Edgukator
Member
Agreed... well, except for the love thing. Can't speak for that.
Iran, demonized and/or idealized?
- Thread starter Oxymoron
- Start date
- Status
Agreed... well, except for the love thing. Can't speak for that.
Before you go pontificating on the academic merits of people like Chomsky and whether Cambodia was or was not a real genocide, I suggest you would be better employed examining the real causes of the slaughter which once yet again are firmly rooted in origin to the U.S and CIA warmongering and terror campaign via proxy... as per usual.
I keep hearing 'people' saying things like, 'Oh Syria will be nothing like Iraq, only limited like Libya', well I suggest such advocates should be forced to go and live there amid the death, chaos and destruction for at least a year and see how 'they' like living in a war torn factional Country without basic amenities and which was hitherto one of the most affluent and stable Countries in the region. So yes if you want to pontificate, I suggest you stop glossing over and re writing the U.S history as if they are the good guys because they are not and yes the same goes for the U.K Govt who were the leading architects on that particular chaos, (Libya) and the warmongering and ongoing bloodbath.
But back to Cambodia.
http://www.thirdworldtraveler.com/Terrorism/UncleSam_PolPot.html
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2013/09/06/john-kerry-congress-syria_n_3881200.htmlThe US not only helped create conditions that brought Cambodia's Khmer Rouge to power in 1975, but actively supported the genocidal force, politically and financially. By January 1980, the US was secretly funding Pol Pots exiled forces on the Thai border. The extent of this support-$85 million from 1980 to 1986-was revealed six years later in correspondence between congressional lawyer Jonathan Winer, then counsel to Sen. John Kerry (D-MA) of the Senate Foreign Relations Committee, and the Vietnam Veterans of America Foundation. Winer said the information had come from the Congressional Research Service (CRS). When copies of his letter were circulated, the Reagan administration was furious. Then, without adequately explaining why, Winer repudiated the statistics, while not disputing that they had come from the CRS. In a second letter to Noam Chomsky, however, Winer repeated the original charge, which, he confirmed to me, was "absolutely correct.''
Washington also backed the Khmer Rouge through the United Nations, which provided Pol Pot's vehicle of return. Although the Khmer Rouge government ceased to exist in January 1979, when the Vietnamese army drove it out, its representatives continued to occupy Cambodia's UN seat. Their right to do so was defended and promoted by Washington as an extension of the Cold War, as a mechanism for US revenge on Vietnam, and as part of its new alliance with China (Pol Pot's principal underwriter and Vietnam's ancient foe). In 1981, President Carter's national security adviser, Zbigniew Brzezinski, said, "I encouraged the Chinese to support Pol Pot." The US, he added, "winked publicly" as China sent arms to the Khmer Rouge through Thailand.
http://rt.com/op-edge/libya-usa-oil-militants-070/Even as he beseeches former colleagues in Congress to vote for President Barack Obama’s plan to bomb Syria, Secretary of State John Kerry made it clear in an interview with The Huffington Post that he thinks the president has the right to order air strikes in the face of congressional disapproval.
"There is barely a state called Libya anymore".
The ‘responsibility to protect’ doctrine Obama wants to use in Syria is the same one the US used in Libya. Two years after the NATO ‘humanitarian intervention’, it’s instructive to look at what path Libya has taken since then.
In 2011, when Muammar Gaddafi refused to leave quietly as ruler of Libya, the Obama Administration, hiding behind the skirts of the French, launched a ferocious bombing campaign and a ‘No Fly’ zone over the country to aid the so-called fighters for democracy.
The US lied to Russia and China with help of the (US-friendly) Gulf Cooperation Council about the Security Council Resolution on Libya and used it to illegally justify the war.
Chaos in oil industry
Libya’s economy is dependent on oil. Just after the war, Western media hailed the fact the oil installations were not damaged by the population bombing and oil production was near normal at 1.4 million barrels/day (bpd). Then in July the armed guards hired by the government in Tripoli suddenly revolted and seized control of the eastern oil field terminals they were supposed to protect. There is where the vast bulk of Libya's oil is produced, near Benghazi. It goes by pipeline to tankers on the Mediterranean for export.
When the government lost control of the terminals, production and export fell sharply. Then another armed tribal group seized control of two oilfields in the south blocking oil flow to terminals on the northwest coast. The tribal occupiers demanded more pay and went on strike to demand pay and an end to corruption. The end result is today, mid-September, Libya pumped a mere 150,000 barrels of its capacity of 1.6 million bpd. Exports have fallen to 80,000 barrels per day.
A rebel fighter looks on as he sits on an anti-aircraft machine gun on August 29, 2011 near Ras Lanuf while smoke pours from a rafinery. (AFP Photo)
Armed militias v Muslim Brotherhood
Libya is an artificial state, like much of the Middle East and Africa, carved out in the colonial era of World War I by Italy. It is ruled by tribal consensus among numerous tribes. Gaddafi was chosen in a long process of voting by tribal elders that can take up to 15 years, I was told by one expert. When he was murdered and his family hunted, NATO forced rule by a Muslim Brotherhood-dominated National Transitional Council (NTC).
