10-01-2007, 04:23 PM
<!--QuoteBegin-dhu+Oct 1 2007, 10:10 AM-->QUOTE(dhu @ Oct 1 2007, 10:10 AM)<!--QuoteEBegin-->Husky,
In the debate, the Iranian position seemed more tentative, sincere, and open than all the familiar canards thrown by the Americans. Ahmadinejad did not have the werewithal to formulate openly that The Holocaust experience is "irrelevant" to geopolitical considerations in the Mideast and that is why he <i>feels</i> an indifference to the issue of whether it happened or not. [right][snapback]73753[/snapback][/right]<!--QuoteEnd--><!--QuoteEEnd-->I watched some of his holocaust-denial on the news - a long while back now. It was not mere indifference. It was islami callousness, plain old anti-semitism.
If he were merely indifferent he could have said 'so what' and done the usual equal-equal thing of bringing in the 'oppression of Palestine' or whatnot. But his was outright denial.
If I hadn't watched it on the news and had only read the response to Bollinger/the speech posted somewhere above, I'd have agreed to a greater extent with you on this:
<!--QuoteBegin-->QUOTE<!--QuoteEBegin-->I got the feeling that Ahmadinejad have some vedic type moorings left in him. These are the fellows who held out against full arabization.<!--QuoteEnd--><!--QuoteEEnd-->Though he's muslim, the way he formulates/understands his beliefs are very.... Iranian. He imagines a depth (in islam) that is simply not there. Wasted energy and thought IMO. It's merely like how poets can make anything feel appetising - until you see exactly what they've been describing (yech). In the end, such descriptions/feelings say more about the poet than the object described.
<!--QuoteBegin-->QUOTE<!--QuoteEBegin-->US bases sorrounding Iran<!--QuoteEnd--><!--QuoteEEnd-->Wow. I never saw that one coming. The Occupation of Iraq and Afghanistan are serving so many purposes, or was this a major one...
Another matter.
Earlier on, forgot to add my two cents on this:
<!--QuoteBegin-->QUOTE<!--QuoteEBegin-->Submitted by mohan sivaswamy, Sep 27, 2007 03:44
[...]
My sympathies for President Ahemdinijad have increase manifold by watching his smiling face and unruffled reacion to the insults.
And don't forget the points he made. He was right about 'why <b>Palestinians</b> have to pay for what the White man did to Jews in Europe'. The British created the Palestine situation and as is their practice, got out of Palestine in a hurry, dividing the people there and creating arbitrary boundaries between nations and people. Americans stepped in later to exploit the troubled circumstances and made sure they got oil cheaply for decades. It was very correct of President Ahmedinijad to bring this point to the fore.<!--QuoteEnd--><!--QuoteEEnd-->The 'mohan sivaswamy' who wrote this only read up on Partition and not on Israel/rest of ME apparently, but nevertheless thinks it must all be the same. 'Bother history, you hear one story and you know them all, right - and who cares about them pesky little details anyway?'
Or did he fall for the old "once upon a time, there lived in the country of Falastina a peaceful and happy people: the Falastinians. <Blablabla> Until the evil Jews came along and...."
I keep hearing that drivel - and variations on it - a lot these days. Quaint dawaganda. Strangely, though, it actually seems to fool a lot of people.
But it doesn't hold water for many reasons. Besides the documented fact that the land was practically deserted in the 19th century until the Israelis started settling there, there is a somewhat basic impediment to the setup of a "Falastina":
- Arabians don't have a P, they only have an F.
- Greco-Romans have both a P and an F. Hence you have <b>P</b>etrus, <b>P</b>aulus, <b>F</b>lavius Julianus, and Arabia <b>F</b>elix as the Romans called Arabia.
- From what I recall, <b>P</b>alestina is how the Greco-Romans referred to the region. If it had ever originally been a '<b>F</b>alastina' (as is these days alleged by the Arabians from Jordan living in the region now), then the Romans would have preserved the 'F' - it would have been no trouble for them at all.
But it was <i>not</i> an Arabic name: the placename was known to the Romans as <b>P</b>alestina. The 'Palestinians' of today have merely taken over that old name to give themselves some legitimacy, and have plugged their 'f' in there to replace the 'p' that they don't have. You would think they'd have come up with a more convincing 'original' name, rather than one that looks to disprove their claims.
