71 replies to this topic

[Karomesis]

We could ban the discussion of anything at all on that basis. Thousands of people a year are killed in automobile crashes. Should we ban the discussion of auto safety since relatives of car crash victims may object? You can find people that get upset and object to any given subject. Should any small group have a veto over what the rest of the public can talk about? How can anyone ban harmless behavior like speech and want to lock people up who violate the ban? People who want to ban speech they don't like are disgusting.

I underestimated you Xanadu, very well said. [thumb]

[stephenszpak]

xanadu wrote>

I see Stephen is up to the usual changing of the subject and attempts to inject emotionalism. No one has said that ww2 didn't occur or that the holocaust never happened. What is being questioned are the numbers and other so called facts. Save your hysterionics, you are only trying to impress the peanut gallery. We are talking about numbers, that's all.


Stephen wrote> The numbers aren't in question as far as I'm concerned.
I provided links with plenty statistics and facts. What is below
is from a link already provided in a previous post.
==================================================
Concerns: The killing of people through gas in the extermination and
concentrations camps under the Nazi power.

The systematic murdering of humans through gas during the Nazi rule
was introduced for the first time from January 1940 on in the area of the
"Euthanasia", the extermination of the "lives not worthy to live" of the
handicapped, mental patients and the terminally ill, and from fall 1941 on
was continued to a much larger extent by the pogroms of the operation
groups of the security police and the SD in the seized eastern areas with
the help of mobile gas vans.

Beginning December of 1941 one proceeded in the camp Kulmhof (Polish
Chelmno) to use stationary gas vans for the killing of Jews, and from the
beginning of 1942 in different camps fixed gas chambers were built, or
already existing buildings were restructured for this purpose.

One needs to differentiate by the furnishing of such gas chambers and
the gassing actions carried out within them between the mass gassings of
Jews in the extermination camps build for that purpose and the gassings of
smaller scale in individual, already existing concentration camps (whereby
patients, seized forced laborers, war prisoners, and political prisoners
among others were also victims)




The following extermination camps existed:

Kulmhof i.e. Chelmno (in the then Wartheland), where between December
1941 and fall 1942 and again from May until August 1944 gassings by means
of carbon monoxide from motor exhaust gas took place. Altogether more than
150,000 Jews as well as 5000 gypsies have hereby been killed.

Belzec (in the district Lublin of the then general governments): from
march to December 1942 in the beginning in three, later in six large gas
chambers by means of carbon monoxide from motor exhaust gas altogether
about 600,000 Jews were killed here.

Sobibor (district Lublin, general government) received in April 1942
three, later in September 1942 six gas chambers and until October 1943 it
was "in operation". During this period at least 200,000 Jews have been
murdered through carbon monoxide gas.

Treblinka (district Warschau, general government) from the end of July
1942 on had three gas chambers and received at the start of September 1942
furthermore ten larger gas chambers. Up to the dissolution of the camp in
November 1943 altogether 700,000 Jews were killed here by carbon monoxide.

Majdanek (district Lublin, general government): The concentration camp
existing since September 1941 turned into an extermination camp when
between April 1942 and November 1943 mass shootings took place to which
24,000 Jews fell victim. In October 1942 also two, later three gas chambers
were built. In the beginning the killings in these were done by means of
carbon monoxide, s> from cyan hydrogen). Up until the dissolution of the
camp in March 1944 about 50,000 Jews have been gassed.

Auschwitz-Birkenau (in the formerly polish, in 1939 adjoined to the
"Reich" upper eastern Silesian area, south eastern of Kattowitz): The
extermination camp in Birkenau, established in the second half of 1941, was
joined to the concentration camp Auschwitz, existing since May 1940. From
January 1942 on in five gas chambers and from the end of June 1943 in four
additional large gassing-rooms gassings with Zyklon B have been undertaken.
Up until November 1944 more than one million Jews and at least
4000 gypsies have been murdered by gas.

In the following concentration camps gas chambers were established and
have gone into operation:

Mauthausen (upper Austria): From fall 1941 on one gas chamber
existed which was operated with Zyklon B. In addition, gassings with
carbon monoxide took place through gas vans which were driven between
Mauthausen and its side-camp Gusen. Altogether more than 4000 have
been killed here through gas. Neuengamme (southeastern of Hamburg):
From fall of 1942 on gassings with Zyklon B were undertaken here in a
"Bunker" prepared for that, about 450 victims.

Sachsenhausen (Province Brandenburg, north of Berlin) received
mid March 1943 a gas chamber which was operated with Zyklon B. Several
thousand people fell victim to the gassings, a more specific number
cannot be determined.

Natzweiler (by Struthof, Elsass): From August 1943 to August 1944
a gas chamber existed here in which between 120 and 200 people were
killed through Zyklon B in order to be able to dissect their skeletons
for the Anatomica Institute of University of Strassburg. Back then
this institute was managed by a chief company commander of SS Prof.
Dr. August Hirt.

