And we're supposed to "talk" to these folks

[sirs]

Sirs, you use ignorance as an excuse to show selective outrage.

And your use of this new form of a fairness doctrine shows your unwillingness & overt stuborness, in addressing the point of the matter, the irrationality of trying to 'talk" specifcally to folks who are wilfully ignorant of history.  Let's pretend I know everything you do, as it relates to Turkey, Js.  It means SQUAT, as it relates to Iran/Syria, and the Iraq situation

Perhaps when Turkey or Japan become the centerpiece/roadblock to peace in a particular region, then we can start applying appropriate & "fair" outrage, at something they're currently doing

[Plane]

It is my understanding that we are discussing the Holocaust of the Jews in Europe , and not other incidents of similar nature, because the Holocaust in Europe is what President Acmananejad brought up.  It it is this incident that he has set up a foundation to study and this incident that he demands proof of.

If he wants to shine a spotlight on this incident , how does anyone else become hypocritical for responding to the terms of the argument as they have been chosen and presented ?

As far as I know President Acmananejad has expressed no intrest in examining the slaughter of the Jain's by the Moguls , the Cherokee by the Georgians , the Cambodians by the Communists , the Kurds by the Iranians ,Iriuis and Turks , the Romany by the Nazis , the Technocal by the Aztec , the Aztec by the Spanish , The Hopi by the Apache , the Apache by the Mexicans , the Scotch by the English , the Irish by the English , the Plantegent by the French , the Carthaginians by the Romans or even the Philistines by the Jews led by king David.

[sirs]

It is my understanding that we are discussing the Holocaust of the Jews in Europe , and not other incidents of similar nature, because the Holocaust in Europe is what President Acmananejad brought up. It it is this incident that he has set up a foundation to study and this incident that he demands proof of.
If he wants to shine a spotlight on this incident , how does anyone else become hypocritical for responding to the terms of the argument as they have been chosen and presented ?
As far as I know President Acmananejad has expressed no intrest in examining the slaughter of the Jain's by the Moguls , the Cherokee by the Georgians , the Cambodians by the Communists , the Kurds by the Iranians ,Iriuis and Turks , the Romany by the Nazis , the Technocal by the Aztec , the Aztec by the Spanish , The Hopi by the Apache , the Apache by the Mexicans , the Scotch by the English , the Irish by the English , the Plantegent by the French , the Carthaginians by the Romans or even the Philistines by the Jews led by king David.

Well summized, Plane.  As ususal   

[Plane]

It is my understanding that we are discussing the Holocaust of the Jews in Europe , and not other incidents of similar nature, because the Holocaust in Europe is what President Acmananejad brought up. It it is this incident that he has set up a foundation to study and this incident that he demands proof of.
If he wants to shine a spotlight on this incident , how does anyone else become hypocritical for responding to the terms of the argument as they have been chosen and presented ?
As far as I know President Acmananejad has expressed no intrest in examining the slaughter of the Jain's by the Moguls , the Cherokee by the Georgians , the Cambodians by the Communists , the Kurds by the Iranians ,Iriuis and Turks , the Romany by the Nazis , the Technocal by the Aztec , the Aztec by the Spanish , The Hopi by the Apache , the Apache by the Mexicans , the Scotch by the English , the Irish by the English , the Plantegent by the French , the Carthaginians by the Romans or even the Philistines by the Jews led by king David.

Well summized, Plane.  As ususal   

I thought about making that list of slaughters longer  , but it was already getting tiresome , a complete listing of largescale war crime or extermination campains would be a thick book.

As one peruses history this sort of incident seems to be a reoccurring theme .

George Carlin claims to have written a complee history of the world in six pages , by leaving out all the wars.

[_JS]

the irrationality of trying to 'talk" specifcally to folks who are wilfully ignorant of history

Interesting.

As one peruses history this sort of incident seems to be a reoccurig theme.

Very true. I wonder why we focus so much on this one incident?

[sirs]

As one peruses history this sort of incident seems to be a reoccurig theme.

