It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

NEWS: Austria Holds 'Holocaust Denier'

page: 6
7
<< 3  4  5    7  8  9 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Nov, 26 2005 @ 02:19 PM
link   

Originally posted by intrepid


Um, no Riwka.



Um, yes intepred.


Please look up "semitic" and please look up "antisemitism"

There is no contradictory between your explanation and my posting

[edit on 26-11-2005 by Riwka]




posted on Nov, 26 2005 @ 02:23 PM
link   

Originally posted by StellarX

Originally posted by Leveller
True. But by no stretch of the imagination could this guy be called a "scholar".


Calling him anything else would be dishonest at best. Have you read any of his books? Feel free to bring me a list of historians who dismisses his life's work out of hand. It would be usefull if they have published something of some historic value btw...

Stellar



Ookeydoo.

www.amazon.com...

www.amazon.com...

www.tau.ac.il...

www.nizkor.org.../h/hayward.joel/Correction_for_David_Irving.000430

You could also Google for yourself and you will find many respected academics who have debunked his work.

You also might want to go here:

www.nizkor.org...

"I don't see any reason to be tasteful about Auschwitz. It's baloney, it's a legend. Once we admit the fact that it was a brutal slave labour camp and large numbers of people did die, as large numbers of innocent people died elsewhere in the war, why believe the rest of the baloney?" Irving said.
He added, "I say quite tastelessly, in fact, that more women died on the back seat of Edward Kennedy's car at Chappaquiddick than ever died in a gas chamber in Auschwitz."
He went on, "Oh, you think that's tasteless, how about this? There are so many Auschwitz survivors going around, in fact the number increases as the years go past, which is biologically very odd to say the least. Because I'm going to form an Association of Auschwitz survivors, survivors of the Holocaust and other liars, or the ASSHOLS"
David Irving.

Definition of a scholar

schol·ar ( P ) Pronunciation Key (sklr)
n.

A learned person.
A specialist in a given branch of knowledge: a classical scholar.
One who attends school or studies with a teacher; a student.
A student who holds or has held a particular scholarship.

So is Irving a "learned person"?
Nope. He has been proven wrong in a court of law.
Is he a specialist in a given branch of knowledge?
Hardly, as I just stated, he has been proven wrong.

www.nizkor.org...

As for reading his work? I have to admit that I haven't read it thoroughly. I have studied it, but I don't tend to give my full attention to authors who claim to be factual historians yet their work is full of holes and nurtured from a biased viewpoint.
As an Englishman, I came across Irving's "work" a long time ago and am no novice to his diatribe. I can't say that I am proud to call him my countryman.







[edit on 26-11-2005 by Leveller]



posted on Nov, 26 2005 @ 02:40 PM
link   

Originally posted by Riwka
Um, yes intepred.


Please look up "semitic" and please look up "antisemitism"

There is no contradictory between your explanation and my posting

[edit on 26-11-2005 by Riwka]


OK, I did just that and what I found was very interesting.

Semitic:

www.askoxford.com...

• noun a family of languages that includes Hebrew, Arabic, and Aramaic and certain ancient languages such as Phoenician.

Antisemitism:

dictionary.cambridge.org...

noun [U]
the strong dislike or cruel and unfair treatment of Jewish people:
Nazi anti-Semitism forced him to emigrate to the USA.

Why is antisemitism only applied to Jews? I would think that antisemitism would apply to cruel treatment of ALL semetic peoples.



posted on Nov, 26 2005 @ 02:56 PM
link   

Originally posted by intrepid

Why is antisemitism only applied to Jews?


Yes. It is only against the Jews.

Especially created for those, who hate us more than necessary.

(I thought Cambridge.org also might have an explanation to this question?)






[edit on 26-11-2005 by Riwka]



posted on Nov, 27 2005 @ 10:40 AM
link   

Originally posted by Leveller
You could also Google for yourself and you will find many respected academics who have debunked his work.


Some of his work has been shown to be seriously biased and i have seen him twist and mistranslate facts to suit his ends. My point is and will remain that this is no historic revolution and that ALL historians are guilty of these things. If all historians would be subjected to such a well funded critical gaze non would do any better than David Irving. His real crime is disagreeing, by too a large margin, with the currently accepted dogma that we call the history of the second world war.


