Support NeoGAF

[APF]

Eliminating something from history is not the same thing as changing it. The fact that you're loling over this pretty concrete point is telling. As is your claim that you can deny the holocaust but gee, you could be doing it for obnoxious political reasons and therefore not be an anti-Semite. That dog won't hunt, and now you're apologizing for Antisemitism. I'm sure the mods and GAF's proud liberal brigades will be here shortly to yell at you. Any second now.

 

[radioheadrule83]

How about specifically quoting things (fully and properly translated / understood) and taking issue with them?

Please explain to me how the general public isn't being misled over the malignance that is Iran.

 

[Guileless]

Remember though kids, the benefit of the doubt does not extend to the junior senator from New York. Even as we parse the words of Ahmawhatever, she is plotting to take over the world with the other people in teh secret Jesus club!

 

[GSG Flash]

Eliminating something from history is not the same thing as changing it. The fact that you're loling over this pretty concrete point is telling. As is your claim that you can deny the holocaust but gee, you could be doing it for obnoxious political reasons and therefore not be an anti-Semite. That dog won't hunt, and now you're apologizing for Antisemitism. I'm sure the mods and GAF's proud liberal brigades will be here shortly to yell at you. Any second now.

I am pretty sure what Ahmedinejad said was a figure of speech as any sane person knows you can't destroy history.

You're still trying to push your misinterpretation of Ahmedinejad's comments as being "Destroy the zionist regime=kill all jews!", aren't you? Well you do have an agenda in this argument, you've shown it quite plainly, so it's not really surprising.

 

[APF]

Well certainly no one here has been scolded before for accurately-parsing GAF's enemies' words, or for placing them into context...

GSG Flash: you've shown, ironically enough, the futility in all communication, not just between words that need to be translated into your mother tongue.

 

[Mandark]

Stealth: I think Ahmadinejad is almost certainly anti-Semitic. The populations of ethnically homogeneous countries without strong liberal traditions are generally pretty racist. Especially if there's a nearby Other with competing claims on land, or something like that.

Remember that survey a while back on the attitudes of Israeli students (IIRC) towards Palestinians. There's just a lot of stereotyping, mistrust, etc. of other cultures, especially in regions like the ME.

That said, it's a long way from being anti-Semitic to harboring fantasies of racial elimination. Nixon was racist, anti-Semitic, and homophobic, but he never even considered doling out stars of David and pink triangles.

 

[The Stealth Fox]

Eliminating something from history is not the same thing as changing it. The fact that you're loling over this pretty concrete point is telling.

You still haven't defended the "killing Jew" interpretation. "Eliminating something for history is not the same as changing it". I can't believe you're disputing this. I think you're reading way more into the word "eliminate" than I am.

Okay, so let's assume he wants "TOTAL OBLITERATION, NONEXISTENCE" of the Israeli regime. What does that tell us? Tell me APF, what does that tell us. I can't believe that you're telling me this with the straight face.

As is your claim that you can deny the holocaust but gee, you could be doing it for obnoxious political reasons and therefore not be an anti-Semite. That dog won't hunt, and now you're apologizing for Antisemitism. I'm sure the mods and GAF's proud liberal brigades will be here shortly to yell at you. Any second now.

When you say apologizing, are you saying I'm justifying it? Hell no. I'm saying that it is a frequent tactic to discout the validity of the Israeli government's existence. IT IS. Maybe not in Western discourse, BUT IT CERTAINLY IS. I've heard it myself many times. Are you implicitly stating that everytime someone denies the holocaust, it is because they have a low level respect for Jews and devalue them as an ethnic or religious organization?

I think Holocaust denial includes denying the figures also. There are plenty of people who deny the figures, but do not see the Jews as lowly creatures or some nonsense like that.

 

[The Stealth Fox]

Stealth: I think Ahmadinejad is almost certainly anti-Semitic. The populations of ethnically homogeneous countries without strong liberal traditions are generally pretty racist. Especially if there's a nearby Other with competing claims on land, or something like that.

I guess that's a good point, I didn't think about social circumstances of Iran there. I do know there's been a rise of anti-semitism in the Middle East in the last century or so. There was a documentary on that.

