Iran's Holocaust Conference

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(dbermanmd @ Dec 13 2006, 03:52 PM) [snapback]361825[/snapback]</div>

Nope.
<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(wikipedia @ http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/David_Duke)</div>

 

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(dbermanmd @ Dec 13 2006, 03:52 PM) [snapback]361825[/snapback]</div>

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/David_Duke

 

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(dbermanmd @ Dec 13 2006, 04:52 PM) [snapback]361825[/snapback]</div>

He's actually quite amorphous:
Political History
1976: Candidate for Louisiana State Senate (Democrat)
1978: Duke resigned from the Klan
1980: Founded National Association for the Advancement of White People
1988: Primary Candidate for President (Democratic)
1988: Candidate for President (Populist)
1989: Candidate for Louisiana State House of Representatives (Republican) (Won)
1990: Primary Candidate for US Senate (Lost)
1991: Candidate for Governor of Louisiana (Lost)
1996: Primary Candidate for US Senate (Lost; 11.5%)
1999: Candidate for Congress (Lost)
and former Imperial Wizard of the Knights of the Ku Klux Klan.

Quick update on the conference (from Fox news):
"This conference has an incredible impact on Holocaust studies all over the world," said Duke, a former state representative in Louisiana who twice ran for president.
"The Holocaust is the device used as the pillar of Zionist imperialism, Zionist aggression, Zionist terror and Zionist murder," Duke told The Associated Press.
Also at the end of the conference, Mohammad Ali Ramini, an Ahmadinejad adviser who has called the Holocaust a "myth," announced that he will chair a committee to find "the truth on the genocide of Jews."
Other members of the committee will be Robert Fuerisson, a French professor who denies the existence of gas chambers, along with Holocaust deniers from Syria, Switzerland, Austria, Canada, the United States and Bahrain.

This conference is propaganda masquerading as scholarship and claiming legitimacy by saying it is "free speech". To fail to recognize that is foolish.

 

For the record, I never advocated banning idiots from demonstrating to the rest of us that they are, indeed, idiots and incapable of normal, rational thought. Free speech is indeed useful, because when they open their mouths we know how out of touch with reality they really are. But we need to be neither tolerant or polite about their lunatic ramblings when they have as a stated goal the destruction of the people who disagree with them.

And, by the way, I believe the polemic that tries to equate normal, rational human belief systems based on faith with holocaust denial is simply evidence of an anti-religious bias and not a serious argument. Religious thought is not abnormal and is not considered a "delusion" by psychiatrists. You may as well compare oranges and kangaroos.

 

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(fshagan @ Dec 13 2006, 04:34 PM) [snapback]361935[/snapback]</div>

That's a self cancelling phrase. You either believe something because it's rational, OR, absent rational explanation, you believe based on faith. If you've got rational reasons for your belief, you don't need faith.

Belief based on faith is not only not bad, it's positively essential - no human mind could possibly deal with the huge body of knowledge necessary to make all its beliefs rational. There are MANY things we MUST believe on faith - it's all we've got or all we can handle.

It's IRRATIONAL belief, not faith based belief, that's the bogeyman - belief in something even when evidence and logic discredit it.

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(fshagan @ Dec 13 2006, 04:34 PM) [snapback]361935[/snapback]</div>

That's certainly true today.

But as our studies of the mind relentlessly peel away its mysteries, the cognitive phenomenon of religious belief is becoming more understood. Religious belief may be something as simple as a "misfiring" of some type of cognitive function (akin to the "misfiring" of how our mind processes visual stimulation that makes optical illusions possible). That's only a theory, one out of many.

Clinically, such a "misfiring" would be completely normal. No one is considered insane who is "fooled" by an optical illusion.

But someone who still insists, after learning the "trick" of an optical illusion, that the optical illusion ISN'T an illusion, WOULD be regarded as abnormal.

As we continue casting light on the vast blueprint of the mind, discovering the "tricks" of all the illusions and delusions of our mental existence, there very well may come a day when persisting in religious belief WOULD be regarded as clinically abnormal as insisting that an optical illusion isn't an illusion.

Mark Baird
Alameda CA

 

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(airportkid @ Dec 13 2006, 05:58 PM) [snapback]361970[/snapback]</div>

Hoping that research proves out your bias is probably not rational in itself ...

 

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(airportkid @ Dec 13 2006, 10:58 PM) [snapback]361970[/snapback]</div>

I've always believed I was a projection of an alien mind somewhere. Think Matrix, but instead of humans, weird, gelatinous creatures floating in some anti-void.

