for Freedom
May 30, 2003 8:00 AM Subscribe
NorthKoreafilter.com is available for those of you who really think ahead.
posted by Cyrano at 8:15 AM on May 30, 2003
posted by Cyrano at 8:15 AM on May 30, 2003
Very good point, Cyrano, and here's why-- Iran is a major terrorist threat, and Iran-sponsored terrorism, unlike that of Iraq, has killed Americans. Meanwhile, the USA has suddenly put Iran's military on a full-court-press to build nuclear weapons as quickly as possible and placed 150,000 American troops within firing range of Iranian missiles. Strangely, this is the exact position that the USA is stuck in when it comes to North Korea.
posted by deanc at 8:20 AM on May 30, 2003
posted by deanc at 8:20 AM on May 30, 2003
Does anyone know if Rumsfeld's statements will weaken the already fragile democratic movement in Iran? Are we inadvertantly encouraging a nuclear arms race (in Iran and N. Korea?) And does this embolden the charge that we're becoming a nation of warmongers?
posted by drstrangelove at 8:26 AM on May 30, 2003
posted by drstrangelove at 8:26 AM on May 30, 2003
Oh, how I yearn for those halcyon days of yore, where all we had to worry about was whether Brenda was going to patch things up with Dylan, and whether we were going to jet to Milan or Venice this year, and oh my god why, cruel God, why?
posted by xmutex at 8:29 AM on May 30, 2003
posted by xmutex at 8:29 AM on May 30, 2003
The Onion said it best: Our Long National Nightmare of Peace and Prosperity Is Finally Over
posted by rocketman at 8:35 AM on May 30, 2003
posted by rocketman at 8:35 AM on May 30, 2003
There's certainly one regime I'd like to see changed....
posted by salmacis at 8:38 AM on May 30, 2003
posted by salmacis at 8:38 AM on May 30, 2003
Weaken the democratic movement? No, I think this will do just the opposite- help give confidence to pro-democracy and reformist Iranians that more pressure will be brought to bear on the mullahs and theocrats, which may lead to greater reform and relaxing of restrictions, if not outright revolution.
In fact, one of the main pro-democracy groups is protesting against the US, not in yet another mandatory anti-American rally cooked up by the mullahs, but by the students and reformers angry at the US for their continuing support of the theocracy! Many are in favor of having the current US activities in the region extend to liberating Iran. Iranian blogs I've read have said as much, too, as have Iranian-American bloggers I know with family still trapped in Tehran, unable to leave.
For all the fear and worrying that getting involved in Afghanistan and Iraq would lead to a catastrophic wave of violence and hatred against the US, the flip side is that it could instead be liberation and freedom and nascent democratic movements gaining steam that are the domino effect here, not more terrorism.
In any case, there is a huge pro-democracy anti-theocracy rally planned for the 18th of Tir (July 9th), in commemoration of an earlier uprising. There's a lot of buzz about it, much of it spread via the Internet and blogs these days. This should be interesting to watch...let's just hope it doesn't turn into Tiananmen Square redux...
posted by Asparagirl at 8:47 AM on May 30, 2003
In fact, one of the main pro-democracy groups is protesting against the US, not in yet another mandatory anti-American rally cooked up by the mullahs, but by the students and reformers angry at the US for their continuing support of the theocracy! Many are in favor of having the current US activities in the region extend to liberating Iran. Iranian blogs I've read have said as much, too, as have Iranian-American bloggers I know with family still trapped in Tehran, unable to leave.
For all the fear and worrying that getting involved in Afghanistan and Iraq would lead to a catastrophic wave of violence and hatred against the US, the flip side is that it could instead be liberation and freedom and nascent democratic movements gaining steam that are the domino effect here, not more terrorism.
In any case, there is a huge pro-democracy anti-theocracy rally planned for the 18th of Tir (July 9th), in commemoration of an earlier uprising. There's a lot of buzz about it, much of it spread via the Internet and blogs these days. This should be interesting to watch...let's just hope it doesn't turn into Tiananmen Square redux...
posted by Asparagirl at 8:47 AM on May 30, 2003
This would be such a tremendously awful idea. I get the impression that Rumsfeld thinks that all the Islamic states in the Middle East are exactly the same. He could not be more wrong when it comes to Iran.
Iran has an INCREDIBLY STRONG sense of Nationalism. They are very proud of themselves and their country. Most people in Iran consider themselves "Persian" (a throwback to a great time in their culture and history) and don't like the regime or consider themselves Islamic (they are Zoroastrians,) but it's still THEIR government. They are not like Iraq or Afghanistan at all. A war in Iraq would be long and nasty and bloody on a scale of Vietnam. They would NOT run or fall apart like the Iraqis or Afghans.
My Mom just got back from 2 weeks in Iran handing out wheelchairs with an Iranian first aid organization and she has seen their nationalism and pride first hand. And their strength. This would be a HUGE MISTAKE.
Why don't we deal with the Islamic regime that is slowly taking over Iraq and Afghanistan while we screw up things royally in those countries and allow the clerics to gain credibility as they do all the things for the citizens that America as the "occupiers" should be doing?
posted by aacheson at 8:50 AM on May 30, 2003
Iran has an INCREDIBLY STRONG sense of Nationalism. They are very proud of themselves and their country. Most people in Iran consider themselves "Persian" (a throwback to a great time in their culture and history) and don't like the regime or consider themselves Islamic (they are Zoroastrians,) but it's still THEIR government. They are not like Iraq or Afghanistan at all. A war in Iraq would be long and nasty and bloody on a scale of Vietnam. They would NOT run or fall apart like the Iraqis or Afghans.
My Mom just got back from 2 weeks in Iran handing out wheelchairs with an Iranian first aid organization and she has seen their nationalism and pride first hand. And their strength. This would be a HUGE MISTAKE.
Why don't we deal with the Islamic regime that is slowly taking over Iraq and Afghanistan while we screw up things royally in those countries and allow the clerics to gain credibility as they do all the things for the citizens that America as the "occupiers" should be doing?
posted by aacheson at 8:50 AM on May 30, 2003
Deanc - Yes. In fact, according to the Rumsfeld/Wolfowitz coauthored (with others) document, begun at the request of then Secretary of Defense Cheney back in '91, "Rebuilding America's Defenses" (Available at The Project For a New American Century) "Over the long term, Iran may well prove as large a threat to U.S. interests in the Gulf as Iraq has. And even should U.S.-Iranian relations improve, retaining forward-based forces in the region would still be an essential element in U.S. security strategy given the longstanding American interests in the region....
