Sorry, it's politics and as a matter of conscience I'm entitled to make my own political choices. Broadly speaking the farther left politically something is the more I support it. I'm speaking at a political level. From a personal religious (non-institutional) perspective I have problems with both the secular and religious (all) portions of the American new left...the very ones on principle I encouraged in the past and will in the future. There's an explanation for that....not getting into it. /R -----Original Message----- From: NewPacifica@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx [mailto:NewPacifica@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx]On Behalf Of L. Mirza Sent: Tuesday, May 30, 2006 6:15 PM To: NewPacifica@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx Subject: RE: [NewPacifica] Re:U.S. Aggression Not Theocratic Repression Richard,I see you are the true judge of who is fit to decide issues in Iran. High placed Ulema in Iran have spent 40 to 60 years in intensive Islamic studies as well as in science, mathematics, history, language (None speak, read and write, less than three languages with total fluency and many speak, read and right many other languages as well. You don't have the slightest knowledge of the Howza system in Najaf, Iraq, and in Qom, Iran. So please stop and learn the true facts before making blanket statments. The Shia Ulema (Clergy) are generally highly educated and not some foaming at the mouth mad "mullahs" the western sterotypes them as. It is time some people get a real and authentic education from real Muslims instead of fox tv and hollywood. --- Richard <rsierra7@xxxxxxxxx> wrote: > Thanks, but with a council of mullahs making the > final judgements I would > think orthodox religious criteria, those more or > less conservative, would > also have come into play. To limit the time frame > and keep things > contemporary I'm concentrating on the later years > and not the previous > tumultuous period. > > Trying to keep it short and to the point.... /R > > > -----Original Message----- > From: NewPacifica@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx > [mailto:NewPacifica@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx]On > Behalf Of L. Mirza > Sent: Tuesday, May 30, 2006 6:52 AM > To: NewPacifica@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx > Subject: RE: [NewPacifica] Re: Neither U.S. > Aggression Nor Theocratic > Repression > > > Those candidates are screened for, citizenship, > criminal activities, records or other acts that > according to the constitution in Iran would bar them > from holding office. I do believe here in the US > there > are restrictions such as a felony conviction, and > proof of citizenship requirements. > > In the first years of the Islamic Revolution, three > entire elected parliaments were bombed, killing 80% > or > more, and such bombings of shrines and places of > religious gatherings as well as parliament, that > have > gone on since the beginning and continue even to > this > day, should not surprise anyone that candidtes are > scrutinized for past activities. > > The vast majority appear to have been disqualified > for, felony convictions, anti state activities, and > belonging to groups that have used violence and > unlawful acts as defined in the Iran constitution. > I > have a copy of the Iran constitution, that was given > to me years ago, though I'm not sure where I've > stored > it. You can print out a copy on line I am sure. > > And the upper echelon of clerics in Iran actually > are > the MOST honorable. It is in the lower echelons, > particularily in the villages and small towns where > there is far more corruption and misuse of their > position. > > --- Richard <rsierra7@xxxxxxxxx> wrote: > > > I think the problem has been upper echelon clerics > > screen the electorial > > candidates. /R > > > > -----Original Message----- > > From: NewPacifica@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx > > [mailto:NewPacifica@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx]On > > Behalf Of L. Mirza > > Sent: Monday, May 29, 2006 8:18 PM > > To: NewPacifica@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx > > Subject: Re: [NewPacifica] Re: Neither U.S. > > Aggression Nor Theocratic > > Repression > > > > > > That theocracy does not stop the Iran people from > > either voting for the candidates of their choice > and > > from speaking freely. Every time I'm in Iran I get > > an > > ear full!!!! And not always very flattering things > > about their own country. Now I've been around > enough > > in really repressive countries to know that if > Iran > > was a bad as the west tries to make it, then no > one > > would dare to be as publically vocal and critical > as > > they are in Iran. One only has to watch our > > maintream > > news and public affairs programming, such as 60 > > Minutes, Nightline, 20 20 and PBS' Frontline, and > so > > on, when they do stories about Iran and see those > > highly outspoken, sometimes to the outrageous > > extremes > > to see that having a public opinion in Iran does > not > > ususally get one in jail. If no one here thinks > the > > government of Iran doesn't watch American TV, and > > see > > those interviews, especially the ones of > university > > students, and candid comments in the streets, they > > are > > pretty stupid! Now Iran is not as "free" as it is > > here > > for some forms of expression, such as the press, > but > > when it comes to the entire region, Iran is > > hands-down > > the most liberal country when it comes to freedom > of > > expression and definately the most democratic. > > > > All I can say to Ed Pearl is that he is expressing > > that exact type arrangence I hear on all sides of > > the > > policical sprectrum in the west. > > > > I know that Saudi Arabia, Iraq under saddam and > > Jordan > > have to be the three most repressive places when > it > > comes to expressions of opinion less than > flattering > > of their government. In all three places, where I > > have > > been and seem for myself, such criticism one hears > > freely in Iran, could leave one quite dead in a > > hurry! > > > > --- Terry Goodman <tiji@xxxxxxxx> wrote: > > > > > My in-line responses to several posts are below, > > > after a lengthy but > > > edited version of the post that started the > > thread. > > > > > > On Thursday, May 25, Ed Pearl quoted the > Campaign > > > for Peace and Democracy: > > > > > > <snip> > > > >> > > >> Although a full-scale invasion of Iran > > is > > > highly > > > >> > > >> unlikely at the moment, there can be > > > little doubt > > > >> > > >> that the neoconservatives in the Bush > > > >> > > >> administration have a grand strategy > > that > > > includes, > > > >> > > >> eventually, "regime change" in Tehran > as > > a > > > way > > > >> > > >> of further enlarging U.S. imperial > > power. > > > > > > <snip> > > > >> > > >> We, on the other hand, care very much > > > >> > > >> about the ability of the Iraqi and > > Iranian > > > people > > > >> > > >> to control their own societies, about > > > civil > > > >> > > >> liberties and the rights of women, > gays, > > > workers, > > > >> > > >> and ethnic minorities there. That is > why > > > we raise our > > > >> > > >> voices against the current threats to > > Iran > > > and call > > > >> > > >> for immediate withdrawal of all U.S. > > > forces from > > > >> > > >> Iraq. > > > >> > > >> > > > >> > > >> We too would like to see a regime > change > > > in > > > >> > > >> Tehran, but one brought about by the > > > Iranian people > > > >> > > >> themselves, not by Washington. For 26 > > > years Iran > > > >> > > >> has been ruled by a repressive > > theocracy. > > > Behind > > > >> > > >> the formal trappings of democracy, > real > > > power is held > > > >> > > >> by an un-elected oligarchy of clerics; > > all > > > electoral > > > >> > > >> candidates must receive their > approval, > > > and their authority > > > >> > > >> is enforced by gangs of religious > thugs. > > > > > > <snip> > > > >> > > >> In recent years there has been growing > > > resistance > > > >> > > >> within Iranian society, particularly > > from > > > workers > > > >> > > >> fighting privatization and > unemployment > > > and young > > > >> > > >> people chafing against social and > > > political repression. > > > >> > > >> This resistance holds the promise of > > > bringing > > > >> > > >> grassroots democratic change to Iran. > > > > > > <snip> > > > >> > > >> We therefore strongly oppose any > effort > > by > > > Tehran > > > >> > > >> to acquire nuclear weapons. But as > long > > > as a > > > >> > > >> handful of nations arrogate to > > themselves > > > the exclusive > > > >> > > >> right to possess nuclear weapons, the > > > have-nots will > > > >> > > >> always be able to point to the threat > > > posed by the > > > >> > > >> nuclear powers and will constantly > seek > > to > > > acquire such > > > >> > > >> weapons for themselves -- as North > Korea > > > has already > > > >> > > >> done, withdrawing from the > > > Non-Proliferation Treaty > > > >> > > >> regime. > > > > > > <snip> > > > >> > > >> We call for a new democratic U.S. > > foreign > > > policy > > > >> > > >> that would deal with the threat posed > to > > > all of us by > > > >> > > >> terrorist networks, and by weapons of > > mass > > > destruction, > > > >> > > >> and promote real democracy in the > Middle > > > East and > > > >> > > >> elsewhere, by: > > > >> > > >> > > > >> > > >> Renouncing the use of military > > > intervention > > > <snip> > > > >> > > >> Ending U.S. support for authoritarian > > and > > > corrupt > > > >> > > >> regimes, e.g. Saudi Arabia, the Gulf > > > states and > > > >> > > >> Egypt. > > > <snip> > > > >> > > >> Opposing all forms of terrorism > > worldwide > > > -- > > > <snip> > > > >> > > >> Supporting the right of national > > > self-determination > > > <snip> > > > >> > > >> Taking unilateral steps toward > > renouncing > > > weapons > > > >> > > >> of mass destruction, including nuclear > > > weapons, > > > <snip> > > > >> > > >> Abandoning the effort to impose, > through > > > the IMF/World > > > >> > > >> Bank or unilaterally, neoliberal > > economic > > > policies of > > > >> > > >> privatization and austerity > > > <snip> > > > >> > > >> Initiating a major foreign aid program > > > directed at popular > > > >> > > >> rather than corporate needs. > > > <snip> > > > > > > On May 25, 2006, Loraine Mirza wrote: > > > > > > >> > > >This is bullshit, big time. How dare > > others > > > who > > > >> > > > do not live in Iran tell the Iranis > what > > > form of > > > >> > > > government they should have. > > > > > > The CPD Statement does not tell Iranis what form > > of > > > government they > > > should have. It supports the ability of the > > Iranian > > > people to control > > > their own societies and describes the current > > > government in Iran as a > > > repressive theocracy that denies them that > > ability. > > > > > > >> > > > I applaud the majority of the Irani > > working > > > class, and > > > >> > > > working poor for their good judgement > in > > > chosing the > > > >> > > > government. I wonder how many on that > > list > > > of signatories > > > >> > > > has actually been in Iran, has actually > > met > > > thousands of those > > > >> > > > "theocrats" label them. > > > > > > The CPD description of clerical veto power in > Iran > > > is accurate, and > > > the choices available to Iranis is thereby > > > circumscribed. > > > > > > >> > > > Sure like the pr! iviliged classes in > > Cuba > > > and > > > >> > > > Venueseula, the wealthy Iranians don't > > > support > > > >> > > > the Islamic government. But the working > > > class and > > > >> > > > the poor know exactly what they want! > In > > > the elections > > > >> > > > before this one they tried a so-called > > > moderate (Khatamie) > > > >> > > >and after being neglected, burned and > > > watching > > > >> > > > their society turn into greedy western > > > style consumerism, > > > >> > > >70% of the people of Iran came out and > > > voted, and > > > >> > > > the majority voted for the most > religious > > > of the candidates. > > > > > > There is no denying that the Irani majority > wants > > > religious > > > government, but the "western" values of > individual > > > freedom and social > > > justice need not conflict with this choice nor > > lead > > > to the greedy > > > consumerism seen by many as their natural result > > > under the strict > > > limits of acceptable political dialogue. The > CDP > > > argues for a third > > > way, in which such choices are made in an > > > environment within which > > > alternatives may be freely discussed because > human > > > and individual > > > rights are protected rather than threatened by > > > government. > > > > > > >> > > > You know the left/progressive > > intelligencia > > > is not > > > >> > > > so superior as they claim. They just as > > > ignorant > > > >> > > > and prejudice and the neo-cons. > > > > > > It's a prejudice against tyranny and > > > authoritarianism with a sound and > > > intelligent basis in both history and political > > > theory. > > > > > > On Thursday, May 25, 2006, Altaf Bhimji wrote: > > > > > > >> > > Yes, I agree totally with Loraine. I got > > the > > > same > > > >> > > impression --- this is the same as the > > > neo-con... you > > > >> > > wish for "elections" but if people elect > > > someone > > > >> > > you don't like... well then you go about > > > wishing > > > >> > > for "regime change" --- How is that > really > > , > > > when it > > > >> > > comes down to it, any different than the > > > neo-con > > > >> > > imperialists? > > > <snip> > > > > > > The difference is clearly stated "We too would > > like > > > to see a regime > > > change in Tehran, but one brought about by the > > > Iranian people > > > themselves, not by Washington." This supports > the > > > concept of > > > anti-imperialist self-determination, which the > CPD > > > statement argues is > > > impossible under a repressive regime, even if > > > democratically elected. > > > > > > On May 26, 2006, Richard Sierra wrote: > > > > > > >> > The new left opposes Bush (christian > > > conservative) > > > >> > and the aligned Iraqi gov (islamic > > > conservative) and > > > >> > they don't adhere to the Pres's form of > > > imperial > > > >> > democracy nor do they support christian Law > > > (Old Testament) > > > >> > and, finally, they don't approve of islamic > > > Sharia. State > > > >> > legal systems and movements based on the > Law > > > and > > > >> > Sharia are traditional and patriarchal. > > > > > > Neither Christianity nor Islam need be > > conservative > > > or fundamentalist. > > > It is the conservative fundamentalism of Sharia > as > > > typically > > > implemented that the new left finds itself > > opposing, > > > rather than > > > Sharia itself. If the clerics interpreting the > > > Koran under Sharia > > > were progressive libertarian anarchists intent > on > > > limiting government > > > interference in private matters, and if Sharia > was > > a > > > structure of > > > civil law separate from the criminal law and > used > > > primarily for the > > > resolution of disputes, there would be little > > > problem, especially if > > > submission to