Iran to host debate on holocaust

[zathuras]

Iran says it will hold a conference to assess the scale and consequences of the Holocaust, which its president recently described as a "myth".
President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad has also sparked international condemnation by calling for Israel to be "wiped off the map", or moved to Europe or the US.

An Iranian spokesman said the seminar would examine the "scientific evidence" supporting the Holocaust.

Six million Jews were killed in Nazi persecution during World War II.

Mr Ahmadinejad's comments received a sympathetic ear in some parts of the Muslim press, but resulted in two rebukes from the UN Security Council.

'Strange world'

Iranian foreign ministry spokesman Hamid Reza Asefi said debate of the issue should not be off limits.

"It is a strange world. It is possible to discuss everything except the Holocaust," he said.

"The foreign ministry plans to hold a conference on the scientific aspect of the issue to discuss and review its repercussions."

He did not say where or when the conference would be held, nor who would attend.

Increased tension

Iran's attacks on Israel have coincided with increasing tension between Tehran and the West on other issues.

The US and Europe are pushing for Iran to be referred to the UN Security Council over its nuclear programme, which Tehran insists is meant only to produce energy, but which the West suspects has the goal of producing nuclear weapons.

Iran has warned the West against going to the council, saying any sanctions against the world's fourth biggest oil exporter could lead to a rise in the price of oil.

In other words, says the BBC's world affairs correspondent Jonathan Charles, "don't hurt us, or we'll hurt you".

Iran's representative to the oil-producing cartel Opec on Sunday called for it to reduce output - a move likely to put more pressure on prices.


news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/middle_east/4615172.stm

[dukeofpain]

No wonder. It's illegal everywhere else!

[dukeofpain]

zathuras said:

Iran says it will hold a conference to assess the scale and consequences of the Holocaust, which its president recently described as a "myth".
President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad has also sparked international condemnation by calling for Israel to be "wiped off the map", or moved to Europe or the US.

An Iranian spokesman said the seminar would examine the "scientific evidence" supporting the Holocaust.

Six million Jews were killed in Nazi persecution during World War II.

Mr Ahmadinejad's comments received a sympathetic ear in some parts of the Muslim press, but resulted in two rebukes from the UN Security Council.

'Strange world'

Iranian foreign ministry spokesman Hamid Reza Asefi said debate of the issue should not be off limits.

"It is a strange world. It is possible to discuss everything except the Holocaust," he said.

"The foreign ministry plans to hold a conference on the scientific aspect of the issue to discuss and review its repercussions."

He did not say where or when the conference would be held, nor who would attend.

Increased tension

Iran's attacks on Israel have coincided with increasing tension between Tehran and the West on other issues.

The US and Europe are pushing for Iran to be referred to the UN Security Council over its nuclear programme, which Tehran insists is meant only to produce energy, but which the West suspects has the goal of producing nuclear weapons.

Iran has warned the West against going to the council, saying any sanctions against the world's fourth biggest oil exporter could lead to a rise in the price of oil.

In other words, says the BBC's world affairs correspondent Jonathan Charles, "don't hurt us, or we'll hurt you".

Iran's representative to the oil-producing cartel Opec on Sunday called for it to reduce output - a move likely to put more pressure on prices.


news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/middle_east/4615172.stm

Doing so will earn you a one way ticket to a German prison cell.



David Irving, Ernst Zundel, Fredrick Toben (standing to the right of Mel Gibsons father), and Germar Rudolph, all behind bars.

[asdf]

Toben's not in prison. The only time he served was the 7 months before he was sentenced.

[dukeofpain]

I guess I was wrong. People don't get sent to prison for thought crime.

[Josh]

I don't think that anyone should be put in prison for having dissenting opinions on history. I think all historical events should be open for examination and questioning. For it is honest questioning and inquiry that leads to the truth. The search for the truth is a noble quest, and there is no reason to suppress what they say. If it is false, then the truth will survive the scepticism, and if it is true, then people would simply have to reevaluate based the new findings about historical events.

