Conspiraloon 9/11- 7/7 Truther outed as Holocaust denier
- Thread starter Badger Kitten
- Start date
fogbat
The Talibum
Trouble is, that the more we disagree, the more we pander to his truth-seeking martyr fantasies
And, if it's remotely relevant, this is from someone who's never met Jazzz, but when we're not discussing 9/11, alt-medicine etc, has found him to be pleasant, knowledgable and helpful on urban75.
pk
drink flounce rinse repeat
That's the saddest aspect IMO. He's a nice guy. Just easily led.
8den
No I'm pretty sure that was 8ball...
Just so we're clear, you can't condemn Jazzz if you joined three years after butchers.
What?
Apparently I didn't read the FAQ? According to butchers you can't give someone shit who signed up before you.
hey butchers don't you need to go to cops?
TWAT.
Yeah, for example, I've managed to get RTE the Irish national broadcaster to cancel broadcasting loose change, and I helped cancel a David Ray Griffin talk on the 11th Sept 2007. Oh and as an aside remember "Architect" who kicked Jazzz's arse? I invited him here.
Of course as someone who "kick's truther ass". You'd be a member and aware of the JREFs.
But no sure you've been winning arguments on the internet. Gosh I am once again in awe of your talents and abilities. Wow. you are all powerful.
Y_I_Otter
Dangerous Terroirist
Not to put too fine a point on it, he was the senior SS official whose express duty it was to overeee the transport of large ethnic populations across Europe.
Y_I_Otter
Dangerous Terroirist
"Many" Americans believe Elvis is alive.
That's where the problem arises. The kind of people who refer to the Holocaust as a 'myth' or 'hoax' also believe Jews-- religious, cultural or biological-- constitute an elite, part of a vast plan to decieve and enslave, with world domination as their ultimate goal. "Holocaust skeptics", to a man, especially those you're likely to encounter online, are of this mindset. All of them.
I'll just say this about Kollerstrom and then maybe I'll back off, since you seem to have your hands full here. What I'm sensing from this fellow is the unquestioning righteousness of the newly-converted. I can tell you that with a bit of authority because I've been following the arguments of Holocaust deniers in some detail since the second Zündel trial of 1988. The man you're defending is such a n00b that he's basically following along the whole denier Via Trollerosa, genuflecting at each time-worn, oft-demolished station on it. If it can be said that there's such a thing as "mainstream Holocaust denial" his death toll is on the very looniest of fringes.
Ask him where he's getting his numbers. I bet you dollars to donuts he references a website and not a book. I can pretty much tell you what sites he's going to point to and they're all of them virulently antisemitic in nature.
beesonthewhatnow
going deaf for a living
I don't think that you do.
What I don't understand is why you are defending him.
So, answer the very simple multiple choice question asked by butchers.
a, b or c.
Dillinger4
Es gibt Zeit
Its all about patterns of thought.
ViolentPanda
Hardly getting over it.
He isn't "spouting nonsense", he's using his academic credentials to give credibility to historical revisionism that isn't borne out by the historical record, all the while (if you've bothered to read the thread and the links therein properly) promoting an anti-semitism-tainted worldview.
Of course free speech matters, but so does the context in which it is used.
Myself, I'll happily fight to my last breath to shout down and strike down those who peddle Judaeophobia, claim that a genocide that killed some of my ancestors didn't happen (whether we're talking of the holocaust or of the Ukrainian famine instigated by Stalin) or otherwise promote falsehood, because if I didn't, I wouldn't respect myself.
cesare
shady's dreams ♥
And this is the heart of the matter. The conspiracy theorists say that Zionists are the elite, that the Zionists are secretly controlling the world. The fascists now justify the holocaust as a mistake by saying it was all done on the basis of the Protocols of Zion i.e. the Zionists are to blame.
Both the conspiracy theorists and the fascists attempt to convince us (and themselves) that Zionists don't equal Jews so therefore anything done against the Zionists isn't anti-semitic.
And now, that's why I understand why every conspiracy theory site that I have looked at over the past few days is directly linked to, or just 2 clicks away from hardcore fascist sites.
ViolentPanda
Hardly getting over it.
I assume then that your great-grandfather married a British Jew, or that one of his descendants converted?
He may not be an anti-semite" (a contestable term), but some of his claims reek of Judaeophobia.
That would depend on the context of the claims, as I'm sure a bright chap like you already knows.
Again, that would depend on the context. Simply lining up a series of contestable subjects without explaining the context makes you appear a bit of a twit, Jazzz.
