NationStates Jolt Archive

As we all know, during the recent UN anti-racism conference, Iranian president Mahmoud Ahmadinejad held a speech (http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/middle_east/8010747.stm) stating among other things:

After the Second World War, by exploiting the holocaust and under the pretext of protecting the Jews they made a nation homeless with military expeditions and invasion. They transferred various groups of people from America, Europe and other countries to this land. They established a completely racist government in the occupied Palestinian territories. And in fact, under the pretext of making up for damages resulting from racism in Europe, they established the most aggressive, racist country in another territory, i.e. Palestine.

The Security Council endorsed this usurper regime and for 60 years constantly defended it and let it commit any kind of crime.

Dozens of delegates (http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/europe/8008572.stm) got up and left during this speech, including the representatives from France and the UK. The Norwegian representative was not among the nations walking out, choosing instead to stay through the speech and get on the podium after Ahmadinejad to say the following (http://www.regjeringen.no/nb/dep/ud/dep/utenriksminister_jonas_gahr_store/taler_artikler/2009/durban_ii.html?id=555874):

This is the rostrum of the United Nations. By definition it is a rostrum for freedom of speech – crucial among the human rights.

The President of Iran has just exercised that human right. He did so, I believe, in a way that threatens the very focus of this conference.

Today we meet on the basis of a declaration that has been carefully negotiated by our representatives. It has succeeded in building a broad consensus, bringing on board all states and groups of states.

In his intervention the President of Iran placed his country outside the margins of this declaration.

Freedom of speech – yes. But the document that we have agreed is also clear on the need for protection against the incitement of hatred. I heard the messages in the President’s speech – and they amount to just that: incitement of hatred, spreading politics of fear and promoting an indiscriminate message of intolerance.

The declaration that we have agreed is not a finger-pointing exercise, it is not a list of one conflict after another. Today’s declaration is principled. We know there are many conflicts – too many conflicts – around the world between countries and within countries. The text aims at protecting people and individuals against the scourges of racism, discrimination and incitement to hatred.

The Iranian President’s allegations run counter to the very spirit and dignity of this conference. I will not respond to all the allegations. Through his message the President has made Iran the odd man out. And Norway will not accept that the odd man out hijacks the collective effort of the many.

The US was not among the countries walking out nor among the countries staying behind, since the US government had chosen to boycott the conference.

My question doesn't go to the merits of the racism conference itself, or the lack thereof. Rather, it's about the best way to react to what the Iranian president was doing. Everybody knew that something like that was coming, it was expected after the events of the Durban conference.


Was the best choice to boycott the conference completely, like the US did, even though you agree with the intentions behind the conference? Was the best choice to undermine the legitimacy of an international conference where you know that Ahmadinejad will "run wild" like a troll from NSG on too much caffeine?

Or was the best choice to at least try to make the conference a success, but walk out in protest to show disagreement with the rants and accusations hurled from the podium, like the UK and France did?

Or was the best choice to at least try to make the conference a success, stay through the speech and give Ahmadinejad an audience, but offer a rebuttal to the ravings the preceeding speaker afterwards, like the Norwegian foreign minister did?


What do you think is the best way to deal with disagreement in such a setting? Stay and argue, go and not dignify the wild claims with a response, or boycott the event, allow a hijacking of the conference but undermine the legitimacy by not attending at all when you know something like this is coming?

Was the best choice to boycott the conference completely, like the US did, even though you agree with the intentions behind the conference? Was the best choice to undermine the legitimacy of an international conference where you know that Ahmadinejad will "run wild" like a troll from NSG on too much caffeine?

Nope, not this one.

Or was the best choice to at least try to make the conference a success, but walk out in protest to show disagreement with the rants and accusations hurled from the podium, like the UK and France did?

Nope, not that one either.

Or was the best choice to at least try to make the conference a success, stay through the speech and give Ahmadinejad an audience, but offer a rebuttal to the ravings the preceeding speaker afterwards, like the Norwegian foreign minister did?

That's the one. It destroys his credibility if you stay, listen, and then tactfully but forcefully rebut everything he said with cold logic and hard facts.

What do you think is the best way to deal with disagreement in such a setting? Stay and argue, go and not dignify the wild claims with a response, or boycott the event, allow a hijacking of the conference but undermine the legitimacy by not attending at all when you know something like this is coming?

The Norwegian minister nailed it. You gotta let people like this speak, and then rebut their arguments. If you don't let them speak, it's repression. If you do let them speak and you leave, then they have the only voice.

Also, I like how the Norwegian foreign minister pointed out that the President of Iran has utilized a right he has - free speech - and that he has the fundamental right to do that. However, his speech was filled with hatred and anger, and those present should exercise their right to ignore him.

That's my opinion, for what it's worth.


EDIT: List and quotes don't mix.

That's my opinion, for what it's worth.

*Gives $1.50 and a cookie*

I agree. I do understand the viewpoint that a continued presence would only legitimise unacceptable anti-Israeli attacks, but I think it's sad that he'd get to derail the conference and take over unopposed if nobody were left to say something afterwards.

But there's a reason why I've asked about the "best" choice - I understand all of the three alternatives, and I can't say that either of them is a wrong choice in this case.

Or was the best choice to at least try to make the conference a success, stay through the speech and give Ahmadinejad an audience, but offer a rebuttal to the ravings the preceeding speaker afterwards, like the Norwegian foreign minister did?


I don't know what conference you think you're talking about, but the source you presented doesn't support this claim.

Those who left were paid to be there, weren't they? Who the fuck do they think they are, walking out? Anyway, A mad dinner jacket (I find his name hilarious, you can do so many things with it) is an idiot and an anti-Semite, but he did have a few good points.

I do not think boycotting the conference was the best move because it cuold be misconstrued as not being supportive of the legitimate aims of the conference.

I wholeheartedly approve of the Norwegian delegate's reaction. I think this, by itself, is probably the best response and in the best spirit of the aims of the conference.

I can accept, with reservations, the response of those who walked out rather than listen to Ahmedinejad. I would have preferred if that action was seen as being in concert with the rebuttal by the Norwegian delegate. I would also have preferred if they had not actually left the room but had done some other symbolic show of rejecting him -- such as turning their backs while he spoke, then shown strong approval via applause to the Norwegian delegate's rebuttal.

Those who left were paid to be there, weren't they? Who the fuck do they think they are, walking out? Anyway, A mad dinner jacket (I find his name hilarious, you can do so many things with it) is an idiot and an anti-Semite, but he did have a few good points.
No, he didn't.

There may be -- in fact, there certainly are -- very legitimate criticisms to be made of Israel, but he did not make any of them, nor have I ever heard him make any.

That's the one. It destroys his credibility if you stay, listen, and then tactfully but forcefully rebut everything he said with cold logic and hard facts.

The Norwegian minister nailed it. You gotta let people like this speak, and then rebut their arguments. If you don't let them speak, it's repression. If you do let them speak and you leave, then they have the only voice.


^This. Those who want to be the voice of reason should also be able to stand up and win a dialectical duel.


Though the idea of spanking Ahmadinejad in public is so hilarious that I couldn't just help from selecting it. Ooh, even better: Nanatsu in a kittysuit spanking him. Broadcasted live and worldwide, with farsi subtitles of what Nanatsu says. Or LG spattering him with mud cakes. Or both.

