Ahmadinejad speaks in US / judeo-supremacists panic

[Hannover]

Always good to read what was actually said, here's more:

"Given this historical event, if it is a reality, we need to still question whether the Palestinian people should be paying for it or not. After all, it happened in Europe. The Palestinian people had no role to play in it. So why is it that the Palestinian people are paying the price of an event they had nothing to do with?

"The Palestinian people didn't commit any crime. They had no role to play in World War II. They were living with the Jewish communities and the Christian communities in peace at the time. They didn't have any problems.

"And today, too, Jews, Christians, and Muslims live in brotherhood all over the world in many parts of the world. They don't have any serious problems.

"But why is it that the Palestinians should pay a price, innocent Palestinians, for 5 million people to remain displaced or refugees abroad for 60 years. Is this not a crime? Is asking about these crimes a crime by itself?"

Well yes, according to judeo-supremacists it IS a crime to ask.

The judeo-supremacists can feel it slipping, and like a wounded beast, they are dangerous.

- Hannover

[TruthSeeker]

If the debate is simply on whether "the Holocaust" took place or not, regardless of what the proper noun "Holocaust" designates, it's obvious we have a guaranteed winner for the "yes" bunch.
For instance, if this week's meaning of "the Holocaust" is, say, the Declaration of Independence of the United States, then, yes, "the Holocaust" is a very well-documented likely historical truth for this week. What's so difficult to understand about this?

I still do not understand your point. You talk in vague terms not absolutes. This is reminiscent of the vague talk of the believers. As revisionists, we should not resort to such vague terminology in our critiques and/or discussions. It is clear that by "holocaust" , the believers mean the deliberate attempt to systematically wipe out the jews. It does not only mean "were there concentration camps?" Absolutely there were camps, but the question is, were these camps death camps? Absolutely not. Why? Because there is no proof that they were (and logic dictates that you apply the concept of "innocent until proven guilty", not the other way around). So, I do not quite understand your obsession with defining the terms of the debate. We do not need to re-define any term, or to go beyond any term. What we need to do, and what many brave revisionist scientists have done, is challenge the claims that pass as historical truth but which are backed neither by historical facts nor by scientific data.

If the ignorant Iranian president -- or anyone else interested in the subject that might dispose of a largely publicized tribune -- really wanted to bring the lies into the open and embarrass the peddlers of the shapeless device for power and profit called "the Holocaust", then he should have brought the gas chambers to the fore. This he never does and probably never will do.

Well with all due respect to your disrespectful person, Ahmadinejad was not there to give a speech about the holohoax. He was not there as the representative of revisionists. And if you are counting on him to be the representative and spokesperson of revisionists then you better start looking for a more suitable candidate. Not because he might not go any deeper into the holohoax issue, but because while you can utilize a politician to advance public knowledge of revisionism (given the amount of audience and publicity they receive), it is wrong to consider any politician a suitable representative of revisionism. As political as this issue might be, or as political as many might attempt to make it, revisionists' challenge comes from scientific argumentation not political rhetoric.

1) peddling the historical lies Islam requires and 2) helping the Palestinian cause. I can heartily agree with his second objective, but not at the expense of the truth regarding the "Holocaust" cult.

Excuse me, but what on earth are you rambling on and on about? How is any of this relevant? And what is up with #1?? How does helping the Palestinian cause come at the expense of the truth regarding the holohoax??? You assume a lot of things. You assume that Ahmadinejad, when he talked about the alleged holocaust, he was doing so as a self-proclaimed spokesperson of revisionists. He was not. I do not recall anyone having asked him for that favor, either. So what exactly is your point? The man is free to say whatever he chooses to about the holohoax, without being bound by what you may or may not think to be appropriate revisionist discourse.

The guy is an engineer. He has been in contact with "Holocaust" revisionism and should at least understand a few of the basics. And yet he finds nothing better to say than "yes to the Holocaust, no to Palestinian responsibility for it"?!

Well actually he did say more than that. Please read what he actually did say about it, and pay special attention to key words:

My first question was if -- given that the Holocaust is a present reality of our time, a history that occurred, why is there not sufficient research that can approach the topic from different perspectives?
...
My question was simple: There are researchers who want to approach the topic from a different perspective. Why are they put into prison? Right now, there are a number of European academics who have been sent to prison because they attempted to write about the Holocaust or research it from a different perspective, questioning certain aspects of it.

My question is: Why isn't it open to all forms of research?

