David Irving should ask his parents if he was repeatedly dropped on his head as a child.
Why indeed?
Perhaps the Jews should consider the motto "Oderint, dum metuant."
It's completely stupid that this guy should have been imprisoned for three years for freedom of speech:
If instead he'd been allowed to wonder around expressing his views, someone may have shot him in the head by now, putting him out of his deranged misery and doing society a huge favor.
Jimmy Carter is a bigger anti-semite than Michael Irving.
The Jews are hated because many of them are generally better than alot of other people. They have comprised most of the greatest beings in the history of the world. Therefore, people are very jealous of them and want to get rid of them.
Mr. Irving must be very jealous because he knows that he is a hopeless retard. Why must God keep letting these types of people exist? sigh
I always thought its because some people dont like bagels
Ignoring this fellow's obvious issues of bias and anger, what is the answer to that question? Certainly, Jews, more than any other group, have been the target of prejudice and hatred. Why is that? Why should this one group be the subject of so much hostility?
I won't deny the holocaust but his question: why have the Jews been hated for 3000 years is a fair one.
They have had a rather dificult time of it during that 3000 years.
And it hasn't all been mooselimbs.
Incidently I do support Israel, I just don't understand why Olmert is such a patsy girlie man, cept to say he is a lawyer. Israle better take out Irans nuke program or it will perish.
This Irving guy is deliberately provocative, and (so far as I understand) he has been shown to sometimes get his facts wrong, but I fail to see why he was in jail to begin with. Also I think the suggestions here and elsewhere that he deserves violence for being a lying jerk are way, way off the mark. Treating his personality and veracity issues as though they are of a different and more critical type than say those of Michael Moore or of any number of Muslim firebrands is not good for our society and is, I believe, particularly harmful to Jews in the end. That David Irving gets thrown in jail for expressing opinions while Michael Moore and Mullah Whoever do not kinda supports at least part of his case.
From another article linked in this one:
"Irving has contended that most of those who died at concentration camps like Auschwitz succumbed to diseases such as typhus rather than execution."
As if that would have made the Nazis blameless. The world would be so much better without garbage like this guy.
As God and Jesus is hated by much of the world what is so unusual that Jews be treated the same way. They are His people so what is the problem? In a not so visible state, Christians are now hated and I am sure it is not going to get any easier.
They have been a blessing to every nation that has ever harbored them.
Can't say the same about the haters. Most of their countries are horror-shows.
This guy is making Jimmy Carter's argument in a way even Liberals can see through. Irving, like Carter, believes the victims are to blame and that those victims have no right to self-defense. As their logic goes, Israel is wrong because it won't allow its enemies to destroy it. In essence, Carter and Irving and Gibson are public relations enablers for those who actually carry out the slaughter; they provide the sophistries and muddle-minded logic that sways other weak-minded morally bankrupt worms. The MSM and DNC do much the same thing for the so-called Iraqi "insurgents" as well.
Well, some of them can be pretty obnoxious but I have always attributed that to the fact that they were from New York City. :-)
People like David Irving are dangerous. We had the same fake scholarship in the late 19th and early 20th centuries, and it led to the concentration camps. These people should not be taken likely. They're dangerous to Israel and the U.S.
Lying About Hitler: History, Holocaust, and the David Irving Trial
"..While many people agree that Irving may have a bee in his bonnet about the Holocaust, they say his other work is valuable. Evans helpfully deflates that view with a chapter on Irving's book on the Destruction of Dresden. Whereas most scholars suggest that at most 40-50,000 people died in the firebombing of the city, Irving has suggested that up to a quarter of a million may have died. How did he do this? Well, without any real evidence he took one estimate of 40,000 and argued that the assessor had just dropped a "1" at the beginning in response to Soviet pressure. His source for a total of 200-250,000 amount to little more than fifth-hand hearsay of a document that had been excerpted, transcribed, transcribed again and copied, and which was a fraud in the first place. Evans points out that Irving tried to exaggerate the number of people in Dresden by cited 1.25 million ration cards, except that the British had previously dropped thousands of ration cards in order to muck up the Nazi bureaucracy. And, oh yes, Evans points out that Irving ignores or minimizes contemporary German documents that show that the death total was about the tenth of his estimate. All in all, this is a very useful book, one that should help demolish the reputation of a most overrated and sinister figure. .."