Ooh, even better: Nanatsu in a kittysuit spanking him. Broadcasted live and worldwide, with farsi subtitles of what Nanatsu says.

Damn it! Galloism!!!:mad:

Damn it! Galloism!!!:mad:

Galloism what? No, too many people on the stage now! :D

Galloism what? No, too many people on the stage now! :D

I take full credit for the kitty costume fallout. I also find it hilarious, and I bless thee all with tacos.

If the Norweigian delegate said that off the cuff he's some form of god. A minor god, with god powers limited only to letting him say exactly what needed to be said, but a god nonetheless.

If the Norweigian delegate said that off the cuff he's some form of god. A minor god, with god powers limited only to letting him say exactly what needed to be said, but a god nonetheless.

Why can't our Delegate be a God? :(

I take full credit for the kitty costume fallout. I also find it hilarious, and I bless thee all with tacos.

Yay, iranian pistachio tacos! :D

If the Norweigian delegate said that off the cuff he's some form of god. A minor god, with god powers limited only to letting him say exactly what needed to be said, but a god nonetheless.

Hey, Conservative Morality! One could almost say that the Norwegian delegate . . . TAI'ed Ahmadinejad, eh? :D

Hey, Conservative Morality! One could almost say that the Norwegian delegate . . . TAI'ed Ahmadinejad, eh? :D

Hehe.:D One might say that.:tongue:

Edit: WHAT!?

YOU FORGOT TO FORGET THE V! RABBLE RABBLE RIOT RIOT!

I don't know what conference you think you're talking about, but the source you presented doesn't support this claim.
Really? Not even by stating that his rants are missing the target and that he's contradicting himself when he's running contrary to the stated reasons for his speech?

I guess we disagree then.

No, he didn't.

There may be -- in fact, there certainly are -- very legitimate criticisms to be made of Israel, but he did not make any of them, nor have I ever heard him make any.
I agree with this. The speech was by and large pointless. It was just posturing, to make himself look like a strong man on the international scene before the upcoming election.

Damn it! Galloism!!!:mad:
I'm sure a kittysuit would be a powerful tool against racism everywhere.

If the Norweigian delegate said that off the cuff he's some form of god. A minor god, with god powers limited only to letting him say exactly what needed to be said, but a god nonetheless.

I do believe he scribbled furiously during the Ahmadinejad speech, but most of the speech was pre-written. As I said, this was an expected outrage.

your missing the point in that the conference had among other things the mission to ban discriminating speech and such (which was why the US didn't attend)

by arguing with the man your going against what the conference was about so I guess that makes you a hypocrite :p

your missing the point in that the conference had among other things the mission to ban discriminating speech and such (which was why the US didn't attend)

by arguing with the man your going against what the conference was about so I guess that makes you a hypocrite :p

lolwut

This is where every delegate there should point at Mahmoud and shout, "!?POR QUE NO TE CALLAS!?".

I'd leave because he's an arsehole. Really Loudly.

Hey, Conservative Morality! One could almost say that the Norwegian delegate . . . TAI'ed Ahmadinejad, eh? :D

The TAI in this scenario was Ahmadinejad. He made a bunch of stupid claims, didn't back them up, claimed victory (as per usual) and got pwnd.


To answer the OP, I think the decision on the part of the US to boycott the conference was silly. "That guy is a jerk, I'm not going!" A most excellent way to allow said jerk to undermine the process.

Walking out...I think that gave a good show, it was very clear.

Had everyone done what the Norwegian fellow did...I'm not sure that would have been all that useful. I'm glad someone stood up and said what he did, but I think the combination of walking out, and that speech, were most effective. I don't really find the boycotting of the entire thing particularly effective.

Freedom of speech – yes. But the document that we have agreed is also clear on the need for protection against the incitement of hatred. I heard the messages in the President’s speech – and they amount to just that: incitement of hatred, spreading politics of fear and promoting an indiscriminate message of intolerance...

The Iranian President’s allegations run counter to the very spirit and dignity of this conference. I will not respond to all the allegations. Through his message the President has made Iran the odd man out. And Norway will not accept that the odd man out hijacks the collective effort of the many.
The delegate then blew on his fist, hammered the nearby jukebox, and got it working again, adding, "eeyyyyyyyyyyyyyy".

Really? Not even by stating that his rants are missing the target and that he's contradicting himself when he's running contrary to the stated reasons for his speech?

I guess we disagree then.


If by 'we disagree' you mean, "I apologise, No True Scotsman, I was wrong", then yes.

'Nuh uh' is not 'a rebuttal' unless you're 8.

I'm sure a kittysuit would be a powerful tool against racism everywhere.

I'll never live this down, am I?:$

They should've all listened to his speech, and if it was as predicted, just sit there when he's done, for like five really quiet minutes. While Ahmadinejad stands up there with his Bugs Bunny Grin, waiting for applause, everybody just looks at him...

then the ambassadar from Ghana, way in the back, says "I didn't enjoy any of that."

The TAI in this scenario was Ahmadinejad. He made a bunch of stupid claims, didn't back them up, claimed victory (as per usual) and got pwnd.


Ah, the sweet smell of flamebait. IN my opinion, they were both TAIing. They were both calm (At least in manner), were very confident in the statements and arguments they made, and... Well, I suppose, in a manner of speaking, they argued rationally.... Well, Ahmadinnerjacket matched two out of the three.

The TAI in this scenario was Ahmadinejad. He made a bunch of stupid claims, didn't back them up, claimed victory (as per usual) and got pwnd.
Nice flamebait. Oh, and were you by any chance refering to that huge post you made about Pinochet's economic miracle that I totally ripped through, to which you didn't respond? :p;)

If the Norweigian delegate said that off the cuff he's some form of god. A minor god, with god powers limited only to letting him say exactly what needed to be said, but a god nonetheless

Hey, Conservative Morality! One could almost say that the Norwegian delegate . . . TAI'ed Ahmadinejad, eh? :D

Nice flamebait. Oh, and were you by any chance refering to that huge post you made about Pinochet's economic miracle that I totally ripped through, to which you didn't respond? :p;)
Flamebait? You just claimed ot have some sort of godlike powers. I poked a hole in your big fat air balloon.

As for whatever 'ripping into me' you claim to have done, please. I know you like it when I spank you, which is why I don't bother anymore. You can go ahead and spank it all on your own.

Flamebait? You just claimed ot have some sort of godlike powers. I poked a hole in your big fat air balloon.
But I was soaring so high . . . :p

As for whatever 'ripping into me' you claim to have done, please. I know you like it when I spank you, which is why I don't bother anymore. You can go ahead and spank it all on your own.

You can call me destroying your huge post and you not responding to my destruction of said post whatever you want, babe, but I will not be spanked by you and I'll have you know that your sexual demeanor does not allure me, not one bit. ;)

I would also have preferred if they had not actually left the room but had done some other symbolic show of rejecting him -- such as turning their backs while he spoke, then shown strong approval via applause to the Norwegian delegate's rebuttal.
Personally, I have always disliked this kind of theatrical disagreement. It’s populist and immature. One should be able to get their point across with old-fashioned rhetoric, not with boos and heckling and rock-concert cheers.

If someone’s views are really so reprehensible that you can’t show a minimum level of courtesy to the speaker then either the speaker should be prevented from being there or you should excuse yourself from the venue.

