PDA

View Full Version : Friend of Yours?



craner
04-11-2005, 12:11 AM
http://img473.imageshack.us/img473/6259/woziontop26ch.jpg

http://img493.imageshack.us/img493/4024/wousa5xw.jpg

Anyone actually read the full text (http://memri.org/bin/articles.cgi?Page=countries&Area=iran&ID=SP101305) of this speach?

For example:

We are in the process of an historical war between the World of Arrogance [i.e. the West] and the Islamic world, and this war has been going on for hundreds of years. ...

The issue of this [World without Zionism] conference is very valuable. In this very grave war, many people are trying to scatter grains of desperation and hopelessness regarding the struggle between the Islamic world and the front of the infidels ...

Is it possible for us to witness a world without America and Zionism? But you had best know that this slogan and this goal are attainable, and surely can be achieved...

So come, now, darlings, let's talk about "Iran" with the reform veil ripped away.

Don't tell me you're surprised, like all those, for example, idiot (oh, really?) EU politicians?

Paul Hotflush
04-11-2005, 12:47 PM
A friend of most of the posters on this page, I suspect...

tryptych
04-11-2005, 01:24 PM
Yes, of course, because if you're critical of the US involvement in Iraq, then of course you must be an Israel-hating, Iran supporting fundamentalist.

That's pathetic.

bassnation
04-11-2005, 01:44 PM
A friend of most of the posters on this page, I suspect...

no, on the contrary its the most idiotic thing they could have possibly said or done. my heart sank when i read about it.

but lets face it, the rhetoric is getting rateched up on both sides. this was a speech designed for a domestic audience, much the same as bush's bullshit war on terror addresses to the american people.

the situation is not looking positive is it?

i sometimes wonder whether we bolster hardline extremists in iran by presenting them with exactly the kind of enemy they need to sell to their people to stay in power. you know, iran could blossom into something good, democracy wise - theres debate (which is stifled) but before this nutter took control it appeared to be a country struggling but still on its way to becoming a modern democracy.

feels like all these countries, uk included have really taken big steps backwards these last five years.

droid
04-11-2005, 03:10 PM
feels like all these countries, uk included have really taken big steps backwards these last five years.

Is that really a surprise given whats been going on in the mid-east? The chances for any kind of settlement to the Palestine problem have gone rght out the window along with the invasion of Iraq - people are very angry, and the net result is nutters like this guy getting back into power, and things escalating beyond anyones control.

Its a bit of a dangerous situation when one side (US) wants to keep things politically destabilised and on edge through permanent diplomatic attack and military LIC (low intensity conflict), such as Israel's and Turkeys regular threatening air sorties into Iran, and recent US/UK special forces incursions, and the other side (Al Qaidea) wants things to explode into full scale religious and cultural war.

Its funny - Ahmadinejad's speech reads like the mirror image of Huntingtons 'Clash of Civilisations' bullshit. Makes me wonder what Iranians think of the neo-con propaganda that gets published in our newspapers every day.

Anyway - back in the real world. The Middle Easts shining light of democracy continues on its glorious path to destiny:


Human rights groups launched a High Court battle to stop the "physical and mental harm" to Gaza's civilian population they say is caused by Israel's new weapon against militant attacks: the sonic boom.

Miscarriages have increased sharply and children have been driven to panic by Israeli jets systematically breaking the sound barrier over Gaza, according to a petition filed with the court yesterday.

The petition, served by Physicians for Human Rights-Israel and the Gaza Community Mental Health Programme, seeks a court ruling requiring the Defence Minister, Shaul Mofaz, to halt the low-altitude supersonic flights.

The groups say the fear and damage caused, particularly to children, by the "mock air raids" - a response to two phases of about 80 Qassam rocket attacks into Israel in September and October - are a form of "collective punishment" against the civilian population as a whole and therefore violate international law. Denying this, the Israeli military says the flights are a "less threatening" alternative to artillery fire and targeted assassinations, which have also increased in response to the rocket attacks and the suicide bombing that killed five Israelis in Hadera on 26 October.

According to UN figures 12 Palestinians were killed, including some civilians, in the last week of October. On Tuesday an Israeli Army sergeant, Yonatan Evron, was killed in a shoot-out with Palestinians in a village near Jenin. An Israeli was injured last night when two mortar shells fired by Palestinian militants hit Netiv Ha'asarah, a community just north of the Gaza Strip, hours after the army killed an al-Aqsa Martyrs Brigade militant in Qabatiyeh, near Jenin.

A medical opinion submitted to the court by Dr Eyad el-Sarraj, a prominent Gaza psychiatrist, points out that the flights have often been timed when children are on their way to and from school. Dr Sarraj says there is already evidence the flights are triggering in young children "poor concentration leading to low academic achievement ... fear of losing a close relative ... fantasies, nightmares, depressive thoughts, glorification of violence, increased feelings of vulnerability and alertness". He said this was because "loud sounds are associated with danger in the minds of children, who are unable to comprehend the distinction between real shelling and mock air raids".....

http://news.independent.co.uk/world/middle_east/article324316.ece

Paul Hotflush
04-11-2005, 03:53 PM
Yes, of course, because if you're critical of the US involvement in Iraq, then of course you must be an Israel-hating, Iran supporting fundamentalist.

That's pathetic.

Usually this equation is pretty accurate, minus the last variable.

droid
04-11-2005, 04:05 PM
Usually this equation is pretty accurate, minus the last variable.

Thats total and utter bollocks. :D

craner
05-11-2005, 12:50 AM
Mr. bassnation

If you look at it, actually, the rhetoric is not getiing "racheted up" to any significant degree, all things considered, by the US. There are even reports of Condi looking for discreet diplomatic openings with "moderates" and pragmatists in the Iranian regime - the (surely?) discredited Euro-diplomacy route, of which even Jack "Rock" Straw is an advocate.

Iran will never ever be a democracy while a revolutionary Islamic "republic" - these two things are mutualy exlusive. The Guardian of Councils choose and vet every election line-up: it either includes wet-sop reformers, conservatives and hardline conservatives or, as in the latest election sham, conservatives, conservative hardliners, and super-conservative hardliners. Additionally, the whole thing is a gigantic fraud anyway. The President is merely a manager for the CofGs and, ultimately, theocratic dictator-in-chief Supreme Leader Ayatollah Ali Khamenei. They always get their guy. Look at the last election: Rafsanjani looked a dead cert, and yet we heard that Khamenei had a preference for Ahmadinejad and, lo!, out of nowhere, Ahmadinejd won.

Just the way it is, you know, in a revolutionary theocracy. Most Iranians don't want to be ruled by this lot, any more than we would. Hence the rude and healthy protest movements, the popular dissidents (many languising in gaol hell-holes, like Akbar Ganji), the Referendum movement, and so on.

It turns out, though, that even Khamenei thinks he's gone too far this time: he's attempting to take power out of Ahmadinejad's hands, in particular foreign policy responsibilties, and hand them back to "moderates", specifically Rafsanjani. Hang on a second...this Rafsanjani (http://www.iran-press-service.com/articles_2001/dec_2001/rafsanjani_nuke_threats_141201.htm)? The very same!

So, you get the picture. The election would make no difference, apparent reformers like Khatami make no difference, to the fundamentals of the Revolutionary Islamic Republic. Foreign Policy priority No. 1: the defeat and erasure of Israel (how irrational is that? Israel should hardly figure in Iranian policy!). Has been since 1979. Still is. It's a sad surprise that the world should be surprised by Ahmadinejad's clumsy honesty. At least he has a certain integrity, the dangerous loon, schleping around in his sports jacket.

Ahmadinejad didn't "take power": he was just given the highest managerial position.

As for you droid, well, 1., the idea that neocon propaganda gets published in "our" papers every day is laughable and 2. if you want an Israel-Palestine/Gaza thread, then start one. Otherwise, why mention it except to either

draw attention to Iran's support and funding and feeding of Islamic Jihad, al-aqsa brigades, Fatah, Hamas and, in the Bekaa Valley, Hizbollah, or

to implicity or tacitly ally with Ahmadinejad's sentiments?

Notice, in the second photo too, that the US globe has smashed before the Isreal one...why I asked, "friend of yours?" (apart from sheer, blissful provocation...)

