Top Leaderboard, Site wide
Shop the Truthdig Gift Guide 2014
December 25, 2014
Truthdig: Drilling Beneath the Headlines
Sign up for Truthdig's Email NewsletterLike Truthdig on FacebookFollow Truthdig on TwitterSubscribe to Truthdig's RSS Feed

Get Truthdig's headlines in your inbox!








Truthdig Bazaar more items

 
Report

Iran’s Regime Reveals Its Brutality

Email this item Email    Print this item Print    Share this item... Share

Posted on Jun 23, 2009

By William Pfaff

The truly significant result of the suppressed Iranian revolt is that the most important Islamist radical movement in the contemporary world has demonstrated that it has become a brutally repressive dictatorship whose leaders rig elections and beat down clear popular demands for a true election count or repeat of the election itself.

This affair has nothing to do with the alleged war of civilizations or the machinations of the American Great Satan, or of the hereditary enemy of Iran, the British Empire. It is the consequence of the abuse of power by leaders who established a new form of religious republic, meant to combine what they believe to be God’s law, as set forth in the Quran, with the exigencies of modern politics and power, among them nuclear power, leading toward nuclear weapons to deter enemy Israel and infidel America.

Iran has made itself the leading Islamic state in the Middle East, a republic standing alongside the traditional Muslim monarchies of Jordan, Morocco and Saudi Arabia. It was meant as a model of Muslim self-liberation from foreign oppressors.

It had been an exemplar in both 1951 and 1979 of popular uprising against Western domination, and subsequently of the installation of a modern Islamic form of government with a democratic substructure, controlled within clerical institutions, with a clerical supreme leader who spoke the divinely inspired final word on government decisions.

This government now stands discredited internationally, as well as in the eyes of what clearly seems the majority of Iranians, who are ruled today by a massive deployment of police power for the sake of unaccountable personal or clan advantage of the leadership. They, and Muslims in general, should learn from this that the enemies are not all without—they are also within the Islamic world.

Advertisement

Square, Site wide
The Iranians have been revolutionaries twice in modern times, both times eventually submitting to foreign power. This time it is Iranian and Islamic power that abuses them, not foreign oppressors. Could they successfully revolt once more, against domestic tyranny? Or does the revolt still go on?

The first rebellion followed World War II occupation by Britain and the Soviet Union, followed by an attempt by the USSR to set up a Soviet-controlled splinter state in the north. However, Iran’s constitutional movement goes back to the start of the 20th century, and the Shah of Iran at that time accepted a constitution and parliament in 1906. However, the country was divided into czarist and British spheres of influence, and the United States took over from both after the Second World War.

In 1945, the national movement was led by a veteran prewar parliamentarian, Muhammad Mossadegh, who demanded nationalization of the British-owned Anglo-Iranian Oil Co.

When parliament voted the nationalization, the shah was compelled to name Mossadegh prime minister. But Mossadegh’s resistance to the terms demanded by Britain led to a political crisis in which the shah fled the country—to be brought back and reinstated by the CIA.

Mossadegh was sent to prison for three years of solitary confinement, and then held in house arrest for the remainder of his life.

The shah encountered the second rebellion 28 years later, the CIA being unable to save him a second time. The successful Islamic revolt of 1979 installed the Ayatollah Ruhollah Khomeini, and the revolutionaries sacked the U.S. Embassy to boot, successfully holding its members ransom for more than a year.

(Why this was allowed to happen remains a mystery. Instead of recognizing the seizure of the embassy as an implicit act of war, and detaining Iranian officials, businessmen and students in the United States for exchange under the auspices of the Red Cross, the Carter administration frantically forced all the Iranians in the country to leave the U.S. as fast as possible. The American Embassy staff then endured 444 days’ imprisonment, and an ill-conceived military rescue fiasco, before the Iranians triumphantly handed them over to Ronald Reagan.)

The admirable Lebanese editor and commentator Rami G. Khouri has just written that ordinary Arabs elsewhere, living under autocratic and potentially vulnerable leaders of their own, have watched this Iranian uprising with “forlorn envy.”

