I wonder how many hundreds of thousands of  "Lionesses of Palestine" or "Lionesses of Iraq" or "Lionesses of Afghanistan" have been murdered and raped by the other evil forces, apart from the evil acts perpetrated by the Iranian government. And you don't hear the same crowd who are lamenting the death of one person, so that they could justify an invasion, as they did in Iraq and Afghanistan, and kill millions in covert military false flag car bombings blamed on other groups as well as more blatant bombing campaigns using fighter jets and cruise missiles, you don't hear the same crowd lamenting about the murdered wives and daughters of Iraq, Palestine and Afghanistan, or Vietnam, Korea and Latin America. These are justified deaths and destruction, no matter what. What about the "Lion Cubs of Palestine" whom the IDF evil forces mercilessly kill routinely.. When viewed in context and perspective, the evil of the anglo-american New World Order is definitely more heinous, dangerous, decimating, gruesome, greedy, merciless and mercantilist than any other group that are currently fighting for domination.

Paul Craigs Robert, Bob Chapman, William Engdahl, Ron Paul, Alex Jones, are some of the names you want to find out about, if you're interested in knowing the side of the story that the BBCs and the CNNs certainly do not want you to hear. And by the way, the BBC has been caught, once again, manipulating photos taken in Iran in order to carry out their propaganda. It has become an established tradition over there at the BBC, from the 9-11 attacks coverage to every other engineered conflict.

http://www.globalresearch.ca/

http://www.infowars.com/

http://www.theinternationalforecaster.com/

I too was surprised that no thread had opened up yet on this.  As a long-time student of Iran I am following the situation with great interest.  It there are any visitors to this site from Iran, your insights would be most welcome.  The coverage in the US and the policians here are in general rather biased and reflect much ignorance about Iranian history and culture, but that of course is nothing new.

Originally written by John Bunch on June 24, 2009 4:15 AM I agree. One really interesting voice on this has been Stratfor's George Friedman. He has basically argued that the majority of Iranians support Amajinedad, and reject western norms and life, and "want to live the way their grandparents did", and that we in the West do not understand that.

The poll by Terror Free Tomorrow (http://www.terrorfreetomorrow.org/template.php?section=IN), an organization funded by Rockefella, done 3 weeks before the election and said to be the most comprehensive (albeit by a foreign organization) also pointed to the incumbent Ahmadinejad's victory. The poll threw up some interesting points (http://www.terrorfreetomorrow.org/upimagestft/CNN%20Commentary%20Iran%20Poll%200609.pdf and http://www.terrorfreetomorrow.org/upimagestft/Post%20Election%20CNN%20BBC%20WP%20Commentary%20Iran.pdf).

Reported by CNN: Surveyed on a wide range of issues, Iranians overwhelmingly favor better relations with the United States and greater democracy for Iran. The poll shows that the Iranian public remains far removed from the stereotypes of apocalyptic fanatics commonly asserted in some circles in the United States. The survey suggests that Iranians instead are a people with self-confidence and hope in a more democratic future. More than 86 percent of those who told us they support Ahmadinejad also choose free elections and a free press as their most important priorities for their leaders. Yet the government's actions since the election may have changed the debate in Iran from being about candidates to being about democracy.   Reported by BBC: An independent poll three weeks ago had Mahmoud Ahmadinejad ahead of his closest rival by a similar 2:1 ratio. The research was conducted by US-based polling organisations Terror Free Tomorrow, the New America Foundation and KA Europe SPRL.

So, what changed in between the polls and the election that led the opposition to believe that there was fraud and election fixing? Of course the authorities does not owe the world an explanation as elections are basically an internal affiar of the state. But the world would be watching on how the authorities respond to the allegations and demonstrate transparency in a convincing way. Whatever happens, I suppose we would see a more moderate leadership in order to take into account the changed political landscape.

Iran blamed the deaths on “armed terrorists". I wonder what made those terrorists immune from foreign bombings? In other words, what is the difference between the Iranian authoritarian regime whom we just let deal with the protesters and, say, Saddam Hussein whom it was necessary to topple by invading his country?

Originally written by John Bunch on June 23, 2009 6:38 AM What does this mean?

All it means is that some parties to an election did not like the result and decided to protest. I watched TV footage of peaceful demonstrators peacefully burning motor tires inside large plastic garbage containers peacefully right down the middle of a major boulevard, obviously their democratic right.

The time to protest and demonstrate about the running of an election is before the vote, not after.

Derek

Originally written by John Bunch on June 23, 2009 8:29 PM The websites claim she was talking on a mobile phone when targeted by two men in plain clothes on a motorcycle."

If you are going to try to form our opinions on Iran by quoting what "websites claim" then we are in for some scary information. I have seen the TV footage and it seems clear to me that she was in the middle of a crowd and got hit by a stray bullet.

In an unrelated report:

Injured peaceful woman demonstrator being mistreated by police boots June 21st.

Non-uniformed police threatening with pistol an unarmed peaceful demonstrator, June 21st.

No, not Iran! This was Germany, Berlin-Tempelhof, three days ago.

There are other scenes, including demonstrators being herded against razor wire and private security forces with dogs.

This kind of thing goes on all the time, all over the world. All governments have to draw the line somewhere and suppress "peaceful" demonstrations, preferably before they get out of hand.

Derek

Originally written by John Bunch And the lesson for the West is that Muslims want democracy. There is a lot of "junk" said in the West about Islam not being compatible with democracy, but I think that the events in Iran show that Muslims want democracy, just like people all over the world.

Iranians have long wanted democracy, but the US has been a major obstacle to it.  The CIA undermined Iran's democratically elected prime minister in the 1950s and restored the shah to power, and then (along with Israel, interestingly) supported the shah in the operation of his police state for the next several decades.  The Iranain Revolution of 1979 was viewed by its supporters as a democratic movement.  Iranians understandably have a deep mistrust of Americans who claim that they want democratic reform in Iran given the US's history in the country.

Originally written by John Bunch on June 23, 2009 Another point: the 1979 Iranian Revolution was run by mostly men with beards, and old men. This revolution is being run mainly by women. I usually don't write much about women's liberation and the empowerment of women, but this aspect is undeniable and is very, very striking.

 

The role of women in recent events is interesting, but one should note this major difference between the revolution of 1979 and the current movement:  The 1979 revolution succeeded, whereas the fate of the current movement has yet to be established.  In fact, I think it is increasingly likely that the current movement will fail, at least in the short term.

http://www.tnr.com/politics/story.html?id=f744dfa2-20de-4e0b-a2fc-14f9bb78d06a

What the Arab world is--and isn't--saying about the protests in Iran

As Western media outlets obsessively cover the protests in Iran, the Arab press has been approaching the events with mixed emotions. Since much of the media in the Middle East is state-controlled, press coverage provides an interesting window into the complex relationship between Iran and the Arab world. ...

Whatever happens in Iran is unlikely to set off a chain of events across the Arab world, as much as sophisticated pro-Western Lebanese or journalists for the pan-Arab outlets in London and New York try to fan the flames. But judging from the cautious "coverage" in places like Saudi Arabia, Egypt, and Syria, the region's most repressive regimes are not taking their chances.

Originally written by David Kallans on June 24, 2009 1:31 PM Iranians have long wanted democracy, but the US has been a major obstacle to it.  The CIA undermined Iran's democratically elected prime minister in the 1950s and restored the shah to power, and then (along with Israel, interestingly) supported the shah in the operation of his police state for the next several decades.  The Iranain Revolution of 1979 was viewed by its supporters as a democratic movement ...

Having once lived in Iran for about 3 years, I feel sure that the term "Iranians" includes a very wide range of political opinions. Apart from a small circle of the elite in the major cities, I doubt that many non-emigré Iranians have the same notion of democracy as we do.

As for the CIA's operation in Iran, I stayed in a hotel in Tehran in the late 1950s and one day in the hotel bar a half-drunken American got into conversation with me in the course of which he pulled out a CIA identification card. He asked me if by chance I could read Bulgarian in morse code. I told him that having served in the Boy Scouts I could read morse code but not Bulgarian, why did he want to know? He told me that across the road was the Bulgarian embassy (something that I already knew because it was the building with the largest shortwave antenna system on the roof in the entire town). He said that the embassy's CW transmitter was so powerful that it was keying the fluorescent tube in his hotel room and that his assignment was to record the transmissions and get them transcribed into English. He showed me a notebook full of dots and dashes that he had written down from his flashing fluorescent tube. I did briefly go by his room and the tube looked to me like any other fluorescent tube that was about to fail and it stopped flashing when the light switch was turned off. I could detect no coherent morse coming from it.

I guess that you could try to undermine any country's "democratically elected prime minister" with operatives like that but if it was successful then that was almost certainly by pure chance.

Derek

We have a thread for that too: Make football/soccer, not war

Iran football players 'banned' after Mahmoud Ahmadinejad protest: http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/middleeast/iran/5620334/Iran-football-players-banned-after-Mahmoud-Ahmadinejad-protest.html

Originally written by David Kallans on June 24, 2009 9:31 PM Iranians have long wanted democracy, but the US has been a major obstacle to it.  The CIA undermined Iran's democratically elected prime minister in the 1950s and restored the shah to power, and then (along with Israel, interestingly) supported the shah in the operation of his police state for the next several decades.

Radio Free Europe (used to be CIA funded, not sure of current status) reports on what McCain says Obama should do...

http://www.rferl.org/content/McCain_We_Must_Be_A_Symbol_Of_Hope_For_The_Iranian_People/1755851.html So [Obama] should make his first priority a demand for a free and fair election so that the people of Iran have their God-given rights.

No comment.

Tha people of Iran should have whatever they can get themselves. I think it is enough of making people happy with somebody's own concept of happiness. If they want revolution, let them make revolution, if they want the clerical government, let them have whatever they want and get it with their own hands or minds, or both.

If people are helped too much in their domestic struggles for justice by other countries, what happens is we get immature political systems with people who do not know what to do with their own countries, this is my experience at least, just like many children in America, for whom everything is done.

What I find terribly scary is the way Internet, SMS and Mobile Phone access have been shut down - not to mention the press, which is tightly controlled.

One of the best, or maybe the only way to control a population is to close all access to the press and free speech.

Still, what information we have cannot be corroborated and I don't know what sources we can trust. Certainly, Politiken has gone haywire with incredibly emotional language meant to raise our ire. Perhaps we could concentrate on another aspect that we might be able to understand or at least discuss.

-------

Sometimes, the soft literary citizens of liberal democracy long for prohibition. Coming up with anything to write about can be difficult when you are allowed to write about anything. A day in which the most arduous choice has been between “grande” and “tall” does not conduce to literary strenuousness. And what do we know about life? Our grand tour was only through the gently borderless continent of Google. Nothing constrains us. Perhaps we look enviously at those who have the misfortune to live in countries where literature is taken seriously enough to be censored, and writers venerated with imprisonment. What if writing were made a bit more exigent for us? What if we had less of everything? It might make our literary culture more “serious,” certainly more creatively ingenious. Instead of drowning in choice, we would have to be inventive around our thirst. Tyranny is the mother of metaphor, and all that.

Among other things, Shahriar Mandanipour’s novel “Censoring an Iranian Love Story” (translated by Sara Khalili; Knopf; $25) is a tough reply to such maundering. Mandanipour, a distinguished Iranian novelist and short-story writer, was prohibited from publishing his fiction in his native country between 1992 and 1997. He came to the United States in 2006, as an International Writers Project Fellow at Brown University, and stayed in America. This novel, his first major work to be translated into English, was written in Farsi but cannot be read in Iran. His book is thus acutely displaced: it had to have been written with an audience outside of Iran in mind, but in a language that this audience would mostly not understand; it depends on translation for its being, yet its being is thoroughly Iranian, lovingly and allusively so, dense with local reference. And it takes as its subject exactly these paradoxes, for it is explicitly about what can and cannot be written in contemporary Iranian fiction.

Novelists fret over how to get their characters into and out of rooms, but what if their characters weren’t allowed to be in those rooms in the first place? How might one write a love story about a young man and woman, set in a country in which the unmarried couple is not allowed to spend any significant time together? At the beginning of “Censoring an Iranian Love Story,” two Tehran natives, Dara and Sara, meet at a student demonstration outside Tehran University, and spend the next two hundred and eighty pages attempting not so much to consummate their relationship as simply to begin it. It is like something out of Laurence Sterne, and Mandanipour, who dedicates his book to the postmodern novelist Robert Coover (among others), is playfully alive to the elasticated comedy of a digressive story that expends all its energy on failing to start.

But this narrative foreplay isn’t just play, because it is forced and not free, conditioned by Iranian political reality. Dara and Sara cannot walk along a street without attracting attention from the morals patrols. If caught, they might have to pretend to be siblings. An Internet café could be just as risky. They cannot freely visit each other at home. Where to go? ...

http://www.newyorker.com/arts/critics/books/2009/06/29/090629crbo_books_wood?currentPage=1

”Censoring an Iranian Love Story” (Knopf; $25);

Shahriar Mandanipour;

Originally written by John Bunch on June 25, 2009 9:30 PM Why isn't iran just using the military to shut down the streets ? There is something very interesting happening here. Obviously, the Iranian leadership has made a decision - despite the 19 people killed - to not go full out "Tianamin Square"

As much as this sounds unlikely, people do, sometimes, learn from others' mistakes of the past ...

Originally written by John Bunch on June 23, 2009 This revolution is being run mainly by women.

 
 
German-Iranian journalist Saba Farzan is not surprised that the demonstrators in Iran are mostly women and youths. "The 'Islamisation' of the universities meant that a whole list of courses were not open to female students, on the basis that woman are two emotional for the majority of the natural sciences, for example. The same argument prevented women from becoming judges. http://www.signandsight.com/intodaysfeuilletons/1889.html

Very interesting topic indeed.

This is supposed to be an ideal Iran, right in the heart of Amsterdam.

Have a look:

http://www.godmotherfilms.com/work/Mezrab

Ciao,

Silvi@

Originally written by Jacek K. on June 26, 2009 5:19 PM Originally written by John Bunch on June 23, 2009 This revolution is being run mainly by women.     German-Iranian journalist Saba Farzan is not surprised that the demonstrators in Iran are mostly women and youths. "The 'Islamisation' of the universities meant that a whole list of courses were not open to female students, on the basis that woman are two emotional for the majority of the natural sciences, for example. The same argument prevented women from becoming judges. http://www.signandsight.com/intodaysfeuilletons/1889.html

That may reflect the wishes of a segment of the voters.

What I think is a more important issue is how the accusations of irregularities are handled. For example, the missing millions of unused ballot paper and the number of votes that exceeeded the number of registered voters in quite a number of areas.

I wonder whether they allow burqas while checking IDs?

Originally written by John Bunch What fascinates me is how these regimes respond to the protests. For instance, why didn't the GDR (East German) authorities fire on the demonstrators ? Why did China fire on its own people in 1989 ? What was the difference (both were more or less "hard" Marxist-Leninist states). Why isn't iran just using the military to shut down the streets ?

