How is he wrong on this one? The Holocaust was perpetrated by Germany, and then Europe and the US, feeling sorry for the Jews, decided to make it up to them… by giving them land that belonged to Arabs who had nothing to do with it. However you feel about the state of Israel, the Zionist movement, or the best course forward in the Arab-Israeli conflict, this is a legitimate gripe.
That’s quite a tour-de-force of forum argumentative technique. I point out that in the proper context, the only evidence you have presented is incorrect, but I’m the one with no evidence. (and I’m supposed to prove a negative how?)
Then the strawman, even though you’re the one who refuses to read a man’s words, while arguing about their content.
Then the Godwin. Bravo, Sir!! Maybe in the next post you can include a goatse.cx link to finish the job.
H.
p.s. No matter how much you try to demonize me, the facts remain: I actually read the material in question and came to my own conclusion. You’re a puling babe in the woods, crying about a story your mother told you.
How the hell is it open to interpretation? The Nazis killed millions of Jews. There’s NOT A WHOLE LOT OF ROOM FOR INTERPRETATION OF THAT SENTENCE. I suppose you could argue “oh, they only killed 2 million, not 6!” like some Holocaust deniers, which I would argue, outside of a historical discussion of European history in context, is vile to the point of obscenity.
The Grand Mufti of Jerusalem would have been quite happy to serve as a guard in Treblinka. The Arab world is far from blameless in the history of Jewish pogroms. And yes, most people consider open appeals for ethnic cleansing pretty damned monstrous. I mean, we complain when Israelis suggest it!
You simple fucker. You disagree with me, and decide to be a condescending prick with your, “Maybe I’ll find a tv show for you,” comment. Then you have the nuts to suggest that I’m a bad person for calling you out on it. Do you routinely insult people and then pull the surprised babe trick when you get some of it back?
All the while, ignoring the fact that I read the speeches as well, which I’ve said already (as I went to read them when I first heard mention of this issue, thinking no national leader could be so fucking off his rocker as to spew this vile filth). The speeches do not contain anything to the contrary of what I have stated.
I have asked you to provide quotes or other text from said speeches to the contrary. Your response has been, “Read the speeches.”
No. I have read them. He does not pull back from his statement that the Holocaust was a myth. It is now your job, as you believe he did, to tell us where, specifically, he does so, providing a quote. Not a quote asking why the Jews have to be in Israel as opposed to Germany. Not a quote asking why it is wrong to deny the Holocaust but okay to insult Mohammed. A quote where he retracts his plain as day statement that the Holocaust is a myth.
It’s a legitimate gripe of Palestinian Arabs and possibly their neighbors. When espoused by the leader of Persian Iran, it’s a racist manipulation.
I would also be far more understanding of said misunderstanding if upon the founding of Israel, the immediate reaction of all their Arab neighbors was something other than “oh hell, kill all the Jews now”.
Lum, take a step back. First, I very specifically mentioned numbers revisionism. Second, I clearly stated that I don’t buy it. I just pointed out that there is a lot of crap that would sway a reasonable person, if they were already fairly anti-Semitic. Or Zionist. If there’s a difference. As to how vile it is, I don’t really understand that. It was a vile act, regardless of numbers, but I don’t see how discussing/researching/arguing to determine truth is vile. If anything, THAT idea is vile.
As for the Grand Mufti wanting to kill Jews, I guess I’ll have to take your word on that. I’m also not sure where you’re getting “open appeals for ethnic cleansing,” is that in reference to the Mufti, Iraq, Iran, what?
H.
You so crazy.
How did I ever get the idea you didn’t read the speeches?
