Printable View
It was destroying protesters that got them in trouble in the first place. Need I point out the Neda topic?Quote:
Originally Posted by Alexander the Pretty Good
Poor Ayatollah. I bet Vader never had these problems. As I recall the Empire's method of dealing with protesters is to land shuttlecraft on top of them.
It's hard coming up with star wars references if you don't let the bad guys have a death star!
I was thinking along the lines of offering some kosher hot dogs.:laugh4:Quote:
Originally Posted by Adrian II
Too bad the civilians don't have a right to bare arms like Neda's fiance said in an intervue.
You could have compared the protesters to Ewoks. :yes:Quote:
Originally Posted by Alexander the Pretty Good
I just read a news item about the German-Finish company I work for and apparently this whole mess is our fault....:dizzy2: according to some people...
how weird waking up one day and find out you work for the 'evil empire'
Poor Ronin. Ah well, Anakin never figured it out until it was too late too.Quote:
Originally Posted by Ronin
True.Quote:
Originally Posted by Devastatin Dave
What a pity, then, that you've annulled your own reasoning in a previous post. The one where you said we couldn't trust any Iranian with a gun because they will create a bloodbath anyway.
Presently both sides having guns would at least help balance the debate. The difference between now & the last revolution is simply that bearded nutters with guns are now the establishment and being sneaky sandpeople, (star war ref. am not going out of my way to be a total bigot), they took all their weapons with them once they got what they wanted.
Final thing, if the number of people killed so far happened in any number of other countries it already would be classed as a bloodbath. Why is it some countries & their regimes don't get bloodbatch status until the body count hits triple figures or higher.
While I certainly see the logic in giving the people guns, wouldn't that just do two things:
1) lead to an even greater escalation in violence
And
2) Seeing as there is no police force and the state would have no monopoly on violence - wouldn't there be an increase in the rate of armed crime? People without guns rely on the police force to protect them and when the police force is not around to do so those who would have legally obtained weapons would have these people at their mercy.
Don't you see the irony in this sentence?Quote:
Originally Posted by CountArach
Like the USA and USSR having nukes led to WWIII? Right now, the violence is the police and Baji (sp?) shooting protesters, who have only rocks. I think they might be more reluctant if they were facing tens of thousands of protesters with guns. Any possible escalation of that would be protesters shooting back.Quote:
Originally Posted by CountArach
Yes, that would be good for an oppressive state such as this one.Quote:
And
2) Seeing as there is no police force and the state would have no monopoly on violence
Quote:
- wouldn't there be an increase in the rate of armed crime? People without guns rely on the police force to protect them and when the police force is not around to do so those who would have legally obtained weapons would have these people at their mercy.
- No. Simply look at various US states to see that gun ownership doesn't correlate with crime. Or look at Switzerland and Britain.
- Police don't protect people, they go to crime scenes and try to find out who did what.
- Right now the police force is shooting people. People are completely at their mercy ( see Adrian's post). I don't know what you mean about people being at the mercy of those who are not police (or not Baji in Iran) and own guns; are you suggesting that gun owners would go around ordering people without guns to work for them or something? Guns do not transform a normal person into a whacko.
CR
Quote:
Originally Posted by Louis VI the Fat
I found it kind of bizarre when the project director said he found my lack of faith disturbing in the weekly meeting the other day...but I just thought he was weird. :laugh4:
well back to work programming our surveila....errr....communications equipment.
Yeah, that works really well. Look at Iraq and Afganistan.Quote:
Originally Posted by Crazed Rabbit
You can count on one thing, armed civilians will be coming forthwith. Iran isn't an Island.
I know that this is your personal view and probably your personal experience as well. Other countries have different expectations when it comes to p'licing. I'm not going to bother you with details about the Dutch police. Suffice it to say they used to have a role similar to that of the British bobby. Nowadays they all want to be stereotype American cops: drive around on cars, intimidate ordinary citizens and chase easy prey before the camera's of the local tv channel. In case of a real emergency they are as strong as the weakest link in the chain, and nowadays that's pretty weak I'm afraid. Still, they have an important part to play in maintaining public order and protecting people from all sorts of harm, not just the criminal type.Quote:
Originally Posted by Crazed Rabbit
Apart from this, I totally agree with your post.It does. In fact, it works so well that considerable foreign armed forces have great trouble keeping order and maintaining the upper hand in those countries.Quote:
Originally Posted by Philipvs Vallindervs Calicvla
If the Iranian protesters would have had guns, you can bet your sweet caboose there would have been a recount.
Considering the behavior of the Iranian leadership thus far, the only counting going on would be a body count.Quote:
Originally Posted by Adrian II
While guns would improve the chance for reform, said reform would be achieved in a revolutionary manner. IE: The Ayatollah gets his head stuck on a pike outside whatever the Iranian equivalent of the Capitol Building is and somebody else holds a new election.
That or whatshisface installs himself as Supreme Peoples Dictator For Life.
True. A pity about your cops.Quote:
Originally Posted by Adrian II
I don't think it would necessarily be a revolution. The government may have simply backed down and recounted (or counted, really) the votes correctly. They wouldn't want 100,000 angry, armed people in the capital city to start attacking them.Quote:
While guns would improve the chance for reform, said reform would be achieved in a revolutionary manner.
