Tehran professors decry handling of protesters by Niki2

REAL WORLD EVENT DISCUSSIONS

Tehran professors decry handling of protesters

POSTED BY: NIKI2
UPDATED: Friday, January 8, 2010 12:34
SHORT URL:
VIEWED: 1614
PAGE 1 of 1

Wednesday, January 6, 2010 1:02 PM

Gettin' old, but still a hippie at heart...

I'm really proud of the protesters not giving up in Iran, but I'm also scared and sorry for them. Will they ever succeed at anything for all their suffering??

Nearly 90 professors at Iran's oldest and largest university signed a letter to Supreme Leader Ayatollah Ali Khamenei, criticizing the government's violent handling of student protesters.

"The issue that has left a bitter taste in the mouths of the devout Muslim and patriots of this land is the violent and above the law [illegal] encounters, particularly with University students and faculty members of this land," says the letter, which was posted on the reformist Web site "Rahesabz," or "Green Path."

"In fact, the nightly attacks on the dormitories and living quarters of innocent students and daily assaults on them ... are not testaments to the power of the system, just as the violent beatings and imprisonments are not testament to its faith and piety."

The professors ask Khamenei to order revolutionary guards, government-sanctioned militiamen and others who have engaged in campus violence to vacate the university. The letter also calls for official apologies for beatings of university members and the unconditional release of detained students and faculty.

http://www.cnn.com/2010/WORLD/meast/01/05/iran.professors.unrest/index
.html

There was no immediate government response to the letter.

The 88 professors -- all of whom are considered employees of the Islamic republic -- who signed the letter are "risking their jobs and God knows what else," said Ali Alfoneh, a research fellow at the Washington-based American Enterprise Institute who has researched the relationship between Iranian civilians and the Islamic Revolutionary Guard.

"Some of them may end up arrested," he added.

The letter, posted on a reformist Web site Monday, is a rare and significant showing of discontent among Tehran University's academics. Student unrest has only increased since thousands of protesters turned out on the streets of Iran to oppose the country's disputed presidential election, in which hardline incumbent President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad was declared the overwhelming winner.

"Unfortunately and sadly; all of this takes place under the veil of safeguarding Islam and the representation of the supreme leadership and, even more sadly, no institution or organization accepts responsibility for this savagery!"

The anti-government demonstrations began following the disputed June 12 presidential vote, which re-elected hardline President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad over main opposition candidate Mir Hossein Moussavi. Last month marked the deadliest clashes since the initial protests broke out this summer. At least seven people were killed and hundreds arrested as they took to the streets on Ashura, a Shiite Muslim holy day.

One university researcher told CNN he was one of many beaten by police, struck with a baton 11 times. Iranian Interior Minister Mostafa-Mohammad Najjar warned Saturday that the government will not show leniency to protesters in the future.

"It doesn't surprise me that professors wrote this letter, because universities have been one of the first victims of increased government pressure," Alfoneh said.

In the aftermath of the election, Tehran University and other institutions quickly became hotbeds of violence, with members of the government's Basij militia attacking young protesters on campus, including dormitories.

In August, Khamenei addressed a group of university professors from all over, noting that academics would be held to a higher standard of accountability -- especially after the elections.

"Naturally, the expectations that we have of the professors and faculty is much greater than what we expect from the students," Khamenei was quoted by Iranian media as saying on August 30. "The students are the young officers on the front lines of this war and the professors are the commanders [against] this 'soft war' -- the professors who can fulfill this role will be worthy of the Islamic republic."

The Iranian government has denied that its security forces killed anyone and has blamed reformists for the violence. At times, video has shown protesters apparently turning on security forces.

Still, the letter serves as another blow to Iran's Islamic leadership, which reformists say has lost credibility in its handling of the post-election unrest. Several critics, including cleric and former presidential candidate Mehdi Karrubi have compared the tactics of the current government to those of the Shah of Iran, who was overthrown by the same fervent followers of Islam more than 30 years ago.

Alfoneh noted that numerous petitions were drafted and published in the days leading up to the overthrow of the Shah, who was also slammed with allegations of injustice and human rights violations under his watch. He said it's no surprise that academics today are taking a similar approach as it becomes increasingly harder to teach amid the violence.

"The opposition and even ordinary citizen are trying to duplicate the events of 30 years ago -- they're trying to play to the memory of the public," Alfoneh said.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Wednesday, January 6, 2010 1:32 PM

GINOBIFFARONI

In Saudi Arabia they would all be in jail and this letter would have never seen the light of day.

The fact that open protest happens, as well as media and opposition figures is a very good sign for the evolution of government in Iran, while the lack of it elsewhere remains troubling.

As for protests going violent, hell this has even happened in the US...

If the US didn't have embargos in place they would likely be selling them sonic cannons, tasers and other riot control tech as we speak.