Really? Remind me not to let you do a book report for me. Wiki is hard:
In a speech given on 14 December 2005 in the city of Zahedan, and carried live on Iranian television, Ahmadinejad reportedly made the following comments:
According to the Iran’s official news agency:
If the Europeans are telling the truth in their claim that they have killed six million Jews in the Holocaust during the World War II - which seems they are right in their claim because they insist on it and arrest and imprison those who oppose it, why should the Palestinian nation pay for the crime. Why have they come to the very heart of the Islamic world and are committing crimes against the dear Palestine using their bombs, rockets, missiles and sanctions. […] The same European countries have imposed the illegally-established Zionist regime on the oppressed nation of Palestine. If you have committed the crimes so give a piece of your land somewhere in Europe or America and Canada or Alaska to them to set up their own state there. Then the Iranian nation will have no objections, will stage no rallies on the Qods Day and will support your decision.[37]
According to United States media:
They have invented a myth that Jews were massacred and place this above God, religions and the prophets. The West has given more significance to the myth of the genocide of the Jews, even more significant than God, religion, and the prophets, (it) deals very severely with those who deny this myth but does not do anything to those who deny God, religion, and the prophet. If you have burned the Jews, why don’t you give a piece of Europe, the United States, Canada or Alaska to Israel? Our question is, if you have committed this huge crime, why should the innocent nation of Palestine pay for this crime? [38]
The remarks were condemned immediately by the Israeli government. Mark Regev, spokesman for Israel’s Foreign Ministry stated:
The combination of a regime with a radical agenda, together with a distorted sense of reality that is clearly indicated by the statements we heard today, put together with nuclear weapons – I think that’s a dangerous combination that no one in the international community can accept.
What the Iranian president has shown us today is that he is clearly outside the international consensus, he is clearly outside international norms and international legitimacy, and in so doing he has shown the Iranian government for what it is – a rogue regime opposed to peace and stability and a threat to all its neighboring countries. [39]
Many other foreign governments also issued condemnations, including those of the United States, the United Kingdom, and Germany.
In an interview on January 14, 2006, Ahmadinejad said “I’ve just asked two questions. But I have not received any clear answers.” referring to his previous statements on Holocaust. He added “I will not make any historical argument. European scientists are in a position to answer these questions”. Referring to Europeans, Ahmadinejad added “I want them to offer a clear answer to these questions… what ever they say I would agree”. [40]
H.
Funny, I read your post as “Well, I did a lot of research, and while I generally believe the Holocaust happened, it’s arguable that they killed as many as they did.” Which, honestly, I intentionally did not call you on, because, well, I didn’t want to go there.
Mainly because the most common “Holocaust revision” argument is
- Nowhere near 6 million Jews died, and they weren’t all Jews
- They died from disease, not from murder
- The Nazis were really all right fellows and I think their uniforms were cool
- Mel Gibson.
Thus, as I said, outside of a discussion of historical Europe (which I would say even then the commonly quoted figures hold up to analysis simply because of the German fetish for paperwork documenting most of their crimes), is a vile obscenity, because it is most often used as a thin - very thin - veil of justification for racism and admiration of facism. And sorry, I consider that obscene. YMMV.
As for the Grand Mufti wanting to kill Jews, I guess I’ll have to take your word on that. I’m also not sure where you’re getting “open appeals for ethnic cleansing,” is that in reference to the Mufti, Iraq, Iran, what?
The ethnic cleansing remark was because I (and anyone else) would classify any call to make Palestine free of Jews (which Ahmadinjad does, many, many times) the classic definition of ethnic cleansing.
As for the WW2-era mufti of Jerusalem: Amin al-Husseini - Wikipedia
See, that’s bullshit, and it’s bullshit that you’re buying into. Why should “European scientists” have to somehow prove that millions of Jews were murdered in World War 2 to Ahmadinejad’s satisfaction? It’s racist cavailing and posturing, and it’s complete bullshit that anyone would justify it.
Researching is one thing, but we aren’t doing that here are we? In the context (there’s that word again! it’s the word of the day) of a political discussion if someone brings up “holocaust myths” or starts quibbling over the fine point of the holocaust it’s 99.9% certain they are entertaining some anti-semitic thoughts. So it’s pretty vile.
I don’t know. After all, I never actually said that I didn’t read the speeches. It’s amazing you are so willing to contort and bend language for a Holocaust denier, but apparently have no difficulties making assumptions on the language of others.
Another insult regarding intellectual ability, and then you pull up a bunch of junk that does not refute my point. Feel free to continue posting insults regarding my intellectual capacity, in lieu of providing any actual evidence. It seems to be your only defense at this point.
I suspect you are counting things like Bosnia, Kosovo and the liberation of Kuwait? Because honestly, my count of “unjustified US aggression in the last 20 years” still pegs at a big 1, but I’m open to corrections.