Was the best choice to boycott the conference completely, like the US
and Germany
did, even though you agree with the intentions behind the conference? Was the best choice to undermine the legitimacy of an international conference where you know that Ahmadinejad will "run wild" like a troll from NSG on too much caffeine?
I believe those boycotting the conference have rightfully done so.

The answer is to stop pretending that these international wanking sessions have any meaning or legitimacy.

It's like getting pissed off because the chess club passed a motion about some shit.

The answer is to stop pretending that these international wanking sessions have any meaning or legitimacy.

It's like getting pissed off because the chess club passed a motion about some shit.

My chess club did pass and anti racism motion. Sadly it didn't help diversify our chess club. All still whites and Asians.

My chess club did pass and anti racism motion. Sadly it didn't help diversify our chess club. All still whites and Asians.

See, because everyone ignored you. And nothing happened.

It's a guaranteed formula for success.

If by 'we disagree' you mean, "I apologise, No True Scotsman, I was wrong", then yes.
Fancy interpretation, but no.

We still disagree. You apparently believe that the word I should have used "response", while I still believe that I could use the word "rebuttal". Very well. But that's getting off topic... A topic you still haven't been on, I notice.

My sympathies are still with the Palestinians, and I applaud Mr. Ahmadinejad's efforts to highlight their plight and the illegitimacy of the Zionist entity. Israel is racist to the core, a state that explicitly identifies itself as Jewish, and which oppresses Palestinian refugees, their children, and its own Arab citizens. While I don't think the Israelis should be ejected from their territory, we should work the Arabs into a single-state solution and dismantle Israel's political structure as we know it.

Please donate to the International Solidarity Movement. They do good work in supplying Palestinian refugees with essentials.
http://palsolidarity.org/

and Germany

I believe those boycotting the conference have rightfully done so.

We were allowed to Boycott because we have a black president now so we are obviously not racist. :mp:

My chess club did pass and anti racism motion. Sadly it didn't help diversify our chess club. All still whites and Asians.

It's ALREADY diversified. By containing whites and asians, it could contain:
germans,french,chinese,koreans,italians,poles,mongols,japanese... if that's not diversified, I don't know what it is. ;)

"" After the Second World War, by exploiting the holocaust and under the pretext of protecting the Jews they made a nation homeless with military expeditions and invasion. They transferred various groups of people from America, Europe and other countries to this land. They established a completely racist government in the occupied Palestinian territories. And in fact, under the pretext of making up for damages resulting from racism in Europe, they established the most aggressive, racist country in another territory, i.e. Palestine.

The Security Council endorsed this usurper regime and for 60 years constantly defended it and let it commit any kind of crime. ""


Hourah, Mr. Ahmadinejad ! Brave man !

well i don't see much point in sitting through it. i wouldn't be getting up and leaving to make any kind of statement. i'd just have better things to do with my time. like maybe a dentist appointment or a proctologist.

its not that all of what he said (in the quote) was entirely untrue either. just some of it more then a wee bit exagerated. there were certainly inequities in israel's very beginning, as likewise there have been in recent decades. but neither were intrinsic to the origeonal concept, nor incapable of being devorced from it in the future, even the very near and immediate future.

there HAVE been attrocities committed by the modern state of israel. absolutely. as there also have by virtually every modern nation of the face of the planet. nor am i claiming that as an excuse for anyone. on any side. of anything.

when iran stops persicuting baha'is, THEN it will have something to say about israel's treatment of palistinians.

the only right made by two wrongs, IS a political right wing.

Ahmadinejad is clearly trolling, flamebaiting Israel in particular. I think a two-week ban is in order?

Seriously, I think that what happened was for the best. Ahmadinejad got hit with both the walkout and the disparaging comments.

The thing I do dislike is giving this guy a public forum to spout his nonsense. I suppose he represents his people so it can be overlooked. I think both responses are correct. "I don't need to hear this crap" and that "no one should take what he says seriously".

The thing I do dislike is giving this guy a public forum to spout his nonsense.

So you support a permaban?

So you support a permaban?

Grudgingly I have to say no. We do need his voice at the UN however maybe we could reduce the number these type conferences. I really see no purpose. It was kind of doomed from the start which is why the US likely did not attend, what could possibly be gained?

I would stay and give him a good tongue lashing afterwards.
Prior to this I would have gone to the podium and countered his argument.

That is the thing no one really countered the argument because you can't really it comes down to interpretations. Possibly we should have, although I am afraid it would have done little good. We basically said he has a right to his opinion and we have a right to ours. Great!

I do find it difficult to hate this man. Even though I disagree with what he stands for. There is something about him. It could be that he is a "good" speaker by that I mean he seems to be comfortable giving speeches and such. He does seem to have some charisma for whatever reason. Everyone remembers when he was invited to Columbia. I know it is like a train wreck but for some reason you feel like you need to give him is due.


Sorry my mistake, Columbia. I don't why I though it was Princeton. Apologies!

Here is an interesting quote:

http://www.ivygateblog.com/tag/ahmadinejad/

Presidential candidate and U.S. Sen. John McCain, R-Ariz., whose daughter graduated from Columbia last year, denounced the University for inviting Ahmadinejad. "A man who is directing the maiming and killing of Americans troops should not be given an invitation to speak at an American university," he said in a statement.

City Council Speaker Christine Quinn issued a similar denunciation. "The idea of Ahmadinejad as an honored guest anywhere in our city is offensive to all New Yorkers," she said in a statement. "He can say whatever he wants on any street corner, but should not be given center stage at one of New York's most prestigious centers of higher education."

Today's New York Post features a column by neo-con John Podhohertz entitled "A Terrorist For Tea" in which J-Pod imagines a conversation between Bollinger and Ahmadinejad. PrezBo talks about hurt Jewish feelings and A-Jad talks about how much he loves American liberals because they are actually terrorists, just like him. J-Pod is extra-qualified to comment on the dangers of mass murder, genocide, and racism because his dad, Norman Podhohertz, wants to nuke Iran and penned a clever little ditty called "My Negro Problem" in Commentary magazine in 1963. Always ahead of the curve, those Podhohertzes.


Sorry made me laugh.

The guys in the clown suits taht ran in and disrupted his speech had the best tactic.

Fancy interpretation, but no.

We still disagree. You apparently believe that the word I should have used "response", while I still believe that I could use the word "rebuttal". Very well. But that's getting off topic... A topic you still haven't been on, I notice.

No rebuttal was offered.

Someone else got up and basically issued the equivalent of 'your face smells'. No attempt to deconstruct, or actually respond to any of the points. No evidence, no reference to evidence. Nothing.

You can't suppress holocaust denials by telling people 'nuh uh'. You can't change their minds by telling them they are a minority, by telling them they're wrong, or by getting all your chums together to ignore them. Which means - whatever was done might have given a few people warm fuzzies for a while, but it was ultimately both a waste of time, and was anti-constructive.

The approach to holocaust denial is all wrong. It's a statement of faith versus a statement of faith. If Europe really wants to have some FRUITFUL discourse with Iran over this, they should agree to a joint investigative committee WITH Iran, to research the evidence.

If Europe really wants to have some FRUITFUL discourse with Iran over this, they should agree to a joint investigative committee WITH Iran, to research the evidence.

Firstly, I don't think we want discourse with Iran over the matter, the matter has been settled, it's closed, having another investigation, even though their claims have been proven time and time again to be bullshit, only gives undeserved credibility to their claims. It sends a dodgy message to the public, given the expected response to snuff them.

