[whelan costen]

I am responding here to this article and to complaints by Marcarc on the other thread(MSM Mum) but about this article:<br /> I think this article certainly gives us something to think about. It is another point of view. It has been my experience that anytime we are not allowed to discuss a topic, that becomes a very serious problem. Consider all the things we are told we cannot know, and then look at how many ways people will try to find out. <br /> <br /> I will make this comparison - I was raised a Catholic at a time when the priests were on a pedestal, the Pope, Bishops etc as well; nobody could criticize and nobody did. Today nobody(or most) is afraid to criticize the Catholic Church, sometimes the statements are wild and untrue, sometimes they are wild and true. Members of any organization are obviously capable of acting in ways that are not part of the generally accepted or expected practices. Nobody within the Catholic Church would think a priest capable of abusing a child, nobody would think the Church could have aided the Nazi's but apparently these things have happened, nobody except those who knew the truth! Does it make a person a racist or hate monger if they make these statements? <br /> <br /> Years ago in Canada, as well as other nations, the Catholic Church was very political and made all kinds of agreements with the gov - just look at the residential schools for example. The first person to reveal this horrific abuse was probably accused of hate speech, or anti-Catholic propaganda, however as it has since been investigated nobody can say that. I will also say that most Catholics who had no knowledge of these kinds of events, did not want to hear the truth, did not want it discussed, did not want any investigations. To them it was too horrific and quite frankly 'just not possible'! But the truth was that it was possible.<br /> <br /> So if there was a group of people, (elite) within the Jewish community who made deals or prevented people from being saved from execution and did nothing, then that should be looked at. Saying there was a group of people who sacrificed their fellow community members is not racist. I mean Germans did it to Germans; Saddam did it to his people, Roosevelt did it at Pearl Harbor, etc etc. We should be able to shine a light on anything in order to see what is truth and what is not; we should be able to read material from different points of view so we can make our own conclusions. History has been kept secret from us for many decades with regard to WWII. Gradually we are seeing more and more situations where people could have helped but did not, or funded the Nazi regime, or supplied them, or turned a blind eye. If this is true about an elite group of Jews who sacrificed the rest or made side deals etc as has been reported in this article and others, why is that not something to discuss? There must be documentation of such events which can be revealed, however if the subject itself is taboo, like it was within the Catholic Church with the abuse of children, then we will never know. It is not so different. The Catholic Church went to great lengths to ensure this information did not become public. <br /> <br /> As we learn more and more about the backroom deals that the elite have made which affect us, all of us, is it so outrageous to believe that any group has elites, who are willing to sacrifice the common person? I don't think so. Look at what is happening to Canada. We can accept and dislike the fact that elites are sacrificing Canadians today, Americans in their country and so on across the globe, but we cannot examine history for similar situations? We do ourselves and our children a great disservice if we do not look at history and learn from it. We must learn otherwise we continue to make the same mistakes. We continue to trust those we should not trust and we continue to give up our power to those who abuse it.<br /> <br /> I believe that is what this article reveals, (another point of view) and I did a search and found there are several others that reveal the same account of history. So perhaps we should be exploring this and discuss it with respect for each others knowledge or lack of knowledge. I for one was not aware of this situation and am thankful that the issue was raised. <br /> <br /> On the other hand I also want to suggest that we not stay in the past. We learn from it and plan for a better future where nobody is sacrificed, we have to stop being afraid to discuss issues that are controversial because without debate and discussion we will all be stuck depending on the msm to tell us what they want us to know. I note that this article has offended Marcarc as stated on the other thread; however I fail to see why anything written here would constitute hate speech, unless we are to believe that anything involving the Holocaust or who was involved etc amounts to hate speech. The Holocaust under the Nazi regime was without a doubt in my mind, the worst case of mass murder in history, with people all over the world, knowing what was happening and doing little to stop it. It was not just the Jews who were victims there were many people who were selected and terminated. We owe it to their memory to reveal the whole truth, or as much as is possible.<br /> <br /> I am so weary of hearing that events we are seeing today cannot be compared to Hitler or the Nazi regime because nothing compares; well there are many things happening today which are parallels (imo) and unless we get our heads out of the sand history will repeat.<br /> <br /> Why would anyone from this site report an article to the CJC? Who are they in relation to vive? Are my comments about the Catholic church going to be reported to the Vatican now or the Canadian Bishops? If they are would that prevent me from saying what I've said? I would hope not. Free speech should include the ability to discuss opinions, events from today and historical. I don't understand remarks by Marcarc on the other thread about this article. I know what racism looks like, slander and hate speech, however I fail to read that here. I see a historical event being discussed in a different way than what we have known in the past. It is a person who claims to be a Jew and they are declaring that the Zionist movement does not represent them. I think we at least owe it to them to hear/read their point of view. I am no expert but I do see parallels between this and other events in history.<br /> <br /> I also see that sometimes people will use race, religion etc to stop a discussion that makes them uncomfortable. I hope that is not happening here. I hope that we can discuss such issues rationally and without screaming racism when it is clearly not. That is my opinion on the subject and as I've said, I am not an expert on the Holocaust.

