Skinner, Ahmadinejad, and Holocaust Denial - a New DUer's Perspective

[Zandor]

Thank you, Skinner.

I am relatively new to the site. Over the past few days I have engaged in vigorous debate on these items and more. The exchanges were invigorating and the posters usually knowledgeable.

However, aspects of the issue became troubling. Some suggested Ahmadinejad was not a Holocaust denier. Make no mistake, to serve as Ahmadinejad's apologist in this matter is enabling and supporting Holocaust denial. It cannot be tolerated by true progressives.

Skinner, the stand and action you took against this element and involved parties have given me greater faith in DU and the Democratic party.

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=389x1907550

Again, my thanks to you for this and a most interesting site.

Zandor

[Vinnie From Indy]

1. Agreed!

He is a denier and should always be called on it! Thanks for joining the DU stew!

[terip64]

2. Zandor, I came to this site after the 2004 election and I really don't know what I would do w/out it

It can get crazy sometimes and I have to admit I ignore a lot of stuff. However, the information that you get from it is invaluable and I believe that there is nothing like anywhere else on the net.

Welcome, buckle your seat belt and most of all enjoy! The best is yet to come!

[Zandor]

5. Indeed

It can be a wild ride. Thanks.

[trumad]

3. You do know that Skinner is not a real person...

[Zandor]

8. Shakedown???

LOL

[DFW]

10. If he isn't a real person,

then he's the most convincing android I ever met.

[Zandor]

11. Amazing isn't it?

:)

[DFW]

15. Definitely smarter than your average android.........

[Zandor]

18. Probably an Ivy League android

:)

[DFW]

75. Hey, I was an Ivy league android once!

[groovedaddy]

4. Anyone who is a Holocaust deniar

is liable to believe ANYTHING!
An uncle of mine (WWII veteran) stood sentry at one of the camps after it was liberated. Stacks of bodies were numerous and the stench so bad that sentries could only do guard duty for 30 minutes at a time.
The historical record also proves that it happened and anyone who denies it is just plain ignorant or has some other agenda they are serving.

[Zandor]

9. Indeed

This is no place for the deniers.

[papau]

6. Juan Cole only offered a translation that was not a clear Holoaust denial - I don't think

he was trying to be an Ahmadinejad apologist - but I could be wrong :-)

[terip64]

7. I didn't hear what he had to say but I trust him and his knowledge. n/t

[IndianaJones]

17. Juan Cole is an idiot. nt.

[harun]

36. Name calling? Puhhh lease grow up (n/t)

[melody]

12. The discussion of anything must be tolerated by true progressives

To be liberal, I'd think we'd have to be liberal.

[cali]

13. Defense of hate speech

is not a liberal value. And of course, this is a private board and speech on many things is not permitted. In my house, I don't allow racial slurs or defense of racists. This is skinner's house.

[renie408]

14. Then the poster on the other thread is right and he needs to change the name

to "Skinner's House". But gosh, I would be willing to be that wouldn't be NEARLY as profitable.

And coming from somebody as technical about language as you are, I find the sophism that discussing whether or not Ahmadinejad is a holocaust denier is hate speech very interesting. It seems to me that your linguistic perfection is somewhat selective. The posters here didn't deny the holocaust. They questioned whether or not Ahmadinejad was a holocaust denier. Spin away, but those are two different things.

[cali]

26. Sorry, yes there were people denying the Holocaust

in classic terminology. It isn't often as simple as "It never happened" There's an entire language for it, just as there's code for repuke racism, like "States Rights" and the "Southern Stragegy" and "voter ID".

You don't want to see it, you won't see it. And there were more than a handful of people who were not 'questioning', they were outright stating that he was not a Holocaust denier".

In any case, this is all rather pointless, but I am surprised that you didn't realize that there are things you can't say here.

I'm done with this discussion. I honestly believe there are far more important things.

