U.S. condemns Holocaust denier meeting

[Ron Burgundy]

AP - The Bush administration condemned Iran on Tuesday for convening a conference of people who deny the Holocaust happened, calling the move "an affront to the entire civilized world."

The two-day event in Tehran was initiated by Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad. The hard-line president has described the Holocaust as a "myth" and called for Israel to be wiped off the map.

"The gathering of Holocaust deniers in Tehran is an affront to the entire civilized world, as well as to the traditional Iranian values of tolerance and mutual respect," White House spokeswoman Dana Perino said. "The United States will continue to support those in Iran and elsewhere who seek to promote human rights and dignity, and will stand with them in their efforts to overcome oppression, injustice and tyranny."

Perino called it perverse for the Iranian regime to call into the question the historical fact of World War II atrocities.

International condemnation has poured in against the government-sponsored conference in Tehran, which has drawn Holocaust skeptics from around the world. British Prime Minister Tony Blair said it was "shocking beyond belief" and called the conference "a symbol of sectarianism and hatred."

The timing comes as President Bush has been prodded by a bipartisan commission to engage Iran in calming violence in Iraq, and idea Bush has been reluctant to embrace unless Iran suspends its nuclear weapons pursuits.

Ahmadinejad initiated the Holocaust conference, which began on Monday, in an attempt to bolster his image as a leader standing up to Israel, Europe and the United States — an image he has used to whip up support at home and abroad.

Organizers and participants touted the conference as a scholarly gathering aimed at discussing the Holocaust away from Western taboos and the restrictions imposed on scholars in Europe.

Israel's official Holocaust memorial, Yad Vashem, said the Tehran conference was "an effort to mainstream Holocaust denial" and "paint (an) extremist agenda with a scholarly brush."

Iranian Foreign Minister Manouchehr Mottaki dismissed the criticism as "predictable," telling delegates there was "no logical reason for opposing this conference."

__

On The Net:

White House: Welcome to the White House

[motivez]

What do you guys think about this?

Should a group of people be able to gather to discuss history and whether or not it's accurate, even if the topic is patently offensive?

[Donkey®]

Absolutely.

[sj23]

I may be stating the obvious, but I think Ahmadinejad is just using this meeting to gain steam for his "wipe out Israel" campaign. I think someone should sit him down to watch PBS episodes on the Holocaust and see what he says after that.

[Kytro]

Obvious politics. Israel is the enemy, so anything that paints them as victims is going to be unpopular.

[SpicyMcVoodoo]

I think they should be able to discuss this all they want. I seriously doubt that the holocaust was completely fabricated, but I wouldn't be surprised if it was exaggerated. After all, if not for the holocaust, the state of Israel would never have been created. That's a pretty strong motivation to twist the truth. Dubya is playing right into Israel's M.O., which is to call anyone anti-semitic who questions Jewish victimhood.

Labeling these people all as "holocaust deniers" is a rhetorical trick. It props up a straw man by creating a false dichotomy...either you believe in the holocaust as the state of Israel promotes it, or you deny it completely. That conveniently leaves out the reasonable possibility of exaggeration rather than complete denial. But now that this "holocaust denier" label has caught on, anyone who questions the holocaust in any way is instantly labeled crazy because they're "denying the holocaust."

[Scrum]

Should the be able to? Yes.

Should the logical (I think I just called Bush logical ) world be able to condemn it? Yes.

[motivez]

Why should anyone condemn people getting together to discuss an issue though? I mean, even if they are not academics or really interested in objectiveness.

I've seen some "otherwise intelligent" people post lengthy explanations about how although it did happen the numbers are off. If they want to discuss it I don't have a huge problem with it.

I don't have to agree with someones conclusion to respect free speech and free thought. Plus, all of the press and negative attention is what they want anyway, so the people getting up in arms about it are feeding into the whole thing.

[RMNIXON]

Originally Posted by motivez

What do you guys think about this?

Should a group of people be able to gather to discuss history and whether or not it's accurate, even if the topic is patently offensive?

Well we have our nut conventions here in the United States. That is a free speech right I agree! But here this is clearly government sponsored and sanctioned and it is being used for political purposes. I think that should be a matter of official protest. But we should allow these views to be expressed in a free society.

[Diamond Cross]

It can't be false. The Nazis kept detailed records of what they did, how much stuff they took off of the victims, how much gas they used, how many they killed, etc...

