Revisionism and "Holocaust Denial"

[CyberGnu]

Jaguar:
Actually, if you read the second part (b) of the link that started this thread, there are several points. I don't agree with his last one (about how the holocaust is used to put germany down), but the first two definitely are worth considering.

Specifically about the US political goals: To provide a reason to support Israel despite the endless violations of Geneva conventions and UN resolutions.

[CyberGnu]

Jaguar:

Kroeze linked to a site that denied the holocaust and used it as a source, IIRC. But the last time I read this thread was a long time ago, so I don't really remember.

Edit: found it. He doesn't deny it, he says that the numbers were fudged.

you mean this?

Kroze: There is no discussion among professional historians whether the Holocaust occurred or not. There is some discussion about the amount of its victims. But the amount of 6 million Jewish victims is well-estalished, though the actual amount might have been slightly less, about 5.7 million which is still an appalling amount.

Wow, that is one inflammatory statement...

[CyberGnu]

Hmm... Gnu supports the view point of S Kroeze who bases his "historical research" on a communist anti-semitic site. How surprising!!!

hmm, Siro appears and rants without addressing the specific points asked him. How surprising!!!!

[Jaguar]

Originally posted by CyberGnu
Jaguar:
Actually, if you read the second part (b) of the link that started this thread, there are several points. I don't agree with his last one (about how the holocaust is used to put germany down), but the first two definitely are worth considering.

Specifically about the US political goals: To provide a reason to support Israel despite the endless violations of Geneva conventions and UN resolutions.

If Israel is so awful, then what does the US have to gain by justifying their actions?

Edited to add a followup: If Israel is so awful, why does the US align itself with it in the first place?

[Mordoch]

Originally posted by Straybow
Everyone has an agenda. I'm honest about mine: I believe in Christ, and I proclaim what fragmentary evidence supports the existence of Jesus as a real, historical figure. I don't claim to believe because of historical proof.

So in other words you don't have any proof for claims but your religious beliefs, but you do make the claim that 1/3 of Jews converted to Christianity based on these same beliefs. When others question this assertion, you claim the burden is on them to prove your beliefs are wrong, even though you are the one making the assertion. Sure some Jews did convert to Christianity, but your claim on numbers has not been backed in any way.

The argument that Christianity's beginnings are not documented well historically but exits as a religion today is not valid, this ignores that some of the details in the bible regarding the event can't be verified hisorically. There is plenty of evidence that a religion that eventually became known as Christianity appeared in approximately this period. Saying you personally believe in something does not in itself make it true.

[CyberGnu]

Edan:

Including the bibliographies? Including punctuation and format and spacing?

Yep. If two people quote from the same place, why do you expect one of them to change the punctuation?

He copied it directly off that site, and he didn't even refute it (or reply) when I brought it up, he just left the thread.

Well, as I said, I can't speak for Kroeze. I don't know whether he's read the primary sources or not.

But the occurance of the quotes on an anti-semitic website proves absolutely nothing. It doesn't matter whether they appear on a website devoted to the teletubbies, neurosurgery or the application of handlotion on midgets as an amusing sunday night diversion.

the only thing that matters is the actual source itself. That't why it is called a primary source, as opposed to the website that quotes it, which is secondary.

He says he doesn't cut and paste from the net and said hes done this research on his own from primary sources.

My finding suggested to me that he did get his info directly off the net told me enough about his character to doubt him.

Well, you will have to take this up with him.

Why should I do that?

I didn't say you should. I said I assumed they were true.

[CyberGnu]

Should I assume that every quote I find on the web is true? I don't think so.

Of course you shouldn't. Which is why you should check the primary literature if you don't believe what you read on the web.

Look, it is not complicated.

Let's say I post the controversial and inflammatory statement gnus have four legs and likes to eat grass, and I source this quote to Papa Smurfs Encyclopedia of African Mammals, 1996, pp62-64.

If you don't believe me, your first cause of action should be to find Papa Smurfs Encyclopedia of African Mammals, and see whether my quote is true.

If it is, you can question the veracity of Papa Smurfs Encyclopedia of African Mammals. What are the credentials of the author? Has the book been reviewed by respectable zoologists? Are there other statements in the book that are obviously not true? Are they major enough that one could infer that the author did not do extensive research?

