Guantanamo death penalty
Donna Evleth
Donna Evleth
__________
USA:
US plans death camp
The US has floated plans to turn Guantanamo Bay into a death camp, with
its own death row and execution chamber.
Prisoners would be tried, convicted and executed without leaving its
boundaries, without a jury and without right of appeal, The Mail on Sunday
newspaper reported yesterday.
The plans were revealed by Major-General Geoffrey Miller, who is in charge
of 680 suspects from 43 countries, including 2 Australians.
The suspects have been held at Camp Delta on Cuba without charge for 18
months.
General Miller said building a death row was one plan. Another was to have
a permanent jail, with possibly an execution chamber.
The Mail on Sunday reported the move is seen as logical by the US, which
has been attacked worldwide for breaching the Geneva Convention on
prisoners of war since it established the camp at a naval base to hold
alleged terrorists from Afghanistan.
But it has horrified human rights groups and lawyers representing
detainees.
They see it as the clearest indication America has no intention of falling
in line with internationally recognised justice.
The US has already said detainees would be tried by tribunals, without
juries or appeals to a higher court. Detainees will be allowed only US
lawyers.
British activist Stephen Jakobi, of Fair Trials Abroad, said: "The US is
kicking and screaming against any pressure to conform with British or any
other kind of international justice."
American law professor Jonathan Turley, who has led US civil rights group
protests against the military tribunals planned to hear cases at
Guantanamo Bay, said: "It is not surprising the authorities are building a
death row because they have said they plan to try capital cases before
these tribunals.
"This camp was created to execute people. The administration has no
interest in long-term prison sentences for people it regards as hard-core
terrorists."
Britain admitted it had been kept in the dark about the plans.
A Downing St spokesman said: "The US Government is well aware of the
British Government's position on the death penalty."
(source: (Australia) Advertiser)
crak
Sing and rejoice lovely people
JIGSAW1695
From: "Donna Evleth" dev...@noos.fr
Date: 5/26/2003 5:53 PM Eastern Daylight Time
Message-id: <3ed270b3$0$130$79c1...@nan-newsreader-03.noos.net>
Donna Evleth
__________
USA:
US plans death camp
(source: (Australia) Advertiser)
===============================
It looks like Jayson Blair is alive and well.
JIGSAW1695
Subject: Guantanamo death penalty
From: "Donna Evleth" dev...@noos.fr
Date: 5/26/2003 5:53 PM Eastern Daylight Time
Message-id: <3ed270b3$0$130$79c1...@nan-newsreader-03.noos.net>
I find this plan scary. I hope that wiser heads will prevail.
Donna Evleth
===============================
Donna, I checked the (Australian) Advertiser and could find no reference to
this story. I also checked the archives under "Guantanamo" and "Guantanamo
Bay". I could find no reference to the story you poster.
In addition I checked US Newspapers including "The Village Voice". The Voice is
a newspaper that publishes anything that even remotley puts President Bush and
the current administration in a bad light.
Can you give me more info on the source of information, specifically the date
the article was published.
Also, I checked several other anti-Bush column writers including Maureen Down
and Molly Ivens with nothing regarding the indicated article.
Did you get the news item directly from the Advertiser or another source?
Thanks in Advance
Jigsaw
Honest Nev
> I find this plan scary. I hope that wiser heads will prevail.
>
> Donna Evleth
>
> __________
Is this a joke?
If not, you're right: it's very scary, and a bit 'creepy' too.
A likely story!
I bet King T*ny wants his picture taken on a bulldozer.
> A Downing St spokesman said: "The US Government is well aware of the
> British Government's position on the death penalty."
>
> (source: (Australia) Advertiser)
Yrs,
Nev
crak
>Donna, I checked the (Australian) Advertiser and could find no reference to
>this story. I also checked the archives under "Guantanamo" and "Guantanamo
>Bay". I could find no reference to the story you poster.
>
>In addition I checked US Newspapers including "The Village Voice".
Doona found them in "The Village People"
Richard J
Donna Evleth wrote:
> I find this plan scary. I hope that wiser heads will prevail.
>
> Donna Evleth
Donna, as I understand the situation, the death chamber would be built
for those tried and found guilty under a military tribunal of capital
crimes. This is pretty much exactly the same thing which occurred
following W.W.II with the War Crimes Commission in Germany, Japan, and
other places. The accused were tried by military tribunal, and those
sentenced to death were executed where they were held. The only
difference is that those trials were held mostly in the nations where
the accused lived rather than in another location..
Teflon
Earl Evleth
"crak" <cr...@hotmail.com> wrote:
google news came up with the story
http://www.infoshop.org/inews/stories.php?story=03/05/26/5257785
This site sourced
Source: http://news.com.au/common/story_page/0,4057,6494000%255E401,00.html
Which came up on my system, and this site reference the Herald Sun
Donna subscribes to "truthout" which is very fast and items might
come up there first and not until later later.
She even keeps me informed via truth out and I am merely in the other
room on my own computer!
Earl
JIGSAW1695
From: Earl Evleth evl...@wanadoo.fr
Date: 5/27/2003 7:31 AM Eastern Daylight Time
Message-id: <BAF9193F.40EF%evl...@wanadoo.fr>
http://www.infoshop.org/inews/stories.php?story=03/05/26/5257785
This site sourced
Source: http://news.com.au/common/story_page/0,4057,6494000%255E401,00.html
Earl
===============================
Thanks for the Info.
Donna Evleth
Dans l'article <BAF9193F.40EF%evl...@wanadoo.fr>, Earl Evleth
<evl...@wanadoo.fr> a écrit :
Earl, it was not Truthout this time, it was Rick Halperin's service. As I
said to Jigsaw in my own post, Halperin is pretty reliable. However, I did
a mea culpa for not doing my own Google search to verify. Glad you did so,
and vindicated Halperin. The story does exist.
Donna Evleth
>
Donna Evleth
Dans l'article <20030526192653...@mb-m15.aol.com>,
jigsa...@aol.com (JIGSAW1695) a écrit :
I confess, I got it from another source, a death penalty news service. The
guy who runs it is usually reliable. Sorry. I shall ask the Reverend
Gaston to include me in his prayers.
Donna Evleth
JIGSAW1695
Message-id: <3ed355a7$0$7278$79c1...@nan-newsreader-03.noos.net>
Donna Evleth
===============================
We can always count on the Reverend Gaston to do the right thing at the right
time.
Euro
"Donna Evleth" <dev...@noos.fr>
??????:3ed357f1$0$11020$79c1...@nan-newsreader-02.noos.net...
>
>
> Dans l'article <3ED3441A...@hotmail.com>, Richard J
> <ric...@hotmail.com> a écrit :
War
> II war crimes trials, which I am old enough to remember, took place, as
you
> say, in the countries of residence of the accused, but these countries
were
> also centrally located and open to scrutiny at that point. The trials
were
> also public. Guantanamo is a separated, isolated, closed off area, where
> inquiring eyes and ears are not welcome.
>
> Respect for the rule of law, a fair trial for everyone, regardless of the
> heinousness of the crime, with the right to a competent defense, in
public,
> are what makes the American system of justice the best in the world.
> Holding trials in more or less secrecy in a place like Guantanamo, and
with
> the death penalty involved, does not fit these uniquely American ideals.
> The last thing in the world we want to do is become like the people we are
> putting on trial here.
>
> Donna Evleth
> >
"... the United States vowed after Sept. 11 that the terrorists would not be
allowed to drag Americans down to their level. Meanwhile, the Department of
Defense has held more than 600 men, some as young as 13, of 42
nationalities - including citizens of our closest allies - in a
concentration camp".
"Whoever they are, their treatment should be a demonstration of America's
commitment to justice, not the blot on its honor that Guantánamo has
become".
All these sentences are from "The Guantánamo scandal", editorial from the
International Herald Tribune, May 16th
(http://www.iht.com/articles/96428.html),
that I posted here on the following day.
Euro
drdoody
> Holding trials in more or less secrecy in a place like Guantanamo, and
with
> the death penalty involved, does not fit these uniquely American ideals.
> The last thing in the world we want to do is become like the people we are
> putting on trial here.
>
> Donna Evleth
> >
Who says we aren't already? But don't take my word for it. Just keep sucking
on that great big democracy pacifier.
Doc
danh
news:3ed3820e$1...@news.meganetnews.com...
[...]
> > Respect for the rule of law, a fair trial for everyone, regardless of
the
> > heinousness of the crime, with the right to a competent defense, in
> public,
> > are what makes the American system of justice the best in the world.
> > Holding trials in more or less secrecy in a place like Guantanamo, and
> with
> > the death penalty involved, does not fit these uniquely American ideals.
> > The last thing in the world we want to do is become like the people we
are
> > putting on trial here.
The biggest issue, from my perspective is the secrecy and lack of access to
representation. The linguistic gyrations the Bush administration has gone
through would be laughable if not so sinister.
> "... the United States vowed after Sept. 11 that the terrorists would not
be
> allowed to drag Americans down to their level. Meanwhile, the Department
of
> Defense has held more than 600 men, some as young as 13, of 42
> nationalities - including citizens of our closest allies - in a
> concentration camp".
IHT needs to be more careful about choosing the words to use in their
_opinion_ page. The prisoners are being housed in a prison camp, not a
concentration camp. The point of concentration camps were to herd
(predominantly) Jews and other undesirables out of social integration and
"concentrate" them in locations away from the German population. That is
substantially different from a prison camp. Similarly, gulags were not
concentration camps, but instead, prison camps. Another aspect missing from
this opinion piece is that the treatment of inmates in concentration camps
and gulags varied widely from the treatment being accorded those held in
Cuba. The Cuba camps are providing clean living quarters,
religion-appropriate diets and the opportunity to worship as the prisoners
see fit, none of which were provided in concentration camps. Finally, it
would be nice for balance and fairness if it was recognized that
indoctrination and propaganda were instilled into those young children when
they were even younger and more defenseless against such tactics.
> "Whoever they are, their treatment should be a demonstration of America's
> commitment to justice, not the blot on its honor that Guantánamo has
> become".
>
> All these sentences are from "The Guantánamo scandal", editorial from the
> International Herald Tribune, May 16th
> (http://www.iht.com/articles/96428.html),
>
> that I posted here on the following day.
In other words, you have added _nothing_ to the discussion.
Honest Nev
<snip>
> > Defense has held more than 600 men, some as young as 13, of 42
> > nationalities - including citizens of our closest allies - in a
> > concentration camp".
>
> IHT needs to be more careful about choosing the words to use in their
> _opinion_ page. The prisoners are being housed in a prison camp, not a
> concentration camp. The point of concentration camps were to herd
> (predominantly) Jews and other undesirables out of social integration and
> "concentrate" them in locations away from the German population. That is
> substantially different from a prison camp.
This is not true, Daniel: (for instance) Dachau, Belson, Buchanwald
were concentration camps, all of which held 'career-criminals',
political-prisoners and the 'work-shy' to begin with, later on also
_POWs_ and (at the very end) evacuated Jews from the forced-labour
camps and death-camps in the east.
All three camps I mention were _concentration camps_. _'Gitmo' is a
concentration camp_. If Donna's article is to be believed it may soon
become a death-camp too.
