Iranian elections give Ahmadinejad massive majority; Tehran goes to shit.

Chris91 wrote:

Anathema, people have been trying for twenty years to change things in Iran by nonviolent means and it just hasn't worked.

Here's an idea: let the Iranians handle Iran. The shit's hitting the fan and people are enraged; it's only a matter of time before they take up arms and start changing things. Themselves.
America and the West aren't the world's babysitters, and it's ridiculous for us to be swooping in on every world conflict to ~*save the day*~ before the people we're 'saving' have even asked for our help.

Lysander wrote:

Yes, I recall studying the exploits of General Gandhi and MLK's Whitey Death Squads in high school.

Dude, I totally would've joined an MLK Whitey Death Squad just to say I did.

Yay! Now we have a real wank thread going on along with the fake one on the Couch. Amusingly, they're running along the same lines.

Fitchsticks wrote:

The thing is though, I'm not sure many of the people are protesting against the Islamic Republic itself, just one side of it. Let us not forget that Mousavi is also a part of the system, his campaign wasn't built on a platform of total overhaul. If the protestors do manage to bring down Ahmadinejad by causing chaos I'm not sure how much else would change.

Of course they aren't protesting against the Islamic Republic. It wouldn't make much sense to protest the entirety of their own culture. However:

1. Mousavi, for all he is a part of the same system, did want to overhaul some things.
2. It seems that if the election had been counted fairly, he would have won.

Maybe he won't be much better. Maybe he'll be exactly the same. But the Iranian people seem to be willing to go to the mat for a proper democracy, and I can not help but admire that.

Fitchsticks wrote:

In either case neither England or America has any real or legal reason to just rock up and start shooting stuff. They haven't done anything to us yet, and for now this election thing is still very much a domestic crisis for Iran

On this point, I can't agree more. While the governments of both nations have every reason to make statements one way or the other, there's no justification at this point for any military action.

Lysander wrote:

Chris91 wrote:

The real idiots are those who think tyrants respond to anything other than force.

Yes, I recall studying the exploits of General Gandhi and MLK's Whitey Death Squads in high school.

While I hate to agree with Chris on any point right now, there is a tiny kernel of truth amongst the insanity.

With the notable exception of the American Civil Rights movement, by and large, nonviolent protests do not work in terms of actually changing political power structures. Gandhi, for example, while he has inspired many people, led movements that roundedly failed in achieving their political goals. He was never able to really get Muslim and Hindu factions to work together on political issues and was assassinated just after seeing India split into India and Pakistan. Nelson Mandela initially favored nonviolent political resistance, but saw so little progress that he was eventually forced to either take up arms or give up trying. And while none of this constitutes sufficient reason for the US to start bombing Iran (seriously, Chris, what are you on?), non-violent protests against totalitarian governments tend to get laughed at and then shot at.

KelinciHutan wrote:

Gandhi, for example, while he has inspired many people, led movements that roundedly failed in achieving their political goals. He was never able to really get Muslim and Hindu factions to work together on political issues and was assassinated just after seeing India split into India and Pakistan.

That's kind of to be expected with Gandhi, though. Considering his views on Indian Muslims and his staunch disapproval of the creation of Pakistan, it's no small wonder why Indian Muslims didn't want to work with him.

What I'm on, to answer KelinciHutan's question, is nuclear-hot and ever-growing rage that a piece of shit like Mahmoud Ahmadinejad is allowed to hold a position of high responsibilty and draw oxygen while better people than him are pushing up daisies or rotting in jail cells. And to repeat what I said earlier, it doesn't necessarily have to be us who drops the bombs; in fact, it would actually be even sweeter if it were Ahmadinejad's own constituents who blew him away.

KelinciHutan wrote:

With the notable exception of the American Civil Rights movement, by and large, nonviolent protests do not work in terms of actually changing political power structures.

Compare Czechoslovakia in 1989 to Iran in 2009.

