View Single Post
Old July 29th, 2008 #869
Roberto Muehlenkamp
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Jun 2008
Posts: 1,001
Roberto Muehlenkamp
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by EG
Quote:
quote=Roberto Muehlenkamp;814844] Next time you hear from me will then be when I got my article published

Obviously not, since you are still posting BS.
Unlike you I donít post BS, and my condition for leaving you alone was that Gerdes shut his trap, as you know. Did you learn quote-mining from him?

Quote:
Originally Posted by EG
Quote:
What you call an "indefensible kike invention" happens to be a fact proven beyond a reasonable doubt

Revisionist Historians have raised enough reasonable doubt to cause the jews and holocaustians to make laws in Europe against them. Were the Hoax an indisputable "fact", there would be no need for such laws. America is next when it comes to laws against "holocaust denial", the juden are working hard on establishing them here - ie, "hate crime" laws
So your only argument against the accuracy of the historical record is the existence of hate speech laws in some countries, which you baselessly postulate to have been motivated by "reasonable doubt" raised by "Revisionist" BS (and not, as for instance the wording and position in the criminal code of the German provisions suggest, concern about disturbances of the public order that may be caused by losers and fuck-ups incited by "Revisionist" BS)?

Thatís as piss-poor an argument as I can think of, baby.

And your horseshit about "reasonable doubt" gets us back to some of the still unanswered questions in my post # 666, doesn't it?

Quote:
Originally Posted by EG
Quote:
If you think that "Aryan Germans" donít yell "holocaust" in what concerns Dresden, just run a search for "Dresden Holocaust" in the German Google. I just did and came upon the following sites on the first page (emphases mine):

Then why is Germany not free.
Germany is free, as far as Iím concerned. Itís just not free from reason, which seems to be what you want.

Quote:
Originally Posted by EG
Why are German cries of "holocaust" ignored.
Because few if any states in the world other than the German state have the integrity and honesty required to own up to and pay compensation for crimes committed by them or their legal predecessors, apart from the differences between arguably criminal area-bombing and systematic genocide.

Quote:
Originally Posted by EG
I lost relatives in the carpet bombing of Dresden - I want my reparations. I want Germany back, in fact. The juden got israel; I want my own Nation returned to me; not the cesspool the Occupied Government of Germany has turned my Fatherland into. You are just another self-loathing German, more jew than a jew, so many of you around. You are a kike's wet dream.
You sound like a spoilt brat yelling for a lollipop, darling. The "Occupied Government of Germany" Ė crap furthermore suggests a paranoically delusional spoilt brat. The "self-loathing German" - BS furthermore suggests that you are a mentally retarded spoilt brat (one doesnít loath Germany or being German just because one doesnít kiss your beloved FŁhrerís ass, get used to the idea), and the "kikeís wet dream" Ė thing furthermore suggests a piece of human garbage, just like your bloodthirsty cries for killing all Jews in a previous post.

You claim you lost relatives in the carpet bombing of Dresden? Prove it.. As Iím not a "Revisionist" creep, I wonít ask to show me their dead bodies or an autopsy report. But I would like to see documentary evidence that those relatives of yours existed and that they lived in Dresden at the time of the bombing, plus one or more documents from which it becomes apparent that they died in the Dresden bombing or, at the very least, the testimony of one or more eyewitnesses who saw them getting killed or found and identified their dead bodies.

Quote:
Originally Posted by EG
Quote:
Second, I may not yet have access to evidence meeting the requirements of Gerdesí challenge, but this doesnít mean it cannot be provided. Just give it some time.

It's been 60 plus years since holocaustianity was invented.
Actually there was never such invention outside your cloud-cuckoo-land, my darling. Get used to the idea.

Quote:
Originally Posted by EG
Where is it? Where is that irrefutable evidence.
This particular irrefutable evidence (there are also irrefutable eyewitness testimonies, documents and demographic data) is in the soil of the Nazi extermination camps and has partially been documented in crime site investigation reports and reports or public press statements by archaeologists. If you had followed this discussion with more attention, you would know more about the existing documentation of the physical evidence.

Quote:
Originally Posted by EG
Quote:
Actually what documentary, eyewitness and physical evidence there is has been and is still being accepted as conclusive proof of the mass murders in question by mostly West German criminal investigators and largely non-Jewish historians. You should do something about your ignorance, sweetheart.

