Comments on: The moral inequivalence of 9/11 and Holocaust denial

By: Thersites

Thersites — Fri, 19 Jun 2009 20:37:22 +0000

When did bin Laden deny being behind 9/11? He has never explicitly said he organised it, I think, but he has never unequivocally denied it either. It is possible that others further down the chain of command organised it without his knowledge but when it happened, al-Qaida was a small group of people most;y known to one another and not yet an amorphous brand name used to explain any atrocity by any perpetrator.

By: Kafirist

Kafirist — Fri, 19 Jun 2009 19:23:04 +0000

So it was just a coincidence that almost all the terrorists involved in 9/11 were in Afghanistan at one time or another before the attack?

By: Jamal

Jamal — Fri, 19 Jun 2009 02:21:42 +0000

Osama Bin Laden is not behind the 9/11 attack. He denied it many times and I believe him. He doesn’t condemn it because the attack showed that America is not invincible. I believe muslims were behind the attack but not Osama Bin Laden.

By: Jamal

Jamal — Fri, 19 Jun 2009 02:01:14 +0000

Osama Bin Laden is not responsible for 9/11 attack

By: Thersites

Thersites — Thu, 18 Jun 2009 21:35:21 +0000

“The attitude was a defensive posture by a minority which felt under threat, but even outside this group, there were those who believed 9/11 was an ideal pretext for the Bush/Cheney government to change its foreign policy in a new and aggressive direction and throw off the mask of “compassionate conservatism”.”

You’re confusing several different points of view here. The “defensive posture” was the first response of those who could not believe that muslims could do such a thing (or were incapable of organising such a thing) or were so worried about the possible response if muslims had done it. That was an understandable immediate reaction and those who took it usually later recognised its foolishmess.

However, there is a big difference between “those who believed 9/11 was an ideal pretext [or a cause] for the Bush/Cheney government to change its foreign policy” and the deniers- common among muslims by many accounts- who believe that the attacks were either permitted, encouraged or even carried out by the U.S. government/Zionists/the C.I.A./the masons/any other conspiracy with the purpose of changing U.S. foreign policy. 9/11 was the result of a conspiracy. The question is what sort of conspiracy. If any explanation but the obvious one- a few suicidal nutters inspired by their interpretation of the quran and group encouragement and solidarity- is true then the skills and techniques use could have been used for mush more malign and effective ends. It’s worth remembering that every genuine conspiracy usually claims- and its members believe- that they are actually fighting a conspiracy. There is the firther complication that islam- like christianity and maxism- is a kind of open conspiracy. Followers of these obviously benevolent systems, whose establishment would, in their opinion, benefit the entire human species, often explain the failure to persuade others of those obvious benefits to the existence of a well-organised conspiracy against them. People witb such a belief-system may well be more liable to look for and to join conspiracies.

By: Kafirist

Kafirist — Wed, 17 Jun 2009 20:25:43 +0000

This might be relevant to the 9/11 denial:

By: CampbellMoor

CampbellMoor — Tue, 16 Jun 2009 19:30:01 +0000

Looks like they are attempting to conflate and conglomerate anyone who doesn’t accept their views into an amorphous mass of evil. In other words, setting themselves up as thought police. The very use of the word “denial” is an attempt to shut down debate. And it is debate that is needed. In reality, Ahmedinnerjacket’s “denial” conference - which debated both sides and had him change his mind from “uncertain - seems suspect” to “it did happen” - probably did more to re-educate uninformed (or just plain reactive) individuals over these issues far more than their ludicrous “take our version or be damned” diktats, which just get peoples back’s up. At the end of the day, it’s European history. For non-Europeans questioning it is as about as relevant as Tibetans questioning the Rwandan Genocide. Except of course the Tutus have not taken over Bhutan, smashed up Nepal and then pointed 400 nukes at Tibet.

By: Kafirist

Kafirist — Tue, 16 Jun 2009 19:14:39 +0000

There will always be consiracy theories on virtually everything. The holocaust, 9/11, JFK assasination, Roswell UFO, Area 51, and on and on. Some people live on these things.

I have my own theory: It’s the aliens at area 51 who have brain-washed our leaders into committing atrocities so that they can eliminate humanity with minimum effort.

We should remember Occam’s razor: The simplest answer is often correct

By: LeedsLad

LeedsLad — Mon, 15 Jun 2009 20:35:18 +0000

I did not know that Assanovich was a “Christian Zionist”. Today people, I am going to be a “Christian Muslim”; and it better fly as his otherwise I will call u all Islamophobes, bigots, racists and all ;)

Assanovich never collects articles as Aztmon suspected, but that job is done for him by his feeders.

By: heatherdune

heatherdune — Mon, 15 Jun 2009 12:19:33 +0000

Super assessment on the issues at hand. I’m working on a piece about how to address Holocaust Denial in US, but so much of my emotions cloud the issue that sometimes it is difficult to clear the path. You’ve cleared it with a blow torch and have explained the rhetoric between the factions of Holocaust Deniers and the end they seek in a way that I have missed because I am a target of that rhetoric and have spent most of my time ducking the arrows and repeating the truth. Thanks, heather dune macadam, author or Rena’s Promise: A Story of Sisters in Auschwitz http://tiny.cc/RPfan