Secondly, if you must have an investigation, you would have a third party do it, as both Iran and Germany would be blatantly biased.

Firstly, I don't think we want discourse with Iran over the matter, the matter has been settled, it's closed, having another investigation, even though their claims have been proven time and time again to be bullshit, only gives undeserved credibility to their claims. It sends a dodgy message to the public, given the expected response to snuff them.


Well, you said a mouthful there.

You're right - we DON'T want discourse. It's an article of faith to the majority.

I'd say you completely missed the point, but - since you say you don't care to actually discuss it with those who deny - maybe not. If you WANT Iran to admit they are wrong, you have to engage them. We're not doing that.


Secondly, if you must have an investigation, you would have a third party do it, as both Iran and Germany would be blatantly biased.

No, that's exactly NOT the point. The point is to have the people that ARE blatantly biased processing the information, first hand, as part of an investigative body.

If you WANT Iran to admit they are wrong, you have to engage them. We're not doing that.


I don't think anyone is expecting that, and it will never happen, no matter how many investigations are done, they will keep spouting the same nonsense.

The point is to have the people that ARE blatantly biased processing the information, first hand, as part of an investigative body.

Why is that the point?

I don't think anyone is expecting that, and it will never happen, no matter how many investigations are done, they will keep spouting the same nonsense.


That's a nice statement of faith you use to justify your reluctance to engage.

Sticking your hands over your ears and singing la-la-la is only really a good tactic when you're 8.


Why is that the point?

Because the point isn't to find out whether there was a holocaust, it's to have people look at evidence.

That's a nice statement of faith you use to justify your reluctance to engage.

Sticking your hands over your ears and singing la-la-la is only really a good tactic when you're 8.


No, you're missing the point. That's exactly what the Iranians are doing. Their hands are completely stuck on to their ears, we wont be able to pry them off. Are you expecting that an investigation will make them admit they're wrong?


Because the point isn't to find out whether there was a holocaust, it's to have people look at evidence.

To what end? And in what sense can't they do this already?

No, you're missing the point. That's exactly what the Iranians are doing. Their hands are completely stuck on to their ears, we wont be able to pry them off.


You're no different.

Only your 'conclusion' is different.


Are you expecting that an investigation will make them admit they're wrong?


No, I'm expecting that an investigation would be the first time that most people on BOTH sides had ever critically analysed the data.


To what end? And in what sense can't they do this already?

They could. But... where's the incentive?

You're no different.

Only your 'conclusion' is different.


I'm not trying to be different.


No, I'm expecting that an investigation would be the first time that most people on BOTH sides had ever critically analysed the data.


What? The deniers are constantly analysing the sources, and offering their own (faulty) interpretations, as well as using their own (faulty) evidence, such as for instance that bullshit about the holes being too small release gas. Or is there some special 'data' that the other side can't assess for some reason? Because I'd like to know what that is.


They could. But... where's the incentive?

Why would having some massive costly investigation motivate them?

What? The deniers are constantly analysing the sources, and offering their own (faulty) interpretations, as well as using their own (faulty) evidence, such as for instance that bullshit about the holes being too small release gas. Or is there some special 'data' that the other side can't assess for some reason? Because I'd like to know what that is.

Wait... wut? How small are these holes?

Wait... wut? How small are these holes?

I don't know, I can't remember what the claim exactly was now. Perhaps it was 'too small to release a sufficient amount of gas to kill anyone'.

I'm not trying to be different.


You think you're the same as Iran?

What? The deniers are constantly analysing the sources, and offering their own (faulty) interpretations, as well as using their own (faulty) evidence, such as for instance that bullshit about the holes being too small release gas. Or is there some special 'data' that the other side can't assess for some reason? Because I'd like to know what that is.


Can't have it both ways.

Either they're wrong, and the evidence can only be interpreted one way... or you're wrong, and the data CAN be read to say more than one thing.

If they are wrong, then an actual investigation by a bi-partisan panel will highlight the evidence, and the conflicts arising.

If you are wrong, then an actual investigation by a bi-partisan panel will highlight where insupportable assertions are being made.


Why would having some massive costly investigation motivate them?

Because there's the possibility that they would be vindicated.

I don't know, I can't remember what the claim exactly was now. Perhaps it was 'too small to release a sufficient amount of gas to kill anyone'.

Still, if it was under sufficient pressure... you know, gas contracts under pressure...

How small would the holes have to be to-

http://crookedtimber.org/wp-content/uploads/2008/10/exploding-head.gif

You think you're the same as Iran?


No, I just wouldn't bother to engage with them about this bullshit.


or you're wrong, and the data CAN be read to say more than one thing.


How can this make me wrong? Of course the 'evidence' can be interpreted more than one way. History is not a science, stop treating it like some sort of controlled experiment with clear and unambiguous 'data'. Any historical source can be interpreted by someone in more than one way. For instance, records from the Nazi government could be pretty good evidence for the holocaust, or the deniers might see it as merely a falsified document that's merely part of the greater conspiracy, or perhaps they see it as the Germans bragging by making stuff up and they never really killed all those Jews. Of course these interpretations would be bullshit, but they are the sort of interpretations that are incredibly difficult to falsify, if not impossible, since they are based upon a set of greater foundational beliefs. It's kind of similar to the concept of a death by a thousand qualifications, no matter what evidence you give them, there will always be a qualification.

But this doesn't answer my question. What data is there that they can't already assess?


If they are wrong, then an actual investigation by a bi-partisan panel will highlight the evidence, and the conflicts arising.

If you are wrong, then an actual investigation by a bi-partisan panel will highlight where insupportable assertions are being made.


I really don't understand why a bipartisan panel will be an effective way of doing this, this is very confusing to me. I don't see what's wrong with the many independent bodies that have already done this.


Because there's the possibility that they would be vindicated.

Do you think that? Or do you think they think that?

The guys in the clown suits taht ran in and disrupted his speech had the best tactic.

LG did what now? :tongue:

No, I just wouldn't bother to engage with them about this bullshit.


You said you 'weren't trying to be different'. Thus, you are happy to be the same.


How can this make me wrong? Of course the 'evidence' can be interpreted more than one way. History is not a science, stop treating it like some sort of controlled experiment with clear and unambiguous 'data'.


I'm not, you are. I've made no claims either way, you've stated that the results are in, and a cast-iron conclusion has been reached.


Any historical source can be interpreted by someone in more than one way. For instance, records from the Nazi government could be pretty good evidence for the holocaust, or the deniers might see it as merely a falsified document that's merely part of the greater conspiracy, or perhaps they see it as the Germans bragging by making stuff up and they never really killed all those Jews.


Right. The hard-and-fast statements you've been making all along, are actually questionable.


Of course these interpretations would be bullshit,


Of course. Because you're not actually interested in facts, since you've got a really good opinion.


...but they are the sort of interpretations that are incredibly difficult to falsify, if not impossible...


Gosh, but it sure looks like that directly contradicted your previous statement.


I really don't understand why a bipartisan panel will be an effective way of doing this, this is very confusing to me. I don't see what's wrong with the many independent bodies that have already done this.


For real? You don't get that? It's really not that complicated - people are far more likely to place faith in research they conducted themselves, rather than some other group.


Do you think that? Or do you think they think that?

I'm saying that would be their incentive.

