36 Comments

1. Matt Raft  •  Oct 3, 2009 @7:10 pm
   

   What does being Jewish (or not) have to do with the U.N.? Are you saying it's ironic that someone who might be Jewish doesn't believe in the Holocaust? Okay, fine.

   But other than the irony involved, what is the relevance between someone's ability to believe in the Holocaust and his or her religious background? None, right? Someone who happens to be Christian or Buddhist may or may not believe in the Holocaust; in other words, a person's religious or national affiliation has nothing to do with his or her ability to believe in historical events.

   There is also no relevance between someone being Jewish and unnecessarily bombing Lebanon's civilian infrastructure, right?

   There is also no relevance between someone being Muslim and launching rockets into Israel, right?

   There is also no relevance between someone being Jewish and killing thousands of Palestinian and Lebanese civilians who happen to be Muslim, right?

   There is also no relevance between someone being Muslim and killing hundreds of Israeli civilians who happen to be Jewish, right?

   I hope we're clear. And if you look at the latest interview Ahmadinejad had with Couric, he doesn't actually deny the Holocaust. He apparently refuses to acknowledge it b/c he believes we ought to focus on the other 54(?) million people who were killed rather than the 6 million people who were killed. In a typical Eastern non-confrontational style, he avoids the question about the Holocaust. To Westerners, his silence means he is denying the Holocaust; however, to most people familiar with Far and Near East communication styles, it's apparent he is trying to change the subject and allege biased media coverage. In Ahmadinejad's mind, he doesn't see much difference between the systemic killing of 6 million people and the wartime killings of 60 million people. Thus, in his mind, b/c 54 million deaths trump 6 million deaths, Western media seems unfairly biased.

   I'm not saying he's correct, but let's try to add to the discussion instead of relying on personal attacks or unsupported allegations against the U.N. I expect this from the GOP and Joe Wilson acolytes, but we libertarians should know better.

2. Ken  •  Oct 3, 2009 @9:19 pm
   

   Matt, it's a joke about the UN's ongoing disproportionate criticism of Israel. Think that's a GOP or Joe Wilson hang-up? You'd have to tell that to two UN Secretary-Generals who chastised the Human Rights Council for disproportionate focus on Israel.

   It has nothing in particular about Amadinejad's beliefs about the Holocaust. Though frankly, I'm not inclined to accept his comments to Katie Couric over his comments, for instance, to his citizens, which don't seem to be consistent with the spin you describe.

3. Matt Raft  •  Oct 4, 2009 @11:49 am
   

   Let's analyze this logically.

   1. You don't speak Farsi. You were not in Iran when Mahmoud was making political speeches. Therefore, you have learned about Mahmoud's words through the prism and interpretation of someone else. Farsi is a fairly complex, subtle language–like most languages, interpretation of certain comments is subjective. If you have a link to one of Mahmoud's speeches in Farsi, please post it. I may be able to do some follow-up research.

   2. Most Americans view politicians as scum because politicians need votes and are therefore inclined to say different things to different groups. As a result, political rhetoric isn't necessary reliable when it comes to predicting future action. If you disagree, when John McCain said, "Bomb, bomb, bomb Iran," should Iran have focused on that statement and defended itself immediately by closing the straits of Hormuz and launching missile attacks?

4. David Schwartz  •  Oct 4, 2009 @9:33 pm
   

   Matt: There's really on possibility of rational response to you. I would just point out that your argument is absurd.

5. Matt Raft  •  Oct 4, 2009 @9:49 pm
   

   David: you've successfully made an ad hominem attack, but I am unclear what you've added to the discussion. Are you saying that politicians do not pander to various audiences? Or that we should judge threats based on rhetoric and/or political pandering (such as McCain's "bomb Iran" statement)? Or that you speak fluent Farsi and have personal knowledge of Mahmoud's statements in Iran?

6. Matt Raft  •  Oct 4, 2009 @10:09 pm
   

   BTW, David, I was not trying to make an argument. I was only pointing out that we receive Mahmoud's statements through the prism of Western mass media outlets, which may or may not be reliable. Most Western media outlets tend to focus on hyperbole to attract eyeballs, so I was requesting a link to an actual speech for some follow-up (I know some fluent Farsi speakers).