A number of things may explain the different responses of China in 1989 and Iran in 2009.  First is the cultural aspect - China has always been intolerant of dissent and social disorder, and there is a Chinese proverb that says, in essence, "the nail that stands up gets hammered down."  Iranian culture is also not particularly tolerant of disorder (but what society is?), but it is governed by Islamic principles that act as a break on the unnecessary use of force.  Mercy is a core value of Islam, much more so than in Christian societies.  Another difference is 2009 is not 1989.  A country's internal events are much more visible now than they were 20 years ago - CNN is more widespread than it was then, and the internet didn't exist as a means of mass communication then.  Cell phones barely existed, and Twitter not at all.  A country is thus not as free from scruitny as it was back then.  Also, there is a difference in the degree to which the governments care about world opinion.  China really doesn't care what other countries think - it is the "Middle Kingdom" and all other countries are inferior.  Iran, however, actually does care about its image on the world stage, particularly in Europe.

As for the DDR in 1989, the main difference is that the DDR was never a full-fledged state, but was rather an unnatural division of Germany and a client state of the USSR.  It lacked a core sense of legitimacy and could do nothing without support from the Soviets, and the Russians could read the writing on the wall (quite literally, in this case).

Iran Cracks Down on Internet Use

Originally written by Jacek K. on June 26, 2009 2:38 PM China blocks Google

Argh...you beat me to the punch

Nanna

Originally written by John Bunch on June 26, 2009 12:14 PM I heard a thing on NPR yesterday that said that the Iranian authorities will often get on social networking sites like Twitter and issue fake meetings, to confuse people. So it is more than just jamming.

 

A classic tactic of a police state, one that the US is also quite fond of (used frequently in efforts against narcotics, prostitution, and inter-generational relationships).

Originally written by John Bunch on June 26, 2009 6:54 PM David, would you describe the Obama administration as running a "police state" ? (I assume that you are talking about the current U.S.). If so, please provide concrete examples of that.

I reckon all modern states have elements that could characterize them as "police states". The condition is a continuum - it is certainly not that a state is either a "police state" or it is not, no state is likely to admit that it is a "police state" (the term is pejorative). They start off small and gradually introduce further elements of a police state until there is no turning back.

The concrete example that comes to mind in the case of the USA is the criterion proposed by George Orwell in his book "1984", the necessity of always being at war so as to be able to justify any conceivable repressive measure. The USA has been involved in one war or another almost continuously during its short history and it now has put itself firmly in the middle of a war that will never be won, the War Against Terror. That war will go on for ever, just what any self-respecting police state would like to have as the justification for its existence.

Obama has taken steps to end one war (Iraq) but has promised to intensify another (Afghanistan). In immediate reserve, there is North Korea. For the distant future, there is Iran. Peace is unlikely to break out any time soon.

The proof of its full police state qualification is Guantanamo Bay Prison. Obama's very first act as president was to order it to be shut down - it is still there. I feel sure that we could assemble and maintain a list of all the repressive police state measures (like warrentless searches - see below - unlawful collection of data, torture, imprisonment without trial, covert monitoring of the activities of innocent citizens, rigging of elections, interference with the judiciary) that have been introduced in the USA since 1776.

Therefore, I suspect that no state that is truly free of police state characteristics can exist for long in the modern world.

It did not start and will not end with Obama. It is difficult to see what he could do about it even if he wanted to.

FCC’s Warrantless Household Searches Alarms Experts

Ryan Singel, May 21, 2009  

Originally written by Derek Thornton on June 26, 2009 8:34 PM if you have a wireless router, a cordless phone, remote car-door opener, baby monitor or cellphone in your house, the FCC claims the right to enter your home without a warrant at any time of the day or night in order to inspect it.

Thank God we didn't have those gadgets under communism! Long live progress!

Originally written by David Kallans on June 26, 2009 6:41 PM A classic tactic of a police state, one that the US is also quite fond of  ...

No state is immune, not even the Land of The Free and the Home of the Brave:

Secret Bush Memos Reveal U.S. Dictatorship 

Originally written by John Bunch  David, would you describe the Obama administration as running a "police state" ? (I assume that you are talking about the current U.S.). If so, please provide concrete examples of that.

I would rather refrain from using labels such as "police state" to describe the US (the term has definitional problems and is a function of political bias in much the same way that "terrorist" is), but I think that Derek's reference to warrantless searching, as well as my parenthetical reference to undercover sting operations, are classic examples of things that states that are widely viewed as "police states" do.  Obama is the president of the US, so to the extent that the US is a police state, he may rightfully be considered its head.  He of course did not start any of these things, but he has been in office long enough so that he may be held accountable for their continuation.

Originally written by David Kallans on June 27, 2009 1:18 PM Obama is the president of the US, so to the extent that the US is a police state, he may rightfully be considered its head.  He of course did not start any of these things, but he has been in office long enough so that he may be held accountable for their continuation.

He (or better, his administration) does not appear to be averse to a little continuation:

White House Weighs Order on Detention

Washington Post, June 27th, 2009

Officials: Move Would Reassert Power To Hold Terror Suspects Indefinitely

Obama administration officials, fearing a battle with Congress that could stall plans to close the U.S. prison at Guantanamo Bay, are crafting language for an executive order that would reassert presidential authority to incarcerate terrorism suspects indefinitely, according to three senior government officials with knowledge of White House deliberations.

Such an order would embrace claims by former president George W. Bush that certain people can be detained without trial for long periods under the laws of war. Obama advisers are concerned that an order, which would bypass Congress, could place the president on weaker footing before the courts and anger key supporters, the officials said.

After months of internal debate over how to close the military facility in Cuba, White House officials are increasingly worried that reaching quick agreement with Congress on a new detention system may be impossible. Several officials said there is concern in the White House that the administration may not be able to close the prison by the president's January deadline.

White House spokesman Ben LaBolt said that there is no executive order and that the administration has not decided whether to issue one. But one administration official suggested that the White House is already trying to build support for an order.

...

Instituting long-term detention through an executive order would leave Obama vulnerable to charges that he is willing to forsake the legislative branch of government, as his predecessor often did. Bush's detention policies suffered defeats in the courts in part because they lacked congressional approval and tried to exclude judicial oversight.

"There is no statute prohibiting the president from doing this through executive order, and so far courts have not ruled in ways that would bar him from doing so," said Matthew Waxman, who worked on detainee issues at the Defense Department during Bush's first term.

...

Much more at: http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2009/06/26/AR2009062603361.html?wpisrc=newsletter

The most striking difference with Iran is, of course, that Iran is not at war with anybody.

Maybe a case could be made for the US Constitution to include a clause stating clearly that being at war is an unusual situation, not the norm. As things are, civil liberties in the USA would appear, at least potentially, to be even more precarious than they are in Iran.

Have we reached the stage of throwing stones in glass houses?

Derek

Originally written by John Bunch FDR, who is considered the "god" by liberals, threw entire families in prison for the "crime" of having Japanese heritage.

 

I know several liberals, John, but I don't know a single one who would characterize FDR, or any other leader, as a "god."  FDR is more of a hero to Democrats than to liberals - and the two are not the same thing.  The Democratic party is essentially a center-left party and many of its leaders and official party positions are decidedly anti-liberal.  In fact, the Democrats are in most significant respects virtually identical to the Republicans, and the two parties have conspired to create an illusion of difference so as to allow the semblance of debate and elections that will not actually ever change anything of consequence.

Originally written by John Bunch on June 30, 2009 10:53 AM Ronald Reagan once said that the Democrats used to be a party of the average working-class American, but then (after 1968), moved to the left. And according to Reagan, the GOP then just moved into that "space" that the Democrats had vacated. That is one reason that Reagan was also able to win blue collar, union voters.

 

I don't particularly associate this idea with Reagan.  Richard Nixon realized this idea as well, as did many others, and I think it represents a general consensus about American politics over the last four decades.

The major problem with Democrats is that they don't seem to stand for anything.  It was, as you point out, originally the party of the working man, but that idea has long since passed.  It was largely the party of organized labor, but that is not a particularly influential sector of American politics or economics anymore.  It was also the party of civil rights and feminism, but the energy has long gone out of those sails (in part because the major goals have largely been seen as having been realized, or because those constituencies have moved on to other concerns - or they lack political clout).  The Democratic Party has become a hodge-podge of interest groups with very little in common, and Democrats in power tend to accomplish very little that could not also be accomplished by Republicans.  In fact, Democrats seem to win presidential elections only when voters are angry with Republicans and the Democrats run candidates that might as well be Republicans (and it is increasingly hard to tell the difference betweent the two).

Originally written by John Bunch  For instance, issues like choice and abortion and gay marriage. The Republicans are often wrong on the social issues.

I see little difference between the parties on gay marriage.  The Defense of Marriage Act ("DOMA") was signed into law by Bill Clinton (also the architect of "Don't Ask Don't Tell), and Obama has supported the continuation of both (flip-flopping on the promises he made to naively credulous gays who foolishly gave money to his campaign).  Obama, like most black Americans, doesn't give a rat's ass about gay rights.

Originally written by John Bunch How can we trust any politicians ??

You cannot. Politicians are inherently untrustworthy.  It is their nature.  You can no more trust a politician than a reptile, with whom they have much in common.

Originally written by David Kallans on July 1, 2009 2:00 PM You can no more trust a politician than a reptile, with whom they have much in common.

You cannot even trust fellow churchgoers...: http://www.nbcnewyork.com/news/local/Merciless-Woman-Caught-Robbing-Worshippers-in-Church.html

Originally written by Jacek K. on July 1, 2009 11:12 PM Originally written by David Kallans on July 1, 2009 2:00 PM You can no more trust a politician than a reptile, with whom they have much in common. You cannot even trust fellow churchgoers...: http://www.nbcnewyork.com/news/local/Merciless-Woman-Caught-Robbing-Worshippers-in-Church.html

Doggone world being better?

The story: http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,463326,00.html

The video (Warning: not for the weak-hearted): Dog Saves Dog

Originally written by Shiong-Fong Lew on July 1, 2009 7:40 PM The video (Warning: not for the weak-hearted): Dog Saves Dog

I see that nobody is talking about Iran any more so this thread could presumably be closed out. The whole thing appears to have been a combination of a set of bad losers plus the media not having any other news to break - but then Michael Jackson died and the Iranian elections disappeared from view.

That is the way of the world!

Derek 

Originally written by John Bunch on July 1, 2009 11:01 PM You don't think that the Iran story was big ?

Not as big as MJ, I think the conclusion was.

Originally written by John Bunch on July 1, 2009 10:01 PM You don't think that the Iran story was big ?

It was probably the biggest news item available at the time. But it all fizzled out in the end, a damp squib. Who really cares which of those guys is president of Iran? It would not have had any substantial effect on their policy towards the rest of the world.

But the western news media cannot carry that kind of story for very long - there weren't enough fatalities, not enough fires and shop windows broken, it was all mostly non-breaking news.

 

Originally written by John Bunch on July 1, 2009 10:01 PM Iran lost, according to this week's "Economist" magazine, a lot of respect, both internally and externally. The regime has been shown to be weaker than we thought, and fraught with internal divisions. The regime has lost the initiative and the status quo will no longer be the same. In the region, I think that many will no longer view Iran as some kind of "defender" of their interests, because it obviously has too much to deal with internally. For a country on the way to getting nukes and which also denies both the Holocaust, and Israel's right to exist, this was a major, major development.

OK, if you like to believe all that stuff, go ahead. To me it looks like they handled the whole thing remarkably well. They have nothing "to deal with internally" that they didn't always have and they know their own people and how to handle them. Everything went quite smoothly so far as I could tell, certainly much smoother than Bush v. Palm Beach County Canvassing Board and the whole Florida debacle which made the US a laughing stock and lost the US the right for all time to criticize the way other countries run their presidential elections.

Derek

Originally written by John Bunch on July 2, 2009 7:05 AM If I were president of the U.S., I would say to Amajinedad, behind closed doors, the following: "If you fire a WMD, we will begin dropping crate-loads of assault rifles, anti-tank weapons, and body armor into your country and into those areas of Teheran that are against you, and into those areas of Iran where ethnic minorities live, and then we will see how long you last).

The New York Times (http://www.nytimes.com/imagepages/2007/04/21/weekinreview/20070422_MARSH_GRAPHIC.html)

 reported that there were 81 deaths from gunfire in the United States every day in 2004 with 176 injured every day. A total of 29,569 people were killed that year and 64,389 were injured. Gun rights, from cowboys to SUVs.

It was just announced that the Queen would be awarding a few thousand medals to the families of WWII deaths. The western casualtiy numbers made WWII look cheap compared to the current gun deaths in the US.

Originally written by John Bunch on July 1, 2009 11:05 PM The difference here (getting back to the topic) is that this was the FIRST big demo against the mullahs since 1979, and also one carried out by young people and women. The mullahs promoted a policy since 1980 of women having lots and lots of kids, and they did. And now those kids listen to MP3s and twitter each other and listen to Snoop Dogg (there is justice in the universe !!) and like western things and the U.S.

You are referring to the behavior of a certain class of people in a certain district in Tehran, the capital (and maybe similar districts in 2 or 3 other large cities). They are not at all typical of the majority of the population of Iran, the country. That is like taking the folks in Greenwich Village as being typical of the population of the USA and extrapolating to suggest that the population of Independence, Missouri, or Crawford, Texas, would act and think the same way that they do.

If you are putting forward kids listening to MP3s, twittering and listening to Snoop Dogg (for me, all symbols of the total decadence into which the USA has fallen) as representing the cultural best that the USA has to offer the world then I knew that already. Your image of the technological and cultural garbage that the US is at present dumping on the world and your praise of it as a worthy replacement for the continuity of the 8000 year old Iranian culture is no more than I would have expected.

I lived in Iran for only 3 years, mostly in the desert or in the mountains but sometimes in the cities, admittedly a long time ago but since life in the country in some respects appeared hardly to have changed since the Stone Age, I wouldn't expect there to have been very great changes between the time that I was there and now. One thing I am sure about is that there is no way for an outsider to understand the Iranians without having lived there for a while.

Originally written by John Bunch on July 1, 2009 11:05 PM If I were president of the U.S., I would say to Amajinedad, behind closed doors, the following: "If you fire a WMD, we will begin dropping crate-loads of assault rifles, anti-tank weapons, and body armor into your country and into those areas of Teheran that are against you, and into those areas of Iran where ethnic minorities live, and then we will see how long you last). The only reason that Amajinedad is still in power is because the average Iranian doesn't have a gun.

Sorry, but that to me is a really sick notion. US soldiers are dying in Afghanistan to this day from weapons that the US delivered there in the same way. You don't happen to be a paid-up member of the NRA, do you?

Derek

Originally written by John Bunch on July 2, 2009 1:59 AM Derek, Of course, if you want to take the "Chomsky" line that anything bad that happens anywhere in the world is ultimately the CIA's fault (and "the corporations"), I of course can't stop you. But I just happen to believe that the U.S. is not nearly as strong as Chomsky thinks.

I think it might be as strong, but I agree with you that it is absolutely not true that most bad things happen because of the US: in fact I think more good things haappened because of the US, than bad, if you take it as a whole.

Originally written by Liliana Boladz-Nekipelov on July 2, 2009 10:24 AM Originally written by John Bunch on July 2, 2009 1:59 AM Derek, Of course, if you want to take the "Chomsky" line that anything bad that happens anywhere in the world is ultimately the CIA's fault (and "the corporations"), I of course can't stop you.   I agree with you that it is absolutely not true that most bad things happen because of the US

"Because of the CIA" and not "because of the US" is what John suggested, quoting Chomsky. What you did is a synecdoche, Liliana. A pars pro toto to be more specific.

