Author
|
Topic: Ahmadinejad
|
minkepants
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 13708
|
posted 11 February 2007 05:20 PM
UHhh, yeah, anyway....... Getting back to before we were interrupted. Here's a couple of quick things I found. Quick article from Turkey about Ahmadinejad's speech today. Not alot here, probably deeper articles tomorrow, but it seems as if he's been told to cool his jets. Turkish article on mahmoud speech and a surprising piece about Israel, Palestine Founder of Islamic Movement in Israel slams Holocaust denial
From: Scarborough | Registered: Dec 2006
| IP: Logged
|
|
|
|
minkepants
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 13708
|
posted 11 February 2007 05:46 PM
The gentleman said himself that he would take static from his fellow clerics for his statements.A single person took a difficult stand with bravery which is always surprising. The article revealing his position which both chastises Israeli hawks and islamic fanatics was published in an Israeli paper, meaning that everyone who reads it will get a presentation of a leading muslim figure which is three dimensional rather than propagandistic, which in the supercharged polarization of the region is also surprising and hopeful. quote: He said attention should not be paid to Holocaust-deniers because "it only gives them something to do. Do you think I suffer less than you when I hear statements by [President Mahmoud] Ahmadinejad or [Osama] Bin Ladin?" he asked.
I like that. Lovely. [ 11 February 2007: Message edited by: minkepants ]
From: Scarborough | Registered: Dec 2006
| IP: Logged
|
|
|
|
Cueball
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 4790
|
posted 11 February 2007 06:40 PM
quote: Originally posted by minkepants: A single person took a difficult stand with bravery which is always surprising.
First of all this cleric is not "standing alone," at all. The holocaust is generally accepted as a fact throughout the world, by Muslims as well as othersm, escpecially educated people. However, you will notice that incidents of people who are sceptical or are simply ignorant of the actual dimensions of the Holocaust increase, the further away one is from the centers of European culture, and the less educated they are. So for instance, Mein Kempf sells well in India, and school texts have been published there wich summarize Hitlers rule, as one where the "trains ran on time." These were texts put into print not by Muslims in Gujarat, but the BJP (right wing Hindu party) authorities there. Be that as it may, expecting people whose history did not include a direct experiance of the kind of mass devestation which was visited upon the Europe during WW2 to just "know" about European history, is of course, in my mind, just another example of European ethnocentrism, and is of course a similar kind of ignorance as that of Muslim people and other who doubt or are not fully apprised of the facts regarding the Holocaust. I am looking forward to your notes on my spelling. [ 11 February 2007: Message edited by: Cueball ]
From: Out from under the bridge and out for a stroll | Registered: Dec 2003
| IP: Logged
|
|
|
|
|
minkepants
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 13708
|
posted 12 February 2007 12:50 AM
quote: Be that as it may, expecting people whose history did not include a direct experiance of the kind of mass devestation which was visited upon the Europe during WW2 to just "know" about European history, is of course, in my mind, just another example of European ethnocentrism
Well, WWII and its concomitant devastation didn't just happen in Europe, so I don't see how Eurocentrism applies. Perhaps it's Eurocentric to presume otherwise. I'm reminded of something I saw recently in a presentation called A History of Oil which mentioned that the first place Britain sent troops in WWI was Tikrit. I'm addicted to TV documentaries, and i never heard that tidbit before. That could make me Eurocentric, I think it amkes me a product of Western culture. We all should learn something new everyday, no? I thought the cleric's statement was touching, that's all. And how about we leave the sniping to the last threAad, ok? [ 12 February 2007: Message edited by: minkepants ]
From: Scarborough | Registered: Dec 2006
| IP: Logged
|
|
Cueball
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 4790
|
posted 12 February 2007 01:47 AM
More eurcentricism. Or are you just being obtuse? Saying that WW2 was spread all over the globe is nominaly true, and only in a technical sense, when one considers the massive devestation (and that was the modifier I applied, deliberately) that happened in Eastern Europe (also the center of the most agressive aspects of the Holocaust) and in Germany, in comparison to what happened elsewhere. The only other country that could be considered to have gone through that kind of trauma would be China, and the Chinese, as can be seen are more intereseted in counting their own dead, and the issue is the Rape of Nanking and Japanese massacres, not the Holocaust, which was fairly irrelevant to them, and is certainly not required high school subject of study as it is here. The Persians, for instance, remember the war as the occassion of the joint British and Soviet invasion of 1941, and the violaion of their neutrality by allied powers, not the attack on Poland by Germany. And again, as for the British involvement in WW1, this kind of thing also smacks of the Eurocentric construction of history. I would be just as feasible, historically speaking, to asign the date of 1912 as the true begining of WW1, as the joint alliance of Bulgaria, Serbia, and Greece assert their national claims in the Southern Balkans (Macedonia.) And the Balkans, as anyone who has studied the war knows, was the sailent issue of the origin of the war, as it is generally understood to begin with the assasination of Archduke Ferdinand, an event which directly stems from the same national struggle as that of the 1912 war. Fundamentally, WW1, is not about Alsace Loraine, but about the collapse of the Ottoman Empire, and the subsequent division of Ottoman territories by the European powers. This remains despite the slaughter at Vimy Ridge. But what is important to "us" is the demaracations of history that impact on our socities, so we determine that the World Wars begin only at the point that the European powers come directly into conflict, despite whatever else may be happening to other people elsewhere. So it it the British arrival in Tikrit which is sailent as the "begining," for us. And then again why September 1939, for the start date of WW2, and not July 1937, and the Marco Polo Bridge incident which sparks the Japanese invasion of the Chinese heartland? Thing look different from elsewhere in the world. [ 12 February 2007: Message edited by: Cueball ]
From: Out from under the bridge and out for a stroll | Registered: Dec 2003
| IP: Logged
|
|
BetterRed
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 11865
|
posted 12 February 2007 09:50 AM
quote: And again, as for the British involvement in WW1, this kind of thing also smacks of the Eurocentric construction of history. I would be just as feasible, historically speaking, to asign the date of 1912 as the true begining of WW1, as the joint alliance of Bulgaria, Serbia, and Greece assert their national claims in the Southern Balkans (Macedonia.) And the Balkans, as anyone who has studied the war knows, was the sailent issue of the origin of the war, as it is generally understood to begin with the assasination of Archduke Ferdinand, an event which directly stems from the same national struggle as that of the 1912 war.Fundamentally, WW1, is not about Alsace Loraine, but about the collapse of the Ottoman Empire, and the subsequent division of Ottoman territories by the European powers. This remains despite the slaughter at Vimy Ridge.
