NationStates Jolt Archive

This is before the nazis. And what exactly is there to debate about?
well like i'm bashing my grand pa who was a terrorist(communist) and spend 3 years of his life in a concentration camp.
I don't understand israel policy .
Making the same mistake hittler did because german were frustrated.

*snip*

Where in that article does he say that the holocaust didn't happen? I'm confused :confused:

its been done on another thread, but did he deny the holocaust happened? i mean he gets hung for saying the israelis abuse euro guilt of the event and simulatniously denies it happened? doesnt make sense. it sounds like im defending him, but he is beung lined up to be called the persian hitler, like what the white house does with everyone it has a problem with, saddam, milosovec etc. propaganda 101

And now the Red Herring to the US bashing. Are you trying to say the only country that reported it was the US?

"European Union leaders meeting in Brussels, Belgium, warned in a draft statement Friday Ahmadinejad's remarks could be grounds for sanctions against Iran."

"Benita Ferrero-Waldner, EU external relations commissioner, called Ahmadinejad's views "absolutely irresponsible." Denying the Holocaust -- in which 6 million Jews died during World War II at Nazi hands -- is a crime in several European nations."

http://www.wfts.com/stories/2005/12/051216holocaust.shtml

Why don't you read the other posts in this thread? They make a good case for his denial. You sure seem to love defending enemies of the JEws.

as i have repeadely said, i have no time for the man. but im suspicious of lies full stop, and lies have been printed about this man.

and that doesnt make me a nazi you jumped up little wanker

as i have repeadely said, i have no time for the man. but im suspicious of lies full stop, and lies have been printed about this man.

No lies at all have been printed. It is all a matter of public record that he said what he said. To deny that he said it is really childish.

and that doesnt make me a nazi you jumped up little wanker

As I said before, you have lost this debate.

Where in that article does he say that the holocaust didn't happen? I'm confused :confused:

Mostly it's a questioning of "if" it happened. Even according to SR's link.

"If it happened, why doesn't Europe take responsibility?", not "Since it happened,why doesn't Europe take responsibility?".

as i have repeadely said, i have no time for the man. but im suspicious of lies full stop, and lies have been printed about this man.

and that doesnt make me a nazi you jumped up little wanker

Your own website translates his speach to supporting those who want to completely destroy Isreal.

Mostly it's a questioning of "if" it happened. Even according to SR's link.

"If it happened, why doesn't Europe take responsibility?", not "Since it happened,why doesn't Europe take responsibility?".

As much as I may dislike the man, it seems a little unfair to castigate him for requiring a high standard of proof before accepting something as fact.

No lies at all have been printed. It is all a matter of public record that he said what he said. To deny that he said it is really childish.



As I said before, you have lost this debate.


2 secific phrases in his speech in october were questioned.

1: wiped off the map - not a pharsee phrase, something was lost in translation

2: the 'myth' of the holocaust. apparently he said 'mythology surrounding the holocaust'. different altogether. not someting i agree with, but its what he said

and im allowed react if im called a nazi for questioning the k101's military 'analysis' and objecting to false comparisions with the evil that was hitler and the nazis.

when people like dk and the idf start attacking the posters whenever isreal comes up, perhaps an open internet forum is not the best place for them to play

I mean, the German word for "Final Solution" doesn't exactly translate as "kill all the fucking Jews".

As much as I may dislike the man, it seems a little unfair to castigate him for requiring a high standard of proof before accepting something as fact.

precisley. what do you mean he questions aspects of the holocaust. i have a source from a blog that says he said....

but pointing out this makes you a nazi :rolleyes:

Where in that article does he say that the holocaust didn't happen? I'm confused :confused:
Third line down,

"CNN and other sources reported that he said the the Holocaust was a myth that the Jews were destroyed."

listen we have to admit,there is a taboo.
However,like all they are just put in your mind.
Don't deny the obvious.
People are really fooled all around.
And don't tell me, it begun with "colonisation"
regardless you political ideas
The middle east is what we got
A glinch over our future,world wide
nothing more
We really accept to kill people.
It doesn't matter what for.

Third line down,

"CNN and other sources reported that he said the the Holocaust was a myth that the Jews were destroyed."

and that translation was later widely condmned as innacurate by experts.

islamocommie nazis no doubt, but experts nonetheless

precisley. what do you mean he questions aspects of the holocaust. i have a source from a blog that says he said....

but pointing out this makes you a nazi :rolleyes:

Compared to dozens of sources from around the entire world along w/ the condemnation of numerous Governments.

Your own blog says he supports the "movement in Palestine" which calls for the destruction of Isreal.

1: wiped off the map - not a pharsee phrase, something was lost in translation

It is what he said.

2: the 'myth' of the holocaust. apparently he said 'mythology surrounding the holocaust. different altogether.

According to whom?

and im allowed react if im called a nazi for questioning the k101's military 'analysis' and objecting to false comparisions with the evil that was hitler and the nazis.

Has it ever occured to you that by calling them a name you invite the same treatment in return? Your attitude is not helping the situation in this thread any. And use proper grammer. It sickens me not to see capital letters where there ought to be some.

when people like dk and the idf start attacking the posters whenever isreal comes up, perhaps an open internet forum is not the best place for them to play

As opposed to ignoring what is being said and your failure to counter act the claims. I have several websites that quote him as saying that Israel should be destroyed and that the holocaust never happened. Even during the World Cup, he was subject to arrest in Germany for denying the holocaust. Now if he did not deny the holocaust as you are claiming, why would he be subject to arrest?

and that translation was later widely condmned as innacurate by experts.

islamocommie nazis no doubt, but experts nonetheless

Red herrings galore.

Your own blog uses the word "If". Why not "Since".

He questions the Holocaust.

Third line down,

"CNN and other sources reported that he said the the Holocaust was a myth that the Jews were destroyed."