Either your with the terrorists, or ... your with the terrorists

Lets party like its 1939

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Wednesday, January 6, 2010 2:01 PM

KWICKO

"We'll know our disinformation program is complete when everything the American public believes is false." -- William Casey, Reagan's presidential campaign manager & CIA Director (from first staff meeting in 1981)

The hell of it is, things were actually further along in the change-slash-revolution department in Iran until that idiot Bush trotted out his "axis of evil" tripe, which then empowered the mullahs and turned even the reformist Iranians against us.

So our credibility in the area is all shot to hell AGAIN.

What can we do? First, acknowledge our own mistakes in the area (backing the Shah, ousting Mossedeigh, etc.), which will hopefully buy us a little credibility back and maybe get us a friendly ear somewhere in the country. Next, try to start an open dialog with Iran, while offering moral support to the protesters, yet not denouncing the government at the same time. Show that we are here, and we look forward to working with them as a nation, but only in constructive, productive ways.

Offer a carrot-and-stick approach, instead of what we've been offering, which amounts to a stick-and-bomb approach ("Listen to us and do what we say, or we'll beat you with a stick. If you don't listen after that, we'll bomb you.") Encourage the current government to negotiate with the reformists, by loosening sanctions on them and easing embargoes for working with the protesters, or by tightening restrictions on them if they enact a violent crackdown on the movement.

We can't FORCE anything, really - and we'll end up looking the bad guy if we try. And worse, we'll end up cutting the reform movement off at the knees if we're even seen talking to them. So we can stand back, talk to both sides, and TRY for once not to fuck things sideways in that country.

Mike

Work is the curse of the Drinking Class.
- Oscar Wilde

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Wednesday, January 6, 2010 2:52 PM

GINOBIFFARONI

Quote:
Originally posted by Kwicko:
The hell of it is, things were actually further along in the change-slash-revolution department in Iran until that idiot Bush trotted out his "axis of evil" tripe, which then empowered the mullahs and turned even the reformist Iranians against us.

So our credibility in the area is all shot to hell AGAIN.

What can we do? First, acknowledge our own mistakes in the area (backing the Shah, ousting Mossedeigh, etc.), which will hopefully buy us a little credibility back and maybe get us a friendly ear somewhere in the country. Next, try to start an open dialog with Iran, while offering moral support to the protesters, yet not denouncing the government at the same time. Show that we are here, and we look forward to working with them as a nation, but only in constructive, productive ways.

Offer a carrot-and-stick approach, instead of what we've been offering, which amounts to a stick-and-bomb approach ("Listen to us and do what we say, or we'll beat you with a stick. If you don't listen after that, we'll bomb you.") Encourage the current government to negotiate with the reformists, by loosening sanctions on them and easing embargoes for working with the protesters, or by tightening restrictions on them if they enact a violent crackdown on the movement.

We can't FORCE anything, really - and we'll end up looking the bad guy if we try. And worse, we'll end up cutting the reform movement off at the knees if we're even seen talking to them. So we can stand back, talk to both sides, and TRY for once not to fuck things sideways in that country.

Mike

Work is the curse of the Drinking Class.
- Oscar Wilde

The guy who wrote the book I'm reading right now has several good points on this...

The way for the US to deal with Iran, is by not dealing with Iran...

If the Palestinian problem was resolved once and for all, it would start the US back on the road to regaining some trust and cred with muslims in general.

He also goes on to say that internal politics inside Israel will not allow that peace or the compromises necessary to begin that peace unless the politicos there can say the US were pushing them into it. ( even the moderate left and center guys would need that )

He thinks, it would take a ton of money to work and alot of patience ( which hasn't been there )
he also used an analogy comparing it to France during the Algerian independence. Having to force themselves not to overreact to some violence to keep the larger goal in mind.

Perhaps this is the path to ending several wars...

Either your with the terrorists, or ... your with the terrorists

Lets party like its 1939

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Wednesday, January 6, 2010 2:58 PM

KWICKO

Quote:
Perhaps this is the path to ending several wars...

Probably MOST of them.

NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Wednesday, January 6, 2010 3:16 PM

GINOBIFFARONI

Kwicko said " until that idiot Bush trotted out his "axis of evil" tripe "

that is part of the problem, but hell every US leader going back to Eisenhower has said ( and done ) shit to create the mess today.

Imagine your a Muslim, watching your satellite TV ( funny enough this is a huge component of the troubles, as news and information is traveling so much faster )

you see Madeline Albright saying 500,000 dead Iraqi kids was a cheap price for US security

( after the 1996 UN report detailing the cost of the sanctions was released )

or Bill Clinton comparing Boris Yeltsin to Lincoln while the Russians were using every weapon short of nukes to wipe out Chechen Muslims.

North Americans hear the sound bytes and shrug, other places in the world take that shit serious...

Wouldn't you be a little pissed off?

Either your with the terrorists, or ... your with the terrorists

Lets party like its 1939

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Wednesday, January 6, 2010 3:21 PM

NIKI2

Gettin' old, but still a hippie at heart...

American Presidential Disorder: Foot-in-mouth Disease. Forever, and will continue forever. Tho' Obama seems to have done a pretty good job SO FAR of respecting other nations and heads of state...much to the disgust of those who will look for anything, and no doubt Dick Cheney...

