Jump to content
Sign in to follow this  
Park Life

U.N. racism conference blighted by fear of Israel?

Recommended Posts

Guest alex

Danny's a polictician's wet dream tbh. Mr. Middle of the road, 'they must be right', 'if you aren't doing anything wrong, you've got nothing to hide'.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
What I heard was definitely inflammatory and unconstructive to say the least. He knew what reaction he would get. Am I right in thinking the man is on the record as being a holocaust denier? If that's the case I have some sympathy with Danny B's point that nothing he has to say has any positive value.

 

It's a bit chicken and egg imo - he denies the holocaust because he know how people will react to that denial - a bit like claiming Ameobi is a good footballer.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
spot on renton.

 

Ans for yourself fuckhead.

 

Is the purpose of these gathering window dressing or like Dinnerjacket should they be getting to grips with the real issues that divide us?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
What I heard was definitely inflammatory and unconstructive to say the least. He knew what reaction he would get. Am I right in thinking the man is on the record as being a holocaust denier? If that's the case I have some sympathy with Danny B's point that nothing he has to say has any positive value.

 

 

"...there are two opinions on this in Europe. One group of scholars or persons, most of them politically motivated, say the Holocaust occurred. Then there is the group of scholars who represent the opposite position and have therefore been imprisoned for the most part."

 

"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"

 

No denial there.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
What I heard was definitely inflammatory and unconstructive to say the least. He knew what reaction he would get. Am I right in thinking the man is on the record as being a holocaust denier? If that's the case I have some sympathy with Danny B's point that nothing he has to say has any positive value.

 

 

"...there are two opinions on this in Europe. One group of scholars or persons, most of them politically motivated, say the Holocaust occurred. Then there is the group of scholars who represent the opposite position and have therefore been imprisoned for the most part."

 

"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"

 

No denial there.

 

 

Fuck you're quick, I was just looking for that. :D

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest alex
It doesn't matter what he said. The conference was not to be used as a platform for bashing one state or another.

 

He knew the effect would be decisive and has turned attention away from the real issue.

:razz::D

 

No you're right Alex, you and Parky are bang on, everybody else is wrong.

You haven't even got an argument, as usual. I'm not defending everything this person has said in the past because I find a lot of what he has said to be abhorrent. What I find ridiculous is that people were walking out just because he mentioned Israel and referred to it as a racist state (which it is, in many ways). How is a conference like this supposed to achieve anything if you can't even discuss issues like that? That's a rhetorical question anyway since I'd guess this was nothing more than cosmetic exercise anyway. Presumably you had China objecting to any mention of Tibet, Turkey any mention of the Kurds etc., etc. Pathetic. Is it just about talking about nice things and saying we'll all hold hands and be friends then?

And if they didn't want this to be the issue it has become they shouldn't have scheduled it (and this speech in particular) to coincide with Holocaust memorial services. That in itself suggests to me there is some agenda at play in order to undermine anything that was going to be said by him rather than a criticism of what he actually did say.

 

I'm honestly not sure it's possible to have meaningful dialogue with a holocaust denier who wants nothing short of the complete destruction of the Jewish state, how would you even start? Mind, I admit I'm not fully clued up behind the politics of the situation between Iran and Irsrael, perhaps there's more to it.

If you never entered into debate with people who said or did inflamatory things you'd still have a situation in Northern Ireland, for example, where people were regularly killing each other over sectarian issues. He's the President of Iran, whether you like it or not and you have to enter into debate with him. He's got an agenda to push, aye - but so have Israel and the US etc. I don't want to appear to be defending him too much because of the unpleasanr things he has said before btw.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest alex
spot on renton.

 

Ans for yourself fuckhead.

 

Is the purpose of these gathering window dressing or like Dinnerjacket should they be getting to grips with the real issues that divide us?

He's in wum mode because he's out of his depth.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
What I heard was definitely inflammatory and unconstructive to say the least. He knew what reaction he would get.

 

He absolutely did (which is why it's a bit bizarre he was speaking - because the UN surely knew both exactly what he would say and what would happen).