I have been told that there's been enough research on the topic. And I ask, well, when it comes to topics such as freedom, topics such as democracy, concepts and norms such as God, religion, physics even, or chemistry, there's been a lot of research, but we still continue more research on those topics. We encourage it.

But, then, why don't we encourage more research on a historical event that has become the root, the cause of many heavy catastrophes in the region in this time and age?

Why shouldn't there be more research about the root causes? That was my first question.

And my second question, well, given this historical event, if it is a reality, we need to still question whether the Palestinian people should be paying for it or not.

Please read the whole transcript before you pass such misinformed judgments. Despite the high amount of pressure on him regarding this point, he kept a relatively firm and consistent position throughout. Now if you think it was not sufficient, then you are more than free to appoint a spokesperson for revisionism and work on being invited at Columbia University.

TruthSeeker
Lebanon

[ASMarques]

Excuse me, but what on earth are you rambling on and on about? How is any of this relevant?

Okay, TruthSeeker, I'll try again. Please note I'm not speaking solely -- or even mainly -- of Ahmadinejad's performance, but rather using the opportunity to make a point that seems important to me. Trying to get the point is a good exercise. Keep seeking and ye shall find. Here we go.

If you're under attack by bullies and you start up defensively by stating "I do not (or may not) deny the Holocaust, but..." the message that will come across to every unknowledgeable person is "yes, I accept the gigantic event that only a moron would deny, but I insist in nit-picking here and there."

Acknowledge the naked emperor's magnificent clothes, dispute the state of his socks where an invisible hole or two may exist? This is the wrong message! And, believe me, the myth peddlers understand this much better than many revisionists do...

To begin with, because one in a thousand people will read anything beyond the "I don't deny" headline that will strenghten the big lie, and even then he may not fully notice you're also saying in the small print that your "true Holocaust" involves no gas chambers, no extermination attempt, and fewer than a million Jewish victims of non-planned war-derived causes.

No wonder "denying Holocaust denial" will get you more exposure! Of course it does, since it brings the water to your opponent's watermill, as the saying goes.

This is why Ahmadinejad is given a public platform to answer "Holocaust" questions with but a few token protests -- and the event then calmly proceeds with everyone and his dog satisfied and self-congratulatory on account of the West's "freedom of speech" -- but the whole lot of Jewish power base organisations, with their controlled media and army of politicians, lawmakers and public prosecutors go ballistic and jump into action as soon as someone like Faurisson gets the slightest opportunity to reply to a few questions in front of a TV camera.

The serious uphill debate on the "Holocaust" has been over for quite a while. What we have now is a propaganda struggle aiming at stonewalling the facts on one side, and bringing them into the open on the other. Fortunately it's quite possible to subsume the facts in truthful simple concepts and strong ideas on the revisionist side, an impossible task for its opponents condemned to self-defeating lies such as the classic "best documented event in History" canard.

In short, if Ahmadinejad the engineer really doesn't know what he is talking about, he should restrict himself to something along these lines: "You ask me if I deny the Holocaust? Well, I'm told by the researchers Israel and many Christian countries want to silence and indeed persecute and throw in prison, that the Holocaust denies itself. If this is not true, what other reason is there to fear their work?"

No more would have been needed. By avoiding even the slightest ambiguity he would also have avoided the "denied his denial" headlines we're now getting, and would have put the ill-mannered simpleton who introduced him in his rightful place.

But, of course, old Ahmadinejad himself is also fond of solving arguments by ex-cathedra prohibition and persecution, as prescribed by the silly set of superstitions he subscribes to, so what else remains to be said, except that, given the pervasive censorship and the ignorance of the public, "Holocaust" debunking remains a noble endeavour, in spite of the sorry fellow-travellers revisionists may need in order to survive the Jewish onslaught on their freedom of thought and speech.

[ASMarques]

How does helping the Palestinian cause come at the expense of the truth regarding the holohoax???

It does if you transfer the Jewish supremacist state from Palestine to Bavaria, courtesy of the "Holocaust." Jews ought to have exactly the same citizen rights everybody else has, whatever the state they are citizens of. No more, no less. If they want an "Israel" state of their own, by all means let them have a bit of unpopulated Birobidjan again, but certainly not Bavaria. Of course, I understand Ahmadinejad has a sense of humour. And so have I.

I also think, BTW, that an Islamic state ruled by shari'ah is every bit as abusive a concept as a Jewish or a Christian one, but I won't go into that. Not relevant to the truth or falsehood of the "Holocaust."

