US Foreign Policy

[Future17]

Great to see things haven't changed despite a Democrat being in the White House - still the same rank hypocrisy from the US President.:bitchy:

Obama Condemns "Unjust" Iran
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/middle_east/8115232.stm

Dozens Dead In US Drone Strike
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/south_asia/8115814.stm

I suppose we all knew the hype around Obama was going to lead to massive disappointment once we saw past the colour of his skin.

[Allant1981]

Great to see things haven't changed despite a Democrat being in the White House - still the same rank hypocrisy from the US President.:bitchy:

Obama Condemns "Unjust" Iran
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/middle_east/8115232.stm

Dozens Dead In US Drone Strike
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/south_asia/8115814.stm

I suppose we all knew the hype around Obama was going to lead to massive disappointment once we saw past the colour of his skin.


Sorry but i cant see anything wrong with what he said regarding Iran, he condemned what is happening as would most of us

[Sylar]

Iran, like North Korea, is a highly unstable nation (in their foreign policy and hostility towards "Western" nations) and pose a threat to global (and as a consequence, American) security, and Obama has done what more international leaders should be doing, and speaking out against the tyrannical regime!

Christ, thousands have protested and even died, on the streets of Tehran in opposition to the current election results, so why are we not discussing their opposition to the Iranian rule?

The colour of his skin has absolutely nothing to do with his leadership abilities - he talks a fantastic game, but, even as someone who voted democrat, he has failed to live up to many of these promises so far!

[Woody1985]

It was reported on the news last night that there were 3 million more votes casts than eligible people over 50 cities.

Also, the quote from the commisionaire (I think) about doing a recount etc said 'We found no major irregularites'. In my mind it's taken as they did find irregularities and chances are that 20 small irregularities amount to more than one large one (and less obvious).

[Betty Boop]

Like America can lecture any country on "stealing" elections! :bye:

[Betty Boop]

Seeing Through All the Propaganda About Iran

By Eric Margolis

June 23, 2009 "Lew Rockwell" -- WASHINGTON – Iran’s political crisis continues to blaze. It’s still impossible to say which leaders or factions will emerge victorious, but one thing is certain: the earthquake in the Islamic Republic is shaking the Mideast and deeply confusing everyone, including the US government.

Highlighting the complexity of this crisis, Meir Dagan, the head of Israel’s intelligence agency, Mossad, reportedly voiced his hope that Iran’s embattled president, Mahmoud Ahmadinejad, would remain in office. On the surface, that sounds absurd, since Ahmadinejad is Israel’s Great Satan.

But, according to Dagan, if Ahmadinejad’s supposedly "moderate" rival, Mir Hossein Mousavi, came to power, it would be harder for Israel to keep up its propaganda war against Iran over Tehran’s nuclear program.

Besides, added the Mossad chief, the devil you know is better.

Meanwhile, we have been watching an intensifying western propaganda campaign against Iran, mounted by the US and British governments. What we hear is commentary and analysis that comes from bitterly anti-regime Iranian exiles, "experts" with an ax to grind, and US pro-Israel neocons yearning for war with Iran.

In viewing the Muslim world, Westerners keep listening to those who tell them what they want to hear, rather than the facts. We are at it again in Iran.

President Barack Obama’s properly stated he would refrain from being seen to "meddle" in Iran’s internal affairs in spite of calls by hard-line Republicans for American action – whatever that might be. Obama did the right thing by apologizing for the US/British coup that overthrew Iran’s democratic Mossadegh government in 1953.

But that was not the whole story. Washington has been attempting to overthrow Iran’s Islamic government since the 1979 revolution and continues to do so in spite of pledges of neutrality in the current crisis.

The US has laid economic siege to Iran for 30 years, blocking desperately needed foreign investment, preventing technology transfers, and disrupting Iranian trade. In recent years, the US Congress voted $120 million for anti-regime media broadcasts into Iran, and $60-75 million funding opposition parties, violent underground Marxists like the Mujahidin-i-Khalq, and restive ethnic groups like Azeris, Kurds, and Arabs under the so-called "Iran Democracy Program."

The arm of Iran’s Supreme Leader, Ayatollah Ali Khamenei, remains withered from a bomb planted by the US-backed Mujahidin-i-Khalq, who were once on the US terrorist list.

Pakistani intelligence sources put CIA’s recent spending on "black operations" to subvert Iran’s government at $400 million.

According to an ABC News investigation, President George Bush signed a "finding" that authorized an accelerated campaign of subversion against the Islamic Republic. Washington’s goal was "regime change" in Tehran and installation of a pro-US regime of former Iranian royalist exiles.

While the majority of protests we see in Tehran are genuine and spontaneous, Western intelligence agencies and media are playing a key role in sustaining the uprising and providing communications, including the newest electronic method, via Twitter. These are covert techniques developed by the US during recent revolutions in Ukraine and Georgia that brought pro-US governments to power.

The Tehran government made things worse by limiting foreign news reports and arresting prominent politicians. Its leadership is increasingly – and dangerously – split over how to handle the protests.

We also hear lot of hypocrisy from Western capitals. Washington, Ottawa, London and Paris piously accused Iran of improper electoral procedures while utterly ignoring the total lack of democracy in their authoritarian Mideast allies such as Egypt, Morocco, and Saudi Arabia, that never hold elections and throw political opponents into prison and torture them. Compared to them, Iran, for all its faults, is almost a model of democratic governance.

