Harry's Place

So, who is coming?

Hey, if it doubled as a protest against messianic Jewish narcissistic gay antisemites, would you come?

I’ll come.

Was there a report about the anti sharia protest? Did it take place?

Cool Brett

Yes, it will be up on CiF tomorrow, I understand. It was very good.

Oh, here we go again, pretending that you are doing this for the poor, democracy starved Iranian people, yet on this very day, Karzai, who stole his election in a much bigger way than Ahmadinejad did, is reconfirmed as President, the 2nd round of ballots, now apparently not necessary

Where are your crocodile tears for the people of Afghanistan who risked their lifes blood going to vote in elections made possible by the bones and blood of British soldiers? Why arent you pitching up in Trafalgar Square with tshirts on supporting the people of Afghanistan if you such a defender of democracy – a humanitarian.

The answer is because your faux-support for the people of Iran is nothing but a political stunt to attack your enemies in Tehran. You couldnt give a shit about the people of Iran, you charlatan

John Bloxham, I thought this thread might get a bit of that.

The analogy is not correct though. When complaints of fraud were made by the Afghan opposition, the UN were allowed to investigate, and recommended throwing out 3 million votes. Everything has been open and transparent in that respect – very different to Iran. The British and the Americans were also very instrumental in making sure we got to the bottom of the situation in Afghanistan, so you cannot claim hypocrisy. And lastly we also know that the fraud did not change the result – it merely meant Karzai didn’t get 50% (much like the British government!)

So yes, it’s all a bit of a shambles – I totally agree with you there – but you really can’t compare the situations on any level.

On top of everything else we’re talking about the most poor and backward country on the planet, that is in the middle of a 35 year old civil war – the fact there is a vote at all is sort of astonishing really. Deep down everybody knows this.

Thanks Mike.

What a cretinous point, Bloxham.

Mahmoud Vahidnia, a distinguished mathematics whiz from the Sharif Technical University, frankly criticized the supreme leader during his meeting with students, as state-run media outlets were unable to censor the remarks.

This international mathematics Olympiad winner blasted Khamenei in person in an unexpected move, focusing on “supreme leader’s performance” and the “lack of criticism against supreme leader.”

In addition to criticizing Khamenei personally and the office of the supreme leader, this student also criticized the state radio and television’s biased coverage of issues and the police’s brutal crackdown of people protesting against the election results.

Ayatollah Khamenei was forced to respond to the student’s criticism, but according to several eye-witness sources, the supreme leader was so distraught by the student’s remarks that he cancelled the usual prayer session and left the meeting early. Responding to Vahidnia’s frank criticism, Khamenei said that criticizing him is not illegal. However, he used harsh remarks to condemn the claim of election fraud as a “crime,” adding that he himself has criticisms against the state radio and television’s performance, one of which is directed at the organization’s failure to set aside enough coverage for the administration’s “positive achievements.”

http://www.roozonline.com/english/news/newsitem/article/2009/november/02//khamenei-criticized-in-person.html

Ah, so Karzai, in the eyes of his puppetmasters, only stole a few thousand votes, why didnt you say? Why the fuss? Its only a few thousand Afghanis who risked their life to vote, who gives a shit about them when theres political capital to be gained out of Iranians in the same boat

So today is the day that the pro-war (supposed) Left excuse electoral fraud by telling us, hey, its only a few thousand votes and they probably wouldnt have made a difference, so who gives a shit? Oh, and the UN investigated, and Washington and London said it was okay, so stop bloody moaning

Sickening

Bloxham, what else are we expected to do when the opposition candidates have withdrawn? It would be a case of one hand clapping.

Oh, here we go again, pretending that you are doing this for the poor, democracy starved Iranian people, yet on this very day, Karzai, who stole his election in a much bigger way than Ahmadinejad did, is reconfirmed as President, the 2nd round of ballots, now apparently not necessary

Yes you caught us. We’re actually going so that Jews will continue to get away with perverting little Palestinian girls with aphrodisiac gum. Curses, foiled again!

