Home
Archive
Columnists
Video
Blogs
Discuss
About
Search
Donate
Advertise
Advertisement
Advertisement
Advertisement
Advertisement
Register to Vote: Rock the Vote, powered by Working Assets Wireless
Advertisement
  • AlterNetYour turn

Support AlterNet
Do you value the information you're getting from AlterNet? Please show your support with a tax-deductible donation.


Feedback
Tell us how we're doing.

Iran: Know Thine Enemy

By Bill Berkeley, Columbia Journalism Review. Posted September 14, 2006.


There's been a blizzard of western media coverage of this avowed Islamic theocracy. But now a slew of new books by Persian-speaking journalists reveal how well we really know Iran.
41537story

Share and save this post:
Digg iconDelicious iconReddit iconFark iconYahoo! iconNewsvine! iconFacebook iconNewsTrust icon

Also in Top Stories

Sleeping Around Craigslist
Anna Reed, Lily Penza, East Bay Express

Bush's Secret Army of Snoops and Snitches
Matthew Rothschild, The Progressive

Michael Pollan on What's Wrong with Environmentalism
Kate Cheney Davidson, Yale Environment 360

A Peak Oil Prophet Imagines Life in America After Wal-Mart
Michelle Nijhuis, Grist.org

Sci-Fi Heroes Take on the System
Roya Rastegar, ColorLines

Billionaires Are Gouging Your Grandparents
Brave New Films, Brave New Films

Online Activists Keep the Pressure on Obama
Ari Melber, TheNation.com

More stories by Bill Berkeley

Get AlterNet in
your mailbox!

 
Advertisement

On a reporting trip to Iran in the spring of 2004, I visited the northeastern city of Mashhad. It's an important pilgrimage destination for Shiite Muslims, a sprawling, low-slung metropolis that fans out from a central plaza built around the gold-domed shrine of the Imam Reza. Imam Reza is believed to have hailed from the family of the prophet Mohammad. He was designated the eighth of the twelve sacred imams of the Shi'a faith, and is the only one buried in Iran. Hundreds of thousands of devout Shiites from across south Asia and the Arab world make pilgrimages to Mashhad each year to worship inside this splendid compound of aqua-tiled spires and arches, luminous chandeliers, and gushing fountains under two glittering domes.

My own experience of Mashhad was memorable for a different reason: it raised fresh doubts about the significance of religious orthodoxy in the Islamic Republic.

My driver in Mashhad was an amiable, bearded man named Ali, whose enviable ability to shirk traffic rules and park in no-parking zones was soon explained by his membership in the Basij militia, the hard-line paramilitary force that serves as one of the main coercive arms of the ruling mullahs. Like many Basiji, Ali, who is from a poor and devout family in the hinterland far from Tehran, had joined the Basij as a sixteen-year-old and gone off to fight in the Iran-Iraq war. The Basiji achieved notoriety in the war for their massive human-wave attacks and suicidal mine-sweeping operations, in which tens of thousands perished. Ali himself was wounded by shrapnel.

After eight years of brutal fighting and incessant clerical exhortations about the inevitable triumph of the armies of God, Iran's war with Iraq ended without achieving any of its declared objectives. For many veterans like Ali, there was a ready explanation for this disastrous turn of events. It was not the inadequacy of Iran's military planning or the miscalculations of its commanders. Rather, Ali told me, it was the West's cynical machinations that had turned the tide of battle. Ali reminded me that the Reagan administration, eager to block revolutionary Iran from defeating Iraq and spreading its influence across the Persian Gulf, helped arm Saddam Hussein and provided him with satellite reconnaissance of Iranian troop positions. Ali and many of his comrades would remain forever suspicious of America, and steadfast supporters of the ruling mullahs.

For all that, Ali, like so many Iranians I'd met, was eager to invite an American into his home. And so one evening Ali's wife and daughter served me a scrumptious traditional lamb stew known as abgusht. After a dessert of peeled cucumbers and tangerines, we shared a water pipe, known as a hookah, and talked into the night. When it was time to leave, Layli, Ali's lovely thirteen-year-old daughter, eagerly pressed upon me a delicate silver necklace -- a gift for my own daughter back in New York.

