West Coast Connection Forum
Lifestyle => Train of Thought => Topic started by: Elano on April 20, 2009, 01:23:21 PM
-
Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad accused the West of using the Holocaust as a "pretext" for aggression against Palestinians
GENEVA -- Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad accused the West of using the Holocaust as a "pretext" for aggression against Palestinians, prompting European diplomats to walk out today from a speech disrupted by jeering protesters in rainbow wigs tossing red clown noses at the hardline leader.
A U.N. racism conference on the eve of Israel's Holocaust Remembrance Day disintegrated into chaos moments after Ahmadinejad became the first government official to take the floor. Two protesters in wigs tossed the noses at Ahmadinejad as he recited a Muslim prayer to begin his speech.
A Jewish student group from France later took credit for causing the disturbance, saying members were trying to convey "the masquerade that this conference represents."
Ahmadinejad restarted his talk and delivered a speech that lasted more than a half-hour, saying the United States and Europe had helped establish Israel after World War II at the expense of Palestinians.
"They resorted to military aggression to make an entire nation homeless under the pretext of Jewish suffering," he said.
That prompted a walkout by some 40 diplomats from Britain and France and other European countries that had threatened to leave the conference if it descended into anti-Semitism or other rhetoric harshly critical of Israel, which marred the U.N.'s last racism gathering eight years ago in South Africa.
The United States and eight other Western countries were already boycotting the event because of concerns about its fairness.
Ahmadinejad went on to accuse Israel of being the "most cruel and repressive racist regime."
Protesters held placards reading "This is a circus. A racist cannot fight racism," and repeatedly interrupted the speech with shouts of "Shame! shame!" and "Racist! racist!"
Later, about 100 members of mainly pro-Israel and Jewish groups tried to block Ahmadinejad's entrance to a scheduled news conference.
U.N. chief Ban Ki-moon met with Ahmadinejad before his speech and said he had counseled the Iranian leader to avoid dividing the conference. Ban later said he was disappointed Ahmadinejad had used his speech "to accuse, divide and even incite," directly opposing the aim of the meeting.
The Israeli Foreign Ministry condemned Ahmadinejad's speech and Ban's meeting with the Iranian leader.
"It is unfortunate that U.N. Secretary-General Ban Ki-moon deemed it appropriate to meet with the greatest Holocaust denier of our time, the head of a U.N. member state who calls for the destruction of another UN member state. This matter is especially severe, as it took place on the eve of Holocaust Memorial Day," Israel said.
Ahmadinejad has been praised by some in the Muslim world for calling for Israel's destruction and for other anti-Israeli comments. The hard-liner has often used international forums to criticize Israel including at last year's U.N. General Assembly where he said Israel was on "a definite slope to collapse."
But his comments today could also further strain efforts to improve relations with the United States, Israel's top ally. Iran has been mostly lukewarm to overtures from President Barack Obama, but last week Ahmadinejad said the Islamic Republic was ready for a new relationship with Washington.
Alejandro Wolff, the U.S. deputy ambassador to the United Nations, denounced "the Ahmadinejad spectacle" and the Iranian president's "vile and hateful speech."
"It's inaccurate. It shows disregard for the organization to which he is speaking, the United Nations, and does a grave injustice to the Iranian nation and the Iranian people," Wolff told reporters at U.N. headquarters in New York.
"We call on the Iranian leadership to show much measured, moderate, honest and constructive rhetoric when dealing with issues in the region, and not this type of vile, hateful, inciteful speech that we all saw ... this morning," he said.
Prime Minister Gordon Brown's spokesman said Britain would return to the talks but "unreservedly condemns his offensive and unacceptable remarks."
"He ascribed all the problems relating to racism in the modern world to Israel and the Jewish state, and that was enough for me to walk out," British Ambassador Peter Gooderham said.
In Paris, French President Nicolas Sarkozy condemned what he called "an intolerable call to racist hate" and urged a firm reaction by the European Union.
Ahmadinejad's speech also took aim at the United States for its role in the global economic crisis and at Western countries for imposing unfair economic conditions on the developing world. Among his more brazen claims was the allegation that Zionists instigated the 2003 U.S.-led invasion of Iraq in concert with weapons manufacturers.
Iran's state TV broadcast pictures showing some delegates cheering and other delegates leaving the conference.
"The president confidently continued his speech despite efforts by some Western diplomats to disrupt his address," it said.
