One thing's for sure - more Americans have been killed by Bush's war than were killed by Islamists.
Protest in Iran
- Thread starter Corduroy
- Start date
EagleSmack
FAIL
It does take one with the mind of a 12 year old to accuse someone of using insults when he didn't but then resort to using insults herself while refusing to retract. Therefore, it is no surprise that there was no retraction.
FAIL
It does take one with the mind of a 12 year old to accuse someone of using insults when he didn't but then resort to using insults herself while refusing to retract. Therefore, it is no surprise that there was no retraction.
I'll try to stay on topic
I agree. But the tools which break the monopoly of violence need not all be violent. Most Tunisian and Egyptian protesters attempted to demonstrate non-violently and most succeeded. Reactionary violence occurred in response to violence, but for the majority of millions they participated with the deliberate intent not to initiate violence.
Popular movements can be crushed. Successful movements must exceed a critical mass of explosive ingredients.
In the case of recent success in Tunisia and Egypt, the common ingredients were
oppressive unjust dictatorship
High birthrate
internet savvy youth majority
corruption
extreme poverty/ extreme wealth
food insecurity, hopelessness, nothing to loose...
A spark, a fire and a critical mass explodes, ,,, or fizzles out with very bad consequences for participants...
In order to be successful, authority enforcers (security, police, army, mercenaries, devoutly religious...) must be defeated/overwhelmed, remain neutral or... in the best case scenario... side with protesters.
While protesters face potential dire consequence, jails can hold only so many prisoners. Torturers can only beat so many people. As crowds grow, the risk to the individual drops, increasing protester numbers, decreasing risk and so on... until everyone who is angry and desperate participates.
Mubarak never saw it coming.
What worked in Tunisia and Egypt may not work in Iran. The tyrants understand the game, so the rules may have to change.
I believe the Iranians can win, but they will need millions of protesters.
Cool
Retraction:
Previously I stated that posters in this thread had the option of being asses on the internet or engaging in a civil debate. In my annoyance with the behaviour of others in this thread I hastily posted a false dichotomy. There are more options, such as not posting at all, or making jokes like the one poster did about the igloo. And there still may be more I haven't thought of.
To clarify what I meant by my comment: I will not respond to people who want to be asses on the internet. However, by not responding to you, I am not suggesting that you are being an ass. I just might not have anything to say or not care to address a tangential point. There are many kinds of posts I am liable to not respond to. Rude ones are one of those kinds.
Previously I stated that posters in this thread had the option of being asses on the internet or engaging in a civil debate. In my annoyance with the behaviour of others in this thread I hastily posted a false dichotomy. There are more options, such as not posting at all, or making jokes like the one poster did about the igloo. And there still may be more I haven't thought of.
To clarify what I meant by my comment: I will not respond to people who want to be asses on the internet. However, by not responding to you, I am not suggesting that you are being an ass. I just might not have anything to say or not care to address a tangential point. There are many kinds of posts I am liable to not respond to. Rude ones are one of those kinds.
The Holly Wood crew have really botched this latest soap operatic faux uprising in Iran. Israeli machinations are stretched to an extreme. This will necessitate the total war Israel requires if it is to have any chance of survival in it's present fascist form. No one will be spared and no war crime will be left undone in their madness to remove their neighbours and dictate the fate of the rest of the world.
Israel is far from any democratic ideal and represents no popular global human aspiration. The meek will not weep at Israels destruction.
Israel is far from any democratic ideal and represents no popular global human aspiration. The meek will not weep at Israels destruction.
First I would have to know something about what actions Canada has taken that (in the past on some issue) that you personally find acceptable or not acceptable, I gave you several examples, your view on reservation should be consistent with you view on the rights of the poor in other Nations.
Perhaps, like Eagle, this little point is just going over your head, all I'm looking for is some specifics that make Canada 'respectable' in human rights issues and make Iran 'not respectable' in that same instance.
What specific 'injustices'?
"Pointing out the problems with Canadian democracy is irrelevant to the injustices of the Iranian theocracy."
If Israel and the US promoted the Egyptian Gov had the 'right and obligation' to open fire on protesters (tear gas) then if Iran does the same thing (on a much smaller scale) there should be no condemnation, as it is the two events are largely seen with two very opposing views. I'm trying to find out which view you have, I already know the On Eagle has, Egypt good, Iran bad.
no this is only a fraction
for a guy interested in history i can't figure how why you're so ignorant when it comes to the history of the American government, do you purposefully ignore the history of malevolent behaviour by the u.s government and why?
121 persons hanged in Iran vs the U.S's 2.3 million prison population in dire conditions, many of whom are non-violent drug offenders
What does my view on reservations have to do with my view of Iran? You're attempting to argue against my opinion of Iran by finding hypocrisy in other unrelated issues. This is the definition of an ad hominem.