I guess we’ll see you at the “Death to Jews” counter demonstration across the street.

Actually I have addressed the Afghanistan issue in these threads a number of times before, but you’re way too much of an asshole to deserve a real discussion with. Piss off.

People like Bloxham don’t like criticism of the Iranian election because they like the anti-Western status quo in Iran. They criticize the Afghan election because they would like to see a withdrawal of Nato forces and the return to power of the anti-Western Taliban. It’s quite simple really.

John Bloxhom’s missed out Burma, Darfur, Zimbabwe and the injustices on Strictly Come Dancing, I think he may be a Zionist, Neocon stooge.

…not forgetting of course HPs wilful attachement to British Summer time.

A good piece on the Afghan elections by Terry Glavin:

http://transmontanus.blogspot.com/2009/11/it-will-have-to-do.html

John Bloxham may be a cunt but he’s still hilarious. More John, more!

“Hey, if it doubled as a protest against messianic Jewish narcissistic gay antisemites, would you come?”

Oh, David! It sounds like a sizzling cocktail. I wouldn’t miss it for anything. I’m sure the Semites would get the better of us all.

Last year students paraded down the streets shouting anti-American slogans and burning an effigy of President George W. Bush. Now, for many Iranian students, the real issue is no longer the U.S.

The key point here. Iran (and many other countries, including most of the Arab states) rely on external enemies to distract the masses from the dictatorship at home.

For Iran and the Arab states of course the main foreign enemy is Israel with the US being a close second. Israel’s status as enemy is far more important to these regimes than the plight of the Palestinians, hence their efforts to perpetuate the status quo.

If the US’s change of tack has made it less effective as an enemy, then unrest at home will increase or countries like Iran will have to increase the anti-Israeli rhetoric to compensate.

Have you thought long and hard about what you’ll be marching in support of, David?

I mean, I’m sure we all agree that the best outcome for Iran would be a largely secular, rights-respecting multiparty democracy with regular elections. That would be an excellent result for everyone, especially the Iranians themselves.

On the other hand, it strikes me as extremely unlikely. After all, a very good proportion of Iranians are pretty batshit religious nuts, so it’s quite likely any new government will at very least contain strong Islamic elements as a sop to that demographic. If that happens, I think we can forget the “respect for human rights” stuff.

This is not all wild speculation, BTW – we have the example of Iraq next door, or Afghanistan’s crazy fundie laws on women’s behaviour – Iran is neither of these countries, but we do in fact have recent and compelling examples to indicate how this might pan out.

Not to mention that the Iranian nuclear programme appears to be genuinely popular; that, like Iraq, a new Iranian government is absolutely not going to wave little Israeli flags for any fresh bombing campaigns in Gaza, and is very likely to be directly antagonistic to Israeli and American interests in the region. It will probably say so quite regularly, in fairly blunt terms.

I could go on, but you get my drift – any new government is likely to be better, but is also very likely to be highly religious and belligerent. I would argue that Mousavi’s previous political exploits during the really crazy parts of ’80s Iran strongly back up this point – bluntly, Peter Tatchell he ain’t.

So back to this point – we’re talking about a march for the lesser of two evils here. David is not known for cutting people who attend such events any slack in the past, so I guess the question is

1) How are you squaring your current rah-rah for the Iranian opposition with Mousavi and the likely consequences of their victory, and

2) How are you going to rationalise it when a new Iranian government turns from “gallant fighters for freedom” into “grave threat to peace, freedom and democracy” and you go back to regular fiery denunciation?

n.b. You don’t have to buy everything I’m saying here to consider the possibility that a new Iranian government will not suit your tastes. Quibbling over whether it would, say, stick with Sharia civil courts or go the full hand-chopping hog is rather less important than recognising the indisputable fact that any new administration is inevitably going to act in a manner that will quickly earn it your strong disapproval.

