From: "Bob Musicant" wrote:

"Rolf Tueschen" wrote in message
...

[Musicant wrote]:
That seems to be what is in dispute between David and you,

Bob, you are completely wrong. I never had a debate with Omid David about
Moellemann. I thought you knew that because I already had stated it here
in the
thread. I was NOT in the thread with him and entered only after I had read
the
'Nazi *******'.

Rolf,

This is a language problem. By "dispute" I simply meant "different views
on." I might not have chosen the best way of expressing it, but a native
English speaker would understand me if I were to say "I have a dispute with
Ariel Sharon about West Bank settlement policy," as meaning "I am opposed
to Sharon's policy."

[Musicant wrote]:
I don't know enough about the
Moelleman incidents to offer a judgment, and I am not interested in
getting
into that discussion. Your original question dealt with the rightness of
YOUR response to David, and my original thoughts remain the same,
REGARDLESS
of how correct or incorrect David is.

Yes, that is all ok. Perhaps you react this way as a Jew.

Actually, I react this way as a closet Christian and as a student of Dale
Carnegie:


That is interesting. I thought all Jews believed in the Old Testament with the
continual revenge. Very pleased to hear the news.



43"You have heard that it was said, "You shall love your neighbor and hate
your enemy.'
44But I say to you, love your enemies, bless those who curse you, do good
to those who hate you, and pray for those who spitefully use you and
persecute you, 45that you may be sons of your Father in heaven; for He makes
His sun rise on the evil and on the good, and sends rain on the just and on
the unjust. 46For if you love those who love you, what reward have you? Do
not even the tax collectors do the same? 47And if you greet your brethren
only, what do you do more than others? Do not even the tax collectors do so?
-- 5 Matthew

"I am convinced now that nothing good is accomplished and a lot of damage
can be done if you tell a person straight out that he or she is wrong. You
only succeed in stripping that person of self-dignity and making yourself an
unwelcome part of any discussion."
-- How to Win Friends and Influence People, Part 3 Chapter 2.

You said that your goal was to educate David and make him see his error.


Yes and no. Bob, this is already been explained in extenso. With all your
quotings you can't twist it around. As you have written, I don't want to have
Omid David as a friend. How could I? Since he's a lying *******. Not only in
the topic I mentioned here in rgcc.

You are twisting my words around into the opposite. I did NOT say that I had
undertaken a therapeutic expedition to help Omid David as a psychologist. I
said that I have used a known therapeutic trick, as a last move so to speak
after everything has failed before.

As I said, I had longer exchanges with him because he interested me as a Jew
and an Israeli and as a talented computer (chess) expert. I argued with him on
several topics. But it was always the same picture. When he ran out of
arguments he fled into a new topic and re-started his propaganda. Clear
questions he left unanswered. So I began to follow his messages from a bigger
distance.

Suddenly I read what he wrote about Moellemann. That was it. I thought that
such a gross mistake and incredible insult against a German as such [we
discussed here why that was the case] could be the occasion to use that tool.
It doesn't matter that you don't know it. It is still existing. The point was
that only No-more-chess realised it here in rgcc. BTW also in that forum.

This Jew wasn't surprised that he was called a liar. Obviously he's lying all
the time. He took offense by the term Jewish *******. Here he could react with
the Pavlovian reflex because it came from a German. The fact that he had lied
was nothing important neither for him nor to you. Now that is the reason why my
question was justified. The only question that is still unanswered now: why a
Jew isn't offended when he's proven a liar! That a Jew doesn't like that a
German calls him a Jewish ******* that was already known to me.

BTW we have in World policies the same mechanism. Israel is NOT offended by the
critics of its military policy. It is offended by terror acts which are
allegedly provoked by such critics. Because I must assume, a normal, rational
human being doesn't criticise Israelian military policy. Because? Israel is
standing above such critics. At least that is the fantasy of Israelians like
Omid David and Sharon.

It would interest me how you are seen since you also had criticised that
military policy. You are lucky that you cannot be called an Anti-Semite.



I
said early on that I would assume that David was INCORRECT. Your answer to
him had exactly the result that Carnegie says it would: You accomplished
nothing except to confirm David in his view of Germans and get yourself
barred from the forum. The idea that your "turnabout" on him was a "lesson
from psychology" misses the fact that you did not have the sort of
pre-existing therapeutic or friendly relationship with him that might have
allowed your tactic to succeed.

It succeeds normally. But NOT with dense psychopaths. They don't care if they
lie and therefore are called liars. Lying for them is like normal speaking for
us. I must excuse myself that you didn't know such facts. So - it's excusable
that you make such false conclusions that now I am the loser who didn't
succeed. I think it was well worth the attempt to try a last time if his vision
could be changed.

The fact that the officials of that forum are also so low-educated that they
did only focus on my alleged insult as a German against a Jew, cannot be a fact
that I should be concerned of. I can't change my views in accordance to a
general stupidity. I had not even a chance to defend myself because they simply
announced that they would seek a decision. That took them a couple of weeks and
then they said the obvious. But that I had to deal with a notorious psychopath
that was not a topic to these lays.

Look, Bob, normally people hate to be called liars. They would prefer to
apologise. If Omid David had done this, I would have succeeded - also in your
view. But because he didn't, you call my method a mistake and quote Carnegie.
Carnegie however didn't write his book for the handling of psychopaths. But he
certainly knew that in such cases his method also couldn't succeed.

Since I had no personal relationship with this Jew I couldn't know that he is a
psychopath. Therefore my try was worth it. The success has nothing to do with a
therapeutic relationship.




I am simply talking about the application
of general principles of education and persuasion. The actual subject
matter is irrelevant.

But you can't apply such principles when you deal with psychopaths. You can't
persuade them. Since I came into the net in 1996 I had several cases where I
had to realise that you can't discuss with psychopaths. I still had a better
example for you than this Omid David. He's not the worst case.

You should realise that there are people who don't do what we do. We argue and
say that we already said this or that before, but if you argue with a
psychopath he starts laughing if you nail him to the wall. He changes his
opinions on a daily basis, if it's neccessary.

And that with multiple personalities, which seems to be fun in that virtual
reality. But for a psychopath this is like Heaven for his vice - as a liar.

Rolf



Bob

illspam (NoMoreChess) wrote a new proof of his
superior wisdom:

That last spiel, about loving thy neighbor and so forth, seems to assume that
Mr. Tueschen's actions were intended solely for the "benefit" of the target
of
his criticism. But there are a multitude -- verily, I say unto you -- a
multitude of other readers, a few of which may have noticed the
propagandist's
cheap trick, thanks to Mr. Tueschen's unwelcome interruption of that
propagandist's ranting.

