5 ms·

>I mean, if I had the capability to screw up Iran's nuclear program in my spare time I probably would, because, y'know, fuck Iran. Fuck Iran why exactly? Becau

by batista 14y ago

>I mean, if I had the capability to screw up Iran's nuclear program in my spare time I probably would, because, y'know, fuck Iran. Fuck Iran why exactly? Because toppling their democratically elected government and establishing a puppet in the fifties wasn't enough? Or arming Saddam's Iraq to fight them in the eighties? Or maybe because, say, TX can execute 15 year old "criminals" and ban abortion and/or gay marriage, but Iranians don't get to decide how they want to live? Or maybe because what's OK for Saudi Arabia is not OK for everybody? Or is it because they haven't harmed anyone in the region, where other nations have already invaded 2 nearby countries? Or just because, you know, muslims are bad in general? (I don't like the religion myself, but they have the right to do as they damn please in their OWN country).

keithpeter 14y ago
I understand your position here, but, please make contact with some Iranian refugees/dissidents near you for the full picture. Its bad. Worse than I understand Texas to be, by several ball parks.
- batista 14y ago
  >I understand your position here, but, please make contact with some Iranian refugees/dissidents near you for the full picture. Its bad. Worse than I understand Texas to be, by several ball parks. Sure, but those are "refugees/dissidents", of course they would think that. It's not like the great Iranian masses are held there by force or hate their culture. In general, dissidents are also overplayed for political gain by other countries. I mean, even the USSR played upon US political dissidents, the McCarthy era etc. If you are going to judge a whole country better ask the locals, not the dissidents.
  - niels_olson 14y ago
    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Death_of_Neda_Agha-Soltan http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Death_of_Neda_Agha-Soltan You are arguing a very weak position.
    - batista 14y ago
      No, you're arguing from isolated facts presented in a sentimental package from mainstream media. Do you know how many deaths there have been in protests in the US? Like, say, the Kent State shootings, were police shot 4 students dead. Or all around the world, for that matter? There have been 2-3 killings by the British police in the last 2 years, they even beat a guy in wheelchair ( http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-11987395 http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-11987395 ). And that's an "advanced western democracy". Now, put this to perspective. The Kent students were shot doing a mostly harmless protesting, in a country that had sent troops to a third country (Cambodia), and that was in no danger itself. The tension in Iran, on the other hand, is in a country that feels threatened by the US, that has seen 2 other countries invaded in the region, and that foreign powers are known to support vocal dissidents and minorities against the state. In the name of "democracy" of course, and not crude oil. Same foreign powers do nothing for countries having even more extreme muslims, and far less democracy, like, say, Saudi Arabia. What would the US police do if the US was feeling directly threatened, say like in the WWII? Well, we know what they did at the time: concentration camps for Japanese, for example.
      - niels_olson 14y ago
        > No, you're arguing from isolated facts Ok, look man, I'm down with anyone who wants to say the US could do better. I could do better. You could do better. But a fact, always beats a strawman, which is what you presented previously. Because the reality is that the Iranian government killed a bunch of its own people and did their level best to suppress that information. Now you've switched from defending Iran to reaching back a generation to find something you can cite to prosecute the United States. Just to add another fact, Here's a more comprehensive discussion of casualties in the protests where that Iranian lady died http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2009_Iranian_election_protests#Casualties http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2009_Iranian_election_protests#... My point stands: you are arguing from a very weak position. Further weakened by the fact that your thesis keeps moving around. If you're going take on the martyr's quest of defending an outrageous position, you can expect you're going to be expected to present an outragously good argument: all your shit in one bag, sewn up tight. If you're frustrated that people can come along and shoot holes in your argument with a sentence or two, maybe you could consider that as evidence that your argument may not ever hold water. There's a great passage, I think it's TH White's Once and Future King, where Lancelot has a dream where he sees two armies of knights, white and black fighting. The white side is loosing, so he takes their side. And gets slaughtered. On waking, he is told: know what you're fighting for. Don't fight for the losing side just because they're losing.
shock-value 14y ago
planetguy is probably referring to the _government_ of Iran, which hardly pays much heed to its citizens' decisions about "how they want to live".
- batista 14y ago
  We like to separate the citizens and the government, but I don't think this is the case. For most of the citizens, loyal muslims etc, that's exactly how they want to live. Western media just overplays dissidents and people that talk to our "sentiments". Insignificant opposition parties and small protests are elevated to the level of mass popular protest. If the situation was reversed, imagine what other countries would say of the 2000 US Bush-Gore elections, what with the electoral fraud et al, or things like the Vietnam protests, etc.
  - batista 14y ago
    Downvotes? Because of disagreeing? Very democratic. It amazes that people believe that the people of such a country like Iran do not want to live in a religious muslim state and are "forced" by the government. And it amuses me, because, you have an example right in your backyard: the "middle america" has tens of millions of people that want to live in a Christian state, with no evolution teaching in schools, no abortions, no gay marriages, the death penalty, Bible, etc. Those people are not "forced by the state" to want to live like so. If anything, they think the state FAILS them by not being more christian. If you consider this --that even within the US there are people who want those kinds of things--, you might understand why your San Franciscan or whatever ideas are not directly applicable to muslim countries, with a much different history and culture than what the US has. Just saying.
    - roel_v 14y ago
      "Downvotes? Because of disagreeing?" No, because of polluting what is generally a rational place of discussion with ludicrous extremist propaganda and general idiocy.
    - noarchy 14y ago
dfc 14y ago
I take it that you are not checking HN from a internet cafe in Tel Aviv?

