The new forums will be named Coin Return (based on the most recent vote)! You can check on the status and timeline of the transition to the new forums here.
The Guiding Principles and New Rules document is now in effect.
Mahmoud Ahmadinejad and Holocaust denial
Qingu
Registered User regular
Registered User regular
In Mahmoud Ahmadinejad's speech at Columbia, he insisted that more research needs to be done, "in the name of freedom of speech," about whether or not the Holocaust happened.
Holocaust denial is popular in the Muslim world, likely because the Holocaust is often seen as a pretext for creating the state of Israel and Palestinian occupation. Muslims in general seem more eager to believe other conspiracy theories, such as that the moon landing is a fabrication and 9/11 was orchestrated by the U.S. government.
I think Ahmadinejad and other Muslims make a valid point (though for different reasons than they think): why is Holocaust denial a punishable offense in European countries? The fact that it is such an absolutely taboo subject seems to fuel the conspiracy theorists. It's amazing how much Jewish groups simply play into conspiracy theorists' hands. Instead of censoring Holocaust deniers like Ahmadinejad, they should be inviting him to Auschwitz, videotaping it, and putting it on the internet.
I'd also like to see more people engage radical Muslims using their skepticism about well-established facts as a pretext for questioning their religious ideas. I think it's hilarious that so many Muslims (and other religious people, for that matter) have so much skepticism about certain things but have no trouble whatsoever believing in creationism or that Muhammad rode up into the sky on a flying donkey.
Qingu on
0
Posts
There's a valid point to be made that the evidence speaks for itself when encountered by an open mind, but I think a lot of concern about Ahmedinjad-level PR is that guys like him simply wouldn't approach Auschwitz with open minds, and that it would just be a stunt used to further anti-Semitic propaganda.
Ahmadinejad wants someththing done in the name of freedom of speech? The world's gone mad.
Steam | Twitter
this isn't germany, people are allowed to deny the holocaust. only morons who want to believe it listen.
it is very worrying that he is in a position of power, but Iran hasn't invaded anyone recently. Recently being, as I understand it, more than a few decades.
The people most publically opposed to allowing him to speak (Jews, Republicans) certainly seem to be the ones who want us to go to war with Iran.
Can we invade Iran, though? I could maybe see fly-over bombings, but not a full scale invasion.
What?
If we haven't been able to invade and pacify a smaller neighbor whose population is concentrated along two rivers (i.e., terrain isn't a huge problem), then it's completely impossible for US armed forces to invade the heavily mountainous Iran.
didn't you hear? the surge worked, so now we can pull our troops out.
All we had to do to lower ethnic violence was allow millions to flee the country while ethnic cleansing took place.
Now that the cleansing is over, I mean our troops have re-established order, everything is on the right track.
I mean, the Isle Of Man Holocaust never happened, and there have been other Holocausts.
That's not to do with me agreeing with this guy or anything, he's wrong and silly, it's just something that always urks me.
The idea galvanization and distraction through the use of a foreign enemy is nothing new and has been posited by the left as being used profusely by the right recently with the fear of terrorists. Add in the quotes of it being a favorite tactic of the Nazis and you got yourself a ONOES FASCISM angle in there too.
As for this current speech and its reaction, I doubt it is representative of that sort of a thing moreso than many other things going on in the public's view of foreign policy, especially given how many people of divergent political views seem to be jumping on board. There are many legitimate reasons for Americans not to like Iran (and currently Ahmadinejad) on both ends of the political spectrum, going back to the beginning of the Islamic Revolution and the hostage crisis. Oppressive Islamic theocracies aren't very popular, and with just cause.
The distraction element is wearing thin, and too many people are pissed off at Bush and company to have conflict with Iran to be met without a fair degree of cynicism. And with a housing bubble kicking off a financial crisis and possible big recession, it's going to be rather hard to distract those who aren't already paranoid about the very real problems at home.
Wasn't "Holocaust" coined as a term to refer directly to Hitler's attempted extermination of the Jews et al?
...Other people (like the Russians) had pogroms instead.
I don't know, but if that's true you've probably just answeed my question.
Wikipedia seems to agree, for what it's worth.
Yes but even wiki says there was a black holocaust and an armenian holocaust etc.
I think The Holocaust has referred to World War 2 and the Jewish population because it's just caught on to do that and not because it actually started that way, and as you said it's a greek saying.
ETA: And Corlis get a natural 1 on his Posting Initiative roll...
I'll be fine, just give me a minute, a man's got a limit, I can't get a life if my heart's not in it.
Note too that the Wikipedia disambiguation page points out that the WWII Jewish holocaust was the eponymous Holocaust, and that the term has been used since for more recent genocides but always qualified with the particular group's name.
Yeah I guess that's true, although the other named Armenian, Ukranian, and Black (Maafa) Holocausts did occur before the Jewish one.
Would the Crusades be counted as a Holocaust aswell?
I don't think it quite matches the usual definition of genocide, but of course there's a tremendous gray area in between obviously asymmetrical warfare against a defenseless group of people versus viciously bloody all-out war.
I actually think we should leave "Holocaust" to the Jewish event and refer to others as genocides, but that's just me.
At first I felt sorry for him, but then I realized that he was in no way forced to show up.
Its good that people seem to realize how much of a joke he is. I'm glad that he's out in '09, maybe someone who isn't an idiot can take office.
Wow.
The complete quote reads: "holocaust (sacrifice), a burnt offering, from Greek holo-kauston "all burnt". The original sense, referring to a completely-burnt sacrifice" (Italics and bold added.) Which is meant to imply that Jews made a sacrifice. Or were a sacrifice. As though this act genocide would stand out above all others. I guess someone could argue against 'The Holocaust' simply because they could say the Jews didn't actually make a sacrifice, they just got in the way of an angry war machine. Like millions of other people.
As for any Arab being Anti-Semite:
So there's no real way an Arab complaining about Jews can be viewed as Anti-Semitic, unless you want to deal with the fact that its been reassociated to only refer to Jews, God's Chosen People.
Oh!
But seriously, if people use "anti-semitic" to mean "anti-Jewish" and everybody understands it as such, the quibbles about technicalities don't matter.
which is of course not to be confused with "da bomb" which refers to me
I suppose, yeah, maybe a Persian could be classified as Anti-Semitic. But only on language grounds, not genetic history.
You mean their Indo-European genetic history?
Is closerly a word?
And...
This man's head is on fucking fire.
Now, us Jews? We'll lie about anything. Hell, ask any one of us to see our horns and we'll act like we don't have any! We're such bastards. But how could they not trust the word of 1939-1945 Germans? I mean, really.
But doubtless he'll ignore all that "proof" and claim it was all fabricated to justify the creation of the state of Israel. And let him do it. So long as he keeps it inside his own country, I don't particularly care what he says. The man doesn't care about the truth, and why should he?
or Brawl. 4854.6102.3895 Name: NU..
Apparently the buraq (his magic steed) is related to the Babylonian lamassu and the sphinx.
And I like how Islamic art skirts the "you can't draw Muhammad!" rule by portraying his head as a giant fireball.