I'll make this brief

[cali]

and to the point. It should be possible, on DU, to make critical remarks about the Iranian regime, without being accused of buying into propaganda or supporting an attack on Iran. It should be possible to criticize Islamic fundamentalism without having to make a disclaimer about how Christian fundamentalists are also to be deplored.

Sadly, neither is possible. And I don't think that's remotely a good thing.

[Name removed]

1. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[cali]

7. You're right..

It is like Saddam. Long before even GWI, I deplored Saddam's regime. I organized and protested against both wars. I detested the Reagan and Bush I administrations's support of Saddam, and their part in enabling him. Really, it's not to difficult to condemn a regime without advocating war or being hysterical about the purported dangers. But you didn't really address the problem I laid out; that it is virtually impossible to criticize certain 'sacred cows' on DU without getting hysterically attacked.

[HiFructosePronSyrup]

11. Did you?

How much do you deplore all of the other cruel dictators around the world, many of who are supported by the US government?

[HiFructosePronSyrup]

16. I guess I'm not following you.

Because in another thread in GD, you criticize Hugo Chavez for criticizing a regime which is certainly bloodier than Ahmadinejad's. Yet... you don't want people to criticize people who critize regimes...

Nope. Not following.

[cali]

22. Actually, what I really did

was comment that his remark about bush being the devil, was stupid and crude. How the fuck is calling bush the devil, cogent criticism of anything. Way to go twisting my words.

[HiFructosePronSyrup]

26. LOL

"stupid" and "crude" is oh so much more cogent then "devil."

:rofl:

[cali]

28. Within the context I used

it in, it's far, far more cogent. I'm not the leader of a nation. BTW, just how is Chavez calling bush the devil any better than bushco's idiotic 'axis of evil'? Ooh, are you going to chastise me for calling bushco's statement idiotic? No, I thought not. Do try employing a little logic before you write.

[HiFructosePronSyrup]

29. LOL

Here's the difference.

Iran, six years ago, was a country making progress. It was conservative, but they were making progress.

And it was this "axis of evil" nonsense which drove them to the right and got Ahmadinejad elected in the first place. So these people who are now advocating a war with Iran (yes, that includes people in this thread) and go on about how "Ahmadinejad is pure evil" and "I wish Bush would blow him up" and "Chavez is a tyrant" are contributing to the problem.

Bush, however, IS the problem. He's beyond diplomatic niceties, and everybody knows it. That's why Chavez got applause when Bush got none. And this was from diplomats who, I'm going to have to assume, know a bit more about cogent diplomacy than you.

Oh, and no, sorry. "Stupid" and "crude" ain't anymore cogent "devil."

[cali]

32. First of all

it would behoove you not to assume I don't know any history. Particularly as you are not able to point out any errors I've made in that regard.

Let. Me. Explain. This. Clearly.

I called a statement stupid and crude. I didn't call Chavez a name. I didn't suggest in any way, shape or form that he's evil or bad. I have never done so. I think those kind of statements are, as I said, stupid, crude and inflammatory.

That you're unable to discern the difference between my statement and Chavez' devil remark, is quite telling.

Continue on with your duplicity now.

[The Magistrate]

38. Who, Sir, Do You Find Here Advocating War With Iran?

Despite my having been greatly involved in several threads lately on the general topic, not one comment here pressing for war with Iran by a member of this forum has come to my attention.

You may contact me privately with particulars if you feel a public statement would be innappropriate.

[Jcrowley]

34. A small point

With Chavez and many other folk of all stripe south of the border the language is always filled with metaphor and double meaning. Political language, everyday language is much more textured than what is for the most part literalist interpretations that encumber American lexicon.

And then there's the record...

[cali]

41. That is a good point

and I thank you for bringing it to my attention. Still, I do stand by my original claim, that Presidents and heads of state should avoid inflammatory language.

[cali]

23. dupe

self-delete.

[Donald Ian Rankin]

33. Which regime do you think is bloodier than Ahmadinejad's?

If, as I suspect, you're talking about America, then you're talking utter nonsense - for all that I detest him, Bush has used his power far, far less badly than Ahmadinejad.

[HiFructosePronSyrup]

36. LOL.

Alright. Which countries has Ahmadinejad invaded?