Now, we know that Mr. Tueschen explained his motivation for attacking that
propagandist as a psychological counterattack, but this does not mean he was
completely unaware of the existence of other readers there, nor that he truly
expected a dyed-in-the-wool propagandist to recant, simply because one reader
saw through the shallow rhetoric he was spewing forth.



(Oops, breaktime is over -- it's back to work, collecting taxes.
Does anyone else think it is unfair, the way crucifiers, slave-holders,
axe-murderers and so forth, got off Scott-free, while we mere tax-collectors
take all the heat as if we were the lowest form of scum? If you ask me, that
Jesus fellow had a major hangup regarding rendering unto Caesar, that which
*was* Caesars....) :-)



It is laughable the way some people here try to take Mr. Tuschen's claim
that
the Nazis wanted to exploit some of the Jews to death, rather than just kill
them straight-out, and magically TWIST that into him being a neo-Nazi.
Hahahaha! Hahaha. Huh. Bigots. Guilt by proximity. This is no
different
than Jerome Bibuld claiming that all "Uhhmurikkkans" are evil racists, due to
being here, and not someplace else.




"I am simply talking about the application
of general principles of education and persuasion."


Attempting to persuade a hardcore propagandist to cease and desist, and
doing
this from a pre-existing friendly relationship, as suggested, is obtuse.
First, this approach preempts all but the propagandist's closest friends
from
even making an attempt to enlighten him! Why on Earth a close friend would
communicate via impersonal internet newsgroup postings, is an enigma. Even
heard of the telephone? The mail? :-)
Second, this completely ignores what a propagandist is, and does! No
self-respecting propagandist would ever let mere facts get in the way of
doing
his "job." Don't just take my word on this -- ask Larry Parr.



"The actual subject matter is irrelevant."


I noticed that, too. All that seems to really matter here, is that a) some
Jew was criticized; and b) the critic was German. Hence, therefore, and
without further adiu, we "automatically" leap to predetermined conclusions,
don't we? :-)





"Judge not, lest ye be judged."



"Except, of course, for those lowdown, dirty, no-good tax-collectors, thee
all should go straight to Hell, for all I care. Father, are you listening?
Smite them all, as though they had blasphemed thy very name!" --Matthew,
addendum



After such a message I take this Sunday and thank the good Lord that he sent
such a speaker to interprete in good English what I had meant all the time. I
always thought that nobody could do that because I write such difficult
English, I mean, bad English as they say.

It is even more a surprise that the message came at the same moment my own was
there.

Must be the hand of God!

Rolf, also known as "Pope" of rgcc

NoMoreBrain illspam (NoMoreBrain)
wrote in message ...

But to you, neoNazy, this is a badge of "honor".

Wlod

PS. Hey guys, make it less attractive for this
semiazis full Nazy character, remove his hate
propaganda title from the post, when replying
to him, replace it with something meaningful.

PPS. Are his stupid posts some kind of a social
experiment? Is someone playing a sick joke?



Some people just don't get it.

Look, NoMoreBrain, the words "Jew and a liar"
are on rgmc repeated by now in the TITLE of
81 articles in just one thread. Also in other threads
on other newsgroups, which also have nothing to
do with politics, Israel, Jews, ...

(What is this nonsense? Do we have here United Nations?
Nations United Against Jews? Or is it rec.games.CHESS.misc)?

When you see antisemitic propaganda then
leave alone "factual arrors" (if any)
becauise there are zillions of them.
If it is not an error in an analysis of
a chess position then it has no place
on a chess discussion list.

Yeah, it doesn't take much brain to
spill hate propaganda. Enough of that racist vomit.

Wlod

PS. If we had here an "objective criticism"
(read: hate propaganda) of Portugal, Turkish,
Pakistani, Italian... whatever government,
on this chess group, people woulod consider
it odd, inappropriate, sick. But antiSemitism
is so spread, so common, so international, that
any sick idiot can indulge himself in "criticizing
Jews objectively", and a bunch of idiots would humor
him, even on a chess group. Sick.

chapman Billy wrote in message ...
Wlodzimierz Holsztynski wrote:

Rolf Tueschen (dick?) says something
funny:

I was defamed as an Anti-Semite.

But to you, neoNazy, this is a badge of "honor".

Wlod

Dear Wlod,

I am not convinced that Tueschen is anti-semitic;

Dear Simon,

when it reads like an antiSemitic diatribe, when it smells
like one, then it is. That Tueschen or whatever his face
reeks and stinks of antiSemitism.

I can recall a couple of articles about Moellemann [...]

This is irrelevant. Tueschen is attracking an ethnic group (Jews).
Any pretext would do for a sick person. As we say in Poland: if you
want to hit a dog you will always find a stick; or the Soviet
version: give me a man and there will be an article (to sentence him
to death or a camp).

What Tueschen does not appear to grasp
is that there are plenty of Jews who do not approve
of Sharon's policies; there are also plenty of
Jewish Israelis who disapprove too,

But this is 100% irrelevant again.
There are plenty Jews, Israelis (and also
nonJews and nonIsraelis) who do approve Sharon.
We do not have here alt.politics.MidEast.
Any discussion of these issues is at the best
missplaced, and at the worst, as it is now,
it is simply neoNazy propaganda, where it is ok
to speak about Jews as liars, etc. You have
liars etc in every population larger than
a thousand or ten thousand. So what? We do not
have here thread titles reading: Estonian and a liar,
do we?


Tueschen writes:

'1) As a German I follow the perception that
is protected by the Law in Germany.'

One can be sent to prison in Germany for Holocaust Denial,
I don't believe this is a factor in Tueschen's views,
but I could be wrong.

I believe that it is. In fact, "Tueschen" made comments
about that great tragedy which make show him as a low creature
indeed.


Tueschen adds:
'Hence
2) I believe in the Holocaust of 6 Million Jews.'

Actually, this fugure does not take into account
the Soviet Jews murdered by Germans during WWII
(in Ukraina, Russia... I don't know if it takes
into account Jews from the Baltic countries:
Estinia, Latvia and Lithuenia, almost all of them
murdered). The Soviets had the habit of repressing
any info about Jews as an ethnic group or, most
of the time, as individuals, including for instance
the stats about the Jewish soldier heros (a bit sneaked
accidemtally into an early Soviet encyclopedia--Jews
were on the 2nd place, right after the Russians; in the
next edition Jewish soldiers stats were distributed among
the republics or all other ethnic gropps, hence hidden
from the public).