Originally written by Jacek K. on July 1, 2009 11:31 PM Originally written by John Bunch on July 1, 2009 11:01 PM You don't think that the Iran story was big ?  Not as big as MJ, I think the conclusion was.

Originally written by Liliana Boladz-Nekipelov on July 2, 2009 5:24 PM I think it might be as strong, but I agree with you that it is absolutely not true that most bad things happen because of the US: in fact I think more good things haappened because of the US, than bad, if you take it as a whole.

This ia absolutely relative. It depends on whether you prefer more delicious red meat or pure vegetarian food. A friend in need may be a friend indeed, but strongly-arming people to gorge down American culture may cause long-lasting disdain.

If you are a die-hard vegetarian, all the gravy-dripping red meat may be viewed as a harmful and unhealthy distraction.

Originally written by John Bunch on July 1, 2009 5:01 PM You don't think that the Iran story was big ? Iran lost, according to this week's "Economist" magazine, a lot of respect, both internally and externally. The regime has been shown to be weaker than we thought, and fraught with internal divisions. The regime has lost the initiative and the status quo will no longer be the same. In the region, I think that many will no longer view Iran as some kind of "defender" of their interests, because it obviously has too much to deal with internally. For a country on the way to getting nukes and which also denies both the Holocaust, and Israel's right to exist, this was a major, major development.

It was not exactly the French Revolution what was happening in Iran, Mosabi is not exactly Nelson Mandela either. If not this regime there will be another regime, because the main power is held by the clerics in Iran. I do not think the whole country does not believe in the Holocaust, or even a big part of it: I think these are only the president's personal views. People started glorifying this movement, but I do not really think it was any major step towards democracy, I am not even sure if the majority of the people in Iran would want what is generally called democracy at this day and time. It may even cause more problems for them, in their view, I think.

Originally written by Liliana Boladz-Nekipelov on July 2, 2009 10:51 AM I am not even sure if the majority of the people in Iran would want what is generally called democracy at this day and time.

Here is a message of general application, from Ryszard Kapuscinski's Shah of Shahs (1982):

All books about all revolutions begin with a chapter that describes the decay of tottering authority or the misery and sufferings of the people. They should begin with a psychological chapter, one that shows how a harassed, terrified man suddenly breaks his terror, stops being afraid. This unusual process, sometimes accomplished in an instant like a shock or a lustration, demands illuminating. Man gets rid of fear and feels free. Without that there would be no revolution. (via WSJ)

Originally written by John Bunch on July 2, 2009 2:52 PM how many people are killed by knives in Malaysia or the UK every year ? (if your answer is "I don't know", you are no doubt right, because there probably are not very reliable statistics on that).

Although the border with Thailand is relatively porous for the entry of firearms (just like Mexico and US), what's unusual in Malaysia would probably be the use of machetes in a highly urban setting (in addition to the numerous santch thieves on bikes), but the resultant deaths are probably just a fraction of the gun robberies in US (in proportional terms).

Robbery at residential gate at Tmn Maluri, Cheras, Kuala Lumpur.

Robbery at 7-Eleven in Ipoh, Perak.

Robbery at internet cafe in Jinjang, Kuala Lumpur.

Robbery at internet cafe in Pandan Jaya, Kuala Lumpur

Robbery at ...

Originally written by John Bunch on July 2, 2009 6:59 AM Was it "sick" to airdrop arms to the French resistance in World War II ? .

John, can't you see any difference between helping resistance fighters combat a foreign invader with which the USA was itself at war and inciting and aiding a faction inside a sovereign country that is not at war with anybody to overthrow by force the democratically elected government of that country in peacetime?

We know that the US loves to overthrow despots - I am thinking of Batista in Cuba and Pinochet in Chile, and then there are the Saudi kings, of course. It was an American who first said: "I know that he is a sonofabitch but he is our sonofabitch!"

Derek

Originally written by John Bunch on July 2, 2009 11:47 PM Derek, if you read my post, it said, "if Iran were to fire a WMD". My "plan", would only go into effect if Iran were to have already begun a major war.

What you wrote was:

"If I were president of the U.S., I would say to Amajinedad, behind closed doors, the following: "If you fire a WMD, we will begin dropping crate-loads of assault rifles, anti-tank weapons, and body armor into your country and into those areas of Teheran that are against you, and into those areas of Iran where ethnic minorities live, and then we will see how long you last."

So according to that scenario, you would presumably say the same thing to North Korea and threaten them with the massive delivery by air of "crate-loads of assault rifles, anti-tank weapons, and body armor". I have a feeling that both Iran and North Korea would gratefully accept that offer and duly fire off a WMD for you!

I am still having difficulty picturing 20 thousand "peaceful demonstrators" in hajibs suddenly being equipped with body armor, assault rifles and anti-tank weapons. Would there be a crash course on DVD on how to use all that stuff peacefully or would you just let them try it out in their backyards until they got the hang of it?

Derek

Originally written by John Bunch on July 3, 2009 1:04 AM Or do you think that the better punishment for Iran firing a WMD on Israel would be a stern rebuke from Hillary Clinton and Obama ?

It is no use asking me, I am just as confused as you are. First we are told that they were all peaceful demonstrators who were attacked by brutal paramilitary gangs without provocation and now you want me to believe that they were not peaceful demonstrators at all but brave democratic urban guerillas who would have overthrown the legitimate government of Iran by force if only they had had enough weapons and ammunition, all of which the US Air Force would gladly drop on Tehran residential districts by the crate-load (presumably in the middle of the night) the moment a WMD is launched.

In other reports, I seem to remember being told that the harmless Iraqis would have long ago been at peace if they had not been kept supplied with IEDs by Iran of which Iran appears to have an inexhaustable supply. I have to ask myself then why it is that the fearless unarmed Iranian freedom fighters have not long ago brought the ruthless Iranian dictatorship to its knees with IEDs? They are apparently more effective than assault rifles any day and ought to be readily available in Iran.

Something is missing in all this Western anti-Iranian propaganda that hinders me from accepting it all at face value.

Derek

Originally written by John Bunch on July 3, 2009 3:23 AM When the Jews got guns, they started shooting back at the Nazis (Warsaw Ghetto, 1944).

Poland's capital was the site of not one but two of the major uprisings against German power during World War II: the ghetto uprising of Warsaw Jews in 1943, after which the ghetto was leveled; and the Warsaw Uprising of the Polish Home Army in 1944, after which the rest of the city was destroyed. These two central examples of resistance and mass killing were confused in the German mass media in August 1994, 1999, and 2004, on all the recent five-year anniversaries of the Warsaw Uprising of 1944, and will be again in August 2009. http://www.nybooks.com/articles/22875

Originally written by Jacek K. on July 3, 2009 8:51 AM These two central examples of resistance and mass killing were confused in the German mass media in August 1994, 1999, and 2004, on all the recent five-year anniversaries of the Warsaw Uprising of 1944, and will be again in August 2009. http://www.nybooks.com/articles/22875

The message contained in that article, Jacek, appears to me to be that in any situation in which several crimes against humanity are taking place concurrently, if you are going to get killed in one of them and don't want to be forgotten then arrange to be killed in the worst one because the mass media cannot handle more than one crime against humanity at a time.

It also occurs to me that the Allied strategy of reducing all the major German cities to rubble by bombing them was fatally flawed. If instead of dropping bombs, the Allies had dropped assault rifles, anti-tank weapons and body armor by the crate-load as described in the Bunch Plan then the entire German population, deprived of weapons by the Nazis, would have been able to rise up and sweep Hitler and the Nazis out of power.

So that was the problem then in World War II Germany, there weren't enough weapons available for a popular uprising! Why didn't I see that before?

Derek

Originally written by Derek Thornton on July 3, 2009 10:29 AM the mass media cannot handle more than one crime against humanity at a time.

Which brings us back to Michael Jackson's death, an undoubted God's crime against humanity, which eclipsed what was going on in Iran. Says http://rothkopf.foreignpolicy.com/posts/2009/06/29/how_michael_jackson_answered_the_ayatollahs_prayers:

[Michal Jackson] was no hero. He was certainly no one to be celebrating. Unless of course, you were an ayatollah. Because one of the truly transcendental ironies of recent history has to be the fact that a symbol of the worst sort of Western spiritual and social corruption...celebrity worship, drug culture, financial excess, debauchery...ended up providing just the distraction that the keepers of the Islamic Revolution's flame in Tehran needed to direct the world's attention away from their abuses of their own people. 

In an instant, the really important story of tens of millions struggling to be heard in Iran was swept off the air by the death of a 50 year old accused pedophile in America. CNN, which had been congratulating itself daily for bringing the "green revolution" in Iran to the world as only it could in an instant tossed its news judgment out the window and started offering 24/7 retrospectives on how Michael Jackson chose the red leather jacket he wore in the
">"Thriller" video.  It was an appalling, cheap and cynical programming choice made worse by the fact that other major stories...from the Congress passing the landmark Waxman-Markey climate legislation to the coup in Honduras...were left to play the role only of journalistic spackle, filling in the cracks between paeans to a man who spent the last twenty years shocking the world with his unhinged depravity.

Originally written by John Bunch on July 2, 2009 9:23 PM When the Jews got guns, they started shooting back at the Nazis (Warsaw Ghetto, 1944). Unarmed people who suddenly get guns can suddenly start to fight back, particularly when the army they are fighting is "engaged elsewhere".  A massacre or holocaust, when you give the victims guns, suddenly is no longer a massacre, but a "civil war"

Do you think that civil war is such a great thing? Arent't there other ways to help the nations.
Did the so called help in Warsaw help anybody, except that everybody got killed, all the Warsaw dwellers. 2/3 of the pre-war Warsaw popullation got killed. What a great help, indeed amazing.

Originally written by Jacek K. on July 3, 2009 4:36 AM Originally written by Derek Thornton on July 3, 2009 10:29 AM the mass media cannot handle more than one crime against humanity at a time. _prayers: [Michal Jackson] was no hero. He was certainly no one to be celebrating. Unless of course, you were an ayatollah. Because one of the truly transcendental ironies of recent history has to be the fact that a symbol of the worst sort of Western spiritual and social corruption...

I do not thing Michael Jackson was a symbol of all the worst in the modern culture: I personally think quite the opposite, regardless of his presumed prescription drug use and all the lies attributed to him by dirty minds of the "moral world" and fortune seekers. In this sense he was just a victim, a scape-goat that the society is looking for, always. He was a great artist and mainly a symbol of eliminating all the boundaries and finding something transcendent in us. He was also a very nice person and even the US police does not believe in all the accusations he was subjected to twice, after carefully examining all the evidence and invading his mention. I think that he was bigger than the awaited Iranian revolution, being a revolution himself. A revolution against prejudice, the source of all evil, in my mind.

Originally written by Liliana Boladz-Nekipelov on July 3, 2009 6:01 PM I do not thing Michael Jackson was a symbol of all the worst in the modern culture: I personally think quite the opposite, regardless of  . . He was a great artist and mainly a symbol of eliminating all the boundaries and finding something transcendent in us.  I think that he was bigger than the awaited Iranian revolution, being a revolution himself. A revolution against prejudice, the source of all evil, in my mind.

Transcending the rebellious tendency in us, kids or otherwise, to smash up things the way MJ smashes car windows in his video?

A revolution against the prejudice that we are prone to apt things we watch on the screen, or that nothing is bad enough to watch (which indirectly preempts censorship)?

No, I don't think so, but I do not really know what you have in mind, because it is not clear.

Originally written by Jacek K. on July 3, 2009 10:36 AM Originally written by Derek Thornton on July 3, 2009 10:29 AM the mass media cannot handle more than one crime against humanity at a time. Which brings us back to Michael Jackson's death, an undoubted God's crime against humanity, which eclipsed what was going on in Iran. Says http://rothkopf.foreignpolicy.com/posts/2009/06/29/how_michael_jackson_answered_the_ayatollahs_prayers: [Michal Jackson] was no hero. He was certainly no one to be celebrating.

The mass hysteria relating to MJ's death is out of all proportion. For reasons not entirely clear, or too far reaching to elaborate on, Michael Jackson makes me think of the hugely successful and highly sentimental ´Co** Co** commercial where many different nationalities sang a song that grabbed our heart strings because we wanted to believe that love and peace would always prevail. Seeing what is happening in Iran and around the world - well, have another listen...

Originally written by Nanna Mercer on July 3, 2009 5:49 AM The mass hysteria relating to MJ's death is out of all proportion.

It certainly does not feel this way, in New York. People are genuinely upset and celebrate his legacy.

Which brings us back to Michael Jackson's death, an undoubted God's crime against humanity, which eclipsed what was going on in Iran.

MJ did not "eclipse" what was going on in Iran; the Iran story petered out of its own accord.  This was a failed uprising, and the regime has proven to be stronger than its opponents had hoped.

I disagree. I think that the protest movement might have lost a battle, but won the war. There is no doubt that the regime is riven with internal divisions, and I think that the status quo will never be the same. The entire world, and the so-called "Muslim world" has seen that the mullahs are not representative of the people. How do you think it played on TV in Cairo, Damascus, Tunisia, Morrocco, Malaysia, and Indonesia to see thousands of young people - the future of the country, chanting "Allah Akbar !" and being beaten down by riot police with sticks. Do you think that helped the mullahs, or hurt them ?

Originally written by John Bunch on July 3, 2009 6:52 PM How do you think it played on TV in Cairo, Damascus, Tunisia, Morrocco, Malaysia, and Indonesia to see thousands of young people - the future of the country, chanting "Allah Akbar !" and being beaten down by riot police with sticks. Do you think that helped the mullahs, or hurt them

You have a very odd view of Islam, John! You seem to be forgetting that the Iranians are Shi'ites. At an average Ashura commemorating the death of the Imam Hussein, you would see far more beatings and bloodshed than at a hundred election protests. Even little children are out there on the streets beating themselves raw with steel chains ...

... and having their scalps cut open with swords.

I bet that the Iranian election protest street scenes with a few motor tires and some garbage containers being burned in the streets would have aroused nothing much more than polite yawns in most Moslem communities.

Derek

Originally written by John Bunch on July 4, 2009 2:52 AM The entire world, and the so-called "Muslim world" has seen that the mullahs are not representative of the people. How do you think it played on TV in Cairo, Damascus, Tunisia, Morrocco, Malaysia, and Indonesia to see thousands of young people - the future of the country, chanting "Allah Akbar !" and being beaten down by riot police with sticks.

Did the military coup in Honduras against a democratically-elected president get into the average American minds? Did the much longer-running street demonstrations (with deaths too) in Thailand get much coverage in America?

Probably not. They are not considered a threat to America at all. So why would the internal situation get played up in countries that do not consider Iran to be a threat to them?

In Malaysia, the only photo of significance seemed to be the demonstrations by Iranian students at the UN office here in Malaysia which caused a traffic jam and was dispersed by riot police firing tear gas, and a warning from the authorities not to bring the conflcit into Malaysia.

Originally written by John Bunch on July 3, 2009 8:06 PM There is a huge difference between someone doing that to himself, and cop beating someone with a club.

No, there isn't, there is hardly any objective difference. If you go out onto the street knowing that riot police are waiting there to crack a few skulls, then you are effectively doing it to yourself. Stop home and watch it on the TV and it is less exciting but you are not in the front row and you won't get the bite of the tear gas in your nose.

