babble home
rabble.ca - news for the rest of us
today's active topics


Post New Topic  Post A Reply
FAQ | Forum Home
  next oldest topic   next newest topic
» babble   » current events   » international news and politics   » Cognitive Dissonance

Email this thread to someone!    
Author Topic: Cognitive Dissonance
Sven
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 9972

posted 21 September 2007 05:21 AM      Profile for Sven     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
Columbia University's president has invited Mahmoud Ahmadinejad, Iran's president, to speak at the university next Monday.

This per an editorial in the WSJ:

quote:
Originally posted by remind:
Mahmoud Ahmadinejad has his doubts about whether the Holocaust happened. He thinks the Jewish state should be wiped off the map. His regime funnels sophisticated munitions to Shiite militias in Iraq, who use them to kill American soldiers.

Oh, and by the way, his regime also executes homosexuals for the crime of being themselves. Maybe if Columbia University President Lee Bollinger were aware of the latter fact he would reconsider his invitation to the Iranian president to speak on his campus next Monday.

Mr. Bollinger, notoriously, voted in 2005 not to readmit an ROTC program to Columbia (absent from the university since 1969), ostensibly on the grounds of the military's "don't ask, don't tell" policy regarding gay service members.


I think the "don't ask, don't tell" policy is archaic (it's only redeeming quality is that it is marginally better than the military's prior policy). But, it's long past the time to take the next step and treat gays like any other human being.

But, lemme see. What's more egregious, hanging gays or not letting them serve in the military? Hmmmm...[mentally weighing the two alternatives]

[ 21 September 2007: Message edited by: Sven ]


From: Eleutherophobics of the World...Unite!!!!! | Registered: Jul 2005  |  IP: Logged
contrarianna
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 13058

posted 21 September 2007 08:51 AM      Profile for contrarianna     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
I suppose you mean by "cognitive dissonance" those who claim to support human rights in Iran on progressive boards but who are actually propagandizing for an US/Israel attack on Iran?
To support "cognitive harmony" one could try:
SIGN ON TO OPPOSE WAR ON IRAN AND THEOCRATIC REPRESSION

web page

[ 21 September 2007: Message edited by: contrarianna ]


From: here to inanity | Registered: Aug 2006  |  IP: Logged
BetterRed
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 11865

posted 21 September 2007 09:42 AM      Profile for BetterRed     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
Good point.
The overthrow of the Shah was accomplished by diverse groups of the Iraniajn people, not just hardcore Moslems.

The communist and the labour movement had a conribution also.

But sure, now it might seem in the West that Iranians overthrew the Shah simply to install Mullahs voluntarily.

The context of US imperialist ties to the Shah regime is also lost.


From: They change the course of history, everyday ppl like you and me | Registered: Jan 2006  |  IP: Logged
Sven
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 9972

posted 21 September 2007 11:05 AM      Profile for Sven     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
That is a very interesting website, contrarianna.

quote:

As for the Iranian nuclear threat, Tehran’s assurances that it only wants to develop peaceful nuclear energy are not credible. Iran is probably still several years away from being able to produce nuclear weapons. If Tehran acquires the bomb, it is unlikely that the ayatollahs, who hold decisive power, would use it since it would be suicidal to do so. Israel alone has between 200 and 300 nuclear warheads capable of striking Iran, and this is not counting the thousands of warheads the U.S. can launch at Iran. Nevertheless, there is no guarantee that Iran, or any other state armed with nuclear weapons, won’t use them or make them available to others. As long as these barbaric weapons exist, they can be used, and the more countries that possess them the more likely it is over time that they will be used.

As the above quote notes, “it is unlikely that the ayatollahs, who hold decisive power, would use it since it would be suicidal to do so.” But, “there is no guarantee that Iran, or any other state armed with nuclear weapons, won’t use them or make them available to others.”

I agree that it is very unlikely that any “state” will use nuclear weapons. The ayatollahs are probably not suicidal and any overt use of nuclear weapons by the state of Iran would result in the certain destruction of Iran.

What is most concerning is that Iran would “make them available to others” (i.e., non-state actors).

quote:

We therefore strongly oppose Tehran’s efforts to acquire nuclear weapons. But as long as a handful of nations arrogate to themselves the exclusive right to possess nuclear weapons, the have-nots will always be able to point to the threat posed by the nuclear powers and will constantly seek to acquire such weapons for themselves -- as North Korea has already done, withdrawing from the Non-Proliferation Treaty regime. Likewise, Iran, which has been menaced by the U.S. for more than two decades and was a charter member of Bush’s “axis of evil,” may opt out of the NPT.

With the exception of North Korea and Pakistan, I don’t think that the other countries that hold nuclear weapons are likely to provide them to non-state actors (and, in my mind, use by non-state actors is the most concerning aspect of proliferation because there is no effective deterrent to their use). And, to put it kindly, I think it’s wishful thinking to believe that if China, the USA, Israel, Russia, the UK, and France destroyed all of their nuclear arms today that the desire of countries like Iran to have them would disappear. Assuming that is the case, even if those countries eliminated their nuclear weapons (which has zero probability of happening), we are left with the specter of a nuclear Iran that could supply such weapons to non-state actors. I think it would be fair to say that the web site you linked to, contrarianna, shares that concern about Iran.

So, with regard to cognitive dissonance, I think the web site, in many respects, represents “cognitive harmony” (seeking peaceful—but maybe ineffectual—means to prohibit Iran from getting nuclear weapons while, at the same time, criticizing the radical ayatollahs who run Iran).

Now, what about the president of Columbia University?

Here’s a guy who insisted on barring ROTC from campus because of “don’t ask, don’t tell” but who welcomes Mahmoud Ahmadinejad—whose regime executes gays simply because they are gay—to speak at campus. If he’s not suffering from cognitive dissonance, he has no sense of proportion.


From: Eleutherophobics of the World...Unite!!!!! | Registered: Jul 2005  |  IP: Logged
contrarianna
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 13058

posted 21 September 2007 12:10 PM      Profile for contrarianna     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
Disarmament and non-proliferation does not mean "total unilateral disarmament", and for you to extract that meaning from the article smacks of "cognitive dissonance".
What the web page did say was:

"An end to Washington’s belligerence is a crucial step in preventing Tehran from joining the nuclear “club.” Beyond that, the only way to stop proliferation is for those countries that have nuclear weapons to begin disarming -- something the Bush administration and previous administrations of both parties have refused to do, despite the fact that the U.S. is a signatory to the Non-Proliferation Treaty which commits it to “pursue negotiations in good faith on effective measures relating to cessation of the nuclear arms race at an early date and to nuclear disarmament.” At the same time the nuclear powers must work toward nuclear-free zones around the world, but especially in the Middle East, a particularly volatile and dangerous region.

We call for a new democratic U.S. foreign policy that would deal with the threat posed to all of us by terrorist networks, and by weapons of mass destruction, and promote real democracy in the Middle East and elsewhere, by:

• Renouncing the use of military intervention to extend and consolidate U.S. imperial power, and withdrawing U.S. troops and bases from the Middle East.
• Ending U.S. support for authoritarian and corrupt regimes, e.g. Saudi Arabia, the Gulf states and Egypt.
• Opposing all forms of terrorism worldwide by Al Qaeda, Iraqi death squads, and Palestinian suicide bombers, and by U.S.-backed forces like the Colombian paramilitaries and the Israeli military in the Occupied Territories -- as well as the brutality and humiliation inflicted on Iraqis every day by U.S. occupation forces and Washington’s ominous threats against Iran.
• Supporting the right of national self-determination for all peoples in the Middle East, including the Kurds, Palestinians and Israeli Jews. Ending support for Israeli occupation of the West Bank and oppression of the Palestinian people.
• Taking unilateral steps toward renouncing weapons of mass destruction, including nuclear weapons, and vigorously promoting international disarmament treaties, instead of obstructing even minimal efforts to end the arms race.
• Abandoning the effort to impose, through the IMF/World Bank or unilaterally, neoliberal economic policies of privatization and austerity that bring mass misery to people in large parts of the world. Initiating a major foreign aid program directed at popular rather than corporate needs."

As for nation states such as the US or Israel not being a real threat in the use of, or proliferation of, nukes, think again:
"Israel’s government, unlike Iran’s, has actually overseen the bloody and illegal invasion of another country, and is known to have played a past role in nuclear proliferation, aiding Apartheid-era South Africa’s nuclear weapons program. A July 1999 report by the US Defense Intelligence Agency estimated that Israel, which is not an NPT signatory and has a policy of neither confirming nor denying the existence of its nuclear arsenal, possesses 60-80 nuclear weapons. The Federation of American Scientists estimates that Israel’s nuclear program could have produced enough plutonium to construct up to 200 weapons.

The fact that Washington hasn’t even batted an eyelid in the face of claims that Israel may use the “nuclear option” against Iran is hardly a surprise — the Bush jnr White House has led the charge to publicly rehabilitate nukes as a “legitimate” weapon of war. On March 9, 2002, the Los Angeles Times reported that the White House had “directed the military to prepare contingency plans to use nuclear weapons against at least seven countries and to build smaller nuclear weapons for use in certain battlefield situations”. The article was based on a copy of the classified Nuclear Posture Review by the US Defense Department, submitted to Congress in January 2002, obtained by the LA Times.

