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

Norman Finkelstein In Iran

Rate this topic


Recommended Posts

  • Forum Administrators

We already have an over-abundance of ideology, it's more of a disease than a cure, in its dominant use anyway, it isn't king, it's mostly dangerous.  This is why Chomsky is important, he can cut through the BS straight to the root of an issue.  Zizek was wrong, Chomsky isn't purely empircal, to suggest this is beyond ludicrous, he organizes his arguments based on a framework of understanding of ethical and moral principles (which he admits are not grounded in unshakable evidence), appeal to elementary human emotions and rich factual insight.  Zizek mostly just postures, you can take an hour long talk of his, shrink it down to a couple of sentences, and you wouldn't have missed anything of substance.  If it wasn't for his speaking style and typical European intellectual posturing, he wouldn't have much of an audience anyway.  Chomsky is the total opposite, his style is utterly mundane and lacks charisma, yet you have teenagers with an attention span of 5 seconds engaged for hours.  That says something, it isn't posturing, it isn't the big words, it isn't the humor but it isn't just strictly facts either. 

 

I am pretty left leaning myself, so I do agree with most of what Zizek has to say and I find him quite entertaining at times, but Chomsky is mostly right about him.  Ideologically speaking, they are quite similar anyway.

 

 

This over-abdundance of ideology needs to be dissected and interpreted, not bypassed.  This is what gives the meaning beyond the mechanics. 

 

What Chomsky does is abandon the large elephant in the room.  He will describe everything else in the room in perfect detail, but will ignore the giant overarching shadow, mostly because it is obfuscating and amorphous.  I don't think he really gets to the root at all, rather the whole tree save the root.  Whatever is above the ground, but not what is below the ground. 

 

In a sense, Chomsky explains how a machine works and Zizek explains why a machine works.  They both attempt at least. 

 

Zizek is harder to understand than Chomsky, because you are internalizing the haphazard thoughts of one man.  The whole time is spent trying to align two minds under one orbit, which will only happen a fraction of the time, some of the time.  That's why it seems like you get no substance. 

 

Chomsky stays firm and rigid, so it's easy to align with him everytime.  He is captivating (at least to me) because he can articulate and back up our preconceived notions about why the world is messed up.  We all know the world sucks, is full of contradictions, unfairness, manipulation, and oppression.  Chomsky, in detail, explains the ins and outs of it, and gives us that positive reinforcement.  It's always great to say, "Yeah, the world sucks.  And I know why!  For example, XYZ in 1953-54.....".  He's a drug that gets people high.  That's why his fanboys are the most vociferous, and people like you defend him strongly.  I think he's ok, but again I feel emptiness at the end. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Veteran Member

This over-abdundance of ideology needs to be dissected and interpreted, not bypassed.  This is what gives the meaning beyond the mechanics. 

 

What Chomsky does is abandon the large elephant in the room.  He will describe everything else in the room in perfect detail, but will ignore the giant overarching shadow, mostly because it is obfuscating and amorphous.  I don't think he really gets to the root at all, rather the whole tree save the root.  Whatever is above the ground, but not what is below the ground. 

 

In a sense, Chomsky explains how a machine works and Zizek explains why a machine works.  They both attempt at least. 

 

Zizek is harder to understand than Chomsky, because you are internalizing the haphazard thoughts of one man.  The whole time is spent trying to align two minds under one orbit, which will only happen a fraction of the time, some of the time.  That's why it seems like you get no substance. 

 

Chomsky stays firm and rigid, so it's easy to align with him everytime.  He is captivating (at least to me) because he can articulate and back up our preconceived notions about why the world is messed up.  We all know the world sucks, is full of contradictions, unfairness, manipulation, and oppression.  Chomsky, in detail, explains the ins and outs of it, and gives us that positive reinforcement.  It's always great to say, "Yeah, the world sucks.  And I know why!  For example, XYZ in 1953-54.....".  He's a drug that gets people high.  That's why his fanboys are the most vociferous, and people like you defend him strongly.  I think he's ok, but again I feel emptiness at the end. 

 

A desperate and unintelligible attempt to put Zizek above Chomsky.

 

Fail.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Forum Administrators

A desperate and unintelligible attempt to put Zizek above Chomsky.

