quote:

---

MOSCOW, Dec. 13 (Xinhua) -- Russia criticized on Wednesday a conference held in Iran that questioned the Holocaust, saying historic events should not be distorted.

In a statement, Foreign Ministry spokesman Mikhail Kamynin said Iran's statements questioning the Holocaust are unacceptable.

The two-day international conference in Tehran was initiated by Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad, who has in the past called the Holocaust, in which 6 million Jews were killed, a "myth."

Russia is opposed to "the distortion of historic events, the concealment of the truth about the horrible crimes of the Nazis and the revision of the outcome of humanity's hardest struggle against Nazism," Kamynin said.

"Russia shares the determination of the UN General Assembly not to permit the denial of the Holocaust. This explains our attitude to the event in Tehran," he said

---

I think Venezuela. If I'm wrong please correct me and please don't yell at me for having been subjegated by the MSM or something...

Oh WAIT! Do you mean on this issue alone?

[ 14 December 2006: Message edited by: West Coast Greeny ]

quote:

---

Oh WAIT! Do you mean on this issue alone?

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Jacob Two-Two:
It wouldn't surprise me a bit if there was a fair bit of holocaust denial being thrown about at this conference, but I'd like to see the proof of it before I run around denouncing the anti-semitism that I'm assuming is happening without any evidence.

I'm just quirky like that.

---

In most areas of babble there is a community consensus that discourages people from expressing 'reactionary' opinions in any way, shape or form. The definition of reactionary isn't spelled out, although some of the forums have more specific rules. But people who express support for, say, military intervention in Afghanistan, can expect to be called, or compared to, "murderers", "imperialists", "fascists" etc. This sort of extreme language is defended as a justifiable reaction to war-mongers, which is fine given those are the standards of the community, and anyone here for more than a day needs to live with them, or move along.

But the standards applied to this conference are completely different.

If an American Christian university held a conference questioning whether First Nations had experienced genocide at the hands of white settlers, and David Duke attended, the babble would not welcome someone who defended the event, even with qualifications.

Would it be acceptable if someone on babble said such a conference was ok as long as contrary points of view were expressed? Or that it was ok to examine the number of people killed by the settlers, and that the presence of someone like Duke didn't automatically destroy the credibility of the conference?

Of course not. Anyone who said that would be banned.

Given that some of the posters defending, with qualifications, the Tehran conference are also prone to fairly blunt attacks, it is strange to see their newfound love of nuance - which wouldn't go amiss in the threads on The Evils America - and the soft touch from the moderation team. There's suddenly a weird squeamishness about being absolutist, and everyone's a moderate.

No one is defending Holocaust deniers in these threads, but some are applying a completely different standard than most posters here apply to other countries and other issues. They are, without question, defending those who give a platform to Holocaust deniers.

The defense of zealots, hosting neo-fascists, spewing trash about the Holocaust. If I had seen some of these posts on a libertarian website they would not be as interesting, but here they stick out like a nasty sore thumb.

[ 15 December 2006: Message edited by: Cardy ]

quote:

---

Originally posted by Fidel:
Ahmadinejad isn't very big, but he sure is stupid.

---

What better way to stir things up here than to take a poke at one of the towering myths of postwar society. And by myth I do not question the fact at its heart but rather its iconic cultural status.

No credible student of modern history can deny the reality of the Holocaust, there is simply too much documentary evidence to support it; nor is Ahmedinejad a stupid man I don't suppose, so we must look for other motives. Why does he poke us right in the middle of one of our most sensitive taboos, which he seems to have identified with considerable precision?

Is this just some non-military - and therefore lower-risk - payback for Israel's crimes in the Lebanon this summer? Or some deeper strategy to decouple that modern state from its historical raison d'etre?

A kneejerk response to the recent anti-Muslim cartoons contreversy? If you think about it, it's comparable with the latter, somehow. We are offended at the very conjecture, just as some Muslims were offended at the profaning of Mohammed.