In August, a new assembly was elected, dominated again by the Brotherhood as in Morsi’s Egypt or Tunisia. Sounds nice on paper. The reality is that, by all accounts lawless bands, armed for the first time during the war with modern weapons, including foreign Al-Qaeda and other jihadists, are carrying out daily bombings across the country for local control. Tripoli itself has numerous armed gangs controlling sections of the capitol.
It is turning into an armed battle between local tribal militias that are forming and the Brotherhood that controls the central government. Leaders in the provinces of Cyrenaica and Fezzan are considering breaking away from Tripoli and rebel militias mobilizing across the country.
Nuri Abu Sahmain, Muslim Brotherhood president of the newly-elected congress, has summoned militias allied to the Brotherhood to the capital to try to prevent a coup, in a move the opposition sees as very much like a coup by the Brotherhood. The main opposition party, the center-right National Forces Alliance, as a result just deserted congress together with several smaller ethnic parties, leaving the Brotherhood's Justice and Construction party heading a government with crumbling authority.
"Congress has basically collapsed," said one diplomat in Tripoli.
Last edited by a moderator:
SR1419
Senior Member.
Its funny how workers striking for more pay is a considered a bad thing- "chaos" in the RT spin...striking for better pay was impossible under the previous regime...
It appears to be over, however.
Here is a different perspective from the predictable RT spin:
http://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2013/sep/19/the-state-of-libya-must-be-built
It appears to be over, however.
http://www.nytimes.com/2013/09/21/b...-in-libya-bolstering-oil-production.html?_r=0More than one-third of Libya’s oil production has come back on line in recent days after a striking militia opened the valves on a critical pipeline between two major western oil fields and Mediterranean port terminals outside the capital, Tripoli.
Here is a different perspective from the predictable RT spin:
http://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2013/sep/19/the-state-of-libya-must-be-built
JeffreyNotGeoffrey
Active Member
Oxy, stop with the Gish Gallop and "pontificating" as you do. We were talking of Chomsky and his issues as well as his bad views on Cambodia, which was real. To say otherwise is to be a denialist. Seriously produce proof the killing fields didn't happened. By that I mean, produce evidence that the Khemer Rouge didn't work thousands of people to death or starve them. Where is the evidence that 10s of thousands of people were not summarily executed for such trivial crimes as being "too middle-class" which could be something as simple as wearing glasses. Or the fact that Pol Pot's regime brutally tortured their "enemies." Or are you someone who hates America, but LOVES and excuses communist brutality for some odd reason. Also please, PLEASE quote where, anywhere I have said how nice Libya or Syria is/was... Otherwise I will start putting words in your mouth. You are straining my decency regulator.
Last edited:
You may not believe in cause and effect but it is well accepted by most others. Don't threaten me with being called a denialist because I will deny it.
Further, I do not stick up for dictators, please do not start following in Cairenn's footsteps with the baseless personal attacks.
People sticking up for regimes which sow the seeds of and foment terror strain my decency regulator as well. Of course everyone must take responsibility for their own actions... the Russians, U.K, U.S, China, Pol Pot, Al Qaeda, whoever but you cannot discount actions and reactions, especially when certain actions are designed to cause certain reactions. There is no good or evil, lest thought make it so.
The US not only helped create conditions that brought Cambodia's Khmer Rouge to power in 1975, but actively supported the genocidal force, politically and financially. By January 1980, the US was secretly funding Pol Pots exiled forces on the Thai border. The extent of this support-$85 million from 1980 to 1986-was revealed six years later in correspondence between congressional lawyer Jonathan Winer, then counsel to Sen. John Kerry (D-MA) of the Senate Foreign Relations Committee, and the Vietnam Veterans of America Foundation. Winer said the information had come from the Congressional Research Service (CRS). When copies of his letter were circulated, the Reagan administration was furious. Then, without adequately explaining why, Winer repudiated the statistics, while not disputing that they had come from the CRS. In a second letter to Noam Chomsky, however, Winer repeated the original charge, which, he confirmed to me, was "absolutely correct.''
Washington also backed the Khmer Rouge through the United Nations, which provided Pol Pot's vehicle of return. Although the Khmer Rouge government ceased to exist in January 1979, when the Vietnamese army drove it out, its representatives continued to occupy Cambodia's UN seat. Their right to do so was defended and promoted by Washington as an extension of the Cold War, as a mechanism for US revenge on Vietnam, and as part of its new alliance with China (Pol Pot's principal underwriter and Vietnam's ancient foe). In 1981, President Carter's national security adviser, Zbigniew Brzezinski, said, "I encouraged the Chinese to support Pol Pot." The US, he added, "winked publicly" as China sent arms to the Khmer Rouge through Thailand.
Last edited:
Edgukator
Member
Jeff, didn't we just come to an agreement that much of the argument against Chomsky has been misrepresented - that he wasn't denying the existence of the genocide but questioning the double standards applied to evidence when it came to US culpability v Communist culpability? We agreed that he was inarticulate, and perhaps naive, in his presentation of ideas, but that much of the criticism of Chomsky is based on a misrepresentation of the argument he made.
Am I missing something in our conversation?
JeffreyNotGeoffrey
Active Member
We did. Just don't much care for people after the fact trying to shoe horn in other issues or trying to claim some sort of moral equivalency.
Representative Press
Member
I agree too. I've pointed out "Chomsky did not defend Pol Pot’s regime. That is a fabrication.
