Deny the Holocaust, Go to Jail

JJpdxpinkpistols

February 21, 2006, 01:10 PM

Let's hope such a law never comes to these shores.

I sincerely doubt it will.

*THIS* law is in direct response to the citizenry of the Axis Powers in Europe that flat out didn't believe that this had happened.

Essentially, after WWII, the citizens of Austria/Germany et al refused to believe that the Holocaust had occurred. IIRC, they had to FORCE the citizens around the camps to visit them, and view the bones, the gas chambers, the mass graves. There is a World At War episode that covers the post-war years where folks had to tour the camps. People were becoming visibly ill, and Allied troops just stood there, stonefaced, refusing the help them. Very powerful.

Anyway...this law was passed to discourage those naysayers. There are similar laws in most of the countries in Europe. All date to pre-1950s, if I remember correctly. I am unaware of any legislative attempts in the USA.

Oh, and there is also the fact that the Allies felt that Germany wasn't prosecuted sufficiently after WWI, giving rise to denials and disbelievers regarding culpability in THAT war, so they might have gone overboard in their "speech laws". Research Hindenberg and WWI war crimes trials if you have interest in this.

Not excusing the law. Just giving some historical context.

Edited: forgot the WWI reference the first time 'round...sorry

El Tejon

February 21, 2006, 01:16 PM

In thinking about my last answer, it should also be pointed out that after WWII Western Europe imprinted on mother hen, USA, when the US was under the heel of the FDR/Truman welfare state. Thus, Western Europe, in looking for someone to emulate, choose FDR. *shudder*

Thus, Western Europe's worldview today mirrors that of FDR.:uhoh:

torpid

February 21, 2006, 01:17 PM

No. Font size has more to do with the need for optical assistance and old eyes.:)

Bob

I'm gettin' there myself! :)

You know that you can change font settings in your own web browser so that all the text is bigger for you to read easily on your own computer?

Then you can post your messages in the boring default THR font size like all the other folks here.
:D

pcf

February 21, 2006, 01:21 PM

Civil disobedience has different meanings in different countries. His (Irvings) rights as a British citizen do not extend to foriegn countries. Irving attempted to commit an act of civil disobedience and affirm his right to freedom of speech, in a country that did not recognize his rights. His mistake. It's folley to travel to a country where there is a standing arrest warrant, and not expect to get arrested.

Having and enforcing laws against the freedom of speech is stupid and lends credibility to Irving and his followers, but he knew better than to go to Austria and expect to stay out of prison.

asknight

February 21, 2006, 01:25 PM

The biggest problem I see here is that he was convicted under a 1992 law, for a speech he gave in 1989. 3-4years later. Guess there's no such thing as Ex Post Facto in Euro.

Justin

February 21, 2006, 01:25 PM

No. Font size has more to do with the need for optical assistance and old eyes.:)

Bob

LOL.

Assuming you're using Microsoft Internet Explorer, point to
VIEW --> TEXT SIZE --> LARGER/LARGEST

Oh, and if David Irving is a historian, then I'm a Chinese Jet Pilot. I'm much more of a fan of the American system where foolish idiots are encouraged to be publically be themselves as often and as loudly as they like.

Robert J McElwain

February 21, 2006, 01:25 PM

From what I've read he didn't deny the Holocaust happened, he just denied that gas chambers specifically were used in the holocaust.

Absolutely ridiculous that he was sent to jail for three years.

There is a slow slide in this country to the abolition of free speech Bob - just look at "Hate Speech" laws.

Hell I don't care if somebody wants to call me a "cracker." That's their 1st amendment rights, but if a white guy says a racial slur against somebody else, it's a "hate crime."

Hate crimes are only the beginning. These laws like Holocaust Denial are on their way.

Good point. Of course PC (Political Correctness) wants to dictate the way we should think about such issues. That kind of crap will destroy us.

I repeat, "the best cure for stupid ideas is maximum exposure to public scrutiny."

Bob

JJpdxpinkpistols

February 21, 2006, 01:40 PM

Good point. Of course PC (Political Correctness) wants to dictate the way we should think about such issues. That kind of crap will destroy us.

I repeat, "the best cure for stupid ideas is maximum exposure to public scrutiny."

I don't think PC has anything to do with this, to be honest. It has to do with national responsibility, culpability, and the *wishes* of a public to become deluded, and perhaps a bit of the Allies not wanting history to repeat itself. After all, democracy and unfettered free speech is what got them Hitler (and a second war inflaming europe withink a 50 year timespan) in the first place.

BUT, there is hope!!!! There ARE ways to counter this sort of stupid speech without putting pen to legislative paper...look what Bikers are doing to Phelps&co at their protests of military funerals:

http://www.cnn.com/2006/US/02/21/funeral.motorcyclists.ap/index.html

Robert J McElwain

February 21, 2006, 02:29 PM

I don't think PC has anything to do with this, to be honest. It has to do with national responsibility, culpability, and the *wishes* of a public to become deluded, and perhaps a bit of the Allies not wanting history to repeat itself. After all, democracy and unfettered free speech is what got them Hitler (and a second war inflaming europe withink a 50 year timespan) in the first place.

BUT, there is hope!!!! There ARE ways to counter this sort of stupid speech without putting pen to legislative paper...look what Bikers are doing to Phelps&co at their protests of military funerals:

http://www.cnn.com/2006/US/02/21/funeral.motorcyclists.ap/index.html

My hat's off to the bikers. However, further in the article it talks about several states considering laws to muzzle Phelps. I don't like the SOB, but if they muzzle him, someone might want to muzzle me next.

Bob

JJpdxpinkpistols

February 21, 2006, 02:48 PM

My hat's off to the bikers. However, further in the article it talks about several states considering laws to muzzle Phelps. I don't like the SOB, but if they muzzle him, someone might want to muzzle me next.

The last time I heard of any such law being considered, it was establishing noise abatement surrounding cemetaries. I don't see a problem with that. The problem hasn't ever been folks protesting at all, but rather, chanting, and disrupting the funerals with noise. Signs, fine...pamplets, fine. Chants, bullhorns and boomboxes no good. This isn't a free speech ZONE as much as a noise abatement area.

Hard to mourn when people are screaming in your ear (in the case of Phelps&co...RIGHT in your ear--trust me, I know :cuss: ).

Mourning *is* a universal need.

We ought to be able to protect *both* the free speech rights of those who wish to protest the death of a <insert group here> with those of the family who need to mourn and bury their dead. Is that a concession to common decency we should have to balance as a free society?

ArmedBear

February 21, 2006, 02:54 PM

We ought to be able to protect *both* the free speech rights of those who wish to protest the death of a <insert group here> with those of the family who need to mourn and bury their dead. Is that a concession to common decency we should have to balance as a free society?

Absolutely.

Free speech protects the CONTENT of speech, not the volume, timing or location.

You can say what you want, but not necessarily anywhere, any time, or at any volume.

Now I understand that this does open the door for suppression of speech. But so far, we've done okay with these restrictions. These restrictions are in place in every incorporated city in the United States.

It is vital that there are checks and balances on such laws, but so far, this has worked.

Now, if only the courts paid 1/10 as much attention to the 2nd Amendment as to the 1st...

Robert J McElwain

February 21, 2006, 02:54 PM

The last time I heard of any such law being considered, it was establishing noise abatement surrounding cemetaries. I don't see a problem with that. The problem hasn't ever been folks protesting at all, but rather, chanting, and disrupting the funerals with noise. Signs, fine...pamplets, fine. Chants, bullhorns and boomboxes no good. This isn't a free speech ZONE as much as a noise abatement area.

Hard to mourn when people are screaming in your ear (in the case of Phelps&co...RIGHT in your ear--trust me, I know :cuss: ).

Mourning *is* a universal need.

We ought to be able to protect *both* the free speech rights of those who wish to protest the death of a <insert group here> with those of the family who need to mourn and bury their dead. Is that a concession to common decency we should have to balance as a free society?

Someday, some mourner is going to just pound the tar out of that guy.:barf:

Bob

Biker

February 21, 2006, 03:07 PM

Someday, some mourner is going to just pound the tar out of that guy.:barf:

Bob

The sooner, the better.
Biker

f155mph

February 21, 2006, 03:10 PM

I been to the death camps in Poland two years ago. That experience made a hugh impact in my life. I think anyone who down plays what the Nazi did during WWII is should not receive any simpathy.

cracked butt

February 21, 2006, 03:14 PM

Anyone who questions the status quo whether it be in art, science, or history should be jailed because they are dangerous people. :rolleyes:

We’ve taken care of everything
The words you hear the songs you sing
The pictures that give pleasure to your eyes
It’s one for all and all for one
We work together common sons
Never need to wonder how or why

-Rush 'Overture'

Biker

February 21, 2006, 03:17 PM

Well said, Cracked...er...Butt...um...CB.:)
Biker

Web

February 21, 2006, 03:46 PM

progunner1957

February 21, 2006, 03:52 PM

"the best cure for stupid ideas is maximum exposure to public scrutiny."But if stupid ideas ae exposed to stupid Sheeple...:barf:

Biker

February 21, 2006, 03:54 PM

"Anyone who questions the status quo whether it be in art, science, or history should be jailed because they are dangerous people."

