Sunday, October 9, 2011

Moron Blogger Says the Holocaust Jews Would Have Been Committing A Crime if They Rose Up Against Hitler


The Jew-hater also states that if these Jews would have risen up against Hitler, Hitler would have been obeying the law if he had killed them for it

by Larry Simons
October 9, 2011

I have had a plethora of arguments with a fucknut known as “The Last Name Left” [he is too cowardly to give his real name] for more than a year now, but nothing this asshat has said in the past comes close to the monumental anti-Semitism and just plain bile he has spewed from his lying lips this time.

On October 3, this fraud posted words of Mike Rivero making comments about revolution. Rivero posted, “It is simple. Revolution equals a better life. Continued servitude to Wall Street DC equals….continued servitude to Wall Street DC. Any questions?”

TLNL calls this sedition and a crime, despite the fact that Thomas Jefferson penned in the Declaration of Independence these words:

“..whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new Government, laying its foundation on such principles and organizing its powers in such form, as to them shall seem most likely to effect their Safety and Happiness.”

Rivero’s crime? Echoing the words of one of the greatest Americans that ever lived. Oh my, shame on Rivero.

Then TLNL left quotes US Law concerning sedition/overthrow of government. It matters not to this buffoon that despite it being US law, it violates several rights outlined in the Bill of Rights including, freedom of speech, freedom of assembly and freedom of association. The Constitution is the supreme law in the United States. That means it trumps US law.

TLNL said this:

“If you think the founding fathers weren't intent on making sedition a crime after winning the revolution then you're a fool.”

John Adams signed into law the Alien and Sedition Acts of 1798, which many, including his Vice President Thomas Jefferson, criticized as unconstitutional. It eventually led to the demise of the Federalist party. It was eventually deemed unconstitutional by the House Judiciary Committee.

What TLNL fails to realize or comprehend is, is that, despite the Alien and Sedition Acts being highly unconstitutional, there was at least one justification for it [though it does not outweigh the unconstitutionality of it]: The country was much different during the Adams administration than today. The country in 1798 was not the monotheistic entity known as the "United States" then. Each state was sovereign and everyone highly believed in states rights. The government was not the highly centralized, protectionist form of government we have today. In 1798 the federal government served the people, not the other way around.

So, Adams was quite petrified that, just 20 short years after the formation of this country, people would begin to pledge allegiances to other countries. Adams had to know his signing the Alien and Sedition Acts was highly unconstitutional, so it had to be out of fear and panic that drove him to make unlawful one of the most basic rights the founders adopted. Despite all these vast differences between 1798 and today's world, it was still deemed unconstitutional even then. This is how devoted to liberty our founders were.

Judge Andrew P. Napolitano puts it brilliantly in his book, It Is Dangerous To Be Right, When The Government Is Wrong, when he states:

“As the Alien and Sedition Acts show, no government, not even one comprised of the Founders who sought to safeguard our natural rights, can be trusted to permit robust freedom of speech. How could members of the same generation, indeed in some instances the same persons, who wrote, “Congress shall make no law…abridging the freedom of speech,” enact a law that abridged it?”

Amen.

Then, TLNL goes into waters in which he cannot escape. After saying Thomas Jefferson would be a criminal in today’s society, I asked him this:

“Would it have been considered SEDITION for the people to overthrow Hitler, although he was committing atrocities???”

His answer:

“It would be a crime, under German/Nazi law. Hitler would have had anyone engaged in the least bit of sedition put to death.”

See for yourself



I asked why he hated Hitler if he believes the Jews, had they rebelled, would have been committing a crime and why he hated Hitler if he would have been obeying the law by murdering Jews for sedition.

I received no answer.

One side of his mouth, he is against anti-Semitism and Hitler. On the other side, he would have supported Hitler in exterminating anyone who openly rebelled against him [thus saving their lives].

This moron is batshit crazy.

47 comments:

the_last_name_left said...

You're just making yourself look stupid. Well done.

Larry said...

EXCELLENT refutation! It's among your best!

It's simple:

No refutation...no contest.

