Sunday, January 29, 2012

M. Ali from RaceForIran points out the Western double-standard on martyrdom

A pretty brilliant comment. Not much I could add.
M. Ali says:
January 29, 2012 at 4:51 pm

To the western racist, an Iranian, facing certain death & yet facing his enemy in the Iraq War, is considered insane, worshiping death, and desiring suicide. Yet, the same act would be considered heroic in the west. Both historical references & pop culture shows that the west values self-sacrifice greatly, if done by the western individual or group.

Tons of examples can be found in their pop culture. Will Smith, drove his airplane, straight into the alien ship in “Independence Day”, saving the world through his act of sacrifice, a suicide attack. I don’t remember any review of the film claiming that the hero of that film was a dangerous religious fanatic, or that its ending affecting its mainstream appeal.

Even in western political slogans, we see a strong emphasis on self-death. “Give me freedom or give me death”and “it is better to die on one’s feet than live while on your knees”shows that the west also believes that life, just for the sake of being alive, is not worth much.

Therefore, this double standard exists. If a western man, gives his life for the greater good, he is a hero. If the Iranian holds the same belief, he is an Islamist fanatic, martyring himself for 72 virgins (when was the last time, you have heard any Muslim talk about the 72 virgins?), and loving death.

Speaking of double standards, “the hidden imam” is not unique to Islam or Shiaism. The Messiah is supposed to return in almost all religions (even non-Abrahamic ones) at the end of days, and it is one, they all look forward to. Yet it is shown as unique to Iran.


Arnold Evans said...

Of course, the fact that Independence Day's suicide attacker is, according to wikipedia, Randy Quaid playing Casse, and not Will Smith does not detract at all from Ali's excellent point.

Lidia said...

1) and 4) If all it takes to diffuse Ahmadinejad "menace" is to "unmask apocalyptic movements", then go forward :)

In reality, it is MUCH more serious and not so simple. I do not believe that any serious political figure could be based solely on "apocalyptic" reason, or this politician could NOT be taken seriously. You admit that even if YOU are sure Ahmadinejad is a religious nut, his many supporters do not give a damn about it, and, I suppose, being Iranians, they could be right, and not you. After all, it is THEIR lives on stake. 

And  only a very naive person (and, I am afraid, not only naive, to put it mildly) could believe that "apocalyptic movements" could be stopped by the means of choice of Zionists - "assassinate their leaders". Zionists murdered a lot of people they called similar names (and a lot of bystanders, of course, or their children). Has it helped Zionists? Obama murdered several of people he called such names - and a lot of bystander and their relatives. Has it helped?

You see, even a real "
apocalyptic movement" usually has VERY social and economical and political reasons. Because of it, even if  I am not against unmasking Christian Zionists and other Zionist nuts, I would NEVER suppose to just murder their leaders (and a lot of other "collateral damage"). Not only because it it amoral, but also useless. We need to change social and other circumstantials of people to remedy such evils. Of course, it is not easy. But anything else could only bring more death and destruction.

2) I do not have so high  opinion of Obama to blame him solely for all sins of USA imperialism. But every person has a choice. His was to serve the system which MLK called with full reason 

"the greatest purveyor of violence in the world today." And to serve it in a role of 
 purveyor-in-chief, so to speak. So, in my eyes he is could be even more guilty 
than Bush-jr, because Obama possess some brain and did it with understanding. 

Ron Paul has no chance to become (or at least to last for more than a week) a prez. He belongs to the curious USA breed who believe that USA could be prosperous capitalist state without robbery (or without robbery of more that has been stolen from the Natives, Blacks and others in the USA till now). So, I just do not take him into equation.

3) We have our disagreement about Zionists and their will to blow out the ME. But who is decide when Zionists believe that they have no other option? They are much more stupid and nuts than Ahmadinejad, believe me. So, they could lost it any minute.

I have no idea of what you ask. But I have no need. Without USA support, Israel would be in much worse place regarding their nukes than Iran - after all, Iran  signed NPT  and let inspectors in. Iran, thus, has ALL rights to have nuclear energy, while Zionists fully deserve to be held responsible for their "secret" nukes. The ONLY reason they are not - USA support. 

George Carty said...

1) Perhaps most of Ahmadinejad's supporters in Iran are unaware of his Hojjatieh links.  I'm surprised his opponents didn't make more play of it though, given that Hojjatieh actually collaborated with the Shah during the late '70s, and was banned by Khomeini in 1983.
2) Surely AIPAC are the real villains, not Obama here, by making it almost impossible for even neutrals -- never mind outright anti-Zionists -- to get elected to public office in the United States?  Why vilify Obama if any other plausible US president would pursue similar policies?
(Incidentally, what do you think of Ron Paul?  He's hypercapitalist but also anti-imperialist.  People of this kind of viewpoint are also found on the website.)
3) The Israelis don't want an apocalypse -- the Samson option is a "take the bastards with us thing" to unleash only if Israel was on the verge of being overrun.  As for US support for Israel's nuclear weapons program -- are you claiming that the US gave Israel weapons-grade plutonium, while claiming that the Israelis stole it?

(Similarly, the IAI Nesher jet fighter was officially a pirate copy of the French Mirage V made in Israel, but there are theories that it was an actual French Mirage V smuggled to Israel in disassembled form.)

4) Why should it require great cost in innocent lives?  Why not just unmask apocalyptic movements, or if that fails to stop them, assassinate their leaders?

Lidia said...

sorry, misspelling 

"but it would NOT be (I hope, it won't) be a deed of Ahamdinejad"

Lidia said...

1) Do you think that 60% of Iranian voters are nuts or stupid?
Of course, it would be a tough question to me to ask the same regarding voters for Palin :) 
2) I am NOT afraid of Ahmadinejad at all. But I am VERY afraid of Obama, and not because of his religion or something else, but because of his job. The job description of USA prez included imperialist wars, and Obama sure is not a slouch. I am really afraid of a big war in the ME, but it would be (I hope, it won't) be a deed of Ahamdinejad, but of Obama and Netaniahu.
3) You himself often cite supposed 'Sampson" complex of Zionists. They sure have the WMD. Care to "prevent at all costs" them from using it? (they have it with USA support, of course). 
4) the words like "prevented at all costs" scare me too :) Usually it means - at great cost of innocent lives, and in interest of mass murderers, pretending to be something else. I would NOT use such words. But it is just me :(

George Carty said...

I think you're conflating two issues here.  Of course, not all suicide attackers are religious fanatics -- one can cite the Japanese kamikazes, Tamil Tiger suicide bombers and the SSNP in occupied Lebanon in the 1980s.  But I don't think suicidal attacks by individuals in the defence of a nation or other collective are the real issue here.

I think what really scares a lot of people is the notion that some people actually desire an apocalypse, and such people must be prevented at all costs from gaining the means (eg weapons of mass destruction) to bring such an apocalypse about.

Ahmadinejad is highly worrisome in this respect because of his rumoured Hojjatieh connections.  The only mitigating factor in my view is that Ahmadinejad has little real power, and that it is Khamenei and the other clerics (who do not show any signs of apocalyptic thinking) who have the real power over Iran's foreign policy.

Of course, even these concerns aren't really Islam-specific though -- it's one reason why I breathed a sigh of relief in November 2008, as the prospect of a President Sarah Palin (which may have resulted if the election had gone the other way and McCain had succumbed to his cancer) was truly terrifying to me.