2 of 3
2
Will a secular nation speak out against the muslim led genocide against christians in Armenia?...
Posted: 12 October 2007 03:43 PM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 16 ]
Sr. Member
Avatar
RankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRank
Total Posts:  1161
Joined  2007-07-16
dougsmith - 12 October 2007 03:10 PM

I wonder why you are in the same couple of days cozying up to Holocaust denial and supporting sophistry about the word “antisemitism”.

I am not “cozying up to Holocaust denial” and I find that extremely offensive. I am just disputing the accuracy of the claim charged at him.

As for the topic on the sophistry of antisemtism, I already explained the context and reasons behind my views. Semites are not just Jews so anti-semitism shouldnt just be about prejudice towards Jews. Anti-semitism should apply to prejudice towards all semites.

I am getting the hint that you are implying something really inappropriate and offensive. Just because I think his comments about the holocaust are misinterpreted and that anti-semitism should apply to all semites does not mean I have some racist vendetta against Jews because I dont. Neither am I fond of Ahmadinejad.

 Signature 

“Unsustainable systems can’t be sustained.” ~ Robert Jensen

Profile
 
 
Posted: 12 October 2007 04:35 PM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 17 ]
Administrator
Avatar
RankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRank
Total Posts:  15356
Joined  2006-02-14

When you first stated this claim about Ahmadinejad my feeling was that it was based on a misunderstanding. That is, that you had only heard a small amount of what Ahmadinejad had said and done about the Holocaust, for example, a few comments from his Columbia University lecture. The problem with those comments is that they have to be taken in the context of everything else that Ahmadinejad has said and done. One cannot simply take them at face value, any more than one can take the claim from Bush at face value that he doesn’t believe in torture.

Now, I have presented several comments, quoted by CNN (the source for those comments, BTW, was the Islamic Republic of Iran Broadcasting, not the IRNA), which were also treated by the German government as clear examples of antisemitism and Holocaust denial.

You, in response, served up a quotation with three ellipses that purported to show that Ahmadinejad did not make these statements in 2005. But how can we know that, given that there are ellipses? Do I have to point all this out to you in detail?

And then we have to assume that the translation from the IRNA is truer to Ahmadinejad’s intentions than the one used by the Islamic Republic of Iran Broadcasting, CNN and the German government. You may believe that CNN might skew a translation, but Germany?

And further, what about all the other information I provided that Ahmadinejad has supported ridiculing the Holocaust with cartoons, has helped instigate conferences of Holocaust deniers in Iran and has invited one of the most virulent of them to be his personal guest? And on top of all that, he apparently “spent half of a 90-minute meeting at the Council on Foreign Relations trying to debunk the Holocaust.”

If we, OTOH, conclude that the CNN transcript is an accurate translation, all that nonsense about the quote with the ellipses is simply a meaningless diversion. The fact is that Ahmadinejad is an antisemite, as displayed in his nonhistorical fictions about the Holocaust.

I also find Holocaust denial extremely offensive, and can’t for the life of me understand why you would persist in whitewashing this sort of conduct.

... and by the way, I can say all this and still not be a fan of Israeli politics in the Middle East. And I can also say it and still believe that Ahmadinejad is a relatively minor character in Iran. And I can also say it and still be very concerned with the inflated anti-Iranian rhetoric we are getting from the Bush administration. The Iranian government may be full of antisemitic jerks, but that alone certainly is no reason for us to get militarily involved there. Just to be clear.

 Signature 

Doug

-:- -:—:- -:—:- -:—:- -:—:- -:—:-

El sueño de la razón produce monstruos

Profile
 
 
Posted: 12 October 2007 04:57 PM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 18 ]
Sr. Member
Avatar
RankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRank
Total Posts:  1161
Joined  2007-07-16

I did make a mistake on the IRNA versus the IRIB. You got me there.

As for the ellipses I think you are missing my point. The argument about “how do we know what is missing” could be applied to the CNN quotes too. They may have not used ellipses but they still only presented a fraction of what was said.

CNN didnt do its own translation and I dont know why you keep mentioning Germany. What are you talking about in regards to Germany? I didnt notice that any of the articles referenced their government as translating. Am I missing something here? So between IRIB and IRNA we would have to hear from third parties who are fluent in Farsi.

You might want to check up more on the “holocaust denial conference.” It was about more and included more than those who deny it happened. As pathetic of an “academic” as he is I dont think he has denied it happened. I do think he wants to “question” it for the effort of bringing attention to the Palestinian issue which I think he exploits for political capital.