But I also do remember Bernard Lewis in that same documentary saying that prior to all those political events (we're talking earlier Islamic history), traditional Islamic society (even though not rooted in strong liberal traditions, this is what I'm questioning here) could not be considered anti-Semitic (I certainly remember this distinct point as it was being mentioned in my sociology class).

But then again, the past is not necessarily identical to the present, so maybe your "strong liberal traditions" comment works better with the passage of time.

 

[APF]

The point, as always, has been his coyly toying with the idea, rhetorically, of eliminating "Zionists" nee Jews, while hiding behind the curtain of not explicitly saying, "this is my plan," because like all trolls and gadflys he understands the balance you need to draw between saying something outright and merely suggesting it with plausible deniability. You would think that Mandark, so frightened of politicians' use of "code words" would be able to see through such parlor tricks, but alas it appears some sort of "blinders" are preventing him from completely accepting this as a good example of it. Note however that you (Mandark) are pretty much just saying he doesn't actually intend to go along with the idea--not that he isn't coyly wink-wink know what I mean etc.

 

[Mandark]

Stealth: You're right about anti-Zionists denying the Holocaust for utilitarian purposes, though.

Israel's raison d'etat is very much tied in with the Holocaust, as the worst-case scenario for what could happen to the Jewish people if they did not have their own nation. Since it was so horrific, the argument is that much more powerful.

So there's a pretty long tradition, especially in the Muslim ME, of saying it didn't happen or was exaggerated. The point of the argument isn't that the Jews should be eliminated, but almost the opposite: that the Jews would survive just fine as a diaspora, and aren't in so much danger that they need a dedicated state to protect them.

This line of argument doesn't get much play in the US or Western Europe, cause it's all based on the Holocaust not happening, which is, you know, crazy.

 

[The Stealth Fox]

The point, as always, has been his coyly toying with the idea, rhetorically, of eliminating "Zionists" nee Jews, while hiding behind the curtain of not explicitly saying, "this is my plan," because like all trolls and gadflys he understands the balance you need to draw between saying something outright and merely suggesting it with plausible deniability. You would think that Mandark, so frightened of politicians' use of "code words" would be able to see through such parlor tricks, but alas it appears some sort of "blinders" are preventing him from completely accepting this as a good example of it. Note however that you (Mandark) are pretty much just saying he doesn't actually intend to go along with the idea--not that he isn't coyly wink-wink know what I mean etc.

I feel like you, and pretty much every other poster on GAF that posts on politics FREQUENTLY, spends more time trying to figure out politicians minds rather than dealing with something necessarily explicit.

But I guess that's what politics is. It's guesswork.

 

[Guileless]

Columbia needs to engineer a situation where he has to sit in a green room before going on stage and watch Seinfeld, the episode where Jerry makes out with the girl during Schindler's List. If Ahmawhatever laughs and enjoys the show, we can conclude he's harmless.

 

[radioheadrule83]

Columbia needs to engineer a situation where he has to sit in a green room before going on stage and watch Seinfeld, the episode where Jerry makes out with the girl during Schindler's List. If Ahmawhatever laughs and enjoys the show, we can conclude he's harmless.

:lol

can we make him watch the Soup Nazi episode as well?

This is why universities, without a doubt, should invite him.

Aside from all the, you know, serious rhetorical and ideoligical examination.

 

[The Stealth Fox]

Stealth: You're right about anti-Zionists denying the Holocaust for utilitarian purposes, though.

Israel's raison d'etat is very much tied in with the Holocaust, as the worst-case scenario for what could happen to the Jewish people if they did not have their own nation. Since it was so horrific, the argument is that much more powerful.

So there's a pretty long tradition, especially in the Muslim ME, of saying it didn't happen or was exaggerated. The point of the argument isn't that the Jews should be eliminated, but almost the opposite: that the Jews would survive just fine as a diaspora, and aren't in so much danger that they need a dedicated state to protect them.
This line of argument doesn't get much play in the US or Western Europe, cause it's all based on the Holocaust not happening, which is, you know, crazy.