The US, France and Saudi Arabia just cooperated to rig Lebanon’s recent elections, dishing out millions in bribe money to ensure victory of the pro-US faction. France’s President Nicholas Sarkozy had the chutzpah to rebuke Iran for improper election procedures after returning from the funeral of Gabon’s dictator, Omar Bongo, who had ruled for 41 years and supplied France with cheap oil.

When Hamas won a fair and square democratic election in Gaza, the US and Israel swiftly moved to mount a coup against the new Palestinian government.

US senators, led by John McCain, blasted Iran for not respecting human rights. That’s pretty rich after they just voted to bar the public release of ghastly torture photos from US prisons in Iraq, want secret US prisons kept open, and champion torture.

Sen. Lindsey Graham, one of the dimmest bulbs in the weak-wattage Republican ranks, called for US intervention in Iran. Graham was an architect of the Iraq fiasco. Let’s air assault the warlike senator into downtown Tehran.

Über-moral Canada, which backed Pakistan’s military dictatorship under Gen. Pervez Musharraf, accused Tehran of unfair elections.

There are many questions about Iran’s vote, of which incumbent President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad won by 60%.

Voter turnout was an amazing 84%, putting to shame the US and Europe, where less than half of voters exercise their right.

Pre-election polls that showed Ahmadinejad headed for a big win were right. All those foreigners praying for his defeat and the collapse of the Islamic government may be deeply disappointed.

But it also appears there were significant – though as far as we know now – not decisive irregularities. Iran’s government has admitted that some ballot boxes were stuffed, and the speaker of the Majils (parliament), the capable Ali Larijani, rebuked certain unnamed clerics for trying to rig results. This was extremely stupid, as Ahmadinejad was way ahead in pre-election polls anyway, and very popular.

This leaves Washington in a quandary. President Obama sincerely wants to enter into talks with Iran over its nuclear program and try to convince Tehran to give up enrichment. But hardliners in his cabinet and Congress are urging Obama to seize the opportunity to further destabilize Iran.

Bad idea. A stable Iran is essential to a stable Mideast. Mossad chief Dagan knows what he’s talking about. US and British efforts to subvert Iran’s government could yet blow up in our faces. And do we really need another monster crisis after Afghanistan, Pakistan, Iraq and Palestine?

Meanwhile, other Mideast nations allied to the US will look at Iran and conclude that giving any democratic rights can be downright dangerous and must be avoided at all costs.

[(((Fergus)))]

Once the US start having a go at the Saudis we can take what they have to say about Iran seriously.

[LiverpoolHibs]

Seeing Through All the Propaganda About Iran

By Eric Margolis

June 23, 2009 "Lew Rockwell" -- WASHINGTON – Iran’s political crisis continues to blaze. It’s still impossible to say which leaders or factions will emerge victorious, but one thing is certain: the earthquake in the Islamic Republic is shaking the Mideast and deeply confusing everyone, including the US government.

Highlighting the complexity of this crisis, Meir Dagan, the head of Israel’s intelligence agency, Mossad, reportedly voiced his hope that Iran’s embattled president, Mahmoud Ahmadinejad, would remain in office. On the surface, that sounds absurd, since Ahmadinejad is Israel’s Great Satan.

But, according to Dagan, if Ahmadinejad’s supposedly "moderate" rival, Mir Hossein Mousavi, came to power, it would be harder for Israel to keep up its propaganda war against Iran over Tehran’s nuclear program.

Besides, added the Mossad chief, the devil you know is better.

Meanwhile, we have been watching an intensifying western propaganda campaign against Iran, mounted by the US and British governments. What we hear is commentary and analysis that comes from bitterly anti-regime Iranian exiles, "experts" with an ax to grind, and US pro-Israel neocons yearning for war with Iran.

In viewing the Muslim world, Westerners keep listening to those who tell them what they want to hear, rather than the facts. We are at it again in Iran.

President Barack Obama’s properly stated he would refrain from being seen to "meddle" in Iran’s internal affairs in spite of calls by hard-line Republicans for American action – whatever that might be. Obama did the right thing by apologizing for the US/British coup that overthrew Iran’s democratic Mossadegh government in 1953.

But that was not the whole story. Washington has been attempting to overthrow Iran’s Islamic government since the 1979 revolution and continues to do so in spite of pledges of neutrality in the current crisis.

The US has laid economic siege to Iran for 30 years, blocking desperately needed foreign investment, preventing technology transfers, and disrupting Iranian trade. In recent years, the US Congress voted $120 million for anti-regime media broadcasts into Iran, and $60-75 million funding opposition parties, violent underground Marxists like the Mujahidin-i-Khalq, and restive ethnic groups like Azeris, Kurds, and Arabs under the so-called "Iran Democracy Program."

The arm of Iran’s Supreme Leader, Ayatollah Ali Khamenei, remains withered from a bomb planted by the US-backed Mujahidin-i-Khalq, who were once on the US terrorist list.

Pakistani intelligence sources put CIA’s recent spending on "black operations" to subvert Iran’s government at $400 million.

According to an ABC News investigation, President George Bush signed a "finding" that authorized an accelerated campaign of subversion against the Islamic Republic. Washington’s goal was "regime change" in Tehran and installation of a pro-US regime of former Iranian royalist exiles.

