Has no one gone back to him to ask him for clarification of what he meant, or if he’s being misquoted? Seriously.
Not true. The official translation is the so-called “spin translation”, despite what hacks like Cole contend.
Yes, and David Duke denies that his hatred of blacks and Jews can be interpreted as racism. I simply cannot buy that anybody believes Israel could be eliminated as a nation through anything but blood, blood, and more blood. Do you honestly think that the Iranian leadership is that stupid? I mean, we’re talking near infinite levels of stupidity there. Do you honestly and truly believe that the Iranian leadership thinks that Israel will just pick up and go away?
*The man himself also denied that there was any gay people in Iran. Perhaps taking him at his word isn’t the best course of action? *
And as I have pointed out, the soviet analogy is horrible and doesn’t work on any level. Do you honestly believe that he’s stupid enough to believe it, or that his denial is any more honest than his denial of there being any gay people in Iran? Could it be that he was speaking to the world stage and cultivating influence with Useful Idiots?
I already posted a link that contains the figures that 55% of Iranians are interested in supporting a two state solution in exchange for good relations with the US. 61% were willing to admit to wanting the Supreme Leader’s power stripped from him significantly. 79% support democracy.
I would be wary of confusing the hardliners’ and theocrats’ hatred of the US with the citizens’ feelings. It is quite clear that a majority of Iranian citizens do not in fact view us as “the Great Satan”.
Whether or not that means we can help fund pro-democracy groups is unclear, but taking the thugs’ rhetoric as representative of the people is unwise, IMO.
It is also worth noting that’s because they simply train, equip, arm, finance, shelter and coordinate with/help direct others who’ll launch those acts of aggression and give them plausible deniability.
Do you honestly contend that not just good number of the actions were in self defense, but all of them? Supporting Hezbollah for decades while they were busy murdering civilians and attacking military targets years after any acts of US of UK that could reasonably be termed “aggression” were all acts of defense on Iran’s part? Are you really making that claim?
Irrational and treasonous? So if I understand correctly, the irrational response would be to stop supporting global terrorism and appearing like a threat, and the rational response is to want a nuke? The treasonous response is to stop supporting Hezbollah et al but the loyal response is to go for nuclear weapons?
Can you elaborate on that?
What’s really, really trippy here is that the same rhetoric we saw Bush and his supporters using during his days of greatest influence are now being used by those who oppose Bush. Time was in America that not supporting a drive towards increased militarization and/or war was deemed traitorous, treasonous, America-hating, unpatriotic, etc… Now for Iranians not to want to up the ante and develop nuclear weapons is “treasonous”. I should note, by the way, that treason has traditionally carried rather stiff penalties, up to and including death. So when American rightists called anti-war Americans ‘traitors’, they weren’t just saying they disagreed. They were accusing them of a very serious crime. Now when Iranians who don’t want nuclear weapons are accused of being traitors, they are being accused of the same serious crime.
Perhaps the more things change, the more they stay the same.
The only way? You honestly believe that? That if, tomorrow, Iran held free elections, dismantled its theocracy, dismantled its global terrorist network and even went as far as to help ferret out agents and sleeper cells all over the world and then suspended its nuclear program in exchange for international aid (which 83% of Iranians support, but I suppose they’re all treasonous…) that they wouldn’t be able to keep the US “wolf” from their door?
Do you really believe that?
I have to note that it certainly seems as if you’re deliberating choosing to not actually respond to anything I’ve said in this thread. At all. That you can’t or won’t address what I’m saying, and simply must demonstrate how very unafraid you are.
It will instead assume that you posted in this thread by accident and probably didn’t intend to hijack it with irrelevancies, so I’ll respond to you in the thread where you seem to have meant your post to end up.
You do realize that you’re contradicting yourself one sentence to the next?
To begin with, if their action was totally self-serving then it didn’t express any “good will”. It expressed self-interest. You claim that their motivations are irrelevant, but then leap right into claims of “good will” on their part that you say are highly relevant. That’s a glaring contradiction, and that fact should be fairly obvious I would hope.
