U.S. condemns Holocaust denier meeting

[7960]

Originally Posted by AntiCentrist

Of course anyone should be able to condemn anything they want. The problem is that condemning an entire conference meeting to discuss a historical issue (as opposed to condemning specific findings that came out of that conference, a particular paper that was presented there, a portion of the text of a speech delivered duiring that conference, etc.), before that conference has even concluded no less, is rather stupid.

No, it's not. From statements made by Ahmadinejad, the goal of the conference is not to "clarify" it's to "prove the holocaust is wrong." So no, it's not stupid.

There are no truths that should be so sacred that people are afraid to question them, yet in Canada, France, Germany, and many other Western nations, you can be imprisoned merely for stating personal uncertainty about certain aspects of the official version of the Holocaust. A German research chemist, Germar Rudoulph I think his name is, was imprisoned for testing for cyanide residue at Auschwitz (I believe that's where it was), and declaring he didn't find any. I mean, the guy just plain didn't find any; how's that a crime? I don't know what not finding any means, after all its been over 60 years, but he looked and he didn't find any...and so they sent him to prison! Should he have been required to lie, and thus falsify his research, in order to avoid going to prison?

Well, that guy should should have known the laws of his country. I don't feel any worse for him than I feel for someone who drinks and drives and goes to jail.

I think its a tremendous propaganda coup for Iran that they have greater academic freedom (at least in this regard) than do the nations of western Europe and Canada. Its hilarious! Man, does the West ever have egg on its face! The fact so many of our people are too intellectually unsophisticated to realize it, and be appropriately humiliated, just adds insult to injury.

But they don't have greater freedom. This guy was jailed for a cartoon

Iran: Former Jailed Cartoonist Discusses Muhammad Caricatures - RADIO FREE EUROPE / RADIO LIBERTY

When someone can be jailed for a cartoon, don't say they have more academic freedom just because they can talk about something their fucking nutball president also agrees with. When their fucking nutball president disagrees, people go to jail (yes, I know that wasn't Ahmadinejad who put him in jail, but the description/analogy still holds).

[AntiCentrist]

Originally Posted by ballz2wallz

His nutiness only proven by his recent actions makes me wonder why anybody would support his desire for nuclear technology.

Does anyone outside of Iran, Shi'ite neighborhoods in Iraq, and Hezbollah's zone of control in southern Lebanon actually desire Iran to get nuclear warheads? Some people want to start a war with Iran that we don't have the conventional forces available to wage successfully, even though its going to be at least five, and probably more like 10 years, before Iran has nukes, in order to keep them from eventually getting said nukes (a war that would end with either an American defeat or victory only at the cost of deploying nuclear weapons against largely civilian targets in Iran; either way, American national interests would be severely throttled). Others have a slightly more, um, realistic approach to the problem (like if diplomacy & economic sanctions fail, maybe letting the problem naturally get so bad that Israel would be forced to deal with it themselves, and leave us out of the next war for once).

[ballz2wallz]

Originally Posted by AntiCentrist

Does anyone outside of Iran, Shi'ite neighborhoods in Iraq, and Hezbollah's zone of control in southern Lebanon actually desire Iran to get nuclear warheads?

Yes, and when you're on this forum long enough, you'll see there are some even here that see no problem with it at all.

[AntiCentrist]

Originally Posted by 7960

From statements made by Ahmadinejad, the goal of the conference is not to "clarify" it's to "prove the holocaust is wrong." So no, it's not stupid.

The President of Iran is not going to be a participant at the conference. Various historians, both amateur and academic, are going to be the participants. Few, if any, are going to advance the thesis that no Jews were rounded up and liquidated in concentration camps by Nazi Germany. He can say that's what the conference is going to be about, but it isn't. There really aren't any Western historians who hold that view, even among Holocaust Revisionists. The British historian David Irving, who's spending three years in an Austrian prison for questioning certain details of the Holocaust, does not dispute that the Holocaust itself actually happened. If people in prison for questioning certain aspects of the official history of the Holocaust don't deny it happened, its unlikely their colleages are going to be denying it at this conference (especially since they haven't done so previously), irrespective of whatever gibberish the President of Iran may utter during a press conference 100 miles away. Iranian politicians lie just like American ones do.

Originally Posted by 7960

that guy should should have known the laws of his country. I don't feel any worse for him than I feel for someone who drinks and drives and goes to jail.

You obviously don't believe in free speech. I do. That's where we differ. Putting people in prison for expressing their opinions is tyranny. I'm against tyranny. You're not. To each his own.

