The Iranian Election and Its Aftermath

"I might just as well say that you are supporting Amedinejad "in effect" by engaging in a "ploy to distract attention" from Amedinejad's Iran by posting a link where Zizek is supporting Amedinejad "in effect" by engaging in a "ploy to distract attention" from Amedinejad's Iran, by talking about Berlesconi and pointing out how democracy in the west is often just as much as a sham as the Iranian democracy."

 

Laughable.  I'll take this up with you this weekend as well, then.  It might take some time compiling all the posts youve made that defend this regime, along with other even more tyrannical ones.  You can always give us all the noble reasons why, I think I can anticipate them too.   Till then I still have a life so can I be excused from jousting with you for awhile?  It may not be much of a life but its the only one I have and noone else will cover for me.

You just Have to get the last word don't you?  Funny.  Maybe not tonight, but I promise you free reign for the next few.  If your only real counter now is "my obsession" with rights abuses in "other lands" then I'm also afraid this weekends event maybe more dull than I thought.  That OC is not true and can I think be demonstrated ass well.  My reason for resisting the usual line on Iran and others here is for reasons I don't think you'd understand very easily, but most progressive minds I think could.  On that one I can only try.

Looks like I was wrong, I may not even get the last word in at three AM PST.  You are truly amazing, last thing at night, first thing in the morning, if anyone dares express a contrary opinion there you be.  If you want to whine about personal attacks then you should stop attacking others first.  I'm afriad I'm still quite working class in that way. 

Your defence of authoritarian regimes is not a personal aspersion or "fantasy" but easy enough for anyone with a half open mind to see, but feel free to feel smug for a few more days.  I know how persistent you can be so I'd prefer a few more free hrs to deal with other more interesting subjects. Getting late even for this nighthawk so if youre still around you can still get that all important last word in. Or first thing tomorrow.  I suspect I'll be sleeping in a bit tomorrow.

The plot thickens: President Ahmadinejad Alienating Allies in Iran

Quote:

The stand-off threatens to tear apart the already fratricidal conservative faction. Ahmadinejad's enemies smell blood, and there is speculation that they may act to turn him into a lame duck, or worse, a sacrificial goat, before his second term even starts. To show that he can hold his own, Ahmadinejad on Sunday, July 26, fired his Intelligence Minister, who had earlier walked out of a Cabinet meeting to protest his vice-presidential choice amid a "verbal quarrel"; his Culture Minister also resigned over the brouhaha. The two Ministers, according to political analysts, were both particularly close to Khamenei.

[SNIP]

In particular, the gang of security chiefs, or the "New Right" - including just-ousted Intelligence Minister Gholam Hossein Mohseni-Ejehei, commander of the Basij paramilitary Hasan Taeb, and head of the Revolutionary Guards Major General Mohammad Ali Jafari - may seek to further militarize the already repressive regime. One fundamentalist group linked to the Basij paramilitary force has gone public with plans to wrestle power from Ahmadinejad by advancing its own "desired Cabinet lineup." The spokesman, Lotfali Bakhtiari, said in an interview published in the newspaper Khabar, "Our organization intends to become the government's think tank. We want to introduce our Élite into the government to serve the country."

• Flag as offensive
• link
• 
• quote

Erik Redburn
is
rabble-rouser

Member: 6052
Joined: Feb 26 2004

-->

July 28, 2009 - 7:55pm
#31 (permalink)

Heres another socialists voice:

http://www.lrb.co.uk/v31/n14/zize01_.html

 

• edit
• reply
• link
• 
• quote

Cueball
is awake
rabble-rouser-for-life

Member: 5790
Joined: Dec 23 2003

-->

July 28, 2009 - 10:27pm
#32 (permalink)

Redburn discovers Zizek after years of attacking Post-modern post-Marxists in the "dialetical materialist" tradition.

Zizek quickly disposes of the idea that the issue of the Iranian revolt is political dichotomy between "secular democracy" in opposition to "religious authoritarianism", and then establishes the lessons of the Iranian resistance in the context of how it reflects itself in the present order in the west:

Quote:
In this sense, in a democracy, the ordinary citizen is effectively a king, but a king in a constitutional democracy, a king whose decisions are merely formal, whose function is to sign measures proposed by the executive. The problem of democratic legitimacy is homologous to the problem of constitutional democracy: how to protect the dignity of the king? How to make it seem that the king effectively decides, when we all know this is not true? What we call the 'crisis of democracy' isn't something that happens when people stop believing in their own power but, on the contrary, when they stop trusting the elites, when they perceive that the throne is empty, that the decision is now theirs. 'Free elections' involve a minimal show of politeness when those in power pretend that they do not really hold the power, and ask us to decide freely if we want to grant it to them.

Excelent as always.

• reply
• Flag as offensive
• link
• 
• quote

Erik Redburn
is
rabble-rouser

Member: 6052
Joined: Feb 26 2004

-->

July 28, 2009 - 10:25pm
#33 (permalink)

I gave it as example to show that not all Marxists agree on this issue, child, and not all worry about "what socialists should believe".  I got another where he talks about the necessity for authoritarian rule in China...yknow, only as an temporary stage.  See, in this complex world some people can refer to others without swearing allegiance to their every utterance.  Now if you want to create more straw men go to it, you don't need my help for that.

• edit
• reply
• link
• 
• quote

Cueball
is awake
rabble-rouser-for-life

Member: 5790
Joined: Dec 23 2003

-->

July 28, 2009 - 10:47pm
#34 (permalink)

Heh. I spent the better part of three threads discussing democracy in Iran, where I asked what the tangible difference between a democractic system where a theocratic elite sanctions an electoral slate where two candidates are more simillar than they are different,  and a democracy where a corporate elite sanctions two candidates that are more simillar than they are different, and you villified me as a supporter of Sharia Authoritarianism for even daring to ask such a question. Zizek does the same asking "is there a link between Ahmadinejad and Berlusconi? Isn't it preposterous even to compare Ahmadinejad with a democratically elected Western leader? Unfortunately, it isn't: the two are part of the same global process," and this is just an example of the "complex world", not some kind of covert defense of religious authoritarianism.

Heh. Too funny. I guess its because you read it in LRB, as opposed to Rabble.

• reply
• Flag as offensive
• link
• 
• quote

Erik Redburn
is
rabble-rouser

Member: 6052
Joined: Feb 26 2004

-->

July 28, 2009 - 11:02pm
#35 (permalink)

Sigh.  Its not about you all the time, I posted this here to show another angle on it, I even used the neutral term "socialist" so as not to arouse ire.  Last I looked the Marxist view never did receive an official monopoly over the international news section.  Personally I oppose all hierarchy except where strictly necessary or limited, but thats not what this thread is about.  I also oppose any efforts to use this as a pretext for more violence, as I have repeatedly stated, you are correct in so far as to be concerned about foreign manipulation but only so far.  I get irritated when others continue to argue against what I never said.  Its not always accidental or incidental.  Its sometimes a ploy to divert attention or control the framing of an issue.  Thats as much an explanation I care to give on this.  I have been at this too long today, already, time to give others their chance. 