The fact of the matter is that Iran was not then at all interested in helping us, they were interested in helping themselves. To pretend that our interests merged by more than mere coincidence is disingenuous. As is the formulation that Iran “helped us”, as if that was their goal, motive or something that they’d repeat if they weren’t getting something directly out of it which might or might not actually be at cross purposes to our own interests.
I pretty much agree with mswas on this point. I think America’s failure to diplomatically reach out to Iran after 9/11 is probably going to be regarded as one of the biggest foreign policy blunders of the post-Cold War era. A comparison can be made with the re-opening of America’s relations with China in the 70’s. I’m quite sure Nixon and Mao didn’t have altruistic motives when they met in 1972 but they each had a common foe they hoped to contain: the Soviet Union. Likewise, in late 2001 both the U.S. and Iran had common foes in the Taliban, Al Qaeda, and Saddam Hussein. (In fact, in terms of Westernization, Iran at that time was in better position than China was in 1972 since it was in the last throes of the “Cultural Revolution” and its totalitarian excesses.) However, unlike what happened with the Chinese, the brain trust running Bush’s foreign policy operated with a rigid “Iran always bad” mindset and either failed to see or deliberately ignored the window of diplomatic opportunity that opened up. Unfortunately, that window was mostly closed when Bush made Iran part of the “Axis of Evil” in 2002 and tightly shut when Ahmadinejad was elected in 2005.
No more so than with any other nation in the region. I’m a hell of a lot more concerned about the peoples of Pakistan and Saudi Arabia than the people of Iran.
Disgusted would be a better word. And thoroughly disheartened at what our leadership has done to lower the standing of my country in the world community.
It is certainly not our business to fight Israel’s battles for her, if that’s what you mean, or to send our youth to die on her behalf.
Paranoid right-wing fantasy when applied to Iran. I would be much more concerned about disaffected Pakistanis or Saudis trying something like that. (Nice job conflating the Sunni extremists who attacked New York with the Shi’a of Iran. It sure helps crank up the fear when you can turn them all into one big undifferentiated scary Islamofascist threat.)
I can’t control what their politicians do, but I can certainly do my part to rein in my own. I figure if the volume gets turned down on our end, it is likely to fade on the other end as well.
I can’t agree. As long as Iran continues to fund Hezbollah, there is no real will for peace. Moreoever, mswas wasn’t just saying that Iran was looking out for its own interests and using us, but that they wasf good will. There is no evidence to support such a conclusion.
Yes, but they weren’t at the time supporting a global terrorist organization with cells in our country. That factor does make a difference when one analyzes just how serious a country is about peace. Iran’s actions, right after they saw to their own interests in Afghanistan, also included broadcasting anti-American propaganda into the country. This gives a fairly decent thumbnail sketch of the situation. It is interesting to note, for instance, that right after we got the ball rolling, Iran was already busy trying to instill and spread Shiite fundamentalism. It’s hard to claim that they were helping us when some of their first actions put paid to that notion.
I’m more than willing to work for detente as long as there’s an actual desire for it from both parties. But that wasn’t the case.
Yes, kiiiiinda, and yes, respectively.
Iran has continued to provide weapons, money, training and safe haven to Hezbollah despite that organization’s ties with AQ. From where I sit, that means that Iran either viewed AQ as a possible pawn/ally or, at the very least, not an outright foe. If the organization you created, bankrolled, armed, trained and offered a haven to began cooperating with your foe, would you keep up with arming, funding, training etc… ?
Beside that, for instance, analogy is always suspect and historical examples that are divergent are always difficult to use properly. We cooperated with the Soviets, for example, to bring down the Nazis. The result of that alliance was a divided Germany and the Stassi, among other things. Just because someone will cooperate with you doesn’t mean that the result will be good, or even palatable.
