< HOME  Sunday, April 16, 2006

SURPRISE! Iran Opposes Anti-Semitism

That's right. But, you won't hear it on the mainstream media.
Iran is opposed to anti-Semitism and massacre of Jews whether something called Holocaust has taken place or not, Majlis Speaker Gholam-Ali Haddad Adel said Sunday.

His remarks came at a press conference attended by domestic and foreign reporters on the sidelines of the International Conference on Holy Qods and Support For the Rights of Palestinian People.

Referring to a question about his opinion on the recent remarks of President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad, the speaker said "We respect followers of all religions which was also mentioned in the president's speech." Haddad Adel said that Iran had a long history of co-existence with Jews and has proven that it has no conflict with them.

"Iranian Jews enjoy equal rights with others," said the speaker.

He added that Western states' opposition to any investigation into Holocaust "adds to existing doubts in this regard."

Haddad Adel said "While any insult against the Holy Prophet of Islam is not condemned under the pretext of freedom of speech, it is surprising that any researcher who casts doubt on Holocaust is convicted and sent into prison.

"If the case of Holocaust was true, Europeans would not be frightened," Haddad-Adel said, adding that there were some points regarding Holocaust.

"If the issue of Holocaust was true, Europeans would not be afraid of investigating about it. We do not know what frightens Europeans?" the speaker said surprisingly.

He added "If the Holocaust has happened, so why those who are responsible for it should not pay the price and now Palestinian Arabs and Muslims are instead paying the price?"

They (Europeans) claimed that it was Nazis who perpetrated the crime (Holocaust), the speaker said.

"Iran has no motivation for anti-Semitism," Haddad Adel reiterated.
This also undermines the mainstream media's interpretation of Iran's recent threats against the "zionist regime." You cannot physically destroy Isreal without killing Jews. But, you CAN destroy it politically without killing them.

Wakeup America. The media is driving us headlong into war based on lies and misconceptions.


At Sunday, April 16, 2006, Blogger Citisucks said...

All the corporate terrorist media do is lie. They will say anything to help their corporate terrorist friends get an extra rolex, even if it means that thousands of innocent children die.

At Sunday, April 16, 2006, Anonymous Mighty Thor said...

Antisemitism Is Mere Obedience To God
(Mighty Thor, 16 Apr 06)

Well, what is the Federal Reserve Bank counterfeiting scam but a fraud, a lie, by definition? As Fed is fundamental to culture (Mammon), the LIE IS LITERALLY ENSHRINED.

Reason requires anti-semitism as truth is antisemitic. Jews are murders, criminals, liars, and conspirators by religion, as it is excused in the Talmud--for the good of Jews, in fact God's very commandment, the reason given when the prophet Samuel so cruelly murdered the Amelekite King.

What Iranians really mean, surely, is they judge all non-Iranians as being pretty equal, Semites not essentially different fm any others. Otherwise reason and justice require anti-Judaism (anti-Talmudism), hence antisemitism. Honest elections and death to the Fed. Thor

At Sunday, April 16, 2006, Blogger Akber said...

Isfahan has a vibrant Jewish community. The media will tell you Iranian Jews' numbers have dwindled but will not tell you of the great incentives given by Israel (with American money) to Jews worldwide to migrate to Israel.

There is also a seat of parliament reserved for Jews, regardless of their population.

Muslims have lived at peace with, and protecting Jews for centuries.

The apartheid regime of Israel that takes away the rights of people to contol their destiny and locks them up without borders, water, revenue or economy must be dismantled. Either Israel enables a more democratic nature, and rolls back the 'Jewish' nature of the state, or gives the Palestinians independence and their property/citizenship back. The world is not going to suddenly forget about this.

Anti-Zionism, anti-apartheid is NOT anti-Jewish faith.

At Sunday, April 16, 2006, Anonymous Mighty Thor said...

Akber, u just don't want to face reality, truth, and what the Talmud really teaches. It's phoney and self-deceptive to pretend u're merely anti-Zionist but not antisemitic. Zionism and communism are absolute and necessary manifestations of basic Talmud and Judaism, a true "gutter" religion as affirmed by Louis Farrakhan.

Akber, u must become more honest as u must become more racist as antisemitic--all necessary for rationalization of culture in general. Quit living a lie. Thor

At Sunday, April 16, 2006, Blogger Citisucks said...

The problem is not any particular religion or all the people of that religion. The problem is greed, stealing from the poor(formerly known as the middle class), taking peoples land and getting away with it even when it is a direct violation of international law. But there are Jewish people who engage in this type of behavior and their are Jewish people that don't.

At Sunday, April 16, 2006, Blogger qrswave said...

I might have agreed before that it is primarily greed, but now I see that greed stems principally from arrogance.

Arrogance is precisely why satan fell from God's grace.

At Sunday, April 16, 2006, Anonymous Mighty Thor said...

Existential Manifestation Of Hubris: Subjectivism, Talmudism, Moralism
(Mighty Thor, 16 Apr 06)

Yes okay, "arrogance"--but what I prefer to call "hubris," the idea people can create reality as by means of perfectly free "free will," such perfection only possessed by such as God, by definition.