[renie408]

40. Yeah, like editing Cindy Sheehan's blog posts. I 'see' just fine. n/t

[cali]

62. And what was the problem with that?

That Cindy Sheehan is above criticism? Did I call her names? No. Did I say anything like she shut up, and go away? No.

Talk about sycophants.

[renie408]

67. Ooops...extrapolated a bit far there, didn't we??

Ummm...no, you didn't say she should shut up and go away. That was somebody else about people who think that Ahmadinejad didn't really deny the holocaust.

I was actually referring to the fact that you had plenty of time to stick with that thread. And mostly because I disliked the patronising tone of 'I am done with this'.

[renie408]

68. BTW...about those rules you keep quoting

>>Do not post messages that are inflammatory, extreme, divisive, incoherent, or otherwise inappropriate. Do not engage in anti-social, disruptive, or trolling behavior. Do not post broad-brush, bigoted statements. The moderators and administrators work very hard to enforce some minimal standards regarding what content is appropriate. But please remember that this is a large and diverse community that includes a broad range of opinion. People who are easily offended, or who are not accustomed to having their opinions (including deeply personal convictions) challenged may not feel entirely comfortable here. A thick skin is necessary to participate on this or any other discussion forum.<<

I don't see hate speech mentioned. I see 'minimal standards'. I see "A thick skin is necessary".

I don't see anything that would even insinuate that 'Ahmadinejad isn't really a holocaust denier' is against board rules.

(Hint: there is a way to get me on this)

[onenote]

32. skinner can call this whatever he wants. people can read the rules. and they can go elsewhere

What's the problem with that?

[renie408]

70. Have you read the rules?

I can't find the 'hate speech' rule. I found this rule:

>>Do not post messages that are inflammatory, extreme, divisive, incoherent, or otherwise inappropriate. Do not engage in anti-social, disruptive, or trolling behavior. Do not post broad-brush, bigoted statements. The moderators and administrators work very hard to enforce some minimal standards regarding what content is appropriate. But please remember that this is a large and diverse community that includes a broad range of opinion. People who are easily offended, or who are not accustomed to having their opinions (including deeply personal convictions) challenged may not feel entirely comfortable here. A thick skin is necessary to participate on this or any other discussion forum.<<

The real point is whether or not saying, "Ahmadinejad isn't really a holocaust denier." violates the above rule. It seems to me that it would fit within a 'minimal standard' and doesn't violate the other prohibitions.

[onenote]

72. Yes I have

and I would place statements that contend that "Ahmadinejad isn't a holocaust denier" squarely in the category of messages that "inflammatory, extreme, divisive, incoherent or otherwise inappropriate."

[renie408]

73. Honestly...HONESTLY...more

"inflammatory, extreme, divisive, incoherent or otherwise inappropriate" than so many of the things that get said here?

You know, the way to 'get' me is that they didn't pull or lock the thread. I kept thinking somebody would see that clearly. You have to give it to Skinner. Even though he obviously feels passionately about this, he didn't remove or lock the thread. So, apparently he didn't think it was against the rules. He just disagrees strongly with it.

I think he needs an alter ego so that he can say the things he feels without them having the weight of 'law', if you know what I mean.

[melody]

16. I was speaking only to his contention regarding what is right for "progressives"

I don't know how many times I've pointed out on here that private boards aren't public streets.
Apparently this has gone unnoticed. lol

It's Skinner's board. It's his call.

[renie408]

19. Saying that Ahmadinejad isn't a holocaust denier isn't hate speech.

It might be stupid and wrong, but it isn't hate speech. If someone says, "I don't believe in the holocaust and I think it is a fairytale designed for political reasons." and used that as a basis for attacking Jews, THAT would be hate speech. Ahmadinejad is guilty of hate speech. Debating whether he is or isn't guilty of such isn't hate speech. I am not even sure it is defense of hate speech, I would think that would have to be reviewed on a case by case basis.

