Holocaust conference bullshit
God I rolled my eyes today, Iran is hosting a conference on whether or not the Holocaust happened – what a load of bullshit, and the defense used by Iran is also a load of bullshit. I cut Iran a lot of slack because of the despicable way the CIA and America went about destabilizing the country with a coup to put in their own dictator, but this conference is simply offensive. Should Iran hold a conference looking at how global guilt over the Holocaust allowes Israel to get away with group punishment tactics and brutal occupation tactics the Nazis themselves used against Jews, then that would be acceptable – but to hold a conference that suggests the Holocaust didn’t happen is an intellectual disgrace and misses the important historical lessons that we need to learn from that dreadful moment in human history. The fury and anger righteously directed at Israel for their continued occupation of Palestine has twisted into rejecting historic facts. And the defense put up by Iran that this is freedom of speech simply can’t be accepted. Seeing as Iran shuts down anyone saying something they don’t like and websites they don’t like and media they don’t like, declaring that they are the defenders of Free Speech is like Israel declaring they are the defenders of Palestinian human rights.
Iran defends Holocaust conference
Iran's foreign minister has rejected criticism of a two-day conference being held in Iran to examine whether the Holocaust actually happened.
Manouchehr Mottaki told participants the event did not seek to confirm or deny the Holocaust, but rather to allow people to "express their views freely". Israel's prime minister has condemned the gathering as "a sick phenomenon".
And if you are so free, why were there crackdowns on student’s associations Mr Ahmadinejad?
Iranian students heckle president
Iranian students have disrupted a speech President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad was giving at a university by lighting fireworks and burning his portrait.
Mr Ahmadinejad responded calmly to protesters' shouts of "Death to the dictator", an official spokesman said. The president reportedly described the hecklers as an "oppressive minority" and continued his speech. Hundreds of students protested on Sunday against what they described as a crackdown on a students' association.
Oh, but let's remember who got Ahmadinejad into power - George Bush! It wasn't until Bush had his Axis of Evil brain fart and targeted Iran that Ahmadinejad convinced the Iranian voters that America meant Iran harm and got elected on that fear. What would have happened I often wonder if Bush had shut his fucking gob and not have spooked the Iranian voters into electing such a hardliner in the first place. I swear I want first dibs on punching Bush in the face if I ever get the chance, this fool has done more to damage worlf peace than any other recent leader.
posted by Bomber @ 1:12 pm
31 comments
31 Comments:
What coup are you talking about? There was a forced abdication in 1941 to stop Iran from supporting the Nazis, but I think you are getting your circuits crossed on those leftie talking points.
And unless Bush is responsible for the corruption of the previous regime in Iran, you are giving him too much credit. Wishing don't make it so.
Oh THAT coup! lol The 1951 one, okay.
...
grin - I thought you were winding me up then Blair!
Good to see that some rabbis are attending. And the Iranian Jewish MP is speaking out against it. I mentioned that to some Americans last night, and they kind of blinked, like, "Don't they shoot Jewish people on sight in Iran?! And kittens? And especially Jewish kittens?"
It does sound pretty stupid. 'Opening the conference, Mr Mottaki said the aim of the conference was "not to deny or confirm the Holocaust... Its main aim is to create an opportunity for thinkers who cannot express their views freely in Europe about the Holocaust."'
What's to discuss?
And what's the KKK's attitude towards Persians?
Interesting that after Ahmadinejad's declaration that liberal democracy had failed, he's started appealing to traditionally liberal values of freedom of expression. I know that the theory is he's lampooning the West, but maybe some Iranians will learn a thing or two anyway.
Person unknown, knowing how passionate you are for preserving freedom of speech, why are you making discussions on the holocaust an exception? Of course, it's offensive, but so were the Muhammad cartoons, and yet you supported their publication. Now, i hope you recognise the legitimate limitations on this 'freedom'.
That being said, i doubt Iran, or more specifically Ahmadinajad really does believe the Holocaust ever happened. It's just a political ploy. This is all about Iran's anti-Israel stance, nothing more.
This should serve as a reminder to Israel that its actions have created a hostility that would reach this level of offense. It's time for Israel to self-reflect. The 'anti-semitism' it cries out at every criticism it receives may manifest itself into an alarming reality after all.
