#3
And there is the 2000 white farmers who have been slaughtered since liberation. On the bright side, white emigrants are real assets to America. I have yet to meet one who was not a success.
#5
Procopius - Are you talking about all the way back to the colonial period under the Brits, or the apartheid period after independence? There's a pretty good argument to be made that things are bad now and were bad in a different way under apartheid.
The damage to SA society done by generations of white supremacist government were never going to be fixed by a simple change at the top. Whether SA will ever become a functional country under majority is an open question (it clearly isn't now), but ending apartheid seems like a necessary first step.
#1
See, iffin you're a leftist there's no contradiction in holding a ceremony singing Horst Wessel Lied followed by The Internationale, albeit, they'll never admit it.
. . . What does he believe? What does he stand for? This is, after all, the central question. When it is pointed out that he has had almost--almost--two years in the U.S. Senate, and before that was an obscure state legislator in Illinois, his supporters compare him to Lincoln. But Lincoln had become a national voice on the great issue of the day, slavery. He rose with a reason. Sen. Obama's rise is not about a stand or an issue or a question; it is about Sen. Obama. People project their hopes on him, he says.
He's exactly right. Just so we all know it's projection.
He doesn't have an issue, he has a thousand issues, which is the same as having none, in the sense that a speech about everything is a speech about nothing. And on those issues he seems not so much to be guided by philosophy as by impulses, sentiments. From "The Audacity of Hope," his latest book: "[O]ur democracy might work a bit better if we recognized that all of us possess values that are worthy of respect." "I value good manners." When not attempting to elevate the bromidic to the profound, he lapses into the language of political consultants--"our message," "wedge issues," "moral language." Ronald Reagan had "a durable narrative." Parts of the book, the best parts, are warm, anecdotal, human. But much of it pretends to a seriousness that is not borne out. . . .
. . . It seems to me that our political history has been marked the past 10 years by lurches, reactions and swerves, and I wonder if historians will see the era that started in the mid-'90s as The Long Freakout. First the Clinton era left more than half the country appalled--deeply appalled, and ashamed--by its series of political, financial and personal scandals. I doubt the Democratic Party will ever fully understand the damage done in those days. In reaction the Republican Party lurched in its presidential decision toward a relatively untested (five years in the governor's office, before that very little) man whom party professionals chose, essentially, because "He can win" and the base endorsed because he seemed the opposite of Bill Clinton. The 2000 election was a national trauma, and I'm not sure Republicans fully understand what it did to half the Democrats in the country to think the election was stolen, or finagled, or arranged by unseen powers. Then 9/11. Now we have had six years of high drama and deep division, and again a new savior seems to beckon, one who is so clearly Not Bush.
We'll see what Sen. Obama has, what he is, what he becomes. But right now he seems part of a pattern of lurches and swerves--the man from nowhere, of whom little is known, who will bring us out of the mess. His sudden rise and wild popularity seem more symptom than solution. And I wonder if historians will call this chapter in their future histories of the modern era not "A Decision Is Made" but "The Freakout Continues."
Posted by: Mike ||
12/15/2006 07:07 ||
Comments ||
Link ||
[2 views]
Top|| File under:
#3
Hillary! already has him booked for a picnic at Ft. Marcy Park in fall 2007...
Posted by: M. Murcek ||
12/15/2006 12:00 Comments ||
Top||
#4
I know he's big on the whole 'Infanticide' thing. That really gets him hot. Nothing like butchering babies to make a man's day. The rest is typical leftism wrapped in a pretty smile and a smooth voice.
From the always superb www.powerline.com - Mike
Most of our readers know the story of Joshua Lawrence Chamberlain at Gettysburg. Ordered to hold Little Round Top at all costs, Chamberlain's 20th Maine fended off one attack after another. Finally, Chamberlain's men were nearly out of ammunition and it was clear they would not be able to withstand another assault. Prudence counseled retreat, but Chamberlain's orders forbade it. The Maine regiment could neither fall back nor stay where it was, so Chamberlain took the only course open to him: he told his men to fix bayonets and prepare to charge.
It strikes me that you, President Bush, are in a similar situation in Iraq. You know (if many liberals do not) that retreat is out of the question. Yet the status quo is untenable. Support for your administration's policy is evaporating. Iraq is being pacified too slowly if at all, and minor tinkering around the edges--a few more men, some more training of Iraqis--won't make much difference. You need a decisive stroke. You need to tip the table over. You need to attack.
