Re: It turns out the Iranian president is nuts


kuff (Isaac Adams) wrote:
> drahcir wrote:
> > kuff (Isaac Adams) wrote:
> > > drahcir wrote:
> > > > kuff (Isaac Adams) wrote:
> > > > > drahcir wrote:
> > > > > > kuff (Isaac Adams) wrote:
> > > > > > > drahcir wrote:
> > > > > > > > kuff (Isaac Adams) wrote:
> > > > > > > > > Count 1 wrote:
> > > > > > > > > > Calls the holocaust a 'myth'.
> > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > Actually more of a manufactured 'legend' according to other
> > > > > > > > > translations. It would be interesting to know what Farsi word he
> > > > > > > > > actually used and what the customary translations of it are.
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > Specifically why would it be interesting?
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > Helps understand what he was saying.
> > > > > >
> > > > > > Precisely how?
> > > > >
> > > > > Huh? Are you seriously asking how knowing the word he actually used
> > > > > contributes to knowing what he actually said?
> > > >
> > > > thad, are you really so far gone that you think you are fooling anyone?
> > > > It is plain for all to see that you cannot answer the question and are
> > > > now frantically fumbling for a way out. You are pitiful.
> > >
> > > Oh puh'leeze....
> >
> > Silly thad thinks his non-reply disguises the fact that he cannot
> > answer precisely how any of the three proposed translations would
> > differ from one another. He is simply not man enough to admit it.
>
> Not even a vertebrate (a squid)

um, i suppose you mean invertebrate?

according to some. So how about a 'no
> backbone' claim from yah? :-)
>
> > >
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > How do you find "myth"
> > > > > > > > materially different from "legend".
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > Well, we are talking about manufactured things now. It seemed to me
> > > > > > > that legends are more manufacturable than myths. The word legend
> > > > > > > itself came from such a manufacturing background.
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > "Legend comes from the Latin adjective legenda, "for reading, to be
> > > > > > > read," which referred only to written stories, not to traditional
> > > > > > > stories transmitted orally from generation to generation. This
> > > > > > > restriction also applied to the English word legend when it was first
> > > > > > > used in the late 14th century in reference to written accounts of
> > > > > > > saints' lives, but ever since the 15th century legend has been used to
> > > > > > > refer to traditional stories as well."
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > http://dictionary.reference.com/search?q=legend
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > = = = = = = = = = =
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > But now I see, again from dictionary.com, that "myth" as a definition
> > > > > > > of: "A fiction or half-truth, especially one that forms part of an
> > > > > > > ideology."
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > So I guess "manufactured myth" would be okay too.
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > Still would like to know the actual word he used. I've seen it
> > > > > > > translated as "fairy tale" also.
> > > > > >
> > > > > > After all that blahblah, you still haven't answered my simple question,
> > > > > > which was how would knowing the actual word he used make a difference?
> > > > >
> > > > > Don't know it would. We would simply know what Farsi work he used
> > > > > and, if lucky, how it was usually translated.
> > > >
> > > > that is not the issue.
> > >
> > > "how would knowing the actual word he used make a difference?"
> > >
> > > That's not the issue? Gah! It was certainly your question.
> >
> > No, that's not the issue.
>
> So it *was* your question but it is *not* the issue? Do you even have
> a sky in your world?

Oy, let me spell it out for you. Oh, wait, I did already. See just
below:
>
> > The issue is, given the three possibilities
> > of translation, how would the meaning of his statement differ when each
> > of the three is plugged in? You are playing dumb because you cannot
> > answer the question and are too embarrassed to admit it.
>
> On the translation front I just saw an alternate translation for the
> phrase "'Massacre of the Jews'".

Whoa, hold on, Don't change the subject. Please detail how you would
find "myth" different from "legend" different from "fairy tale". THis
is now perhaps my fourth request?

I was wonder about that translation
> because the phrase, in quotes, as a name for something seemed odd.
> Looks like there's a term in Farsi which can translate to 'Massacre of
> the Jews' or 'Holocaust'. Hello, it's our old friend 'Holocaust'.

> His statement then becomes, in English, ""They have fabricated a legend
> under the name 'Holocaust', and they hold it higher than God himself,
> religion itself and the prophets themselves,"
>
> So the myth/legend/fairy tale created around the massacre of the Jews
> by the Europeans and name 'Holocaust' was fabricated.