....the United States has for decades sought to play a more
permanent role in Gulf regional security. While the unresolved conflict with Iraq provides the immediate justification, the need for a substantial American force presence in the Gulf transcends the issue of the regime of Saddam Hussein."
posted by troutfishing at 8:59 AM on May 30, 2003
....the United States has for decades sought to play a more
permanent role in Gulf regional security. While the unresolved conflict with Iraq provides the immediate justification, the need for a substantial American force presence in the Gulf transcends the issue of the regime of Saddam Hussein."
posted by troutfishing at 8:59 AM on May 30, 2003
But that sense of nationalism and pride could be used to good effect in dislodging the theocrats. Iran/Persia has traditionally been a place of great learning, culture, arts, medicine, science, and (as far as Middle Eastern states go) pretty damn tolerant of different religions/ethnic groups in its society.
They're Persian, not Arab, and years of strict Islamic rule modeled on the Arab style of theocracy have sunk the country in the mud. Not a hell of a lot of innovation or science or culture going on when everything is regulated and censored and controlled to the hilt. Little respect for human rights. Minority religious/ethnic groups like the Bahai and Jews have been oppressed or nearly wiped out. Women are forced into compulsory veiling. It's not as bad as Afghanistan was (or, in many places, still is), but it's a big comedown from their history, even from 30-40 years ago.
That's not the Iran/Persia that most Iranians want to be known for. Their pride and nationalism and history could be a positive factor, not an obstacle, in pushing them back towards modernization and openness and democracy and against the stagnant theocracy and mindless bloodshed they've had all these years...
posted by Asparagirl at 9:02 AM on May 30, 2003
They're Persian, not Arab, and years of strict Islamic rule modeled on the Arab style of theocracy have sunk the country in the mud. Not a hell of a lot of innovation or science or culture going on when everything is regulated and censored and controlled to the hilt. Little respect for human rights. Minority religious/ethnic groups like the Bahai and Jews have been oppressed or nearly wiped out. Women are forced into compulsory veiling. It's not as bad as Afghanistan was (or, in many places, still is), but it's a big comedown from their history, even from 30-40 years ago.
That's not the Iran/Persia that most Iranians want to be known for. Their pride and nationalism and history could be a positive factor, not an obstacle, in pushing them back towards modernization and openness and democracy and against the stagnant theocracy and mindless bloodshed they've had all these years...
posted by Asparagirl at 9:02 AM on May 30, 2003
The US is bound by its administration's logic and rhetoric to attack Iran because it comes closer to actually meeting the criteria we used to attack Iraq. (I don't agree with the logic and rhetoric.) If we don't attack Iran, we might look like hypocritical bullies who talk the talk but don't walk the walk.
(Besides, c'mon, they're right next door to each other and one letter off. Maybe we attacked Iraq by mistake. Yeah, that's it.)
And of course, I hate America and love Saddam Hussein.
posted by kirkaracha at 9:25 AM on May 30, 2003
(Besides, c'mon, they're right next door to each other and one letter off. Maybe we attacked Iraq by mistake. Yeah, that's it.)
And of course, I hate America and love Saddam Hussein.
posted by kirkaracha at 9:25 AM on May 30, 2003
modeled on the Arab style of theocracy
Actually the Iranian revolution had nothing to do with Arab theocracy and everything to do with homegrown Iranian intellectuals and dissidents. While their ideas are portrayed in the West as something hearkening back to the olden days, in reality their ideology is something entirely new, even if it is traditionalist in many ways. If anything, the Arab world has been influenced by the Iranian revolution, not the other way around.
While you seem to have a good grasp of one small sliver of Iranian society, your overall knowledge is weak, and this is precisely the problem that many conservatives have when they approach a place like Iran. While I have no doubt your intentions are good, the lack of understanding that comes with a cursory knowledge of a society, culture of religion can be very dangerous when talking about drastic change in someone else's society. You talk going "back towards modernization and openness and democracy," when in reality all they had in the days of the Shah was Westernization, not the attendant democracy, rule of law, and true openness needed for a vibrant culture. In other words, there were short skirts but also massive corruption, total abuse of power, and murder for your beliefs. So while we can agree that Iran needs change, you seem to be missing the point of what change the Iranian people actually want-- the vast majority support the ideals of the revolution, just not how it was carried out. While American conservatives see the revolution itself as the problem, Iranians see the execution of the revolution as the principal problem. This is a very wide gulf. Furthermore I would posit that in a country with 420,000 people using the internet out of a total population of 67 million, Bloggers are not exactly representative of Iranian society, although their ideas may be at the forefront. Likewise, those who fled or were pushed out during the revolution (mostly those with ties to the Shah, wealthier religious minorities, etc.) are also not the best example of what is going on in Iran at this moment.
So why did I write all this? Because I respect your opinions but find them majorly flawed, especially when you speak about going back to a better time in Persian/Iranian history. The reality is that going forward is the only way, and an aggressive and beligerant stance by an outside power is not, in my opinion the best way forward. A better approach, even within the same general posture, would be to tell Iran exactly what it can do to re-establish relations with the United States, something that many if not most Iranians would love to do.
posted by cell divide at 9:36 AM on May 30, 2003
Actually the Iranian revolution had nothing to do with Arab theocracy and everything to do with homegrown Iranian intellectuals and dissidents. While their ideas are portrayed in the West as something hearkening back to the olden days, in reality their ideology is something entirely new, even if it is traditionalist in many ways. If anything, the Arab world has been influenced by the Iranian revolution, not the other way around.
While you seem to have a good grasp of one small sliver of Iranian society, your overall knowledge is weak, and this is precisely the problem that many conservatives have when they approach a place like Iran. While I have no doubt your intentions are good, the lack of understanding that comes with a cursory knowledge of a society, culture of religion can be very dangerous when talking about drastic change in someone else's society. You talk going "back towards modernization and openness and democracy," when in reality all they had in the days of the Shah was Westernization, not the attendant democracy, rule of law, and true openness needed for a vibrant culture. In other words, there were short skirts but also massive corruption, total abuse of power, and murder for your beliefs. So while we can agree that Iran needs change, you seem to be missing the point of what change the Iranian people actually want-- the vast majority support the ideals of the revolution, just not how it was carried out. While American conservatives see the revolution itself as the problem, Iranians see the execution of the revolution as the principal problem. This is a very wide gulf. Furthermore I would posit that in a country with 420,000 people using the internet out of a total population of 67 million, Bloggers are not exactly representative of Iranian society, although their ideas may be at the forefront. Likewise, those who fled or were pushed out during the revolution (mostly those with ties to the Shah, wealthier religious minorities, etc.) are also not the best example of what is going on in Iran at this moment.