   If you review Al-Jazeera's interpretation/translation of Mahmoud's statements, it makes more sense:

   http://english.aljazeera.net/news/middleeast/2009/09/200991875246806121.html

   The difference is between "false pretext" and a "lie." Based on Couric's recent interview, my gut tells me that the "false pretext" interpretation is more accurate than calling the Holocaust a "lie." Of course, without a link to an actual speech, I am speculating, just like all non-native Farsi speakers are speculating when they repeat the hearsay that Mahmoud denied the Holocaust.

   In any case, if Mahmoud wanted to deny the Holocaust, Couric gave him the perfect opportunity to do so–and he didn't take the bait. If Mahmoud really doesn't believe in the Holocaust, why not just come out and say so during the interview?

   Overall, my point is that I don't judge threats on rhetoric alone. We've already lost 5000+ American soldiers b/c we allowed ourselves to be swept up in political rhetoric. Like Glenn Greenwald, I prefer to look at actions more than rhetoric when it comes to judging threats or making judgments:

7. David Schwartz  •  Oct 5, 2009 @12:31 am
   

   Matt: It's not an ad hominem attack. I am not saying that because you are a jerk, we can ignore your arguments. I am saying that because your arguments are absurd, we can ignore them.

   I have not added to the discussion. This is one of those cases where the best thing that can be done is not to add to the discussion but to take something harmful away. And that is what I am trying to do.

   You're not going to goad me into a point-by-point rebuttal of a nonsensical arguments. There's simply no point in doing such a thing.

8. Matt Raft  •  Oct 5, 2009 @2:03 am
   

   David, by your own admission, you've failed to add anything to the discussion. Maybe I was being unclear. Here's my argument:

   1. Most Americans aren't native Farsi speakers.

   2. Because most Americans aren't native Farsi speakers, they rely on other people to interpret Mahmoud's statements.

   3. Most Americans rely on major Western media outlets to interpret and translate Mahmoud's statements.

   4. Most major Western media outlets are profit-driven and tend to emphasize hyperbole to attract the most "eyeballs."

   5. If two interpretations exist, major Western media outlets will probably emphasize the more exaggerated interpretation to attract the most "eyeballs."

   6. Mahmoud either said that the Holocaust is a "lie" or a "false pretext."

   7. A "lie" and a "false pretext" are not the same things. For example, an employee may allege that his company's stated reason for termination–being late to work–is a false pretext to cover up its racially-motivated action. Calling the employee's lateness a "false pretext" does not mean the employee wasn't late–just that being late isn't the real reason for his termination. It's different than saying that the company is lying or the termination itself is a lie.

   8. If Mahmoud said the Holocaust was a false pretext for x, y, or z, it does not necessarily mean that he denied the Holocaust.

   I know I've gone far astray from Ken's original post, but Ken has done several posts on Mahmoud, primarily relating to Mahmoud's statements about the Holocaust. I will point out that Iran has existed for approximately 3,000 years and has not invaded another country in several centuries. As a result, I'm not losing any sleep over Mahmoud or any of his idiotic statements. I'm more concerned that Congress and the Western media are exaggerating a so-called "Iranian threat" based on inflammatory interpretations and little hard evidence of a direct threat to Americans. The last time we allowed the media and our government to hype up a so-called threat, we lost 5,000+ American soldiers and our prestige. I'm just trying to inject some logic into the discussion to help avoid an unnecessary Iraq Part III.

   Western media and bloggers like Ken keep harping on so-called anti-Semitic statements coming out of Iran, but in reality, Persia has a history of giving safe harbor to Jews (read up on Esther, for example). In any case, if Ken or David want to allege that Mahmoud or the U.N. are anti-Semites, then they should have reliable evidence to support their allegations–not misinterpretations or misrepresentations. I'm just sayin'.

   By the way, Richard Falk–who was in charge of several U.N. resolutions condemning human rights violations in the Palestinian territories–is Jewish. So is Richard Goldstone, who is also working with the U.N. Human Rights Council. So if you really think about Ken's post, he's insinuating that the U.N. Human Rights Council is anti-Semitic, even though high-ranking people in charge are Jewish. That's not an illogical insinuation, but it is an unlikely one.

9. Reuven  •  Oct 5, 2009 @9:22 am
   

   I, for one, understood and appreciated Ken's joke.

10. Joshua  •  Oct 5, 2009 @10:12 am
    

    Just as unlikely as the president of a Muslim nation, who continually threatens Israel, being a former Jew?

