Ah excuse me, it seems I did use the world "all" but it was not intentional. When typing fast, that happens sometimes =/

quote:

---

Originally posted by Vox:
I find it interesting that people who consistently claim the holocaust was blown out of proportion and call photographs and personal accounts "exaggerations" can then link to Palestinian propaganda websites to prove that Sabra and Shatila was a massacre of 800 people...with photos and personal accounts.

I'll stay out of this argument since it's not mine, but surely you must see the irony there, Mouse.

---

Sabra and Shatila can be proven, without a doubt, and an Israeli commission even found Sharon partly guilty and caused his stepping down from his post. It's not against the law to question Sabra and Shatila.

The Holocaust, however, has involved manipulating numbers (especially at one certain camp that mysteriously went from 4mil to 1mil in it's "death tolls) and "testimony" from Soviets. It's also illegal to question the official version.

Rule #1 - Historical Truth does not need law to back it up. The evidence should stand on it's own. If there is a law to back up a certain "historical truth", you can bet your ass that someone's both hiding something, and has a political motivation to keep up one official dogma about it.

The Holocaust is not history any more - it is a religious cult.

quote:

---

Originally posted by TheMouse:
Bullshit - the PLO was a secular organization and there are Arab Orthodox Christians, especially in places like Bethlehem and surrounding little towns in the Occupied Territories. Lebanon has a lot of Christians as well, and they're Arabs.

---

The great magority of arabs in the middle east are muslim, and the great magority of those arab muslims hate atheists.

It's not against the law to question the Holocaust either...the fact that there are disagreements in the actual numbers demonstrates that people disagree.

Would you agree with me if I said that due to actions of the Nazi government, more than two million Jews, gypsies, homosexuals, Slavs, and other "untermensch" died as non-combatants...and that the Nazi government knew these actions would cause these deaths and did nothing to change them?

Would you deny that the Nazi government comissioned medical experiments on "untermensch" and POWs, causing painful and brutal deaths, for scientific data that provided little to the world?

It is also interesting that you now recognize the findings of Israeli commissions, when they are in favor of Palestinians. Israeli courts also find in favor of Israelis (as in the investigation of the Jenin "massacre"---notice the quotation marks---that the liberal EU media and UN screamed for), but that is usually bad, right?

I would like to see one instance where any Arab government has ruled in favor of a Jewish plaintiff, for any reason.

"Rule #1 - Historical Truth does not need law to back it up."

You of all people know that "historical truth" is a contradiction in terms. History and truth are two different things...one written by people and the other forgotten by all but Yaweh, Allah, Jehovah and God.

You consitently make the statement that criminal charges are levied against people who make "anti-semitic" statements. I understand that European and Canadian courts impose sentences on those who print defamatory comments inciting violence against Jews...but do they not do the same for those who call for the murder of blacks, immigrants, homosexuals...in the US, a hate crime (stupidly) is a speech/violent crime against anyone who is not a white, Christian male. I do not agree with this liberal nonsense, as I'm sure you don't either. But if a person writes an article in the way you have, without resorting to calls for killing or destruction, they are not charged with anything as far as I am aware.

If you can provide me with a specific incidence of an American court imposing sentence on a person for disagreeing with the Holocaust, I am very interested to see it.

I promise not to regress into name-calling or arrogant chicanery if you do. You're smart and I'd rather keep it civil.

quote:

---

Originally posted by Vox:
It's not against the law to question the Holocaust either...the fact that there are disagreements in the actual numbers demonstrates that people disagree.

---

In Canada, Europe, and Australia, it's against the law. This is common knowledge that must have slipped past you, much like when you claimed that there were no Zionist lobbies in the US.

quote:

---

Would you agree with me if I said that due to actions of the Nazi government, more than two million Jews, gypsies, homosexuals, Slavs, and other "untermensch" died as non-combatants...and that the Nazi government knew these actions would cause these deaths and did nothing to change them?

---

Most likely, but if you think that less than 6 million Jews died, you're still a holocaust denier in their eyes.

Most "holocaust deniers" are "guilty" of two things - believing that the death number of Jews is inflated, and believing that there is no proof of gas chambers. It doesn't matter if these people believe that non-combantant camp people were shot... they're still enemies of the Holocaust Cult.

quote:

---

Would you deny that the Nazi government comissioned medical experiments on "untermensch" and POWs, causing painful and brutal deaths, for scientific data that provided little to the world?