So unless the outcome is a perfect, rational secular democracy, the Iranian people don’t deserve a march?

Is that seriously what you are arguing?

Is that seriously what you are arguing?

No, it isn’t.

So a march for a better Iranian society – even if it isn’t perfect – is acceptable to you?

Then what’s your point?

Then what’s your point?

You feel I haven’t been clear enough? Okay then.

I think it’s perfectly acceptable and even laudable to march for Iranian democracy and liberalisation. However, IIRC, David has previously attacked the following organisations and people – picked at random – for being insufficiently hostile to Islamists… The UK and Scottish Governments, plus foreign governments, individual parties, ministers, elected representatives and political activists; Most of Britain’s major newspapers, and a good cross-section of our commentariat and the international press; other bloggers and sundry internet knobbers; plus pretty much everyone who variously marched against the Iraq War, the bombing of Beirut and the bombing of Gaza, plus many, many others. All of them have been repeatedly denounced as either far too close to reactionary Islamic forces, or for expressing opinions that either ape or enable them.

David is now inviting his readers to attend a march for a movement led by this man… http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mir-Hossein_Mousavi …But is presumably doing so in some kind of detached, highly theoretical way that doesn’t imply any support for Islamist rule.

1) How does this square with David’s five years of solemn finger-wagging at everyone who diverged from his take on his pet issues and 2) what excuses are going to be deployed when, after about six months in government, a new Iranian administration ceases to be cause celebre and once again becomes public enemy number one?

You know it’s going to happen – I know it’s going to happen, and we all know that if ourselves, the Americans or the Israelis start dropping bombs on a new, democratic Iran, then David will not only fail to object. He’ll probably use his web page to cheerlead and denounce his foes as… Too close to teh Islamissess. After all, we have the previous example of Lebanon, where the party line went from Hooray, hot Beirut protest babes are heroic crusaders for freedom! to You can’t make a Birth-pangs of Democracy Omelette without cluster-bombing a few hundred hot Beirut protest babe eggs!

There is, in other words, a large amount of wishful thinking, simultaneous having-and-eating-of-cake and outright bullshit going on over this issue, and I don’t believe that simply saying I support democracy and/or liberalisation is going to waft away the nasty smell of hypocrisy and political calculation that are hanging around it.

I’m sorry, but I’m afraid that’s utter bollocks.

Evidently you can’t see the difference between criticising the active support and promotion of Islamist groups – often, if not always, at the expense of liberal and moderate Muslim voices – and support for the democratic wishes of the Iranian people.

The point is quite simple. Galloway (for instance) didn’t need to hand over cash to Hamas to oppose Israeli policy. Likewise Milne didn’t need to proselytise for al-Qaeda in Iraq. There are, and were, far better alternatives. In a choice of evils, they choose the worst one.

By contrast – what alternatives are there in Iran?

You really have got this arse-about-tit.

Hey, if it doubled as a protest against messianic Jewish narcissistic gay antisemites, would you come?

How many of those adjectives might apply to Mahmoud Ahmadinejad himself, I wonder…

Evidently you can’t see the difference between criticising the active support and promotion of Islamist groups… and support for the democratic wishes of the Iranian people.

This is a long, windy and fairly obvious way of saying It’s okay when we do it. You’ll also notice that I mentioned neither Milne nor Galloway, although it is painfully clear that these two are vital props for your one-eyed, fine-for-me-but-not-for-thee argument. Without them to kick against, you’re struggling.

Anyway, I’m rather more interested in hearing what the organ grinder has to say on this.

You’ll also notice that I mentioned neither Milne nor Galloway

Well, you didn’t mention anyone by name, so it’s rather hard to respond to that. But since you were talking about ‘elected representatives’ and ‘journalists’ that ‘David has previously attacked’, it’s hardly unfair or illegitimate to bring up these two, is it? That’s a bit of a non-starter, really.

although it is painfully clear that these two are vital props for your one-eyed, fine-for-me-but-not-for-thee argument. Without them to kick against, you’re struggling.