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Wednesday, January 6, 2010 4:04 PM

GINOBIFFARONI

Another interesting thought...

in another thread I said the US sponsored and commissioned war sending Iraq to attack Iran from 1980 - 1988 cost Iran 500,000 dead and 750,000 crippled.

As Iran has the full on public option healthcare system... with a smaller private option for those who can afford it, can you imagine the cost?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Health_care_in_Iran

interesting reading with the health care debate in the US going on...

Either your with the terrorists, or ... your with the terrorists

Life is like a jar of Jalapeño peppers.
What you do today, might Burn Your Ass Tomorrow"

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Wednesday, January 6, 2010 4:40 PM

DREAMTROVE

The Green Revolution is utter nonsense. The Iranians I know, none of them support Ahmadinejad or Khamenei, being ex-pats and dissidents, even revolutionary themselves, none think that this is any more than a western sponsored attempt at insurrection like 1953.

Mike and Gino are making sense here, but the situation isn't even as bad as that. Though expats I know don't support the current regime, they don't oppose it. They think that this is progress, and that these leaders are trying to do what the Ahmadinejad and Khamenei think is best for Iran, and are not brash enough to think that they are necessarily wrong.

Here's the hitch: There's a strong fundamentalist religious element in Iran that would love to see a purely theocratic state. Probably every muslim nation has this. But the western attacks in the muslim world give a lot of strength to this movement.

By *being* the religious right, Ahmadinejad and Khamenei, shut out the real extremists. Bearing in mind that Ahmadinejad and Khamenei barely even tolerate each other's vision, but both recognize that either alternative: A Saudi-style theocracy, or a western style "shah" puppet state, would be an absolute disaster for Iran, do their best to position the country in a strategic direction towards rational self-governance, even i this means brinksmanship towards the west.

I just watched and hour and a half of debate between Ahmadinejad and Mousavi, and I have to say that Ahmadinejad's problem with Mousavi at the core is very simple, and absolutely on target: Mousavi is not a good enough chess player.

Mir-Hossein Mousavi is not a liberal reformer, champion of women's rights or anything like that, and everyone knows this except for a few western dingbats. But the problem with Mousavi has nothing to do with policy. He's just not as hip to the political regional chess game as either Mahmoud Ahmadinejad or Ayatollah Ali Khamenei.

I don't think Mr. Mousavi is a moron by any means, but that he is in way over his head, and the only reason that the west supports him is that he would be a much easier target than Ahmadinejad.

Also, the self fashioned image of Mousavi as an intellectual is equally absurd. Ahmadinejad is a university professor, and Mousavi, while a very educated man, a much more potent issue there then here, Mousavi is also a member of the Islamic Revolution which Ahmadinejad is not. Mousavi still sits on the Expediency Council and an appointed advisor to the Ayatollah chosen by Ruhollah Khomeini himself.

That said, it's also worthy of note that Mousavi is far from an unknown quantity: He was leader of Iran for eight years, and in that time had a pretty poor track record on keeping stable neutral relations with foreign powers in the Islamic world, and the west, comprising of the US, Europe and Israel as far a Iran is currently concerned.

The picture of Mousavi as a revolutionary liberal is patently absurd, but none of this is the issue: Watch the debates yourself. Mousavi favors Iranian involvement in Mideast conflicts, and harsher crackdowns against outside influences. This is not because Mousavi means ill to Iran, it is because he is a) a man who has let his ego take control of his ambition, and b) more than anything else:

Not a good enough chess player to avoid an endgame war with the west.

I can't stress this point enough, it's by far the most important issue to Iran today and the reason why Mousavi lost the election resoundingly. He does not have the perspective to see how situations play out, nor does he have the patience of Job. He's slightly hotheaded, and very right wing. If elected, he'd probably bring Iran into the war. This is very much not what Iran needs right now.

That said, I don't have any real serious objections to Mousavi, in his current role in govt. He's not an idiot, but I think he's just not a level head. So much of Ahmadinejad and Khamenei is just for show, but they definitely know what they are doing. Mahmoud, for his part, is clearly an excellent chess player. This, and perhaps this alone, is why we are not at war with Iran.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Wednesday, January 6, 2010 5:11 PM

GINOBIFFARONI

From what I have read of Ahmadinejad, he was the surprise reform candidate who wasn't suppose to be elected when he first ran.

I don't think he and Khamenei see eye to eye on many issues, but I also think that is a good thing. Debate usually leads to better decisions than people in lock step.

As Mayor of Tehran, I read he cleaned up a mess of corruption, and increased services, etc without an increase of taxes... the ideal Western politician.

His stand on Palestine has not been popular in the west, but he has also been misquoted enough times...

The bottom line is he does want the Jewish state eliminated... but replaced with a secular state that is inclusive of both muslims and jews.

Not exactly the wingnut the American news paints him as... and as that is what is generally believed that is unfortunate.

