supremacist Lipstadt avoids Revisionist specifics again

Read and post various viewpoints or search our large archives.

Moderator: Moderator

Forum rules
Be sure to read the Rules/guidelines before you post!
User avatar
Hannover
Valuable asset
Valuable asset
Posts: 9768
Joined: Sun Nov 24, 2002 7:53 pm

supremacist Lipstadt avoids Revisionist specifics again

Postby Hannover » 1 decade 3 years ago (Wed Feb 22, 2006 1:53 pm)

Here we have sleazy judeo-supremacist Deborah Lipstadt lying through her teeth yet again. Comments follow.

- Hannover

Revisionists are full of holes

by Deborah E. Lipstadt
February 20, 2006
http://www.dailynorthwestern.com/vnews/ ... _archive=1

McCormick Prof. Arthur Butz has, after many years of total obscurity in anything but the world of Holocaust deniers, once again grabbed headlines.

Now Butz claims in the pages of The Daily that the reason people are “reluctant to consider the validity” of Holocaust denial is “fear.” Butz would have you believe that legal obstacles have made impossible for deniers to speak their piece. Rot.

I say this with over six years of legal experience defending myself against David Irving, once the world’s leading Holocaust denier. He sued me for libel for calling him a Holocaust denier in one of my books. He waited until the book appeared in the United Kingdom where the burden of proof is on the defendant.

I do not believe history belongs in the courtroom. Historians conduct their battles in scholarly journals and at conferences. Irving thought otherwise and due to the nature of British law I had no choice but to defend myself. Had he won, my books would have been pulped, and his version of the Holocaust would have been declared legitimate.

Rather than face any legal obstacles, Irving freely repeated his — and by extension Butz’s — arguments in court. The world press reported on them daily. No one faced any legal obstacles. No one was hauled into court except me.

I was able to mount an aggressive defense thanks to a defense fund which raised $1.75 million dollars. We hired a “Dream Team” of historians to closely examine Irving’s claims about the Holocaust. They found his work to be a “tissue of lies.”

By the end of my ten-week trial Irving was left looking like the Court Jester. He had called the judge “Mein Fuhrer,” a telling slip. When asked by Richard Rampton, my barrister, how he could say Herman Goring “goggled” at a certain exchange, when there was absolutely no evidence that Goring was even at this meeting, Irving declared: “author’s license.”

On another occasion Irving, whose knowledge of German is impeccable, attributed a mistranslation that rendered the ominous field ovens — the incineration grids on which the Germans had burned their victims’ bodies — into the utterly benign field kitchens, to the pressure of preparing for the trial at 2 a.m. the previous morning. We pointed out that we had downloaded the same document with the same mistranslation from Irving’s Web site two years earlier. Irving replied that he had made the same mistake twice. Such things happened daily as Irving’s claims to be a fastidious historian evaporated.

The judge and two subsequent Courts of Appeal found for me. The judge’s choice of words to describe Irving’s writings about the Holocaust were unambiguous: “perverts,” “distorts,” “misleading,” “unjustified,” “travesty” and “unreal.”

Butz, in his column, engages in linguistic tricks. He claims that Timothy Ryback wrote in the Wall Street Journal that “there is little forensic evidence proving homicidal intent” in the ruins of Auschwitz. Butz ignores another portion of Ryback’s comment regarding Auschwitz: “these heaps of dynamited concrete and twisted steel are not only historic artifacts but among the few remnants of untainted, forensic evidence of the Holocaust.”

Why do we not enter further into “debate” with him? Because debating people who deliberately mislead is like trying to nail a blob of jelly to the wall. There is no end to the matter. If they have no fidelity to the truth how can you debate them? They just make things up as it suits them.

There is much left to learn about the Holocaust. However, our research agenda should not be set by people whose arguments are complete fabrications.

Let the likes of Butz and Irving go on making their arguments to neo-Nazis and other deniers. That is their right. Your paper, on the other hand, has no responsibility to print such falsehoods.

Now let them all slip into the obscurity they deserve.

Deborah E. Lipstadt is a professor of Jewish and Holocaust Studies at Emory University. She can be reached at [email protected].

comments:
Rather than face any legal obstacles, Irving freely repeated his — and by extension Butz’s — arguments in court. The world press reported on them daily. No one faced any legal obstacles. No one was hauled into court except me.

Nonsense. Irving never used Butz's points in court, Irving doesn't even know that much about Revisionist specifics. This is Lipstadt's shallow way out of addressing specifis by Butz. Irving is not Butz.
I was able to mount an aggressive defense thanks to a defense fund which raised $1.75 million dollars. We hired a “Dream Team” of historians to closely examine Irving’s claims about the Holocaust. They found his work to be a “tissue of lies.”