You also might want to go here:

www.nizkor.org...


You can find similar words in many historic text and once again his crime is based on who he accuses and wich parts of history he questions.


Definition of a scholar

schol·ar ( P ) Pronunciation Key (sklr)
n.


Wich is exactly what he can be called. The volume of documentation he made available for other historians alone makes his contribution to history invaluable. He was widely praised during the first two decades for his scholarly conduct whatever he is now called. That either invalidates current claims or proves that a good many promiment historians of the time was just as wrong.


So is Irving a "learned person"?
Nope. He has been proven wrong in a court of law.
Is he a specialist in a given branch of knowledge?
Hardly, as I just stated, he has been proven wrong.


It's the nature of the business to be wrong at least some of the time and while most historians mostly avoid trouble by just repeating what they see other historians saying we will never learn anything truthfull about history or science if people just repeated the currently accepted government backed dogma. Without the Irvings of this world we would have been stuck believing rthe sames lies for how many decades more?


As for reading his work? I have to admit that I haven't read it thoroughly.


His work would be wasted on someone who did not first read as many dozens of books on what was called the history of the second world war at the time. The ammount of new information he contributed would be understood any other way. The question would have to be how much you believe you know about the second world war....


I have studied it, but I don't tend to give my full attention to authors who claim to be factual historians yet their work is full of holes and nurtured from a biased viewpoint.


Find me one historians who's work survives for many years without being shown to be incorrect in some areas. It's the nature of the business and it is IMPOSSSIBLE to avoid being fooled some of the time by trusting historians. All you can do is keep reading and keep comparing data from as many different perspectives as you can find hoping that you can distill history from it. Trusting a certain authority over another is way way too easy and will just lead to bias as you select to protect your current views.


As an Englishman, I came across Irving's "work" a long time ago and am no novice to his diatribe. I can't say that I am proud to call him my countryman.


Well if your so old you should know better than to dismiss such a volume of work on the basis that some of it might be wrong or even twisted to suit a certain agenda. Such action really is cowardly and not at all scholarly imo.

Pride has nothing to do with this as his just another individual on a journey doing what he thinks is right( hopefully not just for himself).

In closing i have no vested interest in protecting his "reputation" and could easily call him all the things you have if you want to hear me do it. Unlike you i have come to realise that this tends to be true for the vast majority of historians who gets published simply becuase they are willing to repeat current dogma using the same chosen set of "facts" while using some different words and maps.

I have no problem believing that millions of people ( Jews) in this case were killed as such but since i question the exact number, method, responsibility and timeline i would, according to the definitions i have seen, also be called a holocaust deniar if i wrote books on the topic. As i see it being a honest historian asking questions as we should makes all of us holocaust deniers by the definition employed. It is very much like being called unpatriotic because you question the actions of your government as any responsible citizen should anyways. If you can coin a sladerous terms that makes responsibile action illegal how can any responsible person respect such laws?

That is my question for everyone who calls others holocaust deniers.

Thanks for the effort of provinding some links. I have plenty myself but holocaust denial and the reputation of David Irving clearly has very little to do with facts as such.

Stellar



posted on Nov, 27 2005 @ 11:08 AM
link   

Originally posted by Riwka
Yes. It is only against the Jews.


Why? The word root does not indicate that it should so why?


Especially created for those, who hate us more than necessary.


The word semitic indicates origin of the people but being Jewish is a faith not a nationality. The word is illogical employed as it is used to indicate a hate of a nationality but since the group in question is not it does not make sense other than to brand people who question the doctrines of a certain group. That is in fact how it is most often used so it is rather simple to show the intent of this construct.

Stellar



posted on Nov, 27 2005 @ 11:49 AM
link   

Originally posted by StellarX

The word semitic indicates origin of the people but being Jewish is a faith not a nationality.



No. That is wrong.

The religion is Judaism, and Jews are also a people, a nation. Prominent Jews who are not at all religious are for example

  • David Ben Gurion
  • Ytzhak Rabin
  • Arik Sharon
  • David Beckham
  • Geddy Lee (Rush)
  • Mark Knopfler (Dire Straits)

    and many many more.





