• Iran claims Bin Laden was dead long before raid
    218 replies, posted
[QUOTE=Gaza Pen Pal;29796929]10 bucks says thats taken out of context find the video[/QUOTE] How can "They have created a myth today that they call the massacre of Jews and they consider it a principle above God, religions and the prophets" be taken out of context? What other context can it possibly have?
TH89 you are forgetting one other group that would immensely help your cause: foreign news. If the news comes from foreign sources, like Al-Jazeera especially, then the bullshit "corporations" conspiracy can't be used.
[QUOTE=RBM11;29780978]I think I'm gonna trust the BBC over fucking informationclearinghouse [URL]http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/middle_east/4529198.stm[/URL] I guess Russia was also responding to a bullshit translation [URL]http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/middle_east/4378948.stm[/URL] Kinda sad when we have a mod who moderates ITN trusting conspiracy sites over the BBC[/QUOTE] Did you even give forth an attempt to read what I posted? And is this the new 'McCarthyism' of ITN? Where if website that explains in depth on how Ahmadinejad never said the Holocaust was a "myth" provides factual sources of news articles that reported what he initially said, and how it later gradually transformed into what is today (deliberately), it is nothing but a "conspiracy"? I'm not a conspiracy theorist, but if what I say fits your little definition of a conspiracy theorist, go at it. It only displays how you resort to fallacious name calling in order to dismiss a claim. BBC wasn't at fault when they reported that Ahmadinejad falsely said he will "wipe Israel off the map" as that was a translation error by Iran's own media agency AFAIK. But nonetheless, that was 5 years ago, and the media has no excuse to be looping that mistranslation today. What he really said was that "he hoped its regime, i.e., a Jewish-Zionist state occupying Jerusalem, would collapse like the Soviet Union" This is a major difference as it's a 'hope' that the regime controlling Jerusalem would collapse. The regime in question is Israel, he's essentially calling for a regime change which is indisputably rationale considering Israel's record for Human Rights. I trust you're aware why anyone would hope for the Israeli/Zionist regime to collapse or majorly reform considering their lack of regard for human rights and a substantial amount of other factors. Second, the Iranian government does not even recognize Israel in the first place, this is a major indicator that the statement is bullshit as they'd never refer to Israel, as Israel (They even mentioned it themselves: [release]Iranian government sources denied that Ahmadinejad issued any sort of threat. On 20 February 2006, Iran's foreign minister [URL="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Manouchehr_Mottaki"]Manouchehr Mottaki[/URL] told a news conference: "How is it possible to remove a country from the map? He is talking about the regime. We do not recognize legally this regime."[URL="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mahmoud_Ahmadinejad_and_Israel#cite_note-14"][15][/URL][URL="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mahmoud_Ahmadinejad_and_Israel#cite_note-15"][16][/URL][URL="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mahmoud_Ahmadinejad_and_Israel#cite_note-16"][17][/URL][/release] If you're still going to go down the fallacious argumentative road and scream: "Conspiracy!" without any base, you can call me and [URL="http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Shiraz_Dossa&action=edit&redlink=1"] Shiraz Dossa[/URL], a professor of [URL="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Political_Science"]Political Science[/URL] at [URL="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/St._Francis_Xavier_University"]St. Francis Xavier University[/URL] in [URL="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nova_Scotia"]Nova Scotia[/URL], Canada a conspiracy theorist as well :) Here's what she said: [release]Ahmadinejad was quoting the [URL="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ayatollah_Khomeini"]Ayatollah Khomeini[/URL] in the specific speech under discussion: what he said was that "the occupation regime over [URL="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jerusalem"]Jerusalem[/URL] should vanish from the page of time." No state action is envisaged in this lament; it denotes a spiritual wish, whereas the erroneous translation—"wipe Israel off the map"—suggests a military threat. There is a huge chasm between the correct and the incorrect translations. The notion that Iran can "wipe out" U.S.-backed, nuclear-armed Israel is ludicrous.[URL="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mahmoud_Ahmadinejad_and_Israel#cite_note-Dossa1-18"][19][/URL][URL="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mahmoud_Ahmadinejad_and_Israel#cite_note-Dossa2-19"][20][/URL][URL="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mahmoud_Ahmadinejad_and_Israel#cite_note-20"][21][/URL][/release] Oh, and add [URL="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Juan_Cole"]Juan Cole[/URL], a University of Michigan Professor of Modern Middle East and South Asian History to that list as well: [release][URL="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Juan_Cole"]Juan Cole[/URL], a University of Michigan Professor of Modern Middle East and South Asian History, agrees that Ahmadinejad's statement should be translated as, "the Imam said that this regime occupying Jerusalem [I](een rezhim-e eshghalgar-e qods)[/I] must [vanish from] the page of time [I](bayad az safheh-ye ruzgar mahv shavad).