Jump to content
Sign in to follow this  
Park Life

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

Recommended Posts

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?

 

What do you want me to answer? I think I made me position quite clear. I think dinnerjacket was there purely to be divisive. It worked, half the hall were clapping and half walked out in disgust.

 

So here we all are as far apart as ever, if not further. Great.

 

Good effort writing the UN off in one foul swoop by the way.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Out of interest Parky, is there any particular reason for your anti-zionist opinions? You come across as a tad passionate about them is all.

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.

 

It's what all countries do, but when we do it it's alright. :D

 

Better to get round the table with Iran before it's too late if you ask me.

 

Encourage a more moderate stance in return for goodies.

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?

 

What do you want me to answer? I think I made me position quite clear. I think dinnerjacket was there purely to be divisive. It worked, half the hall were clapping and half walked out in disgust.

 

So here we all are as far apart as ever, if not further. Great.

 

Good effort writing the UN off in one foul swoop by the way.

To qualify what I meant, I meant the UN is a joke on this issue.

Foul swoop btw :D Fucking hell man.

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.

 

It's cherry picked in that it's the man himself stating that the Holocaust happened.

 

You can cherry pick the quote where he denies it too. I'd be interested to read it.

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.

 

It's cherry picked in that it's the man himself stating that the Holocaust happened.

 

You can cherry pick the quote where he denies it too. I'd be interested to read it.

 

Reading between the lines it sounds like a denial to me. I'm not going to add value by trawling the net with Google for other quotes so I'll trust you this is his worst public comment.

Edited by Renton

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Out of interest Parky, is there any particular reason for your anti-zionist opinions? You come across as a tad passionate about them is all.

 

It's normal amongst free thinkers. :D

 

FYI I fully support the U.S. taking steps in Pakistan (Waziristan) and Afghanistan. I have no issue with that, the number of training camps and the cruelty of the Taliban warranted it imo. But I am on record for not supporting the Iraqi invasion.

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

 

 

I'm not sure how it is decided in all honesty (if it was some block vote he may well "win" the right), that's the thing with the UN, there's several factions and at least one would gleefully fiddle whilst the world burnt if it got the targets they desired (which in fact it would, as they'd believe themselves to be capable of rising from the ashes much stronger).

 

The problem the UN is basically build upon Western ideals, and for those factions such ideals are not particularly valued (in some case the exact opposite), yet what can the rest do when they realise their game has been taken away from them by those that don't want to play by those rules in the first place? (it's similar to Mugabe and the AU really)

 

But I still can't see how anyone didn't think this was basically throwing a grenade into a bomb silo, which only leaves agendas for doing it.

 

 

 

 

 

 

When you get to the security council the unfortunate fact is if it functioned like the general assembly nothing would ever get done (no matter the issue), as it stands it can be hard enough, it would be the League of Nations again and may well result in a similar outcome.

 

As for the USA, they certainly use the UN to their own ends (but so do and have Russia and China), but in fairness they do pay for most of it. :D

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Out of interest Parky, is there any particular reason for your anti-zionist opinions? You come across as a tad passionate about them is all.

 

It's normal amongst free thinkers. :D

 

FYI I fully support the U.S. taking steps in Pakistan (Waziristan) and Afghanistan. I have no issue with that, the number of training camps and the cruelty of the Taliban warranted it imo. But I am on record for not supporting the Iraqi invasion.

 

I concur with you there about Afghanistan and Iraq.

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.

 

It's cherry picked in that it's the man himself stating that the Holocaust happened.

 

You can cherry pick the quote where he denies it too. I'd be interested to read it.

 

Reminds me of the misquoting in the western media (if it was reported at all) of the Chavez speech at the U.N. last year. One of the most intelligent speeches ever given regarding balance of power and resources and giving smaller countries a bigger voice at the U.N.

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.

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.

 

 

http://www.un.org/WCAR/e-kit/backgrounder1.htm

 

Israel might well qualify if you squinted a bit and looked sideways, but no more than at least a dozen other places (and considerably less than at least 1/2 a dozen other places), but this is exactly what happened last time, it was turned into a perfect of example OF racism/xenophobia for political ends.

 

 

Again it comes down to a Western view of "racism" and many other countries not actually giving a toss about "racism", by that or any other definition, but only seeing it as an opportunity for gain.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest alex

I wonder if the Caste system in India was debated. They probably objected to that. Probably as bad as any system of prejudice in the world.