No, anyone who deliberately misrepresents the contents of relevant documents to conform to his sympathetic view of Hitler and his lie that nothing on the order of genocide occurred under Nazi rule is a dangerous person.
First off, who is in charge of defining a dangerous person and secondly, when did it become illegal to *be* a dangerous person? We're all potentially dangerous, especially when we disagree with your viewpoint, apparantly.

Biker

progunner1957

February 21, 2006, 04:01 PM

I been to the death camps in Poland two years ago. That experience made a hugh impact in my life. I think anyone who down plays what the Nazi did during WWII is should not receive any simpathy.I read a story written by a photographer who went to Auschwitz to photograph the site. He said there were trails that you could walk through the woods surrounding the camp.

While walking these trails, he became aware of the strange texture underfoot of the material the trails were covered with. He knelt down, scooped up some of the material and realized upon close inspection what the material was: Human bone fragments.

There are literally scores of acres of human bone fragments there, where the Death Head SS troops who ran the crematoriums dumped them.

And the Holocaust was made up - yeah, right.:barf: :barf: :barf:

As the saying goes: Those who do not learn from history are doomed to repeat it.

Camp David

February 21, 2006, 04:03 PM

First off, who is in charge of defining a dangerous person and secondly, when did it become illegal to *be* a dangerous person?

Biker... the danger herein is sort of obvious, to say the very least... This guy pawned himself off as a 'historian' in Australia... worse he made his statements available in an education setting, therein the 'danger' if you will! While we on this side of the Atlantic have no such punishments for apparent lies; i.e., denial of the holocaust, we should inflict some punishment for those in an academic setting that harbor such views dangerous to youth... and they are out there... I need only mention Colorado professor Ward Churchill and others of his ilk... Freedom of expression is one thing; freedom from stupidity should go along with it!

ArmedBear

February 21, 2006, 04:18 PM

Biker... the danger herein is sort of obvious, to say the very least... This guy pawned himself off as a 'historian' in Australia... worse he made his statements available in an education setting, therein the 'danger' if you will! While we on this side of the Atlantic have no such punishments for apparent lies; i.e., denial of the holocaust, we should inflict some punishment for those in an academic setting that harbor such views dangerous to youth... and they are out there... I need only mention Colorado professor Ward Churchill and others of his ilk... Freedom of expression is one thing; freedom from stupidity should go along with it!

Yes. Academia should be run differently, especially when tax-funded.

But prison time? No way.

Malone LaVeigh

February 21, 2006, 04:28 PM

Meanwhile, the European press seems to be going out of it's way to insult Moslems under the banner of freedom of the press. I wonder what the Islamic world thinks about this.

lostone1413

February 21, 2006, 04:47 PM

Wether someone believes him or not is irrelevant. He should have the right to say what he wants. Soon you will see the same in this country as far as freedom of speech goes. Soon anyone who questions the action of the government will be labeled a terrorist. Then the wheel are set you can be arrested and not charged denied counsel. If you think he hasn't a right to say that think what can and odds are will happen in this country.

cracked butt

February 21, 2006, 05:20 PM

No, anyone who deliberately misrepresents the contents of relevant documents to conform to his sympathetic view of Hitler and his lie that nothing on the order of genocide occurred under Nazi rule is a dangerous person. Particularly in Austria.

That's for the people in the ivory towers to sort out. They will put him in his place. Best thing to do is allow his work to be out in the open and debated. The Austrian governmentttelling people what they can or cannot think is only a step away from what they are trying to avoid.

Having someone jailed for their thoughts is usually an indictment on the society. If a government has a dogma that is defended not through debate but by intimidation and persecution, the dogma is usually fragile and flawed.

Dr.Rob

February 21, 2006, 05:52 PM

This has been on BBC this week... interesting debate.

Would you feel the same if this 'historian' was teaching in your schools?

I agree in the most part that it's best to let these freaks shout their nonsense loud enough to be publicly refuted and/or ridiculed, censoring drives them underground and gives their message the allure of 'forbidden fruit' to dissafected youth. Look at our own skinhead underground for proof of that.

Jail time? It's still illegal to display a swastika in Germany. Call it survivors guilt, American-forced reparations or whatever. Some of those laws imposed by the Marshall plan--or explained by legal precedence are there to make sure the next generations of former Axis members NEVER forget what they participated in.

Half the programming on the History Channel would be heavily censored in Germany and Austria.

Is it 'right?' I'm not sure. But I sure as hell understand why those laws exist. Maybe when the last allied veterans of WW2, and the survivors of the holocaust pass into the next world, Austria and Germany will choose to strike some of these restrictions down. But I doubt it.

I wouldn't jail the guy. But I sure as hell would let an Austrian cop or two march him around the remains of a death camp pointing out the sights.

LoadAmmo

February 21, 2006, 07:06 PM

Meanwhile, the European press seems to be going out of it's way to insult Moslems under the banner of freedom of the press. I wonder what the Islamic world thinks about this.

I think this image aptly describes the revolting hypocrisy of Europe:

http://www.conspiracypenpal.com/images/europefreespeech.jpg

Thain

February 21, 2006, 08:04 PM

I'm a historian by personal aptitude and academic trainning, and in the halls of academia this guy has loooong been a sad joke.

"Holocaust Denial" is a trend that professional historians have long been combating. I personally prefer it to be handled by education, academic standards, and not getting the courts or government involved. I'm a Libertarian, after all.

That said, the Anti-Nazi laws in eastern Europe are pretty widly known, and have been on the books since the week after V-E Day!

He broke the law, he got caught, he got convicted. I shant weep.

XLMiguel

February 21, 2006, 08:45 PM

Meanwhile, the European press seems to be going out of it's way to insult Moslems under the banner of freedom of the press.
Actually, the Danes were bieing inclusive. They have made fun of Christians and Jews in political cartoons often in the past, so why not Muslims, too? Part of being a member of a pluralistic society, eh? The lesson Europe might be starting to learn is that one should not be tolerant of the intolerant. :banghead: :fire:

ezypikns

February 21, 2006, 08:58 PM

but I don't think there are even Holocaust denial laws in Israel. I believe the only place those type of laws are in effect are former parts of Hitler's Reich (Germany and Austria). Maybe those folks need to be reminded of their history. From what I understand, there are many young Austrians and Germans who think this whole Holocaust thing was tremendously overblown.

How can the murder of 6 million people be "overblown"?

Odd though, that an Englishman was convicted of breaking Austrian law.

telomerase

February 21, 2006, 09:16 PM

How can the murder of 6 million people be "overblown"?

Governments killed about 200 million people during the 20th century, NOT COUNTING WARS or FDA regulations. Ukrainians, Cambodians, Armenians, etc. etc. etc. might all feel a bit left out when "the holocaust" is presented as a uniquely Jewish experience.

BTW, I think that idiot should definitely be allowed to talk. No one says you have to listen.

Standing Wolf

February 21, 2006, 10:27 PM

Meanwhile, the European press seems to be going out of it's way to insult Moslems under the banner of freedom of the press. I wonder what the Islamic world thinks about this.

The vast majority of European newspapers have not reprinted the cartoons.

If Muslims choose to feel insulted, that's their right. They should vote with their advertising budgets and assorted other forms of purchasing power if they choose to stay in Europe, or else go home and start riots.

CAnnoneer

February 21, 2006, 10:40 PM

but I don't think there are even Holocaust denial laws in Israel.

Yes, but then again playing the works of Richard Wagner is forbidden in Israel. Makes you wonder.

many young Austrians and Germans who think this whole Holocaust thing was tremendously overblown. How can the murder of 6 million people be "overblown"?

It can be, if taken out of context. In the same war, the Soviet casualties were 27 million, German casualties were 10.5 million. The Nazis also killed millions of slavs and jipsies, and torched 628 Ukrainian and Belorussian villages with their residents burnt alive. On the other hand, the Soviets returned some of the favor when they first entered German soil in East Prussia...

Somehow you never hear about the other victims in the same period. Why is that?

Double Naught Spy

February 22, 2006, 01:49 AM

There is a law in Austria, a democracy, that forbids anyone from denying the Holocaust. And now, a man is going to jail for doing just that.

I have no doubt that the Holocaust occurred, however, I object to denying free speech to anyone, no matter how stupid their utterances might be.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/europe/4735496.stm

Let's hope such a law never comes to these shores.

Bob

Just curious, do you also object to other laws that are in conflict with the US Consitution, but are occuring in countries that do not have the same rights as the folks in the US? Do you object to Americans doing things that are in conflict with the laws of other countries?