And if this is SKINNER'S board and he gets to make the calls on what is allowed to be discussed and what isn't, that needs to be made more clear upfront. I was under the impression that this was an open forum for progressives with guidelines on how to treat other posters.

[Zandor]

22. It's providing cover for him

It's next door to engaging in it.

[HiFructosePronSyrup]

28. You're either with us or against us, eh?

Where have I heard that before?

[Zandor]

39. What?

Relevance?

[HiFructosePronSyrup]

44. If you say Saddam doesn't have WMDs, you're providing cover for him.

You're engaging with him.

[Zandor]

49. The way you bounce between topics

Leaves some of your posts irrelevant.

[onenote]

38. the fact that this board has rules about content is "made clear up front"

I'm guessing you have never bothered to read those rules very carefully.

[Marrah_G]

53. It is clear and up front

Go read the rules. If you don't like it and feel you need to have completely open forum ( I can't wait to see you invite freepers with open arms)then go buy your own bandwidth and start your own message board.

Skinner obviously isn't the killer of free speech you make him out to be since he hasn't tombstoned your ass yet.

[HiFructosePronSyrup]

25. Sure it is.

Hate speech is protected by the first amendment.

And free speech is always a liberal value.

Always.

[cali]

30. Again. Hate speech is protected by the first amendment

but I don't tolerate it in my home, and that, by god, is my right.
Always. And skinner doesn't tolerate it here in his house. And that is his right. Always.

This is basic. It's not about the first amendment. It's about what skinner wants to tolerate or not on HIS site. If he makes an arbitrary rule banning speech about springer spaniels, it's his right.

Really, not that complicated a concept.

[HiFructosePronSyrup]

34. "Defense of hate speech is not a liberal value."

I'm not talking about hate speech, I'm talking about defense of hate speech.

"I disagree with what you say but I'll defend with my life your right to say it," is not that complicated a concept.

[onenote]

46. and if people want to defend Ahmadinejad, they are free to do so -- elsewhere

You can't possibly be saying that anyone has a right to say anything anywhere. If so, then presumably you would not object if a professor of physics announced that he had concluded that there was no merit to the theory of relativity and insisted on only teaching his theory, which is that all matter is really feta cheese. He has the right to stand on a street corner and shout that theory to anyone who passes by. He has the right to write a letter to the editor, publish a book or disseminate that theory however he might want. However, he doesn't have the right to keep his job as a teacher if he propounds nonsense in class.

edited to add "not" in second sentence

[HiFructosePronSyrup]

55. We're not talking about whether or not Skinner wants it on his site.

We're talking about whether or not it's a liberal value.

[onenote]

56. so is it "illiberal" not to protest firing a teacher who says everything is made of feta cheese?

[HiFructosePronSyrup]

57. Jeez, what's with the silly goal post shifting?

It's illiberal to say the teacher does not have a right to say it. It's illiberal to say that hate speech is protected here in this country, but I'm fine with it being illegal in Germany.

[mhatrw]

76. It's funny what can be construed as hate speech.

Where does it end? If I question whether somebody discussing somebody who questions the Holocaust is engaging in hate speech, am I guilty of hate speech as well?

[onenote]

31. so should we support teaching creation "science" alongside evolution?

[renie408]

52. That wasn't the winner you might have thought it was.

First, creation is religion and evolution is science. Religion does not belong in public schools. There are schools which do teach creation in place of evolution and you can send your kids to that school, if you like. You are also free to say that you believe in creation over evolution. You had just better be able to back it up. Just like if you say, "Ahmadinejad isn't a holocaust denier." you should be able to say that, just back it up. The comment about Ahmadinejad isn't denying the holocaust, isn't hate speech and isn't a defense of hate speech.

[LeftishBrit]

64. If you mean it should be legal, that's one thing

But that doesn't mean it's suitable for DU. It's legal to say that Bush is a great statesman and the Iraq war is all about bringing FREEDOM to the world - but that still doesn't make it appropriate for DU.

