News: Merkel to award prophet cartoonist

[Wildcat]

If one is censored (successfully) there is nothing to be taken before a court or tribunal is there?

 

You claim to have read Philosophy of Science and you then go on to assert assessments of evidence (presumably by lay juries) is not subjective !!!

 

Courts and Judges are servants of the regime there is nothing unusual about them considering motivations however that is far from the same thing as honest or just !

 

If violence can only be justified when it prevents greater violence are you arguing that an invader should not be expelled by force so long as he commits no atrocities?

 

Cenorship in practice occurs after the fact.

 

In the Irving case it was heard by a judge.

 

The evidence against him concluded:

 

6.20 Reputable and professional historians do not suppress parts of quotations from documents that go against their own case, but take them into account and if necessary amend their own case accordingly. They do not present as genuine documents which they know to be forged just because these forgeries happen to back up what they are saying. They do not invent ingenious but implausible and utterly unsupported reasons for distrusting genuine documents because these documents run counter to their arguments; again, they amend their arguments if this is the case, or indeed abandon them altogether. They do not consciously attribute their own conclusions to books and other sources which in fact, on closer inspection, actually say the opposite. They do not eagerly seek out the highest possible figures in a series of statistics, independently of their reliability or otherwise, simply because they want for whatever reason to maximise the figure in question, but rather, they assess all the available figures as impartially as possible in order to arrive at a number that will withstand the critical scrutiny of others. They do not knowingly mistranslate sources in foreign languages in order to make them more serviceable to themselves. They do not wilfully invent words, phrases, quotations, incidents and events for which there is no historical evidence in order to make their arguments more plausible.

6.21 At least, they do not do any of these things if they wish to retain any kind of reputable status as historian. Irving has done all of these things from the very beginning of his career. Not one of his 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. It may seem an absurd semantic dispute to deny the appellation of 'historian' to someone who has written two dozen books or more about historical subjects. But 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. Those in the know, indeed, are accustomed to avoid the term altogether when referring to him and use some circumlocution such as 'historical writer' instead.12 Irving is essentially an ideologue who uses history for his own political purposes; he is not primarily concerned with discovering and interpreting what happened in the past, he is concerned merely to give a selective and tendentious account of it in order to further his own ideological ends in the present. The true historian's primary concern, however, is with the past. That is why, in the end, Irving is not a historian.

 

http://www.holocaustdenialontrial.org/en/trial/defense/evans/6

 

The judge decided:

 

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.

 

There is nothing subjective about such judgments, they were clear documented and based on the evidence.

[BritPat]

Reputable and professional historians do not suppress parts of quotations from documents that go against their own case

 

So given the above You condemn Raul Hilberg (The Destruction of the European Jews)

 

who deliberately left out material by Gerstein who he selectively quoted.

 

He left out material that claimed 700-800 people were crammed into an area of 25 square metres.

 

He left out material that claimed gassings had been witnessed by Hitler and Himmler.

 

Gerstein claimed that 25 Million had been killed at Belzec and Treblinka, Hilberg left that out too (selecting in his own cause again).

 

What say you wildcat ? Hilberg not an historian but a liar?

 

In fact he left out all the material that went against his own case.

 

Is it your argument that Hilberg should be censored because he is a liar that selects material that supports his own case too?

 

The question is of course rhetorical because we all know that you too are selective about who you would censor.

 

Therein lies the problem with censorship.

 

Weasel your way out of that.

 

You too present evidence selectively do you not?

 

The partial quotes that you posted are from civil proceedings instituted by Irving against Lipstadt & Penguin books.

 

Irving lost his case but the proceedings had nothing to do with a Criminal action or an act of censorship did they?

[Wildcat]

Reputable and professional historians do not suppress parts of quotations from documents that go against their own case

 

So given the above You condemn Raul Hilberg (The Destruction of the European Jews)

 

who deliberately left out material by Gerstein who he selectively quoted.

 

He left out material that claimed 700-800 people were crammed into an area of 25 square metres.

