Revisionists vs. Belivers

Discussions on the Holocaust and 20th Century War Crimes. Note that Holocaust denial is not allowed. Hosted by David Thompson.
User avatar
Scott Smith
Member
Posts: 5602
Joined: 10 Mar 2002 21:17
Location: Arizona

Roberto's "Bloody Jew" remark.

Post by Scott Smith » 09 May 2002 11:42

Roberto wrote: So the Reverend feels cheated because the bloody Jew Nussbaum he had been told died in the gas chambers was eventually found to have survived. A statement that says much about the Reverend’s mentality and raises two questions:
No, not cheated because he survived (good for him) but cheated because I was lied to, as is obviously my point.
Roberto wrote: Was I misquoting the Reverend, or was I just teasing him a wee bit, oh simple soul?
I don't mind being teased, but at first you tried to deny to Tony that the "Bloody Jew" comment was yours. I mocked your phrase once before, however, but I can't remember where.

The best thing to do Roberto is just say, "sorry Tony, I was only teasing poor Scotty," and then let it rest without additional insults.

Now, whether Bradley Smith is a bigot or not, and I don't believe that he is, anyone who disagrees with Roberto is an idiot and a bigot. Am I right? Roberto knows all.
:wink:

Here's a new and timely article by Bradley R. Smith:

Amos Oz and the Art of the Bluff, by Bradley R. Smith.

tonyh
Member
Posts: 2911
Joined: 19 Mar 2002 12:59
Location: Dublin, Ireland

re

Post by tonyh » 09 May 2002 11:55

>>Some of the facts may have been under exaggerated or over exaggerated by the victims or the accused.<<

To some people, Alison, this qualifies you as a denier.

Tony

User avatar
Roberto
Member
Posts: 4505
Joined: 11 Mar 2002 15:35
Location: Lisbon, Portugal

Post by Roberto » 09 May 2002 12:20

Roberto wrote:

So the Reverend feels cheated because the bloody Jew Nussbaum he had been told died in the gas chambers was eventually found to have survived. A statement that says much about the Reverend’s mentality and raises two questions:

No, not cheated because he survived (good for him) but cheated because I was lied to, as is obviously my point.
What lies did they tell you, poor truth-seeker? What I’ve read so-far on a “Holosite” goes like this:
And millions of people believed that the frightened little boy of this poignant photograph was murdered, too. As Washington Post commented:" The photograph goes right to the heart - no doubt the boy, like millions of other Jews, were killed by the Nazis ..."
Source of quote:

http://auschwitz.dk/story/id2.htm

People obviously did nothing other than conclude on the boy’s fate having been what under the circumstances it was most likely to have been – and probably was, if the suspicions about Nussbaum explained in my post of Tue Apr 30, 2002 6:45 pm on the thread

Little boy with his hands in the air
http://thirdreichforum.com/phpBB2/viewt ... d9f98f80bf

can be confirmed. The only lie we probably have here is Nussbaum’s about having been the boy on the picture. And even if he was, I’d be rather careful with making a fuss about having been “lied to”, if I were you. Apart from death having been the most likely faith of those shown on the picture under the circumstances, who could possibly have known beforehand that in 1982 a Dr. Nussbaum would show up and claim to have been the boy with his hands up?
Roberto wrote:

Was I misquoting the Reverend, or was I just teasing him a wee bit, oh simple soul?

I don't mind being teased, but at first you tried to deny to Tony that the "Bloody Jew" comment was yours.
Did I, Reverend? Read my posts of Thu May 02, 2002 12:55 pm and Fri May 03, 2002 9:01 am on the thread

Little boy with his hands in the air
http://thirdreichforum.com/phpBB2/viewt ... d9f98f80bf

once again.

Short memory, Reverend, or another of your lies?
The best thing to do Roberto is just say, "sorry Tony, I was only teasing poor Scotty," and then let it rest without additional insults.
I couldn’t resist the temptation to pull poor little Tony’s ears a bit, but did I tell him anything that was not correct, Reverend? Show me.
Now, whether Bradley Smith is a bigot or not, and I don't believe that he is, anyone who disagrees with Roberto is an idiot and a bigot. Am I right?
No, buddy. I only disagree with people whose arguments I can respect. For dishonest hate propaganda I can have no respect whatsoever, hence “disagreement” is the wrong term. “Contempt” is the right one.
Roberto knows all.
Hardly so, but Smith actually seems to be omniscient. Why, he knows beforehand that whatever doesn’t fit into his ideological bubble never happened, without even having looked at the evidence, which he actually does everything to avoid. Go figure.

