Please turn on javascript in your browser to play chess.
Debates Forum

Debates Forum

  1. 16 Feb '11 02:55
    Yesterday, protests broke out in Iran as rioters were inspired by the success of protesters in Egypt getting change in their regime. Predictably, the protesters were crushed within seconds with killings and imprisonments that followed. As to how many? Who is to say? I mean, its not like the "press" is free to roam around like they had been allowed in Egypt originally. All I can say is, "What were they thinking?"

    Were they thinking:
    1. Since the Iranian president Mahmoud Ahmadinojad praised the riots in Egypt, he had now come to recognize the virtue of democracy?
    2. Since President Obama praised and supported the Egyptian overthrow he would now jump on his white horse to help them as well?
    3. They were not thinking. Two words, Bong overdose.

    I have to admit, in terms of dictators you have to love Ahmadinejad. After he crushed the protests in Iran he had the audacity to say that the protests were inspired by western spies, followed by frothing at the mouth and siezure-like activity. He then also indicated that this would mean bad news for the Zionist state.

    http://www.gaurdian.co.uk/world/2011/feb/14/iran-protests/reinvigorated-activists

    http://latimeblogs.latimes.com/babylon-beyond/2011/02/iran-egypt-uprising-mahmoud-ahmadinejad.html
  2. Subscriber no1marauder
    Humble and Kind
    16 Feb '11 03:01
    Originally posted by whodey
    Yesterday, protests broke out in Iran as rioters were inspired by the success of protesters in Egypt getting change in their regime. Predictably, the protesters were crushed within seconds with killings and imprisonments that followed. As to how many? Who is to say? I mean, its not like the "press" is free to roam around like they had been allowed in Egyp ...[text shortened]... /latimeblogs.latimes.com/babylon-beyond/2011/02/iran-egypt-uprising-mahmoud-ahmadinejad.html
    Your hypocrisy really knows no bounds. The response of the Iranian government to protests was exactly the same as that of the Egyptian government. You weren't especially concerned with the initial violent repression in Egypt; you were far more concerned with whether the Egyptian people might in free elections choose a conservative Islamic government. Nor have you uttered a peep about protests and their repression in other Middle Eastern countries.
  3. 16 Feb '11 07:59 / 1 edit
    Originally posted by no1marauder
    Your hypocrisy really knows no bounds. The response of the Iranian government to protests was exactly the same as that of the Egyptian government. You weren't especially concerned with the initial violent repression in Egypt; you were far more concerned with whether the Egyptian people might in free elections choose a conservative Islamic government. Nor have you uttered a peep about protests and their repression in other Middle Eastern countries.
    The response to the Egyptian government was the same as the Iranian government? As I recall, the Egyptian movement had 24/7 coverage until Mubarak finally decided to try and supress it. It was like watching a reality TV program with every TV pundit saying how wonderful it all was. Conversely, the Iranian coverage was NOTHING like that. All you had were a few poorly filmed glimpses of what had happened with no real reporting on the ground. Then the general consensus seemed to be, "We could have told you as much!!"

    The sad fact of the matter is, people are mere pawns in such revolts. The easy part really is to topple are regime, unless you live in Iran. Then what? You are then left with a power vacuum for which the next strogest and organized power in the region will assume the role. If this power is a theocracy, like we see in Iran, we can expect the same kind of regime as we see in Iran. That is why the President in Iran is peeing his pants in anticipation of what might happen there. Of course, if you disagree, then by all means provide us with a historical example of a theocracy that was not oppressive and dictatorial towards those it governs.
  4. Subscriber FMF
    Main Poster
    16 Feb '11 08:33
    Originally posted by whodey
    Of course, if you disagree, then by all means provide us with a historical example of a theocracy that was not oppressive and dictatorial towards those it governs.
    Tell you what, whodey, if you disagree with me, why don't you tell us when you stopped beating your wife?
  5. 16 Feb '11 13:40
    Originally posted by FMF
    Tell you what, whodey, if you disagree with me, why don't you tell us when you stopped beating your wife?
    It's a fair question. What historical theocracies have produced democracy's of any kind, Christiandom included.
  6. 16 Feb '11 15:32
    Originally posted by whodey
    It's a fair question. What historical theocracies have produced democracy's of any kind, Christiandom included.
    What do you mean, "produced"?

    Most of the former Papal states are now in Italy.
  7. 16 Feb '11 16:04 / 2 edits
    Originally posted by whodey
    It's a fair question. What historical theocracies have produced democracy's of any kind, Christiandom included.
    Oliver Cromwell's Commonwealth regime, established after the execution of Charles I in 1649, was profoundly influenced by the devout Protestantism of its rulers, and the Rump Parliament introduced laws directly inspired by their puritanical brand of Christianity, eg, closing theatres, requiring strict observance of the Sabbath, and imposing a death penalty for adultery. The so-called Parliament of Saints, which replaced the Rump in 1653, was directly inspired by the Jewish Sanhedrin, and nominations for its membership were provided by some English churches.

