Re: Hey Jurgen....
Jim Noles
Newsgroups: alt.activism.death-penalty
Subject: Re: Hey Jurgen....
Date: Thu, 5 Dec 2002 21:03:18 +0000
Lines: 78
Sender: Desmond Coughlan <desm...@lievre.voute.net>
Message-ID: <mueosa....@lievre.voute.net>
References: <20021203173522...@mb-fv.aol.com>
<6fbH9.3044$8e2....@news-binary.blueyonder.co.uk>
<59hH9.350856$r7.63...@twister.tampabay.rr.com>
<bpnH9.9490$Pk3....@news-binary.blueyonder.co.uk>
<FizH9.416071$S8.85...@twister.tampabay.rr.com>
<o_MH9.17332$DI1....@news-binary.blueyonder.co.uk>
NNTP-Posting-Host: e117.dhcp212-198-68.noos.fr (212.198.68.117)
X-Trace: fu-berlin.de 1039122420 31201806 212.198.68.117 (16 [91468])
X-Orig-Path: not-for-mail
X-OS: BSD UNIX
Mail-Copies-To: never
X-Obsessive-Litany: http://www.zeouane.org/peinedemort/obsessive_litany.html
X-Chats: http://www.zeouane.org/chats/
X-PGP: http://www.zeouane.org/pgp/pubring.pkr
X-PGP-Fingerprint: 3F1F C838 88D5 2659 B00A 6DF6 6883 FB9C E34A AC93
User-Agent: tin/1.5.14-20020926 ("Soil") (UNIX) (FreeBSD/4.5-RELEASE (i386))
le Thu, 5 Dec 2002 18:32:00 -0000, dans l'article
<o_MH9.17332$DI1.16...@news-binary.blueyonder.co.uk>, ikke <i...@who.net> a dit ...
{ snip }
> There seems to be a rather distasteful desire and readiness by certain
> American posters to accuse Europeans of anti-Semitism. In the current
> climate one only has to sympathise with the plight of the Palestinians
> (while denouncing their suicide attacks...sigh) or accuse Sharon of being a
> crook (which he plainly is) to be called a Jew hater.
>
> If I'm wrong, and the concensus is that this is tantamount to being a Jew
> hater, then there really is no hope for any kind of adult discussion of the
> subject.
No, you're not wrong. One particular poster here likes to accuse everyone
of being anti-Semitic, whenever they thrash what passes for his
'arguments' ... and he claims to be Catholic. He even accused another
poster of having challenged the right of Israel to exist, when in fact the
poster in question had only mentioned Israel _once_ in his entire posting
history. When called on this blatant lie, the Catholic stated that no one
needed to even _mention_ Israel, for him to see anti-Semitism. Quite. One
wonders if he has syphillis or something, for he certainly is getting worse
and worse.
{ snip }
> How can you say it is a "sinister cloak"? As I said above, it's a colossal
> leap from banning what is perceived to be a cruel method of slaughter to
> rampant anti-Semitism at the heart of these countries' legislative
> processes.
As mentioned above, anything less than 150% support for the current
policies of Israel, earns you the 'anti-Semite' tag. It's the 'use' of the
Holocaust that I mentioned in a previous post, to silence dissent. The
unspoken insinuation is that if you oppose Kosher slaughter, then you were
(or would have been) in favour of the gas chambers. Six millions Jews
slaughtered, and it's all your fault !! Very soon, stating that you find
the weather in Israel to be 'too hot' will result in your being called 'a
Jew-hater'.
We can certainly remember the dead in the camps. We can certainly honour
their memory. Yet by milking those terrible events for all they are worth,
60 years later, Israel and World Jewry (of which I am part) are only
cutting their noses, to spite their face. I remember an ex-girlfriend, a
German. Not an ounce of anti-Semitism in her (the proof being that she was
going out with me). One day, she said that she thought that the
reparations paid by Germany to Israel, should stop. She recognised the
horrific crime committed by the Nazis, but felt that 55 years later,
Germany had paid sufficiently both in financial terms, and in terms of
'collective guilt'. At the time, her words shocked me, but I am now of the
same opinion. [1]
The problem is that we have spastics like LDB and Jigsaw still alive. When
they want to attack a German, they trot out the 'concentration camps' card.
Or they refer to the German as 'Adolf'. The young Germans of today are in
no way responsible for what happened before they were even born. LDB and
Jigsaw only expose the weaknesses in their own arguments, by claiming
otherwise.
{ snip }
>> There is no reason, other than latent anti-Semitism, to FORCE
>> non-kosher on a Jew. IMHO.
> As I said, if you're looking for evidence of anti-Semitim you'll have to do
> better than that, IMHO.
Yes, but he'll just claim that everyone 'knows' what he means. ROTFLMAO !
[1] now watch how LDB will twist 'Germany has paid enough', into claiming
that I wrote, 'The Germans were right to wipe out the filthy Shylocks,
O-vay ! O-vay-!'
--
Desmond Coughlan |Yamaha YZF-R1
desmond @ zeouane.org |'Ze Ouane!'
http: // www . zeouane . org
http://www.zeouane.org/peinedemort/obsessive_litany.html
Juergen
"Jim Noles" <abc...@zbqytr.ykq> schrieb im Newsbeitrag
news:pqukr05adhrpfcbq8...@4ax.com...
Well, I can't get the purpose of this Mr. Noles' repost.
Whilst being well aware of the irreparability of the crime called holocaust
I establish that my people and nation at least paid some reparations post
WWII. This symbolic prize shows at least that there is a quantum of insight
in the guilt.
There are about 2 million vietnamese people suffering right now the worst
consequences due to Agent Orange, and the U.S. of A. did three decades later
absolutey nothing to repair the damage caused by them. Indeed, the US did
not even manage a financial compensation for their *own* soldiers poisoned
by AO.
I do not think that US-Americans hold the moral superiority criticizing the
current German generation in terms of the Holocaust.
Juergen
Jim Noles
does not archive his posts to google. But, you clipped the pertinent
part. While I was required to repost the whole comment, for purposes
of retaining validity in the archive. I would hope that you did not
do so purposely, but failed to realize WHY I had reposted his
comment. It was in respect to these words from him. First he
does as usual... tries to make excuses for what is to follow...
he has tried this method frequently. Then he goes on to attack
the Jews, by implying that the Jews of today are _whiners_.
Insisting that the Jews complain about, and even USE the
holocaust, for their own _devious devices_ in his eyes. His
words in respect to the Jews of today -- "Yet by milking those
terrible events for all they are worth, 60 years later, Israel and
World Jewry (of which I am part) are only cutting their noses,
his implication that the Jews are _whiners_ by inserting a
lie in the middle... that he is a Jew. This is almost the heart
of his methods, in USING that lie. You see... he attacks the
Jews of today... and then insists that he couldn't possibly be
offering a biased view... because _he is a Jew_. But he is not.
> Whilst being well aware of the irreparability of the crime called holocaust
> I establish that my people and nation at least paid some reparations post
> WWII. This symbolic prize shows at least that there is a quantum of insight
> in the guilt.
> There are about 2 million vietnamese people suffering right now the worst
> consequences due to Agent Orange, and the U.S. of A. did three decades later
> absolutey nothing to repair the damage caused by them. Indeed, the US did
> not even manage a financial compensation for their *own* soldiers poisoned
> by AO.
>
Any chance you get to attack the U.S. you'll take it, right? The
fact is that many millions of Vietnamese were assimilated into
the U.S. social identity, as refugees following that war. And
have prospered, through their own hard work, and the opportunity
to do so in the U.S.
> I do not think that US-Americans hold the moral superiority criticizing the
> current German generation in terms of the Holocaust.
Nobody was criticizing the current German generation, Jürgen. But
let me say that if you saw that the post WAS criticizing the current
German generation, then your disapproval of that post should be
directed to Desmond. Since the post in question contains not
a single word of MINE. It is simply a copy of DESMOND'S comment,
in his response to someone called "ikke," I believe. There is not
a word of mine in that post!!! But perhaps you thought there was,
and you rather knee jerked in presuming that if it came from me, it
must be critical of the current German generation. And that is a
fallacy that you have been led to by those such as Desmond. It
appears you are just gullible enough to be taken in by Desmond,
simply because he opposes the DP. If you saw any criticism
of the current German generation in that post... it was in the
words of DESMOND!
My problem has always been with YOU... not the Germans... who
I respect deeply, and who suffered as much as any other in the
aftermath of that war. But I have always found you to hold
anti-Jewish sentiments. Forgive me for that... it is my opinion,
and I will not be swayed. But that says NOTHING about a single
other German. While Desmond has insisted in other posts
of his that --
-----------------------------------------------
"German society said that the extermination of the Jews was
a moral, legal, ethical thing to do ..."
Do you see how Desmond attacks the very fundamental morality
of all Germans?
And --
"The Germans _tried_ to exterminate the Jews, FuckWit."
And --
"it was the Germans who killed 6 million Jews."
And --
"Most Germans during the Second World War were all in favour
of what the Nazis were doing."
And--
"Just as German society CHOSE to demonstrate its hatred of Jews by
seeking to have them all exterminated."
And --
"Just as the 'community' decided that Jews were to be exterminated in
WWII."
And when Hitler's name was used in respect to the Holocaust --
"Why? He only carried out the democratic will of the German people."
-----------------------------------------------------------
You will not see me blaming the holocaust on ALL the Germans.
I try very carefully to separate the meaning of the Nazis from the
meaning of the Germans. Of course the majority of the Nazis
came from the Germans, one can argue they were mostly a
subset coming from the Germans. But even a very small number
of Jews, called Kapos, participated in their own destruction in an
attempt to save their own lives. Most will do anything, no matter
how degrading it is to themselves, because of the most primal
instinct in all biological forms of life... self survival. And many
Germans found themselves in the position of self-survival in
the closing days of the war. But the Nazis, and their various
helpers were not exclusively German. But that is Desmond's
implication in so many of his comments.
The Jews were victims of the Nazis... and to a great extent the
Germans were also victims of the Nazis. Look at what the
Nazis created to cause German suffering. Anyone who does
not think that the Germans were victimized by the Nazis, first
by the siren song rhetoric of the Nazis blaming the Jews for
everything, and then thrusting them into a world war, is blind
to what the Germans suffered during the final days of the war,
and for many years after. I know, because I was there after
ten years had passed, and the Germans were STILL suffering
the aftermath of that war. You live in Munich, ask someone
who was in their 20s in 1955, if they remember what the Munich
Bahnhof was like. Since I remember.
But do not tell me that I cannot think that anyone now living in
Germany, having roots in their past to that period, should not
hold themselves to a higher standard than others in respect to
understanding the desire of the Jews for a land of their own,
and the recognition that anti-Semitism should be attacked even
more vigorously than someone who has no historical connection
to that event. I find that I must hold myself to a higher standard
in attacking even the slightest mention of what I see as racism,
because I know full well, that my country practiced slavery...
140 years ago. And this cannot be forgotten by me. I owe
it to those who were so victimized.
You may argue until hell freezes over that you feel no special
obligation, being a German, to oppose anti-Semitism more
vigorously than others... but you will never change my view
that you do have that obligation. And I simply do not care
that you do not find it in yourself. Since that makes it
YOUR problem, not mine.
Nor will I permit our rhetoric to become so inflamed as in the
past, despite you efforts to try and have it happen, with that
anti-American rubbish you continue to expel.
JN
> Juergen
>
>
Juergen
"Jim Noles" <abc...@zbqytr.ykq> schrieb im Newsbeitrag
......> > Well, I can't get the purpose of this Mr. Noles' repost.
> >
> It was to make Desmond's comment a matter of record, since he
> does not archive his posts to google. But, you clipped the pertinent
> part. While I was required to repost the whole comment, for purposes
> of retaining validity in the archive. I would hope that you did not
> do so purposely, but failed to realize WHY I had reposted his
Indeed I did. This thread dated Dec 2002, and was/is directed at me. The
initial post was:
"Hey Jurgen, recognize any of these place names?
Hadamar, Weilmunster, Eichberg, Kalmehof, Neuengamme, Belsen, Dachau,
Mausthausen, Triblinka, Sobibor, Majdanek, Belzec, Auschwitz, Ravensbruck,
Sachsenhausen, Kulmhof and Gross Rosen
Jigsaw"
>
> > Whilst being well aware of the irreparability of the crime called
holocaust
> > I establish that my people and nation at least paid some reparations
post
> > WWII. This symbolic prize shows at least that there is a quantum of
insight
> > in the guilt.
> > There are about 2 million vietnamese people suffering right now the
worst
> > consequences due to Agent Orange, and the U.S. of A. did three decades
later
> > absolutey nothing to repair the damage caused by them. Indeed, the US
did
> > not even manage a financial compensation for their *own* soldiers
poisoned
> > by AO.
> >
> Any chance you get to attack the U.S. you'll take it, right?
Nope. This is called self-defense, Sir, after the attack on me as reposted
above. You fine company hold not a iota of any legitimation to blame the
Holocaust on me.
The
> fact is that many millions of Vietnamese were assimilated into
> the U.S. social identity, as refugees following that war. And
> have prospered, through their own hard work, and the opportunity
> to do so in the U.S.
Ah - I see. That relativates the suffering of people in Viet-Nam, and their
genetically damaged children, whose appearance requires a good deal of
imagination to recognize them as our species, of course.
Juergen
JIGSAW1695
>From: "Juergen" kasp...@augustakom.net
>Date: 12/13/2004 11:37 A.M. Eastern Standard Time
>Message-id: <cpkghh$3i5$1...@svr7.m-online.net>
Nothing America has ever did, or will do can compare to what happen at Hadamar,
Weilmunster, Eichberg, Kalmehof, Neuengamme, Belsen, Dachau,
Mausthausen, Triblinka, Sobibor, Majdanek, Belzec, Auschwitz,
Ravensbruck,Sachsenhausen, Kulmhof and Gross Rosen.
You do remember what those names represent, dont you?
Jigsaw
Juergen
"JIGSAW1695" <jigsa...@aol.com> schrieb im Newsbeitrag
news:20041213115431...@mb-m03.aol.com...
Sorry. You guys caught up, in respect to numbers, and in respect to cruelty
as well.
j.rennie1
snip.
>>
>> Nothing America has ever did,
>
> Sorry. You guys caught up, in respect to numbers, and in respect to
> cruelty
> as well.
>
>
>
No, Juergen. The American have not caught up with the Germans
or as I prefer to call them the Nazis. The total European deaths
including Russians ascribed to WWII amount to over 50,000,000.
Millions died in Indo China but not nearly so many. I have been
charitable - I have not included the 20,000,000 deaths of WWI.
Juergen
"j.rennie1" <j.re...@ntlworld.com> schrieb im Newsbeitrag
news:JXpvd.1431$7G....@newsfe4-win.ntli.net...
Mr Bruzzichesi talked about concentration camps. Not about battlefields.
What I see from US-Americans today is: Violence, violence and violence.
Absolutely Nothing Else. They are not capable of any thought beyond
aggression, military, shooting and killing. Violence is their 'culture', and
this is why a murderer and torturer was elected.
Best regards
Juergen
P.s. Dachau is a little town nearby Munich, which I happen to pass by any
morning whenever riding to my job - most of the violenteers around won't
have a clue what it means to be born not only a German, but a citizen of
Dachau. Probably they even ain't aware of an existence called Dachau that
would exceed a historic memorial.
JIGSAW1695
>Message-id: <cpnocu$oc5$1...@svr7.m-online.net>
<<<< SNipped>>>
>What I see from US-Americans today is: Violence, violence and violence.
>Absolutely Nothing Else. They are not capable of any thought beyond
>aggression, military, shooting and killing. Violence is their 'culture', and
>this is why a murderer and torturer was elected.
>
>Best regards
>
>Juergen
===============================
You see what you want to see Juergen.
Juergen
> >Subject: Re: Hey Jurgen....
> >From: "Juergen" kasp...@augustakom.net
> >Date: 12/14/2004 5:09 P.M. Eastern Standard Time
> >Message-id: <cpnocu$oc5$1...@svr7.m-online.net>
>
> <<<< SNipped>>>
>
>
> >What I see from US-Americans today is: Violence, violence and violence.
> >Absolutely Nothing Else. They are not capable of any thought beyond
> >aggression, military, shooting and killing. Violence is their 'culture',
and
> >this is why a murderer and torturer was elected.
> >
> >Best regards
> >
> >Juergen
> ===============================
>
> You see what you want to see Juergen.
>
then prove it.
Sincerely
klaun
j.rennie1
>
> "j.rennie1" <j.re...@ntlworld.com> schrieb im Newsbeitrag
> news:JXpvd.1431$7G....@newsfe4-win.ntli.net...
>>
>> "Juergen" <kasp...@augustakom.net> wrote in message
>> news:cpkiih$4jo$1...@svr7.m-online.net..
>>
>> snip.
>> >>
>> >> Nothing America has ever did,
>> >
>> > Sorry. You guys caught up, in respect to numbers, and in respect to
>> > cruelty
>> > as well.
>> >
>> >
>> >
>>
>> No, Juergen. The American have not caught up with the Germans
>> or as I prefer to call them the Nazis. The total European deaths
>> including Russians ascribed to WWII amount to over 50,000,000.
>> Millions died in Indo China but not nearly so many. I have been
>> charitable - I have not included the 20,000,000 deaths of WWI.
>>
>
> Mr Bruzzichesi talked about concentration camps. Not about battlefields.
You really don't know that much about wars and in particular
WWII do you, Juergen? Not that many of the 50,000,000 died
on battlefields. They died in concentration camps and death camps;
they died of starvation, they died from brutalisation; they died
because what was once regarded as the most educated, civilised
and cultured nation in Europe allowed itself to be seduced by
an ignorant foul little racist.
>
> What I see from US-Americans today is: Violence, violence and violence.
> Absolutely Nothing Else. They are not capable of any thought beyond
> aggression, military, shooting and killing. Violence is their 'culture',
> and
> this is why a murderer and torturer was elected.
>
> Best regards
>
> Juergen
One could make a good case for saying that ALL Germans were
violent. That their history is one of violence; that they burnt far
more witches than any other country, that they were far more prone
to militarism and fancy uniforms than most, that they practiced the
art of genocide in South West Africa, that they were indeed
responsible for atrocities in Belgium at the beginning of WWI.
It wouldn't be true just as your stupid remarks about Americans
are not true but a propagandist such as a modern day
Goebbels could still make a case.
>
> P.s. Dachau is a little town nearby Munich, which I happen to pass by any
> morning whenever riding to my job - most of the violenteers around won't
> have a clue what it means to be born not only a German, but a citizen of
> Dachau. Probably they even ain't aware of an existence called Dachau that
> would exceed a historic memorial.
>
Just as long as YOU know what Dachau signifies, Juergen. Frankly
I believe that if the citizens of your town really understood its
significance they would have changed its name long ago.
JIGSAW1695
>From: "j.rennie1" j.re...@ntlworld.com
>Date: 12/14/2004 8:01 P.M. Eastern Standard Time
>Message-id: <02Mvd.620$_g5....@newsfe1-win.ntli.net>
Based on comments made in past posts, Juergen is in denial about WWII.
Jigsaw
Juergen
> One could make a good case for saying that ALL Germans were
> violent. That their history is one of violence; that they burnt far
> more witches than any other country, that they were far more prone
> to militarism and fancy uniforms than most, that they practiced the
> art of genocide in South West Africa, that they were indeed
> responsible for atrocities in Belgium at the beginning of WWI.
> It wouldn't be true just as your stupid remarks about Americans
> are not true ........
A stupid remark may be stupid for being wrong, or it may be stupid for being
undiplomatic. It is IMHO a difference whether a liar, murderer and torturer
takes over power by election fraud, or whether he is elected by majority.
Now we know that probably the latter happened. I, forgetting political
correctness at this point, bluntly conclude that the majority of
US-Americans are in favour of Bushes methods, which are, as known, lies,
violence, and torture.
Since you are holding another opinion I would appreciate a good reasoning
why the majority of US-Americans who elected Bush would not be in clear
support of violence as a cure-all.
......but a propagandist such as a modern day
> Goebbels could still make a case.
Philip did nothing less than calling me a nazi. I would have done better not
to reply to this kind of propaganda at all, because he is pushing towards
the ad hominem level. The problem is that Philipes vile methods are Bushes
methods, and that they are "successful" with this kind of stuff.
>
> >
> > P.s. Dachau is a little town nearby Munich, which I happen to pass by
any
> > morning whenever riding to my job - most of the violenteers around won't
> > have a clue what it means to be born not only a German, but a citizen of
> > Dachau. Probably they even ain't aware of an existence called Dachau
that
> > would exceed a historic memorial.
> >
>
> Just as long as YOU know what Dachau signifies, Juergen. Frankly
> I believe that if the citizens of your town really understood its
> significance they would have changed its name long ago.
>
I happen to disagree. A change of the town's name would have equated sort of
denial of the moral zero as set by the nazis there. Of course I can not
guarantee that the town Dachau's ultimate ignoramus would have visited the
memorial Dachau. But it is almost impossible for any Dachauanian holding
even minimal awareness to overlook consequently the place of horror in
his/her direct neighbourhood.
Cheers
Juergen
j.rennie1
>
> "j.rennie1" <j.re...@ntlworld.com> schrieb im Newsbeitrag
> news:02Mvd.620$_g5...@newsfe1-win.ntli.net...
>
>
>> One could make a good case for saying that ALL Germans were
>> violent. That their history is one of violence; that they burnt far
>> more witches than any other country, that they were far more prone
>> to militarism and fancy uniforms than most, that they practiced the
>> art of genocide in South West Africa, that they were indeed
>> responsible for atrocities in Belgium at the beginning of WWI.
>> It wouldn't be true just as your stupid remarks about Americans
>> are not true ........
>
> A stupid remark may be stupid for being wrong, or it may be stupid for
> being
> undiplomatic.
Or, of course, it could just be stupid.
It is IMHO a difference whether a liar, murderer and torturer
> takes over power by election fraud, or whether he is elected by majority.
> Now we know that probably the latter happened. I, forgetting political
> correctness at this point, bluntly conclude that the majority of
> US-Americans are in favour of Bushes methods, which are, as known, lies,
> violence, and torture.
Now that compounds your stupidity, Juergen. Do you really believe
that all 28 mln or so Americans that voted for Bush are in favour of
'lies, voilence and torture'? If you do I cease to have any interest in
this thread.
> Since you are holding another opinion I would appreciate a good reasoning
> why the majority of US-Americans who elected Bush would not be in clear
> support of violence as a cure-all.
Most humans tend to believe that 'an eye for an eye' is the best
cure all. Sometimes they are right sometimes not. I hate to follow
in Jim's footsteps but I have to repeat his admonition that it ill
becomes a German to lay down moral precepts on the rest of
us. Instead you should point out the failures of German
'policy' especially during the last century and use them as a dreadful
warning to the rest of us. You could use British policy
similarly although although as we represent success and you
failure it is not so easy. :-)
>
>
> ......but a propagandist such as a modern day
>> Goebbels could still make a case.
>
> Philip did nothing less than calling me a nazi. I would have done better
> not
> to reply to this kind of propaganda at all, because he is pushing towards
> the ad hominem level. The problem is that Philipes vile methods are Bushes
> methods, and that they are "successful" with this kind of stuff.
That you should bother with what an idiot like Jiggy calls
you is surprising. You've posted here for some years so
you should have learned that he possesses very few virtues
other than that of making us laugh occasionally.
>>
>> >
>> > P.s. Dachau is a little town nearby Munich, which I happen to pass by
> any
>> > morning whenever riding to my job - most of the violenteers around
>> > won't
>> > have a clue what it means to be born not only a German, but a citizen
>> > of
>> > Dachau. Probably they even ain't aware of an existence called Dachau
> that
>> > would exceed a historic memorial.
>> >
>>
>> Just as long as YOU know what Dachau signifies, Juergen. Frankly
>> I believe that if the citizens of your town really understood its
>> significance they would have changed its name long ago.
>>
>
> I happen to disagree. A change of the town's name would have equated sort
> of
> denial of the moral zero as set by the nazis there.
And I disagree with you. Failure to change the town's
name show a lack of sensitivity; a characteristic of the
German people. "And where do you come from,
Heinz?" asks the Israeli exchange teacher. "Dachau,
Miss."
Euro
"JIGSAW1695" <jigsa...@aol.com> wrote in message
news:20041213115431...@mb-m03.aol.com...
> Nothing America has ever did, or will do can compare to what happen at
Hadamar,
> Weilmunster, Eichberg, Kalmehof, Neuengamme, Belsen, Dachau,
> Mausthausen, Triblinka, Sobibor, Majdanek, Belzec, Auschwitz,
> Ravensbruck,Sachsenhausen, Kulmhof and Gross Rosen.
>
Has ever "did" (sic... you probably meant "done"), maybe. "Will do", one can
only hope so. If my memory is correct, the above names (not all correct:
Matthausen and Treblinka) are names of concentration camps. To that regard,
Guantanamo could also fit in your list, and what "America" is doing there is
nothing you, as an American, should be proud of.
Euro
Richard J
>
> "j.rennie1" <j.re...@ntlworld.com> schrieb im Newsbeitrag
> news:02Mvd.620$_g5...@newsfe1-win.ntli.net...
>
>
> > One could make a good case for saying that ALL Germans were
> > violent. That their history is one of violence; that they burnt far
> > more witches than any other country, that they were far more prone
> > to militarism and fancy uniforms than most, that they practiced the
> > art of genocide in South West Africa, that they were indeed
> > responsible for atrocities in Belgium at the beginning of WWI.
> > It wouldn't be true just as your stupid remarks about Americans
> > are not true ........
>
> A stupid remark may be stupid for being wrong, or it may be stupid for
being
> undiplomatic. It is IMHO a difference whether a liar, murderer and
torturer
> takes over power by election fraud, or whether he is elected by majority.
> Now we know that probably the latter happened. I, forgetting political
> correctness at this point, bluntly conclude that the majority of
> US-Americans are in favour of Bushes methods, which are, as known, lies,
> violence, and torture.
> Since you are holding another opinion I would appreciate a good reasoning
> why the majority of US-Americans who elected Bush would not be in clear
> support of violence as a cure-all.
Juergen, your assumption is too simplistic. (Don't feel badly, most
European liberal viewpoints on the subject of Bush are rather simplistic)
There are other, much more important factors most voters who supported Bush
looked at. I know, for I looked at them to before ultimately voting for
his opponent.
1. War time leaders never lose an election in the US. Quite simply
explained, most Americans feel it is not wise to change leadership,
especially to someone radically different from the incumbent in viewpoint,
during the commission of a war.
2. Many Americans felt, and still feel that presidental elections
deteriorated through the years to a choice between the lesser of two evils
rather than between who is the best man for the job. Many, myself included,
saw the choices of this election in EXACTLY that light.
3. The Democratic party used to be the party of conservatives in the US.
As such, they enjoyed strong suport woth the working class while promoting
social equality for minorities. Democrats have swung far enough left they
lost the support of many ordinary Americans who, while not strongly
conservative still prefer not to be all out liberal (by American standards).
To make matters worse, most major Democratic leaders are seen as North
Eastern liberals which alienates many Southern and Midwestern voters.
The result is that Democrats lost their traditional power base n the South
and alienated middle to lower class Americans except for the minorities who
they courted fiercely. The simple truth is that no political party can win
at this time only on the minority and Eastern vote.
>
>
> ......but a propagandist such as a modern day
> > Goebbels could still make a case.
>
> Philip did nothing less than calling me a nazi. I would have done better
not
> to reply to this kind of propaganda at all, because he is pushing towards
> the ad hominem level. The problem is that Philipes vile methods are Bushes
> methods, and that they are "successful" with this kind of stuff.
In case you didn't watch the election tactics, both sides waged one of the
dirtiest campaigns at all levels I've seen in decades. I believe it goes
right with the idea of having to choose the lesser of two evils rather than
the best man to vote for.
> >
> > >
> > > P.s. Dachau is a little town nearby Munich, which I happen to pass by
> any
> > > morning whenever riding to my job - most of the violenteers around
won't
> > > have a clue what it means to be born not only a German, but a citizen
of
> > > Dachau. Probably they even ain't aware of an existence called Dachau
> that
> > > would exceed a historic memorial.
> > >
> >
> > Just as long as YOU know what Dachau signifies, Juergen. Frankly
> > I believe that if the citizens of your town really understood its
> > significance they would have changed its name long ago.
> >
>
> I happen to disagree. A change of the town's name would have equated sort
of
> denial of the moral zero as set by the nazis there. Of course I can not
> guarantee that the town Dachau's ultimate ignoramus would have visited the
> memorial Dachau. But it is almost impossible for any Dachauanian holding
> even minimal awareness to overlook consequently the place of horror in
> his/her direct neighbourhood.
>
> Cheers
>
> Juergen
>
>
There are many revisionist historians who not only try to overlook the
autrocities of Nazi Germany, but actually dany anything ever happened,
Juergen.
Teflon
j.rennie1
"Richard J" <ric...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:32bb6rF...@individual.net...
>>
>
> There are many revisionist historians who not only try to overlook the
> autrocities of Nazi Germany, but actually dany anything ever happened,
> Juergen.
>
> Teflon
>
>
Not that many, Richard. We could both name Irving.
How about another of note?
Richard J
"j.rennie1" <j.re...@ntlworld.com> wrote in message
news:vl0wd.475$V%4....@newsfe6-win.ntli.net...
None of note, but there are some amatures who are pretty insistent.
Teflon
Jim Noles
> James ''Nazi Bastard' Noles <na...@earthlink.net> wrote ...
> { snip }
>
>>> Well, I can't get the purpose of this Mr. Noles' repost.
>
>> It was to make Desmond's comment a matter of record, since he does not
>> archive his posts to google.
>
>
> url:http://www.google.fr/groups?as_epq=Hey%20Jurgen&as_uauthors=zeouane&lr=lang_en&num=100&hl=fr
>
> Try again, FuckWit.
>
> ROFLMAO !!!
>
Actually your COMMENT is a matter of record, Desmond. See --
http://www.google.fr/groups?selm=mueosa.6h91.ln%40lievre.voute.net
I was just making sure it stays there, and you do not ask google
to remove it. But you wouldn't do that... would you?