" You cannot win this war through force, you must understand your way out of this "
Babylon5

Either your with the terrorists, or ... your with the terrorists

Life is like a jar of Jalapeño peppers.
What you do today, might Burn Your Ass Tomorrow"

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Wednesday, January 6, 2010 11:11 PM

DREAMTROVE

Quote:

From what I have read of Ahmadinejad, he was the surprise reform candidate who wasn't suppose to be elected when he first ran.

Gino

In this case "Reform" was meant as the name of the principle opposition party to the dominant Conservative party.

Originally, Ahmadinejad ran on a third party ticket, Islamic Engineers. They were considered a religious right win who embraced religion and science equally. (strange concept for an american ;) )

The Islamic Engineers weren't new, they have a few random elected official, they're like independents or greens, and he was like a ralph nader. He's highly pro-education, capitalist, and generally was considered to the far right, but more in the way ron paul was. Logically, he had no chance of winning.

Then, a few month before the election, the Conservative Party was caught in a massive voter fraud. This sent their poll numbers plummeting. They were, of course, incredibly guilty, it wasn't just a neat trick.

This set Reform as a shoe in to win. Reform ran on a platform of no more theocracy, open ties and trade with the US, and a more liberal secular stance.

America loved this idea. So, our politicians finagled ways to feed funds and staff resources to Reform, inextricably linking the US to Reform. A vote for Reform was a vote for America.

Then the US started bombing Afghanistan, invading, invaded Iraq, and bombed it into oblivion. Both countries of course have substantial Persian minorities. We seems to not want to ally ourselves with anyone, but just kill everyone, bomb everything, take the oil and opium and set up puppet states.

Well, Reform plummeted in polls to 15%. But no one had forgiven Reform for the massive fraud. Ergo, third party victory.

The story is even weirder than it seems. Ahmadinejad is an arab name, but he's not an arab. His father changed the family name. In reality, they were Kurds. I know from the Kurds I know, that Kurds fought with the Islamic Revolution in 1979, with the misunderstanding that there would be Kurdish autonomy. *After* the Islamic Revolution, they fought against it, and during the Iran-Iraq war, they fought on both sides, trying to forge a Kurdish state. Well, this created a lot of ill will, and there was descrimination against the Kurds. Figuring that they could never pass as persians, they decided to pass as Kurds.

Again, sort of like Nader, being an Arab, but then again, we have an East-African black president, and India has a Sikh president, all of which would have been considered absurd a decade ago.

But, once in, he did the job (as has manmohan singh) and he did it better than his predecessors. University enrollment soared, the IAEA got back in, and the Iranian nuclear program was above board and rolling again*

* Sure, Iranians probably want a nuke to fend off any threat of an attack from the outside, but there's an equally strong agenda here: Half of all of the oil that Iran produces, it burns for energy. Replacing the infrastructure with nuclear-powered electricity, electric trains, etc. would double the oil output for export, and bring Iran's economic standing up to fully match that of other first world nations. This is not only a major goal for the govt, but since Iran now has a permanent fund, which Ahmadinejad said he copied the idea from Alaska ;) Yeah, he really said that, that now the whole population has a vested interest in increasing oil exports.

Now, for re-election, all of the international press was invited in to do polls. The Israeli poll put Ahmadinejad at 65%, which was the lowest poll, and Mousavi at 35%, the highest. Still, the Israelis pretty closely called the election on the nose.

More election weirdness: Khatami was going to run as Reform, but he could not agree to cabinet nominations. Reform had a lot of pro-westerners that they wanted in. This was viewed by the Conservative as an appeasement strategy where Iran would do what the US told it to in order to avoid sanctions or war, which they likened to Saddam Hussein disarming, and then getting bombed.

Eventually, after discussions with Conservatives, Khatami and the Conservative party decided not to run at all, because they would split the vote with Ahmadinejad, and Reform would win. So, Conservative backed Ahmadinejad, as well as his own Islamic Engineers, for re-election.

Reform was left scrambling for a replacement candidate, and selected former prime minister, and ultra-conservative clerical advisors Mousavi. Well, this required a huge image overhaul. Mousavi was no kind of reformer, and so selling the idea, they decided to target students, on the grounds that they wouldn't remember Iran under Mousavi before, which was considered a pretty much the reign of the iron-fist.

Quote:

I don't think he and Khamenei see eye to eye on many issues, but I also think that is a good thing. Debate usually leads to better decisions than people in lock step.

This is spot on. There was even some talk that Ahmadinejad was heretical because at times he had come into conflict with Khamenei over issues, and not abided by the Ayatollah's position. There was a definite power struggle. Particularly, re: the nuclear program, Ahmadinejad had said that this was the way of the future, and religious beliefs needed to meet with science, not oppose it, and the Ayatollah had been opposing it. Ahmadinejad ordered the researchers to go ahead, and Khamenei gave an awkward speech in which he declared that Allah had showed him that Nuclear Power was the will of god ;)

Quote:

As Mayor of Tehran, I read he cleaned up a mess of corruption, and increased services, etc without an increase of taxes... the ideal Western politician.