On the strength of this warm experience of cross-cultural bonding, over lunch the following day I put a sensitive question to Ali that I'd wanted to ask all along. "Ali," I said, "do you think these ruling mullahs are genuinely religious people?" Or did he think, as many Iranians I'd spoken to had told me, that they are just using religion as an instrument of power?

Ali listened carefully as the question was translated. A small smile crossed his lips. But he said nothing. He simply let the question pass.

After lunch, we repaired to a teashop across the street. I put the question to him a second time. "Ali," I said, "You didn't answer my question. Do you think these mullahs are genuinely motivated by religious piety?"

Again Ali listened carefully as the question was translated. Again a smile crossed his lips. And again he said nothing.

I've reported enough from abroad to know not to generalize too much from a single interview with an opinionated driver -- a classic error of foreign correspondence. But it struck me as significant that this avowed supporter of the regime, deeply suspicious of America, was unwilling to defend the religious bona fides of the ruling clerics -- the core of the regime's ideology and a central pillar of its legitimacy -- in response to a question from an American journalist.

I had grown accustomed to middle-class elites back in north Tehran vehemently mocking the religious pretensions of the ruling mullahs. But a Basiji in conservative Mashhad? Surely he would vouch for the clerics. Ali's disinclination to do so seemed to suggest just how cynical even the regime's most trusted allies had long since become -- and how illusory its mask of religious orthodoxy really was. It fit into an impression I had that was reinforced in scores of subsequent interviews with Iranians across a broad spectrum, left and right, high and low.

My encounter with Ali was typical of Iran: surprising, paradoxical, counterintuitive, and both gratifying and humbling for an American reporter whose memory of cold-war intrigue was short and whose assumptions about the so-called Islamic Republic turned out to be inadequate. Those assumptions would be all the more confounded a year later, when Ali and his Basiji confederates played a key role in electing one of their own, the fiery Mahmoud Ahmadinejad, as president -- apparently in protest against their sponsors among the mullahs as much as in support of them.


Digg!

Bill Berkeley is the author of The Graves Are Not Yet Full -- Race, Tribe and Power in the Heart of Africa (2001). He teaches writing at Columbia's School of International and Public Affairs, and is writing a book about the Iranian hostage-takers.

Liked this story? Get top stories in your inbox each week from AlterNet! Sign up now »


Advertisement

 

Comments Turn comments off sitewide Give us feedback »
Comments closed.
The comments for this story have been closed. Thank you to everyone who participated.
View:
Who cares?
Posted by: TT2 on Sep 14, 2006 12:23 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Who cares if they get a nuke or not? They wouldn't be the first ones now would they?

