A Narrative from the Past to Justify Present Atrocities

The subjectivity involved in evaluating intent explains the many glaring examples of double standards surrounding the 'holocaust denial' controversy. For example: the 'establishment' historian Raul Hilberg states that the number of those murdered in Auschwitz was not four but one million, whilst the total number of Jews who died in WW II was not six but five million. When he makes such revisions, this is not considered 'denial'.
Yet when an 'unapproved' historian such as David Irving cites the same figures or, for example, that the gas chamber at Auschwitz is a post-war Soviet construction, during his trial in Austria he was not allowed to bring in the Auschwitz director to testify because no question regarding the truth or falsehood of any aspect of the Holocaust was allowed.
In most courts where such cases are tried, there is virtually no defence against 'denial' accusations even if the revision in question is generally agreed-upon by 'non-denier' Holocaust historians. Not only do these surreal double standards make Kafka appear a realist, but also the changing story makes defining the Holocaust, let alone 'denial', almost impossible....

Posted Mar 21, 2007 08:50 PM (external - login to view) PST
Category: ISRAEL (external - login to view)
www.peacebytruth.com/main.php...f70a7bcef84ab1 (external - login to view)
Old story. Fact remains it happened. Why would anyone waste any time denying it?
I dont think they are denying it....I think what they are denying, is that it actually happened the way we have been lead to believe it happened.... the "adjusting" of the "figers" seems to back this assumption up, somewhat, dont ya think...... sort of like the lie was a tad too big...tis drawing unwanted attention...I would've assumed that history under investigation would stand up to all types of scrutiny....that it wouldn't need a court of any kind to help ...
Denial laws are bad mojo.

Laws to curb freedom always start as a popular example ie "illegal to deny the holocaust, Its ok to monitor your internet secretly if we think you are a child molester", then once the concept has been proven they move into grey areas "It is illegal to deny Osama Bin Laden caused 9/11, its Ok to monitor your internet secretly if we think you are committing fraud" and then, after a while longer it finally moves into being downright wrong "It is illegal to deny someone commited a crime for which they have been convicted, it is Ok to monitor your internet usage to ensure you don't do anything wrong"
It happened. And it was utterly unbelievable in its extent and horror. My mom's companion served for the Brits during the war and he was amongst those who liberated one such camp. He took photos and they're in his war scrapbook. The bodies, skeletal and emaciated, are piled in huge heaps in several of them. He said his group leader forced the locals to parade through and witness firsthand what had been going on in their own backyard. It is a compelling and very real story.
It happened and most of those who deny it are racist scum. Racist scum deserve to be jailed so having a convenient law to do it is good.
I think it's crazy to lock someone up for denying it. We know they're wrong, they probably know it too. it makes no difference.

Similar Threads

The Inner Narrative
by jimmoyer | Dec 16th, 2007
Boxers Past And Present
by TomZart | Jan 19th, 2007
Israel's nukes serve to justify Iran's
by moghrabi | Sep 23rd, 2004
no new posts