Why Iran isn’t Nazi Germany

[webfact]

Why Iran Isn’t Nazi Germany
The idea that Iranian leaders seek another Holocaust is at the emotional core of opposition to the nuclear deal. Is it true?
PETER BEINART

Mike Huckabee’s sin was being too vivid.

WASHINGTON: -- Last week, after the Republican presidential hopeful said that by signing the Iran nuclear deal, President Barack Obama “would take the Israelis and basically march them to the door of the oven,” a parade of organizations and politicians accused him of inflammatory language and bad taste.

But in both the United States and Israel, Huckabee’s core assumption—that the Iranian government is genocidally anti-Semitic—is mainstream. In January, Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu warned that “The ayatollahs in Iran, they deny the Holocaust while planning another genocide against our people.”

Last month, Fox News host Sean Hannity called the Iran deal “the equivalent of giving Adolf Hitler weapons of mass destruction.” The fact that a nuclear attack on Israel would also kill Palestinians, argued Texas Senator Ted Cruz recently, would not deter Tehran because “they would view the murder of those Palestinians” as “perfectly acceptable collateral damage to annihilating millions of Jews.”

Far from being marginal or extreme, Huckabee’s claim—that Iranian leaders seek another Holocaust—sits at the emotional core of the debate over the nuclear accord with Tehran. But the closer you look, the weaker that claim is.

Full story: http://www.theatlantic.com/international/archive/2015/08/iran-nuclear-deal-nazi-germany/400631/

-- The Atlantic 2015-08-07

[ABCer]

There is nothing special about Iran with its mullahs except Islam with all its decor - Taquia, Expansionism, Brutality, Brainwashing and Relentless Intolerance.

OP said: "... the closer you look, the weaker the claim..." against Iranian leaders.

Israelis basically say: "... the closer you are, the stronger the claim..." against Iranian leaders.

The whole issue at stake is the debate about nuclear accord with Iran.

Israel/Netanyahu say it is Bad Thing. USA/Obama say it is Good Thing. So, who do you believe?

USA/Obama behave like a world Hegemon is expected to behave: they are the top dog and infallible to boot. Which is not true. They failed many times in many countries. Especially in case of Iran. I do not have to bring back the bitter memories about the Shah, Ayatollahs, Islamic revolution, revolutionary students, American Diplomats and dismal failure of old time Administration.

This time they brought home a signed 'Deal' and try to sell to the world and to Americans this agreement on behalf of Iran for a cool $130 Billion ready money. Personally I can not support a deal like that.

Israel/Netanyahu being a small time 'partner' of USA in ME are desperately objecting to this 'Deal'. Everything negative they say about this accord is true. Yet, on the other hand it is irrelevant. Because Iran is going to build nukes one way or another, - 'Deal' or not. Unless some external force stops Iran. And yes, I mean destruction of Iranian nuclear capabilities! Nothing more, nothing less.

Let me be frank, - I would side with Israel/Netanyahu position on this issue. With one exception.

I don't give a damn about this worthless piece of paper Obama signed. Because it means nothing. And it does nothing.

Except gives Iran money to pay for more and better arms. And this is the sore point.

Remember? Some external force must stop Iran building nukes! And it looks like the dedicated allies (USA) have set up their small time partner in the ME (Israel) to go alone.

Well, my heart and sympathy is on Israel's side.

[sdanielmcev]

I wonder if there could be a more biased opinion piece. That doesn't mean this Iran deal is any better. No matter the amount of lipstick, it's still a pig.

[ABCer]

I wonder if there could be a more biased opinion piece. That doesn't mean this Iran deal is any better. No matter the amount of lipstick, it's still a pig.

I simply love the category of posters whose contribution to the arguments and opinions does not go outside remarks like:

BS, or

, or

pigs can fly, or

no matter the amount of lipstick, its still a pig, or

I wonder if there could be a more biased opinion piece, or

etc.

The brevity and authoritarian tone of their response usually reflects the shortness of thought and is always lacking the part following "because...")

Why? sdanielmcev, tell us why?

[Naam]

why do you think anybody is interested that "you personally cannot support that deal?"

[ABCer]

why do you think anybody is interested that "you personally cannot support that deal?"

