And the Jihad continues...

[pipelineaudio]

That there is not all that much wiggle room for interpretation.

ahhh I base that on the wording of the Koran....

please don't tu quoque me. But understand there are NO zero none contradictions in the koran. You cant use bible copouts, where one part of the bible conflicts with the other, as it doesnt happen in the koran.

 

[corplinx]

I say we invade their countries, kill their leaders, and convert them to flying spaghetti monsterism.

 

[Mycroft]

You flat out said that the Shah regime was not totalitarian, and that is flat out wrong.

Perhaps our confusion is that I was thinking of this definition of "totalitarian":

Totalitarian: Of, relating to, being, or imposing a form of government in which the political authority exercises absolute and centralized control over all aspects of life, the individual is subordinated to the state, and opposing political and cultural expression is suppressed: “A totalitarian regime crushes all autonomous institutions in its drive to seize the human soul” (Arthur M. Schlesinger, Jr.).

AFAIK, the Shah didn't try to control all aspects of life nor subordinate the individual to the state. He certainly did suppress opposing political expression, but he was also a reformer who tried very much to modernize Iran in every way. Even your cherry-picked blurbs claim that living conditions for the people of Iran improved greatly, basic human and democratic rights were established (e.g. extending sufferage to women) and that the Shah was praised by Western leaders as a force of modernity.

I had hoped that by providing you with the supplementary data you would have found that fact out for yourself. However, I see now that I was quite wrong about raising such hopes since you are unable recognize the facts regarding how the Shah ran his kingdom.

 

[Mycroft]

I say we invade their countries, kill their leaders, and convert them to flying spaghetti monsterism.

As Gods go, Ed is a more power force and better able to relate to the troubles of ordinary men.

 

[Polaris]

Radical Islam predates any US involvement in the ME though. They just use whatever slight or injury is handy. I'm not saying some of their grievances aren't reasonable ones, that's not the point.

-Andrew

It also predates the US altogether. Wahhabism alone - certainly not the first Islamic extremism (that would probably be when Mohammad raped a woman whose male family members he had just executed) - began in 1755.

 

[Polaris]

Disasterbation fed by the rhetoric of the power hungry. Same ol' same ol throughout human history. Nothing new to see here, move along, move along.

But today the capability for small groups of fanatics to cause massive death and destruction is unprecedented, and the people who could stop it are playing politics instead of preventing that capability from falling into the hands of those fanatics (see: the UN on Iran).

 

[Elind]

Is it the religion or those interpreting the religion you are arguing against?

Can you give any examples of an uninterpreted religion?

 

[a_unique_person]

But today the capability for small groups of fanatics to cause massive death and destruction is unprecedented,

I know, I have warned about Bush many times.

 

[corplinx]

It also predates the US altogether. Wahhabism alone - certainly not the first Islamic extremism (that would probably be when Mohammad raped a woman whose male family members he had just executed) - began in 1755.

To be exact though, the muslim brotherhood movement of the early 20th century was the starting point of the modern radical movement.

 

[CFLarsen]

Can you give any examples of an uninterpreted religion?

Good point.

However, I would like to know just who it is Mycroft is arguing against. For some reason, he seems intent on ignoring me in this particular thread.

 

[Crossbow]

Perhaps our confusion is that I was thinking of this definition of "totalitarian":

Totalitarian: Of, relating to, being, or imposing a form of government in which the political authority exercises absolute and centralized control over all aspects of life, the individual is subordinated to the state, and opposing political and cultural expression is suppressed: “A totalitarian regime crushes all autonomous institutions in its drive to seize the human soul” (Arthur M. Schlesinger, Jr.).

AFAIK, the Shah didn't try to control all aspects of life nor subordinate the individual to the state. He certainly did suppress opposing political expression, but he was also a reformer who tried very much to modernize Iran in every way. Even your cherry-picked blurbs claim that living conditions for the people of Iran improved greatly, basic human and democratic rights were established (e.g. extending sufferage to women) and that the Shah was praised by Western leaders as a force of modernity.

