NEWS: Austria Holds 'Holocaust Denier'

Originally posted by Rasobasi420
THere would have been an uproar, but would there have been jail time?

Ken's not serving jail time; he's just been suspended for a few weeks.

Originally posted by Rasobasi420
THere would have been an uproar, but would there have been jail time?

THis was my attempt at bringing the discussion back to the topic at hand, the 'Holocaust denier' David Irvings situation.

Originally posted by Rasobasi420

Originally posted by Rasobasi420
THere would have been an uproar, but would there have been jail time?

THis was my attempt at bringing the discussion back to the topic at hand, the 'Holocaust denier' David Irvings situation.

At the end of the day, Irving broke the law (Austria's laws regarding making anti-semetic remarks in public) and he was jailed for doing so.

Originally posted by Lanton
At the end of the day, Irving broke the law (Austria's laws regarding making anti-semetic remarks in public) and he was jailed for doing so.

I see. So at the end of the day, 6 million Jews "broke the law" by being Jewish, and were executed for being so.

Uhh, with the 6 million.

Why is it that this is on the high end of the estimate, yet it is the accepted number? But, with other atrocities, the more conservative estimates are used?

And, the very label "Holocaust denier" being attached to someone who supposedly does not like Jews says that the Jews were the only ones who mattered in the Holocaust. Folks, MILLIONS of non-Jews were killed, but we're supposed to pretend that only the Jews mattered? Lanton, you're just as bad as those you attack because you are elevating the Jews above the others slaughtered and basically saying that only they matter.

Originally posted by Lanton
..
I just happen to think that after thousands of years of persecution and the genocidal killing of 6 million Jews just 60 years ago, you've still got people arguing 'oh well, they're Jews, so it doesn't matter....it happened over half a century ago, and they're always putting us on a guilt-trip over the holocaust anyway'.
..

I never said any of that, i am unwilling to focus on ethnicity like you do and i think that we shouldn't forget any victim of mass murder, regardless of orgiin, enthicity, gender, age, you name it. If you disagree with that or want to specifically discriminate in a particular way, then that's your call.

Isn't it ironic how you're obviously perfectly willing to disregard elemental rights due to some perverted feeling of guilt, even though we were all born waayy after 1945? why is it that you keep talking about Jews and only Jews, what about other victims who died in exactly the same annihilation camps? and try NOT to skip my question this time, k. thx.

[edit on 25-2-2006 by Long Lance]

The fact there are laws to keep something from being even discussed or questioned is a giant red flag. Free speech can't have convienent parameters and exclusions for any one group.I smell a big fat rat!

YIAWETA.

What's the red flag? Or the smelly rat? The fact that it is illegal in some countries to foment anti-jewish sentiment, or to deny the Holocaust in any form? These countries were ground zero, if you will, of the Holocaust, and have memories of it, and don't care to repeat it.

I have admitted on another thread that jailing these people may be a little over the top (reluctently, I might add), that does not change the fact that there is no otherside of the story as the deniers so often claim. Millions of Jews, and millions more of others were slaughtered by state-sponcered killing machines.

Quibble over small errors in numbers all you want, it does not change the basic, sickening reality of the Holocaust.

[edit on 25-2-2006 by seagull]

Originally posted by YIAWETA

I smell a big fat rat!

Could we hear more about what you seem to smell?

Do you question the Holocaust happened?

There's only one point I would like to make concerning this conviction...

If he had denied the Crusades had happened he wouldn't be in jail right now, and you know I'm right. So what's the difference? Why does some one need to go to jail for being a flaming idiot - even if they put their stupidity in a book or a speech?

dangerous dangerous law

Originally posted by Seekerof
Let me ask you:
Why is it that the Holocaust is the genocide that your subjectively implied and applied "many people" seem to want to delve in? Ask yourself that objectively, k? Cause I do not see many of those implied and applied "many people" researching or trying to debunk the number of people that were murdered by Stalin--in excess of 13-20 million--furthermore, I do not see "many people" researching or trying to debunk those numbers for the Armenian genocide or any other genocide that has occurred.

Again, why just the Holocaust thats in question?

The Holocaust receives questioning because it receives the most attention. It is forever brought up when Israel's efforts at self defence are questioned. We are forever reminded of the Holocaust and that 6 million Jews died. This is used to illicit concessions out of the rest of the World and even used as rationalization for the persecution of the Palestinians. Do we hear the Armenians constantly reminding the rest of the World that we let them down by allowing the Turks to slaughter them? Do we hear the Russians constantly reminding the rest of the World that we allied with Stalin who murdered millions of Russians? If we did constantly hear these things there would probably be enough interest in the topic to have questions arise.

