Homer Simpson Retarded

Basically Ianosite.

*laonsite

To be Fair... with his alts, there might be an innocent with the typo name...

LOL so true!!

Lol!

It's not fair to compare it to illegal immigration because native tribes didn't have official borders, so the land didn't count as owned.

That's hilarious! it was ok for us to take their lands as they didn't have border posts or a wall and no official immigration and to fill in! That's the funniest justification for land grab and the wiping out of a race I have ever heard!

Not only is a bogus excuse, it's also a false claim, since there were groups with territories, nations, even confederations. He already knows this, as it was explained to him a couple of months ago on this site (as if he really did not know this already).

I find it astonishing that not only would someone think that, but actually put it in writing for everyone to see.

He's just a troll. He repeats the same things and in a seemingly innocent and reasonble way, but it's just his way of thumbing people in the eye, aggravating them as he keeps repeating whatever with his blank eyed Forrest Gump approach.

I usually ignore him, but answered his query then when someone else asked me similar. A map of the Aztec Empire and how the Spanish described them as the most orderly adminstered society they've seen in the world apparantly did not sink in.

Choose one stalker.

Don't trust Vagabond. He has like five alts and will stalk your comments, but if you call him out on it he will accuse you of doing the same.

The Americans had guns to use in slaughtering them and taking their land, they couldn't compete technologically. If that is your idea of American justice, then you're f**ked.

"The Americans had guns to use in slaughtering them and taking their land"

Yet another example of what happens to unarmed civilians against armed troops. And still people deny the importance of the Second Amendment. You say you want people to understand history. Well what is the point of studying history if you are not going to learn from it? For only by learning from history does one begin to understand history.

LOL, now that is funny. So if you nuke Iran, your response will be, if Iran had nukes then they could have retaliated. Another good reason for the 2nd Amendment....

This is a moot point, yes they could have retaliated. It is what contributed to no nukes being fired during the Cold War. Mutually assured destruction, if you fire I'm gonna fire back.

So you are saying that if the Indians had guns it wouldn't have made any difference? If that is your opinion why bother saying what you did earlier?
"The Americans had guns to use in slaughtering them and taking their land, they couldn't compete technologically"

And then you laugh at what I said. I think you just hate America. You try so damn hard to make America look bad by talking about the Indian genocide and how the Americans had guns and they couldn't compete with their technology. But then you turn around and deny the fact that if Indians had guns the outcome would have been different. Perhaps you can explain your inconsistence in your next reply.

Well the Indians did have guns, (the British gave and sold them to them) but it still didn't do them any good. They were outnumbered and outgunned by a more ruthless enemy. You really don't know much of your own history or the genocide of the native Americans. It's disappointing how poor the American education system has become and it shows in how many immigrants win the Noble prize on behalf of America.. they weren't educated there.

"They were outnumbered and outgunned by a more ruthless enemy."
Outgunned yes, but I thought the Indians had more fighters than the US sent after them. And as far as ruthless goes, the Indians was scalping people and leading raids on villages before the US became the US. But you would probably say that is because of what the Spanish and English did to the Aztecs and other similar tribes. It probably wasn't until the end of the war that we began to outnumber them.

"You really don't know much of your own history or the genocide of the native Americans."
There is a lot I don't know about. But as I asked earlier, what is the point of studying history if you are not going to learn from it? I know the Indians didn't have guns. Maybe a handful did. Plus the Indians were not as well trained with guns. They didn't know formations and they didn't do firearm training. Reloading, marksmanship, etc.
But when your side has the numbers. A lot of average skilled combatants will make a significant difference. One hundred million you said. I am not sure how far back that goes but I know the Indians had a lot of forces throughout most of the wars. If every Indian fighter had a gun, the outcome would have been different.