[Marcarc]

Nobody is saying that things shouldn't be questioned and valid points brought up, the fact that you could research that 'other people say the same thing' shows that the ideas are out there, many are mainstream.<br /> <br /> However, don't just pin it on me, because somebody obviously emailed earlier article to the CJC. They exist for a reason, and that reason is all those repugnant facts about the second world war and the world's treatment of jews. These people aren't stupid, they know damn well that Canada's policy was NO jews, and the quote from a canadian MP that 'one jew is too many' is well known. Canada's racism is well known by minorities, but part of every culture is the idea of how wonderful and egalitarian we are.<br /> <br /> But again, when you questioned the catholic church, which, by the way, is in a FAR different category than jewish minorities, you didn't go so far as to state "Catholics were RESPONSIBLE for the deaths of the jews". If the group were a minority in some area, then it would be different discussion.<br /> <br /> The question is whether blaming zionists for the holocaust breaks the terms of the agreement that Susan posted. My opinion is that that idea is not only SO untrue, but that it amounts to hate speech. In other words, if that first article was fit to be pulled, then that post certainly does. But like I said, its unfortunate, because without those last two paragraphs its an excellent post. That's why I say that its posts like that that make it harder to criticize Israeli policies or even those of the CJC,because when they read such articles then the motives of the person posting becomes suspect, and rightfully so.<br /> <br /> So again, from Susan and the owners point of view, what do you think happens when four stories on the front page and six forum discussions are on whether the holocaust occurred and how many died and who was responsible? It's easy to post those things and cry about free speech, but when the site is labelled anti semitic and panned by every jewish organization in the country as being a haven of anti semites, then it becomes clear why there are rules. And posters can then of course move on to some other forum and do the same thing while the forum owners are left to deal with it. That's why I say, if you dont like it, move on.<br /> <br /> And I know of what I speak, I've had posts removed before, and have had the exact same conversations about censorship, and I can't remember very well but I think it was simply something as banal as Quebec Sovereignty, certainly nothing to do with hate speech.<br /> <br /> I personally suspect anybody who has an overriding interest in readjusting the number of jews killed in the second world war simply because, apart from professional historians, I see no reason why its relevant. It actually plays into the issue by keeping this foremost on the agenda, the one where everybody complains that the jewish attempted genocide is considered so much more important than other attempted genocides, all the while arguing about the jewish attempted genocide! On a day to day basis I see little mention of it, in op ed pieces and speeches it comes out mostly as a claim that 'jews have to take care of ourselves because we know nobody else will'. That latter part of that was proven to be true, however, its no LONGER true. <br /> <br /> If you are not a minority then such things may seem unimportant. However, the CJC is NOT the jewish defense league, far from it. So even the poster knows that his comments were out of line. There have been numerous postings at this website criticizing both Isreal and the CJC, I've written a few of them. <br /> <br /> <br /> What people seem to be complaining most about is mainstream media coverage of issues. However, keep in mind that fewer and fewer people get news from there for a reason, they in fact don't question ANYTHING. All these issues that get raised get raised on the internet, and I've seen little attempt at censorshop. If you want to criticize Israel's foreign policy, go to it. If you think that with all that is going on in Palestine/Lebanon that the most pressing issues is a more accurate tally of the numbers from 50 years ago that's your business, but that it makes minority groups suspicious of your motives shouldn't be a surprise. <br /> <br /> Like I said, I find the idea that jews were responsible for the holocaust to be so abhorable that I felt it was my duty to inform the CJC because I think that is a 'hateful' thing to say. So don't blame the messenger. If you make a comment on a public board you have to stand behind it. If it is not hateful then there is certainly no concern. <br /> <br /> However, to be fair, I sent the complaint first to the site administrator and it bounced back and then I forgot all about it.

