[Gazzatrone]

I'm sick of people trying to excuse any violence in the Middle East, Africa, or other 'Third World' countries by implying that it's in their genes

Its a racist idea to suggest that third world people are in some special way genetically predisposed to war. If anything, Europeans have been much better at war. The reasons for this are complex, but probably involve culture not genetics. The superiority of Europeans at warfare is why western colonialism succeeded around the world, and western culture is the prevalent global culture today.

Similarly, the conflicts within the Moslem community that have produced a millenia of wars between the Shia and Sunni are based on historical grievances and religous and cultural differences, and have almost nothing to do with racial or genetic differences.

Maybe the notion that Third World nations are genetically predisposed to war, is rascist and has no base in actual fact. But a difference can be made between Europe and Third World nations. This is not being who is better at war but who is better at peace.

As mentioned, many of the Third World conflicts have their basis in tribal conflicts that have gone on for generations. Sunni's and Shia just can't help killing each other. It is so ingrained in their cultural make-up that they don't know any different.

[RdSnt]

You're being dis-ingenuous.
Iran has a pretty strong reason to distrust Israel. I've lost count of the number of UN resolutions that Israel is in violation of. Israel seems not to give a damn about the number of Palestinian civilians it murders. Plus Israel has nuclear weapons that it refuses to acknowledge.
Due to it's present and ongoing behaviour Israel is a canker sore in the Middle East.

I would also ask, what's the difference between Iran's nasty words towards Israel and the constant barage of vilification the the US pushes on Iran.

It was at the urging of the US that Iraq attacked Iran. It was the US that provided logistical support, weapons and WMD's to Iraq.

I don't blame the Iranians one bit for telling the US to get the hell out of the Middle East. Oh, and who was it that attacked the US? Oh yeah, it was the Saudi's.

Plantagenet said:

The typical "dirty bomb" scenario involves a terror attack within an urban center where civilians work and live.

I will reiterate, whom would Iran attack with such a weapon.

The Iranian leaders are anti-semites who have made Holocaust denial a state doctrine in Iran. They have threatened to destroy Israel many times.

The Iranians also occasionally threaten the U.S., and have a long history of enmity with the Saudis. The Iranians also fought a very bloody war with the Iraqis which involved the use of chemical WMDs by both sides, the use of suicide troops by the Iranians, and over a million casualties.

[RdSnt]

Your ignorance is breath-taking and your rascism quite obvious.
You are suggesting that Europe is better at peace is laughable.
That they choose to fight their wars by proxy, in third world countries seems to be lost on you.
It is the centuries of foreign interference that has caused such misery in "foreign" lands. That you can so casually sweep away the historical greed, outright theft and corruption of European interference in third world countries, and blame the misery there on simple tribalism, is a clear indication that imperial rascism is still firmly entrenched in the European mindset.

I'm sick of people trying to excuse any violence in the Middle East, Africa, or other 'Third World' countries by implying that it's in their genes

Its a racist idea to suggest that third world people are in some special way genetically predisposed to war. If anything, Europeans have been much better at war. The reasons for this are complex, but probably involve culture not genetics. The superiority of Europeans at warfare is why western colonialism succeeded around the world, and western culture is the prevalent global culture today.

Similarly, the conflicts within the Moslem community that have produced a millenia of wars between the Shia and Sunni are based on historical grievances and religous and cultural differences, and have almost nothing to do with racial or genetic differences.

Maybe the notion that Third World nations are genetically predisposed to war, is rascist and has no base in actual fact. But a difference can be made between Europe and Third World nations. This is not being who is better at war but who is better at peace.

As mentioned, many of the Third World conflicts have their basis in tribal conflicts that have gone on for generations. Sunni's and Shia just can't help killing each other. It is so ingrained in their cultural make-up that they don't know any different.

[evilgenius]

I think Ahmadinejad has been raving against Israel for all of the reasons stated, but that those aren't his primary reasons. I believe he is seeking to reveal the US weakness which exists because of the Saudi peak oil position. I don't think, in other words, he beieves himself when he denies the holocaust.

[evilgenius]

To clarify, if the rhetoric heats up and possibly if it expands to a limited ME conflict the Saudis would be called on to over-produce. Iran doesn't think they can. If the Saudis drop out of position then the US drops out of position. They can't control OPEC if they can't drive the price down at will.

