And the Jihad continues...

[Mycroft]

Why do you say that?

See? You merely state something, and leave it hanging there. We have to drag it out of you. Explain what it is you mean. Don't troll for other people's opinions.

Because “Republic” implies a representative democracy, which is questionable in the case of Egypt. This blurb from Wikipedia illustrates:

”… Although power is ostensibly organized under a multi-party semi-presidential system, whereby the executive power is theoretically divided between the President and the Prime Minister, in practice it rests almost solely with the President who traditionally has been elected in single-candidate elections for more than fifty years...”

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Egypt#Politics

So Egypt is a “republic” in the same way Iran was a “constitutional monarchy” where the leader ignores or works around those parts of the law that limit their powers. In that sense Iran and Egypt are very comparable despite Egypt not being a monarchy.

I am not Varwoche.

Clearly.

Not at all. I bring it up because that was your base for comparison. You listed three countries based on this comparison. You still haven't explained why you keep pointing to these three countries, despite you (apparently) have abandoned your criterion.

Actually, I don’t “keep pointing” to these three countries. Rather, you keep pointing to this citation while refusing to explain what you think is wrong with it.

This is your point, Mycroft. You have simply stated that the Shah was not such a bad guy after all, yet you haven't explained why.

Clearly you speak a lie. I have given many reasons why I don’t believe the Shah “was not such a bad guy after all.” If you disagree, please feel free to say so and explain why.

I have repeatedly answered that: You point to the Shah. You have failed to come up with an answer to why you think he wasn't such a bad guy, especially when compared to other countries.

That is clearly a lie. I have listed many reasons why I think the Shah “wasn’t such a bad guy.” If you disagree, feel free to say so and explain why.

Just explain what you mean. This is your thread, your point.

Exactly. It’s up to me to express my opinion and it’s up to you to express yours. If you disagree with anything I’ve said, feel free to say so and explain why.

 

[varwoche]

Mycroft, apparently you acknowledge that the Shaw's Iran was a repressive, often brutal, non-democratic regime?

And you seemed to have acknowledged the facts that Demon refers to here...?

Well it is simply a fact that a democratic government was overthrown and the Shah was installed with US backing in response to the democratic government nationalising British owned Oil fields

I am well aware of how the Shah came into power

Not in specific response to anything posted in this thread, my point is: Argue realpolitik if you will. But when it blows back, we can't wish away the grievences that predictably result when the US implements anti-democratic foreign policy, in service of business interests no less (at least the nutjobs have the excuse of being nutjobs).

 

[CFLarsen]

Because “Republic” implies a representative democracy, which is questionable in the case of Egypt. This blurb from Wikipedia illustrates:

”… Although power is ostensibly organized under a multi-party semi-presidential system, whereby the executive power is theoretically divided between the President and the Prime Minister, in practice it rests almost solely with the President who traditionally has been elected in single-candidate elections for more than fifty years...”

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Egypt#Politics

So Egypt is a “republic” in the same way Iran was a “constitutional monarchy” where the leader ignores or works around those parts of the law that limit their powers. In that sense Iran and Egypt are very comparable despite Egypt not being a monarchy.

Thaaaaaaaaaank you. Dragging answers out of you is a chore, but a necessary one.

There seems to be a great deal of controversy with your definitions of rule. Don't you think it would make more sense for you to drop the presense of pointing to specific forms of rule, and instead point to something else, when you compare these countries?

Actually, I don’t “keep pointing” to these three countries.

You don't? Where do you point to other countries?

Rather, you keep pointing to this citation while refusing to explain what you think is wrong with it.

It is not my job to explain what is wrong with your contention. It is your job to explain why your contention is relevant.

Clearly you speak a lie. I have given many reasons why I don’t believe the Shah “was not such a bad guy after all.” If you disagree, please feel free to say so and explain why.

Clearly, you have not been able to back up your contention that the Shah was not such a bad guy, compared to other countries. Which was your point.

That is clearly a lie. I have listed many reasons why I think the Shah “wasn’t such a bad guy.” If you disagree, feel free to say so and explain why.

As demonstrated, not a lie.

Exactly. It’s up to me to express my opinion and it’s up to you to express yours. If you disagree with anything I’ve said, feel free to say so and explain why.

