Should the US continue support to Israel?

[gambit]

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

That alone ? Who said so ? Did I not say we have a collection of circumstantial evidences ?

In court, a person's opinion about something can be used to support an indictment against him as well as to support a greater scheme that he participated in. When Adolf Eichmann -- in court -- said of the Jews: '...that five million enemies of the Reich have died like animals.' that comment is further support for the suspicion that there was a systematic program to calmly, rationally, technically, and professionally kill Jews.

It does not mean Eichmann himself turned the gas knobs or pull the triggers, it means that from high Nazi command structure, there existed a sentiment of Jew hatred and that the Nazis had a systematic program to kill Jews. Then we have witnesses testimonies, from Allied soldiers, to ordinary German citizens who had glimpses of that program, to some physical evidences, and so on. All you are doing is just taking one piece of evidence and make it as if upon that piece rests the entire prosecution argument.

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.

That is correct -- SOME COUNTRIES -- not all. That mean all you have to do is shift your location and that truth can be examined. And in the US, you will be protected for questioning the Holocaust. Now if only your own Muslim society can be equally open.

 

[Desert Fox]

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.

1). The so called "Nazi confessions" were extracted through the use of torture, threats and intimidation. Such torturing techniques were applied that make water boarding look like a cake walk in comparison.

" Former Auschwitz commandant Rudolf Höss was tortured by British officials into signing a false and self-incriminating "confession" that has been widely cited as a key document of Holocaust extermination. His testimony before the Nuremberg Tribunal, a high point of the proceeding, was perhaps the most striking and memorable evidence presented there of a German extermination program. /73 Höss maintained that two and half million people had been killed in Auschwitz gas chambers, and that another 500,000 inmates had died there of other causes. No serious or reputable historian now accepts either of these fantastic figures, and other key portions of Höss' "confession" are now generally acknowledged to be untrue. /74

Aleksandr Solzhenitsyn has cited the case of Jupp Aschenbrenner, a Bavarian who was tortured into signing a statement that he had worked on mobile gas chambers ("gas vans") during the war. It wasn't until several years later that he was finally able to prove that he had actually spent that time in Munich studying to become an electric welder. /75

Fritz Sauckel, head of the German wartime labor mobilization program, was sentenced to death at the main Nuremberg trial. An important piece of evidence presented to the Tribunal by the US prosecution was an affidavit signed by the defendant. (Nuremberg document 3057-PS.) It turned out that Sauckel had put his signature to this self-incriminating statement, which had been presented to him by his captors in finished form, only after he was bluntly told that if he hesitated, his wife and children would be turned over to the Soviets. "I did not stop to consider, and thinking of my family, I signed the document," Sauckel later declared. /76
Hans Fritzsche, another defendant in the main Nuremberg trial, was similarly forced to sign a self-damning confession while he was a prisoner of the Soviet secret police in Moscow. (Nuremberg document USSR-474.) /77

Nuremberg defendant Julius Streicher, who was eventually hanged because he published a sometimes sensational anti-Jewish weekly paper, was brutally mistreated following his arrest. He was badly beaten, kicked, whipped, spat at, forced to drink saliva and burned with cigarettes. His genitals were beaten. Eyebrow and chest hair was pulled out. He was stripped and photographed. Fellow defendant Hans Frank was savagely beaten by two black GIs shortly after his arrest. August Eigruber, former Gauleiter of Upper Austria, was mutilated and castrated at the end of the war. /78

Josef Kramer, former commandant of both the Bergen-Belsen and Auschwitz-Birkenau camps, and other defendants in the British-run "Belsen" trial, were reportedly also tortured, some of them so brutally that they begged to be put to death. /79"

The Nuremberg Trials (part 2)

How Britain Tortured Nazi POW's During Interrogations- The Daily Mail

How the British Obtained the Confessions of Rudolf Höss

It seems not much has changed since the Nuremberg torture interrogations and sham trials and todays Abu Ghraib and Guantanamo.

It does not matter if the method was the gas chamber or a firing squad or just plain starvation.