No, she was able to buy people to the tune of $100,000-250,000 to say utter nonsense, a la Robert Jan Van Pelt, who has been utterly demolished by Revisionists with science and rational thought. The 'errors' of Irving's work are miniscule when compared to mainstream 'historians, and they have nothing to do with the 'holocaust' tale; Lipstadt doesn't want you to know that.
Butz, in his column, engages in linguistic tricks. He claims that Timothy Ryback wrote in the Wall Street Journal that “there is little forensic evidence proving homicidal intent” in the ruins of Auschwitz. Butz ignores another portion of Ryback’s comment regarding Auschwitz: “these heaps of dynamited concrete and twisted steel are not only historic artifacts but among the few remnants of untainted, forensic evidence of the Holocaust.”

Laughable. Ryback's initial claims are actually understated, their is ZERO forensic evidence; and his backtraking, quoted by shyster Lipstadt, is simply shredded by The Rudolf Report among other Revisionist endeavors.
http://www.vho.org/GB/Books/HHS.html
Let the likes of Butz and Irving go on making their arguments to neo-Nazis and other deniers. That is their right. Your paper, on the other hand, has no responsibility to print such falsehoods.

The classic 'neo-Nazi' canard, whatever 'neo-Nazi' means. How long do the likes of liars like Lipstadt think they can brush aside science, logic, and rational thought by labeling it 'neo-Nazi'? The woman has become a veritable witch doctor who denies science.

Revisionists are just the messengers, the absurdities of the 'holocau$t' are the message.

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

Richard Perle
Valuable asset
Valuable asset
Posts: 647
Joined: Fri Jan 07, 2005 9:45 am

Postby Richard Perle » 1 decade 3 years ago (Wed Feb 22, 2006 3:30 pm)

I have not looked into the actual points which were supposedly scored against Irving at the trial, but if those that she cites are the most damaging then Irving has little to worry about in the long term. Believer material is riddled with bad translations.

I can't imagine how depressing it must have been for Lipstadt's team if after going through Irving's work with a fine-toothed comb that was all they could find. How petty.

User avatar
Haldan
Valuable asset
Valuable asset
Posts: 1371
Joined: Thu Apr 24, 2003 9:56 pm
Location: <secret>
Contact:

Postby Haldan » 1 decade 3 years ago (Wed Feb 22, 2006 11:03 pm)

Did someone miss this:
Debby Lipstadt wrote:No one faced any legal obstacles. No one was hauled into court except me.


She is making it look as if she is a victim. Sort of like those Spielbergian-holocaust victims. "Everyone was hauled into the gas chamber except me."

Nonsense.

-haldan
<?php if ($Holocaust == false ) {deny_repeatedly(); } else { investigate(); } ?>
Homage to Catalin Haldan

GuloGulo
Posts: 1
Joined: Tue Feb 14, 2006 10:30 pm

Postby GuloGulo » 1 decade 3 years ago (Thu Feb 23, 2006 3:54 am)

world’s leading Holocaust denier


When was Irving ever consider the "worlds leading" holocaust denier?

For a person that has written very little about the Issue, seems to get a lot of the jewrys attention.

Ratatosk
Member
Member
Posts: 43
Joined: Mon Apr 18, 2005 7:42 am

Postby Ratatosk » 1 decade 3 years ago (Thu Feb 23, 2006 4:55 am)

Haldan wrote:Did someone miss this:
Debby Lipstadt wrote:No one faced any legal obstacles. No one was hauled into court except me.


She is making it look as if she is a victim. Sort of like those Spielbergian-holocaust victims. "Everyone was hauled into the gas chamber except me."

Nonsense.

-haldan


The Lipstadt piece is full of BS. She is certainly not a victim. Quite the opposite. She is the oppressor and takes every opportunity to hinder free speech.

But one cannot escape from the fact, that it was Irving who sued her. A very dumb move. So, technically speaking she has a point.

Radar
Valued contributor
Valued contributor
Posts: 505
Joined: Sat Feb 26, 2005 2:25 pm

Postby Radar » 1 decade 3 years ago (Fri Feb 24, 2006 3:43 am)

Deborah sells herself as the victim and as defending herself from Irving while Irving is the one sitting in jail for thought crimes. Who is the attacker and who is the victim here?

Rashid Metwan
Member
Member
Posts: 50
Joined: Thu Feb 09, 2006 9:57 am
Location: Gaza, Filastin

Postby Rashid Metwan » 1 decade 3 years ago (Fri Feb 24, 2006 9:23 am)

To be fair - at least in this case - Irving broke Austrian law in 1989 and Lipstadt didn't launch her attack on Irving until five years later or so. So in this particular case - though certainly not in all cases - Irving is both victim in Austria and attacker in his libel action.

User avatar
TruthSeeker
Valued contributor
Valued contributor
Posts: 165
Joined: Mon Mar 08, 2004 3:45 pm
Location: Lebanon

Postby TruthSeeker » 1 decade 3 years ago (Sat Feb 25, 2006 8:12 am)

In case you did not know, Lipstadt has a weblog.

http://lipstadt.blogspot.com

It's a Judeo-supremacist blog, wherein pro-Israeli propaganda is posted among other things (including the alleged holocaust) :roll:

Radar
Valued contributor
Valued contributor
Posts: 505
Joined: Sat Feb 26, 2005 2:25 pm

Postby Radar » 1 decade 3 years ago (Sat Feb 25, 2006 3:44 pm)

To be fair - at least in this case - Irving broke Austrian law in 1989 and Lipstadt didn't launch her attack on Irving until five years later or so.