So far, I can't tell where you have explained why the Shah was not such a bad guy, compared to other countries. Which, again, was your point.

How do you explain SAVAK? How is that progressive?

 

[Mycroft]

Mycroft, apparently you acknowledge that the Shaw's Iran was a repressive, often brutal, non-democratic regime?

The Shah's regime was characterized by many aspects that would be intolerable in the US or the West in general. Then again, that's true of virtually every nation in that region.

I believe the negative aspects of the Shah are exaggerated. Supposedly he was our puppet, so it’s important for some people from some parts of the political spectrum to claim he was another Saddam or worse and that Iranian anti-US feelings are justified because we’re guilty of inflicting the Shah on them. I don’t believe an objective examination of Iranian history supports that point of view.

It’s not a choice between singing the praises of the Shah or hating him as a despot. I’m trying to plant myself firmly in the excluded middle-ground here.

And you seemed to have acknowledged the facts that Demon refers to here...?

Demon seems to forget the Shah took over from his father, the previous Shah.

Not in specific response to anything posted in this thread, my point is: Argue realpolitik if you will. But when it blows back, we can't wish away the grievences that predictably result when the US implements anti-democratic foreign policy, in service of business interests no less (at least the nutjobs have the excuse of being nutjobs).

The blowback here was really caused by the British, not the US. It was the US that supported Iranian independence from both the British and the Soviets after WWII, and American action that removed Stalin’s troops when Stalin went back on his word. American policy favored an Iran strong enough to stand up to these foreign powers.

Iran had very real grievances against British Petroleum, but they played their hand too heavily when they went for outright nationalism. Not their fault, really.

 

[CFLarsen]

The Shah's regime was characterized by many aspects that would be intolerable in the US or the West in general. Then again, that's true of virtually every nation in that region.

Is it? What do you base that on? Yes, be specific.

I believe the negative aspects of the Shah are exaggerated. Supposedly he was our puppet, so it’s important for some people from some parts of the political spectrum to claim he was another Saddam or worse and that Iranian anti-US feelings are justified because we’re guilty of inflicting the Shah on them. I don’t believe an objective examination of Iranian history supports that point of view.

What do you base that on? Yes, be specific.

It’s not a choice between singing the praises of the Shah or hating him as a despot. I’m trying to plant myself firmly in the excluded middle-ground here.

Why? What are your reasons? Yes, be specific.

Demon seems to forget the Shah took over from his father, the previous Shah.

So? Does that in any way absolve the Shah what he did? Yes, be specific.

The blowback here was really caused by the British, not the US. It was the US that supported Iranian independence from both the British and the Soviets after WWII, and American action that removed Stalin’s troops when Stalin went back on his word. American policy favored an Iran strong enough to stand up to these foreign powers.

Iran had very real grievances against British Petroleum, but they played their hand too heavily when they went for outright nationalism. Not their fault, really.

What do you mean, "fault"? Yes, be specific.

 

[Mycroft]

Is it? What do you base that on? Yes, be specific.

What do you base that on? Yes, be specific.

Why? What are your reasons? Yes, be specific.

So? Does that in any way absolve the Shah what he did? Yes, be specific.

What do you mean, "fault"? Yes, be specific.

Lol!

You've debased this discussion to the level of an adult talking to a four-year-old who responds with everything with the same whiney, "But why?"

While I appreciate the implied compliment in assigning me the role of the adult to your four-year-old, I'm afraid that's not enough to entice me to continue. If you change your mind and decide you want a grown-up discussion, if you want to disagree with anything I’ve said or even if you just want to offer your own thoughts on the topic, I’ll be more than happy to re-join you at that point.

 

[CFLarsen]

Lol!

You've debased this discussion to the level of an adult talking to a four-year-old who responds with everything with the same whiney, "But why?"

While I appreciate the implied compliment in assigning me the role of the adult to your four-year-old, I'm afraid that's not enough to entice me to continue. If you change your mind and decide you want a grown-up discussion, if you want to disagree with anything I’ve said or even if you just want to offer your own thoughts on the topic, I’ll be more than happy to re-join you at that point.

Evasion noted.