[The Magistrate]

40. In Many Ways, Mr. Rankin, Ahmadinejah Is Beside The Real Point

He is little more than a figure-head, and a new and temporary figure-head, for the clerical councils of the Islamic Republic of Iran. These, and their Revolutionary Guard, are the real power, and the real difficulty, the Iranian regime presents. Ahmadinejah is simply the face they have chosen to present themselves to the world, and administer day by day routines of government and economic policies.

[Warren Stupidity]

57. 100,000+ dead Iraqis?

What are you talking about?

[durrrty libby]

21. "hysterically attacked."

I can guarantee that no one has ever changed a mind

using that type of rhetoric. But you knew that already

[warrens]

2. Iran has been hijacked by nutcases

Just like a certain country located between Canada and Mexico.

However, Christian fundamentalism is a much, much larger threat to me than Muslim fundamentalism.

[CJCRANE]

46. Bingo.

Iran is not threatening my human rights. I feel sorry for Iranians if it is such a big problem. But it's not my main concern.

On edit: of course, as you imply, the biggest threat is much closer to home.

[ThomWV]

3. You can post what you like, but you can't make people agree with you.

And if people think you have been fooled into believing something which is not true would you then condem them for pointing out your mistaken belief?

[Liberal Dose]

13. ITA. I can't expect everyone to agree with me, and I'm grateful for

opposing viewpoints. Unless, of course, they're stupid. :popcorn:

[ThomWV]

15. Amen Brother!

Agreed!

[Liberal Dose]

19. That would be sister.

Maybe the Colbert avatar threw you off. :spank:

[PassingFair]

53. Stop already, with your hysterical responses! n/t

[Tyler Durden]

4. I'll make this brief...

or is it "briefs?"

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image:RockoSeatToStardom.JPG

[The Deacon]

5. Cali,

I am glad you make this point. We should, whether we agree with a position or not, be able to treat one another's opinions with respect, going only so far as to refute points with facts.
btw - this position has nothing to do with the fact I agree with you - the current Iranian President is even nuttier (if that is possible) than our own.

[hfojvt]

20. Are you aware

that the current Iranian President is not the guy who runs the country? Also, 'refuting with facts'. Facts are funny things. If an argument echoes a Republican talking point, isn't that a fact? If another issue, such as Christian fundamentalists should warrant more attention isn't that also a fact?

The OP seems to be asking that we be as obsessed/worried about Iran and Islamic fundamentalists (Tara-ists :scared:) as the RW is. Gosh darn it, we do not seem to understand or remember the lessons of 9-11.

[The Deacon]

24. No

I'm not worried about remembering the 'lessons of 9/11' in this case - rather, the lessons of the Iran Hostage Crisis (which this current President participated in as a hostage taker.)
And yes, I am aware that (currently) the Iranian President has less power than say, a colonial congress in America in 1775 - until they decided to take that power themselves. Ayatollah Khameni is not the Ayatollah Khomeni.
If a point "echoes" a Republican talking point, it does not automatically make it wrong - you still need to refute it with a "fact" - and absolute Truth only resides in the Pope. If you're looking for absolutes I suggest you head over to www.vatican.org or their mirror site: www.yourefuckingnuts.com Every other place in the World truth is conditional on the latest facts.
By the way, your "rant" beautifully illustrates Cali's point.

[hfojvt]

25. that's pretty funny

Did you post that when you were still in the 700 club?

You did not answer any of my arguments. Instead the American colonies are somehow brought in as well as the American hostages. 'Remember the Maine, Plymouth Rock and the golden rule.'

For some reason absolutes are brought up and you make an attack on the Pope and Catholics. "Your argument is so bad you should head over to 'you're fu$%ing nuts dot com'". Do you find a way to work that into all of your posts? Is that your idea of a substantive argument?

Facts can sometimes be irrelevant too. If an OP posts a rant, for example, about a leaking roof that we should be worried about, then someone else's opinion that the dam upstream is not gonna hold is a far more important fact than arguing about the roof. The leaking roof would be Islamic Fundamentalism and the tenuous dam would be Christian fundamentalism.

Also, on absolutes, I give them a little more credence, since the 'latest' facts usually confirm, once again, that F = ma or g = Gm1*m2 over 4 pi r squared. The anchor holds.

Your reply, otoh, rather hideously illustrates the inability of some DUers to discuss/disagree in a civil manner.