That means every single word I typed was 100% TRUE, and it makes your blood boil that me [the "crazy truther"] made you look like the complete fool you are.

the_last_name_left said...

Well, let's try this.....a simple "yes or no" question.

Would Hitler have had anyone engaged in sedition against the Nazi-state put to death?

Yes or no?

----------

The White Rose Group:

On 18th February, Hans Scholl and Sophie Scholl began distributing the sixth leaflet produced by the White Rose group. Jakob Schmidt, a member of the Nazi Party, saw them at the University of Munich, throwing leaflets from a window of the third floor into the courtyard below. He immediately told the Gestapo and they were both arrested. They were searched and the police found a handwritten draft of another leaflet. This they matched to a letter in Scholl's flat that had been signed by Christoph Probst.

The three members of the White Rose group appeared before the People's Court judge, Roland Friesler, on 20th February. Found guilty of sedition they were executed by guillotine a few hours later. Just before he was executed Hans Scholl shouted out: "Long live freedom!"

Inge Scholl and her parents were also arrested and imprisoned. Over the next few weeks Kurt Huber, Alexander Schmorell, Willi Graf , Jugen Wittenstein and over eighty others suspected of being members of the White Rose group were taken into custody. Huber, Graff and Schmorell were all found guilty of sedition and were executed.
----------

Oh, and your title for this piece includes the word "Holocaust".

What Holocaust Larry?

Previously you have said you haven't been convinced that there was a Holocaust.

Previously you have said you found David Dees (a Holocaust denier) to be convincing.

Previously you said you were unconvinced by the evidence Dees ignores....and which makes him a Holocaust denier.

If there wasn't a Holocaust, then there couldn't have been those "Holocaust Jews" as you so oddly phrase it.

How many Jews died in the Holocaust Larry?

How were they murdered?

rob said...

larry, this cock sucker wants you to answer a question when he himself hasnt answered anything for you. he hasnt refuted nor debunked anything. hes a FN joke.

Larry said...

"Would Hitler have had anyone engaged in sedition against the Nazi-state put to death?

Yes or no?"

Probably so, since he killed them ANYWAY for just being Jews!!! That doesn't ANSWER or REFUTE my story that YOU said the Jews would have been committing a CRIME for rising up.

Hitler would have had them killed for spitting on the sidewalk too---what's your point??

Me answering "yes" to your question does not negate you saying the Jews would be guilty of a crime, ya douche.

You are actually making my point FOR me because since the Jews would have died ANYWAY, do you really think they would have given a fuck about committing a crime [of sedition] if it was to kill a ruthless dictator and it was to spare their lives?

"What Holocaust Larry?

Previously you have said you haven't been convinced that there was a Holocaust.

Previously you have said you found David Dees (a Holocaust denier) to be convincing.

Previously you said you were unconvinced by the evidence Dees ignores....and which makes him a Holocaust denier.

If there wasn't a Holocaust, then there couldn't have been those "Holocaust Jews" as you so oddly phrase it.

How many Jews died in the Holocaust Larry?

How were they murdered?"

Nice try attempting to divert from my post---but in the past, as you well know, I had said that Dees has a point---but whether the number is 6 million, 4 million, 1 million or 150,000. ANY one of those numbers STILL constitutes a holocaust, since the word holocaust means "massive slaughter". Is 150,000 NOT a "massive slaughter"? Just a YES or NO will suffice. Denying the NUMBER of deaths is NOT denying the holocaust, unless the number you claim it is is NOT a "MASSIVE SLAUGHTER". What don't you get about that?

Now that I have snuffed out your attempted diversion from my point, what will you divert to next...what color underwear Hitler wore??

Funny, in your post I didn't see a refutation anywhere.

the_last_name_left said...

"Jews Would Have Been Committing A Crime if They Rose Up Against Hitler"
-----

Larry says it's untrue.

And Larry also says the Holocaust-denier David Dees "has a point".

About what?

Larrys says:

"whether the number is 6 million......or 150,000. ANY one of those numbers STILL constitutes a holocaust"

But that's not the point.

