Iran: brutal dicatatorship & enemy of democracy ruled by power-crazed demagogue

[camouflage]

This thread was made of fail from the first premise, only redeemed by Idris and BA...

You can take issue with what I say, just your opinion vs mine, but I don't see who made you Captain Decider of Worthy Conversations.

I want to see what people have to say about ther disjoint between the way Iran is portrayed and the fact that it's got one of the most vibrant (if proscribed) democracies in the ME. You're quite welcome to sod off though if you want.

 

[butchersapron]

People have said that you're confusing the popular activity with the regime and that this bolsters the regime and gives it a legitmacy that those young people you're talking about do not recognise.

 

[camouflage]

Democracy is not necessarily easily controlled. We should to be fine with that.

In 1953, the US ran a coup against Iranian democracy, which has led to all sorts of problems.

Indeed. The bloody cheek displayed by the US and Britain ever since when talking about Iran should be enough to leave the populations of a saner world all looking like this smiley

:- o

wtf!

 

[camouflage]

People have said that you're confusing the popular activity with the regime and that this bolsters the regime and gives it a legitmacy that those young people you're talking about do not recognise.

But popular activity is where it starts isn't it?

"Popular activity" in China leads to memorial days years later in many countries except China. TurningTest said democracy isn't easy to control, I agree, the fact that thousands of yoots in Iran can be calling for change and reform is potent and important. What I feel most positive about in that is that it makes me beleive the Iranians are empowered to change their society themselves, they have the means to do it in a political process without foreign intervention allegedly to bring democracy and regime change and without being gunned down in the streets. Fucking important difference between Iran and certain other places in my book. Of course the powers that be will try to dictate the terms of the game, but the game in Iran is too complex for them to easily control.

 

[kyser_soze]

What I feel most positive about in that is that it makes me beleive the Iranians are empowered to change their society themselves, they have the means to do it in a political process without foreign intervention allegedly to bring democracy and regime change and without being gunned down in the streets.

You underestimate the power of the force, sorry, religious belief to temper this enthusiasm. There is nothing in Iranian society that empowers it's poeple to change the rule of the theocrats.

 

[butchersapron]

Where what starts? You can't argue that there are millions of kids looking for real change in iran (and there are - Islam is finished in iran thank fuck) and say that change they want is actually just the current system - that turns around what they want and are demanding, it turns it into an argument for ths theocracy as it is and the opportunites it give them to demand change. You're half right here - people do want change and are actively constructing that change themselves, but the system is set up by the Theocracy to ensure that it doesn't happen through it. You're conflating the people and the system.

 

[camouflage]

Where what starts? You can't argue that there are millions of kids looking for real change in iran (and there are - Islam is finished in iran thank fuck) and say that change they want is actually just the current system - that turns around what they want and are demanding, it turns it into an argument for ths theocracy as it is and the opportunites it give them to demand change. You're half right here - people do want change and are actively constructing that change themselves, but the system is set up by the Theocracy to ensure that it doesn't happen through it. You're conflating the people and the system.

No, people will overthrow the political system of Iran non-violently because it is a system that can be overthown non violently by Iranians themselves.

 

[butchersapron]

Well it won't happen without violence - the violence is ongoing every single day and yes, you are conflating the people and the system - in the same way as you would if you used the current disgust at the demosetic political system as proof of how the system works and it deserves a pat on ther back.

 

[Idris2002]

No, people will overthrow the political system of Iran non-violently because it is a system that can be overthown non violently by Iranians themselves.

No it isn't. A system is quite capable of being pluralistic and still having a strong capacity for repression. The Iranian regime *might* run out of steam, it *might* be overthrown by *relatively* peaceful mass action, but whatever happens there won't be a smooth transition from one regime to another.

Look at it this way: a major demand of the original revolutionaries in 1979 was for social justice and equality. The clerics outflanked the secular left by making plausible promises to the poor, the peasants and the workers. Those promises were never kept, but the clerics did very well for themselves all the same. Do you really they'd give up their positions of material privilege without a fight?

 

[Idris2002]

 

[butchersapron]

They killed many many people to get there - they're not going to just hand it away, and those who want change in iran appear to know this and are preparing.

 

[kyser_soze]

Alternatively, any counter-revolutionary activity could be proscribed as 'un-Islamic', opening the door to repression in the name of God, where every transgression becomes a sin, every counter-idea a heresy. Not much potential for violence there. Oh no.

 

[Random]

You guys have been watching too much Fox News. The Islamic Republic will whither away when ever the people democratically want it to, because that's how cool it is.

 

[butchersapron]

You guys have been watching too much Fox News. The Islamic Republic will whither away when ever the people democratically want it to, because that's how cool it is.

That just how the theocracy rolls

 

[Idris2002]

Another victory for the party of moderate progress within the bounds of the law:

 

[Idris2002]

You guys have been watching too much Fox News. The Islamic Republic will whither away when ever the people democratically want it to, because that's how cool it is.

