Ahmadinejad quite sensible - shock!

[zion]

N_igma,

Bollocks, women in Iran enjoy a lot more freedom than most Middle Eastern States and certainly a lot more than Saudi (American's ally) women.

You're right that women's rights are in a better state in Iran than in Saudi Arabia. But still: woo. So they are allowed to drive on their ownsome in Iran. That's so enlightened. That's analogous to saying that his attitude to Jews is fine because he hasn't set up gas chambers. I was comparing the state of women's rights in Iran with the state of women's rights in the US, and the answer there is very clear.

Ahmadinejad's anti-American anti-Israeli stance reminds me of a young Fidel Castro.

Ah, how sweet. He reminds you of another dictator who has now been ruthlessly repressing dissent for nearly fifty years! Bless.

Jonti,

Zion, one could argue that the state of Israel is evil in conception. One could argue that many of its actions are evil as well, particularly considering its behaviour towards the captive civilian populations in Gaza and the West Bank.

I was talking about the Holocaust, not the State of Israel, and I am comfortable applying the word "evil" both to the Holocaust and to the people who deny either that it happened or that it killed many millions of people. I am not using the word "evil" casually, like saying that someone who pushes in a queue is evil. I am using it to describe one of the most horrific events in human history. Anyone who can't bring themselves to use "evil" to describe this event suffers from a serious kind of blindness.

It makes no sense to make excuses for Ahmadinejad's Holocaust revisionism or for the treatment of women or political dissidents in Iran. None of you would make excuses for a Western politician who advocated such things, so why should he get a pass? Is it because he "stands up to the West"? Why does he get such favorable treatment when his views are so repellent?

 

[N_igma]

You're right that women's rights are in a better state in Iran than in Saudi Arabia. But still: woo. So they are allowed to drive on their ownsome in Iran. That's so enlightened. That's analogous to saying that his attitude to Jews is fine because he hasn't set up gas chambers. I was comparing the state of women's rights in Iran with the state of women's rights in the US, and the answer there is very clear.

Well it is fine as long as he doesn't set up gas chambers. There's approximately 40,000 Jews living in Iran at the moment. Why do they still live there if their life is under so much threat? Personally I think there's nothing wrong with Holocaust revisionism as long as you have some damn good facts and sources to back it up.

And don't try to suggest America is all good, it's one of the few countries in the world that still murders children convicts.

 

[Jonti]

...
I was talking about the Holocaust, not the State of Israel, and I am comfortable applying the word "evil" both to the Holocaust and to the people who deny either that it happened or that it killed many millions of people. I am not using the word "evil" casually, like saying that someone who pushes in a queue is evil. I am using it to describe one of the most horrific events in human history. Anyone who can't bring themselves to use "evil" to describe this event suffers from a serious kind of blindness.

What the fuck?

*You* were talking about Ahmadinejad, here. You were saying that he, personally, is evil.

 

[zion]

Hi Jonti,

To be more precise: the morality or immorality of the State of Israel's actions towards the Palestinians is not relevant to the morality or immorality of Ahmadinejad's professed Holocaust revisionism. I consider Holocaust revisionism evil irrespective of who says it, and irrespective of the actions of a State that hadn't even been founded when the Holocaust occurred.

N_igma,

[Ahmadinejad's attitude to Jews] is fine as long as he doesn't set up gas chambers.

Oh, I see. So you have no problem with Ahmadinejad's beliefs about Jews so long as he doesn't execute them? Would you have felt the same about the Nazi's treatment of Jews in the period before the launched their Final Solution? There is plenty wrong with Holocaust revisionism: the massive crimes of the Nazis have been proven tens of thousands of times over, by testimonies of survivors, by Nazi documents, by Soviet documents, by every possible source of proof you could desire. Someone who denies such a mountain of evidence is not an enquirer after truth, but a bigot seeking other bigots to commune with.

Let's review:

Ahmadinejad accuses the West of "inventing a myth that Jews were massacred". He "want to know whether this crime [the Holocaust] actually took place or not. [...] If it did not occur, then the Jews have to go back to where they came from". The UN Security Council and Kofi Annan have condemned his statements as those of a bigot.

don't try to suggest America is all good

At what point did I do that?

it's one of the few countries in the world that still murders children convicts.

