INTENSITY²
Politics, Mature and taboo => Political Pundits => Topic started by: benjimanbreeg on October 31, 2015, 03:36:11 PM
-
You can do or say what you like.
http://normanfinkelstein.com/2015/10/21/netanyahu-to-be-arrested-for-holocaust-denial/
-
He has since retracted his comments.
-
Then the law must apply to him.
-
Do you ever talk about anything else?
-
My momma let me do and say whatever I like. :zoinks:
-
Do you ever talk about anything else?
Should he talk more about your personal accomplishments? :zoinks:
-
He has since retracted his comments.
Not really, he's just lied again and said he didn't mean to make the claim, even though he did.
Though, I wonder if anyone knows whether this would get you off the hook once you're guilty of "Holocaust Denial". I'd imagine if a Nationalist leader in the UK had said that a Jew had convinced Hitler to carry out the Nazi genocide he'd already be facing charges and certainly wouldn't be in his position any longer.
-
Do you ever talk about anything else?
You didn't seem to mind when you were Possum. I just find the outrageous double standards very interesting.
-
Not really, he's just lied again and said he didn't mean to make the claim, even though he did.
I think that's the definition of a retraction, plus he posted it on facebook so that makes it especially meaningful. :zoinks:
-
Do you ever talk about anything else?
You didn't seem to mind when you were Possum. I just find the outrageous double standards very interesting.
Hubert and Possum are not the same person. ...Are they? :tinfoil:
-
Do you ever talk about anything else?
You didn't seem to mind when you were Possum. I just find the outrageous double standards very interesting.
Hubert and Possum are not the same person. ...Are they? :tinfoil:
:mischief:
-
Not really, he's just lied again and said he didn't mean to make the claim, even though he did.
I think that's the definition of a retraction, plus he posted it on facebook so that makes it especially meaningful. :zoinks:
If he was fully retracting, he would have just admitted that what he said was completely incorrect. Where as he's just tweaked it a bit. The main point is though that by normal standards he should be standing down as PM and arrested.
-
Not really, he's just lied again and said he didn't mean to make the claim, even though he did.
I think that's the definition of a retraction, plus he posted it on facebook so that makes it especially meaningful. :zoinks:
If he was fully retracting, he would have just admitted that what he said was completely incorrect. Where as he's just tweaked it a bit. The main point is though that by normal standards he should be standing down as PM and arrested.
It seems to me he retracted, but I'm wondering if what he said is even against the law there. He didn't deny or diminish the proportions of acts, or praise, express sympathy or identify with Nazis. Some countries have holocaust speech laws that include other things like inciting the public, banned symbolisms, generalized hate speech laws that could cover lots of things including the jewish, and even statements like his that imply shifting the blame away from the Nazis, but I don't see that to be true in what I'm reading about laws in Israel. :dunno:
-
Do you ever talk about anything else?
You didn't seem to mind when you were Possum. I just find the outrageous double standards very interesting.
Hubert and Possum are not the same person. ...Are they? :tinfoil:
She's my festering rotten whore. :zoinks:
-
Not really, he's just lied again and said he didn't mean to make the claim, even though he did.
I think that's the definition of a retraction, plus he posted it on facebook so that makes it especially meaningful. :zoinks:
It has to be on FB to mean something. :M
-
Do you ever talk about anything else?
You didn't seem to mind when you were Possum. I just find the outrageous double standards very interesting.
Hubert and Possum are not the same person. ...Are they? :tinfoil:
Hubert = Possum = MLA :grouphug:
-
Not really, he's just lied again and said he didn't mean to make the claim, even though he did.
I think that's the definition of a retraction, plus he posted it on facebook so that makes it especially meaningful. :zoinks:
If he was fully retracting, he would have just admitted that what he said was completely incorrect. Where as he's just tweaked it a bit. The main point is though that by normal standards he should be standing down as PM and arrested.
It seems to me he retracted, but I'm wondering if what he said is even against the law there. He didn't deny or diminish the proportions of acts, or praise, express sympathy or identify with Nazis. Some countries have holocaust speech laws that include other things like inciting the public, banned symbolisms, generalized hate speech laws that could cover lots of things including the jewish, and even statements like his that imply shifting the blame away from the Nazis, but I don't see that to be true in what I'm reading about laws in Israel. :dunno:
But he said he didn't mean to claim that it was the Mufti that convinced him, when it's exactly what he meant at the time. He threw enough mud though. He did it to make European nationalists believe that he and Israel are on their side, when in fact they despise any goyim.
He was passing the blame to another ethnicity and blur the responsibility which falls under point 5 of Working definition of Holocaust Denial and Distortion, so does that not mean that countries with the Holocaust laws should be asking for him to be sent there for trial? Either way, it makes him a "Holocaust Denier".
-
But he said he didn't mean to claim that it was the Mufti that convinced him, when it's exactly what he meant at the time. He threw enough mud though. He did it to make European nationalists believe that he and Israel are on their side, when in fact they despise any goyim.
He was passing the blame to another ethnicity and blur the responsibility which falls under point 5 of Working definition of Holocaust Denial and Distortion, so does that not mean that countries with the Holocaust laws should be asking for him to be sent there for trial? Either way, it makes him a "Holocaust Denier".
