Why are holocaust revisionist persecutor any better than Islamic terrorists?

Why are holocaust revisionist persecutor any better than Islamic terrorists?

A government has a duty to protect its people from nasty people. Holicaust deniers in many cses are nasty people denying a fact to garner support for their fringe cause.

A government is protecting no one by silencing "nasty" views. First of all, whether or not something is "nasty" is far too personal to defend such actions. Some may argue that infant circumcision is "nasty" and therefore Rabbis who promote it should be jailed. That doesn't seem to be happening, and for good reason; censorship damages public discourse and harms people.

Infant circumcision has never resulted in several million people being marched into a gas chamber and murderered.

We're quite lucky in the UK. Out extremes right wing are really a minority. Germany and Austria especially have had bigger problems with right wing extremists.

They can argue what they like.

I'm not aware of an issue within Islam or Christianity where a western democracy knowingly coordinated the mass extermination of several million people in an industrialised method such as gas chambers.

Holocaust denial is illegal in those countries that were directly involved in acts of genocide (France, Germany and Austria in particular.) it's not illegal anywhere else.

Holocaust denial is denying something we know happened happening.

A government has a duty to protect its people from nasty people. Holicaust deniers in many cses are nasty people denying a fact to garner support for their fringe cause.

"I get to decide what is and isn't nasty, your opinion is irrelevant"
-"Mature"Student36, your friendly neighbourhood dictator

You're being ridiculous. Let people decide for themselves what they agree with, don't censor it before it reaches them.

Are you also going to argue that cartoon lampooning Islam should be censored because the crusades happened? You have provided no concrete definition of "nastiness".

As I say, I'd ban anything and everything that stops a civilised western nation embracing and ideology of hatred and genocide.

Is that quite what you meant? State-sponsored censorship of anything the state considers a danger to itself? Silencing its members from criticising it? That's not a government I'd want to live under.

Having one law that says "It is illegal to deny we as a nation were responsible for a specific tragedy and it is illegal to promote the name or icons of the organisation that did it" is very different from "It is illegal to say anything critical of whatever we decide or participating in any collective or group or associating with such people as we may later determine be it face-to-face or online".

You need to be very wary of giving up your freedoms of communication and association to protect whoever is in charge.

If giving up tha freedom results in an aborant extremist fringe grouping not having access to anything that will allow them to gain more support. Then censor and ban away.

Many in germany do not feel that the gwrman acceptance of its responsibility in WW2 went far enough.

Your response is flawed. Yesterday the British media ran a story about a suspended Labour Party representative that used Auschwitz in an advert to slam the Tory Party (the usual nonsense policies of lip service). The usual nonsense political reaction occurred to the nonsense act. The British media ran stories which implied that Auschwitz was in Germany when it was actually in Poland. Educated and even educators people talk about death camps in Germany when the so called expert historians say that none were in Germany (the ones in Germany were
tested by Dr. Charles Larson, the U.S. Chief Forensic Pathologist in 1945 and the result was negative) and the historical experts then say that the death camps were in Poland. But now if you keep in mind the series of events in the popular story, write them down and you ask your surviver friends non-leading questions about these camps, I would bet that the answers do not correspond with these. This evidence you refer to, can you actually empirically tally it to the widely believed story, or are these just artefacts which you attribute to the story. For example a sword could be displayed in a museum with a place that says "This sword was used to kill Julius Caesar." That alone does not mean that the sword was used
to kill Julius Caesar. Someone a long time ago may have just said that. In a modern context you if you had DNA evidence on the murder weapon, and records demonstrated that the murder weapon was found near a body, you were able to trace the ownership of the murder weapon etc. this would be corroborating evidence. In the 1970s, 30 historians signed a document that basically says it doesn't matter about the evidence of the Holocaust or whether it was technically possibly, it just happened.

Now you talking about people denying the death of millions. The British police are investigating the disappearance of a young boy in the 1980s. One theory is that a Paedophile network of high ranking people may have taken the boy. The police have said that they will follow the evidence wherever it will lead.

Yet when people have done various hard facts empirical studies in German run camps like Auschwitz like the student jailed for a chemical analysis, people are not allowed to follow the evidence wherever it leads. Instead people like you will jump in and accuse them of denying the death of millions and other people want to harm them and jail them.

Yet if you ask the average Iraqi what transpired in the 2 Gulf Wars, the response aligns with the officially known facts and will be far worse than what the average person believes. It much more empirically aligned than the German death camp story.

But despite this dehumanising and punishing people for views on ww2 Germany is encouraged yet we get angry when Muslims do the same. Both acts of repression should not be tolerated.

As to criticising Jews, for example if someone says that the United States is
run largely by neoconservative Jews, the statement is frowned upon, and in Germany the police may be called, yet the statement is empirically true.

People like to state that one persons belief is delusional while fighting people on empirical indisputable facts, then because they cannot win against hard facts, resorting to name calling, labelling and censorship.

The only differences between the 2 approaches is that one is using state violence to arbitrate and one is arbitrating through the barrel of a gun.

Why do people act like this? Because they are not free despite the alleged framework of Liberty, Equality and Fraternity. People are slaves.

Do then you would agree with ISIS that we should all give up our freedoms to make sure that evil and abhorrent regimes which don't respect the Prophet form and continue to exist?

Because holocaust denial in many countries that were affected by the holicaust is code by the extreme right for 'I agree with what happened.'

I have no problem with revisionist history, but in the case of the holocaust that should be refining what happened. Not denying it happened which is what you're avaderge holcaust denial nut job does.

I finally agree with you!!!
Agree fully. By all means if people want to question some of the details and dates etc thats okay. But to question whether such atrocities took place in the wake of such overwhelming evidence has a nasty political motive behind it.

I finally agree with you!!!
Agree fully. By all means if people want to question some of the details and dates etc thats okay. But to question whether such atrocities took place in the wake of such overwhelming evidence has a nasty political motive behind it.

people who have cited something objective and who have no agenda like Sylvia Stolz…

…Fred Leuchter…

…Paul Rassinier…

…David Irving…

Most people who attempt discredit them simply copy paste someone else's discreditation and have never even looked at their analysis.