Stop the Ignorance!

[I spent the winter writing songs about getting better]

Please note this:

From last time around:

Rasmussen

Immunity: Zapatero

Democratically elected PM of Denmark. Leaders of Tanzania, Lesotho, Zambia, Burundi, Niger, Mali and Senegal among those still on the list.

Now Mali is on his list here. As I pointed out in the thread, none of the other countries were dictatorships either.

And did he really call Siniora, a decidedly pro-Western leader, a radical Islamist?

[Lunar]

Susilo Bambang Yudhoyono isn't that bad.  The biggest anti-democratic offense he commits is the continuance of rally-based politics where giving out the equivalent of $2 notes and singing and dancing is more important than actual policy prescriptions.

Also, everyone he opposes electorally is from the Suharto era.  Some of the major party opponents he faces for the presidency include a general accused of war crimes in East Timor and another General who was in charge of "disappearing" political opponents of Suharto.  Even Megawati Sukarnoputri was part of the "licensed opposition" to Sukarno

[Gustaf]

Please note this:

From last time around:

Rasmussen

Immunity: Zapatero

Democratically elected PM of Denmark. Leaders of Tanzania, Lesotho, Zambia, Burundi, Niger, Mali and Senegal among those still on the list.

Now Mali is on his list here. As I pointed out in the thread, none of the other countries were dictatorships either.

And did he really call Siniora, a decidedly pro-Western leader, a radical Islamist?

Look, I will ask you one more time to get out of this thread. If you were willing to be open-minded and pursue the truth of things I'd be interested, but you're not. You're simply being a jerk. I didn't know much about Mali when I made that post, but I've read up on it since. That was the entire point of this thread, in case you missed it. The people I refer to are ones I didn't know much about previously.

Are you arguing that Denmark isn't more democratic than Tanzania? And, of course, there were other more flagrant examples in that post that you couldn't argue against so you just ignored them. That's what you always do, which is funny since you like to accuse others of it. You are in fact remarkably similar to both JJ and Benconstine, in that you time after time get owned by reality or your own inconsistency and yet never face up to it.

And someone who supports Hezbollah probably qualifies as something of an islamist, yes. You think it is ok to kill someone for being a police-man in South Africa, so, as always, you're being an idiot.

Once again: since the thread is about reducing ignorance I would prefer not to have your posts in it. If you want to start a thread on why everyone you don't like are fascists and how elected leaders should be spared unless they're not communists, etc, go do it. Leave this thread for those actually interested in forming educated opinions on the issues.

[Nhoj]

"And someone who supports Hezbollah probably qualifies as something of an islamist, yes. ."
than you would be quite wrong you do know that Hezbollah is in a alliance with Christians? i kinda doubt they are islamists.

[I spent the winter writing songs about getting better]

Please note this:

From last time around:

Rasmussen

Immunity: Zapatero

Democratically elected PM of Denmark. Leaders of Tanzania, Lesotho, Zambia, Burundi, Niger, Mali and Senegal among those still on the list.

Now Mali is on his list here. As I pointed out in the thread, none of the other countries were dictatorships either.

And did he really call Siniora, a decidedly pro-Western leader, a radical Islamist?

Look, I will ask you one more time to get out of this thread. If you were willing to be open-minded and pursue the truth of things I'd be interested, but you're not. You're simply being a jerk. I didn't know much about Mali when I made that post, but I've read up on it since. That was the entire point of this thread, in case you missed it. The people I refer to are ones I didn't know much about previously.

OK, just making that point though. If you'll notice, none of those countries are dictatorships.

Are you arguing that Denmark isn't more democratic than Tanzania? And, of course, there were other more flagrant examples in that post that you couldn't argue against so you just ignored them.

Actually no, as I said earlier, none are dictatorships. Go check, none has a Not Free Freedom House rating.

And someone who supports Hezbollah probably qualifies as something of an islamist, yes.

Hezbollah is in the parliamentary opposition bloc.

You think it is ok to kill someone for being a police-man in South Africa, so, as always, you're being an idiot.

Yes, because it's a fascist regime and the police were the repressors. Most of the police killed by the blacks were just in self-defense. Should the blacks have just lied down and accepted apartheid being imposed on them?

Once again: since the thread is about reducing ignorance I would prefer not to have your posts in it. If you want to start a thread on why everyone you don't like are fascists and how elected leaders should be spared unless they're not communists, etc, go do it. Leave this thread for those actually interested in forming educated opinions on the issues.

And I said before, I'm not the one voting off most of those people. So I'm trying to vote off the democratically-elected Harper, yes. You did it for Ortega. What's the difference?

