How different are they?
Mahmoud Ahmadinejad, the Iranian president, has urged students to push for a purge of liberal and secular teachers from universities.
“Today, students should shout at the president and ask why liberal and secular university lecturers are present in the universities,” the official Islamic Republic News Agency quoted him as saying during a meeting with students.
Ahmadinejad complained that reforms in the country’s universities were difficult to accomplish and that the education system had been affected by secularism for the last 150 years.
Since taking office a year ago, Ahmadinejad has also moved to replace pragmatic veterans in the government and diplomatic corps with former military commanders and religious hardliners.
Earlier this year, dozens of liberal university professors and teachers were sent into retirement, and last November, Ahmadinejad’s administration for the first time named a cleric to head the country’s oldest institution of higher education, Tehran University – drawing strong protests from students.
His administration has also launched crackdowns on independent journalists, websites and bloggers.
Change a few names and it sounds as American as mom, baseball and apple pie — nowadays.
Then, there’s these guys who’ve been lining up for years to really straighten out education in the United States.
Umm liberals mean different things in the two countries, if only because conservative has a different meaning everywhere. In America the conservatives are the liberals. Here, the type of academics that people try to get fired are like Kevin Barrett at UWisc who thinks 9-11 was done by George Bush & co. And of course, in colleges it’s general the liberals who do the firing and silencing of speech, even endorsed by Dvorak awhile back.
Jason_w
“There are no legitimate American groups calling for anything remotely similar.”
If you cant see the link between the two then you are blinded by a prejudice.
What difference does it make whether you get rid of the teachers or force them to teach a religious agenda? Either way the students are being done a grand disservice. History shows this type of governing leads to very bad things.
It’s not a coincidence that this war with Iraq has an aura of a religious war. The fact that our government has been pushing/preaching the Christian religious agenda on the entire population makes our country no longer seem like a Democracy or an objective party to alternative points of view. Perceived objectivity was the primary reason why this country was benefited by the separation of church and state. Nowadays, we’re beginning to be looked at as “Christian crusaders” to a lot of the muslims which make them nervous and fear a “colonists-indians” situation. Who can blame them since all us agnostics and atheists feel that way now.
Lets see why is it that the liberals, academia and the terrorist are all in agreement in this country???
I assume the posters are just trying to goad a conversation.
It is possible, of course, that they are really as stupid as they appear.
Yes, Bob, I wonder that as well. But this is nothing new. Many liberals and academics loved Stalin. They still adore Castor. Go figure.
Bob,
Tell us in what ways liberals agree with terrorists?
1. Let’s see… blow up people with bombs? Terrorists, yes…liberals, no
2. Force their fundamentalist religion down people’s throat? Terrorists, yes…liberals, no
3. Cut off the heads of homosexuals? Terrorists, yes…liberals, no
4. Keep women in their places and refuse to grant them equal status? Terrorists, yes…liberals, no
5. etc
All the more reason it’s surprising that liberals agree with the terrorists.
Gitmo for terrorists, terrorists no liberals no
attack terrorist sponsoring regimes terrorists no liberals no
listen in on terrorists phone calls terrorists no liberals no
monitor financial transactions of terrorists liberals no terrorists no
kill terrorist leaders liberals no terrorists no
#32 J
One could just as easily say that if you DO see a link between B & A, then you are “blinded by a prejudice”. In other words, sorry J, but your statment is no argument whatsoever.
For the record, what I believe: Bush is NOT as bad as many say. Neither is he as good as others may claim. I hold the same opinion about Clinton.
Also, the US is NOT the great evil that some claim (including some of your own compatriots; not just folks from the Middle East).
Oh, and some interesting reading:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wahhabi
# 37 no, no, no. terrorists love Gitmo, the Iraq War, etc.
fine material for their recruitment posters.
#24, Yes, “they are both right-wing, religious nuts”, but they are in power only because they are supported by a right-wing, religious nuts mainstream.
Comment by Herbert — 9/6/2006 @ 10:10 am
No, they are both in power because the elections were rigged.
Terry
“One could just as easily say that if you DO see a link between B & A, then you are “blinded by a prejudice”.
First off being blinded by something can not make you see it. Hence the meaning of the word blinded
Second. Yes, I have prejudice. Everyone does! The difference is that I know mine and understand how it affects me allowing me to evaluate if I am bias in particular situations. Where as many people don’t even realize they are under it’s influence.
In this instance I am looking at cold hard facts.
It is more than fair to compare the two leaders. They don’t need to be on the same scale to compare activities that have similar purpose.
syngensmyth
I can’t even respond because your statements are so fucking stupid that any response given would be over your head.
Terry
“One could just as easily say that if you DO see a link between B & A, then you are “blinded by a prejudice”.
First off being blinded by something can not make you see it. Hence the meaning of the word blinded
Second. Yes, I have prejudice. Everyone does! The difference is that I know mine and understand how it affects me allowing me to evaluate if I am bias in particular situations. Where as many people don’t even realize they are under it’s influence.
In this instance I am looking at cold hard facts.