Notice that you accuse the Jews of "milking" the holocaust. Implying
that the Jews are _whiners_. Just some proof that you are not respectful
of the Holocaust, and what the Jews actually suffered.
JN
> --
> 100%_Jewish
http://groups-beta.google.com/group/alt.activism.death-penalty/msg/f1cd5d9341df3abd
Jim Noles
>
> "Jim Noles" <abc...@zbqytr.ykq> schrieb im Newsbeitrag
>> >> { snip }
> ......> > Well, I can't get the purpose of this Mr. Noles' repost.
>> >
>> It was to make Desmond's comment a matter of record, since he
>> does not archive his posts to google. But, you clipped the pertinent
>> part. While I was required to repost the whole comment, for purposes
>> of retaining validity in the archive. I would hope that you did not
>> do so purposely, but failed to realize WHY I had reposted his
>> comment. .....
>
> Indeed I did. This thread dated Dec 2002, and was/is directed at me. The
> initial post was:
>
> "Hey Jurgen, recognize any of these place names?
>
> Hadamar, Weilmunster, Eichberg, Kalmehof, Neuengamme, Belsen, Dachau,
> Mausthausen, Triblinka, Sobibor, Majdanek, Belzec, Auschwitz, Ravensbruck,
> Sachsenhausen, Kulmhof and Gross Rosen
>
>
> Jigsaw"
There is not a single word, above, that was in the post that I offered of
Desmond's words. My problem with the comment from Desmond was
that he stated in his post -- "Yet by milking those terrible events for all
they are worth, 60 years later, Israel and World Jewry (of which I am part)
are only cutting their noses, to spite their face."
First, it is now proven that Desmond is not Jewish, and that particular
comment demonstrates that he used the claim of being Jewish, just
so he could attack the Jews. Since he claims the Jews are "milking"
the holocaust. Which means he insists they are _whiners_, and the
holocaust is being USED by them for their personal advantage.
What do you think? Do you think the JEWS, are "milking" the
holocaust?
>> > Whilst being well aware of the irreparability of the crime called holocaust
>> > I establish that my people and nation at least paid some reparations post
>> > WWII. This symbolic prize shows at least that there is a quantum of insight
>> > in the guilt.
>> > There are about 2 million vietnamese people suffering right now the worst
>> > consequences due to Agent Orange, and the U.S. of A. did three decades later
>> > absolutey nothing to repair the damage caused by them. Indeed, the US did
>> > not even manage a financial compensation for their *own* soldiers poisoned
>> > by AO.
>> >
>> Any chance you get to attack the U.S. you'll take it, right?
>
> Nope. This is called self-defense, Sir, after the attack on me as reposted
> above. You fine company hold not a iota of any legitimation to blame the
> Holocaust on me.
You will not see me imply that there is "blame on you," Jürgen. It
is impossible to assess BLAME for something you were personally
not a part of. My argument has always been that I feel the same
about the Germans, as I do about Americans. We both have a
history that demands of this generation an awareness of that history,
and the recognition that we must hold ourselves to a higher standard
than those from other nations that have no such history. If you
insist that you do not care about that history... and simply insist it
means nothing to you... then shame on you, IMO. But I would
insist that if I did not try to hold myself to a higher standard in
opposition to racism, than those from nations which did not practice
slavery to the extent it was practiced in the U.S.... then there
would be shame on me. And obviously I cannot be "blamed" for
slavery.
In fact, I never even knew that this particular part of the thread had
anything to do with you, since it was Desmond responding to someone
called "ikke." But you certainly jumped on it, like it was from me.
While I suspect that you don't wish to actually criticize Desmond,
since you need him as an ally in your anti-Americanism, your
opposition to the DP in the U.S., and your opposition to the Jewish
state of Israel. All of which you share similar doctrines.
But keep in mind that HE has been the one attacking the Germans,
rather than the Nazis, since you clipped all of his comments which
essentially insult the German, perhaps to defend the Nazis --
Again... some of HIS comments --
--------------------------------------------------------------------------
"German society said that the extermination of the Jews was
a moral, legal, ethical thing to do ..."
Do you see how Desmond attacks the very fundamental morality
of all Germans?
And --
"The Germans _tried_ to exterminate the Jews, FuckWit."
And --
"it was the Germans who killed 6 million Jews."
And --
"Most Germans during the Second World War were all in favour
of what the Nazis were doing."
And--
"Just as German society CHOSE to demonstrate its hatred of Jews by
seeking to have them all exterminated."
And --
"Just as the 'community' decided that Jews were to be exterminated in
WWII."
And when Hitler's name was used in respect to the Holocaust --
"Why? He only carried out the democratic will of the German people."
-----------------------------------------------------------
I really do not think you even read my comment, but simply knee-jerked
in your typical anti-Americanism.
>>The
>> fact is that many millions of Vietnamese were assimilated into
>> the U.S. social identity, as refugees following that war. And
>> have prospered, through their own hard work, and the opportunity
>> to do so in the U.S.
>
> Ah - I see. That relativates the suffering of people in Viet-Nam, and their
> genetically damaged children, whose appearance requires a good deal of
> imagination to recognize them as our species, of course.
As I pointed out... any chance you have to attack the U.S.... you'll
take it. I will not descend to your level, and get as brutal as you seem
to want to get. Although comparing Vietnam with the holocaust,
says something about you.
JN
> Juergen
>
>
Jim Noles
>
> "j.rennie1" <j.re...@ntlworld.com> schrieb im Newsbeitrag
> news:JXpvd.1431$7G....@newsfe4-win.ntli.net...
>>
>> "Juergen" <kasp...@augustakom.net> wrote in message
>> news:cpkiih$4jo$1...@svr7.m-online.net..
>>
>> snip.
>> >>
>> >> Nothing America has ever did,
>> >
>> > Sorry. You guys caught up, in respect to numbers, and in respect to
>> > cruelty
>> > as well.
>> >
>> >
>> >
>>
>> No, Juergen. The American have not caught up with the Germans
>> or as I prefer to call them the Nazis. The total European deaths
>> including Russians ascribed to WWII amount to over 50,000,000.
>> Millions died in Indo China but not nearly so many. I have been
>> charitable - I have not included the 20,000,000 deaths of WWI.
>>
>
> Mr Bruzzichesi talked about concentration camps. Not about battlefields.
>
> What I see from US-Americans today is: Violence, violence and violence.
> Absolutely Nothing Else. They are not capable of any thought beyond
> aggression, military, shooting and killing. Violence is their 'culture', and
> this is why a murderer and torturer was elected.
>
JN
> Best regards
>
> Juergen
>
> P.s. Dachau is a little town nearby Munich, which I happen to pass by any
> morning whenever riding to my job - most of the violenteers around won't
> have a clue what it means to be born not only a German, but a citizen of
> Dachau. Probably they even ain't aware of an existence called Dachau that
> would exceed a historic memorial.
>
Shame on them, then.
Euro
"Jim Noles" <abc...@zbqytr.ykq> wrote in message
news:Sbbwd.120812$8G4....@tornado.tampabay.rr.com...
> As I pointed out... any chance you have to attack the U.S.... you'll
> take it. I will not descend to your level, and get as brutal as you seem
> to want to get. Although comparing Vietnam with the holocaust,
> says something about you.
It says about the same thing as your comparing Goebbels with Desmond, or
with me.
Euro
Juergen
>
...> It is IMHO a difference whether a liar, murderer and torturer
> > takes over power by election fraud, or whether he is elected by
majority.
> > Now we know that probably the latter happened. I, forgetting political
> > correctness at this point, bluntly conclude that the majority of
> > US-Americans are in favour of Bushes methods, which are, as known, lies,
> > violence, and torture.
>
> Now that compounds your stupidity, Juergen. Do you really believe
> that all 28 mln or so Americans that voted for Bush are in favour of
> 'lies, voilence and torture'? If you do I cease to have any interest in
> this thread.
>
> > Since you are holding another opinion I would appreciate a good
reasoning
> > why the majority of US-Americans who elected Bush would not be in clear
> > support of violence as a cure-all.
>
> Most humans tend to believe that 'an eye for an eye' is the best
> cure all. Sometimes they are right sometimes not. I hate to follow
> in Jim's footsteps but I have to repeat his admonition that it ill
> becomes a German to lay down moral precepts on the rest of
> us. Instead you should point out the failures of German
> 'policy' especially during the last century and use them as a dreadful
> warning to the rest of us.
I gave up doing so. There are people who bother figuring out the
philosophical consequences of the Holocaust, not for the Germans but in view
of the absolute freedom of man and the grade of responsibility resulting
thereof, and there are people who believe in their automatic moral
superiority by a simple 'us and them'. The first do not need any warnings,
the latter are immune against.
You could use British policy
> similarly although although as we represent success and you
> failure it is not so easy. :-)
>
> >
> >
> > ......but a propagandist such as a modern day
> >> Goebbels could still make a case.
> >
> > Philip did nothing less than calling me a nazi. I would have done better
> > not
> > to reply to this kind of propaganda at all, because he is pushing
towards
> > the ad hominem level. The problem is that Philipes vile methods are
Bushes
> > methods, and that they are "successful" with this kind of stuff.
>
> That you should bother with what an idiot like Jiggy calls
> you is surprising. You've posted here for some years so
> you should have learned that he possesses very few virtues
> other than that of making us laugh occasionally.
>
As told, I better should have not replied at all.
Cheers
Juergen
Juergen
"Richard J" <ric...@hotmail.com> schrieb im Newsbeitrag
news:32bb6rF...@individual.net...
Well, this points are not unknown. Bush, however, who is among other things
responsible for torture and killing of war-prisoners without charge and
conviction in Afghanistan and Iraq, claimed to hold stronger moral values
than Kerry; and a lot of voters apparently believed so.
I wonder what moral values this should be.
Sincerely
Juergen
Richard J
The President (or for that matter prime minister or chanchelor) IS
ultimately responsible for the acts of the military in any nation. To say,
however, that Bush had personally ordered the torture or murder of Iraqis by
soldiers is a bit of a leap. Can you say that any German Chancelor knows at
all times what his armed forces do? I doubt it.
Do you think your Executive branch is aware of everything done by the German
Special Forces working in Afghanistan? I really doubt it.
Teflon
JIGSAW1695
>From: "Richard J" ric...@hotmail.com
>Date: 12/16/2004 5:16 P.M. Eastern Standard Time
>Message-id: <32ejg1F...@individual.net>
Juergen has different standards for different situations. When it comes to all
things American, he finds nothing but fault.
It is part of the inbred defensive mechanism that comes with his German
heritage.
Jigsaw
Juergen
>
> The President (or for that matter prime minister or chanchelor) IS
> ultimately responsible for the acts of the military in any nation. To
say,
> however, that Bush had personally ordered the torture or murder of Iraqis
by
> soldiers is a bit of a leap. Can you say that any German Chancelor knows
at
> all times what his armed forces do? I doubt it.
>
> Do you think your Executive branch is aware of everything done by the
German
> Special Forces working in Afghanistan? I really doubt it.
>
Bush prepared explicitely the ground for torture and totally capricious
arrests. The agreement with torturous interview-methods was given by
Rumsfeld himself, and the guys invented Guantánamo for not having to deal
with democratic law.
Humanitary organizations told more than once that torture in Iraq and
Afghanistan is not limited to a few cases, but systematic and wanted.
Juergen
Juergen
>> >>
> >
> >The President (or for that matter prime minister or chanchelor) IS
> >ultimately responsible for the acts of the military in any nation. To
say,
> >however, that Bush had personally ordered the torture or murder of Iraqis
by
> >soldiers is a bit of a leap. Can you say that any German Chancelor knows
at
> >all times what his armed forces do? I doubt it.
> >
> >Do you think your Executive branch is aware of everything done by the
German
> >Special Forces working in Afghanistan? I really doubt it.
> >
> >Teflon
> >=============================
>
> Juergen has different standards for different situations. When it comes
to all
> things American, he finds nothing but fault.
> It is part of the inbred defensive mechanism that comes with his German
> heritage.
>
>
face of a boy born with two brains and without eyes in Viet-Nam due to your
deployment of Agent Orange. Such does happen three decades after the war and
I can't see any will of the US to take responsibility.
Juergen
Jim Noles
AUSCHWITZ, Belzec were ALL extermination camps. DEATH CAMPS!!!
And you would dare compare even the Nazi concentration camps, with
Guantanamo. What a truly sick fuck you are, euro. Your hate for the
U.S. is so extreme that you would excuse the Nazis --
Dachau - with the number of victims certainly in the hundreds of thousands
while the actual number will never be known -- See ---
http://www.jewishvirtuallibrary.org/jsource/Holocaust/dachau.html
Ravensbruck -- estimated victims 92,000 -See --
http://www.jewishgen.org/ForgottenCamps/Camps/RavensbruckEng.html
Bergen-Belsen -- Look at this and tell me this is Guantanamo --
http://www.scrapbookpages.com/BergenBelsen/Introduction.html
Sachsenhausen --200,000 prisoners... 100,000 victims.. See --
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sachsenhausen_%28detention_camp%29
Hadamar -- 15,000 victims. See --
http://www.ushmm.org/wlc/article.php?lang=en&ModuleId=10006174
Mauthausen -- See --
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mauthausen_concentration_camp
It is not a matter of being "proud" of Guantanamo, it is a matter
of you trying to excuse the excesses of the Nazis, in trying to
make any comparison.
JN
> Euro (sick....sick... sick)
James Noles is a racist
wrote:
>"Euro" <vs...@hotmail.com> wrote in message news:1103122570.abe67d007bab15d351f96a3bc6beb391@meganetnews2...
>>
>> "JIGSAW1695" <jigsa...@aol.com> wrote in message
>> news:20041213115431...@mb-m03.aol.com...
>>
>>
>>> Nothing America has ever did, or will do can compare to what happen at
>> Hadamar,
>>> Weilmunster, Eichberg, Kalmehof, Neuengamme, Belsen, Dachau,
>>> Mausthausen, Triblinka, Sobibor, Majdanek, Belzec, Auschwitz,
>>> Ravensbruck,Sachsenhausen, Kulmhof and Gross Rosen.
>>>
>>
>> Has ever "did" (sic... you probably meant "done"), maybe. "Will do", one can
>> only hope so. If my memory is correct, the above names (not all correct:
>> Matthausen and Treblinka) are names of concentration camps. To that regard,
>> Guantanamo could also fit in your list, and what "America" is doing there is
>> nothing you, as an American, should be proud of.
>>
>What???? No wonder I see you as a neo-Nazi. Treblinka, Sobibor, Majdanek,
>AUSCHWITZ, Belzec were ALL extermination camps. DEATH CAMPS!!!
>
>And you would dare compare even the Nazi concentration camps, with
>Guantanamo.
Here you are taking your wishes for reality, James Noles. I never
compared the Nazi concentration camps with Guantanamo, but made it
observe, to an American citizen who thinks it funny to blame past Nazi
concentration camps on a nowadays German, that one didn't need to go
back to 60 years ago to find concentration camps in the US history.
This is sad, but true. Guantanamo is a concentration camp in which
people are kept as prisoners, with no legal guarantee, and where
torture is being used as a government way to get information.
Now, James... speaking of Nazis... who did argue that there is a
Jewish race?
It's You! Indeed, you wrote:
From: A Planet Visitor <abc...@zbqytr.ykq>
Newsgroups: alt.activism.death-penalty,soc.culture.french
Subject: Re: A Great And Brave President
Message-ID: <4b9dtvobv6ovhh8pa...@4ax.com>
Date: Wed, 10 Dec 2003 07:19:57 GMT
Most of the comments concerning a "Jewish race," are anti-Semitic in
origin, or extremist Zionist demands that the Jews be seen as a
'race.'
Certainly that was Hitler's idea. There is, of course, a genetic
predisposition
of Jews to various 'genetic illnesses,' such as Niemann-Pick, Canavan,
Gaucher, and Tay-Sachs. But there is no "Jewish race," and when
I have used that term I have used it in connection to the Nazis ideas
of that "Jewish race."
--------------------------------
You also wrote, a few months after on the same newsgroups:
--------------------------------
From: A Planet Visitor <abc...@zbqytr.ykq>
Newsgroups: soc.culture.french,alt.activism.death-penalty
Subject: Re: Earl Evleth: Stalker & Hypocrite
Message-ID: <lufoh0tlpnt1v9rip...@4ax.com>
Date: Fri, 13 Aug 2004 04:59:10 GMT
While, in fact... according to The American Heritage® Dictionary of
the English Language, Fourth Edition -- See --
http://dictionary.reference.com/search?q=race
(A group of people united or classified together on the basis of
common history, nationality, or geographic distribution: the German
race. - remark added by Euro, taken from the link above)
there is nothing basically wrong with speaking of "The German race."
If we understand that it has no meaning in separating any 'race'
from that of the HUMAN RACE. The Dictionary itself USES
that very idea, as an example in the definition. Do you think the
Germans are a "race"? If so, and the dictionary argues that it is
meaningful to do so, why can there not be a "Jewish race"
without the argument that it meets the Nazi definition of the
Jews?
---------------------------
Here, you surreptitiously, viciously, took the example of the use of
"race" in English (a very specific use to that language) to qualify
persons from a nation, with a common history, nationality, geographic
distribution, to suggest that one could apply it to a group of people
sharing the same religion, but not the same history, the same
nationality, the same geographic distribution. You induced that, since
one could refer to the Germans as a "race", one could refer to the
Jews as a "race" as well, while it is absolutely not equivalent (would
one consider speaking of a "Buddhist race" or a "Christian race"?),
and with full knowledge of the ideologically highly tendencious
implications of his stance.
That is utterly racist, and I believe that, in doing so, you attempt
to give a new impulsion to Hitler's racist "theories".
Euro
James Noles lives in Leesburg, Florida. Here is the James Noles "I build a lie" method. One example:
1/ Take an out-of-context quotation from a poster, for instance Planet Visitor who, about Hitler, wrote that: "he 'deserves criticism' since he didn't 'finish the job.'
2/ Give the link to this quotation: http://tinyurl.com/6rzqf
3/ You have now I have the "proof" that Planet Visitor is a neo-nazi who regrets that Hitler didn't "finish the job" and thinks he deserves criticism for that.
4/ Post and repost at will.
5/ That's the James Noles "I build a lie" method.
Or again:
1/ Take an out-of-context quotation from a poster, for instance Planet Visitor who, about Iraq, wrote : "But I now believe that even an Islamic government would be preferable to what was before".
2/ Give the link to this quotation: http://groups.google.com/groups?selm=6r19av03bai69kjpo...@4ax.com
3/ You have now I have the "proof" that Planet Visitor PREFERS the installation of an islamist regime in Iraq.
4/ Post and repost at will.
5/ That's the James Noles "I build a lie" method.
Jim Noles
not contend that Goebbels was "polite," as you have praised him
as being. And not trying to compare the horrendous nature of the
holocaust with the much less horrendous nature of Vietnam. Which
only serves to place the holocaust in a less damaging light. And
it is sickening that you would try to defend YOUR nature, by
attempting to diminish the holocaust to that of Vietnam. But quite
in keeping with your character, which always attempts to diminish
the holocaust.
JN
> Euro
>
Jim Noles
news:319892-...@zeouane.org...
> James Noles <na...@earthlink.net> wrote ...
>
>> "100% Liar" <100%_je...@zeouane.org> wrote in message news:uhc092-...@zeouane.org...
>>> James Noles <na...@earthlink.net> wrote ...
>
>>>> It was to make Desmond's comment a matter of record, since he does not
>>>> archive his posts to google.
>
>>> Well it appears to have failed then, Nazi Noles ...
>>>
>>> url:http://www.google.fr/groups?as_epq=Hey%20Jurgen&as_uauthors=zeouane&lr=lang_en&num=100&hl=fr
>>>
>>> Try again, FuckWit.
>>>
>>> ROFLMAO !!!
>
>> Actually your COMMENT is a matter of record, Desmond. See --
>> http://www.google.fr/groups?selm=mueosa.6h91.ln%40lievre.voute.net
>>
>> I was just making sure it stays there, and you do not ask google to
>> remove it. But you wouldn't do that... would you?
>
You have no copyright here, Desmond. And if you removed it, it
would only be because google honors such requests.
> Should that happen, then the article _will_ be removed, its removal will be
> my sovereign right, and your empty follow-up [1] will in no way constitute
> an 'archive', FuckWit.
>
As long as I can republish your words, they will be there for others
to examine, Desmond. You cannot stop me. You certainly cannot
expect to defame me, over and over, and walk away smugly, as if you
had never done so. Just as I cannot stop you from lying, in claiming
you never posted them. It will be the reader who needs to decide.
And given your track-record of lies, it doesn't take a rocket scientist
to see who would be lying.
> HTH.
>
Ah... another salute from you to your hero... The old "Hail to Hitler"
to your Fuhrer.
> [1] empty of text, I mean ... as distinct from empty of cogent or
> intelligent meaning ... like all of your posts
LOL... pretty desperate, Desmond.
JN
> --
> 100%_Jewish
>
You're not Jewish, Desmond. See --
http://groups-beta.google.com/group/alt.activism.death-penalty/msg/a57bf76e22fe264d
Jim Noles
news:1103287489.c10025eee1a9068a11c9b60696de52e2@meganetnews2...
> On Fri, 17 Dec 2004 08:13:18 GMT, "Jim Noles" <abc...@zbqytr.ykq>
> wrote:
>
>>"Euro" <vs...@hotmail.com> wrote in message news:1103122570.abe67d007bab15d351f96a3bc6beb391@meganetnews2...
>>>
>>> "JIGSAW1695" <jigsa...@aol.com> wrote in message
>>> news:20041213115431...@mb-m03.aol.com...
>>>
>>>
>>>> Nothing America has ever did, or will do can compare to what happen at
>>> Hadamar,
>>>> Weilmunster, Eichberg, Kalmehof, Neuengamme, Belsen, Dachau,
>>>> Mausthausen, Triblinka, Sobibor, Majdanek, Belzec, Auschwitz,
>>>> Ravensbruck,Sachsenhausen, Kulmhof and Gross Rosen.
>>>>
>>>
>>> Has ever "did" (sic... you probably meant "done"), maybe. "Will do", one can
>>> only hope so. If my memory is correct, the above names (not all correct:
>>> Matthausen and Treblinka) are names of concentration camps. To that regard,
>>> Guantanamo could also fit in your list, and what "America" is doing there is
>>> nothing you, as an American, should be proud of.
>>>
>>What???? No wonder I see you as a neo-Nazi. Treblinka, Sobibor, Majdanek,
>>AUSCHWITZ, Belzec were ALL extermination camps. DEATH CAMPS!!!
>>
>>And you would dare compare even the Nazi concentration camps, with
>>Guantanamo.
>
> Here you are taking your wishes for reality, James Noles. I never
> compared the Nazi concentration camps with Guantanamo, but made it
> observe, to an American citizen who thinks it funny to blame past Nazi
> concentration camps on a nowadays German, that one didn't need to go
> back to 60 years ago to find concentration camps in the US history.
No, you compared them, euro. And you even tried to compare the death
camps with Guantanamo, insisting that the names Jigsaw had provided
were _only_ those of Nazi concentration camps. Your "memory" is
deeply flawed. And yet you simply ignored that you were exposed as
someone trying to turn those death camps into concentration camps.
When will you ever gain sufficient backbone to admit that you do not
like the Jews? Nor do those words of Jigsaw do anything but insist
that those Nazi concentration camps, and death camps far exceed
any atrocities that might be committed by the U.S. In fact, the events
in the former Yugoslavia far exceed anything that might be committed
by the U.S. in the way of atrocities. That is not to make an excuse for
any atrocity, but to put it in the proper framework. If you intend to
condemn Guantanamo, you cannot attempt to DEFEND these camps
offered by Jigsaw. And that is truly what you are trying to do. Turning
death camps, into concentration camps, in order to call Guantanamo
a concentration camp. While it hold about 600 captured combatants.
And that is not to defend Guantanamo, since it is absurd to even have
that camp after all these years. Send the shits back to Afghanistan,
and probably half of them will end up being executed or sent to long
prison terms in a much more harsh environment than Guantanamo
could ever be. It is certainly what I suggest be done, and probably
what Jigsaw would suggest, although I cannot speak for him. It's
a tremendous waste of money, and manpower. And offers no
advantages in gaining additional intelligence after this amount of
time, and only makes us look bad, in the eyes of the Arabs. He is
often highly defensive of U.S. actions, as you are with European
actions. Far more than appears rational to me. But when you try
to DEFEND the Nazi camps, by introducing Guantanamo, you are
sick. Criticize Guantanamo if you will... but NOT by defending the
Nazi camps. Jigsaw is quite correct in his words, while he should
not, in my mind, defend Guantanamo. But one CANNOT attack
Guantanamo, by claiming that there is no difference between it
and the Nazi camps. In fact, Jigsaw left off one death camp of the
Nazis... Chelmno.
> This is sad, but true. Guantanamo is a concentration camp in which
> people are kept as prisoners, with no legal guarantee, and where
> torture is being used as a government way to get information.
>
Once again, you expect to dismiss the Nazi concentration camps,
as apparently meaningless to you. And even having claimed that
the death camps offered by Jigsaw, were _only_ concentration
camps.
> Now, James... speaking of Nazis... who did argue that there is a
> Jewish race?
That would be the dictionary. While you see it as the Nazis saw it...
and find that the Jewish race is DISGUSTING to you. You really
do hate the idea of the Jews actually being
> It's You! Indeed, you wrote:
>
> From: A Planet Visitor <abc...@zbqytr.ykq>
> Newsgroups: alt.activism.death-penalty,soc.culture.french
> Subject: Re: A Great And Brave President
> Message-ID: <4b9dtvobv6ovhh8pa...@4ax.com>
> Date: Wed, 10 Dec 2003 07:19:57 GMT
>
>
> Most of the comments concerning a "Jewish race," are anti-Semitic in
> origin, or extremist Zionist demands that the Jews be seen as a 'race.'
> Certainly that was Hitler's idea. There is, of course, a genetic predisposition
> of Jews to various 'genetic illnesses,' such as Niemann-Pick, Canavan,
> Gaucher, and Tay-Sachs. But there is no "Jewish race," and when
> I have used that term I have used it in connection to the Nazis ideas
> of that "Jewish race."
> --------------------------------
Right.... that is exactly the way that YOU see the Jewish race. Just
like the Nazis. There is no idea that I argue anything other than that
the NAZIS, just as YOU, tried to make the idea of a "Jewish race"
one of referring to a particular group of humans, as _sub-humans_.
You subscribe to that theory of the Nazis. Finding that there are
no humans who are Jewish through birthright.
Here, you surreptitiously, and viciously tried to distort that definition.
Since it states -- "A genealogical line; a lineage." While there is
sufficient evidence to speak of a "Jewish nation" as meaning the
_nation of those who have a Jewish descent_. Even the SCOTUS
has recognized the idea of a _Jewish race_, for purposes of
anti-Discrimination laws. See -
http://www.tulanelink.com/legal/supreme_98a.htm
Of course it is NOT my argument that there IS a Jewish race. Simply
that the meaning of the word _race_ is so blurred that all the cross-eyed
people in the world, could be called _the race of all cross-eyed people_.
Genetically it is much less clear in using such a term. But the Jews
can certainly be evaluated as a distinct social segment of our species,
having a common bond through their culture, heritage and history,
which does not depend upon an insistence in a common religion,
although that religion is what has often sustained them as a distinct
people. The original name for the people we now call Jews was
Hebrews. And this has a meaning beyond that of the Judaic religion.
Those who have this ethnic descent obviously have the right to ignore
it completely, and presume that they are simply whatever nationality
they wish to assume, depending upon the their nationality as a citizen
of a country.
And you attempted to distort the word "OR" in the definition. Since,
the Jews have a common history, and that is also sufficient to meet
that definition. You attempted to twist that definition to claim
that it is only those from separate nations. But common history
transcends nation borders. The Kurds are a people of such common
culture who transcend nation borders of Iraq, Turkey, Iran and some
other nations.
As I posted elsewhere... Secular Judaism, or Jews who practice
religions other than the Judaic religion, is maintaining Judaism... or
that connection to the cultural heritage of the Jews, without reference
to the supernatural. At its most basic level it is being Jewish without
the Judaic religion. The desire to remain distinctively and discernibly
Jewish, yet not holding to that Judaic religion. You would deny them
that birthright.
> to suggest that one could apply it to a group of people
> sharing the same religion, but not the same history, the same
> nationality, the same geographic distribution. You induced that, since
> one could refer to the Germans as a "race", one could refer to the
> Jews as a "race" as well, while it is absolutely not equivalent (would
> one consider speaking of a "Buddhist race" or a "Christian race"?),
> and with full knowledge of the ideologically highly tendencious
> implications of his stance.
That is your problem. You deny that Jews have an actual existence
as a people. You see Jews as IT... non-humans.... not THEM... humans.
There are no Jews to you. There are only those who happen to practice
the Judaic religion. In YOUR _definition_ there are no JEWS as a
people. Only those who happen to practice a certain religion. You thus
insult millions and millions of Jews, who do not practice the Judaic
religion, yet claim they are Jewish as their birthright. It is an incredible
insult to those such as Cardinal Lustiger, who does not practice the
Judaic religion, but is most certainly Jewish through a birthright earned
by a mother who perished in the holocaust. Is he Jewish to you, euro?
Obviously NOT!
> That is utterly racist, and I believe that, in doing so, you attempt
> to give a new impulsion to Hitler's racist "theories".
>
Hello... you claim that the Jews are NOT a race, and then you argue
that it is racist to claim through definitions that they can be, although
I would not presume that they are. How can it be racist, if you insist
that no race is involved to your thinking?
You're the only Jew-hater here, euro. And it appears that YOU are a
followers of the Nazi idea of the Jewish race being DISGUSTING
non-humans. You take away the idea that the Jewish race can actually
be PEOPLE... and make them non-entities of the species homo
Sapiens. Oh... and BTW.. since you insist that Jews are only those
who practice the Judaic religion, you should realize that you are calling
Desmond a liar. Since he claims to be Jewish, and does NOT practice
the Judaic religion. Some of his claims --
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Desmond's words to St. George... "I'm not, St.George. In fact, I don't
even believe in God."
http://groups-beta.google.com/group/alt.activism.death-penalty/msg/d4...
