Images of Iran
22For the record, I think a lot of people in Iran do genuinely want change.
I have a problem with the regime, not the people. Unless they are the people cheering at public executions of minors. Those people can fuck right off.
Maybe we are just talking past each other because we have different interpretations of the video.
I see it and as a blithe dismissal of the realities inside Iran. Kind of like "Move along, nothing to see here" Almost propaganda in its own right. I'm open to other interpretations though.
I see how it could be interpreted your way. I understand the need to humanize Iranians. I agree with you when you say they are not all crazed loonies. I just get fearful that we can lose sight of the bad stuff in the process.
Maybe its just that having a child gets me particularly riled up when countries execute children in the streets. Or at all for that matter. (Not that people without them can't get equally mad.)
Would you care to call a truce on this one? I think we probably agree more than we think we do. (or mainly we agree more than I thought we did)
Images of Iran
25I'd like to second or third pretty much everything Sparky has said on this thread. It is just as important to recognize the people of Iran as the diverse individuals leading diverse lives, distinct from one another and their government, as it is to recognize the human rights violations that go on in the country. And I'll stop there on that because I'm getting close to repeating everything else from earlier in the thread.
On Ahmadinejad and his Columbia speech though, o_d_m, I don't really find his comments on Israel to have been rhetoric. His analysis and position on the situation (at least from the content of the speech, not any of his previous remarks) did not seem too belligerant, bombastic, or lacking in sense. Here is what he says:
Really, this does not seem to be rhetoric or anti-Israel. The only portion that could be seen as anti-Israel is when QUESTION (I'm assuming this is Bollinger) answers the question he posed to Ahmadinejad for Ahmadinejad, in the affirmative. Now, the phrasing of the question makes it impossible--unless the answer is elaborated on, and not even then as proven by Ahmadinejad's response--to provide any answer that could be anti-Israel. Here's the question, with my emphasis added:
Now, I've added bold and italics to the most important part. The question is not, Do you seek the destruction of Israel and its people?. It is not, Do you seek the eradication of the Jewish people? It only asks if the questioned seeks the destruction of Israel as a Jewish state. Which, as most sensible, rational individuals, who realize that neither religion nor ethnicity should have any place in determining nationality or potential for nationality.
Also, I don't think the applause for his statements on Israel and Palestine, or Iran and the US should be condemned or taken as whole hearted support for his and his administration's other policies. I happen to think that he made a great deal of sense on those two issues, something that very few (or maybe none) of our politicians are able to do. I also think the human rights abuses, mainly the treatment of women and non-existent gay Iranians, are reprehensible. As is a denial of the Holocaust. However, I think it is foolish to disregard or trivialize sensible remarks he or anyone else makes on other issues. Like how Bush changed Daylight Savings. I'm behind him 100% on that, but behind him 0% on everything else.
On Ahmadinejad and his Columbia speech though, o_d_m, I don't really find his comments on Israel to have been rhetoric. His analysis and position on the situation (at least from the content of the speech, not any of his previous remarks) did not seem too belligerant, bombastic, or lacking in sense. Here is what he says:
.MODERATOR: The first question is: Do you or your government seek the destruction of the state of Israel as a Jewish state?
AHMADINEJAD (THROUGH TRANSLATOR): We love all nations. We are friends with the Jewish people. There are many Jews in Iran, leaving peacefully, with security.
You must understand that in our constitution and our laws and in the parliamentary elections for every 150,000 people, we get one representative in the parliament. For the Jewish community, for one- fifth of this number, they still get one independent representative in the parliament.
So our proposal to the Palestinian plight is a humanitarian and democratic proposal. What we say is that to solve this 60-year problem, we must allow the Palestinian people to decide about its future for itself.
This is compatible with the spirit of the Charter of the United Nations and the fundamental principles enshrined in it. We must allow Jewish Palestinians, Muslim Palestinians and Christian Palestinians to determine their own fate themselves through a free referendum.
AHMADINEJAD (THROUGH TRANSLATOR): Whatever they choose as a nation, everybody should accept and respect. Nobody should interfere in the affairs of the Palestinian nation. Nobody should sow the seeds of discord. Nobody should spend tens of billions of dollars equipping and arming one group there.
We say allow the Palestinian nation to decide its own future, to have the right to self-determination for itself. This is what we are saying as the Iranian nation.
(APPLAUSE)
QUESTION: Mr. President, I think many members of our audience would like to hear a clearer answer to that question. That is...
(APPLAUSE)
The question is: Do you or your government seek the destruction of the state of Israel as a Jewish state? And I think you could answer that question with a single word, either yes or no.
(APPLAUSE)
AHMADINEJAD (THROUGH TRANSLATOR): You asked the question, and then you want the answer the way you want to hear it. Well, this isn't really a free flow of information.
(APPLAUSE)
I'm just telling you what my position is. I'm asking you: Is the Palestinian issue not an international issue of prominence or not? Please tell me, yes or no?
(APPLAUSE)
There's the plight of a people.
QUESTION: The answer to your question is yes.
AHMADINEJAD (THROUGH TRANSLATOR): Well, thank you for your cooperation. We recognize there's a problem there that's been going on for 60 years. Everybody provides a solution. And our solution is a free referendum.
Let this referendum happen, and then you'll see what the results are.