<snip>
> In other words, you have added _nothing_ to the discussion.
At least he did not intend to spread mis-information, unlike you
Daniel.
Yrs,
As ever,
Neville FitzHerbert, esq.
Euro
"Honest Nev" <honest_...@yahoo.co.uk>
??????:a5ec705.03052...@posting.google.com...
If I had used the word "concentration camp" myself, Daniel would have been
to glad to label me as an anti-American. I guess the IHT is just too big a
piece for his mouth.
Euro
Richard J
Donna Evleth wrote:
>
> Dans l'article <3ED3441A...@hotmail.com>, Richard J
> <ric...@hotmail.com> a écrit :
>
>
>
>>
> The "other location" is a good part of what bothers me. The post-World War
> II war crimes trials, which I am old enough to remember, took place, as you
> say, in the countries of residence of the accused, but these countries were
> also centrally located and open to scrutiny at that point. The trials were
> also public. Guantanamo is a separated, isolated, closed off area, where
> inquiring eyes and ears are not welcome.
>
> Respect for the rule of law, a fair trial for everyone, regardless of the
> heinousness of the crime, with the right to a competent defense, in public,
> are what makes the American system of justice the best in the world.
> Holding trials in more or less secrecy in a place like Guantanamo, and with
> the death penalty involved, does not fit these uniquely American ideals.
> The last thing in the world we want to do is become like the people we are
> putting on trial here.
>
> Donna Evleth
>
There is a major difference. In the WW II trials, the war was over, and
the people being tried posed no threat as their combative ability was
destroyed. Where Al Qai'da is concerned, their combative ability has
been reduced but is far from destroyed. While classified information
could be used following W.W.II with no concern about the enemy using it
to attack the US, such is not the case now, and full and open disclosure
of secure sources would mean the deaths of some of the people who hurt
us as well as point out security vulnerabilities of us and our allies.
We are vulnerable enough without helping the enemy.
Teflon
ikke
"Donna Evleth" <dev...@noos.fr> wrote in message
news:3ed357f1$0$11020$79c1...@nan-newsreader-02.noos.net...
>
>
War
> II war crimes trials, which I am old enough to remember, took place, as
you
> say, in the countries of residence of the accused, but these countries
were
> also centrally located and open to scrutiny at that point. The trials
were
> also public. Guantanamo is a separated, isolated, closed off area, where
> inquiring eyes and ears are not welcome.
>
> Respect for the rule of law, a fair trial for everyone, regardless of the
> heinousness of the crime, with the right to a competent defense, in
public,
> are what makes the American system of justice the best in the world.
> Holding trials in more or less secrecy in a place like Guantanamo, and
with
> the death penalty involved, does not fit these uniquely American ideals.
> The last thing in the world we want to do is become like the people we are
> putting on trial here.
>
> Donna Evleth
> >
From what I've read, the Nuremberg trials, whilst necessary, were not
without their shortcomings. Rulings based on international law which hadn't
existed at the time of the crimes and the fact that the more "useful" people
were soon working for NASA and, I presume, various other Allied
agencies...for example.
Not that I suppose there are a lot of potentially useful rocket scientists
at Guantanamo...but perhaps not a model on which to base such hearings in
future.
Cheers
John
tenwheels
> "danh" <da...@lexisnexis.com> wrote in message news:<bb08ps$l31$1...@mailgate2.lexis-nexis.com>...
>
> <snip>
>
> > > Defense has held more than 600 men, some as young as 13, of 42
> > > nationalities - including citizens of our closest allies - in a
> > > concentration camp".
> >
> > IHT needs to be more careful about choosing the words to use in their
> > _opinion_ page. The prisoners are being housed in a prison camp, not a
> > concentration camp. The point of concentration camps were to herd
> > (predominantly) Jews and other undesirables out of social integration and
> > "concentrate" them in locations away from the German population. That is
> > substantially different from a prison camp.
>
> This is not true, Daniel: (for instance) Dachau, Belson, Buchanwald
> were concentration camps, all of which held 'career-criminals',
> political-prisoners and the 'work-shy' to begin with, later on also
> _POWs_ and (at the very end) evacuated Jews from the forced-labour
> camps and death-camps in the east.
Comprehension not your strong suit, Neville? What part of "and other
undesirables" wasn't clear to you? In any event, you misrepresent
Dachau, Bergen-Belsen and Buchenwald, each of which were either alone,
or together with other camps, concentration camps designed to remove
(principally) Jews and others deemed undesirable from society. To
pretend that Jews were not the object of concentration and
extermination is to whitewash history. You even use the euphemisms of
the Nazis - "work-shy" my ass! What do you think that means?
> All three camps I mention were _concentration camps_. _'Gitmo' is a
> concentration camp_. If Donna's article is to be believed it may soon
> become a death-camp too.
Bullshit. What kind of assinine drivel do you believe anyway?
>
> <snip>
>
> > In other words, you have added _nothing_ to the discussion.
>
> At least he did not intend to spread mis-information, unlike you
> Daniel.
You do an admirable job of spreading untruth.
> Yrs,
> As ever,
> Neville FitzHerbert, esq.
Good thing you use a lower case "e" in esquire, for an attorney, you
are not. More pretention.
Cerberus
"Donna Evleth" <dev...@noos.fr> wrote in message
news:3ed357f1$0$11020$79c1...@nan-newsreader-02.noos.net...
:
:
: Dans l'article <3ED3441A...@hotmail.com>, Richard J
: <ric...@hotmail.com> a écrit :
{snip}
: Respect for the rule of law, a fair trial for everyone, regardless of the
: heinousness of the crime, with the right to a competent defense, in
public,
: are what makes the American system of justice the best in the world.
: Holding trials in more or less secrecy in a place like Guantanamo, and
with
: the death penalty involved, does not fit these uniquely American ideals.
: The last thing in the world we want to do is become like the people we are
: putting on trial here.
:
: Donna Evleth
Donna, tell me please. Of which country do you claim citizenship? Is it the
USA or la belle France?
As I understand it you have lived more or less permanently in France since
the late sixties and have French citizenship. I have noticed both your good
self and Earl on several occasions speaking in the possessive first person
in reference to the USA. As you have done above.
Please explain!
--
WooF w00f WooF
Ps If Earl kidnapped you and has held you captive in a cupboard as his sex
slave for the last forty or so years, then give us a secret sign and Richard
will mobilise his Foreign Legion of Masons and carry you off to freedom and
carnality, riding his White Charger naturally.
Despite what you and many other millions of deluded people may think, the
"American system of justice" would be flat out making the 'top ten' of
Justice Systems world wide.
Citizens of the USA are only equal under the law of the land, when they have
enough money to pay for their equality. The difference between what you are
entitled to and what you actually get, is cavernous, and the gap is widening
daily. Many people, to their cost, learn this truth. The cost of this lesson
is counted in terms of lives lost, aspirations forfeited and human tragedy
suffered.
Donna Evleth
Dans l'article <3ed43...@spamkiller.newsgroups.com>, "Cerberus"
<Cerberus(nospam)@jesusanswers.com> a écrit :
> Donna, tell me please. Of which country do you claim citizenship? Is it the
> USA or la belle France?
I am a dual national. I claim citizenship in both.
>
> As I understand it you have lived more or less permanently in France since
> the late sixties and have French citizenship. I have noticed both your good
> self and Earl on several occasions speaking in the possessive first person
> in reference to the USA. As you have done above.
>
> Please explain!
We have lived in France permanently since 1974. We have had French
citizenship by naturalization since 1988. We have had American citizenship
since birth. We did not renounce our American citizenship when we became
French citizens. We were not required to. Both of our citizenship
countries recognize dual nationality. This is why we feel entitled to use
the possessive first person in reference to the USA.
When we received our French nationality, the American Department of State
ruled on our case. On November 29, 1988, we were sent letters signed by the
American Consul which stated: "Based on the preponderance of the evidence
submitted with your case, the Department of State has determined that you
did not intend to relinquish your U.S. citizenship by becoming naturalized
as a citizen of France. Therefore you have not lost your U.S. citizenship
and you may continue to be documented as a U.S. citizen."
Further questions?
Donna Evleth
Donna Evleth
Vlad Drac
Jezus people try talking to each other!!!
Vlad Drac
>
>From what I've read, the Nuremberg trials, whilst necessary, were not
>without their shortcomings.
I heard this too. Especially the hangman was a bit clumsy.
Hazel Woods, Army sergeant, made the door thru which the inmate was to
fall too narrow, causing the head to collide. In one particular he
deliberately sabotaged an execution so the inmate would be strangled.
This was done by placing the knot under his chin instead of behind the
left ear. I am more than willing to provide more details because i
have a book on this, with pictures
>
ikke
"Vlad Drac" <pat...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:i6iadv8rgin6mj7ke...@4ax.com...
I'm truly touched by your offer to share your nasty little library with me,
Vlad, but I'll give it a miss.
Toch bedankt.
John
tenwheels
[...]
> If I had used the word "concentration camp" myself, Daniel would have been
> to glad to label me as an anti-American. I guess the IHT is just too big a
> piece for his mouth.
Are you a fool in real life or do you just play one on the Internet?
I don't label anyone as anti-American, and did not do so, so take a
friendly suggestion and don't insert your own version of my words.
Vlad Drac
>>
>
>I'm truly touched by your offer to share your nasty little library with me,
>Vlad, but I'll give it a miss.
>
>Toch bedankt.
>
>John
>
Graag gedaan John. Ik bedoel, er is al zoveel narigheid in de wereld
Laten wij hier dan een beetje aardig omgaan met elkaar en onze foto's
uitwisselen zonder daar al te moeilijk over te doen
Mr Q. Z. Diablo
> Graag gedaan John. Ik bedoel, er is al zoveel narigheid in de wereld
> Laten wij hier dan een beetje aardig omgaan met elkaar en onze foto's
> uitwisselen zonder daar al te moeilijk over te doen
...and doggie likes to visit a place where people actually speak like _that_???
Mr Q. Z. D.
--
Drinker, systems administrator, wannabe writer, musician and all-round bastard.
"They've got to be protected/All their rights respected ((o))
Until someone we like can be elected." - Tom Lehrer ((O))
Cerberus
"Mr Q. Z. Diablo" <sa...@dodo.com.au> wrote in message
news:u3iBa.5404$ES.6...@news-server.bigpond.net.au...
: In article <41bbdvcm1uggo6qr2...@4ax.com>, Vlad Drac wrote:
:
: > Graag gedaan John. Ik bedoel, er is al zoveel narigheid in de wereld
: > Laten wij hier dan een beetje aardig omgaan met elkaar en onze foto's
: > uitwisselen zonder daar al te moeilijk over te doen
:
: ...and doggie likes to visit a place where people actually speak like
_that_???
I've got a feeling that it is not the conversation that doggie goes to the
'dam for. Besides, whores shouldn't speak with their mouth full!
--
WooF w00f WooF
Euro
"tenwheels" <da...@lexis-nexis.com>
??????:db00711.03052...@posting.google.com...
I didn't write you labelled me so. I wrote you had a strong desire to do it,
which is substantially different.
After all, labelling others is a field in which you excell.
Euro
A Planet Visitor
>"danh" <da...@lexisnexis.com> wrote in message news:<bb08ps$l31$1...@mailgate2.lexis-nexis.com>...