So why did I write all this? Because I respect your opinions but find them majorly flawed, especially when you speak about going back to a better time in Persian/Iranian history. The reality is that going forward is the only way, and an aggressive and beligerant stance by an outside power is not, in my opinion the best way forward. A better approach, even within the same general posture, would be to tell Iran exactly what it can do to re-establish relations with the United States, something that many if not most Iranians would love to do.
posted by cell divide at 9:36 AM on May 30, 2003
Weaken the democratic movement? No, I think this will do just the opposite- help give confidence to pro-democracy and reformist Iranians that more pressure will be brought to bear on the mullahs and theocrats, which may lead to greater reform and relaxing of restrictions, if not outright revolution
Every time an American moron pundit opens his big fucking mouth, the Mullahs get justified in their hatred for "the Great Satan." Right now Iran is PISSED at America and they are VERY much Islamic. This has nothing to do with their ethnicity or culture which is vastly different from the Arabs, but they do unflinchingly subscribe to Islam, which would explain why the man that baptized my brother had his throat slit. The current regime has absolutely nothing to do with "arab style" anything, they are Shia imams! The current regime operates in the climate of backlash against the Americans and every time they overthrow a government or talk about meddling in Iran, the Mullahs go up in power. We need to leave Iran alone, completely, regime change there by Americans would be a horrid disaster.
Iran is a major terrorist threat, and Iran-sponsored terrorism, unlike that of Iraq, has killed Americans.
Are you living in 1982? When was the last time Iran had a hand in killing Americans? Americans were killed today by Iraqi supported terrorism. The only evidence of this "full court press" is from Rummy and we all know how accurate his intel is.
You are right Asparagirl that most Iranians do not want to be known for intolerance but every time America opens its big fat mouth, those Mullahs that say the "Great Satan's Imperialists want to control Iran" just gets more and more justified, now Rummy vies to prove them right. Iran could potentially, 20 years or so from now be one of America's greatest allies in the world fight for freedom for all. Two years ago I would have said 5 or 10 years ahead they would have been our allies, but the Imams got their justification with the Iraq war, now we'll have to start from square one and the louder Rummy's incoherent rambling and simian fecal flinging gets the more years get tacked on.
posted by Pollomacho at 9:37 AM on May 30, 2003
Every time an American moron pundit opens his big fucking mouth, the Mullahs get justified in their hatred for "the Great Satan." Right now Iran is PISSED at America and they are VERY much Islamic. This has nothing to do with their ethnicity or culture which is vastly different from the Arabs, but they do unflinchingly subscribe to Islam, which would explain why the man that baptized my brother had his throat slit. The current regime has absolutely nothing to do with "arab style" anything, they are Shia imams! The current regime operates in the climate of backlash against the Americans and every time they overthrow a government or talk about meddling in Iran, the Mullahs go up in power. We need to leave Iran alone, completely, regime change there by Americans would be a horrid disaster.
Iran is a major terrorist threat, and Iran-sponsored terrorism, unlike that of Iraq, has killed Americans.
Are you living in 1982? When was the last time Iran had a hand in killing Americans? Americans were killed today by Iraqi supported terrorism. The only evidence of this "full court press" is from Rummy and we all know how accurate his intel is.
You are right Asparagirl that most Iranians do not want to be known for intolerance but every time America opens its big fat mouth, those Mullahs that say the "Great Satan's Imperialists want to control Iran" just gets more and more justified, now Rummy vies to prove them right. Iran could potentially, 20 years or so from now be one of America's greatest allies in the world fight for freedom for all. Two years ago I would have said 5 or 10 years ahead they would have been our allies, but the Imams got their justification with the Iraq war, now we'll have to start from square one and the louder Rummy's incoherent rambling and simian fecal flinging gets the more years get tacked on.
posted by Pollomacho at 9:37 AM on May 30, 2003
"Americans were killed today by Iraqi supported terrorism.
Somewhat to the side of the discussion, but this statement has me way confused. What Americans were killed by Iraqi sponsored terrorists today?
posted by Wulfgar! at 10:05 AM on May 30, 2003
Somewhat to the side of the discussion, but this statement has me way confused. What Americans were killed by Iraqi sponsored terrorists today?
posted by Wulfgar! at 10:05 AM on May 30, 2003
Rummy is tremendously ambitious but lacks the most basic follow-up skills. Before letting him engage in another class project, he should be obliged to at least write a credible paper explaining where are OBL, Saddam and the WMDs. Pointing fingers might be fun, but pretty much useless given his own track record. Does Iran have WMDs? Does it harbor Al Qaeda operatives? Is Jatami directly involved in 9-11? Really? Yawn!
posted by magullo at 10:21 AM on May 30, 2003
posted by magullo at 10:21 AM on May 30, 2003
Will Rummy attack Iran with the military that now appears to be fully Dubya's and no longer reflecting it's state under Clinton? Doesn't look like it to me but you make up your own mind. An excerpt to show how Rummy needs to wake up from his imperialistic dreams:
"None of my Bradleys are fully mission capable," said Capt. Chris Carter, an infantry company commander.
Maintenance personnel report that the treads that propel tanks forward are worn, and the vehicles' suspensions are badly damaged. That means the tanks could be easily immobilized in battle and could not move well under fire.
One brigade-level officer wrote a four-page letter to the division commander detailing why his unit was not ready for combat operations, a senior officer said on condition of anonymity.
Come on Rummy, just admit it, you're a crazed ideologue and unfit to continue in your position. Even the White House agrees you need to go, you prodigious memo writing freak!
posted by nofundy at 11:00 AM on May 30, 2003
"None of my Bradleys are fully mission capable," said Capt. Chris Carter, an infantry company commander.
Maintenance personnel report that the treads that propel tanks forward are worn, and the vehicles' suspensions are badly damaged. That means the tanks could be easily immobilized in battle and could not move well under fire.
One brigade-level officer wrote a four-page letter to the division commander detailing why his unit was not ready for combat operations, a senior officer said on condition of anonymity.
Come on Rummy, just admit it, you're a crazed ideologue and unfit to continue in your position. Even the White House agrees you need to go, you prodigious memo writing freak!
posted by nofundy at 11:00 AM on May 30, 2003
What Americans were killed by Iraqi sponsored terrorists today?
Don't read much?
Does it harbor Al Qaeda operatives? Is Jatami directly involved in 9-11?
This is a ridiculous accusation. Who kept the Northern Alliance alive and fighting against the Taliban and Al Queda for all those years while we were their buddies? Iran, plain and simple, so now Iran is suddenly going to support a Sunni dominance organization? Yeah, that makes sense.
posted by Pollomacho at 11:01 AM on May 30, 2003
Don't read much?