[Plantagenet]

Ahmadinejad has been raving against Israel for all of the reasons stated, but that those aren't his primary reasons.... I don't think, in other words, he beieves himself when he denies the holocaust.

Why make excuses for Ahmadinejad's Holocaust denial and threats against the jews in Israel? The Iranian state and media, under his control, have made anti-semitism and Holocaust denial Iranian state policy. He's the leader and he has set that policy.

[mekrob]

The Iranian leaders are anti-semites who have made Holocaust denial a state doctrine in Iran.

Anti-semites? So if someone is against Israel, they are anti-Semites, rather than the correct anti-Israel? Here we go again with this BS. So I guess if you're anti-France, then you're anti-Catholic, right? Or if you're anti-China, then you're anti-Buddhist/paganism, right?

hey have threatened to destroy Israel many times.

I've never read anything of the sort that's even close to that. I've never heard them say once that they even want to harm or attack Israel. They have said that the nation of Israel will cease to exist in the future, which anyone who knows anything about PO or even an iota of history will confirm to be true.

This is not being who is better at war but who is better at peace.

But the problem is a complete lack of viewing this as a moment in the course of history. Look throughout the history of the Middle East and Europe or the US respectively. You will see that Europe had (has) been fragmented for millenia, ever since the Romans. This continued up until the bloodiest war in the history of mankind (WW2) which they had in large started and were responsible for. Even after WWII, there was still much animosity within Europe but this time it was between ideologies, rather than nation-states. So the 'peace' of Europe has only lasted a few decades which was brought on because of constant warfare which required them to make massive advances in weapon technology which they then used to 'conquer' the world and keep the rest of the world (3rd world) in 'their place', while displaying their 'peace' and 'civility'.

The history of the Middle East since the rise of Islam has been much like that of Europe, extremely complex. But the gist of it was large empires that controlled the whole of the region and the empire was able to maintain peace within the nation for the vast majority of the citizens. There were intermittent periods of violence, coups, wars, etc., but they were not massive civil wars within the region that extended for 100 years at a time or cost the lives of millions like what have happened in Europe.

It hasn't been until recently that there has been so much bloodshed between Shi'a and Sunni and that's because it's obviously a resource and power war in the country and region and would you really want to not win that war?

I've lost count of the number of UN resolutions that Israel is in violation of.

But the pro-Iraq war people will be sure to count out the dozen or so violations that Saddam was under and therefore, we were justified. Amazing.

Why make excuses for Ahmadinejad's Holocaust denial and threats against the jews in Israel?

Ahmady doesn't like Israel so he must be an anti-Semite and wish all Jews dead. Then why isn't he slaughtering the 20,000 Jews in his home nation? Perhaps because they aren't Israel? Well, just perhaps.

[Plantagenet]

Ahmady doesn't like Israel so he must be an anti-Semite

Ahmadinejad goes far beyond "not liking Israel." Ahmadinejad has made Holocaust denial the state policy in Iran. To my knowledge, Iran is the only country on earth with leaders who are so out of touch with reality that they deny that millions of jews and other people were murdered during the Holocaust.

[Plantagenet]

TEHRAN, Iran Dec 11, 2006 (AP)

Iran hosted Holocaust deniers from around the world Monday at a conference examining whether the Nazi genocide took place, a meeting Israel's prime minister condemned as a "sick phenomenon."

The 67 participants from 30 countries included former Ku Klux Klan leader David Duke and Holocaust skeptics who have been prosecuted in Europe for questioning whether 6 million Jews were killed by the Nazis or whether gas chambers were ever used.

"The number of victims at the Auschwitz concentration camp could be about 2,007," Australian Frederick Toben told the conference, according to a Farsi translation of his remarks.



-------------

[shortonoil]

Plantagenet said:

The Iranian leaders are anti-semites who have made Holocaust denial a state doctrine in Iran. They have threatened to destroy Israel many times.

Do you think they can accomplish this mission by producing a dirty bomb? The only mission that would accomplish would be to get themselves annihilated! Or do you believe that they are so full of anti-Semitic hatred that they would destroy themselves just for the opportunity to strike at Israel. That they would “happily” see their families and friends perish to deliver any kind of blow to the demonic Jews.

What source do you have that Iranian leaders have made Holocaust denial a state doctrine. As far as I’ve read nobody is deny the Holocaust, some are just suggesting that their researches indicate that the Holocaust wasn’t as extensive as originally reported right after the war. Is that the great denial to which you are referring? An historian’s view point! A Jewish historian’s view point. Demonism at work - no doubt.