[Heidi]

69. NOWHERE in the DU rules that we all agreed to upon registration

does it say that "discussion of anything" will be tolerated. "Progressive" is mentioned often, but NOWHERE in the DU rules is the word "liberal" mentioned. More and more, I've begun to think that "liberal," while once a proud description of what many of us are and what I'm still proud to be, has been co-opted as a smear by the right and perverted as ugly epithet to hang on us.

Here's what the DU Rules _do_ say:

When discussing race, gender, sexual orientation, ethnicity, religion, or other highly-sensitive personal issues, please exercise the appropriate level of sensitivity toward others and take extra care to clearly express your point of view.

I would submit that suggesting that the Holocaust didn't happen is not appropriately sensitive to Jews, intellectuals, homosexuals, Roma and whole legions of others whose families died or were persecuted during the Holocaust.

Do not post messages that are bigoted against (or grossly insensitive toward) any person or group of people based on their race, gender, sexual orientation, ethnicity, religion, lack of religion, disability, physical characteristics, or region of residence.

We all agreed to this upon registration. I'm not sure I understand why anyone would think it's okay to post grossly insensitive (and flatly wrong) assertions that "Jooooooooos control the world" and/or "The Holocaust didn't happen" BS here when it's clearly against the DU Rules.

Your Freedom to Leave
All visitors to the Democratic Underground website are here voluntarily. Nobody is forcing you to post on this message board. The administrators try their best to be fair, and to make Democratic Underground a welcoming place for progressives who like Democratic Underground and who want to be here. If you do not like Democratic Underground, or the members of Democratic Underground, or the way we run Democratic Underground, then we strongly suggest that you exercise your right to leave. If we decide that you do not like this place very much, then we reserve the right to show you the door ourselves.

That's pretty clear, and we all agreed to it at registration. Again, I don't understand why anyone troubled by the discussion paramaters would want to stick around here when they're perfectly free to leave. :shrug:

[TheUniverse]

20. Its kind of hard to call him a strict Holocaust denier.

I consider him more of a Holocaust opportunist. His answer of if the holocaust happened varies depending on who is asking. When asked by the Iranian media, he said it was a "myth." Then later he said to american journalist that he was misquoted and he really meant the Jews over exaggerated their part in the holocaust and forget about the other groups who were killed in WW2. Then he hosted a David Duke Holocaust denier seminar. Then at Columbia university, he refused to say the holocaust didn't happen. Who knows if he believes it or not because he gives a different answer depending on who is asking. I bet he believes it happened and is just manipulating the anti-semetic feelings in his country to gain political power.

[Poll_Blind]

24. Yeah, you're right, but how many people out of ten here can wrap their brain around it?

  Really. Look at the types of messages we see not just on this topic but a whole host of others. I've seen few posts (and made one or two) about his opportunism (and thank you for posting yours), and the sublte nature of the real danger he poses.

  But it doesn't have squat to do with denying the holocaust.

PB

[springhill]

27. The real danger he poses?

And what is the danger that he poses to the United States? Really, I would like to know.

[HiFructosePronSyrup]

35. Did you forget 9-11?

Ahmadinejad did 9-11, you 9-11forgeter.

[Zandor]

37. We have interests, troops, and allies in the region

Iran is an unfriendly force. Their pursuit of nukes is troubling, to say the least.

[springhill]

51. Thank you.

You just made my point. We are the REAL DANGER to Iran, because we want to bomb the living daylights out of them.

[Zandor]

54. Only if they're out of line

We will protect our own and our interests, obviously.

I hope it can be avoided.

[springhill]

59. Only if they are out of line?

Do you really not know that Bush and Cheney are just chomping at the bit to attack Iran? They don't give a shit what Iran does, they WANT to start another war. Yep, Iraq had weapons of mass destruction and Iran is going after nukes. Well I guess if they say so.