Yeah. I completely agree. BINGO. This is exactly the line of thinking people use. Logically speaking, you don't need to implicitly deny the holocaust to believe that the jews were fine without a state. But it's one of the ways of achieving such a conclusion that "the jews don't need a state", and it's a popular one.

But yeah, if you want to argue against Israel in the west, better not start with the "no holocaust" premise, because you know, it just shows that you're disconnected from events that have occurred in the past.

 

[APF]

What are people suggesting Zionism is, that it's disconnected from the idea of Israel as a state, or that the Israelis [/Jews] living in that state, an explicitly-Jewish state, would not be eliminated (killed or ethnically-cleansed) in the case of "the Zionist regime" being removed from history? I'm not sure you're not making an enormous logical leap, one of extreme convenience, by not addressing the idea. Perhaps Ahmadinejad simply is going to ask the Jews to move, and they agree? This is the only logical outcome from that presumption.

Oh, or he could be saying the country will be occupied and ruled over by non-Jews for all eternity, after "someone" rises up against the state somehow with some undisclosed weaponry that's a match for their capabilities. That's also a possibility, of course; the imperialist approach.

 

[Mandark]

If a politician is using a dog-whistle phrase, it's generally because there is some popular sentiment of belief that has become publicly taboo. While anti-Semitism is probably a political winner in Iran, I don't think genocide fits that bill.

 

[DSWii60]

The point, as always, has been his coyly toying with the idea, rhetorically, of eliminating "Zionists" nee Jews, while hiding behind the curtain of not explicitly saying, "this is my plan," because like all trolls and gadflys he understands the balance you need to draw between saying something outright and merely suggesting it with plausible deniability. You would think that Mandark, so frightened of politicians' use of "code words" would be able to see through such parlor tricks, but alas it appears some sort of "blinders" are preventing him from completely accepting this as a good example of it. Note however that you (Mandark) are pretty much just saying he doesn't actually intend to go along with the idea--not that he isn't coyly wink-wink know what I mean etc.

I still don't understand why you haven't replied to any of the points I've made. But anyway, back on topic:

Iranian society is inherently racist. Trust me, I've been there, I speak enough of the language, and I know when people are looking down at you. There are two causes of this:

1. They perceive their race as superior to others. This is present in many societies today so I don't really look at this as a big deal.

2. Skin-colour: It may seem old news to us, but Iranians are really racist when it comes to skin colour. The lighter you are the better; the darker you are, the more uncultured you are.

So I am not denying that the Iranians can be racist, on the contrary I recognise it and have dealt with it.

However Iranians are not racist against Jews. They do have an extremely strong anti-Israel feeling but this does not mean they hate Jews.

As far as Ahmadinejad saying that he wants Zionists wiped out of history meaning that he is a anti-Semite and wants all Jews dead in code according to APF, this is BS. If this were the case, he would come out and say it. Its not like he hasn't said controversial things before, saying all Jews need to be killed wouldn't actually cause that much controversy as according to the average person he said "he wants Israel wiped off the map" and its not much of a jump from that to all Jews.

I could do exactly what your doing and say that Bush invading Iraq and Afghanistan and now threatening Iran means in code that Bush wants to declare war on all Muslims, but of course that isn't true, just like Ahmadinejad wanting all Jews dead isn't true.

 

[The Stealth Fox]

What are people suggesting Zionism is, that it's disconnected from the idea of Israel as a state, or that the Israelis [/Jews] living in that state, an explicitly-Jewish state, would not be eliminated (killed or ethnically-cleansed) in the case of "the Zionist regime" being removed from history?

I think it's the latter idea. Is it implausible to want a regime taken down and not have the intent of killing its people?

 

[Mandark]

My interpretation has always been that Ahmadinejad was talking about the state of Israel, rather than the population.

He used the examples of the USSR, Saddam, and the Shah as regimes who had suffered this, none of which involved genocide. That's not to say he's only or primarily talking about peaceful means. Fallacy of the excluded middle and all that.

 

[APF]

If a politician is using a dog-whistle phrase, it's generally because there is some popular sentiment of belief that has become publicly taboo. While anti-Semitism is probably a political winner in Iran, I don't think genocide fits that bill.

