Holocaust Denied at Iran Forum to "Research" Nazis

[AlicetheKurious]

Int'l conference on Holocaust opens in Tehran
Tehran, Dec 11, IRNA

Iran-Holocaust-Conference
A two-day international conference to review the world's concept of the Holocaust opened here Monday morning with an inaugural speech by Foreign Minister Manouchehr Mottaki.

The director-general of the Institute for Political and International Studies (IPIS) of the Iranian Foreign Ministry, Rassoul Moussavi, addressing the conference before Mottaki delivered his speech, said that it was aimed at creating an appropriate scientific atmosphere for discussing historical events, including the Holocaust.

"Some people who had been asked to attend refused, saying it aims to deny the Holocaust. Others assumed the international conference was politically motivated and were reluctant to attend.

"Officials in charge of organizing the conference do not intend to deny or confirm it (Holocaust). What the IPIS considers its duty is to create a suitable atmosphere for discussing historical issues," he said.

Moussavi said that researchers and intellectuals from Iran, Germany, the US, Austria, Jordan, Armenia, Australia, Indonesia, Britain, Italy, Bahrain, belgium, Portugal, Pakistan, Denmark, Russia, Japan, the Ivory Coast, France, Kenya, Malaysia, Hungary, Morocco, Egypt, Nigeria and Egypt are scheduled to deliver speeches.

`Holocaust, a Modern Viewpoint', `Holocaust, Figures, Statistics and Realities', `Historical documents on the Holocaust', `Nazism, Holocaust and the Zionists' and `Holocaust: Consequences and the Global Vision' are among the speeches to be delivered.

The International Conference to Review the Holocaust Global Vision is attended by 67 intellectuals and researchers from 30 countries.

http://www.irna.ir/en/news/view/line-24 ... 114908.htm

What about Iranian President Ahmedinajad's original statements that shocked the world, about Iran's intentions to "wipe Israel off the map" and the Holocaust being a "fairy-tale", etc? Let's look at excerpts from the New York Times' translation of the speech where he stated Iran's intentions to wipe Israel off the map":

Many who are disappointed in the struggle between the Islamic world and the infidels have tried to spread the blame. They say it is not possible to have a world without the United States and Zionism. ..

Let’s take a step back. We had a hostile regime in this country which was undemocratic, armed to the teeth and, with SAVAK, its security apparatus of SAVAK [the intelligence bureau of the Shah of Iran’s government] watched everyone.

An environment of terror existed. When our dear Imam [Ayatollah Ruhollah Khomeini, the founder the Iranian revolution] said that the regime must be removed, many of those who claimed to be politically well-informed said it was not possible. All the corrupt governments were in support of the regime when Imam Khomeini started his movement. All the Western and Eastern countries supported the regime even after the massacre of September 7 [1978] and said the removal of the regime was not possible.

But our people resisted and it is 27 years now that we have survived without a regime dependent on the United States. The tyranny of the East and the West over the world must should end, but weak people who can see only what lies in front of them cannot believe this.

Who could believe that one day we could witness the collapse of the Eastern Empire? But we have seen its fall during our lives and it collapsed in such a way that we have to refer to libraries because no trace of it is left.

Imam [Khomeini] said Saddam must go and he said he would grow weaker than anyone could imagine. Now you see the man who spoke with such arrogance ten years ago that one would have thought he was immortal, is being tried in his own country in handcuffs and shackles by those who he believed supported him and with whose backing he committed his crimes.

Our dear Imam said that the occupying regime must be wiped off the map and this was a very wise statement. We cannot compromise over the issue of Palestine. Is it possible to create a new front in the heart of an old front. This would be a defeat and whoever accepts the legitimacy of this regime [Israel] has in fact, signed the defeat of the Islamic world. Our dear Imam targeted the heart of the world oppressor in his struggle, meaning the occupying regime. I have no doubt that the new wave that has started in Palestine, and we witness it in the Islamic world too, will eliminate this disgraceful stain from the Islamic world.
...
They want to convince some of the Islamic countries that, since they evacuated the Gaza strip with good intentions, the legitimacy of their corrupt regime should be recognized. I hope Palestinian groups and people are aware of this trick.

The issue of Palestine is not over at all. It will be over the day a Palestinian government, which belongs to the Palestinian people, comes to power; the day that all refugees return to their homes; a democratic government elected by the people comes to power. Of course those who have come from far away to plunder this land have no right to choose for this nation.

http://www.nytimes.com/2005/10/30/weeki ... 1166072400

Hmmm... this is hardly a call for genocide, even according to the NYT's own translation. First, he talks about how the Shah's regime, then Saddam's regime, then the USSR all disappeared from the map, and says that, like them, the "occupying regime" will also disappear one day.

According to a German website, the Arbeiterfotografie:

An independent translation of the original (like the version published by ISNA) yields that Ahmadinejad does not use the term 'map'. He quotes Ayatollah Khomeini's assertion that the occupation regime must vanish from this world - literally translated: from the arena of times. Correspondingly: there is no space for an occupation regime in this world respectively in this time.

