i would ban noctis for forfeiting

i could imagine he is doing this on purpose
http://esreality.com/post/2571432/re-faceit-w...pid2571432

and? ban him to set an example

I think I remember you having a different opinion on Agent's forfeits.

yes, im obviously making fun from all these "ban agent" guys :D

forfeit is part of game, especially when you get reped by evil.

I'm glad you care so much about political correctness...

yh, unlucky, im banned

ouch gg

KLOP!

hey, at least the dog looks happy

and who doesn't like quavers

Even if he doesn't get any Quavers, at least he gets to ingest something warm and proteic.

)=

any vod of this match ? was it faceit ?

yh, semis i think

Everything west of east ukraine is fascist, so what is the big deal?

I don't see how this is in any way racist.. Same rase lol

a) race
b) what evil said was the victory slogan used by the biggest racist of all time.

lol poor germans.

Biggest racism of all time = Talmud = israel. ftfy k thx np.

He wrote "biggest racist", not "biggest racism".

Let's not argue about how to quantify the amount of racism, because I don't feel like this would be a useful discussion.

But I do think it's sound to say that Hitler can be reasonably called the "biggest racist", as in "the most dangerous and most destructive racist".

Evil wrote his victory slogan and mandatory salute. Twice. To someone who was born in the same country. That's not racist, but it's the most offensive, nation-directed insult because it implies a personal connection to racism.

It is time for you to realise my german brother that it is the sionists that made you think so, because for them jewish so called "holocaust" is over any other genocides, the most important! It's the only crime against humanity , it tops the list. But there was much worse.

Shoah has gone to a point where it is a religion. Germans are so brainwashed from their birth that they dont understand that they should not give money and reparations to sionist because what happened was 70 years ago and they are not responsible for what the previous generation did because that's tribalism.

Moreover talking about 2nd WW is like a crime nowadays. A 12yo asking a simple and sincere questions like : "why hitler wanted to kick the jewish out of german lands?" in shcool can be fired from school nowadays. What's next? Prosternations of the presidents are not enough it seems they want to fuck our children's brain from the begining.

And then, when you watch israel... you are just speechless, the same jewish politicians that in EU ask for human rights (lol) and shits like that in israel are exactly like nazi, praising racial state and supremacy. rofl. How is it even possible in 2014. Well it's simple, they are tied to USA.

It's the only crime against humanity , it tops the list.

These are two different things. Nobody says it's the only crime. Maybe it doesn't top the list by some criteria you may set, but that's not the point. Argueing about the severity of human crimes and comparing them against each other is a perverse and inhuman thing to do and I'm glad that children and teenagers aren't trained or told to do these kinds of comparisons.

You are calling the education about the cruelties commited by the Third Reich -- which is done in an attempt to keep a nation, a continent, a world from making these mistakes again -- "brainwashing". That's not helping, that's a dangerous path.

I'm not saying that you are wrong about racism currently being an issue in lots of places around the world, I'm just saying it's not at all relevant to how we deal with the history of the Third Reich.

You have all the right to call attention to racism anywhere in the world (even though I still think this is completely off-topic), but I don't approve of the relativism you endorse. It reminds me of how present-day neo-nazis in Germany argue: "Yeah, the Third Reich was somewhat bad, but there's zionism and the British bombed our cities and and and ..."

That's why I intitially wrote:

Let's not argue about how to quantify the amount of racism, because I don't feel like this would be a useful discussion.

"Argueing about the severity of human crimes and comparing them against each other is a perverse and inhuman thing to do and I'm glad that children and teenagers aren't trained or told to do these kinds of comparisons" i agree but that's not what I do, that's what sionist are doing.

i agree but that's not what I do, that's what sionist are doing.

Yeah... get lost.

Why are you even trying to have a debate with him?

If you are refering to my post #35: Judging from his replies #22 and #33, I didn't realize what scum he is. I just thought he was a little naive and unarticulate. Looking at the posts again, I obviously didn't read them carefully enough the first time to notice the signs of his ideology.

And why did I have another discussion with him in this thread which was aimed at figuring out in what way he would deny and downplay the holocaust? Actually I'm not entirely sure. Maybe it's fascination with the extent of his insanity, maybe it's curiosity to see how dumb he actually is and maybe it's partly a hope that he will end up saying a single sensible thing. Didn't work out, I know.

It definitely tops the list - it was the only continuous industrialized mass murder in documented history.

But then I don't know if you are trying to troll or if you just very very special.

"it was the only continuous industrialized mass murder in documented history"

You so clueless. Not only Hitler never had the idea to extermine the jews (he wanted to get them out of geman lands, and was close to sionist who were already trying to buy a lot of lands in Palestine, there was even money created with david star and swastika in the other side... in palestine), even during the Nurimberg (lol) process and after during decades historians searched proof of that extermianation order and didn't found any.

In this time of history camps were common and the first ones were not even in Germany.

You so fucking clueless that is depressing... i think im gonna stop posting on such a retarded forum lol.

Yes, please stop talking.

It is true that others have build prison camps and it is true, that others have mass murdered people. However the Nazis were the only ones to industrialize it. So yeah, the Nazi KZs were quite a different story than all the other 'camps' that were/are around.

Go read a history book.

there was no "industrialised" genocide but i can't talk about it more due to repressive laws in my country (thx to sionist lobby) otherwise i might go to jail. yeah freedom of speech lol.

2 things you might wanna check :
- which laws were used during the Nurimberg "process". You might get surprised to discover that NO EVIDENCES were required to validate a testimonial.
- which fact of the ww2 have a law that forbin scientists to make researchs on.

My family visited auschwitz birkenau, even the people working there and making the visite told them the truth.

I actualy love history books/literature/paper.

Reminds me of a chiness proverb : if you want to know were to go, see were you come from.

edit : censored some stuff. thx to freedom of speech.

u r funny :)

there was no "industrialised" genocide but i can't talk about it more due to repressive laws in my country

My family visited auschwitz birkenau, even the people working there and making the visite told them the truth.

Oooookay, so you're on your track to denying the holocaust now? I initially thought you were just inarticulate, but it turns out you're a lunatic.

I actualy love history books/literature/paper.

And let my guess, by pure coincidence, all those are written by anti-Zionist, holocaust-denying lunatics like you. If you're searching for a case of brainwashing, than take a good look at how they made you believe that there wasn't abundance of evidence available for the Nürnberger Prozesse and that there is a law restricting research on WW2.

In NO WAY am i denying jewish genocide your country made. Germany had put jewish, resistants, handicaped, roms, and homosexuals to camps and left them starve to death. I didnt wanted to bring thoose arguments to the table but since you are going down this road with me : i had family members dying killed by germans, you think i try to defend nazi realy? Learn to read.

I actualy read a lot of jewish literature and i love it, and yes jewish doesn't necessary means sionist.

i think we are going to a point where you just want to disagree. Either u have no knowledge or you have interrest in doing so, or both.

you think media+school is enough to say "i know", well ok but then you are not inclined to learn anything that doesnt fit your formated opinion. While i am completly ready to learn something, thing is you have nothing to bring to the table except phrases made with adjectives and calling me names. Phrases empty of any argumentation.

Do you agree that there was an industrial use by the Nazis of gas chambers to exterminate Jews and other populations, yes or no?

While I don't fully agree with how samuel describes it (I believe he also has some difficulty to express himself in a good english which diminishes his ability to answer correctly to his counterparts), I am yet to be shown a real proof of the use of gasing by the nazis. Showing pictures and claiming that is what happens doesn't do it for me.

While I'm open to be told evidences that would definetly make my mind on the subject once and for all, for the time beeing let me be skeptic about it as it is my fundamental right as a rationnal human beeing.

Gasing an individual in the US used to be one way to sentence some prisonners to death a couple decades (more or less) before the WW2 and it was no easy process. It would take days to prepare the process in a very tightly closed chamber to avoid any leak and a very complex gas evacuation system after the death of the sentenced individual. After the death, the body is impregnated by the gas and there are dozens of precautions to be taken into account before even moving the body.

And some people want to make me believe those gas chambers were rooms where they'd put hundreds of people packed to the roof only held by a single wooden door ? And then they would transport all of those bodies one by one into those ovens that can barely contain one person at a time, two at best ? And then they would burn in 10 minutes to mere ashes ?

I'm sorry but I will need more than pictures and various assertions all trying to make me believe that what a war court in 1946 was all true, eventhough, as Samuel already said, there was no need for evidence (that you can check by yourself).

So as much as I believe the nazis have packed jews into concentration camps and have made them work and starve to death, I find it hard to believe they have used gas chambers to exterminate them for various reasons, some of them I have already listed above.

But as I said I'm ready to be given a lecture with undeniable proofs that those gas chambers were real.

dont you even fucking dare to say the horror created by nazis in my fucking homeland did not exist.

there are pleanty of literature about it. here, a link to wikipedia, its got references so you can check it out.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Zyklon_B

I'm not saying it did not exist, I'm saying it's very unlikely from what I can tell. And I never said I was convinced in one way or another.

Can you really not point me to some direction instead of throwing a huge list of sources ? You seem to have been convinced, so there has to be one or two sources in particular that I should check to spare some time ?

i never had to read anything about it, because my grandpa was eye witness, and worker in a concentration camp.

so sowwy, cant help you in that direction

does your grandpa still live? eye-witnesses are pretty rare, especially people who work in concentration camps. i'd be honoured if u asked him some questions for me!

sadly he passed away some time ago :<

Wow dem0n you just lost all my respect. Never go full retard.

Sorry for trying to use my brain.

If gobbling up without checking for yourself is your philosophy of life then I won't be too much fussed about losing your respect.

