[moki]

I can't argue with the conclusions of this piece. People who claim to be compassionate about suffering the world over seem to have a remarkable propensity to ignore it when it doesn't suit their agenda or political leanings. Shame, that.

from: http://www.aynrand.org/medialink/columns/rt112002.shtml

.....

The Real Revolutionaries
_
By Robert Tracinski (Click here to download an image of this author for print publication.)
_
________For months, courageous protesters have braved riot police to oppose the depredations of a warlike and oppressive regime bent on world domination.

________No, I am not talking about the "anti-war" protesters who menace the cities of Europe and America—the creeps who scale the barricade of a Starbucks storefront for no greater goal than the glee of smashing its windows. These are only brave and idealistic souls in their own warped self-image.

________I am talking about real courage and real idealism—the kind shown by the young men and women manning the very real and very deadly barricades of freedom in Iran—the students who, armed with nothing but a burning conviction of the rightness of their cause, are facing down a brutal theocratic dictatorship.

________Student protests in Iran flared up first in 1999, only to be brutally repressed, with student leaders dragged off to jail, tortured, and frequently killed. Since September 11, however, hundreds of thousands of young people have begun to rebel against the restrictions of Iran's Islamic theocracy.

________For the last two weeks, these protests have found a focus: the death sentence against dissident scholar Hashem Aghajari. His crime? In a lecture, he dismissed the authority of the regime's clerics and declared that every generation has the right to interpret Islam for themselves. For this, he is sentenced to be hanged. Aghajari, a tough veteran who lost a leg in the Iran-Iraq War, has refused to appeal his sentence, daring the regime to carry out the execution.

________Thousands of students have poured into the streets of Iran's cities, clashing with police and demanding that the sentence be lifted. But they are demanding far more than that. One of the student leaders, Abdullah Momeni, declares, "We demand unconditional release of Mr. Aghajari but demand freedom of speech and opinion for everyone and forever." They back this with an explicit call for separation of state and religion.

________Given that these young people have lived their whole lives under an Islamic dictatorship where deviation from fundamentalist dogma is punishable by death, the fact that they have even grasped the concepts of secularism and freedom of speech is extraordinary. They are revolutionaries in the truest, deepest sense, rebelling for the prerogatives of the individual mind against the stultifying rule of religious conformity.

________These protesters have driven Iran to what could be a crucial breaking point. In the past few days, the regime has sent mixed signals. Over the weekend, the nation's religious dictator, the Ayatollah Khamenei, ordered the religious courts to "reconsider" the verdict against Aghajari—an apparent cave-in to the protesters' demands. But in the past few days, he also ordered the regime's "militias"—gangs of fundamentalist thugs—to attack student protesters. As the last rulers of the Soviet Union learned, both alternatives are dangerous. To give in to the protesters emboldens them—but cracking down may spark an even greater rebellion.

________If ever there was a cause worthy of passionate support by those who claim to love freedom and progress, this is it. So why are the alleged "progressives" in the West ignoring it?

________Remember the people who used to clamor outside South Africa's embassies to protest apartheid? Why aren't they now holding vigil outside Iranian embassies? And the professors who so boldly signed petitions and organized boycotts against Israel—why aren't they organizing petitions to save their colleague in Iran? Why aren't the "peace activists" who so eagerly served as Yasser Arafat's human shields smuggling themselves into Iran to protect the freedom-fighters there? And the unkempt mobs who march in the streets to demand an end to "racist war"—why aren't they marching to demand an end to religious intolerance and theocracy?

________The ugly answer is that "freedom," "justice," and "progress" are just catchphrases used by these protesters to mask their real goal, which is to tear down Western Civilization. They are indifferent to the fate of the Iranian protesters because they agree with Iran's theocrats that America is the "Great Satan." These are the heirs of the twisted student protesters of the 1960s, who claimed they were oppressed by the Democratic National Convention—while they shrugged at the sight of Soviet tanks rumbling through the streets of Prague.

________"Freedom," "justice," "progress"—those are catchphrases the left should never have been allowed to steal. But they are still noble ideals, ready to be taken up by the brave young revolutionaries in Iran—and by anyone in the West who takes action to support their cause.

If you are interested in posting or reprinting any of Mr. Tracinski’s columns, contact Creators Syndicate at creators@aol.com .
COPYRIGHT 2002 CREATORS SYNDICATE, INC.

[MacGorilla]

I was poorly versed in the Iranian situation. That was an interesting read.

[theolein]

Originally posted by moki:
I can't argue with the conclusions of this piece. People who claim to be compassionate about suffering the world over seem to have a remarkable propensity to ignore it when it doesn't suit their agenda or political leanings. Shame, that.