Indeed. If we’re talking about Iranians we have a very viable opportunity… assuming that the Iranian government wasn’t in play.
Perhaps they saw Iran as continuing to be bad, rather than “Iran always bad”? You have to admit, Iran continuing to support Hezbollah, andreligious fundamentalism while claiming peaceful intentions is a bit of a stretch, no?
Ah well, I guess you did mean to take this discussion into this thread
NDP my apologies… I’m going to respond here, but if you want this tangent relegated exclusively to the thread that spawned it, just let me know. I’ll certainly respect your wishes as the OP.
With that being said, oy vey…
Fallacy of red herring. Saying something else is cause for greater concern does not mean the first thing is cause for no concern. And yet, you have used this fallacy more than once. Why?
I’ll also note that the discussion is really about the the theocratic leadership of Iran and not the people. But it’s an interesting use of the fallacy of equivocation around the word “Iranian”.
Nobody is actually talking about that and yet you’re responding both as if someone did and if it was somehow relevant. It’s interesting that when someone talks about a possible threat to America you have to talk about Israel. Do you believe that only Israel has cafes or malls? That Hezbollah would only ever blow things up in Israel? Perhaps when they murdered dozens of Argentinian Jews, Imad Fayez McBomsalot just read the map wrong, and he thought the target was in Tel Aviv?
-“Hezbollah is a threat to America.”
-“Yes, but they’re a bigger threat to Israel!”
-“Well… okay. But they’re also a threat to us and we should be cautious and shouldn’t consider those who sponsor them to have our best interests at heart.”
-“No blood for Israel! No blood for Israel! Damn the traitorous Israel Firsters!”
Brilliant factual rebuttal. Not consisting 100% of an ad hominem fallacy either.
Do you find it odd that anybody who considers it possible that a terrorist organization that has killed hundreds of Americans, both military and civilians, might possibly pose a risk and that we should be aware of that rather than pretending that a risk doesn’t even exist is… automatically a “right-winger”, or that idea is somehow “right-wing”?
Doesn’t that strike you as even somewhat strange? For years, I was called a rabid leftist because I disagreed with Bush. Now, will disagreeing with you get everybody labeled as rabid rightists? Is this just more of Bush’s Us-Them rhetoric and now you get to be Us for a change?
That’s the second time you used a red herring fallacy in one post.
I would be more worried by a rabid dog in my bedroom than a rabid raccoon. Does that mean that anybody who thinks that being cautious of the raccoon is, what, a neocon? Are we on Short Attention Span Theater now? is it not possible to be aware that more than two things might be dangerous?
Interesting, in that he didn’t.
Why is it that you pretend that a terrorist organization that has attacked American military and civilian targets time and time again might validly be seen as something other than totally harmless? Why is it that correctly stating that they pose a non-zero risk means one is conflating them with other terrorists? Are we back on Short Attention Span Theater where talking about one terror group that has attacked us means you must be alluding to another terror group that has attacked us?
Perception is such an interesting thing.
Someone says that a terrorist organization which has attacked us numerous times has a non-zero percent chance of attacking us again at some point. By doing this, in your view, the specific organization they’re talking about becomes a “big undifferentiated scary Islamofascist threat.”
Are you curious as to how you arrived at that conclusion?
Sort of like the U.S. claiming to support democratic movements and then continuing to support, fund, and arm the Diem brothers, Marcos, Chiang Kai Shek, Suharto, the Samozas, (and later the Somozan thug national guard), Batista, the whole succession of U.S. imposed dictators in Guatemala, Cordova, Noriega (till we got frightened he would not play our game by our rules), and (pertinent to this discussion), Mohammad Reza Pahlevi, Shah of Iran?
