Holocaust Denial, American Style 29 Nov 2007

[Mavisbeacon]

"Merlin" <johndoe99@fastmail.fm> wrote in message
news:f8e10fd2-282b-45d4-98b6-88d1ef0e33f0@f52g2000hsa.googlegroups.com...
On Dec 20, 4:52 pm, "Mavisbeacon" <Mavisbea...@nospam.forme> wrote:
> "Merlin" <johndo...@fastmail.fm> wrote in message
>
> news:0889806a-49d1-4175-ac9d-7429e5c364d1@1g2000hsl.googlegroups.com...
>
>
>
>
>
> > On Dec 19, 9:31 am, "Mavisbeacon" <Mavisbea...@nospam.forme> wrote:
> >> "Prof. Cal Meacham" <t...@island.earth> wrote in
> >> messagenews:kqu2m3poqm0jbp1in6nkvumg14umvtol7o@4ax.com...> On Thu, 13
> >> Dec
> >> 2007 11:23:21 GMT, "Mavisbeacon"
> >> > <Mavisbea...@nospam.forme> mumbled:
>
> >> >>I wont rply to any more of your reposts
>
> >> > Marvy!
>
> >> [snip - off topic]
>
> >> Why don't you stick with trying to support your claims about Saddam
> >> supporting Islamic terrorists?
>
> > **** be-a-con, that's old news. IT'S ALREADY BEEN PROVEN THAT SADDAM
> > HUSSEIN SUPPORTED ISLAMIC TERRORISTS.
>
> Really ? Where? Care to show me?
>
>
>
> > Have you been sleeping?
>
> either I have or you are just lying. It should be simple to sort out which
> is which. all you have to do is post where it has already been shown!
>
> Care to oblidge by posting the actual evidence?

Exactly how many times do you have to be shown the evidence, asshole?



>ONCE might be a start!

No, I'm not showing it to you again, you ****ing idiot.

> you havent shown it before and you cant show wheer is proof enough of
> that!


Your argument is silly. You've been proven wrong already DOZENS OF
TIMES.

>Really? So you should have no problem showing where then shouldn't you?


But you just keep on coming with the bullshit "Show it to me".

> espically when you cant!


Your game is over, be-a-con. You've been shown the evidence. You'll
not be shown again, retardo boy.

> Claiming you have shown somithing is jusdt bald assertion!


Look it up yourself. It's public knowledge.

YOU ****ING IDIOT.
> you cant show it can you??

 

[Mavisbeacon]

"Prof. Cal Meacham" <this@island.earth> wrote in message
news:52k5m3d0ohtj1f9ll7skfgcmhhvsdk4987@4ax.com...
> On Fri, 14 Dec 2007 10:33:56 GMT, "Mavisbeacon"
> <Mavisbeacon@nospam.forme> mumbled:
>
>>
>>"Prof. Cal Meacham" <this@island.earth> wrote in message
>>newsou2m3t44uu8s69rdnkkrb44uhuhhce86v@4ax.com...
>>> On Thu, 13 Dec 2007 11:23:21 GMT, "Mavisbeacon"
>>> <Mavisbeacon@nospam.forme> mumbled:
>>
>>
>>>>>
>>>>> Silence by Murder
>>>>> For more than 20 years, Saddam Hussein has executed perceived
>>>>> opponents without respect for rule of law.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>Yes. so what?
>>>
>>>
>>> That's what I'm talking about - the permissive liberal do-nothing
>>> attitude.
>>>
>>
>>you completely MISS the point.
>
> http://www.contenderministries.org/islam/naskh.php
>
> ?Islam is a religion of peace.? That has been the motto repeated
> frequently by politicians, the media, and Islamic organizations on a
> frequent basis lately.

NOTHING to do with

> Since the terrorist attacks of September 11,
> 2001, many have tried to distance the peace-loving Muslims from those
> who commit terror by claiming that Islam really is a peaceful
> religion, and it has been ?hijacked? by extremists who do not practice
> the true, peaceful teachings of the Qur?an. But what is the truth?
> Is Islam really a religion of peace? What about all those verses in
> the Qur?an that speak of love and peace? In this article ? which will
> be a religious study rather than political ? we?ll examine what the
> Qur?an says about love, peace, war, and jihad, and how these
> reconcile.

