User login
Author Information
Poll
Why have you visited this website?
To check for updates
11%
Read posts
39%
Contribute to discussions
6%
Share content
3%
Social media brought me here
6%
Tis fate
35%
Total votes: 634
Active forum topics
Recent blog posts
Who's online
There are currently 0 users online.
I mentioned all the sources that came up in google. Those that supported it, and those that did not.
I was not comfortable missing out those that did not support my argument...
"For too long, we have been a passively tolerant society, saying to our citizens 'as long as you obey the law, we will leave you alone'" - David Cameron, UK Prime Minister. 13 May 2015.
seema, given the implicit allegations of falsification and conspiracy and evidently prejudiced assertions about said group, the answer is quite possibly, but beside the point. There is a big machine denying 9/11, but it is accepted as political debate. Personally I think that seriously, academically representing humans as rats, snakes, lizards or anything else essentially inhuman is totally worth being classed illegal.
You still have not done it.
[size=9]Whatever you do, know that I will always love you. Or else.[/size]
Its bed time, but you are asking for something that cannot be provided.
Common knowledge cannot be tested by what is on the net.
Go ask some people. ask your friends. I will be surprised if they are aware.
i know the people I know are not aware. I have asked them previously.
and at the mention of the holocaust, its always the 6 million jews that were killed.
Even the Wikipedia Article was these people, and upto 6 million more...
and the fact there is a website about the forgotten victims means that there ios atleast 1 person in the 6 billion in the world that atleast partially agrees with me.
Either side cannot be academically proved, unless there is a scientific survey carried out. I cannot do that.
"For too long, we have been a passively tolerant society, saying to our citizens 'as long as you obey the law, we will leave you alone'" - David Cameron, UK Prime Minister. 13 May 2015.
plus none of my friends know except 1 might know not sure though [b]perhaps we should have a survey here.[/b]
Admin,
And that is the impression your friends gained from history lessons? They didn't know about, say, gypsies and homosexuals? They are getting an education somewhere wierd. Every single one of your sources was absolutely crystal clear on the matter of non-Jews exterminated in the holocaust. There is no 'either side' about that. It is a shame you were actually being so hostile, I was indeed being gracious in the first place.
But if you want to create a weight of surveys among your mates go ahead. They are obviously thick or narrowminded.
[size=9]Whatever you do, know that I will always love you. Or else.[/size]
Notice the diference?
'the holocaust is the annihilation of the 6 million jews.'
'Others were also killed'
'There was also aggression against others.'
Do not tell me you do not notice the difference and the focus.
"For too long, we have been a passively tolerant society, saying to our citizens 'as long as you obey the law, we will leave you alone'" - David Cameron, UK Prime Minister. 13 May 2015.
I have added a poll.
The questions are pretty leading though... SO it willbe very unscientific.
Unless someone objects to having a poll?
"For too long, we have been a passively tolerant society, saying to our citizens 'as long as you obey the law, we will leave you alone'" - David Cameron, UK Prime Minister. 13 May 2015.
Notice the diference?
'the holocaust is the annihilation of the 6 million jews.'
'Others were also killed'
'There was also aggression against others.'
Do not tell me you do not notice the difference and the focus.[/quote]
Yes, there is a difference in focus between the 6 million Jews and the 6 million made up of other groups. That is because Hitler focused on killing 6 million Jews and 6 million made up of other groups. Is that what you describe as "a disservice to this terrible attrocity to say only a certain race was targetted"? And your poll is ridiculous whatever they answer. I'm tired of this BS, Admin. Conclude your point and I'll read it. I have concluded mine.
[size=9]Whatever you do, know that I will always love you. Or else.[/size]
actually most of us probably did come across the gypsies, homosexuals and other groups killed in the holocaust during our history lessons, but the things that impact one most are the pictures and statistics. i do not recall my history book having statistics when it came to the other groups of people who were killed. and all the pictures in history books were of jews.... so ofcourse the thing that sticks in one's memory is the figure of '6 million jews' being killed in the holocaust. but as i said to admin, it is understandable that they are focused upon considering they were the largest single group to be targetted by Hitler.
[size=9]I NEVER WORE IT BECAUSE OF THE TALIBAN, MOTHER. I LIKE THE [b]MODESTY[/b] AND [b]PROTECTION[/b] IT AFFORDS ME FROM THE EYES OF MEN.[/size] [url=http://www.adherents.com/lit/comics/Dust.html]Dust, X-Men[/url]
:roll:
[size=9]I NEVER WORE IT BECAUSE OF THE TALIBAN, MOTHER. I LIKE THE [b]MODESTY[/b] AND [b]PROTECTION[/b] IT AFFORDS ME FROM THE EYES OF MEN.[/size] [url=http://www.adherents.com/lit/comics/Dust.html]Dust, X-Men[/url]
Don't bother admin.