 

Fail.

 

That wasn't my attempt.  I actually see them as complementary to each other, and I highlighted their unique contributions.  But since Chomsky fanboyism and idolization runs deep, its all misconstrued to you.

 

And those two likes you have exist most likely from hatred of me, rather than their opinion on this subject. 

Edited by magma
Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Advanced Member

Isn't this debate a silly one? Zizek has made some invaluable contributions to theory and our understanding of ourselves and the world around us, but the breadth and scope of his work and thought is no where near that of Chomsky. There are few living parallels to Chomsky's academic contributions. I've engaged far more with Zizek's work, particularly his critique of neoliberalism. So, I would agree that often Zizek complements Chomsky. But it's a huge stretch to try to make the two of them sound comparable to each other.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Veteran Member

What Chomsky does is abandon the large elephant in the room.  He will describe everything else in the room in perfect detail, but will ignore the giant overarching shadow, mostly because it is obfuscating and amorphous.  I don't think he really gets to the root at all, rather the whole tree save the root.  Whatever is above the ground, but not what is below the ground. 

 

No he doesn't, you obviously haven't paid any attention to him.  Chomsky demystifies the world and shatters popular myths much more efficiently, he always gets back to the underlining philosophies and principles that define us, and moves forward utilizing intelligently compiled facts, which is what sensible people of reason do, the sheer amount of data in Marx's analysis is a case in point, someone who Zizek has profound admiration for. There is constant reference to classical liberal/conservative thought, enlightenment values, left philosophy, libertarian ideology and so on.  Exposing inherent contradictions and ills of markets, roots of power consolidation in a state capitalist apparatus and all its accompanying vehicles (Neo liberal policy, class warfare, intellectual subordination, professional apathy etc) is far from ignoring the elephant in the room, so I don't quite understand what you are on about.    

Edited by Bonafide Hustler
Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Forum Administrators

No he doesn't, you obviously haven't paid any attention to him.  Chomsky demystifies the world and shatters popular myths much more efficiently, he always gets back to the underlining philosophies and principles that define us, and moves forward utilizing intelligently compiled facts, which is what sensible people of reason do, the sheer amount of data in Marx's analysis is a case in point, someone who Zizek has profound admiration for. There is constant reference to classical liberal/conservative thought, enlightenment values, left philosophy, libertarian ideology and so on.  Exposing inherent contradictions and ills of markets, roots of power consolidation in a state capitalist apparatus and all its accompanying vehicles (Neo liberal policy, class warfare, intellectual subordination, professional apathy etc) is far from ignoring the elephant in the room, so I don't quite understand what you are on about.    

 

Again, I don't mind the guy and I respect the work that he's done.  But I can't stand the nonstop veneration and secular canonization, and I definitely can't stand his howling fanboys, thinking he's some modern day Plato. 

 

His statement above about Iran is embarrassing and ridiculous for somebody apparently so well read.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Veteran Member

Again, I don't mind the guy and I respect the work that he's done.  But I can't stand the nonstop veneration and secular canonization, and I definitely can't stand his howling fanboys, thinking he's some modern day Plato. 

 

His statement above about Iran is embarrassing and ridiculous for somebody apparently so well read.

 

It's not good to be a fanboy to anyone. So let's leave this at that. Respect for scholarship should be learned and qualified not absolute because thinking people do not venerate personalities; they only admire them.

 

And his statement about Iran is not ridiculous at all.

 

First of all do not forget he's an Anarchist with an A. It is from this position he takes on the concept of the modern state with its god-like power to interfere in and dictate peoples' lives. In the words of a writer a tin pot dictator in Middle East today holds far more power than the mightiest of Ottoman Sultans ever did, thanks to modern technology. And this makes state power a very immoral phenomenon, always to be resisted and always to be questioned.

 

Let me do what Zizek does, that is, make a fancy statement to bring home the point: If you (plural) are not a dissenter to the official narrative of the state power, you might as well flush yourself down the toilet.

 

To come back to Iran, their current government without doubt is a big improvement on Pahlavi times but there is no reason to eulogize it. It is a faulty system of power like in any other state which curtails people's rights and discriminates against on the bases of, inter alia, political persuasion and religious affiliation.