Posted by: Mike Kozlowski ||
12/15/2006 08:51 ||
Comments ||
Link ||
[2 views]
Top|| File under:
#1
I got chills reading this. Fix bayonets, Mr. President.
Posted by: Mark Z ||
12/15/2006 9:53 Comments ||
Top||
#2
Excellent! Precisely what is needed, ATTACK, ATTACK, ATTACK! Slay anyone who resists, and slay most, but not all, of the onlookers. The TTP and "fight" here has become basecamp Vietlite! Send the lawyers home, shi* can the ROE, arm the troops to the teeth and send them forth. It'll be quiet in 6 months or less!
#3
IMHO if the President did exactly what PowerLine advocates without bringing on at least the new Dem leadership, it would be in political terms the equivalent of the invasion of Cambodia. The Dhimmis may not be as willing as they said to bail now, but I fear something like that would end up invoking the War powers Act, or worse.
We just paid the cost, it's called the 2006 midterms.
Bringing the left on board not only would be impossible politically, but it would be like bringing Al Jazeera into a military campaign planning session. Not matter what someone, namely our hostile military enemies, would be tipped off.
My thinking is that had the left shown the slightest inclination to help us keep secrets in a time of war, and to back the war they themselves originally voted for I would have no problem with Bush brining Pelosi and her drapers into his confidence.
But that hasn't happened.
We have a press and a leftist political opposition that thinks nothing of undermining our military operations and war, helping our armed and hostile enemy kill more Americans as well as Iraqis.
Why should we hand them another opportunity to do so without threatening dire legal consequences to the leakers and defeatists amoungst them, and then following with vigorous prosecutions through if when they do?
#4
Commandeer a half hour in prime time to tell the American people, and the world, that we have clear evidence of Iran's involvement in killing American servicemen.
That's exactly what Colin Powell did at President Bush's orders to justify the invasion of Iraq (except for the commandeering part). Ever since, we've had to hear a worldwide litany of lies, faked pictures, there never were any WMD etc and so forth. All the evidence in the world, all the smoking guns and tearful confessions by the head of the Iranian program on CNN wouldn't buy us the belief of that portion of the nation and the world that simply does not want to believe. The only way to make it fly would be for the heads of Germany, France and Russia to lay out the evidence with great indignation, and that will never, ever happen.
#5
I agree badanov. This is silly talk at this point. This is what should have been done intitially. Now the opportunity has been pissed away. Aren't you folks reading the news ? The Donks are going to have GW and Cheney paralyzed by investigations. Any further actions to ramp troop levels etc. will be stymied if not outright rejected. Funding will be delayed by endless debating. This round has been lost. That's why this administrations' actions thru the summer and fall were so critical. And, they blew it. So, the power has changed. For two more years. Troop retraction, if not outright withdrawal would be prudent right now. We need to regroup. Get the force level back up. Replace the equipment. Get ready for the next round. We have to be extremely careful of who is nominated in 2008 so we have a chance to win. Not McCain. Guilianni can't do it either. I really don't know who. But, if Hilldebest wins with Demo majorities in control, you'll see another military force bleedout like the 90's. This is what is so very, very important now.
#6
TW, most Americans (at least the ones in the South and Midwest) don't care the tiniest bit about world opinion (The rest of the world really doesn't want to know what we think of them.) and as for the rest of our countrymen, their Bush Derangement Syndrome is so severe they begrudge him his every breath. The president only has to convince real Americans of the necessity of his actions and be willing to ignore the rest.
#7
SpecOp: Defeatest drivel you're spewing mate! Ruck up man! Corrective action, immediately taken in the proper kill boxes will put the administration back on track! Nothing works like success. Give the troops the tools and ROE, they will succeed. Fuc* the donks and commies. The 65% solution, employed AGGRESSIVELY and WITH ENTHUSIASM WILL PRODUCE SUCCESS!
#10
Nothing like the clairity of being there and doing it, eh Beso? We should force congress into a "Ride Along" program outside the Green zone. That just might change a few things. There are only a few times, and war is one, when you attack first and talk after the dust settles. Iran has been asking for it since 1979, my vote is to give it to the political and military targets in spades!
