Iranian Election Continued (Part 2)

146 posts / 0 new
Last post
sanizadeh

Stockholm wrote:

we don't know if these are regular police as opposed to "religious" police. I suspect that there is some sort of women's auxilary to the regular police to deal with the fact that men aren't allowed to touch women so someone has to deal with female criminals.

Iran does not have a special "religious" police like Saudi. There was a special "Komite" force that was merged into regular police in late 80s. The regular police now handles all issues including veils and lipsticks etc.

BTW it seems several different groups are being confused with each other here. The tough, burly guys you see in most pictures from past week are the anti-riot squad. Those guys are especially hired and trained for that purpose. Bassij is a volunteer force whose members are mostly young local men and teenagers and are associated with local neighborhood mosque. It has a loose hierarchy and is mostly local. Then there are special paramilitary groups who do not officially operate as part of revolutionary guards or bassij, but do the dirty works when called upon. They are probably in the range of a few hundreds in Tehran and motivated by religious or revolutionary zeal, connected to specific hardline figures behind the scene and operate based on their orders. This last group is alleged to have been responsible for attacks on university dorms in 1999 and last week.

Fidel

Doug wrote:

Fidel wrote:
They can have any political setup they want so long as it prevents an outbreak of secular socialism or Pan-Arab nationalism in Iran and other countries where CIA hawks and Zbignewski have been the guiding hand for millions of people struggling for democracy.

Pan-Arab nationalism wouldn't really work out too well in Iran seeing as most of its people aren't Arab.

[url=http://www.hinduonnet.com/thehindu/fline/fl1907/19070560.htm]US-backed Shah versus secular Nasserism[/url]

Adam T

It's kind of funny, Cueball thinks people here don't have a right to make suggestions on how other people in other countries should live their lives.  But, he does think he has the right to tell other people in this board what they can and can't say.

If Cueball is consistent with his own beliefs, he shouldn't be telling anybody anything.  

RosaL

I fail to grasp this obsession with makeup and veils. The rules for "how women should look" in Canada are just as oppressive as the ones in Iran, I suspect. It's just that in one case they're imposed legally and in the other they're imposed socially and economically. Miniskirts and makeup are not freedom! (Let me parenthetically note that one of the first things many "formerly communist" countries did was hold beauty contests. Right. Rejoicing in their "freedom". I don't call that freedom.) In any case, "how women dress" is not what is fundamentally important here. 

 

Thanks for your comments, sanizadeh. 

Stockholm

"The rules for "how women should look" in Canada are just as oppressive as the ones in Iran"

If you seriously think that - the you are simply NUTS - and on top of that its an insult to all the people in Iran who are in jail at the hands of a fascist dictatorship. We're not just talking about miniskirts and makeup - if you are wom an and take one step out your front door not wearing a veil etc.., you;'re very likely to get your skull cracked under a truncheon from the Iranian storm troopers. Meanwhile men aget to wear whatever they want. Its a common sight in Iran (and many other Muslim countries) to see a man in jeans and t-shirt walking with his wife warpped in a shroud barely able to see.

Women and men in Canada can dress however they want and the worse consequence is having someone whisper "he/she must have screwed up their mix and match today. To compare that to a giant concentration camp like Iran only trivializes the horrid oppression they have.

Of course the restrictions on dress are just the tip of the iceberg in terms of what Iranians have to endure in their fascist police state.

Adam T

RosaL wrote:

I fail to grasp this obsession with makeup and veils. The rules for "how women should look" in Canada are just as oppressive as the ones in Iran, I suspect. 

 

Really? Are you at risk of getting beaten up or imprisoned if you dress in a way others don't like?
I acknowledge there can be workplace restrictions and societal pressures, but, as for me, as much as possible I wear what I feel comfortable in.  It's up to you to not be a weak willed person that bows to silly societal pressures.  You have that opportunity here, in Iran you don't.  If you don't think that is a major difference... 

Cueball Cueball's picture

Adam T wrote:

It's kind of funny, Cueball thinks people here don't have a right to make suggestions on how other people in other countries should live their lives.  But, he does think he has the right to tell other people in this board what they can and can't say.