Yes, it does matter in fact, because the entire Holohoax narrative is built upon the gas chambers myth and the 6 million gassed Jews who's body fat and skin the Nazis turned into Soap and Lampshades (though none of this soap and Lampshades were ever produced as evidence of the gassings). Otherwise why would the Jews keep harping on about the "gassings" and "6 million who were gassed" or how every Jew has a relative who was gassed but somehow they themselves managed to survive, though their testimony changes with every interview.

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.

No one is denying that there were mass executions, not even the most hardcore of revisionists because there is too much evidence to prove that Jews were executed en mass using methods other than "gassings". There are bodies with bullet holes from machine guns and rifles, but there is not a single body or a single shred of evidence proving Jews were gassed in gas chambers "built" by the Nazis (Soviets built the gas chambers after the war) neither were there 6 million Jewish casualties. On the contrary there is plenty of evidence proving that there were no gas chambers during WW2 which were used to gas Jews and the Jewish 6 million casualty number is blown way out of proportion.

 

[patriotpakistan]

That alone ? Who said so ? Did I not say we have a collection of circumstantial evidences ?

In court, a person's opinion about something can be used to support an indictment against him as well as to support a greater scheme that he participated in. When Adolf Eichmann -- in court -- said of the Jews: '...that five million enemies of the Reich have died like animals.' that comment is further support for the suspicion that there was a systematic program to calmly, rationally, technically, and professionally kill Jews.

It does not mean Eichmann himself turned the gas knobs or pull the triggers, it means that from high Nazi command structure, there existed a sentiment of Jew hatred and that the Nazis had a systematic program to kill Jews. Then we have witnesses testimonies, from Allied soldiers, to ordinary German citizens who had glimpses of that program, to some physical evidences, and so on. All you are doing is just taking one piece of evidence and make it as if upon that piece rests the entire prosecution argument.


That is correct -- SOME COUNTRIES -- not all. That mean all you have to do is shift your location and that truth can be examined. And in the US, you will be protected for questioning the Holocaust. Now if only your own Muslim society can be equally open.

Just a moment ago, you were frothing at the mouth about liking nazis when I was questioning. The fact that zionist jews try to avoid scrutiny on the subject by pressuring governments to make laws banning questioning of the official zionist line, is telling indeed about what scrutineers would find should they open up the subject.

Anyhow, the statements made by Adolf Eichmann or other nazis come under doubt because they may as well have been forced. The Allies wanted to justify the costly war and they had complete control over the trials. Judge, Jury and Executioner. That makes the statements ambiguous as evidence. You mentioned physical evidences in the post. Can you elaborate on what they are?

 

[gambit]

Yes, it does matter in fact, because the entire Holohoax narrative is built upon the gas chambers myth and the 6 million gassed...

Wrong. For as much as I have read on this subject, no official report said 6 millions were gassed, least of all from the Jewish quarter themselves. At worst, we can accuse them of being sloppy in rhetoric.

You brought on 'gas chamber expert' Fred Leuchter.

Fred A. Leuchter - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Leuchter received a Bachelor of Arts degree in history from Boston University in 1964 and later conducted post-graduate studies at the Harvard-Smithsonian Astronomical Observatory.[5] Leuchter holds patents for a geodetic instrument and an electronic sextant.[6] Leuchter has said he is not an engineer and misled people about his expertise.[7][8] According to the New York Times, before selling execution equipment Leuchter was a former dealer in military surveillance equipment.

What make a person a 'gas chamber expert' ? It begs the questions of when is a gas chamber used and what for. Based upon those two questions, the technicalities of the device begins to emerge.

Why is a gas/vapor is preferable/used in a certain situation ? For the Holocaust subject, the argument is that the gas chambers were for delousing. Fine. Why not pick the bugs -- one by one -- off the person ? Because that is obviously time and labor intensive due to the quantity of the bugs and locations of the little critters on the person. So a vaporous agent is preferred because a gas is INDISCRIMINATELY INTRUSIVE. Picking bugs -- one by one -- off a person is DISCRIMINATORY, meaning you have to decide which bug to pick, which area of the body to start, and so on. So it is obvious that for the delousing purpose, an indiscriminate method/agent is most desirable.