its dictates was voluntary. > > > > > > >> > The new left everywhere and whatever its > form > > > is > > > >> > anti-patriarchalism and its many > > > manifestations. > > > <snip> > > > > > > Oh, I don't know about that. It's perhaps > > generally > > > true of the > > > feminist new left, but not all of the new left > is > > or > > > has been > > > consciously feminist and most new left thinkers > > > still treat children > > > as property or chattel -- the primary evidence > of > > > patriarchy or > > > matriarchy, in my view. > > > > > > Altaf Bhimji <altafb@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > > > > > > >> > this so-called "new left" however does wish > > for > > > >> > regime changes in areas of the world that > it > > > knows > > > >> > nothing about - and as such is reactionary, > > > imperialist, > > > >> > and patriarchical (sure... it does not > > > advocate > > > >> > military intervention, but it ends up > feeding > > > the beast > > > >> > that it supposedly opposes ) ... because it > > > does not > > > >> > believe in self-determination --- or the > > > notion that > > > >> > people may decide to live in ways other > than > > > the > > > >> > "new-left" ideology. And if a people do > chose > > a > > > form > > > >> > of govt other than "new-left", the new-left > > > will attribute > > > >> > that to "theocratic repression" or just > plain > > > >> > backwardness of people (who then need to be > > > >> > "educated" on the virtues of the "new > left"). > > > > > > I have no idea what "new left" Altaf is > describing > > > above. To the > > > little extent that it was concerned with > > > geopolitics, the 1960's new > > > left generally opposed imperialism and supported > > > national liberation > > > struggles, as in Algeria, Vietnam, and Latin > > > America. There was a > > > Maoist influence in the new left, but it was not > > > dominant; and where > > > ideological "re-education" was imposed by > > > governments, that was > > > generally by communists, who have a distinctly > > > different general > > > philosophy more closely allied with old left > than > > > new. New left > > > thinking is generally anti-authoritarian and > > > pro-liberty, yet Altaf > > > implies the opposite. > > > > > > >> --- Richard <rsierra7@xxxxxxxxx> wrote: > > > >> > > > >> > The multicultural left isn't the new left. > > In > > > the > > > >> > Sixties the then new left > > > >> > strongly supported the Kashmiri muslims and > > > LEFT > > > >> > muslims everywhere > > > >> > including Indonesia, South Yemen, and > Israel. > > > /R > > > > > > This statement somewhat implies a monolithic > > > uniformity in > > > geopolitical perspective that is not at all > > > characteristic of the new > > > left, which is more about liberty, culture, and > > > counter-culture than > > > about religions or nation-states and their > > > alignments. Anarchists and > > > radical libertarian socialists among Hindus, > > > Muslims, Budhists, > > > Atheists, or Christians can all find "support" > in > > > the new left, for > > > the little that support may be worth. > > > > > > Ref: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/New_Left > > > > > > On Saturday, May 27, 2006, Loraine Mirza wrote: > > > > > > <snip> > > > >> if you go back into archives you can hear for > > > >> yourself the Ravi Shankar, John Lenon, and > > > >> Joan Biaz concerts to raise money for > > Bangladesh. > > > > > > >> (Even when there was no Bangladesh, BTW) > > > > > > There was a Bangladesh at the time of the > > concerts, > > > but it was not yet > > > an independent country. > > > > > > "The people of the then East Pakistan declared > > > independence on 26th > > > March, 1971 and won a nine-month long war of > > > independence and became > > > independent on 16th December, 1971." > > > > > > Ref: http://www.citechco.net/bangladesh/history/ > > > > > > "The Concert For Bangladesh was the event title > > for > > > two benefit > > > concerts held on the afternoon and evening of > > August > > > 1, 1971, playing > > > to a total of 40,000 people at Madison Square > > Garden > > > in New York." > > > > > > Ref: > > > > > > http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Concert_for_Bangladesh > > > > > > See also: > > > > > > http://www.banglamusic.com/news/patriotic/libaration_war_and_song_of_banglad > > esh_12122002.html > > > > > > > > > Richard Sierra wrote: > > > > > > >> > > Regrets to those objecting to the LAAMN > > > post's content but > > > >> > > there was never any possibility of an > > > American secular new left > > > >> > > supporting religious governments whether > > > christian, j! ewish, islamic > > > >> > > or whatnot. The separation of > > > church/temple/mosque and state principle > > > >> > > forestalls any such support. /R > > > > > > Yes, but the American secular new left's lack of > > > support for religious > > > government is not necessarily direct opposition. > > > The left can simply > > > oppose religion-inspired suppression of rights > > > without condemning > > > religious governments. This allows for populist > > > internal reform and > > > the expansion of human rights even under a > > > government which has > > > institutionalized religion.. > > > > > > On Friday, May 26, 2006, Loraine Mirza wrote: > > > > > > >> > Well then the secular left should stop > being > > so > > > >> > arragent and trying to impose their > > philosophy > > > on > > > >> > others. What is the difference between them > > and > > > >> > bush's regime change policy? > > > > > > The threat to impose regime change by force from > a > > > separate nation is > > > quite different than support for reform from > > within. > > > > > > >> > They want secular then they live > > > >> > here and work on the areas needed of change > > and > > > >> > correction here and not call for "regime" > > > change in > > > >> > countries they do not live or vote in or > try > > to > > > >> > interfer in those countries. > > > > > > These activities are not mutually exclusive. > > There > > > is an > > > international declaration of human rights which > > all > > > peoples can > > > support, domestically and internationally. > > > > > > >> > Iran, BTW, IS a > > > >> > DEMOCRACY! They have had elections > > > >> > since the Islamic revolution, including > two, > > > not > > > >> > just one vote, on the type of government > they > > > wanted; a > > > >> > secular or religious. They have term limits > > as > > > well > > > >> > for the President, who can only serve for > two > > > terms, > > > >> > then has to wait it out two terms before > > > running > > > >> > again. Even their constitution was put to a > > > >> > referendom before being finally adopted. > I've > > > been in Iran > > > >> > during the Iran and Iraq war when people > > dodged > > > misiles > > > >> > being dropped on them in order to get to > the > > > poles and > > > >> > votes. 83% of qualified voters turned out > > > during > > > >> > the elections during the Iraq imposed and > > U.S. > > > >> > sponsored war. That was more than > impressive, > > > but amazing, > > > >> > when we see here, hardly 25-30% registered > > > voters, not > > > >> > just qualified voters, turn-out in many > > > elections. > > > > > > The CPD statement acknowledges "the formal > > trappings > > > of democracy." > > > > > > >> > It is indeed NOT thercratic oppression when > > the > > > >> > popular votes decide the form of government > > is > > > to > > > >> > be from a religious perspective. > > > > > > It is theocratic oppression when clerics can > > > disqualify electoral > > > candidates and where religion is used as the > basis > > > to veto popular > > > laws seeking an expansion of individual > liberties. > > > It is theocratic > > > oppression where a religious government > suppresses > > > free expression and > > > basic human rights on the basis of scriptural > > > interpretation. We're > > > seeing more of that here in the U.S., despite > our > > > constitutional > > > guarantees, and it is only ideological > consistency > > > to object to > > > tyranny both here and abroad. Democracy and > > liberty > > > are different > > > sorts of things -- neither one guarantees or is > a > > > prerequisite for the > > > other. Absolute democracy is tyranny of the mob > > and > > > human rights > > > abuses can occur under every form of government. > > > > > > --Terry Goodman, KPFK Delegate > > > > > > > > > > > > Loraine > > = = = = = = = = = = = > > Read "Internment Camps of Bangladesh," by Loraine > > Mirza > > Published by Crescent International Newspapers, > Inc. > > 300 Steelcase Road West, Unit 8, Markham, Ontario, > > Canada L3R 2W2 > > "The story of a long-suffering people told with > > compassion and sensitivity. > > All who care for justice must read this book. > > Loraine Mirza, an American > > Muslim print and broadcast journalist, has written > > this remarkable account > > of the 'Stranded Pakistanis,' trapped in > internment > > camps in Bangladesh > > since 1972." (Zafar Bangash, Director of Institute > > of Contemporary Islamic > > Thought.) > > For more information: > > e-mail: haq_for_u@xxxxxxxxxxx > > info@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx > > crescent@xxxxxxxxxxxx > > crescent.uk@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx > > Visit web sites: > > www.statelesspeopleinbangladesh.net > > www.strandedpakistanis.com > > www.OBATHelpers.org > > www.muslimedia.com > > www.ihrc.org > > - ------------------------ Yahoo! Groups Sponsor --------------------~--> You can search right from your browser? It's easy and it's free. See how. http://us.click.yahoo.com/_7bhrC/NGxNAA/yQLSAA/xYTolB/TM --------------------------------------------------------------------~-> New Pacifica Working Group http://www.egroups.com/group/NewPacifica 'Save Our Stations!' Yahoo! Groups Links <*> To visit your group on the web, go to: http://groups.yahoo.com/group/NewPacifica/ <*> To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to: NewPacifica-unsubscribe@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx <*> Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to: http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/