Michael Hardner Posted March 21, 2015 Report Share Posted March 21, 2015 Apologising for what? Cairo and Tehran were civilised places in 1950 and even 1975. And behind the curtain, SAVAK and secret police were torturing and oppressing. Such civilized dictatorships. Only Nixon could could go to China, and only GW Bush could try to bring democracy to the middle east. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Argus Posted March 21, 2015 Report Share Posted March 21, 2015 And behind the curtain, SAVAK and secret police were torturing and oppressing. Such civilized dictatorships. And that doesn't happen now? Only Nixon could could go to China, and only GW Bush could try to bring democracy to the middle east. The middle east is not ready for democracy. Democracy requires a degree of compromise which seems absent among middle eastern politicians and populations. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
GostHacked Posted March 21, 2015 Report Share Posted March 21, 2015 And that doesn't happen now? The middle east is not ready for democracy. Democracy requires a degree of compromise which seems absent among middle eastern politicians and populations. The Middle East was ready for democracy. The USA said so. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Michael Hardner Posted March 21, 2015 Report Share Posted March 21, 2015 And that doesn't happen now? You're pivoting the argument- see the original point I was responding to. The middle east is not ready for democracy. Democracy requires a degree of compromise which seems absent among middle eastern politicians and populations. The same struggle will have to happen in the future- so if not now when? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Argus Posted March 21, 2015 Report Share Posted March 21, 2015 The Middle East was ready for democracy. The USA said so. Really? When were they ready and when did the US say no? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Argus Posted March 21, 2015 Report Share Posted March 21, 2015 You're pivoting the argument- see the original point I was responding to. I think the point is they were 'civilized' places to live, ie., orderly, for most people. If you didn't get involved with politics you probably never encountered the secret police. The same struggle will have to happen in the future- so if not now when? When their societies come to embrace concepts of compromise and working together. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
eyeball Posted March 22, 2015 Report Share Posted March 22, 2015 Really? When were they ready and when did the US say no? 1953. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
GostHacked Posted March 22, 2015 Report Share Posted March 22, 2015 1953. Again in, I think, 1991 and again in 2003. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
GostHacked Posted March 22, 2015 Report Share Posted March 22, 2015 Really? When were they ready and when did the US say no? Replace 'no' with 'so', and you would have read my post correctly. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Michael Hardner Posted March 22, 2015 Report Share Posted March 22, 2015 I think the point is they were 'civilized' places to live, ie., orderly, for most people. If you didn't get involved with politics you probably never encountered the secret police. I don't think that was August's point. He was describing those countries as being better at that time. When their societies come to embrace concepts of compromise and working together. Yes... and like our society, the embrace comes after bitter violence, followed by peace. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Rue Posted March 25, 2015 Report Share Posted March 25, 2015 (edited) So let me get this straight. The US suddenly appears, says no, and that's it presto? No democracy? Wow. All this time I thought it was more complicated then that. Who would have thought the Americans are so powerful they just say no, an zap people become undemocratic. I mean 1953, that Gamel Nasser he sure was democratic. Lol. Assad, he was going to be democratic, the US stopped him.Ahah. The Bath party shhhhh. Skip over that. The Soviet intervention in the Middle East, shhhh skip over that. Saudi Arabia, hey man, the Shiek was all for women driving cars alone until the Yanks showed up. Hussein, same thing man. He was really nice. Then he saw a Coca Cola sign and kablam I said no democracy and that was it. Hezbollah, Hamas, Arafat, The Ayatollah, Morsi all democrats if it wasn't for the US. The US told Sudan to wipe out its Christians. Oy my kidneys hurt from reading this drivel. Just so we are clear its Bush Chaney who did this. It was him. Blame him. Edited March 25, 2015 by Rue Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