Robert Hairless

February 22, 2006, 03:45 AM

Yes, but then again playing the works of Richard Wagner is forbidden in Israel. Makes you wonder.

It can be, if taken out of context. In the same war, the Soviet casualties were 27 million, German casualties were 10.5 million. The Nazis also killed millions of slavs and jipsies, and torched 628 Ukrainian and Belorussian villages with their residents burnt alive. On the other hand, the Soviets returned some of the favor when they first entered German soil in East Prussia...

Somehow you never hear about the other victims in the same period. Why is that?

Much more puzzling is why you say that you never hear about the other victims in the same period when you evidently have heard about the other victims in the same period. Why is that?

LAK

February 22, 2006, 04:41 AM

I sincerely doubt it will.

*THIS* law is in direct response to the citizenry of the Axis Powers in Europe that flat out didn't believe that this had happened.

Essentially, after WWII, the citizens of Austria/Germany et al refused to believe that the Holocaust had occurred. IIRC, they had to FORCE the citizens around the camps to visit them, and view the bones, the gas chambers, the mass graves. There is a World At War episode that covers the post-war years where folks had to tour the camps. People were becoming visibly ill, and Allied troops just stood there, stonefaced, refusing the help them. Very powerful.

Anyway...this law was passed to discourage those naysayers. There are similar laws in most of the countries in Europe. All date to pre-1950s, if I remember correctly. I am unaware of any legislative attempts in the USA.

Oh, and there is also the fact that the Allies felt that Germany wasn't prosecuted sufficiently after WWI, giving rise to denials and disbelievers regarding culpability in THAT war, so they might have gone overboard in their "speech laws". Research Hindenberg and WWI war crimes trials if you have interest in this.

Not excusing the law. Just giving some historical context.

Edited: forgot the WWI reference the first time 'round...sorry
The law itself does not have to come to this country through the legislature; it is already here by treaty. For example the State of Israel is permitted to persue, detain, remove or assassinate anyone deemed an enemy of the State of Israel - by the State of Israel. Not that the government of the State of Israel is unique in this regard, but they have a history of doing such things, and for our government to expose citizens of the United States - especially in our own jurisdictions - to the arbitary summary actions of a foreign government is a crime of the highest order.

Under the continuing growing global behemoth, "anti-terror" legislation in many countries already declares a pile of otherwise fairly mundane statements and acts to be "acts of terrorism". The continuing mad drive towards "international co-operation" in the "war on [a noun]" seems to be shaping up to where the government agencies of any one country can bypass the legal and judicial process of another and "deal with" anyone they deem "a terrorist".

Whatever anyone thinks of Irving, the fact is the so-called Holocaust was less than that suffered by those targeted by the Bolsheviks and what has been ongoing in China since the late 1940s. Yet it seems to ride more on reputation than anything else; which is repeatly rammed down peoples' throats.

This may explain the efforts of a number of people who have attempted to give it a thorough dig. What is not explained by any past sufferings is it's promoters vehement adversity to any such dig.

None of these atrocities have been thoroughly and completely chronicled. But I see little in the way of obstacles to digging around that which happened in Russia or China from a European or American perspective - even if the Chinese and Russian governments might prefer to let sleeping dogs lie. While the relentless pursuit of "Nazis" and "nazi gold" persists to this day - I have yet to see a single effort on the part of our own government or Europa to bring to justice those surviving perpetrators of the slaughter, torture and brutal incarceration of the millions of victims of the Bolshevics and Red Chinese.

Not one.

Essentially, after WWII, the citizens of Austria/Germany et al refused to believe that the Holocaust had occurred
This is false; a great number no doubt refused to believe it. Just as a great number no doubt were astounded and responded with disbelief when they first heard about the Tuskegee medical experiments which continued until 1972 right here in the USA for example.

Most people are sceptical when some awful accusation is laid against people they have trusted. But to say that "most Germans and Austrians did not believe it" is false.

At least five people in my family tree died in Austria - and yes, I believe it. But I would like to see a good thorough dig all the same, and nothing but facts backed by scientific evidence after open investigation by as many people as wish to take part.
-------------------------------------

http://ussliberty.org
http://ssunitedstates.org

shootinstudent

February 22, 2006, 04:58 AM

Byron Quick

February 22, 2006, 06:29 AM

Irving is stupid piled upon stupid. He could have kept saying the Holocaust didn't exist all he wanted at home. But no, that was not sufficient. He had to spout this bile for years and then take a vacation in Austria. How'd that turn out?...Not too good.

He asked for it and he received it. He wasn't kidnapped. He voluntarily exposed himself to arrest, trial, and imprisonment by his own wilful, compounded stupidity.

He stupidly chose to enter Austrian jurisdiction.

He's a Darwin award waiting to happen.

I only regret that family members of mine will have to pay taxes to feed this piece of trash for three years.

Sure, you've got freedom of speech. But sometimes, in the interests of self-preservation, it might behoove one to exercise self-restraint. Depending on what one says to an ill-chose person one might find oneself exercising the right to spit out teeth. The Austrians and Germans are a mite sensitive over the subjects of Naziism and the Holocaust. I don't blame them.

Lak, seeing as how any true Bolsheviks took part in the 1917 Revolution, it might be just a bit hard to bring any of them to justice after 89 years, don't you think? Even a fifteen year old Boshevik would be a 104 years old today. If any are still alive, I doubt they know who they are. Anyway, exactly how do you propose to bring any Russian or Chinese Communist to justice? Exactly what legal mechanism do you think could be used? Seeing as how there is absolutely no legal mechanism existing to bring them to justice your outrage over no one trying is completely meaningless. All no one trying means is that everyone except you realized there was not a way to accomplish the matter.

LAK

February 22, 2006, 07:11 AM

ByronLak, seeing as how any true Bolsheviks took part in the 1917 Revolution, it might be just a bit hard to bring any of them to justice after 89 years, don't you think?
The lines of Bolshevik leadership and institutionalized thugs did not dissappear with the end of the revolution itself. The Bolsheviks were representative of the political party and ideology which was the antithesis of the established order - Tzarist Russia. The atrocities which buried upwards of 30 million people went on all the way through WW2 and beyond.

That would make many of these organized mass murderers, criminals and war criminals at least as young as any "nazis" during the 1960s, 1970s, 80s and on through the present.

Wouldn't you say so? ;)

-------------------------------------------
http://ussliberty.org
http://ssunitedstates.org

LAK

February 22, 2006, 07:49 AM

LAK,

I posted this on the other thread, you might want to read through it: www.nizkor.org

There is a website that actually corresponded with Irving himself, and that is dedicated to compiling evidence of the holocaust.
I am well aware of what these folk have to say. Unfortunately, there is an agenda here that goes beyond Irving vs nizkor.org. And one thread on a forum is not even going to get close to the details that matter.

And it is clear that the guilty leadership and individuals amongst the armies, thugs and torturers of two of the largest, most brutal and longest running - one into the present - mass murders in history have been given a free pass.

This while a third and lesser is elevated and worshipped almost at gunpoint, or in this case imprisonment, and the governments of almost every western nation have bent over backwards, spent millions of public money to track down, capture and "bring to justice" the perpetrators.

So let's concern ourselves with what is staring us in the face and (ahem) undeniable. The "Holocaust" is not nearly the most awful and largest series of atrocities to take place in modern history. The living perpetrators of two of the largest have been allowed to walk free for the last sixty years - nay protected.

This while a modern western European nation is going to imprison a man for challenging some contested historical facts on some kind of pseudo morally based legal grounds? Or what has been turned into a legally and internationally enforced religion perhaps?

It is no wonder the Nazi party rose to power so quickly. The similarities here are very striking indeed.

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

http://ussliberty.org
http://ssunitedstates.org

shaldag

February 22, 2006, 08:37 AM

[QUOTE=CAnnoneer]Yes, but then again playing the works of Richard Wagner is forbidden in Israel. Makes you wonder.
/QUOTE]

Actually, that is not true. It is simply forbidden to play Richard Wagner in publicly-funded venues, i.e. using Holocaust survivors' tax money to pay for public concerts that may offend them.

I disapprove of the laws that send people to prison for their speech. Irving is a jackass who has made a mockery of his profession. I prefer that such people should simply lose public funding. However, Irving went to Austria knowing that there was an arrest warrant out on him, against the advice of those closest to him. In that respect, it was his choice. I don't think that I will waste too much time on him.

Byron Quick

February 22, 2006, 09:31 AM

Wouldn't you say so?

No. The Bolsheviks were members of the Communist Party who took part in the Revolution in 1917...and received a state pension for their status. Members who joined the Communist Party after the Revolution were not accorded the status of Bolsheviks by the Soviet Union nor by any historians of whom I am aware.

Granted, there are living Communists who are mass murderers. The toll was much more than 30 million from what I've read. However, I am not aware of any mass purges after Stalin's death in 1953. Really, I'm not aware of any mass executions for some years before his death. However, just figure from his death...say the KGB hired on some young officers at 22 years of age in 1953 and they became mass murderers. Any that are still alive are 75 years old now. Given the state of medical care in the country, there probably are very few.

