Click HERE to see this thread with all of the graphics, features, and links.

we have programs in tv about it all the time cry

My great grandpa served in the us army during that time

One of the most darkest moments in our civilization. I'm hope is never forgotten.

do you know that they've made museums in the place of old concentration camps?

anyway they've made them
and i've visited two of them, and to be honest i can't imagine how were those people able to survuve in such conditions and with such treatment.

and btw most of the literature taken in final year of highschool here is war connected. (mostly about camps)
and there are some very interesting info... like.. how they were making soap out of victims fat. and stuff like that. i suggest someone read it.

Sounds good Clovie... I mean, interesting... it's a crying shame we have something like this connected to our history

i think stuff like that should have never ever happen
it is just unbelieveable that ppl were able to do something like that to other ppl

I know Not quite something I would believe humanity to be capable of.

they showed some results of the poll on tv today
that lke 40% of americans don't believe it has happened
and something like 20% of british

They don't believe it? What, they think the multitude of footage and first hand recollections are fake?

i don't know
here every child knows it

actually, clovie

there are people here that don't believe it either or say the numbers are exagerated... we have a law that makes it a criminal offence to support this

I wouldn't say that they dont believe it, just that they believe that the number of dead are exaggerated.

Makes no difference to me, just killing 1 person for being different or not societies established norm is deplorable and unforgivable!

You posted before me yers!

Recollections, yes, but footage, no- there isn't actually any primary evidence that supports the idea of mass gassing, hence the scepticism.

And I have seen few more reprehensible laws than Holocaust denial ones. Poeple might be idiots to believe it did not happen (or not believe it did happen, however you want to put it), but to prosecute them for that is a serious violation of free speech.

Many people believe that it didn't happen. Still many more, though they believe it happened, see it as something that happened in the past and is of no real concern today. There are even others who may believe, but really don't give a shit either way.

I'm always on top of things, but you can be on top of mine

I see where you're coming from... Unfortunately.

Not only a violation of free speech Ush. But also it might restrict Historical revisionism. Historians might not conduct profund cases due to fear of being proscecuted.

well, i saw enough photos of mountains of dead bodies to make a believer out of me.

and i DO dispise any who would deny that it happened. to say "i have seen no convincing proof, so i remain sceptical" is far different than "its bullshit...it never happened".

well in Norway there are no laws that would make it criminal to voice your opinion that the holocaust was faked, .............. so if you do support that thought you only plea guilty to the laws of stupidity

Feel free to despise.

But if I stood up and said that the genocide of the native Americans didn't happen, you might think me an obtuse ignorant idiot, but would you actually put me in jail for it? Of course not, it is manifestly ludicrous to bring criminal prosecution against someone for an incorrect historical belief, regardless of how bigoted it is.

But for some reason several European countries have chosen to make this a matter of law with this particular subject, and it really does my head in- and as if that will achieve anything other than to create more anti-semitic conspiracy theory.

There is plenty of evidence that it happened, and it cannot be denied that Jews died in vast amounts, but some people have questioned the means. They may be totally wrong- but in some countires, this questioning is illegal, and that is a policy we would have expected in totalitarian regimes, not liberal democracies.

I'm hating myself for agreeing with you Ush, you always do it.

i too think its disgusting to eliminate free speech even in such matters.

on a basis of law, i agree fully. i feel that any group has the LEGAL right to say whatever they please, so long as it doesnt put anyone in immediate danger.

yeah and we can laugh at them

perhaps such laws are partly responsible for growing antisemitism in europe...when you think about it.

maybe in countries that have such laws, as of Norway ignorance is the reason for antisemitism

...as is the case in america

it is just wrong they think so

*cough*




they said more ppl in USA believe in ufo than that WWII has actually taken place


can't someone say something to those ppl?

im glad we have these comemorative days sa as it is we can't forget what happened. Those poor people...

Today I morn for my grandfather who dead in the holocaust along time ago.I really miss him and wish he was still alive.JM

Well in canada you have free speech however it says you can't say anything hateful towards others. A man named earnest zundal from Germany came to Canada. He spread hateful messages about the holocast saying it didn't happen and the government now ordered his deportation. Canada is really turning into a soceity of minority rights are a bigger concern then majority rules, which i think is good. You can't create and sing hateful music legally. Free speach is needed but there is a limit. I think you should be able to saying but nothing which is very hateful and racist!