Saying it is fabricated is saying that it is a lie, according to the
definition of "fabricate". Therefore he is just a holocaust denier, as
AP and the entire world except you seems to think. Unless you have
anything of interest to add, let's move on.

The holocaust
> was not fabricated but the 'Holocaust' was.
>
> As long as you maintain the context of his use of the Farsi <doodad>
> (as you say "the meaning of his statement ") it matters little how that
> particular word in the statement is translated.

EXACTLY CORRECT. But you said

> Actually more of a manufactured 'legend' according to other
> translations. It would be interesting to know what Farsi word he
> actually used and what the customary translations of it are.

Since it matters little how that particular word is translated, why
woiuld it be interesting to know what the customary translations of it
are? Do you find all things of no matter interesting?


If, on the other
> hand, one deliberately focuses on that single word and pretends it is
> the meaning of his statement then then the translation matters more.
>
> So I give you the tools to answer your own question. Do you consider
> "the meaning of his statement" to be the entirety of his statement or
> do you consider the meaning to be the single word in his statement?

He gives me the tools. You are a riot. I have shown that you
contradicted yourself and you attempt to give me tools. With tools like
that, I would get myself into the befuddled state that you appear to be
in. No thanks. I think we can move on -- this point appears to me to be
finished.
> > >
> > > > The issue, as you well know, is detailing how
> > > > the various possibilities in meaning of the word could make a
> > > > difference in the speaker's intent. You obviously cannot answer the
> > > > question.
> > >
> > > Don't know (1) what the word was and (2) how it is usually translated.
> > > Or, as I said above, "Don't know it would [make a difference]".
> > >
> > > I obviously can't answer the question without knowing (1) what the word
> > > was and (2) how it is usually translated.
> >
> > YOU YOURSELF proposed three possibilities: myth, legend, fairy tale. I
> > have been asking you now for three posts how the statement would change
> > given each of these three, since your implication by proposing the
> > three was that they would change the meaning of his statement. You have
> > yet to specify precisely how. I wonder why....
>
> Because I am unclear on whether you think "the meaning of his
> statement" is only that word or is, instead, his entire statement.

No, you are unclear about what you think about everything. See above --
it has nothing whatever to do with me.
> >
> > > There, now do you get it? (Maybe you should try thinking like a 5
> > > year old. :-) )
> >
> > Of course i don't get it becuase you haven't given it. I am still
> > waiting.
>
> Your long wait is ended. :-)
>
> > >
> > > > >
> > > > > > Here, let me help you since you seem a bit befuddled. Let's say he used
> > > > > > the word "myth". How would that be different for you than if he used
> > > > > > "legend" or "fairy tale". Be specific please.
> > > > >
> > > > > It wasn't English so I doubt if he used the word "myth".
> > > >
> > > > Yes, well, isn't that precious?
> > >
> > > Just fact.
> > >
> > > > You are babbling because you are at a
> > > > loss for anything meaningful to say.
> > >
> > > Babbling am I? :: smirk::
> >
> > yup, your smirk won't hide that fact.
> > >
> > > > >
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > http://www.metronews.ca/reuters_international.asp?id=115687
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > "They have fabricated a legend under the name 'Massacre of the Jews',
> > > > > > > > > and they hold it higher than God himself, religion itself and the
> > > > > > > > > prophets themselves," he told a crowd in the southeastern city of
> > > > > > > > > Zahedan on Wednesday.
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > = = = = = = = = = =
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > He's correct. The Holocaust brand was created in the 60s.
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > Wow, I had better get my eyes examined. Did he say anything abou the
> > > > > > > > "holocaust brand" or the 60's?
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > We're talking about manufacturing now - please do try to keep up.
> > > > > >
> > > > > > Oh, sorry. Please explain. I am claiming that by referring to the
> > > > > > Holocaust as a myth or legend or fairy tale, the speaker is a Holocaust
> > > > > > denier. Precisely what are you claiming?
> > > > >
> > > > > That by referring to Holocaust as a manufactured <doodad> he is saying
> > > > > it is a manufactured <doodad>. Nothing more - or less. Like a brand
> > > > > is a manufactured <doodad> of sorts.
> > > >
> > > > Nice try to avoid, but you know very well you cannot succeed with that
> > > > tack with me. Your statement means nothing, and you have now inserted
> > > > some silly thing in <> in a pathetic attempt to distract. It is so
> > > > funny to see you write.
> > >
> > > It's a pathetic attempt to keep the adjective you want to keep
> > > discarding.
> >
> > Your adjective, not his. no one cares about your adjective.
>
> His adjective was 'fabricated'.

