• Welcome to the new Internet Infidels Discussion Board, formerly Talk Freethought.

Europe submits voluntarily

Status
Not open for further replies.
angelo said:
untermensche said:
angelo said:
Apparently you have some knowledge that's denied to us mere mortals. I and am sure almost everyone else thought the West backing Shah of Iran was deposed by Islamists.
Click to expand...

For some of us history begins before the Shah.

The US and Britain overturned a secular democracy and installed the Shah, a dictator, which led to the Islamic Revolution in Iran.

This is a major reason for the level of Islamic fundamentalism in the region.

Along with the dictatorship in Saudi Arabia.

Supported by you guessed it, the US and Britain.
Click to expand...

During the Shah's reign Iran was a Westernized, almost democratic state. Then Ayatollah Khomeini came along and within weeks the nation had almost gone back to the seventh century, and would have done so if not for the Western innovation and discoveries which had spread from Europe in the last 300 odd years of modern democratic civilisation.
Click to expand...

Ehe... what. The Shah was a kleptocratic dictator using the country as his party account. It was a police state and any dissent was brutally crushed. Worth noting is that Iran was a free democratic government before the Shah. The reason the CIA put the Shah in power in Iran was because the Iranian people voted for a socialist candidate. Guess how religious he was? Mossadegh was nominally Muslim. But extremely secular. Way more secular than the later Shah. The Shah was a Western puppet ruler who happily sold out his nation to the West as long as they kept him in power.

The revolution against the Shah was led by two groups, the religious clerics, and the urban liberals. Guess how religious the urban liberals were? Extremely secular. They still hated the Shah. No, they didn't hate him for all the freedom there were (not) getting. The urban liberals were completely outmaneuvered and fucked in the ass by the extremely shrewed Ayatollah Khomeini. Nobody saw it coming what a fucking psychopath he was.

You have an extremely warped idea of history
 
DrZoidberg said:
angelo said:
During the Shah's reign Iran was a Westernized, almost democratic state. Then Ayatollah Khomeini came along and within weeks the nation had almost gone back to the seventh century, and would have done so if not for the Western innovation and discoveries which had spread from Europe in the last 300 odd years of modern democratic civilisation.
Click to expand...

Ehe... what. The Shah was a kleptocratic dictator using the country as his party account. It was a police state and any dissent was brutally crushed. Worth noting is that Iran was a free democratic government before the Shah. The reason the CIA put the Shah in power in Iran was because the Iranian people voted for a socialist candidate. Guess how religious he was? Mossadegh was nominally Muslim. But extremely secular. Way more secular than the later Shah. The Shah was a Western puppet ruler who happily sold out his nation to the West as long as they kept him in power.

The revolution against the Shah was led by two groups, the religious clerics, and the urban liberals. Guess how religious the urban liberals were? Extremely secular. They still hated the Shah. No, they didn't hate him for all the freedom there were (not) getting. The urban liberals were completely outmaneuvered and fucked in the ass by the extremely shrewed Ayatollah Khomeini. Nobody saw it coming what a fucking psychopath he was.

You have an extremely warped idea of history
Click to expand...

Just like Saddam Hussein hey? A brutal dictator who was trying to get nuclear weapons, and used poison gas on the Kurds as well in warfare.
 
untermensche said:
Loren Pechtel said:
You are still incapable of understanding cause and effect.

The problems with Islamists long predate our interference.
Click to expand...

The refugee problem of Iraqi's moving into Europe is caused by the US terrorist attack of the Iraqi people and the empowerment of ISIS.

The problem of Islamic fundamentalism has been mainly caused by the US/British overthrow of the Iranian government and the US/British support of the Saudi dictatorship.

And of course there was the US/British terrorist attack of the Iraqi people.

Oil and the sick violence carried out by the US and Britain to control it.

That is the root of problems in the ME.
Click to expand...

You continue to treat each thing as completely independent when it's really an interconnected whole.