[dukeofpain]

josh said:

I don't think that anyone should be put in prison for having dissenting opinions on history. I think all historical events should be open for examination and questioning. For it is honest questioning and inquiry that leads to the truth. The search for the truth is a noble quest, and there is no reason to suppress what they say. If it is false, then the truth will survive the scepticism, and if it is true, then people would simply have to reevaluate based the new findings about historical events.

The reason men are silenced is not because they speak falsely, but because they speak the truth. This is because if men speak falsehoods, their own words can be used against them; while if they speak truly, there is nothing which can be used against them -- except force.

[Josh]

dukeofpain said:

josh said:

I don't think that anyone should be put in prison for having dissenting opinions on history. I think all historical events should be open for examination and questioning. For it is honest questioning and inquiry that leads to the truth. The search for the truth is a noble quest, and there is no reason to suppress what they say. If it is false, then the truth will survive the scepticism, and if it is true, then people would simply have to reevaluate based the new findings about historical events.

The reason men are silenced is not because they speak falsely, but because they speak the truth. This is because if men speak falsehoods, their own words can be used against them; while if they speak truly, there is nothing which can be used against them -- except force.

I agree that the way that many try to silence them with such force shows that there is at least some validity in what they say and that they are for some reason afraid of it. It is sad that people can be punished in this day and age for historical inquiry. It's like a modern day witch hunt. I wonder what can be done to support the end of such tyrannical and backwards suppression of free speech and inquiry.

[ratrace]

Um back to the topic

Iran=hate jews.

why debate on the holocaust?

Btw most of those people that duked posted are all affiliated with the extreme right.

Now are ask yourselfs do you think these people are not Anti-semitic? and they just want to have a unbaised discussion?

Mahmound Ahmadinejad iranian pres "Godwilling the eradication of Isreal would soon be realized through the continued wisdom of the palestinian nation"

now you tell me if iran is not up to something lol

[nymos]

dukeofpain said:

josh said:

I don't think that anyone should be put in prison for having dissenting opinions on history. I think all historical events should be open for examination and questioning. For it is honest questioning and inquiry that leads to the truth. The search for the truth is a noble quest, and there is no reason to suppress what they say. If it is false, then the truth will survive the scepticism, and if it is true, then people would simply have to reevaluate based the new findings about historical events.

The reason men are silenced is not because they speak falsely, but because they speak the truth. This is because if men speak falsehoods, their own words can be used against them; while if they speak truly, there is nothing which can be used against them -- except force.

If men speak truly, then there is nothing that can be used against them, they can defend themselves.


Lets take a look at David Irving. In 2000, he charged Deborah Lipstadt and Penguin Publishers with libel for describing him as a Holocaust denier. He lost the case, even though the burden of proof was on the defendant.
Here's some interesting facts from the trial.

-Prominent British historian Richard Evans was an expert witness in Irvings trial. Evans spent more than two years examining Irving’s work, and amassed evidence of Irving’s misrepresentations, including evidence that Irving had knowingly used forged documents as sources. While some historians had previously noted some of Irving’s errors and omissions, his work had not previously been the focus of such a lengthy, in-depth examination as it received by Evans. Evans’ final assessment of Irving’s work was both blistering and damning:

"Not one of [Irving’s] books, speeches or articles, not one paragraph, not one sentence in any of them, can be taken on trust as an accurate representation of its historical subject. All of them are completely worthless as history, because Irving cannot be trusted anywhere, in any of them, to give a reliable account of what he is talking or writing about. ... if we mean by historian someone who is concerned to discover the truth about the past, and to give as accurate a representation of it as possible, then Irving is not a historian."

-During the trial, prominent British historian Sir John Keegan stated: ”I continue to think it perverse of you to propose that Hitler could not have known until as late as October 1943 what was going on with the Jewish people,” and later stated that Irving’s view “defies common sense” and “defies reason.” This echoed Keegan’s 1996 statements in his work The Battle for History, in which he wrote “Some controversies are entirely bogus, like David Irving’s contention that Hitler’s subordinates kept from him the facts of the Final Solution, the extermination of the Jews...”