What about calling "the Holocaust" a "fairy-tale"?

The German authors state:

The Iranian press agency IRNA renders Ahmadinejad on 2005-12-14 as follows:

"If the Europeans are telling the truth in their claim that they have killed six million Jews in the Holocaust during the World War II - which seems they are right in their claim because they insist on it and arrest and imprison those who oppose it, why should the Palestinian nation pay for the crime?

Why have they come to the very heart of the Islamic world and are committing crimes against the beloved Palestine using their bombs, rockets, missiles and sanctions.'?

... 'If you have committed the crimes, then give a piece of your land somewhere in Europe or America and Canada or Alaska to them to set up their own state there.'

... Ahmadinejad said some have created a myth on the holocaust and hold it even higher than the very belief in religion and the prophets ...

The president further said, 'If your civilization consists of aggression, displacing the oppressed nations, suppressing justice-seeking voices and spreading injustice and poverty for the majority of people on the earth, then we say it out loud that we despise your hollow civilization.'"

There again we find the quotation already rendered by n24 (a German tv station): "In the name of the Holocaust they created a myth."

We can see that this is completely different from what is published by e.g. the DPA - the massacre against the Jews is a fairy-tale. What Ahmadinejad does is not denying the Holocaust. No! It is dealing out criticism against the mendacity of the imperialistic powers who use the Holocaust to muzzle critical voices and to achieve advantages concerning the legitimization of a planned war. This is criticism against the exploitation of the Holocaust.

http://www.arbeiterfotografie.com/galer ... -0013.html

(I've done some very minor copy-editing, like adding a question mark to a question, adding "the" when it was missing, etc. Since the "original" text is itself a translation into English of a translation into German from Farsi, I felt justified - Alice)

[xsicbastardx]

What would happen if we had a unilateral, bi-partisan investigation into what really happend in those years during the Holocaust? Spare no stone, spare no ones reputation. Give complete immunity to those still hiding in the shadows. Have all Governments, Including Israel, come to the tabel and speak openly and honestly. What would happen my Friends, what would truly happen?


I bet just like America bought up all the duct tape, The world would run out of Ex-Lax cause everyone would need to take a big shit. Mass constapation on a global scale.


I don't agree with this man's actions. He uses the Holocaust for the basis of hate and the right to have Nukes and control his population.....


Wait....couldn't that be said of another country?.......


Propaganda runs both ways and has so for 50 years. I find it dispicable that anyone would refrence the Halocaust in any way shape or form, unless it is used in a way to educate, enlighten and make sure that it never happens again to any race of man. That includes Native Americans, Aboriginies and Africans.


That being said. His call for Americans to wake up and question history and our place in it, and to recognize the blood that is our our Governments Hands, and the hands of Governments that we support, is a true and valid point.


Sometimes we need to listen to the message and the messenger......


Have you ever really taken a second and thought about our dependence upon others for our vision of History. Well....who are these people that we depend on?....What do they have to gain from thier version and not ther other guys. Cliche...Cliche I know, history is written by the victors...well who escatly are the victors and what the hell do they want.....

[erosoplier]

To this day, much mileage is being gotten out of the "wipe Israel off the map" comment attributed to Ahmadinejad:

<"We never threatened any nation with annihilation," Mr Olmert, speaking in English, told the N24 Sat1 station.

"Iran openly, explicitly and publicly threatens to wipe Israel off the map. Can you say that this is the same level, when they are aspiring to have nuclear weapons, as France, America, Russia and Israel?">

It just wouldn't have the same punch if Olmert, more correctly, were to say "Iran openly, explicitly and publicly suggests that the current Israeli regime must pass from the pages of history." Bad naughty genocidal Iran! Oooh!

Quote is from Times article discussing Olmerts accidental admission that Israel has nukes.

[AlicetheKurious]

Well, I must be a genocidal maniac as well, because I firmly believe that Israel will "pass from the pages of history" (I kinda like "arena of times").

As for the "issue" of the Holocaust, it is really two distinct, unrelated issues. One is the atrocities committed under the Nazi regime, and the other is the atrocities committed under the Zionist regime. The first is being cynically used to create a fog that obscures the nature of the second.

This cynicism is similar to that used by some pedophile priests to confuse and paralyse their young victims. This is not some perverted old lech preying on a vulnerable kid, it's a man of God! Like Jim Bakker persuading that girl, I can't remember her name, that "serving the shepherd (ie, him), is the best way for her to serve the flock." He actually had that poor girl convinced that what she was doing on her knees was "worshipping God".

Zionists have set themselves up as the high priests of the cult of the Holocaust, creating a fog of sanctity around themselves. Without this fog, the sheer outrageousness of this criminal, terrorist, apartheid regime would have made it a pariah among nations. Americans would certainly not have tolerated supporting it with billions of dollars, nor would they meekly acquiesce to the stranglehold of the Zionists over the sovereignty of their country.

