Double standard of EU 'Prevention of revision of the Past'

Manic Moran

Morlar wrote: »

The recent tendency on here by several new posters to refer to anti-semites and nazis left and right is not a positive development in my view. It would seem to be an attempt to try and use namecalling and mudslinging in order to intimidate people away from expressing their viewpoint on complicated issues. It adds nothing to the level of debate.

By and large, (Putting the Moderator hat on for a second), I'm inclined to agree with this. Posters may be Nazi sypathisers, holocaust deniers, anti-semites, or adherents of the Church of the Flying Spaghetti Monster, but name-calling doesn't really contribute anything. Most Boardsies are intelligent enough to read what is written and form their own conclusions about the posters.

NTM

hoorsmelt

The point being I suppose that none of the Stalinist States attempted to physically annihilate all members of an ethnic group within their borders. Now no-one is denying the oppression of the Chechens, Ukrainians, or other ethnic minority groups who had large numbers of members in those states, but there were no examples in the canon of Gulag records or accounts of extermination camps primarily set up with the purpose of mass murder be it by gassing or other methods. Those were the preserve of the Nazis. And the reason why it's remembered in Europe is because it's the largest genocide in the continents history, and is relatively recent, not because of some 'political lobby' (I know the poster who put that up really means Jewish people).

AnnyHallsal

Manic Moran wrote: »

By and large, (Putting the Moderator hat on for a second), I'm inclined to agree with this. Posters may be Nazi sypathisers, holocaust deniers, anti-semites, or adherents of the Church of the Flying Spaghetti Monster, but name-calling doesn't really contribute anything. Most Boardsies are intelligent enough to read what is written and form their own conclusions about the posters.

NTM

First, I'd like to make it clear that the following does not refer to any particular Boards user(s). Some of this reminds me of the n*gger guy episode of South Park. People who want the freedom to argue all kinds of thinks about Jews/Zionists turn out to be awfully sensitive to being called an anti-semite/holocaust denier. I see some hypocrisy there.

marcsignal

jonniebgood1 wrote: »

You make a very good and correct point which I think most would agree with. I was'nt aware of payments to Israel- do you have links or more info on this as it sounds interesting. Is it an agreed compensation or what type of payment is it. Sounds to me like a guilt payment which is ridiculous 66 years on. Maybe in 66 years the Israeli's will be paying guilt money to palestine!!!

Some info on Holocaust Compensation Payments here

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Reparations_Agreement_between_Israel_and_West_Germany

http://www.ushmm.org/assets/frg.htm

http://www.fas.org/sgp/crs/row/RL33808.pdf

and some descenting / other views

http://www.normanfinkelstein.com/article.php?ar=14&pg=4

http://www.spiegel.de/international/world/0,1518,523846,00.html

http://www.ynet.co.il/english/articles/0,7340,L-3470239,00.html

Morlar

AnnyHallsal wrote: »

People who want the freedom to argue all kinds of thinks about Jews/Zionists turn out to be awfully sensitive to being called an anti-semite/holocaust denier. I see some hypocrisy there.

Your generalisation of one side of this discussion is incorrect in my view. It is not about people who want the freedom to;

'freedom to argue all kinds of thinks about Jews/Zionists'

at all.

It is about posters having the freedom to discuss complex subjects in a mature manner and whether this gives other posters in disagreement the right to subject those people to childish & immature namecalling and mudslinging.

The example on this thread is not the first in recent weeks.

AnnyHallsal

Morlar wrote: »

Your generalisation of one side of this discussion is incorrect in my view. It is not about people who want the freedom to;

'freedom to argue all kinds of thinks about Jews/Zionists'

at all.

It is about posters having the freedom to discuss complex subjects in a mature manner and whether this gives other posters in disagreement the right to subject those people to childish & immature namecalling and mudslinging.

The example on this thread is not the first in recent weeks.

That's a matter for the moderators. I presume you reported the offending posts and Manic Moran has described his official position, which seems to support the openness you seek.

As I said my comment was not limited to Boards but to those who wish to advance arguments about Jews/Zionists in general.

Morlar

AnnyHallsal wrote: »

That's a matter for the moderators. I presume you reported the offending posts and Manic Moran has described his official position, which seems to support the openness you seek.

As I said my comment was not limited to Boards but to those who wish to advance arguments about Jews/Zionists in general.