-Irving lost subsequent attempts at appeal, and in light of the evidence presented at the trial, a number of his works which had previously escaped serious scrutiny were shown to be irredeemably flawed, and what remained of Irving’s reputation as a historian was destroyed.

-Justice Charles Gray concluded that:
"Irving has for his own ideological reasons persistently and deliberately misrepresented and manipulated historical evidence; that for the same reasons he has portrayed Hitler in an unwarrantedly favourable light, principally in relation to his attitude towards and responsibility for the treatment of the Jews; that he is an active Holocaust denier; that he is anti-Semitic and racist and that he associates with right-wing extremists who promote neo-Nazism."

---------------
"If men speak falsehoods, their own words can be used against them."

That's exactly what happened to Irving. By mid-1980 he was rapidly losing his reputation.
And after the lost his libel suit in 2000, whatever reputation he had left went completely down the drain.
However, that's not the end of the problem. There are people and groups of people out there, who don't care
if what he (or others like him) says or writes is false, as long as it serves their agenda. For example, his book "Churchill's War" sold poorly to the general public and historians dismissed him. The reviewers noted the book was and incomprehensible and tedious propaganda piece that read as thought it had come straight out of Goebbels' propaganda ministry. However, Churchill’s War became a favorite in the neo-Nazi and far-right communities.

[ratrace]

nymos said:

dukeofpain said:

The reason men are silenced is not because they speak falsely, but because they speak the truth. This is because if men speak falsehoods, their own words can be used against them; while if they speak truly, there is nothing which can be used against them -- except force.

If men speak truly, then there is nothing that can be used against them, they can defend themselves.


Lets take a look at David Irving. In 2000, he charged Deborah Lipstadt and Penguin Publishers with libel for describing him as a Holocaust denier. He lost the case, even though the burden of proof was on the defendant.
Here's some interesting facts from the trial.

-Prominent British historian Richard Evans was an expert witness in Irvings trial. Evans spent more than two years examining Irving’s work, and amassed evidence of Irving’s misrepresentations, including evidence that Irving had knowingly used forged documents as sources. While some historians had previously noted some of Irving’s errors and omissions, his work had not previously been the focus of such a lengthy, in-depth examination as it received by Evans. Evans’ final assessment of Irving’s work was both blistering and damning:

"Not one of [Irving’s] books, speeches or articles, not one paragraph, not one sentence in any of them, can be taken on trust as an accurate representation of its historical subject. All of them are completely worthless as history, because Irving cannot be trusted anywhere, in any of them, to give a reliable account of what he is talking or writing about. ... if we mean by historian someone who is concerned to discover the truth about the past, and to give as accurate a representation of it as possible, then Irving is not a historian."

-During the trial, prominent British historian Sir John Keegan stated: ”I continue to think it perverse of you to propose that Hitler could not have known until as late as October 1943 what was going on with the Jewish people,” and later stated that Irving’s view “defies common sense” and “defies reason.” This echoed Keegan’s 1996 statements in his work The Battle for History, in which he wrote “Some controversies are entirely bogus, like David Irving’s contention that Hitler’s subordinates kept from him the facts of the Final Solution, the extermination of the Jews...”

-Irving lost subsequent attempts at appeal, and in light of the evidence presented at the trial, a number of his works which had previously escaped serious scrutiny were shown to be irredeemably flawed, and what remained of Irving’s reputation as a historian was destroyed.

-Justice Charles Gray, he concluded that:
"Irving has for his own ideological reasons persistently and deliberately misrepresented and manipulated historical evidence; that for the same reasons he has portrayed Hitler in an unwarrantedly favourable light, principally in relation to his attitude towards and responsibility for the treatment of the Jews; that he is an active Holocaust denier; that he is anti-Semitic and racist and that he associates with right-wing extremists who promote neo-Nazism."

---------------
"If men speak falsehoods, their own words can be used against them."