Allison Webster
Member
Posts: 12
Joined: 11 Mar 2002 14:39
Location: England

Post by Allison Webster » 09 May 2002 12:36

I can't believe that people accuse others of being deniers of the Holocaust just because they like to question things. :roll:

Everyone has the right to question anything, whether it has got anything to do with Holocaust. Its a very sensitive subject to discuss and people must be able to accept other opinions. :x It doesn't mean that you have to agree with them.

Why is it that people are allowed to question any other topic about the Third Reich but not the Holocaust? People are allowed to have their own opinions.

:x

User avatar
Roberto
Member
Posts: 4505
Joined: 11 Mar 2002 15:35
Location: Lisbon, Portugal

Post by Roberto » 09 May 2002 12:59

I can't believe that people accuse others of being deniers of the Holocaust just because they like to question things.
Depends on the substantiation of the questions. More specifically: On whether there is evidence and pertinent arguments or nonsense and wishful thinking behind them.
Everyone has the right to question anything, whether it has got anything to do with Holocaust. Its a very sensitive subject to discuss and people must be able to accept other opinions. It doesn't mean that you have to agree with them.
Nothing against other opinions, but what about deliberate distortions and misrepresentations of evidence and nonsensical dismissal thereof?
Why is it that people are allowed to question any other topic about the Third Reich but not the Holocaust? People are allowed to have their own opinions.
Anybody is allowed to question anything, as far as I’m concerned. If the questions are reasonable and substantiated and indicate genuine interest in the facts rather than an ideological agenda, they even have a chance of being taken seriously.

User avatar
Scott Smith
Member
Posts: 5602
Joined: 10 Mar 2002 21:17
Location: Arizona

IDEOLOGICAL AGENDA...

Post by Scott Smith » 09 May 2002 13:12

Roberto wrote:Anybody is allowed to question anything, as far as I’m concerned. If the questions are reasonable and substantiated and indicate genuine interest in the facts rather than an ideological agenda, they even have a chance of being taken seriously.
And if Roberto disagrees with you then you have an "ideological agenda."
8O

User avatar
Roberto
Member
Posts: 4505
Joined: 11 Mar 2002 15:35
Location: Lisbon, Portugal

Re: IDEOLOGICAL AGENDA...

Post by Roberto » 09 May 2002 13:30

Scott Smith wrote:
Roberto wrote:Anybody is allowed to question anything, as far as I’m concerned. If the questions are reasonable and substantiated and indicate genuine interest in the facts rather than an ideological agenda, they even have a chance of being taken seriously.
And if Roberto disagrees with you then you have an "ideological agenda."
8O
No. If you have an ideological agenda and endlessly shoot the bull in support therof, Roberto won't disagree with you, because disagreement requires arguments worthy of respect. He will despise you.

User avatar
Scott Smith
Member
Posts: 5602
Joined: 10 Mar 2002 21:17
Location: Arizona

Re: IDEOLOGICAL AGENDA...

Post by Scott Smith » 09 May 2002 22:48

Roberto wrote:If you have an ideological agenda and endlessly shoot the bull in support therof, Roberto won't disagree with you, because disagreement requires arguments worthy of respect. He will despise you.
And Roberto, who knows all manner of things as the owl in the tree, divines what arguments are worthy of respect; and having no ideological agenda or opinions of his own, he affirms for humanity what views to be despised and when to blow smoke.
:lol:

Image

Talus
Member
Posts: 4
Joined: 07 May 2002 01:16
Location: Bohemia

Restrictions on speech on the continent

Post by Talus » 10 May 2002 00:04

Roberto, what's your opinion of the legal restrictions on the discussion of the Holocaust in Europe? Do you agree in general that they should be abandoned?

User avatar
Roberto
Member
Posts: 4505
Joined: 11 Mar 2002 15:35
Location: Lisbon, Portugal

Re: IDEOLOGICAL AGENDA...

Post by Roberto » 10 May 2002 09:02

Scott Smith wrote:
Roberto wrote:If you have an ideological agenda and endlessly shoot the bull in support therof, Roberto won't disagree with you, because disagreement requires arguments worthy of respect. He will despise you.
And Roberto, who knows all manner of things as the owl in the tree, divines what arguments are worthy of respect; and having no ideological agenda or opinions of his own, he affirms for humanity what views to be
despised and when to blow smoke.
No omniscience, just observation.

