Editor fired after publication of Islam cartoons

[kc456 0]

I think people should just chill.

[46]

I have cleaned-up the thread for readability and due to the annoyance of combination and bugginess of the new board. If you feel this was malicious, I apologize and can only request that you reinstate what I have omitted (at your peril, it took me 20 minutes to write and 45 minutes so far to post)

The offending line, unedited:

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 ? )

Your response:

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.

I produced it. If you would like another look, fine. Flogging a dead horse in my opinion, but if you insist:

1. Holocaust denial and other pro-nazi revisions of history are banned in many European nations. In the context of our discussions and yours with ET, this was your point.

2. You state that, "Any questioning of or attempt to do objective studies of the Holocaust is a jailable offense in most European countries."

I simply combined the two to mean, "objective studies are pro-nazi revisions or holocaust denial." I later presented you with a definition of objective (we'll get to that), and stated my belief that I find those that deny the holocaust or question the veracity of its extent and shrink it by many millions to be idiots.

Where is the lie? The malicious accusation? The quote is yours, is it not? As for textbook examples and whatnot, I can assure you I am simply using what few skills I have gained over a short lifetime and brief education. I have consulted no sources on how to wage this debate.

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.

No, some views of the holocaust are illegal. Objective studies are quite possible and I'm sure many have been done.

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.

I am happy with your definition of objective, mine came from here.

I have not observed these tactics of which you accuse me. The only rewrite I did was to make a singular plural. I took a literal quote and went through the meaning. It was not that difficult and others seem to agree with my assessment. Let me try again, literally only inserting a definition of "objective" you have provided into your quote, and moving the definition of "objective" from before to after the noun "studies" to fulfill the needs of English grammar:

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

This is incorrect. You can do studies on the holocaust based on observable phenomena. Please provide us with examples the observable phenomena which are illegal to include.

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.

Look at my response in the previous two paragraphs. You did, just not directly.

You keep accusing me of libel. I continue to counter with truth.

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."

Those are the studies which are jailable offenses. The studies you find to be "objective." Am I not allowed to apply logic to the world? Are you afraid of the titles your belief engenders?

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 ?

My discussion is rational. What I am telling you that you stated that objective studies of the holocaust are banned in Europe. I respond by saying that holocaust denial, minimization, and nazism are banned in Europe.

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.

I support free speech. I support it absolutely. I support your right to stand on a soapbox in the streets and tell people your version of the holocaust. I support your right to study as you choose. I support your right to write books on the subject. I support your right to tattoo it on your forehead. Truth does survive the scrutiny of light, and the European censorship is bizarre. The holocaust is not sacred. It is one of the clearest examples of the term "profane."

It is open to scrutiny in my eyes. But you are too, and it is immoral, in my eyes, to deny the murder of millions. Those who do deny the murder of millions should be ridiculed publicly. They cannot be smeared if it is truthful, but should never be penalized, jailed, silenced, or worse. I have never said otherwise.

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 Yad Vashem Memorial website has this on its lower left side:

"Yad Vashem, Jerusalem, is the Jewish people’s memorial to the murdered Six Million...." Link

The Auschwitz Museum:

"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." Link.

This number in Auschwitz alone.

I hate the idea of an Orwellian state so much that I would allow you to peddle falsehoods as fact. The truth has come out under scrutiny (I went to the websites!), and I have provided the links for all interested to observe.

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.

Whoops, I meant to say "very similar." That was a mistake. I simply thought it apt as your threats of libel reminded me of the case. I guess I'm not that smart, but I certainly have the facts in this debate.

I like objectivity. Objectivity like what the Yad Vashem Memorial and Holocaust Museum actually state. You presented a definition of the term (for some reason mine was unfit), yet you do not act under it. You further claim victory in your losses then try to cover yourself through obfuscation. I have only taken what you said and thrown it back at you. You seem content to minimize or deny the holocaust, then horrified that I call you on it. Well, here is your chance to vindicate yourself - provide us directly what you believe. You infer that it is that only 1.5 million Jews died, but your proof was fabricated, so I hope it is an alternate theory.

Tell us all what you think would make an objective study of the holocaust or what it might find. You must have an idea, as you stated that objective studies are banned and therefore those done must be biased. Salvage your reputation and dignity.

[PalestineMyHeart 1,897]

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?

