From reading your response I can tell you didn't even take time to read what I wrote fully. Your comprehension drifted sections, and you blurred different arguments and statements. You did zero external research of your on on the sources I provided, and when I have repeatedly shown you that the sources of your "facts" openly contradict you, you just ignore it, close your ears and eyes and start yelling "I have facts!!!111!". Your only capacity for argument seems to be in refuting official documentation with personal attacks, because somehow that is supposed to logically follow.
What's more; you conveniently brushed over parts of my writing that irrefutably demolished your narrative to dust; for example, the Polish-Soviet war of 1919 and 1920 which effectively proves no even remote or conceivable alliance between Poland and communism.
"there's no picture, plan, or wartime document dealing with homicidal gas chambers or a plan to exterminate the Jews" [12:56]; something that is simply not true." for example; I go on throughout the remaining ~6000 characters detailing my sources; which are far greater and factually irrefutable; such as the writings of the Nazis themselves, at the time of actions which PROVE what happened. These are not disputed by David Cole, and they can be factually verified through carbon dating of the paper.
I will not continue to debate with someone that is either obviously trolling or completely inept AND unwilling to read the completeness of arguments and even consider their validity. The fact that you're unable or unwilling to even use proper grammar or spelling reinforces your apparent inability to debate.
You cannot say "I proved it" and have it be true; you must prove it using actual sources that agree with your claim. You have not done so, and I don't expect you will do so.
I'll give you one more opportunity to get it right; read my entire previous posting/argument again, in detail, evaluate it with an open mind and piece it together. Paint the entire picture it shows, and don't ignore the parts that don't suit you. Then, take the time to write up a coherent, grammatical, and complete counterargument to all of it. Don't piecemeal it together quoting line by line in a vacuum, and read it through, completely, before making your counterargument. Responding to the first line only for the second to refute your response just makes you look dumb. Restrain your temptation to make your only argument obscenities and personal attacks, as I said before, that makes your argument look weak and is a complete logical fallacy.
I don't expect you to do that. I don't even frankly expect you to read that. If you do, let's see what you can present. If not, I'm done debating with you because you cannot present a logical argument.
From reading your response I can tell you didn't even take time to read what I wrote fully.
I did. I really do appreciate the time you take to correspond. It's incredibly aggravating, I wish it were more productive.
Quick recap. Correct me if I'm wrong. I provided evidence that the last 100 years of history are a lie. To which you responded saying "denying the holocaust is retarded" and "I'm Polish" as if it proves anything. If you didn't disregard all evidence to push one random polock because he says something that you like to hear then I wouldn't have attacked you for it.
I don't hate you because your polish. There's some I like, luke rudkowski is a national treasure, beautiful and amazing human being.
You, on the other hand, have the chutzpah to call people "retarded" for providing evidence while acting "holier than thou" telling me not to "resort to personal attacks" You disgust me with your attitude. You're a complete hypocrite.
You will not turn your nose up at me. Because I will take it and I will shove it the pile of shit your ancestors left on the floor. Is that clear?
Let's look at the world wars like animal farm. Germany beat all the other animals and just wanted peace. They wanted to go back to the way things were before the war. The conniving pig jew with britain got the eagle to beat germany by starting rumors in the pigs jew owned media. Also the conniving pig jew subverted russia. After it took all the animals to chase the wolf back to it's den poland, the retarded opportunistic vulture, squawked up begging for scraps. And the pig with his cohorts gave the vulture the scraps in front of the wolf's den. The vulture doesn't shut the fuck up about "my grandpappy told me this was HIS hill 500 fucking years ago SQUAWK! Im the pig jews bitch, look what the pig jew does for me SQUAWK!" But the wolf wasn't finished, it was biding it's time. Healing, waiting for the day to tear through that annoying vulture and go straight for the throat of the mutated half pig, half man, half bear.
And you expect what from me? Sympathy for the vulture? Poland rattled their sabres when they thought the rest of the planet was behind them. And when they got put back in their place they pretend to be a victim. Bitch shit.
It was the old world clashing with the new in more ways than one. Poland saw the empire building Germany had worked for and drunkenly pined for the "good old days" and retardedly thought "poland will rise again" because they're so self important. They wanted war with Germany and they played nice with communists. If you sit up with your adorable feathered helmets with muskets on horseback and dare Germany to take back what was stolen, don't be surprised when they do. Poland asked for it. Poland deserved every single god-damned minute of being rolled over by mechanized infantry.
I'm going to get back to tearing apart your lack of argument piece by piece.
Your comprehension drifted sections
How can you tell? Prove it.
and you blurred different arguments and statements
Where?
You did zero external research of your on on the sources I provided
I don't have to. The very second I heard "gas chambers" I can write that off as propaganda because the false warcrimes were constructed by the bolshevist jews after the war. I've proved that already.
and when I have repeatedly shown you that the sources of your "facts" openly contradict you, you just ignore it
You've shown nothing of the sort. You made a claim about a guardian article which I asked how it could be real if the guy changed his name multiple times. Its funny how you can do a deep dive on David cole yet you refuse to look at chemical analysis of the walls in the "gas chamber"
"I have facts!!!111!".
I do. You have....... a random polock. Congratulations, princess. The pinnacle of evidence.
Your only capacity for argument seems to be in refuting official documentation with personal attacks
You're wrong. I refuted your bullshit propaganda with SCIENCE.... while personally attacking you. To be fair, I don't think I started it. Hypocrite.
for example, the Polish-Soviet war of 1919 and 1920 which effectively proves no even remote or conceivable alliance between Poland and communism.
How does it prove anything? The "soviets" (bolshevist jews) were at war with constitutional russia. Does that prove russia was never communist?
for example; I go on throughout the remaining ~6000 characters detailing my sources; which are far greater and factually irrefutable; such as the writings of the Nazis themselves, at the time of actions which PROVE what happene
So you believe the Nazis when they say they infiltrated poland but not when they say poland attacked first? How completely unbiased. Funny how you can pick and choose when to believe people.
These are not disputed by David Cole,
Lol. And you haven't disputed that you're ancestors are dog fucking retards. Therefore, you're admitting your ancestors are dog fucking retards.
You want to keep playing these child ass games bitch? Try me, I'll go all fucking day.
and they can be factually verified through carbon dating of the paper.
Hahahahahahahaha. I'll just leave that up for you to ponder why it's retarded, you product of beastiality.
I will not continue to debate
You haven't debated anything. You've only had an emotional temper tantrum insisting we have to believe the poles and nobody else.
completely inept
It seems like you're trying to "dazzle" someone with your vocabulary. Trust me, it's backfiring.
AND unwilling to read the completeness of arguments
You don't have an argument. Again. The only thing you have is "you better believe the polocks". When you step off that retarded notion, I'll stop shitting on you for it. Deal?
The fact that you're unable or unwilling to even use proper grammar or spelling
Hahaha I honestly wrote all that before reading anything else. I'm tearing you apart piece by piece and I fucking called it.
You will not turn your gigantic inbred nose up at me you fucking coward because I will shove it back into the dirt where you belong. Where Germany put you, you thieving punk ass bitch.
You cannot say "I proved it" and have it be true;
Oh, but YOU can. Why is that? Because you're a weak inbred polock?
you must prove it using actual sources
Chemical analysis, census data, and the head curator of antiquities at the polish museum of auchwitz aren't "actual sources" but your syphilitic dog raping grandpappy is the absolute gold standard of evidence? Go fuck yourself
You have not done so, a
Yes. I have. you self important faggot.
I'll give you one more opportunity
You won't GIVE me anything, you bitch made coward ass son of a whore. I'll GIVE you $10,000 in dental work for free faggot.
