Iran: Whoa, is this true?

[TPWombat]

It seems to be an ongoing theme from some quarters that the Iranians (and their arab neighbours) are only militant because the West is nasty to them.
If we only allowed them to do what ever they want to without any sort of hinderance theyd no doubt stop exporting terrorism,their nuke program ,kidnapping and hostage taking and all their other harmless little pecadillos of their own free will.

That is how well meaning and naive westerners think ,and how Iranian state propaganda organs pretend to think to present a more sympathetic image to the West.

In many regions of the world ,not just the M/E,the native cultures despise weakness equating it with cowardice ,lack of resolve and a lack of true belief in the the professed cause .
Concessions,apologies "failing to stick the boot in " and bribes (of the national sort) are vritually ALWAYS considered to be signs of weakness.
And where they percieve weakness they push.

Just to give an example of their mind set (and I most definitely do NOT advocate the West
adopting these tactics) in the latter part of the 20thc in Lebanon it became popular to kidnap and hold hostage Westerners,any Westerners even those of a liberal bent trying to help them .
The ones that spring to mind are Terry Waite and (I believe John ?)Mcarthy though there were many more ,The only motive seemed to be a dislike of Westerners in general.

Thinking with our traditional liberal views that obviously theyd understand and respect, we attempted to negotiate,offer bribes ,publicise their so called causes and generally be even handed about things.

Though when it had bugger all result except to inflate the egos of the Militias and get the non hostage holding Militias thinking seriously about taking some of their own(Im just as good as that idiot Mahmud I deserve to get payoffs and appear on T.V. just as much as him )the Brits set up a plan to send in Spec.Forces on a rescue mission but it was deemed unlikely to be successful and aborted.

.
Then some bright sparks thought it would be a jolly good wheeze to kidnap some Russian Embassy staff.
The Russians used a two pronged approach,back in Teheran the Soviet Ambassador in "negotiations "with the terrorists Iranian backers placed his wrist watch on the table and smashed it with his shoe "Thats your holy city of Quom if theyre not released at once.

In Beirut K.G.B. agents went round and kidnapped a number of Militia chiefs children .
They beheaded two of them and sent the heads back with the chilling message
“You will be getting their heads every day until our staff are released,if we run out of heads we will get more”

Result ?staff released IMMEDIATLY ,no bribes no concessions and no more Soviets kidnapped.
You may find this amazing but there were no genuine criticisms from the terrorists about the Russians tactics and today we still dont hear any bleeding heart whining about the brutal Russians to justify their latest atrocities.

They feared and respected ,but most of all understood what was used against them.

[Lust4Life]

@TPWombat

It seems to be an ongoing theme from some quarters that the Iranians (and their arab neighbours) are only militant because the West is nasty to them.
If we only allowed them to do what ever they want to without any sort of hinderance theyd no doubt stop exporting terrorism,their nuke program ,kidnapping and hostage taking and all their other harmless little pecadillos of their own free will.

That is how well meaning and naive westerners think ,and how Iranian state propaganda organs pretend to think to present a more sympathetic image to the West.

In many regions of the world ,not just the M/E,the native cultures despise weakness equating it with cowardice ,lack of resolve and a lack of true belief in the the professed cause .
Concessions,apologies "failing to stick the boot in " and bribes (of the national sort) are vritually ALWAYS considered to be signs of weakness.
And where they percieve weakness they push.

Just to give an example of their mind set (and I most definitely do NOT advocate the West
adopting these tactics) in the latter part of the 20thc in Lebanon it became popular to kidnap and hold hostage Westerners,any Westerners even those of a liberal bent trying to help them .
The ones that spring to mind are Terry Waite and (I believe John ?)Mcarthy though there were many more ,The only motive seemed to be a dislike of Westerners in general.

Thinking with our traditional liberal views that obviously theyd understand and respect, we attempted to negotiate,offer bribes ,publicise their so called causes and generally be even handed about things.

Though when it had bugger all result except to inflate the egos of the Militias and get the non hostage holding Militias thinking seriously about taking some of their own(Im just as good as that idiot Mahmud I deserve to get payoffs and appear on T.V. just as much as him )the Brits set up a plan to send in Spec.Forces on a rescue mission but it was deemed unlikely to be successful and aborted.

.
Then some bright sparks thought it would be a jolly good wheeze to kidnap some Russian Embassy staff.
The Russians used a two pronged approach,back in Teheran the Soviet Ambassador in "negotiations "with the terrorists Iranian backers placed his wrist watch on the table and smashed it with his shoe "Thats your holy city of Quom if theyre not released at once.