But Ahmadinejad's anti-Israel remarks may not be well-received among many others in Iran. Ahmadinejad is up for re-election in June, but his popularity has been waning as Iran's economy struggles with high-inflation and unemployment. Many have criticized Ahmadinejad for spending too much time on anti-Israel and anti-Western rhetoric and not enough on the country's economy.
Ahmadinejad, as head of state, had the right to speak and did not need a U.N. invitation to the weeklong event aimed at stamping out intolerance worldwide.
Joining the U.S. as boycotters were Australia, Canada, Germany, Israel, Italy, Netherlands, New Zealand and Poland.
And even before Ahmadinejad's speech, Israel withdrew its ambassador from Switzerland today in a harsh diplomatic response to a pre-conference dinner shared by Swiss President Hans-Rudolf Merz and Ahmadinejad. In their Sunday night conversation, Merz pressed the case of a jailed American journalist in Iran, acting in Switzerland's role as the official representative of U.S. interests in Iran.
The Swiss government said it also took up other "unresolved cases" of U.S.-Iranian relations in the meeting, which occurred Sunday night hours after Obama said the United States would communicate with Iran about journalist Roxana Saberi through Swiss intermediaries.
Speaking directly after Ahmadinejad's speech, Norway's Foreign Minister Jonas Gahr Store said the Iranian leader's comments "run counter to the very spirit of dignity of the conference."
Ahmadinejad "has made Iran the odd man out," he said.
-
this man is a legend
-
But British ambassador Peter Gooderham was in attendance and he said: "Such outrageous anti-Semitic remarks should have no place in a UN anti-racism forum."
French ambassador Jean-Baptiste Mattei said: "It is a pity that Mr Ahmadinejad is trying to take this conference hostage. We are ready for serious discussion but this is beyond what should have been expected."
Mr Brown's spokesman said: "The view of the British Government is that we unreservedly condemn the Iranian President's offensive and inflammatory remarks.
"Such remarks have no place anywhere, least of all in a UN anti-racism forum."
Lol so telling the truth is racist, or should i say just conveying the obvious is racist
-
I respect his gangsta.
-
A U.N. racism conference on the eve of Israel's Holocaust Remembrance Day disintegrated into chaos moments after Ahmadinejad became the first government official to take the floor. Two protesters in wigs tossed the noses at Ahmadinejad as he recited a Muslim prayer to begin his speech.
LMAO! ;D
Fuck Ahmadinejad and all those small-minded over-simplifications.
"They resorted to military aggression to make an entire nation homeless under the pretext of Jewish suffering," he said.
However, not without truth. Everybody knows it but that isn't the issue.
Ahmadinejad and the rest of the Muslim world is just to blame for the Palestinian position as the West (and same goes for the situation in Somalia). He was/still is in a great position to change the Israel/Palestinian conflict and US relations, although he has not seemed to realize that; he rests on cheap political shots, rather than working towards any long term solution.
I too, respect his 'gangsta', however we don't want gangstas running the world acting like children, we want responsible adults, his comments are not constructive, they are cheap short term small minded political shots that don't accomplish anything.
-
I respect his gangsta.
iran will be nuked soon
-
Oh what a courageous exit by the leaders of the enlightened states. Too bad they weren't as courageous in their advocacy of human rights when Israel imposed the blockade or when it reduced Gaza to rubble.
-
I agree,
what else is ridiculous is the despotic power the Security Council has, it is 5 nations ruling the rest.
It dosn't matter that the vast majority of the world detests Israel's aggression and seeks to do something positive about the situation through peaceful means, because all Israel needs is one friend as a permanent member of the Security Council to veteo any decision the nations of the world (the General Assembly) make on Israel's aggression.
And speaking of nukes, the International Court of Justice decided back in 1996 that it is not illegal for a nation to use nuclear weapons as a defence in extreme situations where it's very existence is being threatened, provided that the use of force is proportionate to the threat and adheres to any international law applicable in armed conflict, of course.
"...the Court cannot conclude definitively whether the threat or use of nulcear weapons would be lawful or unlawful in an extreme circumstances of self-defence, in which the very survival of a State would be at stake".
-The Legality of the Threat or Use of Nuclear Weapons (Advisory Opinion) 1996, paragraph 105, (2) E.