Taxes were a major issue. He got rid of sales tax, including the national VAT tax. As president, he did this by executive order, which is what earned him the "dictator" accusation, but it was hard to carry that argument when you have to say "well, what did he dictate. Oh, he got rid of some taxes."

He's been more pro-market, but he wants the Iranian economy to be entirely self-sufficient. I don't know the specifics on which services are currently private vs. public

Quote:

His stand on Palestine has not been popular in the west, but he has also been misquoted enough times...

He has definitely been misquoted. The curious thing is that our press and the british press have officially apologized for doing this manipulatively, but they only mention that to the muslim world. CNN inserted "death to america" and "wipe israel off the map" and then apologized on Al Jazeera and Press TV, but never on CNN itelf ;)

But the whole palestine thing is so much a square in the international chess board. It's much less about keeping support from local muslims extremists, which is more an issue in less democratic countries (saudi, egypt) and more an issue of leverage against israel. Iran wants to be in a position to say "Yes, Israel, you can make life difficult for us, but we can make life very difficult for you." But beyond that game, he is sincere about what he'd like to see:

Quote:

The bottom line is he does want the Jewish state eliminated... but replaced with a secular state that is inclusive of both muslims and jews.

A single state of Palestine, with a balanced muslim/jewish legislature, in which all people are allowed to live everywhere, etc. He doesn't call for the expulsion of jews. He was not misquoted when he called Olmert's govt. "An apartheid Regime."

Quote:

Not exactly the wingnut the American news paints him as... and as that is what is generally believed that is unfortunate.

Not at all, and it's unfortunate that even Jon Stewart and Steven Colbert play along in this.

He said that in 2008, he did get an agreement from Bush on peace between the US and Iran, so there exists a tentative treaty, and that in 2009, Obama also signed on to this. Interestingly, none of this made the news on our side of the ocean.

War with Iran is fortunately looking less likely at the moment, since attempts by Brussels to get Europe into the idea are weakening due to the large number of Islamic refugees in Europe, in no small part due to our many wars, ironically.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Thursday, January 7, 2010 2:43 PM

KPO

Sometimes you own the libs. Sometimes, the libs own you.

Quote:
What can we do? First, acknowledge our own mistakes in the area

Obama did say something along these lines.

Quote:
Next, try to start an open dialog with Iran, while offering moral support to the protesters, yet not denouncing the government at the same time.

How do you offer moral support to the protesters but not remark on the aggressive government attempts to subdue and silence them? Still, I think I know what you are getting at, and again I would say Obama has tried to walk that tightrope. It also should be noted that whenever Obama ventures to deal with Iran in either of these ways he comes under fire from the idiot domestic Right for being 'weak'.

Quote:
The guy who wrote the book I'm reading right now has several good points on this...

The way for the US to deal with Iran, is by not dealing with Iran...

If the Palestinian problem was resolved once and for all, it would start the US back on the road to regaining some trust and cred with muslims in general.

He also goes on to say that internal politics inside Israel will not allow that peace or the compromises necessary to begin that peace unless the politicos there can say the US were pushing them into it. ( even the moderate left and center guys would need that )

He thinks, it would take a ton of money to work and alot of patience ( which hasn't been there )
he also used an analogy comparing it to France during the Algerian independence. Having to force themselves not to overreact to some violence to keep the larger goal in mind.

Sounds interesting Gino, what book is this?

Heads should roll

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Thursday, January 7, 2010 2:51 PM

KPO

Sometimes you own the libs. Sometimes, the libs own you.

Quote:
Not exactly the wingnut the American news paints him as... and as that is what is generally believed that is unfortunate.

How about his open denial of the Holocaust, and hosting a summit for prominent holocaust-deniers from around the world to attend?

How about his assertion that Iran does not have any homosexuals (insinuating that homosexuality is a decadent Western vice)?

Come on, if ahmadinejad was a US politician you would call him the biggest wingnut in US political history.

Heads should roll

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Thursday, January 7, 2010 2:54 PM

GINOBIFFARONI

Quote:
Originally posted by kpo:
Quote:
What can we do? First, acknowledge our own mistakes in the area

Obama did say something along these lines.

Quote:
Next, try to start an open dialog with Iran, while offering moral support to the protesters, yet not denouncing the government at the same time.

How do you offer moral support to the protesters but not remark on the aggressive government attempts to subdue and silence them? Still, I think I know what you are getting at, and again I would say Obama has tried to walk that tightrope. It also should be noted that whenever Obama ventures to deal with Iran in either of these ways he comes under fire from the idiot domestic Right for being 'weak'.

Quote:
The guy who wrote the book I'm reading right now has several good points on this...

The way for the US to deal with Iran, is by not dealing with Iran...

If the Palestinian problem was resolved once and for all, it would start the US back on the road to regaining some trust and cred with muslims in general.

He also goes on to say that internal politics inside Israel will not allow that peace or the compromises necessary to begin that peace unless the politicos there can say the US were pushing them into it. ( even the moderate left and center guys would need that )

He thinks, it would take a ton of money to work and alot of patience ( which hasn't been there )
he also used an analogy comparing it to France during the Algerian independence. Having to force themselves not to overreact to some violence to keep the larger goal in mind.