[/I][URL="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mahmoud_Ahmadinejad_and_Israel#cite_note-11"][12][/URL] According to Cole, "Ahmadinejad did not say he was going to 'wipe Israel off the map' because no such idiom exists in Persian." Instead, "he did say he hoped its regime, i.e., a Jewish-Zionist state occupying Jerusalem, would collapse."[/release] [U]When even asked himself[/U] for clarifying comments he stated himself explicitly that his speech was exaggerated and misinterpreted, which again should be sufficient proof to the fact he never called for their "removal from the map" Source: [url]http://www.nytimes.com/2006/01/15/international/middleeast/15tehran.html?ex=1294981200&en=aa775eeb6ae97fbd&ei=5088&partner=rssnyt&emc=rss[/url] This isn't the first time Ahmadinejad's words have been twisted and distorted by the media. I direct you to an old thread I made. He was interviewed by Micheal Wallace, was asked about Israel and this was Ahmadinejad's reponse to his question: [quote=Ahmadinejad]I think that the Israeli government is a fabricated government [highlight]and I have talked about the solution. The solution is democracy. We have said allow Palestinian people to participate in a free and fair referendum to express their views. What we are saying only serves the cause of durable peace. We want durable peace in that part of the world. A durable peace will only come about with once the views of the people are met. So we said that allow the people of Palestine to participate in a referendum to choose their desired government, and of course, for the war to come an end as well. Why are they refusing to allow this to go ahead? Even the Palestinian administration and government which has been elected by the people is being attacked on a daily basis, and its high-ranking officials are assassinated and arrested. Yesterday, the speaker of the Palestinian parliament was arrested, elected by the people, mind you. So how long can this go on? We believe that this problem has to be dealt with fundamentally. I believe that the American government is blindly supporting this government of occupation. It should lift its support, allow the people to participate in free and fair elections. Whatever happens let it be. We will accept and go along. The result will be as you said earlier, sir.[/highlight][/quote] Except everything highlighted in red was not broadcasted. Results? Wallace got an Emmy for television the biggest propaganda bullshit in history. Here's the video: [media]http://youtube.com/watch?v=onNzrNEFs1E[/media] As displayed in the video, as he walks to retrieve his Emmey, the same sentence gets looped several times, it doesn't display what he said right after it. There's no pause or new sentence after he said "I think the Israeli government is a fabricated government" it just cuts it off clearly exhibiting their agenda with Ahmadinejad. Now, I know you're going to say "Oh, well, they probably only looped that phrase/sentence by Ahmadinejad by coincidence, they had no intention to make him seem as a bad guy" wrong. Even when he gets his Emmey he says "Ahmadinejad scares a lot of people when he says things like that" That is a crystal clear example of cutting and omitting parts of what he said, or simply, taking what he said out of context to make him seem evil. You cannot dispute this fact nor can you dispute that this is still evident today (see: [URL]http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/39014669/ns/world_news-south_and_central_asia/[/URL] for example and than read the article) Wait, I can predict what you're going to say next: "conspiracy theory!" despite clear video and his original speech, what he really said. It's not theory; it's what he really said. Evidence does not get clearer than the original speech and script even though you may somehow continue to believe it's just a "theory" As for Holocaust denial, I requested you to read the link and it appears you failed to. I'm not going to copy and paste it as it's huge but just the relevant bit. Note again, this is not some article on how "It's very likely Ahmadinejad did not deny the holocaust considering the past record of the media pertaining to Ahmadinejad" without actually going into depth on what he really said; just relaying on speculations etc. It's an article presenting his initial statements and how it gradually transformed into saying the "holocaust is a myth" by including news articles of his initial statements.[release] The Iranian press agency [URL="http://www.irna.ir/en/news/view/line-17/0512149877153313.htm"] IRNA[/URL] renders Ahmadinejad on 2005-12-14 as follows: "'If the Europeans are telling the truth in their claim that they have killed six million Jews in the Holocaust during the World War II - which seems they are right in their claim because they insist on it and arrest and imprison those who oppose it, why the Palestinian nation should pay for the crime. Why have they come to the very heart of the Islamic world and are committing crimes against the dear Palestine using their bombs, rockets, missiles and sanctions.' [...] 