That small part of the world is made so much difficult to be turned into a reasonable place, becasue common defintions and accepted rules - do not matter that much over there. everythihng, from international law to a given moral value, seems to be alienated from itself, and seems to be split into different multiple apects in which it can be seen in a good and a worse light. Everythibg seems to be dealocked in a plethora of wider contexts that relativise it again. Ideologic or juristic dogmatism will lead to no solution there. Only pragmatism focussed on the present and future would offer a chnace for that. But I am extremely sceptical about that chance being used. Tjhe position of Israel strategically will become more and more difficult to defend, and tactical anyway. Demogaophcis shift agaimnst it, and very massively and threatening so. Their enemies have made it clear that they plan to outbreed them and taking over the Israeli state from within. To expect the Israelis to follow some international law, is cheap then - when that is only possible at the price of destroying themselves knowingly that way.

Israel has been too exposed from the very beginning, in all aspects. That a national or ethnic entity can survive in such an exposed position for unlimited time, is questionable. I can understand that they try, of course they do - who would blame them for that, two generations after the state was founded. But for me, as an outsider, maybe even an outsider with sympathy, another question is far more important: if they eventually fall down, will they take all the world with them, or not. the potential for the first they have. And soon their enemies seem to have that potential, too.

I wished that a Tsunami or a megavolcanic eruption would have shattered, drowned and destroyed Jerusalem and all of Mekka and Medina alike, and made it all the bottom of the ocean for all time to come. All these places that man describes as being holy, seem to be doomed to breed just hate and violance, since centuries and millenias. All what these places and the cults around them have ever caused, is driving people into madness.

It sounds like the sh*t is really hitting the fan today. I get the sense that Khameni, Ahmadinejad, and those around them don't really know what to do. They're weaving back and forth between trying to let the protests blow over or cracking down.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/middle_east/8110582.stm

The military sits still. The Revolutionary Guards see reasons for minor reactions only, what speaks against a thesis of a major national crisis in Iran, even if it is the biggest protests since Khomenei. As long as the Guards do not conduct major operations and start taking over the streets visibly, I do not agree to "the establishement being under dangerous pressure". It looks dramatic in Teheran, but that visual impression might be misleading. The rural Iran rests in silence. And I am sure the conservatives won the election in the rural places, and the protesters's vote probably only made a difference in Teheran and some of the huge cities.

the one mistake that maybe is made by some in Iran and most outside of Iran is to simply overestimate the numbers and the power of that voting camp supporting Mussawi.

And again - Mussawi himself throughout his life has been an Islamic hardliner. We should think twice for that reason alone before we prematurely support those who support Mussawi. Maybe their wishes do not lead as far as some of you think, and maybe they define the same political terms slightly different than you do. ;)

You sound as if you know Mussawi personally :hmmm:.

At least many iranians seem to think that it is worth to risk their health and punishment by state authorities to support Mussawi. I would say that they most likely know more than anyone of us, don't they?

That Mussawi is a product of the Mullah system is known by everyone already. Otherwise he would never be nominated as candidate. On the other hand: A man like Gorbachev was also a product of the system but this didn't prevent him from trying to reform it. Sometimes such things happen and i wouldn't necessarily judge Mussawi by the things he did 30 years ago under different circumstances during the islamic revolution.

It seems pretty obvious that the Mullahs cannot prevent the erosion of their system for an indefinite time ...

I know what Hitler did, but I did not know him personally.

If only you want, you can know what kind of breed Mussawi is - you only need to read about his biography.

and no, I do not think that just because a mass of people is huge, it necessarily knows something. Group size and intelligence are most of the times mutually exclusive.

How many mass murderers and criminals have been celebrated in the past, and have been followed by the mob in the streets? Very, very many. And that includes the very founder of islam himself, so what to expect?

Being responsible for the execution of tousands of people (critics, reformists, socialists and communists who were stupid enough to ally with Khomenei, women) is not what you should minimise by describing it as "things just happening" and that "Mussawi shouldn't necessarily be judged" by them. He is a typical Islamic hardliner willing to enforce the Quran with all inhumanity and brutality as needed. Just that he has more educated manners does not make him any less than what he is.

Maybe you want to be more choosy in the future, regarding whom you accept to give your legitimiation, Lurchi. Else it may end one day with a comparable legitimiation-fiasco like with this great democratic idol and heroic freedom fighter against supression and tyranny, Saakashvili-the-Great of Georgia.

