How 'Rational Atheists' spread anti Islam pro US military propaganda

[awepittance]

tbh i'm pretty tired of this argument. it's pretty obvious to me that sam harris, and bill maher, are bigots. their comments on "islam" are so blatantly uninformed and prejudiced that i can't imagine how people could support them or even stomach them enough to nitpick whether they are precisely racist, islamophobic, bigoted or whatever.

 

It's really a waste of energy to try and convince people of what's right there in front of their face.

I learned that a long time ago.

 

so far Grue made the most effective counter point to the original article I posted, and I appreciate that very much. thanks Grue

[syd syside]

fine what would you prefer I call it, Islamic Theocracy? Totalitarianism? Extremism? Radicalism?

 

No idea how this is un-related to the topic?

 

Just like hardcore Christians, there are hardcore Muslims.... Did you forget about the dark ages? These intitutions are capable of aggressions against human rights.

[SR4]

 

tbh i'm pretty tired of this argument. it's pretty obvious to me that sam harris, and bill maher, are bigots. their comments on "islam" are so blatantly uninformed and prejudiced that i can't imagine how people could support them or even stomach them enough to nitpick whether they are precisely racist, islamophobic, bigoted or whatever.

 

It's really a waste of energy to try and convince people of what's right there in front of their face.

I learned that a long time ago.

 

so far Grue made the most effective counter point to the original article I posted, and I appreciate that very much. thanks Grue

 

pretty much this. it's a waste of time and energy.

 

edit: and I do want to make clear yet again that even though I side with Greenwald on this issue in regards to Hitchens and Harris, they still have commendable ideas elsewhere. Harris's explanation of "religious moderates" is pretty spot on.

[lumpenprol]

dang I had to wade through 13 pages and I'm more confused than ever - is it still ok to hate on arabs or not?

[SR4]

dang I had to wade through 13 pages and I'm more confused than ever - is it still ok to hate on arabs or not?

 

 

as long as you keep changing the goalposts, yes. Just be careful about even suggesting cultural imperialism, Mister E will start foaming at the mouth again.

[syd syside]

The term "Islamophobia" is, according to Abdur-Rahman Muhammad, a former radical Islamist present when it was first coined, "nothing more than a thought-terminating cliche conceived in the bowels of Muslim think tanks for the purpose of beating down critics," to silence criticism of political Islam, to portray Muslims as victims. Those that met at the offices of the International Institute for Islamic Thought (IIIT) in Northern Virginia decided to emulate the homosexual activists who used the term "homophobia" to silence critics. See this for more.

 

 

There is a serious lack of understanding on this issue in my opinion. This is my best and perhaps last attempt to explain my position more clearly. I hope this post is not ignored. There will be quite a lot of information, to which I am going to keep my thoughts to a minimum. I also will note, this argument has already been made in this thread, though haphazardly and sloppily.

 

Before I get into specifics about Islamic belief and Muslims today, some history and general information.

 

Part 1 : History, Islam, and Islamic Sects

 

Banning of the Printing Press for 234 Years : One critical regression was banning and outlawing the printing press due to Islamic belief and religious corruption -

 

"In 1726, Ibrahim Muteferrika convinced the Grand Vizier Nevşehirli Damat İbrahim Pasha, the Grand Mufti, and the clergy on the efficiency of the printing press, and Muteferrika was later granted by Sultan Ahmed III the permission to publish non-religious books"

 

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ottoman_Empire

 

This may not seem like a big deal to some of us, but imagine for a second what impact information and knowledge has on a society and on religion.

"the invention and spread of the printing press are widely regarded as among the most influential events in the second millennium[1] revolutionizing the way people conceive and describe the world they live in, and ushering in the period of modernity."

 

"The invention of mechanical movable type printing led to a large increase in printing activities across Europe within only a few decades. From a single print shop in Mainz, Germany, printing had spread to no less than around 270 cities in Central, Western and Eastern Europe by the end of the 15th century."

 

 

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Printing_press

 

So what exactly separates Islam from the other Abrahamic religions?