Check it out, droid: the real world

k-punk
05-11-2005, 01:25 AM
I can't really see what is supposed to be so shocking about this.

World without America.... good

World without Israel... good

World without Zionism....good

That of course doesn't mean that these countries are to be removed by force... but in an ideal world, yeh, let's see the back of them...

What is supposed to be so bad about this? After all, in his speech Ahmadinejad also hails the humiliation of Saddam Hussein, which Oliver and his ilk also celebrate.

Don't get me wrong, I don't support Ahmadinejad any more than I support Bush, but surely the symmetry between the two is obvious to anyone...

Populist conservative elected by corrupt means and supported by nation's power elite, favouring dualistic us-versus-them, 'we the good, they the evil' theocratic rhetoric

The difference is that one is the leader of the one, the only country to use nuclear weapons in anger; the other is the president of a country which doesn't yet have such weapons.

craner
05-11-2005, 01:50 AM
Oh boy! A feast of false equivalence! And worse!

How do you make your ideal world without America, Israel, and Zionism? Well, you could start by attempting to remove them, or supporting the struggle to. As an advocate of Zizek-filtered Leninsim and unflitered Bolshivism you, of all people, should understand this...

Ahmadinejad despised Saddam, wanted him gone? Of course! I want(ed) them both gone, just like you want Ahmadinejad and Bush/America gone...what's your point? We're on different sides? Or, in a weird way, on the same side? Because we all want each other gone? (By the way, he wanted Saddam gone for totally different reasons to me and my ilk. That's surely obvious.)

Surely not. I know what you want. You told me face to face: world communism. That's not an answer: it's a facetious justification for your eternal critique...because, without it, it's just

well, critique.

There's no symmetry between Bush and Ahmadinejad: mutual incomprehesion, more like. Is antagonism now symmetry? You'll probably tell me it is. Maybe it is. It's not even Ahmadinejad though, you missed my point: it's the regime. Ahmadineja's a manager, a cypher.

Bush was not orginally elected (the corrupt election you refer to) on 'us-verses-them' rhetoric: he ran his campaign on US isolationsim, a platform you would, I assume, prefer, even support. Second time around he just, well, won.

The US didn't use nuclear weapons in anger in WWII: that was ultimate (yes, murderous) pragmatism. Whether that was justified is a long, old, thorny debate. They could have just carried on fire-bombing Japanese cities Curtis Lemay style...

you see WWII has it's own prism of evil...feel free to come back on this one, but I'm making the point that America, in WWII, dropping nuclear bombs was not an angry irrational religiously-motivated impluse. That's historically inaccurate.

craner
05-11-2005, 01:52 AM
Oh, and my ilk?

Who're they then?

k-punk
05-11-2005, 02:21 AM
How do you make your ideal world without America, Israel, and Zionism? Well, you could start by attempting to remove them, or supporting the struggle to. As an advocate of Zizek-filtered Leninsim and unflitered Bolshivism you, of all people, should understand this...

1. What's wrong with a struggle to remove things?

2. I have to assume that 'struggle' here is code for 'military struggle', but Oliver, Oliver you couldn't be disapproving of THAT could you? It's not the MEANS that are the problem surely...


Ahmadinejad despised Saddam, wanted him gone? Of course! I want(ed) them both gone, just like you want Ahmadinejad and Bush/America gone...what's your point? We're on different sides? Or, in a weird way, on the same side? Because we all want each other gone?

No, the point is that your show of dismay at Ahmadinejad's 'shocking' statement is a little random --- presumably if he'd have restricted his speech to hailing 'a world without Saddam' you would have approved of it. And you would have approved of it even more if he had added North Korea and Syria to the list of things the world would have been better without. My point being that your friend George has his own list of countries that he thinks the world would be better off without, and that the faux-outrage against Ahmadinejad depends not a disagreement about means - you are quite happy to advocate the use of military force to rid the world of your enemies - but about which countries are to be removed.



Surely not. I know what you want. You told me face to face: world communism. That's not an answer: it's a facetious justification for your eternal critique...because, without it, it's just

well, critique.


What is the 'it' it is without?

There's a broader argument to be had here about pragmatism/ commensuration to the reality principle versus 'the politics of the impossible', if you want to have it. But of course such a discussion can't be had if the 'that's not an answer' move is always made. What does 'that's not an answer' mean? Well, it means, 'that answer is not allowable' in the craven Blairite, Third Way conditions of possibility in which we live. Of course it's not allowable, of course it's not an 'answer' to the questions set by the 'real world' of so-called politics subordinated to Capital.


There's no symmetry between Bush and Ahmadinejad: mutual incomprehesion, more like. Is antagonism now symmetry? You'll probably tell me it is. Maybe it is. It's not even Ahmadinejad though, you missed my point: it's the regime. Ahmadineja's a manager, a cypher.

Meanwhile, Bush is an brave entrepreneur-individualist, who fought his way to the top against the odds, struggling against the American establishment who despised him and who have fought for his removal ever since his election?

The idea that mutual incomprehension and antagonism of this type are opposed shows a pretty poor grasp of psychology, if I may say so. Surely this type of antagonism DEPENDS UPON mutual incomprehension. Indeed, as Gregory Bateson observes, most conflict situations arise from symmetry. It's precisely because neither side in this theocratic, we-the-good struggle can see that it is the mirror image of the other that the sorry state of affairs obtains.


Bush was not orginally elected (the corrupt election you refer to) on 'us-verses-them' rhetoric: he ran his campaign on US isolationsim, a platform you would, I assume, prefer, even support. Second time around he just, well, won.

Sure, doesn't stop them being symmetrical now though...


The US didn't use nuclear weapons in anger in WWII: that was ultimate (yes, murderous) pragmatism. Whether that was justified is a long, old, thorny debate. They could have just carried on fire-bombing Japanese cities Curtis Lemay style...

you see WWII has it's own prism of evil...feel free to come back on this one, but I'm making the point that America, in WWII, dropping nuclear bombs was not an angry irrational religiously-motivated impluse. That's historically inaccurate.

By anger I only meant 'in a conflict situation'.... There was no suggestion of a religiously-motivated impulse... but the idea that there was no violence or cruelty in the libidinal dynamic of those strikes is a little naive I would have thought...

craner
05-11-2005, 02:22 AM
Oh, and I just realised, doesn't that world without zionism poster in the first photo resemble the cover of Hardt/Negri's Empire?

http://images.amazon.com/images/P/0674006712.01._BO2,204,203,200_PIlitb-dp-500-arrow,TopRight,32,-59_AA240_SH20_SCLZZZZZZZ_.jpg

Wasn't Negri in Iran recently hob-nobbing with Iranian intellectuals? And aren't Iranian intellectuals mere regime-stooges, hence Azar Nafisi losing her job back in the early 80s (alongside many other "undesirables") and, eventually, emigrating?

Hey, just asking questions!

k-punk
05-11-2005, 02:28 AM
You're right about the cover... fucking terrible cover, book's not so hot either....

craner
05-11-2005, 02:43 AM
But Mark, was I not clear???

I'm not shocked or dismayed by Ahmadinejad's speech: the very opposite. I'm grateful for his clarity and honesty. He represents the regime's real position. Reread what I wrote. He made it easier for everybody to understand, hence the dismay of the bassnations and ayatollahs.

I don't advocate military intervention vis a vis Iran. I can explain why, if you like. By the way, nobody does. Not even Ledeen.

I tried to unlock you next 'that's not an answer' bit: I merely mean, what's your anti-US/Israel strategy? Do you just talk (or write) or do you stick your neck out and support anyone active in "your" struggle? Or do you just like to critique and keep your hands clean? I support the IFTU, PUK, Kanan Maikiya, for a start. That, I think, is a clear position. I don't want to remove countries. I'm happy to stick with current borders...I just think that the struggle against ruling crime families/military dictators/theocracies is legitimate. It just so happens that in Bosnia, Kosovo, Rwanda, and Iraq 03 intervention was warranted.

And, if I may say so, I own up to a poor grasp of "psychology"; is it not time you owned up to a poor grasp of geopolitics?

It's been ably demonstrated thus far...

craner
05-11-2005, 02:46 AM
I'm sorry. That was nasty. All due respect, etc.

k-punk
05-11-2005, 08:58 AM
Fair play to you...