Yeah, and alot of news sources in the UK reported that he used the phrase 'wiped of the map' before printing hasty retractions the following day after it was pointing out to them that that particular idiom didn't exsist in his native language.

Where in the article is the direct quote from him where he says it didn't happen? All I see is him saying that the holocaust hasn't been proven to have happened to have happen to a standard that he accepts.

Third line down,

"CNN and other sources reported that he said the the Holocaust was a myth that the Jews were destroyed."
he is right,in his point of view they are destroying.

Anyone who questions whether the Holocaust happened or not, or whether or not millions of Jews (and many others) were killed intentionally by the Germans, or whether the Nazis planned to do this intentionally are either:

a. Completely disconnected with reality, or
b. Have an agenda to repeat it, because they really liked what happened.

It is what he said.



According to whom?



Has it ever occured to you that by calling them a name you invite the same treatment in return? Your attitude is not helping the situation in this thread any. And use proper grammer. It sickens me not to see capital letters where there ought to be some.



As opposed to ignoring what is being said and your failure to counter act the claims. I have several websites that quote him as saying that Israel should be destroyed and that the holocaust never happened. Even during the World Cup, he was subject to arrest in Germany for denying the holocaust. Now if he did not deny the holocaust as you are claiming, why would he be subject to arrest?


where to begin. well if you say he said it, despite the fact the phrase doesn't exist in the language he gave the speech in, and despite the fact many newspapers retracted the claim he said it later, there is little point talking to you.

he was not subject to arrest in germany, it was suggested by some back bench politicians that he should be. but the proof was not there. but again, they are only the facts.

and as for grammer, its an informal forum, ill use whatever prose i want.

where to begin. well if you say he said it, despite the fact the phrase doesn't exist in the language he gave the speech in, and despite the fact many newspapers retracted the claim he said it later, there is little point talking to you.

The ones in Britain? Funny how they were the only ones to do so. Funny that no one printed retractions here in the United States nor did the media pull the stories. Why? Could it be perhaps that the story was indeed accurate? A blog does not equal fact. It is an opinion.

he was not subject to arrest in germany, it was suggested by some back bench politicians that he should be. but the proof was not there. but again, they are only the facts.

Again use proper grammer. And yes he was subject to arrest if he sat foot in Germany for denying the holocaust.

and as for grammer, its an informal forum, ill use whatever prose i want.

At least capitalize and punctuations where they should be.

you are boring.

he was not subject to arrest in germany. if you are so sure he was, you can find a source.

you sound like a spoilt 15 year old.

you are boring.

I am boring? I am not the one who is ignoring the press.

he was not subject to arrest in germany. if you are so sure he was, you can find a source.

Why? I have shown you sources where he said what we have said that he said and yet you still deny it. Fool me once, shame on you. Fool me twice, shame on me.

you sound like a spoiled 15 year old.

*chuckles* I know that I am not fifteen years old.

I am boring? I am not the one who is ignoring the press.



Why? I have shown you sources where he said what we have said that he said and yet you still deny it. Fool me once, shame on you. Fool me twice, shame on me.



*chuckles* I know that I am not fifteen years old.

i have to provide a source to prove criminal charges weren't brought? :rolleyes: thats not how it works, you made the claim, back it up.

you provided news sources, i provided an alternative translation, and bear in mind many news sources retracted the story later. you arent very good at this logic lark are you?

back to the op, DK and his comrades in the k101. tell us all how valiantly the brave IDF fought today and how victory is moments away....

i have to provide a source to prove criminal charges weren't brought? :rolleyes: thats not how it works, you made the claim, back it up.

Why should their be criminal charges when he never sat foot in Germany?

you provided news sources, i provided an alternative translation, and bear in mind many news sources retracted the story later. you arent very good at this logic lark are you?

Oh I am good at logic The SR and it is this type of attitude that will not win you friends. I suggest that everyone here tone down the insults and questioning one another's characters. It does no good.

back to the op, DK and his comrades in the k101. tell us all how valiantly the brave IDF fought today and how victory is moments away....

From what I am seeing, they are not proclaiming victory is moments away.

:confused:

you said he couldnt set foot in germany because there was a criminal case being mounted for holocaust denial. go away and back that up.

:confused:

you said he couldnt set foot in germany because there was a criminal case being mounted for holocaust denial. go away and back that up.

No I didn't say there was a criminal case being mounted. Nice twist of the facts. I said that the Iranian President could face charges for denying the Holocaust as denying the holocaust is a crime in Germany.

No I didn't say there was a criminal case being mounted. Nice twist of the facts. I said that the Iranian President could face charges for denying the Holocaust as denying the holocaust is a crime in Germany.

More Red Herrings from SR. Notice he hasn't responded to the fact that his own sourced website has the Iranian Pres. supporting the actions and goals of Hamas.

While "wipe off the map" may or may not be a direct translation, the intent is the same.

http://www.mythsandfacts.org/ReplyOnlineEdition/chapter-8.html

Read this link. It not only has quotes from the authors (authors intent is very important when interpreting a resolution), but it also shows the lines and how it says Israel doesn't have to pull back from ALL of the territories, just some of them.:

Lord Hugh Caradon was the chief author (authors intent being very important, as you say).

"Knowing as I did the unsatisfactory nature of the 1967 line, I wasn’t prepared to use wording in the Resolution that would have made that line permanent. Nonetheless, it is necessary to say again that the overwhelming principle was the ‘inadmissability of the acquisition of territory by war’ and that meant that there could be no justification for the annexation of territory on the Arab side of the 1967 line merely because it had been conquered in the 1967 war. The sensible way to decide permanent ‘secure and recognized’ boundaries would be to set up a Boundary Commission and hear both sides and then to make impartial recommendations for a new frontier line, bearing in mind, of course, the "inadmissibility" principle". from
‘UN Security Council Resolution 242 - A Case Study in Diplomatic Ambiguity’, Caradon et al, 1981 '


I am 100% correct in what I wrote. It is the Palestinians' fault that they don't have a country. They've walked away from every single deal offered by the Israelis. They even refuse to offer coutnerproposals. .:

Are they building settlements and luring settlers in with promises of a friendly atmosphere?


