You surely cannot be that daft.

Consider this the final word on the topic. You will not be getting any more attention on this blog.

“Alas, you and I know that your view on Friedman has nothing to do with a real belief on your part that he does not deny the Holocaust. You just happen to like him because he shares your anti-Israel views.”

I don’t have a “real belief that he does not deny the Holocaust”. If I did I’d be adopting your illogical reasoning. I simply don’t know, and the material presented to support the assertion, fails.

“anti-israel views” - Another assertion devoid of factual content, unless you subscribe to a totalitarian point of view, in which case those who fail to think correctly can be so labelled, eg anti-Soviet, anti-American etc

Alas, you and I know that your view on Friedman has nothing to do with a real belief on your part that he does not deny the Holocaust. You just happen to like him because he shares your anti-Israel views.

You’ve gone from stating it as a fact, to it being “extremely likely” and now it’s just “circumstantial”.

I’ll give you credit for being at least open to rational debate.

However, your approach flies in the face of the tradational evidence-based approach. You’re quite happy with “circumstantial” evidence to find him guilty as accused, but demand “strong evidence” to discount the accusation. As unreasonable as that is, his acknowledgement the Holocaust happended would qualify, I would have thought.

It seems that this is all really about a kiss.

Evidence suggesting Holocaust denial = attending conference on Holocaust denial + Meeting with Holocaust deniers at said conference + quote denying Holocaust.

vs

Evidence suggesting no Holocaust denial = claiming to have lost relatives in Holocaust + all you have is a 3 word quote?

I would say your position is the lame one.

Given the strong circumstantial evidence that he is a Holocaust denier, it is up to you to bring strong evidence that he is not. And you, quite simply, have not done so.

The only thing that smells here is your agenda in defending Friedman.

And I take it you can’t find any references to anything but the 3 word fragment of a quote either? Strange, huh?

And I’m not trying to “defend” Friedman, just pointing out the extemely flimsy nature of the “evidence’ with which you are only to happy to hang him with. The grasping at straws is being done by those interested in vilifying the man based on very little.

That you now down grade your judgement to say it’s “extremely likely” he’s a Holocaust denier is a pretty lame fudge of the issue - you seem to accept that the case is weak, but refuse to let go of the charge.

If you dig up the whole quote and Friedman actaully did say that “the Holocaust is a successful fiction” then I’ll join in the condemnation. Until then, it’s looks and smells like amateur hour at propaganda central.

But his position in Vienna is different than the one he expressed in Tehran, where he was quoted as saying the Holocaust was a “successful fiction,” and that it is “legitimate to cast doubt on some of the statistics” with regard to it. On Friday, Friedman claimed that he does not deny the fact that 6 million Jews were murdered in the Holocaust. His sudden change in position may be explained by fear over being prosecuted in Austria, where publicly doubting the Holocaust is a crime. This concern might also explain why he was detained in Tehran until December 24, and why he spent - by his own admission - the last two weeks in Denmark, known for its liberal laws of freedom of expression.

I would say it is extremely likely he is a Holocaust denier, certainly more likely than your poor excuse for an explanation .Just like I would say it is extremely likely that you have an agenda, and are not as intellectually honest as you are trying to portray yourself.

No thanks, not interested in visiting your blog again.

Take your “a succesful fiction” fragment. You claim it is “evidence” of Holocaust denial. I had Googled and found the same fragment reproduced in many different sites. If it really was a statement that showed Holocaust denial, then why not show a larger section, why do they all use the same 3 word quote? Surely he must have said somethig like “The Holocaust is a successful fiction”. So why cut it down to 3 words??

I found much longer qoutes attributed to Friedman which cast serious doubt on your preferred understanding. Friedman claims that members of his family died in the Holocaust, a very strange claim for a Holocaust denier to make, don’t you think? And that his main problem is what he perceives as Zionists using the death of his family members to pursue their own political agenda. He also has questioned some of the statistics associated with the Holocaust.

But then, it’s much easier to just attribute to people who disagree with you, the most extreme and easily debunked opinions, using fragments of their words to slander them, and then take pleasure in their personal tragedies while hiding behind the false accusations you made to excuse your pleasure.

But having kept a close eye on ‘Honest’Reporting, none of this surprises me.

PS. If you think I’ve made factual errros on my blog, please come along and point them out to me.

I’m very happy to engage people on the question of factual accuracy and honesty with regard to ‘Honest’Reporting. So far I’ve had a total of zero successful challanges.

Regarding your assertion that Friedman doesn’t deny the holocaust, I find it hard to believe that someone with a blog, and the ability to google could not find the evidence. And I quote:

Half a dozen Orthodox Jews also took part in the event. They belong to an Orthodox group whose interpretation of their faith includes opposition to the creation of the state of Israel. Among them was Moshe Aryeh Friedman of Austria, who called the Holocaust “a successful fiction.”

Of course, I think you do know the truth, but it is you who are the dishonest reporter.