The holocast is one of the most chilling things in history. I hate the fact that history teachers don't teach alot of it. Well 3 out of ten canadians did not know that the jews were killed in those death camps. Such stupidity makes we want to cry.!!!

What exactly does "I think you should be able to saying..." mean?

You are out of touch - most people in this country know no history at all so you could get away with with inaccurate opinions on more obscure events.

As about the Canadian deportation thing, the point is there is a fine line between free speech and inciting racial hatred. Context is the issue here. I think that guy was a bit of a jew-hater. But the point is in Europe, it doesn;t matter if you hate Jews, love Jews, or even ARE Jewish, questioning the holocaust has become a criminal offence in of itself, regardless of context. That's the silly bit.

As the David Irving libel trial showed, the US and the UK, the feeling is that if a man wants to make an idiot of himself saying things like that, then the fact he looks an idiot is all that needs to be done... and if some people choose to believe him, then that IS their right, so long as that does not translate into prejudice or violence- but those ARE crimes, and can be dealt with accordingly, Saying a historical thing did not happen is no crime by any logic.

-

And Shaber- I rather think I was talking to Dave personally there.

and maybe its good that such hateful idiots are allowed to spew their verbal excrement...when you really think about it. the most dangerous times in such matters involves secrecy and not public displays of hatred. the holocaust was and is so elusive in that it was a well kept secret. when the killing started, few believed that such atrocities were taking place. including german civilians, non-ss soldiers and jews. the antisemitism was blatant, but the 'final solution' seemed to be just a crazy rumor.

and as far as people denying the holocaust...being an idiot should not be a crime. although i firmly believe that such denial is a direct result of antisemitism, and is disgusting to say the least, changing law will not enlighten such idiots. instead it will only accelerate the problem imho, forcing such people to discuss these and other racist ideas in private. not to mention that such speech oppressing governments are probably not trusted in the least...so i can see antisemites in such regions coming up with paranoid theories of a jew/government conspiracy and things of the like. not that far fetched considering the 'jew/media conspiracy' theory that some of our ignorant fellow americans like to preach.

isnt it better to know who to monitor, rather than make it law that these ideas must exist in secrecy?

I don't agree with you there How can you have something called 'freedom of speech' with limitations imposed? What, you gonna call it 'Almost Free Speech'? Or 'You can think and say what you want but make sure it isn't too different from everyone else or we'll throw you in jail'??

yeah, free speech should be unconditional.
the only limits imposed in the states is when one puts others
in immediate danger when speaking. an example would be yelling
"FIRE" in a movie theater when there is no fire.

It completely contradicts the word 'free' in 'free speech' if limitations are imposed.

There are tonnes of limitations on free speech. The FCC are big time Haters of free speech. Freedom of speech is a double edged sword.

its not a limitation of expression of ideas, be them virtuous or just hateful.
its common sense to not allow people to cause a stampede, which could happen by yelling "fire" OR "bomb" in a crowded public place.

i guess we are kinda off-topic though

I understand that By 'free speech' I'm thinking more along the lines of personal opinion etc, I didn't think about it that way

It's stupid to assert that freedom of speech still applies when such limitations are imposed. If you have to consider the possible result that some unbalanced individual may be incited to something outrageous by something you say then you'd be unable to say anything

The concept of Free Speech in liberal democracies has limitations built in. Incitation to racial hatred, slander, and harrassment are three examples of why it does sometimes have to be limited.

But making Holocaust Denial a crime is way past the line.

hehe, yea this is one of those laws a lot of people have problems with, I for one wouldn't mind if they didn't use it anymore. It's just an easy loophole these days to punish nazi supporters.

(the waving of Nazi flags and stuff like that is also prohibited in belgium)

The UK doesn't strictly even count as a parliamentary democracy anymore (referring to the civil contingencies Bill)

I remenber you mention that before Fire. And I'm just curious, is it agains't the law to wave the Nazi flag or is it simply agains't the law to own a Nazi flag? I mean you can own a flag for historic reasons, but no to promote nazism. You following me?