- - - Updated - - -

untermensche said:
angelo said:
Apparently you have some knowledge that's denied to us mere mortals. I and am sure almost everyone else thought the West backing Shah of Iran was deposed by Islamists.
Click to expand...

For some of us history begins before the Shah.

The US and Britain overturned a secular democracy and installed the Shah, a dictator, which led to the Islamic Revolution in Iran.

This is a major reason for the level of Islamic fundamentalism in the region.

Along with the dictatorship in Saudi Arabia.

Supported by you guessed it, the US and Britain.
Click to expand...

The US and Britain overturned a leftist (and likely Moscow-backed) thief.
 
DrZoidberg said:
Ehe... what. The Shah was a kleptocratic dictator using the country as his party account. It was a police state and any dissent was brutally crushed. Worth noting is that Iran was a free democratic government before the Shah. The reason the CIA put the Shah in power in Iran was because the Iranian people voted for a socialist candidate. Guess how religious he was? Mossadegh was nominally Muslim. But extremely secular. Way more secular than the later Shah. The Shah was a Western puppet ruler who happily sold out his nation to the West as long as they kept him in power.
Click to expand...

As dictators go the Shah was pretty mild.

I was there in the era of the Shah and it didn't feel like a police state at all. I've been in actual police states and they're always marked by the average man being very afraid of any contact with the police.

Two incidents stick in my mind:

1) Yugoslavia. The idea of walking into a police station to ask a question was seen as crazy.

2) Romania. We had a minor run-in with the police. The hardest part of it was the language barrier. We had done nothing wrong, their official mismarked our paperwork and we appeared to be overstaying. The resolution was they realized their mistake, no fine, but we did need to fill out a report about what happened. In Romanian. Oops--nobody was willing to translate because it was a police matter. Never mind that their name wouldn't be on the report, it was a police matter, stay away! (A businessman from Vienna overheard our problems and offered to help since he knew we weren't going to find a local who was willing.)

Contrast with China:

A porn DVD seller in a market in Shanghai. My wife was looking for DVDs of Chinese TV shows and when the openly displayed wares weren't what she was after he was talking about having others nearby. He was avoiding the details as his wares were illegal and she didn't realize what he actually was offering at first. When she realized we walked on--and the seller kept after us. A cop saw this and told him to stop harassing us and the last we saw he was talking back to the cop. Would a seller of illegal merchandise do that in a police state? Hell, no!

The revolution against the Shah was led by two groups, the religious clerics, and the urban liberals. Guess how religious the urban liberals were? Extremely secular. They still hated the Shah. No, they didn't hate him for all the freedom there were (not) getting. The urban liberals were completely outmaneuvered and fucked in the ass by the extremely shrewed Ayatollah Khomeini. Nobody saw it coming what a fucking psychopath he was.

You have an extremely warped idea of history
Click to expand...

Yeah, the Islamists are very good at pretending to make things better until they get into power.
 
angelo said:
DrZoidberg said:
angelo said:
During the Shah's reign Iran was a Westernized, almost democratic state. Then Ayatollah Khomeini came along and within weeks the nation had almost gone back to the seventh century, and would have done so if not for the Western innovation and discoveries which had spread from Europe in the last 300 odd years of modern democratic civilisation.
Click to expand...

Ehe... what. The Shah was a kleptocratic dictator using the country as his party account. It was a police state and any dissent was brutally crushed. Worth noting is that Iran was a free democratic government before the Shah. The reason the CIA put the Shah in power in Iran was because the Iranian people voted for a socialist candidate. Guess how religious he was? Mossadegh was nominally Muslim. But extremely secular. Way more secular than the later Shah. The Shah was a Western puppet ruler who happily sold out his nation to the West as long as they kept him in power.

The revolution against the Shah was led by two groups, the religious clerics, and the urban liberals. Guess how religious the urban liberals were? Extremely secular. They still hated the Shah. No, they didn't hate him for all the freedom there were (not) getting. The urban liberals were completely outmaneuvered and fucked in the ass by the extremely shrewed Ayatollah Khomeini. Nobody saw it coming what a fucking psychopath he was.

