Revisionism and "Holocaust Denial"

[Panag]

[CyberGnu]

Drunk again?

[Edan]

Originally posted by CyberGnu
Edan, please tell me you were joking...

Only partially. You absolutely did assume a statement that came from an anti-semetic website that came as a quotation of a primary source because, according to you, the website doesn't matter, the original source does - regardless that there's no way to verify the claim and regardless that you have called such sites drivel in the past - it appears clear to me that you are continually reaching to try to defend Kroeze and his viewpoint with which you agree. Of course, now that I have shown that the books he references do not exist, I'm curious to know how you're going to defend him now, or if you'll stop defending him and admit that he got his "research" off an anti-semitic website and that it is drivel.

[Sirotnikov]

Israel , the only true democrazy in the entire region

That's certainly true.

Using that in the signature. LOL

[Edan]

I agree, and I still say that we should wait for Kroeze to comment on that. Lowenthal had, accoding to Edan, written several books on the topic, so it might have been a misquote.

Nonsense, none of the books are on the topic based onthe titles - two appear to be memiors, and three appears to be books on judaism and more specifically on a far more encompassing time scale. None are diaries of Theodre Herzl, and such a book does not exist, neither tdo the other two sources - after all, you yourself stated that if it isn't listed in the library of congress, one should assume that it doesn't exist. And now you appear to be reluctant to do that, instead continuing to try to defend someone who never bothered to refute my claim in the past.

BTW, how could it be a misquote on both Kroeze's citation and the anti-semitic website? Or is that another cosmic coincidence? We appear to be having a lot of those, don't we? I wonder if someone's been using the improbability drive?

You're reaching, because you can't admit that Kroeze is wrong.

[Edan]

Originally posted by panag

I sympathize.

[Sirotnikov]

Originally posted by CyberGnu
I don't know. Did he? Context? Source?
I don't know. Did he? context? source?
I don't know. Did he? Context? Source?
I don't know. Did he? Context? Source?
I don't know. Did he? Context? Source?

That is the whole point.

You don't know anything, and as long as you don't - you assume what the heck you want to assume.

It's like talking about the war in Iraq, with a chinese villager disconnected from world media, whose son sometimes lays hand on a copy of NYT.

Why does this matter?

It shows his character, as a person who is naive and silly, and has an unusualled and uncalled for respect for dictators.

It shows his lack of judgement.

What facts? You linked an editorial piece. The paper is not the issue, even if it is a right wing mag, but the same would be true if it was an editorial in the NYT. Hell, Sharon even had an editorial in the NYT. Would you like to use that as proof too?

Whether it's an editorial or not - it is full of facts.

If you have forgotten, and editorial is a place where you write your opinion about facts - and when writing your opinion - you mention facts to substantiate your claim.

To claim that an editorial is unreliable in that since is sheer idiocy.

I'm not familiar with this exchange. I'm assuming it goes back to the old debate on jewish marriages?

Again, you have no idea what S Kroeze and I are talking about, but you can't resist insert a derogatory remark about me, just for the heck of it.

Just as I assume that if I go out in the rain, I will be wet. Shouldn't I?

You don't assume that. You know that.
Don't confuse the chicken and the egg.

Or are you saying that I should assume that the IDF's intelligence agency works diffrently from every other intelligence agency in the world, including Israels own?

I'm saying that you can't assume anything about the IDF intelligence since your knowledge about military intelligence, the division of roles between agencies in Israel, and IDF Intelligence in specific is striving to none.

Does it suprise you every time the water hits your head?

Does it surprise you that it's easier to argue if you assume you are obviously right and take it from there?

Exactly what part of 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. is it that you don't understand? Please point it out, and I'll try to rephrase it for you.

Suppose you come to a person's house. You see he has a shelf of books.

You notice several of the books: "the truth behind the elders of zion", "mein kampf", "was it really 6 000 000?", "true nazi history" and some other books.

The person proceeds to take a book, "the history of palestine", which you happen to know nothing about, and tries to convince you that this is a serious and reliable study, proving that jews stole the land with their greedy money.

What would be your reaction?

There is no such thing. Either something is logical, or it isn't. One of the basic tenets of logic, actually.

Ah, but some talented people can twist it.