My sympathies are still with the Palestinians, and I applaud Mr. Ahmadinejad's efforts to highlight their plight and the illegitimacy of the Zionist entity. Israel is racist to the core, a state that explicitly identifies itself as Jewish, and which oppresses Palestinian refugees, their children, and its own Arab citizens. While I don't think the Israelis should be ejected from their territory, we should work the Arabs into a single-state solution and dismantle Israel's political structure as we know it.

Please donate to the International Solidarity Movement. They do good work in supplying Palestinian refugees with essentials.
http://palsolidarity.org/

Are you the same guy who defended Mugabe in another thread? If you're not, I apologize for the mistake.

You said you 'weren't trying to be different'. Thus, you are happy to be the same.


By 'you're no different', I took that to mean 'you're not trying to engage with them'.


I'm not, you are. I've made no claims either way, you've stated that the results are in, and a cast-iron conclusion has been reached.



Right. The hard-and-fast statements you've been making all along, are actually questionable.


OK, so perhaps it can never be 100% absolutely proven (well duh, I thought that was a given), but then what can? All I'm saying is, there is as much evidence for it as you are going to be able to get for a historical event. There is nothing they can add to it, and they have already had much of their own claims shown to be based on faulty or non existent evidence. Their claims don't deserve any credibility. That's what I'm saying.


Of course. Because you're not actually interested in facts, since you've got a really good opinion.


:rolleyes:


For real? You don't get that? It's really not that complicated - people are far more likely to place faith in research they conducted themselves, rather than some other group.


No, what I don't get is how this outweighs the fact that the interpretations will be blatantly biased. At best, they will only find common ground on fairly trivial things.


I'm saying that would be their incentive.

You STILL haven't answered my question. I think you know what it is.

By 'you're no different', I took that to mean 'you're not trying to engage with them'.


No, I mean your hands are stuck to your ears.

Not necessarily 'you' personally, although you do seem to be playing that role.


OK, so perhaps it can never be 100% absolutely proven (well duh, I thought that was a given), but then what can? All I'm saying is, there is as much evidence for it as you are going to be able to get for a historical event. There is nothing they can add to it,


What a ridiculous thing to say. I have to assume you're no historian.


...and they have already had much of their own claims shown to be based on faulty or non existent evidence.


And the figures at Auschwitz were shown to have been overestimated by as much as 400%. What's you point?


Their claims don't deserve any credibility.


If the evidence supports them, they do. That's how the analysis of historical data works.


No, what I don't get is how this outweighs the fact that the interpretations will be blatantly biased.


How so? That was the whole point of the non-partisan committee in the original concept. If they have to produce an ultimate product, they're going to have to find some kind of agreement, or create a document filled with conflicts. Either one serves the purpose.


You STILL haven't answered my question. I think you know what it is.

Which question?

No, I mean your hands are stuck to your ears.

Not necessarily 'you' personally, although you do seem to be playing that role.


Again, I took that to mean the same thing. I don't want to listen to their bullshit, that is true, I'm not denying that.


What a ridiculous thing to say. I have to assume you're no historian.


What's ridiculous, that a historical event cannot be absolutely proven 100%? If you deny this, then I assume you know absolutely nothing about historical investigation. If you mean that there are many convincing supported arguments to add to the debate on the deniers side, or that many of the deniers claims are not based on non existent of faulty evidence, then I assume that you're one of those dreadful 'revisionist' historians. Either way, it's not looking good for you.


And the figures at Auschwitz were shown to have been overestimated by as much as 400%. What's you point?

What's your point? Do you think the jury is still out? How does this add any weight to the deniers side?


If the evidence supports them, they do. That's how the analysis of historical data works.


The evidence doesn't support them.


How so? That was the whole point of the non-partisan committee in the original concept. If they have to produce an ultimate product, they're going to have to find some kind of agreement, or create a document filled with conflicts. Either one serves the purpose.

No it doesn't, it will serve as a waste of time. I think they'll again only find agreement on very trivial things that don't justify such a huge expense.


Which question?

What is this data that they can't access without a big joint investigation?

Again, I took that to mean the same thing. I don't want to listen to their bullshit, that is true, I'm not denying that.


You are complaining about them... doing the exact same thing you're admitting you, yourself, are guilty of.


What's ridiculous,


For real? I've got to explain your own posts to you as well, now?

You said: "...All I'm saying is, there is as much evidence for it as you are going to be able to get for a historical event. There is nothing they can add to it", which would be a ridiculous thing for anyone with ANY grounding in historical study to say.

Indeed, anyone with any actual background... couldn't say it.


... that a historical event cannot be absolutely proven 100%? If you deny this, then I assume you know absolutely nothing about historical investigation. If you mean that there are many convincing supported arguments to add to the debate on the deniers side, or that many of the deniers claims are not based on non existent of faulty evidence, then I assume that you're one of those dreadful 'revisionist' historians.


If, by 'revisionist historian', you mean someone who is always open to new evidence, or alternate explanations, then yes, I am. But we just call them 'historians'.


Either way, it's not looking good for you.


The irony of this coming from someone who has admitted they don't want to actually take an objective view of evidence, is frankly hilarious.


What's your point? Do you think the jury is still out? How does this add any weight to the deniers side?


The 'point' is that this issue is not as clear cut and one-sided as you seem to believe.


The evidence doesn't support them.


Given that you've admitted your method of objectively analysing the evidence is to put your hands over your ears, I don't think I'll take your word for it.


No it doesn't, it will serve as a waste of time. I think they'll again only find agreement on very trivial things that don't justify such a huge expense.


In which case, the final report would say that there are a lot of grey areas, and a few areas where agreement is pretty conclusive. Which would be a major departure from today's vox populi.


What is this data that they can't access without a big joint investigation?

Ah. That nonsensical mis-step. I didn't realise this was supposed to be a serious question, since it is neither in response to anything anyone actually said, nor contributes in any way.

You are complaining about them... doing the exact same thing you're admitting you, yourself, are guilty of.

No, I'm not. I'm complaining about the idea of a massive joint investigation. The fact that that they wont accept what we present to them is a REASON for why I don't think we should pursue a joint investigation. That doesn't mean I am complaining about them doing that in itself.


For real? I've got to explain your own posts to you as well, now?

You said: "...All I'm saying is, there is as much evidence for it as you are going to be able to get for a historical event. There is nothing they can add to it", which would be a ridiculous thing for anyone with ANY grounding in historical study to say.

Indeed, anyone with any actual background... couldn't say it.


It's hilarious how you start by saying 'I've got to explain...' and then offer absolutely no explanation whatsoever. If you think there's some substantial evidence to add, then show it.


If, by 'revisionist historian', you mean someone who is always open to new evidence, or alternate explanations, then yes, I am. But we just call them 'historians'.


Notice how I put 'revisionist' in speech marks. I'm implying that they don't stay true to that definition, and are in fact more stubborn, dogmatic and hyperbolic than the 'non revisionist' historians.


The irony of this coming from someone who has admitted they don't want to actually take an objective view of evidence, is frankly hilarious.


Objective view of evidence? What the fuck does that even mean? If you mean that I will accept that you can pretty much never derive absolute, universal truths, from historical sources, as is pretty much the fucking consensus amongst all people who have ever studied empiricism and objectivity at a philosophical level, then yes, that's what I take.


The 'point' is that this issue is not as clear cut and one-sided as you seem to believe.