AHMADINEJAD: Let the people of Palestine freely choose what they want for their future. And then what you want in your mind to happen there will happen and will be realized
Really, this does not seem to be rhetoric or anti-Israel. The only portion that could be seen as anti-Israel is when QUESTION (I'm assuming this is Bollinger) answers the question he posed to Ahmadinejad for Ahmadinejad, in the affirmative. Now, the phrasing of the question makes it impossible--unless the answer is elaborated on, and not even then as proven by Ahmadinejad's response--to provide any answer that could be anti-Israel. Here's the question, with my emphasis added:
The question is: Do you or your government seek the destruction of the state of Israel as a Jewish state? And I think you could answer that question with a single word, either yes or no.
Now, I've added bold and italics to the most important part. The question is not, Do you seek the destruction of Israel and its people?. It is not, Do you seek the eradication of the Jewish people? It only asks if the questioned seeks the destruction of Israel as a Jewish state. Which, as most sensible, rational individuals, who realize that neither religion nor ethnicity should have any place in determining nationality or potential for nationality.
Also, I don't think the applause for his statements on Israel and Palestine, or Iran and the US should be condemned or taken as whole hearted support for his and his administration's other policies. I happen to think that he made a great deal of sense on those two issues, something that very few (or maybe none) of our politicians are able to do. I also think the human rights abuses, mainly the treatment of women and non-existent gay Iranians, are reprehensible. As is a denial of the Holocaust. However, I think it is foolish to disregard or trivialize sensible remarks he or anyone else makes on other issues. Like how Bush changed Daylight Savings. I'm behind him 100% on that, but behind him 0% on everything else.
Images of Iran
26o_d_m wrote:Yes, I am well aware of other countries' human rights abuses (U.S. and Israel included) but this is a thread about Iran so Iran's human rights abuses are highlighted.
I am anti-death penalty for kids no matter who's doing it. I''m sorry if I came off sounding like Iran is the only bad nation doing bad things anywhere. Please see the above quote.
Now as I said before, truce?
Images of Iran
27slincire wrote:I'd like to second or third pretty much everything Sparky has said on this thread. It is just as important to recognize the people of Iran as the diverse individuals leading diverse lives, distinct from one another and their government, as it is to recognize the human rights violations that go on in the country. .
I don't understand why that is? Every country in the world has some nice places, so fucking what? its not newsworthy that there are nice outdoor areas in rich parts of town. unless you are the SF examiner and doing a story about wine tasting
I don't think seeing pics of child executions is "as important" as seeing pics of iranians drinking coffee. I see child execution pics as more important.
The idea that "hey there are normal people in arab countries too" is pretty much a given. There are "normal people" all over the world.
Here are some normal people I wish we could export to Iran, they'd fit right in
Images of Iran
28Hexpane wrote:The idea that "hey there are normal people in arab countries too" is pretty much a given.
If only that were true. It's a given to those of us on the PRF, maybe, but to everyday Americans?
http://www.ifihadahifi.net
http://www.superstarcastic.com
http://www.superstarcastic.com
Marsupialized wrote:Thank you so much for the pounding, it came in handy.
Images of Iran
29Hexpane wrote:I don't understand why that is? Every country in the world has some nice places, so fucking what? its not newsworthy that there are nice outdoor areas in rich parts of town. unless you are the SF examiner and doing a story about wine tasting
I don't think seeing pics of child executions is "as important" as seeing pics of iranians drinking coffee. I see child execution pics as more important.
The idea that "hey there are normal people in arab countries too" is pretty much a given. There are "normal people" all over the world.
Here are some normal people I wish we could export to Iran, they'd fit right in
For Christ Allah Buddha and Satan's sake, you seem determined to paint the country in the exact same stupid one-eyed light that 95% of Western media depictions do.
Again: the point of this thread was to be informative and offer a corrective to this incessant highlighting of the disgusting extremes of Iran.
Instead, we keep getting reiteration after reiteration of the same cyclopean "Third World Butchers" depiction. The only photos that have been posted to this thread underline this unbalanced view.
If we were to start a thread about "nice places to visit in the UK" and people started posting photos of people blown up by the weapons we sell indiscriminately to dictatorships with the rejoinder "but this is all that really matters", we might object that this offers an unbalanced view. Likewise, if someone started a thread on visiting the US and someone else started posting photos of executed teenagers and shot-to-bits Iraqis, this might be seen as the post of someone with a prejudiced view of Americans.
Iran is consistently painted in monochrome "Axis of Evil" rhetoric. It is a diverse and highly developed country in many, many ways. Some of us are trying to look into finding out more about it.
Edit on revisit: Apologies if the above seems (ha!) intolerant of me. This is just making me pull my hair out. And I have a lot of hair.
Gib Opi kein Opium, denn Opium bringt Opi um!
Images of Iran
30sparky wrote:This constant need to dehumanize... I am sure that that is the opposite of your intentions, but that is what comes out from this continual battering of any alternative depictions.
I think the point, as is normal for any intelligent person, is a separation between State and Polis. This is often ignored, as in what is often termed as "Anti-Americanism". I personally think the the US government - acting on behalf of it's electorate - has behaved in a way that is way beyond what we could call evil. Likewise the frankly barbaric Theo-fascists that run Iran are not totally representative of Iranians. Their thuggish version of Mohamadism that is an alien debasement of Persian culture, which was not a traditional Mohammedan culture.
For a good insight into Persia this is a great book:
http://www.randomhouse.com/pantheon/gra ... polis.html
Shiny happy Iranians skiing doesn't change that that regime must not be allowed to get it's hands on nuclear weapons. Even if that means military action. I thought Iraq was the height of idiocy, but air strikes on Iran's military sites may become necessary. Especially as if the US doesn't do it Israel without question will... a much worse situation.
Last edited by Gramsci_Archive on Wed Oct 03, 2007 6:46 pm, edited 1 time in total.