>
><snip>
>
>> > Defense has held more than 600 men, some as young as 13, of 42
>> > nationalities - including citizens of our closest allies - in a
>> > concentration camp".
>>
>> IHT needs to be more careful about choosing the words to use in their
>> _opinion_ page. The prisoners are being housed in a prison camp, not a
>> concentration camp. The point of concentration camps were to herd
>> (predominantly) Jews and other undesirables out of social integration and
>> "concentrate" them in locations away from the German population. That is
>> substantially different from a prison camp.
>
>This is not true, Daniel: (for instance) Dachau, Belson, Buchanwald
>were concentration camps, all of which held 'career-criminals',
>political-prisoners and the 'work-shy' to begin with, later on also
>_POWs_ and (at the very end) evacuated Jews from the forced-labour
>camps and death-camps in the east.
>
Oh, well... that made them okay, in Ol' Racist Nev's view. Of course he
has also claimed that the death camps were "okay," since those executed
as Jews, could have only chosen to BE JEWS.
>All three camps I mention were _concentration camps_. _'Gitmo' is a
>concentration camp_. If Donna's article is to be believed it may soon
>become a death-camp too.
>
><snip>
>
>> In other words, you have added _nothing_ to the discussion.
>
>At least he did not intend to spread mis-information, unlike you
>Daniel.
>
LOL... You're a sick man, Nev... a very sick man.
PV
> Ol' Racist Nev
danh
No, you wrote that I "would have". You can't weasel out of it.
> After all, labelling others is a field in which you excell.
Labelling is different from recognition.
Honest Nev
Vlad, do you think you could teach the FuckWit Dutch? You see he has a
penchant for using taunts based on illnesses, and Dutch has tons of
ready-made 'illness insults' that are much funnier than 'Brain Tumor
[sic] Bob'.
Het FuckWit is een smerige klerehoer.
Yrs,
Nev
Vlad Drac
>...and doggie likes to visit a place where people actually speak like _that_???
>
JIGSAW1695
From: honest_...@yahoo.co.uk (Honest Nev)
Date: 5/29/2003 1:13 PM Eastern Daylight Time
Message-id: <a5ec705.03052...@posting.google.com>
Vlad Drac <pat...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:<41bbdvcm1uggo6qr2...@4ax.com>...
> >>
> >
> >I'm truly touched by your offer to share your nasty little library with me,
> >Vlad, but I'll give it a miss.
> >
> >Toch bedankt.
> >
> >John
> >
>
> Graag gedaan John. Ik bedoel, er is al zoveel narigheid in de wereld
> Laten wij hier dan een beetje aardig omgaan met elkaar en onze foto's
> uitwisselen zonder daar al te moeilijk over te doen
Vlad, do you think you could teach the FuckWit Dutch?
==========================
<<Sigh>> it is going to be rough for the Dutch in the next few years. Their
draconian no-smoking-in-public laws has caused unforseen glitch.
The marijuhana public outlets will have to close down because of the new law.
No longer will vistors to Amersterdam be able to sit and smoke while watching
the hookers of all sexs stoll on buy.
JIGSAW1695
Date: 5/29/2003 3:06 PM Eastern Daylight Time
Message-id: <agmcdvs25dvlht6tr...@4ax.com>
>
>...and doggie likes to visit a place where people actually speak like
_that_???
>
We don't speak the language, we jodel it while line dancing
===============================
They allow jodeling where you live????
My God...wait until the French hear about this.
Vlad Drac
Forget it, will never happen
dirtdog
wrote:
There would be less misery in the world if you popped off to pick some
tulips in your clogs, eh, Vlad? Never you mind exchanging your dirty
little pictures with anyone else...
Alstublieft!
w00f
dirtdog
wrote:
>>The marijuhana public outlets will have to close down because of the new law.
>
>Forget it, will never happen
I was just about to ask if you _really_ lived in Amsterdam.
BTW, I've got you down as being from Jordaan. Am I correct?
w00f
Vlad Drac
>I was just about to ask if you _really_ lived in Amsterdam.
I do
>BTW, I've got you down as being from Jordaan. Am I correct?
No
Vlad Drac
>There would be less misery in the world if you popped off to pick some
>tulips in your clogs, eh, Vlad? Never you mind exchanging your dirty
>little pictures with anyone else...
>
>Alstublieft!
>
Honest Nev
> >> > Defense has held more than 600 men, some as young as 13, of 42
> >> > nationalities - including citizens of our closest allies - in a
> >> > concentration camp".
> >>
> >> IHT needs to be more careful about choosing the words to use in their
> >> _opinion_ page. The prisoners are being housed in a prison camp, not a
> >> concentration camp. The point of concentration camps were to herd
> >> (predominantly) Jews and other undesirables out of social integration and
> >> "concentrate" them in locations away from the German population. That is
> >> substantially different from a prison camp.
> >
> >This is not true, Daniel: (for instance) Dachau, Belson, Buchanwald
> >were concentration camps, all of which held 'career-criminals',
> >political-prisoners and the 'work-shy' to begin with, later on also
> >_POWs_ and (at the very end) evacuated Jews from the forced-labour
> >camps and death-camps in the east.
> >
> Oh, well... that made them okay, in Ol' Racist Nev's view.
Eh?
> Of course he has also claimed that the death camps were "okay,"
I have never claimed that "death camps were "okay,", FuckWit, neither
has JPB 'admitted to being a racist'.
If I was bitch-slapped all over a.a.d-p as often as you are, scum, I'd
lie too.
> since those executed as Jews, could have only chosen to BE JEWS.
FW, the Nazis held that one was 'born Jewish', just like you do.
But then as you have compared Jews to "murderers, thieves, rapists",
what hope is there of changing yr tiny Nazi mind?
Then, of course, there was the 'Nazi Gaffe', which I posted sperately
to avoid it getting lost in the super-SPAM that is FuckWit's canon:
> >All three camps I mention were _concentration camps_. _'Gitmo' is a
> >concentration camp_. If Donna's article is to be believed it may soon
> >become a death-camp too.
> >
> ><snip>
> >
> >> In other words, you have added _nothing_ to the discussion.
> >
> >At least he did not intend to spread mis-information, unlike you
> >Daniel.
> >
> LOL... You're a sick man, Nev... a very sick man.
LMAO!
How can I be 'sick'? I thought I was a virus... like AIDS [sic].
Yrs,
As ever,
Neville FitzHerbert, esq.
"Ol' Racist Nev has managed to make a fool of himself again...
... the absurd claim that AIDS is not a virus... "
(A Planet Visitor [2003-05-20])
A Planet Visitor
>
>"Honest Nev" <honest_...@yahoo.co.uk>
>??????:a5ec705.03052...@posting.google.com...
>> "danh" <da...@lexisnexis.com> wrote in message
>news:<bb08ps$l31$1...@mailgate2.lexis-nexis.com>...
>>
>> <snip>
>>
>> > > Defense has held more than 600 men, some as young as 13, of 42
>> > > nationalities - including citizens of our closest allies - in a
>> > > concentration camp".
>> >
>> > IHT needs to be more careful about choosing the words to use in their
>> > _opinion_ page. The prisoners are being housed in a prison camp, not a
>> > concentration camp. The point of concentration camps were to herd
>> > (predominantly) Jews and other undesirables out of social integration
>and
>> > "concentrate" them in locations away from the German population. That
>is
>> > substantially different from a prison camp.
>>
>> This is not true, Daniel: (for instance) Dachau, Belson, Buchanwald
>> were concentration camps, all of which held 'career-criminals',
>> political-prisoners and the 'work-shy' to begin with, later on also
>> _POWs_ and (at the very end) evacuated Jews from the forced-labour
>> camps and death-camps in the east.
>>
>> All three camps I mention were _concentration camps_. _'Gitmo' is a
>> concentration camp_. If Donna's article is to be believed it may soon
>> become a death-camp too.
>>
>> <snip>
>>
>> > In other words, you have added _nothing_ to the discussion.
>>
>> At least he did not intend to spread mis-information, unlike you
>> Daniel.
>>
>
>If I had used the word "concentration camp" myself, Daniel would have been
>to glad to label me as an anti-American. I guess the IHT is just too big a
>piece for his mouth.
>
Why would you presume that "labeling" you an anti-American needed
any further justification? You've already admitted you are.
PV
>Euro
>
A Planet Visitor
>A Planet Visitor <abc...@zbqytr.ykq> wrote in message news:<unbcdv0ammt9g9ovl...@4ax.com>...
>
>> >> > Defense has held more than 600 men, some as young as 13, of 42
>> >> > nationalities - including citizens of our closest allies - in a
>> >> > concentration camp".
>> >>
>> >> IHT needs to be more careful about choosing the words to use in their
>> >> _opinion_ page. The prisoners are being housed in a prison camp, not a
>> >> concentration camp. The point of concentration camps were to herd
>> >> (predominantly) Jews and other undesirables out of social integration and
>> >> "concentrate" them in locations away from the German population. That is
>> >> substantially different from a prison camp.
>> >
>> >This is not true, Daniel: (for instance) Dachau, Belson, Buchanwald
>> >were concentration camps, all of which held 'career-criminals',
>> >political-prisoners and the 'work-shy' to begin with, later on also
>> >_POWs_ and (at the very end) evacuated Jews from the forced-labour
>> >camps and death-camps in the east.
>> >
>> Oh, well... that made them okay, in Ol' Racist Nev's view.
>
>Eh?
>
>> Of course he has also claimed that the death camps were "okay,"
>
>I have never claimed that "death camps were "okay,", FuckWit, neither
>has JPB 'admitted to being a racist'.
>
Oh... bullshit. You've been full of it since your first post. You've
agreed with someone who suggested that the "unemployed or ill"
be hung. You've threatened me with murder if I "visited"
Derbyshire. You've agreed with another that murderers and slaves
are no different to you. You've denied that there is such a thing as
anti-Semitism in respect to the Jews. You've denied their Hebrew
descent. And you most certainly are one of the most rabid "Jew-baiters"
I've seen since Hugh thanked God that Europe had been cleansed
of the undesirables. Come to think about it, you're certainly worse
than he is, and you clearly have no problem with finding aspects
of the holocaust quite acceptable to you. You've compared Nazi
concentration camps such as Dachau with Guantanamo, which you
must realize does not condemn the U.S., but rather "cleanses" Dachau
and the Nazis of any actual perception of being "worse" than
Guantanamo. Any fool can see you are trying to TRIVIALIZE
Dachau. And then arguing that _Dachau wasn't so bad_, since it
wasn't "actually" a death camp. Jesus, Ol' Racist Nev... the
holocaust deniers never had a bigger supporter than you. There
is also some strong evidence that the gas chambers contstructed
at Dachau were in fact used as intended, although not on the
scale of the true death camps. See
url:http://www.holocaust-history.org/dachau-gas-chambers/
Your attempts to TRIVIALIZE Dachau by first insuring everyone
knows it wasn't a death camp, and second by comparing it to
Guantanamo, are CERTAIN evidence of you efforts to minimize
what actually occurred in the holocaust.
>If I was bitch-slapped all over a.a.d-p as often as you are, scum, I'd
>lie too.