While the majority of protests we see in Tehran are genuine and spontaneous, Western intelligence agencies and media are playing a key role in sustaining the uprising and providing communications, including the newest electronic method, via Twitter. These are covert techniques developed by the US during recent revolutions in Ukraine and Georgia that brought pro-US governments to power.

The Tehran government made things worse by limiting foreign news reports and arresting prominent politicians. Its leadership is increasingly – and dangerously – split over how to handle the protests.

We also hear lot of hypocrisy from Western capitals. Washington, Ottawa, London and Paris piously accused Iran of improper electoral procedures while utterly ignoring the total lack of democracy in their authoritarian Mideast allies such as Egypt, Morocco, and Saudi Arabia, that never hold elections and throw political opponents into prison and torture them. Compared to them, Iran, for all its faults, is almost a model of democratic governance.

The US, France and Saudi Arabia just cooperated to rig Lebanon’s recent elections, dishing out millions in bribe money to ensure victory of the pro-US faction. France’s President Nicholas Sarkozy had the chutzpah to rebuke Iran for improper election procedures after returning from the funeral of Gabon’s dictator, Omar Bongo, who had ruled for 41 years and supplied France with cheap oil.

When Hamas won a fair and square democratic election in Gaza, the US and Israel swiftly moved to mount a coup against the new Palestinian government.

US senators, led by John McCain, blasted Iran for not respecting human rights. That’s pretty rich after they just voted to bar the public release of ghastly torture photos from US prisons in Iraq, want secret US prisons kept open, and champion torture.

Sen. Lindsey Graham, one of the dimmest bulbs in the weak-wattage Republican ranks, called for US intervention in Iran. Graham was an architect of the Iraq fiasco. Let’s air assault the warlike senator into downtown Tehran.

Über-moral Canada, which backed Pakistan’s military dictatorship under Gen. Pervez Musharraf, accused Tehran of unfair elections.

There are many questions about Iran’s vote, of which incumbent President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad won by 60%.

Voter turnout was an amazing 84%, putting to shame the US and Europe, where less than half of voters exercise their right.

Pre-election polls that showed Ahmadinejad headed for a big win were right. All those foreigners praying for his defeat and the collapse of the Islamic government may be deeply disappointed.

But it also appears there were significant – though as far as we know now – not decisive irregularities. Iran’s government has admitted that some ballot boxes were stuffed, and the speaker of the Majils (parliament), the capable Ali Larijani, rebuked certain unnamed clerics for trying to rig results. This was extremely stupid, as Ahmadinejad was way ahead in pre-election polls anyway, and very popular.

This leaves Washington in a quandary. President Obama sincerely wants to enter into talks with Iran over its nuclear program and try to convince Tehran to give up enrichment. But hardliners in his cabinet and Congress are urging Obama to seize the opportunity to further destabilize Iran.

Bad idea. A stable Iran is essential to a stable Mideast. Mossad chief Dagan knows what he’s talking about. US and British efforts to subvert Iran’s government could yet blow up in our faces. And do we really need another monster crisis after Afghanistan, Pakistan, Iraq and Palestine?

Meanwhile, other Mideast nations allied to the US will look at Iran and conclude that giving any democratic rights can be downright dangerous and must be avoided at all costs.

Eric Margolis is a very odd man. I don't think I've ever read an article before that is brilliantly accurate in one sentence and a load of old bollocks in the next.

[RyeSloan]

So I suppose Obama should have supported the Iranian crack down on protesters instead??

As for 'learning' to see past his skin colour :bitchy:

[(((Fergus)))]

So I suppose Obama should have supported the Iranian crack down on protesters instead??

As for 'learning' to see past his skin colour :bitchy:

As with referees, people just want consistency. Hamas were democratically elected in the Palestinian Territories, yet Israel and the Quartet powers imposed sanctions until they got the result they wanted.

They are now putting pressure on Iran to get the result they want.

Mind you, Iran also mixes into other people's business, e.g., Lebanon, Iraq, so what do they expect.

If America wants to play dog-eat-dog, that's their business. It's the sanctimonious hypocrisy that rankles.

[khib70]

As with referees, people just want consistency. Hamas were democratically elected in the Palestinian Territories, yet Israel and the Quartet powers imposed sanctions until they got the result they wanted.

They are now putting pressure on Iran to get the result they want.

Mind you, Iran also mixes into other people's business, e.g., Lebanon, Iraq, so what do they expect.

If America wants to play dog-eat-dog, that's their business. It's the sanctimonious hypocrisy that rankles.
Jeez....hypocrisy???

You can prove, can you that in America

- Fifteen year old boys are publicly hanged for suspected homosexuality
- Teenage girls dragged off the street by "morality police" and beaten for wearing the wrong clothes
- Total banning of expression of any religious faith except one
- Death penalty for converting from the State religion
- There has been any election where the number of votes cast exceeds the number of eligible voters by an enourmous factor
- The head of state has publicly denied the Holocaust

America, and anywhere else that isn't a repressive mediaevalist theocracy has every right to complain about the appalling behaviour of Ahmedinajad and his thugs.

It's totally typical of the liberal rentamobbers in this country that we haven't heard a squeak out of them about this. Just like the ethnic cleansing carried out by Arab thugs in Darfur. Just like the systematic repression and nuclear bullying of North Korea. Just like the Chinese-backed foulness ruling Zimbabwe and Burma.