It's interesting though that some Palestinian lawyers have tried attending the conference but were rejected because they were intending on criticising this move- recognising it as detrimental to the Palestinian cause. Which of course, it would be. But Middle Eastern powers have a historical tendency to manipulate the Palestinian plight whenever it suits 'em- to give 'em more legitimacy etc, not really giving a fuck what effects this would have on the Palestinians themselves.
-Anti-Flag.
Yes, it's ridiculous, but also offensive. You don't find them offensive because you're not a Jew, like you weren't a Muslim- regarding the Muhammad cartoons.
But definately agree, it's a silly move-whatever the motivation. But Ahmadinajad has never really been the rational type, so it's to be expected.
-Anti-Flag.
Mm. Well, to be clear, I would find approval of the Holocaust offensive (or would I? see below). But saying it didn't happen is, to me, on a par with saying that all Jewish people reptilian shapeshifters or something. It clearly occurred, it was clearly abhorrent, and it's a bit worrying to me that anyone saying something so patently ridiculous is taken seriously enough to be considered offensive.
But yes. You're right. I don't understand because I can't understand because I do not have a life's experience of being Muslim or Jewish behind me to give me that understanding. I get that.
Even if I don't personally find Holocaust denial or depictions of Muhammad offensive, I can take into consideration that other people do - in terms of politeness. Just about everything I think would upset someone or other. Being polite is not saying those things unless absolutely necessary.
But then, at the same time, when people are offended by silly things, there's a case to be made for snapping them out of it. I'm not necessarily saying either of those two examples fall into that category. I'm just kind of protecting myself from future hassles when I call someone silly for being offended by "vulgar" language or something.
What does "being offended" even mean, anyway? What does it feel like? Is it just anger, or is there kind of a sick feeling in your stomach that comes with it? I can't think of any examples of anyone being compelled to do anything productive by the sensation of being offended. What's its purpose?
Just to be sure I'm clear, I see the benefit of being polite - ie., refraining from saying things that upset people. Because I don't want people to be upset. I'd rather they were happy.
But if someone was trying to sell me on the idea of becoming the kind of person who gets offended by things, I can't imagine what their selling points would be. As far as I can tell, the only change would be a whole new thing in life (in addition to physical pain, loneliness, embarrassment, other people's suffering, etc.) to potentially detract from my happiness.
Those who would supress opinion do their case no good. The more loony theses are held up to scrutiny, the more they are discredited. The more they are suppressed, the more interesting they become.
History must be questioned. If it were not we would never have heard the real history of Galippoli.
To hold that giving offence is reason to ban speech is ludicrous. There is much said on this blog that gives offence. If speech causes harm in any real sense, it is a tort and remedy can be sought under the present law.
To figure Ahmadineajad out you have to read his words. They are quite different once the spin is applied.
Here are a couple of links:
http://www.spiegel.de/international/0,1518,418660,00.html
http://www.informationclearinghouse.info/article12790.htm
Here's what I think.
The little dark leprechaun is a bit smarter than most give him credit for. In response to the Mohammed cartoon furore, he sponsored a Holocaust cartoon competition. A bit of "let's see how you like it!"
The "Review of the Holocaust: Global Vision" conference is another tit-for-tat operation. He maintains, as do I, that Israel is in denial of the Palestinian Holocaust. That Gaza is one big concentration camp. So once again he says: "two can play at that game Moshe!" He also gets a swipe at the West in general by saying "who are you to talk about free speech?"
Personally, I find it almost comical.
Person unknown:
I'm glad you agree that being polite and respectful is far more beneficial, and productive than being offensive. Like Ahmadinajad will eventually realise. It gets us no where. Agreed, that isn't to say we avoid the truth and the realities before us for the meer sake of politeness. But when we are offended in certain situations, there are also lessons to be learnt for both sides. That can also be productive.