And another of his denials that he believes in God --
"If I believed in God, I would get down on my knees every day and
thank Him for not having me born in the United States."
http://groups-beta.google.com/group/alt.activism.death-penalty/msg/36...
And yet another, rather insulting characterization of God as
seen through the eyes of the believers in the Judaic religion --
"Whilst not necesarily subscribing to the Judeo-Christian
myths of heaven and hell, and a benevolent God wearing a
beard and with a Polo mint floating above His head." See --
http://groups-beta.google.com/group/alt.activism.death-penalty/msg/61...
And yet again.. disputing the ideas contained in the Judaic
religion -- "man's pretentiousness in believing that 'God'
created him in His image." See --
http://groups-beta.google.com/group/alt.activism.death-penalty/msg/db...
And yet again -- his words -- "I dissociate myself from the 'classic'
Judeo-Christian... idea of 'spirituality', and consider the soul, as
distinct from any organised religion. " See --
http://groups-beta.google.com/group/alt.activism.death-penalty/msg/60...
And a great many further comments in which he has insisted
that he does not believe in "A God," and certainly not the God
believed in by those of the Jewish religious faith.
Are you prepared to call Desmond a liar, and insist he is NOT Jewish,
because he does not practice the Judaic religion, or do you claim that
he is UNIQUE among all humans, and is the only person on the planet
who is Jewish through being "born Jewish"? Since Desmond claims
he is Jewish, how do you believe he comes about making that claim?
If you do not call him a liar, because he claims to be Jewish, and is
not a follower of the Judaic religion... then you are at the least a
hypocrite. While you will apparently always be someone who hates
the Jews. And hates the idea of the Jews being anything other than
those who practice a particular religion.
JN
> Euro
<clip euro's lies and hate>
Ummm... for those 'keeping count' this is 195 of my posting some
very destructive comments from euro, providing the exact words,
a link to those words, and my opinion of those words. Not one
of which he has refuted. --
[1] Your words --
"At least, Goebbels was polite in his propaganda" See --
http://groups.google.com/groups?selm=d8232deaf4cfd86aa600b816fd947ca8%40news.meganetnews.com
[2] In an absolutely conflicted assortment of Machiavellian, ignominious,
disingenuous, feckless, sophistic, and offensive, double-speak nonsense.
ALL IN ONE POST. Your words --
"I made a claim of principle, that families have nothing to do with justice."
"Justice concerns also the families of victims and murderers."
"justice should, on the contrary, be compassion for the murderer's family"
"hence the feelings of the victims' families should not be instrumentalized to
justify a harder penalty;"
"the tears from one side (the victims' family) cannot be compensated
by the tears from another side (the murderers' family)."
"I never alluded to pity for murderers, but to pity for the murderers'
families." See --
http://www.google.com/groups?selm=98ecf84d186fb6f02671ac97f3157aec%40news.meganetnews.com
[3] Your words --
"because murderers are HUMANE, whether you like it or not."
"But since murderers are humane..."
http://www.google.com/groups?selm=5bfda818764410613bc12ca4df5b16ba%40meganetnews.com
[4] Your words --
"Do you find that John Wayne Gacy is an animal who does not enjoy the
same human rights as you do?" See --
http://www.google.com/groups?selm=a5ccea6e7e4217cf160862d1c39b026740news.meganetnews.com
You stated "And that is true." In reply to the question of John Wayne Gacy
having the same 'human rights' as any innocent person. See -
http://groups.google.com/groups?selm=40383cc79857308eb110320ca87bc907%40news.meganetnews.com
[5] And let's also not forget how much you love murderers. When you decided
to save a few hundred of them, instead of saving millions of innocent slaves.
When offered the choice in a "moral thought experiment" between abolishing
the DP and 'saving' all murderers from the DP, or abolishing slavery and
freeing all slaves in a society that practices both -- Your words --
"That would lead me to the conclusion that I should abolish death penalty."
http://www.google.com/groups?selm=c80a9ef0a3cea5a2e77e8fc9f80eb05d%40news.meganetnews.com
You feel... screw those innocent slaves... right, euro?
[6] In your arrogant claims that you, in your God-like belief in your own
infallibility, can DEFINE for everyone what are "great moral qualities."
While every rational person recognizes that 'morality' is not an absolute.
Yet YOU would DEFINE as a RC Cardinal who wants to elevate an executed
murderer to a role which would demand that millions refer to that murderer
as BLESSED -- Your words --
"You will also note that Lustiger is, in France, one of the prominent
activists for the beatification of Jacques Flesch, sentenced to death and
executed in France in 1957 for the murder of a police officer following a
bungled robbery.
http://www.catholicdigest.org/stories/200108106a.html
Thanks for giving me the opportunity to stress the great moral qualities of
Lustiger" See --
http://www.google.com/groups?selm=dd7b24844c1b79d34bac9efbb48e2fcd%40news.meganetnews.com
Of course, then entering DENIAL... as usual, you denied even writing
those words... when you posted "I didn't claim that "it is moral to beatify a
murderer". Along with you again DEFINING 'moral values' for the rest of
all humans, in your delusion that God whispers in your ear... with your
words -- "Lustiger's moral values are famous"
Apparently you find Lustiger 'moral' for supporting what you believe is
an 'immoral' effort. But given that you've never been able to express any
comment without offering a contradiction immediately following that
comment... your belief that God speaks to you in defining 'moral' is
understandable. You simply have some psychotic problems.. See --
http://www.google.com/groups?selm=f5d5c01cdcd2d3e4a4c30acf8ac75602%40news.meganetnews.com
[7] Your words in speaking of 'Collective guilt.' --
"This word is one of the concepts on which West Germany was built."
http://groups.google.com/groups?selm=6a7f4c90ad29d61171fb19a75c4359d6%40news.meganetnews.com
Using the expression that "It targets the whole German population."
How bigoted can you be, euro?
[8] In speaking of the death penalty -- "I actually don't believe in improvements,
and, so far, in spite of all the "improvement" proposals, I have not seen
anything that exclude the possbility for innocents to be executed." See --
http://groups.google.com/groups?selm=58403db4127cd882b02e97a39cc2820f%40news.meganetnews.com
Apparently, you would sacrifice any who might not be executed with any
improvements... simply to justify your sadistic nature, in the support of
YOUR agenda. How very similar to your willingness to sacrifice all
innocent slaves... simply to justify your sadistic nature, in the support of
YOUR agenda.
[9] Implying that pity should not be felt for those deprived of their human
rights in the holocaust... because in your words --
"Human rights have nothing to do with pity." See --
http://www.google.com/groups?selm=531e0a6fc371e8f5745ae1c2ba15fd4d%40news.meganetnews.com
[10] And of course.. another of the 'great ones' from you -- "I don't think one
makes much progress by separating non murderers (the good ones) and
murderers (the evil ones)." Apparently... you conclude that we should not
even bother having a justice system which separates the murderer from the
non-murderer. See --
http://groups.google.com/groups?selm=e2706c22e2c8c73ebbd818d20b986abb%40news.meganetnews.com
[11] Your words in support of the murder of 200 Spanish citizens --
"The big winner of the elections, indeed, is the Spanish people."
Apparently again believing that being victimized can make the
victim "big winners" in the lottery of life. See --
http://groups.google.com/groups?selm=ccdd62ad2932a5f597990a783220d56d%40news.meganetnews.com
[12] Your claim that mentioning someone is Jewish is EXPOSING
THEM as presumably having some _evil_ that should not be EXPOSED.
Along with your claim that mentioning that someone is Jewish is
DISGUSTING to you... in your words - "Well... because of what you
post. Your original thread about Lustiger sounded very much like
"Look at Lustiger... He's a Jew!" How disgusting..." See -
http://www.google.com/groups?selm=371eb2f897493d9d08eebeda1bf2c0d8%40news.meganetnews.com
[13] Your words -- "I come to consider more and more that the election
of Bush in November would be preferable." See --
http://www.google.com/groups?selm=suFjd.9359%248G4.3136%40tornado.tampabay.rr.com
Believing that Bush will fail, and more deaths will result, while insisting
that it does not matter that more lives would be lost with the election
of Bush. As when I asked you -- "Are you claiming that you really
believe that Bush will be more successful in ending the killing in Iraq,
than another U.S. President?" You replied firmly in the negative... in
your words "No. I am not claiming this, and you know it very well." See --
http://groups-beta.google.com/group/alt.activism.death-penalty/msg/10f250ce42993c70
Clearly... you prefer a selection that you believe will give you MORE
KILLINGS in Iraq. It only matters to you that you hope to be able to
gloat ==> I told you so <== Not caring at all about those deaths.
[14] Cardinal Lustiger has continued to stress his Jewish origins
in public forums throughout the world. This has gained him
considerable honors in many respected circles. But euro insists
that in stressing his Jewish origins he is actually working for the
"anti-Semitic extreme right." In euro's words -- "It so happens
that those, in Europe, that are eager to stress Lustiger's Jewish
origins, have connexions with anti-semitic extreme right." See --
http://www.google.com/groups?selm=dd7b24844c1b79d34bac9efbb48e2fcd%40news.meganetnews.com
[15] As the results of a European poll showed that many Europeans
consider Israel to be "the greatest threat to world peace," ignoring
Arab threats and terrorism throughout the world, and while Israel
is comprised of 80% Jews, Rabbi Marvin Hier , the respected
Wiesenthal Centre's founder, remarked -- "This poll is an indication
that Europeans have bought in, "hook, line and sinker", to the vilification
and demonisation campaign directed against the state of Israel and her
supporters by European leaders and media." euro leapt to the attack
on Rabbi Hier, and as so many anti-Semites claimed that the Rabbi's
comments were just typical _Jews are simply whiners_, with euro's
comment that the Rabbi's comment was "somewhat peremptory
(but soooooooo convenient) judgement." Yes... I'm sure that euro felt
there was a _big plot_ behind the Rabbi's comment, while I smelled
an attempt at a cover-up from euro. See --
http://www.google.com/groups?selm=af3970a461f1e7f94c39521375b9c22d%40news.meganetnews.com
[16] And following in the true Nazi tradition, in believing in the
Nazi idea of the _Jews being racially inferior_, euro asserted --
"If you litterally say that someone was "born Jew", you actually
endorse the opinion of those who argued that there was a
"Jewish race" based on their genetic or genealogic history."
euro thus calls 2.8 million Jews in the U.S. who either practice
a different religion than Judaism, or are totally secular, and
who consider themselves to be Jewish through a birthright,
nothing more than _practicing the views of the Nazis_. See --
http://www.google.com/groups?selm=44e66b753bb7ec7a3b9748ede477b973%40news.meganetnews.com
and see --
http://www.adherents.com/largecom/com_judaism.html
Notice that statistics reveal that only 51% of ALL Jews in the
U.S. say they are Jewish by religion.
<quote>
"A new portrait of American Jewish religious identification
conducted by three leading sociologists reveals that 1.4 million
Jews say that they are Jewish by dint of parentage or ethnicity
but align themselves with another faith community. In 1990,
625,000 Jews identified themselves that way."
An additional 1.4 million Jews -- another quarter of the population
-- say they are secular or have no religion at all, leaving just 51
percent of American Jews to say they are Jewish by religion."
<unquote>
euro hatefully claims that each of those Jews, having claimed
to be Jewish as their birthright, linking them to the rich cultural
and historical heritage of the Jews and every persecution
endured by the Jews for thousands of years, and connecting
them to their family tree, the art, the literature, the music and
even their separate language, are nothing more than advocates
of the Nazi idea of a Jew. It is one thing to disagree that a
particular person might not be seen as a Jew in one's eye,
even while that person might insist he is. It is quite another
to claim that NO such person exists... and that those who
claim that Jewish birthright, are simply practicing the ideas
of the Nazis. The latter is euro's view of anyone claiming to
be "born Jewish," in insulting millions and millions of those
who do claim that Jewish birthright, irrespective of any silly
religion. There is no idea of a Jewish birthright in euro's
view. He sees claiming that birthright is practicing the
views of the Nazis. In his process he is determined to
wipe out the idea of a Jewish birthright, wipe out the idea
of a Jew being anything more than a practitioner of a
religion. Just as surely as the Nazis expected to literally
exterminate the BODIES of those who are "born Jews,"
euro is determined to exterminate the IDEA of a "born Jew."
In both cases.. the effort is to eliminate the "born Jew."
James Noles exposed
wrote:
>"Euro" <vs...@hotmail.com> wrote in message news:1103198288.b479f244b6c5ddb2ddf3136545105194@meganetnews2...
>>
>> "Jim Noles" <abc...@zbqytr.ykq> wrote in message
>> news:Sbbwd.120812$8G4....@tornado.tampabay.rr.com...
>>
>>> As I pointed out... any chance you have to attack the U.S.... you'll
>>> take it. I will not descend to your level, and get as brutal as you seem
>>> to want to get. Although comparing Vietnam with the holocaust,
>>> says something about you.
>>
>> It says about the same thing as your comparing Goebbels with Desmond, or
>> with me.
>>
>Not at all. That is a comparison of specific individuals. And does
>not contend that Goebbels was "polite," as you have praised him
>as being.
Indeed. It just contends that Goebbels limited himself to posting
messages on usenet. No doubt his victims would be glad to read your
bullshit attempting to minimize Goebbels' acts.
James Noles exposed
own racism" <abc...@zbqytr.ykq> wrote:
>> Here you are taking your wishes for reality, James Noles. I never
>> compared the Nazi concentration camps with Guantanamo, but made it
>> observe, to an American citizen who thinks it funny to blame past Nazi
>> concentration camps on a nowadays German, that one didn't need to go
>> back to 60 years ago to find concentration camps in the US history.
>
>No, you compared them, euro. And you even tried to compare the death
>camps with Guantanamo, insisting that the names Jigsaw had provided
>were _only_ those of Nazi concentration camps.
That was a way to make it remark to Jigsaw that his attempt to
culpabilize a German with Nazi past is particularly stupid, because
one does not need to go back to 60 years ago to find one example of
concentration camp in US history. Likewise, one does not need to go
back to 60 years ago to find images of war prisoners humiliated by US
soldiers, by being put naked and with electrodes on their bodies.
Of course, James, you probably support all this, and this is why you
can't support the idea of being reminded of it.
Now, let's come back to your OWN racism. You wrote:
From: A Planet Visitor <abc...@zbqytr.ykq>
Newsgroups: alt.activism.death-penalty,soc.culture.french
Subject: Re: A Great And Brave President
Message-ID: <4b9dtvobv6ovhh8pa...@4ax.com>
Date: Wed, 10 Dec 2003 07:19:57 GMT
Most of the comments concerning a "Jewish race," are anti-Semitic in
origin, or extremist Zionist demands that the Jews be seen as a
'race.'
Certainly that was Hitler's idea. There is, of course, a genetic
predisposition
of Jews to various 'genetic illnesses,' such as Niemann-Pick, Canavan,
Gaucher, and Tay-Sachs. But there is no "Jewish race," and when
I have used that term I have used it in connection to the Nazis ideas
of that "Jewish race."
--------------------------------
You also wrote, a few months after on the same newsgroups:
distribution, to suggest that one could apply it to a group of people
sharing the same religion, but not the same history, the same
nationality, the same geographic distribution. You induced that, since
one could refer to the Germans as a "race", one could refer to the
Jews as a "race" as well, while it is absolutely not equivalent (would
one consider speaking of a "Buddhist race" or a "Christian race"?),
and with full knowledge of the ideologically highly tendencious
implications of his stance.
That is utterly racist, and I believe that, in doing so, you attempt
to give a new impulsion to Hitler's racist "theories".
Euro
--------------
James Noles has made on this group numerous statements by which he
could "clearly" see certain features about posters who opposed him.
His standards to make those deductions are more than questionable, yet
it has never prevented James Noles from building heinous ad hominem
campaigns against persons whose presence disturbed him.
Now, we could try to look at James Noles' posting history and apply to
him his _own_ standards of judgement, just for the fun of it. Here are
a few examples how one can build against James Noles, by using his own
standards, a "James Noles" campaign based on distortion of his own
words.
1/ Executing the innocent
-> Source:
----------------------
From: "A Planet Visitor" <abc...@abcxyz.com>
Subject: Re: more PV lies
Message-ID: <OX7z6.5813$VF3.5...@newsread2.prod.itd.earthlink.net>
Date: Fri, 06 Apr 2001 00:18:54 GMT
"It is also lawful to execute an
innocent EVERYWHERE in the world where the DP is used, by
definition of the DP."
----------------------
-> Standard of reference: James Noles' assertion that claiming
something is legal means supporting it (he argued this many times
about the Holocaust).
=> Conclusion: James Noles supports the execution of innocents
everywhere in the world.
2/ Racism
-> Source:
------------------------
From: A Planet Visitor <abc...@zbqytr.ykq>
Newsgroups: soc.culture.french,alt.activism.death-penalty
Subject: Re: Earl Evleth: Stalker & Hypocrite
Message-ID: <lufoh0tlpnt1v9rip...@4ax.com>
Date: Fri, 13 Aug 2004 04:59:10 GMT
"While, in fact... according to The American Heritage® Dictionary of
the English Language, Fourth Edition -- See --
http://dictionary.reference.com/search?q=race
(A group of people united or classified together on the basis of
common history, nationality, or geographic distribution: the German
race. - remark taken from the link above)
there is nothing basically wrong with speaking of "The German race."
If we understand that it has no meaning in separating any 'race'
from that of the HUMAN RACE. The Dictionary itself USES
that very idea, as an example in the definition. Do you think the
Germans are a "race"? If so, and the dictionary argues that it is
meaningful to do so, why can there not be a "Jewish race"
without the argument that it meets the Nazi definition of the
Jews?"
---------------------------
-> Standard of reference: James Noles arguing that we are all the
same, and that words being used to divide what is recognized as "WE"
are racism.
(From: "A Planet Visitor" <abc...@abcxyz.com>
Newsgroups: alt.activism.death-penalty
Subject: Re: dirtdog is a RACIST
Date: Fri, 29 Jun 2001 19:28:56 GMT)
=> Conclusion: James Noles' insisting that one could refer to the
Jewish people as a "race", whatever the ideological purpose he has, is
plain racism.
3/ Human Rights and pity
-> Source:
---------------------------
From: A Planet Visitor <abc...@zbqytr.ykq>
Subject: Re: PV surrounded by murderer lovers?
Message-ID: <4qm7uv067me2unni7...@4ax.com>
Date: Sat, 20 Dec 2003 05:18:16 GMT
"Actually, providing a lawyer to EVERY accused is an expression of
pity for the one being accused, and the recognition that we would wish
the same to be provided to us, were we placed in that position. We
expect that EVERYONE should be provided legal representation, because
not doing so would be denying that expression of pity toward the
accused, IMO."
----------------------------
-> Standard of reference: James Noles asserting that he does not
"believe murderers deserve pity when they cry about their
incarceration, or their execution if society has determined
such execution to be appropriate".
(Subject: Re: The First electric chair execution
From: "A Planet Visitor" abc...@abcxyz.com
Date: 2/16/01 10:21 AM Eastern Standard Time
Message-id: 5Abj6.124833$Tl3.24...@typhoon.tampabay.rr.com)
=> Conclusion: James Noles is opposed to due process of law and legal
representation, because it would mean showing pity for murderers. More
generally, James Noles, linking human rights with pity, considers that
violating human rights of murderers is moral, because not doing so
would mean having pity for them.
4/ Vile and insane
-> Source: Take any of the postings in which James Noles labelled as
"murderer lover" the long list of persons who disagreed with him
(Desmond, Peter Morris, JPB, Jurgen, Spike, Fitzherbert, Jane, Brett,
Earl, Dirtdog, and I'm sure I forgot some names), or even persons he
doesn't know (Cardinal Lustiger). For references, look at my posting
last year "PV surrounded by murderer lovers?"
-> Standard of reference:
From: "A Planet Visitor" <abc...@abcxyz.com>
Newsgroups: alt.activism.death-penalty
Subject: Re: Poll: Americans Divided on Penalty for Yates
Date: Tue, 12 Mar 2002 00:29:58 GMT
"Apparently you find nothing offensive about the word 'deathies.'
If that's the case, I would hope you never comment on your
perception of the offensiveness of the phrase 'murderer lover.'
They are, of course, ONE AND THE SAME... equally vile,
equally insane. Being perverse in one direction, does not
make it right to be perverse in the opposite direction."
=> Conclusion: James Noles is vile and insane.
5/ Big winner
-> Source: James Noles pasting and posting for more than 300 times to
date the following words:
Your words in support of the murder of 200 Spanish citizens --
"The big winner of the elections, indeed, is the Spanish people."
Apparently again believing that being victimized can make the
victim "big winners" in the lottery of life. See --
http://groups.google.com/groups?selm=ccdd62ad2932a5f597990a783220d56d%40news
.meganetnews.com
-> Standard of reference: James Noles' opinion that, when a person
accused someone with having held an opinion they never held, the
accuser is responsible for that opinion. That's the James Noles'
"filthy raghead" principle.
From: A Planet Visitor <abc...@zbqytr.ykq>
Newsgroups: alt.activism.death-penalty
Subject: Question for danh (was -- Re: the Moral Imperative)
Date: Fri, 23 May 2003 00:41:32 GMT
"In fact, the Nameless One did just that with me, accusing
ME of using that racist slur when I have NEVER done so. And the
fact that I have not done so, means that slur belongs to HIM... not to
Me." As far as I'm concerned."
=> Conclusion: whenever James Noles writes that that being victimized
can make the victim "big winners" in the lottery of life, it is HIS
opinion, as I never held such an opinion. James Noles is therefore the
one who believes that those who died in a terrorist attack in Madrid
in March 2003 are the winners.
The same goes with many of the opinions he states in his
copy-and-paste "Euro" signature, among others:
- James Noles arguing that "mentioning someone is Jewish is EXPOSING
THEM as presumably having some _evil_ that should not be EXPOSED";
- James Noles arguing that believeing that Bush will fail in Iraq is a
motive for preferring him as President;
- James Noles arguing that murderers are humane;
- James Noles arguing that Goebels was a nice man because he was
polite;
and so on...
===========================================
End of the game. What does all this show? Well, it shows that James
Noles, judged by HIS OWN standards, is a racist person, who believes
that it doesn't matter when innocents are executing everywhere in the
world, who is opposed to due process of law, who behaves in a vile and
insane way, who argues that mentioning someone is Jewish is exposing
them as evil, that murderers are humane, that the victims of the
Madrid terrorist attck in March 2003 are the "big winners" or that
Goebbels was respectable just because he was polite.
In the end of the day, we are left between the alternative to judge
James Noles as an utterly disgusting and obnoxious persons either for
his opinions, or for his totalitarian principles who enable him to
judge others.
James Noles, judged by himself, it's just that.
----------------------------
Jim Noles
news:1103287489.c10025eee1a9068a11c9b60696de52e2@meganetnews2...
> On Fri, 17 Dec 2004 08:13:18 GMT, "Jim Noles" <abc...@zbqytr.ykq>
> wrote:
>
>>"Euro" <vs...@hotmail.com> wrote in message news:1103122570.abe67d007bab15d351f96a3bc6beb391@meganetnews2...
>>>
>>> "JIGSAW1695" <jigsa...@aol.com> wrote in message
>>> news:20041213115431...@mb-m03.aol.com...
>>>
>>>
>>>> Nothing America has ever did, or will do can compare to what happen at
>>> Hadamar,
>>>> Weilmunster, Eichberg, Kalmehof, Neuengamme, Belsen, Dachau,
>>>> Mausthausen, Triblinka, Sobibor, Majdanek, Belzec, Auschwitz,
>>>> Ravensbruck,Sachsenhausen, Kulmhof and Gross Rosen.
>>>>
>>>
>>> Has ever "did" (sic... you probably meant "done"), maybe. "Will do", one can
>>> only hope so. If my memory is correct, the above names (not all correct:
>>> Matthausen and Treblinka) are names of concentration camps. To that regard,
>>> Guantanamo could also fit in your list, and what "America" is doing there is
>>> nothing you, as an American, should be proud of.
>>>
>>What???? No wonder I see you as a neo-Nazi. Treblinka, Sobibor, Majdanek,
>>AUSCHWITZ, Belzec were ALL extermination camps. DEATH CAMPS!!!
>>
>>And you would dare compare even the Nazi concentration camps, with
>>Guantanamo.
>
> Here you are taking your wishes for reality, James Noles. I never
> compared the Nazi concentration camps with Guantanamo,
Of course you did. You certainly did try to make such a comparison,
the moment those Nazi death camps and concentration camps were
mentioned, trying to excuse them by introducing Guantanamo. And you
even tried to claim that there were no _real Nazi death camps_ among
those sites mentioned. You must realize that any rational person
reading your denial, will instantly recognize that you are lying. Your
words, which still exist above, were -- "If my memory is correct, the
above names (not all correct: Matthausen and Treblinka) are names
of concentration camps. To that regard, Guantanamo could also fit in
your list," First, you try to claim that there were no death camps among
the list, which is a grotesque lie and almost argues that there were no
Nazi death camps, given that Auschwitz was one of those names offered.
Then you certainly try to compare that list with Guantanamo. Claiming
that Guantanamo could also "fit in" the list, which contains five Nazi
death camps.
<rest of amoral raving from euro clipped>
> euro (the amoral)
You know, euro, you meet the clinical definition of one who has gone
insane. Literally, insane. Your hate for me has driven you to that
point, because I have exposed the evil underbelly of your amoral
character. You have no moral sense, and are indifferent to right
and wrong. Usually we attribute this behavior to some medical
condition rather than a fundamental and ingrained inability to
recognize the difference. Such as those who have had prefrontal
lobotomies, resulting in their subsequent inability to recognize right
from wrong. But there are a few individuals, you obviously among
them, who despite moral training in the nurturing process from
various sources have remained or become amoral.
You have no remorse, regret, or concern for what you say. You can
essentially be seen as having a psychopathological, and sociopath
personality, characterized by emotional instability, lack of the
capacity to reason, a perverse and impulsive behavior, an inability
to learn from experience, asocial feelings, and other rather obvious
personality defects
.
The most destructive thing about your posting here, is your monumental
irresponsibility. You attempt to offer what you believe are ethical
rules, and repeat them parrot-like, but fail to live up to those rules
yourself. They are void of meaning to YOU. You have no sense
of conscience, guilt, or remorse. You commit harmful acts without
discomfort or shame. You are more dangerous to society than those
who do wrong, but realize the difference between right and wrong,
since they are possibly morally educable. You are obviously not
capable of being morally educated, and thus you represent even a
greater danger to our species than those who commit harmful
acts, but have the capacity, through moral training to recognize
they are harmful. It is the likes of you... that makes me weep
for our species, and I sincerely hope that nature, through the
intervention of evolution, somehow weeds out those such as you,
in future generations.
JN
Ummm... for those 'keeping count' this is 199 of my posting some
[11] Your words in support of the murder of 200 Spanish citizens --
"The big winner of the elections, indeed, is the Spanish people."
Apparently again believing that being victimized can make the
victim "big winners" in the lottery of life. See --
http://groups.google.com/groups?selm=ccdd62ad2932a5f597990a783220d56d%40news.meganetnews.com
[12] Your feelings that no one should do anything to benefit any
other person. Your words -- "Is anyone supposed to "provide an iota
of benefit for our species"? Why should they?" See --
http://groups-beta.google.com/group/alt.activism.death-penalty/msg/40bac7ba10920fb7
[13] Your claim that mentioning someone is Jewish is EXPOSING
THEM as presumably having some _evil_ that should not be EXPOSED.
Along with your claim that mentioning that someone is Jewish is
DISGUSTING to you... in your words - "Well... because of what you
post. Your original thread about Lustiger sounded very much like
"Look at Lustiger... He's a Jew!" How disgusting..." See -
http://www.google.com/groups?selm=371eb2f897493d9d08eebeda1bf2c0d8%40news.meganetnews.com
[14] Your words -- "I come to consider more and more that the election
of Bush in November would be preferable." See --
http://www.google.com/groups?selm=suFjd.9359%248G4.3136%40tornado.tampabay.rr.com
Believing that Bush will fail, and more deaths will result, while insisting
that it does not matter that more lives would be lost with the election
of Bush. As when I asked you -- "Are you claiming that you really
believe that Bush will be more successful in ending the killing in Iraq,
than another U.S. President?" You replied firmly in the negative... in
your words "No. I am not claiming this, and you know it very well." See --
http://groups-beta.google.com/group/alt.activism.death-penalty/msg/10f250ce42993c70
Clearly... you prefer a selection that you believe will give you MORE
KILLINGS in Iraq. It only matters to you that you hope to be able to
gloat ==> I told you so <== Not caring at all about those deaths.
[15] Cardinal Lustiger has continued to stress his Jewish origins
in public forums throughout the world. This has gained him
considerable honors in many respected circles. But euro insists
that in stressing his Jewish origins he is actually working for the
"anti-Semitic extreme right." In euro's words -- "It so happens
that those, in Europe, that are eager to stress Lustiger's Jewish
origins, have connexions with anti-semitic extreme right." See --
http://www.google.com/groups?selm=dd7b24844c1b79d34bac9efbb48e2fcd%40news.meganetnews.com
[16] And you are the one who argues that the Nazis are legally innocent
of killing any Jews. Trying to defend them by insisting that the holocaust
was _only illegitimate_, and not illegal. And that their idea of legality
is superior to your own idea of legality. In fact, claiming you have no
personal idea of legality... yet you insisted there is "legal murder."
Your words - " Raising the issue from the viewpoint of legality is irrelevant,
as my own standards do not intervene in the field of legality." See --
http://groups-beta.google.com/group/alt.activism.death-penalty/msg/6ceb377f9f61bcdb
Apparently you find the the legal issue of killing six million innocent
Jews to be "irrelevant."
