Hitler's a popular guy to be compared to. He could paint too, and quite well might I say.

I've also heard Bush compared to Hitler. I dont think bush is a very good painter though... I mean, I don't have any evidence either way... but... it just doesnt seem his thing.

The comparison to Hitler in this specific example is nothing unusual either. I've heard time and time again from veterans and those alive during the time of WWII, that the poltiics and the media right now sound very similiar to just before WWII. I've also heard that Middle Easterner, whatever his name is(like I really care), compared to Hitler a number of times both by people and in the media.

Thank you. Finally someone can not nit-pick about every little thing. Devo, you are saying the same thing over and over again come up with something new. Onsce, I understand what you are saying. Although, The Iranian president is lying about things that are a bit more important than most American lies. Devo, I undersand that every nation has a right to try and better itself, but Iran is led by a fanatic, and fanatics in the end are never good, especially when they have WMDs.

You're right, it doesn't nescarilly. However, I figure theres got to be some logic to it if I hear it over and over again.

I think the idea is really more of a land mine sort of comparison. Sure, everything looks cool. Take that step though, and loose your leg. Hitler was doing great things, well he was... then.. well... ya... the jews... you know.

Thats sort of the point. Sure, the guy seems decent enough. However, what are his true intentions? And with duel use facilities... Its sort of on he same grounds as Iraq. Attack with no proven WMDs, or do nothing and hope for no WMDs. I know its not the exact same, but the concept is pretty much the same.

I don't think 'nagging' means what you think it means, Cloudiroth.

Double Post:
I only picked on you for not having the wherewithal to google a dude's name, and furthermore bitching like a nancy boy when someone called you out on it, because frankly your logic speaks for itself.

or in other words, :edgartpg:

Double Post:
Counterpoint: mormons think their religion was not started as an enormous prank. There are a lot of mormons! Does this make them right?

RedIllustrationFace:
Nag is also a term with a high reliability upon working definition... so lets look at some different working definitions.

I don't think his use of the word is that far off.

Maybe I'll find out when I'm dead and gone. Regardless, that doesn't disprove what I said. There is logic to it. Believing your own religion is a quack would create quite a bit of dissonance, and thus you either would loose your faith in it, or convince yourself its right. The logic is there, it just may not be accurate. However, it is a viewpoint, and an opinion.

Thats about the same thing though as stating that catholiscism believes Jesus is the son of god, and there are alot of followers in the faith... so are they right?

I take it that you don't know much about how the Mormons started. If you prefer, Scientology, same question. Or, the Jews running everything. The holocaust didn't happen. Women ain't shit but hos and tricks. Etcetera.

the crux of my argument is that it is possible to have an opinion that is wrong.

Because that wasnt my point in stating that Hitler was generally seen as a good guy. Or in that this middle easterner might not be as good of a guy as he seems.

Who said that? The president of Iran was it not? So, if we had caught Hitler and tried him in a court do you think he would fess up? I don't think so.

When did Ahmadinejad (I nominate 'Dinnie' for short) deny the Holocaust occurred?

He believes it to be a myth to embarass germany. Story was covered in many newspapers during December of 2005.

'Dinnie' works for me.

Yeah that is a pretty good name for him cal. Watch out for devo and lurker tho. They get angry about the small things. They might get angry if you don't put the jad in there.

That's funny, because it came across differently in his letters. I thought he was drawing attention to the extent to which the Holocaust had been mythologised and misused for political ends during the last century.

I can certainly understand if translations of his thoughts on the Holocaust get artistic, though.

Maybe it did. Honestly, I don't know. I just saw what was in the press and online.

Wait.... what?

Cal, I think the Holocaust can be used for political ends simply because of the magnitude and horror of it. Would you rather it be written off? I think we all have interpretations of what he meant. The point is, he should have known what the ramifications for saying something like that would be.

Saying something like what, for fuck's sake?



Iranian President: Yeah I think Europe sexed the JewPogrom up and some of them now use it to shithang our 'hood for Israel's sake

US Media: 'DINNIE: 'CAUST AIN'T NO THING LIKE A CHICKEN WING'

Consumers with low-quality information:

'Cal, I think the Holocaust can be used for political ends simply because of the magnitude and horror of it. Would you rather it be written off? I think we all have interpretations of what he meant. The point is, he should have known what the ramifications for saying something like that would be.'