An analysis by the Nuclear Reduction/Disarmament Initiative noted: “The adaptive planning described in the NPR expands the role of nuclear weapons beyond the primary role of deterring a nuclear attack and suggests that nuclear weapons could be employed against targets able to withstand non-nuclear attack or in retaliation for use of biological or chemical weapons … This approach contradicts the spirit, if not the letter, of US ‘negative security assurances’, first made in 1978. These state that the US will not use nuclear weapons against non-nuclear states that are party to the Non-Proliferation Treaty … unless they attack the US in alliance with a nuclear-weapon state.”
Rogue state threatens nuke attack on Iran

And as for the crimes of the president of Columbia University.
It's an interesting position for someone to take who believes in free speech or even clarification--denying a leader an opportunity for talking and answering questions in Columbia's World Leader's Forum.
Tell me, were you just as outraged when known war criminals such as Kissinger, Cheney or Bush spoke at universities (granted, they have killed multitudes without regard to gender,age or sexual orientation)?

[ 21 September 2007: Message edited by: contrarianna ]


From: here to inanity | Registered: Aug 2006  |  IP: Logged
Sven
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 9972

posted 21 September 2007 01:44 PM      Profile for Sven     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
Back to Columbia University...
From: Eleutherophobics of the World...Unite!!!!! | Registered: Jul 2005  |  IP: Logged
ceti
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 7851

posted 22 September 2007 11:07 AM      Profile for ceti     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
Is there any proof that Iran is seeking nuclear weapons outside of all this propaganda?

Both Ahmedinejad and Khamenei said nuclear weapons are obscene. Even the non-NPT signatories -- India, Pakistan, and Israel have never said this.

And I will defend Iran, a country that has not attacked any other, but has been viciously attacked by both the US and its proxies. It's quite perverse to reverse this and label Ahmedinejad as yet another Hitler bent on invading other countries. We hear enough of this bullshit in the mainstream press.


From: various musings before the revolution | Registered: Jan 2005  |  IP: Logged
contrarianna
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 13058

posted 22 September 2007 12:12 PM      Profile for contrarianna     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
quote:
Originally posted by ceti:
Is there any proof that Iran is seeking nuclear weapons outside of all this propaganda?

Both Ahmedinejad and Khamenei said nuclear weapons are obscene. Even the non-NPT signatories -- India, Pakistan, and Israel have never said this.

And I will defend Iran, a country that has not attacked any other, but has been viciously attacked by both the US and its proxies. It's quite perverse to reverse this and label Ahmedinejad as yet another Hitler bent on invading other countries. We hear enough of this bullshit in the mainstream press.


There is no proof either way. In my opinion, a country that is under a very real threat of attack by either the US, or the region's nuclear superpower, would consider it a possible means of deterrence--regardless of what the political leaders say.
Any actual weapons production would still be years off and almost certainly could be averted if talks with the US resulted in inspection/ non-invasion guarantees. The US/Israel are not interested in that.
That said, the Iranian claim that nuclear power is desirable for them when their one asset, oil, is used up is not in itself far-fetched.


From: here to inanity | Registered: Aug 2006  |  IP: Logged
Sven
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 9972

posted 22 September 2007 01:27 PM      Profile for Sven     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
quote:
Originally posted by ceti:
Is there any proof that Iran is seeking nuclear weapons outside of all this propaganda?

I suppose you're right, ceti. Who cares what Iran may or may not be doing or intending to do. Just let 'em be. They're good, peaceful folks, those ayatollahs, and, as you wisely noted, "Both Ahmedinejad and Khamenei said nuclear weapons are obscene." So, other than that, what could a person possibly need to understand Iran's good intentions?!?!

And, if Iran ends up with nukes? Well, good for them!! Iran is a small, poor country that needs them as a deterrent to attack. And if the nutcases that run Iran give nukes to non-state actors, well that's a very small price to pay to make sure Iran's sovereignty is honored.


From: Eleutherophobics of the World...Unite!!!!! | Registered: Jul 2005  |  IP: Logged
Le Téléspectateur
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 7126

posted 23 September 2007 11:05 AM      Profile for Le Téléspectateur     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
Sven - As I'm sure you know the ayatollahs, or nutcases as you prefer to call them, have no say on external affairs. They control what goes on inside of Iran.

You use orientalism and scary-Muslim propaganda combined with outright misrepresentations of how Iran functions to support the idea that they are ripe for US occupation.


From: More here than there | Registered: Oct 2004  |  IP: Logged
Sven
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 9972

posted 23 September 2007 11:40 AM      Profile for Sven     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
quote:
Originally posted by Le Téléspectateur:
Sven - As I'm sure you know the ayatollahs, or nutcases as you prefer to call them, have no say on external affairs. They control what goes on inside of Iran.

The ayatollahs have no influence on anything outside of the boundaries of Iran?

That is one of the more naïve things I’ve seen written on babble.


From: Eleutherophobics of the World...Unite!!!!! | Registered: Jul 2005  |  IP: Logged
Le Téléspectateur
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 7126

posted 23 September 2007 12:25 PM      Profile for Le Téléspectateur     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
From the Iranian constitution:

Article 76

The Islamic Consultative Assembly has the right to investigate and examine all the affairs of the country.

Article 77

International treaties, protocols, contracts, and agreements must be approved by the Islamic Consultative Assembly.

There's more there too if you're interested in reading it. Iran is not a dictatorship run by "nutcases". They have a legislative body that is elected. They even use proportional representation.

The citizenry of Iran was able to effect change through a revolution. In contrast we in Canada and the U.S. have been unable to rid ourselves of our dictators.

Your portrayal of Iran being run by religious "nutcases" willing to give out nukes to whatever extremist group drops by is inaccurate and racist.

Why don't you go to Iran before you start spreading propaganda to secure the murder of countless people?

Perhaps people should watch this again to prepare us for the coming onslaught of anti-Iran, anti-Persian, anti-Islam propaganda that will make us complicit in murder again.


From: More here than there | Registered: Oct 2004  |  IP: Logged
Sven
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 9972

posted 23 September 2007 12:33 PM      Profile for Sven     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
quote:
Originally posted by Le Téléspectateur:
Your portrayal of Iran being run by religious "nutcases" willing to give out nukes to whatever extremist group drops by is inaccurate and racist.

Criticizing Iran's leaders or calling them "nutcases" is "racist"?

Give your head a good hard shake.

[ 23 September 2007: Message edited by: Sven ]


From: Eleutherophobics of the World...Unite!!!!! | Registered: Jul 2005  |  IP: Logged
Sven
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 9972

posted 23 September 2007 12:45 PM      Profile for Sven     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
Yet, again getting back to the topic...

I wonder if the president of Columbia University is suffering from cognitive dissonance when (1) he fights to keep ROTC off of campus because of the military's "don't ask, don't tell" policy (which I agree is, at best, a stupid policy), yet (2) he invites the president of Iran to speak at campus, even though the Iranian regime executed gays simply for being gay?

[ 23 September 2007: Message edited by: Sven ]

[ 23 September 2007: Message edited by: Sven ]


From: Eleutherophobics of the World...Unite!!!!! | Registered: Jul 2005  |  IP: Logged
Le Téléspectateur
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 7126

posted 23 September 2007 01:55 PM      Profile for Le Téléspectateur     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
If you can't see the difference between someone giving a talk that you might not agree with and the military running a program on campus which openly discriminates then you are a nutcase.
From: More here than there | Registered: Oct 2004  |  IP: Logged
Le Téléspectateur
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 7126

posted 23 September 2007 02:02 PM      Profile for Le Téléspectateur     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
quote:
Criticizing Iran's leaders or calling them "nutcases" is "racist"?

No, characterizing the entire Iranian government as religious nutcases is though. And so is your unsupported claim that they are somehow more likely to give out nukes to terrorists than other white-western powers. Which country is it again that frequently uses "false-flag" missions? Oh, right. It's the same one that has the honour of being the only country found guilty of state terrorism by the UN.


From: More here than there | Registered: Oct 2004  |  IP: Logged
Sven
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 9972

posted 23 September 2007 02:04 PM      Profile for Sven     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
quote:
Originally posted by Le Téléspectateur:
If you can't see the difference between someone giving a talk that you might not agree with and the military running a program on campus which openly discriminates then you are a nutcase.

It's not just "someone giving a talk" but the president of a country that executes gays simply for being gay.

While the American military does openly discriminate against gays (and I think that's an incredibly stupid policy), that policy is, apparently, more egregious than the outright execution of gays.

(A) Columbia cannot have ROTC on campus because the American military, which ROTC represents, discriminates against gays.

(B) Columbia can have the president of Iran on campus even though the Iranian government, which he represents, executes against gays.

Go fuckin' figure...


From: Eleutherophobics of the World...Unite!!!!! | Registered: Jul 2005  |  IP: Logged
Sven
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 9972

posted 23 September 2007 02:07 PM      Profile for Sven     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
quote:
Originally posted by Le Téléspectateur:
No, characterizing the entire Iranian government as religious nutcases is though.

Characterizing them as “religious” nutcases is your characterization.

But, even if that were the proper characterization, the Iranian leaders’ religion has nothing to do with race.


From: Eleutherophobics of the World...Unite!!!!! | Registered: Jul 2005  |  IP: Logged
contrarianna
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 13058

posted 24 September 2007 10:08 AM      Profile for contrarianna     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
Sven:
Your nuclear fear-mongering places you squarely in the camp of the war-mongering neoconservatives whose "arguments" you repeat.

You use the same Ahmadinejad-Columbia-ROTC-gay meme that has been orchestrated by those great human rights advocates (cough) Bill Kristol, Dinish D'Souza and the (now Murdoch-owned) Wall Street Journal. You appear as part of that war-mongering crowd and against any dialog: including the Columbia talk with its question-and-answer session, a move that might help to defuse the wave of hatred promoted by the media.

As Juan Cole titled it,in Salon:
"Turning Ahmadinejad Into Public Enemy No. 1: Demonizing the Iranian president and making his visit to New York seem controversial is all part of the neoconservative push for yet another war."
Salon

If you are indeed part of the concerted effort to justify attacking Iran, admit it, and tell us how destroying Iran's infrastructure will help human rights which you claim to be interested in?