Why forlorn? What stops them from their own revolts, if that is what they want? The Pakistan tribesmen of the Swat Valley, and elsewhere in the country’s northwest territories, are even now fighting to expel Taliban intruders.

The Iranian revolt may not be over. But even if it is, Iranians will one day surely try again. The Iraqis, whose nation seems approaching another sectarian or ethnic precipice, could, if they had wanted, have saved themselves much bloodshed and misery by rebelling against Saddam Hussein themselves, as they had done against previous unwanted rulers. People must make their own decisions. If not, they risk getting the governments, or the liberators, they deserve.

Visit William Pfaff’s Web site at www.williampfaff.com.

© 2009 Tribune Media Services, Inc.


New and Improved Comments

If you have trouble leaving a comment, review this help page. Still having problems? Let us know. If you find yourself moderated, take a moment to review our comment policy.

nefesh's avatar

By nefesh, June 24, 2009 at 2:03 pm Link to this comment

By KDelphi, June 24 at 4:41 pm #

nefesh—what is it about me that angers you so?

Nothing at all. Your defensiveness is interesting, though.
============================

Youre not asking for definitions. Youre just playing games.

I believe I am asking for definitions. You read it right the first time.
============================

If you disagree with the use of a term, it is for you to define why.

LOL - I can’t disagree with something I don’t understand.

Report this

By KDelphi, June 24, 2009 at 1:41 pm Link to this comment

nefesh—what is it about me that angers you so?

Youre not asking for definitions. Youre just playing games.

If you disagree with the use of a term, it is for you to define why.

Report this
nefesh's avatar

By nefesh, June 24, 2009 at 1:29 pm Link to this comment

By Ed Harges, June 24 at 4:17 pm #

re: By Max Shields, June 24 at 3:53 pm:

Yeah, I think Nefesh is just trying to bore everybody by demanding definitions for every word, so we’ll give up, and the conversation will die.

What are you afraid of? I’m asking for definitions of five (5) terms. Hardly “every” word, Ed.
Why is it so hard for you? My impression from reading yours and others’ impassioned comments is that you want to be persuasive to effect positive change (as you see it). Why, then, would you keep the most charged terms’ meanings known to….whom, exactly?

Try again - define with concise, unambiguous language and provide specific examples of each:

neolib
neocon
neolibcon
Zionist minions
pseudo-progressive truthers

Report this
RAE's avatar

By RAE, June 24, 2009 at 1:19 pm Link to this comment

Nice to see hypocrisy is alive and well in America.

With the possible exception of stoneing women to death in public squares, “authority” in America can be, and often is, every bit as brutal as any on earth and AGAINST AMERICANS to boot. Platoons of armed goons will fire at any target they’re told to by their fascist leadership. Just too damn bad if that happens to be YOU.

I’ve seen it. YOU know it. So let’s cut the finger-pointing CRAP.

Report this
Ed Harges's avatar

By Ed Harges, June 24, 2009 at 1:17 pm Link to this comment

re: By Max Shields, June 24 at 3:53 pm:

Yeah, I think Nefesh is just trying to bore everybody by demanding definitions for every word, so we’ll give up, and the conversation will die. Nefesh is all about Israel, and a flourishing exchange of ideas among Americans concerning the Middle East is not good for Israel.

Report this
nefesh's avatar

By nefesh, June 24, 2009 at 1:02 pm Link to this comment

By KDelphi, June 24 at 3:54 pm #

nefesh—I am trying to find, YOUR point…except telling everyone else that the are wrong..

I’m not saying FT or anyone else is wrong.
I’m saying I want him to define his peculiar terminology so that I can understand him. It’s not helpful to me to read that you understand, but refuse to translate the lexicon.

Here they are again….....