I've done nothing wrong except ask questions and beeing given answers. If anything, everyone here including me and my counterparts have been adding up to their knowledge on the matter.

So sorry for elevating people's knowledge. :)

As many others have given proof to in this thread there is sufficient evidence, documentation and scientific research about the topic. There is no reason to doubt that nazis used gas chambers unless you're completely oblivious or a massive troll. And your trying to bring this lunatic of a holocaust denier into the discussion certainly didn't help my impression of you.

Well, he is right to question things. There was many propaganda stuff done by both sides, some of the evidences against the nazis had to be thrown out because they were revealed as forged by the allies. People used to believe they made soaps and lamps from jews, but as it stands now that was most likely untrue. So questioning things is not a bad thing. And I'm not a holocaust denier before you say that, but I get where they come from and I disapprove of the witchhunt against them. In many countries it's a crime to deny holocaust. I think people should believe what they want, even if it's the most ridiculous shit on Earth. And I don't see anything wrong with voicing your beliefs either, it's never forced on anybody.

nazis actually made soap out of human fat.

there is documentation of whole technological process. however it never went into mass production, as it smelled badly, and people refused to use it.

As many others have given proof to in this thread there is sufficient evidence, documentation and scientific research about the topic.

I haven't seen any proof. Could you show me that, must have missed it.

Fuck off.

I really don't understand why any sensible human should even have any motivation for doubting the use of gas chambers for mass murder. Let me try to explain why.

I hope we agree on the following facts:
- Concentration camps were (among other crimes) used for systematic genocide.
- The number of people having been systematically killed cannot be contested.
- There were gas chambers and they were used. [You "only" doubt their "efficiency", if I understand you correctly.]

Now, assuming you agree with these facts (please tell me if you don't and if so, why), I don't see a single reason why the Allies (or whoever you think might have invented the lie of gas chambers?) should have made up how exactly the genocide was conducted.

People were made to work till death, tortured, killed by medical experimentation, starved to death, and so many other terrible things. Why, seriously why, should there be any incentive to lie about the efficiency of certain methods of murder? What would be the adventage of convincing the public that a large amount of deportees was killed in gas chambers instead of being shot, or starved to death, or numerous other means of murder? Why would historians, to this day, keep up this lie? What could this possibly change?

But as I said I'm ready to be given a lecture with undeniable proofs that those gas chambers were real.

I'm really sure that there a countless of lectures given regularly all over the world by experts on this topic. Why wouldn't there? Go to a university and hear a lecture about it? Go read a book full of evidence written by a respected historian? Are you seriously claiming that you tried to look for this kind of stuff and couldn't find any? I can't possibly believe this.

But let me help you.
Here are some quotes you may want to look at.

The Jews were (...) taken to the cellar and across the ramp into the back of a gas van holding from 50-70 people each (Opel Blitz) and up to 150 (Magirus). When the van was full, the doors were shut and the engine started, pumping fumes into the rear compartment.[15] After about 5–10 minutes, the victims were killed by asphyxiation. Witnesses heard their screams as they were dying. The vans full of corpses were driven 4 km (2.5 mi) to the forest Waldlager camp, to previously excavated mass graves.

The SS-Sonderkommando "Lange" was supplied with three gas vans, assigned by the RSHA in Berlin, for killing mass numbers of victims. (...) On June 5, 1942 inspector Becker wrote to Obersturmbannfuhrer Rauff in RSHA that, by using just three vans on the Eastern Front (the Opel-Blitz and the larger Saurerwagen), without any faults, they were able to "process" 97,000 captives in less than six months between December 1941 and June 1942.[7]

Or the testimony by Rudolf Höss:

"I commanded Auschwitz until 1 December 1943, and estimate that at least 2,500,000 victims were executed and exterminated there by gassing and burning, and at least another half million succumbed to starvation and disease, making a total dead of about 3,000,000. This figure represents about 70% or 80% of all persons sent to Auschwitz as prisoners, the remainder having been selected and used for slave labor in the concentration camp industries."

edit:

You wrote:

Can you really not point me to some direction instead of throwing a huge list of sources ? You seem to have been convinced, so there has to be one or two sources in particular that I should check to spare some time ?

Are you serious? You want one or two sources that will educate you very quickly and with all the necessary facts neatly presented about how millions of people were killed in dozens or even hundreds of places all over Europe? Either you put in an effort yourself to find out whether your doubts are correct or you should really believe the community of historians and their scientific work using the insane amounts of evidence and eye-witnesses.

You don't go around saying "I think that Darwin's theory of evolution is nonsense. I find it too complicated and it just doesn't make much sense to me. You now have to give me a single source I can quickly look at in order to convince me differently!". Why the hell would you do this in regards to gas chambers?

Dude, I'm only skeptical about the gas chambers, I have been very specific about that so half of your question marks are just wasted. Surely I don't need to read 100 books to be convinced of the reality of gas chambers during the WW2. Surely one good book written by a prominent historian/scientist/researcher should be enough. I have other fields of interest and I'm not willing to be an expert in that domain.

I just stumbled accross other prominent historians that happened to question the existence of gas chambers and I have had to admit during those readings that nothing really had been presented to me that could constitute an undeniable proof that the said gas chambers existed. That's what I'm talking about here.

I consider that implying that I would deny the concentration camps or the systematic persecution of the jews by the nazis in your post is as much an insult to my intelligence as it is to assert that the gas chambers existed without presenting me proofs of it.

If you truly want to educate me on that matter then point me to a direction. Because wether you like it or not, those who contest the reality of gas chambers and me listening to them is already a form of research on that matter.

I don't see what kind of benefits it gave to Robert Faurisson to make a 70 minutes video explaining why he has, during his research at various concentration camps, come to the conclusion that there was no evidence of said gas chambers and, on the contrary, various evidences that it just can not be possible (or at the very least, very unlikely since the risks are higher than the "gain" if I can even put it like that lol).
He was a respected university teacher and a specialist in sources criticism. Now he's a pariah and it's been long since he can not count the number of assaults he suffered on the fingers of his hands. What exactly did he have to gain from doing that ? That alone deserves some attention to say the least.

Why, seriously why, should there be any incentive to lie about the efficiency of certain methods of murder? What would be the adventage of convincing the public that a large amount of deportees was killed in gas chambers instead of being shot, or starved to death, or numerous other means of murder? Why would historians, to this day, keep up this lie? What could this possibly change?

Exactly. There's nothing else but the mere research for the truth, that's all. You're right, it will not change anything in the end. The horrors of this dark period of our history will not be altered. So why are you going crazy about it ? I'm only looking for the truth...


And what the hell is the link with Darwin's theory really... Or its difficult understanding ? What do you want me to do, dump all of what I'm doing in the trash can and start a 10 year long research on the WW2 ? Will I get paid for that ? Then what, I can finally discuss about it ? I certainly hope you're one of the best WW2 specialist in Germany for you to say that to me. I think we've all been flooded enough with WW2 documentaries or museum/concentration camps visits or commemorations or classes during our lifetime to have even a little clue. I know more about what happened during WW2 than my own fucking kings...

Just point me to a few good books of yours already. Or have you read any at all yourself ? Is that the reason of your banter ? I've given you hints of what I'm looking for: what happened in the concentration camps between 1942 and 1945. Surely you can recommend a good handful of books to begin with, then maybe I can get hooked and become the world's best specialist. Until then, pls edukat me.

I just stumbled accross other prominent historians that happened to question the existence of gas chambers

Okay, cool, that sounds intriguing. I'm ready to hear some examples. You bring one example, at least:

I don't see what kind of benefits it gave to Robert Faurisson to make a 70 minutes video explaining why he has, during his research at various concentration camps, come to the conclusion that there was no evidence of said gas chambers and, on the contrary, various evidences that it just can not be possible (or at the very least, very unlikely since the risks are higher than the "gain" if I can even put it like that lol).

I remember watching some parts of his speak a couple of years ago. I started watching it again and 6 minutes in he says, translating the German audio into English, that "there's no proof at all that Hitler ever ordered or intended the murder of Jews because they are Jews".

Now, I can only speculate why he would say such things and what "benefits" he expected to gain.

First of all, he's not a historian, but a literary scholar; apparently he was known to be a provocative literatary scholar at that and he rarely received support from his colleagues. So he may just suffer from dementia and think that he is correct with what he says or that his being provocative about the holocaust is useful to society -- even though none of this is the case. This first option is unlikely, but possible.

My second guess is that he may be a failed, old, anti-Semitic fuckwit who is looking for attention or some sort of revenge by denying the holocaust. That seems very likely.

The third option would be that he is actually right when claiming that Hitler never ordered or intended genocide. That is impossible, though.

So now, I don't know and I don't care whether it's the first or the second option.

I do, however, find it extremely unsettling and baffling that an apparently intelligent human being like you believes any of his words and even uses him to support your doubts on the usage of gas chambers.
Please, for the love of god, either (a) explain to me why you do that or (b) stop fucking doing it.

The third option would be that he is actually right when claiming that Hitler never ordered or intended genocide. That however, is, impossible.

I must admit that this is him playing with words and is probably unnecessary. But whatever really. Wether there's a recorded proof or an authentic document where he ever says or states that he wants the jews exterminated is up in the air in my opinion. Genocide or not, it's just playing with definitions at this point. Hitler did persecute the jews and the horrors perpetrated by the nazis are there for anyone to see.

What I'm concerned about isn't that part of the documentary however. We've been talking about gas chambers .

I would advise you to look at the documentary that has english subtitles rather than german dubs. So far I've not seen any real problems with the translation in the english subtitles.

Why is it baffling you that I'm listening to a highly intellectual individual with a university degree (eventhough it is indeed as you've pointed out a literary one and not a history one) ? Were you expecting some random dumb fuckwit talking out of his arse somewhere in his basement ? He does have credentials atleast.