If not, tell us why you are repeating the neocon argument and what measures other than attacking Iran you have for encouraging change?

Secondly, the most celebrated "gay hanging" story--which you seem allude to as unequivocally "a country that executes gays simply for being gay"--was first reported as executions as the result of crime(s) including rape of a 13 year-old boy at knife point. Whether or not this was the case does not justify the hanging and beatings but the sequence of events was such that there was considerable doubt about the accuracy of later western reports that "simply gay" was the cause:

"Meanwhile, in light of evidence from within Iran that the teenagers were convicted of rape, international human rights groups like Amnesty International, Human Rights Watch (HRW) and the International Gay and Lesbian Human Rights Commission (IGLHRC) have urged organizations to refrain from casting the incident as a gay issue. While they leave open the possibility that Marhoni and Asgari were hanged simply for engaging in consensual homosexual sex, they have emphasized that the executions are a violation of the UN Convention on the Rights of the Child and the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights (Iran is a signatory to both), which prohibit the execution of minors."
The Nation--Witness to an execution

Whatever the truth here, there are very real major human rights abuses in Iran, legal and extralegal--including torture and death (one is tempted again to compare it with the offshore atrocities of the US but this is not an either/or situation: one set of abuses does not mitigate another set of abuses).

But I repeat:
If you are indeed part of the concerted effort to justify attacking Iran, admit it, and tell us how destroying Iran's infrastructure will help human rights which you claim to be interested in.

If not, tell us why you are repeating the neocon argument for war and what measures other than attacking Iran you have to suggest for encouraging change in that country--if it doesn't include the allowance of dialog--such as that offered by Columbia University?


From: here to inanity | Registered: Aug 2006  |  IP: Logged
N.Beltov
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 4140

posted 24 September 2007 10:14 AM      Profile for N.Beltov   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
Columbia Coalition Against the War (on Iran) - Open Letter
From: Vancouver Island | Registered: May 2003  |  IP: Logged
Sven
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 9972

posted 24 September 2007 11:08 AM      Profile for Sven     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
From NYTs:

quote:

In response to a question about the treatment of homosexuals in Iran, Mr. Ahmadinejad was initially evasive, instead talking about the death penalty, which, he pointed out, exists in the United States: “People who violate the laws by using guns, creating insecurity selling guns, distributing guns at a high level are sentenced to execution in Iran. Very few of these punishments are carried out in the public eye.”

Pressed by Dean Coatsworth on the original question about the rights of gay men and lesbians in Iran, Mr. Ahmadinejad said: “In Iran, we don’t have homosexuals like in your country. We don’t have that in our country.”

The audience booed and hissed loudly.

“In Iran, we do not have this phenomenon,” Mr. Ahmadinejad continued, undeterred. “I do not know who has told you that we have it. But as for women, maybe you think that maybe being a woman is a crime. It’s not a crime to be a woman. Women are the best creatures created by God. They represent the kindness, the beauty that God instills in them. Women are respected in Iran.”


Well, it's official: Iran has no homosexuals!!!

The Iranian president was able to neatly avoid discussing official treatment of gays and lesbians...because they don't have any gays or lesbians in Iran!!!

Uh-huh.

[ 24 September 2007: Message edited by: Sven ]


From: Eleutherophobics of the World...Unite!!!!! | Registered: Jul 2005  |  IP: Logged
contrarianna
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 13058

posted 24 September 2007 11:25 AM      Profile for contrarianna     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
Right Sven, the theocratic leader was, predictably, extremely evasive, (rather like your non-response to my questions).

I just saw the Ahmadinejad talk at Columbia (though finding a station without the speech being obliterated by an overtalking "helpful expert" wasn't easy). It seemed to me about 50% bullshit and 50% accurate (which compares favorable with the belicose war criminal leaders who regularly speak at US Universities with impunity).

Thanks to Beltov for the link. Here is the text.

"Open Letter to Progressive Opponents of Mahmoud Ahmadinejad
by The Columbia Coalition Against the War

As Columbia only very recently announced, Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad will be speaking in Roone Arledge auditorium this Monday. A number of students and student organizations have already announced plans for a protest rally the same day. We are not among them. We do not endorse Ahmadinejad or his views, many of which are inexcusable. However, as opponents of a US military strike against Iran, we have serious concerns with the content of some of the hostility that has been expressed to his presence, and specifically with the planned protest.

We fear the demonization of Ahmadinejad, because we think this demonization contributes to the likelihood of war. In the current climate, with many on the political right in the U.S. and Israel pushing for air strikes, a campaign against Ahmadinejad is dangerous, regardless of the intentions of most involved. A call to action, unless it prominently rules out war, implies military action.

A rally where each speaker denounces Ahmadinejad's reactionary policies and just a few call explicitly for military action will still be perceived, on campus and around the U.S., as pro-war. The right-wing media, from Fox News to the New York tabloids, has already jumped on the event, and will spin it to favor their cause. Conservative organizations with no affiliation to Columbia's campus, such as the David Project, have already signed on to the rally on Facebook, and are likely to distribute hundreds of warmongering flyers and picket signs. The rally will seem to be a sea of pro-war demonstrators -- and the more people who attend it and the more organizations that endorse it, the more powerful this disastrous message will be.

A U.S. attack on Iran, which is not an inevitability but is a real possibility, would have consequences just as terrible as the invasion of Iraq. Thousands would die in initial air strikes, and more in the resulting backlash and regional conflagration. The work of Iranian campaigners for free speech, women's rights, and lesbian and gay liberation, and against racism and anti-semitism, would be set back immeasurably. As Iranian Nobel Laureate Shirin Ebadi has pointed out, "Human rights are not established by throwing cluster bombs on people. You cannot introduce democracy to a country by using tanks."

There are other means for engagement with Iran than war, and other means for disagreement with Ahmadinejad than the planned protest. We call on those who do not support a war with Iran to be wary of the vilification of Ahmadinejad, to avoid Monday's rally, and to express vocally their opposition to military intervention.

Columbia Coalition Against the War
The Columbia Coalition Against the War's statement was made available at the Bwog (compiled by the staff of The Blue and White, Columbia University's undergraduate magazine) and Debate (an SA discussion list)."


From: here to inanity | Registered: Aug 2006  |  IP: Logged
ceti
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 7851

posted 24 September 2007 11:34 AM      Profile for ceti     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
We don't have to agree about a country's internal politics to defend it from being attacked and destroyed.

Would you go to war with the US because of its "anti-sodomy" laws? Or any other country for that matter?

All this warmongering is especially disgusting as we have liberals joining in the braying for blood. Then again, Imperialists have always need their high minded excuses for the slaughter of innocents.


From: various musings before the revolution | Registered: Jan 2005  |  IP: Logged
Sven
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 9972

posted 24 September 2007 11:38 AM      Profile for Sven     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
quote:
Originally posted by ceti:
We don't have to agree about a country's internal politics to defend it from being attacked and destroyed.

Is this thread about US foreign policy regarding Iran or is it about Columbia University inviting the president of Iran to speak on campus? If you want to have a discussion about the former, please feel free to start another thread topic.


From: Eleutherophobics of the World...Unite!!!!! | Registered: Jul 2005  |  IP: Logged
ceti
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 7851

posted 24 September 2007 11:45 AM      Profile for ceti     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
Ok, Sven, your thread is called cognitive dissonance, and then you tell people to shut up on YOUR thread, especially when you are spreading your warmongering propaganda here. You know you cannot go unchallenged for spining the topic this way, especially on an ostensibly "progressive" board.
From: various musings before the revolution | Registered: Jan 2005  |  IP: Logged
contrarianna
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 13058

posted 24 September 2007 11:46 AM      Profile for contrarianna     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
quote:
Originally posted by Sven:

Is this thread about US foreign policy regarding Iran or is it about Columbia University inviting the president of Iran to speak on campus? If you want to have a discussion about the former, please feel free to start another thread topic.



You made it about both gays and foreign policy (Iran as threat to Israel and nuclear power) from your very first (and subsequent) posts, Sven.
Now, to avoid my questions, you are trying to restrict it. Nice try.

From: here to inanity | Registered: Aug 2006  |  IP: Logged
Sven
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 9972

posted 24 September 2007 11:59 AM      Profile for Sven     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
quote:
Originally posted by ceti:
Ok, Sven, your thread is called cognitive dissonance, and then you tell people to shut up on YOUR thread, especially when you are spreading your warmongering propaganda here. You know you cannot go unchallenged for spining the topic this way, especially on an ostensibly "progressive" board.

The Iranian president and the regime he represents is caustically anti-GLBT. That is certainly no justification for invading Iran...and I’ve never said it is.

So how, pray tell me, am I "warmongering"?

Can we at least agree on this (to use Michelle’s words): The Iranian president is a homophobic idiot?

ETA: I have also criticized the American military for it's stupid "don't ask, don't tell" policy.

[ 24 September 2007: Message edited by: Sven ]


From: Eleutherophobics of the World...Unite!!!!! | Registered: Jul 2005  |  IP: Logged
Sven
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 9972

posted 24 September 2007 12:03 PM      Profile for Sven     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
quote:
Originally posted by contrarianna:
You made it about both gays and foreign policy (Iran as threat to Israel and nuclear power) from your very first (and subsequent) posts, Sven.
Now, to avoid my questions, you are trying to restrict it. Nice try.

I didn’t make it about both gays and foreign policy. Other posters brought that up the issue of foreign policy. And, I have repeatedly said, in effect, “Let’s get back to the subject of Columbia University.”

ETA:

quote:
Originally posted by Sven:
Back to Columbia University...