Since you, KDelphi, claim to know, please define and provide specific and verifiable examples of each of the following:

pseudo-Progressive
neolib
neocon
Zionist minions
pseudo-progressive truthers

Report this
nefesh's avatar

By nefesh, June 24, 2009 at 12:55 pm Link to this comment

By KDelphi, June 24 at 3:50 pm #

Folktruther’s posts make sense to me, nefesh.

Well, duh.
Why don’t you help out, then, and define those terms?

Report this

By KDelphi, June 24, 2009 at 12:54 pm Link to this comment

nefesh—I am trying to find, YOUR point…except telling everyone else that the are wrong..

Report this

By Max Shields, June 24, 2009 at 12:53 pm Link to this comment

By nefesh, June 24 at 3:48 pm #


You’re boring.

By the way, I actually understood Folktruther.

Don’t hurt yourself thinking about that.

Report this

By KDelphi, June 24, 2009 at 12:50 pm Link to this comment

Ed Harges is right—I saw iot here, too.

Folktruther’s posts make sense to me, nefesh.

Report this
nefesh's avatar

By nefesh, June 24, 2009 at 12:48 pm Link to this comment

By Max Shields, June 24 at 3:35 pm #

By nefesh, June 24 at 3:24 pm #

  >>He had a point?<<

Obviously, since you seem to feel compelled to continue to address it (and thus make it).

Obvious to you, perhaps. Enlighten me and tell me what you think his point was.

Report this
Ed Harges's avatar

By Ed Harges, June 24, 2009 at 12:47 pm Link to this comment

The Iranian government’s repression of protest is repulsive, but we need to look in the mirror.

I myself was in NYC at one of the big demos against the Iraq war before it began. I saw with my own eyes the policemen on horseback charge straight into a crowd, terrifying perfectly peaceful demonstrators. It was extremely savage and frightening. I don’t know if anyone was injured, because I was too busy frantically trying to run for my life, and because our “news” media never reported any of the police brutality that occurred.

Several of us took refuge in a coffee shop and we were actually crying because we couldn’t believe this had happened in America, in liberal NY City. And furthermore, the TV news coverage of these protests was incredibly dismissive.  We who were there saw a vast sea of Americans of all ages and classes standing up against the war. The piddling corporate TV coverage typically showed a cropped photo of what looked like a few straggling adolescent misfits with nose rings and fruity haircuts.

And now CNN saturates our TV screens with dramatic aerial views of the crowds in Iran, and invites into their studios Reza Pahlavi, the torturing Shah’s heir who would very much like to be reinstalled as Iran’s monarch, to wax eloquent on democracy and human rights.

Report this
nefesh's avatar

By nefesh, June 24, 2009 at 12:44 pm Link to this comment

By Folktruther, June 24 at 3:27 pm #

Dr Nomas, truthdig is no more credible than the other pseudo-Progressive sites.  It is surprising that Pfaff has descended into the truth gutter on this issue, and supported the Big Lie of the “Stolen Election”, since it is obvious that this disinfomration campaign will be exposed rather quickly. The terroist organizations financed by the US are already blowing up mosques, killing and maiming hundreds of people, to destablize Iran.

The “Reformists’ are led and financed by neolibcoms like the billiionaire Rafsanjani, the libs of whom support genuine democratic freedoms.  But both the neolib and neocon leaders support the rich and professional classes against the peasant and working masses.  Within the sharp restrictions of ruling power, this actually was a genuine democratic election, which the US ruling class and their militarist and Zionist minions really hate when the wrong people get elected, as in Venzuaela or Hamas.

It is apparent that the US recruited pseudo-progressive truthers to kick off its destablization war against Iran, Fisk and Pfaff joing up with US imperialism to institute Regime Change, as in Iraq and Afghanistan.

Please define and provide specific and verifiable examples of each of the following:

pseudo-Progressive
neolib
neocon
Zionist minions
pseudo-progressive truthers

If you can’t satisfy your audience that the terminology you sprinkle liberally throughout your many comments has any meaning, then what do you think that does to the meaning of the messages in which they appear?

