Re: Ahmadinejad never denied the Holocaust, it was the media.

On Oct 6, 1:18 am, Salvador Astucia <cropduster...@xxxxxx> wrote:
To lots of people who promote anti-missile defense systems, human life
means little. To them, if we would lose a million or so people in a
retaliatory nuclear attack, that isn't necessarily a loss. MAD is as
dead as the Kennedys.

It's not that human life means little -- it's that the exercise
continues to be proven theoretical. The Americans' biggest fear of
nuclear strike once SDI bankrupted the Soviets was China; China's
overpopulation might convince its government to sacrifice troops for
land gain. Some generals and planners think that way -- but the
majority of those NOT working at the Pentagon still continue to
promote 'mutual survival' as originating in the same thought as MAD:
no sane person will trigger a nuclear strike. Which is why the United
States of America is so concerned about Iraq and North Korea: the
tight control of power by a few individuals makes N. Korea dangerous,
while a very vocal hardline faction within Iran (a faction that, based
on past history in the Middle East, may very well reach power) scares
America because its rhetoric includes the willingness to use
everything against the 'evil' West.

You are confusing religious doctrine with the practices of certain
individuals who subscribe to a particular religion. For example, the
opinions of the late Reverent Jerry Falwell had little to do with the
teachings of Jesus. He supported the Iraq war, he supported capital
punishment.

Christianity allows for retaliatory punishments (the "eye for an eye"
which originates in Sumerian legal code). And the conflict in Iraq WAS
presented to the American people as the next phase in retaliation
against a terrorist network that by its OWN voice had struck New York
City on religious doctrine.

As for capital punishment, there are plenty of crimes in the Christian
Bible for whom the penalty SHOULD be death; today's American society
considers itself more moderate because other punishments -- notably
incarceration -- replace those killings.

Where Falwell differs from the individuals giving Islam a bad name is
that Falwell's comments are aimed at the government proper, not the
encouraging of individuals to act OUTSIDE of the government. In other
words, the congregants of what is most often called the Christian
Right are a group that utilizes the mechanics of American government
and public policy machines to affect change; the Islamic extremists,
on the other hand, include the overthrow of existing governments and
policy machines as part of their dogma.

It is easy to confuse Islam with Islamic extremism *IF* you are not
willing to make any effort to listen to the news stories and public
information notices of the greater Islamic population.

Where the real problem lies -- at least, from my perspective -- is
that Muslims who do not subscribe to the doctines of the extremists
are included are subject to scrutiny because the world has not known
these tactics on an international scale. Yes, we were familiar with
the FLQ in Canada during the sixties, or the IRA in the seventies, but
at least those whack jobs kept their targets to a small number and
kept their membership identified; the terrorist networks like Bin
Laden's use merging with the general public as a prime tactic.

Jesus would never support because He encouraged forgiveness and love
and treating your neighbor as you want to be treated.

Jesus will also be the one to punish you for your sins by sending your
soul to Hell on Judgment Day.

Christianity's record is not clean not full of "forgiveness and love"
for their neighbours. The first Jihad was caused by the Pope's
allowance of slaughter and pillaging throughout the Crusades. The
Inquisition found Christians slaughtering Jews or forcing them to
renounce their beliefs. And in modern times, there's the Church's
position on the depictions of sexuality on film, not to mention
homosexuality. (Little known fact: the clergy has a representative on
the MPAA.)

hand, the Talmud contains the Kol Nidre prayer which encourages people
to break their vows and promises when dealing with gentiles.

That's a statement from ignorance. Kol Nidre does not encourage people
to break their vows with gentiles; Kol Nidre, which occurs only once a
year (at the start of the Day of Atonement), is supposed to suspend
all vows so that the individual can be free of all obligations except
the examination of their past behaviour, the apology to God for not
being as good as could be, and the promise to be better.

The first obligation for a Jew is to God. Always. Then the second is
to his or her community (which is logical, given that survival of the
community is dependent on their individual members). Those communal
obligations are, incidentally, enforced in the practice of the
religion -- a Jewish man, for example, is obligated to donate funds so
that religious scholarship can continue. "Gentiles" in this context is
a poor translation of obligations outside of the community, which are
suspended at Kol Nidre but --- as stated by many a Rabbi and
Rabbinical council (which overrules the Talmud) --- those obligations
MUST be dealt with person-to-person or person-to-community.

If I am a member of Congress, for example, then on the religious level
my vow to uphold the Constitution is suspended at Kol Nidre until Yom
Kippur. The vow does not disappear nor has to be re-stated the day
after because the obligation to uphold that vow must be dealt with
between me and those I made the vow to.

You seem to be saying that the first amendment right of free speech
does not or should not apply to the Holocaust because it is somehow
special. I strongly disagree with that sentiment. Americans have to a
right to express serious views on *any* topic, even the Holocaust.