It certainly IS true. The law in question states that any public questioning/debate of the findings of the Nuremberg trials is considered "Holocaust denial" and thus a prosecutable hate crime.

Now, the International Military Tribunal at Nuremberg in 1945-1946 found that "the policy pursued" (by the German government) "resulted in the killing of six million Jews, of which four million were killed in the extermination institutions."

If you agree with the current law as it stands in Germany and several other European countries, then you run into the curious dilemma that you would also have to deem several of the most prominent Holocaust historians as "Holocaust deniers," too. Professor Raul Hilberg, author of "The Destruction of the European Jews," does not accept that six million Jews died. He puts the total of deaths (from all causes) at 5.1 million. Neither did Gerald Reitlinger, author of "The Final Solution," accept the six million figure. He estimated that the figure of Jewish wartime dead might be as high as 4.6 million, but admitted that this was conjectural due to a lack of reliable information.

I hope you are finally understanding my point. I am certainly not trying to diminish or in any way deny that horrific crimes occured, as some (even you) would seem to allege. But I don't like the fact that censorship is being used to stifle all debate on the subject. Why should a researcher (or anyone at all) be threatened with imprisonment for simply making their cases based on their own studies or even their own opinions ? (Of course, aside from such issues as libel and defamation of character, which may be proved in a court of law.) We don't need Thought Police to protect us.

What ever happened to the idea of "I may not agree with what you say, but I will defend to the death your right to say it" ???? (Again, to be perfectly clear, I am speaking in the context of this thread regarding opinion/discussion of historical events... freedom of speech certainly does NOT apply to libel or other defamation of character issues.)

I have to go and help pour some cement now, so I will have to return later to address some of the other comments/questions.

[Fischkoepfin 1]

It certainly IS true. The law in question states that any public questioning/debate of the findings of the Nuremberg trials is considered "Holocaust denial" and thus a prosecutable hate crime.

Now, the International Military Tribunal at Nuremberg in 1945-1946 found that "the policy pursued" (by the German government) "resulted in the killing of six million Jews, of which four million were killed in the extermination institutions."

If you agree with the current law as it stands in Germany and several other European countries, then you run into the curious dilemma that you would also have to deem several of the most prominent Holocaust historians as "Holocaust deniers," too. Professor Raul Hilberg, author of "The Destruction of the European Jews," does not accept that six million Jews died. He puts the total of deaths (from all causes) at 5.1 million. Neither did Gerald Reitlinger, author of "The Final Solution," accept the six million figure. He estimated that the figure of Jewish wartime dead might be as high as 4.6 million, but admitted that this was conjectural due to a lack of reliable information.

I hope you are finally understanding my point. I am certainly not trying to diminish or in any way deny that horrific crimes occured, as some (even you) would seem to allege. But I don't like the fact that censorship is being used to stifle all debate on the subject. Why should a researcher (or anyone at all) be threatened with imprisonment for simply making their cases based on their own studies or even their own opinions ? (Of course, aside from such issues as libel and defamation of character, which may be proved in a court of law.) We don't need Thought Police to protect us.

What ever happened to the idea of "I may not agree with what you say, but I will defend to the death your right to say it" ???? (Again, to be perfectly clear, I am speaking in the context of this thread regarding opinion/discussion of historical events... freedom of speech certainly does NOT apply to libel or other defamation of character issues.)

I have to go and help pour some cement now, so I will have to return later to address some of the other comments/questions.

I don't know where you got your information, but nowhere in German laws does it state that you cannot discuss how many people died in the Holocaust. That would be truly ridiculous. It is however, a jailable offense to deny or belittle the Holocaust or to say that the extermination of Jews was a good thing. The reason this law exists is that any form of denial of the Holocaust is a denial of the victim's suffering and hence their humanity. This law (StGB par. 130) explicitly names another law that states that genocide is a crime punishable by international law; the term genocide is, however applied to psychological and physical pain inflicted on a certain ethnic group, restrictions on the procreation of a certain ethnic group, etc. VStGB par 6).

Nowhere does it say that 6 million people died in the Holocaust which would be a form of Holocaust denial in itself because number is much higher. Only pointing to the Jewish victims (even though they were in the majority) would also be a form of denial or belittling because there were also non-Jewish victims. I would be really interested where you got your information....