I wasn't aware that anyone had claimed that Mr. Kollerstrom himself was evil.
Whether there is an error of logic is dependent on context, wouldn't you say?
Hmm, you need to re-read the quotes from him that have been posted on this thread.
You usually do it so well yourself.
ViolentPanda
Hardly getting over it.
He's luckier than most to actual have any visual reminders.
goslings posted up a message saying anyone mentioning the holocaust on the truthers board will be banned with the amusing title
Mossad trick - Link 9/11 Truth to Holocaust denial
Oh good god.
OK time to take my boot out of my mouth on this one.
It's because of the direct association between these people and the term "conspiracy theory / theorist" I get so aggravated. I guess the people I'm thinking of who are sincerely seeking "9/11 truth" are also people who don't frequent those boards where it becomes one unchallenged mutual masturbation circle.
It is my contention that there remain serious problems with the official 9/11 narrative; and many aspects that were not satisfactorily investigated, if not obfuscated right from the start.
It is also my contention that there are other crucial issues and stories that themselves qualify as "conspiracy theories" where there is very good reason and evidence to take them seriously. However, because the opprobrium attracted to not just the term, but the very idea, either the issue is dismissed out of hand, or insufficient attention is given to it for any kind of public outrage, exposure and investigation to take place. By the time something like this is "officially" endorsed as having actually happened it is usually too late to stop it, the damage is done etc etc.
The issue mentioned earlier, about "far-right" (in quotations because there is good reason to suppose in some cases that it isn't just bona fide 'far-right' infiltrators but also those on govt payrolls) elements infiltrating the greens (and left radical groups also) is, to my mind a conspiracy theory; or at least in danger of becoming one if there are ever any occurrences that are blamed on such infiltration without completely solid proof. I agree there is evidence, and good reason to suppose that this occurs, yet rarely is it proof positive. Indeed I have seen an instance of this kind of infiltration happen first hand in Sheffield.
Because of the fear of being associated with the term "conspiracy" however, it's difficult to make any kind of rational progress in either discussing or investigating any such an issue. And pretending that what you're talking about isn't remotely "conspiracy" like simply clouds the issue.
beesonthewhatnow
going deaf for a living
goslings posted up a message saying anyone mentioning the holocaust on the truthers board will be banned with the amusing title
Mossad trick - Link 9/11 Truth to Holocaust denial
Fucks sake
ViolentPanda
Hardly getting over it.
That's generally the case with any large-scale crisis, in that Capital and political and power elites seek to protect themselves and their power-base. That doesn't, however, give people licence to interpolate their fantasies with an/the "official" narrative and from that conclude that x, y or z occurred
The problem with many conspiracy theories is that rather than being analysed by "conspiracy theorists" as unitary events and occurrences, they are almost always analysed through a lens that magnifies them as part of a web connected to other conspiracies, in effect leading to a reductio ad absurdum conclusion that necessarily views the occurrence as part of a conspiracy.
This isn't to say that conspiracies aren't real, but that viewing them as part of a continuum of interconnected conspiratorial behaviour on the part of power misses the point of challenging real "obfuscation" and the like.
How many "conspiracy theorists" do you know who subscribe to a single theory, rather than buying into the whole shebang of connected CTs?
Wilf
Slouching towards Billingham
And in doing that they end up with the stupidest theory of power ever launched. As well as (to state the obvious) stopping everyone else having a legitimate debate about the ways in which government does conspire with 'elites'. As well as not understanding the concept of power, they also fail to understand what an elite is and even - their specialist subject - what a conspiracy is. Not much fucking hope for them is there.
chico enrico
No hair shows you care.
jazzz, is your answer to the very simple yes/no question folks have been trying to extract from you any closer now you've had over 12 hours to 'sleep on it' ?
you realise if this was real life and you were deliberately refusing to answer butchersapron's quesion above you would have got a few healthy slaps by now? that's the sort of shit you're getting into by sitting on the fence, boy.
you realise if this was real life and you were deliberately refusing to answer butchersapron's quesion above you would have got a few healthy slaps by now? that's the sort of shit you're getting into by sitting on the fence, boy.
I agree with your second sentence.
I am interested however in how you fully distinguish these things. To my mind, to say that, for example, large scale power/monopolies seek to protect themselves and their power-base is, however reasonable, to still state a conspiracy theory of sorts, unless you're using a hidden premise to make a distinction between conspiracy/non-conspiracy (e.g. that to count as 'conspiracy' it has to be hidden from view somehow?). This isn't a hostile challenge - I'm seeking clarification on what you mean as I think you and I would classify many of these issues differently.