Stutthof (east of Danzig) had from June 1944 on one gas chamber
in which more than 1000 were killed by Zyklon B.

Ravensbruck (Bradenburg, north of Berlin): Here still in January
1945 a gas chamber was established; the number of the people killed
in it was at least 2300.

Dachau (Upper Bavaria, northeast of Munich): During the
establishment of a new house of cremation in 1942 also a gas chamber
was established in it in which in connection with the medical
experiments of the chief company commander of SS Dr. Rascher also a
few experimental gassings were undertaken, a> The Concentration Camp
Dachau. A study of the Nazi crimes of violence in Bavaria in the
NS-time II, edited by Martin Broszat and Elke Froehlich, Munich, R.
Oldenburg Press, 1979, P. 391.) Larger gassing operations have not
taken place in Dachau.

The above mentioned numbers of the people killed in the gas chambers
of the individual camps are only approximations. They also only refer to
the people killed in gassing operations. The number of the Jews killed in
Europe due to the effects of the Nazi tyranny amounts, according to the
newest research to at least 5.29 million. Possibly, however, also more than
six million.


http://www.mtsu.edu/...in/ifzfile.html

[xanadu]

And the proof of these statements is where? Stephen you are, as always, missing the whole point. The question is not whether lots of people died during the war, some of them jews. The question isn't even whether many jews were killed during the war or if they were cracked down on more severely than some other groups. The point of this thread is suppression of free speech. You want to bypass or ignore that point entirely because you know you are wrong. You seem to think that if you make some sort of emotional argument then you have carried the day.

Most people will reluctantly support the concept of free speech. They will then turn around and wink at suppression of that same free speech if it's used to suppress points of view they don't agree with. They seem to think they can put the genie back in the bottle and only use it against those they don't like. They don't imagine it will turn on them someday and take away their own rights. You can't take rights away from someone else without taking them away from yourself. That's why so many people hold their noses and defend the rights of repulsive groups to say what they will. As we progress more and more toward a police state, this principle seems to be swept aside and forgotten. We are becoming a nation of sheep following fascist leaders. Hitler would be proud to see his principles embraced by those who claim to despise him.

[biknut]

No one is questioning the right to free speech. Your desire to discuss this topic isn't about free speech is it? It's about how obnoxious you can be, to a group of people you don't like. You know this topic is a emotionally supercharged issue to Jewish people, and it's plain to see from your twisted writing that you hate Jews.

Jewish people please stop reading now because what I'm about to say to this troll will be very hurtful to you.






The difference between all the people Hitler killed and the Jews is, he was trying to genocide the Jews. Hitler made fucking lamp shades out of the Jews. I've never heard of a god damn homo lamp shade, but you talk like you're bucking for the position of first one.

You have no tact.

What you're doing is like burning the flag. It's legal, but not nice to people that died defending it, and their relatives.

The bad thing about free speech is it allows any asshole to run his mouth no matter how obnoxious he wants to be.

The good thing about free speech, just like the sword of justice, is it cuts both ways. How do you like it when it's directed at you?

[drus]

I do not live in Germany, but I would be against this law. Freedom of Speech is a good thing and a necessary ingredient for true freedom. I do however acknowledge that it is a right that is often abused to an almost intolerable degree!

[xanadu]

drus, how would we decide when someone was abusing their freedom to an "intolerable degree"? I think the determining factor is when the alleged abuse results in harm to others. To peacefully demonstrate is something that most would say is OK, even vital for freedom to exist. If we can't express our disatisfaction with the actions of authorities, we have tyranny. If the demonstration involves destruction of private property or assaulting those with a different point of view, clearly this is an abuse and should be corrected. The remedy is not to ban all demonstrations simply because a few take advantage of the situation to commit crimes, the remedy is to allow peaceful expression and stop or punish criminal actions.

What if we are talking about not demonstrations but simply speech, perhaps speech over the internet or over a glass of beer in a cafe? Clearly this is basicly harmless but could be abused to some degree. People could crash the discussion to harrass and libel those who have views they don't like. This could be taken care of by those involved. The bartender could toss out loudmouths who are clearly abusing people. What about those who express views that others find offensive? That gets into a grey area and a sticky thicket. If I say Joe Brown is a mother f-ker, SOB, #@%&! and so on, that would be libel and would be covered under existing laws and regulations regarding libel and harrassment. If I say Joe Brown commited a crime and here is the evidence, then it's more of a discussion without the schoolyard insults and taunts. So it is with social issues.

I may have a fanatical view that Ireland should be free and anyone who has an opposite point of view is wrong. I may say I am offended and hurt if someone expresses those contrary views. I may say my parents died for the cause and anyone who says something different is insulting their memory. Is that sufficient cause to stop people from disagreeing with me? No, because they are not libeling or harrassing me by expressing their views in a peaceful way. I think most people can see the difference. To say Ireland should stay part of Great Brittain is peacefully expressing an opinion. If I am offended by that, it's my problem, not theirs. Likewise, to say England is commiting a crime by keeping Ireland bound may be a radical point of view that some others are offended by, but it's basicly social commentary and should be permitted.