 

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(Black2006 @ Dec 14 2006, 03:46 AM) [snapback]362066[/snapback]</div>

This is still missing the point of this thread's specific topic: Iran's conference. To say their conference is about freedom of speech is willful blindness. The freedom of speech issue is an excuse for another agenda. The people of Germany, Austria, and France are free to change their own laws. But they choose to have laws making holocaust denial illegal. Why? Because the underlying sentiments that enabled factories to be built whose product was the destruction of human beings may not have entirely gone away. The law is their freedom of speech. They understand it is not a restriction to self-expression but a restraint away from insanity.

After all, most wars and genocides begin not with a gunshot but with a story. The government of Rwanda used the radio to inflame hatred agaisnt the Tutsis. Suddenly 800,000 people were then cut to bits with machetes by their neighbors in the short span of three months.

Laws restricting holocaust denial in Germany, Austria, and France recognize the sobering truth that stories too can be weapons.

From today's New York Times:
http://www.nytimes.com/2006/12/14/world/mi...4holocaust.html

>>The two-day meeting included no attempt to come to terms with the nature of the well-documented Nazi slaughter, offering only a platform to those pursuing the fantasy that it never happened. In addition, the organizers of the conference, a small circle around the president, have been building ties with neo-Nazi groups in Europe.

Others see an even more ambitious post-Iraq agenda reflected in Mr. Ahmadinejad’s high profile on the issues of Jews, the Holocaust and Israel.

“It is for public consumption in Arab countries,†said Mustafa El-Labbad, editor of Sharqnameh, a magazine specializing in Iranian affairs and published in Cairo. “It is specifically directed toward deepening the gap between the people and their regimes and toward embarrassing the rulers so that the regional power vacuum, especially after Iraq, can be filled by Iran.â€<<

 

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(MegansPrius @ Dec 14 2006, 09:45 AM) [snapback]362114[/snapback]</div>

Excellent!

I go a step further. Ahmadinejad continues to incite murder by repeatedly calling for Israel's destruction. Is this not a criminal offense? Should he not be tried or at the least isolated by the nations of the world? Instead, stunning silence - almost like the 1930's all over again - this time however the bad guy is close to have nuclear weapons... When the world found out about Hitlers Final Solution, what did it do? It did nothing - just watched as he slaughtered millions - industrial style - with railroads - with killing factories - evident to all those that could do something - yet - nothing was done. The similarities are stunning between now and then...

 

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(MegansPrius @ Dec 14 2006, 11:45 AM) [snapback]362114[/snapback]</div>

All together now: Sieg.....

I'm sure Hitler used the same phrase, idea, concept, along the line somewhere...

No one has committed ANY crime until someone take some sort of criminal action. To sit down, and have an agrument or discussion about whether the Holocaust either did not exist as we generally know it, or to hypothesize about the magnitude of it, is NOT A CRIME by any means. Bad taste, ridiculous, offensive, nauseating, etc., yes, criminal, no way.

Yet another line I'm sure appears somewhere within Mein Kampf...

 

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(MegansPrius @ Dec 12 2006, 04:17 PM) [snapback]361160[/snapback]</div>

When ahmedinejad says crap like that, my thought is..... spoils go to the winner.

Isreal, the door is wide open, have at it... If you want the land and the oil and to enslave every living Iranian after you're done with the thing, then go for it....

 

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(dbermanmd @ Dec 14 2006, 11:59 AM) [snapback]362121[/snapback]</div>

Seriously, have you ever wondered why precisely there is such hatred towards the Jews, and why anti-semitism runs rampant? Let's here it dberman.... What's YOUR opinion on this?



<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(daronspicher @ Dec 14 2006, 12:23 PM) [snapback]362134[/snapback]</div>

Heck, I actually agree with this...

 

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(Mystery Squid @ Dec 14 2006, 10:28 AM) [snapback]362137[/snapback]</div>

Expalin please?

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(daronspicher @ Dec 14 2006, 10:23 AM) [snapback]362134[/snapback]</div>

YOu would support Israel striking first?

 

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(dbermanmd @ Dec 14 2006, 09:47 AM) [snapback]362141[/snapback]</div>

Now is probably not the right time for a first strike, but I could see things get down the road to a point where it would make a lot of sense for Isreal to make the first strike.

If it ever comes to that, I hope they do the whole job on day one and leave little question as to the purpose of their strike.

I think Iran is trying to lure Isreal into some half-assed war that Isreal would have trouble sustaining. I don't think Iran could handle it if Isreal opened a big can of whoopass on day one leaving little need for day two.