'If you have committed the crimes so give a piece of your land somewhere in Europe or America and Canada or Alaska to them to set up their own state there.' [...] [B]Ahmadinejad said some have created a myth on holocaust[/B] and hold it even higher than the very belief in religion and prophets [...] The president further said, 'If your civilization consists of aggression, displacing the oppressed nations, suppressing justice-seeking voices and spreading injustice and poverty for the majority of people on the earth, then we say it out loud that we despise your hollow civilization.'" There again we find the quotation already rendered by n24: [B] "In the name of the Holocaust they created a myth."[/B] We can see that this is completely different from what is published by e.g. the DPA - the massacre against the Jews is a fairy-tale. [U]What Ahmadinejad does is not denying the Holocaust. No! It is dealing out criticism against the mendacity of the imperialistic powers who use the Holocaust to muzzle critical voices and to achieve advantages concerning the legitimization of a planned war. This is criticism against the exploitation of the Holocaust.[/U] [/release] [B]The link goes into further depth and provides other articles and how this led to a mistranslation into him saying "the Holocaust is a myth"[/B] (you can even sorta see how it led to as so from above) [URL]http://www.informationclearinghouse.info/article12790.htm[/URL] Do you see how different this is from a 'conspiracy theory'? [QUOTE=Jiyoon;29781533]Iran believes more conspiracy theories than glenn beck. [URL="http://articles.cnn.com/2010-03-07/world/ahmadinejad.afghanistan_1_iranian-president-mahmoud-ahmadinejad-afghanistan-afghan-president-hamid-karzai?_s=PM:WORLD"]9/11[/URL] [URL="http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/middle_east/4527142.stm"]Holocaust[/URL] [URL="http://www.ibtimes.com/articles/141350/20110504/iran-us-osama-israel.htm"]Bin Laden[/URL][/QUOTE] I'll just ask you to refer to above for the last two links. As for September 11th, easy he didn't say that either. Let's see what he really said, from a NYTimes article: [URL]http://www.nytimes.com/2010/09/24/world/24nations.html[/URL] The original title for the article, and the title that was published into the newspaper was: "[B]Iranian President asserts U.S. orchestrated 9/11 attacks[/B]" Evidently, that's not the case anymore for the article, why? Read the bottom of the article: [release][U]This article has been revised to reflect the following correction:[/U] [B]Correction: September 25, 2010[/B] A headline on Friday with an article about an incendiary speech in the United Nations General Assembly by President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad of Iran summarized his remarks about the Sept. 11 terror attacks incorrectly. In his speech, Mr. Ahmadinejad asserted various theories about the origin of the attacks, including the possibility that they had been planned by the United States. [highlight]He did not say that the United States had planned the attacks.[/highlight][/release] So there, you even got fucking New York Times admitting their fuck up in small print on their website only. Which is good, as it saves me time from showing how he never said that in his original transcript. If NYTimes truly cared about this major fuckup (which is major) they'd also publish the fact it was an error in their next print newspaper, instead of hiding on their site. At least if I get called a conspiracy theorist even after this, you'd be calling NYTimes one as well. Ahmadinejad has also been referred to as 'Hitler' countless times based on those erroneous claims which I proved false above. I'm sure you heard him called 'Hitler', no need to source it. [B]Now onto the most important question. Why?[/B] All this indicates war. Slobodan Milosevic became Hitler. The result was the war of the Nato against Yugoslavia. Saddam Hussein became Hitler. What followed was the war the USA and their coalition of compliant partners waged against Iraq. Now the Iranian President becomes Hitler. [B]And someone who is Hitler-like and is a lunatic that denies the holocaust and 9/11 can assure a hundred times that he only wants to use nuclear energy in a peaceful way. Nobody will believe him.[/B] Somebody like Hitler can act within the scope of all contracts. Acting contrary to contract will nevertheless be imputed to him. "Virtually none of the Western states recognize that uranium enrichment is absolutely legal. There is no restriction by contract or by the law of nations. Quite the contrary: Actually the Western countries would have the duty to assist Iran with these activities, according to the Non-Proliferation Treaty. As long as a state renounces the bomb it is eligible for technical support by the nuclear powers." (Jörg Pfuhl, ARD radio studio Istanbul 2006-01-11) But - all this does not count if the Head of a state is stigmatized as Hitler.
Milosevic was pretty hitler though.