If Cueball is consistent with his own beliefs, he shouldn't be telling anybody anything.  

Adam T

Go back to bed Cueball, your brain is still there.

Stockholm

Your comparing what SOME prostitutes in Canada MIGHT experience from SOME police, MAYBE - to ironclad LAWS in Iran that restrict every aspect of daily life for 100% of women - including the certainty of being beaten a tortured for being caught in public without a veil. What next? are you going to tell us that because Robert Dzeikanski was tasered, Canada's record on human rights is no different from Cambodia under Pol Pot???

Cueball Cueball's picture

Adam T wrote:

RosaL wrote:

I fail to grasp this obsession with makeup and veils. The rules for "how women should look" in Canada are just as oppressive as the ones in Iran, I suspect. 

 

Really? Are you at risk of getting beaten up or imprisoned if you dress in a way others don't like?
I acknowledge there can be workplace restrictions and societal pressures, but, as for me, as much as possible I wear what I feel comfortable in.  It's up to you to not be a weak willed person that bows to silly societal pressures.  You have that opportunity here, in Iran you don't.  If you don't think that is a major difference... 

Really? So in your experience as a prostitute, you would say that your working clothes do not increase the amount of physical abuse you are likely to experience from the hand or the police? They don't question you more? Ask for your ID, and so on and so forth.

I am suprised that you had not noticed that there are actually socially and legally enforced dress standards, even here. Your cultural bias is showing up as a great big bulge in your pants.

Heh.

I like the way you slip in the idea that women are weak willied if the bow to societal conventions for the sake of their own survival. Funny, we were just discussing how systemic prejudice results in privileged liberal minded do gooders blaming the victim because they don't have "the right stuff."

Cueball Cueball's picture

Adam T wrote:

Cueball is as big a moron as ever.  If only there were some kind of 'ignore' feature here.

That's all you got? Three posts, and not one quote, or arguement, or link or anything but cheap shots.

Cueball Cueball's picture

Stockholm wrote:

Your comparing what SOME prostitutes in Canada MIGHT experience from SOME police, MAYBE - to ironclad LAWS in Iran that restrict every aspect of daily life for 100% of women - including the certainty of being beaten a tortured for being caught in public without a veil. What next? are you going to tell us that because Robert Dzeikanski was tasered, Canada's record on human rights is no different from Cambodia under Pol Pot???

Now you want to talk about Cambodia? Pffft. You are ridiculous.

Erik Redburn

RosaL wrote:

I fail to grasp this obsession with makeup and veils. The rules for "how women should look" in Canada are just as oppressive as the ones in Iran, I suspect. It's just that in one case they're imposed legally and in the other they're imposed socially and economically. Miniskirts and makeup are not freedom!

 

Riiight, there's no difference between a degree of social conformity, which sells makeup and clothes, and conformity backed up by state officials who can have you arrested for wearing makeup or showing your ankles in public.

Would you like to go out to Iran and live there Rosa?  Of course not, and neither would Cueball or Sanizadeh. 

(BTW, miniskirts have been out of fashion for at least thirty five years, another difference between fashion and state imposed laws)

Stockholm

I think he just hates people.

Adam T

Cueball is as big a moron as ever.  If only there were some kind of 'ignore' feature here.

 

"I like the way you slip in the idea that women are weak willied if the bow to societal conventions for the sake of their own survival"

I did not specifically state women, and I see people walking around wearing all sorts of different things, including women. As to 'legal restictions' (beyond some rules that people have to be dressed) and 'for the sake of their own survival', I have no idea what you are talking about.

On the one hand, I can't think of a better advert against the NDP than the babble message board, on the other hand, I'd like to think that all 37 NDP MPs would also be embarrased with comments like Cueball's and that they also would not want to be lumped in what his sort of nonsense.

takeitslowly

the worst someone could say if a woman reveals "too much" is that "she is a slut" or a "whore" or so on and on. She would also be more likely to receive unwanted sexual advances.