Yes. That's all. I notice this morning a couple of objections to my approach to the subject, noted. I think it's really disgusting how often this sort of thing gets raised so I guess I'm not most civil about it.
Salaf, thanks for that contribution. I'm sure Admin desperately appreciates such wise reassurance.
[size=9]Whatever you do, know that I will always love you. Or else.[/size]
Whoa - what's with the survey.
This isn't a debate - 11 million people died in the holocaust, approximately 6 million of whom were Jews. Fringe revisionists challenge this number but there are always detractors, the intellectual world has a fascination with interesting but spurious arguments.
My grandfathers saw the concentration camps... only the one who saw Mauthausen ever said anything about it - and that was a brief conversation.
we're not debating the number dave - read some of admin's posts. he wanted to see how much people really know about the holocaust, and compare 'common knowledge' to the facts...
[size=9]I NEVER WORE IT BECAUSE OF THE TALIBAN, MOTHER. I LIKE THE [b]MODESTY[/b] AND [b]PROTECTION[/b] IT AFFORDS ME FROM THE EYES OF MEN.[/size] [url=http://www.adherents.com/lit/comics/Dust.html]Dust, X-Men[/url]
For what purpose?
Answers 1 and four are mutually exclusive but both true...
[size=9]I NEVER WORE IT BECAUSE OF THE TALIBAN, MOTHER. I LIKE THE [b]MODESTY[/b] AND [b]PROTECTION[/b] IT AFFORDS ME FROM THE EYES OF MEN.[/size] [url=http://www.adherents.com/lit/comics/Dust.html]Dust, X-Men[/url]
The question is based on an assumption though.
He starts with the proposition that you are taught 6 million Jews died and there were some other people too, and that it's an oversight that in the education system that you are not taught that there were many other victims in the Holocaust.
Based on that proposition he asks you four questions directed at various points of is proposition, but doesn't really give you an option which would prove you are in fact learning about the other victims of the holocaust (though he comes close in 3 especially).
1. 6 million jews died period - the extremity of his point that the Jewish deaths are taught disproportionately
2. 6 million jews and a few other people - a less extreme argument of the same point, again emphasizing that the Jewish deaths are taught disproportionately or overemphasized
3. 6 million Jews and a lot of other people - the only option that could possibly disprove his assertion, if it took the extra step of including hard numbers and specific distinction of different ethnicities (the very thing he says is lacking in the system); but it doesn't instead it discards the other deaths as "a bunch of other people." Rather than [i]testing[/i] our knowledge here the question just ends up remphasizing his initial assertion, that the non-Jewish deaths were not given the same consideration in education.
4. 12 million people died - doesn't provide an alternative to his assertion either, in fact it seems somewhat unrelated. It places no emphasis at all on the genocide or who the victims of this genocide were, it's just a number of the total deaths.
Nowhere is there an option that strictly disproves his initial assertion, something like "9-11 million deaths of "undesirables" including Jews Gypsies Homosexuals and Slavs of which the largest contingent was Jews"
A large answer but it's the only one that genuinely would demonstrate the possibility you were taught in school the numbers and ethnicities involved in the Holocaust.
Judging by the number people who answered number three it would be interesting to further test their knowledge of the Holocaust beyond just "a bunch of people" I think we would find most people are more than aware of the total number of people and ethnicities who died in the Holocaust.
Whether he's doing it intentionally or not... Admin isn't really testing his theory, he's attempting to pull poll the result.
The difference with the Holocaust is that 1. it's so appalling in scope we can not let it be repeated 2. it is a European specific atrocity, and the burden of prevention naturally lies with Europeans 3. it is recent.
Does that mean that denial of atrocities similar in situation should also be prohibited? Yes.
A perfect example is the Balkans, it is all of the above three points. Especially in this early stage when we are attempting to bring purpetrators to justice it is important that those who deny the atrocities do not spread their lies to the general public so as to gain any level of sympathy. It's too dangerous to allow it to repeat itself.
The reason I chose those three criteria I will now explain.
1. This stands for itself, these are crimes of such magnitude that inflicted such a human toll they simply can not be repeated - we can not afford it. Obviously we must work to prevent any crime, but certain crimes like genocide challenge the very idea of civilization. To quote Justice Jackson (SC) on the opening of the Nuremberg Trials:
2. That these are European Specific atrocities, and that the burden must lie with Europe. This I gleaned from talking directly to victims of hate crimes and genocide. The problem with crimes of this nature and magnitude is that civilization convinces itself that it couldn't possibly do such a thing or allow it to happen. As it is a cultural crime the responsibility to prevent it must be born by the culture - though not necessarily the guilt.