Very true. I wonder why we focus so much on this one incident?

Perhaps, as Plane has referenced so concisely, that the president of Iran, and the "forum" they held keeps brining up this 1 incident, at the exclusion of all others?  No?

[_JS]

Perhaps, as Plane has referenced so concisely, that the president of Iran, and the "forum" they held keeps brining up this 1 incident, at the exclusion of all others?  No?

Going out on a limb here Sirs, but Iran isn't the first nation to single out the Holocaust above other historical atrocities, or haven't you ever heard of that nation we just talked about called Israel? Yet, there's quite a bit more to it than simply national identity. After all, if people didn't keep it in the forefront, then they would care less about Iran's position on it.

I think it is good that we not forget the Holocaust. Though I think it is sad that some groups, such as the Roma, are almost completely forgotten, whereas the Jew's suffering is universally associated. I also think it is sad that oftentimes the Holocaust is remembered to the exclusion of other grave injustices and horrible atrocities. It is also often used when it should not be.

[sirs]

Perhaps, as Plane has referenced so concisely, that the president of Iran, and the "forum" they held keeps brining up this 1 incident, at the exclusion of all others?  No?

Going out on a limb here Sirs, but Iran isn't the first nation to single out the Holocaust above other historical atrocities, or haven't you ever heard of that nation we just talked about called Israel?

Perhaps you missed the part of relevence to Iran, Iraq and the obstacles currently in the way of any peace to that locale.  Why you keep trying to bring in all these other tangents, just simply seems to reinforce to me how weak your position is as it relates specifically to Iran, Syria, and the impediment they are to stabalizing Iraq.  Least of which are the military arms stamped with Iran's signature, being practically fed to the insurgents and terrorists in Iraq.  Tell me, what does israel have to do with that?  Or Japan for that matter?  Are either of those 2 countries actively causing instability with Iraq?

[_JS]

I was responding to a specific point on focusing on the Holocaust. By the way, the Holocaust has nothing to do with the situation in Iraq either, certainly less than the Israeli-Palestinian conflict does.

Honestly Sirs, this discussion has been bizarre, even by your standards. You cannot limit anyone's point of view to the myopia you wish. In fact, I'd say your inability to comprehend even the basic rudimentary issues surrounding Iraq and her neighbors might well stem from your very narrow-minded focus.

Certainly you cannot submit an article on the Holocaust and Iran, then use it as proof of your view of foreign policy, then expect everyone to adhere to your concrete myopic terms of only discussing Syria, Iraq, and Iran - (hell, you don't even allow discussion of Israel and Palestine - one of the true sore spots of the entire region).

I don't know who you think you are, but I'll pass. Your willfull ignorance of other atrocities, then your tyrannical standards of the discussion are enough for me. Quite frankly you aren't knowledgable enough for this debate and Ms. Henny pointed that out in a much more tactful manner than of which I am capable.

And just for the hell of it, since I don't like to be told under what parameters I'm allowed to carry on a discussion:

An Israeli bulldozer killed poor Rachel Corrie
As she stood in its path in the town of Rafah
She lost her young life in an act of compassion
Trying to protect the poor people of Gaza
Whose homes are destroyed by tank shells and bulldozers
And whose plight is exploited by suicide bombers
Who kill in the name of the people of Gaza
But Rachel Corrie believed in non-violent resistance
Put herself in harm's way as a shield of the people
And paid with her life in a manner most brutal

But you who philosophise disgrace and criticise all fears,
Take the rag away from your face.
Now ain't the time for your tears.

Rachel Corrie had 23 years
She was born in the town of Olympia, Washington
A skinny, messy, list-making chain-smoker
Who volunteered to protect the Palestinian people
Who had become non-persons in the eyes of the media
So that people were suffering and no one was seeing
Or hearing or talking or caring or acting
And the horrible math of the awful equation
That brought Rachel Corrie into this confrontation
Is that the spilt blood of a single American
Is worth more than the blood of a hundred Palestinians

But you who philosophise disgrace and criticise all fears,
Take the rag away from your face.
Now ain't the time for your tears.