 

But there are generally more freedom for women in Canada, in terms of how we choose to dress , that much is obvious.

Cueball Cueball's picture

Women have been arrested for not wearing a top in a public place. Rightly, this was recently rejected in an Ontario court. But not because a woman has a right to wear whatever she wants and go topless if she wants, but because the act itself could not be deemed to be "obscene". The deinition of "obscenity", is entirely culturally defined, and in no way an objective standard.

Adam T

Cueball wrote:

Adam T wrote:

Cueball is as big a moron as ever.  If only there were some kind of 'ignore' feature here.

That's all you got? Three posts, and not one quote, or arguement, or link or anything but cheap shots.

 

Give me something rational and I'll make an argument for or against it.  I believe what you engaged in above is called a 'strawman' but I could be wrong on that.  It could also be referred to as 'the part for the whole fallacy' or probably any number of other logical fallacies.

Cueball Cueball's picture

And by the YMCA.

Adam T

I'm not sure what point you're trying to make.  You seemed to be arguing to Stockholm above that there is no 'objective standard', that because of culture differences people in one place have no business judging what people in other places do, now you're complaining about the lack of objective standards.

 

So, in short your article boils down to "because women in Ontario weren't allowed to go topless for the reason that I thought they should have, nobody anywhere has a right to comment on what goes on in Iran, even if women are getting beaten up and tortured for not adhering to very strict standards of dress'.

I think, given then complete lack of logic in your above posts that I've distilled the essense of them about as well as could be done.

takeitslowly

Breastfeeding was oconsidered too obscene by facebook not long ago. Even in Canada, i speak for myself, i would pay attention to what i wear. I think dressing conservative gain me more respect, whereas if i dress up with  make up and wear more revealing clothes, some men see that as a signal that they can get away with doing things that they otherwise wouldn't.

And obviously, the older women get, the less acceptable it is for us to not cover up ourselves.

Erik Redburn

Cueball wrote:

Stockholm wrote:

Your comparing what SOME prostitutes in Canada MIGHT experience from SOME police, MAYBE - to ironclad LAWS in Iran that restrict every aspect of daily life for 100% of women - including the certainty of being beaten a tortured for being caught in public without a veil. What next? are you going to tell us that because Robert Dzeikanski was tasered, Canada's record on human rights is no different from Cambodia under Pol Pot???

Now you want to talk about Cambodia? Pffft. You are ridiculous.

 

You make another personal insult to another member here, in leu of any rational argument I will send a complaint. Youve been allowed a double standard here too long.  I don't necessarily agree with Stockholm's particular comparison there, but its obvious hes trying to draw a more general comparison to make a broader point, which you are just as obviously trying to avoid.

takeitslowly

Adam T has been making alot of personal insult to Cueball. I should complain too ?

Cueball Cueball's picture

Adam T wrote:

Give me something rational and I'll make an argument for or against it.  I believe what you engaged in above is called a 'strawman' but I could be wrong on that.  It could also be referred to as 'the part for the whole fallacy' or probably any of other logical fallacies.

Again nothing but a cheap shot. Your job is to expose the logical falacy, not simply state its existance. All this is a an arguement from authority, dressed up as a high school jibe.

In the meantime, tell me more about women being weak willed if they chose to dress by the standards of societal norms?

Cueball Cueball's picture

Adam T wrote:

I'm not sure what point you're trying to make.

Right. But in your ignorance you call me a moron.

What I asserted was that Iranian women have the right to determine the manner of their own liberation, and that Stockholm's suggestion was chock full of so much western cultural bias that it would make Kipling red in the face to say it.

Erik Redburn

takeitslowly wrote:

Breastfeeding was oconsidered too obscene by facebook not long ago. Even in Canada, i speak for myself, i would pay attention to what i wear. I think dressing conservative gain me more respect, whereas if i dress up with  make up and wear more revealing clothes, some men see that as a signal that they can get away with doing things that they otherwise wouldn't.

And obviously, the older women get, the less acceptable it is for us to not cover up ourselves.