But a flame-war at this point would be more than pointless; it would play into the hands of the likes of Paul Hotflush, and surely we can agree that we don't want the board reduced to that kind of silly sniping...

Those are good questions... but it's not like I have 'the elimination of Israel' as an urgent goal, it's that I don't see the positing of 'a world without Israel' as a reason to be morally appalled.... on the contrary, when someone talks about it, I think, wistfully, 'yeh, OK, this would be good' ...

Questions of strategy are important, clearly, but it strikes me that 'strategy' should not become a name for 'selection from a series of choices put on offer by the existing order'. Strategy can substitute for fundamental projects. This is my fundamental problem about what is undeniably seductive about your position, to wit, how can one possibly object to anything which gets rid of thugs and murderers like Saddam etc? The contingent problems with pragmatics - the difficulties of being sure that intervention won't make things worse, which, in the case of Iraq for instance, it isn't clear that it hasn't - are one thing, but I think there's another, deeper problem, namely: 'How is that politics has come to be ENTIRELY articulated in negative terms?' Intervention is justified if 'human rights' are under attack, i.e. to eliminate an Evil, but not to bring about some Good. The Good is off the agenda, entirely. This excision is, for me, the very signature of the current ideological configuration.

Now, if you push me on what world communism would look like, or how to get there, I admit that these are open questions, themselves too defined by a negativity (i.e. anti-capitalism) at the moment. But reviving the notion of the Good is crucial; without it, we don't have politics, but only a grubby pragmatism, a perpetual clean-up operation. And, in effect, we have a world which poses the question: 'what do you want, given that you can't have what you want?' The Impossible and the Good are intimately connected.

dogger
05-11-2005, 10:47 AM
Questions of strategy are important, clearly, but it strikes me that 'strategy' should not become a name for 'selection from a series of choices put on offer by the existing order'. Strategy can substitute for fundamental projects. This is my fundamental problem about what is undeniably seductive about your position, to wit, how can one possibly object to anything which gets rid of thugs and murderers like Saddam etc? The contingent problems with pragmatics - the difficulties of being sure that intervention won't make things worse, which, in the case of Iraq for instance, it isn't clear that it hasn't - are one thing, but I think there's another, deeper problem, namely: 'How is that politics has come to be ENTIRELY articulated in negative terms?' Intervention is justified if 'human rights' are under attack, i.e. to eliminate an Evil, but not to bring about some Good. The Good is off the agenda, entirely. This excision is, for me, the very signature of the current ideological configuration.

Sorry to butt in to what seems to be becoming a fairly personal discussion, but this is really interesting. I'm not sure I agree that politics - at least on the surface - has come to be articulated entirely in negative terms. Surely the time to get suspicious is when the politicians DO start throwing around positive buzzwords - like 'freedom' (Bush) or 'choice' (Blair)? That's when I start to feel I'm being hoodwinked, anyway. I suppose you could argue that these terms don't really represent positive ideologies, just attractive euphemisms for aggressive capitalist policies. This is where it gets interesting, I think: we seem to have got to the stage in the West where no positive ideology can be satisfactory any more - blame Lyotard if you will - and think of ourselves as the age of No Ideology, far too clever for fundamentalism. This is bollocks, of course, since this denial of our own ideological orientations only points to the fact of their being irreversibly ingrained. (Hence the common criticism of postmodernism as a philosophical capitulation to the - capitalist - status quo.)




Now, if you push me on what world communism would look like, or how to get there, I admit that these are open questions, themselves too defined by a negativity (i.e. anti-capitalism) at the moment. But reviving the notion of the Good is crucial; without it, we don't have politics, but only a grubby pragmatism, a perpetual clean-up operation. And, in effect, we have a world which poses the question: 'what do you want, given that you can't have what you want?' The Impossible and the Good are intimately connected.

All this reminds me a hell of a lot of Adorno. Except according to him the Good can ONLY be articulated negatively, since we are so corrupted by our own ideologies - ideologies that have resulted in the world being the way it is i.e. pretty fucked - that we cannot even *think* of the Good. Only through its definition as a negative, an absence, does the possibility of the Good remain open. I am fairly sympathetic to this, though I think we do need at least some working notions of the Good to aim towards, even as we recognise their incomplete and provisional nature. Nonetheless, I do get really pissed off when people attack anti-capitalist/anti-globalisation protestors for 'not putting forward an alternative', as though it negates their right to protest in the first place. Critique is not to be sniffed at - the ability (and right) to criticise is the only power most of us in the West really have - and many people in the world don't even have that.

droid
07-11-2005, 11:57 AM
Mr. bassnation

If you look at it, actually, the rhetoric is not getiing "racheted up" to any significant degree, all things considered, by the US. There are even reports of Condi looking for discreet diplomatic openings with "moderates" and pragmatists in the Iranian regime - the (surely?) discredited Euro-diplomacy route, of which even Jack "Rock" Straw is an advocate.

Oh come on - and you speak of the 'real world' as if you were an authority! ;) Any fool would know that these vague 'reports' of Condi's meetings with Iranian 'moderates', are (if they even happened) almost certainly an approach by the Whitehouse to foil European efforts at diplomacy rather than help them. And it is undoubtably significant for the president of Iran to make a statement like this, despite your 'See -this is what all these nutters are really like' generalisations.



Iran will never ever be a democracy while a revolutionary Islamic "republic" - these two things are mutualy exlusive. The Guardian of Councils choose and vet every election line-up: it either includes wet-sop reformers, conservatives and hardline conservatives or, as in the latest election sham, conservatives, conservative hardliners, and super-conservative hardliners. Additionally, the whole thing is a gigantic fraud anyway. The President is merely a manager for the CofGs and, ultimately, theocratic dictator-in-chief Supreme Leader Ayatollah Ali Khamenei. They always get their guy. Look at the last election: Rafsanjani looked a dead cert, and yet we heard that Khamenei had a preference for Ahmadinejad and, lo!, out of nowhere, Ahmadinejd won.

Something other than empty allegations of corruption would be useful here. Im no defender of Irans muderous theocracy, but (for what its worth) according to the BBC (a well known friend of Iranian fundamentalists), accusations of election fraud were unfounded:

Iranian election 'not fraudulent'

Election posters, including one of hardline Tehran mayor Mahmoud Ahmadinejad, are removed in downtown TehranFew thought Mahmoud Ahmadinejad would sweep into second place. Iran's electoral authorities say they have found no evidence of fraud in the presidential election.

The country's Guardians Council, which ran the poll, said a partial recount had confirmed the result and a run-off vote would go ahead Friday.

One hundred ballot boxes in four cities were randomly selected for the recount after complaints of dirty tricks.

Tehran Mayor Mahmoud Ahmadinejad faces former President Akbar Hashemi Rafsanjani in the run-off.

"After complaints... the Guardians Council authorised the interior ministry to recount the ballots from a certain number of boxes. It was clear there was no fraud," the head of the Guardians Council, Ahmad Jannati, said in a statement read on state television.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/middle_east/4110792.stm


Which is not to dismiss the fact that, as you have pointed out, the overall 'democratic' system in Iran is inherently flawed and corrupt, and to be taken with a pinch of salt.


So, you get the picture. The election would make no difference, apparent reformers like Khatami make no difference, to the fundamentals of the Revolutionary Islamic Republic. Foreign Policy priority No. 1: the defeat and erasure of Israel (how irrational is that? Israel should hardly figure in Iranian policy!).

Oh yeah, those evil fundamentalists, victimising little Israel again! :D . I suppose the strategically and morally correct thing to do is ignore the incredibly rich, nuclear armed regional superpower neighbour, that offers a serious (and often vocalised) threat to your very existence?



As for you droid, well, 1., the idea that neocon propaganda gets published in "our" papers every day is laughable and 2.

Wow - I like that 'as for you'. Really makes you sound not-arrogant - distracted me from the Mark Steyn article Im reading in todays paper :D . Maybe you should go and laugh in the faces of the editors of The Sun, The Telegraph, The Express, the Washington or NY post etc... all of whom cheerleaded for war, and have published neo-con opinion in either direct or paraphrased form.