Errr... sorry, that statement is not true. That does not make us any less of a parliamentary democracy. Our laws are still enacted by representatives of the people.

Thats retarted people should be allowed to wave what ever flag they want.

Well the selling and buying of nazi flags is prohibited unless you need them for educational purposes I assume. But these days just order it online and voila.

That makes more sense. If it is for educational or historic purposes I guess the law isn't obstructing free speech.

there half right in the actual exterminations there were very few most of the prisoners died from dieases and hunger

It dosent matter even if there nazis there protected under free speech too

You could be charged for that in some European countires, Napalm.

Personally I don't give a rats ass wether or not the law is obstructing Freedom of speech, I think it has serious limits

For saying that more people died from the conditons?

no, they are still 100% wrong then. the holocaust was an attempt at genocide.
whether you gas people or purposely starve them to death, its still murder.

I wasnt dening that

Yes Napalm in America a Neo Nazi can wear a swastika and wave the flag all he wants. But the minute that Neo Nazi uses his free speach to promote violence agaisn't anyone is agaisn't the law. Thus, free speech gets restricted by the law.

The law in belgium it quite fishy the borderline between what you can and can not say is pretty sketchy

Yup, because as PVS alludes to, that is trying to deny that it was crafted genocide, which is Holocaust Denial, which is illegal. The whole point of the term 'Holocaust' is that it refers to a policy decision to eliminate all jews as fast as possible, not just let them die.

You probably wouldn't be charged, because even though such laws are insane, the people who press charges are not necessarily so. But you COULD be charged, and all in all they are very poor pieces of legislation.

The moment we restrict a facist is the moment we become facist ourselves

no, but you were trying to point out a loophole where people who deny are partially correct, just because the figures in methods of murdering are blurry.
that makes no sense.

That is sure as hell not true. Preventing Klu Klux Klan members from inciting people to violence against blacks and therefore saving many lives is not a facist policy.

Its common knowledge that more people died from the conditions than the extermination

If the KKK comits a crime against a black man they should be punished. But no were in the american constitution does it say that expression certain opions is wrong

When the law restricts those that want to use their freeom of speech to use violence agaisn't others isn't consider facist. It just doesn't work that way Napalm.

the dilemma about tolerating intolerant organizations and opinions has always been a nice one

"there half right in the actual exterminations there were very few>"

Is what you said. "Very few." Denying that there was mass widespread gassing is legally speaking Holocaust Denial. You could loose your livelighood with a statement like that in some places.

ok napalm, so if i purposely lock you in an empty meat locker and knowingly deprive you of clothing and sustinance...i am not attempting murder. and your death would not be my fault, but the fault of the conditions? is that where you are going with this?

But in the LAW, it DOES say inciting a crime is wrong, and that is not a restriction of free speech.

Im not a nazi or anything Im just telling the truth

In your opinion. And as I say, that would be illegal in these places.

I am not dening that hitlers crimes were wrong

Yeah and It used to be illegal to let black people vote it dosent make it right

dont change the topic, im not calling you a nazi sympathiser, i am simply questioning your logic in your statement on holocaust deniers being partially correct.

Placing those people and allowing them to die under such conditions was also a part of the plan of extermination. When people endorse and create lethal conditions to kill off people, that is an act of extermination in itself, just much slower and crueler.

I'm not SAYING it is right. My entire point is to DECRY these laws that make you expressing that opinion a criminal act. Do try and keep up!

hehe, this discussion has long past the usefulness

...yes and as karma points out, the grave conditions were purposely structured to wear the people down and kill them. im sure hitler didnt care if they were all gassed or just dropped dead from exhaustion/dehydration/starvation/disease

But its true most a lot of jews died because of the really bad conditions not because they were exterminated. But that makes no difference they were killed and it was the worst thing ever done in history. I hate that this happened in my country ionly 60 years ago. It is the sickest thing ever done to a group of people

"But its true most a lot of jews died because of the really bad conditions not because they were exterminated."

jesus christ can we just get this straight

it was ALL extermination. where the hell is logic here?

the conditions were STRUCTURED for mass murder.

it was intended for them to starve and die from disease etc.

It wasn't just Hitler's crimes but also his followers. Even today if someone was to give power to the neo nazis they'll do the same thing as Hitler did. That's why is important that the law restricts them. Following me so far?