[Diogenes]

Without prejudice* and with all due respect**<br /> <br /> Au Contraire, Mon Ami.<br /> <br /> That is *exactly* what has happened and by your actions of lodging a complaint to the site owner. It has been “pinned on you” as you say because it is you who is culpable in the action of informing both Susan and the CJC of what you see as racism and hate speech coming from me.<br /> <br /> You threatened me, behaviour I do not take kindly to.<br /> <br /> Your bullying and paranoia exceed all boundaries of good taste and are more offensive than you have the good sense to realise. To use the vernacular “stir up shit’ is fitting as applied to the actions you have taken and then pleaded to not be responsible for. How, may I ask you, do you expect to bring understanding to a volatile situation by threats and irresponsible behaviours?<br /> <br /> Thus far Marcarc, you have, by your over zealousness, caused a great many of our members much discomfort and amount to nothing less than witch-hunting as was done by Joe McCarthy***<br /> <br /> <br /> <br /> “The question is whether blaming zionists for the holocaust breaks the terms of the agreement that Susan posted. My opinion is that that idea is not only SO untrue, but that it amounts to hate speech.” <br /> The I strongly suggest to you sir, you pay strict attention to the information from here<br /> http://www.jewsagainstzionism.com/zionism/history.cfm <br /> <br /> There you will find Rabbi from who I discovered some of what I share <br /> Will you now in you over zealous ignorance charge them to be anti- Semitic? <br /> <br /> The particular article(s) you and Action-Jackson (where is he, anyway?) have taken offence to have far more content than the limited view the two of you took.<br /> <br /> It has come to my attention that as a result of your actions, action od which you ARE culpable of, I am under threat of banishment from this site<br /> Should that take place I WILL inform True Torah Jews Against Zionism as is my right!<br /> You are hereby given the opertunity to recant. <br /> Should you unwisely choose not to do so it will be a matter of record for any further action i may take<br /> Do you understand now that it is you who has dug a hole for yourself by your irresponsible actions?<br /> <br /> Do you realise that by your action you have threatend the very existance of this site?<br /> <br /> I do NOT suffer fools gladly Marcarc!<br /> <br /> * http://www.geoffreyleaver.com/resources ... lkitid=130 <br /> ** http://idioms.thefreedictionary.com/wit ... ue+respect<br /> *** http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Joseph_McCarthy <br /> <br />

[whelan costen]