• edit
• reply
• link
• 
• quote

Cueball
is awake
rabble-rouser-for-life

Member: 5790
Joined: Dec 23 2003

-->

July 29, 2009 - 12:06am
#36 (permalink)

So when I say something like that, its a "ploy to divert attention" but when Zizek says something like that its fair criticism. Hah! Now there is this bit about "foreign manipulation". Again you could quote me on something I actually said, where I said, the revolt was primarily instigated by the west. Where do you read me saying that? Nowhere. It is a fabrication. In fact, I said the opposite, several times, noting above, for example:

Quote:
The Twitter story was quite well evidenced, and there do seem to have been some Twitter feeds that originated with the Jerusalem Post, not that makes much difference, since I doubt "twitter" had much to do with anything, other than serving as a cute byline for the western press. In that sense it may have helped shape views here, more than it did in Iran.

But no, as you recently opined, my real aim is supporting "dictatorial regimes... whether you admit that's what youre doing or not". What you are really saying is that my failure to align myself along the ideological spectrum of right and wrong, as you concieve of it, is tantamount to being "with the terrorists". Zizek can get away with it, apparently, even though he really was a member of the communist party, an alignment you have suggested charachterizes my view "objectively", on more than one occassion.

• reply
• Flag as offensive
• link
• 
• quote

sanizadeh
rabble-rouser

Member: 15787
Joined: Dec 3 2007

-->

July 29, 2009 - 3:06am
#37 (permalink)

Cueball wrote:

Heh. I spent the better part of three threads discussing democracy in Iran, where I asked what the tangible difference between a democractic system where a theocratic elite sanctions an electoral slate where two candidates are more simillar than they are different,  and a democracy where a corporate elite sanctions two candidates that are more simillar than they are different

On these three threads you have read articles and opinion pieces from many who have had thde experience of living under those two systems, and yet you reject their experience. So it seems the only way to understand the difference is to personally experience living under both systems and then compare them. Note that the difference is not just the mechanisms of election as you are focusing on; but the whole lack of legal protection for human rights of individuals and groups.

• reply
• Flag as offensive
• link
• 
• quote

NoDifferencePar...
is ...?
rabble-rouser

Member: 16891
Joined: Dec 28 2008

-->

July 29, 2009 - 3:34am
#38 (permalink)

 

Iran: Whose Side?

http://informationclearinghouse.info/article23149.htm

"I have been reading, with much despair and a deal of consternation, the torrent of 'analysis' coming out of 'left' field about which, if any side to support in the ongoing struggles in Iran..

• reply
• Flag as offensive
• link
• 
• quote

NoDifferencePar...
is ...?
rabble-rouser

Member: 16891
Joined: Dec 28 2008

-->

July 29, 2009 - 3:41am
#39 (permalink)

Russia and Iran Join Hands

http://informationclearinghouse.info/article23146.htm

"The United States may think of Russia as a strategic partner when it comes to Iran. In reality, the geostrategic tensions between Washington and Moscow are still powerful enough to warrant a common approach by Russia and its eastern neighbor Iran with respect to a deterrent strategy towards the intrusive western superpower.."

• reply
• Flag as offensive
• link
• 
• quote

Cueball
is awake
rabble-rouser-for-life

Member: 5790
Joined: Dec 23 2003

-->

July 29, 2009 - 8:04am
#40 (permalink)

sanizadeh wrote:

Cueball wrote:

Heh. I spent the better part of three threads discussing democracy in Iran, where I asked what the tangible difference between a democractic system where a theocratic elite sanctions an electoral slate where two candidates are more simillar than they are different,  and a democracy where a corporate elite sanctions two candidates that are more simillar than they are different

On these three threads you have read articles and opinion pieces from many who have had thde experience of living under those two systems, and yet you reject their experience. So it seems the only way to understand the difference is to personally experience living under both systems and then compare them. Note that the difference is not just the mechanisms of election as you are focusing on; but the whole lack of legal protection for human rights of individuals and groups.

So you think.

Those who challenge the state know differently. This is a country where the Prime Minister invoked martial law in order to quell the threat of Quebec nationalism when two minor officials were kidnapped by a small revolutionary clique. Where the RCMP actively sent agent provocateurs into the midst of opposition groups to discredit them, buying dynamite to trump up evidence against people, burning down barns to prevent political meetings from taking place, stolen the membership lists of legal democratic parties, and when this was discovered, they held an inquirey and founded a new organization to do the same kinds of contelipro opreations, legaly. They called it CSIS, the very same CSIS that aided an abetted the torture of a teenager in Guantanmo Bay, and is "scolded" for doing so. A country where a police officer shoots a native activist and is given two years of community service for criminal negligence. And that is just here.

In the grand scheme, when we talk about here, we are talking about "the west" and particularly the USA. And if you really think that there is real legal protection for human rights for individuals and groups, in the United States you are seriously deluded. Nazis who march through black suburbs of Toledo are given police protection. Black people are murdered by law enforcement officers routinely, almost as if it is in the line of duty, executing them in full public view, or shooting them even when they follow instructions. Rioting takes place when the disenfranchised mass react to these blatant abuses, and for some reason here you seem to think we can determine that the violence is the fault of the protestors, and not a "police riot", whereas you insist that the violence perpetrated by people of Iran against police repression is justifiable. Even peaceful protests are routinely broken up violently by the police.

On the one hand you assert that narrative given by Iranian state media about how rioting is instigated by lawless elements is entirely false, but turn around and assert the same narrative when given by the mainstream media in the west, is essentially true... the work of anarchists and other lawless elements.

So yes, there is a difference. The unmasked brutality of the state is always availble to the powers that be, in direct ratio to the evident threat to authority. Were there a serious challenge to the reigning authority in the US, I believe the violence unleashed by the state would more than likely make what has been happening in Iran look like a tea party. When it comes down to it what you call the paper upon which the "legal protection for human rights of individuals and groups" exists is indeed very thin.

• reply
• Flag as offensive
• link
• 
• quote

Ghislaine
rabble-rouser-machine

Member: 15957
Joined: Feb 15 2008

-->

July 29, 2009 - 2:54pm
#41 (permalink)

cueball, has it occured to you that the things you mention have had PUBLIC INQUIRIES into them? There has been a lot of media coverage about them and that we can freely discuss them on babble?

Compare that situation to this

 

Quote:

 

Although the government has played down the scale of the prison abuses, some detainees' relatives have come forward recently to confirm them, mostly to opposition-linked Web sites that have provided credible information in the past, including roozonline.com and gooya.com.

