[MD] Hippies (and Humour) in the Middle East

[Platt Holden]

> [Arlo previously]
> The Middle East needs more "contrarians" (more bohemians and hippies). Maybe in
> hindsight, it was these groups we should have supported, rather than big oil
> autocracies and Mujahideens. 
> 
> [Platt]
> Bohemians and hippies in the Middle East. Do you mean Hamas?.
> 
> [Arlo]
> No one but you buys this idiotic pairing. Bohemians and hippies advocated a
> rejection of social and intellectual patterns, in pursuit of DQ. Hamas advocates
> allegience to social patterns. That you would attempt to equate the two only
> further evidences your deceptive tactics.

Geez. I ask a simple question and get a lecture in return. You get more like 
Rigel with every post.

> [Platt]
> Your defense of a brutal dictatorship is heartwarming.
> 
> [Arlo]
> As usual, you offer nothing but rhetorical deception. Your inability for one
> moment to place yourself as a man-on-the-street in Iran is sad. 

The man on the street in Iran should be working to overthrow the government so 
intellectual values could flourish. Instead we see riots against free speech.

> [Platt]
> So you see no difference between loyalty to a constitutional democracy that
> guarantees free speech and preserves other intellectual values and a brutal
> theocracy?
 
> [Arlo]
> Any loyalty placed out of blind faith and allegience is damned from the
> beginning. Iranians don't consider themselves "supporting a brutal theocracy",
> they consider themselves on the side of justice, just as you do. Blind faith in
> that belief will always lead to conflict.

Right. And Germans believed Jews should be exterminated as a matter of justice. 
I suppose you sympathize with them, too? 

> [Platt]
> Oh, I forgot. Many academics like Noam Chomsky think Muslim terrorism is
> justified because of terrible, imperial Amerika.
> 
> [Arlo]
> And.... more deceptive rhetoric, go figure. What I said was that the situation
> is complex, more complex than being able to say "America is responsible" or
> "They hate us for our freedom". What's sad is your lack of ability to place any
> historical insight into the situation, to see where our actions may have had an
> impact, and how rethinking those actions may be part of a viable solution.

And what "viable solution" do you suggest?

> [Platt]
> Extremism in the defense of liberty is no vice.
> 
> [Arlo]
> Maybe not, but blind faith in any Nation State, whether or not it proclaims
> itself to be The Greatest, is the surest way to bring about an end to liberty.

Faith in a nation that guarantees individual liberty and freedom of expression 
is not likely to bring about the end of liberty. Nations that oppose such ideas 
can indeed snuff out the light of the world.

> [Platt]
> Yes, I know you believe that a country run by a bunch of religious fanatics
> dedicated to kill every Jew and infidel is morally equivalent to the U.S.,
> thereby being justified to build atomic weapons. Thankfully, most Western
> leaders  disagree with you.
> 
> [Arlo]
> And why shouldn't you end with more deceptive rhetoric? I mean, any option other
> than "killing 'em like germs" makes me an "enemy of freedom". Right? I don't
> want Iran to build atomic weapons. But, I understand why the man on the street
> on Iran might feel just like you do about his country, and maybe manipulated by
> fear of you just as much as you are manipulated by fear of him.

At last, a definitive statement -- "I don't want Iran to build atomic weapons." 
Now the question is, "What are you prepared to do about it?"

Platt