Made what up? That Hamas was elected after Israel was trying to make peace? That Abbas was a partner for peace and the Palestinians decided to vote for terrorism over peace? .:

That there was a plan for a full withdrawal.


Neither he nor Israeli troops committed the massacre. The massacres were doen by Christian militias that were fighting in the Civil War. It is unfair to blame Sharon for the actions of LEbanese Christians. Had the IDF done it, you would have a credible claim. It appears you are just pulling shit ouy of your ass now..:

The IDF forces opened the gates of the camps and let them in. And as Israel funded a number of these groups, certain of their actions are on Israels head - in particular the attacks on UN peacekeepers.

More Red Herrings from SR. Notice he hasn't responded to the fact that his own sourced website has the Iranian Pres. supporting the actions and goals of Hamas.

I did notice that.

While "wipe off the map" may or may not be a direct translation, the intent is the same.

Yep it is.

Of course you do.

Now let's take your own website
Oh SNAP! How's that petard taste, SR?

Oh SNAP! How's that petard taste, SR?

Judging by the rest of his posts, not very well.

poor little hezbollah...they seem to be diminished ...a bit..and are almost to the point of being surrounded...that will suck if you are them ...:D



Can you just se them BEGGING for a ' cease ' fire ?

poor little hezbollah...they seem to be diminished ...a bit..and are almost to the point of being surrounded...that will suck if you are them ...:D



Can you just se them BEGGING for a ' cease ' fire ?

Um, no. Didn't destroy them 20 years ago or via a proxy Army- sure ain't gonna destroy them this time. They won't be begging for, or getting a ceasefire.

More Red Herrings from SR. Notice he hasn't responded to the fact that his own sourced website has the Iranian Pres. supporting the actions and goals of Hamas.

While "wipe off the map" may or may not be a direct translation, the intent is the same.

why do i need to respond to that, i never denied he supports hamas? he doesnt like israel and what it stands for. hardly news.

but the allegation was he denied the holocaust, and thats why i posted the article. not that he supports palestinian resistance, that he says the systemic murder and destruction of european jews and their culture didnt happen.

you can throw as many red herrings in as you like but criticiscising israel does not equal denying the holocaust or anti-semetism.

A Even during the World Cup, he was subject to arrest in Germany for denying the holocaust. Now if he did not deny the holocaust as you are claiming, why would he be subject to arrest?

This is nonsence. Nooone would be subjected to any arrest. Two words. Diplomatic Immunity. That is all.

why do i need to respond to that, i never denied he supports hamas? he doesnt like israel and what it stands for. hardly news.

but the allegation was he denied the holocaust, and thats why i posted the article. not that he supports palestinian resistance, that he says the systemic murder and destruction of european jews and their culture didnt happen.

you can throw as many red herrings in as you like but criticiscising israel does not equal denying the holocaust or anti-semetism.

He questions whether the holocaust occured and to it's levels. Numerous links of other interviews w/ him have shown that.

You're now also selectively editing. It was first brought up his "wipe off the map" comment, which you denied him saying based off of one blog. . You also denied he meant the state of Isreal but only it's Gov't. I've shown him supporting Hamas' goals and activities which state that goal clearly.

The Holocaust was brought up later.

Keep trying.

He questions whether the holocaust occured and to it's levels. Numerous links of other interviews w/ him have shown that.

You're now also selectively editing. It was first brought up his "wipe off the map" comment, which you denied him saying based off of one blog. . You also denied he meant the state of Isreal but only it's Gov't. I've shown him supporting Hamas' goals and activities which state that goal clearly.

The Holocaust was brought up later.

Keep trying.

its far more than one blog, most major newspapers in europe reported the misquote and some retracted their claims he denied the holocaust.

he probably does support the destruction of the israeli state, but the point i was illustrating is that some people out there are spinning against the Iranian regieme, and this is an example of that. the guy was twice misquoted very selectively in the same speech and all hell broke loose.

there is a great deal of laziness in throwing the labels 'anti-semitic' and 'holocaust denyer' about on this site, and all im pointing to is the boy who cried wolf element of this and how offensive it is to the actual memory of the holocaust, which is the one bit of his speech i agree with. its the abuse of 6m dead jews memories to score political points thats appaling.

the abuse that has been thrown around here simply for questioning the standard american view on this conflict - israel good, pure and winning, arabs/persians evil, anti-semetic and getting whipped is dire and very telling about the confidence the k101 have to the strength of their own arguments.

regardless of who is 'winning' (and i never claimed hezbollah were), no-one expected hezbollah to put up quite the show they have, least of all the israelis. they are still as operationally capable today as they were 23 days ago. how could israel possibly be considered 'winning'?

Well, Israel is just as capable as it was 23 days ago and/// oh wait Israel didn't start this one.

Israeli government knew about Hezbollah's strength. They're a state within a state.

Hezbollah are down to ten rockets a day now, down from 100 a day.

The SR and OceanDrive and East of Eden is Nod are all cheering on every Islamic terrorist, hoping that they destroy everything we live for.
I don't know about that. These people tend to be liberal, which goes against all that the terrorists are fighting for. I think these three are just ignorant people.

israel is winning. why are they winning? just because. dont ask arqward questions dammit. we like israel and even questioning their tactics is commie
Read DK's posts. He explained quite thoroughly why Israel is winning.

the UN is constitued by 192 Countries.. only 6 of them say Hezbollah is Terrorist.

Israel
US/UK
and a couple other anglo countries.
Really? Most of them say so I think.

Hezbollah is terrorist. Go on, just say it. It doesn't mean that you support Israel's actions. I don't.

To hell with them, 241 marines were killed in 1983 by...a Hezzie truck bomb.
How is this relevant to now?

