Home Politics & Debate
At The Mix, we want to make our services as helpful as we can. To do this, we’d love to ask you a few questions about you, your visit to The Mix and its impact. It should take only about 5-10 minutes to complete. Take this survey and get a chance at winning a £200 Amazon voucher​.
Come and join our Support Circle, every Tuesday, 8 - 9:30pm! Sign up here

David Irving banged up!

245

Comments

  • Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,324 The Mix Honorary Guru
    Aladdin wrote:
    This is just a little more than freedom of expression or saying what you think. That the holocaust happened is a fact as obvious as the sun rising from the East.
    Some crazy people out there dispute that the sun rises in the East, claiming it as fact (no matter how much evidence there is to back it up) doesn't excuse silencing other points of view.
  • Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,324 The Mix Honorary Guru
    Aladdin wrote:
    This is just a little more than freedom of expression or saying what you think. That the holocaust happened is a fact as obvious as the sun rising from the East.

    True. Although should we outlaw the Flat Earth Society too?
    Aladdin wrote:
    Anyone who denies it happened is not only cunt but a lying one too.

    True. Although to be honest I like the approach that Deborah Lipstadt takes on Irving and Holocaust denial laws. Overall, I completely agree with her really and imo she is pretty well qualified to comment on Irving knowing first hand what a nasty individual he is.
    Aladdin wrote:
    You might argue whether such laws are just or should exist, but the fact remains that they did exist. He chose to ignore them and to spread his filth, and now he's paid for it.

    Yup. Although he's been breaking Holocaust denial laws across Europe for years hence I'm curious why it's took so long to do something.
    Aladdin wrote:
    As someone said earlier there two separate arguments here- whether the existence of such laws is justified, and whether he should have been jailed. For those who believe in the rule of law, even if they think such laws should not exist they cannot (or should not) have much opposition to him being punished for breaking the law.

    There are. As he broke the law, yes he must face the consequences. However on a pragmatic level Irving must be revelling in the publicity and debate he’s creating. He’s plastered over the homepage of the BBC website, nice link to his personal website from the linked article too and his book sales will already be starting to rapidly increase.
  • Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,324 The Mix Honorary Guru
    How long before 9/11 conspiracy theories are made illegal?
  • Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,324 The Mix Honorary Guru
    Cant make them illegal or the entire Bush admin and all mainstream collusionist press and media networks would have to be collectively arrested and put away. ;)
  • Teh_GerbilTeh_Gerbil Stalin's Organist Posts: 13,327
    Cant make them illegal or the entire Bush admin and all mainstream collusionist press and media networks would have to be collectively arrested and put away. ;)
    :lol:
    Eh. I say let the madman rant... so we may all mock him. His fault though, hope he has a hard time in jail.
  • Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,324 The Mix Honorary Guru
    Go Team Europe! Bringing Freedom To Your Doorstep!
  • Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,324 The Mix Honorary Guru
    Aladdin wrote:
    For those who believe in the rule of law, even if they think such laws should not exist they cannot (or should not) have much opposition to him being punished for breaking the law.

    Interesting view.

    As someone,who also went around making speeches that people chose to listen to,said here
    We should never forget that everything Adolf Hitler did in Germany was "legal"
  • Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,324 The Mix Honorary Guru
    I think its blatent hypocracy, and will seem evern more so in the muslim world,
    We go on about freedom of speach, so Europe can disrespect peoples religion with the cartoons of the prophet mohammed, and then turn around and say,
    well yes freedom of speach as long as you agree with me. We can disrespect who we want, but people cant disagree with us or they get locked up.

    To the muslim world it will look more like Irving was telling the truth as why bother to lock him up if he wasnt, i.e. if there wasnt someting to be scared about.

    I think the law is rediculus
  • Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,324 The Mix Honorary Guru
    Aladdin wrote:
    Well, in Rome do as the Romans do...

