Jump to content
Guests can now reply in ALL forum topics (No registration required!) ×
ShiaChat.com
Guests can now reply in ALL forum topics (No registration required!)
In the Name of God بسم الله

Learned

Advanced Member
  • Content Count

    2,048
  • Joined

  • Last visited

Everything posted by Learned

  1. Theres way too much to be said in any substantive manner in one post ... and I don't have time to think and write right now. But I promise I'll start a thread later explaining my perspective on things. Right now, I'll leave you with this to chew on: Think about what Imam Khomeini established in the Islamic Republic, and how remarkable and significant it was ... from a Shi'a historical perspective. Think about the real political capital that Imam Khomeini weilded in Iran, verses that of Ayatollah Khamenei today, and the systemic need for such a person to weild that type of political capital and
  2. 1. Mousavi is not a central player in any of this. He is the face of something much bigger than him. 2. The only thing any of the parties in this want ... is power. Either to gain more or retain what they have. 3. None of this is really about a contested election or Ahmadinejad's power. Ahmadinejad is nothing more than a face and figurehead, and is relatively powerless in Iran. Mousavi would be just as powerless in his place as President. 4. Most Muslims actually have no clue or understanding of what is actually going on.
  3. This is quite simply a false perversion of history. Lebanon was never a "fantastic" country, and the romanticized versions of it that you referring to are fabricated myths, completely detached from reality. The pre-civil war Lebanon was Lebanon of the elite. Lebanon of the ruling class Maronites. It was a deeply sectarian and elitist country, that neglected its people both on the basis of class and sect. The majority of people lived in poverty and ignorance; none more so than Shi'as. The only area that say prosperity was a portion of Beirut. Why do you think civil war broke out, and when it di
  4. Totally untrue. The US, Saudis, and Egyptians have been interfering openly and blatantly. The US embassador to Lebanon literally dictated to March 14, on tv, what they should and shouldn't do. Hariri spent more time in Saudi Arabia taking orders from the monarchy than he did in Lebanon doing anything useful. And Egypt had a direct hand in a lot of the political stages during the past 4 years, and its "mediators" were widely reported on and covered in the media. This is massively different than supporting a party. If all the Americans, Saudis, and Egyptians did was throw money at March 14 and n
  5. Lebanon was neither prosperous nor peaceful before 2005. Israel committed over 12,000 violations of Lebanese sovereignty between 2000 and 2005, including cross-border raids, kidnapping of citizens, and bombings. As for prosperous, during the Rafik Hariri era, between 1992 and 2004, Lebanon's national debt went from 4 billion to 40 billion. Lebanon was never the Geneva or Paris of the Middle East. What people refer to, when they use this false and inaccurate expression, is an era when Lebanon was in the hands of an elite sector of society dominated by a portion of the Maronite sect, and the go
  6. Fyst, perhaps it is time that you develop a less confrontational and more amiable method of discourse; one that isn't grounded in asserting your intellectual prowess over others, partly by resorting to only responding when you can absolutely prove someone else wrong (or yourself right), and partly by abasing others with terms such as "fool", "idiot", and "thick-skulled". Perhaps it would be just as smart, and much more wise for you to engage in discourse that has context and substance; discourse that is qualitative in its intellectual value and representative of your thoughtfulness and whit; d
  7. I understand that emotions are high and that these are tense times for the Islamic Republic and all those who want to see it thrive, but allow me to assert that one shouldn't be depressed over the situation. I don't want to explain in detail (yet) but what is happening right now is, in a way, quite overdue and quite inevitable, and will probably be for the better. What we are witnessing is history taking its course and catching up with Islamic Republic; a course that is convoluted in the helical clash of dialectic discourse, and just like any good part of history, it is necessarily turbulent.
  8. The someone else is Ayatollah Khamenei. The elements here are the military leadership of the IRGC, AN, and the clerical elements that usually back AN, and the IRCG's considerable presence in Parliament. It really isn't a 'takeover' or a proper coup. Its more like the eventual culmination of what has been a gradual process. Ayatollah Khamenei has been steadily in decline and the IRGC has been steadily on the rise, but the scales have always been tipped in Ayatollah Khamenei's favor up until the elections which tipped them the other way.
  9. Did that conversation ever take place between the IRGC and Mousavi? No, that is obviously false. I will refrain from answering what you were really asking though..