---

No, since I don't know enough about this issue. I do know that other governments besides Nazi Germany are guilty of life-threatening medical experiments of little value, including American. This has nothing to do with gas chambers.

quote:

---

It is also interesting that you now recognize the findings of Israeli commissions, when they are in favor of Palestinians. Israeli courts also find in favor of Israelis (as in the investigation of the Jenin "massacre"---notice the quotation marks---that the liberal EU media and UN screamed for), but that is usually bad, right?

---

Actually, what this means is that an Israeli commission ruling against an Israeli is particularly damning against Sharon. It means that there was enough evidence of Sharon's guilt to mean that they would have serious PR trouble if he didn't step down from his post, therefore he had to step down.

quote:

---

I would like to see one instance where any Arab government has ruled in favor of a Jewish plaintiff, for any reason.

---

How many Jews are suing Arabs in Arab courts?

quote:

---

"Rule #1 - Historical Truth does not need law to back it up."

You of all people know that "historical truth" is a contradiction in terms. History and truth are two different things...one written by people and the other forgotten by all but Yaweh, Allah, Jehovah and God.

---

History and Truth are not contradictory terms. The Truth can be disputed on details, but some things definately happened.

quote:

---

You consitently make the statement that criminal charges are levied against people who make "anti-semitic" statements.

---

Correct.

quote:

---

I understand that European and Canadian courts impose sentences on those who print defamatory comments inciting violence against Jews...but do they not do the same for those who call for the murder of blacks, immigrants, homosexuals...in the US

---

They do the same, but what does this have to do about the criminalizing of historical opinion? If you say that you don't think gas chambers existed, does that mean you're calling for the death of Steven Spielberg? The Holocaust is the only piece of history that involves heavy legislation against those who question it's dogmas.

quote:

---

a hate crime (stupidly) is a speech/violent crime against anyone who is not a white, Christian male. I do not agree with this liberal nonsense, as I'm sure you don't either. But if a person writes an article in the way you have, without resorting to calls for killing or destruction, they are not charged with anything as far as I am aware.

---

In Canada and Europe, they are.

quote:

---

If you can provide me with a specific incidence of an American court imposing sentence on a person for disagreeing with the Holocaust, I am very interested to see it.

---

I won't do so because I wasn't claiming that it's American law. I claimed that it was law in many other countries.

Why would Canada arrest and deport someone for questioning holocaust details if there's honestly nothing that holocaust cultists are insecure about?

[This message has been edited by TheMouse (edited 12-28-2002).]

quote:

---

In Canada, Europe, and Australia, it's against the law. This is common knowledge that must have slipped past you, much like when you claimed that there were no Zionist lobbies in the US.

---

So you decide what is common knowledge then? Provide me with an example of what you mean...where is the line drawn? Are you telling me that you could be prosecuted under Canadian law for the statements you've posted on this forum? If there is such a law, Canadian authorities seem rather lackadaisical in enforcing it...rather like the laws in America that prohibit anal sex. If a law is on the books, and nobody enforces it, it isn't much of a law---it's lip sevice. By the way, not every Jewish PAC is in favor of Zionist expansion.

quote:

---

Most likely, but if you think that less than 6 million Jews died, you're still a holocaust denier in their eyes.

---

Not true. If I say that five million, or four million, or three million Jews died, I'm no more a "denier" than someone who claims that not a soul lost his life. But you do agree, then, that upon the transition from ghetto to camp, the Nazis shifted from simply imprisoning Jews to promoting conditions that could have no other effect but to cause their deaths?

quote:

---

Most "holocaust deniers" are "guilty" of two things - believing that the death number of Jews is inflated, and believing that there is no proof of gas chambers. It doesn't matter if these people believe that non-combantant camp people were shot... they're still enemies of the Holocaust Cult.

---

No comment, since you make a claim I don't see or agree with. If you say the Jews were shot or gassed or worked to death, you still admit they were killed...and therefore do not deny their deaths.

quote:

---

No, since I don't know enough about this issue. I do know that other governments besides Nazi Germany are guilty of life-threatening medical experiments of little value, including American. This has nothing to do with gas chambers.