Precisely because a vapor/gas/liquid is indiscriminately intrusive, there are unique technical considerations regarding the construction of a device that must restrain/confine the scope of travel of the vapor/gas/liquid. Think of the simple fish tank, for example. Water is just like a vapor/gas in its ability to seek out and fill voids. The difference between water and a gas, like simple hydrogen, is that water have a much greater mass than hydrogen per same volume, so containment for water will require a more robust structure than for hydrogen. Pressurizing both and the need for increased structural strength increases proportionately. In fact, if water is pressurized enough, we can dope it with a fine abrasive and use pressurized water to cut metal, something that have been around for a couple hundred yrs.

So based upon publicly available knowledge and some technical education, it is clear that in order for anyone to claim the mantle of an 'expert' in anything, there must be some education and/or experience involved in a subject, whether it is a fish tank or a gas chamber used to delouse a person or to kill said person.

You called Leuchter...

3). A American gas chamber expert by the name of Fred Leuchter...

What made Leuchter an 'expert' based upon his education and work experience ? I worked in avionics so why should I hire a mechanical engineer or petroleum engineer over an EE ? But if I was looking for someone to design a containment structure for a vapor/gas/liquid, then absolutely a mechanical engineer is the right person for the job.

You dismissed eyewitness testimonies from victims to soldiers to technical professionals who examined the prison camps and their devices used and rests your entire argument on one man/fraud -- Fred Leuchter.

You want to dismiss Nazi confessions are possible/probable coercions ? Fine.

You want to dismiss Jewish victims' memories as ages old and unreliable ? Fine as well.

However, the unreliability of the opposition arguments does not automatically make credible -- yours. Even in the court of public opinions, reasonable people still demand credible rebuttals.

So show us why should we take Fred Leuchter seriously when the man is a proven fraud, least of all by his own admission of NONE EXPERIENCE in engineering of any kind, of biology, and of chemistry, specialized sciences required, by the Nazis no less, in order to even design a gas chamber. Next, we must assess Leuchter's credentials and experience in forensic science. Oooopsss...There are none there as well.

Now go back to stormfront and asks for more advice from the neo-Nazis there.

 

[Desert Fox]

Wrong. For as much as I have read on this subject, no official report said 6 millions were gassed, least of all from the Jewish quarter themselves. At worst, we can accuse them of being sloppy in rhetoric.

You brought on 'gas chamber expert' Fred Leuchter.

Fred A. Leuchter - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

What make a person a 'gas chamber expert' ? It begs the questions of when is a gas chamber used and what for. Based upon those two questions, the technicalities of the device begins to emerge.

Why is a gas/vapor is preferable/used in a certain situation ? For the Holocaust subject, the argument is that the gas chambers were for delousing. Fine. Why not pick the bugs -- one by one -- off the person ? Because that is obviously time and labor intensive due to the quantity of the bugs and locations of the little critters on the person. So a vaporous agent is preferred because a gas is INDISCRIMINATELY INTRUSIVE. Picking bugs -- one by one -- off a person is DISCRIMINATORY, meaning you have to decide which bug to pick, which area of the body to start, and so on. So it is obvious that for the delousing purpose, an indiscriminate method/agent is most desirable.

Precisely because a vapor/gas/liquid is indiscriminately intrusive, there are unique technical considerations regarding the construction of a device that must restrain/confine the scope of travel of the vapor/gas/liquid. Think of the simple fish tank, for example. Water is just like a vapor/gas in its ability to seek out and fill voids. The difference between water and a gas, like simple hydrogen, is that water have a much greater mass than hydrogen per same volume, so containment for water will require a more robust structure than for hydrogen. Pressurizing both and the need for increased structural strength increases proportionately. In fact, if water is pressurized enough, we can dope it with a fine abrasive and use pressurized water to cut metal, something that have been around for a couple hundred yrs.

So based upon publicly available knowledge and some technical education, it is clear that in order for anyone to claim the mantle of an 'expert' in anything, there must be some education and/or experience involved in a subject, whether it is a fish tank or a gas chamber used to delouse a person or to kill said person.

You called Leuchter...


What made Leuchter an 'expert' based upon his education and work experience ? I worked in avionics so why should I hire a mechanical engineer or petroleum engineer over an EE ? But if I was looking for someone to design a containment structure for a vapor/gas/liquid, then absolutely a mechanical engineer is the right person for the job.