What Ahmedinajad is trying to do, in his awkward way, made even more awkward by the second-rate or deliberately inaccurate translations, is to separate the two issues. A more effective job is done by Norman G. Finklestein in his devastating little book that packs a big punch, "The Holocaust Industry".

I believe Ahmedinajad is also trying to send a message to the "West", in response to the offensive Danish caricatures incident. He's pointing out the hypocrisy of the West because it feels superior when defending its "right" to print cartoons that offend the deepest religious feelings of Muslims, in the name of free speech.

Yet the same people who self-righteously claim the right of free speech for malicious cartoonists, deny that same right to scholars and serious historians to examine the evidence for a historical event.

He's made it abundantly clear that the point of his conference is not to deny the historical reality of the Nazi genocide, but to highlight this enormous hypocrisy.

Furthermore, he is asking people to compare the PURPOSE of this hypocrisy, ie, the Muslims revere their Prophet as a man chosen by God to be his Messenger, so their outrage and fury is directed at those who show no respect for their deepest spiritual beliefs.

Regardless of what I or anybody thinks about that, surely that is a different issue altogether, from using the cult of the Holocaust to stifle protest and opposition to the genocidal policies of the state of Israel.

As far as I can tell, there is no good purpose served when non-Muslims mock and insult the Muslim religion. On the other hand, dispelling the fog with which the Holocaust cult obscures the nature of Zionism, can save many, many lives and serve the purpose of justice and freedom. Not just for Arabs, either.

[yathrib]

Alice,

Are you including people like David Duke as a serious historian examining the evidence for an historical event? Just asking.

[yesferatu]

for the record i'd like to state my absolute disgust at this stupid and insulting show of bullshit,
i am as 'anti-israeli foreign policy' as any thinking person,
and i think that iran ineeds to be treated completely differently to how it is,

but this is pure racist hate-mongering and should be condemned whole-heartedly

thanks

Zionists are not a "race".

[MASONIC PLOT]

Freedom of Speech and the Holocaust
Address by David Duke, PhD at the Holocaust Conference in Tehran, Iran

Former member of the House of Representatives
State of Louisiana, United States of America

www.davidduke.com email: dukeeuro@hotmail.com

Distinguished friends,

Thank you Dr. Mohammadi and all the distinguished scholars who are here at a conference that history shall one day deem as one of the most important of the 21st century

I and all the conference participants must be especially thankful to the President of Iran, Mahmoud Ahmadinejad, who has had the knowledge, the foresight and the courage to convene this conference to offer free speech for the world’s most repressed idea, Holocaust revisionism. We must remember that the main themes of this conference as stated by Iran’s President are the vital human right of freedom of speech and the condemnation of the shameful imprisonment of European scholars and academics who simply dare to state their opinions of historical events that occurred over 60 years ago.

This conference embraces the idea of free speech, thought, and conscience. The U.S. State Department, under thorough control of International Zionism, in a formal statement called this conference a quote, “disgrace.” The real disgrace is that free men are imprisoned and silenced in Europe and in other European-descended nations around the world. The disgrace is that no leaders of our own nations seem have the courage to defend free speech.

I also want to thank your President for inviting me, as controversial as I am, to be here. The Zionist-influenced media lies about me with the same enthusiasm as they lie about him.

He will be condemned for having me here, and I as a former American elected official will be condemned by the Zionist influenced press in America for coming here in peace and friendship to a nation that they hate: the nation of Iran.

But, we at this conference have decided that no longer will we let the Zionists dictate to us. They shall not dictate to us who will be our friends, who will be our enemies, nor will we permit them to dictate to us only their version of the past, and we will certainly not let them dictate our future!

Let me say from the outset that I am no disloyal American, I love my country and my people, but I know that the Zionist extremists lead my country to catastrophe in the Mideast and elsewhere around the world. I know that the Palestinian people, the Lebanese people, even the American people have been sacrificed on the altar of the Holocaust. It is the chronic media and government playing of the Holocaust that has blinded our eyes to new holocausts and new outrages.

As a truly patriotic American I oppose Americans being killed or maimed by the thousands in Iraq in a war not for America, but for Israel. I am here because I love my country and oppose those who lead America and the world to ruin on behalf of Zionism. In Iraq too, Americans and countless Iraqis have been sacrificed on the ideological altar of the Holocaust, for the Holocaust and its chronic recital is used as the justification of any Israeli treachery or crime against humanity.

The Zionist-influenced media in America and Europe is trying to mislead the U.S. and Iran toward a war that would be catastrophic for your country, for my country and for the world. Here too images of a Holocaust against Jews are used to justify and promote a terrible war against Iran that would constitute a new Holocaust, one against the Iranian people and indeed for all of us in the world.

I believe the people of Iran want peace, and I can tell you that the average American also wants peace.

This conference is based on freedom of speech, true freedom, not the lip service brokered in the mass media. Freedom of speech will take on the Holocaust. But, freedom of speech also relies on a free press.

Perhaps how little we can trust the establishment press on the Holocaust is illustrated by the lies told about your esteemed president.