[ 24 September 2007: Message edited by: Sven ]


From: Eleutherophobics of the World...Unite!!!!! | Registered: Jul 2005  |  IP: Logged
arborman
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 4372

posted 24 September 2007 12:13 PM      Profile for arborman     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
quote:
Originally posted by Sven:
[QB]
Can we at least agree on this (to use Michelle’s words): The Iranian president is a homophobic idiot?


No problem, he's also anti-Jewish and a bit of a lunatic. That said, he has no decision making power in foreign relations, no power of nuclear policy, and no control of the military (police excluded). On top of that, he's doing a lousy job with the Iranian domestic economy (which is his job), and is likely to be turfed by the Iranian people in the next election.

If it were another country that wasn't on the enemy of the month list, it would be comparable to Guatemala's Minister of Human Resources making threats against Canada's right to exist. Everyone would write him/her off as a loony and wait for the next election, or just ignore him altogether.

He is doing his level best to distract the Iranian public from his dreadful track record by ratcheting up the wingnutty rhetoric, in much the same way Bush tries to use 'foreign scary people' to distract the American public from his pathetic domestic record (except Bush actually has some influence & control over foreign policy, as opposed to Ahmadinejad).

So his loony rhetoric is actually focused on a domestic audience, for the most part (given he has not actual ability to do anything he threatens, and no role in the decision making). He is doing a good job of playing up the external threat, and the external threat is playing right along by getting their knickers in a twist. So Ahmadenijad says something offensive, the US and others rattle their sabres, and the Iranian people rally behind their leaders - like citizens of any country would.

And in a relatively irrelevant side effect, people like Sven buy right into it and get all worked up as well.


From: I'm a solipsist - isn't everyone? | Registered: Aug 2003  |  IP: Logged
contrarianna
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 13058

posted 24 September 2007 12:32 PM      Profile for contrarianna     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
quote:
Originally posted by Sven:

I didn’t make it about both gays and foreign policy. Other posters brought that up the issue of foreign policy. And, I have repeatedly said, in effect, “Let’s get back to the subject of Columbia University.”
[ 24 September 2007: Message edited by: Sven ]

Give it up Sven.
You were obviously trying to make a point when you quoted in your first post:
"Mahmoud Ahmadinejad has his doubts about whether the Holocaust happened. He thinks the Jewish state should be wiped off the map. His regime funnels sophisticated munitions to Shiite militias in Iraq, who use them to kill American soldiers."

You happily fear-mongered at great length about Iran's nuclear threat without any prompting.

If you think the right-wing neocon attack on Columbia(which you parrot exactly) for the sin allowing Ahmadinejad to speak was really about concern for gays and not agitating for war, you are living in a dream world.
But it's clear you DO know that from your scurrying from my questions (and now a denial that they can even be asked in this thread).

Therefore, for the third time I repeat my questions:
If you are indeed part of the concerted effort to justify attacking Iran, admit it, and tell us how destroying Iran's infrastructure will help human rights which you claim to be interested in.

If not, tell us why you are repeating the neocon argument for war and what measures other than attacking Iran you have to suggest for encouraging change in that country--if it doesn't include the allowance of dialog--such as that offered by Columbia University?


From: here to inanity | Registered: Aug 2006  |  IP: Logged
quelar
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 2739

posted 24 September 2007 12:54 PM      Profile for quelar     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
The Star report on the visit.

quote:
He said Ahmadinejad's denial of the Holocaust might fool the illiterate and ignorant.

"When you come to a place like this it makes you simply ridiculous," Bollinger said. "The truth is that the Holocaust is the most documented event in human history."


So when you attack someone with stupid rhetoric like this, no wonder some people begin to side with him. None of us here are deniers of any sort, but it's certainly NOT the most documented event in human history. The statement removes any credibility from this guy and sounds like he's reading from the white house press release.

In addition..

quote:
Ahmadinejad told the National Press Club that his questioning of the Holocaust was based on his concern that it was used to justify Israeli oppression of the Palestinians.

Not exactly a 'denial' statement, more of an 'effects of' statement.

In regards to the Nuclear weapons statement, can I remind you of two quotes.

quote:
The U.N. nuclear watchdog chief of IAEA is warning no military action should be taken against Ir**, and that threats of war are premature and counterproductive.

"Ir** does not constitute a certain and immediate threat for the international community"


quote:
"With our verification system now in place, barring exceptional circumstances, and provided there is sustained proactive cooperation by Ir**, we should be able within the next few months to provide credible assurance that Ir** has no nuclear weapons programme,"

Any guesses which countries are being talked about here? Anyone remember how the first one turned out?

All that aside, it was pointed out earlier that he's little more than a figurehead and doesn't have the ability to do all the terrible things everyone says he does without the proper government approval. As well, since the 'axis of evil' statement the US has only accomplished one thing in Iran, and that's the quelling of the more moderate progressive movement in Iran in favour of the nutjobs.


From: In Dig Nation | Registered: Jun 2002  |  IP: Logged
Parkdale High Park
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 11667

posted 24 September 2007 01:04 PM      Profile for Parkdale High Park     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
You can add Canadians to Mahmoud's hitlist!

http://www.canada.com/nationalpost/news/story.html?id=468774c8-2298-4e9e-84d7-9cb948889aee&k=18430

Also the charge that people are war-mongering by criticizing a terrible regime is ridiculous. Criticisms that would be completely valid if said 20 years ago, are not untrue because of the prospect of war?

I know it is off-topic, but I should add that the present bluster about war with Iran is almost certainly a bluff (surgical air-strikes are a maybe, those are easy). Western troops are tied down in Iraq and Afghanistan, and western publics distinctly anti-war, even in the US.

A poll taken recently in the US (http://www.pollingreport.com/iran.htm) had the following subdivisions of opinion on how to contain Iran:
Military action - 9%
Diplomacy - 59%
Not a threat - 24%

Ironically successful deterrence (which would probably be aided by the adoption of jingoism across the land) will probably make war LESS likely.


From: Toronto | Registered: Jan 2006  |  IP: Logged
Parkdale High Park
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 11667

posted 24 September 2007 01:09 PM      Profile for Parkdale High Park     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
Oh, I do question that Iran is run by nutcases though. What action of the state of Iran suggests its leaders are crazy or irrational? Why wouldn't a weak state with designs of regional hegemony (and newfound opportunity to drive for that without a strong Iraq, and with an increasingly isolationist US public) try to acquire nuclear weapons, insulating it from potential US attack?

Why wouldn't a state in that seeks hegemony in a region populated by people that are not keen on the existence of Israel deny the holocaust (which is an important part of the reasoning as to why Jews need a homeland)?

Moreover, why wouldn't an oil-rich state seek to stir the pot in the middle east (given that instability is great for oil prices)?


From: Toronto | Registered: Jan 2006  |  IP: Logged
remind
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 6289

posted 24 September 2007 01:44 PM      Profile for remind     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
quote:
Originally posted by Sven:
Columbia University's president has invited Mahmoud Ahmadinejad, Iran's president, to speak at the university next Monday.

This per an editorial in the WSJ:

Originally posted by remind:
Mahmoud Ahmadinejad has his doubts about whether the Holocaust happened. He thinks the Jewish state should be wiped off the map. His regime funnels sophisticated munitions to Shiite militias in Iraq, who use them to kill American soldiers.
Oh, and by the way, his regime also executes homosexuals for the crime of being themselves. Maybe if Columbia University President Lee Bollinger were aware of the latter fact he would reconsider his invitation to the Iranian president to speak on his campus next Monday.

Mr. Bollinger, notoriously, voted in 2005 not to readmit an ROTC program to Columbia (absent from the university since 1969), ostensibly on the grounds of the military's "don't ask, don't tell" policy regarding gay service members.

I think the "don't ask, don't tell" policy is archaic (it's only redeeming quality is that it is marginally better than the military's prior policy). But, it's long past the time to take the next step and treat gays like any other human being.

But, lemme see. What's more egregious, hanging gays or not letting them serve in the military? Hmmmm...[mentally weighing the two alternatives]

[ 21 September 2007: Message edited by: Sven ]


Why the hell do you have my name in this thread as if you are rerplying to something I said/wrote, and why as a quote from the WJS?


From: "watching the tide roll away" | Registered: Jun 2004  |  IP: Logged
arborman
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 4372

posted 24 September 2007 02:38 PM      Profile for arborman     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
quote:

I know it is off-topic, but I should add that the present bluster about war with Iran is almost certainly a bluff (surgical air-strikes are a maybe, those are easy).

Easy unless they, you know, decide to fight back...

quote:
Western troops are tied down in Iraq and Afghanistan, and western publics distinctly anti-war, even in the US.

Yes, which is why a president who has no interest in re-election might want to make the war a fait accompli prior to leaving.


quote:
Ironically successful deterrence (which would probably be aided by the adoption of jingoism across the land) will probably make war LESS likely.

Um, no. You see, Iran isn't building nuclear weapons, so deterrence is somewhat beside the point. They are signatories to the anti-proliferation treaty, just like Canada, and have never gone beyond or even approached the limits of that treaty. And if they did, it would not be the president who made that decision - it is not in his jurisdiction.

However, if we were to increase jingoism across the lang we would likely give them yet another good reason to pursue nuclear weapons - because it is a trump card, and those who have them do not get invaded as a rule.

And given that, as you say, the US and the rest could not actually invade Iran anytime soon, jingoism combined with impotence is a dangerous combination. Iranian leaders aren't stupid, they have been paying attention to the war in Iraq. They know the US military can't attack anybody right now, and they know the US economy can't risk a shutdown of the oil supply (which would be the immediate effect of air strikes). So they have some time to build those weapons, if the west keeps threatening them.

Again (and again and again), the president of Iran has no decision making power when it comes to foreign relations and/or nuclear policy. He's just a domestic leader, and a pretty poor one at that. He was elected in part because the moderates were discredited after Bush's moronic Axis of Evil speech, and it is his only talking point. He needs us to keep rattling our sabres, or he'll be replaced by someone else next election.