You have an extremely warped idea of history
Click to expand...

Just like Saddam Hussein hey? A brutal dictator who was trying to get nuclear weapons, and used poison gas on the Kurds as well in warfare.
Click to expand...

Saddam is a hard contender to beat in this competition. Saddam is right up their with Hitler, Idi Amin, Papa Doc, Bokassa and Pol Pot. Saying that he was a better dictator than Saddam isn't saying much. But everybody in the know seems to agree that the Islamic Republic is a much nicer regime than the Shah's. The Shah had a lot more people imprissoned and tortured than the Islamic Republic has. While the Islamic Republic is an awful regime, it's still an improvement on what they had before. The Shah's Iran was like having a maffia organisation in charge.
 
Loren Pechtel said:
Yeah, the Islamists are very good at pretending to make things better until they get into power.
Click to expand...

I'm not saying Islamism is all rosy. But Islamism couldn't possibly be getting worse press in the West. In the west I think it's hard to get an accurate picture of what is going on in Islamistic countries without going there.

I think the problem with religious political leaders is that religion isn't a rational excercise. Religion is primarily about managing feelings. But you can't run a country by being touchy feely. You have to be tough as well. So it'll always be roulette whenever any of these get elected. And as long as they keep repeating the symbols and slogans they seem to get a free pass by the religious majority. So they have zero incentive to do a good job.
 
DrZoidberg said:
angelo said:
Just like Saddam Hussein hey? A brutal dictator who was trying to get nuclear weapons, and used poison gas on the Kurds as well in warfare.
Click to expand...

Saddam is a hard contender to beat in this competition. Saddam is right up their with Hitler, Idi Amin, Papa Doc, Bokassa and Pol Pot. Saying that he was a better dictator than Saddam isn't saying much. But everybody in the know seems to agree that the Islamic Republic is a much nicer regime than the Shah's. The Shah had a lot more people imprissoned and tortured than the Islamic Republic has. While the Islamic Republic is an awful regime, it's still an improvement on what they had before. The Shah's Iran was like having a maffia organisation in charge.
Click to expand...

And Saddam was a much more serious opponent of the Islamic Republic of Iran than angelo (or indeed almost everyone in history) is.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Iran–Iraq_War
 
No doubt deposing Saddam was a monumental blunder by the " coalition of the willing" according to some. Especially after the fact no weapons of mass destruction were found. All he wanted was to be left alone to plunder the nation and murder his opponents. Just as Erdogan is doing now [or in the near future] in Turkey.

But blaming this event for the jihad attacks world wide is way off the mark. There is one reason and one reason only for this and that's Islamic supremacist as taught to them in the quran.
 
Some EU members push back against Merkel's open border madness;

Angela Merkel is facing increased pressure from Europe's heads of state and looks likely be ousted if today's talks on the migrant crisis fail. The German Chancellor warned that torrent of migrants arriving on Europe's shores could 'make or break the EU' as European leaders sat down to discuss strategy on Thursday afternoon. Merkel has been faced with open rebellion in the past two weeks, both from her own coalition partners and from other EU leaders.
Click to expand...

DailyMail

Certainly Italy and Hungary are getting pissed off with the situation.
 
If a story appears in the Daily Mail, then it is highly likely to be a severe distortion of reality.

If it appears ONLY in the Daily Mail, then it is almost certainly pure bullshit.

The Daily Mail is the opposite of a source - particularly in the context of immigration. The more someone uses the Daily Mail as a source, the less likely it is that they are making a sound argument.

My advice would be: Find a different source, or don't bother posting.

You just make yourself look like a gullible moron if you quote the Daily Mail as though it were a useful contribution to the discussion.
 