Do I take this as tacit acceptance that these two did pick the worst of all evils? And that it is not hypocritical to criticize them while attending the march tomorrow? I think I will.

But to be fair, why don’t you try someone else? Who else has David T criticized, and for what? Pick an example.

Pick an example.

No, I don’t think so. You’ve already tried to crowbar in some grump about minor media and political hate figures. I doubt an extended digression onto the crimes of human rights organisation (x) or protestors (y) is going to enlighten us further, especially when the content of HP’s rogues’ gallery is common knowledge.

Still no David? Very well, in the interim readers are invited to consider this question: If the shoe was on the other foot and Ahmadinejad was defeated in highly dubious circumstances, would there be a post here urging readers to join the March for Iranian Democracy and Racist Nuke-Loving Nutters?

If you think there wouldn’t, how much credence should we grant to these claims of concern for Iranian democracy? Lots, some, or none?

You’ve already tried to crowbar in some grump about minor media and political hate figures.

No I haven’t, you dishonest twerp. You talked of ‘journalists’ and ‘elected representatives’ that David has criticized for cosying up to Islamists. And yet when I bring up two examples, you rule them out of court for being ‘minor’. Sorry, that’s not going to wash.

I’ve invited you to suggest someone else, and you have chosen not to. Draw your own conclusions.

Draw your own conclusions.

That a) your arguments only seem to make vague sense if some villain like Galloway represents the sole alternative and that b) you haven’t made any effort on the actual points I made at 11.20 or 12.26, because they are difficult and don’t give you the opportunity to cast the argument as you vs. Galloway and that c) I am well aware of this?

a) your arguments only seem to make vague sense if some villain like Galloway represents the sole alternative

In the absence of you suggesting anyone else, what the eff else am I supposed to do?

Flying Rodent

You simply misunderstand David T.

I have a Facebook friend, one of my best, who is an Iranian woman, an (extra) ordinary person who simply doesn’t want to live under a brutal regime and especially not as a woman, and she will definitely be on this march. If Musavi is not kosher, any step to get out of the clutches of the Amahdinejad goblin is worth taking.

It would be a crime not to particcipate in this march – forget for a moment about your other gripes about Iraq and Afghanistan and think of human suffering, and people who don’t want to be hung on cranes etc. etc.

Flying Rodent why exactly do you think you deserve a response from David? All you’ve done is invent a field overflowing with straw men.

Of course if you were capable of acknowledging an opponents actual moral position long enough to honestly engage it you couldn’t have stood in your entirely unserious position all this time.

Are you going to march, Rodent? Are your friends? I’m curious.

But since your endless attempts at humor have always been based on clumsy, ham-fisted misrepresentations that miss your opponent’s every moral point, why should we expect your attempts at argument to be any different?

Rodent’s entire point is that nobody should march against the current regime in Iran because a British blogger has criticised Islamism in the past?

Weird as fuck!

Felix. I can add many Iranian ex-students who passed through my classes in Brent to your friend. If I can get there I will be marching for them and frankly the patheticself-obssesed jealousies of 4th rate bloggers will be the last thing on my mind.

Rodent’s entire point is that nobody should march against the current regime in Iran because a British blogger has criticised Islamism in the past?

??? I’ve clearly stated that I regard this march as laudable; that I think Moussavi’s faction will be better for Iran than Ahmadinejad’s, and better for anyone else who has dealings with that country.

I’ve clearly stated that I regard this march as laudable

I see. So your entire point is just to sneer at david T for supporting it.

(Give em enough rope…)

I am surprised anyone would write in support of a non Obama position. What are you, a bunch of racists.

Ah, so Karzai, in the eyes of his puppetmasters, only stole a few thousand votes, why didnt you say?

Actually Abdullah’s side was also guilty of electoral fraud.

So your entire point is just to sneer at david T for supporting it.