 

 

The Final Revelation

 

"Islam (English pron.: /ˈɪslɑːm/;[note 1] Arabic: الإسلام‎ al-ʾislām IPA: [ælʔɪsˈlæːm] (

listen)[note 2]) is a monotheistic and Abrahamic religion articulated by the Qur'an, a book considered by its adherents to be the verbatim word of God (Arabic: الله‎ Allāh) and by the teachings and normative example (called the Sunnah and composed of Hadith) of Muhammad, considered by them to be the last prophet of God. An adherent of Islam is called a Muslim"

 

 

Why is this a critical difference? It may not be entirely clear yet, but let's continue on, and examine the two major sects of Islam in the Middle East. Sunni and Shia (Shiite).

"The word "Sunni" in Arabic comes from a word meaning "one who follows the traditions [of the Prophet]."

The word "Shia" in Arabic means a group or supportive party of people."

"The division between Shia and Sunni dates back to the death of the Prophet Muhammad in 632 C.E., and the question of who was to take over the Imamat (leadership) of the Muslim nation. Sunnis, the majority, believe that the first four caliphs, Mohammed's successors, rightfully took his place as the leaders of Islam. They recognize the heirs of the four caliphs as legitimate religious leaders. These heirs ruled continuously in the Arab world until the break-up of the Ottoman Empire following the end of the First World War. "

 

 

Succession of Ali

"Shia Muslims believe that just as a prophet is appointed by God alone, only God has the prerogative to appoint the successor to his prophet. They believe God chose Ali to be Muhammad's successor, infallible, the first caliph (khalifa, head of state) of Islam. Muhammad, before his death, designated Ali as his successor.

 

"Ali's rule over the early Muslim community was often contested, and wars were waged against him. As a result, he had to struggle to maintain his power against the groups who betrayed him after giving allegiance to his succession, or those who wished to take his position. This dispute eventually led to the First Fitna, which was the first major civil war within the Islamic Caliphate"

 

"The historic background of the Sunni–Shia split lies in the schism that occurred when the Islamic prophet Muhammad died in the year 632, leading to a dispute over succession to Muhammad as a caliph of the Islamic community spread across various parts of the world which led to the Battle of Siffin. Sectarian violence persists to this day from Pakistan to Yemen and is a major element of friction throughout the Middle East."

 

 

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Shia–Sunni_relations

 

The difference here is that Shia believe in the possibility of more prophets, while Sunni's believe the Qu'ran and Muhammad is the last and perfect revelation of God.

 

This is where we start to understand why there are major contrasts between the two sects:

 

"Mainstream Sunnism has been said to be "about" Sharia, sacred law. In contrast, the Shia also follow Islamic law with great "vigilance", but their belief is added with Ijtihad "Research" in the light of teachings of the Quran."

 

 

So like all Religions, some sects have a more literal and fundamental view of their holy book.

 

Part 2 : Modern Day Middle East, Iraq and Iran

 

Keep this map in mind as we explore recent history in Iraq and Iran.

Map of Sects

Green = Sunnis , Red = Shias.

 

Preface:

 

"This week, we'll talk about events that shook the Muslim world 30 years ago, in 1979. Those events still resonate today. Just think of two American wars. In 1979, Saddam Hussein became president of Iraq, and the Soviet Union invaded Afghanistan. The event that seized the world's attention in 1979 was Iran's Revolution. Here's how one broadcaster described the scene."

 

 

Iraq:

 

Saddam Hussein was a secular dictator of Iraq for officially 24 years. Though he himself was Sunni (the minority population of Iraq).

"Through the 1970s, Saddam cemented his authority over the apparatuses of government as oil money helped Iraq's economy to grow at a rapid pace. Positions of power in the country were mostly filled with Sunnis, a minority that made up only a fifth of the population."

"Saddam formally rose to power in 1979, though he had been the de facto head of Iraq for several years prior (see Succession). He suppressed several movements, particularly Shi'a and Kurdish movements seeking to overthrow the government or gain independence, respectively,[7] and maintained power during the Iran–Iraq War of 1980 through 1988. In 1990 he ordered the invasion of Kuwait, leading to the Gulf War of 1991"

 

Succession:

 

In 1976, Saddam rose to the position of general in the Iraqi armed forces, and rapidly became the strongman of the government. As the ailing, elderly al-Bakr became unable to execute his duties, Saddam took on an increasingly prominent role as the face of the government both internally and externally. He soon became the architect of Iraq's foreign policy and represented the nation in all diplomatic situations. He was the de facto leader of Iraq some years before he formally came to power in 1979. He slowly began to consolidate his power over Iraq's government and the Ba'ath party. Relationships with fellow party members were carefully cultivated, and Saddam soon accumulated a powerful circle of support within the party.