Not saying that they weren't wrong to delay so long, but purely as a matter of accuracy, the Supreme Court abolished this on March 1, 2005: http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A62584-2005Mar1.html.

 

[N_igma]

Oh, I see. So you have no problem with Ahmadinejad's beliefs about Jews so long as he doesn't execute them? Would you have felt the same about the Nazi's treatment of Jews in the period before the launched their Final Solution?

Pretty much, I believe actions speak louder than words. There's no suggestion whatsoever that Iran will nuke Israel, no one stands to gain from it. It's like that old Cold War situation, each side on the brink but nothing will come of it even if Iran do devrelop nuclear weapons which is unclear in itself.

There is plenty wrong with Holocaust revisionism: the massive crimes of the Nazis have been proven tens of thousands of times over, by testimonies of survivors, by Nazi documents, by Soviet documents, by every possible source of proof you could desire. Someone who denies such a mountain of evidence is not an enquirer after truth, but a bigot seeking other bigots to commune with.

Wait a moment, I don't think any revisionist says that the Nazis didn't kill any Jews.

What's in contention is:

1)Was it a deliberate attempt to wipe out the Jewish race
2)The numbers who died

 

[zion]

N_igma,

I don't think that it could possibly have been clearer that it was a deliberate attempt to wipe out the Jewish race. Hitler himself made this plain on a number of occasions:

"If international finance-Jewry, inside and outside Europe, should once again succeed in plunging the nations into a world war, the result will not be the Bolshevization of the earth, and with that the victory of Jewry, but rather the annihilation of the Jewish race in Europe." (1939)

"Through this war Aryan man will not be exterminated, but the Jew extirpated." (1942)

Most repellent of all is Himmler's defence of the Final Solution as a species of courage - that he did not have the right not to order all the Jews, including women and children, to be killed:

""The Jews must be eradicated". This brief sentence is easily said. But for the man who must carry out what it calls for, it is the gravest and hardest thing in existence. I ask you assembled here pay attention to what I have to say, but not repeat it. The question came up: Well, what about the women and children? - I came to a determinedly simple conclusion about that, too. I did not believe that I had the right to wipe out the men - rather I should say, kill them or have them killed - and let their children grow up to avenge themselves on our sons and grandsons." (1943)

Don't you dare suggest to us, in the light of these statements, that there was not a "deliberate attempt to wipe out the Jewish race". You may forget these things or not know them; I do not. And also bear in mind (just for extra proof) that these translations of their speeches come from pro-Nazi websites.

As for the numbers that died, I have a simple question. If the conventional estimate is wrong, where are all the missing Jews? Did they flee to another planet? What's your explanation of why they were shipped to the camps and did not come out of them, and have not reappeared even after a gap of sixty years?

THIS is the kind of evidence that Ahmadinejad says is a "myth". I support the right of people to say, if they wish, that the Holocaust was exaggerated or unintentional, because I believe in free speech. However, the fact remains that it can only be said by someone wilfully ignorant of the evidence.

 

[zion]

There's no suggestion whatsoever that Iran will nuke Israel, no one stands to gain from it.

*Sigh* I am not discussing whether Iran will nuke Israel. I am talking about whether Ahmadinejad, personally, is a sensible guy, which - correct me if I am wrong - is the subject of this thread. Obviously, I don't know whether Iran will nuke Israel if it gets nukes in the future, and neither do you.

All that we have that relates to Ahmadinejad is that he has said that he would like to see Israel "wiped off the map", by which of course he could mean that his plan is to come to the border of Israel, politely and personally ask each Israeli to pack their bags, compensate them for any financial or psychological damage suffered, and allow them to leave peacefully without any threat of force on his part.

 

[Johnny Canuck3]

Personally I think there's nothing wrong with Holocaust revisionism as long as you have some damn good facts and sources to back it up. .

Yah; but you don't have them.

 

[ZAMB]

Not saying that they weren't wrong to delay so long, but purely as a matter of accuracy, the Supreme Court abolished this on March 1, 2005: http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A62584-2005Mar1.html.