OD is either trolling, ignorant, I think. He's not relativist, he thinks that Israel is evil and Hezbollah are freedom fighters.

IDF you had BETTER post pics and video!

Or else I might...
Is hearing about it not enough? Violence is always a terrible thing to see. Even if the victims deserve it, it's a bunch of people getting killed.

Twisted mind.

This is nonsence. Nooone would be subjected to any arrest. Two words. Diplomatic Immunity. That is all.

How about non-entry into the nation? That could very well happen.

Well, Israel is just as capable as it was 23 days ago and/// oh wait Israel didn't start this one.

Israeli government knew about Hezbollah's strength. They're a state within a state.

Hezbollah are down to ten rockets a day now, down from 100 a day.

Can I see proof of this statement since they lobbed over a 100 rockets today?

its far more than one blog, most major newspapers in europe reported the misquote and some retracted their claims he denied the holocaust.

he probably does support the destruction of the israeli state, but the point i was illustrating is that some people out there are spinning against the Iranian regieme, and this is an example of that. the guy was twice misquoted very selectively in the same speech and all hell broke loose.

there is a great deal of laziness in throwing the labels 'anti-semitic' and 'holocaust denyer' about on this site, and all im pointing to is the boy who cried wolf element of this and how offensive it is to the actual memory of the holocaust, which is the one bit of his speech i agree with. its the abuse of 6m dead jews memories to score political points thats appaling.

the abuse that has been thrown around here simply for questioning the standard american view on this conflict - israel good, pure and winning, arabs/persians evil, anti-semetic and getting whipped is dire and very telling about the confidence the k101 have to the strength of their own arguments.


You tried to call me on "unsourced" quotes. Now you get to pull up the retractions.

The abuse that has been thrown out here against him is well deserved. Even though it may be a "misquote", the intentions behind his statements were clear. Even your own source has him saying "wiping this stain away" etc. Pretty clear statements when even Hamas has used "wipe Isreal off the map. Every time, you keep trying to argue that "he didn't really mean it" until shown (again) otherwise and then throw out your usual K101/ US sucks etc red herring insults to try and distract from your posts.

You stated:

i have yet to see anything that is anti-semetic or anti-jew specifically

And yet your own source has him backing groups that openly stated they want to kill all Jews.

Instead you argue:

the iranian president called for regieme change in israel in various forums.

Even though you've been shown him stating :

Israel will be annihilated in one storm, says Iran leader

You first claimed that the IDF hadn't even been in contact w/ Hezzbollah forces and that they were walking into a "trap" even though they have complete air and naval supremacy and their forces are advancing.

To the statement :

It is safe to say that Iran wants Israel destroyed.

You replied:

I read it differently.

To his statements against Isreal and Jews, you reply:

how does 'elimination of the zionist regime' ie olmhert and the boys waging an illegal war, translate to 'The death of every Jew, the elimination of Israel.'?


Even when shown quotes by the organizations that Iran funds and supports, you question them because they're "unsourced" and then neglect to respond when they are, continuing being an apologist.

snip.

you have proved my point. he talks about defeating israel, you take that to mean murdering every jew in the world. i specifically responded to the allegation he denyed the holocaust, you are linking that to hamas. goalposts are jumping about all over the place. not liking isreal =/= wanting to gas jews. or is he denying that happened? what is it this week?

im not an apologist for iran, but i see false charges being thrown at a man that there is plenty to actually get angry about. and proves his point that the holocaust can be used for political capital and defending israeli aggression and thats a disgrace

and the abuse i talked about was directed at me. apparantly disagreeing with DK and IDF makes you an anti-semetic apolgist for terror

you have proved my point. he talks about defeating israel, you take that to mean murdering every jew in the world. i specifically responded to the allegation he denyed the holocaust, you are linking that to hamas. goalposts are jumping about all over the place. not liking isreal =/= wanting to gas jews. or is he denying that happened? what is it this week?

You have been shown that he has indeed denied the holocaust. Heck, he even gave a speech at a convention that denies the holocaust. Hamas wants to destroy Israel and Iran supports Hamas. We even showed you a quote that states that Israel will be destroyed in one storm. Do you deny that he said that Israel will be destroyed in one storm?

. Do you deny that he said that Israel will be destroyed in one storm?

no, but im talking about the holocaust, not israel.

And to prove to SR that he did indeed deny the holocaust:

http://www.abc.net.au/news/newsitems/200512/s1531177.htm

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/middle_east/4527142.stm

http://www.cnn.com/2005/WORLD/meast/12/14/iran.israel/

http://theseoultimes.com/ST/db/read.php?idx=2801

All saying that the Iranian leader denies the holocaust.

you have proved my point. he talks about defeating israel, you take that to mean murdering every jew in the world. i specifically responded to the allegation he denyed the holocaust, you are linking that to hamas. goalposts are jumping about all over the place. not liking isreal =/= wanting to gas jews. or is he denying that happened? what is it this week?

You're classic at throwing out the red herrings. You specifically responded to the "wipe off the map" comment FIRST and stated he probably only meant the Gov't and didn't even mean Isreal. Now you're changing your tune.

Are you now denying the derspeigal interview linked to earlier where he stated he wouldn't beleive it until he was shown proof that would satisfy him? Sure sounds like denial there.

He supports organizations that specifically state they want all jews dead and Isreal wiped out. You've argued he didn't even mean Isreal but 'only' their gov't. Then when shown he wants Isreal destroyed, you back off that statement.

im not an apologist for iran, but i see false charges being thrown at a man that there is plenty to actually get angry about. and proves his point that the holocaust can be used for political capital and defending israeli aggression and thats a disgrace

When he has made those claims and yet you defend him because of "mistranslations" even though the intent is the same, you are being an apologist. When you claim he "didn't really mean it" even after being shown he obviously did, you are being an apologist.

and the abuse i talked about was directed at me. apparantly disagreeing with DK and IDF makes you an anti-semetic apolgist for terror

I don't care about IDF or DK. You constantly throw out your little US bash etc comments to whoever posts and try to make yourself into a martyr.