Right, we have a problem then. Initially when we were debating, I was assuming that you agreed that holocaust denial was unambiguously bullshit with no credibility. Since you don't, I need to take a radically different approach.


Given that you've admitted your method of objectively analysing the evidence is to put your hands over your ears, I don't think I'll take your word for it.


Wow, I can only conclude you have very bad reading comprehension. How the fuck does - "I don't want to listen to Iran's bullshit" mean the same as "I don't want to listen to the evidence". Iran's bullshit is not evidence. Although had I known your position, I would not have been so lax with my assertions.


In which case, the final report would say that there are a lot of grey areas, and a few areas where agreement is pretty conclusive. Which would be a major departure from today's vox populi.


Iran disagreeing with Germany about the holocaust is not a fucking grey area. Do you not get that? Of course they will disagree. It's not a major departure, nobody would expect anything else.


Ah. That nonsensical mis-step. I didn't realise this was supposed to be a serious question, since it is neither in response to anything anyone actually said, nor contributes in any way.

What the hell? You said - "No, I'm expecting that an investigation would be the first time that most people on BOTH sides had ever critically analysed the data.". 'First time' implied that one side has never got the chance to critically examine the data, I'm assuming it's the deniers side you were referring to. If that is the case, what is this data they have never been able to critically examine? If it's the other side, are you seriously saying that the people who don't deny it have never critically examined the data? Or are you saying that nobody has ever critically examined the data? Please clarify.

If, by 'revisionist historian', you mean someone who is always open to new evidence, or alternate explanations, then yes, I am. But we just call them 'historians'.

So, quick question, what kind of evidence do you have that explains away the huge camp structures (many of which still stand), the 10 million people that disappeared inexplicably (jews, handicapped, gay, conscientious objectors, Russians, Poles, etc) never to be found, the borderline ridiculous amount of documentation that was discovered by the invading forces, and the tens of thousands of witnesses to the events that took place?

I'm really dying to hear it. This is going to be a doozy.

*sits back, opens a bottle of beer, and waits*

The 'point' is that this issue is not as clear cut and one-sided as you seem to believe.

It's clear cut that an atrocity happened. The exact scale of it is somewhat... unclear, but an atrocity did happen.

Ah. That nonsensical mis-step. I didn't realise this was supposed to be a serious question, since it is neither in response to anything anyone actually said, nor contributes in any way.

I thought this was a very valid question. All the evidence is publicly available, and I'm sure that if Iran or anyone else really wanted to investigate it, they could contact any embassy of any country that holds such evidence and ask to see it or ask for copies. The countries in question would gladly comply.

They just don't want to.

So, quick question, what kind of evidence do you have


What kind of evidence do I have?


...that explains away the huge camp structures (many of which still stand), the 10 million people that disappeared inexplicably (jews, handicapped, gay, conscientious objectors, Russians, Poles, etc) never to be found, the borderline ridiculous amount of documentation that was discovered by the invading forces, and the tens of thousands of witnesses to the events that took place?

I'm really dying to hear it. This is going to be a doozy.

*sits back, opens a bottle of beer, and waits*


I'm really not sure what you're expecting me to say. I didn't deny the holocaust, yet you want me to provide a holocaust denial?


It's clear cut that an atrocity happened. The exact scale of it is somewhat... unclear, but an atrocity did happen.


This is a good point. The scale is debatable. And for that, at least, this needs to stop being such a sacred cow issue.


I thought this was a very valid question. All the evidence is publicly available, and I'm sure that if Iran or anyone else really wanted to investigate it,


Iran doesn't 'really want to investigate'. No one does.


They just don't want to.

Yes. Hence why you respond to their assertions with the idea of a non-partisan investigation.

What kind of evidence do I have?

I'm really not sure what you're expecting me to say. I didn't deny the holocaust, yet you want me to provide a holocaust denial?

Well you said it wasn't clear cut. I thought maybe you knew something I didn't.

This is a good point. The scale is debatable. And for that, at least, this needs to stop being such a sacred cow issue.

It's not. That's why there are such things as estimates. The estimates go as low as 6 million and as high as 40 million. However, I don't think anyone takes the 40 million seriously anymore.

Yes. Hence why you respond to their assertions with the idea of a non-partisan investigation.

Which is a waste of time, and a waste of money. If they really wanted to investigate, they would have done it, and any investigation you do will be considered biased and they will publish their own findings - which state that the holocaust never happened, flying in the face of all evidence.

In short, it's a useless, time consuming, wasteful gesture.

It's hilarious how you start by saying 'I've got to explain...' and then offer absolutely no explanation whatsoever.


Here's what you said: "All I'm saying is, there is as much evidence for it as you are going to be able to get for a historical event. There is nothing they can add to it".

It's obvious nonsense. No one would seriously argue there's 'nothing they can add' or 'there is as much evidence...as you are going to be able to get'.


Objective view of evidence? What the fuck does that even mean?


It means you view the evidence, objectively.

Are you being serious?


Right, we have a problem then. Initially when we were debating, I was assuming that you agreed that holocaust denial was unambiguously bullshit with no credibility.


Why would ANYONE 'agree' with that. It's entirely intellectually dishonest.


Wow, I can only conclude you have very bad reading comprehension. How the fuck does - "I don't want to listen to Iran's bullshit" mean the same as "I don't want to listen to the evidence".


You said you weren't willing to even 'engage'.


Although had I known your position, I would not have been so lax with my assertions.


My 'position' is irrelevant, even if you knew it.


Iran disagreeing with Germany about the holocaust is not a fucking grey area. Do you not get that? Of course they will disagree. It's not a major departure, nobody would expect anything else.


Iran and Germany have never had to work together - much less with an international group - to try to investigate the issue.


What the hell? You said - "No, I'm expecting that an investigation would be the first time that most people on BOTH sides had ever critically analysed the data.". 'First time' implied that one side


Which part of the word 'both' is it you're having a problem with?


...Or are you saying that nobody has ever critically examined the data?

I'm saying that most people never evaluate the data (which is also true of most issues), and that the politicians on BOTH sides of this debate are equally culpable in that.

Which is a waste of time, and a waste of money.


Time and money being petty concerns.


If they really wanted to investigate, they would have done it,


They don't, that's the point.


...and any investigation you do will be considered biased and they will publish their own findings - which state that the holocaust never happened, flying in the face of all evidence.


Which is the point.

If you do a non-partisan investigation with them involved, and THEN Iran turns around and makes claims not supported by the investigation THEY were party to, it's transparent.

Even better, if they refuse to even take part, they are obviously unwilling to be objective.

It puts the whole issue to bed, without this whole 2nd Grade crap.

Time and money being petty concerns.

Time and money are not petty, unless we're talking about ridiculously small amounts of each.

They don't, that's the point.

Which is the point.

If you do a non-partisan investigation with them involved, and THEN Iran turns around and makes claims not supported by the investigation THEY were party to, it's transparent.

Yeah, and the rest of the whole bloody world already knows that the Holocaust happened within certain known estimates. Iran won't publish that the investigation didn't agree with them in their own country, and everything goes back to just the way it was - except we spent more money.

Even better, if they refuse to even take part, they are obviously unwilling to be objective.

It puts the whole issue to bed, without this whole 2nd Grade crap.

Except it won't - they'll just keep spouting the same nonsensical crap they always have.


If, however, we got the Iranians to foot the bill, I'm perfectly OK with your little investigation. Then it's their dime, not mine.