I'm not going to pretend like I know what he meant to say, I'm just saying he retracted the statement and clarified what he claims to have meant. Saying he should be charged or tried according to the laws of other countries is pointless unless he actually does it while in those countries. :dunno:
-
Not really, he's just lied again and said he didn't mean to make the claim, even though he did.
I think that's the definition of a retraction, plus he posted it on facebook so that makes it especially meaningful. :zoinks:
It has to be on FB to mean something. :M
Twitter is the most thoughtful and meaningful. :zoinks:
-
Not really, he's just lied again and said he didn't mean to make the claim, even though he did.
I think that's the definition of a retraction, plus he posted it on facebook so that makes it especially meaningful. :zoinks:
It has to be on FB to mean something. :M
Twitter is the most thoughtful and meaningful. :zoinks:
A bit too wordy for me. :zoinks:
-
But he said he didn't mean to claim that it was the Mufti that convinced him, when it's exactly what he meant at the time. He threw enough mud though. He did it to make European nationalists believe that he and Israel are on their side, when in fact they despise any goyim.
He was passing the blame to another ethnicity and blur the responsibility which falls under point 5 of Working definition of Holocaust Denial and Distortion, so does that not mean that countries with the Holocaust laws should be asking for him to be sent there for trial? Either way, it makes him a "Holocaust Denier".
I'm not going to pretend like I know what he meant to say, I'm just saying he retracted the statement and clarified what he claims to have meant. Saying he should be charged or tried according to the laws of other countries is pointless unless he actually does it while in those countries. :dunno:
That's fine, i've just read and seen enough to know what he means, and what he doesn't mean. Ernst Zundel got deported to Germany to stand trial for alleged previous crimes, but I am not sure if he'd done it while in Germany, or just because it's his homeland.
-
But he said he didn't mean to claim that it was the Mufti that convinced him, when it's exactly what he meant at the time. He threw enough mud though. He did it to make European nationalists believe that he and Israel are on their side, when in fact they despise any goyim.
He was passing the blame to another ethnicity and blur the responsibility which falls under point 5 of Working definition of Holocaust Denial and Distortion, so does that not mean that countries with the Holocaust laws should be asking for him to be sent there for trial? Either way, it makes him a "Holocaust Denier".
I'm not going to pretend like I know what he meant to say, I'm just saying he retracted the statement and clarified what he claims to have meant. Saying he should be charged or tried according to the laws of other countries is pointless unless he actually does it while in those countries. :dunno:
That's fine, i've just read and seen enough to know what he means, and what he doesn't mean. Ernst Zundel got deported to Germany to stand trial for alleged previous crimes, but I am not sure if he'd done it while in Germany, or just because it's his homeland.
From what I'm reading about the laws that actually apply to him, it doesn't even matter what he means. You're exhausting to me to try to have conversations like this. Jurisdiction and citizenship are huge factors in attempts to extradite people. Germany can't extradite me because I'm over here doing stuff that would be against the law over there. I'm a US citizen in the US so it's okay if I'm breaking German laws that don't apply to me because I'm not doing it there. :-\
-
The US took the concept a bit further than that when they filled Guantanamo in the wake of 9/11. Think about it: A citizen of one foreign country kidnapped in another and imprisoned in a third, supposedly violating US or international laws but never tried before a jury...
-
The US took the concept a bit further than that when they filled Guantanamo in the wake of 9/11. Think about it: A citizen of one foreign country kidnapped in another and imprisoned in a third, supposedly violating US or international laws but never tried before a jury...
Now we just let the UK lock them up in immigrant containment centers. That'll teach them to talk smack about the holocaust. :zoinks:
-
But he said he didn't mean to claim that it was the Mufti that convinced him, when it's exactly what he meant at the time. He threw enough mud though. He did it to make European nationalists believe that he and Israel are on their side, when in fact they despise any goyim.
He was passing the blame to another ethnicity and blur the responsibility which falls under point 5 of Working definition of Holocaust Denial and Distortion, so does that not mean that countries with the Holocaust laws should be asking for him to be sent there for trial? Either way, it makes him a "Holocaust Denier".
I'm not going to pretend like I know what he meant to say, I'm just saying he retracted the statement and clarified what he claims to have meant. Saying he should be charged or tried according to the laws of other countries is pointless unless he actually does it while in those countries. :dunno:
That's fine, i've just read and seen enough to know what he means, and what he doesn't mean. Ernst Zundel got deported to Germany to stand trial for alleged previous crimes, but I am not sure if he'd done it while in Germany, or just because it's his homeland.
From what I'm reading about the laws that actually apply to him, it doesn't even matter what he means. You're exhausting to me to try to have conversations like this. Jurisdiction and citizenship are huge factors in attempts to extradite people. Germany can't extradite me because I'm over here doing stuff that would be against the law over there. I'm a US citizen in the US so it's okay if I'm breaking German laws that don't apply to me because I'm not doing it there. :-\
The laws in Israel don't seem to apply to him:
"In Israel, a law to criminalize Holocaust denial was passed by the Knesset on July 8, 1986.