It is more than fair to compare the two leaders. They don’t need to be on the same scale to compare activities that have similar purpose.
syngensmyth
I can’t even respond because your statements are so fucking stupid that any response given would be over your head.
#28, JT. A well written and accurate post.
My own point to this is the CIA doesn’t take kindly to failure to install pro USA regimes.
Also, the only organized resistance that was able to take over in Iran were the religious fundamentalists. It is perhaps their “non western cultural difference” that frightened us the most. A good comparison would be medieval Europe and the Catholic Church with current Iran. The Inquisition wasn’t much fun either.
Yep….we are as bad as Iran. We have rigged elections, our Prsident is forceing hundreds of Professors to retire, he is closing down newspapers, blogs, magazines, hanging gays, stoning woman who show skin, arresting, imprisoning and executing journalists who oppose the goverment……..yep….we are as bad as Iran.
Or…….could the comparison really just be about the mind set and doggedness of the 2 men in their own beliefs?
Fools. Stupid, idiotic fools.
If you cannot understand the difference between Bush and Ahmadinejad, then you are so blinded by hate that reality and reason has fled you, leaving behind a brainless fool. Debate with you is pointless.
Smith
It isn’t the differences. It is the similarities that are the concern.
Fools. Stupid, idiotic fools.
If you cannot understand the difference between Bush and Ahmadinejad, then you are so blinded by hate that reality and reason has fled you, leaving behind a brainless fool. Debate with you is pointless.
Comment by Smith — 9/6/2006 @ 6:03 pm
The difference may be summed up in two words. FACIAL HAIR. If you can’t see the difference, then you are blind.
42 J,
“First off being blinded by something can not make you see it. Hence the meaning of the word blinded”
I respectfully disagree. Those who see conspiracy in everything and cannot be dissuaded by facts are indeed blinded by their own prejudices. Please note: I am NOT saying that is what you are doing.
and
“It is more than fair to compare the two leaders. They don’t need to be on the same scale to compare activities that have similar purpose.”
And that’s what you rapped Firestarter’s knuckles for back in comment #12.
Terry
“I respectfully disagree. Those who see conspiracy in everything and cannot be dissuaded by facts are indeed blinded by their own prejudices.”
No. They are not blind. They see the truth but ignore it because it doesn’t fit into their paradigm. To me not the same thing.
As far as it being because of their prejudices Not really the case. It has more to do with a need for a complex solution that justifies the grandness of the event.
“And that’s what you rapped Firestarter’s knuckles for back in comment #12. ”
Not really! Read my post carefully. I said “To put them on the same level is just showing you lack of knowledge or inability to compare things that measure.” Notice I didn’t say compare them I said put them at the same level.
He thought that Bush and Ahmadinejad were being compared as equal therefore I could only deduce that he thought the same of Mao and Ahmadinejad. Hence my response
Besides. There many more similarities to compare between George Bush and Mahmoud Ahmadinejad. Religion being a big one. Mao was not really all tat big on religion lol
blind (blīnd) pronunciation
adj., blind·er, blind·est.
1…
3. Unable or unwilling to perceive or understand: blind to a lover’s faults.
4. Not based on reason or evidence; unquestioning: put blind faith in their leaders.
5. …
http://tinyurl.com/k2j8a
Well, I think I agree with J’s definition and argument.
Lets see why is it that the liberals, academia and the terrorist are all in agreement in this country???
Because you staunch Republicans pin false labels upon everyone who don’t agree with you even if they are independents and moderates to support your point of view. Guess what? If you [conservatives] said 1+1=3 [Bush fuzzy math] you would also find that “liberals, academia and the terrorist” agree that your wrong so maybe you need to examine your solutions rather than attempting to discredit everyone who disagrees with your failed approach. Once you elitists get over the fact that being liberal or anything else doesn’t automatically make someone wrong, you’ll be closer to opening your closed minds to real solutions that work and cause less polarity/rifts.
to xrayspex on 25 and JT 28.
I believe you missed the language Max was using when he wrote #10.
From the way he articulated his point I assume he is at least twice your age and probably lived through WWII. Or maybe he was a kid when it happened. How many people do you know in their teens upto 40’s talk about 1934 as ’34?
So maybe you should listen to your elders.
What he meant by “they ” was the whole world. Particularly Great Britain and the US at the time, the whole world was playing the role Russia and China are playing now in 1934. Everyone appeased Germany and Italy at all costs. Great Britain was trying to force France to disarm, and was in the act of disarming themselves, in the face of the threat. The battle cry was more or less “peace at all cost.” Of course at that time the US decided it was going to stay out of world’s affairs altogether. And the rest is history.
Beef — you have a lot of reading to catch up on. I have not only studied the period, I lived through it. Fortunately, most everyone from my immediate family who was in the US military survived. Less so, among my European kin.
You just ignored the Brits hanging on to their Imperial “mandate” with all four feet. You ignored the ethnic and religious “mandate” the Japanese believed. You even managed to miss the Right Wing attempt at a coup in the US. There’s a lot more.
Back to school — junior!