>
Yeah... yeah.. more empty bull shit, scumbag.. Why don't you ask for "help"
from your other buddies. After all... don't they "owe" you for sticking
up for them?
>> since those executed as Jews, could have only chosen to BE JEWS.
>
>FW, the Nazis held that one was 'born Jewish', just like you do.
>
Ah... you claimed they WERE NOT Jews, sport. You support their
murder, arguing that they didn't really HAVE TO BE Jews.
>But then as you have compared Jews to "murderers, thieves, rapists",
>what hope is there of changing yr tiny Nazi mind?
>
No.. that was YOU... Since there is no such thing as someone being
BORN "murderers, thieves, rapists." YOU put Jews in the SAME
category as having CHOSEN to BE what they were, JUST as
those others have CHOSEN to BE what they are.
>Then, of course, there was the 'Nazi Gaffe', which I posted sperately
>to avoid it getting lost in the super-SPAM that is FuckWit's canon:
>
>http://groups.google.com/groups?hl=en&lr=&ie=UTF-8&selm=f85d58f0.0304211701.3279f5d3%40posting.google.com
>
Quite right... In America that is true. the state CANNOT murder. It's
appropriate that you would bring this up, as a point you disagree with.
Which rather proves that you find the holocaust agreeable to you, by
claiming that the State CAN Murder. At that moment I had forgotten
that you supported the Nazis doing so. But you've put all my doubts
to rest in subsequent comments. You certainly did support the Nazis
doing so. The State you support... the Nazi state.. can and did
murder as a state. Having lived in a country (the U.S.), where such
is an inconceivable thought I had forgotten about the one you support.
>> >All three camps I mention were _concentration camps_. _'Gitmo' is a
>> >concentration camp_. If Donna's article is to be believed it may soon
>> >become a death-camp too.
>> >
>> ><snip>
>> >
>> >> In other words, you have added _nothing_ to the discussion.
>> >
>> >At least he did not intend to spread mis-information, unlike you
>> >Daniel.
>> >
>> LOL... You're a sick man, Nev... a very sick man.
>
>LMAO!
>
>How can I be 'sick'? I thought I was a virus... like AIDS [sic].
>
Hey, someone with AIDS is certainly sick.... And this group has been
_very sick_ since you've been posting, and trying to suck other
racists into this group. Jeez, Ol' Racist Nev... you make redneck
trailer trash Americans look like rocket scientists.
>Yrs,
> Ol' Racist Nev
>
>"Ol' Racist Nev has managed to make a fool of himself again...
>... the absurd claim that AIDS is not a virus... "
>
>(A Planet Visitor [2003-05-20])
Glad to see that you've decided the name is very appropriate,
Ol' Racist Nev.
Honest Nev
<snip>
> >> Of course he has also claimed that the death camps were "okay,"
> >
> >I have never claimed that "death camps were "okay,", FuckWit, neither
> >has JPB 'admitted to being a racist'.
> >
> Oh... bullshit.
LMAO! Go on, FuckWit, show us yr evidence... we are waiting, you
fibbing get.
<snip poor FW's off-topic misinformation>
> You've compared Nazi concentration camps such as Dachau with Guantanamo,
> which you must realize does not condemn the U.S., but rather "cleanses" Dachau
> and the Nazis of any actual perception of being "worse" than Guantanamo.
I'd hardly call the forcible removal and detention of dissidents
without trial, or contact with loved ones, 'a good thing', but then I
am not a Merkin.
> Any fool can see you are trying to TRIVIALIZE
> Dachau. And then arguing that _Dachau wasn't so bad_, since it
> wasn't "actually" a death camp. Jesus, Ol' Racist Nev... the
> holocaust deniers never had a bigger supporter than you.
That'll be the Holocaust deniers who go out of their way to make a
distinction between concentration-camps (such as Dachau and Belson)
and death-camps such (as Treblinka, Sorbibor, etc.).
LM*F*AO!!!!
> There
> is also some strong evidence that the gas chambers contstructed
> at Dachau were in fact used as intended, although not on the
> scale of the true death camps. See
> url:http://www.holocaust-history.org/dachau-gas-chambers/
_No_ reputable historian calls Dachau a death-camp.
> Your attempts to TRIVIALIZE Dachau by first insuring everyone
> knows it wasn't a death camp, and second by comparing it to
> Guantanamo, are CERTAIN evidence of you efforts to minimize
> what actually occurred in the holocaust.
The fact that 'Gitmo' is a concentration camp is upsetting you, isn't
it FuckWit?
<snip more tiny tears>
> >> since those executed as Jews, could have only chosen to BE JEWS.
> >
> >FW, the Nazis held that one was 'born Jewish', just like you do.
> >
> Ah... you claimed they WERE NOT Jews, sport.
I claimed they were not 'born Jewish', which puts me diametrically
opposed to you and yr Nazi brethren. No wonder you hate me.
> You support their murder, arguing that they didn't really HAVE TO BE Jews.
I don't think folk are 'born Islamic' either but that doesn't mean I
sanction the deaths of Muslims. If you were less dim, you'd realise
this.
> >But then as you have compared Jews to "murderers, thieves, rapists",
> >what hope is there of changing yr tiny Nazi mind?
> >
> No.. that was YOU...
No, FuckWit, it was _you_. You compared Jews to "murderers, thieves,
rapists", whereas I compared Jews to 'Cathies and Atheists'.
<snip>
> >Then, of course, there was the 'Nazi Gaffe', which I posted sperately
> >to avoid it getting lost in the super-SPAM that is FuckWit's canon:
> >
> >http://groups.google.com/groups?hl=en&lr=&ie=UTF-8&selm=f85d58f0.0304211701.3279f5d3%40posting.google.com
> >
> Quite right... In America that is true. the state CANNOT murder.
So, if a gas-camber is installed at 'Gitmo' (assuming there is not one
already), the prisoners 'CANNOT [sic] be murdered in it by the US
state'?
> It's
> appropriate that you would bring this up, as a point you disagree with.
> Which rather proves that you find the holocaust agreeable to you, by
> claiming that the State CAN Murder.
I didn't claim that, FW, you did. That was the point of bringing it
up, twat.
> At that moment I had forgotten that you supported the Nazis doing so.
I didn't claim that, FW, you did. That was the point of bringing it
up, twat.
<snip yet more tiny tears>
> >"Ol' Racist Nev has managed to make a fool of himself again...
> >... the absurd claim that AIDS is not a virus... "
> >
> >(A Planet Visitor [2003-05-20])
>
> Glad to see that you've decided the name is very appropriate,
> Ol' Racist Nev.
Unlike you, FW, I make a point of always using "EXACT quoted words".
Yrs,
As ever,
'The Jackal'
Honest Nev
<snip>
> > >Then, of course, there was the 'Nazi Gaffe', which I posted sperately
> > >to avoid it getting lost in the super-SPAM that is FuckWit's canon:
> > >
> > >http://groups.google.com/groups?hl=en&lr=&ie=UTF-8&selm=f85d58f0.0304211701.3279f5d3%40posting.google.com
> > >
> > Quite right... In America that is true. the state CANNOT murder.
>
> So, if a gas-camber is installed at 'Gitmo' (assuming there is not one
> already), the prisoners 'CANNOT [sic] be murdered in it by the US
> state'?
... still waiting...
> > It's
> > appropriate that you would bring this up, as a point you disagree with.
Yes, FW, I do disagree: states can (and do) sanction murders, and get
their operatives to carry out these orders. The US sanctions murders,
just as the Soviets did, and just as the Nazis did. This is not a new
thing.
BTW tell us, who is in charge of the US military, FuckWit? And the
CIA?
> > Which rather proves that you find the holocaust agreeable to you, by
> > claiming that the State CAN Murder.
>
> I didn't claim that, FW, you did.
I mis-read that as "state CANNOT murder". I know see yr argument
(incredibly!) runs 'the USA cannot murder, but every other state in
the World bar the USA can'.
Ho hum.
> That was the point of bringing it up, twat.
>
> > At that moment I had forgotten that you supported the Nazis doing so.
Only you have stated that "the state CANNOT murder", scum, I have not.
If I say that Peter Sutcliffe murdered folk, does that mean I
'supported him doing so'. Of course not.
In fact it means I am able (and willing) to oppose states ordering
killings. You, in contrast, cannot oppose it because you do not admit
that it takes place.
_FuckWit does not oppose state sanctioned murders._
_FuckWit does not oppose state sanctioned murders._
_FuckWit does not oppose state sanctioned murders._
Oh, hang on, you've changed yr position haven't you...
_FuckWit does not oppose state sanctioned murders committed by the
USA._
_FuckWit does not oppose state sanctioned murders committed by the
USA._
_FuckWit does not oppose state sanctioned murders committed by the
USA._
<snip>
Yrs,
Forever and ever,
Neville FitzHerbert, esq.
A Planet Visitor
>A Planet Visitor <abc...@zbqytr.ykq> wrote in message news:<ri1edv8q5n5iqgpsp...@4ax.com>...
>
><snip>
>
>> >> Of course he has also claimed that the death camps were "okay,"
>> >
>> >I have never claimed that "death camps were "okay,", FuckWit, neither
>> >has JPB 'admitted to being a racist'.
>> >
>> Oh... bullshit.
>
>LMAO! Go on, FuckWit, show us yr evidence... we are waiting, you
>fibbing get.
>
You did so when you argued strongly, as you do now that the Nazi
concentration camps were no worse than Guantanamo.
><snip poor FW's off-topic misinformation>
>
ROTFLMAO... denials are no longer sufficient, Ol' Racist Nev... you've
been "outted."
>> You've compared Nazi concentration camps such as Dachau with Guantanamo,
>> which you must realize does not condemn the U.S., but rather "cleanses" Dachau
>> and the Nazis of any actual perception of being "worse" than Guantanamo.
>
>I'd hardly call the forcible removal and detention of dissidents
>without trial, or contact with loved ones, 'a good thing', but then I
>am not a Merkin.
>
I never said it was a "good thing." YOU'VE SAID it was Dachau.
You are the one trivializing the holocaust. There are about 600
detainees in Guantanamo, all were combatants. All are provided
religious freedom, adequate food, medical treatment, not required
to work. And you would COMPARE that to Dachau.
>> Any fool can see you are trying to TRIVIALIZE
>> Dachau. And then arguing that _Dachau wasn't so bad_, since it
>> wasn't "actually" a death camp. Jesus, Ol' Racist Nev... the
>> holocaust deniers never had a bigger supporter than you.
>
>That'll be the Holocaust deniers who go out of their way to make a
>distinction between concentration-camps (such as Dachau and Belson)
>and death-camps such (as Treblinka, Sorbibor, etc.).
>
That'll be you, sport. You're the one going out of your way to
ensure everyone is aware of the distinction... so that Dachau
is presumed as _not so bad_, because it _wasn't a death camp_.
>LM*F*AO!!!!
>
All holocaust deniers react just like that.
>> There
>> is also some strong evidence that the gas chambers contstructed
>> at Dachau were in fact used as intended, although not on the
>> scale of the true death camps. See
>> url:http://www.holocaust-history.org/dachau-gas-chambers/
>
>_No_ reputable historian calls Dachau a death-camp.
