Tweet
OpEdNews, PA
Oct 20 2007
President AhmaBUSHnejad
by Curt Day
The mass deportation and death based on ethnicity was undeniable. In
both cases, world leaders fight against the use of derogatory labels
to describe these events. In both cases, these same world leaders
employ a post-modern way of reasoning--that is an unwanted conclusion
implies that a statement must be false. So in the face of
incontrovertible evidence, how can President Ahmadinejad deny the
Holocaust and why is President Bush squeamish about calling the
slaughter of the Armenians by the Turks of the Ottoman Empire
genocide?
Earlier in the year, we experienced the lunacy of President
Ahmadinejad's denial of the Holocaust. The reasoning behind such a
denial is quite understandable. The Holocaust has been illegitimately
used to justify Israel's harsh occupation against the Palestinians.
Part of this occupation includes confiscation of land, imprisoning
and torturing people, robbing and denying use of basic resources such
as water, and according to some Israelis, the bulldozing of
Palestinian homes with the residents still inside. Israel's B'Tselem
website (http://www.btselem.org/English/) documents some of the
inequity that is being forced on the Palestinians and it does so
without mincing words about the evils of Arab terrorism against
Israel. Thus, one way of undermining the reasoning used to inflict
such suffering is to deny the basis for that reasoning. According to
President Ahmadinejad, if the Holocaust is used to justify Israel's
horrific treatment of the Palestinians, then the Holocaust could not
have occurred. So though President Ahmadinejad's Holocaust denial is
despicable, we can see the rationality behind it. But little does he
know that when he sacrifices the truth about the Holocaust for a
legitimate concern for the Palestinians, his efforts to help become
counterproductive.
But how different is Ahmadinejad's genocidal denial different from
President Bush's refusal to call the mass killings of Armenians by
the Turks in the early 20th century genocide? Like the Jews in Europe
during the 1930's and 1940's, the Armenians were driven from their
homes and sent to their deaths. Even President Bush accepts the
historicity of the suffering of the Armenian people
(http://www.democracynow.org/article.pl?sid =07/10/11/1339254). But
the possible ramifications have tempered President Bush's response to
this suffering. These ramifications include Turkey's cooperation in
the War on Iraq and the War on Terror. In addition, we are now seeing
Turkey place 60,000 troops along its Iraqi border in response to the
resolution.
Who is to blame for Turkey's response? President Bush and his
followers would like to point the finger at the Houser Foreign
Affairs Committee. After all, if they had not passed their
resolution, Turkey would not have thrown a tantrum. But isn't that
line of reasoning the same as blaming a child for being abused
because if the child had not upset their monster parent, the parent
would not have been abusive?
Does the abuse model fit here? Consider Turkey's actions as of late.
Turkey has been severely persecuting its Kurdish population. Turkey
has been killing thousands, driving many from their homes, and either
imprisoning or exiling its critics. This is not the Ottoman Empire of
the early 20th century; it is today's Turkey. And we have been
quietly supporting all of this since the 1990s
(http://www.chomsky.info/interviews/19990405 .htm,
http://www.chomsky.info/articles/20030301.ht m).
Two lessons should be apparent here for President Bush. First, both
mincing words and denying reality for expediency's sake carries with
it unwanted consequences. For example, consider our immediate
response to Saddamn Hussein's initial use of WMDs. It was tepid
because Saddamn was an ally in a troubled Middle East. So instead of
calling him a monster, we referred to him as a moderate--that is
until he invaded Kuwait.
Or think of the `Freedom Fighters' we helped in Afghanistan in the
1980's. We knew what kind of people we were dealing with and yet we
supported them because of expediency - these fighters provided a way of
bleeding the Soviet Union to collapse.
Second, unless President Bush wants to become more like a nemesis,
which in this case would be President Ahmadinejad, he should be
honest with the past rather than opportunistic or utilitarian. At
this point, we should note the difference in Presidents Ahmadinejad's
and Bush's messages. In President Ahmadinejad's case, he denies
history in order to defend an oppressed people. In President Bush's
case, he minces words about history to protect abusive powers that
currently serve us. And yet, what these Presidents have in common is
to deny or revise history for gain.
So rather than criticizing the resolution passed by the House Foreign
Affairs Committee, President Bush should be praising it. By doing so,
he would be placing principle over partisanship which would stand in
contrast to President Ahmadinejad's treatment of history.