Just like when the hippies levitated the pentagon, right?

 

[Random]

Those police Defenders of Purity, the ones who's job it is to rape young women on death row, to make sure they're not killing virgins. What do you think they'll be doing after the non-violent revolution?

 

[Idris2002]

Right, I really have to do some work, so TTFN chaps and chapesses.

 

[Idris2002]

What do you think they'll be doing after the non-violent revolution?

Macramé, candle making, pottery. . .

 

[camouflage]

Well it won't happen without violence - the violence is ongoing every single day and yes, you are conflating the people and the system - in the same way as you would if you used the current disgust at the demosetic political system as proof of how the system works and it deserves a pat on ther back.

Ok, I concede. Until I've been to Iran myself and spoken to a fair few of em I cannot push onward ever onward to Moscow in winter.

But I'm curious, how do you know or what do you mean by islam is finished in Iran?

 

[kyser_soze]

Macramé, candle making, pottery. . .

Go do your work!!

 

[butchersapron]

Finally, someone notices that bit That was a reference to an intersting interview wirth Mansoor Hekmat that argued something like this in 2001 - have a read

Question: Some say the fall of the Islamic Republic will not be the last nail in the coffin of the Islamic movement, because other trends, particularly non-Shiites, could disassociate themselves from this defeat. Do you agree with this analysis?

Mansoor Hekmat: In my opinion, the Islamic movement in the Middle East and internationally will run out of breath with the fall of the Islamic regime in Iran. The question is not that Islamic Iran will be a defeated model, which others can disassociate themselves from. The Islamic Republic's defeat will arise within the context of an immense mass secularist uprising in Iran, which will touch the foundations of reactionary Islamic thought and not only discredit but condemn it in world opinion. The defeat of the Islamic regime will be comparable to the fall of Nazi Germany. No fascist can easily hold on to their position by merely distancing themselves organisationally and ideologically from this fallen pole. The entire movement will face decades of stagnation. The defeat of political Islam in Iran is an anti-Islamist victory, which will not end within the confines of Iran.

 

[Corax]

I'm being utterly simplistic/simple as usual, but... what we have is a minority theocracy ruling a secular majority no?

That isn't a sustainable situation if the will is there to change it, especially given that we're talking about a developed country, not the badlands of A'stan where impoverished peasant farmers can be coerced/bribed/intimidated/persuaded to toe the line with an extra sack of seed or an AK.

 

[fela fan]

Alternatively, any counter-revolutionary activity could be proscribed as 'un-Islamic', opening the door to repression in the name of God, where every transgression becomes a sin, every counter-idea a heresy. Not much potential for violence there. Oh no.

But there again, butchersapron has just stated - factually it would appear, along with his approval - that islam is now finished in iran.

It would appear this transition away from islam has occurred pretty non-violently, and without any 'counter-revolutionary activity', unless we all missed some mammoth news.

 

[fela fan]

Ok, I concede. Until I've been to Iran myself and spoken to a fair few of em I cannot push onward ever onward to Moscow in winter.

But I'm curious, how do you know or what do you mean by islam is finished in Iran?

That's what i wondered. It sounded just like one of those throwaway 'factual' lines so common in british journalism, that simultaneously serve to bolser the writer's credentials.

 

[fela fan]

Finally, someone notices that bit That was a reference to an intersting interview wirth Mansoor Hekmat that argued something like this in 2001 - have a read

He doesn't say islam is finished in iran at all.

But you did.

 

[kyser_soze]

Well it isn't finished in Iran at present (I suspect BA was referring to it's long term prospects) - to start with there has been no 'transition away from Islam' - it's still the basis of law, and any decisions made by Iranian politicians has to be cleared by the theocrats, and public opinion is still subject to being swayed by religious arguments.

BTW, by 'counter revolutionary' I'm referring to the term the Mullahs and others have used in relation to the creation of the Islamic Republic in the first place - an accusation that has been used to imprison, torture and murder those who have stepped outside the boundaries the theocrats consider 'safe'.

 

[butchersapron]

He doesn't say islam is finished in iran at all.

But you did.

Wtf do you think "an immense mass secularist uprising in Iran" means? You're an exper on Mansoor Hekmat now?

 

[fela fan]

Wtf do you think "an immense mass secularist uprising in Iran" means? You're an exper on Mansoor Hekmat now?

He did not say it had happened. He's talking about the future, unlike butchersapron who was talking about the past.

I'm no expert on anybody really, but i do know how to read.

 

[fela fan]

Well it isn't finished in Iran at present (I suspect BA was referring to it's long term prospects) - to start with there has been no 'transition away from Islam' - it's still the basis of law, and any decisions made by Iranian politicians has to be cleared by the theocrats, and public opinion is still subject to being swayed by religious arguments.

Well, he really was 'referring' to something that had already happened, and was happy with this too... 'thank fuck' he said.