 |
| |
|
|
lord of the mark
|
 |
FUKCOV - Former United Kingdom Colony of Virginia
Dec 2000
time: 00:17
|
|
Summary of tds post
1. Its ok that non-Islamist parties arent allowed on the ballot in Iran, since not every party can get on the ballot in the US. Nevermind that US laws discriminate against small parties, and any sufficiently large movement could get on the ballot, while non-Islamist parties would be excluded in Iran no matter how much backing they had.
2. The SCOTUS, whose members are appointed by the elected president, and confirmed by the elected congress, and which is limited to judicial matters is equvialent to bodies in Iran which are self-appointed, and which exert direct authority over executive functions.
3. Out of date, as even Islamist moderates were excluded in this last election.
4. arrest of dissenting journalists, etc ignored.
5. Mubaraks an authoritarian too.
Irrelevant to the point, which is that Iranian regime is unpopular and may be overthrown. That may well be true of Mubarak as well.
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Tripledoc
|
|
quote:
Originally posted by lord of the mark
WTF? What does Indymedia have to do with anything? |
The FBI confiscated their caches.
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Tripledoc
|
|
quote:
Originally posted by lord of the mark
Yet Iraq, with bombings everyday, is keeping to a higher standard of freedom of expression. Ditto Afghanistan. |
You mean the closing down of al-Sadrs newspaper sparking the Mahdi army rebellion? The fact that only 'embedded' reporters are guarenteed secuirty. That 100 journalist have been killed in Iraq, the highest number of any recent conflict. That al-jazeera is permanently banned from Iraq.
The US is free to set up its psy ops operations. That is true.
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Tripledoc
|
|
quote:
Originally posted by lord of the mark
I presume all the Iranian journalists who have been arrested would prefer to have had their "caches" confiscated. |
In Iran there is no universal acces to the internet. Therefore the masses cannot send deaththreats to the intellectuals if they tell the truth, like it is often done in the US by various brownshirts. So there is no balance if you will.
Freedom of expression in the US is being controlled by an all-pervading sense of fear.
|
|
| |
|
|
|
lord of the mark
|
|
FUKCOV - Former United Kingdom Colony of Virginia
Dec 2000
time: 00:17
|
|
quote:
Originally posted by Tripledoc
You mean the closing down of al-Sadrs newspaper sparking the Mahdi army rebellion? The fact that only 'embedded' reporters are guarenteed secuirty. That 100 journalist have been killed in Iraq, the highest number of any recent conflict. That al-jazeera is permanently banned from Iraq.
The US is free to set up its psy ops operations. That is true. |
sadrs newspaper which was calling for violent revolution (what were the journalists in Iran accused of - criticizing the mullahs? Questioning Islam?) was closed, and later reopened, IIUC. No one in Iraq is "guaranteed" security, not US embassy personnel, not Iraqi govt officials, no one. Al Jazeera was banned when its reporters seemed to show up at sights of terror bombings almost simultaneously with the bombings -even so it wasnt permament, and even so it was only the reporters who were banned, Iraqis can (And do) still watch Al Jaz on Sat TV. 100 journalists have been killed - yup, that happens in a war zone.
Nonetheless Iraq has a lively press, which criticizes the govt, in the midst of war, while Iran, doesnt and is excused based on the "threat" of war.
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Tripledoc
|
|
quote:
Originally posted by Lonestar
Why? We pulled it off. |
No you developed a democracy after the British were thrown out because you needed to aquire Indian land, and the British wouldn't let you. And then you started to invade other countries. Canada, Mexico and so on.
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Tripledoc
|
|
quote:
Originally posted by lord of the mark
Nonetheless Iraq has a lively press, which criticizes the govt, in the midst of war, while Iran, doesnt and is excused based on the "threat" of war. |
Can you give me an example of this lively press. Would anyone critizse Allawi, a former executioner for Saddam?
|
|
| |
|
|
|
lord of the mark
|
|
FUKCOV - Former United Kingdom Colony of Virginia
Dec 2000
time: 00:17
|
|
quote:
Originally posted by Tripledoc
Can you give me an example of this lively press. Would anyone critizse Allawi, a former executioner for Saddam? |
Azzaman.com, apparently an Iraqi paper, linked to at Iraq the Model - all the other papers he linked to were in Arabic
"Pound cities with bombs to persuade people to vote
By Fateh Abdulsalam
Azzaman, 2004-11-07
The US-led troops and the interim government are of the opinion that invading the so-called rebel cities, turning their inhabitants into refugees and killing as many of them as possible will ensure widest popular participation in the January vote.