 

They had enough trouble with similar issues last time and then it was just fighting about the wording of things (same issues though), not the "headline" speech as it were.

 

 

Am I right in thinking the man is on the record as being a holocaust denier? If that's the case I have some sympathy with Danny B's point that nothing he has to say has any positive value.

 

He has repeatedly denied the holocaust and said Israel should be destroyed.

 

Although he has backed away from both a little as the former didn't play too well domestically (it roused their large number of nationalists and religious nutters admittedly) or internationally (for obvious reasons - wonder if he's wanted in the EU for it?), and the latter he seems to be using to try and "buy" nuclear concessions.

Edited by Fop

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
spot on renton.

 

Ans for yourself fuckhead.

 

Is the purpose of these gathering window dressing or like Dinnerjacket should they be getting to grips with the real issues that divide us?

 

I'll answer that question with a question:

 

Do you think the purpose of his speech was to get to grips with the issue or to actually be divisive?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
What I heard was definitely inflammatory and unconstructive to say the least. He knew what reaction he would get.

 

He absolutely did (which is why it's a bit bizarre he was speaking - because the UN surely knew both exactly what he would say and what would happen).

 

They had enough trouble with similar issues last time and then it was just fighting about the wording of things (same issues though), not the "headline" speech as it were.

 

 

Am I right in thinking the man is on the record as being a holocaust denier? If that's the case I have some sympathy with Danny B's point that nothing he has to say has any positive value.

 

He has repeatedly denied the holocaust and said Israel should be destroyed.

 

Although he has backed away from both a little as the former didn't play too well domestically (it roused their large number of nationalists and religious nutters admittedly) or internationally, and the latter he seems to be using to try and "buy" nuclear concessions.

 

Iran will have nukes and there isn't a thing the West can do about it short of invading.

 

If you don't want nukes in the region you shouldn't have given them to Israel.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
What I heard was definitely inflammatory and unconstructive to say the least. He knew what reaction he would get. Am I right in thinking the man is on the record as being a holocaust denier? If that's the case I have some sympathy with Danny B's point that nothing he has to say has any positive value.

 

 

"...there are two opinions on this in Europe. One group of scholars or persons, most of them politically motivated, say the Holocaust occurred. Then there is the group of scholars who represent the opposite position and have therefore been imprisoned for the most part."

 

"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"

 

No denial there.

 

 

Is this what he said yesterday or just a cherry picked quote HF? And is there any real doubt about it [the holocaust occurring]?

 

Any way, I'm happy to put my own prejudice on the plate. I admit I despise islamic states like Iran for their own abuses of human rights, so I guess I've got a conflict of interest in this discussion.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
spot on renton.

 

Ans for yourself fuckhead.

 

Is the purpose of these gathering window dressing or like Dinnerjacket should they be getting to grips with the real issues that divide us?

 

I'll answer that question with a question:

 

Do you think the purpose of his speech was to get to grips with the issue or to actually be divisive?

 

Answer the question.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest alex
spot on renton.

 

Ans for yourself fuckhead.

 

Is the purpose of these gathering window dressing or like Dinnerjacket should they be getting to grips with the real issues that divide us?

 

I'll answer that question with a question:

 

Do you think the purpose of his speech was to get to grips with the issue or to actually be divisive?

Probably both. Do you think the conferemce is anything more than a back-slapping exercise anyway? The UN's a joke tbh.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
What I heard was definitely inflammatory and unconstructive to say the least. He knew what reaction he would get. Am I right in thinking the man is on the record as being a holocaust denier? If that's the case I have some sympathy with Danny B's point that nothing he has to say has any positive value.

 

 

"...there are two opinions on this in Europe. One group of scholars or persons, most of them politically motivated, say the Holocaust occurred. Then there is the group of scholars who represent the opposite position and have therefore been imprisoned for the most part."

 

"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"

 

No denial there.

 

 

Is this what he said yesterday or just a cherry picked quote HF? And is there any real doubt about it [the holocaust occurring]?

