Here in this thread, in arguing that it was not realistic option for Allied bombers to be diverted to bomb concentration camps, I was the subject of an extraordinary and disgusting smear:
I had in fact already rejected the ridiculous concept of war crimes and noted my issue with Dresden was relative to the efficaciousness of Harris’ bombing efforts aimed at “dehousing.”
I should very much like to hear the explanation from this person as to what “previous postings” would lead to such a disgusting smear, or why he pushed such a smear when I had already rejected the war crimes argument (imputed on me, not made by anyone in the thread in fact).
Looks like Shakester initially misinterpreted your comment about Dresden being “stupid and wasteful” as an endorsement of the Dresden = war crime argument, and then E-Sabbath ran with it - misinterpreted you to think that you were calling Dresden a war crime (which there is a case for, but that’s another argument), took Shakester’s word that Irving was the chief proponent of the view, then put the two together to conclude that you agreed with Irving.
Admittedly this takes a lot of gymnastics, but in GD spirit I’m assuming good faith.
Shakester’s mistake was obvious (although tedious). I have a very hard time assuming good faith in E Sabbath. Indeed it seems rather impossible to assume “good faith” as he refers to “past posting.”
I’m terribly sorry for accusing wmfellows of being a fellow traveler of David Irving. I admit, I read his support for considering Dresden a war crime as being a further extension of his previous antipathy to Israel, and came to the conclusion that, while antipathy towards Israel is one thing, when you add two and two together, you get four.
That is, I read his support for Irving’s words along with his antipathy towards Israel as being indicative of his opinions towards the Nazi party as a whole. I am very glad to have misunderstood.
But it could be worse.
He could be Huerta88. This kind of stuff happens to him all the time.
Oh, as far as these things go, I suppose I should display the sort of thing that came to mind when I saw wmfellows posting. http://boards.straightdope.com/sdmb/showthread.php?t=555753&page=5
If you care to follow that link, you will see some masterly distortion of history in favor of the British and in ways opposing Israel. Sadly, it’s all multiquotes, so quoting it into this post wouldn’t work well. But his depiction of the Hotel Irgun situation really does seem to run counter to even the British evaluation of events.
As such, I have found wmfellows to be a student of history, and of the history of Israel specifically. Generally, as a rule, I would be extremely surprised to find a student of the history of Israel, who was completely unaware of David Irving. (Especially if they are british, which I think, but am not sure, that wmfellows is.)
I did not think anything more of the matter until I misread him as supporting Dr. Irving’s claims.
Such was my reasoning. I am very pleased to discover that wmfellows is not a follower of Dr. Irving.
I EXPRESSED NO SUCH SUPPORT ANYWHERE IN THAT THREAD AND WELL BEFORE YOU POSTED HAD SPECIFICALLY DENIED THE SAME
I have never expressed any antipathy towards Israel.
Ever.
I have criticized some specific policies, in passing, and fought with the foaming fanatic, Foamy Finn, over his smears of any and all persons disagreeing with his particular read of history and Israel. That is not antipathy to Israel - it is antipathy to Foamy.
I expressed no such support
and have never expressed antipathy towards Israel.
Fuck you asshole. You continue the smear in this pseudo apology.
As for this:
Masterly distortion meaning disagreeing with Foamy and yourself.
My argument re the most certainly does not run counter to British evaluation, as understood by the British.
Well guess what you stupid cunt, I don’t follow Holocaust denial, it’s not edifying or interesting. Holocaust happened, and other than pointless quibbling over 5 versus 6 versus 7 millions (which changes nothing relative to the horror) there’s nothing much in my mind relative to “new interest” in that area. So, no, Irving did not ring a bell - never read the cunt, and only dimly recalled his court cases… sort of thing one skips over in the paper really.
I did not think anything more of the matter until I misread him as supporting Dr. Irving’s claims.