Denial of Holocaust (Prohibition) Law, 5746-1986
Definitions 1. In this Law, "crime against the Jewish people" and "crime against humanity" have the same respective meanings as in the "Nazis and Nazi Collaborators Law, 5710-1950.
Prohibition of Denial of Holocaust 2. A person who, in writing or by word of mouth, publishes any statement denying or diminishing the proportions of acts committed in the period of the Nazi regime, which are crimes against the Jewish people or crimes against humanity, with intent to defend the perpetrators of those acts or to express sympathy or identification with them, shall be liable to imprisonment for a term of five years.
Prohibition of publication of expression for sympathy for Nazi crimes 3. A person who, in writing or by word of mouth, publishes any statement expressing praise or sympathy for or identification with acts done in the period of the Nazi regime, which are crimes against the Jewish people or crimes against humanity, shall be liable to imprisonment for a term of five years.
Permitted publication."
...So he wouldn't need to be deported anyway. Yeah I get that, I was just wondering if these Holocaust Laws are an exception.
-
The US took the concept a bit further than that when they filled Guantanamo in the wake of 9/11. Think about it: A citizen of one foreign country kidnapped in another and imprisoned in a third, supposedly violating US or international laws but never tried before a jury...
Yeah good point.
-
...So he wouldn't need to be deported anyway. Yeah I get that, I was just wondering if these Holocaust Laws are an exception.
I just don't see how his statements broke that law. What he said was a statement that shifts blame away from the Nazis. Some countries have laws against statements like that, but It doesn't appear Israel is one of them. :dunno:
Yeah good point.
I just thought odeon was making a joke about something I said in another thread, about people talking about things that other people aren't talking about. :lol1:
-
...So he wouldn't need to be deported anyway. Yeah I get that, I was just wondering if these Holocaust Laws are an exception.
I just don't see how his statements broke that law. What he said was a statement that shifts blame away from the Nazis. Some countries have laws against statements like that, but It doesn't appear Israel is one of them. :dunno:
That's what I thought too.
Bibi can try to change what he said/meant, but he cannot make it unread nor unheard what he uttered in the first place. Will haunt him a bit still, as a politician. Because also the reactions on what he said he cannot make unheard or unsaid, from both friends and foes.
He'll have to tread a bit carefully the coming time.
(But, he sure knows how to stay in charge for long long times)
-
But he said he didn't mean to claim that it was the Mufti that convinced him, when it's exactly what he meant at the time. He threw enough mud though. He did it to make European nationalists believe that he and Israel are on their side, when in fact they despise any goyim.
He was passing the blame to another ethnicity and blur the responsibility which falls under point 5 of Working definition of Holocaust Denial and Distortion, so does that not mean that countries with the Holocaust laws should be asking for him to be sent there for trial? Either way, it makes him a "Holocaust Denier".
I'm not going to pretend like I know what he meant to say, I'm just saying he retracted the statement and clarified what he claims to have meant. Saying he should be charged or tried according to the laws of other countries is pointless unless he actually does it while in those countries. :dunno:
That's fine, i've just read and seen enough to know what he means, and what he doesn't mean. Ernst Zundel got deported to Germany to stand trial for alleged previous crimes, but I am not sure if he'd done it while in Germany, or just because it's his homeland.
From what I'm reading about the laws that actually apply to him, it doesn't even matter what he means. You're exhausting to me to try to have conversations like this. Jurisdiction and citizenship are huge factors in attempts to extradite people. Germany can't extradite me because I'm over here doing stuff that would be against the law over there. I'm a US citizen in the US so it's okay if I'm breaking German laws that don't apply to me because I'm not doing it there. :-\
Benji is confused by the law.
An added twist, the US won't extradite any citizen to a foreign country unless the law they broke, while they were in said foreign country, is also illegal had it been done while in the United States, and the punishment for violating said law is comparable to what it would be over here. And even then, only if we have a ratified extradition treaty, which means that the other country must have agreed to a similar provision with their citizens.
-
The US took the concept a bit further than that when they filled Guantanamo in the wake of 9/11. Think about it: A citizen of one foreign country kidnapped in another and imprisoned in a third, supposedly violating US or international laws but never tried before a jury...
Article two run amok :thumbdn:
-
The US took the concept a bit further than that when they filled Guantanamo in the wake of 9/11. Think about it: A citizen of one foreign country kidnapped in another and imprisoned in a third, supposedly violating US or international laws but never tried before a jury...
Now we just let the UK lock them up in immigrant containment centers. That'll teach them to talk smack about the holocaust. :zoinks:
It's not just the UK. :zoinks:
-
But he said he didn't mean to claim that it was the Mufti that convinced him, when it's exactly what he meant at the time. He threw enough mud though. He did it to make European nationalists believe that he and Israel are on their side, when in fact they despise any goyim.
He was passing the blame to another ethnicity and blur the responsibility which falls under point 5 of Working definition of Holocaust Denial and Distortion, so does that not mean that countries with the Holocaust laws should be asking for him to be sent there for trial? Either way, it makes him a "Holocaust Denier".