 

A government renounces its moral authority when it jails people for questioning its power and policies. I don't want to justify such a system a power. Do you?

Edited by Marbles
Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Veteran Member

Again, I don't mind the guy and I respect the work that he's done.  But I can't stand the nonstop veneration and secular canonization, and I definitely can't stand his howling fanboys, thinking he's some modern day Plato. 

 

His statement above about Iran is embarrassing and ridiculous for somebody apparently so well read.

 

You have the vast majority of this planet deeply engrossed in some form irrational celebrity/ideology/cult worship,  and what irks you is a bunch of Chomsky fan boys who admire an intellectual who:

 

Remains humble about his scholarship, constantly encourages people to question and verify his work

Engages ordinary people (spends hours answering emails himself and lecturing), encourages and empowers them

Is rigorous and meticulous, spending countless hours doing incredibly tedious work (going through thick volumes of declassified documents, keeping up with the press, latest research in like 20 different disciplines) not out of personal interest but a sense of responsibility

Has been defying dominant elitist intellectual traditions for over 60 years without taking a break

 

All this and more on top of being one of the brightest minds in recent memory, apart from being a major figure in analytical philosophy,  his work in linguistics and cognitive science is unparalleled.  He also happens to be one of the most cited scholars in humanities. 

 

Comparing him to Plato? Such exercises are silly, but there is no doubting he's one of the greatest intellectuals ever.  Finkelstein is dead right, it will be a major blow when he leaves us.

 

I do wish there were more fan boys around, would make for a better world.

As far as Iran is concerned and its context, obviously he doesn't have a very favourable view of the regime, despised the Shah even more, but as compared to states like Saudi Arabia he considers Iran a flourishing democracy, he's virtually opposed to state power in principle.  

Edited by King
Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Veteran Member

And his statement about Iran is not ridiculous at all.

 

It absolutely is.

 

You say:

 

"It is a faulty system of power like in any other state which curtails people's rights and discriminates against on the bases of, inter alia, political persuasion and religious affiliation."

 

This is wrong.

 

The level of "rights" or "freedoms" or "liberties" or "[insert some other nonsense word]" any country has, is not some kind of voluntary choice. It's not like ordering off the menu at Burger King and some countries inexplicably chose "non-freedom." Rather, it is the involuntary product of a country's circumstance. This can include historical experience, cultural factors, level of social consciousness amongst the people, and international situation.

 

Meaning, for example, China's long history of top-heavy hierarchical government lends to China having a top-heavy hierarchical government today. Or, for example, take the United States' historical rejection of socialism in all forms and compare it to Western Europe, which accepted socialism in limited forms. This is why we folks here in the US see the concepts of "free education" as almost inconceivable. These are cultural and historical differences which impact differences in political systems.

 

And then there is the question of the international situation. Many popular, elected governments have died early because their enemies use "free speech" as a means of subverting them. For example: Allende, Mosaddegh. It is very easy to imagine that either of these governments could have survived if they had implemented more restrictions and taken a fuller control over the media. Or take, for example, the failed Venezuelan color revolution in the late 1990s. All but ONE of the Venezuelan TV stations were in private hands, and all of these private channels were broadcasting anti-Chavez propaganda non-stop. Imagine that! And Chavez was nearly overthrown. Not because he lacked popular support, but because his internal enemies were enabled by his powerful external enemies and they were framing the events in a way that was untrue.

 

This is the plight of governments who adopt stances against imperial powers. Allende fell, Fidel remained. Mosaddegh fell, the Islamic Republic remained. Taking control over media, and not allowing it to be used as a means of subversion, is not just acceptable, absolutely essential in this context.

 

In Iran, not only are these attempts at subversion painfully evident (ahem), but Iran lacks the culture of "free speech" and all that jazz. If anyone in Iran says he wants free speech for all, he's a lying liar. What he wants is freedom to say what HE wants. He doesn't respect anyone else's freedom. That's why a lot of people nowadays who have adopted a stance against the Islamic system, are in the habit of waxing poetic about Reza Khan's success at suppressing the power and influence of the religious establishment. It's a joke, really. But it's not all that surprising. After 2500 years of monarchy, it's perfectly natural for Iranians to not be accustomed to these concepts. And any attempts since the revolution to expand the accepted media discourse have only resulted in subversion.