11. Matt Raft  •  Oct 5, 2009 @12:57 pm
    

    Joshua, many people born in the Mediterranean region have some Jewish background. In fact, 20% of Spanish men may have some Sephardic Jewish ancestors. In reality, it's not unlikely for someone born in the Middle East to have Jewish ancestors. As a result, your comment is a perfect example of what happens when rhetoric overwhelms actual evidence–the truth gets lost.

    Also, look up the definition of Semite. Although Persians are not Arabs, a Semite is both Jew and Arab. Perhaps Mahmoud has some Arab or Sephardic Jewish ancestors. Again, so what? I don't think his Jewish background is unlikely or even relevant.

    Also, can you please post a link to a Mahmoud speech (not an interpretation of one of his speeches) that shows Iran has "threatened" Israel? Keep in mind that criticism is not the same thing as a threat.

    Unless Mahmoud wants to intentionally wipe out a 3,000 years civilization, I don't see any actual current Iranian threat to Israel or to any other nation. After all, no one is denying that if Mahmoud or Iran attacked another country, Iran would be vaporized. Perhaps I am missing something, but I don't see any evidence that Iran or the Revolutionary Guard have a desire to wipe out their own country.

    Remember when we were told Al-Qaida was a huge threat to end the world, and we needed to invade Iraq to protect the world? Why are so many people so eager to exaggerate another so-called threat, which may lead to increased military spending; another unnecessary war; and perhaps another 5,000+ American soldiers dead?

12. David Schwartz  •  Oct 5, 2009 @2:09 pm
    

    Matt Raft: It's very hard to take you seriously. Your position is that we don't know whether or not Ahmadinejad believes the holocaust occurred?

13. Patrick  •  Oct 5, 2009 @2:41 pm
    

    Matt, a couple or three thoughts: I wouldn't trust an apocalyptic Christian minister (think Pat Robertson) with an atomic bomb, so why would I trust apocalyptic Muslim ministers, who've already demonstrated they're willing to use conventional bombs against civilians?

    Second, please don't bring out the "everyone in the middle east is semitic" trope. While I can't translate the term in Farsi or Arabic, in English, the term has a conventional, colloquial, and established meaning in English: "Hates Jews."

    Third, and without reference to Germany, consider what Stalin planned for the Jews of Russia as the conclusion to the "Doctor's Plot," before he mercifully died. Consider what the Turks did to the Armenians. Consider the Great Leap Forward. Consider Cambodia. Consider Rwanda. On a lesser scale, consider Bosnia and consider what's going on now in Sudan. To argue that an Ahamdinejad (more accurately, a Khamenei) weighs the opinions of the United States overmuch in his calculations ignores much of the past 100 years' history, and ignores that people you or I would consider insane often come to power in the rougher parts of the world.

    For that matter, do you really think that Obama would drop the bomb on Iran if it attacked Israel with nuclear weapons? I don't think he would, and for the life of me I can't decide whether that's a good thing or a bad thing. I'll bet that Iran has the same doubts, and its leadership believes it's an entirely good thing.

    What will happen when Iran gets the bomb? And it will. I don't look forward to finding out. I don't trust my own government, which is a knight in shining armor compared to the government of Iran.

14. Matt Raft  •  Oct 5, 2009 @10:01 pm
    

    David, if Mahmoud wanted to deny the Holocaust, he would have denied it to Couric in their recent interview. He didn't. Based on the Couric interview, it appears he believes the Holocaust occurred, but he refuses to buy into the idea that the Holocaust was the most important or most significant part of WWII. He specifically said as much when he talked about the other 60 million people who died in WWII and questioned Couric about an Iranian woman who was murdered in Germany.

    If you–like most Americans–think Mahmoud is the Devil, then you'd be unable to interpret his words objectively. However, if you analyze Mahmoud's comments objectively–as I've done–he isn't denying the Holocaust. He's questioning why we're spending so much time focusing on it, and he probably believes the Holocaust is being used to divert attention from Israeli human rights abuses in Palestine. As a result, he refuses to acknowledge the Holocaust to avoid buying into the Western paradigm of Jew as victim and Muslim as terrorist. Such a paradigm is not universally shared, as the U.N. reports indicate.

