Should the US continue support to Israel?

[gambit]

Im glad we both agree that your attempts are mere imitation and your logic is not sound..

Direct evidence is different from circumstantial evidence. Courts of law cannot charge a person based on circumstatial evidence and hyperbole. You have attempted to reason that hyperbole accusations count as a logical piece of evidence without direct proof to back them. That is a mockery of logic. I suggest you stop reading philosophy because it has left no bearing on your mind.

Utter bhullshit, kid.

Circumstantial evidence - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Much of the evidence against convicted American bomber Timothy McVeigh was circumstantial, for example. Speaking about McVeigh's trial, University of Michigan law professor Robert Precht said, "Circumstantial evidence can be, and often is much more powerful than direct evidence."

Direct evidence is fingerprint on the axe.

Circumstantial evidences are the accused was seen with the axe, with the victim, with the victim's blood on him, and him running away from the alley. And then there was no one else in that alley at the midnight.

If you cannot use the Internet to search for the different types of evidences and how they matter in courts, you need to leave this discussion to the adults.

 

[Desert Fox]

This is not a very good argument.

What is the role of 'forensics' in terms of proving a charge in a criminal case ? But before we answer that question, it begs the question of what is 'forensics' in the first place.

Forensic science - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

The 'case' here could mean anything under discussion, be it how water evaporated or how a theft was committed or how a politician made X Y Z decisions. In other words, if the investigation was done properly in terms of adhering to unbiased investigative techniques, forensic evidences should, and usually would, sway an audience towards one theory seeking to explain an event, whether that event is scientific or criminal or even just what to buy for someone's birthday party. Forensic evidences are about creating an overwhelming argument, not about establishing claims.

You have a claim. Now convince me why I should believe you. Do you have evidences, logical and physical, of your claim ? Show them to me. A 'logical evidence' is not a true piece of evidence but usually is accepted as such. It means that under logical deductive reasoning, certain events or behaviors must have taken place. I stabbed you then I ran from the scene. That is a piece of 'logical evidence'. A sane person would not be standing there waiting for the police to arrive, although that has happened in the past. If I embezzled from you, I would not keep the money locally but in an offshore account in a country that have strict privacy laws, although we do have stupid embezzlers who did stupid things like kept their money in domestic banks, hence, available for investigation and seizure by the police.

When I was shopping for my house, my realtor showed me three pieces of forensic evidences:

- Current home prices.
- Houses sold.
- Building permits issued.

Current home prices are coincidental indicators.

Houses sold are lagging indicators.

Building permits issued are leading indicators.

All combined they form an argument as to why I should buy a house here but not there. If there is a rise in building permits and that is accompanied by increasing prices as accompanied by historical prices from the houses sold statistics, that supports the argument that I should buy here instead of there.

IBM and the Holocaust: The Strategic Alliance Between Nazi Germany and America's Most Powerful Corporation-Expanded Edition: Edwin Black: 9780914153276: Amazon.com: Books

The IBM Hollerith machine is one piece of forensic evidences that point towards the claim of how the Nazis kept tracks of the Jews. Not how many Jews actually killed by gas chambers, bullets, starvation, or whatever else methods. How many Jews died by X Y Z methods is a different claim and would warrant different pieces of forensic evidences. The IBM Hollerith tabulation method is physical forensic evidence of HOW the Nazis kept tracks of the Jews, which supports the logical forensic argument (evidence) of WHY the Nazis needed to keep tracks of the Jews, which leads to the claim of WHAT the Nazis wanted to do with the Jews.

So even if we have no forensic evidences of the gas chambers themselves, other forensic evidences, physical and logical, are sufficient to plant doubts in the audience's minds as to your claim that no Jews died in the Nazis' plan to exterminate the Jews. There are so many of them that they overwhelms any counter claim and flawed arguments like yours when you (mis)used Raul Hilberg.