Of the post on this thread ? No, it was not me who reported it to the moderators.

marienbad

jonniebgood1 wrote: »

You make a very good and correct point which I think most would agree with. I was'nt aware of payments to Israel- do you have links or more info on this as it sounds interesting. Is it an agreed compensation or what type of payment is it. Sounds to me like a guilt payment which is ridiculous 66 years on. Maybe in 66 years the Israeli's will be paying guilt money to palestine!!!

As far as I am aware germany is still paying reparations to Israel and will be for some time yet. On a separated but kinda related issue Tony Blair made the last payment to the US on the lend/lease aid around 1999 and for the last 30 years most of that was interest.

AnnyHallsal

Morlar wrote: »

Of the post on this thread ? No, it was not me who reported it to the moderators.

I was referring to your complaint about "childish & immature namecalling and mudslinging" in general. You said there have been many such instances.

Morlar

AnnyHallsal wrote: »

I was referring to your complaint about "childish & immature namecalling and mudslinging" in general. You said there have been many such instances.

You said you presumed I had reported the offending posts. I simply clarified that in relation to that post the answer is no. There was a previous one (I believe on this thread) which was reported.

AnnyHallsal

Morlar wrote: »

You said you presumed I had reported the offending posts. I simply clarified that in relation to this thread the answer is no.

Ok, let's not go round in circles. If you believe discussion is being impeded by behaviour that is against the charter it should be reported so that a judgement can be made. That was my point.

Morlar

AnnyHallsal wrote: »

Ok, let's not go round in circles. If you believe discussion is being impeded by behaviour that is against the charter it should be reported so that a judgement can be made. That was my point.

I am not going around in circles - you made an assumption about me which I attempted to clarify. Just as if there was a thread where I made assumptions about you I would expect you to do the same.

AnnyHallsal

Morlar wrote: »

I am not going around in circles - you made an assumption about me which I attempted to clarify. Just as if there was a thread where I made assumptions about you I would expect you to do the same.

Ok, you didn't report these posts which gravely impeded discussion. Point clarified.

Morlar

AnnyHallsal wrote: »

Ok, you didn't report these posts which gravely impeded discussion. Point clarified.

Not all of them, no.

marcsignal

Just in relation, once again, to the Holocaust fund fraud mentioned here in post #329.

I would hypothesise, that one of the motivating factors for the group of individuals behind this theft, may well have been the 'special' or 'uniquely barbaric' status that the Holocaust has today among Genocides.

Who would dare have questioned, or queried any of these false claims that were being filed?

As it turns out, the FBI were called in after irregularities were noticed by someone else working for the same fund, and not as a result of a tip off from any outside source. In my opinion, this is only one potential problem with the concept of a Genocidal VIP Area for any particular historical event (for the want of a better phrase).

jonniebgood1

marcsignal wrote: »

Some info on Holocaust Compensation Payments here

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Reparations_Agreement_between_Israel_and_West_Germany

http://www.ushmm.org/assets/frg.htm

http://www.fas.org/sgp/crs/row/RL33808.pdf

and some descenting / other views

http://www.normanfinkelstein.com/article.php?ar=14&pg=4

http://www.spiegel.de/international/world/0,1518,523846,00.html

http://www.ynet.co.il/english/articles/0,7340,L-3470239,00.html

Appreciate the information sources- was not aware of the extent of these payments.

The irony of Israel trying to get discounted military goods in this way would be particularly galling http://www.reuters.com/article/2009/11/25/arms-israel-germany-idUSGEE5AN12E20091125

Manic Moran

Hell, I can't remember who reported the posts. Or even which ones were reported.

And it doesn't matter.

I like to take a fairly hands-off attitude to moderating, there have been several reported posts I have chosen to take no action on (or even comment upon). I made an observation on how I would like to see the argument continue in the interests of good civility, it wasn't a judicial ruling or anything.

NTM

BlaasForRafa

jonniebgood1 wrote: »

Appreciate the information sources- was not aware of the extent of these payments.

The irony of Israel trying to get discounted military goods in this way would be particularly galling http://www.reuters.com/article/2009/11/25/arms-israel-germany-idUSGEE5AN12E20091125

Why shouldn't the Israeli government push for a good deal? I wish the Irish government had had the balls to push the EU/IMF for a better deal on the bailout.