Edit: and wether I like it or not, he does raise some questions. I'm just wondering why you will not just listen to what he has to say and then give a counter argument from all the enciclopedic knowledge you (seem to) have acquired around that topic. In other words: start going to the core of what he has to SAY rather than systematically try to shut him down for whatever reason (maybe he's antisemitic, maybe he's demential, he was a literary specialist not a historian and blablabla).

Let's sum this up.

A "highly intellectual individual with a university degree" is "playing with words" about how exactly Hitler ordered or intended to kill Jews in order to deny the holocaust. You call this "unnecessary". I call this completely unethical and insulting to anyone who suffered due to Hitler's leadership (which would be a reasonably large percentage of the world population during that time); and, for that reason I believe, it is illegal to do.

You just confirmed that he is a former literary professor using semantics in his speech in order to deny the holocaust. It is very clear that he is a terrible person led by terrible motives, or crazy, or both. Do you seriously think differently?

and wether I like it or not, he does raise some questions.

Why do you care about the questions he raises? Why would you give a fuck about this asshole who uses semantics in order to deny the holocaust? I really don't get it.

What I'm concerned about isn't that part of the documentary however. We've been talking about gas chambers .

Why are you so keen to isolate some random part out of the speech of this asshole? Because it confirms to some of your beliefs? This confirmation is completely worthless if it doesn't come from a decent human being. It is even alarming that your beliefs are confirmed by this fuckwit. Why the hell am I even explaining this?

Why are you so keen to isolate some random part out of the speech of this asshole? Because it confirms to some of your beliefs? This confirmation is completely worthless if it doesn't come from a decent human being. It is even alarming that your beliefs are confirmed by this fuckwit. Why the hell am I even explaining this?

Because that's the whole point of this documentary ? Hell, that's even in the title.

You're the one isolating some random part out of the speech, not me. You're completely ignoring 65 minutes of the whole video. In the part where he talks about genocide and its definition, he's probably trying to rectify previous statements made about him that he was "denying the genocide". He says you can not talk about genocide because here's the definition of a genocide and that's not exactly what happened. That's his opinion alright. Some may want to say raffling jews all over europe and putting them in concentration camps to starve and die, on top of simply shooting them in the streets after assembling in front of a wall is a genocide, fair enough. Maybe it's beeing a scumbag to want to have definitions right, maybe not. That's not the point of the video, the point is to question wether or not gas chambers were used.

Why do you care about the questions he raises? Why would you give a fuck about this asshole who uses semantics in order to deny the holocaust? I really don't get it.

You know it's funny how sacred this holocaust is. You just simply can not try to think over it. DONT THINK. ITS TRUE. NAZI. ASSHOLE. You know what is happening right now in Egypt right ? 530 people were sentenced to death in a mere two days. Reminds me of Nurnberg. Except you can NEVER criticize the Nurnberg court EVER. If you ever dare to criticize it your counterparts go full retard.

That's just sad. Can you not just refute his arguments, can you not just call him straightforward a mentally disturbed antisemitic scumbag eventhough all of what you know of him is what you've read on wikipedia ? The very first thing I would NOT do to judge someone's mental well-being when it comes to revisionnists is to check wikipedia. But you did. And you found what you wanted to find. How convenient. When I watched the documentary available on youtube: "Faurisson, un homme" I've seen an old man with an aura of kindness and unharmfullness, at peace with himself and incredibly "aware"for someone his age.

Because that's the whole point of this documentary ?

How do you know what the actual motive behind his "documentary" is? You don't.

How do you know that his actual goal is only to share his knowledge (as an amateur historian) about the truth concerning gas chambers? You don't.

I think that he's clearly aiming for so much more. If he actually wanted to solely hold a scientific talk about gas chambers, why would he use semantics and wordplay to insist that Hitler didn't intend genocide in the first place? That's the complete opposite of a scientific presentation trying to make a single, well-argued point.

Can you not just refute his arguments

If you insist, I'll refute one argument of him claiming that Hitler didn't intend genocide.
At 7:15 he says: "If Hitler had wanted to kill all Jews that were within his reach of power, then there wouldn't be any European Jews alive today and then there wouldn't be any survivors from Auschwitz or other concentration camps."

This is obviously devoid of logic. Do you agree?

Now, of course, I can't refute all of his arguments. I'm not a qualified historian and I don't have access to the evidence. If you want to see the scientific community, who is qualified to so, refute his arguments, then why don't you begin checking out Naghokez' links.

But I will say one more thing about another quote of you.

Basically he has documents, he confronted them and pointed out the flaws. Given his credentials in criticizing documents I think it's fair enough.

At first look, this may sound fair enough. But you have to look at the big picture. There's thousands of documents about WW2. There are conclusions the scientific community has reached by considering them as a whole. What can Faurisson do in order to rattle these conclusions? Well, he obviously can't look at the evidence as a whole. Instead, he can handpick some of the pieces of evidence which are, by coincidence, or due to ambiguity, suitable for his claims and rhetorical arguments.

Or look at it like this:

On the one hand, there's the scientific community publishing hundreds of papers and books and reaching an unanimous conclusion. On the other hand, there's a literary scholar playing with the definiton of genocide, using completely false logic, and presenting singular pictures in a 70-minute speech.

If non-experts like you and me have to choose a side to believe, which one should it be?

The problem is you keep using that argument that he's alone. There are a lot of revisionnists out there (lets call them like that) and some are probably much more qualified than Faurisson is. The reason why you don't hear about them is probably because, as others have pointed out on here, if you do that you're excluded from the scientific discourse altogether.

Heck, it's even against the law to even try to show a different angle. Who wants to go to prison and pay amends just to be spat on in the street ?

The problem is you keep using that argument that he's alone.

It wasn't my intention to use this argument. He is the only person you have mentioned, that's why I focused on him. I was under the impression that he was the best example you could give as a reason for your doubts about the use of gas chambers. As you hopefully know, however, he even denies the holocaust in its entirety.

Of course, he's not the only one person on earth denying the holocaust. There is, for example, Fred Leuchter, who pretended to be an engineer even though he isn't one when refuting the use of gas chambers.


I'd like to ask you two, very sincere questions. You don't have to answer them to me if you don't want to, but please, answer them to yourself.
1) Do you believe that the holocaust is a lie?
2) Do you want to believe any particular detail a person says about the holocaust, knowing that this person claims that the holocaust is a lie?

Heck, it's even against the law to even try to show a different angle.

Not in all countries, so this argument is moot. Example. The possibilities are there. Yet, there is noone who has ever successfully demonstrated "a different angle". Maybe that's because that would mean to get rid of the evidence documenting the murder of millions of people?

Who wants to go to prison and pay amends just to be spat on in the street ?

This is a rhetorical question, but I'll answer it.
Ferusson. Zündel. Leuchter. All the people participating at the International Conference to Review the Global Vision of the Holocaust. And all the other holocaust deniers. Are you trying to implicity say that the fact that they deny the holocaust even though they risk imprisonment somehow means that they are correct? That is pure speculation and, to me, given that they are refuting the murder of millions of people, a very absurd speculation.

1) No. This is just nitpicking. It would take some blind monkey to not see the evidence of the holocaust. I have said and said again in here that my only skepticism comes around the reality of gas chambers. Maybe to some people dying from chemicals or dying from bullets is not equally disgusting. But you're still dead and that's still a mass murder. Can you please stop associating my doubts toward gas chambers to a denying of holocaust ? That's some heavy generalization.

2) Because someone has bad intentions doesn't mean all of what he says is definetly wrong. The same analysis could be done from someone who desperately wants the gas chambers to be true. It is intellectually healthy to have both, that's all. Surely you can't disagree on that...

It would take some blind monkey to not see the evidence of the holocaust.

Ok, so you just said that Faurisson is a blind monkey. And all the other people who have fueled your doubt about the gas chambers are blind monkeys (unless you give me a counter example). Why the hell do you care about the "questions" and "criticizm" and "conclusions" of those people? It doesn't make ANY sense.

Can you please stop associating my doubts toward gas chambers to a denying of holocaust ?

No. In order to legitimize your doubts, you have so far only refered to informationen provided by people who deny the holocaust. The connection is there, it is obvious, and it should be obvious to you.

Because someone has bad intentions doesn't mean all of what he says is definetly wrong. The same analysis could be done from someone who desperately wants the gas chambers to be true. It is intellectually healthy to have both, that's all.

You just said that it is "intellectually healthy" to "desperetaly want the gas chambers" to be a lie because of having "bad intentions". I strongly disagree with this. It is one of the most unethical ways of using any intellectual efforts I can imagine.

Because someone has bad intentions doesn't mean all of what he says is definetly wrong.

No, but it means that everything he says and considers is very likely to be biased and that all the conclusions he reaches are based on bad intentions, thus making them incredibly likely to be wrong.

You didn't respond to a single argument I made or question I asked in comment #149 even though you asked for them. It seems like you aren't even trying to have a real discussion. Do you actually want to discuss?

You are siding with holocaust deniers who have been convicted for demagoguery and distortion of history; and you are becoming increasingly similar to them.

You did not answer me entirely. Actually you did not even scratch the surface of where lies my doubts on that very matter.

Your arguments in that #149 post are basically:

1) There are a ton of documents that say otherwise.

2) You repeat what we already discussed about (Faurisson saying naynay no genocide)

But you haven't explained to me how can so many bodies be burned in so little time (e.g.) amongst other fishy stuff I don't understand about gas chambers. Maybe the answer is simple, and the outcome can seem logical at last. But if it were that easy to prove revisionnists wrong, people here who seem entirely convinced should stop going round in circle around the pot and end this conversation already.