However, I view that situation much as I view the man who shot my uncle in the back. He was a member of a politically powerful family and there were two trials. Both ended in hung juries and the DA gave up. If I'm face to face with the man, I'll keep a close eye on him and let him leave in peace. My uncle had two sons. They've chosen to let it ride. I abide by their choice.

There are survivors of the murdered in Russia. They are not attempting to obtain justice of any kind that I am aware of. I'm willing to do what I can to help if they choose to do so. As long as they let it ride...I'll let it ride.

You chose to focus on the side (and irrelevant) issue of who is a Bolshevik. You ignored the fact that there has never been a mechanism or an opportunity for our government to 'seek justice' on Communists of the Soviet Union or of the People's Republic of China. We had Germany occupied when we held the war crime trials in Nuremberg. We could hold war crime trials for the Russian and Chinese Communists, I suppose. Just don't be heartbroken when no one shows up.

Your analogy goes way beyond the fallacy of comparing apples and oranges.

JJpdxpinkpistols

February 22, 2006, 09:57 AM

We had Germany occupied when we held the war crime trials in Nuremberg. We could hold war crime trials for the Russian and Chinese Communists, I suppose. Just don't be heartbroken when no one shows up.

By entension of this thinking we would have to be occupying either Beijing or Moscow. And holding it, with some sort of stability.

Uhh...No.

Back to the topic at hand tho:

How is it that other countries reconcile stated "freedoms" with outright repression of expression?

Example: China *technically* has freedom of speech...technically. But they just ignore it.

Holland has freedom of expression (rather famously, it would seem), but they also censor.

Likewise Great Britain.

What is it about folks that they don't get the term, "Freedom"????

JohnBT

February 22, 2006, 10:38 AM

There is no absolute right to total individual freedom in any society. There are constraints that are necessary to maintain order - although where those lines are drawn are constantly shifting. Still, constraints are necessary, it's the old thing about my freedom to swing my fist ends where your nose begins.

John

CAnnoneer

February 22, 2006, 11:12 AM

Much more puzzling is why you say that you never hear about the other victims in the same period when you evidently have heard about the other victims in the same period. Why is that?

I certainly am not your average person in terms of grasp of history (for a number of reasons), and therefore cannot be used in that capacity to support the above silly petty argument as a valid statistic.

Just observe the media for awhile and count on how many times the victims of different nationalities are mentioned, or the actual numbers are given for comparison. Joe Average who does not read on his own but solely relies on TV for information would readily conclude that the single largest loss of life ever was the Holocaust and that it involved only jews. WW1, WW2 or communism most likely would not even register. Curious.

Carl N. Brown

February 22, 2006, 11:38 AM

and the Flat Earth Society are supposed be geophysicists.

But we would not imprison the FES for being willfully wrong
and contrary.

Azrael256

February 22, 2006, 03:14 PM

I think anyone who down plays what the Nazi did during WWII is should not receive any simpathy. Speaking as a Jew who is short a number of family members because of the nazis, I think this Irving fellow is a scumbag of the highest order. I am also willing to take up arms to ensure that klansmen, black panthers, hippies, westboro Baptists, communists, fascists, republicans, democrats, and even Irving himself can say whatever they want in whatever forum they may choose as long as they don't incite or commit violence.

If he intentionally violated Austrian law by making his statement, I think he is foolish. I also believe that Austrian law is equally foolish. I enjoy my right to speak freely because I am endowed with that right by the almighty. Irving, scumbag though he may be, is equally endowed with the right to free speech. To infringe on his right to speak his mind is far more offensive than anything he could have possibly said.

Robert Hairless

February 22, 2006, 03:19 PM

I certainly am not your average person in terms of grasp of history (for a number of reasons), and therefore cannot be used in that capacity to support the above silly petty argument as a valid statistic.

Just observe the media for awhile and count on how many times the victims of different nationalities are mentioned, or the actual numbers are given for comparison. Joe Average who does not read on his own but solely relies on TV for information would readily conclude that the single largest loss of life ever was the Holocaust and that it involved only jews. WW1, WW2 or communism most likely would not even register. Curious.

Many of us who aren't as knowledgable as you do know that the Nazis murdered a great many civilians. Quite a few of us also know that those murders were done as matters of policy and were mass murders. A lot of us also acknowledge that there is an important difference between, say, murdering civilian occupants of countries that were invaded and singling out an entire religious group for complete extermination from the face of the earth--even from Germany itself.

The Nazis themselves recognized the difference, gave it a unique name ("The Final Solution of the Jewish Problem"), and emphasized its unique importance by sending special forces to accompany their frontline troops so that the Jewish murders could be executed without delay, thereby taking no chance that the murder of Jews might take second place in conquering territory. Adolf Hitler evidently believed that the extermination of Jews was of special importance to the German mission on earth because he singled it out for inclusion in his last will and testament just before killing himself. Hitler didn't mention the Slavs, Poles, Gypsies, or other peoples murderered by the Nazis. It was the Jews and only the Jews, ever and always the Jews, even--difficult as it might be for you to see--today.

So the murderers themselves believed that there was special importance in their mission to exterminate the Jews. But you don't see it. You don't share the horror felt by those of us who are not endowed with your special knowledge of history, and you express apparent suspicion about our ongoing concerns with the almost successful attempt to exterminate this entire religion and all of its members, including their children, and even those who had only one Jewish parent or grandparent. Perhaps your inability to appreciate that difference helps to make you special, or perhaps its a reason why decent people are still so repelled by the horror of it that we want our own children, grandchildren, and others who live among us or will come after us that we utterly reject such behavior and have been lessened as human beings because of it forever and ever. I understand that you don't agree because you have special knowledge of history.

Do I detect a suggestion in your contributions that you think that the media is controlled by an International Jewish Conspiracy working towards its own special goals--as Adolf Hitler, Joseph Goebbels, and other good Nazis believed then and believe now? If so why not just say it instead of hinting at it? As you say, "Curious."

doger5

February 22, 2006, 04:11 PM

There is a 80 year old Austrian man I see at the rifle range I work at. He was drafted in to the German army served on the Eastern front.

In talking with him you get the idea the holocaust ever happened. As he touched on the subject "six million they left the country".

The question I have is, have any of you run into any veteran from the German side, with this view?

CAnnoneer

February 22, 2006, 09:56 PM

there is an important difference between, say, murdering civilian occupants of countries that were invaded and singling out an entire religious group for complete extermination from the face of the earth--even from Germany itself.

And therein lies the misconception. You must understand that in the eyes of the the Nazis, there was no fundamental difference between a soldier or a civilian, because of the very nature of the concept of "total war", which they so happily and readily embraced.

If you read on the opinions of creatures like Himmler and Heindrich, you will see that they honestly believed that concentration camp guards were "front line" soldiers just like Waffen SS, the random landser, or an Eastern front extermination squad burning Russian villagers. Moreover, the SS guards themselves readily believed that.

From that perspective, there is nothing unique or unusual about the treatment of the jews. Hitler declared them internal enemies, just as he declared the "oriental barbarian bolsheviks" external enemies. There is simply no difference in their book. The goals are the same - extermination, although the particular methods are somewhat different due to the simple fact that there was no jewish state they could invade and occupy.

The Nazis gave it a unique name ("The Final Solution of the Jewish Problem")

Well, they also conducted "Scorched Earth" policy in the East, etc. , and gave each military operation a fancy name. Nothing unusual here.

, and emphasized its unique importance by sending special forces to accompany their frontline troops so that the Jewish murders could be executed without delay, thereby taking no chance that the murder of Jews might take second place in conquering territory.

They also shot commissars without delay starting in 1941, and had sondercommandos killing Poles alongside Wehrmacht units during 1939, much earlier than they killed many European jews, for example.

Adolf Hitler evidently believed that the extermination of Jews was of special importance to the German mission on earth because he singled it out for inclusion in his last will and testament just before killing himself.

Because he believed they were a perpetual insidious internal enemy, just like he believed the slavs were a perpetual external enemy.

we utterly reject such behavior and have been lessened as human beings because of it forever and ever.

I cannot understand why that is. If a jew feels himself a lesser person just because of what some dickhead thought of his ethnicity in Germany 60 years ago, then the guy should explain to me why that is. At one time or another, every race/ethnicity has been considered inferior by another. So what?

Do I detect a suggestion in your contributions that you think that the media is controlled by an International Jewish Conspiracy working towards its own special goals

I would not go that far, because I have no evidence to support such a far-fetched claim. What does annoy me is:

1) jewish-American political action committees and fundraisers that exert political influence on the gov, in favor of Israel and quite arguably in detriment to the USA.
2) people that maintain a double citizenship with foreign countries, an outrageous example being Israel
3) this incessant whining about how horrible and unique the Holocaust is, when the entire history of Europe and most of the world is one massacre after another, and often on far larger scale, both absolute and relative.

