General Holocaust Denial Discussion Part II

[floghammer]

I've been thinking about your position lately. You claim that the Jews would've leaped into furious action under the atrocities they suffered. Leaving aside the logical inconsistencies which have been pointed out over and over, you also claim that your position is more charitable to the Jews.

Your position is that the Jews would've had a reaction to their suffering that is completely unlike other oppressed groups throughout history. You are holding them to an unrealistically high standard, and claiming that since they do not meet that standard, they could not every have been in the situation in the first place. The official story holds them to a much lower, more human standard. And I have never, ever see you respond to requests to explain the difference between the Jews and any other groups save the Soviet POWs, and even then only after you took weeks to come up with a hand-wave which was proven wrong almost immediately and which you never addressed again.



Oh snap.

US soldiers taken prisoner by the Japanese during World War II suffered brutal treatment. US POW taken prisoner by the Germans were on holiday compared to those taken by the Japanese. Was there ever an uprising by the Americans in Japanese prison camps?

 

[Mondial]

Had these groups ever done anything before, and have they done anything since?


No?


How do you know that they ever even existed, except as scapegoats? Since he had been accused by other deniers of being a police informant, isn't at least as like that it was *they* who car bombed him?

Especially since there were none of the threats CM posits against his life, but neo-Nazis *do* have a habit of violence?

You turn the truth on it's head. Typical hasbarat tactic. www.gregfelton.com/media/2009_10_25.htm Francois Duprat was murdered because he was a holocaust revisionist. Provide evidence that he was a "police informant" with a link please. The JDL - Jewish Defence League - has a history of violence www.ihr.org/books/ztn.html against holocaust revisionists and was listed as a terrorist organisation by the FBI but I don't see you condemning them. My post was a response to the claim that there was no violence against holocaust revisionists which is an out and out lie.

 

[Mondial]

No, they were convicted of inciting racial hatred. And pretty much lost evrey appeal of the conviction, which could have been overturned by showing the factual nature of their publications (which factual basis they were spectacularly unable to demonstrate) -- but did get their sentences reduced slightly, which speaks against the conspiracy you and little clayton posit.

The claim of inciting racial hatred could also have been used against the promoters of the Muhammad cartoons. But Western politicians and media upheld it as an example of freedom of expression and denied the same excuse to the promoters of Tales of the Holohoax. www.vho.org/aaargh/fran/livres9/TalesV2.pdf That is the point I am making.

 

[000063]

US soldiers taken prisoner by the Japanese during World War II suffered brutal treatment. US POW taken prisoner by the Germans were on holiday compared to those taken by the Japanese. Was there ever an uprising by the Americans in Japanese prison camps?

idk

You turn the truth on it's head. Typical hasbarat tactic. www.gregfelton.com/media/2009_10_25.htm Francois Duprat was murdered because he was a holocaust revisionist. Provide evidence that he was a "police informant" with a link please. The JDL - Jewish Defence League - has a history of violence www.ihr.org/books/ztn.html against holocaust revisionists and was listed as a terrorist organisation by the FBI but I don't see you condemning them. My post was a response to the claim that there was no violence against holocaust revisionists which is an out and out lie.

And TSR's point (and mine) is that there is no significant evidence that he was killed, specifically, for being a holocaust revisionist. There was a post facto claim by groups which no one had ever heard of before and ever heard of again, which no one can actually prove even existed, and he had plenty of political enemies capable of murder even aside from his fine, fine revisionist work. It is, in fact, fairly common for groups to claim responsibility for things they had nothing to do with.

And, of course, you don't actually answer TSR's questions. And you accuse him of being dishonest?

Of course, if HRs are being offed left and right for being HRs, you should be able to find evidence of others easily.

 

[Mondial]

Really? France and Poland *weren't* invaded, and Switzerland was never threatened by the Nazis?

Is that your final answer?

And pardon me, but I have consistently (and hereby do again) condemn laws against Holocaust denial. The answer to this delusion is not suppression, but to shine the hard light of historical fact on it, the better to point and laugh as is curls up and dies.

However, I (unlike you) am not compelled to lie about that history and (also unlike you) have empathy for those countries subject to the Nazi scourge and who have freely and democratically enacted such laws as they feel appropriate to make it more difficult for such hate to take root again.

You decry laws which, among other things, make it more difficult to deny genocides of any description, and yet we have never once heard your opinion on the Nuremberg laws.

What say you on *that* topic?

Can you read? I said "France, Poland and Switzerland which never had a nazi government". That means a home grown government of nazis of their own country - it does not mean nazi occupied like France or Poland was. And Switzerland was neutral and did not have a nazi government either.

 

[Border Reiver]

Except your analogy is flawed.