There is no proof whatsoever that Jews were gassed. Neither do the Holohoax promoters themselves deny that there is no evidence to prove that Jews were gassed/exterminated in gas chambers. It would be amusing to see you make an attempt at proving the unprovable, that 6 million Jews were exterminated by Hitler in Gas chambers which were built after WW2 (as acknowledged by the Auschwitz Museum Director Dr. Franciszek Piper ).

Though, i would love to see your refutation to these points below, to which so far no holohoax promoter has addressed due to their incapability to provide proof to back their claims. How was Hitler able to gas 6 million Jews and turn them into soap and lamp shades using gas chambers which were built by the Soviet Union after WW2 had ended??

1). The alleged gas chambers were built AFTER the war by the Soviet Union and the Polish Communist gov.t. (again, as acknowledged by the Director of the Auschwitz Museum Dr. Franciszek Piper). So if there were no extermination gas chambers built by the Germans during WW2, then how was Hitler gassing Jews??

2). The extensive use of Zyklon B (Nazi weapon for "exterminating Jews) leaves behind a "Prussian Blue" residue on the walls of the gas chambers. The alleged gas chambers at Auschwitz where the Jews were supposedly "gassed" did not have the "Prussian Blue" cyanide residue from extensive use of Zyklon B gas which was the "Nazi" weapon of choice for "gassing" Jews.

The residue was only observed in small gas chambers which were used for delousing prisoner cloths from typhus and flees (there was a typhus epidemic throughout Europe during the mid to last years of WW2).

Alleged "gas chamber" where Jews were "gassed" (no blue residue):

And the smaller gas chamber that was used for delousing prisoner cloths (note the blue residue from Zyklon B use):

Too small for gassing 6 million Jews don't you think?


3). A American gas chamber expert by the name of Fred Leuchter who had access to Gas Execution chambers in America conducted forensics testing on samples from the walls of the alleged gas chambers used for gassing Jews, none of the samples showed up with any concentration of cyanide and similar residue/stain.

4). During WW2, the British captured German enigma machines and broke their secret communications code and the Germans had absolutely no idea that the British were eaves dropping on their every highly declassified conversations, commands, and valuable information, not even till the final days of the war.

However, not a single German transmission from any of their camps mentioned "gassings", "6 million Jews", or "gassing Jews". The numbers reported of casualties from these camps by high ranking German SS commandants of the camps to their HQ's totalled nowhere close to 6 million or even over one hundred thousand let alone 6 million people.


5). The only "evidence" of Jews ever being "gassed/exterminated/turned into soap/lamp shades" is the millions of Holohoax "survivors" and their "eyewitness" testimonies/memoires, each with their own sob story which they change with every interview.

But you see, these too are Holohoax survivors.

Contradictory and even false eyewitness testimonies make for a weak case/argument.


6). Now, coming to the official number of Jews "gassed" by Hitler in Soviet Communist Constructed gas chambers:

Currently the official number is 6 million or more. Before 1984 it was widely accepted as fact that 4 million Jews were "gassed" in Auschwitz alone and anyone who questioned this number was imprisoned within "Democratic" Europe or labeled a anti-semite:

However, after 1984 the number of Jews "gassed" in the Soviet built gas chambers was decreased to 1.5 million but the total 6 million casualty number remained the same:

So how did 2.5 million Jewish casualties disappear into thin air?? Or better yet, to which concentration camp were these casualties redistributed/allocated to in order to make the holohoax narrative more believable??

I'm not disputing the fact that Jews were killed during WW2. What i am disputing is the method by which they were killed and the number of Jews killed.

 

[gambit]

There is no proof whatsoever that Jews were gassed.

No worries. Whether Jews died in the gas chambers or not is none of your concern today. Does not affect you one single bit. What you posted have been debated and found technically and logically deficient. No different than loony 9/11 conspiracy theories. You go on and be comfortable in your beliefs.

 

[patriotpakistan]

Utter bhullshit, kid.

Circumstantial evidence - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Direct evidence is fingerprint on the axe.

Circumstantial evidences are the accused was seen with the axe, with the victim, with the victim's blood on him, and him running away from the alley. And then there was no one else in that alley at the midnight.