Sounds interesting Gino, what book is this?

Heads should roll

http://www.ericmargolis.com/

http://www.amazon.ca/American-Raj-America-Muslim-World/dp/1554702216

great read

Either your with the terrorists, or ... your with the terrorists

Life is like a jar of Jalapeño peppers.
What you do today, might Burn Your Ass Tomorrow"

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Thursday, January 7, 2010 3:08 PM

GINOBIFFARONI

Quote:
Originally posted by kpo:
Quote:
Not exactly the wingnut the American news paints him as... and as that is what is generally believed that is unfortunate.

How about his open denial of the Holocaust, and hosting a summit for prominent holocaust-deniers from around the world to attend?

How about his assertion that Iran does not have any homosexuals (insinuating that homosexuality is a decadent Western vice)?

Come on, if ahmadinejad was a US politician you would call him the biggest wingnut in US political history.

Heads should roll

Lots of people question the exact numbers...

personally I don't think that matters much, I believe it happened because I had two grandparents in one of the camps...

mind you I also agree with his point that the Holocaust doesn't justify the actions taken with the creation of Israel...

If we go into assertions about homosexuals, or communists, or islamofascists or abortion we can write off many if not all politicians as wingnuts...( in any country ) and church leaders as well.

As I pointed out early, Bill Clinton called Boris Yeltsin " russias Abraham Lincoln while Russia was committing genocide in Chechnya "

or some of the things Bush said during his term

the media can really distort the message when they want to, and that isn't in anyones interest is it?

Either your with the terrorists, or ... your with the terrorists

Life is like a jar of Jalapeño peppers.
What you do today, might Burn Your Ass Tomorrow"

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Thursday, January 7, 2010 4:35 PM

KWICKO

Quote:
How do you offer moral support to the protesters but not remark on the aggressive government attempts to subdue and silence them? Still, I think I know what you are getting at, and again I would say Obama has tried to walk that tightrope. It also should be noted that whenever Obama ventures to deal with Iran in either of these ways he comes under fire from the idiot domestic Right for being 'weak'.

Exactly - how DO you walk that tightrope? Obama has done a good job of this, I'll admit. And he's done it by talking in generalities, citing things like "universal rights" and "human rights shared by all people", without directly taking the current Iranian regime to task in the same breath, which gives them the plausible deniability to be able to say (with a straight face), "Nah, he wasn't talking about us, he was talking about some other oppressive regime." :)

For the record, I don't think Iran is a great bastion of decency and democracy. I think they're a nation trying to find their way, and TRYING to carve out their own destiny. I try not to begrudge them that.

As for Holocaust deniers, sure, I think they're batshit crazy (about that, anyway), but I feel the same way about fundamentalist Christians and their beliefs, too, or zealots of any stripe. I think they're nuts, and I think they should be ashamed, but I don't think you overthrow their nation for it, or unleash a Holocaust upon them for not believing...

Mike

Work is the curse of the Drinking Class.
- Oscar Wilde

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Thursday, January 7, 2010 5:05 PM

GINOBIFFARONI

Quote:
Originally posted by Kwicko:
Quote:
How do you offer moral support to the protesters but not remark on the aggressive government attempts to subdue and silence them? Still, I think I know what you are getting at, and again I would say Obama has tried to walk that tightrope. It also should be noted that whenever Obama ventures to deal with Iran in either of these ways he comes under fire from the idiot domestic Right for being 'weak'.

Exactly - how DO you walk that tightrope? Obama has done a good job of this, I'll admit. And he's done it by talking in generalities, citing things like "universal rights" and "human rights shared by all people", without directly taking the current Iranian regime to task in the same breath, which gives them the plausible deniability to be able to say (with a straight face), "Nah, he wasn't talking about us, he was talking about some other oppressive regime." :)

For the record, I don't think Iran is a great bastion of decency and democracy. I think they're a nation trying to find their way, and TRYING to carve out their own destiny. I try not to begrudge them that.

As for Holocaust deniers, sure, I think they're batshit crazy (about that, anyway), but I feel the same way about fundamentalist Christians and their beliefs, too, or zealots of any stripe. I think they're nuts, and I think they should be ashamed, but I don't think you overthrow their nation for it, or unleash a Holocaust upon them for not believing...

Mike

Work is the curse of the Drinking Class.
- Oscar Wilde

I think the US needs to practice what it preach's first and foremost.

Overseas they look silly talking about fair and free elections... or treatment of prisoners, etc

Then some of the people who get on TV in the US...

folk start to think what Rush says or Beck, or Pat Robertson says is representative of how Americans feel ( remember they have satellite dishes ) and think who are they to talk to us like that.

Engagement requires respect, and in the current environment of posturing and threats its not going to happen.

