• Quick note - the problem with Youtube videos not embedding on the forum appears to have been fixed, thanks to ZiprHead. If you do still see problems let me know.

Iran leader: Holocaust a 'myth'

jj said:
Are they a form of woo, or are they a form of racist/somethingist?
Click to expand...

I had thought they were both. The conspiracy they suggest exists requires magical thinking to believe, modivates anti-semitism, and is derived from it.
 
jj said:
Are they a form of woo, or are they a form of racist/somethingist?
Click to expand...

Theoretically, I think you can be a Holocaust denier without being a bigot. (Though I have yet to run across such a person.)

But I doubt you can be a Holocaust denier without being a woo.

In reality, it's usually a little of Column A and a little of Column B.
 
Skeptic said:
Which, curiously enough, is exactly the position of the liberal European intelligentia about israel.

Without going into details into why this view is, shall we say, not exactly accurate, doesn't the fact that European elite public opinion about israel agrees with that of the president of the world's largest Islamic theocracy, who had openly and repeatedly called for israel's destruction, tell us something about what elite European public opinion's worth?
Click to expand...
Nop, it does tell us you're fond of guilt by association arguments though.
 
a_unique_person said:
The two translations contradict each other. If he is guilty of saying it, so be it, but which translation is correct?
Click to expand...


No they don't.

From the one you claim says Israel is the myth:

"Touring southeast Iran, Ahmadinejad said that if Europeans insist the Holocaust did happen, then it was they who were responsible and they should pay the price."
 
jj said:
Well, they are, in self-defense. In response to a threat, in self defense, but yes, it is a threat of violence.

After all, if somebody comes after you with a loaded B29, you're not being peaceful by launching a half-dozen sidewinders (or whatever) at them. You are, on the other hand, engaging in self-defense. Sometimes self-defense has to be violent.
Click to expand...

However it's important to note that a "threat" of violence in self-defense is very different from a "threat" that indicates an impending danger. That is to say, if you have a threat of violence in self-defense in response to statements and actions that indicate a threat that's an impending danger, it's the second one you need to worry about, not the first.
 
demon said:
As usual, Israel`s direct threats of violence don`t get any media condemnation.
Click to expand...

Yes, israel's direct threats against those who openly and repeatedly declared they will wipe it off the map with nuclear weapons don't get any media condemnation. Isn't that just awful?

I can't imagine what the cause of that could be--must be the jewi--, er, I mean zionis--, er, I mean "neo-con" control of the media (wink wink, nudge nudge). Or something.

Obviously, demon, you consider israel a very dangerous country... in the same sense as, as the old French song puts it,

Cet animal est tres mechant,
Quand on l'attaque il se defend.

Which J. Bronowski wittingly translated as:

This animal is very wicked,
it bites the foot that tries to kick it.

My only fear here is that is just words, and there would be no deeds, violent or otherwise, which would stop Iran from getting nukes.
 
ImaginalDisc said:
I had thought they were both. The conspiracy they suggest exists requires magical thinking to believe, modivates anti-semitism, and is derived from it.
Click to expand...


I've met a bunch of them, netwise. A few of them seem frighteningly sincere, most of them seem, well, how to put this? Hmm..... Disingenious, perhaps, but it's very nearly not a strong enough word.
 
Mycroft said:
However it's important to note that a "threat" of violence in self-defense is very different from a "threat" that indicates an impending danger. That is to say, if you have a threat of violence in self-defense in response to statements and actions that indicate a threat that's an impending danger, it's the second one you need to worry about, not the first.
Click to expand...

Well, the point I'm making is that one can not idealize "peaceful", or entirely stigmatize "violent".

The world is not a nice place, sometimes violence in the name of self-defense is unavoidable.

I personally would worry about both of your examples, but in quite different fashions. One would concern me in terms of safety, the other in terms of the intent of the "impending danger" and how to disarm that.
 
Skeptic said:
Which, curiously enough, is exactly the position of the liberal European intelligentia about israel.

Without going into details into why this view is, shall we say, not exactly accurate, doesn't the fact that European elite public opinion about israel agrees with that of the president of the world's largest Islamic theocracy, who had openly and repeatedly called for israel's destruction, tell us something about what elite European public opinion's worth?

(Of course, the selfsame european elites would be shocked and embarrased if they agreed substantially about some important issue with a really bad person, such as G. W. Bush...)
Click to expand...
I didn't agree with his opinion either way. Personally, I suspect he was just pandering to a certain crowd. Either that, or he's plain cuckoo.
 
a_unique_person said:
I have no problem with him being found guilty of what the evidence convicts him of. The evidence for this particular claim appears to suffer from conflicting translations. I am sure that a few more days will remove the ambiguity.
Click to expand...

Here you go.

TEHRAN, Iran Dec 14, 2005

Iran's hard-line president lashed out with a new outburst at Israel on Wednesday, calling the Nazi Holocaust a "myth" used as a pretext for carving out a Jewish state in the heart of the Muslim world.

Last week, he expressed doubt about Nazi Germany's slaughter of 6 million European Jews during World War II, raising a new storm of criticism. On Wednesday, he went a step further and said for the first time that he didn't believe the Holocaust happened.

"Today, they have created a myth in the name of Holocaust and consider it to be above God, religion and the prophets," Ahmadinejad told thousands of people in Zahedan.
Click to expand...
 
Demonizing the enemy's usually done before a war, but it could just be sabre rattling, or even just plain rascism.
 
From Zenith-Nadir:

"Today, they have created a myth in the name of Holocaust, and consider it to be above God, religion and the prophets," Ahmadinejad told thousands of people in Zahedan.
Click to expand...

Ok, if this is the actual translation (and I've love to see it in the original arabic and let kitten or garrette have a go at it) then I can see where AUP is coming from.

'Created a myth' is what "they" (presumably the Euro-Israel axis) have done. The question is if the myth is the Holocaust, or that the State of Isreal is a mythical entity brought about 'in the name of Holocaust." Either way it's hardly diplomatic.

Having spent several years in the Mideast, AUP, and having read more than a few letters translated from Arabic to English, IMHO ZN is correct, he was considering the Holocaust a Myth. But translations are always tricky.

Still, the guy is either a puppet for his Mad Mullah masters, or several ingrediants shy of a Shwarma. On that I belive we have unaminity.
 
Hutch said:
Still, the guy is either a puppet for his Mad Mullah masters, or several ingrediants shy of a Shwarma. On that I belive we have unaminity.
Click to expand...


You know, if you said "or both", we'd all be on the same side of this one, I think. That might be a new record. :)

Btw, what's a shwarma?
 
Hutch said:
From Zenith-Nadir:

Ok, if this is the actual translation (and I've love to see it in the original arabic and let kitten or garrette have a go at it) then I can see where AUP is coming from.
Click to expand...

That would be difficult, as the original was in Farsi, not Arabic. ;)


(Iranians are, for the most part, not Arabs and do not speak Arabic natively.)
 
Hutch said:
Ok, if this is the actual translation (and I've love to see it in the original arabic and let kitten or garrette have a go at it) then I can see where AUP is coming from.
Click to expand...
Just a minor point: Iranians speak Farsi, not Arabic. Well, okay, most of them speak Arabic as well as a result of Koran study, but they won't use it if they can avoid it.
 
jj said:
Btw, what's a shwarma?
Click to expand...

Shwarma is a very yummy Arab sandwich-type thing. It's served in pita like falafel, but it's actually meat; usually lamb, chicken, or beef, seasoned and cooked.

If you have a middle eastern restaurant nearby that serves it, try some. Like I said--very yummy.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top Bottom