Cops beating someone with a club is not such an unusual event in most countries, not even in the USA. You might have lived a sheltered life, of course.

In Iran it is (or was in my time) even less of an unusual event, election or no election. For example, when I was living in a house in Ahwaz in the south, one day we were awoken in the middle of the siesta by a woman shrieking outside. Eventually I got annoyed and went to the gate opening onto an alley. There what I judged to be a Somali woman was screaming her head off and gesticulating wildly. I had no idea what it was all about and I tried to quiet her but she only screamed louder. At that moment, I saw a policeman crossing at the head of the alley and he stopped to see what was going on. I made some kind of a signal to him that I was not touching her in any way and he came towards us. He listened to her for a while then he looked at me. I just stared back. He then lifted his baton, swung it around and hit her in the face with full force. I can hear the cracking sound and see the blood spurting out to this day. She fell to the ground like a sack of potatoes. I can't even describe how I felt but I opened my mouth to say something and our cook pulled me back into the yard whispering that if I said anything, the policeman would hit me in the same way. We shut the gate. She was still moaning outside a good hour later but she was gone by the morning. The memory stays with me because I was personally involved but it was not such an unusual event in Iran on the whole.

Originally written by John Bunch on July 3, 2009 8:06 PM Or would you say that what the U.S. did at Abu Ghraib is o.k., because Muslims have a tradition of violence against them ?

I would not claim for a moment that what happened at Abu Ghraib was done by the "U.S.". It was done by a few hoodlums, encouraged indirectly by one Donald Rumsfeld. They could have been of any nationality, abuse of prisoners is nobody's monopoly. The only special aspect of Abu Ghraib was that some idiot took pictures and left them on a computer belonging to the US government. After that there was no way that it could be covered up otherwise it would have been, I am quite sure of that. Something like Nixon and his tapes. Most people take care not to leave any irrefutable evidence lying around.

Derek

Originally written by John Bunch I disagree. I think that the protest movement might have lost a battle, but won the war. There is no doubt that the regime is riven with internal divisions, and I think that the status quo will never be the same. The entire world, and the so-called "Muslim world" has seen that the mullahs are not representative of the people. How do you think it played on TV in Cairo, Damascus, Tunisia, Morrocco, Malaysia, and Indonesia to see thousands of young people - the future of the country, chanting "Allah Akbar !" and being beaten down by riot police with sticks. Do you think that helped the mullahs, or hurt them ?

The regime has indeed had its image damaged, but Iran's leaders are really mostly concerned about how the EU sees it - the EU being an important trading partner and one that is open to reasonable discourse with Iran, unlike, say, the US.  Iran is not particularly concerned with how Sunni Muslims - the kind in all the places you mentioned - see them.

I would agree that the status quo won't be the same, but it never is.  This incident indeed suggests that the regime faces serious problems.  For now the regime is more powerful than the forces opposed to it.  The balance of power is likely to shift.  This is not unusual, of course.  The 1917 Russian Revolution was presaged by the failed abortive uprising of 1905.

I must say that I find the suggestion that police brutality can be justified because people make self-inflicted religiously symbolic wounds to be rather strange.  A person who voluntarily decides to inflict a wound on himself for a religious person does not thereby consent to the police beating him for political purposes.  That being said, it is interesting to note that religious self-mutilation does seem to be much more common in authoritarian states than in (relatively) freer ones.

Originally written by David Kallans on July 3, 2009 9:33 PM I must say that I find the suggestion that police brutality can be justified because people make self-inflicted religiously symbolic wounds to be rather strange.  A person who voluntarily decides to inflict a wound on himself for a religious person does not thereby consent to the police beating him for political purposes.

I didn't claim that police brutality could be justified because people make self-inflicted religiously symbolic wounds. Police brutality does not have to be justified or condemned, what good does that do? Police brutality happens, in fact brutality happens generally, what point is there in trying to justify it or condemn it? None at all. And nobody is asked to consent to being beaten by the police in most jurisdictions. I was once given some totally unjustifiable heavy blows, including a bleeding nose, by bad-tempered British police trying to control the crowd coming out of a football match (Chelsea at Stamford Bridge). I don't recall being asked if I consented or not.

The question John asked concerned how we thought the coverage "played out on TV" in the places he mentioned (people chanting "Allah Akbar !" and being beaten down by riot police with sticks) and whether the audience reaction "helped the mullahs, or hurt them?" My point was that objectively there is little difference between scenes of people chanting "Allah Akbar !" and being beaten by religious fanatics or being beaten by riot police, the TV pictures of it are similar. How were they going to change people's opinions about the Iranian mullahs? Was anybody in those places under the impression that the Iranian mullahs were stout defenders of human rights and the dignity of the human spirit and had therefore been terribly disappointed and shocked by a little TV riot control footage? I very much doubt it. Somebody is being rather naive here, I fear.

Derek

Originally written by John Bunch on July 3, 2009 9:58 PM But again, we were originally discussing Iranian students peacefully protesting ...

Realistically, there is no such thing as students peacefully protesting. There are legal demonstrations and illegal demonstrations. I fail to see how illegal demonstrations can be called peaceful because they oblige the police to break them up by force and arrest the ringleaders and that can seldom be done by peaceful means. That reminds me of the Israeli argument that driving a squadron of main battle tanks through an Arab village was, in itself, a peaceful action because not one shot was fired but a group of young lads throwing rocks at the battle tanks as they went through was a violent demonstration entitling military police to suppress the illegal demonstration with rubber bullets and tear gas. It is often only a matter of semantics.

German police mostly use only as much force as is necessary to restore public order, take ringleaders into custody and break up illegal demonstrations and in my opinion, from the TV footage that I saw, the same can be said of the force used by the Iranian authorities, taking the mentality of the people involved into account and the occasion. I wouldn't like to be around if the German police had to handle a mass protest about an election result - then you would see some skull cracking, by golly!

I once got caught up in an illegal demonstration in Strasbourg, Place Kléber. My wife and I came out of a store and found that there was a peaceful student demonstration in progress in the square. The sidewalk was lined with curious shoppers and tourists peacefully watching the equally peaceful demonstration. Eventually a few municipal policemen appeared and started to approach the head of the procession. The complete procession then dispersed into the crowd in a flash and the policemen were left standing alone in the middle of the road. Eventually they left and the procession reformed and continued their march around the square (totally blocking all traffic, of course).

Shortly afterwards, several groups of French CRS riot police entered the square from side streets and an officer with a loud-hailer called out (in French) that there was an illegal demonstration in progress and under French law, spectators to an illegal demonstration who did not disperse after being called on to do so were considered to be participants in the demonstration with all the consequences that entailed. He then called once on everybody to leave the square immediately. Nobody moved - they either did not understand his announcement or they wanted to stay and watch the fun, me included.

The CRS police in riot gear then collected into a formation something like a Roman legion under attack, the officer blew his whistle and off they went, swinging their batons at anybody within reach regardless of whether they looked like demonstrating students or elderly tourists. I saw one fierce monster coming in my direction and thought nothing of it until I saw him hit two tourists on the hip with his club in passing. When he had almost reached me he lifted his club high over his head, still running, and brought it down sharply as he went by and I swear that I heard it rattle down the buttons on my overcoat, it was so close. By then the entire square was a scene of chaos as the crowd and the demonstrators all tried to leave at the same time. We didn't look back, found our way to the underground parking and drove away as fast as we could.

  Place Kléber, Strasbourg

I did not see anything as bad as that in the TV coverage of the Iranian election result protests yet the entire action in Strasbourg scarcely merited more than a brief mention in the newspapers.

That is why I believe that the entire Iranian spectacle was primarily a media event.

Derek

Originally written by Derek Thornton on July 4, 2009 12:06 AM My wife and I came out of a store and found that there was a peaceful student demonstration in progress in the square. The sidewalk was lined with curious shoppers and tourists peacefully watching the equally peaceful demonstration. Eventually a few municipal policemen appeared and started to approach the head of the procession. The complete procession then dispersed into the crowd in a flash and the policemen were left standing alone in the middle of the road. Eventually they left and the procession reformed and continued their march around the square (totally blocking all traffic, of course).

"I have an idea that the only thing which makes it possible to regard this world we live in without disgust is the beauty which now and then men create out of the chaos"
— W. Somerset Maugham (The Painted Veil)

Originally written by Jacek K. on July 4, 2009 9:40 AM "I have an idea that the only thing which makes it possible to regard this world we live in without disgust is the beauty which now and then men create out of the chaos" — W. Somerset Maugham (The Painted Veil)    At  8:00 am a recording of Julie Andrews singing 'Do, Re, Mi' begins to play on the public address system.        As the bemused passengers watch in amazement, some 200 dancers begin to appear from the crowd and station entrances. They created this amazing stunt with just two rehearsals!

I loved waking up while watching this wonderful video.

Thank you!

Nanna

It is indeed a lovely and uplifting thing that cheers the spirits.  Thanks for reposting this link, Jacek.  It is even more suitable in the "Iran" thread, and sorely needed.

Maxi

Originally written by Jacek K. on July 4, 2009 8:40 AM As the bemused passengers watch in amazement, some 200 dancers begin to appear from the crowd and station entrances. They created this amazing stunt with just two rehearsals!

I understand that it was a promotional, staged by the combined dancing schools of Antwerp in an attempt to attract new members. I don't see why they would have needed more than 2 rehearsals. It might brighten up the lives of those that download it from YouTube but there is no way it was going to brighten up Antwerp, one of the most miserable, depressing towns on the entire planet, and even less the Centraal Station, around 100 years old, and something like a Gothic castle built inside a disused zeppelin hangar.

There seems to be something about 19th century rail stations that attracts flash mobs. The BBC put on a complete but abbreviated opera inside Paddington Station, London, (also a depressing location) some years back using a flash mob, a full orchestra and professional singers. The BBC considers it to have been a failure but I watched it fascinated from beginning to end. One thing is clear, though - it is an activity for a few minutes only, requires a lot of preparation and leaves the location appearing all the more depressing when it is over.

There does not appear to be any way of making money with this kind of event so it will presumably remain primarily an activity for extremely extrovert amateurs. I am left wondering, however, if it might not be possible in some jurisdictions to get away with an unauthorized political demonstration in public places if it is done to music (requires access to a PA system) and lasts only 4 minutes? Where is the political arm of the Iranian flash mob movement to be found, I wonder?

Derek

Originally written by Derek Thornton on July 5, 2009 5:14 PM I am left wondering, however, if it might not be possible in some jurisdictions to get away with an unauthorized political demonstration in public places if it is done to music

Come to think about it, this could have an aura of legality inherited from May Day parades under communism when thousands were forced to march in front of Party apparatchiks with happy faces, to the equally happy blast of propaganda songs. It still happens in a handful of places. On the other hand, you can see on TV chanting crowds that look rather menacing here and there so, gosh, maybe we should modify the idea to specifically include dance?

Breakdance? I think it is allowed in the street. I have not seen too much of classical dance in the streets, the Swan Lake, for example.

Would  get away with it? What does this "warrior dance" mean anyway? A war dance or merely a peaceful warriors' dance?  

Originally written by Jacek K. on July 6, 2009 2:35 AM Would  get away with it? What does this "warrior dance" mean anyway? A war dance or merely a peaceful warriors' dance?

Would a mere cultural revolution unleash a civil war?

Originally written by Jacek K. on July 5, 2009 6:35 PM Would [ ...  ] get away with it? What does this "warrior dance" mean anyway? A war dance or merely a peaceful warriors' dance?

I am pretty sure that they would have to be persuaded to put on underwear if that protest was to go out onto the public highway. That little cloth flap in the front does not hack it if they start jumping up and down as they often do when they get excited.

But "Streetdancing" is an art form in many European countries. It is mostly done in halls. This one was put on by Bündnis'90/Die Grünen in the German Bundestag this year as part of a protest against extreme right wing elements in Germany:

Moslem ladies are expected to wear hajibs or burkas, I suppose, and all must have on underwear, that's for sure. You won't see anybody carrying weapons but I see that a number of hooligans political protesters were arrested in the Hamburg riots demonstrations this weekend for carrying Molotov Cocktail kits.

Derek

Originally written by Jacek K. on July 5, 2009 6:35 PM    What does this "warrior dance" mean anyway?

It means that a tourist bus has just come into the parking lot. Between buses those guys usually stretch out under a tree somewhere.

Derek

Originally written by Jacek K. on July 5, 2009 4:34 PM On the other hand, you can see on TV chanting crowds that look rather menacing here and there so, gosh, maybe we should modify the idea to specifically include dance?

Yes, that is the problem with pictures, you can't just go out and photograph your typical riot. It mostly needs to be staged if it is to be convincing. This picture does not look very different from dozens I have seen taken at pop concerts yet the caption provided by the agency (Agence France Presse) was "Seven killed in Iran protests". If you judged solely by the picture then you might think that they all got trampelled to death in the rush to get to the last bus in time. You would certainly need a totally different organization if that lot were expected to dance (although I have been in discos that were just about as crowded).

Derek

Re this gem:

http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/world/middle_east/article6638568.ece

I wonder whether the Saudi royal family might be controlled by International Jewry.  It's of a piece: Britain trying to undermine "Islamic democracy" in Iran, International Jewry manipulating the Saudis...?

Hey...Scott just asks the questions....

Originally written by Scott Rasmussen on July 5, 2009 8:46 PM  It's of a piece: Britain trying to undermine "Islamic democracy" in Iran, International Jewry manipulating the Saudis...

Everything is possible. You have to think like an Arab if you want to understand what goes on out there.

I once watched an interview with the Sultan of Oman, Qaboos Bin Al Said. When his air force was mentioned (SOAF) the Sultan was asked why all his fighter-bomber aircraft were being flown by Canadian pilots and not by Omanis. He answered that if he let Omanis fly them then the first thing that they would do would be to bomb his palace.

In the same way, the Saudis know full well that the first Iranian long-range missile fitted with a nuclear warhead would be targeted not on Tel Aviv but on Riyadh.

Derek

Originally written by Derek Thornton on July 5, 2009 4:43 PM  You have to think like an Arab if you want to understand what goes on out there. I once watched an interview with the Sultan of Oman, Qaboos Bin Al Said. When his air force was mentioned (SOAF) the Sultan was asked why all his fighter-bomber aircraft were being flown by Canadian pilots and not by Omanis. He answered that if he let Omanis fly them then the first thing that they would do would be to bomb his palace.

Fascinating.  Man of the world that you are, I'm sure you've heard the saying, in an airline context, "round eyes [alternatively blue eyes] up front"...? 

For the uninitiated, it means that, though you may be flying on an Arab-Asian-African flag carrier, the pilots are American/Canadian/British/Australian/(white) South African.  Meaning, further, that the plane is more likely to reach its destination....

Originally written by Scott Rasmussen on July 6, 2009 6:00 AM For the uninitiated, it means that, though you may be flying on an Arab-Asian-African flag carrier, the pilots are American/Canadian/British/Australian/(white) South African.  Meaning, further, that the plane is more likely to reach its destination....

Blimey! Those 2 planes that crashed recently, one off Bazil and the other off eastern Africa, must have been flown by non-Whites.

Originally written by Scott Rasmussen on July 5, 2009 10:00 PM Meaning, further, that the plane is more likely to reach its destination....