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

 

 

I'm not sure how it is decided in all honesty (if it was some block vote he may well "win" the right), that's the thing with the UN, there's several factions and at least one would gleefully fiddle whilst the world burnt if it got the targets they desired (which in fact it would, as they'd believe themselves to be capable of rising from the ashes much stronger).

 

The problem the UN is basically build upon Western ideals, and for those factions such ideals are not particularly valued (in some case the exact opposite), yet what can the rest do when they realise their game has been taken away from them by those that don't want to play by those rules in the first place? (it's similar to Mugabe and the AU really)

 

But I still can't see how anyone didn't think this was basically throwing a grenade into a bomb silo, which only leaves agendas for doing it.

 

 

 

 

 

 

When you get to the security council the unfortunate fact is if it functioned like the general assembly nothing would ever get done (no matter the issue), as it stands it can be hard enough, it would be the League of Nations again and may well result in a similar outcome.

 

As for the USA, they certainly use the UN to their own ends (but so do and have Russia and China), but in fairness they do pay for most of it. :D

 

 

Actually the U.S. withold their subs for long periods when they are sulking. It's well documented.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Reminds me of the misquoting in the western media (if it was reported at all) of the Chavez speech at the U.N. last year. One of the most intelligent speeches ever given regarding balance of power and resources and giving smaller countries a bigger voice at the U.N.

 

Chávez has a lot of valid points, unfortunately that still doesn't stop him being utterly out for personal power and now balancing on the edge of genuine despotism as his popularity begins to fade.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
I wonder if the Caste system in India was debated. They probably objected to that. Probably as bad as any system of prejudice in the world.

 

It might have been, it might even have got some well deserved publicity from it. :D

 

 

(although technically it is illegal there now, of course, in reality it's still largely business as usual)

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.

 

It's cherry picked in that it's the man himself stating that the Holocaust happened.

 

You can cherry pick the quote where he denies it too. I'd be interested to read it.

 

Reading between the lines it sounds like a denial to me. I'm not going to add value by trawling the net with Google for other quotes so I'll trust you this is his worst public comment.

 

"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, 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?"

 

"If the Europeans are honest they should give some of their provinces in Europe - like in Germany, Austria or other countries - to the Zionists and the Zionists can establish their state in Europe. You offer part of Europe and we will support it," he added.

 

"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,"

 

"If someone were to deny the existence of God... or prophets and religion, they would not bother him.

 

"However, if someone were to deny the myth of the Jews' massacre, all the Zionist mouthpieces and the governments subservient to the Zionists tear their larynxes and scream against the person as much as they can," he said.

 

 

In all honesty he comes off more xenophobic and racist than Nick Griffon most of the time. :D

Edited by Fop

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.

 

It's cherry picked in that it's the man himself stating that the Holocaust happened.

 

You can cherry pick the quote where he denies it too. I'd be interested to read it.

 

Reading between the lines it sounds like a denial to me. I'm not going to add value by trawling the net with Google for other quotes so I'll trust you this is his worst public comment.

 

"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, 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?"

 

"If the Europeans are honest they should give some of their provinces in Europe - like in Germany, Austria or other countries - to the Zionists and the Zionists can establish their state in Europe. You offer part of Europe and we will support it," he added.

 

In all honesty he comes off more xenophobic and racist than Nick Griffon most of the time. :razz:

:D

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.

 

It's cherry picked in that it's the man himself stating that the Holocaust happened.

 

You can cherry pick the quote where he denies it too. I'd be interested to read it.

 

Reading between the lines it sounds like a denial to me. I'm not going to add value by trawling the net with Google for other quotes so I'll trust you this is his worst public comment.

 

"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, 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?"

 

"If the Europeans are honest they should give some of their provinces in Europe - like in Germany, Austria or other countries - to the Zionists and the Zionists can establish their state in Europe. You offer part of Europe and we will support it," he added.

 

"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,"

 

"If someone were to deny the existence of God... or prophets and religion, they would not bother him.

 

"However, if someone were to deny the myth of the Jews' massacre, all the Zionist mouthpieces and the governments subservient to the Zionists tear their larynxes and scream against the person as much as they can," he said.