The Muhammad Cartoon as a case in point even though i'll be going off on a tangent. They were offensive to me because it insulted my prophet. A man who represents my moral foundations. Therefore, it questioned my morals and consequently insulted my identity. Whatever context it was shown in, and whatever the intention. That was a general sentiment of many Muslims. You can say, they were baseless and 'silly'- which of course they were. But they struck deep, and only those who identity themselves with the religion would have felt the pain of seeing their respected prophet shown in such a negative light. I wouldn't expect the same understanding from a non-Musilm. But i would at least expect the recognition of its offense. Nor would i expect them to define what is offensive and what isn't- which many did. Including you. Now, the lesson to be learnt from that case is our offensive reactions need to be productive. We should engage in dialogue and explain the offense. Like i did with people around me, talking to them, and explainnig the offense made many of them understand Islam a little more and the reason for the reaction. That's productive isn't it? Rather than resorting to violence etc. But you can't just simply pretend you're not offended, and i don't think that's possible in these two cases. It's a natural inclination to be offended especially when it strikes the heart of one's identity, and there's nothing wrong with it, unless it's verging on the irrational where more harm than good comes from it. But it's nevertheless an emotion that makes us human and can't just be turned off in accordance with some people's rationale.
-Anti-Flag.
It would sure be helpful if this site would get rid of "anonymous" as a login! There are a number of valid reason for this suggestion but the most outstanding is that comments like the last one posted could be linked directly if there was a name attached to the stupidity!
Don't sweat it Sam. I reckon the value of an unmoderated blog is worth the cost of ignoring the occasional nutter.
What gets on my tits is the hassle of logging in every time since I changed to beta on my blog.
Yawn.
I like the dialogue with person unknown and anti flag, now if only everyone else can grow up too...
Whoops, the yawn is directed at the anonymous
Anon
FINAL SOLUTION is for the great State of Israel to launch preemptive strike against Iran. Even if Israel kills millions of innocent people that is perfectly acceptable outcome when dealing with Islamic Thug
Get psychiatric help. Seriously. No joke.
Anti-Flag
Re the Mohammed cartoons:
It's a nature of being religious to whip oneself into a lather every time one's religion is satirised. It's a perfectly understandable defensive mechanism, but that doesn't make it excusable in any way. Many things offend people all the time, but sometimes people are offended due to their own biases, ignorance and misassumptions or, worse still, because they want to be offended in order to defend their position (see again, religion).
I recommend keeping a check on how much you let yourself be offended in life. It is not reasonable to fire up an unreasonable reaction to a minor offense, despite how angry you may feel. There are many things that offend me in the world: it offends me when I, my family, my lifestyle or my beliefs are criticised. But so what? I try to bear in mind that the criticisms may be justified and not react with anger and without forethought.
There are times it is right to be offended. It's a matter of degree. The reactions of people to the Popetown cartoons and various SouthPark episodes, to the movie "Passion of the Christ" and to the Mohammed cartoons all offended me because I felt that they were unjustified reactions, but on the other hand, I'm willing to accept that I may not have been offended as much as some of the people who saw the cartoons/episodes/film. Still, none of that does or should compare to how much the atrocities in the Sudan offend me, the treatment of the Palestinians by Israel, the twin tower attack or the death sentence imposed on Salman Rushdie because he dared to criticise. That last by religious nuts who were "offended". In fact the term "religious nuts" will be offensive to many, but in the context given it's completely justified. So lets keep it real, shall we?
- Nobody.
Yes, the conference, the cartoons and even Jesus brandishing a rifle on the front page of this blog, are offensive. But it is an offensive world isn't it?
The problem with the cartoons was they became popular only after the hostile reaction. Otherwise they would have slipped away into obscurity. Wisdom would have advised the media to tone it down given the hostile reaction.
I think brewers tit-for-tat analysis of this is quite insightful.
I'd add that the conference can also be viewed as an extremist response to America's extremist pro-Israel policies.
How long till those in power find the middle ground?
What would it take?
The US also give military support to Egypt and Jordan as I recall...also Saudi Arabia and Kuwait...
http://www.fas.org/asmp/profiles/egypt.htm
http://www.fas.org/asmp/profiles/saudi_arabia.htm
So why does everyone make out that only Israel get the support?
That point is arguable, what is undeniable however is that Arabs citizens of Israel enjoy more democratic freedoms than in any other country in the middle east....
Yes, the US sends aid to Middle Eastern countries other than Israel. It's nothing like proportional, though. In 2001, Israel received over half of the US military aid budget. Egypt and Jordan both received considerable amounts - a nod to their peace agreements with Israel. Jordan received $75 million. Israel received 26 times that amount.
So no one's making out that the US only sends money to Israel. Just way, way more than anyone else. More than everyone else combined, in terms of military aid.