>
I never said it was.. You obviously did not look at the reference I
provided, which is not some jerk posting but a rather extensive study
of Dachau. And the gas chambers were constructed, and most
probably were used, but nowhere near the scale of the true death
camps, which is exactly what I said.
>> Your attempts to TRIVIALIZE Dachau by first insuring everyone
>> knows it wasn't a death camp, and second by comparing it to
>> Guantanamo, are CERTAIN evidence of you efforts to minimize
>> what actually occurred in the holocaust.
>
>The fact that 'Gitmo' is a concentration camp is upsetting you, isn't
>it FuckWit?
>
Not at all... if you had attacked the U.S. for holding those 600 former
combatant detainees in an independent method of reasoning, I would
probably not have commented since I've had my fill of that argument.
It is when you interject the HOLOCAUST to justify your position,
and compare 206,000 humans, with so many non-combatants among
them (22,000 Jews were STILL in Dachau when it was liberated!!!),
to the conditions existing in Guantanamo, one can only presume that
you intend to defend the holocaust in such a comparison rather than
attack the U.S. about Guantanamo. Given further proof that you
deny the word anti-Semitism even refers to the Jews, there is little
left to the imagination that you intend to defend the Nazis, by arguing
they were _no worse_ than the Americans in Guantanamo.
To make this clear... I am not here to defend Guantanamo... I am here
to ATTACK YOU for your racist belief that Dachau was no worse
than Guantanamo. And then to presume to defend Dachau by
claiming ==> Well... it wasn't a death camp...so it couldn't have been
THAT bad <==
><snip more tiny tears>
>
I find it impossible to believe that you would shed a tear about
the murder of ANY JEW.
>> >> since those executed as Jews, could have only chosen to BE JEWS.
>> >
>> >FW, the Nazis held that one was 'born Jewish', just like you do.
>> >
>> Ah... you claimed they WERE NOT Jews, sport.
>
>I claimed they were not 'born Jewish', which puts me diametrically
>opposed to you and yr Nazi brethren. No wonder you hate me.
>
Ah, but they ARE "Born Jewish." Which rather demonstrates how
deep your hate for Jews is.
>> You support their murder, arguing that they didn't really HAVE TO BE Jews.
>
>I don't think folk are 'born Islamic' either but that doesn't mean I
>sanction the deaths of Muslims. If you were less dim, you'd realise
>this.
>
That's because folks are NOT 'born Islamic." You continue to deny the
existence of the Jew... which can only be seen as anti-Semitism
>> >But then as you have compared Jews to "murderers, thieves, rapists",
>> >what hope is there of changing yr tiny Nazi mind?
>> >
>> No.. that was YOU...
>
>No, FuckWit, it was _you_. You compared Jews to "murderers, thieves,
>rapists", whereas I compared Jews to 'Cathies and Atheists'.
>
No, fuckwit... it was you. Since 'murderers, thieves, and rapists' are not
BORN 'murderers, thieves, and rapists,' and my argument is that the
Jew is 'born Jewish,' thus cannot be among the group that YOU have
classed them in... those who CHOOSE to be what they are.
><snip>
>> >Then, of course, there was the 'Nazi Gaffe', which I posted sperately
>> >to avoid it getting lost in the super-SPAM that is FuckWit's canon:
>> >
>> >http://groups.google.com/groups?hl=en&lr=&ie=UTF-8&selm=f85d58f0.0304211701.3279f5d3%40posting.google.com
>> >
>> Quite right... In America that is true. the state CANNOT murder.
>
>So, if a gas-camber is installed at 'Gitmo' (assuming there is not one
>already), the prisoners 'CANNOT [sic] be murdered in it by the US
>state'?
No.. they cannot... they are no longer combatants and cannot be killed
without being afforded a trial and due process. The U.S. does not have
a thing called "legal murder," which is routinely used in _you know where_.
>
>> It's
>> appropriate that you would bring this up, as a point you disagree with.
>> Which rather proves that you find the holocaust agreeable to you, by
>> claiming that the State CAN Murder.
>
>I didn't claim that, FW, you did. That was the point of bringing it
>up, twat.
Not true... I have NEVER claimed the laws of the Nazis were LEGAL.
They were murder, since it cannot BE a crime to be born. But you suggested
that it was quite legal.
>> At that moment I had forgotten that you supported the Nazis doing so.
>
>I didn't claim that, FW, you did. That was the point of bringing it
>up, twat.
>
Denial will not get you out of this one sport. Just like your denial that
you didn't threaten me with murder if I visited Disneyshire, although I've
never seen a live boot swim.
><snip yet more tiny tears>
Again -- I find it impossible to believe that you would shed a tear about
the murder of ANY JEW.
>> >"Ol' Racist Nev has managed to make a fool of himself again...
>> >... the absurd claim that AIDS is not a virus... "
>> >
>> >(A Planet Visitor [2003-05-20])
>>
>> Glad to see that you've decided the name is very appropriate,
>> Ol' Racist Nev.
>
>Unlike you, FW, I make a point of always using "EXACT quoted words".
>
ROTFLMAO... All you managed to do is lie, Ol' Racist Nev. It's no
big secret.
PV
> Ol' Racist Nev
Just passing by
> There are about 600
> detainees in Guantanamo, all were combatants.
Where is your proof of that? Do you have any beyond "Mr Rumsfeld said
so"?
One of those prisoners gave his age as 105 years and another claims to
be 90. What sort of "combatants" would they be?
http://www.guardian.co.uk/afghanistan/story/0,1284,821588,00.html
PV, you will believe anything you read just so long as it carries some
sort of "official" stamp, won't you? What a mug you are.
Three wasted years, PV. Three wasted years.
Honest Nev
> >> >> Of course he has also claimed that the death camps were "okay,"
> >> >
> >> >I have never claimed that "death camps were "okay,", FuckWit, neither
> >> >has JPB 'admitted to being a racist'.
> >> >
> >> Oh... bullshit.
> >
> >LMAO! Go on, FuckWit, show us yr evidence... we are waiting, you
> >fibbing get.
... always waiting it seems...
> You did so when you argued strongly, as you do now that the Nazi
> concentration camps were no worse than Guantanamo.
I have made no comments regarding which is 'better', I have merely
pointed out that 'Gitmo' is a concentration camp, in many way similar
to Dachau (or any other camp that was used to house 'dissidents' away
from the public without trial for indefinate periods).
<snip>
> >> You've compared Nazi concentration camps such as Dachau with Guantanamo,
> >> which you must realize does not condemn the U.S., but rather "cleanses" Dachau
> >> and the Nazis of any actual perception of being "worse" than Guantanamo.
> >
> >I'd hardly call the forcible removal and detention of dissidents
> >without trial, or contact with loved ones, 'a good thing', but then I
> >am not a Merkin.
> >
> I never said it was a "good thing."
You said to compare Dachau to 'Gitmo' "cleanses" Dachau, presumably
cos you think 'Gitmo' is 'a good thing'.
> YOU'VE SAID it was Dachau.
No. I have said they were/are both concentration camps.
Really, FW, you need to figure out what people are saying before you
make a twat of yoursehn. Reminds me the episode where you said the
statement "If the native Indians "discovered" America, then they are
not the original ihabitants" made sense, and was beyond question.
> You are the one trivializing the holocaust. There are about 600
> detainees in Guantanamo, all were combatants. All are provided
> religious freedom, adequate food, medical treatment, not required
> to work. And you would COMPARE that to Dachau.
One of the three Nazi camps (I can't remember which, it was probably
Buchanwald) was visited pre-war by US government representatives...
and they loved it.
Here's how I compare Dachau with 'Gitmo':
Dachau was a concentration camp. It was used to concentrate
dissidents, resistance types, Commies, anti-Nazi religious types,
unacknowledged POWS etc. in a small geographic location away from the
German population and out of the way of the German army. Those
interned were, on the whole, not allowed to leave and were forcably
detained for an indefinate period. No trials were held. They were held
incommunicado without legal redress.
'Gitmo' is a concentration camp. It is used to concentrate dissidents,
resistance types, anti-US religious types, unacknowledged POWS etc. in
a small geographic location away from the Merkin population and out of
the way of the Merkin army. Those interned are, on the whole, not
allowed to leave and are forcibly detained for an indefinate period.
No trials have been held. They are being held incommunicado without
legal redress.
> >> Any fool can see you are trying to TRIVIALIZE
> >> Dachau. And then arguing that _Dachau wasn't so bad_, since it
> >> wasn't "actually" a death camp. Jesus, Ol' Racist Nev... the
> >> holocaust deniers never had a bigger supporter than you.
> >
> >That'll be the Holocaust deniers who go out of their way to make a
> >distinction between concentration-camps (such as Dachau and Belson)
> >and death-camps such (as Treblinka, Sorbibor, etc.).
> >
> That'll be you, sport.
Cor blimey, FW, you're a bleedin nutter.
<snip>
> >> is also some strong evidence that the gas chambers contstructed
> >> at Dachau were in fact used as intended, although not on the
> >> scale of the true death camps. See
> >> url:http://www.holocaust-history.org/dachau-gas-chambers/
> >
> >_No_ reputable historian calls Dachau a death-camp.
> >
> I never said it was..
FuckWit admits Dachau was not a 'death-camp', as defined by himsen.
<snip>
> >The fact that 'Gitmo' is a concentration camp is upsetting you, isn't
> >it FuckWit?
> >
> Not at all...
FuckWit, you seem to concede that 'Gitmo' is a concentration-camp...
and that you're happy with that fact.
<snip tiny tears abouut how the US has a concentration camp (for
Islamic dissident types extracted from another country) in Cuba>
<snip>
> >> You support their murder, arguing that they didn't really HAVE TO BE Jews.
> >
> >I don't think folk are 'born Islamic' either but that doesn't mean I
> >sanction the deaths of Muslims. If you were less dim, you'd realise
> >this.
> >
> That's because folks are NOT 'born Islamic." You continue to deny the
> existence of the Jew... which can only be seen as anti-Semitism
FW, I've never denied that Jews exist, you daft old duffer.
It is very anti-Islamic to suggest that one may be 'born Jewish', but
not 'born Islamic', but then as you've just supported a war that saw
thousands of bombs dropped on Iraqi civilians, why do should you care?
> >> >But then as you have compared Jews to "murderers, thieves, rapists",
> >> >what hope is there of changing yr tiny Nazi mind?
> >> >
> >> No.. that was YOU...
> >
> >No, FuckWit, it was _you_. You compared Jews to "thieves", whereas I compared Jews to 'Cathies and Atheists'.
> >
> No, fuckwit... it was you.
FuckWit, I've never even used the words 'thieves' except when quoting
you.
Now, even if one was 'born Jewish' in the way that one is born Black
(as you maintain) would that mean that if I said what you have said
about Jews about Blacks, that would be okay?
Even if I were to compare Muslims to "murderers, thieves, rapist"...
would that be okay?
The answer to both question, IMHO, is: no.
As you were, Jew-hating scum.
<snip>
> >> >Then, of course, there was the 'Nazi Gaffe', which I posted sperately
> >> >to avoid it getting lost in the super-SPAM that is FuckWit's canon:
> >> >
> >> >http://groups.google.com/groups?hl=en&lr=&ie=UTF-8&selm=f85d58f0.0304211701.3279f5d3%40posting.google.com
> >> >
> >> Quite right... In America that is true. the state CANNOT murder.
