Topic: Kicking Off in Iran....Again

[west_london_red]

I'd imagine he means by western governments. You know, the whole state visits, presidents dancing with them, Prime Ministers going over to secure trade deals with them, thing. 

There’s a huge double standard across the West and particularly the US as to how the Saudis and Iranians are perceived, especially when at least from an outsiders view of of how the countryies are run Iran seems the less oppressive of the two, and from a Western point of view Saudi/Wahabbi supported terrorism has done more damage and poses more of a threat then Iranian Shiaism.

[west_london_red]

Emily Thornberry has claimed Labour is unable to back demonstrators protesting against the Iranian government because it is unclear who has ‘the white hats’.

Jeremy Corbyn has been under increasing pressure to speak out over the unrest, which was sparked by economic hardships facing citizens and left more than 20 people dead, with 450 arrested in Tehran.

Downing Street warned Iranian leaders that “Britain was watching” and Thornberry issued a statement earlier this week calling for the authorities to show restraint.

But she told Nick Robinson’s Political Thinking podcast that Labour was unable to speak out in support of the protests because it was unclear who was in the right.

Asked if she had ever been to an event celebrating the Iranian revolution which led to the establishment of the current regime - following reports Corbyn attended one in 2014 - the shadow foreign secretary said: “Our approach now is one of extreme caution when it comes to Iran, and a recognition that the society in Iran is a immensely complex one, and seemingly contradictory.

“For example, with these current riots, sometimes they are...calling to reinstate the monarchy, sometimes they’re calling out against the Khomeni, sometimes they’re calling for Khomeni, sometimes they’re calling for the price of eggs.

“It’s very difficult, in those circumstances to actually come to a conclusion as to what political forces are behind the current disputes on the streets of Iran, so we take a cautious approach.”

The Islington MP said westerners could not “simply impose our views” on other countries.

“We don’t want to leap to judgement and say, well we don’t like the regime in Iran, these people are against it, they must be the guys with white hats, because it doesn’t work like that,” she added.

“We’ve seen that in Syria, we’ve seen it in Libya, we see it time and time again in Egypt...we cannot simply impose our views on people who are fighting against, you know, Mubarak, who we don’t like.”

Foreign secretary Alexander Boris de Pfeffel Johnson has urged Iranian leaders to “debate the legitimate and important issues” raised by protesters.

http://www.huffingtonpost.co.uk/entry/emily-thornberry-says-labour-cannot-back-iran-protesters-because-its-unclear-who-has-white-hats_uk_5a4fb78ce4b089e14dba9911?en


Wow. 

She’s not totally wrong though is she. Sadam, Assad and Gaddaffi were replaced to different degrees by those lovely people with the black flags who like dressing people up in orange jumpsuits.

Maybe we should just keep out for once?

[TepidT2O]

If you are neutral in situations of injustice, you have chosen the side of the oppressor. 

Agreed...?

[Yorkykopite]

That's right Thornberry. Trivialise and slander the movement against the mullahs.

Instead of posing as a clueless idiot, find out what's happening you fool. Either that or step down from your position in the Labour party. 

[west_london_red]

If you are neutral in situations of injustice, you have chosen the side of the oppressor. 

Agreed...?

No.

[Yorkykopite]

No.

But if there is an authoritarian regime with a secret police force which shoots dead unarmed people who are protesting against it...then it becomes a little easier to pick sides, yes?
 

[west_london_red]

But if there is an authoritarian regime with a secret police force which shoots dead unarmed people who are protesting against it...then it becomes a little easier to pick sides, yes?
 

At face value, yes.

But I remember how things unfolded in a lot of the Arab uprisings, there was warnings that there were some very dangerous and unpleasant people involved which turned out to be true so it’s not always black and white as to who if anyone are the good guys.

[Yorkykopite]

At face value, yes.