I can conceive that from an Iranian point of view the Nazi genocide in a Europe of 60 years ago might be as remote an event as the recent death of millions in the Congo is to most people in the west.

It is certainly insensitive and disrespectful to those who perished and those still living.

quote:

---

Originally posted by Cardy:
Without singling out any poster in this or the other threads on the Tehran conference, it is pretty clear why some are making the connection between Holocaust denial and some of the posts....

---

You make some interesting points, but you miss the most important factor underlying much of this:

OCCUPIED PALESTINE!

Think long and hard about the personalities and relationships of posters here and you'll see that Palestine is the big issue at stake here.

Like Holocaust Deniers say, "There was no Holocaust" and tacitly say, "but there should've been", there are some pressing this issue who in saying "Ahmedinejad is a Holocaust Denier" are tacitly saying, "See, Israel is right". I think it's this unspoken conclusion that is being resisted at some level. The defense of Israel's Occupation of Palestine and attacks directed at Iran's ideological and military power are deeply intertwined at the moment.

And whether or not there would be speedy and unequivocal condemnations of Holocaust Denial in other contexts, the resort to badgering and inquisition by some posters is bound to lead to defensiveness. If you say to people, "You better agree or you're indecent/a commie/a Holocaust Denier" (all of which have been intimated) a large number of them are going to stare you in the face and flip you the bird. The injunction in their behaviour isn't "fight Holocaust Denial", it's "bow your head and don't look me in the eye unless you agree" like dogs jockeying for status in the park. No one has the right to demand loyalty oaths here, or anywhere else for that matter. I think that's another aspect of this that you just aren't taking into account.

In short, the resistance of some isn't about supporting Holocaust Denial, but about just about everything but.

[ 15 December 2006: Message edited by: B.L. Zeebub LLD ]

quote:

---

Originally posted by Merowe:

No credible student of modern history can deny the reality of the Holocaust, there is simply too much documentary evidence to support it; nor is Ahmedinejad a stupid man I don't suppose, so we must look for other motives. Why does he poke us right in the middle of one of our most sensitive taboos, which he seems to have identified with considerable precision?

---

Well, Ameninejad may still be questioning the Holocaust, as a myth, but my understanding was that the conference did not come to that conclusion. I haven't been following all the ins and outs of this issue, but my information was that the conference did not say the Holocaust was a myth, saying instead that it was exagerated for political purposes.

Did Ameninejad say that it was myth again, since the conference or is he now at least convinced that something did happen, exagerated or not. My source is JH, for the theme on "exageration," so I am skeptical of the veracity. If that is the case then it would seem that either Nejad has changed his tune, or the conference came to a conclusion that conflicts with Nejad.

That is if my information is correct. There is a lot of mythology floating around Iran these days to, so anyone with an actual synopisis of the conference conclusions please come forward.

Be that as it may, it looks like historical "revisionism," not outright "denial," as you say in your post.

[ 15 December 2006: Message edited by: Cueball ]

quote:

---

Originally posted by Cueball:

Well, Ameninejad may still be questioning the Holocaust, as a myth, but my understanding was that the conference did not come to that conclusion. I haven't been following all the ins and outs of this issue, but my information was that the conference did not say the Holocaust was a myth, saying instead that it was exagerated for political purposes.

Did Ameninejad say that it was myth again, since the conference or is he now at least convinced that something did happen, exagerated or not. My source is JH, for the theme on "exageration," so I am skeptical of the veracity. If that is the case then it would seem that either Nejad has changed his tune, or the conference came to a conclusion that conflicts with Nejad.

That is if my information is correct. There is a lot of mythology floating around Iran these days to, so anyone with an actual synopisis of the conference conclusions please come forward.

Be that as it may, it looks like historical "revisionism," not outright "denial," as you say in your post.

[ 15 December 2006: Message edited by: Cueball ]

---