The artistic director of a New York theatre
Cancelled a play based on Rachel's writings
But she wasn't a bomber or a killer or fighter
But one who acted in the spirit of the Freedom Riders
Is there no place for a voice in America
That doesn't conform to the Fox News agenda?
Who believes in non-violence instead of brute force
Who is willing to confront the might of an army
Whose passionate beliefs were matched by her bravery
The question she asked rings out round the world
If America is truly the beacon of freedom
Then how can it stand by while they bring down the curtain
And turn Rachel Corrie into a non-person?

Oh, but you who philosophise disgrace and criticise all fears,
Bury the rag deep in your face
For now's the time for your tears.

- Thanks to Billy Bragg

[sirs]

I was responding to a specific point on focusing on the Holocaust. By the way, the Holocaust has nothing to do with the situation in Iraq either, certainly less than the Israeli-Palestinian conflict does.

It does as it relates to one of the main fellas we're supposed to "talk to", regarding brining stability to Iraq, who not only demands proof of the holocaust (not simply "questioning it") but has basically pledged to continue that to which Hitler started

THAT's what it has to do with it.  Putting in perspective the frame of mind of those we're supposed to "talk to"

Honestly Sirs, this discussion has been bizarre, even by your standards.

No more bizarre than this twisted version of a fairness doctrine, in that unless we condemn every other country, for all their egregious acts & rhetoric, we can't condemn Iran for it's specific acts & rhetoric, on this specific issue.  Which is why the Fairness Doctrine is anything, but fair.  It's apparent your dislike for both U.S. and israeli policy is so great, you can't deal with what's right in front of you.

You cannot limit anyone's point of view to the myopia you wish. In fact, I'd say your inability to comprehend even the basic rudimentary issues surrounding Iraq and her neighbors might well stem from your very narrow-minded focus.

NO ONE IS LIMITING ANYTHING.  If you want to initiate another thread, condeming Israel, Turkey, Japan, go for it.   Again, let's pretend I'm just as outraged as you, regarding the Turks & Japan.  So bloody what??  Let's even pretend I'm so outraged, I'm publically condemning them, just as I am Iran's President.  How does that have ANY bearing on dealing with trying to bring stability to Iraq, and in condemning Iran (& Syria) for their facilitating precisely the opposite??      You're the one trying to impliment some obligation to condemn every egregious act in order to condemn one that is of current issue, and of paramount importance, in the war on Terror.  If one doesn't, they're not allowed to condemn Iran??  Talk about bizarre, or more so twisted

[Plane]

I was responding to a specific point on focusing on the Holocaust. By the way, the Holocaust has nothing to do with the situation in Iraq either, certainly less than the Israeli-Palestinian conflict does.

Honestly Sirs, this discussion has been bizarre, even by your standards. You cannot limit anyone's point of view to the myopia you wish. In fact, I'd say your inability to comprehend even the basic rudimentary issues surrounding Iraq and her neighbors might well stem from your very narrow-minded focus.

I do not agree.

If the subject is President Acmanenajad's attitude , then the discussion of things that President Acmananejad has stated is most pertinent , other things less so.

[_JS]

It does as it relates to one of the main fellas we're supposed to "talk to", regarding brining stability to Iraq, who not only demands proof of the holocaust (not simply "questioning it") but has basically pledged to continue that to which Hitler started

THAT's what it has to do with it.  Putting in perspective the frame of mind of those we're supposed to "talk to"

And MY point is that we've had closer relations (in other words more than just "talking to") nations that have done the same thing. Now do you see how it relates? Let me say it again. We have carried close diplomatic ties to nations that deny brutal atrocities, why is this suddenly our policy now? That is why I see this as selective outrage. Why can we hold close relationships with Japan and Turkey, two very close allies, but we cannot even talk with Iran?

