OT: Iran Announces Conference on Holocaust

[Dutch]

Iran Announces Conference on Holocaust
http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20060115/ap_on_re_mi_ea/iran_holocaust
By NASSER KARIMI, Associated Press Writer
1 hour, 33 minutes ago

TEHRAN, Iran - Iran, whose president has denied the Holocaust, said Sunday it would hold a conference to examine the scientific evidence concerning Nazi Germany's extermination of 6 million Jews.

Hard-line Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad has recently provoked global condemnation for saying the Holocaust is a "myth" and calling for Israel to be wiped from the face of the earth. Iran further alarmed Western countries last week by restarting its research at a nuclear facility after a two-year freeze.

"It is a strange world. It is possible to discuss everything except the Holocaust," Foreign Ministry spokesman Hamid Reza Asefi told reporters. "The Foreign Ministry plans to hold a conference on the scientific aspect of the issue to discuss and review its repercussions."

Asefi did not say where or when the conference would be held or who would attend.

Earlier this month, the Association of Muslim Journalists, a hard-line group, proposed holding a similar conference.

But Asefi said he was not aware of the association's wishes. He said the conference he announced was planned and supported by the ministry.

On Saturday, Ahmadinejad urged the West to be open-minded enough to allow a free international debate on the real aspects of the Holocaust.

Rep. Tom Lantos (news, bio, voting record), D-Calif., has said he understood Iran was considering a conference to call into question the evidence that the Nazis conducted a mass murder of European Jews during World War Two.

More antics from the ex-hostage taker and alledged murderer turned president, Mahmoud Ahmadinejad. Now his boys are planning to try and prove the Holocaust didn't exist.

1. I would love to see Germany, Poland, and Russia send delegates to this conference stock-piled with the "scientific proof" this dude wants.

2. Even if they did show up with all the "proof", their is no way this guy says, "I'm sorry, I did not know that."

3. What the hell does Rep. Tom Lantos, D-Calif have to do with this article? That last comment really seems out of place.

[clintl]

Tom Lantos is a Holocaust survivor (the only one serving in Congress, according to Wikipedia). Mentioning him is obviously in no way out of place. What was missing is the context that makes him a uniquely qualified person to comment on the issue.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tom_Lantos

[st.cronin]

If you were an historian with Holocaust expertise, would you go? I don't think I would.

[NoMyths]

It will be on the same level of reasoned inquiry as the Kansas Evolution and Education hearings, which were boycotted by most scientists. Topeka didn't have nuclear weapons and a hatred for the Jews, however.

[Flasch186]

1. I would love to see Germany, Poland, and Russia send delegates to this conference stock-piled with the "scientific proof" this dude wants.



that would be awesome.

it would be awesom-er if the head of Iran did do what you said, and said, "Wow, I didnt know all of that. sorry."

[MIJB#19]

A conference? That guy should visit Auswicz before saying stupid things.

[Tasan]

I've been to Dachau twice. If you ever step foot in one of these places, you can never question it happened. You can hear them all, I swear it. Every one of them.

[Easy Mac]

that would be awesome.

it would be awesom-er if the head of Iran did do what you said, and said, "Wow, I didnt know all of that. sorry."It be funnier if they are all sitting around a poker table, and he calld "Bullshit". I could see that be a family guy skit. He calls bullshit, and they all start giggling and saying aww you got me.

[MrBigglesworth]

Holocaust deniers don't question that there were concentration camps and that the Nazi's killed people (certain fringe people notwithstanding). They question whether it was a sytematic effort to wipe out the jews and question the total of 6 million lives lost. They contend that what is called the 'Holocaust' was just a very bad thing in a war that encompassed many, many bad things. For instance, 20 million Russian citizens lost their lives during the war. So by pointing out the camps exist and pointing to people who survived, you are not invalidating their claims. It's more complex than that.

[GrantDawg]

It's more complex than that.
It always is.

[cartman]

I've been to Dachau twice. If you ever step foot in one of these places, you can never question it happened. You can hear them all, I swear it. Every one of them.