Either your with the terrorists, or ... your with the terrorists

Life is like a jar of Jalapeño peppers.
What you do today, might Burn Your Ass Tomorrow"

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Thursday, January 7, 2010 5:10 PM

GINOBIFFARONI

BTW Kwicko

" For the record, I don't think Iran is a great bastion of decency and democracy "

How would you compare them to their neighbors

Kuwait, Saudi Arabia, Egypt, Pakistan

Either your with the terrorists, or ... your with the terrorists

Life is like a jar of Jalapeño peppers.
What you do today, might Burn Your Ass Tomorrow"

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Thursday, January 7, 2010 5:40 PM

KWICKO

Quote:
Originally posted by GinoBiffaroni:
BTW Kwicko

" For the record, I don't think Iran is a great bastion of decency and democracy "

How would you compare them to their neighbors

Kuwait, Saudi Arabia, Egypt, Pakistan

Oh, don't get me wrong, Gino - I have issues with Iran, but they may well be one of the more PROGRESSIVE of nations in the region.

We keep wanting other nations to be as "enlightened" as we are, while at the same time we tend to decry other nations for being too "decadent" if they've become less puritanical than we are.

While I wouldn't want to live in Iran, I'd dare say it might be preferable to some of the other nations in the area! Upsides - education level is pretty high, nation as a whole is quite young (I'm speaking of the age of the population, not the age of the nation), some emphasis on science and engineering education... Downsides - well, there's the basij militias and the Savak secret police to deal with, there's severe limits to freedom of speech and expression, but we have lots of that around here, too. I suppose if you criticize the Iranian government, you probably get labeled by their version of FauxNews as "unpatriotic", too. :)

But all in all, I'll stay here, for now.

Mike

Work is the curse of the Drinking Class.
- Oscar Wilde

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Thursday, January 7, 2010 6:06 PM

GINOBIFFARONI

Quote:
Originally posted by Kwicko:
Quote:
Originally posted by GinoBiffaroni:
BTW Kwicko

" For the record, I don't think Iran is a great bastion of decency and democracy "

How would you compare them to their neighbors

Kuwait, Saudi Arabia, Egypt, Pakistan

Oh, don't get me wrong, Gino - I have issues with Iran, but they may well be one of the more PROGRESSIVE of nations in the region.

We keep wanting other nations to be as "enlightened" as we are, while at the same time we tend to decry other nations for being too "decadent" if they've become less puritanical than we are.

While I wouldn't want to live in Iran, I'd dare say it might be preferable to some of the other nations in the area! Upsides - education level is pretty high, nation as a whole is quite young (I'm speaking of the age of the population, not the age of the nation), some emphasis on science and engineering education... Downsides - well, there's the basij militias and the Savak secret police to deal with, there's severe limits to freedom of speech and expression, but we have lots of that around here, too. I suppose if you criticize the Iranian government, you probably get labeled by their version of FauxNews as "unpatriotic", too. :)

But all in all, I'll stay here, for now.

Mike

Work is the curse of the Drinking Class.
- Oscar Wilde

You make my points... while not perfect, Iran is more " PROGRESSIVE " than its neighbors... despite having been undermined and attacked at every quarter by the most powerful country on the planet... who spend billions propping up their more repressive neighbors...

point one... Would Iran be even more progressive if it were free of the fear of attack, subversion, coup, etc

point two... if the US really supported freedom and democracy and all the other crap in the press releases why are they always kicking Iran and padding the pockets of the others?

that book American Raj, http://www.amazon.ca/American-Raj-America-Muslim-World/dp/1554702216

lays it out... either your a client state of pax America... do what we say, support who we tell you do, buy our weapons, control your people, etc or you are an enemy to be made an example of...

the book only deals with the Muslim world, but expand that to Cuba and central America

Does America want free countrys out there, or compliant ones? and if not they beat you down, or have another one of their " clients " do it

Sounds like something out of the Sorpranos,

but at least Tony would draw the line at wacking your family

Either your with the terrorists, or ... your with the terrorists

Life is like a jar of Jalapeño peppers.
What you do today, might Burn Your Ass Tomorrow"

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Thursday, January 7, 2010 6:17 PM

GINOBIFFARONI

sorry. couldn't resist

Either your with the terrorists, or ... your with the terrorists

Life is like a jar of Jalapeño peppers.
What you do today, might Burn Your Ass Tomorrow"

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Thursday, January 7, 2010 8:41 PM

GINOBIFFARONI

Sorry for those of your who don't watch TV the last was a parody of the last scene of the Sopranos which was a mafia show following Tony Soprano

real scene if you want to see

Either your with the terrorists, or ... your with the terrorists

Life is like a jar of Jalapeño peppers.
What you do today, might Burn Your Ass Tomorrow"

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Thursday, January 7, 2010 10:18 PM

FREMDFIRMA

Quote:
"I spent 33 years and 4 months in active service as a member of our country's most agile military force--the Marine Corps. I served in all commissioned ranks from second lieutenant to Major General. And during that period I spent most of my time being a high-class muscle man for Big Business, for Wall Street and for the bankers. In short, I was a racketeer for capitalism. I suspected I was part of a racket all the time. Now I am sure of it. Like all members of the military profession I never had an original thought until I left the service."

