Lipstadt On Fox News

Read and post various viewpoints or search our large archives.

Moderator: Moderator

Forum rules
Be sure to read the Rules/guidelines before you post!
Radar
Valued contributor
Valued contributor
Posts: 505
Joined: Sat Feb 26, 2005 2:25 pm

Lipstadt On Fox News

Postby Radar » 1 decade 4 years ago (Mon Mar 21, 2005 8:57 pm)

Bill O'Reilly just interviewed Deborah Lipstadt on Fox News. The main focus was the recent C-Span issue. In the interview Lipstadt explained how she won her case, quoting the judge's view of Irving as having twisted and distorted WWII history in order to make Hitler look good. She went on to explain that revisionsim was "holocaust denial". O'Reilly then asked her what the idea was behind Irving and holocaust denial? She explained it was a form of anti-semitism in reaction to Jews getting sympathy and that its practicers were all neo-nazis.

Lipstadt slandered Irving as a Nazi sympathizer and proven liar in court. She told how Irving had responded "mein fuhrer" to the judge. Therefore, she said, she defended not appearing on any program that gave him a chance to speak. O'Reilly added "after all why give a proven liar any air time?" But he then went on to add that he has given "creeps" a chance to speak on his show (the inference being Lipstadt should too).


In the fashion of ultimate irony Lipstadt had the final say telling how Irving attempted to pad the number of dead in the Dresden bombing. She said this was done "in order to exaggerate the number of dead for political purposes".

Lipstadt failed to mention how the judge also said Irving had a pretty good case that he wanted to research further, but he had to rule against him because of his poor representation...

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

Postby Radar » 1 decade 4 years ago (Mon Mar 21, 2005 9:04 pm)

If you are in America the interview should repeat again at 11PM EST...

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

Postby Richard Perle » 1 decade 4 years ago (Mon Mar 21, 2005 9:12 pm)

Presumably O'Reilly wouldn't give air time to Rumsfeld or, hell, the President, then.

Carto's Cutlass Supreme
Valuable asset
Valuable asset
Posts: 2362
Joined: Tue Dec 07, 2004 1:42 am
Location: Northern California

Postby Carto's Cutlass Supreme » 1 decade 4 years ago (Mon Mar 21, 2005 9:19 pm)

In the fashion of ultimate irony Lipstadt had the final say telling how Irving attempted to pad the number of dead in the Dresden bombing. She said this was done "in order to exaggerate the number of dead for political purposes".

Pretty much the biggest lesson about holocaust revisionism is that everything the Judeo supremists say about others, is really true about them. You see it again and again. You see it in so many different ways.

I'd make a prediction that if I investigated what it's like for Palestinians in Israeli jails, I would find the sick sort of humor that Hilberg is always mentioning. And that's not because the persecuted start persecuting. It's because the stories were always about them to begin with.

Bergmann
Valued contributor
Valued contributor
Posts: 382
Joined: Wed Feb 23, 2005 4:29 pm

Postby Bergmann » 1 decade 4 years ago (Mon Mar 21, 2005 9:56 pm)

What I cannot understand for the life of me:

1. Irving questioned the alleged existence of homicidal gas chambers.
2. And Irving did a lot of research about Hitler and could not find any documents which would proof that Hitler ordered the physical extermination of the Jews.
3. But Irving never questioned that millions of Jews perished during that time.

But why is the man still called a Holocaust denier?

User avatar
Hannover
Valuable asset
Valuable asset
Posts: 9924
Joined: Sun Nov 24, 2002 7:53 pm

Postby Hannover » 1 decade 4 years ago (Mon Mar 21, 2005 10:13 pm)

Irving doesn't buy the gas chambers lie as it's alleged and said at one time that no more 500,000 Jews died during the war of all causes. In his trial he claimed that 'up to 4,000,000 may have/could have', or something to that effect. He has given no reason for this number. He's really all over the place. See my debunking of his nonsense about the Bruns conversation for example.
'the bogus Bruns document'
http://forum.codoh.com/viewtopic.php?t=15

He's a poor Revisionist who doesn't know much about it, and has written no books on it. That is why the 'holocau$t' Industry tries to portray him as the #1 Revisionist; it's yet another strawman. They try to shoot down a weakling and claim victory. You don't see Lipstadt going after Germar Rudolf do you?

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

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

Postby gasto » 1 decade 4 years ago (Mon Mar 21, 2005 10:44 pm)

Hannover wrote: You don't see Lipstadt going after Germar Rudolf do you?


very good point there Hannover...Rudolf is one of few who hasn´t been challenged or even questioned....I wonder why :roll:
If Human Soap rumour was fake, why can´t all the other absurd claims be too??