Thats an interesting argument, Cueball, that I never heard before. Indeed, before and after the 1912 war, Bulgaria was a firm German ally, as was the Ottoman Empire. Germany had a lot of investments in the MiddleEast(Baghdad railway) as did the British. Indeed, after the war ended, millions of square km were affected in MidEast border changes.Most of them were grabbed by the colonial powers. While, Germany only lost Alsace Lorraine and Austro-Hungary dissappeared into history's dustbin.
From: They change the course of history, everyday ppl like you and me | Registered: Jan 2006
| IP: Logged
|
|
|
Cueball
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 4790
|
posted 16 February 2007 07:20 PM
quote: Originally posted by BetterRed:
Thats an interesting argument, Cueball, that I never heard before. Indeed, before and after the 1912 war, Bulgaria was a firm German ally, as was the Ottoman Empire. Germany had a lot of investments in the MiddleEast(Baghdad railway) as did the British. Indeed, after the war ended, millions of square km were affected in MidEast border changes.Most of them were grabbed by the colonial powers. While, Germany only lost Alsace Lorraine and Austro-Hungary dissappeared into history's dustbin.
Well its just an example really, as far as the Balkans and the Ottoman territories are concerned hostilities began in 1912, and ended in 1921 when Attaturk finally drove out the British, French and the Greeks.
[ 16 February 2007: Message edited by: Cueball ]
From: Out from under the bridge and out for a stroll | Registered: Dec 2003
| IP: Logged
|
|
|
Coyote
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 4881
|
posted 31 March 2007 10:47 AM
A little late in the day, perhaps, but here is Robert Fisk's take: quote: Oh how - when it comes to the realities of history - the Muslims of the Middle East exhaust my patience. After years of explaining to Arab friends that the Jewish Holocaust - the systematic, planned murder of six million Jews by the Nazis, is an indisputable fact - I am still met with a state of willing disbelief.
quote: How, I always ask, can you expect the West to understand and accept the ethnic cleansing of 750,000 men, women and children from Palestine in 1948 when you will not try to comprehend the enormity done the Jews of Europe? And, here, of course, is the wretched irony of the whole affair. For what the Muslims of the Middle East should be doing is pointing out to the world that they were not responsible for the Jewish Holocaust, that, horrific and evil though it was, it is a shameful, outrageous injustice that they, the Palestinians, should suffer for something they had no part in and - even more disgusting - that they should be treated as if they have. But, no, Ahmadinajad has neither the brains nor the honesty to grasp this simple, vital equation.
quote: As for the West's reaction to Ahmadinajad's antics, Lord Blair of Kut al-Amara was "shocked" into disbelief while Israeli Prime Minister Ehud Olmert responded with more eloquent contempt. Strangely, no one recalled that, the holocaust deniers of recent years - deniers of the Turkish genocide of 1.5 million Armenian Christians in 1915, that is - include Lord Blair, who originally tried to prevent Armenians from participating in Britain's Holocaust Day and the then Israeli foreign minister, Shimon Peres, who told Turks that their massacre of the victims of the 20th century's first Holocaust did not constitute a genocide.I've no doubt Ahmadinajad - equally conscious of Iran's precious relationship with Turkey - would gutlessly fail to honour the Armenian Holocaust in Tehran. Who would have thought that the governments of Britain, Israel and Iran had so much in common?
From: O’ for a good life, we just might have to weaken. | Registered: Jan 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
jeff house
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 518
|
posted 31 March 2007 12:03 PM
It is an unfortunate fact that many in the Arab Middle East are susceptible to nazi propaganda from the Zundels of this world, that the Holocaust never happened, or that those nefarious Jews who control the world are just exaggerating.It is good that Mr. Fisk is willing to recognise this fact, rather than lie about it for reasons of political expeciency. Naturally, recognition of the historical fact of the Holocaust does not justify repressive policies emanating from Israel. But denial of the experiences of an entire people, be it Jews, Native Americans, or Armenians, only insures that violence and mistrust will continue over generations.
From: toronto | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Legless-Marine
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 13423
|
posted 31 March 2007 11:14 PM
quote: Originally posted by Cueball:
Why this should be a suprise to you, is what is interesting.
What I find surprising is the expectation that Arabs should give a hoot about the Jewish Holocaust. This expectation is ethnocentric, hypocritical, and arrogant - Moreso when it occurs among those who otherwise subscribe to theories of cultural relativism. It's not like the Mi'kmaq were expected to shed tears over the battle of Culodden.
From: Calgary | Registered: Oct 2006
| IP: Logged
|
|
|