The W
Views: 100258315
Main | FAQ | Search: Y! / G | Color chart | Log in for more!
31.10.07 0120
The 7 - Current Events & Politics - Iranian President Denies Holocaust Register and log in to post!
(201 newer) Next thread | Previous thread
User
Post (9 total)
BigSteve
Pepperoni
Level: 64

Posts: 925/1091
EXP: 2207102
For next: 7007

Since: 23.7.04
From: Baltimore, MD

Since last post: 2849 days
Last activity: 2577 days
#1 Posted on 15.12.05 0042.05
Reposted on: 15.12.12 0043.08
OK, this (guardian.co.uk) clearly is not a good sign.

    Originally posted by the AP
    Iran's president said today that the Holocaust was a "myth", prompting strong condemnation from Israel, Germany and the European Commission.

    Mahmoud Ahmadinejad made the comments to thousands of people during a speech in Iran's south-eastern city of Zahedan.

    They follow the international outcry his remarks caused in October when he said that Israel should be "wiped off the map".

    Germany's foreign minister warned that the "shocking and unacceptable" comments would influence coming nuclear talks between Europe and Iran

    . . . . .

    The European Commission also said the remarks would hurt Iran's relations with other countries.

    Addressing the crowds in Zahedan, Mr Ahmadinejad said: "Today, they have created a myth in the name of Holocaust and consider it to be above God, religion and the prophets."

    He has previously expressed doubts about the murder of the Jews by the Nazis, but today was the first time he said publicly that the Holocaust was a myth.

    Speaking as part of a tour of south-east Iran, Mr Ahmadinejad said that if Europeans insisted the Holocaust did happen, then it was they who were responsible and they should pay the price.

    "If you committed this big crime, then why should the oppressed Palestinian nation pay the price?" Mr Ahmadinejad asked.

    "This is our proposal: if you committed the crime, then give a part of your own land in Europe, the United States, Canada or Alaska to them [Jews], so that the Jews can establish their country," he said.


About a week ago the AP (cnn.com) had this from the Iranian President

    Originally posted by the AP
    Some European countries insist on saying that during World War II, Hitler burned millions of Jews and put them in concentration camps," Ahmadinejad said. "Any historian, commentator or scientist who doubts that is taken to prison or gets condemned."

    "Let's assume what the Europeans say is true ... Let's give some land to the Zionists in Europe or in Germany or Austria," he said. "They faced injustice in Europe, so why do the repercussions fall on the Palestinians?"


And consider that some reports claim that Iran is not far off from nuclear capabilities, and it really worries me that this is not going to end peacefully. I hope it does, but if someone as belligerent as this gets the bomb, who knows what would happen.
Promote this thread!
AWArulz
Knackwurst
Level: 109

Posts: 1439/3399
EXP: 13525300
For next: 434390

Since: 28.1.02
From: Louisville, KY

Since last post: 6 hours
Last activity: 2 hours
AIM:  
Y!:
#2 Posted on 15.12.05 0522.46
Reposted on: 15.12.12 0522.59
I read this from a couple sources yesterday and tried to play evaluator in my mind. I am still not sure if Ahmadinejad is saying that the Holocaust is a myth or that the country of Israel is a myth, created by the Europeans (and us) to assuage our guilt for the Holocaust. It seems there's a little of both in there.

I don't think that this is an uncommon position among Arabs in that area in general. Otherwise, why would they have spent the last 57 years trying to push Israel into the sea? But for the head of a sovereign nation to express this publicly? I agree it is very, very dangerous.

If it seems Iran is getting very close to Nuclear Weapons and the west doesn't handle the situation, I think you'll see Israel take matters into their own hands, like they did in Iraq back in, what, '83 or something. That will certainly stir the pot up.
spf
Scrapple
Level: 133

Posts: 3404/5403
EXP: 27181240
For next: 671500

Since: 2.1.02
From: The Las Vegas of Canada

Since last post: 18 days
Last activity: 1 day
AIM:  
#3 Posted on 15.12.05 0953.51
Reposted on: 15.12.12 0953.55
Re: which way Ahmadenijad was leaning, a quote from his speech "However, if someone were to deny the myth of the Jews' massacre, all the Zionist mouthpieces and the governments subservient to the Zionists tear their larynxes and scream against the person as much as they can." Seems pretty clear he is calling the death of the Jews a myth IMO.