I second this. To me, it was the deafening silence that was more eerie. When I went to visit Dachau, it was in the spring. It felt like it was 10 degrees colder once you entered the place. It was surreal, almost absolute silence. There were no sounds of nature. No birds making any sounds, no bugs making any sounds.

[Flasch186]

Statements made by the leaders of the Nazi's and their Cronies, plus the fact that a religious or ethnic group was singled out, labeled, and exterminated, while not intending to diminish the value of other lives lost, including those of their own "groupings", does amount to a "holocaust", or ethnic cleansing. No explanation needed other than that. Scientific evidence exists, video and photographic evidnece exists, first hand accounts still exist...done.

[Dutch]

Tom Lantos is a Holocaust survivor (the only one serving in Congress, according to Wikipedia). Mentioning him is obviously in no way out of place. What was missing is the context that makes him a uniquely qualified person to comment on the issue.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tom_Lantos

And now I see.

[Donnie Baker]

It's more complex than that.

I guess if a view fueled entirely by hatred is more complex...

[st.cronin]

Yeah, it's not MORE complex, it's less complex. There was no genocide, ok it wasn't that many jews, and they probably asked for it, and what's wrong with killing jews anyway.

It's got nothing to do with reason, science, history, or evidence.

[sterlingice]

that would be awesome.

it would be awesom-er if the head of Iran did do what you said, and said, "Wow, I didnt know all of that. sorry."Awesome :D

SI

[MrBigglesworth]

Yeah, it's not MORE complex, it's less complex. There was no genocide, ok it wasn't that many jews, and they probably asked for it, and what's wrong with killing jews anyway.

It's got nothing to do with reason, science, history, or evidence.
I wouldn't call that the attitude of, for example, Mel Gibson.

[Galaril]

So, one thing is for sure with this wacko as president of a soon to be nuclear weaponed armed country controlled by radical-islamic clerics:
We are going to have to deal with these Fuckers sooner or later.

[JonInMiddleGA]

We are going to have to deal with these Fuckers sooner or later.

And better sooner than later.

[MrBigglesworth]

So, one thing is for sure with this wacko as president of a soon to be nuclear weaponed armed country controlled by radical-islamic clerics:
We are going to have to deal with these Fuckers sooner or later.
What do you mean, 'deal with'?

[GrantDawg]

What do you mean, 'deal with'?

What do you think he meant? What do you think the sabre rattling coming from the White House meant? The only way we are pulling out of Iraq is pulling into Iran, which was the plan from day 1.

[Jesse_Ewiak]

Stolen from another site...

Winter/Spring - The clone army of foreign policy "experts" from conservative foreign policy outfits nobody ever heard of before suddenly appear on all the cable news programs all the time, frowning furiously and expressing concerns about the "grave threat" that Iran poses. Never before heard of Iranian exile group members start appearing regularly, talking about their role in the nuclear program and talking up Iran's human rights violations.

Spring/Summer - "Liberal hawks" point out that all serious people understand the serious threat posed by serious Iran, and while they acknowledge grudgingly that the Bush administration has fucked up everything it touches, they stress, and I mean stress, that we really must support the Bush administration's serious efforts to deal with the serious problem and that criticisms of such serious approaches to a serious problem are highly irresponsible and come only from irrational very unserious Bush haters who would rather live in Iran than the U.S.

Late Summer - Rumsfeld denies having an Iran war plan "on his desk." He refuses to answer if he has one "in his file cabinet." Andy Card explains that you don't roll out new product until after labor day.

Early Fall - Bush suddenly demands Congress give him the authority to attack Iran to ensure they "disarm." Some Democrats have the temerity to ask "with what army?" Marshall Wittman and Peter Beinart explain that courageous Democrats will have the courageous courage to be serious and to confront the "grave threat" with seriousness and vote to send other peoples' kids off to war, otherwise they'll be seen as highly unserious on national security. Neither enlists.