[Zandor]

63. Hillary and Obama consider Iran a threat

Of course, they'd be more measured regarding a strike on Iran. That's one reason I'd take them over Bush.

But make no mistake, Iran is a threat and a strike is possible regardless of who is in the White House.

[springhill]

66. And that is why the United States is even more dangerous......

because we have so many of the democratic leaders, many of whom also supported giving Bush the authority to attack Iraq, giving credence to the "Iran is a danger" mantra. Why oh why are we going down the same road. Full me once, yeh fool me again. Oh, and by the way, in all of the history of nukes, we are the ONLY country to EVER use them. And we are the ONLY country to threaten to use them against another country.

[Poll_Blind]

45. The first mistake is assuming that Ahmadinejad is crazy. Because that's..

..just what he and his Russian and Chinese friends would like you to believe. I think "highly adaptive and manipulative, both politically and religiously" is a much more accurate description. And frankly, brilliant. Not brilliant like Einstein, of course, or Ghandi. But brilliant none-the-less. Neither Hitler nor Huey P. Long qualify as peers but he has certainly used pages from each of their playbooks.

This is the man who beat out Akbar Hashemi Rafsanjani, an extremely influential politician, cleric and previous president of Iran. This is no small feat considering the extremely religious nature of the country. Ahmadinejad holds PhD in civil engineering. He is not a career cleric like so many others. He imposes hard-line policies sometimes but clashes with hard-liners on others. He appears to be beholden to neither the conservatives or moderates but to the power of the presidency itself.

And this is why I wince most of the time when Ahmadinejad's name comes up and the majority of responses are "he's a loon" or "he's an anti-semite". That's all well and good, he just may be. But understand this man is a very complex character whose being does not begin and end with his belief that the Holocaust may have not occurred. He warrants much closer inspection because of his ties with both the Chinese and Russians but because he has been able to navigate to the top of Iranian politics while still, perhaps necessarily so, remaining ultimately vague in a political climate driven by absolutes.

His rhetoric, like Hugo Chavez's is from the Kim Il-Jung school of dealing with the United States. It's arguable that Bush himself subscribes to the Kissenger/Nixon "Mad Dog" approach to foreign policy and Ahmadinejad's approach appears to be the only way to combat it: to out "Mad Dog" the "Mad Dogs".

Notice, no crystalnacht in Iran, no mandatory flair for non-Muslims? Understand the difference between rhetoric and action. He is doing everything he can to ratchet up the rhetoric, but along a few very specific bands in the spectrum. I am convinced the Chinese and Russians have been providing assistance with this little game in hopes that the U.S. or Israel will do something militarily foolish, which is not a bad bet.

But if we look at him as an oversimplified, cartoonish character we are playing right into his hands. Whether or not Ahmadinejad believes that 6 million Jews died in the Holocaust, or 1 million or none at all is not the final word on him. It should not be the end of an attempt at understanding him but the beginning.

Because if the U.S. and Israel don't fall for the bait, he's likely going to be around for a long time to come. His ability to adapt should be much more concerning than his nuclear program. As I've said before, if Iran wanted to start WW III, they could have a long time ago. No, I think they want to do something much more permanent- they (Russia, China, Iran, (et al.?)) want to beat the U.S. or, more clearly, they want to help the U.S. beat itself.

Understanding some of the more subtle aspects of his interactions with China and Russia, and not being blinded by all the smoke he's blowing in our faces seems like a good start to actually assessing how he may be used by China and Russia, and to what ends.

PB

[xiamiam]

71. it appears that we cant get to this type of dialogue because of the flaming ..but this is exactly

the direction that we should be going....in understanding ahmadenijad..thanks..

[Zandor]

29. He's a strict Holocaust denier

Nope. Wasn't hard at all.

[TheUniverse]

33. Simplifying complex ideas into one sentence is always easy.

[HiFructosePronSyrup]

21. Meh.

I'm less worried about the people who deny the Nazi holocaust then the people who deny the current holocaust in Iraq.