Well, I did go to the hassle of setting out my points in some detail. You could check upthread, if you’d like a precis. I asked those questions of David T. in particular, since this is his post, but you can consider them aimed at the world in general, if that’d elicit a reasonable response.

With regard to Karzai. It is interesting that early in the Obama Administration the Czar for Afghanistan originally floated the idea (In background while overseas of course) the idea of marginalizing Karzai by inserting someone into the Afghan government in between Karzai and the rest of the government. Essentially marginalizing Karzai. How very democratic of them.

I think we also need to remember that Karzai won the first election, without a sign fraud. Earlier he was the choice of the Loya Jurga.

Nothwithstanding the major voter fraud – His opponent did not have a large base. I doubt he would have been able to govern, even with US support.

Well, I did go to the hassle of setting out my points in some detail.

wasn’t really worth it though was it? You might as well just have said “Personally I hate David T” and then blown a rasperry.

Any 4 year old could have given you advice on how to make an arse of yourself in a more succint manner.

You know it’s going to happen – I know it’s going to happen, and we all know that if ourselves, the Americans or the Israelis start dropping bombs on a new, democratic Iran, then David will not only fail to object.

It will be a lot harder for Israel to bomb Iran if there was a new government. That’s why people like yourself have been short sighted by throwing yourselves behind Ahmadinejad.

wasn’t really worth it though was it?

In the sense that posting anything online is worth it? Of course not.

Any 4 year old could have given you advice on how to make an arse of yourself in a more succint manner.

I know – here was me thinking all that “constructing an argument” then inviting questions stuff was so big and clever. Now that I’ve witnessed the response – a witty and fiercely intelligent outbreak of hooting, braying, snorting and farting – I’ve realised just how thick I really am. From now on, I’ll restrict myself to grunting and pretending that I can’t read, after your own example.

I know – here was me thinking all that “constructing an argument” then inviting questions stuff was so big and clever.

It is if you can construct an argument (which you so obviously can’t.)

From now on, I’ll restrict myself to grunting and pretending that I can’t read, after your own example.

Well at least your correspondence is moving upwards from blowing rasperries to sullen hurt sarcasm. I suppose we should be grateful for small mercies. :-)

That’s funny. Your main ‘point’ was that it was hypocritical of David T to go on a march for Iranian democracy – given that the probable desired outcome of that is Mousavi as president – when he is critical of other people making alliances with Islamists.

I suggested to you that this comparison was utterly specious, because Mousavi is the lesser of two evils, whereas – by complete contrast – the alliances David T has been critical of were the worst possible option.

And when I gave examples of this behaviour, you waved them away as ‘minor’, and you still refuse to give your own examples that could back up your ‘point’.

Your main ‘point’ was that it was hypocritical of David T to go on a march for Iranian democracy – given that the probable desired outcome of that is Mousavi as president – when he is critical of other people making alliances with Islamists.

Indoodle, and by extension more or less everyone else who’s spent the last five years giving it hee-haw about how their political enemies are too close to reactionary Islamic/authoritarian forces. This extends far beyond the denizens of this blog, since that’s basically been mainstream-to-Neoconservative opinion Stateside for years.

And let’s be blunt here – when we’re talking about this support for Moussavi, we’re not talking about a protest for Iranian democracy. If Ahmadinejad had been punted out in similarly dodgy circumstances, you’d be hanging out the bunting and defending the legitimacy of the result to the hilt.

I suggested to you that this comparison was utterly specious, because Mousavi is the lesser of two evils, whereas – by complete contrast – the alliances David T has been critical of were the worst possible option.

This, as noted previously, is a fairly obvious way of saying It’s okay when we do it. Moussavi is barely liberal even by Iranian standards – he was Prime Minister during the nastiest part of the young Islamic revolution, right by Khomeini’s side. Much of the worst of the political repression, the hand and head-chopping occurred on his watch, as did the human wave military tactics. I mean, the top post on this blog attacks the IHRC as “freedom-hating Khomeinists” – Moussavi was at his right hand for years, and has pledged to return to the teachings of Khomeini, for God’s sake.