[Gustaf]

"And someone who supports Hezbollah probably qualifies as something of an islamist, yes. ."
than you would be quite wrong you do know that Hezbollah is in a alliance with Christians? i kinda doubt they are islamists.

I think you should read up more on Hezbollah...Lebanese politics are sort of confused, but Hezbollah is a religious terrorist organization. The alliances formed in Lebanon are determined by a lot of different factors (pro-Syria, anti-Syria, Christian, Muslim, Sunni, Shia, etc).

[Gustaf]

Please note this:

From last time around:

Rasmussen

Immunity: Zapatero

Democratically elected PM of Denmark. Leaders of Tanzania, Lesotho, Zambia, Burundi, Niger, Mali and Senegal among those still on the list.

Now Mali is on his list here. As I pointed out in the thread, none of the other countries were dictatorships either.

And did he really call Siniora, a decidedly pro-Western leader, a radical Islamist?

Look, I will ask you one more time to get out of this thread. If you were willing to be open-minded and pursue the truth of things I'd be interested, but you're not. You're simply being a jerk. I didn't know much about Mali when I made that post, but I've read up on it since. That was the entire point of this thread, in case you missed it. The people I refer to are ones I didn't know much about previously.

OK, just making that point though. If you'll notice, none of those countries are dictatorships.

Are you arguing that Denmark isn't more democratic than Tanzania? And, of course, there were other more flagrant examples in that post that you couldn't argue against so you just ignored them.

Actually no, as I said earlier, none are dictatorships. Go check, none has a Not Free Freedom House rating.

And someone who supports Hezbollah probably qualifies as something of an islamist, yes.

Hezbollah is in the parliamentary opposition bloc.

You think it is ok to kill someone for being a police-man in South Africa, so, as always, you're being an idiot.

Yes, because it's a fascist regime and the police were the repressors. Most of the police killed by the blacks were just in self-defense. Should the blacks have just lied down and accepted apartheid being imposed on them?

Once again: since the thread is about reducing ignorance I would prefer not to have your posts in it. If you want to start a thread on why everyone you don't like are fascists and how elected leaders should be spared unless they're not communists, etc, go do it. Leave this thread for those actually interested in forming educated opinions on the issues.

And I said before, I'm not the one voting off most of those people. So I'm trying to vote off the democratically-elected Harper, yes. You did it for Ortega. What's the difference?

I now claim that Denmark and Canada are both more democratic than Tanzania and Nicaragua. You can state whether you agree or disagree with that.

And your police example did not involve blacks acting in self-defense. It was someone else doing it randomly with no knowledge of whether that person had done anyting specifically oppressive.

[Nhoj]

"And someone who supports Hezbollah probably qualifies as something of an islamist, yes. ."
than you would be quite wrong you do know that Hezbollah is in a alliance with Christians? i kinda doubt they are islamists.

I think you should read up more on Hezbollah...Lebanese politics are sort of confused, but Hezbollah is a religious terrorist organization. The alliances formed in Lebanon are determined by a lot of different factors (pro-Syria, anti-Syria, Christian, Muslim, Sunni, Shia, etc).

i think you completely missed my point i know what hezbollah is and sinoria is not a member and lebanese politics are screwed up, yes, but to call anyone who recognizes them as a political group as radical islamists is woefully ignorant hence my point about them being in an alliance with Christians.
i dont argree with brtd fully, but you are being as irrational as he is.

[Gustaf]

"And someone who supports Hezbollah probably qualifies as something of an islamist, yes. ."
than you would be quite wrong you do know that Hezbollah is in a alliance with Christians? i kinda doubt they are islamists.

I think you should read up more on Hezbollah...Lebanese politics are sort of confused, but Hezbollah is a religious terrorist organization. The alliances formed in Lebanon are determined by a lot of different factors (pro-Syria, anti-Syria, Christian, Muslim, Sunni, Shia, etc).

i think you completely missed my point i know what hezbollah is and sinoria is not a member and lebanese politics are screwed up, yes, but to call anyone who recognizes them as a political group as radical islamists is woefully ignorant hence my point about them being in an alliance with Christians.
i dont argree with brtd fully, but you are being as irrational as he is.

From what I understand Siniora has expressed his support for Hezbollah's terror attacks. I also did not say that it makes you a radical islamist. I said it probably makes you something of an islamist. It's a far cry from a secular, liberal democrat, wouldn't you say?

I apologize though if I misunderstood your point. It sounded as if you were assuming Hezbollah not to be islamist just because they cooperate with Christians.

And I'm insulted that you would compare me with BRTD. I don't think you've been a member here for as long as either of us. My comments on Siniora were in reference to BRTD's mind set. He thinks it is morally recommendable to kill anyone who was at any time a police officer in apartheid South Africa, regardless of circumstances. According to those standards Siniora shouldn't be much of a hero, imo.

