Tony Blair.

[JohnD]

Tony Blair. He wants to make doubting the Holocaust an imprisonable offence.

The thread started with a lie.

 

[mikeey84]

It's not a lie at all. If you look at the conspiracy theory known as the holocaust and denounce it as such and say that it never happened as there is no proof that 11,000,000 people disappeared without a trace (though they still claim pensions from Germany), them in 16 countries in Europe you will be imprisoned. Blair wants to make that 17 countries that you get imprisoned for debunking the myth.

You really don't understand what a conspiracy theory is do? If the majority of the world believes in something, and you don't, you are the one with the conspiracy theory, not the rest of us.

Denying the holocaust is a conspiracy theory. Believing the holocaust is not a conspiracy theory.

Denying the holocaust belongs in the same pantheon as "9/11 Truthers", the grassy knoll, fake moon landings, creationism and chem trails.

Conspiracy Theories are characterised by: cherry picking data, and then arguing that anything that contradicts you has "been got at", but not accepting that your data is either inconclusive, fake, has been "got at" by your side, or just plain wrong. Which pretty much details all of your "arguments"

 

[vinty]

It's not a lie at all. If you look at the conspiracy theory known as the holocaust and denounce it as such and say that it never happened as there is no proof that 11,000,000 people disappeared without a trace (though they still claim pensions from Germany), them in 16 countries in Europe you will be imprisoned. Blair wants to make that 17 countries that you get imprisoned for debunking the myth.

You really don't understand what a conspiracy theory is do? If the majority of the world believes in something, and you don't, you are the one with the conspiracy theory, not the rest of us.

Denying the holocaust is a conspiracy theory. Believing the holocaust is not a conspiracy theory.

Denying the holocaust belongs in the same pantheon as "9/11 Truthers", the grassy knoll, fake moon landings, creationism and chem trails.

Conspiracy Theories are characterised by: cherry picking data, and then arguing that anything that contradicts you has "been got at", but not accepting that your data is either inconclusive, fake, has been "got at" by your side, or just plain wrong. Which pretty much details all of your "arguments"

Another characteristic of those who believe in the Holocaust is to accuse others of the very things of which they are guilty themselves.
They can't produce any real evidence that millions died in gas chambers, so when cornered they resort to abuse and threats.

 

[vinty]

Tony Blair. He wants to make doubting the Holocaust an imprisonable offence.

Who agrees with him? Nosey? Wobs? Bernard?

He's got people asking what are the authorities afraid of?

Is the INTERNET finally unravelling history as we've been taught it?

It certainly looks that way.

I few years ago I was a believer, but what I've read in the past couple of years has changed my mind.

Should I be locked up for questioning history? What's he on? (not his salary).

This comes from the man who told the house of commons that 400,000 Iraqis had been found in mass graves in Iraqi's you can see why he wants laws to control freedom of thought.
People like Blair are a bigger threat to free speech in the UK than any muslim extremist.
If you think about it Blair has done more damage to Britain than anyone since Hitler, he allowed the country to be flooded with immigrants, started a catastrophic war using lies and deception, he tried to get the UK into the Euro which would have wrecked the economy , he allowed the banks to run wild. He gave IRA terrorists who carried out the Hyde park bombing letters of pardon which they used to walk out of court when charged.

 

[JohnD]

And yet Joe can't get by without making up lies about him.

 

[vinty]

there is no suggestion that Blair or his group made a proposal for "questioning" or "doubting" to be offences. Have a look at the first post on this thread. It is a lie, probably intended to stir up argument.

In Germany and Austria Holocaust Denial is an offence, as is the display of Swastikas. They used to have a lot of committed Nazis to keep under control. Many of them have changed their minds and/or pegged out by now.

There is a fellow called David Irvine who made an unsuccessful libel claim after a book described him as a Holocaust denier, falsifier, and bigot, and said that he manipulated and distorted real documents.
The English court found that Irving was an active Holocaust denier, antisemite, and racist, who "for his own ideological reasons persistently and deliberately misrepresented and manipulated historical evidence". In addition, the court found that Irving's books had distorted the history of Adolf Hitler's role in the Holocaust in order to depict Hitler in a favourable light

see http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/David_Irving

It is not a crime in the UK, but he repeated his claims in other countries, including Germany where he addressed neo-Nazi rallies and was eventually expelled. He was also prosecuted and imprisoned in Austria. During his trial he claimed to have learned that he was wrong and to have changed his mind. He has been banned from entering many countries, including Canada and Austria. He is something of a serial litigator.

We can accurately and safely describe him as an active Holocaust denier, antisemite, and racist.

He has written a number of books which are popular among neo-Nazis and antisemites. Some of Mr Irving's views seem to have cropped up recently on DIYnot. I am sure that he had access to all the "evidence" and opinions available to Joe. They have been thoroughly examined and dismissed.