> >
> >So, if a gas-camber is installed at 'Gitmo' (assuming there is not one
> >already), the prisoners 'CANNOT [sic] be murdered in it by the US
> >state'?
>
> No.. they cannot... they are no longer combatants and cannot be killed
> without being afforded a trial and due process. The U.S. does not have
> a thing called "legal murder," which is routinely used in _you know where_.
I don't think they'll be afforded 'trials' as we in the West
understand the term.
> >> It's
> >> appropriate that you would bring this up, as a point you disagree with.
> >> Which rather proves that you find the holocaust agreeable to you, by
> >> claiming that the State CAN Murder.
> >
> >I didn't claim that, FW, you did. That was the point of bringing it
> >up, twat.
>
> Not true... I have NEVER claimed the laws of the Nazis were LEGAL.
As the elected government of Germany, why were they not? Did they
Soviets make 'illegal laws'? Were the laws in the USA that allowed
slavery to flourish 'illegal laws'? Were the 'Jim Crow' Laws 'illegal
laws' (considered legal in the US for over fifty years)?
The DP is illegal in Europe, does that mean the the USA has 'illegal
laws'?
I say all this in the hope that you will realise that laws passed are
very rarely 'illegal', and yet are still very often wrong.
A Planet Visitor
>honest_...@yahoo.co.uk (Honest Nev) wrote in message news:<a5ec705.03053...@posting.google.com>...
>
><snip>
>
>> > >Then, of course, there was the 'Nazi Gaffe', which I posted sperately
>> > >to avoid it getting lost in the super-SPAM that is FuckWit's canon:
>> > >
>> > >http://groups.google.com/groups?hl=en&lr=&ie=UTF-8&selm=f85d58f0.0304211701.3279f5d3%40posting.google.com
>> > >
>> > Quite right... In America that is true. the state CANNOT murder.
>>
>> So, if a gas-camber is installed at 'Gitmo' (assuming there is not one
>> already), the prisoners 'CANNOT [sic] be murdered in it by the US
>> state'?
>
>... still waiting...
>
No.. they cannot... they are no longer combatants and cannot be killed
without being afforded a trial and due process. The U.S. does not have
a thing called "legal murder," which is routinely used in _you know where_..
>> > It's
>> > appropriate that you would bring this up, as a point you disagree with.
>
>Yes, FW, I do disagree: states can (and do) sanction murders, and get
>their operatives to carry out these orders. The US sanctions murders,
>just as the Soviets did, and just as the Nazis did. This is not a new
>thing.
>
No... sorry about that.. In the U.S. the state does not murder.
You have us confused with that backward Continental Europe.
Those who dig those mass graves, shoot hundreds, sometimes
thousands at a time, and shove the murder victims into those graves.
There are no such graves in the U.S., and have not been since
our creation as a State (although the civil war, and atrocities
against native Americans created a great number of murders under
the color of the law - but hardly on a scale that has existed in
Continental Europe). Looking no further back than a few years
(and we KNOW what happens when we look back a bit further),
rather than WW II -- see
http://www.reliefweb.int/w/rwb.nsf/0/910a97cbbcf417d749256ccb001e1579?OpenDocument
http://www.applicom.com/twibih/thisweek200301.html
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/europe/1414735.stm
http://www.cnn.com/WORLD/europe/9908/02/yugo.01/
http://www3.cnn.com/WORLD/Bosnia/updates/august95/8-11/index1.html
You are confusing murder with acts of self-defense by a state,
against a known combatant intending to commit a criminal act
against the state. Just as a sniper who kills a hostage-taker, under
orders from the state is not committing murder. Haven't you
ever seen a James Bond movies, and his "license to kill"?
Murder is when there exists no TRUE legal authority to do so...
such as those murdered in mass graves (see above), who have
committed no offense which threatens the state. Those who
are simply BORN a particular way... such as "born Jewish."
The murder of non-combatants, those born a particular way,
and innocent civilians in a non-combat environment. No such
mass graves exist in the U.S. The U.S. does not murder the
"unemployed or ill." Only spike has suggested it be done,
and only you have found the suggestio"funny."
>BTW tell us, who is in charge of the US military, FuckWit? And the
>CIA
The government. So what? Who was in charge in those states
in the former Yugoslavia where so many mass graves exist?
>> > Which rather proves that you find the holocaust agreeable to you, by
>> > claiming that the State CAN Murder.
>>
>> I didn't claim that, FW, you did.
>
>I mis-read that as "state CANNOT murder". I know see yr argument
>(incredibly!) runs 'the USA cannot murder, but every other state in
>the World bar the USA can'.
>
>Ho hum.
>
It's always been recognized that you view the mass murder of innocent civilians
as something which is "ho hum" to you. Which of YOUR operatives do you
intend to have murder me, if I visit your Disneyshire?
>> That was the point of bringing it up, twat.
>>
>> > At that moment I had forgotten that you supported the Nazis doing so.
>
>Only you have stated that "the state CANNOT murder", scum, I have not.
>
That's because you support those murders committed by the state
in Europe. I have already agreed that those states can and HAVE
committed mass murder. While, of course, you support the holocaust
to the extent that you found Dachau nothing greater to complain
about than you did Guantanamo. While you also argued in defense
of a statement that murderers are no worse than slaves.
>If I say that Peter Sutcliffe murdered folk, does that mean I
>'supported him doing so'. Of course not.
>
Actually, you "supported" MY being murdered if I happened to
visit Disneyshire. See below for proof. Murder is in your heart.
I've seen it from the first moment you posted here.
>In fact it means I am able (and willing) to oppose states ordering
>killings. You, in contrast, cannot oppose it because you do not admit
>that it takes place.
>
>_FuckWit does not oppose state sanctioned murders._
>_FuckWit does not oppose state sanctioned murders._
>_FuckWit does not oppose state sanctioned murders._
>
I certainly oppose the state sanctioned murders committed in
Continental Europe for so many...many years. You find them
to be, as you say "ho hum."
>Oh, hang on, you've changed yr position haven't you...
>
>_FuckWit does not oppose state sanctioned murders committed by the
>USA._
>_FuckWit does not oppose state sanctioned murders committed by the
>USA._
>_FuckWit does not oppose state sanctioned murders committed by the
>USA._
Since there is nothing to oppose... the point is moot. However; it should
be noted that you do not oppose the suggestion from another poster that
I act as his representative when he expressed HIS wish that "why don't you
string up the unemployed or ill!" In fact, you rather found that "suggestion"
rather funny, in laughing at the thought... with your Santa Claus reply of
"ho ho ho." Come on, Ol' Racist Nev... 'fess up.. you can't deny that you
didn't LAUGH at the thought of all those "unemployed or ill" being strung up.
You certainly can't claim it was "irony" since you have demonstrated you
are unable to grasp the concept. I do believe the only thing that would
have caused you to laugh even harder is if spike had included "Blacks and
Jews," among those he suggested should be strung up. I imagine that would
have created a huge *guffaw* response from you.
>
PV
>Ol' Racist Nev
Rather proof that Ol' Racist Nev supports murder, as he has made a
direct murder threat against PV --
"stay the fuck out of Derbyshire, scum, else you'll be swimming in
the Erewash Canal with all the other old boots."
Ol' Racist Nev - March 30, 2003
http://www.google.com/groups?selm=a5ec705.0304300639.5cfabaf4%40posting.google.com
A Planet Visitor
>A Planet Visitor <abc...@zbqytr.ykq> wrote in message news:<ejoldv86preic4723...@4ax.com>...
>
>> There are about 600
>> detainees in Guantanamo, all were combatants.
>
>Where is your proof of that? Do you have any beyond "Mr Rumsfeld said
>so"?
>
Umm... JPB... The number between 600 and 700 is certainly the number
accepted by every unbiased observer. For example -- see
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/americas/2671287.stm
This is a BBC report from Jan 2003, that references the Red Cross appeal
to the U.S. to clarify the status of those 600.
Chee... if you can't believe the BBC... who can you believe? So - rather than
call MY number a lie... I expect that if you cannot provide some responsible
unbiased source which refutes that number, then you are the one attempting
to perpetrate a deception.
>One of those prisoners gave his age as 105 years and another claims to
>be 90. What sort of "combatants" would they be?
>
>http://www.guardian.co.uk/afghanistan/story/0,1284,821588,00.html
ROTFLMAO... Do you not think the Red Cross would have raised such an
issue? The wrist band says born in 1931. You do the math. I can claim
anything I wish, if proof is not required. As you've done in presuming that
the Nameless one's "popularity has risen."
>
>PV, you will believe anything you read just so long as it carries some
>sort of "official" stamp, won't you? What a mug you are.
>
While you will rant and rave without any sort of proof other than those
lies which have become part of your persona here. Such as your lie
of "Prior to that, there were no such rants from PV about racism.." and
your lie of "I stated it as a fact that he had no power in this case to do
that. It remains a fact..."
Both now proven to be lies. While you now simply avoid any real argument
in respect to your words, relying instead on insults generated by the same
"insult generator" used by euro. Demonstrating that even then... you lack
the slightest ability to be "original." You have been reduced to a childish,
immature, sniveling presence here. Whining to everyone you hope will
"listen to you." Searching desperately for some imaginary validation for
your miserable insult to MLK. A validation which cannot exist if one presumes
that equal rights is a truism, and MLK represented equal rights. Independent
of how your opinions here have been threatened and destroyed by me. Which
obviously formed the motive and impetus for your hurling vile and venomous
bile upon the words in that tribute. How easy it was to _expose_ your true
character. You managed to do it all by yourself!!
But I expect any day now, you will be "begging" the group to grant you
"credibility," as your Messiah "begged" the group to _vote_ for his racism.
That's usually the way it goes, when one cannot argue his own case.
>Three wasted years, PV. Three wasted years.
Be afraid, JPB... be very afraid. You have become part of my next
"three wasted years." Gird yourself for the upcoming Armageddon
which your "credibility" will experience here.
<crazed hysterical laugh on>
ho ho ho ho ho
<crazed hysterical laugh off>
PV
A Planet Visitor
"Honest Nev" <honest_...@yahoo.co.uk> vomited anti-Semitism in
news:a5ec705.03060...@posting.google.com...
> A Planet Visitor <abc...@zbqytr.ykq> wrote in message news:<ejoldv86preic4723...@4ax.com>...
Before I even begin this comment, allow me to top-post here, and demonstrate
through the use of Ol' Racist Nev's OWN WORDS that he is an ADMITTED
Holocaust denier:
First we have THIS comment from Ol' Racist Nev where he defines what in
his mind IS a holocaust denier --
"That'll be the Holocaust deniers who go out of their way to make a
distinction between concentration-camps (such as Dachau and Belson)
and death-camps such (as Treblinka, Sorbibor, etc.)."
http://www.google.com/groups?selm=a5ec705.0305300601.31e990fc%40posting.google.com
This demonstrates in his own words that he finds someone who goes out
of their way to make a distinction between Nazi concentration-camps and
Nazi death-camps to be a holocaust denier. No question that it is HIS
opinion that this is what a holocaust denier would do.