[17] As the results of a European poll showed that many Europeans
consider Israel to be "the greatest threat to world peace," ignoring
Arab threats and terrorism throughout the world, and while Israel
is comprised of 80% Jews, Rabbi Marvin Hier , the respected
Wiesenthal Centre's founder, remarked -- "This poll is an indication
that Europeans have bought in, "hook, line and sinker", to the vilification
and demonisation campaign directed against the state of Israel and her
supporters by European leaders and media." euro leapt to the attack
on Rabbi Hier, and as so many anti-Semites claimed that the Rabbi's
comments were just typical _Jews are simply whiners_, with euro's
comment that the Rabbi's comment was "somewhat peremptory
(but soooooooo convenient) judgement." Yes... I'm sure that euro felt
there was a _big plot_ behind the Rabbi's comment, while I smelled
an attempt at a cover-up from euro. See --
http://www.google.com/groups?selm=af3970a461f1e7f94c39521375b9c22d%40news.meganetnews.com
[18] And following in the true Nazi tradition, in believing in the
Jim Noles
> James Noles <na...@earthlink.net> wrote ...
>
>> "I'll_pin_a_star_on_myself_and_call_me_a_victim_of_the_holocaust" <100%_je...@zeouane.org> wrote in message
>> news:319892-...@zeouane.org...
>
>
> Still forging posts, I see, Nazi Noles ? When will you learn that you are
> scum, FuckWit ?
>
When will you stop lying, in claiming you are Jewish, simply to insult
the Jews, Desmond? How can I possibly be forging a post that you
claim does not exist? That reminds me of euro's claim that Aznar
would have lied about Islamic terrorist murderers, if those Islamic
terrorist murders had not occurred.
> (snip)
>
>>>> I was just making sure it stays there, and you do not ask google to
>>>> remove it. But you wouldn't do that... would you?
>
>>> I might, if I decide to enforce copyright, and have the article removed.
>
>> You have no copyright here, Desmond. And if you removed it, it would
>> only be because google honors such requests.
>
> Now think carefully, Nazi Noles ... _why_ does google 'honor' (sic) such
> requests ? Out of the goodness of their hearts ?
Because it is their policy, pure and simple. If that were not the case,
and you truly held copyright to your comments, they could not even post
any of your comments for the eight days, as they now do, without your
prior approval. What you claim is that by turning archive off you have
asserted copyright. If that were true, google could of course, not even
place your comments on their web page. In fact, it would seem that you
would need to give specific approval to each and every server that does
place your comments into the newsgroup. You know, and everyone
knows that the real reason you do not archive your comments is that
you need to have the ability to lie and deny they are your words. You
have tried that all too often.
> <fx:The FuckWit stares dumbly at his screen>
You're letting your imagination and rage cloud your view, Desmond.
When you let your imagination run wild in such flights of fancy, it
is because you perceive with too much clarity that you are possessed
of what you accuse others of. It is all too obvious that you recognize
only yourself, when you accuse others of racism or anti-Semitism,
or imagine how I react to your "mindless drivel."
>>> Should that happen, then the article _will_ be removed, its removal will
>>> be my sovereign right, and your empty follow-up [1] will in no way
>>> constitute an 'archive', FuckWit.
>
>> As long as I can republish your words, they will be there for others to
>> examine, Desmond.
>
> Oh _your_ words will certainly be there, FuckWit, for that is all you are
> capable of posting.
What they will be, will be YOUR WORDS. Whether you deny it or not,
you cannot stop me... and whether they are seen as your words when
I refer to them, will be judged by others, and all they will have to look at
is the body of your present comments to see the foolishness of believing
YOU.
> You cannot provide 'unbiased' copies of my words,
> because for one you aren't unbiased,
Direct quotes are always direct quotes. Given that you purposely
avoid archiving your posts, there is the smell of dung to any claim
from you that those words are not yours. Since if the comment from
you DID exist, you could easily prove any instance of your claim that
they have been altered. The fact is that you do not permit your words
to be archived because you are incapable of standing behind them.
You rather lack the deniability defense, given that it can easily be
shown you do not archive your words, yet they continue to flow out
from you. Anyone now looking at any post of yours in google, will
see that they all contain the words at the top -- " Note: The author
of this message requested that it not be archived. This message
will be removed from Groups in x days (Jan 1, 1:26 am)." There is
a reason for you purposely having insisted that this be so. Which
demonstrates forcefully that you intend to later deny you have said
what you now say.
> two you are a known liar on this
> newsgroup, three you are a deathie scum who has publicly advocated murder,
> and four, only I can provide exact copies of my words.
>
ROTFLMAO... And you have publicly advocated that all abolitionists
destroy and rip to shreds every retentionist, just as the cat rips to
shreds and kills the sparrow. And the real point -- the shameful
point -- is that you have insisted over and over in using the methods
developed by the Nazis against the Jews: That of insisting that you
are _blessed by some supernatural being in your role_. And that
role you see is to _destroy vermin_. The vermin the Nazis saw as
the Jews, and you see as retentionists. The methods are the same...
how the Nazis saw themselves, and how you see yourself are the
same. Only the objects that the Nazis wished to destroy, and
that you wish to destroy are different. It is a shameful delusion
that was manifested in the Nazis and is manifested in your methods.
Methods used by such men who imagine that they are simply
instruments of some _divine will_. And believing they are such
instruments find nothing wrong with running roughshod over
humanity.
>> You cannot stop me.
>
> This is Usenet, you dumb fuck; it isn't the school playground, even if you
> and Shit-For-Brains's infantile slanging matches occasionally lend
> confusion on that score.
No one even knows what you mean there, Desmond. Obviously
this is not a school playground, but the analogy makes absolutely
no sense in respect to my reposting various comments you make.
If anything... it's just more of YOUR schoolyard "mindless drivel."
JN
> { snip unread }
>
> --
> 100%_Jewish
>
You're not Jewish, Desmond. John Rennie, who knows you personally,
has stated that you told him you are not Jewish. And who could possibly
believe YOU... against John Rennie? Especially after your first words to
him were that he had no "right" to reveal you are not Jewish, and then
attack him in claiming he had previously used "blackmail" on you. I'm
believe you rather let the cat out of the bag, in not actually denying his
comment, but insisting that he had no "right" to expose your lie. See --
http://groups-beta.google.com/group/alt.activism.death-penalty/msg/9e297a0656d18734
Jim Noles
news:1103721595.9de2765ebace8aa84be377bdf44dab30@meganetnews2...
> On Wed, 22 Dec 2004 07:10:07 GMT, "Jim Noles" <abc...@zbqytr.ykq> wrote:
>
>>> Here you are taking your wishes for reality, James Noles. I never
>>> compared the Nazi concentration camps with Guantanamo,
>>
>>Of course you did. You certainly did try to make such a comparison,
>>the moment those Nazi death camps and concentration camps were
>>mentioned, trying to excuse them by introducing Guantanamo.
>
Yes, euro. You did. And you also insisted that all of them were only
"concentration camps." That included Treblinka, Sobibor, Majdanek,
Belzec, Kulmhof (Chelmno), and EVEN AUSCHWITZ. And you were
the one who introduced them as no different from Guantanamo, in your
words -- "To that regard, Guantanamo could also fit in your list." See --
http://groups-beta.google.com/group/alt.activism.death-penalty/msg/f45f2addaeb9b112
But just to be sure that others read your words, in case they might
not bother to go to that particular URL, let me repeat them --
Jigsaw offered -- "Nothing America has ever did, or will do can
compare to what happen at Hadamar, Weilmunster, Eichberg,
Kalmehof, Neuengamme, Belsen, Dachau, Mausthausen,
Triblinka, Sobibor, Majdanek, Belzec, Auschwitz, Ravensbruck,
Sachsenhausen, Kulmhof and Gross Rosen."
Notice that this list includes "Treblinka, Sobibor, Majdanek, Belzec,"
"Kulmhof," and "Auschwitz." The six Nazi extermination camps.
see --
Treblinka --
http://www.jewishvirtuallibrary.org/jsource/Holocaust/Treblinkatoc.html
Sobibor --
http://www.jewishvirtuallibrary.org/jsource/Holocaust/Sobibortoc.html
Majdanek --
http://www.jewishvirtuallibrary.org/jsource/Holocaust/Majdanektoc.html
Belzec --
http://www.jewishvirtuallibrary.org/jsource/Holocaust/Belzec.html
Chelmno (Kulmhof)
http://www.jewishvirtuallibrary.org/jsource/Holocaust/Chelmnotoc.html
Auschwitz --
http://www.jewishvirtuallibrary.org/jsource/Holocaust/autoc.html
And you replied -- "If my memory is correct, the above names (not
all correct: Matthausen and Treblinka) are names of concentration
camps. To that regard, Guantanamo could also fit in your list..."
You even bothered to CORRECT his spelling of Treblinka, and
never bothered to recognize that it was a Nazi death camp!!!
Apparently you are another holocaust denier, claiming that the
Nazi death camps did not actually exist. Since you missed each
and every Nazi death camp. See --
http://www.jewishvirtuallibrary.org/jsource/Holocaust/ccpoltoc.html
How DARE YOU deny the existence of those Nazi death camps!!!!
But then, I imagine that you don't care, given how distasteful you
find the Jews, and now proven, how little regard you have for the
victims of the holocaust. While your comment proves you were
"introducing Guantanamo."
You really should stop lying, or else stop archiving your words,
so like Desmond you can just wait awhile, and then lie and deny
you posted them.
> And since you claim yourself that, when a
> person accused someone with having held an opinion they never held,
> the accuser is responsible for that opinion, I shall understand that
> YOU are the one who compares the Nazi concentration camps with
> Guantanamo. With, as you usually do, the objective to minimize the
> Nazi crimes.
But I have proved you held that opinion, euro. Obviously, Jigsaw did
not "introduce Guantanamo" in his list of Nazi death camps and
concentration camps. YOU DID! And then ignored that he had listed
the six Nazi death camps. Calling them only "concentration camps."
> Because that's obviously what you always tend to do, James Noles. You
> compare posters with Goebbels with the objective to minimize Goebbels'
> crimes. You are actually constantly trying to rehabilitate, and
> actually negate, the crimes committed during the Holocaust, by using
> this reference to devilize people whose crimes are in no way
> comparable.
You are the only one who has tried to rehabilitate Goebbels, and PRAISE
him for his propaganda which insisted that it was moral to kill Jews.
You agree with him fully apparently, since you still seem determined
to PRAISE HIM. And apparently you are intent on rehabilitating the
Nazi death camps... elevating them to nothing more than "concentration
camps."
<rest of raving racist lies from euro clipped>
You know, euro... for a long time I refused to call you a racist, but you
have proven me wrong. You are certainly a racist. You see the Jews
exactly as the Nazis saw them... a _sub-human race_. And you
adore that idea... and continue to insist that this is the meaning of
the _Jewish race_. It means to you... exactly what it meant to the
Nazis... and you simply adore insisting that you feel the same as they
did. You now appear to be denying the existence of the Nazi death
camps, since Jigsaw listed each of them, and you denied that they
were Nazi death camps.
JN
Ummm... for those 'keeping count' this is 207 of my posting some
[10] And defending the Nazi death camps, insisting when the six death
camps were mentioned, that they were all _concentration camps_
and not Nazi death camps. Insisting that Treblinka, Sobibor, Majdanek,
AUSCHWITZ, Kulmhof (Chelmno), and Belzec were the names of
concentration camps. When those camps were mentioned, you
replying "If my memory is correct, the above names... are names of
concentration camps." Apparently you are another holocaust denier,
insisting that there were no Nazi death camps. If not... could you list
the Nazi death camps that YOU know of? See --
http://groups-beta.google.com/group/alt.activism.death-penalty/msg/f45f2addaeb9b112
[11] And of course.. another of the 'great ones' from you -- "I don't think one
makes much progress by separating non murderers (the good ones) and
murderers (the evil ones)." Apparently... you conclude that we should not
even bother having a justice system which separates the murderer from the
non-murderer. See --
http://groups.google.com/groups?selm=e2706c22e2c8c73ebbd818d20b986abb%40news.meganetnews.com
[12] Your words in support of the murder of 200 Spanish citizens --
"The big winner of the elections, indeed, is the Spanish people."
Apparently again believing that being victimized can make the
victim "big winners" in the lottery of life. See --
http://groups.google.com/groups?selm=ccdd62ad2932a5f597990a783220d56d%40news.meganetnews.com
[13] Your feelings that no one should do anything to benefit any
other person. Your words -- "Is anyone supposed to "provide an iota
of benefit for our species"? Why should they?" See --
http://groups-beta.google.com/group/alt.activism.death-penalty/msg/40bac7ba10920fb7
[14] Your claim that mentioning someone is Jewish is EXPOSING
THEM as presumably having some _evil_ that should not be EXPOSED.
Along with your claim that mentioning that someone is Jewish is
DISGUSTING to you... in your words - "Well... because of what you
post. Your original thread about Lustiger sounded very much like
"Look at Lustiger... He's a Jew!" How disgusting..." See -
http://www.google.com/groups?selm=371eb2f897493d9d08eebeda1bf2c0d8%40news.meganetnews.com
[15] Your words -- "I come to consider more and more that the election
of Bush in November would be preferable." See --
http://www.google.com/groups?selm=suFjd.9359%248G4.3136%40tornado.tampabay.rr.com
Believing that Bush will fail, and more deaths will result, while insisting
that it does not matter that more lives would be lost with the election
of Bush. As when I asked you -- "Are you claiming that you really
believe that Bush will be more successful in ending the killing in Iraq,
than another U.S. President?" You replied firmly in the negative... in
your words "No. I am not claiming this, and you know it very well." See --
http://groups-beta.google.com/group/alt.activism.death-penalty/msg/10f250ce42993c70
Clearly... you prefer a selection that you believe will give you MORE
KILLINGS in Iraq. It only matters to you that you hope to be able to
gloat ==> I told you so <== Not caring at all about those deaths.
[16] Cardinal Lustiger has continued to stress his Jewish origins
in public forums throughout the world. This has gained him
considerable honors in many respected circles. But euro insists
that in stressing his Jewish origins he is actually working for the
"anti-Semitic extreme right." In euro's words -- "It so happens
that those, in Europe, that are eager to stress Lustiger's Jewish
origins, have connexions with anti-semitic extreme right." See --
http://www.google.com/groups?selm=dd7b24844c1b79d34bac9efbb48e2fcd%40news.meganetnews.com
[17] And you are the one who argues that the Nazis are legally innocent
of killing any Jews. Trying to defend them by insisting that the holocaust
was _only illegitimate_, and not illegal. And that their idea of legality
is superior to your own idea of legality. In fact, claiming you have no
personal idea of legality... yet you insisted there is "legal murder."
Your words - " Raising the issue from the viewpoint of legality is irrelevant,
as my own standards do not intervene in the field of legality." See --
http://groups-beta.google.com/group/alt.activism.death-penalty/msg/6ceb377f9f61bcdb
Apparently you find the the legal issue of killing six million innocent
Jews to be "irrelevant."
[18] As the results of a European poll showed that many Europeans
consider Israel to be "the greatest threat to world peace," ignoring
Arab threats and terrorism throughout the world, and while Israel
is comprised of 80% Jews, Rabbi Marvin Hier , the respected
Wiesenthal Centre's founder, remarked -- "This poll is an indication
that Europeans have bought in, "hook, line and sinker", to the vilification
and demonisation campaign directed against the state of Israel and her
supporters by European leaders and media." euro leapt to the attack
on Rabbi Hier, and as so many anti-Semites claimed that the Rabbi's
comments were just typical _Jews are simply whiners_, with euro's
comment that the Rabbi's comment was "somewhat peremptory
(but soooooooo convenient) judgement." Yes... I'm sure that euro felt
there was a _big plot_ behind the Rabbi's comment, while I smelled
an attempt at a cover-up from euro. See --
http://www.google.com/groups?selm=af3970a461f1e7f94c39521375b9c22d%40news.meganetnews.com
[19] And following in the true Nazi tradition, in believing in the
James Noles exposed
Nazi death camps" <abc...@zbqytr.ykq> wrote:
>>>Of course you did. You certainly did try to make such a comparison,
>>>the moment those Nazi death camps and concentration camps were
>>>mentioned, trying to excuse them by introducing Guantanamo.
>>
>> No, james Noles, I did not.
>
>Yes, euro. You did. And you also insisted that all of them were only
>"concentration camps."
There we have James Noles lying again... I did not write the word
"only". This is YOUR word, and therefore, as it is not my opinion, it
is YOURS.
You are the one who insists there were no Nazi death camps. I did not
argue around this, and I view no reason myself why a death camp could
not be a concentration camp, which is the way many historians refer to
Nazi (and non Nazi) death camps.
But you, on the contrary, expose yourself arguing that the Nazi death
camps were ONLY (YOUR WORD => YOUR RESPONSIBILITY) concentration
camps.
You can trust me to expose your evil, disgusting opinion, each time
you will try to present it as mine. The word ONLY is YOURS, and you
appear to be one of those disgusting revisionists who spend their time
spamming the usenet with messages denying the existence of the
Holocaust, people to whom you never object.
Euro
From: A Planet Visitor <abc...@zbqytr.ykq>
Newsgroups: soc.culture.french,alt.activism.death-penalty
Subject: Re: Earl Evleth: Stalker & Hypocrite
Message-ID: <lufoh0tlpnt1v9rip...@4ax.com>
Date: Fri, 13 Aug 2004 04:59:10 GMT
"While, in fact... according to The American Heritage® Dictionary of
the English Language, Fourth Edition -- See --
http://dictionary.reference.com/search?q=race
(A group of people united or classified together on the basis of
common history, nationality, or geographic distribution: the German
race. - remark taken from the link above)
there is nothing basically wrong with speaking of "The German race."
If we understand that it has no meaning in separating any 'race'
from that of the HUMAN RACE. The Dictionary itself USES
that very idea, as an example in the definition. Do you think the
Germans are a "race"? If so, and the dictionary argues that it is
meaningful to do so, why can there not be a "Jewish race"
without the argument that it meets the Nazi definition of the
Jews?"
---------------------------
-> Standard of reference: James Noles arguing that we are all the
same, and that words being used to divide what is recognized as "WE"
are racism.
(From: "A Planet Visitor" <abc...@abcxyz.com>
Newsgroups: alt.activism.death-penalty
Subject: Re: dirtdog is a RACIST
Date: Fri, 29 Jun 2001 19:28:56 GMT)
=> Conclusion: James Noles' insisting that one could refer to the
Jewish people as a "race", whatever the ideological purpose he has, is
plain racism.
3/ Human Rights and pity
-> Source:
---------------------------
From: A Planet Visitor <abc...@zbqytr.ykq>
4/ Vile and insane
5/ Big winner
Your words in support of the murder of 200 Spanish citizens --
"The big winner of the elections, indeed, is the Spanish people."
Apparently again believing that being victimized can make the
victim "big winners" in the lottery of life. See --
http://groups.google.com/groups?selm=ccdd62ad2932a5f597990a783220d56d%40news
.meganetnews.com
-> Standard of reference: James Noles' opinion that, when a person
accused someone with having held an opinion they never held, the
accuser is responsible for that opinion. That's the James Noles'
"filthy raghead" principle.
From: A Planet Visitor <abc...@zbqytr.ykq>
===========================================
----------------------------
James Noles lives in Leesburg, Florida. Here is the James Noles "I build a lie" method. One example:
Jim Noles
> On Tue, 28 Dec 2004 07:28:45 GMT, "Jim Noles" <abc...@zbqytr.ykq> wrote:
See --
http://home.earthlink.net/~onetimeuse/euro_is_watching.jpg
>>>>Of course you did. You certainly did try to make such a comparison,
>>>>the moment those Nazi death camps and concentration camps were
>>>>mentioned, trying to excuse them by introducing Guantanamo.
>>>
>>> No, james Noles, I did not.
>>
>>Yes, euro. You did. And you also insisted that all of them were only
>>"concentration camps."
>
> There we have James Noles lying again... I did not write the word
> "only". This is YOUR word, and therefore, as it is not my opinion, it
> is YOURS.
Whether you used that particular word or not, you did not exclude
a single camp that Jigsaw offered in your remark. They were ALL
"names of concentration camps" to you. And yes... it is my
opinion that you stated they were ONLY "concentration camps."
Can you show me where you called them anything ELSE? Not
a chance... thus that is ALL they were to you... ONLY
"concentration camps." In respect to "nothing more or different."
"solely," "exclusively, "merely," "no more and no less." See --
http://encarta.msn.com/encnet/features/dictionary/DictionaryResults.aspx?refid=1861634984
My meaning was that you see those camps, as MERELY
"concentration camps." No more and no less. Obvious, you
have now defended that idea... that a death camps is no more
and no less than a "concentration camp" to YOU.
> You are the one who insists there were no Nazi death camps.
LOL... Actually I am the one who caught you trying to pass off each
and every Nazi death camp as nothing but the "names of concentration
camps." If I insisted there were no Nazi death camps, I would be
AGREEING with you, since I was the one who was thunderstruck
by your dismissal of those camps as "concentration camps"
without the slightest intention by you to mention they were camps
used to exterminate the Jews. I picked them out immediately
while believing that Jigsaw had overlooked Chelmno, since that is
its more recognized name. But he had not... he had simply referred
to it by its lesser known name of "Kulmhof." Do you really think
I could overlook AUSCHWITZ?
>I did not
> argue around this, and I view no reason myself why a death camp could
> not be a concentration camp, which is the way many historians refer to
> Nazi (and non Nazi) death camps.
Sure you don't, euro. That's why you're a holocaust denier. And
that's why I used the word "ONLY" to refer to your use. You
simply do not see the DIFFERENCE, and insist that "concentration
camp" is no more and no less than an extermination camp. Just as
those _historians_ who try to claim as you now try that the Nazis
never actually had an extermination machine for Jews. I'm sure you
consider those such as David Irving, to be "historians" because they
are Holocaust revisionists. Because you see NO DIFFERENCE
between a Nazi death camp and a concentration camp. Jesus, euro,
even the greatest hater of the Jews we had prior to you, Ol' Racist
Nev, recognized the difference, and insisted on that difference
between a Nazi death camp, and a Nazi concentration camp.
Of course he did so to defend Dachau as not a death camp, so
he might try to compare Guantanamo to Dachau, but he never
insisted there were no death camps, as you insist. But you
went him one better. You insisted that AUSCHWITZ was no
worse than Guantanamo, and Guantanamo could be put in the
same list as AUSCHWITZ. Even Ol' Racist Nev insisted that --
"Cos I say Dachau wasn't a death-camp?"
http://groups.google.com/groups?selm=a5ec705.0306020717.5606f088%40posting.google.com
"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
"Dachau played a very minor role, relatively speaking, in the
Jewish holocaust."
http://www.google.com/groups?selm=f85d58f0.0306181313.5b5a3966%40posting.google.com
> But you, on the contrary, expose yourself arguing that the Nazi death
> camps were ONLY (YOUR WORD => YOUR RESPONSIBILITY) concentration
> camps.
Huh??? I am pointing out to YOU... that YOU insisted Treblinka,
Sobibor, Majdanek, AUSCHWITZ, Kulmhof (Chelmno), and Belzec were
the names of concentration camps, and never mentioned anything
about them being different in respect to being extermination camps.
It just shows how little you care for the victims of the holocaust, and
rather justifies why I believe you find the Nazis were quite within
their right in every respect to kill the Jews.
In fact, you were rather critical of Jigsaw for presuming otherwise...
and you chastised him in some off-hand manner contending that he
was exaggerating what the Nazis did, as you introduced Guantanamo
for _comparative value_ with the camps he had mentioned. You
stated "If my memory is correct, the above names... are names of
concentration camps." And then added -- "To that regard,
Guantanamo could also fit in your list..." Guantanamo fit in a
list which includes AUSCHWITZ? That is pure holocaust denial.
Why would you make such a statement unless you were insisting
that they were ONLY "concentration camps"? No more and no
less!! What were you saying? That Jigsaw was listing the places
where Disneyland has a theme park? You were trying to MAKE
A POINT! And that point was that those names were NOT
extermination camps. It is impossible that you do not know the
difference between a concentration camp and an extermination camp.
Thus I can only conclude that you wanted to deny the existence
of ANY extermination camps in the list Jigsaw offered.
> You can trust me to expose your evil, disgusting opinion, each time
> you will try to present it as mine.
It was YOUR opinion that Treblinka, Sobibor, Majdanek, AUSCHWITZ,
Kulmhof (Chelmno), and Belzec were the names of concentration camps.
How could you DARE claim that AUSCHWITZ was one of the "names
of concentration camps"? You stupid, hateful supporter of the Nazi
death camps. And I can see why you would find it my "evil, disgusting
opinion" to insist that you called Treblinka, Sobibor, Majdanek,
AUSCHWITZ, Kulmhof (Chelmno), and Belzec ONLY "concentration
camps." Since that IS what you claimed their NAMES were. The
reason you find my opinion "evil, disgusting" is because you find
anyone who would argue that Treblinka, Sobibor, Majdanek,
AUSCHWITZ, Kulmhof (Chelmno), and Belzec were MORE than
concentration camps must be evil, and disgusting. Because you
are so determined to argue that the Nazis did not even have any
extermination camps for the Jews. Yes... you find it evil and
disgusting to claim that the Nazis actually tried to exterminate
the Jews.
> The word ONLY is YOURS,
The MEANING is YOURS! Since you offered not a single sense of
exclusion to any of the camps Jigsaw mentioned. You included them
ALL. Which makes the Death camps ONLY "concentration camps"
to YOU. Once again .. ONLY in respect to "nothing more or different."
"solely," "exclusively, "merely," "no more and no less." See --
http://encarta.msn.com/encnet/features/dictionary/DictionaryResults.aspx?refid=1861634984
My meaning was that you see those camps, as MERELY
"concentration camps." No more and no less. Obvious, you
have now defended that idea... that a death camps is no more
and no less than a "concentration camp" to YOU. You simply
confirm that my use represented exactly how you feel about
that list.
Because you even now try to DEFEND calling them "concentration
camps." In your words above -- "I view no reason myself why a death
camp could not be a concentration camp." I am sure you can see
no reason to differentiate between the two, because you find that
extermination camps are no worse than concentration camps.
Apparently you are unable to discern the difference, and even defend
calling those extermination machines, "concentration camps."
God... you are EVIL. Pure... evil. And what is absolute evil, is
that you do not even attempt to apologize or admit to that
difference... you will DEFEND the Nazi death machine, to your
dying breath. Never admitting that a single Nazi extermination
camp existed. The list, to YOU, consisted of ONLY "concentration
camps," and nothing else.
> and you
> appear to be one of those disgusting revisionists who spend their time
> spamming the usenet with messages denying the existence of the
> Holocaust, people to whom you never object.
You are the revisionist, euro. Transforming extermination camps
into concentration camps, in not just a revision but a total
Holocaust denial. Where did you ever see me deny the existence
of the Holocaust? You are disgusting slime, euro. Willing to
use any desperate measure, any Gestapo tactic, any lie to
hide your own evil. You ARE... not just appear... but ARE...
one of those disgusting neo-Nazis who deny that there were
any Nazi extermination camps. Trying to argue that ==> yes,
the Nazis did have a bit of anti-Semitism, and yes -- they did
keep a few Jews locked up -- but, oh, my.. they NEVER
killed any Jews purposely <== That is YOUR view... the
same view as that held by neo-Nazis. That the Nazi death
camps... were ONLY "concentration camps." The view held
by the _historian_ (sic) David Irving.... YOUR view!!
JN
Ummm... for those 'keeping count' this is 210 of my posting some
concentration camps." See --
http://groups-beta.google.com/group/alt.activism.death-penalty/msg/f45f2addaeb9b112
[11] And of course.. another of the 'great ones' from you -- "I don't think one
makes much progress by separating non murderers (the good ones) and
murderers (the evil ones)." Apparently... you conclude that we should not
even bother having a justice system which separates the murderer from the
non-murderer. See --
http://groups.google.com/groups?selm=e2706c22e2c8c73ebbd818d20b986abb%40news.meganetnews.com
[12] Your words in support of the murder of 200 Spanish citizens --
"The big winner of the elections, indeed, is the Spanish people."
Apparently again believing that being victimized can make the
victim "big winners" in the lottery of life. See --
James Noles denier of the Holocaust
wrote:
(bullshit snipped)
"Jim Noles" <abc...@zbqytr.ykq> wrote :
-----------------------------------------
Subject: Quotes from 2004
From: "Jim Noles" abc...@zbqytr.ykq
Date: 12/27/2004 11:11 P.M. Eastern Standard Time
Message-id: <V15Ad.153748$8G4.1...@tornado.tampabay.rr.com>
"Auschwitz, Treblinka, Sobibor, Majdanek, Belzec,
were all only "concentration camps."
------------------------------------------
While it is true to qualify Auschwitz, Treblinka, Sobibor, Majdanek
and Belzec as "concentration camps", as most historians and
encyclopedias do
(http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_German_concentration_camps and
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Concentration_Camp), it is outrageous, as
James Noles put it, to argue that they were _ONLY_ concentration
camps. Doing so is an attempt to deny the true nature and purpose of
these camps, which were meant to be extermination camps, and, in
practice, could in no way be referred to as being ONLY concentration
camps.
James Noles has unveiled himself as a Holocaust denier. One can better
understand why, while he argues he spams the usenet in order to reveal
anti-semitism, he actually never contradicts anti-semitic or
negationist postings.
On another side, the list of concentration camps can include the
Guantanamo camp, as shown by the definitions commonly found of a
concentration camp, and as recognized by Wikipedia (the free internet
encyclopedia) themselves.
Definitions:
http://www.onelook.com/?w=concentration+camp&ls=a
"noun: a penal camp where political prisoners or prisoners of war
are confined (usually under harsh conditions)."
--
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Concentration_Camp
"A concentration camp is a large detention centre created for
political opponents, aliens, specific ethnic or religious groups,
civilians of a critical war-zone, or other groups of people, often
during a war. The term refers to situations where the internees are
persons selected for their conformance to broad criteria without
judicial process, rather than having been judged as individuals. Camps
for prisoners of war are usually considered separately from this
category, although informally (and in some other languages) they may
also be called concentration camps.
(...)
Some people call the incarceration facilities for al-Qaida and Taliban
fighters at Camp X-Ray in Guantanamo Bay a concentration camp. No
government, and few organizations, seem willing to characterize it as
such; for instance, Amnesty International has criticized the US over
allegations of mistreatment, but does not call Guantanamo a
concentration camp.
(...)
