Iran And The Holocaust

C

clivex

Banned member
Joined
Jul 20, 2006
Messages
12,720
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/middle_east/6167695.stm

Good to see that many iranians are showing their disgust at the sick "conference"

As if the muslim world isnt viewed with enough contempt as it is, this can only make matters worse

And to have mainly Holocaust deniers and racists such as David duke as speakers too.

what a disgusting leadership. what vile people they are...
 
errrr...what is? Iranian leaderships behaviour or the fact that its been highlighted

Would trust that it is the former.
 
Ahmedinejad is being quite cute, I think. Not saying he isn't half-baked, but he is being cute.

By selling this as a freedom of speech debate, he is showing Western hypocrisy up for what it generally is.

Muslims were generally told to STFU when cartoons depicting the Prophet Muhammed were printed in the West, as it was simply an exercise in "freedom of speech".

Such depictions are of course strictly taboo for Muslims.

In much the same way, 'Holocaust denial' is viewed as a strict taboo in the West.

The fact that so many people in the West are up in arms about this confernce, rather makes Ahmedinejad's point for him.

One rule for the West, and another for Islamic states. The West wants to have its cake, and to eat it too.

It's also a pretty shrewd move inviting some Orthodox Jews along to say their bit - doesn't look all that anti-semitic when you've got those blokes sitting in the front row.

I should point out that I 100% believe that the Holocaust happened - I merely post here to posit the theory that Mr Ahmedinejad is perhaps a more subtle political operator than we in the West like to think.

Also, for all that we in the West allegedly hold freedom of speech dear, it's interesting that this conference is totally condemned, before a word has been spoken at it. The irony isn't lost on me.

Hmmn........I think you can all step forward now to savage the newbie. :ph34r:
 
The fact that so many people in the West are up in arms about this confernce
Click to expand...

Except that we're not "up in arms" at all - I haven't seen any burning of Iranian flags in London today.
 
"sick conference"
"disgusting leadership"
"vile people"
"trolls"
"cnuts"

.....and that's just the reaction here.

Regardless, my point was about hypocrisy, and whether Ahmedinejad has been cute in exposing it.

Perhaps you would like to comment on that Gareth?
 
I will. I fail to see the correlation between freedom of speech and the rewriting of history to spout nonsense. I am a great believer in liberty but I just can't fathom out what that has to do with an assertion that, say, England won the second test at Adelaide or Darren Clarke was voted BBC Sports Personality of the year.
 
But those terms are pretty much all fair comment - you've just called him a troll yourself, i.e. his primary aim here is to provoke a reaction.

The difference is, there's no crowds of people on the streets of Western cities being stoked up by religious leaders to froth at the mouth, burn flags and effigies and threaten terrorist attacks on Tehran unless they call off the "conference". No equivalents of fatwas are being issued.

In other words, there is no attempt so far by any "Western" power to limit freedom of speech, those opposed to it have merely exercised their own right to call this event the offensive sham it is.
 
Originally posted by Grasshopper@Dec 12 2006, 12:33 PM
Hmmn........I think you can all step forward now to savage the newbie. :ph34r:
Click to expand...
Something tells me that this newbie is more than capable of looking after himself ;)

It won't be aimed at the UK Gareth, hence why you won't see the burning of flags etc For the most part we're more indifferent to religion, and are esssentially a non believing country (i believe :lol: ). The Jewish lobby in America however, is well documented, indeed more Jews live in New York than they do Israel, its the reaction there which will be most interesting to see, but as Grassy points out, we're being invited to walk right into an allegation of double standards regarding the concept of "freedom" etc. If we're to challenge it at all (rather than just ignore it) then I'm sure Brian's suggestion of a demonstrable factual based response is the best way to do so, and since Germany would broadly be in our camp on this, we do seemingly have a uniquely strong position of holding the evidence
 
BrianH, until the content of the debate is known, how can you say that it is an attempt to re-write history? It's not like the Orthodox Jews participating in the debate are going to buy the line that the Holocaust never happened, is it?

Gareth, for the record, I was quoting someone else when I used the term "troll".

As for your contention that the West has not attempted to "limit freedom of speech", I'm afraid you are very much mistaken. Around a dozen European countries have specific legislation which prevents Holocaust Denial, and they will clap your ass in jail for transgressing it.

How does that sit with freedom of speech?

As for this conference being an "offensive sham" then there's a fair degree of probability that you are correct.

However, if you really do believe in freedom of speech, you should really have no objection to it taking place.

At the very least, you should surely await the outcome of the debate, before condemning it, no?

Col, how are the penguins, mate? I hope they are looking after you. :)
 
Gareth, for the record, I was quoting someone else when I used the term "troll".
Click to expand...

It was me! :D

As for your contention that the West has not attempted to "limit freedom of speech", I'm afraid you are very much mistaken.
Click to expand...

It should have been clear I was solely referring to this "conference".

Around a dozen European countries have specific legislation which prevents Holocaust Denial, and they will clap your ass in jail for transgressing it. How does that sit with freedom of speech?
Click to expand...

There's hundreds and thousands of examples of "freedom of speech" being denied in the "West" - and I'd be the first to complain about them - but again, my point was confined to this specific event.