Paint the entire picture it shows,
"Don't listen to anything except the inbred polocks" "entire picture"
Don't piecemeal it together quoting line by line in a vacuum,
What is this "in a vacuum", faggot? You're just saying random fucking words.
Restrain your temptation to make your only argument obscenities and personal attacks,
Again, that's not my argument. You are ignoring the evidence because it proves your ancestors are communist bitches. They played the game and lost. Boo fucking hoo. Go cry for the pig jew to steal some more land for you, coward.
that makes your argument look weak and is a complete logical fallacy.
There is no "logical fallacy" faggot. I'm not replacing evidence with personal attacks, I'm peppering them into evidence because you attacked me first, then have the chutzpah to pretend to be a victim. How stereotypically polish of you.
not, I'm done debating with you because you cannot present a logical argument.
You have no "debate". If you run away now you will concede that the BEST thing you can come up with is some random pole who's been proven full of shit with forensic analysis. Then you have the gall to tell me what's "logical"
I wonder how the jew could've played such a stupid fucking people. Life's mysteries, I guess.
Correct me if I'm wrong. I provided evidence that the last 100 years of history are a lie.
You have provided two pieces of evidence.
One is a video which talks about a specific camp and makes very specific claims; it does not claim the past "100 years" of history are a lie. It doesn't claim anything much beyond it's very specific scope; and what it proves is simply this: Physical evidence in the form of the camps is not trustworthy as there is no way to verify the legitimacy of it. This is logical and fair; it does not provide, in the video, an argument disproving the Holocaust; it doesn't provide evidence disproving history beyond that.
Two is an excerpt from a Wikipedia page (bad source, by the way, I'm surprised you trusted it) in which there is discussion of how historians from both Poland and Germany have looked into and written about the events of Bloody Sunday. The conclusion is generally that it was a complete mess of a situation and a lot of people died from a lot of causes; the specific figures of which are not totally agreed upon due to uses of different sources. You have taken this quote and somehow claimed it shows that "poles have a propensity to completely disregard facts of history to push their egocentric supremacy.". It doesn't talk at all about your next statement, which makes a different claim:
The Germans just say "it was Germany before the war and we want it back. They're torturing our people". The very existence of a "corridor" completely shatters your antigerman narrative.
In fact, the source as you presented in and of itself contains a counterargument; the German population in the corridor was a "German minority". If having a German majority justifies the seizure of Czechoslovakia, surely having a Polish majority justifies the holding of Gdansk?
To which you responded saying "denying the holocaust is retarded" and "I'm Polish" as if it proves anything.
This is simply false. Find me the quote and I will explain how that assessment is incorrect.
I don't hate you because your polish.
That's good. I didn't claim such, but I'm glad to hear that isn't the case.
You, on the other hand, have the chutzpah to call people "retarded" for providing evidence while acting "holier than thou" telling me not to "resort to personal attacks" You disgust me with your attitude. You're a complete hypocrite.
I have not called anyone "retarded". If you cannot distinguish between an argument and a person, I suggest you do not engage in debate. An intelligent person can have a thoroughly stupid idea; a person is not defined by their ideas. On the other hand, every step of the way you have been continuously using visceral language to describe me in an attempt to sidestep my arguments. While I am not particularly offend-able, in particular, not by a stranger on the internet, I also am not in the practice of engaging in people blinded by their own hostility, and I also have advised on multiple occasions that utilizing ad-homenim attacks is a logical fallacy and makes your argument appear terrible, regardless of whether or not it is.
You will not turn your nose up at me. Because I will take it and I will shove it the pile of shit your ancestors left on the floor. Is that clear?
You simply can't or won't. Extensive hostility will mean I just move on because I would consider you too emotional or beyond logic.
Taking your analogy:
Let's look at the world wars like animal farm. Germany beat all the other animals and just wanted peace.
When did Germany beat all of the other animals? Don't forget, as well, that World War I was not Germany alone; not even close. It was Germans, Prussians (in Germany; ethnically and nationally distinct from Germany historically), Poles (In Germany's side of the partitioning, which happened ~100 years prior. They still nationally identified as Poles, by the way), the Austria-Hungary empire, and the (Islamic) Ottoman Empire. They were in a deadlock stalemate against the British and French in France. The scales only shifted with the Russian Revolution, which took Russia out of the fight. A short time later, the US entered the war and totally decimated the German forces.
To be clear; the Germans had not "won" anything. They also did none of this alone. World War I was a total war; one that would have ended with the crippling of one power or another. The Treaty of Versailles was not in any way a balanced resolution, but, unlike your claims, it WAS a completely valid treaty.MOST importantly, it was signed BY the Germans. It was valid and legally binding in the same way that prior conquests of territories Germany had undertaken were.
In the wake of the war, several nations were re-established, and measures to disarm and prevent further aggression from Germany were passed. One of these nations was Poland; a people that had been craving independence and freedom since their nation, one of the world's earliest and longest lasting representative governments was ganged up on and partitioned, in a very similar way you're claiming/describing Germany was.
Let's look at the world wars like animal farm... [snip] Poland deserved every single god-damned minute of being rolled over by mechanized infantry.
Do you have proof of any of this? I'm talking period documentation; proof of the quality of which I have provided prior; any primary sources? The claims you're making go against the generally established narrative, meaning you are the claimant and the burden of proof lies upon you, in this instance. Furthermore; this isn't a narrative that is written in a factual manner; it is an opinion piece in writing. If you want to better convince me, or anyone, for that matter, write an objective narrative to prove your points, not a subjective.
You respond to these quotes from me:
"Your comprehension drifted sections"
and you blurred different arguments and statements"
with:
How can you tell? Prove it.
and
and you blurred different arguments and statements"
Okay; these happned when you were responding to my quote:
Was Germany completely in the right, and just being interfered with?" or "Was Poland allied to Communism?" and so on.
Your response:
As I've said, the only crime of germany is that of being successful. And yes, poland was "allied" with communism. Wether it was by subversion or otherwise there were communists in poland and they wanted war with Germany.
What you are responding to is clearly a rhetorical question; I am explaining that establishing whether or not Poland was the aggressor was is crucial to answering those questions factually. My full quotation, as a reminder, is this:
The question about the invasion of Poland is also interesting in that it assists in ascertaining motivations, and judging other actions, as well as the validity of those actions. It influences answers to questions such as "Was Germany completely in the right, and just being interfered with?" or "Was Poland allied to Communism?" and so on.
The next response you give is to this quote from me:
Poland was on high alert in the 1930s because of the rising threat of aggression from Germany, with good reason: Here is a map of German expansion prior to the war going hot; The orange is territory that Germany started with, post Versailles.
You respond with:
What about BEFORE versailles? Was the danzig corridor german before that? "Danzig" doesn't sound very polish to me, sounds like a german village name. I've already stated the rest of the planet got together to "slap down" Germany for basically doing what genghis khan did to Asia and connected disparate Germanic people to a successful powerhouse.
Which is an entirely separate topic from the one which I was discussing there; the expansion of Germany and why that would be concerning to Poland, who had just repelled expansionist aggression from the Soviets.
Your arguments consistently took my expressions out of context, and, instead of refuting them for what they were saying, refuted a straw-man argument you fabricated around those arguments ("strawmanning" being another logical fallacy, mind you). It is natural, then, to assume that either it was intentional, and you were deliberately being illogical, or it was accidental, because you did not read the arguments thoroughly or clearly, instead opting to skim and respond emotionally immediately.