However, any perceived badness by Israel, the USA or the UK and the banners are unrolled and the Holy Ground is full of threads from the resident Guardianistas.

That, my friend, is hypocrisy

[(((Fergus)))]

Jeez....hypocrisy???

You can prove, can you that in America

- Fifteen year old boys are publicly hanged for suspected homosexuality
- Teenage girls dragged off the street by "morality police" and beaten for wearing the wrong clothes
- Total banning of expression of any religious faith except one
- Death penalty for converting from the State religion
- There has been any election where the number of votes cast exceeds the number of eligible voters by an enourmous factor
- The head of state has publicly denied the Holocaust

America, and anywhere else that isn't a repressive mediaevalist theocracy has every right to complain about the appalling behaviour of Ahmedinajad and his thugs.

It's totally typical of the liberal rentamobbers in this country that we haven't heard a squeak out of them about this. Just like the ethnic cleansing carried out by Arab thugs in Darfur. Just like the systematic repression and nuclear bullying of North Korea. Just like the Chinese-backed foulness ruling Zimbabwe and Burma.

However, any perceived badness by Israel, the USA or the UK and the banners are unrolled and the Holy Ground is full of threads from the resident Guardianistas.

That, my friend, is hypocrisy

You've missed the point.

America is (rightly) criticising Iran for those things, although to do so in public is totally counter-productive, but that's another matter.

America does NOT criticise Saudi Arabia or any of its other "allies" for the same and similar crimes. Why? Because it benefits materially from those countries.


That, my friend, is hypocrisy

[Betty Boop]

Jeez....hypocrisy???

You can prove, can you that in America

- Fifteen year old boys are publicly hanged for suspected homosexuality
- Teenage girls dragged off the street by "morality police" and beaten for wearing the wrong clothes
- Total banning of expression of any religious faith except one
- Death penalty for converting from the State religion
- There has been any election where the number of votes cast exceeds the number of eligible voters by an enourmous factor
- The head of state has publicly denied the Holocaust

America, and anywhere else that isn't a repressive mediaevalist theocracy has every right to complain about the appalling behaviour of Ahmedinajad and his thugs.

It's totally typical of the liberal rentamobbers in this country that we haven't heard a squeak out of them about this. Just like the ethnic cleansing carried out by Arab thugs in Darfur. Just like the systematic repression and nuclear bullying of North Korea. Just like the Chinese-backed foulness ruling Zimbabwe and Burma.

However, any perceived badness by Israel, the USA or the UK and the banners are unrolled and the Holy Ground is full of threads from the resident Guardianistas.

That, my friend, is hypocrisy
That is a myth. Iran has a large Jewish community.

Ahmadinejad meets Neturei Karta Rabbis.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=R-r04SQ97_Q

[khib70]

You've missed the point.

America is (rightly) criticising Iran for those things, although to do so in public is totally counter-productive, but that's another matter.

America does NOT criticise Saudi Arabia or any of its other "allies" for the same and similar crimes. Why? Because it benefits materially from those countries.
I think with respect that you are missing my main point. It's amply illustrated by the fact that ,despite the murderous actions of the illegitimate Iranian regime over the last few days, the first significant thread on the subject here focusses on criticising Barack Obama and the US for their late and pretty muted reaction, and getting the obligatory dig in at Israel.

There are clearly people (and this isn't aimed at you personally) who are so politically naive that they see militant Islam as some sort of antidote to capitalism in general, and can't see past Islamist anti-Americanism. In fact, the only thing Islamism has in common with socialism is a total disregard for individual rights and free expression.

Meanwhile, on another thread, people are getting upset about a single Jewish couple in England who want their religious beliefs respected.

[(((Fergus)))]

I think with respect that you are missing my main point. It's amply illustrated by the fact that ,despite the murderous actions of the illegitimate Iranian regime over the last few days, the first significant thread on the subject here focusses on criticising Barack Obama and the US for their late and pretty muted reaction, and getting the obligatory dig in at Israel.

There are clearly people (and this isn't aimed at you personally) who are so politically naive that they see militant Islam as some sort of antidote to capitalism in general, and can't see past Islamist anti-Americanism. In fact, the only thing Islamism has in common with socialism is a total disregard for individual rights and free expression.

Meanwhile, on another thread, people are getting upset about a single Jewish couple in England who want their religious beliefs respected.

For sure some people will use any opportunity to have a go at America and Israel (not that they are above criticism by any means).

All I personally object to is the double standards of condemning one regime and pressuring them economically while at the same time supporting other regimes that do similar or worse.

Secularism and islamism are just two sides of the same twisted coin IMO. Criticising one shouldn't be construed as supporting the other.

Just to be clear: they are self-deluding, irreligious ideologues who will happily use any means including lying and killing to achieve their own selfish ends. That goes for the secularists and the islamists.

[khib70]

That is a myth. Iran has a large Jewish community.

Ahmadinejad meets Neturei Karta Rabbis.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=R-r04SQ97_Q
Judaism is tolerated in Iran. Its 20,000 or so Jews however live in a threatening atmosphere where any public religious expression would not be tolerated. Iran officially celebrated the anniversary of the "Protocols of the Elders of Zion", an anti-semitic forgery much published and believed throughout the Islamic world. We can all find propaganda videos on YouTube to back up any argument.