 

Any discussion of Iran's level of "freedom of speech" or any of that, has to take these factors into consideration. Otherwise, the resulting opinion will be worthless.

 

How can the Iranian government be a threat to the Iranian people when it is pretty much a perfect reflection of the Iranian people. In fact, it is a rather flattering reflection of them, honestly.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Veteran Member

It absolutely is.

 

You say:

 

"It is a faulty system of power like in any other state which curtails people's rights and discriminates against on the bases of, inter alia, political persuasion and religious affiliation."

 

This is wrong.

 

The level of "rights" or "freedoms" or "liberties" or "[insert some other nonsense word]" any country has, is not some kind of voluntary choice. It's not like ordering off the menu at Burger King and some countries inexplicably chose "non-freedom." Rather, it is the involuntary product of a country's circumstance. This can include historical experience, cultural factors, level of social consciousness amongst the people, and international situation.

 

Meaning, for example, China's long history of top-heavy hierarchical government lends to China having a top-heavy hierarchical government today. Or, for example, take the United States' historical rejection of socialism in all forms and compare it to Western Europe, which accepted socialism in limited forms. This is why we folks here in the US see the concepts of "free education" as almost inconceivable. These are cultural and historical differences which impact differences in political systems.

 

And then there is the question of the international situation. Many popular, elected governments have died early because their enemies use "free speech" as a means of subverting them. For example: Allende, Mosaddegh. It is very easy to imagine that either of these governments could have survived if they had implemented more restrictions and taken a fuller control over the media. Or take, for example, the failed Venezuelan color revolution in the late 1990s. All but ONE of the Venezuelan TV stations were in private hands, and all of these private channels were broadcasting anti-Chavez propaganda non-stop. Imagine that! And Chavez was nearly overthrown. Not because he lacked popular support, but because his internal enemies were enabled by his powerful external enemies and they were framing the events in a way that was untrue.

 

This is the plight of governments who adopt stances against imperial powers. Allende fell, Fidel remained. Mosaddegh fell, the Islamic Republic remained. Taking control over media, and not allowing it to be used as a means of subversion, is not just acceptable, absolutely essential in this context.

 

In Iran, not only are these attempts at subversion painfully evident (ahem), but Iran lacks the culture of "free speech" and all that jazz. If anyone in Iran says he wants free speech for all, he's a lying liar. What he wants is freedom to say what HE wants. He doesn't respect anyone else's freedom. That's why a lot of people nowadays who have adopted a stance against the Islamic system, are in the habit of waxing poetic about Reza Khan's success at suppressing the power and influence of the religious establishment. It's a joke, really. But it's not all that surprising. After 2500 years of monarchy, it's perfectly natural for Iranians to not be accustomed to these concepts. And any attempts since the revolution to expand the accepted media discourse have only resulted in subversion.

 

Any discussion of Iran's level of "freedom of speech" or any of that, has to take these factors into consideration. Otherwise, the resulting opinion will be worthless.

 

How can the Iranian government be a threat to the Iranian people when it is pretty much a perfect reflection of the Iranian people. In fact, it is a rather flattering reflection of them, honestly.

 

Yes, there are one hundred and one ways to excuse the status quo.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Veteran Member

It absolutely is.

 

You say:

 

"It is a faulty system of power like in any other state which curtails people's rights and discriminates against on the bases of, inter alia, political persuasion and religious affiliation."

 

This is wrong.

 

The level of "rights" or "freedoms" or "liberties" or "[insert some other nonsense word]" any country has, is not some kind of voluntary choice. It's not like ordering off the menu at Burger King and some countries inexplicably chose "non-freedom." Rather, it is the involuntary product of a country's circumstance. This can include historical experience, cultural factors, level of social consciousness amongst the people, and international situation.

 

Meaning, for example, China's long history of top-heavy hierarchical government lends to China having a top-heavy hierarchical government today. Or, for example, take the United States' historical rejection of socialism in all forms and compare it to Western Europe, which accepted socialism in limited forms. This is why we folks here in the US see the concepts of "free education" as almost inconceivable. These are cultural and historical differences which impact differences in political systems.