Well did you stop reading my post after that sentence? Thats exactly what I said. God you like to twist around people's words, don't you?

no, you make it as if the deaths were circumstantial and a result of neglect and not purposeful starvation and diseasing.

i read your post just fine. no twisting here.

before this goes further, i KNOW that you are not some nazi lover.
but i will still drill through any warped logic on this matter that i witness.

BY using the word KILL I think I was implying that it was not circumstancial if that is not the case I beg you to forgive my poor english .

ok, then you accidentally made two contradicting statements.
so long as you dont believe in that contradiction, no biggie.

Ojk I klnow it is off-topic but I want to say that. Its not a contradiction, they died of the poor conditions and this were made by the nazis exactly to do that. therefore the term Killing is appropriate.

"Ojk I klnow it is off-topic but I want to say that. Its not a contradiction, they died of the poor conditions and this were made by the nazis exactly to do that. therefore the term Killing is appropriate."


...as is the word 'extermination'.

"But its true most a lot of jews died because of the really bad conditions not because they were exterminated"

i fail to understand why this cant be grasped...unless extermination and mass killings are not the same?

i fail to see the point.

are you saying that the figures on how many people were killed and HOW they were killed are blurry? if this is the case, im sure you are correct.

farther than this, i cant see any point to such a statement.

I don't want to make a point I am just saying think Napalm is right in saying that a lot of jews were killed in that way. I don't really know whats the point though.

A lot of Jews WERE killed in that way. Unfortunately, he also says 'very few' jews were gassed. That's way wrong.

I think he's trying to say that he used the wrong word... he's not English, right Bardock?

Anyway, as far as I am concerned upon reading Napalm's statement about there being only 'a few' intentional gassings, or whatever... does it really need to be a massive amount to incite some goddamn empathy? Jeez, regardless of how many people died, the point is there was the intention to eliminate an entire culture.

Yeah thats true, but I am not trying to make a point I amjust saying what I think happened.

What you think happened really doesn't cut it... there's enough evidence of what happened without your opinion adding a scratch to general knowledge.

It matters in that the means the Nazis chose to pursue that policy was gassing, yes. Saying very few died that way denies the Nazi's policy.

I agree Syren it doesn'T matter how they were killed its one of the most disgusting things ever. All our official places had the flags on half-mast (do you say thqat when they only put the flag on half?) that day

Ush, I was agreeing with you and beating on Napalm. Clear?

I simply meant, why does the number of dead have to be a certain amount for people to actually care? If Napalm had lost his entire family to the Nazi regime, I seriously doubt he would be saying only 'a few' died

Not the gassing was the Nazis policy it was the extingtion of an entire ethnical group.

Incorrect. Gassing WAS their policy. We have documented meetings where there was considerable complaint that the administration of removing the Jews was too slow and, it seemed, impossible.

Gassing was the chosen solution.

"Its common knowledge that more people died from the conditions than the extermination"

thats the original quote. the insinuation is that the conditions were circumstantial and that such deaths were not part of the extermination.

the truth is that the conditions were structured to aid in the extermination. it was a ridiculous nonesense comment and i think we should dignify it no more.

You just said it was the solution for the Nazi policy, they wanted to kill the jews, and they wanted to do it fast.

He never said that the conditions weren'T meant to kill the jews. I think you people just like to beat on Napalm

Bardock, you ass.. read the last two pages and then tell us we're wrong.

*sigh* obviously thats never going to happen.

True, oh well I didn'tr read the thread so I might be wrong.

****, well I read what napalm said and I am with him.
HE said a lot of people died from the conditions he also said that this still was killing by nazis. And he said everyone should have the freedom to say what they want. I agree. Sorry if you don't like that.

Excuse me, did you admit to getting into a lengthy argument because you did not read what you were supposed to be arguing about?

No I just read one post and then the bashing you did towards that post, and I belived what was said in that post to be right, I read it now and I still agree.

And even if I wouldn't I most likely would have argued.

detective

oh well. no point in debating that anymore, since its blatantly obvious that he was wrong and that you insist on twisting his words for the better in an attempt to clean up the train wreck created by your friend.

ok give me a second

Ok go to page three read it again and say that what Napalm was saying was wrong.