My point is that anytime someone does not want certain things discussed they can take something out of context and twist it to fit their interpretation and then scream racist, or hate speech. I see nothing in Dio's comments or in the article itself which is hate speech. I see someone trying to reveal another aspect of history. If I used the word 'Jessuit' to describe a group of people who did something, that would not mean that I am saying 'Catholic' would it? That is what you seem to be saying that using the word Zionist means the same as Jew, which I understand is not the case. All Jessuits are Catholics but not all Catholics are Jessuits.<br /> <br /> Years ago Catholics were widely condemned for saying 'only Catholics can get into heaven' even some Catholics believed that that was the churches stance on the issue. The belief however was something quite different and that was this - once you were a Catholic and had accepted the teachings of Catholocism you would not be permitted into heaven if you turned away from it. You cannot deny what you have accepted and confirmed that you know. That was the thinking. There is no salvation for a Catholic except through the Catholic Church - was translated to mean their is no salvation except through the Catholic Church. <br /> <br /> That is an example of how words and beliefs become twisted and how a statement can become seemingly hateful. The suggestion that we can legislate feelings or beliefs is absurd. If people don't believe the Holocaust occured how can you make them believe through legislation? If someone wants to legislate that there is a God for example, how can such legislation change a belief? I have no question that the Holocaust occured, I have questions about how it occured. I have questions about how many countries and their governments turned a blind eye, like we did in Somalia, or with slavery in the U.S. or the truth about Iraq and Afghanistan.<br /> <br /> That is the question. Is any exposure to another side of a story not permitted once the official story is declared? Nobody can question 911, or the SPP or the wars going on in the world without being accused of hate speech, slander etc. This is what I object to. If the story is wrong then let those who know different state the reasons it is wrong and offer information to support it. Then we can make up our own minds. <br /> <br /> I will say this, I never read the first article completely. I scanned it. It wasn't of interest to me, I didn't know the author or the one being discussed. I knew very little about the Zionist movement. From history I can see that elite groups of people have always been willing to sacrifice the little people in order to gain more for themselves. It is still happening today. So why is this topic off limits? Why is this exploration called hate speech, when nobody has said anything hateful? <br /> <br /> Today I know alot more about all of this stuff thanks to the censor and the objections and the accusations made to stop us from posting or reading the information. So censorship works to create more interest and as I said people will find ways to learn about something which is not permitted.

[Dr Caleb]

[QUOTE BY= Marcarc]<br /> The question is whether blaming zionists for the holocaust breaks the terms of the agreement that Susan posted. <br /> <br /> {snip><br /> <br /> So again, from Susan and the owners point of view, what do you think happens when four stories on the front page and six forum discussions are on whether the holocaust occurred and how many died and who was responsible? [/QUOTE]<br /> <br /> And where do you see four front page stories and six forumn discussions denying the holocaust ocurred? No such stories have EVER sullied these pages. The discussion we had in the forumns titled 'Holocaust Denial' was one of the hardest I've ever had to participate and moderate in. You should look it up.<br /> <br /> The quote that started this thread, does not in any way deny the holocuast existed, nor does it attempt to change the official death toll. To do ethier is simply an affront to our intellect, and to not see that is an affront to yours.<br /> <br /> It only asks, "could the number of Jews killed have been less, if only for $2 million."<br /> <br /> The question is, is that question racism based on the criteria set forth in Canadian Hate Crimes Legislation. It is based on Race, Skin, religion etc? Is it trying to discriminate?<br /> <br /> [QUOTE BY= Marcarc]<br /> However, to be fair, I sent the complaint first to the site administrator and it bounced back and then I forgot all about it.[/QUOTE]<br /> <br /> To be fair, someone did send a complaint about this article, and we are having a very serious, private, discussion based on that complaint.

[Marcarc]

Its ironic in a thread about censorship to see somebody threatening somebody else for what they said. That you don't see a difference between individual or even organizational jewish organizations not helping jews in Germany and being responsible for their deaths says it all. Canada also did nothing to help jews and hardly any got in, but nobody says that Canada or canadians are responsible for their deaths. The people responsible for murder are those who commit murder. People who aid them, are guilty of aiding or even abetting. However, unless you can prove that Ben Gurion or other Zionists actually went to Germany and helped fill gas chambers and shoot guns, they are far from being responsible. That group whose link you have certainly doesn't say that. <br /> <br /> I didn't say that I didn't register a complaint, I said I was going to complain but the email address didn't work so the complaint was not recieved by anybody, so therefore whatever warnings you got had nothing to do with me, until the above post, which is just out and out threatening and I did email the moderator and he can look at it and decide what they want to do. That you blame everybody else for virtually everything has me suspecting schizophrenia so this will definitely be my last post here and I have no further interest in even reading comments here. <br /> <br /> All I can say is old Ed Baker must be rolling over if he could see what people get away with posting here nowadays, he was banned for far less.