This morning, I read a story about this conference from a European newspaper that stated and I quote, that Iran’s President, Mahmoud Ahmadinejad called for wiping Israel off the map. This assertion has been made in literally thousands of newspaper articles and radio and TV news reports.

But, all those here know that such a translation of his speech is nothing but a big lie. He never said anything of the kind. Any proper translation of his speech shows that he never called for Israel to be quote, “wiped from the map”! But millions of people in the West and around the world have heard this so many times they believe it. Whatever might be the ultimate truth of the Holocaust, how can we learn it from a press that repeats 5,000 times a lie about your President that anyone with an Iranian-English dictionary can disprove in 5 minutes? In short, their ability to sell this easily disproven lie shows that the media can get away with any lie, even of the largest proportions. The only way to learn the truth about any idea is free speech, free discussion, and free debate.

The conference will include academics who embrace the prevalent historical conception of the Holocaust and those who have a revisionist view. Revisionists question parts of the official Holocaust story. In some Western nations, to diverge even slightly from Holocaust orthodoxy will cause an historian to face not only a loss of academic career but also imprisonment.

Right now as I speak, three names come to mind immediately. David Irving, Ernst Zundel, and Gemar Rudolf. These three men, scholars, researchers, intellects who their opponents dare not debate, these nonviolent, kind and gentle men sit behind dark prison walls at this very moment for simply daring to speak their conscience, for expressing the world’s most forbidden opinion, the idea that the historical event trademarked as the Holocaust as it is popularly presented, is not an accurate historical portrayal, that it needs like all other events of history to be questioned, researched freely and constantly revised.

Perhaps the hypocrisy is illustrated by devotion of Europe to freedom for the vilest kinds of pornography. Every kind of the sickest pornography is allowed in the Western world today, including pornography that delves into the worst forms of sadism and masochism and the vilest degradation of women, many of whom have been drug addicted and truly enslaved in what the world calls White slavery. Yet, these sickest, evil forms of porn are not only legal in Europe, they are lucrative! Yet, if you dare to research and offer a dissenting opinion about any aspect of the event singularly called the Holocaust, it’s off to prison for you, its bankruptcy for you and your family.

In Europe you can freely question, ridicule, and deny Jesus Christ. The same is true for the prophet Muhammed, and nothing will happen to you, heck you might even get to star in your own weekly TV show, but offer a single question of the smallest part of the Holocaust and you face prison!

David Irving one of the world’s most famous and well-read historians, a writer who many mainstream historians have praised as brilliant and accurate, at this moment sits in a prison near Vienna, Austria for simply stating his historical opinion about Auschwitz in a lecture in Austria in 1989. German researcher/chemist Gemar Rudolf faces years of imprisonment for simply publishing a detailed forensic analysis that challenged the authenticity of alleged Auschwitz gas chambers. Ernst Zundel, a resident of Canada and the U.S was ripped from his wife and home because he had politically incorrect opinions about the events of the Second World War.

I have been honored to know personally all three of these men. They are kind, witty, humorous, men of family, of kindness and decency. None of these men were hateful or advocated hate, none were violent or advocated violence, none of these men were terrorists or supported terrorists, none of these men did anything other than express an intellectual opinion at variance with high priests of the Holocaust. All these men did was have the courage to express their opinions even though they knew that by doing so everything they held dear was endangered, their safety, their sustenance, their freedom, but they chose their conscience and their honor, even at the risk of life, that their own heart might be stilled forever. They still stood tall.

I am not here to argue the truth or untruth of their claims, that is for the other speakers here, but I am here to add my voice from America from free men and women everywhere that the fact that these men are imprisoned is a scandal and injustice. The whole world knows that imprisoning men for their opinions is tyranny; that such is the opposite of everything that we mean by the word freedom. As some nations of Europe jail men for their opinions, these same nations boast about their supposed freedom and hold themselves above many other nations they view as repressive and backward.

Some of the brave men here today at this conference have been jailed, even physically attacked, lost reputation, freedom, property, career, simply for speaking their conscience. I see a number of them as I look in the audience. And none of these men write or speak hatefully or intemperately, but how can the world even know that, when they and their beliefs are repressed by government and media.

I want to honor one of the men here for his sacrifices over the years in his obedience to conscience and to truth, a man who has laid in a hospital bed with his bones crushed, his pain-racked body burned by acid, all for doing what his intellect dictated and his conscious demanded. He is Dr. Robert Faurisson, and we here and the world owe him a debt that we can never adequately repay. Lesser men would have given up and lived the quiet life, but he gave his all and he still gives us his all even now. I would like to ask you to stand up for him ladies and gentlemen. Robert Faurrison, the best-known revisionist in the world today.

The main theme of the Holocaust Conference is that there must be freedom of speech on this subject as on all others. Free speech, inquiry and debate are the only way to learn the truth on any issue.

In prosecutions of Holocaust questioners, authorities have not allowed introduction of any evidence supporting the defendant’s claims. The courts have even announced in their guilty verdicts that “The truth is no defense,” i.e. that even if the defendant can be shown to be honest and accurate, and even if his claims can be substantiated by physical and documentary evidence, he has broken the law by simply questioning aspects of the official Holocaust Story.