Late October - Despite the fact that all but 30 Democrats vote for the resolution, Republicans run a national ad campaign telling voters that Democrats are objectively pro-Ahmadinejad. Glenn Reynolds muses, sadly, that Democrats aren't just anti-war, but "on the other side." Nick Kristof writes that liberals must support the war due to Ahmadinejad's opposition to gay rights in Iran.

Election Day - Democrats lose 5 seats in the Senate, 30 in the House. Marshall Wittman blames it on the "pro-Iranian caucus."

The Day After Election Day - Miraculously we never hear another word about the grave Iranian threat. Peter Beinart writes a book about how serious Democrats must support the liberation of Venezuela and Bolivia.

[JonInMiddleGA]

The only way we are pulling out of Iraq is pulling into Iran, which was the plan from day 1.

If you're gonna quote me, a little credit would be nice ;)

(Yes, I'm kidding ... but it is pretty much what I've said for ages now, just not the same phrasing)

[JPhillips]

The only way Iraq can ever be described as a cakewalk is if we compare it to a military takeover of Iran.

[ISiddiqui]

The only way Iraq can ever be described as a cakewalk is if we compare it to a military takeover of Iran.Yeah, that would NOT end well. Iran is massive compared to Iraq and has mountains. We'd be in BIG trouble if we decided to take on Iran right now.

[Dutch]

Yeah, that would NOT end well. Iran is massive compared to Iraq and has mountains. We'd be in BIG trouble if we decided to take on Iran right now.

Yeah, he pretty much has the world by the nutsack right now. That's why he's enjoying his press time.

[Desnudo]

Yeah, that would NOT end well. Iran is massive compared to Iraq and has mountains. We'd be in BIG trouble if we decided to take on Iran right now.

What we need to do is send in Chuck Norris, Texas Ranger.

[Neon_Chaos]

What we need to do is send in Chuck Norris, Texas Ranger.
And Iran can't compete with someone who has counted up to infinity.

























twice.

[Galaril]

Though I was not in favor of the war in Iraq and often preach measured responses. It seems pretty obvious to any rational minded person that if a country is going to such great measures to prove the Holocaust was false and in the same breathe discusses wiping them off the map it seems as though they will need to dealt with. And what do I mean by "dealt with". I also, don't think it would not be prudent to invade Iran but we should work harder to isolate them internationally.We should start to both economically and diplomatically pressure them and get what allies we have left, after Bush like Europe to do the same. I know this will not cause a change of heart. But, it should get them to act out militarily in a haste or foolish way like carpet bomb jerusalem. And when they do that it will give us all the opportunity to turn Tehran into a park lot. Oh, and no I am not of jewish decendent.

[biological warrior]

Let the Israeli's deal with them, with our help. And if the arab nations decide to attack Israel again they have proven that they can and will destroy any arab armies that are bent on their annihilation......

[Solecismic]

I would rather we not leave Jerusalem out there as a proverbial canary in a coal mine.

Remember, if they do succeed in driving Israel into the sea, New York City becomes their primary target. Don't think for a second that they won't try it.

[MrBigglesworth]

Though I was not in favor of the war in Iraq and often preach measured responses. It seems pretty obvious to any rational minded person that if a country is going to such great measures to prove the Holocaust was false and in the same breathe discusses wiping them off the map it seems as though they will need to dealt with. And what do I mean by "dealt with". I also, don't think it would not be prudent to invade Iran but we should work harder to isolate them internationally.We should start to both economically and diplomatically pressure them and get what allies we have left, after Bush like Europe to do the same. I know this will not cause a change of heart. But, it should get them to act out militarily in a haste or foolish way like carpet bomb jerusalem. And when they do that it will give us all the opportunity to turn Tehran into a park lot. Oh, and no I am not of jewish decendent.
So your plan is to screw them over so bad that they 'carpet bomb jerusalem', giving us the moral authority to launch a multi-nuclear weapon attack?

[MIJB#19]

I thought about this a little bit more and I honestly can believe that a person can be a leader of a country that use one thousand years old book as it's center of law, while he can questions thousands of books and tapes on the planned extermination of the Jews. Given how some groups in that area basically want that, the extermination of the Jews, it sounds pretty weird that they even try to deny it.