Thus by means of Jew-Talmudic subjectivism, thus moralism, are a corrupt, imperialistic, and hubristic people persuaded they can be "good," for example, the neo-Pelagian heresy as of Immanuel Kant, German Transcendental Idealists, English Utilitarians. Such heretical, subjectivist "good" then becomes the excuse for imperialist oppression against anyone, especially the home and native population of the empire.

Thus we have the present heresy-complex enforced in the West, propping up Judaic-Mammon, these heresies, aside fm neo-Pelagianism, like non- or anti-racism, non-antisemitic Christianity as of "Judeo-Christianity" peddled by Falwell, Robertson, et al.

The largest, principle cultural fallacy/heresy, again, is subjectivism--the Talmudic Jews dominating as theirs is so refined. Subjectivism is the conceit and hubris of a culture in decline, always manifesting in "moralism." Honest elections and death to the Fed. Thor

At Monday, April 17, 2006, Blogger Red Tulips said...

Your passage makes me sick.

If the Holocaust did exist, it was bad.

That is essentially what was said. Somehow you think that this is fine???

That is essentially saying "Jews are lying sacks of shit who made up the Holocaust, but if there was any form of mass murder anywhere, even though we don't think it happened then, we are against it."


That passage is anti-Jewish if I ever heard it.

At Monday, April 17, 2006, Blogger Red Tulips said...

I want to add I am flat out disgusted that you think this line of thinking is not anti-Jewish and delusional.

This contains a denial of the Holocaust, and then says "Oh yeah, to cover our bases, if it happened, we were against it, but this underscores anyway that Palestinians are paying the price for others - even assuming it happened."

First of all, it is a lie that Palestinians are paying any price due to the Holocaust.

Second of all, they are still denying the Holocaust existed!

How in the hell is that not anti-Jewish? Calling all Jews liars for perpetuating what they SAY is a myth (which actually is a historical fact) is rather anti-Jewish to me.

None of that justifies bombing Iran if Iran does not bomb another country first. If Iran decides to keep nukes only for defensive purposes, I frankly think it's hypocritical to stop them. But I do have a message for Iran. Should Iran ever nuke Israel, or should they employ a terrorist to do so, it will be the last day of Iran's existence. Israel will be within their rights to attack with full force. Such an action on the part of Iran would be stupid, and could very well lead to the end of humanity as we know it. I doubt they ever will bomb Israel, but if they do, they best know that every action has an equal and opposite reaction.

At Monday, April 17, 2006, Blogger Red Tulips said...

One more comment. I thought you were against the word "anti-semitism" being used, as Arabs are semites. So why are you using the word you have stated you are against?

At Monday, April 17, 2006, Blogger qrswave said...

reporting on the term as it's commonly used is not inconsistent with denying it should be used this way.

At Monday, April 17, 2006, Blogger Akber said...

I had, and still have, a very good opinion of Jews, but the recent word-twisting and arrogance I see does not befit this acient religion.

1. I searched on Google Scholar and failed to come up with any research paper on Holocaust casulaties. Yes, it did occur, but why stop any discussion of it or exploration. We learn from history. Meanwhile, papers on continuing reparations, going over $200 billion now, are to be found everywhere.

2. Palestinians have no rights because they are evil and they have to 'behave'. The same criteria cannot and should not be applied to Israel.

3. Shrills calls of anti-semitism and threaten to blow up the world.

I continue to be of the opinion that the only theocratic state in the world is Israel, its existence depends on apartheid, and it cannot logicaly continue to exist in its current for long.

Can Jews please tone down their shrill screams for a second and let us try to resolve this and think through this. Thuggery is not gonna get anywhere in a civilized world - especially a connected world in the information age.


At Monday, April 17, 2006, Blogger Red Tulips said...


For the record, I never said Israel should bomb anything - unless bombed first. Then they are within their rights to retaliate.

And Israel as the only "theocratic state?"

Are you on mushrooms? I mean, that is one of the most retarded things I have read in my life, and I have read many retarded things in my life. Just so there is no accusation of "word twisting," I am going to quote what you said.

I continue to be of the opinion that the only theocratic state in the world is Israel, its existence depends on apartheid, and it cannot logicaly continue to exist in its current for long.

So, according to your non-logic, the nations of Saudi Arabia and Iran...they are not theocratic. Hell, even America is probably more religious than Israel. But somehow Israel is the "most theocratic state." And given you claim that religion is so great, wouldn't a theocracy be a GOOD THING, anyway? I mean, you somehow think (with zero evidence) that religious people/principles = better people/principles. So even if Israel was a theocracy (which it is not), that should be a GOOD THING, under your twisted logic.

My lordy.

First of all. Israel is a secular democracy. It is a Jewish state in the makeup of its people, but it is a SECULAR DEMOCRACY. So you are flat out wrong. No ifs, ands, or buts. You are wrong.

Second of all. Arab Israelis have full citizenship rights. Palestinians in the territories have been offered a state many times, but continue to refuse it. Therefore, Ehud Olmert has stated he will simply follow a path of unilateral withdrawal and give Palestinians their own state - whether they want it or not! So much for the "apartheid."

Third of all. As I have exhaustively documented in the past, the Palestinians in the territories have far better opportunities and education than many Muslims throughout the region.