[IntentionallyLeftBlank]

The problem is that a historical debate cannot be translated into state policy. The Holocaust happened, and some deluded souls can deny it , but I don't really see how sponsoring a debate about the past can make any difference on present day statecraft.

[mekrob]

Holocaust "denial" in Iran:

From the Foreign Ministry

"The Holocaust is not a sacred issue that one can't touch. I have visited the Nazi camps in Eastern Europe. I think it is exaggerated."

Ali Akbar Velayati, representative to the Supreme Leader (the real leader of Iran) Ayatollah Khamenei:

Q:

Do you think the Holocaust ever happened?

Velayati:

Yes, it did.

Javed Zarif, representative to the UN from Iran:

the Genocide of the Jews did happen, and it should not happen again.

Yup, that's definitely a state doctrine of Holocaust denial. So much so that their own ministries and representatives agree that it happened.

Ahmady-nejad has never said, at least to my knowledge (and I've tried to know as much about this issue as possible since pro-Iran war-ers are using it so fervently), that it was a myth completely. He simply doesn't believe it completely and believes that it has been exaggerrated to benefit Israel and the West.

On April 24 2006, Ahmadinejad demanded a free evaluation of the real extent of the Holocaust "in order to find the ultimate truth."

"I will only accept something as truth if I am actually convinced of it".

How can he, or anyone, be so convinced of it when nearly all of the documents are sealed and that anyone who questions the 6 million figure is labelled an anti-Semite, Holocaust denier and could be thrown in jail? If something is so true as the Holocaust, as in the 6 million and not one less, then why is there so much secrecy around it? You have to admit that there is something awfully fishy about that and that the world has a right to know the full truth and to search through the documents without fear of reprisal for going against the government's position if something of interest about the 'real' Holocaust is brought to light.

How about this?

Holocaust archives to be opened in Germany

It took FIFTY years to get those archives opened. Why all the secrecy? Are there documents about making nuclear weapons in there? Did Einstein hide his Grand Unified Theory in there and the governments never wanted anyone to know about it? Or how about governments wanted the truth to be concealed, whatever it is. And now they only open it when it's illegal to say anything that is not in complete conformity to the government's position, which is not based off of historians' views but off of their own.

[RdSnt]

You can not have a full and honest investigation of the holocost because it would indentify the complicity of far to many power industries and people in Europe and the US.
for example: IBM designed the concentration camp management system as well as the "inventory" and shipping system that fed the ovens.

Way too many living and dead bodies lurking under way too many rocks.


You know, I don't give a rats ass who they were. What I do know is that millions were murdered in the most horrifying, soulless industrial process. And there are people still alive, still in power, who profitted from it.

[Gazzatrone]

Your ignorance is breath-taking and your rascism quite obvious.
You are suggesting that Europe is better at peace is laughable.
That they choose to fight their wars by proxy, in third world countries seems to be lost on you.
It is the centuries of foreign interference that has caused such misery in "foreign" lands. That you can so casually sweep away the historical greed, outright theft and corruption of European interference in third world countries, and blame the misery there on simple tribalism, is a clear indication that imperial rascism is still firmly entrenched in the European mindset.

I'm sick of people trying to excuse any violence in the Middle East, Africa, or other 'Third World' countries by implying that it's in their genes

Its a racist idea to suggest that third world people are in some special way genetically predisposed to war. If anything, Europeans have been much better at war. The reasons for this are complex, but probably involve culture not genetics. The superiority of Europeans at warfare is why western colonialism succeeded around the world, and western culture is the prevalent global culture today.

Similarly, the conflicts within the Moslem community that have produced a millenia of wars between the Shia and Sunni are based on historical grievances and religous and cultural differences, and have almost nothing to do with racial or genetic differences.

Maybe the notion that Third World nations are genetically predisposed to war, is rascist and has no base in actual fact. But a difference can be made between Europe and Third World nations. This is not being who is better at war but who is better at peace.

As mentioned, many of the Third World conflicts have their basis in tribal conflicts that have gone on for generations. Sunni's and Shia just can't help killing each other. It is so ingrained in their cultural make-up that they don't know any different.

You know I was going to write a reply stating occassions in which war had started after Imperical countries had left colonised regions and handed back Independence to the respective sovereign nation. You know things like Burundi Civil War etc. And you know you are not wrong about Imperical intervention. But here's another thing.