But then we ALSO have THIS comment from him --
"I must stress that Dachau, Belson, and Buchanwald were _not_ used as
death-camps for Jews."
http://www.google.com/groups?selm=a5ec705.0305290530.16495221%40posting.google.com
Gee... Ol' Racist Nev now ADMITS he is the holocaust denier that he has
defined in his own words -- he must "STRESS" this difference... going
_out of his way_ to do so... exactly as he defined the methods of a holocaust
denier.
It's so refreshing to find that Ol' Racist Nev finally ADMITS he is a holocaust
denier.
Now that it is "settled law" that he is a holocaust denier... perhaps we can
examine some of his other character flaws, as follows --
> > >> >> Of course he has also claimed that the death camps were "okay,"
> > >> >
> > >> >I have never claimed that "death camps were "okay,", FuckWit, neither
> > >> >has JPB 'admitted to being a racist'.
> > >> >
> > >> Oh... bullshit.
> > >
> > >LMAO! Go on, FuckWit, show us yr evidence... we are waiting, you
> > >fibbing get.
>
> ... always waiting it seems...
>
Hardly... you certainly claimed that Dachau was the "equivalent" of
Guantanamo. You ugly little anti-Semitic admitted holocaust denier.
Who do you think you're fooling? Who else here has compared
Dachau, which processed 206,000 humans, both combatants and
non-combatants, Jews and non-Jews, in which gas chambers exist,
having the intention of mass extermination, to Guantanamo, housing
600 detainees, all former combatants, given adequate food, adequate
medical treatment, religious freedom, and no work? ONLY a holocaust
denier would attempt to diminish the scope of the holocaust in such
a manner. In fact, every one of those conditions that exist in
Guantanamo mitigate against calling it a concentration camp.
> > You did so when you argued strongly, as you do now that the Nazi
> > concentration camps were no worse than Guantanamo.
>
> I have made no comments regarding which is 'better', I have merely
> pointed out that 'Gitmo' is a concentration camp, in many way similar
> to Dachau (or any other camp that was used to house 'dissidents' away
> from the public without trial for indefinate periods).
>
Bull shit... there is not one single comparison that you have made between
Guantanamo and Dachau that does not imply that Dachau was _not so
bad_. It is the equivalent of comparing Jean Valjean (look him up - you
intellectual misfit) to Adolph Eichmann.
I do not intend to _defend_ Guantanamo, and you may certainly hold
an opinion which would criticize the U.S. for holding those 600 detainees.
But you are the greatest anti-Semite in AADP, if you imply that it can be
_compared_ to Dachau. You do nothing other than insult EVERY
murder victim of Dachau... since no such victim exists in Guantanamo.
Comparing mass murder on an unbelievable scale to the enforced
detainment of about 600 former combatants, each of whom would
certainly murder any of those holding them prisoner were the roles
reversed. While likely that more than half of those 600 former combatants
would not be alive today, had they been turned over to the new Afghan
regime, rather than detained in Guantanamo. Probably half of them owe
their life to being in Guantanamo, which could certainly not be said of
Dachau. In fact... Dachau is MORE than a concentration camp.
Symbolically it represents the most unbelievably inhuman event in human
history. All else PALES in comparison to the symbolic representation
of Dachau.
Actually, by simply offering such a comparison in the same breath...
there is no doubt that you imply their are great similarities.. In fact,
you argue about such similarities. Intending to IGNORE the differences
which constitute the differences between a concentration camp and
Guantanamo. Characterizing Guantanamo as a concentration camp,
is itself an attempt to compare it with the holocaust, since Guantanamo
is no more a concentration camp than would be a holding cell in the
U.K., for those awaiting possible trial. I agree it has gone on far too
long in Guantanamo... but you are an evil little anti-Semite to diminish
the holocaust by comparing Guantanamo to Dachau. And you certainly
tried to make such a comparison.
> <snip>
>
> > >> You've compared Nazi concentration camps such as Dachau with Guantanamo,
> > >> which you must realize does not condemn the U.S., but rather "cleanses" Dachau
> > >> and the Nazis of any actual perception of being "worse" than Guantanamo.
> > >
> > >I'd hardly call the forcible removal and detention of dissidents
> > >without trial, or contact with loved ones, 'a good thing', but then I
> > >am not a Merkin.
> > >
> > I never said it was a "good thing."
>
> You said to compare Dachau to 'Gitmo' "cleanses" Dachau, presumably
> cos you think 'Gitmo' is 'a good thing'.
>
Repeating -- since you seem to be ignoring what I said == I never said that
Guantanamo is 'a good thing.' I am NOT trying to "cleanse" Guantanamo...
YOU are trying to "cleanse" Dachau. You DO try to do so by comparing
Dachau to Guantanamo. You try to diminish the most inhuman
event in human history by comparing it to the detainment of 600 former
combatants. You are the Jew-Hater... even as you argue that _not
so many Jews_ were actually kept in Dachau, even as you insist that you
must "STRESS" that Dachau was not a Nazi death-camp. In both of
those examples you ARE trying to "cleanse" Dachau. You attempt
to "cleanse" Dachau, just as it would be an attempt to "cleanse" Dachau
by comparing it to any holding facility for possible criminals in the U.K.
> > YOU'VE SAID it was Dachau.
>
> No. I have said they were/are both concentration camps.
>
No.... you 'compared' the two. And in so doing you did not make
Guantanamo appear worse... you actually hoped to justify the existence
of Dachau by the Nazis. And by extension justify the holocaust as well.
It is just the same as euro "comparing" slavery and the DP to be
"just like" each other, which does nothing more than make slaves
no better than murderers in his eyes (and your eyes as well).
But Dachau and Guantanamo are not the same.. not by any stretch of the
imagination other than from a fanatic attempting to diminish the holocaust.
Only those frantically and fanatically ant-Semitic could ever compare them
in any way.
> Really, FW, you need to figure out what people are saying before you
> make a twat of yoursehn. Reminds me the episode where you said the
> statement "If the native Indians "discovered" America, then they are
> not the original ihabitants" made sense, and was beyond question.
>
What the fuck are you mumbling about? There was no "if" in my
argument. Nor did I claim that native American Indians "discovered"
America. This was my comment (you have perhaps confused me
with another poster) --
"The American Indian did not "discover" America. He was an original
part of the human landscape. Just as we presume that the Greeks did
not "discover" Greece, but were the "original inhabitants."."
The very fact that you say "native" in the sense of "American Indian"
means that you accept they are "native" to the environment. They
are the "original" inhabitants.
> > You are the one trivializing the holocaust. There are about 600
> > detainees in Guantanamo, all were combatants. All are provided
> > religious freedom, adequate food, medical treatment, not required
> > to work. And you would COMPARE that to Dachau.
>
> One of the three Nazi camps (I can't remember which, it was probably
> Buchanwald) was visited pre-war by US government representatives...
> and they loved it.
>
LOL... Your lies just keep getting bigger and bigger.
> Here's how I compare Dachau with 'Gitmo':
>
> Dachau was a concentration camp. It was used to concentrate
> dissidents, resistance types, Commies, anti-Nazi religious types,
> unacknowledged POWS etc. in a small geographic location away from the
> German population and out of the way of the German army. Those
> interned were, on the whole, not allowed to leave and were forcably
> detained for an indefinate period. No trials were held. They were held
> incommunicado without legal redress.
>
> 'Gitmo' is a concentration camp. It is used to concentrate dissidents,
> resistance types, anti-US religious types, unacknowledged POWS etc. in
> a small geographic location away from the Merkin population and out of
> the way of the Merkin army. Those interned are, on the whole, not
> allowed to leave and are forcibly detained for an indefinate period.
> No trials have been held. They are being held incommunicado without
> legal redress.
>
None of that has ANY comparative value, since the treatment cannot
be compared. Nor can the numbers be compared. Nor can the fact
that EVERY detainee held in Guantanamo being a detained combatant
be compared to Dachau which held so many non-combatants. Nor
can the fact that so many thousands were murdered in Dachau be
compared to no murders in Guantanamo. As I said, your purpose here
is to try and make it appear that Dachau was the SAME as Guantanamo...
Trying to imply that those held in Dachau were provided religious freedom
as in Guantanamo... provided adequate food as in Guantanamo... provided
adequate shelter as in Guantanamo... provided a work-free environment
as in Guantanamo...provided medical treatment as in Guantanamo... and
were not tortured... as they are not tortured in Guantanamo. In point of
fact, Dachau provided NONE of those things... Guantanamo provides them
ALL. As I said... you may criticize Guantanamo all you wish, if you
stay within the realm of realities, and compare like with like. But when
you compare Dachau to Guantanamo... there is no question that you
have two fundamental purposes...
1) You would DENY the holocaust... in respect to what Dachau actually
represents. In effect, diminishing the holocaust itself. Arguing that it
wasn't a death-camp... arguing that _not many Jews_ actually passed
into Dachau, most never to emerge.... arguing that it was the SAME as
Guantanamo.
2) The dual-purpose of presuming that Guantanamo is the holocaust
revisited... with 600 former combatants being treated the same as those
who were held in Dachau were treated. Obviously filling the role of
anti-Americanism that you certainly make no attempt to hide.
> > >> Any fool can see you are trying to TRIVIALIZE
> > >> Dachau. And then arguing that _Dachau wasn't so bad_, since it
> > >> wasn't "actually" a death camp. Jesus, Ol' Racist Nev... the
> > >> holocaust deniers never had a bigger supporter than you.
> > >
> > >That'll be the Holocaust deniers who go out of their way to make a
> > >distinction between concentration-camps (such as Dachau and Belson)
> > >and death-camps such (as Treblinka, Sorbibor, etc.).
> > >
> > That'll be you, sport.
>
> Cor blimey, FW, you're a bleedin nutter.
>
Gee... Ol' Racist Nev... is THAT the best you can do? Take some lessons
from your racist buddy, the Nameless One... he has insults down to a fine
science. And seriously... you must realize that when you provide an
insult and no intelligent content, any reasonable person can see that
you are unable to do so.
> <snip>
>
> > >> is also some strong evidence that the gas chambers contstructed
> > >> at Dachau were in fact used as intended, although not on the
> > >> scale of the true death camps. See
> > >> url:http://www.holocaust-history.org/dachau-gas-chambers/
> > >
> > >_No_ reputable historian calls Dachau a death-camp.
> > >
> > I never said it was..
>
> FuckWit admits Dachau was not a 'death-camp', as defined by himsen.
>
No... I never said it was... AND I never said it was not. In fact, I made
it rather clear that it was intended to be a death-camp, and certain evidence
exists that it WAS used as a death-camp, but not on the same scale as
those death-camp that existed outside of Germany proper. You
obviously did not look at the reference I provided. Try again, even
though it might be beyond your "reading skill" level.
> <snip>
>
> > >The fact that 'Gitmo' is a concentration camp is upsetting you, isn't
> > >it FuckWit?
> > >
> > Not at all...
>
> FuckWit, you seem to concede that 'Gitmo' is a concentration-camp...
> and that you're happy with that fact.