Fourth of all. Until the Islamic religion gets off its ass and reforms, it is one of the worst religions in the world in its treatment of gay people. This is a known fact. Gay people literally have to fear for their lives in nations that are heavily Islamic. As a result, I read of gay Palestinian youths preferring to live under house arrest in Israel, over living in the territories. This point is not even debateable as it is exhaustively documented. I see this as a severe human rights issue, given the number of gay friends I have.

Fifth of all. Most people of the world would say that women in Israel are far better off than women in the ACTUAL theocracies you claim exist. They have full rights, and in fact are able to walk around without covering themselves from head to toe.

Finally, there are a few other things to note in your comment, which is devoid of all logic.

The Holocaust did exist. I say this as someone whose grandmother is a survivor. IT HAPPENED. Whether 6 million or 5 million Jews died is a matter of public record - a record that the Nazis actually exhaustively chronicled. If you want to know the number and names of those who died, you can look up the Nazi records yourself. They kept records of everything! I am not sure what is to be accomplished by an auditing of the exact numbers of those who died, given it is clear that at least several million Jews DID die, and in fact it was part of an extermination. What sort of "scholarship" are you even speaking about? Iran's form of "scholarship" is seeking to prove that the Holocaust never happened. But they are unwilling to go to the death camps to examine things! So it is false scholarship and phony intellectualism.

If anyone doubts for a second that the Holocaust happened, then go to the death camps. Go to Auschwitz. See the remains of the mass graves. The evidence is there. This is one of the most well documented events in human history.

As far as reparations go, I think the importance of said reparations is simply exaggerated. Jewish money held in Swiss bank accounts should be unfrozen (it still is frozen!), and handed to the survivors and families of survivors. However, I just think there are more important things in the world than the issue of giving reparations to survivors. Global warming, massive debt and the monetary system, and the slow poisoning of America (and the world) because of the food we eat ranks as the most important issues of the day, in my mind. I had a debate with some nitwit about five weeks ago who said that reparations was the most important issue of the day. I think the man is insane.

At Monday, April 17, 2006, Blogger Red Tulips said...

One more thing. I said earlier I thought targeted air strikes were something to consider against Iran. I have since changed my mind. I want it to be clear that I don't believe war with Iran is a good idea. However, if Iran should ever use a nuke, they best be prepared for the consequences.

At Monday, April 17, 2006, Blogger Akber said...

1. I said theocratic, not religious. The 'Jewish nature of Israel' is enshrined in the law of the country and is the problem behind demographic solutions that result in aprtheid and resulted in the 'territories' in the first place, otherwise all would be 'israeli arabs' - all cannot be because of 'special jewish nature' - theocracy - rule of religion. And many many laws and court cases to support it. Again: word twisting.

2. Where are the records or any study of those records? I did not find a single one on the largest scholarly paper search engine of the world. Word-twisting.

3. I said that Nazis did kill innocent jews (holocaust), yet you go on and on about 'denial'. Word-twisting. I cannot find numbers for the research. You do not provide any URL, but twist my words.

4. You deliberately confused democracy/apartheid with religious law in 'some' places (an argument you have lost before). Again, word-twisting.

5. You scream and yell and froth at the mouth, yet do not answer the issue of how an anomaly like Israel can exist indefinitely. If the current political situation of that land is not an anomaly, name one other situation like that in the history of the world.

Please be objective. And stop screaming, the world is not going to be drowned out by these threats any more.

We want to reach peace, the peace of the world hangs in the balance over this issue, as you quite rightly pointed out. So, why not discuss it rationally?

At Monday, April 17, 2006, Blogger Red Tulips said...

I just stated that Ehud Olmert is going to give Palestinians their own state, whether they want it or not! It received no reaction or acknowledgement from you - which is typical. How can there be apartheid when the Palestinians are getting their own state? Furthermore, to the extent there even are territories, it is due to the Six Day War - a war which was fought due to aggression on the part of Jordan, Egypt, and Lebanon. Funny thing is, before that war, there wasn't even a Palestine! "Palestine" was part of Jordan, and in fact have been massacred in far greater numbers by Arab countries than have been killed by the IDF.

As far as the documentation - I have extensively documented everything re: the treatment of Palestinians in many posts in the past. I don't feel like spending hours researching to prove a point you will ignore, as I did before.

Apartheid is a word that people like to bandy about re: Israel, but it is a word that simply is inapplicable. Israeli Arabs have the exact rights as Israeli Jews. The only issue is the territories, but re: those territories, there would have been a Palestinian state since 2001 if selfish and corrupt Arafat cared more about the Palestinian state than he did himself.

The "right of return" crap that often is bandied about is bullshitty nonsense. First of all, much of the land of Israel was lawfully purchased by settlors from abstentee landlords. Second of all, Israel never kicked anyone out - the Palestinians left on their own, in order to start a war in 1948 against the new state. I fail to see how there is any right of return, and frankly, I see this as another way to declare that Israel has no right to exist.

Israel is one of the most progressive nations on the planet. If I spoke Hebrew, had a job waiting for me, and was comfortable with moving to a nation that endures terrorism, I would move to Israel and be proud to be Israeli, compared to the shame I often feel with being American. It would be good to be proud and satisfied with a leader, as I am with Ehud Olmert.