I know it is hard to understand why there are laws in Germany that do not allow you to deny the existence of the Third Reich. But on the other hand, why would anyone want to deny that the Nazi government heavily engaged in genocide and other crimes against humanity. But since you seem to believe this war is a big no-no in terms of free speech how do stand on the law in Turkey that makes discussing the genocide of Armenians and Kurds a punishable offense? And what would you say to someone who said that the US-law allowing to arrest and punish anyone who threatens to kill the president?

[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?

It certainly IS true. The law in question states that any public questioning/debate of the findings of the Nuremberg trials is considered "Holocaust denial" and thus a prosecutable hate crime.

Now, the International Military Tribunal at Nuremberg in 1945-1946 found that "the policy pursued" (by the German government) "resulted in the killing of six million Jews, of which four million were killed in the extermination institutions."

If you agree with the current law as it stands in Germany and several other European countries, then you run into the curious dilemma that you would also have to deem several of the most prominent Holocaust historians as "Holocaust deniers," too. Professor Raul Hilberg, ...

I reiterate my earlier question that you chose not to answer: Where is the law that makes stating objective facts about the holocaust a crime and who has ever been prosecuted under that law?

According to your argument, a warrant must have been sworn out against one Raul Hilsberg for putting the figure below the 6 million mark. The downward revision of the number of Jews killed in Auschwitz would then be a criminal offense as well. When and where were warrants sworn out and when and where were these individuals and organizations indicted? Or are you suggesting that the German authorities managed to let this slip through the cracks?

[PalestineMyHeart 1,897]

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.

I consider the allegations of anti-semitism, Holocaust denial and pro-Nazi-ism to be extremely serious charges, and I'm not one to take them lightly.

And as you can see, his "apology" wasn't exactly sincere... he's still slinging baseless accusations.

You're entitled to your opinion.... and of course, you may react in whatever manner you wish if you are the one accused of such things.

By the way, I never said anything about suing him... however, as a law student, you already should know that the burden of proof is on the accuser, not on the defendant. He's made the allegations -- that's for anyone to see here. But he hasn't been able to justify his allegations with any evidence, so he would likely lose such a battle in court, if there was one.

Good luck with your studies.

ET I am certainly not ignoring you. You have asked many things, and added additional remarks to which I intend to respond, but I am trying to consolidate into one post that isn't frightfully long.

Patience !

[almaty 19]

And how Borat doesn't necessarily represent Kazakhstan.

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

sorry...but he is funny.....

[PalestineMyHeart 1,897]

OK ET.... it's your turn !

I tried to quote each one of your remarks and respond one by one, but the reply became totally unwieldy. And also, with all due respect, we have strayed so far from my original point that I have to remind everyone what it was.

In defense of the right to publish the Mohammed cartoons, you claimed that Europe has free speech. I said Europe doesn't have free speech, at least not when it comes to the Holocaust. One may say anything one wants in Europe about any event in history. Except the Holocaust. Question the existence of God, insult 1 billion Muslims, it's open season on anything and everything, except one subject. If one expresses views that are not in line with the officially accepted version of the Holocaust, one faces the threat of prosecution. This is a fact. And it's a double standard.

Gerard tried to derail the discussion (apparently terrified that we might get too deep into the question of why

opposing views on the Holocaust should be "forbidden speech") by accusing me of being Hitler's henchman, searching like a Grand Inquisitioner for any imagined heresies he might be able to be put on trial here. Sorry it took me so long to respond to you, but I really had to deal with him first.

But anyway back to my main point -- which was not that I categorically support or believe "Holocaust deniers." Despite Gerard's attempts to anagram my sentences into Nazi propaganda that emanates from his own imagination, I clearly accept that horrible atrocities were committed against millions of Jews, and also against other groups, simply for the reason of their religion, ethnicity, mental-physical condition, and/or sexual orientation.

But my personal beliefs are not what I'm defending here, although it was a nice attempt at diversion. What I am saying is that laws which prohibit questioning of the officially established view of the Holocaust are clear examples of the abrogation of the free speech that you claimed Europe has.

Before the howls of "Hitler !" begin again, allow me to elaborate.