On the other hand, how reliable are the sources to state that the Iranian president Mahmoud Ahmadinejad actually feels that way? For what I've seen the past years, the press in the USA is not propaganda free. For example, I lost all confidence in CNN being objective and reliable. Heck, I realize the same thing is going on in my country too...

[Wolfpack]

Well, even if it's propaganda, it's still generally in line with his other expressed views (see first post news article related to holocaust mythology and that Isreal should be "wiped from the map"). At any rate, it's become relatively clear that he's achieved double-think on the matter. He believes both that the Holocaust may not have happened, but that he thinks the Israeli state should exist in Europe because Europeans were responsible for the Holocaust.

I'm not counting on him being a misunderstood individual, though.

[Crapshoot]

I would rather we not leave Jerusalem out there as a proverbial canary in a coal mine.

Remember, if they do succeed in driving Israel into the sea, New York City becomes their primary target. Don't think for a second that they won't try it.

This would be the nuclear armed Israel, right ? America's interest may closely align with Israel, but they do not have to act as Israel's proxies - the latter is quite capable and prone to aggression on its own.

[Anthony]

i've said it before and i'll say it again, but he's right in the sense that the Jews should have been granted land from Europe, Germany in particular. that makes a lot of sense. all the other hogwash about the Holocaust not happening isn't worth commenting on.

[Solecismic]

This would be the nuclear armed Israel, right ? America's interest may closely align with Israel, but they do not have to act as Israel's proxies - the latter is quite capable and prone to aggression on its own.

Uh huh. And what would you do differently as president of Israel to act, um, less aggressively?

[Solecismic]

i've said it before and i'll say it again, but he's right in the sense that the Jews should have been granted land from Europe, Germany in particular. that makes a lot of sense. all the other hogwash about the Holocaust not happening isn't worth commenting on.

I'm in the minority that doesn't give a damn about historic land claims. It's just dirt and a few rocks, after all. Life itself is far more important.

I even had the nerve to mention this to a Jewish friend or two way back before I started studying the history of the region. Bad move.

I think, in hindsight, you're absolutely right. However, it was never presented as an option at the time, and the Jews chose to continue the Mandate - which they had been steadily repopulating for about 50-60 years prior to the end of WWII - rather than start over in the other areas they were offered.

Maybe they should have chosen differently. I don't know. I don't blame them for the choice they made. I would blame those who limited the choices, essentially forcing the expansion of the Mandate. My guess is that European counties were worried about a repeat of Hitler's genocide at the time, and just wanted the problem gone.

[Crapshoot]

Uh huh. And what would you do differently as president of Israel to act, um, less aggressively?

As President, I probably couldn't do much, given its primarily a ceremonial role. :D

My point is simple - a nuclear Israel, from an Iranian perspective (and from a Arab perspective) is a significant threat - nukes give Iran a deterrent against what it and much of the Arab world see as the US' increasing ambitions in the area. Nuclear weapons are not meant to be used- they are deterrents. Ajasfani may talk a good game, but Khomeni is not going to allow Iran's destruction.

[Wolfpack]

Ajasfani may talk a good game, but Khomeni is not going to allow Iran's destruction.

Possibly, if he were still alive. :p

[MrBigglesworth]

Possibly, if he were still alive. :p
Given his use of the future tense, he probably means Ayatollah Sayyid Ali Khamenei, the current supreme leader of Iran, and not Ayatollah Seyyed Ruhollah Khomeini who died about fifteen years ago.

[Wolfpack]

I know, just injecting a little bit of humor into an otherwise serious conversation. I have some thoughts about the subject, but I'm having trouble putting it together right now. Maybe later.

[Anthony]

i wonder, stability-wise, how giving the Jews East Germany would have played out. for someone who considers himself interested in world history i'm drawing a blank as to how exactly East Germany came to be Communist anyway, but i'm thinking that would have made a great place to for the Jews to set up shop. not sure off the top of my head which is bigger - Israel or what was then Eastern Germany (i assume Eastern Germany), perhaps they could have split Eastern Germany into something like the North East Germany for the Jews and South East Germany for the Communists.

fast forward to today, you'd have a slightly more stable Middle East and presumably the Communist sects of East Germany would inevitably fall as they wound up doing anyway leaving an all-Jewish East. i wonder if that scenario would have been more beneficial for long-term stability.