- [url=http://www.news24.com/News24/World/News/0,,2-10-1462_1652599,00.html]Ger... Schroeder[/url]On this very forum we have both Latifah and Shazan arguing the importance of a culture accepting it's responsibility in both acknowledging its crimes and taking positive steps to educate the public about them so as to remind the public that this did happen, and should they choose to ignore it, it will happen again.
She posted the following links as evidence of how quickly people can either revert back to fantasty land, or in some cases never leave it - to the danger of the victims.
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/europe/4741682.stm
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/europe/4731646.stm
http://www.bosnia.org.uk/bosrep/report_format.cfm?articleid=3027&reporti...
Consequently, it is of profound importance that Germany specifically, but Europe in general be well informed of the fruits of it's xenophobia over the last several centuries. And don't think for a minute that just because the United States or the UK fought the Nazis we are somehow more humane. The US knew what was happening to Jews when FDR turned that boat around, and the British snubbed their noses at many refugees - Jewish lives didn't become important to us until we needed a propaganda victory for the occupation, and we learned just how deplorable the Nazi crimes were. Much like Europe's and the UN's snubbing off of the Bosniaks and Kosovars, or France's lack of interest in Rwanda makes them all limitedly (if one can say such a thing about a crime of this magnitude) complicit and therefore responsible in the prevention of those genocides.
The responsibility is with Europe to prevent the Holocaust and now, sadly the Balkans from happening again.
3. This is the most (I think) important reason for a consistent and clear history from the start. This history is recent to us - we have all the documentation and primary sources now, before they fade away. If genocide education is to have any positive impact on the future, it absolutely must dispell spurious theories from the get go - so that they do not become movements 400 years from now when all that valuable information is gone. If David Duke thinks that holocaust deniers have a "point" now, even in the face of Nazi documentation, first hand accounts, testimonies from Nazi leaders and census records - imagine what people like him will be able to accomplish in 500 years when all of that has fallen into dust and he inherits a shaky history filled with rival theories from long dead possibly self declared scholars.
We have a responsibility as the temporally closest generation to this cultural crime to see to it that the history presented to the next generation is the most correct history devoid of unfounded biased or racist conspiracy theories that lack the qualities required of scholarly writing. It is imperative that the future generations of scholars understand what happened in these places and why, so that they can continue the mission of guarding the society from repeating these horrible crimes ever again.
In short - this is a trust, a responsibility we didn't ask for but we got anyway, if legislation is required to protect that trust and prevent this from happening again then that is what is required. It calls for no sacrifice of historic inquiry in areas beyond our trust - the crusades for example, which are so long dead and unfortunately so spotted with competing legacies we can do nothing about it but continue the bumbling around previous generations of histories have had to do.
Consequently I think it is workable legislation.
Admin. I cant make a reply because of the limited number of options.
Do not reply then.
It was a stupid idea adding the poll... (Augustus I did mention that I could not think up an unbiased poll... and it was my bed-time. I should not have ut it up, instaed putting up a cheap stunt. I will remove it now.)
100: My conclusion is in the very first post. That tory MP. '6 million jews were killed'. everyone is equal, so it should be said about 12 million people/humans were killed.
Now lets go one step further in this discussion. Is she making a political statement by only referring to one group? Dos that not cheapen the attrocity by being abused in a political manouvre?
"For too long, we have been a passively tolerant society, saying to our citizens 'as long as you obey the law, we will leave you alone'" - David Cameron, UK Prime Minister. 13 May 2015.
I have removed the poll.
Just before anyone thinks I removed it because It did not prove my point, I posted above before checking the results.
The final result was 3 votes for option 3 (6 million jews and alot of others were killed.) and none for any other option.
"For too long, we have been a passively tolerant society, saying to our citizens 'as long as you obey the law, we will leave you alone'" - David Cameron, UK Prime Minister. 13 May 2015.
salaam
well what can i say.... having an opinion which upsets jews and its called anti-semitism! not just that.... its a criminal act, you get sent to jail.
say something to upset Muslims....its ok. its freedom of speech. insult their prophet, its ok. label the muslikm world as terrorists , its ok. occupy muslim land, its ok. but upset jews....oh no, you cant do that.
yes , holocaust took place, but for someone to express an opinion which is disagrees with the scale of the holocaust is locked up....
its ridiculous...
so is denial of massacres in palestine, bosnia, kashmir, sudan, the massacres at Tchin Tabaraden, massacres in Sabra and Shatila etc etc.... also a criminal act? yes these may not be at the same scale...but why one law for the jews and one for the rest of the world?
we live in modern times which are full of double standards....
ken livingstone suspended for his comments.... a very sad day. Freedom of speech doesnt exist i'm afraid.
all humans should be respected, unfortunately today only one religion and its followers are protected...and the rest of the religions and its followers...its ok. its freedom of speech.
bravo i agree!
but still i might add that at least Irving had a trial and is locked up instead of having a death fatwa on his head as Rushdie did - in that sense his sentence is so much better then murder, lesser of 2 evils
It isn't a matter of having an opinion when you write books to prove that families of holocaust victims are lying. It is a fair debate you might have as to whether Irving's behaviour should be considered criminal outright or whether it would be down to families to take action. Holocaust denial is generally and rightly associated with racism and there is now legal clarity on the matter: the law against holocaust denial will be enforced.