As far as documentation re: the number of Jews who died in the Holocaust...


That is a link which briefly discusses Nazi documentation of the Holocaust. In fact, they kept vast libraries of resources, containing vast documentation of who they killed, as they were going to start a museum after the war on the history of Judaism.

At Monday, April 17, 2006, Blogger Red Tulips said...

If the Palestinians decide they prefer to have their own state over inflicting terror, they will have one in a heartbeat. They would have had this years ago! In fact, they will have a state, regardless!

So much for "apartheid."

I like to use applicable words, and that word is inapplicable and offensive.

At Monday, April 17, 2006, Blogger Akber said...

1. You did not reply to the 'essential Jewish character of Israel' which negates it being a secular democracy.

2. I have done extensive research on the Holocaust myself and am satisfied that Kristallnacht (to terrorize), roving commandos, etc. killed hundreds of thousands of Jews, together with insane people, gypsies etc. I asked for a scientific tabulation, but it is nowhere to be found, and any attempts are attacked viciously. There are mixed words, 'deportations, killings, exhumations,and burnings, and estimates' nothing to tie it down, although other parts are very well documented. I find big holes in the official account of the Reinhard project - railway lines put in, bodies killed and exhumed and then burnt, and camps existing only for a few months. The number of Jews was finite, and these preparations do not make sense, especially when the roving killing units had killed a few hundred thousand quite 'efficiently'. Also, the atrocities of the Nazis against Soviets and Polish (warsaw massacre) non-Jews is also apalling. Auschwitz has a lot of evidence, but Dachau, Treblinka, etc. have big gaps in documentation.

The holocaust did take place and it was vicious. It was not the greatest genocide, nor the most evil. Some details are clouded in history and guarded by vicious attacks - it should not be so.

3. If it was OK for Israel to seize land by all means, legal and illegal, allow the Palestinians to do the same. You seem to swing from rational discussion to a visceral description of 'Palestinians' as irrational beasts. The current boundaries present an unviable state - water - customs - airports - revenue etc. So, allow the Palestinians to seize more land in 'legitimate war' and then the borders will be drawn on a viable state.

4. Sikhs visit shrines in Pakistan, coming from India. Shia go to Syria, Christians come to Israel (Bethlehem). No one wants to conquer and enslave the local populations of where the shrines are located. Prior to Israel, about 600,000 Jews existed in Palestine, and all Jews were free to visit the Holy places and Holy Land. If American subsidies to Israel are stopped today, about a million would remain. Well and good :) The God-given right to a piece of land, by usurping and uprooting existing population is Zionism and it is criminal and there is no legal justification for it.

The situation can be resolved very quickly if we do take out the God-given right argument, the centerpiece of Zionism, and a real progressive state can be realized, not a logical anomaly. Anomalies are always temporary.

At Monday, April 17, 2006, Blogger Red Tulips said...

1. Israel is culturally Jewish, but the state itself is not run by the laws of Judaism. Religious leaders have input into things (and too much input in my opinion), but the laws themselves are not structured around religious principles. Furthermore, a majority of Israelis do not even consider themselves religious. Judaism is a culture as well as a religion, and Israel is a Jewish state to the same extent that Italy is an Italian state, or France is a French state.

2. Feel free to do a scientific study of how many Jews died during the Holocaust, but the bottom line is that most of those who undertake such study do so from the point of view of trying to ddeny it existed. They look at forged documents and the like and have an "AHA" moment. I frankly don't see the reason why the exact number of Jews who died during the Holocaust is important. It is known that a very large number died and that a vicious state apparatus existed to kill them.

As far as Dachau and Treblinka go - they were not death camps. They were concentration camps set up for a different purpose. Fewer people died there.

Overall I see you minimizing the Holocaust. The fact remains that the greatest number of non-political people died during the Holocaust than in any other state-orchestrated genocide in the history of the world. Modern death techniques were used to elliminate whole swaths of people off the planet. This is extreme and needs to be remembered, and yet, it is important to learn lessons from the Holocaust. I don't dwell on the past, as that gets us nowhere. I view the Holocaust as instructive - if you don't learn from history, you are doomed to repeat it. The Holocaust is extremely important, in my opinion, as a lesson as to how such an atrocity can happen, and what should be done to prevent it in the future. There is scholarship being done on this aspect of things, and I think that this is the area that scholarship is needed - not recounting a death count. Ultimately, it doesn't matter if six million or three million Jews died during the Holocaust, which occurred more than sixty years ago. What matters is how to prevent this from happening again.

3. Palestinians are not irrational beasts - but they have routinely refused their own state and have laid claim to the entire part of Israel. I think this is highly irrational and, frankly, a vicious thing for the leaders of the Hamas and other extremist groups to perpetuate. Palestinians do not deserve the main part of Israel, nor will they get it. Yet, extremist groups within the Palestinian population refuse to let any leader to settle for anything less. I believe the vast majority Palestinian people would be very happy with having the West Bank and Gaza - and so they shall be happy. Ehud Olmert stated many times that he will practice unilateral withdrawal from the territories. This is the only acceptible option, as the Palestinians have no leader with the political ability to actually negotiate a state on their behalf.