And Arab citizens of Israel probably enjoy more rights there than they would in some other Middle Eastern countries. But there is still some food for thought here:
The 'democratic' state of Israel
This comment has been removed by a blog administrator.
tj,
Don't oversell Israel's 'freedoms'. Arabs are 2nd class citizens there.
Bomber,
I think your notion that "a little bunch of Jews runs the world and has massive influence over American decisions is nonesense." underestimates the powerful influence of the Israeli Lobby, particularly in the US.
Check out this essay:
http://ksgnotes1.harvard.edu/Research/wpaper.nsf/rwp/RWP06-011
or the edited version at http://www.lrb.co.uk/v28/n06/mear01_.html
Do you think it was only guilt and politics that caused Cullen to overturn Ya'alons arrest warrant?
TJ,
There are certainly elite groups within many Middle Eastern countries who can do whatever they like. But mainly I am just too ignorant of what life is like in Arab countries to be able to say. I'm sure you're right that to be a second-class citizen in Israel is preferable to being an ordinary citizen in Jordan or Saudi Arabia or something. But that seems, to me, to be avoiding the point. It's a kind of, "I'm a saint, because I only kick this guy in the guts, where's Johnny in the corner stabs people."
Karlos,
Small groups have disproportionate influence in American (and Kiwi) politics, yes, but Israel serves a number of functions for the US government, and if it became more of a liability to the interests served by the US government, I wouldn't be surprised if the pro-Israel lobby in the US gradually found itself sidelined.
Karlos,
I honestly don't know what the life of an average Arab Israeli is like compared to the life of an average Arab in surrounding countries. The whole question is irrelevant to my original point, which was that Israel seems to fall down as a democracy on some key points.
And I can't know for certain, but I'm fairly sure that if the Middle East suddenly stopped being the most strategically important piece of real estate in the world, the Israeli lobby would find themselves demanding that billions of dollars get thrown away on ventures that profit no one at home in the US.
http://www.latimes.com/news/opinion/commentary/la-oe-ali16dec16,0,2351518.story?coll=la-home-commentary
Well worth a read.
More on Ahmadinejad's words:
http://www.counterpunch.org/gowans12162006.html
News from the conference:
http://mathaba.net/news/?x=547346
I will cut and paste this- it was linked to by another poster above, but I think everyone should read it:
Why they deny the Holocaust
On top of nearly constant anti-Semitic propaganda, much of the Muslim world hasn't even heard of it.
By Ayaan Hirsi Ali, AYAAN HIRSI ALI, a Somali immigrant who served in the parliament of the Netherlands until earlier this year, is the author of "Infidel," an autobiography to be published in February.
December 16, 2006
ONE DAY IN 1994, when I was living in Ede, a small town in Holland, I got a visit from my half-sister. She and I were both immigrants from Somalia and had both applied for asylum in Holland. I was granted it; she was denied. The fact that I got asylum gave me the opportunity to study. My half-sister couldn't.
In order for me to be admitted to the university I wanted to attend, I needed to pass three courses: a language course, a civics course and a history course. It was in the preparatory history course that I, for the first time, heard of the Holocaust. I was 24 years old at that time, and my half-sister was 21.
In those days, the daily news was filled with the Rwandan genocide and ethnic cleansing in the former Yugoslavia. On the day that my half-sister visited me, my head was reeling from what happened to 6 million Jews in Germany, Holland, France and Eastern Europe.
I learned that innocent men, women and children were separated from each other. Stars pinned to their shoulders, transported by train to camps, they were gassed for no other reason than for being Jewish.
I saw pictures of masses of skeletons, even of kids. I heard horrifying accounts of some of the people who had survived the terror of Auschwitz and Sobibor. I told my half-sister all this and showed her the pictures in my history book. What she said was as awful as the information in my book.
With great conviction, my half-sister cried: "It's a lie! Jews have a way of blinding people. They were not killed, gassed or massacred. But I pray to Allah that one day all the Jews in the world will be destroyed."
She was not saying anything new. As a child growing up in Saudi Arabia, I remember my teachers, my mom and our neighbors telling us practically on a daily basis that Jews are evil, the sworn enemies of Muslims, and that their only goal was to destroy Islam. We were never informed about the Holocaust.