---

Gas chambers aside, a bit of "common knowledge" seems to have "slipped by" you. German doctors such as Josef Mengele and Sigmund Rascher did do experiments, by their own records, measuring such things as how long a person could survive submerged in freezing water, sterilization and genetics, hyperextension and rupture of the stomach and rectum with fluids, and levels of poison subjects could support before death occured. Whether this is helpful to society is perhaps up for debate...but I hope you condemn the use of unwilling human subjects to provide statistics of fatal hypothermia.

American experiements? Such as? American history does not show a tendency to conduct fatal experiments on prisoners or anyone else for that matter. If you mean the Army's psychedelic and mind-control experiments, I agree they are immoral. But they were not completed by injecting the subjects' hearts with chloroform and dissecting them for future study. We tend to allow people to chose whether they will donate their bodies to science.

About the gas chambers, and the numbers that go with them: read SS officer Kurt Gerstein's diary before you claim the Jewish accounts are falsified, and if you still don't agree, check out a former "Holocaust Denier" by the name of Charles Provan---several experiments done by him prove that the Jews could easily have been crammed into chambers in the numbers claimed by Gerstein, and that CO could have been used by the Nazis to gas their victims.

quote:

---

Actually, what this means is that an Israeli commission ruling against an Israeli is particularly damning against Sharon. It means that there was enough evidence of Sharon's guilt to mean that they would have serious PR trouble if he didn't step down from his post, therefore he had to step down.

---

This is not a response to my question. I point out that Israel does provide judicial review of decisions made by politicians and military leaders, whereas there are no such systems in place in other Middle Eastern countries that lack a civil society. And the massive amount of evidence against Sharon is presumably being held from the UN due to Jewish influence in the organization? I see the UN as a highly anti-Israel organization, as it has been since the formation of the Jewish state.

quote:

---

How many Jews are suing Arabs in Arab courts?

---

None, thank you for proving my point. Jews tend to be arrested or ignored when they attempt to bring suit against Arabs in Arab courts (the latter a mockery of justice in any sense of the word). Jews have leaned the futility of seeking a life in Arab states and have come to see Israel as their only hope. Even Arabs cannot find justice in Arab courts...see the case of Egyptian professor Saad Ibrahim.

Your final claim about Holocaust revisionists being silenced in Europe and Canada is patently false. You can speak with authority about Canada, perhaps, but many major deniers are from France, Britain, and Germany. Do the names Irving, Zundel, Broszat, Faurisson, and Rassinier mean anything to you? You must be speaking of fines assessed to several authors, which I agree is deplorable. But they are still allowed to publish their claims.

Are people really arrested in Canada? Or simply written a ticket?

Whoa there tiger, this post was ask Arab anything, not debate.

Arab...
first, are u muslum?
Deuce,, dont u think its about time arabs got a revenge on christians?

1.No
2. Revenge on Christians for what?
But in general I believe that anything you do bad will come back to fuck you in the ass later. For example, not very long ago I stole money from a person I didn't like, which, now that I look back on it, was immature and stupid, and subsequently the money I stole was stolen from me by another person...It all comes back to get you

A person I ****thought**** I knew thought it would be funny to test my patience and steal about 1000$ worth of shit from myself and my friends...and it dearly came back to him...
(sinister laugh)
But thats getting a little off-topic and is a great story to tell another day..


[This message has been edited by LebaneseFighter (edited 12-28-2002).]

quote:

---

Originally posted by "brainuser"
5. As with many groups stereotypes are applied to Arabs and for the most part stereotypes are true in all cases.

---

LebaneseFighter, you really have no need to defend yourself against this arrogant, overweight redneck with megalomanic tendencies.

quote:

---

Originally posted by FuckOffandDie:
LebaneseFighter, you really have no need to defend yourself against this arrogant, overweight redneck with megalomanic tendencies.

---

Have we come to namecalling now? Actually, I'm an atheist from the northeast who isn't overweight.

quote:

---

Originally posted by Vox:
None, thank you for proving my point. Jews tend to be arrested or ignored when they attempt to bring suit against Arabs in Arab courts (the latter a mockery of justice in any sense of the word). Jews have leaned the futility of seeking a life in Arab states and have come to see Israel as their only hope. Even Arabs cannot find justice in Arab courts...see the case of Egyptian professor Saad Ibrahim.