To summarize: we do not have here a forum which can
give justice to the complex problems of the MidEast region,
nor to any other nonchessical themes. It is unpleasant to
see more and more antiSemitic propaganda on newsgroups
such as chess groups, and it is very sad that such a
propaganda is met with so much sympathy and "understanding",
that it is "honored" by so many solid citizens of the
chess Internet community. It reminds me of the common support
which Hitler got from the solid German citizens about three
quarters of a century ago. We know what happened next. There
is no excuse for solid citizens.

Wlod

Dear Simon,

when it reads like an antiSemitic diatribe, when it smells
like one, then it is. That Tueschen or whatever his face
reeks and stinks of antiSemitism.

Here is your problem. Your paranoid. I was called an anti-semite
because I talked about Christ in the bible. I asked what did I say to
spark that? Never got an answer. It looks me like your a racist but
there is no proof of that. Your just attacking this guy for something
he may not even be even though others in here are defending him. I've
heard Jackie Mason is an anti-semite.

EZoto

THIS IS A REPLY ON A MESSAGE WITH THE TITLE "IT IS EASIER TO KILL THAN TO LIT A
CIGARETTE"

chapman Billy wrote:

I am not convinced that Tueschen is anti-semitic; although he is
certainly somewhat lacking in the social graces and in the awareness of the
effects of his remarks.


SCIENCE IF ANYTHING CAN CLARIFY

Rolf Tueschen



I can recall a couple of articles about Moellemann in the UK papers
I read, the Financial Times and the Daily Telegraph; nonetheless, I have to
agree with an earlier poster that it is too much to expect non-German
readers in RGCM to remember much about him. Tueschen could, for instance,
have given a link such as http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/europe/2965952.stm ,
if only to refresh memories. That article and the links from it clearly
indicate the doubts about Moellemann's probity, and the populist thrust of
his politics;


Dear Mr. "Simon" Billy Chapman,

I've read the page and couldn't discover the "clear doubts" you could read into
it. But thast is perhaps because you lack of the important knowledge that
Moellemann's main opponent, the second highest chief of the Jews in Germany,
can no longer be seen as a decent and honest politician & human being. Reason,
he was convicted for cocaine "possession". He has now a so called previous
conviction. Further his contacts to the Ukrainian prostitution pimp connection
is somewhat irritating to say the least.

Against that person and the Israelian MP Sharon Moellemann directed his
critics. In fact Moellemann violated the long-time taboo that a German
politician is NOT allowed to criticise Israel or Jewish officials. But that
doesn't make him an Anti-Semite. On the other hand it's clear that Israel and
German Jew officials are not pleased by such a turn-around. Of course it's fine
to have a "protection" against critics, but the question is if such a taboo
doesn't protect inhumanism against the Palestinian people.


I confess I have always tended to despise populist
politicians, whatever their hue: Moellemann was definitely after the
extreme right-wing vote, although that does not make him a neo-nazi,

Thank you.


he was
also under investigation for financial irregularities. I wonder if Tueschen
is outraged at the expulsion of Martin Hohmann from the CDU?

What Tueschen does not appear to grasp is that there are plenty of
Jews who do not approve of Sharon's policies;

What do you say??

That is the main trump card I still haven't used. And I have another one. Why
can a German who criticises Sharon's policy be called Anti-Semite, while others
who do the _same_ are _no_ Anti-Semites? This is highly illogical!
That is so basic and easy and trivial for a scientist, that it hurts to see
certain parties still using that nonsense in a serious political debate. How
low-educated someone must be so that he is violating the minimum of
propositions for a valid and consistent argument?

there are also plenty of
Jewish Israelis who disapprove too, witness the recent reports of the views
of former leaders of Shin Bet one of the Israeli security services.

It would serve you a great deal if you'd read what No-more-chess is writing.
Because you still seem to follow the stupidity that a boomer argument your
opponent doesn't use yet, must be completely out of his focus, since otherwise
he had used it. Triple nonsense high five! That would spoil all the fun of such
a usenet "debate".


Tueschen also does not see the very real differences in attitude and
outlook between Jews living in the West and Jews living in Israel;

Objection. Yes, I know that I know nothing, but I know still more that the
concerned Jewish propaganda idiot in that forum. Because his focus is not even
representative for the Jews in Israel itself! Know what I mean? You are right,
I don't know the details of all such differences you mentioned, but the guy
isn't even aware of a World outside Israel. Just exaggerating a bit.


one
could qualify further that there are considerable differences between the
many different views of American Jews and Jews living in Britain, and so
on. Tueschen seems to know less about America than he expects his readers
to know about Germany, he does not appear to know that many "right wing"
(for want of a better description) Christian groups in the US are staunch
supporters of Israel.

Also here the same objection. You are partially right. I know very little about
the USA, but compared to the average American I should have earned a nomination
for three Nobel Prize Awards at minimum, and I'm saying this with the necessary
British understatement, I'm so famous for!



Tueschen writes:
'1) As a German I follow the perception that is protected by the Law in
Germany.'

One can be sent to prison in Germany for Holocaust Denial, I don't believe
this is a factor in Tueschen's views, but I could be wrong.


You misread my point 1. Please read "I have exactly the opinions about history
the highest German court has defined".


Tueschen adds:
'Hence
2) I believe in the Holocaust of 6 Million Jews.'

1) is a curious reason to believe in 2), Tueschen's epistemology is
certainly rather odd.

Yes, but you should tolerate that a German lives a rather odd life after his
forefathers had violated human ethics so deeply that it could be regarded a
shame to live as a German! Was that clear enough? -

Go figure in Google what I wrote about the least indication that some sort of
Nazi-"like" abberation could have been written or meant in rgcc from the year
1996 on and following. It's all in the archives.

Do also read the pages on my own site

http://hometown.aol.de/rolftueschen/...ophisches.html

and

http://hometown.aol.de/rolftueschen/..._Vorleser.html

just for example. Mostly in German, but you can use a translation routine to
get the main topic.



Tueschen writes:
'In special I do NOT believe that the Holocaust could be made smaller or
less important by language games or chemical research in Auschwitz.


I wished you had taken this 100% clear statement as a proof for my
NOT-being-next-to-Anti-Semitism. But thanks that you quoted it at least.



'As a German of the first after the war generation I take the responsibility
for the crimes in the name of the German people on my own shoulders too.
There is no question about it.

