The road to serfdom

They certainly do have a collective gripe but that doesn't automatically make it rational, reasonable or justified.
Well they seem to think so? I mean, it must take a certain amount of intensity to blow yourself up, or do you think they are simply all insane? Or perhaps fired up by their religion? I wonder why?

Your rationality, reasonableness, justifications are exactly why they are rioting in the first place; do you think they are really rioting over some dumb cartoon, or perhaps a long spiral into insanity, I mean, being constantly ignored by the west while it sanctions wars of occupation maybe I'd get upset too. Or you think this is all Mohammeds fault, I mean what's he doing in a cartoon anyway? Perhaps it was a political statement, a piece of free speech. I wonder then why they got upset, a world wide riot. Oh I forgot they're all insane. Simple really.
 
Well they seem to think so? I mean, it must take a certain amount of intensity to blow yourself up, or do you think they are simply all insane? Or perhaps fired up by their religion? I wonder why?

Your rationality, reasonableness, justifications are exactly why they are rioting in the first place; do you think they are really rioting over some dumb cartoon, or perhaps a long spiral into insanity, I mean, being constantly ignored by the west while it sanctions wars of occupation maybe I'd get upset too. Or you think this is all Mohammeds fault, I mean what's he doing in a cartoon anyway? Perhaps it was a political statement, a piece of free speech. I wonder then why they got upset, a world wide riot. Oh I forgot they're all insane. Simple really.

I think if you blow yourself up you probably are insane, even if there is some justification for their action. Yes Muslims in some areas have been targeted by wars etc. as have plenty of other people. But does that justify rioting in the Philippines when there's been conflict in the Middle East?
 
I think there's a major difference between a cartoon and what's billed as a serious academic conference that's effectively denying the historical fact of the death of millions of people. Interestingly though I don't remember any major riots in New York or London about the holocaust conference.

http://www.guardian.co.uk/iran/story/0,,1964854,00.html
Participants will consider documentary, pictorial, physical and demographic evidence in what Iranian officials depict as an academic investigation to establish the Holocaust's authenticity and whether the reported number of victims was exaggerated. Organisers say it will include submissions for and against. It will also focus on the plight of the Palestinians.

I see absolutely no reason why this question is not fair. The holocaust has been used as a political tool for the last 60 years and frankly that's a much greater insult to the people that died in the holocaust than questioning its extent.

There is no definitive number of dead Jews from the holocaust. The original 6 million number was given by Zionists who had a motive to lie. Israel is currently busy with a project to give a number that isn't a mere 'guesstimate'.
 
It was designed to be deliberately inflammatory though, especially if you consider it within the wider context of Iran's actions.
 
Yes, they were trying to prove a point, which brings me back to the first question : Why is one side allowed to have sacred cows and the other not?

The west in many cases has made it 100% illegal to even question the number of people killed in the holocaust. Now frankly I think it's a damned good thing that Iran draws attention to this, especially since the west claims to champion free speech.
 
I think Iran can hold whatever conference they like, but you have to realise that some actions are more reasonable and acceptable than others, that doesn't mean that the unreasonable ones should be banned though.
 
I think that's exactly the point Iran was trying to make in the first place.

The west published a cartoon which the muslim community found offensive, the west then said "Hey, it's free speech!", to which Iran responded "Oh really?" and went ahead with the holocaust conference. Instead of the west learning that free-speech is a double edged sword they simply branded Iran as being anti-semitic.
 
The West's response was still much more reasonable than the Islamic world's was to the cartoons though.
 
But given the west's interference in the region for the last 100+ years, it was far more understandable.
 
I guess that's a matter of opinion and something we probably won't agree on.
 
Would appreciate any comment on this document:

A Military Pact with Nazism
On January 11, 1941, Avraham Stern proposed a formal military pact between the National Military Organization (NMO), of which Yitzhak Shamir, the current Prime Minister of Israel, was a prominent leader, and the Nazi Third Reich. This proposal became known as the Ankara document, having been discovered after the war in the files of the German Embassy in Turkey. It states the following:

The evacuation of the Jewish masses from Europe is a precondition for solving the Jewish question; but this can only be made possible and complete through the settlement of these masses in the home of the Jewish people, Palestine, and through the establishment of a Jewish state in its historical boundaries ...