---

What does this have to do with the Sabra case? A lawsuit wasn't brought against Sharon by an Arab - the matter was investigated by an Israeli committion to find out if he needed to step down for PR and "negligence" reasons.

quote:

---

Your final claim about Holocaust revisionists being silenced in Europe and Canada is patently false. You can speak with authority about Canada, perhaps, but many major deniers are from France, Britain, and Germany. Do the names Irving, Zundel, Broszat, Faurisson, and Rassinier mean anything to you? You must be speaking of fines assessed to several authors, which I agree is deplorable. But they are still allowed to publish their claims.

---

LoL.. I notice you also use the word "deniers" in regard to people who merely question the 6 million figure and the existance of gas chambers. Many of those people are allowed to publish their works because they relocated to another country, such as the US.

The Australians are even trying to censor it on the web.

quote:

---

Up to this day, seven European countries have adopted repressive laws which make holocaust revisionism a criminal offence. Of cause, these laws, which grossly violate the principles of free speech and free historical research, reveal the weakness of the official holocaust version: If the revisionists were wrong, it would be amply sufficient to refute them publicly, for example in TV discussions. But such debates are not allowed in the so-called free world. The only televised discussion between a revisionist and an anti-revisionist took place in April 1979 when professor Robert Faurisson debated German holocaust specialist professor Wolfgang Scheffler on the Italian-language Swiss TV. A survey showed that most spectators felt Faurisson had won. Since 1979, the revisionist position has been greatly strengthened thanks to the efforts of revisionist researchers, while the adherents of the official holocaust story have made no progress whatsoever. It is therefore easily understandable that the opinion makers of Western society trembles at the very idea of an open discussion on the holocaust - quite apart from the fact that today none of the orthodox historians would have the courage to debate a competent revisionist in public.

Anti-revisionist repression is especially ferocious in Germany where the survival of the entire political system hinges on its ability to keep the holocaust lie alive. Hundreds of German revisionists have been sentenced to stiff fines and jail sentences. Most of them have been prosecuted according to the paragraph 130 of the Criminal Code ("Incitement to racial hatred"). In October 1992, Major General Otto Ernst Remer, one of the most highly decorated soldiers of World War Two, was sentenced to 22 months imprisonment without probation in Schweinfurt for "holocaust denial". (Remer, a seriously ill man aged 82 then, was brought to Spain by friends. He died in his Spanish exile on Oct. 4, 1997). In April 1995, former National Democratic Party chairman Guenther Deckert, a teacher of English and French, was sentenced to two years in jail for translating a technical talk by revisionist US gas chamber expert Fred Leuchter. While in prison, Deckert got another three years for similar offences. In June 1995, chemist Germar Rudolf, who had written a scientific report about the alleged Auschwitz homicidal gas chambers, was sentenced to 14 months incarceration. He went into exile. In May 1996, editor Wigbert Grabert was fined 30.000 Mark for publishing the scientific revisionist anthology Grundlagen zur Zeitgeschichte ("Foundation of contemporary history", Grabert Verlag, Tuebingen 1994). Even before the book was forbidden, German citizens were getting up to six months in jail for the crime of ordering more than one copy of the book. Also in May 1996, historian Udo Walendy, who had published the revisionist quarterly Historische Tatsachen, was sentenced to 14 months imprisonment for "trivialising the holocaust". Walendy, who is now over 70 and chronically sick, later got a second prison of 22 more months in prison for "what-he-didn't-write". For those unfamiliar with the case: the historian historian and university-trained political scientist Udo Walendy was sentenced not for what he had written, but for what he had not written. Judge Kn�ner:

"We're not dealing with what you wrote here, that's not the task of this court, but what you did not write!" (Quoted by Westfalen-Blatt, May 8, 1997).

While I am writing these lines, Walendy, who is now the most prominent political prisoner of the repressive German regime, is still behind bars. Another political prisoner is agricultural engineer Erhard Kempner who has spent years in jail for "holocaust denial". - In none of these abominable terror trials did the court spend as much as one second considering the arguments of the defendants.

