the holocaust

[nekokate]

Sorry Kate .. hope you don't mind me replying point by point to you.

I wouldn't expect anything less; your pedantry preceeds you (joke)

You use the phrase "only people doggedly interested" .. do you mean all others who don't have an agenda have been scared off from even looking at it?

No, I don't mean that. That's clearly what you think, though. I think that most people who don't have an agenda don't feel the need to callously pick apart such an inhuman part of history and re-write it to somehow make it seem "less terrible". Oh, it was only 5 million? Well that's ok then, what are the Jews whining about? (I'm being facetious here, too, before you quote me on this)

Then you use the phrase "Holocaust deniers" .. what does this actually mean ? It is a phrase like "anti-semitism" which is too easily used to slander people.

You might be right about that. I actually despise labels being placed on people. What would you call someone like David Irving, out of interest? Is there a phrase for him? A Holocaust Cynic? A Holocaust Ponderer?

I do worry about statements like this ... Especially when recent records shows the government of Israel STEALING / HIDING money from Holocaust survivors.

Is this real? Or is this just something you read on one of the blog sites or nutter sites you like to link to pretending it's proof?

[til661]

You're being more than slightly disingenuous GGfan as you well know there is a movement to deny the holocaust/extent of the holocaust for exactly those reasons. You can pick out a couple of examples of people who are doing it for historical accuracy but if you type in holocaust on google you can see thousands of these clearly neo-nazi groups who ARE holocuast deniers and anti-semites. The majority of people are interested in it for the very reason Galloway mentioned and he was clearly refering to these people not survivors who wanted the truth. Your linking of the two is rather snide.

That said it comes down to the idea that you can legislate morality/opinion which i believe is clearly nonsensical and wrong. As a social libertarian I could never support the suppression of free-speech by law and as such I disagree with Galloway (if he suggested that, i'm not sure he did though) just as i disagreed with his support of the religious hatred bill.

[Mandy]

I do worry about statements like this ... Especially when recent records shows the government of Israel STEALING / HIDING money from Holocaust survivors.

Is this real? Or is this just something you read on one of the blog sites or nutter sites you like to link to pretending it's proof?

Do you believe Israeli MPs :

https://www.haaretz.com/hasen/spages/836500.html
"MK Avital accuses experts of stealing from Holocaust victims"
"13/03/2007"


Or how would you classify Haaretz ?
https://www.haaretz.com/hasen/spages/836232.html
"New formula could cut payments to Holocaust survivors, heirs"
12/03/2007
Extract :
--------------------------------------------------
"In a decision that might cut payments to Holocaust survivors, a panel of experts has determined that the estimated value of bank accounts in Israel of victims of the Holocaust has been revised to only about NIS 400 million, rather than nearly NIS 1 billion."

The new estimate of the real value of the deposits is based on a formula chosen by the panel of experts. Had the committee adopted the formula proposed by committee member Yehuda Barlev, an accountant, the estimated value of the dormant accounts would have reached the NIS 1 billion mark.

The committee's decision to adopt the formula it chose theoretically saved the state and the banks hundreds of millions of shekels in payments to heirs of the original account-holders, needy Holocaust survivors and Holocaust memorial institutions. Committee Chairman Prof. Yakir Plessner told Haaretz that the formula was chosen with professional considerations only in mind, and denied that any vested interests affected the decision.

An examination by Haaretz raised several questions with regard to the committee's conduct. In addition to Orgler's appointment to Hapoalim's board, it turns out that Plessner was giving confidential protocols from the panel's sessions to attorney Ram Caspi, who represents Bank Leumi, without the knowledge of the other panel members. Plessner said Monday that he did so because he believed in good faith that the forum's sessions came under the Freedom of Information Law. In another questionable move, Plessner appointed an aide to the director general of the Finance Ministry to the sensitive position of committee secretary, in violation of laws regulating conflict of interest.

According to a statement released Monday by the government company, "This is additional proof that the State of Israel is violating the rights of Holocaust victims and the families of the victims."

In December, it was reported in the news media that Orgler would be appointed to the board of Bank Hapoalim. Yesterday, however, Orgler claimed he saw no conflict of interest and said that the committee made its most recent important decisions in December, one month before he formally joined the bank's directorate.

--------------------------------------------------
Why has it taken 60 years for this ? Shouldn't this money which was under the control of the Israeli government have been paid out DECADES AGO ? Who has benefited from this money all this time ? It certainly wasn't the relatives of the people who died.

Where is the outcry of the media when it is the victims being treated unfairly by the government which should be protecting them ?

[nekokate]

Do you believe Israeli MPs :

https://www.haaretz.com/hasen/spages/836500.html
"MK Avital accuses experts of stealing from Holocaust victims"


Or how would you classify Haaretz ?
https://www.haaretz.com/hasen/spages/836232.html
"New formula could cut payments to Holocaust survivors, heirs"

Very interesting indeed. But I'm not arguing that the government of Israel isn't corrupt! I despise the government of Israel. After reading those articles I agree that things should have been done differently with regard to reparation, but that's exactly what I was arguing for - fairness.

