Has this goon seen the light?

**zathras** · 20 February 2006, 11:39

Originally posted by Mailman

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/europe/4730832.stm

Or is he just saying what the courts want to hear?

Whats really sad though...is that there are others out there only too willing to believe what this moron had to say in the past.

Mailman

However one may dislike the man, that he is being charged for something he said is deeply uncomfortable. This is not a person who has called for murder. This is a person who questioned history. He is a historian. He has now re-assesed his opinion.

I'm not sure if Hitler was actually present at the Wannsee Conference when the the final solution was devised and planned and that does not preclude him being told afterwards, but then all David Irving is questioning is exactly when Hitler was informed.

**sasguru** · 20 February 2006, 11:44

Originally posted by zathras

However one may dislike the man, that he is being charged for something he said is deeply uncomfortable. This is not a person who has called for murder. This is a person who questioned history. He is a historian. He has now re-assesed his opinion.

I'm not sure if Hitler was actually present at the Wannsee Conference when the the final solution was devised and planned and that does not preclude him being told afterwards, but then all David Irving is questioning is exactly when Hitler was informed.

The last paragraph assumes that he was not the instigator. Read the excellent book "Auschwitz" which explains how it all probably worked.
And no, Irving is not an intellectually credible historian. That was proven in minute detail at his UK trial for libel.

**zathras** · 20 February 2006, 12:01

Originally posted by sasguru

The last paragraph assumes that he was not the instigator. Read the excellent book "Auschwitz" which explains how it all probably worked.
And no, Irving is not an intellectually credible historian. That was proven in minute detail at his UK trial for libel.

Irving's credibility is not relevent. That he is being charged for expressing his opinion, however one disagrees with it, is.

**Fungus** · 20 February 2006, 12:03

Indeed. Irving is an anti-semite as proven during the libel trial. Hitler was violently anti-semitic, including advocating violence against Jews. Whether or not he was present at the conference that instigated the final solution is neither here nor there. His influence is surely undisputed.

It is possible that Irving is reassessing his work, which as stated was/is poor.

**sasguru** · 20 February 2006, 12:16

Originally posted by zathras

Irving's credibility is not relevent. That he is being charged for expressing his opinion, however one disagrees with it, is.

Agreed.

**Mailman** · 20 February 2006, 12:30

Originally posted by zathras

Irving's credibility is not relevent. That he is being charged for expressing his opinion, however one disagrees with it, is.

Actually his credibility is very relevant. He denies the death of millions of jews and stokes the fires of anti-sematism daily...so...he is now suffering the consequences of his actions.

No sympathy...shouldnt have talked sh1t in the first place.

Mailman

**Bagpuss** · 20 February 2006, 12:41

Ever notice how these guys with the repugnant views are always repulsive looking? e.g. this guy, Hamza, Griffin.

**sasguru** · 20 February 2006, 12:44

Originally posted by Mailman

Actually his credibility is very relevant. He denies the death of millions of jews and stokes the fires of anti-sematism daily...so...he is now suffering the consequences of his actions.

No sympathy...shouldnt have talked sh1t in the first place.

Mailman

But the point is that free speech is free speech. If we accept that the Mohammed cartoons should be published, then we have to accept that anti-semites are allowed to say what they like, even if we find their views abhorrent.

**zathras** · 20 February 2006, 12:48

Originally posted by Mailman

Actually his credibility is very relevant. He denies the death of millions of jews and stokes the fires of anti-sematism daily...so...he is now suffering the consequences of his actions.

No sympathy...shouldnt have talked sh1t in the first place.

Mailman

But he is n't being charged with stoking the fires of anti-sematism. He is being charged with expressing an opinion. (which he has now revised).

Has this goon seen the light?