Correct. Yours is "manufactured". The reason you choose to substitute
yours for his is that definition 1 of fabicate is lying to deceive, and
it is not of "manufacture". So his adjective makes the Holocaust a lie,
yours is, as is your entire person, vague and fuzzy.

(I wonder how 'fabricated' and
> 'manufactured' translate *into* Farsi. :-) )
>
> > > >
> > > > > That by referring to Holocaust as a manufactured <doodad> he
> > > >
> > > > because it seems your fried brain got confused between yourself and
> > > > him. HE didn't say anything about manufactured, YOU did.
> > >
> > > He said "fabricated" (or rather some Farsi word which was translated to
> > > "fabricated").
> > >
> > > > HE said that
> > > > the holocaust didn't happen.
> > >
> > > Not this time around. He referred to the fabricated legend named 'The
> > > Massacre of the Jews'.
> >
> > Now i see the problem. Poor thad used the wrong dictionary defintiion
> > of fabricate.
> > This is what you need, little one:
> >
> > 1 a : INVENT, CREATE b : to make up for the purpose of deception
> >
> > So, by calling the Holocaust fabricated, he is calling it made up for
> > the purpose of deception, i.e. a lie, meaning it never happened. Do you
> > get it now?
>
> I get that you cherry pick the definitions you like and attribute them
> to him.

Sheesh. Using definition 1 is not cherry picking, sorry.

What I don't get, since you've now acknowledge there is more
> to his statement than one word, is what the Farsi word was which got
> translated into the English 'fabricated'.

If you find that important, you can spend time researching it. I don't.
>
> http://dictionary.reference.com/search?q=fabricate
> 1. To make; create.
> 2. To construct by combining or assembling diverse, typically
> standardized parts: fabricate small boats.
> 3. To concoct in order to deceive...

You managed to find a dictionary that reversed the order of
definitions. Bravo. If you do not realize the difference between
fabricate and manufacture, perhaps you have a learinng disabiility. The
fact is that most, including obviously AP and the rest of the world, do
understand the difference, and that is why "fabricate" was chosen as
the translation. This is all obvioius, let's move on, i am getting
bored.
>
> > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > > > > "Holocaust brand" is my term for what he's talking about in general.
> > > > > >
> > > > > > It's your term.
> > > > >
> > > > > Yes it is though I doubt if I'm original in using it that way.
> > > > >
> > > > > > That's exactly right. He, however, is talking about the
> > > > > > holocaust, not the holocaust brand.
> > > > >
> > > > > He is talking about a manufactured <doodad>. fab-ri-ca-ted.
> > > >
> > > > Are you saying that he is saying that the Holocaust was favbricated, or
> > > > is it just
> > > > thad again trying to distract with more nonsense?
> > >
> > > No he actually said "fabricated a legend under the name 'Massacre of
> > > the Jews'" (as it was translated to English from Farsi).
> >
> > Good. It means to any person with normal functioning brain that the
> > massacre of the jews is a lie. If you already forgot what fabricated
> > means, please see above.
>
> It means that a legend under the name 'Massacre of the Jews' (aka,
> 'Holocaust') was fabricated.

And fabricate means lie with the intent to deceive. We are going in
circles.
>
> I know very well what fabricated means - that's why I noticed the tool
> marks on the product. :-)