    For someone who claims to be a researcher he didn't do a terribly good job of finding out that Holocaust denying is illegal in Austria and Germany.
    Aladdin wrote:
    I don't think anyone is denying or condoning China's human right abuses and repression NQA.

    But the focus on this thread was (I think) on a mega-rich company happy to swallow their principles, morals and rights and censor itself in order to make yet more money.

    Which is abhorrent, I'm sure we'll all agree.

    It also tells a lot about money, greed and capitalism, I think.

    How hypocritical can one person be?

    So Google are 'evil capitalists' for complying with Chinese law but David Irvine had it coming when he didn't comply with a local law that wouldn't look out of place in a totalitarian dictatorship.

    Nice to see you are happy to throw your principles out of the window when it happens to be someone you don't like succumbing to the thought police.
  • Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,324 The Mix Honorary Guru
    Toadborg wrote:
    How hypocritical can one person be?

    So Google are 'evil capitalists' for complying with Chinese law but David Irvine had it coming when he didn't comply with a local law that wouldn't look out of place in a totalitarian dictatorship.

    Nice to see you are happy to throw your principles out of the window when it happens to be someone you don't like succumbing to the thought police.
    Has anyone ever missed the point by a wider margin than you have done here?

    I very much doubt it. You should contact the Guiness Book of Records.

    What on god's green earth has an internet search company selling its core principles down the river in order to make a quick buck has to do with a Holocaust denier ignoring the laws of the country he's a guest in and indulging in a spot of illegal Holocaust denying?????

    Are you feeling alright?
  • Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,324 The Mix Honorary Guru
    \
  • Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,324 The Mix Honorary Guru
    well they're both issues of censorship. on the one hand, you think google ought to disregard china's laws of censorship, but then you support those of austria because they're censoring ideas that you find distasteful or offensive.



    not really, both are a bit stupid these days


    holocaust denial was only made illegal in the 90s
    if you dont want people to forget about it, educate people so they can comfortably criticise these nutcases who disagree it happened
  • Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,324 The Mix Honorary Guru
    well they're both issues of censorship. on the one hand, you think google ought to disregard china's laws of censorship, but then you support those of austria because they're censoring ideas that you find distasteful or offensive.
    No, not quite. I never said that. I said that Google should have chosen to pull out of China instead of selling its very soul to the devil and allowing to be censored for commercial profit.

    David Irving chose to break the law of the country he was a guest in to spread his filth.

    The two cases couldn't be more different and unrelated if you tried.
  • Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,324 The Mix Honorary Guru
    Unless someone is directly inciting violence they should virtually always be allowed to say whatever they want.

    By banning this it makes it far more attractive and seem like it has far more power. Just look at the coverage the BNP gets here, if we just left them to their own devices and gave them no attention they wouldn't get the votes they do.

    This also applies to Nazi things in Germany, its all banned so kids go out and search for it in illegal book shops, because if its banned it must be interesting.
  • Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,324 The Mix Honorary Guru
    Aladdin wrote:
    No, not quite. I never said that. I said that Google should have chosen to pull out of China instead of selling its very soul to the devil and allowing to be censored for commercial profit.

    David Irving chose to break the law of the country he was a guest in to spread his filth.

    The two cases couldn't be more different and unrelated if you tried.

    China and Austria are two countries where you are now allowed to say certain things.

    In the case of China you suggest that the outsider should not comply with the Chinese laws. In the case of Austria you suggest that the outsider should comply with these laws.

    Clearly then you are willing to curtail freedom of speech if it is something you disagree with.....
  • Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,324 The Mix Honorary Guru
    Toadborg wrote:
    China and Austria are two countries where you are now allowed to say certain things.

    In the case of China you suggest that the outsider should not comply with the Chinese laws. In the case of Austria you suggest that the outsider should comply with these laws.

    Clearly then you are willing to curtail freedom of speech if it is something you disagree with.....
    Try to read my posts again eh? I never said Google should not break the law. I said it should pull out.