In Austria, a revisionist theoretically risks a 20 years prison term, because Austrian law equates revisionism with the attempt to restore National Socialist rule. In France, where the revisionists are particularly numerous and active, about a hundred trials have taken place, but with one exception (Alain Guionnet), no revisionist has been sent to jail so far since the French courts usually content themselves with huge fines (which the defendants have to pay to Jewish organisations). In Switzerland, nine revisionists (Arthur Vogt, Andreas Studer, Ernst Indlekofer, Aldo Ferraglia, Dr. Max Wahl, Rene-Louis Berclaz, Gaston-Armand Amaudruz, Gerhard Foerster and myself) have been sentenced to fines and/or prison terms since the "anti-racism law" was enacted in 1995. In Belgium, there has been an anti-revisionist law for several years, but it has never been applied so far, not even against the very active and very efficient editor Siegfried Verbeke who sends revisionist material to almost every European country. In Spain, historian and publisher Pedro Varela, who is not only a revisionist, but an outspoken anti-Zionist as well, was sentenced to no less than five years in prison in November 1998, but the verdict was later nullified by a higher court. In Poland, where the anti-revisionist law was enacted in 1999, university professor Dariusz Ratajczak was put on trial in October of that year because he had published a booklet in which he objectively summarised the revisionist arguments and stated that the six million figure was an exaggeration. Ratajczak was acquitted, but he had lost his job even before the trial. - Incidentally, the booklet was named Tematy niebezpeczne ("Dangerous subjects"). When I visited Ratajczak in August of this year, he laughingly told me he now knew that there is only one dangerous subject...

A particularly outrageous feature of anti-revisionist repression is that the defendants are never allowed to prove the validity of their arguments. A revisionist who sticks to his views in court usually faces a particularly severe punishment because of his "obstinacy" and "unwillingness to repent".

At the Baden trial against Foerster and me, my lawyer Dr. Oswald had summoned two witnesses, professor Faurisson and Austrian engineer Wolfgang Froehlich, who were to testify that the revisionists had cogent arguments against the gas chamber story. Faurisson was not permitted to speak. However, Froehlich, a pest control specialist, was allowed to make a statement. He declared that homicidal gassings as described by former Auschwitz inmates were technically impossible. His statement ran as follows:

"The insecticide Zyklon B consists of hydrocyanic acid absorbed in a granulate carrier substance. The hydrocyanic acid is released through contact with the air. The boiling point of hydrocyanic acid is 25,7 degrees C. The higher the temperature, the faster the evaporation rate. The delousing chambers in which Zyklon B was used in National Socialist camps and elsewhere were heated up to 30 degrees or more, so that the hydrocyanic acid left the carrier granulate rapidly. On the other hand, much lower temperatures prevailed in the half-subterranean morgues of the crematoria at Auschwitz-Birkenau, where, according to eyewitness accounts, mass murders are supposed to have taken place using Zyklon B. Even if one assumes the rooms were warmed by the bodies of the hypothetical occupants, the temperature should not have exceeded 15 degrees even in the warm season. The hydrocyanic acid would therefore have taken many hours to evaporate. According to the eyewitness accounts, the victims died very rapidly. The eyewitnesses speak of time periods ranging from 'immediately' to 15 minutes. To kill the occupants of the gas chambers in such a short amount of time, the Germans would have had to use absurdly high quantities of Zyklon B, I assume from 40 to 50 kg per gassing procedure. The members of the Special Kommando who, according to the eyewitnesses, were responsible for removing the bodies from the chamber, would have collapsed at once, even if they had worn gas masks. Immensely great quantities of hydrocyanic acid vapour would have streamed into the open air though the open doors, contaminating the entire camp."

When the engineer had got to this point, public prosecutor Dominik Aufdenblatten, acting like a madman, interrupted him and threatened to charge him with racial discrimination!

At the Amaudruz trial in Lausanne, the court refused to hear the two witnesses summoned by the defence (Faurisson and French lawyer Eric Delcroix). In Germany, Dr. Ludwig Bock, the lawyer of imprisoned revisionist Guenther Deckert, was fined 10.000 Deutschmark because he had asked for an independant expert report about the technical feasibility of the alleged homicidal gassings! Thus, the defence is practically paralysed, and a lawyer defending his client too vigorously knows that he risks being accused and punished himself.