In Auschwitz hat die Zentralbauleitung der SS die im Betrieb festgestellte Leistungsfähigkeit mit 340 Leichen für Krematorium I (drei Doppelmuffelöfen), je 1440 Leichen für Krematorium II und III (je fünf Dreimuffelöfen) und je 768 Leichen für Krematorium IV und V (je ein Achtmuffelofen) in einer 24-Stunden-Schicht beziffert. Dies ergibt rein rechnerisch 4756 verbrannte Leichen innerhalb von 24 Stunden und 1,7 Millionen bei einem theoretischen Betrieb über ein ganzes Jahr.

Translation:

The central administration of construction in Auschwitz run by the SS determined the capacity of the crematories with 340 bodies for Crematory I (3 ovens with 2 slots), each 1440 bodies for Crematories II and III (5 ovens with 3 slots each) and 768 bodies for Crematories IV and V (each one oven with 8 slots) per 24 hours. This results in theoretically 4756 bodies cremated in 24 hours as well as 1.7 million a year.

Source: http://de.wikipedia.org/wiki/Krematorium#Die_...ozialisten
http://de.wikipedia.org/wiki/J._A._Topf_%26_Söhne#cite_note-2


Also it is noteworthy that the company who made these ovens, albeit denying it, did so with the intention of burning as many bodies as possible in a given time period which can be seen in various documents and letters passed between the construction administration of German concentration camps and the company itself.

They maximised this by burning several bodies at once and reused the exhaust heat to heat the ovens.

Also: it is noteworthy that most concentration camps did not burn the bodies but just buried them somewhere in Poland or wherever the concentration camps were situated!

Other reads on the subject: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Topf_and_Sons
http://de.wikipedia.org/wiki/J._A._Topf_%26_S..._1940-1945

I don't have time to clutter this post with sources, but given the well done document by both the SS and the company it is evident that there is enough source material. As you are the one denying/doubting everything here and you want to be "proven otherwise", you might as well look them up yourself.

You did not answer me entirely.

And because I didn't exactly say what you wanted me to say, you can just ignore it? This is no way to have a discussion.

But you haven't explained to me how can so many bodies be burned in so little time (e.g.) amongst other fishy stuff I don't understand about gas chambers.

What fishy stuff? Where did you hear about this fishy stuff? As we know by now, it comes from holocaust deniers.
I can say you the following things and hope that you are honest enough to realize that they make perfect sense. (1) Common sense will tell you that you shouldn't take the claims and conspiracy theories of holocaust deniers seriously. (2) Scientists surely have refuted the deniers in a convincing way and it isn't my obligation to reformulate how they did it. The information is publically available and you have already been given links as starting points. It is your obligation to spend more than 20 minutes looking at them and looking for further information. (3) You are in no position to demand people on a web forum to easily and convincingly refute the conspiracty theories of people who work hard to create these theories.

Maybe the answer is simple, and the outcome can seem logical at last.

And maybe it isn't? Maybe the holocaust deniers have put in thousands of hours of work into creating tough-to-answer questions, using ambiguous pieces of evidence, creating false evidence, twisting words and facts, and pretending to know stuff they actually don't. I consider all these tactics to be very likely.

It takes an expert to convincingly cope with these tactics and it's likely to be a lengthy and tedious enterprise to deal with them. If you are ready to learn, by your own effort, about how they dealt with it, then do it. If not, then you are an uninformed person who gives more value to conspiracy theories than to actual scientific conlusions. And guess what the public rightfully thinks of this kind of persons ...

i dont know why everybody keeps crying from what you are saying about these camps. They happened for a reason, all the propaganda from the nazis saying the jews are perverts etc, and they are vermin like rats. (#metaphors) So other people around Germany believed this, as more and more people were talking about the Jews, Most Germans worked together ( ofc not the democrats and the communists ) xD but yh, Hitler had promises the German Pures a good Country and to get revenge on the Treaty Of Versailles. Therefor they would have to attack France.
Events in the USA occured when the banks went bust. Which the Germans had a loan from the US, called the Dawes Plan. This provoked Germans, to the for the NAZIS (socialists) as Streseman, who was in charge of Germany while Hitler was in jail, was making a recovering Germany. But he died 2 weeks after the banks troubles.
As i said, this led onto Death Camps. Which were decided as soon as Hitler was put in charge after like, many elections. They had stormtroopers patrolling German streets, and eagle eye upon everyone, looking for "Jewish Scum" they chose the Jewish because Hitler believed it was the Jews who caused Germany to lose the war.
This may not make sense to all, but, i don't have any hate for anyone within this period of time (1920-30's)
Im just saying how the camps were supposedly caused.
#LISTEN IN HISTORY CLASS's, BECOME A GODLIKE HISTORIAN LIKE ZeCMSS

"this led onto Death Camps. Which were decided as soon as Hitler was put in charge after like"

Wrong, there is still no proof of Hitler giving such an order, would recommend you read "“Anticipatory Obedience” and the Nazi Implementation of the Holocaust in the Ukraine: A Case Study of Central and Peripheral Forces in the Generalbezirk Zhytomyr, 1941–1944" by Wendy Lower.

Why are you following this false balance? I don't get it.

There's consensus among all historians about this. Yet this one particular academic (not even a historian, but a literature scientist) holds more credit than ACTUAL historians?

Why is that?

Why do I have to listen to him, instead of myriads of real historians who actually know what they're talking about and even excluded him from the scientific discourse?

I don't get your fascination for him.

The answer is in your question.

(...) even excluded him from the scientific discourse?

Also beeing an historian is basically confronting documents and criticizing its sources.

Faurisson taught that in university. Basically he has documents, he confronted them and pointed out the flaws. Given his credentials in criticizing documents I think it's fair enough.

And don't make him sound like he's alone, pretty please. That's not because you don't hear them that they're not there. I'm also pretty sure if I was a historian and I was specialized in WW2 and found out, like Faurisson, that what he says holds some truth behind it, I would not start to teach that to my students.... Get it ?

Confronting and criticizing sources, fair enough.

Using sources that have been debunked, lying about sources and actively falsifying sources? - Not so much.

The guy is a raging lunatic who uses semantics to deny the fact that the nazi regime were a bunch of mere murderers.

With his reasoning you could easily say that Pol Pot didn't commit genocide, because under Cambodian law he did right by killing 1,5 Million intellectuals.

What is there to gain from this sort of argumentation?

If you want a look at some of the falsifications and outright lies of Faurisson, see here. Him being a literary scholar has strictly nothing to do with his claims on gas chambers and on the treatment of Jews by the Nazis, since he does not exercise scientific rigor on these issues. His claims have been repeatedly refuted and debunked. The scientific community is absolutely unanimous on the systematic gassing of Jews by the Nazis, in particular at Auschwitz.

We have photographic evidence (of the corpses, the ashes, the clothes that were removed prior to entering the chambers, etc.), testimonies from all of the groups involved (those who were detained in the camps, those who operated and ran the camps, those who contributed to building the infrastructure of the camps, those who visited the camps when they were still operating, etc.), documents detailing the technical needs of the gas chambers, documents (in particular letters) detailing how the gassings were proceeding, diaries of some German officials in which they detailed their impressions with regards to the gassings, detailed analyses by historians, detailed analyses by chemists and other experts who looked at the residues in the chambers, etc. None (and I insist, none) of the objections of deniers have resisted scrutiny. It is virtually impossible to have more evidence of the use of gas chambers to systematically exterminate Jews and other groups. In addition to the mountain of books written on the topic and detailing this (either from a scientific or from a direct witness point-of-view), you can for example take a look at this website, which contains a series of articles and documents on the topic.

This is a good answer. You're not being emotional, you don't rely on the old "Shut up and trust the consensus" or "Only a nazi would have doubts" and you bring facts.

Thank you.

What flashsoul said. There's plenty to read there.

I don't know about the first website but the holocaust-history.org one seems like a good one.

long and Interesting Interview with Faurisson here

Interviewer: Do you think that the National Socialist regime committed crimes against the European Jews?

Dr. Faurisson: That regime did not pursue, with regard to the Jews, any criminal policy. [...]

The guy lies through his teeth throughout the entire interview. He repeats arguments and examples already mentioned in his books and articles, and which have repeatedly been proven to be false. It is genuinely baffling to me that any relatively intelligent adult who is able to do a minimum of research on the topic would fall for his lies, especially given to extensive scientific literature devoted precisely to the systematic refutation of the claims of deniers such as Faurisson.

To be honest the website only talks about "lies" about articles that I haven't read. In the video I mentionned "le problème des chambres à gaz" he does not talk about what this or that ex-SS soldier said or stuff like that. He presents us with photographs of gas chambers and explains us by A+B why it can't have been used as gas chambers. Some of the arguments are weak, but some of them are really strong.

It's kind of the same as that english documentary on youtube:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7-Kl6RHKIQk


The website you've provided me about Faurisson's lies, antisemitism, etc. does not cover those arguments. In other words, it does not refute all of Faurisson's arguments.

What's with the body cremation average time ? What's with the frail doors ? What's with the "oh lets jus gas people we can just wear masks and move the hundreds of bodies at once".... I'm sorry to this day I can't make sense out of using gas chambers. It just defies logic in my opinion.

What's with the body cremation average time ?

I guess you overlooked this:
http://www.holocaust-history.org/quick-facts/...city.shtml

What's with the frail doors ?

The Auschwitz gas chambers were blown up. There aren't any doors left to talk about. Maybe Fergussion is able to show a wooden door at some random place here or there, but that doesn't prove that there were no gas chambers.


I can't give you links that immediately refute every single question Fergusson arises by using highly selective, twisted pieces of evidence. Have you read the most relevant non-revisionist works of research about WW2 to have a foundation to judge the claims of Fergusson and others? Maybe start with "The Destruction of the European Jews" by Hilbert?