In general, the anti-Holocaust denial laws (in Germany and quite a few other countries) state that you cannot publicly question three things:

#1 The Nazi government had a policy of deliberately targeting the Jews for extermination as a people

#2 Over five million Jews were systematically killed by the Nazis and their allies

#3 Tools of mass extermination, specifically gas chambers, were used in extermination camps to kill Jews

Now, these 3 facts may well be the complete and absolute truth. I say "may well be" because all the evidence hasn't been evaluated. Advanced forensic studies, new technology, etc. are continuing to provide new details. The Holocaust might have included horrors that are not yet part of the established view. What some people find frightening is that new evidence might "revise" they want consider "gospel truth."

But new evidence has already led to changes in what is accepted in scholarly circles, as I mentioned (to your outraged cries of "revisionist nonsense.") Although you presented your source claiming more than 6 million victims, others who study the Holocaust (who are also regarded as distinguished, reputable, credible historians) do not accept the 6 million figure. Raul Hilberg places the number at 5.1 million. Gerald Reitlinger estimated that the figure of Jewish wartime dead might be as high as 4.6 million. Are you also comfortable denouncing them as "revisionists" or "deniers" who attempt to diminish the Holocaust or "doubt the numbers," simply because their findings are different than the ones you cited ? I think researchers such as these are rather "Holocaust affirmers," even if they don't agree with everything you believe, or don't pay complete obeisance to the 3 tenets. They are simply trying to find out what really happened, no matter who gets their nose out of joint.

To mandate that any discussion or research of the Holocaust MUST acknowledge and accept 3 basic points of the official view, or be subject to prosecution, is not objective. I say it's not objective because it demands that any study/review of history be considered through the filter of the official stance. If one's alleged research concludes that the official conclusion is correct, then it is accepted and legal. If one's alleged research does not support the official conclusion, it must automatically be considered "Holocaust denial" and a prosecutable crime. This is not objective.

Now before the Gerards in this thread start shrieking that I'm loading Jews into the gas chambers and claiming that I agree with every single statement by any nut case who says Hitler never tried to exterminate anyone, I would like to repeat: What I support is free speech, and the opportunity for dissenting ideas to be openly presented in a free society without threat of prosecution.

No other event in history is subject to such constraints. Other genocides such as the massacres in Kosovo and Rwanda are freely examined, questioned or even argued without any threat of legal persecution. And no one would suggest that the freedom to do so is any kind of hate crime, or incitement to violence, or threat to society or the victims' memory, or any of the myriad excuses given for stifling free and open debate on the subject of the Holocaust.

I'm not sure what your remark (I believe you meant it as sarcasm) about the "'objective' and 'free' researching and debating going on in Palistine, Saudi Arabia, Pakistan, Iran and Indonesia to name but a few places" has to do with the discussion of free speech in a free Western society.

All you have to do is look at the some of the responses to my point on this thread (including, surprisingly, your own) to understand the climate of "thought crimes" that has been created. You yourself said I was guilty of "revisionist nonsense" (!) for even mentioning Hilberg and Reitlinger, and Gerard went so far as to accuse me of "Holocaust denial" and even called me a Nazi.

Scientific and historical research often ruffle feathers. They often rock the very foundations of the establishment. But no one's beliefs deserve the threat of a 21st century iron maiden. And right or wrong, the views of those who might question the official version of the Holocaust shouldn't land them before a modern-day Star Chamber. Government mandates that insist "You have to start and end with our premise" are not freedom of speech. And I'm suprised to think that you would support such ideas.

You (and many others) have staunchly defended the right of the Dutch newspaper to print any article or cartoon they want under the protection of "free speech," no matter how it ridiculous it is, no matter who it offends, and no matter how it has "incited hatred." The cartoons were clearly intended to provoke a reaction, and they certainly succeeded. But you would quite reasonably place blame for any unlawful violent response not on the newspaper, but squarely on the shoulders of the perpetrators of violence (and I would agree with you.)

So why would you support a law created with the specific intent to deny the right of another to freedom of speech -- to non-violently express opposing views on the Holocaust, no matter who gets offended, and to present his "evidence" without fear of prosecution ?

Denmark, and much of Europe, do have a double standard when it comes to anti-semitism. As long as the Semites are Arab/Muslim and not Jewish, it's open season and "free speech" applies.

I am not Himmler's bootlicker for simply pointing out the disparity.

[Chicky 0]

Yes wife, if you took him to court for libel though the burden would be on YOU to prove how his remarks damaged your reputation or inflicted damage on you. If he took you to court for YOUR statements then yes he would have to prove something but since my remarks were towards you and a libel suit against him the burden would be on YOU. I know this wouldn't happen but I was stating that in no way was he slandering you or defaming your name. He never called you a Nazi nor did anyone else, they just asked how your statement that studies denying the holocaust or the number of victims of the holocaust can be objective as it is not rooted in truth nor fact.