It would be too much like saying Pearl Harbor never happened even though it was caught on tape and you can see the Arizona from the Memorial, or those today who believe the WTC conspiracy stories.

But this is the Middle East we're talking about. These are people who dehumanise Jews quite often. One such example of the dehumanizing is that their television sometimes show the Jews using Muslim children's blood to make their holy bread. The best way to see how they do this is in the video "Obsession: The Threat of Radical Islam".

[7960]

Originally Posted by motivez

What do you guys think about this?

Should a group of people be able to gather to discuss history and whether or not it's accurate, even if the topic is patently offensive?

Yes, they should be able to do that...and they did.

But are you suggesting that we shouldn't be able to condemn the meeting and discussion?

[ballz2wallz]

Originally Posted by motivez

What do you guys think about this?

Should a group of people be able to gather to discuss history and whether or not it's accurate, even if the topic is patently offensive?

Whether or not it's offensive is hardly the worry. The fact that they are trying to question or change well-documented history is more worrying. It's not even that this is a scroll or some ambiguous writings on a wall that we're talking about. We have survivors and eye-witnesses, film and photographs, and many many accounts of the same thing.

The President of Iran is leading this. He's supported by people like David Duke. This in and of itself proves he's delusional and out of his mind. And yet, there are people that support his right to nuclear technology?!!!!

They can meet and say whatever they want. They can jerk each other off if they need. But I hope this gives everyone a clear idea of what kind of people they are supporting. This isn't a free speech issue, this is a look into the minds of the people that half the world is coming to love.

[7960]

Originally Posted by motivez

I've seen some "otherwise intelligent" people post lengthy explanations about how although it did happen the numbers are off. If they want to discuss it I don't have a huge problem with it.

1. The numbers aren't that far off, but more imporantly,

2. Ahmadinejad isn't saying the numbers are off, he's saying it didn't happen and that the pictures we see were staged to give the world's sympathy to jews. There's a HUGE difference in arguing "5 million or 6 million" and arguing "jews killed other jews to stage it so they could take pictures and get sympathy."

I don't have to agree with someones conclusion to respect free speech and free thought.

But nobody is preventing their free speech and free thought.

Plus, all of the press and negative attention is what they want anyway, so the people getting up in arms about it are feeding into the whole thing.

This could be a problem, but everything else you've said really confuses me. We aren't preventing anyone from saying anything. We're saying that what they're talking about is untrue and repulsive to us.

[ballz2wallz]

Originally Posted by motivez

Why should anyone condemn people getting together to discuss an issue though? I mean, even if they are not academics or really interested in objectiveness.

Nobody is condemning their right to get together and discuss things. They're condemning what they're trying to do...change history.

[SpicyMcVoodoo]

Originally Posted by ballz2wallz

Nobody is condemning their right to get together and discuss things. They're condemning what they're trying to do...change history.

You're assuming they want to deny the holocaust happened all together. If they just claim it was exaggerated, then they're not trying to change history, just make a more accurate record of it.

[7960]

Originally Posted by SpicyMcVoodoo

You're assuming they want to deny the holocaust happened all together. If they just claim it was exaggerated, then they're not trying to change history, just make a more accurate record of it.

Ahmadinejad has made it clear what he thinks of the holocaust

The purpose of the conference was-not surprisingly--to disprove the existence of the World War II Holocaust. (Ahmadinejad previously said it was a "myth.")

[ballz2wallz]

Originally Posted by SpicyMcVoodoo

You're assuming they want to deny the holocaust happened all together.

I report, you decide:

Ahmadinejad sparked an international outcry by referring to the Holocaust as a "myth" and saying Israel should be relocated to Europe or North America.

http://today.reuters.com/news/articl...src=rss&rpc=22


There are many more where this came from.

[AntiCentrist]

Originally Posted by 7960

But are you suggesting that we shouldn't be able to condemn the meeting and discussion?

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. 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?

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.

[AntiCentrist]

Originally Posted by ballz2wallz

The President of Iran is leading this. He's supported by people like David Duke. This in and of itself proves he's delusional and out of his mind.

Really? Please explain how this new version of logic you are employing manages to work.

I hear David Duke is against the War in Iraq, so I guess we all have to be in favor of that now too, 'cause you know, every single neo-Nazi on the planet is wrong about absolutely everything always. Pass me that bottle, would ya?

[ballz2wallz]

Originally Posted by AntiCentrist

Really? Please explain how this new version of logic you are employing manages to work.

I hear David Duke is against the War i