Is there a greater liar in the world than Dershowitz?

Read and post various viewpoints or search our large archives.

Moderator: Moderator

Forum rules
Be sure to read the Rules/guidelines before you post!
friedrich braun
Valuable asset
Valuable asset
Posts: 619
Joined: Wed Nov 26, 2003 4:40 am

Is there a greater liar in the world than Dershowitz?

Postby friedrich braun » 1 decade 3 years ago (Wed Jan 04, 2006 5:26 pm)

Dershowitz: a man filled with crazed, deranged hatred. Some years ago I saw the Harvard professor being obsequiously "interviewed" by another Jew (liar and financial crook), Larry King (real name "Ziegler"). Dershowitz just wrote a anti-German novel about vengeance and was pushing it on CNN. His book was about a holocau$t survivor who goes to Germany to kill the young child of a German who took part, in some capacity, in the holocau$t. During the so-called interview Dershowitz lamented that post-war Germany became rich - as rich as the US. He then proceeded to vent his obsessive loathing of Germans and all things German. His eyes were bulging, his face was contorted, and spit was flying from his mouth...he looked like an insane maniac. I felt sorry for him. Why is it that only a Jew can hate with such viciousness?

Desch v. Dershowitz in The American Conservative.


Dershowitz v.Desch

The American Conservative | January 16, 2006 | Forum section
Printable PDF of article

In our Dec. 5 issue, The American Conservative published a review of Norman Finkelstein's Beyond Chuzpah by contributing editor Michael Desch. Alan Dershowitz, whose scholarship was critiqued by Finkelstein's book, objected at length, attacking both the author and our reviewer. His complaint, along with Desch's reply, follows.


http://www.normanfinkelstein.com/articl ... =11&ar=122
Last edited by friedrich braun on Thu Jan 05, 2006 1:34 am, edited 2 times in total.

User avatar
Hannover
Valuable asset
Valuable asset
Posts: 9805
Joined: Sun Nov 24, 2002 7:53 pm

Postby Hannover » 1 decade 3 years ago (Wed Jan 04, 2006 6:01 pm)

During the so-called interview Dershowitz lamented that post-war Germany became rich - as rich as the US. He then proceeded to vent his obsessive loathing of Germans and all things German.

He should be careful about what he says; those rich, hard working Germans, along with scammed US taxpayers, are what keep parasitic, ethnic cleansing Israel afloat.

And by the way Dershowitz, what 'holocau$t'?

- Hannover
If it can't happen as alleged, then it didn't.

Carto's Cutlass Supreme
Valuable asset
Valuable asset
Posts: 2359
Joined: Tue Dec 07, 2004 1:42 am
Location: Northern California

Postby Carto's Cutlass Supreme » 1 decade 3 years ago (Wed Jan 04, 2006 7:28 pm)

Watch a video of Dershowitz debating Finkelstein on Finkelstein's website. Dershowitz uses every clever, cunning way to manipulate reality into something that's good for Jewish group evolutionary strategy. Dershowitz tries to prove a theory, but the only theory he ends up proving is Kevin MacDonald's!

Dershowitz knows how to interrupt, how to connive, how to be cunning, how to feign politeness and appear reasonable, and it's all subterfuge for his clever agenda. It's amazing to watch as he goes up against a "righteous Jew" Finkelstein.

When you see Dershowitz's lying cleverness, partly exposed by Finkelstein (when he can get a word in edgewise, that is) it's a good insight into the holocaust hoax and the cunning individuals behind it.

One great Dershowitz technique is when the moderator tries to give Finkelstein a chance to speak, Dershowitz says "just let me finish my point." and then speaks for another 5 minutes.

Dershowitz is an example is what's happened to Academia. And the Dean of the Harvard Law School, Elena Lazar Kaganovich, I mean Elena Kagan, probably isn't doing much to reverse that.
Last edited by Carto's Cutlass Supreme on Wed Jan 04, 2006 11:47 pm, edited 1 time in total.