I don’t have any trust of the theocrats, but unlike Iraq, Iran has not had an active campaign of conquest. They are simply playing the same stupid game we are for their own reasons. It makes far more sense to engage them, actively, with the hope that we can provide sufficient inducements for them to call in their support for terrorists , than it does to openly give the theocrats fodder for their propaganda mills by making idiotic “Axis of Evil” speeches. As long as we present ourselves as an imminent threat to their society, it will be easier for the theocrats to keep themselves protected by the public opinion of their people. It is true that the theocrats were keeping up their own agenda of propaganda and support for Hezbollah following the WTC/Pentagon attacks. However, it is also true that they were, indeed, working with us in sharing some intelligence regarding al Qaida while their elected government was creeping toward more openness. By making them all enemies, we allowed the theocrats to kill the reforms (with little protest, since the folks on the street could see us rattling our sabre at them), giving them a longer lease on life.
I find it interesting that Israel can carry on extended discussions, with no prior conditions, with Syria over the Golan Heights, but GW Bush and Condi Rice refuse to even say “Hello” to Iran if it does not meet a whole list of conditions. That is simply stupid in the realm of diplomacy; it is the sort of tactic that is employed when one wishes to ensure that no problem is resolved so that one may hold up the bugaboo of “THEM” to keep one’s own people in line.
It is also interesting that the U.S. labelled the MKO and a couple of sister organizations as terrorist groups (and used their presence in Iraq to rationalize the claim that Hussein was “supporting world terror,” and as soon as we conqured the country, we began supporting the same groups (who never changed their target which has always been solely Iran).
Yes tom exactly like that. I’ve never said that supporting a bastard like the Shah was a good thing, or any of the other bastards our nation has supported in the past.
Conquest, no. Military aggression, yes.
I’d quibble that the ‘games’ are rather different in a number of particulars. But they do of course have similarities.
I won’t disagree with that tom. What I have stated many times in this and the other thread is that we should not assume Iran’s attentions are totally benign, that they should drop support of Hezbollah to show their good faith and that we should adopt a defensive stance where they are concerned.
Do you feel those are unreasonable tenets?
How do you feel about the public opinion polls that show Iranian society being rather heavily against their government, for democracy, against continuing their nuclear program if they get international aid, for recognizing a two state solution in exchange for good relations with the US, etc…?
And that is good. But it still seems to be too much like selling out someone who’s worked with their proxy rather than giving up the proxy. From where I sit, Iran still supporting Hezbollah while talking peace is just Janus-faced. Even if you don’t agree, can you at least see where I’m coming from?
I’m not sure you’re right tom. There certainly seems to be massive disquiet with how the theocrats run the show. Perhaps, instead, the reforms didn’t take root because of the draconian reprisals that the thugs use?
While Bush’s hamfisted rhetoric certainly didn’t help, perhaps there were other factors, or even other more important factors?
I don’t agree… sometimes there are perfectly valid prerequisites to be met. Especially if one of them is “show good faith that you actually want peace.”
Just so we’re clear, by the way, you’re talking about the Mujahedin-e Khalq, often labeled as MEK but also sometimes at MKO?
I was under the impression that we closes their US offices in 2003 Later, Tancredo and the Iran Policy Committee, among others, agitated to have it removed from the roll of terrorist organizations. I was, however, unaware that we’d done so or that we were currently financing/arming them. I thought we’d actually disarmed those MEK members who were under our jurisdiction in Iraq? I was aware that they were engaged in acts of sabotage against Iranian targets, but unaware that the US was behind their actions.
If that’s the case, I would certainly be against it and I would see nothing wrong with Iran responding to our calls for them to drop Hezbollah by saying “Okay, we will when you drop the MEK.” And then we could both do so, and show good faith, and start a process of detente.
I disagree with your disagreement. I think it is important to begin talking without conditions, if for no other reason than to begin to discover how the other side thinks. If you’re negotiating a specific deal or contract with a well known entity, a few prerequisites might be OK, but for any broader discussions, preconditions are nothing but excuses to not talk.