Posted by: 49 Pan ||
12/15/2006 13:46 Comments ||
Top||
#11
Sorry to disappoint Besoeker. I personally feel as you do. I've said that over the past coupla years. But the public mood in US has changed. That's a reality that has to be faced. When this new Congress convenes, they're going to beat on GW like a little tin drum. They thought their olive branch, Baker-Hamilton, would be swallowed like the bad medicine it is. Georgie spit it out. They're gonna be on him like stink on shit. Watch and see. I'm still upset that this wasn't done right from day one. I believe in fighting with ferocity and killing all the enemy I see. I was always in trouble for this, because higher ups always have to pull thier thumbs out of their ass and stick them in the wind to see what kind of hell they're going to catch. But the opportunity has passed. You'll see. They won't appropriate operations funding. They won't replace the equipment that is needed ASAP. They will probably not approve further deployment of Guard/Reserve. The troops can be moved from Korea. That should have been done two years ago. But even that requires funding. I just don't see it, that's all. Unfortunately, I've seen this cycle happen before, so I remain a pessimist.
#13
The factor or dimension of TIME is as much agz Iran and Radical Islam as it is for both the USA + Russia = Russia-China/SCO. By asking for circa US$100B in new war funding + potentially emplacing War Reserve stockpiles inside Israel proper, IMO Dubya appears to be going for a "FORTRESS IRAQ/ME" scenario, i.e. isolating and letting Radical Iran tip its hand vv TIME FACTOR, to include LEBANON. FORTIFY IRAQ'S BORDERS, DESTROY = CONTAIN RADICAL INSURGENCY FROM INSIDE IRAQ + LEBANON + AFGHANISTAN, FORTIFY ISRAEL + OTHER ALLIES, USE UNO + UNSC SANCTIONS TO FULL EXTENT, then let Moud + Radics do the rest. Moud + Mullahs will have to either appease or risk political-revolutionary overthrow, or else ATTACK to save political careers + RADICAL POLITICAL AGENDAS OUTSIDE OF IRAN. POLITISCHTICK ASIDE, ONE-TWO YEARS IS MORE THAN ENUFF TIME FOR ANY MIL COMMANDER TO DESTROY-PACIFY-CONTAIN LOCAL INSURGENTS, , i.e. so-called "RE-INVADE/RE-INVASION" OF IRAQ, and the USA can easily outlast Moud. And, Dubya can still bomb Iranian nuclear targets iff need be. Radical Iran will have to either attack = wage war or give up its ambitions for Shia-centric ME Empire. Considering MOud's famous "visions", IMO I expect MOUD'S REACTION TO BE TO ATTACK, i.e. GO ON REGION-WIDE = GLOBAL OFFENSIVE vv NEW TERROR, which for CONUS means risking "Amer Hiroshimas" event(s) whose focii is taking out Dubya + US NPE/USG directly. REMEMBER, WE ARE DEALING WID PERSONAGES WHOM HAD ALREADY DECIDED TO TAKE THE WORLD WID THEM TO HELL IFF AMERICA DOES NOT ADOPT OWG + ANTI-AMER AMER SOCIALISM.
LESSON OF 9-11 > AMERICA SURRENDERS, OR IT WILL DESTROYED, BY ANY MEANS NECESSARY, INCLUDING BUT NOT LIMITED TO RUSSO-CHICOM "WAR NOT ONLY POSSIBLE BUT DESIRED" MAD NUKE WAR.
Funny thing about the recent op-ed by Nawaf Obaid in The Washington Post outlining likely Saudi actions if the United States withdraws from Iraq: namely, that Saudis would both support Sunnis in Iraq (versus Shi'ites supported by Iran) and manipulate the oil market to "strangle" the Iranian economy.
I think it sounds peachy, this let-them-devour-each-other strategy which I'm guessing many Americans mutter to one another in frankness, if not also in confidence.
After the column appeared, not only did the Saudi government disavow it, but Mr. Obaid was fired from his job advising the Saudi ambassador to the United States, Prince Turki al-Faisal. Hmmm, thought Saudi-ologists.
Before anyone could say, "shifting desert sands," Mr. Turki resigned his post in Washington, hightailing it back to the so-called kingdom for reasons unknown but possibly concerning machinations related to securing the post of foreign minister long held by Mr. Turki's ailing brother, Prince Saud al-Faisal. The post is also coveted by former Saudi ambassador to the United States, Prince Bandar bin Sultan. Hmmm again.