'What I meant in the debate with Larry Parr is something that is following
Jewish authors who reveiled certain important news. For example that the
techology of the Holocaust was already applied in the so called Euthanasy
mass murder of the disabled Germans. Also the in the same hidance. With
complete veil in language too so that the people could not understand it.
(That is NOT my personal opinion, it's state of the art in science.)
Then as a second point the industrial extinction of the workers in the work
camps. I read a lot about the calculation of the food and I know that the
minimum of food was not enough to survive. but the main purpose of these
camps was meant to allow the exploitation of the workers, not their
killing. Here I don't speak about mass liquidation camps which also existed
of course.


Just keep this quote in mind. Thank you. Because below you argue as if I had
reasons to delete that historical fact! That is what I would call a lie. A
peopaganda lie from a Jew again. Sorry. But this is a fact. You are
intentionally lying below although you yourself knew that I had written the
above. That is scientifically unacceptable. It's a fraud.




'Dear attorney, if you knew me you would ot even think a moment that I could
believe in a sort of whitewash ceremony of the German people. Not in my
books.'

I don't believe an anti-Semite would have written this in these
circumstances. However, his views do seem strange. Here is part of Robert
Jay Lifton's intoduction to part I of The Nazi Doctors:

'Of the five identifiable steps by which the Nazis carried out the principle
of "life unworthy of life," coercive sterilization was the first. There
followed the killing of "impaired" children in hospitals; and then the
killing of "impaired" adults, mostly collected from mental hospitals,in
centers especially equipped with carbon monoxide gas. This project was
extended (in the same killing centers) to "impaired" inmates of
concentration and extermination camps and, finally, to mass killings,
mostly of Jews, in the extermination camps themselves.'

Above Tueschen claims:

'Euthanasy mass murder of the disabled Germans. Also the in the same
hidance. With complete veil in language too so that the people could not
understand it.'

Actually the euthanasia programme was known of, that is why it was stopped.

Wrong! Of course it became known that suddenly your brother or sister had died
although they were ok when you visited them the last time. Pneumonia was the
cause of death, as the official note indicated.

It was a very high ranked German Catholic who brought that to the point, that
if the Euthanasy of the disabled would be continued
that then the people would fear what happened to the wounded and then disabled
soldiers of the German Army! Only THEN the action was stopped! Note that von
Galen did NOT argue against the killing as such. Perhaps he would have been
imprisoned hours later. He argued with sophistication because he warned the
authorities of what could happen.

Also the main fallacy of the whole technique of that murder was the involvement
of the medical personal and the undergraduate brothers and sistern of the
religious orders.

That was changed in the following action by the involvement of the SS and other
military personal. They could be forced to keep the whole activities in secret.
[BTW that is still the usual principle today, may that be in the USAS or
elsewhere. The moment something is defined as in the interest of the state, the
truth of military declarations is going down the toilet.]


Returning to Robert Jay Lifton (page 89):

'What eventually persuaded Nazi leaders to cancel the project officially was
not psychiatric resistance but rather general resistance among the German
people, articulated and heightened by a few courageous Protestant and
Catholic leaders...

Yes, after the whole action had been almost "successfully" organized...



'A provincial probate judge wrote to Franz Gürtner, the minister of Justice,
stating... "everyone knows as well as I do" that "the murder of the
mentally ill is as well known a daily reality as, say, the concentration
camps".

No way! If a judge had written that, calling it for what it was, he would have
been executed after a short court case. That is a hoax, nothing else. And it's
also wrong that "everyone" knew that "murder". It is scientifically proven that
Goldhagen is plain wrong.



'And Else von Löwis, a leader in the Nazi women's organization... wrote...
"When the farmers of Württemberg see the cars go by, they too know what is
going on - just as when they see the smoke pouring from the crematory
chimneys day and night".


Where did she write it? In the newspapers? You bet!



'Indeed angry crowd reactions came close at times to public demonstrations
against the killing of mental patients... One report ... tells of a priest
offering communion to patients forced into a bus before large crowds of
Catholic townspeople, complains of the visibility of the whole operation
...'


Was that published during the WWII? Or was it an ancdote from after the war?



Tueschen says:

'The main purpose of these camps was meant to allow the exploitation of the
workers, not their killing. '

He is excluding the death camps and the Einsatzgruppen; why is he including
only a part of the picture?


Here is the proof of your evil Jewish hatred against Germans, silly boy! You
are good in quoting me above, but here you go beyond the honestly allowed. I
was NOT excluding death camps. Read you own quotes above.


Millions died in the death camps and from the
actions of the Einsatzgruppen: they cannot be excluded. Does Tueschen
believe that Himmler's intention, for instance, was anything other than
death, at least up until he imagined that a deal could be struck with the
Western Allies near the war's end. Here is a quote attributed to Speer the
armaments minister from page 414 of Lodz Ghetto:

Yes, Speer is a reliable eye-witness in your opinion! Not in my books. He
wanted to get away in Nuremberg and he successfully played his role.
Admiration, but he wasn't less innocent that some others who were hanged.




'Greiser ... knew that Germany was heading towards disaster. He was smart
enough to see the advantages that our war effort had from the employment of
the Jews ... This points to a truly bizarre situation, utterly eccentric in
its tragedy. Greiser's fanatical anti-Semitism, his hatred and his
obedience outweighed any rational consideration. He accepted the execution
of production together with the execution of the Jews.'

Greiser was the Gauleiter at Lodz. By trying to suggest "arbeit macht frei",
Tueschen comes close to swallowing the neo-nazi view.


You are of that same quality Omid David spread his propaganda lies in that
forum. All that nonsense about _my_ belonging or guilt in the Nazi crimes is
simply ridiculous. Since I quoted one of the best Jewish experts on Holocaust
in America. A Jew himself. He gave the arguments that I quoted more or less
that the Holocaust followed the technique of the Euthanasy of the German
disabled. He pointed out that the main purpose of the Holocaust was the
exploitation and not the instant kill. With such a view he and I myself do NOT
deny the fact of the evil "selection" practice. The evil of deportation and all
that. Also the activities of the "Einsatzgruppen" in Poland, the Ukraine and
Russia are absolutely outrageous and fully accepted as historical fact. The
Soviet Union alone had more than 22 million victims in WWII. Who had denied
that?

As I wrote earlier, the point I made in a reaction to Larry Parr was in memory
of our debates some years ago. When he also accused me to be in the
neighborhood of Anti-Semitism if I wrote such things. When I was just quoting.
You can find the quoted link above as the first mentioned.