In Beirut K.G.B. agents went round and kidnapped a number of Militia chiefs children .
They beheaded two of them and sent the heads back with the chilling message
“You will be getting their heads every day until our staff are released,if we run out of heads we will get more”

Result ?staff released IMMEDIATLY ,no bribes no concessions and no more Soviets kidnapped.
You may find this amazing but there were no genuine criticisms from the terrorists about the Russians tactics and today we still dont hear any bleeding heart whining about the brutal Russians to justify their latest atrocities.

They feared and respected ,but most of all understood what was used against them.

Attention Mods ,didnt realise wombat hadnt logged out ,this is one of mine,cheers.

[GomiBoy]

@TPWombat

It seems to be an ongoing theme from some quarters that the Iranians (and their arab neighbours) are only militant because the West is nasty to them.
If we only allowed them to do what ever they want to without any sort of hinderance theyd no doubt stop exporting terrorism,their nuke program ,kidnapping and hostage taking and all their other harmless little pecadillos of their own free will.

That is how well meaning and naive westerners think ,and how Iranian state propaganda organs pretend to think to present a more sympathetic image to the West.

In many regions of the world ,not just the M/E,the native cultures despise weakness equating it with cowardice ,lack of resolve and a lack of true belief in the the professed cause .
Concessions,apologies "failing to stick the boot in " and bribes (of the national sort) are vritually ALWAYS considered to be signs of weakness.
And where they percieve weakness they push.

Just to give an example of their mind set (and I most definitely do NOT advocate the West
adopting these tactics) in the latter part of the 20thc in Lebanon it became popular to kidnap and hold hostage Westerners,any Westerners even those of a liberal bent trying to help them .
The ones that spring to mind are Terry Waite and (I believe John ?)Mcarthy though there were many more ,The only motive seemed to be a dislike of Westerners in general.

Thinking with our traditional liberal views that obviously theyd understand and respect, we attempted to negotiate,offer bribes ,publicise their so called causes and generally be even handed about things.

Though when it had bugger all result except to inflate the egos of the Militias and get the non hostage holding Militias thinking seriously about taking some of their own(Im just as good as that idiot Mahmud I deserve to get payoffs and appear on T.V. just as much as him )the Brits set up a plan to send in Spec.Forces on a rescue mission but it was deemed unlikely to be successful and aborted.

.
Then some bright sparks thought it would be a jolly good wheeze to kidnap some Russian Embassy staff.
The Russians used a two pronged approach,back in Teheran the Soviet Ambassador in "negotiations "with the terrorists Iranian backers placed his wrist watch on the table and smashed it with his shoe "Thats your holy city of Quom if theyre not released at once.

In Beirut K.G.B. agents went round and kidnapped a number of Militia chiefs children .
They beheaded two of them and sent the heads back with the chilling message
“You will be getting their heads every day until our staff are released,if we run out of heads we will get more”

Result ?staff released IMMEDIATLY ,no bribes no concessions and no more Soviets kidnapped.
You may find this amazing but there were no genuine criticisms from the terrorists about the Russians tactics and today we still dont hear any bleeding heart whining about the brutal Russians to justify their latest atrocities.

They feared and respected ,but most of all understood what was used against them.

That story is anecdotal at best… and I fail to see how it matters. Are you advocating a course of action?

[FRDE]

@GomiBoy

That story is anecdotal at best… and I fail to see how it matters. Are you advocating a course of action?

Well, to some extent ‘extraordinary rendition’ is exactly that course of action.

[Martin_Hyde]

@lowbrass

This makes absolutely no sense. There is absolutely nothing in what I wrote that could possibly lead anyone to believe I was equating those two things. In fact, my point was specifically that they aren’t equivalent. I can’t imagine how you could read it that way. It’s like if I said “The sky is blue” and you said, “I’m not sure how to read your response as anything other than ‘the sky is red’”.

Well, I guess the problem was you threw in the mention of the Christian Right. uglybeech contended that a deeply religious population is not supportive of things like Abu Ghraib, to which by and large you replied that the Christian Right was not really that condemnatory of Abu Ghraib and other such incidents. That’s where things start to get off track, the proper response to someone saying a deeply religious population is opposed to immoral acts is not to counter with an example from ONE religious group. The religious right is probably at most 20-30m people out of a country of almost 300m that is overwhelmingly religious.

Perhaps you should read the whole exchange rather than starting in the middle. That may be the source of your confusion, although I still don’t see how you could misread what I wrote the way you did even then.

Here’s the exchange I’m seeing:

uglybeech 1:

If nothing else it’s because we have a religious population who doesn’t tolerate blatantly immoral behavior on the part of the government.