Tony EH

hoorsmelt wrote: »

The point being I suppose that none of the Stalinist States attempted to physically annihilate all members of an ethnic group within their borders.

Tell that to a Kalmyk.

Herrmann

I will not comment any details of history, I certainly only believe what I am obliged by law to believe. What I will discuss is the freedom of expression and / or my own opinin.

Herrmann

Cc. the "Irving verdict" I have to correct myself: The judgement was the one from Austria. The German conviction was for having reported that the Gas chamber is Ausschwitz was built by the Russians after the war (which later was confirmed by the administration and now officially the place is presented as a "symbolic" installation).

sources:

http://www.kehrusker.net/index.php?option=com_content&view=article&id=973:bvg-rechtsprechung-sondergesetze-eine-analyse&catid=70:ewiges-recht&Itemid=96

http://www.wno.org/newpages/eth35.html

http://www.wissenslogs.de/wblogs/blog/libertarian/allgemein/2009-01-27/die-auschwitzl-ge/page/3


http://www.uni-graz.at/~fleck/pdf/texte/2005n.pdf


http://www.links-enttarnt.de/Kommentare/Kapitel01.pdf

http://www.alibri-buecher.de/docs/probe762.pdf


more to come....

for linguistic assistance:


www.leo.org

jonniebgood1

BlaasForRafa wrote: »

Why shouldn't the Israeli government push for a good deal? I wish the Irish government had had the balls to push the EU/IMF for a better deal on the bailout.

The problem is not pushing for a good deal, The problem is using a tragedy such as the Holocaust as a means to getting a reduction in cost of military ships. This is what the reuters story implies.

German Foreign Minister Guido Westerwelle, who visited Israel this week, declined to comment on the Meko negotiations.

Keen to atone for its Holocaust history, Germany has in the past partially financed major Israeli military acquisitions.

In 2006, it agreed to cover up to a third of the cost of an Israeli contract for two German-built Dolphin-class submarines. Israel already has three Dolphins, acquired at deep discounts.

Herrmann

May I add a quote by someone who has more talent in expressing and writing ideas and thoughts. That is evidence that the official history contains an awful list of deceptions. Search of the truth is anything but "hate propaganda", "intolerance" or "neo nazism". It is a simple necessity.

To have some impression of the abyss of deception, I add some more links and quotes. I recommend to rethink the true purpose of "anti hate legislation" after reading.



Quote from: "A Man for All Seasons," in which William Roper and Sir Thomas More debate the relative balance between evil and freedom:

Roper: So now you'd give the devil benefit of law.

More: Yes. What would you do? Cut a great road through the law to get after the devil?

Roper: I'd cut down every law in England to do that.

More: Oh? And when the law was down -- and the devil turned round on you -- where would you hide? Yes, I'd give the devil benefit of law, for my own safety's sake.



Found in:

http://www.sovereignty.org.uk/siteinfo/newsround/holo2.html



Also very interesting:

http://www.indret.com/pdf/591_en.pdf

http://www.lewrockwell.com/orig/raico-churchill1.html

http://mises.org/journals/jls/6_1/6_1_1.pdf

quote: When the president proclaimed the Four Freedoms in his State of the Union address, delivered on January 6, 1941, Borchard replied, "At least the crusades of a thousand years ago had a more limited objective."The Atlantic Charter, drafted by Roosevelt and Churchill in August 1941, met with a similar response. "The eight points," he wrote, "were in effect a proclamation that the United States and Great Britain would control the world by reason of their superior virtue." In addition...Churchill did not cross the ocean "merely to give utterance to the eight platitudes."'



an excellent report about pre ww II Germany is found in
W. Shirer's Berlin Diary: The Journal of a Foreign Correspondent 1934-41

which has to be compared with propaganda stories about war mongering Germans still tought in contemporary school classes

and last but not least the 331 pages from the international commission investigating the Katyn massacres with 971 bodies autopsied and identified in 1943 (but until 1995 reported to be a German atrocity).

http://katyn.ru/index.php?go=Pages&in=view&id=831

Conclusion: At least some critical evaluation of historic teachings must become standard, I cannot see why there should be any legally enforced exceptions.

marcsignal

Excellent links Herrmann, thanks for posting

Herrmann

Let me add one consideration. It is an aspect which I haven't found anywhere. To me it reveals a real ethical and moral dilemma:

German courts refuse any discussion of details of the offical Holocaust version. All critics are judged to be "denial" and punishable. Those courts claim that the truth is "offenkundig", which means something like "obvious". In reality it is a technical term originating from witch hunts and inquisition trials. "Offenkundikeit" actually is not used anywhere but in German jurisdiction, where it was "revived". Lawyers trying to defend their clients by entering proofs also can be jailed for "denial", a procedure which was confirmed by the highest court of the state.