Firstly, I am not saying comments on the Holocaust are exempt from
free speech.

Secondly, I am always fascinated at how many Americans actually
believe that the First Ammendment is all encompassing. It's not. For
one thing, the American Supreme Court has ruled it illegal to yell
"Fire!" in a crowded theatre. And the very definition of 'hate speech'
is in contrast with the First Amendment, since the layman's
explanation of the First Amendment is that you're free to say what you
want, when you want.

Where I believe that the Holocaust stands separate is that in today's
already historically-ingorant generation ANY denial of its existence
-- even if just theoretical -- begins the slippery slope towards the
possibility of the event re-occurring. Especially since in some parts
of this world, illiteracy or poor literacy matched with dominant
personalities has led to entire countries being duped into believing
that their government is right and everyone else is wrong.

America's not exempt from this either. Thanks to Hollywood, for
example, Americans think that Davy Crockett died defending the Alamo,
or that William Wallace was a poor Scots fighting for freedom.

I have noticed that such people are the first to accuse others of being
paranoid on certain complex political discussions, particularly if
such discussions deal with political assassinations and criminal
conspiracies.

Depends on the matter relating to the Holocaust that's being
discussed. The idea that Israel uses the Holocaust as a defense for
all its actions might have been a worthy examination of post-1948
global history IF Iran hadn't hosted a conference that allowed noted
Holocaust deniers an open pulpit to speak.

Personally, I'd agree that guilt over the Holocaust drove a lot of
middle eastern policies by the western countries up until the mid- to
late-sixties. It doesn't work that way now because the OPEC crisis
forced a completely different relationship with the oil producing
states like Syria and Saudi Arabia.

That is true. My question is why do we support a loser like Israel?

Israel has produced nobel peace prize winners. It's produced a
tremendous amount of scholarship in the field of archaeology. It's
been a great example for reforestation of desert climates. It exports
wine and oranges around the world. It's not a "loser" by any
definition.

Life would be so much easier for everyone if we would just cut ties
with Israel and befriend her enemies. Oil prices would drop quickly if
America would dump Israel.

Oil prices would drop even faster if we burned all the churches, put
Britney in a birkha and converted to Islam.

The Soviet Union had ties galore to the Arab nations who made it a
policy to destroy Israel. Was life so much easier for those living in
the USSR?

Israel is being used as an excuse by some nations in the middle east
to stand against western economic policies and the global market.
Period. If Israel weren't around, the price of oil would still be
where it is because the princes like their wealth and America is
unwilling to tap its own resources at the moment.

Palestine was alive and well on November 2, 1917, when the Balfour
Declaration was ratified by Britain.

The Balfour Declaration, which you detail below, identifies Palestine
as a geographical area -- not a nation with specific geographic
boundries and administrative government. The nopn-Israeli territory in
the forties used the term "Trans-Jordan" on its stamps, for example.

They stole a vast amount of land in the Six Day War in June 1967.

I was referencing the 1948 borders, which is land also identified in
the stolen property claim.

UN quickly ruled that the land was taken illegally and must be
returned, but Israel has refused to comply with the UN for forty
years, although they have been forced to return some of the stolen
land little by little through internal conflict, and because Arabs in
the surrounding countries have made their lives a living hell. That's
what happens when you steal other people's property. Pay-back is hell.

Don't cite the UN: it's a paper tiger with no real power since the
start of the Korean conflict in 1951. Few of the nations it passes
resolutions or decisions on actually accept its authority, and the
embargos it passes don't have any power either. (South Africa, for
example, was still getting oil for Saudi Arabia.)

Israel has been willing to return the territory on two conditions:
first, that the nation(s) it cedes the land to recognize its existence
and ceases all hostilities, and (b) that Jerusalem remain an open city
for all believers of the three major religions. The 1999 Camp David
meeting was all about that -- and it failed because of the
Palestinians, not the Israelis.

The Israelis have given back territory as a test for peace -- and it
doesn't work. Palestine signed the Oslo Accord and didn't hold up a
single promise (Israel did). Israel is not the only party to blame for
the 1967 borders still being in existence.

I do not include the Spanish Jews (the ones expelled by Queen Isabella
500 years ago) with the Khazars of Eastern Europe. Many of them
migrated to Mexico,

WTF? Most went to Morocco or to North Africa. The number that went to
Mexico is incredibly small.

Again, this is a complete fabrication. Old Testament doctrine is the
basis for the modern Jewish state.

It's also the basis of the United States and most European states.

Your response indicates that (a) you've never been to Israel, and (b)
you have little or no contact with modern American Jewry.