No, I don't mean that at all. There is a difference between running a civil air line and letting your political enemies, or the people that they could easily bribe, fly bombers over your palace. I would feel more confident in a passenger aircraft flown by an Arab than by an Englishman, even if only because there is a better chance that the Arab's blood alcohol level was still below the limit at takeoff. I also remember the British plane that collided with another over Croatia some years ago and the cabin voice recorder revealed that at the moment of the collision both British pilots were deeply immersed in the Sunday Times crossword puzzle.

For a year or so I worked for the now defunct Pan American Airways on a Caribbean Island. It was generally the responsibility of the Station Manager to check each aircraft immediately before it left. Our Station Manager, a white American, used to take his flashlight, go out the door, take a quick walk under the wings, come back in and say: "Looks all right to me!". I am a fatalist anyway and believe that you go when your time is up, not earlier, not later, but when I had to fly I always tried to get on an Air France flight, the food was better.

Derek

Originally written by John Bunch on July 6, 2009 8:03 AM I still maintain that the main reason for the U.S. invasion of Iraq in 2003, was to punish the Saudis for 9/11 (the fact that almost all the hijackers were Saudi and that Saudi Arabia supported Wahhabism and allegedly even knew of 9/11 prior to that date, but did not warn the U.S. [allegedly !]. And the punishment was to remove the "Sunni Shield" - Saddam, which resulted in the Saudis losing power relative to the Shiites in Iran.

Bravo!

That presents the US as a prime candidate for a major downgrade on Transparency International's rankings assuming that foreign relations and defence are part of the criteria, and possibly vocal hostilities if a nationalistic government is elected or grabs power in Saudi Arabia.

Originally written by John Bunch on July 6, 2009 8:03 AM I still maintain that the main reason for the U.S. invasion of Iraq in 2003, was to punish the Saudis for 9/11 (the fact that almost all the hijackers were Saudi and that Saudi Arabia supported Wahhabism and allegedly even knew of 9/11 prior to that date, but did not warn the U.S. [allegedly !]. And the punishment was to remove the "Sunni Shield" - Saddam, which resulted in the Saudis losing power relative to the Shiites in Iran.

Very unlikely, because

1)  9/11 was an inside job, as proven by www.ae911truth.org and others,

2)  they would have simply bombed the Saudis.

Total nonsense, that I won't even dignify with a response...

Absolute, total nonsense, this is what I mean by politics, that it can manipulate reasonable people in countries with any political systems

Originally written by Derek Thornton on July 5, 2009 6:54 PM Originally written by Scott Rasmussen on July 5, 2009 10:00 PM Meaning, further, that the plane is more likely to reach its destination....  No, I don't mean that at all. There is a difference between running a civil air line and letting your political enemies, or the people that they could easily bribe, fly bombers over your palace. I would feel more confident in a passenger aircraft flown by an Arab than by an Englishman, even if only because there is a better chance that the Arab's blood alcohol level was still below the limit at takeoff.Derek

Don't worry there are always geese and thunderstorms that will make all the differences between people and races dissapear.

If you look at the 8 stories free fall of WTC 7 it is total nonsense to think that this could have been caused by some office fires and a damage at the back side, instead of well placed explosives.  I still wonder how people can be brain washed like that..

Harry, it is exactly the same what the president of Iran claims, that the holocaust has never happened: how could people have done something like that, he thinks, it is not possible for human beings to have done something that horrid. This must be just a cover-up so that people could settle in Israel. I would have thought the same, but I have seen the evidence and talked to the people who went through it.

What you claim Harry is totally absurd. The construction gave way because it was apparently not built to withstand any weight, but more of a flexible construction the Japanese design for earthquakes, we fortunately do not have in New York. Some engineers thought the construction was not right, what added to the total collapse.

Originally written by Liliana Boladz-Nekipelov on July 7, 2009 2:20 AM What you claim Harry is totally absurd. The construction gave way because it was apparently not built to withstand any weight, but more of a flexible construction the Japanese design for earthquakes, we fortunately do not have in New York. Some engineers thought the construction was not right, what added to the total collapse.

Liliana, the construction was quite solid and stood there for some years, and suddenly it could not even carry its own weight? Free fall means that during this initial period all of the potential energy was transformed into speed so there was no energy left to break or bend any beams, yet they suddenly disappeared into air and dust? Sorry, I don't believe in miracles like that..

Originally written by Harry Bornemann on July 7, 2009 8:58 AM Liliana, the construction was quite solid and stood there for some years, and suddenly it could not even carry its own weight? Free fall means that during this initial period all of the potential energy was transformed into speed so there was no energy left to break or bend any beams, yet they suddenly disappeared into air and dust? Sorry, I don't believe in miracles like that..

Me too.

I once saw my CRT (VGA) screen that been working faithfully for quite some time went blank and all of a sudden smoke came bellowing out. I wasn't trying to connect anything extra nor put on extra weight.

And, I can swear that I didn't do it deliberately in order to claim insurance as my PC wasn't insured and even if it was, the old CRT monitor would have been close to worthless in the market. The CIA must have done it to prevent me from posting!

Originally written by Shiong-Fong Lew on July 7, 2009 3:30 PM Originally written by Harry Bornemann on July 7, 2009 8:58 AM Liliana, the construction was quite solid and stood there for some years, and suddenly it could not even carry its own weight? Free fall means that during this initial period all of the potential energy was transformed into speed so there was no energy left to break or bend any beams, yet they suddenly disappeared into air and dust? Sorry, I don't believe in miracles like that..     Me too. I once saw my CRT (VGA) screen that been working faithfully for quite some time went blank and all of a sudden smoke came bellowing out. I wasn't trying to connect anything extra nor put on extra weight. And, I can swear that I didn't do it deliberately in order to claim insurance as my PC wasn't insured and even if it was, the old CRT monitor would have been close to worthless in the market. The CIA must have done it to prevent me from posting! [Edited by Jacek K. on July 7, 2009 5:26 PM]    [History]

And, mysteriously too, some foreign agent (with the initial "Jacek K" footprint) had been making surreptitious entries to do non-visible modifications behind the scenes. Would this forum collapse too?

Originally written by Shiong-Fong Lew on July 7, 2009 10:38 AM Would this forum collapse too?

Never! Despite my painstaking turning 90% of its message headings into "OT".

Harry, whatever your reasoning is it is wrong, absolutely wrong, I hardly say it to anyone, but this is really a very serious claim which is absolutely wrong. You can think whatever you want, but this is exactly the same as what some governments were teaching people in the past as a pure propaganda, that people in Eastern Europe, had no food, TVs and were on the intellectual level of peasants from the 19th century, in the 70s of 80's of the last century, and that Poland was close to the pole, I am not sure which one. Hopefully the North and polar bears were walking not only in Copenhagen but in Northern Poland as well.

Are you saying that the American agents brought some explosives and after the hit blew the towers down. This is absolutely ridiculous, and may be even offensive to some people, not to me because nothing offends me anymore. You are entitled to your own views, the same way as the President of Iran does not believe in  holocaust until the day somebody takes him to Auschwitz. If you come to New York and tell it to somebody people will not even talk to you , I think, most of them, and some may even become aggressive or report this to the FBI, although I know they are absolutely aware of those theories, because they are public property, all over the Internet, like gossip about actors that has no basis in the reality.    

Originally written by Liliana Boladz-Nekipelov on July 7, 2009 6:18 PM ....that people in Eastern Europe, had no food, TVs and were on the intellectual level of peasants from the 19th century, in the 70s of 80's of the last century, and that Poland was close to the pole,

Holy smoke!

Did they do it in the pub or in the classroom?

Originally written by Harry Bornemann on July 6, 2009 7:58 PM Originally written by Liliana Boladz-Nekipelov on July 7, 2009 2:20 AM What you claim Harry is totally absurd. The construction gave way because it was apparently not built to withstand any weight, but more of a flexible construction the Japanese design for earthquakes, we fortunately do not have in New York. Some engineers thought the construction was not right, what added to the total collapse. Liliana, the construction was quite solid and stood there for some years, and suddenly it could not even carry its own weight? Free fall means that during this initial period all of the potential energy was transformed into speed so there was no energy left to break or bend any beams, yet they suddenly disappeared into air and dust? Sorry, I don't believe in miracles like that..

The WTC was not buit to withstand the impact of a large passenger plane for one and the intense heat generated by burning jet fuel seriously compromised the structural integrity of the building beyond it's load bearing capability. You don't have to be an engineer or physicist to understand that. And they didn't disappear. Did you not notice the huge pile of rubble? Conspiracy nuts are so annoying.

I'll offer this.  I don't know.  I would suggest this is the true state of affairs for everyone.

Maxi

Originally written by Shiong-Fong Lew on July 5, 2009 5:24 PM Originally written by Scott Rasmussen on July 6, 2009 6:00 AM For the uninitiated, it means that, though you may be flying on an Arab-Asian-African flag carrier, the pilots are American/Canadian/British/Australian/(white) South African.  Meaning, further, that the plane is more likely to reach its destination....    Blimey! Those 2 planes that crashed recently, one off Bazil and the other off eastern Africa, must have been flown by non-Whites.

Crikey!  It was actually a JAL captain who shared that (apparently well known) saying with me.  He further said that even his airline had some white pilots until rather recently (1990s?).

I've been reliably informed over many years that professing Islam is no impediment to drinking alcohol, should the individual wish to imbibe.  Human beings are not always tractable, I'm sure we can agree.

For the rest of the remarks in this thread...don't worry...I can assure you all that some of the dumbest and most incompetent people I've known have been white....

Originally written by Scott Rasmussen on July 8, 2009 2:25 AM I've been reliably informed over many years that professing Islam is no impediment to drinking alcohol, should the individual wish to imbibe.

I'm not an expert on this.

Over here in Malaysia, the Islamic laws are enforced by local authorities and not at the federal level. Some states (more than others) punish alhocol drinking among Muslims in pubs, but I haven't noticed any prohibition against alcohol in soy sauce and fruits.

Originally written by Roy Williams on July 7, 2009 5:15 PM The WTC was not buit to withstand the impact of a large passenger plane for one and the intense heat generated by burning jet fuel seriously compromised the structural integrity of the building beyond it's load bearing capability. You don't have to be an engineer or physicist to understand that. And they didn't disappear. Did you not notice the huge pile of rubble? Conspiracy nuts are so annoying.

I was talking about WTC 7 which was not hit by any plane.  Please get informed at ae911truth.org before you spread any unreflected propaganda rubbish. Simply watch their videos.

Originally written by Shiong-Fong Lew on July 7, 2009 1:56 PM Originally written by Scott Rasmussen on July 8, 2009 2:25 AM I've been reliably informed over many years that professing Islam is no impediment to drinking alcohol, should the individual wish to imbibe.    I'm not an expert on this. Over here in Malaysia, the Islamic laws are enforced by local authorities and not at the federal level. Some states (more than others) punish alhocol drinking among Muslims in pubs, but I haven't noticed any prohibition against alcohol in soy sauce and fruits.

Bolsters my point.  Why are Muslims hanging about in pubs?

Hmm...maybe the "morals" police are checking to see they are imbibing non-alcoholic samsu...?

Originally written by Scott Rasmussen on July 8, 2009 6:13 AM Bolsters my point.  Why are Muslims hanging about in pubs?

Of course, hailstones fell in tropical Malysia too, if that's statistically more significant than western Christian DUIs.

Originally written by Scott Rasmussen on July 7, 2009 6:25 PM I've been reliably informed over many years that professing Islam is no impediment to drinking alcohol, should the individual wish to imbibe.

I think you will find that drinking alcohol in Moslem countries is forbidden by the criminal code, not by the mullahs. In enlightened Iran, for example, the penalty of death for drinking alcohol (in public) is applied only for the fourth conviction. Convictions 1 through 3 get you only a public whipping. There is a reason for it of course, like all the other things Moslems cannot do. Alcohol harms the body and that is what Islam does not allow. The whippings and the execution itself are done by the state, of course.

When I was working in Baltimore, I used to eat in a restaurant on the US 40. Outside the front door and not inside the restaurant was a bank of steel lockers. Customers wishing to drink wine could rent a locker and they could come by at any time and put a bottlle of wine (or two) inside the locker. We were warned to transport the bottle unopened and wrapped in a plain brown paper bag. Then after the meal had been served, one of the party would stand up, go to the locker and bring in a bottle, still in the paper bag and place it on the floor beside the table. From time to time, wine was poured into the glasses, ostensibly there for water. We were told that Maryland State troopers came by occasionally to check that this procedure was being followed to the letter. The restaurant made money on the deal only through renting the lockers.

 
Never forget the brown paper bag! (legal requirements in your state, county and municipality might differ!)

I bet you that quaint US custom would appear to be barbaric enough to the average Iranian Moslem!

Derek

Alcohol laws in the US are a patchwork, so your story doesn't surprise me at all.  And recall that we had national prohibition for a time.  Anyway, see:

http://www2.potsdam.edu/hansondj/controversies/1140551076.html

In general, I don't like laws that don't accord with one of my core principles, viz. that you probably are the best judge of what's best for you.

Originally written by Harry Bornemann on July 7, 2009 3:18 PM Originally written by Roy Williams on July 7, 2009 5:15 PM The WTC was not buit to withstand the impact of a large passenger plane for one and the intense heat generated by burning jet fuel seriously compromised the structural integrity of the building beyond it's load bearing capability. You don't have to be an engineer or physicist to understand that. And they didn't disappear. Did you not notice the huge pile of rubble? Conspiracy nuts are so annoying. I was talking about WTC 7 which was not hit by any plane.  Please get informed at ae911truth.org before you spread any unreflected propaganda rubbish. Simply watch their videos.

IMO that website just enables conspiracy addicts. The name itself provokes suspicion.

Originally written by Liliana Boladz-Nekipelov on July 7, 2009 1:18 PM Harry, whatever your reasoning is it is wrong, ...

I thought only the Pope could find such a statement reasonable..

And you are wrong in both points:

- concerning the 3 "collapses" see: ae911truth.org

- concerning the New Yorkers, 66% of them want a new investigation,
  see: nyccan.org

The only parallel I see to the war-starting countries in WW2 is that some governments succeeded in convincing most of their citizens that it is OK to attack other countries..

 

Originally written by Roy Williams on July 8, 2009 3:46 PM IMO that website just enables conspiracy addicts. The name itself provokes suspicion.

The fact that there have always been conspiracy theorists does not mean that there has never been any conspiracy of warmongers - in contrary, history is full of them.

Originally written by Harry Bornemann on July 8, 2009 2:34 PM The only parallel I see to the war-starting countries in WW2 is that some governments succeeded in convincing most of their citizens that it is OK to attack other countries..

While we are on the subject, give me an example of governments that ever bothered to convince most of their citizens that it is OK to attack other countries. The customary practice is not to ask. The Germany Army is at war in Afghanistan right now despite that being:

a) forbidden by the constitution,

b) opposed by a good 90% of the population.

How did they manage to get there? Simple, 1) nobody who matters is allowed to call it "war" and 2) it was rushed through the Bundestag under cover of a pack of lies.

The US has a proud history of fabricating a casus belli, for example, the accidental explosion that sank the battleship Maine in Havana harbor in 1898 and was conveniently blamed on the Spanish at the time. From then on the US government has never found it to be a problem to start a war against the wishes of the majority, nor has any other government to my knowledge. They simply do not ask!

Or do you know of a country that was ready to start a war of choice and had to call it off when the government was unable to obtain a popular majority?