[Marcarc]

Like I said, and clearly, it is only the last two paragraphs that I complained about, here it is once more, I didn't print it all because I find it so abhorant, but since its here to stay anyway I might as well post it:<br /> <br /> "So, in a pivotal sense, the Zionists were ultimately responsible for the Holocaust - as it was they who decided this catastrophe of death and suffering in the War had to continue to serve THEIR purposes."<br /> <br /> <br /> That a bunch of Zionists were telling Hitler and the Nazi's what to do isn't not substantiated anywhere, certainly not at the linked pages. The above is a FAR cry from simply stating that 'maybe it wasn't two million jews killed, maybe it was just 1.2 million' or something like that. To state that is no big deal, as quoted many historians are looking at that, even jewish ones. However, that zionists murdered the jews, not the germans, is a far different kettle of fish, and I'm sure your intellect can wrap itself around that.<br /> <br /> So the fact that somebody else besides me complained should tip you off, like I've said, I am a frequent complainer about censorship so it certainly is not the case that I am trying to stifle debate, as any poster here knows I debate as much as anybody. However, if this thread is what amounts to debate here nowadays, I'll definitely take my intellect elsewhere. But don't worry, I haven't ratted on anybody to the CJC. <br /> <br /> I DO in fact suffer fools very gladly, but not violent ones, so I'll suffer them elsewhere for awhile and check back in a few months when things have hopefully cooled down.

[whelan costen]

Perhaps that is a good idea Marcarc. From what I've read I sense this is personal and has little to do with the quote, because everytime you post it out of context as it is, it only reinforces that there was a group of people working with Hitler and that much of the horror could have been avoided had they not done what they did; just like other countries and many other people could have intervened but did not. That is the most painful aspect, and that I believe is the root of the problem. It is the shame, that nobody wants to bear! If we realize how many other people knew and did nothing, and that some were Canadians, some were other Jews in high places, or some were our ancestors then how could we sleep at night? So better to keep all this under the rug and just say, Hitler acted alone (with only his mindless robotic soldiers who couldn't think for themselves) and killed millions of people and he killed himself so end of story. <br /> <br /> I wonder how history will record the present day situation. One man acting alone, he had all of the others under his spell and we were helpless to stop him from destroying the planet? Everybody wash their hands and accept that we are helpless. We are not helpless and apparently history is revealing that others were not helpless and could have prevented the deaths of millions of people. That is something that should be discussed. Those who are to blame should be held accountable regardless of who they are, what their religion is, or their race or their association with any group. That is not hate speech, that is the pursuit of truth, exposing it to the light and let it be what it is.<br /> <br /> I've seen this happen so many times now where people protect their group, their leader, their affiliation over the truth. You cannot blame one in the group or hold them accountable without the group attacking you. When you criticize Harper you get the legions of his party jumping all over you, no matter if you have a valid point. I saw the same with the NDP, the same with CAP, I've seen it in the Catholic Church and I am convinced that this trend of group think is killling us. Those who are responsible, those who are culpable, are the ones who must be held answerable and we must stop this crazy protectionism that hurts all of us. It is that kind of thinking, that those who desire to serve themselves first, use to protect themselves from scrutiny or questioning from anyone.

[Marcarc]

Thats far from personal. If it looks bad out of context it is because it IS bad. This is not moral relativism, the above quote doesn't say, as the link says that some zionist leaders actively took part in badmouthing jews and lobbied against more aggression. Every country did that and every lobby did that. Canadians did that, the British did that. Chamberlain was a huge help to the germans, so were american and canadian corporations. That is all in the public record, however, to state that others were responsible for what Hitler and the Nazi's did is altogether different, and to state that it was zionists is hateful and WRONG. That is not a point to 'debate', when you are saying jews themselves are responsible for the holocaust thats a whole different playing field, and the quote says that SPECIFICALLY. So 'context' has nothing to do with it.