Curt Day is a religious flaming fundamentalist and a political
extreme moderate. Curt's blog is at
http://extrememoderate.townhall.com
http://www .opednews.com/articles/opedne_curt_day_071017_pres ident_ahmabushne.htm
Oct 20 2007
President AhmaBUSHnejad
by Curt Day
The mass deportation and death based on ethnicity was undeniable. In
both cases, world leaders fight against the use of derogatory labels
to describe these events. In both cases, these same world leaders
employ a post-modern way of reasoning--that is an unwanted conclusion
implies that a statement must be false. So in the face of
incontrovertible evidence, how can President Ahmadinejad deny the
Holocaust and why is President Bush squeamish about calling the
slaughter of the Armenians by the Turks of the Ottoman Empire
genocide?
Earlier in the year, we experienced the lunacy of President
Ahmadinejad's denial of the Holocaust. The reasoning behind such a
denial is quite understandable. The Holocaust has been illegitimately
used to justify Israel's harsh occupation against the Palestinians.
Part of this occupation includes confiscation of land, imprisoning
and torturing people, robbing and denying use of basic resources such
as water, and according to some Israelis, the bulldozing of
Palestinian homes with the residents still inside. Israel's B'Tselem
website (http://www.btselem.org/English/) documents some of the
inequity that is being forced on the Palestinians and it does so
without mincing words about the evils of Arab terrorism against
Israel. Thus, one way of undermining the reasoning used to inflict
such suffering is to deny the basis for that reasoning. According to
President Ahmadinejad, if the Holocaust is used to justify Israel's
horrific treatment of the Palestinians, then the Holocaust could not
have occurred. So though President Ahmadinejad's Holocaust denial is
despicable, we can see the rationality behind it. But little does he
know that when he sacrifices the truth about the Holocaust for a
legitimate concern for the Palestinians, his efforts to help become
counterproductive.
But how different is Ahmadinejad's genocidal denial different from
President Bush's refusal to call the mass killings of Armenians by
the Turks in the early 20th century genocide? Like the Jews in Europe
during the 1930's and 1940's, the Armenians were driven from their
homes and sent to their deaths. Even President Bush accepts the
historicity of the suffering of the Armenian people
(http://www.democracynow.org/article.pl?sid =07/10/11/1339254). But
the possible ramifications have tempered President Bush's response to
this suffering. These ramifications include Turkey's cooperation in
the War on Iraq and the War on Terror. In addition, we are now seeing
Turkey place 60,000 troops along its Iraqi border in response to the
resolution.
Who is to blame for Turkey's response? President Bush and his
followers would like to point the finger at the Houser Foreign
Affairs Committee. After all, if they had not passed their
resolution, Turkey would not have thrown a tantrum. But isn't that
line of reasoning the same as blaming a child for being abused
because if the child had not upset their monster parent, the parent
would not have been abusive?
Does the abuse model fit here? Consider Turkey's actions as of late.
Turkey has been severely persecuting its Kurdish population. Turkey
has been killing thousands, driving many from their homes, and either
imprisoning or exiling its critics. This is not the Ottoman Empire of
the early 20th century; it is today's Turkey. And we have been
quietly supporting all of this since the 1990s
(http://www.chomsky.info/interviews/19990405 .htm,
http://www.chomsky.info/articles/20030301.ht m).
Two lessons should be apparent here for President Bush. First, both
mincing words and denying reality for expediency's sake carries with
it unwanted consequences. For example, consider our immediate
response to Saddamn Hussein's initial use of WMDs. It was tepid
because Saddamn was an ally in a troubled Middle East. So instead of
calling him a monster, we referred to him as a moderate--that is
until he invaded Kuwait.
Or think of the `Freedom Fighters' we helped in Afghanistan in the
1980's. We knew what kind of people we were dealing with and yet we
supported them because of expediency - these fighters provided a way of
bleeding the Soviet Union to collapse.
Second, unless President Bush wants to become more like a nemesis,
which in this case would be President Ahmadinejad, he should be
honest with the past rather than opportunistic or utilitarian. At
this point, we should note the difference in Presidents Ahmadinejad's
and Bush's messages. In President Ahmadinejad's case, he denies
history in order to defend an oppressed people. In President Bush's
case, he minces words about history to protect abusive powers that
currently serve us. And yet, what these Presidents have in common is
to deny or revise history for gain.
So rather than criticizing the resolution passed by the House Foreign
Affairs Committee, President Bush should be praising it. By doing so,
he would be placing principle over partisanship which would stand in
contrast to President Ahmadinejad's treatment of history.
Curt Day is a religious flaming fundamentalist and a political
extreme moderate. Curt's blog is at
http://extrememoderate.townhall.com
http://www .opednews.com/articles/opedne_curt_day_071017_pres ident_ahmabushne.htm