I therefore must tell you that i do not discuss the following details but let it open to someone not living under a totalitarian threat. But those examples show some of the concerns.

Source: Eglish version of Wikipedia, topic: Holocaust.
Pictures from the page are attached to this posting.

The first picture is titled: Rows of burned inmates from the Nordhausen concentration camp..

Although it is true that those people were slave lanbourers in the Nordhausen Camp, their story is incompletely presented. The cause of death of the victims on the picture was a British air raid on the city of Nordhausen in April 1945. http://de.straightworldbank.com/wiki/Nordhausen

Herrmann

The next picture is called: Extermination of jews by the Einsatzgruppen.


Looking into the high resolution version however shows: the shooter is not aiming at the person on the picture assumed to be the victim of execution
and:

• there is one person already being shot lying at the feet of the shooter
• a number of guns aiming into different directions on the left side of the picture
• a group of persons seeking cover with the back to the main shooter

The picture is a situation of ambush, people on the picture being the targets, not the attackers.

Herrmann

Picture Nr. III: A starving child in the streets of the Warsaw jewish ghetto. But another detail remains unnoticed: Three other children not on the edge of starvation seem not to care for the scenery. Healthy children normally are not just passing a dying child. At the place, the picture was taken there was also no general situation of starvation. Some questions thereore remain open:

By just accepting the offical version of the picture, which would at least require some further explanations, the real story behind it might be lost. And that would be neither ethical nor honest towards the victim. That life was wasted It shouldn't be misused even after death. And if the picture is authentic, the strange behaviour of the others would be an interesting topic.

This question, including the ones above, is neither coming from "denial" nore from any sympathy for the nazis. I hate being lied upon.

jonniebgood1

Your views on these pictures are quite warped in my opinion. Perhaps the children in the Warsaw picture were used to seeing scenes such as that photographed so there was no need to be alarmed. Perhaps the guns in the einsatzgruppen photos were also assisting in the murder?



If your view on these pictures was accepted 100% what point are you trying to make? In simple terms if these photos are staged, what does it prove? To my mind it would not change in any way the wrongs comitted. Also I think staging propaganda was common at this period of popular media- This was well illustrated in recently shown documentary from Nazi film makers from the Warsaw Ghetto

I agree that we should be free to question history but we must also do this in a balanced and fair way. Unless you can substantiate comments which you made in relation to some of the linked photos, your posts will lack credibility.
I would point you in the direction of other photographs on the same Wikipedia page that you refer to and ask for an explanation of the photos titled "A grave inside Bergen-Belsen" and
"Starving prisoners in Mauthausen camp liberated on May 5, 1945"

-are these similarily staged????

Mahatma coat

the ''Éinsatzgruppen'' Photo has been discussed here before at length, its not what they claim it to be.

secondly, Linking to Wiki to back your point on this topic will get about as much credence from me as If I linked to JewWatch.com to back mine

heres why

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4HbrcL-5QuA

Wiki can be a great source of information for benign things bt when the Hasbra Shills admit that they are making concerted efforts to remove anything that shows Israel ina bad light then its unacceptable.

Herrmanns Posts highlight that fact. especially the first one

jonniebgood1

Mahatma coat wrote: »

the ''Éinsatzgruppen'' Photo has been discussed here before at length, its not what they claim it to be.

secondly, Linking to Wiki to back your point on this topic will get about as much credence from me as If I linked to JewWatch.com to back mine
.....

Herrmanns Posts highlight that fact. especially the first one

The photo linked by hermann was taken from wiki- I was simply using his photo source and asking for explanations from other photos on the same page (not backing up any point).

Perhaps you could clear up the same question I asked Hermann, i.e. If the photo is staged what relevence does it have to the einsatzgruppen issue?