Obviously you don't. Lying doesn't leave any marks.
>
> > > > >
> > > > > > The holocaust is a historical event
> > > >
> > > > and as such is capitalized.
> > >
> > > No.
> >
> > Yes:
> >
> > 3 a often capitalized : the mass slaughter of European civilians and
> > especially Jews by the Nazis during World War II
> > >
> > The reason it's "often" and not "always" is that this is determined by
> > whether the preceding article is definite (H) or indefinite (h). You
> > are a problem child, but i am patient.
> > > >
> > > > > Indeed. The Holocaust (capital 'H') though is a brand.
> > > >
> > > > So, i guess for thad, any historical event or issue which is
> > > > capitalized is a brand. Like, the Revolutionary War brand, the Space
> > > > Race brand, etc., yes, i see now....
> > >
> > > You apparently don't see a difference between a thing and the name for
> > > a thing. That is you are seemingly confused about common and proper
> > > nouns and the capitalization thereof.
> > >
> > > > >
> > > > > > that muslims like to deny because it makes them feel powerful, in the
> > > > > > sense of being like nazis,
> > > > >
> > > > > Now that seems plain silly. Why would it make them feel powerful
> > > > > *not* to have killed a lot of Jews? :-)
> > > >
> > > > Muslims enjoy playing pretend, like all children.
> > >
> > > Apparently they aren't the only ones. :-)
> >
> > Notice how every other statement thad makes is followed by a smiley.
> > It's because he feels threatened.
>
> Ha, ha... It's because I feel amused...

That's a simple fabrication, and everyone knows it.
>
> > >
> > > > Denying the Holocaust
> > > > makes them feel like they are partners in crime with nazis. partners in
> > > > crime may come to think they are similar and have accomplished things
> > > > only their partners have.
> > >
> > > Try me again. Are you saying the Muslims are only pretending to deny
> > > the holocaust?
> > >
> > > Bwa ha ha ha....
> >
> > He inserts laughter to give the impression of confidence. No on buys
> > it, thad.
>
> Good retort. So "Are you saying the Muslims are only pretending to
> deny the holocaust?"
>
> > >
> > > > >
> > > > > > although of course they lack the requisite
> > > > > > intellect or unified purpose,
> > > > >
> > > > > Except for the "Holocaust denial" unified purpose you mean? :-)
> > > >
> > > > Yes, that is correct.
> > > > >
> > > > > > and because they like to "get at" the
> > > > > > jews whenever possible, mainly due to jealousy , "Holocaust brand" is
> > > > > > some twisted bullshit made up by you that you are not even man enough
> > > > > > to describe precisely.
> > > > >
> > > > > Que?
> > > >
> > > > You get cute when you get nervous.
> > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > > > > And the 60's was when it was manufactured (by my reckoning).
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > I thought it was important to point out when the manufacturing occured
> > > > > > > so that I could later note that his historical timeline was incorrect.
> > > > > >
> > > > > > Again, he is not talking about your crap, he is talking about the
> > > > > > holocaust.
> > > > >
> > > > > He is talking about a fabricated legend. I place the point of
> > > > > fabrication of what I call the "Holocaust brand" during the decade of
> > > > > the 60s.
> > > >
> > > > you are such a wimp, you simply will not come out and say what you
> > > > mean. either the Holocaust happened or it didn't in your view. Which is
> > > > it?
> > >
> > > A European holocaust occured during WWII in which many civilians were
> > > murdered. That pretty straightforward isn't it?
> >
> > Yes. Thank you. It is correct that you used the indefinite article. You
> > could also have said "The Holocaust occurred." and saved bandwith,
>
> The 'Holocaust' is a manufactured product. It occured too and
> references the European holocaust as its principle component.