 

And then there is the question of the international situation. Many popular, elected governments have died early because their enemies use "free speech" as a means of subverting them. For example: Allende, Mosaddegh. It is very easy to imagine that either of these governments could have survived if they had implemented more restrictions and taken a fuller control over the media. Or take, for example, the failed Venezuelan color revolution in the late 1990s. All but ONE of the Venezuelan TV stations were in private hands, and all of these private channels were broadcasting anti-Chavez propaganda non-stop. Imagine that! And Chavez was nearly overthrown. Not because he lacked popular support, but because his internal enemies were enabled by his powerful external enemies and they were framing the events in a way that was untrue.

 

This is the plight of governments who adopt stances against imperial powers. Allende fell, Fidel remained. Mosaddegh fell, the Islamic Republic remained. Taking control over media, and not allowing it to be used as a means of subversion, is not just acceptable, absolutely essential in this context.

 

In Iran, not only are these attempts at subversion painfully evident (ahem), but Iran lacks the culture of "free speech" and all that jazz. If anyone in Iran says he wants free speech for all, he's a lying liar. What he wants is freedom to say what HE wants. He doesn't respect anyone else's freedom. That's why a lot of people nowadays who have adopted a stance against the Islamic system, are in the habit of waxing poetic about Reza Khan's success at suppressing the power and influence of the religious establishment. It's a joke, really. But it's not all that surprising. After 2500 years of monarchy, it's perfectly natural for Iranians to not be accustomed to these concepts. And any attempts since the revolution to expand the accepted media discourse have only resulted in subversion.

 

Any discussion of Iran's level of "freedom of speech" or any of that, has to take these factors into consideration. Otherwise, the resulting opinion will be worthless.

 

How can the Iranian government be a threat to the Iranian people when it is pretty much a perfect reflection of the Iranian people. In fact, it is a rather flattering reflection of them, honestly.

 

A discussion about how we got here isn't the same as simply stating the realities on ground.  Prior to the second world war, rather top heavy centralized states were far more efficient at mobilizing a united front and enjoyed tremendous mass support as opposed to the so called "Free" democracies of Europe.  Were these governments a perfect reflection of their people?  I'd say not necessarily, and its a heck of a lot more complicated than even what you have alluded to.  Consider Germany itself, the peak of western civilization, to economic collapse, to Hitler, and back again.

 

Here is the context: 

 

Noam Chomsky isn't convinced the United States has the right to impose sanctions at all.

"My feeling is that the entire discussion is kind of surreal," Chomsky said last month during an interview with HuffPost Live. "There are more fundamental questions to ask. What justification does the United States have to impose sanctions in the first place?"

The United States, Britain and the United Nations Security Council have already levied significant economic sanctions against Iran in an attempt to persuade the nation to abandon what the U.S. believes could be a potential nuclear weapons program. President Hassan Rouhani, who replaced hard-liner Mahmoud Ahmadinejad last year, forged an agreement in November with the U.S. and several other countries to help boost the struggling Iranian economy.

Chomsky argued that reports from U.S. intelligence agencies have not confirmed Iran is developing nuclear weapons.

"As far as U.S. intelligence knows, Iran is developing nuclear capacities, but they don't know if they are trying to develop nuclear weapons or not," Chomsky told HuffPost Live. "Chances are they're developing what's called 'nuclear capability,' which many states have. That is the ability to have nuclear weapons if they decide to do it. That's not a crime."

Chomsky pointed out that the United States has accepted the decisions by Israel, India and Pakistan to develop nuclear weapons, even though, he said, in each case it was a violation of the Nuclear Nonproliferation Treaty. He also argued that U.S. intelligence reports show Iran has a limited military capability and that its primary concern is defense.

"Basically what [the reports] say is that Iran has very low military expenditures even by the standards of the region," Chomsky said. "They have a very limited capacity to deploy force. Their strategic doctrine is defensive. An effort to deter invasion if it takes place, long enough for negotiations to be undertaken."

Iran's defensive strategy is the result of the United States' presence in the region, Chomsky argued.

"Why should Iran have a deterrent strategy?" Chomsky said. "Well, it's surrounded by hostile enemies. Both of its borders have been under occupation by a hostile superpower, the United States, which is constantly violating the U.N. charter by leaving open what they call the saying, 'all options are open' -- meaning the threat of war. The U.N. charter bars the threat of force. The Iranian government is undoubtedly a severe danger to its own population, but not beyond that. In fact, the rest of the world doesn't think so."