However, Jews are undoubtedly fortunate compared to Iran's largest non-Muslim minority, the Baha'i. They are not recognised in any way, and have been systematically persecuted, banished and executed by the regime. There are probably one or two videos on You Tube of Ahmedinajad kissing Baha'i babies, but the facts are indisputable.

[Future17]

So I suppose Obama should have supported the Iranian crack down on protesters instead??

As for 'learning' to see past his skin colour :bitchy:


Jeez....hypocrisy???

I'm not sure who said "learning" to see past his skin colour? What I was referring to was that, beyond the historic nature of a black person being elected President of the USA, why is Obama so important? What is he going to do differently to reverse the effects of 8 years under George W Bush? Unfortunately, I'm beginning to think when it comes to foreign policy and conduct overseas, the answer may be nothing.

There is no doubt that the excessive nature of the crackdown on the protest in Iran should be condemned. The issue is hyprocrisy.

If the USA is prepared to violate the sovereign territory of another nation and launch attacks with a high potential for the murder of innocents, why should any other nation have to listen to what they think constitutes moral behaviour towards it's citizens?

[(((Fergus)))]

I'm not sure who said "learning" to see past his skin colour? What I was referring to was that, beyond the historic nature of a black person being elected President of the USA, why is Obama so important? What is he going to do differently to reverse the effects of 8 years under George W Bush? Unfortunately, I'm beginning to think when it comes to foreign policy and conduct overseas, the answer may be nothing.

There is no doubt that the excessive nature of the crackdown on the protest in Iran should be condemned. The issue is hyprocrisy.

If the USA is prepared to violate the sovereign territory of another nation and launch attacks with a high potential for the murder of innocents, why should any other nation have to listen to what they think constitutes moral behaviour towards it's citizens?


I know he's the president but he doesn't have absolute power and even if he did, the US is so vast it's like trying to turn a supertanker. He also risks making enemies at home.

[PeeJay]

Secularism and islamism are just two sides of the same twisted coin IMO. Criticising one shouldn't be construed as supporting the other.

Just to be clear: they are self-deluding, irreligious ideologues who will happily use any means including lying and killing to achieve their own selfish ends. That goes for the secularists and the islamists.

Your post doesn't make much sense to me TBH: Islamists are a group of people sharing a similar ideology surely? Secularists just don't believe in God, they have - in general - no shared ideology whatsoever - apart from the "THere is No God" bit: so how can you group them, and into what?? Isn't that a bit like saying people who don't like football are all bloody tennis lovers?? I may not believe in any imaginary friends in the sky, but I'm certainly not part of the same "twisted coin" as you put it!:bitchy:

[Future17]

I know he's the president but he doesn't have absolute power and even if he did, the US is so vast it's like trying to turn a supertanker. He also risks making enemies at home.

Fair point, however it comes back to politicians delievering promises they were elected on.

Interestingly, when the US Constitution was drafted, the role of President was solely responsible for foreign policy.....and little else. It was felt that while domestic issues could be ruled by committee, foreign policy required a single, appointed decision-maker, as the decisions would often require to be made quickly with no time for extensive consultation.

[(((Fergus)))]

Fair point, however it comes back to politicians delievering promises they were elected on.

Interestingly, when the US Constitution was drafted, the role of President was solely responsible for foreign policy.....and little else. It was felt that while domestic issues could be ruled by committee, foreign policy required a single, appointed decision-maker, as the decisions would often require to be made quickly with no time for extensive consultation.


Trouble is he's got the whole military industry dependent financially on the policy decisions he makes. They say that was what brought Kennedy down.

[Future17]

Your post doesn't make much sense to me TBH: Islamists are a group of people sharing a similar ideology surely? Secularists just don't believe in God, they have - in general - no shared ideology whatsoever - apart from the "THere is No God" bit: so how can you group them, and into what?? Isn't that a bit like saying people who don't like football are all bloody tennis lovers?? I may not believe in any imaginary friends in the sky, but I'm certainly not part of the same "twisted coin" as you put it!:bitchy:

I don't think to be a secularist requires you to be an atheist - although it might help. :greengrin

Secularists just believe that religion and government should be kept separate.

[Future17]

Trouble is he's got the whole military industry dependent financially on the policy decisions he makes. They say that was what brought Kennedy down.

True. I know that he's going to have to defend a decrease in US military spending at some stage during his term because a Democratic House of Representatives is never going to allocate funds away from schools, hospitals and other party-policies to compete with Bush's military spending over the past 8 years.

However, that doesn't excuse war crimes (or atrocities, as war crimes require a war to be taking place to begin with)!

[(((Fergus)))]

I don't think to be a secularist requires you to be an atheist - although it might help. :greengrin

Secularists just believe that religion and government should be kept separate.

Generally, secularism likes to separate things, especially cause and effect. That's why when secular people get ill, they say it just happened "by chance" or that they were the victim of unavoidable external forces, whereas crazy religious people will just blame the devil (also a supposed external force).

[LiverpoolHibs]

Jeez....hypocrisy???

