What is the big deal with denying the Holocaust?

page: 6
1
<< 3  4  5    7  8  9 >>

log in

join

posted on Jan, 3 2006 @ 12:47 PM
link   
Well and truely said Pavel. The smell was still there over 20 years after the fact, according to my father who visited one in the 60's. A friend of mine who lost a goodly portion of her family to one of the camps. Would someone care to explain where they ended up? Deniers seek to deny that evil exists, and occaisionally gains the upper hand, if only for a short time.
Never again!




posted on Feb, 22 2006 @ 05:29 PM
link   

Originally posted by seagull
Well and truely said Pavel. The smell was still there over 20 years after the fact, according to my father who visited one in the 60's. A friend of mine who lost a goodly portion of her family to one of the camps. Would someone care to explain where they ended up? Deniers seek to deny that evil exists, and occaisionally gains the upper hand, if only for a short time.
Never again!


This is true. However, is it not ignorant on our part to not permit him to have his own opinion? And to voice it accordingly?

In order to combat ignorance, we must permit ALL sides of opinion to be heard, rediculous or not, wanted or not, we have to allow EVERYONE to speak.

Banning a person from being allowed to voice their oppinion will inevitably lead to one thing, governments realising they can also use this for their own goals.

Should this continue, its only a matter of time before governments begin deciding that THEIR mistakes cannot be spoken of, that you are not allowed to think what the government does not wish you to think.

Granted, I too think denying the holocaust is rediculous, and will undoubtedly gain enemies for you rather fast.

But allowing the criminalisation a person for his beliefs is worse than voicing a belief someone doesnt want to hear, rediculous or not.



posted on Feb, 22 2006 @ 05:39 PM
link   
This is about the continuing cycle of hatred of Jews that dates back more than a thousand years. A thousand years! The same old lies and liables used, maybe dressed up in different lambs skin, but the same wolf underneath.

When does it quit being a matter of free speech, and thought, and become a matter of stopping hatred.

That seems to me what it boils down to. We only differ in our approach to it.

Another thought for all of you reading this. In denying these odius characters the platform to spew thier hatred, do we not at least help prevent another generation of men and women from stomping down the path of hatred of others? I know we can't stop it all, it's far too late for that, but it's time to try.

[edit on 22-2-2006 by seagull]



posted on Feb, 22 2006 @ 06:05 PM
link   

Originally posted by godservant
One thing we do know is that the numbers have declined over the years from 8 million to under 1 million. So it is easy to understand why someone might think that is was propaganda.


The only example of genocide where there is this kind of dispute over the numbers is the KR. Because there are no accurate records, there was no census for years before the regime and there was civil war for 5 years before the regime, which included massive bombing by the USAF.

So the figure quoted is "between one and three million".

But the Nazis kept such wonderful records of their insanity that it's not too hard to find the crimes and the numbers.

Perhaps the UN could make Holocaust Denial an international crime, might make life difficult for the Turkish government...



posted on Feb, 22 2006 @ 07:09 PM
link   
I dont think its denying the holocaust that needs to be criminalised, more so, it should be propegation of hatred.

You see, some could deny the holocaust, without hating the Jews. I understand that most would see the denial of the holocaust as a statement of anti-semitism... however, these statements can also be made as a mere observation. Observations, and opinnions cannot be allowed to become illegal. Intentional spreading of racism however, that you can criminalize.

In the same light. (Analogy)... The persuit and research of evolution could technically be considered anti-christian, and anyone researching such information could be deemed an anti-christ. Do we make such accusations in this day and age? No, of course not, that would be rediculous, however, a few generations ago, yes, you could be prosecuted for such research.

I say, let them say the holocaust didnt happen. Give it an open debate, that way we can defeat the idea in an open discussion... allowing the world to know that the topic has been put to rest. Not only are you permitting free speech, you are also giving the public the facts about the holocaust, so that no-one can make the mistake of claiming it didnt happen again.

Whatever we do, we cannot criminalize a thought, that in itself is a step towards fachism... the very thing we are trying to avoid. I dont like what he's saying either. But I do permit him to address his thoughts in open debate, so that he, and anyone witnessing, can see he is wrong.