[Karomesis]

I may have a fanatical view that Ireland should be free and anyone who has an opposite point of view is wrong.

I have opinions on the matter as well, but as in all things the weak are oppressed by the strong and in politics as well as war, might makes right.

empires come and go, and it is usually the strongest one of this or that period that decrees which "morals" are just and what is inherently right or wrong. as the times change so do the fickle human sentiments which accompany them.

[jaydfox]

What is being questioned are the numbers and other so called facts. Save your hysterionics, you are only trying to impress the peanut gallery. We are talking about numbers, that's all.

Yeah, but you said the number was in the thousands. Even tweaking around with the available evidence, you can't get it down to thousands, unless you quote numbers like 3,125,000 as "three thousand, one hundred twenty-five thousdands". Let me let you in on a little secret: you're not in the peanut gallery. You're not in the choir, if that's your preferred metaphor.

Could the actual number have been a little less than 6 million? Sure? A lot less? I mean, yeah, I suppose it could have been 4 or 5 million. I haven't reviewed all the evidence myself, so I don't know how they went about the complicated task of adding up all the estimates, hard and soft, with their various variances, to come up with the final number.

But let's be honest here: for you, this isn't about whether it's okay to say that the real number was less than 6 million, even if only slightly less. Your language makes clear that this isn't your intent, even if you vainly attempt to claim it is.

[drus]

Xanadu, we are not at odds, I generally agree with you. My point was that people should exercise tact, temperance and thoughtfulness with their opinions, that's all. Please don't think I'm directing this at you because I'm not. I have my own opinions on the matter in question that I would rather not share. However, it is possible to abuse this right to an almost intolerable degree IN MY OPINION. For example when rap music glorifies rape and murder or some other entertainment medium desensitizes people to the suffering of others or appeals to basic animal instincts to sell their products and then claims this right of free speech as a defense. These are examples that I'm talking about. Words can do just as much damage as guns and in some ways are actually more powerful!

[xanadu]

drus, you have a point and I see people all the time who abuse their freedom of speech. I happen to think rap is crap and have no use for it. But, I would not favor a law that restricted or banned rap or anything else. No one is forcing me to listen to it, except for morons with boom cars that blare it out the windows at stoplights. I think that should be banned. Let the fools pay all their money to listen to it if they like. If we ban rap because it's garbage then someone can ban good music. It's the precedent you have to be careful of. That's the point that everyone seems to miss. The point is not whether the correct number is 6 mill, 1 mill or 20,000. The point is that if you allow the bastards to ban certain speech or points of view, that sets a precedent which can be used to ban any point of view. This allows the powers that be to ban protests. Bush himself has done this and people who peacefully wore a T shirt at a place where he was present were arrested and jailed. The charges are usually dropped but the person then has an arrest record and was denied their rights under our first amendment.

A few people see the point but 90% seem to think it either has to do with whether the records are correct or not or it has to do with whether certain groups might object or not. I think I see now how dictator wannabes like Bush get away with so much crap. People simply do not understand the concept of freedom. They think they can restrict the freedom of other people and remain free themselves. It does not work that way. When you see someone being oppressed, when you see their freedom taken away arbitrarily, you should speak up and defend them otherwise your own freedom is going to be lost. This is the principle behind the actions of groups like the ACLU. They do not agree with nazis or the kkk but they defend their rights simply because in doing so they defend all our rights. The pinheads say "how can you defend nazis?" never realising that if the authorities can put them down, they can put down anyone they wish.

That is the point behind all this and I'm glad a few people see it. Too bad the rest don't.

[drus]

We are generally in agreement. However, no person is an island unto themselves and I see social responsibility as just as important as constitutional rights and privledges. It's just sad that human selfishness is winning over our compassion for each other. I wonder what the founding fathers would think about America over the past 60-70yrs? I'm willing to bet they would be horrified! I wonder if freedom should be given to those who abuse it?

Edited by drus, 25 January 2007 - 12:00 AM.

[lucid]

No one has said that ww2 didn't occur or that the holocaust never happened.

Well actually some people have questioned whether the holocaust happened at all. A french Professor Faurisson was put on trial for teaching students that the holocaust didn't happen.

biknut,
There is something called harassment:
In societies which support free speech, only the more repetitive, persistent and untruthful types of speech qualify legally as harassment. -wiki

So, basically you have to be a strong enough person to be able to listen to something once. On the other hand, If someone follows you around saying something to offend you after you ask them to stop, you can have them arrested.

People can be offended by just about anything. Some people are seriously offended by me saying "God damn"... Of course I feel its a pretty benign phrase. Should it be illegal to say 'God Damn'?

This is why we have harassment laws. Actual speech content control like Germany's law is ultimately not used to keep people from offending others, but rather it is more along the lines of thought control. Free speech is the cornerstone of any society that I want to live in.