But I remember how things unfolded in a lot of the Arab uprisings, there was warnings that there were some very dangerous and unpleasant people involved which turned out to be true so it’s not always black and white as to who if anyone are the good guys.

Sure, but a regime killing 40-odd of its own people for peacefully protesting is abominable I think. Right? It doesn’t take much guts to condemn that. In fact there’s something a bit fishy about anyone who stays neutral when that happens.

Think of Britain. Shelley was a thousand miles away from our own country when the redcoats killed the peaceful protestors at Peterloo in 1819. He didn’t um and ahh, and say “it’s hard to say who’s wearing the white hats, and lets not forget about how the demand for reform and revolution in France led to the Terror and Robespierre....” etc etc. He knew that the regime was murderous and he wrote Masque of Anarchy to show solidarity with the dead.

It’s disgraceful that the leader of the Labour Party - a party historically standing for the extension of democracy and human rights - should not know which way to turn when a fascist regime kills its own people.

[classycarra]

Much better to be cowardly and do fuck all (even in terms of just saying something) when a bit more nuance than goodies and baddies is required, than to actually try and understand what's happening. You know, her day job (the one that's part paid for by the taxpayer).

Not like internationalism is ostensibly important in the Labour movement or anything

[TepidT2O]

If you are neutral in situations of injustice, you have chosen the side of the oppressor. 

Agreed...?

The words of the leader of the Labour Party...

[classycarra]

The words of the leader of the Labour Party...

Was obviously lip service he doesn't mean, designed only to appeal to his most fervent supporters.

We already know from his actions in the past decade or so that he's opposed to Iranian socialists trade unionists and leftists.

His silence and Thornberry's useful declaration of ignorance are no surprise when you know the fascists Corbyn invites to speak, works for, and generally associates with at CND STWC and Al Quds day events.

[west_london_red]

Sure, but a regime killing 40-odd of its own people for peacefully protesting is abominable I think. Right? It doesn’t take much guts to condemn that. In fact there’s something a bit fishy about anyone who stays neutral when that happens.

Think of Britain. Shelley was a thousand miles away from our own country when the redcoats killed the peaceful protestors at Peterloo in 1819. He didn’t um and ahh, and say “it’s hard to say who’s wearing the white hats, and lets not forget about how the demand for reform and revolution in France led to the Terror and Robespierre....” etc etc. He knew that the regime was murderous and he wrote Masque of Anarchy to show solidarity with the dead.

It’s disgraceful that the leader of the Labour Party - a party historically standing for the extension of democracy and human rights - should not know which way to turn when a fascist regime kills its own people.

Generally, if not pretty much wholly I agree with you.

Just not sure that it’s relevant to the subject, and why this topic has become another one to bash the Labour Party. On a slight tangent, I and Trada posted something about the low membership of the Tory part in the Tory party topic, some posters thought it was irrelevant (not sure with what it was irrelevant as the posts and topic were about the Tories) and the mods deleted the posts, but it’s ok for a topic on Iran to end up being one about the Labour Party... this place really isn’t making any sense to me anymore so I’m gonna leave it there and wish you all a good night.

[Poet]

She’s not totally wrong though is she. Sadam, Assad and Gaddaffi were replaced to different degrees by those lovely people with the black flags who like dressing people up in orange jumpsuits. [/b]

Maybe we should just keep out for once?

This

In terms of "keeping out", we have to fully assess what is going on before we shove our noses in Iran's business.

[Yorkykopite]

This

In terms of "keeping out", we have to fully assess what is going on before we shove our noses in Iran's business.

Who’s talking about “going in”?

Or do you mean that no one who is not actually Iranian should be allowed to even comment on what’s happening there?

[Poet]

Who’s talking about “going in”?

Or do you mean that no one who is not actually Iranian should be allowed to even comment on what’s happening there?

Certainly not me. We never seem to learn from our mistakes.

Yes, the deaths are abhorrent and a stain on democracy. For now, we have to observe rather than wholly condemn the Iranian regime who are slowly reforming.

