Iran leader denied WTC wreath request

[molly bloom]

Originally posted by Agathon

Depicting Mohammed is one of the most offensive things you can do in Islam.

Actually it isn't. The supposed ban on portraying Muhammad or other living creatures is a misconception.

I have several books on Islamic history and Islamic art and culture, and there are quite a few illustrations from Islamic manuscripts with depictions of Muhammad both veiled and unveiled.

[molly bloom]

Originally posted by lord of the mark


When is Shimon Peres going to get to speak Teheran University?

Other Jews were present at the 'Holocaust' conference in Iran, were they not ?

But the Jews who went to Teheran are different.

Some of them belong to Neturei Karta (Guardians of the City), a Hasidic sect of a few thousand people which views Zionism - the movement to establish a Jewish national home or state in what was Palestine - as a "poison" threatening "true Jews".



A representative, UK-based Rabbi Aharon Cohen, told the conference he prayed "that the underlying cause of strife and bloodshed in the Middle East, namely the state known as Israel, be totally and peacefully dissolved".

In its place, Rabbi Cohen said, should be "a regime fully in accordance with the aspirations of the Palestinians when Arab and Jew will be able to live peacefully together as they did for centuries".

Neturei Karta believes the very idea of an Israeli state goes against the Jewish religion.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/magazine/6171503.stm

How very ecumenical of the Iranian leader ...

[molly bloom]

Originally posted by Wezil


I don't think you are referring to me (I never once claimed Mr. Denier is reasonable), but do you think I hate the US?

Anyone who disagrees with the opinions of an American is Usaphobic !

[Sirotnikov]

Originally posted by Imran Siddiqui
Bingo. Sometimes I wonder why our heads of state are such idiots. But then I consider if this is just all their plan. Better to portray the reformist President as having no power and the reactionary President as being an "autocrat" to continue a certain US foreign policy towards Iran.

While I don't dispute the fact that there is much exaggeration, you can't deny that different people play a different part even when they have the same role.

A hawkish president of strong character and charisma, that has backing for his agenda from the non-democratic elites, will have a whole lot more influence than A reformist president of a weak character that is despised and undermined by the ruling elites.

I'm not claiming that Ahmedinejad is the strongest most supported president. But he is definitely better placed than Hattami, within the high circles of power.

[molly bloom]

Originally posted by lord of the mark


I dont think Ahmahdinajad has a leg to stand on complainging about "rudeness".

The mark of a good host is that no matter how rude, insensitive or unpleasant a guest, you don't treat them with disrespect. That's the point of hospitality.


They simply don't get another invitation.

Really, whatever happened to old-fashioned manners across the water ?

[Imran Siddiqui]

Originally posted by Sirotnikov
While I don't dispute the fact that there is much exaggeration, you can't deny that different people play a different part even when they have the same role.

A hawkish president of strong character and charisma, that has backing for his agenda from the non-democratic elites, will have a whole lot more influence than A reformist president of a weak character that is despised and undermined by the ruling elites.

I'm not claiming that Ahmedinejad is the strongest most supported president. But he is definitely better placed than Hattami, within the high circles of power.

Though, on the other hand, quite recently, Ahmedinejad's biggest political rival in the last Presidential election, Rafsanjani has been placed in a prime position on the Council and most of Ahmedinejad's allies have been replaced. It seems to indicate that any support Ahmedinejad had from the higher ups is basically gone.

He may have had more support earlier on in his Presidency. But it seems that is mostly gone by now.

[molly bloom]

Originally posted by lord of the mark

Its a university, that, for some reason, has invited a man to speak who organized a conference to deny a well known historical truth, a historical truth at the core of modern history. To introduce the man, without contesting his opinions from the get go would be to give some legitimacy, however small, to holocaust denial.

I disagree. The end result of Holocaust denier and racist David Irving's libel action against Deborah Lipstadt and Penguin Books was a comprehensive debunking of Irving's (and other holocaust deniers') methods, opinions and writings.

He was publicly labelled a liar, a creator of historical falsehoods, a falsifier of evidence, a racist and all in open court.


Let the deniers come- but demolish their arguments openly again and again. To deny them the opportunity to boast of their ignorance and display their misattributions and distortions of history is to encourage people who may be undecided or uneducated in such matters to think them martyrs for their cause- oppressed by the 'Zionist-controlled' media.

Ironic, given Irving's failed attempts to suppress a book written by a Jewish academic .

Lipstadt has spent years exposing the arguments of Nazi sympathisers. She warns historians must "remain ever vigilant" against those who say the Holocaust was a hoax, "so that the precious tools of our trade and our society - truth and reason - can prevail".

The showdown came in January 2000 when she stood accused of libel for describing Irving in a book as "one of the most dangerous spokespersons for Holocaust denial"; he accused her of "vandalising" his legitimacy as an historian.

The 32-day trial became a legal debate on the history of the Nazis - and the nature of truth itself.

Mr Justice Gray witheringly described Irving as anti-Semitic, racist and a Holocaust denier who had "deliberately misrepresented and manipulated historical evidence".

Irving had comprehensively lost not just his money, but his reputation.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk/4578534.stm

[Kidlicious]

Originally posted by molly bloom


The mark of a good host is that no matter how rude, insensitive or unpleasant a guest, you don't treat them with disrespect. That's the point of hospitality.


They simply don't get another invitation.

Really, whatever happened to old-fashioned manners across the water ?

I think generally in the US it's more offensive to be rude as the guest than as the host.

[molly bloom]

Originally posted by lord of the mark


because massad isnt a holocaust denier.