In the debate, the Iranian position seemed more tentative, sincere, and open than all the familiar canards thrown by the Americans. Ahmadinejad did not have the werewithal to formulate openly that The Holocaust experience is "irrelevant" to geopolitical considerations in the Mideast and that is why he <i>feels</i> an indifference to the issue of whether it happened or not. [right][snapback]73753[/snapback][/right]<!--QuoteEnd--><!--QuoteEEnd-->I watched some of his holocaust-denial on the news - a long while back now. It was not mere indifference. It was islami callousness, plain old anti-semitism.
If he were merely indifferent he could have said 'so what' and done the usual equal-equal thing of bringing in the 'oppression of Palestine' or whatnot. But his was outright denial.
If I hadn't watched it on the news and had only read the response to Bollinger/the speech posted somewhere above, I'd have agreed to a greater extent with you on this:
<!--QuoteBegin-->QUOTE<!--QuoteEBegin-->I got the feeling that Ahmadinejad have some vedic type moorings left in him. These are the fellows who held out against full arabization.<!--QuoteEnd--><!--QuoteEEnd-->Though he's muslim, the way he formulates/understands his beliefs are very.... Iranian. He imagines a depth (in islam) that is simply not there. Wasted energy and thought IMO. It's merely like how poets can make anything feel appetising - until you see exactly what they've been describing (yech). In the end, such descriptions/feelings say more about the poet than the object described.
<!--QuoteBegin-->QUOTE<!--QuoteEBegin-->US bases sorrounding Iran<!--QuoteEnd--><!--QuoteEEnd-->Wow. I never saw that one coming. The Occupation of Iraq and Afghanistan are serving so many purposes, or was this a major one...
Another matter.
Earlier on, forgot to add my two cents on this:
<!--QuoteBegin-->QUOTE<!--QuoteEBegin-->Submitted by mohan sivaswamy, Sep 27, 2007 03:44
[...]
My sympathies for President Ahemdinijad have increase manifold by watching his smiling face and unruffled reacion to the insults.
And don't forget the points he made. He was right about 'why <b>Palestinians</b> have to pay for what the White man did to Jews in Europe'. The British created the Palestine situation and as is their practice, got out of Palestine in a hurry, dividing the people there and creating arbitrary boundaries between nations and people. Americans stepped in later to exploit the troubled circumstances and made sure they got oil cheaply for decades. It was very correct of President Ahmedinijad to bring this point to the fore.<!--QuoteEnd--><!--QuoteEEnd-->The 'mohan sivaswamy' who wrote this only read up on Partition and not on Israel/rest of ME apparently, but nevertheless thinks it must all be the same. 'Bother history, you hear one story and you know them all, right - and who cares about them pesky little details anyway?'
Or did he fall for the old "once upon a time, there lived in the country of Falastina a peaceful and happy people: the Falastinians. <Blablabla> Until the evil Jews came along and...."
I keep hearing that drivel - and variations on it - a lot these days. Quaint dawaganda. Strangely, though, it actually seems to fool a lot of people.
But it doesn't hold water for many reasons. Besides the documented fact that the land was practically deserted in the 19th century until the Israelis started settling there, there is a somewhat basic impediment to the setup of a "Falastina":
- Arabians don't have a P, they only have an F.
- Greco-Romans have both a P and an F. Hence you have <b>P</b>etrus, <b>P</b>aulus, <b>F</b>lavius Julianus, and Arabia <b>F</b>elix as the Romans called Arabia.
- From what I recall, <b>P</b>alestina is how the Greco-Romans referred to the region. If it had ever originally been a '<b>F</b>alastina' (as is these days alleged by the Arabians from Jordan living in the region now), then the Romans would have preserved the 'F' - it would have been no trouble for them at all.
But it was <i>not</i> an Arabic name: the placename was known to the Romans as <b>P</b>alestina. The 'Palestinians' of today have merely taken over that old name to give themselves some legitimacy, and have plugged their 'f' in there to replace the 'p' that they don't have. You would think they'd have come up with a more convincing 'original' name, rather than one that looks to disprove their claims.