Naam, drink your coffee and ask me another question if you can think of one.

I was simply pointing out that my position is mine only allowing the fact that people might have different ones. No other reason.

If you have more questions to the point - ask.

[Naam]

why do you think anybody is interested that "you personally cannot support that deal?"

Naam, drink your coffee and ask me another question if you can think of one.

I was simply pointing out that my position is mine only allowing the fact that people might have different ones. No other reason.

If you have more questions to the point - ask.

question: in what way would you support that deal if your opinion was pro deal?

[ABCer]

why do you think anybody is interested that "you personally cannot support that deal?"

Naam, drink your coffee and ask me another question if you can think of one.

I was simply pointing out that my position is mine only allowing the fact that people might have different ones. No other reason.

If you have more questions to the point - ask.

question: in what way would you support that deal if your opinion was pro deal?

In any case => PERSONALLY, only personally.

Meaning that

# I allow for any other personal opinions

# I wouldn't form or join any group, party or a gang with opinions similar to mine

Please, stop this. I am not into semantics, grammar, lexical or any other form of personal arguments.

Any arguments about the substance of my post - welcome.

[jesimps]

why do you think anybody is interested that "you personally cannot support that deal?"

Naam, drink your coffee and ask me another question if you can think of one.

I was simply pointing out that my position is mine only allowing the fact that people might have different ones. No other reason.

If you have more questions to the point - ask.

question: in what way would you support that deal if your opinion was pro deal?

In any case => PERSONALLY, only personally.

Meaning that

# I allow for any other personal opinions

# I wouldn't form or join any group, party or a gang with opinions similar to mine

Please, stop this. I am not into semantics, grammar, lexical or any other form of personal arguments.

Any arguments about the substance of my post - welcome.

If I were you I'd put him on 'ignore'. The guy's a WUM and should have been banned from these boards years ago.

[Blitzkrieg Bob]

As much as I dislike the US playing their card as world police and world leader and decider on what is wrong or right, as much I would dislike Iran to eventually become a nuclear threat. On the other hand every nation should have the right to use nuclear power if they have the know how and the money to do it. I'm kind of on the fence over this one...

[Lissos]

Rather than "Na'am", far more - "La"

[Seastallion]

I wonder if there could be a more biased opinion piece. That doesn't mean this Iran deal is any better. No matter the amount of lipstick, it's still a pig.

Actually, the writer appears to be very pro-Jewish. He could have made a far more forceful and truthful piece.

He doesn't go nearly close enough to the truth of the argument against Iran being (to coin a word) "holo-caustic":.

For example, he draws well short of debunking the "wipe Israel off the map" myth. He should have as it would have bolstered his argument.

He conflates Iran's anti-Zionism with Iran arresting spies who were Jewish. What country doesn't arrest spies in it's midst????

And he does not emphasise enough how Iran IS NOT killing Iranian Jews, rather, leaving them to build synagogues, schools, etc.

Just because the article shows Netanyahu and his US Rep buddies as foolish liars does not mean he is anti-semitic. That's a very tired worn out old line.

[Naam]

Naam, drink your coffee and ask me another question if you can think of one.

I was simply pointing out that my position is mine only allowing the fact that people might have different ones. No other reason.

If you have more questions to the point - ask.

question: in what way would you support that deal if your opinion was pro deal?

In any case => PERSONALLY, only personally.

Meaning that

# I allow for any other personal opinions

# I wouldn't form or join any group, party or a gang with opinions similar to mine

Please, stop this. I am not into semantics, grammar, lexical or any other form of personal arguments.

Any arguments about the substance of my post - welcome.

my question did not contain the word personally. i asked "in what way..." and my question was based on your offer

If you have more questions to the point - ask.

if you don't want to answer just say so instead of boring me to death with a lot of irrelevant bla-bla by stating what you would not do to "support".

and now be a good boy and finish all your veggies when lunch is served

Edited August 7, 2015 by Naam

[fvw53]

some retired Israeli top brass think that Netanyahu should accept the Iran deal which is not only with the USA but also with China, Russia, France, Germany and EU

http://www.haaretz.com/beta/1.669390

[Steely Dan]

The O.P is yet another leftist talking point sailing in the opposite direction to reality. The comparisons are real and striking, as is the need for a scapegoat to take Iranian eyes off the misery the Mullahs have caused them.

http://www.thecommentator.com/article/980/hitler_or_not_the_nazi_comparison_is_real

[MaeJoMTB]

Does anyone really think the Muslims wouldn't kill all the Jews, given half a chance?