And again, I only voted for Siniora as a protest against the votes for Sarkozy. A politician who has not applauded murder of innocent civilians.

[I spent the winter writing songs about getting better]

Once again, Hezbollah is in the opposition bloc to Siniora's government. Siniora's biggest benefactors are the same Western countries that proscribe Hezbollah as a terrorist organization.

[Nhoj]

my comparing you to brtd had more to do with your obsession with him and what you are doing calling sinora a islamist it is pretty much the same as when Brtd calls someone a fascist, in any case id like to see the evidence that he supports Hezbollah terror. i also do not claim to say that you are completely like brtd generally you are much more rational.

[Gustaf]

my comparing you to brtd had more to do with your obsession with him and what you are doing calling sinora a islamist it is pretty much the same as when Brtd calls someone a fascist, in any case id like to see the evidence that he supports Hezbollah terror. i also do not claim to say that you are completely like brtd generally you are much more rational.

My obsession with him? If you consider it an obsession when I reply to his posts in a thread I started you haven't seen real obsessions. There are plenty of them.

Anyway, from wikipedia: With regards to Hezbollah, the Siniora cabinet's official stance in the Pre-Doha Government was that "The government considers the resistance a natural and honest expression of the Lebanese people’s national rights to liberate their land and defend their honour against Israeli aggression and threats".

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Siniora

Anyway, according to the same article Hezbollah was in Siniora's government until recently. So I think that qualifies him as someone who doesn't mind working together with religious organizations.

And you are both still missing the point, because I never claimed Siniora was a horrible leader. Just that he isn't a very nice one and certainly worse than people like Harper or Sarkozy.

SUPPORTING KILLING OF INNOCENT CIVILIANS IS WORSE THAN I don't know, cutting taxes or privatizing public companies or whatever Harper did that piss people off. It's a simple point. If you disagree with that fine, but it's really not the point of this thread so I wish you wouldn't take it here in the first place.

[I spent the winter writing songs about getting better]

At one point Hezbollah had close to 70% support even among Lebanese Christians. Not good, but one has to consider the reason. Israel killed a lot more civilians than Hezbollah did (and in a largely politically motivated war by Olmert trying to save his ass and become a hero too.). That hardly makes them right, but any expression of support from the Lebanese Sunni or Christian population is hardly legitimate love of them, more like Churchill's quote "If Hitler invaded Hell I'd find something nice to say about the devil."

Anyway Sinoira was also one of the biggest advocates for dismantling the authority of Hezbollah in their de facto ruled parts of Lebanon.

[minionofmidas]

As the party of an ethnic/communal group, and not the only Muslim group in that country either, Hezbollah certainly shouldn't be able to pass as Islamist (of course, there are reasons for the misapprehension, which only partially is a misapprehension).

[Nhoj]

you and brtd have been going at each other in more then just this thread i have seen you both in the world leader threads complaining about the other when they go after a democratic leader one of you like and the other doesnt. maybe obsession is the wrong word but i would say you two are fueding in them.
in any case lets talk about other good world leaders we need to stop being ignorant about!!

[Gustaf]

you and brtd have been going at each other in more then just this thread i have seen you both in the world leader threads complaining about the other when they go after a democratic leader one of you like and the other doesnt. maybe obsession is the wrong word but i would say you two are fueding in them.
in any case lets talk about other good world leaders we need to stop being ignorant about!!

You haven't been a member for that long so perhaps you don't realize why I treat him the way I do. If you look back you will find that he started the process of criticizing other peoples' votes. I pointed out his hypocrisy in the vain hope that it would put an end to it.

Lewis: I was over-simplifying quite a bit, I know. My point is rather that given the kinds of reasons BRTD can give for going after someone Siniora shouldn't be hard to comprehend. I have stated repeatedly that I voted for Siniora merely to prevent leaders like Sarkozy and Harper going earlier than deserved and not as a vote for Siniora himself. If that hadn't happened Siniora would probably, ironically enough, be on this list.

[minionofmidas]

Ah, but he belongs voted off.

[Nhoj]

i absolutely understand why one doesnt have to be a member a long time to understand how Brtd acts on these boards. i just happen to find it annoying what you and him are both doing,

[I spent the winter writing songs about getting better]

I don't really care about Siniora getting voted off anyway, I'm just explaining why it's not fair to call him a radical Islamist or whatever.

[Gustaf]

Ah, but he belongs voted off.

Do you mean now or at the time he was? I think about now would have been good but he got voted off earlier than he should've.