[Kiwichap]

I just love the President of Iran. When in our time did a man ever walk so meekly and so boldly, into the most viscious of lions dens, to face his avowed enemy, and taunt him with such bravery, logic and truth? Enduring the gnashing of teeth all about him, madness and insults, knowing his life could well be on the line. Ya just gotta love such boldness.

Ahmadinejad is performing a great service to all who would see the truth about the so-called holocaust prevail. He is also very clever. I am sure he understands 'there is more than one way to skin a cat' and I think he may be one of those rare individuals able to have his cake and eat it too.

I know there are zillions of folk who do not give a tinkers cuss about the so-called holocaust. They could care less about the war or any part of it. They are not bothered with what happened last week let alone with what happened 60 years ago.

BUT, tell them, 'here is a place you cannot go' - 'here is something you cannot examine'. - 'here is forbidden fruit you cannot eat'. Tell them 'don't touch' and they will surely touch, like a moth unable to resist the light, they will be caught. Ahmadinejad never fails to present his argument in this fashion.

You see, most folk don't give a damn about others, but they sure give a damn about themselves, their so-called rights and freedoms, their free expression and their liberty.

Ahmadinejad appeals to all those folk who hate restrictions placed upon themselves, and I am sure he knows that is us all. The President never fails to let the world know there are men in prison being punished because they had the termerity to question. (Revisionists) He always lets everyone know there are folk being punished for something they did not do. (Palestinians) He never fails to mention the certain punishment received for looking into the taboo with an enquiring mind.

The Presidents words are terribly attractive to the youth. Like the Pied Piper he plays a tune of curiosity, and folk are drawn, especially the young, and the examination of the hoax is the inevitable desired outcome. Everyone always wants to touch the forbidden tree. It is our nature.

I think the President has two objectives. The freedom of the Palestinians and the enlightenment, peace, and happiness of the nations. He always makes this perfectly clear everytime he speaks. His logic re: the Palestinians is irrefutable. If it happened, why should they pay the price? This statement alone will get more folk looking into the hoax than any number of mentions about gas-chambers, 6M or bars of soap. He never fails to draw a picture of Zionist domination over Europe and by extension the USA. The long and peaceful, non-aggressive state of the Iranian nation, smooths away any distrust folk may have of his motives.

I think he is playing his cards close to his chest. I think his first priority is the Palestinians plight and the hoax exposure comes a close second. Either way, when one is achieved, the second will surely follow, he yet may have his cake and eat it too.

TruthSeeker As revisionists, we should not resort to such vague terminology in our critiques and/or discussions....

Absolutely. There was not holocausts within the holocaust, as the enemy would have it now that he is on the run. The enemy is desperatley grasping at the coins as they drop and scatter cross the floor, before they fall through the cracks, and are lost forever.

There was no holocaust, plain and simple.

[Mannstein]

What is remarkable is how the media keeps falling into the trap by stating that Ahmadinejad does not believe in the holocaust and at the same time that Iran needs to be bombed. The casual viewer comes to the conclusion the US needs to start a war with a country because its president is an unbeliever.

Surely even the most unsophisticated will come to the conclusion that innocents will die because holocaust heresy cannot be tolerated by the West. It is difficult to believe that Americans are ready to sacrifice their sons and daughters for such a cause.

The media unwittingly is placing the whole house of cards in jeopardy.

[ASMarques]

I just love the President of Iran... etc

Okay. I agree with part of what you say, and I also like some of his attitudes. He may be a good man, even though he doesn't seem very articulate to me, "Holocaust"-wise. And he does preside over an authoritarian religious regime. Yes, "where there are men in prison [or worse: for instance, in Iran the penalty for apostasy is death] being punished because they had the temerity to question..."

[Kiwichap]

...he doesn't seem very articulate to me, "Holocaust"-wise.

Perhaps not ASMarques...

Its my guess he has only been introduced to the holo fraud for perhaps a couple of years. I don't really know. What I do know is Ahmadinejad has most probably viewed the videos 'Jailing Opinions', and Zundels documentary, 'Setting the Record Straight'. We can see Lady Michelle Renouf giving him copies here http://www.jailingopinions.com/. Ahmadinejad never ceases to mention the imprisoned revisionists whenever he speaks.

We know he has seen the model of the Treblinka concentration camp Dr Toben took with him to Iran. Here http://www.adelaideinstitute.org/2006December/model.htm. If Dr Tobin managed to explain somewhat about Auschwitz, then being an engineer, he may have chuckled over the little door that hundreds of thousands supposedly went in, got gassed, and came out again, yep, the same little door, that opened inwards. And that would be the case for Auschwitz 1 and 2. I'm sure he would have had a good laugh about that one. Dr Tobin seems to be in regular touch with academia in Iran, so they will be keeping the President informed.