Originally Posted by 7960

But they don't have greater freedom. This guy was jailed for a cartoon

Iran: Former Jailed Cartoonist Discusses Muhammad Caricatures - RADIO FREE EUROPE / RADIO LIBERTY

When someone can be jailed for a cartoon, don't say they have more academic freedom just because they can talk about something their fucking nutball president also agrees with. When their fucking nutball president disagrees, people go to jail (yes, I know that wasn't Ahmadinejad who put him in jail, but the description/analogy still holds).

Yes, but you are no different than President Ahmadinejad. You have no problem with a German going to prison for saying things you don't like, yet it bothers you when an Iranian goes to prison for saying thing you do like. You're no different than the Mullahs who run Iran; you are simply their mirror image. I'm frankly amazed you would make that so clear in a single post. Most people are (rightly, in my view) ashamed of having views like that. You are apparently of a different breed. Well, at least you're honest about it, I'll grant you that.

[Scrum]

Originally Posted by ballz2wallz

Yes, and when you're on this forum long enough, you'll see there are some even here that see no problem with it at all.

It's not the having nukes part that some have a problem with. It's the "should we go around telling people they can or cannot develop their own nuclear technology".

I tire of interventionism. It brings us down a road with no end to conflict and the loss of our cultural identity that people seem to only equate to "the war on christmas" and immigrants moving here and not conforming.

[SpicyMcVoodoo]

Originally Posted by ballz2wallz

Yes, and when you're on this forum long enough, you'll see there are some even here that see no problem with it at all.

I get a kick out of these people who insist Iran must not have nukes. Exactly what are you going to do to make sure they don't? Because right now, all the sanctions and threats aren't going to do anything. If you want to stop them, you're going to have to start bombing, and Iran is no Iraq that'll topple easily.

Are you willing to go to war with Iran over this? Are you willing to have our troops in Iraq attacked by Iranian missiles? Are you willing to have Israel attacked? Are you willing to have Israel go to war with Lebanon again after Hezbollah starts up again? Are you willing to have the flow of oil horribly disrupted indefinitely? Are you willing to risk the middle east erupting into a broader conflict? Are you willing to have our economy take a shit?

I highly doubt most of the chicken little neocons could stomach the reality of those consequences, but it's so easy to call everyone else appeasers before the reality of what you're doing kicks in. It's just like Iraq. They think we're gonna be the big tough guys by laying down the law, and then we find ourselves fucked because we're in over our heads.

[mididoctors]

the KKK and irans hardcore... what a head banger combo

the "state sponsored" component of this conterence is disturbing

Boris
London

[Donkey®]

Originally Posted by SpicyMcVoodoo

I get a kick out of these people who insist Iran must not have nukes. Exactly what are you going to do to make sure they don't? Because right now, all the sanctions and threats aren't going to do anything. If you want to stop them, you're going to have to start bombing, and Iran is no Iraq that'll topple easily.

Are you willing to go to war with Iran over this? Are you willing to have our troops in Iraq attacked by Iranian missiles? Are you willing to have Israel attacked? Are you willing to have Israel go to war with Lebanon again after Hezbollah starts up again? Are you willing to have the flow of oil horribly disrupted indefinitely? Are you willing to risk the middle east erupting into a broader conflict? Are you willing to have our economy take a shit?

I highly doubt most of the chicken little neocons could stomach the reality of those consequences, but it's so easy to call everyone else appeasers before the reality of what you're doing kicks in. It's just like Iraq. They think we're gonna be the big tough guys by laying down the law, and then we find ourselves fucked because we're in over our heads.

Last time I checked, North Korea would pay dearly for having nukes...oh wait...no they won't.

[7960]

Originally Posted by AntiCentrist

The President of Iran is not going to be a participant at the conference. ....... irrespective of whatever gibberish the President of Iran may utter during a press conference 100 miles away. Iranian politicians lie just like American ones do.

Organisers and participants touted the conference, hosted by Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad, as a scholarly gathering .....

Speaking on Tuesday, Ahmadinejad, claimed that the Holocaust was being used as an excuse ......

The two-day conference was initiated by Ahmadinejad ...

Ahmadinejad addresses Holocaust conference - NDTV.com - News on Ahmadinejad addresses Holocaust conference

He hosted it and initiated it and spoke at it.......but he's not a participant?

You obviously don't believe in free speech. I do. That's where we differ. Putting people in prison for expressing their opinions is tyranny. I'm against tyranny. You're not. To each his own.