"occupy muslim land, its ok. but upset jews....oh no, you cant do that." There is no similarity. Are you arguing against any military action against any Muslim land on the basis you can't legally call accounts of the holocaust a conspiracy? You find the two matters equivalent in some way? So you're putting all your sympathy into the Ummah's lack of supremacy and objecting to Jewish world domination? I understand. You are... President Ahmadenijad.
I have never heard anyone deny massacres at Sabra and Shatilla, ftr. To whom are you referring, who has denied those massacres?
Mayor Livingstone made a jibe to an Evening Standard reporter comparing him to a Nazi, and the reporter told the mayor it was offensive and to know he was addressing that comparison to a Jew. The mayor continued to make the comparison, the media made a big deal of it, the Board of Deputies of British Jews complained and an independent judiciary panel all agreed that the mayor had been highly outspoken for his office and ordered a four week suspension. Everything seems in order. Incidentally the mayor also argued that the reporter had retorted "F--k off!" However the entire conversation was on tape and the reporter was polite throughout. It is possibly a sad day in any event. Certainly you are in the early stages of Jew-hate, having implied Jews manipulate the winning side of a class divide at the expense of Muslims. You are with such sentiments quietly egging on a wide variety of dangerous lunatics. You might even attract accolytes. You are not some kind of martyr with this view. You will not get punished in any way for that opinion. But it is a nasty one.
[size=9]Whatever you do, know that I will always love you. Or else.[/size]
denying ceratin aspects of the holocaust should not be criminal offence... its freedom of speech! yes , the belief might be lufidcrous...but its freedom of speech. just ignore it.... just like Muslims are told to do again and again when they, their prophet, their faith is humiliated and demonised.
i'm sorry but the law protects jews an dnot Muslims. end of.
anti-semitism is seen as wrong, racist and criminal. islamophobia is seen as 'ok' and again Muslims should be so intolerant.
100,man, this is not about being against jews. i dont dislike jews, as a Muslim you cant, the prophet Muhammad treated jews well and gave them alot of respect...
this issue is about double standards of the West...
Erm... Ed what youon these days?
Should muslims just ignore it when the prophet
is insulted?
I think not.
So there should be some limitations on freedom of speech.
"For too long, we have been a passively tolerant society, saying to our citizens 'as long as you obey the law, we will leave you alone'" - David Cameron, UK Prime Minister. 13 May 2015.
as always you never understand what i'm saying, why i'm saying it and who i was answering on that post...
i have never said 'do nothing'...my point of freedom of speech was referring to Ken Livingstone issue...
anyway...
LoL
www.piczo.com/zikr
TheRevivalEditor,
Again the comparison that doesn't hold water. There are many ways in which one cannot lawfully offend the Muslims. It is racist or unacceptable to make categorical statements defaming Muslims as a generality, which they are not especially even if it is often said by pro- or anti-Islam extremists that they are, or due to such sentiments to discriminate against Muslims. The same goes for Jews, for Christians and also any ethnic group (or with xenophobia a nationality). It is not racist to treat harshly, reject or ridicule the beliefs of any faith. Monty Python, Anthony Burgess and Bertrand Russell would all have been censured. Loosely, it is unacceptable to treat harshly, reject or ridicule people of a given race or religious persuasion because of said race or religious persuasion. Simple. They could draw as many pictures of Mohammed, Jesus, Moses, Abraham, Adam and Eve as they liked in every rag in the world. We would let them. You have argued, quite out of the blue, that David Irving should not have been punished for claiming that the Jews had lied about the holocaust. You also claim to believe that Ken Livingstone's suspension marks a sad day and have remarked in the last two posts, in their entirety:
To the accusation that a Jewish conspiracy invented the holocaust, I cannot believe you do not appreciate the difference between that and the cartoons. As for Livingstone, after four weeks he will resume duties. If he still lacks perspective on this matter so be it. He will resume office. There was no suggestion of criminal behaviour. The judgement is he degraded his office, which seems clear to me although I would not have been foaming if the panel had ruled otherwise.
Now I asked you who is denying the killings you mention.
[size=9]Whatever you do, know that I will always love you. Or else.[/size]
Quick Question
I’ve never understood the exact meaning of denying the holocaust , does it mean:
A) Completely to deny it ever happened?
C) OR A and B
Pages