[QUOTE=captainHOE;29797479]How can "They have created a myth today that they call the massacre of Jews and they consider it a principle above God, religions and the prophets" be taken out of context? What other context can it possibly have?[/QUOTE] [url=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lI9sPW6_Le0#t=01m52s]well, in several interviews he clarified that he believes the holocaust shouldn't be used to justify the existence of israel in the middle east[/url][url=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ykd-syzZ4ZY#t=00m34s], he thinks the death of the jews has too much prominence in the war, and that people shouldn't act so butthurt when people make claims[/url]
[QUOTE=TH89;29798544]Milosevic was pretty hitler though.[/QUOTE] Absolutely, it wasn't implied he was not. [QUOTE=OvB;29782248]ITT: Fox news is 100% wrong and bias unless its something I agree with. Are you actually using Fox as a valid source when 99% of the time FP is like "lol faux news is as trustworthy as the Sun!" [/QUOTE] Eh, I knew someone would mistaken me like this, I never said nor implied Fox was right at all. It was an article of interest especially considering it's relevance to the topic at hand. Trust me, I believe Osama died a few weeks ago during the raid in Abbotabad. [quote] Tomorrow if Fox released something in defense of Israel you'd probably be the first to jump on it and call it false conservative propaganda.[/quote]Most likely, yeah. It depends though, is it an exclusive - was it some "analysis" done by the Fox News team pertaining to Israel or was it a report on a real event which Fox happened to report on. If the latter, no. Btw, Fox publishes bias primarily that is in defense of the right-wing/conservatives/republicans, so an article that says Osama was dead all along does not aid Republicans at all, and the article may even suggest Bush was a part of some grand conspiracy since it says he was always dead which means that Bush was possibly lying the whole time. Regardless, as I said, I never said I believed the article, he died a few weeks ago. [editline]13th May 2011[/editline] [QUOTE=captainHOE;29797479]How can "They have created a myth today that they call the massacre of Jews and they consider it a principle above God, religions and the prophets" be taken out of context? What other context can it possibly have?[/QUOTE] Well first, he said "in the name of the Holocaust they created a myth" Second, it's explained how it was taken out of context in [URL="http://www.facepunch.com/threads/1087861-Iran-claims-Bin-Laden-was-dead-long-before-raid?p=29798353&viewfull=1#post29798353"]Post #183[/URL]
What's with you and Iran? [quote]Well first, he said "in the name of the Holocaust they created a myth" Second, it's explained how it was taken out of context in Post #183[/quote] No, he said "They have created a myth today that they call the massacre of Jews and they consider it a principle above God, religions and the prophets". The quotations you provided aren't from reliable websites, but from blogs and opinion pieces... Examples of articles in that website: "Who's Been Brainwashed? Gaddafi - A Libyan Hero " [url]http://www.informationclearinghouse.info/article28081.htm[/url] "The Plan is for the United States to rule the world. " [url]http://www.informationclearinghouse.info/article1544.htm[/url] Seriously...?
New theory: Osama got abducted by aliens and is now living on neptune with hitler and marlon brando. [editline]13th May 2011[/editline] it makes the same amount of sense as saying osama died 10 years ago
Another thing I found: [quote]Ahmadinejad was quoted by Iran's official IRNA news agency as saying in a news conference in the Saudi Arabian city of Mecca: "[b]Some European countries insist on saying that Hitler killed millions of innocent Jews in furnaces, and they insist on it to the extent that if anyone proves something contrary to that, they condemn that person and throw them in jail. "Although we don't accept this claim, if we suppose it is true[/b], our question for the Europeans is: Is the killing of innocent Jewish people by Hitler the reason for their support to the occupiers of Jerusalem?[/quote] [url]http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2005/12/08/AR2005120801788.html[/url] [url]http://www.iol.co.za/news/world/iran-president-expresses-holocaust-doubts-1.260959?ot=inmsa.ArticlePrintPageLayout.ot[/url] If that isn't Holocaust denial, what is?