If you cannot use the Internet to search for the different types of evidences and how they matter in courts, you need to leave this discussion to the adults.

You should read the articles that you reference.

However, there is sometimes more than one logical conclusion inferable from the same set of circumstances. In cases where one conclusion implies a defendant's guilt and another his innocence, the "benefit of the doubt" principle would apply. Indeed, if the circumstantial evidence suggests a possibility of innocence, the prosecution has the burden of disproving that possibility.

I get it. I know that the ambiguities are unimportant to you because the hyperbole touches you emotionally. That is no excuse when there is no direct evidence and the circumstantial evidence is ambiguous.

 

[LeveragedBuyout]

No worries. Whether Jews died in the gas chambers or not is none of your concern today. Does not affect you one single bit. What you posted have been debated and found technically and logically deficient. No different than loony 9/11 conspiracy theories. You go on and be comfortable in your beliefs.

Some encounter facts, and then draw conclusions. Others draw conclusions, then look for facts. Don't waste your time on the latter.

 

[gambit]

You should read the articles that you reference.



I get it. I know that the ambiguities are unimportant to you because the hyperbole touches you emotionally. That is no excuse when there is no direct evidence and the circumstantial evidence is ambiguous.

I do read my sources and usually have a better understanding of my sources than most here of their own.

I thought it was funny that you originally said...

Courts of law cannot charge a person based on circumstatial evidence...

You do not need evidences to charge someone of a crime. Evidences are for CONVICTION. To charge someone, all you need is suspicion. Of course, simple suspicion would be misuse of power at best and abuse of power at worst. That is why prosecutors, not courts, requires more than just suspicion, even though in theory, suspicion will suffice. What you highlighted DOES NOT negate the value of circumstantial evidences but only set limits on them. So not only did you failed basic criminology, in the same sentence you demonstrated gross ignorance of the system as well.

If you cannot tell the difference between what is a 'charge' versus what is a 'conviction', why should anyone take your argument seriously ?

 

[Desert Fox]

No worries. Whether Jews died in the gas chambers or not is none of your concern today. Does not affect you one single bit.

Yes it does when the holohoax is used as an excuse to invade and occupy the land of Muslims.

And especially when it is the reasoning for many to support israel just so another holohoax does not occur in which Jews would be gassed by Palestinians using Soviet Built Gas Chambers .

What you posted have been debated and found technically and logically deficient.

No, in fact. I would however love for you to show me where each and every one of my points has been "debated and found technically and logically deficient". The only thing i see here is you cowering away. You asked me to bring up my argument, which i did, and now you're cowering away.

No different than loony 9/11 conspiracy theories. You go on and be comfortable in your beliefs.

"Loony conspiracy theories" don't land a person into prison for ten years for questioning a historical event. Surely, those in power have something to hide/prevent from being revealed to the general public. If something is not true and completely irrelevant, why be so defensive about it?? Why should a man face ten years in jail for questioning a historical event, which according to you is completely irrelevant??

David Irving Faces Ten Years In Prison For Questioning The Holocaust- The Guardian

If one were to go to Europe, the countries where these gas chambers existed in particular, and try to investigate the holohoax today it would land them in jail, they would be banned from entering certain European/Western countries, and become a thought criminal. Why if these are all just "loony conspiracy theories" about an event that is no longer relevant today??

 

[gambit]

No, in fact. I would however love for you to show me where each and every one of my points has been "debated and found technically and logically deficient". The only thing i see here is you cowering away. You asked me to bring up my argument, which i did, and now you're cowering away.

The Jews have a question: That why is it that none of the prosecuted Nazis ever denied that Jews were being systematically killed. It does not matter if the method was the gas chamber or a firing squad or just plain starvation. All of the Nazis under questioning, from the high ranked officers to the lowly guards, tried to deflect the charge away from himself, as in 'just following orders' or 'it must have been someone else'. Supposedly none of them cried out in court that such a systematic killing program never occurred.