 

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(daronspicher @ Dec 14 2006, 10:53 AM) [snapback]362144[/snapback]</div>

I am glad you would support Israel and hopefully the US taking pre-emptive action to prevent Iran from going nuclear. Unfortunately, the logistics are not in Israel's favor. The do have the F-16i which can get to and fro but not enough of them. They would undoubtedly have to do it dirty (not nuclear dirty) with special forces. It is much easier for the US to do it given our resources in terms of cruise missiles (Israel has this too), and air assets which surround Iran - there would be no need and there should be NO US boots on the ground in Iran.

One further step here - I would favor taking Iran down militarily to make it an even slugfest with their neighbors and move our forces back to some neutral area (still close to or within Iraq) and let them all have at it. Something akin to what we want to see in the PA - having Hamas and Fatah go at it full bore.

 

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(dbermanmd @ Dec 14 2006, 12:44 PM) [snapback]362286[/snapback]</div>

I'm not a military expert or war planner, but I'd say Isreal would need to nuke a handful of targets and quickly seize on a variety of assets quickly, enslave everyone and work from there.

I don't think they'd have the ground troops to take the place from one direction or another. Plus, if there were any inkling of structure left after the first hour or two, they'd have an uphill battle to climb. They really need to seriously disable the entire place in a flash (no pun intended).

 

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(daronspicher @ Dec 14 2006, 01:51 PM) [snapback]362291[/snapback]</div>

They would never use nukes first. They will not hesitate to use nukes in response to WMD attack on them. I have no idea how many nukes Israel has - estimates run from between 200-400 at the minimum. The do have or are believed to have naval nuclear assets in the form of submarine launched nuclear cruise missiles, they have surface to surface missiles with extended ranges and have air capabilities to carry out nuclear strikes and of course ground based cruise missiles. They are currently the only country with a completely intact anti missile missile system in operation. My opinion is that Israel will not let Iran go nuclear - that is if the world inlcuding the UN abrigates in responsibilities and does not act first. We shall see what the UN shapes into now that the greatest single disaster to ever occupy its head chair is gone - mr. rowanda, darfur, kosavo, food for oil, procurement scandal, payoff my son Annan

They do not have the logistical support systems to invade Iran or maintain a large ground force there.

There is no need to nuke any targets in Iran at this point either.

 

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(IsrAmeriPrius @ Dec 13 2006, 08:04 AM) [snapback]361228[/snapback]</div>

I understand that Jews have lived in the Palestinian mandate territories, which I believe came under British control after the fall of the Ottoman Empire, prior to the creation of the State of Israel. What bothers me is that we in the United States have an absurdly one-sided view of the Israeli-Palestinian issue that allows no criticism of Israel. It's odd that there is more open debate within Israel than there is in the US. The US is more than willing to insist that Arab states and the Palestinians abide by UN regulations while at the same time allowing Israel free reign to build settlements on disputed land and otherwise ignore the UN. The hypocrisy of this position is not lost on Arabs. There is no moral high ground here. We do no service to Israeli security nor to our own reputation in the Middle East by holding double standards. This same double standard applies to our continued dealings with repressive Arab governments, whose oil we need, who continually oppress their citizens and obstruct any positive movement towards a resolution of the Israeli/Palestinian problem.

From an Arab perspective, the state of Israel was foisted on Palestinians without their consent, by the British who wearied of governing the Palestine and by the UN. Whether that is an accurate picture of history is perhaps another question, but it is the view of millions of Arabs and we need to recognize that if we are to have any effect in resolving the crisis.

Building a fence across disputed land, i.e. territory acquired by Israel but not part of UN recognized borders, is not going to help in a solution. Again, from the Palestinian perspective, Israel is pursuing policies that so divide up the Palestinian world that there won't be enough land left on which to create a viable Palestinian state. Had the fence been built along UN recognized borders, it could have become a point of discussion not a further cause for violence. Making Jerusalem an international city is the only obvious solution to the "Solomon" problem of one baby, two mothers, but that will probably never even make it to the discussion table.

I'm not naive enough to believe that recognizing the existence of an Palestinian/Arab point of view would redeem us in the Middle East. I still believe that neither side is totally right: Israel's illegal (according to UN) occupation and Palestinians condoning and supporting violence. Both sides are pretty free wheeling with the violence. So, again, my first premise, neither side can say or do anything that would appear to legitimize the other, hence the teaching of pick-and-choose non-history in Israeli and Palestinian schools to insure that their grandchildren will still be fighting this war; hence the hyper-defensive reaction to any criticism.

George Bush has never set foot on Israeli or Palestinian territory even though he was in Amman Jordan, only 40 minutes away by helicopter. His idiotic war in the Middle East and his refusal or inability to deal with Israeli-Palestinian problems ("can't risk offending Pat Robertson and the other pinheads waiting for Armageddon) isn't helping matters.

Bob