From: I'm a solipsist - isn't everyone? | Registered: Aug 2003  |  IP: Logged
ohara
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 7961

posted 24 September 2007 06:31 PM      Profile for ohara        Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
When it is reported that this fool said:

quote:
"If the Holocaust is a reality of our time, a history that occurred, why is there not sufficient research that can approach the topic from different perspectives?" he asked.

CNN

(Ya ya its CNN...does anyone have an alternate translation...the same was reported earlier by the NYTimes I believe)


IF its a "reality" of our time??? And there are some here still trying to claim he isnt a denier?? How else does one interpret such a statement. Enough already with excuses. Those who excuse him ought to be ashamed totally ashamed. This has nothing to do with Mid-East politics. It has to do with a fucking anti-Semite. That some here defend him should infuriate us all.

From: Ottawa | Registered: Jan 2005  |  IP: Logged
Stockholm
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 3138

posted 24 September 2007 07:51 PM      Profile for Stockholm     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
So let me get this straight. Are some people here trying to say that because the US MIGHT invade Iran down the road, we all have to bend over backwards to avoid mentioning or criticizing Iran's viciously homophobic and misogynistic domestic policies?

Does opposing a US invasion of Iran mean that we have to turn a blind eye to the oppression of women and gays in Iran? Do we have to be apologists for this murderous regime?

Should we start picketing in front of the homes of the children of Zahra Kazemi in Montreal and tell them to shut the fuck up about how their mother was tortured to death by the Iranian government because we don't want to discuss anything that makes Iran look bad???


From: Toronto | Registered: Sep 2002  |  IP: Logged
Parkdale High Park
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 11667

posted 24 September 2007 11:33 PM      Profile for Parkdale High Park     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
"Um, no. You see, Iran isn't building nuclear weapons, so deterrence is somewhat beside the point."

Then they will happily submit to inspections? Every western country is absolutely wrong on this one (it isn't just the US)? They have an existing uranium enrichment program. Now I know you are going to bring up the Iraqi situation - the west was wrong in its belief that Iraq had weapons of mass destruction, but there was a reason.

Iraq had an incentive to make the world believe it had WMD's in order to deter Iran. Submission to weapons inspections would have revealed that they had nada and opened them up to potential attack.

"They are signatories to the anti-proliferation treaty, just like Canada"
...and for a good while North Korea, India and Pakistan... until they, you know, developed nuclear weapons.

"However, if we were to increase jingoism across the lang we would likely give them yet another good reason to pursue nuclear weapons"

I am saying that we (if you consider the US "we") already did that, and Iranian pursuit of nuclear weapons is already happening. I don't think that, given the intelligence failure in the first instance, every major western democracy - many of whom are straining over the conflict in Iraq and Afghanistan - really WANTS to risk a crisis over nothing. Bush may not be up for re-election, but he cares about history. He lacks the political capital for brinkmanship with Iran, and risks throwing gasoline on the fires of isolationism - increasing the rapid full withdrawal from Iraq by whoever comes after him... guess how that is going to make him look (bad, we are looking for bad)?

"They know the US military can't attack anybody right now, and they know the US economy can't risk a shutdown of the oil supply (which would be the immediate effect of air strikes). So they have some time to build those weapons, if the west keeps threatening them."

The west can definitely do sanctions, and they can probably get away with air-strikes. You seem to think that the rest of the middle east loves Iran. Arab sunnis probably wouldn't care one way or another if the US initiated air-strikes against Iran. Oil prices will go up, but if the past few years are evidence of anything, they show that the economy is pretty resilient in the face of shortages.

"Again (and again and again), the president of Iran has no decision making power when it comes to foreign relations and/or nuclear policy..."

This is entirely true. In fact he has been rebuked by the ayatollah for his brinkmanship, and can't even let women go to stadiums. However, I haven't been basing anything on the "unstable dictator" argument.

Here is what I think is happening:
1. Iran has designs on regional hegemony. This does not mean domination of the middle east - if there is any lesson to be had from Israel, it is that it is a real bitch to deal with conquered minorities. An Iranian-dominated Iraq, however is a distinct possibility. Note the development of force projection capability - even the beginnings of a native military aircraft industry.

2. The US (and world) demonstrated in 1991 that "this will not stand" - bids for regional hegemony are viewed negatively by the powers that be.

3. Iranian nuclear weapons are the only way to insulate Iran from US attack. That they might also deter potential Israeli or Pakistani nuclear attacks is an additional perk. Not surprisingly, Iran is pursuing the development of nuclear weapons. Moreover, given that the US seems highly prone to accuse Iran of nuclear development, and has demonstrated a willingness to go to war to prevent proliferation, Iran has a limited window of time (as long as the US is bogged down in Iraq... okay, maybe a big window) in which it can secure itself from future invasion - guess how you do that.

4. Things were going fairly well, until a relatively unknown mayor of Tehran became president and started spewing a lot of crap in order to strengthen his domestic base of power (ie. the religious left), when Iran should be biding its time for the Iraq pullout/civil war/installation of an Iranian-backed regime.

5. The solution: without Iraq, Iranian hegemony in the middle east is essentially inevitable. No other state has the population or resources to stand against Iran. The US should accommodate Iran, and accept Iranian regional hegemony, contingent on some modicum of acceptance of Israel's right to exist. The accommodation/do nothing approach has been phenomenally successful - as in the case of Egypt, which went from an enemy of the US, to a fairly good ally.

Munich gave appeasement a bad name, but most appraisals missed the reason for appeasement. The western democracies were not ready to fight in 1938, while the German economy was overheating. I have no doubts that a war over Czecholslovakia would have been an unmitigated disaster.

Iran's ability to have the kind of economic growth and technological catchup necessary to challenge the US just isn't going to happen. The main threat to American hegemony comes from China, and indeed, it might be valuable to have an oil-rich ally dominating the middle east, if you are interested in slowing the growth of an oil-poor country like China (especially as Chinese growth is very resource-intensive).


From: Toronto | Registered: Jan 2006  |  IP: Logged
ceti
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 7851

posted 25 September 2007 12:17 AM      Profile for ceti     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
It does mean to get some goddamn perspective and stop being so selective with your self-righteousness. While you might despise Iran's regime, that doesn't mean joining the neo-con chorus that is just NOW building up public opinion for another even more disastrous war.

It's all too easy to stir up the latent islamophobia and liberal indignation (explosive but completely false charges of anti-semitism to boot), into the worst scourge of the moment that has already claimed hundreds of thousands of innocent lives.


From: various musings before the revolution | Registered: Jan 2005  |  IP: Logged
Cueball
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 4790

posted 25 September 2007 12:30 AM      Profile for Cueball   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
I think you should both stand back a bit and look at what the other is saying.

I really think that PDHP realpolitik analysis is pretty good, and he is not just ringing the bell of moral censure.


From: Out from under the bridge and out for a stroll | Registered: Dec 2003  |  IP: Logged
Cueball
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 4790

posted 25 September 2007 12:52 AM      Profile for Cueball   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
quote:
Washington is also unhappy with Mohammad ElBaradei, head of the International Atomic Energy Agency. He has been unable to find credible evidence that Iran has a weapons program, and he told Italian television this week, "Iran does not constitute a certain and immediate threat for the international community." He stressed that no evidence had been found for underground production sites or hidden radioactive substances, and he urged a three-month waiting period before the U.N. Security Council drew negative conclusions.

Juan Cole


From: Out from under the bridge and out for a stroll | Registered: Dec 2003  |  IP: Logged
contrarianna
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 13058

posted 25 September 2007 02:51 AM      Profile for contrarianna     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
quote:
Originally posted by Stockholm:
So let me get this straight. Are some people here trying to say that...

Your strawmen are choking on your diet of red herrings.

[ 25 September 2007: Message edited by: contrarianna ]


From: here to inanity | Registered: Aug 2006  |  IP: Logged
pogge
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 2440

posted 25 September 2007 06:24 AM      Profile for pogge   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
Ezra Klein making sense:

quote:
... we're letting Ahmadinejad win this game. America's dodging his invitations to talk, growing hysterical over his requests to lay a wreath at Ground Zero, and interviewing him in a way that makes our press look like White House puppets. This makes us look bad, not him.

It's not often mentioned, but the rest of the world does not evaluate all international interactions from a starting premise that America is right and its motivations pure. We actually have to convince them of that, particularly in the post-Iraq era. And we're failing. We're abetting Ahmadinejad's attempts to project a hugely disingenuous version of himself through our megaphone. Without us, he's in trouble: He's domestically unpopular, and fundamentally without a platform. With our opposition and apparent hatred for Tehran, he's Iran's champion against America, and he's outwitting us in the court of world opinion.


What's that you say? Back to Columbia University? Certainly. At least long enough to point out that American legislators want to punish Columbia for allowing Ahmadinejad to speak. There's your cognitive dissonance. The land of the free and the home of the brave punishing a university for allowing someone with unpopular views to express them.


From: Why is this a required field? | Registered: Mar 2002  |  IP: Logged
arborman
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 4372

posted 25 September 2007 07:46 AM      Profile for arborman     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
quote:
Originally posted by ohara:
When it is reported that this fool said:

IF its a "reality" of our time??? And there are some here still trying to claim he isnt a denier?? How else does one interpret such a statement. Enough already with excuses. Those who excuse him ought to be ashamed totally ashamed. This has nothing to do with Mid-East politics. It has to do with a fucking anti-Semite. That some here defend him should infuriate us all.


Ok, I agree, he's a denier. Nobody is defending him, it's just that the rest of us don't see him as a looming threat to the world - because he has no control over military assets of any kind. So he's a blowhard denier who is going to lose the next election, and then he'll be a has been. Why do you want to make him a martyr?