You dismissed eyewitness testimonies from victims to soldiers to technical professionals who examined the prison camps and their devices used and rests your entire argument on one man/fraud -- Fred Leuchter.

I actually expected this response. When you can't refute a person, discredit them.

But, since you say so that Fred Leuchter is a "fraud" we'll go with that then.

Now, here is where i will reveal my trump card:

After the Leuchter Report was released, the Institute of Forensic Research (Instytut Ekspertyz Sadowych) in Krakow, a Polish Gov.t Agency conducted a similar test on the alleged gas chambers in which Jews were "exterminated", and they're results were similar to those of Fred Leuchter, the "fraud", that none of the alleged "extermination chambers" were used for gassing/exterminating Jews, the only chamber where any residue of the gas was found were the delousing chambers for prisoner clothes:


First page of the Official Polish Gov.t Agency Document:

​

The Entire English Translation of the Polish Gov.t Agency's Report Linked Below (Very Long):

An Official Polish Report on the Auschwitz 'Gas Chambers'


So why weren't any Zyklon B related residues discovered in any of the alleged "extermination gas chambers"?? Perhaps because they were built by the Soviet Union after the war as acknowledged by the Auschwitz Museum Director Dr. Franciszek Piper, thus only proving Fred Leuchter, the "fraud", right!

You want to dismiss Nazi confessions are possible/probable coercions ? Fine.

I'm not saying/dismissing anything, its just common sense. If you light a mans balls on fire or threaten to rape his daughter(s) in front of him i'm sure he'd admit to having committed anything to stop/prevent the suffering being inflicted upon him or his dear ones. Which is why any confessions extracted through the use of mental/physical torture are unreliable.

How Britain Tortured Nazi POW's During Interrogations- The Daily Mail

Rwandan civilians tortured into making false confessions, says Amnesty- The Guardian

You want to dismiss Jewish victims' memories as ages old and unreliable ? Fine as well.

Age old? Never said that. Contradictory and constantly changing per every interview?? Yes!

However, the unreliability of the opposition arguments does not automatically make credible -- yours.

Yes, it does in fact, especially when the opposition resorts to cheap shots in order to avoid addressing the valid points brought up by their opponents, thus it automatically proves the validity of ones own argument in the face of the opponents impotency and tendency to resort to name calling, personal attacks, and other forms of cheap shots.

Even in the court of public opinions, reasonable people still demand credible rebuttals.

Which the Holohoaxers have been unable to provide to date, besides sentencing people to 10 years in prison for questioning the Holohoax along with discrediting them or labeling them "frauds". I guess truth has to be silenced through censorship, death threats, and brutal crackdowns.

Now go back to stormfront and asks for more advice from the neo-Nazis there.

Thanks for the advice, is that what you do??

 

[gambit]

I actually expected this response. When you can't refute a person, discredit them.

Leuchter was both refuted and exposed as a fraud.

But, since you say so that Fred Leuchter is a "fraud" we'll go with that then.

Now, here is where i will reveal my trump card:

After the Leuchter Report was released, the Institute of Forensic Research (Instytut Ekspertyz Sadowych) in Krakow, a Polish Gov.t Agency conducted a similar test on the alleged gas chambers in which Jews were "exterminated", and they're results were similar to those of Fred Leuchter, the "fraud", that none of the alleged "extermination chambers" were used for gassing/exterminating Jews, the only chamber where any residue of the gas was found were the delousing chambers for prisoner clothes:


First page of the Official Polish Gov.t Agency Document:
The Entire English Translation of the Polish Gov.t Agency's Report Linked Below (Very Long):

An Official Polish Report on the Auschwitz 'Gas Chambers'

Here is a summary of that Polish report...

Leuchter report - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Due to Leuchter's ignorance of the large disparity between the amounts of cyanide necessary to kill humans and lice, instead of disproving the homicidal use of gas chambers, the small amounts of cyanide which Leuchter detected actually tended to confirm it.