It is a remarkable fact that the stronghold of Zionism, the USA, has no anti-revisionist law as this would constitute a violation of the first amendment of the US constitution which guarantees freedom of speech. The California-based I.H.R. (Institute for Historical review) can publish books and a review and organise revisionist conferences without fear of legal repression. This does not mean that American revisionists are safe from unpleasant surprises: In July 1984, terrorists eager to silence the voice of US revisionism burnt down the headquarter of the I.H.R. But this only temporarily paralysed the activities of the Institute.

---

Holocaust Revisionism and it's Political
Consequences

quote:

---

Are people really arrested in Canada? Or simply written a ticket?

---

Prosecution.

This country puts people who merely offend Jews on trial, even if the Jew belongs to a terrorist group like the JDL. SOURCE

[This message has been edited by TheMouse (edited 12-28-2002).]

Terrible liberalism gone awry...not very surprising that this is happening in Europe, the bastion of fallacious multiculturalism. Interesting that in the US, where there are stronger Zionist leanings, there are no anti-revisionist laws. Why do you think this is?

Though I definitely oppose the suppression of any opinion because it may offend someone else, I see that in many countries, though the laws exist, they are not really enforced...or if they are, they are only partly so. This is no excuse, as a person's livelihood can be destroyed by the negative publicity and backlash from Jewish groups. But I don't see the massive, widespread jailings and harrassment you indicate in most of your postings. And authors are publishing in their home countries, Rassinier for example. Or were his books only published before the laws were passed (incidentally, do you know if the laws were passed immediately after WW2, or closer to the founding of Israel, or after? Timing would probably be more damning to Zionists if it were the former, I think).

I wonder if you can answer this, since you're obviously well read on the subject: how is the German government entirely dependent on the maintenance of the Holocaust history, as your quoted essay states?

quote:

---

Originally posted by brainuser
Have we come to namecalling now? Actually, I'm an atheist from the northeast who isn't overweight.

---

You know, when you asserted that "for the most part stereotypes are true in all cases" I thought that you actually meant what you were saying. So, you may be an exception to the McDonald's munching, Commie catching SUV driving inbred, but you acknowledge that the sterotype holds true "for the most part"? Of, course, the stereotype of Americans as a bunch of Satanic Jewish infidels bent on world domination must also hold true "for the most part".

Still, let's not get personal. I recognise the small possibility that you are in the minority of Americans who don't fit the stereotype. There is of course, no possibility at all that such stereotypes are ignorant and innacurate because "For the most part stereotypes hold true in all cases"

Why be so anal on the 6 million number? Round up, round down, Fill up an urn equivilent to one body, Count body parts?

I happily invite those who are pissed because 6 million is the generally accepted number to go back and count whatever is left of the victims, and I will accept your final count.

So go Mouse, and start counting bones, We await anxiously for your return with the "true" number.

quote:

---

Originally posted by TheMouse:
Any Jewish persecution was a result of both Jewish non-assimilation and actions - such as the peasant uprisings in the fuedal era when Jews were in charge of collecting taxes and such... or the "antisemitic pogroms" in Eastern Europe when the peasants happened to be rebelling against Bolsheviks, which happened to be Jewish.

Yes, Jews have been systematically tossed out of numerous different nations. They try to tell you that it's because everyone else is crazy and that they are completely innocent. Riiight.

Besides that, they weren't "persecuted" in North America, and they aren't "persecuted" anywhere in Europe today. That's against the law.

Do you think Gypsies have the right to forcefully take over someone else's home because they were "persecuted"?

---

Gypsies don't have the right to take over someone's home, However, if it was stolen from them, then they do.

The Dreyfus affair in France is an example of how they were persecuted for being.....Jewish.


Hitler's final solution? Don't be an idiot and say that the millions killed was punishment for an uprising.

[QUOTE]Originally posted by Mr. Vox:
American experiements? Such as? American history does not show a tendency to conduct fatal experiments on prisoners or anyone else for that matter. If you mean the Army's psychedelic and mind-control experiments, I agree they are immoral. But they were not completed by injecting the subjects' hearts with chloroform and dissecting them for future study. We tend to allow people to chose whether they will donate their bodies to science.[QUOTE]

I take it you never heard of the US government allowing the testing of radioactive material by injecting it into retarded people back in the early 1940's. Don't know how many died, but getting an injection of uranium or plutonium can't do you a whole lot of good. Then there was the testing of Atomic weapons with live subjects, lost a few there also. Oh yeah, testing biological agents by dispersing them through fake tailpipes on cars in your larger metropolis-type cities (New York, Chicago, etc). There are more, many more, you just need to open your eyes and ears, America was just as bad as Germany.