So you're essentially saying nothing here, or you're suggesting "code words" are meaningless because they're against a public taboo--the impact of which seems contrary to what you've been suggesting all these years.

 

[APF]

So the point is, the Israeli people will rise up and revolt against the idea that Israel deserves to be a state? There's definitely some exclusion going on here, in the inability to actually look at the implications of what is being said on a practical ground-level, rather than a purely rhetorical alternate-history fantasy level.

 

[The Stealth Fox]

So you're essentially saying nothing here

WOW. Sounds like you two have found something in common (but you know, most of the time, Mandark makes his point clear).

 

[The Stealth Fox]

So the point is, the Israeli people will rise up and revolt against the idea that Israel deserves to be a state? There's definitely some exclusion going on here, in the inability to actually look at the implications of what is being said on a practical ground-level, rather than a purely rhetorical alternate-history fantasy level.

Well, so you're saying that a regime change isn't practically possible without exterminating all the citizens within that state? Can YOU think of any historical counterexamples to that statement?

"The Zionist regime will be wiped out soon, the same way the Soviet Union was, and humanity will achieve freedom."

Ahmadinejad wants it deconstructed like the Soviet Union. You may emphasize the words "wiped out", but I'm not too sure if the farsi word necessarily implies violence. Plus, the selection of the example of the Soviet Union is significant, because there are way too many historical examples you can use to imply VIOLENCE against a state.

 

[Mandark]

120: I'm not sure I understand.

I'm talking about beliefs and attitudes that are still popular, but have become taboo (usually within living memory) to express in public, or to strangers who may not share that belief.

It's why I don't trust things like this.


121: I don't think the practical reality is that nukes are the only way Iran (or someone else) would attempt regime change. Off the top of my head, I think the use of proxies like Hamas and Hezbollah is a lot more likely/precedented.

 

[Allen]

This thread has spiraled out of control. I find it interesting that most people here are unable to separate Judaism and Israel.

 

[The Stealth Fox]

121: I don't think the practical reality is that nukes are the only way Iran (or someone else) would attempt regime change. Off the top of my head, I think the use of proxies like Hamas and Hezbollah is a lot more likely/precedented.

Yeah, that's certainly another possibility.

 

[APF]

120: I'm not sure I understand.

I'm talking about beliefs and attitudes that are still popular, but have become taboo (usually within living memory) to express in public, or to strangers who may not share that belief.

Well now I have no idea what you were trying to suggest by any of this then. I can't tell if you're trying to say Iranians secretly *do* want to wipe-out Jews and not simply ethnically-cleanse what we know as Israel, or that they secretly *don't* or what. I'm also not getting the point of posting that link

121: I don't think the practical reality is that nukes are the only way Iran (or someone else) would attempt regime change. Off the top of my head, I think the use of proxies like Hamas and Hezbollah is a lot more likely/precedented.

This is sidestepping my argument, as is evident by your needing to say, "the only way." I agree though, using proxies to go to war with another state, to the extent that that state will be eliminated from history, may not necessitate your use of nuclear weapons in an offensive context. Defensive however...


The Stealth Fox: you're entirely missing my point, unfortunately. I'm suggesting there's a difference between the examples given, and, in practical terms, Israel's imagined collapse, which would not be the same thing as the Soviet Union collapsing.

 

[The Stealth Fox]

The Stealth Fox: you're entirely missing my point, unfortunately. I'm suggesting there's a difference between the examples given, and, in practical terms, Israel's imagined collapse, which would not be the same thing as the Soviet Union collapsing.

But I thought we were focusing on what he said and it's implications? I don't think we should focus on "practical implications" vs. "unrealistic implications".

Ahmadinejad's stated he wants the regime gone. You said he called for ethnic cleansing because wanting the regime gone is implicitly stating that you wan't to kick the Jews out or whatever.

I said that no, it doesn't imply that he wants to kick out the Jews. I focused on what he was explicitly stating, that he just wants the government to go away, and cited his words about the Soviet Union as an example of WHAT HE WANTED, that is, a peaceful deconstruction. This desire for a peaceful deconstruction shows that he does NOT want to kick out the Jews, he just wants... a peaceful deconstruction.