I'll take a look at Hilbert's work then, thanks.

From the few websites I've visited that try to talk about the number of incinerated bodies, what I've found is that there's no real common ground be it between revisionnists or their counterparts. The numbers vary with every research and those fluctuations are often counted by the 100.000's...

So the issue with this case is that you probably need to be an expert in many areas to be able to clearly tell from one speculation to another...

Do I still need to say that my assumption by default is that the gas chambers did exist ?

I want to ask you this again: Why do you find it worthwhile to spend your time with Faurisson and his "work"?

It's not like you'd discuss serious matters with people who believe in the work of David Icke, no?

Precisely because it is a different opinion than the one I've been hearing my whole childhood. And I will not immune myself again frauds without confronting them. If I don't do this, it will just stick at the back of my head forever...

How much evidence do you need to see, before you realize that his opinion is nothing but a lie and that, in this case, what you've been hearing is the truth?

The numbers vary with every research and those fluctuations are often counted by the 100.000's...

So what? The estimated extent of the genocide is estimated by respected, expert scientists to lie between 4 to 7 millions. It's not easy, or even possible, to prove which of these numbers is correct. The uncertainty is perfectly fine. But it is horribly wrong to say that, given this uncertainty, a number below 1 million might be equally probable (as holocaust deniers do). Do you agree?

Then let's transfer this scenario to the gas chambers:

Did an Auschwitz gas chamber kill 2000 persons a day (as reported by eye-witnesses) or kill 500 persons a day (a hypothetical example of what serious scientists might conclude from the blueprints of the chambers, the correspondence letters, and other pieces of evidence)? We don't exactly know. That's fine. But it is wrong to say that, given this uncertainty, it is just as likely that noone was gassed, which e.g. Faurisson ACTUALLY DOES SAY.

Did they, in total, gas 3 million people or 1 million people (again, completely hypothetical numbers, I don't care to look it up)? I don't know. Maybe noone will ever know for sure. That's fine. But it is wrong to say that, given this uncertainty, it is just as likely that noone was gassed, which e.g. Faurisson ACTUALLY DOES SAY.

I don't undestand what your motivation is and what your goals are, but I honestly think you're making a terrible mistake by giving any weight to what people like Faurisson say.

alright, I don't know who to answer for this one but here it is. A handful of verifyable sources in the notes below at page 2.

Here's what I've found on the Institute for Historical Review, an independant center:

http://www.ihr.org/jhr/v12/v12p167_Webera.html

Small interesting excerpts:

In conducting the Nuremberg trials, the Allied governments themselves violated international law. For one thing, their treatment of the German defendants and the military prisoners who testified violated articles 56, 58 and others of the Geneva convention of July 1929. /23

Jewish historian Lucy Dawidowicz, author of The War Against the Jews, acknowledged that "There are also Holocaust documents that are outright falsification and some that purvey myth rather than historical fact." /54

The Nuremberg enterprise violated ancient and fundamental principles of justice. The victorious Allies acted as prosecutor, judge and executioner of the German leaders. The charges were created especially for the occasion, and were applied only to the vanquished. /3 Defeated, starving, prostrate Germany was, however, in no position to oppose whatever the Allied occupation powers demanded.

Allied prosecutors used torture to help prove their case at Nuremberg and other postwar trials. /72

Aleksandr Solzhenitsyn has cited the case of Jupp Aschenbrenner, a Bavarian who was tortured into signing a statement that he had worked on mobile gas chambers ("gas vans") during the war. It wasn't until several years later that he was finally able to prove that he had actually spent that time in Munich studying to become an electric welder. /75



Conclusion:

Very few of those who glibly refer to "all the Nuremberg evidence" as proof for the Holocaust extermination story are familiar with either the real nature of this "evidence" or the character of these trials. On closer examination, solid documentary or forensic evidence of a wartime German policy to exterminate Europe's Jews proves to be elusive. As we have seen, the evidence that has been presented consists largely of extorted confessions, spurious testimonies, and fraudulent documents. The postwar Nuremberg trials were politically motivated proceedings meant more to discredit the leaders of a defeated regime than to establish truth.

We do not need trials or "confessions" to prove that the Katyn massacre or the postwar deportation of Germans from eastern and central Europe actually took place. By comparison, the Holocaust story does not claim just a few isolated massacres, but a vast extermination program taking place across the European continent over a three-year period involving several governments and millions of people. The fact that the Holocaust story must rely so heavily on highly dubious testimony evidence and trials staged in a historically unparalleled atmosphere of hysteria, intimidation and propaganda demonstrates its inherent weakness.

Is the Mark Weber in your link the same Mark Weber who denies the holocaust and was a member of this and also was a whitness for Ernst Zündel in his trial?

It appears it is.

I'm sorry, I will not read through all of this, but I will say this: Nobody in this thread used the Nuremburg trials as source of evidence for the holocaust.
We, well at least I myself, used our own research and to be honest, I trust myself more than someone who wants a 4th Reich.

Two clicks further:

Das Institute for Historical Review (IHR) ist eine pseudowissenschaftliche Organisation. Das IHR wird von vielen führenden Geschichtswissenschaftlern als die weltweit führende Organisation der Holocaustleugnung angesehen.

Translation: The IHR is a pseudoscientific organisation. The IHR is viewed by leading historians as the world leading organisation of holocaust deniers

According to wikipedia, yes it is. Your point ?

I don't really trust whatever wikipedia says especially when it's about such matters. The wikipedia pages for Dieudonné for example is a massive pile of shit.

What the fuck, dem0n.

What is the purpose of this?

I reckon it is indeed a FACT that he was the director of this organisation. How is he credible in your eyes?

You disappear from the thread for several days to come back with THIS?

Dude. Go to your local universitarian history departement and talk to them. I think it'd be more fruitful.

A response to Mark Weber

I needed some time off this debate, I don't want to keep answering to 3 or 4 different people and be going on for hours in circles. I've done exactly the same with the Dieudonné thread if you don't remember...


What is the purpose of what ? I've said there is something fishy about gas chambers and people went crazy about it, so we kept talking about my doubts and how I should not doubt because holy fuck the holocaust DEWD. How is he not credible in your own eyes ? He's de facto not credible because he's been dubbed a holocaust denier. But I should do the research, right ? I should read all your links and all your sources, right ? Well that's quite off balance, sir.

I'm sorry, I will not read through all of this, but I will say this:

Same for your next googled links. Ty.

Hey, there's something fishy about our current world leaders. I heard someone say they're alien-reptilians.

You should look into that.

edit:
I'm sorry, I didn't mean to be rude, but you're really grinding my gears here.
I shouldn't look up what the guy did? Why shouldn't? Why don't YOU do it?
If I don't I might end up believing what he says without question. That would be a bad thing, because as it turns out he's a liar who wanted to establish a NSDAP 2.
YOU should be the one looking up the sources, because YOU present him as a source.
Your thought process should be something like: "Hey, this seems like an interesting point. Let's check the sources to verify this." NOT "Hey, this guy already did the research so his conclusion should be the right one."

Why the hell should I read and/or give credit to someone like this?
I don't understand why you oppose the hint to do your own research on the matter or at least read the links we present?

Do your own research. You do not HAVE to listen to established historians if you don't want to, but to follow hobby historian antisemites is not the right ways either.

Some points in your post:

What is the purpose of what ? I've said there is something fishy about gas chambers and people went crazy about it, so we kept talking about my doubts and how I should not doubt because holy fuck the holocaust DEWD.

We didn't say OHMAGERD ITS THE HOLOCAUST and you know it. We presented you several links and sources that debunk Faurisson and his revisionists. We presented you links that describe the ACTUAL company that produced ovens to kill AS MANY JEWS AS POSSIBLE.

How is he not credible in your own eyes ? He's de facto not credible because he's been dubbed a holocaust denier.

He's not been "dubbed" a denier. He denies that the holocaust happened. Fact.

Why is it so hard for you to understand that the Nazis killed 6 million jews?

The only one who came close to giving me good hints is naghokez to be fair.

And you're doing exactly the same as I do. All of you are throwing links at me and expect me to have enough reading for the rest of my life, even if I were to live 80 more years with an average sleep of 2 hours a day. It is doubtful you lot have entirely read the sources you have sent me to, so why would I be the only one getting the blame for it ? I've had my share of documentaries and lectures my whole childhood. Granted I'm not a specialist, but very few are. I've been told yeah faurisson isn't even an historian but it's clear now that there is also a handful of historians with massive credentials that also try to make their point.

The funny part is that each and every one of them is supposedly an antisemite, a nazi nostalgic, a heartless criminal, a pedophile, a zoophile and a member of the KKK on top of a few hundred other malevolent terms you can think of. Right. That's what's dangerous in my opinion. The systematic dissing of anyone trying to review History.

That's why I always come back to my own experience with systematic lying and demonalizing: Dieudonné. I know it's not relevant in the context. So let me be clear: I don't bring up that humorist because he's also a holocaust denier or a revisionnist, which he is not. I bring him up for the sake of setting an example of how it works. You have this guy who's undeniably an antiracist, an anti-communautarist and a humanist. Yet he's been condemned several times for "racism". CTRL+F on his page: 19 occurences for "antisemit", 7 occurences for "racis". That's how it works. Unconsciouly or not, anyone who sees this page is gonna think "ow this is toxic, I'm out".

THAT'S how it works. Maybe this Weber is a massive cocksucker. Maybe not. I don't know and I don't care. I'm reading HIS point of view and I'm reading his counterparts. What's the bigdeal ? Why do you want me not to read him on the sole purpose that he's been dubbed this and that, given all this background knowledge I have of how the system works ?