GostHacked Posted March 26, 2015 Report Share Posted March 26, 2015 Is it deliberate or just a serious lack of reading comprehension around here. The Middle East was ready for democracy. The USA said so. Please read that line and try to figure out how 'so' turned into 'no' via replies by posters. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Je suis Omar Posted March 31, 2015 Report Share Posted March 31, 2015 (edited) I think you're missing the point.......Post WW II, the West very much confronted, and fought wars and proxy wars, Russian aggression and influence around the world..... This is positively Orwellian. I know you are missing the point. Post WWII, the USA instigated a massive system of war crimes against numerous poor countries around the world. Edited March 31, 2015 by Je suis Omar Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Argus Posted March 31, 2015 Report Share Posted March 31, 2015 I don't think that was August's point. He was describing those countries as being better at that time. Yes... and like our society, the embrace comes after bitter violence, followed by peace. Our society never developed the level of violence inherent within theirs. I'm not denying that way back when, centuries ago, our people were brutish and ignorant too. But do you really want to put them at the level of, say, the dark ages, and tell me to just be patient for a few hundred years while they work it out? Did you see the story of the woman mobbed and beaten to death in Afghanistan because someone accused her (wrongly) of burning a koran? Did you see the story of the blogger hacked to death by meat cleavers in Bangladesh because he said things about fanatics? Did you hear about the latest Boko Haran attack in Nigeria? The riots in Pakistan? That sort of attitude of ignorance and religious violence has been foreign to western civilization for a very, very long time. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Michael Hardner Posted April 1, 2015 Report Share Posted April 1, 2015 Our society never developed the level of violence inherent within theirs. That's very difficult to assess over thousands of years. I think even historians would debate that point, and yet you make it simply and with full confidence. We've had massacres, oppression, and the like in the last few centuries. be patient for a few hundred years while they work it out? First of all it's not always centuries. You decry attitudes that are held in these countries such as anti-gay sentiment. Think back to what it was like to be gay in this country just a few decades ago. Secondly, you have no choice but be patient. The forces of hate and repression will be unleashed when these countries are brought in conflict with others, which will happen more and more. Did you see the story of the woman mobbed and beaten to death in Afghanistan because someone accused her (wrongly) of burning a koran? Did you see the story of the blogger hacked to death by meat cleavers in Bangladesh because he said things about fanatics? Did you hear about the latest Boko Haran attack in Nigeria? The riots in Pakistan? That sort of attitude of ignorance and religious violence has been foreign to western civilization for a very, very long time. I wouldn't look to individual stories as milestones of progress. But are you looking for progress, or for a reason to feel morally superior ? Why do you care anyway ? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Je suis Omar Posted April 1, 2015 Report Share Posted April 1, 2015 Our society never developed the level of violence inherent within theirs. I'm not denying that way back when, centuries ago, our people were brutish and ignorant too. But do you really want to put them at the level of, say, the dark ages, and tell me to just be patient for a few hundred years while they work it out? Did you see the story of the woman mobbed and beaten to death in Afghanistan because someone accused her (wrongly) of burning a koran? Did you see the story of the blogger hacked to death by meat cleavers in Bangladesh because he said things about fanatics? Did you hear about the latest Boko Haran attack in Nigeria? The riots in Pakistan? That sort of attitude of ignorance and religious violence has been foreign to western civilization for a very, very long time. Really, Argus. What of, Systematically, the contras have been assassinating religious workers, teachers, health workers, elected officials, government administrators. You remember the assassination manual? that surfaced in 1984. It caused such a stir that President Reagan had to address it himself in the presidential debates with Walter Mondale. They use terror. This is a technique that they're using to traumatize the society so that it can't function. I don't mean to abuse you with verbal violence, but you have to understand what your government and its agents are doing. They go into villages, they haul out families. With the children forced to watch they castrate the father, they peel the skin off his face, they put a grenade in his mouth and pull the pin. With the children forced to watch they gang-rape the mother, and slash her breasts off. And sometimes for variety, they make the parents watch while they do these things to the children. This is nobody's propaganda. There have been over 100,000 American witnesses for peace who have gone down there and they have filmed and photographed and witnessed these atrocities immediately after they've happened, and documented 13,000 people killed this way, mostly women and children. These are the activities done by these contras. The contras are the people president Reagan calls `freedom fighters'. He says they're the moral equivalent of our founding fathers. And the whole world gasps at this confession of his family traditions. http://www.thirdworldtraveler.com/Stockwell/StockwellCIA87_2.html What of, Half a million Iraqis children killed by the the USA and UK in the 1990s? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