 

 

In all honesty he comes off more xenophobic and racist than Nick Griffon most of the time. :D

 

 

Plus of course after this there was that Iranian conference to "question" the Holocaust (by that time they'd gone from flatly denying it to just raising doubt).

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.

 

It's cherry picked in that it's the man himself stating that the Holocaust happened.

 

You can cherry pick the quote where he denies it too. I'd be interested to read it.

 

Reading between the lines it sounds like a denial to me. I'm not going to add value by trawling the net with Google for other quotes so I'll trust you this is his worst public comment.

 

"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, 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?"

 

"If the Europeans are honest they should give some of their provinces in Europe - like in Germany, Austria or other countries - to the Zionists and the Zionists can establish their state in Europe. You offer part of Europe and we will support it," he added.

 

In all honesty he comes off more xenophobic and racist than Nick Griffon most of the time. :D

 

 

In all his quotes he sounds to me like someone who refuses to believe what Western governments tell him to be true, rather than someone insisting that it categorically didn't occur.

 

When I googled the quote there were hundreds of sources for it. Unfortunately, though I wanted to see how it was reported on both sides, I could only access the UK, US sources. Sites like radioIslam.org are censored at work.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

"Yitzhak Rabin made a heroic attempt at resolving the cycle of violence in 1993 at the Oslo accords, so close in fact that he was murdered by a Jewish extremist in 1995." George Soros.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
"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,"

 

"If someone were to deny the existence of God... or prophets and religion, they would not bother him.

 

"However, if someone were to deny the myth of the Jews' massacre, all the Zionist mouthpieces and the governments subservient to the Zionists tear their larynxes and scream against the person as much as they can," he said.

 

 

 

That's more like it. :D

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
In all his quotes he sounds to me like someone who refuses to believe what Western governments tell him to be true, rather than someone insisting that it categorically didn't occur.

 

When I googled the quote there were hundreds of sources for it. Unfortunately, though I wanted to see how it was reported on both sides, I could only access the UK, US sources. Sites like radioIslam.org are censored at work.

 

 

"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,"

 

"If someone were to deny the existence of God... or prophets and religion, they would not bother him.

 

"However, if someone were to deny the myth of the Jews' massacre, all the Zionist mouthpieces and the governments subservient to the Zionists tear their larynxes and scream against the person as much as they can," he said.

 

Don't think you can get much more clear than that.

 

Although like I said he was most bullish straight after election, since then he has slowly (and cleverly) back tracked from outright denial, to "raising doubts" (which is effectively the same thing to his target audience but doesn't draw the massive international condemnation).

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
"Yitzhak Rabin made a heroic attempt at resolving the cycle of violence in 1993 at the Oslo accords, so close in fact that he was murdered by a Jewish extremist in 1995." George Soros.

 

It's hate, and Dinnerjacket is propagating it just as much as anyone else. :D

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
In all his quotes he sounds to me like someone who refuses to believe what Western governments tell him to be true, rather than someone insisting that it categorically didn't occur.

 

When I googled the quote there were hundreds of sources for it. Unfortunately, though I wanted to see how it was reported on both sides, I could only access the UK, US sources. Sites like radioIslam.org are censored at work.

 

 

"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,"

 

"If someone were to deny the existence of God... or prophets and religion, they would not bother him.

 

"However, if someone were to deny the myth of the Jews' massacre, all the Zionist mouthpieces and the governments subservient to the Zionists tear their larynxes and scream against the person as much as they can," he said.

 

Don't think you can get much more clear than that.

 

Although like I said he was most bullish straight after election, since then he has slowly (and cleverly) back tracked from outright denial, to "raising doubts" (which is effectively the same thing to his target audience but doesn't draw the massive international condemnation).

 

He comes at it from the wrong angle like. Rather than pushing to get religious defamation outlawed he should be trying to get holocaust denial similarly legalised.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I suppose it's very hard for me to see the point of view of countries whose reported human rights violations turn my stomach.

 

Ahmadinejad seems to be trying to score points domestically and locally rather than entering genuine discourse (of course everybody else at the U.N. will be playing the same game) but he seems to be using hate and inflammatory prose to do so.

 

It makes my hypocritical I guess, I tolerate the self serving attitude of the members of the UN as long as it's done in a quiet, underhand way.

 

:D I'm so bored of the world's leaders.

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


×