[The Deacon]

31. Okay

Small words this time, no attempt at humor or historical context.
No: that a point might also be a Republican Talking Point IS NOT a refutation.
Yes: the Iranian President doesn't have any appreciable power. Doesn't change the fact he's an evil bastard who has on number of occasions PERSONALLY committed "outrages on personal dignity."
Yes: The only place where facts are not subject to re-evaluation is the Vatican, with a little theological argument they like to call: "Papal Infallibility." This is not an attack on Catholics - it is an attack on a Pope ("The words I quoted were from Emperor Manuel II") and a mindset which has no place in rational argument. Again, if you are in love with absolutes I suggest the religion pages - because the "physical reality" of Newton depends entirely on Frame of Reference. (Otherwise, Einstein could have dispensed with the pain of learning Riemann geometry & stuck with simple calculus.)

[hfojvt]

50. I did not say it was a refutation

I said it was a fact.

Sometimes in a proof people will skip a step. Since the theory which has been verified Brazilians of times in the last six years is that "Republican talking points are typically erroneous (or lies or hype)" then the observed fact that something is a Republican Talking Point means that it is likely that it will, again, prove to be a lie.

But I am not sure why I am making these arguments when I usually am on the other side asking people not to be dogmatic, or kneejerk critics or applauders.

Neither do I want to get into an argument about whether physical reality depends 'entirely' on frame of reference. I would not consider a geometry class to be 'painful' either.

[Taxloss]

6. Agreed 100%.

Rec'd

:thumbsup:

[ThomCat]

8. The same thing is often said here about

critical remarks about Israel.

Even among progressives, people like to get defensive and reactionary.

[upi402]

9. concur

[Sammy Pepys]

10. Agreed...n/t

....

[JCMach1]

12. I agree somewhat... there are however sometimes koolaid

drinkers here when it comes to the ME.

I know plenty of Iranians who are highly critical of their own government. That doesn't necessarily mean they support the US by the way!

Unfortunately, a few DUers and Americans in-general cannot separate the politics of Islamic fundamentalism from the religion. That leads to dangerous over-generalizations that sometimes border on racism. I know many Muslim fundamentalists who wouldn't harm a fly... who in fact would go out of their way to help you if you were in need.

Bottom-line, fundamentalism and politics don't mix. However, our war on this issue should start at home.

[Lone_Star_Dem]

14. This is a two edged sword.

It should be possible to point out how Ahmadinejad outspoke bush without being accused of being blind to his faults.

It's a wise person that knows and understand the strengths of those they disagree with, isn't it?

Sadly, many people react rather than use their minds and stop and think.

[Name removed]

17. Deleted sub-thread

Sub-thread removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[zonkers]

18. This place has changed. More registered users means more morons.

And it always are the morons that make the most noise.

[LSK]

27. with this trigger happy President ?????

I would not wanting Bush thinking he has ANY support in attacking Iran and any world criticizing Iran could play into Bush's hands.

We are very close to a war that will KILL America.

[Donald Ian Rankin]

35. I think that's a position it's impossible to defend.

I think that we have a moral duty to criticise Iran's government (which, while not the worst in the world by any means, is pretty damn bad) - its record on human rights in particular - the same as any other bad government.

Refraining from doing so because you think it will give support to Bush is bad.

Actually defending it - i.e. lying - is absolutely despicable.

[LeftishBrit]

48. I agree with you

Otherwise, we're doing the same as the right-wingers when they defended governments such as Pinochet's Chile on the grounds that they were anti-communist.

[Renew Deal]

30. Here's an example of what's wrong with DU

when things are going wrong.

A post about a republican congressman supporting terrorism in the 80's gets 6 replies while a post saying Chavez is nuts for calling Bush the devil at the UN gets 9. There is so much wrong with that.

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=364&topic_id=2167708&mesg_id=2167708

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=102&topic_id=2521146&mesg_id=2521168

[Malikshah]

37. Yup-- it's hardly possible-- what with the same old same old

going on--

the same stories being trotted out...

the negative reports repeated over and over again...

the same red herrings being thrust in front of many of us...

Yup-- after a while, it gets old.

And as one is not allowed to call people out on dusting off the many ill-informed and quasi-bigoted reports and rehashing them as so much stale vomit, many decide to address in a more oblique fashion the motives behind the rehashing, the motive behind the constant litany of negative imagery, half-truths, and the like by arguing with examples closer to home.

Such is life.

Get over it.