You respond to my claim that:
You did zero external research of your on on the sources I provided
with:
I don't have to. The very second I heard "gas chambers" I can write that off as propaganda because the false warcrimes were constructed by the bolshevist jews after the war. I've proved that already.
which is false, as I demonstrate above. Your source does not refute the existence of gas chambers whatsoever. Find me the specific part of the video in which it is claimed that "there were no gas chambers used to kill Jews" in Germany, and the specific part of the video in which it is proven.
Next, you respond to my statement that:
and when I have repeatedly shown you that the sources of your "facts" openly contradict you, you just ignore it
with:
You've shown nothing of the sort. You made a claim about a guardian article which I asked how it could be real if the guy changed his name multiple times. Its funny how you can do a deep dive on David cole yet you refuse to look at chemical analysis of the walls in the "gas chamber"
First: You did not ask about the validity due to the number of times he changed his name. You asked:
How is this a "modern assessment" if the guy changed his name multiple times because the zionist cadre tried to murder him for exposing their fraud?
to which I responded:
he would have had ample opportunity to reverse that statement later, as he reversed his acceptance of the mainstream argument in a later book of his.
Let me expand on that a little bit: David Cole was the target of threats from others; they came to a settlement that he would reject his ideas publicly and be allowed a peaceful life. He did this, but revealed in his book later that he does not actually reject his beliefs. He changed his name in the earlier years for similar reasons; the name change has since been discovered, and he no longer operates under an alias. In this modern era of media, he opted to interview with The Guardian, a decision that, in my opinion, is a mistake. Had his responses been altered, he most likely would have responded publicly and alleged foul play; I have not seen such allegations. As an aside; I did not do a deep dive on David Cole. I simply performed a basic search to understand who he is and what he is saying today. You also respond to the The Guardian article with:
it contradicts itself saying "yes genocidal program" to "no, they just needed cheap labor" Is there a video of this which proves it's him?
I have just looked, and cannot find video proof. That said, the details are so extensive, that it is either an extremely elaborate (and unnecessary) fraud, which likely would have been refuted by Cole, or it is legitimate. The example you provide for inconsistency isn't inherently inconsistent; arguably, there is a middle ground which Cole appears to believe, in which there were genocidal programs, but the majority of the camps were for needed cheep labor.
Finally; as the video clearly states, the chemical analysis of the walls of the chamber does not refute the usage of the chamber; nor does it refute anything on its own. The biggest thing it does do, is raise dependencies in the commonly accepted narratives of the time, and it points out the invalidity of the use of the physical building as proof, as much of it is a reconstruction, meaning the full extent of the real construction is lost to time.
It does bring up the aerial photographs; that said, even if they disproved the chimneys, which they do not entirely do, (PART 1)
...they do not disprove the entirety of the claims about that camp, let alone the other campuses of that camp or the other camps.
You next respond to this:
"I have facts!!!111!".
with:
I do. You have....... a random polock. Congratulations, princess. The pinnacle of evidence.
Saying "I do" doesn't make it more true. You've presented one documentary with facts that do not prove the overwhelming majority of the arguments you are making. If you have more facts, please present them. Until then, you don't, and saying you do doesn't change that.
I've provided far more evidence than a single "random Polock" (which is also disingenuously untrue in and of itself); I provided three sources, each of which contain excerpts from stacks upon stacks of documentation from the period. Those excerpts are the single greatest proof POSSIBLE for assertion of any events in the period; if we have records of Nazi officials writing about the happenings of the Holocaust, and those records can be carbon dated to verify their validity, that is proof that can only be refuted in two ways; either the Nazis writing were lying, or the Nazis writing were delusional. Given that these writings come from some of the top officials, neither explanation makes much sense.
On top of that, the other evidence from the "random Polock" (Polock is a term for Polish immigrants; he would not be a Polock because he was not an immigrant) is much more than you dismiss it as. He was not "random"; he was a founding member of the Polish underground resistance. He was not the only one of the resistance to make such claims; his official government report was signed by at least a half dozen other officials; they were there, it was documented before that report that they planned on going there. If I'm not mistaken, his arrest record may even be around today as well. There were semi-regular updates form inside the camp, as well; it wasn't just a random Pole writing a random story well after any of it happened; there is a tremendous paper-trail of documentation, from the time. If the report contains details of gas chambers; that evidence is stronger than analysis of modern-day reconstructions, as said reconstructions may not have any forensic trail at all due to their nature as reconstructions. You then took my solidification of this person as a source as an attempt to deceive you?
(Me:)
Witold Pilecki's report is not Communist propaganda
(You:)
The fact that you have to say that.....
When I'm trying to per-counter your argument. If you read the entire statement, you'll see that Witold Pilecki was KILLED by the communist regime for continuing his work of liberating Poland; subverting the occupation in the process. If he was a communist, why did he fight Communist occupation? Why was he executed?
Anyway; next, you respond to this statement of mine:
Your only capacity for argument seems to be in refuting official documentation with personal attacks
with:
You're wrong. I refuted your bullshit propaganda with SCIENCE.... while personally attacking you. To be fair, I don't think I started it. Hypocrite.
What science? My sources have nothing to do with levels of Zycklon B trace on the walls of the chamber; they don't claim that that chamber was used, to my knowledge. That is all of the science you have demonstrated. Your argument "SCIENCE" sounds eerily like the arguments of left-wingers when they try to claim that a virtually non-lethal disease should be "prevented" with a vaccine with higher mortality rate. When their arguments fail, they resort to claiming "I have the facts" and "science is on my side". Do not make their same mistakes; it diminishes your argument.
As far as who started it, go back and look at my first post. I am respectfully disagreeing. As I recall, your response is where things get aggressive. You started it tremendously, and you are the one that maintains doing it; It makes your arguments look weak. What benefit does it bring you? Why bother continuing? You don't offend me; I've been called worse and I frankly don't care; it just makes your arguments look bad, and it both distorts them and fills valuable time and space in posts.
Next, you focus on my statement:
for example, the Polish-Soviet war of 1919 and 1920 which effectively proves no even remote or conceivable alliance between Poland and communism.
and respond with:
How does it prove anything? The "soviets" (bolshevist jews) were at war with constitutional russia. Does that prove russia was never communist?
If Poland had lost the war, it would be a comparable analogy. Poland did not lose the war; they almost did, but they prevailed. Do you think Tsarist Russia would have had any tolerance for communism if they had succeeded in putting the revolution down? I think not. Similarly, Poland was thoroughly and aggressively against Communism, and they were very weary of any nation around them building up forces.
Next, me:
for example; I go on throughout the remaining ~6000 characters detailing my sources; which are far greater and factually irrefutable; such as the writings of the Nazis themselves, at the time of actions which PROVE what happene
you:
So you believe the Nazis when they say they infiltrated poland but not when they say poland attacked first? How completely unbiased. Funny how you can pick and choose when to believe people.
Where do i claim that the Nazis infiltrated Poland? Where does that argument attempt to prove that? That argument is about the actions of Germany with regards to the Holocaust; actions which are supported both by the writing and documentation of top Nazi officials and by Polish officials. Had they been in dispute, more evaluation would be required; but they are not.
Me:
These are not disputed by David Cole,
You:
Lol. And you haven't disputed that you're ancestors are dog fucking retards. Therefore, you're admitting your ancestors are dog fucking retards.
You want to keep playing these child ass games bitch? Try me, I'll go all fucking day.
Allow me to clarify; David Cole was questioned about that document, and has admitted revisionists have no counter-explanation. Continue to make your arguments worse with illogical attacks, why don't you?
Me:
and they can be factually verified through carbon dating of the paper.
You:
Hahahahahahahaha. I'll just leave that up for you to ponder why it's retarded, you product of beastiality.