    Of course, Mahmoud has plenty of human rights issues of his own in Iran, so he himself is using Israel as a diversion. I don't think any side–Israel, Iran, Mahmoud, or Western media–is actually trying to communicate with each other. Media and bloggers like Ken make things worse when they fail to analyze comments objectively. In the end, everyone's trying to win the propaganda war. In the end, it's civilians who suffer–whether in Lebanon, Palestine, or Israel.

15. Matt Raft  •  Oct 5, 2009 @10:26 pm
    

    Patrick, when I said that both Arabs and Jews are Semites, I was referring to Joshua's comment that it was unlikely that Mahmoud would have Jewish ancestors. In reality, it's not unlikely that Mahmoud would have Jewish ancestors. Many people in the Mediterrean region are mixed with each other:

    http://www.sciencenews.org/view/generic/id/39056/title/Spanish_Inquisition_couldn%E2%80%99t_quash_Moorish,_Jewish_genes

    Your comment is yet another example of two people misinterpreting each other's statements, with one side deriving an objectively incorrect conclusion. And Patrick, we speak the same language. It just shows you that people have to work harder to understand someone from a different culture, especially when he speaks a different language. It's really easy to call someone the Devil, b/c then you don't have to take him seriously or respond to him objectively (like David's style of discourse, which lacks logic and is based on pure subjectivity). If David wants to go back to Stone-Age-style arguments ("Me good, you bad"), he's free to do so. Personally, I don't think it helps much.

    Second, you insinuated that "apocalyptic Muslim ministers" control Iran. What is your evidence for this? We can use the recent Couric interview as the most recent data. What did Mahmoud say in this interview, if anything, that demonstrates he is an "apocalyptic Muslim"? See here:

    http://www.forward.com/articles/115106/

    Pls pay particular attention to Richard Rosen's comment.

    I absolutely see your point about the last 100 years showing the dangers of despots. We should not ignore any fanatic despots. I agree. But there is a difference between being told someone is a fanatical despot, and someone actually being a fanatical despot. I still haven't seen any reliable evidence that we are dealing with a fanatical despot who wants to destroy the world and/or Israel. I see a lot of people talking past each other and a lot of verbal p*ssing contests. When the media has to rely on two stale, probably misinterpreted statements to support the claim that Mahmoud is a fanatical despot, I get visions of military-industrial complexes, not suicidal nuclear attacks.

    Re: your last point, Obama doesn't have to drop the bomb on anyone if Iran attacks Israel. Israel has nuclear weapons. At this time, Iran does not. But let's say you're right and Iran gets the nuclear bomb. Why wouldn't we end up with another Cold War, with Iran playing the part of Russia, and Israel/America playing the part of, well, America?

16. David Schwartz  •  Oct 6, 2009 @1:33 am
    

    Matt Raft: So first we can't take him at his word because he changes what he says based on who he has to pander to, but next he can't be a holocaust denier because he didn't deny it to Couric?! It's not possible to respond seriously to such claims. The best we can do is hold them up (ideally in contradictory pairs) so people can laugh at them.

17. Matt Raft  •  Oct 6, 2009 @2:47 am
    

    David, did you actually read what I wrote? The pandering comment related to John McCain. BTW, do you have any comments re: the Couric interview, where Mahmoud does not deny the Holocaust? David, you initially said you had nothing to add to the discussion; then you said you wouldn't comment any more; and now you're back to having nothing to add to the discussion. You gotta up your game You're playing with lawyers, not a bunch of high school kids

18. David Schwartz  •  Oct 6, 2009 @4:35 am
    

    "The pandering comment related to John McCain."

    You gave an *example* of John McCain pandering as a way of showing that Ahmadinejad wasn't doing anything American politicians don't do. If you didn't mean to say that Ahmadinejad was pandering, you brought pandering it up for no reason at all — perhaps to add a random stab at John McCain in the middle of an argument about Ahmadenejad. You can't even be honest about your own claims when anyone can scan up-thread and see what you wrote.

19. Jdog  •  Oct 6, 2009 @5:20 am
    

    It's an interesting standard that Matt Raft proposes — that the dinnerjacket doesn't mean to threaten Israel or isn't a nutty Muslim or Holocaust denier because, apparently, he failed to say, "Hi there. I, a nutty Muslim Holocaust denier am threatening Israel" in an interview with Couric.

