Only one country in the world refused to support a resolution of condemnation.

Here's what the Iranian Ambassador said:

quote:

---

However, Iran's envoy, Hossein Gharibi, was an exception, saying, although his country opposed genocide, "the Israeli regime has routinely attempted to exploit the sufferings of the Jewish people ... as a cover for the crime it has perpetrated over the past six decades against the Palestinians."

Gharibi tacitly defended the widely condemned Holocaust conference, saying that "only by studying objectively what happened in the past can we ensure that such crime will never be repeated again" and claiming that the resolution would undermine free speech.

---

Yes, that would be the free speech of holocaust deniers and David Duke, but not, of course, Salman Rushdie.

How sickening. And how sickening that there are those who support them, while claiming to be "progressive".

http://www.thestar.com/article/175496

[ 28 January 2007: Message edited by: jeff house ]

Secondly, the Iranian Ambassador did not deny the Holocaust at all in fact he said:

quote:

---

"only by studying objectively what happened in the past can we ensure that such crime will never be repeated again" and claiming that the resolution would undermine free speech.

---

So I hardly see the basis for conflating the statements of David Duke, (whom by the way also has freedom of speech in the USA) with those of the Iranian Ambassador since the Iranian ambassador indicated his recognition of the facts of the Holocaust.

[ 28 January 2007: Message edited by: Cueball ]

quote:

---

Originally posted by jeff house:
that would be the free speech of holocaust deniers and David Duke ... how sickening that there are those who support them, while claiming to be "progressive".

---

Ed to add: the original post left me thinking that Iran refused to join in an international condemnation of the holocaust. Rather, it refused to join in a resolution to condemn holocaust denial:

quote:

---

It "condemns without reservation any denial of the Holocaust," and urges the UN's 192 member-nations to "reject any denial of the Holocaust as a historical event, either in full or in part, or any activities to this end."

---

[ 28 January 2007: Message edited by: Makwa ]

The resolution called "condemns without reservation any denial of the Holocaust," and urges the UN's 192 member-nations to "reject any denial of the Holocaust as a historical event, either in full or in part, or any activities to this end."

quote:

---

Originally posted by jeff house:
Well, yes, you WOULD agree with the Ambassador, since you basically echoed the point in another thread.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by jeff house:

Maybe the UN thinks that having Ku Klux Klansman David Duke and a dozen other antisemites speak to a "conference" organized by the government might lead to "denying the holocaust, in full or in part".

---

Oh so you agree with the Ambassador then that the resolution is in fact a political one, specifically directed at Iran, in order to isolate it politically, as opposed to a general statement of principle.

Golly gee, does that make you a denier too?

[ 28 January 2007: Message edited by: Cueball ]

quote:

---

The rhetoric ratchets up tensions between Iran and its foes, Israel and the United States, at a time when Tehran's hardline regime is under pressure over its nuclear program, backing of militants in Iraq and Lebanon, and threats against the Jewish state.

"Iran is the only country ... that rejected this consensus," said U.S. acting Ambassador Alejandro Wolff after the adoption of the resolution. "It stands alone, in shame, isolated, against the rest of the international community."

Yesterday, U.S. President George W. Bush authorized his troops to kill or capture suspected Iranian agents in Iraq.

Israel has been increasingly outspoken against Iran in recent weeks, pointing to the dangers of developing an Iranian nuclear bomb.

---

quote:

---

Jeff House:
Yesterday was the International Day of Rememberance of the Holocaust.

Only one country in the world refused to support a resolution of condemnation.

---

This is political theatre. The only thing remarkable is that such a resolution was put forward in the first place.

You can't legislate historical facts or prove them by condemning fantasy. In fact by engaging in resolutions like this you give more credence to the fantasy.

Of course, they were tortured by the regime, which is now invoking "freedom of speech" until the next fatwa.

None of the Iran chorus here on babble will condemn IRanian torture, or say a good word for Salman Rushdie; they're comfortable with torture and murder by decree when it's by their chosen ally.

Of course, Iranian racism and stupidity is not a reason, and will NEVER be a reason to invade it.

So, don't pretend that condemning racism means condoning invasion.

[ 28 January 2007: Message edited by: Cueball ]

I condemned Iranian racism.

Someone else tried to link this to an argument for invading Iran.

That's not the topic here.

No one agrees. Everyone is asking what is racist about the amabassadors statement.

