Iran Defends Planned Holocaust Conference

[gilliam]

Iran on Tuesday defended its plan to organize a conference to examine what it terms the scientific evidence for the Holocaust.

At the United Nations, the Israeli ambassador said the conference plans were proof that Iran was run by an “extreme, fundamentalist, lunatic regime.”

http://www.breitbart.com/images/2006/1/24/D8FBCD7O0/D8FBCD7O0_preview.jpg The planned conference, which has drawn condemnation from Western leaders, is yet another step in hard-line President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad’s public campaign against Israel.

breitbart.com/news/2006/01/24/D8FBCD7O0.html

 

[AndyF]

gilliam:

Iran on Tuesday defended its plan to organize a conference to examine what it terms the scientific evidence for the Holocaust.

At the United Nations, the Israeli ambassador said the conference plans were proof that Iran was run by an “extreme, fundamentalist, lunatic regime.”

http://www.breitbart.com/images/2006/1/24/D8FBCD7O0/D8FBCD7O0_preview.jpg The planned conference, which has drawn condemnation from Western leaders, is yet another step in hard-line President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad’s public campaign against Israel.

breitbart.com/news/2006/01/24/D8FBCD7O0.html[/QU
OTE]

So what is Israel in a puff about?. Nowhere did the group state it did not believe in it, it merely wants to study it more. So what.

A nation that initiates war on it’s neighbour and boasts about it, then decides to define what a lunatic regime is?

Andy

 

[Vincent_N]

AndyF:

A nation that initiates war on it’s neighbour and boasts about it, then decides to define what a lunatic regime is?
Andy

I don’t find your comments amusing. How about a healthy injection of sobriety?

According to history, the Jewish state was created not only because of the Holocaust but because of Arab militancy that threatened Jews who had fled to Palestine with something even worse than the Holocaust. Shortly after the creation of the Jewish state, in 1947, an Arab alliance fell upon Israel in order to destroy it but was sent packing. In 1956, Egypt closed the Suez canal, threatening not only trade but a blockade and complete isolation of Israel. So in the interests of self-preservation, Israel joined with France and Britain to attack Egypt and re-open the Suez Canal. In 1967, after occupation troops withdrew, Egypt again blockaded Israel. Another Arab alliance was created and again threated to destroy Israel. Diplomacy failed, and without help availing from the outside, Israel as you put it, initiated war on its neighbour(s). But, I do not know what you refer to as boasting.

Yet, I do know what an person should do when he is completely surrounded and boxed in by thugs and murderers. If he couldn’t escape and he couldn’t negotiate and he couldn’t get the police to help him, what do you propose he should do? Lay down and die?

Given the means, he should use them. Self-preservation is in the interest of all things rational.

I neglected to mention 1973 but I don’t suppose the armies of the arab states merely wanted some quiet strolls on Mediterranean beaches and Israel just happened to be in the way.

Really, attacking one’s neighbor is nothing special in the history of nations. When people boast about an event, it’s usually because all had gone well.

By now, you should understand why Israelis would be leery of any Arab belligerency.

 

[AndyF]

Hi Vincent:

Thanks for the answer.

I don’t find your comments amusing. How about a healthy injection of sobriety?

I disagree. It is indeed ludicrous for Isreal to set itself up as a righteous model for Iran and the world to emulate.

the Jewish state was created

Woahhh there, back up a second. Quite a jump from no Israel to one just poping up out of the blue. It is convenient that you make trivial the displacement and disruption such a nation creating scheme would naturally cause on the existing habitants. Since you seem to have a good background on history, I’ll let you have the honour of explaining to our viewers the accurate and unbiased explaination of the events in Israel’s creation.

Arab alliance fell upon Israel

Well, I guess the Arabs are real nasty thug-like people who don’t like losing prime territory, especially for nation building. Imagine the audacity of them to consider such retaliation for such a noble a cause envisaged conveniently by peoples of far off nations who cannot be affected by the turmoil.

Get the UN to segment off the Eastern Seaboard of the US for the creation of another nation because of a peoples plight, and see what the reaction would be.