I think such engagement certainly could’ve occurred between 2001 to 2005 but the U.S. didn’t seem to be much interested in making it possible. One of the many problems with Bush’s foreign policy is not that he just sees things in black and white but that he only sees one shade of black and one shade of white (as for shades of gray, forget about it). This was not even the case during the Cold War when resolute anti-communists like Nixon and Reagan were at least were willing to seize diplomatic opportunities that seemingly went against their hard line policies (e.g., the re-opening of China and the reduction of nuclear weapons talks with Gorbachev) if there stood to be a good pay-off. Bush, unfortunately, is not like this. Moreover, even if this diplomatic window of opportunity with Iran magically re-opened now, I have doubts the Bush Administration would take advantage of it. They’ve invested too much rhetoric and saber rattling to do anything that looks like backing down.
Two things. First is…I’m concerned about them TOO. You can actually be concerned about what Saudi Arabia is doing, Pakistan is doing AND Iran at the same time.
The other thing is…if you see Iran as no more so that ANY other nation in the region than you seriously haven’t been paying attention. Think through the countries that are IN the Middle East region sometime and you will see that your contention is, well, rather silly.
Too be sure. I’m quite scared by my own leadership, personally. And honestly, if you pay attention to what Iran’s leadership has too say, it’s quite frightening as well. YMMV and perhaps you figure that what they are saying/doing is only a lot of hot air…but then, I’d have too say that is the case with our leadership as well.
Well, is it our business too fight our own battles? Do you think that the entire issue between Iran and the US has too do with Israel? What is your proof that this is the case?
So…what you seem too be getting at is that we should only be concerned by one (or is it two) threats at a time? I don’t know why you rate a disaffected Pakistani or Saudi (presumably a lone nutball type) as a higher threat than state sponsored organizations like Hezbollah, but even if this were true…well, because one threat might be presumed higher than another doesn’t make the lesser threat = no threat. See? (BTW, I think you are seriously wrong…did you follow the recent flare up in Lebanon? Some of these groups have some pretty frightening capabilities IMHO).
I didn’t conflate anything. Are you under the impression that only Sunni extremists are capable of carrying out terrorist operations? Do you have any evidence that this is the case, that groups like Hezbollah or Islamic Jihad don’t have the capacity for such an attack? Did you read the link I put in the other thread that talked about how Hezbollah WAS considered the number one threat too the US from a terror group prior too 9/11?
What leads you too this conclusion? Did it fade on the Iranian end during the Clinton administration? Did Iran drop funding for external terror groups in the 90’s only too have a resurgence when Bush et al came too power? Do you suppose the Iranian nuclear program magically came into full flower from scratch after Bush famous Axis of Evil speech? :dubious:
Seriously…where is your evidence for drawing this conclusion? What are you basing it on?
-XT
Well… I disagree with your disagreement of my disagreeing and I do so disagreeably.
So there.
No backsees.
Well, for what it’s worth, I see negotiating peaceful relations with Iran to be a specific deal with a well known entity. And from where I sit, asking for both sides to stop any connection with proxy forces is a very good first step, show of good faith, and a rather natural prerequisite.
I can’t quite agree that a request, like dropping Hezbollah, could be used as an excuse to not talk. In my view, without dropping Hezbollah (or MEK or what have you), anything that comes after that is suspect and not worth the paper it’s printed on. So it seems like a good reason to ask for it as an acid test as to whether or not the talks would be worth anything more than PR.
Yes and no. I believe in this situation, and have believed in other situations, that stopping support of terrorism/terrorists is a perfectly valid prerequisite. I believe, further, not not stopping that support shows a lack of good faith and trustworthiness.
And those were good, but I doubt that we could have had decent diplomatic talks with the Soviets during, say the Cuban Missile Crisis. As for China, I don’t have the specific data in front of me, but I was under the impression that by the time Nixon made his historic visit, China had been significantly reducing their military commitment in Vietnam. In my mind, that’s one of the shows of good faith that I think should come before major negotiations of this sort.