4. *laughs*

You are just so, so misguided in what you have to say. Israel allows Muslims to visit the Dome of the Rock. They allow Muslim access to their holy sites - sites which are often the same holy sites for Jews!

Let's contrast this with what happened from 1948-1967. No Jew was allowed to step foot near the Whaling Wall.

Your idealized vision of Sharia law is one that was in vogue hundreds of years ago, and has no basis in the reality of the region today. The facts on the ground are quite clear - if Israel gives up the West Bank - which they are going to do anyway, they will not have access to the holy sites. There is no peaceful coexistance. If Israel leaves the West Bank - which they are planning on doing - they will take all settlors, and it is quite clear that Jews will not be welcome.

Zionism is not only about some sort of god-given right. The facts remain that Jews were kicked out of the region by Christians and Muslims through the years. It is about having a homeland for Jewish people, according to secular principles. It is also founded on inclusiveness - you need not be Jewish to live in Israel.

I don't believe in any god-given right, as I would consider myself pretty much atheist. However, I do believe in the state of Israel as an open and inviting place. Muslims as a whole are some of the warmest people I have met, and if they want to peacefully coexist in Israel, that's fine. In fact, 15% of Israelis are Muslim. They have representation in the Knesset. Most ethnic groups have their own state, and I see no reason why Jews cannot have a state in a location that they have long historical ties to. Logically, it is racist to say that somehow Jews are inferior to other groups and don't deserve their own homeland.

As long as Israel treats nonjews with dignity and respect and grants them equal rights (which they do), I see no reason why somehow it is wrong for Israel to exist. Palestinians will get their own state soon enough. Ehud Olmert said as much. He said he believes they deserve a contiguous state of their own. So where's the beef? What is your problem? Why is Israel so much worse than any other nation?

Frankly, I think Israel is better than most nations in their treatment of citizens, especially including women and minorities. It is hard to find another country that even halfway matches up.

At Monday, April 17, 2006, Blogger Akber said...

Scholarly Assessment of Israel's Jewish character and how it is demographically untenable:

'territories' are under total and complete Israeli control - while having no rights in Israel. What do you call that? any name? Hence in all your statements, you ignore the 'territories' when describing Israel. It cannot be igored.

I said, 'before Israel' Jews were at peace to come and go and live in the Holy Land. You said, 1948-67. Why twist words?

'Overall I see you minimizing the Holocaust' and 'most of those who undertake such study do so from the point of view of trying to ddeny it existed' . Can you read minds? Or is it plain arrogance?

The millions who study evolution or Egyptian archaeology are out to say it didn't exist? Why the paranoia? Why the viciousness? There are birth records and accurate statistics. If the number of offspring are accurately known, why not an Internet list of killed Jews. hundreds of thousands died in atrocious way, but why the silencing of academics? It is a question that will have to be answered sooner or latter. Lessons are subjective politics. I am talking about objective historical research.

'Your idealized vision of Sharia law is one that was in vogue hundreds of years ago, and has no basis in the reality of the region today.' What is this and how is it related to what I said? A revelation as unto Moses? Why is character annihilation must for those who want to talk rationally with Jews? Is it not arrogance? We have discussed this before and we came to a rare common consensus on the stopping of fanatic religiosity. Why this vicious charge? This is what puzzles me about modern Jews. Seemingly rational people embark on word-twisting, mind-reading and character assassination. This can't continue, and has to stop for anti-Semitism to go away.

'He said he believes they deserve a contiguous state of their own.' You must be dreaming or trying to feed on the ignorance of most readers. Seen any of the proposed maps?

Honestly I am disappointed. Modern intellectual Jews should not stoop to tactics that were discredited decades ago. Only respectful dialogue will engender a respect for Israel. Meanwhile it will remain a pariah detested by the vast majority of the world, and dependent on the US veto and US aid for existence? Is the rest of the world stupid and ignorant? I am sure you will say 'yes'.

This arrogance and word-twisting, which you have so amply shown, is the real cause of anti-Semitism in the world today, and only Jews can stop it by entering into honest serious dialogue with nations. Demographics, alliances and interests change, and if Zionists can remember the wrongs of 2000 years ago, so can others.

At Monday, April 17, 2006, Blogger Red Tulips said...

Your study only confirms what I stated earlier. Israel is essentially a culturally Jewish and secular state. The majority of Israelis are not religious. I happen to personally consider myself atheist, and see nothing wrong with that, or why there should be something wrong with that. I can be atheist and yet consider myself culturally connected to Judaism - which is what I am.

There was also no peace once settlors moved to Israel, pre-1948. There was well documented terrorism against the settlors - who purchased land legally. You can read about the history of the region here: http://www.mideastweb.org/briefhistory.htm

Akber, I need not read minds to figure out why people question the numbers of those killed in the Holocaust. They are quite open with why they do so - as Ahmedinjad is himself quite honest. The fact remains that most of those who question the numbers of dead from the Holocaust - not all - do so because they are openly questioning whether the Holocaust existed, itself. I am not saying you doubt the Holocaust, but others - such as Ahmedinjad - do.

As far as those who study evolution - yes, many do it stating that it didn't exist. Not sure why you brought that one up. Religious people openly question evolution to prove it didn't happen.