This quote: “We do not pretend to know where the truth lies amidst these sharply conflicting assessments" is from the same 1977 article that detractors quote as "proof" that he "rejected the numerous reports of refugees". What they are doing is really ridiculous." - Chomsky Detractors' Inventions and Falsifications about his Khmer Rouge and Cambodia Statements
http://representativepress.blogspot.com/2005/11/chomsky-detractors-inventions-and.html
I'll also add that probably most of the efforts to discredit Chomsky by using falsifications about what he wrote about the Khmer Rouge have very little to do with concerns about that particular issue and are instead part of an underhanded campaign to discredit the man in general for daring to criticize sacred cows. Israel is a big sacred cow and in order to hurt Chomsky but at the same time not risk more public exposure of the truths Chomsky dares to tell, it is a tactical decision to manufacture unfounded criticisms against Chomsky. When Chomsky explains the reality of Israel's actions ( http://representativepress.blogspot.com/2006/07/noam-chomsky-explains-reality-of.html ), there are people who work hard to discredit the man.
And directly relating to the topic of this post, another thing Chomsky dares to expose is the US/Israel agenda against Iran, he does a good job exposing that here: "Noam Chomsky Answers Iran Question" and here: "U.S. Has Been "Torturing" Iran for 60 Years, Since 1953 CIA-Led Coup" http://www.democracynow.org/blog/20...n_torturing_iran_for_60_years_since_1953_coup
Pete Tar
Senior Member.
Iran has a new president.
Mr. Rouhani, who has energetically sought to differentiate himself from Mahmoud Ahmadinejad, his predecessor known for bombastic anti-Semitism that included Holocaust denial, said in American television interviews this week that he considered the Nazi mass murder of Jews reprehensible. But he immediately added that the Nazis had killed many people, not just Jews, which was also reprehensible. He also said that the consequence of the Holocaust should not have been the displacement of Palestinians from their lands — a reference to Israel.
While Mr. Rouhani may have succeeded in at least acknowledging and condemning the Holocaust, a subject that resonates with Jews and others around the world, his words did little to advance his publicly stated message of friendship. If anything, the ambiguously translated language of his condemnation — which was challenged by some in Iran, including the Fars news agency, run by the Revolutionary Guards — only seemed to entangle him in a dispute he had hoped to avoid.
http://www.nytimes.com/2013/09/27/w...sident-softens-condemnation-of-holocaust.html
Pastafarianism? Sounds racist. Mr Tafari - not above criticism of course but, you know - an internationalist, focal figure for pan-Africanism, staunch opponent of chemical weapons proliferation, a veritable John Kerry in his day.
Okay, I guess in Pastafarianism there are no sacred cows as they make really, really great meat ballsYou forgot that it is also tasty and goes well with cheese
I would also bet $100 that 90% of white people who use the term Pastafarianism do not know Ras Tafari was a living, breathing man (let alone of his status), which is quite telling, in and of itself.
Last edited:
Yes, once the dust settles on those questions your quoted piece was focused upon they might get on with the nuts and bolts of their impasse.
It is a honeymoon period, for now, I doubt it'll last as there is a key question Mr Rouhani is, doubtlessly, urgently seeking reassurances over and within a specific time frame, pushing to bring talks forward to within six months, for good reason, but ultimately he will not find any cooperation in Geneva or wherever they go to have discussions. I've noticed the press are running with the burgeoning love story angle as it makes for alternative copy this week but they're quietly over-looking the fact the key questions were addressed by Mr Rouhani and were roundly dismissed. Sanctions on Iran have to be lifted, pressure has to be brought to bear upon Israel, to understand aggression of any kind they have scheduled will constitute a war crime, and any other hypocrites that want to tell Iran what they can and cannot do with uranium need to step back. This is not going to happen.
I can't see anything in the New York Times (and other papers) about what is actually important, that those newspaper journalists are even talking about a second world war and holocaust among Europeans is beyond me, it is almost completely irrelevant, to modern day Iranians. It's amazing the mileage western papers get from that one interpretation of a comment by his predecessor but it has and had no genuine bearing... Besides, Mr Rouhani is entirely correct in his analyses concerning Israel, there, yet the piece from New York focuses on a supposed ambiguity in his message. Why? He was unequivocal, there was no ambiguity. I believe he was simply pre-empting the obsessions of the western press with a disarming and clever bit of P.R. It is, of course, entirely up to Israel, not Iran, to bridge the most fundamental diplomatic impasse and that is never going to happen whilst Zionist ideologues hold such sway within all parties in Israel. It'd be as well for everyone to be quietly mindful that the fictional entity of Israel, from the bardic yarns of old, stretches from Egypt to Iran, and Zionism expands, as God hath so decreed.
Personally, I think Mr Rouhani should maintain a strong stance on Israeli aggression. I'm sure he is a learned fellow and the shambolic quality of British Zionism is obviously not lost on him, at all, but it would, of course, be suicidal for him to speak his mind in this respect. I would interpret his expressed views, there, through this lens, for now, and see what the day brings.
Last edited:
Pete Tar
Senior Member.
Well I was just going to go with the initial report that he had made a gesture to show he's not a denialist which is a big difference from his predecessor and kind of a good sign, but it's obviously turned into a ridiculous complication, so his good (or strategic) intentions have somewhat fizzled.