No divination, just common sense.

Opinions like everyone else, but no ideological agenda.

And no blowing smoke, which I leave to the fire-breathing grand dragon.
I prefer facts and arguments.

Image

Did you draw that yourself, Reverend? If so, your drawing skills definitely don't compare to those of your beloved Führer.

Image

User avatar
Roberto
Member
Posts: 4505
Joined: 11 Mar 2002 15:35
Location: Lisbon, Portugal

Re: Restrictions on speech on the continent

Post by Roberto » 10 May 2002 09:08

Talus wrote:Roberto, what's your opinion of the legal restrictions on the discussion of the Holocaust in Europe? Do you agree in general that they should be abandoned?
Talus,

By all means they should be. A democracy should tackle extremists by providing education and information, not by restricting basic civil rights.
Laws against hate speech are also counterproductive in that they give hate propagandists a pretext to whine about "persecution".

I once drafted a petition to the German government, which unfortunately drew little interest on the part of the self-appointed knights of free speech who keep reminding us of the fathomless evil of what they call "thoughtcrimes laws". It goes like this:

<<Dear Legislator of the German Federal Republic,

We hereby request you to revoke the provisions of the Strafgesetzbuch whereby the praising, playing down or denying of violent crimes committed by the National Socialist regime constitutes a punishable criminal offense, as well as any other provisions whereby the dissemination of untruths in support of an extremist political line may be subject to criminal punishment.

We are of the opinion that such utterances should not be sanctioned by criminal prosecution. As the distinguished legal scholar Mr. Baumann of the Neue Juristische Wochenschrift said in 1994:

“Denial of generally known historical facts should not be punishable. For those who maintain, for instance, that Germany did not take part in World War I or that Adenauer fought at Issus in 333, their own stupidity is punishment enough. The same should apply to the denial of the horrors and crimes of the recent German past”.

We are of the opinion that, however disgusting and offensive to certain people the utterance of such propagandistic untruths may be, the democratic state of right should rely on prevailing over them on the free marketplace of ideas. The means to keep the discontented in our society from being taken in by extremist hate speech should be education and information, not criminal prosecution.

Sincerely Yours,>>

User avatar
Scott Smith
Member
Posts: 5602
Joined: 10 Mar 2002 21:17
Location: Arizona

Re: IDEOLOGICAL AGENDA...

Post by Scott Smith » 10 May 2002 09:50

Roberto wrote: Did you draw that yourself, Reverend? If so, your drawing skills definitely don't compare to those of your beloved Führer.
And gee, I thought that the Führer was incapable of rendering a passable likeness of any living thing. Perhaps he was more talented than his critics have thought. 8O
Roberto wrote:I once drafted a petition to the German government, which unfortunately drew little interest on the part of the self-appointed knights of free speech who keep reminding us of the fathomless evil of what they call "thoughtcrimes laws".
Despite the polemical wording of the petition, I said that I would be willing to sign it if in the opinion of my pro bono legal advisor, Mr. Kaschner, it would not get me into trouble with the Bundestablishment, i.e., denied a visa or something like that for pointing out that the Bundestablishment has no clothes. If he would be willing to sign it then I will.

Furthermore, freedom-of-speech must apply to everybody, not just to the extreme-Right but also to the extreme-Left, and all points in between. I'm not sure if your petition adequately addresses that principle or just so-called Hate-speech--i.e., Hate-speech by virtue of some group or other complaining that their critics are engaging in offensive speech or ideas theat they don't agree with--with the totalitarian-liberals then jumping in on behalf of "public order."

If the Thoughtcrimes laws were removed, however, this would be a good step in the direction of true democracy, which must be watered by a free marketplace-of-ideas.

Remember that the anti-intellectual and quasi-religious nature of the anti-Deniers, as typified by Lipstadt, is what got me interested in this controversy in more than a mere tangential fashion. I agree with you that the Thoughtcrimes laws are definitely not helping the anti-Denier cause--at least so long as the USA has the First Amendment, and therefore the Bundestablishment and France, etc. can't keep heterodoxy out of their mental commune.

But you do have the reality of the laws just the same. So-what if lots of anti-Deniers decry the Thoughtcrimes laws that demonstrate the hypocrisy of the totalitarian-liberals, because no one is really doing anything about it. No Wiesels, no Foxmans, no Wiesenthals, no Spielbergs, no Bronfmans; the list is stunning by its nonexistence. For these Holo-Crusaders this shows laziness at best, hypocrisy and dishonesty at worst.