But the Bible has similar verses. One can not say this means Christianity
supports violence and terrorism?
[snip - this type of stuff is referred to below.]
>
> In Medina, Muhammad faced less resistance, and his band of followers
> grew in number. As his following swelled, his tone of peaceful
> co-existence began to change to one of preparation. He was not simply
> enlarging a body of religious converts; he was raising an army. He
> had not forgotten Mecca or the Quraysh tribe, and he had plans for
> them. His followers multiplied to a number that was at first,
> influential. Then they surpassed merely influential and became
> dominant. Muhammad had his army. His writings shifted from
> preparation to jihad. He would now increase his following by
> conquest. The sword replaced the pen as his means for proselytizing.
> His army waged war on the ?unbelievers,? and Muhammad personally led
> the charge in dozens of battles. His revelations on jihad became
> bolder and more specific, and his religion became political as he
> sought to make the Arabian lands submit to Islam.
>
> With that history in mind, it is easier to understand that the
> portions of the Qur?an Muhammad wrote in Mecca have more of a ?let?s
> get along? ring to them. The portions he wrote in Medina, especially
> after he began his conquests, spoke more of forced conversion and
> spreading Islam through conquest (wars of jihad). Using the principle
> of naskh, these later writings supercede any contradictory statements
> written earlier.
>
> Does the Qur?an speak of a religion of peace, love, and forgiveness?
> It certainly does. Does the Qur?an also speak of jihad and conquest
> against non-Muslims? Yes, this is also true. The mujahadeen (those
> who wage jihad) are those who correctly understand the principle of
> naskh, and practice the doctrine of jihad against the infidels. They
> have not hijacked Islam. They practice the fundamental teachings of
> their prophet.
>
Yes and Christianity had similar warlike phases. But as to the violent
verses of the Koran you can find even more here:

http://skepticsannotatedbible.com/quran/cruelty/long.html

512 cruel/violent quotes form the Koran

and on the same site you can also find this:

http://skepticsannotatedbible.com/cruelty/long.html

871 instances of cruelty/violence from the Bible

and this:

http://skepticsannotatedbible.com/BOM/cr/long.html
141 examples from the Book of Mormon.

 

[Smokey Stover]

Mavisbeacon wrote:

> But the Bible has similar verses.

But no one is chopping heads for Jesus.

Hth, Die real soon.

 

[Don Homuth]

On Mon, 24 Dec 2007 20:28:11 GMT, Smokey Stover <red@fire.truck>
wrote:

>Mavisbeacon wrote:
>
>> But the Bible has similar verses.
>
>But no one is chopping heads for Jesus.

Not any more. Xtianity is currently over the phase of its
developmental history, it would seem.

 

[David Vincent]

On Mon, 24 Dec 2007 14:40:26 -0800, Don Homuth
<dhomuthoneatcomcast.net@> mumbled:

>On Mon, 24 Dec 2007 20:28:11 GMT, Smokey Stover <red@fire.truck>
>wrote:
>
>>Mavisbeacon wrote:
>>
>>> But the Bible has similar verses.
>>
>>But no one is chopping heads for Jesus.
>
>Not any more. Xtianity is currently over the phase of its
>developmental history, it would seem.

It had a reformation, Islime is still in the stone age.

 

[Mavisbeacon]

"Smokey Stover" <red@fire.truck> wrote in message
news:vDUbj.109448$q04.47221@fe10.news.easynews.com...
> Mavisbeacon wrote:
>
>> But the Bible has similar verses.
>
> But no one is chopping heads for Jesus.
>

Well they preferred crucifixion and burning at the stake actually.
ever heard of Salem?

Other Christian cults have poisoned people. Jim Jones springs to mind. and
WACO.

 

[Mavisbeacon]

"David Vincent" <invaders@earth.ufo> wrote in message
news9h0n39a0s5m080q1adp7rr3gkjfqs2n6n@4ax.com...
> On Mon, 24 Dec 2007 14:40:26 -0800, Don Homuth
> <dhomuthoneatcomcast.net@> mumbled:
>
>>On Mon, 24 Dec 2007 20:28:11 GMT, Smokey Stover <red@fire.truck>
>>wrote:
>>
>>>Mavisbeacon wrote:
>>>
>>>> But the Bible has similar verses.
>>>
>>>But no one is chopping heads for Jesus.
>>
>>Not any more. Xtianity is currently over the phase of its
>>developmental history, it would seem.
>
> It had a reformation, Islime is still in the stone age.

No actually Islam was a contributing factor to the Renaissance. The
Reformation was not about changing 200 year old values so much a as
political power structures. Islam never had a Pope. And Christianity was
never in the Stone Age no more than Islam was.

 

[Merlin]

On Dec 24, 10:24

 

[Merlin]

On Dec 9, 5:47

 

[Merlin]

On Dec 5, 5:03

 

[Merlin]

On Dec 8, 2:51

 

[Mavisbeacon]

"Merlin" <johndoe99@fastmail.fm> wrote in message
news:89b7f123-676d-4e04-8989-81b4e6fdfd7c@e10g2000prf.googlegroups.com...
On Dec 24, 10:24 am, "Mavisbeacon" <Mavisbea...@nospam.forme> wrote:

> But the Bible has similar verses. One can not say this means Christianity
> supports violence and terrorism?