They do however, still have children at Gitmo, one of whom recently committed suicide. The USA is in no position to pass judgement on any other regime regarding human rights.

When Ahmadinejad was interviewed about this, with his own translator, he didn't seem to me to be denying the holocaust.
His main contention was that it was a crime carried out by europeans on europeans, and, because it happened, the rest of the world was supposed to stand by while the Palestinians, who played no part in it, paid the blood price of other parties guilt.

My main problem with the holcaust is the way it is called the 'jewish holocaust' - although jews were less than half of the victims of the death camps. It's almost like the rest of the victims are unimportant in comparison. There is also the point which Robert Fisk has repeatedly made. The Armenian holocaust earlier in C20th attracted very little media attention, and it was Hitler's inspiration for his campaign of Genocide - as he said "Who now remembers the Armenians?"
http://groong.usc.edu/fisk.html
If we are going to express our horror at genocide, we should not pick and choose between victims - but should remember them all equally.

 

[zion]

I am well aware of the other groups killed during the Holocaust, and of the Armenian genocide as well, but neither of those were the topic of discussion. Would you like me to mention, as a precautionary measure, that I do not know of any hostility Ahmadinejad harbors towards the Armenians? Very well then: I know of no such hostility. Whew! I'm glad we cleared that one up.

 

[zion]

As for the Supreme Court decision I mentioned, you will see from the earlier discussion in the thread that N_igma thought incorrectly that the US still "murders children convicts" [sic]. I took this, I think correctly, to refer to the death penalty, and referred him to proof that he was wrong. I would have been wrong not to mention Guantanamo only if a "children convict" had been "murdered" there.

 

[ZAMB]

I am well aware of the other groups killed during the Holocaust, and of the Armenian genocide as well, but neither of those were the topic of discussion. Would you like me to mention, as a precautionary measure, that I do not know of any hostility Ahmadinejad harbors towards the Armenians? Very well then: I know of no such hostility. Whew! I'm glad we cleared that one up.

The topic had drifted onto holocaust denial, and I was pointing out that there was more than one sort of holocaust denial, and that a lot of people seem quite comfortable with it as it affected other groups of victims - while at the same time holding the jewish experience in great respect.

In this respect the 'jewish holocaust' is actually a myth - there was a WW2 holocaust - in which millions were killed, for many sorts of 'inferiority', and less than half of them were jewish.
That is closer to the real historical fact - if you are really interested in history and facts.

 

[zion]

I don't see what you have seen in this thread, ZAMB, to suppose that anyone in the discussion is either ignoring or approving of the deaths of gays, gypsies, the disabled or any other group the Nazis targeted. Even your phrase "the jewish holocaust" comes from you rather than any other poster, as far as I can see. Now can we get back to Ahmadinejad, and whether he's a sensible guy, or what?

 

[three word poem]

"The US has built its hegemony through war. One nation after another was robbed of its freedom-one state after another was shattered so that America might arise. "Democracy" is nothing but a mask covering subjugation and the oppression of nations and individuals. Nations can no longer freely choose whether to be allies of America: it is forced upon them through their long oppression. On the contrary, proud Muslims in their thousands are filling the American prisons. By these means America contrives to break the backbone of other nations, to remove their resistance, to wear them down, and make them prepared at last to submit to this American yoke of democracy.

In this process, a formidable weapon is that of lying, that is, of propaganda. A proverb says that if the American speaks of God he means the dollar. And so it is today. Considering how pious and religious are the outward gestures of men who deliberately, and with a cold heart, drive nation after nation into a struggle serving only their material interests, one is compelled to state that rarely has human hypocrisy reached such a pitch as that of the Americans today. At any rate, at the end of the blood-stained path of American history over four centuries stands the fact that 300,000,000 Americans think that they rule the rest of the globe.

It is important, people of the world, to shout this out again and again, for they are brazen democratic liars who assert that the so-called Axis of Evil is out to conquer the world, while in fact, the conquerors of the world are our old enemies. The American empire has left behind an icy stream of blood and tears in the path of its creation. It rules today, undoubtedly, a tremendous section of the globe. But this world government is affected not by the power of an idea, but essentially by force, and where force does not suffice, by the power of capitalist or economic interests.