Prove it then.
What, that the documentary, eyewitness and physical evidence there is has been and is still being accepted as conclusive proof of the mass murders in question by mostly West German criminal investigators and largely non-Jewish historians? Read the West German court judgments published by the University of Amsterdamís Justiz und NS-Verbrechen website undeer http://www1.jur.uva.nl/junsv/inhaltsverzeichnis.htm , to start with. They can be ordered at Ä 25 apiece, IIRC. The judgments related to Chelmno, Belzec, Sobibor and Treblinka are those summarized under the following links, among others:

Chelmno

http://www1.jur.uva.nl/junsv/brd/brd.../brdeng557.htm

http://www1.jur.uva.nl/junsv/brd/brd...brdeng594.htmī

http://www1.jur.uva.nl/junsv/brd/Tatortfr.htm

Belzec

http://www1.jur.uva.nl/junsv/brd/brd.../brdeng585.htm

Sobibor

http://www1.jur.uva.nl/junsv/brd/brd.../brdeng212.htm

http://www1.jur.uva.nl/junsv/brd/brd.../brdeng233.htm

http://www1.jur.uva.nl/junsv/brd/brd.../brdeng641.htm

http://www1.jur.uva.nl/junsv/brd/brd.../brdeng642.htm

http://www1.jur.uva.nl/junsv/brd/brd.../brdeng746.htm

Treblinka

http://www1.jur.uva.nl/junsv/brd/brd.../brdeng270.htm

http://www1.jur.uva.nl/junsv/brd/brd.../brdeng596.htm

http://www1.jur.uva.nl/junsv/brd/brd.../brdeng746.htm

http://www1.jur.uva.nl/junsv/brd/brd.../brdeng761.htm

When you are through with the judgments, I suggest you read the works of non-Jewish German or Polish historians like Christian Gerlach, Dieter Pohl and Bogdan Musial, among others.

Then youíll have done something about your current ignorance.

Quote:
Originally Posted by EG
These so-called historians, and those of your ilk, accept a jew lie - the biggest lie the jews have ever told, with possible exception to the one that their desert god found them and made them "chosen". When, in fact, they stole a god and a goddess from the ancient Egyptians and it was really the other way around.

As with their religion; which holocaustianity has become part of; and also which Christianity has accepted on faith, the jew crows whilst the world eats up their crap Lie and pronounces it a tasty jewish "manna" from heaven.
Thereís no need for you to keep trotting out your baseless articles of faith, sweetheart. Unless, of course, you want to keep contributing to my collection of ęThe most imbecile utterances from "Revisionist" cloud-cuckoo-landĽ.

Quote:
Originally Posted by EG
Quote:
Oh, and thanks for reminding me of the questions I asked you in post # 666 under http://www.vnnforum.com/showpost.php...&postcount=666 , which Iím still waiting for you to answer

It was answered by someone else; and they did a better job than I would have, my answer would have been redundant. Redundancy is a thing that you thrive on, Mule, I do not. As well, you have yet to answer them.
Sorry, baby, but who is supposed to have answered to the questions in my post # 666, and in what post or posts? Letís have the numbers and links of those posts, please.

Quote:
Originally Posted by EG
Quote:
Actually eyewitness testimony is intentional evidence,

More obfuscation; first a crime has to be provable before 'intentional evidence' can be admitted - ie, proof - eyewitness testimony does not fall under the category of 'intentional evidence'.
Wow, I didnít know that "intentional evidence" was even a judicial category. I use this term to express the idea that an eyewitness to a crime is testifying with the intention that his testimony be used as evidence to a crime, as opposed to, for instance, the Wehrmacht commandant complaining about the stench of corpses from Treblinka, who certainly had no such intention.

Could you please show me where you read the term "intentional evidence" in connection with crime investigation or judicial procedures?

And where you read that

a) "intentional evidence" can only be admitted if a crime is "provable", whatever you mean by that, and

b) eyewitness testimony (which I consider intentional evidence in the sense defined above) does not fall under whatever it is you mean by "the category of 'intentional evidence'" ?

Thanks!

Quote:
Originally Posted by EG
With exception to kangaroo court trials such as the Nurnberg Trials, intentional evidence is very specific and eyewitness testimony is considered unreliable and conviction cannot be based solely upon eyewitness testimony.
Why, then West German courts must have violated German procedural rules in many a trial against NS-criminals in which they relied mostly or solely on eyewitness testimony including the depositions of the defendants themselves.

Under http://www.iuscomp.org/gla/statutes/StPO.htm you find an English translation of the German Criminal Procedure Code. Could you please point out the provisions you think were violated by the aforementioned German courts?

If a conviction cannot be based upon eyewitness testimony alone, one would also expect to find provisions in this sense in, say, the US Federal Rules of Evidence (index under http://www.law.cornell.edu/rules/fre...html#article_i ).

Could you please point out these provisions?

Quote:
Originally Posted by EG
"Intentional Evidence" is commmonly used in cases concerning monetary fraud, which is a crime but certainly not a "holocaust" of epic jewish proportion. Especially since most accused of monetary fraud, wherein intentional evidence is used are jews themselves.
Methinks you have no fucking idea of what youíre talking about, baby. Where did you pick up your notions of "intentional evidence" and when and for what it is used?

Quote:
Originally Posted by EG
Not even common law suggests that eyewitness evidence is to be relied upon as the sole source of evidence.
What would be interesting to know is if even common law forbids relying upon eyewitness testimony as the sole source of evidence. Can you show us any source pointing in this direction?