[Dutch]

East Germany is basically the land occupied by the Russians at the conclusion of WWII. It was made the Soviet Zone of control while the British, French, and Americans split what was then West Germany into zones of control.

The country then split in half based on the new enemies (communist vs free).

The communists hated the Jews almost as much as the Nazi's did (they did their fair share of holocaust afterall). And they were not about to have a state based on religion in their zone of control. A communist state could not also be a religious state.

But beyond that, I'm guessing most Jews in Germany and Poland were fairly disenchanted with Europe in 1946 and Israel/Palestine seemed like a much better opportunity despite the understanding that the Arabs were not thrilled with the deal. At least in Israel/Palestine, they had a fighting chance for their own state not to mention the historical beginnings of Judaism being in Israel/Palestine, not Eastern Germany.

[Anthony]

The communists hated the Jews almost as much as the Nazi's did (they did their fair share of holocaust afterall). And they were not about to have a state based on religion in their zone of control. A communist state could not also be a religious state.


great analysis. that quote above is basically what i wanted to know - (in your opinion) stability wouldn't have been any more possible in Eastern Germany than it would have been in the Middle East. you'd basically be substituting Arabs with Communists, but the results would be all the same.

[JPhillips]

HA: I think the problem is that no state is going to give up land for the Jews voluntarily. Of course they wouldn't give it up for any other religious group either. States don't give away territory for no gain.

Israel just happened to be where it was easy for the Western powers to "give" it to the Jews.

[Anthony]

well, i think in Germany's situation the case could have been made that for the sake of "reparation" (as if one could ever make amends for the Holocaust) that German land should have been given to the Jews as a new homeland. but in any event it sounds like Communists wouldn't have liked that idea all too much and we'd have the same scenario we have now, except with German Communists instead of Palestinians. looks like the case for giving the Jews land in the Middle East was merely NIMBYism (not in my backyard). "yes, you Jews should have your own state, just not in our country. here, take some great land out in sunny Middle East..."

[MrBigglesworth]

It was a lot easier to disenfranchise the brown people than it was to do the same to white Europeans. That's a common theme of history, and part of the reason why they are so upset at us.

[Donnie Baker]

It was a lot easier to disenfranchise the brown people than it was to do the same to white Europeans. That's a common theme of history, and part of the reason why they are so upset at us.

Ah yes, dust off the card and play it.

[Mac Howard]

The idea of creating a Jewish state in Palestine began in the 1890s when prominent London Jews formed the Zionist movement (though it had been a dream of Jews for two millenia). In 1917 the British goverment made the Balfour Declaration promising Jews a state in Palestine following the downfall of the Otterman Empire and the cessation of World War 1. Jewish immigration began in the 1890s and by 1945 there were already over 700,000 Jews in Palestine.

The decision to grant a Jewish state was not taken in 1945. It merely became impossible to deny it after the holocaust.

[MrBigglesworth]

Ah yes, dust off the card and play it.
I thought racism was a common theme throughout history, I guess I was mistaken. I suppose colonialism, the trail of tears, slavery, and partitioning of Arab lands by Europeans was made up by the liberal media.

[Solecismic]

I thought racism was a common theme throughout history, I guess I was mistaken. I suppose colonialism, the trail of tears, slavery, and partitioning of Arab lands by Europeans was made up by the liberal media.

To be fair, the lands the Jews were given were lands they worked their asses off to irrigate and settle during the preceeding 50 years. The Arabs did not consider most of the area that is now Israel to be inhabitable. The United Nations made this decision. It was not an arbitrary one made by just a couple of land-grabbing countries.

For a population that's now six million people, the Jews were given the land of Canaan, which, according to the Bible, was where Moses led the Jews in their escape from slavery in Egypt. The 12 tribes settled in this land - they are considered Israel's version of the Mayflower.