Report this

By Max Shields, June 24, 2009 at 12:43 pm Link to this comment

By Folktruther, June 24 at 3:27 pm #

Agree. When the dust settles, there will be some real truth digging and from it will come a narrative which we’ve heard before - behind every US hated regime revolt is a US sponsored proxy (even if there is a proxy to the proxy - such as Israel).

To not suspect it from the beginning as Pfiff and Fisk seem willing to do (i.e., to disregard US history in the world, and particularly the ME), is idiotic. Where is the critical suspension of buying the US media bull shit?

Report this

By Max Shields, June 24, 2009 at 12:35 pm Link to this comment

By nefesh, June 24 at 3:24 pm #

    He had a point?

Obviously, since you seem to feel compelled to continue to address it (and thus make it).

Report this

By KDelphi, June 24, 2009 at 12:32 pm Link to this comment

It is ok to call for “revolution” in another country, but not one’s own?

Novel concept.

Report this

By Folktruther, June 24, 2009 at 12:27 pm Link to this comment

Dr Nomas, truthdig is no more credible than the other pseudo-Progressive sites.  It is surprising that Pfaff has descended into the truth gutter on this issue, and supported the Big Lie of the “Stolen Election”, since it is obvious that this disinfomration campaign will be exposed rather quickly. The terroist organizations financed by the US are already blowing up mosques, killing and maiming hundreds of people, to destablize Iran.

The “Reformists’ are led and financed by neolibcoms like the billiionaire Rafsanjani, the libs of whom support genuine democratic freedoms.  But both the neolib and neocon leaders support the rich and professional classes against the peasant and working masses.  Within the sharp restrictions of ruling power, this actually was a genuine democratic election, which the US ruling class and their militarist and Zionist minions really hate when the wrong people get elected, as in Venzuaela or Hamas.

It is apparent that the US recruited pseudo-progressive truthers to kick off its destablization war against Iran, Fisk and Pfaff joing up with US imperialism to institute Regime Change, as in Iraq and Afghanistan.

Report this
nefesh's avatar

By nefesh, June 24, 2009 at 12:24 pm Link to this comment

By Max Shields, June 24 at 3:05 pm #

nefesh

Think you make Randall Flagg’s point.

He had a point?

Report this

By Max Shields, June 24, 2009 at 12:05 pm Link to this comment

nefesh

Think you make Randall Flagg’s point.

Report this
nefesh's avatar

By nefesh, June 24, 2009 at 12:03 pm Link to this comment

By Randall Flagg, June 24 at 12:38 pm #
(Unregistered commenter)

You know Bill, you’re full of crap.

Really, who pays you to write garbage like this?  Cheney?  AIPAC?  Who?

I’m done clicking on truthdig.

Wow - Pfaff accused of writing on behalf of AIPAC? Even in this snakepit of conspiracy theories, open-wound bigotry, and, best of all, moronic terminologies such as “neolibcon”, “pseudo-Prgressive (sic) mainstream truthers”, and “truth consensus”, this comment sets the bar for idiocy.

Too bad he’s “done clicking on truthdig”. He needs to explain why everyone accused of fronting for AIPAC has to be paid to do it. There are those who adopt AIPAC’s positions out of moral conviction and belief in the cause, you know.

Report this

By Dr Nomas Kakita, June 24, 2009 at 10:11 am Link to this comment
(Unregistered commenter)

Dear Mr. Pfaff, Thank you for clarifying what the whole disinformation campaign by the US/UK media is all about - DISCREDIT IRAN.

During the lead up to the invasion of Iraq with had the WMD lies. Now we have Iran, with an illegitimate government, they kill their people, and they suppressing the “free media”, pretty sleek but old news. Soon the truth will come out and all the liberal wind bags perpetuating the lies will be totally exposed.

I was really surprise to see Pfaff’s sleek article on Truthdig. Please stay objective, you are one of a few sites with any credibility. The Nation, Mother Jones, the Progressive, Z-net, Alter-net are all falling apart and have lost all credibility on the issue of the Iranian elections. As one of my students put it - the masks are falling off.