A lot of people don't understand what exactly an ad hominem is, despite using the phrase liberally. I don't know if this is the case on this forum, but I've seen it on every other forum I've been to, so allow me to digress here to make myself clear.
There are two main errors people make in their understanding of the argumentum ad hominem: (1) that it is synonymous with insult and (2) that it is always fallacious. An ad hominem can take the form of an insult, and often does, but what it really is is using a personal characteristic or opinion of the person making an argument in order to attack their argument. This is usually fallacious, but not when the argument the person has made somehow relies on their personal characteristics or opinions. For example, often in courts of law, the reliability of a witness depends on their character.
In this thread, I am not using my personality or other opinions I hold on unrelated matters to support anything I've said about Iran. No where have I said, for example, that the Iranian government is an oppressive theocracy because Canada is a democratic and human rights exemplar. Nor have I said that I can criticize of Iran because I come from a freer country. If I had made any of these arguments, you would all be right to point out that those arguments are ridiculous. I have said several times already, that my ability to criticize Iran is not affected by the country I am from. By insisting that you know my opinion on unrelated matters to see if they are consistent with my opinion of Iran is a fallacious argumentum ad hominem. This thread isn't about me. Iran is an oppressive theocracy regardless of what I think about anything else.
But, you seem to be insisting that either I am making such arguments or that I should be and that they aren't ridiculous. So I'll rephrase my earlier question: why is my opinion on other unrelated matters relevant to the veracity of my opinion of Iran?
It is very good to see countries and peoples who will not get on their knees for the zionist pricks. All good children will emulate that.
When 'we' Canadians start offering 'pros/cons' on foreign Nations practices I like to know something about the 'platform' that is ready to offer such 'insight'. Some of what our common past in belonging to Canada is not that 'noble', if given the chance a different path would be more suitable to the long term goal. (ie instead of breaking apart families the women and young would be given trips to various land in the world and then when back home their stories would be combined to give all members of the newly conquered land a detailed and accurate vies of just who their new 'masters' were. So far Iraq and Afghanistan are going to be mirrors of the wild, wild, west. Once they were boxed up and disarmed the true torture started, ie starvation in winter ended up taking out the older more knowledgeable members and the very young. Once at that stage there is no need for speed as over generations the abuse will have the desired effect, a beaten and forgotten people are no longer around for any intensive purposes.
That is the same style of 'improvements' the West brings everyplace it goes. The US already had their own Iranian Dictator. That should disqualify them from having any meaningful opinion on what that Nation does from that point on. That would doubly go for Egypt, their Dictator was asked to leave and the US just promoted the next one in line (of their choice) should become the next Dictator, once you are fired you do not get a say in who replaces you. In changes like this it is usually the whole cabinet (and the some) that get fired.
I was trying to see if any such opinion (an I have yet to read any that are specific) you have is balanced in that it would apply to conduct in all Nations rather that Muslims have one standard, Christians another, and Judaism yet another. We are not 'great' when it comes to true equality and a 'mixed Nation' is somewhat misleading. We tend to stick with what we are comfortable with. That means the Irish, English, Scots, Germans, Chinese, etc tend to have neighborhoods that are almost exclusive to one group of people. Not every neighborhood is a 'good neighbor', a slight difference is all it takes sometimes.
That is part of the agenda against them. Times change also, when Iraq was conquered 20 people standing around a statues being toppled was a 'huge gathering', now a full city center and all side streets is a 'modest turnout' depending which channel you watch.
A few pages ago it was idle curiosity, now it is a toss-up between quest and being caught by an innernet stalker.. .. twice this week so far and the weekend is still coming.
All I said above was ''let's see what you have to say about that''. In other words, I was asking for your opinion. Nothing I wrote was disrespectful.
Then you said that I was acting ''childish'' and ''trolling''.
Since you are new here, I think it best to let you know that when someone insults me I swing back. In this instance I did not insult you but am very capable of doing so because I do respond to people who make asses of themselves. We'll let it go this time. But I won't be so understanding next time.
----------------------------------------------
An Unsubstantiated FAIL
biggest FAIL of all ....
The protest in Iran get very good coverage the protests in the rest of the world go unheralded as the monumental events they are. In there stead we get rubbish scripted in some stinking think tank in Washingthebloodoffington.
You can learn my opinions on those issues when they come up in other threads.
I've seen more coverage of the protests in Bahrain than those in Iran. Lots about Yemen and some about Libya too.
Fair enough.
If you expanded that 'coverage' to be the last few years (upto 5) I would think the articles from the US and Israel about Iran would far outnumber what they have to say about the 3 Nations you mention.