    Irving broke the law and he's being punished for it. What's so fucking difficult to understand about that?
  • Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,324 The Mix Honorary Guru
    Al, I must say I cannot agree with you on this one. When a law is tyrannical and unjust it is the duty of we the people, singularly and collectively (when and where possible) to oppose it.

    By the standard you seem to be advocating, we should simply accept the imprisonments of Mandela, Martin Luther King, Alexander Solzhenitsyn, and any number of past and present prisoners of conscience (jailed according to "the law(s)" of their respective lands and times).

    Frankly, I have been intrigued by this discussion and having not read any of Irving's works, was curious to see what may or may not be true about him. What I seem to find most in search after search, site after site, is not reasoned refutation of anything he has written, but simply the standard Zionist-led character smears and labelling which are typical of mainstream pundits for the status quo.

    If Irving possesses the depth of source material I have seen suggested in various places, then there is something (as one poster alluded to above) highly suspect in the agressive efforts to attack the man rather than proving his historical analyses false.

    What truth is so feeble that it fears to defend itself through reasoned discourse (of the facts themselves, not the individuals) in the open market place of ideas and free expression? Anything less suggests that what may well be populist belief today could well be the product of generations of imposed and inflated mythmaking cowardly reinforced with personal slander and violence toward any who dare question.

    On the subject of the Holocaust, even the recognised historical scholar Norman Finkelstein has written at length of the industry which Zionists have made of the Holocaust for the advancement of their own political agenda.
  • Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,324 The Mix Honorary Guru
    The thing is, Irving actually revised his views about the Holocaust years and years ago and accepted genocide did take place. The media presented this change of opinion as a trick because of the trial - which isn't true.

    So...a man denies the Holocaust over a decade ago, changes his views over a decade ago, yet is still jailed for expressing an opinion he hasn't held for over a decade.

    Seriously out of order.
  • Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,324 The Mix Honorary Guru
    ^ Clandestine, are you serious? I am actually beginning to think you are a bona-fide anti semite, not just a conspiracy theory nutjob.

    Irving, whilst possessing some talent as a historian, unfortunately happens to be a lunatic.
  • Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,324 The Mix Honorary Guru
    Splif, As Ive said, I would have to obtain and read all of Irving's works to be certain of what he has or has not claimed.

    What I do know to be common practice, however, is that even those who dare question not only the populist conceptions pertaining to the Holocaust, but also the manipulation of the entire era's events by those who have made political crusade out of it - backed by politically powerful organisational structures (WZO, AIPAC, JINSA, ADL, etc.) and considerable financial means - to hold themselves above all scrutiny and criticism for their own evils (especially those of the state of Israel) towards others, are commonly lumped into the same littany of labels: "anti-semite", "neo-nazi", "self-hating Jew" (the common non-fact-based reply often seen levelled at Finkelstein, Pappe, Shlaim and other anti-Zionist Jewish historians/scholars), etc. etc..

    It is interesting to note though, that throughout the UK court case you mention, neither Ms. Lipstadt (for all she claims to advocate about "reasoned discourse") nor her publisher ever deigned to take the witness stand to be cross examined. In reading some of the court transcript their reliance upon mere personal character attacks seems to be the substance of their position.
  • Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,324 The Mix Honorary Guru
    Is there anything that can't be blamed on the Zionists?
  • Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,324 The Mix Honorary Guru
    Splif, As Ive said, I would have to obtain and read all of Irving's works to be certain of what he has or has not claimed.

    What I do know to be common practice, however, is that even those who dare question not only the populist conceptions pertaining to the Holocaust, but also the manipulation of the entire era's events by those who have made political crusade out of it - backed by politically powerful organisational structures (WZO, AIPAC, JINSA, ADL, etc.) and considerable financial means - to hold themselves above all scrutiny and criticism for their own evils (especially those of the state of Israel) towards others, are commonly lumped into the same littany of labels: "anti-semite", "neo-nazi", "self-hating Jew" (the common non-fact-based reply often seen levelled at Finkelstein, Pappe, Shlaim and other anti-Zionist Jewish historians/scholars), etc. etc..