Report this

By Randall Flagg, June 24, 2009 at 9:38 am Link to this comment
(Unregistered commenter)

You know Bill, you’re full of crap.

Really, who pays you to write garbage like this?  Cheney?  AIPAC?  Who?

I’m done clicking on truthdig.

Report this

By dihey, June 24, 2009 at 7:40 am Link to this comment

Without any solid proof Herr Pfaff states that the election count in Iran was rigged. The most widely presented evidence is that the approximately 40 million votes cast could not have been counted in a few hours. Incidentally it was Moussavi who claimed victory on the basis of reports from polling stations even before the Rahber (a.k.a. “Supreme Leader”) pronounced Ahmadinejad the winner. How could Moussavi know this “fact” unless votes had been tallied and reported very quickly? Or was Moussavi lying/fantasizing himself?
Perhaps the elections were rigged. However, I have learned something that the “rigged election” crowd never tells us. It is reported that there were in Iran approximately 47,000 (!!!) polling places. Given approximately 40 million votes cast that implies an average number of votes to be counted per polling place of 893 which can easily be tallied and then electronically reported in a few hours.
I cannot accept this information as firm evidence that the announced approximately 24 million votes for Ahmadinejad and 13 million for Moussavi are correct. For openers, I do not have independent information that the 47,000 number of polling places is correct. What if the number was only 1/2 or 1/10th as large? Furthermore, I have no information on the variation of the number of voters among the stations. Were these numbers larger in the big cities? The long lines of people waiting to vote suggests that this may have been the case indeed but, once again, is only suggestive and not a proof.
The information I get about the actual numbers of voters, votes and of the mechanism of the counting process is so scarce and confused that it would be irresponsible of me to call the elections rigged which implies a premeditated crime.
From TV pictures of actual polling places I infer that there was a distinct ballot box for every candidate. I guess that the following was done. After the voting closed the boxes were opened and the number of ballots in each was counted without ascertaining that any given ballot had been placed in the correct box. That could have been done very swiftly. Is there anyone out there who knows better than me what was actually done?

Report this

By Max Shields, June 24, 2009 at 7:39 am Link to this comment

It seems not a little hypocritical to be talking about the “regime” that shows its brutality and not look in the proverbial US mirror.

Just think back several months ago when the Dems and Repubs had their gestapo controlled conventions for party nominations. Think of the press who were arrested for nothing more than being on the street; and the variuos waves of unidentified troopers prowling around the respective convention cities.

We need only go back to 1999 and see what happened in Seattle during the WTO for further waves of state sponsored brutality - or was that simply keeping the peace through law and order policies of the US “regime” under Clinton?

When revolts happen, stones get hurled, windows broken, the injured and killed mount.

But in the USA we have countless records of police (yes the state) brutality; of unjustified killings, and torture during interogations in police departments throughout the country.

We really don’t know what is happening in Iran. Is it a class struggle with the upper class disgruntled or is it a civil rights movement? Or is it provoked by outside aggetators? Is it a built up demand for less theoacracy and more freedom of speech?

These will evolve. The so-called leaders (the opposition candidate) in all respects is not a person of change in terms of calling for reform in any way that deviates from his competitors.

Report this
Shenonymous's avatar

By Shenonymous, June 24, 2009 at 7:19 am Link to this comment

All wars become a quagmire at some point.  The only one that didn’t was the 6-Day but the aftermath ever since has been a snarling deadly progressive cul-de-sac!  The Contingent has their brand of unconvincing extremism that is a prerecorded reactive script, that has neologisms thought to capture particular criticisms but really do not. 

Pfaff is astutely right.  The drama unfolding in Iran has nothing to do with Israel nor the US, Britain, et al.  It has to do with the oppression of a tyrannical government and the people are speaking.  The ordinary Iranian is thrilled the world is watching.  Thanks to technology the theater of brutality that is definitive of that regime is being exposed to the entire world.  That is the way it will be from now on and needs also to be used anywhere brutal despotism strangles the people. It is a Russian concept called volya naroda da Twitter!  The Will of the Twittering People!