And to prove to SR that he did indeed deny the holocaust:

http://www.abc.net.au/news/newsitems/200512/s1531177.htm

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/middle_east/4527142.stm

http://www.cnn.com/2005/WORLD/meast/12/14/iran.israel/

http://theseoultimes.com/ST/db/read.php?idx=2801

All saying that the Iranian leader denies the holocaust.

its groundhog day.

that quote has been, if not proven to be false, at least clouded. many news organs retracted those stories.

try thinking for yourself mate, its fun

its groundhog day.

that quote has been, if not proven to be false, at least clouded. many news organs retracted those stories.

try thinking for yourself mate, its fun

Who is the one not thinking? I assure you that I am thinking. You still have not yet posted the so called retractions. I do want to see them.

http://changingworldviews.blogspot.com/2005/12/irans-president-denies-holocaust.html

http://www.thestandardreport.com/religion/religion05-06/spring06/iranpres.html

and this from Wikipedia In a December 2005 speech, Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad said that the Holocaust was a "fairy tale" that had been promoted to protect Israel, ramping up his rhetoric and triggering a fresh wave of international denunciation. "They have fabricated a legend under the name 'Massacre of the Jews', and they hold it higher than God himself, religion itself and the prophets themselves," he said.

....

Hamas political leader Khaled Mashaal described Ahmadinejad's comments as "courageous" and stated that "...Muslim people will defend Iran because it voices what they have in their hearts, in particular the Palestinian people." [41] In the United States, the Muslim Public Affairs Council condemned Ahmadinejad's remarks. [42] Lately, it has been reported that Ahmadinejad is inviting well-known Holocaust deniers, most especially Robert Faurisson, to address a conference to "examine the Holocaust."

On 24 April 2006, he called on Jews in Israel to go back to their countries of origin and allow the Palestinians to return to their homelands. "Anti-Semitism in Europe has forced Jews to leave their countries of origin, but what they did instead was occupy a country which is not theirs but that of Palestinians," Ahmadinejad said in a press conference in Tehran. [b]He then went on to again demand a free evaluation of the real extent of the Holocaust "in order to find the ultimate truth." A senior official in the Israeli government charged the Iranian president of offering a "Nazi-type solution" to the Israeli-Palestinian conflict.

Seems to me he does deny the holocaust.

Oh SR? I have the text of the speech he gave where he said he wants Israel wiped off the map.

snip.

last word on this.

im not apologising for or defending ahmadinejad, im questioning the automatic link that questioning isreal or its actions automatically gets you labelled as anti-semetic, as happened to me on this thread. hezbollah appear to be able to fire more rockets further into isreal after 24 days, how are the IDF 'owning' them , yet pointing this out is a no-no?

Ahmadinejad made some choice comments, but one essential point shines through his dubious anti-zionist rant. the pro-israel lobby have no problem using the holocaust to subvert any discussion on the mid east. the der spiegal interview apparently deliberitly misprepesented his position, bad and all as it is anyway, and trying to critically analyse the press on this topic drives some people batshit. its not on, and godwinlike.

supporting hamas in all their 'glory' does not automatically assume you deny the holocaust which appears to be the logic you are using. and do they call for the 'killing of all jews', or is it israel they objext to? you interchange these phrases as it suits you

Oh SR? I have the text of the speech he gave where he said he wants Israel wiped off the map.

in pharsee?

in pharsee?

I cannot read pharsee so why would it be in pharsee?

I cannot read pharsee so why would it be in pharsee?

then sir, you have missed the point in spectacular fashion.

you have a translation of a speech he made. at least one translation of that speech is disputed.

who translated the version you have....

then sir, you have missed the point in spectacular fashion.

you have a translation of a speech he made. at least one translation of that speech is disputed.

who translated the version you have....

Actually, it was posted on the NY Times website believe it or not. Are you going to respond to my proof that he has denied the holocaust?

Actually, it was posted on the NY Times website believe it or not. Are you going to respond to my proof that he has denied the holocaust?

you dont have proof, you have a disputed translation of a speech.

you dont have proof, you have a disputed translation of a speech.

So prove that it was mistranslated.

its not benefit of the doubt. a huge number of people all across the world believe israel to be illegitimate and founded on illegal land. that doesnt translate to The death of every Jew, the elimination of Israel, as DK so subtly puts it.

its the classic godwinesque laziness that anyone, including the iranian president, who criticises israel, even when they are slaughtering civilians by the hundred, is an anti semetic islamocommie type. its boring.
Your point. A huge number of people thought the soviet union was some sort of workers paradise, and we know how wrong they were. At any point in time a lot of people "know" things that are patently rediculous. Like, say, the number of idiotic 9/11 conspiracy theorists.

last word on this.

im not apologising for or defending ahmadinejad, im questioning the automatic link that questioning isreal or its actions automatically gets you labelled as anti-semetic, as happened to me on this thread. hezbollah appear to be able to fire more rockets further into isreal after 24 days, how are the IDF 'owning' them , yet pointing this out is a no-no?

They can fire more man portable rockets while IDF forces roam the skies, blockade the seas, and drop troops wherever they want. That is "owning"

Ahmadinejad made some choice comments, but one essential point shines through his dubious anti-zionist rant. the pro-israel lobby have no problem using the holocaust to subvert any discussion on the mid east. the der spiegal interview apparently deliberitly misprepesented his position, bad and all as it is anyway, and trying to critically analyse the press on this topic drives some people batshit. its not on, and godwinlike.