That's exactly what happened to Irving. By mid-1980 he was rapidly losing his reputation.
And after the lost his libel suit in 2000, whatever reputation he had left went completely down the drain.
However, that's not the end of the problem. There are people and groups of people out there, who don't care
if what he (or others like him) says or writes is false, as long as it serves their agenda. For example, his book "Churchill's War" sold poorly to the general public and historians dismissed him. The reviewers noted the book was and incomprehensible and tedious propaganda piece that read as thought it had come straight out of Goebbels' propaganda ministry. However, Churchill’s War became a favorite in the neo-Nazi and far-right communities.

duh!

[Josh]

ratrace said:

Now are ask yourselfs do you think these people are not Anti-semitic? and they just want to have a unbaised discussion?

I think it might depend on the person, but honestly, do you think that they should be imprisoned for their views? If they're wrong, all one has to do is simply show proof that their claims are wrong. No view deserves a trip to prison. And I don't think they're necessarily anti-Semitic, as David Cole had the same sceptical views and he's Jewish. There was a video of him going to Auschwitz and asking many questions, and he stated that he simply wants to know what happened. I'm not racist or anti-Semitic, but still, I think that imprisoning people for having dissenting views has no place in today's society. Personally, I don't see how questioning the imprisonment of men simply for their views means that I'm some horrible racist and anti-Semite (of which I am neither).

[dukeofpain]

nymos said:

dukeofpain said:

The reason men are silenced is not because they speak falsely, but because they speak the truth. This is because if men speak falsehoods, their own words can be used against them; while if they speak truly, there is nothing which can be used against them -- except force.

If men speak truly, then there is nothing that can be used against them, they can defend themselves.


Lets take a look at David Irving. In 2000, he charged Deborah Lipstadt and Penguin Publishers with libel for describing him as a Holocaust denier. He lost the case, even though the burden of proof was on the defendant.
Here's some interesting facts from the trial.

-Prominent British historian Richard Evans was an expert witness in Irvings trial. Evans spent more than two years examining Irving’s work, and amassed evidence of Irving’s misrepresentations, including evidence that Irving had knowingly used forged documents as sources. While some historians had previously noted some of Irving’s errors and omissions, his work had not previously been the focus of such a lengthy, in-depth examination as it received by Evans. Evans’ final assessment of Irving’s work was both blistering and damning:

"Not one of [Irving’s] books, speeches or articles, not one paragraph, not one sentence in any of them, can be taken on trust as an accurate representation of its historical subject. All of them are completely worthless as history, because Irving cannot be trusted anywhere, in any of them, to give a reliable account of what he is talking or writing about. ... if we mean by historian someone who is concerned to discover the truth about the past, and to give as accurate a representation of it as possible, then Irving is not a historian."

-During the trial, prominent British historian Sir John Keegan stated: ”I continue to think it perverse of you to propose that Hitler could not have known until as late as October 1943 what was going on with the Jewish people,” and later stated that Irving’s view “defies common sense” and “defies reason.” This echoed Keegan’s 1996 statements in his work The Battle for History, in which he wrote “Some controversies are entirely bogus, like David Irving’s contention that Hitler’s subordinates kept from him the facts of the Final Solution, the extermination of the Jews...”

-Irving lost subsequent attempts at appeal, and in light of the evidence presented at the trial, a number of his works which had previously escaped serious scrutiny were shown to be irredeemably flawed, and what remained of Irving’s reputation as a historian was destroyed.

-Justice Charles Gray concluded that:
"Irving has for his own ideological reasons persistently and deliberately misrepresented and manipulated historical evidence; that for the same reasons he has portrayed Hitler in an unwarrantedly favourable light, principally in relation to his attitude towards and responsibility for the treatment of the Jews; that he is an active Holocaust denier; that he is anti-Semitic and racist and that he associates with right-wing extremists who promote neo-Nazism."

---------------
"If men speak falsehoods, their own words can be used against them."