YOu are boring me.
>
> > since everyone knows that The Holocaust was a holocaust that occurred
> > in europe during WWII in which many civilians were murdered. But that's
> > ok.
> > >
> > > > >
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > I for one can't follow what you mean,
> > > > > > > > thad, and that's because you are beating around the bush. Don't you
> > > > > > > > have the courage to state your viewpoint without a nebulous, cutesy
> > > > > > > > term like "holocaust brand"?
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > "Holocaust brand" - please note the capitalization - is my viewpoint.
> > > > > >
> > > > > > I omit capitals often, thad, so don't take it personally, making
> > > > > > Holocaust a proper noun is in the view of most a fitting label for what
> > > > > > befell the jews AND OTHER CIVILIANS during wwII. Try using a dictionary
> > > > > > and you will find that this use of the term is not limited to jewish
> > > > > > victims. ALso for your edification from dictionary.com:
> > > > > >
> > > > > > In the 20th century holocaust has taken on a variety of figurative
> > > > > > meanings, summarizing the effects of war, rioting, storms, epidemic
> > > > > > diseases, and even economic failures. Most of these usages arose after
> > > > > > World War II, but it is unclear whether they permitted or resulted from
> > > > > > the use of holocaust in reference to the mass murder of European Jews
> > > > > > and others by the Nazis. This application of the word occurred as early
> > > > > > as 1942
> > > > > >
> > > > > > See? 1942! In my view, it's a perfect word to describe what happened.
> > > > > > You follow it with "brand" to belittle it and to make it seem like a
> > > > > > created madison ave.image, but your reasons for doing so become a wee
> > > > > > bit clearer in this thread, and most will see that your main reason is
> > > > > > ignorance.
> > > > >
> > > > > So let me see if I have this right. My purpose is ignorance. Is
> > > > > that what you're claiming?
> > > >
> > > > Is that what I stated? if so, please cite.
> > >
> > > "your reasons for doing so become a wee bit clearer in this thread, and
> > > most will see that your main reason is ignorance"
> > >
> > > > If not, since the phrase in
> > > > nonsensical, something has obviously short circuited in your, ahem,
> > > > "brain". *I* sated that your main REASON, i.e. the main reason that you
> > > > spew nonsense, is ignorance. Do you "think" that REASON has the same
> > > > meaning as PURPOSE?
> > >
> > > "You follow it with "brand" to belittle it and to make it seem like a
> > > created madison ave.image, but your reasons for doing so ..."
> > >
> > > Yes, in the way you are using it "reason" and "purpose" are synonymous.
> > > Perhaps you malformed the sentence?
> >
> > Ok, mea culpa, in my haste i wrote "your main" when it should have been
> > "the main".
>
> Okay.
>
> > Too bad you are not bright enough to have understood that
> > typo.
>
> Flibergibbet snickers palms.
>
> > Either that or you are so desperate in this thread that you have
> > to pick on a typo to distract.
>
> Trying to understand what you are trying to say. (Probably my first
> mistake. :-) )
>
> > >
> > > > >
> > > > > > But wait. If you claim it's manufactured, implicit in this
> > > > > > claim is that the realiiy does not match the image.
> > > > >
> > > > > Manufactured things are real. :-)
> > > >
> > > > Avoidance again. You are a coward for sure.
> > >
> > > Manufactured things are not real? Do tell. :-)
> >
> > Avoidance again. You are a coward for sure. Debating thad sometimes
> > requires cut and paste to save time.
> > > >
> > > > > > Why don't you
> > > > > > elucidate on precisely how the two don't match (ooh, i can't wait!).
> > > > >
> > > > > Oh they do match except the manufactured product has a little extra.
> > > >
> > > > Again with the cute stuff. A coward through and through.
> > >
> > > If you bolted bumpers on Buicks all day you wouldn't think it so cute.
> >
> > Avoidance again. You are a coward for sure.
> > > :-)
> >
> > I agree it's funny. All of this about a word the guy didn't use.
> > >
> > > > >
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > I think if
> > > > > > > > > one were to pick up the 120 issues of Life magazine from 1960-1969 one
> > > > > > > > > could do a scholarly paper on "The Creation of the Holocaust Brand".
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > Would that paper state the the holocaust was a legend (myth) or a
> > > > > > > > historical fact?
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > It would say the a large number of people were killed (holocaust) by
> > > > > > > Europeans
> > > > > >
> > > > > > Ah, i see. So, by europeans, do you mean, let's say, belgians? Please,
> > > > > > i am totally ignorant of this phenomenon, let me know, how many
> > > > > > millions did belgians kill?
> > > > >
> > > > > I meant Europeans. Most of Europe came under German rule during the
> > > > > period and participated with greater and lesser degrees of enthusiasm.
> > > > >
> > > > > How many did the Belgians kill? I'd have to see the railroad
> > > > > manifests from the period to even begin to guess. Or maybe the
> > > > > Auschwitz death books to determine the percentage that originally were
> > > > > from Belgium.
> > > >
> > > > Ah, so belgians in the death books will tell you the numjber that
> > > > belgians killed,
> > >
> > > The number they were complicit in - yes. It was a large enterprise -
> > > everyone had to do their part to make it work.
> > >
> > > > the implication being that if a belgian died in the
> > > > holocaust, it was a belgian who killed him.
> > >
> > > No, it was the extermination process that (may) have killed him and it
> > > was a Belgian who was participating in that process.
> > >
> > > > velly
> > > > intellesting.....sheesh, why am i wasting my time?
> > >
> > > Because you are worried I might be right?
> >
> > I am not worried at all.
>
> Good - you shouldn't be. If you were you might make emotional
> arguments, obfuscate and malform sentences. (While emitting a trail
> of ad hominems throughout.)
>
> > The complicity of local populations is
> > irrelevant to this discussion.
>
> Again your own question, "how many millions did belgians kill?" is
> irrelevant? Maybe you should reevaluate your statement about not
> being worried...