[RedBootsTommySmith]

Instead of posing as a clueless idiot, find out what's happening you fool.

You’re watching too much Trump, Yorky, you’re stooping to his level of debate.

Now, are you concerned with what’s happened over the last week or so, or more generally using these events to air your preconcieved notions of the ‘regime’?

From what I see of recent events, even as reported in Western papers, its clear that some of the protesters were not so peaceful.

E.g.

https://www.usatoday.com/videos/news/world/2018/01/02/protesters-try-storm-police-station-iran/109091978/

Police station set on fire attempt to seize arms, police amongst the dead.

Now, imagine such a ‘peaceful’ protest in the UK. How would the local bobbies react to a station being stormed and torched? A local policeman being shot dead? The nearest equivalent would be the troubles in Northern Ireland.

Maybe the folks who say we have enough problems of our own.....homelessness, drug addiction, random stabbings, austerity (the cause on the initial Iranian protests)...and should mind our own business, maybe, just maybe, have a point.

[classycarra]

You’re watching too much Trump, Yorky, you’re stooping to his level of debate.

Now, are you concerned with what’s happened over the last week or so, or more generally using these events to air your preconcieved notions of the ‘regime’?

From what I see of recent events, even as reported in Western papers, its clear that some of the protesters were not so peaceful.

There's an ugly irony in you invoking watching too much Trump in criticising that post, and then implicitly justifying unarmed people dying at protests. Projecting, do they call it?

[RedBootsTommySmith]

How was a policeman shot by unarmed protesters?

https://www.nytimes.com/aponline/2018/01/01/world/middleeast/ap-ml-iran-protests.html

I understand the Iranian ‘regime’ has responded not by criticising unarmed protesters or their right to protest, but by criticising those that would use these protests to further political ( geopolitical?)aims and escalate to violence.

[BobOnATank]

Sure, but a regime killing 40-odd of its own people for peacefully protesting is abominable I think. Right? It doesn’t take much guts to condemn that. In fact there’s something a bit fishy about anyone who stays neutral when that happens.

Think of Britain. Shelley was a thousand miles away from our own country when the redcoats killed the peaceful protestors at Peterloo in 1819. He didn’t um and ahh, and say “it’s hard to say who’s wearing the white hats, and lets not forget about how the demand for reform and revolution in France led to the Terror and Robespierre....” etc etc. He knew that the regime was murderous and he wrote Masque of Anarchy to show solidarity with the dead.

It’s disgraceful that the leader of the Labour Party - a party historically standing for the extension of democracy and human rights - should not know which way to turn when a fascist regime kills its own people.

Pfft, think of NI in the 70s with the british government on the other end of the gun, they had no issues at all with suppress this form of "descent" with murder. Irony at its best from the Edit: /tories/ british establishment.

[Buggy Eyes Alfredo]

Good video essay about the situation. I had not heard about the chickens.

<a href="https://www.youtube.com/v/WKfVxoPO_Qc" target="_blank" rel="noopener noreferrer" class="bbc_link bbc_flash_disabled new_win">https://www.youtube.com/v/WKfVxoPO_Qc</a>

[Yorkykopite]

Certainly not me.

And no one else either. So what was the point of your post?

[Yorkykopite]

Now, are you concerned with what’s happened over the last week or so, or more generally using these events to air your preconcieved notions of the ‘regime’?

I’m concerned. And yes the brutal response of the State confirms all my previous views about the wretched regime.

This is a state built on police terror. Scores of thousands of Iranians have been murdered by the police since the mullahs took control. Iranians have no way of voting out the unelected clerics who rule them and abuse them.  It is not about English bobbies.

[Yorkykopite]

Pfft, think of NI in the 70s with the british government on the other end of the gun, they had no issues at all with suppress this form of "descent" with murder. Irony at its best from the Edit: /tories/ british establishment.

