đđđ
đď¸
đ
đđđ˘đĽđ˘đđđđ¨đŤ
Posts: 46
|
Post by đđđ on Jan 10, 2022 22:46:25 GMT
Nessie has apparently moderated my answer to that question. Perhaps I just forgot to hit the "create post" button. Which was it, Nessie? Nessie has not moderated anything. Your post was never made Turnagain for one reason or another.
|
|
đđđ¨đđ
đŚ
đđŚđŠđđŤđđđ¨đŤ đđ đđ¨đŚđđ§đŽđŹ
Posts: 209
|
Post by đđđ¨đđ on Jan 10, 2022 23:21:27 GMT
Nessie has apparently moderated my answer to that question. Perhaps I just forgot to hit the "create post" button. Which was it, Nessie? Nessie has not moderated anything. Your post was never made Turnagain for one reason or another. I can also confirm this from checking the Admin log. As far as logging in, if you ever have any problems, in all cases I have found that clearing the browser cookies and cache works, or try another browser. Logging in from rodoh.info seems to work the best.
|
|
mrolonzo
âď¸
đđđđŤđ˘đđ˘đđ§
Posts: 869
|
Post by mrolonzo on Feb 11, 2022 14:01:22 GMT
Denier/revisionists like to frame themselves as the defence for the wrongly accused Nazis, so let us pretend you are the defence lawyer for the Nazis at a trial. You accuse each Jewish witness of being a liar, but you present no evidence to back up your claims. Instead, you argue a series of logical fallacies, such as because a witness did not describe a gas chamber that you think would not work, therefore the witness lied.
You produce no documentary or other evidence to back up your defence. You have no alibi. You then claim your Nazi clients have been coerced into lying, but they admit to the gassings and make no mention of being coerced. Do you think the Judge would find the Nazis not guilty of a crime they admit to and is corroborated by the other witnesses as well as documents and physical evidence?
We can recall that the nazis were defended at the zundel trial. As I recall the pro holocaust authors showed that in fact they had very little to go on. So in fact, to defend nazis all you need is a fair trial.
|
|
Nessie
âď¸
đđđ§đđŤđđđ˘đĽđ˘đŹ đŽđąđˇđđąđśđ°đŽđđźđż
Posts: 5,207
|
Post by Nessie on Feb 11, 2022 15:21:51 GMT
Denier/revisionists like to frame themselves as the defence for the wrongly accused Nazis, so let us pretend you are the defence lawyer for the Nazis at a trial. You accuse each Jewish witness of being a liar, but you present no evidence to back up your claims. Instead, you argue a series of logical fallacies, such as because a witness did not describe a gas chamber that you think would not work, therefore the witness lied.
You produce no documentary or other evidence to back up your defence. You have no alibi. You then claim your Nazi clients have been coerced into lying, but they admit to the gassings and make no mention of being coerced. Do you think the Judge would find the Nazis not guilty of a crime they admit to and is corroborated by the other witnesses as well as documents and physical evidence?
We can recall that the nazis were defended at the zundel trial. As I recall the pro holocaust authors showed that in fact they had very little to go on. So in fact, to defend nazis all you need is a fair trial. Every single Nazi who worked at an AR camp or A-B stated there were mass gassings at his trial.
|
|
mrolonzo
âď¸
đđđđŤđ˘đđ˘đđ§
Posts: 869
|
Post by mrolonzo on Feb 11, 2022 16:42:37 GMT
We can recall that the nazis were defended at the zundel trial. As I recall the pro holocaust authors showed that in fact they had very little to go on. So in fact, to defend nazis all you need is a fair trial. Every single Nazi who worked at an AR camp or A-B stated there were mass gassings at his trial. Dr Megele denied it, so did initially, the temporary commander of Auschwitz J Kramer when first giving statement. I read somewhere that SS man Gunter Frich admitted to gassing jews so maybe thats one for you.
|
|
Nessie
âď¸
đđđ§đđŤđđđ˘đĽđ˘đŹ đŽđąđˇđđąđśđ°đŽđđźđż
Posts: 5,207
|
Post by Nessie on Feb 11, 2022 16:49:38 GMT
Every single Nazi who worked at an AR camp or A-B stated there were mass gassings at his trial. Dr Megele denied it, so did initially, the temporary commander of Auschwitz J Kramer when first giving statement. I read somewhere that SS man Gunter Frich admitted to gassing jews so maybe thats one for you. Quote Mengele stating he was inside the Kremas and they were not used for gassings. What did Kramer say?