There is a mental disorder the name of which escapes me, in which a
person, amongst other things, cannot perceive sarcasm.
>
> > If the belgians we4re substantially
> > complicit, you can bet on one thing -- the victims of that complicity
> > were minimum 95% jewish. So it only weakens your point. I did a 30
> > second google on belgian complicity and that is what comes up. Prove it
> > wrong.
>
> Why would I? Did you find the answer to your "irrelevant" question
> while googling?

Yes. Avoidance again.
>
> > >
> > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > > > in WWII and many of them were Jews. It would also trace,
> > > > > > > through stories and photo essays in Life magazine, how the "Holocaust"
> > > > > > > brand was created to just refer to dead Jews.
> > > > > >
> > > > > > No, again, capital Holocaust refers to the mass murder of civilians
> > > > > > during wwii.
> > > > >
> > > > > Good for you. You should get with Count 1 and get your definitions
> > > > > straight though. To him its the Jewish experience in WWII.
> > > >
> > > > I use the dictionsary, not count i.
> > >
> > > So does he - when it suits him.
> > >
> > > > >
> > > > > > For instance, it would be correct to say "about 500,000
> > > > > > gypsies were killed during the holocaust". There were precisely 2
> > > > > > groups targeted by hitler for racial reasons alone -- jews and gypsies
> > > > > > (roma). Since the number of jews killed was approximately 12 times that
> > > > > > of roma, and since worldwide jewry is much better organized than
> > > > > > worldwide roma, the jewi9sh victims have gotten significantly more
> > > > > > attention. Do you understand a bit more now, you smug ignoramus?
> > > > >
> > > > > 6 million didn't die so your figures need some adjustment.
> > > >
> > > > Ah, i see. Please educate me. how many jews died during the holocaust
> > > > according to you? Oh, and please do cite your sources.
> > >
> > > Perhaps somewhere around 0.8 - 1.7 million.
> >
> > > >From the Auswitz death book records approximately 44% of the inmates
> > > were Jewish. Red Cross records indicate about 140,000 deaths at that
> > > camp which seems a mite low. The official (carved in memorial stone)
> > > number posted at the camp today is 1,500,000 (revised down from
> > > 4,000,000).
> > >
> > > 44% of the 'official' 1,500,000 is 660,000 Jews at Auschwitz.
> > >
> > > (Oh, by the way, one is too many - whether he/she came from Belgium or
> > > not.)
> >
> > Oh, thaddy, looks like you "forgot" to cite sources. So we have what
> > thad thinks vs. what the BBC and countless other reputable sources
> > think:
> >
> > Were all the victims Jews?
> >
> > No, but most were. About a million Jews died at Auschwitz. Another
> > 75,000 non-Jewish Poles, 18,000 Roma (Gypsies), and 15,000 Soviet
> > prisoners of war were killed there.
> >
> > http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/europe/4208637.stm
> >
> > Gosh, I just don't know whom to believe, thad or the BBC. What should I
> > do?
> >
> > Thanks for the above, thad. I am sure most here were curious about your
> > true beliefs re the Holocaust, and I worked hard to extricate them, but
> > succeeded. Looks like you're just a garden variety neo-nazi holocaust
> > denier. Yawn.
>
> If "one is too many" don't you think 800,000 is enough? :-(

The funniest part about your number is that you yourself say 660,000
jews died in auschwitz, meaning that you believe that a grand total
140,000 could have died by all other means! If I remember correctly,
there are hundreds of thousands of ex-jewish owned hats on display
today in majdanek alone. Must be a polish conspiracy!

The only point of interest here is that you feel compelled to lie about
the number. Your motives are obvious to any reader.
>
> What's to deny? You are treating dead people like they were a ball
> score.