I'm not going to pretend like I know what he meant to say, I'm just saying he retracted the statement and clarified what he claims to have meant. Saying he should be charged or tried according to the laws of other countries is pointless unless he actually does it while in those countries. :dunno:
That's fine, i've just read and seen enough to know what he means, and what he doesn't mean. Ernst Zundel got deported to Germany to stand trial for alleged previous crimes, but I am not sure if he'd done it while in Germany, or just because it's his homeland.
From what I'm reading about the laws that actually apply to him, it doesn't even matter what he means. You're exhausting to me to try to have conversations like this. Jurisdiction and citizenship are huge factors in attempts to extradite people. Germany can't extradite me because I'm over here doing stuff that would be against the law over there. I'm a US citizen in the US so it's okay if I'm breaking German laws that don't apply to me because I'm not doing it there. :-\
Benji is confused by the law.
An added twist, the US won't extradite any citizen to a foreign country unless the law they broke, while they were in said foreign country, is also illegal had it been done while in the United States, and the punishment for violating said law is comparable to what it would be over here. And even then, only if we have a ratified extradition treaty, which means that the other country must have agreed to a similar provision with their citizens.
That's pretty much the case here, too.
-
The US took the concept a bit further than that when they filled Guantanamo in the wake of 9/11. Think about it: A citizen of one foreign country kidnapped in another and imprisoned in a third, supposedly violating US or international laws but never tried before a jury...
Now we just let the UK lock them up in immigrant containment centers. That'll teach them to talk smack about the holocaust. :zoinks:
It's not just the UK. :zoinks:
They're just the only ones in the EU with no laws governing how long they can be imprisoned without deportation or release. :zoinks:
-
But he said he didn't mean to claim that it was the Mufti that convinced him, when it's exactly what he meant at the time. He threw enough mud though. He did it to make European nationalists believe that he and Israel are on their side, when in fact they despise any goyim.
He was passing the blame to another ethnicity and blur the responsibility which falls under point 5 of Working definition of Holocaust Denial and Distortion, so does that not mean that countries with the Holocaust laws should be asking for him to be sent there for trial? Either way, it makes him a "Holocaust Denier".
I'm not going to pretend like I know what he meant to say, I'm just saying he retracted the statement and clarified what he claims to have meant. Saying he should be charged or tried according to the laws of other countries is pointless unless he actually does it while in those countries. :dunno:
That's fine, i've just read and seen enough to know what he means, and what he doesn't mean. Ernst Zundel got deported to Germany to stand trial for alleged previous crimes, but I am not sure if he'd done it while in Germany, or just because it's his homeland.
From what I'm reading about the laws that actually apply to him, it doesn't even matter what he means. You're exhausting to me to try to have conversations like this. Jurisdiction and citizenship are huge factors in attempts to extradite people. Germany can't extradite me because I'm over here doing stuff that would be against the law over there. I'm a US citizen in the US so it's okay if I'm breaking German laws that don't apply to me because I'm not doing it there. :-\
Benji is confused by the law.
An added twist, the US won't extradite any citizen to a foreign country unless the law they broke, while they were in said foreign country, is also illegal had it been done while in the United States, and the punishment for violating said law is comparable to what it would be over here. And even then, only if we have a ratified extradition treaty, which means that the other country must have agreed to a similar provision with their citizens.
That's pretty much the case here, too.
It's like that everywhere, but I think it doesn't even matter. Maybe I misunderstood why some german guy was brought up, but I understood it as a suggestion that this guy should be extradited to some country where he's not a citizen for breaking their laws while he wasn't even in their country. Even if all the treaty details are in place, that's not how it works. :dunno:
-
...So he wouldn't need to be deported anyway. Yeah I get that, I was just wondering if these Holocaust Laws are an exception.
I just don't see how his statements broke that law. What he said was a statement that shifts blame away from the Nazis. Some countries have laws against statements like that, but It doesn't appear Israel is one of them. :dunno:
Yeah good point.
I just thought odeon was making a joke about something I said in another thread, about people talking about things that other people aren't talking about. :lol1:
It shouldn't do, but it does. Shifting the blame to another group or nation and blurring responsibility comes under the Working definition of Holocaust Denial and Distortion, so do you think an Israeli Arab would get away with saying it in Israel? Hell, Deborah Lipstadt even had it down that saying Germans suffered during WWII was part of Holocaust Denial.
-
But he said he didn't mean to claim that it was the Mufti that convinced him, when it's exactly what he meant at the time. He threw enough mud though. He did it to make European nationalists believe that he and Israel are on their side, when in fact they despise any goyim.
He was passing the blame to another ethnicity and blur the responsibility which falls under point 5 of Working definition of Holocaust Denial and Distortion, so does that not mean that countries with the Holocaust laws should be asking for him to be sent there for trial? Either way, it makes him a "Holocaust Denier".
I'm not going to pretend like I know what he meant to say, I'm just saying he retracted the statement and clarified what he claims to have meant. Saying he should be charged or tried according to the laws of other countries is pointless unless he actually does it while in those countries. :dunno:
That's fine, i've just read and seen enough to know what he means, and what he doesn't mean. Ernst Zundel got deported to Germany to stand trial for alleged previous crimes, but I am not sure if he'd done it while in Germany, or just because it's his homeland.