The Czechs weren't trying to wipe Israel off the map, surreptitiously acquire nuclear warheads, or bankroll terrorist syndicates on Israel's doorstep.

Wow, that has fuck all to do with anything. Thanks for hatemongering against Iranians, though.

Excuse me?

How does expressing genuine and well-founded anger against Ahmadinutjob and the theocratic tyranny he presides over constitute "hatemongering"?

Chris91 wrote:

How does expressing genuine and well-founded anger against Ahmadinutjob and the theocratic tyranny he presides over constitute "hatemongering"?

I didn't realize his name was "the Iranians," as you oh-so-quasi-racist-ly implied.

But no, big scary talk is not a reason to start bombing people, or half the world would have nuked us flat under Bush II.

Mae Bedlam wrote:

grmblfjx wrote:

CHRIS YOU MOUTHBREATHER

AND RAPIST

Burn in hell, Mae.

You too, Lysander.

Chris91 wrote:

What I'm on, to answer KelinciHutan's question, is nuclear-hot and ever-growing rage that a piece of shit like Mahmoud Ahmadinejad is allowed to hold a position of high responsibilty and draw oxygen while better people than him are pushing up daisies or rotting in jail cells. And to repeat what I said earlier, it doesn't necessarily have to be us who drops the bombs; in fact, it would actually be even sweeter if it were Ahmadinejad's own constituents who blew him away.

Ok, this is me honestly trying to understand you for a moment. Would 'violent, people-led revolution' work as a replacement for bombs in your battle plan against Ahmadinejad, or is full-out war the only answer?

Chris91 wrote:

Mae Bedlam wrote:

grmblfjx wrote:

CHRIS YOU MOUTHBREATHER

AND RAPIST

Burn in hell, Mae.

You too, Lysander.

OPEN UP A VEIN CHRIS

OPEN IT NOW

NOW

NOW

BEFORE IT'S TOO LATE

Lysander wrote:

But no, big scary talk is not a reason to start bombing people, or half the world would have nuked us flat under Bush II.

WE SURE WOULDA LIKED TO EXCEPT YOU HAVE ALL THE NUKES

grmblfjx wrote:

Lysander wrote:

But no, big scary talk is not a reason to start bombing people, or half the world would have nuked us flat under Bush II.

WE SURE WOULDA LIKED TO EXCEPT YOU HAVE ALL THE NUKES

THAT'S WHY WE HAVE ALL THE NUKES!

Bamshalam wrote:

Chris91 wrote:

What I'm on, to answer KelinciHutan's question, is nuclear-hot and ever-growing rage that a piece of shit like Mahmoud Ahmadinejad is allowed to hold a position of high responsibilty and draw oxygen while better people than him are pushing up daisies or rotting in jail cells. And to repeat what I said earlier, it doesn't necessarily have to be us who drops the bombs; in fact, it would actually be even sweeter if it were Ahmadinejad's own constituents who blew him away.

Ok, this is me honestly trying to understand you for a moment. Would 'violent, people-led revolution' work as a replacement for bombs in your battle plan against Ahmadinejad?

It very well might.

Cyberwulf wrote:

Chris91 wrote:

Mae Bedlam wrote:

grmblfjx wrote:

CHRIS YOU MOUTHBREATHER

AND RAPIST

Burn in hell, Mae.

You too, Lysander.

OPEN UP A VEIN CHRIS

OPEN IT NOW

NOW

NOW

BEFORE IT'S TOO LATE

You first, Cyberwhore.

So now we're throwing around sexist names eh

Chris91 wrote:

Bamshalam wrote:

Chris91 wrote:

What I'm on, to answer KelinciHutan's question, is nuclear-hot and ever-growing rage that a piece of shit like Mahmoud Ahmadinejad is allowed to hold a position of high responsibilty and draw oxygen while better people than him are pushing up daisies or rotting in jail cells. And to repeat what I said earlier, it doesn't necessarily have to be us who drops the bombs; in fact, it would actually be even sweeter if it were Ahmadinejad's own constituents who blew him away.

