Amadinejad and - Yes, Virginia, there was a holocaust !!!!!

[jacjon]

Well, let's get this started. Firstly, Ahmadinejad has never been factually quoted calling for the annilation of Israel. Indeed, what he has said was that the "Jewish State" has no legitimate right to exist in it's present geographical location. Why....because when the world bowed to the Zionist intimidation in 1948 what right did those same powers ( especially England ) have to disrupt large populations of Arab and Persian peoples and properties. Maybe because they were an easy target???? These same people, ever since, having had not only their lands eroded but their very existence threatened. ( Jimmy Carter DOES make some good points in Palestine: Peace Not Aparthied ) Although I may not entirely agree with his approach, Ahmadinejad has achieved what no 'WESTERN' leader has been able to do.......to make the world recognize that the Jewish State, Zionism, the Lobby efforts, their intransigence on peace in the middle east together with, IN MY OPINION, their blatant crimes against humanity through the atrocities commited against a much weaker neighbor. No, Ahmadinejad is far too cunning to actually 'speak' the words that so many carry in their minds. On the other hand, can anyone be blamed for such terrifying mental pauses??

As to the military capabilities of Iran........is it not assumable from the attitudes of the U.S and Isreal when it comes to 'disciplining ' Iran ?? Do we see our lame-duck President GDubya or Israeli PM Olmert doing anything but sabre rattling and shaking wisened old fingers at the Persian?? Their attitude is tantamount to scolding a young child. Why, you ask. Well, I'm of the belief that the facts speak for themselves; THe strongest military in the world ( and the most Imperialistic in history ) can't make a dent in the Irag struggle, at least using ONLY conventional weapons and the U.S. armed IDF LOST the battle against Hezbollah in South Lebonon. Now, how do you think they would do against a nation with AN Army ( some say 100,000 strong, well trained and well armed I'll add, ) AN efficent Air Force, A capable Navy and a stock of stealth weapons such as; the so called 'cavity' underwater missles capable of both sea and land attack and long range land to air to land multiple warhead missles - both of which are undetectable using known tracing technologioes and are capable of carrying ANY type of payload. Now there's a war I'd like to watch
( figuratively speaking, of course !!! )

Lastly, I'd like to comment on this weeks holocaust conference. SOTT is being quoted by Novelis/Jedi ( I must say "I THINK" as I'm still not sure I understand how this SOTT site works ) as having Ahmadinejad denying the holocaust. I'd like to see that piece of information as I can bring to bear evidence of the Iranian Leader being quoted as, and I paraphrase, 'not denying the holocaust but the way the information is disseminated to the world.' Indeed, to deny the Holocaust as a historic and despicable blot on humanity's history is foolish. Ahmadinejad is by no means a foolish man. He has merely, and correctly I believe, asserted that the holocaust with ALL historical facts should be recognized. He has, I believe, stated and I agree, that even the term 'holocaust' has somehow become identified solely as if it were of signifigance strictly to Jews and their history. I believe that very same history has a far stronger reach to all of us and I am offended by the way it has been usurped by the Jews. I believe history has proven that were some 27 million deaths due to the crimes. Yes, I'll believe that 6 million were of Jewish extraction but what of the OTHER 21 million souls??? The Russians, the Poles, the intellectuals, those of color, the gays, et al......... No, when he adds the conference is a " Freedom of Speech " dialogue I'll snicker as well. But in the end, at least someone is standing a being counted!!! Gets full marks on my scale.
Jacjon
BTW -.It wasn't so long ago Jimmy Carter ( together with Anwar Sadat ) was being lauded as the world's leading Mid East diplomat. Now the Israeli's are choosing much more denigrating terminology. Shame on you !!

 

[JGeropoulas]

I think you'll enjoy reading this editorial that was posted by SOTT on 8-29-06.

Putting Words in Ahmadinejad's Mouth

Virginia Tilley
Counterpunch
28/08/2006

In this frightening mess in the Middle East, let's get one thing straight. Iran is not threatening Israel with destruction. Iran's president has not threatened any action against Israel. Over and over, we hear that Iran is clearly "committed to annihilating Israel" because the "mad" or "reckless" or "hard-line" President Ahmadinejad has repeatedly threatened to destroy Israel But every supposed quote, every supposed instance of his doing so, is wrong.

The most infamous quote, "Israel must be wiped off the map", is the most glaringly wrong. In his October 2005 speech, Mr. Ahmadinejad never used the word "map" or the term "wiped off". According to Farsi-language experts like Juan Cole and even right-wing services like MEMRI, what he actually said was "this regime that is occupying Jerusalem must vanish from the page of time."

What did he mean? In this speech to an annual anti-Zionist conference, Mr. Ahmadinejad was being prophetic, not threatening. He was citing Imam Khomeini, who said this line in the 1980s (a period when Israel was actually selling arms to Iran, so apparently it was not viewed as so ghastly then). Mr. Ahmadinejad had just reminded his audience that the Shah's regime, the Soviet Union, and Saddam Hussein had all seemed enormously powerful and immovable, yet the first two had vanished almost beyond recall and the third now languished in prison. So, too, the "occupying regime" in Jerusalem would someday be gone. His message was, in essence, "This too shall pass."