Do you believe carbon dating is fake? Where in physics do you stop believing and start denying? Carbon dating is deeply tied to atomic theory; either you believe that or you don't, but if you don't, good luck explaining the Atomic Bomb. Why is chemical analysis of the walls of the reconstructed chamber scientifically valid but carbon dating is not?
Are you alternatively suggesting that the documents were written at the time of by someone else? That can also be proven or disproven through detailed microscopic handwriting analysis. These documents are verifiable in date and origin, and they detail some of the happenings of the Holocaust.
Me:
You cannot say "I proved it" and have it be true;
You:
Oh, but YOU can. Why is that? Because you're a weak inbred polock?
The difference is that I supply and directly connect my evidence, while you make no effort to source what part of your evidence proves what and how. I don't call "proof" of anything without presenting the proof alongside; you, on the other hand, have a propensity to say "I proved it" without providing anything else.
Me:
you must prove it using actual sources
You:
Chemical analysis, census data, and the head curator of antiquities at the polish museum of auchwitz aren't "actual sources" but your syphilitic dog raping grandpappy is the absolute gold standard of evidence? Go fuck yourself
Refer to my previous statements.
Me:
You have not done so, a
You:
Yes. I have. you self important faggot.
Show it, instead of saying you did and then insulting me to take the focus off of the fact that you continue to refuse to provide direct proof of your claims and an explanation as to how the proof connects.
Me:
I'll give you one more opportunity
You:
You won't GIVE me anything, you bitch made coward ass son of a whore. I'll GIVE you $10,000 in dental work for free faggot.
Good luck with that, bud. Are you aware that "might does not make right"? Punches are not proof; nor are they an argument. I am giving you my attention and time. You have no ability to take that from me; when I decide I'm done, we're done. Simple as that.
Jumping ahead because there's nothing of value discussing in the middle:
Me:
Don't piecemeal it together quoting line by line in a vacuum,
You:
What is this "in a vacuum", faggot? You're just saying random fucking words.
Have you ever cleaned your house? Do you understand the concept of "vacuum"? It is not a big word; it is not a random word. I speak to children that understand that expression; a "vacuum" is an empty space; void of air or frankly anything. A "vacuum cleaner" is called such because the fan (or whatever means that cleaner possesses of creating a vacuum) is propelling air out of the container, creating a vacuum inside the device which causes air to rush inside, taking crumbs and other debris with it. When the experession "In a vacuum" is used, it is to say that something is being isolated or taken out of context. For example, if I were taking your words selectively in a vacuum, I would say that "the only words you use are insults"; it is a lie based on the distortion of the truth.
Me:
that makes your argument look weak and is a complete logical fallacy.
You:
There is no "logical fallacy" faggot. I'm not replacing evidence with personal attacks, I'm peppering them into evidence because you attacked me first, then have the chutzpah to pretend to be a victim. How stereotypically polish of you.
Do i need to explain those big words to you too?
An Ad Hominem attack: "Typically, this term refers to a rhetorical [speaking] strategy where the speaker attacks the character, motive, or some other attribute of the person making the argument rather than attacking the substance of the argument itself." Do I even need to quote the countless examples of you doing this?
A Logical Fallacy: "A misconception resulting from flaw in reasoning, or a trick or illusion in thoughts that often succeeds in obfuscating facts/truth."
Examples of Logical Fallacies: "Formal Fallacies: Bad Reason Fallacy, Quantification Fallacies, Propositional fallacies, Syllogistic Fallacies; Informal Fallacies: Ad Hominem, Anecdotal, Appeal to Emotion, Appeal to Ridicule, Argument from repetition, Bandwagon, Burden of Proof, Continuum Fallacy, Etymological Fallacy, etc."
Me:
not, I'm done debating with you because you cannot present a logical argument.
You:
You have no "debate". If you run away now you will concede that the BEST thing you can come up with is some random pole who's been proven full of shit with forensic analysis. Then you have the gall to tell me what's "logical"
I wonder how the jew could've played such a stupid fucking people. Life's mysteries, I guess.
See above.
I believe I have made a sufficient argument, and rebutted your attempts to counter it. Unless fresh evidence or arguments are made by you (or others, for that matter), I will rest my case, as I believe any rational or logical person would see the value and logic in my arguments.
If you do not provide any new evidence, or any good connections, I will proceed to ignore you. If you continue to utilize insults and Ad Hominem attacks, I will ignore you; I will not reward the utilization of logical fallacies any longer.
I expect you will be unable to resist your impulses, so this is likely the end. I wish you the best in life, and I pray for you to understand more as you get older and reconsider your positions. God bless you!
they do not disprove the entirety of the claims about that camp, let alone the other campuses of that camp or the other camps.
Yes. They do. Can you prove otherwise besides pointing to one of your lying cousins?
Saying "I do" doesn't make it more true
Correct. Which is why I provided hard scientific evidence and you've said "but this random lying ass polock says he saw em!" Also why I've been shitting on you so hard. You should've addressed the chemical analysis of the lack of prussian blue staining. Instead you do what you accuse me of, hypocrite.
with facts that do not prove the overwhelming majority of the arguments you are making
How so? "sAyInG i dO dEOsNt mAKe iT hUuRr dhUUrHr"
Until then, you don't, and saying you do doesn't change that.
Again, learn to fucking read.
I've provided far more evidence than a single "random Polock"
No you haven't. You're a damned liar. You started off being an asshole for me having hard evidence then deleted the comment.
Are you a team of government agents that can't get the story straight?
I provided three sources,
If you knew anything about investigations you would understand witness testimony is completely unreliable. It's not "the best" because it was some random polock.
And you say three but I think that's only one.
and those records can be carbon dated to verify their validity,
Dating, get this..... verifies the date. Not the claims. HFS logic is not your strong suit.
single greatest proof POSSIBLE
Why? Because it was said by a lying, thieving, vulture? Go fuck yourself.
Given that these writings come from some of the top officials, neither explanation makes much sense.
You haven't addressed the claims at Nuremberg of "human lamp shades" "human soap" or the perverted delusional claims of "masterbation death machines"
The "trials" at Nuremberg were a bigger shitshow than the "treaty" of versailles. You can't torture prisoners for false confessions.
he was a founding member of the Polish underground resistance
Sounds like a communist to me.
his official government report was signed by at least a half dozen other officials
Do they have anything to disprove the hard scientific evidence? Then you're all a bunch of lying thieves. "Th8s gUy sAyS iTs tRuE" huh? Get some self awareness. Holy fuck.
There were semi-regular updates form inside the camp,
From the theatre, soccer field, or the swimming pool?
wasn't just a random Pole
Fine. The biggest bitch of the pig jew. Some commie punk.
Two is an excerpt from a Wikipedia page (bad source, by the way, I'm surprised you trusted it)
I'm not "trusting" wikipedia. If you didn't understand wikipedia is simply an index. I was using multiple sourced examples (that's what the numbers are, genius. notation) to show that the beginning of the war is contested. And there's nobody left today who will really defend Germany in ww2, huh?
The conclusion is generally
What's the " general conclusion" on the masterbation death machines? The human lamp shades?
In fact, the source as you presented in and of itself contains a counterargument; the German population in the corridor was a "German minority
Just because the pig jew infiltrated and had his pet hopped up on "equality" and "democracy" doesn't mean shit. If we're talking strictly numbers here than Germany is bigger than poland, therefore should listen to whatever it says because "equality". Go fuck yourself.
This is simply false. Find me the quote and I will explain how that assessment is incorrect.
Yes, you said "that's retarded". Not me.