Does it harbor Al Qaeda operatives? Is Jatami directly involved in 9-11?
This is a ridiculous accusation. Who kept the Northern Alliance alive and fighting against the Taliban and Al Queda for all those years while we were their buddies? Iran, plain and simple, so now Iran is suddenly going to support a Sunni dominance organization? Yeah, that makes sense.
posted by Pollomacho at 11:01 AM on May 30, 2003
Line 'em up, knock 'em out.
See, one day it WILL be safe for me to go on an aiplane again...
posted by eas98 at 11:05 AM on May 30, 2003
See, one day it WILL be safe for me to go on an aiplane again...
posted by eas98 at 11:05 AM on May 30, 2003
Line 'em up, knock 'em out.
Line 'em up, piss 'em off.
See, one day it WILL be safe for me to go on an airplane again...
What? When all the "brown people" are dead? Sorry, Iranians aren't semites, they are the original Aryans, we'd be killing whitey! I hope you we're being sarcastic.
posted by Pollomacho at 11:35 AM on May 30, 2003
Line 'em up, piss 'em off.
See, one day it WILL be safe for me to go on an airplane again...
What? When all the "brown people" are dead? Sorry, Iranians aren't semites, they are the original Aryans, we'd be killing whitey! I hope you we're being sarcastic.
posted by Pollomacho at 11:35 AM on May 30, 2003
Come on [insert Mefi Member # here], just admit it, you're a crazed ideologue and unfit to continue in your position. [The rest of Mefi] agrees you need to go, you prodigious [post] writing freak!
posted by UncleFes at 11:48 AM on May 30, 2003
posted by UncleFes at 11:48 AM on May 30, 2003
"Don't read much?"
Pollomacho, you're a funny kinda guy, ain't cha? You see, I do read, and I read both those stories. Here's what I see. The US invades a country. The US defeats its regime and calls the war over. Resistance, however, is not over yet, you've just chosen to redefine those resistance fighters as "terrorists" sponsored by Iraq (even though there is no Iraqi leadership to sponsor them). So, funny guy, do you see my problem with your statement yet, or do I have to spell it out clearer?
posted by Wulfgar! at 12:25 PM on May 30, 2003
Pollomacho, you're a funny kinda guy, ain't cha? You see, I do read, and I read both those stories. Here's what I see. The US invades a country. The US defeats its regime and calls the war over. Resistance, however, is not over yet, you've just chosen to redefine those resistance fighters as "terrorists" sponsored by Iraq (even though there is no Iraqi leadership to sponsor them). So, funny guy, do you see my problem with your statement yet, or do I have to spell it out clearer?
posted by Wulfgar! at 12:25 PM on May 30, 2003
What's 'a matta' UncleFes? Step on your last nerve? For clarifaction of my statement go read this, then come back and attempt some humorous remark about MeFi or one of the members again.
The discussion topic in this thread is a little too hot for any righty-tightie to handle. Might as well disparage the messengers, huh?
posted by nofundy at 12:51 PM on May 30, 2003
The discussion topic in this thread is a little too hot for any righty-tightie to handle. Might as well disparage the messengers, huh?
posted by nofundy at 12:51 PM on May 30, 2003
What's 'a matta' UncleFes? Step on your last nerve? For clarifiction of my statement go read this, then come back and attempt some humorous remark about MeFi or one of the members again.
The discussion topic in this thread is a little too hot for any righty-tightie to handle. Might as well disparage the messengers, huh?
posted by nofundy at 12:51 PM on May 30, 2003
The discussion topic in this thread is a little too hot for any righty-tightie to handle. Might as well disparage the messengers, huh?
posted by nofundy at 12:51 PM on May 30, 2003
Resistance, however, is not over yet, you've just chosen to redefine those resistance fighters as "terrorists" sponsored by Iraq
Redefine? Maybe I'm just using the administration's definition.
Their weapons were supplied by whom? Oh, yeah, the Iraqi regime, so that means that makes them Iraq supported, no? On top of that you, yourself just said that the regime is no more. Any resistance that would be left would be partisans and guerrilla groups, aka terrorists, thus, I am safe to say, Iraq supplied terrorists have been killing Americans today. You say resistance fighters, others say terrorists, you say tomato, I say tomato... Point is, when was the last time the Iranian regime killed or sponsored the killing of Americans? Who was the Ayatollah Assahola back then? Its been at least 10 years, no? Whereas Iraq had suicide bombings at checkpoints by pregnant women a month ago! So now maybe you see my problems with your statements?
posted by Pollomacho at 1:17 PM on May 30, 2003
Redefine? Maybe I'm just using the administration's definition.
Their weapons were supplied by whom? Oh, yeah, the Iraqi regime, so that means that makes them Iraq supported, no? On top of that you, yourself just said that the regime is no more. Any resistance that would be left would be partisans and guerrilla groups, aka terrorists, thus, I am safe to say, Iraq supplied terrorists have been killing Americans today. You say resistance fighters, others say terrorists, you say tomato, I say tomato... Point is, when was the last time the Iranian regime killed or sponsored the killing of Americans? Who was the Ayatollah Assahola back then? Its been at least 10 years, no? Whereas Iraq had suicide bombings at checkpoints by pregnant women a month ago! So now maybe you see my problems with your statements?
posted by Pollomacho at 1:17 PM on May 30, 2003
So let's revisit your logic, shall we? Iran is not a major terrorist threat, even though they have actively, in the past, undertaken direct terrorist activity against America and its civilians. Iraq is/was a major terrorist threat even though they never undertook terrorist activity against Americans, until we bombed and invaded their country. Then those filthy Iraqi terrorists had the audacity to shoot at our fine American soldiers, the bastards.
Pollomacho, yeah, I really think I see your problem ...
posted by Wulfgar! at 1:27 PM on May 30, 2003
Pollomacho, yeah, I really think I see your problem ...
posted by Wulfgar! at 1:27 PM on May 30, 2003
NorthKoreafilter.com is available for those of you who really think ahead.