 

In 1979 al-Bakr started to make treaties with Syria, also under Ba'athist leadership, that would lead to unification between the two countries. Syrian President Hafez al-Assad would become deputy leader in a union, and this would drive Saddam to obscurity. Saddam acted to secure his grip on power. He forced the ailing al-Bakr to resign on 16 July 1979, and formally assumed the presidency.

 

Shortly afterwards, he convened an assembly of Ba'ath party leaders on 22 July 1979. During the assembly, which he ordered videotaped (viewable via this reference[35]), Saddam claimed to have found a fifth column within the Ba'ath Party and directed Muhyi Abdel-Hussein to read out a confession and the names of 68 alleged co-conspirators. These members were labelled "disloyal" and were removed from the room one by one and taken into custody. After the list was read, Saddam congratulated those still seated in the room for their past and future loyalty. The 68 people arrested at the meeting were subsequently tried together and found guilty of treason. 22 were sentenced to execution. Other high-ranking members of the party formed the firing squad. By 1 August 1979, hundreds of high-ranking Ba'ath party members had been executed."

 

Genocidal campaign against Kurds

 

The Al-Anfal Campaign was a genocidal[38] campaign against the Kurdish people (and many others) in Iraqi Kurdistan led by the Iraqi government of Saddam Hussein and headed by Ali Hassan al-Majid. The campaign takes its name from Surat al-Anfal in the Qur'an, which was used as a code name by the former Iraqi Ba'athist administration for a series of attacks against the peshmerga rebels and the mostly Kurdish civilian population of rural Northern Iraq, conducted between 1986 and 1989 culminating in 1988. This campaign also targeted Shabaks and Yazidis, Assyrians, Turkoman people and Mandeans and many villages belonging to these ethnic groups were also destroyed. Human Rights Watch estimates that between 50,000 and 100,000 people were killed.[39] Some Kurdish sources put the number higher, estimating 182,000 Kurds were killed.[40]

 

 

Iran - Iraq War

 

Nostalgia is not the right word to describe how Iranians and Iraqis feel when they look back at the epic war they fought – one of the longest and bloodiest of the 20th century.

It began 30 years ago this week when Saddam Hussein launched what he hoped would be an easy victory over a disorganised enemy. By its end, nearly eight years later, more than 1 million people were dead and both countries deeply scarred. It has marked the politics of the Middle East ever since.

 

The Iranian Revolution of 1979:

INSKEEP: You mentioned university students who have leftist ideologies. You mentioned people who wanted democracy. They wanted more freedom. They wanted more openness. They wanted things that sound, to our ears, like Western values. And yet this same giant crowd was the crowd that welcomed Ayatollah Khomeini when he returned to Iran to take control.

 

Mr. NAJI: He played a very clever game. Those days, before he returned to Tehran, all he would talk about was democracy and freedom. He would not talk about a religious revolution. He wouldn't talk about a religious state, and democracy and freedom worked for us too, on the left, in a sense that we wanted to have a say. And freedom and democracy would provide that.

 

INSKEEP: How long did it take for a wide group of Iranians, not just student intellectuals, to begin doubting the direction that the country was taking under Ayatollah Khamenei in those early years?

 

Mr. NAJI: The doubts had begun even before the overthrow of the shah. But, of course, as more people joined this doubt, if you like, had more doubts, and these groups were - the groups that were started to be eliminated from the political process. And Iran became pretty ugly.

I remember a few months after the Revolution, they were executing about 100, 150, 160 people a day and they would announce and print their names in the afternoon papers. I used to - I remember, I used to go and get the afternoon papers and just go home and sort of cry because you just, you know, just going through these names of, you know, a lot of people you didn't know, but obviously, you know, the night before 160 people had been executed. And this went on for months on end.

 

http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=111944123

 

Wrap Up:

 

Saddam and the Islamic Revolution in Iran rose to power the same year. Following this, the leftists and pro-democracy Shia majority were being executed by the new regime in Iran. To which Saddam invaded Iran (1987) killing over a million young people (ie mostly all Iranian and Iraqi Shias).

