier experiences. At a first meal consisting of white bread, sausage, margarine and sweet porridge with dried fruit, the heroine could not resist asking her neighbor at table if August 3, 1940, was some sort of holiday or special occasion. Her neighbor was quite blank, and the heroine proceeded to ask if the food was always so good. The neighbor replied in the affirmative, but she wondered why anyone should be so pleased with it. The heroine did not attempt an explanation. She also considered her barracks at Ravensbrück a palace compared to her crowded mud hut in the Soviet camp. Her first Sunday meal of goulash, red cabbage, and potatoes was a veritable feast. The heroine spent many years at Ravensbrück. The camp was crowded by 1943. Some of the old cleanliness was lost, and many flowers were trampled down. This was a consequence of the never-ending war. Prisoners from Auschwitz and other camps poured in toward the end of the war. The heroine noted that the Auschwitz inmates arrived "half-starved and exhausted" early in 1945. It should be recalled that tens of thousands of eastern German refugees literally died of starvation during this same period.

All postal communication between the Ravensbrück inmates and the outside world ceased in January, 1945, and confusion reigned. At last the end came, the German guards fled, and the heroine was released. She had witnessed the progressive deterioration of conditions at the camp over a long period. Corporal punishment for major offenses had been introduced after her arrival, and since the winter of 1941-1942, she had heard the usual malicious rumors that gas executions were being practiced in some cases.

A British edition of "Under Two Dictators: Prisoner of Stalin and Hitler" is currently in print.

Or why you think that anyone hates the Germans now, or thinks of them as evil.

Well, I think I understand at least the relationship between Jews and Germans. Every master loves his well-behaved slave, and everyone who has gone through what Germany went during the 20th century must take a long time to recover. What country do you think has been jailing brave free individuals like Ernst Zundel or Germar Rudolf, who oppose the "Holocaust" viselike grip, while giving Israel nuclear-capable submarines? Hint: not Lichtenstein.

http://www.haaretz.com/hasen/spages/964343.html
http://www.globalsecurity.org/wmd/world/israel/sub.htm

No wonder the Jews nowadays love their love-hate relation to Germany. It's the most profitable business conceivable. And, of course, no wonder the German leaders love to keep their jobs as "enlightened leaders" of their unhinged nation by going to the Knesset on their knees and doing their best to babble apologies for everything and more in Hebrew, in order to be spat upon by those Jewish deputies that don't think Germans have yet done enough for the Jewish cause in Palestine. And beyond that by pressuring the European Union -- and therefore my own country that lived under censorship for more than 40 years! -- to impose on the peoples of Europe the Jewish censorship their masters have the chutzpah to demand from the whole World!

I mean do caucasian americans hate themselves over what happened to the Native Americans? No I don't think so. It is a legitimate part of our countries history though and needs to be faced squarely.

And how, if you please, should Americans react to hypothetical laws making it criminal to doubt the genocidal smallpox infected blankets story, or to deny an alleged "extermination" of the native American Indians by arguing in terms of their 15th century population, the natural supremacy of a technologically more advanced invasive culture, and the ensuing demographic inability of the native birth-rate to cope with the incoming waves of the colonisation?

If you take a stroll in any American city of those regions that were the most populated before the coming of the Europeans (say Central America or the west coast of South America), all you have to do to understand "where have all the Indians gone" is to look at the faces you'll meet in the streets. Should we forbid or get hysterical at any "racist" comments about that fact, in order not to deny the "infected blankets" extermination story? [2]
_____________________________________

[1] Note that I'm not justifying reprisal killings and that sort of thing, only pointing out how such things happen during savage wars. They certainly don't require any secret genocidal plans such as the alleged "Final Solution" (the word territorial used at the Wansee conference is, of course, always left out by the exterminationists who, of course, have no axe to grind).

[2] Yes, there is one of those stories for British America, another one for Spanish America, a third one for Brazil and so on. Apparently there wouldn't have been any damaging effects from the new diseases if it hadn't been for the "blanket final solution" secretly planned in London, Amsterdam, Madrid and Lisbon. And of course, I guess the Wounded Knee photos prove the whole genocidal conspiracy...

Other Comments by ASMarques

216. Comment #182585 by sophia_mr on May 20, 2008 at 3:07 pm

Yes I agree with nolabels a bit, but she's obviously a standard news reporter - they don't often show genuine interest in many stories let alone an atheist talking about the faults in religious doctrine. i think she did a decent job of asking him fair questions :)

Other Comments by sophia_mr

217. Comment #182673 by MaxD on May 20, 2008 at 8:29 pm

ASMarques,
Hmmmm. IHR. I can't say that is a source I trust too terribly much. But okay.

You are equivocating. And attributing to me sentiments that I don't have.

First things first. Simply saying hey look at this attrocity happened here, therefore you have no right to criticize what happened here. Bullshit. I am more than happy to be critical of My Lai massacre. Though I will say something that happened there that didn't in Germany was that some soldiers tried to stop it. Warrant Officer Hugh Thompson Jr. told his men to open fire on any US soldiers who fired on civilians. 3 other soldiers recieved medals for saving lives at My Lai instead of taking them. I am happy to condemn the westward expansion for the callous way in which it dealt with the native Americans. I see you seem to be a bit happy with our history of those actions too. That is of course no surprise.

Now as to the laws against saying something goofy like the Holocaust (systematic extermination of the Jews etc) did not happen don't say I am calling for it. Or that I think David Irving should be in jail or fined. I don't think Ernst Zundel should be in jail either. Or any of the revisionists. I think you guys are wrong about the main point, that there was a systematic attempt to eradicate and exterminate the jews, but that is fine.
I'd not have the deniers silenced. You guys might after all be right (though you've not come anywhere near proving that). I benefit from listening to ideas that are strikingly different from my own. Sometimes the dialectical approach does make one more appreciative of the ideas and grant more insight on the topic. And in any event, I understand how free speech works, and I don't want mine trampled, and it could be my ideas that become anti-vogue next.

Other Comments by MaxD

218. Comment #184416 by ASMarques on May 25, 2008 at 5:07 am

Said MaxD:

Simply saying hey look at this atrocity happened here, therefore you have no right to criticize what happened here. Bullshit. I am more than happy to be critical of My Lai massacre.

You don't get it. That's not at all what I'm saying. I'm simply using events that you presumably accept to show you the difference between the usual ordinary horrors of war (such as the My Lay massacre), and an alleged secret conspiracy of gigantic proportions to exterminate a whole race (no one alleges that that was what the Americans were indulging in in Vietnam).

Other Comments by ASMarques

219. Comment #184765 by Diocletian on May 26, 2008 at 6:08 am

These threads that are completely off topic are annoying. While not asking for people to be censored - there should be at least some form of protocol (since we cannot rely on people's good sense) to limit threads from going completely out of control. I do not know what the agenda is of some people, however taking a this interview and switching it to a holocaust denial thread is really destroying this website. To those of you moderating the threads... you might wish to consider that people are just going to stop posting or even visiting the site because of few people who apparent posed their perverted views on just about EVERY thread now. They completely derail the discussion. Unfortunately, many good people take the bait and further derail the topic at hand.

So perhaps we should start policing ourselves, and not let a few rotten apples spoil what is perhaps one of the best websites around. If someone tries to derail the topic into some idiotic rant - just ignore them. They are a bore - you would probably ignore them at a party - although, as might be happening here - leave altogether.

Perhaps using the Troll button is not a bad idea!

Other Comments by Diocletian