You object, "BUT OH THAT'S NOT PRACTICAL". But who cares? We're focusing on what he wants and what his implied GOALS are, not whether his objectives are practical or impractical. After all, you raised this whole stink because of what Ahmadinejad BELIEVES.

Mandark even made "regime change" a practical solution, as he offered an explanation of using proxies and so on.

I honestly feel like you're constantly shifting your argument.

 

[mckmas8808]

Seems like too many people are taking up for Ahmawhatever.

 

[SRG01]

Unless I see proof of Iranian pursual of nuclear weapons or inteference in Iraq (which despite consensus, still isn't proovable) -- I'll take to the streets to stop the UK being involved in any US action against Iran.

It seems clear to me that the US and Israel are heading into a possible conflict in the next few years.

Ahmadinejad's comments are

1) often rhetorical posturing to appease his supporters and
2) misinterpreted, as other posters have already assertained

I find myself often considering the idea that Iran and Shiite Islam are under a rather spurious attack here.

For the record -- I believe Iran deserve the right to nuclear energy as much as any other. The UK are going to be tackling the renewal of existing nuclear energy sites in the next decade, and I'm sure the US will too. Every nation in the world deserves the benefit of the doubt when using this energy source. There's no doubt that any nation even considering the use of nuclear force would be wiped off the map by more than one country, so why the cold-war esque panic?

From a realistic perspective, developing nuclear energy is the only way their nation can escape their recent economic woes. They have no other alternative energy source and the domestic use of oil is hurting their export profits.

Strangely enough, allowing the increased export of Iranian oil may in fact help put off peak oil for a while more.

 

[SRG01]

Seems like too many people are taking up for Ahmawhatever.

Not really. Anyone who knows anything about politics knows that he's just like any world ruler -- catering to his home base and his real source of power (the clerics).

His country is not brazenly militaristic. His people don't really care for a regional war and want domestic stability.

All his brazen attitude adds up to is hot air, which is characteristic of every politician out there.

 

[APF]

But I thought we were focusing on what he said and it's implications? I don't think we should focus on "practical implications" vs. "unrealistic implications".

You don't think the practical implications of what he's suggesting are worth talking about? That they weren't considered in making those remarks--a prepared speech--in the first place? Your post seems like another attempt to brush away reality, in order to do spin control for someone with abhorrent beliefs you don't necessarily share but want to dismiss for other ideological reasons.

 

[The Stealth Fox]

You don't think the practical implications of what he's suggesting are worth talking about? That they weren't considered in making those remarks--a prepared speech--in the first place?

I'm more considered with what he actually meant based on prior evidence. Prior evidence suggests NOTHING about ethnic cleansing. Argumentum ad-"careful orchestration"? LOL. That doesn't really help your case.

Your post seems like another attempt to brush away reality, in order to do spin control for someone with abhorrent beliefs you don't necessarily share but want to dismiss for other ideological reasons.

And your posts seem like they discard hard evidence based on previous articles, namely the Der Spiegel interview. I'm sure those responses suggesting a peaceful deconstruction were carefully orchestrated, no?

All you can do is speculate on what you think WOULD occur if a "regime change occurred" (oh wait, I'm sorry, just to please you, regime nonexistence/obliteration, lol). And you said it was ethnic cleansing. You have NO evidence that ethnic cleansing would definitively occur if a regime change did occur.

I'm taking what he HAD said, you're just saying "so what". There are many practical implications of suggesting a regime change, and you have shown me absolutely no reason to believe that ethnic cleansing is the only one. This was implicit when you suggested that he wanted ethnic cleansing and called others stupid for believing otherwise.

Stop cherry-picking my posts and accusing me of misrepresenting your argument and actually show me what exactly is wrong with this line of thinking instead of just dismissing it because of your own ideological preferences (see, I can make you look biased too!).

Keep on spinnin', son.

 

[APF]

I'm saying, lets look at what he said, and try to extract some practical meaning from it, outside of some breezy fantasy, to try and discover the point behind it. You're saying, no, limit your imagination to simply taking words outside of context and purpose, and trying to find no meaning other than the surface hypotheticals of a meandering mind, saying that something could happen somehow, and things have happened in the past, so things can happen in the future--I'm not going to say how or what that would entail but wouldn't it be nice and that's my goal but not necessarily something I'm going to actually do, but still that's a good thing, whatever it is I'm actually suggesting.