It is curious that Holocaust denial is a post WW II phenomenon, like how Moon landing denial came after the program ended and believed by those with scant technical education.

Sometimes running away from such ignorance and the will to remain ignorant is the best solution.

 

[patriotpakistan]

I do read my sources and usually have a better understanding of my sources than most here of their own.

I thought it was funny that you originally said...


You do not need evidences to charge someone of a crime. Evidences are for CONVICTION. To charge someone, all you need is suspicion. Of course, simple suspicion would be misuse of power at best and abuse of power at worst. That is why prosecutors, not courts, requires more than just suspicion, even though in theory, suspicion will suffice. What you highlighted DOES NOT negate the value of circumstantial evidences but only set limits on them. So not only did you failed basic criminology, in the same sentence you demonstrated gross ignorance of the system as well.

If you cannot tell the difference between what is a 'charge' versus what is a 'conviction', why should anyone take your argument seriously ?

Don't try to be over smart, noone is a bloody lawyer here. Your claims are still ridiculous that lack of evidence is enough for a conviction when we all know that the propaganda hyperbole touches you emotionally. The lack of evidence maybe enough for you, but others don't bow down to such fallacy.

 

[gambit]

Don't try to be over smart, noone is a bloody lawyer here.

Fine, then leave this military oriented forum. After all, I have 10 yrs USAF, then nearly 9 yrs in civilian aviation. What do you have ?

Your claims are still ridiculous that lack of evidence is enough for a conviction when we all know that the propaganda hyperbole touches you emotionally. The lack of evidence maybe enough for you, but others don't bow down to such fallacy.

There are plenty of evidences here. You just do not like it because it indicted the Nazis.

It is telling to the world of you Muslims who obliquely defends the Nazis by way of trying to portray the Jews as liars. Six million Jews did not die in the Nazi gas chambers, but six million Jews were systematically killed and there was a reason for it: Jew hatred.

So what if it was not exactly 6 millions, or 5 millions, or even just one million ? What offends people's sense of morality is that the one million were systematically killed. They were not killed in the heat of battles as in those battles were components of a war. They were killed by rational, calm, and thoughtful people who devised ways to find Jews, documented what they found, gathered up as many Jews as possible, and killed them with dedicated tools, whether those tools were soldiers wielding rifles, or pools of acid, or a battalion of head choppers, or gas chambers.

People are morally offended when just one person is killed in such a systematic manner and we reserved the most serious charge -- first degree murder -- and the most serious punishment -- death sentence -- for the convicted. So why should they not be offended by one million or six million ? And yet you Muslims quibble if a plaque says four millions instead of six millions, or whether it was gas chambers or bullets. We could humor you the way patient parents suffer petulant children and say: 'Fine...It was only 1,118,834 Jews killed and we found only ten gas chambers and the rest were mass graves. May be the Nazis are not so bad after all.'

Whether it was a rounded figure of six millions or else, humane people were offended and sympathized because of the way those Jews were killed while you Muslims sympathize with the killers. I guess 1,118,834 Jews are not enough ?

 

[patriotpakistan]

Fine, then leave this military oriented forum. After all, I have 10 yrs USAF, then nearly 9 yrs in civilian aviation. What do you have ?

Congratulations, do you want a muffin for your service?

There are plenty of evidences here. You just do not like it because it indicted the Nazis.

It is telling to the world of you Muslims who obliquely defends the Nazis by way of trying to portray the Jews as liars. Six million Jews did not die in the Nazi gas chambers, but six million Jews were systematically killed and there was a reason for it: Jew hatred.

So what if it was not exactly 6 millions, or 5 millions, or even just one million ? What offends people's sense of morality is that the one million were systematically killed. They were not killed in the heat of battles as in those battles were components of a war. They were killed by rational, calm, and thoughtful people who devised ways to find Jews, documented what they found, gathered up as many Jews as possible, and killed them with dedicated tools, whether those tools were soldiers wielding rifles, or pools of acid, or a battalion of head choppers, or gas chambers.