As I stated in another post, the correct way to handle it was by sensitive negotiation and discussion with all concerned, not by placing all confidence on your arms stockpile and might over those involved. The moment of retaliation can never be assured with these people.

help availing from the outside

And what help would be required for the only nation in that area, by the assistance of it’s US ally, to be the only one who has nuclear capability and possess WMD, and cause aggression to it’s neighbours by bombing their nuclear facilities.?

What diplomacy is due to a nation who’s very creation was born out of turmoil,grief and the usurpation of the lands of others.? If it even manages to exist today, wouldn’t that be a grace?

what do you propose he should do? Lay down and die?

If he originally muscled in on the thug’s territory, we would be hard pressed to find justification to come to his assistance. All the same, with the rights of all to existance, and the event long passed, a friend of his could do something about it if handled properly, but the choice of options would be critical: 1/arm his friend to the teeth, which would result in a barrier(Fort Apache the Bronx) type existance indefinitely 2/ carry out amiable discussion between all sides, making concessions and offers by assisting all the perimiter nations in their economy and well being. Decades ago, Option 1 was taken out of that reassuring power base the friend possesses, might.

As a result, from the friendly US perspective and influence, we have the most powerful nuclear nation in that part of the world being spoon fed by monitary aid to the tune of billions yearly, when such aid is no longer required, and one perimeter nation getting a few million, with no commercial infrastructure and the inability to feed it’s people or arm itself properly, or keep it’s people healthy.

Incidently, the attempt by other nations to keep Palestine’s or any proximity nation’s ability to defend itself in disproportion, is against Church doctrine, as Rule 2309 of the Catechism implicitly states a nation as a right to at least have the ability to dispense “evils and disorders” to the extent it can persuade the defender to back down. No non military nation incapable of nuclear delivery of said WMD could ever hope to win such a war,(a point not missed by the US with current policy) and the rule wasn’t intended to have that occur.

By now, you should understand why Israelis would be leery of any Arab belligerency.

From the global perspective, that would appear sarcastic and arrogant, not humbling and grateful, as it should be by it’s good fortune up till now. But that would be in character with the friends it keeps, wherein a global poll by the CBC when asked what they thought of the US, it was unanimously voted as arrogant and boisturous (Option 1 remember)?.

Andy

 

[Ani_Ibi]

AndyF:

I disagree. It is indeed ludicrous for Isreal to set itself up as a righteous model for Iran and the world to emulate.

Evidently. This is your opinion. What support do you have for holding such an opinion? Please share that support with us.

AndyF:

Since you seem to have a good background on history, I’ll let you have the honour of explaining to our viewers the accurate and unbiased explaination of the events in Israel’s creation.

No, Andy. That’s not how discussion works. You are not justified in instructing Vincent to make your argument for you. Vincent has set out his point of view already. If you feel that Vincent’s point of view is flawed in some way, then either point to the flaws or set out your alternate point of view or both. Other people are not here to run rabbit chases for you. Do your own work.

AndyF:

As I stated in another post, the correct way to handle it was by sensitive negotiation and discussion with all concerned, not by placing all confidence on your arms stockpile and might over those involved. The moment of retaliation can never be assured with these people.

1. It is counterproductive to negotiate with terrorists or those who give comfort to terrorists – and this means Iran;
2. Notwithstanding (1), we are not going to negotiate with terrorists or those who give comfort to terrorists – and this means Iran.
3. The very idea of conducting ‘sensitive’ negotiations (your words) with Iran in the face of Iran’s stated violent, expansionist aims and flagrant violations of international norms by building 15 breeder reactors is unfathomable. The height of illogic and self-defeating folly.

AndyF:

And what help would be required for the only nation in that area, by the assistance of it’s US ally, to be the only one who has nuclear capability and possess WMD, and cause aggression to it’s neighbours by bombing their nuclear facilities.?

False analogy. Israel’s nuclear situation is not comparable to Iran’s nuclear situation. This is not a case of fair is fair and all who want nuclear weapons should have them. This is not even a mutually-assured-destruction scenario.

