The National Forum   Donate   Your Account   On Line Opinion   Forum   Blogs   Polling   About   
The Forum - On Line Opinion's article discussion area



Syndicate
RSS/XML


RSS 2.0

Main Articles General

Sign In      Register

The Forum > Article Comments > UN Security Council moves to end anonymity on Internet > Comments

UN Security Council moves to end anonymity on Internet : Comments

By David Singer, published 19/5/2016

The use of the Internet as a communications tool has been fuelled by the anonymity afforded to those who use it – enabling all kinds of hate and incitement to be spewed out daily.

  1. Pages:
  2. 1
  3. 2
  4. 3
  5. ...
  6. 12
  7. 13
  8. 14
  9. Page 15
  10. 16
  11. All
//whether deaths were from typhus, or starvation (due to supply lines cut nearing the end of the war) or gas chambers//

They were from all three causes, but the majority were from the gas chambers.

In his affidavit made at Nuremberg on 5 April 1946, Rudolf Höss, commandant of Auschwitz betwwn 4 May 1940 and 1 December 1943, and again from 8 May 1944 to 18 January 1945 stated:

"I commanded Auschwitz until 1 December 1943, and estimate that at least 2,500,000 victims were executed and exterminated there by gassing and burning, and at least another half million succumbed to starvation and disease, making a total of about 3,000,000 dead....when I set up the extermination building at Auschwitz, I used Zyklon B, which was a crystallized prussic acid which we dropped into the death chamber from a small opening. It took from 3-15 minutes to kill the people in the death chamber, depending upon climatic conditions. We knew when the people were dead because their screaming stopped."

Höss was there, running the place. I think he'd probably have a better idea of what took place than some nutty conspiracy theorists who weren't even alive at the time.

//for which there seems to be no residue of Zyclon B detected on the walls//

Do you have a reliable source for this claim, or is it just some hearsay you picked up somewhere and didn't apply critical analysis to? Is this claim going to turn out to be another Aaron Russo interview? Have you not learnt your lesson about believing hearsay from unreliable sources?
Posted by Toni Lavis, Friday, 10 June 2016 9:21:01 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
//I don't even need to question these other things I just mentioned above, as simply presenting a list of the facilities at Auschwitz would be enough in itself to create doubt to the question of whether the place was built as a death camp//

No, it really wouldn't.

If you are interested in looking further into these matters, I'd suggest you try and track down a copy of Höss's autobiography, written while he was awaiting execution. You might also like to check out 'Auschwitz: Technique and operation of the gas chambers' by Jean-Claude Pressac. That second one might not be as easy to find, but you shouldn't have too much trouble getting hold of Höss's autobiography.
Posted by Toni Lavis, Friday, 10 June 2016 9:21:32 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Dear David,

I am glad that we agree that "Arab-hatred by some Jews does exist and needs to be stamped out - as does Jew-hatred among Arabs."

I have read the article I quoted in full and clearly it is not an official Israeli policy to incite blind hatred of Arabs.

In practice, however, we cannot say that these are just a few bad apples because it is too common within the "national-religious" education system and some influential Rabbis even advocate killing Arabs. While the state of Israel cannot officially and openly allow this, it often overtly allows it to continue: http://www.jpost.com/National-News/A-G-Torat-Hamelech-authors-will-not-be-indicted

For the contents of the book "Torat Hamelech", see http://maxblumenthal.com/2011/07/inside-torat-hamelech-the-jewish-extremist-terror-tract

A quote from that book:
"When discussing the killing of babies and children - why on the one hand, we see them as complete innocents, as they have no knowledge, and therefore are not to be sentenced for having violated the Seven Laws, and they are not to be ascribed evil intent. But on the other side, there is great fear of their actions when they grow up… in any event, we learn that there is an opinion that it is right to hurt infants if it is clear that they will grow up to harm us, and in such a situation the damage will be directed specifically at them."

---

Dear Critic,

You can state whatever views you have, but it is unreasonable that the Jewish boycott of Germany contributed in any way to Hitler's persecution of the Jews. More likely, without the boycott, Hitler would have accelerated and brought forward the schedule of persecution and extermination of Jews. Like other bullies, Hitler was known for admiring strength and had more respect for an opponent who resists than for one who doesn't. As an indication, contemporary Dutch neo-Nazis like and admire Jews because they consider them to have passed the test of survival, concluding that their race, following their victory in WWII and the formation of Israel, is "even superior to the Aryans".
Posted by Yuyutsu, Friday, 10 June 2016 11:10:37 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Hey Toni,
I don't want to make the mistake of taking my discussion in a direction I don't want it to go.