People are morally offended when just one person is killed in such a systematic manner and we reserved the most serious charge -- first degree murder -- and the most serious punishment -- death sentence -- for the convicted. So why should they not be offended by one million or six million ? And yet you Muslims quibble if a plaque says four millions instead of six millions, or whether it was gas chambers or bullets. We could humor you the way patient parents suffer petulant children and say: 'Fine...It was only 1,118,834 Jews killed and we found only ten gas chambers and the rest were mass graves. May be the Nazis are not so bad after all.'

Whether it was a rounded figure of six millions or else, humane people were offended and sympathized because of the way those Jews were killed while you Muslims sympathize with the killers. I guess 1,118,834 Jews are not enough ?

It is interesting that in that entire post, there was not a single shred of evidence and only repetition of the standard zionist propaganda line. Questioning is followed by accusations about liking nazis. Can you please point out where I have ever said anything about liking nazis? The mere questioning of the holocaust is enough to send people such as yourselves into a mouth forthing frenzy. The basic premise being that questioning is not allowed. That sounds rather fishy to me. If something cannot be questioned, there is definitely something wrong in there thats trying to avoid scrutiny. I am open to the idea of the holocaust, however just like all ideas in science, proof must always be present and it must always be open to scrutiny and revision upon the discovery of newer evidence. Just until recently, people didn't think that the stonehenge was a complete circle. Who knows in the future, maybe new evidence will come that shows otherwise.

The reason that jews such as yourself try to avoid scrutiny on this subject is because it is an extensively used card by zionists as a shield to hide behind when their nefarious activities are exposed. It is a source of pity income and used to squeeze germany for military hardware..etc. It is used extensively in Israeli/zionist propaganda worldwide and is used as a crutch to avoid justice for killing the Palestinians. Why would the zionists want people questioning a source that is so profitable to them? As a muslim, I am forbidden to follow even my own faith blindly without questioning. Therefore I must question everything. Now if you can stop frothing at the mouth, you can perhaps share some conclusive evidence?

Here is an jewish woman confirming what I said:

 

[FNFAL]

This is the way it is actually done. The article is long but worth reading:
Is AIPAC losing its influence in USA?

That article is quite long. Will read for defo once i carve out some time. Thanks!

The world simply never ceases to amaze me.....
Vocal Sympathies for Nazis.....if they had their way, they would have gassed these so called supporters on basis of their skin color and lineage and relegious belief.

 

[gambit]

Congratulations, do you want a muffin for your service?

From you ? I will take it. Make it blueberry.

It is interesting that in that entire post, there was not a single shred of evidence and only repetition of the standard zionist propaganda line.

But there are evidences. You just do not like them because they are circumstantial and there are enough of them to make the entire collection as damning as direct evidences. How can you disqualify the IBM Hollerith method, as testified by the Nazis themselves as crucial in keeping tracks of Jews, as evidence ? We have a full book dedicated to that piece of evidence.

http://www.amazon.com/IBM-Holocaust-Strategic-Alliance-Corporation/dp/091415303X

III IDENTIFYING THE JEWS

If only the Nazis could at least obtain information on the 41 million Germans living in Prussia, Germany's largest state, comprising three-fifths of the German populace. How fast? Nazi planners wanted all 41 million Germans processed and preliminary results produced within a record four months. The Prussia government itself was completely incapable of launching such a massive undertaking.

But IBM's Dehomag was. The company offered a solution: it would handle the entire project as a contract. Dehomag would design a census package and classifying every citizen. Morever, it would recruit, train, and even feed the hundreds of temporary workers needed to process the census and perform the work on Dehomag's own premises.

I agree with you about direct evidences. They are 'golden', so to speak. But even lawyers fresh out of law school know that direct evidences are often unobtainable or lost. If we go by your ideal standard, most crimes would go unresolved.

Let us take the often charge that in Islam, the woman must have four witnesses of her rape in order to convict. Never mind that you may dispute that such a ridiculous criteria exists in Islam. What are those four witnesses if not circumstantial evidences ?