You 1:

What does religion have to do with it? Abuses such as Abu Ghraib are generally opposed by liberals, who are on average less religious than the general population.

uglybeech 2:

(And even in the case of the fluffy liberals, much of the traditional liberal interest in human rights, etc - had its origin in the days when progressivism was generally seated and promulgated by the mainstream or liberal churches.)

You 2:

Not sure where you get the idea that liberalism was a doctrine originating from and handed down by churches. I would disagree with that assertion.

uglybeech 3:

That’s an overstatement of what I said. But American liberalism is deeply rooted in, and was for a long time driven by progressive Protestant Churches.

You 3:

Interesting hypothesis. Even if that were true at one time, I don’t think you could make a very convincing argument that the Christian Right embraces liberal ideals today. Quite the opposite.

And that brings us up to where I stepped in.

In response to your first quote, yeah, I don’t really buy that religion played a big role in what happened with the breaking of the Abu Ghraib story. While liberals are less likely to be religious, in the United States the overwhelming majority of the population is religious, both liberal and conservative. Where I disconnect with uglybeech on that part of it is, I don’t necessarily buy that religious people as a whole are more likely to be moral versus immoral. As a long time Christian I’ve met many who are immoral.

This first exchange is still a bit before I come in, but you’ve already started to make the common mistake that took us here. That is, uglybeech made a statement about religious people in general and you reply with something that tries to make the liberal->non-religious conservative->religious association, which just isn’t really there in the United States, both are mostly religious here.

To your second quote, I agree with that, too. I don’t think liberalism was a doctrine handed down by religious scholars, however I will say a lot of the ideas responsible for the development of modern liberalism can be clearly associated with religious thought.

Your third quote is the one that has you up in arms over me “misreading” you. I’ll restate the exchange for the third time and twice in this very thread

uglybeech:

That’s an overstatement of what I said. But American liberalism is deeply rooted in, and was for a long time driven by progressive Protestant Churches.

You:

Interesting hypothesis. Even if that were true at one time, I don’t think you could make a very convincing argument that the Christian Right embraces liberal ideals today. Quite the opposite.

Me:

He said “progressive Protestant Churches” which are in no way the same as the Christian Right, today or in past centuries.

You:

That’s a horrible misreading of what I wrote. You seem to think my meaning was: “progressive Protestant Churches of the past are the same as the Christian Right today”, which is almost the exact opposite of my meaning. Did you miss the words “even if…”?

Again, EVEN IF certain churches espoused liberalism in the past, THAT DOESN’T MEAN that the Christian Right espouses liberalism TODAY.

You’re thundering away at the very problem. I’m NOT saying that you are equating the ideology of early 20th century progressive Protestant churches with that of the Christian Right today. I’m saying what you ARE doing is you’re EQUATING the religious as a whole with conservatism and the “Christian Right.” Otherwise your comments are completely pointless and redundant.

In response to someone saying that progressive Protestant Churches of the early 20th century were fairly liberal, you reply, “Well, the Christian Right isn’t very liberal today.” Duh. Every one knows that. Your point basically reads, “well, even if the religious were liberal in the early 20th century, they aren’t today.” Otherwise, if that isn’t your meaning, then your point is, “even if there was a liberal religious movement in the early 20th century, today there is a conservative religious movement.” Which is incredibly pointless, because yes, there is a conservative religious movement. There’s also many liberal religious movements today. There were many conservative religious types in the early 20th century, too (see: Scopes Monkey Trial.) There WERE/ARE religious movements from the left, right, and center.

You’re responding to someone’s assertion of a liberal religious movement with the counterpoint of a present-day conservative religious movement. What this implies, and directly so, is that “well, maybe the religious were once liberal, but they’re conservative now.” Because you ARE drawing a distinction between progressive churches of the early 20th century in IDEOLOGY, which I’ve never denied, but you aren’t drawing another distinction between them, that being denominational. It seems very much like you’re saying that while the churches in question were once liberal, now they’re conservative, which just isn’t the case, and I think the only reason you’re making an assertion like that is because you equate all religious people with conservatism, which is a bad equation to begin with.

[lowbrass]

@uglybeech

Look, I know you’re not a bad guy, and I know misinterpretation is one of the hazards of online communication. But I already did this on multiple occasions throughout this thread, and it just keeps on keeping on. Now I know I’m making some subtle points, and my writing isn’t always up to the task. But **Martin Hyde ** and I are on completely opposite sides, but at least I feel he’s grasping my arguments for what they are (or asks if I’m unclear). Even though he thinks I’m totally wrong. In your case I find myself in an endless loop of misunderstanding, clarification, misunderstanding, etc – which goes nowhere. And I’m not attributing this to stupidity or laziness or bad faith. I’m attributing it to your having preconceived ideas that you’re trying to fit my arguments into rather than really reading what I’m writing.