I take no hard position on the historical accuracy of the Holocaust, I leave that to those whose whole lives are devoted to the study of the issue, but I take an unshakeable position on freedom. Obviously, Jews, as well as other nationalities suffered great losses during the Second World War.

Repression, dispossession or murder against any group is wrong.

Revisionists don’t deny that many Jews died and suffered greatly in the war, they condemn any and all injustices done to Jews in that period.

It must also be understood that throughout history, the historical treatment of atrocities or crimes against humanity have often been colored by political purposes. Throughout history some crimes against humanity have been exaggerated and emphasized to justify political agendas or even war. Other crimes against humanity have been completely ignored or downplayed.

An example is the contrast between the crimes of National Socialist Germany and that of Soviet Communism. Most researchers readily acknowledge that Bolshevism imprisoned, tortured and slaughtered many times more people in Russia and in Eastern Europe than even the high numbers alleged in the Holocaust. Yet, the Soviet Holocaust receives not one-hundredth of the attention of the Jewish Holocaust. Can anyone here name even a single movie you have seen about the Bolshevik slaughter?

Isn’t it sensible to think that this disparity is because of the strong Jewish influence in Western media from the entertainment establishment of Hollywood to the news media centered in New York and across the European world? Revisionists suggest that an exaggeration and saturation of the Holocaust has been essential to establishment and support of the Zionist state in Israel and that it offers a psychological excuse for the large scale ethnic cleansing, repression, torture and genocide against the Palestinian people.

Revisionists argue that this vested interest of much of the pro-Zionist media and pro-Zionist governments affords a danger that the Holocaust can be distorted and politicized just as many historical crimes against humanity have either been exaggerated or diminished in pursuit of political agendas.

Whether the revisionists scholars are right or wrong is for you to decide, not those who want to crush free thought and free speech.

I and every speaker at this conference believe in freedom of speech on all historical and contemporary issues.

We believe in freedom of speech, conscience, opinion, and expression.

It is the opponents of this conference who clearly don’t believe in freedom of speech and conscience. It is they who have thrown elderly men and women into prison for years for simply expressing their opinions.

Yet, instead of condemning these tyrants, the media even celebrates the imprisonment of human beings who dare to question.

Dr. Bruno Gollnisch, a professor of Literature at the University of Lyon, and a member of the European Parliament was convicted of Holocaust Denial.

Speaking in Lyon, France, in October 2004, Gollnisch said: “I do not deny the existence of deadly gas chambers. But I’m not a specialist on this issue, and I think we have to let the historians debate it.” He did not contest the “hundreds of thousands, the millions of deaths” during the Holocaust, but added: “As to the way those people died, a debate should take place.”

For simply advocating free speech, Gollnisch was convicted of Holocaust Denial. Has Europe gone crazy?

Freedom of speech is important for two reasons.

First, freedom of speech is a vital human right. It is the cornerstone of all other rights, because without freedom of speech no one has to the right to even freely know and learn of the abrogation of other rights affecting human freedom and survival. That is why the American founding fathers put freedom of speech, press and religion as the first and highest of the Bill of Rights.

Second, freedom of speech and debate are absolutely vital for the truth to prevail. If one side of any controversial issue can suppress the voice of opposition, we cannot arrive at the certainty of any truth. If academics and citizens can be blackmailed monetarily and in career; if they can be threatened with firings, loss of income, or imprisonment for simply sincerely pursuing an historical inquiry and publishing it, how can the truth be discovered?

How does one even know the real revisionist opinion, if that opinion is repressed?

A perfect example of the biased treatment of the Western press is the recent adoption of the term “Holocaust denier” to slander anyone who may question any part of the complex and expansive Holocaust story. The term “Holocaust denier” was created by Simon Wiesenthal to denote any one who dares to question any part of his version of the Holocaust. To “deny” is usually associated with an allegation of a personal crime. For example, “John Doe denies that he committed the robbery.” It has a very negative connotation. It is not commonly used to denote people holding a contrary historical opinion.

In truth, revisionists are not deniers, they are simply questioners who are being imprisoned and slandered for simply questioning with research and reason this tragic period of history during the Second World War.

The Holocaust Conference in Iran is truly about respect for intellectual freedom.

Iran has organized the first international conference dedicated to freedom of speech and inquiry on this important historical matter that has so many ramifications on the Mideast and many other present political realities.

I am here in Tehran as a speaker in this conference because I am dedicated to freedom of speech, conscience, and thought. I am honored, as are all of you, to be here at this historic conference.

I urge the fair-minded people of the world, before they condemn this conference, the Iranian President, all the speakers and me, to ask the question: who are the patrons of freedom and who are the real deniers, the deniers of our precious human right of freedom of speech!