Now obviously, Ann Coulter or David Frum calling for war against Iran, or the extermination of Muslim's isnt anywhere as significant as Ahmadinejad's statement, but it is interesting the way that it seems to have become acceptable for the equivalantly extreme anti-islamic statements to be made freely by Western commentators.



if you want an Israel-Palestine/Gaza thread, then start one. Otherwise, why mention it except to either

Well - I figured that a contrast between the verbal threats of Ahmadinejad, and the reality on the ground in the now-'peaceful' Gaza Strip was worth pointing out... simple enough. Plus I had just read, and was particularly appalled by that report.


draw attention to Iran's support and funding and feeding of Islamic Jihad, al-aqsa brigades, Fatah, Hamas and, in the Bekaa Valley, Hizbollah,

Please - the floor is open. Why dont you educate us all about Iran's evil terror network (include your sources please). All I can say is that Iran must be pretty crap at supporting terrorism, as the IDF still kill about 3 times the amount of civilians annually as all of their 'terrorists' combined.



to implicity or tacitly ally with Ahmadinejad's sentiments?

:confused: Thats right - I oppose the deliberate terrorising of pregnant women and children - ergo i support the destruction of Israel...


Notice, in the second photo too, that the US globe has smashed before the Isreal one...why I asked, "friend of yours?" (apart from sheer, blissful provocation...)

Oohhh - ominous. I guess that means I must hate America as well... thanks for telling me, Ill cancel my holidays...


Check it out, droid: the real world

:cool: Yeah - you should come and visit us here sometime, the first thing you'll notice is that everything isnt black and white....

droid
07-11-2005, 02:02 PM
I don't want to remove countries. I'm happy to stick with current borders...I just think that the struggle against ruling crime families/military dictators/theocracies is legitimate. It just so happens that in Bosnia, Kosovo, Rwanda, and Iraq 03 intervention was warranted.

Woah there... ive got a bag of apples and oranges here - care to compare those as well? :D Intervention in Rawana on humanitarian grounds was pefectly justified, even though (mostly US) obsufication at the UN delayed it to the point of ineffectiveness, ditto Bosnia, where, again, the intervention (when it came) was bungling and ill-managed. Iraq and Kosovo were very different.

Read the amnesty reports on Iraq over the last decade. No ethnic cleansing, no large scale oppression, and evidently, no real threat to its neighbours or anyone else. Kosovo, that great 'humanitarian intervention' of the 90's was similarly unjustified seeing as the bombing of Serbia actually caused the ethnic cleansing that it was supposed to be preventing. According to Norma Brown, ( US diplomat, and aide to the director of the kosovo observer mission):

"there was no humanitarian crisis [in kosovo] until NATO bagan to bomb. Everyone knew a humanitarian crisis would arise if NATO started to bomb"

I believe that the stated (but less publicised) reason for the bombing, ie: 'to restore Nato's credibility on the eve of its 50th anniversary', is more representative of Nato's motives in this case. Both conflicts also constitute illegal aggression according to the Nuremeberg treaty and by the standards of international law, no matter how warranted you may think they are.

Your unwavering support for Western intervention seems at odds with your reluctance to allow Muslim nations to redraw the maps through the use of violence. Seeing as some kind of territorial exchange seems like the only likely hope for the resolution of the israel/palestine conflict, how do you view the prospects for peace in the context of being 'happy with current borders'? Surely Israel will have to give up the dream of 'Ersetz Israel' in order to gain a lasting peace? Or would you rather all hope of wider stability in the region rots away with the Palestinains in their ever-decreasing and squalid territories...



And, if I may say so, I own up to a poor grasp of "psychology"; is it not time you owned up to a poor grasp of geopolitics?

It's been ably demonstrated thus far...

Perhaps instead of mocking the geo-political knowledge of others, you should read a few recent history books? (preferably one not written by Thomas Friedman this time)

k-punk
08-11-2005, 09:32 PM
re: Dogger's comments....

Yes, on the face of it, conservative and neo-conservative/Blairite thinkers seem to be full of positive rhetoric about 'freedom' etc., but the one of the key defining characteristics of this axis is its showy disavowal of anything deemed to be utopian. The appeal is always to what, in a theatrical gesture of faux-regret, they call the 'real world' (its assumption being that the nature of reality is basically fixed, we know what people are really like, come on) . Needless to say, what is characterised as the wisdom of maturity actually amounts to a cynical ratification of the current world order (which is both naturalized and presented as 'the best possible world', the end of history to which everything tends and everyone aspires).

Badiou has described the 'nihilsm' of this contemporary ethics very well. 'Parliamentary politics as practised today does not in any way consist of setting objectives inspired by principles and of inventing the means to attain them. It consists of turning the spectacle of the economy into the object of an apathetic (though obviously unstable) public consensus.' This politics articulates itself in terms of a defence of 'human rights' but these ''human rights' are rights to non-evil', so that 'Evil is that from which Good is derived, not the other way round.'

Thus, there can be large-scale commitment of resources only to the 'ridding of Evil', not to the construction of any Good. Interesting that the disavowed utopian impulse is never ACTUALLY translated into a pure pragmatism. The neo-con agenda isn't actually 'realistic'; its vision of extirpating all tyranny from the world is every bit as dewy-eyed as any scheme dreamt up by the Left. It is not as if, for instance, 'the war on terror' has the remotest prospect of succeeding.

owen
08-11-2005, 10:17 PM
Interesting that the disavowed utopian impulse is never ACTUALLY translated into a pure pragmatism. The neo-con agenda isn't actually 'realistic'; its vision of extirpating all tyranny from the world is every bit as dewy-eyed as any scheme dreamt up by the Left. It is not as if, for instance, 'the war on terror' has the remotest prospect of succeeding.

this is what's always irked me about the Hitchensite defence of US policy- the idea that the US is capable (or interested in) of 'bringing democracy to the middle east', for all its alleged pragmatism, is every bit as out of step with current reality as an appeal to 'world communism'; except at least the latter acknowledges some possibilty other than the geopolitical status quo....

craner
08-11-2005, 11:04 PM
Can't be bothered to write much, as I'm way too cool for this lark, but briefly:

