Thomas Mair and the Killing of Jo Cox, M.P.

[David1819]

Again, sorry David but you're just wrong.  I've stated the truth: ausrotten has varied meanings, the exact meaning will depend on context.  What you've posted is a small extract from a lengthy speech.  Just like in English, words in German have varied meanings depending on what is intended.

No, I am not wrong. Ausrotten has varied meanings yes. However considering the context and the fact its coming from the head of the SS, leaves no room for any alternative interpretation.

https://phdn.org/archives/holocaust-history.org/himmler-poznan/ausrotten.shtml

Again, you quote mainstream sources and here you ignore what I said, including that Bin Laden had denied involvement repeatedly and a German expert on Arabic has produced a report ripping that video to shreds.

The video is not the only evidence. What some intellectually dishonest crackpot has to say about it is rather moot. Nor would any of the detained members of BinLadens terror group agree with him either.

[QCChevalier]

No, I am not wrong. Ausrotten has varied meanings yes. However considering the context and the fact its coming from the head of the SS, leaves no room for any alternative interpretation.

Actually, it does leave room for alternative interpretation.  The problem is that your mind is closed, David.

The video is not the only evidence. What some intellectually dishonest crackpot has to say about it is rather moot. Nor would any of the detained members of BinLadens terror group agree with him either.

Again, your mind is closed.  This is not a discussion.  This is you just coming on here and calling people names because they take a different view to you.

The video is evidence, but it is open to analysis and interpretation.  Your refusal to consider alternative viewpoints is your own limitation.  It is not our problem.

[David1819]

9/11 thread created 

http://jeremybamberforum.co.uk/index.php/topic,10324.0.html

[Steve_uk]

Unfortunately for you, I am fluent in German and I take the view that the translation given of Himmler's speech in that video is unlikely to be contextually accurate.  One needs to have some historical knowledge to appreciate why it's unlikely to be a faithful translation.  The word 'Ausrottung' and its verb 'ausrotten' have varied meanings.

No, they didn't admit to it.  In fact, Bin Laden denied involvement on several occasions.  In regard to the video above, I suggest you familiarise yourself with the report of Gernot Rotter, professor of Islamic and Arabic Studies at the Asia-Africa Institute at the University of Hamburg.

Also, even if Bin Laden was involved, that does not preclude the possibility of Israeli involvement as well.  Al Qaeda were not necessarily antagonistic to the Israelis.  It was a complex relationship in which there was, at one point, an alliance between Al Qaeda and the West.  I don't pay much attention to Middle Eastern politics, to be honest, but it seems to me we're now back in alliance with Al Qaeda again!

I think they are actually!  If you don't like it or you're offended, you're free to ignore such discussions.

So am I, and your claims are offensive and unfounded.

[QCChevalier]

So am I, and your claims are offensive and unfounded.

What 'claims' have I made, Steve?  So far, I have said that the translation is potentially inaccurate because the word has varied meanings, there is an historical context to the speech, and only a small part of the speech is extracted.  You seem to be claiming that you, too, are versed in the German language, so you must know that what I say about the word having varied meanings is true.

You are supposed to be a TEACHER!  You are supposed to be an educated person.  It seems all the time we spend on here I am educating you.  It's very ironic. 

And how can what I have said be "offensive"?  Offensive to who? 

Isn't it rather typical of people like you - priggish, middle-class people - that you insult people and hide behind 'free speech' (having no educated understanding of what the expression means), and when others say things you don't like, you seek to deter speech by calling it "offensive" or launching into moralising shame-based attacks on them.

[Steve_uk]

What 'claims' have I made, Steve?  So far, I have said that the translation is potentially inaccurate because the word has varied meanings, there is an historical context to the speech, and only a small part of the speech is extracted.  You seem to be claiming that you, too, are versed in the German language, so you must know that what I say about the word having varied meanings is true.

You are supposed to be a TEACHER!  You are supposed to be an educated person.  It seems all the time we spend on here I am educating you.  It's very ironic. 

And how can what I have said be "offensive"?  Offensive to who?