Inciting hatred by denying genocide =\= posting irreverent pictures of a religious figure.

 

[Mondial]

idk



And TSR's point (and mine) is that there is no significant evidence that he was killed, specifically, for being a holocaust revisionist. There was a post facto claim by groups which no one had ever heard of before and ever heard of again, which no one can actually prove even existed, and he had plenty of political enemies capable of murder even aside from his fine, fine revisionist work. It is, in fact, fairly common for groups to claim responsibility for things they had nothing to do with.

And, of course, you don't actually answer TSR's questions. And you accuse him of being dishonest?

Of course, if HRs are being offed left and right for being HRs, you should be able to find evidence of others easily.

Of course you don't condemn the terrorist activities of the Jewish Defense League either. www.ihr.org/books/ztn.html So get off your high horse.

 

[000063]

The claim of inciting racial hatred could also have been used against the promoters of the Muhammad cartoons. But Western politicians and media upheld it as an example of freedom of expression and denied the same excuse to the promoters of Tales of the Holohoax. www.vho.org/aaargh/fran/livres9/TalesV2.pdf That is the point I am making.

So if I draw a cartoon with the message of something like "kill all the coons", that would certainly be attempting to incite racial violence. It would also be quite odd, being a "coon" myself.

But if you'd like to make points about similar issues by way of red herring instead of addressing the fact that you were, once again, wrong, feel free to do so. I'd just like to point out that your heroes were charged in the UK, and the Danish cartoon making a point about Islam and criticism thereof is not race related unless one attaches the religion of Islam only to Arabs. Which is itself an incorrect and arguably racist assumption. Ironically, in making a point about depictions of Islam being controversial, a controversy erupted.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jyllands-Posten_Muhammad_cartoons_controversy#Opinions_and_issues

Religion is often portrayed in ways that some other societies may consider illegal blasphemy.[128][129][130] While Jyllands-Posten has published satirical cartoons depicting Christian figures,[131] it also rejected unsolicited surreal cartoons in 2003 which depicted Jesus,[132] opening them to accusations of a double standard.[133] In February 2006, Jyllands-Posten also refused to publish Holocaust denial cartoons offered by an Iranian newspaper.[134][135] Six of the less controversial entries were later published by Dagbladet Information, after the editors consulted the main rabbi in Copenhagen,[136] and three cartoons were in fact later reprinted in Jyllands-Posten.[137][138] After the competition had finished, Jyllands-Posten also reprinted the winning and runner-up cartoons.[139]

 

[000063]

Of course you don't condemn the terrorist activities of the Jewish Defense League either. www.ihr.org/books/ztn.html So get off your high horse.

Evasion noted.

I don't know enough about them to form an opinion, and it is irrelevant to the fact that there is no real evidence wossname was actually killed for being a holocaust denier. Most likely, he was killed by other Neo-Nazis who made up some Jewish boogeymen.

 

[Mondial]

And the sad part is, Mondial doesn't even realize it's backhanded acknowledgement that Holocaust denial is all about Jew hatred...

Typical hasbarat response. www.gregfelton.com/media/2009_10_25.htm

Holocaust revisionism is not about Jew hatred. It is about correcting lies and fake atrocity stories from a conflict which ended 67 years ago which are used to justify more wars and bloodshed. Saddam Hussein is the new Adolf Hitler, Mahmoud Ahmadinejad is the new Adolf Hitler etc etc ad infinitum! There are Jews who are holocaust revisionists http://forum.codoh.com/viewtopic.php?t=6912 as this link demonstrates so how could it be about Jew hatred. Just another hasbarat lie.

 

[000063]

Five bucks says Mondial stops discussing his dubious claim entirely.

 

[Mondial]

So if I draw a cartoon with the message of something like "kill all the coons", that would certainly be attempting to incite racial violence. It would also be quite odd, being a "coon" myself.

But if you'd like to make points about similar issues by way of red herring instead of addressing the fact that you were, once again, wrong, feel free to do so. I'd just like to point out that your heroes were charged in the UK, and the Danish cartoon making a point about Islam and criticism thereof is not race related unless one attaches the religion of Islam only to Arabs. Which is itself an incorrect and arguably racist assumption. Ironically, in making a point about depictions of Islam being controversial, a controversy erupted.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jyllands-Posten_Muhammad_cartoons_controversy#Opinions_and_issues

I don't have any problem with the Muhammad cartoons as I support freedom of expression for everyone. But some people have pointed out that these cartoons could be labelled racist as they depicted him wearing a turban and wearing traditional Arab attire. Tales of the Holohoax is a satire just as the Muhammad cartoons are a satire. People should not go to jail for satire.