Later, as a teenager in Kenya, when Saudi and other Persian Gulf philanthropy reached us, I remember that the building of mosques and donations to hospitals and the poor went hand in hand with the cursing of Jews. Jews were said to be responsible for the deaths of babies and for epidemics such as AIDS, and they were believed to be the cause of wars. They were greedy and would do absolutely anything to kill us Muslims. If we ever wanted to know peace and stability, and if we didn't want to be wiped out, we would have to destroy the Jews. For those of us who were not in a position to take up arms against them, it was enough for us to cup our hands, raise our eyes heavenward and pray to Allah to destroy them.
Western leaders today who say they are shocked by Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad's conference this week denying the Holocaust need to wake up to that reality. For the majority of Muslims in the world, the Holocaust is not a major historical event that they deny. We simply do not know it ever happened because we were never informed of it.
The total number of Jews in the world today is estimated to be about 15 million, certainly no more than 20 million. On the other hand, the world's Muslim population is estimated to be between 1.2 billion and 1.5 billion. And not only is this population rapidly growing, it is also very young.
What's striking about Ahmadinejad's conference is the (silent) acquiescence of mainstream Muslims. I cannot help but wonder: Why is there no counter-conference in Riyadh, Cairo, Lahore, Khartoum or Jakarta condemning Ahmadinejad? Why are the 57 members of the Organization of the Islamic Conference silent on this?
Could the answer be as simple as it is horrifying: For generations, the leaders of these so-called Muslim countries have been spoon-feeding their populations a constant diet of propaganda similar to the one that generations of Germans (and other Europeans) were fed — that Jews are vermin and should be dealt with as such? In Europe, the logical conclusion was the Holocaust. If Ahmadinejad has his way, he shall not want for compliant Muslims ready to act on his wish.
The world needs to be informed again and again about the Holocaust — not only in the interest of the Jews who survived and their offspring but in the interest of humanity.
The Truth About The Tehran Holocaust Conference - By One Who Was There
Posted: 12/16
From: Mathaba
When Alexander Baron returned from the Holocaust Conference in Iran which he attended, he found that the conference Western media "reported" about might as well have been on a different planet.
In December this year a fanatical Islamic Jew-hater convened a conference in Tehran dedicated to denying the Nazi Holocaust of the Jews as a prelude to wiping Israel off the map. Jew-haters including outright Nazis attended from all parts of the globe burying their ideological differences in order to put this fiendish plan into action.
The above sums up the consensus on the recent Tehran Conference on the Holocaust and on its convenor, Iran's charismatic President, Mahmoud Ahmadinejad.
As a participant in that conference I can report that the Western media is up to its old tricks of lying in unison again, this time in order to stoke up the fuels of fire against Iran. Not content with sending nearly three thousand American and over a hundred British servicemen to their deaths in Iraq while plunging that country into a civil war in all but name, the hawks in Washington are now preparing to start another war, this time against Iran.
Iran we are told is a threat to world peace, it is developing nuclear weapons which will be used against Israel. The lies go on. So what is the truth?
The truth is that the roots of this conference lie in a series of blasphemous cartoons which the enemies of Islam thought were hilarious; now the boot is on the other foot and the Islamophobes are laughing no more. In September last year a Danish newspaper published a number of cartoons about the Prophet Muhammad. Although Islam is far from the intolerant, patriarchal, totalitarian philosophy it is often portrayed as, there are two things you never do. You do not spit on the Holy Koran, and you do not guy the Prophet. The prohibition against any representation of Muhammad is particularly severe, not because he is regarded as divine or sacred; unlike Jesus of Nazareth he did not claim to be the Son of God, and unlike Jesus, Muhammad was a real historical person, he actually existed. Just take it from me, you dont mess with Muhammad.
Nevertheless, some people regard this prohibition as a violation of their right of freedom of speech and freedom of expression, so they defended the newspaper in the wake of anger and protests from Islamic organisations. If this defence had gone no further than the usual mutterings about freedom of expression, that would have been the end of it, but seeing Muslim anger aroused, and determined to push their luck just for the sheer hell of it, a number of foreign newspapers reprinted the cartoons, an act which led not only to rising anger in the Islamic world but to violence and even murder.
While no reasonable person would condone acts of murder even in response to gross blasphemy, there can be no doubt that the Western media must bear the responsibility for a large slice of the violence that followed. Free speech or not, no one has the right to shout "Fire" in a crowded theatre; Western newspaper editors may be many things but by and large they are not stupid. They must surely have known that murder and mayhem would follow if Muslims felt they were being pushed too far. If nothing else, they must each and every one of them have been acutely aware of the fact that there are extremists within the Islamic community who will use any pretext to resort to violence. Havent they heard of September 11?