[nayalamb 0]

this thread is getting soooo off the point, i am almost afraid to post anything... ALMOST.

i won't address the ET/wife/gerard thing... they can hash that out the best way they can (good luck with that).

i have no problem with anyone protesting anything. protest me if you like, i don't mind, as long as your cartoons can make my butt look smaller and my boobs bigger.

what i have the biggest issue with, is people waging these insane wars in the name of any deity, whether its Allah, God, Buddha, Xenu or whomever else. if they are so all-powerful, they can smite anyone they feel really needs it. they don't require your gunfire and "righteous" indignation (pun intended). too many men, women, children and livestock have lost their lives because people just can't calm the #### down. if someone insults my God, i can pray for them, ignore them or cuss them out. i can gladly leave the hostage taking and slaughters alone. call me crazy but i don't think my God would applaud such a thing.

but it seems like everyone from pat robertson to those clerics ordering fatwas left and right, have lost sight of what their religions are supposed to stand for - love, compassion, humanity and respect for life. not hate, intolerance, and violence.

my 2 cents. protest at will.

(btw, chicky i LOVE your new avatar! )

Edited February 7, 2006 by nayalamb

[Mr. Big Dog 10,747]

OK ET.... it's your turn !

No offense but I gotta ask you: Are you by any chance working for the Bush administration? Is there any affiliation to Scott McClellan? Gotta give it to you: You’re certainly very good at copying his m.o. Just keep repeating that which is false in a hope to elevate it to fact by simply repeating it often enough. Sorry to say that this strategy of the current administration is not working on me. Whether it’s them or anyone else applying it.

Let me re-iterate the central question I have put out there for you yet again: Who has ever been prosecuted in Germany or Western Europe for doing actual, factual research on the Holocaust? Who, when and where?

No more smokescreens: Name of the individual, place and time of the trial. That’s all I want to see.

But I will get into your smokescreen just a little and see if we can lift the fog some to get a clearer picture of why your argument that “there is no freedom of speech in Europe” and that we have some double standard in regards to free speech doesn’t hold any water:

If one expresses views that are not in line with the officially accepted version of the Holocaust, one faces the threat of prosecution. This is a fact. And it's a double standard.

#1 The Nazi government had a policy of deliberately targeting the Jews for extermination as a people

#2 Over five million Jews were systematically killed by the Nazis and their allies

#3 Tools of mass extermination, specifically gas chambers, were used in extermination camps to kill Jews

To mandate that any discussion or research of the Holocaust MUST acknowledge and accept 3 basic points of the official view, or be subject to prosecution, is not objective. I say it's not objective because it demands that any study/review of history be considered through the filter of the official stance. If one's alleged research concludes that the official conclusion is correct, then it is accepted and legal. If one's alleged research does not support the official conclusion, it must automatically be considered "Holocaust denial" and a prosecutable crime. This is not objective.

Raul Hilberg places the number at 5.1 million. Gerald Reitlinger estimated that the figure of Jewish wartime dead might be as high as 4.6 million.

Thank you for effectively deconstructing your own allegation that anyone not acknowledging the “three basic points” will be subject to prosecution. Or has Gerald Reitlinger (at least not acknowledging point #2) indeed been prosecuted? If not, my work here is done as your entire argument really hinges on the claim that objective Holocaust research is a prosecutable offense in most of Western Europe. It is not.

You (and many others) have staunchly defended the right of the Dutch newspaper to print any article or cartoon they want under the protection of "free speech," no matter how it ridiculous it is, no matter who it offends, and no matter how it has "incited hatred."

Yes, I do believe that the paper was right printing that which it saw fit to print as what it printed did clearly not violate any law on the book. And I do believe that other papers were right to re-publish it for their readers to see what the whole debate is all about. I believe that Europe ought to take a stand and defend it’s right to live it’s life based on it’s ideals and standards. And Europe ought to do so with much confidence.