-
I never said he wasn't a hypocrite or using it as a staging post for his re-election campaign but all I am saying is this epitomises the feelings of a lot of the world, ;D that the israeli government government is racist and yet gets away completely unscathed. Of course the arab countries were and have been complicit in allowing the suffering of the Palestinians to continue. As has been mentioned before they don't really like the palestinians, because they are seen as the black sheep of the arab world but will use them as a political tool whenever the need arrises. I guess this just underlines how controlled these said governments are.
-
I respect his gangsta.
iran will be nuked soon
Are you happy about this?
-
I never said he wasn't a hypocrite or using it as a staging post for his re-election campaign but all I am saying is this epitomises the feelings of a lot of the world, ;D that the israeli government government is racist and yet gets away completely unscathed. Of course the arab countries were and have been complicit in allowing the suffering of the Palestinians to continue. As has been mentioned before they don't really like the palestinians, because they are seen as the black sheep of the arab world but will use them as a political tool whenever the need arrises. I guess this just underlines how controlled these said governments are.
I agree aswell, what struck me about Amadinejad's speech is that really, the vast majority of the world representatives stayed and cheered him on, really only a minority of countries diplomats walked out, and even then, the populations of those countries that walked out dont all necessarily not empathise with some of what was said in his speech, the problem is shit like Amadinejad's speech hijacks and radicalises an otherwise legitimate view.
-
the problem is shit like Amadinejad's speech hijacks and radicalises an otherwise legitimate view.
That's actually an interesting point. It should tell you something about how western doctrinal systems function. First, they marginalize certain views. Then, they wait for enemy states to start harping on the marginalized views, something they typically do. Finally, our doctrinal systems use the fact these views were voiced by official enemies in order to delegitimize them even more. This practice has also another important side benefit of exerting pressure on dissent, because dissidents can be accused of being in cahoots with the enemy, and with some credence because the views are indeed very similar.
So when I wanna hear about Israeli human rights violations I can go to B'tselem (the Israeli Information Center for Human Rights), that carefully documents Israel's violations. Or, I can listen to Ahmedinejad make generalizations about Israel's practices. Later, apologists will equate B'tselem-an Israeli organization-to Ahmedinijad and other official enemies.
-
the problem is shit like Amadinejad's speech hijacks and radicalises an otherwise legitimate view.
That's actually an interesting point. It should tell you something about how western doctrinal systems function. First, they marginalize certain views. Then, they wait for enemy states to start harping on the marginalized views, something they typically do. Finally, our doctrinal systems use the fact these views were voiced by official enemies in order to delegitimize them even more. This practice has also another important side benefit of exerting pressure on dissent, because dissidents can be accused of being in cahoots with the enemy, and with some credence because the views are indeed very similar.
Exactly.
So when I wanna hear about Israeli human rights violations I can go to B'tselem (the Israeli Information Center for Human Rights), that carefully documents Israel's violations. Or, I can listen to Ahmedinejad make generalizations about Israel's practices. Later, apologists will equate B'tselem-an Israeli organization-to Ahmedinijad and other official enemies.
It gets like that. But it dosn't matter if the state itself directly equates a liberal human-rights watch group with a radical fundamentalist source because people will do that themselves. Because let me explain: it is more powerful if the state dosn't make such judgements itself because if people are left to make what are default conclusions on their own, in their mind it will be much more legitimate than any state decision or policy, rather the state should not try to force public opinion, rather all the state should do is hint at things which it can do through many ways as we have seen, media and psychology campaigns through fiction and non-fiction and in this way a myth will be created which is much more influential than any lone state opinion, in the mind of the individual then, every event, every power move will be encapsulated and understandable to the individual through this myth. 9/11, Muslims, Christians, Bible, Holy War, Crusades, The Rapture, Jihad, The Promised Land or even New World Order, the illuminati, the Bilderbergs. Most people entertain some meta-narrative, some myth through which they use to some degree to aid them understand the world.
-
This is where more democratic states differ from dictatorships. The propaganda in dictatorships is basically used to make public the government line, if you don't follow they'll use force against you. In more democratic states, like the United States, UK, etc propaganda is disseminated and produced in a much more decentralized fashion. Instead of State directed propaganda, we have Media corporations which work under institutional constraints.In their everyday functioning they are directed by profit orientation, which in turn forces them to take into account the views of advertisers and official sources (which are the cheapest ones) . Despite these institutional differences between dictatorial and democratic countries, the media products are strinkingly similar. Try to find a mainstream media product condemning the use of force in international affairs on principled grounds (as opposed to opposition on grounds of cost-benefit analysis). I did a small study of on the mainstream Israeli media to see whether there's any principled condemnation of the possible use of force against Iran. Even at the dovish extreme, people who were critical of a possible attack on Iran, all there was was a cost benefit analysis, no principled critique.