If you cannot distinguish between an argument and a person, I suggest you do not engage in debate
That goes double for you and your communist "proof".
On the other hand, every step of the way you have been continuously using visceral language to describe me in an attempt to sidestep my arguments
I'm not "sidestepping" anything. You lying sack of shit. Stop accusing me of what you commit. I have evidence. You have literally some random polock. You believe the german when you agree with them yet call them liars when they say you're full of shit. Fucking cowardice. Calling a spade a spade is not "sidestepping"..
also am not in the practice of engaging in people blinded by their own hostility,
I'm not blinded by my hostility. I'm blinded by the sheer stupidity of someone calling forensic evidence "crackpots" while saying drunk, dog fucking, inbred, communist loving poles are the gold standard of evidence. I really wish this conversation went differently. Hopefully we can talk about UFOs or some shit in the future. I HAVE to break you down for this. I've fought with too many child raping israelis and am salty about their indoctrination, as you should be.
I really want you to realise we are all together in this fight against communism. You can't act like poland is a lion who will beat the wolf just because of your bravado. The fight is bigger than that. Poland was played and they played their part well. I truthfully wish this conversation went differently. It's aggravating and I really appreciate you working through my insults. Just stop pissing on my leg and telling me it's raining, please.
utilizing ad-homenim attacks is a logical fallacy
I told you. They aren't a crutch. I'm peppering them in for flavor.
Ok, "witness" testimony versus hard data. No insults. Who wins?
You simply can't or won't.
I have and don't particularly enjoy it. Please stop asking me to.
When did Germany beat all of the other animals? Don't forget, as well, that World War I was not Germany alone; not even close. It was Germans, Prussians (in Germany; ethnically and nationally distinct from Germany historically), Poles (In Germany's side of the partitioning, which happened ~100 years prior. They still nationally identified as Poles, by the way), the Austria-Hungary empire, and the (Islamic) Ottoman Empire.
Yes. It's a tragedy that people who called themselves brothers fought over machinations and propaganda while the pig sat back and waited to sweep Europe afterward, isn't it?
They were in a deadlock stalemate against the British and French in France.
No. Britain was in dire straits. Which is why they made the deal to get the eagle involved with the receipt being "the balfour declaration". Which went against their previous commitments.
MOST importantly, it was signed BY the Germans.
Only after they had been ganged up on by all the other animals because of the pig jews machinations, TWICE.
In the wake of the war, several nations were re-established, and measures to disarm and prevent further aggression from Germany were passed. One of these nations was Poland; a people that had been craving independence and freedom since their nation, one of the world's earliest and longest lasting representative governments was ganged up on and partitioned, in a very similar way you're claiming/describing Germany was.
Which I've been arguing was very much against poland's self interest in the long run. This isn't about poland, this is about communism and the establishment of palestine by any means necessary.
Do you have proof of any of this?
That's fair. Remember these are newspaper (jew owned) publications pushing poland to war. Any parallels to today? Are things starting to come together?
am explaining that establishing whether or not Poland was the aggressor was is crucial to answering those questions factually.
Ok. How am I "mixing up arguments" or whatever you said?
Which is an entirely separate topic
No. I'm talking about both Great Wars" I'm not pretending it started at the sequel.
Your arguments consistently took my expressions out of context
How? You keep accusing me without evidence. Then say you'll explain but trail off about "rhetorical questions"
instead of refuting them for what they were saying,
I'm using the quote tool, bud
a straw-man
Oh shit. Here we go..... Evidence? What "straw man"?
you did not read the arguments thoroughly or clearly
I have. You can stop trying to dismiss the fact I tore you apart and continue to do so.
source does not refute the existence of gas chambers
Yes it does. And I've provided more.
Find me the specific part of the video
Does it have to spell it out? It was an air raid shelter the bolsheviks poked holes in the ceiling of and called "chimneys" that aren't connected to any "furnace". And why the plumbing?
You did not ask about the validity
I did. Pardon my transgressions for not using the vocabulary befitting of someone with such a high regard of themselves.
Let me expand on that a little bit
All well and dandy. As I've said his word isn't law. The evidence is. He presents the evidence. That's it.
, the chemical analysis of the walls of the chamber does not refute the usage of the chamber
No, everything else about it does. Explain the math of having a "genocide factory" where you only kill a couple people a day.
even if they disproved the chimneys,
Yes, they do. If you have anything written after this I can't see it. Hopefully you're writing this down somewhere else and moving it over like I am.
This says he was critical of communists yet helped the jews against their pograms and ghetto uprisings.
From the "polish government in exile"s wiki
When Germany launched a war against the Soviets in 1941, the Polish government in exile established diplomatic relations with the Soviet Union against Hitlerism, but also in order to help Poles persecuted by the NKVD.[15][16]
Sound anything like today with "trumpism"?
I really hope to bring you into the fold here. It sucks your country was used as a tool for the establishment of a zionist authoritarian occupation of palestine.
From reading your response I can tell you didn't even take time to read what I wrote fully. Your comprehension drifted sections, and you blurred different arguments and statements. You did zero external research of your on on the sources I provided, and when I have repeatedly shown you that the sources of your "facts" openly contradict you, you just ignore it, close your ears and eyes and start yelling "I have facts!!!111!". Your only capacity for argument seems to be in refuting official documentation with personal attacks, because somehow that is supposed to logically follow.
What's more; you conveniently brushed over parts of my writing that irrefutably demolished your narrative to dust; for example, the Polish-Soviet war of 1919 and 1920 which effectively proves no even remote or conceivable alliance between Poland and communism.
"there's no picture, plan, or wartime document dealing with homicidal gas chambers or a plan to exterminate the Jews" [12:56]; something that is simply not true." for example; I go on throughout the remaining ~6000 characters detailing my sources; which are far greater and factually irrefutable; such as the writings of the Nazis themselves, at the time of actions which PROVE what happened. These are not disputed by David Cole, and they can be factually verified through carbon dating of the paper.
I will not continue to debate with someone that is either obviously trolling or completely inept AND unwilling to read the completeness of arguments and even consider their validity. The fact that you're unable or unwilling to even use proper grammar or spelling reinforces your apparent inability to debate.
You cannot say "I proved it" and have it be true; you must prove it using actual sources that agree with your claim. You have not done so, and I don't expect you will do so.
I'll give you one more opportunity to get it right; read my entire previous posting/argument again, in detail, evaluate it with an open mind and piece it together. Paint the entire picture it shows, and don't ignore the parts that don't suit you. Then, take the time to write up a coherent, grammatical, and complete counterargument to all of it. Don't piecemeal it together quoting line by line in a vacuum, and read it through, completely, before making your counterargument. Responding to the first line only for the second to refute your response just makes you look dumb. Restrain your temptation to make your only argument obscenities and personal attacks, as I said before, that makes your argument look weak and is a complete logical fallacy.
I don't expect you to do that. I don't even frankly expect you to read that. If you do, let's see what you can present. If not, I'm done debating with you because you cannot present a logical argument.
I did. I really do appreciate the time you take to correspond. It's incredibly aggravating, I wish it were more productive.
Quick recap. Correct me if I'm wrong. I provided evidence that the last 100 years of history are a lie. To which you responded saying "denying the holocaust is retarded" and "I'm Polish" as if it proves anything. If you didn't disregard all evidence to push one random polock because he says something that you like to hear then I wouldn't have attacked you for it.
I don't hate you because your polish. There's some I like, luke rudkowski is a national treasure, beautiful and amazing human being.
You, on the other hand, have the chutzpah to call people "retarded" for providing evidence while acting "holier than thou" telling me not to "resort to personal attacks" You disgust me with your attitude. You're a complete hypocrite.