Rolf


Regards,

Simon.

--

'These were middle-class Poles, judging from their features and from their
clothing. I recognised some as railway men, rapid transit workers, postman,
nuns, and schoolboys. They were not marching fast enough to suit their
guards, so the latter spurred them on with clubs and whips and revolver
shots.

'Suddenly, a man about sixty years old in postman's uniform lost his balance
and fell. A youth of about eighteen tried to help him get up. The old man
was trying to rise when an S.S. man came up and with one revolver shot
coolly slaughtered him.

'I stood about three yards away with my neighbours.

'I cannot describe the look that the dying man fixed on the youth who had
sought to save him. Nor can I suggest the despair and grief in the young
man's voice as he cried "Oh, father!"

'Meanwhile the S.S. assassin took out his pocket lighter and tried to light
a cigarette. He carefully protected the flame from the wind. The breeze was
strong and he had to try many times. It was certainly easier for him to
destroy a human life than to light a cigarette...'

From Five Chimneys by Olga Lengyel, page 140.

Wlodzimierz Holsztynski wrote:

Dear Wlod,

You are one of the most intelligent contributers to RGCM.

when it reads like an antiSemitic diatribe, when it smells
like one, then it is. That Tueschen or whatever his face
reeks and stinks of antiSemitism.

There is some force in what you write, an anti-Semite would certainly use
the sort of title that Tueschen employs; to me, though, there seems to be
some irrational daemon possessing him.

Tueschen wrote:

'SCIENCE IF ANYTHING CAN CLARIFY

Or as Hitler put it in August 1920:

'We are convinced that scientific anti-semitism, which clearly recognises
the frightful danger that that race represents to our people, can only be
our guide; the broad masses, who will always react emotionally, must first
be made aware of the Jew ... our task must be to arouse the mass instinct
against the Jew, to stir it up and keep it on the boil ...'

I can recall a couple of articles about Moellemann [...]

This is irrelevant,

Except in so far as it indicates Tueschen's "logic".

I wrote 'That article and the links from it clearly
indicate the doubts about Moellemann's probity'

Tueschen appears to believe that

'I've read the page and couldn't discover the "clear doubts" you could read
into it.

Quoting from the BBC site:

'Mr Moellemann, the former deputy leader of Germany's centrist Free
Democratic Party (FDP), was being investigated over allegations that he
broke laws on party funding, fraud and breach of trust.'

Tueschen rants further:

'But thast is perhaps because you lack of the important knowledge that
Moellemann's main opponent, the second highest chief of the Jews in
Germany, can no longer be seen as a decent and honest politician & human
being. Reason, he was convicted for cocaine "possession". He has now a so
called previous conviction. Further his contacts to the Ukrainian
prostitution pimp connection is somewhat irritating to say the least.'

Tueschen assumes that I haven't heard of Friedman; if he were capable of
reason, he should be able to see that a newspaper that covered Moellemann
would certainly cover Friedman: here is a link to an article I read:
http://makeashorterlink.com/?V5BF25D86 , I also recall reading a few others,
but I have no desire to trawl through the internet to find any more; the
remarks about Friedman are below the Immendorf report, towards the bottom.
Note that Tueschen did not provide any kind of link to help the reader
understand his ravings, assuming there is any logic to them. Note, too,
that Tueschen believes that the probity of Moellemann justifies reflections
upon the probity of Friedman, rather as if the murders of Jack the Ripper
have any bearing upon the killings of Peter Sutcliffe the Yorkshire Ripper.

Any pretext would do for a sick person. As we say in Poland: if you
want to hit a dog you will always find a stick; or the Soviet
version: give me a man and there will be an article (to sentence him
to death or a camp).

I recall reading that. I am certain you know that racism ('Great Russian
chauvinism') was outlawed and therefore didn't exist (sic) in the Soviet
Union. Grigory Svirsky the Soviet writer gives an instance in one of his
books:

'The mainstay (of the court) turned out to be a middle-aged woman. The judge
asked the Tartar night watchman what words the woman tenant had used
towards him and he replied, "swine." The mainstay wrote it down.
'"Filthy pig." The mainstay again scribbled in her pad.
'"Wog *******."
'The fountain pen didn't move.
'"All Tarters are speculators!"
'The pen as before stayed motionless in the secretary's poised hand, like a
dart aimed but not thrown.
'"Slavering jackal." This time the pen went to work.'

Tueschen adds:
'Hence
2) I believe in the Holocaust of 6 Million Jews.'

Actually, this fugure does not take into account
the Soviet Jews murdered by Germans during WWII
(in Ukraina, Russia... I don't know if it takes
into account Jews from the Baltic countries:
Estinia, Latvia and Lithuenia, almost all of them
murdered). The Soviets had the habit of repressing
any info about Jews as an ethnic group or, most
of the time, as individuals, including for instance
the stats about the Jewish soldier heros (a bit sneaked
accidemtally into an early Soviet encyclopedia--Jews
were on the 2nd place, right after the Russians; in the
next edition Jewish soldiers stats were distributed among
the republics or all other ethnic gropps, hence hidden
from the public).

Following the breakup of the Soviet Union a lot of extra material became
available. Previous calculations did include those murdered inside the
Ukraine and Russia, but they appear to have understated the numbers.

To summarize: we do not have here a forum which can
give justice to the complex problems of the MidEast region,
nor to any other nonchessical themes. It is unpleasant to
see more and more antiSemitic propaganda on newsgroups
such as chess groups, and it is very sad that such a
propaganda is met with so much sympathy and "understanding",
that it is "honored" by so many solid citizens of the
chess Internet community. It reminds me of the common support
which Hitler got from the solid German citizens about three
quarters of a century ago. We know what happened next. There
is no excuse for solid citizens.

What you write is very true. I do have a weakness for off-topic posts; but I
hope that I have never sunk to the depths of Tueschen, who appears to have
more of Tudjman than Tushin (of War and Peace) in his makeup.

Tueschen wrote:
'Against that person and the Israelian MP Sharon Moellemann directed his
critics. In fact Moellemann violated the long-time taboo that a German
politician is NOT allowed to criticise Israel or Jewish officials. But that
doesn't make him an Anti-Semite. On the other hand it's clear that Israel
and German Jew officials are not pleased by such a turn-around. Of course
it's fine to have a "protection" against critics, but the question is if
such a taboo doesn't protect inhumanism against the Palestinian people.'