Some deaths have been further documented with photographs or videotapes. Hospital officials have described receiving bodies of those killed in protests, with the total far in excess of 20, the government's initial figure. It is difficult to confirm such reports independently, given the restrictions on reporting in Iran.

 

I would hope you would have the intellectual and moral honesty to at least acknowledge the differences between Canada and Iran, especially when an immigrant who has experienced both is explaining it to you!

• reply
• Flag as offensive
• link
• 
• quote

sanizadeh
rabble-rouser

Member: 15787
Joined: Dec 3 2007

-->

July 29, 2009 - 3:06pm
#42 (permalink)

Cueball wrote:

Those who challenge the state know differently. This is a country where the Prime Minister invoked martial law in order to quell the threat of Quebec nationalism when two minor officials were kidnapped by a small revolutionary clique. Where the RCMP actively sent agent provocateurs into the midst of opposition groups to discredit them, buying dynamite to trump up evidence against people, burning down barns to prevent political meetings from taking place, stolen the membership lists of legal democratic parties, and when this was discovered, they held an inquirey and founded a new organization to do the same kinds of contelipro opreations, legaly. They called it CSIS, the very same CSIS that aided an abetted the torture of a teenager in Guantanmo Bay, and is "scolded" for doing so. A country where a police officer shoots a native activist and is given two years of community service for criminal negligence. And that is just here.

I do not subscribe to a black and white picture and do not paint a rosy picture of the situation in the west; the Vancouver airport incident for example is as bad as any similar incident in Iran. However the comparison you are giving in the above, especially the examples you gave, is like garden party comparing to the situation in Iran and many other third world countries. The scope and magnitude of it is perhaps beynd comprehension of an average Canadian. Let's compare:

1. Canada: Stealing membership lists of political parties

Iran: Mass arrest of top exectives of the two legal parties that challenged Ahmadinejad in election. Most of them have not been heard from since the election.

2. Canada: Officer gets two years of community service for shooting a antive protester

Iran:  No one has ever been brought to justice for any of the murders in police custody: from Zahra Kazemi and Zahra Bani-yaghoub in previous years to more than 30 who have been confirmed dead in police custody after this election.

3. Canada: CSIS gets scolded for its activities

Iran: 25 newspapers get shut down over night for "crimes" ranged from suggesting that a specific trial was unfair, to "insulting" an official by linking him to murder of a journalist. Not even "scolding".

4. Canada: An inquiry leads to another ineffective organization

Iran: What is an inquiry?

I can continue the list, but no doubt you know it as much as I do. This is not a "West is paradise and Iran is hell" argument. Just the fact that even thinking that a Canadian activist has to face the same level of problems that an Iranian or other third world activist has to, requires a huge deal of fantasy.

• reply
• Flag as offensive
• link
• 
• quote

Cueball
is awake
rabble-rouser-for-life

Member: 5790
Joined: Dec 23 2003

-->

July 29, 2009 - 6:32pm
#43 (permalink)

What do you mean? Authorities in Iran had an inquirey into the allegations of vote fraud, and discovered that indeed their were "irregularities" but not enough to sway the end result. Are they not having an investigation of the event were the student dorm was attacked during the first weeks of the unrest? They indeed had a trial in the Zahra case that resulted in aquittal on what amounts to a manslaughter charge.

• reply
• Flag as offensive
• link
• 
• quote

sanizadeh
rabble-rouser

Member: 15787
Joined: Dec 3 2007

-->

July 29, 2009 - 7:25pm
#44 (permalink)

Cueball wrote:

What do you mean? Authorities in Iran had an inquirey into the allegations of vote fraud, and discovered that indeed their were "irregularities" but not enough to sway the end result. Are they not having an investigation of the event were the student dorm was attacked during the first weeks of the unrest? They indeed had a trial in the Zahra case that resulted in aquittal on what amounts to a manslaughter charge.

You are not serious, right? An inquiry is something that by nature must be open to the public. How do you know any investigation has been done in these cases where the whole report by the authorities is that: "We investigated and there was no basis."

Investigating the attack on the student dorm? Good luck. Lots of such promises were given in the aftermath of the similar attack on student dorms in 1999, and after ten years still not a single peson has been prosecuted for a ravage that was done in presence of police. Of course, scores of students who protested the attack afterwards have now completed their jail sentences!

Trial in Zahra Kazemi's case was done under pressure from Khatami, and none of the major alleged culprits was involved other than a low rank officer who was responsible for transferring her from the interrogation centre to the prison! Neither the interrogator, nor the head of prison or prison guards were investigated.

In the case of Zahra Baniyaghoub who was found dead in police custody, because of the prominence of her family originally the junior police officer in the police centre was charged, and then all charges were dropped after a week or two. Her sister (who is a well known journalist) and some other family members are now in jail since the election.

• reply
• Flag as offensive
• link
• 
• quote

Cueball
is awake
rabble-rouser-for-life

Member: 5790
Joined: Dec 23 2003

-->

July 29, 2009 - 7:33pm
#45 (permalink)

sanizadeh wrote:

Cueball wrote:

What do you mean? Authorities in Iran had an inquirey into the allegations of vote fraud, and discovered that indeed their were "irregularities" but not enough to sway the end result. Are they not having an investigation of the event were the student dorm was attacked during the first weeks of the unrest? They indeed had a trial in the Zahra case that resulted in aquittal on what amounts to a manslaughter charge.

You are not serious, right? An inquiry is something that by nature must be open to the public. How do you know any investigation has been done in these cases where the whole report by the authorities is that: "We investigated and there was no basis."

Investigating the attack on the student dorm? Good luck. Lots of such promises were given in the aftermath of the similar attack on student dorms in 1999, and after ten years still not a single peson has been prosecuted for a ravage that was done in presence of police. Of course, scores of students who protested the attack afterwards have now completed their jail sentences!

Trial in Zahra Kazemi's case was done under pressure from Khatami, and none of the major alleged culprits was involved other than a low rank officer who was responsible for transferring her from the interrogation centre to the prison! Neither the interrogator, nor the head of prison or prison guards were investigated.

In the case of Zahra Baniyaghoub who was found dead in police custody, because of the prominence of her family originally the junior police officer in the police centre was charged, and then all charges were dropped after a week or two. Her sister (who is a well known journalist) and some other family members are now in jail since the election.

Right. It's a whitewash, just like ipperwash. Please find me a Canadian conviction for murder of a Canadian police officer for his actions on duty? Ipperwash whitewash = "criminal negligence" charge, a charge that is even less than the charge brought in Zahra case, which was at least a murder charge. Siillarly, None of the higher officials involved were even touched by the investigation let alone charged.

In fact it is so simillar, any arguement on this would prevarication.