Now let us go to the true intent of the four witnesses criteria: That four witnesses are required to prove adultery on the woman's. In other words, if a woman is accused of adultery, there must be four witnesses testifying under oath that they possess information of her adultery. Not that they committed adultery with her, but that they have indirect knowledge of her adultery with another man. So what are these four witnesses if not circumstantial evidences ?

In matters of sins and laws, your own religion support the inclusion of circumstantial evidences as valid under oaths but for the Jews and the Holocaust as examined by legal and scientific processes ? Naaaaaahhh...You want ideal evidences.

Questioning is followed by accusations about liking nazis. Can you please point out where I have ever said anything about liking nazis? The mere questioning of the holocaust is enough to send people such as yourselves into a mouth forthing frenzy. The basic premise being that questioning is not allowed. That sounds rather fishy to me. If something cannot be questioned, there is definitely something wrong in there thats trying to avoid scrutiny. I am open to the idea of the holocaust, however just like all ideas in science, proof must always be present and it must always be open to scrutiny and revision upon the discovery of newer evidence. Just until recently, people didn't think that the stonehenge was a complete circle. Who knows in the future, maybe new evidence will come that shows otherwise.

You talk as if the legal prohibition on questioning the validity of the Holocaust is ever there. Wrong.

Laws against Holocaust denial - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Look at the source for yourself. See how old, or rather recent those laws are. And that those laws are in Europe, not in the US. You want to question the Holocaust in the US ? Do it and the police will protect you.

Outside Israel, the US have more Jews than most of the world's countries, but despite Jews supposedly controlling the US government, Hollywood, and Wall Street, AIPAC cannot get the US government to ban Holocaust denial like Europe ? England, Sweden, and Denmark refused to enact laws against Holocaust denial. How many more European countries also rejected such laws and allowed Holocaust denial in their countries ? The fact that there is a gross discrepancy of Jews in the US versus Europe should tell you that laws against Holocaust denial in SOME European countries came from reasons other than about the distaste of questioning the validity of the Holocaust. See if you can find out why.

 

[patriotpakistan]

But there are evidences. You just do not like them because they are circumstantial and there are enough of them to make the entire collection as damning as direct evidences. How can you disqualify the IBM Hollerith method, as testified by the Nazis themselves as crucial in keeping tracks of Jews, as evidence ? We have a full book dedicated to that piece of evidence.

http://www.amazon.com/IBM-Holocaust-Strategic-Alliance-Corporation/dp/091415303X

Ok, so there is evidence of cataloguing. How does that prove mass murder? Governments catalogue all citizens now. Do you have anything else?

You talk as if the legal prohibition on questioning the validity of the Holocaust is ever there. Wrong.

Laws against Holocaust denial - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Look at the source for yourself. See how old, or rather recent those laws are. And that those laws are in Europe, not in the US. You want to question the Holocaust in the US ? Do it and the police will protect you.

Outside Israel, the US have more Jews than most of the world's countries, but despite Jews supposedly controlling the US government, Hollywood, and Wall Street, AIPAC cannot get the US government to ban Holocaust denial like Europe ? England, Sweden, and Denmark refused to enact laws against Holocaust denial. How many more European countries also rejected such laws and allowed Holocaust denial in their countries ? The fact that there is a gross discrepancy of Jews in the US versus Europe should tell you that laws against Holocaust denial in SOME European countries came from reasons other than about the distaste of questioning the validity of the Holocaust. See if you can find out why.

The fact that in some countries it is actually prohibited to question and the fact that zionists in the states actively try to circumvent the first amendment to get the law passed, speaks volumes about the scrutiny being avoided here. Something is definitely fishy enough that so much effort is being put to avoid scrutiny. Truth can withstand all scrutiny and that which cannot is not truth.

 

[Beidou2020]

Of course they will support the Zionists mass murderers. US and Israel are brothers when it comes to genocidal wars.
2 repulsive mass murdering regimes.