1. Yes, they're hints. "Meanwhile (http://www.eurasianet.org/departments/insight/articles/eav110105.shtml), a report published by the Wall Street Journal in early October hinted that US Secretary of State Condoleeza Rice favored the opening of quiet diplomacy with pragmatists in Tehran."
2. But any fool should know that reports of Condi favouring diplomacy with moderates within the Iranian regime cannot be dismissed. It's in accordance with her instincts, tutored by her realist mentor Brent Scowcroft and early studies of US-Soviet policy. However much she was/has been swayed by the idealist arguments perculating the Bush Administrations post-9/11, she remains an instinctive realist, like Scowcroft and Bush Sr., both of whom, you might remember, actively scorned neocon-influenced policies. Hence she, alongside Powell, helped bring the Blair/Straw persepctive to Bush, virtually lobbied for Britain against the more national-unilateralist instincts of Cheney and Rumsfeld and the neoconservatives, and persauded Bush to go to the UN for that first Resolution. Like Straw, she favours dialogue with Iranian moderates. I think that's a waste of time, but that's me. It's certainly not the State Department's devious desire, or even intention, to foil European attempts at diplomacy - that's, by and large, their exact same preference!
3. There were plenty of allegations of ballot-rigging and aggressive intimidation at polling booths. Also the strange fact that Rafsanjani won the first round 6,159,453 to Ahmadinejad's 5,710,354, but in the second round Ahmadinejad trounced him 17,284,782 to 10,046,701. That's a bit weird, isn't it?
4. Allegations. (http://www.iranfocus.com/modules/news/article.php?storyid=2554)
5. More of them. (http://www.iranfocus.com/modules/news/article.php?storyid=2897)
6. And some more. (http://graphics8.nytimes.com/images/apps/regi2/login_header.gif.) And a question. (http://www.rferl.org/featuresarticle/2005/6/CBBCF4C0-3877-4753-BB3F-237B3C8152D6.html)
7. Plus, not many people turned out to vote anyway. (http://news.scotsman.com/international.cfm?id=670232005)
8. He summed it up nicely. (http://www.nationalreview.com/ledeen/ledeen200506241725.asp)
9. I didn't point out that the overall democratic system in Iran is inherently flawed and corrupt. I pointed out that there is no democratic system in Iran. I pointed out that it's a theocracy and thus antithetical to democracy. It's run by unelected ayatollahs and imams who report to a theocratic dictator. The President is merely a tool.
10. Seeing as the anti-Israeli terror groups and Iran and, in recent history, many Arab regimes, have sought or talk of the elimination of Israel, have spoken of driving the Jews into the Med, and in the case of Hamas, have incorporated genocidal anti-semitism into their charter, I think it's fair to conclude that Israel faces an existential threat greater than other States in the rgion.
11. The idea that Israel is openly more aggressive to Iran than Iran is to Israel was surely discredited last week. As Rafsanjani usefully pointed out, "If a day comes when the world of Islam is duly equipped with the arms Israel has in possession, the strategy of colonialism would face a stalemate because application of an atomic bomb would not leave any thing in Israel but the same thing would just produce damages in the Muslim world."
12. Which British papers (the "our" of your original statement) publish neocon journalists, politcians or wonks every day, or even regularly? How often do you read the leading neocon opinion-writers in our papers? Max Boot? Charles Krauthammer? Bill Kristol? John Podhoretz? Micheal Ledeen? Er, nope. David Frum, occasionally, in The Telegraph.
13. Talking of Frum, who I read, show me an article in which he has called for war against Iran or the extermination of Muslims. I don't read Ann Coulter, so can't comment. Having said that, even if they did, it wouldn't be as significant seeing as neither are President of their country.
14. Similarly, show me all those articles about the "now-peaceful" Gaza. I've not read one!
15. The floor's truly mine? Are you sure you don't mind? Well, Iran's sponsorship of Hizbollah is very well documented; over 100mill a year, plus drones, weapons, etc. There's a whole chapter dedicated to it in Dr. Daniel Byman's book about States that sponsor terror, Deadly Connections (CUP).
16. Byman is a fellow at that liberal bastion, the Brookings Institute. Here's a lecture (http://www.brookings.edu/views/testimony/fellows/byman20050908.htm) he gave at Brookings this September.
17. You didn't know that Iran is hosting and shielding senior al-qaida members, did you? Byman did: "Tehran's inactions should be noted as well as its actions, particularly the Iranian regime's unwillingness to expel senior al-Qaida members to countries where they will be brought to justice."
18. US State Dept Terrorism Report. (http://www.state.gov/s/ct/rls/45392.htm) Hint: Not Defence or CIA. "During 2004, Iran maintained a high-profile role in encouraging anti-Israeli terrorist activity, both rhetorically and operationally. Supreme Leader Khamenei praised Palestinian terrorist operations, and Iran provided Lebanese Hizballah and Palestinian terrorist groups -- notably HAMAS, the Palestinian Islamic Jihad, the al-Aqsa Martyrs Brigades, and the Popular Front for the Liberation of Palestine-General Command -- with funding, safe haven, training, and weapons. Iran provided an unmanned aerial vehicle that Lebanese Hizballah sent into Israeli airspace on November 7, 2004."
19. Interesting report from MEMRI (http://memri.org/bin/articles.cgi?Page=archives&Area=sd&ID=SP38702)
20. Iran throwing money at Islamic Jihad. (http://www.timesonline.co.uk/article/0,,2089-1849215,00.html)
21. Respectable old wonks at the Council on Foreign Relations, here (http://www.timesonline.co.uk/article/0,,2089-1849215,00.html) and here (http://cfrterrorism.org/sponsors/iran.html)
22. Respectable old wonks at Global Security here (http://www.globalsecurity.org/military/world/para/hamas-funds.html) and here (http://www.globalsecurity.org/intell/world/iran/proxy-groups.html).
23. Everybody's favorite, Asia Times! (http://www.atimes.com/atimes/Middle_East/GC16Ak03.html)
24. A feast! (http://www.tkb.org/Home.jsp)
25. Another feast! (http://www.terrorism.com/modules.php?op=modload&name=Intel&file=index)
26. Yet more! (http://www.meib.org/)
27. Do me a favour, take the Bosnia/Kosova stuff over to the American Power thread, will you? It'll fit in better there. Let's stick to Iran here.
28. Although, I liked the way that, in your view, intervention in Bosnia and Rwanda would have been perfectly justified, whereas in the two places it happened, Kosova and Iraq, it palpably wasn't! I have no doubt that, had the UN/US spearheaded interventions in the first two, their "perfect justification" would have been less perfect. Me and my hunches! You're certainly adept at sticking to the anti-American line. Such nimble feet!
29. The US doesn't want to redraw the map. Do you? Do you have any ideas for new borders, then? I'm sure new borders would diminish chances of peace more than current borders would or could. Notably, in Iraq.
30. Israelis have, largely, given up on Ersatz Israel. Even Sharon has! You obviously pay too much attention to Netanyahu (or, as I like to call him, Netanyahoo) and his vain, demented cronies.
31. I tried to read a Thomas Friedman book, but couldn't finish it. I'm worse than you think!

domtyler
09-11-2005, 01:13 AM
Oliver, you obviously know your stuff and you've done your research.

Your post was a challenge wasn't it? Do you feel that those who are reluctant to characterise Iran as a malevolent force with specifically murderous intent are blind to the obvious facts as you see them? Am I stupid to think that there is a grey area between good and evil?

I think that your sources are probably right and that there were serious irregularities in the elections and I follow your point that it hardly matters because, in fact, the whole system is a sham. However I don't think that says much about Iran apart from the fact that it's a flawed democracy at best and at worse no democracy at all. Current rhetoric has it that democracy works like a kind of political and cultural penicillin, once introduced to the patient (nation) the infection clears right up and it's freedom for all, but is it really like that? I think Churchill said (and I'm recklessly paraphrasing here) "Democracy is not the best way to govern, it's simply the least bad". You mentioned in one of your later posts that most of the people of Iran do not wish to be, effectively, governed by The Guardian of Councils. I guess we don't know whether or not that's true because the system doesn't allow for dissent to be measured but even in "good" democracies it's common for a majority of the electorate to oppose the ruling party. I guess my point is: how should the fact that Iran isn't a democracy impact on our interpretation of Ahmadinejad's hateful rhetoric on Israel and America?

Iran supports terrorists, certainly, a lot of states do unfortunately. For instance, the Reagan administration sold arms to Iran to raise money for terrorists in Nicaragua. Real world? Try Realpolitik.

droid
09-11-2005, 10:18 AM
Oliver - ill respond to your post as soon as i have a chance. One bit of advice though - learn to use the enter key! - it makes things a bit easier to read if theres at least a few spaces! ;)

craner
09-11-2005, 12:39 PM
Apologies. Stylistic folly.

dominic
09-11-2005, 02:14 PM
World without America.... good

so a world w/o the UK = also good???

i.e., what were the possible reasons for invading iraq?

(1) prevent saddam hussein from using chemical weapons or supplying such weapons to terrorists -- i.e., rid the world of this "evil" threat -- AND YET no such weapons were found, there was little or no evidence of iraq having such weapons before the war, etc -- AND AS WE HAVE RECENTLY LEARNED the USA used what amount to chemical weapons against the iraqi people at fullajah, and one would imagine elsewhere too

(2) bring liberal democracy to the middle east, i.e., make iraq a beacon -- this was the supposedly positive side of the neo-con project

(3) get control of iraqi oil supplies in the face of impending global shortages, with the additional advantages of displaying u.s. military might to intimidate the chinese, plus test new weapons and tactics

if we assume that #3 is the real reason for the war, then how is the uk any less loathesome than the usa??? i.e., doesn't reason #3 imply that war was prosecuted to advance the interests of the american capitalist class, whose interests are more or less indistinguishable from those of the british capitalist class -- therefore the close cooperation between the two governments

moreover, in light of recent events in france, doesn't it seem likely that french govt opposed the invasion of iraq not on high principle but as base calculation w/ respect to its own seething domestic problems, which have since come to a head

so maybe eliminate all three countries, france, the uk, and the usa


World without Israel... good

israel should have been constructed out of parts of poland and germany at the end of wwii

but since that's not what happened, we're stuck with israel where it's at -- and stuck w/ how it got to be there, namely, by the dispossession of the palestinian people


World without Zionism....good

hannah arendt is worth reading on this point -- she wanted to see a bi-national state, where jews and palestinians both had full rights of citizenship

also, look for the magazine "news from within" -- this is a current publication that continues to argue for a bi-national israel


'How is that politics has come to be ENTIRELY articulated in negative terms?' Intervention is justified if 'human rights' are under attack, i.e. to eliminate an Evil, but not to bring about some Good. The Good is off the agenda, entirely. This excision is, for me, the very signature of the current ideological configuration.

this is certainly true of rationale #1 = eliminate saddam hussein's regime b/c he's evil and poses a threat to do even more evil b/c he either has or is on the verge of getting WMD

but isn't rationale #2 a positive project = bring liberal democracy to the middle east, make iraq a "beacon" -- i.e., wasn't this the neo-con project?

