Iranian Election Part 3

114 posts / 0 new

Topic locked

Mon, 2009-06-22 06:01

Cueball

I guess that means you don't want to have to post the raw fact which is the NO on-duty police officers of those 3 or 4 who have been charged with murder, have ever been convicted of the charge, in this country.

Adam T wrote:

I got involved in this discussion because I didn't like a wannabe dictator such as yourself telling other people what they were allowed to comment on and what they weren't allowed to, like your angry post trying to tell Stockholm that what is going on in Iran is none of his business.

Which isn't what I said. I said he should watch his cultural biases when he does.

So the truth is that you came here specifically to troll me, and you really don't have any interest in this thread topic, except to lambaste me with continuous off topic attacks, based on your theories about what I think, which you can not substantiate in any way shape or form. Just completely personal ad hominem bullshit.

Stalking. Trolling. Derailing. Gross unsubstantiated personal attacks and smears. Red baiting even.

And for what? Apparently to defend Stockholm from my objection to his writing prejudiced and totally baseless crap like this:

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).

Mon, 2009-06-22 06:01

#103

sanizadeh

Cueball wrote:

My Iranian sources, a former Tehran party animal and one of the original victims of the new clerical order installed in 1979, says that Sanizadeh's charachterization of Mousavi is substantially off the mark, and that he is one of the most conservative traditionalist of the regieme, then if not now, and that when he was Prime Minister he was one of the most authoritarian, and indeed "the most hated Prime Minister" of post revolutionary Iran. He said, "I know I was there". He also says this is a revolt of the rich, and really about who "gets to eat more". He says the "peoples revolution", will come, just not now.

Sometime soon I will talk to my former Tudehist friends and see what they say.

Me? I know nothing. I am certainly not going to engage in what was called in one article "wishful thinking".

Your Iranian friend is certainly wrong, and you don't need to rely on my word only. You can research Mousavi's background on the net. He was an Islamist and definitely part of the totalitarian system, but on economic and social policies he was the most leftist politician the Islamic Republic ever had. The most hated prime minister? he was pretty much the only prime minister in post-revolutinary Iran: Aside from the interim PM Bazargan, the only other one was Rajaei who served for less than a year and Bahonar who served less than a month. After Mousavi, the post was abolished and its power was transferred to the president.

"Revolt of the rich"? I don't think so. Mousavi's support in rural areas and provinces were huge (based on what I observed and heard), and in Tehran his support was the middle class. You could see rich boys in nice cars distributing Ahmadinejad's pamphlets because they liked him challenging the powerful Rafsanjani.

Mon, 2009-06-22 06:03

#104

Cueball

I am not taking sides, I am relaying what was said.

Mon, 2009-06-22 06:06

#105

josh

Cueball, I'm not going to quote and respond to your bizzare lengthy attempt to equate a theocracy with a non-theocracy, for reasons of space and because the contrary argument is so self-evident that it's a waste of time to repeat. Other than to say that there is no mention of God in the U.S. Constitution.

Mon, 2009-06-22 06:09

#106

sanizadeh

Regarding news blackout; there was certainly an attempt at news blackout inside the country: The state TV (which is the only TV in Iran) did not report or show any of the demonstrations, the SMS system was down since the day after the election, cell phone service worked only 10% of the time, and Internet was obviously throttled as it was hard to even load gmail or yahoo pages. Youtube and facebook was filtered for most of last week.

Mon, 2009-06-22 06:15

#107

sanizadeh

Cueball wrote:

I am not taking sides, I am relaying what was said.

That's fine and appreciated for giving me a chance to respond.

Mon, 2009-06-22 06:15

#108

Cueball

josh wrote:

Cueball, I'm not going to quote and respond to your bizzare lengthy attempt to equate a theocracy with a non-theocracy, for reasons of space and because the contrary argument is so self-evident that it's a waste of time to repeat. Other than to say that there is no mention of God in the U.S. Constitution.

It doesn't? Damn well its on all the money everything else, so I just assumed. But that's a good out Josh. Now you can avoid explaining how one of the most brutal, authoritarian regiemes in the history of the world, gets to lecture the Mullah's on human rights.

Mon, 2009-06-22 06:21

#109

Cueball

I guess I am kind of hoping that however it turns out in the short run, that the end result is the strengthening of secular authority, and that there is some kind of negotiated settlement that moves the country in that direction, without total chaos breaking out, or severe repression.

Mon, 2009-06-22 06:21

#110

sanizadeh

Cueball wrote:

I guess I am kind of hoping that however it turns out in the short run, that the end result is the strengthening of secular authority, and that there is some kind of negotiated settlement that moves the country in that direction, without total chaos breaking out, or severe repression.

We are on the same side then.

Mon, 2009-06-22 06:25

#111

josh

So, they're hypocrites. Now what?

Mon, 2009-06-22 06:44

#112

Cueball

Now it is important not to fall into trap of supporting ideological constructs that justify interference, and intervention on the basis of presumed moral superiority of western secular democracy, based in "civilizing" motifs. Which is what this amounts to most of the time:

Quote:
And while the west, particularly the U.S. has a direct responsibility for the current theocratic state in Iran, that shouldn't bar those countries from speaking out in support of those seeking to moderate and change the theocratic nature of the state.

Because in fact, the ideological justification leading to the US "direct responsibility" was predicated on such civilizing motifs drenched in the presumed moral superiority of western "secular democracy" that gave us the right to project our power.

Mon, 2009-06-22 06:50

#113

josh

How can that be when the U.S. helped overthrow a democratically-elected government? The problem was that the U.S. did not adhere to principles of secular democracy, not that it tried to impose it.

Mon, 2009-06-22 07:19

#114

Maysie

Please continue here.

Pages

Topic locked