Here's a more recent wrap-up...
But amid the fervent diplomatic theater, intended to end Iran’s isolation, it was at times difficult to tell whether Mr. Rouhani was a genuinely transformative Iranian leader, as his cabinet insisted, or a more polished avatar of the past, as his critics claimed.
...
In television interviews and public addresses throughout the week, he repeatedly sought to cast himself as a moderate ready to do business with the West. But it was also clear that whatever he said here was closely and instantly dissected at home, raising uncertainty over whether he could truly deliver a compromise with the West, if that is what he sought.
...
The contrast with his predecessor, Mahmoud Ahmadinejad, could not be more stark. Mr. Ahmadinejad used his podium at the General Assembly to criticize Israel, deny the Holocaust and dangle the notion that Sept. 11 was the handiwork of Americans. Mr. Rouhani, in his public speeches, has mentioned Israel only once, calling on it to sign the Nonproliferation Treaty.
All the same, he has insisted on Iran’s right to build what he says is a civilian nuclear program.
...
http://www.nytimes.com/2013/09/27/w...ls-on-israel-to-join-nuclear-treaty.html?_r=0
JeffreyNotGeoffrey
Active Member
Why don't you look up Pastafarianism and why they call themselves as such. There is absolutely no racial animus behind them and they are basically all inclusive. You just look ignorant when you think a group like them is discriminatory. I also have to laugh that you evidently don't understand the group you are trying to defend. The man you are referring to is Emperor Haile Selassie (from whose birth name Ras ("Prince") Tafari Makonnen). So he isn't Mr. Tafari but Mr. Makonnen. This was also a religion started in Jamaica by people trying to lionize (forgive the pun) the leader of Ethiopia as some sort of godhead/Jesus reborn. You also in your quest to point fingers glaze over the fact that many sects of Rastafarianism are in themselves extremely homophobic, sexist, and black separationist/supremacists. So really it is another made up religion that is actually belligerent, versus the very peaceful Pastafarians who really like everyone.
Last edited:
Selassie I know. You don't have to be dread to be rasta so I'll pass on checking for Pastafarianism, you can furnish me with the details if you wish. I didn't say there is racial animus, I simply said it sounds racist to me. I didn't mean it sounds racist in an overt or conscious way. I'm guessing 'devotees' are logical, well intentioned, liberal atheists who would not even conceive of my point, due to disposition, and that it is, to them, merely an ironic parody such as that of the Church of the SubGenius.
To my mind it 'sounds' like there is palpable, yet subconscious, racism to much well intentioned, liberal-minded white people's thinking, however, their own racism generally passes over their own heads and particularly over the heads of those who would be mortified by such a suggestion. They know not that they do it so in this sense it is actually more virulent than overt racism. Maybe someone should start a religion to ironically parody that too
I shall remain in ignorance, then, and let this ignorance stand on this public platform - And let my wager stand too.
[Edit: I see you have heavily edited (added heaps) to your original reply (which is within this box) by visiting an encyclopedia to pretend awareness of what I was talking about. Congratulations, you're now, from nowhere, coming across as an expert in Aramaic and Ethiopian monastic history. Glad I prompted you. You are, of course, should you wish, free to express with completely disingenuous affectation anything you see fit as long as it is understood I interpret that as being perfectly in line with the subconscious M.O described above. I said Mr Tafari deliberately, as a device to convey what I meant, without being explicit, as to have said Ras Tafari would have clued you up, conveyed, to you, the fact of two names being commonly mistaken, by white people, and 90% of your (presumably parody) religion thing there, for one noun. As for homosexuality as well as the other stuff you've just pulled off an encyclopedia, I see no relevance at all, I'm afraid, as I'm not arguing about the merits of any belief or moral stance.]
[Edits again: It is separatist, dear boy, separationist is a little excessive in syllables but no matter at all, we all make mistakes. Okay, so Pastafarians love everything and everyone but you personally hold Garvey inspired separatist West Indian ideologies with a conclusive disdain. I think that sums it up quite reasonably and I'm happy to let random viewers of this thread come to their own conclusions. This would fit well (and better) on @exu156's thread on the illogic of atheism. Anyway, to 'Perceptions of Persia']
Last edited:
So it is illegal for States to 'deny' the holocaust as well is it. Deny the holocaust and we will unilaterally and illegally bomb you back to the stone age?
WTF No one said that Jews didn't die but so what... so did 80 million others inc 8 million Germans. The issue is who says it is ok to displace and murder Palestinians because of what the Germans may or may not have done?
That's a borderline impolite straw man Oxy, and veering off topic.
The question here is if the perceptions of Iran in the West are justified. Or which of the proposed characterizations of Iran are most justified. Or even - what is Iran really like.
I'm quite encouraged by the current thaw. Things seem to be changing on a near daily basis.
I must admit I find it a little confusing as to what is deemed impolite as there does seem some element of 'from whom the post originates' factored in.
I don't know who I am supposed to be being impolite to either because my comment certainly wasn't directed at Pete but at the subtext of the quote and the pro war policy by Israel and the U.S toward Iran, ostensibly fuelled in part by it's previous leaders, highly misinterpreted and distorted, remarks re the holocaust.