–Dr. David Duke

Former member of the House of Representatives

State of Louisiana, United States of America

[yesferatu]

Zionists are not a race.
That was my post prior to the David Duke cargo of shit pulling up to dock immediately afterwards.
My post now is: zionists are not a race.
Anti-zionists are broken down quite neatly along these lines:
Racists
Non-racists

Racist anti-zionists are more correctly described as jew-haters who use the term zionism to channel their racism, and thus prevent rational discussion of the clear zionist nightmare.
Racist anti-zionists believe zionists are a race. Sorry David, they are not.
You go on hating the jews. That is your specialty, among others.
But for fucks sake, leave the anti-zionism to those of us with brains, who address the problem thru rationality.

Btw, I have yet to have anyone tell me why Rense falls into the category of jew hater, rather than anti-zionist. Fear of "jew hatred" accusations run so deep, and is such a brainwashed propagandist psy-op on modern amerika, that one cannot loathe zionists, without the raised eyebrow of suspicion.

I still believe Mr. A of Iran is right to create his circus.
It serves a purpose in the long run. He is also right to make the statement that Israel shall be wiped out just as the Soviet Union was wiped out.
"Just as" = In the same way.
There were no humans killed when the Soviet Union was wiped out. Something replaced the Soviet Union. Nothing diabloical about that statement. To believe it is diabolical only shows how deeply programmed we are to support the zionist nightmare. Jews can continue living in palestine. I think Mr. A agrees with that.

[MASONIC PLOT]

Excellent Points YESFER and I agree with you entirely.

For the record I didnt post the Duke speech because I am a Duke fan but rather for reference in the discussion.

[yesferatu]

For the record I didnt post the Duke speech because I am a Duke fan but rather for reference in the discussion.

I understood that....no misunderstanding there.

[AlicetheKurious]

Yathrib, I was not including or excluding anyone, including David Duke. It is my firm belief that if you disagree with or even hate someone's opinions, you should respond with evidence and logic, rather than forcibly shutting them up by preventing them from being heard, or locking them up in prison, for pete's sake.

For example, I absolutely loathe Binyamin Netanyahu, and have for decades, since he polluted my tv screen with his lying, racist mouth. As Israel's ambassador to the US during the 80s, he always seemed to be on tv, spewing his filth in response to fawning questions from the most prestigious American reporters.

Daniel Pipes, another prominent scholar and expert on "the Middle East", whose views are indistinguishable from Hitler's if you replace "Muslims" with "Jews", whose "Campus Watch" organization is a quintessentially fascist tool designed to terrorize and silence free speech on university campuses, is sought by presidents and other decision-makers for his brilliant analyses and recommendations.

The question is not whether David Duke should "be allowed" to speak and write and think. The question, for me, has always been, why are THESE evil men (Netanyahu, Pipes, Avigdor Lieberman, etc., etc.) allowed to have the entire stage for themselves in the US, while those who would present the opposing view and evidence to support it, are not invited, or are silenced via threats?

Frankly, I know very, very little about David Duke. I seem to recall that he (once?) belonged to the KKK, which definitely prejudices me against him. On the other hand, just as I would never deny moral midgets like Netanyahu and Piper the right to speak or write, I see no justification for denying such a right to David Duke. In a free country (which the US most assuredly is not), opponents of their views would have an equal opportunity to present their evidence and arguments, thus allowing members of the public to become informed, educated and to make up their own minds.

I think Ahmedinajad has made his point, for those whose minds are still free, and with a subtle sense of humor that fanatics may miss.

He is sarcastically pointing out the hypocrisy of a US that bombs countries and kills people to spread "freedom and democracy", by inviting those who are denied a voice in the West, who even face prison for their opinions and speech, to participate in a free and open debate of scholars, representing all points of view.

Keep in mind the context, which adds another surreal layer to Ahmedinajad's performance art: the US and Israel, those bastions of freedom and democracy, are threatening to NUKE Iran.

[sijepuis]

Revealing article about Memri's founders and its purpose:

Selective Memri
http://www.guardian.co.uk/elsewhere/journalist/story/0,7792,773258,00.html

Brian Whitaker investigates whether the 'independent' media institute that translates the Arabic newspapers is quite what it seems

Monday August 12, 2002
Guardian Unlimited

For some time now, I have been receiving small gifts from a generous institute in the United States. The gifts are high-quality translations of articles from Arabic newspapers which the institute sends to me by email every few days, entirely free-of-charge.

The emails also go to politicians and academics, as well as to lots of other journalists. The stories they contain are usually interesting.

Whenever I get an email from the institute, several of my Guardian colleagues receive one too and regularly forward their copies to me - sometimes with a note suggesting that I might like to check out the story and write about it.

If the note happens to come from a more senior colleague, I'm left feeling that I really ought to write about it. One example last week was a couple of paragraphs translated by the institute, in which a former doctor in the Iraqi army claimed that Saddam Hussein had personally given orders to amputate the ears of military deserters.

The organisation that makes these translations and sends them out is the Middle East Media Research Institute (Memri), based in Washington but with recently-opened offices in London, Berlin and Jerusalem.

Its work is subsidised by US taxpayers because as an "independent, non-partisan, non-profit" organisation, it has tax-deductible status under American law.

