Hence my question to Dan: Is he offering his actual assessment of Khomeini as a liberal (which is preposterous), or simply offering the Rolling Stone interview as an example of the rhetoric Khomeini used in order to the garner the support of other opposition forces (both in Iran and in the West)? I'm hoping Dan is not naive enough ever to have taken an ayatollah for a liberal. (That's liberal by Western standards, not liberal as among ayatollahs).
If you look at Khomeini's writings both before and after the revolution he adopted much of the rhetoric of 3rd World Revolutionaries. In fact, many of his major arguments about the Shah were political, and not religious. For example, he talked about freeing Iran from the negative influences of both Western capitalists and Eastern communists, etc. Many Iranians were therefore able to buy into his arguments, overlooking the fact that he had refashioned Shiite religious teachings into his version of viyat e-faqih that argued that a single cleric of standing should run the government.
To be clear, many of his supporters.
The plan for wilayat al-faqih was not made public until he had power. He realized that in order for the revolution to be successful, 'modern' Muslims, those in secular camps, etc, had to be onside...and they were not going to support a theocracy. His lectures and actual plans were not widely distributed. That he kept them secret is widely known. My parents' friends brought his book over and it was a huge deal that they had even got their hands on it.
Re: Ghomeshi's article
"Or that the revolution was a popular one that originally included liberal democrats, feminists, nationalists, socialists and workers ??? a revolution that was co-opted by the mullahs and extremists to lead to the Islamic Republic that we know today?"
Khomeini and his close followers did not just happen to come along, they were not late shows to the revolution. That is not how the sentence reads. Their presence is implied in "...not all Iranians were Islamic formalists who supported Ayatollah Ruhollah Khomeini".
It comes down to semantics. Not unlike how Islamism/Islamist is an umbrella term that is thinly veiled code and employed to characterize/inflame more than accurately define.
The movement against the Shah was out of frustration from many different camps, as listed by the author....evident in a myriad sources.
For the majority of everyday Iranians - the ones organizing and on the frontlines, and later, the same people put in jail and forced to flee - the revolution was not to put a theocracy/guardianship in place.
This is the coptation the author is referring to.
"Argo provides the uninitiated Westerner with a crash course in the nature of the Iranian people..."
Kind of like this thread.
Again - I really hope Strutters don't take what they read here - including my own posts - as the end all and be all on Iran.
can anyone speak to the school of thought that believes that "Iran" by Flock of Seagulls provides the uninitiated westerner a crash course in the Geography of Iranian people... if only for the fact that it IS "...so far awaaaaay"
lmho
I'd also like someone to please weigh in on how irresponsible and irrational are not eye-responsible or eye-rational, but Iran, Iraq and Italian are eye-ran, eye-raq and eye-talian?
lmho
I'd also like someone to please weigh in on how irresponsible and irrational are not eye-responsible or eye-rational, but Iran, Iraq and Italian are eye-ran, eye-raq and eye-talian?
Thank You.
Well, the first two words you mention begin with the 'ir' prefix of negation, followed by another 'r', and Iran and Iraq just happen to begin with 'Ir'.
Plus, I don't know anybody who says eye-talian except as a joke.
Khomeini seemed like a... liberal freedom fighter.
Do you offer this as evidence of how he styled himself in the Western press, and why certain of the more liberal elements in the Iranian opposition were duped into riding with him? Or do you offer this as your actual opinion of the man? Just curious whether I should bother to read any more of your contributions on this subject.
I offered it as what I wrote.
You apparently read what I wrote as "Khomeini seemed like a... liberal freedom fighter." which explains your confusion.
Khomeini seemed like a... liberal freedom fighter.
Do you offer this as evidence of how he styled himself in the Western press, and why certain of the more liberal elements in the Iranian opposition were duped into riding with him? Or do you offer this as your actual opinion of the man? Just curious whether I should bother to read any more of your contributions on this subject.
I offered it as what I wrote.
You apparently read what I wrote as "Khomeini seemed like a... liberal freedom fighter." which explains your confusion.
Were YOU convinced by the Rolling Stone interview that he was "a reasonable and liberal freedom fighter" or were you offering an example of how he styled himself in the western media? Is my question not clear? I'm not trying to goad you.
Khomeini seemed like a... liberal freedom fighter.
Do you offer this as evidence of how he styled himself in the Western press, and why certain of the more liberal elements in the Iranian opposition were duped into riding with him? Or do you offer this as your actual opinion of the man? Just curious whether I should bother to read any more of your contributions on this subject.
I offered it as what I wrote.
You apparently read what I wrote as "Khomeini seemed like a... liberal freedom fighter." which explains your confusion.
Were YOU convinced by the Rolling Stone interview that he was "a reasonable and liberal freedom fighter" or were you offering an example of how he styled himself in the western media? Is my question not clear? I'm not trying to goad you.
As I said, this was 30+ years ago.
As I said, The impression that I still have is... (And here I should have put a semi colon and made a list.)
I was convinced of nothing, except the Shah had to go.
I believed that he was a reasonable and liberal freedom fighter.
Yes, I believed that because that is how he styled himself in the Western Media.
If I understand what Bassie is saying that is also how he was seen by the Iranian Resistance.
But that was not my point. I was offering it as context of the time through my eyes, an American his early 20s.
I remember reading an interview with Khomeini in Rolling Stone Magazine, back in the late 70s. This was 30+ years ago, and I don't remember any details. The impression that I still have is that Khomeini was in exile in France when the interview occurred.