And yet to speak today of America's World Power or of America as the hyperpower, is nothing but an illusion. To begin with its internal situation: America, in spite of her economic power, is perhaps socially the most backward State in the world. Socially backward - that is, a State orientated entirely in the interests of a comparatively small and thin upper stratum and the Jewish clique with which it is allied. The interests of the broad masses are of no weight in determining the orientation of this State. Here again propaganda phrases must serve. One speaks about freedom, one speaks about democracy, one speaks about the achievements of a capitalist system that means nothing but the stabilization of the regime of a section of society, which, thanks to its capital, is able to get hold of the Press, to organize and direct it, and to create public opinion. Thus, in a State commanding the riches of the world, having gigantic living space at its disposal, in a State so blessed by nature, millions are excluded from these benefits, and live in greater poverty than the population of any of the so-called "developing world". The country which is a paradise for a few, is nothing but continuous misery for many, that is, for the masses. Misery in nourishment, misery in clothing, misery particularly in housing; misery in security of income, and in the entire social legislation. And if all of a sudden they begin to say that "After this war, after victory in the war on terror, America will have to tackle social problems; we will have to care for the wide masses," I can only reply, "We have done this long ago." It is only interesting to us as a confirmation of our thesis that America in reality is socially the most backward country in the world. Thus, considered internally, this gigantic external wealth is really barren as far as the masses as distinct from the few are concerned.

The ruthlessness of America's Zionist plutocrats always breaks through, fostered by emigrants who present a picture of the Iranian situation which is naturally quite mad, but is believed because it seems agreeable and then, of course, it is propagated by Jewish hatred. This collection of capitalist interests on the one hand, Jewish instincts of hatred and the emigrants' lust for revenge, is beclouding the world, enveloping it in phrases, and inciting it against the Iranian people and against Islam, just as they did against Mossadegh. But my decision is firm: in no circumstances will we abandon our rights, for in doing so it would not be theories which are given up, but the lives of millions of the future.

That we shall prevail in devotion to this community and the rights of this community - that is our faith, one in which we are confident, and that Allah should not abandon us in this struggle of the coming years - let that be our prayer."

apart from all the anti-Jewish islamo-centric nonesense (religions that feud, long story) that's a top speech, and spot on.

 

[N_igma]

As for the numbers that died, I have a simple question. If the conventional estimate is wrong, where are all the missing Jews? Did they flee to another planet? What's your explanation of why they were shiafter a gap of sixty years?

Ok, give me a reliable source that proves 6 million Jews died in the holocaust?

I estimate that there are 15-18 millions Jews on this Earth right now, unless the Jews have reproduced at an unprecadented rate since 1945 I personally think the 6 million figure has been exagerrated.

 

[Johnny Canuck3]

Ok, give me a reliable source that proves 6 million Jews died in the holocaust?

I estimate that there are 15-18 millions Jews on this Earth right now, unless the Jews have reproduced at an unprecadented rate since 1945 I personally think the 6 million figure has been exagerrated.

I was talking with a jewish friend the other day. I told him that the revisionism and denial of the holocaust was in full swing on the internet, especially amongst younger people. He was dumbfounded.

I don't know why. Denial of the holocaust began while it was going on.

 

[Johnny Canuck3]

A counter-question: how did you come up with your estimate of 15-18 million jews?

 

[Johnny Canuck3]

Deniers consider one of their stronger arguments to be the population of Jews before and after the Holocaust. They claim that the 1940 World Almanac gives the world Jewish population as 15,319,359, while the 1949 World Almanac gives the world Jewish population as 15,713,638. In their view this makes it impossible that 6 million Jews died, even given an extremely high birth rate. They therefore claim that either the figures are wrong, or the Holocaust, meaning the deliberate extermination of millions of Jews, cannot have happened.

However, as is typically the case, the evidence given by Holocaust deniers does not stand up to closer scrutiny. In fact, the 1949 World Almanac gives the world Jewish population as 11,266,600. Moreover, it revises its estimate of the World Jewish population in 1939 upwards, to 16,643,120. Thus, according to the 1949 World Almanac the difference between the pre and post war populations is over 5.4 million.