We're not talking about what the term "a holocaust" means.

We're talking about **the** Nazi Holocaust of the Jews. That's a specific Holocaust.

If you are saying 150k were murdered in the Nazi Holocaust of the Jews when the real figure was 6m, then you're failing to recognise the murder of 5.85m people.

Let's call the Nazi Holocaust of the Jews 'the Shoah' - just to be clear what we are on about.

How many were murdered in the Shoah Larry?

150,000?

the_last_name_left said...

ME: "Would Hitler have had anyone engaged in sedition against the Nazi-state put to death?

Yes or no?"
-----

Larry: Probably so, since he killed them ANYWAY for just being Jews!!! That doesn't ANSWER or REFUTE my story that YOU said the Jews would have been committing a CRIME for rising up.
=======================

Hitler and the Nazis killed people for engaging in sedition. Not just Jews, but anyone engaging in it.

And they killed Jews just for being Jews.....not only because they were engaging in sedition.

Jews that did 'rise up' against Hitler engaged in sedition, as did anyone else whom 'rose up' against Hitler. And all of them risked execution by doing so. Obviously. That isn't controversial.

So, apart from making yourself look stupid by disputing it, what's your point?

Larry said...

"We're not talking about what the term "a holocaust" means."

Because you don't know what the word means. You keep saying Dees is a "holocaust denier" but if he believes there was a MASSIVE SLAUGHTER, then he does NOT deny it. Capiche?

"We're talking about **the** Nazi Holocaust of the Jews. That's a specific Holocaust."

But you keep using the term "holocaust denier". You have NEVER EVER said "Nazi holocaust denier"

Larry said...

"Hitler and the Nazis killed people for engaging in sedition. Not just Jews, but anyone engaging in it."

Since Hitler killed people ANYWAY, does it matter if there even WERE sedition laws or not?

"And they killed Jews just for being Jews.....not only because they were engaging in sedition."

Funny, I cant find one article or website that mentions that there were SEDITION LAWS in Nazi Germany. In fact, I was just reading about the Warsaw Ghetto uprising and there's not ONE MENTION on the entire page of sedition laws or putting people who were captured to death BECAUSE OF sedition laws. They were put to death because they resisted and tried to kill Germans, not because of any LAWS.

"Jews that did 'rise up' against Hitler engaged in sedition, as did anyone else whom 'rose up' against Hitler."

I just read about the Warsaw Ghetto uprising you dipshit and it doesnt mention ANYWHERE that any Jews were put to death because of Sedition LAWS. There's a big difference in killing Jews because they fired at Germans and tried killing Germans [self defense] and killing them because it is written in a LAW to do that.

"And all of them risked execution by doing so. Obviously. That isn't controversial."

They didnt risk execution ANYWAY?? They risked execution just for sitting in their homes having a Bible study! Whats your point??

"So, apart from making yourself look stupid by disputing it, what's your point?"

My point is in the fucking ARTICLE, that you most likely DIDNT READ. You are SUPPORTING Hitler by saying there were sedition laws in place in Germany [which there is NO proof of] and that had Jews rebelled [some did...Warsaw uprising] then Hitler would have been UPHOLDING THE LAW by putting them to death. That sounds pretty PRO Hitler, dont ya think??

My entire point is: You claim that the Jews should have just sat around awaiting their deaths because there were sedition laws [so you claim] and that even if they WANTED to rebel, they could NOT because there were LAWS that did NOT permit them to do so.

So, in essence, you're saying the Jews should have just welcomed their own deaths and ALLOWED Hitler to do ANYTHING he wanted because had the Jews done ANYTHING but accept their fate, they would have been CRIMINALS to resist Hitler!

Thats my fucking point DIPSHIT.

Anonymous said...

dipshit, thats a good one larry. the last dishit left. fits like a glove. lol..lol..lol..lmfao.

the_last_name_left said...

Go look up 'Wehrkraftzersetzung'.

And see this document, for example.

And see this document, for example.

Larry said...