 

This is more of an attempt to counter and expose the sheer lunacy of the baseless assumption of the Iranian threat in the first place.  Does Chomsky  have a soft spot for the Iranian regime?  Of course not, not all of us are in love, and he is sensible enough to not comment too much on Iranian local affairs.  He is as opposed to the idea of a "Jewish" state as he is to a centralized Islamic one.  

 

And that bit about freedom of speech, meh, Chavez survived, despite one of the most hateful and ambitious media campaigns the world has ever seen.  I think we all agree in principle it is an important right, a free press almost gives a new meaning to propaganda, but lack of it can be just as bad, if not worse. 

 

I don't feel the best solution is to silence or murder the ill speakers on your way to glory, rather the focus should be on maintaining integrity and speaking the truth.  There is no reason why this cannot be extended to the political sphere.  The problem isn't freedom of the press or speech, the problem is lack of foresight and principled organization from those who matter.  Mossedegh fell victim to a spectacular coup, but I doubt he would have nationalized Iranian Oil if it wasn't for him challenging the lack of tolerance of dissent on the part of the establishment in the first place.  Same can be said about Khomeini.

Edited by King
Link to comment
Share on other sites

I personally think that it finally comes down to the fact that the western world(including some of out neighboring countries) still haven't understood how Iranians think. Not that we are anything special, but the fact that we think differently and approach both religion and politics different has become a thorn in the flesh of world politicians and those interested in politics. Analysts can't even agree on the power structure in Iran, nor have they been able to anticipate responses and next moves correctly. 

 

Even on this forum i see many enthusiasts making political analysis and assumptions that are way off, yet it is close to impossible to explain to them that they are wrong, namely because it is hard to explain the way we think and approach issues. 

 

Take "News" as an example. How can i explain the fact that most Iranians agree on the concept of not having 100% free press? Say Iran is running out of Rice supply. It is frowned upon if a newspaper makes a big deal out of it, namely because it causes turmoil and fear in the average family. Negative news in general is frowned upon if it causes fear and suspense(which btw goes hand in hand with Islamic law). 

 

Or how can i possible explain to foreigners that 80% of newspapers content in Iran are actually criticism of politicians and power figures? It is practically impossible to prove unless you know Farsi. 

I can't explain that Iranians are very picky with the red line that divides criticisms and accusations/insults. Most foreign news agencies and population rarely make any distinctions between the two. 

 

Whether these are a factor of strength or weakness is yet to be written by history, but so far, again in my opinion, it seems to be a strength. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Veteran Member

How many ways are there to be completely dismissive of reasonable points?

 

Some Iranian policies can be explained in the context of the threat it faces from the American Empire; other's are just excuses stretched to the limit. We need not go into details; it has been parsed before, ad nauseam.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Forum Administrators

Some Iranian policies can be explained in the context of the threat it faces from the American Empire; other's are just excuses stretched to the limit. We need not go into details; it has been parsed before, ad nauseam.

 

Gotta say this, you just come off as a bitter liberal from an Amsterdam pot house.  Never happy.  Never satisfied. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Veteran Member

I personally think that it finally comes down to the fact that the western world(including some of out neighboring countries) still haven't understood how Iranians think. Not that we are anything special, but the fact that we think differently and approach both religion and politics different has become a thorn in the flesh of world politicians and those interested in politics. Analysts can't even agree on the power structure in Iran, nor have they been able to anticipate responses and next moves correctly. 

 

Even on this forum i see many enthusiasts making political analysis and assumptions that are way off, yet it is close to impossible to explain to them that they are wrong, namely because it is hard to explain the way we think and approach issues. 

 

Take "News" as an example. How can i explain the fact that most Iranians agree on the concept of not having 100% free press? Say Iran is running out of Rice supply. It is frowned upon if a newspaper makes a big deal out of it, namely because it causes turmoil and fear in the average family. Negative news in general is frowned upon if it causes fear and suspense(which btw goes hand in hand with Islamic law). 