As I said, I believe the victims, and the families of victims, of the Holocaust deserve to be compensated, and an investigation into the Holocaust with the intention of making that easier to do would (for what it's worth) be welcomed by me.

However, I'm not talking about that. As I wrote earlier in this thread, "I don't really have a problem with any sort of investigation into a major historical event", and I can't stress how much I mean that. Looking into the Holocaust for the purpose of facilitating a more accurate way to allocate reparations would be a very good thing. What I am against - and I think you know this already - is allowing known racists, known anti-semites, people with those sorts of despicable agendas from "investigating" it.

til661 put it more succinctly than I have been able to:

You're being more than slightly disingenuous GGfan as you well know there is a movement to deny the holocaust/extent of the holocaust for exactly those reasons. You can pick out a couple of examples of people who are doing it for historical accuracy but if you type in holocaust on google you can see thousands of these clearly neo-nazi groups who ARE holocuast deniers and anti-semites

Also, you haven't yet told me how you'd class David Irving, GG_Fan.

[Mandy]

As I said, I believe the victims, and the families of victims, of the Holocaust deserve to be compensated, and an investigation into the Holocaust with the intention of making that easier to do would (for what it's worth) be welcomed by me.

There is a similarity with 911. If the "official" investigation was thorough, there wouldn't be the scope for so many people to doubt the "official" investigation.

Here we are 62 years after the end of WW2 and files are still being hidden from survivors. These files (which I assume are mostly paper based) will surely disintegrate with time. Why haven't they been digitized ? After all, if google can digitize millions of pages of books from a library, why isn't there a rush on these record ?

Also, you haven't yet told me how you'd class David Irving, GG_Fan.

David Irving's entry on https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/David_Irving pulls no punches.

I would never support Nazis or Neo-Nazis .. but these shouldn't be confused with what you may regard as the "extreme right", such as Alex Jones, Michael Rivero, Ry who are intellectually credible and do not espouse racism, but stand up against government tyranny / fascism .. so are the COMPLETE opposite of Neo-Nazis.

I would call David Irving a "contentious historian who has served over a year in jail in Austria for 'speech crime of trivialising the Holocaust'."

I don't like labelling people, but if you forced me to put a label on him JUST RELATED to his holocaust views, then maybe "Holocaust sceptic", or "Holocaust cynic" (both mean the same) .. but I don't think any single label is really appropriate.

[til661]

I would never support Nazis or Neo-Nazis .. but these shouldn't be confused with what you may regard as the "extreme right", such as Alex Jones, Michael Rivero, Ry who are intellectually credible and do not espouse racism, but stand up against government tyranny / fascism .. so are the COMPLETE opposite of Neo-Nazis.

Intellectually credible, you are kidding right.

The New York lottery drew 9,1,1 as the winning pick-3 combination in their digit lottery on Sept. 11, 2002

Fascinated with the occult, the globalists believe in the power of numerology. This is just one example of the power elite leaving their numerological fingerprints and associating themselves with the Sept. 11th attacks

1996 action film provides yet more anecdotal evidence of government complicity in 9/11

In a similar vain to the episode of the Lone Gunmen aired on Fox in March 2001, the action film The Long Kiss Goodnight, provides yet more revelations of the method of government complicity in attacks on the World Trade Center

3/11 happened 911 days after 9/11

The horrible Madrid train bomb that killed 190 passengers and created the push for more Draconian laws and surveillance internationally happened 911 days after 9/11.

Related Articles:

Terror: 911 days after 9/11

All from his website.

Now i'm not suggesting Alex Jones is either a holocuast denier an anti-semite or a racist, what he is though is a lunatic who believes in Lizards and hidden Masonic Rituals which are enough to convince me that anyone who regards him as a credible news source is...misguided...at best and leads me to take what you say with a pinch of salt.

Now back on topic, you call David Irving a 'holocaust cynic' why do you think he is cynical of the holocaust, what do you think his agenda is? what is the purpose of his cynicism?

[Mandy]

Regarding Alex Jones, I don't agree with all his views, but I agree with his views that the Military Industrial Complex is exerting too much control over the citizens of the US. Indeed, that is the core of what you may call the "extreme right" in the US, it is an anti-fascist, pro-constitution movement. Indeed, they may even be called "liberals" due to their belief in individual freedom and against state domination/control of their lives.

But as you said, back to topic. Regarding David Irving's agenda, whether he really wished the holocaust to happen or wishes to do the same to others in future, I frankly don't know.

But, as the poll shows, we are 100% in this forum behind NOT making illegal what David Irving has done in the past, and for which he was jailed for over a year.

[Colston]

Although not entirely on topic... whilst studying at Manchester I encountered a guy Norman Geras who taught me on a Holocaust course...