[QUOTE=captainHOE;29799926]What's with you and Iran?* No, he said "They have created a myth today that they call the massacre of Jews and they consider it a principle above God, religions and the prophets".[/quote] You can argue all you want on what he "really said" but the fact is, it was first reported on the IRNA (Iran State News) all news outlets reported their article based on the IRNA. Regardless, for fucks sake let's assume he did deny the Holocaust, we can pretend he always did. Guess what, he issues a later statement (this is the latest remark he me pertaining to the holocaust):* [url]http://www.nydailynews.com/news/2007/09/24/2007-09-24_irans_president_i_dont_deny_holocaust-3.html[/url] So even if he did deny the holocaust, it is no longer the case, that's it. *[quote]The quotations you provided aren't from reliable websites, but from blogs and opinion pieces...[/quote]"Blogs and opinion pieces" indicates plurality; an opinion piece was only referenced on e in my post. Further more the quote from the "opinion peace" is a copy-paste from IRNA, Iran's official news agency meaning it's irrelevant from what piece I copied it from.* [quote]Examples of articles in that website: "Who's Been Brainwashed? Gaddafi - A Libyan Hero " [url]http://www.informationclearinghouse.info/article28081.htm[/url] "The Plan is for the United States to rule the world. " [url]http://www.informationclearinghouse.info/article1544.htm[/url] Seriously...?[/QUOTE] * Jimi Hendrix died of a drug overdose, so his music was worthless. Leni Riefenstahl was a Nazi, so her film The Triumph of the Will is devoid of merit. Sylvia Plath was a depressive*who eventually committed suicide, so her works are unreadable. That Boris Godunov was the favorite opera of Josef Stalin indicates the worthlessness of the opera. What Ted Kaczynski wrote about boundary conditions in mathematics is shown false due to his crimes. Stop with the logical fallacies (see: Ad Hominen). Instead of attacking the character, attack the argument. [editline]13th May 2011[/editline] [QUOTE=captainHOE;29800471]Another thing I found: [url]http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2005/12/08/AR2005120801788.html[/url] [url]http://www.iol.co.za/news/world/iran-president-expresses-holocaust-doubts-1.260959?ot=inmsa.ArticlePrintPageLayout.ot[/url] If that isn't Holocaust denial, what is?[/QUOTE] As I posted above even if he did, it's no longer the case: [url]http://www.nydailynews.com/news/2007/09/24/2007-09-24_irans_president_i_dont_deny_holocaust-3.html[/url]
[quote]You can argue all you want on what he "really said" but the fact is, it was first reported on the IRNA (Iran State News) all news outlets reported their article based on the IRNA.[/quote] No, that's not a fact - that's what the website says. From your article: [release]"I'm not saying that it didn't happen [b]at all[/b]," he said. "[But] can you argue that researching a phenomenon is finished forever, done? Can we close the books foreever on a historical event?"[/release] Keywords are bolded. He doesn't deny the Holocaust by saying that [i]some[/i] Jews die - just like other Holocaust deniers don't deny the Holocaust because they do say that only 300,000 Jews did die. He is a politician, he understood that his Holocaust denial doesn't score him any points, so he decided to say "I don't deny the Holocaust happened", but couldn't resist adding an "at all". He uttered a few times he doesn't believe the Holocaust, made a Holocaust "revising" conference, inviting all world known Holocaust deniers, and Iran gave asylum to Holocaust deniers such as Jurgen Graf. (Ahmadinijad isn't the first to initiate the Holocaust denial policy) [QUOTE]Instead of attacking the character, attack the argument.[/quote] I can't be bothered looking into a website like that. But while at it, why won't you: [url]http://www.truthism.com/[/url]
[QUOTE=captainHOE;29800640]No, that's not a fact - that's what the website says. From your article: [release]"I'm not saying that it didn't happen [b]at all[/b]," he said. "[But] can you argue that researching a phenomenon is finished forever, done? Can we close the books foreever on a historical event?"[/release] Keywords are bolded. He doesn't deny the Holocaust by saying that [i]some[/i] Jews die - just like other Holocaust deniers don't deny the Holocaust because they do say that only 300,000 Jews did die. He is a politician, he understood that his Holocaust denial doesn't score him any points, so he decided to say "I don't deny the Holocaust happened", but couldn't resist adding an "at all". He uttered a few times he doesn't believe the Holocaust, made a Holocaust "revising" conference, inviting all world known Holocaust deniers, and Iran gave asylum to Holocaust deniers such as Jurgen Graf. (Ahmadinijad isn't the first to initiate the Holocaust denial policy) I can't be bothered looking into a website like that. But while at it, why won't you: [url]http://www.truthism.com/[/url][/QUOTE] let's say ahmadinejad whacks off to hitlers portrait every night, does that invalidate his points?
[QUOTE=Gaza Pen Pal;29800889]let's say ahmadinejad whacks off to hitlers portrait every night, does that invalidate his points?[/QUOTE] What points?
[QUOTE=captainHOE;29800938]What points?[/QUOTE] that britain colonized the middle east and later gave some of that land to the jewish people specifically because of a genocide that occurred in europe, and less importantly that now the palestinians are being brutalized by a regime that the west put in power and continues to support that people react in a completely hostile way to anyone who claims the holocaust didn't happen in the way that it has been recorded in history books that the jews have too much prominence in an event that caused somewhere between 35 million and 55 million civilian deaths(not mentioning the 5 million non jews who are in some ways framed as being less important than the jewish deaths)
[QUOTE=Gaza Pen Pal;29801087]that britain colonized the middle east and later gave some of that land to the jewish people specifically because of a genocide that occurred in europe, and less importantly that now the palestinians are being brutalized by a regime that the west put in power and continues to support that people react in a completely hostile way to anyone who claims the holocaust didn't happen in the way that it has been recorded in history books that the jews have too much prominence in an event that caused somewhere between 35 million and 55 million civilian deaths(not mentioning the 5 million non jews who are in some ways framed as being less important than the jewish deaths)[/QUOTE] Well uh, this is really off topic, but you have a real misunderstanding of history and specifically the history of Mid east. I'll just comment on the Holocaust part because that's more related. 55~ millions of people have died in WWII, and have died as a result of war, and all of the consequences that were to that war (displacement, starvation, illnesses and so on and so forth). The difference between the casualties of war and the deaths of those who were murdered in the Holocaust is that the latter were killed a [b]systematic, horrific, machine-like[/b] way. Out of the ~11 millions who died in the Holocaust, the absolute and relative majority were Jews. In addition, Nazi Germany has put emphasis on the annihilation of the Jews, more than the annihilation of any other group they targeted, and most of the Nazi propaganda and actions were aimed against Jews, and that's why the Jews have "prominence" in the event called the Holocaust.