For this reason they have besieged Falluja and kept on bombarding it day and night for almost three months – their target is to pave the way for the January elections.
The other pretext they cite for their planned butchering of a city of more than 350,000 people is the presence of Musaab al-Zarqawi.
But what will the Americans say if the troops find no trace of Zarqawi in the city?
Pro-US Iraqi officials will certainly come up with new excuses and pretexts.
Few in Iraq now believe the reason for invading Falluja, the killing of its people and making most of the population homeless has anything to do with Zarqawi.
The decision to destroy Falluja has already been made by US troops. Capturing or killing Zarqawi will not lead to a change of heart.
Falluja, in American eyes, will have to pay a price for its open resistance of the might of the world’s only superpower.
The US cannot perceive how its troops can be humiliated at the hands of a small and hungry city with no running water and a proper sewage system.
How could the US be proud of its military might and control of the world, particularly after the election victory of President George W. Bush and a city like Falluja instills fear in the hearts of its Marines?
According to reports only one fourth of the city’s population has opted to stay while the rest has fled to safer areas.
Most of those remaining are forbidden from leaving and will certainly be victims of mass killing whether they decide to fight or not.
The US decision to invade Falluja is tantamount to the death that awaits its inhabitants.
If the US fails to find Zarqawi in the city after storming it that will be a stigma of shame and disgrace not only for its troops but also its Iraqi backers.
But if Zarqawi is either captured or killed in the city that will be a disgrace for the people of Falluja themselves.
Invasion of cities, turning hundreds of thousands of Iraqis into refugees and killing through indiscriminate bombing will not pave the way for a democratic and civil society and will not lead to credible and fair elections.
The interim government will be mistaken to believe that Iraqis will be happy with the invasion of cities like Falluja.
On the contrary, they will condemn such actions and denounce any government sanctioning them."
Sounds pretty rough, Id say.
|
|
| |
|
| |
|
|
|
Pax
|
|
Iran. I'll never been there. Have no desire to tell them how to live. They hate us not because we exist but because we attempted to manipulate there society. The question that should be asked is if Iranians better off now or before when they were a U.S. puppet. I think most U.S. citizens would rather live in a corrupt oppressive society than in a society that is ruled from abroad. I'm sure the Christian right would die at the thought of being controlled by Muslims. If you look at them as having similar feelings it's easier to understand, easier to communicate, and easier to overcome if necessary.
|
|
| |
|
|
|
lord of the mark
|
|
FUKCOV - Former United Kingdom Colony of Virginia
Dec 2000
time: 00:17
|
|
quote:
Originally posted by Pax
Iran. I'll never been there. Have no desire to tell them how to live. They hate us not because we exist but because we attempted to manipulate there society. |
I have two friends/acquintances who've been to iran in recent years. One said he was told they wanted Bush reelected, so hed invade!!!! The other, who seemed to have spoken with a broader range of Iranians, said that unemployment was high, and with it hatred for the Mullahs. One cabbie pointed to some high tower of some kind at the airport, and said "thats where we'll hang the mullahs"
A biased sample, the elite of North Teheran, supplemented by a cabbie looking for a tip? Maybe. But it fits in with alot ive seen about Iran elsewhere. Lots of them ( I cant say if its the majority) dont give a damn about our support for the Shah, most of them are too young to remember the Shah, theyre steamed at the Mullahs and ready for change, though theyre perhaps not steamed enough yet to take their chances with the regimes thugs. Alot of bombs falling on them would change that, but if we can play this right (which there is certainly adequate reason for pessimism about) we could see big changes there.
|
|
| |
All times are GMT. The time now is 05:17.
Apolyton Time is 00:17. |
top of page
|
| archivepost |
|
Forum Rules:
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts
|
HTML code is ON
vB code is ON
Smilies are ON
[IMG] code is ON
|
|
|
|
|
|
04-12-2004 02:09
|