Atheists and the "Holocaust" cult

Read and post various viewpoints or search our large archives.

Moderator: Moderator

Forum rules
Be sure to read the Rules/guidelines before you post!
User avatar
holographic
Valued contributor
Valued contributor
Posts: 222
Joined: Sat Jun 26, 2004 12:19 am

Re: Atheists and the "Holocaust" cult

Postby holographic » 1 decade 3 months ago (Thu Sep 03, 2009 7:46 am)

It's amusing how some posters at Dawkins' forum use the number of members of a given forum i.e Codoh as "proof" of its validity and veracity. Of course, those are just standard, juvenile, schoolyard bully, tactics. I'm quite sure that the number of folks posting at various forums relating to God and theology out number by FAR the number of people posting at atheist sites. The fact that you were banned ASMarques is a sign of victory! Did they really allow for a healthy evolution of your arguments? NO! You were banned from anymore inbreeding within their gene pool.

People who need to call other folk "C--TS" says ALOT to me. Ultimately, I find nothing wrong with female genitalia. Mother earth took her sweet time to evolve this tunnel of love. Shame that they use it as a cheap attempt to deride others.

To be honest, I can't stomach the self-righteous glad handing and high-fiving that goes on at Dawkins' forum.

Revisionism IS the "cutting edge".

User avatar
ASMarques
Valuable asset
Valuable asset
Posts: 624
Joined: Wed Dec 07, 2005 12:47 pm

Re: Atheists and the "Holocaust" cult

Postby ASMarques » 1 decade 3 months ago (Thu Sep 03, 2009 2:12 pm)

holographic wrote:The fact that you were banned ASMarques is a sign of victory! Did they really allow for a healthy evolution of your arguments? NO! You were banned from anymore inbreeding within their gene pool.


Not actually banned, but relegated to what they call "alternate threads", i.e. sidelined sub-threads where you become less visible. Interestingly enough, this only happened after the conversation on one of the main threads turned away from the "Holocaust" proper into the topic of Jewish power and how it is exercised. Presumably this was considered more "antisemitic" than simple "denial"...

allgood
Member
Member
Posts: 29
Joined: Fri Jun 05, 2009 7:46 pm

Re: Atheists and the "Holocaust" cult

Postby allgood » 1 decade 3 months ago (Thu Sep 03, 2009 8:07 pm)

ASMarques wrote:
holographic wrote:The fact that you were banned ASMarques is a sign of victory! Did they really allow for a healthy evolution of your arguments? NO! You were banned from anymore inbreeding within their gene pool.


Not actually banned, but relegated to what they call "alternate threads", i.e. sidelined sub-threads where you become less visible. Interestingly enough, this only happened after the conversation on one of the main threads turned away from the "Holocaust" proper into the topic of Jewish power and how it is exercised. Presumably this was considered more "antisemitic" than simple "denial"...


More threatening, I suspect.

Which amounts to the same thing, as the people who bandy around the term 'anti-Semitism' claim 100% of the rights to define the term.

Contemporary power is THE big issue. Always is. Historical narratives are only props to the main drama, which is in the present.

Incidentally, I also noticed the extraordinary crudeness of response on the Dawkins forum by some of the Zionist fanatics, mentioned by holographic in his recent post.

I think this is all to the good. The mentality of some of these people betrays itself. I imagine it did not go unnoticed by some of the less partisan participants. Cussing and profanity are not effective debating tools.

Watching these people engage with AS Marques was like watching a few drunks take on a professional boxer. At first they seemed too numerous to defeat. In the end their rout was embarrassing.

User avatar
ASMarques
Valuable asset
Valuable asset
Posts: 624
Joined: Wed Dec 07, 2005 12:47 pm

Re: Atheists and the "Holocaust" cult

Postby ASMarques » 1 decade 3 months ago (Tue Sep 08, 2009 6:18 pm)

Back in business with standard introduction #3 (for pseudo-rationalists) on Dawkins's comments columns. Will probably be relegated to the alternate threads, but well, it's part of the exposing procedure. Some rationalists these "Bright" guys (as they call themselves)...

http://richarddawkins.net/articleCommen ... ge1#413463

They simply cannot resist the temptation to invoke their favorite idiotic superstition, then what do the poor souls do? Why, they take flight and avoid replying at all costs. Some "oasis of clear thinking"...