Israel’s situation is one of legitimate self-defence by means of nuclear deterrant.

Iran’s situation is one of moving toward acquiring more ‘living room’ (similar to Germany before WWII) by means of nuclear threat.

If Iran wanted nuclear energy – as she claims – then breeder reactors was not the route to go.

If Iran wanted nuclear weaponry – as she denies – then 15 breeder reactors was indeed the route to go.

In 20 years, Iran’s oil will be gone. She will have a gargantuan population of elderly Iranians needing support from younger Iranians. At present 20% of Iran’s young male population are addicted to heroine and whether that heroine is from Afghanistan or from Iran is moot, although Iran seems to think that domestic heroine is in some mysterious way preferable to foreign heroine.

Do the math. In 20 years, Iran’s economic engine will stall of its own accord. Then what will the autocrats in palaces do to sustain their disproportionately privileged lifestyles?

continued…

 

[Ani_Ibi]

The threat which Iran poses is not directly to Israel or to the United States. The threat which Iran poses is to surrounding Arab countries. The solution which Iran proposes to her failing domestic policies is to expand her territory into neighbouring Arab countries.

The banner under which she spindoctors this naked aggression is the establishment of – guess what? The Caliphate.

The scapegoat by which Iran hopes to distract neighbouring populations from the reality that they are about to be enslaved is – guess who? Israel.

The threat by which Iran hopes to silence any of her neighbours unfortunate enough to realize that Iran is not a saviour but a rogue aggressor is – guess what? Pre-emptive nuclear strike by Iran.

One of the strategies frequently deployed by generals is to confuse the enemy. By bleating Palestine! Palestine! Iran hopes to add to the mounting illogic and indefensibility of her expanionist aims.

Thing is that some of the more raucous bullies in the Arab world don’t really care about Palestinians, do they? If they had cared, then Palestinians would not have had generations of disenfranchisement and suffering.

Arab autocrats have been quite happy to emblazon the Palestinian cause on the sides of their palaces as long as Palestinians stayed in their own tents and did not seek comfort from the tents of her neighbouring Arab countries:

Plenty of help where weapons and suicide bombers were concerned but not so much help where the tools of peace were concerned.

Why? Because unending war works for Arab autocrats by keeping the poor and unschooled in place.

AndyF:

But that would be in character with the friends it keeps, wherein a global poll by the CBC when asked what they thought of the US, it was unanimously voted as arrogant and boisturous (Option 1 remember)?.

The opinions of Canadians who watch CBC concerning the US is relevant to the Iranian situation how? Many Canadians do not rely on the CBC for news and analysis. What does this mean? It means that the CBC does not speak for Canadians and that a poll published by the CBC is a red herring.

As for the terms ‘arrogant’ and ‘boisterous’: these are ad hominem attacks. When folks who would be party to a discussion start name-calling, then they have renounced the moral authority to continue in that discussion. Using the CBC as a vehicle to namecall against the US is a transparent rhetorical faux pas and does not, I am afraid, pass as credible research.

 

[George_Waters]

How often have we heard that Israel was hacked out of an Arab state? When the United Nations passed Resolution 181 in 1947 creating Israel, Palestine was ruled by the British and had been since the end of World War One. We so often forget that the new nation states of Czechoslovakia, Finland, Latvia, Lithuania, Estonia and Yugoslavia were also created at the same time as Israel.

The day after Resolution 181 was passed Palestinian Arabs murdered six Jews in a bus to Jerusalem, and another Jew in the Tel-Aviv - Jaffa area. These murders were a prelude to a war that claimed the lives of 6,000 Jews, or 1% of the total Jewish population in 1948. In addition, immediately after the United Nations vote, Arabs attacked their Jewish neighbors in a number of Arab countries.

We can be confident the “findings” of the Iranian conference will “prove” the Holocaust did not happen, at least to the extent claimed if not all together, and that the creation of Israel was due to a conspiracy and therefor illegal.