[QUOTE=Starpluck;29800498]Stop with the logical fallacies (see: Ad Hominen). Instead of attacking the character, attack the argument.[/QUOTE] Raising legitimate questions about the credibility of a news outlet or other source is not an ad hominem attack. [editline]13th May 2011[/editline] [QUOTE=Starpluck;29800498]As I posted above even if he did, it's no longer the case: [url]http://www.nydailynews.com/news/2007/09/24/2007-09-24_irans_president_i_dont_deny_holocaust-3.html[/url][/QUOTE] He implicitly defends his right to be a Holocaust skeptic (which is a slightly less blatant form of Holocaust denial) right there. Iran also hosted a Holocaust skeptic conference that featured David Duke, a famous leader of the Ku Klux Klan: [url]http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/International_Conference_to_Review_the_Global_Vision_of_the_Holocaust[/url] [url]http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,236014,00.html[/url] [editline]13th May 2011[/editline] [img]http://cybject.files.wordpress.com/2010/01/2017713228_36ca668a33.jpg[/img] [editline]13th May 2011[/editline] [QUOTE=Gaza Pen Pal;29800889]let's say ahmadinejad whacks off to hitlers portrait every night, does that invalidate his points?[/QUOTE] We're getting sidetracked into an Israel argument here when that really isn't the issue. The issue is that the Iranian government has a record of endorsing (in various capacities) conspiracy theories about Western powers, and that its endorsement of the Bin Laden conspiracy theories is therefore neither surprising nor compelling.
[QUOTE=captainHOE;29801270]Well uh, this is really off topic, but you have a real misunderstanding of history and specifically the history of Mid east. I'll just comment on the Holocaust part because that's more related. 55~ millions of people have died in WWII, and have died as a result of war, and all of the consequences that were to that war (displacement, starvation, illnesses and so on and so forth). The difference between the casualties of war and the deaths of those who were murdered in the Holocaust is that the latter were killed a [b]systematic, horrific, machine-like[/b] way. Out of the ~11 millions who died in the Holocaust, the absolute and relative majority were Jews. In addition, Nazi Germany has put emphasis on the annihilation of the Jews, more than the annihilation of any other group they targeted, and most of the Nazi propaganda and actions were aimed against Jews, and that's why the Jews have "prominence" in the event called the Holocaust.[/QUOTE] [url=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9OS416nd-KA]all I ever learned about israel came from a 1980's documentary[/url] systematic, horrific, and machine-like are all words that can be applied to war in general, why are some 50 million deaths not as important because someone didn't hate them? a little more than half of the deaths were jews, sure, but nearly the entire population of gypsies in eastern europe was wiped out, why does sheer size give the jews prominence over an entire group of people being exterminated?
[QUOTE] systematic, horrific, and machine-like are all words that can be applied to war in general, why are some 50 million deaths not as important because someone didn't hate them? a little more than half of the deaths were jews, sure, but nearly the entire population of gypsies in eastern europe was wiped out, why does sheer size give the jews prominence over an entire group of people being exterminated?[/quote] Because the Holocaust is unique, and I already explained why Jews are the main "theme" of the Holocaust - and it was the Nazi regime who chose that "theme" [quote]all I ever learned about israel came from a 1980's documentary[/quote] Well... that's pretty bad. The conflict is very complex, and you should read more (a lot more, and read - not watch) about it. Try different sources with different bias(es), also.
