Editor fired after publication of Islam cartoons

[almaty 19]

Why don't promient muslim leaders show true outrage and denounce the violence of muslims killing innocent people in the name of thier God? To be such a peacful religion, it certainly is the most violent in all of the world. As such, it is worthy of such accurate depictions as a political statement.

Muslims have much work to do to change the image us non-muslims have of the faith.

Sighs... Muslim leaders and do and have shown outrage. The fact that our media is very selective about what (and who) they choose to air does not change that fact. What it does do however, is create a mistaken impression that religious fanaticism is dominant, which I don't think is necessarily accurate. There are moderate muslims, just as there are moderate christians.

I fully believe there are moderate muslims...unfortunately for the faith they are not the ones we hear from. They are not the ones making media reports every damn day of the week. We do see daily images of common muslim peoples spreading messages of hate. Clerics advocating jihad and moderate scholars rationalizing and justifying violence. We also see little children growing up with a lifes dream of being a suicide bomber in the name of their God. These are real and undisputable facts associated with muslim faith. And it is undeniable that the muslim faith is the most violent in the world. Yes, there are good muslims just as there are bad christians but the facts don't change. Just look at the rhetoric of the President of Iran.

What can the moderate muslims of the world do to improve the image of the faith? Rise up and wage JIHAD against those redical elements and show the outrage. Take your faith back and PROVE Islam to be a faith of peace. Until moderate muslims take responsibility and reclaim Islam from the radicals, the world will continue to view Islam as a religion of violence. Continued violence only confirms what many believe.

Real and indisputable facts eh? The media isn't truth, merely an interpretation of it. What we see on TV isn't all there is, and we should never accept it as such.

Again, there is a big difference between moderate muslims, not only in the middle east but in Europe and the US, and the US who's views are rarely, if ever communicated in the news media. That's not necessarily due to desire against speaking out - but because the media chooses to focus its eye predominantly on the fundamentalist elements.

Here's an article from todays news in which a British muslim leader expresses outrage over the actions of the protesters. Is this man a 'west-hating' fundamentalist?

So, the thugs spreading violence and hate aren't real people? They're just actors employed by the media?

no...the do not represent the majority muslim population..just like the Klan does not represent christians..or the church in Kansas that protests at service men killed in iraq burial

And how Borat doesn't necessarily represent Kazakhstan.

[Mirorgate 0]

Those ignorant enough to question the actual occurence of the holocaust might want to consider an educational trip to Buchenwald, Auschwitz, Sachsenhausen, what's left of the Warsaw Ghetto or any one of the dozens of sites that serve as undeniable physical evidence of the atrocity. I've been to a number of those place and it's one of the most chilling experiences I have ever had. To have some moron or a whole friggin herd of them come around and declare that none of that ever happened is simply outrageous.

Yeah, visited Auschwitz when I lived in Germany.. truely does leave one cold for quite a while. Knew a gentleman in Dharmstaedt also who was a guard there. He was in a wheelchair for life because his commander shot him for refusing to kill the remaining Jews imprisoned when word came that the Americans were close. He was a good man, and I will always remember him as a good man, not an enemy combatant of America in WWII.

Sorry, I know that's kinda random, but thanks for the rememberance ET

[PalestineMyHeart 1,897]

No, your inferred holocaust denial and anti-semitism are out of order. This is a dispute between the secular but mostly Christian nations of Europe and the Muslim world. To insert a jab at Israel and Jews deserves ridicule.

It's maddening to watch moderate Muslims become subject of such racism from the West, yet allow the extreme elements to do their best to validate these views. You will always make a more effective argument if you moderate your rhetoric, stay on topic, and ground your points in reality.

You have just made some very serious, specious and malicious allegations about me which are entirely baseless. You need to put yourself in check.

Where have I EVER made "anti-semitic" statements, OR "denied the Holocaust" (either in outright terms OR by insinuation) ????? My mention in this thread of the fact that free and uncensored study/discussion of the Holocaust is forbidden by law in some countries, or my questioning/criticism of the policies of the Israeli government in other unrelated threads, is an example of neither. And your pulling of the "anti-semite/Holocaust denier" cards shows how desperate you are to stifle such debates.

You have now sunk below the mere hurling of snide insults, and actually stooped to what are legally known as libel and defamation of character. And after all that, you actually have the chutzpah to say that I'm the one who needs to "moderate" my "rhetoric" and "ground" my "points in reality" Look in the mirror, bub.

I am sorry if you feel I have misrepresented your views, and I apologize if I have. Perhaps if I expand upon my logical progression, you could point out the flaw. Here is the quote to which I refer:

Any questioning of or attempt to do objective studies of the Holocaust is a jailable offense in most European countries. (What about that much-lauded "freedom of speech," ET ? )

I believe that had you not referred to forbidden studies on the holocaust as "objective," I would have no grounds for my accusations. However, you did.