Do you know why insects are so hard to kill to the point that it is half joke that the roach will survive a nuclear fallout ? Because their body chemistry and biological functions are far more primitive than human's. Entomologists know this for a fact. Markiewicz did a far better job than Leuchter did and scientifically and logically refuted Leuchter.

Delousing is to remove lice from a person or inanimate object. Traces of 'Prussian blue' mean traces of cyanide. The absence of 'Prussian blue' in the alleged killing chamber mean the gas chamber could not have been used to kill but to delouse.

The gas chambers were used to delouse, hence the presence of trace cyanide as proof of that, so goes the deniers' argument via the Leuchter's Report. But if trace cyanide was detected, then extrapolation of that trace amount will indicate an amount of cyanide that not only will it kill the bugs but also will kill the human that the bugs need to live on.

So how did the Nazis delouse the prisoners ? Have them disrobed and gas only the clothes ? Why not, after all, that is how we fumigate OBJECTS. But because it requires far less cyanide to kill humans than lice, the absence of 'Prussian blue' does NOT mean Zyklon B was not used to kill a prisoner and you can delouse by simply taking a shower of any temperature of water with soap. You can delouse clothing by boiling them. So what is the point of using gas ?

http://www.afpmb.org/sites/default/files/pubs/techguides/tg6.pdf

Camp staffs accomplished delousing by ensuring that prisoners of war bathed and by boiling their clothes for 30 minutes. Using these techniques, the number of soldiers deloused per day ranged from 490 to 1215 in a camp containing 18,628 soldiers awaiting repatriation. Though the laundering techniques used in Ethiopia were effective, they went well beyond the lethal time or temperature combinations needed to kill lice and their eggs.

One thousand plus persons can be deloused in a single day just by hot water and soap, and boiling for 30 minutes was overkill for lice in clothing.

You are telling us that the Nazis who were smart enough to use Zyklon B gas supposedly to delouse was completely ignorant of basic personal hygiene ? We are not talking about soldiers under field condition where delousing powder such as those containing DDT may be the best if not only solution, but buildings with rooms as living areas, kitchens, and toilet facilities, and the Nazis cannot afford even soap and water for the prisoners to scrub the lice of themselves ? The SS spent a lot of money to buy and shipped Zyklon B gas to the camps, but how much cheaper is soap ?

Like I said earlier, gas is indiscriminately intrusive. If you do not care where the gas go and what voids it fills, then killing with gas is the best and most efficient mean available. Nobody -- sane -- take the delousing argument seriously.

Your trump card turned out to be a joker and he is laughing at you.

I'm not saying/dismissing anything, its just common sense.

Age old? Never said that. Contradictory and constantly changing per every interview?? Yes!

Yes, it does in fact, especially when the opposition resorts to cheap shots in order to avoid addressing the valid points brought up by their opponents, thus it automatically proves the validity of ones own argument in the face of the opponents impotency and tendency to resort to name calling, personal attacks, and other forms of cheap shots.

Nonsense. Showing your man's technical deficiencies does not constitute 'cheap shots', especially AFTER he comported himself as technically competent enough to testify for you.

Which the Holohoaxers have been unable to provide to date,...

That is a good laugh considering you brought on a source, the Poles, that actually refuted you.

...besides sentencing people to 10 years in prison for questioning the Holohoax along with discrediting them or labeling them "frauds". I guess truth has to be silenced through censorship, death threats, and brutal crackdowns.

How can there be suppression when you referenced IHR, which have a website and is based in California, US ? As long as there are countries where Holocaust denial is NOT a crime, and there are plenty of them, you have no good cause to complain about suppression.

Thanks for the advice, is that what you do??

You and stormfront seems to be sympathicos, buddy.

 

[gambit]

Why the gas chamber ? Vapor, gas, and liquid are indiscriminately intrusive and even more so when under pressure.

So how to most efficiently kill a group ?

The rule of threes applies: 3 minutes without air, 3 days without water, and 3 weeks without food.

- Starvation ? It can weeks for a man to die from starvation, even if a man have a low body fat content, as in athletically fit. So for an obese man, his body can live off stored calories for even a few more weeks.

- Denial of water ? Faster than lack of food but can still take days to kill a man, and if he can get moisture from overnight dew in his jail cell, he can last longer.