From what I'm reading about the laws that actually apply to him, it doesn't even matter what he means. You're exhausting to me to try to have conversations like this. Jurisdiction and citizenship are huge factors in attempts to extradite people. Germany can't extradite me because I'm over here doing stuff that would be against the law over there. I'm a US citizen in the US so it's okay if I'm breaking German laws that don't apply to me because I'm not doing it there. :-\
Benji is confused by the law.
An added twist, the US won't extradite any citizen to a foreign country unless the law they broke, while they were in said foreign country, is also illegal had it been done while in the United States, and the punishment for violating said law is comparable to what it would be over here. And even then, only if we have a ratified extradition treaty, which means that the other country must have agreed to a similar provision with their citizens.
I'm confused by Holocau$t laws.
-
But he said he didn't mean to claim that it was the Mufti that convinced him, when it's exactly what he meant at the time. He threw enough mud though. He did it to make European nationalists believe that he and Israel are on their side, when in fact they despise any goyim.
He was passing the blame to another ethnicity and blur the responsibility which falls under point 5 of Working definition of Holocaust Denial and Distortion, so does that not mean that countries with the Holocaust laws should be asking for him to be sent there for trial? Either way, it makes him a "Holocaust Denier".
I'm not going to pretend like I know what he meant to say, I'm just saying he retracted the statement and clarified what he claims to have meant. Saying he should be charged or tried according to the laws of other countries is pointless unless he actually does it while in those countries. :dunno:
That's fine, i've just read and seen enough to know what he means, and what he doesn't mean. Ernst Zundel got deported to Germany to stand trial for alleged previous crimes, but I am not sure if he'd done it while in Germany, or just because it's his homeland.
From what I'm reading about the laws that actually apply to him, it doesn't even matter what he means. You're exhausting to me to try to have conversations like this. Jurisdiction and citizenship are huge factors in attempts to extradite people. Germany can't extradite me because I'm over here doing stuff that would be against the law over there. I'm a US citizen in the US so it's okay if I'm breaking German laws that don't apply to me because I'm not doing it there. :-\
Benji is confused by the law.
An added twist, the US won't extradite any citizen to a foreign country unless the law they broke, while they were in said foreign country, is also illegal had it been done while in the United States, and the punishment for violating said law is comparable to what it would be over here. And even then, only if we have a ratified extradition treaty, which means that the other country must have agreed to a similar provision with their citizens.
That's pretty much the case here, too.
It's like that everywhere, but I think it doesn't even matter. Maybe I misunderstood why some german guy was brought up, but I understood it as a suggestion that this guy should be extradited to some country where he's not a citizen for breaking their laws while he wasn't even in their country. Even if all the treaty details are in place, that's not how it works. :dunno:
I was just wondering if there are special circumstances for this particular subject. Say Abbas or someone from Hamas had said that a Jew made Hitler kill people, what do you think would happen to them?
-
I don't know of any in particular, but yeah, there's probably special circumstances, though maybe not legal ones. If Abbas said it, it would depend on the laws of where he said it. Same if Obama said it. Like hyke said, as a political leader he will still have to deal with the political ramifications, even if the didn't break any laws. :agreed:
-
I don't know of any in particular, but yeah, there's probably special circumstances, though maybe not legal ones. If Abbas said it, it would depend on the laws of where he said it. Same if Obama said it. Like hyke said, as a political leader he will still have to deal with the political ramifications, even if the didn't break any laws. :agreed:
If Abbas said it while in Israel?
-
We've already talked about the laws in Israel. There may be some fine print in the laws that I don't know about regarding shifting blame, but on the surface it looks like anyone could say that in Israel. :dunno:
-
We've already talked about the laws in Israel. There may be some fine print in the laws that I don't know about regarding shifting blame, but on the surface it looks like anyone could say that in Israel. :dunno:
Shifting the blame is part of Holocaust Denial, supposedly.
-
*sigh*
-
We've already talked about the laws in Israel. There may be some fine print in the laws that I don't know about regarding shifting blame, but on the surface it looks like anyone could say that in Israel. :dunno:
Shifting the blame is part of Holocaust Denial, supposedly.
Supposedly? Can you be more specific?
-
We've already talked about the laws in Israel. There may be some fine print in the laws that I don't know about regarding shifting blame, but on the surface it looks like anyone could say that in Israel. :dunno:
Shifting the blame is part of Holocaust Denial, supposedly.
Supposedly? Can you be more specific?
https://www.holocaustremembrance.com/working-definition-holocaust-denial-and-distortion
Yes, it comes under Holocaust Denial according to the Holocaust Industry. In Deborah Lipstadt's book, she even claims that acknowledging Germans suffered is part of Holocaust Denial.
-
Bibi would fit point 5 of the Holocaust distortion list.
-
https://www.holocaustremembrance.com/working-definition-holocaust-denial-and-distortion
Yes, it comes under Holocaust Denial according to the Holocaust Industry.