'dubious' as in you're now argueing that he isn't anti-zionist? The interview had him questioning whether it even happened and to it's extent, wanting proof to "his own satisaction". "But we want to know whether this crime actually took place or not...If it did not occur, then the Jews have to go back to where they came from" Your blog didn't cover any of that. You're also dodging the fact that you've been shown over and over that he , and Iran, support groups that's express purpose is to kill Jews and destroy Isreal.

supporting hamas in all their 'glory' does not automatically assume you deny the holocaust which appears to be the logic you are using. and do they call for the 'killing of all jews', or is it israel they objext to? you interchange these phrases as it suits you

No, you seem to be the one comparing apples and oranges. They are two different subjects that you're now trying to state that I've compared. You now get to show some proof of that. I've also shown quotes from Hamas and Hezbollah leaders openly calling for the destruction of Isreal and the the deaths of all Jews. You've dodged and ignored these facts over and over, just repeating the same questions even after they've been answered numerous times.

That's why I call you an apologist. I guess w/ this post I can add disingenous to the list.

You've yet to show the retractions.

Lord Hugh Caradon was the chief author (authors intent being very important, as you say).

"Knowing as I did the unsatisfactory nature of the 1967 line, I wasn’t prepared to use wording in the Resolution that would have made that line permanent. Nonetheless, it is necessary to say again that the overwhelming principle was the ‘inadmissability of the acquisition of territory by war’ and that meant that there could be no justification for the annexation of territory on the Arab side of the 1967 line merely because it had been conquered in the 1967 war. The sensible way to decide permanent ‘secure and recognized’ boundaries would be to set up a Boundary Commission and hear both sides and then to make impartial recommendations for a new frontier line, bearing in mind, of course, the "inadmissibility" principle". from
‘UN Security Council Resolution 242 - A Case Study in Diplomatic Ambiguity’, Caradon et al, 1981 'From that intent we see that he believes that the lines should be adejusted to one that is suitable to both sides. Even he is saying ISrael should be able to get important strategic positions. Israel tried this in the 2000 talks. They made their line. Arafat could've made a counter-proposal. It is expected that Barak would've accepted it. Arafat refused to make a counter-proposal. He wanted to kill Jews so he didn't even try to negotiate.



Are they building settlements and luring settlers in with promises of a friendly atmosphere? Previous governments did that, but I should ask you something, why did they kick out the Gaza settlers? Does it have something to do with the fact taht ISrael is pulling out? It doesn't take a genius to figure this one out.



That there was a plan for a full withdrawal.
I followed the elections closely. That was Olmert's main platform. He actually re-iterated it yesterday. If you want a source on Olmert's desire, here is a site that is definitely not biased towards Israel.

http://english.aljazeera.net/NR/exeres/E0087D9D-6B37-491E-A3C3-BF571E116E06.htm



The IDF forces opened the gates of the camps and let them in. And as Israel funded a number of these groups, certain of their actions are on Israels head - in particular the attacks on UN peacekeepers.
Israel can't be blamed for it. The IDF allowed them in, but didn't expect the massacre. It is also unfair to blame Sharon. He was in Tel Aviv as Defense Minister. It would be like blaming Rumsfeld for the actions of a company of soldiers in Afghanistan. He isn't able to manage them all. Now, there are soem lower ranking officers who probably were responsible in some way.

GODWIN.

you are being pricks now. im a commited member of the anti-nazi leage and take exception to these.

debate what i said without calling me a nazi for having the temerity to disagree with you

behave or fuck off
You don't know what godwin's law is do you? First of all, it requires an analogy of someone comparing X to hitler or the nazis. Not discussing the halocaust which came up quite legitimately in the discussion or actually calling someone a or mentioning neo-nazis. Moreover, by calling Godwin at this stage you are attempting to stop the discussion, which is not the point. The only time it can be used as such is when the reference is not relevant to the discussion, which these references clearly were.

You don't know what godwin's law is do you? First of all, it requires an analogy of someone comparing X to hitler or the nazis. Not discussing the halocaust which came up quite legitimately in the discussion or actually calling someone a or mentioning neo-nazis. Moreover, by calling Godwin at this stage you are attempting to stop the discussion, which is not the point. The only time it can be used as such is when the reference is not relevant to the discussion, which these references clearly were.

In which he has yet to respond to my post in regards to the Iranian President denying that the holocaust actually happened.

You don't know what godwin's law is do you? First of all, it requires an analogy of someone comparing X to hitler or the nazis. Not discussing the halocaust which came up quite legitimately in the discussion or actually calling someone a or mentioning neo-nazis. Moreover, by calling Godwin at this stage you are attempting to stop the discussion, which is not the point. The only time it can be used as such is when the reference is not relevant to the discussion, which these references clearly were.

I find it amusing that people who like to tell the United Nations to go fuck itself hold Godwin's Law with much more reverence as if it was the Universal Declaration of Human Rights.

dp

Bush is Helping Israel and...
Iran and Syria....(and others)are helping Hezbollah...

What is your point?

The UN has no authority over the domestic affairs of Israel.So the UN cannot ask Israel to give up Nukes ??

you're refusal to recognize the terrorists for what they are, thugs and murderers.you are talking about The Mossad or about the CIA ??

... but if (Holocaust) really happened, why don't the Europeans give the Jews some territory in Europe instead of (Palestine).Why dont they?

So the UN cannot ask Israel to give up Nukes ??

Look up the definition of "authority".

Anyone can ask, the UN can't MAKE. And since all they CAN do is ask, they have no authority.

Look up the definition of "authority".

Anyone can ask, the UN can't MAKE. And since all they CAN do is ask, they have no authority. are you saying Israel can make Nukes.. even against the will of the UN. ??

Bush is Helping Israel and...
are helping Hezbollah...

What is your point?
Israel is legally allowed to bear arms. Hezbollah isn't. That's his freaking point.

in pharsee?
The flowery American colloquialism for "obliterate", and perhaps "eliminate" in certain contexts, is "wipe/d off the map." In that sense given regional speakers bent for poetic rhetorical styles the well known phrase in question would be MORE appropriate as it would not only be in keeping with the kooks literal meaning, but tone as well.

