Forum

 
  Back to OzPolitic.com   Welcome, Guest. Please Login or Register
  Forum Home Album HelpSearch Recent Rules LoginRegister  
 

Pages: 1 ... 13 14 15 
Send Topic Print
moral equivalence of supporting ISIS vs US (Read 12960 times)
Karnal
Gold Member
*****
Offline


Australian Politics

Posts: 95911
Gender: male
Re: moral equivalence of supporting ISIS vs US
Reply #210 - Feb 4th, 2016 at 9:49am
 
Soren wrote on Feb 3rd, 2016 at 8:50pm:
Karnal wrote on Feb 2nd, 2016 at 10:46pm:
Soren wrote on Feb 2nd, 2016 at 9:42pm:
polite_gandalf wrote on Feb 1st, 2016 at 3:39pm:
freediver wrote on Feb 1st, 2016 at 12:30pm:
Is this what you meant by peacefully fighting tooth and nail? How were they forced Gandalf?


A violent insurgency against occupation is a lot harder to deal with than a mass peaceful uprising. Just ask the British in India. Violence against occupation can justifiably be met with a violent response, but what do you do with peaceful protesters? Shoot them? Not a good look. This is easily the greatest threat to any occupation, and the standard strategy in dealing with them has invariably been the same through the ages: provoke them into violence so you can get on with the far more palatable task of being violent against violent people. Its what Assad succeeded in doing in the Arab Spring, and its what Israel tries to do in the West Bank on a daily basis (you didn't know that there are daily peaceful protests against the occupation did you? - a testament to the success of Israeli propaganda). And its what the US tried to do in Iraq. They succeeded against the sunnis when they massacred about 20 peaceful protesters outside a school in Fallujah (remember the whole Fallujah thing? Well thats how it started). But the shiites by and large held fast - notwithstanding periodic flare-ups with the Mahdi Army. Hundreds of thousands of peaceful protestors marching through the streets on a regular basis - with the full blessing of their Ayatollah - simply can't be ignored. And you can't just shoot them all. Thats "how" they were forced.

Primitives resiting improvement i in India, Africa, in the Muslim Arabs areas - everywhere.



The primitive pride gets the better of them, every time. They are all suffering from the massive inferiority complex that comes from being occupied by a higher civilisation.

The Arabs, Indians, Africans, Aborigines, Maoris, Mayas, Aztecs, Red Indians etc - they simply cannot face the obvious fact that they have been improved.

There could NEVER be a world where any of these backward civilisations could become dominant and conquer and subdue all others. These are indeed primitive and backward cultures and have suffered their fate accordingly.

And they will never forgive us for it even as they all know that there is no reviving any of them.

Natural selection of cultures?



NEVER.



Exactly.

Aborigines will never forgive Europeans for lifting them out of the stone age.


Psychology, innit.



Do you agree with the old boy, FD? Do you think the boongs and tinted races should be grateful to Mother and Uncle for their invasions?

The old boy's not racist. The tinted races are not a race.
Back to top
 
 
IP Logged
 
polite_gandalf
Gold Member
*****
Offline


Australian Politics

Posts: 20027
Canberra
Gender: male
Re: moral equivalence of supporting ISIS vs US
Reply #211 - Feb 4th, 2016 at 12:30pm
 
freediver wrote on Feb 3rd, 2016 at 6:55pm:
Local councils are not banned. They have been established within the constitution that was delivered through a national democratic process. They have already had the first council elections.


Excellent point FD - as your own wiki article said, council elections were established in 2013 - a full two years after the US left.


freediver wrote on Feb 3rd, 2016 at 6:55pm:
They had elections under Saddam too. The 2005 elections under the US occupation were described by a wide variety of international groups as the first ever free and fair elections in Iraq. If you have any real evidence that the elections since Saddam were conducted in a similar manner, perhaps you should present that rather than constantly whining about oil contracts and drawing vague allusions.


No one is saying the elections themselves weren't free and fair, or that they were anything like Saddam's elections. Iraqis freely and fairly voted between an exclusive list of occupation yes men - having no opportunity to vote for any candidate that opposed or in any way threatened the occupation - even though that occupation systematically robbed the Iraqi people of their economic sovereignty.

Or perhaps we should go with the FD version - the Iraqi people just loved the occupation so much that they insisted on only having candidates that would defend and maintain the occupation  Tongue

freediver wrote on Feb 3rd, 2016 at 6:55pm:
This is entirely extra-constitutional, except for the requirements to run for election. It is up to the parties involved how they select candidates, and they can do it however they want. I don't think Clive Palmers rise to the leadrship of the palmer party for example was open and democratic. I have never personally been involved in any kind of preselection process.


Clive Palmer wasn't parachuted in to the country by a foreign invader who had just violently overthrew the sovereign government. Nor was he backed in his preselection by 140 thousand foreign occupying troops who were at the time slaughtering unarmed protesters outside schools and terrifying women and children by kicking down their doors in the middle of the night.
Back to top
 

A resident Islam critic who claims to represent western values said:
Quote:
Outlawing the enemy's uniform - hijab, islamic beard - is not depriving one's own people of their freedoms.
 
IP Logged
 
Karnal
Gold Member
*****
Offline


Australian Politics

Posts: 95911
Gender: male
Re: moral equivalence of supporting ISIS vs US
Reply #212 - Feb 4th, 2016 at 1:20pm
 
polite_gandalf wrote on Feb 4th, 2016 at 12:30pm:
freediver wrote on Feb 3rd, 2016 at 6:55pm:
This is entirely extra-constitutional, except for the requirements to run for election. It is up to the parties involved how they select candidates, and they can do it however they want. I don't think Clive Palmers rise to the leadrship of the palmer party for example was open and democratic. I have never personally been involved in any kind of preselection process.


Clive Palmer wasn't parachuted in to the country by a foreign invader who had just violently overthrew the sovereign government. Nor was he backed in his preselection by 140 thousand foreign occupying troops who were at the time slaughtering unarmed protesters outside schools and terrifying women and children by kicking down their doors in the middle of the night.



Interesting, isn't it? FD doesn't think the PUP is democratic, but he thinks the invasion of Iraq and its subsequent elections brought democracy to Iraq.

Given Clive Palmer can't do it, FD, how did Uncle establish democracy in Iraq?
Back to top
 
 
IP Logged
 
polite_gandalf
Gold Member
*****
Offline


Australian Politics

Posts: 20027
Canberra
Gender: male
Re: moral equivalence of supporting ISIS vs US
Reply #213 - Feb 4th, 2016 at 3:50pm
 
freediver wrote on Feb 3rd, 2016 at 6:55pm:
It is up to the parties involved how they select candidates, and they can do it however they want.


Or in the case of Iraq - it was up to the occupying power involved how they selected candidates, and they did it however they wanted.
Back to top
 

A resident Islam critic who claims to represent western values said:
Quote:
Outlawing the enemy's uniform - hijab, islamic beard - is not depriving one's own people of their freedoms.
 
IP Logged
 
Pages: 1 ... 13 14 15 
Send Topic Print