[bigtree]

39. Just assert your views and defend them. Consistency is a good thing.

The number of detractors who respond to your posts may not represent a consensus of opinion here or anywhere else

[The Straight Story]

42. Agree 100% with you (nt)

[Bake]

43. Frankly, some of the response to OP proves cali's point

For example: Don't dare suggest Chavez is anything other than brilliant and/or morally superior to U.S. Don't dare suggest Ahmadinejad is anything other than a statesman or the necessary result of failed U.S. policy.

Moreover, the threads re: Pope vs. Islam prove the same point. Surprisingly few people came out and condemned the EXTREMISTS who murdered the nun, firebombed churches, etc. Yet the vast majority here was quick to condemn the Pope. I've seen damn few condemn the idea that any criticism of Islam results in a "death sentence" from the extremists -- which, if that's not an inhuman and immoral proposition, then WTF!!!!!

Some people just don't understand that "the enemy of my enemy" is NOT necessarily my friend.

Bake

[Name removed]

45. Deleted sub-thread

Sub-thread removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[Leopolds Ghost]

56. As I mentioned downthread, it is silly to mouth platitudes.

Especially if your words have no effect or if the incidents you are deploring have occurred before, intermittently, and at random.

"I deplore the killing of the nun in Somalia, too bad I can't do anything about it, but I shall use it as an opportunity to show how caring and righteous I am!"

Hell, I deplore people who go on about the AIDS crisis in Africa, which has killed millions of people, without actually taking it seriously enough to do the things to stop it that they would do, say, if an African terrorist killed a million people.

[hunter]

44. Iran is far beyond any shit we can deliver.

Whatever we think simply doesn't matter.

Iraq is another Viet Nam.

Iran is something worse.

I don't think we'll go there.

[gully]

47. Hear hear!

nt

[CJCRANE]

49. I'll worry about Iranian civil liberties

when I get mine back.

[dkofos]

51. Did you think DU was a free speech forum??

[cali]

52. heh.

(slaps forehead lightly)

[Leopolds Ghost]

54. "Deploring" people with broad-brush strokes is both superficial and

and counter-productive.

it is a Bush strategy.

And no, I don't like when people talk meaningless trash about Christians, or atheists, or gays, or rank-and-file conservatives for that matter. It is pointless and counterproductive, as mentioned.

Deplore the action, not attack the person. Of course, I was taught that in Sunday School so that philosophy might not apply here on DU.

OK, hows this for defenders of rationality: You attract more flies with honey.

I realize this doesn't apply to mass murderers, although Gandhi did claim that non-violent civil disobedience was effective.

But we can't even get dems to do that here at home. Only anarchists engage in that sort of disorderly behavior! :eyes:

[T Town Jake]

55. You're right. But I wouldn't count on it.

(n/t)

[Warren Stupidity]

58. Until I am convinced that we are not going to war with Iran

I will continue to view with vast skepticism posts that appear to be joining in to the hate-Iran campaign. And yes we have seen many posts here explaining how good an idea it would be to bomb the crap out of Iran on the off chance that they might actually have a nuclear weapon sometime this century. I don't know what the motives of the hate Iran posters are, but they are playing along, knowingly or not, with the neocon propaganda campaign in progress to justify the Next Big Adventure.

[cigsandcoffee]

59. I agree with you completely.

Particularly about the "Christians are bad too!" disclaimers. My God, do I get sick of seeing those.

Threads critical of Christians run wild with hyperbole and outright hostility, and nary a soul brings up Islamic fundamentalists. But post something egregious about fundamentalism in Iran, and the most you can hope for is something along the lines of "I despise fundamentalists of all sorts, be they Christians here or unidentified people elsewhere."

[donheld]

60. "It is be possible, on DU, to make critical remarks

about the Iranian regime." Iran indeed has a nutcase for a leader but then so do we. That's what is so frightening about this whole situation. Nutjobs in polar oppositon could lead to one hell of a war.

[magellan]

61. I agree

I don't post half as much as a lot of you do, and I'm still finding myself more and more in the position of having to give credentials and disclaimers in order to fend off those who make a habit of accusing you for what you don't say.

It's a real dialogue-killer, that black & white thinking. Then again, it has helped me immensely in understanding and anticipating the next RW attacks.

Disclaimer: I'm not accusing those on DU who engage in this behavior of being RW moles. That I take on a case-by-case basis!