• reply
• Flag as offensive
• link
• 
• quote

sanizadeh
rabble-rouser

Member: 15787
Joined: Dec 3 2007

-->

July 29, 2009 - 8:23pm
#46 (permalink)

Cueball wrote:

Right. It's a whitewash, just like ipperwash. Please find me a Canadian conviction for murder of a Canadian police officer for his actions on duty? Ipperwash whitewash = "criminal negligence" charge, a charge that is even less than the charge brought in Zahra case, which was at least a murder charge. Siillarly, None of the higher officials involved were even touched by the investigation let alone charged.

In fact it is so simillar, any arguement on this would prevarication.

True, but the scale of whitewashing is entirely different. In the Ipperwash case you know when and how  Dudley George was killed, what was the name of the police officer who shot him, witnesses were called, and even Mike Harris himself had to appear before the commission and testify. BTW It was indeed a disgusting shame that the judge decided not to give a harsher sentence to the shooter. This appears to have become the norm here in Canada and a stain on the justice system.

Now compare it to Zahra Kazemi's case. please tell me: where was she killed? who killed her? what actually happened? not a single prison official was even called to testify. The court rulling was: "we have no idea what happened to Kazemi!" Same thing in all other so called investigations.

 

• reply
• Flag as offensive
• link
• 
• quote

Cueball
is awake
rabble-rouser-for-life

Member: 5790
Joined: Dec 23 2003

-->

July 29, 2009 - 10:33pm
#47 (permalink)

Look, the point here is that we are looking at the larger scale aspects of "systems", and trying to determine their net effect in terms of real democracy and freedom from corruption. The ideological backdrop upon which much of the commentary on the situation in Iran is set up is based on a theoretical dichotomy between "systems" and the ideological root of those systems. This is most often posed by the formula: Islamic Authoritarianism v. Liberal Democracy. At stake is the idea that there is a fundamental ideological difference between the two that presents itself in the form of real democracy and freedom from corruption.

Even under Stalin, part of the process of the purge was occassionally putting state security personnel and even state prosecutors on trial for excesses committed in the name of the state, precisely for the purpose of displacing blame from the overall abuses committed by the system in total: "Mistakes were made, comrade."

We are not just comparing Canada v Iran. We are comparing the "systems" in total. One can find real differences that present themselves between the situation in the United States and Canada as well. But the question is, is there an underlying fundamental difference in the manner in which each ideology impacts the state of affairs on a day to day basis, when presented with simillar social stresses?

Carefully ignoring direct comparisons I made to other manifestations of "liberal democracy" in action, and relying on Canada as a model, does not in any way shape of form truly represent the potential for abuse of police powers, corruption and the demise of real democracy in "the west", as posed in alleged tangible differences between the manner in which the putative "Islamic Authoritarianism" operates in comparison to "Liberal Democracy" as they function on a day to day basis in relationship to dissent, and the manifestations of dissent in the form of public protest.

In fact, as we see in the Dudley George shooting, police officers are held to a lower standard of compliance to the law than the average citizen, when in fact the complete opposite should be true. Officers who kill people in the line of duty should not be excused for doing so but punished to the maximum by the law that they are sworn to uphold, especially since they wield inordinate powers, beyond those of the average citizen.

We can see that even when faced with public protest of dissenting opinions that are relatively benign in comparison to the large scale outburst of public outrage that took place in Iran, police forces here in the west, even in Canada, take an adversarial position against protest and routinely exceed the necessary forced required to maintain public order, and that official investigations of that excess amount to pro-forma adminstrative posturing without real teeth for conviction of offending police officials or the people they command.

Now, given these abuses of police power are routine, in situations where there are even small, and largely peaceful protests, we can easily extrapolate what kind of mayhem would ensue were protestors to take the kind of actions "en masse" as they did recently in Iran.

There is a reason that new police stations are designed like fortresses, like the new 52 division building on college, or the Hastings VPD precinct in downtown Vancouver.

• reply
• Flag as offensive
• link
• 
• quote

Erik Redburn
is
rabble-rouser

Member: 6052
Joined: Feb 26 2004

-->

July 30, 2009 - 2:46am
#48 (permalink)

CB:  "Look, the point here is that we are looking at the larger scale aspects of "systems", and trying to determine their net effect in terms of real democracy and freedom from corruption."

First things first, stop telling others what "the point is here", thats only a matter of your opinion and one in which is not always clear in your case given your constant shifting of the grounds.  Most people left of centre have a clear idea that it isn't Islamic authoritarianism versus Liberal Democracy, for the simple reason that most everyone knows we no longer live in a Liberal Democracy.  It has become significantly less on both counts since the neo-cons manipulated their way to power, and of course was always less than perfect.  Most do however recognise that Iran may still be significantly worse most ways, and certaintly not any alternative that anyone here would prefer to live under.   Its nice to see you basically admit that you think that you are defending their "system", even if you will of course try to deny it and obfuscate. 

CB:

"So when I say something like that, its a "ploy to divert attention" but when Zizek says something like that its fair criticism. Hah! Now there is this bit about "foreign manipulation"."

Huh?  Something like what?  Didn't I just tell you that my quoting this wasn't necessarily in agreement with everything he said but only to showe some difference of opinion on the subject on the militant left?  Why yes, yes I did.  Now perhaps if you were more clear on just which passage I was supposed to be in contradiction of and with who I can better understand why you trying to turn this too around on me, other than your usual childish need to one up the other. 

It should have been obvious that I was looking to disengage on that post, in fact I said so quite plainly, but since you seem to want to raise more isues with me I'll promise you I get back to you soon on this whole subject, as you so obviously want to do, but first I'd rather engage with others and read a few less contentious threads.  But in answer to you other I will say that yes, yes you Are supporting dictatorial regimes,as you have done quite persistently over the years, what your AIm is for doing so may not necessaily be a love of dictorial regime itself and I seriously doubt youd prefer to live there yourself, but that is in effect what you are doing yes.  I hope that helps at least a bit.

• edit
• reply
• link
• 
• quote

Cueball
is awake
rabble-rouser-for-life

Member: 5790
Joined: Dec 23 2003

-->

July 30, 2009 - 2:57am
#49 (permalink)

Erik Redburn wrote:

CB:  "Look, the point here is that we are looking at the larger scale aspects of "systems", and trying to determine their net effect in terms of real democracy and freedom from corruption."

First things first, stop telling others what "the point is here", thats only a matter of your opinion and one in which is not always clear in your case given your constant shifting of the grounds.

Oh yes, I can, since Sanizedah is responding to my point "here", which is extrapolated from Zizek's point, which is 3 paragraphs of short disection of competing narratives about the present situation in Iran, and then another 10 looking at the larger scale aspects of "systems".