Bergmann
Valued contributor
Valued contributor
Posts: 382
Joined: Wed Feb 23, 2005 4:29 pm

Postby Bergmann » 1 decade 4 years ago (Mon Mar 21, 2005 11:52 pm)

I just watched Lipstadt and O'Reilly.
Radar got it pretty good summarized. The interview was rather short and I taped it.
People like Lipstadt are quick in attacking revisionists. But when it comes to provide proof for the existence of homicidal gas chambers, they back off.

Why is that so?

User avatar
Hannover
Valuable asset
Valuable asset
Posts: 9924
Joined: Sun Nov 24, 2002 7:53 pm

Postby Hannover » 1 decade 4 years ago (Tue Mar 22, 2005 12:44 am)

Having stated what I did about Lipstadt's nemesis, Irving; let me just say that the man has done the western world a great service by refusing to kowtow to judeo-supremacism. Many a man would fold under the pressure he has faced.

A thoroughly informed Revisionist he's not, an English bulldog he is.

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

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

Postby Radar » 1 decade 4 years ago (Tue Mar 22, 2005 2:33 am)

They don't need to take on Rudolf when they can quiety deny that "liar" an opportunity to defend himself while shipping him off to one of our new 1st world thought crime gulags.

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

Postby Barrington James » 1 decade 4 years ago (Tue Mar 22, 2005 10:26 am)

Irving first of all is not a denier. He is an expert on Hitler and Nazism, not the holocaust; so don’t expect anything brilliant from him in this regard. When he gets outs of his field of expertise, like all of us, he mistakes and has said some foolish things in the past about the holocaust. Secondly, he made the most basic of all mistakes in going to court: never defend yourself. The court business is a closed business. Never ever try to defend court yourself in court regardless how brilliantly may think you can do so nor how innocent you may be. The entire court process will look upon you as an effrontery to their realm if you attempt such an insulting endeavor. They will look upon you as insult to their business and not give you a break. You’ll be screwed. He should have known that.
You can fool too many of the people most of the time.

code yellow
Valued contributor
Valued contributor
Posts: 210
Joined: Wed Oct 22, 2003 8:07 am

Postby code yellow » 1 decade 4 years ago (Tue Mar 22, 2005 11:03 pm)

:? I think Irving was already burried to begin with.He had no chance at all at the trial,same as the Nuremberg trials.I for one give him credit

because he does state that there is no evidence of either a fuehrer order or an elaborate plan to exterminate jews.And,as far as Lipstadt on

O'reilly,She may be a liar,but she's not(that)stupid.I'm sure before hand she checked to see whether anyone involved in this television spot was

not on the same foot as she is,and that the show would turn in her favor.She is not going to go on public television to make a fool of

herself.Although I am sure that one day she will be caught off guard.

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

Postby Secret Anne X » 1 decade 4 years ago (Wed Mar 23, 2005 1:31 pm)

Hi,

I think Debbie was caught off guard on her web blog as well as on that book review site. I thought those things were hilarious.

Debbie apparently believed that because her side won -- I can't say "she won" because she didn't do anything other than attack Irving in her 1993 book -- that she was entitled to say anything at all that she wants to say about Irving and he is not entitled to say anything in reply. She found out differently, when she tried to pull that act online. Or with C-Span.

She says that she won't debate Holocaust deniers. Fine. What she really seems to mean is that she will not respond to any criticism of any kind from anyone at any time, or even support her statements, unless forced to, and then she will hire a legal team to cover her butt.

I thought it was pathetic and ridiculous in the JBooks forum and on her blog that she made all these comments, and GOT THEM WRONG, and then had to have all of these nameless sycophants come in and cover her ass. Just ridiculous.

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

Postby Radar » 1 decade 4 years ago (Wed Mar 23, 2005 4:11 pm)

"Secret Anne X" got it pretty much right. It's obvious we are all talking about a defense tactic being used to legitimize ignoring refuting facts by labeling them "holocaust denial". An overtly overbroad label that serves an obvious purpose of avoidance. In review, we have a situation where revisionists claim pro-holocaust forces are controlling the issue in an unjustifiable manipulative and censoring way only to have them respond by doing exactly that (without recourse). Hmm.


As for Irving I agree with "code yellow" that no chance exists for a fair review under any circumstances. Even with the best lawyer in the world the holocaust lobby would figure out a way to have pro-revisionist facts barred from the case sighting some nonsense like irrelevancy to the libel charge or some other crap. If forced they would probably use this "right not to honor lies" defense they are now trying to make into official notice. The second weight behind this is governments who participated in outright propaganda fraud not wanting to lose credibility by having it exposed...


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

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 4 guests