Problem with the Iraq in 83/Iran now is Iraq had one single above-ground reactor. Iran has a network of heavily fortified reactors known and unknown.

Hmmm...a country actively and openly pursuing nuclear weapons, a leader proclaiming Israel must be "wiped off the map", 25 years of hostility with the U.S. starting with the Embassy takeover, a strong functioning military not hurt by 15 years of sanctions, main financial supporter of Hezbollah and other terrorist organizations...maybe someone should go in and deal with them. We'd do it, but instead we decided that Saddam was the immediate threat, so we're kind of committed in Iraq for the next god only knows how many years.

Here is the biggest flaw in the Iraq decision. Anyone with a functioning brainstem who wasn't blinded in red, white and blue glasses knew that even if things went swimmingly we would be committed in a major way there for a number of years. This pretty much has given other far more worrisome countries carte blanche to do what they want because we are pretty much unable to open another front with any effectiveness. So North Korea can do what they want. Iran can start their reactors and our only weapon is hoping that France and England and Germany can talk them out of it. Israel going in there at this point would probably spark a pan-Islamic uprising that we would be smack dab in the middle of, and could possibly even draw in Russia since they have been major suppliers of Iran and a staunch Iranian ally. So really, even if you don't mind the couple hundred billions spent and the 2,000+ US troops and the 30,000-100,000 dead Iraqis, this is still a bad idea on the whole.

The ironic thing is that had Dubya waited, a lot of the more pragmatic folks against the Iraq war probably would have supported him going against Iran, just like folks like myself supported the moves in Afghanistan. Now though it's going to be nearly impossible to get support for any necessary military actions short of something like Iran actually nuking Israel happening.

(edited by spf on 15.12.05 0955)
El Nastio
Andouille
Level: 91

Posts: 942/2232
EXP: 7208173
For next: 260768

Since: 14.1.02
From: Ottawa Ontario, by way of Walkerton

Since last post: 5 days
Last activity: 13 hours
ICQ:  
#4 Posted on 15.12.05 1152.52
Reposted on: 15.12.12 1152.56
This'll be the key test for the United Nations, and if they have any relevence left in today's world. The USA can't send troops in, we all know that. We (Canada) can't send in any because;

a) Federal election
b) Military over stretched and under-funded.

That leaves the rest of the Un to step up and try to deal with this.


On a related note, I wonder if Bush went after Iran first before Iraq then Saddam made these comments (since he would've been left alone) what people would say.
redsoxnation
Scrapple
Level: 152

Posts: 4966/7534
EXP: 43778042
For next: 523720

Since: 24.7.02

Since last post: 487 days
Last activity: 487 days
#5 Posted on 15.12.05 2055.38
Reposted on: 15.12.12 2056.00
The 'Make Western Nations give up land' argument does probably help Ahmadinejad with the voters, and probably would help him rally support should Israel ever try to first strike Iranian nuclear facilities. Europe isn't going to do anything militarily, so they are any easy whipping boy. The UN? Next. Even if the U.S. wasn't involved in Iraq, Iran is a country that is a poor match-up militarily. Much too large, and too many geographic variances. If Iran was an easy target, either Carter to save his Presidency would have gone after them militarily, or Reagan would have at some point in the early 80's, particularly post Beirut. In both scenarios, either President Carter or Reagan would have had overwhelming popular support. Also, with the high birthrate, Iran has a lot of cannon fodder to send into the field (for other examples, why no sane nation would go to full scale conventional war with China or India. I said sane nation, that eliminates Pakistan). In conventional warfare, Iran would actually be an extremely bad match-up for Israel, as the Iranians could wear the Israelis down via a war of attrition, especially if the Iranians take in Palestinians and the anti-Israeli Arab element. Even if the Israeli army is technologically superior, if you build up an 8 to 1 manpower advantage and have no real problem losing soldiers on a 5 or 6 to 1 ratio, eventually the Iranians would wear down the Israelis. The Iranians were willing to go full bore for eight years against the Iraqis, while the Israelis have historically won their wars in quick order. The longer it drags out conventionally, the more Israel would be forced to consider non-conventional methods to achieve victory/survival.
We all do agree that Israel has nukes of their own, right?