What I want to say in regards my last comment about the Holocaust is that I'm not specifically arguing for the right to criticise Jewish people based upon war crimes committed against them in WWII.
For all the criticisms of Israel I could lay out this would be the last thing I'd be interested in.
The only reason I brought it up because it sets a precedent of what is and isn't acceptable speech.
I'll return to this topic after I finish laying out what I originally started.

Example 3 Right to Exist
I deny your 'right to exist' on planet earth... I deny your 'right to exist' in my backyard...
Two very different statements.

If someone said they deny my 'right to exist' on planet earth that might be a little bit discriminatory and unfair.
But if they said they deny my 'right to exist' in their backyard it might be a fair and reasonable statement.
So saying that you deny someone the 'right to exist' doesn't necessary mean you want them all dead.

From a legal perspective I can see how Israel's failure to state its borders is an issue.
If Palestinians say 'We accept your right to exist. What are your borders?
Then of course Israel can say its borders are whatever it wants.
It's like those disclaimers when you download software. "You agreed."

So until Israel states it's borders, all Palestinians can do is deny Israel's 'right to exist' on land it considers it's backyard which is what the whole argument is about.
Seems all fair and above board to me.
What about the Palestinians 'right to exist'?

Israel plays upon the idea of genocide and the Holocaust to constantly reinforce the idea that it's the victim.

David argues Jordon is Palestine and that Palestinians should go back there so is he not in the very same way denying Palestinians right to exist on the land previously known prior to 1947 as Palestine?
Posted by Armchair Critic, Saturday, 11 June 2016 10:37:20 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Example 4 Criticism of Israeli Government

Are you saying this is not a reasonable example of when a government should be criticised?
http://www.theguardian.com/world/2015/jun/11/israel-clears-military-gaza-beach-children
Is mentioning this 'Anti-Semitic' or 'Hate Speech' or is it fair criticism?
How does a country exonerate itself of deliberately blowing kids up on a beach?
Was it the rockets fault? Did it launch itself?

What about this?
http://www.presstv.ir/Detail/2016/05/18/466163/Israel-West-Bank-Ettinger-Palestinians-Christians
Is this not worthy of criticism?
What if North Korea or Russia or Iran or even Australia did this?
Should we not talk about it because it might be Anti-North Korean, Anti-Russian, Anti-Iranian or Anti-Australian?
It's unrealistic.

Example 5 Criticism of Jewish religion

http://www.haaretz.com/jewish/adl-slams-shas-spiritual-leader-for-saying-non-jews-were-born-to-serve-jews-1.320235

Is posting that link or criticising this religious leaders views considered 'Anti-Semitic' or 'Hate Speech'? If so why?
We have the right to question and criticise Islam don't we?
Their treatment of gays and inequality to women are obvious examples.
Why should one be 'permitted speech' and the other 'hate speech'?
Posted by Armchair Critic, Saturday, 11 June 2016 10:50:10 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Example 6 Opinions and Arguments

I've made the comment before that Israel brings its problems on itself.
David claims that this comment is 'Anti-Semitic' and 'Hate Speech', but is it an unfair statement?

I have already substantiated my argument that Jews/Zionists provoked Hitler prior to WWII and for this they were singled out.
I can substantiate the argument that Israel provoked the native Palestinians in 1947 based on the story of Naeim Gilardi.
http://www.bintjbeil.com/E/occupation/ameu_iraqjews.html
So it's a fair statement to hold an opinion that Jews/Zionists/Israel has indeed brought their/it's problems on itself.

Summary:
Now we can now put all this into a context.
What happens if we agree to laws that make it illegal to support non-violent forms of protest?
'Those who make peaceful revolution impossible will make violent revolution inevitable.' JFK

What happens if we agree to laws that make it illegal to discuss conspiracy theories or theories of events other than 'the official story'?
Are we going to lock up people that question 911? (which lead to the War on Terror and millions more killed)
Are we going to lock up people that question the stolen generation too?

What happens if we twist the truth and make the act of challenging false narratives illegal?
Are we going to put all our own politicians in jail for lying and misleading us?

What happens if we agree to laws that make it illegal to criticise governments?
How many people on this forum question and criticise OUR government?

What happens if we agree to laws that make it illegal to criticise religion?
Should we just let Islamic State create caliphates wherever it likes under the idea that criticism is 'Hate Speech'?

Under these conditions, based on Israel's idea of what is and isn't acceptable, every single person on this forum is likely guilty of committing an offense.

Why should foreign entities decide on laws that affect Australians anyway?
Its actually insulting to simply assume that we should not have the right to decide for ourselves what laws we deem reasonable in our own country.
Posted by Armchair Critic, Saturday, 11 June 2016 11:22:00 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
  1. Pages:
  2. 1
  3. 2
  4. 3
  5. ...
  6. 12
  7. 13
  8. 14
  9. Page 15
  10. 16
  11. All

About Us :: Search :: Discuss :: Feedback :: Legals :: Privacy