Seeing his religion offended and the blasphemers defended on the grounds of free speech, some bright spark in Iran decided that sauce for the goose was sauce for the gander, and the newspaper Hamshahri announced that it would hold a Holocaust cartoon competition.
"Does the West's freedom of expression extend to... an event such as the Holocaust or is this freedom of expression only for the desecration of the sanctities of divine religions?" the paper asked. That is what is known as a rhetorical question, because international outrage followed at this blasphemy against the religion of the Holocaust.
Enter the President of Iran. The name Mahmoud Ahmadinejad was all but unknown in the West until he called for Israel to be wiped off the map. True or false? The first part is true; the second part is a lie. What he actually said was that the Zionist entity Israel would go the same way as the Soviet Union, it would simply cease to exist, and all its citizens, Gentile and Jew, would be much better for it. It may be that this claim is wishful thinking, but it is certainly not genocidal.
Ahmadinejad is a plain speaking man, and when it comes to International Zionism, he is totally fearless, unlike the overwhelming majority of Western politicians and all Western statesmen.
In December last year he was quoted thus by the official BBC website: "If someone were to deny the existence of God... or prophets and religion, they would not bother him. However, if someone were to deny the myth of the Jews massacre, all the Zionist mouthpieces and the governments subservient to the Zionists tear their larynxes and scream against the person as much as they can".
For once this quote is accurate. An honest person may disagree with the first part of that statement, but no honest person could take issue with the second part.
This week, the Iranian Government went one better than Hamshahri when it hosted the first ever Holocaust conference of its kind. There have of course been numerous conferences on the Holocaust before, including those organised by Revisionists, but never has a meeting of this nature been funded and hosted by a government.
I was one of those selected from some eight hundred applicants to present an original paper on the Holocaust. The Iranian Government paid for my ticket and accommodation, although I was not offered any inducement or bribe to attend. Our hosts extended us every courtesy, although they did not bend over backwards to try to impress us. I have no illusions about Iran and although I saw precious little of Tehran in the short time I was there and nothing at all of the rest of the country, it was obvious that the good will of the regime was sincere. There was no hatred of either Westerners or Americans evident. Street signs and shop signs are often in English as well as Farsi; Western TV programmes including American music are ubiquitous.
The title of my paper was THE NAZI GAS CHAMBERS: Rumours, Lies And Reality - One Researchers View. This is a subject dear to my heart. I dont claim to be an expert and am not an accredited historian, but I have been reading this subject for a quarter of a century, and over the past eighteen years I have researched certain aspects of the Holocaust in greater depth than the vast majority of bona fide historians. My researches have led me to believe that undeniable though it was during the Holocaust and World War II, the full extent of Jewish suffering has been greatly exaggerated, and I told my audience so adducing evidence in support of my arguments at every point. Not every speaker was so meticulous, but not every speaker shared my viewpoint. Among the speakers at this conference were members of Neturei Karta, the ultra-Orthodox anti-Zionist sect. Rabbi Ahron Cohen said it was ridiculous to deny the Holocaust, meaning the genocide of the Jews, and said that it didn't matter if six million, five million or some lesser number were murdered by the Nazis, nor did it matter if the victims died in the gas chambers or by the bullet, it was still genocide.
Neturei Karta are often derided as cranks, but they are the real Jews, the men and women who practise the undiluted, uncontaminated essence of Judaism. All shades of opinion were present including one or two nutty Arabs and people who espoused genuine anti-Semitism, but the conference was all the better for it.
Contrary to the Western media's assertions, the conference did not declare the Holocaust a myth, although some individual participants were surely of that opinion.
At the end of the presentations on the second day the speakers were taken to what I presumed was the Presidential Palace where we met the great man himself. I say great man because that is what Mahmoud Ahmadinejad is; he is the Tehranosaurus Rex of statesmen, Mahmoud the Tehranible. You may not think he is right, you may not even like him, but you have to admire the guy. If half a dozen statesmen had exhibited the same courage, forthrightness and honesty over International Zionism and the so-called Jewish Question over the past fifty years the Middle East would not be in the sorry state it is in now, there would have been no Gulf Wars and probably no Six Day War or Yom Kippur War either. The Palestinian problem would almost certainly have been solved, or at the very least these wretched people would not still be living in rat-infested camps strewn halfway across the region.