As for the number of Jews murdered in the Holocaust, how can it be a crime to question the figure of 6 million? Poland itself revised the death toll from Auschwitz alone from 4 million to 1 million. Why was it not classed as taboo to question the amount of non-Jews murdered by the Nazis? Where was the uproar when Poland claimed that the Polish government exaggerated the death toll to bolster the Communist governments claims that the death camps were not solely for Jews?

Why was it ok for Israeli scholars to question the amount of dead non-Jews during WW2 but we are expressly forbidden from even entertaining the idea that similar exaggerations occured with regards to Jewish dead? Why is it perfectly acceptable to question the death toll of non-Jews in WW2? Why the disconnect? Should Poles be outraged and incensed at these Israeli scholars for daring to question the amount of dead Poles and for descrating the memory of the millions of Poles who died at the hands of Hitler?

Can you see how absurd that line of thought is? How was the memory of the dead Poles harmed by revealing that the Communist Polish government exaggerated the death toll for selfish personal interest? In actual fact revealing the lie is truly respectful to those who DID die. Allowing their deaths to be exaggerated to bolster some political bullcrap is the true travesty. Why can we not even investigate the same accusations leveled at the Zionists who were hell bent on creating a homeland based on what happend in the Holocaust?

If we had the same laws outlawing the questioning of all those killed by Hitler (not just Jewish) the Polish exaggerations would of gone unquestioned to this day. How does that serve history? How would we be better off for allowing that exaggeration to be classed as irrefutable fact? We would be legislating the protection of a lie.

Source: The Washington Times, Tuesday, July 17, 1990

Poland reduced Auschwitz death toll estimate to 1 million

By Krysztof Leski and Ohad Gozani
London Daily Telegraph

LONDON - Poland has cut its estimate of the number of people
killed by the Nazis in the Auschwitz death camp from 4 million
to just over 1 million.

The vast majority of the dead are now accepted to have been
Jews, despite claims by the former Polish communist government
that as many Poles perished in Hitler's largest concentration
camp.

The revised Polish figures support claims by Israeli
researchers that Poland's former communist government
exaggerated the number of victims by inflating the estimate of
non-Jews who died.

Again I ask, why is ok to question the validity of the deaths of non-Jews when the same questioning of the deaths of Jews is illegal? Ask yourself Seekerof, what is the Israeli scholars motive for questioning the death toll of non-Jews at Auschwitz? Are they anti-Polish because they questioned the amount of dead Poles?

[edit on 25/2/06 by subz]

Originally posted by subz

Originally posted by Seekerof
As for the number of Jews murdered in the Holocaust, how can it be a crime to question the figure of 6 million? Poland itself revised the death toll from Auschwitz alone from 4 million to 1 million. Why was it not classed as taboo to question the amount of non-Jews murdered by the Nazis? Where was the uproar when Poland claimed that the Polish government exaggerated the death toll to bolster the Communist governments claims that the death camps were not solely for Jews?
[edit on 25/2/06 by subz]

Because there's no verifiable evidence that the often-quoted 6 million figure, of the number of Jews who's lives came to an end at the hands of the Nazi's, is a bogus figure.

Originally posted by subz

As for the number of Jews murdered in the Holocaust, how can it be a crime to question the figure of 6 million?

In which country is questioning a crime?

As you can easy find out by yourself simply by revisiting this thread, questioning and research is not the crime in those countries which have that law. That law makes Holocaust denial a crime.

Maybe it is also of your interest, that a joint team of Israeli and German lawyers has filed a criminal indictment against the Iranian president Mahmoud Ahmadinejad in Germany, requesting he be tried according to a German law from 1993 against racial hatred and Holocaust denial:

Iranian President Faces Holocaust Denial Charges in Germany

"The Federal Court in Germany has repeatedly declared that the Holocaust is a fact, that Holocaust denial is considered a lie and as such, has no legal defense on the basis of freedom of speech," Shahar stressed.


"Our goal is to make a point -- to make clear thata person who denies the Holocaust, threatens others and infringes their civil and political rights has no place in the civilized world," Shahar said. "I think we've achieved this goal."

So this man -

was he a officer or SS or nazi or something to the like
or
was he a jew who survived

Subz...bravo, what a post. I think I'll vote you way above for that one!

Look at these people literally foaming at the mouth when it comes to questioning the Jewish death toll. LITERALLY foaming. Frothing.