"It's disappointing how poor the American education system has become"
Yes it is. It is disappointing that certain things are taught and others are not taught. Like why is so much time spent on slavery and the holocaust but nothing said about the atrocities committed under communism or that slavery exists to this day?! But I am getting off track.
It is even more disappointing that people who acts like they know so much about a certain part of history fail to learn from the past. They say that genocide was committed by ruthless armed troops against a mostly unarmed population. But they fail to learn from it. Am I right Moza? I realize that you despise the 2nd Amendment. So I am confused about why you keep going on about the Indian genocide. Do you want every American to slit their throats to atone for the actions of others or what? Because I fail to see why you mention brutal parts of history if you are not going to learn the lesson it teaches. And that lesson is an unarmed population is always at the mercy of the armed forces out there. The genocides throughout history proves this. Yes, it is a shame that history classes do not emphasize this point.

I never said it was justified, but I did say that it didn't make sense to compare it to illegal immigration because the natives didn't have actual borders. Btw, all nations have been slaughtering and taking other peoples land, yet you only care about it when it's done by western civilizations. ;/

Not even western, just the US. He has no problem trying to make the argument that we are worse than the nazis. He has some huge fly up his ass about the us for whatever reason.

He basically comes from a group of people that think the US and western civilization are the devil because his gender studies professor said so. *_*

All of them.

You sad little wannabe troll.

I never said that it was okay to do, but I did say it was unfair to compare to illegal immigration.

LOL. 90% died to diseases they caught upon first contact because they had no immunity. Moreso, of those 100 million, most died in central and south america, NOT on American soil. Not exactly the same as cramming people into railroad cars, shipping them cross-continent to be crammed into gas chambers then burned in ovens, but don't let that stop you from being an idiot and misrepresenting history by using the deaths of millions to push your hate. Not to mention the disservice you do to the victims of the actual holocaust. Don't you have your national sovereignty to go protest?

when you need the word "LOL" to justify 50% of your argument

justify? Which part of what I said was factually incorrect? I'll wait.

It was systematic murder. The American government paid civilians bounties to kill American Indians, they legalised murder on an industrial scale. This happened in nearly every state but was it's most vicious and brutal in the South, West and Mid West.

Pre-European contract there was approximately 5,000,000 native Americans, but 1900 that figure was down to 240,000. That is one of the great population wipe outs in human history. The list of massacres perpetrated by Americans from 1650 to 1900 is far too many to list here. The Nazis managed to kill millions in a short period of time using modern technology, but the Americans waged a more protracted genocide up until the early 20th Century. It is a stain on their legacy.

So we killed 100 million or we killed 4,700,000? At least keep your numbers straight. The list of massacres perpetrated by Native Americans between 1650 to 1900 is also far too many to list here. I guess you missed the part where many of the massacres YOU are pointing out were directly preceded by natives massacring settlers? Two wrongs don't make a right, but don't act like it wasn't a two-sided affair.

You wanted to focus just on the US borders so that is what I did, the decimation of the native people of the Americas as a whole is a human tragedy.

I guess when you are being driven from you land, your people are being killed, eventually you fight back. If someone turned up to your house and told you, that you had to leave and if you didn't they would kill you and your family, I bet you would go and grab your gun.

You can try and spin this however you want, but America was built on stolen land and millions of dead bodies. That's just historical fact, not an opinion.

Stolen land, lol. So do you complain at the French that they are a nation ruled over by Germanic invaders? How about Britain? No tears for the celts? History is built on conquest and virtually every modern nation is built upon the ashes of another civilization. You bitch and moan about this in particular because it lets you rag on the US. Don't pretend this is about historical accuracy or justice. It is just another excuse for you to attack a nation you despise. Ps enjoy your brexit

I am asking for nothing to change, just for people to understand history. Trying to pretend that the conquest of America was some benevolent exercise is an insult to all those that died.

And your trying to pretend it was some heartless conquest of evil is an insult to all the settlers who died trying to defend their homes and their families from native attacks.

It was a heartless conquest of evil! The authorities paid bounties for every dead Indian scalp! They wanted the land, kept pushing them further and further westwards and eventually wiped them out, so only a handful are left today. Do you want me to sympathise with the people that murdered them?

Right, those families who wanted to build a new life for themselves on the frontier and were slaughtered and scalped by the local natives were all /evil/. You're ridiculous.

I am sure if someone moved into your garden and set up a tent, then decided they wanted your house and all the livestock they lived on in the area, then you would say no problem. Be my guest. I am selfishly keeping all this land to myself.