User avatar
ASMarques
Valuable asset
Valuable asset
Posts: 624
Joined: Wed Dec 07, 2005 12:47 pm

Re: Atheists and the "Holocaust" cult

Postby ASMarques » 1 decade 2 months ago (Fri Sep 11, 2009 12:03 pm)

Banned at last. Not that a real motive can be found, other than their inability to live up to their self-proclaimed status as a "clear-thinking oasis."

For the record, I addressed the following message to the "Brights" in charge:

To the Forum Administrators <[email protected]>:

May I inquire why I have been banned?

No objection to your running your site according to your wishes and opinions, please note.

Just curious on the precise reasons why, if any, since I don't think I have been lacking in courtesy, and even less posting off-topic.

Thank you.


No reply forthcoming, of course, which is precisely the point I wished to make.

User avatar
ASMarques
Valuable asset
Valuable asset
Posts: 624
Joined: Wed Dec 07, 2005 12:47 pm

Re: Atheists and the "Holocaust" cult

Postby ASMarques » 1 decade 2 months ago (Sat Sep 12, 2009 10:27 pm)

To my surprise I did receive a reply (fully quoted below) from the "Clear-thinking Oasis" and responded to it thus:

Submissions RD.net wrote:

I asked the forum admin to forward your e-mail to me here so that I could reply since I was the admin who banned your account..


Thank you for your reply, which I confess I was not really expecting.

I'll give you an analogy. Suppose I was a daily reader of a website which dealt with the translation of Aramaic and biblical texts. That was 99% of what the site was about - it was run by creationists but creationism wasn't the primary topic.


I agree yours is so far an acceptable analogy, provided you do not stop at the "run by" straw man. Therefore, let us say: a website presenting mostly clear thinking, with muddled peddling of a specific superstitious myth as a relatively frequent but secondary topic.

If every once in a while the word "evolution" was mentioned and I being an atheist and firm believer in evolution jumped on top of the comments and positions that I found "offensive" and picked each one apart in minute detail with a number of "sources" to back me up and derailed the threads from their initial topic, I would not be well received. And by "each one" I mean deconstruct, in detail, each comment I found "objectionable".


Here is where I will begin to disagree with you.

First of all, I don't think the way the creationists in your analogy would react to well-sourced deconstruction in detail of their silly beliefs should constitute a model for you, specially since you present your website as a "clear-thinking oasis".

Secondly, it is not as if "a word had been simply mentioned" when a clear partisan view is being presented, and it is in no way clear to me that the comments threads are or should be dedicated exclusively to patting on the back Dawkins or anyone else on their opinions. My posts were critical of allegations made by Dawkins or other featured participants, and the criticism was usually limited to a single clear post specifying my reasons.

All my other posts were in response to posts directly and publicly addressed to me by other posters, none of which were banned or even admonished on that account, as indeed I agree they shouldn't have been, even when showing themselves highly discourteous. I can take that, thank you, and never feel the need to reply in kind.

Now, it is true the "Holocaust" topic is a controversial one and discussions are prone to develop between posters, but I would have thought that to be a welcomed development, indeed something the speakers / authors should appreciate and take into account, since they themselves solicit comments on their views and opinions.

I note that not a single traditionalist defender of the "Holocaust" myth was banned or relegated to alternate threads. A correct parallel to this situation would be your Aramaic translation site accepting alongside the learned translations every comment explaining and praising the most ridiculous creationist beliefs, even when highly discourteous, but going after the polite and informative rationalist responses to them.

As I said, I thank you for your reply, but please spare me the sanctimonious excuses when what I was hoping for was the concrete motive.

All the while being polite but persistent in my goal to make sure that the "correct" version of the "truth" was presented. Basically derailing the comments on an article which was about something else but happened to mention the word evolution.