As far as what I said re: Sharia law. You have frequently stated that an Islamic state in the vein of an idealized version of what occurred hundreds of years ago is something to aspire to now. Those are your words, not mine.

Then there's your anti-Jewishness.

I don't represent any other person other than myself, and yet you claim that my "word twisting" is representative of "Modern Intellectual Jews." Disagree with me if you want, but that assertion that somehow your disagreement is reflective in anyone but myself smacks of anti-Jewish sentiment.

I disagree with you, and yet I don't believe you necessarily are representative of anyone but yourself.

Facts are the facts are the facts. Ehud Olmert said he will give the West Bank to the Palestinians. Accept the fact that Israel is voluntarily leaving the West Bank, and please end your baseless demonization of Israel.

Demographics, alliances and interests change, and if Zionists can remember the wrongs of 2000 years ago, so can others.

Not sure what that is referring to. I am not basing the claim to Israel on something that happened 2000 years ago. Jews have lived in Israel continuously since recorded history.

The bottom line: The two state solution is the only just solution, and if you actually believed in justice, you would be celebrating the fact that this will happen very soon, based on Olmert's words.

At Monday, April 17, 2006, Blogger Red Tulips said...

As far as whether Israel is a pariah or not...there are numerous reasons for this.

The biggest reasons are as follows:

Arab dictatorships demonize Israel to get props from their local populations. (it's an Arab "wedge issue) Most don't really care about the Palestinians, but care about personal power.

European nations have massive Muslim populations to appease, and a long and documented history of Anti-semitism. Thus, they have a double standard they apply to Israel. Nonetheless, European nations still recognize Israel and are allied with Israel because it is the only true democracy in the region.

Is Israel perfect? No. Have they committed human rights violations? Yes. But so has every other nation in the world, and they mostly get free passes. There is a very real double standard that applies to Israel, and it sickens me.

At Monday, April 17, 2006, Blogger qrswave said...

give it up, miss r. Olmert intends to implement unilateral withdrawal from unwanted areas in the west bank, while expanding on desirable ones AND he intends on keeping east Jerusalem in Israel. That is not "a two state solution." That's a land grab.

Also, Israel has repeatedly ackowledged that it must import Jews and export Arabs to keep its Jewish majority.

Everything you "document" here is nothing but your own myopic fantasy of how you wish things were. Unfortunately, reality speaks for itself.

At Tuesday, April 18, 2006, Blogger Red Tulips said...

Israel has not acknowledged that it needs to export Arabs - and in fact it doesn't do that! The main part of Israel in fact has a clear Jewish majority, and Arab Israelis live in peace.

Something else I want to note. The 1948 division of the land offered the Palestinians their own state, which they refused. And the Israelis lived on land where they had a majority, anyway. Yes, Palestinians claimed they were chased off their land in 1948, but in fact they were the ones who started a war in 1948 (NOT the Israelis), which is what led to their not having any state at all. They could have had a state since 1948.

I also want to state that the Holocaust minimization that I stated Akber engaged in was due to his statement: The holocaust did take place and it was vicious. It was not the greatest genocide, nor the most evil. Some details are clouded in history and guarded by vicious attacks - it should not be so.

The fact remains that more people - by the numbers - have died via state killing, but never using the modern death camp technology, and usually aimed at political dissidents. As an example, the genocide in Rwanda was via roving death squads, not Auschwitz-like death camps. Or, in Stalin's case, he sent 20 million people to their death who he saw as political enemies. In fact there has been nothing like the Holocaust, before or since. This doesn't mean I revel in its gore, or that anyone should. But the point is to acknowledge what happened and work to ensure it never happens again.

Finally, re: Olmert. He stated that his unilateral withdrawal is not the end game. It is his starting point of negotiations. He said he will leave most of the West Bank, and still be free to negotiate, if there is an effective Palestinian negotiating partner. Hamas simply is not an effective negotiating partner, and Abbas has no power to stop terrorism.

At Tuesday, April 18, 2006, Blogger qrswave said...

Rather, the existential threat Israel faces today is an internal one. If separation is not put into action soon, Israelis realize and fear that Israel will lose its Jewish character, and quite literally, its Jewish majority. Simply put, in the near future there will be no room for democracy and a Jewish majority to coexist. Because of this, Gazit said, the buzz- word for Israeli politicians today is “separation.” Gazit asserted that separation is what Israel needs to pursue in order to remain a Jewish state. -- Major General (res.) Shlomo Gazit

At Tuesday, April 18, 2006, Blogger Red Tulips said...

That actually does not contradict what I have said all along. The main part of Israel has a very strong Jewish majority. It is only the West Bank that is at issue. I never said that Israel should continue to have the West Bank, but then again, there is already a timetable for withdrawal from the West Bank, and I don't consider the West Bank to be legitimately part of Israel. (at the same time, I don't think it is wise to give everything up in the West Bank until there is some minimal guarantee that the main part of Israel will be safe)

At Tuesday, April 18, 2006, Blogger Akber said...

Holocaust minimization - new crime. :)

My question: accepting the Holocaust as genocide, why the paranoia and viciousness against research? Why not an unbiased unemotional research paper. Even the Journal of Genocide is too afraid to do that. That's all. You have not addressed it.