So you're not allowed to deny the Holocaust but you are allowed to hate the homos ?

Well, we all have our moral choices to make, don't we ?

Perhaps I could do a quick straw poll of my gay Jewish friends and see whose stance they find more offensive...

[molly bloom]

Originally posted by Wiglaf

DO NOT YOU DARE. I am amazed you compare Iran (which sponsors organizations devoted to bombing Israelis in markets) to the US supporting bin Laden to fight communist occupation forces, or Kurds in defense of Saddam's brazen chemical attacks, or Cubans fighting a dictator.

Hilariously ill-informed and illogical.

(Afghan 'freedom fighter' Abdul Haq) ...met Margaret Thatcher and Ronald Reagan several times. I remember one night having dinner with him when he regaled us with jokes about his tour of 10 Downing Street and the antics of Thatcher's officials. He told her repeatedly to give him more weapons...


Thus, after September 11th 2001, Margaret Thatcher chided British Muslim leaders for not having been sufficiently robust in their condemnation of Afghan terrorism.

" Passengers on those planes were told they were going to die and there were children on board," she raged.

" They must say that is disgraceful..."

In 1986 she (Thatcher) had invited the young Afghan resistance leader Abdul Haq to fly to London at the British taxpayers' expense and be entertained in Downing Street.

Haq was a self-confessed terrorist who in September 1984 had planted a bomb at Kabul airport, killing twenty-eight people - most of them schoolchildren who were preparing to fly to Moscow.

His purpose, he explained, was 'to warn people not to send their children to the Soviet Union'.

He also defended the firing of long-range rockets at Kabul, which had killed many civilians and children.

" We use poor rockets, we cannot control them," he shrugged.

" They sometimes miss. I don't care... if I kill 50 civilians."

Did Thatcher... rebuke Haq for his 'disgraceful' callousness?

Far from it: she exhorted him to persevere with 'one of the most heroic resistance struggles known to history.'

(

Francis Wheen, 'How Mumbo-Jumbo Conquered The World', p181-2

So Wigout- dead Afghan schoolchildren good, dead Israeli civilians bad ?


That well-known 'legitimate' target, the Cuban National Fencing Team:

Mr Posada is accused of fraud and making false statements on an application for US citizenship he made after he arrived in the country in 2005.

According to court documents, Mr Posada said he was smuggled into the US by land, but an investigation found he actually arrived by boat.

Last month, the Cuban foreign ministry described the immigration charges as a legal pretext to avoid having Mr Posada tried on murder and terrorism charges.

The former CIA operative, now 78, came to the US after serving time in Panama for plotting to kill Cuban President Fidel Castro at a regional summit there in 2002.

He faced deportation from the US, but a judge ruled he could not be deported to Cuba or Venezuela over fears he might be tortured.

No other country was willing to accept him.

Venezuela wants to try Mr Posada - who was born in Cuba but has Venezuelan citizenship - in connection with the bombing of the plane, which was flying to Cuba from Caracas.

The Cuban plane exploded over Barbados in 1976, killing all 73 people on board - including Cuba's entire fencing team.

He has denied involvement in the plane bombing.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/americas/6367297.stm

[lord of the mark]

Originally posted by molly bloom


So you're not allowed to deny the Holocaust but you are allowed to hate the homos ?

I find both deeply offensive. Im really not familiar in detail with Massads views on homosexuality. If hes denying the well documented existence of an historical event in which millions of homosexuals are killed, going even so far as to organize a conference including the most dishonest pseudohistorians to do it, Id expect Columbia to do whatever it can to fire him, right off. All the more so if he COMBINED that with other reprehensible things, as Ahjmadinajad has done.


There are certainly many people who want Massad fired from Columbia, and Id be happy to share some links, if youre interested in supporting them.

[molly bloom]

Originally posted by Kidicious


I think generally in the US it's more offensive to be rude as the guest than as the host.

If an invitation has been extended to someone, then the person acting as host has an obligation to extend hospitality.

No matter if your guest farts at the dinner table, leers at your wife's or daughter's breasts, spills food on your Turkish carpet and leaves skidmarks in the lavatory, you are always the perfect host.


That enables you to feel morally (and culturally) superior to the ignoble klutz whose presence you've put up with.

[Kidlicious]

I'm the kind of person who, when it comes to manners, I choose my own, as opposed to letting society choose them for me. Maybe other Americans are like that.

It actually bothers me to see scum like this treated with the same respect as everyone else.

Also, I could care less if a bunch of idiots in Iran think highly of this guy.

[lord of the mark]

Originally posted by molly bloom


Other Jews were present at the 'Holocaust' conference in Iran, were they not ?

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/magazine/6171503.stm

How very ecumenical of the Iranian leader ...

lol!. Yes, those Neturei Karta are so mainstream that even members of the ant-modernist, deeply anti-zionist Satmar sect were repelled and ostracized them when they got home.

BTW, Im sure youd be delighted at Neturei Kartas views on sexual orientation.

I think we could find Iranians alot more mainstream to invite to NYC who despise the current regime.


And yeah, I know you were joking. Whatever.

[lord of the mark]

Originally posted by molly bloom


If an invitation has been extended to someone, then the person acting as host has an obligation to extend hospitality.

No matter if your guest farts at the dinner table, leers at your wife's or daughter's breasts, spills food on your Turkish carpet and leaves skidmarks in the lavatory, you are always the perfect host.


That enables you to feel morally (and culturally) superior to the ignoble klutz whose presence you've put up with.

This wasnt a dinner party. It was an academic setting, a speech and questions, including introductory questions. YOu cant judge it by the standards of a dinner party.