Well, to be fair, there was one instance where he insinuated that it might not've happened. He was using it to make a case for why Israel should exist somewhere in Europe and not in the Middle East.

Only in the context that Europeans should pay the consequences for their mistakes, and not the Middle Eastern nations which had no involvement in the war.

Aramaethe, it's not just using 'ur' that is problematic. Often your grammar is not conducive to making a structured argument--not that mine is either. I am aware that a webforum is not the most important place to make clear points but it is a useful skill. I think you should keep that in mind whether or not you want to act on it.

I also have a problem with throwing words like 'fanatic' around. It connotes that he is uncritical in his beliefs and is nothing more than a meaningless slur unless accompanied by an explanation. You also said we are fighting terrorism. As has been said by many recently, terrorism is a methodoogy and not an ideology. I can understand that states want to eliminated what they deem terrorist actions, however you can't fight the methodology--you must fight what leads to that methodology. That happens to be a complex array of ideologies and circumstances which have manifested themselves in many ways all around the world. Obviously the American government is interested fighting threats to America and they don't care too much about FARC or the LTTE. Reductionism is necessary for theory but we can't reduce arguments so far that they become irrelevant.

I am probably, in general, liberal (at least on foreign affairs). Being conservative or liberal dictates certain moral and methodological choices. It should not be a complete disconnect of realities. I was most struck by watching a conference by an academic conservative group on C-SPAN. They were incredibly intelligent and while I did have problems with some of their goals I could respect their opinions and come to an understanding of what our differences actually were. Typical mass media debates are a Republican and Democrat both trying to help the American people but fighting tooth and nail over something stupid. You need to define 'what you want' in arguments and base certain realities around that. Also 'read smart stuff'. I realize it's a tad subjective but, attempting that is a start.

And for the record I'm not sure that Ahmadinejad is a Persian name. Many Persians use Arabic names or slight deviations from them. I would be curious to know its etymology but I can't assume it's Persian just because he is.


Ahmadinejad's view on the Holocaust are probably complex. I doubt that he conceives of it in the same way that most Westerners do. The way I understand it he doesn't directly address the issue (as seen by his 60 Minutes interview). He always starts out by forming an argument: "If Jews were slaughtered in Europe and that helped to lead to the creation of a Jewish homeland then why is that homeland in Palestine and hurting Arabs when the Europeans caused the Holocaust". I think this and "wipe them off the map" has to be seen in the context of the question of whether the creation of Israel in the colonial context was legitimate and "right of return" for Palestinians. I think the media has been evoking the imagery of genocide which should not be a foregone conclusion. He could very well have a much different view of the Holocaust if not full denial. But it's clear he is using it to make a political point about Europe's culpability and the condition of the Palestinians. I think the Der Spiegel interview does a good job of showing his ambivalence about discussing the issue. However, I think the fact that he is still talking about proving the Holocaust does show that his views are incredibly different than Western view for the last many decades.

I agree with you Gren, that we must fight what leads to that methodology, but at the same time if we don't fight the methodology and just attack the source, then you've got a lot of crazy people running around thinking nothing is going to happen to them if they blow shit up. Wow that was a run-on. Not going to fix it though.
I, unlike you, am a staunch conservative, my values are obviously at least slightly different from everyone in this thread. I suppose that makes me a target? Well, I for one am glad your attack was not a direct one. I know what fanatic means. I characterize the president of Iran as a fanatic. He has said he wants the Jews to leave or die has he not? Well, the Jews sure haven't done anything to Iran recently. In reality, they never do anything to anyone, they just fight back when they are attacked. They just happen to be very, very good at it. Personally I hope Israel crushes Hezbollah and then goes after Syria. Oh yeah, much of Hezbollah is funded and armed by Iran, I just don't see how you people can't see that this guy is a nut.

My point was that calling someone a fanatic without explanation is not helpful. I am a Taco Bell fanatic. I am uncritical of their glorious food. However, you would not know I was a fanatic

He has not said he wants the Jews to leave or die. He likely supports the Palestinian right to return to their pre-1947 homes which could imply some Israelis moving but it is not clear. He has called for the destruction of what he sees as an illegitimate political entity. I don't believe he has expressly talked about the populace. He expressly uses the term Zionism--not Jew--because his point is that the creation of a Jewish political entity on the land called Palestine was not legitimate and has caused harm to the Palestinians (although Palestinian identity was not fully formed in 1948).