He merely has hinted that this resolution is a political attack against Iran, which it evidently is. He also heavily implied it is an effort to use the Holocaust as a tool for attacking Iran, and covering for Israeli abuse of Palestinians.

This is true, even if not true, it is not racist to believe that it is.

The ambassador doesn't even say that the Holocaust never happnened.

[ 28 January 2007: Message edited by: Cueball ]

quote:

---

The rhetoric ratchets up tensions between Iran and its foes, Israel and the United States, at a time when Tehran's hardline regime is under pressure over its nuclear program, backing of militants in Iraq and Lebanon, and threats against the Jewish state.

"Iran is the only country ... that rejected this consensus," said U.S. acting Ambassador Alejandro Wolff after the adoption of the resolution. "It stands alone, in shame, isolated, against the rest of the international community."

Yesterday, U.S. President George W. Bush authorized his troops to kill or capture suspected Iranian agents in Iraq.

---

Where did you get the idea that the person who penned the OP had the fundamental right to determine what could and could not be posted in reply?

[ 28 January 2007: Message edited by: Cueball ]

[ 28 January 2007: Message edited by: Cueball ]

quote:

---

the Israeli regime has routinely attempted to exploit the sufferings of the Jewish people ... as a cover for the crime it has perpetrated over the past six decades against the Palestinians."

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Stargazer:
I think Jeff's point was (and correct me if I'm wrong Jeff) that Iran has no problem with a known racist and holocaust denier like David Duke speaking but a man critical of portions of the Koran, like Salman Rushdie, was sentenced to die for his words. Hypocrisy should be exposed, no matter who does it.

---

Well that is pretty dumb I think. This article is a pretty dumb place to start with this in order to get there. If Jeff is really talking about Iranians hypocrisy in regards to freedom of speech, why is this thread called "Iranian racism"?

This whole David Duke thing is a pretty opaque way of conflating the Iranian regieme with David Duke really, and that is why the thread is called "Iranian Racism Yesterday." But where is the Iranian racism yesterday? In the UN envoys speech? To suggest such is very stupid given that the Iranian Ambassador does not deny the Holocaust, or say anything even vaguely racist, rather he affirms the reality of the Holocaust in his statement, something which is at odds with David Dukes position:

quote:

---

However, Iran's envoy, Hossein Gharibi, was an exception, saying, although his country opposed genocide, "the Israeli regime has routinely attempted to exploit the sufferings of the Jewish people ... as a cover for the crime it has perpetrated over the past six decades against the Palestinians."

Gharibi tacitly defended the widely condemned Holocaust conference, saying that "only by studying objectively what happened in the past can we ensure that such crime will never be repeated again" and claiming that the resolution would undermine free speech.

---

How is that David Duke like?

[ 28 January 2007: Message edited by: Cueball ]

In other words I was saying if Jeff is really trying to say what you just said he said, then Jeff is taking a pretty dumb approach to getting there.

[ 28 January 2007: Message edited by: Cueball ]

Here is what the Tageszeitung, a green left paper from Berlin, said about the Conference:

NEWSLETTER
Sign up for Spiegel Online's daily newsletter and get the best of Der Spiegel's and Spiegel Online's international coverage in your In- Box everyday.

"A serious conference could have allowed Tehran to send a historic signal. But the guest list made it clear in advance that this was not about a serious discussion of the historical facts, but a propaganda show. There are several proven Holocaust deniers among the 60 invited 'experts.' This makes the event an unusual and particularly unappealing event.

"Even in Iran itself the project is not greeted with unconditional approval. Iranian Jews, such as Moris Motamed, the single Jewish representative in the Iranian parliament, correctly described the propaganda farce as an 'insult.'

There is no "Iranian racism yesterday."

There was an affirmation of the reality of the Holocaust by the Iranian envoy, there was a rejection of its use as a tool of US and Israeli foreigh policy, and there was defence of the right of the freedom of speech (though clearly hypocritical.)

[ 28 January 2007: Message edited by: Cueball ]

quote:

---

Originally posted by Cueball:
Defending the right of Holocaust Deniers to speak, is not antisemetism.

---

They should just have said "It happened, but it didn't justify the Nakba".

Instead, by the stupidity of voting against this resolution(when they had nothing to lose by voting for it)they gave Bush and Olmert a propaganda victory.