Zionism is not based on religion. It's based on history. No Jew was
allowed to be a nationalized citizen of a nation until Napolean in
1789. England followed suit soon after. But still the majority of Jews
were not allowed to mix with the national population; in Russia, they
were relegated to the territory we now call Poland, while in Germany
and Romania, they were moved into communities where they remained
second-class citizens. Zionism was the hope of some European Jews for
a place that they would not be treated as second class, but rather
first class.

The State of Israel was negotiated from Britain as an extension of
those wishes. HOWEVER, it is not a State run by religious doctrines.
If it were, then there would be no Israeli Supreme Court, no
kibbutzim, no Kinesset. It would also, if it was a religious state, be
refused by the most religious -- such as Lubavitch living in New York
City -- because Talmudic Judaism believes that the religious state
only arrives with the Messiah.

Instead, what you have today is a secular state which calls itself a
Jewish homeland because of (a) its strong Jewish population, and (b)
its open adherence to the desire to have a homeland where Jews are not
treated as second class citizens. THEY'RE MORE ADVANCED THAN THE US IN
THIS MANNER: America *still* talks about religion as divisive within
politics -- Kennedy being Catholic, Lieberman being the first Jew to
run for the Oval Office.

Religion only enters Israeli politics because of its electoral system.
This is something very difficult for Americans to understand, and not
just because most Americans understand the US system when few other
people do but not anyone else's.

Israeli politics do not allow for a majority government. It is a multi-
party system where governance is determined DEMOCRATICALLY through a
percentage representation election system. This means that Israelis
vote for the party, not the candidate, and seats in the Kinesset are
distributed based on the percentage of the total vote count rounded to
the nearest whole number. In other words, party X with 16% of the
votes gets 16% of the seats, with those getting the seats working
their way down the list -- leader first, deputy second, etc. -- until
all seats are taken.

In the US, two parties means you will always have one party or the
other with a majority of seats. In the UK, there are three major
parties, resulting in the possibility of a minority system arrising
only if the party with the most votes gets a number of seats that
equals less than 50% +1 of the total seats in Parliament. (Canada,
incidentally, is in this situation.) Minority governments are forced
to make deals with one party or another to ensure they pass certain
legislation.

Israel, though, has MANY parties -- and no party with a clear minority
ruling position. Parties in Israel have to form coalitions with other
parties based on seat count to reach a majority or minority position
that can effectually run the country. The reason I go through all this
is that -- on many occassions -- parties that wish a more religious
viewpoint to policy end up becoming part of the government because
they offer the required seat count; but when they DO become part of
the coalition they do not run the government... just become a voice
within it.

America has the Christian Right as its best example of a religious
adherence making its way into American policy. Some candidates and
seated Congressmen are members of this group. They don't, however,
determine policy unilaterally.

Israel must remain a "Jewish homeland" because (a) that is its
national identity (much as the US is "the land of the free"), and (b)
because no other nation claims to offer a parity to its Jewish
population against other populations.

That is another fabrication. I defy you to name one scholar who claims
that no Jews died in Nazi camps during World War II.

There was a teacher in Alberta, Canada who published articles on it
and taught it to his students. And this was not Zionist propaganda --
not unless you're calling the CBC a Zionist organization. If you are,
then this discussion has to end right now.

leader Samuel Untermyer organized a boycott against German goods which
began in 1933 when Hitler rose to power. Untermyer wanted Hitler
thrown out. That is not a conspiracy theory, it is fact, and it had a
lot to do with the fate of German Jews.

That's a very weak causal chain. Jews within Germany had no choice but
to buy German goods; Jews outside of Germany were not exclusive in
refusing German goods -- especially when the emphasis on national
goods helped local economies suffering from the Depression.

The real reason Jews were targeted by the Nazi government was that
Germans didn't believe they were defeated, but rather surrendered
without complete explanation from its leaders. (This is something I've
heard from a lot of people living in Germany then.) The targeting of
Jews, Gypsies, communists, homosexuals and other deviant creatures was
the Nazi way of blaming the surrender and its subsequent hardships on
an internal source that wasn't connected to the romantic image it
wanted to portray. An agricultural bounty easily harvested by strng
Aryans was the Nazi ideal because it was the opposite image of the
multiethnic, urban reality Germany had become -- much in the way that
Marx portrayed the communist ideal as being happy rural rather than
struggling dirty urban.

And Germany had suffered so long that they were willing to follow
anything that offered a glimmer of hope.

Just look at Israel's violent history. For example, look at the
bombing of the King David Hotel in the 40s by Jewish terrorists.
Menachem Begin led the terrorist group, Irgun, and he went on to
become Prime Minister. I would never trust a country with the bomb who
would elect a cold-blooded murderer like Begin. You asked for proof,
there it is. I can supply several more examples, but I'll be kind.

And yet, you come from a country that is proud of its violent
TERRORIST history. America's Declaration of Independence and
subsequent battles against the British had already taken lives long
before news reached the Parliament of HRH George III.