....piece about iranians being tired of their ayatollahs...

That last sentence of yours was disgusting!

...and typical!

YOU, who has never lived in a country where your life and freedom were in danger if you said or did the wrong things at the wrong time, feel free to comments about others' hypocrisy. And the biggest irony of all is that I don't see you caring all that much for the "sand niggers" when it's not on your agenda.

You are a just as much a hypocrite as those you propagandise against, or else you would cease to attempt to use situations over which they have no control to demonise them.

What happened? After Simey left, did you feel you had something to say, a mission to fulfill? Did you feel your haven of blind patriotic virtue was in danger of being corrupted by the blinding light of differing opinions?

If you had real courage you would come out and say what and whom you didn't like and for what reason. Instead you resort to this never ending drool of "post and run".

[Uday's Carcass]

Originally posted by theolein:
That last sentence of yours was disgusting!

...and typical!

YOU, who has never lived in a country where your life and freedom were in danger if you said or did the wrong things at the wrong time, feel free to comments about others' hypocrisy. And the biggest irony of all is that I don't see you caring all that much for the "sand niggers" when it's not on your agenda.

You are a just as much a hypocrite as those you propagandise against, or else you would cease to attempt to use situations over which they have no control to demonise them.

What happened? After Simey left, did you feel you had something to say, a mission to fulfill? Did you feel your haven of blind patriotic virtue was in danger of being corrupted by the blinding light of differing opinions?

If you had real courage you would come out and say what and whom you didn't like and for what reason. Instead you resort to this never ending drool of "post and run".

what the hell are you ranting about? You've become quite the left-wing extremist since you've begun popping up more and more recently.

[Zimphire]

Wow I leave for a few weeks and the silliness is still going on.

Guess it wasn't me after all.

[moki]

Originally posted by theolein:
YOU, who has never lived in a country where your life and freedom were in danger if you said or did the wrong things at the wrong time, feel free to comments about others' hypocrisy. And the biggest irony of all is that I don't see you caring all that much for the "sand niggers" when it's not on your agenda.

What's the deal with the racist comments? I never said anything of the kind, nor would I.

As for hypocrisy, the definition is: "The practice of professing beliefs, feelings, or virtues that one does not hold or possess; falseness." I don't think I've expressed anything remotely like that? I'm really confused here, it sounds like you're ranting.

Originally posted by theolein:
You are a just as much a hypocrite as those you propagandise against, or else you would cease to attempt to use situations over which they have no control to demonise them.

What in the world are you talking about? There is no propaganda here, merely a piece of writing that I felt had some merit, and posted here, with a comment. There is no demonizing here either, but rather pointing out that the compassion and empathy that people seem to talk about so much really is very selective, and often self-serving.

Originally posted by theolein:
What happened? After Simey left, did you feel you had something to say, a mission to fulfill? Did you feel your haven of blind patriotic virtue was in danger of being corrupted by the blinding light of differing opinions?

uh... what does anything here have to do with "patriotism" at all? Perhaps I'm missing something?

Originally posted by theolein:
If you had real courage you would come out and say what and whom you didn't like and for what reason. Instead you resort to this never ending drool of "post and run".

Honestly, I have no idea what you're talking about. There's no hidden agenda, I'm merely bringing up topics that I find interesting, and think would promote interesting discussions, and they are on a wide range of topics.

You really need to relax... seriously.

[theolein]

________Remember the people who used to clamor outside South Africa's embassies to protest apartheid? Why aren't they now holding vigil outside Iranian embassies? And the professors who so boldly signed petitions and organized boycotts against Israel—why aren't they organizing petitions to save their colleague in Iran? Why aren't the "peace activists" who so eagerly served as Yasser Arafat's human shields smuggling themselves into Iran to protect the freedom-fighters there? And the unkempt mobs who march in the streets to demand an end to "racist war"—why aren't they marching to demand an end to religious intolerance and theocracy?

And where were the "true defenders of democracy" then when the Apartheid government was busy murdering people in South Africa because they were black or just because they said something that didn't agree with the government's line? Where were they? Where were you? Where was this pinhead who wrote this article? Did he demonstrate outside a South Africa embassy?



You and your ilk never lived there. You and your ilk never lost good friends to that bunch of nazi killers. The author of this article doesn't know what it's like to be a lone person torn by having friends on both sides of the fence and what it's like to be torn apart inside from what one sees and experiences in a country on the best road to hell. I am bloody glad that I don't have the opportunity to meet the author of this article face to face. I would have words with him and they wouldn't be pleasant.

And don't tell me when to relax! Post your own opinions instead of letting letting others do it for you, then I'll relax. Tell us what YOU did that made you what you are, then I'll relax.