Well if you were only trying to make the point that he's a holocaust denier by that definition, then point horribly made. You shouldn't have gone off about laws and how he should be held legally accountable. The US is one of the 31 countries which adopted IHRA's working definition of holocaust denial, but the US doesn't have holocaust denial laws. Of the countries that do have holocaust denial laws, not all of those laws encompass every point of the that definition. So I lead you back to the title and first words of this thread: When the law doesn't apply to you, you can do or say what you like. :thumbup:
-
Bibi would fit point 5 of the Holocaust distortion list.
Yeah
-
https://www.holocaustremembrance.com/working-definition-holocaust-denial-and-distortion
Yes, it comes under Holocaust Denial according to the Holocaust Industry.
Well if you were only trying to make the point that he's a holocaust denier by that definition, then point horribly made. You shouldn't have gone off about laws and how he should be held legally accountable. The US is one of the 31 countries which adopted IHRA's working definition of holocaust denial, but the US doesn't have holocaust denial laws. Of the countries that do have holocaust denial laws, not all of those laws encompass every point of the that definition. So I lead you back to the title and first words of this thread: When the law doesn't apply to you, you can do or say what you like. :thumbup:
By 'the' main definition. I can't help it if you took 4 pages to work it out ;) Did I even mention the US?
-
I can't help it if you took 4 pages to work it out ;)
Hey, fuck you motherfucka, yeah it took me a really long to figure out you mean definitions and not laws, when you started a topic about the law, while you were talking about laws and how this guy should be arrested according to laws that don't apply to him. :zoinks:
-
I can't help it if you took 4 pages to work it out ;)
Hey, fuck you motherfucka, yeah it took me a really long to figure out you mean definitions and not laws, when you started a topic about the law, while you were talking about laws and how this guy should be arrested according to laws that don't apply to him. :zoinks:
Logic and consistency of argument do not apply to him (and are quite beyond him anyway)
-
I can't help it if you took 4 pages to work it out ;)
Hey, fuck you motherfucka, yeah it took me a really long to figure out you mean definitions and not laws, when you started a topic about the law, while you were talking about laws and how this guy should be arrested according to laws that don't apply to him. :zoinks:
Logic and consistency of argument do not apply to him (and are quite beyond him anyway)
I think you misunderstand what's transpiring in that quote. See, Benjiman's wink smiley lets me know he doesn't really think I'm stupid even though he's clearly implying I'm stupid, and my zoinks smiley lets him know I say muthafucka in jest. I wish he would also post here for fun, but he doesn't so I have no choice but to engage him in topics that don't really interest me. Benjamin and I are engaging in typical male bonding rituals of metaphorical chest thumping and dry humping. Is it possible I've misunderstood the intent of your post and you're just trying to join in? :zoinks:
-
I can't help it if you took 4 pages to work it out ;)
Hey, fuck you motherfucka, yeah it took me a really long to figure out you mean definitions and not laws, when you started a topic about the law, while you were talking about laws and how this guy should be arrested according to laws that don't apply to him. :zoinks:
Logic and consistency of argument do not apply to him (and are quite beyond him anyway)
I think you misunderstand what's transpiring in that quote. See, Benjiman's wink smiley lets me know he doesn't really think I'm stupid even though he's clearly implying I'm stupid, and my zoinks smiley lets him know I say muthafucka in jest. I wish he would also post here for fun, but he doesn't so I have no choice but to engage him in topics that don't really interest me. Benjamin and I are engaging in typical male bonding rituals of metaphorical chest thumping and dry humping. Is it possible I've misunderstood the intent of your post and you're just trying to join in? :zoinks:
Quoting for fun.
-
I can't help it if you took 4 pages to work it out ;)
Hey, fuck you motherfucka, yeah it took me a really long to figure out you mean definitions and not laws, when you started a topic about the law, while you were talking about laws and how this guy should be arrested according to laws that don't apply to him. :zoinks:
Logic and consistency of argument do not apply to him (and are quite beyond him anyway)
I think you misunderstand what's transpiring in that quote. See, Benjiman's wink smiley lets me know he doesn't really think I'm stupid even though he's clearly implying I'm stupid, and my zoinks smiley lets him know I say muthafucka in jest. I wish he would also post here for fun, but he doesn't so I have no choice but to engage him in topics that don't really interest me. Benjamin and I are engaging in typical male bonding rituals of metaphorical chest thumping and dry humping. Is it possible I've misunderstood the intent of your post and you're just trying to join in? :zoinks:
This doesn't invalidate Hubert's post. :zoinks:
-
I can't help it if you took 4 pages to work it out ;)
Hey, fuck you motherfucka, yeah it took me a really long to figure out you mean definitions and not laws, when you started a topic about the law, while you were talking about laws and how this guy should be arrested according to laws that don't apply to him. :zoinks:
Logic and consistency of argument do not apply to him (and are quite beyond him anyway)