The whole premise of democracy is that people have access to all manner of information in order to make choices. Real history doesn't need censorship.
:)
Last edited by Scott Smith on 10 May 2002 18:08, edited 1 time in total.

User avatar
Roberto
Member
Posts: 4505
Joined: 11 Mar 2002 15:35
Location: Lisbon, Portugal

Post by Roberto » 10 May 2002 10:36

Roberto wrote:

Did you draw that yourself, Reverend? If so, your drawing skills definitely don't compare to those of your beloved Führer.

And gee, I thought that the Führer was incapable of rendering a passable likeness of any living thing. Perhaps he was more talented than his critics have thought.
Whatever the extent of his talents, it certainly would have been preferable if he had pursued an artistic career instead of becoming a politician. :lol:
Roberto wrote:
I once drafted a petition to the German government, which unfortunately drew little interest on the part of the self-appointed knights of free speech who keep reminding us of the fathomless evil of what they call "thoughtcrimes laws".

Despite the polemical wording of the petition, I said that I would be willing to sign it if in the opinion of my pro bono legal advisor, Mr. Kaschner, it would not get me into trouble with the Bundestablishment, i.e., denied a visa or something like that for pointing out that the Bundestablishment has no clothes.
Try to use your brains just once, Reverend. If it were illegal the criticize the existence of laws against hate speech, the “Bundesestablishment” would have busted Mr. Baumann for stating that
Denial of generally known historical facts should not be punishable. For those who maintain, for instance, that Germany did not take part in World War I or that Adenauer fought at Issus in 333, their own stupidity is punishment enough. The same should apply to the denial of the horrors and crimes of the recent German past


don’t you think so?
Furthermore, freedom-of-speech must apply to everybody, not just to the extreme-Right but also to the extreme-Left, and all points in between. I'm not sure if your petition adequately addresses that principle or just so-called Hate-speech--i.e., Hate-speech by virtue of some group or other complaining that their critics are engaging in offensive speech or ideas theat they don't agree with--with the totalitarian-liberals then jumping in on behalf of "public order."
The petition exclusively addresses hate speech left or right because the prohibition thereof is the only restriction to free speech that exists in certain countries.
If the Thoughtcrimes laws were removed, however, this would be a good step in the direction of true democracy, which must be watered by a free marketplace-of-ideas.
Besides allowing for crackpot theories to be brushed aside on the “free marketplace of ideas”, abolition of what the Reverend’s paranoid hyperbole makes into “Thoughtcrimes laws” would leave the Reverend without a key subject to whine about. Which is why I’m not so sure that the Reverend is really interested in unrestricted freedom of speech.
Remember that the anti-intellectual and quasi-religious nature of the anti-Deniers, as typified by Lipstadt, is what got me interested in this controversy in more than a mere tangential fashion.
The “tangential fashion” being the enthusiastic reading of O’Keefe’s toilet paper (the “Journal of Historical Review”, for the newcomers) for twenty years, I suppose. Now tell us, Reverend, what is “anti-intellectual and quasi-religious” about making demonstrable matter of fact statements about the tendencies of a certain writer to distort the historical record in support of his own bias and pre-conceived notions? As I see it, that’s nothing other than exercising the right to free speech.
I agree with you that the Thoughtcrimes laws are definitely not helping the anti-Denier cause--at least so long as the USA has the First Amendment, and therefore the Bundestablishment and France, etc. can't keep heterodoxody out of their mental commune.
Dead wrong, buddy. Hate speech laws help no one other than the True Believers, regardless of whether or not there are countries that don’t apply them. Where would those hate propagandists be without “persecution” to whine about and to convey to suckers the image that “if it’s forbidden, there must be something to it”?
But you do have the reality of the laws just the same. So what if lots of anti-Deniers decry the Thoughtcrimes laws that demonstrate the hypocrisy of the totalitarian-liberals, because no one is really doing anything about it. No Wiesels, no Foxmans, no Wiesenthals, no Spielbergs, no Bronfmans; the list is stunning by its nonexistence. For these Holo-Crusaders this shows laziness at best, hypocrisy and dishonesty at worst.
One of the characteristics of “Revisionists" are the excessive demands that - notwithstanding their own fallacies - they make on their opponents. Are "totalitarian-liberals", whatever that means, supposed to campaign for the right of a bunch of shameless liars to lie shamelessly in certain countries, especially when those liars themselves start beating around the bush when it comes to signing a simple petition to the German government on behalf of their cause? What else do these freaks want? Their assholes washed with rose water, maybe? (A Portuguese saying that comes into my mind whenever I read Smithsonian nonsense like the one quoted above.)
The whole premise of democracy is that people have access to all manner of information in order to make choices. Real history doesn't need censorship.
Just as Mr. Baumann said, see above quote. Censorship should be the prerogative of hypocritical True Believers like the moderator of the discussion forum of the “Committee for Open Debate on the Holocaust”.
I do not believe that Rudolf's offense would be criminal in the United States of America where citizens enjoy the protection of the First Amendment (a protection that would be lost were people like Rudolf and his hero Remer ever to come to power here). Not only do I disagree with such criminal prosecution on principle, but I think that it is counterproductive in that it gives people like Rudolf the ability to claim persecution. My task here, however, is to discuss the history of claims concerning the chemistry of Auschwitz-Birkenau and evaluate their validity. The fact that I think that people ought to be permitted to spread untruths does not make untruths into truths.