When we met Ahmadinejad he repeated what he had said about the Zionist entity, and so there could be misunderstanding his intentions he embraced several rabbis.
One of the major speakers at the Conference was David Duke. In an earlier incarnation Duke was a leading member of the Ku Klux Klan, something he has never been allowed to forget. White Supremacist or White Separatist or both, Dukes bigotry, if it exists, does not extend to the mass murder of innocent civilians. He stated quite clearly that the US Government and media (which he sees as Zionist-controlled) is itching to start a war with Iran, and made an impassioned plea that it be averted.
Although like everyone else at this conference I have no illusions about Jewish/Zionist power or mendacity I dont see the hidden Jewish hand behind every event on the world stage, but there can be no denying the fact that International Zionism and its allies do want war.
In the last few weeks the Bush Administration has suffered an outburst of realism; a ground war and invasion of Iran is probably now out of the question, public revulsion at the inevitable loss of life would be too much for even the sheep-like American public, but it is not impossible that the Americans may make a "pre-emptive strike" against Irans nuclear facilities, or even more stupidly they may put the Israelis up to it.
If there is any sort of attack against Iran, the consequences for Iran, for the United States, for Britain and indeed for the world will be catastrophic. It must not be allowed to happen. Ahmadinejad has no intention of using his countrys nuclear program for malignant purposes, but even if he had, it ill-behooves the only nation that has ever used nuclear weapons in anger to tell Iran or any other sovereign nation that it has no right to develop such a weapons programme.
We in the West, Christians, non-believers and Muslims, Gentile, Jew and Arab alike, must resist this folly. We must exert whatever pressure we can against both the American and British Governments to ensure that Iranian sovereignty is not violated on any pretext. Mahmoud Ahmadinejad is a man we can do business with. When Tony Blair condemned the Holocaust Conference, Irans reaction was to invite him to attend it. Naturally this invitation was not accepted, but perhaps Blair, or whoever is running the country then, will attend the next one.
There is a saying that "jaw jaw" is always preferable to "war war"; many veterans of the First World War, the Great War - of which there are now so few remaining - believe this and have gone on record as such. They saw the horror of the trenches; we too have seen the horrors of war, although most of us fortunately not at first hand, we experience it vicariously through CNN or the BBC. Does anyone in the West really want the madness of Iraq to be extended to Iran? And then where next? Syria? North Korea?
As I said, Ahmadinejad is a man the West can do business with. He is currently offering us an olive branch. Anyone who doesn't like Iran's Holocaust conferences will be more than welcome to attend the next one and put an alternate point of view - as did the Naturei Karta rabbis. And anyone who wants to discuss other matters with the Iranians, like mutual nuclear disarmament, swords into ploughshares and perhaps developing alternative energies, will find its President a more than willing listener. Bear this in mind next time you read that Iran is a threat to world peace.
Deano: What a load of bollocks. You've used one guy's experience as something that's standard in the Muslim world? what an absurd and irrational assertion. Again, applying a specific characteristic to a region of different cultures, people, and political orientations is dripping of an orientalist understanding.
The Muslim world is CONSTANTLY reminded of the holocaust because it's been used to justify the suffering of Arabs- in particular the Palestinians. So who you trying to kid? Any denial is reactionary.
-Anti-Flag.
Deano:
Come off it mate. Who are you trying to fool here? You really think i'm going to believe there was no motive behind you pasting this article? No inference to be made that fits nicely with your distorted understandings of that part of the world? Uh huh.
I love how you lump all those aforementioned issues as one. Failing to see some are completely political, while the others religious-based. Also failing to distinguish ONCE AGAIN between a religion and its followers. Ultimately, this is my problem with you Deano: Your backward orientalist thinking.
Don't worry, i can completely accept any REASONABLE criticism of the Muslim world. It's not like i haven't neglected opportunities myself where criticism of Muslims is needed and deserved. However, i've come to know what kind of views you hold, so when the criticism comes from you- of course it'll be highly dubious, considering your political motives.
And i'm not from any rich suburb of Auckland, in fact, far from it. I guess you need to re-think the little category you're desperately trying to fit me into. I apologise if i'm making it difficult for you.
-Anti-Flag.
Post a Comment
<< Home