It makes me think something IS veeery fishy here. Why such a vehement, frothing response to this? Like subz said, the Russians aren't constantly bringing up their bigger death toll. I don't see the Chinese complaining constantly about how Mao killed more of them than Jews in the Holocaust, the Russians, and the non-Jews killed by Hitler COMBINED! What gives?

Is this like that Hebrew Hammer movie, where the Jewish guilt is the ultimate weapon? Seriously. I really want to challenge you frothing, rabid maniacs who are calling for anyone who denies the Holocaust to be jailed. Why is it that y'all are SOOO pissed at this guy, yet y'all are not pissed at the Rothschilds.

Yes, the uber-wealthy JEWISH family that funded Hitler. Oh yes. Silent on that, aren't we? I saw someone else bring this up on another thread, and NOBOBY had a damn thing to say about it. Even when I brought up that no one had said anything, silence. I would think that, based on the foaming at the mouth for this denier, that y'all would be much more pissed at one of the groups who funded Hitler.

Oh, I guess it's because they're Jewish, huh? Jewish family with money as toilet paper funds guy who, by y'all's account, was all about killing Jews. Is that one too much to wrap your heads around? Is it because the Rothschilds were quite interested in the land that is the subject of that great conflict, ya know?

Or is it because one of their lackeys essentially started zionism as it is today? What is it? Really, I wanna know how you can be pissed about the Jews solely, yet silent on this Jewish family funding the guy now known in history as the Jew exterminator...

[edit on 26-2-2006 by truthseeka]

Subz: For lack of competition in the worthy post category you can have a WATS from me aswell. If anyone have suggestions for my last one do tell!

Stellar

[edit on 26-2-2006 by StellarX]

If Irving had gone around denying the history of slavery in the 17th, 18th and 19th centuries, he wouldn't have even got the publicity that he craved so badly, from the media for the simple reason that, first-off, the media wouldn't have gone near him with a barge-pole (because of the racial issue) and the fact that he would've quicly been labeled a crackpot.

We've got as much documented and verifiable evidence of the Holocaust as we have of the 17, 18th and 19th century slave-trade, where-in slaves were shuttled all over the British empire and to the United States. Yet for some reason, you've always got that small, but vocal, minority of cretins questioning the accepted facts concerning the history of the Holocaust...and, alas, the media gives them the attention they desire.

Apparently, it's ok, for example, for people like Irving to deny that the holocaust ever took place (it's taken all these years for him to actually have been arrested and serve time for his crimes), or people like Ken Livingston to compare a reporter (who happened to be Jewish) to a conentration camp guard. I'm guessing Ken wouldn't have dared compare a black reporter to a slave-master, but apparently what Ken did was ok, cos the guy was Jewish...and they're fair game, aren't they? Let's not sugar-coat it; unfortunately, there are millions of us who still hold these archaic, ignorant, anti-semetic and downright racist views of the Jewish people, and we don't even know it.

How retarded do you think it would be for me to say something along the lines of 'well, ya know those black unemployed youths that wrecked my car the other day; it's their own fault they're in the situation they're in, even though us white people gave them their freedom and the vote...they should've taken full advantage of the rights we gave them and furthered themselves...then they wouldn't be on the street without the support of a loving family, without an education or any job oppurtunities.' I'd be labeled a racist in no time at all, which is exactly the sort of response from the public that one would expect in a country like the US, or UK, right?

But apparently it's ok to question some of the accepted facts of the history of the Holocaust (even to deny that the Holocaust ever took place) or for public officials to make anti-semetic remarks and not even apologise for those remarks.

This is a bit off topic since posters here are grappling with the idea of what 'denying the holocaust' really means. Don't know myself either? but what do we know about this guys facts? Since I been coming to this site for awhile and it says deny ignorance (good idea), then let these peoples facts speak for themselves then. Does anybody here know about that?

Originally posted by denythestatusquo
This is a bit off topic since posters here are grappling with the idea of what 'denying the holocaust' really means. Don't know myself either? but what do we know about this guys facts? Since I been coming to this site for awhile and it says deny ignorance (good idea), then let these peoples facts speak for themselves then. Does anybody here know about that?

What part of 'Irving denied that the Holocaust ever took place' are you unable to understand?

When did he say that the holocaust didn't happen, I might have missed it in this thread? If so then sorry but thats not what I was hearing about this story. Is this guys charges the same as the other people that are going to court now too? I think the media if they want to report his conviction then they owe it to this person to tell their side of the story too so that the public can understand what is going on. If facts are not there then you can deny ignorance but if they are then we have some difference in opinion I think. Everybody knows that many people died in the war and didn't deserve too. It was tragedy and I would never deny that.