There was NEVER any reason for Ahmadinejad to even talk about the Holocaust. He should just have left that one alone. That idiot should just shut the fuck up and there's no reason any of us should ever defend him. Ahmadinejad
will never do anything progressive and he is not on our side. The enemy of our enemy isn't ALWAYS our friend.

In Iran, we should be in solidarity with the Iranian left.

And Jeff, you should just be condemning ALL racism. "Iranian racism" isn't automatically worse than anybody else's racism.

[ 28 January 2007: Message edited by: Ken Burch ]

[ 28 January 2007: Message edited by: Ken Burch ]

However...while defending the right of Holocaust deniers to speak is not anti-semitic (I agree with you about that), providing them a world platform and INVITING them to come and speak surely is, don't you think?

quote:

---

And Jeff, you should just be condemning ALL racism. "Iranian racism" isn't automatically worse than anybody else's racism.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Michelle:
However...while defending the right of Holocaust deniers to speak is not anti-semitic (I agree with you about that), providing them a world platform and INVITING them to come and speak surely is, don't you think?

---

No. I do not think that Hustler Magazine giving David Duke a platform to speak makes Larry Flynt an antisemite, whatever else we might say about him.

quote:

---

Originally posted by Cueball:
The topic is Iranian racism yesterday. Please Ken, show me where there was Iranian racism yesterday?

---

Actually, that would be Jeff's responsibility, since he's the originator of this thread.
I don't know if there was any Iranian racism yesterday. I wasn't there. Were YOU, Jeff?

But my comments relate to the theme in that they are part of the overall pattern of Iranian government action on the issue, which has been stupid and inexcusable.

Holocaust denial is not really a free speech issue. Holocaust deniers will always get their views heard and it wouldn't really be any great loss to freedom of intellectual inquiry if they didn't.

There are worthwhile battles for the left to fight. Defending a right-wing theocracy in Iran or Holocaust deniers anywhere aren't among them.

For the love of G-d, leave this one alone, Cueball.

[ 28 January 2007: Message edited by: Ken Burch ]

[ 28 January 2007: Message edited by: Cueball ]

quote:

---

Originally posted by Ken Burch:
No, I don't. He could still have made that statement and voted yes, however.

I have no quarrel with the Iranian UN ambassador, only with the stupid vote his government told him to cast.

---

quote:

---

Protecting the rights of a Holocaust denier ultimately protects us all.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Cueball:

But the vote is not racist, right? And the reasons for casting that vote, as stated by the envoy are not racist either, right?

---

Not on the ambassador's part. On the Iranian government's part possibly. And whether it was racist or not it was really stupid international politics.

The guy should have just said what he said and then still voted for the damn thing. The point he was making wasn't worth giving Bush and Olmert the propaganda victory, especially since the Iranian government has never really backed free speech at home.

If they did, it would be different. But without that it doesn't work as a "I despise what you're saying but will defend to the death you're right to say it" meme.

If Iran were to take this opportunity, however, to end censorship, free the journalists and writers the government has unjustly arrested, and get past the religious police state mentality it holds onto, that would be a good sign. And the Iranian government would lose nothing in doing so.

Remember, the hardline majority in the current Iranian legislature and the current Iranian president himself are only in power because the Guardian Council deliberately disqualified most secular, democratic or progressive candidates.

quote:

---

Originally posted by Ken Burch:

Not on the ambassador's part. On the Iranian government's part possibly. And whether it was racist or not it was really stupid international politics.

---

"Possibly," is not an affirmation of what officially happened. So as far as the official proceedings at the UN, there was no overt racism on the part of the Iranian envoy.

In fact the Iranian envoy went out of his way to affirm twice the reality of the Holocaust.

These affirmations are quite at odds with the idea that the Iranian vote was "possibly" based in antisemitism in the form of Holocaust denial, isn't that the case?

[ 28 January 2007: Message edited by: Cueball ]

Why are you being such a stickler about this?

[ 28 January 2007: Message edited by: Cueball ]

They aren't progressive or democratic. They aren't on our side. They aren't of any value to the left.

And why defend them on free speech issues when they don't allow free speech at home?

quote:

---

Der Speigel
A serious conference could have allowed Tehran to send a historic signal. But the guest list made it clear in advance that this was not about a serious discussion of the historical facts, but a propaganda show.