All of these are valid questions. Who else has quoted the same source material isn't. For example, finding a neo-nazi website that also claims that gnus have four legs and likes to eat grass, and refers to the same source, that obviously doesn't mean gnus start learning to fly and eat meat.

[edit: removed the word "all" from "all gnus" to avoid Siros obvious nitpicking response]

[Sirotnikov]

Of course, if you had even a shred of integrity, you would either actually answer Kroeze, or accept his sources as-is.

Instead, you continually answer every single post he makes with "your books are biased", and then refer to some TV show, a handpuppet production, Israeli newspapers or something equally relevant. While it does make me laugh, it also reveals the source of your problem: you really have no idea how to think critically about sources. Poor Kroeze tried to teach you, but you reply with juvenile denials and insults.

I sincerely hope that university will cure you of this. Maybe the first couple of F's will jar you enough to understand what sources are all about.

Oh though magnificent user of sources, teach me!

You've relied much more on the magical source "I don't remember hearing that" to refute my claims.

This is while israeli and international news, newspapers and so on, are unacceptable.

You wouldn't know how to handle a source if it hit you on the head with a large wooden sign with the wording "I'm a source" spelled on it.


S Kroeze is incapable of analyzing primary sources such as newspapers and official state documents, because he gets his entire information from secondary (at best) sources, he downloads from his communist website (see Edan's reference).

The IAEA can only do what it is mandatet to do. Claiming this makes it "unreliable" is ridiculous. Less effective, surely, which the IAEA has addressed several times. The conclusion has always been that the discovery of clandestine nuclear programs falls within the jurisdiction of intelligence agencies, and apparently the UN body has not been comfortable about the UN having its own intelligence agency.

So basically after much wordplay, you agree that the IAEA is not as reliable and exact as an intelligence agency, because it has a smaller mandate.

This means, that while the IAEA is nice to have, the only people who can get credible and relaible and otherwise unattainable information - are the intelligence agencies, you so vehemently fight against.

Well, care to enlighten us? A few specific examples, perhaps?

*The gnu betting service is now open, and is giving 2:1 odds of specifics not forthcoming*

You're again being a nudnik.

Just because you fail to follow world news, doesn't mean that when arguing with you I'm going to do what you don't and constantly be busy bringing sources, while you constantly rely on your ignorance as a shield.

After a while I may decide you just don't have enough knowledgebase and awareness of world events for me to have a conversation with you.

As for jimi carter, he was and is a naive peacenik who always liked appeasing dictators instead of fighting them. IIRC he was the first person to speak to the PLO, when Arafat was a self-proclaimed "general" and dictator.

Last week, Undersecretary of State John Bolton announced that the U.S. government has reason to believe Castro's Cuba is developing and exporting "dual use" technology — i.e. technology that can be used both for peaceful purposes as well as to develop weapons of mass-destruction.
So what did Carter do when he got to Cuba? He basically said that the United States was full of it. He explained that the U.S. government didn't tell him about these concerns before he left. Moreover, Carter asked Cuban scientists — in the presence of Castro — and Fidel himself whether they had anything to do with biological weapons or terrorism and they all said no. Heck, if Castro's word isn't good enough, whose is?
It's an unusual thing for a former president to more or less choose sides against the United States and with a hostile nation ruled by a ruthless dictator. Unusual, that is, in the sense that most U.S. presidents — current or former — don't do this sort of thing.
Unfortunately, Carter is the exception that proves the rule. Like a (very) white, un-rhyming Jesse Jackson, Carter has developed an uncanny gift for sucking up to the most appalling dictators on the planet and undermining U.S. policy.
As Joshua Muravchik wrote in the New Republic in 1994 — when Carter was bollixing up then-President Clinton's efforts to stop nuclear proliferation in North Korea — "Jimmy Carter, for all his heroic advocacy of human rights, has a long history of melting in the presence of tyrants."
At the time, Carter said of Kim Il Sung, a brutal Stalinist dictator, "I found him to be vigorous, intelligent, surprisingly well-informed about the technical issues and in charge of the decisions about this country." As for the North Koreans, Muravchik wrote, Carter said the "people were very friendly and open." The capital, Pyongyang, is a "bustling city," where customers "pack the department stores," which looked like "Wal-Mart in Americus, Georgia." North Korea, it should be noted, has suffered from such government-imposed mass-starvation that millions have been forced to live off grass.
While the first President Bush was trying to orchestrate an international coalition to remove Saddam Hussein from Kuwait, Carter wrote a letter to the U.N. Security Council asking its members to stymie Bush's efforts.
As the "human rights president," Carter noted that Yugoslavia's Marshall Tito was also "a man who believes in human rights." Carter saluted the dictator as "a great and courageous leader" who "has led his people and protected their freedom almost for the last 40 years." He publicly told Romanian dictator Nicolae Ceausescu, "Our goals are the same. … We believe in enhancing human rights. We believe that we should enhance, as independent nations, the freedom of our own people." He told the Stalinist first secretary of Communist Poland, Edward Gierek, "Our concept of human rights is preserved in Poland."
Since Carter has left office, he's been even more of a voluptuary of despots and dictators. He told Haitian dictator Lt. Gen. Raoul Cedras he was "ashamed of what my country has done to your country." He's praised the mass-murdering leaders of Syria and Ethiopia. He endorsed Yasser Arafat's sham election and grumbled about the legitimate vote that ousted Sandanista Daniel Ortega in Nicaragua.
And, I learned from a devastating critique by my National Review colleague Jay Nordlinger, Carter even volunteered to be Arafat's speechwriter and go-fer, crafting palatable messages for Arafat's Western audiences and convincing the Saudis to continue funding Arafat after the Palestinians sided with Iraq against the United States.