OR do you see liberal democracy as aiming for the elimination/curtailment of evil (civil war, anarchy, death, poverty = hobbes) ------- or perhaps marginally better, liberal democracy as liberating certain human drives and affording scope for limited ambition (for money, for comfort, for material gain -- as well as for art, science, learning) ------- but liberal democracy ultimately fails b/c it does not allow most people to realize their highest ends and utmost dignity??? or doesn't push most people in this direction? or has no clear notion of "ends" and "direction" = a free for all that is ulimately in the service of capital

please elaborate on how liberal democracy is not a positive project -- i.e., surely its aim is perpetual peace and increasing material comfort -- are these not goods??

even though in practice the leading liberal democracies prosecute wars and achieve increasing material comfort (at least in usa) only by running massive trade deficits (i.e., the alternative to trade deficits would be vastly reduced corporate profits, i.e., either workers are paid more and so are able to pay higher prices for goods OR you ship manufacturing abroad so that consumers can pay less for goods)

even if this is the actual practice, isn't the ultimate aim of liberal democracy something along the order of perpetual peace, increasing material comfort, and free expression and self-realization for all????

or is this a false vision of the political good?


Reviving the notion of the Good is crucial; without it, we don't have politics

you almost sound like leo strauss here


And, in effect, we have a world which poses the question: 'what do you want, given that you can't have what you want?' The Impossible and the Good are intimately connected.

this is quite provocative -- "the impossible and the good are intimately connected"

DigitalDjigit
09-11-2005, 02:41 PM
israel should have been constructed out of parts of poland and germany at the end of wwii

but since that's not what happened, we're stuck with israel where it's at -- and stuck w/ how it got to be there, namely, by the dispossession of the palestinian people


Because the Polish people would not feel dispossesed at all. WTF are you talking about? Why would it make sense to create Israel in a place where most of them were wiped out? Palestine is where the Jews locate their homeland.

dominic
09-11-2005, 03:05 PM
Because the Polish people would not feel dispossesed at all. WTF are you talking about? Why would it make sense to create Israel in a place where most of them were wiped out? Palestine is where the Jews locate their homeland.

so better to dispossess a people, the palestinians, who had never committed an historical wrong against the jews than to dispossess the germans and the poles???

moreover, central europe had been the center of jewish civilization since the explusion of the jews from spain -- and i say "center" despite fact that jewish civilization existed as a diaspora -- i.e., if you had to choose a center, you couldn't do much better than poland

further, do you realize the massive movements of peoples that have occurred since the destruction of the temple in the first century AD??? should every modern-day people be allowed to return to and reclaim their ancestral homeland? if not, why should the jews be the exception? merely b/c they had a certain literary genius, the people of the book, such that they could stake a claim to the land of david's kingdom???

DigitalDjigit
09-11-2005, 03:21 PM
moreover, central europe had been the center of jewish civilization since the explusion of the jews from spain -- and i say "center" despite fact that jewish civilization existed as a diaspora -- i.e., if you had to choose a center, you couldn't do much better than poland

Maybe before the whole Polish jewish population was wiped out. There were lots of jews in other places too, outside of Europe.

Basically European Jews were left without a place to go, they were refugees and noone likes refugees. Meanwhile there was already a Jewish community established in Palestine. The Jews didn't just appear there in 1948. In fact there was always a Jewish presense there even if not very large.

Jews sure do catch a lot of flak for Israel. It's not like there was genocide or a huge land grab. I mean, yeah, there was some wrongdoing but there are no winners in this. Everyone has to compromise. Something which a lot of the Arab countries (and Iran) refuse to do (to bring it back around on topic). It doesn't even concern them so much, really. It's not their land that was taken and they have refused to take in any Palestinian refugees.

craner
09-11-2005, 05:35 PM
Brilliant! Just what I needed! (http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk/4421786.stm)

craner
09-11-2005, 11:36 PM
Domtyler.

Iran doesn't tolerare dissent...and yet dissent continues. Rallies, riots at football matches, the Women's movement, political prisoners embarking on hunger strikes, the Referendum movement...

And there are casualties.

And those are the people brave enough to dissent.

Try this. (http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/tg/detail/-/081297106X/104-3296494-1684720?v=glance)

Good for context. (Droid! You liking my spaces!)

Iran is not a democracy. Why perpetuate this myth?

scottdisco
10-11-2005, 12:48 AM
Craner keeps banging on about Iran this, Iran that, whether it's a democracy, how rhetoric impacts, blah blah.
well who can say if Ahmadinejad really wants to provoke Israel in a game of tipping one way or t'other, or any of that jazz.

frankly i'm getting rather bored with Olly's prattle, so i consulted a recent Garton Ash article in the NYRB (online here (http://www.nybooks.com/articles/18390))
to see what he says instead of that neo-con Ledeen.
Timmy writes the Islamic Republic is still an ideological dictatorship. Its central organizing principle can be summarized in four sentences: (1) There is only one God and Muhammad is his Prophet. (2) God knows best what is good for men and women. (3) The Islamic clergy, and especially the most learned among them, the jurists qualified to interpret Islamic law, know best what God wants. (4) In case of dispute among learned jurists, the Supreme Leader decides. This is the system....it is Khomeinism.

oh.

what's the latest in the case of the Zahra Kazemi slaying Oliver dear chap?

Buick6
10-11-2005, 04:04 AM
Until Iran creates a cultural identity like Dana International, they can get fucked.

The blood curdles with some of the immature rhetoric going on here. What do you expect Israel to do out-numbered 100000's to 1 who's existence was threatened as soon as the country came into existence? So why don't we let them drop their weapons and right to self-defence and see how long it lasts. I bet it wouldn't last longer than what happened to the Kurds now would it?

Amazing how fascists who aren't scared to kill themselves and innocents can polarize the public, and allow anti-semitism to rear its head.

I mean if Israel doesn't get support from Amerikkka, who will support them? And remember kids, Noam Chomsky said that the Kibbutz system was one of the first purely SOCIALISTIC systems that worked, but hey, its bundled up in some form of Imperialism, nobody's perfect. and we know a world with no America, no Israel, no Zionsim will be a better place, though i don't think the Nazi's woulda over-taken America. But lets come out and say it A WORLD WITH NO JEWS WOULD BE FANTASTIC!!! LETS ALL REVEL IN IT FEEL GOOD ABOUT IT DEEP INSIDE! KILL THE JEWS THEY ARE THE ROOT OF ALL EVIL!! THEY ARE FASCISTS AND WORSHIP MONEY AND CORRUPTION AND THEY ARE DEEPLY, DEEPLY ARROGANT, IN FACT THEY INVENTED ARROGANCE!!!

Gee it doesn't really ring true, does it? Wankers.

I think the balance of power is just part of the nautral law of things, if you don't like it, become a fucken politician and make a difference, but seriously, if you were so good, you wouldn't be piss farting around in dissensus now, would you?

droid
10-11-2005, 11:21 AM
Good for context. (Droid! You liking my spaces!)

Well done Oliver. They're my favourite parts of your posts ;)


Iran is not a democracy. Why perpetuate this myth?

Er... Who exactly is perpetrating it? The liberal Mass media?


What do you expect Israel to do out-numbered 100000's to 1 who's existence was threatened as soon as the country came into existence?

Thats right. The entire Arab world's number one priority for the last 50 years has been to drive Israel into the sea. Israel has never been an aggressor, has constantly sought peaceful solutions, and only ever acts in self defence, also, israel was 'a land without a people' when Jewish settlement began, Palestinians 'left' their land in 1948 of their own free will, there has never been a single Palestinian civilain killed unjustly due to the IDF's policy of 'purity of arms', and all citizens in Israel have equal rights regardles of religion or ethnicity...