 Signature 

“Unsustainable systems can’t be sustained.” ~ Robert Jensen

Profile
 
 
Posted: 12 October 2007 05:16 PM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 19 ]
Administrator
Avatar
RankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRank
Total Posts:  15356
Joined  2006-02-14
truthaddict - 12 October 2007 04:57 PM

As for the ellipses I think you are missing my point. The argument about “how do we know what is missing” could be applied to the CNN quotes too. They may have not used ellipses but they still only presented a fraction of what was said.

But the only important point is that that fraction contained statements denying the Holocaust. Nobody claims they were taken “out of context” or some such thing.

truthaddict - 12 October 2007 04:57 PM

CNN didnt do its own translation and I dont know why you keep mentioning Germany. What are you talking about in regards to Germany? I didnt notice that any of the articles referenced their government as translating. Am I missing something here?

I can see you didn’t read the stuff I linked to. Germany also deplored the same 2005 speech mentioned by CNN. That is, they also (presumably through their own translators, they don’t habitually watch CNN in Germany) decided it was antisemitic.

For a German reaction, check THIS for example.

truthaddict - 12 October 2007 04:57 PM

You might want to check up more on the “holocaust denial conference.” It was about more and included more than those who deny it happened.

Yes, check it out. HERE for instance. You can also read worldwide condemnations of it on that page.

truthaddict - 12 October 2007 04:57 PM

As pathetic of an “academic” as he is I dont think he has denied it happened.

Yes, he did. For example: “They have invented a myth that Jews were massacred and place this above God, religions and the prophets”.

truthaddict - 12 October 2007 04:57 PM

I do think he wants to “question” it for the effort of bringing attention to the Palestinian issue which I think he exploits for political capital.

Yes, and in that he is just like a white KKK member who “questions” the lynchings of blacks in order to bring attention to the issue of white poverty. White poverty (and the plight of Palestine) may be a real issue, but that argument is simply reprehensible.

[ Edited: 12 October 2007 05:20 PM by dougsmith ]
 Signature 

Doug

-:- -:—:- -:—:- -:—:- -:—:- -:—:-

El sueño de la razón produce monstruos

Profile
 
 
Posted: 12 October 2007 07:41 PM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 20 ]
Moderator
Avatar
RankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRank
Total Posts:  7547
Joined  2007-03-02
truthaddict - 12 October 2007 03:43 PM

I am not “cozying up to Holocaust denial” and I find that extremely offensive. I am just disputing the accuracy of the claim charged at him.

As for the topic on the sophistry of antisemtism, I already explained the context and reasons behind my views. Semites are not just Jews so anti-semitism shouldnt just be about prejudice towards Jews. Anti-semitism should apply to prejudice towards all semites.

I am getting the hint that you are implying something really inappropriate and offensive. Just because I think his comments about the holocaust are misinterpreted and that anti-semitism should apply to all semites does not mean I have some racist vendetta against Jews because I dont. Neither am I fond of Ahmadinejad.

truthaddict - 12 October 2007 04:57 PM
As pathetic of an “academic” as he is I dont think he has denied it happened.

EXCUSE ME!  You keep making comments about Holocaust denial and alike as though you don’t know history very well or something. If the Holocaust didn’t happen, how do you explain the horrendous deaths of 6 million Jews?  6 million!  Who died from starvation, bizarre medical experiments, neglect, and living deaths in gas chambers and cremated.  Did you even watch Schindler’s list? Have you read Corrie Ten Boom and her family’s story- who happened to be, save for her due to a clerical error, some of the innumerable Christians charged as political criminals?  Have you read Anne Frake?  Have you read the letters of Einstein and other U.S. Jews at the time begging the U.S. government to bring his people over here?

I don’t know who the scholars are that you are listening to or referring to who are trying to deny it, but it happened and I find denial of it offensive to deny it because it is the ultimate in anti-semitism and anti-humanity.  What we did to Japan was horrible, but it was nothing in comparison to what Hitler did.  I don’t know who killed more people- Hitler or Stalin, but both of them are right up there with anti-humanitarianism.  Not to mention, if you read history, Germany started WWII.  Germany was blamed for starting BOTH WWI and WWII, but in reality, they only started WWII.  BTW, Hitler was Catholic, but it is questionable how dedicated he was.

 Signature 

Mriana
“Sometimes in order to see the light, you have to risk the dark.” ~ Iris Hineman (Lois Smith) The Minority Report

Profile
 
 
Posted: 12 October 2007 09:32 PM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 21 ]
Member
RankRankRankRankRank
Total Posts:  105
Joined  2007-10-09

Lol, I hit the fast reply button to fast-reply to the initial question.

