So are you ok with the idea of being involved in the mass murders associated with the acquisition of those goods? Tax revenue gained from citizens pays for it. Are we any better than the German citizens when the Jewish community was scapegoated for political purposes?
Fuck dude. Troll harder? You sure do like to jump to the most insane viewpoint off the bat.So genocide is cool?
History indicates that once a sufficient standard of living and level of education has been achieved society will gradually become a lot more secular. It can take a while to happen however.Moreover, all I have to suppose is that zealotry typically doesn't survive the forces of modernization without some kind of scaffolding.
Right but I think here also these people are going to have to have public institutions that are their own (which means for a while we're going to have tolerate theocratic governments that despise us).History indicates that once a sufficient standard of living and level of education has been achieved society will gradually become a lot more secular. It can take a while to happen however.
This.Maybe some of us are realists. We understand why they hate us, but we're in absolutely no position to change a god damn thing.
It depends on what you mean by "we." If you mean average citizens, that's true but that's because we have fucked up political systems of our own.This.
You have no power because you'd rather turn a blind eye to the true source of a problem, rather than give up any of your own comfort to address an issue with a broken political system.Fuck dude. Troll harder? You sure do like to jump to the most insane viewpoint off the bat.
Maybe some of us are realists. We understand why they hate us, but we're in absolutely no position to change a god damn thing. Keep posting retarded shit though.
It is possible to hold these views all at the same time:It depends on what you mean by "we." If you mean average citizens, that's true but that's because we have fucked up political systems of our own.
Bro.... Have you even studied the history? Woman played massive roles in tons of political reforms in Iran before the 1950s. The Tobacco Boycott, the Constitutional Revolution. Mosaddegh was the first to order the unveiling of women in Iran and afforded more freedoms to woman as the eras progressed. Come on man, I know you can read. Do it.What the fuck man! 1950's Iran was THE most westernized country in the Middle East. The stoning of women fell to the wayside in favor of a more progressive mindset. Enter la revolucion and they went right back to it. Have a care what you accuse others of sounding like, oh confuser of facts.
Left to their own devices and absent any outside influence, Muslims are far more likely to kill themselves than any other group of people on the planet.
Much like America freeing it's slaves. It didn't actually achieve shit except look pretty on paper. Had Dr. Mosaddegh's advancements not been so violently put down and put the nation at such a MASSIVE disconnect from the West, the Iran of today may be completely and vastly different than the one we've allowed to fester.In 1963, Shah Mohammad Reza Pahlavi (1919?1980) granted women the full right to vote in all elections. (This move was opposed by Ayatollah Ruhollah Khomeini, although after the 1979 Revolution he supported the franchise for women, even though right-wing clerics were against it). The Shah and his prime minister, Amir Abbas Hoveyda (1920?1979), introduced the country's first family protection law in 1967, which restricted men's former absolute rights in divorcing their wives. A second family protection law, introduced in 1975, granted women equal rights for divorce, custody of children, marriage settlements, and limited rights of guardianship. The legal age of marriage for girls was set at 18, and considerable restrictions on polygamy were also imposed. Women were also allowed to be judges, deputies to the Majles, and even members of the Cabinet.
These represented considerable advancements for Iranian women. So why was it that many highly educated women took up arms against the Shah's government? The answer is simple. Many intellectual women considered their political advances as bogus. The Shah's absolute dictatorial rule had made it impossible for intellectuals, political dissidents, and opposition groups to be openly active. There was no free press, no democratic elections, no true opposition, and heavy-handed censorship of all media and publications. So, the fact that there were, for example, 22 female Majles deputies and two female senators in 1978 -- all of them Shah loyalists -- impressed few women. Aside from the tightly controlled, officially sanctioned outlets, women had no forum in which to express their concerns, let alone engage freely in political activity.
Reparations would probably help.there's nothing we can do to make the crazy go away, so fuck em.
There's a differences between understanding why something happens and claiming it's justified. I said they (meaning the people of the Middle East, even if they happen to be atheists) are justified in wanting us wiped off the face of the map. That's not the same thing as saying that acts of terrorism are justified (since, of course, the victims are basically never the people really responsible). Given that AND the crazy the power imbalance when it comes to military might, the acts of terrorism, however unjustified,areunderstandable. I can't say that I wouldn't do the same in their shoes, even if I ALSO can't say that I would be right to do so. What's their alternative? Just lay down and take it? Sorry but that isn't going to happen and suggesting that it ought to is just closing your eyes to human nature.So the US made some questionable foreign policy decisions and thus for the rest of eternity thousands of acts of terrorism all over the world are justified and beyond criticism without the addendum that America is just as bad or worse than all of the Jihadis.
We're the assholes still beating her ass. I'm not justifying the actions, but to look at the effect and be bewildered and confused and claim they are insane is a little more than asinine.Fine, but Islam is the cunt that uses teeth.
Right....Reparations would probably help.
Well I mean when you look at the reality of the history of countries like say, Iran, most of the organizations that represent the people with the most reason to hate us have also been desperately trying to use diplomatic back channels to normalize relations with us for like fucking decades. This idea that they're all just bloodthirsty monsters is kind of ridiculous.Right....
How are you gonna logistically pull that off so that the common man get's his share? Give it to the Muslim Brotherhood so they can pass it out to the citizens of Egypt? Sure. How about Hamas, I'm sure if we give them a few billion it will all go to starving children and not into buying Iranian military hardware.
At some point you just have to come to the conclusion that there is a line in the sand and if you are on the wrong side of that line then you will still get head your fucking head chopped off, no matter how many times you say 'I'm sorry'.
But they sent unarmed officers to a murder with the armed suspects still on the scene. Their murder rate may be lower, but it's not zero. If these guys wanted to keep fighting the first officers on the scene would have had to engage in hand to hand combat, flee outright, or be butchered themselves. That's some real forward thinking shit there...sending your law enforcement officers into something resembling a fair fight. But I guess we got lucky this time. The guy decided to mouth off to a camera phone instead of attacking more people.Because for the most part, it's not necessary. If the UK didn't have a murder rate a quarter of what it is in the US, you might have a modicum of a point. I think if anything it's admirable that many of their police don't need to be armed to the teeth. Even in this particular case, armed police or citizens would have done nothing to change the end result: dude was going to be dead no matter what.