However, if you really do believe in freedom of speech, you should really have no objection to it taking place.
Click to expand...

And I don't - but I do reserve the right to call the people who organised it cnuts :)

At the very least, you should surely await the outcome of the debate, before condemning it, no?
Click to expand...

There's not much point, unless you think Ahmadinejad is going to come out and admit that, yes, it all happened exactly how the undeniable evidence tells us it did.
 
Gareth, in the context of 'freedom of speech' you cannot have a qualifier. It's all or nothing.

Fortunately for you, freedom of speech gives you the right to call whoever you want a cnut. :D

Making an assumption about the outcome is fair enough - I'm not trying to kid myself on about the likely end-game, though hope springs eternal.

The point I'm trying to make is that if we believe in freedom of speech, we should have no concern about the debate taking place, and if the outcome is pure hokum and misrepresentation, then we should condemn it as such then.
 
Originally posted by Grasshopper@Dec 12 2006, 01:14 PM
BrianH, until the content of the debate is known, how can you say that it is an attempt to re-write history?
Click to expand...
Never mind the "debate" - there are enough people there who have aleady attempted to rewrite history. Or are you saying that once the odd Rabbi or two has spoken the likes of Ahmedinejad and Duke are likely to say "Oh, I see, so we were wrong all along."
 
Originally posted by Grasshopper@Dec 12 2006, 01:14 PM
Around a dozen European countries have specific legislation which prevents Holocaust Denial.
Click to expand...
Yes they do, though we don't in the UK and Ireland, something that I'm not unhappy about. However, if you take a look at the ten countries where such a denial is against the law you can perhaps understand why:

Austria
Belgium
Czech Republic
France
Germany
Israel
Lithuania
Poland
Romania
Slovakia
Switzerland

Switzerland would be the exception.

So would you have total freedom of speech? For instance, how would you feel about references to "niggers and yids"?
 
Gareth, in the context of 'freedom of speech' you cannot have a qualifier. It's all or nothing.
Click to expand...

There is a difference between the ideal of freedom of speech as a compatible part of a wider set of human rights, and absolute free speech, given that the latter can be used to infringe on those other rights.
 
BrianH, as I've already said, I'm not under any illusion about the likely conclusion, and will of course condemn it, should the outcome offer a thesis that the Holocaust never happened. To be fair, I think it's about a 1/4 chance that it will.

My question is why are people upset about it taking place?

If people have the attendess/organisers down as a bunch of anti-semitic Jew-haters, then who is going to be surprised by an outcome which denies the Holocaust?

What I don't understand is how we in the West can espouse freedom of speech as one of the key differences between our 'civilisation' and the theocratic Islamic states, and yet at the same time, condemn this conference - which is nothing more than a (probably loaded) talking shop.

I believe that the Holocaust happened, but I don't believe that it should be a taboo to discuss it, or even hold a contrary view.

Those that hold a contrary view will be seen to be idiots, because the evidence to support the Holocaust is both overwhelming and indisputable.

But, imo, it's getting a bit too close to 1984, for Governments - or anyone - to suggest "This is the truth, and we will take you down if you so much as question it".

That attitude does not sit well with me. I like having independence of thought, and being able to express my opinion, regardless of how controversial, unsustainable or simply idiotic it may be (please see detroit City thread for more details).

The truth will out, so lets not stifle any debate, about anything.
 
What I don't understand is how we in the West can espouse freedom of speech as one of the key differences between our 'civilisation' and the theocratic Islamic states, and yet at the same time, condemn this conference - which is nothing more than a (probably loaded) talking shop.
Click to expand...

Since when is condemning something an infringement of freedom of speech?
 
Sorry - crossed posts.

BrianH - your "nigger" reference has nothing to do with any of this. Anyone using such a term is either an out-and-out racist, or an extremely unpleasant individual. Unless of course he is a Blood or Crip, in which case, what do we do then? Bang them up for offending themselves?

Legislation for Holocaust Denial boils down to one thing - the State telling you what you are and aren't allowed to say/think. Like I say - it's a bit too 1984 for me.

Gareth, whose rights - human or otherwise - would I be infringing, if I was to deny the Holocaust? The simple answer is nobody's, other than my own, because no-one would want ****-all to do with me, other than similair pea-brained cretins with the same warped world-view.

It is the suggestion that the mere fact of denying it should be a criminal offence, that I take issue with.

If someone denies it, and then goes on to stoke up racial hatred on the back of it, then that's a different matter altogether, I wholeheartedly agree.
 
Originally posted by Gareth Flynn@Dec 12 2006, 02:37 PM
What I don't understand is how we in the West can espouse freedom of speech as one of the key differences between our 'civilisation' and the theocratic Islamic states, and yet at the same time, condemn this conference - which is nothing more than a (probably loaded) talking shop.
Click to expand...

Since when is condemning something an infringement of freedom of speech?
Click to expand...
I didn't say it was, Gareth - I said it was a hypocrisy.
 
Sorry Gareth - I disagree with your interpretation.

I enjoy cream buns. I espouse them as the most satisfactory of sweet treats, and urge all and sundry to sample them.

I see you about to eat one and say "He can't have one of those! It's an outrage!"

I'm a hypocrite, and have not at all tried to stop you from scoffing your delicious cake.
 
Back
Top