    Well, no, it's not an interesting standard; it's a silly one, and it's a bizarre example of special pleading.

20. David Schwartz  •  Oct 6, 2009 @11:47 am
    

    Matt seems to think that the real issue is whether Ahmadinejad, in his inner inscrutable heart of hearts believes the Holocaust actually happened or not. Of course this is unknowable, short of injecting him with truth serum. That may matter between god and Ahmadinejad in his final reckoning, and it might matter if I was considering having him as a personal friend. But as a politician, what really matters is what he says and what he does, because that's going to determine what consequences he has.

21. Matt Raft  •  Oct 6, 2009 @1:06 pm
    

    It's amazing how far people are willing to go to satisfy their own preconceptions. Except for Ken and Patrick, no one has set forth any arguments or facts. All of the recent comments consist of judging Mahmoud by what you think he said, not what he actually said. This isn't a debate–it's an example of how our culture of rhetoric has overwhelmed reason.

    Let's get past rhetoric and consider the facts:

    1. Mahmoud doesn't have nuclear weapons.

    2. Mahmoud hasn't invaded another country.

    3. Mahmoud is part of a country that has been around for 3,000 years and has a history of giving safe harbor to Jews (Esther, etc.).

    4. Mahmoud acknowledged that Jews died during WWII in a recent interview, but shifted the focus from the Holocaust to the war itself and the 60 million people who died in the war.

    5. As I've argued above, Mahmoud probably said the Holocaust was a false pretext for something else, not that the Holocaust was a lie.

    I don't see anything here that indicates a threat to Israel or fanatical beliefs. No one else has provided anything other than rhetoric to support a contrary belief.

    Do any of you have any actual arguments based on logic to add to this discussion? All of you simply accept–without any objective evidence or personal knowledge–that two of Mahmoud's previous statements and the probably false interpretation of those statements have been accurately portrayed. In reality, at least one of these statements was probably mistranslated (as I've shown above by linking to a respected non-Western media source).

    I continue to be suspicious when the media repeatedly trots out only two of Mahmoud's statements to support the perception of Mahmoud as a fanatic. To wit:

    "But the most brilliant propagandist technique will yield no success unless one fundamental principle is borne in mind constantly and with unflagging attention. It must confine itself to a few points and repeat them over and over. Here, as so often in this world, persistence is the first and most important requirement for success." I must say, all of you are quite persistent in your rhetoric, which lacks any objective evidence or reasoned argument.

22. Matt Raft  •  Oct 6, 2009 @1:11 pm
    

    This is probably my last comment on this particular post. I am disappointed no one else has managed to offer any evidence or objective arguments supporting their rhetoric. Jdog, for example, sets up an incredible standard: even though there is no evidence whatsoever that Mahmoud denied the Holocaust in the Couric interview, Jdog is still willing to believe that Mahmoud denied the Holocaust. In other words, the failure to have objective evidence or properly translated statements is of no concern to him. What matters is his own subjective beliefs, which are based on hearsay and his own personal dislike of Mahmoud. Under these circumstances, I cannot add to the discussion.

    I fear in our Twitter-obsessed world, we have lost the capacity for logical thinking. It's a shame, b/c inflammatory rhetoric often paves the way for unnecessary wars. It's tragic that so-called intelligent people seem to have already forgotten the consequences of the Iraq war, Guantanamo Bay, Abu Ghraib, and Israel's invasion of Lebanon. In forgetting these events, we do a disservice not only to the innocent civilians who have died, but to the 5,000+ dead American soldiers, as well as dead Israeli soldiers. Until the general public learns to think logically, politicians of all stripes will use the media to lead their people into unnecessary and ill-advised wars. Only the identity of "the Other" will change, depending on the season.

23. David Schwartz  •  Oct 6, 2009 @2:32 pm
    

    When your argument stops being "one cannot be a Holocaust denier if one doesn't deny the Holocaust in every interview", let us know. You will not goad us into a point-by-point rebuttal of manifest nonsense. Life is too short.

24. Andrew  •  Oct 6, 2009 @2:45 pm
    

    This has been an epically successful thread derail.

25. Jdog  •  Oct 6, 2009 @2:53 pm
    

    I agree that you can't add to the discussion, except in poundage of words. But, just to be clear: the absence of a given statement from a given Dinnerjacket interview does not, at all, mean that the Dinnerjacket didn't say things at other times and places that would give a reasonable person the belief that a: he's a Holocaust denier, b: he's threatening Israel, and c: he's a nutty Muslim apocalyptic type.