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» RE: Who cares? They should all have 'em. Posted by: Kitty Lady Oregon
» Once they get them, Posted by: WhuThe?!?
» RE: Once they get them, Posted by: YogiBear
» RE: Who cares? Posted by: Aussie Kim
A deeper and more nuanced impression?
Posted by: bullwhip7 on Sep 14, 2006 1:21 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
It's hard to get to know a person who's vowing to kill you. Unless of course you mean the nuances of the different ways he's considering to carry out the feat.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» cowering in fear Posted by: taxidave
» Fear is a state of mind Posted by: bullwhip7
Mullahs
Posted by: rsaxto on Sep 14, 2006 2:27 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
The ruling Mullahs in Iran are just using religion as an instrument of power just like the Bushies are just using religion as an instrument of power. If the Bushies attack Iran militarily it will strengthen the Mullahs and allow the Mullahs to completely crush the democratic reform movement. The Bushies would thus weaken democracy in Iran just as they have weakened democracy in Iraq. The best hope for a democracy in Iran would happen if we impeach the undemocratic Bushies and create a more democratic USA.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» RE: Mullahs Posted by: Conservasaurus
» RE: Mullahs Posted by: YogiBear
» RE: Mullahs Posted by: Conservasaurus
» RE: Mullahs Posted by: cardboardurinal
» RE: Mullahs Posted by: Conservasaurus
» RE: Mullahs Posted by: rsaxto
» RE: Mullahs Posted by: Conservasaurus
Iranians
Posted by: Arvy on Sep 14, 2006 5:49 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
I've said it before but it's worth repeating:
I was in Iran visiting (Christian) family on 9/11 2001. I watched it all on Iranian TV. I also saw thousands of Iranian people filling the streets to hold a candle-lit vigil for the victims of that horrific crime.
The Iranian people have great respect and admiration for your average American. They just hate US foreign policy. That's to be expected when it was the USA that removed their one democratically elected prime-minister (1953) and forced the Shah onto them (the most brutal dictator of that time).
From my experience of talking to the man/ woman in the street in both Iran and America then I have to conclude that your average Iranian is more knowledgeable about world events, less a slave to patriotism and more self-critical/ analytical than your average American (excepting the honourable contributors to this site, of course). They are also more friendly, hospitable and generous with their time and possessions.
Sorry.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» Great post of hope. Posted by: jreinhart1
» RE: Great post of hope. Posted by: Conservasaurus
» RE: Great post of hope. Posted by: AlienSlave
» Great point Posted by: WhuThe?!?
» RE: Great post of hope. Posted by: Conservasaurus
» RE: Great post of hope. Posted by: AlienSlave
» RE: Great post of hope. Posted by: Conservasaurus
» RE: Great post of hope. Posted by: AlienSlave
» RE: Great post of hope. Posted by: Conservasaurus
» RE: Great post of hope. Posted by: Fade
» RE: Great post of hope. Posted by: bullwhip7
» RE: Iranians....Sorry ???? Posted by: picket
» Nice info Posted by: Conservasaurus
» American & the 13th amendment Posted by: jreinhart1
» RE: Iranians Posted by: Aussie Kim
An Ignorant Nation
Posted by: jim_altman on Sep 14, 2006 6:07 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
According to the 2002 National Geographic-Roper Survey the average American has trouble finding America on a map, let alone Iran. Most Americans have distorted views of life outside their immediate communities. One reason? Journalism in the United States. On any given day, you can get more unvarnished facts out of Al-Jazeera than you can out of the New York Times or the Washington Post combined. The CNN that Europeans watch is light-years beyond the tripe they feed us 24/7. Our reality is so filtered, diluted, and polluted with misconceptions that it's no wonder our President is a dilettante dummy and so many of our people are misled by his deceitful administration. Americans are not dummies, but we are woefully misinformed.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» Ignorance almost always rules. Posted by: Sojourner
» RE: An Ignorant Nation Posted by: albrechtkrausse
» RE: An Ignorant Nation Posted by: willymack
» RE: An Ignorant Nation Posted by: edhowes
» RE: An Ignorant Nation Posted by: edhowes
Short and Sweet
Posted by: oriondarkwood on Sep 14, 2006 6:16 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
On both sides of this conflict it basically it boils down to the exterme pushing the masses toward a war that the masses don't want but will fight or stand by just to shut them up.

Case in point how many times have we taken a tract from a bible-thumper or a copy of the Watchtower just so we wouldn't have to deal with them?

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

The article does not speak for me
Posted by: babak on Sep 14, 2006 6:52 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
As an Iranian, I would like to comment on the article.

First of all, the US overthrow of the Mossadegh democracy in 1953 is mentioned sometimes in the US alternate press in terms of explaining Iranian anger against the US, but that is only part of the picture.

Through the xShah, the US controlled Iran. For instance, a US person committing murder in Iran was allowed to be tried in the USA by a US court, making it almost impossible for regular Iranians to press charges due to language barriers.

The Iranian economy was turned into a plaything for US corporate interests, and Iranians were treated as inferior to Americans while in Iran. For example, my uncle married an American woman, and went to join her at a party that her company was throwing in Tehran, but he was denied entrance because it was an American only party (in Iran).

For most Iranians that I know, getting the US emabassy workers felt like finally getting a punch back at the USA that had been beating us up for decades.

Also, Ahmadinijad has never called for genocide of Israel. He quoted Khomeini that Israel should be wiped off the map, but that is a political change and says nothing about genocide.

Most Iranians I know see Palestine as having been stolen from the Muslims. The land was 90% Muslims and then it was flooded by Westerners under British protection. The ethnic cleansing of Muslims started before Israel was declared a state and before the Arabs went to liberate the land. That is rarely mentioned in the Western media.

To say that Israel is a legitimate state is like telling us that we are not legitimate humans, and that we do not have a right to defend our own lands.

The way I see it, support for Israel is a hidden expression of bigotry against Muslims. All other people in the world are allowed to liberate the land that was taken from them, except us Muslims. That is what is implied in calling us terrorists for trying to take back what was conquered from us.