Concentration camps (Konzentrationslager or KZ) rose to notoriety
during their use in by Nazi Germany. The general populace referred to
them as Kah-Tzets (the initials KZ in German). The Nazi regime
nominally maintained both kinds of concentration camps, labor camps -
since the beginning of their regime in 1933 - and extermination camps.
In fact, it is difficult to draw a distinct line between the two
categories. Prisoners in many Nazi labor camps could expect to be
worked to death in short order, while prisoners in extermination camps
usually died sooner in gas chambers or in other ways. Guards were
known to engage in target practice, using their prisoners as targets.
The first Nazi camps were within Germany, and were primarily work
camps. The worst excesses, including the murder of Jews, homosexuals,
gypsies, Jehovah's Witnesses, Polish intellectuals, Soviet Prisoners
of War and others, were to come later in the war at the area of
General Government. (See Holocaust, genocide.) It is estimated that up
to ten million people died in Nazi concentration camps, of them six
million were killed in the 15 larger ones.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_German_concentration_camps
---------------------------------------
But tell me... Why do you insist that "Auschwitz, Treblinka, Sobibor,
Majdanek, Belzec, were all only "concentration camps." Why do you try
to negate the Holocaust, by refusing the idea that the Nazi
concentration camps were death camps as well? Why do you expose
yourself as one of the negationists who spend their time spamming the
usenet with messages denying the Holocaust never happened, and whom,
actually, you never contradicted so far?
Why do you hate the Jews?
4/ Vile and insane
5/ Big winner
Your words in support of the murder of 200 Spanish citizens --
"The big winner of the elections, indeed, is the Spanish people."
Apparently again believing that being victimized can make the
victim "big winners" in the lottery of life. See --
Jim Noles
news:1104410678.7596790b8d8c5ae1b6e4b3af566a502a@meganetnews2...
> On Wed, 29 Dec 2004 04:58:32 GMT, "Jim Noles" <abc...@zbqytr.ykq>
> wrote:
As usual, sadistic Nazi euro thinks he can punish me by admitting
to his own Holocaust denial, and his usual fear of exposure.
> (bullshit snipped)
>
LOL.... You know, euro, you meet the clinical definition of one who has
gone insane. Literally, insane. Your hate for me has driven you to that
point, because I have exposed the evil underbelly of your amoral
character. You have no moral sense, and are indifferent to right
and wrong. Usually we attribute this behavior to some medical
condition rather than a fundamental and ingrained inability to
recognize the difference. Such as those who have had prefrontal
lobotomies, resulting in their subsequent inability to recognize right from
wrong. But there are a few individuals, you obviously among them,
who despite moral training in the nurturing process from various
sources have remained or become amoral. It is something of a
paradox that the most exacting study of your words reveals a
mind that is incapable of responding in any form of recognizable
human communication. It is nothing more lucid that the guttural
noises we hear from simians. And contains the same snarls and
baring of fangs, in the belief that it will frighten another into submission.
The paradox is that the function of your brain, while apparently
organized anatomically in a way that appears similar to the brains
of other homo Sapiens has been altered or lacks some essential
ingredient which yields a condition which might be seen as
"intellectual blindness." It is not that you are unable to absorb
information sent to your brain, but rather that in that process of
being absorbed it becomes garbled, and various cognitive capacities
held by others in our species are lacking in you. You cannot
discriminate between right from wrong. That ability is essentially
lacking in you. And we simply have come to expect more from our
species, while you continue to offer less.
You have no remorse, regret, or concern for what you say. You can
essentially be seen as having a psychopathological, and sociopath
personality, characterized by emotional instability, lack of the
capacity to reason, a perverse and impulsive behavior, an inability
to learn from experience, asocial feelings, and other rather obvious
personality defects
.
The most destructive thing about your posting here, is your monumental
irresponsibility. You attempt to offer what you believe are ethical
rules, and repeat them parrot-like, but fail to live up to those rules
yourself. They are void of meaning to YOU. You have no sense
of conscience, guilt, or remorse. You commit harmful acts without
discomfort or shame. You are more dangerous to society than those
who do wrong, but realize the difference between right and wrong,
since they are possibly morally educable. You are obviously not
capable of being morally educated, and thus you represent even a
greater danger to our species than those who commit harmful
acts, but have the capacity, through moral training to recognize
they are harmful. It is the likes of you... that makes me weep
for our species, and I sincerely hope that nature, through the
intervention of evolution, somehow weeds out those such as you,
in future generations.
>
> "Jim Noles" <abc...@zbqytr.ykq> wrote :
>
> -----------------------------------------
> Subject: Quotes from 2004
> From: "Jim Noles" abc...@zbqytr.ykq
> Date: 12/27/2004 11:11 P.M. Eastern Standard Time
> Message-id: <V15Ad.153748$8G4.1...@tornado.tampabay.rr.com>
>
> "Auschwitz, Treblinka, Sobibor, Majdanek, Belzec,
> were all only "concentration camps."
> ------------------------------------------
Actually, you are the only one who has made that claim, euro.
Follow along now, if your pea-brain, and insane hate for the Jews
can possibly absorb this. Presume you have a dog... and his name
is "fido." And you have NEVER called him ANYTHING other than
"fido." You have NEVER said -- "here, spot," or "here, dog," or "here, mutt."
You have ALWAYS referred to him as ONLY "fido." ONLY... ONLY... ONLY.
And that is how you viewed "Treblinka, Sobibor, Majdanek, AUSCHWITZ,
Kulmhof (Chelmno), and Belzec." As ONLY "names of concentration
camps." You have NEVER referred to them as anything else. And
thus you insist, and you continue to insist that those camps have
NAMES which are ONLY the "names of concentration camps." If
that is not true, then show me a single comment from you that has
ever called them anything else. Since I know you cannot, it is
proper that I have proven that you have called those camps ONLY
"concentration camps." The words and characterizations of those
camps are YOURS!! Those names represent NOTHING MORE than
"concentration camps" to YOU. They have absolutely no larger
significance to YOU.
This was the dialog --
------------------------------------------------------
Jigsaw reported on a number of Nazi camps. His words --
/quote/ Nothing America has ever did, or will do can compare to what
happen at Hadamar, Weilmunster, Eichberg, Kalmehof, Neuengamme,
Belsen, Dachau, Mausthausen, Triblinka, Sobibor, Majdanek,
Belzec, Auschwitz, Ravensbruck,Sachsenhausen, Kulmhof and
Gross Rosen. /unquote/
And you replied --
/quote/ If my memory is correct, the above names (not all correct:
Matthausen and Treblinka) are names of concentration camps. To
that regard, Guantanamo could also fit in your list.../unquote/
---------------------------------------------------------
Now if that is NOT the ONLY name you have EVER called those
camps, please direct me to a post of yours that proves otherwise.
In fact, there are no such posts, and it is quite proper to insist
that this is the ONLY name you have EVER called those "death
camps." You have been PROVEN to have called those camps
ONLY "concentration camps." Never anything else! And in doing
so is your denial of the existence of "death camps" or "extermination
camps," which are quite apart from "concentration camps" and
define the Holocaust. Since without "death camps" or "extermination
camps" there would have been no Holocaust.
And of course, we also have your LIE, which exists clearly in your
comment in which you DO state that "Guantanamo could also fit
in your list." Because that clearly is an attempt to compare
Guantanamo to "concentration camps" (aside from your Holocaust
denial that none of them were "extermination camps" for Jews).
Yet you denied that you attempt such comparisons, in your
words -- "I never compared the Nazi concentration camps with
Guantanamo..." See --
http://www.google.fr/groups?selm=1103287489.c10025eee1a9068a11c9b60696de52e2%40meganetnews2
If you claimed that Guantanamo could fit in that list of Nazi
camps, what do you think you were doing, but comparing
them to Guantanamo? Yes... this will be added to more of
your famous contradictions and expressions of support for
murderers and the Nazis.
> While it is true to qualify Auschwitz, Treblinka, Sobibor, Majdanek
> and Belzec as "concentration camps", as most historians and
> encyclopedias do
> (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_German_concentration_camps and
> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Concentration_Camp), it is outrageous, as
> James Noles put it, to argue that they were _ONLY_ concentration
> camps. Doing so is an attempt to deny the true nature and purpose of
> these camps, which were meant to be extermination camps, and, in
> practice, could in no way be referred to as being ONLY concentration
> camps.
>
The former reference differentiates clearly that extermination camps
are in pink, and not the same as "concentration camps" by definition.
And what you are now doing is trying to DEFEND your having
called them "concentration camps." You insist that doing so is
SUFFICIENT to describe what went on in those camps. Is it
sufficient, euro? Is that ONLY what we need to call them? Since
that is ONLY what you have ever called them. And I see BEHIND
that insistence the claim that they were NOT "extermination camps"
or "death camps" TO YOU. That is why you keep INSISTING on
the use of "concentration camps," and seem OFFENDED that
this might be even questioned, and seen as claiming those camps
were "concentration camps," as the definition provides.... of only
"detaining and confining" and not EXTERMINATING. You defend
having never called them anything OTHER than "concentration
camps," as if that is sufficient to describe what went on there.
Which is Holocaust denial.
And from your very own source in the second reference --
/quote/ it is important to understand that a concentration camp is
not, by definition, a Nazi-style death-camp. /unquote/
Yet, you argue that it IS "by definition."
And again you are lying... see --
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Extermination_camp
/quote/ Extermination camps should be distinguished from concentration
camps (such as Dachau and Belsen), which were mostly located in
Germany and intended as places of incarceration and forced labor for a
variety of "enemies of the state" or Nazi regime (such as Communists
and homosexuals)./unquote/
I know that English is too precise for you, euro, and definitions are
not your strong point, but you go too far, when you attempt to deny
the Holocaust in claiming that there is no difference between a
"concentration camp," and an "extermination camp," or a "death
camp." It is patently obvious that you do this, to deny the existence
of "extermination camps," or "death camps," and argue that those
camps mentioned were only meant to "detain and confine," in the
definition of a "concentration camp." See --
http://www.m-w.com/cgi-bin/dictionary?book=Dictionary&va=concentration+camp
CONCENTRATION CAMP -- "a camp where persons (as prisoners
of war, political prisoners, or refugees) are detained or confined"
You do not want to distinguish any camp from being a "concentration
camp." You continue to insist that it meets the definition of the
Holocaust, and the definition of the purpose of those camps.
Even Wikipedia insists that they must be distinguished from
concentration camps, but you refuse to do so. You are FIGHTING
for the 'right' to insist that "concentration camps" sufficiently
describes what the Nazis did to the Jews. And in that fight,
you are fighting for the Nazis. In fact, even here you intend to
DEFEND your insisting that they are nothing more or less
than "concentration camps." You are the one who refuses to
accept that those "extermination camps" were anything more
than "concentration camps," which are meant only to "detain
or confine," and not purposely exterminate human beings.
You have never called them ANYTHING but that more benign
term, which serves to negate the definition of the Holocaust.
Do you really think that "concentration camp" ADEQUATELY
describes Auschwitz? I do not, but you are arguing that it
does.
> James Noles has unveiled himself as a Holocaust denier.
Empty lies, euro. That's all you have.
> One can better
> understand why, while he argues he spams the usenet in order to reveal
> anti-semitism, he actually never contradicts anti-semitic or
> negationist postings.
>
I am always contradicting YOUR anti-Semitic comments, such as
your praise of Goebbels, your insult to a Rabbi, your insult to all
Jews, stating you were disgusted at the mention of someone being
Jewish, and your claim that Cardinal Lustiger has connections to
the anti-Semitic extreme right in Europe, because he is eager to
stress his Jewish origins. And insisting that the fact his mother
perished in Auschwitz is a _private matter_, while he has spoken
publicly at a ceremony in Paris, speaking her NAME... announced
the name "Gisele Lustiger," pausing and then adding "ma maman"
(my mum) before continuing. And you insist he wants that to
REMAIN PRIVATE??? See --
http://www.dailycatholic.org/issue/archives/1999Apr/73apr14,vol.10,no.73txt/apr14nv4.htm
And then you have the balls to insist that those who support the
argument of being a "born Jew" support the Nazi doctrine
associated with that of believing the Jews are an _inferior race_.
Yet, you have no problem claiming YOU might be a "born Jew,"
when you needed it to deny your own hate for the Jews. And
now your disgusting insistence that Treblinka, Sobibor, Majdanek,
AUSCHWITZ, Kulmhof (Chelmno), and Belzec, were "the names
of concentration camps," and NOTHING MORE.
> On another side, the list of concentration camps can include the
> Guantanamo camp, as shown by the definitions commonly found of a
> concentration camp, and as recognized by Wikipedia (the free internet
> encyclopedia) themselves.
>
> Definitions:
> http://www.onelook.com/?w=concentration+camp&ls=a
>
> "noun: a penal camp where political prisoners or prisoners of war
> are confined (usually under harsh conditions)."
>
See what I mean? You really would excuse the excesses of
the Nazis. And you presume that is your excuse to call Treblinka,
Sobibor, Majdanek, AUSCHWITZ, Kulmhof (Chelmno), and
Belzec, no different from Guantanamo? You think that those
words ADEQUATELY describe the Nazi death camps.
>
> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Concentration_Camp
> "A concentration camp is a large detention centre created for
> political opponents, aliens, specific ethnic or religious groups,
> civilians of a critical war-zone, or other groups of people, often
> during a war. The term refers to situations where the internees are
> persons selected for their conformance to broad criteria without
> judicial process, rather than having been judged as individuals. Camps
> for prisoners of war are usually considered separately from this
> category, although informally (and in some other languages) they may
> also be called concentration camps.
Your own source disputes you -- /quote/ it is important to understand
that a concentration camp is not, by definition, a Nazi-style
death-camp./unquote/
>
> (...)
>
> Some people call the incarceration facilities for al-Qaida and Taliban
> fighters at Camp X-Ray in Guantanamo Bay a concentration camp. No
> government, and few organizations, seem willing to characterize it as
> such; for instance, Amnesty International has criticized the US over
> allegations of mistreatment, but does not call Guantanamo a
> concentration camp.
>
However; you've tried to do so. But that is not the issue. If
you wish to compare Guantanamo to Dachau, that makes you
now attempting to DEFEND the Holocaust, rather than DENY it
completely. Only if you deny the existence of "death camps,"
and argue over and over that "concentration camps" is sufficient
to meet the description of what went on at those death camps,
do you become a Holocaust denier.
You argue that Dachau was _no worse_ than Guantanamo,
which insists that Dachau was no worse than containing about
600 detainees, over a period of a few years. Which most certainly
disputes every rational view of the atrocities committed in Dachau,
which could be termed a "camp of incredibly high natural death,"
and even has some strong evidence that exterminations on a small
scale, and a large number of experiments meant to induce death
existed. See --
http://veritas3.holocaust-history.org/dachau-gas-chambers/
You find the Jews of Dachau belong on the same list as
Guantanamo. You think no more of them than that. You
find a comparison between 600 detainees held for a few years,
fed, clothed, given medical care, with an ongoing 12 years of
depravation, starvation, torture, and cruel medical experiments
meant to induce death for 206,206 registered prisoners. Which
is almost certainly not even half of all those who passed through
Dachau. Russian POWs were generally summarily executed,
and record keeping was practically non-existent. Pastor
Niemöller (quoting an inscription written in Dachau in 1945)
put the dead at 238,756. And you are the one claiming EQUALITY!
And do not attempt your devious method of now claiming I support
Guantanamo, since I do not. But I would NEVER compare Dachau
with Guantanamo, and that is what you are trying to do, to
excuse the excesses of the Nazis. Anything to offer an anti-American
viewpoint by you. Even to the point of excusing the Nazis, and even
to the point of arguing that Guantanamo can be put on the same
list as the Nazi DEATH CAMPS!!!
However; that is not the argument here. The argument is that you
have characterized all SIX DEATH CAMPS as capable of being on
a list compared to Guantanamo. And have never claimed that those
six camps were "extermination camps," or "death camps." NEVER!
They have ALL been "concentration camps" to you and NOTHING
ELSE. You would very much like to turn this dialog into a critical
attack on Guantanamo, but in this particular framework, you can
only do so by EXCUSING the excesses of the Nazis. Once you
attempted to _put Guantanamo_ on a list containing Nazi
"concentration camps" and "extermination camps," you had
essentially lost the battle, and turned yourself into a Nazi
sympathizer who was insisting that the excesses of the Nazis
were no worse than Guantanamo.
> (...)
>
> Concentration camps (Konzentrationslager or KZ) rose to notoriety
> during their use in by Nazi Germany. The general populace referred to
> them as Kah-Tzets (the initials KZ in German). The Nazi regime
> nominally maintained both kinds of concentration camps, labor camps -
> since the beginning of their regime in 1933 - and extermination camps.
> In fact, it is difficult to draw a distinct line between the two
> categories. Prisoners in many Nazi labor camps could expect to be
> worked to death in short order, while prisoners in extermination camps
> usually died sooner in gas chambers or in other ways. Guards were
> known to engage in target practice, using their prisoners as targets.
>
> The first Nazi camps were within Germany, and were primarily work
> camps. The worst excesses, including the murder of Jews, homosexuals,
> gypsies, Jehovah's Witnesses, Polish intellectuals, Soviet Prisoners
> of War and others, were to come later in the war at the area of
> General Government. (See Holocaust, genocide.) It is estimated that up
> to ten million people died in Nazi concentration camps, of them six
> million were killed in the 15 larger ones.
>
> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_German_concentration_camps
>
> ---------------------------------------
>
And all of that cannot deny that you have never called Treblinka,
Sobibor, Majdanek, AUSCHWITZ, Kulmhof (Chelmno), and
Belzec, anything other than "concentration camps." the reference
makes a clear distinction of that difference. You want to IGNORE it.
> But tell me... Why do you insist that "Auschwitz, Treblinka, Sobibor,
> Majdanek, Belzec, were all only "concentration camps."
That was what you claimed, euro.
> Why do you try
> to negate the Holocaust, by refusing the idea that the Nazi
> concentration camps were death camps as well?
Why do you try to negate the Holocaust by never calling them
anything BUT "concentration camps"? It is not Holocaust denial
to call them extermination camps, and death camps, and not
concentration camps. But it is Holocaust denial to call them
concentration camps, and insist that doing so is sufficient to
describe what went on in those camps. That is YOUR purpose.
You want to LIMIT the damage those camps actually inflicted
upon the Jews. Unwilling to accept that they were ANYTHING
MORE than "concentration camps." That is your sole purpose
now. To defend YOUR USE of calling them "concentration
camps," and NOTHING ELSE. And you continue here to try
to place those death camps into the same frame of reference
as Guantanamo.
> Why do you expose
> yourself as one of the negationists who spend their time spamming the
> usenet with messages denying the Holocaust never happened, and whom,
> actually, you never contradicted so far?
>
You are the one who spams AADP with your insane support for the
Nazis, your hate for the Jews, and your denial of the Holocaust.
Look at how you have created various handles in your monstrous
attempts to deny your own hate for the Jews, in accusing me
in those handles of your own behavior and feelings. You actually
don't think that constitutes spam? You actually don't think you
want to flood all Usenet with your own denial of the Holocaust
in that pathetic slanderous attack on me, because you recognize
you are exposed for someone who so fiercely hates the Jews?
Just by doing what you are doing, you demonstrate that you
use Nazi methods, in a sadistic fashion quite similar to those
used in the Holocaust. That has ALWAYS been your method,
euro. And it will always BE your method. Because you have
a corrupted soul, have an amoral character which cannot
recognize right from wrong, and are a product of rancid genes
and broken chromosomes. You know no other method. In
being the pathetic piece of human garbage that you are... unable
to accept your own words, attempting only to twist them into
others holding the views that you have expressed, you demonstrate
just how evil you are. Thankfully, I am hopeful that evolution will
someday eliminate those having your unsavory nature from our
species. But having seen your unsavory nature at its diabolical
work in AADP, your spamming in fraudulently using my real
name, in that most slanderous attack on me, because you
recognize you have no defense other than the methods of a
Nazi, you simply demonstrate what a pitiful creature you
really are. I fully expect that if there is reincarnation, you will
return as a cockroach.
> Why do you hate the Jews?
>
LOL... You simply are in denial. Since I noted back more than
a year ago, Dec 2003. See --
http://www.google.fr/groups?selm=2gf7uvc9psntae74gt5qt4gtsgj34j2a03%404ax.com
My words -- "Why do you hate the Jews, euro?"
However; you are the only one who hates the Jews, euro. This
has been factually proven over and over, by your words. And
you have simply tried to accuse me of your own hate, just as
you tried to transpose your own Holocaust denial to lie and
claim that your words are mine... when they exist as YOURS.
Just as you tried to transpose YOUR admiration and praise for
Goebbels into claiming that was also mine. But all of that is
YOURS. You will not find a single comment from me that
supports the Holocaust, the Nazis, denies the existence of
camps meant to exterminate the Jews, or insults the Jews,
claiming that they support Nazi principles if they claim to be
"born Jews." All arguments which exist only in YOUR comments.
1) You praised Goebbels for his propaganda which claimed it was
moral to kill the Jews. You agree with that doctrine, in that praise.
2) You find it disgusting to mention that someone is Jewish. You
consider it no less a racial slur to call a person Jewish, as calling
a Black, the *N* word. You find no difference between the words
"Jewish," and that *N" word. Fundamentally following the Nazi
doctrine in respect to any person claiming a Jewish ethnic descent.
Hating the Jews just as deeply as the Nazis did for that ethnic
descent.
3) You express absolutely no pity on the Jews murdered by the
Nazis, having been deprived of their human rights, with your claim
that pity has nothing to do with that deprival of human rights.
4) You accused Cardinal Lustiger of having connections to the
anti-Semitic extreme right, because he was eager to stress his
Jewish origins, which argues that you find ANYONE eager to
stress his Jewish origins, is actually an anti-Semite.
5) You defended the Holocaust as legal, which goes along with
your claim that it was not _actually a Holocaust by definition_.
With your claim that the issue of the legality of the Holocaust
is IRRELEVANT. The murder of six million innocent Jews is
IRRELEVANT to you in any legal sense. Talk about your
support for the killing of innocents.
6) You verbally attacked a Rabbi, who dared to mention that
the results of a European poll held a hint of anti-Semitism.
Implying that he was simply another _Jewish whiner_ complaining
about an imaginary anti-Semitism.
7) You insulted 2.8 million American Jews, by insisting that they
must be Nazis, if they claim to be Jewish based upon their
ethnic or cultural history. Strangely enough you claimed that
anyone supporting the argument of being "born Jew," does so
in supporting the Nazi doctrine associated with that claim.
And then YOU claimed that YOU might be "born Jew." In which
you condemn YOURSELF to a doctrine that you claim is
Nazi doctrine.
8) And finally... the culmination of your hate for the Jews, and
your admiration for the Nazis. Having defended the Nazis over
and over, you now insist that there were no "extermination camps"
or methodical "death camps" existing only to murder Jews. They
are ALL... "concentration camps" to you... and NOTHING MORE.
And what has been your defense to all your own comments? Why...
it's been your attempts to make those comments appear to come
from ME... simply to hide that they come from YOU.
> Now, let's come back to your OWN racism.
But, euro... you insist that the Jews are NOT a race. How can
I insult a race that you claim does not EXIST?
> You wrote:
>
> From: A Planet Visitor <abc...@zbqytr.ykq>
> Newsgroups: alt.activism.death-penalty,soc.culture.french
> Subject: Re: A Great And Brave President
> Message-ID: <4b9dtvobv6ovhh8pa...@4ax.com>
> Date: Wed, 10 Dec 2003 07:19:57 GMT
>
>
> Most of the comments concerning a "Jewish race," are anti-Semitic in
> origin, or extremist Zionist demands that the Jews be seen as a
> 'race.'
> Certainly that was Hitler's idea. There is, of course, a genetic
> predisposition
> of Jews to various 'genetic illnesses,' such as Niemann-Pick, Canavan,
> Gaucher, and Tay-Sachs. But there is no "Jewish race," and when
> I have used that term I have used it in connection to the Nazis ideas
> of that "Jewish race."
> --------------------------------
>
Quite right. Scientifically there is no RACE at all, in scientific
terms. It is a linguistic construct used outside of scientific
meaning to recognize the various, often subtle differences
existing in our singular scientifically recognized species... homo
Sapiens. Which in non-scientific terms is referred to as "the
Human race." But, scientifically, of course there is no meaning
in the word _race_, since our biological existence is determined
through the scientific classification of organisms existing in
nature: The taxonomy table. And all humans are homo Sapiens,
and referred to in non-Scientific terms as _the Human Race_.
In any case, the use of the term _race_ is highly problematic.
It is a language construct, rather than a _scientific term_, since
scientifically we are all of the species homo Sapiens. And using
that _scientific fact_ there is also no such thing as a _Black
race_, or an _Oriental race_, or a _White race_. It's all words,
rather than science, euro. We use it to differentiate not those
who are _different_ from homo Sapiens, because there are other
terms that adequately define those differences in _scientific
terms_. Those animals which are of lower order or of different
species, in the taxonomy of nature. We use the word to recognize
various recognizable differences we might see in members who
are all of the HUMAN RACE. Such as even in the extreme...
the _race of all _blond human beings_. Which is itself highly
subjective, given what each of us might believe constitutes
being _blond_. However; YOU want to see the linguistic
term as the Nazis saw it. And wish to USE it as the Nazis
used it... but only in respect to the JEWS. Just as the Nazis
tried to use it in that respect. You don't have a problem with
the idea of a "French race," since you do not hate the French,
and would easily accept that someone can be of the "French
race," while living in lands other than France. Which would
be a highly subjective view, since what degree of ethnic
descent actually constitutes someone being French?
But, oh.... oh.... when the idea of a linguistic construct of the
Jewish race, which is also a subjective view, based upon a
degree of ethnic descent, and asserting that ethnic descent
as a birthright... meaning by definition, a people sharing a
common culture, language and ethnic descent, as defined in
recognized dictionaries as that linguistic construct... suddenly
you put that swastika arm-band on. You place that death's-head
hat on your head... and shout out the Nazi slogan that _the
Jewish race_ must be defined in the meaning of an _inferior
race_. Just as the Nazis did. Because, unlike how you feel
about the French... you have an all-consuming hate for the
Jews.
The term _race_ has the enormous ability to LINGUISTICALLY
be MISUSED to imply that certain members of the species homo
Sapiens are apart from _the Human Race_. The difference between
your view and mine, is that you support the Nazi idea behind the
term _Jewish race_, while I condemn that particular method.
It is not the I personally prefer such usage, but that if someone
wants to call themselves a part of the "German race," I have as
little problem with that as those who wish to call themselves
a part of the "Jewish race." I see NEITHER as the Nazis saw
that usage. YOU see it as the Nazis saw it. Just as the Nazis
attempted, this is what YOU support. You support the claim
that the Jews are _apart from the Human race_ using that
argument in respect to the term "born Jewish." It is only when
someone attempts to apply it, as YOU APPLY it, and as the
Nazis applied it, that we demonstrate OUR racism. It is when
YOU demonstrated your racist... and consuming hate for the Jews.
There is absolutely nothing wrong linguistically about speaking
of those sharing a common culture, language or ethnicity
being referred to as such a _race_. But the Nazis placed such
an onus on that term, and YOU place such a hateful intention
on that term, insisting that one must be a Nazi to argue there
are "born Jews," that it has become dangerous to use it,
which rather implies that the Nazis have won the war of such
linguistic usage. In fact, you insist the Nazis have won that
war of the linguistic usage of that term. Since you see its use,
as the Nazis saw its use.
But let us look at the linguistic definitions of the word
"race," and tell me that the word cannot be applied
LINGUISTICALLY, not SCIENTIFICALLY - to the Jews.
See AskOxford.com -- See --
http://www.askoxford.com/concise_oed/race_2?view=uk
The definition includes -- " 3 a group of people sharing the
same culture, language, etc.; an ethnic group."
Or Cambridge -- See --
http://dictionary.cambridge.org/define.asp?key=65069&dict=CALD
The definition includes -- " a group of people who share the same
language, history, characteristics, etc: LITERARY The British are
an island race."
Or Merriam-Webster --- See --
http://www.m-w.com/cgi-bin/dictionary?book=Dictionary&va=race
Click on the "race (3,noun). And you will find the definition in
the English language of "2 a : a family, tribe, people, or
nation belonging to the same stock b : a class or kind of
people unified by community of interests, habits, or
characteristics <the English race>"
Or Wordsmyth -- See --
http://tinyurl.com/6dqaa
The definition includes --- "a group of peoples or tribes with a
common history, geography, or nationality."
Or Bartleby.com -- See --
http://www.bartleby.com/61/39/R0003900.html
The definition includes -- " 2. A group of people united or classified
together on the basis of common history, nationality, or geographic
distribution: the German race. 3. A genealogical line; a lineage."
Please read the well-formed explanation at the bottom of the term.
It is now seen as a _social or mental construct_, which is what it
has actually always been. And has led to the abuses of the Nazis
to define for themselves the _Jewish race_, as being APART from
the _human race_, apart from the species homo sapiens. This
is how the term has come to be seen as so offensive, as well it
should be IF applied in the sense of ANY homo Sapiens being
apart from the _human race_. Which is what YOU want to
claim it means... but ONLY when it is used in reference to
the Jews.
Or wikipedia -- See --
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Race
The definition includes -- " a distinct population of humans
distinguished in some way from other humans. The most
widely observed races are those based on skin colour,
facial features, ancestry, genetics, and national origin."
Notice that "ancestry" can be applied in that definition,
while that is the most problematic part of that term, having
been made so by the Nazis.
Or infoplease -- See --
http://www.infoplease.com/dictionary/race
The definition includes -- " 1. a group of persons related by common
descent or heredity." and -- " 4. a group of tribes or peoples forming
an ethnic stock: the Slavic race. 5. any people united by
common history, language, cultural traits, etc.: the Dutch race."
Notice that this particular resource even mentions the idea of _the
race of fishes_, and _Journalists are an interesting race_, and
mentions that the various characteristics of wine can be referred
to as _race_. As I've continued to point out, it is only when we
view that term as the Nazis viewed it, does it become so
offensive. And you are the one who insists that it be viewed
as the Nazis viewed it, because that is how YOU view it... just
as the Nazis. But ONLY in respect to the Jews.