I agree that is certainly a plausible situation… but do you think that if Bush magically opened a diplomatic initiative with Iran, that the mullahs would be willing to give up Hezbollah and their aims of inciting Islamic fundamentalism? In my view, without those things happening, it’s not really talks in the service of peace but talks in the service of strengthening Iran. And without a good faith gesture to show me that Iran is at all serious about peace, rather than getting stronger, I do not want a stronger Iran.
I’m certainly not saying that everything lays at the feet of one person, or one group of people, but I don’t see the Iranian theocrats being an honest partner for peace.
Yes, it’s quite possible that they’d bargain for greater influence in Iraq… but much like what happened when they got greater influence in Afghanistan, they’d most likely begin with a program or instilling and strengthening Islamic fundamentalism. They most likely wouldn’t drop their support of Hezbollah either. All we’d get is an Iraq that was, possibly, more stabilized but by Iranian influence towards Iranian aims that, under the Mullahs, would most likely be contrary or dangerous to our own interests.
Oh, and, xt, didn’t mean to step on your toes there. Pardon me if it looked as if I was answering for you or speaking out of turn.
lol…not at all Finn. Actually, I had pulled up a reply box before you had answered, but I’ve been in and out of meetings so I didn’t actually finish my post (such as it was) and send it off until a couple of hours later.
Hell, had I known you replied I would have just lurked instead. 
-XT
I would disagree with that opinion.
Iran has been in a state of religioius indoctrination since the Shaw was removed. Lets look at the current situation. Mahmoud is not the leader of the country nor was he elected in a free election. The leader of the country is Grand Ayatollah Ali Khamenei and he holds the title of Supreme Leader. The Supreme Leader is Commander-in-Chief of the armed forces, controls the military intelligence and security operations; and has the only power to declare war. The heads of the judiciary, state radio and television networks, the commanders of the police and military forces and six of the twelve members of the Council of Guardians are appointed by the Supreme Leader. The Council of Guardians eliminated candidates who they deemed unworthy of office. In effect, they guaranteed a religious figurehead. His election was more likely directed at the growing unrest by the youth of Iran. His desire to purge Liberal university professors along with the recent purging of local leaders is an indication that government control is being tightened.
Since Mahmoud holds no actual power it becomes an exercise of observation to see what the general political atmosphere is in Iran. Their Parliament has upon many occassions ended their sessions with “death to America” and “death to Israel”. When those chants are made after passing legislation to resume uranium enrichment it’s tough to think of this as anything BUT saber rattling.
You would be mistaken.
There is no question that the theocrats hold all the serious power in Iran. However, to the extent that they would prefer to not face their own overthrow, they have to provide the appearance of supporting a representative government. As FinnAgain has already pointed out, there is a sturdy (not quite a strong) movement within Iran to demand that they get the representative government that was tacitly promised when the Shah was overthrown. Beginning in the late 1980s and continuing (sometimes at a glacial pace) right up through 2001, there was a steady growth among moderate and even progressive political parties. While the parliament could never quite secure the power to overthrow the theocracy, it was able to establish sufficient popular support that the theocrats had to allow a certain amount of advancement so as to avoid riling up the populace with blatant vetoes of parliament. Following the “Axis of Evil” stupidity, the theocrats began finding reasons to disestablish all the progressive and moderate political parties–something done more easily because the populace perceived itself as threatened by the U.S., just as folks in the U.S. have been willing to accept a reduction of liberty and an increase in government intrusion into our lives under the claims of terrorist threats.
It was the disestablishment of the moderate political parties, given cover by Bush’s stupidity, that allowed Ahmadinejad to be elected.
Well…Nuh uh.
As I pointed out already, the overthrow of the Shaw was the begining of religious rule in Iran. It was, and always will be enforced (with extreme prejudice) by a minority of self elected zealots. They are evil and pointing out the obvious isn’t going to make them any less crazy.
You’re envoking the logic of the Clinton/Carter doctrine which gave (literally) a nuclear facility to a crazy man. If we would just talk nice to them they’ll go away. It’s not going to happen. Iran didn’t start calling for the destruction of Israel because GW pointed out their genocidal intentions.
