Isn’t that what you always do?

To be honest, if your post was meant to be satire, it’s too similar to your usual output for anyone to notice the difference.

Yes, it is. But why must you march with supporters of clerical fascists? Surely it’s possible to oppose both factions of Islamic theocracy and still support Iranian democracy? Isn’t this yet more evidence of a coalition between the Decent Left and reactionary Islamist forces – an utter betrayal and a symbol of the derangement of muscular liberalism etc. etc.?

Annoying that, isn’t it? Almost like I’m not interested in addressing the reality of the situation, but am instead intent on constructing a fantasy narrative that makes you look as bad as possible by tying you to the nastiest possible interpretation.

…if you lack basic comprehension skills, or a willingness to concede that you’ve lost the argument.

I guess I must’ve lost the argument, since my points seem to be so transparently shite that not a single commenter has considered them worth addressing. I guess they just fall over of their own accord.

The same year, the protest babes of Lebanon went from Icons of Freedom to Whoops, Bad-Things-Happen-in-Wars collateral damage in the time it took to rev up a Merkava tank.

Could you – just for once – criticize an HP that actually exists, rather than the convenient imaginary one that you conjure up every time you seem to appear here? That would involve, y’know, things like quotes from HP, links to articles, et cetera – rather than just the tiresome made-up crap like

Too close to teh Islamissess.

You can’t make a Birth-pangs of Democracy Omelette without cluster-bombing a few hundred hot Beirut protest babe egg

And so on.

The whole point is that it is either Mousavi or Ahmadinejad. Those are the only two options. This blog has never suggested that Mousavi is sunshine and roses, but that he is the lesser of two evils.

When it comes, however, to the matter of alleged hypocrisy regarding the targets of HP criticism, the fact remains that there are plenty of other, much less unpleasant, options to Hamas, the MB, Hezbollah – and yet these are precisely the groups that alliances are being formed with, by people this blog has rightly criticised.

You choose to ignore this point repeatedly.

This, as noted previously, is a fairly obvious way of saying It’s okay when we do it.

Only if you lack basic comprehension skills, or a willingness to concede that you’ve lost the argument.

Indoodle, and by extension more or less everyone else who’s spent the last five years giving it hee-haw about how their political enemies are too close to reactionary Islamic/authoritarian forces. This extends far beyond the denizens of this blog, since that’s basically been mainstream-to-Neoconservative opinion Stateside for years.

And let’s be blunt here – when we’re talking about this support for Moussavi, we’re not talking about a protest for Iranian democracy. If Ahmadinejad had been punted out in similarly dodgy circumstances, you’d be hanging out the bunting and defending the legitimacy of the result to the hilt.

I suggested to you that this comparison was utterly specious, because Mousavi is the lesser of two evils, whereas – by complete contrast – the alliances David T has been critical of were the worst possible option.

This, as noted previously, is a fairly obvious way of saying It’s okay when we do it. Moussavi is barely liberal even by Iranian standards – he was Prime Minister during the nastiest part of the young Islamic revolution, right by Khomeini’s side. Much of the worst of the political repression, the hand and head-chopping occurred on his watch, as did the human wave military tactics. I mean, the top post on this blog attacks the IHRC as “freedom-hating Khomeinists” – Moussavi was at his right hand for years, and has pledged to return to the teachings of Khomeini, for God’s sake.

I mean, how many furious assaults on, to pick a random hate figure, Inayat Bunglawala could I find here from a quick search? Yet the political clique the green protestors are backing make him look like a flamboyantly gay, coke-snorting, alcoholic libertine.

But this isn’t the first time we’ve seen an abrupt switch from relentless denunciation and condemnation to staunch solidarity. 2006 – the car-bombers and head-choppers of Iraq were rehabilitated from hated, fascist enemies of freedom to the stormtroopers of democracy, simply by signing on the American payroll and restricting their murderous, psycho behaviour to their own neighbourhoods.

The same year, the protest babes of Lebanon went from Icons of Freedom to Whoops, Bad-Things-Happen-in-Wars collateral damage in the time it took to rev up a Merkava tank.

And as I noted before, even if the green protestors somehow win, they’re probably not going to renounce their nuclear programme; unlikely to stop interfering in Iraq and definitely not going to turn into Israel-supporting Anglophiles. Six months, and they’ll be back at the top of the enemies list, like none of this had ever happened, and all these brave Iranian protestors we’re cheering today will be tomorrow’s bastards.

Much shorter version – I’d respect HP’s principled stance against wanky Trots a lot more if they didn’t act like a shower of one-eyed, opportunistic right wing versions of wanky Trots.

I suggested to you that this comparison was utterly specious, because Mousavi is the lesser of two evils, whereas – by complete contrast – the alliances David T has been critical of were the worst possible option.

And when I gave examples of this behaviour, you waved them away as ‘minor’, and you still refuse to give your own examples that could back up your ‘point’.

It is if you can construct an argument (which you so obviously can’t.)

From now on, I’ll restrict myself to grunting and pretending that I can’t read, after your own example.

Well at least your correspondence is moving upwards from blowing rasperries to sullen hurt sarcasm. I suppose we should be grateful for small mercies. :-)

In the sense that posting anything online is worth it? Of course not.

Any 4 year old could have given you advice on how to make an arse of yourself in a more succint manner.

I know – here was me thinking all that “constructing an argument” then inviting questions stuff was so big and clever. Now that I’ve witnessed the response – a witty and fiercely intelligent outbreak of hooting, braying, snorting and farting – I’ve realised just how thick I really am. From now on, I’ll restrict myself to grunting and pretending that I can’t read, after your own example.

It will be a lot harder for Israel to bomb Iran if there was a new government. That’s why people like yourself have been short sighted by throwing yourselves behind Ahmadinejad.