[whelan costen]

No that quote does not say that, but that is what you have interpreted it to say. I read it and I did not think for a minute that it was saying, what you are saying, at all. I sense it is personal because you have made threats towards Dio and the site; and then you say, 'Its ironic in a thread about censorship to see somebody threatening somebody else for what they said.'<br /> <br /> Perhaps you have thought you were doing a good deed and defending something that really does not need defending. Again I compare it to somebody saying, 'Catholic priests are bad because they abuse children' - that statement is false, however I wouldn't feel the need to report someone for saying it. Nor would I call it hate speech, but some people could. I would instead clarify the statement and say, 'you have made a generality here, because not all Catholic priests fit that description; the proper statement would be that some Catholic priests have done these things. There would be debate, discussion etc. <br /> <br /> What you are suggesting is that the topic cannot be discussed at all. That the writer had no right to write the words they did and that we cannot discuss the topic or their opinion. I say we can and should discuss it. Sadly the discussion itself has become more important now because of what you and action-jackson have done. Otherwise how does it fit with Canadian sovereignty? Only in the perspective of our freedom of speech. But that is one aspect of our freedom that cannot be allowed to be eroded by protectionism.

[Dr Caleb]

[QUOTE BY= Marcarc] Like I said, and clearly, it is only the last two paragraphs that I complained about, here it is once more, I didn't print it all because I find it so abhorant, but since its here to stay anyway I might as well post it:<br /> <br /> "So, in a pivotal sense, the Zionists were ultimately responsible for the Holocaust - as it was they who decided this catastrophe of death and suffering in the War had to continue to serve THEIR purposes."[/QUOTE]<br /> <br /> Go ahead, read the original article Dio was paraphrasing. You should quote the paragraph before it too, as it is out of context.<br /> <br /> <a href='http://www.jewsagainstzionism.com/antisemitism/holocaust/holocaustmillions.cfm'>Link</a><br /> <br /> Tell me it's revisionist. Tell me it's anti-semetic. tell me i'm threatening you with ideas. I notice you didn't post any links to the 10 - 12 front page and forumn revisionist/denial stories on Vive.<br /> <br /> Come on Marcarc, you are a much wiser man than this.<br /> <br /> If Neocons were responsible for 9/11 through an act of omission, is 'hate speech' to discuss alternate theories of 9/11 (anti-Christian)? If Swiss Jews and Americans and Canadians and British <b>could have saved millions</b>, but through an act of omission, did not - is it 'hate speech' to discuss this?

[Marcarc]

I didn't say there were stories like that on Vive, what I was saying is that there is a reason that the website has policies and rules for things they will not print, because otherwise there WOULD be that. The argument was about whether censorship should be allowed at all, all I was stating is a reason why it exists. To recap it, just go read Susan's original post. <br /> <br /> Hate speech is against a specific race, there is no such thing as a 'neo con' race. And again, to say that George Bush was responsible for 9/11 is ludicrous. Hell, Noam Chomsky is the biggest complainer about american policy and even he refuses to even acknowledge that. Even in the case where there is negligence that doesn't mean complicity. Yes, I read the whole article, I understand all those things mentioned, I understand the 'context', but as I said, to come to the conclusion that zionists were responsible for the holocaust is so far out in left field. <br /> <br /> But like I say, if you aren't a minority then you may have a harder time acknowledging the issue of hate speech. However, all I was doing is voicing a complaint, which is also free speech. I found the last post to be even worse as far as the rules of posting at Vive are concerned, but again, what is done about such things by moderators and owners of the site has nothing to do with me.<br /> <br /> Ironically, it just brings me around to agree with those two posters, because if the lies and threats that are posted in this thread are allowed then the offending initial posting certainly should be because its far more benign than the recent statements.