WTF are you talking about?

I do believe in free speech, GERMANY doesn't. He did and said those things IN GERMANY. He BROKE GERMANY LAW. It's legal to in Thailand to have sex with a 12 year old girl. If you do that here you go to jail. I guess you're saying Thailand believes in sexual freedom but the US doesn't

Yes, but you are no different than President Ahmadinejad. You have no problem with a German going to prison for saying things you don't like, yet it bothers you when an Iranian goes to prison for saying thing you do like. You're no different than the Mullahs who run Iran; you are simply their mirror image. I'm frankly amazed you would make that so clear in a single post. Most people are (rightly, in my view) ashamed of having views like that. You are apparently of a different breed. Well, at least you're honest about it, I'll grant you that.

I don't believe you have your reading comprehension glasses on today. I ask you to show me where I said or even implied any of those things, but to start us off:

1. I did not say the german said things I don't like, I said he said things the german law doesn't like

2. I did not it bothered me that an iranian went to prison. I said not to use "ability to talk about the holocaust" as proof that iranians have more freedoms when they're also jailing cartoonists.

Now, having answered two of your erroneous comments, do you want to continue?

[ballz2wallz]

Originally Posted by SpicyMcVoodoo

I get a kick out of these people who insist Iran must not have nukes. Exactly what are you going to do to make sure they don't? Because right now, all the sanctions and threats aren't going to do anything. If you want to stop them, you're going to have to start bombing, and Iran is no Iraq that'll topple easily.

Are you willing to go to war with Iran over this? Are you willing to have our troops in Iraq attacked by Iranian missiles? Are you willing to have Israel attacked? Are you willing to have Israel go to war with Lebanon again after Hezbollah starts up again? Are you willing to have the flow of oil horribly disrupted indefinitely? Are you willing to risk the middle east erupting into a broader conflict? Are you willing to have our economy take a shit?

I highly doubt most of the chicken little neocons could stomach the reality of those consequences, but it's so easy to call everyone else appeasers before the reality of what you're doing kicks in. It's just like Iraq. They think we're gonna be the big tough guys by laying down the law, and then we find ourselves fucked because we're in over our heads.

Much of these comments are based on the assumption that we'll be in this alone if military action were required.

[SpicyMcVoodoo]

Originally Posted by ballz2wallz

Much of these comments are based on the assumption that we'll be in this alone if military action were required.

Exactly which ones? I don't see how allies would make any of those things less likely to happen. And what do you mean "if military action is required"? If you won't allow Iran to have nukes, and Iran won't peacefully give them up, then what other option do you have besides military?

[AntiCentrist]

Originally Posted by 7960

He hosted it and initiated it and spoke at it.......but he's not a participant?

Not particularly. Delivering a political speech at the opening of an academic conference does not constitute meaningful participation. Its an academic conference; people are there to present scholarly essays they have written for peer review, and to examine new evidentiary sources; its not about giving political speeches, even if some time was wasted while one or two were delivered.

Originally Posted by 7960

I do believe in free speech, GERMANY doesn't. He did and said those things IN GERMANY. He BROKE GERMANY LAW.

Actually, what he said was the samples he tested did not show any traces of cyanide, and they didn't. There is no law stating he had to falsify his results if they conflicted with the official version of the Holocaust narrative, nor did he ever state his results were anything but preliminary, and certainly insufficient to disprove the Holocaust had occurred, so he was rather taken by surprise at this novel interpretation of Holocaust denial law. He certainly had no way of knowing he would be imprisoned for refusing to lie about his laboratory test results, and yet you stated that his telling the truth about his findings was the criminal equivalent of driving while intoxicated, and thus it didn't bother he was placed in prison for refusing to falsify his test results. If you believed in free speech, it would bother you. Or is there some reason why that doesn't follow?

[7960]

Originally Posted by AntiCentrist

Not particularly. Delivering a political speech at the opening of an academic conference does not constitute meaningful participation. Its an academic conference; people are there to present scholarly essays they have written for peer review, and to examine new evidentiary sources; its not about giving political speeches, even if some time was wasted while one or two were delivered.

When you're the president and host, and picked who is attending and presenting, and have come out and said israel should be wiped off the map, I think that means he has at least a slight level of participation.