[…]

It is much easier to tell a lie than to expose one. Perhaps, that is one of the unspoken reasons that motivates people to advocate censoring hate-speech. Whereas I am opposed to censorship and hate speech laws, I am not embarrassed to call Holocaust-denial hate speech. That is what it is. People who are smart enough to obfuscate using pseudoscientific arguments are also smart enough to know what they are doing: propagating a lie. Although some people may be attracted to Holocaust denial because of gullibility and/or mental illness, these people are not the same people who write these clever but mendacious pseudoscientific reports. The people who write these reports are motivated by a desire to rehabilitate Nazism, an ideology of hate. Hate-speech is what it is, and in calling it that I am merely exercising my right of free speech.

The arguments made by the deniers are, of course, repulsive, but they can only have an effect if the public is not educated enough to see the poor scholarship disguised with footnotes. It is because of this restriction on the possibility of the deniers to have an effect that I believe that accurate information is the best possible response.
Richard J. Green, The Chemistry of Auschwitz
http://www.holocaust-history.org/auschwitz/chemistry/


Image

User avatar
Scott Smith
Member
Posts: 5602
Joined: 10 Mar 2002 21:17
Location: Arizona

GRAY MATTER...

Post by Scott Smith » 11 May 2002 19:38

Roberto wrote:Try to use your brains just once, Reverend. If it were illegal the criticize the existence of laws against hate speech, the “Bundesestablishment” would have busted Mr. Baumann for stating that:
Denial of generally known historical facts should not be punishable. For those who maintain, for instance, that Germany did not take part in World War I or that Adenauer fought at Issus in 333, their own stupidity is punishment enough. The same should apply to the denial of the horrors and crimes of the recent German past.
don’t you think so?
Not necessarily. With Thoughtcrimes laws there is a conspicuous and intentional amount of GRAY area, and that allows the establishment to selectively enforce the laws as it sees fit, i.e., against "enemies" of the State, or for political reasons.
:)

User avatar
Roberto
Member
Posts: 4505
Joined: 11 Mar 2002 15:35
Location: Lisbon, Portugal

Re: GRAY MATTER...

Post by Roberto » 12 May 2002 16:27

Scott Smith wrote:
Roberto wrote:Try to use your brains just once, Reverend. If it were illegal the criticize the existence of laws against hate speech, the “Bundesestablishment” would have busted Mr. Baumann for stating that:
Denial of generally known historical facts should not be punishable. For those who maintain, for instance, that Germany did not take part in World War I or that Adenauer fought at Issus in 333, their own stupidity is punishment enough. The same should apply to the denial of the horrors and crimes of the recent German past.
don’t you think so?
Not necessarily. With Thoughtcrimes laws there is a conspicuous and intentional amount of GRAY area, and that allows the establishment to selectively enforce the laws as it sees fit, i.e., against "enemies" of the State, or for political reasons.
:)
In the True Believer's paranoid mind, maybe. Be informed that the sinister "Bundesestablishment" operates by the principle of nullum crimen et nulla poena sine lege. Can the Reverend show us any provision of the Strafgesetzbuch or any other German legal instrument whereby criticism of government policies or state legislation could be criminally sanctioned?

Return to “Holocaust & 20th Century War Crimes”