From: I'm a solipsist - isn't everyone? | Registered: Aug 2003  |  IP: Logged
Sven
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 9972

posted 25 September 2007 07:46 AM      Profile for Sven     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
quote:
Originally posted by pogge:
Back to Columbia University? Certainly. At least long enough to point out that American legislators want to punish Columbia for allowing Ahmadinejad to speak. There's your cognitive dissonance. The land of the free and the home of the brave punishing a university for allowing someone with unpopular views to express them.

Those few legislators are morons...and little, if anything, will come of their pronouncements. Will donors to Columbia University tighten their purse strings? Maybe, but that’s separate from punitive government action. Being pretty much a free-speech purist, I don’t think stupidity should not be subject to government punishment.


From: Eleutherophobics of the World...Unite!!!!! | Registered: Jul 2005  |  IP: Logged
Coyote
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 4881

posted 25 September 2007 03:40 PM      Profile for Coyote   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
quote:
Originally posted by ohara:

This has nothing to do with Mid-East politics. It has to do with a fucking anti-Semite. That some here defend him should infuriate us all.

Can we say the same of Avigdor Lieberman, then? To what sites should he be forbidden access?

From: O’ for a good life, we just might have to weaken. | Registered: Jan 2004  |  IP: Logged
Coyote
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 4881

posted 25 September 2007 03:45 PM      Profile for Coyote   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
I think the Mahmoud Ahmadinejad is a sabre-rattling jerk, and believe me I agree with those here who utterly condemned that putrid excuse for a conference he hosted an reveled in. Asshole. But hyperbole from the Israeli Ambassador to the US, stating that he "denies the last Holocaust while preparing for the next" is dangerous and irresponsible.

The wild thing is, only in the US could they manage to so bungle his visit as to make him look even the teensiest bit sympathetic. Why couldn't those on stage remained neutral and let him squirm on the questions to which he SHOULD squirm, coming from the audience, without making it look like a pile-on from the start?


From: O’ for a good life, we just might have to weaken. | Registered: Jan 2004  |  IP: Logged
kropotkin1951
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 2732

posted 25 September 2007 04:08 PM      Profile for kropotkin1951   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
Some words on homosexuality from a great Amerikan jurist.
quote:
“Many Americans do not want persons who openly engage in homosexual conduct as partners in their business, as scoutmasters for their children, as teachers in their children’s schools, or as boarders in their home. They view this as protecting themselves and their families from a lifestyle that they believe to be immoral and destructive.”
—Justice Antonin Scalia in his dissent.


Anti-sodomy laws overturned in Amerika not in 1903 but 2003Sven I do find it interesting that they let the Iranian speak when if one of their own students had asked a billigerant question they would have taesered him.


From: North of Manifest Destiny | Registered: Jun 2002  |  IP: Logged
Stockholm
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 3138

posted 25 September 2007 06:21 PM      Profile for Stockholm     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
Why doesn't Canada demand that Ahmedinejad be extradited to Canada and stand trial for the torture and murder of Zarah Khazemi. I think he should be sent to Millhaven for his complicity in her murder.

Or do some people think that he was justified in having her killed?


From: Toronto | Registered: Sep 2002  |  IP: Logged
Cueball
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 4790

posted 25 September 2007 06:32 PM      Profile for Cueball   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
One reason might be that Canada does not have laws that recognize retroactive collective responsibility as a legal principle. For instance we could no try George Bush for the crimes of Henry Kissinger.

But, uhh, keep on spinning...


From: Out from under the bridge and out for a stroll | Registered: Dec 2003  |  IP: Logged
pogge
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 2440

posted 25 September 2007 06:32 PM      Profile for pogge   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
quote:
Originally posted by Stockholm:
Or do some people think that he was justified in having her killed?

Did Wal-Mart have a special on straw men today?

[ 25 September 2007: Message edited by: pogge ]


From: Why is this a required field? | Registered: Mar 2002  |  IP: Logged
Coyote
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 4881

posted 25 September 2007 06:43 PM      Profile for Coyote   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
Stockholm buys bulk at Costco - sure it's a lot of straw, but think of the savings!
From: O’ for a good life, we just might have to weaken. | Registered: Jan 2004  |  IP: Logged
ohara
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 7961

posted 25 September 2007 07:18 PM      Profile for ohara        Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
quote:
Originally posted by Coyote:
Can we say the same of Avigdor Lieberman, then? To what sites should he be forbidden access?

I have never defended Lieberman.

From: Ottawa | Registered: Jan 2005  |  IP: Logged
Sven
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 9972

posted 25 September 2007 07:19 PM      Profile for Sven     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
quote:
Originally posted by kropotkin1951:
Anti-sodomy laws overturned in Amerika not in 1903 but 2003

Unfortunately, there is homophobia, to varying degrees, in all countries. And, I think that bans on SSM in America represent terrible examples of that.

Does that mean that the extreme and vicious treatment of GLBT in Iran is, therefore, beyond criticism by Americans...at least those who believe that GLBT should be treated like everyone else?


From: Eleutherophobics of the World...Unite!!!!! | Registered: Jul 2005  |  IP: Logged
Coyote
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 4881

posted 25 September 2007 07:23 PM      Profile for Coyote   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
quote:
Originally posted by ohara:

I have never defended Lieberman.


Okay. Netanyahu?

From: O’ for a good life, we just might have to weaken. | Registered: Jan 2004  |  IP: Logged
Cueball
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 4790

posted 25 September 2007 07:54 PM      Profile for Cueball   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
I'll see your Netanyahu, and raise you a Sharon.
From: Out from under the bridge and out for a stroll | Registered: Dec 2003  |  IP: Logged
Coyote
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 4881

posted 25 September 2007 08:02 PM      Profile for Coyote   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
Well, he's not likely to be visiting anywhere at all any time soon, now is he?
From: O’ for a good life, we just might have to weaken. | Registered: Jan 2004  |  IP: Logged
Cueball
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 4790

posted 25 September 2007 08:10 PM      Profile for Cueball   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
Perhaps Amedinejad would have come off better in the media if the DND wrote his speeches just like they do for the President of Afghanistan. One really has to wonder where all the hard hitting question on the rights of gay people in Afghanistan were when he was in Ottawa a while back?

Were not Canadian troops handling overall security for the prison in Khandahar where gay prisoners were being kept along with women in "protective" custody for having run away from their husbands?

[ 25 September 2007: Message edited by: Cueball ]


From: Out from under the bridge and out for a stroll | Registered: Dec 2003  |  IP: Logged
Stockholm
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 3138

posted 26 September 2007 04:57 AM      Profile for Stockholm     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
Let's put Karzai and Ahmedinejad in a prison cell together and use toothpicks to force them to keep their eyes open while forcing them to watch 96 hours worth of hard core gay pornography - then ask them if they still think homosexuality doesn't exist.

From the stories I've heard about the vast amount of gay sex that goes in the Muslim world partly because women are so unavailable, I'm sure they have both had lots of man on man action in their lives that they want to try to pretend never happened.

Getting back to Zarah Kazemi, why do you think Ahmedinejad ordered that she be murdered? We know about her murder because she has family in Canada that have kept her case publiscized. Imagine how many Iranians he has killed every day that we never hear about because they don't have family in the west to publicize their disappearance and death.

[ 26 September 2007: Message edited by: Stockholm ]


From: Toronto | Registered: Sep 2002  |  IP: Logged
quelar
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 2739

posted 26 September 2007 05:37 AM      Profile for quelar     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
quote:
Originally posted by Stockholm:
[QB]

Getting back to Zarah Kazemi, why do you think Ahmedinejad ordered that she be murdered?
/QB]


Please provide proof that Ahmedinejad ordered her death please.


From: In Dig Nation | Registered: Jun 2002  |  IP: Logged
Stockholm
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 3138

posted 26 September 2007 05:51 AM      Profile for Stockholm     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
He was President and he refuses to admit that she was murdered despite a gigantic weight of evidence. if he didn't her himself or order that she be killed, then why doesn't he apologize to her family offer to give them $100 million in restitution and pledge to find who killed her and have that person charged.
From: Toronto | Registered: Sep 2002  |  IP: Logged
quelar
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 2739

posted 26 September 2007 06:25 AM      Profile for quelar     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
So the US should be asking for Sharon's extradition over Rachel Corrie's death?

Canada should be asking for Bush's extradition over Maher Arar's torture?

Most world leaders have one or two 'crimes' on their hands that they refuse to acknowledge, so until you start with those in your own country it's hypocritical to focus on just one leader of one country simply because you seem to want to believe the US media lies.


From: In Dig Nation | Registered: Jun 2002  |  IP: Logged
Stockholm
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 3138

posted 26 September 2007 06:27 AM      Profile for Stockholm     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
Do you think its a lie that Zarah Kazemi was tortured to death by the Iranian secret police? Do you want to phone her children in Montreal and tell them that you think their mothers' death was a propaganda hoax cooked up by the CIA?

[ 26 September 2007: Message edited by: Stockholm ]


From: Toronto | Registered: Sep 2002  |  IP: Logged
Paul Gross
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 3576

posted 26 September 2007 07:10 AM      Profile for Paul Gross   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
Stockholm, the point that Cueball and others are trying to make is that Ahmadinejad was elected Mayor of Tehran in May 2003, prior to that he was a professor. So depending on when his term started, he was either a professor or newly installed mayor when Kazemi was murdered in July 2003. There are plenty of legitimate things to blame Ahmadinejad for, you don't have to make shit up.

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

(Oh, I see you already discovered this because it looks like you edited your post to remove the claim that Ahmadinejad was president when Kazemi was killed.)