User avatar
ASMarques
Valuable asset
Valuable asset
Posts: 624
Joined: Wed Dec 07, 2005 12:47 pm

Postby ASMarques » 1 decade 3 years ago (Wed Jan 04, 2006 8:48 pm)

Carto's Cutlass Supreme wrote:Watch a video of Dershowitz debating Finkelstein on Finkelstein's website. [...]
Dershowitz knows how to interrupt, how to connive, how to be cunning, how to feign politeness and appear reasonable, and it's all subterfuge for his clever agenda. It's amazing to watch as he goes up against a "righteous Jew" Finkelstein


Thanks for pointing out the videos. I had only seen the first part of the debate on "Democracy Now". Those interested will find links to both parts here:
http://www.normanfinkelstein.com/articl ... =11&ar=109

It's always a pleasure to see Dershowitz exposed in public. But please note the number of times Finkelstein repeats, in the second part, that one "cannot debate Holocaust deniers". Obviously his position on the convenience of debating the sinful deniers is not far apart from Lispstadt's...

Barrington James
Valued contributor
Valued contributor
Posts: 362
Joined: Mon Feb 14, 2005 8:26 pm

Postby Barrington James » 1 decade 3 years ago (Wed Jan 04, 2006 10:44 pm)

There is a good record of a debate on Z-Magazine - just Google it- between Dershowitz and Chomsky about Israel. By the way Deshowitz's book Chutzpah is one of the most hateful books I have ever read. Actually it is the only hateful book I have ever read but I hope you get the point. Don't ever buy it. How different it is than the books of Irving, Rudolf, Butz...
You can fool too many of the people most of the time.

Carto's Cutlass Supreme
Valuable asset
Valuable asset
Posts: 2359
Joined: Tue Dec 07, 2004 1:42 am
Location: Northern California

Postby Carto's Cutlass Supreme » 1 decade 3 years ago (Wed Jan 04, 2006 11:42 pm)

For the life of me, I can't understand how people who know what's really happening to the Palestinians, and then see Dershowitz speak, can't then do some relational thinking, some abstract thinking and then wonder if the holocaust is a fraud.

The holocaust lie-makers didn't miss a beat, by 1948 they had a story that the radio broadcasts told the 700,000 Palestinians to leave so the Arab armies could push Israel into the sea. Thus the civilians were abetting and aiding the army and didn't deserve to return. That became the canonical story. Then, as Finkelstein mentions, 20 years later they realized they had tapes of those radio broadcasts. Someone listened and found that those broadcasts said nothing like that.

Two supposed holocaust believers: Finkelstein and MacDonald really fill in the big picture.

If you're a denier, and you are truly familar with Finkelstein's and MacDonald's ideas, then you really know what's going on.

User avatar
Hannover
Valuable asset
Valuable asset
Posts: 9805
Joined: Sun Nov 24, 2002 7:53 pm

Postby Hannover » 1 decade 3 years ago (Thu Jan 05, 2006 3:07 am)

ASM:
It's always a pleasure to see Dershowitz exposed in public. But please note the number of times Finkelstein repeats, in the second part, that one "cannot debate Holocaust deniers". Obviously his position on the convenience of debating the sinful deniers is not far apart from Lispstadt's...

And that emphasizes my point about Finkelstein. He seems intent on maintaining the illusion of Jews as stewards of the moral high ground; it is a supremacist attitude to say the least. The need to lord over others, to not lower oneself to debate.

Clowns like Dershowitz and a few scamming lawyers are easy to ridicule, but stepping down off the 'holocau$t' pedestal is where the honest are separated from the dishonest.

- Hannover
If it can't happen as alleged, then it didn't.

Vlad
Member
Member
Posts: 111
Joined: Sat Apr 05, 2008 6:25 am

Postby Vlad » 1 decade 1 year ago (Tue May 06, 2008 11:19 am)

Alan Dershowitz lumping together his nemesis Norman Finkelstein as well as Noam Chomsky with “Holocaust denial,” speaking at a Symposium, entitled: “Defending Truth: Legal and Moral Imperatives of Holocaust Denial.” The event was organized by the U. of Baltimore School of Law and the U.S. Holocaust Memorial Museum’s Center for Advance Holocaust Studies, and cosponsored by the Baltimore Jewish Council and the College of Liberal Arts, Towson University:
http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid ... 1329479139

Greg Gerdes
Valued contributor
Valued contributor
Posts: 411
Joined: Thu Apr 03, 2008 4:03 pm

Postby Greg Gerdes » 1 decade 1 year ago (Tue May 06, 2008 12:06 pm)

Is there a greater liar in the world than Dershowitz?