Derek

Originally written by Harry Bornemann on July 8, 2009 9:34 AM Originally written by Liliana Boladz-Nekipelov on July 7, 2009 1:18 PM Harry, whatever your reasoning is it is wrong, ... I thought only the Pope could find such a statement reasonable.. And you are wrong in both points: - concerning the 3 "collapses" see: ae911truth.org - concerning the New Yorkers, 66% of them want a new investigation,   see: nyccan.org The only parallel I see to the war-starting countries in WW2 is that some governments succeeded in convincing most of their citizens that it is OK to attack other countries..

Which Pope are you referring to Harry, any one in particular or just all the Popes. I am very sorry, but I do not know that much about Popes.

Which building are you referring to? Did anyone die in that building, or was it just a building that collapsed after the two major building gave way killing over 2,000 people. Is it just some camouflaged theory which is supposed to convince people that America staged the massacre of over 2000 people, whereas the real claim  is that somebody blew up an empty building for insurance purposes, although I do not believe this to be true either, but this is a totally different story and claim.

Finally, I do believe that 66% of New Yorkers would agree to a new investigation, if asked in a poll, but if you told them that you think Americans blew up world trade center most would be quite angry.

I am sorry Harry, but can you explain what you mean by the last statement, because I am not sure.           

Originally written by Liliana Boladz-Nekipelov on July 8, 2009 4:42 PM "... Americastaged the massacre ... "

Objection to the wording! That would be another synecdoche.

Originally written by Jacek K. on July 8, 2009 4:49 PM Originally written by Liliana Boladz-Nekipelov on July 8, 2009 4:42 PM "... Americastaged the massacre ... " Objection to the wording! That would be another synecdoche.

CIA Jacek, is an American agency, so it is a part of America. When people talk about Israel, for example, they do not say one part of the Israeli government wants to attack Iran, but Israel wants to attack Iran. I do not believe CIA had anything to do with 9/11 and I will never believe it, unless somebody showed me a reliable video showing CIA agents planting explosives at the World Trade Center and talking to the fundamentalist fighters who flew the planes.

Originally written by Liliana Boladz-Nekipelov on July 8, 2009 5:10 PM When people talk about Israel, for example, they do not say one part of the Israeli government wants to attack Iran, but Israel wants to attack Iran.

Conceptually, this is an interesting point. Whatever the reason, I have always made a dictinction between the American people and the US Government. While, indeed, I keep providing comments on the American invasion of Iraq and Afghanistan, the words that in a presumed conspiracy America staged 9/11 somehow stick in my throat. Maybe because the former is a fact and the latter a hypothesis? While you could go as far as saying that the whole country invaded Iraq and Afghanistan through the government it elected, it's impossible to blame the whole United States for the work of would-be 9/11 conspirators whom we cannot identify and whose existence we are unable to confirm. Objection self-upheld then.

Originally written by Liliana Boladz-Nekipelov on July 8, 2009 4:10 PM I do not believe CIA had anything to do with 9/11 and I will never believe it, unless somebody showed me a reliable video showing CIA agents planting explosives at the World Trade Center and talking to the fundamentalist fighters who flew the planes.

I don't believe that there was a secret conspiracy behind the attacks on the WTC. With the way that things fail to be kept secret for long in the USA, somebody would have spilled the full beans by now. They cannot keep much else secret, it seems. 

But I am open to being convinced that there was a conspiracy to exploit the attack as a casus belli for the war on Iraq. That kind of thing happens all the time. The classic case is the Maine, it blew up as the result of carelessness on board but it was immediately grasped as a plausible reason to declare war on Spain.

I am inclined to go even further and believe that there are conspiracies to construct hot spots that are sure to explode sooner or later and provide a half-way plausible excuse to start a shooting war. The classic case was the Treaty of Versaille allowing Poland to keep a "Post Office" in German-controlled Danzig (the "postmen" were armed to the teeth) and to operate the rail line that ran from Poland right into Danzig town. Hitler claimed that the "postmen" were shooting at Germans in the town (Poland claimed the Germans started shooting first.) There was an enormous amount of ammunition stored in Danzig at the time. It must have been a simple matter to ignite that gunfight and start WWII with Hitler claiming that Germany had been attacked and all he was doing was shooting back after being as patient with Poland as he could possibly be.

Why Hitler thought that he needed an excuse is a mystery to me, any more than why George Bush thought he needed an excuse to attack Iraq. He started the war illegally in the end so he could really have saved us all that suspense and just started bombing when the fancy took him. The only sensible conclusion is that he needed to deceive Congress and US public opinion (but see a previous posting of mine arguing that George Bush had already made himself a dictator by then and did not need approval by anybody.)

I can imagine the "conspiracies" in Washington (including Tony Blair) after the WTC attacks, trying to work out how they could best be exploited to get as big a Coalition Of The Willing together as possible to share the cost of the (undeclared) war.

That is a "conspiracy" I could believe in!

Derek

Originally written by Derek Thornton on July 8, 2009 6:04 PM .... German-controlled Danzig ....

German-populated didn't mean German-controlled. Whenever I quote Wikipedia it means that instead of 60 minutes to properly research and phrase a post I only have 6 minutes of time. So bear with me:

[A]ccording to the terms of the Versailles Treaty, [Gdańsk] became the Free City of Danzig, an independent quasi-state under the auspices of the League of Nations with its external affairs largely under Polish control. ... The city was denied self-determination, despite the majority of German-speaking citizens calling for a reunion with Germany.

Yes, it was a time bomb.

Originally written by Jacek K. on July 8, 2009 5:17 PM German-populated didn't mean German-controlled.

OK, then, the de facto German-controlled Danzig.

At the time of the incident, the SS Heimwehr Danzig had 1550 men, mostly Volksdeutsche, armed with ADGZ armoured cars, 75 mm and 105 mm artillery and flame throwers. The police were mostly German (Ordnungspolizei), there was the Wachsturmbann Eimann and the III. Sturmbann regiment plus another 500 men. The Polish "postmen" were armed only with pistols, rifles, light machine guns and grenades. That sounds like a pretty good "control" to me! And more than enough to start a war in most places!

I suppose that it could also be claimed that the insufferably arrogant name "World Trade Center" was enough provocation in Osama Bin Laden's book to start a War of/on Terror.

Derek

Originally written by Derek Thornton on July 8, 2009 6:48 PM OK, then, the de facto German-controlled Danzig.

...against the Treaty of Versailles, which is what I wanted to point out. The Treaty, again, had split Gdańsk off Germany. Any acts against international treaties are very likely to lead to wars.

Originally written by Liliana Boladz-Nekipelov on July 8, 2009 6:42 PM Which building are you referring to? Did anyone die in that building, or was it just a building that collapsed after the two major building gave way killing over 2,000 people. Is it just some camouflaged theory which is supposed to convince people that America staged the massacre of over 2000 people, whereas the real claim  is that somebody blew up an empty building for insurance purposes, although I do not believe this to be true either, but this is a totally different story and claim.

The 2-hours-video at ae911truth.org, wich you can watch online, will answer all of your questions.

I am sorry Harry, but can you explain what you mean by the last statement, because I am not sure.

I mean there may be a multitude of reasons why governments start wars, but they have in common that they are usually started under a pretext, often a "false flag attack", as described in Alex Jones' video "Terrorstorm", which is also worth to be watched.

I do not believe CIA had anything to do with 9/11 and I will never believe it, unless somebody showed me a reliable video showing CIA agents planting explosives at the World Trade Center and talking to the fundamentalist fighters who flew the planes.

The CIA agents had a good opportunity to plant explosives during the elevator renovation some months before, as described in the 2-hours-video.

I don't remember where, but I read that some of the fighters lived in the same rooms as CIA agents during their flight training. If this is important for you, maybe I can find the source again.

 

Originally written by Harry Bornemann on July 9, 2009 2:02 AM The CIA agents had a good opportunity to plant explosives during the elevator renovation some months before, as described in the 2-hours-video. I don't remember where, but I read that some of the fighters lived in the same rooms as CIA agents during their flight training. If this is important for you, maybe I can find the source again.

Assuming you're right, what do you logically think is the real objective?

I have doubts that they really needed to create a justification of such a grand scale in order to attack Afghanistan. They already bombed the training camps before 9/11.

Originally written by Shiong-Fong Lew on July 8, 2009 10:02 PM Assuming you're right, what do you logically think is the real objective? I have doubts that they really needed to create a justification of such a grand scale in order to attack Afghanistan. They already bombed the training camps before 9/11.

In the history lessons in school I was told that one of the main reasons why Germany started wars was that it was a big business for the heavy weapon industry.  I can only speculate that this is also valid for the U.S., like it is suspected in the video "Terrorstorm", which contains background information as well as speculations, while the videos at ae911truth.org are only about the technical facts of 9/11.

Originally written by Jacek K. on July 8, 2009 5:57 PM ...against the Treaty of Versailles, which is what I wanted to point out. The Treaty, again, had split Gdańsk off Germany. Any acts against international treaties are very likely to lead to wars.

Maybe but as a violation of the Treaty of Versailles it was peanuts just the same. In 1933 Germany stopped paying reparations and started secret rearmament; in 1934 they interfered in Austria's internal affairs; in 1935 they reintroduced compulsory military service leading to a 5-fold increase in the size of their armed forces (a major violation); in 1936 they remilitarized the Rhineland (a major violation); in 1938 they annexed Austria (a major violation) and in 1939 (March) they annexed Memel. I guess by then everybody regarded the Treaty of Versailles as being well and truly violated and Danzig did not even make it to the list of violations.

There was also the shifting of the southern borders to include the Sudetenland, Bohemia and Moravia contrary to the undertaking given when Germany joined the League of Nations. The pressure put on Poland over Danzig is classed under this heading, I believe, not as a violation of Versailles.

You might almost think that Hitler must have been wondering what else he had to do to provoke a real shooting war. That surely was rather frustrating for the man, politicians have it is much easier these days. One convincing apparent WMD program in a satellite picture and Ahmenajad, here we come!

Derek

Originally written by Harry Bornemann on July 8, 2009 8:57 PM Originally written by Shiong-Fong Lew on July 8, 2009 10:02 PM Assuming you're right, what do you logically think is the real objective? I have doubts that they really needed to create a justification of such a grand scale in order to attack Afghanistan. They already bombed the training camps before 9/11. In the history lessons in school I was told that one of the main reasons why Germany started wars was that it was a big business for the heavy weapon industry.  I can only speculate that this is also valid for the U.S., like it is suspected in the video "Terrorstorm", which contains background information as well as speculations, while the videos at ae911truth.org are only about the technical facts of 9/11.

Thank you for all your explanations and all the time you spent, Harry. I still do not believe any of that, the videos don't prove anything at all, and all of this is big propaganda, in my mind.

I have to agree with Liliana in that the videos don't really prove anything. I rember watching footage of the towers comming down and thinking it looked like a controlled demolition but the fact of the matter is that unless someone comes forward who was directly involved and confesses and has undeniable proof, all these claims of a conspiracy is nothing more than speculation.

And as Derek indicated, people give the US government way too much credit for being able to keep secrets. A conspiracy of the magnitude you're suggesting would require too many parties to be leak free.

Originally written by Roy Williams on July 9, 2009 6:00 PM unless someone comes forward who was directly involved and confesses and has undeniable proof,

This is what the investigation with subpoena power is needed for.

A conspiracy of the magnitude you're suggesting would require too many parties to be leak free.

Just some officers who do what they are told to do.

Originally written by John Bunch on July 10, 2009 4:26 AM The architect of the Twin Towers stated that the towers collapsed the way they did because they were designed to collapse that way. Modern skyscrapers are designed to - should such a failure occur - collapse into themselves. That is why it looked "controlled", it was in the design when the thing was built.

If the Twin Towers (WTC 1 and 2) collapsed according to the "pancake theory",
- the extremely solid core columns would still stand, and
- you would find these "pancakes" which were supposedly able to crunch a building, on the ground.

Instead, the core columns were blown apart and distributed over a large area, like everything else of the Twin Towers. And what did the architect say about WTC 7?

Again, I refuse to dignify any 911 discussion based on a conspiracy theory

In my view, the "conspiracy theory" is the story your government made you believe to create a pretext for starting a series of wars.

example: a Washington Post Watergate-type investigation,

I am glad we agree on this point because this is all ae911truth.org is asking for.  The sooner the petition will go through, the sooner this annoying discussion will be finished. 

The AE911Truth Petition:

TO THE MEMBERS OF THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES AND
OF THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES OF AMERICA

Please Take Notice That:

On Behalf of the People of the United States of America, the undersigned Architects and Engineers for 9/11 Truth and affiliates hereby petition for, and demand, a truly independent investigation with subpoena power in order to uncover the full truth surrounding the events of 9/11/01 - specifically the collapses of the World Trade Center Towers and Building 7. We believe there is sufficient doubt about the official story and therefore the 9/11 investigation must be re-opened and must include a full inquiry into the possible use of explosives that might have been the actual cause of the destruction of the World Trade Center Twin Towers and Building 7.

Sincerely,

The Undersigned

Yes, Harry, but as far as I remember from over 7 years ago, they were first blaiming the construction itself partially for the collapse. They thought it was the construction itself that was responsible for the collapse, this is why they wanted an additional investigation, not that CIA blew up the towers.

Unless, they thought that there was also a car with explosives in the garage, like in the Sheikh Mohamed bombing of the World Trade Center earlier.

7 years ago they had to express it more cautiously because the evidence was not yet as comprising and well researched as today, and the suspicions which have been disproved have been discarded.

I am looking forward to the investigation.

Originally written by John Bunch on July 9, 2009 8:26 PM The people who put forth such theories are too attached to their theory and thus cannot be convinced by any evidence (it would be like arguing with someone over their religion). Unless both parties are willing to change their views based on evidence, there is no point in debating.

Good points John. I feel silly now for getting sucked in; I should have known better.  

Originally written by John Bunch on July 9, 2009 8:26 PM The people who put forth such theories are too attached to their theory and thus cannot be convinced by any evidence (it would be like arguing with someone over their religion). Unless both parties are willing to change their views based on evidence, there is no point in debating.

I would rather say this about your side, because you cannot see the evidence in the ae911truth video.  I also think that my view is rather atheist and your view is the religious one, believing in official stories in spite of their contradictions.  There are also people who say that atheism is like a religion too, but if you say that atheists are religious people, these words will lose all of the rest of their fuzzy meanings.

I can only advise you to read what ae911truth.org, firefightersfor911truth.org, pilotsfor911truth.org etc. have to say. Try to find out where they are wrong!

BTW, do you know any other skyscrapers which will not need well-placed explosives to collapse like in a controlled demolition?

Interesting article comparing Iran's recent unrest with political life in the Arab world:

http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052970204908604574330881603442624.html

I find this bit astounding:

So all Arabs combined had a smaller manufacturing capacity than Finland with its five million people, and a vast Arabic-speaking world translated into Arabic a fifth of the foreign books that Greece with its 11 million people translates.

Originally written by John Bunch on August 7, 2009 3:03 AM According to Wright, the Arab world is incredibly insular (but I do think that satellite TV and the Internet are changing that fast).

Not quite as fast, because TV is too biased to get close to the world.

I am always amused when people introducing themselves to me in Addis Ababa say "... and I am Muslim", while the hundred thousands of Turkish Muslims with whom I lived and worked in Berlin never felt this need.