His book The Contract of Mutual Indifference: Political Philosophy After the Holocaust is a great read and based around the themes of the course.

https://www.amazon.co.uk/Contract-Mutual ... 1859842291

[nekokate]

But, as the poll shows, we are 100% in this forum behind NOT making illegal what David Irving has done in the past, and for which he was jailed for over a year.

But that's because the poll question is pointless and doesn't relate to what we're actually discussing. Incidentally, I have not voted either way in the poll attached to this thread.

What I'm talking about is not whether "investigations" (which could conceivably mean anything) should be allowed, but whether racist scum should be allowed to conduct biassed investigations with the full intention to try and juggle the "evidence" to further their cause. If that was the question then I would vote "no", but since the poll question is so vague, it actually makes no difference to the discussion.

The poll has nothing to do with what David Irving has done. Read it again:

Should it be made illegal to question certain historial events, such as the holocaust?

yes - if the crimes were so bad, it should be illegal to question them
no - history should always remain open to investigation, questioning of anything should never be made illegal

How can I vote yes, when in doing so I would be agreeing that if a crime is very bad, it shouldn't be "questioned"? That is a retarded point of view.

[Mandy]

Sorry Kate I don't agree with your interpretation of what the poll means. I think the poll's result would be relevant to David Irving. Someone voting "yes" is liable to accept that people can be sent to jail for questioning (whether via criticism, investigation, questioning .. call it what you like) "certain historical events" like the Holocaust. Someone voting "no" I believe would disagree with David Irving's jailing for a "speech crime" (that sounds so Orwellian).

[faceless]

I don't disagree with David Irving's imprisonment - as it was a crime committed in a country where the law was set and clear. He took the chance and he paid the price.

[Mandy]

I don't disagree with David Irving's imprisonment - as it was a crime committed in a country where the law was set and clear. He took the chance and he paid the price.

I see your point that he broke the law. I think the poll is really about whether people think that law should have been there in the first place (i.e. that was what I meant about disagreeing with David Irving's jailing).

[nekokate]

Sorry Kate I don't agree with your interpretation of what the poll means. I think the poll's result would be relevant to David Irving. Someone voting "no" is liable to accept that people can be sent to jail for questioning (whether via criticism, investigation, questioning .. call it what you like) "certain historical events" like the Holocaust. Someone voting "yes" I believe would disagree with David Irvings jailing for a "speech crime" (that sounds so Orwellian).

You are so pedantic you are in grave danger of becoming a parody of yourself. Think back to the thread on the Rumsfeld quote where you pulled exactly the same stunt - you steadfastly refuse to acknowledge facts that are staring everyone else in the face.

I have not "interpreted" what the poll means, I have simply read the question, and have chosen to understand it literally. Maybe you chose to paraphrase it, instead?

The poll asks if investigations in general should be allowed. And of course they should. But the direction you've taken this thread in means that the poll question is not relevant. I am (repeating myself, now) not against investigations per se, but against investigations by people who seek to deliberately skew that investigation because of their nasty, racist world views.

When you refer to the reason for Irving's imprisonment as down to a "speech crime", that kinda makes me just shake my head and wryly grin. To paraphrase (see, I use that word in context) George himself: Do you not understand the difference between free speech and shouting "FIRE!" in a dark and crowded theater house?

[Mandy]

Kate,

When I used the phrase "speech crime", I used it in quotes .. because I first mentioned it (in posting Sun Apr 01, 2007 6:33 pm) I quoted the URL where I copy/pasted it from, i.e. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/David_Irving which STATES :
"he was charged by state prosecutors with the speech crime of trivialising the Holocaust."

If you think Wikipedia is wrong, please edit it.

p.s. I do agree with limitations of free speech .. the question is about drawing the line. Investigating the Holocaust, even if you have other motivations shouldn't be banned (not least since trying to judge someone's true intentions before "allowing them" to investigate something seems too Orwellian to me). In research, if enough people (with the right motivation) investigate it, they should be able to "stand up" to the charlatans [or evil-doers].. whoever they may be.

[til661]

The fundamental of this issue is very clear, should the state criminalise racist/anti-religious/non-conformist speech. As I said before there is no doubt that the majority of those who are examining the holocaust are doing it with a fascist agenda, that much is clear.

Now, the question is what do we do against this as citizens or what does the state do in our name. One option is to use the power of the state to imprison people for their views the other is to allow them to speak but challenge their lies with truth.

The first option has many drawbacks, amongst others it can lead to a sense of martyrdom amongst the purveyors another is that is a slippery slope because to agree with GGfan (for once ) who draws the line, where does it stop?

The second option is to counter their lies with truth. Now the main drawback of this is the fact that it relies on the majority having enough information to make the right decision (which in this case i would argue is true).

This is all based on the fact that the people in question aren't actively calling for violence or intimidation against a group or indivdual which is already covered in existing law.