Nhoj: don't worry, I sometimes get the urge to call people out. With BRTD it always wanes when I realize that he is impervious to reason. I merely wanted to establish beyond reasonable doubt that there is no principle involved in his behaviour, as usual. Now that it has become abundantly clear I hope we can get back to the matter at hand.

------------------

For instance, Yodhoyono seems to be getting a lot of flak right now. I'm not entirely sure why. Sure, Indonesia is a terrible regime but he seems to have taken big steps in the right direction. The other candidates for getting voted off are mostly anonymous mostly democratic people from small states.

People like Fernandez, Pires, Douglas, de Menezes and Somare. Going off of Wikipedia Fernandez doesn't seem too good, a bit corrupt. De Menezes seems to have earned his position partly due to a military coup. Douglas and Pires seem all-right, though uninteresting. Somare is a mixed bag.

So, anyone got more to offer on these fellas? Right now I'm leaning towards voting for de Menezes and Fernandez next.

[minionofmidas]

Ah, but he belongs voted off.

Do you mean now or at the time he was? 

He only was voted off now. He ought to have been voted off at the time I started voting for him.

[Gustaf]

Ah, but he belongs voted off.

Do you mean now or at the time he was? 

He only was voted off now. He ought to have been voted off at the time I started voting for him.

Since that was at the same time I did I guess I should agree.

Looking back, possibly. I'm a little torn on what standards to use in some cases. In that group, it's the Mongolian who strikes me as having been on for too long.

[Bunwahaha [still dunno why, but well, so be it]]

Just a side note:

Something, I'm fed up to see here and there all the time:

SUPPORTING KILLING OF INNOCENT CIVILIANS

Let's fix it:

SUPPORTING KILLING OF INNOCENT CIVILIANS

Yes, please, let's stop to live in a permanent episode of Charmed, once for all, Halliwell sisters don't exist, we're in real life, and in this life, it's not because you're victim that you're an innocent - wonderful, nice, so good - person which has nothing to reproach to itself...

That said, I agree with that point about civilians, and about killing in general and if a war context can cancel the notion of crime in case a warrior (from a regular army or not) is involved, killing has to be blamed in any circumstances, even war, or revolution, or whatever.

[Gustaf]

Just a side note:

Something, I'm fed up to see here and there all the time:

SUPPORTING KILLING OF INNOCENT CIVILIANS

Let's fix it:

SUPPORTING KILLING OF INNOCENT CIVILIANS

Yes, please, let's stop to live in a permanent episode of Charmed, once for all, Halliwell sisters don't exist, we're in real life, and in this life, it's not because you're victim that you're an innocent - wonderful, nice, so good - person which has nothing to reproach to itself...

That said, I agree with that point about civilians, and about killing in general and if a war context can cancel the notion of crime in case a warrior (from a regular army or not) is involved, killing has to be blamed in any circumstances, even war, or revolution, or whatever.

I'm not sure what you mean. But civilians can be more or less innocent. A person who throws stones at the police or an Israeli settler is less innocent than a random person who happened to be in the wrong mall when a sucide bomber entered it.

[Bunwahaha [still dunno why, but well, so be it]]

Just a side note:

Something, I'm fed up to see here and there all the time:

SUPPORTING KILLING OF INNOCENT CIVILIANS

Let's fix it:

SUPPORTING KILLING OF INNOCENT CIVILIANS

Yes, please, let's stop to live in a permanent episode of Charmed, once for all, Halliwell sisters don't exist, we're in real life, and in this life, it's not because you're victim that you're an innocent - wonderful, nice, so good - person which has nothing to reproach to itself...

That said, I agree with that point about civilians, and about killing in general and if a war context can cancel the notion of crime in case a warrior (from a regular army or not) is involved, killing has to be blamed in any circumstances, even war, or revolution, or whatever.

I'm not sure what you mean. But civilians can be more or less innocent. A person who throws stones at the police or an Israeli settler is less innocent than a random person who happened to be in the wrong mall when a sucide bomber entered it.

I meant that the notion of civilian is enough, if you take part in a fight, no matter you're from a regular army or not, no matter it's just spontaneous or not, you pass from the status of civilian to the status of warrior, that is that simple for me.

So, this notion of innocence hasn't to be added, plus adding this notion goes in that general trend of making sacred everyone which is a victim of something: "once you're a victim you're a wonderful nice person only aimed to make the good around you, you're always right and have nothing to reproach to you, why?, because you're a victim". A kind of emotional feeling with which I'm fed up and which is for example very common in a lot of US shows.

When you're a victim, you need some care, not to be made sacred.

Well, when you personally used "innocence" you may just focused on their innocence in a precise context of fight. In my mind the notion of civilian/warrior is enough.