“A kidnapper is a holy man. Oh yeah.

”
Change it to

“Khomeini, head of a government that took the American Embassy personnel hostage, is a holy man. Oh yeah.”

Orange,

I haven’t made any specific references to any of Ahmadinejad’s many televised rants concerning Israel and her people. With a language like Farsi, Arabic and others, hate speech can be easily waved aside as a “mistranslation.” Ahmadinejad – and those of his party, and his allies – have repeatedly made clear their intentions to drive Israel, the nation and all its people, into the sea. I feel no need to elucidate concerning this matter.

Oblio, Gringo and E,

I thank you for your tenacious defense. Your arguments need none of my added support.

Baklava,

While I agree with your arguments concerning the nature of leftism and rightism, I would advise that you assume that your opponent is learned. Ignorance and ill-schooling have a habit of revealing themselves and thereby devaluing an opponent’s arguments, with very little nudging.

– G

Mitsu — Actually I haven’t encountered that terminology applied to Iran. What I have seen is what John Bolton reports:

The media’s endlessly incorrect narrative about struggles between “moderates” and “hard-liners” within the Islamic Revolution of 1979 will doubtless continue, because abandoning it now would be admitting the intellectual poverty of three decades of Western reporting.

Aside from taunting some of us here with calling the mullahs “conservative”, what is your point?

Those terms originally referred to those advocately the primacy of the individual over the state, versus those advocating the primacy of the state (monarchy/ aristocracy/ church) over that of the individual. (“Left/right” came, as socialism, bureaucracy, and so many other invidious things have, from France.) A “liberal” of the 19th century is closer to a libertarian today, and a “liberal” today is closer to a conservative back then (in favoring the state over the individual).

A more meaningful distinction therefore is between “collectivists” and “individualists,” between those who believe the interests of the state should come first, and those who believe the converse. Iran’s mullahs clearly shake out in the former category, along with Castro, Kim Jong Il, Chavez, and previously Bismarck, Stalin, Hitler, and Mussolini. Collectivists run to authoritarianism to coerce individuals into behavior that the state deems desirable. From this perspective, the American “liberals” can be seen to be anything but — they constantly want the government to force others to do something (recycle, eat more healthy food, exercise, lend money to people who aren’t going to repay it) that they don’t want to do. American “liberals” aren’t “communists,” but that’s only because most of them don’t think clearly enough to realize that they are supporting a collectivist agenda; they’re basically too stupid and/or too susceptible to social pressure to grasp that fact.

Here is what Carter Administration figures had to say about Khomeini.

Carter viewed Khomeini as more of a religious holy man in a grassroots revolution than a founding father of modern terrorism. Carter’s ambassador to the UN, Andrew Young, said “Khomeini will eventually be hailed as a saint.” Carter’s Iranian ambassador, William Sullivan, said, “Khomeini is a Gandhi-like figure.” Carter adviser James Bill proclaimed in a Newsweek interview on February 12, 1979 that Khomeini was not a mad mujahid, but a man of “impeccable integrity and honesty.” …. Gen. Robert Huyser, Carter’s military liaison to Iran, once told me in tears: “The president could have publicly condemned Khomeini and even kidnapped him and then bartered for an exchange with the [American Embassy] hostages, but the president was indignant. ‘One cannot do that to a holy man,’ he said.”

A kidnapper is a holy man. Oh yeah. Go ahead, Mitsu, find some American conservatives who had such good things to say about the CONSERVATIVE KHOMEINI as did the above liberal Carter Administration figures. From what I remember, from the beginning American conservatives abhorred the Mullahs, unlike Jimmah and his minions.

The problem that Mitsu has is common to many liberals. They assume that domestic politics in the US can be projected to different countries and to different times. Mitsu says that the Mullahs, oh yes conservative just like in the US, which ignores the American consensus of separation of church and state. But to apply the same comparison to liberals- not fair, says Mitsu: liberals are not Communists. Mitsu’s elevated education on the River Charles is lacking if he is unable to see the absurdity of those two positions.

Not anymore. The Leftist Islamic Revolution has split their skulls and broken the uprising.

My question to you, Mitsu, as a liberal:

“How long until Obama recognizes Ahmedinejad as the duly elected leader of Iran?”

The mullahs are considered “conservative” in Iranian politics, and Mousavi and his supporters are called “liberals”. Conservatives in Iran are associated with religious fundamentalism, just as they are here in the US. The liberals in Iran want more progressive social policy, just as they do here.

Every society has a tendency to have its liberal and its conservative political movement. In this country, yes, there’s an association of “conservative” and libertarian ideas, but in practice, that’s really just one small part of the actual conservative set of views. The “small government” rhetoric is primarily a smokescreen; it’s just code for “fewer social programs”. There’s no calls for smaller or weaker government when it comes to the police, or military spending, or favoring of Christianity over other religions, or “moral” laws that reduce our personal liberties, and as we saw with Bush and the Republican Congress it doesn’t even mean smaller government in terms of spending. It’s a great-sounding phrase which many people might agree with in principle, but conservative views in this country are quite similar to conservative views in many other nations.

It’s obvious that nearly everyone calls the ruling mullahs in Iran conservative, and the reformists are called liberals. Only in a strange alternate universe would they be thought to be the other way around.

Finally — as I keep saying, liberals are NOT communists. You might recall during the waning days of the USSR it was the Communists who were called “conservative”. Yes, the USSR was supposedly a “leftist” country but the far left and the far right have more in common than you might realize. The whole “left/right” political spectrum is rather misleading in general… it’s better to just list out what people are for and against. And all liberals are against dictatorship. And I’m sure you’re against dictatorship as well. So we can at least agree that most conservatives and most liberals in America are against dictatorship. But I’m still going to call the ruling mullahs in Iran “conservative” along with everyone else in the world.

A robust debate is when the the Mullahs have the secret police shoot you for voting, arrest your candidate, and install the other guy anyhow

But don’t worry, Obama assures you that won’t stop him from bowing to, and kissing the ass of, the guys who had you shot.

How soon until Obama congratulates Ahmedinejad on his electoral win and recognizes ‘the duly elected’ government of Iran?

So was WWII a “robust debate” too?