In addition, rather than using more accurate census figures and other records, Holocaust deniers rely on a popular compendium whose methodology of assessment is unknown, and whose estimates have varied significantly. For example, the 1982 World Almanac gives the world Jewish population as 14,318,000, while the 1990 World Almanac gives the world Jewish population as 18,169,000, and the 1996 World Almanac gives the world Jewish population as 13,451,000. Either 3.7 million Jews appeared unnoticed between 1982 and 1990, and then 4.5 million Jews disappeared equally unnoticed between 1990 and 1996, or the World Almanac is not a particularly reliable source for accurate estimates of worldwide Jewish population.

Finally, Holocaust deniers can be very selective when citing sources; other sources give very different figures for the Jewish population before and after the war. For example, the 1932 American Jewish yearbook estimate the total number of Jews in the world at 15,192,218, of whom 9,418,248 resided in Europe. However, the 1947 yearbook states: "Estimates of the world Jewish population have been assembled by the American Jewish Joint Distribution Committee (except for the United States and Canada) and are probably the most authentic available at the present time. The figures reveal that the total Jewish population of the world has decreased by one-third from about 16,600,000 in 1939 to about 11,000,000 in 1946 as the result of the annihilation by the Nazis of more than five and a half million European Jews. In Europe only an estimated 3,642,000 remain of the total Jewish pre-war population of approximately 9,740,000."

This selectivity means that Holocaust deniers often ignore the documents produced by the Nazis themselves, who used figures of between 9 and 11 million for the Jewish population of Europe, as evidenced in the notes of the Wannsee Conference. In fact, the Nazis methodically recorded the ongoing reduction of the Jewish population, as in the Korherr Report, which gave the status of the Final Solution through December, 1942:

The total number of Jews in the world in 1937 is generally estimated at around 17 million, thereof more than 10 million in Europe... From 1937 to the beginning of 1943 the number of Jews, partially due to the excess mortality of the Jews in Central and Western Europe, partially due to the evacuations especially in the more strongly populated Eastern Territories which are here counted as off-going, should have diminished by an estimated 4 million. It must not be overlooked in this respect that of the deaths of Soviet Russian Jews in the occupied Eastern territories only a part was recorded, whereas deaths in the rest of European Russia and at the front are not included at all.... On the whole European Jewry should since 1933, i.e. in the first decade of National Socialist German power, have lost almost half of its population.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Holocaust_denial_examined#Six_Million_Figure

 

[Johnny Canuck3]

The Nazis themselves documented many of their crimes. For example, the Höfle Telegram sent by SS-Sturmbannführer Hermann Höfle on January 11, 1943 to SS-Obersturmbannführer Adolf Eichmann in Berlin listed 1,274,166 Jews killed in the four camps of Aktion Reinhard during 1942 alone, while the Korherr Report compiled by an SS statistician, gave a conservative total of 2,454,000 Jews deported to extermination camps or killed by the Einsatzgruppen. The complete status reports of the Einsatzgruppen death squads were found in the archives of the Gestapo when it was searched by the U.S. Army, and the accuracy attested to by the former Einsatzgruppen members who testified during war crime trials and at other times. These reports alone list an additional 1,500,000 or so murders during mass shootings, the vast majority of these victims were Jews. Further, surviving Nazi documentation spells out their plans to murder the Jews of Europe (see the Wannsee Conference), recorded the trains arriving at various death camps, and included photographs and films of many atrocities.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Holocaust_denial_examined#Six_Million_Figure

 

[zion]

apart from all the anti-Jewish islamo-centric nonesense (religions that feud, long story) that's a top speech, and spot on.

FFS. FFS!

I can't believe that anti-American feeling runs so high with some people that they're willing to endorse a speech adapted from Adolf fucking Hitler.

Do you not know? Do you not remember? Hitler nearly destroyed everything that made life worth living on Earth.

Why would you prefer to see merit in the thoughts of Hitler than think more carefully about the kind of people who voice radically anti-Semitic sentiments?

 

[ViolentPanda]

apart from all the anti-Jewish islamo-centric nonesense (religions that feud, long story) that's a top speech, and spot on.

