Holocaust Denial ?

If I remember correctly from my history classes it was reported as 11 million people 6 million of which were jews. Now if this fellow claims no gas chambers and only 300,000 jews...I'd distance myself from him as well.

This is not questioning, this is denial.

 

From the guardian.co.uk, Wednesday 25 February 2009 10.32 GMT...

He added that he would test his views not by travelling to Auschwitz but by reading a book on the camp by Jean-Claude Pressac, a former Holocaust denier who revised his views after a visit.

Wow. Read one book.

That's like, rigorous investigation.

I think O.J. Simpson put in more effort looking for the "real killers".

 

Genocide denial depends upon whether it is considered politically correct or not. If it is considered politically correct, then it is called genocide. If not then it is just called losses in war or something similar and all parties are invited to sit down and talk it over.

 

I like how every news report from Iraq or Afghanistan begins with "U.S. forces bombed or killed "x" amount of insurgents..."

And only afterward in many cases it's revealed that the "insurgents" were civilians.

Innocent until proven guilty is a foreign concept when it comes to war casualties.

 

That is not genocide. Genocide is the intent to destroy a race of people on principle because of what they appear to be to the destroyers.

 

Its not like it isnt still happening with other peoples.

Cambodia Rwanda Bosnia Darfur.

I wonder if he would question whether these other crimes happened.

 

Wow, Nickay you're the smartest kid in the class. That isn't genocide.

I think it was more of a comment on your post...

My point, and I'll admit it was pretty subtle, is that "politically correct" messages aren't only used by liberals. Each side has their own version of political correctness and use it in an attempt to sway public opinion.

 

Political correctness has a specific meaning. From wiki

The truth is irrelevent in political correctness. What is important is who gets offended. A politically correct genocide is one in which enough influential people in the United states are offended while a politically incorrect genocide is one in which there are less people to be offended and or influential people that deny it.

 

You gotta see the youtube vid or listen to this guy to get the real feel.

Don't worry Glory to G!d, with his conspiratorial views he'll either not consider this a lynching, ie it didn't happen, or it is genocide, his so valuable voice being squelched.

Just listened to some of his talk on NPR Former Student: Bishop Often Attacked Judaism : NPR

And I think this speaks more to the issues of the church and putting so much power over a congregation/school in these priests...well he's all yours now Thomas, back in the UK, have fun with him...(He thinks the twin towers were taken down by the US gov't, that only 300k were killed in Germany, that the gas chambers didn't exist, and I thiink he is all a plot to take the other issues out of the news)

 

I think you make my point. Let's read the definition that you provided...

Political correctness (adjectivally, politically correct; both forms commonly abbreviated to PC) is a term applied to language, ideas, policies, or behavior seen as seeking to minimize offense to gender, racial, cultural, disabled, aged or other identity groups.

So when the news announces that, "20 insurgents were killed" before anybody has any real notion of who really died, they are seeking to minimize the impact on their listeners who otherwise would react negatively to "20 people were killed and the army is investigating if any insurgents were included..." and they are protecting the image of the army and the war effort by minimizing the civilian toll.

You may not want to call it "politically correct" speech, but I'd say you were just narrowing your viewpoint. Of course I'd always be willing to call it "propaganda" if that works for you.

Hmmm... now that you mention Wikipedia and definitions, I wonder how they define "birth certificate".

 

The problem is that Holcaust Denial (or Revisionism) is that it's primary claim is that the world is being controlled and manipulated by Jews for propaganda purposes, and that the mass execution of Jews either never happened, or else happened on a much smaller scale.

So the problem is not one of people asking questions and making sincere academic enquiry and study, as much as the people who do promote denial/revisionism almost exclusively have a clear anti-Semitic agenda to promote in the first place.

 

looks like the vultures are already circling, looking to pick the flesh from his bones.

 

GtG,

By introducing this issue in the opening post one can only assume that you also question the accepted historical record of the holocaust. Unfortunately, since that initial post, your only contributions have been along the lines of:

"Looks like they're getting ready for a hanging"

or

"The vultures are circling"

I find it cowardly that you would bring up this controversial issue without offering your perspective on it, all the while ridiculing the rest of us for having the courage to state our opinions.

This is an internet forum GtG. You have anonymity. But do you have the little lamb nuggets necessary to honestly put forth your opinion?

I haven't seen any evidence of it yet.

 

that may well be the case, but i'll go with part of your own definition, because a genocide is a genocide regardless of the motivations providing that it was intended to be a genocide: "Genocide is the intent to destroy a race of people on principle".

by these lights, the armenian genocide was a genocide, the same holds true for bosnia, darfur, cambodia and rwanda. i've got no problem with saying so, even to turkish people who i consider my friends. nor will i refer to kurdistan as anything but "kurdistan", not as "eastern turkey" or "northern iraq".

b'shalom

bananabrain

 

Genocide doesn't have to be a group(race faith blah blah BLARGH) it just has to be..... many, many many people.... Like when the yanks dropped that nuke on japan... That to me is genocide.

 

Dangerously wrong. Genocide is not an act of war but rather a specific attitude that must be seen for what it is. We don't allow it and confuse it with war so are assured of the next genocide.

 

For once I'm going to agree with Nick, albeit not so dramatically.

Genocide includes the intent to wipe out a group, tribe, race, creed, etc.

I don't think the U.S. intended to wipe out the Japanese race.

We just wanted to kill as many people as we could in the most intimidating way possible.

Inhumane, yes. Genocide, no.

 

i'm going to agree with nick twice in one thread. (and then go and have a nice lie down)

inhumane, yes, but less inhumane than letting the japanese regime continue with their course of action. genocide, definitely not.

b'shalom

bananabrain

 

There, there. I know how queasy it makes you. We'll both need a Bromo.

 

You'd be better off with an enema.