Silencing him only raises eyebrows and starts conspiracies.



posted on Feb, 22 2006 @ 10:36 PM
link   

Originally posted by johnsky

Silencing him only raises eyebrows and starts conspiracies.


I agree.

I went to high school in Skokie, Il., when the neo-Nazis (percursor to the neo-Con) chose to march down our main street, Oakton Ave. Although I was raised catholic my pubescent jewish friends and I were preparing to (1975) shoot at them with wrist rockets (sling shots) from the rooftops as they passed City Hall.

The city denied the Nazi's a maching permit. The Nazis wanted to march in Skokie because it contained the highest percentage in population of survivors of the camps. In fact, I recall seeing old men and women waiting for the bus who had the dark blue numbers tatooed on their forearms still. Quite unsettling to see, believe me.

When the ACLU stepped in and agreed to represent the Nazis in a lawsuit against the city for denying their 1st Amendment right to march I was outraged. When the Supreme Court agreed with the ACLU and ordered the city to allow the march I was flabbergasted. How could the Supremes not see the unfairness of allowing this to happen?

It forced me to examine the issues on a deeper level. My conclusion was, and is, that the rule of law must be sacrosanct. It is why Socrates allowed himself to be executed in "The Republic." He believed the rule of law of Athens was more important than the mistake of taking his life unfairly.

I know, it's a lot to swallow. But it is important to remember that we are a nation of laws, not a nation of men. Bush and his ilk do not understand the difference and it will be their (and/or our) ruin. As a result I became a lawyer and part of my practice is suing municipalities for police misconduct. I sue them because I believe that there is no greater transgression than police using the shield of authority to abuse others. I am also a cooperating attorney with the ACLU and fight for student first amendment rights in the schools, etc. Presently we are suing a local school district for forcing any (not only sports) extra-curricular participants to submit to drug testing.

But I digress. I disagree with jailing those who advocate the bs that the holocaust was a fiction and I am thankful it does not happen here. Thankfully, while the thought police are on their way they are have not yet arrived in the U.S. It is a mistake to jail these people for it serves to give them some legitimacy as martyrs in the eyes of those on the fence on this issue. It would be best to let them rant and simply point out the fallacy of their weak position.

Deny ignorance, but let it speak as the darkness against which your light shines.



posted on Feb, 23 2006 @ 12:25 AM
link   
Denying the Holocaust is a crime in the countries that Germany occupied as a way of making sure it doesn't happen again. It is correct to say not just Jews died in the camps but many others as well, but let's face it the Jewish people were the primary target of the Holocaust. As far as the Zionists running Europe that is just plain false. That accusation is just another method of spreading anti-Semetic crap giving ignorant people an excuse to hate one group of people.



posted on Feb, 23 2006 @ 12:59 AM
link   
Oh I fully realise the reasons behind declaring anti-semitic remaks illegal.

However, there are better ways to combat racism.

Education, for example. I realise we often tell our children that it happened.

But do we provide enough facts for them to 'see' the truth for themselves? No, we dont, no parent wants their children to see pictures of dead people, especially as a result of such a violent crime against humanity. But it must be done, so that they may know what happened.

Criminalising a thought, does not make that thought go away.

Proving that thought is wrong, does.

[edit on 23-2-2006 by johnsky]



posted on Feb, 23 2006 @ 11:55 AM
link   
Johnsky. I understand your views, truely I do. On any other topic I would agree with you, exposing the lies would undoubtably work, or at least lessen the problem.