As for off topic... again I must be missing something because I thought the thread was about whether Iran is being demonised or idealized. My view is, it is being demonised in order to justify sanctions to weaken it before an all out attack on some manufactured mumbo jumbo, like Iraq... as per 'the plan' viz PNAC.
No doubt if I am in error, I will be politely appraised and I will rectify my error/s.
Pete Tar
Senior Member.
Wah? Sorry but that makes absolutely no sense.
But I won't ask for clarification as Mick has warned against it, but in the future can you at least show your work that got you to that, because it is mystifying how you ended up there.
ETA.. don't bother replying, your above post will suffice.
Pete Tar
Senior Member.
As to that, there was a look at how the Iranian reporting was being welcomed when it suited certain anti-Iranian sentiment in America ...
So there was Iran’s semiofficial Fars News Agency, once the dedicated defender of the Israel-bashing, Holocaust-denying former Iranian president, Mahmoud Ahmadinejad, being singled out for praise on Thursday by The Wall Street Journal’s staunchly conservative, Israel-defending, Iran-distrusting editorial page....
Giving Fars “points for honesty,” The Journal’s editorial jumped on the discrepancy to raise questions about the sincerity behind Mr. Rouhani’s recent diplomatic charm offensive.
Weeks earlier, after Mr. Rouhani’s well-wishing Twitter message to the world’s Jews on Rosh Hashana, Fars had also delighted American neoconservatives — suspicious of Mr. Rouhani’s motives in reaching out to the West — by reporting that the message came from the president’s aides, not from Mr. Rouhani himself.
...
http://www.nytimes.com/2013/09/27/w...s.com/pages/world/middleeast/index.jsonp&_r=0
Sorry but I feel I must reply. Pete, I have absolutely no animus toward you. I find your posts very interesting and usually polite, even if I do not necessarily agree with them.
Please understand, and this goes to all, (inc Boodles who has similarly thought I have directed a response at him on the basis that my post followed his post), that just because I may not agree with a post's content, does not imply I am attacking the poster.
I do my very best to respond politely to those who are polite to me and even politely to those who are not so polite, (although I admit I am not always as successful in containing myself as I should be)... as per site policy.
When you say things along the lines of "Deny the holocaust and we will unilaterally and illegally bomb you back to the stone age?" or "The issue is who says it is ok to displace and murder Palestinians because of what the Germans may or may not have done?", it's borderline insulting. It's a rhetorical straw man (seeing as nobody says murder is okay based on how many Jews died) but it might be taken to imply that you think someone does hold that view.
Either way it's a pointless tactic. You'd be better off saying precisely what you think without these rhetorical exaggerations.
And you know the holocaust is a touchy subject, so you can't expect to stick "so what?" in a sentence and have everyone read the rest of it with dispassionate logic. You can get your point across with appropriate sensitivity.
Either way it's a pointless tactic. You'd be better off saying precisely what you think without these rhetorical exaggerations.
And you know the holocaust is a touchy subject, so you can't expect to stick "so what?" in a sentence and have everyone read the rest of it with dispassionate logic. You can get your point across with appropriate sensitivity.
I mentioned the burgeoning love affair. They've just got off the phone to each other for the first time in 34 years. They'll be texting sweet nothings and Skyping next. Jeremy Bowen of the BBC is watching and just said Rouhani changed positions, I dare not imagine.
You'd be better off saying precisely what you think without these rhetorical exaggerations.
Double entendre, as in the humorous, rather than literal, French, sense. No thought other than that. I agree it is positive news.
Pete Tar
Senior Member.
Thanks
- I hope you can take the reactions and criticism constructively so as to better refine your arguments and presentation, it can serve to alienate people at times, and that's no fun for anyone.Mick explained it well.
Yes I do know it is touchy but why is it so touchy? I find it disturbing that this subject acts as a precedent for inhibition of free speech and logical analysis in the modern 'free world'. Obviously it is not a precedent in other Countries where 'free speech' is not tolerated in many subjects, or in our own past where there were a number of heretical or taboo subjects, but it is the only subject which is currently taboo to even question. That fact alone caused me to want to look at why? If it is so unassailable why criminalise rational debate?
It is distinct from inciteful, malicious or hate related, (racist/sexist/anyotherist) as it applies to questioning history and geopolitical machinations. Where does it stop? Why not ban Conspiracy Theories altogether? Are the millions killed in other atrocities ok to be debated but not the holocaust? Once you travel that route, anything controversial can be cloaked in the 'it is impolite to discuss' cloak.
Why is the holocaust so special that it cannot be questioned? It is along the lines of the historical tenet that, 'it is heretical to question the existence of God'. Is it because the holocaust was the justification for the west setting up the state of Israel in the M.E? A state which is reliant on support from the west and which is used by the west as a proxy agent in that area?
But the 'denial of the holocaust' by Ahmadinejad, (which was grossly misquoted), is used as one of the main reasons for wanting to attack Iran, (they won't admit about the oil). The U.S has declared it's right to attack unilaterally. It is illegal under International law. They have shown that they bomb countries back to the stone age and kill millions. It needs to stop.