Notice the mispellings 'Israelian' and 'Jew officials', I can only see one
other questionable spelling in this paragraph.

Tueschen adds:
'Hence
2) I believe in the Holocaust of 6 Million Jews.'

I wrote:
1) is a curious reason to believe in 2), Tueschen's epistemology is
certainly rather odd.

Tueschen responded:
'Yes, but you should tolerate that a German lives a rather odd life after
his forefathers had violated human ethics so deeply that it could be
regarded a shame to live as a German! Was that clear enough?'

There are plenty of Germans living in London, the ones I know seem perfectly
normal human beings to me. Some of them are friends of mine. A cousin of
mine is married to a German. Tueschen appears to be obsessed with the
"nationality" of a person, I couldn't give a damn where someone is from;
nor do I believe that the sons should suffer for the sins of the fathers.
For the record I did have one relative killed in WWII, an uncle of mine,
ironically by British artillery at El Alamein, but I can't get upset over
someone I know nothing of, who was dead long before I was born.

Tueschen writes:
'In special I do NOT believe that the Holocaust could be made smaller or
less important by language games or chemical research in Auschwitz.

'I wished you had taken this 100% clear statement as a proof for my
NOT-being-next-to-Anti-Semitism. But thanks that you quoted it at least.'

Tueschen means 'medical' where he has written 'chemical', some in RGCM have
cast doubt upon his sincerity.

Tueschen writes:
'That is what I would call a lie. A peopaganda lie from a Jew again. Sorry.
But this is a fact. You are intentionally lying below although you yourself
knew that I had written the above. That is scientifically unacceptable.
It's a fraud.'

Actually, being half-Scottish, if the Nuremberg laws were applied in Britain
I would be classified as "Mischlinge ersten Grades" to be treated as
"Geltungsjuden" and therefore ultimately "Volljuden". I am sure Tueschen
can explain the meaning of these words. I am an atheist myself. Note
Tueschen's implicit assumption that only a Jew would disagree with him on
these matters, indeed only a 'lying Jew'.

I am quite certain Tueschen knows that 'lying Jew' is an expression favoured
by Nazis. Tueschen is being disingenuous when he claims that the prime
intention behind the treatment of Jews in the camps was to provide work:
this is Neo-Nazi propaganda. Has Tueschen heard of the Krüger-Forster
agreement? Notice that Tueschen never provides sources for his 'facts'.

Tueschen wrote:
'Euthanasy mass murder of the disabled Germans. Also the in the same
hidance. With complete veil in language too so that the people could not
understand it.'

I responded, giving a source:
'Actually the euthanasia programme was nown of, that is why it was
stopped.'

Tueschen wrote, giving no source:
'Wrong! Of course it became known that suddenly your brother or sister had
died although they were ok when you visited them the last time. Pneumonia
was the cause of death, as the official note indicated.

Contrary to Tueschen's drivel, whatever seemed a plausible explanation was
written on the death certificate.

Further ranting snipped.

Tueschen snarls:
'Also the main fallacy of the whole technique of that murder was the
involvement of the medical personal and the undergraduate brothers and
sistern of the religious orders.

'That was changed in the following action by the involvement of the SS and
other military personal. They could be forced to keep the whole activities
in secret. [BTW that is still the usual principle today, may that be in the
USAS or elsewhere. The moment something is defined as in the interest of
the state, the truth of military declarations is going down the toilet.]'

Has Tueschen heard of Brandt, Linden, Unger, Heinze, Pfannmüller, Heyde,
Schneider, De Crinis, Nitsche? Practically the entire German psychiatric
community was involved in these killings. One of the few noteworthy and
honourable exceptions was Karl Bonhoeffer the father of Dietrich
Bonhoeffer.

When the war broke out the S.S. starting shooting inmates of every
nationality to create 'room' for soldiers.

I wrote:
'A provincial probate judge wrote to Franz Gürtner, the minister of
Justice, stating... "everyone knows as well as I do" that "the murder of the
mentally ill is as well known a daily reality as, say, the concentration
camps".'

Tueschen wrote
'No way! If a judge had written that, calling it for what it was, he would
have been executed after a short court case. That is a hoax, nothing else.

The source I quote gives "Euthanasie" im NS-Staat: Die vernichtung
lebensunwerten Lebens by Ernest Klee, page 209: he also mentions Phillip
Aziz, Doctors of Death.

This is a defence frequently used by Nazis when put on trial, to wit: any
sort of opposition would have resulted in punishment, even death. It is
quite simply a lie.

Here are the words of an auxiliary policemen in Einsatzkommando Stalino:
'We could refuse to obey orders to participate in the Sonderaktionen without
adverse consequences' (Page 76 of Those were the days). There are many
other quotes in that book.

S.S. men were punished for excessive 'enthusiasm'; has Tueschen heard of
SS-Untersturmführer Max Täubner? 'The accused shall not be punished because
of the actions against the Jews themselves. The Jews have to be
exterminated and none of the Jews killed is any great loss ... It is not
the German way to apply Bolshevik methods during the necessary
extermination of the worst enemy of our people'. Täubner got ten years for
a variety of 'crimes'.

Tueschen wrote:
'It is scientifically proven that Goldhagen is plain wrong.

I am not sure I know what 'scientifically proven' means in this context.

In a post some weeks ago I expressed my distate for Goldhagen's history. At
no time have I quoted him. Tueschen should read Primo Levi, he will find
there the concept of the grey zone: there is a world of difference between
knowing something rotten is happening and being a willing participant or
observer. We are all in various positions in that zone.

I quoted Robert Jay Lifton:

'And Else von Löwis, a leader in the Nazi women's organization... wrote...
"When the farmers of Württemberg see the cars go by, they too know what is
going on - just as when they see the smoke pouring from the crematory
chimneys day and night".'

Tueschen wrote:
' Where did she write it? In the newspapers? You bet! '

Tueschen can find it in Aziz, Doctors of Death, pages 100-104. Tueschen
never gives a source for his mendacious bilge.

I further quoted Lifton:
'Indeed angry crowd reactions came close at times to public demonstrations
against the killing of mental patients... One report ... tells of a priest
offering communion to patients forced into a bus before large crowds of
Catholic townspeople, complains of the visibility of the whole operation
....'

Tueschen writes in answer:
'Was that published during the WWII? Or was it an ancdote from after the
war?'

Tueschen can find it in a report to the S.S. Security Service from Absberg
on 1 March 1941. I give sources, Tueschen gives lies.