I consider this article to be a hair less prejudiced against Muslims and against Iranians than other articles I've read or heard. It is less prejudiced than those comments I hear on US talk radio stating that Mecca should be nuked, or other such comments. Nevertheless, it still does not even begin to describe the level of injustice that Iran endured from the USA from things such as the USA's support of Saddam Hussein during the Iran/Iraq war.

I was in the USA when the US Vincennes shot down Iran Airbus flight #655. I was working in a grocery store, and I heard my managers laughting about it and joking about it.

The ariticle gives a typically narcissistic view of Americans and a condescending view of Iranians, though that's an improvement over what I usually hear or read from the US media.

As for our leaders, not all of us mistrust them. The ones that I have gotten to know personally are very sincere, and have devoted their lives to their faith.

For us, Iran is the means to Islam. We preserve Iran so that we can have a place to practice our Islam. The reason that national interest has sometimes come before religion, in some cases, is that preservation of the state permits the preservation of the religion.

This article may describe some of the Westernized Iranians who are willing to lower themselves to paying obsequious sycophancy to Americans, but it does not describe us Iranians who have a sense of pride, spirit, and faith.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» Some points and questions Posted by: Conservasaurus
» RE: Some points and questions Posted by: emartins
» Wake up! Posted by: Conservasaurus
» RE: Some points and questions Posted by: Conservasaurus
» RE: Some points and questions Posted by: Conservasaurus
» RE: Some points and questions Posted by: Conservasaurus
» Some History - Part 1 Posted by: Conservasaurus
» RE: Some History - Part 2 Posted by: Conservasaurus
» RE: Some History - Part 2 Posted by: babak
» RE: Some History - Part 2 Posted by: Conservasaurus
» RE: Some points and questions Posted by: AlienSlave
» RE: Some points and questions Posted by: Conservasaurus
» quote from Ahmadinijad Posted by: babak
» RE: quote from Ahmadinijad Posted by: Conservasaurus
» Iran vs. Gregorian Calendar Posted by: YinRising
» It's not about the land! Posted by: Conservasaurus
Iran Is A Poster Child...
Posted by: NoPCZone on Sep 14, 2006 7:15 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Of why we need a new direction in SW Asia and need to tone down the rhetoric. Extremist governments and theocracies eventually run their course and when they do there might well be a chance for a more peaceful and less hostile Middle East.

Along with that comes a big caveat- we have to be very careful in the here and now about who we support, who we oppose and to what degree. Cozying up to repressive regimes has gotten us bitten in the backside more than a few times and has poisoned the attitudes of many toward our country. We need to open up to Iran while making it clear that we do not agree on their anti-semitic attitudes.

The last thing we need is a bull in a china shop like 'W'. The blowback on the Bush administration could be severe without some mea culpas, make goods and good behavior.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» RE: Why don't you mind YOUR own business Posted by: Global Fallujah
» Speaking of Fallujah Posted by: babak
» RE: Iran Is A Poster Child... Posted by: Aussie Kim
» Maybe You Misunderstood Me Posted by: NoPCZone
How to solve ME problem...
Posted by: tashi on Sep 14, 2006 8:32 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
ME problems can be fixed very quickly. Here's a recipe:
1. Don't prop up repressive regimes like Saudi Royal family, Jordanian monarchy, and Egyption dictator.
2. Stop supporting the apartheid state of Israel with weapons and aid
3. Let the people of ME countries decide how to live their lives...
None of this will happen ofcourse. US political system is just a whore to special interest groups. The most influential groups dictate the direction of US policies, be it foreign or domestic...

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» RE: How to solve ME problem... Posted by: Conservasaurus
» RE: How to solve ME problem... Posted by: rhinojos
» RE: How to solve ME problem... Posted by: Conservasaurus
» RE: How to solve ME problem... Posted by: bullwhip7
» RE: How to solve ME problem... Posted by: Conservasaurus
No nuclear weapons capability
Posted by: ethanay on Sep 14, 2006 10:14 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
http://tinyurl.com/o8noo

Almost all the current debate assumes that Iran has the capability--should it choose--to develop nuclear weapons. Tons of people have been brainwashed into assuming that Iran either has nuclear weapons now or will have them shortly. Not to mention that even if it did eventually get the bomb, that it would be more likely to use it than the US or Israel.