    It is interesting to note though, that throughout the UK court case you mention, neither Ms. Lipstadt (for all she claims to advocate about "reasoned discourse") nor her publisher ever deigned to take the witness stand to be cross examined. In reading some of the court transcript their reliance upon mere personal character attacks seems to be the substance of their position.

    I thought he sued her, and the reasoned discource was in her book about holocust deniers.
  • Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,324 The Mix Honorary Guru
    Norman Finkelstein’s parents are Holocaust survivors Cland. Criticism of Irving cannot be compared to that of Shlaim and Pappe, can you not recognise the difference between historians like Pappe that comment almost wholly on Israel/Palestine and are critical of Israel and an outright Holocaust denier like Irving?

    Considering how you claim anti-Zionism can under no circumstances ever equate to anti-Semitism it’s odd that you seem to be verging on lumping anti-Semites and anti-Zionists together.

    And as for the libel trial you couldn’t be further off the mark, take a look at some of what Richard Evans said for the defence. (It was Irving that sued for libel).

    Oh and in case you’re thinking of championing Irving because you share a few opinions you might want to read some of the other things he’s said:
    I am not anti-coloured, take it from me; nothing pleases me more than when I arrive at an airport, or a station, or a seaport, and I see a coloured family there — the black father, the black wife and the black children… When I see these families arriving at the airport I am happy, and when I see them leaving at London airport I am happy.
    But if there is one thing that gets up my nose, I must admit, it is this — the way… the thing is when I am down in Torquay and I switch on my television and I see one of them reading our news to us. It is our news and they’re reading it to me. If I was a chauvinist I would say I object even to seeing women reading our news to us.
    …But now we have women reading out news to us. If they could perhaps have their own news which they were reading to us, I suppose [laughter], it would be very interesting.
    For the time being, for a transitional period I'd be prepared to accept that the BBC should have a dinner-jacketed gentleman reading the important news to us, following by a lady reading all the less important news, followed by Trevor McDonald giving us all the latest news about the muggings and the drug busts…"
  • Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,324 The Mix Honorary Guru
    Dear Wendy wrote:
    Is there anything that can't be blamed on the Zionists?

    If it weren’t for Clan replacing ‘Jew’ with ‘Zionist’ his rants would be pretty difficult to distinguish from anti-Semitic and disproved Protocols of the Elders of Zion style conspiracies.

    To be honest Clan imo is actually like members of the Flat Earth Society, David Irving and creationists – he talks absolute nonsense and nothing backs up his ridiculous claims, his views are perhaps sometimes dangerous but essentially irrelevant. Like the other nutjobs, despite how ludicrous his views are he has a right to them.
  • Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,324 The Mix Honorary Guru
    Clandestine did make a coment that 9/11 was caused by the USA shadow government who engineered the attacks with help of Zionist intelligence officers from Israel!

    I think Irvine was rightfully prosecuted, yes he has talent as a historian, but sadly he is something of a revisionist about it.
  • Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,324 The Mix Honorary Guru
    Norman Finkelstein’s parents are Holocaust survivors Cland. Criticism of Irving cannot be compared to that of Shlaim and Pappe, can you not recognise the difference between historians like Pappe that comment almost wholly on Israel/Palestine and are critical of Israel and an outright Holocaust denier like Irving?

    Try reading what I wrote one more time without reinterpreting to to suit your agenda, Dis.

    I am perfectly capable of differentiating between true Holocaust denial (i.e. claiming the event never happend) and Holocaust scrutiny (as Finkelstein himself undertakes as have numerous scholars), namely the questioning of the industry and mythology established as accepted "history" by Zionists and their apologists in order to reinforce their broader ideological presumptions and aims.

    My point was/is that Zionists themselves, as demonstrated by some of your own previous posts, do not make such distinction but tar all who dare subject any part of the Zionist narrative to factual scrutiny (from the earliest days of the movement through WWII to the present day) with the same slanderous labels rather than engage with any data that might undermine their precious ideological beliefs.