Have I left any of the important myths out? Or would you like to add some more from your own selection?


So why don't we let them drop their weapons and right to self-defence and see how long it lasts. I bet it wouldn't last longer than what happened to the Kurds now would it?

Are you talking about 'one of the biggest human rights abuses' of the 90's?, ie - Turkeys persecution of their Kurdish minority facilitated by military support from the US? Or perhaps Saddam's brutal attacks on the Kurds, which were repeatedly ignored by Washington due to their strategic alliance with Iraq?

Either way, it would be a fairly radical shift in US policy to go from supplying Israel with approximately $6 billion a year in arms and state of the art weaponry, to giving logistical and miltary support to her persecutors - and about as likely as me becoming Pope..

Oh- and since when did possesing 270-400 nuclear warheads in a primarily non-nuclear-armed region constitue self defence?


I mean if Israel doesn't get support from Amerikkka, who will support them? And remember kids, Noam Chomsky said that the Kibbutz system was one of the first purely SOCIALISTIC systems that worked, but hey, its bundled up in some form of Imperialism, nobody's perfect. and we know a world with no America, no Israel, no Zionsim will be a better place, though i don't think the Nazi's woulda over-taken America. But lets come out and say it A WORLD WITH NO JEWS WOULD BE FANTASTIC!!! LETS ALL REVEL IN IT FEEL GOOD ABOUT IT DEEP INSIDE! KILL THE JEWS THEY ARE THE ROOT OF ALL EVIL!! THEY ARE FASCISTS AND WORSHIP MONEY AND CORRUPTION AND THEY ARE DEEPLY, DEEPLY ARROGANT, IN FACT THEY INVENTED ARROGANCE!!!

Gee it doesn't really ring true, does it? Wankers.


The blood curdles with some of the immature rhetoric going on here.

You said it. Surely you can come up with a slightly more rational and level headed argument. The ill-informed rant above does your position absolutely no favours.


This is a civil enough board.


Lets please keep it that way. :cool:

scottdisco
10-11-2005, 03:22 PM
Droid:
Well done Oliver. They're my favourite parts of your posts

possibly the thread's best line yet ;)

k-punk
10-11-2005, 08:06 PM
You said it. Surely you can come up with a slightly more rational and level headed argument. The ill-informed rant above does your position absolutely no favours.


This is a civil enough board.


Lets please keep it that way. :cool:


Hear, hear.

Jeez, are we still at the stage of having to distinguish being anti-Israel from being anti-semitic?

craner
10-11-2005, 08:35 PM
Good question (http://www.zahrakazemi.com/), Scottie.

craner
10-11-2005, 08:37 PM
And that was under Khatami! You see, it means nothing.

Alright, I think I've made this point rather well now.

dominic
11-11-2005, 01:12 AM
Basically European Jews were left without a place to go, they were refugees and noone likes refugees.

there were all kinds of refugees at the end of wwii, esp. in eastern europe = millions of ethnic germans were expelled from the ukraine -- massive rearranging of populations occurred

therefore it would have been relatively easy to carve out a territory for the jews -- though i suppose w/ soviet union in control of eastern europe, perhaps not so easy

but the point is, why did the crime have to be against palestinians rather than europeans?

i.e., all states are founded upon crimes against other people, so i don't lament the radical expropriation of others as such ------ rather, i think that in this case europe should have "punished" itself by handing-over some of its own territory to the jews ------- the result would have been something in the nature of justice, not crime

i think, also, that under modern conditions, the jewish people need to have their own nation-state, or at least a state in which their status as full citizens is not in question -- so i don't take issue with the concept of an "israel" or at least a state in which jews are among the founding elements


Meanwhile there was already a Jewish community established in Palestine. The Jews didn't just appear there in 1948.

no, but they did more or less appear there over the course of the previous 50 years, in what was essentially a colonial operation = zionism is and always has been a species of western imperialism


It's not like there was genocide or a huge land grab.

how about ethnic cleansing?


yeah, there was some wrongdoing but there are no winners in this.

again, all states are founded on wrongs

the problem w/ israel is that the wrongs were perpetrated against a stronger people -- i.e., the arabs

which has meant that israel, in order to survive, has had to depend upon the good will of western powers, for a short time britain, and for the most of the past 60 years the usa -- and so this makes of israel a western presence in the middle east, an imperial outpost -- so even if many israelis in fact came from other areas of the middle east and north africa, and indeed even if a few come from families that had never left the land of palestine, the state is a western proxy


Everyone has to compromise. Something which a lot of the Arab countries (and Iran) refuse to do (to bring it back around on topic).

they won't have to compromise if they have more endurance -- i.e., they can wait another hundred years, wait however long it takes for western commitment to israel to collapse -- and then they'll be free to drive the jews into the sea -- remember: arabs take the long view -- they are a very old civilization (even if islam is relatively new)

or rather, they would be free to vanquish israel only if it were not nuclear armed -- this is why israel needs a nuclear capability, b/c at the end of the day such weapons are its only real security


It's not their land that was taken

you say this as though national identity were more pronounced among arabs and muslims than religious, cultural, and regional identities

only if arabs and muslims conceived of themselves primarily or exclusively as "syrians" or "egyptians" or "persians" would the land of palestine not be theirs that was taken

instead, they experience the expropriation of the palestinians as a crime against islam and an insult to arab honor -- a humiliating symbol and perpetual reminder of western dominance over the islamic world

and of course such feelings of humiliation are irrational, the tendency to always and everywhere experience insult is highly problematic -- and this is where the arabs are at fault

but you cannot fault them for resisting the dispossession of their brethren


and they have refused to take in any Palestinian refugees.

there are palestinians who live and work throughout the middle east -- esp. the more educated classes

remember: palestine was a sedentary culture w/ a high degree of learning and technical expertise as compared w/ other parts of he arab world, where the people were traditionally nomadic but had the good fortune to be grazing on top of massive oil reserves

and last: were the other arab countries to take in and absorb completely the palestine refugees, it would normalize the situation and therefore legitimate, willy nilly, the state of israel, and the crimes upon which israel was founded would be forgotten

but the arabs see no need to forget b/c forgetfulness is for the wretched and weak -- i.e., israel is positioned against an arab sea and someday the tide will turn

dominic
11-11-2005, 02:18 AM
Yes, on the face of it, conservative and neo-conservative/Blairite thinkers seem to be full of positive rhetoric about 'freedom'

rhetoric aside, isn't self-determination the guiding principle of liberal democracy -- i.e., give people scope to determine the nature and course of their own lives, which necessarily involves placing limits on what they can do with respect to others

so w/ an iraqi liberal democracy, the majority would be given scope to make law and forge a modern culture, though constrained by limits designed to protect the interests and rights of minority groups in iraq -- which might in the end rule out a sectarian shiite state, even if this is what majority wants

or is self-determination not a principle???


the key defining characteristics of this axis is its showy disavowal of anything deemed to be utopian. The appeal is always to what, in a theatrical gesture of faux-regret, they call the 'real world' (its assumption being that the nature of reality is basically fixed, we know what people are really like)

so you don't think there's such a thing as human nature or at least certain basic human drives and passions, as well as certain basic human types (each type determined by the predominant passion in his psychological make-up), even if each person is ultimately a singularity

i certainly think we could have a much better society than what we're stuck with now -- one where people were given less scope to pursue financial profit, one where people did not have to work so much to no apparent end, etc -- but i think that an utopian project, to be desirable, would have to accommodate the complexity of human nature and not do undue violence to it -- there would need to be space for people to have a private dimension to their lives, their own lovers, own families -- there would need to be different kinds of social spaces, i.e., not everyone forced to go to same bowling alleys and pubs, i.e., you'd still need the rich variety that capitalism has on offer -- there would need to be some scope for the ambitious, etc, so long as they did not enslave others or acquire too much status at the expense of others (perilously close to protecting each person's self-esteem)

and what do you get??? something like john rawls??? -- and wouldn't such a world be rather vanilla and devoid of pain in the worst possible way?

wouldn't we be rather bored with utopia -- like people in heaven wishing they could die?


Parliamentary politics as practised today does not in any way consist of setting objectives inspired by principles and of inventing the means to attain them.

what should the principles be?

presumably some combination of "liberty" and "equality"?

if so, aren't we still within the orbit of liberal democracy?