FFS. FFS!

I can't believe that anti-American feeling runs so high with some people that they're willing to endorse a speech adapted from Adolf fucking Hitler.

Do you not know? Do you not remember? Hitler nearly destroyed everything that made life worth living on Earth.

Why would you prefer to see merit in the thoughts of Hitler than think more carefully about the kind of people who voice radically anti-Semitic sentiments?

While I agree with most of the sentiments you've expressed, the piece of hyperbole that I've highlighted isn't conducive to you being taken seriously.

 

[ZAMB]

I don't see what you have seen in this thread, ZAMB, to suppose that anyone in the discussion is either ignoring or approving of the deaths of gays, gypsies, the disabled or any other group the Nazis targeted. Even your phrase "the jewish holocaust" comes from you rather than any other poster, as far as I can see. Now can we get back to Ahmadinejad, and whether he's a sensible guy, or what?

There have been, however, many posts on the holocaust relating only to Jewish deaths, or of how Ahmadinejad's reported comments on the holocaust related to the Jews. What I have been attempting to do is, just once, to place the holocaust in its proper historical perspective - it was a tragedy for many groups of people - but unfortunately, it is too often used as an excuse for Zionist bad behavior worldwide in the present. It is also disrespectful to the memory of all the other victims who were killed in the holocaust and were not jewish.

I am a person with multiple severe disabilities - if I had lived in Germany in Hitler's time, I would have been sent to the gas chambers. Can you not see how ridiculous it would be for me to demand special treatment based on the fact that I belong to this category - on the basis that a dictator would have wanted to wipe me out if I had been born in a different country, at a different time???

Many of the most hardline zionists come from countries other than Europe, and were either not even born or lived nowhere near the holocaust - but too many people seem to accept that Iran could, or even should, be bombed by Israel, based largely on what their president is reported to have said about the holocaust - even though those translations have been shown many times to be erroneous, and that they are mendaciously used as propaganda by those who want to turn Iran into another Iraq disaster.

Whether you think Ahmadinejad is sensible or not, that is not sensible, or even moral. Regardless of what his opinions are about history, he is entitled to them and they aren't likely to harm anyone - or do you not believe in free speech?

 

[nino_savatte]

Hitler has been conscripted to serve the rhetorical causes of weasel politicians and those who lack the strength of intellect to think "outside the box". In short, Hitler has become the universal bogey man and comparing people to Hitler has become something of a hobby for some folk....it's dead lazy too.

Sad but true.

 

[nino_savatte]

I was talking with a jewish friend the other day. I told him that the revisionism and denial of the holocaust was in full swing on the internet, especially amongst younger people. He was dumbfounded.

I don't know why. Denial of the holocaust began while it was going on.

Did you have a specific site in mind, Canuck? You'll get plenty of denial and revisionism on St*rmfr*nt...or are you referring to certain posters here, which you are quite happy to demonise?

 

[nino_savatte]

The Nazis themselves documented many of their crimes. For example, the Höfle Telegram sent by SS-Sturmbannführer Hermann Höfle on January 11, 1943 to SS-Obersturmbannführer Adolf Eichmann in Berlin listed 1,274,166 Jews killed in the four camps of Aktion Reinhard during 1942 alone, while the Korherr Report compiled by an SS statistician, gave a conservative total of 2,454,000 Jews deported to extermination camps or killed by the Einsatzgruppen. The complete status reports of the Einsatzgruppen death squads were found in the archives of the Gestapo when it was searched by the U.S. Army, and the accuracy attested to by the former Einsatzgruppen members who testified during war crime trials and at other times. These reports alone list an additional 1,500,000 or so murders during mass shootings, the vast majority of these victims were Jews. Further, surviving Nazi documentation spells out their plans to murder the Jews of Europe (see the Wannsee Conference), recorded the trains arriving at various death camps, and included photographs and films of many atrocities.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Holocaust_denial_examined#Six_Million_Figure

Don't you know how to give your own thoughts to articles that you cut and paste?

Pathetic.