by batista 14y ago

keithpeter 14y ago

I understand your position here, but, please make contact with some Iranian refugees/dissidents near you for the full picture. Its bad. Worse than I understand Texas to be, by several ball parks.

batista 14y ago
>I understand your position here, but, please make contact with some Iranian refugees/dissidents near you for the full picture. Its bad. Worse than I understand Texas to be, by several ball parks. Sure, but those are "refugees/dissidents", of course they would think that. It's not like the great Iranian masses are held there by force or hate their culture. In general, dissidents are also overplayed for political gain by other countries. I mean, even the USSR played upon US political dissidents, the McCarthy era etc. If you are going to judge a whole country better ask the locals, not the dissidents.
- niels_olson 14y ago
  http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Death_of_Neda_Agha-Soltan http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Death_of_Neda_Agha-Soltan You are arguing a very weak position.
  - batista 14y ago
    No, you're arguing from isolated facts presented in a sentimental package from mainstream media. Do you know how many deaths there have been in protests in the US? Like, say, the Kent State shootings, were police shot 4 students dead. Or all around the world, for that matter? There have been 2-3 killings by the British police in the last 2 years, they even beat a guy in wheelchair ( http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-11987395 http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-11987395 ). And that's an "advanced western democracy". Now, put this to perspective. The Kent students were shot doing a mostly harmless protesting, in a country that had sent troops to a third country (Cambodia), and that was in no danger itself. The tension in Iran, on the other hand, is in a country that feels threatened by the US, that has seen 2 other countries invaded in the region, and that foreign powers are known to support vocal dissidents and minorities against the state. In the name of "democracy" of course, and not crude oil. Same foreign powers do nothing for countries having even more extreme muslims, and far less democracy, like, say, Saudi Arabia. What would the US police do if the US was feeling directly threatened, say like in the WWII? Well, we know what they did at the time: concentration camps for Japanese, for example.
    - niels_olson 14y ago
      > No, you're arguing from isolated facts Ok, look man, I'm down with anyone who wants to say the US could do better. I could do better. You could do better. But a fact, always beats a strawman, which is what you presented previously. Because the reality is that the Iranian government killed a bunch of its own people and did their level best to suppress that information. Now you've switched from defending Iran to reaching back a generation to find something you can cite to prosecute the United States. Just to add another fact, Here's a more comprehensive discussion of casualties in the protests where that Iranian lady died http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2009_Iranian_election_protests#Casualties http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2009_Iranian_election_protests#... My point stands: you are arguing from a very weak position. Further weakened by the fact that your thesis keeps moving around. If you're going take on the martyr's quest of defending an outrageous position, you can expect you're going to be expected to present an outragously good argument: all your shit in one bag, sewn up tight. If you're frustrated that people can come along and shoot holes in your argument with a sentence or two, maybe you could consider that as evidence that your argument may not ever hold water. There's a great passage, I think it's TH White's Once and Future King, where Lancelot has a dream where he sees two armies of knights, white and black fighting. The white side is loosing, so he takes their side. And gets slaughtered. On waking, he is told: know what you're fighting for. Don't fight for the losing side just because they're losing.

shock-value 14y ago

planetguy is probably referring to the _government_ of Iran, which hardly pays much heed to its citizens' decisions about "how they want to live".

batista 14y ago
We like to separate the citizens and the government, but I don't think this is the case. For most of the citizens, loyal muslims etc, that's exactly how they want to live. Western media just overplays dissidents and people that talk to our "sentiments". Insignificant opposition parties and small protests are elevated to the level of mass popular protest. If the situation was reversed, imagine what other countries would say of the 2000 US Bush-Gore elections, what with the electoral fraud et al, or things like the Vietnam protests, etc.
- batista 14y ago
  Downvotes? Because of disagreeing? Very democratic. It amazes that people believe that the people of such a country like Iran do not want to live in a religious muslim state and are "forced" by the government. And it amuses me, because, you have an example right in your backyard: the "middle america" has tens of millions of people that want to live in a Christian state, with no evolution teaching in schools, no abortions, no gay marriages, the death penalty, Bible, etc. Those people are not "forced by the state" to want to live like so. If anything, they think the state FAILS them by not being more christian. If you consider this --that even within the US there are people who want those kinds of things--, you might understand why your San Franciscan or whatever ideas are not directly applicable to muslim countries, with a much different history and culture than what the US has. Just saying.
  - roel_v 14y ago
    "Downvotes? Because of disagreeing?" No, because of polluting what is generally a rational place of discussion with ludicrous extremist propaganda and general idiocy.
  - noarchy 14y ago

dfc 14y ago

I take it that you are not checking HN from a internet cafe in Tel Aviv?