It consists of turning the spectacle of the economy into the object of an apathetic (though obviously unstable) public consensus.'

yes, but badiou (like arendt) is too neat in separating political questions from economic questions

if the main issue is class conflict, then economic questions should be brought to the fore

apathetic public consensus is the result of false and unsustainable prosperity


This politics articulates itself in terms of a defence of 'human rights' but these ''human rights' are rights to non-evil', so that 'Evil is that from which Good is derived, not the other way round.'

so are you proposing this alternative = EITHER limit men's capacity to do evil by exploiting their most powerfully felt passions (fear of death and grievious injury) OR take your bearings from their highest potential (for pursuit of knowledge, creation of art, or some such end, which require leisure)

don't both sides of this alternative imply that there's such a thing as human nature????


there can be large-scale commitment of resources only to the 'ridding of Evil', not to the construction of any Good.

yes, but how can you have a GOOD if you don't know "what" it's good for -- i.e., something is GOOD only if it's good FOR man (or perhaps only certain people?) -- which in turn implies that man has certain basic needs or purposes, i.e., a kind of nature


Interesting that the disavowed utopian impulse is never ACTUALLY translated into a pure pragmatism. The neo-con agenda isn't actually 'realistic'; its vision of extirpating all tyranny from the world is every bit as dewy-eyed as any scheme dreamt up by the Left. It is not as if, for instance, 'the war on terror' has the remotest prospect of succeeding.

TRUE

Buick6
11-11-2005, 07:00 AM
Well done Oliver. They're my favourite parts of your posts ;)



Er... Who exactly is perpetrating it? The liberal Mass media?



Thats right. The entire Arab world's number one priority for the last 50 years has been to drive Israel into the sea. Israel has never been an aggressor, has constantly sought peaceful solutions, and only ever acts in self defence, also, israel was 'a land without a people' when Jewish settlement began, Palestinians 'left' their land in 1948 of their own free will, there has never been a single Palestinian civilain killed unjustly due to the IDF's policy of 'purity of arms', and all citizens in Israel have equal rights regardles of religion or ethnicity...

Have I left any of the important myths out? Or would you like to add some more from your own selection?



Are you talking about 'one of the biggest human rights abuses' of the 90's?, ie - Turkeys persecution of their Kurdish minority facilitated by military support from the US? Or perhaps Saddam's brutal attacks on the Kurds, which were repeatedly ignored by Washington due to their strategic alliance with Iraq?

Either way, it would be a fairly radical shift in US policy to go from supplying Israel with approximately $6 billion a year in arms and state of the art weaponry, to giving logistical and miltary support to her persecutors - and about as likely as me becoming Pope..

Oh- and since when did possesing 270-400 nuclear warheads in a primarily non-nuclear-armed region constitue self defence?





You said it. Surely you can come up with a slightly more rational and level headed argument. The ill-informed rant above does your position absolutely no favours.


This is a civil enough board.


Lets please keep it that way. :cool:

One word. BIGOT.

droid
11-11-2005, 08:07 AM
One word. BIGOT.


Surely you can come up with a slightly more rational and level headed argument.

:confused: I guess not.

Buick6
11-11-2005, 08:16 AM
What 'level' when you've basically sat on one side of the fence to compose your arguement.

bigot Audio pronunciation of "bigot" ( P ) Pronunciation Key (bgt)
n.

One who is strongly partial to one's own group, religion, race, or politics and is intolerant of those who differ.


[French, from Old French.]

Word History: Bigots may have more in common with God than one might think. Legend has it that Rollo, the first duke of Normandy, refused to kiss the foot of the French king Charles III, uttering the phrase bi got, his borrowing of the assumed Old English equivalent of our expression by God. Although this story is almost surely apocryphal, it is true that bigot was used by the French as a term of abuse for the Normans, but not in a religious sense. Later, however, the word, or very possibly a homonym, was used abusively in French for the Beguines, members of a Roman Catholic lay sisterhood. From the 15th century on Old French bigot meant an excessively devoted or hypocritical person. Bigot is first recorded in English in 1598 with the sense a superstitious hypocrite.

droid
11-11-2005, 10:45 AM
One who is strongly partial to one's own group, religion, race, or politics and is intolerant of those who differ.


an excessively devoted or hypocritical person. Bigot is first recorded in English in 1598 with the sense a superstitious hypocrite.

Why dont you go back and read through this thread again. I certainly wouldnt think of accusing you of bigotry (or cataclysmic historical ignorance/reading comprehension for that matter), based purely on a few comments on a message board, but the quotes above do seem to aptly describe your contribution thus far.

Have a nice day. :)

droid
11-11-2005, 11:16 AM
there were all kinds of refugees at the end of wwii, esp. in eastern europe = millions of ethnic germans were expelled from the ukraine -- massive rearranging of populations occurred

therefore it would have been relatively easy to carve out a territory for the jews -- though i suppose w/ soviet union in control of eastern europe, perhaps not so easy

but the point is, why did the crime have to be against palestinians rather than europeans?

Thats a very good point. At the Potsdam conference in 1945, Churchill authourised the 'transfer' of 13 million Germans from Eastern and Central Europe - a process in which 2 million Germans died. There was certainly no moral reluctance against displacement - and theres also the fact that much of Europe had been depopulated during the war, and was going through a period of radical political re-organisation, so the idea of founding a Jewish homeland in Europe wasnt such a flight of fancy, in fact I think there may even have been some socialist Zionists who advocated this - but Ill have to dig for the references.


i.e., all states are founded upon crimes against other people, so i don't lament the radical expropriation of others as such ------ rather, i think that in this case europe should have "punished" itself by handing-over some of its own territory to the jews ------- the result would have been something in the nature of justice, not crime

Im not so sure I agree with you that 'all states are founded upon crimes against other people'. Surely this applies mainly to colonising and Imperial nations. For example, Irish 'crimes' against British occupiers during the war of Independence, are utterly different in quality, motivation and context to the resource and lebensraum driven genocide of the Conquistadors, the early Americans, or the Nazis.


i think, also, that under modern conditions, the jewish people need to have their own nation-state, or at least a state in which their status as full citizens is not in question -- so i don't take issue with the concept of an "israel" or at least a state in which jews are among the founding elements


I was actually going to respond to k-punk on this before I got distracted. I essentially agree with you here. Sure the 'concept' of Israel in its present form as an brutal occupier, destabilising regional 'local cop on the beat', and outpost of US military power is, and should be abbhorent - but it wasnt always like this. The Israel of socialist Zionists, an Israel not defined by expulsion, exploitation, conflict and occupation, working in peace with its neighbours, and culturally and economically enriching the region, - is a worthy idea, and should be held in high esteem.

The question is - is there any hope of reconciling 'socilaist zionism' with 'gun zionism', and can the crimes (of both sides) during the last 50 years ever be forgiven or forgotten.

craner
26-11-2005, 05:30 PM
Israel Dismantles; World's Problems End (http://thepeoplescube.com/red/viewtopic.php?t=307)

Melchior
26-11-2005, 10:19 PM
Israel Dismantles; World's Problems End (http://thepeoplescube.com/red/viewtopic.php?t=307)

Am I the only one who thinks that site is deeply, deeply stupid?

Wrong
27-11-2005, 02:36 AM
Am I the only one who thinks that site is deeply, deeply stupid?

No you aren't; it's really fucking dumb. Scroll down the right-hand column, and it's kind of racist, too. And, what a surprise: a right-wing islamaphobic site that combines anti-anti-Zionism with the propogation of what are traditionally anti-semitic ideas - specifically "communism is a conspiracy of bankers" (http://thepeoplescube.com/red/viewforum.php?f=18) and "there is an elite are left-wing and non-human" (http://thepeoplescube.com/red/viewforum.php?f=15) (that page also features bonus "Hilary Clinton is a communist" nonsense).

k-punk
27-11-2005, 12:32 PM
'Hilary Clinton is a communist', if only

'Israel Dismantles; World's Problems End' --- (look at the comments to see the moronic level of the readership of that site....)

Hmmm, how about 'All Islamists agree to be shot by American forces; capitalist parliamentarianism now reaches all corners of the globe'

Next: 'Blacks agree not to reproduce: all crime eliminated.'

craner
28-11-2005, 10:02 AM
Er...I thought it was funny.

Nevermind!