From: central Centretown in central Canada | Registered: Jan 2003  |  IP: Logged
Stockholm
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 3138

posted 26 September 2007 07:23 AM      Profile for Stockholm     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
So why won't Ahmedinejad apologize for the death of Kazemi and offer her family millions of dollars and call an inquiry to find out why his government had her murdered. Even the British apologised and offered compensation when they killed that Brazilian man.

BTW: Does anyone think that Zarah Kazemi was the only person tortured and killed by the Iranian government over the past three years?


From: Toronto | Registered: Sep 2002  |  IP: Logged
Cueball
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 4790

posted 26 September 2007 07:29 AM      Profile for Cueball   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
Why don't you appologize for the ignorant slur? Because it is impolitic to do so, of course.
From: Out from under the bridge and out for a stroll | Registered: Dec 2003  |  IP: Logged
N.Beltov
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 4140

posted 26 September 2007 07:38 AM      Profile for N.Beltov   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
Give Ahmedinejad a chance to apologize and pay restitution. Say, about as long as it took the Canadian government to pay restitution for the thousands of victims of residential school atrocities and associated cultural genocide.

Whoops! I forgot. The federal government still hasn't apologized and wants to wait another five years, at least, before doing so. Imagine that.

quote:
"I stand here for numerous victims whose stories will never be told, whose remains are scattered across our land in unmarked graves, scars on the land and even larger scars on our nation's psyche," he said.

"According to some reports, students in the early to middle part of the last century often had to help bury their classmates, their friends, their relatives. Yes, children buried children."


House apologizes but the government won't


From: Vancouver Island | Registered: May 2003  |  IP: Logged
quelar
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 2739

posted 26 September 2007 08:22 AM      Profile for quelar     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
By touting the neo-con line like Stockholm seems to want to do with every counter-american group in the middle east it's doing NOTHING but play into the hands of the war mongerers.

Iran has a terrible history of human rights abuses. Same thing with the US. Same thing with Canada. Same thing with just about every country in the world. They've done terrible things, yes. So have a lot of other people.

By pushing him further and further away from a reasonable dialogue you're putting more and more people in danger. Before the Axis of Evil denotation Iran was moving into a moderate centrist position, but all the progress that was made in the late 90's and early 00's was completely blown away by this sabre rattling of ignorant people, and in fact likely led to the crackdown of foreign reporters that ended in the death of Kazami


From: In Dig Nation | Registered: Jun 2002  |  IP: Logged
EmmaG
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 12605

posted 26 September 2007 08:25 AM      Profile for EmmaG        Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
quote:
Originally posted by quelar:
By touting the neo-con line like Stockholm seems to want to do with every counter-american group in the middle east it's doing NOTHING but play into the hands of the war mongerers.

Iran has a terrible history of human rights abuses. Same thing with the US. Same thing with Canada. Same thing with just about every country in the world. They've done terrible things, yes. So have a lot of other people.

By pushing him further and further away from a reasonable dialogue you're putting more and more people in danger. Before the Axis of Evil denotation Iran was moving into a moderate centrist position, but all the progress that was made in the late 90's and early 00's was completely blown away by this sabre rattling of ignorant people, and in fact likely led to the crackdown of foreign reporters that ended in the death of Kazami



are you honestly comparing Canada's human rights situation with Iran's?


From: nova scotia | Registered: May 2006  |  IP: Logged
N.Beltov
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 4140

posted 26 September 2007 08:31 AM      Profile for N.Beltov   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
A bombing campaign won't help Iranian queers. Laser-guided missiles raining down on Tabriz or Tehran won't improve the status of women in that country. And we know from our own experience that war and the preparations for it also implies domestic repression. The key fact about Iran in the world today is that it is the target of war propaganda in which there is open, public discussion in the US about which citie to bomb, how long such a campaign would take, and so on.

It's irresponsible, and I would say immoral, not to put the prevention of war as the highest priority, above everything else. Some folks just don't get it, however.


From: Vancouver Island | Registered: May 2003  |  IP: Logged
Stockholm
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 3138

posted 26 September 2007 08:33 AM      Profile for Stockholm     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
The good news is that by all accounts Ahmedinejad is very, very unpopular within Iran as a result of his totally failed economic policies. he is likely to lose the next election and hopefully someone more moderate and less of a fascist will replace him...not that it will matter much since almost all power in Iran rests with the mullahs and the elected President is really just a powerless figurehead.
From: Toronto | Registered: Sep 2002  |  IP: Logged
pookie
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 11357

posted 26 September 2007 08:46 AM      Profile for pookie     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
quote:
Originally posted by Stockholm:
The good news is that by all accounts Ahmedinejad is very, very unpopular within Iran as a result of his totally failed economic policies. he is likely to lose the next election and hopefully someone more moderate and less of a fascist will replace him...not that it will matter much since almost all power in Iran rests with the mullahs and the elected President is really just a powerless figurehead.


Well, his latest experience seems to have garnered him some sympathy.

Iranians bothered by rude treatment


From: there's no "there" there | Registered: Dec 2005  |  IP: Logged
Cueball
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 4790

posted 26 September 2007 09:01 AM      Profile for Cueball   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
quote:
Originally posted by N.Beltov:
Give Ahmedinejad a chance to apologize and pay restitution. Say, about as long as it took the Canadian government to pay restitution for the thousands of victims of residential school atrocities and associated cultural genocide.

Whoops! I forgot. The federal government still hasn't apologized and wants to wait another five years, at least, before doing so. Imagine that.

House apologizes but the government won't


I was wondering if any cops went down for Dudley George or if Mike Harris appologized yet?


From: Out from under the bridge and out for a stroll | Registered: Dec 2003  |  IP: Logged
N.Beltov
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 4140

posted 26 September 2007 09:27 AM      Profile for N.Beltov   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
quote:
Cueball: I was wondering if any cops went down for Dudley George or if Mike Harris appologized yet?

Since money is the measure of sincerity in this society, I would say that Harris "sincerely" apologized:

quote:
In October 2003, George's family settled a civil suit against Harris and several members of his former cabinet. Confident that the Liberals would call an inquiry, the family also accepted a $100,000 settlement from provincial police, plus undetermined legal costs.

The policeman who shot Dudley George , OPP sniper Kenneth Deane, resigned from the force in 2002.

Here's a bit of a timeline from CTV:

quote:
July 23, 1996

OPP sniper Kenneth Deane, who was responsible for shooting Dudley George, is charged with criminal negligence causing death.

April 28, 1997

Ontario Provincial Court Judge Huge Fraser rules that OPP sniper Kenneth Deane knew George was unarmed when he shot him. He receives 180 hours of community service with no house arrest.

September 23, 2002

Kenneth Deane officially resigns from the force. The announcement ends an appeal by Deane of his dismissal.


This timeline is to 2004 only.

CTV Ipperwash timeline


From: Vancouver Island | Registered: May 2003  |  IP: Logged
quelar
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 2739

posted 26 September 2007 09:30 AM      Profile for quelar     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
quote:
Originally posted by EmmaG:


are you honestly comparing Canada's human rights situation with Iran's?


Sure. You want to talk about the genocide of Aboriginal peoples in Canada? How about the bombing of Afghani weddings? How about the involvement in the bombing of the media outlets in Serbia? Remember somalia?

No please, go ahead, defend us as being somehow more moral than Iran.


From: In Dig Nation | Registered: Jun 2002  |  IP: Logged
EmmaG
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 12605

posted 26 September 2007 11:40 AM      Profile for EmmaG        Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
quote:
Originally posted by quelar:

Sure. You want to talk about the genocide of Aboriginal peoples in Canada? How about the bombing of Afghani weddings? How about the involvement in the bombing of the media outlets in Serbia? Remember somalia?

No please, go ahead, defend us as being somehow more moral than Iran.


Where would you rather live? What system would you feel more free under?


From: nova scotia | Registered: May 2006  |  IP: Logged
kropotkin1951
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 2732

posted 26 September 2007 12:02 PM      Profile for kropotkin1951   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
quote:
Originally posted by EmmaG:

Where would you rather live? What system would you feel more free under?


Depends on who I am. If I was a devout Moslem living in Iran who supports their system I would have a far better life than many of our poor people in Canada. If I was a Moslem in Canada that vocally supports the right of Iran to not be invaded I would be very concerned that I would be imprisoned or rendered to another country for supporting terrorism. If I am a white male in Canada with a good education and a dislike of religious authority then obviuosly not in Iran.

From: North of Manifest Destiny | Registered: Jun 2002  |  IP: Logged
Cueball
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 4790

posted 26 September 2007 12:03 PM      Profile for Cueball   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
quote:
Originally posted by EmmaG:

Where would you rather live? What system would you feel more free under?


This is such an old red herring its compost.

Answer: Iraq?

We can, for example, make a direct parrallel between the official whitewash of the Kazemi murder in Iran, and the whitewash of the George murder here in Ontario.

In the Iranian trial actual murder charges were laid, in Canada charges for negligence against only one police officer. They did actually have a trial of intelligence agents in the Kazemi murder for murder.

The processes similar. The result more or less the same. In the end no politicians of stature were going down.

Deane, the OPP officer charged in the George case was sentenced to 2 years of community service.

[ 26 September 2007: Message edited by: Cueball ]


From: Out from under the bridge and out for a stroll | Registered: Dec 2003  |  IP: Logged
quelar
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 2739

posted 26 September 2007 12:39 PM      Profile for quelar     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
quote:
Originally posted by EmmaG:

Where would you rather live? What system would you feel more free under?


Here, because I'm less under the threat of being bombed.

My point is, it's not a perfect system here, and as the dirty hippy said 'let those who are without sin cast the first stone'.

Let's focus on fixing OUR problems HERE instead of rattling the cage and causing more death and destruction elsewhere.

When the people of Iran stand up against their government and ASK for our assistance to bring them social freedoms then we'll do it. Until then, shut up and look at your own neighbourhood for solving the worlds issues.