---

Not only was the conference a propaganda show, so was the resolution condemning holocaust deniers.

Underneath it all none of this has anything to do with the holocaust, history, or racism but with sparring between Iran and the US, et al. The volume of discussion here on this non-topic only shows how effective the propaganda is in sidetracking people from the consideration of more pertinent issues.

quote:

---

Ken Burch:
And why defend them on free speech issues when they don't allow free speech at home?

---

There's no reason to defend the vote.

The hairsplitting on this matter just isn't worth it.

I think the ambassador reflected a decency his country's government does not share. That is how I interpret the ambassador's comments.

Insisting that the Iranian government itself wasn't racist for insisting that the ambassador vote against the resolution is pointless.

I agree that Iran, or in fact almost any country, making a big deal out of a vote on the baisis of freedom of speech is almost certainly hypocritical, but hypocrisy is not racism, it is hypocrisy.

So what we have here is more or less a thread dedicated to making highly tendentious charge based on a very politcized reading of the events at the UN, in a manner that seems calculated to add fuel to the flames of war, and not much more.

This is especially true given that the charge that this vote is racism, or the ambassadors statement was racist, are manifestly and clearly false.

[ 28 January 2007: Message edited by: Cueball ]

I join you in being absolutely opposed to any military intervention in Iran.

But what exactly does this require?

I don't believe it requires me to defend the Iranian government against anybody's criticism.

I oppose a war on Iran because of the misery it would bring to the Iranian people, not because the Iranian government is in any way worthy of any leftist's support.

The government of Iran is an abomination. It has no redeeming value. There's simply no reason to even concern ourselves with what anyone says about it.

Our loyalty should be to the Iranian people and the Iranian people ONLY. And we should be in solidarity with the oppressed and silenced Iranian left. If there's a left revolt against the regime, we are morally and politically obligated to support it.

But it really makes no difference what anyone says about that vicious and irredeemable regime.
They aren't on our side and deserve none of our concern.

So I don't see why we should discuss this particular issue.

They should have just let the ambassador vote yes in order to help let this issue go away.

[ 28 January 2007: Message edited by: Ken Burch ]

I am being asked here by the OP to join in the international condemnation of Iran, on the basis that the there was "Iranian racism yesterday." I see no Iranian racism yesterday.

To point that out, seems to you to be a defence of evil.

Where in any of this thread have I defended the Iranian government, except so much as to say that what has been said about them is untrue.

Did I for instance deny that the Iranian government curtails freedom of speech, and are being hypocritical? No. In fact I affirmed this.

quote:

---

I said the AMBASSADOR himself wasn't racist. I'm not sure about his government.

---

Because it is a damn sight less easy for the the United State to make a case that it need to go to war with Iran because they are hypocrites on the issue of freedom of speech, than it is on the basis that they are Neo-Nazi antisemitic racists led by the new Hitler, bent on a world-wide pogrom of the Jewish people.

And that is precisely what this vote in the UN was about making them out to be.

[ 28 January 2007: Message edited by: Cueball ]

The Iranian ambassador was being extremely disengenous with his comments, as voting for the resolution would not in any way affect free speech. Most EU countries already jail holocaust deniers for their speech, the US would need a consitutional amendment to do this. Cueball, the Iranian government invited, funded and gave an international podium to some disgusting racists from around the world, while at the same time keeping some of their own citizens in jail for their speech. You are correct that the ambassadors exact comments weren't racist, but the Iranian governments' actions are racist.

quote:

---

Is there a reason a person can't say that all THREE governments are racist?

---

NO! It can be said. But it so seldom is. Instead we are fed this pap that Iran should be nuked and its people incinerated for possibly thinking what the other two practice.

[ 28 January 2007: Message edited by: Frustrated Mess ]

quote:

---

Originally posted by Cueball:
And in fact it does make a difference what people say about the Iranian regieme.

Because it is a damn sight less easy for the the United State to make a case that it need to go to war with Iran because they are hypocrites on the issue of freedom of speech, than it is on the basis that they are Neo-Nazi antisemitic racists led by the new Hitler, bent on a world-wide pogrom of the Jewish people.

And that is precisely what this vote in the UN was about making them out to be.

[ 28 January 2007: Message edited by: Cueball ]

---

OK, it is easier for the US to justify going to war against Iran if the Iranian government can be called racist than if it can just be called repressive.