But now it seems the Obaid column "reflected the view of the Saudi government," after all. At least, that's the way the New York Times tells it. Meanwhile, the Associated Press is reporting that "private" Saudi money is already supporting Sunni forces in Iraq. According to the New York Times, this private funding could easily become official Saudi policy. While Saudi leaders say they have so far withheld support from al Qaeda-led Sunni groups in Iraq, the newspaper explains, "if Iraq's sectarian violence worsened, the Saudis would line up with Sunni tribal leaders" al Qaeda or no al Qaeda. Meanwhile, we already know Iran is backing, if not guiding, Iraqi Shi'ites.
#2
... that's because neither group dares to reckon with the two greatest obstacles to our efforts in the region: namely, Islam (culturally unsuited to Westernity) and our own politically correct ROE, or rules of engagement (strategically unsuited to victory).
Bing-effing-go!
In other words, it's a disgrace for military brass to talk about the 21st-century struggle with Islam as necessarily being a 50- to 100-year war. Ridiculous. It could be over in two weeks if we cared enough to blast our way off the list of endangered civilizations.
Nice to see someone with the courage to put this in print. Without radical reform of Islam, the tipping point will be reached. Islam's abject refusal to reform itself makes the Muslim holocaust only a matter of time.
If Iran, the jihad-supporting leader of the Shi'ite world, is being "strangled" by Saudi Arabia, the jihad-supporting leader of the Sunni world, isn't that good for the Sunni-and-Shiite-terrorized West?
With the two main sects of Islam preoccupied with an internecine battle of epic proportions, the non-Muslim world gets some breathing room. And we sure could use it to plan for the next round.
Close but no cigar. Nuclear weapons have changed any such notion. We must adopt, at least, a policy of "breaking things". Iran's nuclear program tops the list. Aside from that, it may well be best to simply let our enemies fill the gutters with their own blood. Fuck knows there isn't a more richly deserving bunch of psychotically violent ingrate bastards on the face of this earth.
Our unwillingness to kill 40,000 in one night of bombing, is, in large part, why the need to arises more often. All this "enlightened, humane" stuff overlooks the fact that mass casualties are the point. By eliminating it, we remove the enemy's disincentive to make war.
So, it appears they'll have to nuke us out of the illusion that wars can be won without really hurting anyone.
#8
I would like to see the Muslims fight themselves to oblivion, however, that would effect oil supplies. Our best bet is to work with the Sunnis against Iran, etc.
Iraq's Kurds are on their own. However, taking Baghdad for example, 80% of its neighborhoods are mixed Sunni-Shiite. Once sect has to dominate.
Posted by: M. Murcek ||
12/15/2006 12:04 Comments ||
Top||
#10
Let them fight. If it affects the oil supplies the price goes up and we look for alternatives. Eventually those alternatives become economically viable and they have less and less money to fight with. Eventually turning to scimitars and sand in their attempts to conquer the world.
#11
Rantburg does provide an extremely efficient education. Someday Fred's archives will be required reading for the better poli sci, comparative anthropology, philosophy of logic, psychology (trollery: expression of neurosis or psychosis?), and several other undergraduate degree programs... and I suspect more than a few dissertation topics as well. And then there are the science bits, military history, comparative religions...
#12
Check out this situation map of Baghdad. As you can see, most incidents - and this was prior to the 5 car bomb attack on Sadr City - are occurring in mixed Sunni-Shiite neighborhoods between the 2 Sunni strips. The Mahdi Army appears to be prevailing. If they dominate, then they will go after US held Baghdad Airport.
#13
See SHERMAN AND TOTAL WAR over at WINDSOFCHANGE.net. Sherman > "WAR IS CRUELTY/HELL" > CRUELTY WITH A PURPOSE, NOT WANTON, RECKLESS SLAUGHTER FOR SLAUGHTER'S SAKE -'Ole Sherm would agree that the primary purpose or premise of war is to CAUSE AN ENEMY TO CHANGE HIS MIND AND GIVE UP CONFLICT, NOT WIN A POLITICAL ELECTION.
By Charles Krauthammer
As a result of the Iraq Study Group, President Bush has been given one last chance to alter course on Iraq. This did not, however, come about the way James Baker intended. It came about because the long-anticipated report turned out to be, as is widely agreed, a farce. From its wildly hyped, multiple magazine-cover rollout (Annie Leibovitz in Men's Vogue, no less) to its mishmash of 79 (no less) recommendations, the report has fallen so flat that the field is now clear for the president to recommend to a war-weary country something new and bold.