The NMO, which is well-acquainted with the goodwill of the German Reich government and its authorities towards Zionist activity inside Germany and towards Zionist emigration plans, is of the opinion that:

Common interests could exist between the establishment of a New Order in Europe in conformity with the German concept, and the true national aspirations of the Jewish people as they are embodied by the NMO.
Cooperation between the new Germany and renewed folkish-national Hebraium would be possible and
The establishment of the historical Jewish state on a national and totalitarian basis, and bound by a treaty with the German Reich, would be in the interest of a maintained and strengthened future German position of power in the Near East.
Proceeding from these considerations, the NMO in Palestine, under the condition that the above-mentioned national aspirations of the Israeli freedom movement are recognized on the side of the German Reich, offers to actively take part in the war on Germany’s side. [95]
-
The dirty secret of Zionist history is that Zionism was threatened by the Jews themselves. Defending the Jewish people from persecution meant organizing resistance to the regimes which menaced them. But these regimes embodied the imperial order which comprised the only social force willing or able to impose a settler colony on the Palestinian people. Hence, the Zionists needed the persecution of the Jews to persuade Jews to become colonizers afar, and they needed the persecutors to sponsor the enterprise.

But European Jewry had never manifested any interest in colonizing Palestine. Zionism remained a fringe movement among the Jews, who aspired to live in the countries of their birth free of discrimination or to escape persecution by emigrating to bourgeois democracies perceived as more tolerant.

Zionism, therefore, could never answer the needs or aspirations of the Jews. The moment of truth came when persecution gave way to physical extermination. Put to the ultimate and sole test of their real relationship to Jewish survival, the Zionists did not merely fail to lead resistance or defend the Jews, they actively sabotaged Jewish efforts to boycott the Nazi economy. They sought, even then, the sponsorship of the mass murderers themselves, not merely because the Third Reich appeared powerful enough to impose a Zionist colony, but because the Nazi practices were consonant with Zionist assumptions.
-
Zionism sought bodies with which to colonize Palestine and preferred Jewish corpses in their millions to any rescue that might settle Jews elsewhere.

If ever a people could be expected to grasp the meaning of persecution, the pain of being perpetual refugees and the humiliation of slander, it ought to have been the Jews.

In place of compassion, the Zionists celebrated the persecution of others, even as they first betrayed the Jews and then degraded them. They selected a victim people of their own on whom to inflict a conquering design. They aligned the surviving Jews with a new genocide against the Palestinian people, cloaking themselves, with savage irony, in the collective shroud of the Holocaust.
[source]
 
The first four paragraphs could probably be backed up, is there any evidence for the rest?
 
Teachers drop the Holocaust to avoid offending Muslims

Schools are dropping the Holocaust from history lessons to avoid offending Muslim pupils, a Governmentbacked study has revealed.

It found some teachers are reluctant to cover the atrocity for fear of upsetting students whose beliefs include Holocaust denial.

There is also resistance to tackling the 11th century Crusades - where Christians fought Muslim armies for control of Jerusalem - because lessons often contradict what is taught in local mosques.


*sigh*
 
We should be criticising both sides. Muslim fanatics are not in the right. Nor are the US and UK. Each has their wrongs and stupid behaviour.

I hold the governments and citizens of countries like the UK and the US to a much higher standard because they claim to be better. When these governments lie, as the US government did to get the Vietnam war started or to attack Iraq, I believe they should be judged harshly.

The United States government is guilty of a litany of crimes. They have overthrown elected leaders and installed dictators. They have armed and trained despots. Some of these have been in the middle east.

Let's point out the wrongs that occur in countries whether or not they are controlled by backward religious fanatics.
 
We should be criticising both sides. Muslim fanatics are not in the right. Nor are the US and UK. Each has their wrongs and stupid behaviour.

I hold the governments and citizens of countries like the UK and the US to a much higher standard because they claim to be better. When these governments lie, as the US government did to get the Vietnam war started or to attack Iraq, I believe they should be judged harshly.

The United States government is guilty of a litany of crimes. They have overthrown elected leaders and installed dictators. They have armed and trained despots. Some of these have been in the middle east.

Let's point out the wrongs that occur in countries whether or not they are controlled by backward religious fanatics.

DOnt call them backward, coz then you calling me backward and theres no way in hell Im backward WTF!
 
Top
Sign up to the MyBroadband newsletter
X