[QUOTE=captainHOE;29801744]Because the Holocaust is unique, and I already explained why Jews are the main "theme" of the Holocaust - and it was the Nazi regime who chose that "theme"[/quote] of course the nazi regime chose the jews over the much smaller non-jewish groups, but that isn't a legitimate reason for teaching and treating the holocaust as if it were jewish tragedy with a few non-jews coming along for the ride [quote]Well... that's pretty bad. The conflict is very complex, and you should read more (a lot more, and read - not watch) about it. Try different sources with different bias(es), also.[/QUOTE] that was a joke, although it is a pretty good documentary
[QUOTE=TH89;29801489]Raising legitimate questions about the credibility of a news outlet or other source is not an ad hominem attack.[/quote] Nice choice of words you got there, while what you said is true, it is not applicable. The "news outlet" in question is not an outlet but rather an essay written going into depth with the claims about Ahmadinejad/Holocaust etc. Bringing up issues and unpopular opinions that writer has supported is nothing more than an attack on his character, rather than "raising questions about the articles legitimacy" Just like you and I he, presented an opinion, however, captainHOE attempts to say that his opinion false based on the fact he supports X. Raising a question regarding an articles credibility for example would be expressing concern regarding Fox News' recent survey results. Past evidence clearly have shown Fox has skewed survey results before, which lead to legitimate concerns. The writer in this case does not go into such a process but rather merely displays links to original transcript, unless you're trying to say he forged that. [editline]13th May 2011[/editline] He implicitly defends his right to be a Holocaust skeptic (which is a slightly less blatant form of Holocaust denial) right there. Iran also hosted a Holocaust skeptic conference that featured David Duke, a famous leader of the Ku Klux Klan: [url]http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/International_Conference_to_Review_the_Global_Vision_of_the_Holocaust[/url] [url]http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,236014,00.html[/url] [editline]13th May 2011[/editline] [img_thumb]http://cybject.files.wordpress.com/2010/01/2017713228_36ca668a33.jpg[/img_thumb] [editline]13th May 2011[/editline] We're getting sidetracked into an Israel argument here when that really isn't the issue. The issue is that the Iranian government has a record of endorsing (in various capacities) conspiracy theories about Western powers, and that its endorsement of the Bin Laden conspiracy theories is therefore neither surprising nor compelling.[/QUOTE]
[QUOTE=Gaza Pen Pal;29801884]of course the nazi regime chose the jews over the much smaller non-jewish groups, but that isn't a legitimate reason for teaching and treating the holocaust as if it were jewish tragedy with a few non-jews coming along for the ride[/QUOTE] Jews compromised the majority of the casualties AND are disproportionately represented in academia and literature and the entertainment industry, so it's not an unreasonable expectation that the majority of holocaust accounts are from a Jewish perspective. But I don't think anyone is denying that numerous other groups suffered terribly or advocating omitting them from the historical record. Also don't think your implication that Nazis "chose" the Jews because there were lots to kill is very accurate. [editline]13th May 2011[/editline] [QUOTE=Starpluck;29801972]The "news outlet" in question is not an outlet but rather an essay written going into depth with the claims about Ahmadinejad/Holocaust etc. Bringing up issues and unpopular opinions that writer has supported is nothing more than an attack on his character, rather than "raising questions about the articles legitimacy" Just like you and I he, presented an opinion, however, captainHOE attempts to say that his opinion false based on the fact he supports X.[/QUOTE] If his argument is based entirely on evidence from other (legitimate) sources, your side would be better served by taking those sources and replicating his argument, or finding someone with more credible making the argument. If the original sources are solid, there's no need to bring a conspiracy theorist middleman into the mix. I had a debate with a guy here a couple years ago where he linked to a blog that said global warming had been disproven, citing a peer-reviewed research paper as its evidence. I read the blog, then I read the actual paper and discovered that the paper didn't actually support the blog's position at all, and even contained a disclaimer about it. So there's an example of how a non-credible intermediary can spin credible sources into a falsehood, and why it's perfectly reasonable to expect someone to make an argument for themselves instead of linking to a conspiracy website (even one with sources) and saying "read for yourself, it's all there!"
[QUOTE=TH89;29801993]Jews compromised the majority of the casualties AND are disproportionately represented in academia and literature and the entertainment industry, so it's not an unreasonable expectation that the majority of holocaust accounts are from a Jewish perspective. But I don't think anyone is denying that numerous other groups suffered terribly or advocating omitting them from the historical record. Also don't think your implication that Nazis "chose" the Jews because there were lots to kill is very accurate.[/QUOTE] the jews have a majority of one million, that isn't a vast amount, and because it isn't vast there should be more non-jewish peoples represented in fictional media and so on. obviously im not saying the "Nazis 'chose' the Jews" because there were so many and killing is just so much fun that they'd need plenty before they ran out, nor am I saying that that is the ONLY reason the Nazis attacked, primarily, the jews.