TBH I'm thinking very much in terms of singular events. I see your point about erroneous 'web-like' associations. Unfortunately in some cases, there is some kind of web-like pattern to be found. Sibel Edmonds is a very worrying and I would argue, credible, instance of this.
My worry is though VP that if people are mentally unable to consider something as a 'conspiracy' (let's for arguments sake, refer to only 'unitary' (i.e. non-web like) instances), through the bollocks and derision now associated with the word, then it impedes any efforts to actually investigate (and maybe even stop) active and actual conspiracies.
I guess this is the rub. I encounter a lot of people who investigate x, y and z with integrity and competence, but don't self-identify as a conspiracy theorist per se despite the fact that what they are investigating is clearly some kind of conspiracy. This might not seem anything to be concerned about, however look at it this way: there's a perceptible shift from people simply not wanting to be associated with "conspiracy theories/theorists" to the automatic assumption that "conspiracy" itself is absurd. And, as I've said earlier, there's a corresponding reluctance to help investigate or take seriously anything with such an (erroneous) association.
In answer to your question, I'd consider myself and some of my friends as people who fit your first criterion with the addendum that there are several theories that any one of us may be looking at or investigating that aren't necessarily considered to be part of a coherent 'web', but each topics of interest in their own right. (For example, I've spent the last three months compiling and linking everything I can on the Sibel Edmonds story, especially on the relatively ignored UK connections; similarly a friend of mine wrote an excellent summary detailing the influence of various so-called "occult" groups in politics - I might still have an electronic version of this book if you would like a copy btw).
There is no such thing as a 'healthy slap'. That's a disgraceful thing to say.
8den
No I'm pretty sure that was 8ball...
Would you care to explain what a low level FBI translator hired six months after Sept 11th has, that she hasn't bothered to make public in eight years?
KeyboardJockey
Clowns to the Left of me
First of all I'm uncomfortable with the 'healthy slaps' idea but by the by.
Normally I find that sitting on the fence is a good way of seeing further than those on either side.
However, in this situation I place my self firmly against the loonspuds who are peddling Holocaust denial and mixing it up with the bonkers CT's around 911 7/7 etc.
Jazz, there are many things that can be excused but not condemning Holocaust denial for fear that it may remove a leg from an already crumbling table laden with CT nonsense is not one of them. Have your CT's by all means (and my personal opinion is that there are unanswered questions but I reckon they are cock up rather then conspiracy) but be aware that there are people out there in CT world who hold pretty skanky views.
Don't defend the Holocaust denying loon just condemn them. Its not mob rule, its not caving into what the state wants you to think, its not whatever sort of reason its just plain fucking decency to call a Holocaust denying fuckwit a Holocaust denying fuckwit.
Sometimes its the people that CT's associate with which is their own worst enemy.
A, B or C, whenever you're ready.
Sure.
First she wasn't hired six months after Sept 11th, she was in fact hired nine days after. Where did you get six months from?
Second, as to the claim "she hasn't bothered", she tried bringing her evidence to light in early 2002, first through internal official channels (within the FBI), which resulted in her being sacked (and the subsequent investigation by the Office of the Inspector General supported her claim that she was sacked because of her allegations).
She then tried to go through external official channels, taking legal action and gaining substantial official support from senators and pressure groups. Ashcroft then applied the 'State Secrets Privilege' and she was legally gagged. He then took the unprecedented step of retroactively classifying everything related to her case. Congress itself was prevented, under the same 'State Secrets Privilege' from even referring to her case.
It's taken her this long to get even a whiff of mainstream media interest - the Sunday Times is assuredly her most high profile exposure yet. Despite this there has been no more movement on her case, either in the media, or via the legal system and it's back in the doldrums. Quite incredible given the circumstances.
frogwoman
No amount of cajolery...
yeah i agree, the "healthy slaps" shit is out of order.
i avoided getting involved in this thread because jazzz is a mate of mine and i like him a lot, but the fact is jazzz you cannot defend nazis' and holocaust deniers, and as has been pointed out to you before by me and others, there are unfortunately a large number of people who believe in a Jewish conspiracy or they use people's legitimate questions about 9/11 (and I agree with you that there are some VERY dodgy things about it, even if my conclusions aren't the same as yours, necessarily) for their own ends.
it is frequently used to fuel propaganda against the jews. Not zionists. Jews.
forget what they say about "zionism" - it's pretty obvious when the word "zionism" is being used to refer to itself and when it is used to refer to Jews in general.
and this type of shit plays into the hands of people who would like to see any criticism of Israel and the zionist lobby labelled as anti-semites, because they know how repellent this stuff appears.
the fact is that this guy denies the holocaust and views it as a "zionist" plot. you cannot excuse it. you cannot justify it in anyway.