You will not turn your nose up at me. Because I will take it and I will shove it the pile of shit your ancestors left on the floor. Is that clear?
Let's look at the world wars like animal farm. Germany beat all the other animals and just wanted peace. They wanted to go back to the way things were before the war. The conniving pig jew with britain got the eagle to beat germany by starting rumors in the pigs jew owned media. Also the conniving pig jew subverted russia. After it took all the animals to chase the wolf back to it's den poland, the retarded opportunistic vulture, squawked up begging for scraps. And the pig with his cohorts gave the vulture the scraps in front of the wolf's den. The vulture doesn't shut the fuck up about "my grandpappy told me this was HIS hill 500 fucking years ago SQUAWK! Im the pig jews bitch, look what the pig jew does for me SQUAWK!" But the wolf wasn't finished, it was biding it's time. Healing, waiting for the day to tear through that annoying vulture and go straight for the throat of the mutated half pig, half man, half bear.
And you expect what from me? Sympathy for the vulture? Poland rattled their sabres when they thought the rest of the planet was behind them. And when they got put back in their place they pretend to be a victim. Bitch shit.
It was the old world clashing with the new in more ways than one. Poland saw the empire building Germany had worked for and drunkenly pined for the "good old days" and retardedly thought "poland will rise again" because they're so self important. They wanted war with Germany and they played nice with communists. If you sit up with your adorable feathered helmets with muskets on horseback and dare Germany to take back what was stolen, don't be surprised when they do. Poland asked for it. Poland deserved every single god-damned minute of being rolled over by mechanized infantry.
I'm going to get back to tearing apart your lack of argument piece by piece.
How can you tell? Prove it.
Where?
I don't have to. The very second I heard "gas chambers" I can write that off as propaganda because the false warcrimes were constructed by the bolshevist jews after the war. I've proved that already.
You've shown nothing of the sort. You made a claim about a guardian article which I asked how it could be real if the guy changed his name multiple times. Its funny how you can do a deep dive on David cole yet you refuse to look at chemical analysis of the walls in the "gas chamber"
I do. You have....... a random polock. Congratulations, princess. The pinnacle of evidence.
You're wrong. I refuted your bullshit propaganda with SCIENCE.... while personally attacking you. To be fair, I don't think I started it. Hypocrite.
How does it prove anything? The "soviets" (bolshevist jews) were at war with constitutional russia. Does that prove russia was never communist?
So you believe the Nazis when they say they infiltrated poland but not when they say poland attacked first? How completely unbiased. Funny how you can pick and choose when to believe people.
Lol. And you haven't disputed that you're ancestors are dog fucking retards. Therefore, you're admitting your ancestors are dog fucking retards.
You want to keep playing these child ass games bitch? Try me, I'll go all fucking day.
Hahahahahahahaha. I'll just leave that up for you to ponder why it's retarded, you product of beastiality.
You haven't debated anything. You've only had an emotional temper tantrum insisting we have to believe the poles and nobody else.
It seems like you're trying to "dazzle" someone with your vocabulary. Trust me, it's backfiring.
You don't have an argument. Again. The only thing you have is "you better believe the polocks". When you step off that retarded notion, I'll stop shitting on you for it. Deal?
Hahaha I honestly wrote all that before reading anything else. I'm tearing you apart piece by piece and I fucking called it.
You will not turn your gigantic inbred nose up at me you fucking coward because I will shove it back into the dirt where you belong. Where Germany put you, you thieving punk ass bitch.
Oh, but YOU can. Why is that? Because you're a weak inbred polock?
Chemical analysis, census data, and the head curator of antiquities at the polish museum of auchwitz aren't "actual sources" but your syphilitic dog raping grandpappy is the absolute gold standard of evidence? Go fuck yourself
Yes. I have. you self important faggot.
You won't GIVE me anything, you bitch made coward ass son of a whore. I'll GIVE you $10,000 in dental work for free faggot.
"Don't listen to anything except the inbred polocks" "entire picture"
What is this "in a vacuum", faggot? You're just saying random fucking words.
Again, that's not my argument. You are ignoring the evidence because it proves your ancestors are communist bitches. They played the game and lost. Boo fucking hoo. Go cry for the pig jew to steal some more land for you, coward.
There is no "logical fallacy" faggot. I'm not replacing evidence with personal attacks, I'm peppering them into evidence because you attacked me first, then have the chutzpah to pretend to be a victim. How stereotypically polish of you.
You have no "debate". If you run away now you will concede that the BEST thing you can come up with is some random pole who's been proven full of shit with forensic analysis. Then you have the gall to tell me what's "logical"
I wonder how the jew could've played such a stupid fucking people. Life's mysteries, I guess.
You have provided two pieces of evidence.
In fact, the source as you presented in and of itself contains a counterargument; the German population in the corridor was a "German minority". If having a German majority justifies the seizure of Czechoslovakia, surely having a Polish majority justifies the holding of Gdansk?
This is simply false. Find me the quote and I will explain how that assessment is incorrect.
That's good. I didn't claim such, but I'm glad to hear that isn't the case.
I have not called anyone "retarded". If you cannot distinguish between an argument and a person, I suggest you do not engage in debate. An intelligent person can have a thoroughly stupid idea; a person is not defined by their ideas. On the other hand, every step of the way you have been continuously using visceral language to describe me in an attempt to sidestep my arguments. While I am not particularly offend-able, in particular, not by a stranger on the internet, I also am not in the practice of engaging in people blinded by their own hostility, and I also have advised on multiple occasions that utilizing ad-homenim attacks is a logical fallacy and makes your argument appear terrible, regardless of whether or not it is.
You simply can't or won't. Extensive hostility will mean I just move on because I would consider you too emotional or beyond logic.
Taking your analogy:
When did Germany beat all of the other animals? Don't forget, as well, that World War I was not Germany alone; not even close. It was Germans, Prussians (in Germany; ethnically and nationally distinct from Germany historically), Poles (In Germany's side of the partitioning, which happened ~100 years prior. They still nationally identified as Poles, by the way), the Austria-Hungary empire, and the (Islamic) Ottoman Empire. They were in a deadlock stalemate against the British and French in France. The scales only shifted with the Russian Revolution, which took Russia out of the fight. A short time later, the US entered the war and totally decimated the German forces.
To be clear; the Germans had not "won" anything. They also did none of this alone. World War I was a total war; one that would have ended with the crippling of one power or another. The Treaty of Versailles was not in any way a balanced resolution, but, unlike your claims, it WAS a completely valid treaty. MOST importantly, it was signed BY the Germans. It was valid and legally binding in the same way that prior conquests of territories Germany had undertaken were.
In the wake of the war, several nations were re-established, and measures to disarm and prevent further aggression from Germany were passed. One of these nations was Poland; a people that had been craving independence and freedom since their nation, one of the world's earliest and longest lasting representative governments was ganged up on and partitioned, in a very similar way you're claiming/describing Germany was.
Do you have proof of any of this? I'm talking period documentation; proof of the quality of which I have provided prior; any primary sources? The claims you're making go against the generally established narrative, meaning you are the claimant and the burden of proof lies upon you, in this instance. Furthermore; this isn't a narrative that is written in a factual manner; it is an opinion piece in writing. If you want to better convince me, or anyone, for that matter, write an objective narrative to prove your points, not a subjective.
You respond to these quotes from me:
with:
and
Okay; these happned when you were responding to my quote:
Your response:
What you are responding to is clearly a rhetorical question; I am explaining that establishing whether or not Poland was the aggressor was is crucial to answering those questions factually. My full quotation, as a reminder, is this:
The next response you give is to this quote from me:
You respond with:
Which is an entirely separate topic from the one which I was discussing there; the expansion of Germany and why that would be concerning to Poland, who had just repelled expansionist aggression from the Soviets.