    [edit on 27-11-2005 by Riwka]



  • posted on Nov, 27 2005 @ 01:56 PM
    link   

    Originally posted by Riwka



    No. That is wrong.

    The religion is Judaism, and Jews are also a people, a nation. Prominent Jews who are not at all religious are for example


    The covenant with Abraham was a religious covenant, not racial..... It's a well propagated myth that Jewish people have a distinct genetic heritage but one non the less.

    All the people you named claim is that they come from the direct genetic line but unless you believe that "god" changed Abraham genetically, somehow, there really is no case. If you do believe this i guess i should start asking you if you believe these genes , or genetic change in general, made them superior to the rest of humanity?

    Goodluck.

    Stellar



    posted on Nov, 27 2005 @ 02:20 PM
    link   

    Originally posted by StellarX
    blah blah blah


    Basically nothing more than a long rant trying to justify Irving's work.
    You say that historians are allowed to make mistakes. Sure they are. But when the mistake destroys their whole theory do you still give the historian's work respect?
    Contrary to your opinion, I've studied the Holocaust from many angles. I'm not the new-comer to the subject that you seem to think that I am. It doesn't matter to me that Irving chose the Holocaust as his chosen subject. What does matter is the way he went about getting his conclusions and the way in which he presented them.
    It's OK saying that we need our disagreers with documented history, but when history proves them to be falisfiers they do not deserve the respect that you may give them. Every single word uttered from any mouth must be believed according to that logic. There does come a time when a line has to be drawn and black has to be seen as black and not white, however much some sections of society would like to see otherwise.
    Irving is no martyr. He is no hero. He is a proven liar and anti-semite (argue all you like with the semantics of the word, the fact remains that he hangs with the Neo-Nazi crowd). These aren't my words - they are the words of an English Court of Law. Sure, he looks like the poor downtrodden artist, but he is just like every other guy out there - after money. When he took Lipstadt to court (where he was absolutely destroyed) he admitted as much.

    So in conclusion, trying to justify somebody because they have written a piece of diatribe that clearly (and again, I do mean clearly) has been proven false, does not make them a scholar. If so, you would have to call myself and every single conspiracy theorist here a scholar. It doesn't matter if we haven't researched our theories thoroughly or even if they are correct. All we would have to do is post a line contrary to mainstream thought according to the logic that you offer.

    [edit on 27-11-2005 by Leveller]



    posted on Nov, 27 2005 @ 02:32 PM
    link   

    Originally posted by StellarX

    changed Abraham genetically, somehow,



    Haha!

    That is funny.

    Not all of Abrahams children are Jews - Awrahams son Ishmael is the ancestor of the Arabs.


    A Jew is any person whose mother was a Jew (regardless whether religious or not) or any person who has gone through the formal process of conversion to Judaism.



    posted on Nov, 27 2005 @ 02:39 PM
    link   

    Originally posted by Riwka
    That is funny.


    Well it sure as hell aint supposed to be....


    Not all of Abrahams children are Jews - Awrahams son Ishmael is the ancestor of the Arabs.


    Wich is kinda my point if you have not noticed so far..... Apple's from apple trees....


    A Jew is any person whose mother was a Jew (regardless whether religious or not) or any person who has gone through the formal process of conversion to Judaism.


    So much for assuming they have a unique racial indentity then. I am glad we got this out of the way.

    Stellar



    posted on Nov, 27 2005 @ 03:12 PM
    link   

    Originally posted by StellarX

    So much for assuming they have a unique racial indentity then.



    Of course, Jews are no race.

    The Nuremberg Laws on Citizenship and Race in 1935 tried to make Jews a race. Fortunately, the world stopped Nazi-Gerrmany in 1945.


    Jews are a people, a nation - And Jews even have a country:

    The Democratic Jewish State of Israel

    Great, isn't it?

    And as for Israel, there is a similar law against Holocaust denial.

    Anti-semite David Irving would also be in jail there.

    For good reasons:

    The denial of the Holocaust in a systematic public form is no 'opinion offense.' It is the attempt to dilute the essence of Nazi rule in front of a consenting or at least undecided audience, and thus to turn National Socialism into something positive.


    [edit on 27-11-2005 by Riwka]



    posted on Nov, 27 2005 @ 03:35 PM
    link   

    Originally posted by StellarX

    Originally posted by Leveller
    True. But by no stretch of the imagination could this guy be called a "scholar".