And you missed the point that Begin also dismissed Irgun as being
terrorist in nature, and vowed that was an avenue the country would
never follow again.

we need to treat each other with respect, even our blood
enemies, or we risk destroying everything.

And that's the biggest point you miss. The west respects Israel
because it understands Israel; eht west doesn't understand the Arab
world, especially when the public rhetoric IS anti-west. Al Jazeera,
the dominant news network in the region, regularly runs anti-Israel
and anti-west statements, and that's the prime souce for the US
especially when it comes to news from the middle east.

Iran has been through a great deal. They have endured mistreatment
from the United States, Israel, and our allies of the West.

By "our" then you're saying that you are Iranian by nationality, or
that your family is of Iranian descent.

Israel, as far as every history book I've ever read goes, has not
"mistreated" Iran. (If you're thinking trade embargoes, economic
sanctions are a favourite tool of all nations including Arab ones.)
The US, on the other hand, tried to use Iran to curb Iraq and then
armed Iraq when Iran changed positions. LOGICALLY, Iran should be
trying to encourage Israel to act against the US instead of the
reverse it's actually doing.

stop name calling merely because people like Mr. Ahmadinedjad do not
agree with our history books regarding the details the fate of German
Jews during World War II. The war was over a long time ago.

You clearly don't get it. Mr. Ahmadinedjad needs to position himself
against the Americans if he is to keep the support of the hardliners
within Iran. The Americans use his position on the Holocaust as a
second example of his difference from western ideals, thus making it
easier for Americans to understand (a) why Iran hates America -- and
they do, at least from the rhetoric of the zealots, (b) why Iran won't
listen to America when it says prove you're working towards nuclear
power and not nuclear weaponry, (c) why Iran is the biggest concern in
Iraq, since middle eastern countries do not respect national
boundaries -- ask Osama for proof -- and (d) why Iran tolerates the
preaching of anti-Christian and anti-Judaic thought. His comments on
homosexuals in Iran did the same thing. (For his part, Ahmadinedjad
gets back the praise of the hardliners, which makes it easier to pass
legislation.)

And the anti-Christian rhetoric by the way IS true. Jews may be the
principal target of the extremists, but Christians are #2 on their
list with a considerable margin over everyone else. A friend of mine
just came back from the region, and he said the worst part about his
visit was the anti-Christian sentiment he received in some countries
-- Iran not included because he didn't go there and wouldn't comment
on some place he's never been.

As for 'get over it'? The west CANNOT get over it, especially when its
own populations are able to criticise its governments over actions
taken and not taken. The US is STILL answering why it didn't respond
immediately to the situation in Rawanda. Canada's government is being
urged to put its trade partnership with China in jeopardy because the
population also wants the country to stand by its record as a
supporter for human rights [UN not withstanding, since the UN lists
Canada above China as a violator of human rights]. And Israel is
balancing trying to negotiate peace with a population while being
criticized over its inability to get back the bodies of the now
definitely dead soldiers captured by Hezbollah, as well as stop the
regular supply of rocket attacks against Israelis.

The greatest victory in western history is the Second World War.
Stopping the Holocaust is a service to humanity that goes *above*
national borders. For them, standing by their version of these events
-- the version that the East stands by as well -- is an important part
of their history.

We need to get past the bitterness before we nuke the entire planet.

Then end the Jihad, IEDs and the suicide bombings. Why does the west
fear the extremists? Because they don't preach peace and love, they
preach hatred and killing.

.

Relevant Pages

  • Re: Iranian president intends to visit Ground Zero
    ... on iran simply cos they dont like its government, ... Iran has been provoking the US for some time. ... iranians chanting death the americans? ... nut cases while "death to america" is the official rallying cry of the ...
    (misc.survivalism)
  • Re: Iranian president intends to visit Ground Zero
    ... on iran simply cos they dont like its government, ... Iran has been provoking the US for some time. ... iranians chanting death the americans? ...
    (misc.survivalism)
  • Re: Iranian president intends to visit Ground Zero
    ... on iran simply cos they dont like its government, ... iranians chanting death the americans? ... nut cases while "death to america" is the official rallying cry of the ... government of Iran. ...
    (misc.survivalism)
  • Re: Iranian president intends to visit Ground Zero
    ... on iran simply cos they dont like its government, ... Iran has been provoking the US for some time. ... iranians chanting death the americans? ...
    (misc.survivalism)
  • Re: Interesting question about Australian aviation
    ... Bret wishes his 'whiteness' were all that were necessary to ... None has any sort of accurate knowledge of history and none is ... Americans may be new on the block as it compares to many European ... countries, but we have the oldest functioning, continuous government ...
    (rec.audio.tubes)
Loading