There are legitimate questions about the holocaust that I agree need to be asked. Yes there is evidence that SOME Jewish groups did collude with Nazis because either - they didnt really know what the Nazis were and regarded teh British as more their enemy in Palestine, and regarded establishing a totalitarian dictatorship in Israel as their ultimate goal.
And yes some Jews lived relatively untrobuled lives (my mates family was one of them) in Germany largely due to luck or circumstance. There were a few isolated cases of half Jewish people working in Nazi offices who were secular and didn't consider themselves Jewish. Had the war continued they would eventually have been next, despite the fact they escaped the Nazi bureaucracy.
Hitler's goal was to kill every Jew in the world. By the end of the war he'd killed about a third of the Jews in Europe.
And yes the fact that the profiteering activities of wealthy bankers and businessmen, some of them were Jewish, soe weren't, attracted a huge degree of resentment which led to Hitler's rise, but it was depicted as a Jewish plot in Nazi propaganda, helped gain support for the Nazis, needs to be discussed.
As does Dresden, the treaty of Versailles, the expulsion of millions of German refugees after the war, the fact that innocent German women were raped in their thousands as part of a deliberate policy when the Soviets occupied the country at the end of the war and, all the pre-war injustices against Germany that led to a perfect environment for someone like Hitler to take advantage. This stuff must be recognised without anyone accusing the person who raises it of anti-semitism or trying to "downplay the holocaust".
But this is not the same as denying the holocaust or blaming its victims for it in any way. JEWS WERE NOT TO BLAME. Zionists were not to blame either - they can be blamed for many, many other things, but NOT the holocaust. They may have colluded but they were NOT RESPONSIBLE FOR IT.
THE FASH WERE TO BLAME.
I personally think that if anything, the numbers killed in the holocaust were higher than what we're led to believe - and certainly it has been in the interests of many countries who colluded with Germany, like Austria and Romania, to downplay their role in it, downplay the numbers killed, and blame it all on Germany when those countries were quite happy to go along with the "evil Germans". The Romanian Nazi party took power and began a final solution of its own completely independently of Germany, which fought on the same side as it but never occupied it.
The Channel Islands, too - look at the Jews were deported from there, giving the lie to the fact that "Britain was standing alone against the Nazis". Like fuck it was. Denmark and Albania saved more people on their soil than the British did on theirs when it was occupied.
And for a long time it was denied that gypsies were the victims of a concerted extermination campaign like the Jews were. Why? Becuase the leaders of countries, especially in Eastern Europe, had a vested interest in denying the gypsies' plight. If they didn't, questions might have been asked about the policies of discrimination that were still in existence towards them and the fact that in many Eastern European countries they still live in ghetto like conditions.
And then there are things like Jasenovac and the atrocities of the croatian ustasha, which everyone "forgets" about. Why? Again because certain people have a vested interest in pretending it never happened or not mentioning it at all. Its easy to tell why that is, if you think about it!!
I suspect that the numbers killed in the holocaust are a lot higher than the official figures, NOT lower. I really do.
There is indisputable evidence of mass murder, gas chambers, trucks used to gas people, mass burial pits and many other horrors. They are still uncovering mass graves in Eastern Europe - the last one was a few years ago. And people want to deny it because they have political motives for doing so, because they think the holocaust was right, or because they think that anything "the west" says is bad was good or didn't happen at all - even though the USA was thinking of entering the war on Germany's side and people like Anthony Eden refused to let Jews into Britain during the war!! only a fucking cunt would deny the evidence of mass murder that is right in front of them and evidence that is covered up when it applies to certain groups, and which many governments refuse to recognise happened at all ...
Its not the same as questioning 9/11 don't you see that? Its not a harmless thing to do ! It's denying the murder of millions of innocent people for being Jews, homosexuals, Russians etc by the fash - if you deny that then you are saying that the fash weren't as bad as we all know they are. there is no reason to deny the holocaust apart from that.......................
i avoided getting involved in this thread because jazzz is a mate of mine and i like him a lot, but the fact is jazzz you cannot defend nazis' and holocaust deniers, and as has been pointed out to you before by me and others, there are unfortunately a large number of people who believe in a Jewish conspiracy or they use people's legitimate questions about 9/11 (and I agree with you that there are some VERY dodgy things about it, even if my conclusions aren't the same as yours, necessarily) for their own ends.
it is frequently used to fuel propaganda against the jews. Not zionists. Jews.
forget what they say about "zionism" - it's pretty obvious when the word "zionism" is being used to refer to itself and when it is used to refer to Jews in general.
and this type of shit plays into the hands of people who would like to see any criticism of Israel and the zionist lobby labelled as anti-semites, because they know how repellent this stuff appears.
the fact is that this guy denies the holocaust and views it as a "zionist" plot. you cannot excuse it. you cannot justify it in anyway.