How dare the Muslim community try and dictate what we can and cannot print into our papers when they won’t let us lecture them on what to print in theirs? How dare they criticize us for being disrespectful when they are being disrespectful on a regular basis themselves (I provided links to many distasteful, disrespectful and hate inciting cartoons that are run regularly in the Muslim/Arab media)? As I always say: If you can't stmach it, don't dish it out. It just ain’t cool to throw stones when one sits in the glasshouse. In this case, the Muslim/Arab world and particularly the stone-throwing mob clearly does.

Besides: What’s next? No more sunbathing in Berlin’s city parks? No more nude beaches in Europe? No more pork at the butcher store? Close up the beer garden? I don’t think so.

[pedroh 21]

OK ET.... it's your turn !

No offense but I gotta ask you: Are you by any chance working for the Bush administration? Is there any affiliation to Scott McClellan? Gotta give it to you: You’re certainly very good at copying his m.o. Just keep repeating that which is false in a hope to elevate it to fact by simply repeating it often enough. Sorry to say that this strategy of the current administration is not working on me. Whether it’s them or anyone else applying it.

Let me re-iterate the central question I have put out there for you yet again: Who has ever been prosecuted in Germany or Western Europe for doing actual, factual research on the Holocaust? Who, when and where?

No more smokescreens: Name of the individual, place and time of the trial. That’s all I want to see.

But I will get into your smokescreen just a little and see if we can lift the fog some to get a clearer picture of why your argument that “there is no freedom of speech in Europe” and that we have some double standard in regards to free speech doesn’t hold any water:

If one expresses views that are not in line with the officially accepted version of the Holocaust, one faces the threat of prosecution. This is a fact. And it's a double standard.

#1 The Nazi government had a policy of deliberately targeting the Jews for extermination as a people

#2 Over five million Jews were systematically killed by the Nazis and their allies

#3 Tools of mass extermination, specifically gas chambers, were used in extermination camps to kill Jews

To mandate that any discussion or research of the Holocaust MUST acknowledge and accept 3 basic points of the official view, or be subject to prosecution, is not objective. I say it's not objective because it demands that any study/review of history be considered through the filter of the official stance. If one's alleged research concludes that the official conclusion is correct, then it is accepted and legal. If one's alleged research does not support the official conclusion, it must automatically be considered "Holocaust denial" and a prosecutable crime. This is not objective.

Raul Hilberg places the number at 5.1 million. Gerald Reitlinger estimated that the figure of Jewish wartime dead might be as high as 4.6 million.

Thank you for effectively deconstructing your own allegation that anyone not acknowledging the “three basic points” will be subject to prosecution. Or has Gerald Reitlinger (at least not acknowledging point #2) indeed been prosecuted? If not, my work here is done as your entire argument really hinges on the claim that objective Holocaust research is a prosecutable offense in most of Western Europe. It is not.

You (and many others) have staunchly defended the right of the Dutch newspaper to print any article or cartoon they want under the protection of "free speech," no matter how it ridiculous it is, no matter who it offends, and no matter how it has "incited hatred."

Yes, I do believe that the paper was right printing that which it saw fit to print as what it printed did clearly not violate any law on the book. And I do believe that other papers were right to re-publish it for their readers to see what the whole debate is all about. I believe that Europe ought to take a stand and defend it’s right to live it’s life based on it’s ideals and standards. And Europe ought to do so with much confidence.

How dare the Muslim community try and dictate what we can and cannot print into our papers when they won’t let us lecture them on what to print in theirs? How dare they criticize us for being disrespectful when they are being disrespectful on a regular basis themselves (I provided links to many distasteful, disrespectful and hate inciting cartoons that are run regularly in the Muslim/Arab media)? As I always say: If you can't stmach it, don't dish it out. It just ain’t cool to throw stones when one sits in the glasshouse. In this case, the Muslim/Arab world and particularly the stone-throwing mob clearly does.

Besides: What’s next? No more sunbathing in Berlin’s city parks? No more nude beaches in Europe? No more pork at the butcher store? Close up the beer garden? I don’t think so.

PWNAGE

[w¡n9Nµ7 §£@¥€r 123]

OK ET.... it's your turn !

No offense but I gotta ask you: Are you by any chance working for the Bush administration? Is there any affiliation to Scott McClellan? Gotta give it to you: You’re certainly very good at copying his m.o. Just keep repeating that which is false in a hope to elevate it to fact by simply repeating it often enough. Sorry to say that this strategy of the current administration is not working on me. Whether it’s them or anyone else applying it.