>
What a moron you are, Ol' Racist Nev. I do not concede that
Guantanamo is a concentration-camp... not in any way comparable
to those that existed in Nazi Germany or the Soviet Union. To
make such comparisons is obviously intending to diminish the
true nature of the real concentration camp, while trying at the
same moment to paint Guantanamo as the holocaust. I
characterize it as a camp holding about 600 former combatant
detainees. I am not happy with Guantanamo, and find it is not
worth the effort and the bad publicity the U.S. receives to hold
those 600 detainees, who no longer pose any danger. I find it
rather expensive to even waste our time with them... since I
believe 20 million dollars is being paid to construct facilities.
It's a fucking waste of time, money and energy. They should
all be put on a few troop planes and flown back to Kabul and
turned over to the Afghan government. Plain and simple. The
perception that we should try a handful of them for "war-crimes"
is naive, and if the International (sic) Court of Justice wants them
then THEY should get them.
BUT.... BUT... I will not permit you to diminish the holocaust in your
role as AADP's resident holocaust denier to compare Dachau with
Guantanamo.
<snip pathetic lies of Ol' Racist Nev>
> <snip>
>
> > >> You support their murder, arguing that they didn't really HAVE TO BE Jews.
> > >
> > >I don't think folk are 'born Islamic' either but that doesn't mean I
> > >sanction the deaths of Muslims. If you were less dim, you'd realise
> > >this.
> > >
> > That's because folks are NOT 'born Islamic." You continue to deny the
> > existence of the Jew... which can only be seen as anti-Semitism
>
> FW, I've never denied that Jews exist, you daft old duffer.
>
ROTFLMAO... You change your story from moment to moment.
You certainly HAVE denied that a Jew can be born a Jew. You
deny that JEWS EXIST. You argue that it is ONLY a religion.
Yet every reasonable person recognizes that it is much deeper
than that. Your purpose is obvious... it is to insult the true
nature of being born Jewish. As you would diminish the holocaust...
you would diminish the Jewish culture and ethnic Hebrew descent.
You may not see it....being blind as you are to your own anti-Semitism...
but reasonable people can see it.
> It is very anti-Islamic to suggest that one may be 'born Jewish', but
> not 'born Islamic', but then as you've just supported a war that saw
> thousands of bombs dropped on Iraqi civilians, why do should you care?
>
Not at all... Islam is most certainly ONLY a religion, just as is
Catholicism, and has no meaning in respect to ethnic origin. One
may certainly be BORN Arab... just as one can be BORN Jewish.
But Jewish has a dual-role, quite well-defined. One can be born
Jewish, and practice whatever religion they wish, or one can be
born a Gentile and convert to Judaism as a religion, becoming a
Jew. One can be born an Arab, and practice whatever religion
they wish, or one can be born a non-Arab and practice Islam as
a religion.
> > >> >But then as you have compared Jews to "murderers, thieves, rapists",
> > >> >what hope is there of changing yr tiny Nazi mind?
> > >> >
> > >> No.. that was YOU...
> > >
> > >No, FuckWit, it was _you_. You compared Jews to "thieves", whereas
> > >I compared Jews to 'Cathies and Atheists'.
> > >
> > No, fuckwit... it was you.
>
> FuckWit, I've never even used the words 'thieves' except when quoting
> you.
>
That has nothing to do with the fact that one cannot be BORN a thief,
fuckwit, and you have claimed a Jew cannot be BORN a Jew. The
comparison between CHOOSING to be a Jew and CHOOSING to be
a thief is YOURS, sport. All yours. I claim a Jew is born a Jew...
and it is rather obvious that a criminal is NOT born a criminal,
thus there IS NO COMPARISON.
> Now, even if one was 'born Jewish' in the way that one is born Black
> (as you maintain) would that mean that if I said what you have said
> about Jews about Blacks, that would be okay?
I don't even know what you're talking about since Jews and Blacks are
BORN Jews and Blacks. While thieves are NOT BORN thieves.
Thus -- there IS NO comparison in respect to being born of a particular
characteristic of ANY KIND.
> Even if I were to compare Muslims to "murderers, thieves, rapist"...
> would that be okay?
>
That would be up to you, sport. But I wouldn't put it past you believing
it would be okay.
> The answer to both question, IMHO, is: no.
No one believes you, fuckwit.
> As you were, Jew-hating scum.
>
Your pathetic denials of your own hate for the Jews can no longer be seen
as anything other than raving, Ol' Racist Nev. Return to the top-post here,
and see that you have condemned YOURSELF to hating the Jews... in
respect to your admission that you are a holocaust denier.
> <snip>
>
> > >> >Then, of course, there was the 'Nazi Gaffe', which I posted sperately
> > >> >to avoid it getting lost in the super-SPAM that is FuckWit's canon:
> > >> >
> > >> >http://groups.google.com/groups?hl=en&lr=&ie=UTF-8&selm=f85d58f0.0304211701.3279f5d3%40posting.google.com
> > >> >
> > >> Quite right... In America that is true. the state CANNOT murder.
> > >
> > >So, if a gas-camber is installed at 'Gitmo' (assuming there is not one
> > >already), the prisoners 'CANNOT [sic] be murdered in it by the US
> > >state'?
> >
> > No.. they cannot... they are no longer combatants and cannot be killed
> > without being afforded a trial and due process. The U.S. does not have
> > a thing called "legal murder," which is routinely used in _you know where_.
>
> I don't think they'll be afforded 'trials' as we in the West
> understand the term.
>
The operative words there being you "don't think." And it is already abundantly
clear that "thinking" is not part of your intellectual repertoire.
> > >> It's
> > >> appropriate that you would bring this up, as a point you disagree with.
> > >> Which rather proves that you find the holocaust agreeable to you, by
> > >> claiming that the State CAN Murder.
> > >
> > >I didn't claim that, FW, you did. That was the point of bringing it
> > >up, twat.
> >
> > Not true... I have NEVER claimed the laws of the Nazis were LEGAL.
>
> As the elected government of Germany, why were they not?
We've already been down this road, Ol' Racist Nev... but I understand
that your limited range of memory often fails you. Running it by you
quickly yet again --
Having no choice CANNOT BE A CRIME. That's rather a fundamental
principle of the law, which the Nazis simply ignored. And you support
them ignoring it, by arguing that ALL Jews HAD a choice. Since you
argue that the Nazi laws were LEGAL.... you argue that it can be a
crime to "BE BORN JEWISH."
My point is that being born, of whatever -- Black, White, Jew, Arab... gives
no choice as to the conditions of your birth, and thus CANNOT be a crime.
Thus someone born a Jew CANNOT be a crime. Someone born Black
CANNOT be a crime. It is IMPOSSIBLE to make it a crime to be BORN
Jewish or Black, or Arab, or Gypsy or crippled or mental retarded or
whatever. One has no CHOICE in that matter. Thus the laws of the
Nazis were UNLAWFUL on the face of it. They created LAWS which
were themselves unlawful. Laws IMPOSSIBLE to be found as lawful.
The fact is -- the state CAN decide that the CHOICES we make can
be defined as crimes, if it chooses to do so. Simply because we can
AVOID committing what the state has defined as such a crime, simply
by not committing that act. Whether it be as stupid as "wearing
suspenders," as draconian as "insulting a leader," or as obviously
necessary as "murder." They can all be characterized as "crimes"
because we can avoid committing them, regardless of how repugnant
we may PERSONALLY find calling some acts we might commit
"crimes." Morally we may disagree with any of them even being
crimes, or may fundamentally disagree with the penalties for those
crimes, but there is NOTHING unlawful, in the creation of laws defining
those acts as crimes. Since we are members of society, and have
the POWER to avoid committing those acts.
To presume otherwise is to presume that one may make a choice to
murder, and the state can do nothing about it... because they chose
to do so. When one CHOOSES to commit what the state has made
a crime, they have necessarily broken a LAWFUL law, regardless of
how we feel about that law. But the state, conversely, CANNOT
LAWFULLY make a law which makes it a crime for something that one
HAS NO CHOICE in the matter. That of being BORN a particular way...
for example. They can MAKE such a law, of course... but doing so is
simply making an UNLAWFUL LAW. It has no meaning within what
is defined as the law. They can even execute under such an unlawful
law... but when they do that is NOT a lawful execution, it is murder.
No different than a vigilante group that grabs up a citizen and hangs
him, without a lawful law behind such a hanging. That was the Nazi
"unlawful law." The one you argue was lawful.
Take some time and study this, Ol' Racist Nev... and ask the Nameless
One to explain it to you, if your brain starts to hurt.
> Did they
> Soviets make 'illegal laws'?
That would depend on the law you are speaking of. If such
a "law" made it a crime to be BORN of a certain characteristic
it was most certainly an "unlawful law."
> Were the laws in the USA that allowed
> slavery to flourish 'illegal laws'?
I believe they were "illegal laws," because I believe placement into
slavery is a "punishment" of sorts for some presumed crime...
and the "crime" being that the one placed into slavery was BORN Black.
Obviously there can BE NO SUCH LAWFUL LAW that makes being
BORN Black a "crime." You will never find me defending slavery, as
you have done by comparing it as no different from the DP for murderers
in your opposition to the DP. Any law which would place a human into
slavery because of the conditions of his birth is an UNLAWFUL LAW.
But the DP for COMMITTING the act of murder is certainly a LAWFUL
penalty, by every definition.... since one can avoid committing murder.
> Were the 'Jim Crow' Laws 'illegal
> laws' (considered legal in the US for over fifty years)?
See above. Of course -- were the 'laws' which permitted European
colonizers to massacre indigenous members of other lands, using
firearms against bow and arrows 'legal laws'?
You need to keep you eye on the basic argument, Ol' Racist
Nev. I'm not here to argue that there have never been UNLAWFUL
laws placed into use to abuse the human rights of others, or to
murder others indiscriminately. That's YOUR argument. You are
the one presuming that such laws are LAWFUL... including those
of the Nazis. I will NEVER accept that "laws" which are created
which permit the murder or enslavement of ANYONE, simply
because they are BORN can possibly be a LEGAL LAW.
> The DP is illegal in Europe, does that mean the the USA has 'illegal
> laws'?
>
>
God.. you're stupid!! How could you ever come up with that? And in
fact, you're not very precise, since the DP is NOT "illegal" in Europe.
It has been ABOLISHED. Quite different from being "illegal," since
"illegal" means it has been defined as a "CRIME." And the DP is not
defined as a "CRIME," but simply not used. You will find no legal
document referring to the DP as being "illegal" in any EU charter, or
European state law. They all speak of it being "abolished."
> I say all this in the hope that you will realise that laws passed are
> very rarely 'illegal', and yet are still very often wrong.
>
ROTFLMAO... Of course they are "very rarely" illegal, you 'idgit.'
But they are ALWAYS illegal if they presume to make "being
born" a CRIME.
PV
>Ol' Racist Nev
Ol' Racist Nev's murder threat to me if I ever visit Disneyshire --
"stay the fuck out of Derbyshire, scum, else you'll be swimming in
the Erewash Canal with all the other old boots."
Ol' Racist Nev - March 30, 2003
http://www.google.com/groups?selm=a5ec705.0304300639.5cfabaf4%40posting.google.com
While you also laughed in agreement at spike's "suggestion" that the
"unemployed or ill" be strung up. You have a rather macabre "sense
of humor," Ol' Racist Nev.