Iran Holocaust denial... Why??

[Novelis]

http://signs-of-the-times.org/signs/chains/signs20061208_TargetIran.php#5cfb311d9e67f2c7cac36f235ee

Iran's President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad has dismissed the Holocaust as a myth.

And last January, the Iranian government announced it would hold a conference on the Holocaust. It said it intended to invite academics such as German neo-Nazi Horst Mahler and the Israeli journalist and Christian convert Israel Shamir, both of whom are Holocaust deniers.

Back in January, Western politicians, especially in Germany, were up in arms at the plan -- although it was debated at the time whether the conference would actually take place, and what it was intended to provoke. Now, however, it seems clear that it will take place after all.

Hello,
I read this article today and I'm a little confused, why in the world would Ahmadenejad want to deny the holocaust ever happened? I mean, what has he got to gain from claiming this? Does he realise that saying this would just affirm to the world the already dangerous impression that he is the next Hitler? I'm sure the Bush gang would leap on this story as further justification for their agenda in the Middle East; does the Iranian leader want this to happen or something? Or is he a bit of a fool?
Maybe I'm just not catching on to the obvious here, but can anyone clarify this for me please?

 

[Joe]

It certainly is strange. At this stage I have him pegged as a bit lacking in terms of his ability to see the problems with what he is doing, but I am also open to the idea that he is serving an agenda that has been given to him by someone else.

http://news.independent.co.uk/world/middle_east/article2062488.ece

Iran's denial of Holocaust harms Arab cause, Palestine activist tells president

However, Mr Ahmadinejad has been condemned on the eve of the conference by Mahmoud al-Safadi, who was sentenced to 27 years by Israel for throwing Molotov cocktails during the 1988 intifada. In an open letter to the Iranian president, he says that Mr Ahmadinejad's stance is a "great disservice to popular struggles the world over".

"Perhaps you see Holocaust denial as an expression of support for the Palestinians," he writes. "Here, too, you are wrong. We struggle for our existence and our rights, and against the historic injustice that was dealt us in 1948.

Our success and our independence will not be gained by denying the genocide perpetrated against the Jewish people, even if parts of this people are the very forces that occupy and dispossess us to this day."

Mr Safadi says that reading the works of Arab intellectuals helped convince him that the Holocaust was a historical fact.

 

[foofighter]

Iran's President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad has dismissed the Holocaust as a myth.

And last January, the Iranian government announced it would hold a conference on the Holocaust. It said it intended to invite academics such as German neo-Nazi Horst Mahler and the Israeli journalist and Christian convert Israel Shamir, both of whom are Holocaust deniers.

Shamir seems to be an interesting character. Someone recommended that I read his books as a way to understand the Zionist agenda, and as a result of checking him out I found that it is more likely *working* for the Zionists. He seems to be just one more puppet whose message is specifically designed to make the Zionist "oh look how anti-semitic they are" schpiel work.

Some relevant links. His own homepage:
http://www.israelshamir.net/

Wikipedia entry:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Israel_Shamir

Indymedia expose:
http://www.indymedia.org.uk/en/2005/04/309818.html

A Palestinian perspective:
http://www.nigelparry.com/issues/shamir/originalletter.html

 

[henry]

In fact, Shamir was never invited. He doesn't know who started that rumour.

 

[noise]

Though certainly the opposite could be true I think he is doing this for several reasons.

Right now the US is bogged down in Iraq thanks to BuSh's ..(idiocy would be a good start) "cause after all this is the Guy (saddam) who tried to kill my dad."

Iran seems to be in a position to negotiate a settlement "if" in fact some of their people are over there helping to create civil war. There is contrary evidence so far as hired government assasination squads who can get through check points unquestioned (US & Iraqi?).

To spread public knowledge about the Holocaust - fact vs. fiction. If enough evidence or questions are brought forward maybe he could offer a way to blackmail Israel by emassing the facts, maybe he could then obtain some form of peace between Israel and Palestine? The information and evidence would have to become full public knowledge atleast in those countries that get factual information.