It's not as if the speakers / authors had "simply happened to mention" anything.

If you go to the trouble of listening to / reading what they were saying, you cannot possibly fail to recognize that they were defending clearly partisan positions, and, what's more, conducting, even if briefly, partisan attacks on persecuted views with very little public room to defend themselves.

Indeed my last intervention was motivated not only by Dawkins equating the obviously true, and truly scientific, paradigm of Evolution with such a politically overcharged exploitative concept as the alleged "Holocaust", but also by his defense of the avoidance of open debate at a time when "Holocaust" revisionists are being punished all over Europe with severe fines and jail sentences, with innocent people languishing in prison for that particular thoughtcrime.

Assuming the comments threads are "derailed" by comments on the provocative expounded views, would you care to let me know what then is their intended purpose?

In the past any user account was allowed to move any post to the alternate thread. That is no longer the case. Users can now flag any particular comment as being a "troll", "spam" or "offensive" type of comment and that information is sent to a log file. Periodically the responsible admin (me in this case) will look through the comments and take an action they feel appropriate.

I do not ban someone just because someone was "offended". I'm as likely to look at the comments of the person who did the flagging as I am to look at the flagged comment. It's only when someone has had a significant number of comments flagged as troll, spam or offensive that I'll look through and see if there is a problem.

In your case I noted that your account has been active for well over a year and you've made a number of comments so I looked back and read through many of your comments and the context in which they were made. Having done that I could see that your comments were primarily about "setting the record straight" on the Holocaust which was not the primary focus of the article that was posted and then banned your account.


If you really read through many of my comments, you should have noticed I had preeminently posted notes such as the following one:

"I have never posted a single "Holocaust" comment in any thread where the subject had not been mentioned in a disreputable way on the video. And I have never posted a message on the same thread after that, except in reply to other posters. [...] I will instantly stop posting the moment the administrator informs me that 'Holocaust' comments to 'Holocaust' mentions by the speakers are no longer welcomed".

You might then have acted accordingly and let me know, but perhaps that kind of courtesy would have made you more conscious of the superstitious, impervious to rational criticism, drivel that your website carries, "Holocaust"-wise.

Regards and good luck to your oasis of whatever.

ASMarques

P.S.:
Please note that I am in no way requesting the ban to be lifted, nor do I accept perfunctory excuses as a form of apology. I believe each one is entitled to his due: my clear thinking, your site's muddling of the "Holocaust" issue, as should be and remain visible.

User avatar
Hektor
Valuable asset
Valuable asset
Posts: 3386
Joined: Sun Jun 25, 2006 7:59 am

Re:

Postby Hektor » 4 years 9 months ago (Wed Mar 04, 2015 7:14 am)

ASMarques wrote:.....
When looking at WW2 atrocity photos, I use the following rule of thumb: in my opinion, most of the photos one sees of masses of nude corpses in pits that cannot be identified as coming from camps like Belsen, can with reasonable probability be conotated with the mass murders of ethnic Germans at the end of the war, in places like the Sudetes or ex-Yugoslavia.

There is a simple reason for that: going to the trouble of having people completely disrobe themselves requires more than the simple will to dispatch them through expeditious executions under military discipline, as must have been the case with the executions of partisans -- and possibly of civilians considered to be supportive of their actions-- by the Einsatzgruppen. It takes the will to humiliate the victims as well, and that's much more likely to be found in the massacres of Germans performed by the partisans and the roused rabble -- not to speak of the Soviet army that was often given incitement and a free-rein -- at the end of the the War.

Take for instance the Nizkor photos I mention above. The first one, "death-of-piotr-sosnowski.jpg"...
http://www.nizkor.org/ftp.cgi/ftp.py?or ... nowski.jpg

...is duly referenced as:
______________

http://www.nizkor.org/ftp.cgi/ftp.py?or ... nowski.ref

Berenbaum, Michael. The World Must Know: the history of the Holocaust
as told in the United States Holocaust Museum. ISBN O-316-09135-9 (hc).
First edition 1993.