I admit, I can't always name or even spot the logical fallacies in your claims. But they are there, and you're good at making them invisible.

Well, he has not been tried by a real court, and he is vigorously fighting the trial in Belgium. Can't really make any claims from the libel suit: that was a civil suit, separate from the criminal.

On what basis an Israeli court is not a real court?

And even under your assumptin -he still isn't convicted and thus should be innocent until proven guilty. Funny how I expect your mercy to murderors to work both ways.

Wow... so because this part was AFTER the previous one, you completely failed to connect them? .

Of course, I forgot that time moves diffretnly for you. I guess it could have been months between reading those posts, even if they appeared right after each other in our world.

huh?

I'm talking about events that happenned in the spring of 2002 and before.

No, but since we can't separate the real events from the JP propaganda, we can;t trust any of it.

On what grounds you assume that JP is propoganda?

You make assumptions and then try to convince people they are well respected facts. That's awfully silly. Must be pretty hard too.

[Sirotnikov]

Originally posted by CyberGnu
Of course it is, but it is limited to what it's mandate allows it to do.

Thus, when talking about UN inspections, we can't infact treat their results as reliable - since they depend on the mandate.

Thus, a UN inspection could very probably give a very incorrect and misleading description of a country's nuclear program.

It did, and it found that the enriched uranium was untouched. It inspected the facilities, and concluded that the plant was not rebuilt to allow the production of weapons grade plutonium. all of which was 100% correct.

But completely useless and even misleading if we want to make a conclusion about Iraq's nuclear program, since as we've established, they can't give us the full picture.

Thus, the connection between inspection results, and the actual state of the nuclear program is weak. One could find no evidence of a nuclear program, while such a secret is underway.

Thus - this monitoring device is uneffective.

Hmm, I think we can let that slide. He was a democrat known for his "compassionate goverment" after all.

Source.

All of them. I'm not only curious about the statements themselves, I also wondering about the context.

Why don't you google them and prove the article wrong then?

Lazyness ate you?

I brought my sources, as "shabby" as they are - bring yours. Or do you prefer to rely on the "i've never heard of that" defense?

But passing the buck doesn't help you. someone else's opinion isn't any more valid than yours. If we could ask the guy about his sources, that would be an option, but since we can't, you are stuck where you started: without any substantiated facts to base your claim on.

That is again foolish.

To claim that a fact mentioned in a known and respected (even though *shock* rightwing) newspaper, in any of it's sections, is not a proof of it's existance - that's just rubbish.

If they guy was inventing stuff of the top of his head, the editorial would either be marked "fiction" or wouldn't have seen the light of day at all.

You're again assuming what you like and doubting what you don't like. It's quite hard to talk to a person whose world runs in his own little head.

[Sirotnikov]

Originally posted by CyberGnu
Fascinating. Siro, your post manages to paint Carter a man obsessed with one goal: Peace through diplomacy. No where in there does it portray him as being unreliable, quite the opposite: his attempts have been largely sucessful.

LOL

The word obsessed fits him right.

Have you suddenly gone short on memory?
Have you forgotten that you challenged me to prove the ties between Carter and Arafat?
Are you that Old? MAYBE I NEED TO SHOUT SO YOU CAN HEAR ME!?

When I proved the issue, you conviniently avoided it, praising carter for being obsessed with peace, without any criticism of his moves, his extra-ordinary one-sidedness, and any criticism of the results: giving credit to people like arafat, castro, tito and so forth.

Fascinating. Again you manage to coalesce your incomprehension in one single post...

So you somehow equate a well respected website devoted to fairness in all media, regardless of side, to one which has it's mission statement in the corner: HonestReporting is a fast-action website dedicated to ensuring that Israel receives fair media coverage. We scrutinize the worldwide media for anti-Israel bias, then alert and enable subscribers to respond directly to the news agency concerned.

Right - a well respected joke.

The last time the middle east section was updated was more than half a year ago. Did the area froze over?

All of the articles in the middle east section are extremely one sided. A good half of those is written by the same two people.

[CyberGnu]

Edan, I absolutely assumed that the statement actually came from the sourced book, since I trusted Kroeze.

If, as you say, the book doesn't exist, then there is nothing to defend, is there? But before we condemn, shouldn't we hear from the accused?