What I find the strangest is that even though there is damning evidence to support as well as contradict the holocaust, it happened (whichever way) and is done. What I mean is if you wrong me and I cry how long must I cry before I forgive? Do I cry forever over something I cannot change? How much guilt should I intend you recieve, how many times must you apologize over what is done?

Anually I think the number increases. I wish I could quote/link directly but some months back I read over some articles that implied there were not even 6million Jews in all of Europe and most of them left and went into Russia. Initially in 1945 (I believe) it was the number of Jews exterminated was a couple to a few 100 thousand, roughly (from memory) about 1/4 million.

Jumping around trying to find more info I found this
http://hawaii(dot)indymedia.org/print.php?id=4154&comments=yes
And here
http://www(dot)theunjustmedia.com/did%20six%20million%20die%20chapter%20345.htm
This is from my own perspective, I'm not in denial or concurring. I believe there is good reasons for them to want the world to believe 6million died (guilt, control by guilt). I believe there was some extermination practiced but as has been put out around the forum Hitler was exporting Jews to Palestine as well. In either case I was not there but certainly the media believes we should all believe it was 6 million, at least until 2010 when they may push for 7-10 million(?).

 

[Niall]

"The objective of the conference is not to deny or prove the Holocaust. Its main aim is to create an atmosphere for thinkers to discuss freely the Holocaust," Iranian Foreign Minister Manouchehr Mottaki told the opening ceremony.

I guess this is why you merited this piece with a :P symbol!?

Then again, it's grouped under the heading 'Priming the Middle East', recognition of the conference's inflammatory effects. The conference was in the pipeline for some time, so Ahmadenijad will have been able to guage how it was going to be received in the West. Poor strategy (it seems): so many Axis-of-Zion crimes to choose from, why focus on this one? Especially with this from Olmert in Germany today:

In an interview with German TV station N24, Sat1, broadcast Monday ahead of his first visit to Germany as prime minister, Olmert said that "Israel doesn't threaten any country with anything, never did. Iran openly, explicitly and publicly threatens to wipe Israel off the map."

Can you compare that when they aspire to obtain nuclear weapons like the United States, France, Israel and Russia, he asked.

Olmert also called on Germany to cut its vast economic ties with Iran, saying Berlin's obligations toward Israel were greater because of its Nazi past.

He said Germany must not use business as a pretext for a relationship with Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad, who has described the Holocaust as a "myth" and called for Israel to be wiped off the map.

The broadcast also coincided with a widely criticized conference in Tehran attended by prominent Holocaust deniers from around the world.

"May I suggest to the German people, don't ever again use this argument when it comes to the life of the Jewish people. You may have an economic interest, you may have a business interest, but you have deeper and more fundamental moral obligation to yourself, to your history and to your future," he told German TV.

Hmmm, maybe I just answered my own question...

 

[Niall]

To spread public knowledge about the Holocaust - fact vs. fiction. If enough evidence or questions are brought forward maybe he could offer a way to blackmail Israel by emassing the facts, maybe he could then obtain some form of peace between Israel and Palestine? The information and evidence would have to become full public knowledge atleast in those countries that get factual information.

Yeh I ran this through my frontal lobes as well: Ahmadenijad is hoping that by shining the light of truth on what did or did not take place in German concentration camps he can, in some roundabout way, bring pressure to bear on Israel to cease its exterminationist policies in Palestine.

Problems:

This issue is heavily emotion-laden in the West. Thinking about it soberly, I feel it would take ages for the 'information and evidence to become full public knowledge' in order that it may lead to positive results in Palestine. It would have to bypass/filter through the Zionist-controlled media (and somehow remain undistorted). Furthermore, in Germany (and probably other European countries) the education system drills into its population the Holocaust-6-million-no-questions-asked from an early age.

Knowing your history as best you can is undoubtedly important, especially when it sheds light on current affairs. However, the Holocaust is such a baited trap; what does Ahmadenijad hope to achieve by hosting this conference (fanfare and all)? It seems to play straight into his 'enemies' hands - the Ziocons can now pull out that God-awfully-boring 'HE'S A HITLER!' once again.

 

[Ruth]

I find it very interesting that Ahmadenijad has allowed himself to be manipulated into holding this conference which is just the excuse the zionists need to attack Iran. Surely only a fool would think that their are no 'vipers' in their own nest? Ahmadenijad had better 'get smart' or 'loose his head' fairly soon as there are sure to be zionist agents in Iran - place if probably crawling with them by now.