 

Later also killing over 100,000 thousand innocent Kurdish civilians (also Shias)

 

This is religious imperialism. The Sunni majority has been squeezing the life out of the Shia's and have been seizing Islamic Fascist control over the entire Middle East region. And those who live in these regions and disagree with these imperialists, face death.

 

I hope my information has been correctly sourced (primarily from wikipedia) and that it is not confusing. This is why I care about this issue. I used to be a progressive/liberal who thought US imperialism was the greatest threat to human rights, but I cannot stand in that position anymore. Do I think the Iraq was a victory? Absolutely not, it was a disaster. Afghanistan too. But if your world views simply boil down those two conflicts to being simply about Oil or US Imperialism, I ask you to re-consider.

[Guest zaphod]

how do you measure magnitudes of badness in different types of imperialism? you realize the united states was supporting the iraqi invasion of iran and had been pouring billions into iraq's military spending since the early 80's?

[syd syside]

how do you measure magnitudes of badness in different types of imperialism? you realize the united states was supporting the iraqi invasion of iran and had been pouring billions into iraq's military spending since the early 80's?

Starting in 1982 with Iranian success on the battlefield, the United States made its backing of Iraq more pronounced, normalizing relations with the government, supplying it with economic aid, counter-insurgency training, operational intelligence on the battlefield, and weapons.^[3][13]

At the time, the US was terrified of the new regime in Iran as opposed to Saddam. I'm not saying it was a good idea, but its a bit different than starting a war and genocide against the Shia Muslims (Which is what Saddam did, not the US). The Islamic totalitarian Iranian regime were systematically executing Shia, while Saddam was running a regime that was less fascist.

[goDel]

And where are those friggin goalposts? At us imperialism is bad? Is it about drones? And that islamophobia is just an excuse rationalizing some kind of war? Is that it? Where are the friggin goalposts???? Because if those are the starting points of the discussion, i don't know why this thread exists in the first place. That means that anyone trying to have some form of different point of view basically gets boxed into the war=good, drones are awesome, bush is my hero, who sucks ayn rand's dick ( yes she probably had one) and who's a total bigot for even looking at "muslims" category ("s added to support the idea of not knowing what that person is talking about). At least, that's what it looks like.

 

So yeah, start rolling your eyes and tell me that i'm an oblivious bigot who's basically unable to have a discussion about the subject. Or are these the goalposts? Like it's about being measured about any discussion ever made on this forum, even years ago.

 

Please tell me about goalposts.

 

* being another victim in awes sociological experiments*

[goDel]

[syd syside]

small correction of typo in last comments, 1980 not 1987.

[goDel]

Sounds like you're trying to move goalposts. Good luck with that.

[syd syside]

lol, damnit

 

I spent like 2 hours on that shit ensuring I wouldn't have to move the goal posts and I get the year fucking wrong

 

fml

[syd syside]

[Guest zaphod]

 

how do you measure magnitudes of badness in different types of imperialism? you realize the united states was supporting the iraqi invasion of iran and had been pouring billions into iraq's military spending since the early 80's?

Starting in 1982 with Iranian success on the battlefield, the United States made its backing of Iraq more pronounced, normalizing relations with the government, supplying it with economic aid, counter-insurgency training, operational intelligence on the battlefield, and weapons.^[3][13]

At the time, the US was terrified of the new regime in Iran as opposed to Saddam. I'm not saying it was a good idea, but its a bit different than starting a war and genocide against the Shia Muslims (Which is what Saddam did, not the US). The Islamic totalitarian Iranian regime were systematically executing Shia, while Saddam was running a regime that was less fascist.

 

 

 

the united states wasn't terrified, that's absurd. iran exists at a nexus of resource wealth and the united states was taking full advantage of it.