Actually, what he said was the samples he tested did not show any traces of cyanide, and they didn't. There is no law stating he had to falsify his results if they conflicted with the official version of the Holocaust narrative, nor did he ever state his results were anything but preliminary, and certainly insufficient to disprove the Holocaust had occurred, so he was rather taken by surprise at this novel interpretation of Holocaust denial law. He certainly had no way of knowing he would be imprisoned for refusing to lie about his laboratory test results, and yet you stated that his telling the truth about his findings was the criminal equivalent of driving while intoxicated, and thus it didn't bother he was placed in prison for refusing to falsify his test results. If you believed in free speech, it would bother you. Or is there some reason why that doesn't follow?

The holocaust is serious shit in germany. If he was testing shit that came from a holocaust area then he knew (or should have known) that he was treading on shaky ground.

In other words, if it's illegal to yell "FIRE!" in a crowded theater and I'm in a theater and yell "SMOKE AND HEAT AND AN ABUDANCE OF COMBUSTIBLE MATERIAL!!!" then I'm probably up shit's creek if there isn't a fire.

[JaJae]

Much like some of these posts, Rudolf was a revisionist. He was found guilty in Germany for denying the Holocaust. He wasn't sent to jail for not finding cyanide residue at Auschwitz, he was sent to jail for claiming that because he claimed he didn't find cyanide, the Jews were never gassed to death.. EVER. He had a few sample bricks and used his "findings" (some claim he lied about his findings) to try to get Nazi criminals free from their criminal charges. He was a member of many Holocaust revisionist organizations and even authored books based on his revisionist theories.

In Germany there are laws in place to prevent people from conducting themselves in his manner to prevent racial tensions and to show respect for those who lost their lives in the Holocaust.

Whether or not you, I or 7960 agree with those laws, clearly Rudolf violated them. That makes him a criminal in Germany. Comparing these laws found in Germany to Iran is a bit absurd.
Iran: Torture Used to Suppress Dissent (Human Rights Watch, 7-6-2004)

" Claims that reforms in Iran have put an end to torture are simply false. More than ever, journalists, intellectuals and activists are afraid to voice opinions critical of the government. "
Sarah Leah Whitson,
Executive Director of Human Rights Watch's Middle East and North Africa Division

Iran is far worse than the west in regard to suppression opinions. Some posts in this thread seem to hold the intention of painting Ahmadinejad in the light of an innocent victim of the West's media. This is false. If anything he has not received enough scrutiny from our media and much of his evil-doings go unnoticed to the media and unreported. Someone's definition of "participation" is startling. It was his event. That's like saying you didn't participate in a surprise birthday party because you were too busy paying for everything, inviting everyone, planning the sequence of events, and giving speeches during the party... yet the actual invitees.. they're the ones who actually participated.

I don't understand people's desire to blindly defend anything that has to do with being anti-Israel or Jew. Why must people blindly attack the beliefs commonly held by the right. There are ideological arguments that could be made in defense of this meeting, yet the way counter arguments have been presented in this thread seem troubling. Ahmadinejad is not a friend of America, freedom, democracy, human rights or intellectual fairness, he is not a good person. When he comes out and holds meetings like this you have to ask yourself why. And the reality is he's up for re-election and many of his critics are upset he has not been harsher with Israel. This event was nothing more than a publicity stunt and a way for tin foil hat theorist of the West like David Duke to pass off their ideas and help substantiate their ridiculous claims.

We can all argue the numbers dead and the methods. Personally I have trouble believing some of the figures, however, I am not so far off the slate that I would chime in to defend Ahmadinejad's methods, intent and/or credibility when it comes to denying the Holocaust.

[Diamond Cross]

Why must the left constantly attack the right?

It goes both ways and has been doing so for decades.

[Kytro]

Originally Posted by 7960

Well, that guy should should have known the laws of his country. I don't feel any worse for him than I feel for someone who drinks and drives and goes to jail.

Seems like you are equating law to right. I cannot support that position

[7960]

Originally Posted by Kytro

Seems like you are equating law to right. I cannot support that position

Seems like you're not reading what I'm actually saying.

Today, right now, at this very minute, if I drive 35mph on the road in front of my house I'll deserve and will probably get a ticket. The road may be safe at 35mph, it may be safe at 40mph, but the speed limit is 30mph. If I exceed the speed limit then, whether the law is right or wrong, I broke the law.

Why is this so difficult?

Same with this guy... he knew what he was doing was going to be (at least) questionable or (at worst) illegal. Why did he do it? If he wanted to go to jail to make a statement then fantastic, he wins. But if that wasn't his goal why didn't he get permission to run his test first, especially seeing as the outcome could very easily break the law?