This is a tiny, tiny land. If Israel were a US State, it would rank 48th in area, behind New Jersey and ahead of Connecticut. Think about that.

I understand that the Arabs feel screwed in that they were not a voice in the UN at that time. They have expressed this feeling by promising to drive Israel into the sea. They started wars in 1948, 1967 and 1975, all accompanied by rhetoric promising to kill every man, woman and child in Israel. Israel won those wars, against staggering odds.

To this day, these countries and territories refuse to acknowledge that Israel even has the right to exist. Even at the cost of their own lives, and the economic vitality of an entire region, they pursue this genocide. The leading political party in Palestine was formed by militants who, to this day, still list the destruction of Israel as their sole focus.

Compare this to our own treatment of Native Americans. Our history has its negatives, and we pushed these people around. And when they fought back, sometimes as the aggressors, sometimes unfairly, sometimes in defense, America was often ruthless.

Today, our government genuinely tries to work out fair solutions, even though the situation isn't perfect. Native American tribes have some fairly large sovereign areas within our borders - many of them far bigger than the entire country of Israel. No one advocates genocide on the Indians, in fact we try to help them along (in somewhat misguided fashion, thinking of the casinos).

It isn't a perfect analogy, nor is it a terrific situation, but I believe our hearts are in the right place in that we want these people to succeed and sustain their own cultures and traditions.

[MrBigglesworth]

To this day, these countries and territories refuse to acknowledge that Israel even has the right to exist. Even at the cost of their own lives, and the economic vitality of an entire region, they pursue this genocide. The leading political party in Palestine was formed by militants who, to this day, still list the destruction of Israel as their sole focus.
The current administration has made me jaded. I wonder how much of this is real and how much is propaganda to prop up their regimes or political party.

[Wolfpack]

The current administration has made me jaded.

Given the tenor of your other posts, this would qualify as an understatement to me.... :)

[Solecismic]

The current administration has made me jaded. I wonder how much of this is real and how much is propaganda to prop up their regimes or political party.

Not sure what you mean here. I believe that the explosives strapped to the bodies of Hamas recruits are real explosives. I believe that the ammunition used by Hamas fighters to shoot into Israel from the Gaza strip is live ammunition.

This has been reported in the international press as well as the US press, so I don't see how Bush is needed to ensure the legacy of these groups.

Egypt, Syria, Iran, Iraq, Jordan and Lebanon, among others, have been pretty clear about their official positions in the past. When they refer to Zionism, they are referring to the existence of Israel as a whole, not just the West Bank.

[MrBigglesworth]

Not sure what you mean here. I believe that the explosives strapped to the bodies of Hamas recruits are real explosives. I believe that the ammunition used by Hamas fighters to shoot into Israel from the Gaza strip is live ammunition.

This has been reported in the international press as well as the US press, so I don't see how Bush is needed to ensure the legacy of these groups.

Egypt, Syria, Iran, Iraq, Jordan and Lebanon, among others, have been pretty clear about their official positions in the past. When they refer to Zionism, they are referring to the existence of Israel as a whole, not just the West Bank.
My point is that demonizing an opponent is an easy way of gaining political support in your country. Fiery speeches blaming the Jews for everything wrong and vowing to send them into the sea are big winners. As long as Isreal is seen to be a perceived threat, the Arab people will rally around their leadership.

But suppose you are the leader of Iran. You have immense power, you have immense celebrity, you have immense wealth. Would you REALLY want to attack Isreal? You'd want to keep the status quo. You couldn't even beat Iraq in the '80's, how are you going to take on Isreal and the United States? You're not stupid. But part of keeping your hardline government in place is keeping attention on the boogeyman, so you rail against the Isrealis every chance you get. The polls go up, crowds cheer wildy for you, but in the end it's a lot of sound and fury, signifying nothing.

I'm sure the leaders of the countries hate Isreal. The GOP supposedly hates government spending, but once you get the power and start feeding at the government trough, you do all you can to stay in power and keep the status quo. Power corrupts your ideals.