Khomeini seemed like a reasonable and liberal freedom fighter who wanted to end the oppression his country was suffering.
He did not seem like a religious extremist who hated America and wanted oppress his country.
If you choose to read the rest of my contribution you will find that I made wild guess based on my remembrance of what people in Iran may have thought of him.
I believed that he was a reasonable and liberal freedom fighter.
Yes, I believed that because that is how he styled himself in the Western Media.
If I understand what Bassie is saying that is also how he was seen by the Iranian Resistance.
Not what I am saying. What I have said is that lots of people from different walks of life and varying degrees of religious observance wanted a change. Anti-Shah did not/does not equal pro-Khomeini. There were 37 million people in Iran in the late 70s, believe me when I say they did not all think the same thing.
If Khomeini wanted to end oppression, Iran would be a very different place than it is today.
I believed that he was a reasonable and liberal freedom fighter.
Yes, I believed that because that is how he styled himself in the Western Media.
If I understand what Bassie is saying that is also how he was seen by the Iranian Resistance.
Not what I am saying. What I have said is that lots of people from different walks of life and varying degrees of religious observance wanted a change. Anti-Shah did not/does not equal pro-Khomeini. There were 37 million people in Iran in the late 70s, believe me when I say they did not all think the same thing.
If Khomeini wanted to end oppression, Iran would be a very different place than it is today.
Saw this last night.
Largely agree with OW's take.
Only 3 characters had any development and just barely. CIA Hero, Make Up Guy, Producer Guy.
Only 2 Iranian characters, maid, minister of culture worker.
All other Iranians (in the film) were interchangeable fanatics.
Despite the lack of character development, this is the kind of movie I like; suspense, caper, no blood, no gore, no guts or exploding heads. (there is a lot violence.)
The film makers do something during the closing credits to make the movie seem more realistic than it was. They show historic photos side by side with the carefully recreated stills from the movie.
Comments
To be clear, many of his supporters.
The plan for wilayat al-faqih was not made public until he had power. He realized that in order for the revolution to be successful, 'modern' Muslims, those in secular camps, etc, had to be onside...and they were not going to support a theocracy. His lectures and actual plans were not widely distributed. That he kept them secret is widely known. My parents' friends brought his book over and it was a huge deal that they had even got their hands on it.
Re: Ghomeshi's article
"Or that the revolution was a popular one that originally included liberal democrats, feminists, nationalists, socialists and workers ??? a revolution that was co-opted by the mullahs and extremists to lead to the Islamic Republic that we know today?"
Khomeini and his close followers did not just happen to come along, they were not late shows to the revolution. That is not how the sentence reads. Their presence is implied in "...not all Iranians were Islamic formalists who supported Ayatollah Ruhollah Khomeini".
It comes down to semantics. Not unlike how Islamism/Islamist is an umbrella term that is thinly veiled code and employed to characterize/inflame more than accurately define.
The movement against the Shah was out of frustration from many different camps, as listed by the author....evident in a myriad sources.
For the majority of everyday Iranians - the ones organizing and on the frontlines, and later, the same people put in jail and forced to flee - the revolution was not to put a theocracy/guardianship in place.
This is the coptation the author is referring to.
"Argo provides the uninitiated Westerner with a crash course in the nature of the Iranian people..."
Kind of like this thread.
Again - I really hope Strutters don't take what they read here - including my own posts - as the end all and be all on Iran.
I'd also like someone to please weigh in on how irresponsible and irrational are not eye-responsible or eye-rational, but Iran, Iraq and Italian are eye-ran, eye-raq and eye-talian?
Thank You.
Well, the first two words you mention begin with the 'ir' prefix of negation, followed by another 'r', and Iran and Iraq just happen to begin with 'Ir'.
Plus, I don't know anybody who says eye-talian except as a joke.
: l
India.
Israel.
Inuit.
Imbecile.
I offered it as what I wrote.
You apparently read what I wrote as "Khomeini seemed like a... liberal freedom fighter." which explains your confusion.
Were YOU convinced by the Rolling Stone interview that he was "a reasonable and liberal freedom fighter" or were you offering an example of how he styled himself in the western media? Is my question not clear? I'm not trying to goad you.
As I said, this was 30+ years ago.
As I said, The impression that I still have is... (And here I should have put a semi colon and made a list.)
I was convinced of nothing, except the Shah had to go.
I believed that he was a reasonable and liberal freedom fighter.
Yes, I believed that because that is how he styled himself in the Western Media.
If I understand what Bassie is saying that is also how he was seen by the Iranian Resistance.
But that was not my point. I was offering it as context of the time through my eyes, an American his early 20s.
If you choose to read the rest of my contribution you will find that I made wild guess based on my remembrance of what people in Iran may have thought of him.
Not what I am saying. What I have said is that lots of people from different walks of life and varying degrees of religious observance wanted a change. Anti-Shah did not/does not equal pro-Khomeini. There were 37 million people in Iran in the late 70s, believe me when I say they did not all think the same thing.
If Khomeini wanted to end oppression, Iran would be a very different place than it is today.
Thanks.
Largely agree with OW's take.
Only 3 characters had any development and just barely. CIA Hero, Make Up Guy, Producer Guy.
Only 2 Iranian characters, maid, minister of culture worker.
All other Iranians (in the film) were interchangeable fanatics.
Despite the lack of character development, this is the kind of movie I like; suspense, caper, no blood, no gore, no guts or exploding heads. (there is a lot violence.)
The film makers do something during the closing credits to make the movie seem more realistic than it was. They show historic photos side by side with the carefully recreated stills from the movie.