I don't give a flying fuck. If Shia want to kill Sunni, what business is it of mine? I'm not guilty of anything and certainly will not be held accountable for Sins of the Fathers as it were. Nor be accused of Imperical Racism. You know the funny thing is, you called me ignorant of all the crimes that have been commited by Colonial activity. But you stop there. And your ignorance shows through itself. How many times have we seen Independence handed back to colonial territories only for it to fall into chaos? The Burundi Civil War is a classic example. Yugoslavia is one as well. How about the Tamil fight for liberation? Or the disputed region of Kashmir.

You are quick to lay blame to those that "invaded" and colonised, but you are very slow to realise that the conflicting sides that vied for control after independence was gained had the choice and option to live peacably, but ultimately old scores were hard to forget.

You should also note that I commented that

Maybe the notion that Third World nations are genetically predisposed to war, is rascist and has no base in actual fact.

If I was racist would I make a statment such as this? If I was racist I would be sure and I would make any evidence that fit with my prejudiced belief would be fact and therefore NOT racist as it would be considred truth. I questioned the validity of the notion. A racist wouldn't.

[mekrob]

If Shia want to kill Sunni, what business is it of mine?

Are you American? Well, if so, then it was your government that supported Saddam Hussein, Sunni, who oppressed Shi'a (and Kurds) for over two decades to the point that after the US overthrew him, Shi'a became wary of any Sunni rising to power and are trying to make sure that that never happens again, lest someone like Hussein rises to power.

Had the US government never helped and supported Hussein and in effect his anti-Shi'a policies for more than a decade before he became our 'enemy', then the situation in Iraq would not be where it is today.

Wanna see some other locations where Sunni and Shi'a exist? Qatar, Lebanon, Iran, Yemen, Kuwait, etc. Pretty much everywhere else there are mixtures of Sunni, Shi'a, Sufis, etc but Sunnis or Shi'a will be the overwhelming majority unlike in the previous examples where the minority sect has a substantial number of adherents.

And guess how the sects get along in those nations? Wonderfully. No Sunni-Shi'a civil war. A bit of anti-X rhetoric, but you get that anywhere, even in the US.

You are quick to lay blame to those that "invaded" and colonised, but you are very slow to realise that the conflicting sides that vied for control after independence was gained had the choice and option to live peacably, but ultimately old scores were hard to forget.

Hmm...you go into a nation, kill or exile all of the leaders, scholars, professors and scientists (because they were against your occupation and it's impossible to have an occupation of a nation if there is intelligent dissent from the leaders) and then when you leave and the nation descends into chaos (because they don't have their sensible leaders anymore) you blame the people for the chaos?

[TheDude]

How much enrichment will Iran need to do if they have Soviet materials to work with already, assuming a simple fission bomb can be built that way?
Didn't know about that about molybdenum contamination. Please split this very interesting topic up soon, Mods.

[I_Like_Plants]

I'm hoping they're very successful and darned quick. States that have the Bomb don't get bombed. Iran should arm to the teeth and stay that way, only then will this talk of going to war agains them stop.

Iraq was weak and Bush and the Zionists knew it, that's why they attacked. If Saddam had had half the stuff he was accused of having, he'd still be happily torturing women grabbed off the street and kissing Bush on both cheeks when Bush visits for a slumber party. We'd still be best buds!

[Plantagenet]

On April 24 2006, Ahmadinejad demanded a free evaluation of the real extent of the Holocaust "in order to find the ultimate truth."

What "ultimate truth" do you think isn't known?

I gather, Mekrob, that you join Ahmadinejad in dismissing the validity of all the scholarly work of the last 60 years on the Holocaust. I suppose you never heard or dismiss the findings of the Nuremburg triburnals on the Holocaust and other Nazi war crimes and the crimes of the Nazi war criminals tried there.

You are free to support Ahmadinehad and his efforts to investigate the views of the neo-Nazis and Holocaust revisionists who wish to minimize the horrors of the Holocaust.

Let us know what you find out.

[Gazzatrone]

If Shia want to kill Sunni, what business is it of mine?

Are you American? Well, if so, then it was your government that supported Saddam Hussein, Sunni, who oppressed Shi'a (and Kurds) for over two decades to the point that after the US overthrew him, Shi'a became wary of any Sunni rising to power and are trying to make sure that that never happens again, lest someone like Hussein rises to power.

