[eDebate] mawkish gerbils outrun jackmoud stroubejad

Kevin Sanchez let_the_american_empire_burn
Fri Jul 3 20:09:17 CDT 2009


"by the way, if you suddenly start answering these arguments, you're
only proving that you already LOST..."

hah, now there's someone interested in the search for truth. what's
funny is i was at first criticized for moving onto other things when i
didn't respond quickly enough for jack ("you're running to the next
bullshit." - http://www.ndtceda.com/pipermail/edebate/2009-June/079062.html)
and now i'm accused of butting into the conversation midstream. pick
a side, man.

"i never said the protesters were COMPLETELY duped by the US..."

good. ...where's the analogy to '53 again?

"challenging the election that ahmadinejad won to destabilize iran,
unnecessarily puts the protesters at risk of brutal repression."

it's not for YOU to decide what's necessary based on your incredibly
vast geostrategic knowledge - it's for THEM to decide. they're not
infants and you're not in loco parentis; you're in no position to either
put them at risk or protect them. when people take to the streets to
protest, risking their own lives at the hands of a brutally repressive
regime, and at least 20 of them die, it's not your place to say, 'it's not
it worth, idiots; mousavi is a western stooge; get back in your homes'.
that's what i felt compelled to disagree with. you can count ballots in
your backyard all day for all i care, but don't disrespect the protesters
who took bullets for liberties you take for granted. 

tying up some loose-ends on iran: ahmadinejad probably did win - it'd
be difficult to fake 62%, even with the irregularities found. (since that
is not what our argument was about, why cite evidence which shows
this and call it 'unanswered'? again, you don't want to debate a living
person, but beat up on a strawman.) nevertheless, the call to have an
independent body recount the numbers would be important as a check
on future shenanigans. twitter may've played a role in manipulating the
western press, but wasn't significant in organizing protests; that's why
your own source on the 30,000 israeli 'tweets' points out that the bulk
of them were in english. (someone told me to set my location to tehran,
for example, because it'd prevent the authorities there from determining
who was and wasn't in-country; i don't have a twitter account though.)
-- erlich writes,

"I witnessed tens of thousands of mostly young people coming out into
the streets in spontaneous campaign rallies in the days leading up to the
election ? most of whom had never heard of Twitter.

They shared a common joy not only campaigning for reformist Mirhossein
Mousavi, but in being able to freely express themselves for the first time
in many years. When the government announced an overwhelming victory
for hardliner Mahmoud Ahmadinejad only two hours after the polls closed,
people became furious. Over the next few days, hundreds of thousands of
Iranians poured into the streets in Tehran and cities around the country.
They organized silent marches through word of mouth and phone calls since
the government had shut down text messaging just prior to the election.
Contrary to popular perception, these gatherings included women in chadors,
workers and clerics ? not just the Twittering classes. Spontaneous marches
took place in south Tehran, a decidedly poorer section of town and supposedly
a stronghold for Ahmadinejad.

Iranians initially protested what they perceived as massive vote fraud, but
that quickly evolved as the protests grew in size and breadth. In the week
after the June 14 election, millions of Iranians vented 30 years of pent up
anger at a repressive system.

Iranian youth particularly resented President Ahmadinejad?s support for
religious militia attacks on unmarried young men and women walking together
and against women not covering enough hair with their hijab. Workers
resented the 24 percent annual inflation that robbed them of real wage
increases. Independent trade unionists had been fighting for decent wages
and for the right to organize. ...

The mass movement that sprang forth in the past few weeks has been 30
years in coming. It?s not a Twitter Revolution, nor even a 'velvet revolution'
like those in Eastern Europe. It?s a genuine Iranian mass movement made up
of students, workers, women, and middle class folks. It may not be strong
enough to topple the system today but is sowing the seeds for future struggles."
: http://blogs.reuters.com/great-debate/author/reeseerlich/

erlich also responds to hammond on-point,

"Hammond cites my book The Iran Agenda and my interview on Democracy Now
to show that the Bush Administration was training and funding ethnic minorities
in an effort to overthrow the Iranian government in 2007. All the arguments are
by analogy and implication. *Neither the above two authors, nor anyone else of
whom I am aware, offers one shred of evidence that the Obama Administration
has engineered, or even significantly influenced, the current demonstrations*."

but that would never stop a stroube from knowing the real truth (i.e., engaging in
wild, paranoiac speculation),

"i think the hope was to oust ahmadinejad with a minimal investment of CIA
funds because there are no other viable options. as in past orchestrated coups
like the '53, these things have to happen quick. ...i think obama is desperate.
... he doesn't have the experience to lead on foreign policy where he is being
bombarded by conflicting interests. he needs a breakthrough. the mousavi trick
didn't work."
: http://www.ndtceda.com/pipermail/edebate/2009-June/079028.html

no wonder you're such an expert on assholes, what with all the talking you do
out of your own.

"if my posts of late lack substance, then how did i force you to apologize
for your STUPID commentary on sharp's video."

yes, but see, that's what people with substance do - admit when they're
wrong. marx is a good way to introduce foucault, especially on this topic,
and to me he is 'the elephant in the room'; but not every foucault lecture
should be judged on my preference. that's a decent point, but one you've
over-repeated, given that i already conceded it. you shot out about thirty
crappy arguments, and one happen to stick - you were obviously a very
successful debater. but you're also guilty of phrasing 'links of omission' in
hyperbolic terms, jack; i bring up marx, and you counter with heidegger &
nietzsche out of nowhere, for an example.

it is fun to let loose with a little invective now and again. perhaps i have
been too uptight. there's nothing sentimental, however, about not being
wrong. you looked out at the iranian protesters, and you said 'ah, the u.s.
is up to its old tricks again'. wrong. you cutely held up your two sentence
quotation from a foucault interview you 'roughly translated' yourself, and
still couldn't show foucault was a conventional structuralist. wrong again.
the enormous influence marx had on foucault's writings - here you had to
be wrong to the point of slf-contradiction, as you'd previously hammered
others over the head with this influence. you even managed to be wrong
on zizek, which takes amazing skill - that's like throwing a series of darts
at a globe and not hitting a body of water. ...so to recap, wrong on iran,
wrong on foucault, and bad for america: jackmoud stroubejad.

"...your lack of confidence in a condemning psychological portrait..."

so you're saying i should just condemn you outright and anything less is a
lack of confidence on my part? hah, self-hatred much? no, i concede that
it is more difficult for me to turn someone i used to respect into an enemy.
plus, you're really not as bad as all that stroubes. perhaps i've been a bit
harsh on you, considering that i should know my insults count more than
yours. but do you really want to be just a jester? even when orson welles
went on celebrity roasts, no one took him seriously. i think you're a great
guy. i wish we had more time to hang out. stay cool over the summer.

p.s., i'm not sure three years in high school counts for a 'debate career',
but thanks for the leg up.

p.p.s., was going to send along some notes on that zizek lecture (before
the helter skelter riff on iran) and would appreciate any commentary you
have to offer.

Insert movie times and more without leaving Hotmail?. 
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: http://www.ndtceda.com/pipermail/edebate/attachments/20090703/11b5d3f4/attachment.htm 

More information about the Mailman mailing list