I bet you are the sort of person that blames women for getting raped, rather than the rapist.

https://www.barnesandnoble.com/reviews/wild-frontier-william-m-osborn/1100273203?ean=9780307561176

In case you're ever interested in educating yourself about a situation that was hardly as black and white as you try to paint it

Yes, I forgot the brave Americans were building a great America for the world, a new Atlantis and the barbaric savages were standing selfishly in the way of progress and civilization. If they had only accepted to be civilised, then it would have been a very peaceful transition. Instead these barbarous American Indians with blood dripping from their mouths, killed women and children and had sex with the pilgrims farm animals.....

What you have said tells me, that the American education system is not fit for purpose and that biased nationalism on a scale that would make the Soviets proud is lapped up by people like you.

in fairness, a lot of indians were murdered due to being given blankets infused with smallpox

also, the "other" genocide you mention...doesn't have a single shred of evidence to support it

but these are probably just "conspiracy theories"....right??!

very serious

do you have any evidence?

The amount of photographic evidence is astounding. Not to mention many of the camps are still standing? I'll pass on digging up the photos of piles of naked corpses to post on a meme site. If you want to see them you can look for yourself. Though I'm sure you have some clever reason that none of it is real.

you've posted a photo of 30 people in a concentration camp...that's evidence of a "holocaust" of six million people?? ooooooookay

interesting that you mention some of the camps are still standing! are you familiar with the Majdanek camp? or Auschwitz? and how their "death" numbers were substantially...and i do mean "substantially"....reduced? you do know they were drastically reduced due to legitimate investigations, right?!?

go ahead and post your photos of "naked corpses" and then explain to me how that is evidence of six million people being gassed and burned

Let me guess, you think Poland attacked Germany in 1939 too, right?

wtf has that got to do with what we're talking about? stick to the subject

It has to do with the fact that you're an outwardly obvious anti-semite and literal Nazi sympathizer? Keep on with your jew hate and making excuses for genocidal regimes, I'm sure it makes you real popular. Maybe you ought go volunteer with Hezbollah, they seem to share your ideology.

show me one instance of "antisemitism" or STFU

did you hear bibi the other day blaming the holocaust on Poland now!? Last year he tried to blame the Palestinians...good grief, anybody but the Nazi's bibi, eh?

"making excuses for genocidal regimes" and where did i make excuses for the israeli regime?

Most of the things you say are smart, but this is just doesn't make any sense. What about the Holocaust do you have a hard time believing?

When we start putting people in jail for simply questioning things, that concerns me. When journalists are financially ruined and have to seek political asylum in other countries for doing investigative work, that concerns me. When governments can steal land, keep an entire population on calorie controlled diets, kill indiscriminately, kidnap people from other countries, build undocumented nuclear devices, attack other nations indiscriminately...and get away with it all because something bad happened 70 years ago....that concerns me.

One of the journalists I'm speaking about is jurgen graf. He had access to all the records from the Majdenek death camp. The camp had a sign saying "1,500,000 people died here", Graf's work revealed that no more than 40,000 people died at the camp...still horrendous, but compared to 1.5M it's barely a drop in the ocean...the camp was forced to change its sign, Graf's life and career was ruined and he had to seek asylum in Russia...as a result of doing his job!

But that still would count as genocide.

what about the 20+ million Russians who died winning the war on the eastern front...doesn't that count as genocide too?

we don't turn a blind eye when russia builds nuclear bombs and invades its
neighbours because..."genocide"

Everybody remembers that many Russians died in WW2. "we don't turn a blind eye when russia builds nuclear bombs and invades its
neighbours because..."genocide"" But genocide would still count as genocide.

Others like David Irving, David Cole and Ernst Zundel have also carried out investigations...which invariably lead to trumped up charges and irregular court trials i.e. them not being allowed representation, being denied the right to produce evidence and being denied the right to produce witnesses (in Zundels case, a Jewish rabbi was forbidden from providing corroborating evidence in support of Zundels work). There's some fascinating evidence out there that would make anyone question what they "think" they know.... and it's all being suppressed.