Which is why the Iranian government should have let its ambassador vote "yes", rather than taking the bait. They'd have lost nothing in doing so. The only way the vote COULD have been used against the Iranian government would have been if it made the boneheaded decision to make its ambassador vote "no".

It it WASN'T racist, it was really really really way stupid. The Iranian government should've known better. And I think their ambassador realized this, which is why he said what he said.
I admire the ambassador for saying the things he said.

Can you accept THAT as a legitimate position on this, Cueball?

The thread premise was probably, in the narrow sense, wrong. But the Iranian government should have known better than to make the choice it made on this vote.

Fair enough?

[ 28 January 2007: Message edited by: Ken Burch ]

quote:

---

Originally posted by EmmaG:
Cueball, the Iranian government invited, funded and gave an international podium to some disgusting racists from around the world, while at the same time keeping some of their own citizens in jail for their speech.

---

Larry Flynt also gave such a podium for David Duke, in his internationally distributed magazine Hustler. It is almost certain that more people were more exposed to David Dukes words directly there than at this conference.

Is Larry Flynt also an anti-semite?

[ 28 January 2007: Message edited by: Cueball ]

quote:

---

The resolution is meant to condemn holocaust denial. Voting against this is racist.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Ken Burch:

Can you accept THAT as a legitimate position on this, Cueball?

The thread premise was probably, in the narrow sense, wrong. But the Iranian government should have known better than to make the choice it made on this vote.

Fair enough?

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Frustrated Mess:

A person once told me that good people do not need to make declarations of conscience, end evil people will make them easily.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Cueball:

Larry Flynt also gave such a podium for David Duke, in his internationally distributed magazine Hustler. It is almost certain that more people were more exposed to David Dukes words directly there than at this conference.

Is Larry Flynt also an anti-semite?

---

[ 28 January 2007: Message edited by: EriKtheHalfaRed ]

quote:

---

Originally posted by EriKtheHalfaRed:
And if anyone's wondering why I got irritated again, a couple weeks backs Cueball was arguing that althought Ahmedinejad probably Was a racist of sorts, he was 'only' a racist in the Middle-Eastern sense (at most wanting to reduce Non-Islamic MiddleEasterners to "Dhimmie" status or some such) rather than the European (Nazi) sense. That was at least defensible and could possibly offer a more useful analysis that what CNN and FOX usually provides. But now we're back to They are just not that "astute" again.

[ 28 January 2007: Message edited by: EriKtheHalfaRed ]

---

Listen Eric, I'll butcher my own ideas K? You paraphrasing them is akin to watching a 4 year old assemble a motorcycle.

As for Larry Flynt, why not simply anwser the question? As no one seems able to answer it. They only seem to be able make the point that when Iranians create venues for Holocaust deniers its anti-semetism, yet when Larry Flynt does it its freedom of speech and a valuable lesson in civics to boot.

Sometimes, in fact they go as far as quoting the very same article where Hustler Magazine is propogating holocaust denial.

But that's what racist hypocrisy is all about: double standards. The white Americans can do and say whatever the fuck they want, but when the brown guys do it its evil.

[ 28 January 2007: Message edited by: Cueball ]

That anyone would jump through hoops or blather verbal gymnastics in any attempt to defend, explain or protect this regime for its anti-Semitism is pretty disgusting.

quote:

---

Originally posted by EriKtheHalfaRed:
Ok, so I didn't spend an hour on every post trying to reconnect all the hairs you've been splitting on this, not like you never paraphrase others arguments to make a point either. To save everyone more time, do you or do you not still think this regime is a racist, in some way, shape or form? Once that ongoing bone of contention is cleared up the whole discussion gets a lot simpler again.

---

So let me do it. I decided that anything close to a real look at anthropolgy or the history of Islam, or any kind of serious study of sociology and religion is obviously far beyond the general milieu of this site these days and we are reduced to partisan leafleting, to whatver purpose is unclear, except that some people around here think that posting here is a kind of Basketball, wherein whoever get the most "Pro-my side" posts up, wins.

[ 28 January 2007: Message edited by: Cueball ]

quote:

---

Originally posted by Cueball:

As for Larry Flynt, why not simply anwser the question? As no one seems able to answer it. They only seem to be able make the point that when Iranians create venues for Holocaust deniers its anti-semetism, yet when Larry Flynt does it its freedom of speech and a valuable lesson in civics to boot.