Quote:
CB:

"So when I say something like that, its a "ploy to divert attention" but when Zizek says something like that its fair criticism. Hah! Now there is this bit about "foreign manipulation"."

Huh?  Something like what?  And didn't i just tell you that my quoting this wasn't necessarily in support of weverything he said but only to showe some difference of opinion on the subject on the militant left?  Why yes, yes I did. 

Now, it should have been obvious that I was looking to disengage on that post, in fact I said so quite plainly, but since you seem to want to raise more isues with me I'll promise you I get back to you soon and we can have it out as you so obviously want to do, but first I'd rather engage with others.  And in answer to you other I will say that yes you Are supporting dictatorial regimes,as you have done quite persistently over the years, but what your AIm is for doing so may not be a love of dictorial regime itself no but that is in effect what you are doing.  I hope that helps a bit.

And you have no evidence that I support dictatorial regiemes anywhere. This is something you inffer, as objectively true based on your own deductions, and has nothing to do with anything I said. I repeatedly ask you for quotes where I "support dictatorial regiemes", and you provide none, suggesting that you can determine such by inference because I am engaging in a "ploy to divert" attention.

Such reasoning about the objective meaning of a persons words as deduced from their failure to properly denounce is a kind of logic much better suited to the courts of Vyshinsky, as opposed to a person who purportedly supports "democracy", fair play and justice. The fact that one can be a "class enemy" and not even know it, "in effect", is even more in line with such corrupt thinking.

The question is, why is not Zizek's reflection on meaning of the revolt in Iran, in terms of its comparison to "democracy" in the west also a "ploy to divert attention" and even your posting it also such a "ploy". He asks "is there a link between Ahmadinejad and Berlusconi? Isn't it preposterous even to compare Ahmadinejad with a democratically elected Western leader? Unfortunately, it isn't: the two are part of the same global process".

 

• reply
• Flag as offensive
• link
• 
• quote

Erik Redburn
is
rabble-rouser

Member: 6052
Joined: Feb 26 2004

-->

July 30, 2009 - 3:12am
#50 (permalink)

Wow, back already?  You Are eager to pounce.  Ok, first things first, I was never refering to Sanizadeh in my earlier post, so please stop trying to play games.  Tell me what exactly I was in incontradiction with and please tie it into what I said previously, and how it related to others.  Otherwise I can only assume its more one-up-manship. 

Re your support of dictatorial regimes, that is exactly what your doing here and have done on many an occasion prior, Iran is a dictatorial regime, you are defending it, full stop.  Why you are doing so is another issue.  Now I am going to leave this for awhile, as you're also trying to make it look like I'm out to "get you" again, something I do not appreciate when you are the one going after me, but I will again assure you that I will deal with this whole issue soon, as it never seems to get resolved to anyones satisfaction. I hope I can offer up a better way of looking at this kind of international conflict, something that less militant leftists might find easier to accept.  Goodnight for now.

• edit
• reply
• link
• 
• quote

Cueball
is awake
rabble-rouser-for-life

Member: 5790
Joined: Dec 23 2003

-->

July 30, 2009 - 3:31am
#51 (permalink)

Again, you will have to provide evidence as to how I support dictatorial regiemes. Repeating the accussation is just repetition of the slur.

I might just as well say that you are supporting Amedinejad "in effect" by engaging in a "ploy to distract attention" from Amedinejad's Iran by posting a link where Zizek is supporting Amedinejad "in effect" by engaging in a "ploy to distract attention" from Amedinejad's Iran, by talking about Berlesconi and pointing out how democracy in the west is often just as much as a sham as the Iranian democracy.

Such would be nonsense much in line with your nonesense about how I support dictatorial regiemes by talking about the global movement toward toothless democracy backed up by an ever bolder national security state, in the context of Iran.

You could, as an alternate, talk about what I have said, as opposed to innuendo about my real intentions, and various other personal attacks based in my failure to say exactly what you think I should say.

• reply
• Flag as offensive
• link
• 
• quote

Erik Redburn
is
rabble-rouser

Member: 6052
Joined: Feb 26 2004

-->

July 30, 2009 - 3:58am
#52 (permalink)

"I might just as well say that you are supporting Amedinejad "in effect" by engaging in a "ploy to distract attention" from Amedinejad's Iran by posting a link where Zizek is supporting Amedinejad "in effect" by engaging in a "ploy to distract attention" from Amedinejad's Iran, by talking about Berlesconi and pointing out how democracy in the west is often just as much as a sham as the Iranian democracy."

 

Laughable.  I'll take this up with you this weekend as well, then.  It might take some time compiling all the posts youve made that defend this regime, along with other even more tyrannical ones.  You can always give us all the noble reasons why, I think I can anticipate them too.   Till then I still have a life so can I be excused from jousting with you for awhile?  It may not be much of a life but its the only one I have and noone else will cover for me.

• edit
• reply
• link
• 
• quote

Cueball
is awake
rabble-rouser-for-life

Member: 5790
Joined: Dec 23 2003

-->

July 30, 2009 - 4:42am
#53 (permalink)

Exactly. Its totally laughable. How about your obsession with human rights abuse in the rest of the world, in Iran and China is just a "ploy to distract attention" away from racism in America.  I notice you failed to post on the thread regarding professor Gate's and condemn his arrest, and are even eschewing even the slightlest share of "collective" guilt for the incarceration of Omar Khadr. These failures truly have dark implications.Are these not signs that you are "in effect" a supporter of racism and authoritarianism in the USA?

Such, conclusions and conspiracy theories are the fruit of the logic you are applying with your slurs.

• reply
• Flag as offensive
• link
• 
• quote

Erik Redburn
is
rabble-rouser

Member: 6052
Joined: Feb 26 2004

-->

July 30, 2009 - 5:36am
#54 (permalink)

You just Have to get the last word don't you?  Funny.  Maybe not tonight, but I promise you free reign for the next few.  If your only real counter now is "my obsession" with rights abuses in "other lands" then I'm also afraid this weekends event maybe more dull than I thought.  That OC is not true and can I think be demonstrated ass well.  My reason for resisting the usual line on Iran and others here is for reasons I don't think you'd understand very easily, but most progressive minds I think could.  On that one I can only try.

• edit
• reply
• link
• 
• quote

Cueball
is awake
rabble-rouser-for-life

Member: 5790
Joined: Dec 23 2003

-->

July 30, 2009 - 5:53am
#55 (permalink)

Actually why don't you not try, and instead of casting apsertions against my person, stick to the thread topic on the basis of what i say as opposed to whatever you think I mean. I think I'd be less inclined to want to get the last word in were it not for the fact that every second post of yours was not a personal attack against me about my alleged support for dictatorial regiemes, something you talk about but never have time to substantiate. I can make stupid accussation based on my own personal fantasy life as well.