Had the US government never helped and supported Hussein and in effect his anti-Shi'a policies for more than a decade before he became our 'enemy', then the situation in Iraq would not be where it is today.

Wanna see some other locations where Sunni and Shi'a exist? Qatar, Lebanon, Iran, Yemen, Kuwait, etc. Pretty much everywhere else there are mixtures of Sunni, Shi'a, Sufis, etc but Sunnis or Shi'a will be the overwhelming majority unlike in the previous examples where the minority sect has a substantial number of adherents.

And guess how the sects get along in those nations? Wonderfully. No Sunni-Shi'a civil war. A bit of anti-X rhetoric, but you get that anywhere, even in the US.

You are quick to lay blame to those that "invaded" and colonised, but you are very slow to realise that the conflicting sides that vied for control after independence was gained had the choice and option to live peacably, but ultimately old scores were hard to forget.

Hmm...you go into a nation, kill or exile all of the leaders, scholars, professors and scientists (because they were against your occupation and it's impossible to have an occupation of a nation if there is intelligent dissent from the leaders) and then when you leave and the nation descends into chaos (because they don't have their sensible leaders anymore) you blame the people for the chaos?

Well I'm not American, so your arguement is lost there.

And yes I walked out the door got onto a plane invaded a country and left it in a shit pile. Well no I didn't, which is why it is of no business of mine. I'm not going to get hung up and beat myself up with the middle-class guilt stick just because some bleeding heart liberal whines on about the fact I should . Bullshit to that. Do I care? No for the simple reason is I don't give a fuck about the consequences of actions of people who fucking died years before I was born. Or for that matter other people I have no connection with living today.

George Santayana -
'Those who cannot remember the past, are condemned to repeat it.'

To which I would add..

"..and those who cannot forget the past are condemned to repeat it also."

[mekrob]

And yes I walked out the door got onto a plane invaded a country and left it in a shit pile. Well no I didn't, which is why it is of no business of mine.

No, but your leaders of the UK have done that for you, in your name. If you're not completely off of oil, then that blood is on your hands. Everyone on here knows damn well that Iraq was about a need to secure future oil supplies for the US and UK and the other member nations of the coalition. That need to invade and cause the destruction of that nation, meddling in their affairs and probable targetting of the elite has been at the hands of the oil users.

Well I'm not American, so your arguement is lost there.

Didn't the UK support Saddam throughout the '80's as well?

Why was Saddam prosecuted for Dujail and not the much bigger incidents, say at Halabja?

Dujail was the subject of the first trial because it was quite straightforward to prosecute. Saddam is also being tried for the 1988 Anfal operation in which 50,000 Kurds were killed, and a trial over the gassing of Kurds at Halabja is in preparation. Anfal occurred at the end of the Iran-Iraq war, in which Saddam had UK and US support.

-Guardian

Same thing applies to Brits as Americans.

And since when have I been talking about deaths committed before you were born? I'm talking about NOW, deaths that are being committed on your behalf and all of our behalfs.

What "ultimate truth" do you think isn't known?

The truth! The truth that's been hidden for decades. How can you not be outraged that the 'greatest atrocity of humankind' has been hidden in the shadows for decades? How come we can talk about any atrocity throughout history, the Indian genocide, Crusades, African, etc. but not one word can be uttered about the Holocaust without one being condemned automatically?

In no way am I trying to diminish the scope of the Holocaust. I'm simply in desire of getting to know the truth about it and not the legend that has been created. A legend that can't even be questioned.

How come when we talk about the Holocaust we only talk about the '6' million (or whatever the true number is) Jews yet we forget the millions of dead Gypsies, Poles, Commies, etc?

I gather, Mekrob, that you join Ahmadinejad in dismissing the validity of all the scholarly work of the last 60 years on the Holocaust.

What scholarly work? The archives have been hidden for 50 years!

The 6 million figure was taken from Eichmann at the trials, I believe. However, as a Nazi, he was following orders and protocol. The guidelines for the deaths of Jews was really if someone appeared to be "jewish". That is, not only were Jews killed, but also half Jews and in many cases, people that were just a quarter "jewish" even though they weren't even close to being religiously Jewish. It also probably included people that just seem to be Jewish.

So that 6 million figure is completely bogus as to the correct number of Jews killed. It more closely reflects "Jews" that were killed. I'm not dismissing that as extremely troubling since the Nazis were so concerned about the 'problem of the Jews' that they would even kill good, German citizens because of their grandparents ethnicitiy or religion.