Deny the Holocaust, Go to Jail

[Biker]

shootinstudent...

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

 

[shootinstudent]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

shootinstudent

Primary 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]

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]

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]

but true believers want to be martyrized

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]

Rather more of a question of where you speak than what.

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.

 

[Thin Black Line]

Wow, it's fasinating that this thread about Austrian politics can stay
open for days, but one about foreknowledge of Katrina is shut down.