If so why not just say it instead of hinting at it? As you say, "Curious."

I would go beyond hinting if I had solid evidence. All I have is observations hinting on a pattern. What that pattern is is for others to decide for themselves. What is beyond doubt is the curious asymmetry in modern media reporting history. That asymmetry demands an explanation.

shootinstudent

February 23, 2006, 12:41 AM

What is beyond doubt is the curious asymmetry in modern media reporting history. That asymmetry demands an explanation.

There's really no mystery. Jews, while a small portion of the total US population, are a significant percentage of some of the most important cities (New York, for example.) So there's a large population of american jews for whom this is news, in some major consumer markets. Even if you buy that it is unfair or slights coverage of other massacres, it's not that tough to explain without postulating secret plots.

Robert Hairless

February 23, 2006, 03:20 AM

I would go beyond hinting if I had solid evidence. All I have is observations hinting on a pattern. What that pattern is is for others to decide for themselves. What is beyond doubt is the curious asymmetry in modern media reporting history. That asymmetry demands an explanation.

Don't be so modest! Those observations you express do more than hint at a pattern. Based on the pattern your special capabilities allow you to see and your special ability to understand and explain the Nazi mind I feel confident that you've already penetrated the International Jewish Conspiracy. My guess is that you're also able to explain that asymmetry for which you believe an explanation is demanded and that you just need to be coaxed a little more into sharing the explanation that your special knowledge of history has allowed you.

LAK

February 23, 2006, 09:00 AM

No. The Bolsheviks were members of the Communist Party who took part in the Revolution in 1917...and received a state pension for their status. Members who joined the Communist Party after the Revolution were not accorded the status of Bolsheviks by the Soviet Union nor by any historians of whom I am aware.
Well, strictly speaking, the "Jews" who seem to be making the most noise about people like Irving are about as Jewish as bacon sandwiches. Bolshevism has been a universally accepted term when referring to Soviet Communism. And it has been Soviet Communism - it's leadership and army of thugs - that have incarcerated, tortured, murdered and stolen over a span of perhaps more than thirty years. With impunity.
Granted, there are living Communists who are mass murderers. The toll was much more than 30 million from what I've read. However, I am not aware of any mass purges after Stalin's death in 1953. Really, I'm not aware of any mass executions for some years before his death. However, just figure from his death...say the KGB hired on some young officers at 22 years of age in 1953 and they became mass murderers. Any that are still alive are 75 years old now. Given the state of medical care in the country, there probably are very few.
Certainly there are living Communists who are mass murderers. But Paul Volcker hasn't made a special trip to find all the gold they stole from their victims and squirreled away in secret places.

Yes, I believe it was much more than 30m as well. But you see; one can objectively challenge the numbers here - whereas in the trademarked story, one must not even suggest contrary (unless of course you increase them) less one be declared and maybe prosecuted as a "denier".

Neither am I aware of any post Stalin purges. I do not recall any mass purges by the Nazis after 1945 either; yet it was still imperative that any and everyone assist with the Nuernberg trials. And - with funding if required - the identifying, tracking down, capture and prosecution of all those known or believed to have been murdering, torturing, stealing Nazis, which continues through the present.

Not so concerning murdering, torturing and stealing Bolsheviks, Communists, Stalinists - or whichever name you prefer. Neither for any actions during the 1920s through WW2, nor post WW2 Europe to include Germany, Ukraine etc. Nor surviving heirs. No Hollywood films telling their story, or stirring up the reviews.
However, I view that situation much as I view the man who shot my uncle in the back. He was a member of a politically powerful family and there were two trials. Both ended in hung juries and the DA gave up. If I'm face to face with the man, I'll keep a close eye on him and let him leave in peace. My uncle had two sons. They've chosen to let it ride. I abide by their choice.
Ah, but it was our public purse here in the United States that paid for the Nuerenberg trials, and much of the ongoing investigation etc. This story has also seemingly been used to great geo-political gain in many areas, again during which huge amounts of money have been taken out of our public purse.

So personally, I can not quite look upon this as a somewhat distanced third party. The money is still being milked today - and we are in the process of once again being shoved into another costly war.
There are survivors of the murdered in Russia. They are not attempting to obtain justice of any kind that I am aware of. I'm willing to do what I can to help if they choose to do so. As long as they let it ride...I'll let it ride.
And what are the chances of Hollywood making an movie at least once a year which presses all the right buttons concerning the massacre in the Katyn forest? Or the life of Alexander Solzhenitsyn? Or for that matter anyone who has survived - or the relatives of - those murdered by the Red Chinese?

Are you suggesting that if they "lobbied Congress" - or "called CNN" - that Congress would actually do anything? Or CNN would run a month long series in order to get enough public attention? Is Larry King going to call the State Department and ask them to release an accountable figure on the number of requests from foreign citizens who have asked for action on their behalf over the last 85 years? How about the "U.N."? Are those thugs going to speak up?

Right ;)
You chose to focus on the side (and irrelevant) issue of who is a Bolshevik. You ignored the fact that there has never been a mechanism or an opportunity for our government to 'seek justice' on Communists of the Soviet Union or of the People's Republic of China.
I haven't ignored anything.

Everyone knows good and well there is "no mechanism". It is not because enough people in former Soviet Russia and China wouldn't want it; it is that our government is not about to do it, and it is no secret why.
We had Germany occupied when we held the war crime trials in Nuremberg. We could hold war crime trials for the Russian and Chinese Communists, I suppose. Just don't be heartbroken when no one shows up.
I see, so in one sentence you suggest I have a narrow focus on Bolsheviks - now you imply that when the subject is Nazis the focus is limited to the Nueremberg trials.

What about all the Soviet and Chinese mass murders, torturers, thieves etc living in this country, Canada, Germany etc? Are they immune from an international court that is currently giving Slobodan Milosec and his friends the once over?

What about those who merely assisted Soviet and Chinese mass murderers? Aid and abetted them? Banked their looted billions?
Your analogy goes way beyond the fallacy of comparing apples and oranges.
Anyone can play dumb. The fact is one story has become a religion - a crime to even question or challenge.

The others, two that are significantly greater, as if they do not exist.

-------------------------------------------------------------
What has the U.S. Congress done for the surviving Naval crew members of the USS Liberty?

http://ussliberty.org
http://ssunitedstates.org

LAK

February 23, 2006, 09:34 AM

There's really no mystery. Jews, while a small portion of the total US population, are a significant percentage of some of the most important cities (New York, for example.) So there's a large population of american jews for whom this is news, in some major consumer markets. Even if you buy that it is unfair or slights coverage of other massacres, it's not that tough to explain without postulating secret plots.
Are you suggesting they are even a significant proportion of the total American TV viewing public? Regardless of their largely urban culture, they hardly make up a major portion of what could be called popular media listeners even in cities like New York.

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

http://ussliberty.org
http://ssunitedstates.org

shootinstudent

February 23, 2006, 09:46 AM

Are you suggesting they are even a significant proportion of the total American TV viewing public? Regardless of their largely urban culture, they hardly make up a major portion of what could be called popular media listeners even in cities like New York.

Uh, what percentage of NYC's population is 2 million? That's a giant slice of the city where show business in America was born. LA has a big group too.

Is it that surprising that NY and LA aimed programs would address huge minorities in NY and LA, but also get rebroadcast as a habit?

I really see no mystery. I don't think this is that controversial.

Byron Quick

February 23, 2006, 05:35 PM

LAK,

What Communist mass murderers are now living in the jurisdiction of the US? From what I know, they've been pretty good at staying out of jurisdictions where they might be held to account. They have never been on the run as Nazi mass murderers were.

Re: your reference to the 'looted millions' from the Communist purges...what looted millions? The victims had been living under Communism, for goodness sakes. The Russians were lucky if the entire extended family was living in a one bedroom apartment and only sharing one bathroom with six other families. You don't loot much from people who have an income of $20 a month working for the benevolent state. The murdered people in China were even poorer than the Russian victims. It's very difficult to loot millions from people who've never seen a hundred dollars in one place in their entire lives. You can't steal their gold teeth as the Soviet Union didn't use gold for dental work...they used steel. Which would be a very small return for the work involved in recovering it...uneconomical...