You can prove, can you that in America

- Fifteen year old boys are publicly hanged for suspected homosexuality
- Teenage girls dragged off the street by "morality police" and beaten for wearing the wrong clothes
- Total banning of expression of any religious faith except one
- Death penalty for converting from the State religion
- There has been any election where the number of votes cast exceeds the number of eligible voters by an enourmous factor
- The head of state has publicly denied the Holocaust

America, and anywhere else that isn't a repressive mediaevalist theocracy has every right to complain about the appalling behaviour of Ahmedinajad and his thugs.

It's totally typical of the liberal rentamobbers in this country that we haven't heard a squeak out of them about this. Just like the ethnic cleansing carried out by Arab thugs in Darfur. Just like the systematic repression and nuclear bullying of North Korea. Just like the Chinese-backed foulness ruling Zimbabwe and Burma.

However, any perceived badness by Israel, the USA or the UK and the banners are unrolled and the Holy Ground is full of threads from the resident Guardianistas.

That, my friend, is hypocrisy


I think with respect that you are missing my main point. It's amply illustrated by the fact that ,despite the murderous actions of the illegitimate Iranian regime over the last few days, the first significant thread on the subject here focusses on criticising Barack Obama and the US for their late and pretty muted reaction, and getting the obligatory dig in at Israel.

There are clearly people (and this isn't aimed at you personally) who are so politically naive that they see militant Islam as some sort of antidote to capitalism in general, and can't see past Islamist anti-Americanism. In fact, the only thing Islamism has in common with socialism is a total disregard for individual rights and free expression.

Meanwhile, on another thread, people are getting upset about a single Jewish couple in England who want their religious beliefs respected.

With regard to the emboldened paragraph, I think that's a very valid criticism - although I of course completely disagree with the final part. The willingness of the left, or rather sections of the left, to jump into bed with Islamist (I'll point out again, as opposed to Islamic) organisations in recent years has been an utterly embarrassing and futile activity; showing certain people and groups to be no more above the 'enemy-of-my-enemy-is-my-friend' politics than the United States et. al.

More generally, perhaps it's more to do with people thinking their opposition to brutal theocracies, murderous dictatorial-elitist regimes etc. is taken as a given and looking to provide a balance that is completely missing from the mainstream media, perhaps that's a mistake I don't know. I also suppose people are unsurprisingly careful about 'certain things' given the West's history of involvement in the Middle East. As Fergus says, I think it's a huge error in judgement for Obama to have commented on the situation at all; if anything's going to increase support for the status quo in Iran it's unhelpful and arrogant pronouncements from the U.S.. Personally, I haven't been on here while this has all been going on (and so haven't been able to post a thread on the subject) but have been delighted at the scenes of the people militantly opposing their oppressors coupled with the sickening feeling at the brutal but unsurprising response from the Iranian government. This is a great article from someone on the front-line, apologies that it's from the Guardian. :wink:

http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2009/jun/21/iran-protests-tehran

I also think people (well, actually I can only speak for myself) are slightly perturbed at the idea of throwing their support behind a character like Mousavi as much of the West, and indeed Israel, seem to be doing rather than questioning the fundamental basis of the regime - even if he is swept to office, he isn't going to dismantle the Islamic Revolution. Based on the paradigm of Ahmadinejad vs. Mousavi I'll make no excuses for not getting upset about a supposed defiling of the democratic process when both candidates were chosen by the clerics in the first place!

[khib70]

With regard to the emboldened paragraph, I think that's a very valid criticism - although I of course completely disagree with the final part. The willingness of the left, or rather sections of the left, to jump into bed with Islamist (I'll point out again, as opposed to Islamic) organisations in recent years has been an utterly embarrassing and futile activity; showing certain people and groups to be no more above the 'enemy-of-my-enemy-is-my-friend' politics than the United States et. al.

More generally, perhaps it's more to do with people thinking their opposition to brutal theocracies, murderous dictatorial-elitist regimes etc. is taken as a given and looking to provide a balance that is completely missing from the mainstream media, perhaps that's a mistake I don't know. I also suppose people are unsurprisingly careful about 'certain things' given the West's history of involvement in the Middle East. As Fergus says, I think it's a huge error in judgement for Obama to have commented on the situation at all; if anything's going to increase support for the status quo in Iran it's unhelpful and arrogant pronouncements from the U.S.. Personally, I haven't been on here while this has all been going on (and so haven't been able to post a thread on the subject) but have been delighted at the scenes of the people militantly opposing their oppressors coupled with the sickening feeling at the brutal but unsurprising response from the Iranian government. This is a great article from someone on the front-line, apologies that it's from the Guardian. :wink:

http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2009/jun/21/iran-protests-tehran

I also think people (well, actually I can only speak for myself) are slightly perturbed at the idea of throwing their support behind a character like Mousavi as much of the West, and indeed Israel, seem to be doing rather than questioning the fundamental basis of the regime - even if he is swept to office, he isn't going to dismantle the Islamic Revolution. Based on the paradigm of Ahmadinejad vs. Mousavi I'll make no excuses for not getting upset about a supposed defiling of the democratic process when both candidates were chosen by the clerics in the first place!
Very little of that I could take issue with (even the Guardian piece:greengrin). And a more reasoned analysis than has been seen from some quarters recently.

I wouldn't want to be bigging up Mousavi. As you rightly point out, he would merely manage the theocracy in a different and not always better way. And Khameni would retain the real power. I suspect that his "defeat" in the election has merely created momentum and provided a focus for general dissent with the regime, much of which had previously been necessarily underground.