(That 1 is a doozy, I’ll grant you, but it’s still just 1. Also, I’m tempted to give Iran extra credit on the latest Middle East hoofrah.)
I listed them above your post. I’d actually consider 3 of them unjustified, the other two being the invasion of Grenada and Panama, which I see as being purely motivated by the need for “blood on the hands” in order to regain popularity at the polls. Grenada in particular was nothing more than a cooked up excuse to boost Reagan’s pride after it took a hit from Hezbollah’s bombing of the Marines barracks in Lebanon.
Nobody throws it’s military muscle around more than the US, so I find it ironic when an American scoffs at the leader of a country that has never started a war for saying they don’t believe bombs are the answer to political problems.
Lum,
I’m pretty much in agreement with all your points, and I am in no way a numbers-revisionist of the Holocaust. I do disagree that it is taboo to discuss or consider; everything is open to scrutiny.
In short, I consider Holocaust numbers revisionism roughly the same way I consider Intelligent Design (except for the incredibly bad taste that it is done in): a bullshit idea, but I can see how people fall for it.
And I still disagree on the ethnic cleansing. That phrase, while literally accurate, has a clear connotation to violence. Ahmadinejad has never advocated violence towards anything but the Israeli state, not the people. There is a difference.
H.
Hey, again I’m not saying he’s right. They don’t have to prove it. But again he has never said the Holocaust didn’t happen. THAT IS MY ONLY POINT HERE, HE NEVER SAID IT.
We’ve covered this in other threads, I don’t like the guy, think he’s an asshole, etc. BUT HE NEVER SAID IT. There is absolutely no emotional attachment to this for me, other than being angry at the inaccuracy and line-toeing of the media.
H.
No argument, but I know what’s in my mind. I don’t have an anti-semitic bone in my body. (Hell, living in Kentucky, I’ve never known enough Jewish people to make a judgement one way or the other.)
H.
Now you’re just being silly, after I clearly posted the contradictory statements. Go play with others.
H.
Grenada and Panama I’ll grant you have arguable justification; although in both cases they overthrew thuggish dictators to popular acclaim of the locals (Marxist in Grenada, narco-military putschist in Panama), unlike the Iraq invasion.
All the other examples on your list are clear-cut responses to aggression, including the strikes on Libya. And yes, America uses bombs a lot, mainly because, well, we can. I’m rather grateful it’s America that’s the world’s superpower and not, say, Russia or Saudi Arabia. But that’s a seperate, “godDAMN, you Euros are ungrateful for us Yanks saving the world over and over again!” discussion.
In any event, your initial wording was “Number of conflicts started by the US:”… and I’d revise your count from 8 to 3 (or 2, depending on your interpretation of Noriega’s US-tweaking as justification for war). I mean. Come on. You’re not EVEN going to try to blame the US for starting the Balkan wars.
I don’t know about the Panama and Grenada invasions being popular. They may have been popular in the US, and maybe less unpopular in the respective countries than the Iraq invasion, but popular? I don’t think so. The Grenada invasion was unpopular even with those it proposed to save. The American students on the island refused to call for American military help even after Reagan asked them to, and their parents wrote hundreds of letters to Reagan begging him not to intervene militarily, because they felt it would actually put their children in more danger than actually existed. Even Margaret Thatcher wrote to Reagan, advising him that an invasion would be illegal and against his best interests.
Based on my definition you cannot revise it down.
[i]Number of times engaging in prolonged military combat against an adversary who has not attacked you or an ally first (since 1979):
USA 8 Iran 0[/i]
And three unjustified invasions in the last 25 years? Does any other country top that? Even Saddam managed only two.
The hell… invasion and annexation of Kuwait doesn’t count as “attacking an ally first”? How about blowing up airliners with your secret police (as in Libya)? Or hey, how about sheltering, funding, and encouraging the perpetrators of the worst attack ever conducted on US soil? (Afghanistan) I suspect you’re just going to revise your definition to fit, though. So:
[i]Number of times engaging in military action Tim Partlett disapproves of:
USA 9,380,329 Iran -2.7[/i]
Numbers are fun!
Kuwait wasn’t our “ally” until we decided Iraq couldn’t have it. It’s not like we had a defensive pact with them or something.