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

On Oct 11, 8:11 am, Salvador Astucia <cropduster...@xxxxxx> wrote:
Total hatred? [responding to accusation of "total
hatred of Jews"] Where did you read that?

Seriously? How about the fact that you continuously
point back to a website that is not academically
refereed <snip>

I assume you are referring to http://www.come-and-hear.com . I only
referred to it because you challenged my comments about the Kol Nidre
prayer, which encourages followers of your religion to break their
vows and lie. The stated website is the only one I know of (academic
or otherwise) that quotes extensively from the books of the Talmud,
and has a great deal of the Talmud on line. You may not agree with the
conclusions drawn from the website or from public discussion about the
Talmud, but the website has accurate reference material about the Kol
Nidre available in full context. So I don't understand how this is an
example of total hatred of anyone. It's just information.

It's a TREMENDOUS insult to any Jew reading this
forum to see you post that they are "in denial" for
accepting the message of the Kol Nidre prayer, or the
religious intentions of preparing themselves for the
Day of Atonement. <snip>

Kol Nidre has always been a controversial topic, and it was banned
from most Jewish services in the 19th Century, but for some reason, it
was brought back in 1946, just after the so-called Holocaust. Anyway,
I have no interest in debating the topic further with respect to how
people may be offended by it. In a word, I don't care about that. You
have been given a website that contains all the information you need
to know about the Kol Nidre in very specific terms, even quoting
directly from the Talmud. But you refuse to respond to specifics. So
there's really nothing to discuss on the topic.

And you MOCK Judaic beliefs with statements like "and all that crap." <snip>

Actually I was mocking Zionism. You claimed Zionism is completely
secular. I challenged that point because, again, your facts were
wrong. This is what I stated: "The basis for Zionism is the Old
Testament, God's chosen people, and all that crap."

To claim that a people are chosen by God, in my opinion, is pure crap.
It doesn't matter what religion or philosophy to which we're
referring, such a claim is nonsense. Apparently you subscribe to the
racist believe that Zionists in particular are superior to the rest of
humanity. Here's a newsflash - they're not. But keep in mind, I use
the word crap to describe lots of religions, not just Zionism (since
you now seem to think it's a religion, I'll humor you.) For example, I
think born again Christians are loaded with crap. And Christianity in
general is based on the teachings of St. Paul the Apostle. That guy
was full of crap. You see, I'm an equal opportunity crapper :-)

There are many other issues in your posts I can point to,
from your dismissal of those identifying themselves as
Christians because it doesn't match your interpretation
of the Scriptures,

That's crap :-) I have not *interpreted* the scriptures, I merely
quoted a few excerpts from the book of Matthew where he quoted from
Jesus's Sermon on the Mount. I did this because you incorrectly
claimed that Christian theology promotes "eye for eye." I challenged
that point because *any* Christian theologian (Catholic or Protestant)
will agree with me. In the quote from Matthew, Jesus rejected "eye for
eye," and said to replace it with "turn the other cheek." There is
nothing to interpret. If you want to argue that Matthew's quotation
was incorrect, that's a valid debate I suppose, but it's a different
topic completely. Speaking of topics, aren't we supposed to be talking
about Ahmadinejad?

to your classification of those who say it wasn't
murder but neglect as "revisionists."

I assume you are referring to comments I made about Holocaust Denial,
which is propaganda term about a type of scholar that simply does not
exist. I have never heard of a scholar who claims Jews were not
persecuted in Nazi Germany. I have never heard of a scholar who claims
Jews were not placed in camps by the Nazis, and many died there. I
have never heard of any scholar who denied that these events occurred.
Yet Western propagandists have invented the term "holocaust denier" to
portray scholars in an extremely negative light if they dare have open
discussions about the fate of Jews in Germany between 1938 and 1945.

but it is really one issue above all else which is
the big problem: your willingness to stand by the
cycle of violence as necessary.

You claimed that those who live by the sword die
by the sword and so everyone is just reaping what
they sow.

It's a popular expression. I can't take full credit for it :-)

You further inferred that non-combatants are, by
extension of the acts of their government --
legitimate or not -- are valid targets of Jihads,
improvised explosive devices [IEDs], and suicide
bombings. And, WORSE, you discarded my desire
to end such tactics as ridiculous because "It's too
bad you don't understand the word "forgive" or the
concept of "turn the other cheek."