For some reason you feel compelled to drastically reduce the number of
jews killed in the Holocaust that most sources agree upon. Your motives
are no doubt similar to the others who attempt the same exact thing. No
mysteries. Let's move on.
> >
> > > >
> > > > And where
> > > > > were these gypsies predominately located to be rounded up and thrown
> > > > > into camps? Romania wasn't it? (Pretty sure it wasn't Belgium. :-)
> > > > > )
> > > > FOrgive me, the relevance of the above escapes mje.
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > Course can't think of any university or think tank which would permit
> > > > > > > > > or pay for such a study.
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > Well, you haven't yet precisely stated what its objectives would be, so
> > > > > > > > you are correct. People rarely spend money on silly, nebulous ideas.
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > And it might be illegal in some European
> > > > > > > > > countries.
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > This 'reticence' is perhaps explained by that portion of his remarks
> > > > > > > > > which seem to, mysteriously, be missing from many news reports on his
> > > > > > > > > latest utterances:
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > http://www.albawaba.com/en/countries/Iran/192637
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > "If somebody in their country questions God, nobody says anything, but
> > > > > > > > > if somebody denies the myth [legend?] of the massacre of Jew, the
> > > > > > > > > Zionist loudspeakers and the governments in the pay of Zionism will
> > > > > > > > > start to scream,"
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > That's because god is a myth, and it cannot be proven otherwise. The
> > > > > > > > holocaust is a fact, and it cannot be proven otherwise.
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > That large numbers of people were killed (holocaust) by the Europeans
> > > > > > > in WWII is undeniable. That many of them were Jews is also undeniable.
> > > > > >
> > > > > > Ok, i'll do it, i'll explain to you as i would to a 5 yiear old. The
> > > > > > holocaust refers to the systematic extermination (not "killing) of
> > > > > > civilians (not "people") by the nazis (not the "europeans"). (If you
> > > > > > wish to understand the ethnic composition of nazis, please google.)
> > > > >
> > > > > Mostly Germans lead by an Austrian. The makeup of the security forces
> > > > > in occupied Europe remained predominately the population of those
> > > > > occupied countries.
> > > >
> > > > Well, well, the boy knows how to google. bravo,.
> > >
> > > I'm sorry - such basic information shouldn't have to be googled by an
> > > educated person. Did you have to look it up? :-)
> >
> > He's still smilin'. I wonder why.
> > >
> > > > > > By
> > > > > > far, the largest ethnic group killed in this systematic way were the
> > > > > > Jews. Have I lost you yet, thad? GOOD BOY!! Now, as alluded to above,
> > > > > > there were a number of groups of people chosen for extermination, but
> > > > > > only two of them were racially chosen, roma and jews. The roma victims
> > > > > > have to a large extent been ignored, and that is not a good thing. They
> > > > > > have been ignored at least partly because there are not enough of them
> > > > > > working to remind us. that is not a problem with the jews. All clear,
> > > > > > thad? Any more questions?
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > Denying it
> > > > > > > > happened is understandably offensive to survivors and relatives of
> > > > > > > > victims and survivors, and frankly should be offensive to anyone.
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > I think that would be their problem don't you?
> > > > > >
> > > > > > I don't understand the question. I guess what you are saying is that if
> > > > > > i punch you in the face, it's your problem.
> > > > >
> > > > > No, but if you somehow manage to offend me (not doing so well so far)
> > > > > then it would be my problem.
> > > >
> > > > Hey, i wish that someday you find yourself offended by someone or some
> > > > group who belittles or berates a situation in which a loved one of
> > > > yours died.
> > >
> > > And? It would still be my problem wouldn't it?
> >
> > Forget it, man. You're hopeless.
>
> That's my problem too. :-)