The muddy water here is being created by those who self-servingly want to divert attention away from the truth of tyranny and who consistently attempts to cover themselves among a perennial but nonexistent “they.”

You who are calling for a “Revolution” are chronic whiners who do not have the ear of the many ought to find an authentic and persuasively concrete way to convince the public to make the changes you seek (which means intelligent instead of ruffling ranting on ineffective blogs.  If you don’t have any affection for America might leave and go live in Iran or some other totalitarian country where you might find happiness.  Aren’t you so lucky your American “regime” doesn’t cut out your tongue, shoot you in the heart, beat you with clubs, or cut your head off for speaking out against them?

Report this

By Inherit The Wind, June 24, 2009 at 5:23 am Link to this comment

Ed Harges, June 24 at 1:33 am #

Oh please people - the situation is not black and white. The government of Iran IS behaving brutally, but it’s also true that the US and Israel HAVE meddled in Iran for years, trying to destabilize that country by devious methods including outright support for terrorist groups. The government of Iran probably DID cheat in the election; however, it probably did NOT change the outcome, but only widened the margin of victory for Ahmadinejad. And it’s also true that Mousavi is a pretty bad guy anyway. So where do some of you get off seeing this as some stark confrontation of good vs. evil? Have you all gone crazy?

Obama has it exactly right: stick to criticizing these horrible civil liberties violations (people have an absolute right to peaceful public protest, even if they are misinformed, insincere, or cynical) — and other than that, stay out of it.
******************************************

Wow! You actually said something on this topic that makes sense and I agree with!  How did THAT happen?

I KNOW we’ve meddled in Iran for decades.  I certainly will not rationalize or justify that.  But I see no evidence we’ve meddled in this election.

Report this
RAE's avatar

By RAE, June 24, 2009 at 4:55 am Link to this comment

Half of me wants to stay completely out of it and let the Iranians find their own resolution.

The other half of me wants to take a heavily armed force of about a million strong, invade the country, issue safe conduct OUT of the country for all who want to leave, then withdraw (sealing all exits) to let the rest of them fester in their own delusions.

Right now, the first half of me is winning. Just STAY OUT OF IT.

Report this
thebeerdoctor's avatar

By thebeerdoctor, June 24, 2009 at 4:04 am Link to this comment

Religiosity is simply another gadget in the politician-shaman’s bag of tricks to maintain control. Saying a decree comes from God is one of the oldest hat tricks in the book. So people are shocked that the Grand Cleric proves to be yet another conniving man trying to hold on to power? As Monty Python has said: No One Expects The Spanish Inquisition!

Report this

By Eso, June 24, 2009 at 3:59 am Link to this comment

Pfaff reveals himself to be a lightweight political analyst and a “neolibcon” Sarkozy supporter.

To my way of thinking, what is going on in Iran is a populist conflict between populists as middle-class consumers and populists as the poor. The political inertia of the West brought Iran and the West consumerism, but maybe it is time when we no longer “can have all you want”. We may see a civil war between these two populist sides—not because of anyone’s brutality per se, but because consumer expectations are still raging.

I anticipate that in the event of a civil war, the U.S. and Israel will support Iran, it remains to see what Europe will do (it may opt out of NATO), but Russia and China will support Iran.

Report this

By KDelphi, June 23, 2009 at 11:24 pm Link to this comment

Folktruther—I agree that the US govt (and the UN) is full of neolibcons.

I call for the Revolution of the US out of the Middle East.

Report this

By Roman, June 23, 2009 at 11:17 pm Link to this comment
(Unregistered commenter)

Iran matters most. Nothing else happening at all in the whole wide world.  Just a distraction so as not to focus on the real shit “us” America

Report this
Ed Harges's avatar

By Ed Harges, June 23, 2009 at 10:33 pm Link to this comment

Oh please people - the situation is not black and white. The government of Iran IS behaving brutally, but it’s also true that the US and Israel HAVE meddled in Iran for years, trying to destabilize that country by devious methods including outright support for terrorist groups. The government of Iran probably DID cheat in the election; however, it probably did NOT change the outcome, but only widened the margin of victory for Ahmadinejad. And it’s also true that Mousavi is a pretty bad guy anyway. So where do some of you get off seeing this as some stark confrontation of good vs. evil? Have you all gone crazy?