No need, there's already WarFilter.
posted by homunculus at 1:28 PM on May 30, 2003
No need, there's already WarFilter.
posted by homunculus at 1:28 PM on May 30, 2003
The same people that claim that Iran sponsored terrorists say that Iraq was complicit in 9/11. Who are you going to believe Wulfgar?
posted by Pollomacho at 1:32 PM on May 30, 2003
posted by Pollomacho at 1:32 PM on May 30, 2003
What a can of worms! Of course there is also Saddam's outspoken and open support, verbal, financial and material, for Hammas and Palestine's resistance against Israel, but that just goes back to the whole "resistance against occupation is not terrorism" dilemma, but then again that's the same "terrorist" group that Iran supposedly supports, so that would have to eliminate them too, wouldn't it?
posted by Pollomacho at 1:54 PM on May 30, 2003
posted by Pollomacho at 1:54 PM on May 30, 2003
Now that I re-read your version of my logic I think I want to clarify some things by my logic:
Iran is not a major terrorist threat, even though they did actively, in the past, undertake indirect terrorist activity against America but not its civilians. Iraq is/was a major terrorist threat and undertook terrorist activity against America, until we bombed and invaded their country. After their regime had been dismantled and a new infrastructure began to be formed, some in Iraq continue to shoot at and use guerilla tactics against soldiers, lengthening the already dubious occupation.
posted by Pollomacho at 2:12 PM on May 30, 2003
Iran is not a major terrorist threat, even though they did actively, in the past, undertake indirect terrorist activity against America but not its civilians. Iraq is/was a major terrorist threat and undertook terrorist activity against America, until we bombed and invaded their country. After their regime had been dismantled and a new infrastructure began to be formed, some in Iraq continue to shoot at and use guerilla tactics against soldiers, lengthening the already dubious occupation.
posted by Pollomacho at 2:12 PM on May 30, 2003
One of the reasons I haunt WarFilter more than MeFi any more is that there tends to be a lot more logical consistancy there than here. For instance, most of the folk over there will recognize that just because some of the same people who claim X also claim Y, there is no necessity for either to be true or false. You see, I claim that Iran has sponsored terrorists, and not once have I believed that Iraq had thing-one to do with the attack on Sept. 11, 2001.
Here's a real brief read for you. You'll notice that Iran's participation has been born out in a German court. If you follow on down to Iraq, you'll read this:
Although there is no evidence that proves Iraq has participated in terrorist activity in the past year, it continues to rebuild its intelligence apparatus and provide sanctuary to terrorist and rejectionist groups. The last terrorist action Iraq is known to have been directly involved with was the attempted assassination of former President Bush in 1993.
Have we found any evidence of Iraq's support of terror since Dubya's little bully spat? Yup. A terrorist camp in Kurdish territory in Northern Iraq, with no ties to Ba'athists in any way. And a group of Iranian dissidents/anti-mullah resistance/freedom fighters that we bombed the crap out of. Yeah, that Iraq was just a hotbed of terrorism.
Its kinda funny, Pollomacho, I think that on many levels, you and I agree. What I take issue with is the glib labeling of anyone who fights or resists us as a terrorist. By what you've presented here, George Washington was a terrorist. If there are people in Iraq still killing Americans (soldiers) then maybe the soldiers shouldn't be in THEIR country. Now for the sweeping thesis: Regime change as international policy for a method of defending against terrorists sucks ass. It did in Iraq, it will in Iran/Syria/North Korea (pick one ...).
posted by Wulfgar! at 2:21 PM on May 30, 2003
Here's a real brief read for you. You'll notice that Iran's participation has been born out in a German court. If you follow on down to Iraq, you'll read this:
Although there is no evidence that proves Iraq has participated in terrorist activity in the past year, it continues to rebuild its intelligence apparatus and provide sanctuary to terrorist and rejectionist groups. The last terrorist action Iraq is known to have been directly involved with was the attempted assassination of former President Bush in 1993.
Have we found any evidence of Iraq's support of terror since Dubya's little bully spat? Yup. A terrorist camp in Kurdish territory in Northern Iraq, with no ties to Ba'athists in any way. And a group of Iranian dissidents/anti-mullah resistance/freedom fighters that we bombed the crap out of. Yeah, that Iraq was just a hotbed of terrorism.
Its kinda funny, Pollomacho, I think that on many levels, you and I agree. What I take issue with is the glib labeling of anyone who fights or resists us as a terrorist. By what you've presented here, George Washington was a terrorist. If there are people in Iraq still killing Americans (soldiers) then maybe the soldiers shouldn't be in THEIR country. Now for the sweeping thesis: Regime change as international policy for a method of defending against terrorists sucks ass. It did in Iraq, it will in Iran/Syria/North Korea (pick one ...).
posted by Wulfgar! at 2:21 PM on May 30, 2003
Don't forget Saddam's Spring '02 $12,000 checks to Palestinian "martyrs'" families or the explosives, guns and rpgs he openly sent for the gunmen and suicide bombers to use against Israel (killing American civilian tourists in suicide attacks)
Some did label Washington as a terrorist, George III for one. Same with the French resistance that blew up train lines and cut supply lines that served both military and civilian needs. I'm sure our George II would point the same logic at Arafat or the resistance fighters in Iraq now. Anyway, regardless of the finer points, I think we do mainly sit on the same side of the table on this. Iran's current regime is by far not a good one, but this continued cock waving is not going to solve that, particularly if it goes on to full blown sabre rattling or gets even uglier.
posted by Pollomacho at 2:35 PM on May 30, 2003
Some did label Washington as a terrorist, George III for one. Same with the French resistance that blew up train lines and cut supply lines that served both military and civilian needs. I'm sure our George II would point the same logic at Arafat or the resistance fighters in Iraq now. Anyway, regardless of the finer points, I think we do mainly sit on the same side of the table on this. Iran's current regime is by far not a good one, but this continued cock waving is not going to solve that, particularly if it goes on to full blown sabre rattling or gets even uglier.
posted by Pollomacho at 2:35 PM on May 30, 2003
Oh, you men and your dick metaphors for everything. :-)
posted by Asparagirl at 2:42 PM on May 30, 2003
posted by Asparagirl at 2:42 PM on May 30, 2003
Hey cell divide- thanks for the comments. I freely admit to having a very incomplete view of all things Iranian, so thanks for not squishing me like a bug. :-) Proponents of "regime change" in Iran (Michael Leeden, et al) have not totally convinced me that US military action is the only way to go, as opposed to covertly working to help out the internal democratic movement, or by other means. So while I'm upset about the direction Iran has taken and am pointing out hopeful signs that it may improve, that doesn't mean that I think the only way to help is with some sort of invasion. I'd like to see the US work harder to make Iraq a truly democratic, free, open, and prosperous society--and then sit back and let young Iranians petition their government to implement changes (normalizing relations with the US, a free press, more secularization) so they could enjoy a similiar quality of life. Anyways...
the Iranian revolution had nothing to do with Arab theocracy
But the idea of a religiously-based, rather than secular, government--making a modified version of shari'a the law--was a pretty new idea to Iran, whereas it was and still is the standard for a lot of the Arab and larger Muslim world. You're right that the specific political situation that precipitated the revolution (land reform issues, huge inflation, the Shah's brutality) were a big part of the push for change, and that other Middle Eastern countries got inspiration from the revolution (mostly inspiration of the anti-Western variety). But making Iran a "republic of virtue" does seem to be a push for theocracy, the nearest and easiest example of which were the Arab states.
you seem to be missing the point of what change the Iranian people actually want-- the vast majority support the ideals of the revolution, just not how it was carried out.