Your arguments consistently took my expressions out of context, and, instead of refuting them for what they were saying, refuted a straw-man argument you fabricated around those arguments ("strawmanning" being another logical fallacy, mind you). It is natural, then, to assume that either it was intentional, and you were deliberately being illogical, or it was accidental, because you did not read the arguments thoroughly or clearly, instead opting to skim and respond emotionally immediately.
You respond to my claim that:
with:
which is false, as I demonstrate above. Your source does not refute the existence of gas chambers whatsoever. Find me the specific part of the video in which it is claimed that "there were no gas chambers used to kill Jews" in Germany, and the specific part of the video in which it is proven.
Next, you respond to my statement that:
with:
First: You did not ask about the validity due to the number of times he changed his name. You asked:
to which I responded:
Let me expand on that a little bit: David Cole was the target of threats from others; they came to a settlement that he would reject his ideas publicly and be allowed a peaceful life. He did this, but revealed in his book later that he does not actually reject his beliefs. He changed his name in the earlier years for similar reasons; the name change has since been discovered, and he no longer operates under an alias. In this modern era of media, he opted to interview with The Guardian, a decision that, in my opinion, is a mistake. Had his responses been altered, he most likely would have responded publicly and alleged foul play; I have not seen such allegations. As an aside; I did not do a deep dive on David Cole. I simply performed a basic search to understand who he is and what he is saying today. You also respond to the The Guardian article with:
I have just looked, and cannot find video proof. That said, the details are so extensive, that it is either an extremely elaborate (and unnecessary) fraud, which likely would have been refuted by Cole, or it is legitimate. The example you provide for inconsistency isn't inherently inconsistent; arguably, there is a middle ground which Cole appears to believe, in which there were genocidal programs, but the majority of the camps were for needed cheep labor.
Finally; as the video clearly states, the chemical analysis of the walls of the chamber does not refute the usage of the chamber; nor does it refute anything on its own. The biggest thing it does do, is raise dependencies in the commonly accepted narratives of the time, and it points out the invalidity of the use of the physical building as proof, as much of it is a reconstruction, meaning the full extent of the real construction is lost to time.
It does bring up the aerial photographs; that said, even if they disproved the chimneys, which they do not entirely do, (PART 1)
...they do not disprove the entirety of the claims about that camp, let alone the other campuses of that camp or the other camps.
You next respond to this:
with:
Saying "I do" doesn't make it more true. You've presented one documentary with facts that do not prove the overwhelming majority of the arguments you are making. If you have more facts, please present them. Until then, you don't, and saying you do doesn't change that.
I've provided far more evidence than a single "random Polock" (which is also disingenuously untrue in and of itself); I provided three sources, each of which contain excerpts from stacks upon stacks of documentation from the period. Those excerpts are the single greatest proof POSSIBLE for assertion of any events in the period; if we have records of Nazi officials writing about the happenings of the Holocaust, and those records can be carbon dated to verify their validity, that is proof that can only be refuted in two ways; either the Nazis writing were lying, or the Nazis writing were delusional. Given that these writings come from some of the top officials, neither explanation makes much sense.
On top of that, the other evidence from the "random Polock" (Polock is a term for Polish immigrants; he would not be a Polock because he was not an immigrant) is much more than you dismiss it as. He was not "random"; he was a founding member of the Polish underground resistance. He was not the only one of the resistance to make such claims; his official government report was signed by at least a half dozen other officials; they were there, it was documented before that report that they planned on going there. If I'm not mistaken, his arrest record may even be around today as well. There were semi-regular updates form inside the camp, as well; it wasn't just a random Pole writing a random story well after any of it happened; there is a tremendous paper-trail of documentation, from the time. If the report contains details of gas chambers; that evidence is stronger than analysis of modern-day reconstructions, as said reconstructions may not have any forensic trail at all due to their nature as reconstructions. You then took my solidification of this person as a source as an attempt to deceive you?
(Me:)
When I'm trying to per-counter your argument. If you read the entire statement, you'll see that Witold Pilecki was KILLED by the communist regime for continuing his work of liberating Poland; subverting the occupation in the process. If he was a communist, why did he fight Communist occupation? Why was he executed?
Anyway; next, you respond to this statement of mine:
with:
What science? My sources have nothing to do with levels of Zycklon B trace on the walls of the chamber; they don't claim that that chamber was used, to my knowledge. That is all of the science you have demonstrated. Your argument "SCIENCE" sounds eerily like the arguments of left-wingers when they try to claim that a virtually non-lethal disease should be "prevented" with a vaccine with higher mortality rate. When their arguments fail, they resort to claiming "I have the facts" and "science is on my side". Do not make their same mistakes; it diminishes your argument.
As far as who started it, go back and look at my first post. I am respectfully disagreeing. As I recall, your response is where things get aggressive. You started it tremendously, and you are the one that maintains doing it; It makes your arguments look weak. What benefit does it bring you? Why bother continuing? You don't offend me; I've been called worse and I frankly don't care; it just makes your arguments look bad, and it both distorts them and fills valuable time and space in posts.
Next, you focus on my statement:
and respond with:
If Poland had lost the war, it would be a comparable analogy. Poland did not lose the war; they almost did, but they prevailed. Do you think Tsarist Russia would have had any tolerance for communism if they had succeeded in putting the revolution down? I think not. Similarly, Poland was thoroughly and aggressively against Communism, and they were very weary of any nation around them building up forces.
Next, me:
you:
Where do i claim that the Nazis infiltrated Poland? Where does that argument attempt to prove that? That argument is about the actions of Germany with regards to the Holocaust; actions which are supported both by the writing and documentation of top Nazi officials and by Polish officials. Had they been in dispute, more evaluation would be required; but they are not.
Me:
You:
You want to keep playing these child ass games bitch? Try me, I'll go all fucking day.
Allow me to clarify; David Cole was questioned about that document, and has admitted revisionists have no counter-explanation. Continue to make your arguments worse with illogical attacks, why don't you?
Me:
You:
Do you believe carbon dating is fake? Where in physics do you stop believing and start denying? Carbon dating is deeply tied to atomic theory; either you believe that or you don't, but if you don't, good luck explaining the Atomic Bomb. Why is chemical analysis of the walls of the reconstructed chamber scientifically valid but carbon dating is not?
Are you alternatively suggesting that the documents were written at the time of by someone else? That can also be proven or disproven through detailed microscopic handwriting analysis. These documents are verifiable in date and origin, and they detail some of the happenings of the Holocaust.
Me:
You:
The difference is that I supply and directly connect my evidence, while you make no effort to source what part of your evidence proves what and how. I don't call "proof" of anything without presenting the proof alongside; you, on the other hand, have a propensity to say "I proved it" without providing anything else.
Me:
You:
Chemical analysis, census data, and the head curator of antiquities at the polish museum of auchwitz aren't "actual sources" but your syphilitic dog raping grandpappy is the absolute gold standard of evidence? Go fuck yourself
Refer to my previous statements.
Me:
You:
Show it, instead of saying you did and then insulting me to take the focus off of the fact that you continue to refuse to provide direct proof of your claims and an explanation as to how the proof connects.
Me:
You:
Good luck with that, bud. Are you aware that "might does not make right"? Punches are not proof; nor are they an argument. I am giving you my attention and time. You have no ability to take that from me; when I decide I'm done, we're done. Simple as that.