There are legitimate questions about the holocaust that I agree need to be asked. Yes there is evidence that SOME Jewish groups did collude with Nazis because either - they didnt really know what the Nazis were and regarded teh British as more their enemy in Palestine, and regarded establishing a totalitarian dictatorship in Israel as their ultimate goal.
And yes some Jews lived relatively untrobuled lives (my mates family was one of them) in Germany largely due to luck or circumstance. There were a few isolated cases of half Jewish people working in Nazi offices who were secular and didn't consider themselves Jewish. Had the war continued they would eventually have been next, despite the fact they escaped the Nazi bureaucracy.
Hitler's goal was to kill every Jew in the world. By the end of the war he'd killed about a third of the Jews in Europe.
And yes the fact that the profiteering activities of wealthy bankers and businessmen, some of them were Jewish, soe weren't, attracted a huge degree of resentment which led to Hitler's rise, but it was depicted as a Jewish plot in Nazi propaganda, helped gain support for the Nazis, needs to be discussed.
As does Dresden, the treaty of Versailles, the expulsion of millions of German refugees after the war, the fact that innocent German women were raped in their thousands as part of a deliberate policy when the Soviets occupied the country at the end of the war and, all the pre-war injustices against Germany that led to a perfect environment for someone like Hitler to take advantage. This stuff must be recognised without anyone accusing the person who raises it of anti-semitism or trying to "downplay the holocaust".
But this is not the same as denying the holocaust or blaming its victims for it in any way. JEWS WERE NOT TO BLAME. Zionists were not to blame either - they can be blamed for many, many other things, but NOT the holocaust. They may have colluded but they were NOT RESPONSIBLE FOR IT.
THE FASH WERE TO BLAME.
I personally think that if anything, the numbers killed in the holocaust were higher than what we're led to believe - and certainly it has been in the interests of many countries who colluded with Germany, like Austria and Romania, to downplay their role in it, downplay the numbers killed, and blame it all on Germany when those countries were quite happy to go along with the "evil Germans". The Romanian Nazi party took power and began a final solution of its own completely independently of Germany, which fought on the same side as it but never occupied it.
The Channel Islands, too - look at the Jews were deported from there, giving the lie to the fact that "Britain was standing alone against the Nazis". Like fuck it was. Denmark and Albania saved more people on their soil than the British did on theirs when it was occupied.
And for a long time it was denied that gypsies were the victims of a concerted extermination campaign like the Jews were. Why? Becuase the leaders of countries, especially in Eastern Europe, had a vested interest in denying the gypsies' plight. If they didn't, questions might have been asked about the policies of discrimination that were still in existence towards them and the fact that in many Eastern European countries they still live in ghetto like conditions.
And then there are things like Jasenovac and the atrocities of the croatian ustasha, which everyone "forgets" about. Why? Again because certain people have a vested interest in pretending it never happened or not mentioning it at all. Its easy to tell why that is, if you think about it!!
I suspect that the numbers killed in the holocaust are a lot higher than the official figures, NOT lower. I really do.
There is indisputable evidence of mass murder, gas chambers, trucks used to gas people, mass burial pits and many other horrors. They are still uncovering mass graves in Eastern Europe - the last one was a few years ago. And people want to deny it because they have political motives for doing so, because they think the holocaust was right, or because they think that anything "the west" says is bad was good or didn't happen at all - even though the USA was thinking of entering the war on Germany's side and people like Anthony Eden refused to let Jews into Britain during the war!! only a fucking cunt would deny the evidence of mass murder that is right in front of them and evidence that is covered up when it applies to certain groups, and which many governments refuse to recognise happened at all ...
Its not the same as questioning 9/11 don't you see that? Its not a harmless thing to do ! It's denying the murder of millions of innocent people for being Jews, homosexuals, Russians etc by the fash - if you deny that then you are saying that the fash weren't as bad as we all know they are. there is no reason to deny the holocaust apart from that.......................
Similar threads