- Denial of oxygen ? Construction of large airtight chambers are not technically difficult, but then why bother with oxygen denial when oxygen could be doped/contaminated with something else ? But the 3 minutes rule is applicable only when there is an immediate severance of access to air, such as choking or any other method of physical blockage of air to the lungs. So if the chamber is large enough, it may take hours for the group to die from carbon dioxide poisoning.

- Guns ? A machine gun is actually a terribly inefficient way to kill a group. Just because a soldier can fire off 600 rounds/min, that does not mean he can kill 600 targets. It simply mean that for ONE target, he increased the odds of hitting it by 600 times. A single shot, as in stationary target shooting, is more efficient but still labor and time consuming. A soldier with 10 rounds can precision kill 10 targets, but for each target, he would have to load, eject, reload, aim, then pull the trigger.

- Bomb ? Much more efficient for group killing but inherently messy, noisy, and require large real estates for safety reasons.

- Drowning ? Very efficient but require a lot of physical resource such as real estate and water that can be used for better things. Another negative is that once the killing is done, the water is no longer potable. Also...Who want to bathe/shower with water that was used to drown a bunch of Jews yesterday ? Might as well be a cannibal.

This leave the gas chamber -- hands down all cards on the table -- as the most efficient in terms of resource requirement, time, and clean up, to kill many groups, one after another. The Nazis are not stupid. This is why the gas chamber is morally significant for this subject and why it earned special attention from neo-Nazis and the Muslims despite the fact that more Jews died from prolong manual labor, starvation, disease, and bullets than from the gas chambers.

 

[DejanSRB]

Should the US continue support to Isreal?


I think that this question is wrong.
It is matter of time when will American drop their capacity to interfere in ME.

So it is unimportant who will be backed by Americans,Isrealis or Palestinians.

 

[Desert Fox]

Leuchter was both refuted and exposed as a fraud.


Here is a summary of that Polish report...

Leuchter report - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Do you know why insects are so hard to kill to the point that it is half joke that the roach will survive a nuclear fallout ? Because their body chemistry and biological functions are far more primitive than human's. Entomologists know this for a fact. Markiewicz did a far better job than Leuchter did and scientifically and logically refuted Leuchter.

Delousing is to remove lice from a person or inanimate object. Traces of 'Prussian blue' mean traces of cyanide. The absence of 'Prussian blue' in the alleged killing chamber mean the gas chamber could not have been used to kill but to delouse.

The gas chambers were used to delouse, hence the presence of trace cyanide as proof of that, so goes the deniers' argument via the Leuchter's Report. But if trace cyanide was detected, then extrapolation of that trace amount will indicate an amount of cyanide that not only will it kill the bugs but also will kill the human that the bugs need to live on.

So how did the Nazis delouse the prisoners ? Have them disrobed and gas only the clothes ? Why not, after all, that is how we fumigate OBJECTS. But because it requires far less cyanide to kill humans than lice, the absence of 'Prussian blue' does NOT mean Zyklon B was not used to kill a prisoner and you can delouse by simply taking a shower of any temperature of water with soap. You can delouse clothing by boiling them. So what is the point of using gas ?

http://www.afpmb.org/sites/default/files/pubs/techguides/tg6.pdf

One thousand plus persons can be deloused in a single day just by hot water and soap, and boiling for 30 minutes was overkill for lice in clothing.

You are telling us that the Nazis who were smart enough to use Zyklon B gas supposedly to delouse was completely ignorant of basic personal hygiene ? We are not talking about soldiers under field condition where delousing powder such as those containing DDT may be the best if not only solution, but buildings with rooms as living areas, kitchens, and toilet facilities, and the Nazis cannot afford even soap and water for the prisoners to scrub the lice of themselves ? The SS spent a lot of money to buy and shipped Zyklon B gas to the camps, but how much cheaper is soap ?

Like I said earlier, gas is indiscriminately intrusive. If you do not care where the gas go and what voids it fills, then killing with gas is the best and most efficient mean available. Nobody -- sane -- take the delousing argument seriously.