Really, all that is needed to understand the silence on the Communists is the embarassment of the Left. Katyn Forest, for example. The massacre of Polish Army officers by the Soviet Union was denied in the West for decades...not by the government but by leftists in our own political party system. Then the Soviet Union disintegrated and the Russians admitted that the Communist Party had committed many crimes including the Katyn Forest that American leftists had been denying for decades. These people and their friends still have enough pull in America to prevent the government and the media from really putting a spotlight on what happened. The evidence is there but you must go to the library, do research, and read. Most Americans can't be bothered because they don't really care what happened then. Talk with people in their twenties and thirties about WWII. The majority don't know the basics of the history about events in the 1930's and 1940's. Between apathy and the lingering embarassment of the Left, a government conspiracy to prevent the knowledge of Communist crimes from getting out is completely unnecessary. Even something as powerful as "The Killing Fields" got very little attention when weighed in the balance.

lostone1413

February 23, 2006, 06:56 PM

I for one always though it was odd in school all you learned was the evil of the German people. Our good friend Stalin killed way more innocent people then even Hitler did. Guess Stalin being on are side the ones he killed didn't really mean that much

gc70

February 23, 2006, 09:33 PM

Take a look at the ugly face of man's inhumanity toward man (http://users.erols.com/mwhite28/warstat1.htm) during the Twentieth Century. World War I = 15 million Russian Revolution = 9 million Stalin's Regime = 20 million World War II = 55 million Mao's Regime = 40 millionAnd these are just the "highlights" - Pol Pot's Regime doesn't even get a footnote.

The Holocaust is an icon. The deaths of 6 million Jews during World War II was undeniably horrifying, but can be comprehended within a limited period of time and geography. The deaths of tens of millions of others, without the same limited locus, is nearly beyond comprehension.

LAK

February 24, 2006, 03:41 AM

Uh, what percentage of NYC's population is 2 million? That's a giant slice of the city where show business in America was born. LA has a big group too.

Is it that surprising that NY and LA aimed programs would address huge minorities in NY and LA, but also get rebroadcast as a habit?

I really see no mystery. I don't think this is that controversial.
"Huge minorities"? What does that mean? When is something greater and minor at the same time? ;)

The estimated Jewish population in the entire United States on January 1, 2002 was 5.7 million total (And I doubt that 5.7 million people in this country practice the Hebraic religion). Current NYC population is about 8 million. But in anycase that figure comes from;

the Department of Jewish Zionist Education: Jewish Agency for Israel

http://www.jafi.org.il/education/100/concepts/demography/demjpop.html

http://www.jafi.org.il/education/100/concepts/demography/demtables.html#3

LA does not have a significant Jewish population, and we are back to what is a serious asymmetry of reporting and programming over the television, radio and press in the entire United States.

BTW; what is a "Zionist"? I thought they did not exist.

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

http://ussliberty.org
http://ssunitedstates.org

LAK

February 24, 2006, 04:32 AM

What Communist mass murderers are now living in the jurisdiction of the US? From what I know, they've been pretty good at staying out of jurisdictions where they might be held to account. They have never been on the run as Nazi mass murderers were.
You are asking me something that is not necessary to sustain my original observations. I couldn't of told you how many or who were the ex-nazis living in the USA for the last 60 years - or South America. Or Australia for that matter.

You are right; they have never had to be on the run because no government since WW2 has been willing to pursue them.
Re: your reference to the 'looted millions' from the Communist purges...what looted millions? The victims had been living under Communism, for goodness sakes. The Russians were lucky if the entire extended family was living in a one bedroom apartment and only sharing one bathroom with six other families. You don't loot much from people who have an income of $20 a month working for the benevolent state.
Russians were by no means poor prior to falling to the Bolsheviks - and what later became the other Soviet states were far from poor prior to the plunder of Stalin's armies. At the very least no poorer than the average German in post WW1 Versailles Germany.

Right up to the present time we have seen and heard relentlessly about even "surviving relatives" of alleged camp victims trying to get a piece of anyone who even shook the hand of a German camp guard during WW2. What about those who have inherited the loot from Russia, Poland, Rumania, Ukraine, Estonia etc?
The murdered people in China were even poorer than the Russian victims. It's very difficult to loot millions from people who've never seen a hundred dollars in one place in their entire lives. You can't steal their gold teeth as the Soviet Union didn't use gold for dental work...they used steel. Which would be a very small return for the work involved in recovering it...uneconomical...
The average person in China was likely poorer in western terms; but what of those who are the heirs of murdered family and seized land? Is the daughter or grandson of a murdered farmer any less entitled to justice and a return of their land?
Really, all that is needed to understand the silence on the Communists is the embarassment of the Left. Katyn Forest, for example. The massacre of Polish Army officers by the Soviet Union was denied in the West for decades...not by the government but by leftists in our own political party system. Then the Soviet Union disintegrated and the Russians admitted that the Communist Party had committed many crimes including the Katyn Forest that American leftists had been denying for decades. These people and their friends still have enough pull in America to prevent the government and the media from really putting a spotlight on what happened. The evidence is there but you must go to the library, do research, and read. Most Americans can't be bothered because they don't really care what happened then. Talk with people in their twenties and thirties about WWII. The majority don't know the basics of the history about events in the 1930's and 1940's. Between apathy and the lingering embarassment of the Left, a government conspiracy to prevent the knowledge of Communist crimes from getting out is completely unnecessary. Even something as powerful as "The Killing Fields" got very little attention when weighed in the balance.
Here you go on to describe what I am already familiar with; I did say it was no secret why. It simply underscores my original point. It is not just "the left" either - since the two "sides" are so integrated (with some notable exceptions) in these regards.
--------------------------------------

http://ussliberty.org
http://ssunitedstates.org

shootinstudent

February 24, 2006, 05:10 AM

"Huge minorities"? What does that mean? When is something greater and minor at the same time? ;)

The estimated Jewish population in the entire United States on January 1, 2002 was 5.7 million total (And I doubt that 5.7 million people in this country practice the Hebraic religion). Current NYC population is about 8 million. But in anycase that figure comes from;

the Department of Jewish Zionist Education: Jewish Agency for Israel

http://www.jafi.org.il/education/100/concepts/demography/demjpop.html

http://www.jafi.org.il/education/100/concepts/demography/demtables.html#3

LA does not have a significant Jewish population, and we are back to what is a serious asymmetry of reporting and programming over the television, radio and press in the entire United States.

BTW; what is a "Zionist"? I thought they did not exist.

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

http://ussliberty.org
http://ssunitedstates.org

Read your own sources LAK.

Number of Jews in NYC: 2,051,000 (out of 8 million)

Los Angeles: 668,000 (out of 4 million)

That means the two largest entertainment production and consumption centers in the United States have respective percentages of 25% (NYC) and about 16% (LA). That means 1 in 4 people you run into in the big apple and nearly 2 in 10 that you run into in NJ-west will be Jews. That's what a "huge minority" is, one that you see everywhere you go in a particular city because there are so many.

You cannot seriously be claiming that those numbers represent "insignificant" population figures, especially when they're relatively well established, well rooted populations (ie, they didn't immigrate in the last ten years).

This holocaust minimization of yours is not-so-thickly masked Jewish world conspiracy theory junk. You take a situation that exists for pretty obvious reasons, and then pretend that it's the product of some vast conspiracy that the "secret zionists" (judging by your question on Zionists) managed to pull off without having a single leak. Like the Liberty incident in your sig line...it's a rallying cry for David Irvings all over the US, but if you do even a minimal investigation, the underlying claims that it was a deliberate attack are quite simply retarded.

Having a different political view or different values, even if most people find them to be ugly and tasteless, is one thing....inventing wacky scenarios that read like some teens' Dungeons and Dragons game is another.

LAK

February 24, 2006, 07:48 AM

Read your own sources LAK.

Number of Jews in NYC: 2,051,000 (out of 8 million)

Los Angeles: 668,000 (out of 4 million)

That means the two largest entertainment production and consumption centers in the United States have respective percentages of 25% (NYC) and about 16% (LA). That means 1 in 4 people you run into in the big apple and nearly 2 in 10 that you run into in NJ-west will be Jews. That's what a "huge minority" is, one that you see everywhere you go in a particular city because there are so many.

You cannot seriously be claiming that those numbers represent "insignificant" population figures, especially when they're relatively well established, well rooted populations (ie, they didn't immigrate in the last ten years).

This holocaust minimization of yours is not-so-thickly masked Jewish world conspiracy theory junk. You take a situation that exists for pretty obvious reasons, and then pretend that it's the product of some vast conspiracy that the "secret zionists" (judging by your question on Zionists) managed to pull off without having a single leak. Like the Liberty incident in your sig line...it's a rallying cry for David Irvings all over the US, but if you do even a minimal investigation, the underlying claims that it was a deliberate attack are quite simply retarded.

Having a different political view or different values, even if most people find them to be ugly and tasteless, is one thing....inventing wacky scenarios that read like some teens' Dungeons and Dragons game is another.
They are insignificant in a nation of about 290 million or more people.

What exactly has "entertainment production" to do with news reporting, historical and educational TV programming, radio and press etc? Or are you implying that it is all produced as "entertainment" by the same people? Entertainment for who?

The USS Liberty incident is a "rallying cry for David Irvings"? Your slip is showing.

Perhaps you ought to write to all the surviving U.S. Navy crew members, their families, and those of the dead American crew and tell them all what "David Irvings" they are.