What this whole conversation comes down to is your belief that dictators like Ahmadinejad and Kim Jong IL would build a nuclear power plant for the purpose of generating power. With the exception of the Soviet Union and China you would be the political minority in world opinion.
Any saber ratling would be the result of governments that require internal suppression of their people to maintain their ideology.
Go back and read the statement you denied in error to begin this exchange:
Regardless of the Supreme Leader and the theocracy, you are not addressing the actual issue. Iran had a parlaiment that moved consistently, if slowly, toward moderation (and even secularism) for over fifteen years. The election of Ahmadinejad was the direct result of the disestablishment of every moderate or progressive or secular-leaning political party. The disestablishment of those parties was a direct response to Bush’s “Axis of Evil” idiocy. Regardless of the control the theocracy exercises in Iran, Ahmadinejad’s election (no statement regarding real power is made) was the result of **U.S. sabre-rattling **. All the rest of your comments are irrelevant to that statement which is the explicit statement that you denied.
Iran’s current political system was established by a religious military regime and will remain so until it is overthrown. They control every aspect of society and have consistently removed anything that is considered un-Islamic. There is no such thing as a moderate in this scenario. To suggest that this is new or that it is in response to GW ignores the historic purges of newspapers (which they control) or the arrest of students and anyone deemed in opposition. It also ignores the past US involvement of: a military assault by Jimmy Carter, the Vincence incident under Reagan, and US involvement in the Iran/Iraq war under Reagan. It was Reagan’s administration that first listed Iran as a sponsor of terrorism.
You have completely ignored world history and what has taken place since the revolution in Iran. Look at Ahmadinejad’s predecessor: (Khatami):
During his bloody rule, over 1,300 people were executed, including sweet 16 year old Atefeh Rajabi for ‘acts incompatible with chastity’; 27 people were stoned to death or sentenced to die by stoning, 18 of them women; student and other demonstrations were crushed and their leaders arrested or killed; Ahmad Batebi was given a death sentence for holding up a bloody t-shirt; an opposition activist in Kurdistan, Showaneh Qaderi, was shot and his body dragged through the streets; Arezoo Siabi Shahrivar was arrested along with up to 14 other women, at a ceremony commemorating the 1988 “prison massacre” in Evin prison, Tehran, in which thousands of political prisoners were executed. In detention she was suspended from the ceiling, beaten with a wire cable and sexually abused. Journalists and webloggers were detained; papers were shut down; the Canadian journalist, Zahra Kazemi was tortured and murdered in prison; the murders of two political activists and three writers – a case known in Iran as the “Serial Murders” took place; hundreds of labour activists were arrested and tortured and on and on.
I don’t understand your position at all. Iran has consistently removed any form of opposition and will continue to do so. They have been active in their support of Hezbola and will continue to do so. They have consistently called for the destruction of Israel and will continue to do so. Nothing has changed in Iraq since President Bush took office and nothing will change with the next president unless Carter brokers another nuclear power plant.
So which is it, Magiver? Is the president a powerless puppet of Khameini and the theocrats or is he the responsible party for all the evil of Iran?
The CIA has this to say about the parliament (carefully omitting the Bush trigger, of course):
Your columnist throws together assertions by outsiders who simply named top political figures along with events that occurred at the local level where the parliamentary president would have no say. However, even if Khatami, himself, was every bit as evil as you want him to be, the CIA notes that the parliament preceeding that of Ahmadinejad was “reformist.”
That changed in exactly the time period that the U.S. started prattling on about the “Axis of Evil” anf Khatami had no part in the disestablishment of the various political parties.
Here is a Wikipedia article on Mohammad Khatami’s reforms Note that many of the same complaints raised by Ms. Namazie are attributed in that article to the theocracy as explicit efforts to oppose Khatami.
Huh. I guess I was wrong; some heavy lifting was needed. I’ve nothing to add to your analysis.