|
Rhetoric (pg. 2)
|
View this Thread in Original format
| Renegade |
| quote: | Originally posted by George Smiley
Ok ok my question was off topic and irrelevent...
Why do we take as gospel the word of politicians we oppose, yet distrust the words of our own politicians? |
I don't think it's that clear-cut. When a western politician says "If elected, I will put $500 million into schools!" during the frenzy of an election campaign, then we'd be right to be skeptical - he has something to gain from his lie. When a western politician says "I'm going bomb the out of Iraq unless they fulfill a constantly shifting set of demands!" then we may well have less reason to be skeptical - where is the gain to be had if he is being deceitful?
To be distrustful of politicians is certainly a virtue. To automatically dismiss what policians say as a lie (or mere "rhetoric") is, on the other hand, a fairly delusional way of approaching the political process.
| quote: | Originally posted by George Smiley
And!
Why is it that when Ahmadinejad says he wants to "wipe Israel off the map" we believe him, yet when he says "we only want civilian nuclear power" we believe he is lying?! |
Because the consequences if he is lying are far more severe than the consequences if he is telling the truth. If he is only interested in nuclear power (as opposed to nuclear weapons) when credible evidence suggests the contrary, then it is for him to demonstrate the veracity of this claim and we are right to be skeptical in the meantime. It's not a case of believing or disbelieving Ahmadinejad, but rather recognising what the consequences are if we are wrong. |
|
|
| Flotser |
| quote: | Originally posted by Renegade
Holocaust denial = instant insanity. Everything else is subsidiary.
|
Well said. This is exactly why I take his other words much more seriously. |
|
|
| Renegade |
The site you linked in that thread (or rather the Iranian state run newspaper they quoted) seems to have left out a fairly important line from that speech:
| quote: | In a speech broadcast live on state television on Wednesday, Ahmadinejad told a crowd in the southern city of Zahedan: "They have fabricated a legend under the name Massacre of the Jews, and they hold it higher than God himself, religion itself and the prophets themselves.
"If somebody in their country questions God, nobody says anything, but if somebody denies the myth of the massacre of Jews, the Zionist loudspeakers and the governments in the pay of Zionism will start to scream." |
http://english.aljazeera.net/NR/exe...B69283105BF.htm
I'm not sure what else he could have meant by that? |
|
|
| shaolin_Z |
| This is only a guess ofcourse (since I don't think Ahmadinejad is stupid enough to think it didn't happen at all, you'd truly have to be a ing idiot to think it didn't occur). He probably thinks the figures (as far as the number of people killed goes) are exagerated or innaccurate or something. I know Urdu, which is heavily derived form Farsi amongst other languages. And I'm sure you've probably read stuff in the area of linguistics. If you translate Urdu to English, especially more literally, the meaning can get quite distorted (things in Urdu are generally expressed in a much more generalized and broad fasion whereas English is far more specific, like most proto-Germanic languages if I remember correctly). Since Urdu is quite similar to Farsi, I'm guessing his doubt about the figures got translates to "myth." That, ofcourse, is just a guess. But I had doubts about him saying eigther of those things in the first place. I mean, he may be a dick, but he's not nuts. |
|
|
| Renegade |
| quote: | Originally posted by shaolin_Z
This is only a guess ofcourse (since I don't think Ahmadinejad is stupid enough to think it didn't happen at all, you'd truly have to be a ing idiot to think it didn't occur). He probably thinks the figures (as far as the number of people killed goes) are exagerated or innaccurate or something. |
Which, so far as I understand it, is no different from other holocaust deniers. I don't think any of them try to argue that no Jews were killed in WW2 (afterall, it's pretty hard to argue against all photographic evidence we have and the continued existence of Auschwitz and other concentration camps) but rather that the number killed falls "only" in the tens of thousands or so, rather than the 6 million figure we have today. The facts in this case, however, are firm: 6 million Jews were killed by the Nazis during World War 2. Denial of this is fact, I'm afraid, tantamount to Holocaust denial.
(Besides, even if it could be credibly argued - as you say Ahmadinejad was arguing - that only, say, 10% of that number were actually killed by the Nazis, does that somehow make it any better?)
| quote: | | I know Urdu, which is heavily derived form Farsi amongst other languages. And I'm sure you've probably read stuff in the area of linguistics. If you translate Urdu to English, especially more literally, the meaning can get quite distorted (things in Urdu are generally expressed in a much more generalized and broad fasion whereas English is far more specific, like most proto-Germanic languages if I remember correctly). Since Urdu is quite similar to Farsi, I'm guessing his doubt about the figures got translates to "myth." |
Given the construct of the speech, I'm not sure what other words could be substituted for the word "myth" here while retaining the fecundity of the rest of the quote. Keep in mind that I've quoted an al-Jazeera article (with the headline "Ahmadinejad: Holocaust a myth") here too, hardly a source likely to beat up a story from a pro-western perspective or with any shortage of trained Farsi-translators on hand... |
|
|
| shaolin_Z |
^^ I guess you're right.
EDIT: Although I wouldn't call holocaust revisionism "denial," especially considering most of the "revisonists" I've heard of are Jewish. Note: I don't really know a whole lot about holocaust revisionism to evaluate their arguments/research, mostly becuase I don't really feel the need to research that stuff and don't have doubts about accepted history as far as the holocaust goes. |
|
|
| Shakka |
| quote: | Originally posted by shaolin_Z
This is only a guess ofcourse (since I don't think Ahmadinejad is stupid enough to think it didn't happen at all, you'd truly have to be a ing idiot to think it didn't occur). He probably thinks the figures (as far as the number of people killed goes) are exagerated or innaccurate or something. I know Urdu, which is heavily derived form Farsi amongst other languages. And I'm sure you've probably read stuff in the area of linguistics. If you translate Urdu to English, especially more literally, the meaning can get quite distorted (things in Urdu are generally expressed in a much more generalized and broad fasion whereas English is far more specific, like most proto-Germanic languages if I remember correctly). Since Urdu is quite similar to Farsi, I'm guessing his doubt about the figures got translates to "myth." That, ofcourse, is just a guess. But I had doubts about him saying eigther of those things in the first place. I mean, he may be a dick, but he's not nuts. |
you are rationalizing. |
|
|
| George Smiley |
Or...
More 'rhetoric' from a democratically elected President?
Altho seeing as this particular democratically elected President is staunchly anti-America (anti-globalisation), and sits on top of huge oil supplies, I guess that defines him as an "insane dictator" by PNAC's criteria?
e2a: Of course what he says about Israel/Hitler is bull but I think it falls in the same category of the rhetoric coming out of Iran: Cocky leaders who oppose PNAC's strategy knowing they can say what they like to piss America off and get away with it with US forces stretched to breaking point... |
|
|
| Yoepus |
| quote: | Originally posted by George Smiley
Or...
More 'rhetoric' from a democratically elected President?
Altho seeing as this particular democratically elected President is staunchly anti-America (anti-globalisation), and sits on top of huge oil supplies, I guess that defines him as an "insane dictator" by PNAC's criteria? |
No, when you start imprisoning the opposition and restricting the press, your a dictator. |
|
|
|
|