Come to think of it, they would probably kill all non-Muslims if they could.

[EnglishJohn]

Comparisons with Nazi Germany are ridiculous.

The German Army was very professional and acted with honour almost the whole time. The SS being the exception.

Germany would have used the weapons based on military decisions.

Iran will use them through Islamic hate to bring death to as many infidels as possible in Israel.

Without any doubt, this is Obama's 'Munich agreement'. Settling for a liars promise in order to avoid going to war. History will be the judge of him and all those supporting him.

What is very clear is that many innocent people are going to die through terrorism sponsored by Iran when sanctions are lifted. Obama has made that call and their deaths are on him. That is the price of being president.

[SheungWan]

Comparisons with Nazi Germany are ridiculous.

The German Army was very professional and acted with honour almost the whole time. The SS being the exception.

Germany would have used the weapons based on military decisions.

Iran will use them through Islamic hate to bring death to as many infidels as possible in Israel.

Without any doubt, this is Obama's 'Munich agreement'. Settling for a liars promise in order to avoid going to war. History will be the judge of him and all those supporting him.

What is very clear is that many innocent people are going to die through terrorism sponsored by Iran when sanctions are lifted. Obama has made that call and their deaths are on him. That is the price of being president.

The suggestion that the German army under the Nazis was very professional and acted with honour almost the whole time about as useless a statement as those peddling the idea that Iran is just another state but occasionally misunderstood.

[arjunadawn]

Midway through this article and the fallacies keep piling up. Besides it being a strawman argument it also unravels its own assertions.

Asserting the core of the opposition to the Iran deal-agreement-treaty-arrangement-good will debacle is emotional immediately casts opposition as lacking credibility, emotional beings, and because an emotive position is weak and subjective, can easily be slain. Perhaps? But the author does not do this. First, it is dishonest to note the opposition is emotional. Well, some is. But emotion underlies all human activity. However, a fallacious argument could just as easily be asserted that the race to get a deal at any cost is equally emotive as those opposing it. Instead, I will assume both have intellect as a foundation- desire for a deal and its opposition.

Do we judge a nation based on words or deeds or both? The author asserts Iran is different from Nazi Germany because Iran uses only words. In this regard the author juxtaposes Iran now, with Nazi Germany after it began actively persecuting Jews. It is a fallacious comparison because within the framework that Iran exists it must provide Jews the inferior dhimmi status of sharia, insofar as they pay a tax to remain jews and be made to feel subjugated when paying that tax; this provides the legitimacy and wherewithal to live as second class citizens in shia Iran. It would not ever be asserted they are equal citizens regardless of the amount of synagogues one notes. It is simply untrue. It is a caste system of subordination and oppression. "But while Iran’s Jews are not free, neither is their government trying to kill them." [Author]

It must be so under sharia. It is explicit. The entire legitimacy of the Iranian mullahs rest upon the sharia. Thus comparing this dubious Iranian restraint against Hitler's actions - whereas Iran is only using words of hate against foreign Jews- is misleading. It shows a vacancy of knowledge of the material for which the author writes.

So, accepting that Iran has some limitations on acting upon Jews locally but evidences none regarding Jews outside the sharia (dar al harb) what really contrasts Iran and Nazi Germany? You see, Israelis are not subject to sharia. They are not within the proscribed civil system of sharia, where Jews may exist albeit in an inferior state, as "people of the book."

"One potential answer is that Iran’s regime is not genocidally anti-Semitic, only genocidally anti-Zionist. It will spare its own Jews, provided they eschew Zionism, while killing the Jews of Israel because they will not." Yes, this is one possible answer, but it is not the correct one. Whether genocidally or not Iran is anti-Semitic. Enslaving Jews or murdering all of them hardly appears to be a reasonable alternative, as the author suggests. In fact, the author matter-of-factly presents this as viable evidence of his point; how absurd?