 

As someone to the left of Ghengis Khan I've always thought that those laws were rather backwards and restrictive but they hardly compare to being arrested and possibly beaten for showing your face or ankles.  There is such a thing as degrees.  As well as living in at least a semi-democracy where bad laws can be reversed if theres enough popular support.  And better laws not simply overwritten by guys who claim to enforce the will of God, and have the jackboots to back it up.

Cueball Cueball's picture

Erik Redburn wrote:

Cueball wrote:

Stockholm wrote:

Your comparing what SOME prostitutes in Canada MIGHT experience from SOME police, MAYBE - to ironclad LAWS in Iran that restrict every aspect of daily life for 100% of women - including the certainty of being beaten a tortured for being caught in public without a veil. What next? are you going to tell us that because Robert Dzeikanski was tasered, Canada's record on human rights is no different from Cambodia under Pol Pot???

Now you want to talk about Cambodia? Pffft. You are ridiculous.

 

You make another personal insult to another member here, in leu of any rational argument I will send a complaint. Youve been allowed a double standard here too long.  I don't necessarily agree with Stockholm's particular comparison there, but its obvious hes trying to draw a more general comparison to make a broader point, which you are just as obviously trying to avoid.

Please send as many complaints as you can. I would love to have the moderators take a look at this thread. They should add a "flag as stupid" button as well.

takeitslowly

Iran is bad for gays and women, no doubt about it. Iran is deadly for homosexuals. shame on their leaders, i have no problem saying that.

Stockholm

"Iranian women have the right to determine the manner of their own liberation"

I think we all agree with that - but they have no opportunity to do so when the religious thugs that rule Iran regularly torture women for the slightest infraction of the Ayatollahs dress code. Right now Iranian women have NO right to determine the manner of their own liberation because they live in just about the most male dominated fascist society on the planet.

If its "western cultural bias" to say that I object to women being beaten to death for wearing the wrong clothes or for "adulterers" (sic.) or gays to be stoned to death in public as they are in Iran and several other countries - then I'm guilty as charged and proud of it!!

Adam T

Cueball wrote:

 

Again nothing but a cheap shot. Your job is to expose the logical falacy, not simply state its existance. All this is a an arguement from authority, dressed up as a high school jibe.

What I asserted was that Iranian women have the right to determine the manner of their own liberation, and that Stockholms suggestion was chock full of so much western cultural bias that it would make Kipling red in the face to say it.

In the meantime, tell me more about women being weak willed if they chose to dress by the standards of societal norms?

 

1.Stockholm exposed the logical fallacy.

2.So, you knew that your argument was logically flawed and you chose to write the post anyway?  I believe that is known as trolling.It actually wouldn't suprise me if your some freeper right winger who just comes here to try and troll, it would explain the lack of thought put into your posts.

3.Could you please tell me how Iranian women are supposed to express this right?

4.If women are comfortable here choosing the current fashions to wear, then they are not being weak willed for wearing them. It was Rossal who said they felt they were under pressure to wear certain clothes/styles, and I said that it's up to people in those situations to resist that pressure, again recognizing that there are limits.  To take that and say "there is no difference between here and Iran" is ridiculous and demonstrably false merely by walking down the street and seeing the multiple clothing styles that differenet people (including women) wear. 

 

Erik Redburn

Cueball wrote:

Erik Redburn wrote:

Cueball wrote:

Stockholm wrote:

Your comparing what SOME prostitutes in Canada MIGHT experience from SOME police, MAYBE - to ironclad LAWS in Iran that restrict every aspect of daily life for 100% of women - including the certainty of being beaten a tortured for being caught in public without a veil. What next? are you going to tell us that because Robert Dzeikanski was tasered, Canada's record on human rights is no different from Cambodia under Pol Pot???

Now you want to talk about Cambodia? Pffft. You are ridiculous.

 

You make another personal insult to another member here, in leu of any rational argument I will send a complaint. Youve been allowed a double standard here too long.  I don't necessarily agree with Stockholm's particular comparison there, but its obvious hes trying to draw a more general comparison to make a broader point, which you are just as obviously trying to avoid.