    There's also no evidence, far as I know, when he said in Farsi to his driver, "Thanks for picking me up," (if he did), that a: he's a Holocaust denier, b: he's threatening Israel, and c: he's a nutty Muslim apocalyptic type.

    'Cause he, well, is, has, and is, respectively. The Couric interview provided him with an opportunity, if he, respectively, had changed his mind, had changed his mind, and had changed his mind, to update the record unambiguously.

    He didn't.

    The defenses of the Dinnerjacket remind me of David Irving's lawsuit against Lipstadt, et all, for referring to him as a Holocaust denier. Irving apparently figured that by ducking and weaving sufficiently about the meaning of "Holocaust," and "denier," and "Holocaust denier" he could persuade a British court that he had been libelled — after all, in the UK, the burden of proof was on Lipstadt to prove that such a derogatory thing was true, not on Irving (despite him having brought the suit) to prove that it was false. He was so arrogant, in fact, that he referred to the day that the judgment was to be issued as "Prize Day," already metaphorically counting his award . . .

    Until, of course, he lost.

26. Al  •  Oct 6, 2009 @2:55 pm
    

    Better still is the whole thing came out of a two sentence post. If I wrote two sentences and quoted the Telegraph I'd be lucky if my own mother commented on it.

27. Ken  •  Oct 6, 2009 @3:02 pm
    

    I'm sorry that I have not been able to devote attention to the thread and respond to Matt's posts after my initial effort. Though honestly, I'm a little bit perplexed about how my post — clearly a reference to the UN's long-standing disproportionate focus on Israel's human rights violations, often to the exclusion of others — has to do with Ahmadinejad's Holocaust denial, which strikes me as a completely separate topic.

    I believe that the UN lacks character or credibility on a vast number of issues — among them its singular pursuit of Israel. A number of people, including neoconservatives, share that view. That does not mean I share neoconservatives' other views. For instance, the fact that I am willing to make fun of the UN's bias does not mean that I am likely to be a cheerleader for a questionably-justified attack on Iran.

    As to the substance of the derail into whether or not Ahmadinejad is a Holocaust denier: once again, I don't give his talk to Katie Couric any credence. (I wouldn't give what anyone says in a Katie Couric interview any credence). Who to look for a discussion of what Ahmadinejad has or hasn't said? Well, what about Juan Cole? In an earlier post Matt scolded me for satirizing him and suggested that his take was credible. Certainly Cole has very carefully parsed Ahmadinejad's statements in the past and criticized what he saw as alarmist translations of them. But in his reaction to Ahmadinejad's latest is instructive. He describes Ahmadinejad's denial as "more complete" than before, and also points out that Ahmadinejad seems to be saying that one reason the Holocaust is a "lie" is that people are suggesting that the Jews were blameless, when in fact they were the authors of all sorts of misery. Cole speaks Farsi (as Matt chided me in the other post).

    I find generally think Cole has a bias, but it's not a bias against Iran or Ahmadinejad.

28. Jdog  •  Oct 6, 2009 @6:05 pm
    

    Yup. It's the old admission-contrary-to-interest thing. When Cole says that the Dinnerjacket really isn't so bad, that's sort of like the Pope talking about how important the Eucharist is, or Michael Moore taking a shot at capitalism, or Jeff Cooper praising the .45. When he comes out and finds Pharsi Rage Boy disgusting, that ought to carry a lot of weight.

29. Matt Raft  •  Oct 6, 2009 @11:09 pm
    

    Ken, thank you for the link to Juan Cole. Unlike the other comments here, you rely on reliable evidence to make your points. As such, you've forced me to re-evaluate my own arguments. Still, take a look at Navid's comments in that link–it appears there continue to be some translation issues. Even so, it appears it's time for Mahmoud to resolve any ambiguity and make some clear statements. Then, perhaps, everyone can move the discussion into the future, not the past.

    Jdog, I don't think you're applying the hearsay exception properly, but I agree Juan Cole's words have weight b/c he is an expert and speaks fluent Farsi.