The Nazi holocaust deniers are self-marginalizing. The current holocaust deniers have forgotten the more salient point- never again.

Really, they're pissing on the graves of the victims of the Nazi holocaust.

[cali]

42. And you've actually found people here who deny the

slaughter in Iraq?

Classic strawman.

[HiFructosePronSyrup]

48. Yeah.

The OP, for example, compared it to Roosevelt killing German and Japanese civilians.

It's hard to believe he seriously cares about Ahmadinejad's holocaust denial when he does that.

Or maybe that was somebody else. I'll take a look.

[sniffa]

23. this is fLamebait

[Zandor]

41. LOL

A lot of that going around, if those are your standards.

[Jed Dilligan]

43. And every person here jumping up and down and screaming about

Ahmedinejad is a denier and enabler of Bush's holocaust.

[slackmaster]

47. Zandor for President!

:toast:

[Zandor]

50. If nominated, I will not run....

LOL

[Holly_Hobby]

58. Not reported in the MSM: What Ahmadinejad did on Monday afternoon

http://www.president.ir/en/

President Ahmadinejad meets Jewish rabbis in New York



President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad Monday afternoon met with a group of Jewish rabbis who gave him a silver grail as a sign of friendship. The president is currently in New York to address the United Nations General Assembly.

The rabbis carried a placard which read, "I am Jewish not a Zionist." A senior rabbi of the group said that they considered the visit to New York of President Ahmadinejad as an exceptional opportunity and would never forget it. He referred to the Iranian president as a person who made a distinction between Jews and Zionists. "You understand us and make a distinction between the violent behavior of Zionists and the religious beliefs of Jews," said the senior rabbi who called President Ahmadinejad "a pious man who is seeking to restore peace in the world and has humanitarian plans." Appreciating the rabbis for their gift, President Ahmadinejad said he was happy to visit them.

"All people in the world have now understood that Judaism is different from Zionism," said the president. He added, "Zionists are a political group looking for taking advantage of the opportunities while Jews are the followers of the Moses who promoted peace and friendship."
President Ahmadinejad stressed that there was no disagreement between the followers of Judaism, Christianity and Islam as they all pray the same God and are brothers.

...

Official site of Presidency of the Islamic Republic of Iran News Service
http://www.president.ir/en/

(So what does this mean?)

[renie408]

60. This deserves a thread of its own. n/t

[Holly_Hobby]

61. Ok. You don't have to tell me twice. :) n/t

[Marrah_G]

74. You realise that is BS propaganda, right?

(As was pointed out to you in the other thread.)

[yardwork]

65. There were some knee-jerk reactions on DU the past couple of days.

I was surprised by some of the highly simplistic thinking. Apparently, in some folks' minds, the enemy of our enemy is always our friend.

It's important to try to face facts. It's simply stupid (and cowardly) to pretend away facts just because the right-wing is intent on misusing the facts.

The better approach is to get the facts out in the open, acknowledge them, and then determine the most logical and sensible course of action.

Any informed person recognizes that invading Iran would be a suicide mission for the United States or anyone else. It is simply not plausible. It could not succeed.

Further, it would be morally repugnant for us to invade Iran or any country, just as morally repugnant as it was for us to invade Iraq and Afghanistan, in my opinion.

That does NOT mean that we pretend that Iran is not committing grievous human rights violations. That does NOT mean that we pretend that Iran's leaders haven't done and said what they have clearly done and said.

Pointing out that Iran, among many other nations including the U.S., is guilty of serious human rights violations is in no way any kind of endorsement of military action against Iran or any other nation.

I strongly recommend that anyone confused on this point visit the Amnesty International website, where they can begin to be educated on some of the realities we are facing and the non-violent ways in which they are being addressed. You might want to visit the Southern Poverty Law Center website to learn about some home-grown terrorists and the non-violent ways in which they are being confronted as well.