That's exactly what happened to Irving. By mid-1980 he was rapidly losing his reputation.
And after the lost his libel suit in 2000, whatever reputation he had left went completely down the drain.
However, that's not the end of the problem. There are people and groups of people out there, who don't care
if what he (or others like him) says or writes is false, as long as it serves their agenda. For example, his book "Churchill's War" sold poorly to the general public and historians dismissed him. The reviewers noted the book was and incomprehensible and tedious propaganda piece that read as thought it had come straight out of Goebbels' propaganda ministry. However, Churchill’s War became a favorite in the neo-Nazi and far-right communities.

Did you copy and paste that from the ADL's website?

Standard issue, huh?

Perhaps you should post some quotes about Lipstadts opposition to Jewish hate filled liars like Binjamin Wilkormiski, or Jerzy Kosinski, or Simon Wiesenthal or Elie Weisel, or any other number of other Jewish liars. Wait... all she has is praise for them and their agenda.

"Destroyed as a historian"

What exactly does that mean? as in people influenced by Jewish propaganda not buying Irving's books? If not, I'd think one would have to wait to see, since history is a work in progress, and historicity is always open to change.

'All truth passes through three stages: First it is ridiculed. second, it is violently opposed. Third, it is accepted as being self-evident.' - Schopenhauer

Irving, unlike the Industry, is completely open to scrutiny, and on his website you can download, free of charge, all of his books, and also the entire libel trial along with media bias, annotated by him.
www.fpp.co.uk/
You can also read Lipstadts libelous book on Germar Rudolphs website. www.vho.org/aaargh/engl/dl/denying1.html

But of course I suppose a few quotes from the queens counsel, regarding a libel case, is all one needs to "prove" Irving is any of these slanderous things.

Though it would be interesting for you to come up with some, rather than just quote out of context and imply these supposed sensationalist judgments against him, and or revisionism as a whole. Since I too can post some interesting quotes and facts, one such was justice Grays amazment by the fact that indeed there was no ample evidence linking Hitler to any planned extermination of the european jewry. Out of millions of documents' of what people designate "nazi strict book-keeping", not a single one links Hitler to the final solution. Yet how many books are written about the unsubstantiated inference that he did?

I'd rather people look for themselves, which they can easilly do.

P.s. They don't debate. On the pretense of "legitimizing their opponents views". One would think by refuting their seemingly illegitimate views would do far more than ignoring and suppressing them, and letting them fester. I guess not. Well, thats what you're supposed to think anyways. All they do is slander and defame, and when challenged, hide behind a dream team of high dollar lawyers and "expert" witnesses, like Evans, a liberal shill, less than mediocre historian hired for a quarter of a million to scour Irving books, which he ultimately found only crums, which even though scant, was reduced greatly by Gray. Interestingly enough, this money (many millions) was supplied by such notable as Steven Spielberg, another Jewish falsifier of history. Whereas Irving represented himself. Seems like a method of defense synonymous with a person whom is so obviously "right": hiding behind lawyers and money.

[nymos]

Did you copy and paste that from the ADL's website?
Standard issue, huh?

No, I didn't. What did I tell you about making assumptions, lest you make a fool out of yourself?

"Destroyed as a historian"
What exactly does that mean?

It means that he lost his reputation in the academic community. No one takes him seriously anymore.

'All truth passes through three stages: First it is ridiculed. second, it is violently opposed. Third, it is accepted as being self-evident.' - Schopenhauer

Great quote. However, it is wrong and, more importantly, irrelevant.

You can also read Lipstadts libelous book on Germar Rudolphs website. www.vho.org/aaargh/engl/dl/denying1.html

Libelous? I suggest you sue her. Maybe you'll fare better than Irving. Hehehehe.

Though it would be interesting for you to come up with some, rather than just quote out of context and imply these supposed sensationalist judgments against him, and or revisionism as a whole.

I don't need to quote anything. I can just state facts. Lipstadts book painted him as a Holocaust denier. He filed lawsuit against Lipstadt and he LOST, even though, mind you, the burden of proof was on Lipstadt.