Page 63. Caption to photo reads:
Execution of Piotr Sosnowski, a Polish priest. Piasnica, Poland,
c. 1939. _Main Commission for the Investigation of Nazi War Crimes
in Poland, Warsaw, Poland._
______________

Father Sonowski is presented as a Catholic martyr of the Polish "Holocaust." He is said to have been executed in 1939 but, of course, no mention is ever made of the fact that there was a reason under martial law for his execution, either as a culprit himself, an inciter, or a hostage (I ignore which), in reply to the burning of some barns belonging to ethnic Germans.

I believe this photo may be a fake, for the following reasons: it shows a very unusual angle, with the photographer positioned too near the elbow of one of the shooters, hardly the sort of "artsy" effect you look for during a real shooting event; but mainly because it shows the two men being executed in their jackets, rather than in shirt sleeves. Not decisive, but a strong indication. Clearly, to make execution by rifle fire more effective, the normal thing to do is to order the victims to dress down to their shirts, to avoid the added protection of any coats, objects in pockets etc.. This is what one usually sees in real execution photos.
....

I'm reading up on the alleged "Massacres in Piaśnica" or Piasnitz:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Massacres_in_Pia%C5%9Bnica
I can follow your theory of photo fakery.
Image
And not forget the quality photos like this one
Image


But I wonder, if there were any execution as well from the German side. Could it be that ethnic Germans have been buried there. There is some hinting on the German wiki article on this:
http://de.wikipedia.org/wiki/Massaker_von_Pia%C5%9Bnica
Die Massaker von Piaśnica sind in Deutschland, aber, wie Piotr M. Majewski in der Zeit betont, auch in der polnischen Öffentlichkeit relativ unbekannt. Majewski führt dies unter anderem darauf zurück, dass Piaśnica ein kaschubischer Ort ist: „Das kommunistische Regime hatte kein Interesse daran, dass darüber gesprochen wird. Weil zu den Opfern von Piaśnica mehrheitlich Deutsche und Kaschuben gehörten, war es der kommunistischen Geschichtsschreibung nicht wichtig, daran zu erinnern.“ Barbara Bojarska, die in den 1970ern zu dem Thema forschte, wurde von der Stasi angehalten, ihre Arbeit nicht zu publizieren.[1]
Meaning that the victims were predominantly Germans and Kashubians + that the Communist had no interest in that massacre, I wonder why?

Also interesting, they found 305 corpses, but claim that more then 10.000 were shot by the Germans:
Die Massenexekutionen begannen im September/Oktober 1939 und dauerten bis April 1940. Eine Exhumierung der Massengräber wurde nach dem Zweiten Weltkrieg 1946 durchgeführt. Von der bekannten Anzahl von 35 Massengräbern wurden 30 gefunden und von diesen wurden 26 exhumiert. Einzig 305 Leichen in zwei Massengräbern wurden gefunden, der Rest der Leichen wurde von den Nationalsozialisten im August oder September 1944 im Auftrag der Verdeckung verbrannt. Für das Vertuschen der Massenmorde wurden Häftlinge vom KZ Stutthof eingesetzt und später umgebracht.
http://de.wikipedia.org/wiki/Massaker_von_Pia%C5%9Bnica
... Apparently the rest of the corpses has been blobeled away again.
The allegation that the Germans tried to "exterminate" the Kashubians is also made, well several German generals were of Kashubian ancestry, does that make sense?
So I guess there is some reason here for suspicion:
- Were the people buried there ethnic Germans and to cover that up later claims were made that those were "murdered Polish intelligensia"?
- Is it possible the site was used for executions of people murdering ethnic Germans and Partisans?
- The pictures used as proof all look suspicious blurry, fake or potentially mislabeled.
- The Communist refused to expose this matter, they probably had there reasons.
- The claims of more then 10.000 victims are fishy in the light of 305 corpses being exhumed.


Return to “'Holocaust' Debate / Controversies / Comments / News”

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: Lamprecht, MSN [Bot] and 11 guests