I think you misunderstand what's transpiring in that quote. See, Benjiman's wink smiley lets me know he doesn't really think I'm stupid even though he's clearly implying I'm stupid, and my zoinks smiley lets him know I say muthafucka in jest. I wish he would also post here for fun, but he doesn't so I have no choice but to engage him in topics that don't really interest me. Benjamin and I are engaging in typical male bonding rituals of metaphorical chest thumping and dry humping. Is it possible I've misunderstood the intent of your post and you're just trying to join in? :zoinks:
This doesn't invalidate Hubert's post. :zoinks:
:M
-
I can't help it if you took 4 pages to work it out ;)
Hey, fuck you motherfucka, yeah it took me a really long to figure out you mean definitions and not laws, when you started a topic about the law, while you were talking about laws and how this guy should be arrested according to laws that don't apply to him. :zoinks:
Logic and consistency of argument do not apply to him (and are quite beyond him anyway)
I think you misunderstand what's transpiring in that quote. See, Benjiman's wink smiley lets me know he doesn't really think I'm stupid even though he's clearly implying I'm stupid, and my zoinks smiley lets him know I say muthafucka in jest. I wish he would also post here for fun, but he doesn't so I have no choice but to engage him in topics that don't really interest me. Benjamin and I are engaging in typical male bonding rituals of metaphorical chest thumping and dry humping. Is it possible I've misunderstood the intent of your post and you're just trying to join in? :zoinks:
This doesn't invalidate Hubert's post. :zoinks:
I like yours and Hubert's metaphorical dry humping even better. :zoinks:
-
I can't help it if you took 4 pages to work it out ;)
Hey, fuck you motherfucka, yeah it took me a really long to figure out you mean definitions and not laws, when you started a topic about the law, while you were talking about laws and how this guy should be arrested according to laws that don't apply to him. :zoinks:
As I pointed out, if a Palestinian leader said what he did, in Israel, he'd be arrested. In a consistent world, Bibi would be rotting in jail, for this, and in a logical and consistent world he would be rotting in the ground.
-
Now we're just going in a circle over ground already covered, because in a consistent world no one would be arrested for saying that in isreal because there's no law against saying it. :dunno:
-
You're right. If he'd done it elsewhere, he'd have been dragged back to Israel at once by the ear and faced charges ;)
http://www.rense.com/general67/knes.htm
-
You're right. If he'd done it elsewhere, he'd have been dragged back to Israel at once by the ear and faced charges ;)
http://www.rense.com/general67/knes.htm
No he wouldn't because Isreal would have to have a law against what he said it first. :lol1:
-
They do. Passing the blame to another ethnic group and attempting to blur responsibility is exactly what he did and that is point 5 of Holocaust commandments you silly billy.
-
They do. Passing the blame to another ethnic group and attempting to blur responsibility is exactly what he did and that is point 5 of Holocaust commandments you silly billy.
Look, I usually don't mind running in circles but I'm tired of this one. Isreal holocaust denial laws don't say anything about shifting blame or blurring responsibility regardless of what that definition says, and since they don't have a law against it then they wouldn't extradite anyone to face trial for a law they don't have. :GA:
-
I can't help it if you took 4 pages to work it out ;)
Hey, fuck you motherfucka, yeah it took me a really long to figure out you mean definitions and not laws, when you started a topic about the law, while you were talking about laws and how this guy should be arrested according to laws that don't apply to him. :zoinks:
Logic and consistency of argument do not apply to him (and are quite beyond him anyway)
I think you misunderstand what's transpiring in that quote. See, Benjiman's wink smiley lets me know he doesn't really think I'm stupid even though he's clearly implying I'm stupid, and my zoinks smiley lets him know I say muthafucka in jest. I wish he would also post here for fun, but he doesn't so I have no choice but to engage him in topics that don't really interest me. Benjamin and I are engaging in typical male bonding rituals of metaphorical chest thumping and dry humping. Is it possible I've misunderstood the intent of your post and you're just trying to join in? :zoinks:
This doesn't invalidate Hubert's post. :zoinks:
I like yours and Hubert's metaphorical dry humping even better. :zoinks:
Poor gopher. Jealous much? :zoinks:
-
They do. Passing the blame to another ethnic group and attempting to blur responsibility is exactly what he did and that is point 5 of Holocaust commandments you silly billy.
Look, I usually don't mind running in circles but I'm tired of this one. Isreal holocaust denial laws don't say anything about shifting blame or blurring responsibility regardless of what that definition says, and since they don't have a law against it then they wouldn't extradite anyone to face trial for a law they don't have. :GA:
But they have Holocaust Denial laws and what I said before is part of Holocaust Denial. It really isn't that complicated.
-
For the love of goddam god. I'm going to say it one more time, then I'm really quitting, because at this point I'd bet money you're just going to come right back and say, but, but, but definitions. Yes, Israel has holocaust denial laws, but I don't see those laws say anything at all that applies to point 5 of the IHRA's definiiton. There's no law for point 5. You posted their laws yourself. It really isn't that complicated. Yes, he's a holocaust denier according to point 5 of the IHRA's definition. So what? I have never once argued against that.
-
For the love of goddam god.
By the way, thanks Zeg, this is now one of my favorite expressions. :thumbup:
-
:poo:
-
You are hurting the collective downs, rage
Can you see it?