This is becoming laughable. In a really sad way.

Oh god I hate you you are so stubborn, just because Napalm has very conservative views you all bash him, he actually said something smart and you still jsut keep denying .

lol

you mean he said something smart and i missed it!?!?!?!

QUICK!!!! GIVE ME THE LINK!!!!

Wow you are funny.

He jsut said that he thinks that people should be allowed to say what they waynt, whatever it is.
Then he said he thinks that most people died from the poor conditions (ok he used words wrong, great kill him :rolleyes
And then 4 people went on bashing him.
I don't get it.

"Wow you are funny."

oh i cant take credit. this comedy writes itself

(btw i noted your sarcasm, so please dont explain)

Yeah I figured.

*snort*

Hahaaa... *falls off chair*

Really what is the problem you had with what Napalm said?

If someone can't get their idea across because they can't use the correct words, perhaps instead of defending them you should first ask them to explain themselves.

ANYWAY, lets hope that such laws against holocaust denial dont lead to a total lack of recognition of such events. its possible for such laws to promote ignorance, since people of such nations may just decide to never speak of it to be on the safe side. history forgotten is doomed to repeat itself...or be horribly misinterpreted on this forum...

Well I got what he meant, you people should have done that

Perhaps we got what he meant and you misunderstood him, therein lies the rub, if you can't say what you mean than that leaves it all up to interpretation.

This is BS, history is not doomed to repeat itself, nor was anything horrible misinterpreted, at least not in this thread. Youjust say you decide what people are allowed to say and what not.

Well possibly, but if you are not sure think positive of the person

History repeats itself constantly.

bardock, you are making a complete ass out of yourself and i beg you to stop.

Napalm has also stated that he has a favourite serial killer and often talks of violence, death and is often confrontational. If someone does not mistake his miscommunication as good intention it his hardly their fault.

Now may we plaese get back on topic?

Well maybe we should take just what he said in this thread and not what he says in others.

Oh and PVS if you think I am a complete ass for what I say here, well thats too bad then. I guess we wouldn't have been best friends anyway.

Well ther3e is not really a topic since the memorial day was yesterday so we could as well just keep talking aboot that.

What a convenient way never to be responsible for anything that you ever say.

i wish i had that luxury...to not be held to anything i say.

must be stress-free living

No its not. I am just saying that just because someone said something stupid in another thread doesn'T mean something he says in this thread must be wrong. Come on people you must agree on that. Just because you don't liek what he saidbefore doesn't mean he will be wrong always from now on.

I never held anything you said in another thread against you. And I wouldn't. I hope you would do the same.

I live in one of those countries PVS and I seriously doubt belgian kids know less of the holocaust than other kids. I sure as heck don't know ppl who know very little about it

who gives a shit?

your little online friend said something really stupid,
and you will fight tooth and nail to convince us that he never said it,
and that he doesnt know how to word his arguement, and everyone who
recognoses that it was stupid is just attacking him, and you absolutely refuse
to read his posts for what they are. whatever, who cares.
lets just say that you and your friend are right and everyone else who speaks
english is wrong, ok? can we move on?

Get on topic guys

First, yes I am friends with Napalm, I don'targue with you because of that though.
And well I don't have to argue, its all written down, you are just pretending he said something Pro-Nazi but he didn't.
And I mean I think I am right true, but where do you want to move on to?

you are correct fire.
my appologies for taking part in this nonesense

It's called development of character Bardock. I'm not holding stuff against him, he has defined his character, as have we all, from numerous posts. I am not going to absent mindedly perceive that someone has good intentions or not if I don't understand them. But if someone is cryptic in their communication and people misconstrue it as negative based on that persons past record of communication and confrontations no one should be surprised.

And the topic of that thread ios a tribute towards the freeing of the Auschwitz KZ so well its not even anything to tzalk aboot. So either we talk aboot freedom of speech concedrning Nazi comments or we talk aboot what happened then, or we just stop talking.

Well I see you got a negative image of Napalm and I understand why you have that, but if you read nit again this time he didn'T say anything negative.

...finished yet?

Well noit really we didn't really solve anything. But what do you want to talk aboot.

...how about....um....hmmmmm....the holocaust?