The study group has not just been attacked by left and right, Democrat and Republican. It has invited ridicule. Seventy-nine recommendations. Interdependent, insists Baker. They should be taken as a whole. "I hope we don't treat this like a fruit salad and say, 'I like this but I don't like that.' " On the basis of what grand unifying vision? On the authority of what superior wisdom? A 10-person commission including such Middle East experts as Sandra Day O'Connor, Alan Simpson and Vernon Jordan?
#1
Bush has a free hand, as long as he pulls off a Reagan' fait accompli. President Reagan explained why he invaded Panama and Grenada, after operations began. Debbie Schlussel posts a great ISG critique.
#2
Victory needs no explanation. Provide our soldiers with the tools (ROE) and the leadership necessary to achieve success and all of this media and beltway rubbish will die.
#3
But having told us that the price of leaving Iraq to chaos is unacceptably high, the commission never attempts to come up with a plan for succeeding. Its only new initiative is to go regional and involve neighboring Syria and Iran.
What is it with this modern trend of criticism that is utterly devoid of functional alternatives? Has forensic debate gone the way of the dodo? History is replete with lessons that all prove the worthlessness negative criticism (as opposed to its constructive opposite).
Modern liberals seem to work overtime on cornering this niche market, but this latest report shows that it is still a wide open territory. Krauthammer is spot on in translating Baker's report as a golden (and possibly last) opportunity for Bush to re-establish context for our involvement in Iraq.
Okay. Imagine that there is peace between Israel and the Arabs. No, imagine an even better solution from the Arab point of view -- an earthquake that tomorrow swallows Israel whole and sinks it (like Santorini, 1650 B.C.) into the Mediterranean. Does anyone imagine that the Shiites stop killing Sunnis? That al-Qaeda stops killing Americans? That Iran and Syria work any less assiduously to destabilize post-Saddam Hussein Iraq?
Saddest of all is how the above quote cannot simply be trotted out by Bush in its unvarnished state. I have steadfastly maintained that the one last lesson we must extract from our Iraqi campaign is the profound glee with which Muslims slaughter each other. If this prime indicator of what awaits us, subsequent to some glorious future Islamic unification, cannot be driven home as the raison d'etre for our Global War on Terrorism, then a serious lesson will have been lost.
By: Yigal Carmon*
Today, December 14, 2006, a symposium titled "Holocaust Denial: Paving the Way to Genocide" was held at Yad Vashem in Jerusalem. MEMRI President and Founder Yigal Carmon spoke at the symposium.
The persistent Holocaust denial of Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad raises a vital question that needs to be addressed: What function does this denial serve in the ideology of the Iranian regime and in its strategy? The answer to this question bears cardinal importance to the future of the State of Israel.
When we, at The Middle East Media Research Institute, collect and analyze the statements made by Ahmadinejad and others in the Iranian regime, we can distinguish two major goals, both of which lead to the same conclusion: the Iranian regime's Holocaust denial is not a manifestation of irrational hatred, but a premeditated and cold-blooded instrument to achieve its goals.
Denial of Israel's Legitimacy
The first of these goals is the attempt to deny any legitimacy to the creation and continued existence of the State of Israel as a safe haven for the Jews after the Holocaust. In order to achieve this goal, he proclaims that no Holocaust occurred, and that if Jews were indeed harmed in World War II - a claim that requires thorough and "objective" research - this was no different than the experience of others in World War II. At any rate, Ahmadinejad and other top Iranian officials claim that this "myth" cannot justify the establishment of Israel in Palestine.
Elimination of the Zionist Entity, i.e. Israel
The second goal is - as often proclaimed by Ahmadinejad - to "wipe Israel off the map." His Holocaust denial is therefore planned, intentional, and premeditated. He is aware that as long as the world remembers the Holocaust, it will resist any new attempt to perpetrate another genocide against the Jews. Thus, eradicating the memory of the Holocaust is essential in order to achieve his goal.
Demonization
In order for Ahmadinejad to bring his plans to fruition, however, he has to demonize the Jews and the State of Israel. Demonization is a necessary precondition for genocide. As we well know, Hitler first engaged in a major campaign of demonization of the Jews before actually murdering them en masse. Ahmadinejad and the Iranian regime are taking the same path, and are conducting a similar virulent, antisemitic campaign of demonization.