 

[Skeptic]

(sigh)

As usual, Larsen "wins" the argument by sheer stubborness: he keeps asking "why?" and "why do you mean?" and "give examples!" about the utterly obvious until the other side refuses to play the silly game any more.

 

[NeilC]

Yes this really is a perfect example of a realy tedious skeptic forum thread. Constant picking away at small points and requoting constantly to prove minor inconsistencies until it gets so bogged down nobody is even discussing the actual topic anymore. The desire for "victory" quashes useful discussion.

 

[Crossbow]

Well the main thing I noticed was that Mycroft started off by asking why do Muslims support suicide bombers, killers, warriors, and the like.

Yet he quickly abandoned those valid questions to pursue his thoughts on how the government of the former Shah of Iran was not a totalitarian regime and that the Shah was overthrown by religious extremists.

As for me,
I never did expect that he wanted answers to the questions he posed, because I suspected that he was already quite comfortable with the answers he already had.
Instead, I expect that he was actually trying to do was create some sort of opening or frame for his pet arguments how bad Islamic extremists can be (after all, look what they did to that great reformer the Shah of Iran).

Well even Mycroft eventually had to admit that the government under the Shah was pretty bad even for a non-religious, Westward leaning, dictator which rather undercut his basic point that a non-religious, Westward leaning governments are good.

 

[Skeptic]

Yet he quickly abandoned those valid questions to pursue his thoughts on how the government of the former Shah of Iran was not a totalitarian regime and that the Shah was overthrown by religious extremists.

I don't think the two are contradictory. The Shah was totalitarian, but he also was overthrown by religious extremists which were much worse.

Not all dictators are equal. The Shah was comparable perhaps to Mussolini or Franco; the regime that followed him, however, was and is--as its stated goals declare--comparable to Hitler.

The horrible problem is that people will often freely enslave themselves with a worse dictator once they are free of a bad one. The west mistakenly associates "revolution" and "the will of the people" with freedom and human rights. More often than not, the exact opposite is the case.

 

[Darth Rotor]

Evasion noted.

Time banditry noted.

DR

 

[Mycroft]

Well the main thing I noticed was that Mycroft started off by asking why do Muslims support suicide bombers, killers, warriors, and the like.

Wow. I’d say either you didn’t read the OP or your preconceptions are so strong that you only perceive what you expect to see.

The OP doesn’t ask why Muslims support suicide bombers or killers. I grew up around religious radicalism in the form of fundamentalist Christianity, so I don’t need to ask questions like that. It doesn’t take a lot of imagination to imagine what the people I grew up around would have been like if they’d been told it was a great thing to kill in the name of God. I know some of them would have.

No, my OP points to an article about Muslims in Indonesia traveling to Lebanon or the disputed territories wanting to become Jihads, and Muslim businessmen sponsoring them as evidence of an Islamic Crusade to “liberate” the Holy Land. It’s very much like what Mormons do, only with a lot more bloodshed.

How do you confuse that with asking why they do it?

Yet he quickly abandoned those valid questions to pursue his thoughts on how the government of the former Shah of Iran was not a totalitarian regime and that the Shah was overthrown by religious extremists.

I didn’t “abandon” anything. The topic simply changed and I went with it. I’m still more than willing to discuss the initial topic, to continue to discuss Iran, or even to discuss what you thought the OP was, but wasn’t.

As for me,
I never did expect that he wanted answers to the questions he posed, because I suspected that he was already quite comfortable with the answers he already had.
Instead, I expect that he was actually trying to do was create some sort of opening or frame for his pet arguments how bad Islamic extremists can be (after all, look what they did to that great reformer the Shah of Iran).

That’s some extraordinarily convoluted reasoning to support your biases about me, but you’re wrong. If all I wanted to talk about was how bad Islamic extremists are, I would never have allowed the topic to be diverted to Iran. Further you will notice that in discussing Iran, I didn’t bash Muslims at all, and only mentioned Islamic extremists in passing (if at all).

Well even Mycroft eventually had to admit that the government under the Shah was pretty bad even for a non-religious, Westward leaning, dictator which rather undercut his basic point that a non-religious, Westward leaning governments are good.

Did I? When?

The Shah’s policies did a lot of good for Iran. I still stand behind that.