 

[The Stealth Fox]

I'm saying, lets look at what he said, and try to extract some practical meaning from it, outside of some breezy fantasy, to try and discover the point behind it.

What makes your meaning practical? Again, you're saying that the only practical implication is ethnic cleansing. I'd say it's not, there simply is no indication from Ahmadinejad that he would do such a tactic. He moans more about the plight of the Palestinian people in relation to the Israeli state, not jew-hating. This is a practical assumption, no? It's based on prior documentation.

You're saying, no, limit your imagination to simply taking words outside of context and purpose,

Where have I done that? If anything, by considering prior evidence, I put his words IN CONTEXT.

and trying to find no meaning other than the surface hypotheticals of a meandering mind,

Funny, what you posited was a surface hypothetical, that is "if the israeli govt were to go down, there would most certainly be ethnic cleansing involved" and then based on this hypothetical, you assumed that ahmadinejad wanted to do a collective cleansing of all Jews. Sounds like a pretty damn large leap in logic.

saying that something could happen somehow, and things have happened in the past, so things can happen in the future--I'm not going to say how or what that would entail but wouldn't it be nice and that's my goal but not necessarily something I'm going to actually do, but still that's a good thing, whatever it is I'm actually suggesting.

So you're saying that wanting something based on historical data is in fact baseless speculation? Tell me, what makes your speculation any better? Saying "it's realistic" is one thing, but how is it more realistic then lets say, Iran actually funding activities that would disrupt or take down the Israeli government?

Sounds like a grade-A unsupported assumption to me.

 

[GSG Flash]

This thread has spiraled out of control. I find it interesting that most people here are unable to separate Judaism and Israel.

It's more that zionists, like APF, don't want to seperate the two despite them being completely different entity's, it serves their argument better if Israel=Jew.

 

[Particle Physicist]

what are zionist ideals.

as far as i know. and according to basically all 'zionists' that i have met. before the creation of israel: it was the support for the creation of a jewish state. after the creation of israel: it is the support of a jewish state.

so. Ahmadinejad is against the creation/existence of a jewish state?

 

[Macam]

Seems our dear friend will be making more than one stop next week.

 

[The Stealth Fox]

so. Ahmadinejad is against the creation/existence of a jewish state?

Yes, as are most pro-Palestinian people. I heard that's a sentiment that's changing though, it's kind of the "minimize our losses" mentality now.

Seems our dear friend will be making more than one stop next week.

wow wtf.

 

[GSG Flash]

Yes, as are most pro-Palestinian people. I heard that's a sentiment that's changing though, it's kind of the "minimize our losses" mentality now.

I'd say he's more against a Jewish state in the middle east. I'm sure he wouldn't give a flying rat's ass if there was a Jewish state created out of American land.

 

[Stoney Mason]

Seems our dear friend will be making more than one stop next week.

Nice. Bookmarked on the schedule. I'll have to catch that.

 

[The Stealth Fox]

I'd say he's more against a Jewish state in the middle east. I'm sure he wouldn't give a flying rat's ass if there was a Jewish state created out of American land.

Oh yeah, you're right. Most people could care less about a Jewish state, it's just one of those "don't put it on our turf" type of things. I completely forgot about that distinction, sorry.

 

[Goldrusher]

Highly interesting.

 

[Dies Iræ]

I'm suprised at the level of blind hatred and ignorance towards Ahmadinejad and his views. Absolutely, he's an islamic fundamentalist. That's very, very bad.

But he's neither a holocaust denier nor anti-semetic nor a nuclear weapons tycoon. Iran's conference was not to deny the holocaust, but rather to discuss current views and alternatives. That's really an important aspect to history - challenging accepted norms. Regarding his anti-semitism, there are tens of thousands of Jews living with full civil rights in Iran. One has even been elected, democratically, to the Iranian Parliament. Finally, regarding his alleged nuclear weapons programme, it is perfectly legal for any state on Earth to enrich uranium for energy production. You can argue Iran's secretly using it for weapons, but that's both hypocritical and unproven.