It’s probably true I had an idea about where I thought you were coming from. That idea was based on what you wrote. If you didn’t mean what you wrote, then you should just calmly explain that, rather than being sarcastic and flippant and accusing me of making strawman arguments. I can only read what you wrote; I don’t read minds.

[lowbrass]

@Martin Hyde

Well, I guess the problem was you threw in the mention of the Christian Right. uglybeech contended that a deeply religious population is not supportive of things like Abu Ghraib, to which by and large you replied that the Christian Right was not really that condemnatory of Abu Ghraib and other such incidents. That’s where things start to get off track, the proper response to someone saying a deeply religious population is opposed to immoral acts is not to counter with an example from ONE religious group. The religious right is probably at most 20-30m people out of a country of almost 300m that is overwhelmingly religious.

Sorry, but that’s not a correct characterization. Uglybeech first mentioned the Christian Right in post #71. I did not “throw it in”; I responded to it being already mentioned.

Where I disconnect with uglybeech on that part of it is, I don’t necessarily buy that religious people as a whole are more likely to be moral versus immoral. As a long time Christian I’ve met many who are immoral.

I agree with you, but I’m not sure that’s what uglybeech was saying. Uglybeech seems very upset at me for taking that meaning (even though you seem to have taken it also) from what he/she wrote.

You’re thundering away at the very problem. I’m NOT saying that you are equating the ideology of early 20th century progressive Protestant churches with that of the Christian Right today. I’m saying what you ARE doing is you’re EQUATING the religious as a whole with conservatism and the “Christian Right.” Otherwise your comments are completely pointless and redundant.

In response to someone saying that progressive Protestant Churches of the early 20th century were fairly liberal, you reply, “Well, the Christian Right isn’t very liberal today.” Duh. Every one knows that.

I’m sorry, but you’re still horribly misreading my statements, and I think it’s based on your error in attributing the first mention of “The Christian Right” to me, which is incorrect. You seem to have left out the relevant quote:

@uglybeech

But just as weighty in the foreign policy realm is the religious right who are also quite active and organized in injecting moral concerns (and some post millenial concerns) into foreign policy. These are not always the same issues that the left would raise - but often they are. Abu Ghraib and Darfur are two areas where the Christian Right and the left’s influence dovetailed. You would certainly be wrong to imagine that the damage of Abu Ghraib wasn’t just as much about the outrage of the evangelicals as it was about the scorn of the left or moderates.

I didn’t write this. Uglybeech did. I responded, THEN uglybeech brought up the history of the Protestant Church, to which I responded that what was going on in Protestant Churches in the past isn’t the same as what’s going on in the Christian Right today.

Your mistake seems to be that you didn’t read the quote above (post #71), and therefore erroneously considered my response to be a non-sequitur.

Your point basically reads, “well, even if the religious were liberal in the early 20th century, they aren’t today.”

Yes, that’s the point, but you didn’t seem to have gotten it until just now.

There’s also many liberal religious movements today. There were many conservative religious types in the early 20th century, too (see: Scopes Monkey Trial.) There WERE/ARE religious movements from the left, right, and center.

Yes, there are. What bearing does that have on my specific response to uglybeech’s specific comments about the “Christian Right” and “evangelicals”?

I seem to be getting it from all sides here. When I respond to uglybeech, I’m accused of making up strawmen, and now others are making up strawmen to replace what I said.

You’re responding to someone’s assertion of a liberal religious movement with the counterpoint of a present-day conservative religious movement.

Strawman.

What this implies, and directly so, is that “well, maybe the religious were once liberal, but they’re conservative now.” Because you ARE drawing a distinction between progressive churches of the early 20th century in IDEOLOGY, which I’ve never denied, but you aren’t drawing another distinction between them, that being denominational. It seems very much like you’re saying that while the churches in question were once liberal, now they’re conservative, which just isn’t the case, and I think the only reason you’re making an assertion like that is because you equate all religious people with conservatism, which is a bad equation to begin with.

I don’t think I said any of those things. And when did I make any assertion about what you did or didn’t “deny”? I just think you misinterpreted my post because you never read post #71, and it’s snowballing into this gigantic strawman for you.

Honestly, I’m weary of this. It’s obvious to me that uglybeech didn’t intend for his/her posts to have the meaning that I took. I’m still not sure what exactly the point was, but I rather don’t care at this point. All these recriminations aren’t getting us anywhere, so maybe we should just drop it.