[Marcarc]

"in a pivotal sense, the Zionists were ultimately responsible for the Holocaust - as it was they who decided this catastrophe of death and suffering in the War had to continue"<br /> <br /> <br /> Thats taken out of context? What exactly am i missing here? The 'zionists were ultimately responsible for the holocaust' part? That's perfectly reasonable lets discuss it? Or the "it was they who decided this catastrophe of death and suffering had to continue"? So we should discuss this? It wasn't actually nazi's at all, in fact, there were no death camps, it was zionist spies who killed all those jews. That's the discussion you want to have?<br /> <br /> Zundel is currently in prison in germany for saying such things, and those are the discussions you want to start here? <br /> <br /> It's ironic that practising free speech is a 'threat'. I said that amounts to hate speech so I will complain to the CJC (as others have rightly done-something which Susan states she agrees with) and the moderator. Yet Dio can say 'I do not suffer fools gladly and I will be reporting you for not recanting what you said' without a problem? Welcome to lalaland.<br /> <br /> Again, if that is NOT hate speech then the CJC will not be interested. They were interested in that other article, and I think rightly so, and I'm not out on a limb here because Susan pulled the article and said she wouldn't have posted it-neither would I. But by all means start questioning who REALLY was responsible for the holocaust, just don't be surprised to hear from somebody lawyers...and no that's not a threat because seriously, I really don't care. I just feel bad for poor old Ed Baker who had such reasonable craziness that got censured. <br /> <br />

[whelan costen]