The David Irving trial was a bit of a circus, he had only himself to blame, instead of getting himself proper legal representation he decided to represent himself, which was a case of the old saying that any man who represents himself in court has a fool for a client.
There was no way Iriving was going to win his case against Deborah Lipstadt, the Zionists who payed for her defence spent millions to nail Irving .
The so called "independent" witness "Historian" Richard Evans was paid 50,000 to carry out research for the defence, Lipstadt employed the best legal brains in Britain all payed for by international Zionism.
It was a case of David of verses Goliath , in this case Goliath won.

 

[JohnD]

I see Vinty ignores me drawing attention to the lie which Joe used to start this thread

there is no suggestion that Blair or his group made a proposal for "questioning" or "doubting" to be offences. Have a look at the first post on this thread. It is a lie, probably intended to stir up argument.

 

[vinty]

And yet Joe can't get by without making up lies about him.

Any examples John

 

[JohnD]

get a grown-up to read my four preceding posts to you.

 

[EFLImpudence]

Again, not taking sides but -

You really don't understand what a conspiracy theory is do? If the majority of the world believes in something, and you don't, you are the one with the conspiracy theory, not the rest of us.

Usually but it's not really a question of the numbers believing as the vast majority cannot know and are merely told; it is whether the <whatever subject> is true.

Denying the holocaust is a conspiracy theory. Believing the holocaust is not a conspiracy theory.

That is true but I think you are misdefining 'conspiracy theory'.
Denying the <whatever subject> is a theory that there was a conspiracy; not conspiring to have a theory.
Obviously believing in <whatever subject> is not a theory but if it didn't happen then there must have been a conspiracy.
It could work the other way round by the theorists believing something happened which was hidden.

Denying the holocaust belongs in the same pantheon as "9/11 Truthers", the grassy knoll, fake moon landings, creationism and chem trails.

It does. However, the fact that some people don't believe does not make it true.

Conspiracy Theories are characterised by: cherry picking data, and then arguing that anything that contradicts you has "been got at", but not accepting that your data is either inconclusive, fake, has been "got at" by your side, or just plain wrong. Which pretty much details all of your "arguments"

The trouble is that there must be data which don't add up or there would be nothing to doubt.

No one would have a theory that WW2 didn't happen.
However, as has been said, history is written by the victors.

 

[mikeey84]

Again, not taking sides but -

You really don't understand what a conspiracy theory is do? If the majority of the world believes in something, and you don't, you are the one with the conspiracy theory, not the rest of us.

Usually but it's not really a question of the numbers believing as the vast majority cannot know and are merely told; it is whether the <whatever subject> is true.

Denying the holocaust is a conspiracy theory. Believing the holocaust is not a conspiracy theory.

That is true but I think you are misdefining 'conspiracy theory'.
Denying the <whatever subject> is a theory that there was a conspiracy; not conspiring to have a theory.
Obviously believing in <whatever subject> is not a theory but if it didn't happen then there must have been a conspiracy.
It could work the other way round by the theorists believing something happened which was hidden.

Denying the holocaust belongs in the same pantheon as "9/11 Truthers", the grassy knoll, fake moon landings, creationism and chem trails.

It does. However, the fact that some people don't believe does not make it true.

Conspiracy Theories are characterised by: cherry picking data, and then arguing that anything that contradicts you has "been got at", but not accepting that your data is either inconclusive, fake, has been "got at" by your side, or just plain wrong. Which pretty much details all of your "arguments"

The trouble is that there must be data which don't add up or there would be nothing to doubt.

No one would have a theory that WW2 didn't happen.
However, as has been said, history is written by the victors.

I agree with the majority of your points, and as the old freedom fighter/terrorist saying goes, one mans conspiracy theory is another mans history.

I will say however, about your last point, most of the time the data doesn't add up because of the points I raised re. cherry picking and ignoring valid sources.

 

[JohnD]

Joe's points most certainly don't add up, especially the ones which are deliberate and repeated lies

 

[vinty]

And where are the films, photos and personal statements from, e.g. the occupying British troops?

They are probably in the same place as the photos of the gas chambers , the autopsy reports confirming that someone has actually died from poison gas,
a mass grave proven to contain the remains of gassing victims

 

[vinty]

It appears that Joe is ignorant of the scandal of Switzerland having the policy of appropriating money and gold deposited in their banks during WW2.

To Switzerland's undying shame, they actually deliberately destroyed the records, so they could write back to any surviving heirs "Sorry, Mr Cohen, we have no record of your late father depositing a million francs in our bank"

A UBS employee who gave a witness statement fled the country to evade a warrant for his arrest under Swiss Banking Secrecy laws.

Switzerland's post-war prosperity and development is thought by some to have been largely funded by these stolen assets.

You may find this so shocking that you think I am making it up. Google "Swiss War Gold Scandal" or similar.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/World_...ainst_Swiss_banks#US-Swiss_tension[/QUOTE]Why are you using bias sources to support your argument, the Swiss banks caved in after pressure from the Americans, there was very little evidence in a lot of cases that this unclaimed money belonged to Jews.

 

[vinty]

If Irving had been able to substantiate his claims, he would not have lost his libel case.

He is an active Holocaust denier, antisemite, and racist who falsifies history.

You believe that Irving got a fair trial then.