Ogami Violates Godwin's Law

[The Question]

The Germans used the Hollerith system to document every procedure and every extermination.

Actually, no they didn't. They won't have when you bring this up again in a couple months, either. They used the Hollerith to classify and retrieve people for deportation.

They add up to over 6,000,000 actually. Unless there are some duplicate punchcards, which I suppose are possible.

Or unless they don't prove the thing you think they prove, which is not only possible but the more likely explanation.

 

[The Question]

I still think submerging people in cold water for hours to test their hypothermic ability was a great advancement to medical science, don't you think?

That was the Japs, Jack, not the Krauts.

 

[jack]

No, you are wrong about the Hollerith system uses. Several codes dispute your bullshit revisionism.

 

[jack]

And no, that was the Krauts, Dan...not the Japs.

 

[The Question]

See, we can go 'round this and 'round this as much as you like, Jack. I've done it before with more dogmatically, willfully, aggressively ignorant posters than yourself and -- no offense -- more tricky and clever ones, debate-wise.

You can't out-fact me. You can't out-logic me. And emotional pleas are meaningless to me. You really should know better than to bother by now.

 

[The Question]

No, you are wrong about the Hollerith system uses. Several codes dispute your bullshit revisionism.

Post 'em.

 

[jack]

The recent history of the Jews is associated with their original homeland called Palestine which was part of the Turkish empire till 1917. Following Germany' s defeat in the First World War, the empire of its ally Turkey was dismembered. The British took a large part of it - Palestine as the spoils of their victory. As a reward for helping them in defeating the Turks, they carved off Palestine and gave away the larger part to a Bedouin Arab, named Abdullah, who became the first Hashemite King of Transjordan (now Jordan) by which the 70% of Palestine was called. his grandson Hussein now rules Jordan.

The remainder of Palestine was mandated by the British. In 1947 Britain had to give up control over this part of Palestine which was divided into Israeli and Arab Zones. The Arab Zone went to Jordan.

This division was accepted by the Jews but not by the Arabs. The Arabs went to war in 1948, they lost. They went to war four times after that and lost. They chose to live in refugee camps and did not settle in _ the other half of Palestine which was now Jordan. Their efforts were concentrated on destruction of the State of Israel and expulsion of the Jews who had returned there after living in exile for more than 2500 years. The Arab states and the Arabs living in what is now Israel could not bring themselves to accept the fact that Israel had been created by dividing Palestine into two parts, with Israel being a homeland for the Jews and the other half of Palestine i.e. Jordan, being the country of the Arabs previously residing in Israel.

Today there are many Arabs living in Israel, but most Arabs whether living in Israel or outside it have never reconciled themselves in their heart of hearts to the fact of Israel's existence, unlike the way Indians have accepted Pakistan. Pakistan which too was created after partitioning a formerly united ~ country. Israel is today like a fishbone stuck in the Arab throat and try as they can the Arabs have not so far been able to spit it out. But due to international pressures and Israel's conciliatory approach, we see today a state of Palestine which occupies parts of territory which had formed a part of Israel since 1967.

 

[jack]

See, we can go 'round this and 'round this as much as you like, Jack. I've done it before with more dogmatically, willfully, aggressively ignorant posters than yourself and -- no offense -- more tricky and clever ones, debate-wise.

You can't out-fact me. You can't out-logic me. And emotional pleas are meaningless to me. You really should know better than to bother by now.

Fortunately, you aren't the authority. You're the extreme opinion

The Jews control this debate and rhetoric. Period. They will never forget the 6 million.

 

[The Question]

And no, that was the Krauts, Dan...not the Japs.

Fascinating. Got a corroborative source? I thought this photo (from the same site) might explain how you found the above:

Jack, you naughty, naughty boy, you!

 

[jack]

And with that Dan, have a scissory Merry Christmas.

 

[jack]

I gotta go help some rich Jewish fucks spend their money in ways other than skiing, thanks to your fascist neocon global warming policies.

 

[The Question]

Fortunately, you aren't the authority. You're the extreme opinion

Hardly. If I were to adopt an extreme opinion, it would be either:

A. Identical to Asshat Collins or Geek McSquinty, advocating a genocide against the Muslims (O the Irony!) or

B. I'd be celebrating the Holocaust, not questioning it.

The Jews control this debate and rhetoric. Period. They will never forget the 6 million.

Therein lies the reason why I question the Holocaust. No one -- no one -- has a mandate on historical fact. No one. Ever. If it's fact, it can stand up to skepticism, and dismissal of it as historical fact harms no one. Agendas are harmed by criticism, and lies suffer because of skepticism. That is a universal fact.

 

[Tyrant]

|

According to the news magazine Spiegel, illustrations A and B show a concentration camp guard with his victims in Buchenwald. The inmates are said to have their hands tied and be hanged from trees. Whereas illustration A looks like a photo at the first glance, the intensive contrast and the patchy and flat nature of many parts of illustration B makes it probable that this is a drawing. Look for example at the belt and pistol of the SS man, his collar and boots, or the shades of the jacket of the prisoner lying on the earth, and note especially the edge of the remarkably shapeless face of the SS man: it has a black line which must have been drawn in.

 

[jack]

Yeah, except I have the photographic negative of that pic

 

[jack]

And Mr Dan, you should understand that it's because of "your" vicious ignorance that the Jews hold this "moral authority".

 

[The Question]

And Mr Dan, you should understand that it's because of "your" vicious ignorance that the Jews hold this "moral authority".

Ignorance doesn't apply here, Jack, not one bit. You can't ignore something and then point out its flaws. And the reason the Holocaust Industry persists is not because they have any moral authority, but because 99% of those subjected to such tripe either don't care whether it actually happened or not or don't have the necessary familiarity with the logical fuckups inherent in the claims presented. The 1% who do effectively question it are thrown in prison for it where such can be done or blacklisted and defamed where imprisonment isn't possible.

The Holocaust Industry, in short, has a stranglehold on open discourse on the subject; that's not nearly the same thing as moral authority.

 

[The Question]

Yeah, except I have the photographic negative of that pic

Bullshit! Scan and post, man, scan and post!

 

[jack]

Oh it isn't?

Tell that to the Weisenthal Institute

 

[jack]

What's funny is, while you think your "talking points" mean a fuck, you just give them more and more fuel for their fire.

Y'know like the latest Iran debacle, where it's now pinned neatly to sandnigger racist rhetoric.

I'm loving this, actually. Jews can now kill innocent civilians with impunity.

It's you deniers' hysteria that's created the climate of indifference. It's indifference to the denial, not to wshether it happened or not

 

[Cranky Bastard]

I've seen many old photos that contrast in a way that look drawn - whether through over-development or age or exposure to acidic elements.

What is the supposition with the photos? Photo A is labeled as a photo "at-first-glance." I would agree that it is a photo; there is a photographic quality of depth and lens focus you don't find in drawings.

Whereas Photo B could certainly be passed off as a drawing (maybe it is), it could also be a poor quality or damaged photo.

Is the supposition photo A must be phony because photo B is questionable? If so, that's some ass-backwards reaching.