Though I don't think there's a human (sic) alive who's more evil than Dershowitz, I would say that Michael Shermer is a bigger liar.

kk
Valued contributor
Valued contributor
Posts: 451
Joined: Sun Mar 21, 2004 11:24 pm

Postby kk » 1 decade 1 year ago (Thu May 08, 2008 3:28 pm)

Here you may hear Derschowitz rant about revisionism (if you can stomach it):
http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=-2274598011329479139&q=Dershowitz&ei=k2EjSNurAYPeigL4-LHPAQ

anony5123
Posts: 2
Joined: Wed May 28, 2008 10:12 pm

Postby anony5123 » 1 decade 1 year ago (Wed Jun 25, 2008 10:26 pm)

That is an interesting video, in particular: he found it very "moving" to be there in person when numerous eyewitnesses identified John Demjanjuk as Ivan the Terrible; Raul Hilberg is a more dangerous supporter of Holocaust denial than Ernst Zundel and Bradley Smith; denial is a "metaphor" with which denial of Iran's weapons program can be lumped together with Holocaust denial and antisemitism.
Most interesting to me were his comments on the difference between history and the legal system:

Nobody wants to put the Holocaust on trial, or any historical event on trial, whether it be the Holocaust or the most recent problems engaged in in January engendered by some statements of the Anti-Defamation League; one doesn't also want to put the Armenian genocide on trial or any people's great sufferings on trial. History is its own judge. ... I tell people all the time that you are not bound by the judgment of a court. A judgment of a court is not an historical judgment. A judgment of a court is on the basis of admissible evidence, constitutionally admissible evidence, which is probably a small fraction of the evidence available to history. Did a certain burden of proof get met? -- a burden that historians don't have, of proof beyond a reasonable doubt. So people should be entirely free to second-guess verdicts of courts, whether they are acquittals or convictions. And the same thing would be true with a verdict of history relating to the Holocaust, although one hopes that that never, ever has to happen. History again is going to be its own judge.


(In the second to last sentence, I think he meant to refer to a verdict of history rendered by a court, not the verdict of historians.)

In law school (in the U.S.) I was taught that the goal of legal trials is not to get at the truth; truth-finding and legal fact-finding are two different things. I agree. But I thought this was primarily because courts were too lenient in admitting evidence. For example, witnesses are presumed to be truthful, and lawyers face many obstacles when they try to show that a witness is not credible. Also, so long as the attorneys agree that a fact is true, the judge and jury have to accept it as true. There are many ways that the process can become corrupted. But I don't think I've ever before heard a lawyer suggest that rules of evidence and burdens of proof are, in principle, too strict for the task of finding real truth.

Dershowitz seems to be implying that all but a fraction of the evidence for the gas chambers is inadmissible hearsay and that Holocaust historians would not be able to meet the "beyond a reasonable doubt" standard of proof of criminal trials, nor even the "preponderance of evidence" standard of civil trials, and he is terribly afraid of the idea that Holocaust witnesses would ever be subject to cross-examination. That's a pretty remarkable admission if that's what he means. (If that isn't what he means, I'm not sure what else he means.) If the gas chamber evidence would not meet the preponderance standard, I agree that would not tie the hands of any historian, but it would certainly assist the layperson in weighing the competing claims of historians.

Dershowitz says "I tell people all the time that you are not bound by the judgment of a court," but does he also tell people they are not bound by the judgment of the community of mainstream historians? In the American legal system, if you are a lawyer and you write a brief that cites a secondary source instead of a primary source to prove a point, or if you make any assertion not immediately backed up by a citation to a page of legal authority, or a page of the factual record, you are considered a sloppy lawyer. By contrast, such methods are the norm for mainstream historians. If I can reasonably disregard a court, surely I can reasonably disregard the "verdict of history."