Yup
>
> > >
> > > > You obviously lack the intellect to appreciate the
> > > > situation without first hand knowledge. Too bad for you.
> > >
> > > Uh huh... Sure...
> >
> > Glad we're in agreement.
> > >
> > > > >
> > > > > Punching in the face crosses the line between mere offense and assault.
> > > > >
> > > > > "Your right to swing your fist ends where my nose begins" sort of
> > > > > thing.
> > > > >
> > > > > > That's one way of looking
> > > > > > at things, i suppose.
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > That
> > > > > > > > you cannot see this is testament to at least your low intellect and low
> > > > > > > > ability to empathize (in my view, a function of intellect), and
> > > > > > > > probably to an anti-semitism that clouds what little intelligence you
> > > > > > > > have.
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > Ha, ha! Say, when did anti-semitism begin to refer only to Jews and
> > > > > > > exclude Arabs? :-)
> > > > > >
> > > > > > Sheesh, the stupidity of the question amazes me. What more can i
> > > > > > expect? From a marginally ignorant person, the question would be "did
> > > > > > the term anti-semitism ever refer to prejudice against all semitic
> > > > > > peoples, or was it always a term which referred only to prejudice
> > > > > > against jews?", but of course your ignorance transcends marginality. If
> > > > > > you really cannot find this information by yourself after trying for 1
> > > > > > hour, ask me again, but you must say "pretty please help me find the
> > > > > > answer", and i will do it for you.
> > > > >
> > > > > I already know the answer.
> > > >
> > > > No, you don't. your question above demonstrates that totally.
> > > >
> > > > Note: " :-) "
> > > >
> > > > wow, you made a smiley. i think you deserve a gold star for that.
> > >
> > > I'd give you one if you understood what it meant.
> > >
> > > > >
> > > > > (And get the cob out of your ass.)
> > > >
> > > > Sorry, that's not pretty please, and therefore you will not get the
> > > > answer.
> > > > >
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > He is incorrect in one regard - the foundation of Israel preceeded the
> > > > > > > > > establishment of the Holocaust brand.
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > He never mentioned the holocaust brand, did he? Are you a bit confused?
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > See above. He mentioned a manufactured myth/legend. He's talking,
> > > > > > > somewhat, about what I call the "Holocaust brand".
> > > > > >
> > > > > > Too late, thad. Repetition of your "point" won't make it stronger, so
> > > > > > i will not waste more bandwith on it.
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > In that regard he has a
> > > > > > > > > "distorted sense" of the historical timeline. :-)
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > http://www.cnn.com/2005/WORLD/meast/12/14/iran.israel/
> > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > TEHRAN, Iran (CNN) -- Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad has described
> > > > > > > > > > the Holocaust as "a myth" and suggested that Israel be moved to Europe, the
> > > > > > > > > > United States, Canada or Alaska.
> > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > Germany, the European Commission and Israel condemned the remark, with
> > > > > > > > > > German Foreign Minister Frank-Walter Steinmeier calling it "shocking and
> > > > > > > > > > unacceptable."
> > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > The Israeli government said Ahmadinejad's regime had "a distorted sense of
> > > > > > > > > > reality."
> > > > > > > > > > (...)
> > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > "They have invented a myth that Jews were massacred and place this above
> > > > > > > > > > God, religions and the prophets," Ahmadinejad said in a speech to thousands
> > > > > > > > > > of people in the Iranian city of Zahedan, according to a report on Wednesday
> > > > > > > > > > from Islamic Republic of Iran Broadcasting (IRIB).
> > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > ***
> > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > Tick, tock....

.

Relevant Pages

  • Re: It turns out the Iranian president is nuts
    ... >>> On the translation front I just saw an alternate translation for the ... > According to *a* definition of fabricate. ... >> Therefore he is just a holocaust denier, ... > Not sure I'm clear on the contradiction. ...
    (alt.religion.islam)
  • Re: It turns out the Iranian president is nuts
    ... >>> of translation, how would the meaning of his statement differ when each ... >> by the Europeans and name 'Holocaust' was fabricated. ... > definition of "fabricate". ... of European Jews in the 20th century but the 'Holocaust'. ...
    (alt.religion.islam)
  • Re: It turns out the Iranian president is nuts
    ... >>> thad, are you really so far gone that you think you are fooling anyone? ... phrase "'Massacre of the Jews'". ... it's our old friend 'Holocaust'. ... standardized parts: fabricate small boats. ...
    (alt.religion.islam)
  • Re: It turns out the Iranian president is nuts
    ... >>> I was wonder about that translation ... >> definition of fabricate. ... >>> Therefore he is just a holocaust denier, ... >> Not sure I'm clear on the contradiction. ...
    (alt.religion.islam)
  • Re: It turns out the Iranian president is nuts
    ... Silly thad thinks his non-reply disguises the fact that he cannot ... >> the holocaust didn't happen. ... > the Jews'". ... >>> How many did the Belgians kill? ...
    (alt.religion.islam)