Let me re-iterate the central question I have put out there for you yet again: Who has ever been prosecuted in Germany or Western Europe for doing actual, factual research on the Holocaust? Who, when and where?

No more smokescreens: Name of the individual, place and time of the trial. That’s all I want to see.

But I will get into your smokescreen just a little and see if we can lift the fog some to get a clearer picture of why your argument that “there is no freedom of speech in Europe” and that we have some double standard in regards to free speech doesn’t hold any water:

If one expresses views that are not in line with the officially accepted version of the Holocaust, one faces the threat of prosecution. This is a fact. And it's a double standard.

#1 The Nazi government had a policy of deliberately targeting the Jews for extermination as a people

#2 Over five million Jews were systematically killed by the Nazis and their allies

#3 Tools of mass extermination, specifically gas chambers, were used in extermination camps to kill Jews

To mandate that any discussion or research of the Holocaust MUST acknowledge and accept 3 basic points of the official view, or be subject to prosecution, is not objective. I say it's not objective because it demands that any study/review of history be considered through the filter of the official stance. If one's alleged research concludes that the official conclusion is correct, then it is accepted and legal. If one's alleged research does not support the official conclusion, it must automatically be considered "Holocaust denial" and a prosecutable crime. This is not objective.

Raul Hilberg places the number at 5.1 million. Gerald Reitlinger estimated that the figure of Jewish wartime dead might be as high as 4.6 million.

Thank you for effectively deconstructing your own allegation that anyone not acknowledging the “three basic points” will be subject to prosecution. Or has Gerald Reitlinger (at least not acknowledging point #2) indeed been prosecuted? If not, my work here is done as your entire argument really hinges on the claim that objective Holocaust research is a prosecutable offense in most of Western Europe. It is not.

You (and many others) have staunchly defended the right of the Dutch newspaper to print any article or cartoon they want under the protection of "free speech," no matter how it ridiculous it is, no matter who it offends, and no matter how it has "incited hatred."

Yes, I do believe that the paper was right printing that which it saw fit to print as what it printed did clearly not violate any law on the book. And I do believe that other papers were right to re-publish it for their readers to see what the whole debate is all about. I believe that Europe ought to take a stand and defend it’s right to live it’s life based on it’s ideals and standards. And Europe ought to do so with much confidence.

How dare the Muslim community try and dictate what we can and cannot print into our papers when they won’t let us lecture them on what to print in theirs? How dare they criticize us for being disrespectful when they are being disrespectful on a regular basis themselves (I provided links to many distasteful, disrespectful and hate inciting cartoons that are run regularly in the Muslim/Arab media)? As I always say: If you can't stmach it, don't dish it out. It just ain’t cool to throw stones when one sits in the glasshouse. In this case, the Muslim/Arab world and particularly the stone-throwing mob clearly does.

Besides: What’s next? No more sunbathing in Berlin’s city parks? No more nude beaches in Europe? No more pork at the butcher store? Close up the beer garden? I don’t think so.

PWNAGE

Double and triple PWNAGE, muthafucka!

[w¡n9Nµ7 §£@¥€r 123]

"Islam says it's all right to demonstrate but not to resort to violence. This must stop," said senior cleric Mohammed Usman, a member of the Ulama Council — Afghanistan's top Islamic organization. "We condemn the cartoons but this does not justify violence. These rioters are defaming the name of Islam."

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20060208/ap_on_...et_drawings_125

[Mr. Big Dog 10,747]

"Islam says it's all right to demonstrate but not to resort to violence. This must stop," said senior cleric Mohammed Usman, a member of the Ulama Council — Afghanistan's top Islamic organization. "We condemn the cartoons but this does not justify violence. These rioters are defaming the name of Islam."

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20060208/ap_on_...et_drawings_125

Word. Protest all you care. Just do it peacefully showing the respect that you demand!

Isreal just demonstrated how it's done. In a recent retaliatory act to the publishing of said cartoons by a Danish newspaper, the Arab European League was posting holcaust denying and other anti-semite cartoons on their Holland based web-site in clear violation of Dutch law (not sure what Israel and/or the Jewish people have to do with Denmark printing the cartoons in the first place but I guess for some people out there it's always Israel's and the Jews fault). Anywho, Isreal filed a criminal complaint against the site with the Dutch authorities. Those cartoons are gone. And that's how it's done. No stones, no fires, no threats...