In a similar way, a strike of shipyard workers in Gdansk quickly started a momentum which led, at least indirectly, to the collapse of the Soviet hegemony in Eastern Europe My sympathies lie with the people on the streets, whose anger is about a lot more than Mousavi having a raw deal. I suspect the Baha'i probably wouldn't be rejoicing at a Mousavi victory either.

I bet the guys at the BBC are really chuffed that they managed to get a million people on the streets in a distant country as Khameni appears to believe. Now that's value for the licence fee!:greengrin

I also find the view that secularists or atheists are in some way as culpable as religious fundamentalists a bit bizarre. People who are murdered for practising their religion are almost always done in by people who practise another religion. Even the Nazis were avowedly Christians.

There are probably atheist child abusers out there. But they don't have access to to a hugely powerful church ( and in Ireland, state) apparatus to systematically cover up their evil deeds, and afford them hidey-holes and immunity from protection.

[(((Fergus)))]

Very little of that I could take issue with (even the Guardian piece:greengrin). And a more reasoned analysis than has been seen from some quarters recently.

I wouldn't want to be bigging up Mousavi. As you rightly point out, he would merely manage the theocracy in a different and not always better way. And Khameni would retain the real power. I suspect that his "defeat" in the election has merely created momentum and provided a focus for general dissent with the regime, much of which had previously been necessarily underground.

In a similar way, a strike of shipyard workers in Gdansk quickly started a momentum which led, at least indirectly, to the collapse of the Soviet hegemony in Eastern Europe My sympathies lie with the people on the streets, whose anger is about a lot more than Mousavi having a raw deal. I suspect the Baha'i probably wouldn't be rejoicing at a Mousavi victory either.

I bet the guys at the BBC are really chuffed that they managed to get a million people on the streets in a distant country as Khameni appears to believe. Now that's value for the licence fee!:greengrin

I also find the view that secularists or atheists are in some way as culpable as religious fundamentalists a bit bizarre. People who are murdered for practising their religion are almost always done in by people who practise another religion. Even the Nazis were avowedly Christians.

There are probably atheist child abusers out there. But they don't have access to to a hugely powerful church ( and in Ireland, state) apparatus to systematically cover up their evil deeds, and afford them hidey-holes and immunity from protection.

What about the Soviet Union, China, North Korea, etc.? They must have racked up a few million between them.

PS atheist child abusers also have their own infrastructure -the social services.

[PeeJay]

I don't think to be a secularist requires you to be an atheist - although it might help. :greengrin

Secularists just believe that religion and government should be kept separate.

I'm not sure, I think secularism is more "active", i.e. in the sense of rejection of religious doctrine, than just separating religion and state - but I don't want to dwell on the matter, really.

OED - Seculariusm - "The doctrine that morality should be based solely on regard to the well-being of mankind in the present life, to the exclusion of all considerations drawn from belief in God or in a future state”

“The term Secularism has been chosen..as expressing a certain positive and ethical element, which the terms ‘Infidel’, ‘Sceptic’, ‘Atheist’ do not express.” 1851 G. J. HOLYOAKE (http://dictionary.oed.com/help/bib/oed2-h3.html#g-j-holyoake)

As to Obama, I think he really is a beacon of light to many in the US and around the world, but to expect him to change everything overnight is far too naive surely? Neither should we forget that he has to run the US government by concensus - he's not a dictator. Politics is a hellish responsibility if you ask me.

I wouldn't dispute the US policy hypocrisy mentioned earlier on, but the world is a highly complex entity and we shouldn't forget that quite often we in the West actually benefit from certain action taken by the US, which may well be a source of rancour to our Western/European consciences - yet how many people can truly imagine their lives in the UK/EU without a car and petrol in it, or the revenues raised by, e.g. the armaments industry? Many people wanted the US out of Germany and Europe a while back, but its presence ultimatly brought down the wall across Europe.

As to Iran - my heart goes out to the people fighting for democracy, something that many of us in the West simply take for granted: they are now out there risking their lives, I'm sure Obama/the US would like to do something more pro-active to help them, but ultimately that would defeat the cause as the current incumbents would then have the devil (sic) in the playground they are looking for!

[Betty Boop]

40 civilians massacred in Afghanistan
http://www.channel4.com/news/

[Woody1985]

Like America can lecture any country on "stealing" elections! :bye:

That doesn't make it any better BB.

There were a few people on another thread hailing the turnout in Iran and how it's puts our country to shame.

Yet, there are literally millions of people who feel they have been cheated due to corruption and some have died to express that opinion and the first reaction to rigged voting is 'Well it happens/happened in America' which is a pretty pathetic arguement. By simply saying 'we/America are no better' is a weak response. At least in this country we have opportunities to express our opinions and make a difference (well sometimes).

I've not read the rest of the thread and have only read down to your first post but I will read the rest. Right after pizza!

[khib70]

What about the Soviet Union, China, North Korea, etc.? They must have racked up a few million between them.

PS atheist child abusers also have their own infrastructure -the social services.
Ludicrous statement. The social services, because of individual incompetence, lack of funding, or ineffective procedures, may on some occasions blatantly fail to prevent child abuse. (by atheists, or believers). They do not systematically turn a blind eye to it, cover it up, or seek the protection of the state to avoid the consequences of their actions. This has been the action of the Catholic heirarchy in more than one country.