    The Commonwealth, which came into being by deposing and executing a king, was a key challenge to the hitherto dominant notion of the divine right of kings, and even though the restored monarchy that immediately replaced it in 1660, after Cromwell's death, was far from democratic, Cromwell's victory initiated the chain of events which led, in 1688-9, to the Glorious Revolution. The 1689 parliament declared that the throne, which had been abandoned by the absolutist James II, was now vacant, and invited a Dutchman, William of Orange, to become King in his place, an action that firmly established parliamentary supremacy. The rights of the subject against the sovereign were likewise firmly established by the 1689 Bill of Rights, which restricted the royal prerogative.

    It was a tortuous route, but Cromwell's theocracy was certainly a vital step towards the establishment of democracy and parliamentary supremacy in England.
  8. 16 Feb '11 19:34
    Originally posted by KazetNagorra
    What do you mean, "produced"?

    Most of the former Papal states are now in Italy.
    Basically, is democracy compatible with a theocracy?
  9. 16 Feb '11 19:36
    Originally posted by whodey
    Basically, is democracy compatible with a theocracy?
    Is water compatible with fire?
  10. Subscriber AThousandYoung
    West Coast Represent
    16 Feb '11 20:17
    Originally posted by KazetNagorra
    Is water compatible with fire?
    Sure. You can throw sodium into water and it will burn. Or, burn oil. Water won't put it out easily. Then there's superheated steam...
  11. 16 Feb '11 21:27
    Originally posted by whodey
    Basically, is democracy compatible with a theocracy?
    Of course it is, assuming a vast majority of voters elected a religious government and are content with the government's conduct. Last time I checked there have never been mass protests in the vatican calling for the disestablishment of the papacy and the introduction of a new democratic system in the city-state.
  12. 16 Feb '11 21:47
    Originally posted by whodey
    The response to the Egyptian government was the same as the Iranian government? As I recall, the Egyptian movement had 24/7 coverage until Mubarak finally decided to try and supress it. It was like watching a reality TV program with every TV pundit saying how wonderful it all was. Conversely, the Iranian coverage was NOTHING like that. All you had were a ...[text shortened]... rical example of a theocracy that was not oppressive and dictatorial towards those it governs.
    The degree to which Mubarak appealed to the use of force to silence the protests was not comparable to that of Ahmadinejad, but ultimately the only real difference between governmental responses in both countries was that one failed while the other succeeded, something which was not surprising given the iranian protesters were comparatively few.

    Very insighful analysis you have here, obviously coming from years of observation of middle-eastern politics certainly. Has it ever occurred to you that perhaps the revolution in egypt was truly an example of grassroots rebellion instead of some sort of conspiracy planned and executed by obscure and malign forces lurking behind the curtains? What is particularly interesting about your posts on the subject of the recent uprisings is that you imply they share the same desire, which is the establishment of a theocracy, something which simply doesn't make sense; surely the iranian protesters must not be supporting some equivalent of the muslim brotherhood?
  13. Subscriber no1marauder
    Humble and Kind
    16 Feb '11 22:07
    Originally posted by whodey
    It's a fair question. What historical theocracies have produced democracy's of any kind, Christiandom included.
    The Massachusetts Bay Colony. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Massachusetts_Bay_Colony
  14. Subscriber no1marauder
    Humble and Kind
    16 Feb '11 22:28
    Originally posted by generalissimo
    The degree to which Mubarak appealed to the use of force to silence the protests was not comparable to that of Ahmadinejad, but ultimately the only real difference between governmental responses in both countries was that one failed while the other succeeded, something which was not surprising given the iranian protesters were comparatively few.

    Ver ...[text shortened]... surely the iranian protesters must not be supporting some equivalent of the muslim brotherhood?
    The early days of the protests in Egypt were marked by an extreme security response and hundreds were killed. As it increasingly became clear that popular sentiment was overwhelmingly against Mubarak staying in power, the security forces became reluctant to back such an obviously losing horse. So attempts at repression became less and less successful.

    We'll have to see how the situation develops in Iran; no regime, no matter how tyrannical, can rule by repression alone.
  15. 16 Feb '11 22:49
    When the middle eastern people go nuts in protest against their governments it'll always be the US at fault according to the let's-blame-America-for-everything crowd on this site.

    Waiting for The Usual Suspects to jump in.