So yeah, the decentralized version of propaganda we find in democratic states is probably even more effective than dictatorial propaganda, because we have an illusion of diversity, whatever's out of the discussion becomes often unimaginable to many people.So the official line becomes like the air you breathe. Though this is not to say people actually buy all of it. In Israel it seems to be the case.In contrast, in the US, the government is typically way to the right of the population, something that shows up on polls.
-
i admire he's gangster
-
I fell a sleep on day on my keyboard, 3 years, long time gone. Any way. Iranian president got some pretty strong words, he made all eu people leave in protest and all. Except one of them. So I look at him as the guy that takes over the show, as he enter the door. lol
BTW: on topic, western leaders who stick their heads in the sand, are the real cowards. "Don't nothing to do with it, never heard of it." Some body got to teach them EU cowards how it's done. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=03hw8Nm3_mE
north regards
--->@I to da geezy
"
This is where more democratic states differ from dictatorships. The propaganda in dictatorships is basically used to make public the government line, if you don't follow they'll use force against you. In more democratic states, like the United States, UK, etc propaganda is disseminated and produced in a much more decentralized fashion. Instead of State directed propaganda, we have Media corporations which work under institutional constraints.In their everyday functioning they are directed by profit orientation, which in turn forces them to take into account the views of advertisers and official sources (which are the cheapest ones) . Despite these institutional differences between dictatorial and democratic countries, the media products are strinkingly similar. Try to find a mainstream media product condemning the use of force in international affairs on principled grounds (as opposed to opposition on grounds of cost-benefit analysis). I did a small study of on the mainstream Israeli media to see whether there's any principled condemnation of the possible use of force against Iran. Even at the dovish extreme, people who were critical of a possible attack on Iran, all there was was a cost benefit analysis, no principled critique.
"
Propaganda does no harm against thir own populaion, in an "open" nation like Iran, aslong as there is an global economy under the hood. Try to spend some time with people in Tehran, and you quickly find out that it's no biggie. It's all on automatic, like home, and you find your way around. The strage part is that, everyone look at you as you are black in a red-neck party in the 50s. lol. No biggie as long as your not Israel, English, American or one of the secret smugle(agents) nations. (Enuff side-track.)
"
So yeah, the decentralized version of propaganda we find in democratic states is probably even more effective than dictatorial propaganda, because we have an illusion of diversity, whatever's out of the discussion becomes often unimaginable to many people.So the official line becomes like the air you breathe. Though this is not to say people actually buy all of it. In Israel it seems to be the case.In contrast, in the US, the government is typically way to the right of the population, something that shows up on polls.
"
So whats the best nation, the one with the best ballance?
-
Well, it depends on the kind of media institutions each country has. But generally, the freer the country the more its media are susceptible to public pressure. It's not that media corporations care about the public interest, but when the corporate world begins to suffer from public discontent, embodied in organization and activism, then the mainstream media shift so as to accomodate the concerns of the corporate community. During the Vietnam war there was no criticism directed at the war untill like the late 60s. The first criticism of the war appeared after the corporate world began to feel the consequences of the war, namely it became costly. The media responded by allowing a limited, highly tactical, form of criticism. So it is certainly easier to influence media content, and public affairs in general, in relative democracies like the ones I mentioned before, where typically the propaganda is much more pervasive.
-
iranians are sick of his palestine ass kissin....instead of spending money on his own country, he sends it away to palestinians who dont even back him up
how can a country so rich with oil be running low on it?? its fuckin ridiculous...every young person in iran wants to leave to country to anywhere!
-
iranians are sick of his palestine ass kissin....instead of spending money on his own country, he sends it away to palestinians who dont even back him up
how can a country so rich with oil be running low on it?? its fuckin ridiculous...every young person in iran wants to leave to country to anywhere!
its tru, my parents hate the guy, anyone can agree with what he says, but the bottom line is Iran's economy sucks and it shouldn't....all our money goes into hezbollah etc......when it could go into our economy.