Why is it so hard for you to understand that the Nazis killed 6 million jews?

Why is it so hard for you to understand that I'm not denying anything ? Why are you assuming what Weber stated without even reading his articles ? I have genuinely no idea how many were killed: 1, 3, 6, 10 million jews ? I know they put them in camps, tortured them, experimented on them, killed them... It's not my point and it never was. Stop assuming...

And to end this topic on a good note and to reaffirm what Ive already stated somewhere above, be reassured once for all. I have been looking for counter-arguments and found what I was looking for.

I've come up with a very useful research paper written by a french student about revisionnists and their general arguments. I was quite satisfied with her answer to most of the revisionnists. I have been convinced that the use of zyklon B to kill a few hundred people at once under the circumstance IS physically and chemically possible.

But as I've said I'm not a specialist nor in physics, nor in chemistry or in History. Now I would be very curious to know what the revisionnists have to say about the arguments I've been reading.

I remain skeptic about the process of nuremberg itself though. I am still under the impression this tribunal was but a skit.

EDIT: changed "her answer to the revisionnists" to "most of the revisionnists" (:D)

Yes so once again like I've said. Try to give a different view or angle with whatever way, and people like you will only fall for the mass propaganda and make you drop their thoughts and analysis like it's burning your fingers.

Wikipedia is a nice objective tool totally independant right. Right ? :D. I only need to skim through the wikipedia page of Dieudonné or Manuel Valls of whom I know pretty much everything to know it's first of all a very usefull propaganda tool.

There's no use in responding to this really, but ye.

I question EVERYTHING that is fed to me by the masses. I do my own research on topics that interest me.
I rely solely on my own senses when it comes to topics like this.

Mark Weber is a person who denies that the holocaust happend. He is/was the leader of the NUMBER ONE ORGANISATION OF HOLOCAUST DENIERS. HE WANTED TO BRING BACK THE NATIONAL SOCIALIST PARTY.

And have you actually read about the IHR? Or did you just put it aside because it's Wikipedia.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Institute_for_Historical_Review

It took me three clicks to find that out. How, HOW did you think you could convince anyone in this thread with HIM out of all people?

God, you're really making me angry right now.

To be honest, I did not look up his name. You shouldn't either. What you should do however is read what he has to say and read up the references he gives in his bibliography.

dem0n, he has no credibility whatsoever. NONE.

Read the response to him by John A. Drobnicki and read up about the IHR.

He just does the very same thing Faurisson does, (I guess it's a revisionist thing) he purposefully misinterprets sources to fit his argumentation. Nothing more.

I only need to skim through the wikipedia page of Dieudonné or Manuel Valls of whom I know pretty much everything to know it's first of all a very usefull propaganda tool.

aaand the conspiracy theories begin...

you know because one minute it's "hey no character assassination, look at the arguments/sources/judge for yourself" and the next it's "oh I can dismiss anything from wikipedia because of one or two articles vaguely related to this argument"

There's a handful of video links up there on youtube with reporters following wikipedia moderators and explaining their guidelines.

On top of that, stfu already about conspiracy theories. You're the one dubbing anything that is inconvenient with your view of the world with this highly pejorative term.

And to prove to you that I'm not talking out of my ass:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=n25XcxebexQ

Valls and a wikipedia administrator explaining that he and other coworkers often have to delete, change or even lock his page. Oh but it's a conspiracy right ? How convenient a word is that. "conspiracy". Lel.

I'm sorry, you are talking out of your ass, you're dismissing one article on wikipedia on the grounds that a totally different article is untrustworthy.

http://www.esreality.com/post/2580777/n-a/#pid2580777

That quote is just great. He is delusional in that he only uses semantics to deny the crimes of the regime.

Of course this wasn't illegal under the 3rd Reich law, but one could easily argue that it is indeed a crime against humanity.
It just seems tha Jews don't really qualify as humans to him.
It's disgusting.

dont forget the 552 gobjillion

can you name a few of your "prominent" historians that claim there was no gassing involved? or is it just that guy from history channel?

There are none. If they're prominent it's only because they deny the holocaust.

http://www.esreality.com/post/2580777/n-a/#pid2580777

http://www.esreality.com/post/2580777/n-a/#pid2580777

This link also provides a handful of historians, scientists and various researchers.

don't do it man

2-0

43-21

Oh my god.

I did not read all comments about this subject but the gaschambers happend there are picture google the auschwitz album and the sonderkommando photos..

Well, if you don't believe go to Aushwitz and Birkenau and see it for yourself how Nazis organised it. My great grandad died there, among thousands of people.

People died there ? Jeez I didn't know that.

My ancestors afaik suffered from that war aswell as it would most likely be the case for almost every european citizen with european roots.

I went to several nazi camps including the Breendonk one in Belgium where my grandmom's dad was imprisoned. I'm not sure what you're trying to say there... I guess you understood me wrong (as many others have already).

(...) and left them starve to death

Nope, that's not even close to the extent of what they did. The exploitation of making them work till death, the torturing, the gruesome medical experimentation and the mass-murder are all well documented.

Go educate yourself by consulting proper scientific work. I sincerely hope it's not already too late for you. Until then, fuck off, and don't come back before you stop downplaying the holocaust.

I'm not gonna bother to respond to the rest of your bullshit.

"Nope, that's not even close to the extent of what they did. The exploitation of making them work till death, the torturing, the gruesome medical experimentation and the mass-murder are all well documented."

i didn't knew i had to list all. Seems like you also forgot a bunch then, they used to humiliate them too, just like what americans did in Irak http://www.thepunch.com.au/images/uploads/Abumain.gif and so on, oh wait you don't care you just wanted to pretend things i didn't meant. Oh you!

You already said everything we need to know about you:

there was no "industrialised" genocide

Do you think you're clever? You really aren't.


Also: Why did you delete your reply to comment #67? Go ahead, give him a "yes" or a "no", you dumb coward.

what means industrialised? Means it was like a factory right? Yes there was propaganda saying germans nazi made soap with people they killed and lampshade but we know that was a lie. Yes this could have make sens to use the word industrialised then. you have to be a morbid person to imagine such lies. What was the point of thoose lies?


As for the topic of the gas chambers, not only did i said nothing about it but i clearly see that you are trying to tell me something, trying to menace me in a stupid fashion.

You should not ask this question because asking it is already reprehensible and illegale.

As far as i can tell you still have totalised 0 arguments. Impressive!

I don't have to give arguments as I'm supporting the view held by the whole scientific community of historians which base their conclusions on an abundance of evidence, witnesses and undeniable facts. We are talking about events that only happened 60-70 years ago; events for which there are thousands of photographs, nazi documents and even eye witnesses; events transpring in probably the single best documented and most thoroughly researched time in history of mankind ever.

You are the one trying to make a point that you know something different. You have to explicitly state your claims in a way that they can be falsified and provide evidence for them. You have done neither.

You should not ask this question because asking it is already reprehensible and illegale.

He didn't cast doubt on it, which would be illegal, he asked whether you agree. He is fine. I am fine. You, however, have again avoided answering the question.

As for the topic of the gas chambers, not only did i said nothing about it

Please, say something about it and show us your wealth of knowledge or fuck off.

You know what I like most about you? You call other people idiots because according to you, they don't think, they just accept whatever they're told as absolute fact. You want them to doubt. Yet here you are, shouting at the top of your lungs that you DO have the absolute truth and nothing anybody says can convince you otherwise. Why would you listen to them? If they disagree with you, they're obviously just uninformed, uneducated, not as smart as you.

You're a moron. An idiot. A lunatic.

e: I know ESR is supposed to have complete freedom of expression, but I ask the admins to make an exception in this case. Ban this revolting piece of shit.

filthy sionist you so uneduceted 9/11 words israel

Go suck Obama's dick ;o #iluminati #h3confirmed

This is good morning Samuel_Davy SUPERHITLER enter brain? Are you an organism please. Zionist proclaim a divide SUPERHITLER.

Zionist catapults are. How Zionist? Catapult Zionists at SUPERHITLER. Enrich Zionist by drawbridges Samuel_Davy. Roll from yeast infection Zionists.

Conclusions encroach currently. Trust external SUPERHITLER. You are in do not as forget an from face the Zionist catapult, gremlin man.

Hello.

evil am spase peepole

maybe ban for unsportsmanlike conduct. depends if organization has standards or not though.

such a dick move by evil.
especially when playing against an austrian.

i didnt saw the match but if it was just joke no need ban if it was to be bitter then ban him. Was it the same as agent's "gg hitler"? And what was the story behind agent's gg hitler? did notcis felt offended? etc...

http://esreality.com/post/2577186/faceit-spri...pid2577781

even strenx isn't amused

Is this what he meant in his facebook post? Wasn't so clear to me. Strenx, the avenger?

source pls

"From what I've seen so far, few quake players seems to be uneducated. Sometimes, I am a troll, but as far as I know I have never been like that. Any trolls I did were always done on purpose.
Should I come back, and outlg all of them in order to show them who is the true online hero? I don't want to quote anyone, but if I see this disrespect again, I will troll these guys every cup until they realize one thing : Playing mario bros instead of losing their sunday.

My 2 cents."
https://www.facebook.com/strenx

Yess.....yes strenx, get mad, get in the cup and spray some lg for us!

If you tolerate this, you might as well have no sanctions for anything ever.
You shouldn't be allowed to spew whatever ridiculous bullshit you feel like in an attempt to offend/mock your opponent and throw him off his game, especially on stream in front of the eyes of everybody..
Some smack talk/drama is healthy for competitive gaming, but this isn't how you do it, not through means of racism/antisemitism/hate crimes like that.

If you tolerate this, you might as well have no sanctions for anything ever.

What? Seriously... what?