See the downs sitting there, sulking, head hanging, with their simple little demands for life, such as children's entertainment and simple tasks :'/
-
Oh. I can see it. :zoinks:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=q6cyDsuNx_U
-
Speaking of Judge Dredd, have you seen
Judge Dredd, the "remake"?
I'm not a super-hero guy, but that's one of the best movies I've seen recently. For a shooter, which it is, that is saying something. I haven't seen violence glorified like that in a long time, it's just poetry!
And it's a good movie, simple, but good.
-
Yeah I was expecting it to suck bad, but they did the best they could with such an over the top concept and I think it turned out pretty entertaining.
-
Yeah I was expecting it to suck bad, but they did the best they could with such an over the top concept and I think it turned out pretty entertaining.
I wasn't told what I was going to watch, because I would have insisted we watch something else, out of being convinced it'd suck.
As simple as the movie was, there's not a lot to pinpoint - "this was an amazing scene!" or whatever, it's more the attitude of it. They dared make it something real, and didn't fall for the "hey, let's make it PG13, we can get alll that extra moneyz!"
-
For the love of goddam god. I'm going to say it one more time, then I'm really quitting, because at this point I'd bet money you're just going to come right back and say, but, but, but definitions. Yes, Israel has holocaust denial laws, but I don't see those laws say anything at all that applies to point 5 of the IHRA's definiiton. There's no law for point 5. You posted their laws yourself. It really isn't that complicated. Yes, he's a holocaust denier according to point 5 of the IHRA's definition. So what? I have never once argued against that.
Just say it one more time. :zoinks:
-
For the love of goddam god. I'm going to say it one more time, then I'm really quitting, because at this point I'd bet money you're just going to come right back and say, but, but, but definitions. Yes, Israel has holocaust denial laws, but I don't see those laws say anything at all that applies to point 5 of the IHRA's definiiton. There's no law for point 5. You posted their laws yourself. It really isn't that complicated. Yes, he's a holocaust denier according to point 5 of the IHRA's definition. So what? I have never once argued against that.
Just say it one more time. :zoinks:
For the love of goddam god. :zoinks:
-
Don't wear it out! :o
-
Too late. You'll have to come up with something else.
-
For the love of goddam god. I'm going to say it one more time, then I'm really quitting, because at this point I'd bet money you're just going to come right back and say, but, but, but definitions. Yes, Israel has holocaust denial laws, but I don't see those laws say anything at all that applies to point 5 of the IHRA's definiiton. There's no law for point 5. You posted their laws yourself. It really isn't that complicated. Yes, he's a holocaust denier according to point 5 of the IHRA's definition. So what? I have never once argued against that.
Jesus. Even in Israel's laws it says
"A person who, in writing or by word of mouth, publishes any statement denying or diminishing the proportions of acts committed in the period of the Nazi regime, which are crimes against the Jewish people or crimes against humanity, with intent to defend the perpetrators of those acts or to express sympathy or identification with them, shall be liable to imprisonment for a term of five years."
Which for the most part would apply to Bibi.
-
For the love of goddam god. I'm going to say it one more time, then I'm really quitting, because at this point I'd bet money you're just going to come right back and say, but, but, but definitions. Yes, Israel has holocaust denial laws, but I don't see those laws say anything at all that applies to point 5 of the IHRA's definiiton. There's no law for point 5. You posted their laws yourself. It really isn't that complicated. Yes, he's a holocaust denier according to point 5 of the IHRA's definition. So what? I have never once argued against that.
Jesus. Even in Israel's laws it says
"A person who, in writing or by word of mouth, publishes any statement denying or diminishing the proportions of acts committed in the period of the Nazi regime, which are crimes against the Jewish people or crimes against humanity, with intent to defend the perpetrators of those acts or to express sympathy or identification with them, shall be liable to imprisonment for a term of five years."
Which for the most part would apply to Bibi.
Didn't Bibi "only" add an other person as the one with the original idea to all that happened. Not taking any blame from those to blame. "Only" adding the mufti?
-
Don't wear it out! :o
I'm going to echo it until you're sick of hearing it. :zoinks:
-
For the love of goddam god. I'm going to say it one more time, then I'm really quitting, because at this point I'd bet money you're just going to come right back and say, but, but, but definitions. Yes, Israel has holocaust denial laws, but I don't see those laws say anything at all that applies to point 5 of the IHRA's definiiton. There's no law for point 5. You posted their laws yourself. It really isn't that complicated. Yes, he's a holocaust denier according to point 5 of the IHRA's definition. So what? I have never once argued against that.
Jesus. Even in Israel's laws it says
"A person who, in writing or by word of mouth, publishes any statement denying or diminishing the proportions of acts committed in the period of the Nazi regime, which are crimes against the Jewish people or crimes against humanity, with intent to defend the perpetrators of those acts or to express sympathy or identification with them, shall be liable to imprisonment for a term of five years."
Which for the most part would apply to Bibi.
Didn't Bibi "only" add an other person as the one with the original idea to all that happened. Not taking any blame from those to blame. "Only" adding the mufti?
No, he said that Hitler didn't want to kill masses of Joos, he just wanted to deport them, but the Mufti convinced him to carry out the mass killings.