But what about his other "threats" against Israel? The blathersphere made great hay from his supposed comment later in the same speech, "There is no doubt: the new wave of assaults in Palestine will erase the stigma in [the] countenance of the Islamic world." "Stigma" was interpreted as "Israel" and "wave of assaults" was ominous. But what he actually said was, "I have no doubt that the new movement taking place in our dear Palestine is a wave of morality which is spanning the entire Islamic world and which will soon remove this stain of disgrace from the Islamic world." "Wave of morality" is not "wave of assaults." The preceding sentence had made clear that the "stain of disgrace" was the Muslim world's failure to eliminate the "occupying regime".

For months, scholars like Cole and journalists like the London Guardian's Jonathan Steele have been pointing out these mistranslations while more and more appear: for example, Mr. Ahmadinejad's comments at the Organization of Islamic Countries meeting on August 3, 2006. Radio Free Europe reported that he said "that the 'main cure' for crisis in the Middle East is the elimination of Israel." "Elimination of Israel" implies physical destruction: bombs, strafing, terror, throwing Jews into the sea. Tony Blair denounced the translated statement as ""quite shocking". But Mr. Ahmadinejad never said this. According to al-Jazeera, what he actually said was "The real cure for the conflict is the elimination of the Zionist regime, but there should be an immediate ceasefire first."

[continued at this link, where it first appeared: http://www.signs-of-the-times.org/signs/editorials/signs20060829_PuttingWordsinAhmadinejad27sMouth.php ]

 

[JGeropoulas]

Time magazine featured an article that perfectly illustrates how our "free press" operates. There are many subtle devices utilized, but in this case, since it was a verbatim interview, this particular strategy was used:

Provide plenty of truth, but then label said truth with a midleading (i.e. "untrue") title. This will suffice for most, who won't read beyond the propagandized title. For those who do, and cry "Foul!", they'll be chastised for "reading too much into things"!

I've provided below some representative excerpts from the article. What do you think of the title chosen? If TIME considers Amadinejad to "swagger" and have a "dangerous" mind, then what in God's name would be the adjectives to describe Bush's arrogance and so-called "mind"!?

TIME Magazine
9-25-06
A Date With A Dangerous Mind
"Face to face with Iran's Mahmoud Ahmadinejad, the man whose swagger is stirring fears of war with the U.S."

When asked is he'd visited the site of the World Trade Center while in New York, Ahmadinejad replied [with
perfectly-underplayed sarcasm, I believe]: "It was not necessary. It was widely covered in the media."

When asked about a debate with President Bush, he said: "I would ask him, 'Are rationalism, spirituality and humanitarianism-and logic-are they bad things for human beings? Why more conflict? Everybody can love one another."

"last year in my address to the U.N. General Assembly, I suggested that a committee should be set up in order to disarm all the countries that possess nuclear weapons."

Asked about those [obviously-deranged] Iranians that chant "Death to America," Amadinejad explained: "They hate aggression,...bullying tactics,...violations of the rights of nations"

Responding to the idea that President Bush is a strong Christian: "I've heard that. But there are many things which take place and are inconsistent with the teachings of Jesus Christ in this world." [He should receive the Nobel Peace Prize for just the restraint required for such a tactful response to such an inflamatory question.]

"I recommended to President Bush that he can change his behavior, then everything will change." [uh, speaking of the teachings of Jesus Christ...]

"Today nuclear weapons are a blunt instrument. Problems cannot be solved through bombs. They are of little use. We need logic...We do not need attacks"

Regarding the idea that Iran should co-operate with the U.S. to gain the confidence of "the world," he retorted, "The world? The world? Who is the world? the United States? The U.S. Administration is not the entire world."

And a final question about his comments on the holocaust resulted in this "dangerous" response:

"I just raised a few questions. And I didn't receive any answers...60 million were killed. All were human beings and had their dignities. Why only 6 million?...They put in prison those who try to do research. We are waiting for answers."

 

[eagles fly free]

I will quote a part of the times magazine you posted.

Qte

"I just raised a few questions. And I didn't receive any answers...60 million were killed. All were human beings and had their dignities. Why only 6 million?...They put in prison those who try to do research. We are waiting for answers."

Unqte

First i want to clarify that i donot dispute the atrocities that happened during the 2 WW by the Nazis.

It is common knowledge (it is alleged that the talmud and the protocols of Zion state it) that jews donot consider the other as ''people'' but something lesser than them... therefore according to them only 6 milion people died, the rest were..... others.

On the other hand i wonder why the ones that say they believe on the holocaust, no matter from which side you see it, donto believe so much in democracy also. Denying the right to a group of people to express their opinions is not democrasy for me. Furthermore why they donot attend with their evidence in order to convince the non-believers?

Having said that i would like ot pay a small tribute to the victims of dunkirk, a city which had no military instalations whatsoever, but bombed to the ground with the equivelant of napalm by the allies almost wipping out scores of innocent lives and left standing the bridges and a factory .... but history is written by the victors and we all know who won at the end......