Some guy said some shit and not everybody lost their shit over it. Watch the world burn while all the racist heathens defile the pure virgins and bring about the judgment day.

And it's a good sign that people got upset over it. I would have expected way more of the "meh whatever" mentality from this community.

It's even worse coming from EVIL because even if you hate him and train hard you're probably going to still end up raped unless you are cypher/rapha.

And then you cant mock him or give back an insult cuz nigga only knows russian. And then this fuck looks like he'd stab you in real life, so fuck fighting him.

Just take it and shake it off.

He also knows a little German.

[raughs]

Evil will be banned.

As if it wasn't enough that he got away with playing on someone else's account, THAT should have got him banned in no time, but nothing happened. And now he's still being a dick, calling people nazis in public. What's up with that guy and why is he still here?

they need at least 1 person that can compete with cypher...

/conspiracy strengthens

> /conspiracy strenxens

he called someone nazi in public? interesting how ur brain works :D

himself basically

"basically" yea. no. i cant believe young germans are still able to be butthurt about hitler. thats almost too bizarre to be true

ask some jews how butthurt they are. i dont think my generation has to have any guilt, because we were not responsible for what happened. but it is important that all germans and everyone in europe treats these things with respect be aware of horrible things happening during that time.

yes and obviously the 3rd reich is the greatest evil the world has ever seen and it should be put above everything else, first and foremost










;)

Nobody said that,

Could you name any "evil", who did comparable things or worse?

well, it's often said that both Mao and Stalin had a higher (or at least comparable) death count than Hitler, but that might be a bullshit rumor, spread by neonazis.
the Japanese did some sick shit during WW2 (look up Nanking), ,Turkey (= the Ottomann empire) killed about 1.5 Million Armenians in 1915, and Rwanda is a thing (thanks Wikipedia).

King Leopold 2's (of Belgium) enterprise in Congo, 10 million victims.

one word Mao.

mao zadong was responsible for an estimated 45 million deaths.

to put that in perspective the entire estimated death count for WW2 is 55 million.

you're saying that telling an austrian person "sieg heil" isn't a reference to nazism? how did you interpret it then?

As a cordial invitation to have tea and cookies.

Sieg Heil /O

omg, dat salute fail

Why is everybody surprised and offended? I mean he has chosen the nickname EVIL!

I'm absolutely sure that evil didnt mean anything racist by saying it. He just was being childish. Nobody in Russia is saying/taking these words seriously. Its rather used by kids and teenagers as jokes e.g. phrase “hände hoch” often used while playing “war”. Nowdays it is quite rare and most people don’t even know what they exactly mean but back in USSR time it was quite common as most Russians was learning German as second language and the national memory of nazi invasion was more vivid.

noctis is Austrian, not German! there's a big difference between the 2 countries and It doesnt matter if hitler was born in Austria and then all off a sudden moved to Germany to be what he was.

australian*

here i fixed it for you

Well but germany kind of took Austria over first thing in WW2 so yeah, it is maybe comparable to waving the hilter salute into the face of a belgian..

and i think austria has had a hard time at least a bit since they spawned the worst fascist of all time.

I think evil just likes the song One in a million by guns n roses too much and over interpreted it;

Radicals and racists
Don't point your finger at me
I'm a small town white boy
Just tryin' to make ends meet
Don't need your religion
Don't watch that much TV
Just makin' my livin' baby
Well that's enough for me

No one likes G'n'R, anymore.

Not even Axel Rose.

Axl*

-.-

Otherwise it's not an anagram for oral sex. And I've been listening to them for 15 years straight now, I never tire of them. Best band of all times for me.

Golly, 15 whole years?

Gee willickers, funnyb, that's since 1999. You sure are experienced!

You probably wouldn't be interested in things I learned about them, in 1988, when I was in 4th grade and all of the annoying-as-hell girls in my class(~half the total females) thought that they were going to marry AXL* and somehow thought that Slash wasn't one of the ugliest beings to ever grace the cosmos.

edit: beings, not being

edit2: And before this turns into some massive argument, I was joking. The girls WERE annoying and really thought Axl was amazing, for some reason. I just really hate Axl. Especially now. Look at him singing at live shows on YT. His voice is destroyed. It's awful. Sure, Appetite for Destruction was good, as an album. I think their live shows suck(just my opinion). Even the ones from 'back in the day.'

My favorite thing that ever resulted from G'n'R being in existence was when Slash ruined Michael Jackson's music award performance by intentionally doing an absurdly-long 'solo(apparently triads are skillful?).' Not that MJ didn't fuck it up, himself, by lip-syncing the whole thing and having the mic by his side during some parts when he was supposed to be singing, anyway.

/rant over :D

Well I can't help that I was born the same year they released their first studio album, I still do idolize who they were and what they did. But I'm glad you go to feel superior for a minute or two.

> I was joking

Superior? I was trying to make a joke about feeling like an old man while expressing my hatred for fangirls, mostly.

The truth is, I just sat here not 2 weeks ago and played along with a few Appetite for Destruction songs on my guitar for something to do. It's just... I don't know. The Use Your Illusion albums seemed odd to me, at the time. Curious: How do you feel about the Spaghetti Incident? :D

Sorry if I seemed like a jerk. Not my intent, which was why I added the 'I was joking' part.. =)

Lastly, does your stream going live ever show up in the Side Bar? I really enjoyed tuning in for your TDM(I think it was?) coverage. Especially the banter and the chat.

I just took it very sarcasticly and "rude", bad interpretation by me then, text you know, sorry.

And it does when I'm online, otherwise, just click Follow on it and u'll get mailed when I go live!

I'm sorry to break your attempt of "who knows the better GnR " but the MTV solo was just part of the show.
MJ and Slash used to did it, I can remember a Munich show with the same trick.

I appreciate you furthering my point about how much MJ sucked. Lip-syncing on stage AND pointless stunts? 'King of Pop,' indeed.

:D

Don't forget to throw Alex* Rose up into the 'Ugliest beings to ever grace the cosmos' club. It's tough to call whether it's the now-Slash or now-Axl that tops the other.

Boy how time has been cruel to them.




*[trollface.jpg]

Rules are rules.

Basically terrorism

Already got a 2 cup ban.

The translation is "Hail, victory!"

Maybe he was just happy he won

I believe I read somewhere that he said it before the game also, which is just rude, so a ban is still in place.

Well, you're not sure and you don't have all the facts. Kinda rushing to a decision. Let the admins handle it :)

But it's in german, it should be bannable no matter what.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uzGzMYS2Gnc

Let them all sing in English !

They should, they lost the war!

btw
http://www.esreality.com/post/2577325/faceit-...pid2577809

I know.

damn u fast

the problem is that he also wrote at the end: " /o "... like dude with raised hand. That clearly state what he means.

indeed, and I need a facepalm smiley now

noctis just trying to hide the fact that he have no chance vs evil by using this drama

It's ok then, Noctis, you can't stand a chance against Evil, it's ok.

Ban him anyway, and do it again if he starts again :).

anyway your right, ban is a last way to stop evil, he got too much wins for russian

How many international LANs did Evil win? 1?
Definitely not too many :P

here we go again

He won a lot in q3 ;P

Except the noctis said, it didn't/wouldn't have changed the outcome of the game in any way. Noctis is definitely a very humble person when it comes to duel. Pretty sure that he would have no problem coming here and declaring that he had no chance.

GG, NO RE

Maybe he lost a bet vs Agent.

ESR- home of the "Thin Skins"?
You guys have NO GRIT. It seems like some of you enjoy blowing the politically correct movement that is poisoning your very world. With your run and tell the teacher attitudes its no wonder the world is such an absolute joke. Children behave in such ways.

All this drama for so little, sure it was stupid but its not like he threatened to rape his sister/mother. And agent "gg hitler" was much better.
quake ist krieg

Totaler Krieg

cry more

Go eat a politically correct bag of dicks.

dicks of all colours and sizes!

Women don't have dicks you god-damn sexist bastard!

Well, except for Sophia and Xtina.

who gives a shit

everybody who is

a) not oblivious to history

and

b) cares about the quake community not being full of dicks

Congrats for not giving one shit, here take it, this is the prize of "No shits givers", you may join the next rank of "No shits ever given", until you reach "Master of Shits that have never and will never be given, ever" rank, however sir, don't worry your attempts in reaching the next level of "Even God himself never gave one shit as much as he did" will not happen, because usually people who try to do that are dead bastards that Karma struck back just when they expected nothing.

If you never give a shit, shit happens, the longer no shit was given, the bigger the shit that will happen will be.

That's how bastards get deadly shits thrown at them by Karma.

Go on, no shit giver.

inb4 no shit giver replies "who gives a shit" haha, suicidal motherf*****

go suck your teacher's jew dick

:( awww, here have a hug, I never had a jew a teacher though.

big deal.....


how about the bans you guys give to the russians when they try to speak in their own language in the twitch chat...

oh man the hypocrisy


#FREEEVIL2014

During tournament play chat should be disabled*. Too often chat is abused in an attempt to annoy the opponent, and this looks very bad on the Quake community.

I don't think Evil should be banned from FACEIT due to his comment (regardless of it being in the vain of humour or not), but players entering these competitions in the future should be made aware that such comments are not acceptable.

*By "disabled" I mean it should be in the tournament's rules for chatting to be forbidden besides the common glhf, gg, ready, etc. comments. Though, perhaps the Quake Live developers could add something like sv_nochat 0/1 that prevents players from using the chat functions. However, chat functions should be restored in the case of a pause, or timeout.

Hm interesting but it would be like a step backward, we have the possibility of doing so many things, but it doesn't mean we can do anything we want.

It's great that we can communicate and chat in game, but it doesn't mean we should use it to hurt someone's feelings or insult the opponent etc.