Isn't it rather typical of people like you - priggish, middle-class people - that you insult people and hide behind 'free speech' (having no educated understanding of what the expression means), and when others say things you don't like, you seek to deter speech by calling it "offensive" or launching into moralising shame-based attacks on them.

You have either forgotten or didn't know in the first place that the Holocaust was perpetrated in utter clandestinity, euphemisms being used in the process of systematically killing millions of Jews and other minority groups. It's therefore not totally unsurprising that the word "Ausrottung" was used ("Evakuirung" was another). As David has pointed out successfully, you are totally mistaken in your questioning of this, and if this wasn't your intention then you failed to make that intention clear.

It's offensive because it's anti-Semitic, pure and simple.

[QCChevalier]

You have either forgotten or didn't know in the first place that the Holocaust was perpetrated in utter clandestinity, euphemisms being used in the process of systematically killing millions of Jews and other minority groups.  It's therefore not totally unsurprising that the word "Ausrottung" was used ("Evakuirung" was another). As David has pointed out successfully, you are totally mistaken in your questioning of this, and if this wasn't your intention then you failed to make that intention clear.

It's offensive because it's anti-Semitic, pure and simple.

So you admit that the word used has different meanings?  And you admit that the meaning of a word will depend on the context in which it is used?  You accept that to understand what people say we have to look at the situation in which they spoke?  Thus, it seems that the point I have been making is in fact correct in principle.  I therefore wonder what all this fuss is about, especially since I didn't bring the topic up in the first place.

"Destruction of the Jews" or "extermination of Jews" does not necessarily mean industrialised killing of Jews, does it.  It may mean that to somebody who is of average understanding who just assumes that what they are told by mainstream historians, etc. is correct.  I think a bit more deeply about things and I do not necessarily simply believe what I am told.

You say that it was all done clandestinely.  It must have been, since the only real evidence we have for it is witness statements from people who were there yet who survived - which raises all sorts of questions in itself.  I am not, of course, suggesting it didn't happen and I already know what the Nazi attitude to Jews was.  It could also be that some neo-Nazis today, far from being Holocaust deniers, are Holocaust affirmers and are proud of what happened and want it to happen again.  But I would first like to know what happened.

Anyway, it is not offensive to ask questions.  It is not anti-Semitic to ask questions.  That is all I have done, so far.  Please stop preaching and hectoring people because they want to ask questions.

[Steve_uk]

So you admit that the word used has different meanings?  And you admit that the meaning of a word will depend on the context in which it is used?  You accept that to understand what people say we have to look at the situation in which they spoke?  Thus, it seems that the point I have been making is in fact correct in principle.  I therefore wonder what all this fuss is about, especially since I didn't bring the topic up in the first place.

"Destruction of the Jews" or "extermination of Jews" does not necessarily mean industrialised killing of Jews, does it.  It may mean that to somebody who is of average understanding who just assumes that what they are told by mainstream historians, etc. is correct.  I think a bit more deeply about things and I do not necessarily simply believe what I am told.

You say that it was all done clandestinely.  It must have been, since the only real evidence we have for it is witness statements from people who were there yet who survived - which raises all sorts of questions in itself.  I am not, of course, suggesting it didn't happen and I already know what the Nazi attitude to Jews was.  It could also be that some neo-Nazis today, far from being Holocaust deniers, are Holocaust affirmers and are proud of what happened and want it to happen again.  But I would first like to know what happened.

Anyway, it is not offensive to ask questions. It is not anti-Semitic to ask questions.  That is all I have done, so far.  Please stop preaching and hectoring people because they want to ask questions.

QC please go back to bed. You are far from the (sometimes attained) standard you set yourself, or maybe you're just having a bad day.

[QCChevalier]

QC please go back to bed. You are far from the (sometimes attained) standard you set yourself, or maybe you're just having a bad day.

Thanks [Nursery] Teacher Steve.  Can I take my teddy bear with me too?

[Steve_uk]

Thanks [Nursery] Teacher Steve.  Can I take my teddy bear with me too?

Yes and stab it, for all I care..

[QCChevalier]

Yes and stab it, for all I care..

Thanks Steve.  Another one for the archives.