Please send as many complaints as you can. I would love to have the moderators take a look at this thread. They should add a "flag as stupid" button as well.

 

Its not about the thread so much as your continuous lack of respect to others, particularly when youve backed yourself into another ideological corner by refusing to accept more than a black and white either/or world view.  Iran has more in common with Pol Pot's regime than ours does, how's that, to much for you?  

Make another gratuitous insult and I'll complain, until then you can make as many dumb arguments as you like.

Cueball Cueball's picture

Our laws are invoked in the name of the Queen. That is just soooo much better.

takeitslowly

I don't get Cueball..you don't seriously think we have it better in Canada? Homosexuals are not hang to death like they are in Iran , at least

Adam T

Cueball wrote:

Please send as many complaints as you can. I would love to have the moderators take a look at this thread. They should add a "flag as stupid" button as well.

 

If you'd simply stop posting there'd be no need to do that.

Stockholm

It is!! I'd rather be ruled by good queen Bess than by the Ayatollah any day of the week. She actually strikes me as quite a nice person.

Stockholm

Forget about reasoning with "Cueball", you'll never get him to admit that there is anything bad about the fascist regime in Iran. Its a waste of oxygen to try.

takeitslowly

the strange thing is there is also a rural, poor versus upperclass urban divide...

 

the poor people living in rural area might like some of the government policies, and the social programs, even if the dictatorship is brtual..remind me of the Clinton/Obama primary divide back in 2008

takeitslowly

I am usually pretty leftist, so i can identify with alot of what Cueball said, but I definately feel horrible for the reformists in Iran, even if they are supported by the U.S , at the same time, I am not an NDP partisan and i enjoy some rants by Cueball.

Cueball Cueball's picture

Adam T wrote:

Cueball wrote:

 

Again nothing but a cheap shot. Your job is to expose the logical falacy, not simply state its existance. All this is a an arguement from authority, dressed up as a high school jibe.

What I asserted was that Iranian women have the right to determine the manner of their own liberation, and that Stockholms suggestion was chock full of so much western cultural bias that it would make Kipling red in the face to say it.

In the meantime, tell me more about women being weak willed if they chose to dress by the standards of societal norms?

 

1.Stockholm exposed the logical fallacy.

2.So, you knew that your argument was logically flawed and you chose to write the post anyway?  I believe that is known as trolling.It actually wouldn't suprise me if your some freeper right winger who just comes here to try and troll, it would explain the lack of thought put into your posts.

3.Could you please tell me how Iranian women are supposed to express this right?

4.If women are comfortable here choosing the current fashions to wear, then they are not being weak willed for wearing them. It was Rossal who said they felt they were under pressure to wear certain clothes/styles, and I said that it's up to people in those situations to resist that pressure, again recognizing that there are limits.  To take that and say "there is no difference between here and Iran" is ridiculous and demonstrably false merely by walking down the street and seeing the multiple clothing styles that differenet people (including women) wear. 

 

Oh an arguement. And it took you how many cheap shots to get there? I will answer your question (3)

3) However they choose to do so.

In fact, many Muslim women express their dissent against western influence, western imperial impositions by voluntarily wearing traditional muslim clothing that identify them with their culture. In fact, many women in Turkey expressely wear the very same clothing that Stockholm is denigrating to directly challenge the authority of the state, which is prejudiced against them because they would wear Hijab.

The obsession that westeners have with Muslim clothing is very revealing, in how it objectifies women through their physical appearance, as if the only thing that really matters is that they be allowed to wear makeup, and look like western women, as if they might not have anything more serious to worry about, but lipstick and mini-skirts.

Cueball Cueball's picture

Adam T wrote:

Cueball wrote:

Please send as many complaints as you can. I would love to have the moderators take a look at this thread. They should add a "flag as stupid" button as well.

 

If you'd simply stop posting there'd be no need to do that.

You stepped in with insults right off the bat. If anyone should be complaining it should be me. Not only that you continued with insults and contributed nothing but trolling posts to the thread continuously, up until post 4. You requested the existance of an "ignore feature" if you don't like what I post you could show enough of that famous will you were bragging about having, the kind that allows you to dress unconventionally at will, and simply not read what I post.