 

Any way, I'm happy to put my own prejudice on the plate. I admit I despise islamic states like Iran for their own abuses of human rights, so I guess I've got a conflict of interest in this discussion.

 

So we should overthrow Saudi Arabia then? Oh wait....

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
spot on renton.

 

Ans for yourself fuckhead.

 

Is the purpose of these gathering window dressing or like Dinnerjacket should they be getting to grips with the real issues that divide us?

 

I'll answer that question with a question:

 

Do you think the purpose of his speech was to get to grips with the issue or to actually be divisive?

Probably both. Do you think the conferemce is anything more than a back-slapping exercise anyway? The UN's a joke tbh.

 

OK brilliant.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest alex
spot on renton.

 

Ans for yourself fuckhead.

 

Is the purpose of these gathering window dressing or like Dinnerjacket should they be getting to grips with the real issues that divide us?

 

I'll answer that question with a question:

 

Do you think the purpose of his speech was to get to grips with the issue or to actually be divisive?

Probably both. Do you think the conferemce is anything more than a back-slapping exercise anyway? The UN's a joke tbh.

 

OK brilliant.

Not really answered anything you've been asked, have you?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
What I heard was definitely inflammatory and unconstructive to say the least. He knew what reaction he would get. Am I right in thinking the man is on the record as being a holocaust denier? If that's the case I have some sympathy with Danny B's point that nothing he has to say has any positive value.

 

 

"...there are two opinions on this in Europe. One group of scholars or persons, most of them politically motivated, say the Holocaust occurred. Then there is the group of scholars who represent the opposite position and have therefore been imprisoned for the most part."

 

"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"

 

No denial there.

 

 

Is this what he said yesterday or just a cherry picked quote HF? And is there any real doubt about it [the holocaust occurring]?

 

Any way, I'm happy to put my own prejudice on the plate. I admit I despise islamic states like Iran for their own abuses of human rights, so I guess I've got a conflict of interest in this discussion.

 

So we should overthrow Saudi Arabia then? Oh wait....

 

Who's said anything about overthrowing countries? I reserve the right to despise the political and cultural system of Saudi though, yes.

Edited by Renton

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
What I heard was definitely inflammatory and unconstructive to say the least. He knew what reaction he would get.

 

He absolutely did (which is why it's a bit bizarre he was speaking - because the UN surely knew both exactly what he would say and what would happen).

 

They had enough trouble with similar issues last time and then it was just fighting about the wording of things (same issues though), not the "headline" speech as it were.

 

 

Am I right in thinking the man is on the record as being a holocaust denier? If that's the case I have some sympathy with Danny B's point that nothing he has to say has any positive value.

 

He has repeatedly denied the holocaust and said Israel should be destroyed.

 

Although he has backed away from both a little as the former didn't play too well domestically (it roused their large number of nationalists and religious nutters admittedly) or internationally, and the latter he seems to be using to try and "buy" nuclear concessions.

 

Iran will have nukes and there isn't a thing the West can do about it short of invading.

 

If you don't want nukes in the region you shouldn't have given them to Israel.

 

Maybe, I wouldn't be surprised if air strikes were still a possibility though.

 

Iran with nukes will be interesting though (even if you ignore the terrorism potential), they are jingoistic enough now, never mind with them.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
spot on renton.

 

Ans for yourself fuckhead.

 

Is the purpose of these gathering window dressing or like Dinnerjacket should they be getting to grips with the real issues that divide us?

 

I'll answer that question with a question:

 

Do you think the purpose of his speech was to get to grips with the issue or to actually be divisive?

Probably both. Do you think the conferemce is anything more than a back-slapping exercise anyway? The UN's a joke tbh.

 

OK brilliant.

 

You see if Israel had been there they could have ans his claims. But they weren't cause they sit pretty behind the American veto at the U.N. and continue to use state of the art warfare against civilians. They've seconded most of the fresh water in Gaza (soldiers routinely shoot holes in the watertrucks), they deny free travel in Palestine to Palestinians. Palestine is not allowed an airport or right to flyover. They bomb schools and power. Schoolchildren are encourage to paint messages on missiles and bombs that kill other schoolchildren etc etc...