    Considering how you claim anti-Zionism can under no circumstances ever equate to anti-Semitism it’s odd that you seem to be verging on lumping anti-Semites and anti-Zionists together.

    Once again, I am not lumping them together, I am pointing out the tactic employed by Zionists who are the ones smearing all who dare question their claims as "anti-semites" (or when they feel they must, "self-hating Jew").
    And as for the libel trial you couldn’t be further off the mark, take a look at some of what Richard Evans said for the defence. (It was Irving that sued for libel).

    I will continue to read the transcript and yes Im aware that Irving brought the suit. The part I read only contained the arguments of Rampton (publisher) and Irving (Plaintiff).
    Oh and in case you’re thinking of championing Irving because you share a few opinions you might want to read some of the other things he’s said:

    My intent is not to "champion" Irving, but to point out that to date I have neither read his actual works nor seen anything more than numerous character smears against him which have not made any credible intellectually-honest effort to refute whatever he might have claimed in those works on proper documented evidentiary grounds.
  • Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,324 The Mix Honorary Guru
    Considering how you claim anti-Zionism can under no circumstances ever equate to anti-Semitism it’s odd that you seem to be verging on lumping anti-Semites and anti-Zionists together.

    Only a fool would equate anti-Zionism with anti-Semitism.
  • Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,324 The Mix Honorary Guru
    If it weren’t for Clan replacing ‘Jew’ with ‘Zionist’ his rants would be pretty difficult to distinguish from anti-Semitic and disproved Protocols of the Elders of Zion style conspiracies.

    To be honest Clan imo is actually like members of the Flat Earth Society, David Irving and creationists – he talks absolute nonsense and nothing backs up his ridiculous claims, his views are perhaps sometimes dangerous but essentially irrelevant. Like the other nutjobs, despite how ludicrous his views are he has a right to them.

    And there is precisely, true to form, the very slander intrinsic to Zionist ideologues.

    Thank you for validating my point yet again, Dis.

    As for your assertions that my claims are not backed up. This again is empirically disproven already by the numerous scholarly links I have repeatedly provided. The real danger arises from rabid intellectually bankrupt extremists, like yourself, who cannot bear to hold their precious beliefs up to the light of reasoned and factual examination for fear that they will discover the depth of duplicity inherent to them. Something Finkelstein, Pappe, Shlaim and numerous other more reasoned and honest scholars recognise.

    You only undermine any claim to being a seeker of fact and truth with every such ridiculous, albeit wholly expected, claim such as the above.

    Zionism is a political ideology, Judaism is a religion. Perhaps you need to take your own advice from your previous post and cease from confusing the two.
  • Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,324 The Mix Honorary Guru
    Hit-nail-head, turlough! :thumb:
  • Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,324 The Mix Honorary Guru
    Clandestine did make a coment that 9/11 was caused by the USA shadow government who engineered the attacks with help of Zionist intelligence officers from Israel!

    Seems you want to provoke another flame war is that it, subject? I have never claimed that it WAS, I have argued that the far more logically consistent explanation for the myriad of inconsistencies contained in the "official" conspiracy theory (that of foreign "Al Qaeda" terrorists being responsible) is to be found in the means, motive and opportunity available to our own intelligence community and MIC.

    Without a full unhindered and transparent public invesitgation for which no agency or political figure (or summarily confiscated and classified evidence) will be permitted exemption or evasion from scrutiny under any circumstance, the truth will not be proven either way. Until then, it remains a matter of discourse over the utterly illogical claims of the populist myth (via examination of what has been researched and published) currently providing the basis for systematic suspension of long fought for rights and due processes of law, versus the more reasoned suspicion of those who stood to, and have ever since been, gain(ing) the most.

    Perhaps the distinction is beyond your intellectual capacity to grasp, but do try.
Sign In or Register to comment.