And now there is also a defence of the Islamic Republic of Iran posted at Socialist Unity today. As an eloquent example of how far certain sections of the British (and European) Left have sunk. Hat tip: Harry's Place (the “other” Left).
Bastards!! But then this is something I have seen in some Leftist individuals... I have seen some of them calling Islamic Republic of Iran an "Islamic democracy".
'Firstly, Iran simply is a constitutional democracy....' I wonder how many Iranians would agree with that incredible statement? (Andy Newman might well be making a name for himself as someone who neither shouts nor understands. He thus qualifies perfectly as yet another tedious member of the 'noble hearts' club', who accepts everything and defends nothing).
Re. Harry's Place, The subtitle seems to spell it out. If 'Liberty, if it means anything, is the right to tell people what they don't want to hear', Harry would take similar liberties (if liberties mean anything..) as do the majority of dictators.
It's interesting that for such mentalities, the internal problem of Iran is simplified into the classic polarities. Maybe they can't reason beyond classic polarities. So the students, the 'intelligentsia', are the 'pro-western', 'decadent', 'imperialistic', 'privileged class', whilst the popolino 'workers' are the 'pro Ahmadinejad backbone of Iran'.
In fact the internal situation of Iran has nothing to do with such naive and dated ideas, and only a blind fool would pretend that Iran is still a democracy. The tyrannical regime led by a megalomaniac, has a project, and whoever tries to impede the regime from continuing with the project, whatever political tendency, will be eliminated. It remains to be seen what the project is, but by all accounts it can"t be good for anyone, all political tendencies combined, including those of Iran.
Back in 2003 “Liberty, if it means anything, is the right to tell people what they don't want to hear,” meant that at Harry’s Place they supported Tony Blair's decision to join George W. Bush in attacking Iraq, against the vast majority of the Labour Party voters.
Well, it works both ways for them. But after the first Iraqi elections, the unanticipated al-Qaida backlash made them quickly change their minds. They were amongst the first to scurry down the mooring ropes.
On this subject Prince Charles has just dropped a clanger. He should have known better. He must be getting desperately in need of attention. I doubt, however, if the Iraqis would ever agree with him now. And I also doubt if he will ever be invited to Iraq..
Bastards!! But then this is something I have seen in some Leftist individuals... I have seen some of them calling Islamic Republic of Iran an "Islamic democracy".
ReplyDeleteHappy New Year, Rob.
'Firstly, Iran simply is a constitutional democracy....'
ReplyDeleteI wonder how many Iranians would agree with that incredible statement?
(Andy Newman might well be making a name for himself as someone who neither shouts nor understands. He thus qualifies perfectly as yet another tedious member of the 'noble hearts' club', who accepts everything and defends nothing).
Re. Harry's Place, The subtitle seems to spell it out. If 'Liberty, if it means anything, is the right to tell people what they don't want to hear', Harry would take similar liberties (if liberties mean anything..) as do the majority of dictators.
It's interesting that for such mentalities, the internal problem of Iran is simplified into the classic polarities. Maybe they can't reason beyond classic polarities. So the students, the 'intelligentsia', are the 'pro-western', 'decadent', 'imperialistic', 'privileged class', whilst the popolino 'workers' are the 'pro Ahmadinejad backbone of Iran'.
In fact the internal situation of Iran has nothing to do with such naive and dated ideas, and only a blind fool would pretend that Iran is still a democracy. The tyrannical regime led by a megalomaniac, has a project, and whoever tries to impede the regime from continuing with the project, whatever political tendency, will be eliminated. It remains to be seen what the project is, but by all accounts it can"t be good for anyone, all political tendencies combined, including those of Iran.
@Claudia:
ReplyDeleteHappy New Year to you, too!
@Mirino:
Back in 2003 “Liberty, if it means anything, is the right to tell people what they don't want to hear,” meant that at Harry’s Place they supported Tony Blair's decision to join George W. Bush in attacking Iraq, against the vast majority of the Labour Party voters.
To Rob
ReplyDeleteWell, it works both ways for them. But after the first Iraqi elections, the unanticipated al-Qaida backlash made them quickly change their minds. They were amongst the first to scurry down the mooring ropes.
On this subject Prince Charles has just dropped a clanger. He should have known better. He must be getting desperately in need of attention.
I doubt, however, if the Iraqis would ever agree with him now. And I also doubt if he will ever be invited to Iraq..
http://www.corriere.it/esteri/10_gennaio_03/carlo_blair_guerra_iraq_0c2c9bf0-f853-11de-bb47-00144f02aabe.shtml
Poor Leftists, who believe they can't make their agenda look good unless they defend dictators and totalitarianism...
ReplyDelete