From the Washington Times.


That's what he thinks of himself: (the guardian)

Asked in 1991 to assess his own presidency, Mr Carter said: "He tried hard, attempted the right things, was not always successful. Maybe he was naive in many ways. I never was able to convince the American people that I was a forceful and strong leader."

If you want to learn more - either research yourself, or ask straybow. He seems to be supportive of my judgement.

What is the purpose of an intelligence agency?
What is the purpose of a newspaper?

I'll get back to you when you've figured that out.

The purpose of an intelligence agency is to provide as much as possible accurate and reliable information to the government at any cost.

The purpose of a newspaper is to provide relatively accurate and relaible information to it's readers, in a way that is profitable.


In any case - there is no significant difference. As far as I can tell - the NYT is unreliable, because as you said - just because they publish truthfull articles, doesn't mean that all thier articles are truthfull.

[CyberGnu]

Jaguar:

If Israel is so awful, then what does the US have to gain by justifying their actions?

Edited to add a followup: If Israel is so awful, why does the US align itself with it in the first place?

Well, I'd say partly to placate the powerful jewish lobby, partly because evangelical christians believe there is some ****ed-up biblical reason, and partly as a means to fight Soviet influence in the ME during the cold war. There is also the good old "supporting the only democracy in the ME", but since the US track record on supporting democracies for democracy's sake is really bad, I don't believe in that one.

[Edan]

Originally posted by CyberGnu
Yep. If two people quote from the same place, why do you expect one of them to change the punctuation?

In the quote, maybe not (though if he was typing it instead of copying and pasting it, I might expect the occasional typo, but even so, the bibliographies are perhaps more instructive. They are exactly the same, down to each character. He uses the same abreviations as on the website. There is no publisher for any of the books, and no date listed with one source, just like the website. Do you really expect one to believe it's all just a crazy cosmic coincidence?

I don't know whether he's read the primary sources or not.

Well, thats what he claimed.

the only thing that matters is the actual source itself. That't why it is called a [i]primary[/b] source, as opposed to the website that quotes it, which is secondary.

And using that logic, I could (and should) believe everything I read on the internet - I know I don't, I hope you don't.

I didn't say you should. I said I assumed they were true.

And apparently you do.

Should I point you to oa website claiming Santa Clause exists?

[Jaguar]

Originally posted by CyberGnu
Jaguar:

Well, I'd say partly to placate the powerful jewish lobby, partly because evangelical christians believe there is some ****ed-up biblical reason, and partly as a means to fight Soviet influence in the ME during the cold war. There is also the good old "supporting the only democracy in the ME", but since the US track record on supporting democracies for democracy's sake is really bad, I don't believe in that one.

Israel supporters aren't all Jews and evangelical christians. Soviet influence in the ME is nonexistent, so that reason is out. The three reasons you've listed that you believe in can't explain the millions of non-evangelical christians who support Israel. May I suggest a fourth: Israel is not so awful.