As for persecution on religious grounds, millions were murdered on various grounds (or none at all) in the former Soviet bloc and the remaining bastions of Marxist/Leninist state fascism. I would still maintain that the Crusades, the Inquisition, the various pogroms against Jews and Catholics throughout history suggest that the majority of those who have died because of their religious beliefs, have been killed by believers of another faith.

The argument that atheism (or secularism) is as culpable as religious fanaticism is still fundamentally unsound.

[hibsbollah]

Ludicrous statement. The social services, because of individual incompetence, lack of funding, or ineffective procedures, may on some occasions blatantly fail to prevent child abuse. (by atheists, or believers). They do not systematically turn a blind eye to it, cover it up, or seek the protection of the state to avoid the consequences of their actions. This has been the action of the Catholic heirarchy in more than one country.

As for persecution on religious grounds, millions were murdered on various grounds (or none at all) in the former Soviet bloc and the remaining bastions of Marxist/Leninist state fascism. I would still maintain that the Crusades, the Inquisition, the various pogroms against Jews and Catholics throughout history suggest that the majority of those who have died because of their religious beliefs, have been killed by believers of another faith.

The argument that atheism (or secularism) is as culpable as religious fanaticism is still fundamentally unsound.

I think the point that Fergus is making and that you might have missed is that secularism and athiesm require a degree of 'faith' or suspended disbelief in order for it them to function. In that respect they are the same as religious fanaticism.

Surely you must agree that the murders Stalin carried out can't be blamed on Marxism/Leninism? He was a paranoid schizophrenic in control of lots of people with guns. What political 'side' he was from was irrelevant. The more interesting dictator analogy is Mao. His actions indirectly or directly led to the deaths of 30 million people, and his ideology was anti-scientific, anti-intellectual and anti-rational. Just by having blind faith in the ability of his people to do the impossible, he starved the most populous country on Earth.

[PeeJay]

I think the point that Fergus is making and that you might have missed is that secularism and athiesm require a degree of 'faith' or suspended disbelief in order for it them to function. In that respect they are the same as religious fanaticism.


To what extent is an aetheist's disbelief suspended??? Surely that's wrong: aetheists are very decided in our opinion about God's non-existence. I don't mind the use of the word faith, but it was originally used solely to refer to religious matters and one wonders if your use of the word here is slightly mischevious??

Finally, to equate aetheism with religious fanaticism is of course so completely and utterly nonsensical that you surely must have meant something else?? In the words of the great John McEnroe: you cannot be serious!:cool2:

[hibsbollah]

To what extent is an aetheist's disbelief suspended??? Surely that's wrong: aetheists are very decided in our opinion about God's non-existence. I don't mind the use of the word faith, but it was originally used solely to refer to religious matters and one wonders if your use of the word here is slightly mischevious??

Finally, to equate aetheism with religious fanaticism is of course so completely and utterly nonsensical that you surely must have meant something else?? In the words of the great John McEnroe: you cannot be serious!:cool2:

Athiests have to have 'faith' in something that has not been conclusively proven to be the case. The non-existence of God hasnt been proven, hence athiests cling to an idol of disbelief in the same way that fundamentalists cling to their idol of belief.

Agnostics (those of us that shrug our shoulders and say, 'its just a big mystery') are a whole different kettle of fish:stirrer:

(ive just realised we've gone off topic somewhat:greengrin)

[PeeJay]

Athiests have to have 'faith' in something that has not been conclusively proven to be the case. The non-existence of God hasnt been proven, hence athiests cling to an idol of disbelief in the same way that fundamentalists cling to their idol of belief.

Agnostics (those of us that shrug our shoulders and say, 'its just a big mystery') are a whole different kettle of fish:stirrer:

(ive just realised we've gone off topic somewhat:greengrin)

I don't think that's correct. Aetheists do not believe in God - EOS. There's no reason to either, no-one has proven his existence, the onus does not lie on us aetheists to disprove God's existence, it lies solely with the 'believers' to prove he exists and they can't or won't whatever. It's the only logical, reasonable path to take. BTW I'm not clinging to any idols, I can assure you.

You are of course right though, we're a wee bit off the topic, I guess! What was it again?

Agnostic joke: An agnostic dies and finds himself being greeted by Moses and Mohammed.

'How is it I got here, I didn't really believe', asks the agnoistic.

'Well', says Moses, 'it is not what you believe it's how you live, anyway follow me'.

As they walk along Moses points out the Jews, the Muslsms, and Budhists. They came up to a wall and as the agnostic starts to ask another question Moses says, 'Quiet, on the other side are the Christians, they don't think anyone else is up here'..:greengrin

I'm off to watch the Confed Cup, seems South Africa are about to stuff the Brazilians.:bye:

[Future17]

I don't think that's correct. Aetheists do not believe in God - EOS. There's no reason to either, no-one has proven his existence, the onus does not lie on us aetheists to disprove God's existence, it lies solely with the 'believers' to prove he exists and they can't or won't whatever. It's the only logical, reasonable path to take.

What about when it was first suggested the world was round (or spherical or whatever was actually suggested)?

Before anybody proved it, people believed it was and people believed it wasn't.....but both viewpoints were beliefs as it had not been conclusively proved either way - just like the existence, of lack of, a God.