Obama has it exactly right: stick to criticizing these horrible civil liberties violations (people have an absolute right to peaceful public protest, even if they are misinformed, insincere, or cynical) — and other than that, stay out of it.

Report this
nefesh's avatar

By nefesh, June 23, 2009 at 8:01 pm Link to this comment

By Folktruther, June 23 at 8:26 pm #

Gosh, the US recruited Fisk, the UN sec general, and now Pfaff.  A lot of juice involved, this is going to be a long, and increasingly likely, bloody, seige.

So which ones are ‘neolibcons’? And which of them is now or has ever been a part of a ‘truth consensus’?

And what do those strange words mean? I’ve only ever seen you use them, and I have asked you to define them for me (us) .

Why can’t you provide a clear and concise definition of each term?

Report this

By Folktruther, June 23, 2009 at 7:35 pm Link to this comment

That’s an ongoing war against five Muslim countries: Iran, Iraq, Afghanstan, Pakistan and Palistine.  At a time when US debt is at its alltime high.  He is probably trying to increase US production by war, the way Wilson, Roosevelt and Johnson did.

But these are low intensity wars, like those of 1984.  Quagmires.  Is he going to rev them up?

Report this

By Inherit The Wind, June 23, 2009 at 7:10 pm Link to this comment

Don’t forget Hedges and Mr. Fish, FT.

Pfaff, Hedges, Fisk, Mr. Fish, Ban Ki Moon….but we are all supposed to believe the nonsense of FT, EH, and the rest of “The Contingent”.

Your sacred cows are giving you tainted milk.

Report this

By realityseeker, June 23, 2009 at 6:57 pm Link to this comment
(Unregistered commenter)

The Iranian government has long had a policy of trying to eliminate the peaceful Baha’i Faith in that country because Baha’i's believe that Mohammed, while a prophet, was not the final prophet.  Over the years Baha’i's have had property confiscated, been stoned, have had their cemeteries bulldozed, been denied admission to colleges, faced imprisonment, torture and execution.  Don’t make the mistake of thinking we are dealing with a modern state.  Iran may look modern, but their ideas are still from the middle ages.

Report this

By Big Pearl, June 23, 2009 at 6:51 pm Link to this comment

Yeah that’s great Pfaff. Maybe the US should come to the rescue of the oppressed Iranians, right? To end the “brutality”?

Send in Lyddie England and the US Sodomy Brigades.

Report this

By jean Gerard, June 23, 2009 at 6:25 pm Link to this comment
(Unregistered commenter)

How about stopping with the comments about other people’s cruelty?

Wouldn’t it be more admirable to clean up our own backyards—as at Guantanemo?  Or in our lousy high-security prisons?  Or educating and finding jobs for some of the ignorant, angry people shooting up the Mexican border and the streets of many of our large cities?  Or getting rid of the death penalty?  Or stopping wars?  Seems to me that we have plenty to do right here at home, so far as cruelty is concerned.

Report this

By Folktruther, June 23, 2009 at 5:26 pm Link to this comment

Gosh, the US recruited Fisk, the UN sec general, and now Pfaff.  A lot of juice involved, this is going to be a long, and increasingly likely, bloody, seige.

Report this

Page 2 of 2 pages  <  1 2

 
Right 1, Site wide - BlogAds Premium
 
Right Skyscraper, Site Wide
Right 2, Site wide - Blogads
 
Join the Liberal Blog Advertising Network
 
 
 

A Progressive Journal of News and Opinion   Zuade Kaufman, Publisher   Robert Scheer, Editor-in-Chief
© 2014 Truthdig, LLC. All rights reserved.

Like Truthdig on Facebook