-Smedley D. Butler (1881-1940)

War Is A Racket
http://www.informationclearinghouse.info/article4377.htm

Ole Gimlet Eye had it right in one, and he of all people should know, having been instrumental in cutting down a plot to install the Mussolini-style political and economic Fascism which is what we have in all but name today the first time these assholes tried it back in 1933.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Business_Plot

Hell, even Eisenhower knew it, and tried to make the population aware of the dangers, despite the torrent of sleaze and yellow journalism of the Hearst empire, precursor to both Sinclair and Murdoch.

This little back and forth has ALWAYS been going on, as long as history exists and probably for some time even before that.

"There are two great powers, the man said, and they've been fighting since time began. Every advance in human life, every scrap of knowledge and wisdom and decency we have has been torn by one side from the teeth of the other. Every little increase in human freedom has been fought over ferociously between those who want us to know more and be wiser and stronger, and those who want us to obey and be humble and submit."
-Philip Pullman, The Subtle Knife

Fuck national borders, patriotism, race, religon and all the rest of that mess, THIS is what it boils down to, in the end, one side of that, or the other.

I know what side of it I am on.

Do you ?

-F

NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Friday, January 8, 2010 8:09 AM

NIKI2

Gettin' old, but still a hippie at heart...

EXCELLENT discussion! Well thought out and informative...there are a few things I would disagree with, but on the whole, thank you for the education!

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Friday, January 8, 2010 8:19 AM

GINOBIFFARONI

Quote:
Originally posted by Niki2:
EXCELLENT discussion! Well thought out and informative...there are a few things I would disagree with, but on the whole, thank you for the education!

Jump in Niki, what do you disagree with ?

Either your with the terrorists, or ... your with the terrorists

Life is like a jar of Jalapeño peppers.
What you do today, might Burn Your Ass Tomorrow"

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Friday, January 8, 2010 8:49 AM

KWICKO

Quote:
You make my points... while not perfect, Iran is more " PROGRESSIVE " than its neighbors... despite having been undermined and attacked at every quarter by the most powerful country on the planet... who spend billions propping up their more repressive neighbors...

point one... Would Iran be even more progressive if it were free of the fear of attack, subversion, coup, etc

point two... if the US really supported freedom and democracy and all the other crap in the press releases why are they always kicking Iran and padding the pockets of the others?

Well, I only make your points for you because we're pretty much in agreement, at least on this issue. :)

And yes, I've no doubt Iran would be MORE progressive if the ayatollahs didn't have the big bad U.S. to hoist up as The Great Satan every time we handed them the opportunity to do so.

Mike

Work is the curse of the Drinking Class.
- Oscar Wilde

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Friday, January 8, 2010 9:59 AM

NIKI2

Gettin' old, but still a hippie at heart...

Only

Quote:
The Green Revolution is utter nonsense.

and the assertion that

Quote:
this is any more than a western sponsored attempt at insurrection like 1953.

(tho' I realize that statement is what DT says her friends THINK), and

Quote:
we have an East-African black president

actually. Other than that, I think this is a well-thought-out discussion by people who look behind the propaganda and really SEE the situation as it is.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Friday, January 8, 2010 11:08 AM

KWICKO

Quote:
we have an East-African black president

Now see, crazy ol' me, I coulda SWORE we had an AMERICAN president...

I guess if I'm ever elected, you'll all say "well, we have a German president now," huh? (Actually, if I were ever elected, I'm fair certain a goodly number of you would either hang yourselves, or shoot me.)

Besides, isn't Obama half Kansas Whitebread too? :)

Mike

Work is the curse of the Drinking Class.
- Oscar Wilde

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Friday, January 8, 2010 11:45 AM

FREMDFIRMA

Quote:
Originally posted by Kwicko:
And yes, I've no doubt Iran would be MORE progressive if the ayatollahs didn't have the big bad U.S. to hoist up as The Great Satan every time we handed them the opportunity to do so.

I have no doubt WE would be more progressive if we didn't have the big bad ayatollahs to hoist up as The Terrorist Threat every time they handed us the opportunity to do so...

And yanno what Mikey ?

Both sides fucking KNOW that, and it's part of their little asshole agreement that keeps em both in power, while sending us peons out to kill each other in order to ensure it.

Of course, this presumes us peons remain ignorant of those facts, and do not work together to oppose them, which is one reason why I am so involved with the local Muslim community.

Just how awful it would be, if we merely laughed at them, instead.

-Frem

There always has to be a price.

NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Friday, January 8, 2010 12:34 PM

KWICKO

Quote:

Of course, this presumes us peons remain ignorant of those facts, and do not work together to oppose them, which is one reason why I am so involved with the local Muslim community.

Just how awful it would be, if we merely laughed at them, instead.

Bingo!

Now you know why I can't resist the snark, and why I'll rarely be completely serious about ANYTHING. Laugh at your fears, and it takes away the power of fear.

Mike

Work is the curse of the Drinking Class.
- Oscar Wilde

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

YOUR OPTIONS

SHARE THREAD

NEW POSTS TODAY

USER

POST DATE