Aw, c'mon, Bilby. In the US, everyone knows the National Enquirer is a bastion of quality journalism. Why can't the Daily Fail be the same?
 
bilby said:
If a story appears in the Daily Mail, then it is highly likely to be a severe distortion of reality.

If it appears ONLY in the Daily Mail, then it is almost certainly pure bullshit.

The Daily Mail is the opposite of a source - particularly in the context of immigration. The more someone uses the Daily Mail as a source, the less likely it is that they are making a sound argument.

My advice would be: Find a different source, or don't bother posting.

You just make yourself look like a gullible moron if you quote the Daily Mail as though it were a useful contribution to the discussion.
Click to expand...

Agreed, we don't need the Daily Mail.
 
bilby said:
If a story appears in the Daily Mail, then it is highly likely to be a severe distortion of reality.

If it appears ONLY in the Daily Mail, then it is almost certainly pure bullshit.

The Daily Mail is the opposite of a source - particularly in the context of immigration. The more someone uses the Daily Mail as a source, the less likely it is that they are making a sound argument.

My advice would be: Find a different source, or don't bother posting.

You just make yourself look like a gullible moron if you quote the Daily Mail as though it were a useful contribution to the discussion.
Click to expand...

But it does clarify things. The Daily Mail seems to be TSwizzle's main source of information If somebody bases their opinions on things read in the Daily Mail they might think TSwizzle's opinion's are reasonable.

Which is a worry in the modern world. Quality news sources are increasingly putting up pay-walls. Any obstacle on the Internet sorts out most people. That shifts public opinion to non-pay wall news sources. Just riffing on stuff read from news agencies is cheaper than investigative reporting. Running a newspaper is about making money. There's a clear conflict of interest here.
 
DrZoidberg said:
angelo said:
It isn't just the Daily Mail reporting the crisis that Fraulein Merkel is solely responsible for. Besides, where there's smoke there's fire!
https://www.bbc.com/news/world-europe-44633606
Click to expand...

What? Assad is the one responsible for the refugee crisis
Click to expand...

Yes to a point, and you must be blind if you can't see that. Assad with the backing of the terrorist regime of Iran and Russia is responsible for a big number of Syrians fleeing their homeland.
 
angelo said:
DrZoidberg said:
angelo said:
It isn't just the Daily Mail reporting the crisis that Fraulein Merkel is solely responsible for. Besides, where there's smoke there's fire!
https://www.bbc.com/news/world-europe-44633606
Click to expand...

What? Assad is the one responsible for the refugee crisis
Click to expand...

Yes to a point, and you must be blind if you can't see that. Assad with the backing of the terrorist regime of Iran and Russia is responsible for a big number of Syrians fleeing their homeland.
Click to expand...

But you said it was Merkel's fault?
 
A little progress as Merkel steps back slightly under pressure;

Angela Merkel has saved her political skin with an EU deal that enables Germany to send migrants back to Spain and Greece - three years after she forced Europe to open its doors to refugees. The German Chancellor had been given an ultimatum from her hardline coalition partners to find a Europe-wide solution to the migrant crisis - or risk seeing her government fall apart. But the 63-year-old emerged this morning after nine hours of 'toxic' negotiations to reveal a 'joint text' which included moves to stop migrants registered in Italy and other EU countries from moving on to Germany. She said that Greece and Spain had now agreed to take back in future migrants previously registered in those countries who are picked up at the German-Austrian border. This arrangement does not include Italy, it has emerged. Exhausted leaders also thrashed out pledges to strengthen external borders and create 'controlled centres' inside the EU on a voluntary basis. Refugees in these centres would be relocated within the bloc if eligible for asylum or returned to their country in the event of a failed application.
Click to expand...

DailyMail

I wonder how quickly the failed asylum seekers will be returned.

Hours later reports emerged that up to 100 Europe-bound migrants were feared to have drowned off the Libyan coast - underlining the critical need to agree a deal.
Click to expand...

I doubt this deal will discourage migrants using smugglers to get to Europe. It won't and more people will die.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top Bottom