No more bizarre than this twisted version of a fairness doctrine, in that unless we condemn every other country, for all their egregious acts & rhetoric, we can't condemn Iran for it's specific acts & rhetoric, on this specific issue.  Which is why the Fairness Doctrine is anything, but fair.  It's apparent your dislike for both U.S. and israeli policy is so great, you can't deal with what's right in front of you.

Gah, read above. I've connected the dots for you.

Again, let's pretend I'm just as outraged as you, regarding the Turks & Japan.  So bloody what??  Let's even pretend I'm so outraged, I'm publically condemning them, just as I am Iran's President.  How does that have ANY bearing on dealing with trying to bring stability to Iraq, and in condemning Iran (& Syria) for their facilitating precisely the opposite??      You're the one trying to impliment some obligation to condemn every egregious act in order to condemn one that is of current issue, and of paramount importance, in the war on Terror.  If one doesn't, they're not allowed to condemn Iran??  Talk about bizarre, or more so twisted

Read above. We can carry on extremely cordial relationships with perpetrators of some of the world's bloodiest atrocities and genocides, yet we are too above the fray to talk with Iran?

[_JS]

I do not agree.

If the subject is President Acmanenajad's attitude , then the discussion of things that President Acmananejad has stated is most pertinent , other things less so.

Let's get this in order too.

1. Our general staff does not agree on the Iranian Government's role in Iraq, if any.

2. We've found a few assault rifles from Austria, that could be from Iran on Iraqi militants.

3. We've found material on some I.E.D.'s that could be from Iran.

4. None of the above necessarily implicate the Iranian government as we have yet to find any smuggling operation into Iraq from Iran that explictly links back to the Government of Iran.

So let's keep things in perspective here. The Administration has made this out to be a gigantic pouring of Iranian resources, at the behest of the Iranian Government, into Iraq. That has not been confirmed. What has been found for certain is not very much and is not directly linked to Tehran.

5. There have been Iranian agents in Iraq, but in fairness they were there before we ever invaded and did a lot of work preparing the Shi'a for revolution against Saddam.

[sirs]

It does as it relates to one of the main fellas we're supposed to "talk to", regarding brining stability to Iraq, who not only demands proof of the holocaust (not simply "questioning it") but has basically pledged to continue that to which Hitler started  THAT's what it has to do with it.  Putting in perspective the frame of mind of those we're supposed to "talk to"

And MY point is that we've had closer relations (in other words more than just "talking to") nations that have done the same thing. Now do you see how it relates?

But they're not relevent to Iraq and in trying to bring stability to it, Js.  They're only relevent to you (and Miss Henny) because others who recognize irrationality and the complete implausibility of "talking" to the President of Iran, have to be diminished.  Which is why I again use the reference of a twisted version of the Fairness Doctrine.  Just becasue I'm not as historically up to speed as you regarding Turkey & Japan, doesn't make the recognition of how bogus it is to try to "talk" to Iran any less valid.  Plane nailed it already in demonstrating why the issue of the holocaust here is pertinent.  Why you keep seeming to believe that reasoned diplomacy is such an apparent viable option, tells me more about your dislike for War, & American Foreign policy, than it does in objectively grasping the issue of Iran and the supposed rationality of simply talking to them is

We can carry on extremely cordial relationships with perpetrators of some of the world's bloodiest atrocities and genocides, yet we are too above the fray to talk with Iran?

Read above for improved clarity as to why

[_JS]

There's nothing irrational about it. It is a very logical and sensible extension of your thesis.

Let me put it in simpler terms:

Sir's proposition:

A: The Iranian Government question's the Holocaust
B: that means the Iranian Government is irrational
C: therefore we cannot discuss Iraqi policy with an irrational government.

My counter to your syllogism is this:

A: Turkey perpetrated the Armenian genocide
A2: the Turkish Government currently denies this took place
B: yet, the United States and Turkey are close allies
C: therefore it is not true that we cannot discuss policy with a government that denies historical atrocities.

Very logical and as you can see it follows directly from your argument. In simple terms you've given nothing here that necessarily excludes discussion with Iran.