[QUOTE=Gaza Pen Pal;29802136]the jews have a majority of one million, that isn't a vast amount[/QUOTE] It's a majority of one million over [i]all the other groups put together[/i]. Six million Jews were killed. The next biggest is Soviet prisoners at 2 or 3 million. That's a difference of 3 or 4 million. [editline]13th May 2011[/editline] PS is that you Trotsky
[QUOTE=TH89;29801993] If his argument is based entirely on evidence from other (legitimate) sources, your side would be better served by taking those sources and replicating his argument, or finding someone with more credible making the argument. If the original sources are solid, there's no need to bring a conspiracy theorist middleman into the mix.[/quote] I guess that's true. But I'm very lazy and don't have the time to debate as I used to so posting the middleman itself was worth a shot IMO, but then I forgot, his links somehow become invalidated if he wrote an article on oil being a motive for the Libya crisis. [quote]I had a debate with a guy here a couple years ago where he linked to a blog that said global warming had been disproven, citing a peer-reviewed research paper as its evidence. I read the blog, then I read the actual paper and discovered that the paper didn't actually support the blog's position at all, and even contained a disclaimer about it. So there's an example of how a non-credible intermediary can spin credible sources into a falsehood, and why it's perfectly reasonable to expect someone to make an argument for themselves instead of linking to a conspiracy website (even one with sources) and saying "read for yourself, it's all there!"[/QUOTE] Yeah you told me this story before. That's just the guys interpretation of the sources, and that's pretty exclusive considering you may need good reading comprehension to understand scientific material tbh while it isn't as required for simple news articles meant for anyone to read. Something that wouldn't classify as Ad Hominen would be if the writer has history of falsely interpretating sources and citations, but this is clearly not the case. Instead, it's just captainHOE linking to unpopular opinions the writer supported.
[QUOTE=TH89;29802229]It's a majority of one million over [i]all the other groups put together[/i]. Six million Jews were killed. The next biggest is Soviet prisoners at 2 or 3 million. That's a difference of 3 or 4 million.[/QUOTE] yes, but [i]all the other groups put together[/i] are still underrepresented. of course there wont be as many accounts of gays being offed compared to jews being offed, but collectively the non jewish groups should be represented at a rate near to the jewish rate which is not the case.
[QUOTE=Starpluck;29802370]Something that wouldn't classify as Ad Hominen would be if the writer has history of falsely interpretating sources and citations, but this is clearly not the case. Instead, it's just captainHOE linking to unpopular opinions the writer supported.[/QUOTE] Except they're not just "unpopular opinions," some of them are conspiracy theories that have little to no bearing on reality. iirc. [editline]13th May 2011[/editline] [QUOTE=Gaza Pen Pal;29802389]yes, but [i]all the other groups put together[/i] are still underrepresented. of course there wont be as many accounts of gays being offed compared to jews being offed, but collectively the non jewish groups should be represented at a rate near to the jewish rate which is not the case.[/QUOTE] They are in history books. If they want to have movies about them maybe they should make some ;)
[QUOTE=TH89;29802229] PS is that you Trotsky[/QUOTE] No [editline]14th May 2011[/editline] [QUOTE=TH89;29802408]Except they're not just "unpopular opinions," some of them are conspiracy theories that have little to no bearing on reality. iirc. [/quote] Conspiracy theories are unpopular opinions but I don't see how that matters
[QUOTE=BradB;29777604]Maybe in a few years we'll see the proper "pictures" that the US decided not to release. If they don't release em, maybe Wikileaks will get them out instead :v: We'll get the truth eventually, even if it takes a decade.[/QUOTE] If the US thinks it would be dangerous to release pictures of Osama Bin Ladens body, why would we take them in the first place? Do we have a weird fetish for that?
Only reason I trust the US on this is the knee jerk reaction to the news they had "HE'S NOT DEAD YOU FAILED HE'S JUST HANGING OUT OVER HERE" "DUMB AMERICA HE'S IN ANOTHER STATE" /we're debating releasing pictuers "HE'S BEEN DEAD FOR YEARS YOU IDIOTS HAHAHA DUMB AMERICA" :v:
[QUOTE=Starpluck;29802444]No[/QUOTE] Is it your boy what wishes he could wear swastikas [QUOTE=Starpluck;29802444]Conspiracy theories are unpopular opinions but I don't see how that matters[/QUOTE] Claims regarding historical facts aren't opinions. "The government staged Bin Laden's death" isn't an opinion, it's a claim about something that objectively either happened or didn't happen. [editline]13th May 2011[/editline] [QUOTE=Jiyoon;29802546]If the US thinks it would be dangerous to release pictures of Osama Bin Ladens body, why would we take them in the first place? Do we have a weird fetish for that?[/QUOTE] Evidence and documentation. Just because the general public hasn't seen the pictures doesn't mean lots of government officials haven't.
Sorry, you need to Log In to post a reply to this thread.