Gordon Barlow

Iran would have become a democratic country in 1953, if Britain and the US hadn't assassinated the Prime Minister on behalf of the British and US oil companies, and installed a dictator who was far more brutal than the ruling clique in charge now. The theocratic revolution of 1979 was in large degree a reaction to that dictator's rule, and his foreign sponsors.

I am still wondering why you singled out Iran as your "case in point". It takes a strong defensive posture, but to say that it seeks to ruin other countries and societies is incorrect.

Sally Redux

Good point.

Gordon Barlow

No, of course they weren't. But nor are all Muslims brought up to believe that all non-Muslims should be killed if they don't convert. As I indicated before, my girlfriend (now my wife) and I would not be alive now if that had been the case. There are religious fanatics in all religions.

Sally Redux

My husband works with some kind of born-again Christian. One day he idly asked him whether another colleague of a slightly different sect would be going to Hell. "Of course." He ran through everybody they knew, all going straight to Hell. I guess this is the attraction

Pollyana

Hope Hell has room for all of us

Sally Redux

januarymix

Good one

januarymix

Thanks for your views, and experience relay, GB. I think Shard may just have picked up on Iran given its prominence in the news etc.

Pretty harmless probably.

To what you said, I don't doubt the civility and moderate-ness of many people, but I just wanted to point out the risk of extremist elements, particularly if these take Government. I think it's the same even with our Governments, when the military, enemy toting, or hate driven ones take office, there is bound to be more strife. Unfortunately, action on one side incites the other and both cannot see they are different sides of the same whirling coin.

I visited Indonesia and there were so many wonderful, warm hearted people, but also elements that seemed more frightening. I guess it is the same the world over, but governments are the key to what happens on the world scale IMO, which is why I mentioned it also.

Lion in Winter

It is the same the world over. Look at how so many people worry about crime rates in the U.S., and are in the firm belief that to visit a city, or certain parts of a city, means certain death (or assault). From there it is but a short step to generalizing about minorities, for example, because minorities are hugely overrepresented among the poor, and poor areas, in the US.

On a related note, in Central and South America the U.S. government is associated with the installation of a string of brutal dictatorships for economic gain, and the death of hundreds of thousands of people. Does that describe the entire population of the U.S? No, of course not.

Gordon Barlow

My wife and I have identified a couple of places in Mexico as a "bolt-hole" in the event that our present home becomes too expensive. One of those places is on Lake Chapala, not all that far from Guadalajara. I've had friends screaming down the Internet at me, "Are you crazy? They have parks full of headless bodies down there!" Which they do, of course. But I also remember when I had a thing about New York and refused to leave my hotel room for fear of being mugged. (I sent my wife and young son out to buy a snack, and they came to no harm...)

Shard

The "theocratic revolution"...so spiritual wasn't it. The case in point was that Iran was largely moderate Islam and women were an integral part of society; now they are covered in sheets and denied many of the rights and freedoms they had. Don't take my word for it, ask the hundreds of thousands of Iranians who fled Iran to escape your benign revolution.

Since you missed it the first time, and the second time, I will clarify that the point was made in relation to Islamists ruining countries, not Iran or Iranians. Islamists, like the mullahs that ruined Iran and Afghanistan.

What I am wondering is why you're defending a misogynist dangerous religion?

Sally Redux

He wasn't saying that at all.

Shard

Let's see.

Gordon Barlow

https://www.google.com/search?q=tehr...w=1173&bih=791 or, alternatively, http://tinyurl.com/la9nzpm

The photos at this link remind me of when I was there during the Shah's rule. The women dressed in black would mostly be from places where religious superstition is strongest. If you've ever been to Italy, Greece and Spain (outside the tourist areas) you'll probably have seen women covered up in the same sort of way. As you know, it's much worse in Saudi Arabia and a couple of other nations in the Middle East controlled by brutal dictatorships that are supported by some Western democracies.

No, I'm not defending a mysogynist dangerous religion - not that I concede that Islam is one of those, except in some of its more bizarre manifestations. Even those bizarre manifestations, however, I might hope to defend from agitators who would take pleasure in seeing them slaughtered by soldiers in the service of nations that are run by religious bigots of other religions. Given the choice, I would rather see a woman alive with a veil over her head than dead from a NATO bomb. So would most people.

Shard

Good, that is the main thing, though a bit odd that you won't concede it is dangerous. Salman Rushdie might disagree with you.

Bear in mind that Europeans dressing in a conservative manner are doing so out of choice; not entirely so in Muslim countries (although many women have been sufficiently brainwashed to believe that it is their choice).

You seem hell bent on conflating anti-religious sentiment with war: the two issues are not necessarily intertwined.