  10. ^The article's tone approaches that of reality, but in some of its evaluations and conclusions of what transpired and what may transpire, it is not accurate. Small example: That the IRGC implemented a coup against Rafsanjani. This is a half-accurate evaluation. It is true that the IRGC has grown immensely powerful and increasingly independent lately, and that it implemented a coup. However, the coup wasn't against Rafsanjani (or Mousavi). It was against someone else. Someone who represented the establishment ... not someone in relative opposition.
  11. No comment. Untrue. Iran is and has been an oligarchy comprised primarily from the post-revolution clerical ranks (non-dissidents). The supreme leader is still the most powerful single person in Iran, but his power is in decline and his status is greatly diminished from that of Ayatollah Khomeini; the most powerful non-clerical body in the country are the revolutionary guards. Ahmadinejad, as President of Iran, has almost no influence in Iran and makes no real decisions. The only thing he effects as President is the budget, and he as an individual is nothing more than a small part of a much
  12. 1. No 2. Why do you think they wouldn't?
  13. ^Your first two options will not bring about a final solution to the current crisis. This is no longer just about Mousavi or a contested election. There is far more at stake here.
  14. It isn't right for the lot of you to be insinuating anything about Zareen. Even among the moderators of this website, our political views vary widely and are sometimes in stark contradiction and opposition, but this isn't an excuse to assume things about other individuals and pin unfair and false labels on them. If you disagree with someone's views, then question their arguments and ideas, but do it in the spirit of dialogue and inquiry, not from a narrow and rigid "with me or against me" mentality.
  15. What I generally make of slanted conjecture ... absolutely nothing.
  16. Al-Sharq Al-Awsat is not a newspaper. It is a Saudi government propaganda outlet, formerly ran by Abdur-Rahman Ar-Rashid (who now runs Al-Arabiya), and is currently part of a media conglomerate owned by Prince Salman bin Abdul Aziz. As for Amir Taheri, he is an employee of Prince Salman's media outfit, a dedicated propagandist for the Shah, and is notorious for fabricating news and articles. For example, he claimed in 2006 that Iran's Parliament passed a law that "envisages separate dress codes for religious minorities, Christians, Jews and Zoroastrians, who will have to adopt distinct colour
  17. Maybe not so much a completely secular system as they want a more pluralistic system ... in both cases as opposed the current theocratic autocracy. When you say secular, that isn't like the US or like Britain ... they aren't secular countries. Secular is like Turkey or France; a system whereby the outward manifestations of religion are discouraged and even combated in the official and societal sense. I don't think that's what Iranians want at all.
  18. Can you discredit his views and rebut his arguments, and not attack him personally? Generally, doing so is more effective than linking to a blog whose author obviously despises the guy.
  19. They would most likely be fined heftily, and definitely suspended (perhaps even expelled from their leagues), and defamed in the media.
  20. Obama, in his own words today: "I strongly condemn these unjust actions, and I join with the American people in mourning each and every innocent life that is lost." "We deplore the violence against innocent civilians anywhere that it takes place." "Those who stand up for justice are always on the right side of history."
  21. Thus Spake The Hypocrite in Chief: Did you all hear Obama today? He announced that he, and the rest of the world, are "appalled and outraged" by events in Iran, and that he is "mourning" every lost life. How nice of him. However, when was the last time you heard him, or any other American President for that matter, "appalled and outraged" over the torture that goes on in Jordanian dungeons, or Egypts consistant and frankly far more extreme violence and repression against its own people, or Saudi Arabia's oppression of women and repression of freedoms, or Israel's blatant, fanatical, and unpre
  22. Mousavi is actually more conservative and more to the right than Ahmadinejad is.
  23. This is actually a very good question. In 1997, the reformist candidate (Khatami) beat the conservative establishment candidate (Nateq-Nouri) with 70% of the vote. In 2001, the reformist candidate (Khatami) destroyed the conservative candidate (Tavakkoli) with 78.3% of the vote. In 2005, the reformist vote was not diminished, but rather split between several candidates in the first round (Karroubi, Ghalibaf, Moeen, and Mehralizadeh), with Rafsanjani and Ahmadinejad barely edging out the other candidates. In the second round, Ahmadinejad won in a landslide not because he was popular (he was a
  24. Amazing in what respect? I found it to be characteristically un-resounding.
×
×
  • Create New...