 

[Corsair 115]

Holocaust revisionism is not about Jew hatred. It is about correcting lies and fake atrocity stories from a conflict which ended 67 years ago ...

And yet Germany and Germans, the place and people which should be the most in agreement with Holocaust 'revisionism', instead reject it and even today are still publishing research works which continue to demonstrate the reality of the Holocaust.

 

[TSR]

You turn the truth on it's head. Typical hasbarat tactic.

Funny, that terms seems to have been coined to relate to Zionists, so I fail to see why you use it to refer to me.

Francois Duprat was murdered because he was a holocaust revisionist.

And your evidence of this is ... ?

Because any non-denier reference I have ever seen ties it either to his tome "Argent et Politique" about the funding of several far right wings groups, or to his ties to Syria and the Palestinians.

Provide evidence that he was a "police informant" with a link please.

Hypocrite much?

In any case, Frédéric Charpier "Génération Occident : de l'extrême droite à la droite" which is referenced here discusses how Duprat was drummed out of that organization for that very reason.

The JDL - Jewish Defence League - has a history of violence www.ihr.org/books/ztn.html against holocaust revisionists and was listed as a terrorist organisation by the FBI but I don't see you condemning them.

Then you haven't been paying attention, since I have and do, unreservedly condemn their violent actions.

My post was a response to the claim that there was no violence against holocaust revisionists which is an out and out lie.

No, it very clearly was in response to a statement by one of your fellow travellers that

Ostracizing and threats of death work well 99.44% of the time.

... thereby showing the dishonesty for which deniers are so rightly condemned.

 

[TSR]

Can you read? I said "France, Poland and Switzerland which never had a nazi government". That means a home grown government of nazis of their own country - it does not mean nazi occupied like France or Poland was. And Switzerland was neutral and did not have a nazi government either.

*You* may have mean that when *you* used the term that time, but that is not the *normative* definition of the term. This was apparently in response to my statement of understanding that those countries might be sensitive to a rebirth of Nazism (note the capitalization) which everyone else in the world understands to refer to a specific political movement originating in Germany in the late 30's, given the fact that the Nazis nearly destroyed their countries.

 

[TSR]

Holocaust revisionism is not about Jew hatred.

Yes, yes it is, both in general and in your specific case, which you demonstrate by using that term to refer to my posts.

It is about correcting lies and fake atrocity stories from a conflict which ended 67 years ago which are used to justify more wars and bloodshed.

Can you name *one* fact that any denier has *ever* corrected?

Can you cite *one* atrocity story first shown to be fake by a denier?

Saddam Hussein is the new Adolf Hitler, Mahmoud Ahmadinejad is the new Adolf Hitler etc etc ad infinitum!

I condemn those usages as well.

There are Jews who are holocaust revisionists http://forum.codoh.com/viewtopic.php?t=6912 as this link demonstrates so how could it be about Jew hatred.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Self-hating_Jew (granting the legitimacy of what ever is at that link, something I am only doing for the sake of argument.)

Give up while you are behind...

I'll tell you what: name any denier you want, and I will cite the demonstration of their hate.

Just another hasbarat lie.

You keep using that word. It does not mean what you think it does.

 

[TSR]

I don't have any problem with the Muhammad cartoons as I support freedom of expression for everyone. But some people have pointed out that these cartoons could be labelled racist as they depicted him wearing a turban and wearing traditional Arab attire.

But simply being racist != inciting hatred.

Try again.

 

[Multivac]

Was it the Judean People's Front and the People's Front of Judea?

Splitters! What about the Popular People's Front of Judea?

 

[LemmyCaution]

Or more simply, the Jews.

 

[Border Reiver]

Typical hasbarat response. www.gregfelton.com/media/2009_10_25.htm

Holocaust revisionism is not about Jew hatred. It is about correcting lies and fake atrocity stories from a conflict which ended 67 years ago

Fake atrocities? Were the camps carefully set up while WWII was being waged by agent provocateurs and phony orders sent from the nazi government to divert resources so that the Allies could win and score propaganda points?

which are used to justify more wars and bloodshed.

Which wars are you referring to? I am unaware of any war that cites Holocaust atrocities as the justification.

Saddam Hussein is the new Adolf Hitler, Mahmoud Ahmadinejad is the new Adolf Hitler etc etc ad infinitum!

Because hyperbole has never been used to demonize the other ever before in human history! I'm sure that the propaganda employed by the Saxon merchants of Transylvania would never have stooped to exageration in their pamphlets about Vlad Dracula, or the west in describing German soldiers as "the Hun", or about 15 years of referring to Napoleon as the "Corsican Ogre" those were statements of facts, correct?