Jumping ahead because there's nothing of value discussing in the middle:
Me:
You:
What is this "in a vacuum", faggot? You're just saying random fucking words.
Have you ever cleaned your house? Do you understand the concept of "vacuum"? It is not a big word; it is not a random word. I speak to children that understand that expression; a "vacuum" is an empty space; void of air or frankly anything. A "vacuum cleaner" is called such because the fan (or whatever means that cleaner possesses of creating a vacuum) is propelling air out of the container, creating a vacuum inside the device which causes air to rush inside, taking crumbs and other debris with it. When the experession "In a vacuum" is used, it is to say that something is being isolated or taken out of context. For example, if I were taking your words selectively in a vacuum, I would say that "the only words you use are insults"; it is a lie based on the distortion of the truth.
Me:
You:
Do i need to explain those big words to you too?
An Ad Hominem attack: "Typically, this term refers to a rhetorical [speaking] strategy where the speaker attacks the character, motive, or some other attribute of the person making the argument rather than attacking the substance of the argument itself." Do I even need to quote the countless examples of you doing this?
A Logical Fallacy: "A misconception resulting from flaw in reasoning, or a trick or illusion in thoughts that often succeeds in obfuscating facts/truth."
Examples of Logical Fallacies: "Formal Fallacies: Bad Reason Fallacy, Quantification Fallacies, Propositional fallacies, Syllogistic Fallacies; Informal Fallacies: Ad Hominem, Anecdotal, Appeal to Emotion, Appeal to Ridicule, Argument from repetition, Bandwagon, Burden of Proof, Continuum Fallacy, Etymological Fallacy, etc."
Me:
You:
See above.
I believe I have made a sufficient argument, and rebutted your attempts to counter it. Unless fresh evidence or arguments are made by you (or others, for that matter), I will rest my case, as I believe any rational or logical person would see the value and logic in my arguments.
If you do not provide any new evidence, or any good connections, I will proceed to ignore you. If you continue to utilize insults and Ad Hominem attacks, I will ignore you; I will not reward the utilization of logical fallacies any longer.
I expect you will be unable to resist your impulses, so this is likely the end. I wish you the best in life, and I pray for you to understand more as you get older and reconsider your positions. God bless you!
Yes. They do. Can you prove otherwise besides pointing to one of your lying cousins?
Correct. Which is why I provided hard scientific evidence and you've said "but this random lying ass polock says he saw em!" Also why I've been shitting on you so hard. You should've addressed the chemical analysis of the lack of prussian blue staining. Instead you do what you accuse me of, hypocrite.
How so? "sAyInG i dO dEOsNt mAKe iT hUuRr dhUUrHr"
https://holocausthandbooks.com/index.php?page_id=6
Again, learn to fucking read.
No you haven't. You're a damned liar. You started off being an asshole for me having hard evidence then deleted the comment.
Are you a team of government agents that can't get the story straight?
If you knew anything about investigations you would understand witness testimony is completely unreliable. It's not "the best" because it was some random polock.
And you say three but I think that's only one.
Dating, get this..... verifies the date. Not the claims. HFS logic is not your strong suit.
Why? Because it was said by a lying, thieving, vulture? Go fuck yourself.
You haven't addressed the claims at Nuremberg of "human lamp shades" "human soap" or the perverted delusional claims of "masterbation death machines"
The "trials" at Nuremberg were a bigger shitshow than the "treaty" of versailles. You can't torture prisoners for false confessions.
Sounds like a communist to me.
Do they have anything to disprove the hard scientific evidence? Then you're all a bunch of lying thieves. "Th8s gUy sAyS iTs tRuE" huh? Get some self awareness. Holy fuck.
From the theatre, soccer field, or the swimming pool?
Fine. The biggest bitch of the pig jew. Some commie punk.
I'm not "trusting" wikipedia. If you didn't understand wikipedia is simply an index. I was using multiple sourced examples (that's what the numbers are, genius. notation) to show that the beginning of the war is contested. And there's nobody left today who will really defend Germany in ww2, huh?
What's the " general conclusion" on the masterbation death machines? The human lamp shades?
Just because the pig jew infiltrated and had his pet hopped up on "equality" and "democracy" doesn't mean shit. If we're talking strictly numbers here than Germany is bigger than poland, therefore should listen to whatever it says because "equality". Go fuck yourself.
Yes, you said "that's retarded". Not me.
That goes double for you and your communist "proof".
Continued
I'm not "sidestepping" anything. You lying sack of shit. Stop accusing me of what you commit. I have evidence. You have literally some random polock. You believe the german when you agree with them yet call them liars when they say you're full of shit. Fucking cowardice. Calling a spade a spade is not "sidestepping"..
I'm not blinded by my hostility. I'm blinded by the sheer stupidity of someone calling forensic evidence "crackpots" while saying drunk, dog fucking, inbred, communist loving poles are the gold standard of evidence. I really wish this conversation went differently. Hopefully we can talk about UFOs or some shit in the future. I HAVE to break you down for this. I've fought with too many child raping israelis and am salty about their indoctrination, as you should be.
I really want you to realise we are all together in this fight against communism. You can't act like poland is a lion who will beat the wolf just because of your bravado. The fight is bigger than that. Poland was played and they played their part well. I truthfully wish this conversation went differently. It's aggravating and I really appreciate you working through my insults. Just stop pissing on my leg and telling me it's raining, please.
I told you. They aren't a crutch. I'm peppering them in for flavor.
Ok, "witness" testimony versus hard data. No insults. Who wins?
I have and don't particularly enjoy it. Please stop asking me to.
Yes. It's a tragedy that people who called themselves brothers fought over machinations and propaganda while the pig sat back and waited to sweep Europe afterward, isn't it?
No. Britain was in dire straits. Which is why they made the deal to get the eagle involved with the receipt being "the balfour declaration". Which went against their previous commitments.
Only after they had been ganged up on by all the other animals because of the pig jews machinations, TWICE.
Which I've been arguing was very much against poland's self interest in the long run. This isn't about poland, this is about communism and the establishment of palestine by any means necessary.
That's fair. Remember these are newspaper (jew owned) publications pushing poland to war. Any parallels to today? Are things starting to come together?
https://forgottentruthhistory.wordpress.com/2017/12/31/poland-waanted-war-and-was-the-aggressor-in-ww2/
Ok. How am I "mixing up arguments" or whatever you said?
No. I'm talking about both Great Wars" I'm not pretending it started at the sequel.
How? You keep accusing me without evidence. Then say you'll explain but trail off about "rhetorical questions"
I'm using the quote tool, bud
Oh shit. Here we go..... Evidence? What "straw man"?
I have. You can stop trying to dismiss the fact I tore you apart and continue to do so.
Yes it does. And I've provided more.
Does it have to spell it out? It was an air raid shelter the bolsheviks poked holes in the ceiling of and called "chimneys" that aren't connected to any "furnace". And why the plumbing?
I did. Pardon my transgressions for not using the vocabulary befitting of someone with such a high regard of themselves.
All well and dandy. As I've said his word isn't law. The evidence is. He presents the evidence. That's it.
No, everything else about it does. Explain the math of having a "genocide factory" where you only kill a couple people a day.
Yes, they do. If you have anything written after this I can't see it. Hopefully you're writing this down somewhere else and moving it over like I am.
https://www.warhistoryonline.com/war-articles/witold-pilecki.html
This says he was critical of communists yet helped the jews against their pograms and ghetto uprisings.
From the "polish government in exile"s wiki
Sound anything like today with "trumpism"?
I really hope to bring you into the fold here. It sucks your country was used as a tool for the establishment of a zionist authoritarian occupation of palestine.