So scientifically ... is there a _Jewish race_? Of course not. It
is absurd to argue that there is. Is there even scientifically a _Black
race_? Once again, not in the scientific meaning of our species.
Our species is defined ONLY as homo Sapiens, and all members
of all ideas of any artificially constructed usages of the term _race_,
are members of that species. Even the term _human race_ has
no real scientific meaning, since we are scientifically described
as a species. The species homo Sapiens. Each and every one
of us.
And it was used in a linguistic sense by the U.S. Supreme Court
in a decision which ruled favorably toward anti-discrimination laws
afforded to those who THEY termed "the Jewish race." Of course, we
all know you oppose any anti-discrimination laws which might protect
Jews. Since you deny they even are an ethnic group.
> You also wrote, a few months after on the same newsgroups:
>
> --------------------------------
> From: A Planet Visitor <abc...@zbqytr.ykq>
> Newsgroups: soc.culture.french,alt.activism.death-penalty
> Subject: Re: Earl Evleth: Stalker & Hypocrite
> Message-ID: <lufoh0tlpnt1v9rip...@4ax.com>
> Date: Fri, 13 Aug 2004 04:59:10 GMT
>
> While, in fact... according to The American Heritage® Dictionary of
> the English Language, Fourth Edition -- See --
> http://dictionary.reference.com/search?q=race
> (A group of people united or classified together on the basis of
> common history, nationality, or geographic distribution: the German
> race. - remark added by Euro, taken from the link above)
> there is nothing basically wrong with speaking of "The German race."
> If we understand that it has no meaning in separating any 'race'
> from that of the HUMAN RACE. The Dictionary itself USES
> that very idea, as an example in the definition. Do you think the
> Germans are a "race"? If so, and the dictionary argues that it is
> meaningful to do so, why can there not be a "Jewish race"
> without the argument that it meets the Nazi definition of the
> Jews?
> ---------------------------
>
You claim that it's racism to quote definitions from a dictionary? You
are incredibly stupid, and desperate. And YOU are the one who
SEE Racism in the mention of a Jewish race. Because you see it
as the Nazis saw it. Of course, you are now entering the realm of
the desperate... trying to call ME a racist, when there is not the
slightest evidence of that despicable accusation, and while I have
been quite careful to avoid stating specifically that you are a racist...
even given your disgusting hate for the Jews. But you have now
proven yourself to be a racist.
> Here, you surreptitiously, viciously, took the example of the use of
> "race" in English (a very specific use to that language) to qualify
> persons from a nation, with a common history, nationality, geographic
> distribution,
Here, you surreptitiously, and viciously tried to distort that definition.
Since it states -- "A genealogical line; a lineage." While there is
ample evidence to speak of a "Jewish nation" as meaning the
_nation of those who have a Jewish descent_. Even the SCOTUS
has recognized the idea of a _Jewish race_, for purposes of
anti-Discrimination laws. See -
http://www.tulanelink.com/legal/supreme_98a.htm
Of course it is NOT my argument that there IS a Jewish race. Simply
that the meaning of the word _race_ is so blurred that all the cross-eyed
people in the world, could be called _the race of all cross-eyed people_.
The Jews can certainly be evaluated as a distinct SOCIAL and
ethnic segment of our species, having a common bond through their
culture, heritage and history, which does not depend upon an insistence
in a common religion. Although that religion is what has often
sustained them as a distinct people. The original name for the
people we now call Jews was Hebrews. But this has a meaning beyond
that of the Judaic religion. Those who have this ethnic descent
obviously have the right to ignore it completely, and presume that
they are simply whatever nationality they wish to assume, depending
upon their nationality as a citizen of a country. As well as having
the right to claim a birthright, and insist that they are "born Jews"
through that birthright, without the need to follow the Judaic religion.
While the Judaic religion itself, recognizes a "born Jew."
And you attempted to distort the word "OR" in the definition. Since,
the Jews have a common history, and that is also sufficient to meet
that definition. Plus the great number of other recognized linguistic
references I have provided in which that term is defined. You attempted
to twist that definition to claim that it is only those from separate nations.
But common history transcends nation borders. The Kurds are a
people of such common culture who transcend nation borders of Iraq,
Turkey, Iran and some other nations.
As I posted elsewhere... Secular Judaism, or Jews who practice
religions other than the Judaic religion, is maintaining Judaism... or
that connection to the cultural heritage of the Jews, without reference
to the supernatural. At its most basic level it is being Jewish without
the Judaic religion. The desire to remain distinctively and discernibly
Jewish, yet not holding to that Judaic religion. You would deny them
that birthright.
> to suggest that one could apply it to a group of people
> sharing the same religion, but not the same history, the same
> nationality, the same geographic distribution. You induced that, since
> one could refer to the Germans as a "race", one could refer to the
> Jews as a "race" as well, while it is absolutely not equivalent
Why not?
> (would
> one consider speaking of a "Buddhist race" or a "Christian race"?),
Oh.... you think the Jews are actually _non humans_, and being
Jewish is _only a religion_. Since religions have no real physical
existence, and are only creations of the mind, rather than of
what represents our ethnic descent.
> and with full knowledge of the ideologically highly tendencious
> implications of his stance.
That is your problem. Because you think like a Nazi. You deny that
Jews have an actual existence as a people. You see Jews as IT...
non-humans.... not THEM... humans. There are no Jews to you.
There are only those who happen to practice the Judaic religion. In
YOUR _definition_ there are no JEWS as a people. Only those
who happen to practice a certain religion. You thus insult millions
and millions of Jews, who do not practice the Judaic religion, yet
claim they are Jewish as their birthright. I wonder if you would
argue that there is no _Arab race_? Or if you would insist that
being Arab is only a religion? And what religion would that be?
It is an incredible insult to those such as Cardinal Lustiger, who
does not practice the Judaic religion, but is most certainly
Jewish through a birthright earned by a mother who perished in
the Holocaust. Is he Jewish to you, euro? Obviously NOT! I have
waited for an answer from you to that direct question, but I know
quite well that you are simply too craven to ever approach offering
an answer. Since on the one hand, when you see him as
non-Jewish, you find him quite moral for attempting to elevate
a murderer to a role in which millions would be demanded to call that
murderer "blessed," which pleases you greatly in your affection for
all murderers. While on the other hand, you see him as a liar, if
he claims to be Jewish. Proving rather clearly that it is ONLY the
idea of him being Jewish that causes you to call him a liar, and
demonstrates your hate for the Jews.
>
> That is utterly racist, and I believe that, in doing so, you attempt
> to give a new impulsion to Hitler's racist "theories".
>
Hello... you claim that the Jews are NOT a race, and then you argue
that it is racist to claim through definitions that they can be, although
I would not presume that they are in any scientific meaning, which
is how the Nazis wished to apply that meaning. How can it be racist,
if you insist that no race is involved to your thinking? Since you
argued that being Jewish is just a religion, is religion a _race_ to
you? If you intend to call me a _racist_ in respect to my arguments
about a _Jewish race_, then you admit that you accept that there
IS a _Jewish race_, and I have done NOTHING to insult that _race_.
YOu certainly cannot call me a _racist_, if you do not even accept
the Jews are a _race_.
And my.. my... you insist that Cardinal Lustiger must be a racist,
and that the Supreme court of the U.S. must be racist.
> Euro
> --------------
> James Noles has made on this group numerous statements by which he
> could "clearly" see certain features about posters who opposed him.
> His standards to make those deductions are more than questionable, yet
> it has never prevented James Noles from building heinous ad hominem
> campaigns against persons whose presence disturbed him.
>
LOL... venting your spleen in hate for me again, euro? How typical
of your sadistic nature. Your hate for me is only exceeded by your
hate for the Jews
> Now, we could try to look at James Noles' posting history and apply to
> him his _own_ standards of judgement, just for the fun of it. Here are
> a few examples how one can build against James Noles, by using his own
> standards, a "James Noles" campaign based on distortion of his own
> words.
>
> 1/ Executing the innocent
> -> Source:
> ----------------------
> From: "A Planet Visitor" <abc...@abcxyz.com>
> Subject: Re: more PV lies
> Message-ID: <OX7z6.5813$VF3.5...@newsread2.prod.itd.earthlink.net>
> Date: Fri, 06 Apr 2001 00:18:54 GMT
>
> "It is also lawful to execute an
> innocent EVERYWHERE in the world where the DP is used, by
> definition of the DP."
> ----------------------
> -> Standard of reference: James Noles' assertion that claiming
> something is legal means supporting it (he argued this many times
> about the Holocaust).
Actually, you are a liar, since I have never claimed the Holocaust
was legal, nor was it a legal DP. While of course, you've claimed that
the issue of the Holocaust being legal is IRRELEVANT. So you
would be the one supporting murdering the innocent without the benefit
of it being LEGAL to do so. It's IRRELEVANT to you. The entire
Holocaust, and the idea of the legality of the murder of innocents in
the Holocaust is IRRELEVANT to YOU!!!! Let that sink in. Between
the two of us, you are the only one who has spit out the vile belief
that the Nazis are legally innocent, in BELIEVING that the Holocaust
was LEGAL. And there was nothing more about it in your mind,
than the Nazis having fathered an illegitimate child in fathering what
you claim was the "illegitimate" Holocaust. Which you argued was
LEGAL. An absurd contradiction actually, but one hoping to claim
the Nazis are legally INNOCENT of committing any crime. While
you found Goebbels was "polite" when he spoke of morally killing
the Jews. [1]
>
> => Conclusion: James Noles supports the execution of innocents
> everywhere in the world.
>
LOL... Using your _logic_, I insist that you support murderers
everywhere in the world.
However; your comment is an absurd lie. I support the concept of
the DP as used in the U.S., and this does not in any way mean I
support the execution of innocents ANYWHERE. I was stating that
any criminal justice system accepts the possibility of the conviction
of an innocent. I presume you do not oppose punishing those who
do commit murder (although I might be wrong there). But if you do,
you accept that we are humanly fallible and the possibility exists of
punishing an innocent. While I would not argue that you supporting
the criminal justice system means you support the conviction of the
innocent. Although you have implied that you do support the execution
of innocents, claiming you do not want any improvements in the DP
which might lessen the possibility of the execution of an innocent. [8]
However; the Holocaust simply was not a legal system, and certainly
not the Legal DP. Except for your argument that it was "illegitimate,"
and the issue of it being legal was IRRELEVANT. If the issue of
legal is IRRELEVANT to you... then the killing of those innocents
in the Holocaust is also IRRELEVANT to you.
Your "conclusion" is based upon another one of your lies. But we
have your proven "conclusion" that you preferred Bush in November,
because you believed he would bring you those more killings
that you desperately want and need in Iraq. [15]
Only you have the ideological purpose of the Nazis. To find it
DISGUSTING to mention that someone is Jewish. [14] [16] [20]
You're insane. Since you, not I, argued that pity has no place in human
rights, you are the one who would be opposed to due process of law
and legal representation if that were seen as pity for the accused.
That's why you have no pity for the victims of the Holocaust, having
been denied any right whatsoever. You don't really feel that it is
necessary to pity anyone not having those rights. You simply take
YOUR claims, and lie and claim they are mine. You do this every
time you are backed into a corner about YOUR OWN WORDS. [9]
> 4/ Vile and insane
>
> -> Source: Take any of the postings in which James Noles labelled as
> "murderer lover" the long list of persons who disagreed with him
> (Desmond, Peter Morris, JPB, Jurgen, Spike, Fitzherbert, Jane, Brett,
> Earl, Dirtdog, and I'm sure I forgot some names), or even persons he
> doesn't know (Cardinal Lustiger). For references, look at my posting
> last year "PV surrounded by murderer lovers?"
>
> -> Standard of reference:
> From: "A Planet Visitor" <abc...@abcxyz.com>
> Newsgroups: alt.activism.death-penalty
> Subject: Re: Poll: Americans Divided on Penalty for Yates
> Date: Tue, 12 Mar 2002 00:29:58 GMT
>
> "Apparently you find nothing offensive about the word 'deathies.'
> If that's the case, I would hope you never comment on your
> perception of the offensiveness of the phrase 'murderer lover.'
> They are, of course, ONE AND THE SAME... equally vile,
> equally insane. Being perverse in one direction, does not
> make it right to be perverse in the opposite direction."
>
> => Conclusion: James Noles is vile and insane.
>
Sure looks like every name you offered appeared to be a "murderer
lover" to me. I am quite sure they called me various names in return.
And... gee... three of those names threatened me with murder, and
Desmond threatened every retentionist with murder. But that is my
opinion, and it does not assert that all abolitionists are murderer lovers.
I believe I have already addressed you complaint about my calling
you and those others murderer lovers... See
http://groups-beta.google.com/group/alt.activism.death-penalty/msg/2f08824dcc4d631d
While you continue to prove you are.... over and over. Certainly
you love them MORE than you have any affection for innocent
slaves. Since you decided to save a few hundred murderers,
and tell millions of innocent slaves to _wait for the next one to
save them_.
> 5/ Big winner
>
> -> Source: James Noles pasting and posting for more than 300 times to
> date the following words:
> Your words in support of the murder of 200 Spanish citizens --
> "The big winner of the elections, indeed, is the Spanish people."
> Apparently again believing that being victimized can make the
> victim "big winners" in the lottery of life. See --
> http://groups.google.com/groups?selm=ccdd62ad2932a5f597990a783220d56d%40news
> .meganetnews.com
>
> -> Standard of reference: James Noles' opinion that, when a person
> accused someone with having held an opinion they never held, the
> accuser is responsible for that opinion. That's the James Noles'
> "filthy raghead" principle.
>
Actually, that means that obscene slur is YOURS, euro. Because
you will not find it in any comment in which it is shown as MINE.
But of course, you DID insist that those 191 murdered victims made
the Spaniards -- "big winners." [12]
> From: A Planet Visitor <abc...@zbqytr.ykq>
> Newsgroups: alt.activism.death-penalty
> Subject: Question for danh (was -- Re: the Moral Imperative)
> Date: Fri, 23 May 2003 00:41:32 GMT
>
> "In fact, the Nameless One did just that with me, accusing
> ME of using that racist slur when I have NEVER done so. And the
> fact that I have not done so, means that slur belongs to HIM... not to
> Me." As far as I'm concerned."
>
> => Conclusion: whenever James Noles writes that that being victimized
> can make the victim "big winners" in the lottery of life, it is HIS
> opinion, as I never held such an opinion. James Noles is therefore the
> one who believes that those who died in a terrorist attack in Madrid
> in March 2003 are the winners.
Of course you did. The words are YOURS, euro. Your words -- "The
big winner of the elections, indeed, is the Spanish people." [12]
Excusing those who murdered 191 Spaniards. You said those
exact words, and again you try to claim they are mine in your lies.
> The same goes with many of the opinions he states in his
> copy-and-paste "Euro" signature, among others:
> - James Noles arguing that "mentioning someone is Jewish is EXPOSING
> THEM as presumably having some _evil_ that should not be EXPOSED";
Actually you said it was DISGUSTING just to mention that Cardinal
Lustiger was eager to stress his Jewish origins. You are the only
one who insists that mentioning someone is Jewish is EXPOSING
them. Because you find the idea of that mention, being no different
than calling that person a racist slur. Since you see no difference
between the words "Jew," and the *N* word. 'fess up, euro. You
do see the two words as BOTH racial slurs... don't you?
> - James Noles arguing that believeing that Bush will fail in Iraq is a
> motive for preferring him as President;
Jesus, euro.... YOU'RE the one having stated you PREFERRED
Bush as President. See -- [15] And we all know that you did so
because you expect he will bring you those more killings that you
crave.
> - James Noles arguing that murderers are humane;
LOL... You continue to take YOUR words... and claim they are
mine. See [3]
> - James Noles arguing that Goebels was a nice man because he was
> polite;
Once again.... Your words in praising Goebbels. [1] But at least
you have come to realize just how evil and immoral your words
and arguments are, and thus believe that the best thing you can
do is use YOUR evil and immoral comments and claim those
comments came from me, rather than you. Even though I can
PROVE they came from you.
> and so on...
>
You've gone totally bonkers. Totally amoral. You no longer have
retained any sanity. I guess the strain of my exposing you, has
driven you over the edge. And now that you've played that last
card, the Nazi card of exposing my real name, you have nothing
else left but going over the edge of reason. And it's really frightening
to see what a sadistic prick you really are.
> ===========================================
>
> End of the game.
Oh my... euro sees his Holocaust denial as _only a game_. Just
like his Fuhrer Desmond sees his claim to be Jewish just a big
joke he is playing on the gullible of AADP.
> What does all this show? Well, it shows that James
> Noles, judged by HIS OWN standards, is a racist person, who believes
> that it doesn't matter when innocents are executing everywhere in the
> world,
No, it doesn't show that at all. It simply asserts that in a legal DP,
there is the recognition that it is impossible to guarantee that an
innocent will not be executed. But of course, YOU have argued that
the Holocaust WAS a legal DP. I have never accepted it as a legal
anything, much less a legal DP. And let us not forget that you
OPPOSE any improvements that would lead to a lesser possibility
of the execution of an innocent in the DP. You HOPE that an innocent
is executed, and that it can be proven that he had. This is your
HOPE, euro. In your own words -- [8]
> who is opposed to due process of law,
ROTFLMAO... As I recall you wanted to save a few hundred murderers,
rather than a few million innocent slaves. [5] I support due process, totally
and absolutely, and that is one of the reason that I find abolishing the
DP would REDUCE due process for those now sentenced to alternate
penalties. You would prefer a much greater number of innocents stay
in a cage for the rest of their lives.
> who behaves in a vile and
> insane way, who argues that mentioning someone is Jewish is exposing
> them as evil,
You're the one who claimed that it is DISGUSTING to what YOU believe
_expose_ someone as Jewish. Of course, you claim that being Jewish
is only a religion, and have thus claimed it is disgusting to expose someone's
religious preference. But you had no problem exposing ME... in that
same disgusting manner. [14] [16] [20]
that murderers are humane,
My, my... that's what YOU'VE stated. [3] More than once. And insisted
that I should join with you in finding them "humane." Ah, yes... the
amoral use of attempting to claim that your words are mine.
that the victims of the
> Madrid terrorist attck in March 2003 are the "big winners"
You're the one who called them that. See -- [12]
> or that
> Goebbels was respectable just because he was polite.
Oh, my... Imagine how you expose your own lying, euro.
And so clearly, since YOU were the one who tried to assign
respectability to Goebbels in insisting "Goebbels was polite
in his propaganda." And thus you praised him for having
insisted that it was moral to kill the Jews, which seems more
and more to show that you agree that it was moral to do so.
Again, that's what you've stated. [1]
> In the end of the day, we are left between the alternative to judge
> James Noles as an utterly disgusting and obnoxious persons either for
> his opinions, or for his totalitarian principles who enable him to
> judge others.
>
You look at your words and try to claim they come from me, because
you recognize just how disgusting your views are, and need to hope
to claim they are mine. I judge your words using my opinion, euro.
Others can look at them and judge for themselves. But there is no
doubt in my mind, that you are sick...sick...sick. And now offering
your own words, and attempting to paste them in as mine, demonstrates
that you recognize you are sick... sick... sick. That's the first step
to recovery, euro. The recognition of your own evil. Now if you
could only grasp the second step... that of acceptance of your evil,
by admitting the words you claim are mine, actually come from you.
> James Noles, judged by himself, it's just that.
>
Judged using your own evil words and claiming they are mine. What
you've done, euro... Is judged yourself... because you've realized
just how evil your comments are. That is why you've gone bonkers.
Thank God that I do not have to put a face or a real name to your
evil.
JN
<clip raving cyber stalking spam>
Ummm... for those 'keeping count' this is 223 of my posting some
rights in the Holocaust... because in your words --
"Human rights have nothing to do with pity." See --
http://www.google.com/groups?selm=531e0a6fc371e8f5745ae1c2ba15fd4d%40news.meganetnews.com
[10] And defending the Nazi death camps, insisting when the six death
camps were mentioned, that they were all _concentration camps_
and not Nazi death camps. Insisting that Treblinka, Sobibor, Majdanek,
AUSCHWITZ, Kulmhof (Chelmno), and Belzec were the names of
concentration camps. When those camps were mentioned, you
replying "If my memory is correct, the above names... are names of
concentration camps." See --
http://groups-beta.google.com/group/alt.activism.death-penalty/msg/f45f2addaeb9b112
[11] And of course.. another of the 'great ones' from you -- "I don't think one
makes much progress by separating non murderers (the good ones) and
murderers (the evil ones)." Apparently... you conclude that we should not
even bother having a justice system which separates the murderer from the
non-murderer. See --
http://groups.google.com/groups?selm=e2706c22e2c8c73ebbd818d20b986abb%40news.meganetnews.com
[12] Your words in support of the murder of 200 Spanish citizens --
"The big winner of the elections, indeed, is the Spanish people."
Apparently again believing that being victimized can make the
victim "big winners" in the lottery of life. See --
http://groups.google.com/groups?selm=ccdd62ad2932a5f597990a783220d56d%40news.meganetnews.com
of killing any Jews. Trying to defend them by insisting that the Holocaust
was _only illegitimate_, and not illegal. And that their idea of legality
is superior to your own idea of legality. In fact, claiming you have no
personal idea of legality... yet you insisted there is "legal murder."
Your words - " Raising the issue from the viewpoint of legality is irrelevant,
as my own standards do not intervene in the field of legality." See --
http://groups-beta.google.com/group/alt.activism.death-penalty/msg/6ceb377f9f61bcdb
Apparently you find the the legal issue of killing six million innocent
Jews to be "irrelevant."
[18] And of course, we also have your LIE, in which you state
"I never compared the Nazi concentration camps with Guantanamo..."
Because you certainly DID... when you insisted that "Guantanamo
could also fit in your list," the list of what you called Nazi
"concentration camps" (aside from your Holocaust denial that
none of them were "extermination camps" for Jews). Because
that clearly is an attempt to compare Guantanamo to "concentration
camps" If you claimed that Guantanamo could fit in that list of Nazi
camps, what do you think you were doing, but comparing them
to Guantanamo? See --
http://www.google.fr/groups?selm=1103287489.c10025eee1a9068a11c9b60696de52e2%40meganetnews2
[19] As the results of a European poll showed that many Europeans
consider Israel to be "the greatest threat to world peace," ignoring
Arab threats and terrorism throughout the world, and while Israel
is comprised of 80% Jews, Rabbi Marvin Hier , the respected
Wiesenthal Centre's founder, remarked -- "This poll is an indication
that Europeans have bought in, "hook, line and sinker", to the vilification
and demonisation campaign directed against the state of Israel and her
supporters by European leaders and media." euro leapt to the attack
on Rabbi Hier, and as so many anti-Semites claimed that the Rabbi's
comments were just typical _Jews are simply whiners_, with euro's
comment that the Rabbi's comment was "somewhat peremptory
(but soooooooo convenient) judgement." Yes... I'm sure that euro felt
there was a _big plot_ behind the Rabbi's comment, while I smelled
an attempt at a cover-up from euro. See --
http://www.google.com/groups?selm=af3970a461f1e7f94c39521375b9c22d%40news.meganetnews.com
[20] And following in the true Nazi tradition, in believing in the
James Noles denier of the Holocaust
<abc...@zbqytr.ykq> wrote:
(bullshit snipped)
"Jim Noles", insisting that Auschwitz was not a death camp,
<abc...@zbqytr.ykq> wrote :
-----------------------------------------
Subject: Quotes from 2004
From: "Jim Noles" abc...@zbqytr.ykq
Date: 12/27/2004 11:11 P.M. Eastern Standard Time
Message-id: <V15Ad.153748$8G4.1...@tornado.tampabay.rr.com>
"Auschwitz, Treblinka, Sobibor, Majdanek, Belzec,
were all only "concentration camps."
------------------------------------------
While it is true to qualify Auschwitz, Treblinka, Sobibor, Majdanek
and Belzec as "concentration camps", as most historians and
encyclopedias do
(http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_German_concentration_camps and
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Concentration_Camp), it is outrageous, as
James Noles put it, to argue that they were _ONLY_ concentration
camps. Doing so is an attempt to deny the true nature and purpose of
these camps, which were meant to be extermination camps, and, in
practice, could in no way be referred to as being ONLY concentration
camps.
James Noles has unveiled himself as a Holocaust denier. One can better
understand why, while he argues he spams the usenet in order to reveal
anti-semitism, he actually never contradicts anti-semitic or
negationist postings.
On another side, the list of concentration camps can include the
Guantanamo camp, as shown by the definitions commonly found of a
concentration camp, and as recognized by Wikipedia (the free internet
encyclopedia) themselves.
Definitions:
http://www.onelook.com/?w=concentration+camp&ls=a
"noun: a penal camp where political prisoners or prisoners of war
are confined (usually under harsh conditions)."
--
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Concentration_Camp
"A concentration camp is a large detention centre created for
political opponents, aliens, specific ethnic or religious groups,
civilians of a critical war-zone, or other groups of people, often
during a war. The term refers to situations where the internees are
persons selected for their conformance to broad criteria without
judicial process, rather than having been judged as individuals. Camps
for prisoners of war are usually considered separately from this
category, although informally (and in some other languages) they may
also be called concentration camps.
(...)
Some people call the incarceration facilities for al-Qaida and Taliban
fighters at Camp X-Ray in Guantanamo Bay a concentration camp. No
government, and few organizations, seem willing to characterize it as
such; for instance, Amnesty International has criticized the US over
allegations of mistreatment, but does not call Guantanamo a
concentration camp.
(...)
Concentration camps (Konzentrationslager or KZ) rose to notoriety
during their use in by Nazi Germany. The general populace referred to
them as Kah-Tzets (the initials KZ in German). The Nazi regime
nominally maintained both kinds of concentration camps, labor camps -
since the beginning of their regime in 1933 - and extermination camps.
In fact, it is difficult to draw a distinct line between the two
categories. Prisoners in many Nazi labor camps could expect to be
worked to death in short order, while prisoners in extermination camps
usually died sooner in gas chambers or in other ways. Guards were
known to engage in target practice, using their prisoners as targets.
The first Nazi camps were within Germany, and were primarily work
camps. The worst excesses, including the murder of Jews, homosexuals,
gypsies, Jehovah's Witnesses, Polish intellectuals, Soviet Prisoners
of War and others, were to come later in the war at the area of
General Government. (See Holocaust, genocide.) It is estimated that up
to ten million people died in Nazi concentration camps, of them six
million were killed in the 15 larger ones.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_German_concentration_camps
---------------------------------------
But tell me... Why do you insist that "Auschwitz, Treblinka, Sobibor,
Majdanek, Belzec, were all only "concentration camps." Why do you try
to negate the Holocaust, by refusing the idea that the Nazi
concentration camps were death camps as well? Why do you expose
yourself as one of the negationists who spend their time spamming the
usenet with messages denying the Holocaust never happened, and whom,
actually, you never contradicted so far?
Why do you hate the Jews?
Now, let's come back to your OWN racism. You wrote:
From: A Planet Visitor <abc...@zbqytr.ykq>
Newsgroups: alt.activism.death-penalty,soc.culture.french
Subject: Re: A Great And Brave President
Message-ID: <4b9dtvobv6ovhh8pa...@4ax.com>
Date: Wed, 10 Dec 2003 07:19:57 GMT
Most of the comments concerning a "Jewish race," are anti-Semitic in
origin, or extremist Zionist demands that the Jews be seen as a
'race.'
Certainly that was Hitler's idea. There is, of course, a genetic
predisposition
of Jews to various 'genetic illnesses,' such as Niemann-Pick, Canavan,
Gaucher, and Tay-Sachs. But there is no "Jewish race," and when
I have used that term I have used it in connection to the Nazis ideas
of that "Jewish race."
--------------------------------
You also wrote, a few months after on the same newsgroups:
--------------------------------
From: A Planet Visitor <abc...@zbqytr.ykq>
Newsgroups: soc.culture.french,alt.activism.death-penalty
Subject: Re: Earl Evleth: Stalker & Hypocrite
Message-ID: <lufoh0tlpnt1v9rip...@4ax.com>
Date: Fri, 13 Aug 2004 04:59:10 GMT
While, in fact... according to The American Heritage® Dictionary of
the English Language, Fourth Edition -- See --
http://dictionary.reference.com/search?q=race
(A group of people united or classified together on the basis of
common history, nationality, or geographic distribution: the German
race. - remark added by Euro, taken from the link above)
there is nothing basically wrong with speaking of "The German race."
If we understand that it has no meaning in separating any 'race'
from that of the HUMAN RACE. The Dictionary itself USES
that very idea, as an example in the definition. Do you think the
Germans are a "race"? If so, and the dictionary argues that it is
meaningful to do so, why can there not be a "Jewish race"
without the argument that it meets the Nazi definition of the
Jews?
---------------------------
Here, you surreptitiously, viciously, took the example of the use of
"race" in English (a very specific use to that language) to qualify
persons from a nation, with a common history, nationality, geographic
distribution, to suggest that one could apply it to a group of people
sharing the same religion, but not the same history, the same
nationality, the same geographic distribution. You induced that, since
one could refer to the Germans as a "race", one could refer to the
Jews as a "race" as well, while it is absolutely not equivalent (would
one consider speaking of a "Buddhist race" or a "Christian race"?),
and with full knowledge of the ideologically highly tendencious
implications of his stance.
That is utterly racist, and I believe that, in doing so, you attempt
to give a new impulsion to Hitler's racist "theories".
Euro
--------------
James Noles has made on this group numerous statements by which he
could "clearly" see certain features about posters who opposed him.
His standards to make those deductions are more than questionable, yet
it has never prevented James Noles from building heinous ad hominem
campaigns against persons whose presence disturbed him.
Now, we could try to look at James Noles' posting history and apply to
him his _own_ standards of judgement, just for the fun of it. Here are
a few examples how one can build against James Noles, by using his own
standards, a "James Noles" campaign based on distortion of his own
words.
1/ Executing the innocent
-> Source:
----------------------
From: "A Planet Visitor" <abc...@abcxyz.com>
Subject: Re: more PV lies
Message-ID: <OX7z6.5813$VF3.5...@newsread2.prod.itd.earthlink.net>
Date: Fri, 06 Apr 2001 00:18:54 GMT
"It is also lawful to execute an
innocent EVERYWHERE in the world where the DP is used, by
definition of the DP."