To this end, Iranian state-controlled television produces various TV series dedicated to the demonization of Jews. These include classic blood libels, depicting Jews as using the blood of non-Jewish children to bake their Passover matzos, and as kidnapping non-Jewish children to steal their body parts. Jews are reduced to sub-human levels, depicted as pigs and apes. They are accused of persecuting the Prophet Muhammad in voodoo ritualistic scenes, and as tormenting a historic figure reminiscent of Jesus on the Cross. All these TV series exist alongside others that deny the Holocaust.
Again, it should be stressed that all these phenomena are interrelated, and are state-directed at the highest level. It is most indicative that Ahmadinejad's first public appearance after coming to power was made before television producers.
All this is done in order to achieve the goal of demonization of Jews and Israel, which, as I mentioned earlier, is vital for their elimination. However, it is not possible to demonize a people as long as it is viewed as a victim of the Holocaust. Therefore, as long as the Jews are perceived as victims of the Holocaust, this demonization cannot take root. Holocaust denial is thus vital, in order to wipe out the image of the Jews as victims.
This is the reason why these three elements - Holocaust denial, the elimination of the State of Israel, and demonization of the Jews - are constantly present in statements by Ahmadinejad and other senior Iranian officials.
Let us hear the Iranians in their own words. True, many of these statements have already circulated separately in the media. But hearing them together, in the context I have just outlined, will enable us to understand their function and significance within the ideology and strategy of the Iranian regime.
In his well-known speech at the Iranian "World Without Zionism" conference on October 23, 2005, Ahmadinejad laid out his views on the State of Israel. It is an absolute evil, a tool in the hands of the West to dominate the Muslims. In reply to those who ask if it is indeed possible to bring about a world without America and Zionism, he says: "You had best know that this slogan and this goal are attainable, and can surely be achieved."
Later, he cites Khomeini: "The Imam said: 'This regime that is occupying Qods [Jerusalem] must be eliminated from the pages of history.'" Commenting on this statement by his spiritual mentor, Ahmadinejad says: "This sentence is very wise. The issue of Palestine is not an issue on which we can compromise." Later he adds, "Very soon this stain of disgrace [i.e. Israel] will be purged from the center of the Islamic world - and this is attainable." This speech clearly announced the ultimate goal: the elimination of Israel.
At the Organization of the Islamic Conference meeting, which took place in Mecca in early December 2005, Ahmadinejad made statements that explicitly tied this goal with Holocaust denial: "Some European countries are insisting on saying that Hitler burned millions of oppressed Jews in crematoria. They insist so much on this issue that if someone proves the opposite, they convict him and throw him into prison. Although we do not accept this claim, let's assume that it is true, and we ask the Europeans: Does the killing of oppressed Jews by Hitler [justify] their support for the regime that is occupying Jerusalem?..."
This statement by Ahmadinejad is telling. The implication is that the Holocaust is the only justification for the existence of Israel. The line, therefore, is twofold: a) the Holocaust is a myth, and b) even if it is true, it cannot justify Israel's existence. In either case, Ahmadinejad's primary obsession is not with the Holocaust, but with Israel's very existence. If the Holocaust gets in the way of achieving this goal, it must be denied.
Later on in the same speech, he adds: "If you [Europeans] think that you committed an injustice against the Jews, why must the Muslims and the Palestinians pay the price for it? All right, you oppressed [the Jews]. So put some of Europe at the disposal of this Zionist regime..." Again, the guiding principle is that Israel cannot exist. Holocaust denial is important to Ahmadinejad because the Holocaust lends moral justification to the creation and continued existence of the State of Israel.
In the speech you saw earlier on the DVD, from December 14, 2005, Ahmadinejad once again linked these two elements together. He calls the Holocaust a "myth," but also adds: "If you [Europeans] are correct in saying that you killed six million Jews in World War II If you committed a crime, it is only appropriate that you place a piece of your land at their disposal - in Europe, America, Canada, or Alaska " Once again, Holocaust denial is important to Ahmadinejad first and foremost as a means of de-legitimizing Israel's existence, and since the goal is the elimination of Israel, the speech includes the necessary element of demonization as well.