Marcarc, I think you are missing alot when you make a statement like this:<br /> "Thats taken out of context? What exactly am i missing here? The 'zionists were ultimately responsible for the holocaust' part? That's perfectly reasonable lets discuss it? Or the "it was they who decided this catastrophe of death and suffering had to continue"? So we should discuss this? It wasn't actually nazi's at all, in fact, there were no death camps, it was zionist spies who killed all those jews. That's the discussion you want to have?"<br /> <br /> Those are your words not mine. I have never denied the Holocaust happened or that millions of Jews were killed, and that there were death camps. Never! I have said repeatedly that this person is saying that certain people assisted the Germans in the extermination. You agree that people did so, in your statement above, you give examples of some you know assisted but this person is quoting historical facts to back up their belief that others were involved. That is what we should discuss, we should research, we should explore. I find that you are twisting words to make them as inflamatory as possible, when no one else is doing so. It has become clear to me that you do not wish to discuss rather you wish to inflame. Nobody is saying that Jews did this to themselves, get real! <br /> <br /> That is not what is being said and I think you know it, but rather than admit you were wrong you are further aggravating the situation. The Jewish people exterminated under Hitler were also Germans were they not? But of course not only Jews were killed, millions of other people were also killed as the elite persued their agenda. So generally speaking the German people didn't do it, nor did the Jewish people, but there were people involved who could probably claim to be both. That is not hate speech is it? So how can anyone say the Germans did this without being accused of saying the Jews did this to themselves? This is equally ridiculous. When all is said and done will we say that the Americans killed Saddam Hussein, and sacrificed thousands of innocent people in the Middle East or will we say that the American administration was responsible and all those who assisted, aided the regime? Is it possible that there are people in Iraq, or Afghanistan who are working for the regime? Could it happen? Would it be hate speech if those people are revealed? Who turned in Hussein and revealed his hiding spot? Not an American. To say that these people who are desiring to take more than their share and wage war on the rest do not have connections is ridiculous. None of the elite could do what they are doing now or what they have done in the past without connections everywhere. Would Jesus have been sold out by Judas if the elites didn't have a connection to Judas? NO. They had to have a way in, that is how it works. The environment plays a huge factor. People who are fearful often do things they wouldn't otherwise do. People will turn in their family members, as happened in Germany. Children turned on their parents. Does that equate to hate speech? No. <br /> <br /> You are entitled to your beliefs, as am I and we should be free to discuss. Your statement about 911 is further inflamatory, and I expect meant to be. Most people have said that we don't know who was responsible, who was behind the entire affair, because it was never investigated properly. So who knows who was really behind it? How can you say that others opinions or considerations are not acceptable, when there is no proof of anything? At this point martians could be responsible, (my apologies to the martians, just an example) because we don't really know do we? But if you take that to the extreme which you are doing with the other issue; it could be considered hate speech to blame Saudi's for the hijackings couldn't it? I mean they bombed the hell out of Afghanistan because bin Laden was their guy. There are connections everywhere and we do not know them all, we probably know very few.<br /> <br /> Saying, us against them, could be considered hate speech, when its taken as us against a whole race of people like saying all darkskinned people are suspect. Or like racial profiling etc etc. Yes I can see that as hate speech, or promoting an atmosphere where hate can occur. But looking for the facts behind an event is not quite the same thing. Hate speech incites others to dislike a race of people, that is not the case with this article is it? Nobody suggested that anybody hate anybody rather what is being said is, that the facts are not all in. <br /> <br /> My concern here is that if we are not allowed to discuss this, or 911 or any other issue, then it is not only freedom of speech in jeopardy, but also freedom of thought. If we cannot question official explanations of events, and are told what to believe then we are not free people are we?<br /> <br /> I suspect that your anger is that you were not treated to the same quick response as action-jackson and instead people have stood up for the truth. There is nothing hateful about the persons article. They are a Jew and have said so, they are questioning the official story and have said so. We are simply being offered another side of the story, which we can accept or not accept. We can research further if we like or we can disregard the whole thing. That is freedom. When someone else says NO you cannot even read it because it is just plain wrong, then we have a problem. That is what you are proposing. You have deemed the author to be wrong and therefore nobody should be allowed to read his opinion. I have never said whether I agree with their opinion or not. I have said they should have the right to write it and we the right to read it. <br /> <br /> This person wasn't inciting us to take up arms or attack anyone, or hate anyone. They are simply saying there is more to the story than we have heard in the past. The Rabbi who is quoted is obviously a Jew who is learned in Judaism so how can his writing be seen as hate speech against Jews? <br /> <br /> I don't know everything about this new legislation regarding Holocaust deniers, so I have to ask is it against the law for people to deny it happened or against the law to not accept the official version? Is it against the law to investigate and make up our own minds? Is it against the law to research history? Is it against the law to think?<br /> <br /> If it is against the law to deny the official version which the author of this article is doing, then will it also be against the law to deny the official version of 911, or the reasons for invading Iraq or that the NAU is on its way, or the secrecy behind the SPP? Is that the plan. One precedent after another to squash free speech? Will it be against the law to stand up to the corporate dictators, or to speak of their deeds? <br /> ...it is in affect simply taking away not <br /> only freedom of speech, but freedom of thought. There is no room <br /> for doubt in an Orwellian state is there????

[Diogenes]

"What exactly am i missing here?"<br /> Ah hem, May I hazard a quess or two, perhaps more?<br /> Your marbles?<br /> A few bricks of the load?<br /> Both oars in the water?<br /> A faulty evevator not going all the way up?<br /> But seriously,<br /> "...you have made threats towards Dio and the site; and then you say, 'Its ironic in a thread about censorship to see somebody threatening somebody else for what they said."<br /> <br /> oh yeah another thing you are missing is a sense of shame.<br /> common Decency and the ability to to "get It" what we all have been trying in vane to explain to you is just because you see it as you do doesn't make it so!<br /> it only makes it the way you see it.<br /> <br /> The fact that uyou are impossing your view ans threatening to notify CJC is by all definitions bullying<br /> <br /> ANd you *have* made it personal, which came back at you in the way it was given<br /> I went to the trouble to cite sourses for my assertions <br /> while you havenot! all you have done is dipsy-doodle and hold firm to self imposed falsehoods<br /> and errors in thinking<br /> <br /> I now realise the scope of your limitations and will show you a kindness reserved for those of your capasity<br /> <br /> Perhaps you feel powerless and your displays are a means to gain stature vioa creating a hubub there by gaining attention<br /> <br /> or well "as i said" kindness will be shown<br />