August1991 Posted April 3, 2015 Author Report Share Posted April 3, 2015 (edited) Half a million Iraqis children killed by the the USA and UK in the 1990s? And Saddam killed no one? ==== More profoundly, when the Middle East lived under European rules (after the Ottoman Empire and before its current mayhem), ordinary people from Alexandria to Baghdad lived in multicultural peace, civilised society, Damascus once had a thriving Jewish community. Edited April 3, 2015 by August1991 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Rue Posted April 4, 2015 Report Share Posted April 4, 2015 Actually August as a point of clarification ordinary non Muslim people did not live in multi-cultural peace. They were defined as dhimmi and khafir and lived as second class citizens and it was not utopia for them. That is a myth. Its also a myth to day Muslim society was peaceful. It never has been.Wars between Sunni, Shiite and other Muslim sects have gone on since Islam started. Some periods of time saw less out and out conflict because enemies were conquered and there was no one to fight, all enemies were wiped out. The reality is Islamic society has been violent and more Muslims have tied from the hands of other Muslims then non Muslims and that continues today. The war between Shiite and Sunni has always been there. The persecution of Muslims for not being the right kind of Muslim or the persecution of minorities in the Muslim world is a lengthy one for Kurds,Berbes,Jews,Assyrians, Coptics,Bahaiis, Zoroastreans, Buddists, Suffi, on and on. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Topaz Posted April 5, 2015 Report Share Posted April 5, 2015 Here's a newsflash I found, apparently some people in the Ukraine, protested in front of the US Embassy and somebody was busy trying to stop this news item going world wide. http://www.globalresearch.ca/2500-ukrainians-picket-us-embassy-in-kiev-video-story-suppressed/5440819 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Smallc Posted April 5, 2015 Report Share Posted April 5, 2015 Why do you believe every crackpot news story? Do you not understand that not everything you read on the internet is true? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
GostHacked Posted April 6, 2015 Report Share Posted April 6, 2015 Why do you believe every crackpot news story? Do you not understand that not everything you read on the internet is true? Even main stream media gets it wrong much of the time. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Smallc Posted April 6, 2015 Report Share Posted April 6, 2015 Even main stream media gets it wrong much of the time. Of course they do. The organizations are run by humans. They don't though, deliberately put out falsehoods. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
GostHacked Posted April 6, 2015 Report Share Posted April 6, 2015 Of course they do. The organizations are run by humans. They don't though, deliberately put out falsehoods. I believe they do. The run up to the Iraq war in 2003 shows a lot of that. The yellow cake from Nigeria , false, the incubators thing, false, WMDs, false. But you still trust them to give you the straight news? All western media was complicit in perpetuating the lies. The news agencies new it was bull, but when someone speaks against them, they are considered nutter and the like. A really effective way to sideline an alternative story. 'He's simply crazy'. People have posted stuff here from the onion thinking it is real news. Even some threads on news we have engaged in turned out to be false and fabricated. How do you tell the difference what is fake and what is real? The line seems really blurred and it's hard to discern the real stuff from the fake stuff these days. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Smallc Posted April 6, 2015 Report Share Posted April 6, 2015 There's no proof (not even evidence) that any of the false reporting you're talking about was intentional. It's just a misguided belief that you have. It just so happens to fit with your own theories of the world. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
GostHacked Posted April 6, 2015 Report Share Posted April 6, 2015 There's no proof (not even evidence) that any of the false reporting you're talking about was intentional. It's just a misguided belief that you have. It just so happens to fit with your own theories of the world. You really believe it was not intentional to put out false narratives in order to invade another country? Without 9/11 that would not have been the case. My theory is that most of you have no idea what real reality is. I am not even sure of it some of the time. But stay in your little bubbles where it is comfortable. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.