Miss R, I am finishing up the first chapter of 'modern Islam' and will post it on my blog as soon as done. You are mistaking me for someone else when you say 'bring back the Islam of centuries ago'. In that chapter, I am keeping the framework while throwing away a lot of tradition that has bogged Islam for centuries and has no business in the modern world. Not reform, but polishing. So, you are surely mistaken. I'm sure I know more about my views than yours.

Two-state is acceptable on 1967 borders. Israel 'won' the land it wants to keep. Palestinian want to 'win' it back before they settle. So let's wait. Current border is untenable and ridiculous, and it is that way because of rabid Jewish extremists in the colonies who attack Israeli soldiers, kill Palestinians, and killed Rabin, and intimidate every Israel government into doing the right thing. Talk about terrorism. Those Jewish terrorists danced when Rabin was assassinated and ask for the release of his assassin, and destroy trees and olives. A scourge on the earth indeed, worse than Osama and Co. by any standard. If Israel takes care of those terrorists, a 2-state solution can be found, even Hamas has given signals of accepting that.

We are so close, yet so far, just because of Zionist terrorism.

At Tuesday, April 18, 2006, Blogger Red Tulips said...

"Worse than Osama."

Those are your words, so I don't want to be held to be guilty of word twisting.

First of all, I wholly disagree with that. Israeli terrorists (who obviously exist, and killed Rabin - I don't deny this) are simply not responsible for the current quagmire. Sure, they contribute to the problem. I won't deny that. But when Israel wants to act, they do - despite some extremists within their midst. Israel pulled out of Gaza despite the settlors who protested.

Ironically, the place where Jewish extremists have more of an influence is in America, not Israel. Richard Perle, who I think we both will agree is a despicable human being, has far more sway over American politics than Israeli politics. He is endemic of a lobbying in America that exerts a massive influence, along with Christian fundies, over Middle Eastern policy. Jewish and Christian fundies in America have a stake in contiuing the conflict in the Middle East. Jewish fundies believe there is a god-given right to the West Bank, and Christian fundies believe Jews need to be in the "holy land" in order for the Book of Revelations to come true. Meanwhile, in the Arab world, Muslim fundies exert their influence, and stir the hatred pot over the conflict in the Middle East. They too have a vested interest in keeping conflict going.

The bottom line is that it is fundies of all stripes - certainly not just "Zionist terrorism" that is continuing this conflict. However, I happen to see an Israel that has been able to get past the fundie influences. As I stated again and again, Ehud Olmert has publicly declared he will practice unilateral withdrawal from the West Bank. Israelis will move to some of the biggest settlements, and all small settlements will end - however - he also stated that he is open to negotiating away even those settlements. I wonder how this is proof that somehow the fault lies with "Zionist extremists."

There is no reason to even bother negotiating with Hamas unless Hamas first acknowledges that Israel - per the 1967 borders - has a right to exist. Until they acknowledge such a basic principal, nothing is achieved by negotiating.

Ehud Olmert is doing the right thing, and he should be praised. He is a giant of a man who has taken big steps.

And as far as Israeli terrorists go. Here is the difference between Israeli and Palestinian terrorism. When an Israeli, such as Baruch Goldstein, kills Palestinians, he is lambasted in Israel and painted as a monster. Sure, fringe elements may have been happy - but they were a tiny portion of the country. When Palestinians kill innocents - such as the recent deaths in Tel Aviv, they are branded as martyrs. The government leaders - such as Arafat of old and Hamas - praise them or made excuses for them. There is a massive difference in culture, and until the Palestinians decide enough is enough, there can never be peace.

I want to add something else. I am not "afraid" of Holocaust studies that definitively determine the number who died in the tragedy. I know it happened - my grandmother is a Survivor - and there's nothing to hide. All I am saying is that much of these studies are started for the explicit purpose of denying the Holocaust. False academics are used. And furthermore, I simply don't see much of a point in these studies, as the reason to study history is to learn from it. Little is gained by knowing if 6 million or 2 million Jews died in the Holocaust. It is not any less tragic if 2 million died instead of 6 million. The only thing to be gained is to learn how to ensure this never happens again.

Finally, you say you believe in some form of a Modern Islamic state. From your comments in the past you made it seem as if you wanted a state that was similar to the ideals from hundreds of years ago, but if I am mistaken that that is what you want, I admit my error. I nonetheless believe that a "Modern Islamic State" is inherently an oxymoron. Now by that I am not saying that Islam cannot be modernized or tweaked or whatever it is you hope to do with it. I have a respect for Islam and, as I said, some of the best people I know are Muslim. It is not the "Islam-ness" as opposed to "Christian-ness" or "Jewish-ness" of the state that I would have a problem with.

I simply think that a religious state - in the model of any religion - is a terrible idea. Any study of science is incompatible with religion. I used to be agnostic, but now I really say I am atheist. I just do not see how the modern world can be reconsiled with religious beliefs. I do not see how a modern state can be able to progress to its full potential if it adheres to what I see as fables from the past. Certainly there are good things found in religion. But the intolerance...the treatment of women and gays, the constant praying (as if that does anything)...it is bibically and Koranically justified. How can a MODERN state exist if it adheres to such principles?

Furthermore, I understand you are against usury. But no state in the world exists without charging interest. Even Islamic banks charge a form of interest. Wikipedia has a nice summary of Islamic banks and how they work.