Here's what you said: "All I'm saying is, there is as much evidence for it as you are going to be able to get for a historical event. There is nothing they can add to it".

It's obvious nonsense. No one would seriously argue there's 'nothing they can add' or 'there is as much evidence...as you are going to be able to get'.


I accept that there may be unknowns regarding the exact scale, this seems to be an area of confusion, I am not talking about this, you don't need some joint investigation to confirm this, it's already known. I'm talking about complete denial of the holocaust altogether, there is nothing from the other side that is compelling at all regarding this.


It means you view the evidence, objectively.

Are you being serious?


Are you seriously trying to get away with such a weasel word? I've seen in the past that many people actually use that word to use completely different things. If it DOESN'T mean the position I described, then you're a liar. I said absolutely no such thing.


You said you weren't willing to even 'engage'.


With Iran's bullshit. This is the last time I say this. That is different to evidence.


My 'position' is irrelevant, even if you knew it.


No it isn't, if I know your position, I don't have to justify every assertion as it is already a given.


Iran and Germany have never had to work together - much less with an international group - to try to investigate the issue.


And? Iran and Germany's position is completely different, fuck Germany even BANS holocaust denial. What would be an amazing revelation is if they actually agreed on everything. Them disagreeing only confirms what everyone already knows.


I'm saying that most people never evaluate the data (which is also true of most issues), and that the politicians on BOTH sides of this debate are equally culpable in that.

Never mind the politicians. Are you saying there has never been any critical evaluation of the data by investigative bodies?

Time and money are not petty, unless we're talking about ridiculously small amounts of each.


I can't see why it would be all that expensive in time or money. Surely the argument that keeps being made is the evidence is practically falling over itself to be analyzed.


Yeah, and the rest of the whole bloody world already knows that the Holocaust happened within certain known estimates. Iran won't publish that the investigation didn't agree with them in their own country, and everything goes back to just the way it was - except we spent more money.


Not true. It increases the overall weight of evidence, and might even cause upsets to what 'the whole bloody world' knows. It might even have some impact in Iran.


Except it won't - they'll just keep spouting the same nonsensical crap they always have.


Just like everybody else.


If, however, we got the Iranians to foot the bill, I'm perfectly OK with your little investigation. Then it's their dime, not mine.

How was it going to be your dime, anyway? Even if you paid taxes that diverted a fraction to it, it wouldn't even be a fraction of a penny, much less a dime.

And, isn't truth worth a dime?

I can't see why it would be all that expensive in time or money. Surely the argument that keeps being made is the evidence is practically falling over itself to be analyzed.

Indeed, which is why if anyone (holocaust deniers, I'm looking at you) wanted to know what the evidence said, they would already know by now.

Not true. It increases the overall weight of evidence, and might even cause upsets to what 'the whole bloody world' knows. It might even have some impact in Iran.

The weight is already overwhelming. It's so overwhelming that the only person who could deny it is one who willfully chooses to deny it - evidence be damned. For them, there is no hope.

Just like everybody else.

Reading what was left, interviewing witnesses, and writing history books based on the evidence is not "nonsensical crap." Flying in the face of that evidence without any evidence on your side is.

How was it going to be your dime, anyway? Even if you paid taxes that diverted a fraction to it, it wouldn't even be a fraction of a penny, much less a dime.

And, isn't truth worth a dime?

Truth is already known. Why are we spending money to reinvent the wheel?

I accept that there may be unknowns regarding the exact scale, this seems to be an area of confusion, I am not talking about this, you don't need some joint investigation to confirm this, it's already known. I'm talking about complete denial of the holocaust altogether, there is nothing from the other side that is compelling at all regarding this.


It's not a matter of 'confirming' anything. Again you miss the point.

What they 'confirmed' at the end would be almost irrelevant, although there's at least a possibility that SOME good could come of it. The point is making the thing happen.

As for complete denial of the holocaust - it's not necessarily that black and white. Some people might argue the scale is largely invention, some might argue that most of the situation over the holocaust is politicized. Some argue that the whole thing is an artifact. Why ignore that spectrum?


Are you seriously trying to get away with such a weasel word? I've seen in the past that many people actually use that word to use completely different things. If it DOESN'T mean the position I described, then you're a liar. I said absolutely no such thing.


I don't see how 'objective' is a weasel word. I'm seriously having trouble with the idea that someone debating history with me, needs me to explain it to them.


With Iran's bullshit. This is the last time I say this. That is different to evidence.


Are you willing to openly and objectively listen to, and evaluate, their evidence?


And? Iran and Germany's position is completely different, fuck Germany even BANS holocaust denial. What would be an amazing revelation is if they actually agreed on everything. Them disagreeing only confirms what everyone already knows.


I'm not sure how you think a nonpartisan committee is going to disagree. The likely end product would be a thin file of data that was agreed upon, and a massive appendix of conflicted assessments. Which is good.


Never mind the politicians. Are you saying there has never been any critical evaluation of the data by investigative bodies?

No. Because it's politicians that we were talking about.

Indeed, which is why if anyone (holocaust deniers, I'm looking at you) wanted to know what the evidence said, they would already know by now.


They don't want to know. That's why you invite them into these situations.


Reading what was left, interviewing witnesses, and writing history books based on the evidence is not "nonsensical crap." Flying in the face of that evidence without any evidence on your side is.


You're arguing that Jonas Gahr Støre interviewed witnesses, read all the material, and wrote history books?


Truth is already known. Why are we spending money to reinvent the wheel?

'Truth' is clearly not already known. Even in this little debate on an internet forum, we've covered the matter that the statistics vary wildly. You seem to be implying there's a point where it's best to stop looking for more truth.

Sorry to steal this from you Hydesland, but I have to comment on these two:

Are you willing to openly and objectively listen to, and evaluate, their evidence?

Do they have any? Then they should present it for us to listen and evaluate. I'm sure that somebody somewhere would take a look at it, if they have any.

No. Because it's politicians that we were talking about.

How about all the lawyers that prosecuted the Nuremburg trials? They weren't politicians, at least most of them weren't. They were hired to prosecute, and pored over the evidence like crazy determining who to prosecute and who not to, and how to build their case.

There were also defense attorneys, hired to defend the people who were to be accused of these crimes. They also pored over all the evidence in order to find ways to release their clients.

It's of interesting note that I don't think any of the defenses claimed that the events "never happened" but that they were "following orders." Even the defense did not argue that such things did not occur. Interesting, no? If it was all a giant fabrication - as Iran argues - at least one person would have stood up and said "this never happened!" or at least "it wasn't like that!"

That's quite telling.

How about all the lawyers that prosecuted the Nuremburg trials?

Are you suggesting Jonas Gahr Støre is a Nuremburg trial lawyer?

As for complete denial of the holocaust - it's not necessarily that black and white. Some people might argue the scale is largely invention, some might argue that most of the situation over the holocaust is politicized. Some argue that the whole thing is an artifact. Why ignore that spectrum?


What do you think Iran's position on the spectrum is?


I don't see how 'objective' is a weasel word. I'm seriously having trouble with the idea that someone debating history with me, needs me to explain it to them.


Tough, I have still observed people use the word differently. I've also observed how the word is used differently in different circles. I'm also pretty sure who you are now (don't worry, I don't think you're Dk any more), and if you are who I think you are, I remember you tend to take very heterodox definition of words, such as the word 'fact'.