If we request that developers give restrictions it's not the right move.

This is currently the best method. It's like IRL, you can kill people you know, but then you'll have to face the consequences.

So in QL if you play a tournament, you have to stick to the rules the host made. If you don't then you face the consequences, you can be Evil or the next guy who will beat Cypher, Rapha, Evil without even using your mouse, it doesn't matter, rules are rules, they are made for everyone. If you are someone who can't follow the rules, then it's your problem.

That's Evil's problem right here.

Strict mm1 rules haven't been in effect, or enforced, for over a decade. No point now.

http://nyheter24.se/debatt/765401-the-esport-...t-language

zoot don't like it either

Did he actually write an article for a Swedish website?

Yes he was asked to

Ok, nice.

He said on stream that they asked him like " you wanna publish article? Ok we need it in two hours" and then, being a genius voice of our generation, he drafted it from his brain in this ridiculous short time.

posting in a wtf dem3n thread

It was only a sign of comradeship to which one should always reply with leninist or stalinist slogans.

So much drama lately. Thorin trashtalking poland, agent behaving like a dick and now evil.

Hi and welcome to esreality!

ty

More like welcome to the internet

agent behaving like a dick is nothing unusual. if he acted politely, then it would be real drama :D

Quake really is struggling when people obsess over things like this.

Well, Noctis asked for him to get a ban.

And almost half of the debate above is about dem0n denying the existence of Nazi gas chambers.

*having reasonable doubts based on the (limited) knowledge he had and asked people to provide him with the knowledge he needed to make an informed judgement

big difference

I missed most of the debate, but where i started it looked like he was denying gas chambers.

ty.

You better be ready to give an exact post as source and quote the passage where he said that if you wanna make such a claim.

"While I don't fully agree with how samuel describes it (I believe he also has some difficulty to express himself in a good english which diminishes his ability to answer correctly to his counterparts), I am yet to be shown a real proof of the use of gasing by the nazis. Showing pictures and claiming that is what happens doesn't do it for me. "

Unfortunately Samuel removed some of the shit he posted. But in short he said that Jews are terrible and try to control the world.

As far as I know, Samuel isn't dem0n. You can't tell what they agree together on from that quote. You seem to have misinterpreted the rest as well. Not taking position is not the same thing as taking position against something.

Seriously you call him as if he is your IRL buddy ROFL "Samuel" hahaha, it also makes me feel like you're talking about Samuel L. Jackson xD.

Well that's how Laim called him and I couldn't be arsed to go back and see what his full (nick)name is.

Np Gordon, I know.

We'll he obviously got the information he needed but still doesn't sound quite convinced.

Problem is there's nothing else going on for quite a while.

Gulag and have fun.

Good Gulag.

ITS JUST A JOKE WHY U HAFF TO BE MAD EUROFAGETS?

>Tried to pluss
>mfw couldnt bring myself to do it
>mfw I realise im a euro fagget
>mfw i have no face

inb4 Samuel_Davy, the silent nazi rediscovers his true roots..

Killsen mad

epic thread

Yeah that was to be expected.

Meanwhile: new quake prodigies in Kenya: http://www.esreality.com/post/2578365/re-cpmd...pid2578365

"If you open your mind too much your brain will fall out"

Lol I met Evil IRL

Even tho he always seems like a closed doors faggot he is really nice if you actually talked to him

Hes like a russian semi-bald teddybear. Thats the feeling I got when I met him @ DHW

Thanks a lot for your input uaLaskij, it is very helpful to reconsider his ban, we will in the same time use it as jurisprudence and therefore free all the Nazis and apologize to the children and grand-children!

SILLY ME! OR THEM! OR US!
I mean during the Nuremberg Trials, how stupid we were, sentencing these poor men, they told us how they were forced to do such things, I mean it wasn't because of them at first, and they would have never done it if it wasn't for their families, etc, anyway we all know what happened during the trials, BUT uaLaskij, this element that you just added is what we lacked.

The History is now about to be re-written, thanks uaLaskij *_*.

http://www.esreality.com/post/2578800/#pid2578800

Read.

Semi-bald teddybear confirmed.

http://lmgtfy.com/?q=bald+bear

Alright laskij? Let's make our ENDS meet?))x

English please.

That is, you idiot

I du not, understandt tebya

He wants his butt to touch your butt.

I got that part but why would I wanna gayfuck someone like CMSS?

if youre gonna go gay, at least go properly gay.

So let me sum this up:
A guy called Evil is doing nazi salutes.
A guy called Demon denies holocaust.
All of this in a game that was originally full of satanic symbols.

Coincidence? I think not.

hl3 confirmed

Evil is probably not racist, he's not a nazi nor a xenophobic judging from this, I don't think it was especially funny but I wouldn't be offended by it. And you guys should not bs Evil for this.
That being said:
Banning him though is the right step, because you have to apply certain formal rules which are enforced in official tournaments; you just have to set certain standards; it has to be like this, because one day a nazi might play and say something like Sieg Heil, and afterwards he might claim it was just a joke even though it was not and he really believes in nazi ideology and then you have this annoying nazi in the scene who makes racist nazi remarks all over the place.

gg hitler from Agent towards K1llsen is a bit different though, because it cannot be mistaken as a nazi embracing remark. It really can only be understood as a troll and an insult, a pretty funny one as I think, though it could have upset K1llsen, but I don't think anyone should be banned for this as it's hard to judge whats an insult and what not; f.e.: Cyphers sarcastic "wow, amazing skill" could also been understood as offensive...where do you draw the line. Those little insults fuel feuds, keep drama in the scene for which we are all longing.

Unrelated but related:

i think the line is winning and losing.

agent was mad bcoz he lost, and he always gets pwned really hard by killsen. in infamous 125fps final he even said: i cant beat killsen on t7.

we all know agent can get really emotional, so does cypher. punishing players for rage seems to me inappropriate.

evil said his words before the match, and then after he reped noctis. thats like beating a man lying on the ground.

http://soundcloud.com/neumondrecordings/karl-...er/s-iPlTf

that poll is dead fucking even...nuts


edit: LOL @ ua guy calling him a closed door faggot...

Ok so when you see Evil in pics, does he seem like a person that you want to meet?

Jimmy Saville looked like a lovely guy for sure,but would you want to meet him now?

no, but I don't really like meeting people

Know the feeling, Social awkwardness is a bitch m8.

lol got the winning vote to not ban.

I just saw that Ban was winning 183 to 182 for Don't Ban.

So, I clicked don't ban just to even it back up. \o/

edit: wrong numbers. Was thinking about some software. :P

Awesome! I have the 186th (dont ban) vote, the deciding one. It was funny that the deciding vote belonged to me.

aaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaand its gone

well, i had my 5 mins of glory.

congratz:()

379 total votes.

QL player base.

1000 People Voting on Cmss to leave

lol there are really some peoples who not 100% convincet about gas chambers/nazi use. lol i thought only the nazis deny that. becuz afterward its uhm yea cruel :)

@dem0n_ fuck a book, visit concentration camps/gaschambers all over in EU, and after that if u keep saying "ah all these pics about the burnd jews and dead jews is not real" then we know how u really are :D

He made a joke, I think that should be obvious to anyone. Whether or not he gets punished for it, I personally won't take that stupid joke as evidence for him being a racist.

I like though how discussions like this make people unmask themselves as total fucktards.

I hope nobody cares if he is racist or not. It's completely irrelevant to us. It's not his beliefs what matter but if the tournament organizers accept such conduct.

I personally could not give a fuck about someone typing sieg heil in chat. But ofc according to the poll it brought tears to the eyes and deep misery to more than 200 viewers.

I agree with the first part of your post, someone's beliefs are not my business. Things change though once you decide to openly express them. Quake Live and most tournament organizers have certain rules regarding how to treat racism and I personally think those rules should apply to everyone, no matter if it is evil or a random noob. Think about credibility. I cannot speak for everyone of course but I doubt that most people who voted for a ban really did so as a consequence of feeling offended.

Rules are rules and of course they should apply to everyone equally. I agree as well.

The poll is nothing but public opinion and FaceIt admins should decide between themselves how they want to represent themselves and their sponsors.

Second part was just my own personal opinion and it's funny how in some instances people in Russia have more personal freedom of speech than in the western world.

I agree that no matter who it is, but the same punishment should go to everyone, and are we western?))

Yes Look Wikipedia Western world

both players should be executed , and then upside down helicopters should be flown into their families...

And dinosaurs

What did dinosaurs do to you?

? I think they would do good to eat some evil and noctis

meh, i don't care

but can we please ban Samuel_Davy? his conspiratard stream of consciousness plastered all over ESR is too much xD

Samuel_Donkey

So did gas chambers and the holocaust happen or not?

Who was bored enough to make all those stories up, make fake remains, take fake photos, trials, museums, studies and everything else?

millions jews were killed, and they were unarmed. wasnt the first time jews had been prosecuted in europe. it happend for centuries, again and again, but why.

besides that, between 1900 and 1950 there were 200-300 mill people killed, shot, bombed, burned, hungered, a.s.o. do you even know the term holodomor?

besides that, the current generation of historians tell a very different story about, who started the wars. just follow this issue, theres more and more coming up.

just look at the ucrain/crimea story. how easily the politicians are calling for military action, isnt that astonishing.

so if it's happening over and over again it must mean that there's a valid reason why no one likes the jews, aka they're bringing it on themselves.

waiting for dem0n's expert opinion.

jews r cool

you're adding too many letters, it's Hodor, not holodomor.

/u/Dem0n

awaiting the exp0rtz opinznz

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_63GLG15hBo

.

not necessarily my type of music, but it fits in this thread well due to its lyrics.