Be sure to read the Rules/guidelines before you post!
[thread title edited "Thought Crime gets him 3 yrs. in prison" added by Mod1]
Ajax wrote:No further comments necessary.
Well, now we know why they arrested him. At least he admits he doesn't know much, and is not an expert. That leaves open the possibility that he is wrong NOW, not in 1989, and that Germar Rudolf et al. are right.
To say "He bottled it" is all very well sat on your arse at home, but I can imagine being sat in solitary confinement in the early hours of the morning with nothing but your thoughts and the looming prospect of facing another ten years (at his age he might well die in solitary) one might well see another outcome far more pleasing.
To me, and I hope others, this will be seen as downright bullying and threatening behaviour that has brought this magical reversal of opinions. David Cole, Joel Hayward and others have suffered the same onslaught, these are the very same tactics, blatant threats and intimidation used on the Germans after the war to extract the ludicrous statements from them, many of which are so bad they have been put on the shelf.
I know a great many like to kick people when they are down, but I think Irving has sacrificed a great deal in order to bring to light many aspects of what really went on during the war years. Irving has had some shit flung at him over the years, his dossier on the Zionist attempts to destroy him as a person along with his reputation is startling in it's evilness alone.
As David Cole was once forced to recant about his views on Auschwitz gas chambers (after he and his family being threatened), Irving is now being forced to do the same thing, but under different circumstances
Nevertheless, no one can deny the inmense contribution Cole did to WWII Revisionism, by interviewing Piper in Auschwitz Camp. What´s done is done.
As for Irving, his Auschwitz Contreversy page speaks for itself ( http://www.fpp.co.uk/Auschwitz/index.html ).
No word from them on mind changing...
Edit: Also, looks like they're possibly trying to push Irving as the leader of Revisionism, as in push it as the leader finally changing his mind. They know all too well though he's not the be all and end all of revisionism.
I am saying he bottled it because any chance he had of proving that he was a man of conviction - and putting his money where his mouth is - has been completely destroyed. Yes, we are all sitting on our arses here and it is very easy to comment - but what has happened today has done a great deal of harm for revisionism. In a few short sentences, Irving has given the Hoaxmongers more ammunition that they will ever need. As a previously strong supporter of Irving - particularly on other bulletin boards where I took a serious amount of stick for fighting his corner during the Lipstadt trial - I feel a little bit cheated, as I suppose will all of those who have funded and supported him with conviction. I feel particularly for those who funded him during these past months anticipating a trial of note where we might have seen some serious questions being asked of free speech, not only in Austria but Europe as a whole.
In a stroke all of these hopes have been dashed - if someone like Irving can be made to recant in such a meek fashion, how easy will it be for the powers that be to go after everyone else and crush revisionism entirely? If Irving had stood his ground, we would have had a real prisoner of conscience for whom we could have fought tooth and nail for. Had he pleaded not guilty he might well have been sentenced for ten years - but at least his reputation as a true believer in what he himself called 'real history' would have remained intact. He might have got out after a couple of years, but he would have won eternal respect; now I can see him leaving his Austrian jail in a few months through the back door, his reputation in tatters.
I cannot see Zündel or Rudolf employing this sort of tactic. They would be more likely to take it on the chin and use their prison time constructively. I know this sounds a bit harsh, but as someone who has supported Irving for some time now, I feel a little deflated.
Jordan - we all know that the Austrian authorities know that Irving is hardly the 'father of revisionism', but so long as this is the message that gets out to the masses, their job is done.
Richard Perle wrote:Now the media has had it's fill of revisionist trials and will ignore the smaller names of Rudolf and Zundel.
That's the fear. Irving has recanted, the job is done. All else will go with the new flow. Had he laid all of the cards on the table, we could have upped the ante. Hot on the heels of this, Rudolf and Zündel would have been big news.
Being threatened with a ten year sentence is certainly intimidation. But people are asking has David rolled over? Could he have been tortured into changing his opinion?
FWIW, I don't think that his recent carefully worded statements are that far off the mark from what he has said in the past. We know there were small delousing gas chambers at the concentration camps, purposely(?) he gives no specification as to delousing vs homicidal gas chambers in his recent statements, also I noticed he did not concede to the six million figure but rather a "Millions of Jews died" figure. See David's quotes below:
Irving admits Holocaust 'mistake' February 2006
...Asked if he admitted the existence of the Holocaust, he replied: "I would call it the Jewish tragedy in World War II." "Yes, there were gas chambers," he said. "Millions of Jews died, there is no question. I don't know the figures. I'm not an expert on the Holocaust."...
Ron Casey Interviews David Irving July 1995
Casey: What is your estimate of the number of Jews who died at the hands of Hitler's regime in the war years? What number - and I don't like using this word - what number would you concede were killed in concentration camps?
Irving: I think, like any scientist, I'd have to give you a range of figures and I'd have to say a minimum of one million, which is a monstrous crime, and a maximum of about four million, depending on what you mean by killed. If putting people into a concentration camps where they die of barbarity and typhus and epidemics is killing then I would say the four million figure because, undoubtedly, huge numbers did die in the camps in the conditions that were very evident at the end of the war....
I believe David's figures are too high but then again as he admits the so called Holocaust is not really his department.
In any case recieving a three year sentence for expressing an opinion is outrageous and should not be tolerated. I hope David gets out early on good behavior and I hope this case will help contribute to further debate and contribute to some much needed legal reforms --
OR WE DON'T"
I note that he allegedly said that he intends to appeal although how he can do that when he has pleaded guilty seems odd to say the least. Can it be that he had a deal with the prosecutors that they reneged upon?
Who is online
Users browsing this forum: HMSendeavour and 6 guests