"To be fair"?

Irving is now experiencing the result of those who extend an objective sense of fairness to the force he confronted.

If we were being "fair" we would be reading of the results of Irving's challenge to the court to go to Birkenau and look at the morgue roof.

User avatar
Kiwichap
Valuable asset
Valuable asset
Posts: 739
Joined: Sat Mar 05, 2005 11:54 pm
Location: New Zealand

Postby Kiwichap » 1 decade 3 years ago (Sat Feb 25, 2006 5:47 pm)

Rashid Metwan said:
To be fair - at least in this case - Irving broke Austrian law in 1989

Hal Turner states:
HISTORIAN JAILED IN AUSTRIA FOR QUESTIONING HOLOCAUST!
MADE A SPEECH IN 1989 WHICH WAS LATER OUTLAWED IN 1992!
Yes, you read that correctly! They applied a law Ex Post Facto (after the fact) to jail the man later for something that wasn't even a crime when he did it!!

British Historian David Irving has been sentenced to three years in prison for a speech he gave about the Holocaust three years BEFORE such talk was outlawed.


I think David Duke has confirmed this in a broadcast he made.

Do we know when this law was enacted?
There was no holocaust.

Tit 1:14 Not giving heed to Jewish fables, and commandments of men, that turn from the truth.

gasto
Valued contributor
Valued contributor
Posts: 247
Joined: Sun Aug 29, 2004 11:40 am
Location: Argentina

Postby gasto » 1 decade 3 years ago (Sat Feb 25, 2006 7:12 pm)

if what Kiwichap posted is true, then this case is beyond any court or sentence....this would just be hipocrisy at its finest...
If Human Soap rumour was fake, why can´t all the other absurd claims be too??

User avatar
ClaudiaRothenbach
Valued contributor
Valued contributor
Posts: 569
Joined: Tue Feb 10, 2004 2:16 pm

Postby ClaudiaRothenbach » 1 decade 3 years ago (Sun Feb 26, 2006 6:53 am)

Revisionists are full of holes


Maybe that is true.

But the roofs of the "gas chambers" are not!
"Everything has already been said, but not yet by everyone." - Karl Valentin

User avatar
Kiwichap
Valuable asset
Valuable asset
Posts: 739
Joined: Sat Mar 05, 2005 11:54 pm
Location: New Zealand

Postby Kiwichap » 1 decade 3 years ago (Sun Feb 26, 2006 1:43 pm)

Irving was charged with (Verbotsgesetz para 3h - 1992), a section of the law that did not exist when he made his remarks in 1989.

Specific legislation

A first version of the Prohibition Statute (Verbotsgesetz, StGBl 13/1945) was passed as early as 8 May 1945. It prohibited the National Socialist German Workers Party ("Nazi Party") and subjected anybody who still belonged to that party or who acted for it or its aims to capital punishment. Amending legislation of 6 February 1947, the so-called Nationalsozialistengesetz, defined the criminal offence(s) contained in the Prohibition Statute in a more detailed way, replacing the general offence by a number of provisions, in particular §§ 3a to 3g. In 1968, capital punishment was abolished. The most recent amendment, dating from 1992, introduced § 3h, expressly penalising the denial or trivialisation of the national socialist genocide. By introducing this provision, the legislature made it clear that the mass extermination of Jews is accepted as a proven historical fact that does not have to be prove before the courts. In addition, the amendment reduced the minimum penalties for all crimes under the Prohibition Statute, leaving the upper limits unchanged. This amendment was intended to reduce a jury's reluctance to convict in cases where it considered the defendant guilty, but felt that the sentence was too harsh.
http://www.coe.int/t/e/human_rights/ecr ... a%20SR.asp
There was no holocaust.



Tit 1:14 Not giving heed to Jewish fables, and commandments of men, that turn from the truth.

Secret Anne X
Member
Member
Posts: 70
Joined: Fri Nov 14, 2003 11:12 pm

Postby Secret Anne X » 1 decade 3 years ago (Sun Feb 26, 2006 2:25 pm)

Hi,

When Debbie said revisionists are "full of holes" she really means they're "full of sh*t" -- she thinks she's being cute and witty when she say things like this.

In the same way, she has another expression which involves comparing s.o. "to the dirt you step in on the street, all you have to do is make sure you wipe it off before you go into the house." Of course she's talking about animal excrement here, and she has used that particular expression for Irving, Finkelstein, and maybe others.

Again, she thinks she's being very witty with her scatological remarks. Really unbelievable that the poster child for Holocaust Promotion is such a vulgarian.


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

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: Google [Bot] and 8 guests