    Calling him anything else would be dishonest at best. Have you read any of his books? Feel free to bring me a list of historians who dismisses his life's work out of hand. It would be usefull if they have published something of some historic value btw...


    Publishing something of historical value implies what, exactly?
    I find it ironic that you would mention such in the same frame and reference as Dr. David Irving.


    Dr. Irvings work is straight and simply historical garbage and has been effectively debunked as said garbage by a host of his peers.
    You want names?
    Dig for them using any search engine you so desire, k?
    Asking for such a "list of historians" is ludicrous, and the mark of one who is either a holocaust denier, advocates holocaust denial, or is simply uneducated and unskilled at researching.

    Having learned and worked within academia myself since ending my service within the US Air Force ten + years ago, be assured that what you assert or stipulate is pure hogwash and Dr. Irving is a twisted soul who has blantantly misrepresented well-researched and documented findings and research to the contrary of what he and you assert as so-called truth. That alleged truth is nothing more than what it simply is: inaccurate historical revisionism. Strangely and seemingly, you have likewise joined that very small and elite club of misguided individuals who delve in such?






    seekerof

    [edit on 27-11-2005 by Seekerof]



    posted on Nov, 27 2005 @ 04:48 PM
    link   
    Expected abit more from you. Are you going to stick with this line of thought or do you want to change anything before we get started?

    Try be as respectfull as you can while your at it since that is what i am going to be.

    Stellar



    posted on Nov, 27 2005 @ 05:25 PM
    link   

    Originally posted by StellarX
    Expected abit more from you. Are you going to stick with this line of thought or do you want to change anything before we get started?

    Try be as respectfull as you can while your at it since that is what i am going to be.



    Trying to gain the moral high ground when you are arguing a viewpoint which is highly contentious and obscene to the vast majority of people is not a good way to further your cause.

    I posted a list of recognised academics and the transcript from a High Court Judgement against Irving which prove him a liar. Argue with that instead.



    posted on Nov, 28 2005 @ 12:14 PM
    link   

    Originally posted by Leveller
    I posted a list of recognised academics and the transcript from a High Court Judgement against Irving which prove him a liar. Argue with that instead.


    I was in fact responding to Seekerof ( Post below his afterall) and if you do not feel i answered your questions just say so and i will clarify.

    I really do not believe it should be up to any court to decide what is history and what is not or who is deliberately lying on such specific historic issues only since all historians are guilty to one extent or another. The judge in question did not bother to comment on the historicity of the Holocaust either. That is how afraid people are of saying the wrong thing and being accused of holocaust denial.

    Stellar

    [edit on 28-11-2005 by StellarX]



    posted on Nov, 28 2005 @ 12:36 PM
    link   

    Originally posted by Riwka
    Jews are a people, a nation - And Jews even have a country:

    The Democratic Jewish State of Israel

    Great, isn't it?


    I am surprised you bring up the "country" issue after the race issue fell apart . Do you know how much easier it is to prove that "Jewish" people have no historic right to the land that they were unilateraly given?


    And as for Israel, there is a similar law against Holocaust denial.

    Anti-semite David Irving would also be in jail there.

    For good reasons:


    It's a law that works VERY well to stop the masssive majority of people from forming their own opinions about this specific part of history. This is the sort of laws autocracy loves.

    [quoteThe denial of the Holocaust in a systematic public form is no 'opinion offense.' It is the attempt to dilute the essence of Nazi rule in front of a consenting or at least undecided audience, and thus to turn National Socialism into something positive.

    Then it should be applied to those who want to recreate a Nazi party or a "facist" state. Since i want neither of those and have no problem with the Jewish people i see no reason why i should be subjected to being called names for asking questions about ALL of history.