The magic spell "it shall be democracy" seems to make the victim immediately stop thinking. If one would cointinue thinking one would see that Mussawi is as much qwelcomed for the West as a negotiation partner as Ahmadinejadh is. And this should be our deciding criterion whether or not we support an Iranian candidate, or stay out of their mess. Becasue the risk is too high that by interfering we just cause the direct opposite of what we hoped to acchieve.

And it is not as if this has not happened several times with our foreign policies in the past years. That our well-meant intentions backfire on us - has become the rule in certain fields of foreign policy.

No. You think you know about it based on what you were told and what has been written down.

I also fail to understand what Hitler has to do with all this ... except that Ahmadinedschad denies or belittles the Holocaust while Mussawi does not. Maybe it is this difference why i would consider an (unlikely though) president Mussawi a step into the right direction?

I don't think it is not up to me to legitimize an iranian president - i am pretty obviously not an iranian citizen. I gained the impression though that Mussawi already took his protest so far that he is in danger of being arrested. This however contradicts your picture of a willingless and blind functionary product of the islamic state somewhat. Maybe this Mussawi is a little bit more complex than you are trying to imply here?

Whatever he stands for - it is seemingly enough for many to stand up and protest, despite all personal risks. Some already paid with their life for it. I am not willing to follow your argument that those protestors are just the unknowing mob - the last one who thought this way was the Shah :cool:.

Hmmm...

http://img199.imageshack.us/img199/2083/diewtf.jpg

:rotfl:

Ah yes, let's go onto the abstract level again to lead to nowhere.

If you do not see why I answered to your statement with that comparison to hitler, that may be a hint for why you overestimate Mussawi.

I did not characterise him as a blind functionary product of the Islamic state - he already was with Khomenei, you know. I characterised him as a mass murderer and an islamic hardliner fully basing on his religious beliefs. He is a perpetrator by conviction - not some functionary opportunist.

Be more choosy in whom you support. your choice falls back on yourself.


Get educated on Mussawi'S biography. You pretty much say it cannot be what should not be in your own personal world view. In history, time and again the masses enthusiastically celebrated murderers, war criminals, liars and slaughterers. As somebody said, most people on the street today were not born during the revolution and in the early 80s, or were too small to remember Mussawi, and obviously in Iran schoolbooks paint a different picture of the revlution and Khomenei anyway, glossing over unpleasant things. Many people are not aware of Mussawi's record, and thus fall for him. He will never do anything that principally questions the rule of sharia law and the order of the state as it is today. He has said that repeatedly to Western reporters in interviews. Don't try to know him better than the man knows himself. And don't lower yourself to the level of lacking knowledge on the man like the crowds in Teheran. Iranians maybe cannot know it better if they stick to the resources of their country only - but you can. the strange problem is that you do not want.

We Westerners are well-advised to stay out of this for the forseeable time to come. none of the candidate options is such that we should have a higher interest in him than in the others.

Regardless of the other credentials of either, we should put our allegiance
behind whoever the Iranian people are most likely to have voted for.

Legitimacy is a desirable quality more so than what ever policy decisions this
candidate or that is likely to make.

"Allegiance" is an odd word to use. I owe no allegiance to Iran or it's leaders and never will regardless of who they elect as their president.

Quite right.
"Support" seams odd too.

"recognition of legitimacy" comes a little closer, but then the rest of what I
said makes less clear sense.

"Preference" perhaps.



OT: See SB; meaning before language. ;)

Why ? They have a right to elect whomever they want, yes. But mis that an obligation for us that we must deal with that guy? Do we have no right to say: we refuse cooperation with this man, or with you if you elect such people?

They do not vote in our place. And we have all right there is to hold everybody responsible over his vote who voted for somebody.

We all are responsible for the choices we make. So are "they".

We can support someones legitimacy and simultaneously refuse to cooperate
with them.

I don't see a contradiction there.

I think the pope is the right and legitimate leader of Catholics and I would not
support a unelected usurping pope, but that doesn't mean I have to do
anything the pope asks of me. I don't communicate or cooperate with the
pope at all.

Ah, yes, I got you wrong as long you mean "support" in a purely formal context only.

There is it again: "support"?

I personally would not care for the pope at all, no matter whether he is an usurping or formally legal pope. And that in principle is the same position I have on the Iranian candidates for the presidency. It makes not much a difference for us who of the four wins, and how.

You don't think there is any merit in legitimacy alone?