So you want to prove that Christians and Muslims are similar in
history? That they both have millions of lives that they've ended
unjustly?


> No. I never claim that did I? clearly I claimed that if one wishes to be
> fundamentalist on texts then the Bible has texts just like the Koran has.


Hell, I'll concede that! ****ing religous nuts have murdered people
for countless thousands of years.

> And actually you would be wrong if you assumed they caused more death than
> NON religious regimes.


Muslims are with no doubt what-so-ever, the most active at it as a
group, today.

> Really? Your evidence for this claim is based on what exactly?


Does that in some way make it ok by you, be-a-con? Does that justify
all the death?


> Your logic is confused. I didn't justify ANY killing. Quite the opposite.
> But I pointed to the weakness in the argument in those claiming Islamic
> scripture had a monopoly on violence.


I just asked you four questions. See for a ****ing change of you can
answer them PRIOR to asking your own.


> I thik I just did . didnt I?


I'm betting that you wont answer them and will ask your own and expect
me to answer.

> Well I looks like you just lost you bet. doesn't it? If you think my
> answers are unclear please point out what you don't understand. Won't you?

 

[Mavisbeacon]

"Merlin" <johndoe99@fastmail.fm> wrote in message
news:1b4dc96a-4e92-4dd3-94a5-856baff4bc53@w56g2000hsf.googlegroups.com...
On Dec 9, 5:47 am, "Mavisbeacon" <Mavisbea...@nospam.forme> wrote:

> So then was Noraid which depended on Americans donating money and the
> Brirish and Irish government a recruting agency for the IRA? They all gave
> money , houses, allowances to the families of convicted or dead
> terrorists!
>
> Clearly, giving something to the wife or children of a dead terrorist is
> not
> in and of itself a "payment" not does it constitute the signing of on a
> terrorism "contract"!

You are a ****ing loser, be-a-con. The IRA wasn't a terrorist group.


> It most certainal WAS!


It was a group of Irish Patriots who defended their occupied country
against the oppressing British invaders.


> So you believe the North of ireland is occupied and British soldiers and
> police should be killed there as the IRA did? You would >then be a
> terrorism supporter? LOL! You didn't contribute to NORAID did you?


Just ****s you up when someon uses your own bullshit against you,
doesn't it?

> Well why don't you tell me what a
>"terrorist group" is and I will show you how wrong you are in regard to the
>IRA based on YOUR OWN definition?


Maybe you should go argue with some pre-schoolers. That way, you'd all
be on the same level.

> Maybe you should actually deal with your nonsensical claim of the IRA not
> being a terrorist organisation?

 

[Mavisbeacon]

"Merlin" <johndoe99@fastmail.fm> wrote in message
news:e09fc577-281c-49dd-a7a1-b687c8db01fb@f52g2000hsa.googlegroups.com...
On Dec 5, 5:03 am, "Mavisbeacon" <Mavisbea...@nospam.forme> wrote:

> So where is your evidence to support YOUR CLAIM that WMD and Al Khyda
> training camps were in Iraq prior to invasion?

THE EVIDENCE HAS ALREADY BEEN GIVEN TO BE-A-CON.

> It hasent or if it was so easy he would reproduce it? all Merlin probably
> at best reproduced was a cut and paste quote from a neocon website which
> was almost a verbatum transcript of Colin Powells Speech to the UN .
> almost all requests for "evidence" result in this! But Powell himself
> regretted that speech and admitted he was wrong! There is nt any evidence
> I have seen yet1 When I see evidence of WMD as claimed in Iraq or when I
> see evidence of Saddam supporting Al Qaeda then Ill admit it. UNSUPPORTED
> CLAIMS of evidence are just unsupported claims!

It isnt for me to show they are wrong. it is for the claimant to support it.
It is called "burden of proof".


[snip]

AFTER HAVING IT PROVEN TO HIM, HE THEN TRIED LIKE A LITTLE BOY TO SAY
"WHAAAAAAAAAAA, SADDAM DIDN'T CONTROL THAT PART OF IRAQ!

> Saddam didn't support Al Khyda training camps in Iraq. Iraq was apparently
> invaded because Saddam supported islamists but I can find no evidence of
> Saddam doing so. The Us currently occupy Iraq and Afghanistan and
> Islamists train there. that does not mean the US support Islamists does
> it? Mind you they did support the MuJIHADeen when Saddam didnt!


WHAT TOTAL BULLSHIT. SADDAM HUSSEIN WAS A DICTATOR OF IRAQ.

So what? Pinochet was dictator of Chile. what has that to do with supporting
Islamists?

HE
CONTROLLED THE ENTIRE COUNTRY.