Has Israel done anything to Iran? Well, not much directly. They have fought a war in the realm of public diplomacy. Israel also has nuclear weapons which scares Iran because some of the Israeli hardline have mentioned that fact in relations to Iran's nuclear ambitions. So--realist or not--you must see a certain balance of power act going on in the region. Hizbullah is a manifestation of that. Shibley Telhami's idea of "prism of pain" is that many Muslims react stongly to the Palestinian issue. Therefore the governments of the Middle East have often reacted in favor of the Palestinians because it can take their populace's attention off of domestic issues (although there is likely a degree of genuine caring in some cases). If Iran is going to be seen as the major Muslim power then they must assert their influence in major Muslim issues. That leads them into confrontation with Israel.

Does Israel only attack when attacked upon? No. The Suez Crisis of 1956 is one obvious example. But, there was much domestic contention about Israel's stay in Lebanon in the 1980s. Israel kills more civilians than their enemies have killed Israelis. You may think this is legitiamte--that is your choice--however, you need to understand that killing Arabs does tend to piss off Arabs. You also need to understand that there is a causal relation between Israeli's treatment of Arabs and the creation of terrorist organizations. If you believe that Israel's actions have no impact on how Arabs treat or attack Israel then you are just wrong. Actions cause reactions and this does not legitimize either actions or reactions but you must realize and deal with these causal relations.

Israel cannot crush Hizbullah. The group thrives on the marginalization of Shia in Lebanese society because they can help the poor (with Iranian money). You cannot see this as a battle between good and evil. Hizbullah does help the Shia and in return they have an allegiance to Hizbullah. The group was foudned during the Lebanese Civil War when the south was under Israeli occupation. At first the Shia were happy that the IDF was going to kick out the PLO but they overstayed their welcome and when they started making life worse for the Shia groups like Amal and Hizbullah were formed with varying degrees of foreign support at the beginning.

I don't even think you understand why Iran has concerns about Israel. You may still think Israel is in the moral right or that Israel has a right to use force and kill civilians to protect itself--I may disagree but at least understand why Iran is pissed off. Your view is entirely uncritical. You don't see that there is any culpability on Israel's side. I don't want you to like Iran and Hizbullah. I don't like them. But you need to see why Hizbullah exists and will always exist as long as certain social circumstances persist. It may not only exist under the name of Hizbullah. But some violent group will exist among the Shia if they are marginalized in Lebanese society and Israelis take their men as prisoners. The PLO went to peace talks which failed and Hamas filled the void. If somehow Hizbullah stops its fight whether because it's destroyed or because it joins a political process that isn't working some ideology will satisfy the people. That is how things go.

Israel is a far more aggressive and warmongering nation than any other Arab nation you know. Is it really that hard to wonder how they've been involved in more wars than any other Arab country in recent times? The only time Iran has been fighting was when it was attacked in 1980.

Frankly, I don't think Ahmadinejad is a nut. Whether or not you agree with him, hes extremely smart and knows what hes doing. He seems crazy to the outside world, but in the Arab streets, among Sunni's and Shia who usually never get along, he is applauded for helping to face down Israel, the regional terrorists by the standards of the Middle East.

If anything, Iran has a right to pursue a nuclear weapon simply to counter Israel's deterrent. Israel has its own nuclear weapons, has delivery means better than anyone else, and has always been willing to attack its neighbors. No, Israel is a far greater threat to peace than Iran, and to call for Iranian disarmament without Israeli is competely hypocritical. It's also the reason Iran won't give up its enrichment program.

I'm personally no fan of Iran at all, having both Iran and Israel concede would be the best option.

I'm sorry, but the above post is the most ridiculous nonsense I've ever heard. Israel is only aggressive in responding to attacks against it, nothing more, nothing less. When you're surrounded by people who want to kill each and every last one of you, if you want to survive, you have no other option.

And while calling for Iranian disarmament is completely hypocritical, it is the only logical position. Israel doesn't want to destroy these other countries - it merely wants to exist. It maintains its nuclear arsenal as a last-ditch defense; the Iranians and other nations want nuclear weapons for the express reason to destroy Israel because a very small amount of weapons will essentially make that country uninhabitable.

If you can't see the difference between Israel and Iran in that respect, then you're simply being delusional.