I just do not understand the distinction you are trying to make when you say that a government:
that is ruled by one person,
that is very corrupt,
that uses a secret police to monitor its citizens at home and abroad,
that uses martial law,
that has tortured and killed of thousands (at the least) of anyone deemed to be current or possible threat to ruler,
is somehow not a totalitarian state.

Heck, if this sort of thing is not a totalitarian state, then I do not know what is.

Furthermore, if you actually cared to check into those reforms you speak so much of (which you apparently did not do; and I expected that you would not bother to do such a thing since the data you would glean would undercut the points you originally made), then you would see some of the following:

More people did become land owners. However, often the land they were provided was of such low quality that they were not any better off than before.
Voting was extended to women. Of course, all the voting issues had very little to do with actual democracy.
Iran was supported by many Western governments. Of course, there was the Cold War going on at the time and Iran did ally itself with the West and made sure to keep the oil flowing and to buy Western arms.

 

[Elind]

I just do not understand the distinction you are trying to make when you say that a government:
that is ruled by one person,
that is very corrupt,
that uses a secret police to monitor its citizens at home and abroad,
that uses martial law,
that has tortured and killed of thousands (at the least) of anyone deemed to be current or possible threat to ruler,
is somehow not a totalitarian state.

Heck, if this sort of thing is not a totalitarian state, then I do not know what is.

Ask demon, and you have described the US

Iran under the Shah was probably no worse than Turkey under AtaTurk. In that case the Islamists lost and a reasonable democracy won.

In the case of the Shah, the Islamists won, but whatever your black and white definitions are, I doubt you would call the Mullahs nicer than the Shah, or more respectful of common human decency and freedoms.....or do you want to prove me wrong?

Truth is there are few, (probably none) totalitarian states that have an "absolute" ruler. They all depend on the goons that keep them in power as long as they get a share. It's actually a form of democracy; just that some votes are more equal than others. (that sounds familiar somehow)

 

[Tony]

I just do not understand the distinction you are trying to make when you say that a government:
that is ruled by one person,
that is very corrupt,
that uses a secret police to monitor its citizens at home and abroad,
that uses martial law,
that has tortured and killed of thousands (at the least) of anyone deemed to be current or possible threat to ruler,
is somehow not a totalitarian state.

Heck, if this sort of thing is not a totalitarian state, then I do not know what is.

Welcome to the wacky world of a right-wing apologist. No atrocity is too heinous as long as the country in question toes the line of the US government.

 

[demon]

Elind:
"Ask demon, and you have described the US"

If you replace the "US" with "Present US Administration", then yes, I`d say there were certain similarities in Crossbow`s list and I wouldn`t be alone in that I`m sure

 

[Tony]

Iran under the Shah was probably no worse than Turkey under AtaTurk.

Can you support this?

In the case of the Shah, the Islamists won, but whatever your black and white definitions are, I doubt you would call the Mullahs nicer than the Shah, or more respectful of common human decency and freedoms.....or do you want to prove me wrong?

False dichotomy. They are/were both evil.

It's actually a form of democracy; just that some votes are more equal than others. (that sounds familiar somehow)

So I take it you think the "Democratic" in the "Democratic Republic of North Korea" is an accurate moniker?

 

[a_unique_person]

Ask demon, and you have described the US

Iran under the Shah was probably no worse than Turkey under AtaTurk. In that case the Islamists lost and a reasonable democracy won.

In the case of the Shah, the Islamists won, but whatever your black and white definitions are, I doubt you would call the Mullahs nicer than the Shah, or more respectful of common human decency and freedoms.....or do you want to prove me wrong?