This particular issue, however, is so deeply ingrained in the subconciousness of our various cultures that it will inevitably find fertile ground, no matter the education, or for that matter, sanctions involved. Believe me, when I say this, sanctions would, and are, the last resort. I simply have reached the limit of what I am willing to put up with in the name of tolerance. You, and the many others here, have not. This speaks well for you all, and perhaps not so well of me. I am me though, warts and all.



posted on Feb, 23 2006 @ 04:08 PM
link   
In America, we let you think whatever crazy thing you want, because maybe some kook will come up with some nutty notion that will make everybody more money. It could happen. Other countries, not so interested in making money, tend to tell their kooks to STFU.



posted on Feb, 25 2006 @ 10:19 PM
link   
Someone shouldn't be thrown into jail because they said something stupid. They should be handed a history book. If only the world were patient enough to help each individual reach a precious understanding...but alas, we are not living in such a world. Instead, it is one where people are thrown into jail merely because others don't want to deal with them any more. The horror of the Holocaust shouldn't ever be challenged -- yet this man in question did. He made the perils of thousands, millions of lives insignificant in a mere instant. And in the case of the British historian David Irving, we are making him pay for it with three years of his life.

[edit on 25-2-2006 by Siblin]



posted on Feb, 25 2006 @ 10:23 PM
link   

Originally posted by Enkidu
In America, we let you think whatever crazy thing you want, because maybe some kook will come up with some nutty notion that will make everybody more money. It could happen. Other countries, not so interested in making money, tend to tell their kooks to STFU.


You know what...I'd never thought about it this way, but you've made me see a few new angles. LOL

In answer to the original question...

The "big deal" is the tremendously stupid way it makes the denier look. But other than that, I don't really care if some one wants to be ignorant. And people shouldn't be thrown in jail for willfully looking ignorant.



posted on Feb, 25 2006 @ 11:28 PM
link   
The part that seems the most troubling to me from what I read is that he made the speach in 1989 and it wasn't outlawed until 1992.

To me this is the real conspiracy and the most troubling part.

Imagine that a law was passed tomorrow saying that wearing blue jeans is now illegal, and they go and round up people who have ever wore blue jeans and throw them in jail.

This is really troubling, charging someone for commiting a crime that wasn't even illegal when they commited it.

________________________________________________________________
Be Cool
K_OS



posted on Feb, 26 2006 @ 11:33 AM
link   
What should be truely troubling to all of us is the way, inspite of education about the horrors of the Holocaust, despite draconian laws in European countries regarding Holocaust denial (if you've been following any of the other threads on this topic, you know of my reluctant reversal of previously stated opinion). This twisted attempt at revising history continues to find fertile ground around the world. Not just Europe's fringe right, or America's, but in Japan, China, and Africa, and of course in the Middle East.

What more can a society do to educate itself? In our haste to be willing to hear all sides of an issue, maybe we are losing sight of the fact that the Holocaust occured for nothing but evil purposes, and to say otherwise is to risk the possibility of that evil happening again.



posted on Feb, 26 2006 @ 01:49 PM
link   

Originally posted by HowlrunnerIV
Perhaps the UN could make Holocaust Denial an international crime, might make life difficult for the Turkish government...


OOOH!

So now we need INTERNATIONAL crime laws? You're gonna love globalism, then.


Anyway, I don't think there's anything wrong with denying the Holocaust, in whatever form. You can deny American slavery, American extermination of the natives, Chinese extermination, etc. Well, at least in certain countries. That doesn't make the law right, though.

The law in the US used to be that we blacks weren't human. Does that make the law right? Same thing here.

And, like I said in the other thread, I will not consider jailing someone for this view seriously until you who support this say something about the Rothschilds funding Hitler. The JEWISH Rothschilds. But, none of you will. Just like the responses (read: lack of responses
) to that link ArchAngel posted. Don't worry; I'll post a couple of the quotes for you...

"If I am asked, "Could you give from the UJA moneys to rescue Jews, 'I say, NO! and I say again NO!" - Izaak Greenbaum -- head of Jewish Agency Rescue Committee February 18, 1943

"One Cow in Palestine is worth more than all the Jews in Poland" - Izaak Greenbaum

Source
As late as 1943, while the Jews of Europe were being exterminated in their millions, the U.S. Congress proposed to set up a commission to "study" the problem. Rabbi Stephen Wise, who was the principal American spokesperson for Zionism, came to Washington to testify against the rescue bill because it would divert attention from the colonization of Palestine.
This is the same Rabbi Wise who, in 1938, in his capacity as leader of the American Jewish Congress, wrote a letter in which he opposed any change in U.S. immigration laws which would enable Jews to find refuge. He stated:

"It may interest you to know that some weeks ago the representatives of all the leading Jewish organizations met in conference ... It was decided that no Jewish organization would, at this time, sponsor a bill which would in any way alter the immigration laws."