 

[DSWii60]

I'm suprised at the level of blind hatred and ignorance towards Ahmadinejad and his views. Absolutely, he's an islamic fundamentalist. That's very, very bad.

But he's neither a holocaust denier nor anti-semetic nor a nuclear weapons tycoon. Iran's conference was not to deny the holocaust, but rather to discuss current views and alternatives. That's really an important aspect to history - challenging accepted norms. Regarding his anti-semitism, there are tens of thousands of Jews living with full civil rights in Iran. One has even been elected, democratically, to the Iranian Parliament. Finally, regarding his alleged nuclear weapons programme, it is perfectly legal for any state on Earth to enrich uranium for energy production. You can argue Iran's secretly using it for weapons, but that's both hypocritical and unproven.

This is exactly what I've been saying the entire thread but somehow (conveniently) APF has been ignoring all my posts, choosing instead to engage in a who can use the most impressive words war against others.

 

[UltimaKilo]

I would so pay good money to be able to attend. Too bad I'm in Miami.

 

[Mandark]

Iran's conference was not to deny the holocaust, but rather to discuss current views and alternatives. That's really an important aspect to history - challenging accepted norms.

Admittedly, I didn't follow the news about this too closely, but I have to believe Stealth is right about the motivation. I really doubt Ahmadinejad just has a passion for revisionist historiography.

I mean, it's not like he's pimping a similar event for rethinking our preconceived notions about the Risorgimento.

 

[APF]

I'm a "Zionist" now, as well as a "neocon?" I... see...

Yet Ahmadinejad calls the Holocaust a myth, and he's not a Holocaust denier or an anti-Semite... He calls for the elimination Israel as a state, yet that's not calling for killing Jews, ethnic cleansing, or suggesting anything even remotely supportive of a war against Israel, not to mention having nothing to do with his pursuit of nuclear weapons, which has absolutely nothing to do with anything and I can't believe you even mentioned it, guh. I... see...

The Islamist Defense Force has set up a very strong reality-distortion field in these parts.

 

[Domino Theory]

It's the Cold War all over again ?

 

[The Stealth Fox]

I'm a "Zionist" now, as well as a "neocon?" I... see...

Yet Ahmadinejad calls the Holocaust a myth, and he's not a Holocaust denier or an anti-Semite... He calls for the elimination Israel as a state, yet that's not calling for killing Jews, ethnic cleansing, or suggesting anything even remotely supportive of a war against Israel, not to mention having nothing to do with his pursuit of nuclear weapons, which has absolutely nothing to do with anything and I can't believe you even mentioned it, guh. I... see...

The Islamist Defense Force has set up a very strong reality-distortion field in these parts.

Repeating your point and misrepresenting what other people say in order to make yourself look better WILL not save you, sir. I can do all the rhetorical posturing I want without careful review of evidence and just looking things in an emotive context, but I'm just not that mentally retarded. And now you're reduced to calling us "Islamists", jee, for a person trying not to be called a "neocon", you sure like to use their type of rhetoric and their type of selective memory. And he may very well be an anti-semite, but NOT because he called that conference or wants to question the existence of the holocaust. He may very well have just adopted that viewpoint because it's the EASIEST way to deny Israel's legitimacy. If you WANT to suggest he denies the Holocaust because he sees Jews as a racially or ethnically inferior person, then bring forth the evidence, then I'll retract my statement (but again, this has nothing to do with what your bitching about primarily, because one could be an anti-semite and not want to ethnically cleanse Jews).

I really think you just don't want to assume he's somewhat intelligent; but then again, you did assume that he carefully planned and carefully orchestrated his words.

He may very well want a war with Israel, but he certainly doesn't want to kill every Jew he gets his hands on, you tool. He isn't Hitler, nor does he want to be. Attempting to paint him as such by trying to imply ethnic cleansing in his statements won't get you anywhere. He has implied this and said this repeatedly.

"Wipe the Israeli State off the map". He doesn't want Israel to exist, period. I know this, you know this, many people know this, and many people want this. Whether they want the systematic cleansing of jews is an ENTIRELY different proposition altogether.