(edited by redsoxnation on 15.12.05 2157)
Cerebus
Scrapple
Level: 109

Posts: 1512/3475
EXP: 13534219
For next: 425471

Since: 17.11.02

Since last post: 11 hours
Last activity: 3 hours
#6 Posted on 16.12.05 1322.43
Reposted on: 16.12.12 1323.50
Maybe now we'll finally go after Korea.
PerthHeat
Mettwurst
Level: 29

Posts: 138/169
EXP: 134129
For next: 13757

Since: 16.8.04
From: Perth Australia

Since last post: 3032 days
Last activity: 3018 days
#7 Posted on 18.12.05 0845.22
Reposted on: 18.12.12 0845.31
    Originally posted by spf
    Hmmm...a country actively and openly pursuing nuclear weapons, a leader proclaiming Israel must be "wiped off the map", 25 years of hostility with the U.S. starting with the Embassy takeover, a strong functioning military not hurt by 15 years of sanctions, main financial supporter of Hezbollah and other terrorist organizations...maybe someone should go in and deal with them. We'd do it, but instead we decided that Saddam was the immediate threat, so we're kind of committed in Iraq for the next god only knows how many years.
The issue should not be dealing with ''them'', as you rightly point out you guys are kinda busy... I dont think anyone needs to sort Iran out.. what I would propose is that Ahmedinejad be taken out in an accident, sure suspicion will fall onto Israel and the US but its easy to fabricate a 3rd party.Hopefully this allows Iran to choose a moderate like Khatammi is/was. ...


    Now though it's going to be nearly impossible to get support for any necessary military actions short of something like Iran actually nuking Israel happening. <
Which is why you go the stealth way first... try taking out 1 man instead of 60 million
Jaguar
Knackwurst
Level: 107

Posts: 3188/3273
EXP: 12786981
For next: 304372

Since: 23.1.02
From: Phoenix, AZ

Since last post: 206 days
Last activity: 7 days
#8 Posted on 18.12.05 0943.26
Reposted on: 18.12.12 0943.33
I would note that such a strategy has repeatedly failed to work for us in Central and South America.
spf
Scrapple
Level: 133

Posts: 3405/5403
EXP: 27181240
For next: 671500

Since: 2.1.02
From: The Las Vegas of Canada

Since last post: 18 days
Last activity: 1 day
AIM:  
#9 Posted on 19.12.05 1027.18
Reposted on: 19.12.12 1029.01
    Originally posted by PerthHeat
      Originally posted by spf
      Hmmm...a country actively and openly pursuing nuclear weapons, a leader proclaiming Israel must be "wiped off the map", 25 years of hostility with the U.S. starting with the Embassy takeover, a strong functioning military not hurt by 15 years of sanctions, main financial supporter of Hezbollah and other terrorist organizations...maybe someone should go in and deal with them. We'd do it, but instead we decided that Saddam was the immediate threat, so we're kind of committed in Iraq for the next god only knows how many years.
    The issue should not be dealing with ''them'', as you rightly point out you guys are kinda busy... I dont think anyone needs to sort Iran out.. what I would propose is that Ahmedinejad be taken out in an accident, sure suspicion will fall onto Israel and the US but its easy to fabricate a 3rd party.Hopefully this allows Iran to choose a moderate like Khatammi is/was. ...


      Now though it's going to be nearly impossible to get support for any necessary military actions short of something like Iran actually nuking Israel happening. <
    Which is why you go the stealth way first... try taking out 1 man instead of 60 million

The thing to remember is Ahmedinejad is irrelevant. He's a mouthpiece and he's loud. The worrisome thing is that by saying these things and not being reigned in, that implies that he has the support of the Supreme Council, and that Khamenei is in favor of these things. There's no one in Iran to kill that would suddenly tilt things, as this is a systemic problem. All it would do is encourage exactly what they feel already, which is that they are in need of defense against a hostile West. Only a destruction of their warmaking capacities would be able to end their threat.
ALL ORIGINAL POSTS IN THIS THREAD ARE NOW AVAILABLE
Thread ahead: Transit workers in NYC strike
Next thread: Stanley "Tookie" Williams denied clemency
Previous thread: Time's Persons of the Year goes to...
(201 newer) Next thread | Previous thread
The 7 - Current Events & Politics - Iranian President Denies HolocaustRegister and log in to post!

The W™ message board - 7 year recycle

ZimBoard
©2001-2014 Brothers Zim
This old hunk of junk rendered your page in 0.241 seconds.