From: In Dig Nation | Registered: Jun 2002  |  IP: Logged
Sven
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 9972

posted 26 September 2007 12:53 PM      Profile for Sven     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
quote:
Originally posted by quelar:
My point is, it's not a perfect system here, and as the dirty hippy said 'let those who are without sin cast the first stone'.

Ah, that’s an oldie but a goodie.

So, I take it you won’t criticize Iran, USA, or any other country (cast the first stone) until Canada gets its house completely in order?

Geez, if that policy were followed here on babble, it would be mighty quiet around here.


From: Eleutherophobics of the World...Unite!!!!! | Registered: Jul 2005  |  IP: Logged
quelar
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 2739

posted 26 September 2007 12:58 PM      Profile for quelar     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
quote:
Originally posted by Sven:

So, I take it you won’t criticize Iran, USA, or any other country (cast the first stone) until Canada gets its house completely in order?

No no no, what I'm saying is that this drum beating rush to war needs to stop, bombing other people, invading their countries, killing their leaders and all this other crap is absolutely wrong when we're doing it under the guise of righteousness.

We are free to critisize them, and they us. we all have black marks on our histories.


From: In Dig Nation | Registered: Jun 2002  |  IP: Logged
arborman
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 4372

posted 26 September 2007 01:02 PM      Profile for arborman     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
quote:
Originally posted by Sven:

So, I take it you won’t criticize Iran, USA, or any other country (cast the first stone) until Canada gets its house completely in order?

Geez, if that policy were followed here on babble, it would be mighty quiet around here.


I have no problem criticizing, it's the bombing and invading that I have a problem with. You do understand the difference, right?


From: I'm a solipsist - isn't everyone? | Registered: Aug 2003  |  IP: Logged
Sven
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 9972

posted 26 September 2007 01:04 PM      Profile for Sven     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
quote:
Originally posted by arborman:

I have no problem criticizing, it's the bombing and invading that I have a problem with. You do understand the difference, right?


Sure. So, the distinction you are making is that you will criticize another country if it interfers with other countries? Cool. Iran does plenty of that, too.

In the mean time, we should all keep our collective mouths shut about the treatment of GLBTs in Iran...because no country, after all, is perfect.


From: Eleutherophobics of the World...Unite!!!!! | Registered: Jul 2005  |  IP: Logged
arborman
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 4372

posted 26 September 2007 01:26 PM      Profile for arborman     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
quote:
Originally posted by Sven:

Sure. So, the distinction you are making is that you will criticize another country if it interfers with other countries? Cool. Iran does plenty of that, too.

In the mean time, we should all keep our collective mouths shut about the treatment of GLBTs in Iran...because no country, after all, is perfect.


I have no problem criticizing or disapproving of the internal activities in Iran either. I do have a problem when that is used to justify bombing the hell out of Iran, or otherwise intervening militarily.

I don't like the Iranian government. I don't like lots of governments, and think they should be changed - by the people who live there. I don't think it is our role to attack, kill or change those governments, because the cure is almost always worse than the disease, for all concerned.

Though it doesn't seem to be getting through, so I'll simplify it even more.

1. Not liking the Iranian government is fine. I don't, you don't, many Iranians don't.

2. Not liking a government is not equal to wishing to bomb, kill and maim its citizens.


From: I'm a solipsist - isn't everyone? | Registered: Aug 2003  |  IP: Logged
Sven
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 9972

posted 26 September 2007 01:34 PM      Profile for Sven     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
quote:
Originally posted by arborman:
I have no problem criticizing or disapproving of the internal activities in Iran either. I do have a problem when that is used to justify bombing the hell out of Iran, or otherwise intervening militarily.

I don't like the Iranian government. I don't like lots of governments, and think they should be changed - by the people who live there. I don't think it is our role to attack, kill or change those governments, because the cure is almost always worse than the disease, for all concerned.

Though it doesn't seem to be getting through, so I'll simplify it even more.

1. Not liking the Iranian government is fine. I don't, you don't, many Iranians don't.

2. Not liking a government is not equal to wishing to bomb, kill and maim its citizens.


I actually agree with you, arborman. What is troubling to see on many posts is that criticism of Iran’s treatment of GLBTs is viewed by many as verboten because it “plays into the hands of the USA”. I disagree. I generally believe that what goes on in another country does not warrant any kind of military attack on that country. Criticism, yes, but not military action. The only caveat, in my mind, is mass genocide. I think that the world should have intervened in Rwanda, for example. It was a massive moral tragedy to, essentially, ignore it. Many, in that example, will counter and say that it was Western policies that helped lead to the Rwandan tragedy in the first place, and that may be so. But, when the genocide was happening, the causes of that genocide mattered little to those thousands of innocent people being slaughtered. But, other than that caveat, I tend to agree with you.


From: Eleutherophobics of the World...Unite!!!!! | Registered: Jul 2005  |  IP: Logged
contrarianna
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 13058

posted 26 September 2007 02:40 PM      Profile for contrarianna     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
As bad as they may be, Iranian human rights compare favorably with those of the US client state, Saudi Arabia.

Anticipating the squeals of outrage, this is NOT a claim that "Saudi Arabia is doing it therefore its ok for Iran". This is not an either or situation.

The question is: how do the obsessive vilifier's of Iranian human rights abuses (who falsely claim in these threads that people are trying suppress information on Iranian abuses) explain why attacks on Iranian human rights in the Western press (and in these threads), already outnumber the verbal attacks on Saudi Arabian human rights abuses by many, many, MANY times?
If there is an explanation other than "because it doesn't serve the hegemonic interests of Israel and the US", I'd like to hear it.


From: here to inanity | Registered: Aug 2006  |  IP: Logged
Cueball
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 4790

posted 26 September 2007 02:42 PM      Profile for Cueball   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
quote:
Originally posted by Sven:

I actually agree with you, arborman. What is troubling to see on many posts is that criticism of Iran’s treatment of GLBTs is viewed by many as verboten because it “plays into the hands of the USA”.


Who said that where? Or has Michelle disabled your qoute function to save bandwidth, because you never use it?


From: Out from under the bridge and out for a stroll | Registered: Dec 2003  |  IP: Logged
Sven
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 9972

posted 26 September 2007 03:18 PM      Profile for Sven     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
quote:
Originally posted by contrarianna:
The question is: how do the obsessive vilifier's of Iranian human rights abuses (who falsely claim in these threads that people are trying suppress information on Iranian abuses) explain why attacks on Iranian human rights in the Western press (and in these threads), already outnumber the verbal attacks on Saudi Arabian human rights abuses by many, many, MANY times?

That's a good and fair question, contrarianna. That double standard (reflected in US policy) hurts American credibility enormously.


From: Eleutherophobics of the World...Unite!!!!! | Registered: Jul 2005  |  IP: Logged
Cueball
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 4790

posted 26 September 2007 03:21 PM      Profile for Cueball   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
Ahh, so your quote function is enabled after all! Excelent.

Perhaps you can now can qoute exactly which poster, where said something along the line of:

quote:
....criticism of Iran’s treatment of GLBTs is viewed by many as verboten because it “plays into the hands of the USA”.

Who said it was forbidden, and where did they say it. Or is your silence an admission that no one said any such thing?

[ 26 September 2007: Message edited by: Cueball ]


From: Out from under the bridge and out for a stroll | Registered: Dec 2003  |  IP: Logged
Sven
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 9972

posted 26 September 2007 03:41 PM      Profile for Sven     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
Oh for fucksake.

It's not the same thing as executing gays but it does reflect ugly homophobia...particularly as it's largely institutionalized in the American military.


From: Eleutherophobics of the World...Unite!!!!! | Registered: Jul 2005  |  IP: Logged
Cueball
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 4790

posted 26 September 2007 03:46 PM      Profile for Cueball   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
Oh lookie! Source material even. A step beyond the world of the completely imaginary?

Now, any retraction on the earlier false news about "many posts is that criticism of Iran’s treatment of GLBTs is viewed by many as verboten because it 'plays into the hands of the USA'"?.

Or you just intend to let your "mistake" stand?


From: Out from under the bridge and out for a stroll | Registered: Dec 2003  |  IP: Logged
N.Beltov
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 4140

posted 08 November 2007 08:14 AM      Profile for N.Beltov   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
quote:
Edward S. Herman: It is amusing to contrast the September 24, 2007 treatment of Iran President Mahmoud Ahmandinejad by Columbia University President Lee Bollinger with
Bollinger's September 16, 2005 treatment of Pakistan President Pervez
Musharraf, and the treatment of the Shah of Iran back in 1955 by Columbia
University President Grayson Kirk (and by the media). ...

"... back in 2005, Bollinger welcomed Pakistan President Musharraf with a warm accolade, as "a leader of global importance .[whose] contribution to Pakistan's economic turnaround and the
international fight against terror remain remarkable - it is rare that we have a leader of his stature at campus."

Yea, right. I wish I had a witticism from Sparky of Tom Tomorrow to insert here. As Herman puts it: "The crucial difference between the winners of Columbia presidents' accolades and denunciation is obviously that the one denounced is a declared U.S. enemy and target, whereas the good guys served U.S. interests."

The piece by Ed Herman is called "More Nuggets from a Nut House" for those who may be interested in more detail. It can be found at ZNet.

Sometimes laughter and mockery of evil is just necessary.

[ 08 November 2007: Message edited by: N.Beltov ]


From: Vancouver Island | Registered: May 2003  |  IP: Logged

All times are Pacific Time  

Post New Topic  Post A Reply Close Topic    Move Topic    Delete Topic next oldest topic   next newest topic
Hop To:

Contact Us | rabble.ca | Policy Statement

Copyright 2001-2008 rabble.ca