Imperfect analogy time: that's kind of the same argument that was used about people living in communist societies in the 80's- that they still supported the ideals of communism, even if in practice it was wasn't working out so well. But if the Iranian people support the ideals of the revolution, then why are elements of those ideals (compulsive veiling, gender segregation, no Western influences or music allowed, no formal relations with the US) a matter of growing debate and tension?
Why are there satellite dishes popping up to tune into Western shows, including programming in Farsi from Los Angeles that makes fun of the mullahs? Why is there an explosion of interest in the Internet? Why are more journalists pushing the boundaries of press censorship (and getting arrested for it)? Why are there organized demonstrations in the streets? That doesn't sound like people supporting the ideals of the revolution so much as people chafing under its current constraints. The Shah may have been a American-installed Bad Guy (one of the worse foreign policy moves we've ever made), but today the corruption and politically-motivated restictions come from the theocrats, and it is they who are becoming the new targets. When it gets to the point that the mullahs have to hire Jordanians and Palestinians to be the armed guards/police at the pro-democracy rallies, because their own guards/police either can't or won't contain the students, you know things are starting to crack apart a little.
Okay, maybe I'm too optimistic, but one can always hope...
Bloggers are not exactly representative of Iranian society, although their ideas may be at the forefront.
I'm not saying that Iranian bloggers and Internet users are an exact slice of Iranian life--American Internet users aren't an exact slice of American life either. But they're a pretty good bellweather of social and political trends, and the fact that so many of the Iranian blogs and websites (the English-language ones, at least- I can't read Farsi :-) ) are advocating change--sometimes small changes, but sometimes outright regime change--is pretty amazing, considering the society. That arrested blogger Sina Motallebi's name is becoming known throughout Iran is a sign of things to come.
But more than just being a reflection of Iranian society, isn't the Internet also a catalyst for change within it? If one Iranian with a website (in Farsi) can start a discussion about the local religious leaders or host a discussion among women and men about compulsory veiling, that causes ripples in the people who read and participate in the discussion, as well as their offline friends they might discuss it with.
It's not even so much the content of what was or was not said, but the fact that you could say it at all. At least in the Iranian blogs I've read, at some point they've nearly all had posts to the effect of "wow, the Internet is great! I can say whatever I want and there's no one saying I can't!", which is about as revolutionary and democratic a concept as the content of whatever they may actually post.
Likewise, those who fled or were pushed out during the revolution (mostly those with ties to the Shah, wealthier religious minorities, etc.) are also not the best example of what is going on in Iran at this moment.
"Wealthier religious minorities" is one of the nicer euphimisms I've ever heard for Jews. :-)
True, the expatriate community may not be the perfect slice-of-Iranian-life. But more people have escaped than just those who were associated with the Shah or whose ethnic/religious groups were getting killed. And more importantly, the exiles can speak freely about Iran, even if it's only secondhand knowledge from talking to relatives still in the country, so it's as important to talk to them as to people still living in Iran who really can't talk freely. Going back to the imperfect communism analogy, you could argue that the viewpoints of Solzhenitsyn and Russian Jews and other people who had managed to emigrate were not the best statistical example of what was going on in the USSR, nor of the average Russian Ivan's attitudes. But they were the only ones able to talk about life in in that world without fear of reprisals, and a few voices being heard were better than none at all.
Okay, enough outta me. I hope things go well for the Iranian pro-democracy movement, and I'll cross my fingers for them come July 9th that they can create real change in the country on their own. But if the mullahs keep building up the nuke threat, I don't know how Rumsfeld et al can do anything but go in, especially since they made WMD the whole reason we went into Iraq, right next door.
posted by Asparagirl at 2:52 PM on May 30, 2003
the Iranian revolution had nothing to do with Arab theocracy
But the idea of a religiously-based, rather than secular, government--making a modified version of shari'a the law--was a pretty new idea to Iran, whereas it was and still is the standard for a lot of the Arab and larger Muslim world. You're right that the specific political situation that precipitated the revolution (land reform issues, huge inflation, the Shah's brutality) were a big part of the push for change, and that other Middle Eastern countries got inspiration from the revolution (mostly inspiration of the anti-Western variety). But making Iran a "republic of virtue" does seem to be a push for theocracy, the nearest and easiest example of which were the Arab states.
you seem to be missing the point of what change the Iranian people actually want-- the vast majority support the ideals of the revolution, just not how it was carried out.
Imperfect analogy time: that's kind of the same argument that was used about people living in communist societies in the 80's- that they still supported the ideals of communism, even if in practice it was wasn't working out so well. But if the Iranian people support the ideals of the revolution, then why are elements of those ideals (compulsive veiling, gender segregation, no Western influences or music allowed, no formal relations with the US) a matter of growing debate and tension?
Why are there satellite dishes popping up to tune into Western shows, including programming in Farsi from Los Angeles that makes fun of the mullahs? Why is there an explosion of interest in the Internet? Why are more journalists pushing the boundaries of press censorship (and getting arrested for it)? Why are there organized demonstrations in the streets? That doesn't sound like people supporting the ideals of the revolution so much as people chafing under its current constraints. The Shah may have been a American-installed Bad Guy (one of the worse foreign policy moves we've ever made), but today the corruption and politically-motivated restictions come from the theocrats, and it is they who are becoming the new targets. When it gets to the point that the mullahs have to hire Jordanians and Palestinians to be the armed guards/police at the pro-democracy rallies, because their own guards/police either can't or won't contain the students, you know things are starting to crack apart a little.
Okay, maybe I'm too optimistic, but one can always hope...
Bloggers are not exactly representative of Iranian society, although their ideas may be at the forefront.
I'm not saying that Iranian bloggers and Internet users are an exact slice of Iranian life--American Internet users aren't an exact slice of American life either. But they're a pretty good bellweather of social and political trends, and the fact that so many of the Iranian blogs and websites (the English-language ones, at least- I can't read Farsi :-) ) are advocating change--sometimes small changes, but sometimes outright regime change--is pretty amazing, considering the society. That arrested blogger Sina Motallebi's name is becoming known throughout Iran is a sign of things to come.