 

[ZAMB]

Hitler has been conscripted to serve the rhetorical causes of weasel politicians and those who lack the strength of intellect to think "outside the box". In short, Hitler has become the universal bogey man and comparing people to Hitler has become something of a hobby for some folk....it's dead lazy too.

Sad but true.

But it seems to be a growing phenomenon in the US. I read the article below, which repeats the same old US government propaganda, and had severe misgivings about US government officials - do they just choose people who toe the party line and are unable, or as Nino says, are too lazy, to think for themselves. With just a little bit of research, and maybe a reading of the NPT, he would discover that the party line has been debunked over and over.

As for his joke about the Iranian president's name, it's on the same level as Bush's fart pranks - is it a requirement of the US government that their representatives have the toilet 'humour' of a 10 year old?

Sen. Voinovich: Ahmadinejad 'Hitler-like'

A U.S. senator compared Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad to Hitler and made fun of his name Tuesday during a congressional hearing on the U.S. strategy to end Iran's suspected nuclear weapons program.

"Ahmadinejad - I call him Ahmad-in-a-head - I think he's a Hitler type of person," Ohio Republican Sen. George Voinovich said during a Senate Foreign Relations Committee hearing.

"He has made it clear that he wants to destroy Israel. He has made it clear he doesn't believe in the Holocaust. He's a, he's a - we all know what he is," the senator added.

Ahmadinejad, who took office in August 2005, has issued threats to Israel, compared its offensive in Lebanon this summer to the behavior of Nazi Germany and called the Holocaust, in which 6 million Jews died, a myth.
The United States accuses Iran of pursuing nuclear weapons, of supporting terrorism and of aiding the insurgency in Iraq. Iran says its nuclear program is to generate nuclear power.

http://www.newsmax.com/archives/ic/2006/9/19/135836.shtml

 

[nino_savatte]

But it seems to be a growing phenomenon in the US. I read the article below, which repeats the same old US government propaganda, and had severe misgivings about US government officials - do they just choose people who toe the party line and are unable, or as Nino says, are too lazy, to think for themselves. With just a little bit of research, and maybe a reading of the NPT, he would discover that the party line has been debunked over and over.

As for his joke about the Iranian president's name, it's on the same level as Bush's fart pranks - is it a requirement of the US government that their representatives have the toilet 'humour' of a 10 year old?


http://www.newsmax.com/archives/ic/2006/9/19/135836.shtml

Many US politicians seem to think that all they have to do is compare a leader they take issue with to Hitler. It's utterly shabby. They did exactly the same thing with Saddam; "he's another Hitler...look he gassed his own people, he invaded other countries (sic)". Many people bought into it too. In the run up to Suez, Eden did exactly the same thing (compared Nasser to Hitler) and look at what a mess that turned into.

 

[Kid_Eternity]

Interesting that no-one wants to argue very much with the content of the (middle of the) speech.

Either it's "he's a bad man" or it's "well, yes".

His speechwriter must be pleased

Maybe his briefings from Chavez are starting to resonate?

 

[zion]

ViolentPanda,

I think strong statements about the risk Hitler posed are not unreasonable. It's hard to imagine that a world in which the Axis had won the Second World War would be a world worth living in.

ZAMB,

I'm used to dealing with people and talking with people who are perfectly well aware that the Holocaust involved a variety of victims. You may feel like the default state is that people assume that only Jews were victims, and I understand you wanting to make sure that people know. I just figured that such a basic piece of knowledge would be widely known.

There's a separate thread on whether the Holocaust justifies the actions of the State of Israel which is being pretty vigorously debated. This thread is essentially about whether Ahmadinejad is a sensible guy. I'd like to keep the two discussions from blending, if that's OK. People who deny or underplay the significance of the Holocaust are bigots wilfully ignoring a mountain of historical evidence, and that's what I'm faulting Ahmadinejad for here. He would still be wrong on this if the State of Israel was never founded at all, and I don't think you're really engaging with that point.

Too many people seem to accept that Iran could, or even should, be bombed by Israel, based largely on what their president is reported to have said about the holocaust

I have never heard that argument made before. You must pay closer attention to radical elements in Israeli society than I do. But whether or not that would be sensible - and I don't believe it would be - you're still getting off the point of whether Ahmadinejad is sensible or not.