I hope so, but just because I think anyone should be able to empathize with victims of tragedies, and not just because they share the same religion.

Profile
 
 
Posted: 12 October 2007 10:23 PM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 22 ]
Member
Avatar
RankRankRankRankRankRank
Total Posts:  142
Joined  2007-03-11

“Passage would be symbolic - but the symbolism, the administration asserts, could seriously jeopardize the delicate relationship with Turkey. Turkey has been a vital way-station for fuel and materiel shipments to U.S. forces in Iraq, and the administration has spared little effort to lobby against the resolution.”

That excerpt from the article pretty much says it all. Turkey is too important to crooked foreign policy goals in Iraq. The Bush Whitehouse doesn’t want to piss off the Turks. (don’t forget, Turkey denied the U.S. access to their airspace in the advent of the first attacks on Iraq, nor would they let us use their bases to fly out from. they have some geo-strategic clout with Washington and they can and do call some shots.)

Profile
 
 
Posted: 12 October 2007 10:28 PM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 23 ]
Administrator
Avatar
RankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRank
Total Posts:  15356
Joined  2006-02-14

Well, before we get too nasty about Turkey, let’s remember it’s the only explicitly secular nation in Islam ... Nasty towards certain of its minorities? Certainly, and responsible for mass murder in the past.

 Signature 

Doug

-:- -:—:- -:—:- -:—:- -:—:- -:—:-

El sueño de la razón produce monstruos

Profile
 
 
Posted: 12 October 2007 11:38 PM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 24 ]
Moderator
Avatar
RankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRank
Total Posts:  4072
Joined  2006-11-28

Yes, refusing to recognize the Armenian genocide is self-serving realpolitik at its worst, and typical of the Bush Administration’s belief that any means are justified by whatever the hell their ends are. I do wonder how meaningful it is, though, to make a formal government statement about a travesty in Armenia almost a century ago. Coming as late as it does, it is a bit like reparations for slavery in the U.S.—An idea which appears to be an expression of communal remorse or sympathy for an injustice in the past, but which I suspect is also somewhat political and self-serving, and which ultimately doesn’t have much real meaning for those who are currently living the consequences of the injustice. I think there are many cases in which humanity would be better off with less focus on injustices of centuries past and more on dealing with the injustices of the present, whether or not they originated partly in the past.

TA,

I think Ahmadinejad plays to his audience. So at home he denies the holocaust or at least dismisses its significance, and abroad he tones down the rhetoric a little. Either way, you may be right that he doesn’t flat out deny it happened, you certainly are right that it isn’t justification for the treatment of the Palestinians, and frankly Ahmadinejad is an extremist pissant little demagogue who isn’t a true friend of the Palestinians any more than Sadam Hussein was. He pulls out the Oppressed Palestine card as a way to inflame sentiment against Israel and the U.S. for his own political purposes. Is it cynical political manipulation to use hnis position on the Holocaust to demonize him in pursuit of our own silly Axis of Evil nonsense? Sure. Does that make him any less a nutcase and a danger to the world? Nope. So we take your point, but I can’t believe the ink (metaphorically speaking) you and Doug are wasting on him

 Signature 

The SkeptVet
The SkeptVet Blog
Militant Agnostic: I don’t know, and neither do you!

Profile
 
 
Posted: 12 October 2007 11:43 PM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 25 ]
Member
Avatar
RankRankRankRankRankRank
Total Posts:  142
Joined  2007-03-11
dougsmith - 12 October 2007 10:28 PM

Well, before we get too nasty about Turkey, let’s remember it’s the only explicitly secular nation in Islam ... Nasty towards certain of its minorities? Certainly, and responsible for mass murder in the past.

Exactly. I wasn’t blaming Turkey for anything. Just implying that Bush will capitulate and deny genocide when it is in Turkey’s best interests because Turkey is strategically important to Bush. (the massacre of Turkey’s southern Kurds involves the Clinton administration)

Profile
 
 
Posted: 12 October 2007 11:50 PM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 26 ]
Member
Avatar
RankRankRankRankRankRank
Total Posts:  142
Joined  2007-03-11

Ahmedinejad is just a public puppet that won a rigged election. The real decision making from Iran comes from the non-elected supreme leader-Ayatollah Khamenei- and above him a non-elected group of Mullah’s.