"Supporting these groups furthers Iran’s regional influence, since it allows Tehran to pose as the champion of a Palestinian cause that most Arabs support." [Author]

At this point the author demonstrates such a profound lack of knowledge regarding the subject that he should not be considered seriously. The explicit assertion being that Iran cultivates larger Arab legitimacy is nonsense. I do not even suspect the author understands Iran is not Arab.

[EnglishJohn]

Comparisons with Nazi Germany are ridiculous.

The German Army was very professional and acted with honour almost the whole time. The SS being the exception.

Germany would have used the weapons based on military decisions.

Iran will use them through Islamic hate to bring death to as many infidels as possible in Israel.

Without any doubt, this is Obama's 'Munich agreement'. Settling for a liars promise in order to avoid going to war. History will be the judge of him and all those supporting him.

What is very clear is that many innocent people are going to die through terrorism sponsored by Iran when sanctions are lifted. Obama has made that call and their deaths are on him. That is the price of being president.

The suggestion that the German army under the Nazis was very professional and acted with honour almost the whole time about as useless a statement as those peddling the idea that Iran is just another state but occasionally misunderstood.

Wow, your comment is on the edge of complete nonsense. I assume English is your second or third language..

But to humour you, the German Army was the most professional in the world at that time. Go read up a bit about the opinion of the Allied soldiers on their German opposition. Now the Japanese : that was a different story.

If you think any Army in the history of the world acted with honour the whole time, you are truly challenged in the reality department.

I bet you don't even know why they paused for a week at Dunkirk do you ? - when they could have easily wiped out the BEF.

[Naam]

Comparisons with Nazi Germany are ridiculous.

The German Army was very professional and acted with honour almost the whole time. The SS being the exception.

Germany would have used the weapons based on military decisions.

Iran will use them through Islamic hate to bring death to as many infidels as possible in Israel.

Without any doubt, this is Obama's 'Munich agreement'. Settling for a liars promise in order to avoid going to war. History will be the judge of him and all those supporting him.

What is very clear is that many innocent people are going to die through terrorism sponsored by Iran when sanctions are lifted. Obama has made that call and their deaths are on him. That is the price of being president.

The suggestion that the German army under the Nazis was very professional and acted with honour almost the whole time about as useless a statement as those peddling the idea that Iran is just another state but occasionally misunderstood.

Wow, your comment is on the edge of complete nonsense. I assume English is your second or third language..

But to humour you, the German Army was the most professional in the world at that time. Go read up a bit about the opinion of the Allied soldiers on their German opposition. Now the Japanese : that was a different story.

If you think any Army in the history of the world acted with honour the whole time, you are truly challenged in the reality department.

I bet you don't even know why they paused for a week at Dunkirk do you ? - when they could have easily wiped out the BEF.

Dunkirk (Hitler's order to allow the big British evacuation) does not fit the description of them bad Tchermans. most of the time facts are watered down, misinterpreted or deliberately "brushed under the carpet".

[SheungWan]

Comparisons with Nazi Germany are ridiculous.

The German Army was very professional and acted with honour almost the whole time. The SS being the exception.

Germany would have used the weapons based on military decisions.

Iran will use them through Islamic hate to bring death to as many infidels as possible in Israel.

Without any doubt, this is Obama's 'Munich agreement'. Settling for a liars promise in order to avoid going to war. History will be the judge of him and all those supporting him.

What is very clear is that many innocent people are going to die through terrorism sponsored by Iran when sanctions are lifted. Obama has made that call and their deaths are on him. That is the price of being president.

The suggestion that the German army under the Nazis was very professional and acted with honour almost the whole time about as useless a statement as those peddling the idea that Iran is just another state but occasionally misunderstood.

Wow, your comment is on the edge of complete nonsense. I assume English is your second or third language..

But to humour you, the German Army was the most professional in the world at that time. Go read up a bit about the opinion of the Allied soldiers on their German opposition. Now the Japanese : that was a different story.

If you think any Army in the history of the world acted with honour the whole time, you are truly challenged in the reality department.

I bet you don't even know why they paused for a week at Dunkirk do you ? - when they could have easily wiped out the BEF.