It is a fact, (although carefully hidden from most people) that the Palestinians were murdered and terrorised out of their homeland and are being kept in an open prison. I think it is insulting to not acknowledge this. It was done on the basis that the Jews must have their own state so that they could defend against another holocaust.
Well I am sorry it is unpopular to say these things but I have said what I believe and I do think it justified but if it is banned on here then I shall not mention it again on here. Perhaps it should go in the posting rules?
But this is the whole point... no one is allowed to question the U.S use of a proxy in the M.E and no one is allowed to put the Palestinians case or protest about their treatment.... 'It is impolite' and 'Too sensitive'.
BTW, I am not criticising you Mick but the ethos of it. And I would also like to point out that I am not anti Jewish or as they incorrectly term it anti semetic, I am against mans inhumanity to man... whoever is doing it.
Last edited:
Pete Tar
Senior Member.
I really don't think you're seeing clearly here.
eg..."That fact alone caused me to want to look at why? If it is so unassailable why criminalise rational debate?"
Can you show how the previous dude's holocaust denial was rational?
"... no one is allowed to put the Palestinians case or protest about their treatment.... 'It is impolite' and 'Too sensitive'."
This is not true.
http://www.ynetnews.com/articles/0,7340,L-4353129,00.html
UN: Israel ill-treatment of Palestinian minors 'systematic'
UNICEF issues 22-page report leveling harsh criticism of Israeli authorities over 'widespread, systematic and institutionalized' mistreatment of Palestinian minors in custody
Inquiry call over Israel's 'torture of Palestinians'
A UN expert has called for an international inquiry into Israel's treatment of Palestinian prisoners, alleging torture and other abuses
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-middle-east-22847461
eg..."That fact alone caused me to want to look at why? If it is so unassailable why criminalise rational debate?"
Can you show how the previous dude's holocaust denial was rational?
"... no one is allowed to put the Palestinians case or protest about their treatment.... 'It is impolite' and 'Too sensitive'."
This is not true.
http://www.ynetnews.com/articles/0,7340,L-4353129,00.html
UN: Israel ill-treatment of Palestinian minors 'systematic'
UNICEF issues 22-page report leveling harsh criticism of Israeli authorities over 'widespread, systematic and institutionalized' mistreatment of Palestinian minors in custody
Inquiry call over Israel's 'torture of Palestinians'
A UN expert has called for an international inquiry into Israel's treatment of Palestinian prisoners, alleging torture and other abuses
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-middle-east-22847461
It does not matter why it's touchy. Even if it's an illuminati plot to make it touchy so people won't question it, it's still touchy.
If you've got valid points about it, you can bring them up in a fact based way.
For a start, who has said that denial of the holocaust is a valid justification for bombing Iran? Who exactly said it is "used as one of the main reasons for wanting to attack Iran"
And "back to the stone age" is a rhetorical exaggeration. It debases your argument.
If you've got valid points about it, you can bring them up in a fact based way.
For a start, who has said that denial of the holocaust is a valid justification for bombing Iran? Who exactly said it is "used as one of the main reasons for wanting to attack Iran"
And "back to the stone age" is a rhetorical exaggeration. It debases your argument.
JeffreyNotGeoffrey
Active Member
Also it wasn't grossly misquoted about Ahmedinejad. He literally held a "historical" conference that was entirely about trying to refute the Holocaust. The reason why Europe has outlawed Holocaust denial is because they are the House of the Dead. Their land is where these atrocities happened while much of the citizenry turned their heads. I completely agree with Europe's stance for Europe. In America you can do that til the cows come home, just don't expect to be loved for it, or keep a teaching position at any accredited learning institution.
Hit the nail right on the head Pete. Most people who are called 'deniers' are so called because they dispute the figures and the methodical extermination allegations. Also that the focus is on Jews when many other groups suffered as well such as gypsies, homosexuals and Jehova Witnesses, just to mention a few.
Poles, Russians were also treated particularly harshly according to many.genocide Word Origin & History
1944, apparently coined by Polish-born U.S. jurist Raphael Lemkin in his work "Axis Rule in Occupied Europe" [p.19], in reference to Nazi extermination of Jews, lit. "killing a tribe," from Gk. genos "race, kind" (see genus) + -cide. The proper formation would be *genticide.
Below is an one of many examples where the holocaust is blown out of all proportion and they are so prolific that it becomes part of the common psyche and taboo to even question it.
http://www.examiner.com/article/hol...-save-the-walking-dead-slaughterhouse-animals
http://12bytes.org/articles/rescuin...-index/rescuing-israel-the-holocaust-the-math
Approximately 6 million people lost their lives in the Holocaust. Compelled to redeem his survival, Hershaft vowed to make the planet a better place to live for all its inhabitants. He formed F.A.R.M., a national nonprofit organization working to end the use of animals for food through public education and grassroots activism.
For the millions headed for slaughter every day, Hershaft has become their champion. Each day, 104,273 cows, 297,392 pigs, 702,383 turkeys, and 21,261,534 chickens are killed in the US alone by the animal agriculture industry.
In an interview, Hershaft explained that he began to see parallels between the Nazi Holocaust he survived and the animal slaughter he sees today, including "the crowding, cattle cars, brutality and the routine and efficiency of mass extermination."