It is also interesting to observe that many Ethiopian Christians (orthodox and others) try to convert me to their view of God, while no Muslim ever tried that.

When they ask me fo my religion  I say "I am Christian by culture and Buddhist by belief."
The most frequent reply: "What is Buddhist?".

Originally written by John Bunch on August 6, 2009 7:03 PM I think that that was from the author who wrote "The Looming Tower", about Al Quida. I met him once. He interviewed over 1,000 people in the Muslim world and he did say exactly those things. If you remove oil from the picture, the Finnish company Nokia, which has 8,000 employees, according to Wright, produces more than all of the Arab world, economically. And Spain translates more books each year than have ever been translated into Arabic (!). According to Wright, the Arab world is incredibly insular (but I do think that satellite TV and the Internet are changing that fast).

Insular...dunno.  But from what I can judge (and especially from my exposure to A Certain Forum on this very site), the Arab world could use some bracing self-criticism.  And not of the kind e.g. "our problem is that we don't have enough Islam in public life."

Gawd, I wish every country in the Arab world could produce a Corazón Aquino.

After my brief visit in Morocco last year, I got interested by the following article from Le Monde Diplomatique this summer: http://www.lemonde.fr/afrique/article/2009/07/15/mohamed-sghir-janjar-le-maroc-que-l-on-decrit-comme-feodal-et-analphabete-est-en-pleine-mutation_1218999_3212.html. Written by an anthropologist it talks about the modernization of the Moroccan society. Specifically:

Les sociétés musulmanes sont en train d'effectuer leur "sortie de la religion", pour reprendre l'expression du philosophe et historien Marcel Gauchet à propos des sociétés occidentales, mais chacune le fait à sa façon. Si, au Maroc, le discours moralisateur est très présent, c'est que l'islamisme tente de donner un sens à toutes les transformations en cours. Les islamistes s'évertuent à recréer le tissu social et à restaurer un ordre patriarcal en voie d'éclatement.

It mentions http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Marcel_Gauchet who wrote on the Western secularization, and says that Islam is trying to restore the patriarchal order which is falling apart as Morocco, and others, are slowly 'departing from religion.' This departure or 'exit of religion' is a very complex process and mentioning Marcel Gauchet makes me want to buy his old http://www.amazon.com/Disenchantment-World-Marcel-Gauchet/dp/0691029377. Le Monde Diplomatique on the current secularization of Morocco:

Contrairement aux apparences, la société marocaine se sécularise, profondément et rapidement. Jusque dans les années 1960, la religion encadrait le citoyen de la naissance à la mort. Aujourd'hui, elle n'occupe plus qu'une petite parcelle de sa vie. 67 % des Marocains font pourtant leurs cinq prières régulièrement.

The article was written by a Moroccan scholar and I always like to hear from people on the ground.

We will never know without checking it on the ground...

Originally written by Harry Bornemann on July 10, 2009 12:14 AM  Please Take Notice That: On Behalf of the People of the United States of America, the undersigned Architects and Engineers for 9/11 Truth and affiliates hereby petition for, and demand, a truly independent investigation with subpoena power in order to uncover the full truth surrounding the events of 9/11/01 - specifically the collapses of the World Trade Center Towers and Building 7. We believe there is sufficient doubt about the official story and therefore the 9/11 investigation must be re-opened and must include a full inquiry into the possible use of explosives that might have been the actual cause of the destruction of the World Trade Center Twin Towers and Building 7. Sincerely, The Undersigned

Old news...?

http://www.popularmechanics.com/technology/military_law/1227842.html

Originally written by John Bunch on August 7, 2009 2:36 AM I actually thought that the exact opposite was the case: the 1970s being the era of secularization, and the modern era the era of religion.

There has also been an "Islamic revival" underway since the late 1960s, in evident reaction to the failure of the (authoritarian) secular modernizers and perhaps culminating in the 1979 revolution in Iran (yes, I know it's not Arab; beside the point).  But nothing says that the two processes can't be at work simultaneously (e.g. in different social classes).

Secular (ir)rationalist or devout believer, I'd like to see Gaddafi as Grand Marshal of SF Pride 2010.  Did you see the photos of him during his recent Italian trip?  He looked positively swish, if not outright flaming.  He could even bring his female bodyguards to the parade...perhaps they could each ride as a motorcycle passenger during the Dykes on Bikes* procession...?

*That's their name.  Don't call me a bigot.

Originally written by Jacek K. on August 7, 2009 1:46 AM The article was written by a Moroccan scholar and I always like to hear from people on the ground.

Admirable practice, but one I presume that doesn't extend to American scholars studying American society?

Originally written by Jacek K. on August 7, 2009 6:46 AM The article was written by a Moroccan scholar and I always like to hear from people on the ground.

You say "people on the ground" to distinguish them from those you mean when you say that "a little bird told you"?

I vaguely remember a US politician, it might even have been Senator John McCain, claiming that the US Navy needed more ships on the ground in the East China Sea. He was not able to get that through Congress though.

It is a tricky metaphor, one that is best avoided, I feel. I can remember one four-star general telling a Congressional committee that the US Army needed another 20,000 boots on the ground in Iraq. The subsequent discussion about having to divide that number of boots by 2 in order to get the total number of soldiers required was not at all illuminating.

Derek

Originally written by Scott Rasmussen on August 7, 2009 8:17 PM But nothing says that the two processes can't be at work simultaneously (e.g. in different social classes).

...and maybe even different countries, considering that the Arab World consists of 25 countries and territories straddling two continents so trying to put all the 325 million people in one pigeonhole might be far-fetched. (The same applies to John's Post #181832.)

Originally written by Scott Rasmussen on August 7, 2009 8:19 PM Originally written by Jacek K. on August 7, 2009 1:46 AM The article was written by a Moroccan scholar and I always like to hear from people on the ground. Admirable practice, but one I presume that doesn't extend to American scholars studying American society?

It surely does. Noam Chomsky has been quoted on TC several times.

Paul Krugman? Is he more acceptable?

Other two US professors have an entire thread to themselves here: The Israel Lobby and U.S. Foreign Policy

And this fellow too: The Hispanic Challenge?

I also mentioned this scholar a few times:

Originally written by Jacek K. on June 30, 2008 11:54 AM In Achieving Our Country: Leftist Thought in Twentieth-Century America (1998), Rorty differentiates between what he sees as the two sides of the Left, a critical Left and a progressive Left. He criticizes the critical Left, which is exemplified by post-structuralists such as Michel Foucault and postmodernists such as Jean-François Lyotard. Although these intellectuals make insightful claims about the ills of society, Rorty holds that they provide no alternatives and even present progress as problematic at times. On the other hand, the progressive Left, exemplified for Rorty by John Dewey, makes progress its priority in its goal of "achieving our country." Rorty sees the progressive Left as acting in the philosophical spirit of pragmatism. ...

And you?

Generally, TC is perceived as being heavily US-biased. For example, John has brought up several other names of American scholars studying American society. How come you have missed all our discussions?

Originally written by Scott Rasmussen on August 7, 2009 10:04 PM Old news...? http://www.popularmechanics.com/technology/military_law/1227842.html

No, old rebutted would-be-debunking news...

Originally written by John Bunch on August 8, 2009 1:49 AM That is a joke about TC being "US-biased", I assume...

In the sense that we keep talking a lot about the US here, as if it were the center of the universe!

Isn't it?

The center of the world, Liliana, is today as debatable as is the center of Europe. See http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Geographical_centre_of_Europe for the latter.

For the former, compare:

Navel of the World is a term which may refer to:

• Baboquivari Peak Wilderness in Arizona
• Cusco, Peru, in Creation myth
• Easter Island, a location in the south Pacific Ocean
• Foundation Stone in Jerusalem
• Fountain of Cho in Mercadia, a fictional environment for the game Magic: The Gathering
• Mythical sites on Japanese maps
• Pacanda island on Lake Pátzcuaro in Mexico
• Sierra Nevada de Santa Marta mountain range in Colombia, as defined by the Arhuacos tribe
• Tórshavn, the capital of the Faroe Islands, as referred to by author William Heinesen

Middle Kingdom = The Chinese name for their country, so called because they believed it was the center of the world.

Originally written by Jacek K. on August 8, 2009 10:56 AM In the sense that we keep talking a lot about the US here, as if it were the center of the universe!

It is where all the action is, man! Where else can you find the biggest financial crises, the worst health care system dollar-for-dollar, the biggest mouths, the greatest budget deficit, the most medical malpractice, the highest national debt, the crookedest financial advisers, the highest murder rate, the most lawyers and religious wackos per square foot, the highest rate of mortgage foreclosures, the most narcotics consumers, the worst beer, the most illegal abortions, the highest consumption of peanut butter, ...  (I am beginning to make these up now but you will get the idea ...)

Derek 

And the best life.

Originally written by Jacek K. on August 8, 2009 12:52 PM Navel of the World is a term which may refer to: Tórshavn, the capital of the Faroe Islands

Faroe Islands

Anyone?

Originally written by Jacek K. on August 8, 2009 5:45 PM Originally written by Jacek K. on August 8, 2009 12:52 PM Navel of the World is a term which may refer to: Tórshavn, the capital of the Faroe Islands Faroe Islands Anyone?

Something like that may be :D

Georgia O'keefe

Needless to say Georgia O'Keefe was also an American artist...

We started with Iran and we unavoidably end with the United States.  

Apparently all routes, not roads, go to New York.

Originally written by John Bunch on August 8, 2009 5:28 PM Derek, is that a joke ?

I was half-kidding, mainly to give you an opening, John. Of course it is a great country but I wouldn't want that to go to your heads. The greater the country, the greater the blemishes, that is inevitable, but you lot do some very strange things sometimes and can annoy the rest of the planet without even seriously trying.

For example, take the reception given to a couple of incompetent female journalists who attempted to cross the border illegally into North Korea when that aging womanizer, William Jefferson Clinton, managed to do a deal to get them released into his custody and bring them back to the USA in an aircraft belonging to Dow Chemicals. If there was any justice in this world they would have had to stay a few years doing hard labor in North Korea and then been allowed to serve out the rest of their sentences in a woman's penitentiary in the USA. Instead of that, they get a reception fit for conquering heros. Completely baffling!

I wonder what is planned for the three idiot backpackers who wandered into Iran from Iraq under the eyes of the Iranian border guards shouting warnings at them to turn back? I suppose that they will be given a ticker-tape parade down Fifth Avenue after they are brought back at great expense by Buffalo Bill Clinton?

Originally written by John Bunch on August 8, 2009 5:28 PM If the U.S. is so bad, why do we have net immigration ?

Because you all are a soft touch, anybody can get in, if not through the front door then through the back!

Derek

Fifth Avenue, I do not think so: they would need too many permissions to parade there, plus probably they would not be strange enough, or original enough for New York, who knows. Washington perhaps yes, that might happen.

As per the immigration, why are there ads of the following content in newspapers, at least anecdotal ads; I will trade a 3 bedroom condo in Mystery Country for a sleeping bag in New York

Something like that may be :D Georgia O'keefe

Dina, does this depict any particular location?

Maxi

Originally written by Derek Thornton on August 9, 2009 4:43 PM Originally written by John Bunch on August 8, 2009 5:28 PM Derek, is that a joke ?  half-kidding, opening, great, country, heads, blemishes, inevitable, lot, strange, annoy, planet, seriously, trying, reception, incompetent, journalists, cross, illegally, North Korea, aging, womanizer, Jefferson, deal, released, custody, USA, aircraft, Dow Chemicals, justice, world, stay, years, hard, labor, serve, penitentiary, reception, conquering, baffling, wonder, idiot, Iran, Iraq, border, warnings, Fifth Avenue, expense, Buffalo Bill

You've done it again!

I have "shortlisted" a few words that flew at me when I read your Joyous Sunday Sermon.

Nanna

Originally written by Maxi Schwarz-Bastami on August 9, 2009 11:19 AM Dina, does this depict any particular location? Maxi

Supposedly these are some hills near the home and studio of the artist in Abiquiu, New Mexico.

Purple Hills Near Abiquiu, 1935, oil on canvas, 16" x 30"

Bad lands roll away outside my door—hill after hill—red hills of apparently the same sort of earth that you mix with oil to make paint. All the earth colors of the painter's palette are out there in the many miles of bad lands.

Georgia, "About Myself," catalog statement, 1939

Originally written by Harry Bornemann on August 8, 2009 1:05 AM Originally written by Scott Rasmussen on August 7, 2009 10:04 PM Old news...? http://www.popularmechanics.com/technology/military_law/1227842.html No, old rebutted would-be-debunking news...

Well, you can rebut anything in a motion...but the judge may end up dismissing your case anyway.

Since we're 40 years on from the first moon landings...do you have an opinion whether they may be a hoax?  I recall watching an interview with some Taliban troglodytes a few years ago in which they said man had never been to the moon because Allah would never allow it. 

Re 9/11...Bin Laden admitted to planning and executing the event, but there is also some "evidence" that International Jewry was behind it.  Which can only mean...Bin Laden is a crypto-Jew!

Hey...Scott just makes the connections....

Originally written by Jacek K. on August 7, 2009 3:48 PM Generally, TC is perceived as being heavily US-biased. For example, John has brought up several other names of American scholars studying American society. How come you have missed all our discussions?

I don't know about the (unattributed) perception, but for me any bias in that direction has been driven by those "regular contributors" to TC who've for years used these forums to express their Bush obsessions (and not in the American Dad sense of the phrase...).

Originally written by Liliana Boladz-Nekipelov on August 9, 2009 6:57 PM As per the immigration, why are there ads of the following content in newspapers, at least anecdotal ads; I will trade a 3 bedroom condo in Mystery Country for a sleeping bag in New York

Because they cost the same per month?

A sleeping bag in New York may be totally free of charge, though probably less comfortable than a 3 bedroom condo somewhere. Yet, some people would prefer it. It is anecdotal of course: I do not believe it literally, although who knows: after 3 days in some places I do not like that much, I might agree with that in a literal sense.

Originally written by John Bunch on August 9, 2009 9:33 PM ... and then were humiliated, as was Britain, and then got a hero's welcome back home in Jolly 'Ole England ? Based on your logic, those lads should be doing "hard labor" in Iran ??

No, sir. You made up that bit about the "hero's welcome"! In fact, there was public outrage when it became known that some of them had been allowed to sell their story to the media. The adverse reaction to the incident culminated in an official inquiry, the findings of which have never been made public. There was official high-level Royal Navy blame to be shared for the incident which was a major policy blunder and was not the fault of the seamen involved who behaved correctly under the circumstances. That is something completely different.

Your idiot backpackers could very well have been wandering into a minefield. It would not surprise me to learn that they were and that they had imbecile's luck and managed somehow not to tread on one. Wait until they get interviewed by Larry King after the tickertape parade and we will learn the rest of the story, which will, of course get sold to the media and end up in a ghost-written best-seller.

I am itching to find out if they were convinced that the border was not protected by mines because there was no sign in English saying "WARNING: DO NOT TREAD ON THE MINES". To my personal knowledge, the Turkey-Syria border (not all that far away) is protected by minefields clearly signposted on the Turkish side with:

MAYINLI BÖLGE
MAINE ZONE

- "maine zone" being the Turkish notion of the English expression "minefield". I bet that the Iraqi or Iranian notion of the English expression "minefield" is not much more elucidating.