But more than just being a reflection of Iranian society, isn't the Internet also a catalyst for change within it? If one Iranian with a website (in Farsi) can start a discussion about the local religious leaders or host a discussion among women and men about compulsory veiling, that causes ripples in the people who read and participate in the discussion, as well as their offline friends they might discuss it with.
It's not even so much the content of what was or was not said, but the fact that you could say it at all. At least in the Iranian blogs I've read, at some point they've nearly all had posts to the effect of "wow, the Internet is great! I can say whatever I want and there's no one saying I can't!", which is about as revolutionary and democratic a concept as the content of whatever they may actually post.
Likewise, those who fled or were pushed out during the revolution (mostly those with ties to the Shah, wealthier religious minorities, etc.) are also not the best example of what is going on in Iran at this moment.
"Wealthier religious minorities" is one of the nicer euphimisms I've ever heard for Jews. :-)
True, the expatriate community may not be the perfect slice-of-Iranian-life. But more people have escaped than just those who were associated with the Shah or whose ethnic/religious groups were getting killed. And more importantly, the exiles can speak freely about Iran, even if it's only secondhand knowledge from talking to relatives still in the country, so it's as important to talk to them as to people still living in Iran who really can't talk freely. Going back to the imperfect communism analogy, you could argue that the viewpoints of Solzhenitsyn and Russian Jews and other people who had managed to emigrate were not the best statistical example of what was going on in the USSR, nor of the average Russian Ivan's attitudes. But they were the only ones able to talk about life in in that world without fear of reprisals, and a few voices being heard were better than none at all.
Okay, enough outta me. I hope things go well for the Iranian pro-democracy movement, and I'll cross my fingers for them come July 9th that they can create real change in the country on their own. But if the mullahs keep building up the nuke threat, I don't know how Rumsfeld et al can do anything but go in, especially since they made WMD the whole reason we went into Iraq, right next door.
posted by Asparagirl at 2:52 PM on May 30, 2003
It's not even so much the content of what was or was not said, but the fact that you could say it at all. At least in the Iranian blogs I've read, at some point they've nearly all had posts to the effect of "wow, the Internet is great! I can say whatever I want and there's no one saying I can't!", which is about as revolutionary and democratic a concept as the content of whatever they may actually post.
* sobs *
Ah luuuuuuuv you, internet.
For real, that was a very nice paragraph to read. I can see how in Iran (and, in my experience, Mexico) the web can be sort of this kit for instant DIY civil society, and it's "portable" enough to evade aging police-state mechanisms. It reminds one of the printing press and the ideas of the reformation (at least if that "one" is me).
posted by Ignatius J. Reilly at 3:24 PM on May 30, 2003
* sobs *
Ah luuuuuuuv you, internet.
For real, that was a very nice paragraph to read. I can see how in Iran (and, in my experience, Mexico) the web can be sort of this kit for instant DIY civil society, and it's "portable" enough to evade aging police-state mechanisms. It reminds one of the printing press and the ideas of the reformation (at least if that "one" is me).
posted by Ignatius J. Reilly at 3:24 PM on May 30, 2003
Asparagirl, I like your ideals, and I join with I.J. Reilly in enjoying that paragraph on the freedom of blogging, but you really don't know enough about Middle Eastern history to be making such confident generalizations. (Not, I hasten to add, that that distinguishes you from 99% of the inmates here.) You say:
But the idea of a religiously-based, rather than secular, government--making a modified version of shari'a the law--was a pretty new idea to Iran, whereas it was and still is the standard for a lot of the Arab and larger Muslim world... But making Iran a "republic of virtue" does seem to be a push for theocracy, the nearest and easiest example of which were the Arab states.
But "theocracy" has never existed in the Arab world (except, arguably, among the Ismaili followers of Hasan-i Sabbah and his successors at the "Assassin" stronghold of Alamut); even the rule of the caliphs (successors of Muhammad), which you may have in mind, lapsed a thousand years ago when real power was seized by the Turkish sultans. Since then, Arab rulers have ruled in the name of Islam, if you will, but in fact in the service of their own worldly interests, no differently than Western kings and emperors who added "defender of the faith" to their titles.
Iranian rule by mullahs has nothing to do with Arab history and nothing to do with Shi'ite theory (which historically rejected having anything to do with politics, since the only legitimate rulers were the imams, descendents of Ali, the last of whom went into "occultation" in the ninth century). It was invented out of whole cloth by Ayatollah Khomeini; his theory of the "guardianship of the jurisprudent" (velayat-e faqih) was very controversial when he first propounded it. I would remind you also that the revolution was made not purely in the name of Islamic rule but as a "socialist" revolution; Khomeini brilliantly used misdirection to appeal to as wide a group of dissatisfied Iranians as possible. As soon as he took control, he began cracking down on leftists, who were bitterly disillusioned. And that is part of the "ideals of the revolution" thing; many of those ideals never even got a chance to be tested.
If you're interested in the history of Khomeini's ideas (and of the revolution, which can't be separated from them), I highly recommend Roy Mottahedeh's The Mantle of the Prophet: Religion and Politics in Iran, one of the best and most accessible books on Iranian Shi'a and Khomeini. And if you want to get further into it, there's an extremely useful translation of Khomeini's main writings, Islam and Revolution.
As for the Iranian bloggers, god bless 'em and I'm glad they exist, but they're a lot farther from representative than you seem to realize. Part of the problem Westerners always have with Iran is that they interact almost exclusively with the well-off, Westernized Iranians who typically live in North Tehran or equivalent parts of other cities (think "Upper East Side" if you know NYC). They are, of course, as worthy of consideration as anyone else, but they're a small and unrepresentative minority; Khomeini rode to power and was supported by an entirely different segment of the population, typified by the bazaaris who live and work in the old central part of the city and have always been more religious and more traditional. No Iranian regime can survive that does not treat them with respect (as the Shah discovered), and it is foolishness to think that some U.S.-friendly upper-class bloggers (the type who wear Armani under their chadors, listen to the latest Western pop hits, and are always interviewed by reporters for the NY Times) are going to pull much weight in whatever happens next.
posted by languagehat at 5:27 PM on May 30, 2003
But the idea of a religiously-based, rather than secular, government--making a modified version of shari'a the law--was a pretty new idea to Iran, whereas it was and still is the standard for a lot of the Arab and larger Muslim world... But making Iran a "republic of virtue" does seem to be a push for theocracy, the nearest and easiest example of which were the Arab states.