I read about the Wehrkraftzersetzung and it appears that it only centered on SPEECH, not anything else. The document you posted was issued in 1941 and didnt mention sedition in it at all. Besides it was issued in 1941---what happened for the two years of killing prior?

Many Nazis were prosecuted for war crimes after the war. If Hitler was only carrying out German sedition laws, why were they prosecuted for war crimes? I know what you're going to say----you're going to say "for killing Jews, Poles, etc.."----BUT if there was NOTHING THEY COULD DO ABOUT IT and if HITLER WAS CARRYING OUT THE LAW, then according to YOU, what did the Nazis do wrong if there was a LAW saying anyone the Nazis killed COULD NOT DO A GODDAMNED THING ABOUT BEING KILLED???

I want a fucking answer, shitcock.

the_last_name_left said...

God, you are one clueless dolt, eh.

Larry said...

A sedition law that is created by a government/regime, etc. is INVALID if they are engaging in atrocities. If you're going to be killed ANYWAY, why would or SHOULD the potential slaughtered person acknowledge a law that is created by the VERY FUCKING PARTY that is committing the atrocities???

If I became King of England, and I issued a decree that said I will have you killed because...well, I just feel like killing humans---and if you RESISTED my death decree [because you didnt want to die], are you telling me that my decree would mean ANYTHING to you if you're going to be killed ANYWAY? Are you telling me you're going to LET me kill you because you don't want to violate an immoral law???

YOU'RE EVEN MORE INSANE THAN I ALREADY THOUGHT YOU WERE.

Here's the ficticious dialogue that TLNL holds dear:

HITLER: Im going to kill you

THE PEOPLE: But I dont want to die

HITLER: Tough shit. Im going to kill you and there's not a damned thing you can do about it. To make sure you don't resist, I created a law that says if you resist me killing you, I will have you killed for resisting me killing you.

THE PEOPLE: So I will be dead no matter what?

HITLER: Yes

Larry said...

"God, you are one clueless dolt, eh."

Another excellent refutation. And you IGNORED my question, so fucking answer it.

Many Nazis were prosecuted for war crimes after the war. If Hitler was only carrying out German sedition laws, why were they prosecuted for war crimes? I know what you're going to say----you're going to say "for killing Jews, Poles, etc.."----BUT if there was NOTHING THEY COULD DO ABOUT IT and if HITLER WAS CARRYING OUT THE LAW, then according to YOU, what did the Nazis do wrong if there was a LAW saying anyone the Nazis killed COULD NOT DO A GODDAMNED THING ABOUT BEING KILLED???

the_last_name_left said...

What has the invasion of non-aligned countries got to do with sedition?

What did the NMT have to do with sedition?

However you try and spin it, the fact remains that sedition was a crime in Nazi Germany.

Recognising that fact doesn't mean one supports the Holocaust, nor Nazism.

The fact you fail to understand that only points to how much of a fool you are. Nothing else.

the_last_name_left said...

How many "Holocaust Jews" were there Larry?

Let's see you answer.

Larry said...

Ha ha ha. I KNEW youd IGNORE this:

"You want me to advertise your stupid site too? Crikey, that's asking a bit much, isn't it?"

Access to my blog is posted every single time I post a comment [that you ALLOW]---and besides, you've posted links to my site in past articles already---assface.

Here:

http://the-last-blog-left.blogspot.com/
2011/09/larry-jumps-
shark-as-they-say.html

Here:

http://the-last-blog-left.blogspot.com/2010
/09/according-to-madman
-larry-simons.html

and here:

http://the-last-blog-left.blogspot.com/2009
/08/larry-architect-
tourettes.html

Proof youve linked to my site at LEAST three times, but NOW you claim you don't want to link to it [AGAIN] because you CANNOT refute my current story about you being a Hitler supporter and Jew hater.

------------

So, when will you refute me on your blog?? AFRAID TO huh? Because then youd have to EXPOSE that you support Hitler's extermination of people. I already have PROVEN you have linked to my site before, so you cannot use that as a reason for not doing it now.

Real Truth Online said...