Profile
 
 
Posted: 13 October 2007 08:16 AM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 27 ]
Sr. Member
Avatar
RankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRank
Total Posts:  1161
Joined  2007-07-16
mckenzievmd - 12 October 2007 11:38 PM

Is it cynical political manipulation to use his position on the Holocaust to demonize him in pursuit of our own silly Axis of Evil nonsense? Sure. Does that make him any less a nutcase and a danger to the world? Nope. So we take your point, but I can’t believe the ink (metaphorically speaking) you and Doug are wasting on him

For the record: I was wasting bytes.

 Signature 

“Unsustainable systems can’t be sustained.” ~ Robert Jensen

Profile
 
 
Posted: 13 October 2007 08:27 AM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 28 ]
Sr. Member
Avatar
RankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRank
Total Posts:  1161
Joined  2007-07-16
skepticdave - 12 October 2007 11:50 PM

Ahmedinejad is just a public puppet that won a rigged election. The real decision making from Iran comes from the non-elected supreme leader-Ayatollah Khamenei- and above him a non-elected group of Mullah’s.

I know I may open a new can of worms: but I have thought about the non-elected supreme leaders and his inner circle are similar to us. Ours is not religious, but we certainly have a non-elected class of people who have larger sway on politics than citizens or politicians: “big business.”

Take healthcare for example. For decades the American public has overwhelmingly favored universal heatlhcare administered through the government. Occassionally the issue would come up in th business press of the Washington Post or New York Times and what was the common response: “it is not politically possible.” Think about that. 75%+ of the voters favor it but the business press says “it is not politically possible.” Do they explain who is behind this political power? Sometimes: insurance providers who are just content with their profits.

We can find this on other issues as well. Regardless of what the public thinks, if it doesnt correspond with what Wall Street wants it doesnt happen unless an angry mob forces (aka organized force of social agitation) it.

So in both countries we got two belligerents representing the hard-line who are just puppets to unelected leaders of the country while the public is expected to just sit there and take it.

 Signature 

“Unsustainable systems can’t be sustained.” ~ Robert Jensen

Profile
 
 
Posted: 13 October 2007 09:22 AM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 29 ]
Member
Avatar
RankRankRankRankRankRank
Total Posts:  142
Joined  2007-03-11
truthaddict - 13 October 2007 08:27 AM
skepticdave - 12 October 2007 11:50 PM

Ahmedinejad is just a public puppet that won a rigged election. The real decision making from Iran comes from the non-elected supreme leader-Ayatollah Khamenei- and above him a non-elected group of Mullah’s.

I know I may open a new can of worms: but I have thought about the non-elected supreme leaders and his inner circle are similar to us. Ours is not religious, but we certainly have a non-elected class of people who have larger sway on politics than citizens or politicians: “big business.”

Take healthcare for example. For decades the American public has overwhelmingly favored universal heatlhcare administered through the government. Occassionally the issue would come up in th business press of the Washington Post or New York Times and what was the common response: “it is not politically possible.” Think about that. 75%+ of the voters favor it but the business press says “it is not politically possible.” Do they explain who is behind this political power? Sometimes: insurance providers who are just content with their profits.

We can find this on other issues as well. Regardless of what the public thinks, if it doesnt correspond with what Wall Street wants it doesnt happen unless an angry mob forces (aka organized force of social agitation) it.

So in both countries we got two belligerents representing the hard-line who are just puppets to unelected leaders of the country while the public is expected to just sit there and take it.

I think you make an excellent point and a very accurate analogy. “Politically impossible” is the preferred misnomer they try to instill in the public mind so as to dissuade the public from attempting to attain what “big business” doesn’t want and, like you said, the media is on their side not the publics. The profit motive of insurance and pharmaceutical co’s will sway our “elected” leaders in opposition to universal healthcare until, like you said, the majority of people organize and force a change. Rights are won, not granted.

The issue of universal healthcare is not the only example of our leaders not listening to what the majority of Americans want from our government; e.g. Iraq, global warming, education, social spending vs. defense spending, etc. It’s a corrupt system. It’s supposed to be a democracy but “they” wont listen until the people organize and demonstrate. Yeah,  we’re better off in our system than Iran’s but it is amazing how similar the two centers of power really work.

Profile
 
 
Posted: 13 October 2007 10:49 AM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 30 ]
Sr. Member
Avatar
RankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRank
Total Posts:  1161
Joined  2007-07-16

and internally Iran is improving. they are slipping away from the reformists who were gaining in the 90s.

also there is a growing secularist movement amougst the students and the women in the country, and by the way, they are virtually opposed to our warmongering rhetoric of regime change because they see it as empowering the hardliners and what gave Ahmadinejad the lead in the last election.

 Signature 

“Unsustainable systems can’t be sustained.” ~ Robert Jensen

Profile
 
 
   
2 of 3
2