Then the Iranian president takes pains to portray the Jews as the true oppressors, and not as victims. "Zionism itself is a Western ideology and a colonialist idea, with secular ideas and fascist methods, which was founded by the English. So far, with the help and direct guidance of America and part of Europe, [Zionism] is slaughtering the Muslims." Later on in the speech, he says: "An important question that the Western countries and media must answer clearly is: What crime did they [i.e. the West] commit at that time [i.e. WWII] that the Zionists are not committing today? In essence, Zionism is a new Fascism "
This, therefore, is Ahmadinejad's truth: the Zionists are the true oppressors and murderers. But while at times Ahmadinejad claims to differentiate between Zionists and Jews in general, in truth, this campaign of demonization uses and abuses history to depict Jews throughout the ages - not Zionists alone - as oppressors and murderers.
As you have just seen in the DVD, the true Holocaust, as portrayed by Ahmadinejad, was committed by the Jews: for example, by the Jewish king of Yemen, Yosef Dhu Nuwas, who, he claims, burned the Christians in the early days of Christianity, and by the Iranian Jews, as described in the Book of Esther. Moreover, Jews in modern times are continuing their murderous ways: killing large numbers of Christian children in London and Paris - again, as you saw with your own eyes - in order to procure blood for Passover matzos.
To sum up, Holocaust denial is an inextricable part of demonization, on the way to the final goal: the elimination of Israel.
All these elements figure prominently in the identity and works of those invited by the Iranian regime to the Holocaust denial conference in Tehran. First and foremost is their explicit opposition to Israel's existence. This is why members of the anti-Zionist Jewish sect of Neturei Karta were invited, following the ongoing, strong ties maintained by the Iranian regime with them. Then comes the demonization of Jews in order to justify the agenda of elimination. Thus the invitation of Holocaust deniers, such as Frederick Toben, who not only denies the Holocaust, but also claims that the Jews intentionally spread the AIDS virus in the U.S.
In essence, the speech made by Ahmadinejad at the Holocaust denial conference best illustrates the role of Holocaust denial in the ideology and strategy of the Iranian regime. He begins his speech by addressing the Holocaust deniers participating in the conference: "Iran is your home, and here you can express your opinions freely, in a friendly manner and in a free atmosphere." Then, without batting an eyelid, he adds: "The life-curve of the Zionist regime has begun its descent, and it is now on a downward slope towards its fall I tell you now the Zionist regime will be wiped out, and humanity will be liberated."
Its time again for JunkScience.coms review of the most notable junk science events of the year a top 10 list that may sometimes make you think that the year 1007, rather than 2007, is just around the corner.
1. Some Real Inconvenient Truth. Al Gore whipped the world into a global warming frenzy with his doomsday documentary, An Inconvenient Truth. I personally asked Mr. Gore to help arrange a debate between scientists about the purported climate catastrophe. He declined (twice) without explanation leaving me to wonder why global warming alarmists are unwilling to explain why they believe in non-validated and always-wrong computer guess-timations of future climate change rather than actual temperature measurements and greenhouse-effect physics that indicate manmade emissions of greenhouse gases are not a problem.
2. Board of Health or Bored of Science? New York Citys Board of Health banned restaurants from serving foods cooked with vegetable oils containing trans fats. It apparently mattered little to the Board that the Food and Drug Administration classifies trans fats as generally recognized as safe and that the sort of science the Board relied on could also be used to ban potatoes, peas, meat, dairy products and many other food items from restaurants.
3. What Hurricane Season? The National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administrations prediction for the 2006 hurricane season was about as wrong as wrong can be. NOAA predicted only a 5 percent chance of a below-normal hurricane season but a below-normal season is precisely what happened. If NOAAs experts can be so wrong about an imminent hurricane season, why have any confidence in far more complex predictions of climate change 100 years into the future?
#1
Actually, the biggest problem with DDT is not birds, but crustaceans, and that the stuff just doesn't biodegrade. DDT found buried under river silt after 40 years is just as ppm deadly as the fresh stuff.
Therefore, though it excels as an anti-malarial pesticide, it should be used "in one fell swoop", to try and wipe out malaria, rather than over decades, to just try and reduce it.
A multi-volume chronology and reference guide set detailing three years of the Mexican Drug War between 2010 and 2012.
Rantburg.com and borderlandbeat.com correspondent and author Chris Covert presents his first non-fiction work detailing
the drug and gang related violence in Mexico.
Chris gives us Mexican press dispatches of drug and gang war violence
over three years, presented in a multi volume set intended to chronicle the death, violence and mayhem which has
dominated Mexico for six years.
Rantburg was assembled from recycled algorithms in the United States of America. No
trees were destroyed in the production of this weblog. We did hurt some, though. Sorry.