    I also wasn't saying that Mahmoud's refusal to deny the Holocaust in the Couric interview means he isn't a Holocaust denier. I was pointing out that Mahmoud's recent refusal to deny the Holocaust, along with numerous other factors–including the possible mistranslation of previous statements–means we should be more careful in making our conclusions. In other words, I want reliable evidence, not rhetoric, before I make up my mind. I won't allow the media or unreliable statements (like hearsay) to establish my own "Enemy of the Month" club.

    As for David, it saddens me to think that many Americans probably share the same "Twitter-like" universe, where complexity is shunned; rhetoric is more important than objective evidence; and the deliberate misconstruing of the other side's arguments is considered acceptable. It looks like Neil Postman's worst nightmare has come true.

30. David Schwartz  •  Oct 7, 2009 @2:40 am
    

    Matt Raft: You still seem to think that what matters is how he feels about the Holocaust in his inscrutable heart of hearts or what the literal and precise meaning of his words are. Nothing could possibly matter less than that. What matters is what he does and what effects his words have on the people he speaks to.

31. Jdog  •  Oct 7, 2009 @4:35 am
    

    By Matt's reasoning, such as it is, when Henry asked, "Will no one rid me of this turbulent Priest?" he may have been merely anticipating not approving of "The Book on the Edge of Forever" and showing his support for Harlan Ellison. We'll never know.

32. Matt Raft  •  Oct 7, 2009 @8:32 am
    

    David, you end with quite possibly the most subjective, illogical statement of all time–that we should judge a person by our own subjective interpretation of his words–objectivity be damned.

    You said, what matters are the "effects his [Mahmoud's] words have on the people he speaks to." Seriously? If I say, "I am making bread," and my American audience thinks I intend to go out and kill all breadmakers or they actually goes out and kill breadmakers, somehow, the audience's incorrect and unreasonable interpretation is what matters? (I can see why you can't handle a point-by-point discussion and prefer to write one-liners. And I sure don't want you in charge of the video game industry or free speech.)

    Given the way you and Jdog misinterpreted and ignored my arguments and evidence, I'm not surprised both of you disdain objective criteria. (BTW, did you two give Sarah Palin debate lessons? Rule 1, ignore the actual statements; Rule 2: repeat the same mantra over and over again, but using different words; Rule 3: reduce the other side's argument using the most uncharitable interpretation possible…)

33. Matt Raft  •  Oct 7, 2009 @8:45 am
    

    Funny thing is, David (and apparently Jdog) end up by co-opting my argument–that actions and the capacity for particular actions matter than rhetoric.

    I pointed out early on that Mahmoud doesn't have nuclear weapons, so his ability to wreak apocalypse is limited; he hasn't invaded another country (neither has Iran in centuries); and in any case, Iran has no history of being inhospitable to Jews (again, focusing on actions). Somehow, all of you ignored the evidence, but eventually we're back to Emerson: what you do speaks so loud I cannot hear what you say. I'm glad we agree. To the extent you want to rely on someone's statements, I'm sure you agree–as I've been arguing–that we should not rely on hearsay and we should strive to correct any mistranslations or misinterpretations. And Jdog and David: learn from Ken. He supplied evidence, not rhetoric to make his point. In doing so, he responded to my own allegations of possible mistranslation with a reliable source. That, my friends, is how reasoned adults debate.

    In the end, rhetoric aside, it is highly unlikely that a 3000 years civilization with or without nuclear weapons and without any recent history of invading other countries will attack another country that has nuclear weapons. No objective evidence establishes support for that statement.

34. David Schwartz  •  Oct 7, 2009 @1:53 pm
    

    Matt: You need to get your head out of your lawyering ass. We're not trying to convict him for perjury. The literal meaning of what he said is totally irrelevant.

    Your example is so totally inapplicable, I suspect you must be the only person in the world who thinks it's remotely relevant. I think you must live in a different world from the rest of us. Your analogy would make sense if, and only if, Ahmadinejad is an ineffective communicator who just can't seem to get his message through to his people and, despite everything he says to the contrary, keep thinking he is denying the Holocaust.

    That's so obviously ridiculous.

35. Toasty  •  Oct 7, 2009 @4:44 pm
    

    Get a room, you two.

36. Patrick  •  Oct 7, 2009 @4:59 pm
    

    I like everyone who's participated in this drama, value their comments, and look forward to future comments from everyone involved.

    But I'm closing further comments on this post.