"The fact you fail to understand that only points to how much of a fool you are. Nothing else."

And the fact that you IGNORE questions I ask AND refuse to refute me on your own blog PROVE you dont want your own words EXPOSED on your site in plain view. You'd rather keep them hidden in the comment thread.

Answer my fucking questions, or are you AFRAID to??

the_last_name_left said...

Seek help larry.

Real Truth Online said...

THREE questions you REFUSE to answer:

1. Many Nazis were prosecuted for war crimes after the war. If Hitler was only carrying out German sedition laws, why were they prosecuted for war crimes? I know what you're going to say----you're going to say "for killing Jews, Poles, etc.."----BUT if there was NOTHING THEY COULD DO ABOUT IT and if HITLER WAS CARRYING OUT THE LAW, then according to YOU, what did the Nazis do wrong if there was a LAW saying anyone the Nazis killed COULD NOT DO A GODDAMNED THING ABOUT BEING KILLED???

2. A sedition law that is created by a government/regime, etc. is INVALID if they are engaging in atrocities. If you're going to be killed ANYWAY, why would or SHOULD the potential slaughtered person acknowledge a law that is created by the VERY FUCKING PARTY that is committing the atrocities???

3. If I became King of England, and I issued a decree that said I will have you killed because...well, I just feel like killing humans---and if you RESISTED my death decree [because you didnt want to die], are you telling me that my decree would mean ANYTHING to you if you're going to be killed ANYWAY? Are you telling me you're going to LET me kill you because you don't want to violate an immoral law???

AND you are afraid to refute this on your OWN blog! You're EXACTLY like Alex Jones!!!! EXACTLY!

Im the "nut" but you're afraid of ME??????? Im pissing my pants!!

the_last_name_left said...

q1: If Hitler was only carrying out German sedition laws, why were they prosecuted for war crimes?
====

What charges at NMT are you on about?

Nazi executions of people found guilty for sedition were not punished at NMT sfaik. If you know different.....what were the specific charges brought....against whom?

q2: A sedition law that is created by a government/regime, etc. is INVALID if they are engaging in atrocities
========

Who says?

q3: Are you telling me you're going to LET me kill you because you don't want to violate an immoral law???
=====

Do you really believe Nazis didn't kill people for breaking the law, because the law (as decided by unspecified others, such as yourself) was immoral?

Real Truth Online said...

"Nazi executions of people found guilty for sedition were not punished at NMT sfaik."

If they were EXECUTED for sedition, then how could they be "FOUND GUILTY" of it?? When was the trial if they were executed on the spot??

You ignored my questions again. Is it because they are just too fucking hard to answer? ADMIT it.

the_last_name_left said...

How many died in the Holocaust (Shoah) Larry?

How many times you ignored that?

I just addressed your questions - you even quote my response.

the_last_name_left said...

What makes you think everyone was immediately killed for sedition? Just another one of your perpetual ridiculous misplaced assumptions.

Real Truth Online said...

"How many died in the Holocaust (Shoah) Larry?

How many times you ignored that?"

It's not relevant to my story. We are talking about issues related to my story----the number of deaths is irrelevant to my story and to any other issue.

"I just addressed your questions - you even quote my response."

It was NOT an answer and it was only the acknowledgement of ONE of them, not all THREE. Acknowledgement of a question is NOT the same as ANSWERING it.

Real Truth Online said...

"What makes you think everyone was immediately killed for sedition? Just another one of your perpetual ridiculous misplaced assumptions."

Then show me PROOF of their sedition TRIALS. You can't, I realize that.

the_last_name_left said...

hahaha

So how many were murdered Larry? And how?

Let's see your Holocaust denial.....

==========

As for your question....it makes no sense until you provide the answer to this question......WHAT NMT CHARGES WERE BROUGHT AGAINST NAZISM IN RELATION TO NAZI RESPONSES TO SEDITION?

If there weren't any, your question doesn't make sense. So how could anyone answer it?

Real Truth Online said...

"WHAT NMT CHARGES WERE BROUGHT AGAINST NAZISM IN RELATION TO NAZI RESPONSES TO SEDITION?"