Are you willing to openly and objectively listen to, and evaluate, their evidence?


If I was in the business of investigating the holocaust, then yes. Unfortunately, they don't present evidence. Also, this big investigation is not the same as them 'presenting evidence'.


I'm not sure how you think a nonpartisan committee is going to disagree. The likely end product would be a thin file of data that was agreed upon, and a massive appendix of conflicted assessments. Which is good.


Firstly, I don't see how you think that it could realistically be nonpartisan. I also don't see how a massive file of conflicted assessments again doesn't confirm what the world already knows, that Iran and Germany have conflicting assessments.


No. Because it's politicians that we were talking about.

Politicians don't analyse the data, or if they do, they shouldn't. That's left down to historians.

Are you suggesting Jonas Gahr Støre is a Nuremburg trial lawyer?

No, but your assertion that the evidence has never been looked over objectively and found to be quite solid is bullshit. The prosecution, defense, and judges of the Nuremburg trials looked over the evidence as it should be in any court case.

Prosecution seeking to convict. Defense seeking to acquit. Judge deciding the facts based on the evidence.

Interestingly, all three groups agreed to the atrocity that happened. Are you saying that the Nuremburg trial judges, prosecution, and defense attorneys all viewed the evidence in a biased way?

If that's the case, they should all get new trials.

EDIT: Typo that changed the meaning of the sentence.

What do you think Iran's position on the spectrum is?


I think they're way, way, way over to the absolute denial position, at least, officially.

I doubt it's entirely representative of a population.


Tough, I have still observed people use the word differently.


For example: Definition: impartially.
I am Spartacus, dammit

If I was in the business of investigating the holocaust, then yes. Unfortunately, they don't present evidence. Also, this big investigation is not the same as them 'presenting evidence'.


Ah, but it would be.

As part of such a committee, it would be necessary to collect the data that is going to be investigated. They'd have to table what they were looking for and at. Iran would actually have to put something on the table, if they wanted their position validated. (Whether or not they could BE validated is irrelevant, it comes way later in the process).


Firstly, I don't see how you think that it could realistically be nonpartisan. I also don't see how a massive file of conflicted assessments again doesn't confirm what the world already knows, that Iran and Germany have conflicting assessments.


It would be 'nonpartisan' in as much as it would cover the spectrum, and have people that were neither Germans NOR Iranians. What it would present in it's massive file of conflicted assessments, is that the holocaust is not such a sacred cow - the data CAN be analyzed, objectively. It might also bring new information to light, revolutionize the understanding we currently have - and promote realism about data like the statistics.


Politicians don't analyse the data, or if they do, they shouldn't. That's left down to historians.

Everyone should analyze the data. Otherwise you end up with what we had here - a representative (of Iran) saying something, and another representative rubbishing it, and neither REALLY has any clue, and both are operating on faith.

No, but your assertion that the evidence has never been looked over objectively and found to be quite solid is bullshit. The prosecution, defense, and judges of the Nuremburg trials looked over the evidence as it should be in any court case.


I'm not sure I actually said the evidence has NEVER been looked at objectively... although it's not unreasonable. There is a lot of pressure to reach certain pre-agreed conclusions.

What I'm saying is - most people take it on faith. The vast majority. The politicians are arguing on the basis of faith - on both sides.

Everyone should analyze the data. Otherwise you end up with what we had here - a representative (of Iran) saying something, and another representative rubbishing it, and neither REALLY has any clue, and both are operating on faith.

If we all have to analyze the original data personally, then the commission's report won't mean anything. If we repeat their findings, we're just repeating crap that we heard someone else say, and taking it on faith. Therefore, everyone on earth must examine the original holocaust documents personally.

Perhaps we should get in line now?

If we all have to analyze the original data personally, then the commission's report won't mean anything. If we repeat their findings, we're just repeating crap that we heard someone else say, and taking it on faith. Therefore, everyone on earth must examine the original holocaust documents personally.

Perhaps we should get in line now?

You can get in line, now. I'm not sure why you attach the sarcastic note to it. Some people already do examine the data.

You can get in line, now. I'm not sure why you attach the sarcastic note to it. Some people already do examine the data.

Indeed, we call them historians. They write our history books, and they all agree, so we accept what they say. We then repeat this as fact because we read it in the history books and it is a very well known fact in history. The exact scale is still a little bit up for debate, but whether it was 6 million or 10 million or 40 million doesn't really matter in the long run. It was still an atrocity.

If, however, you mean examine all the papers captured by the invading allied forces, I hope you are prepared to read for a while.

http://nuremberg.law.harvard.edu/php/docs_swi.php?DI=1&text=overview

They're still working on it, but they say there is 690 boxes of evidence, each containing approximately 1,500 pages. Fortunately for you, they're working on scanning them all in and putting them all online so you can examine the evidence yourself.

Let me know how it turns out.

EDIT: For those keeping track, that's approximately 1,035,000 pages. Keep in mind that War and Peace is 1,225 pages.

Indeed, we call them historians. They write our history books, and they all agree, so we accept what they say. We then repeat this as fact because we read it in the history books and it is a very well known fact in history.


Wow. What nonsense.

History as religion.


The exact scale is still a little bit up for debate, but whether it was 6 million or 10 million or 40 million doesn't really matter in the long run. It was still an atrocity.


Sure. But a divergence of 34 MILLION deaths really DOES matter.


If, however, you mean examine all the papers captured by the invading allied forces, I hope you are prepared to read for a while.

http://nuremberg.law.harvard.edu/php/docs_swi.php?DI=1&text=overview


They're still working on it, but they say there is 690 boxes of evidence, each containing approximately 1,500 pages. Fortunately for you, they're working on scanning them all in and putting them all online so you can examine the evidence yourself.
[/QUOTE]

I'm well aware. And, just because the data is becoming available in this quasi-first-hand format, doesn't mean it hasn't been available in other forms beforehand, for those who were interested.

Wow. What nonsense.

History as religion.

Well, we take what we're taught in history, given summaries of the evidence that were in the books, and we accept it until contrary evidence is supplied. This does happen on occasion, and I have been corrected a few times.

So, as soon as Iran or anybody else brings some actual evidence or summary of evidence from a reputable source, then I will listen. Until then, it doesn't really matter what nonsense they spout off. It has no bearing on my life.

We also accept that e=mc^2, but I doubt any of us have ever tested it personally.

Sure. But a divergence of 34 MILLION deaths really DOES matter.

Does it? I don't see how. It's a really big atrocity, or a fucking huge ginormous atrocity. Either way, it was an atrocity. Iran denies there was any atrocity, when that's known to be a blatant falsehood. It doesn't even give us anywhere to start with them.

If they came and said "We only think it was 6 million, not the 40.", then I could say "Ok, let's go over the evidence and talk about it."

EDIT in the middle: Hell, if they said "We only think it was 3 million, not the 6.", I could respond with "Ok, I disagree, but we have a few rooms full of evidence, so let's go look it over and figure this thing out."

I'm well aware. And, just because the data is becoming available in this quasi-first-hand format, doesn't mean it hasn't been available in other forms beforehand, for those who were interested.

Of course it has. People who deny the holocaust ever happened are either intellectually dishonest, hypocritical, misleading, or all of the above.

EDIT: Forgot willfully ignorant.

We also accept that e=mc^2, but I doubt any of us have ever tested it personally.

I have. Ever hear of a small Central Asian country called Mazistan?