Memri's purpose, according to its website, is to bridge the language gap between the west - where few speak Arabic - and the Middle East, by "providing timely translations of Arabic, Farsi, and Hebrew media".

Despite these high-minded statements, several things make me uneasy whenever I'm asked to look at a story circulated by Memri. First of all, it's a rather mysterious organisation. Its website does not give the names of any people to contact, not even an office address.

The reason for this secrecy, according to a former employee, is that "they don't want suicide bombers walking through the door on Monday morning" (Washington Times, June 20).

This strikes me as a somewhat over-the-top precaution for an institute that simply wants to break down east-west language barriers.

The second thing that makes me uneasy is that the stories selected by Memri for translation follow a familiar pattern: either they reflect badly on the character of Arabs or they in some way further the political agenda of Israel. I am not alone in this unease.

Ibrahim Hooper of the Council on American-Islamic Relations told the Washington Times: "Memri's intent is to find the worst possible quotes from the Muslim world and disseminate them as widely as possible."

Memri might, of course, argue that it is seeking to encourage moderation by highlighting the blatant examples of intolerance and extremism. But if so, one would expect it - for the sake of non-partisanship - t o publicise extremist articles in the Hebrew media too.

Although Memri claims that it does provide translations from Hebrew media, I can't recall receiving any.

Evidence from Memri's website also casts doubt on its non-partisan status. Besides supporting liberal democracy, civil society, and the free market, the institute also emphasises "the continuing relevance of Zionism to the Jewish people and to the state of Israel".

That is what its website used to say, but the words about Zionism have now been deleted. The original page, however, can still be found in internet archives.

The reason for Memri's air of secrecy becomes clearer when we look at the people behind it. The co-founder and president of Memri, and the registered owner of its website, is an Israeli called Yigal Carmon.

Mr - or rather, Colonel - Carmon spent 22 years in Israeli military intelligence and later served as counter-terrorism adviser to two Israeli prime ministers, Yitzhak Shamir and Yitzhak Rabin.

Retrieving another now-deleted page from the archives of Memri's website also throws up a list of its staff. Of the six people named, three - including Col Carmon - are described as having worked for Israeli intelligence.

Among the other three, one served in the Israeli army's Northern Command Ordnance Corps, one has an academic background, and the sixth is a former stand-up comedian.

Col Carmon's co-founder at Memri is Meyrav Wurmser, who is also director of the centre for Middle East policy at the Indianapolis-based Hudson Institute, which bills itself as "America's premier source of applied research on enduring policy challenges".

The ubiquitous Richard Perle, chairman of the Pentagon's defence policy board, recently joined Hudson's board of trustees.

Ms Wurmser is the author of an academic paper entitled Can Israel Survive Post-Zionism? in which she argues that leftwing Israeli intellectuals pose "more than a passing threat" to the state of Israel, undermining its soul and reducing its will for self-defence.

In addition, Ms Wurmser is a highly qualified, internationally recognised, inspiring and knowledgeable speaker on the Middle East whose presence would make any "event, radio or television show a unique one" - according to Benador Associates, a public relations company which touts her services.

Nobody, so far as I know, disputes the general accuracy of Memri's translations but there are other reasons to be concerned about its output.

The email it circulated last week about Saddam Hussein ordering people's ears to be cut off was an extract from a longer article in the pan-Arab newspaper, al-Hayat, by Adil Awadh who claimed to have first-hand knowledge of it.

It was the sort of tale about Iraqi brutality that newspapers would happily reprint without checking, especially in the current atmosphere of war fever. It may well be true, but it needs to be treated with a little circumspection.

Mr Awadh is not exactly an independent figure. He is, or at least was, a member of the Iraqi National Accord, an exiled Iraqi opposition group backed by the US - and neither al-Hayat nor Memri mentioned this.

Also, Mr Awadh's allegation first came to light some four years ago, when he had a strong personal reason for making it. According to a Washington Post report in 1998, the amputation claim formed part of his application for political asylum in the United States.

At the time, he was one of six Iraqis under arrest in the US as suspected terrorists or Iraqi intelligence agents, and he was trying to show that the Americans had made a mistake.

Earlier this year, Memri scored two significant propaganda successes against Saudi Arabia. The first was its translation of an article from al-Riyadh newspaper in which a columnist wrote that Jews use the blood of Christian or Muslim children in pastries for the Purim religious festival.

The writer, a university teacher, was apparently relying on an anti-semitic myth that dates back to the middle ages. What this demonstrated, more than anything, was the ignorance of many Arabs - even those highly educated - about Judaism and Israel, and their readiness to believe such ridiculous stories.

But Memri claimed al-Riyadh was a Saudi "government newspaper" - in fact it's privately owned - implying that the article had some form of official approval.

Al-Riyadh's editor said he had not seen the article before publication because he had been abroad. He apologised without hesitation and sacked his columnist, but by then the damage had been done.

Memri's next success came a month later when Saudi Arabia's ambassador to London wrote a poem entitled The Martyrs - about a young woman suicide bomber - which was published in al-Hayat newspaper.