1. Holocaust denial and other pro-nazi revisions of history are banned in many European nations.

2. You state that, "objective studies of the holocaust (are) jailable offense(s)."

Therefore, I can conclude that you believe holocaust denial or other pro-nazi revisionist views of history are objective. I define objective to mean, "having actual existence or reality."

You have stated a belief in holocaust denial or some other pro-nazi version of history. I find it to be idiotic. To be libel or any form of defamation, what I said would have to be untrue.

Should you be interested, here is a link to a libel case of the very same structure you are inferring which was tried in Britain.

Your "conclusion" is more than just "flawed," it's complete and utter rubbish.

I challenged to you produce anything I've said that could support your false and malicious accusations against me. Your response: to do something far worse than merely misrepresenting my statements. You now resort to outright lies. Your smear campaign is a textbook case in the types of odious tactics that are often used against anyone who dares imply that any questions at all should be permitted in regard to the Holocaust.

My statement was a response to ET's remark that Europe has freedom of speech. I pointed out that there is not "freedom of speech" in regard to the Holocaust, even if one is simply stating facts. Open and objective

discussion of the Holocaust is "off-limits" in his country and many others, and can be legally prosecuted as a hate crime.

You take my words out of context, and attempt to narrow and distort the meaning of the English language to cover the gaping holes in your argument. Here is the definition of "objective" that you conveniently ignore:

Objective: Uninfluenced by emotions or personal prejudices: an objective critic. Based on observable phenomena; presented factually: an objective appraisal.

Apparently you are not able to make an argument based on my actual remarks, and feel you can get away with "embellishing" them into some kind of fantasized lunacies, and then attempt to debate with your own fabrication. Your tactic is transparent, an attempt to paint any questioner as some sort of extremist who denies that anything at all happened to the Jews during the Second World War. This is clearly dishonest.

Again, what you wrote:

You have stated a belief in holocaust denial or some other pro-nazi version of history. I find it to be idiotic. To be libel or any form of defamation, what I said would have to be untrue.

You shameless liar, I have never stated anything of the sort. I challenged you to quote anything at all I've said to back up your patently false allegations. You can't, and you know it, yet you continue to dissemble in order to libel and defame my character. You try to put words in my mouth that I never said, and try to re-write my statements into something so far removed from I've actually stated that it is virtually unrecognizable. And anyone who would entertain your false and malicious allegations obviously can't read.

Then you add this in a subsequent post:

Exactly, and she questioned it by stating that banned studies (those which deny the holocaust) are objective.

Denial of genocide is just one of my hot buttons.

This is another of your deliberate fabrications. I never made such a statement. I never said anything about "banned studies which deny the Holocaust" being "objective."

It seems you will not engage in a rational discussion. If one lie won't silence me, then you try another. What will you accuse me of next, making lampshades and soap out of murdered Jews ?

You pretend to apologize for misrepresenting me, then you proceed to do it all over again, and add a new inflammatory epithet: "pro-Nazi." How much lower will you continue to go in your pathetic efforts to stifle any reasonable discourse that doesn't line up with your view of what should be "permissable" thought and

discussion ?

Hitler was a very bad man. Your attempt to confront anyone who might dare to ask perfectly reasonable

comments and questions, and label them as some kind of follower of Hitler is quite insulting to the horrific crimes that were committed against the European Jews, and belittles the Holocaust itself.

There is nothing immoral or illegal about asking questions or encouraging debate about historical events. All

history is up for review, whether it is the genocide of the native Americans, the number of kidnapped Africans sold into bondage in the slave trade, or the massacres of Pol Pot. The details of the horrors at Rwanda and Kosovo have been hotly debated for years. Truth will always survive the scrutiny of bright light. Yet you would lift the Holocaust to some sort of sacred status that doesn't allow objective (as opposed to subjective) study, and you seem to think that anyone who dares to do such should be smeared, silenced, penalized, jailed, or perhaps worse.

If someone poses a question such as "Were 6 million killed in the Holocaust ?", then out come the screams of "Nazi !" "Hitler!" etc. But is the Auschwitz Museum a "Holocaust denier" ? Is the Yad Vashem Memorial in Israel a "Holocaust denier " ? Both organizations have revised their figures of victims murdered at Auschwitz, from 4 million down to "about one and a half million." So why should the mere suggestion -- that in light of these new facts, then perhaps the figure of 6 million Holocaust victims might need to be revised downward as well -- be considered a "hate crime" and jailable offense in some countries ? That's the case in Germany today, and it's an Orwellian concept called "Thought Police.