Given the frequency with which Iran, and her proxies have called not just for the end of Israel as a state but the destruction of all Jews everywhere AND all secular peoples who don't submit to their Divine Islamic authority, his meaning was inescapeable. In fact you don't even dispute this, prefering to ignore it. That you're failing to even make a symantic argument, because there's no ambiguity in his meaning, is proof of your personal, irrational need to paint one of the world's most vicious and brutal regimes in a flattering light with respect to Israel. It seems people are justified in asking why. Without an impressive explaination on your part, it's easy to see why people would characterize the viewpoint you put forth as anti-semitic.

Clearly there's a severe double standard. Iran is allowed to wage a proxy war against Israeli civilians with impunity, occasionally using children, but Israel isn't allowed to secure her boarders in a professional military manner?

Who knows, maybe you're the vice president of the Super-Technicality Fan Club's Linguistics Division. In which case, "Kudos" I guess....

I find it amusing that people who like to tell the United Nations to go fuck itself hold Godwin's Law with much more reverence as if it was the Universal Declaration of Human Rights.
The united nations is a highly ineffectual corrupt world body with no good purpose. Godwin's law is akin to a law of physics, albeit for messaging boards. He attempted to end things by using godwin in the completely inappropriate place.

Bush is Helping Israel and...
are helping Hezbollah...

What is your point?


And round and round we go.

Now you get to show me the SC resolution calling for the disarmament of Isreal. A recognized state.

You've already been shown the UN resolution calling for the disarming of Hezbollah, an unrecognized terrorist group.

Oh, but wait. That's right. You only support UN resolutions that you agree w/ and believe Hezbollah are the victims even though they've been indescriminately targetting civilians for years, have attacked US peacekeeper forces, use civilians as shields, and started this whole mess by raiding into Isreal to take prisoners to use in violation of international law.

Since it's been a day or so, It must be time to restart all the same arguements you've used before that have been disproven multiple times.

So the UN cannot ask Israel to give up Nukes ??

In reality no they can not for Israel is not a member of the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty.

Bush is Helping Israel and...
are helping Hezbollah...

What is your point?

The point is, we are helping a legitament country. Hezbollah is not a nation nor the government. Supplying Hezbollah with weapons is a violation of 1559 that calls on Hezbollah to be disarmed.

are you saying Israel can make Nukes.. even against the will of the UN. ??

Answer is yes they can.

In reality no they can not for Israel is not a member of the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty.So if Brazil, Iran or Venezuela decide to leave the pretenders treaty.. they can make as much nukes as Israel ??

So if Brazil, Iran or Venezuela decide to leave the pretenders treaty.. they can make as much nukes as Israel ??

One problem:

Leaving the treaty exposes you to sanctions.

And sure, Iran can make as many nukes as they like - as long as they can live with the idea that the US might empty a Trident nuclear sub's worth of warheads on them, and kill every last Iranian there, and turn the place into a radioactive hell for the next 20,000 years.

Answer is yes they can.Yes.. I like Nike shoes too. :D

.. as long as they can live with the idea that the US might empty a Trident nuclear sub's worth of warheads on them..Havent you heard the NEWS. ??
N.Korea is not losing any sleep over it..

In fact they are sleeping better since they got the Nukes.. ;)

So the UN cannot ask Israel to give up Nukes ??


Can the UN ask the US and Russia and China and India and Pakistan etc to give up their NUKES ?

If ever a country actually NEEDED nukes its Israel..surrounded by hostile countries who denie it has a right to exist .

The UN could ask anything it likes and can be told to fuck off in multiple languages .

maybe the UN could actually make itself usefull and enforce 1559 and make the problem go away . Insead of playing with their collective meat puppets and accomplishing nothing .

So the UN cannot ask Israel to give up Nukes ??
The UN could ask anything it likes and can be told to fuck off in multiple languages .I see.

so... How do you say Fuck off in hebrew?

The UN could ask anything it likes and can be told to fuck off in multiple languages.
Well, that only applies if the nation saying "fuck off" can live with sanctions and live with the possibility that the US will invade and wreck the country.

If you're France, or Russia, or China, you can tell the US to fuck off. India, too. Pakistan is a maybe - ever notice that Musharraf seems to listen to the US on occasion?

Maybe even the US is content nowadays to let it ride until you actually pop one off on someone they like.

Then I wouldn't give one penny for your chances of survival. And I would put a marshmallow on a stick and hold it up to the rising of artificial suns on the horizon.

Well, that only applies if the nation saying "fuck off" can live with sanctions and live with the possibility that the US will invade and wreck the country.



Of course that's assuming the UN even bothers w/ sanctions on countries that violate SCR's (Iran,Syria).

Havent you heard the NEWS. ??
N.Korea is not losing any sleep over it..

In fact they are sleeping better since they got the Nukes.. ;)


They have to sleep , they have no food and very little shelter, not much else they can do on starvation rations...but they MAY have a nuke .


WHOOPEE ....of course the money could have been spent on rice and meat..but SOoooooooooooo many countries want to attack them ....


If they didnt make noise and rattle their cage every once in a while ..

WHO WOULD ACTUALLY EVEN GIVE A SHIT ABOUT THEM ?

NK munchkin land...with nukes...maybe...assures their total destruction if they even fart wrong..no more can anyone take chances..just massive retaiation and pre-emptive action..ask SADDAM what happens when you are thought to have WMD's ...


Sure they are sleeping great...but no one could care less about them before or after they got the ability to maybe produce a nuke..The starving munchkins just do not have that much stategic value..they are surrounded by counties that can crush them if they do not play nice .
There relevance is only that they are a pain in the ass and occasionally get delusional and unstable and threaten the hood ......Whoooooopeee lots of value there .:rolleyes:

They have to sleep , they have no food and very little shelter, not much else they can do on starvation rations...but they MAY have a nuke .

Even worse.