CR
From what I can see, the Iranian government is reacting to the situation the same way Saddam's government reacted to the US invasion of Iraq, namely by plugging their ears and going "LALALALALA THE REVOLUTIONARIES HAVE BEEN DRIVEN INTO THE SEA, THEY WILL NEVER REACH BAGHDA- I MEAN TEHRAN. LALALALALA."Quote:
Originally Posted by Crazed Rabbit
Not EXACTLY the same situation, of course, but things like saying that Neda girl was killed by protesters, calling the protesters 'bad Muslims' and saying they're all American spies...that might work in North Korea, but the Iranian government doesn't have enough information control to make it work there.
And, let's face it, they're basically whipping the horse after leaving the barn door open with a trail of carrots leading out of it. And setting the barn on fire.
Hmmm, the Iranian MPs are not keen on dinnerjacket's victory, either it would seem: http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/mid...st/8118783.stm
Didn't you hear? The CIA killed Neda. It's true, I heard it on the teevee.Quote:
Originally Posted by Sheogorath
BLITZER: Are you seriously accusing the CIA of killing Nada?
GHADIRI (through translator): We say that the bullet that was found in her head was not a bullet that you could find in Iran. These are the bullets that the CIA and terrorist groups use. Of course they warned that there would be a bloodshed in these demonstrations and then they could attribute that to the Islamic republic. This is part of a common act of CIA in various countries.
BLITZER: Do you really believe that, Mr. Ambassador? You're a distinguished diplomat representing Iran. This is a very serious accusation that you're making, that the CIA was responsible for killing this beautiful, young woman.
GHADIRI (through translator): I'm not saying that the CIA had done this. There are different groups. Could be intelligence services, could be CIA, could be the terrorists. However, these are the people who do these things. You could ask Mr. Andreotti, who was an Italian diplomat whether Gladitators were a secret group related to CIA or not. Now they of course they use better methods. Of course, you're not going to say that CIA is a sacred organization that hasn't done anything to other worlds.
BLITZER: Mr. Ambassador, why won't your government allow people to go mourn at a memorial service for Nada, as her family has requested?
GHADIRI (through translator): We have no problem with mournings. Naturally we don't want to provide an opportunity for the rioters to come in and make the situation worse.
It gets worse! The US is funding Terrorists as well!Quote:
Originally Posted by Lemur
I am shocked, sir, shocked, that the United States of America would fund a morally questionable operation.Quote:
Originally Posted by CountArach
:no:
Yeah they have always been morally upright members of the International community.Quote:
Originally Posted by Sheogorath
Will anyone believe that?*Quote:
Originally Posted by Lemur
CR
*Well, outside 5% of crazies
What is Rafsanjani doing?
Reliable sources in Iran are suggesting that a possible compromise to put an end to the violent uprising that has rocked Iran for the past two weeks may be in the works. I have previously reported that the second most powerful man in Iran, Ayatollah Hashemi Rafsanjani, the head of the Assembly of Experts (the body with the power to choose and dismiss the Supreme Leader) is in the city of Qom—the country’s religious center—trying to rally enough votes from his fellow Assembly members to remove the current Supreme Leader, Ayatollah Ali Khamenei from power. News out of Iran suggests that he may be succeeding. At the very least, it seems he may have gained enough support from the clerical establishment to force a compromise from Khamenei, one that would entail a run-off election between Mahmoud Ahmadinejad and his main reformist rival Mir Hossein Mousavi.
source: http://www.thedailybeast.com/blogs-a...-to-save-iran/
Classic use of disinformation; the truth value of the statement is not as important as getting the statement out. Interesting to learn that the CIA and terrorists have standard issue ammunition that can be readily identified.Quote:
Originally Posted by Lemur
Compromise engineered by Rafsanjani? I wonder if the politics that lead to Khamenei's call for a crackdown can be so easily reversed.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Lemur
For one thing, the current events in Iran serve to make the Iranian government appear as scared, lying, ridiculous despots.
On another note, I've been rather amused at the Tehran rethoric. They consistently brand their opponents 'terrorists', they clamp down on freedom in the name of fighting terrorism, they conjure up alarmist imagery of 'alien' and 'terrorist' infringement of Iranian homeland security, all with an agressive 'with us or against us' attitude. One wonders where they got the inspiration for their rethoric from.
The upside is that this shows again the extent to which nations not on top look at the one's that are. Many are obsessed by them, frustrated by them. At once, they will clamour for their destruction, challenging them at every opportunity, while simultanously imitating them -usually in a poor, crooked, despotic attempt. The less they succeed in catching up or surpassing them, the more despotic they become, making them less succesful in turn. A dramatic vicious circle.
The Islamism of Iran is not a return to Mediaeval ways as it is sometimes thought, nor a (return to) pure Islam as they portray themselves. It is a modern response to modern challenges.
One also wonders how one can think of the Iranian government as anything but. And don't fall for the political game, especially when played by this particular actor.
I do love the classic CIA and terrorist bullet association. It's a classic!
Yes it certainly would, but damn, have been on liveleak & they're just shooting into crowds. Something has to give one way or another over there, and it doesn't look like the idiot in power is going to make the miniscule concession of putting the moderate hard line party puppet in place of the hard hard line party puppet.Quote:
Originally Posted by CountArach
It smacks of a madness induced power trip, what's the difference between a blue M&M & a red one? B'all except the colour, and the twit running the country is sitting there foaming at the mouth screaming "I LIKE BLUE! shoot, batter, lock up anyone who likes red".
What is really making me so :furious3: angry about it all, is the pretence of choice. Why bother! *fill in 46 letter streamed expletives here* Why tell people they have a choice, (however pitiful it is), then insult them with falsification.
What is it that these people want so badly that they're willing to get killed over it?
I am horrified that it may not be much more than wanting to be able to hold hands in public, wear what they want, & be able to vote for who they want.