U.S. condemns Holocaust denier meeting

[AntiCentrist]

Originally Posted by 7960

When you're the president and host, and picked who is attending and presenting, and have come out and said israel should be wiped off the map, I think that means he has at least a slight level of participation.
The holocaust is serious shit in germany. If he was testing shit that came from a holocaust area then he knew (or should have known) that he was treading on shaky ground.

I just don't see how a research chemist failing to find evidence of cynanide on brick & mortar samples from Auschwitz can reasonably be construed as Holocaust denial, or criminal activity in any way, shape, or form. I don't see how anyone who believes in freedom of speech wouldn't be disturbed by scientists being presented with the choice of lying about their laboratory findings or going to prison. No one should ever go to prison for telling the truth.

[7960]

Originally Posted by AntiCentrist

I just don't see how a research chemist failing to find evidence of cynanide on brick & mortar samples from Auschwitz can reasonably be construed as Holocaust denial, or criminal activity in any way, shape, or form. I don't see how anyone who believes in freedom of speech wouldn't be disturbed by scientists being presented with the choice of lying about their laboratory findings or going to prison. No one should ever go to prison for telling the truth.

Of course nobody should go to jail for telling the truth. I agree with you 100%. But we don't matter. Germany has decided that denying the holocaust is worthy of jail so they matter. When he "reported his findings" he was breaking their law. You and I can think it's stupid or wrong or a host of other things but we don't own the police so we don't make the rules.

BTW, can you answer a question? Exactly why do you think this guy was testing that brick?

[Donkey®]

Originally Posted by 7960

My personal opinion is that someone should go to jail for committing an offense that has the penalty of jail.

Avoidance ain't just a river in Egypt. I am going to assume by your answer to the dude in the above quote - no, you don't think this should be happening.

[7960]

Originally Posted by Donkey®

Avoidance ain't just a river in Egypt. I am going to assume by your answer to the dude in the above quote - no, you don't think this should be happening.

In case you hadn't noticed I really don't like you so I'm surprised I even answered that question. Assume what you want from my other posts.




BTW, AntiCentrist, here is part of an article about your scientist.

Rudolf, a former chemist and author of "Dissecting the Holocaust," tested bricks in the gas chambers for traces of Zyklon B, a cyanide compound used to kill Jews during the Holocaust. His report claimed that because he did not find evidence of Zyklon B on the bricks, it was unlikely that mass gassings of Jews occurred in Auschwitz.

Scientist Germar Rudolf Deported - Faces German Prison

So he didn't just test the brick, he also went on to write a report claiming that it's unlikely that jews were gassed. Sounds like holocaust denial to me.

[AntiCentrist]

Originally Posted by JaJae

He wasn't sent to jail for not finding cyanide residue at Auschwitz, he was sent to jail for claiming that because he claimed he didn't find cyanide, the Jews were never gassed to death.. EVER.

I dispute the accuracy of that characterization. Presumably you would have some evidence for such a claim?

Originally Posted by JaJae

That's like saying you didn't participate in a surprise birthday party because you were too busy paying for everything, inviting everyone, planning the sequence of events, and giving speeches during the party... yet the actual invitees.. they're the ones who actually participated.

At an academic conference, the participants are the scholars, not the guy who arranged for the tables, chairs, and name tags to be delivered to the meeting hall. I do not believe the conference was invitation-only; I read some Jewish scholars attended in order to promote the dominant view of the Holocaust; I don't think the President of Iran would have invited them.

Originally Posted by JaJae

And the reality is he's up for re-election and many of his critics are upset he has not been harsher with Israel.

That seems quite unlikely! He's probably the most anti-Israeli national leader since Gamal Abdul Nasser of Egypt (and he died in 1970).

[Donkey®]

Originally Posted by 7960

In case you hadn't noticed I really don't like you so I'm surprised I even answered that question. Assume what you want from my other posts.

Ya, ya...don't make me use this nifty reputation system. Get over it. You've been wadding the drawers for years over me. I asked a nice and simple question in a simple thread. Am I not allowed to conduct myself in a civil manner with all peoples? Geeeeeeeeeeeeeeeez

In this thread, I am really just trying to figure out what you're arguing about? You don't think people should go to jail for talking about or denying the Holocaust but you disagree with what the Iranians are doing? Even if their sole goal is to disprove the holocaust...would you have a beef with it?

[7960]

Originally Posted by AntiCentrist

I dispute the accuracy of that characterization. Presumably you would have some evidence for such a claim?

Look about 2" above your post

[7960]

Originally Posted by Donkey®

Ya, ya...don't make me use this nifty reputation system. Get over it. You've been wadding the drawers for years over me.

This is why I ignore your posts usually.

In this thread, I am really just trying to figure out what you're arguing about? You don't think people should go to jail for talking about or denying the Holocaust but you disagree with what the Iranians are doing? Even if their sole goal is to disprove the holocaust...would you have a beef with it?

I believe someone should follow the laws of the country they're in. I also believe anyone should be able to say whatever he believes. Germany disagrees with both of those beliefs. So lastly I believe if you're in Germany you better not deny the holocaust.