So again, fuck off, it’s a dirty and disgusting smear, baseless and nothing in what I wrote in that thread coudl reasonably be read as hostile to Israel. Foamy and some aspects of current Israeli policy, yes, but then Foamy provokes my ire due to his constant distortions of others words.
I see E Sabbath apologized in thread. I see nothing, however retracting the implication and the accusations stemming from that Foamy thread very much rankle.
I was merely attempting to describe my reasoning behind the comment. I did apologize in the thread, I apologize here.
If it makes you feel better, you can replace “I read his support for Irving’s words” with “I read what seemed to be his support for Irving’s words”. That is, I read you as supporting Irving. I was wrong, clearly.
Oh, and don’t call people cunts. It’s a banned word, even in the Pit. God knows why.
Part of the problem here is that you are a diehard and committed liar, finding out what you really believe is a bit difficult. And as your lies often tend to be anti-Israel (my favorite was when you tried an ad hom fallacy against a cite because it said that the Mandate was set up to create a Jewish homeland, which you claimed wasn’t true… while the Mandate specifically said its purpose was to set up a Jewish homeland something like six times).
I can forgive E-Sabbath for assigning an unflattering reason behind your lying.
It is ironic that you lie in order to smear me and preemptively claim that I’m “smearing” people.
Your lie here, by the way, is the exact same lie, you were caught using the other thread. After you voiced your lie, you then tried to deny it. Of course you then went on to admit that you were using an inflammatory lie that you knew not to be true. Last time when you admitting you were lying you said "any and all (for the record that is message board short hand for damned bloody frequent, but perhaps not literally 100% of the time, other reasonable caveats implied) "
You’re stupid, but you’re not that stupid. You know that the phrase “any and all” does not in fact mean “only some”, yes, even if it’s on a message board. Go figure, the word “all” doesn’t mean “not all” even on a message board. But you are stupid enough to try to claim it does.
Strangely enough you still are stupid enough to believe that saying “any and all” when you know that the fact showing that the situation does not apply to “not any and all” examples… isn’t an obvious lie.
It is pretty obviously trolling though: saying something you know not to be true, and to be inflammatory, in order to piss someone off (and, naturally, in a slimy manner to then accuse the person who catches you at it of being mentally ill. )
I’m not surprised to see you repeating the same exact lie here. You’re kinda like someone who can be expected to lie in order to troll.
Much like athletes are kinda like people who we expect to have feet.
Go figure, that too is a lie. One I corrected you on before, which was part of why you admitted that you were lying when you claimed the whole “any and all” bullshit, before you lied again and claimed it here. Like I said, you’re not particularly smart. Bonus points for your troll schtick of “I know I’m lying, and I’ve admitted I’m lying, but you’re mentally ill for noticing that I’m lying! Non mentally ill people know that “all” means “not-all” if it’s on the internet!”
It’s okay, you’ve got something personal against me and you enjoy trolling me. You’re just not very good at it, is all. Keep practicing.
We’re using a charge of antisemitism against someone in a thread as a result of an argument he was making that the Allies should have done more to save Jewish lives?
Actually I was arguing that attempting to bomb the concentration camps would not have been a good use of military resources and the best way to stop the Holocaust & the killing was to devote all resources to destroying the Nazis militarily.
I did note, btw, that I thought the contemporaneous thinking on “dehousing” bombing was wrong - although ‘honestly wrong.’
Straight man, I misread something in the same way someone else did, and took his statement for verification of a lurking suspicion. Understandable, but clearly wrong. It happens sometimes.
Well, most precisely, I raise the nasty scenario of a carpet bombing raid that (1) kills the inmates and (2) doesn’t actually damage the death machinery - never mind seeing the loss of Allied bombers that inevitably was the high price to pay for daylight raids. As large targets like major industrial complexes oft took several missions, and the ovens, etc etc were small targets, it was a non-trivial chance.
And then had that happened, 50 years later you’d see the bomber crews and generals still being second guessed.