Now I hear that President Bush has reserved the right to use his own nuclear weapons on an attack against Iran.

This entire situation is beyond insane, and the insanity has little directly to do with Iran's nuclear energy ambitions. Is it seriously going to take an unnecessary nuclear war where millions die followed by hundreds of years of nuclear fallout where millions more will die before people wake up? Or will our eyes be wide shut even then?

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

Too Bad...
Posted by: kk33deg on Sep 14, 2006 10:58 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
...that nobody in the Cheney Regime will read any of these books. It might interfere with their "moral clarity", not to mention their venality.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

Nothing really matters...
Posted by: tashi on Sep 14, 2006 11:12 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
It doesn't matter what is written on sites such as alternet, counterpunch, zmag, etc...general public consumes only the garbage on MSM.
Majority of Americans don't vote. They are not interested in the civil affairs of society. They would rather watch reruns of some mind-numbing reality show from last year, then pay any attention to even substantial news covered in MSM.
Case in point is the latest Senate report on "intelligence failure" regarding Iraq.
Russert invited Dick Cheney and pressed him on Bush administration's linkage of Saddam with Al-Qaeda and Zarqawi. Even though the Senate report exonerates Saddam with any ties with either Al-Qaeda or Zarqawi, Cheney kept regurgatating his shit about Saddam and terrorism.
How can Americans put up with this blatant lie. Nobody should be allowed to put Saddam and Al-Qaeda/Zarqawi in the same sentence...
So lets stop wasting our energies and do something more productive.
The days of US empire are numbered. A country where the majority of citizens are not interested in the civil affairs doesn't have much of a future.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

The Equation is Simple
Posted by: sofla100 on Sep 14, 2006 2:44 PM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
This article is ok but simplistic. Obviously, Bush has provoked and will continue to provoke a defensive reaction by the Iranians and this plays into the hands of the Iranian religious conservatives. With 140,000 US troops next door in Iran, nuclear armed Israel popping into Lebannon as desired, and scandals that show American troops committing ocassional atrocities in Iraq, the slate is problematic. Iran without a doubt must feel backed into a corner. Bush has also routinely stated his desire to engage in pre-emption if desired. And then the USA wonders why Iran wants nukes.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» RE: The Equation is Simple Posted by: edhowes
Putting Down the Sword
Posted by: sofla100 on Sep 14, 2006 4:31 PM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
An underlying point of all this, I believe, is that the USA could still change course, if our leadership understood and acted accordingly. Of course, for the USA to go from a belligerent, bellicose and militarily challenging approach to an elightened one would be a very radical change. It can start with getting our troops out of Iraq, and then go on to the USA stopping all aid to Israel. Private US aid to Israel should also be stopped as we know this aid is currently being used by Israel to fund its state sponsored terrorism (ie, land annexation, wars). Next, our reaching out to the governments of both Iran and Syria and recognizing the plight of the Palestinian people needs to happen. Now, it goes without saying this all needs to be done genuinely and honestly. The USA cannot go in with the military approach or idealogical nonsense about democracy. But, if really done the right way, all these countries could change and radically transform. The warmongers in all of them could be cast aside as no external enemy is left to prop them up. What would the transformation be? I am not sure, but that would be up to the peoples of Iran, Syria and Iraq to decide. Perhaps they want the Mullah's or an Islamic theocracy, it is not our right to tell them what to do. But I would easily wager that it would be something different, perhaps not the mercenary corporate democratic system we have, but some kind of blending of systems into something that really represents the people. Much different then GWB's "democracy." Which is "democracy" out of the barrel of a gun.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» RE: Putting Down the Sword Posted by: popsicle67
I have to say it again
Posted by: popsicle67 on Sep 14, 2006 9:27 PM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
You are all looking in the wrong place and talking to the wrong people about Iran. All you need to know about how long before Iran is a peace loving nation with rational leaders is on youtube. That's right YOUTUBE!!. There is an underground movement in Iran that I guarantee will bring
fundamentalism to it's knees or at least kick it in the balls hard enough to make it wheeze. This movement is so powerful that it has already changed the basic fabric of a much more powerful country. The movement I speak of is Rock and Roll. If you go to youtube and type in thrash metal
you will come across videos of Iranian teens and older playing
all sorts of heavy rock in one of the most oppressive countries on earth. Remember that the establishment tried to
kill rock music in America and failed miserably with a majority
of the country behind them, Iranian leaders won't stand a chance.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» RE: I have to say it again Posted by: bahram
» RE: I have to say it again Posted by: Aussie Kim
Phony religion?
Posted by: Sojourner on Sep 14, 2006 10:05 PM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Religion can be phony, because false prophets are ubiquitous. So long as religion remains a matter of belief, one must take one’s chances in judging whether a prophet (or simply an ordinary cleric) believes or only pretends to believe.