 

britain and the u.s. boycotted iranian oil in the 1950s and crippled the country's economy. this is when the cia lead a coup in iran and reversed the nationalising of iranian oil, which is what brought on the boycott in the first place. the iranians tried to sell off oil to the u.s. in the 60s but again, because the u.s. believed the profits would only benefit non western companies, they refused. this is when they started buying saudi oil. in the 1970s a sort of proxy war went into full effect where the u.s. was competing with european and russian interests, which is essentially the story of the middle east post-ww2. the u.s. government believed that raising oil prices would breed competition that would strengthen the economy and put it ahead of various european economies. there was an ineffective embargo in the early 70s due to u.s. support of israel, but it did nothing to impact our position in the region, which has always been to take advantage of extremely conservative regimes, like iran, to maintain balance.

the u.s. wanted a prolonged war in iran. war would extend our reach and relations with countries in the persian gulf, strengthening diplomatic ties. carter actually played up the idea of a soviet threat to iran to bolster military presence throughout the middle east. this is what the tanker war eventually did. the us had no reason to take a side or back iraq against iran in that conflict, since iraq's actions were in violation of several international laws and lead to the destruction of saudi vessels. but again, tension in the region equals military cooperation with the united states, which equals stronger u.s. presence in the persian gulf. the united states was seeking the respect and cooperation of arab nations, even when people like oliver north were explicitly stating that they wanted iran to win the conflict. of course, everyone is familiar with iran-contra, which lead to the united states fully supporting iraq to gain support from the other arab countries.

 

now, i'm not supporting either iran or iraq, as military powers, in that conflict. both were completely despicable. but the united states had not entered into some kind of morality war, which is the picture you seem to paint. the us government had a very specific goal in mind, and it was an imperialistic and reprehensible goal that cost both iraq and iran millions of civilian lives. your conclusion that a "secular" regime was better than the militaristic one in place is irrelevant and seems arrived at independent of the copypasta you quoted from wikipedia. this is the pattern of posting you've developed in this thread though. there is no throughline of logic or historical insight to any of your posts. you're just posting statistics and then reiterating a point that has nothing to do with the statistics you're posting. i suggest you actually read about the subject before posting anymore about iran, because it's clear to me that you have no idea what you're talking about.

[LimpyLoo]

Religion--all of it--scares me a bit

[syd syside]

 

 

how do you measure magnitudes of badness in different types of imperialism? you realize the united states was supporting the iraqi invasion of iran and had been pouring billions into iraq's military spending since the early 80's?

 

 

 

Starting in 1982 with Iranian success on the battlefield, the United States made its backing of Iraq more pronounced, normalizing relations with the government, supplying it with economic aid, counter-insurgency training, operational intelligence on the battlefield, and weapons.^{%5B3%5D%5B13%5D}

ockquote>

At the time, the US was terrified of the new regime in Iran as opposed to Saddam. I'm not saying it was a good idea, but its a bit different than starting a war and genocide against the Shia Muslims (Which is what Saddam did, not the US). The Islamic totalitarian Iranian regime were systematically executing Shia, while Saddam was running a regime that was less fascist.

 

 

the united states wasn't terrified, that's absurd. iran exists at a nexus of resource wealth and the united states was taking full advantage of it.

 

britain and the u.s. boycotted iranian oil in the 1950s and crippled the country's economy. this is when the cia lead a coup in iran and reversed the nationalising of iranian oil, which is what brought on the boycott in the first place. the iranians tried to sell off oil to the u.s. in the 60s but again, because the u.s. believed the profits would only benefit non western companies, they refused. this is when they started buying saudi oil. in the 1970s a sort of proxy war went into full effect where the u.s. was competing with european and russian interests, which is essentially the story of the middle east post-ww2. the u.s. government believed that raising oil prices would breed competition that would strengthen the economy and put it ahead of various european economies. there was an ineffective embargo in the early 70s due to u.s. support of israel, but it did nothing to impact our position in the region, which has always been to take advantage of extremely conservative regimes, like iran, to maintain balance.

the u.s. wanted a prolonged war in iran. war would extend our reach and relations with countries in the persian gulf, strengthening diplomatic ties. carter actually played up the idea of a soviet threat to iran to bolster military presence throughout the middle east. this is what the tanker war eventually did. the us had no reason to take a side or back iraq against iran in that conflict, since iraq's actions were in violation of several international laws and lead to the destruction of saudi vessels. but again, tension in the region equals military cooperation with the united states, which equals stronger u.s. presence in the persian gulf. the united states was seeking the respect and cooperation of arab nations, even when people like oliver north were explicitly stating that they wanted iran to win the conflict. of course, everyone is familiar with iran-contra, which lead to the united states fully supporting iraq to gain support from the other arab countries.

