- #101
Spring Board
Which means that you won't be answering them?They will come forth, once questioning your numerous premises, set forth as evident truths, has come to an end.
Which means that you won't be answering them?They will come forth, once questioning your numerous premises, set forth as evident truths, has come to an end.
Those are to be deferred until we have achieved a common basis of premises.Is it? And what about my questions?
Please show where in a mainstream source, that Iran was a democracy? Don't just post links and say 'go find it'. You need to show it. It's not Arildno that needs to answers questions, it is you.But Iran WAS a democracy. This is not a mere opinion. Did you not read the links I sent you?
Not at all.Those are to be deferred until we have achieved a common basis of premises.
.....
We have a loong way to go yet.
Not so fast!The common ground is in the debate whether or not "the Third World/the Moslem World" (Al Qeida for one) have any legitimate grievances with the the west (the U.S. in particular). That has already been established by the case with Iran/U.S. The fact has been recognised.
There is debate about the relationship between Mossadegh and Tudeh. Also, I don't see that the Tudeh's alliances 2 decades later are relevant.For one thing, Spring Board:
It is well known fact that Mossadegh was relying heavily upon the Tudeh (Communist) Party of Persia.
Were they democrats?
For example, who did the Tudeh party join forces with around, say, 1979?
DEMOCRACY is not a government. It is either present (in part or in "whole") in any politcal philosphy - or it isn't. Assuming that Communist philosophy is the absence of democracy is nonsensical.For one thing, Spring Board:
It is well known fact that Mossadegh was relying heavily upon the Tudeh (Communist) Party of Persia.
Were they democrats?
You're joking again, I see.Why should the toppling of the Mossadegh regime consitute a legitimate grievance?
Not so fast!
Why should the toppling of the Mossadegh regime consitute a legitimate grievance?
Hmm..no.You're joking again, I see.
Were Roman senators democrats?DEMOCRACY is not a government. It is either present (in part or in "whole") in any politcal philosphy - or it isn't. Assuming that Communist philosophy is the absence of democracy is nonsensical.
The Poles attacked the Germans "head on" and perished without achieving anything.
You bet I'll want to..Much of the third world has been given a rough shake by the U.S. Let's not go into all the examples - unless you want to.
The only way to strike back is in the way you describe. Al Queda have taken the "devil may care" attitude of the Poles
5.If the west would listen to the complaints made by the third world,
6.As it is, western governments fill our ears with fabricated horror stories of uncivilized "terrorists" bent on overthrowing the world and converting us to Islam at the point of a sword
7.in the very way that Christianity conducted itself during The Crusades.
8.It is, in fact, these same governments that are manipulating the Third World and its' people,
yet blaming dissatisifaction on "terrorism" as a sort of Red Herring.
This is the one we're partially dealing with.The overthrow of other goverments (even democratic ones) by the U.S.
11.- the setting up of puppet corrpt leaders who bend to U.S. wishes against the population of that country -
12.invading other countries on false pretentions by the U.S.
13.and occupying that country in order to reap the natural resources
while the people of that country remain destitute.
15.who then put the Shah in power allowing the U.S. and the UK to rape the oil fields and so letting the Iranian population suffer terribly becasue of it
16.Al Queda sees itself as the protector of the Isamic world
]in the same way that the U.S. sees itself as the protector of the western world
Hmm..not at all. Just necessary to get substantiated, which is something completely different.Gosh. Such a long list of things you do not accept to be true.
You gather wrongly.I can only gather that you are convinced then that the Third World has no legitimate grievance at all with the U.S.
Indeed it is.The word “legitimate” being the key word here.
Serial killers are quite methodical in their activities, and highly motivated. That doesn't make whatever "grievances" they feel into any legitimate ones, not to speak of legitimizing ones.It sounds completely nonsensical to me to think that the impressive and well-executed attack on 9/11 (for example) was born of an unmotivated whim
What I said was that 'terrorism' cannot be a 'real, serious, legally relevant term' if it is only applied to enemies- If laws are selectively applied, then they are illegitimate (in a democracy, anyway).Assume for a moment I agree with the premise in your second sentence. Connect it logically to the claim in the first. I don't agree that there is a connection.
I'll give a straightforward counterexample: police brutality. Police occasionally violate the law while at the same time they are charged with enforcing it. The fact that police brutality happens does not mean assault is not a crime treated seriously by the law.