Mythos
Member
Member
Posts: 54
Joined: Tue Aug 21, 2007 5:04 am

Postby Mythos » 1 decade 1 year ago (Fri Jun 27, 2008 9:03 am)

One impression about the Finkelstein Dershowitz debate:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QKaX3EkrkII
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0JtVPMEtm9I

Dershowitz: "I will give $10 000 to the PLO in your name if you can find an historical fact in my book that you can prove to be false. I issue that challenge, I issue it to you [...] I issue it to Noam Chomsky [...] Every word in my book is accurate(!) and you can't simply say it's false without documenting it..."
http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid ... 8714490692

Finkelstein: "it's my impression that the book does raise serious questions about his [Dershowitz'] academic integrity, his intellectual honesty, and raises serious questions whether he is even qualified to teach at Harvard University."
http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid ... 5870962994

Finkelstein: "Mr. Dershowitz says I'm on the extreme end and he's on the mainstream [...] he [Dershowitz] cited a hoax. I cite the scholarly sources. Mr. Dershowitz says he doesnt agree with the human rights organisations [...] I quote Human Rights Watch, Amnesty International... I quote the mainstream sources, the mainstream numbers, he quotes internal investigations of the IDF and hoaxes. But I'm the "extremist"(!)... but I'm the extremist... but I'm the extremist..."
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QKaX3EkrkII

Finkelstein: "Listen to this source. This is a scholar [...] Sony Pictures, www.sonypictures.com, that's page 257, footnote 21. A Sony Picture(!)"

Finkelstein: "Number 2 [...] a high school syllabus. Is that serious? Is that a serious source? [...] A Sony picture and a highschool curriculum. [...] Very serious sources Mr. Dershowitz."

Finkelstein: "In Joan Peters' book [...] She coins a phrase, the phrase is turnspeak. And she says"

Dershowitz: "And she borrows it from... from... from a...."

Finkelstein: "No, sir I'm sorry... She coins the phrase turnspeak... You see you dont know what you're talking about and that's pretty terrible. She coins the phrase turnspeak and she says she's using it as a play of George Orwell, which - as all listeners know - used the phrase newspeak. And she coined her own phrase, turnspeak. [...] You see, he [Dershowitz] got so confused in his borrowings of Peters' [...] that he used on two occasions the phrase: "George Orwell's turnspeak"! Turnspeak isn't Orwell..."
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0JtVPMEtm9I

Definetely one of the funniest debates ever.

Professor Noam Chomsky had this to say about Dershowitz:
"Dershowitz is intelligent enough to know that he can't respond. So he does what any tenth rate lawyer does when you have a rotten case, you try to change the subject and maybe by villifying the opposing counsel and that changes the subject [...] and the tactic is a very good one, cause you win even if you lose. Supposing that all of your charges are refuted, you've still won, you've changed the subject. [...]
So I wrote another letter in which I quoted from the court decision demonstrating that polite that Dershowitz is a liar, he's even falsifying Israeli court decisions, he's even a supporter of atrocities and he is even a passionate opponent of civil rights. [...] Well, he went berserk. And ever since then I'be been one of his targets. [...] In fact, anyone who exposes him as what he is, is going to be subjected to this technique, cause he knows he can't respond, so must return to villification. And in the case of Norman Finkelstein, he sort of went to outer space."
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=P8ENawcS ... re=related
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=eBclWDYu ... re=related

Dershowitz seems to have quite good connections since he still teaches at Harvard...
If an 'alien abductee survivor' said it, it must be nonsense.
If a 'Holocaust Survivor' said it, it must be true!
http://www.vho.org/GB/Books/dth/fndvalue.html#ftnref355
http://moranen.blogspot.com/2008/02/aus ... leiri.html

It
Member
Member
Posts: 16
Joined: Thu Nov 22, 2007 8:15 am

Postby It » 1 decade 1 year ago (Tue Jul 01, 2008 6:52 am)

One would think Chomsky had learned to speak clearly after all this years.
So hard to listen to.


Return to “'Holocaust' Debate / Controversies / Comments / News”

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: Bing [Bot] and 3 guests