 

now, i'm not supporting either iran or iraq, as military powers, in that conflict. both were completely despicable. but the united states had not entered into some kind of morality war, which is the picture you seem to paint. the us government had a very specific goal in mind, and it was an imperialistic and reprehensible goal that cost both iraq and iran millions of civilian lives. your conclusion that a "secular" regime was better than the militaristic one in place is irrelevant and seems arrived at independent of the copypasta you quoted from wikipedia. this is the pattern of posting you've developed in this thread though. there is no throughline of logic or historical insight to any of your posts. you're just posting statistics and then reiterating a point that has nothing to do with the statistics you're posting. i suggest you actually read about the subject before posting anymore about iran, because it's clear to me that you have no idea what you're talking about.

 

 

First of all, I am not denying the US had their interests in mind when dealing with Iran and Iraq. But the US did not start the war. They reacted and made a bad call imo.

Tensions between Iran and Iraq were fueled by Iran's Shia revolution and its appearance of being a Pan-Islamic force, in contrast to Iraq's Arab nationalism. Despite Iraq's goals of regaining the Shatt al-Arab,^{[note 2]} the Iraqi government seemed to initially welcome Iran's 1978-1979 Islamic Revolution, which overthrew Iran's Shah, who was seen as a common enemy.^{%5B4%5D%5B20%5D} Therefore, when in June 1979, Ayatollah Ruhollah Khomeini called on Iraqi Shias to overthrow the Ba'ath government, it was received with considerable shock in Baghdad.^%5B20%5D On 17 July 1979, despite Khomeini's call, Saddam, then Iraq's President, gave a speech praising the Iranian Revolution and called for an Iraqi-Iranian friendship based on non-interference in each others' internal affairs.^%5B20%5DSome scholars have argued that Iranian-backed terrorist attacks and cross-border raids on Iraqi territory compelled Iraq to launch a preemptive invasion.^%5B27%5D

When Khomeini rejected Saddam's overture by calling for Shia revolution in Iraq, the Iraqi government was alarmed.^%5B20%5D Iran's new Islamic administration was regarded in Baghdad as an irrational, existential threat to the Ba'ath government, especially because the Ba'ath party, having a secular nature, discriminated and posed a threat to the Shia movement in Iraq, whose clerics were Iran's allies within Iraq.^%5B20%5D

However, Saddam's primary interest in war stemmed from Iran's increased weakness due to revolution, sanctions, and international isolation.^%5B22%5D Saddam had heavily invested in Iraq's military since his defeat against Iran in 1975, buying large amounts of weapons from the Soviet Union and France. By 1980, Iraq possessed 200,000 soldiers, 2,000 tanks and 450 aircraft.^%5B4%5D:1 Watching the powerful Iranian army that frustrated him in 19741975 disintegrate, he saw an opportunity to attack.^%5B4%5D Saddam correctly predicted that his major supporters would place a temporary embargo on his leadership in response to the attack on Iran, and thus he stockpiled supplies that would last Iraqi several years. He also re-ignited the dispute with Iran over the Shatt al-Arab waterway.^%5B4%5D

Above all, Saddam was interested in elevating Iraq to a strong regional power.^%5B28%5D A successful invasion of Iran would enlarge Iraq's petroleum reserves and make Iraq the region's dominant power. With Iran engulfed in chaos, an opportunity for Iraq to annex its previous possession, the oil-rich Khuzestan Province, materialized.^%5B26%5D:261 In addition, Khuzestan's large ethnic Arab population would allow Saddam to pose as a liberator for Arabs from Persian rule.^%5B26%5D:260Saddam's goal was to replace Egypt as the "leader of the Arab world" and to achieve hegemony over the Persian Gulf.^%5B29%5D Fellow Gulf states such as Saudi Arabia and Kuwait encouraged Iraq to attack, as they feared that an Islamic revolution would take place within their own borders. Certain Iranian exiles also helped convince Saddam that if he invaded, the fledgling Islamic republic would quickly collapse.^%5B12%5D

And for your bolded claim:

The 1979 Iranian Revolution, which ousted the pro-American Shah and replaced him with the anti-American Supreme Leader Ayatollah Khomeini, surprised the United States government, its State Department and intelligence services, which "consistently underestimated the magnitude and long-term implications of this unrest".^%5B35%5D Six months before the revolution culminated, the CIA had produced a report, stating that "Persia is not in a revolutionary or even a "prerevolutionary" situation"^%5B36%5D

 

They were surprised by the replacement with Ayatollah. And the reason why is because the revolution was not really the revolution the people were wanting. As pointed out in the NPR article.