I wonder if he's worked out that he's been 'set up', yet and more importantly, who by? Does anyone have any 'theories' on this? Iranian politics must be very interesting at the moment, maybe even a little odd.

 

[the olde student]

Maybe Ahmadenijiad wants the US-Israel-UK coalition to attack Iran. To my knowledge, Iran has a much more seasoned military than Iraq had--though I could be wrong.
Anybody know about such matters?

 

[anart]

Maybe Ahmadenijiad wants the US-Israel-UK coalition to attack Iran. To my knowledge, Iran has a much more seasoned military than Iraq had--though I could be wrong.
Anybody know about such matters?

Or, perhaps, at that level, 'there is only one master' - meaning he is the leader of a powerful world nation, so it is highly likely, no matter how intelligent and 'balanced in thought' he seems that he is also working with those who don't have our best interests at heart.

Perhaps things aren't moving along fast enough for the real PTB (most probably) so they're adding a bit more energy to the system.

 

[the olde student]

Yes, and along those lines of thought, I'm inclined to believe the attention on "Jewish" Zionists is wanted by the Powers That Be...so that the "Protestant" Zionists and the Catholic hierarchy can come to the rescue, like knights in shining armor. There might even be some "Muslim" saviors on the horizon. And some "atheists", too.
Of course, this is just a theory.

 

[Niall]

Yeh, there seems to be a hymn sheet being passed around:

Right on cue; Iran a 'major threat', says Blair

Tony Blair has said Iran poses a "major strategic threat" to the Middle East and is "deliberately causing" problems.

At his monthly media briefing the prime minister said the Iranian regime was "deeply extreme".

He called the Holocaust conference in Iran this week, which had speakers including an ex-Ku Klux Klan leader, "shocking beyond belief".

Mr Blair also played down suggestions current problems in Iraq were caused by US decisions after Saddam's fall.

"Iran is deliberately causing maximum problems for moderate governments and for ourselves in the region - in Palestine, in Lebanon and in Iraq."

He said there was "little point" in including Iran and Syria in regional issues, such as Iraq, "unless they are prepared to be constructive".

"There is no point in hiding the fact that Iran poses a major strategic threat to the cohesion of the entire region," Mr Blair told reporters.

There were "major, major problems" in Iraq, Lebanon and Palestine, but "all of this is now overshadowed by the issue of Iran".

He said it would be a "major challenge" to deal with Iran.

Describing a "deadlock" over the Palestinian situation, Mr Blair said: "You only have to see what is happening in Iran in the past couple of days to realise how important it is that all people of moderation in the Middle East try to come together and sort out the problems.

"There literally could be nothing more important on the international agenda at the moment than that."

Asked about the Iraq Study Group's report, published in the US last week, Mr Blair said it was still the intention to withdraw British troops once Iraqi authorities were able to take over.

"I certainly do not take the Study Group as saying that we should get out, come what may.

"What they are saying is that we have to increase our driving up of the capability of the Iraqi forces, because it's obviously better that the Iraqis themselves take responsibility and indeed the Iraqi government is increasingly saying it wants to take responsibility.

"Then the coalition forces will still be in a support role but it won't be the same as it is at the moment."

He said the situation for UK troops in Basra was different from that for US troops in Baghdad, where there was more sectarian violence, but the UK withdrawal would not be affected by US decisions.

"If and when they [US troops] are able to change the situation in Baghdad, then they too will be in a different set of circumstances, but the pace at which both of those things may happen may be different," Mr Blair said.

Mr Blair was also asked about ex-defence secretary Geoff Hoon's suggestion recently that the UK had not wanted the Iraqi army disbanded after Saddam Hussein's fall.

Mr Blair said: "The principal reason we are having a problem in Iraq is because people are deliberately giving us a problem.

"There's sometimes a sense in which, it's as if, if only we sort of had a different post-conflict strategy, somehow we could have avoided this problem.

"This problem hasn't originated naturally. It's originated as a result of the deliberate outside interference linking up with internal extremism."