    This sums up how i feel:

    ... God forbid we should ever be twenty years without such a rebellion. The people cannot be all, and always, well informed.
    The part which is wrong will be discontented, in proportion to the importance of the facts they misconceive. If they remain quiet
    under such misconceptions, it is lethargy, the forerunner of death to the public liberty. ... And what country can preserve its
    liberties, if it's rulers are not warned from time to time, that this people preserve the spirit of resistance? Let them take arms. The
    remedy is to set them right as to the facts, pardon and pacify them. What signify a few lives lost in a century or two? The tree of
    liberty must be refreshed from time to time, with the blood of patriots and tyrants. It is its natural manure." - Thomas Jefferson, Nov. 13, 1787, letter to William S. Smith, see Jefferson On Democracy, 20

    If those Neo Nazi idiots want to protest and start killing people because they are ignorent lets rather shoot them and get it over with. People who have such open agenda's should be given as much rope as possible so that they can be exposed and gotten rid of as soon as possible. To write dozens of laws to stop them from talking will only result in secretive manouvering and even more ignorence spreading. Let people say what they will infront of as many as they like. Let us protect the individual and his right to free speech instead of manufactured history wich serves only the state and those with the power to have twisted it in the first place.

    Thanks for choosing the road towards civility this time.

    Stellar




    [edit on 28-11-2005 by StellarX]



    posted on Nov, 28 2005 @ 12:43 PM
    link   

    Originally posted by StellarX

    to decide what is history and what is not



    Shoah is an irrefutable fact. To deny the truth, the awful facts of the Holocaust, is simply to lie.

    And denying the truth is exact what Nazi apologist David Irving did in his speaches 1989:




    "There were no extermination camps in the Third Reich," he declared. "Is it not time once and for all to put an end to this fairy tale of the gas chambers.

    Adolf Hitler held out his hands to protect the Jews, and knew nothing of the Final Solution.

    Thirty thousand people were murdered at Auschwitz in Nazi-occupied Poland - as opposed to the accepted figure of 1.5 million.

    After the war, the Poles fabricated the gas chamber evidence at Auschwitz to match the "fantasies" of survivors."




    posted on Nov, 28 2005 @ 01:27 PM
    link   

    Originally posted by Riwka
    Shoah is an irrefutable fact. To deny the truth, the awful facts of the Holocaust, is simply to lie.


    Wich facts exactly are we 100% "sure" about ( according to you) and wich of them are we 99% "sure" about? Are you sure you know what 100% sure means in terms of historic accuracy? The holocaust WAS awefull but should human beings in general be denied the right to talk about it like the rest of history? Why should it be different than any other murderous epoch in human history?

    And denying the truth is exact what Nazi apologist David Irving did in his speaches 1989:



    "There were no extermination camps in the Third Reich," he declared. "Is it not time once and for all to put an end to this fairy tale of the gas chambers.

    Adolf Hitler held out his hands to protect the Jews, and knew nothing of the Final Solution.

    Thirty thousand people were murdered at Auschwitz in Nazi-occupied Poland - as opposed to the accepted figure of 1.5 million.

    After the war, the Poles fabricated the gas chamber evidence at Auschwitz to match the "fantasies" of survivors."


    So ok. He is totally wrong in this case and lets even say he deliberately lied knowing full well it was the case. Does this invalidate all his other work or simply suggest we should treat him like a historian and always be suspicious of who's point of view their trying to validate? What i HATE is the fact that he is being singled out because of the part of history he decided to question or distort.

    Stellar



    posted on Nov, 28 2005 @ 02:13 PM
    link   

    Originally posted by StellarX

    Do you know how much easier it is to prove that "Jewish" people have no historic right to the land that they were unilateraly given?



    Born in Israel, I know how hard some people try to proof Jews have no right at all to live in Israel.

    But for sure, those do not know our Law of Return

    Otherwise they would know how rediculous and vainly their efforts are.



    Originally posted by StellarX

    It's a law that works VERY well to stop the masssive majority of people from forming their own opinions about this specific part of history.


    No. It stops a special sort of people to deny facts and to try rewriting history.



    Originally posted by StellarX

    i see no reason why i should be subjected to being called names for asking questions about ALL of history.



    There is no law against research.
    There is a law (in Austira, Belgium, Czech Republic, France, Germany, Israel, Lithuania, Poland, Slovakia and Switzerland) against holocaust denial.


    Originally posted by StellarX

    manufactured history wich serves only the state and those with the power to have twisted it in the first place.



    wow.
    Are you a Holocaust denier?



    new topics

    top topics



     
    7
    << 3  4  5    7  8  9 >>

    log in

    join