• reply
• Flag as offensive
• link
• 
• quote

Erik Redburn
is
rabble-rouser

Member: 6052
Joined: Feb 26 2004

-->

July 30, 2009 - 6:16am
#56 (permalink)

Looks like I was wrong, I may not even get the last word in at three AM PST.  You are truly amazing, last thing at night, first thing in the morning, if anyone dares express a contrary opinion there you be.  If you want to whine about personal attacks then you should stop attacking others first.  I'm afriad I'm still quite working class in that way. 

Your defence of authoritarian regimes is not a personal aspersion or "fantasy" but easy enough for anyone with a half open mind to see, but feel free to feel smug for a few more days.  I know how persistent you can be so I'd prefer a few more free hrs to deal with other more interesting subjects. Getting late even for this nighthawk so if youre still around you can still get that all important last word in. Or first thing tomorrow.  I suspect I'll be sleeping in a bit tomorrow.

• edit
• reply
• link
• 
• quote

Cueball
is awake
rabble-rouser-for-life

Member: 5790
Joined: Dec 23 2003

-->

July 30, 2009 - 6:30am
#57 (permalink)

Ok, listen. I am finally going to post a complaint about your ongoing unjustified personal off topic attacks, trolling and stalking. Its pretty clear that you have far less interest in Iran than pursuing your grudge match. Satisfied?"

 

Posted just so the records aren't altered.

And you should mind your own business, whoever you are.  I do not take kindly to those who attack me then threaten to ban me when I fight back.  Comprende?  I post this so this won't be twisted on me again, as has happened too many times here before, not only to myself.  Facts talk bullshit walks.  Have a nice day. 

Cueball wrote:

Ok, listen. I am finally going to post a complaint about your ongoing unjustified personal off topic attacks, trolling and stalking. Its pretty clear that you have far less interest in Iran than pursuing your grudge match. Satisfied?

 

Oh nice, so now you try to get me banned while my back was turned.   Let me be clear about this so even you can understand, you are the one stalking me.  "Stalking" is a term which only applies to the person who goes After the other.  Example in this thread and the other yesterday, was I addressing you to begin with?  No.  When I respond to Others you were there Immediately.  So who is holding the grudge?  Read below.

Second, you say I am "trolling".  Pot and kettles. Read below.

You don't want to engage anymore fine, I'l make it easier, stay the out of my way in future too but don't whine if you don't and i respond in kind.

 

 

And now.....back to Iran?

What is happening there is really central to understanding what has taken place in the middle east in the entire Post  War period.

Cueball wrote:

.....as part of my apparently never ending quest to spread evil or something like that.

I wouldn't dwell too much on it.  Everyone has a purpose you know.

 

But, in order to make this point one has to do two things:

The first is to show how very capable the state aparatus here is of emulating the kinds of authoritarian measures instituted in Iran, including repression of dissent, and the fixing of elections. The second is to show that "evil" is not absolute in the case of Iran, and in fact emulate many of the norms we have here, such as a modicum of democractic debate, somewhat functional legal processess, occassional inquiries into the excesses of state officials and so on and so forth, and all those things we pat ourselves on the back for having because the powers that be like to assure us that are way of being, and our ideology is essentially superior, just as IRNA likes to assure the Iranians of the same. This way you draw to together the two examples in an effort to find a truly cross national understanding, outside of the petty black and white conceptual constructs that each ideology demands of its people to instill them with fear of each other.

Quote:

"Is there a link between Ahmadinejad and Berlusconi? Isn't it preposterous even to compare Ahmadinejad with a democratically elected Western leader? Unfortunately, it isn't: the two are part of the same global process."

Zizek

Well, you see, he can't because you can't start a thread about "Cueball supports Dictatorial Regiemes" because its against Babble policy to name a poster in a thread title because it a trolling personal attack, and so he is forced to drag this dingey little slur from one thread to another, be it here in the Iran thread, or in threads about possible changes to the NDP's branding, in a series of small scale trolling personal attacks. Hence, what am I to do but argue the point, since no one seems to care to stop him from this trolling?

Besides, posting Zizek was a primo basis for discussion.

Cueball wrote:

 .....and all those things we pat ourselves on the back for having because the powers that be like to assure us that are way of being, and our ideology is essentially superior...

Of course, superiority is an underlying theme, and not just on a political or governmental construct level.  Supremacy is all encompassing.

Slumberjack wrote:

Cueball wrote:

 .....and all those things we pat ourselves on the back for having because the powers that be like to assure us that are way of being, and our ideology is essentially superior...

Of course, superiority is an underlying theme, and not just on a political or governmental construct level.  Supremacy is all encompassing.

 

In some quarters perhaps but I hope this doesn't mean your buying into this as the over-arching theme too.  Of course Western governments are spinning that way, what did you expect?  But does that mean that others who oppose theorcracies in all their forms are necessarily in the hands of the fundamentalist and neo-liberal allies in America?  If that is assumed as a given, then wouldn't the opposite be true as well, those who oppose Americas regime are necessarily supporting Islamic fundamentalism?  But before that is turned around me yet again I will say there are a couple small but essential differences in our positions here as well.

Erik Redburn wrote:

 In some quarters perhaps but I hope this doesn't mean your buying into this as the over-arching theme too.  Of course Western governments are spinning that way, what did you expect?  But does that mean that others who oppose theorcracies in all their forms are necessarily in the hands of the fundamentalist and neo-liberal allies in America?  If that is assumed as a given, then wouldn't the opposite be true as well, those who oppose Americas regime are necessarily supporting Islamic fundamentalism?  But before that is turned around me yet again I will say there are a couple small but essential differences in our positions here as well.

Opposing theocracies is one thing, and certainly they are to be despised.  However, when opposition to these regimes extend to moral support of the various neo-liberal/fundamentalist projects, especially within so called democratic societies, to my mind, supremacist notions cannot entirely be excluded from the rationale of an individual who has no capital stake in the endeavour.  In the absence of a personal monetary attachment, what other reason could exist other than the desire to impose ones own value system upon another nation. 

The colonial models of the past and present, when viewed by the general population through media proliferation are rife with examples of cultural and moral superiority propaganda.  It is rarely put forth as economic and political hegemony by the elite.  People who buy into the perils of Islamic fundamentalism are indeed in hand with theocracy of another sort, which serves as a tool for  imperialism.  Usually they are dismissive of the idea that it couldn't exist in isolation, that it is in reaction to all that western tyranny has wrought.

What is presented to us under the guise of freedom of choice is a false construct, an either/or, a with us or against us trap, our 'superior' civilization versus someone else's.  We've been programmed toward making the obvious selection, because despite whatever realization that may occur within us of the revolting nature of armed conflict, the prevailing view that has been demonstrated so often has been that we know what is best for others, as agonizing as it may be, because after all, we're constantly reminded that freedom comes at a cost.