As regards the claims that it was a deliberate attack; I have seen and heard the recorded and open testimonies of our surviving servicemen, photographic evidence, and what official documentation is presented, etc.

I have yet to see one Israeli soldier, airman or sailor or other official directly involved in the attack give public testimony, questioned or face their accusers. Not one.

Just what is a "Zionist"? Here is the official Jewish Agency for Israel with a Department of Zionist Education on it's website. I thought they did not exist; except in holocaust minimization and not-so-thickly masked Jewish world conspiracy theory junk wacky scenarios that read like some teens' Dungeons and Dragons game.
----------------------------------------------------

http://ussliberty.org
http://ssunitedstates.org

shootinstudent

February 24, 2006, 12:59 PM

As regards the claims that it was a deliberate attack; I have seen and heard the recorded and open testimonies of our surviving servicemen, photographic evidence, and what official documentation is presented, etc.

Primary sources for all the parties involved are document here: www.libertyincident.net

Read through them and tell me if you still believe what www.ussliberty.org claims.

The only group of people in the country who argue seriously that the USS liberty was a deliberate attack are anti-semites. This includes the officer you're referring to, who signed off on the official report excusing Israel, and then years later decided that it was a jewish conspiracy. You should read his letters with the researcher...they're hilarious.

As for NYC and LA, you clearly have the point. NYC and LA have huge cultural influence, even if they are only small total numbers of the population. Media and commerce don't correlate with bare numbers. Cities are influential, and so large groups in those cities are influential. No mystery there.

Holocaust minimization is fundamentally wrong, and holocaust conspiracy theories are fundamentally foolish.

Biker

February 24, 2006, 01:12 PM

shootinstudent

February 24, 2006, 02:28 PM

First off, labeling anyone who disagrees with you as "anti-semites" is an old, used-up tactic. When all of the available evidence concerning the Liberty incident is viewed objectively, the only conclusion that an honest person could come to is that the attack was indeed a deliberate attack by the Israelis.
It seems that any time someone disagrees with Israel, the ol' anti-semite bomb is dropped. That dog just won't hunt anymore.

Biker, I agree with your position completely regarding criticism of Israel. I criticize Israel myself, and have done so repeatedly even on this forum. I see absolutely no reason to call criticism of Israel anti-semitic, or to presume that it is. If you look through my history here, you'll see that I have been accused of that myself.

The reason I am calling LAK anti-semitic is because we have discussed this before, (since I can't post those conversations, I won't list the specifics now), and because he chimed into this thread to support the claim that Jews are secretly controlling the media. He is purporting to substantiate the claim that CAnoneer would make "if there were any solid evidence" about Jews controlling the media to their benefit.

Biker, I encourage you to read this site which lists interviews and primary source documents for all of the sides of the Liberty incident: www.libertyincident.net. It's by the author of the only extensive book on the event, and once you see the context of the quotes that are used on the ussliberty.org site, you'll see what I mean. There is simply no conclude that an Israeli attack was deliberate based on the evidence. At most, you can claim that a lack of evidence leaves room for speculation....but there is no solid information that confirms a malicious attack.

But back to the topic...the point of holocaust denial, and the point of holocaust minimization, is almost never to drum up support for all those dead russians. This is a discussion about why Jews don't deserve respect, and imho that's wrong. If other crimes have been as bad, then we should honor the victims as much as we do the holocaust victims instead of saying "eh, I guess the holocaust was nothing special after all."

gc70

February 24, 2006, 03:53 PM

The reason I am calling LAK anti-semitic is because we have discussed this before, (since I can't post those conversations, I won't list the specifics now), and because he chimed into this thread to support the claim that Jews are secretly controlling the media. He is purporting to substantiate the claim that CAnoneer would make "if there were any solid evidence" about Jews controlling the media to their benefit.I admit to being easily confused, but...

Exactly why are you, LAK and CAnoneer arguing over "Jews controlling the media to their benefit." LAK and CAnoneer seem to have suggested that the media is biased in support of Jews, for which you criticized them for holding some sort of Jewish conspiracy theory. But you also contend that the media is obviously biased in favor of Jews because of demographics related to the media industry.

shootinstudent

February 24, 2006, 04:32 PM

LAK and CAnoneer seem to have suggested that the media is biased in support of Jews, for which you criticized them for holding some sort of Jewish conspiracy theory.

No, I was responding to these specific comments:
CAnnoneer
I would go beyond hinting if I had solid evidence. All I have is observations hinting on a pattern. What that pattern is is for others to decide for themselves. What is beyond doubt is the curious asymmetry in modern media reporting history. That asymmetry demands an explanation.

Followed by this from LAK:

Well, strictly speaking, the "Jews" who seem to be making the most noise about people like Irving are about as Jewish as bacon sandwiches.

Jews are lying about being Jews...there's accusation one...

LA does not have a significant Jewish population, and we are back to what is a serious asymmetry of reporting and programming over the television, radio and press in the entire United States.

BTW; what is a "Zionist"? I thought they did not exist.

Jews are somehow secretly controlling the media, since there's no rational explanation for the sympathetic programming? (My post was to point out that sympathy for genocide against a large population in NYC and LA in the news isn't all that surprising...certainly no nefarious plot is needed to explain it.)

And the Zionists....what was that about? Oh, I see:

Just what is a "Zionist"? Here is the official Jewish Agency for Israel with a Department of Zionist Education on it's website. I thought they did not exist; except in holocaust minimization and not-so-thickly masked Jewish world conspiracy theory junk wacky scenarios that read like some teens' Dungeons and Dragons game.

So here you have LAK claiming that the existence of a Zionist education department somehow validates his theories on media control. Anything with the buzzword "zionist" must be bad, apparently, and to me that sums up his position.

The idea that there is a worldwide Jewish conspiracy to control the media for the benefit of Jews only is ridiculous. That is exactly what LAK is defending here, and he'll either say so explicitly, or keep at his point in the roundabout ways he's using here because he recognizes how unacceptable it is to say what he means in one sentence: "(fake) Jews faked the holocaust and then prevented us from investigating it".

gc70

February 24, 2006, 07:39 PM

Thank you, shootinstudent, for clarifying the differences between your point of view and those of LAK and CAnoneer.The idea that there is a worldwide Jewish conspiracy to control the media for the benefit of Jews only is ridiculous. That is exactly what LAK is defending here, and he'll either say so explicitly, or keep at his point in the roundabout ways he's using here because he recognizes how unacceptable it is to say what he means in one sentence: "(fake) Jews faked the holocaust and then prevented us from investigating it".It was also helpful of you to condense LAK's position. Maybe LAK will confirm your synopsis.

jondar

February 24, 2006, 07:53 PM

No they won't, they'll just verbally vent. Phelp's local paper says the clan makes a decent living from lawsuits lodged against local governments who "attempt to deprive him of his 1st Amendment rights.

CAnnoneer

February 24, 2006, 09:30 PM

It seems to me what I said has little pertinence to the ongoing argument between shootingstudent and LAK. I'd rather be left out of it, because it seems it is sailing the winds of speculation in the waters of poor statistics.

CAnnoneer

February 24, 2006, 09:42 PM

Don't be so modest! Those observations you express do more than hint at a pattern. Based on the pattern your special capabilities allow you to see and your special ability to understand and explain the Nazi mind I feel confident that you've already penetrated the International Jewish Conspiracy. My guess is that you're also able to explain that asymmetry for which you believe an explanation is demanded and that you just need to be coaxed a little more into sharing the explanation that your special knowledge of history has allowed you.

If anybody is dancing here, it is you. Just go ahead and call me whatever it is you think I am. It will make you feel better and help you ignore more easily the facts I presented.

+1 biker

If anybody ventures say anything that might even remotely be considered a criticism, that somebody must be an anti-semite. Pathetic. Nobody is fooled by such tactics.

shootinstudent

February 24, 2006, 11:20 PM

If anybody ventures say anything that might even remotely be considered a criticism, that somebody must be an anti-semite. Pathetic. Nobody is fooled by such tactics.

I agree, and that's certainly not what I'm doing here. I posted your comment only to explain the context of LAK's.

Robert Hairless

February 25, 2006, 04:23 AM

If anybody is dancing here, it is you. Just go ahead and call me whatever it is you think I am. It will make you feel better and help you ignore more easily the facts I presented.

+1 biker

If anybody ventures say anything that might even remotely be considered a criticism, that somebody must be an anti-semite. Pathetic. Nobody is fooled by such tactics.

What an interesting mind you seem to have. You haven't presented any "facts" at all. Either you don't know the meaning of "fact" or you think that a fact is whatever runs through your mind. You do me a slight injustice if you believe that I considered you merely an anti-Semite. Your view of the world seems to be generally Neo-Nazi, including the verbal abuse you employ to defend yourself by attacking me.