None of this negates the fact that not a single Jew corpse saturated with cyanide from Zyklon B was produced as evidence in 1945 when the "first forensic testing" of the "extermination" site took place (according to the wiki link you posted).

Neither does this negate the fact that the SS Commandant of the Auschwitz Camp, Rudolf Höss, who's "confession" was induced after extensive torture sessions during interrogation, was forced into admitting to crimes which have yet to be proven. Yet his so called "confession" was hailed as a valuable testimony proving "Nazi extermination of Jews".

Instead of a Jewish corpse saturated with Cyanide from having been exposed to Zyklon B gas, the evidence produced to convict the Camp Commandants and other Nazis was a Lampshade supposedly made from Human skin and a Shrunken head (the shrunken head disappeared and was never seen again, and the "human skin" lampshade was in fact made from goat skin, but nevertheless this was "evidence" used to convict and punish Nazis).

Anyway, an American Forensic Pathologist confirmed that not a single Jewish corpse was discovered which was contaminated with any toxic gas (zyklon B):

"When American and British forces overran western and central Germany in the spring of 1945, they were followed by troops charged with discovering and securing any evidence of German war crimes.

Among them was Dr. Charles Larson, one of America's leading forensic pathologists, who was assigned to the US Army's Judge Advocate General's Department. As part of a US War Crimes Investigation Team, Dr. Larson performed autopsies at Dachau and some twenty other German camps, examining on some days more than 100 corpses. After his grim work at Dachau, he was questioned for three days by US Army prosecutors. [1]

Dr. Larson's findings? In an 1980 newspaper interview he said: "What we've heard is that six million Jews were exterminated. Part of that is a hoax." [2] And what part was the hoax? Dr. Larson, who told his biographer that to his knowledge he "was the only forensic pathologist on duty in the entire European Theater" of Allied military operations, [3] confirmed that "never was a case of poison gas uncovered." [4]"

The Liberation of the Camps: Facts vs. Lies

That is a good laugh considering you brought on a source, the Poles, that actually refuted you.

Not at all actually. Did they prove Jews were "exterminated" by providing samplings of Jewish bodies from 1945 saturated with cyanide from Zyklon B contamination??

One major possibility could be that the Auschwitz gas chambers were utilized by the Soviets for whatever purpose after the camp fell into their hands because the Soviets did use many German concentration camps to house thousands of Axis POW's before transporting them to Siberian Gulags.

For all we know the small traces of cyanide could have been due to the fact the chamber was used for delousing or for another purpose by the Germans and even Soviets other than "exterminating" Jews because no body sample exists to prove so.

How can there be suppression when you referenced IHR, which have a website and is based in California, US ? As long as there are countries where Holocaust denial is NOT a crime, and there are plenty of them, you have no good cause to complain about suppression.

Obviously the "extermination" didn't take place in America, so there wouldn't be any purpose of suppressing revisionism here. However, a man can face ten years in prison in Europe for simply saying "there is no conclusive evidence proving Jews were exterminated in Gas chambers by the Nazis". And people say the Nazis arrested thought criminals.

Like i said before, only evidence of Jews being "exterminated/gassed" by Nazis are the Nazi "confessions" produced after torture and coercion, and the millions of holohoax survivors who tell a different tale every interview, not to mention many of their stories contradict each other.

Because there is no conclusive proof of the "exterminations", the Holohoax industry promoters have now come up with hologram projections of the Holohoax survivors in order to keep the sob story going for as long as possible:

Holocaust Survivor Stories Live On In Holograms

USC projects Holocaust survivors as holograms

You and stormfront seems to be sympathicos, buddy.

Sorry pal, but i didn't even know what stormfront was until you mentioned it. You seem to know a lot about the website and its users. You must be a member there.

 

[Desert Fox]

Lol, you guys have to check this out, this is truly a desperate attempt on the part of Holohoax promoters to preserve their sob story in order to justify their crimes against humanity all over the globe:

Because there is no conclusive proof of the "exterminations", the Holohoax industry promoters have now come up with hologram projections of the Holohoax survivors in order to keep the sob story going for as long as possible and brainwash future generations:

Holocaust Survivor Stories Live On In Holograms

USC projects Holocaust survivors as holograms

@p(-)0ENiX @Hazzy997 @al-Hasani @Yzd Khalifa @KingMamba @Akheilos

These survivors and their contradictory testimonies are the only "evidence" the holohoax promoters have to prove the Jews were "exterminated", thus they are attempting to preserve their testimonies. However they are dying out faster than they can clone them in the image of holograms.