[AntiCentrist]

Originally Posted by 7960

Exactly why do you think this guy was testing that brick?

Presumably in order to test for evidece that would either support or contradict the official story.

[7960]

Originally Posted by AntiCentrist

Presumably in order to test for evidece that would either support or contradict the official story.

So when he wrote his report that "because he did not find evidence of Zyklon B on the bricks, it was unlikely that mass gassings of Jews occurred in Auschwitz" don't you think he went a bit beyond just reporting "no traces of gas were found"?

[AntiCentrist]

Originally Posted by 7960

So he didn't just test the brick, he also went on to write a report claiming that it's unlikely that jews were gassed. Sounds like holocaust denial to me.

As a simple matter of semantic logic, saying something is "unlikely" does not constitute a denial that it occurred.

[7960]

Originally Posted by AntiCentrist

As a simple matter of semantic logic, saying something is "unlikely" does not constitute a denial that it occurred.

Yes, it does. I've posted his words twice... he denied that jews were gassed at auschwitz.

[AntiCentrist]

Originally Posted by 7960

Yes, it does. I've posted his words twice... he denied that jews were gassed at auschwitz.

No, he said it was "unlikely." And that doesn't mean Jews weren't killed en masse at Auschwitz, merely that the method of gas chambers did not, to him, seem to be employed. If you can't find evidence for something, what are you supposed to do? Lie and say it happened anyway, despite the absence of evidence?

[7960]

Originally Posted by AntiCentrist

No, he said it was "unlikely." And that doesn't mean Jews weren't killed en masse at Auschwitz, merely that the method of gas chambers did not, to him, seem to be employed. If you can't find evidence for something, what are you supposed to do? Lie and say it happened anyway, despite the absence of evidence?

You're supposed to know that, in germany, saying "it was unlikely that mass gassings of Jews occurred in Auschwitz" along with his book also denying the holocaust is enough to get you thrown in jail.

[JaJae]

Originally Posted by AntiCentrist

I just don't see how a research chemist failing to find evidence of cynanide on brick & mortar samples from Auschwitz can reasonably be construed as Holocaust denial, or criminal activity in any way, shape, or form. I don't see how anyone who believes in freedom of speech wouldn't be disturbed by scientists being presented with the choice of lying about their laboratory findings or going to prison. No one should ever go to prison for telling the truth.

Because it was more than that. He concluded that during the Holocaust people weren't gassed and even wrote a book about it. According to Germany where the Holocaust took place, they kinda disagree with that assumption and they have laws to prevent hostility between the races and to pay respect to those who died.

While I don't agree with the laws, they are not in America. They don't have freedom of speech and they're used to it.

[JaJae]

Originally Posted by AntiCentrist

I dispute the accuracy of that characterization. Presumably you would have some evidence for such a claim?

Sure, read his book. Or read some of the works out of the publishing company he founded... Castle Hill Publishers: Book Store

At an academic conference, the participants are the scholars, not the guy who arranged for the tables, chairs, and name tags to be delivered to the meeting hall. I do not believe the conference was invitation-only; I read some Jewish scholars attended in order to promote the dominant view of the Holocaust; I don't think the President of Iran would have invited them.

Are you really comparing Ahmadinejad with the guy who arranged the tables? He was the host and speaker. By all accounts that makes him a participant to anyone who isn't wishing to redefine the word to suppress his involvement in the event for personal political reasons.

[AntiCentrist]

Originally Posted by JaJae

Are you really comparing Ahmadinejad with the guy who arranged the tables? He was the host

That's the sort of thing the "host" is responsible for

Originally Posted by JaJae

and speaker.

He gave one speech, at an event that wasn't about speech making. That's a pretty minor degree of participation. He didn't participate more by simple virtue of the fact its a historical conference, and he's not a historian. No offense, but "duh."

Originally Posted by JaJae

By all accounts that makes him a participant to anyone who isn't wishing to redefine the word to suppress his involvement in the event for personal political reasons.

If you want to think giving a single political speech for an hour or so, at an academic history conference, and calling yourself "the host," constitutes substantial participation, that's your concern. I prefer reality.

[7960]

Originally Posted by AntiCentrist

That's the sort of thing the "host" is responsible for



He gave one speech, at an event that wasn't about speech making. That's a pretty minor degree of participation. He didn't participate more by simple virtue of the fact its a historical conference, and he's not a historian. No offense, but "duh."



If you want to think giving a single political speech for an hour or so, at an academic history conference, and calling yourself "the host," constitutes substantial participation, that's your concern. I prefer reality.

Please post a list of exactly who was invited and what their credentials were for being there.

[Bob the Goat]

[quote=I seriously doubt that the holocaust was completely fabricated, but I wouldn't be surprised if it was exaggerated. After all, if not for the holocaust, the state of Israel would never have been created.[/quote]


An historical fallacy. The state of Israel was in the planning and emigration stage before WWI was over with the British Gov't Balfour Declaration of 1917 which gave form to the Zionist movement and began to implement the settlement of european Jewry in British Palestine.