But "theocracy" has never existed in the Arab world (except, arguably, among the Ismaili followers of Hasan-i Sabbah and his successors at the "Assassin" stronghold of Alamut); even the rule of the caliphs (successors of Muhammad), which you may have in mind, lapsed a thousand years ago when real power was seized by the Turkish sultans. Since then, Arab rulers have ruled in the name of Islam, if you will, but in fact in the service of their own worldly interests, no differently than Western kings and emperors who added "defender of the faith" to their titles.
Iranian rule by mullahs has nothing to do with Arab history and nothing to do with Shi'ite theory (which historically rejected having anything to do with politics, since the only legitimate rulers were the imams, descendents of Ali, the last of whom went into "occultation" in the ninth century). It was invented out of whole cloth by Ayatollah Khomeini; his theory of the "guardianship of the jurisprudent" (velayat-e faqih) was very controversial when he first propounded it. I would remind you also that the revolution was made not purely in the name of Islamic rule but as a "socialist" revolution; Khomeini brilliantly used misdirection to appeal to as wide a group of dissatisfied Iranians as possible. As soon as he took control, he began cracking down on leftists, who were bitterly disillusioned. And that is part of the "ideals of the revolution" thing; many of those ideals never even got a chance to be tested.
If you're interested in the history of Khomeini's ideas (and of the revolution, which can't be separated from them), I highly recommend Roy Mottahedeh's The Mantle of the Prophet: Religion and Politics in Iran, one of the best and most accessible books on Iranian Shi'a and Khomeini. And if you want to get further into it, there's an extremely useful translation of Khomeini's main writings, Islam and Revolution.
As for the Iranian bloggers, god bless 'em and I'm glad they exist, but they're a lot farther from representative than you seem to realize. Part of the problem Westerners always have with Iran is that they interact almost exclusively with the well-off, Westernized Iranians who typically live in North Tehran or equivalent parts of other cities (think "Upper East Side" if you know NYC). They are, of course, as worthy of consideration as anyone else, but they're a small and unrepresentative minority; Khomeini rode to power and was supported by an entirely different segment of the population, typified by the bazaaris who live and work in the old central part of the city and have always been more religious and more traditional. No Iranian regime can survive that does not treat them with respect (as the Shah discovered), and it is foolishness to think that some U.S.-friendly upper-class bloggers (the type who wear Armani under their chadors, listen to the latest Western pop hits, and are always interviewed by reporters for the NY Times) are going to pull much weight in whatever happens next.
posted by languagehat at 5:27 PM on May 30, 2003
Iran/Syria/North Korea (pick one ...)
Why stop with just one? We're talking about the Muslim Pacification Campaigns™ here. They're all targets (well, 'cept for NK, but hell, that Kim Jong Il guy could be a closet Muslim for all we know).
posted by moonbiter at 5:51 PM on May 30, 2003
Why stop with just one? We're talking about the Muslim Pacification Campaigns™ here. They're all targets (well, 'cept for NK, but hell, that Kim Jong Il guy could be a closet Muslim for all we know).
posted by moonbiter at 5:51 PM on May 30, 2003
But if the mullahs keep building up the nuke threat, I don't know how Rumsfeld et al can do anything but go in, especially since they made WMD the whole reason we went into Iraq, right next door.
And Iraq didn't have any, at that...
I'd like to see the US work harder to make Iraq a truly democratic, free, open, and prosperous society--and then sit back and let young Iranians petition their government to implement changes (normalizing relations with the US, a free press, more secularization) so they could enjoy a similiar quality of life.
Well, it's always nice to read some more political science fiction--er, a rosy scenario, that is--here about democracy in the Middle East. Ah, if only things were that simple, but the devil is in the details. You know, like we invade Iraq, everyone welcomes our troops as liberators and no additional troops are needed to provide security. Abracadabra, presto, secular democracy! C'mon, it'll be a snap!
Otherwise, what languagehat said.
posted by y2karl at 9:38 PM on May 30, 2003
And Iraq didn't have any, at that...
I'd like to see the US work harder to make Iraq a truly democratic, free, open, and prosperous society--and then sit back and let young Iranians petition their government to implement changes (normalizing relations with the US, a free press, more secularization) so they could enjoy a similiar quality of life.
Well, it's always nice to read some more political science fiction--er, a rosy scenario, that is--here about democracy in the Middle East. Ah, if only things were that simple, but the devil is in the details. You know, like we invade Iraq, everyone welcomes our troops as liberators and no additional troops are needed to provide security. Abracadabra, presto, secular democracy! C'mon, it'll be a snap!
Otherwise, what languagehat said.
posted by y2karl at 9:38 PM on May 30, 2003
I think I'd rather get my advice on the wisdom of invading Iran from languagehat than the Cabal.
posted by soyjoy at 10:34 PM on May 30, 2003
posted by soyjoy at 10:34 PM on May 30, 2003
I can think of one person on this planet I'll allow the existence of HELL for. In fact, the existence of this person has me hoping there is a hell. Henceforth, if there is a hell then there probably would have to be a heaven and if he gets to go there, then I myself, would rather rot in hell for all eternity than spend even a fraction of a second more in yet another plane of existence with that particular person I'm referring to.
posted by crasspastor at 11:21 PM on May 30, 2003
posted by crasspastor at 11:21 PM on May 30, 2003
Allow me to be the first to say it: IranFilter.
InJokeFilter. You won't be laughing when your National Guard unit gets shipped off, there, Pauly Shore.
WorseFilter: The Great Firewall of China that's descended on Iran of late. How are we going to sell those poor people iPods now? And there goes your "instant DIY civil society" — as fragile as it is virtual.
xlnt linkage. (GratitudeFilter?)
posted by hairyeyeball at 12:37 AM on May 31, 2003
InJokeFilter. You won't be laughing when your National Guard unit gets shipped off, there, Pauly Shore.
WorseFilter: The Great Firewall of China that's descended on Iran of late. How are we going to sell those poor people iPods now? And there goes your "instant DIY civil society" — as fragile as it is virtual.
xlnt linkage. (GratitudeFilter?)
posted by hairyeyeball at 12:37 AM on May 31, 2003
Whereas Iraq had suicide bombings at checkpoints by pregnant women a month ago!
You mean when we were invading their country? Don't be idiotic. The motive defines terrorism, not the means. Attacking armed solders invading your country is not terrorism.
posted by delmoi at 4:27 AM on May 31, 2003
You mean when we were invading their country? Don't be idiotic. The motive defines terrorism, not the means. Attacking armed solders invading your country is not terrorism.
posted by delmoi at 4:27 AM on May 31, 2003
« Older Smokin' Sculptures | New feature for MetaFilter? Newer »
This thread has been archived and is closed to new comments
IranFilter.
posted by spazzm at 8:05 AM on May 30, 2003