Doest matter if the charges were BECAUSE of sedition. My point was VERY fucking clear:

YOU claim there were sedition laws in which the Jews COULD NOT DO ANYTHING TO STOP THEIR DEATHS. So, if the Nazis were JUST OBEYING THE LAW and the Jews WERE OBEYING THE SEDITION laws by NOT RISING UP, then nobody did anything wrong, right????

So what was the reason for the war crime prosecutions???

the_last_name_left said...

L: Then show me PROOF of their sedition TRIALS. You can't, I realize that.
===========

I already did. Check the WhiteRoseGroup. I already said this........it might help if you comprehend some of the things said to you, L.

From Wikipedia: [notice the use of the word TRIAL - ****** just so you don't miss it]

The Scholls and Probst were the first to stand trial before the Volksgerichtshof—the People's Court that tried political offenses against the Nazi German state—on 22 February 1943. They were found guilty of treason and Roland Freisler, head judge of the court, sentenced them to death. The three were executed the same day by guillotine. All three were noted for the courage with which they faced their deaths, particularly Sophie, who remained firm despite intense interrogation (however, reports that she arrived at the trial with a broken leg from torture are false). She said to Freisler during the trial, "You know as well as we do that the war is lost. Why are you so cowardly that you won't admit it?"[9] When Hans was executed, he said "Let freedom live" as the blade fell.
The second White Rose trial took place on 19 April 1943. Only eleven had been indicted before this trial. At the last minute, the prosecutor added Traute Lafrenz (who was considered so dangerous that she was to have had a trial all to herself), Gisela Schertling, and Katharina Schueddekopf. None had an attorney. One was assigned after the women appeared in court with their friends.
Professor Huber had counted on the good services of his friend, Attorney Justizrat Roder, a high-ranking Nazi. Roder had not bothered to visit Huber before the trial and had not read Huber's leaflet. Another attorney had carried out all the pre-trial paperwork. When Roder realized how damning the evidence was against Huber, he resigned. The junior attorney took over.
Grimminger initially was to receive the death sentence for funding their operations. His attorney successfully used the female wiles of Tilly Hahn to convince Freisler that Grimminger had not known what the money was really being used for.[citation needed] Grimminger therefore escaped with a sentence of ten years in a penitentiary.
The third White Rose trial was to have taken place on 20 April 1943 (Hitler's birthday), because Freisler anticipated death sentences for Wilhelm Geyer, Harald Dohrn, Josef Soehngen, and Manfred Eickemeyer. He did not want too many death sentences at a single trial, and had scheduled those four for the next day. However, the evidence against them was lost, and the trial was postponed until 13 July 1943.
At that trial, Gisela Schertling —who had betrayed most of the friends, even fringe members like Gerhard Feuerle— redeemed herself by recanting her testimony against all of them. Since Freisler did not preside over the third trial, the judge acquitted all but Soehngen (who got only six months in prison) for lack of evidence.
Alexander Schmorell and Kurt Huber were beheaded on 13 July 1943, and Willi Graf on 12 October 1943. Friends and colleagues of the White Rose, who had helped in the preparation and distribution of leaflets and in collecting money for the widow and young children of Probst, were sentenced to prison terms ranging from six months to ten years.

Real Truth Online said...

Your answer to that will be:

The Nazis did wrong, they killed 6 million people.

BUT, if the people were OBEYING THE LAW and not enganging in sedition, then you can't say they were KILLED right? It would have to be "giving themselves up" right? You said it yourself, they would be COMMITTING a CRIME if they rebeled!

So, did they give themselves up or were they killed???

Real Truth Online said...

You will refuse to answer my last question: Did they give themselves up or were they killed?---because you know you're backed into a corner regardless of your answer.

Ha ha. I win again.

the_last_name_left said...

L: So what was the reason for the war crime prosecutions???
==============

You clearly need to do some reading Larry.

And some reading of some real history, not the shit you've been consuming all these years.

II Jurisdiction and General Principles

Article 6.