Several chemists, scientists, scholars, lawyers, historians, mainstream officials and a gas chamber execution expert have questioned the validity of the homicidal gas chamber claims, each offering very substantial evidence to support that the official account is, at a minimum, flawed, especially in the case of Auschwitz. Even the Auschwitz Memorial Museum lowered its death tally for the total number of people who died at the most notorious “death camp”, of all causes, from about 4.1 million to about 1.1 million around 1989. This figure is also quoted by the Anti Defamation League in their hit piece on Carolyn Yeager:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mahmoud_Ahmadinejad_and_Israel
It is clearly being used as propaganda to justify regime change and to attack Iran. Iran has been attacked by propaganda and unjustified sanctions for decades. That is part of warfare. All that is needed is the excuse to attack militarily such as happened in Iraq, Libya, Afghanistan and currently Syria.
Ahmadinejad said that if Germany and Austria feel responsible for the massacre of Jews during World War II, they should host a state of Israel on their own soil. Speaking at a news conference on the summit sidelines, Ahmadinejad said most Jews in Israel "have no roots in Palestine, but they are holding the destiny of Palestine in their hands and allow themselves to kill the Palestinian people." [5]
“Some European countries insist on saying that during World War II, Hitler burned millions of Jews and put them in concentration camps. Any historian, commentator or scientist who doubts that is taken to prison or gets condemned. Although we don't accept this claim [of the holocaust], if we suppose it is true... If the Europeans are honest they should give some of their provinces in Europe – like in Germany, Austria or other countries – to the Zionists and the Zionists can establish their state in Europe. You offer part of Europe and we will support it."[5]
Reactions
German Chancellor Angela Merkel[6] was said to “condemn Ahmadinejad’s words”, without specifying which words. And she said: “We shall do everything to make clear that Israel’s right to exist is not imperiled in any way”
White House spokesman Scott McClellan[7] said Ahmadinejad’s comments “further underscore our concerns about the regime” in relation to its “ability to develop nuclear weapons”
http://archive.adl.org/main_Interna...ejad_words.htm?Multi_page_sections=sHeading_6
(Address to the United Nations General Assembly)
September 18, 2008
"I have heard some say the idea of Greater Israel has expired….I say that the idea of lesser Israel has expired, too."
"We have no problems with these people (Israelis) but they should leave the occupied territories, leave them to their genuine owners and get back to their countries and homes where they originally came from."
"The Holocaust is a lie and the real Holocaust is happening to the Palestinians."
"The Zionist regime (Israel) is going towards its final collapse after 60 years of aggression. The final solution would be a referendum on Palestine's future fate with the participation of all Palestinians, regardless of whether Muslims, Jews or Christians."
"Our nation has no problem with other nations, but as far the Zionist regime is concerned, we do not believe in an Israeli government or an Israeli nation."
(Selected remarks at a press conference in Tehran, as quoted by news services)
Yes but I wasn't referring to isolated incidents such as these. I was referring to the wider criticism that the Palestinians were brutally forced from their ancestral homelands or killed and that as attested to by Representative Press's post above
https://www.metabunk.org/threads/iran-demonized-and-or-idealized.2293/page-3#post-68104
peace agreements are routinely blocked and Israel is excused.
http://representativepress.blogspot.co.uk/2006/07/noam-chomsky-explains-reality-of.html
Chomsky:... Let's take a look at the Middle East, let's take a look at facts. The facts are, for 35 years, there has been a harsh, brutal, military operation. There has not been a political settlement. The reason that there has not been a political settlement is because the United States, unilaterally, has blocked it for 25 years. Just recently, Saudi Arabia produced a highly praised plan for political settlement. The majority of the American population supports it. The majority of the population also thinks the United States ought to be more active in the Middle East. They don't know that that's a contradiction in terms. The reason that's a contradiction in terms is the following: In the Saudi Arabia plan is a repetition of a series of proposals, which go back to 1976 when the UN Security Council debated a resolution calling for a settlement, in accord with the Saudi plan, to state settlement on the internationally recognized borders. With arrangements to guarantee the rights of every state in the nation to exist in peace and security within secure and recognized borders.
That was January 1976. OK, that was actually in accord with official U.S. policy. Except for one thing. It called for a Palestinian State in the territories; Israel wouldn't leave the occupied territories. That was vetoed by the US. It was supported by the Arab states, it was supported by the PLO, supported by Europe.
Solomon: Before they even recognized Israel as a state, though.
Chomsky: This was to exist as a state within secure and recognized borders. Nobody talked about recognizing the new Palestinian state, nobody talked about recognizing Israel. Look, is there a possible political settlement today? Has there been one for the last 25 years?
Is it supported by the entire world, including the majority of the American people? The answer to that question is yes. There is a political settlement that has been supported by virtually the entire world, including the Arab states, the PLO, Europe, Eastern Europe, Canada…
Last edited by a moderator:
JeffreyNotGeoffrey
Active Member
Your moral equivocations sicken me Oxy. And the "gas chamber expert" I'll assume is Fred Leuchter. I'm right, right? Well he was brutally cross-examined in the Zundel denial trial. Turns out that "genius" has a degree in HISTORY. He has absolutely no training in toxicology, chemistry, or anything really valid. Further the pathetic tests he did disturbed the remains at Auschwitz, which he was not allowed to do, and then he performed "tests" to show cyanide wasn't used. The whole thing was a case in point of not even wrong.