I'm going to sleep soon, so I probably will end with this post. Happy civving, or OTing, or whatever.

[CyberGnu]

Oh though magnificent user of sources, teach me!

Oh, I've been trying, believe me.

You've relied much more on the magical source "I don't remember hearing that" to refute my claims.

Why is it that everything needs to be spelled out in monosyllabic words with you? It should be obvious that "I don't remember hearing this" says "I have never heard about this, and if you expect me to believe it, you would have to back it up". Why is this obvious? Well, because the opposite of this statement, i.e. "yes, I have heard of this", establishes that I belive your claim without further confirmation. Another possible response could be "I have not heard about this, but I will take your word for it".

Naturally, since your track record is quote abysmal, I hesitate to take your word about anything, including the weather or the time.

Furthermore, if I ask you to back up your claim with a source, you only have two mature options: You can furnish a source, or can retract your claim.

Normally, you opt for the juvenile: whining. *waah, waah, he doesn't accept my word or accept me using unverifiable and questionable sources*.

[Edan]

Originally posted by CyberGnu
Let's say I post the controversial and inflammatory statement gnus have four legs and likes to eat grass, and I source this quote to Papa Smurfs Encyclopedia of African Mammals, 1996, pp62-64.

If you don't believe me, your first cause of action should be to find Papa Smurfs Encyclopedia of African Mammals, and see whether my quote is true.

And if the Papa Smurfs book doesn't exist, and since I can't prove it doesn't exist without examining every book on the face of this earth, should I assume the statement is true?

[Sirotnikov]

Gnu - the fact that S Kroeze keeps quoting ready to copy and paste texts from anti-semitic sites doesn't make him look good. And it doesn't make you look good when defending him.

If you want to go ahead and play ignorant as to how that's true, go ahead.

If you or Kroeze had any idea in critical reading - you'd know that each book has a target audience. Furthermore, it has a circle of acceptance.

If one quotes all the books that share a single circle of acceptance and a single target audience - that makes it very plausible that he shares the same views.

If S Kroeze quotes tons of sources which are quoted by anti-semitic writers, and use the same arguements, one would reasonably assume that S Kroeze's thought is close to that of an anti-semite.

You for instance, refuse to accept my sources, not becaue you know anything about them, but because you assume that since their target audience is Israeli, and they contain facts that you aren't aware of - they must be wrong.

But then you say that it doesn't matter who reads it but it matters only what you know about the source. And the reality is that you don't know zilch about Israeli news services or intelligence of what ever. Thus, you choose to defend yourself in ignorance.


your gnu example is nice - but irrelevant, since history analisys is not exact science. Whether gnu's have legs or not can be verified. Whether all zionists are anti-semitic or not, can not be reasonably verified.

Furthermore, you have no way of knowing that S Kroeze didn't change the original writing of the books "he" supposedly quotes (or mis-quotes).

An Israeli historian has proved for instance, that alot of pro-palestinian israeli historians have infact distorted quotes, and using their pre-face and explanations of them, together with changing the wording and omitting parts, completely changed their meaning to their liking.

[CyberGnu]

This is while israeli and international news, newspapers and so on, are unacceptable.

Pray tell, in your dimension, do the regular three dimensions apply? Does time flow forward in a linear fashion, or is it arbitrary? I'm asking because obviously you have missed every single "debate" we've had on this subject.

I don't want to insult your intelligence, so I'm seeking for other causes. Arbitrary timeflow seems to be the most likely theory, as of now.

You wouldn't know how to handle a source if it hit you on the head with a large wooden sign with the wording "I'm a source" spelled on it.

I'm assuming this would be the traditional Israeli method of debating? Fits with your behaviour, actually, since your "sources" usually are Israeli intelligence briefings. Are these wooden signs standard issue equipment, or do each intelligence officer make his own?

S Kroeze is incapable of analyzing primary sources such as newspapers and official state documents, because he gets his entire information from secondary (at best) sources, he downloads from his communist website (see Edan's reference).

Well, I certainly hope so, since a newspaper actually isn't a primary source. Official state documents are, but you need to verify it's veracity, which is best done by referring to a official goverment website or a published scholarly work.