Tueschen said:
'The main purpose of these camps was meant to allow the exploitation of the
workers, not their killing. '

I replied:
'He is excluding the death camps and the Einsatzgruppen; why is he including
only a part of the picture?'

Tueschen wrote:
Here is the proof of your evil Jewish hatred against Germans, silly boy! You
are good in quoting me above, but here you go beyond the honestly allowed. I
was NOT excluding death camps. Read you own quotes above.

Note the words: 'evil Jewish hatred'; this is the purest form of
anti-Semitism. Tueschen does try to separate them out. His assertion that
the prime purpose was exploitation not murder is a lie, particularly so if
he is 'NOT excluding death camps'.

I wrote:
'Millions died in the death camps and from the
actions of the Einsatzgruppen: they cannot be excluded. Does Tueschen
believe that Himmler's intention, for instance, was anything other than
death, at least up until he imagined that a deal could be struck with the
Western Allies near the war's end. Here is a quote attributed to Speer the
armaments minister from page 414 of Lodz Ghetto:'

Tueschen responded:
Yes, Speer is a reliable eye-witness in your opinion! Not in my books. He
wanted to get away in Nuremberg and he successfully played his role.
Admiration, but he wasn't less innocent that some others who were hanged.

There's a lot more than Speer, does Tueschen not know what the 'Final
Solution' to the 'Jewish Question' was. It wasn't labouring in some camp,
or resettlement in Madagascar.

Tueschen raves:

'You are of that same quality Omid David spread his propaganda lies in that
forum. All that nonsense about my belonging or guilt in the Nazi crimes is
simply ridiculous. Since I quoted one of the best Jewish experts on
Holocaust in America. A Jew himself. He gave the arguments that I quoted
more or less that the Holocaust followed the technique of the Euthanasy of
the German disabled. He pointed out that the main purpose of the Holocaust
was the exploitation and not the instant kill. With such a view he and I
myself do NOT deny the fact of the evil "selection" practice. The evil of
deportation and all that. Also the activities of the "Einsatzgruppen" in
Poland, the Ukraine and Russia are absolutely outrageous and fully accepted
as historical fact. The Soviet Union alone had more than 22 million victims
in WWII. Who had denied that?'

I have never met Omid David, I have no idea what he said; given the only
source is the loon Tueschen, I don't know what I am being compared to. All
my quotes are backed up by verifiable sources. The prime intention of the
Holocaust was to kill all the Jews, exploitation was secondary.

Where does Tueschen get his figure of 22 million Soviet victims? Here is
what John Ericksson gave in a seminar at Leeds University in 1991:

'The first post-war figure for Soviet losses, 7 million, was produced by
Stalin in February 1946. ... The much touted and oft-quoted figure of "in
excess of 20 million" ... was announced by Krushchev ... in the 1960s. This
seems to have been "plucked out of the air" in an act of political
convenience...

'L. E Polyakov in his brochure Tsena pobedy, Demographichevskii aspekt
adduces the figure of 46 million, from which he subtracts a figure of 26
million for "indirect loss", thus arriving at a figure of 20 million for
battlefield/war loss. ... Given natural population growth, without the
intervention of war, and using an officially accepted growth coefficient of
1.7 growth, we could anticipate a population level of 212.5 million in
1946, whereas it was only 178.5 million. Professor Kurganov strikes boldly
for an absolute loss figure of 44 million.

'V. I. Kozlov approached the problem from a somewhat different angle, having
first looked at morbidity, infant mortality and natural growth rates for
1940. ... Thus over the wartime period and including the first four postwar
years, the "population deficit" was in the order of some 45-8 million. ..
Polyakov arrives at a deficit of 46 million, ... not disimilar to A. Ya.
Kvasha's estimate of 48-50 million.'

Tueschen wrote:

'As I wrote earlier, the point I made in a reaction to Larry Parr was in
memory of our debates some years ago. When he also accused me to be in the
neighborhood of Anti-Semitism if I wrote such things. When I was just
quoting. You can find the quoted link above as the first mentioned.'

Larry Parr was right. Tueschen is making a lot of remarks that are
characteristic of anti-Semites.


Regards (to Wlod),

Simon.

Simon,
I fear at this point you are only encouraging him. I am out of here. I
regret whatever part I played in giving him a forum to spew his filth.
Bob

EZoto wrote in message ws.com...

Dear Simon,

when it reads like an antiSemitic diatribe, when it smells
like one, then it is. That Tueschen or whatever his face
reeks and stinks of antiSemitism.

Here is your problem. Your paranoid.

Nonsense. When I see a post titled:

Being a Jew and a Liar

then I see an antiSemitic author.

I was called an anti-semite
because I talked about Christ in the bible.

This has nothing to do with what is happening
on this forum now. But if you are equating
your action with posting an article titled
as above then draw a conclusioon yourself.
I think that you just enjoy polemics too much.

It looks me like your a racist but
there is no proof of that.

I bag your pardon? Did I write "A German and a racist"?
No! I would never do it. Despite the terrible history
I remeber about Bach and Gauss... I don't have a negative
feeling about any ethnic, racial, national group.
On ther contrary. Thus I would never use an ethnic
group name in negative. This includes Germans and Germany.
Especially that I am partial to their cultural and technological
heritage and contributions to the civilization. But even if
a group of people doesn't have any rich tradition, I still
have a positive attitude to it.

You are way too fast with accusations: paranoid, racist...
I never gave any reason for them.

Your just attacking this guy for something
he may not even be even though others in here
are defending him.

The mentioned thread is the witness of that guy's
anti-Semitism. His primitive trick ("give me
advice, share your opinion") worked well for his
ugly motives. People went naively forward and
he got his hour under his Nazy sun, He was
"honored" by a "discussion".

I've heard Jackie Mason is an anti-semite.


So what? Does it mean that 2+2 is not 4?

EZoto

Wlod

In Message-ID:

under a funny Subject line

chapman Billy ,

also known as our Simon boy from Britain wrote a new pamphlet that is not worth
being discussed in detail. I will concentrate myself on a quick correction of
some mistakes in reading by low-educated Simon boy.


Simon wrote about the topic 'Friedman':
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

I wrote 'That article and the links from it clearly
indicate the doubts about Moellemann's probity'

Tueschen appears to believe that

'I've read the page and couldn't discover the "clear doubts" you could read
into it.

Quoting from the BBC site:

'Mr Moellemann, the former deputy leader of Germany's centrist Free
Democratic Party (FDP), was being investigated over allegations that he
broke laws on party funding, fraud and breach of trust.'