 

Or how can i possible explain to foreigners that 80% of newspapers content in Iran are actually criticism of politicians and power figures? It is practically impossible to prove unless you know Farsi. 

I can't explain that Iranians are very picky with the red line that divides criticisms and accusations/insults. Most foreign news agencies and population rarely make any distinctions between the two. 

 

Whether these are a factor of strength or weakness is yet to be written by history, but so far, again in my opinion, it seems to be a strength. 

 

Or try explaining to them that the art establishment -- even though it is working entirely on state funding -- is subversive. Movies would straight up make jokes at Ahmadinejad's expense, during his presidency.

 

All in all, the level of repression in Iran is highly exaggerated.

 

Meanwhile, facebook is suspending accounts for merely posting pictures of Sayyed Hassan Nasrallah. (and they have a virtual monopoly over "social media"). Nothing to see here.

Edited by baradar_jackson
Link to comment
Share on other sites

I'm sorry, I didn't realize standing with Iran was a require precept alongside belief in one God, his prophets, angels, and the day of judgement etc. :donno:

If you don't stand with the truth you stand on the opposite side of the truth and the enemies of humanity.

You're on one side or the other

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Veteran Member

If you don't stand with the truth you stand on the opposite side of the truth and the enemies of humanity.

You're on one side or the other

 

Muslim Bush.

 

There is no difference between right-wingers on either side of the divide except the religion they profess.

Edited by Marbles
Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Advanced Member

If you don't stand with the truth you stand on the opposite side of the truth and the enemies of humanity.

You're on one side or the other

 

I'm curious as to how you've reached that conclusion? What study or research went into it? I would be very interested in the rubric you've used to ascertain this truth as well as your determination that those of us who disagree with you, oppose this truth and are enemies of humanity.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Veteran Member

Many Muslims have become post-modernist (even as post-modernism has been relegated to the recycle bin of history) - meaning that for them there is no objective truth - all is relative and/or subjective. Another thing they do is attribute qualities of a despised individual to others merely because of words that they have said may sound similar. Of-course, there are sides, and one can indeed chose to stand on one side or the other - shaytan says this - with respect to its side, so do those who stand with what is objective reality - i.e. truth.  People who are seekers of truth will begin to recognize which side to stand on... those who don't won't... some may play the neutrality game - but there is no such thing as being neutral.  

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Advanced Member

If you're referring to what I said, I haven't made any claims of neutrality. I've some very clear political principles, which I'm sure will become obvious over time. My refusal to take the 'side of IRoI' does not automatically put me on the other side. If anything, I object to such a dichotomy.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Veteran Member

Oh, no doubt that there are people who are not neutral ... I was giving the benefit of the doubt, because at least,  a belief that one is neutral (out of ignorance) may be, at some level, better than openly siding with shaytani political principles - but the effect of being "neutral" is the same as being on the side of shaytan ... which is what i mean by there is no such thing as being "neutral."  And of-course there are a variety of types of people, and political tendencies, who end up siding with liberalism ... much of which is delineated in the Qur'an and in the hadith of our Prophet (pbuh) and the masomeen (as) . 

Edited by skylight2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Basic Members

I have been following Norman for a long time and it is sad to see him in this state, all lonely and dejected. The Zionist really destroyed him but hopefully not his spirit.

 

Do any Persians here have some links to articles and videos about him by Iranian academics/activists?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

If you're not with IRoI you are against them, It is as simple as that.

If you are against them, you are against Islam as Iran is the truest country with principles of humanity...morals...virtues....kindness...It is the bastion of hope

 

It does have its issues though.....................

 

But it's trying....

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Veteran Member

If you don't stand with the truth you stand on the opposite side of the truth and the enemies of humanity.

You're on one side or the other

lol

Muslim Bush.

 

There is no difference between right-wingers on either side of the divide except the religion they profess.

 

This is one example of how state based on religion could go irrational overnight- what is human automatically becomes divine and every other insane thing follows. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Advanced Member

If you're not with IRoI you are against them, It is as simple as that.

If you are against them, you are against Islam as Iran is the truest country with principles of humanity...morals...virtues....kindness...It is the bastion of hope

 

Greetings Wisdom Lion,

 

I see it as every bit as fallible as every other country and government.

asalaam.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You are posting as a guest. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

×
×
  • Create New...