----------------------
-> Standard of reference: James Noles' assertion that claiming
something is legal means supporting it (he argued this many times
about the Holocaust).
=> Conclusion: James Noles supports the execution of innocents
everywhere in the world.
2/ Racism
3/ Human Rights and pity
4/ Vile and insane
-> Source: Take any of the postings in which James Noles labelled as
"murderer lover" the long list of persons who disagreed with him
(Desmond, Peter Morris, JPB, Jurgen, Spike, Fitzherbert, Jane, Brett,
Earl, Dirtdog, and I'm sure I forgot some names), or even persons he
doesn't know (Cardinal Lustiger). For references, look at my posting
last year "PV surrounded by murderer lovers?"
-> Standard of reference:
From: "A Planet Visitor" <abc...@abcxyz.com>
Newsgroups: alt.activism.death-penalty
Subject: Re: Poll: Americans Divided on Penalty for Yates
Date: Tue, 12 Mar 2002 00:29:58 GMT
"Apparently you find nothing offensive about the word 'deathies.'
If that's the case, I would hope you never comment on your
perception of the offensiveness of the phrase 'murderer lover.'
They are, of course, ONE AND THE SAME... equally vile,
equally insane. Being perverse in one direction, does not
make it right to be perverse in the opposite direction."
=> Conclusion: James Noles is vile and insane.
5/ Big winner
-> Source: James Noles pasting and posting for more than 300 times to
date the following words:
Your words in support of the murder of 200 Spanish citizens --
"The big winner of the elections, indeed, is the Spanish people."
Apparently again believing that being victimized can make the
victim "big winners" in the lottery of life. See --
http://groups.google.com/groups?selm=ccdd62ad2932a5f597990a783220d56d%40news
.meganetnews.com
-> Standard of reference: James Noles' opinion that, when a person
accused someone with having held an opinion they never held, the
accuser is responsible for that opinion. That's the James Noles'
"filthy raghead" principle.
From: A Planet Visitor <abc...@zbqytr.ykq>
Newsgroups: alt.activism.death-penalty
Subject: Question for danh (was -- Re: the Moral Imperative)
Date: Fri, 23 May 2003 00:41:32 GMT
"In fact, the Nameless One did just that with me, accusing
ME of using that racist slur when I have NEVER done so. And the
fact that I have not done so, means that slur belongs to HIM... not to
Me." As far as I'm concerned."
=> Conclusion: whenever James Noles writes that that being victimized
can make the victim "big winners" in the lottery of life, it is HIS
opinion, as I never held such an opinion. James Noles is therefore the
one who believes that those who died in a terrorist attack in Madrid
in March 2003 are the winners.
The same goes with many of the opinions he states in his
copy-and-paste "Euro" signature, among others:
- James Noles arguing that "mentioning someone is Jewish is EXPOSING
THEM as presumably having some _evil_ that should not be EXPOSED";
- James Noles arguing that believeing that Bush will fail in Iraq is a
motive for preferring him as President;
- James Noles arguing that murderers are humane;
- James Noles arguing that Goebels was a nice man because he was
polite;
and so on...
===========================================
End of the game. What does all this show? Well, it shows that James
Noles, judged by HIS OWN standards, is a racist person, who believes
that it doesn't matter when innocents are executing everywhere in the
world, who is opposed to due process of law, who behaves in a vile and
insane way, who argues that mentioning someone is Jewish is exposing
them as evil, that murderers are humane, that the victims of the
Madrid terrorist attck in March 2003 are the "big winners" or that
Goebbels was respectable just because he was polite.
In the end of the day, we are left between the alternative to judge
James Noles as an utterly disgusting and obnoxious persons either for
his opinions, or for his totalitarian principles who enable him to
judge others.
James Noles, judged by himself, it's just that.
----------------------------
James Noles lives in Leesburg, Florida. Here is the James Noles "I build a lie" method. One example:
1/ Take an out-of-context quotation from a poster, for instance Planet Visitor who, about Hitler, wrote that: "he 'deserves criticism' since he didn't 'finish the job.'
2/ Give the link to this quotation: http://tinyurl.com/6rzqf
3/ You have now I have the "proof" that Planet Visitor is a neo-nazi who regrets that Hitler didn't "finish the job" and thinks he deserves criticism for that.
4/ Post and repost at will.
5/ That's the James Noles "I build a lie" method.
Or again:
1/ Take an out-of-context quotation from a poster, for instance Planet Visitor who, about Iraq, wrote : "But I now believe that even an Islamic government would be preferable to what was before".
2/ Give the link to this quotation: http://groups.google.com/groups?selm=6r19av03bai69kjpo...@4ax.com
3/ You have now I have the "proof" that Planet Visitor PREFERS the installation of an islamist regime in Iraq.
4/ Post and repost at will.
5/ That's the James Noles "I build a lie" method.
he_who_spanks_nazi_scum
message news:1104848550.c672015f617c51af3d29a12ba8342e14@meganetnews2...
> On Tue, 04 Jan 2005 07:08:57 GMT, "Jim Noles" > <abc...@zbqytr.ykq> wrote:
>
See --
> (bullshit snipped)
euro continues to insist that calling Auschwitz a "concentration
camp," sufficiently describes what the Nazis did there, in the
definition of the term "concentration camp," which is defined as
a camp meant to "detain or confine" prisoners of war, political
prisoners, or refugees. See --
http://www.m-w.com/cgi-bin/dictionary?book=Dictionary&va=concentration+camp
euro insists that this definition is good enough to adequately describe
the purpose of Auschwitz, and requires no further descriptive
nature of what was the purpose of Auschwitz.
> "Jim Noles", insisting that Auschwitz was not a death camp,
> <abc...@zbqytr.ykq> wrote :
I have stated clearly that Auschwitz was a "death camp," as far
back as April 2002. See --
http://groups-beta.google.com/group/alt.activism.death-penalty/msg/8fff7e83cdaacfaf
My words -- " Then again, to the death camp in Oswiecim, Poland,
commonly referred to as Auschwitz, in 1984." I have been to that
death camp, euro. While you have attempted to claim that there was no
difference between Dachau and Auschwitz. You are the only one who
has NOT called Auschwitz a "death camp." You called them BOTH -
"names of concentration camps," and then tried to place Guantanamo
on the list that included both Dachau and Guantanamo. I have NEVER
called Auschwitz a "concentration camp," but you do so as a matter
of course, and defend doing so. Insisting that it has no larger meaning
than a "concentration camp," meant to "detain and confine."
You have NEVER called it anything else. While I have never called it
a "concentration camp." Because to do so is to hide what really was
the purpose of that camp, and denies that methodical, and mechanical
murder was the purpose of Auschwitz. I have called it an "extermination
camp." See --
http://groups-beta.google.com/group/alt.activism.death-penalty/msg/168e1c3fb407ca90
My words -- "Mengele was the notorious extermination camp doctor
at Auschwitz"
And see --
http://groups-beta.google.com/group/alt.activism.death-penalty/msg/26d0bccd2f4f6720
Where I make the clear distinction between Nazi concentration camps
and "death camps," in my words -- "Dachau pales beside the methodical,
and mechanical extermination camps set up in Eastern Europe." While
you insisted that Dachau and Auschwitz could be in the same list,
and called them BOTH "names of concentration camps" in a list.
And tha is what it was. To insist that Auschwitz was nothing more
or less than a "concentration camp" is to argue that in that
definition is the meaning that Auschwitz was used ONLY to "detain
and confine," and NOT meant to purposely exterminate human beings.
You will also find in that post that I argue that Dachau COULD BE termed
a "death camp," under the argument that so many unnatural deaths
occurred. But obviously cannot be compared to Auschwitz. And also
even back then I insisted I was not defending Guantanamo, but needed
to put the Holocaust in a perspective in which the sweep and scope of
it is not diminished, as you have continued to attempt to do. Even in
your attempt to place Guantanamo side by side with Dachau, much
less the death camps, you insult those victims of Dachau, in attempting
to argue that Dachau was _no worse than Guantanamo_, since they
could be put in the same "list."
Now that I have demonstrated that I have referred to Auschwitz as both
an "extermination camp, and a "death camp," perhaps you could point
me to a post of yours where you have also done so. Oooppsss... you
don't even HAVE a post with the terms "extermination camp," or
"extermination camps," or "death camp" or "death camps" in ANY
of your comments... EVER...until this very dialog.
This was the dialog --
------------------------------------------------------
Jigsaw reported on a number of Nazi camps. His words --
/quote/ Nothing America has ever did, or will do can compare to what
happen at Hadamar, Weilmunster, Eichberg, Kalmehof, Neuengamme,
Belsen, Dachau, Mausthausen, Triblinka, Sobibor, Majdanek,
Belzec, Auschwitz, Ravensbruck,Sachsenhausen, Kulmhof and
Gross Rosen. /unquote/
And you replied --
/quote/ If my memory is correct, the above names (not all correct:
Matthausen and Treblinka) are names of concentration camps. To
that regard, Guantanamo could also fit in your list.../unquote/
---------------------------------------------------------
Now if "concentration camps" are NOT the ONLY name you have
EVER called those camps, please direct me to a post of yours
that proves otherwise. In fact, there are no such posts, and it is
quite proper to insist that this is the ONLY name you have EVER
called those "death camps." You have been PROVEN to have
called those camps ONLY "concentration camps." Never anything
else! And in doing so is your denial of the existence of "death
camps" or "extermination camps," which are quite apart from
"concentration camps" and define the Holocaust. Since without
"death camps" or "extermination camps" there would have been
no Holocaust.
And even worse, A year ago, in Jan 2004, when I mentioned that
Cardinal Lustiger's mother had perished in Auschwitz, you argued
that this was private, and should not be revealed. Apparently you
were trying to hide what the Nazis did back then. Apparently the
enormous number of victims murdered in Auschwitz, whose names
are not recorded is not enough for you. You want to hide the true
nature of Auschwitz and what the Nazis did in Auschwitz, even
back then. With your use of -- shhh... it was Auschwitz... don't
mention the names of any Jewish victims.
And of course, we also have your LIE, which exists clearly in your
comment in which you DO state that "Guantanamo could also fit
in your list." Because that clearly is an attempt to compare
Guantanamo to "concentration camps" (aside from your Holocaust
denial that none of them were "extermination camps" for Jews).
Yet you denied that you attempt such comparisons, in your
words -- "I never compared the Nazi concentration camps with
Guantanamo..." See --
http://www.google.fr/groups?selm=1103287489.c10025eee1a9068a11c9b60696de52e2%40meganetnews2
If you claimed that Guantanamo could fit in that list of Nazi
camps, what do you think you were doing, but comparing
them to Guantanamo? Yes... this will be added to more of
your famous contradictions and expressions of support for
murderers and the Nazis.
> -----------------------------------------
> Subject: Quotes from 2004
> From: "Jim Noles" abc...@zbqytr.ykq
> Date: 12/27/2004 11:11 P.M. Eastern Standard Time
> Message-id: <V15Ad.153748$8G4.1...@tornado.tampabay.rr.com>
>
> "Auschwitz, Treblinka, Sobibor, Majdanek, Belzec,
> were all only "concentration camps."
> ------------------------------------------
Actually, my words were -
/quote/ The most morally abhorrent quote in AADP in 2004 --
euro for -- Auschwitz, Treblinka, Sobibor, Majdanek, Belzec,
were all only "concentration camps." /unquote/
That was a representation of YOUR words, euro. If you are
going to claim my comment was a lie, or a distortion, you
will have to show where you have EVER called those camps
anything other than "concentration camps." In fact, in a search
of all your past posts you have NEVER called those camps
anything other than "concentration camps." Thus that
is the ONLY name you have given them... as you said -- "The
names of concentration camps." See --
http://groups-beta.google.com/group/alt.activism.death-penalty/msg/f45f2addaeb9b112
> While it is true to qualify Auschwitz, Treblinka, Sobibor, Majdanek
> and Belzec as "concentration camps", as most historians and
> encyclopedias do
> (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_German_concentration_camps and
> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Concentration_Camp),
The former reference differentiates clearly that extermination camps
> it is outrageous, as
> James Noles put it, to argue that they were _ONLY_ concentration
> camps.
It is indeed, and that is why I have pointed out that YOU have
never called those camps anything other than "concentration
camps." YOU had put it, and I showed how you had put it...
to show YOUR words.
> Doing so is an attempt to deny the true nature and purpose of
> these camps, which were meant to be extermination camps, and, in
> practice, could in no way be referred to as being ONLY concentration
> camps.
So you admit to your Holocaust denial. Since you have NEVER
called those camps anything other than "concentration camps,"
prior to this particular dialog.
> James Noles has unveiled himself as a Holocaust denier.
Empty lies, euro. That's all you have.
> One can better
> understand why, while he argues he spams the usenet in order to reveal
> anti-semitism, he actually never contradicts anti-semitic or
> negationist postings.
>
I am always contradicting YOUR anti-Semitic comments, such as
your praise of Goebbels, your insult to a Rabbi, your insult to all
Jews, stating you were disgusted at the mention of someone being
Jewish, and your claim that Cardinal Lustiger has connections to
the anti-Semitic extreme right in Europe, because he is eager to
stress his Jewish origins. And insisting that the fact his mother
perished in Auschwitz is a _private matter_, while he has spoken
publicly at a ceremony in Paris, speaking her NAME... announced
the name "Gisele Lustiger," pausing and then adding "ma maman"
(my mum) before continuing. And you insist he wants that to
REMAIN PRIVATE??? See --
http://www.dailycatholic.org/issue/archives/1999Apr/73apr14,vol.10,no.73txt/apr14nv4.htm
And then you have the balls to insist that those who support the
argument of being a "born Jew" support the Nazi doctrine
associated with that of believing the Jews are an _inferior race_.
Yet, you have no problem claiming YOU might be a "born Jew,"
when you needed it to deny your own hate for the Jews. And
now your disgusting insistence that Treblinka, Sobibor, Majdanek,
AUSCHWITZ, Kulmhof (Chelmno), and Belzec, were "the names
of concentration camps," and NOTHING MORE.
> On another side, the list of concentration camps can include the
> Guantanamo camp, as shown by the definitions commonly found of a
> concentration camp, and as recognized by Wikipedia (the free internet
> encyclopedia) themselves.
>
> Definitions:
> http://www.onelook.com/?w=concentration+camp&ls=a
>
> "noun: a penal camp where political prisoners or prisoners of war
> are confined (usually under harsh conditions)."
See what I mean? You really would excuse the excesses of
the Nazis. And you presume that is your excuse to call Treblinka,
Sobibor, Majdanek, AUSCHWITZ, Kulmhof (Chelmno), and
Belzec, no different from Guantanamo? You think that those
words ADEQUATELY describe the Nazi death camps.
>
> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Concentration_Camp
> "A concentration camp is a large detention centre created for
> political opponents, aliens, specific ethnic or religious groups,
> civilians of a critical war-zone, or other groups of people, often
> during a war. The term refers to situations where the internees are
> persons selected for their conformance to broad criteria without
> judicial process, rather than having been judged as individuals. Camps
> for prisoners of war are usually considered separately from this
> category, although informally (and in some other languages) they may
> also be called concentration camps.
Your own source disputes you -- /quote/ it is important to understand
that a concentration camp is not, by definition, a Nazi-style
death-camp./unquote/
> (...)
>
> Some people call the incarceration facilities for al-Qaida and Taliban
> fighters at Camp X-Ray in Guantanamo Bay a concentration camp. No
> government, and few organizations, seem willing to characterize it as
> such; for instance, Amnesty International has criticized the US over
> allegations of mistreatment, but does not call Guantanamo a
> concentration camp.
>
> (...)
>
> Concentration camps (Konzentrationslager or KZ) rose to notoriety
> during their use in by Nazi Germany. The general populace referred to
> them as Kah-Tzets (the initials KZ in German). The Nazi regime
> nominally maintained both kinds of concentration camps, labor camps -
> since the beginning of their regime in 1933 - and extermination camps.
> In fact, it is difficult to draw a distinct line between the two
> categories. Prisoners in many Nazi labor camps could expect to be
> worked to death in short order, while prisoners in extermination camps
> usually died sooner in gas chambers or in other ways. Guards were
> known to engage in target practice, using their prisoners as targets.
>
> The first Nazi camps were within Germany, and were primarily work
> camps. The worst excesses, including the murder of Jews, homosexuals,
> gypsies, Jehovah's Witnesses, Polish intellectuals, Soviet Prisoners
> of War and others, were to come later in the war at the area of
> General Government. (See Holocaust, genocide.) It is estimated that up
> to ten million people died in Nazi concentration camps, of them six
> million were killed in the 15 larger ones.
>
> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_German_concentration_camps
>
> ---------------------------------------
And all of that cannot deny that you have never called Treblinka,
Sobibor, Majdanek, AUSCHWITZ, Kulmhof (Chelmno), and
Belzec, anything other than "concentration camps." the reference
makes a clear distinction of that difference. You want to IGNORE it.
> But tell me... Why do you insist that "Auschwitz, Treblinka, Sobibor,
> Majdanek, Belzec, were all only "concentration camps."
That was what you claimed, euro.
> Why do you try
> to negate the Holocaust, by refusing the idea that the Nazi
> concentration camps were death camps as well?
Why do you try to negate the Holocaust by never calling them
anything BUT "concentration camps"? It is not Holocaust denial
to call them extermination camps, and death camps, and not
concentration camps. But it is Holocaust denial to call them
concentration camps, and insist that doing so is sufficient to
describe what went on in those camps. That is YOUR purpose.
You want to LIMIT the damage those camps actually inflicted
upon the Jews. Unwilling to accept that they were ANYTHING
MORE than "concentration camps." That is your sole purpose
now. To defend YOUR USE of calling them "concentration
camps," and NOTHING ELSE. And you continue here to try
to place those death camps into the same frame of reference
as Guantanamo.
> Why do you expose
> yourself as one of the negationists who spend their time spamming the
> usenet with messages denying the Holocaust never happened, and whom,
> actually, you never contradicted so far?
>
> Why do you hate the Jews?
>
> Now, let's come back to your OWN racism. You wrote:
>
> From: A Planet Visitor <abc...@zbqytr.ykq>
> Newsgroups: alt.activism.death-penalty,soc.culture.french
> Subject: Re: A Great And Brave President
> Message-ID: <4b9dtvobv6ovhh8pa...@4ax.com>
> Date: Wed, 10 Dec 2003 07:19:57 GMT
>
>
> Most of the comments concerning a "Jewish race," are anti-Semitic in
> origin, or extremist Zionist demands that the Jews be seen as a
> 'race.'
> Certainly that was Hitler's idea. There is, of course, a genetic
> predisposition
> of Jews to various 'genetic illnesses,' such as Niemann-Pick, Canavan,
> Gaucher, and Tay-Sachs. But there is no "Jewish race," and when
> I have used that term I have used it in connection to the Nazis ideas
> of that "Jewish race."
> --------------------------------
>
The definition includes -- " 2. A group of people united or classified
together on the basis of common history, nationality, or geographic
> You also wrote, a few months after on the same newsgroups:
>
> --------------------------------
> From: A Planet Visitor <abc...@zbqytr.ykq>
> Newsgroups: soc.culture.french,alt.activism.death-penalty
> Subject: Re: Earl Evleth: Stalker & Hypocrite
> Message-ID: <lufoh0tlpnt1v9rip...@4ax.com>
> Date: Fri, 13 Aug 2004 04:59:10 GMT
>
> While, in fact... according to The American Heritage® Dictionary of
> the English Language, Fourth Edition -- See --
> http://dictionary.reference.com/search?q=race
> (A group of people united or classified together on the basis of
> common history, nationality, or geographic distribution: the German
> race. - remark added by Euro, taken from the link above)
> there is nothing basically wrong with speaking of "The German race."
> If we understand that it has no meaning in separating any 'race'
> from that of the HUMAN RACE. The Dictionary itself USES
> that very idea, as an example in the definition. Do you think the
> Germans are a "race"? If so, and the dictionary argues that it is
> meaningful to do so, why can there not be a "Jewish race"
> without the argument that it meets the Nazi definition of the
> Jews?
> ---------------------------
>
You claim that it's racism to quote definitions from a dictionary? You
are incredibly stupid, and desperate. Of course, you are now entering
the realm of the desperate... trying to call ME a racist, when there
is not the slightest evidence of that despicable accusation, and
while I have been quite careful to avoid stating specifically that
you are a racist... even given your disgusting hate for the Jews.
But you have now proven yourself to be a racist.
> Here, you surreptitiously, viciously, took the example of the use of
> "race" in English (a very specific use to that language) to qualify
> persons from a nation, with a common history, nationality, geographic
> distribution,
Here, you surreptitiously, and viciously tried to distort that definition.
> to suggest that one could apply it to a group of people
> sharing the same religion, but not the same history, the same
> nationality, the same geographic distribution. You induced that, since
> one could refer to the Germans as a "race", one could refer to the
> Jews as a "race" as well, while it is absolutely not equivalent
Why not?
> (would
> one consider speaking of a "Buddhist race" or a "Christian race"?),
Oh.... you think the Jews are actually _non humans_, and being
Jewish is _only a religion_. Since religions have no real physical
existence, and are only creations of the mind, rather than of
what represents our ethnic descent.
> and with full knowledge of the ideologically highly tendencious
> implications of his stance.
>
That is your problem. Because you think like a Nazi. You deny that
Jews have an actual existence as a people. You see Jews as IT...
non-humans.... not THEM... humans. There are no Jews to you.
There are only those who happen to practice the Judaic religion. In
YOUR _definition_ there are no JEWS as a people. Only those
who happen to practice a certain religion. You thus insult millions
and millions of Jews, who do not practice the Judaic religion, yet
claim they are Jewish as their birthright. I wonder if you would
argue that there is no _Arab race_? Or if you would insist that
being Arab is only a religion? And what religion would that be?
It is an incredible insult to those such as Cardinal Lustiger, who
does not practice the Judaic religion, but is most certainly
Jewish through a birthright earned by a mother who perished in
the Holocaust. Is he Jewish to you, euro? Obviously NOT! I have
waited for an answer from you to that direct question, but I know
quite well that you are simply too craven to ever approach offering
an answer. Since on the one hand, when you see him as
non-Jewish, you find him quite moral for attempting to elevate
a murderer to a role in which millions would be demanded to call that
murderer "blessed," which pleases you greatly in your affection for
all murderers. While on the other hand, you see him as a liar, if
he claims to be Jewish. Proving rather clearly that it is ONLY the
idea of him being Jewish that causes you to call him a liar, and
demonstrates your hate for the Jews.
> That is utterly racist, and I believe that, in doing so, you attempt
> to give a new impulsion to Hitler's racist "theories".
>
Hello... you claim that the Jews are NOT a race, and then you argue
that it is racist to claim through definitions that they can be, although
I would not presume that they are in any scientific meaning, which
is how the Nazis wished to apply that meaning. How can it be racist,
if you insist that no race is involved to your thinking? Since you
argued that being Jewish is just a religion, is religion a _race_ to
you? If you intend to call me a _racist_ in respect to my arguments
about a _Jewish race_, then you admit that you accept that there
IS a _Jewish race_, and I have done NOTHING to insult that _race_.
YOu certainly cannot call me a _racist_, if you do not even accept
the Jews are a _race_.
And my.. my... you insist that Cardinal Lustiger must be a racist,
and that the Supreme court of the U.S. must be racist.
> Euro
> --------------
> James Noles has made on this group numerous statements by which he
> could "clearly" see certain features about posters who opposed him.
> His standards to make those deductions are more than questionable, yet
> it has never prevented James Noles from building heinous ad hominem
> campaigns against persons whose presence disturbed him.
>
LOL... venting your spleen in hate for me again, euro? How typical
of your sadistic nature. Your hate for me is only exceeded by your
hate for the Jews
> Now, we could try to look at James Noles' posting history and apply to
> him his _own_ standards of judgement, just for the fun of it. Here are
> a few examples how one can build against James Noles, by using his own
> standards, a "James Noles" campaign based on distortion of his own
> words.
>
> 1/ Executing the innocent
> -> Source:
> ----------------------
> From: "A Planet Visitor" <abc...@abcxyz.com>
> Subject: Re: more PV lies
> Message-ID: <OX7z6.5813$VF3.5...@newsread2.prod.itd.earthlink.net>
> Date: Fri, 06 Apr 2001 00:18:54 GMT
>
> "It is also lawful to execute an
> innocent EVERYWHERE in the world where the DP is used, by
> definition of the DP."
> ----------------------
> -> Standard of reference: James Noles' assertion that claiming
> something is legal means supporting it (he argued this many times
> about the Holocaust).
>
Actually, you are a liar, since I have never claimed the Holocaust
was legal, nor was it a legal DP. While of course, you've claimed that
the issue of the Holocaust being legal is IRRELEVANT. So you
would be the one supporting murdering the innocent without the benefit
of it being LEGAL to do so. It's IRRELEVANT to you. The entire
Holocaust, and the idea of the legality of the murder of innocents in
the Holocaust is IRRELEVANT to YOU!!!! Let that sink in. Between
the two of us, you are the only one who has spit out the vile belief
that the Nazis are legally innocent, in BELIEVING that the Holocaust
was LEGAL. And there was nothing more about it in your mind,
than the Nazis having fathered an illegitimate child in fathering what
you claim was the "illegitimate" Holocaust. Which you argued was
LEGAL. An absurd contradiction actually, but one hoping to claim
the Nazis are legally INNOCENT of committing any crime. While
you found Goebbels was "polite" when he spoke of morally killing
the Jews. [1]
> => Conclusion: James Noles supports the execution of innocents
> everywhere in the world.
>
LOL... Using your _logic_, I insist that you support murderers
everywhere in the world.
However; your comment is an absurd lie. I support the concept of
the DP as used in the U.S., and this does not in any way mean I
support the execution of innocents ANYWHERE. I was stating that
any criminal justice system accepts the possibility of the conviction
of an innocent. I presume you do not oppose punishing those who
do commit murder (although I might be wrong there). But if you do,
you accept that we are humanly fallible and the possibility exists of
punishing an innocent. While I would not argue that you supporting
the criminal justice system means you support the conviction of the
innocent. Although you have implied that you do support the execution
of innocents, claiming you do not want any improvements in the DP
which might lessen the possibility of the execution of an innocent. [8]
However; the Holocaust simply was not a legal system, and certainly
not the Legal DP. Except for your argument that it was "illegitimate,"
and the issue of it being legal was IRRELEVANT. If the issue of
legal is IRRELEVANT to you... then the killing of those innocents
in the Holocaust is also IRRELEVANT to you.
Your "conclusion" is based upon another one of your lies. But we
have your proven "conclusion" that you preferred Bush in November,
because you believed he would bring you those more killings
that you desperately want and need in Iraq. [15]
> 2/ Racism
Only you have the ideological purpose of the Nazis. To find it
DISGUSTING to mention that someone is Jewish. [14] [16] [20]
> 3/ Human Rights and pity
You're insane. Since you, not I, argued that pity has no place in human
rights, you are the one who would be opposed to due process of law
and legal representation if that were seen as pity for the accused.
That's why you have no pity for the victims of the Holocaust, having
been denied any right whatsoever. You don't really feel that it is
necessary to pity anyone not having those rights. You simply take
YOUR claims, and lie and claim they are mine. You do this every
time you are backed into a corner about YOUR OWN WORDS. [9]
>
> 4/ Vile and insane
>
> -> Source: Take any of the postings in which James Noles labelled as
> "murderer lover" the long list of persons who disagreed with him
> (Desmond, Peter Morris, JPB, Jurgen, Spike, Fitzherbert, Jane, Brett,
> Earl, Dirtdog, and I'm sure I forgot some names), or even persons he
> doesn't know (Cardinal Lustiger). For references, look at my posting
> last year "PV surrounded by murderer lovers?"
>
> -> Standard of reference:
> From: "A Planet Visitor" <abc...@abcxyz.com>
> Newsgroups: alt.activism.death-penalty
> Subject: Re: Poll: Americans Divided on Penalty for Yates
> Date: Tue, 12 Mar 2002 00:29:58 GMT
>
> "Apparently you find nothing offensive about the word 'deathies.'
> If that's the case, I would hope you never comment on your
> perception of the offensiveness of the phrase 'murderer lover.'
> They are, of course, ONE AND THE SAME... equally vile,
> equally insane. Being perverse in one direction, does not
> make it right to be perverse in the opposite direction."
Sure looks like every name you offered appeared to be a "murderer
lover" to me. I am quite sure they called me various names in return.
And... gee... three of those names threatened me with murder, and
Desmond threatened every retentionist with murder. But that is my
opinion, and it does not assert that all abolitionists are murderer lovers.
I believe I have already addressed you complaint about my calling
you and those others murderer lovers... See
http://groups-beta.google.com/group/alt.activism.death-penalty/msg/2f08824dcc4d631d
While you continue to prove you are.... over and over. Certainly
you love them MORE than you have any affection for innocent
slaves. Since you decided to save a few hundred murderers,
and tell millions of innocent slaves to _wait for the next one to
save them_.
>
> => Conclusion: James Noles is vile and insane.
> 5/ Big winner
>
> -> Source: James Noles pasting and posting for more than 300 times to
> date the following words:
> Your words in support of the murder of 200 Spanish citizens --
> "The big winner of the elections, indeed, is the Spanish people."
> Apparently again believing that being victimized can make the
> victim "big winners" in the lottery of life. See --
> http://groups.google.com/groups?selm=ccdd62ad2932a5f597990a783220d56d%40news
> .meganetnews.com
>
> -> Standard of reference: James Noles' opinion that, when a person
> accused someone with having held an opinion they never held, the
> accuser is responsible for that opinion. That's the James Noles'
> "filthy raghead" principle.
>
Actually, that means that obscene slur is YOURS, euro. Because
you will not find it in any comment in which it is shown as MINE.