I don't think as you do but I was open to considering anything like real facts you might have to support your assertions. That was why I went to the trouble of showing you some documentary examples--real photographs--of the affinity between Muslim Nazis and German Nazis. I'd expected that you might have some facts and might use them to counter what I presented so that perhaps we might have a real discussion. But all you have is your opinions and attitudes and strange beliefs, and a claim to have some special knowledge of history that makes your opinions worth considering.

The facts I presented are not, as I said, any secret and they don't require any "special knowledge of history" such as you claim. They're matters of historical record and have been documented for at least sixty years. They are so well known and so thoroughly documented that it took me just a few minutes with Google to assemble the sampling I presented. Either your "special knowledge of history" exists only in your own mind or you choose to ignore what contradicts your own stringent biases. Probably both are true.

When I gave you ample opportunity to deny that you were speaking as a Nazi would--including the Nazi position that there is a worldwide Jewish conspiracy, which I specifically identified--you actually agreed that you suspected its existence but weren't yet ready to say so.

I'm disappointed in you and in this discussion. Other people who share the Nazi worldview--and most other bigots of every kind that I've encountered-- usually stand on their hind legs to proclaim their beliefs forthrightly, like men. They are not admirable men nor are they often intelligent men but at least they have pride. You, however, only insinuate and imply and hint, and claim that all of your nonsense is "facts." But when you are presented with documented facts and photographic evidence you imply--you won't even state it--that I'm part of some conspiracy because I directly addressed what you said and shared my thoughts about the direction of what you were saying. You don't even deny my conclusions, admitting them by your evasions and abuse.

I thought, partly because you claimed some "special knowledge of history," that there might be more to what you thought than the same old libels I've seen during the past sixty or so years. I also thought, in part because of your claim, that there might be some more intellectual rigor or capability behind your statements than is evident in others. But there's nothing new in what you say and nothing at all worth another moment.

shootinstudent

February 25, 2006, 04:31 AM

You, however, only insinuate and imply and hint, and claim that all of your nonsense is "facts." But when you are presented with documented facts and photographic evidence you imply--you won't even state it--that I'm part of some conspiracy because I directly addressed what you said and shared my thoughts about the direction of what you were saying. You don't even deny my conclusions, admitting them by your evasions and abuse.

Definition of pot calling the kettle black:

Guy criticizing another's theory on undeniably pro-Israel media bias by claiming that there was a secret muslim conspiracy to wipe out Jews.

I'd think given that long train of out of context pictures (none of which was of a death camp in any middle eastern kingdom, I might add), you would be at least less condemnatory of CAnnoneer.

If you don't like people making up conspiracy theories to justify hatred of/attacks towards religious minorities, you should start at home. Just as holocaust minimization/denial is the most recent attempt to rehabilitate Nazi thinking, the totally preposterous "Muslims have always hated Jews" line only serves to dehumanize one side of the Israeli-Arab conflict.

Those are two sides of the same conspiracy theory coin.

LAK

February 25, 2006, 09:18 AM

shootinstudentPrimary sources for all the parties involved are document here: www.libertyincident.net
"Primary sources" says who? You?
The only group of people in the country who argue seriously that the USS liberty was a deliberate attack are anti-semites
Absolute tripe. The State of Israel is a secular state - like our own.

Arabs are Semites; many live in the State of Israel, and like a great many do not practice the Hebraic Old Testament religion. Equating anyone who does not worship at the feet of Israeli propaganda with "anti-semites" and "Jews" is the same old stick used to attempt to beat anyone that challenges some of the details of the trademarked history of Nazi atrocities.
This includes the officer you're referring to, who signed off on the official report excusing Israel, and then years later decided that it was a jewish conspiracy. You should read his letters with the researcher...they're hilarious
What officer? This is an interesting minimization; are you trying to say that it has been only a single U.S. Naval officer that has held that the Israeli attack could only have been deliberate? I have seen a number of the crew interviewed on film, in addition to the documents and letters that do not support your lone officer theory.
As for NYC and LA, you clearly have the point. NYC and LA have huge cultural influence, even if they are only small total numbers of the population. Media and commerce don't correlate with bare numbers. Cities are influential, and so large groups in those cities are influential. No mystery there.
If you re-read with some continuity here you will notice that my comments relate to what was brought up by another poster who pointed out a serious asymmetry in reporting. And in the context of his point, I am in complete agreement. To quote you again here:

"Media and commerce don't correlate with bare numbers"

You are partially correct and on point, underscoring mine; media and numbers do not correlate with bare numbers. In the context of reporting; news and geo-politics, education and history it certainly should correlate with numbers. Afterall we are a nation - the sum total of numbers - not a minority in NYC or LA. Which was, exactly, the point being made.

I do not however see where comerce is a legitimate interest in the context of the subject matter. Unless you are saying that it is commercial interests at stake here as well as a political issue. Interesting point of view. ;)
Holocaust minimization is fundamentally wrong, and holocaust conspiracy theories are fundamentally foolish
Were the Tuskegee experiments and their coverup which continued into the 1970s a "conspiracy"? Or an "accident" or "coincidence"? How about the Gulf of Tonkin incident? "Conspiracy"? Was the Bay of Pigs a "conspiracy" - or did a bunch of Cuban exiles and paid mercenies just find themselves on the same boats by happenstance?? What about the proven fabricated propaganda and photographs and testimony that painted Serbians as murdering thugs to justify attacking Serbia with our military? What about the British propaganda films made to demonize the Boers - such as the one depicting "Boers" attacking a Red Cross hospital? A "accident"? "Misunderstanding"?

You have a hangup with the word "conspiracy". Only it seems when it involves a challenge to popular media reporting and popular history.

If "holocaust minimization is fundamentally wrong" - would not the elevation of nazi atrocities against a particular group of people above all others also be fundamentally wrong? What about it's inflation, exaggeration or distortion - would that not also be fundamentally wrong? When is a an untruth not fundamentally wrong?
------------------------------------------------------

http://ussliberty.org
http://ssunitedstates.org

CAnnoneer

February 25, 2006, 09:52 AM

Definition of pot calling the kettle black:
Guy criticizing another's theory on undeniably pro-Israel media bias by claiming that there was a secret muslim conspiracy to wipe out Jews.

+1

Thank you, shootingstudent, you saved me a lot of typing.

RH,

Your last post is simply not worth dealing with point by point. It is clear that my presentation of reporting statistics, political influence, and illegal double citizenship have pressed your buttons. If I respond in kind, this thread will spiral down and nothing positive will come out of it.

All I can suggest is that you take a long hard look at your reasoning process and typification subroutines. If you deactivate your hot bottons and learn to observe the world and history without hatred or fear, you will be surprised at the level of understanding you will earn yourself.

gc70

February 25, 2006, 11:08 AM

Guy criticizing another's theory on undeniably pro-Israel media bias by claiming that there was a secret muslim conspiracy to wipe out Jews.
Of course there is not a "secret Muslim" conspiracy to wipe out the Jews. Indeed, the Muslim conspiracy to wipe out the Jews (or at least the Jewish State of Israel) is often quite open and honest.

Carl N. Brown

March 1, 2006, 03:01 PM

David Irving is where he wants to be, a martyr to his vision of
"the trurth" where some advocates of the flat earth, moon
landing hoax, and others would like to be: See me, I am a
threat to the Powers That Be. And Austria gave him what
he wanted. I dont know who comes off looking worse.

Hyunchback

March 1, 2006, 09:49 PM

David Irving's right to free speech was protected, thoroughly, in his home country. It was also protected in the U.S. where he spent around 6 months of the year.

He had previously been convicted of violating Austria's laws. He knew when he re-entered the country that he had outstanding warrants.

He is not a citizen of Austria. Has no relatives that I know of there. I don't see why he would NEED to enter the country at all. Austria didn't try to get him picked up for extradition. They only arrested him after he was stupid enough to go back there with outstanding warrants. They issued no fatwah, they hired no bounty hunters. They expected him to take the hint and not return.

Austria is a democracy. As such if the Austrian people vote in people who put such laws on the books they can vote the legislators out and put in someone else and get the law changed. They want that law for their country. They don't go around demanding that such laws be obeyed elsewhere.

David Irving was stupid to violate a law he knew about in a country that doesn't take that violation lightly. He was even more stupid to set foot in a country he was wanted in for breaking the law willfully.

They didn't charge him with what he did outside of their country, only what he did inside their borders.

Now, a Netherlands citizen can smoke hashish in a coffee shop in Amsterdam quite legally. He would be a fool to cross the border into Germany and expect to get away with the same action.

How is David Irving different from the hashish smoking Netherlander? Each is safe in committing their actions as long as they stay home. Both are stupid to think they can act like they are at home when they are guest in someone else's country.

This isn't a case of free speech. David Irving had that aplenty in his home country and in several others, including the U.S. Just because he can't practice it in Austria isn't a free speech issue. It's about him being a totally lousy guest in a foreign country and should pay the full penalty for it.

When you are guest in someone else's home you obey their rules. If you don't like their rules then don't visit them.