 

Adam T

Cueball wrote:

Adam T wrote:

Cueball wrote:

Please send as many complaints as you can. I would love to have the moderators take a look at this thread. They should add a "flag as stupid" button as well.

 

If you'd simply stop posting there'd be no need to do that.

You stepped in with insults right off the bat. If anyone should be complaining it should be me. Not only that you continued with insults and contributed nothing but trolling posts to the thread continuously, up until post 4. You requested the existance of an "ignore feature" if you don't like what I post you could show enough of that famous will you were bragging about having, the kind that allows you to dress unconventionally at will, and simply not read what I post.

 

Bah humbug, yes, in my desire to post a witty response, wherein it is necessarily to keep the response short, I overlooked that my comment was so vague it could have referred to more than one thing.

I meant, if you'd stop posting there'd be no need for a 'flag as stupid' option.  You can complain all you like.

As to your other point.  I see we agree (I don't know if that is good or bad).  I will simply ignore you from now on, and I suggest everybody else here do the same.

Adam T

Cueball wrote:

 

3) However they choose to do so.

In fact, many Muslim women express their dissent against western influence, western imperial impositions by voluntarily wearing traditional muslim clothing that identify them with their culture. In fact, many women in Turkey expressely wear the very same clothing that Stockholm is denigrating to directly challenge the authority of the state, which is prejudiced against them because they would wear Hijab.

The obsession that westeners have with Muslim clothing is very revealing, in how it objectifies women through their physical appearance, as if the only thing that really matters is that they be allowed to wear makeup, and look like western women, as if they might not have anything more serious to worry about, but lipstick and mini-skirts.

 

1.No, I didn't ask how they could dissent againt 'western imperial impositions', I asked how they could dissent against their government.

2.And who are you to decided what women should and shouldn't decide is serious to worry about?  It seems you're the one trying to impose your standards on other people.  All Stockholm, Eric Redburn and I (and presumably millions of other people) want is that women in Iran be the ones to able to decide what is and isn't important to them.

Good stuff, after only a few posts we've determined who the imperialist is: it's Cueball.

Now, I agree with Stockholm.  We should all just go and ignore everything Cueball says.

 

Erik Redburn

takeitslowly wrote:

Adam T has been making alot of personal insult to Cueball. I should complain too ?

 

Do you have to ask my permission?  Go ahead if you feel its warranted, I'm just letting certain people here know that rules of order or conduct should apply to everyone.

Cueball Cueball's picture

Adam T wrote:

2.And who are you to decided what women should and shouldn't decide is serious to worry about?  It seems you're the one trying to impose your standards on other people.  All Stockholm, Eric Redburn and I (and presumably millions of other people) are that women in Iran be the ones to able to decide what is and isn't important to them.

I didn't decide anything. I just pointed out the fact that the key point upon which Stockholm wants this rebellion to be expressed is by asserting western cultural norms. Norms which are entirely defined by cultural biases. I did not in fact suggest anything be done by Iranians, I suggested that "we", meaning "you, I and Stockholm" as part of the western cultural millieu check our cultural biases at the door, before entering into the tricky world of Iranian politics.

My comment was not about Iranian women, so much as a reflection on ourselves.

So you are right, I do think I have more of a right to tell people on this board what to think and say, because I am directly a participant in this community, and this society, which we all hail from as culture and country, which we share, more than I think I have the right to determine what people in a community and a society should do from the confines of my very limited understanding of the internal workings of that society.

I do know that Stockholm actually was pontificating about what women in Iran should do, without even a rudimentary knowledge of the facts of how the society works, outside of some really pastiche stereotypes. For example he did not know that there are women officials who enforce the religious cultural norms of the society, and that not all such people are "ugly" guys who can not get a date.

Erik Redburn

takeitslowly wrote:

I am usually pretty leftist, so i can identify with alot of what Cueball said, but I definately feel horrible for the reformists in Iran, even if they are supported by the U.S , at the same time, I am not an NDP partisan and i enjoy some rants by Cueball.