This is a typical Tory response. Why can’t you bring yourself to condemn the actions of the British state in Northern Ireland?

[DerKaiser]

I think one thing people are failing to note is that the otherthrow of Sadam, Gaddafi etc, was the overthrow of secularism. In the case of Iran, the people are rightly speaking out in favour of democracy and freedom against the Islamic law that has them subdued them for so long.

I don't think anyone is adovating direct intervention, however, the fact that Labour leadership wont't speak out only illustrates how they are fickle-minded they are when it comes to such issues. Jeremy Corbyn is a Stop the War ideologue who will never have the capacity to truly understand the complexity of Middle Eastern issues.

[Xabi Gerrard]

I think one thing people are failing to note is that the otherthrow of Sadam, Gaddafi etc, was the overthrow of secularism. In the case of Iran, the people are rightly speaking out in favour of democracy and freedom against the Islamic law that has them subdued them for so long.

This is a good point.

Worth noting as well that Iran has a much stronger sense of nationhood than the likes of Iraq, Syria and Libya given it's ancient history compared to these other countries which were thrown together relatively recently by European powers. So for most Iranians they're Iranian first, Azeri/Persian/Kurd/Shia/Sunni/whatever second.

There's much less 'demand' by people to tear up the country to benefit their own particular subgroup, so less chance of civil war.

[west_london_red]

I think one thing people are failing to note is that the otherthrow of Sadam, Gaddafi etc, was the overthrow of secularism. In the case of Iran, the people are rightly speaking out in favour of democracy and freedom against the Islamic law that has them subdued them for so long.

I don't think anyone is adovating direct intervention, however, the fact that Labour leadership wont't speak out only illustrates how they are fickle-minded they are when it comes to such issues. Jeremy Corbyn is a Stop the War ideologue who will never have the capacity to truly understand the complexity of Middle Eastern issues.

Thats the point though isn’t it? Secular tyrants were replaced by religious ones in large parts of the Middle East, removing a religious tyranny doesn’t guarantee us a secular democracy in its place, we could just as easily end up with another religious tyranny or a secular one as I believe Iran had under the Shah?

[Yorkykopite]

This is a good point.

Worth noting as well that Iran has a much stronger sense of nationhood than the likes of Iraq, Syria and Libya given it's ancient history compared to these other countries which were thrown together relatively recently by European powers. So for most Iranians they're Iranian first, Azeri/Persian/Kurd/Shia/Sunni/whatever second.

And, more importantly, Iran wasn't under the imperial dominion of the Ottoman Turks and kept - like 'Syria' and 'Palestine' - in a deliberate state of backwardness for centuries on end.

[Xabi Gerrard]

And, more importantly, Iran wasn't under the imperial dominion of the Ottoman Turks and kept - like 'Syria' and 'Palestine' - in a deliberate state of backwardness for centuries on end.

Not sure how that's relevant to the point. The point being that in Iraq, Syria and Libya the populations are currently living within borders that don't actually mean anything to them, they're just arbitrary lines in the sand (which happened to be drawn up by European powers recently). Whereas the vast majority of Iran's population do actually believe they're living in a country that means something to them, so more of a sense of 'oneness' and less chance of fighting amongst each other for ethnic/religious superiority, as is happening in those other countries.

Not sure why you're bringing Palestine into this either? Palestinians are being denied even have the basic human right of self determination. Maybe if they did have that basic human right they'd be in a position where they could fight amongst each other for superiority. But they don't. So not sure why you're bringing them in as an example.

[Yorkykopite]

Not sure how that's relevant to the point. The point being that in Iraq, Syria and Libya the populations are currently living within borders that don't actually mean anything to them, they're just arbitrary lines in the sand (which happened to be drawn up by European powers recently). Whereas the vast majority of Iran's population do actually believe they're living in a country that means something to them, so more of a sense of 'oneness' and less chance of fighting amongst each other for ethnic/religious superiority, as is happening in those other countries.