Should you be interested, here is a link to a libel case of the very same structure you are inferring which was tried in Britain.

Are you smoking crack ???? Actually attempting to defend your libel against me by comparing your baseless allegations to Deborah Lipstadt's defense against David Irving's lawsuit ??? You must know you're on the ropes in this debate, and you are desperately clutching at the most far-fetched of comparisons to try to justify your outrageous smears against me.

It's not at all the "very same structure," as you claim.

Let me break it down for you. The Irving libel trial has absolutely no similarity to this discussion, or anything I've ever said. It is another devious attempt on your part to defend yourself for your baseless and unjust accusations of "Holocaust denial" against me.

For those of you unfamiliar with the case, Irving has written several books denying various aspects of the Holocaust. He was arrested in Austria for two speeches he made in 1989, during which he allegedly claimed there had been no gas chambers at Auschwitz. Deborah Lipstadt is an American Jewish academic who exposes Holocaust deniers. In the British trial to which Gerald refers, Lipstadt stood accused of libel for describing Irving in one of her books as "one of the most dangerous spokespersons for Holocaust denial." He then accused her of "vandalising" his legitimacy as an historian, and sued her for libel. And he lost the case; his statements on record were sufficient evidence that she had just cause to describe him as a Holocaust denier.

However you, in contrast, have NO shred of evidence to defend your outrageous allegations against me. Not one.

The Irving case has no comparison to anything I've ever said, even by the wildest stretch of the imagination. I have never "denied" the Holocaust; I said that objective questioning/study of the Holocaust is illegal in many European countries. My statement is entirely true, but it has sent you into a series of hysterical contortions to try to twist my words into some kind of actual moral offense. Your attempt to paste me with the labels of "Holocaust denier," "anti-semite" and now "pro-Nazi" (!!!!) is as absurd as if I would try to call you a Jewish terrorist of the likes of Kach or Kahane.

But it is interesting to note what you neglected to mention. Lipstadt, the person accused of libel in the Irving case, has stated on record that she doesn't think Irving should be in jail. "I am uncomfortable with imprisoning people for speech," she told the BBC. "Generally, I don't think Holocaust denial should be a crime," she said. "I am a free speech person, I am against censorship." She added, "I don't find these laws efficacious. I think they turn Holocaust denial into forbidden fruit, and make it more attractive to people who want to toy with the system or challenge the system."

She's a smart woman. Unlike you, she backs up her arguments with facts.

And I agree with her. No one should be censored (or even banned from VJ) for free speech, even for your egregious libel against me. I am perfectly capable of exposing you as the liar you are right here in front of the board.

Edited February 4, 2006 by wife_of_mahmoud

[Mr. Big Dog 10,747]

My statement was a response to ET's remark that Europe has freedom of speech. I pointed out that there is not "freedom of speech" in regard to the Holocaust, even if one is simply stating facts. Open and objective

discussion of the Holocaust is "off-limits" in his country and many others, and can be legally prosecuted as a

hate crime.

I'm sorry, but that is simply not true. Please tell me: Where is the law that makes stating objective facts about the holocaust a crime and who has ever been prosecuted under that law?

[Chicky 0]

Oh good lord people, get over yourself wife of mahoud, Gerard thought you said something you didn't and called you on it, then apologized for offending you and showed you why he thought what you did. I can understand getting offended but saying its libel and defamation of character?? You wouldn't win that in court as it has to damage some aspect of your life in a big way. I'm in law school so trust me on that one. Libel suits are VERY hard to win, and I mean VERY. Usually only people who have a huge public reputation to uphold win these, and its hard then. It isn't libel, or defamation of character, its just him stating what he thought you were saying and sharing his opinion of it. I have no beef with anyone but I think your blowing what he is saying out of proportion and I HATE when people do that.

Gerard....play nice

No one should be censored (or even banned from VJ) for free speech, even for your egregious libel against me. I am perfectly capable of exposing you as the liar you are right here in front of the board.

Edited February 4, 2006 by Chicky

[mawilson 2,133]

And how Borat doesn't necessarily represent Kazakhstan.

He doesn't??! Man, now you've ruined it for me. Thanks a lot!

[Mr. Big Dog 10,747]

If someone poses a question such as "Were 6 million killed in the Holocaust ?", then out come the screams of "Nazi !" "Hitler!" etc. But is the Auschwitz Museum a "Holocaust denier" ? Is the Yad Vashem Memorial in Israel a "Holocaust denier " ? Both organizations have revised their figures of victims murdered at Auschwitz, from 4 million down to "about one and a half million." So why should the mere suggestion -- that in light of these new facts, then perhaps the figure of 6 million Holocaust victims might need to be revised downward as well -- be considered a "hate crime" and jailable offense in some countries ? That's the case in Germany today, and it's an Orwellian concept called "Thought Police.