[lil'babykitten]

Originally posted by theolein:
And where were the "true defenders of democracy" then when the Apartheid government was busy murdering people in South Africa because they were black or just because they said something that didn't agree with the government's line? Where were they? Where were you? Where was this pinhead who wrote this article? Did he demonstrate outside a South Africa embassy?

theolein makes a good point there.
Does the author of this article protest against absolutely everything?

This article makes broad sweeping generalisations throughout, with nothing to back up his claims. How does he know what motivates people to protest?

"Freedom," "justice," "progress"—those are catchphrases the left should never have been allowed to steal.

So these terms are specific to a particular political wing? Give me a break.

What utter BS!

[thunderous_funker]

Let me get this straight. One of the pseudo-intellectual, social darwinists over at the Ayn Rand Institute is criticizing the Left for its lack of social conscience?

How droll.

And what does he cite as "evidence" of the Left's apathy towards Iran?

1) No protests at Iranian embassies.

You mean like these?
Or did the author mean Americans? Well, I suppose even a smarty pants at Ayn Rand might not be aware that there are no Iranian embassies in the US. Does he have evidence that no Americans participated in the European demonstrations?

2) lack of petitions or calls for boycotts.

Like this one?
Took me 5 seconds to find. Too bad our busy author doesn't have a knack for in-depth "research". And boycotts? Well, I'm not sure how many Americans are vapid consumers of Iranian products since the Trade Embargo, but there is an effort by UK journalists to boycott Iranian TV & radio. Aren't journalists all Lefties? Especially UK journalists?

I am aware of a concerted effort by activists to boycott the US companies that are doing business in Iran. Like Shell.

3) lack of "human shields"

Doesn't take a supergenius (like the author) to recognize that entering the West Bank is considerably easier than Tehran, but regardless of that fact there is a very simple reason there aren't human shields in Tehran: they don't want them.

Nothing would marginalize and undermine the organic nature of the Iran's dissident movement more than if it was seen as being a "tool of the west". Several dissident leaders have made this more than clear already.

Of course, there are many Iranian dissident groups based in the US who are largely involved in funding and furthering the cause of these heroic students.

At every turn, it seems the pundits at Ayn Rand can't help but demonstrate how little they understand anything at all related to the real world. This is quite possibly the weakest, least reasoned, most pathetic attempt to villify the American Left I've seen in a very long time.

What exactly is the author doing personally to further the rights of Iranians? Where were the Ayn Randers when Iranians were being gassed by an American ally using American helicopters and weapon technology? Where were the Ayn Randers during Iran-Contra? Where were the Ayn Randers when the US was supporting the Shah?

Does the author honestly want to compare the record of the Right against the Left on the hypocrisy-0-meter concerning Iran??

The author has successfully demonstrated an ignorance of recent history that is utterly stupefying. Not to mention a political bias that seems to have blinded him to everything but an impotent rage against an imagined "enemy" that he can't even seem to accurately insult.

[Lerkfish]

Originally posted by thunderous_funker:
Let me get this straight. One of the pseudo-intellectual, social darwinists over at the Ayn Rand Institute is criticizing the Left for its lack of social conscience?

How droll.

yes, in a similar vein I always find it interesting when conservatives do the same.

[dencamp]

As I have said before on this forum, I don’t mind a little agit-prop IF it is done well. This is not. Apart from the ease at which t_f has undermined the veracity of the author’s assertions, I just can’t stand behind a rhetorical move like the following: “the "anti-war" protesters who menace the cities of Europe and America—the creeps who scale the barricade of a Starbucks storefront for no greater goal than the glee of smashing its windows.”

C’mon, all I’m asking for is a little subtle buildup, a little faith that the spoon full of sugar comes before the ham-fist of haldacole (a lovely mixed metaphor I think). Menace and the use of quotes is so passé, so quaint. Get some deeper sarcasm, some subtle irony, perhaps a finely turned phrase that ushers the reader to your foregone conclusion.

Here’s the thing, I know that the Russian Constructivist wanted to make me idolize the proletariat and find the highest moral good in labor, BUT they could also draw a purdy picture. Give me purdy pictures, purdy writing and I can actually ignore some of the sick 19th century social Darwinism.

[moki]

Again, the point of the article that I agreed with was: People who claim to be compassionate about suffering the world over seem to have a remarkable propensity to ignore it when it doesn't suit their agenda or political leanings

[theolein]

Originally posted by moki:
Again, the point of the article that I agreed with was: People who claim to be compassionate about suffering the world over seem to have a remarkable propensity to ignore it when it doesn't suit their agenda or political leanings

And the counter point was that you should do some reasearch before making blanket statements that suit your agenda and political leanings.