Not sure why you're bringing Palestine into this either? Palestinians are being denied even have the basic human right of self determination. Maybe if they did have that basic human right they'd be in a position where they could fight amongst each other for superiority. But they don't. So not sure why you're bringing them in as an example.

It's a mind-set thing I suppose. I mean a mind-set thing in the West. Those who believe that all the problems of the Middle East emanate from the Balfour Declaration (a Jewish homeland) and Sykes-Picot ("lines in the sand") tend to be incurious about the multifaceted and complex history of the region. Their analysis is thereby often reduced to little more than 'western intervention is the problem'. Consequently, as westerners, they are reluctant - like Corbyn and Thornberry currently are - to unequivocally condemn the brutality of dictatorships in the region if the dictatorship in question is 'anti-western'.

This is not because Corbyn and Thornberry have a sophisticated view of Iran or the history of the Middle East. They clearly don't. One can infer from all Corbyn's ramblings over the years that he knows little more about the pre-1967 history of the Middle East than 'Balfour Declaration', 'Sykes-Picot', the 1953 coup against Mossadegh (a coup, incidentally, supported at the time by the Ayatollah Khomeini).

When Corbyn and Leftists of his persuasion talk about the dark shadow of imperialism in the Middle East they always mean British and French imperialism - or the Mandates these countries held in Syria and Palestine between the wars. They don't mean Ottoman imperialism, which lasted for centuries and kept the entire region in a state of cultural, political, religious and technological backwardness. This was a rapacious imperialism that impoverished generations and left no representative institutions at all. Nothing. That legacy has been a baleful one.

[west_london_red]

It's a mind-set thing I suppose. I mean a mind-set thing in the West. Those who believe that all the problems of the Middle East emanate from the Balfour Declaration (a Jewish homeland) and Sykes-Picot ("lines in the sand") tend to be incurious about the multifaceted and complex history of the region. Their analysis is thereby often reduced to little more than 'western intervention is the problem'. Consequently, as westerners, they are reluctant - like Corbyn and Thornberry currently are - to unequivocally condemn the brutality of dictatorships in the region if the dictatorship in question is 'anti-western'.

This is not because Corbyn and Thornberry have a sophisticated view of Iran or the history of the Middle East. They clearly don't. One can infer from all Corbyn's ramblings over the years that he knows little more about the pre-1967 history of the Middle East than 'Balfour Declaration', 'Sykes-Picot', the 1953 coup against Mossadegh (a coup, incidentally, supported at the time by the Ayatollah Khomeini).

When Corbyn and Leftists of his persuasion talk about the dark shadow of imperialism in the Middle East they always mean British and French imperialism - or the Mandates these countries held in Syria and Palestine between the wars. They don't mean Ottoman imperialism, which lasted for centuries and kept the entire region in a state of cultural, political, religious and technological backwardness. This was a rapacious imperialism that impoverished generations and left no representative institutions at all. Nothing. That legacy has been a baleful one.

It’s amazing that in replying to a post that doesn’t mention Corbyn, Thornberry or Labour you still manage to spend 2/3 of a long post talking about them.

[classycarra]

It’s amazing that in replying to a post that doesn’t mention Corbyn, Thornberry or Labour you still manage to spend 2/3 of a long post talking about them.

Is it? Or are you just easily amazed?

All those topics have been mentioned on this very page of this topic, including in a post from you.

[Yorkykopite]

It’s amazing that in replying to a post that doesn’t mention Corbyn, Thornberry or Labour you still manage to spend 2/3 of a long post talking about them.

It seems to be the only thing you want to talk about. You always fixate on this  - always with a lofty air of complaint - and ignore practically everything else.

[Xabi Gerrard]

Is it? Or are you just easily amazed?

All those topics have been mentioned on this very page of this topic, including in a post from you.