And I can't wait to see TV news shots showing the idiots' relatives tying yellow ribbons to every tree and post in their home towns.

I weep for all mankind!

Derek

Originally written by Scott Rasmussen on August 9, 2009 10:22 PM ...for me any bias in that direction has been driven by those "regular contributors" to TC who've for years used these forums to express their Bush obsessions ...

Yeah, those were the years...

Today, the other side is paying us back in their own coin:

As I noted yesterday, the comparison of an anonymous person in the 2004 MoveOn.org ad contest of Bush to Hitler generated a massive media firestorm for a full week, with all sorts of political figures and organizations vehemently condemning the actions of this anonymous individual.  As a result, I contacted many of those people to ask for their reaction to yesterday's comparison of Obama and Hitler by GOP leader Rush Limbaugh, speaking to his audience of 15 million people. ...

It's really amazing -- though not at all surprising -- that when an anonymous Internet user compares Bush to Hitler, the media goes into Full Hysteria Alert, but when the most influential conservative figure in the country does the same thing, they utter barely a peep of recognition.  http://www.salon.com/opinion/greenwald/2009/08/07/limbaugh/index.html?source=newsletter

Originally written by John Bunch on August 10, 2009 12:14 AM So North Korea basically kidnaps these people and then sentences them in a kangaroo-type trial, and you blame the people who were kidnapped ?

Is that a question addressed to me? If so then my answer is that nobody was kidnapped. The two women have admitted entering North Korea illegally and being arrested in flagrante delicto. They have expressed their regret at having done so. So have their families. The only pleas that I have read from their side is a plea for leniency on the grounds a) that one of them has a little daughter who misses her mum dreadfully, and b) that one of them was being treated for a stomach ulcer before going to China. It cannot be a kangaroo court if the accused admit their guilt!

Maybe the USA should get some advice from the North Korean authorities on how to secure national borders effectively?

Derek

Originally written by John Bunch on August 7, 2009 8:47 PM Jacek, I grew up in the 1970s and 1980s in America. I went to college in the 1980s and we had of course Muslims at our college. But none of the women wore headscarves. Go to any college now and you will not only see headscarves, but also full-length burqas. I have seen it. I am "on the ground", and I do not see secularization. Quite the contrary.

In France, they say yes, but you have to see it in the right proportions over there:

French newspaper Le Monde reports on two recent reports prepared by the French police intelligence agencies for the government on the topic of the burka in France.  Both conclude that it's a very minor phenomenon, but the investigators point out that less than ten years ago, the burka and niqab, were unknown in France.  These documents, seen by Le Monde, come to inform the government, precisely at the moment when a parliamentary commission was set up on the topic. http://islamineurope.blogspot.com/2009/07/france-burka-wearing-marginal.html
 

Originally written by Jacek K. on August 10, 2009 10:15 PM Originally written by John Bunch on August 7, 2009 8:47 PM Jacek, I grew up in the 1970s and 1980s in America. I went to college in the 1980s and we had of course Muslims at our college. But none of the women wore headscarves. Go to any college now and you will not only see headscarves, but also full-length burqas. I have seen it. I am "on the ground", and I do not see secularization. Quite the contrary. In France, they say yes, but you have to see it in the right proportions over there: French newspaper Le Monde reports on two recent reports prepared by the French police intelligence agencies for the government on the topic of the burka in France.  Both conclude that it's a very minor phenomenon, but the investigators point out that less than ten years ago, the burka and niqab, were unknown in France.  These documents, seen by Le Monde, come to inform the government, precisely at the moment when a parliamentary commission was set up on the topic. http://islamineurope.blogspot.com/2009/07/france-burka-wearing-marginal.html

In the 60s, we had the western mini-skirt revolution.

Do you think this Islamic attire trend (a worldwide phenomenon starting around the 90s) is also just a passing cultural trend, a desire to keep a distance from western excesses, a more ingrained desire to stand up for the religion, or merely the role that TV plays in showing the world the style of dressing at the center of Islamic culture?

Originally written by John Bunch So North Korea basically kidnaps these people and then sentences them in a kangaroo-type trial, and you blame the people who were kidnapped ?

Um, these women were not "kidnapped."  They, by their own admission, entered North Korea illegally.  They were criminals, and were arrested.  Was their sentence unduly harsh?  Almost certainly.  But we can't distort the truth just to advance our own agenda here.  These women were criminals.  The US also arrests people who enter the country illegally, and often holds them for months at a time in detention centers as they are processed for deportation.  It is intellectually dishonest for people who insist on arresting every Mexican who enters the US illegally to claim that North Korea (and now Iraq) has no right to arrest and detain people who illegally enter their countries.  Moreover, I am not at all convinced that these women (and the guys who strayed into Iraq) are not spies.  They very well could be, and we shouldn't all be so quick to believe the "it was an innocent mistake"story  that is being passed off as irrefutable truth.

Originally written by Jacek K. on August 10, 2009 5:57 AM Originally written by Scott Rasmussen on August 9, 2009 10:22 PM ...for me any bias in that direction has been driven by those "regular contributors" to TC who've for years used these forums to express their Bush obsessions ...  Yeah, those were the years... Today, the other side is paying us back in their own coin: As I noted yesterday, the comparison of an anonymous person in the 2004 MoveOn.org ad contest of Bush to Hitler generated a massive media firestorm for a full week, with all sorts of political figures and organizations vehemently condemning the actions of this anonymous individual.  As a result, I contacted many of those people to ask for their reaction to yesterday's comparison of Obama and Hitler by GOP leader Rush Limbaugh, speaking to his audience of 15 million people. ...

Erm...yes...but the guy is pill-addicted and swinish, right?  Anyway, the Hitler comparisons have lost their power to shock.

From the "Girls Just Want to Have Sums" episode of The Simpsons...

Skinner: Today, we celebrate the first of many, many, many, many diversity forums. Why is it that women "appear" to be worse at math than men? What is the source of this "illusion" or as I call it, the biggest lie ever told.
Lindsey Naegle: You're a worse version of Hitler!
Skinner: Please believe me. I-I understand the problem of women. (he moves from behind the podium revealing he's wearing a purple dress and purple heels) See. (the audience gasps)
Nelson: Ha, ha! (sing-songy) The principal's a tranny.
Skinner: Am I wearing women's clothes? I didn't notice. When I look in my closet, I don't see male clothes or female clothes. They're all the same.
Edna Krabappel: Are you saying that men and women are identical?
Skinner: Oh, no, of course not! Women are unique in every way.
Lindsey Naegle: Now he's saying men and women aren't equal!
Skinner: No, no, no! It's the differences of which there are none that makes the sameness exceptional. Just tell me what to say! (he starts to breathe heavily then pass out)
Chalmers: Oh dear. Um, attention students. Due to nervous exhaustion and diarrhea of the mouth... (the students start laughing) Yes, yes, yes. I said diarrhea.

Originally written by David Kallans on August 10, 2009 4:24 PM The US also arrests people who enter the country illegally, and often holds them for months at a time in detention centers as they are processed for deportation.  It is intellectually dishonest for people who insist on arresting every Mexican who enters the US illegally to claim that North Korea (and now Iraq) has no right to arrest and detain people who illegally enter their countries.

As much as I believe and hope in my Christian fervor that the North Korean regime will one day burn in Hell, I see nothing in David's reasoning that can be questioned from the point of view of logic.

Originally written by John Bunch on August 10, 2009 8:47 PM if Mexican journalists, or Canadian journalists, reporting on refugees, were to briefly stray into U.S. territory, and then arrested, the U.S. would release them almost immediately.

John,

Wouldn't the US government first run a thorough background check of such would-be journalists to ascertain whether they are not terrorists (Maybe they were caught with a bottle of drinking water smuggled through airport detectors to an aircraft, what do we know?) or, as explained by David, spies? In either case, I doubt they would be released "almost immediately."

Originally written by David Kallans on August 10, 2009 4:24 PM The US also arrests people who enter the country illegally, and often holds them for months at a time in detention centers as they are processed for deportation.  It is intellectually dishonest for people who insist on arresting every Mexican who enters the US illegally to claim that North Korea (and now Iraq) has no right to arrest and detain people who illegally enter their countries.

The Immigration does not send them to labor camps though, neither are they sentenced to 15 years in prison for crossing the border. The worst that could happen to them would be that they would be detained for a month or two and released on bail or send to their country of origin. If they want to go to their country of origin, I think, in fact, they could be released after a day or two and send there.

Originally written by John Bunch on August 10, 2009 7:47 PM This is a ridiculous discussion in my view. I can turn it around and ask you: if Mexican journalists, or Canadian journalists, reporting on refugees, were to briefly stray into U.S. territory, and then arrested, the U.S. would release them almost immediately.

Aren't you misleading your own self by using the words "briefly" and "stray", John? My understanding is that the two women journalists deliberately entered North Korean territory and were caught. They left North Korean territory some four months later with Bill Clinton. Where do you get the idea that that was "brief"? There has never been any suggestion that North Korean border guards illegally entered China to capture them or that the Chinese forced them to go back into North Korea again so how can their crossing into North Korea have been "brief"? I seem to be missing something here.

What about the three guys who entered Iran illegally and almost immediately ran into the arms of the Iranian border guards who had been shouting at them to go away? Did they "stray" into Iran "briefly"? They are still there, I understand.

Derek

Originally written by Liliana Boladz-Nekipelov on August 10, 2009 9:42 PM The Immigration does not send them to labor camps though, neither are they sentenced to 15 years in prison for crossing the border. The worst that could happen to them would be that they would be detained for a month or two and released on bail or send to their country of origin.

You cannot compare the US Immigration Service with North Korean border guards. If you remember right, it was the US Immigration Service that renewed the student visas of Mohammad Atta and his boys and sent those new visas to the flying school at which they had been taking lessons on how to fly a 737 but not to take off or land it and that was six months after they had already crashed into the WTC and the Pentagon.

The US Immigration Service is not exactly a model of how to keep borders secure! I would expect to learn that North Korean "journalists" regularly come and go anywhere they like in the US and nobody does a thing to monitor them.

Just because the US Immigration Service is monumentally incompetent does not necessarily mean that they are exemplary respecters of human rights. My wife and I were once refused entry into the US by the US Immigration Service and, together with our honest faces, we managed to talk them out of it.

Derek

Because they are too good. It is still better, however,  than a police state and sending people to labor camps. Otherwise we could only from Stalin and Hitler.

Originally written by Liliana Boladz-Nekipelov on August 11, 2009 5:42 AM The Immigration does not send them to labor camps though, neither are they sentenced to 15 years in prison for crossing the border.

It wasn't the Immigration serivices, but they did hold them (Russians, Eeat Europeans, etc) for many many years until exchanged on a one to one basis with similar Americans held overseas.

Weren't the "journalists" in North Korea for the obvious purposes of getting information and nothing else?

Originally written by Liliana Boladz-Nekipelov on July 8, 2009 6:42 PM Which building are you referring to? Did anyone die in that building, or was it just a building that collapsed after the two major building gave way killing over 2,000 people. Is it just some camouflaged theory which is supposed to convince people that America staged the massacre of over 2000 people, whereas the real claim  is that somebody blew up an empty building for insurance purposes, although I do not believe this to be true either, but this is a totally different story and claim.

It is not a different story and claim.

The point is not whether someone died in WTC 7, and it is not whether Larry Sylverstein committed an insurance fraud.

The point is whether WTC 7 was blewn up or not.

If it was blewn up the question is how the explosives got in there in the few hours between the crashes and the collapse of WTC 7, since all demolition experts say they would need at least one week to plant them.

This means that WTC 7 must have been prepared before 9/11, and this raises the question whether WTC 1+2 have also been prepared, and if yes, this raises a lot of other questions..

To prevent this series of questions, the government denies even that WTC 7 has been blown up, although it is documented beyond any doubt by the videos.

As Richard Gage said: "Convincing is not the problem, handling the consequences is."
 

Originally written by John Bunch on August 10, 2009 1:14 AM So North Korea basically kidnaps these people and then sentences them in a kangaroo-type trial, and you blame the people who were kidnapped ?

Polish press got a fit in this silly season because a Polish soldier,  one of those who helped invade Afghanistan, is presumed captured by the Taliban.

1) This is outrageous. Why would someone in Afghanistan capture a Polish soldier who was on a peacekeeping mission there after all? Don't they have some Geneva Conventions protecting invaders? I mean, the United States would immediately comply with the relevant one.

2) Can't the Polish government get Bill Clinton to negotiate the return of the captured ally?

Jacek

Originally written by Shiong-Fong Lew on August 11, 2009 12:49 AM Originally written by Liliana Boladz-Nekipelov on August 11, 2009 5:42 AM The Immigration does not send them to labor camps though, neither are they sentenced to 15 years in prison for crossing the border.   It wasn't the Immigration serivices, but they did hold them (Russians, East Europeans, etc) for many many years until exchanged on a one to one basis with similar Americans held overseas. Weren't the "journalists" in North Korea for the obvious purposes of getting information and nothing else?

I never heard about any Russians, not to say other Eastern Europeans, captured by the Americans and kept for years, unless they were proven and confirmed spies.

Originally written by Harry Bornemann on August 11, 2009 1:12 AM Originally written by Liliana Boladz-Nekipelov on July 8, 2009 6:42 PM Which building are you referring to? Did anyone die in that building, or was it just a building that collapsed after the two major building gave way killing over 2,000 people. Is it just some camouflaged theory which is supposed to convince people that America staged the massacre of over 2000 people, whereas the real claim  is that somebody blew up an empty building for insurance purposes, although I do not believe this to be true either, but this is a totally different story and claim. It is not a different story and claim. The point is not whether someone died in WTC 7, and it is not whether Larry Sylverstein committed an insurance fraud. The point is whether WTC 7 was blewn up or not. If it was blewn up the question is how the explosives got in there in the few hours between the crashes and the collapse of WTC 7, since all demolition experts say they would need at least one week to plant them. This means that WTC 7 must have been prepared before 9/11, and this raises the question whether WTC 1+2 have also been prepared, and if yes, this raises a lot of other questions.. To prevent this series of questions, the government denies even that WTC 7 has been blown up, although it is documented beyond any doubt by the videos. As Richard Gage said: "Convincing is not the problem, handling the consequences is."

Sorry, Harry, with all my respect, this is absolutely absurd and not true at all, in my opinion.

Have you heard about resonance, as a result of  which  buildings can collapse even if heavy trucks are driven on not very sturdy roads close to buildings?

Originally written by Liliana Boladz-Nekipelov on August 11, 2009 1:46 PM Originally written by Harry Bornemann on August 11, 2009 1:12 AM The point is whether WTC 7 was blewn up or not. If it was blewn up the question is how the explosives got in there in the few hours between the crashes and the collapse of WTC 7, since all demolition experts say they would need at least one week to plant them. This means that WTC 7 must have been prepared before 9/11, and this raises the question whether WTC 1+2 have also been prepared, and if yes, this raises a lot of other questions.. ... it is documented beyond any doubt in the videos. Sorry, Harry, with all my respect, this is absolutely absurd and not true at all, in my opinion.

What exactly is not true, anything up there?

Have you heard about resonance, as a result of  which  buildings can collapse even if heavy trucks are driven on not very sturdy roads close to buildings?

Yes, I know catastrophic resonance, but it cannot have happened here, it was not even stormy (or do you mean the vibrations from the people running away?).