> no he didnt1 quite clearly there were No fly zones and there was the
> "autonomous" region in the North. the Kurdish region. the region in which
> these Islamists operated! But the Kurds were not fond of them either.


THE PEOPLE OF IRAQ HATED HIM, SO SOME
OF THEM FOUGHT HIS DICTATORSHIP.

Yes. Including some Islamists. Bu7t in the region Saddam controlled he
quashed all opposition. Including Islamist opposition!


BE-A-CON IS TRYING TO SAY THAT EVEN
THOUGH SADDAM WAS AWARE OF THE TERRORIST TRAINING FACILITIES AND
ACTIVE TERRORISTS WORKING FROM HIS DICTATOR CONTROLLED IRAQ,

> THey were not in the part of Iraq he controlled so that claim is in error!


THAT
SADDAM WASN'T IN ABSOLUTE CONTROL OF THAT AREA, SO IT DOESN'T MATTER.

> I didnt say it didnt matter either! I stated that Saddam didnt SUPPORT
> them! In fact Saddam OPPOSED them! And US intelligence reports bear
> witness to that!


WHAT TOTAL BULLSHIT.

> Well there is your OPINION and then there is the weight of the US
> intelligence and security community. forgive me if you do not accept you
> bullshit line.


SADDAM HUSSEIN WAS FULLY AWARE THAT TERRORIST TRAINING CAMPS WERE
ACTIVE IN IRAQ

> He was aware of some of them yes. ALL of which were in remote parts
> Saddam's forces didnt control! I mean are yu a total fool? the US army
> rolled over the entire Iraqi forces four years ago. The US had
> overwhelming Military superiority. They have been over FOUR YEARS in Iraq
> and even this overwhelming force has NOT stopped Islamists for training or
> attacking in Iraq!


AND THAT TERRORIST OPERATIONS WERE BEING CONDUCTED FROM
THE BASE OPERATIONS WITHIN IRAQ.


>Well some from Iran Afghanistan and Pakistan but some training was done in
>parts of iraq not controlled by Saddam. That is true. Well at least I
>believe it is true based on US congressional reports and Intelligence
>agencies briefings.

But there were no Terrorists working with or training in Saddam controlled
Iraq. as far as I am aware. FO course if you are aware of ANY you will tell
us all wont you?

Im waiting for you evidence but i haven't seen any yet!

 

[Mavisbeacon]

"Merlin" <johndoe99@fastmail.fm> wrote in message
news:627009ac-fc9b-4aba-aca8-8e4527604340@j20g2000hsi.googlegroups.com...
On Dec 8, 2:51 pm, "Mavisbeacon" <Mavisbea...@nospam.forme> wrote:

> In fact it might well be that there were NO WMD in Iraq for a at least 5
> years before the US occupation!

"MIGHT WELL BE"


> Yes it isnt for me to prove a negitive -NO WMD. It is for those claiming
> them to prove them!


BE-A-CON, YOU'RE A SLIMY PIECE OF ****. IN MANY OF YOUR POSTS, YOU
CLAIMED THAT THEIR WERE NONE!


> I do not believe there were any. But i can claim none as I can't prove a
> negative. Nor can I prove no tooth fairy or no unicorns!

[snip ad hominem]

 

[Lobby Dosser]

Merlin <johndoe99@fastmail.fm> wrote:

> The IRA wasn't a terrorist group.
> It was a group of Irish Patriots who defended their occupied country
> against the oppressing British invaders.
>
>

Using terrorism.

 

[Sid9]

Lobby Dosser wrote:
> Merlin <johndoe99@fastmail.fm> wrote:
>
>> The IRA wasn't a terrorist group.
>> It was a group of Irish Patriots who defended their occupied country
>> against the oppressing British invaders.
>>
>>
>
> Using terrorism.

Placing bombs in public places in London is terrorism.

Negotiations eventually resolved the problem.

We can easily handle the Arabs by negotiations.

jr chose war....the worst way.

 

[Lobby Dosser]

"Sid9" <sid9@bellsouth.net> wrote:

> Lobby Dosser wrote:
>> Merlin <johndoe99@fastmail.fm> wrote:
>>
>>> The IRA wasn't a terrorist group.
>>> It was a group of Irish Patriots who defended their occupied country
>>> against the oppressing British invaders.
>>>
>>>
>>
>> Using terrorism.
>
> Placing bombs in public places in London is terrorism.
>
> Negotiations eventually resolved the problem.
>
> We can easily handle the Arabs by negotiations.

Well, no. The Caliphate requires the world to convert to Islam.

>
> jr chose war....the worst way.
>
>
>
>

 

[Merlin]

On Dec 26, 12:13

 

[Merlin]

On Dec 26, 5:57