Sometimes, in fact they go as far as quoting the very same article where Hustler Magazine is propogating holocaust denial.

But that's what racist hypocrisy is all about: double standards. The white Americans can do and say whatever the fuck they want, but when the brown guys do it its evil.

---

And since you added this, I probably hate this thuggish Anerican regime as much as anyone, and I see the danger of these racist doublestandards too. But then I have Never said Otherwise either. I'm just arguing again that One sides evil intent has limited value in defending Another (pardon me) who probably has evil intents too. And Within the United states where their electorate lays they can still easily say they have more personal freedoms than they do in Iran.

So as complicated as it can get on other fine points (like in Israel) I insist on arguing on broader moral grounds instead, where even dopey liberals can now see that military action against Iran will Probably not do any more Good than it did next door. If they want to rattle sabres at each others instead I'm ok with that. I'd prefer a regime change practically everywhere but thats not likely yet either.

Edited to re-phrase my own text.

[ 28 January 2007: Message edited by: EriKtheHalfaRed ]

quote:

---

Originally posted by Cueball:

So let me do it.

---

quote:

---

ohara:
That anyone would jump through hoops or blather verbal gymnastics in any attempt to defend, explain or protect this regime for its anti-Semitism is pretty disgusting.

And please spare me the upcoming comparisions with any other country. Lets focus on Iranian leadership (as opposed to its people) since that is what the thread is about.

---

And I thought that it was about a silly UN resolution that common sense says should have never been presented in the first place and should have been greated with 100% abstentions when the vote was held.

What next, a resolution condemning those who say that the earth is flat?

This resolution was politically motivated and the goal was to isolate Iran. Unfortunately, Iran has made a tactical decision to pander to some of the more odious sentiments that, sadly, are part of the spectrum of the (extremely legitimate) opposition to Israel and the US. It's a tactic that might win them some suppot but (in addition to being utterly wrong) it's also making it very hard for progressive anti-imperialists in the US and Europe who want to stop a war from convincing their fellow citizens that the Iranian leadership aren't a bunch of Hitler-style villains.

I think it's naiive to pretend that you can look at this single UN vote in isolation. I think it's counterproductive to try and defend it. So I'll simply note that, in the grand litany of evils befalling the earth at this moment, when real people are dying right now due to the action or inaction of my supposedly democratic government, I find it amazing that some people would think that the single most important thing we can talk about is a vote at the UN on tragic events of 50 years ago.

The Iranian envoy in fact twice affirmed the fact of Holocaust in his statement saying why he voted against the resolution.

What they voted against, was condeming Holocaust denial on the basis that such a condemnation would hamper freedom of speech.

Stick to the facts:

quote:

---

However, Iran's envoy, Hossein Gharibi, was an exception, saying, although his country opposed genocide, "the Israeli regime has routinely attempted to exploit the sufferings of the Jewish people ... as a cover for the crime it has perpetrated over the past six decades against the Palestinians."

Gharibi tacitly defended the widely condemned Holocaust conference, saying that "only by studying objectively what happened in the past can we ensure that such crime will never be repeated again" and claiming that the resolution would undermine free speech.

---

I really don't understand how come people are defending the truth of the Holocaust by distorting what the Iranians have said on the issue.

[ 29 January 2007: Message edited by: Cueball ]

quote:

---

Originally posted by Cueball:
But the Iranian Government has not denied the Holocaust. That is a fabrication.
[ 29 January 2007: Message edited by: Cueball ]

---

Cueball you are correct. The President of Iran going back to 2005 only called the Holocaust a myth.

quote:

---

Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad has described the Holocaust as "a myth" and suggested that Israel be moved to Europe, the United States, Canada or Alaska.

---

quote:

---

They have invented a myth that Jews were massacred and place this above God, religions and the prophets," Ahmadinejad said in a speech to thousands of people in the Iranian city of Zahedan, according to a report on Wednesday from Islamic Republic of Iran Broadcasting.

---

quote:

---

"The West has given more significance to the myth of the genocide of the Jews, even more significant than God, religion, and the prophets," he said. "(It) deals very severely with those who deny this myth but does not do anything to those who deny God, religion, and the prophet."

"If you have burned the Jews, why don't you give a piece of Europe, the United States, Canada or Alaska to Israel," Ahmadinejad said.

