Originally Posted by czgibson
The only thing that is clear is that you are desperately trying to twist the issue away from where it started.
Anyone here looking at my opening post will see that I mentioned clearly that the law bans any research that goes AGAINST the holocaust, you keep repeating that I am claiming the law prevents research PERIOD. Any look at my opening post will also show that it was all about understanding the moral and ethical implications of holocaust and my attempt to understanding why people are so aghast when they hear someone denies the holocaust, you keep trying to tel us that it's about the law and want to run around proving a claim that I did not make in the first place.
If you can't keep up with an intelligent conversation and follow a simple subject fairly and impartially, then stay out of it.
Originally Posted by guestfellow
I couldn't find the letter of the law as well, but what I found was that it bans denial, as well as negationism or publication of any reference to negationism. (Please look up http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Revisionism
. You'll even notice that Holocaust revisionism ties directly to Holocaust denial) Negationism is a title apparently called on anything that attempts to discuss contradictions or weaknesses in the holocaust, as they are classed attempts to deny holocaust. Since the law also says no one can make reference
to a negationist theory, no one would be able to publish work that discusses or includes any of that work. That was the official charge on Plantin.
Originally Posted by Hugo
Please bare with me, I promise you I am legitimately concerned and interested in this not just arguing you into frustration.
I said I am not interested in... as in not interested in denying the holocaust. Is this what psychologists call a freudian slip? For the second time I explain clearly that I am not denying the holocaust yet it seems that there is so much conditioning to the western mind when someone asks questions is that "he is just denying the holocaust, ATTACK!"
Now when it comes to your other questions, I will use them to further my point of view: yes it's a tragedy that 6 million died. But to ask YOU the same question: Why would the 6 million be MORE IMPORTANT than the 70 million others who died in WW2 who don't have such a systematic protectionism method? Why more important than the 4 million Palestinians and Arabs who died as a result of the nation formed out of repayment for the Holocaust, or more important that the million Iraqis WHO ARE BEING denied even the title of being invaded? Why more important than the millions who died in the cambodian genocide, or the 30 million massacred in China since Mao came into power?
So yes, I am very passionate that NO GENOCIDE happens ever again, but when I see a money making machine and demands at people and countries to gain retribution after compensation, and then a bit of a stink comes from behind them that is being protected from checking on contradictions, then yes I want to passionately ask: what is going on and what is being hidden here, and why the moral drama of checking those details?
You do seem to have a propensity to ignore that facts. It is true that large numbers of Jews and Christians lived under Islamic rule but sadly it is also true that they were often vilified and certainly treated as second class citizens until the Colonial powers put a stop to it.
There you go! There is no law preventing you from making such a claim, is there?! Now people can freely research and publish their own twisted or correct versions.
Strangely enough though what you just mentioned, is specifically mentioned in negationism, and is ALSO protected by french law, that textbooks MUST mention the positive side to colonialism.
Originally Posted by wikipedia
Now you ask any person in the World about colonialism and they will tell you that that is complete hogwash to talk about colonialism "freeing" the jews and christians. It was outright invasion likened to the crusades, and caused the deaths of millions of civilians, and is an atrocity that in this case if any one was less than an outright hypocrit would not dare glorify the holocaust and then dare praise colonialism.
So tell me again, where does the morality deficiency come to denial of the holocaust, but you freely claim your right to claim colonialism as liberation, and ignore the millions of deaths caused?