I mean, how many furious assaults on, to pick a random hate figure, Inayat Bunglawala could I find here from a quick search? Yet the political clique the green protestors are backing make him look like a flamboyantly gay, coke-snorting, alcoholic libertine.

But this isn’t the first time we’ve seen an abrupt switch from relentless denunciation and condemnation to staunch solidarity. 2006 – the car-bombers and head-choppers of Iraq were rehabilitated from hated, fascist enemies of freedom to the stormtroopers of democracy, simply by signing on the American payroll and restricting their murderous, psycho behaviour to their own neighbourhoods.

The same year, the protest babes of Lebanon went from Icons of Freedom to Whoops, Bad-Things-Happen-in-Wars collateral damage in the time it took to rev up a Merkava tank.

And as I noted before, even if the green protestors somehow win, they’re probably not going to renounce their nuclear programme; unlikely to stop interfering in Iraq and definitely not going to turn into Israel-supporting Anglophiles. Six months, and they’ll be back at the top of the enemies list, like none of this had ever happened, and all these brave Iranian protestors we’re cheering today will be tomorrow’s bastards.

Much shorter version – I’d respect HP’s principled stance against wanky Trots a lot more if they didn’t act like a shower of one-eyed, opportunistic right wing versions of wanky Trots.

For fuck’s sake.

The whole point is that it is either Mousavi or Ahmadinejad. Those are the only two options. This blog has never suggested that Mousavi is sunshine and roses, but that he is the lesser of two evils.

When it comes, however, to the matter of alleged hypocrisy regarding the targets of HP criticism, the fact remains that there are plenty of other, much less unpleasant, options to Hamas, the MB, Hezbollah – and yet these are precisely the groups that alliances are being formed with, by people this blog has rightly criticised.

You choose to ignore this point repeatedly.

This, as noted previously, is a fairly obvious way of saying It’s okay when we do it.

Only if you lack basic comprehension skills, or a willingness to concede that you’ve lost the argument.

Oh, and another thing.

The same year, the protest babes of Lebanon went from Icons of Freedom to Whoops, Bad-Things-Happen-in-Wars collateral damage in the time it took to rev up a Merkava tank.

Could you – just for once – criticize an HP that actually exists, rather than the convenient imaginary one that you conjure up every time you seem to appear here? That would involve, y’know, things like quotes from HP, links to articles, et cetera – rather than just the tiresome made-up crap like

Too close to teh Islamissess.

You can’t make a Birth-pangs of Democracy Omelette without cluster-bombing a few hundred hot Beirut protest babe egg

And so on.

This blog has never suggested that Mousavi is sunshine and roses, but that he is the lesser of two evils.

Yes, it is. But why must you march with supporters of clerical fascists? Surely it’s possible to oppose both factions of Islamic theocracy and still support Iranian democracy? Isn’t this yet more evidence of a coalition between the Decent Left and reactionary Islamist forces – an utter betrayal and a symbol of the derangement of muscular liberalism etc. etc.?

Annoying that, isn’t it? Almost like I’m not interested in addressing the reality of the situation, but am instead intent on constructing a fantasy narrative that makes you look as bad as possible by tying you to the nastiest possible interpretation.

…if you lack basic comprehension skills, or a willingness to concede that you’ve lost the argument.

I guess I must’ve lost the argument, since my points seem to be so transparently shite that not a single commenter has considered them worth addressing. I guess they just fall over of their own accord.

If Flying Rodent regards the Hezbollah women, clad head to toe in black cloth and looking like walking sacks of coal, as Hot Babes, it definitely been too long since his last Shore Leave.

Almost like I’m not interested in addressing the reality of the situation, but am instead intent on constructing a fantasy narrative that makes you look as bad as possible by tying you to the nastiest possible interpretation.

Isn’t that what you always do?

To be honest, if your post was meant to be satire, it’s too similar to your usual output for anyone to notice the difference.