Truth is there are few, (probably none) totalitarian states that have an "absolute" ruler. They all depend on the goons that keep them in power as long as they get a share. It's actually a form of democracy; just that some votes are more equal than others. (that sounds familiar somehow)

I don't know that you have any say in what they experienced. They thought the Shah was repressive, he used torture and murder to ensure he stayed in power. It was not just the Shah against the Islamists, moderates also opposed him. The Islamists hijacked the rebellion, but the moderates were still in there with a chance, and achieved popular approval in elections. All it needed was some help, they could have come out on top. The is is the worlds superpower, but the dysfunctional political system means that rather than making constructive moves to normalise relations with Iran, and working with the moderates to move Iran to a moderate government, Iran had to isolated no matter what. It actively encouraged the war between Iraq and Iran, in which millions died. I can still remember reading the paper at the time, with the right wing press 'puffing' Saddam and Iraq.

The moderates are now in decline, it appears. The window of opportunity appears to have passed. However, there is no lack of endevour in moves to war.

 

[demon]

Elind:
"In the case of the Shah, the Islamists won, but whatever your black and white definitions are, I doubt you would call the Mullahs nicer than the Shah, or more respectful of common human decency and freedoms.....or do you want to prove me wrong?"

Translation:
The Shah coughed up the oil. The fekkin mullahs don't. Bomb them.

 

[Elind]

I don't know that you have any say in what they experienced. They thought the Shah was repressive, he used torture and murder to ensure he stayed in power. It was not just the Shah against the Islamists, moderates also opposed him. The Islamists hijacked the rebellion, but the moderates were still in there with a chance, and achieved popular approval in elections. All it needed was some help, they could have come out on top. The is is the worlds superpower, but the dysfunctional political system means that rather than making constructive moves to normalise relations with Iran, and working with the moderates to move Iran to a moderate government, Iran had to isolated no matter what. It actively encouraged the war between Iraq and Iran, in which millions died. I can still remember reading the paper at the time, with the right wing press 'puffing' Saddam and Iraq.

The moderates are now in decline, it appears. The window of opportunity appears to have passed. However, there is no lack of endevour in moves to war.

You know what? Your response is the only reasonably sensible one of those quoting my post. The others are just shooting the breeze, from the wrong end, as usual.

Sure the Shah was repressive. About as repressive as, say, Israel against Hamas, or Hizbullah or us against Al Qaeda or Egypt against the Muslim Brotherhood. I could go on. He was in effect fighting 14th century fundamentalism, just like Ataturk, but he wanted Iran to become a 20th century nation and I venture it stood a better chance of becoming democratic after him than under the Mullahs.

As to the "moderates", sure we saw glimmers of them before the Mullahs squashed them, but I'm talking of Shah versus Khomeini. If France had not allowed him to conduct a revolution from Paris, which they didn't have to, the fanatics may never have taken power. The US gets a lot of flack from time to time for having chosen to support the Shah as the only alternative, but as far as I'm concerned Khomeini's perversions were much worse.

Let's beat up on the French a little more, shall we?

Truth is, the "moderates" in Iran are as good as dead, as you say. Their time almost came, then went, and Iran will ensure the pot stays boiling so they stay dead.

C'est la vie.

 

[Mycroft]

The Islamists hijacked the rebellion, but the moderates were still in there with a chance, and achieved popular approval in elections. All it needed was some help, they could have come out on top.

This doesn't fit with anything I've read on the subject. Do you have any source for this?

The moderates are now in decline, it appears. The window of opportunity appears to have passed. However, there is no lack of endevour in moves to war.

And this?

 

[Mycroft]

Translation:
The Shah coughed up the oil. The fekkin mullahs don't. Bomb them.

Did Iran stop selling oil?

I'm sorry, but your argument is full of crap. Iran will sell its oil no matter who is in charge. If the flow of oil were the only consideration, then we'd be fine with the current Iranian administration which may be wacko, but seems perfectly stable and is more than capable of making sure the tap stays on.

No, our problems with them are that they're crazy, unstable, looking to build some nukes, and willing to give money and weapons to any Islamic religious nut capable of building a bomb.