The US was not stoked on this Ayatollah dude, nor were the Shia (religious moderates and majority of iran, the persians) once it became clear he wanted Islamic Totalitarianism. The Shia still of course wanted their free Islamic State away from the Shah, but this was a surprise, which shortly followed Iran and Iraq promoting war in their own countries. Ayatollah and Saddam wanted a war against one another.

In turn, Ayatollah Khomeini's sectarian vision concerning the Shias in Iraq, Saudi Arabia, and Kuwait, whom he saw as oppressed, and whom he would try to push along the way of Iran's example and rise up against their governments to join a united Shia Crescent.^%5B31%5D Khomeini and Iran's Islamic revolutionaries despised Saddam's secularist, Arab nationalist Ba'athist state, believing it to be "a puppet of Satan",^%5B32%5D and called on Iraqi citizens to overthrow it. In 19791980, anti-Ba'ath riots arose in the Iraq's Shia areas, and Iran's government extended its support to Iraqi Shia militants, who were workings toward an Islamic revolution in their country.^%5B20%5D Saddam and his deputies came to the conclusion that the riots had been inspired by the Iranian Revolution and instigated by Iran's government

The Shia are being oppressed in both regions. He is the leader of revolution that was fought under the pretense of democracy and secularism.

Ayatollah Khomeini in his 10 years of leadership established a theocratic rule over Iran. He did not fulfil his pre-revolution promises to the people of Iran but instead he started to marginalize and crash the opposition groups and those who opposed the clerical rules. He ordered establishment of many institutions to consolidate power and safeguard the cleric leadership. During his early years in power he launched the Cultural Revolution in order to Islamize the whole country. Many people were laid off, and lots of books were revised or burnt according to the new Islamic values. Newly established Islamic Judiciary system sentenced many Iranians to death and long-term imprisonment as they were in opposition to those radical changes.

[syd syside]

Opposition to the religious rule of the clergy or Islamic government in general was often met with harsh punishments. In a talk at the Fayzieah School in Qom, 30 August 1979, Khomeini warned opponents: "Those who are trying to bring corruption and destruction to our country in the name of democracy will be oppressed. They are worse than Bani-Ghorizeh Jews, and they must be hanged. We will oppress them by God's order and God's call to prayer."^[131]

The Shah Mohammad Reza Pahlavi and his family left Iran and escaped harm, but hundreds of former members of the overthrown monarchy and military met their end in firing squads, with critics complaining of "secrecy, vagueness of the charges, the absence of defense lawyers or juries", or the opportunity of the accused "to defend themselves."^[132] In later years these were followed in larger numbers by the erstwhile revolutionary allies of Khomeini's movement—Marxists and socialists, mostly university students—who opposed the theocratic regime. Following the 1981 Hafte Tir bombing, Ayatollah Khomeini declared the Mojahedin and anyone opposed to the Islamic republic, "enemies of God" and pursued a mass campaign of torture and execution against members of the Mojahedin, Fadaiyan, and Tudeh parties as well as their families, close friends, and even anyone who was accused of insufficient Islamic behavior, resulting in the deaths of thousands of Iranians who were usually tried in secret kangaroo courts run by hard line clerics.^[14]

In the 1988 executions of Iranian political prisoners, following the People's Mujahedin of Iran operation Forough-e Javidan against the Islamic Republic, Khomeini issued an order to judicial officials to judge every Iranian political prisoner and kill those who would not repent anti-regime activities. Estimates of the number executed vary from 1,400^[133] to 30,000.^{[134][135][136]}

Although many hoped the revolution would bring freedom of speech and press, this was not to be. In defending forced closing of opposition newspapers and attacks on opposition protesters by club-wielding vigilantes, Khomeini explained, 'The club of the pen and the club of the tongue is the worst of clubs, whose corruption is a 100 times greater than other clubs.'^[137]

 

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ruhollah_Khomeini#Suppression_of_enemies_and_opposition

 

 

