The Pirates of Menzingen: SSPX Hacks "Resisters" on the Net
#11
(07-30-2014, 07:26 AM)Pacman Wrote: Belief that 9/11 was a government conspiracy is an unreasonable thing to hold to.

Not to hijack the thread or anything, but, no it isn't.  There are many believable theories out there.  Whether any of them are actually true isn't the point.  It's not unreasonable to hold the belief that a government conspiracy is possible.
Reply
#12
(07-30-2014, 02:13 AM)Pacman Wrote:
(07-29-2014, 11:34 PM)IrishCowboy Wrote: I have no idea how reliable this source is, and I don't speak French, so I relied on Google to translate the web page.  But trusting the source completely and assuming everything it says is true seems a bit unjust.  The source seems biased to me.  Any time they throw in something like "the Holocaust denier Richard Williamson," I automatically start to distrust them.



Williamson is also a 9/11 = government conspiracy guy. But he's okay, he prays the TLM!

The point is, he's not a holocaust denier, he's skeptical about the numbers and execution methods.  As much as I think he's misguided on that, it's usually a sign deliberate misrepresentation out of malice when a media source calls him a holocaust denier.
Reply
#13
(07-31-2014, 03:03 AM)iona_scribe Wrote:
(07-30-2014, 02:13 AM)Pacman Wrote:
(07-29-2014, 11:34 PM)IrishCowboy Wrote: I have no idea how reliable this source is, and I don't speak French, so I relied on Google to translate the web page.  But trusting the source completely and assuming everything it says is true seems a bit unjust.  The source seems biased to me.  Any time they throw in something like "the Holocaust denier Richard Williamson," I automatically start to distrust them.



Williamson is also a 9/11 = government conspiracy guy. But he's okay, he prays the TLM!

The point is, he's not a holocaust denier, he's skeptical about the numbers and execution methods.  As much as I think he's misguided on that, it's usually a sign deliberate misrepresentation out of malice when a media source calls him a holocaust denier.

The term is inherently dishonest by virtue of its imprecision. Denial of what, precisely? The camps themselves? No revisionist denies that. Denial of the many deaths by starvation and disease? No one denies that either. What about the electric floors, skin lampshades and human soap? These used to be a standard part of the mainstream narrative and are now denied by all sober historians. And what about the existence of gas chambers in the western camps? This was part of the original Nuremberg narrative and is, again, now denied by all sober historians; the mainstream narrative is now that there were only gas chambers in the camps that ended up in the Soviet occupation zone.

By the original Nuremberg standard, mainstream history is now 'holocaust denial", in the imprecise sense the term is always used in. It is simply a slanderous attack-word, a term intended to trigger a reaction of fear to shut down rational conversation about historical facts.
Reply
#14
Uh oh! Unless I am mistaken, discussion of these things is not permitted here, Dirigible.
Reply
#15
(07-29-2014, 11:34 PM)IrishCowboy Wrote: I have no idea how reliable this source is, and I don't speak French, so I relied on Google to translate the web page.  But trusting the source completely and assuming everything it says is true seems a bit unjust.  The source seems biased to me.  Any time they throw in something like "the Holocaust denier Richard Williamson," I automatically start to distrust them.

The  alleged priest-pirate, "Fr.W" will be posted in Ireland effective August 15th, 2014
Reply
#16
(07-30-2014, 07:39 AM)Dirigible Wrote:
(07-30-2014, 07:26 AM)Pacman Wrote: Belief that 9/11 was a government conspiracy is an unreasonable thing to hold to. This is what puts me off the radical traditionalist crowd - all these conspiracy theory wackos, millenialists and political extremists.

Given that the truth of the Christian faith is deeply contrary to normal, socially acceptable opinion, you ought to consider the possibility that other truths might be contrary to it.

It's kinda hard to buy it, when the 9/11 victims are still alive to disprove the BS that's been spreading around. Not to mention there are photos, former gas chambers and a bunch of missing Jews to disprove any "truths" that go contrary to facts.

Heck I know Protestants who hold to the "other truths" that there was a "woman pope" and the Church has a goofy ritual where the bishops place the pope on a papal toilet and reach under and "feel" to determine the pope's masculinity.

When one holds to "truths" that fly in the face of facts, research, evidence...one can't complain about losing respect from other people.
Reply
#17
(07-31-2014, 08:45 AM)Cyriacus Wrote: Uh oh! Unless I am mistaken, discussion of these things is not permitted here, Dirigible.

That occurred to me after I posted it. Sometimes the conversation goes in unpredictable ways. Bishop Williamson is a multi-subforum controversy.  :Hmm:
Reply




Users browsing this thread: 1 Guest(s)