[CyberGnu]

siro:

gnu:quote:
Originally posted by CyberGnu
I don't know. Did he? Context? Source?
I don't know. Did he? context? source?
I don't know. Did he? Context? Source?
I don't know. Did he? Context? Source?
I don't know. Did he? Context? Source?


siro:That is the whole point.

You don't know anything, and as long as you don't - you assume what the heck you want to assume.

It's like talking about the war in Iraq, with a chinese villager disconnected from world media, whose son sometimes lays hand on a copy of NYT.

and we are once again back to the futility in trying to have a debate with you. You make a claim, and when asked to back it up starts bleating about how people don't accept your biased sources. When you finally give a link, it turns out to be an editorial.

So we are back to where we started. I don't even have to try to refute you, you have given me nothing to refute, only a set of unsubstantiated allegations.

i think the time for you to be a man has passed - you are obviously not going to take either of the mature options. I'm guessing you are going to continue the whining.

My weekend is over, and while I did get a whole set of laughs over you, my time is limited.

If you have anything of substance to add, feel free to post. Until then this is just a waste of time.

[CyberGnu]

and while I'm fairly certain that you will now start screaming about me running away, this is nothing of the sort.

Just post a real source for your claims, and i'll be back. Hell, there is nothing i would like more - my fingers are practically itching to deal with the rampant misconceptions, misrepresenations and logical fallacies on your subsequent posts. But as i said before, if you don't understand the basics this is just like trying to explain quantum physics to a cat. It is a waste of time and the cat gets irritated.

[S. Kroeze]

This is truly pathectic! What a disgrace!

When searching the Diaries of Theodor Herzl, edited by M. Lowenthal, one should of course browse by the author, Herzl, not by the editor, Lowenthal.
What a pity those 'excellent world-famous -though unfortunately anomymous- Israeli teachers' didn't teach their pupils this simple trick....
It took me two minutes to find this book in the Library of Congress.

LC Control Number: 56008112 Type of Material: Book (Print, Microform, Electronic, etc.) Brief Description: Herzl, Theodor, 1860-1904.
Diaries; edited and translated with an introd. by Marvin Lowenthal.
New York, Dial Press, 1956.
xxviii, 494 p. 24 cm.

CALL NUMBER: DS149 .H5253
Copy 1 -- Request in: Jefferson or Adams Bldg General or Area Studies Reading Rms -- Status: Not Charged

CALL NUMBER: DS149.H5253
Copy 2 -- Request in: Jefferson or Adams Bldg General or Area Studies Reading Rms -- Status: Not Charged

http://catalog.loc.gov/cgi-bin/Pwebrecon.cgi?v1=63&ti=51,63&Search_Arg=Herzl&Search_Code=NAME_&PID=18444&CNT=25&HC=76&SEQ=20030407192546&SID=1

And I advise some people either to read what I write down or to ignore my posts completely.
In my opinion it is highly insulting to suggest I deny the Holocaust when I have been the only poster who has recommended academic research about it.

[CyberGnu]

Well, there we go then

[Edan]

Originally posted by S. Kroeze
This is truly pathectic! What a disgrace!

Yes,, it is.

When searching the Diaries of Theodor Herzl, edited by M. Lowenthal, one should of course browse by the author, Herzl, not by the editor, Lowenthal.

Fair enough. I should also have searched for it by it's proper title, which appears to be simply "Diaries".

What a pity those 'excellent world-famous -though unfortunately anomymous- Israeli teachers' didn't teach their pupils this simple trick....

I'm American. And so were all my teachers.
(Let the American bashing begin...)

And I advise some people either to read what I write down or to ignore my posts completely.

Very well. Your post proves the book exists. So what? I still stand by my claim that the circumstantial evidence points to your having directly copied those quotes and those bibliographies from that anti-semitic website - and the existence of the book does not disprove that.

Why was your citation incomplete, with no publisher listed, no date of publication and no page numbers? Why was your abbreviations all exactly the same as that website? Why is, character for character, identical to that website? Is it all just some cosmic coincidence? Please answer me that, or I'll go on with the only logical assumption that I can gain from all that circumstantial evidence - that you've never even seen that book.