"Our question is, if you have committed this huge crime, why should the innocent nation of Palestine pay for this crime?"

---

Notice the "ifs"? But cut an paste is a wonderful propoganda tool, I agree.

However I will note that a stump speech by the Iranian president does not trump the official declaration of the Iranian UN envoy, who clearly affirms the facts of the Holocaust as the official position of Iran, twice, in the speech being discussed.

And you do concur that in fact the Iranian UN envoy did in fact affirm the facts of the Holocaust in his UN speech, do you not?

[ 29 January 2007: Message edited by: Cueball ]

quote:

---

Originally posted by Michelle:
That was gratuitous and unnecessary.off.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by B.L. Zeebub LLD:

It most certainly was. I suppose we all know him well enough...

---

quote:

---

However, Iran's envoy, Hossein Gharibi, was an exception, saying, although his country opposed genocide, "the Israeli regime has routinely attempted to exploit the sufferings of the Jewish people ... as a cover for the crime it has perpetrated over the past six decades against the Palestinians."

---

the Iranian regime has routinely attempted to exploit the sufferings of the Muslim people ... as a cover for the crime it has perpetrated over the past Jews decades against Jews, women, sexual minorities, Sunni muslims etc...etc...etc..."

quote:

---

Originally posted by jeff house:
Well, I hate to say so, but Cueball is making a practice of creating excuses for Nazis and antisemites.

We have the example here, where his vast knowledge of Farsi causes him to tell us that Ahmadinejad did not deny the holocaust,("a fabrication") and then, next door, we have him making excuses for a member of the Nazi death squads.

---

I didn't say that Amedinejad did not deny the Holocaust. What I said was, that the main body of his speech indicates that he was calling it into quesion, not categorically denying it. I then pointed out that the Iranians envoys speech, which is the main topic of this thread you begat on "Iranian Racism Yesterday," affirms quite clearly that the official position of the Iranian government is not that the Holocaust is a myth, but that "the sufferings of the Jewish people" should not be exploited, affirming that it is the goal of the Iranian government to "ensure that such crime will never be repeated again."

quote:

---

Originally posted by Cueball:

Larry Flynt also gave such a podium for David Duke, in his internationally distributed magazine Hustler. It is almost certain that more people were more exposed to David Dukes words directly there than at this conference.

Is Larry Flynt also an anti-semite?

[ 28 January 2007: Message edited by: Cueball ]

---

In the General Assembly, Israel would join them in voting "no".

[ 29 January 2007: Message edited by: Ken Burch ]

quote:

---

Originally posted by EmmaG:

I'm not sure if he is or not, but why would he want to give David Duke an outlet? If you go out of your way to fund the propogation of hate speech you must have an agenda. The Iranian regime's agenda is obviously not free speech, as their own undeniable record of oppression speaks to that. I don't say this because Larry Flynt is white and the Iranian governmental leaders are brown, but because Flynt spent years fighting for the right to publish offensive crap. The Iranian regime has spent years doing things like murdering canadian photojournalists and locking up those who practise dissenting speech.

---

Well he did in fact publish, uncensored and un-rebutted, an interview with David Duke. Does that make him an anti-semite or not?

Interestingly, this interview has been used as evidence of the anti-semitism of David Duke, in these threads on this topic in order to support the view that the so called Holocaust conference was an anti-semitic undertaking, by people who pose your position.

I find this highly ironic.

In fact, it seems to me that the Holocaust conference was a far less biased an undertaking than the Hustler article, in that the number of people who attended said conference, who firmly espouse the viw that the Holocaust is a historical fact far outweighed the number who attended who questioned it, those numbering less than half-dozen. However, whatever those people said, or espoused at said conference, even those Jews among them, is of little relevance apparently, and all have been branded anti-semitic Holocaust Deniers, simply on the baisis that they attended a conference where Holcaust deniers spoke.

For some reason, the brush of guilt by association reagrding Holocaust denial only goes one way, tainting all who find themselves in the company of Holocaust deniers being branded Holocaust deniers, whatever their position. For some reason, David Duke does not suddenly become a believer in the Holocaust even though he attended a conference in which he, and his kind, were outnumbered by those who affirm that the Holocaust is a historical fact.