In the past couple of weeks, North Korea has had tens of thousands of civilians killed by flash floods, and the Dear Leader ordered his military to stay in their barracks on alert (instead of rescuing civilians) because "the US might attack at any moment".

Got to be great "living" in North Korea - between starvation, being drowned, or the chance that you, like over a million others, could end up in a Korean gulag, well that's just GREAT!

Well, that only applies if the nation saying "fuck off" can live with sanctions and live with the possibility that the US will invade and wreck the country.

If you're France, or Russia, or China, you can tell the US to fuck off. India, too. Pakistan is a maybe - ever notice that Musharraf seems to listen to the US on occasion?

Maybe even the US is content nowadays to let it ride until you actually pop one off on someone they like.

Then I wouldn't give one penny for your chances of survival. And I would put a marshmallow on a stick and hold it up to the rising of artificial suns on the horizon.

The whole point is the UN couldnt be expected to ask Israel to give up NUKES unless it could ask all the others in the club....and whats the chances of that ever happening ?

NK is " suspected" of having Nukes....do you see them doing the munchkin dance lughing their starving ass off at the UN ?

The UN cant even stop people getting killed with Machete's and you want them to deal with NUKES ?:D

The UN is a JOKE .

I see.

so... How do you say Fuck off in hebrew?


500 lb laser guided bomb .

The UN has no authority over the domestic affairs of Israel.So the UN cannot ask Israel to give up Nukes ??Well, that only applies if the nation saying "fuck off" can live with sanctions and live with the possibility that the US will invade and wreck the country.
()
Maybe even the US is content nowadays to let it ride until you actually pop one off on someone they like.

Then I wouldn't give one penny for your chances of survival. And I would put a marshmallow on a stick and hold it up to the rising of artificial suns on the horizon.hmm interesting..

Basicaly the Jew-Crew logic is being presented like this:
If you are Israel.. If the UN ask Israel to give up its Nukes.. the Israel aswer is "Fuck-off"

but If the UN ask the same to Iran.. then.. Iran must comply.. because the US says so.

all I can say is.. No wonder the UN is develpping into a world class failure

I see.
so... How do you say Fuck off in hebrew?500 lb laser guided bomb .I see.
so... How does Hezbollah says Fuck off?

So the UN cannot ask Israel to give up Nukes ??hmm interesting..

Basicaly the Jew-Crew logic is being presented like this:
If you are Israel.. If the UN ask Israel to give up its Nukes.. the Israel aswer is "Fuck-off"

but If the UN ask the same to Iran.. then.. Iran must comply.. because the US says so.

all I can say is.. No wonder the UN is develpping into a world class failure

You fail to see the difference. Israel already has nukes. Iran doesn't.

So the UN cannot ask Israel to give up Nukes ??hmm interesting..

Interesting that the UN does not control what goes on inside another nation?

Basicaly the Jew-Crew logic is being presented like this:
If you are Israel.. If the UN ask Israel to give up its Nukes.. the Israel aswer is "Fuck-off"

but If the UN ask the same to Iran.. then.. Iran must comply.. because the US says so.

all I can say is.. No wonder the UN is develpping into a world class failure

I really do hate to break this to you but it has been one since 1948 when the Arab World ignored a UN Resolution making Jerusalem an open city and attacked Israel.

I see.
so... How does Hezbollah says Fuck off?


With a rocket that lands ..someplace..and goes pop .

Basicaly the Jew-Crew logic is being presented like this:


Nice slur there. Quoted so you can't edit it out.

I see.
so... How does Hezbollah says Fuck off?

Is Hezbollah a UN Member? No? Lebanon is and they have failed completely in implementing 1559.

Israel already has nukes. Iran doesn't.oh.. i see the way your brain works..

You are not allowed to get a weapon.. until you get the said weapon.

You are making sense :rolleyes: :rolleyes: :rolleyes: :rolleyes:

Nice slur there. Quoted so you can't edit it out.why should I edit it ?

oh.. i see the way your brain works..


It's the way the world works. And the way the signers of the NPT thought when they signed it.

oh.. i see the way your brain works..

You are not allowed to get a weapon.. until you get the said weapon.

You are making sense :rolleyes: :rolleyes: :rolleyes: :rolleyes:

Quick International Law lesson. Israel is not a party to NPT. North Korea was and they pulled out of it. Iran still is and is not complying with it. Therefor, Iran is in violation of International Law as was North Korea until they pulled out of it.

why should I edit it ?
Because you always edit your slurs later.

Like the time you said, "you Jew-lover".

It's the way the world works. (not the same rules for the Jews/Arabs) Interesting.

Interesting.
Nice of you to edit the quotes, too.

Too easy to see that my post is not edited, and your quote of me is very edited.

Because you always edit your slurs later.
Like the time you said, "you Jew-lover".The only reason I see to edit is to change the format.. not the meaning of my post.

BTW.. are you no longer a member of the Jew-Crew ??

Nice of you ....latest ruling was that if we use the () we are allowed..

if they ever change that rule.. I will comply.

Quick International Law lesson. Israel is not a party to NPT. North Korea was and they pulled out of it. Iran still is and is not complying with it.I bet.. Iran will pull out.. like Israel and N.Korea..

wanna bet 50$ ??

The only reason I see to edit is to change the format.. not the meaning of my post.

BTW.. are you no longer a member of the Jew-Crew ??

Jew-Crew is a slur.

I bet.. Iran will pull out.. like Israel and N.Korea..

Well Israel never pulled out of it. As for Iran..if they have not done so by now, I do not think that they will.

wanna bet 50$ ??

I do not gamle.

I do not think that they will.



I do not gamle.you know.. it is a good thing You do not gamle ;) :D

you know.. it is a good thing You do not gamble ;) :D

And why is that?

And why is that?you would lose. (I dont see a way to say it in a gentle fashion.. or maybe I am lazy)
\\ going AFK \\
see you in 24h