Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

Rename: Ghazal Omid on the Iranian Revolution

Collapse

Unconfigured Ad Widget

Collapse
X
 
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • lonewolf
    replied
    Originally posted by jazzcyclist
    Originally posted by lonewolf
    As long as the clerics control Iran the only hope is for relaxed oppression. They will still have an Islamic theocracy but some mullahs are less medieval than others. Much of the human rights abuse is personal prejudice, not supported by Islam.
    There are some Mullahs who openly advocate separation of "church" and state. Unfortunately, most are in political prison.
    Do you think that if Khatami had had his way when he was President, that he would have transformed Iran's theocracy into a government that most Iranians would have been content with?
    Iranians consider Khatami less oppressive than Khamenei . While Ahmadinijad is just a mouthpiece for the theocracy, he is also a true zealot and, if one believes his rhetoic, a dangerous man.

    Leave a comment:


  • jazzcyclist
    replied
    Originally posted by lonewolf
    As long as the clerics control Iran the only hope is for relaxed oppression. They will still have an Islamic theocracy but some mullahs are less medieval than others. Much of the human rights abuse is personal prejudice, not supported by Islam.
    There are some Mullahs who openly advocate separation of "church" and state. Unfortunately, most are in political prison.
    Do you think that if Khatami had had his way when he was President, that he would have transformed Iran's theocracy into a government that most Iranians would have been content with?

    Leave a comment:


  • jazzcyclist
    replied
    Originally posted by bad hammy
    Originally posted by SQUACKEE
    Also, there are many on the left that are outraged that Obama is increasing the U.S. military fighting in Afganistan.
    Only those who were not paying attention. This is exactly what he said he would do.
    Exactly! He campaigned on doing just that.

    Leave a comment:


  • lonewolf
    replied
    As long as the clerics control Iran the only hope is for relaxed oppression. They will still have an Islamic theocracy but some mullahs are less medieval than others. Much of the human rights abuse is personal prejudice, not supported by Islam.
    There are some Mullahs who openly advocate separation of "church" and state. Unfortunately, most are in political prison.

    Leave a comment:


  • SQUACKEE
    replied
    Originally posted by bad hammy
    Originally posted by SQUACKEE
    Also, there are many on the left that are outraged that Obama is increasing the U.S. military fighting in Afganistan.
    Only those who were not paying attention. This is exactly what he said he would do.
    I agree, i was just making a point about one party being a warmonger.

    Leave a comment:


  • gm
    replied
    Originally posted by bad hammy
    Originally posted by SQUACKEE
    Also, there are many on the left that are outraged that Obama is increasing the U.S. military fighting in Afganistan.
    Only those who were not paying attention. This is exactly what he said he would do.
    Precisely.

    Leave a comment:


  • bad hammy
    replied
    Originally posted by SQUACKEE
    Also, there are many on the left that are outraged that Obama is increasing the U.S. military fighting in Afganistan.
    Only those who were not paying attention. This is exactly what he said he would do.

    Leave a comment:


  • SQUACKEE
    replied
    Originally posted by jazzcyclist
    Rafsanjani finally speaks out.
    http://www.google.com/hostednews/ap/art ... QD99G4MD80

    Something I've been thinking about is what would the neocons and Likudniks do if the trio of Rafsanjani, Khatami and Mousavi are successful at having new elections held and having Mousavi win the Presidency, or even better, have Khamenei removed from power and replaced with someone to their liking. There likely won't be any difference between that governemnt and the current one when it comes to the nuclear issue, but can the warmongers turn around and demonize a government that they have been championing?
    Forget politics, only a fool wants war. Also, there are many on the left that are outraged that Obama is increasing the U.S. military fighting in Afganistan. Plus Hilliary says as Prez she would nuc Iran if it attacked Isreal.

    Leave a comment:


  • jazzcyclist
    replied
    Rafsanjani finally speaks out.
    http://www.google.com/hostednews/ap/art ... QD99G4MD80

    Something I've been thinking about is what would the neocons and Likudniks do if the trio of Rafsanjani, Khatami and Mousavi are successful at having new elections held and having Mousavi win the Presidency, or even better, have Khamenei removed from power and replaced with someone to their liking. There likely won't be any difference between that governemnt and the current one when it comes to the nuclear issue, but can the warmongers turn around and demonize a government that they have been championing?

    Leave a comment:


  • lonewolf
    replied
    Stay tuned.

    Leave a comment:


  • jazzcyclist
    replied
    Originally posted by lonewolf
    I posted this on the now locked Iran revolution precipice forum but I don't think it violates any guidelines to inform that the next rumble will be July 9.
    What happens then?

    Leave a comment:


  • lonewolf
    replied
    I posted this on the now locked Iran revolution precipice forum but I don't think it violates any guidelines to inform that the next rumble will be July 9.

    Leave a comment:


  • BruceFlorman
    replied
    This story may not be over yet.

    http://www.nytimes.com/2009/07/05/world ... an.html?hp
    Leading Clerics Defy Ayatollah on Disputed Iran Election

    CAIRO — The most important group of religious leaders in Iran called the disputed presidential election and the new government illegitimate on Saturday, an act of defiance against the country’s supreme leader and the most public sign of a major split in the country’s clerical establishment.
    ...
    “This crack in the clerical establishment, and the fact they are siding with the people and Moussavi, in my view is the most historic crack in the 30 years of the Islamic republic,” said Abbas Milani, director of the Iranian Studies Program at Stanford University. “Remember, they are going against an election verified and sanctified by Khamenei.”
    ...
    Since the election, the bulk of the clerical establishment in the holy city of Qum, an important religious and political center of power, has remained largely silent, leaving many to wonder when, or if, the nation’s most senior religious leaders would jump into the controversy that has posed the most significant challenge to the country’s leadership since the Islamic Revolution.

    With its statement Saturday, the association of clerics — formed under the leadership of the revolution’s founder, Ayatollah Ruhollah Khomeini — came down squarely on the side of the reform movement.
    ...

    Leave a comment:


  • jazzcyclist
    replied
    It would appear that 2009 is destined to go down as another one of those pivotal years in Iran's history, similar to 1953 and 1979. At least that's how former President Mohammad Khatami sees it. I wonder how different things might look in Iran and in the Mideast today if we had left their government alone in 1953.

    Leave a comment:


  • lonewolf
    replied
    Originally posted by BillVol
    How do you know Ghazal, lone?
    I edited and published her book, "Living in Hell" and continue to edit her English language articles, blogs, petititions, etc.

    Leave a comment:

Working...
X