[ 29 January 2007: Message edited by: Cueball ]

quote:

---

Originally posted by EmmaG:
Question:

If a UN member nation put forth a motion condemning the treatment and genocide of Indigenous people around the world by colonial oppressors, would it be ridiculed by some here as silly and useless?

---

Ken Followed with

quote:

---

No, but the US would veto it if it came up in the Security Council.
In the General Assembly, Israel would join them in voting "no".

---

quote:

---

The whole enlightened world stands aside and does nothing to save little girls from murderous soldiers. The enlightened world blames Islam, as it once blamed Arab nationalism, for all the atrocities the non-Islamic world is inflicting upon Muslims. The enlightened west fears little girls with scarves on their heads. It is terrified of boys in keffiehs. And in Israel, children are educated to fear, most of all, the fruits of the Muslim womb. When they become soldiers, they see nothing wrong in killing Palestinian children "before they grow." But Basam and Salwa and all of us--Jewish and Arab victims of the Israeli occupation - want to live together rather than die together. We see our children sacrificed on the altar of an occupation that has no basis in law or justice. And, outside, the enlightened world justifies it all and sends more money to the occupiers.

---

http://www.counterpunch.org/peled01292007.html

[ 29 January 2007: Message edited by: Frustrated Mess ]

quote:

---

Originally posted by Frustrated Mess:
http://www.counterpunch.org/peled01292007.html

---

quote:

---

If the world does not come to its senses, there will be nothing more to say or write or listen to in this land except for the silent cry of mourning and the muted voices of dead children.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by EmmaG:
Question:

If a UN member nation put forth a motion condemning the treatment and genocide of Indigenous people around the world by colonial oppressors, would it be ridiculed by some here as silly and useless?

---

To try and look at this issue outside the context of the
impending war that Bush hopes to launch is completely dishonest.

What would have been so difficult about Iran simply voting WITH the rest of the world, NOT hosting conferences for Holocaust deniers and sticking to their knitting.

quote:

---

"...only by studying objectively what happened in the past can we ensure that such crime will never be repeated again..."

---

There were no "ifs" in Gharibi's statement. I don't see what is so difficult about this.

[ 30 January 2007: Message edited by: Cueball ]

Be that as it may the conference did not conclude that there was no Holocaust. Nor did in fact the Iranian envoy deny the Holocaust, because he in fact affirmed it, with a caveat about how the Holocaust is being manipulated.

quote:

---

There is no doubt whatsoever, that during World War II there developed a terrible and catastrophic policy and action of genocide perpetrated by Nazi Germany against the Jewish People, confirmed by innumerable eyewitness survivors and fully documented again and again. I personally was spared the worst effects of the War because I was living in England which thankfully was not occupied by Nazi Germany. However, I and many many others lost countless friends and relatives who perished under the Nazi rule by intentional murder and genocide. Three million Jews in Poland, more than half a million in Hungary, many tens or hundreds of thousands in Russia, Slovakia, France, Belgium, Holland and more. The figure of six million is regularly quoted. One may wish to dispute this actual figure, but the crime was just as dreadful whether the millions (and there were millions) of victims numbered six million, five million or four million. The method of murder is also irrelevant, whether it was by gas chamber (and there were eyewitnesses to this), firing squads or whatever. The evil was the same. It would be a terrible affront to the memory of those who perished to belittle the guilt of the crime in any way."

---

quote:

---

From my understanding the conference did not conclude that the Holocaust did not happen.

---

Oh we EXCUSE ME...now that the Iranian government sponsored conference choc-a bloc with professional Holocaust deniers and hate-mongers has decoded that maybe the Holocaust DID take place after all - let me get on my hands and knees and express my undying gratitude to the good noble mullahs of Iran!!

I mean until this conference took place I wasn't totally certain whether or not the Holocaust actually took place (after all maybe all my great-grandparents were abducted by UFOs). Now thanks to the good government of Iran, I can rest assured that YES there actually was a Holocaust.

quote:

---

From my understanding the conference did not conclude that the Holocaust did not happen. I know this much. In fact, and I could be wrong on this point, my understanding is that the conference concluded that it did happen but that the legacy of the Holocaust was being manipulated.
Be that as it may the conference did not conclude that there was no Holocaust. Nor did in fact the Iranian envoy deny the Holocaust, because he in fact affirmed it, with a caveat about how the Holocaust is being manipulated.

So, in fact this whole thing is a pile of bullshit.

---