Make the President of Iran and the Grand Ayatollah declare that Iran does not, in fact, have the biggest burgers in the world.
Ernst Zunder? Zundel? in Ontario in the 80's, a fellow named Faurisson in France but I don't remember how long ago. I think there have been others. Its a specific criminal offence in France, and I think in Belgium, Germany and Austria as well...
Well, if the coward Arab states did not attack Israel at one time, if coward Arab leaders decided to stay instead of leaving, if coward Arab nations did not tell "Palestinians" to get out because there is a war coming, if coward Arab leaders were not so stingy with their so called land, which was just bunch of unused desert that no one could do anything with for thousands of years, if coward Arab leaders would for once actually agree to peace agreements and understand that Israel is there to stay, well then MAYBE, just maybe we would not have this ********.
"Noted" is a careful choice of words there.... To the best of my knowledge there are no qualified or reputable historians entertaining the notion that the holocaust didn't happen. By which I do not mean that such a belief disqualifies a historian or makes him automatically disreputable; but rather that the qualifications of those who so "believe" do not stand even cursory examination... much like the arguments they present.
Don't you also find it curious that of all the horrendous historical crimes the Holocaust, and the Holocaust alone, is the only one that has a cottage-industry of deniers?
I disagree. Yes I think we all see, and have always seen, that Iran Iraq and Syria, will all have to stop what they are doing before terrorism can end. It could have been argued four years ago that Iran was worse than the others but at the time it wasn't, as far as terrorism against the US. It could not have been argued that Syria was the worst but again, that would rely heavily on 20/20 hindsight. The fact was that Saddam was, head and shoulders above others, the most destabilizing leader in the Middle East. Moreover the geography of our enemies and allies, i.e. Kuwait and Turkey, would not let us invade Iran or Syria first. Iraq had to be first for a number of reasons. So, I think Iraq was the best start in the war on terror. Given the changes that have occured in the ME since then, i.e. Lebenon, the formation of a democratic government in Iraq, etc. etc., a lot of good has come from that action. And as Pres. Whatshisname has shown, more will have to be done. Fourty years from now, when we look back, I think Bush is going to get a lot of credit for having recognizing the chalenge and having the fortitude to take it on. Yes, they will be naming schools after him. He picked the right starting point and he has understood what the eventual goal needs to be.
A very decent interview about this: http://service.spiegel.de/cache/international/0,1518,390338,00.html
Why are all you liberals bashing Ahmadinejad for things he said in the past? He's going to be Iran's commander in chief for the next several years, so we're going to have to work with him. Instead of engaging in this heated, knee-jerk anti-Ahmadinejad rhetoric that you libs enjoy so much, why not try to have a meaningful debate?
Good one, but please stay on topic, there are plenty of "similar" debates which you brought up on this forum
That explains Ahmadinejad's motivations, but doesn't address why so many Holocaust deniers exist (mainly in the West), whereas slavery deniers or Crusades deniers or Cambodian genocide deniers just haven't been popping up lately.
Tons of attrocities get ignored. The Dutch don't teach their kids about their government's mass murders of Indonesians. The Americans are just starting to teach their kids about the government subsidies for killing Native Americans. I'm going to guess that Russian kids know little about Stalin's purges. Etc, etc, etc. NB. My dad is Dutch-Indonesian, and he survived a Japanese concentration camp. My mom is Dutch, and her father survived a Nazi prison camp.
Great points, however, ignoring facts is a bit different from denying facts. Growing up in former USSR, we were not taught about Stalin's purges, however, no one in a government denied it, they just chose to ignore it. I hope this make sense not just to me
Yeah, there is a difference between a government actively denying something that everyone else accepts as truth, such as the Holocaust, and a government actively ignoring something so that everyone does not have the means to accept the truth. Small difference, but a difference, still.
Wow, i made sense Hence, by Ahmedijan (President of Iran) denying Holocaust, he is committing a greater crime than just ignoring it. On the other hand, (probably not in this case) any publicity is a good publicity. So this is actually a good thing, that can't be. I just complicated this more.
There are people here who are not aware of the laws in many countries that criminalize presentation of alternative historical accounts regarding the Holocaust. Such laws exist in a host of countries, including not just Israel but Germany, France, Austria, Begium, Switzerland, Poland, and several other states. These laws have been used to persecute historians, including rather noted ones with previously good reputations, who have rejected some of the claims that are associated with the Holocaust. Some of the so-called "Holocaust Deniers" (they call themselves revisionist historians) are folks who have been in concentration camps themselves and one of them was a prominent mainstream liberal historian (Arthur R. Butz). The kind of purely historical works (regardless of their merit in the eyes of some other historians) are censured in many states today, and even those states where their authors might not face criminal punishment they are quickly marginalized regardless of how accomplished they had been previous to writing on the issue. I find that censorship rather indefensible, highlighting larger issues that I won't to get into right now. As for whether they are noted historians, or crackpots, many of these folks as I mentioned were quite accomplished and held high academic post before they encountered issues for their work on the Holocaust. Arthur R. Butz, The Hoax of the Twentieth Century, Newport Beach: Institute for Historical Review, 1994 David Irving, Hitler's War, 1977 Lyle Burkhead, Six Reasons Faurisson, Robert, My Life As a Revisionist, The Journal of Historical Review, volume 9 no. 1 (Spring 1989)
Combination of size and proximity? The other events are so much smaller or more distant that the groups who coagulated around their denial are not or no longer detectable? In fact I believe there are those who deny the forced prostitution issue in WW2 Japan? And of course we have recently been treated to "Joe McCarthy was right..." There are or were My Lai deniers too... hell there are people who believe Joe Jackson was innocent, and he confessed. Twice. In this case I think you take one part neo-Nazi, one part anti-semite, one part folks who like the leather and silly walks but have to rehabilitate Hitler to admire him, and one part folks who want to know something nobody else does and never will; put em all together and you have a small "movement," albeit one headed to separate objectives on parallel courses...
Would you feel the same way if these same historinas would write alternative versions of how Saddam poisoned and killed many Iranians and Kurds or how Milosevic murdered Bosnians or how Turks committed genocide against Armenians? I doubt it. In one rhetoric or another you find a way to defend your nut job racist scumbag of a President and that falls on your head (unless you are currently being censored by Iranian government.)
Iran doesnt exist, the zionist media made it up to keep all of us hating something other then them. now, if you excuse me I have some tin foil to put back on my head.
Again rather carefully selected phrasing there. Butz was/is Associate Professor of Electrical Engineering at Northwestern. Faurisson was a faculty member in Literature at Lyons. AFAIK Irving never even approached completing his studies in physics, and his qualifications as a historian consisted entirely of the ability to get books published, apparently without competent review. And as for Burkhead, I suppose his "field" is nanotechnology, if you give enough credence to his efforts to consider classifying them... Its not that they are crackpots-- its that they are not historians... the issue is resolved before the question of the coherence of their crockery ever comes up... On the one side we have the eyewitness accounts of hundreds of thousands who were there, photographs and film, and the documentation of a huge bureaucracy as assmbled by trained story-discoverers-and-tellers. On the other side we have " How come there's more blue stuff on the walls of the delousing rooms than the gas chambers?" by people who aren't even chemists... I don't stand much on resumes, but really...