Personally, I think that stinks to the high heavens

David Irving.........*rolls eyes*

aw did david irving hurt your feels? maybe you could make them feel better by rubbing some "actual rebuttals of what he said" on them :)

I wouldn't waste my effort on him.

i get it, you don't believe in free speech, your choice

Actually I do and I think the holocaust denials laws in the countries that have them are wrong. As I have said before, denying the holocaust makes you an arsehole, not a criminal. You can even go round saying the earth is flat, 9/11 was an inside job and the US faked the moon landings. Feel free, I'll just sit here and laugh

oh yeah, "flat earth"...i didn't see that coming ;)

LOLz

I never said I doubted the Holocaust, so I don't get what you're talking about.

But that's just a single case revolving around something that would need more than one halt of a single case to cover it up.

You don't have to cover something up if it didn't happen. all you have to is stop people from talking about it or asking questions about it...and that's exactly what has happened in this case.

and now that more people are waking up to it and asking the awkward questions, the response from the powers that be, is to lay down laws and jail people for even having an opinion on it

Well many historians and Holocaust survivors have gone into detail about what it was like during that time. Also this theory would only make sense if it was a myth made up by the Allies to make Nazi Germany look even worse, but the alliance between the USSR and everybody else in the group was falling apart post WW2, yet the USSR still reported on the Holocaust.

according to some of the evidence that was unearthed, Russia and Britain were in talks where they concluded that 300,000 jews had been murdered in death camps. that figure is certainly more in line with the European census information available from those times.

also, the british were monitoring figures being reported to berlin from the death camps every day. these had figures of prisoners transferred in, transferred out, died due to illness/overwork, died due to execution (hanging, or shooting) no mention of gassing and burning.

the British also flew regular reccy flights over the camps and there was no indication of any kind of mass-murders taking place

When I watched part of that video, I noticed how many of the tactics used against Irving were very common methods often used against opposing voices in regimes, but most of Europe has had very strict policies regarding what you can and cannot say revolving the Nazis since the end off WW2. Now I think most of the problems he face were because of people being stubborn against his ideas because many people are stuck up. But I really don't see any convincing evidence from Irving because it's mostly just small things that can only be seen as part of a cover-up if you went into the discussion thinking it was one in the first place.

it's not about "being stubborn", it's about "here is the narrative, accept it or go to jail", like i said before, why is there only one, acceptable, side to this story?!

that video is just an introduction to Irving, there are many, many more videos going into detail

kudos to you tho' for watching it!

European laws have always been strict on what you can say revolving Nazism, so I doubt it's a conspiracy that's holding Irving back from what he needs to find.

Need to be careful when you say European Laws. In this respect there is no such thing, in say the UK/Ireland you can deny the holocaust all you like, it doesn't make you a criminal, it just makes you an arsehole. However in France/Germany and Austria it is a criminal offence, I don't agree with that but because of their history I can see why they did it.

Can I see links to any of these reports?

i don't have any links handy, this is all stuff i seen/read a couple years back. if you really want to find out about this, check out David Irving's videos on youtube.

This was the first video i seen on the subject...i literally closed my windows/curtains, turned down the volume and put on my headphones when i realised what he was talking about!!

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=iz2vWsUMcMs

Irving wrote biographies on Churchill and Hitler and was regarded as the finest writer of his generation...until he took on the holocaust...make of that, what you will.

or if it feels easier, check out David Cole's works...he's jewish and absolutely NOT anti-semitic ;)

the big thing you'll take away from listening to Irving is the importance of "Free Speech"

think about where you are now, are you truly free to say what you want? or do you have to temper it in case you offend anyone?! and what are the consequences of offending someone today?

i was always taught that there are two sides to every story....i dare say, you were too....but when you start to speak about holocaust, it becomes pretty clear, very early on...that there is only ONE side, to that particular story...you either promulgate the accepted narrative...or you go to jail. does that sound right to you?

Even those that did die due to smallpox blankets were part of the 10% that survived the original die-out.

https://quod.lib.umich.edu/p/plag/5240451.0001.009/--did-the-us-army-distribute-smallpox-blankets-to-indians?rgn=main;view=fulltext

Apparently not all cases of smallpox blankets being weaponized are entirely settled history, either.