Memri sent out translated extracts from the poem, which it described as "praising suicide bombers". Whether that was the poem's real message is a matter of interpretation. It could, perhaps more plausibly, be read as condemning the political ineffectiveness of Arab leaders, but Memri's interpretation was reported, almost without question, by the western media.

These incidents involving Saudi Arabia should not be viewed in isolation. They are part of building a case against the kingdom and persuading the United States to treat it as an enemy, rather than an ally.

It's a campaign that the Israeli government and American neo-conservatives have been pushing since early this year - one aspect of which was the bizarre anti-Saudi briefing at the Pentagon, hosted last month by Richard Perle.

To anyone who reads Arabic newspapers regularly, it should be obvious that the items highlighted by Memri are those that suit its agenda and are not representative of the newspapers' content as a whole.

The danger is that many of the senators, congressmen and "opinion formers" who don't read Arabic but receive Memri's emails may get the idea that these extreme examples are not only truly representative but also reflect the policies of Arab governments.

Memri's Col Carmon seems eager to encourage them in that belief. In Washington last April, in testimony to the House committee on international relations, he portrayed the Arab media as part of a wide-scale system of government-sponsored indoctrination.

"The controlled media of the Arab governments conveys hatred of the west, and in particular, of the United States," he said. "Prior to September 11, one could frequently find articles which openly supported, or even called for, terrorist attacks against the United States ...

"The United States is sometimes compared to Nazi Germany, President Bush to Hitler, Guantanamo to Auschwitz," he said.

In the case of the al-Jazeera satellite channel, he added, "the overwhelming majority of guests and callers are typically anti-American and anti-semitic".

Unfortunately, it is on the basis of such sweeping generalisations that much of American foreign policy is built these days.

As far as relations between the west and the Arab world are concerned, language is a barrier that perpetuates ignorance and can easily foster misunderstanding.

All it takes is a small but active group of Israelis to exploit that barrier for their own ends and start changing western perceptions of Arabs for the worse.

It is not difficult to see what Arabs might do to counter that. A group of Arab media companies could get together and publish translations of articles that more accurately reflect the content of their newspapers.

It would certainly not be beyond their means. But, as usual, they may prefer to sit back and grumble about the machinations of Israeli intelligence veterans.

[The author's closing phrase is surprisingly presumtuous, given the content of the article: "But, as usual, they may ..." . Hmm ..., for what is otherwise an informative article].

_______________________________________


In a May 2006 article published by The American Muslim, Dr. Robert Dickson Crane writes:

" ... it might be good to establish a little think-tank specifically to expose the malicious bias on which all U.S. policy is based by re-translating and annotating everything that MEMRI supplies on a daily basis to the U.S. government".

Full article here: http://tinyurl.com/y9nrhb

Hear, hear!

[yathrib]

Alice, you write:

"Yathrib, I was not including or excluding anyone, including David Duke. It is my firm belief that if you disagree with or even hate someone's opinions, you should respond with evidence and logic, rather than forcibly shutting them up by preventing them from being heard, or locking them up in prison, for pete's sake. "

Agreed. And I'll go even further: it drives me up a wall to see people who accept the established opinion--on this or anything else--refuse to talk to people who take a different viewpoint, however abhorrent it may actually be. Most high profile holocaust affirmers refuse to engage deniers. To the ordinary person, this seems as though they are either (a) arrogant, or (b) have something to hide. Why not take the opportunity to look fair and generous *and* make your adversaries look like fools and bigots in public? To do otherwise only allows people like David Duke to themselves sound fair and reasonable when they finally do get the chance to speak.

Same with refusing to even talk to countries like Iran and Syria, something most dems and repugs are agreed upon, BTW. What are they afraid of?

My point was that any conference that includes David Duke as an expert on anything other than hatemongering does not have serious historical inquiry as its object, even if people like Daniel Pipes who *are* routinely granted undeserved scholarly credibility are equally loathesome.

[Spoonerian]

As Juan Cole has noted, Persian contains no such idiom as "wiped off the map".

Only the glossary of Texas cowboys and Yankee establishment elites contains such colorful threats of mass murder.

For example, there's the confessed war criminal Curtis LeMay who coined "Bomb 'em back into the Stone Age."

There's Richard Armitage who told Musharraf to be "prepared to go back to the Stone Age."

There's the U.S. representative who told the Taliban, "either you accept our offer of a carpet of gold, or we bury you under a carpet of bombs"

I saw Wolf Blitzer immediately pull out the "wipe Israel off the map" line while interviewing bad haircutee David Duke yesterday. Just as with Mike Wallace's interview with Ahmedinejad, Duke's corrective response was talked over and ignored.

Ahmedinejad should pen another special missive to Bush asking Bush to please direct all Mockingbird operatives to cease and desist. The letter where Ahmedinejad attempted to teach Bush a few lessons about Bush's "favorite philosopher" Jesus was excellent.

[yathrib]

David Duke and Wolf Blitzer here.

http://youtube.com/watch?v=p2QMQi-m63E