The attempt to whitewash the German army and just reserve the nasty bits for the SS is load of old junk but much appreciated by latter day neo-fascists who like to take a softly-softly one step at a time rehabilitation. The laughable thing is that one should consider the army a clean and independent entity from the rule of the Nazis. Even someone with English as a second language would have a good laugh at that. On the other hand poorly educated Englanders flirting with the ultra-right might be impressed. On yet another hand one is equally appalled at the excuses (though not on the same scale) made for the Iranian regime, ostensibly from the nutty left, so round and round we go.

Edited August 7, 2015 by SheungWan

[SheungWan]

Comparisons with Nazi Germany are ridiculous.

The German Army was very professional and acted with honour almost the whole time. The SS being the exception.

Germany would have used the weapons based on military decisions.

Iran will use them through Islamic hate to bring death to as many infidels as possible in Israel.

Without any doubt, this is Obama's 'Munich agreement'. Settling for a liars promise in order to avoid going to war. History will be the judge of him and all those supporting him.

What is very clear is that many innocent people are going to die through terrorism sponsored by Iran when sanctions are lifted. Obama has made that call and their deaths are on him. That is the price of being president.

The suggestion that the German army under the Nazis was very professional and acted with honour almost the whole time about as useless a statement as those peddling the idea that Iran is just another state but occasionally misunderstood.

Wow, your comment is on the edge of complete nonsense. I assume English is your second or third language..

But to humour you, the German Army was the most professional in the world at that time. Go read up a bit about the opinion of the Allied soldiers on their German opposition. Now the Japanese : that was a different story.

If you think any Army in the history of the world acted with honour the whole time, you are truly challenged in the reality department.

I bet you don't even know why they paused for a week at Dunkirk do you ? - when they could have easily wiped out the BEF.

Dunkirk (Hitler's order to allow the big British evacuation) does not fit the description of them bad Tchermans. most of the time facts are watered down, misinterpreted or deliberately "brushed under the carpet".

Complete rubbish of course pushed out by some latter-day revisionists that Hitler allowed the Dunkirk evacuation out of the goodness of his or the German army's noble heart.

https://skeptoid.com/blog/2013/04/15/no-hitler-did-not-let-the-british-escape-at-dunkirk/

[sdanielmcev]

I wonder if there could be a more biased opinion piece. That doesn't mean this Iran deal is any better. No matter the amount of lipstick, it's still a pig.

I simply love the category of posters whose contribution to the arguments and opinions does not go outside remarks like:

BS, or

, or

pigs can fly, or

no matter the amount of lipstick, its still a pig, or

I wonder if there could be a more biased opinion piece, or

etc.

The brevity and authoritarian tone of their response usually reflects the shortness of thought and is always lacking the part following "because...")

Why? sdanielmcev, tell us why?

Because it is an opinion piece devoid of a factual basis. Verbosity, more often than hides the speakers' lack of knowledge.

[Seastallion]

Does anyone really think the Muslims wouldn't kill all the Jews, given half a chance?

Come to think of it, they would probably kill all non-Muslims if they could.

Did you (and your liker) even read the OP?

25 000 Jews live in Iran and are free to leave whenever they want.

Not from the OP, but FYI, there are also Bahai and Christians living freely there...and I have no doubt there are Chinese Taoist and Buddhists, too, not to mention Persian atheists.

Best to inform yourself of facts rather than jump on any ill-informed bigot-wagon.

[Ulysses G.]

So they only want to slaughter all ISRAELI Jews.

[Seastallion]

So they only want to slaughter all ISRAELI Jews.

Where do you get that from?

You're backpedaling now.

[up-country_sinclair]

The multi-million dollar AIPAC PR campaign that is currently underway will ensure that Americans will be hearing the words, "nazi", "holocaust" and "mushroom cloud" a lot over the next few weeks.

[JingerBen]

So they only want to slaughter all ISRAELI Jews.

Calm down.

Your posts are getting wacky.

[Naam]

Complete rubbish of course pushed out by some latter-day revisionists that Hitler allowed the Dunkirk evacuation out of the goodness of his or the German army's noble heart.

https://skeptoid.com/blog/2013/04/15/no-hitler-did-not-let-the-british-escape-at-dunkirk/

you proved my claim by quoting the rubbish of a blogger who's name speaks volumes