It seems like, when I post things that suggest he is not sensible, your response seems to be, "Well, X (who opposes Ahmadinejad) is not sensible, which must prove that Ahmadinejad is." That is not logically the case. There are plenty of senseless people on both sides of any debate you care to name.

However, I am interested in this notion that Ahmadinejad's comments have been mistranslated. What is your evidence for that?

Regardless of what his opinions are about history, he is entitled to them and they aren't likely to harm anyone - or do you not believe in free speech?

I refer you to my answer above, where I say that I support people's right to say whatever they like, and also my right to call them out when they say things that are patently untrue. "Free speech" does not mean that you have to respect the potential truth of what people say, just that you respect their right to express it. You can, in fact, both think and say that what they're saying is ridiculous and false. That, again, is basic. Now, I know that the British government, in its attempts to outlaw "religious discrimination", and the German government in its attempts to outlaw Holocaust denial, have gotten confused about this too, but the distinction seems clear to me. People are free to expose their imbecilic opinions to the light of day so that non-imbeciles can debunk them.

Nino,

I agree with you in general that the "appeal to Hitler" is a lazy rhetorical argument. Simply saying, "Oh, Ahmadinejad is another Hitler" would be very lazy indeed. However, I think that the appeal to Hitler gains in merit with the specificity of the accusation. Here, we are specifically discussing Ahmadinejad's anti-Semitism and Holocaust revisionism, and in that context I think it would be pretty hard for Hitler not to come up. The text that I presented of Hitler's speech is there to encourage people not to think dichotomously. It's not as if Hitler spent all his time lusting for mass executions: he spent a lot of time railing against the world domination of England. Ahmadinejad spends a lot of time railing against the world domination of America, and my point is that that doesn't make him good. He talks a good game about justice and peace. Bush talks a good game about freedom and democracy. Our responsibility as reasoning beings is to look below that surface and find out what we can about the man beneath.

ZAMB,

[Lazy appeals to Hitler] seem to be a growing phenomenon in the US.

Oh, here we go. If something is stupid, it must be peculiarly common in the US, right?

In fact, discourse about the Second World War in the US has typically, and unsurprisingly, focused more than the discourse in the UK on the war in the Pacific and the defeat of Japan. The administration is fond of comparing everyone it dislikes to Nazis and appeasers, and generally speaking I do find it sloppy. There are certainly connections between Islamic thought and fascist thought, and I have studied both, but it's too easy and convenient to make the attempt to identify the two.

As for Senator Voinovich, you can pluck out an imbecilic quote from anywhere: it just can't be used to prove a tendency of a whole nation. It would be like me using the Sun World Cup headline "Achtung Fritz, for you ze var is over!" to prove that English people hate the Germans. Yeah, his joke was pretty lame. And?

It's interesting to see from the article you quote that Ahmadinejad is also not above the "appeal to Hitler" either!

 

[nino_savatte]

I agree with you in general that the "appeal to Hitler" is a lazy rhetorical argument. Simply saying, "Oh, Ahmadinejad is another Hitler" would be very lazy indeed. However, I think that the appeal to Hitler gains in merit with the specificity of the accusation. Here, we are specifically discussing Ahmadinejad's anti-Semitism and Holocaust revisionism, and in that context I think it would be pretty hard for Hitler not to come up. The text that I presented of Hitler's speech is there to encourage people not to think dichotomously. It's not as if Hitler spent all his time lusting for mass executions: he spent a lot of time railing against the world domination of England. Ahmadinejad spends a lot of time railing against the world domination of America, and my point is that that doesn't make him good. He talks a good game about justice and peace. Bush talks a good game about freedom and democracy. Our responsibility as reasoning beings is to look below that surface and find out what we can about the man beneath.

There are plenty of folk in the world who are "holocaust deniers and anti-Semites" such as the Malaysian Prime Minister (whose name escapes me), is he another Hitler? I think labelling people as "another Hitler" is unhelpful.

Ahmadinejad is just another mouthy shite who enjoys a nice bit of rhetoric. Though I do worry his words are often taken out of context or deliberately mistranslated. I don't speak Farsi and don't know many people who do.