Click on the title to read the the full Reuters article about the Iranian presidential election.
There were two left in the race in the runoff for the presidency of Iran, one was radical (moderate for Iranian) and another was an extremist. The extremist won. Surprise, surprise.
So, Mahmoud Ahmadinejad will be the new name spewing anti-American venom, real soon.
But we all know that the office of the presidency is a joke, since the real power is held by the mullahs. They have the final say and can overrule elected officials at the drop of a hat. They hold the strings. They call the shots. They rig the elections and they don't have a Howard Dean crying voter fraud.
Rep. Julia Carson (D-Indiana) called for the UN to monitor American elections, last year. But as you might have already guessed, she was conspicuously silent on the Iranian elections (as was the UN). France openly supported Kerry, but you didn't hear Chirac peep one peep yesterday, now did you?
There is not much we can do but understand this, there can never be real freedom in Iran until the mullahs are gone. And, until the world stands up to them and properly ostricizes them, there will be no free and honest elections to form a government that will guarantee it.
7 comments:
LASunsett,
I saw your comment @ Social Sense, and you are exactly correct that people desire a comfortable reality. The head-in-the-sand position with regard to Islamism is deadly, however.
Mustang, the author of the Social Sense blog, co-wrote an article entitled "Our Own Gullibility," which is posted at my blog and at his. It's also appeared elsewhere on the web.
As to Iran, I absolutely agree with you that the mullahs are the problem. I blogged that farce of an election a few days ago.
This morning when I saw the Washington Post's headline "Hard-Line Tehran Mayor Wins Iranian Presidency," my blood ran cold. Make no mistake about it--Iran is in the process of developing nuclear weapons under the guise of scientific research. Mahdi Obeidi addressed this smokescreen in his book "The Bomb In My Garden." This past March, I had the privilege of hearing Obeidi speak at a local public library. I wish that Obeidi had a wider audience, because what he had to say is very, very important!
Furthermore, the hardliners see warfare against the West as their Islamic duty. They cannot separate their political and religious ideologies, and therein lies grave danger to the entire non-Muslim world. See
http://libertyandculture.blogspot.com/2005/06/its-religion-stupid.html
There are also other very enlightening articles at Liberty and Culture.
Mahmoud Ahmadinejad wants to go back to the days of the 1979 Islamic Revolution. But now Iran is more technologically developed, so what happens there will reach us, in ways which could make 9/11 look like a minor skirmish.
9/11 changed my outlook on world events. I have visited all the 9/11 sites--the Pentagon, Ground Zero, and Shanksville.
The words you write are very true. I haven't been to the sites you mentioned, yet. But I bet it is a sobering scene.
LA Sunsett,
Thanks for stopping by my blog and posting a comment to my article "Notify the Art Museums." You have made some good observations.
However, I differ with you as to "Some of the greatest cultural ideas, art, scientific discoveries, and such were brought to the world by Muslim societies."
Find additional details @ http://socialsense.blogspot.com/2005/05/giving-proper-credit.html
Please don't be offended, but we have to be on the lookout for revisionism. I like to give credit where it is due at all times.
Have a good weekend. And I'll be stopping by your blog on a regular basis.
Don't ever worry about offending me if you disagree with me. I will listen to all points of view and mull them over. And if they have any merit, I will change my stance.
I did read the "Proper Credit" piece On Social Sense. Unfortunately I cannot completely concur with you or Mustang on this.
All societies in history borrowed some influences from others before them (and in some cases next to them).
I agree that Muslims may not have been directly responsible for a lot (compared to other empires and civilizations), but they did make significant contributions (in many areas) at a time, when medievel Europeans were deeply locked in feudalism (and weren't at their creative best). And while I agree that Arabs weren't always at the helm of the studies and/or creativity, it was not opposed by the rulers of the time.
My original point was contrasting the complete intolerance of anything not Muslim by the Taliban, to that of a day when the Caliphs permitted the best of the other worlds to be fused into the culture of the day. The additions and the contributions made under Muslim rule (whether by Jews, Persians, or whomever) were well documented and recorded way before this present age of revisionism and political correctness.
So, I do agree with some aspects of your argument, but not all. But hey, if you can find someone that you only disagree with 10% of the time, it means you agree with them 90% of the time.
Borrowing and preserving are good, and most cultures do so. But what I don't like is the constant push to portray Arabs/Muslims as a font of creativity when such is not always the case.