What you are doing is literally stepping over the line to Holocaust denial. You are, I've studied this stuff and your "claims". They all come from deniers. The outrageous numbers previously cited at Auschwitz were from the Soviets who intentionally inflated the numbers for their own political ends, although they claimed anti-fascist freedom fighters died there. The current, Western understanding of the Holocaust has never seen a huge sea change. The numbers have trended down slightly, but attempting to say there is something wrong with that and therefore the whole Holocaust is again denialism. And HOLY FUCKING SHIT you cited David Irving!???? You mean the guy who actually lost his libel suit against Deborah Lipstadt when she called him a denier. She was sued in Britain and won. That tells you something. I also now know you are in fact a Holocaust denier if you swallow ANY of their tripe. Knock it the hell off. It happened. Don't drag the current history of Israel and the Palestinians to try to "revise" the history of the Holocaust.
AND you cite the Institute of Historical Review. Did you even READ any of these stupid sources. The IHR is notorious for it's Holocaust denial.
What you are doing is literally stepping over the line to Holocaust denial. You are, I've studied this stuff and your "claims". They all come from deniers. The outrageous numbers previously cited at Auschwitz were from the Soviets who intentionally inflated the numbers for their own political ends, although they claimed anti-fascist freedom fighters died there. The current, Western understanding of the Holocaust has never seen a huge sea change. The numbers have trended down slightly, but attempting to say there is something wrong with that and therefore the whole Holocaust is again denialism. And HOLY FUCKING SHIT you cited David Irving!???? You mean the guy who actually lost his libel suit against Deborah Lipstadt when she called him a denier. She was sued in Britain and won. That tells you something. I also now know you are in fact a Holocaust denier if you swallow ANY of their tripe. Knock it the hell off. It happened. Don't drag the current history of Israel and the Palestinians to try to "revise" the history of the Holocaust.
AND you cite the Institute of Historical Review. Did you even READ any of these stupid sources. The IHR is notorious for it's Holocaust denial.
You are entitled to your opinion and I would fight to uphold your right to express it.
JeffreyNotGeoffrey
Active Member
Whatever Holocaust denier. All the sources you cited are notorious Holocaust deniers who have absolutely ZERO proof to their racist ludicrous claims. Therefore if you back them up, guess what that makes you? And here's why Holocaust denial is fundamentally anti-semitic, it is a focused attempt on one group. No scholars are jumping up to claim Poles, Roma, Sinti (the actual names of the groups instead of the racist term "Gypsy"), Jehovah Witnesses, and homosexuals didn't die in Nazi Germany. The IHR (and their paper the Journal of Historical Review), Zuendel, Leuchter, and Irving all try to exonerate Nazi Germany while saying the Jews didn't have it that bad and were quite frankly asking for it. Rationalwiki has some great excerpts from an interview with Irving in which he says exactly that. So again to hit the point home, you Oxy are a Holocaust denial. You have an unseemly hatred of Israel and by extension the Jews. Next time don't pick a subject someone did several papers on in grad school. This is my wheelhouse, defending the Holocaust from people who try to minimize it, marginalize it, or in any way excuse Nazi Germany's behavior.
Why do you feel the need to defend it by blanket accusations of 'denier'. The Germans undoubtedly carried out atrocities and war crimes. So have every other Nation.
Are these survivors who relate about plays, concerts, newspapers, money, soccer games and day care centres for the children, 'deniers' as well?
JeffreyNotGeoffrey
Active Member
Sorry, no bait and switch. You cited as "sources" several deniers who have even been convicted of their own stupidity. These people hang out with neo-Nazis and have neo-fascist leanings. David Irving's "lullaby" to his kid is good enough evidence of his bias:
http://www.hdot.org/en/trial/defense/selfportrait/2.html
Have fun Holocaust denier, which is what you are.
http://www.hdot.org/en/trial/defense/selfportrait/2.html
That is from him. So why don't you lay out the "claims" you have. Don't hide behind youtube videos. What are they? I can personally debunk them. I have enough books at the house on the subject. While we are at it, answer these issues, Did T-4 exist, along with its gas chambers that used carbon monoxide? Did the mobile killing vans exist, which are mentioned in numerous documents? What of the stop order for the train in Riga in which the question was asked of whether or not to liquidate the contents? And what of the numerous cans of Zyklon-B at the camps, especially Treblinka? Treblinka is the real oddball, because it seems it was ONLY a death camp. A million or so people went there, a million or so people didn't leave.(...) And more scurrilously, when half-breed children are wheeled past:
I am a Baby Aryan
Not Jewish or Sectarian
I have no plans to marry-an
Ape or Rastafarian
Have fun Holocaust denier, which is what you are.
Last edited by a moderator:
Chomsky Criticism moved to:
https://www.metabunk.org/threads/chomsky-criticism.2463/
https://www.metabunk.org/threads/chomsky-criticism.2463/
Last edited:
Actually, upon reflection this thread will remain locked. If you feel there are specific claims of evidence that need discussing, then please start a new thread. But follow the posting guidelines for new threads.
https://www.metabunk.org/threads/posting-guidelines.2064/
https://www.metabunk.org/threads/posting-guidelines.2064/
Last edited:
- Status