Tueschen rants further:

'But thast is perhaps because you lack of the important knowledge that
Moellemann's main opponent, the second highest chief of the Jews in
Germany, can no longer be seen as a decent and honest politician & human
being. Reason, he was convicted for cocaine "possession". He has now a so
called previous conviction. Further his contacts to the Ukrainian
prostitution pimp connection is somewhat irritating to say the least.'

Tueschen assumes that I haven't heard of Friedman; if he were capable of
reason, he should be able to see that a newspaper that covered Moellemann
would certainly cover Friedman: here is a link to an article I read:
http://makeashorterlink.com/?V5BF25D86 , I also recall reading a few others,
but I have no desire to trawl through the internet to find any more; the
remarks about Friedman are below the Immendorf report, towards the bottom.
Note that Tueschen did not provide any kind of link to help the reader
understand his ravings, assuming there is any logic to them. Note, too,
that Tueschen believes that the probity of Moellemann justifies reflections
upon the probity of Friedman, rather as if the murders of Jack the Ripper
have any bearing upon the killings of Peter Sutcliffe the Yorkshire Ripper.


My comment he

The reason why I mentioned Friedman is this. Moellemann was criticised (mainly
by Friedman again!) because he had said that Sharon & Friedman's policy could
be the reason for an increase in Germans Anti-Semitism. Period.

My point was NOT that Moellemann was a sober business man in my opinion. Even
if he was not, his critic against Friedman&Sharon was correct. And Moellemann's
own critic Friedmann, with his cocaine scandal and the involvement in the
prostitutes scandal of the Ukrainian pimp organization (or better called gang),
is himself a socially dead man in Germany.

I did not change the topic from Moellemann to Friedman as our Simon boy wants
to imply.






Simon wrote about the topic Auschwitz:
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

Tueschen writes:
'In special I do NOT believe that the Holocaust could be made smaller or
less important by language games or chemical research in Auschwitz.

'I wished you had taken this 100% clear statement as a proof for my
NOT-being-next-to-Anti-Semitism. But thanks that you quoted it at least.'

Tueschen means 'medical' where he has written 'chemical', some in RGCM have
cast doubt upon his sincerity.

Tueschen writes:
'That is what I would call a lie. A peopaganda lie from a Jew again. Sorry.
But this is a fact. You are intentionally lying below although you yourself
knew that I had written the above. That is scientifically unacceptable.
It's a fraud.'

Actually, being half-Scottish, if the Nuremberg laws were applied in Britain
I would be classified as "Mischlinge ersten Grades" to be treated as
"Geltungsjuden" and therefore ultimately "Volljuden". I am sure Tueschen
can explain the meaning of these words. I am an atheist myself. Note
Tueschen's implicit assumption that only a Jew would disagree with him on
these matters, indeed only a 'lying Jew'.

I am quite certain Tueschen knows that 'lying Jew' is an expression favoured
by Nazis. Tueschen is being disingenuous when he claims that the prime
intention behind the treatment of Jews in the camps was to provide work:
this is Neo-Nazi propaganda. Has Tueschen heard of the Krüger-Forster
agreement? Notice that Tueschen never provides sources for his 'facts'.

My comments he

Simon boy is a talented quote&paste technician who believes that a lie could be
out-blanced by pages of rants about deifferent topics. This here was a good
example.

I made a crystal clear statement that I believed in the Holocaust included the
murder of the Jews by gas. Therefore I wrote that no chemical analysis in
Auschwitz could change that fact. Simon boy doesn't understand that with his
low education but I was referring to the typical propaganda of the Holocaust
denial where people say that they made chemical analysis of the actually still
existing walls in Auschwitz. Chemical analysis of these Holocaust deniers
_today_, NOT the medical experiments of the medical Nazi criminals from the
time 60 years ago!

I think that I could make clear that this Simon boy has no mastership over his
own quotes. Of course he must misunderstand my original question in this thread
about the Israeli computerchess expert Omid David.

Simon boy and some other writers who seem to be offended by the existence of
the thread about the Jew and the liar, overlook that my topic belongs very well
into RGCM because it deals with a computerchess expert and his propaganda in
that private forum. Private is not exact enough. It is - following the PR - the
forum of the greatest American chess shop!!

Now that is the reason why the topic belongs here into RGCM and NOT into a
rec.Lies.Propaganda group.

I wanted to let people know that in the forum of ICD-Chess a former Minister of
Germany who had criticised the military policy of Israel can well be insulted
as 'Nazi *******', but when I called the Israeli Omid David a 'lying Jewish
*******' in return for his outright propaganda lie, my existence as a member
was deleted.

That is why such a scandal belongs into the Misc group of R.G.Chess!

This is NOT a thread about Anti-Semitism. I'm not Anti-Semite and nobody in
that thread here is Anti-Semite IMO.

I can therefore prove the dishonesty of Simon boy who

-- asks with hypocrisy why such a thread about Anti-Semitism belongs into rgcm

-- and then asks what this Omid David should have to do in this same thread.

The answer is short. Because of the Israeli Omid David, who is a computerchess
expert spreading propaganda lies in the private forum of ICDchess, the biggest
chess store in the USA!

Simon wrote about Omid David:
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
[after he quoted me:]
'You are of that same quality Omid David spread his propaganda lies in that
forum. All that nonsense about my belonging or guilt in the Nazi crimes is
simply ridiculous. Since I quoted one of the best Jewish experts on
Holocaust in America. A Jew himself. He gave the arguments that I quoted
more or less that the Holocaust followed the technique of the Euthanasy of
the German disabled. He pointed out that the main purpose of the Holocaust
was the exploitation and not the instant kill. With such a view he and I
myself do NOT deny the fact of the evil "selection" practice. The evil of
deportation and all that. Also the activities of the "Einsatzgruppen" in
Poland, the Ukraine and Russia are absolutely outrageous and fully accepted
as historical fact. The Soviet Union alone had more than 22 million victims
in WWII. Who had denied that?'

I have never met Omid David, I have no idea what he said; given the only
source is the loon Tueschen, I don't know what I am being compared to. All
my quotes are backed up by verifiable sources. The prime intention of the
Holocaust was to kill all the Jews, exploitation was secondary.


I ask the readers, who is pre-occupied with off-topics? The answer is Simon
boy. At least not me who published the incredible story of the lying Jewish
******* in that private forum of ICDchess, the biggest chess store in the USA.

Rolf