But of course, you DID insist that those 191 murdered victims made
the Spaniards -- "big winners." [12]
> From: A Planet Visitor <abc...@zbqytr.ykq>
> Newsgroups: alt.activism.death-penalty
> Subject: Question for danh (was -- Re: the Moral Imperative)
> Date: Fri, 23 May 2003 00:41:32 GMT
>
> "In fact, the Nameless One did just that with me, accusing
> ME of using that racist slur when I have NEVER done so. And the
> fact that I have not done so, means that slur belongs to HIM... not to
> Me." As far as I'm concerned."
>
> => Conclusion: whenever James Noles writes that that being victimized
> can make the victim "big winners" in the lottery of life, it is HIS
> opinion, as I never held such an opinion. James Noles is therefore the
> one who believes that those who died in a terrorist attack in Madrid
> in March 2003 are the winners.
Of course you did. The words are YOURS, euro. Your words -- "The
big winner of the elections, indeed, is the Spanish people." [12]
Excusing those who murdered 191 Spaniards. You said those
exact words, and again you try to claim they are mine in your lies.
And let's not forget that you implied that the Iraqi people were also
_big winners_ in Bush winning the November election. [15]
> The same goes with many of the opinions he states in his
> copy-and-paste "Euro" signature, among others:
> - James Noles arguing that "mentioning someone is Jewish is EXPOSING
> THEM as presumably having some _evil_ that should not be EXPOSED";
Actually you said it was DISGUSTING just to mention that Cardinal
Lustiger was eager to stress his Jewish origins. You are the only
one who insists that mentioning someone is Jewish is EXPOSING
them. Because you find the idea of that mention, being no different
than calling that person a racist slur. Since you see no difference
between the words "Jew," and the *N* word. 'fess up, euro. You
do see the two words as BOTH racial slurs... don't you?
> - James Noles arguing that believeing that Bush will fail in Iraq is a
> motive for preferring him as President;
Jesus, euro.... YOU'RE the one having stated you PREFERRED
Bush as President. See -- [15] And we all know that you did so
because you expect he will bring you those more killings that you
crave.
> - James Noles arguing that murderers are humane;
LOL... You continue to take YOUR words... and claim they are
mine. See [3]
> - James Noles arguing that Goebels was a nice man because he was
> polite;
Once again.... Your words in praising Goebbels. [1] But at least
you have come to realize just how evil and immoral your words
and arguments are, and thus believe that the best thing you can
do is use YOUR evil and immoral comments and claim those
comments came from me, rather than you. Even though I can
PROVE they came from you.
> and so on...
You've gone totally bonkers. Totally amoral. You no longer have retained any
sanity. I guess the strain of my exposing you, has driven you
over the edge. And now that you've played that last card, the
Nazi card of exposing my real name, you have nothing else left
but going over the edge of reason. And it's really frightening to
see what a sadistic prick you really are.
>
> ===========================================
>
> End of the game.
Oh my... euro sees his Holocaust denial as _only a game_. Just
like his Fuhrer Desmond sees his claim to be Jewish just a big
joke he is playing on the gullible of AADP.
> What does all this show? Well, it shows that James
> Noles, judged by HIS OWN standards, is a racist person, who believes
> that it doesn't matter when innocents are executing everywhere in the
> world,
No, it doesn't show that at all. It simply asserts that in a legal DP,
there is the recognition that it is impossible to guarantee that an
innocent will not be executed. But of course, YOU have argued that
the Holocaust WAS a legal DP. I have never accepted it as a legal
anything, much less a legal DP. And let us not forget that you
OPPOSE any improvements that would lead to a lesser possibility
of the execution of an innocent in the DP. You HOPE that an innocent
is executed, and that it can be proven that he had. This is your
HOPE, euro. In your own words -- [8]
> who is opposed to due process of law,
ROTFLMAO... As I recall you wanted to save a few hundred murderers,
rather than a few million innocent slaves. [5] I support due process, totally
and absolutely, and that is one of the reason that I find abolishing the
DP would REDUCE due process for those now sentenced to alternate
penalties. You would prefer a much greater number of innocents stay
in a cage for the rest of their lives.
> who behaves in a vile and
> insane way, who argues that mentioning someone is Jewish is exposing
> them as evil,
You're the one who claimed that it is DISGUSTING to what YOU believe
_expose_ someone as Jewish. Of course, you claim that being Jewish
is only a religion, and have thus claimed it is disgusting to expose someone's
religious preference. But you had no problem exposing ME... in that
same disgusting manner. [14] [16] [20]
> that murderers are humane,
My, my... that's what YOU'VE stated. [3] More than once. And insisted
that I should join with you in finding them "humane." Ah, yes... the
amoral use of attempting to claim that your words are mine.
> that the victims of the
> Madrid terrorist attck in March 2003 are the "big winners"
You're the one who called them that. See -- [12]
or that
> Goebbels was respectable just because he was polite.
Oh, my... Imagine how you expose your own lying, euro.
And so clearly, since YOU were the one who tried to assign
respectability to Goebbels in insisting "Goebbels was polite
in his propaganda." And thus you praised him for having
insisted that it was moral to kill the Jews, which seems more
and more to show that you agree that it was moral to do so.
Again, that's what you've stated. [1]
> In the end of the day, we are left between the alternative to judge
> James Noles as an utterly disgusting and obnoxious persons either for
> his opinions, or for his totalitarian principles who enable him to
> judge others.
>
You look at your words and try to claim they come from me, because
you recognize just how disgusting your views are, and need to hope
to claim they are mine. I judge your words using my opinion, euro.
Others can look at them and judge for themselves. But there is no
doubt in my mind, that you are sick...sick...sick. And now offering
your own words, and attempting to paste them in as mine, demonstrates
that you recognize you are sick... sick... sick. That's the first step
to recovery, euro. The recognition of your own evil. Now if you
could only grasp the second step... that of acceptance of your evil,
by admitting the words you claim are mine, actually come from you.
> James Noles, judged by himself, it's just that.
Judged using your own evil words and claiming they are mine. What
you've done, euro... Is judged yourself... because you've realized
just how evil your comments are. That is why you've gone bonkers.
Thank God that I do not have to put a face or a real name to your
evil.
JN
>
> ----------------------------
>
<clip raving cyber stalking spam>
Ummm... for those 'keeping count' this is 237 of my posting some
[12] Your words in support of the murder of 200 Spanish citizens --
"The big winner of the elections, indeed, is the Spanish people."
Apparently again believing that being victimized can make the
victim "big winners" in the lottery of life. See --
he_who_spanks_nazi_scum
news:1iiqa2-...@zeouane.org...
> Jim Noles <na...@earthlink.net> wrote ...
>
> (snip almost _unbelievably_ insane waffle from The FuckWit)
>
LOL... Well.... at least you didn't try to bring in your friend, Grosvernor
in your defense.
>> Sure looks like every name you offered appeared to be a "murderer lover"
>> to me. I am quite sure they called me various names in return. And...
>> gee... three of those names threatened me with murder, and Desmond
>> threatened every retentionist with murder.
>
> What a pity that every single request on the part of others on this group,
> for proof of the above, Nazi Noles, has been met with silence, or a change
> of the subject, isn't it ?
>
I have often listed those three threats, Desmond.
1) Ol' Racist Nev... warning me in such a death threat to never visit his
backwoods, redneck, _Deliverance-type_ village. With his words --
"stay the fuck out of Derbyshire, scum, else you'll be swimming in the
Erewash Canal with all the other old boots." See --
http://groups-beta.google.com/group/alt.activism.death-penalty/msg/b8beacf7500f79ca
2) One of a number of threats from spike to _put me down_. See
http://groups-beta.google.com/group/alt.activism.death-penalty/msg/84665ea15f831f1d
His words in this one -- "you need putting down you sick fuck."
Of course.... I'm shaking in my boots.. But now that he has a _real
name_ to try and _put down_, perhaps I should oil my firearms.
3) And then this one from "enigmacat," a female abolitionist who
corresponded with murderers on DR. Claiming she was "fond" of
one of them, and admitted to _dating a man_ who had murdered his
stepfather and was serving L wop. Not a very stable or non-violent
background. In a dialog with John Rennie about guns, she
remarked -- "Oh and seeing that PV hasn't been run off the rails as
of yet. Gimme a piece already!! Yes, the bitch is back and i take
no prisoners." See ---
http://www.google.com/groups?selm=3d77cf24.13619191%40news.lon.imag.net
> Come on, Nazi Noles. Show us a 'quote' (sic) where I threatened every
> retentionist with murder ...
One of those places would be --
http://groups-beta.google.com/group/alt.activism.death-penalty/msg/3696cbf2ba52eed8
Your words in respect to all retentionists -- "As deathies (cf. Scum)
are murderers in their own right, Richard (except more cowardly than
the latter, as they get the state to kill for them), ripping them to
shreds is both justified, and wholly moral."
Another would be your infamous words that asked all abolitionists
to torture and kill all retentionists as the cat tortures and kills the
sparrow --
http://groups-beta.google.com/group/alt.activism.death-penalty/msg/6b909dd5d87bdd10
Your words -- "I engage in 'abuse' of deathies as a matter of course.
That's what they're there for. `echo $DEITY` gave them to us, much
as She gave sparrows to the domestic cat. They're our playthings."
And then we have your words to Dan Hogg, who you again insist
must be held to some _code of silence_ about your hate. In your
words -- "I hate them, Dan. Any chance to destroy the fuckers,
I'll take it. See --
http://groups-beta.google.com/group/alt.activism.death-penalty/msg/12c9c57c33550c08
> impossible to do, in fact, as there is only
> one 'retentionist' here, and that's Richard Jackson. I certainly don't
> recall ever 'threatening' Richard Jackson ... so the choice is now you're
> either a retarded fuckwit, or else you're a lying, retarded fuckwit.
>
Oh, please... you have also called Richard a "deathie."
http://groups-beta.google.com/group/alt.activism.death-penalty/msg/8d6aa1e344e5bdee
And you certainly have no right to call yourself an abolitionist in
the sense of opposing the DP for any other reason than your
affection for murderers.
> (snip unread a veritable plethora of idiotic opinions that The FuckWit
> fondly imagines constitute 'debate', along with the now requisite litany of
> lies and accusations of anti-Semitism directed - coincidentally enough - at
> every poster to news:alt.activism.death-penalty who's kicked his racist
> 'ass' (sic) up and down the 'hollowed' (sic) [1] halls of the group )
>
Another snippet of mindless drivel from the sick mind of Desmond
Coughlan... a disgrace to the French, to France, to the French
government, and to the French Ministry of Justice (unless he has
recently had to seek new employment). Since it is certain he has
had to seek out a new source through which to post to AADP.
Since his posts no longer go through ntlworld.com, at URL
80.3.57.143, a URL that he was rather proud of, and continued
to insist was all his.
>
> [1] *guffaw*
JN
> --
> 100%_Jewish
>
From John Rennie -- " DESMOND UNEQUIVOCALLY CONFIRMED
TO ME THAT HE WAS NOT JEWISH. AT THE TIME OF OUR
MEETING HE THOUGHT IT A GREAT JOKE AND HE STILL
DOES. HE IS NOT JEWISH, HE WAS NOT BORN JEWISH,
HE DOES NOT HAVE JEWISH ANCESTRY, HE DOES NOT
PRACTICE THE JEWISH RELIGION." See --
http://groups-beta.google.com/group/alt.activism.death-penalty/msg/92c993bba5d24130
Now who would the rational reader actually believe? Desmond...
with a history of lies? Or John Rennie, not given to shouting out
unless he is quite determined to say what he has to say?
James "I admit I am a Nazi" Noles
lover" Noles wrote:
>"the Nazi murderer lover who insists Auschwitz was not an extermination camp"
But "Jim Noles" <abc...@zbqytr.ykq> also wrote :
-----------------------------------------
Subject: Quotes from 2004
From: "Jim Noles" abc...@zbqytr.ykq
Date: 12/27/2004 11:11 P.M. Eastern Standard Time
Message-id: <V15Ad.153748$8G4.1...@tornado.tampabay.rr.com>
"Auschwitz, Treblinka, Sobibor, Majdanek, Belzec,
were all only "concentration camps."
------------------------------------------
James Noles is therefore a Nazi murderer lover, by his own standard.
Euro
James Noles lives in Leesburg, Florida. Here is the James Noles "I build a lie" method. One example:
1/ Take an out-of-context quotation from a poster, for instance Planet Visitor who, about Hitler, wrote that: "he 'deserves criticism' since he didn't 'finish the job.'
2/ Give the link to this quotation: http://tinyurl.com/6rzqf
3/ You have now I have the "proof" that Planet Visitor is a neo-nazi who regrets that Hitler didn't "finish the job" and thinks he deserves criticism for that.
4/ Post and repost at will.
5/ That's the James Noles "I build a lie" method.
Or again:
1/ Take an out-of-context quotation from a poster, for instance Planet Visitor who, about Iraq, wrote : "But I now believe that even an Islamic government would be preferable to what was before".
2/ Give the link to this quotation: http://groups.google.com/groups?selm=6r19av03bai69kjpo...@4ax.com
3/ You have now I have the "proof" that Planet Visitor PREFERS the installation of an islamist regime in Iraq.
4/ Post and repost at will.
5/ That's the James Noles "I build a lie" method.
he_who_spanks_nazi_scum
news:1105103990.257d4b99d9221822fa12666ba54b3332@meganetnews2...
>>"euro - the Nazi murderer lover who insists Auschwitz was not an extermination camp"
>
Yes, euro... That is what you have insisted. Over and over. You have NEVER
called Auschwitz an "extermination camp." You have never used the term
"extermination camp." See --
Empty set for any post from you containing your use of "Extermination Camp"
http://tinyurl.com/4r3uy
Empty set for any post from you containing your use of "Extermination Camps"
http://tinyurl.com/4rqfp
Unless you can show me where you HAVE called Auschwitz an "extermination
camp," it is obvious that you insist it was not, since you have called it another
name.
Yes.. the Nazi, euro... insisted that "concentration camp" most closely
defined Auschwitz, and insisted when I mentioned that Auschwitz was
a "death camp," or an "extermination camp," that this was an unnecessary
amplification, and "concentration camp" defined the purpose and methods
used in Auschwitz. And went into great detail trying to argue that the
use of "concentration camp" was totally sufficient to describe what went
on in Auschwitz... While the definition of "concentration camp" is
/quote/ a camp where persons (as prisoners of war, political prisoners, or
refugees) are detained or confined. /unquote/ See --
http://www.m-w.com/cgi-bin/dictionary?book=Dictionary&va=concentration+camp
and -- /quote/ 1. A camp where civilians, enemy aliens, political prisoners,
and sometimes prisoners of war are detained and confined, typically under
harsh conditions. 2. A place or situation characterized by extremely harsh
conditions. /unquote/ See --
http://www.bartleby.com/61/37/C0543700.html
That was good enough for euro to define Auschwitz and every other Nazi
death camp.
> But "Jim Noles" <abc...@zbqytr.ykq> also wrote :
>
> -----------------------------------------
> Subject: Quotes from 2004
> From: "Jim Noles" abc...@zbqytr.ykq
> Date: 12/27/2004 11:11 P.M. Eastern Standard Time
> Message-id: <V15Ad.153748$8G4.1...@tornado.tampabay.rr.com>
>
> "The most morally abhorrent quote in AADP in 2004 --
> euro for insisting that Auschwitz, Treblinka, Sobibor, Majdanek, Belzec,
> were all only "concentration camps.""
> ------------------------------------------
>
Yes... that was exactly what euro called those five death camps, and one
more... Chelmno. He has NEVER said they were anything other than
"concentration camps." If you have, euro, please provide the reference,
because without it... you are a proven liar. And that is certainly the ONLY
thing you called them in your response to Jigsaw --
This was the dialog --
------------------------------------------------------
Jigsaw reported on a number of Nazi camps. His words --
/quote/ Nothing America has ever did, or will do can compare to what
happen at Hadamar, Weilmunster, Eichberg, Kalmehof, Neuengamme,
Belsen, Dachau, Mausthausen, Triblinka, Sobibor, Majdanek,
Belzec, Auschwitz, Ravensbruck,Sachsenhausen, Kulmhof and
Gross Rosen. /unquote/
And you replied --
/quote/ If my memory is correct, the above names (not all correct:
Matthausen and Treblinka) are names of concentration camps. To
that regard, Guantanamo could also fit in your list.../unquote/
---------------------------------------------------------
See --
http://groups-beta.google.com/group/alt.activism.death-penalty/msg/f45f2addaeb9b112
And euro then went to extraordinary lengths to DEFEND his claim that
calling Auschwitz a "concentration camp" was quite adequate to
describe the purpose and methods of Auschwitz. In an enormous
number of posts that simply repeated this mantra of his support
for calling Auschwitz a "concentration camp," and nothing more.
One of those from him... among so many with exactly the same
defense for Auschwitz being a "concentration camp" to him -- See --
http://groups-beta.google.com/group/alt.activism.death-penalty/msg/f3ed8af89a8808a7
His words in DEFENSE of him calling Auschwitz a "concentration
camp." == "While it is true to qualify Auschwitz, Treblinka, Sobibor,
Majdanek and Belzec as "concentration camps," as most historians and
encyclopedias do" Clearly believing that David Irving is one of those
historians.
Why have I insisted that euro denies the Holocaust? Because his
methods meet the definition of someone who does -- See --
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Category:Holocaust_denial
/quote/ Holocaust denial is the claim that the mainstream historical
version of the Holocaust is either highly exaggerated or completely
falsified. /unquote/
euro's attempt to defend his use of insisting that describing Auschwitz
as a "concentration camp," and NOTHING MORE, totally meets the
meaning of arguing that the Holocaust is _highly exaggerated_. euro
has NEVER called Auschwitz, or ANY Nazi death camp, as being an
"extermination camp," OR a "death camp." NEVER!!!!! He avoids
the idea of Auschwitz being an "extermination camp" and concentrates
instead upon the characterization of nothing more than a "concentration
camp." As he does with each and every Nazi death camp. See --
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Extermination_camp
Notice that this encyclopedia refers to Treblinka, Belzec, Sobibor and
Chelmno as "pure extermination camps." Clearly defining them as
not "concentration camps." Yet each of those euro insisted were the
"names of concentration camps."
> James Noles is therefore a Nazi murderer lover, by his own standard.
>
I didn't say that the Jews are DISGUSTING to me. YOU said
that Jews were DISGUSTING to you. Your words, EXACTLY --
""Look at Lustiger... He's a Jew!" How disgusting..." [14]
And referred to his eagerness to assert his Jewish origins, as
a "detail" that Europeans want to keep hidden, and only those
having connections to the anti-Semitic extreme right... mention
that he is Jewish. As if the rest of Europe wants to keep it
hidden as some _dirty little secret_. Since that's the way YOU
see someone being Jewish.
And I never would choose to save a few hundred murderers, rather
than millions of innocent slaves. That was YOUR CHOICE. You've
made quite a few choices here that turned my stomach, euro.
Saving a few hundred murderers, and leaving millions of innocent
slaves to rot, was one of the most abominable, until you began
defending the idea of Holocaust denial.
Why do you hate the Jews, euro? Why do you insist that you find
the mention of a Jew, DISGUSTING to you?
JN
> Euro (Still hating the Jews)
Ummm... for those 'keeping count' this is 243 of my posting some
very destructive comments from euro, providing the exact words,
a link to those words, and my opinion of those words. Not one
of which he has refuted. --
[1] Your words --
"At least, Goebbels was polite in his propaganda" See --
http://groups.google.com/groups?selm=d8232deaf4cfd86aa600b816fd947ca8%40news.meganetnews.com
[2] In an absolutely conflicted assortment of Machiavellian, ignominious,
disingenuous, feckless, sophistic, and offensive, double-speak nonsense.
ALL IN ONE POST. Your words --
"I made a claim of principle, that families have nothing to do with justice."
"Justice concerns also the families of victims and murderers."
"justice should, on the contrary, be compassion for the murderer's family"
"hence the feelings of the victims' families should not be instrumentalized to
justify a harder penalty;"
"the tears from one side (the victims' family) cannot be compensated
by the tears from another side (the murderers' family)."
"I never alluded to pity for murderers, but to pity for the murderers'
families." See --
http://www.google.fr/groups?selm=98ecf84d186fb6f02671ac97f3157aec%40news.meganetnews.com
he_who_spanks_nazi_scum
Yes, folks... Desmond is the "Animal of Auschwitz." He insists that the Jews in Auschwitz
are no better than some 300 proven murderers in Texas. He finds NO DIFFERENCE between
Auschwitz and Texas, in respect to what the Nazis did to the Jews, and the state of Texas
does to proven murderers. His words -- " Even Auschwitz wouldn't execute a 72-year-old man..."
> Jim Noles <na...@earthlink.net> wrote ...
>
>> "The Cannibal of Chelmno" <0%_je...@zeouane.org> wrote in message
>> news:1iiqa2-...@zeouane.org...
>>> Jim Noles <na...@earthlink.net> wrote ...
>
>>> (snip almost _unbelievably_ insane waffle from The FuckWit)
>
>> LOL... Well.... at least you didn't try to bring in your friend,
>> Grosvernor in your defense.
>
> What mindless, inane, vapid absurdities you are capable of posting, NN.
Hey... he's one of your friends that you keep referring to, AoA. Between
you calling in him to help you, and euro calling in Goebbels to help him, I'm
undecided as to which is worse.
> Please continue to do so, for whilst euro, Pete and I (amongst others) are
> more than capable of thrashing what in your most humid fantasies are known
> as 'arguments', our prowess pales into insignificance compared to the
> fabulously moronic statements like the above. You really are a 24-karat,
> gold-plated, fucking idiot, FuckWit.
>
LOL... Now tell me you aren't violently angry? Go ahead... deny it. I can say
that after a while, beer has an unpleasant smell when spewed up on a keyboard.
And my laughing at your raging has cost me many a keyboard.
> Should you feel tempted to claim that I'm 'angry', save your energy. You
> don't have what it takes to anger me. You're a pathetic old fool. Or
> should that be 'tool' ?
>
My, my... and you still insist you're not _angry_ (sic).
>>>> Sure looks like every name you offered appeared to be a "murderer lover"
>>>> to me. I am quite sure they called me various names in return. And...
>>>> gee... three of those names threatened me with murder, and Desmond
>>>> threatened every retentionist with murder.
>
>>> What a pity that every single request on the part of others on this group,
>>> for proof of the above, Nazi Noles, has been met with silence, or a change
>>> of the subject, isn't it ?
>
>> I have often listed those three threats, Desmond.
>
> No, FuckWit, you have listed the three lies below.
>
And every one of them carries an implied threat, Desmond.
>> 1) Ol' Racist Nev... warning me in such a death threat to never visit his
>> backwoods, redneck, _Deliverance-type_ village. With his words --
>> "stay the fuck out of Derbyshire, scum, else you'll be swimming in the
>> Erewash Canal with all the other old boots." See --
>> http://groups-beta.google.com/group/alt.activism.death-penalty/msg/b8beacf7500f79ca
>>
>> 2) One of a number of threats from spike to _put me down_. See
>> http://groups-beta.google.com/group/alt.activism.death-penalty/msg/84665ea15f831f1d
>> His words in this one -- "you need putting down you sick fuck."
>> Of course.... I'm shaking in my boots.. But now that he has a _real
>> name_ to try and _put down_, perhaps I should oil my firearms.
>>
>> 3) And then this one from "enigmacat," a female abolitionist who
>> corresponded with murderers on DR. Claiming she was "fond" of
>> one of them, and admitted to _dating a man_ who had murdered his
>> stepfather and was serving L wop. Not a very stable or non-violent
>> background. In a dialog with John Rennie about guns, she
>> remarked -- "Oh and seeing that PV hasn't been run off the rails as
>> of yet. Gimme a piece already!! Yes, the bitch is back and i take
>> no prisoners." See ---
>> http://www.google.com/groups?selm=3d77cf24.13619191%40news.lon.imag.net
>
> Poor FuckWit. Reduced to 'crying wolf' on news:alt.activism.death-penalty,
> to get attention.
>
> You fucking moron.
>
LOL... But you're not _angry_ (sic).
> Naturally, each and every one of the three quotations, put back into
> its context, is revealed as no threat whatsoever. That was to be expected,
> really.
>
Certainly each of them are much more threatening in tone than any that I've
ever offered. While I admit they pale in comparison to some of the violent
threats you have offered, Desmond. After all... you once expressed pleasure
at pulling the wings off of sparrows.
> John Rennie summed it up quite accurately a while back: if you believe that
> you have been 'threatened', contact the appropriate law enforcement
> authority. You won't do that, as you haven't been 'threatened'; you're
> just an attention-seeking fuckwit.
John Rennie summed it up quite accurately a while back, when he stated --
"DESMOND UNEQUIVOCALLY CONFIRMED TO ME THAT HE
WAS NOT JEWISH. AT THE TIME OF OUR MEETING HE
THOUGHT IT A GREAT JOKE AND HE STILL DOES. HE IS NOT
JEWISH, HE WAS NOT BORN JEWISH, HE DOES NOT HAVE
JEWISH ANCESTRY, HE DOES NOT PRACTICE THE JEWISH
RELIGION." See --
http://groups-beta.google.com/group/alt.activism.death-penalty/msg/92c993bba5d24130
> (snip unread)
>
Probably due to that lapse in reading skills in your education at that
fundamentalist Catholic grade school you attended.
JN
he_who_spanks_nazi_scum
to be Jewish just to irk those Jewish and JN wrote --:
>Path:
border1.nntp.dca.giganews.com!border1.nntp.ams.giganews.com!border2.nntp.ams.giganews.com!nntp.giganews.com!fu-berlin.de!uni-berlin.de!individual.net!not-for-mail
>From: "100% Jewish" <100%_je...@zeouane.org>
>Newsgroups: alt.activism.death-penalty
>Subject: Re: Hey Jurgen....
>Date: Thu, 27 Jan 2005 10:57:07 +0000
>Lines: 25
>Sender: Des <des...@ghostface.walletjes.org>
>Message-ID: <31umc2-...@zeouane.org>
>References: <20041213115431...@mb-m03.aol.com>
<NW7Ad.181346$Oc....@tornado.tampabay.rr.com>
<1104235395.4754b75bb354b9aeb0afb098c54bec69@meganetnews2>
<i0DAd.154781$8G4.1...@tornado.tampabay.rr.com>
<1104410678.7596790b8d8c5ae1b6e4b3af566a502a@meganetnews2>
<dirCd.214311$6w6....@tornado.tampabay.rr.com> <1iiqa2-...@zeouane.org>
<6PKdnb53lfN...@giganews.com> <l6g8b2-...@zeouane.org>
<E4WdnS8Knei...@giganews.com>
>X-Trace: individual.net /6ZmmZ3sdZlyEKDGjFyBNwp3AN2YYk2+/2+YeCQjv4sSQBp4s=
>X-Orig-Path: not-for-mail
>X-No-Archive: true
>X-Comment: included by Desmond to claim to be Jewish in order to dismiss the
>Holocaust
http://home.earthlink.net/~onetimeuse/watching_for_Jews.jpg
>X-Comment3: the news:alt.activism.death-penalty spectrum:
url:http://www.chez.com/desmondcoughlan/dp/aadp_spectrum.gif
>Xref: number1.nntp.dca.giganews.com alt.activism.death-penalty:359017
>
>Jim Noles <na...@earthlink.net> wrote ...
>
>> "I'll_pin_a_star_on_myself_and_call_me_a_victim_of_the_holocaust"
<0%_je...@zeouane.org>
>> <1000000000%_jewish@[1]zeouane.org> claiming to be Jewish just to irk those Jewish
and JN wrote in message news:l6g8b2-...@zeouane.org...
>
LOL....Didn't I call it? No one knows Desmond and his diabolical methods
better than I. From 100%... to 1500%.... to 15000%.... to adding more
zeros, because Desmond actually believes that the greater percentage he claims in his
lie that he is Jewish, will somehow make it more believable. I said "why not try for
one_million_percent_Jewish, Desmond?" And BINGO! You go for more than that.
Desmond, sport. You are a liar... and it would be no more believable than if you
claimed to be 0.001% Jewish. Since you only claim to be Jewish so you can
claim the Jews are "Milking" the Holocaust [1] or that the Jews were all legally
guilty of the _crime_ of being "inhuman." [2]
>{ snip The FuckWit's idiotic own goal in comparing words on usenet to the
> Nazi Death Camps }
>
ROTFLMAO... That from the guy whose only intention is to insist that
all killings in the Nazi Death Camps were conducted in a quite legal
manner. The guy who insists that all legal protections of trial and due
process were afforded to the Jews and every person killed in those
Death Camps. The guy who insists the Nazis are all legally innocent.
And the guy who agrees that it is legal to find the Jews were "inhuman."
Perhaps, Desmond... while YOU might be content to make your glib
comment that six million Jews 'had a particularly bad decade,' the rest
of us are (rightly) horrified that such a miscarriage of justice could be
allowed to happen, and that then insult is added to their injury, by
your continued refusal to accept the mistakes of the Nazis, insisting
they are all legally innocent of killing a single Jew.
>>>> LOL... Well.... at least you didn't try to bring in your friend,
>>>> Grosvernor in your defense.
>
>>> What mindless, inane, vapid absurdities you are capable of posting, NN.
>
>> Hey... he's one of your friends that you keep referring to, AoA.
>
>More mindless nonsense, FuckWit.
>
Not at all, the number of posts that you have offered not a single word
other than an appeal for help from him is quite large.
>My good 'Good' (sic), you're an idiot.
My God... you've spit in the face of MLK, and called the Jews
legally "inhuman"!!! I'll take being an idiot in favor of being a racist
or an anti-Semite any day of the week.
>{ snip unread }
>
>[1] *snigger*
[1] Your words -- "yet by milking those terrible events for all they are
worth, 60 years later, Israel and World Jewry (of which I am part) are only
cutting their noses, to spite their face." See --
http://groups-beta.google.com/group/alt.activism.death-penalty/msg/c2ef9625017cc935
[2] Your words -- "The issue is whether or not, the Nazis, in declaring
Jews 'inhuman', were acting illegally. They were not." See --
http://www.google.fr/groups?selm=871zjckfly.fsf%40lievre.coughlan.fr
JN
>--
>100%_Jewish
You're not Jewish, Desmond. You've admitted that you only claim to be
Jewish to irk me. While John Rennie, who knows you personally,