The saddest version of this is the Sebrenicia incident.

That is tragic

Is this guy kidding? The late 40's to early 50's have many examples of human experimentation. Soldiers told to watch very closely for the atom bomb detonations? Most recently there's the Gulf War syndrome and the Anthrax vaccinations.

I am not kidding, i think the shit that went on in sebrenicia was awful, and the amount of people that are unaware of it ever happening still scares me!!!

Are you actually comparing trying to find an anthrax vaccine to dipping people in boiling water to see how long it takes them to cook?

Soldiers accidentally injured by chemical or other weapons is not experimentation, if it even happened. It's a lamentable result of poor planning and execution by US leaderhip. Why would we intentionally do "experiments" in wartime, in a combat zone, on Americans, when there are plently of enemy soldiers around to do them on?

And which experiments are you talking about, where radioactive material was injected into retarded people? By who? What kind of plutonium? What were the results of these experiments, since the FOIA has certainly opened the files on work done in the 1940's? Very strange, your assertions. You're probably mistaking "retarded people" for "lab rats". Unless you mean accidental contamination of miners near Los Alamos...not exactly hypodermic injection of uranium into retards.

Biological agents released through fake tailpipes into NYC? What the hell are you talking about? By who? When? What "biological agents"? For what purpose? Obviously I'm uneducated. Could you point me in the right direction so I may be enlightened?

Equating America with Nazi germany is very hard to do..

Yes he is full of bullshit but his story isn't completlely wrong...

1. Lightbulbs filled with a HARMLESS but detectable biological agent were broken in subways in new york and scanners were every where to see how well it would disperse...consequently no1 got sick, but its effectiveness was realized by a japanese cult about 8 years ago when they popped balloons full of sarin gas in a tokyo subway

2. tests were conducted on army bases were a harmlesss bioagent was put in exaust pipes because it made it undetectab le

3. yes a harmless bio agent was put in a crop duster to see how much is would spread, sensors later found it was highly effective

4. to say the us government went around with stuff in their tailpipes spraying everyone as part of a vast conspiracy is bullshit, and if u can find me a book or two, i would believe it more than any website

5. there were human VOLUNTEERS who instead of fighting, opted to get sprayed in a closed chamber called the 8ball...all of them survived

6. america shut down its bioware program 35 years ago, and all bioweapons and agents have been destroyed, except those for defensive research purposes

perhaps the accidental contamination he was trying to start a hysteria about was when vx gas was sprayed in the MIDDLE OF FUCKING NOWHERE on a government testing ground, and the gas spread hundreds of miles and keep a few thousand sheep...there was a cover up, and this whole mishap was later declassified in full

quote:

---

Originally posted by Vox:
Are you actually comparing trying to find an anthrax vaccine to dipping people in boiling water to see how long it takes them to cook?

Soldiers accidentally injured by chemical or other weapons is not experimentation, if it even happened. It's a lamentable result of poor planning and execution by US leaderhip. Why would we intentionally do "experiments" in wartime, in a combat zone, on Americans, when there are plently of enemy soldiers around to do them on?

And which experiments are you talking about, where radioactive material was injected into retarded people? By who? What kind of plutonium? What were the results of these experiments, since the FOIA has certainly opened the files on work done in the 1940's? Very strange, your assertions. You're probably mistaking "retarded people" for "lab rats". Unless you mean accidental contamination of miners near Los Alamos...not exactly hypodermic injection of uranium into retards.

Biological agents released through fake tailpipes into NYC? What the hell are you talking about? By who? When? What "biological agents"? For what purpose? Obviously I'm uneducated. Could you point me in the right direction so I may be enlightened?

---

There is also the case of the Australian military making a small unit run an O course for 5 days in a row, then on the 6th day coating the obstacles with Mustard Gas.

Guess that'll put a hop in your step...

What was the purpose of mustard gas on a confidence course?

If you were an Arab that lived in the middle-east then i would have many questions to ask you. Seeing as you are an Arab-American, of which i know many, i have no questions for you.

P.S. yes Israeli troops and Palestinean terrorists/freedom-fighters(in no particular order) both do fucked up things. neither is better or worse than the other.