 

Cueball can still make some good points when he not playing games, but its not an easy situation to take sides is it?  When some insist that one side must be blameless because the other side is so bad I get irritated after awhile too, this kind of crap has been going on for years here, beginning with Kosovo.  I think most people, if properly informed, can find some sensible ground between accepting reactionary repression without protest or accepting that the USAF should "bomb them back to the stone age"...for the sake of the women and children.

Cueball Cueball's picture

Just as long as you complain Erik that is ok. The main thing is that the thread should be flagged, so the full breadth of Stockholm's sexist and racist stereotyped prison sex fantasies can be read by the moderators.

Stockholm wrote:

There are no women in the religious police in Iran - its all thuggish sadistic men that are the Iranian equivalent of storm troopers in Nazi Germany. Their idea of a fun day is humiliating and beating up women (and then probably fucking each other)

Cueball Cueball's picture

Erik Redburn wrote:

takeitslowly wrote:

I am usually pretty leftist, so i can identify with alot of what Cueball said, but I definately feel horrible for the reformists in Iran, even if they are supported by the U.S , at the same time, I am not an NDP partisan and i enjoy some rants by Cueball.

 

Cueball can still make some good points when he not playing games, but its not an easy situation to take sides is it?  When some insist that one side must be blameless because the other side is so bad I get irritated after awhile too, this kind of crap has been going on for years here, beginning with Kosovo.  I think most people, if properly informed, can find some sensible ground between accepting reactionary repression without protest or accepting that the USAF should "bomb them back to the stone age"...for the sake of the women and children.

Why don't you take your meta-converastion about me to PM, so that it does not really appear as a series of off topic trolling passive-agressive personal attacks.

Stockholm

"the key point upon which Stockholm wants this rebellion to be expressed is by asserting western cultural norms. Norms which are entirely defined by cultural biases."

That's right. My "cultural bias" says that it is wrong to execute people for criticizing their government, wrong to regulate what people are allowed to wear, wrong to execute people for the kind of sex they want to have or who they want to have it with etc.... Yes, I'm am biased, biased, biased, biased in those regards and I only wish more people had the same cultural bias that I have - then the world would be a better place.

If you want to simply dismiss every criticism of totalitarians regimes as being "culturally biased", then that means that there is no right and wrong, and that none of us should ever express an opinion again about anything. Next time "Cueball" goe son one of his vendettas against Israel - I'll just dismiss everything he says as being "culturally biased" and then there will be nothing more to discuss.

Erik Redburn

Stockholm wrote:

Forget about reasoning with "Cueball", you'll never get him to admit that there is anything bad about the fascist regime in Iran. Its a waste of oxygen to try.

 

After all these years Stockholm, I'm afriad I have to concur. Shouldn't matter much either, but the problem is that this POV now dominates this board to the exclusion of others, mostly because of the persistence and game playing, and it drives out any more interesting issues or angles to discuss.  Ones which could unearth more useful responses to these standoffs from the broader left-of-Harper.  Also driven out alot of the more nuanced voices here.

Adam T

Dictatorship is dictatorship, tryanny is tryanny.  This 'western cultural bias' bull is nothing other than an attempt by dictators to suggest that the people living (mostly unwillingly) under them are less interested in democracy than people 'in the west'.  

If that's truly the case, then hold a genuinely free and fair election and the Mullahs should have no trouble getting reelected. 

"For example he did not know that there are women officials who enforce the religious cultural norms of the society, and that not all such people are "ugly" guys who can not get a date."

1.Is it the 'religious cultural norms' or is it the religious fanaticism or a bunch of thugs who happen to hold power?

2.So, that makes you more of an expert on Iran? and a better judge of who can and can't comment on the country?

3.So, that makes it alright to enforce that, that it's women enforcing the laws on other women?

As I said, this 'cultural differences' stuff is bullshit by the power elite to try and silence outsiders. The lust for power, the desire to rule over other people, corruption... are the same the world over.

Pages

Topic locked