My point is that I believe some form of interest is needed for modern banking to exist, and even, I believe, for a state to progress. This is different from runaway interest and many of the problems with the American banking system.

I await your response. I am very curious as to what sort of state you see as ideal. Knowing we live in a world filled with demogogues who thrive on hate, I wonder how you hope to bring your state into reality, or whether your idea is more of a theoretical.

At Tuesday, April 18, 2006, Blogger Akber said...

Read my new post. I believe we do agree :) on many things and the professors have also spoken. The rest as I say is 'tribalism'.

My theory is a bit complex, but here goes and comments would be appreciated:

1. Scientifically analyzing the Ahadith (sayings of Muhammad) shows that few (if any) are reliable and are the source of a corrupted social structure, and were never intended to form and eternal form of Shariah.

2. Ergo, the core principles of shariah (few) remain solid, while the rest is flexible, and evolves in multiple jurisidictions as law evolves.

3. Governments must be non-theocratic and Islam goes to great pains to not prescribe a form of government.

4. The quest for religious perfection (the business of Mullahs) must stop. It prevents intellectual Muslims from taking patriotic interest (they just flee). Moral judgments have to stop. period.

5. Alternate social structures should exist where debate is carried on by well-meaning 'imperfect' Muslims from all walks of life. This will go a long way to repatriating Muslim scholars to their home countries, creating character, honour and responsibility out of social bonding. Currently, the only patriotic social bonding is in mosques, where the mullahs rule. As an example

6. Engaging Western Muslims in this exercise, thereby slowly alienating the mullah class in many Islamic countries.

7. However, an unwavering patriotism and nationalism and pride must be encouraged. Inferiority complex and self-ridicule has to be kicked out.

I am not advocating a top-down reformation, but rather gleaning points from the countries that have implemented parts of this model, like the UAE and Malaysia.

At Tuesday, April 18, 2006, Blogger Red Tulips said...


I still do not quite understand what your model consists of, or what the core tenets are. That said, obviously a dialogue that exists beyond the boundaries of a mosque is to be encouraged.

I really cannot comment as I am not sure what you are advocating.

I can say what I advocate, and maybe you can comment on that.

I advocate a more limited government that allows people to live and let live. I advocate a form of federalism, where the states have most of the power, and the federal government exists to regulate the money supply, interstate commerce, and foreign policy. This is exactly what the Founding Fathers of the American constitution envisioned, and I think America needs to go back to the original model.

I believe in individual dignity and justice for all. That all said...I am not an extremist, and I believe that some form of economic redistribution of wealth is necessary for a functioning economy as a temporary patch, until all states are on an even playing field. However, my form of economic redistribution of wealth would go towards building infrastructure and funding education programs that cannot be funded by some of the poorer states. I believe that interest is necessary to spur incentives for investment, but on a more limited basis than it is currently, and allowing for bankruptcy protection for those who cannot afford to pay interest. I also believe that the monetary system needs to be controlled by a fourth branch of the government. I think that the board of directors of the money regulating system should be appointed by a coalition of states and the president, approved by the legislature.

I have more beliefs. But essentially, my idea is to empower Americans with individual rights according to Jeffersonian ideals. These individual rights need to also be tempered with an eye for the collective well being of the nation.

If people want to worship their faith, there should be nothing that stops them, however, there also should be no stigmatization for those who decide they do not wish to worship anything.

Investment in science, infrastructure, and healthy living should be the cornerstone for America.

I think that these values I hold dear are exportable across the world in modified form, however, what concerns me most at the moment is America, and how far it has come from the glorious foundation of this nation.

At Wednesday, April 19, 2006, Blogger Akber said...

yes, my brief thoughts will not make sense to a person who does not know the problematic social structures of Egypt, Pakistan, Morocco, Iran, etc. Also, it is hard to understand how mullahs wield influence over a portion of the population through ever-changing and obscure theology and constant guilt.

Sorry, wrong forum to discuss these issues briefly.

Your beliefs are great, but if you think deeper, the problem is with modern democracy itself. Democracy is very tricky to achieve: educated electorate, wise leaders. Mercantile powers seek to usurp ANY form of government, through flattery, sycophancy or subversion of democracy.

The safeguard agains this was the press, so the merchants bought up the press :)

If the press is the 'check and balance' then at least some part of it should not be commercially owned - like the BBC for example.

At Wednesday, April 19, 2006, Blogger Red Tulips said...

The USA has NPR and PBS - public radio and a public broadcasting station. Both do not get the funding nor the attention that BBC gets, but they exist.

As far as education of the electorate - I completely agree. But, correct me if I am wrong, you seem to be giving up on educating people. I think that a generation of Americans exist to be educated, and that a mandated class on the constitution is a great idea - so people can know and appreciate their rights. In fact, there is a national curriculum for this, which I learned in high school. It was part of "We The People," and I remember it to this day. It was one of the best classes I have taken, and I have since learned that I was not taught propoganda. You can read about the curriculum here:


I think that this should be expanded to schools around the nation.

The founding fathers created a great country, and their achievement and legacy should not be thrown in the garbage just because some modern leaders have messed things up.


Post a Comment

<< Home