Ok, this is me honestly trying to understand you for a moment. Would 'violent, people-led revolution' work as a replacement for bombs in your battle plan against Ahmadinejad?

It very well might.

YOU GUYS WAIT HE'S NOT ACTUALLY DISAGREEING WITH ANYONE.

Oh god please stop fighting you're tearing this family apart

InkWeaver wrote:

So now we're throwing around sexist names eh

Cyberwulf started it when she told me to "open a vein".

Cyberwulf. Started it.

PFFFFFFFFFFFF HAHAHAHAHA

Well, she did. And before that Mae Bedlam was borrowing a page from Argus' old playbook and calling me a rapist. And on top of that, I have Lysander falsely accusing me of racism. You can hardly expect me to just let it slide.

Hi, I figured I may as well throw my opinion in. Iranian people, essentially a new generation of people who really haven't tried anything like this EVER, are the bulk of this movement. They have grown up seeing the world in a different way, thanks to politics, internet, television, and outside contact with others. Their parents, to some extent were the hippy movement that went terribly wrong, and they seem pretty set on not messing up like their parents.

The main difference, though, is that they have contact with the world through means that their parents didn't have, which gives them an upper hand. They all know it's bullshit, and they're calling it out. The fact is that they're done with oppression, and they want something new, and they don't care if it's their lives on the line as long as they do it.

I've been watching this unfold for the past five days or so, and I've never seen such an uprising--they will not go quietly simply because they're being threatened. This has not been about the election for days; this stopped being about the election the minute that they invaded that college and killed students sleeping in their beds. This is about their country being free, and them wanting it to be free. By this point, they have essentially rallied being Mousavi because he is there, and it's a way of means. But it isn't about Mousavi as the candidate anymore, if it was at all.

It's going to get violent. They know this, and I think they've accepted that it will end in there being a bloody birth of a country that they see as their own. There isn't a way to topple a government and not get your hands dirty. Peaceful protests are leading up to something--it's breaking the government itself in half.

When you have something divided like it is right now, it's easier to completely tear it down. By using these peaceful protests, they've set the stage for full-out rebellion.

I think they're quite smart in setting it; it's the perfect trap. How is it a trap? Well, we've already seen that the heads are split. Majorly important people are stating that one side is right, while the other says the other is right. This is causing tension in the essential heiarchy of their government.

The protesters continue to protest peacefully, they gain more power because others see that they are not trying to wage war with them or God. This makes them more malleable, which means that Ahmadinejad is losing favor, because he is using violence against them. They see that violence is wrong, and they protest that their people are in pain, which makes the very foundation quake.

If the protesters had gone out from the beginning and rioted, they would have been seen as hooligans, and they wouldn't have gained the notice of officials as anything but a bug needing to be squished. By giving a face to the movement, a calm and pained group of scared individuals who are so passionate, they gave themselves, essentially, a pass. When things get violent, which will happen, those officials will not turn on them, because once you're on one side in a civil war, it's difficult to turn back.

Granted, this is just my opinion on the matter. I'm sorry for taking up so much space, but I'm quite passionate about politics.

-Sai (edit beccause it ate my fucking spaces.)

No, but throwing around sexist slurs isn't the best way to go about "not letting it slide," Chris. Also Argus was the one who called you a rapist way back when? Did anyone ever tell you Argus was a troll just trying to get a rise out of you?

Like right now for instance.

Chris91 wrote:

Well, she did. And before that Mae Bedlam was borrowing a page from Argus' old playbook and calling me a rapist. And on top of that, I have Lysander falsely accusing me of racism. You can hardly expect me to just let it slide.

I called you a mouthbreather first and you just forget me

Well, the "mouthbreather" thing kind of pales in comparison to being falsely accused of racism.