 

And while the internal struggle continues (both here and abroad), the "3,400 Iranian dissidents"(one assumes that number includes the children)  now catching hell in eastern Iraq from Iraqui police, according to a NYTimes blurb, seem to be ignored. I have just now learned of the existence of this "socialist" revolutionary force from Wiki :

 

 

 

People's Mojahedin Organization of Iran
سازمان مجاهدين خلق ايران
Sāzmān-e Mojāhedin-e Khalq-e Irān

Leader
Seddigeh Hosseini (Secretary General)

Founded
1965

Headquarters
Camp Ashraf, Iraq

Ideology
Islamic Socialism

Website

Official Website of the PMOI

The People's Mujahedin of Iran (PMOI, also MEK, MKO) (Persian: سازمان مجاهدين خلق ايران sāzmān-e mojāhedin-e khalq-e irān) is an Islamic socialist organization that advocates the overthrow of the Islamic Republic government of Iran.

Founded in 1965, the PMOI was originally devoted to armed struggle against the Shah of Iran, capitalism, and Western imperialism.[1] The group claims to have renounced violence in 2001[2] and today it is the main organization in the National Council of Resistance of Iran (NCRI), an "umbrella coalition" claiming the role of a parliament-in-exile dedicated to a democratic, secular and coalition government in Iran. The group has had thousands of its members for many years in bases in Iraq, but according to the British Broadcasting Corporation "they were disarmed in the wake of the US-led invasion and are said to have adhered to a ceasefire."[3]

 

 

 

Considerable controversy surrounds the issues of whether the NCRI is merely a front group for the PMOI[4][5]; whether the NCRI is involved in terrorism, or if it is "a legitimate dissident organization fighting for democracy in Iran"[6] whose Western accusers are attempting to use as a bargaining chip in negotiation with its enemy the Islamic Republic of Iran.

The PMOI's armed wing is, or was, called the National Liberation Army of Iran (NLA). The Iranian government officially refers to the organization as the Monafeqin (literally, "Hypocrites"), maintaining that PMOI is not truly Islamic.[7]

The United States, Canada, Iraq, and Iran have designated the PMOI a terrorist organization.[8][9] On January 26, 2009, the Council of the European Union agreed to remove the PMOI from the EU terror list. The group said it was the outcome of a "seven-year-long legal and political battle".[10][11][12][13]

 

Slumberjack wrote:

Opposing theocracies is one thing, and certainly they are to be despised.  However, when opposition to these regimes extend to moral support of the various neo-liberal/fundamentalist projects, especially within so called democratic societies, to my mind, supremacist notions cannot entirely be excluded from the rationale of an individual who has no capital stake in the endeavour.  In the absence of a personal monetary attachment, what other reason could exist other than the desire to impose ones own value system upon another nation. 

 

Now were getting somewhere, I question your starting premise on a couple points but the differences may now be more a matter of distance than kind.  I'll get back to this later tonight.

 

Let's try to state the case for the People's Mujahedin of Iran, some 3400 men, women and kids trapped in eastern Iraq, where they were driven on ascension of the Ayatollahs in Iran.

This socialist and secular group, formed to rid the country of the Shah in the mid 1960s, were driven out because of their secular position. And now, with the Shia administration of Iran, demanding their return - to "God" knows what fate - the Iraqui administration with its Shia leanings, seems to be releasing the police dogs against these people, despite their promise leave them in peace on departure of the U.S.forces.

Meanwhile, back in the modern, "humanitarian" world, the European Union nations have voted to declare the PMI not terrorists.

But from what I could gather, above, the U.S. and its follower, Canada (together with Iraq and Iran) still classify these people as terrorists.  And, of course, their secular, socialist ideology could strike terror in the minds of the supernaturally driven.

I would think that a political position on these  people in their very precarious position might be warranted. In fact, it seems to me that their situation would make a wonderful test case for the jottings and speeches of one Tarek Fatah. That is, if he considered them "terrorists", he would be exposed as a complete dilettante.

I hope that some people could simply state their position on these people. It would seem their existence and situation tends to complicate straight-line ideologies, sowing confusion and tendentiousness among their pat "lines".  Or do I have that wrong? A straightforward position isn't possible here?

Slumberjack wrote:

People who buy into the perils of Islamic fundamentalism are indeed in hand with theocracy of another sort, which serves as a tool for  imperialism.  Usually they are dismissive of the idea that it couldn't exist in isolation, that it is in reaction to all that western tyranny has wrought.

Do you extend this black-and-white model to other similar arguments, or is it merely reserved for Islamic fundamentalism? For instance:

"Those who buy into the perils of capitalism are indeed in hand with another sort which serves as a tool for Stalinism..."

"Those who buy into the perils of colonialism are indeed in hand with another sort which serves as a tool for racist nationalism..." 

"Those who buy into the perils of nazism are indeed in hand with another sort which serves as a tool for zionism..."

Yes, the root and beginning of islamic fundamentalism may be a reaction to western tyranny. It was a social phase. Now that the same nation that turned to Islamic fundamentalism against western tyranny, now try to fights its way out of the suffocating, inhuman web of theocratic rule, it is accused as aiding the imperialism?

This line of thinking is, in fact, another side of the colonialist mind in which, it seems, everything in the world revolves around the western politics. The colonialist mind cannot accept that some people in far away land may indeed have a desire for freedom and justice. No, these are not for non-westerners. If they want it, they must have been agents of imperialism.

Slumberjack wrote:

I am not interested in the domestic sentiments being expressed in Iran, it is for them alone to decide their own destiny. Partisan accounts of what is transpiring there, that seek to influence western opinion is another example of how our perceptions are sought out and manipulated, beyond what should be the case, feeding back into the dominant mindset where we continue to believe that our influence is the key...Having a partner currently visiting that country, I care a great deal about what is happening there, but have no preference as to the conclusion of the process, because I am not one of them. I find it helpful to apply that model in personal analysis of every geo-political circumstance.

Is it just Iran that gets the pass or do you apply the same rule in dealing with Palestine, Iraq, Afghanistan, Honduras and elsewhere? If a Palestinian reports on the abuse and human right violations, would you be as dismissive as accusing him of trying to "manipulate the wstern mindset"?

 

sanizadeh wrote:

Do you extend this black-and-white model to other similar arguments, or is it merely reserved for Islamic fundamentalism? For instance:

"Those who buy into the perils of capitalism are indeed in hand with another sort which serves as a tool for Stalinism..."

"Those who buy into the perils of colonialism are indeed in hand with another sort which serves as a tool for racist nationalism..." 

"Those who buy into the perils of nazism are indeed in hand with another sort which serves as a tool for zionism..."