Professor Faurisson has spoken to him more than once, along with other revisionists. He must know about Rudolf, he specifically mentioned 'scientists' in his UN speech. They prosecute scientists and historians for stating their opinions on important global issues. And again, at Colombia Bullying powers of the world confiscate science in their interests and with bullying attitude and do not allow scholars and scientists [to] enter areas in which disclosures of realities will reveal their real ill intentions.. Its great having science on our side, exactly the same as having God on our side, so who can ever overcome us? Yeah, the Prez must have a pretty good idea of whats what and whats not.

Like most of us, he may be overwhelmed with the chutzpah' of it all, and not fully convinced about the entire package. He believes in the goodness of all men so he will have trouble reconciling his belief with the fact there are amongst us such shysters, with such arrogance and gall. Shameful con men, outshining any charletan we ever saw on TV. It takes time getting ones head around it all, like being boggled by clever magicians and not willing to immediately believe what one has seen. Most folk do not like the thought they have been duped, so they will not allow themselves to believe it all immediately. But after quietly thinking about some of the more ridiculous points, like that little door, the light turns on and another head is cleared of darkness.

Like most of us, he probably does not want to say something that may bring a questioning response he feels he may not be able to answer with any sure confidence and knowledge. I know after thirty years of holo denial, I'm still learning something new most days. Usually from you guys here at the forum, but elsewhere also.

I think he is sticking to things he knows are crystal clear, and can never be refuted, like the imprisoned revisionists. Heretics because they belive the science and not the holo dogma. He surely realises those involved with their imprisoning will be so ashamed of themselves they will not be able to gainsay without reaping what Bollinger reaped, worldwide approbrium for his disgraceful conduct. I have NEVER heard one peep from any holocauster to Ahmadinejad over the imprisoned revisionists. Not once, yet Ahmadinejad never fails to push the point. What could they say anyway?

I don't have his patience and would probably blow myself up in self-destruction the moment I opened my mouth. So I think he's doing a great job ASMarques.

As far as And he does preside over an authoritarian religious regime. Yes, "where there are men in prison [or worse: for instance, in Iran the penalty for apostasy is death] being punished because they had the temerity to question..."

Well, is that any different to what is going on in the good ol' USA today? Well sure it is. At least those in Iran are charged with something, even if we do not agree with the charge. The USA, and others, did not even have the balls to press charges against the revisionists. They bundled up innocent men, guilty of nothing, and sent them off as heretics to what we Protestants once called the DARK AGES, in Europe. There is nothing new under the sun. I guess the Americans, like Pontius Pilate, could now wash their hands and say, "look we are clean, we have done nothing wrong". Tell me ASMarques, who has the greater sin?

[ASMarques]

Ahmadinejad never ceases to mention the imprisoned revisionists whenever he speaks.

True. We should be grateful to him for that. Also because he seems to be a man of peace.

Professor Faurisson has spoken to him more than once, along with other revisionists.

And rightly so, since we face the most powerful taboo in modern history, and all help should be welcomed. Not a sin, but simply mutual convenience. On the other hand, I suspect (but may be wrong) Ahmadinejad wouldn't give a hoot about the truth or falsehood of the "Holocaust" if it didn't help his own political agenda.

Well, is that any different to what is going on in the good ol' USA today?

Yes, it is. What's going on in the US under the Bush gang, with the Jewish lobby in control of the country's foreign policy, is the negation of US historical & ideological tradition, with the Constitution subverted on a daily basis. Hopefully the spirit and letter of the law will still prevail in due time. The situation in the Muslim world is different: in countries like Iran they lack all historical political references implying freedom of thought and speech that you or I might consider civilized, and when under attack from Israel and the Western bullies they have nowhere to go but backwards to their own barbaric Shar'ia. Thanks to Israel and the current interventionist US policy we have lost sight of the simple fact that Ataturk, Saddam or Arafat, each in his own way, represented in the end hope for the region, while Ahmadinejad's Ayatollah sponsors are little more than religious thugs trying to make time run backwards. But I won't go into a discussion that would quickly lead us off topic.

Tell me ASMarques, who has the greater sin?

No great doubt about that, Kiwichap: the greatest sin is closing your eyes to the truth. Not to "God" or the "Holocaust," but to the simple concept that truth is logically and ontologically different from falsehood. And absolutely no one should have the right to prohibit you of attacking the "Holocaust," like they do in the West, or the "Big Daddy in Heaven," like they do in Iran.