Even required or ritualistic behavior may or may not be a sign of authenticity--except in the case where it helps others. Religion is called ‘sacred’ because it is about sacrifice, about giving of oneself.

In the Protestant tradition, the rule is that salvation is a matter of faith. Since faith is so personal that it cannot be measured, often the evidence of faith becomes whoever talks about it a lot, or shouts the loudest. Yet whoever acts holier than thou is the antithesis of holiness.

In the New Testament are dozens of stories to show that not only was Jesus’ ministry questioned and challenged but that it is essential that anyone’s ministry be questioned. Fat chance that our radical right religious evangelists will pay attention to the story that when one prays one should do so in private.

Display fits religion when it is expected to produce stunts—politely referred to as miracles. The enemy of religion is not questioning; rather it is superstition. That holds true in all the world’s great religions.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

Interesting posts babak. I have a question? or two
Posted by: WhatNow? on Sep 15, 2006 11:38 PM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
It's good to read from the other side. I can not disagree with anything you say. I am curious as to how you think things could be settled between jews and palestinians. Where exactly would the jewish people go if israel was eliminated? Does the jew that's living in the occupied territories on a certain palestinians land give it back to him or her and then go to the refugee camp where the palestinian has been relegated? In other words, these would be difficult situations to settle. It might be fitting that the jew have to move to a refugee camp while the palestinian is returned to what was once his, but I despise what israel is doing to the palestinians and would not like to see the palestinians do the same to the jews.

You mentioned the Iranian jet liner been downed by a US ship. I heard the same kind of garbage from people I knew that thought it was something "good" or "desirable". That's the kind of trash that makes me ashamed of my fellow countrymen. I am ashamed of what we did that day.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

American "Democracy"--Bloodstained to the Core
Posted by: Global Fallujah on Sep 16, 2006 3:10 PM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
The Alternet article above and many of the messages by many of the American apologists here all evade a single, fundamental issue: the so-called "Democracy" that America so benevolently wants to bring to Iran (or the world for that matter) is bloodstained to the core, and deserves to be exposed for the lie that it is.

If you want to see the true nature of American democracy, take a quick look at Iraq or Afghanistan, where America has turned these nations into a living hell on earth. In the case of Afghanistan, one could say that things were better under the Taliban than under American rule! That's quite an accomplishment by the Americans and their democracy-loving Western allies. With respect to Iraq, the United States claims that it wanted to "liberate" Iraq--which in reality means one Abu Ghraib torture, one Haditha massacre, and one Iraqi oil well at a time!

And, no, this is not merely the fault of the Bush Regime or Neoconservatives. The Democrats and "progressives" also supported this war. The only dispute they have with Bush are *tactical* quibbles over the fact that America's colonial occupation is not going so well--thanks to the Iraqi and Afghan Resistance.

For America, "democracy" is not a principle. It is a pretext to overthrow, intervene, interfere, and destabilize any country that opposes the American Empire and its New World Order. This has always been true of American behavior in one form or another.

Iran is just the latest target.

Citizens of the American Empire will deny this in a million different ways as it would involve questioning the patriotic lies they have been fed since birth about their "Land of the Free." But that's on them.

Another thing that Bill Berkeley's article disingenously misrepresents is the very premise of the so-called "Iran crisis," as if there is a moral equivalence between the American aggressor and its target. This "crisis" is an American-instigated, American-generated, and American-led crisis (with Israeli help of course) based upon false premises and lies about "weapons of mass destruction" no different from discredited lies that America pushed about Iraq.

The American agenda with respect to both Iraq and Iran of course is seizing control over OIL.

Democracy, freedom, WMDs, terrorism, or Iran's nuclear program are only pretexts for suckers, dupes, and American patriots to believe.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 -