The world must continue to bear the torture of these sob stories:

Firsthand accounts disappear as Holocaust survivors die - TheGazette​

 

[KingMamba]

Evangelical Christian extremists in the US believe that Armageddon, Jesus's second coming and the Rapture will not arrive until they fullfill biblical prophecy by supporting Israel. And yes, the Evangelicals are powerful in the US and they want to ignite armageddon!

They strongly believe that their support for Israel is commanded by God through these verses: "I will bless those who bless you, And I will curse him who curses you; And in you all the families of the earth shall be blessed” (Genesis 12:3). They are scared of being cursed by the nation who was ultimately cursed for eternity by God himself.

A jewish reporter did an expose on them a while back. It also explains why these people hate muslims and are persecting them in their countries. Heres the video:

Source: Rapture Ready: The Unauthorized Christians United for Israel Tour | Max Blumenthal

It is almost funny how true this is.

Why should the US continue to support Israel?

1) We are bound to by treaty.
2) Lebanon is a failed state, Syria is a failed state, Iraq is a failed state, Libya is a failed state, Egypt is an open question. Israel is an anchor for our interests in the region.
3) Israel is a liberal democracy that largely shares our values.
4) Our support enables us to control their defense industry (veto rights over transfer of technology).
5) Our defense and technology sectors are deeply intertwined.
6) Our support binds them to us diplomatically (Israel has a socialist past, leaving an opening for Russia or China).
7) Their intelligence agencies are able to provide critical insight into the area.
8) Israel is a magnet for Muslim supremacists and terrorists who would otherwise go after us directly. $3bn in aid essentially leverages up to a ~$17bn mosquito torch for the region.
9) We can use Israel as diplomatic leverage in the region (i.e. we will restrain Israel, in return, you do something for us).

The better question is, why shouldn't we continue to support Israel?

1) The enemies of Israel tend to be the worst kind of authoritarian, fundamentalist states, which would naturally be hostile to US whether or not we supported Israel, or even whether or not Israel existed.

2) Can you provide an example of a country that is hostile to Israel, that would not be hostile to the US without our support of Israel, and that the US would derive any benefit from? Turkey is already in our corner, no matter what we do with Israel. Iran will always be against us, no matter what we do with Israel. We don't need Arab oil, which the Arab states realize after their failed oil embargo, so the "moderate" Arab states will stay on-side no matter what we do with Israel.

The only justification I can think of is the cost of the military aid, but that's part of a package with Egypt (and to some extent, Jordan), so it would be difficult to imagine cutting off Israel without cutting off the other two. Cutting off all three would essentially lock the US out of that region--for what benefit?

A lot of good analysis except I take exception to the so called failed Arab oil embargo. AFAIK at the time it was a huge deal and although I was not even born during the time people I have spoken to say that the toll was huge. Today however an embargo would not work.

 

[Hasbara Buster]

It doesn't matter, they are both doomed.

 

[LeveragedBuyout]

It is almost funny how true this is.



A lot of good analysis except I take exception to the so called failed Arab oil embargo. AFAIK at the time it was a huge deal and although I was not even born during the time people I have spoken to say that the toll was huge. Today however an embargo would not work.

No doubt, it caused sharp pain in the beginning. I remember the gasoline rationing, and stagflation was a grinding misery.

That said, the oil embargo caused massive inflation in Saudi Arabia, and spurred the industrialized world to implement urgent countermeasures (diversification of energy sources and use of alternatives, efficiency standards such as CAFE, more oil exploration, development of technology to exploit what had been considered uneconomical sources, etc.) that did much to ameliorate the situation. Between that, the rise of the non-OPEC members pumping up their output, and the irresistible urge to cheat within OPEC, the embargo didn't last long. The duration of the effects would have been even shorter if not for the Iranian revolution.

For all of the reasons above, I agree with you that today an embargo would not work.