Not all of the Caliphs were so tolerant and that many of the tolerant ones were found, by orthodox Muslims, to be apostates. I'm wary of revisionist history, and it's pretty hard to dig out the truth over the gap of centuries.
I don't vouch for the accuracy of the long quotes below, but the book appears to be well-sourced. I found the following in Serge Trifkovic's "The Sword of the Prophet," under the heading "Myth of A 'Golden Age':
"With a few exceptions, the contemporary Islamic world is an overwhelmingly unpleasant place. There have been times, however, when some Muslim lands were fit for a cultivated man to live in. Baghdad under Harun ar-Rashid (his well-documented Christian-slaying and Jew-hating proclivities notwithstanding), or Cordova very briefly under Abd ar-Rahman in the tenth century, come to mind. We all know about all that, if for no other reason than because those isolated episodes are endlessly invoked by Islam's Western apologists and admirers... (193)
"Visual, literary, and musical arts of the lands conquered by Islam from the seventh century had to be largely nonrepresentational (in religious art strictly so). The 'golden age' of Islamic art lasted from A.D. 750 to the mid-eleventh century...ceramics, glass, metalwork, textiles, illuminated manuscripts, wordfork...lustered glass...calligraphy, an essential aspect of written Arabic...
"In the exact sciences, the contribution of Al-Khwarzimi, mathematician and astronomer, was considerable...rules for solving linear and quadratic equations...geometry and proportion. [His book's] translation into Latin in the twelfth century provided the link between the great Hindu mathematicians and European scholars. A corruption of the book's title resulted in the word 'algebra'; a corruption of the author's own name resulted in the term 'algorithm.'
"Whatever flourished, it was not by reason of Islam, it was in spite of Islam. In Islam's 'golden age,' there was a lot of speculation and very little application; and for almost a thousand years, even speculation has stopped. The periods of civilization under Islam, however brief, were predicated on the readiness of the conquerors to borrow from earlier cultures, to compile, translate, learn, and absorb. Islam per se never encouraged science...because the only knowledge it accepts is religious knowledge.
"It is said that when the Caliph Umar conquered Alexandria in the seventh century, he had its huge library burned, saying that if the writings contained within were in agreement with the Kuran, then they were redundant and therefore useless; if they disagreed with the hold book of the Muslims, then they were blasphemous and must be burned." (195-196)
This is a bit sarcastic, but here goes. I find it interesting that today's Islamist hardliners don't want to accept anything Western-- UNLESS it's weaponry to further their goal. They reject Western art and Western ideals but embrace the Internet and nukes.
PS: Sorry for the long comment. As you've pointed out, we basically agree. However, I wanted to share this above information.
You are absolutely right, they do ram it straight down our throats. They do overplay it.
For many years, Islam has changed hands. The Arabs, the Ottomans, and the Persians have all had a shot of spreading the religion (by the sword). What we are seeing today is the re-emergence of the Arabs and the Persians, at the same time. Both have a disdain for each other, but yet have been conditioned to hate Americans just because we are and that is the common denominator.
The ONLY reason that Islam has become so empowered and so hostile is they have the oil. The oil is the powerplay for all involved. Oil profits are what makes these countries so rich and able to bankroll jihad. As long as the world needs oil, jihad will continue.
If there ever comes a time that we don't ever need oil again, this movement will soon dry up for lack of funds. Then Europe, Asia, and others (to include us) will not give a damn about them anymore. They will lose any influence they ever had.
But until then, we need to protect ourselves better. And I for one am glad, there is a realization growing that things just can't keep going like they are.
And I'd like to see the blogoshpere get serious about pressing for a new kind of fuel. It can be done. This is the 21st Century, after all.
Hell, the American oil companies could make it and get filthy rich, what's their problem? Anything that would reduce our dependence on foreign oil, and relieve the world of being held hostage by thugs, is worth a try.
You are absolutely right about the oil. Anyone who is not a low-class moron should be able to see the truth: Oil profits are funding terrorism, both directly and indirectly.
On 9/12/01, I asked a Saudi-American colleague (We were both ESL teachers), "What about Saudi Arabia? Are they really our allies?"
His response: "As long as the Sauds are selling oil to the United States, the Sauds are our friends. When the oil runs out, look out!"
The above exchange didn't address the funding for terrorism, just the question of allies.
My pessimistic opinion is that things will get worse before they get better. Once the House of Saud falls--and one day, it will--all hell will break loose.
Post a Comment