To be fair to West London Red, my post wasn't referring to Corbyn or Labour in any way, I was sticking to the matter at hand. I don't think the post I was replying to was either (it certainly seemed 'on topic' to me rather than extending the earlier Corbyn/Thornberry discussion). My post was merely a comment on how the fallout in Iran will/should be different to the Arab Spring countries if the regime was to be toppled.

[classycarra]

To be fair to West London Red, my post wasn't referring to Corbyn or Labour in any way, I was sticking to the matter at hand. I don't think the post I was replying to was either (it certainly seemed 'on topic' to me rather than extending the earlier Corbyn/Thornberry discussion). My post was merely a comment on how the fallout in Iran will/should be different to the Arab Spring countries if the regime was to be toppled.

Yeah definitely true of your posts mate. And fully agree about the differences to the Arab Spring that you DerKaiser and Yorky have mentioned.

It's just odd for someone (WLR) who was last night initially willfully taking the discussion off topic referring to the Labour party/Tory membership/RAWK moderation to then try to shame/shut up someone else for discussing things that have actually been part of the topic throughout. Seems a double standard

[AndyInVA]

If you are neutral in situations of injustice, you have chosen the side of the oppressor. 

Agreed...?

Picking sides is easy.

Having a suggestion of what should happen in someone elses country or coming up with a plan of how to fix that country from abroad with long term peace is rather more tricky

[TepidT2O]

Picking sides is easy.

Having a suggestion of what should happen in someone elses country or coming up with a plan of how to fix that country from abroad with long term peace is rather more tricky

Picking sides against a theocratic bunch of gay hating murders is easy...

What you do about it is more difficult of course, but describing the theocracy as abhorrent is easy..

[west_london_red]

It's just odd for someone (WLR) who was last night initially willfully taking the discussion off topic referring to the Labour party/Tory membership/RAWK moderation to then try to shame/shut up someone else for discussing things that have actually been part of the topic throughout. Seems a double standard

I was very open that I took the conversation off topic firstly, and secondly just because Corbyn and Labour have been bought up repeatedly by you and your ilk in this topic that doesn’t make it any more relevant.

[west_london_red]

It seems to be the only thing you want to talk about. You always fixate on this  - always with a lofty air of complaint - and ignore practically everything else.

Because it’s fucking boring. You don’t like Corbyn or the current Labour leadership, we get that. Believe it or not I am not a huge fan either, but you don’t have to bring it up on every topic you can shoehorn it into.

[Yorkykopite]

Because it’s fucking boring. You don’t like Corbyn or the current Labour leadership, we get that. Believe it or not I am not a huge fan either, but you don’t have to bring it up on every topic you can shoehorn it into.

But with respect you do this in almost every thread. My post was about the failure of the many westerners to see beyond Sykes-Picot when it comes to assessing the problems of the Middle East. I also made a point about the baleful legacy of Otttoman imperialism in the region, and bemoaned the fact that this legacy always seems to get overlooked.

You - characteristically I would say - overlooked that (!) and chose instead to complain that I’d also mentioned Corbyn. It’s almost like you have a Corbyn buzzer that goes off every time the word is written on RAWK. Then you enter the thread to complain, without offering anything substantive yourself on the main discussion. 

[west_london_red]

But with respect you do this in almost every thread. My post was about the failure of the many westerners to see beyond Sykes-Picot when it comes to assessing the problems of the Middle East. I also made a point about the baleful legacy of Otttoman imperialism in the region, and bemoaned the fact that this legacy always seems to get overlooked.

You - characteristically I would say - overlooked that (!) and chose instead to complain that I’d also mentioned Corbyn. It’s almost like you have a Corbyn buzzer that goes off every time the word is written on RAWK. Then you enter the thread to complain, without offering anything substantive yourself on the main discussion. 

I add my 2p worth plenty of times that don’t involve pointing out Corbyn has been mentioned (there’s a couple of them on this page, you even responded to one...), whether it’s substastive or not I will leave to others to decide.