I never mentioned "non-combatants." I never supported the murder of
innocents, not even in the so-called Holocaust. If you want to
criticize comments I made about such sensitive topics, it is best to
quote my exact words in full context, rather than giving your summary
of what you think I said/wrote. It's obvious that your brain isn't
wired right and you project your own weird views on everything you
read. This is how many people end up with ridiculous fabrications like
"Holocaust Deniers," when no such people exist in the academic
community.

Regarding my comments about forgiveness, you are generally correct.
People are incapable of forgiveness or turning the other cheek get
themselves into all kinds of trouble. That's Bush's biggest problem
with the War in Iraq, and he claims to be a Christian. After 9-11, had
he turned the other cheek and done nothing, the world would be much
better off today. He could have said something like this in a
televised speech: "No one has taken credit for the horrific acts of
September 11th, so it is impossible for us to respond militarily or
even diplomatically. But as a Christian, I think it is best--in times
like these--to rely on the ancient teachings of Jesus where he said to
replace 'eye for eye' with 'turn the other cheek' and 'forgive your
enemies.' Under the circumstances, we have no other choice."

I found your statement to be greatly insulting
-- not only to myself, but to the families of
EVERY person who lost their lives because of
an unwillingness by those who use these mechanisms
to accept non-combatant = not participating in the
cycle of violence. <snip>

If *you* were offended by my reiterations of the teachings of Jesus
(turn the other cheek, love your enemy), it's easy to understand the
similar outrage of the high priests of the ancient Sanhedrin when they
plotted to kill Jesus (according to the Gospels, not me). His
teachings make sense. We've lost more American soldiers on the battle
fields of Iraq and Afghanistan than we lost on 9-11. And what have we
accomplished from those battlefield deaths? Peace, security, better
standing in the world? I can't see that anything has been accomplished
other than helping the tombstone, funeral and cemetery industries.

And all of this because you prefer to throw up the
'Jewish conspiracy' defense of your leader, Mr.
Ahmadinejad, rather than deal with the legitimacy
of any criticism. <snip>

The criticism of Mr. Ahmadinejad was completely childish and
ridiculous. He has a PhD, so it is ridiculous to call him uneducated,
as many people are doing. And he never denied that Jews were
persecuted in Nazi Germany, so it is ridiculous to call him a
Holocaust Denier, because--again--the term itself is a Western
propaganda device.

FACT: Arab leaders were on the Axis side of the war.

So what? WWII was initially Germany versus England and France. How on
earth could you expect Arab nations to support England and France, the
biggest oppressors of Arab/Muslim countries. It's only natural that
Arab/Muslim nations would support *anyone* who opposed England and
France. This is a no-brainer. It is illogical to say Arabs and Muslims
are bad people because sixty or seventy years ago they supported a
leader that you despise purely because your mommy raised you to
despise him, but you have no first-hand knowledge of the man or the
war. Yet your heart is filled with hate. I blame your mother, not you.
Seriously, this could turn into a serious mental disorder if allowed
to fester.

Yasser Arafat spoke highly of the Palestinian leader who
spent quite some time in Berlin speaking to Adolf Hitler.

It seems believable, although I am unfamiliar the specific incident.
But because people like you wish to stifle open dialogue about such
topics, it's an unrealistic topic of discussion. Your objective, I'm
sure, is to play gotcha with anyone who would portray Mr. Hitler as
something other than the devil in human form, which essentially
destroys any possibility of an open debate. We're back full-circle to
the propaganda tool known as Holocaust Denial.

FACT: Mr. Ahmadinejad allowed those to speak
at his conference who viewed the facts of the
Holocaust in error.

So what? Why is the Holocaust above discussion by people with PhD's?
Are you afraid they may learn something they're not supposed to know?

It does not matter if HE himself holds those views.
As a political leader who encouraged these
individuals to come to Tehran and speak out their
opinions in a GOVERNMENT-SPONSORED forum,
he has placed himself and his government in direct
association with those opinions. <snip>

In other words, he's using his position of power to encourage free and
open public debates. I can see why you would be offended by that,
considering your opposition to the Bill of Rights.

FACT: Ahmadinejad enjoys taunting the west.

The Bush administration is picking on Iran, and Mr. Ahmadinejad is
defending his country and his people. What's wrong with that?

He smiled at all the media attention. Then, he muttered
a lot under his breath when the press grabbed hold over
a statement he may or may not have made knowing it
would happen (i.e. "Iran has no homosexuals").