Islamic fundamentalism as it is presented to us at every turn that is, without an origin and without the prospect of reconciliation, or at least co-existence.  Whether we believe in the lies, omissions and propaganda or not, my contention is that we participate through the mere act of voting for the various entities seeking to represent us that do not spare as a priority, every effort to shout down and expose the falsehoods.  I can't really comment on the rest of your dichotomies, as there's no logic to them.

Quote:

Yes, the root and beginning of Islamic fundamentalism may be a reaction to western tyranny. It was a social phase. Now that the same nation that turned to Islamic fundamentalism against western tyranny, now try to fights its way out of the suffocating, inhuman web of theocratic rule, it is accused as aiding the imperialism?

On their own terms, it is within any nation's right to struggle internally against anything they see as unfit to their interests.  What does it matter, our opinion of which side has the greater appeal among the population?  There is no shortage of outside perspectives, policies, strategies, or interventions at the ready to assist, depending on the interests involved, through which history demonstrates that the wisest course of action is to be wary of them all.

Quote:

This line of thinking is, in fact, another side of the colonialist mind in which, it seems, everything in the world revolves around the western politics. The colonialist mind cannot accept that some people in far away land may indeed have a desire for freedom and justice. No, these are not for non-westerners. If they want it, they must have been agents of imperialism.

Perhaps it is.  I'd wager that very few participants within our dominant patriarchy can entirely escape its influence upon the way things are viewed on a personal level.  But then you might consider that what we apparently have, that which supposedly is being intentionally withheld, is viewed by the withholder as superior.  They can have what they want, there or anywhere for that matter, and ultimately if it comes to bear a resemblance with our own dystopia, then so be it.  You'll have to look elsewhere for the sales pitch though, I've never been good at that.

Quote:

Is it just Iran that gets the pass or do you apply the same rule in dealing with Palestine, Iraq, Afghanistan, Honduras and elsewhere? If a Palestinian reports on the abuse and human right violations, would you be as dismissive as accusing him of trying to "manipulate the wstern mindset"? 

It is the right of anyone to speak against the actions or inactions of their own government representatives as it pertains to the manner in which they conduct foreign policy.  Likewise, because of the overwhelming collective influence that western corporate governance has upon the decisions that our representatives undertake, we have the right to criticize those influences and demand change, or an end to them.  As for crimes against humanity, rights violations, abuses of power in other countries that do not exert an influence upon our own, beyond recognizing the truth of what occurs, my view is that we have little to offer as an alternate model, and given our history, any attempt to do so is paternalistic at best, and at worst, a continuing manifestation of supremacy.

George Victor wrote:

But how about that huddled group of humanity that bought into a socialist, secular answer to government for Iran, now awaiting their fate ...the People's Mujahadin of Iran.  Hell, some of them could have descended from Mossadegh initial following. 

Here's a thought George...how about a thread dealing with MeK issues.  You can start one, and the grown ups will be along after we finish up here.

Actually, that's not the whole story here Cueball. The US really is a monster.

MR wrote:

The United States accounts for 5 percent of the world's population, and almost a quarter of the world's prisoners. It is number one with the proverbial bullet when it comes to locking up its own people. No thug dictator, no psychopathic madman, anywhere in the world can touch the United States in this department.

The figures for the United States are based on the jail and prison population totaling 2,293,157 in 2007. This doesn't even include the 119,955 reported detainees held in territorial prisons, jails in Indian country, U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) facilities, military prisons, and juvenile detention centers.

The Penal State in an Age of Crisis

 

George Victor wrote:

But how about that huddled group of humanity that bought into a socialist, secular answer to government for Iran, now awaiting their fate ...the People's Mujahadin of Iran.  Hell, some of them could have descended from Mossadegh initial following.

Thing is this George. The idea that there is something exceptionally brutal about the Iranian governement is only available to you, if you look at western governments from the center of the empire. Nice and quite here. But if the issue is "enforcement" of ideological conformity through force, seriously, there is a very good arguement to be made that USA and the rest of NATO make Ayatollah's look like boy scouts. This dislocation you are having is probably because you have never felt the terrible force applied by the west when it seeks to enforce that ideological conformity, outside of the home turf. The way we do this conjuring trick is by pretending their is a liminal difference between, say, what the US army is doing in Afghanistan, and what the Islamic state of Iran is doing in its own country.

For some reason, once "we" say we are at war, then the gloves are off, and the slaughter begins, and "we" the people who live in more comfortable circumstances often accept at the very least that the rules change when we are outside of our own country and we are calling it "war". But in reality its still "enforcement" it is still "ideology" and it is still "force". Plenty of it. Daily. Stinking bloody murder.

It is not as if they bother to have "show trials" before they shoot Afghan militants. At least the Ayatollah's have the decency to pretend they are following some kind of legal process.

So we call it a "war" and we file it away in a seperate cabinet. Then we like to talk about domestic circumstance, and compare those in nice compartments, and wonder: "Gee how come these Islamic guys are particularly blood-thirsty". If it wasn't so sad, it would be funny.

Not to say that Islam hasn't had its share of rank bloody murder, but in the state of the world today, its not they who are doing the "exceptional" blood thirsty mass slaughter it is us. If you are going to ask, what makes Islamic fundamentalism particularly "blood thirsty" in this day and age, you might as well ask what has made christian "secularism" particularly genocidal.

The only reason we don't really get a taste for the mass domestic repression here is in my view simply a matter of economics, not some subtle ideological subtext, or wholey new ontology. Not at all, our boys are out there everyday making it safe for consumerism, while our corporations rake in the profits, and provide enough of us with rewards that we can afford not to think about it. But it is not so in Iran. In Iran does not have the wealth, or the power to aquire that wealth, and as such conflict in Iran is sharper because people have a lot less to lose.

So, your dreamed of socialist secular paradise, no doubt would have come into being with very much the same level of force, and steady but firm hand on the tools of repression, as the present power that be in Iran, if history is to be any guide. You have to go no further than Iraq and then into Syria to see the results when the tables were turned. It is ironic of course that those bodies in those graves they are finding in Iraq belong more often or not, to "muslim nationalists" of one kind or another, brutally rousted in the middle of the night and shot in order to disappear them from the history books.

And of course the MSM glosses over this point, when we are prosecuting the war on terror, and trots out the mass graves of the dead "Islamists" as part of the proof of the heinous nature of Saddam Hussein's Iraq, and its fundamental inferiority to our system on humanitarian grounds because we are nice to "our own people", so that we can justify slaughtering the secular socialist nationalist as well.

Indeed, in post revolutionary Iran, no doubt the secular socialiast would have had to have done a great deal of killing in order to hold the power that they had won, and a great number of those would have been the so-called "Islamists" you prattle on about.

 

The particularly bloodyo-minded within his own faith, Cue.

But carry on in shunning the book. 

 

Back this evening to review any further additions to your post.