The Orwellian German Thought Police, eh? I'm tempted to say that I am so incredibly relieved that we have all this "objective" and "free" researching and debating going on in Palistine, Saudi Arabia, Pakistan, Iran and Indonesia to name but a few places. Where would the world be today without all the enlightenment and liberty and freedom that has been spread from those places?

That said, your revisionist nonsense in regards to the holocaust is really becoming quite embarrasing:

Doubting the victim numbers forms the traditional core of denying the Holocaust.

....

These are minimum numbers tested time and again... In Chelmno (Kulmhof) there was 152,000, in Belzec 600,000, in Sobibór 250,000, in Auschwitz Birkenau 1,000,000, in Treblinka 900,000, in Majdanek 60,000 to 80,000. That is, alone in these large extermination camps nearly 3,000,000 Jews were murdered. In addition the victims of the groups of employments of the SS (according to their own data by these murder commands at least 535,000 Jews were murdered) come, at least, 2,500,000 in Ghettos and concentration camps murdered, those by hard labour, malnutrition, chicaneries, abusing or in other way killing. There is altogether more than 6,000,000 rather than less.

Source - poor translation through google

III. THE NUMBER OF VICTIMS

The overall number of victims of Auschwitz in the years 1940-1945 is estimated at between 1,100,000 and 1,500,000 people. The majority of them, and above all the mass transports of Jews who arrived beginning in 1942, died in the gas chambers.

Source: Auschwitz Museum

Auschwitz was but one of the many places where Jews were systematically killed. The fact that between 1 and 1.5 million were murdered there alone supports rather than negates the total figure of 6 million plus as outlined above.

Edited February 4, 2006 by ET-US2004

[Trumplestiltskin 5,791]

wife of mahoud - perhaps you could qualify what you mean by 'objective studies of the holocaust'. Not judging here - just wondering what you mean't. There has been 60+ years worth of analysis and discussion of the holocaust - just take a look at the European history section of any branch of Borders books. No shortage of objective study there...

[Fuzzness 2]

I'm not saying the cartoon was right or anything.... but gawd, setting ablaze embassies now? They sure aren't helping themselves any. Scary stuff.

[46]

one sec

Edited February 4, 2006 by Gerard

[46]

one more attempt

Edited February 4, 2006 by Gerard

[Chicky 0]

LOL Gerard

[46]

LOL Gerard

There's a really annoying bug which keeps killing my quotes when posts get to a certain length and when edits or addendums combine with it.

[Trumplestiltskin 5,791]

If someone poses a question such as "Were 6 million killed in the Holocaust ?", then out come the screams of "Nazi !" "Hitler!" etc. But is the Auschwitz Museum a "Holocaust denier" ? Is the Yad Vashem Memorial in Israel a "Holocaust denier " ? Both organizations have revised their figures of victims murdered at Auschwitz, from 4 million down to "about one and a half million." So why should the mere suggestion -- that in light of these new facts, then perhaps the figure of 6 million Holocaust victims might need to be revised downward as well -- be considered a "hate crime" and jailable offense in some countries ? That's the case in Germany today, and it's an Orwellian concept called "Thought Police.

I posted before I read this. The answer to your initial question would be yes, More or less. 6 million jews were murdered in the holocaust, the largest single ethnic group, but it wasn't just jews - neither was Auschwitz the only death camp. If you factor in the gypsy's, russian POW's, homosexuals etc, the total number of casualties runs to about about double that. It completely changed the ethnic map of Europe!

The holocaust was as bad as people claim - there were gas chambers, there were mass graves. What purpose is served by quibbling over numbers? A terrible crime was committed that has implications for all of humanity.

It is actually more Orwellian for people to deconstruct history to pretend that it either didn't happen or water down its significance. The main character in 1984 had a day time job doing precisely that. Erasing and destroying documented evidence to make past history the political tool of the present - which is precisely what Iran's President Ahmadinejad has done in his recent comments.

Edited February 4, 2006 by Fishdude

[PalestineMyHeart 1,897]

It makes me laugh when anything said remotely related to Muslim is negative...someone always pulls out the Jewish/Israeli card holds it up and makes a comparison. Why is that?

I also had to laugh at the person who made reference to Jews being outraged if anyone had depicted a cartoon of the holocaust etc etc etc ...and then goes on to use the word 'chutzpah'.

Now that really is chutzpah

The poster who "made reference to Jews being outraged if anyone had depicted a cartoon of the holocaust etc etc etc" is not the same person who used the word "chutzpah" (me.)

You might want to read more carefully, perhaps even taking notes, so that you can at least keep your posters straight.