Certainly looks like a conspiracy to me; question is, who is/was pushing it? With stuff like this, why is it so bad to question or even deny this event? (this is not posed as a question within countries bound by these laws; this is posed as a broad question)



posted on Feb, 26 2006 @ 05:35 PM
link   

Originally posted by truthseeka

Originally posted by HowlrunnerIV
Perhaps the UN could make Holocaust Denial an international crime, might make life difficult for the Turkish government...


OOOH!

So now we need INTERNATIONAL crime laws? You're gonna love globalism, then.


You missed my point, which was about Armenia.




"If I am asked, "Could you give from the UJA moneys to rescue Jews, 'I say, NO! and I say again NO!" - Izaak Greenbaum -- head of Jewish Agency Rescue Committee February 18, 1943

"One Cow in Palestine is worth more than all the Jews in Poland" - Izaak Greenbaum

Certainly looks like a conspiracy to me; question is, who is/was pushing it? With stuff like this, why is it so bad to question or even deny this event? (this is not posed as a question within countries bound by these laws; this is posed as a broad question)


I don't see a conspiracy. I see Machiavellian means to an end, propounded by someone with a total disconnect (cough, uggh) to the reality, but no conspiracy...



posted on Mar, 24 2006 @ 10:38 AM
link   
Ironically had the revisionists not been allowed to study or question the Holocaust the Auschwitz figures wouldn't have been revised to show millions of fewer Jews died there. I mean that is a good thing isn't it? Millions fewer suffered than initially reported?

I'm not here to upset those with emotional ties to the holocaust, I just want to see the rules applied fairly. You deny people the right to question history in one instance, do it for the rest. I always thought people were discerning enough to see an ass when they hear one. I guess it's better that we let the lawmakers do our thinking for us. They prefer it that way anyways.

A quick question to all those who think Holocaust Denial is worthy of criminal punishment. Would you be as quick to call for the same sanctions if the topic of discussion were the genocides of Stalin's Russia, or of the Africans, the Muslims. etc? It's ok to say no since this is an emotional topic and we are all emotional beings. I would just like to know.

I say let the people (deniars) make fools of themselves - otherwise shouldn't we be jailing all the politicians that have lied about the Iraq war? People are dying there right now.....



posted on Mar, 26 2006 @ 05:13 PM
link   

Originally posted by jimmytango
Would you be as quick to call for the same sanctions if the topic of discussion were the genocides of Stalin's Russia, or of the Africans, the Muslims. etc?


In a word...

Yes.

In several words...

Australia has a holocaust (of sorts) of the Aborigines, but it is not taught in schools and so is routinely denied by politicians, (some sections of) the press and, therefore, the great mass of the people.

Remind me again the motto of this discussion site...



posted on Mar, 26 2006 @ 10:41 PM
link   

Originally posted by HowlrunnerIV
In a word...

Yes.

In several words...

Australia has a holocaust (of sorts) of the Aborigines, but it is not taught in schools and so is routinely denied by politicians, (some sections of) the press and, therefore, the great mass of the people.

Remind me again the motto of this discussion site...


So let me get this straight - governments self-censor the history they don't like and sanctioning the right of free speech of everyday people is going to help 'deny ignorance'? Isn't the stifling of free speech, no matter how ignorant or hurtful, PROMOTING ignorance?



posted on Mar, 26 2006 @ 10:55 PM
link   
when asked about the Holocaust this was said:

Abraham H. Foxman, National Director of the Anti-Defamation League (A.D.L.) On the Frontline, January 1994 p. 2, gives the following answer to this question:

"The Holocaust is something different. It is a singular event. It is not simply one example of genocide but a near successful attempt on the life of God's chosen children and thus, on God Himself."

so you tell me what he meant by that??





top topics
 
1
<< 3  4  5    7  8  9 >>

log in

join