Life for religious minorities was mixed under Khomeini. Senior government posts were reserved for Muslims. Schools set up by Jews, Christians and Zoroastrians had to be run by Muslim principals.^[138] Compensation for death paid to the family of a non-Muslim was (by law) less than if the victim was a Muslim. Conversion to Islam was encouraged by entitling converts to inherit the entire share of their parents (or even uncle's) estate if their siblings (or cousins) remain non-Muslim.^[139]Iran's non-Muslim population has fallen dramatically. For example, the Jewish population in Iran dropped from 80,000 to 30,000 in the first two decades of the revolution.^[140]

However, four of the 270 seats in parliament were reserved for three non-Islamic minority religions, under the Islamic constitution that Khomeini oversaw. Khomeini also called for unity between Sunni and Shi'a Muslims. Sunni Muslims are the largest religious minority in Iran.^[141]

Prerevolutionary statements by Khomeini had been antagonistic towards Jews, but shortly after his return from exile in 1979, he issued a fatwa ordering that Jews and other minorities (except Bahá'ís) be treated well.^[142][143] In power, Khomeini distinguished between Zionism as a secular political party that employs Jewish symbols and ideals and Judaism as the religion of Moses.^[144]

One non-Muslim group treated differently were the 300,000 members of the Bahá'í Faith. Starting in late 1979 the new government systematically targeted the leadership of the Bahá'í community by focusing on the Bahá'í National Spiritual Assembly (NSA) and Local Spiritual Assemblies (LSAs); prominent members of NSAs and LSAs were either killed or disappeared.^[145] "Some 200 of whom have been executed and the rest forced to convert or subjected to the most horrendous disabilities."^[146]

Like most conservative Muslims, Khomeini believed Bahá'í to be apostates.^[147] He claimed they were a political rather than a religious movement,^[148][149] declaring:

the Baha'is are not a sect but a party, which was previously supported by Britain and now the United States. The Baha'is are also spies just like the Tudeh[Communist Party].^[150]

 

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ruhollah_Khomeini#Minority_religions

 

After the Shah left Iran in 1979, a Kurdish delegation traveled to Qom to present the Kurds' demands to Ayatollah Khomeini. Their demands included language rights and the provision for a degree of political autonomy. Khomeini responded that such demands were unacceptable. The following months saw numerous clashes between Kurdish militia groups and the Revolutionary Guards. The referendum on the Islamic Republic was massively boycotted in Kurdistan, where it was thought 85 to 90% of voters abstained. Khomeini ordered additional attacks later on in the year, and by September most of Iranian Kurdistan was under direct martial law

 

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ruhollah_Khomeini#Minority_religions

[essines]

GoDel explained it much better a few pages back.

 

In my view of the forum GoDel's post was only a page back.

[MisterE]

 

dang I had to wade through 13 pages and I'm more confused than ever - is it still ok to hate on arabs or not?

 

 

as long as you keep changing the goalposts, yes. Just be careful about even suggesting cultural imperialism, Mister E will start foaming at the mouth again.

blarrrrggh

 

edit- gaauuurgle

[SR4]

lol

[lumpenprol]

not exactly sure what "cultural imperialism" is, but if it involves force feeding those little triangular sandwiches with the crusts trimmed off to arabs then count me in!

[SR4]

goDel- dunno who you are railing against, but if its on my goalposts statement, Alco and I have stated how the goalposts have moved at least three times over the course of this thread.

 

what started out as an analysis of Greenwald's article has been derailed for 10+ pages by people posting wiki sources on the violence of Islam...wait no, violence of Islamic "fascists".

[Guest zaphod]

the only person doing that is compson

[syd syside]

goDel- dunno who you are railing against, but if its on my goalposts statement, Alco and I have stated how the goalposts have moved at least three times over the course of this thread.

 

what started out as an analysis of Greenwald's article has been derailed for 10+ pages by people posting wiki sources on the violence of Islam...wait no, violence of Islamic "fascists".

 

Violence of Islam by Islamic Fascists is the same thing. Just as violence of Christianity by Christian Fanatics is the same. Therefore an analysis or critique of Greenwald's article supports the argument that Islamic belief is uniquely more extreme (present day) than of the other religions. And therefore one who points this out is simply rational, vs politically correct and ignorant. There's plenty of people making this argument and there has yet to be a real analysis or critique against it aside from just repeating Greenwald's thesis (in so many words).