 

He left out material that claimed gassings had been witnessed by Hitler and Himmler.

 

Gerstein claimed that 25 Million had been killed at Belzec and Treblinka, Hilberg left that out too (selecting in his own cause again).

 

What say you wildcat ? Hilberg not an historian but a liar?

 

In fact he left out all the material that went against his own case.

 

Is it your argument that Hilberg should be censored because he is a liar that selects material that supports his own case too?

 

The question is of course rhetorical because we all know that you too are selective about who you would censor.

 

Therein lies the problem with censorship.

 

Weasel your way out of that.

 

You too present evidence selectively do you not?

 

The partial quotes that you posted are from civil proceedings instituted by Irving against Lipstadt & Penguin books.

 

Irving lost his case but the proceedings had nothing to do with a Criminal action or an act of censorship did they?

 

Gerstein is a problematic source, that is not secret information every scholar is aware of this, some of what he says is corroborated other parts of his report are exaggerations. Hilberg then, is clearly not a liar, but someone using the source properly and appropriately. Using his evidence only where it is corroborated.

 

Here for example is another assessment of him that comes to the same conclusion:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gerstein_Report#Criticism_of_the_Gerstein_Report

 

As for your last point I never said the nature of the quotes was in relation to criminal charges or that they had anything to do with censorship (although they clearly are in that Irving was seeking to censor Lipstadt). What I was showing was a summary of the evidence that Irving systematically manipulates and fabricates evidence, and selectively quotes to distort the truth and justify preconceived opinions. Evidence that justifies calling him a holocaust denier.

[stackrock]

The media crusade against Islam continues. German Chancellor Angela Merkel is set to pay tribute to the Danish cartoonist who caused uproar in the Muslim world by drawing insulting cartoons of Prophet Mohammed (PBUH).

 

Full story

 

uproar in the muslim world, that takes no effort at all. a teddy bear is named, a riot and kill kill. doctors murdered on mass, silence. a crap and yes offensive cartoon drawn, riots and behead chants and murder. millions given to pakistan flood victims, silence.

 

appeasement is a waste of time.

[boyfriday]

uproar in the muslim world, that takes no effort at all. a teddy bear is named, a riot and kill kill. doctors murdered on mass, silence. a crap and yes offensive cartoon drawn, riots and behead chants and murder. millions given to pakistan flood victims, silence.

 

..not confusing Islam with Islamism again are we stackrock??

 

Ps: You seem to denounce appeasement at every turn, what would be your answer to the issue of Muslim extremism?

[stackrock]

..not confusing Islam with Islamism again are we stackrock??

 

Ps: You seem to denounce appeasement at every turn, what would be your answer to the issue of Muslim extremism?

 

im still on the , not in my name theme good morning

 

 

extremism, id take it head on and not pander to it. id take all the money they have and ensure they were hounded at every corner or cave.

[boyfriday]

im still on the , not in my name theme good morning

Sorry not really sure what you mean by that?

 

extremism, id take it head on and not pander to it. id take all the money they have and ensure they were hounded at every corner or cave.

What money would you take, and how would you take it? Incidentally behaving properly isn't pandering to extremists.

 

Good morning to you too btw.

[mj.scuba]

It's akin to entrapment really - "I know, lets do stuff, and keep doing stuff, and pushing and pushing and pushing until we get a violent reaction, then after we do we can go on about how they are all violent extremists".

 

You mean things like elect our leaders and send our daughters to school?

 

Aye we should pack it in provoking them.

[stackrock]

Sorry not really sure what you mean by that?

 

What money would you take, and how would you take it? Incidentally behaving properly isn't pandering to extremists.

 

Good morning to you too btw.

 

how about a not in my name march?

 

drugs money, oil money, etc.

[boyfriday]

how about a not in my name march?

Why? How many average Brits go on marches about anything? A miniscule percentage

drugs money, oil money, etc.

 

..and how do you relieve them of it?