|
|
mrolonzo
âď¸
đđđđŤđ˘đđ˘đđ§
Posts: 869
|
Post by mrolonzo on Feb 11, 2022 16:51:58 GMT
Dr Megele denied it, so did initially, the temporary commander of Auschwitz J Kramer when first giving statement. I read somewhere that SS man Gunter Frich admitted to gassing jews so maybe thats one for you. Quote Mengele stating he was inside the Kremas and they were not used for gassings. What did Kramer say? "I gave life in Auschwitz, I did not take it." Dr Mengele Kramer; âI have heard of the allegations of former prisoners in Auschwitz referring to a gas chamber there, the mass executions and whippings, the cruelty of the guards employed, and that all this took place either in my presence or with my knowledge. All I can say to all this is that it is untrue from beginning to end.â
|
|
Nessie
âď¸
đđđ§đđŤđđđ˘đĽđ˘đŹ đŽđąđˇđđąđśđ°đŽđđźđż
Posts: 5,207
|
Post by Nessie on Feb 11, 2022 17:00:44 GMT
Quote Mengele stating he was inside the Kremas and they were not used for gassings. What did Kramer say? "I gave life in Auschwitz, I did not take it." Dr Mengele That is not a denial gassings took place. That reads he is denying knowledge of gassings, rather than gassings too place. Where is a link to that quote?
|
|
mrolonzo
âď¸
đđđđŤđ˘đđ˘đđ§
Posts: 869
|
Post by mrolonzo on Feb 11, 2022 17:04:09 GMT
"I gave life in Auschwitz, I did not take it." Dr Mengele That is not a denial gassings took place. That reads he is denying knowledge of gassings, rather than gassings too place. Where is a link to that quote? He's denying his role in any nonsense. and avoids going further into other areas. Which again, is fair and reasonable. Denying knowledge, denying the event. What's is the the difference?
|
|
Nessie
âď¸
đđđ§đđŤđđđ˘đĽđ˘đŹ đŽđąđˇđđąđśđ°đŽđđźđż
Posts: 5,207
|
Post by Nessie on Feb 11, 2022 17:08:46 GMT
That is not a denial gassings took place. That reads he is denying knowledge of gassings, rather than gassings too place. Where is a link to that quote? He's denying his role in any nonsense. and avoids going further into other areas. Which again, is fair and reasonable. Denying knowledge, denying the event. What's is the the difference? Deniability is a neat way to try and avoid responsibility for something that cannot be denied. The Nazis knew the evidence for gassings was overwhelming, so they denied knowledge or responsibility.
I cannot find Kramer's quote you use, please link to it.
|
|
Nessie
âď¸
đđđ§đđŤđđđ˘đĽđ˘đŹ đŽđąđˇđđąđśđ°đŽđđźđż
Posts: 5,207
|
Post by Nessie on Feb 11, 2022 17:20:54 GMT
Kramer's trial www.bergenbelsen.co.uk/pages/trialtranscript/trial_day_001.htmlFrom his defence solicitor; " Kramer, No. 1, states in his first statement that he never heard of such a thing, that there could not have been a gas chamber in the camp; he must have known about it, and says in his second statement he saw it on his first inspection of the camp, although, of course, he says he had nothing to do with it, it was the responsibility of his senior officer. It was made clear to him he had no control over the gas chamber" Kramer tried to lie, but in the face of the evidence, admitted there were gas chambers.
|
|
mrolonzo
âď¸
đđđđŤđ˘đđ˘đđ§
Posts: 869
|
Post by mrolonzo on Feb 11, 2022 19:17:05 GMT
Kramer's trial www.bergenbelsen.co.uk/pages/trialtranscript/trial_day_001.htmlFrom his defence solicitor; " Kramer, No. 1, states in his first statement that he never heard of such a thing, that there could not have been a gas chamber in the camp; he must have known about it, and says in his second statement he saw it on his first inspection of the camp, although, of course, he says he had nothing to do with it, it was the responsibility of his senior officer. It was made clear to him he had no control over the gas chamber" Kramer tried to lie, but in the face of the evidence, admitted there were gas chambers. Yes. The first statement is obviously honest. The second is considering the pre supposition of the court. Other complications being that there were in fact gas chambers.
|
|
mrolonzo
âď¸
đđđđŤđ˘đđ˘đđ§
Posts: 869
|
Post by mrolonzo on Feb 11, 2022 19:20:01 GMT
He's denying his role in any nonsense. and avoids going further into other areas. Which again, is fair and reasonable. Denying knowledge, denying the event. What's is the the difference? Deniability is a neat way to try and avoid responsibility for something that cannot be denied. The Nazis knew the evidence for gassings was overwhelming, so they denied knowledge or responsibility.
I cannot find Kramer's quote you use, please link to it.
One can reasonably say that while one had nothing personally to do with it, the event is accepted as having occurred because the court tells me so.
|
|
Nessie
âď¸
đđđ§đđŤđđđ˘đĽđ˘đŹ đŽđąđˇđđąđśđ°đŽđđźđż
Posts: 5,207
|
Post by Nessie on Feb 11, 2022 19:37:40 GMT
... Other complications being that there were in fact gas chambers. OK. An unexpected admission, but good on you.
|
|
mrolonzo
âď¸
đđđđŤđ˘đđ˘đđ§
Posts: 869
|
Post by mrolonzo on Feb 11, 2022 19:50:26 GMT
... Other complications being that there were in fact gas chambers. OK. An unexpected admission, but good on you. Yes, for clothes of course, we have the photos of actual clothing going in and even a zyklon administration training film I think I remember.
|
|