T-f took all of a few minutes to refute all of the claims in the quoted article. I took offense at your claim (and yes, it was the above original sentence of yours that angered me, as you well knew, even when stating that you were trying to "stimulate debate") because I find it highly hypocritical, and disrespectful to those who do actually participate in political actions and to those who live in those countries, to make statements when you yourself have never been in such a situation.

It came across as a cheap attempt to discredit the so-called left who protest at some or other action with which you do not agree, and was evidently understood by the majority as such.

I don't actually know why so-called leftists and conservatives hate one another so much. I would wager that most of the leftists and right wingers actually have a fair bit of that in them which they claim to dislike.

I also think it's politically damn dangerous. I'm NOT saying that the USA is drifting into a state of neo-fascism, but there definitely does seem to be the beginnings of the political polarisation that marks such times. In pre-Nazi, pre-1933 Germany, the crisis and lack of credibility in the country's political institutions led to almost equal support for the Communists and the Nazis. The margin of victory in 1933 was not that great for the Nazis. The same can be seen here in Switzerland (Yes, I'm capable of criticising the country I live in) where the xenophobic, far right Swiss People's Party won the elections yesterday with the Social Democrats (The one's you made a point of critising in your recent string of posts) coming a close second and the traditional centre right falling back strongly.

So what would you prefer in such a case? It's normal that politics gets polarised in times of tensions and problems, but it's not good I maintain. IT would be wiser to try and understand others instead of trying to kill their voices in order to... what exactly? Do you think that the people who don't agree with you are going to suddenly see things your way and become adamant supporters of your views? I seriously doubt it. One rarely, if ever, even if the more hair brained among us claim so, wins an argument such as this. Mostly one just irritates people and hardens people's opinions of one.

[moki]

Originally posted by theolein:
. I'm NOT saying that the USA is drifting into a state of neo-fascism, but there definitely does seem to be the beginnings of the political polarisation that marks such times. In pre-Nazi, pre-1933 Germany, the crisis and lack of credibility in the country's political institutions led to almost equal support for the Communists and the Nazis.

Oh, I agree there is severe polarization here in the US (and elsewhere for that matter), there's no doubt. However the US in no way resembles Germany pre-1933: there are no severe economic burdens placed upon us, and the national morale is not in the toilet.

There's nothing wrong with opposing discussion, as long as it is just that. If it is just posting sniping comments without wanting a genuine discussion, then I'd agree with you, it is unhealthy. I've always been light on personal attacks, and strong on discussing issues, though you may not agree with my points of view. That's your right.

As for myself personally, I could care less about political leanings. If I think a democrat will do better, I'll vote democrat. Or republican. Or independent. It really makes no difference to me.

[Lerkfish]

Originally posted by moki:
Again, the point of the article that I agreed with was: People who claim to be compassionate about suffering the world over seem to have a remarkable propensity to ignore it when it doesn't suit their agenda or political leanings

and I agree with this...but I apply it also to conservatives who use the humanitarian justification for the regime change in Iraq, when:
A: a good deal of the slaughter happened more than a decade before (that's a rather slow burning fuse), and
B: A great many of the deaths are directly related to actions by Bush Sr. from Desert Storm when he goaded certain groups of Iraqis into revolt and then abandoned them completely when Saddam exacted retribution, and
C: Another segment of the deaths were accomplished using weapons that the US knew about intimately, having given them to the regime, and
D: There are equally horrendous civil rights abuses in other countries, there are other countries more connected to 9/11, and there are other countries with WMDs and could be considered a threat to the US, but we did not invade them...

I agree with that statement completely, I just think it applies to a wider group of people than you do...and I think the most dangerous group at the moment it applies to are the neocons.

[Lerkfish]

Originally posted by moki:
I've always been light on personal attacks, and strong on discussing issues

er...I cannot agree with this one at all. I think that YOU think you are more subtle about it, but you sling mud with the best of them...and it isn't as subtle as you prefer to think.

I have been the target of your personal attack on more than one occasion.

Also, I think theolien is perceptive, if a little overwrought, in assessing that your choice of topics is definitely intentional to make these subtle attacks.

The problem is, people aren't computer programs. They don't just lay there and allow you to manipulate them. Sometimes they are aware of the manipulation and reject it.

There's nothing wrong per se with the topics you bring up, but there is definitely an agenda to them, whether you admit it or not.

Like me, for example, even though I do want to discuss the few topics I start, and I do want a wide variety of people to discuss them, because of my personal bias , how and what topics I choose ARE representative of a certain agenda. This is true of all of us. For some reason, you insist you are different, when its transparently obvious you aren't. And thats...ok. But you have to accept that people like theolein are going to call you on it. People do employ their own intellect, do read patterns, and do draw conclusions from those patterns.