The Tribunal established by the Agreement referred to in Article 1 hereof for the trial and punishment of the major war criminals of the European Axis countries shall have the power to try and punish persons who, acting in the interests of the European Axis countries, whether as individuals or as members of organizations, committed any of the following crimes.

The following acts, or any of them, are crimes coming within the jurisdiction of the Tribunal for which there shall be individual responsibility:

(a) Crimes against peace: namely, planning, preparation, initiation or ' waging of a war of aggression, or a war in violation of international treaties, agreements or assurances, or participation in a common plan or conspiracy for the accomplishment of any of the foregoing;

(b) War crimes: namely, violations of the laws or customs of war. Such violations shall include, but not be limited to, murder, ill-treatment or deportation to slave labour or for any other purpose of civilian population of or in occupied territory, murder or ill-treatment of prisoners of war or persons on the seas, killing of hostages, plunder of public or private property, wanton destruction of cities, towns or villages, or devastation not justified by military necessity;

(c) Crimes against humanity: namely, murder, extermination, enslavement, deportation, and other inhumane acts committed against any civilian population, before or during the war; or persecutions on political, racial or religious grounds in execution of or in connection with any crime within the jurisdiction of the Tribunal, whether or not in violation of the domestic law of the country where perpetrated. See protocol p. XV for correction of this paragraph.]

Leaders, organizers, instigators and accomplices participating in the formulation or execution of a common plan or conspiracy to commit any of the foregoing crimes are responsible for all acts performed by any persons in execution of such plan.

Real Truth Online said...

stop fucking posting from wikipedia---it shows youre lazy. ANSWER my questions. You claim I dont read---but apparently YOU dont read anything if you have to depend on wikipedia!!!

ANSWER my question:

DID THEY GIVE THEMSELVES UP OR KILLED??

Im waiting, fuckstick.

Real Truth Online said...

You didnt know the answer---so you had to run to wikipedia--and you STILL didnt ANSWER my questions!

DID THEY GIVE THEMSELVES UP OR KILLED???

Still waiting.

the_last_name_left said...

L: You said it yourself, they would be COMMITTING a CRIME if they rebeled!
==============

There's nothing controversial about that, Larry. It's called a fact. Introduce yourself to the concept.

the_last_name_left said...

Wikipedia is a good source, especially if you know your subject.

If the original source material were readily available, and books like Shirer's Rise And Fall were readily available.....I'd link to those. I am not typing out chapters just because you've never read any decent history books.

Real Truth Online said...

DID THEY GIVE THEMSELVES UP OR KILLED???

Still waiting.

Real Truth Online said...

Thats what I thought, you fucking chicken

the_last_name_left said...

What do you mean "Did they give themselves up or were they killed?"

the_last_name_left said...

L: stop fucking posting from wikipedia---it shows youre lazy.
=========

You must be even lazier.....because you don't know anything about it in the first place, and you couldn't even be bothered to find the reference at Wikipedia.

Anonymous said...

larry, hes a pile of shit. hell never answer your question. he dodged and deverted everything. the last cock in mouth queenie fraud name left is defeated and refuted yet again.

the_last_name_left said...

What an audience of !anonymous! you got Lars.....must make you proud.

And you never speak to these adoring fans of yours. Bit slack of you, no? One wonders why they love you so much when you never address their hollow responses.

Funny. Why do you bother with such a transparent charade? Why do I even bother responding.....I don't know.

Larry said...

Pissed off that I allow free speech on my site? Unlike YOU, who does not let people post unless it goes through screening OR having to have a google account.

By the way, not the most original way to get off topic and divert from the subject, but it was a good effort on your part.

You will never answer my question "Did the Jews give themselves up, or were they killed?" because you know the ramifications of answering either way---so you IGNORE it.

rob said...

see larry, this prick still wont answer your question. another fraud exposed. he should go back to his own blog and his sock puppet site socrates so they can bullshit eachother.

the_last_name_left said...

Don't talk such utter shite........

what does your stupid question mean?

I asked - you haven't answered.

Anonymous said...

bullocks