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
What I heard was definitely inflammatory and unconstructive to say the least. He knew what reaction he would get.

 

He absolutely did (which is why it's a bit bizarre he was speaking - because the UN surely knew both exactly what he would say and what would happen).

 

They had enough trouble with similar issues last time and then it was just fighting about the wording of things (same issues though), not the "headline" speech as it were.

 

 

Am I right in thinking the man is on the record as being a holocaust denier? If that's the case I have some sympathy with Danny B's point that nothing he has to say has any positive value.

 

He has repeatedly denied the holocaust and said Israel should be destroyed.

 

Although he has backed away from both a little as the former didn't play too well domestically (it roused their large number of nationalists and religious nutters admittedly) or internationally, and the latter he seems to be using to try and "buy" nuclear concessions.

 

Iran will have nukes and there isn't a thing the West can do about it short of invading.

 

If you don't want nukes in the region you shouldn't have given them to Israel.

 

Maybe, I wouldn't be surprised if air strikes were still a possibility though.

 

Iran with nukes will be interesting though (even if you ignore the terrorism potential), they are jingoistic enough now, never mind with them.

 

Air strikes will do nowt. The facilities are spread out across 70 odd installations and the key ones are sub-core.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
You see if Israel had been there they could have ans his claims. But they weren't cause they sit pretty behind the American veto at the U.N. and continue to use state of the art warfare against civilians. They've seconded most of the fresh water in Gaza (soldiers routinely shoot holes in the watertrucks), they deny free travel in Palestine to Palestinians. Palestine is not allowed an airport or right to flyover. They bomb schools and power. Schoolchildren are encourage to paint messages on missiles and bombs that kill other schoolchildren etc etc...

 

 

Thing is though that that's not what this was supposed to be about.

 

 

And of course it's not like Dinnerjacket or the powers that be in Iran give a toss about that either, other than as a stick they can use to beat things for their own ends.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest alex

Getting back to the point slightly :D

It's the issue of the hypocrisy of the West (by which I mean the governments) I take issue with the most over this matter.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
What I heard was definitely inflammatory and unconstructive to say the least. He knew what reaction he would get.

 

He absolutely did (which is why it's a bit bizarre he was speaking - because the UN surely knew both exactly what he would say and what would happen).

 

 

 

Aren't the UN trying to level the playing field a tad by giving him a voice even at such a low key event? The US veto of any resolution that might not be the best for their own or Israels interests narcs quite a lot of smaller members whose votes are completely discarded....

 

http://www.krysstal.com/democracy_whyusa03.html

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Air strikes will do nowt. The facilities are spread out across 70 odd installations and the key ones are sub-core.

Then the fun will soon ensue.

 

Personally I think it will be disastrous for everyone.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest alex
You see if Israel had been there they could have ans his claims. But they weren't cause they sit pretty behind the American veto at the U.N. and continue to use state of the art warfare against civilians. They've seconded most of the fresh water in Gaza (soldiers routinely shoot holes in the watertrucks), they deny free travel in Palestine to Palestinians. Palestine is not allowed an airport or right to flyover. They bomb schools and power. Schoolchildren are encourage to paint messages on missiles and bombs that kill other schoolchildren etc etc...

 

 

Thing is though that that's not what this was supposed to be about.

 

 

And of course it's not like Dinnerjacket or the powers that be in Iran give a toss about that either, other than as a stick they can use to beat things for their own ends.

Re: the first bit, what is it supposed to be about? Genuine question btw - not a dig.

Agree with the second bit. Applies to the US etc. too - you have to wonder if they wanted to use this speech as a stick with which to beat Iran though, don't you? Minds were certainly made up about it in advance.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now

Sign in to follow this  

Recent tweets

Toontastic Facebook

Donate to Toontastic

Keeping the lights on since... well ages ago
TT-Staff


×