May 12, 2006
Iran & 'Aqoul - Opportunities Lost
After Our Man Hogan's latest foray into Pun-Dit-Try with the Ahmadinejad letter, it has crossed the mind of the editorial collective (well there really isn't one but the idea is creepy enough to amuse me) that 'Aqoul is a bit impoverished in the area of beating up on Iran.
I suppose Raf Bey could do in a pinch, but he seems as averse as I to the subject. Shall have to recruit a Farsi speaker gullible enough to put up with me.
Posted by The Lounsbury at May 12, 2006 05:00 AM
Filed Under: Blog Notes - Admin
TrackBack URL for this entry:
ya abu l-maal,
what exactly do you have i mind? i'd be happy to write something, but didn't feel like doing the 287th article on ahmadinejad ...
Posted by: raf* at May 12, 2006 02:07 PM
Does anyone feel like writing up on the situation of Bahai's in Iran?
Or other, more politically visible minorities like Afghan workers/refugees, Arabs, and Kurds. That Iran blames all its trouble with minorities on outside influence is certainly overdoing it but I wonder if my suspicions that that the Brits are indeed running Arab agents, that the Americans are running Afghan agents, and that the Israelis and Americans are running Kurdish agents is documented anywhere.
Just some thoughts.
Posted by: Djuha at May 12, 2006 06:23 PM
Personally no, I don't give a flying fuck about the Bahia, but if you knpw sometone of quality...
Posted by: The Lounsbury at May 13, 2006 03:55 AM
Ah yes, Khoda Alim.
Posted by: The Lounsbury at May 13, 2006 04:58 AM
ah, but re al-Faqih, it was merely a general whanking thought.
Posted by: The Lounsbury at May 13, 2006 05:04 AM
i do believe that part of the game of "running agents" is that it will NOT be documented anywhere. i personally have no doubts that all sorts of governments run all kinds of agents in countries around the globe.
that's what governments do - they use their capabilities to get the information they think they need.
are there in khuzestan province iranian citizens who identify as "arabs" and think that khuzestan (of course, they'd call it "arabistan") should at least be autonomous or even secede from iran? yes. are some of them agreeable to outside support from arab countries and/or "western" ones? yes. do "western" countries actually support them? maybe, probably, sure why not ...
ditto for kurds and afghans (except for the wanting to secede geographically) in iran.
as for the baha'i ... we always used to joke that "the baha'i are officially forbidden but practically tolerated whereas the jews are officially allowed but practically oppressed". so much for islamist literalism and "doing things strictly by the book".
Posted by: raf* at May 13, 2006 01:13 PM