Mr. Ahmadinejad's distain for the American news media is a plus, in my
opinion. The American news media is not right or left; it's a Zionist
criminal enterprise that is undermining every facet of American
society. If Mr. Ahmadinejad criticizes that bunch of thugs, he's okay
in my book. And for the record, the US/American medical community has
broad opinions about the causes of homosexuality, which are not
necessarily in conflict with Mr. Ahmadinejad's comments that
homosexuality is not a problem in his country the way it is in
America.

You cannot have it both ways.

Mr. Ahmadinejad's comments are completely consistent. He thinks
Western leaders are hypocrites, as do I. Mr. Ahmadinejad thinks
Western leaders encourage homosexuality as a means of destroying the
social fabrics of the countries they rule, a strategy that appears to
be working. Mr. Ahmadinejad wants nuclear capabilities, something
Western nations have, and generally refuse to control, but the West is
paranoid of other nations acting in a similar fashion. Talk about
wanting it both ways.

And Mr. Ahmadinejad - if he is as smart as you say
he is <snip> knows how any statement against the
west plays back home in Iran. <snip>

I only said he has a PhD, which means he is very educated, and I like
him better than Bush. If you want to interpret those statements as
high praise, that is your prerogative.

FACT: Iran wants to be a nuclear power in the region.

I'm not sure why you're re-stating that; however, he claims to want
nuclear power as a means for producing power plants. This is exactly
the same thing the Israelis said for years, but I forgot. They're
allowed to lie about their nuclear capabilities because they're chosen
by a greater power to rule over the other human animals.

You CANNOT deny that if Iran was truly interested in
nuclear power alone that it would have little problem in
inviting inspectors from other nations to guarantee that.

I respect that Mr. Ahmadinejad is standing up to Western bullies like
Bush, Cheney and their Eastern European allies who maintain residence
in Israel and pretend to have ancestrial linkage to Palestine, which
the biggest fraud of the 20th Century, even bigger than inventing a
death toll of six million without supporting data.

It refuses. It refuses because, no doubt, it fears a strong
nuclear presence by the United States or another power
in the region. THIS DOES NOT INCLUDE ISRAEL,
since Israel has -- supposedly -- had nuclear failsafes
since the late 1960s, and never before has nuclear power
been such a priority with any of its adjoining states.

I can see your position will never change. Israel good, Iran bad.

AND ONE MORE FACT: Mr. Ahmadinejad hasn't been
in power long enough to receive the same criticism as
Mr. Bush.

Since you bring up power, Mr. Ahmadinejad is merely a figurehead. He
has no real power in Iran. Ayatollah Ali Khamenei is Iran's supreme
ruler. Like Israel, the title of President is merely an honorary
title. This is common knowledge. Why do you suppose the American news
media give so much attention to Iran's figurehead, and so little to
its supreme ruler?

George W. Bush had the highest approval rating of any
sitting president in recent memory at the start of 2002.
He ordered troops into Iraq WITH THE CONSENT OF
CONGRESS and maintained a strong popularity in his
nation and in much of the west when Saddam was
captured. These are *facts*.

Previously, you indicated you did not care for Mr. Bush. Now you seem
to admire him quite a bit. Apparently you got your Kol Nidre wires
crossed :-)

Mr. Ahmadinejad has not been in power as long as
Mr. Bush, nor has he been forced into situations that
encourage grave political mistakes to hamper his
popularity, both at home and abroad.

Mr. Ahmadinejad will never be in such a position because he is a
figurehead, without any real power. Your comments should be directed
at Ayatollah Khamenei.

Give him seven years in power and at least one major
political challenge and THEN you will have a right
of comparison.

He could be president of Iran for seven years or seventeen years. As
long as he is not the supreme ruler, what he thinks doesn't count for
much.

YOUR refusal to deal with these facts -- or the political
realities in Iran and in the United States -- is proof of how
unwilling YOU actually are in dealing with the issues as
they actually are. <snip>

Excuse me, Mr. "Facts as they really are." You have devoted quite a
bit of text to criticizing the President of Iraq, Mahmoud Ahmadinejad,
which seems like a waste of time, given the selectively omitted fact
that Mr. Ahmadinejad has no real power.

THIS forum's for people who want to talk Beatles.
And -- I'm sure I'll be backed up by others here - the
Beatles themselves would look at this global situation
and say that it's all a bunch of ***.

John Lennon was critical of England's role in WWII, and he gave many
back-handed compliments to the Nazis. I think he was smart enough to
see that the so-called War on Terrorism is just another extention of
the Cold War. America and its Western Alliances are built around
having a common enemy. When one enemy dies, another must be created to
take the old one's place.

Salvador Astucia

http://www.jfkmontreal.com

.

Loading