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.
Originally posted by ludaChris
it was the most terrible incident in the history of man kind.
[edit on 11/18/2005 by ludaChris]
...BUT stealing 100 million africans for slaves is a just footnote in your "most terrible incidents in the history of man kind"
Benin at height of its power. City-states, like Ife-Ife and Oyo, are ruled by obas (kings) with court societies supporting celebrated arts. Benin city (Edo) was founded around the 12th century and had ongoing political and cultural ties with Ife and other urban centers in the area; a second Benin dynasty began in the 16th century. "Dahomey, with its capital at Abomey, was the most important kingdom in Benin's history. A major exporter of slaves to the New World during the triangular trade between Africa, Europe, and the New World during the 16-18th centuries, it was a military empire feared by all its neighbors"...
Originally posted by Seekerof
I do not doubt that slave trading was horrific and tragic, but I do contest your use of the word: "stealing," especially used in the open-ended assertion and unspecified as you utilized it. I further contest the 100 million figure.
Originally posted by helium3
Thats fine but you cannot say was the Holocaust was most terrible incident
in the history of man kind. Its a tragic event in history but of the top of my head i can think of other atrocities:
The Mongol Hordes
Auto-da-fe
King leopold and the congo
the black hole of calcutta
that go silent into history because none of them have a :
...
Originally posted by Darkmind
I must admit that I had a big grin on my face when I heard the news. Irving frankly deserves this.
His reputation as a historian was totally destroyed by the libel case result, which was clear and devastating in its judgement.
You only have to read Hitler's War and compare it to other history books to realise that Irving's book is full of deliberate misrepresentations, outright distortions and subtle (and not-so-subtle) shadings in favour of Hitler.
Irving nailed his true colours to the mast in that trial and then acted astonished when the mast, along with the entire ship, was blown to pieces.
Originally posted by Darkmind
Denied, they often have a political agenda and come from the far right wing.
They misuse quotes, use highly selective pieces of evidence, twist facts and generally lie.
When caught out they deny a great deal. I recommend Deborah Lipstadt's book "Denying the Holocaust" for a better insight into these rather twisted minds.
Irving himself has made a big deal out of the fact that no order, on paper, has ever been found saying "kill every jew" and signed by Adolf Hitler. What Irving fails to point out is that Hitler gave his major orders verbally, often in "Under Four Eyes" meetings, consisting of himself and whichever flunky was there with him.
No secretaries, no notes, no nothing. The bastard didn't like getting his hands dirty.
I also recommend reading the reports of the trial. They should be available somewhere in archives for every major newspaper in the UK.
Originally posted by StellarX
.. I would rather stand up for his rights now than having to defend mine alone later in life.
Stellar
Originally posted by Teknikal
Personally i believe that a lot of Jew's died in the camp's but i don't forget the non Jew's who were killed either.
Originally posted by ludaChris
Terrible incident? No doubt. But, the most terrible? Are you forgetting that Stalin killed more people than Hitler did?
Originally posted by WestPoint23
Can I arrest people because they refuse to believe the WTC were blown up by Islamic extremists?
Originally posted by Off_The_Street
Hitler, who wasn't a German but actually born in Austria, would probably be proud of his native country.
In their effort to exorcise their demons, the Austrians have, by their denial of freedoms, quite possibly paved the way for a second fascist Osterreicher to follow in the footsteps of the first.
[edit on 18-11-2005 by Off_The_Street]
Can I arrest people because they refuse to believe the WTC were blown up by Islamic extremists?
Originally posted by Vis Mega
No one should even be debating this. THIS IS NOT ABOUT what he DID or DID NOT SAY.. period. This trial is happening for ONE single reason only..
He said something that ONE group of people found offensive. So therefore the people who make up the offended group have decided to detain him and ruin his life and the lives of his family. He hasn't actually hurt anyone except maybe someones feelings.. and for that they are going to put him in a cell maybe for the rest of his life.
This is thought crime plain and simple. This has nothing to do with HOW MANY PEOPLE DIED IN SOME OTHER COUNTRY.. its not about who suffered MORE or who lost more people in their home country - this isn't ABOUT "truth" and it certainly is not about "justice". This is ONE MANS opinion, which has so upset people that they feel they have the right to destroy him over it now... pure insanity. Perhaps its because people get suspicious when you try to silence someone for what they are saying.. this should all be backfiring so much on them right now.. I do not understand (well maybe I do - reading the arguements in here ".. but but but.. lots of Russians died too.. uh.. can't he just take back what he said?" - unbelieveable) why it isn't.
He broke the law. He knew about it. He still went back. This guy is stubborn and pigheaded.
Makes you think about the motivations of the group who is doing this to him.
Originally posted by Denied
How can one say the holocost didnt happen.??
What arguement do they say, as to how it didnt happen.?