11-09-2005, 10:20 AM
Let me state something ahead: no harm intended.
My, my. We're up the pole a little bit, aren't we? If only I found which part of my reply acted as a red banner for your horns...
But I'm not going there. Just saying that you can look at jahcs to see how a neutral answer would look like.
To get to the point:
"Your post is founded on pure BS, an attempt to play cute with definitions."
- this adds utterly nothing to the discussion. Thanks anyway. May I also refer to my signature.
"The Shah was the legitimate government of Iran"
- the legitimate government is supported by the populace. Which the Shah was not, since broad parts of it hated him for adhering too fast and subservient to the quite exploitive (at that time) and untraditional ways of the Western civilizations.
"just as Saddam was the legit government of Iraq"
- You should hear yourself talk. He was (how do I put it prudently...) 'enforced' as the dictator of a military-supported one-party-state by the "Western civilizations". Nothing much legit here, if you ask me.
"The legit government's delegates show up at the UN and are recognized as the representatives"
- again, see legit above. Just because a U.S. dominated UN in fear of the cold war and under the influence of followers of the U.S. accepts them, it ain't legit. That's (only a little bit, I will admit) comparable to the palestinian situation, and also the situation of 'Taiwan' or the 'Republic of China' comes to mind. And I'm not even sure that Saddam (at least in the late years before 'war'), Kim Jong-il and Ayatollah Khomeini attended to UN meetings all the time.
"specifically Hezbollah"
- the Hezbollah were the army that helped Seyyed Ruhollah Khomeini to re-establish an islamic nation state of Iran. His Army. Officially instructed and authorized, and since he was the instance that held all the power, I can't see what complicates the matter here.
"What is a terrorist, and who are the terrorists I dealt with and to whom I refer?"
- jahcs (and wikipedia) answered that quite well, thanks to him.
"If you can't understand what an extranational organization is"
- Don't you get personal. Referal to my signature.
"It is not accountable to any government, per se. MI 6 or Mossad, on the other hand, are organizations who may work in the shadows for the British/Israeli Government, but are answerable to the legit government, and through the legit government to other governments via treaties, letter of agreement, protocol, extradition, etcetera. The Pasderan in Iran as well."
- My... That's quite similar to what I've said. Different charges though, and why not so? This is essential for all discussions.
"The US, for example, slid support to various mujahadeen on the sly in the revolt against the legit (and Soviet sponsored) government in Kabul."
- which could be interpreted as supporting terrorists, don't you agree?
Also it is interesting that you don't lose one word about the Iran-Contra Affair. And one last word: I know that politics is a hot button with you, Occhi. And I wasn't trolling. Just dipping you into the sauce of what might well come close to the opinion of quite a few europeans. Don't color it all black and white, man. It just isn't like that.
Oh, and to the original question: I think this p.o.v. is quite widespread in the European Union. I guess that, while ~20% don't know if growing immigration and integration of islamic people is good or bad, about 35% rather resent it, and about 55% rather welcome it, many of them thinking that it's essential to establish peace in the middle east in the long term. Course these aren't official numbers, just mine.
Greetings, Fragbait
My, my. We're up the pole a little bit, aren't we? If only I found which part of my reply acted as a red banner for your horns...
But I'm not going there. Just saying that you can look at jahcs to see how a neutral answer would look like.
To get to the point:
"Your post is founded on pure BS, an attempt to play cute with definitions."
- this adds utterly nothing to the discussion. Thanks anyway. May I also refer to my signature.
"The Shah was the legitimate government of Iran"
- the legitimate government is supported by the populace. Which the Shah was not, since broad parts of it hated him for adhering too fast and subservient to the quite exploitive (at that time) and untraditional ways of the Western civilizations.
"just as Saddam was the legit government of Iraq"
- You should hear yourself talk. He was (how do I put it prudently...) 'enforced' as the dictator of a military-supported one-party-state by the "Western civilizations". Nothing much legit here, if you ask me.
"The legit government's delegates show up at the UN and are recognized as the representatives"
- again, see legit above. Just because a U.S. dominated UN in fear of the cold war and under the influence of followers of the U.S. accepts them, it ain't legit. That's (only a little bit, I will admit) comparable to the palestinian situation, and also the situation of 'Taiwan' or the 'Republic of China' comes to mind. And I'm not even sure that Saddam (at least in the late years before 'war'), Kim Jong-il and Ayatollah Khomeini attended to UN meetings all the time.
"specifically Hezbollah"
- the Hezbollah were the army that helped Seyyed Ruhollah Khomeini to re-establish an islamic nation state of Iran. His Army. Officially instructed and authorized, and since he was the instance that held all the power, I can't see what complicates the matter here.
"What is a terrorist, and who are the terrorists I dealt with and to whom I refer?"
- jahcs (and wikipedia) answered that quite well, thanks to him.
"If you can't understand what an extranational organization is"
- Don't you get personal. Referal to my signature.
"It is not accountable to any government, per se. MI 6 or Mossad, on the other hand, are organizations who may work in the shadows for the British/Israeli Government, but are answerable to the legit government, and through the legit government to other governments via treaties, letter of agreement, protocol, extradition, etcetera. The Pasderan in Iran as well."
- My... That's quite similar to what I've said. Different charges though, and why not so? This is essential for all discussions.
"The US, for example, slid support to various mujahadeen on the sly in the revolt against the legit (and Soviet sponsored) government in Kabul."
- which could be interpreted as supporting terrorists, don't you agree?
Also it is interesting that you don't lose one word about the Iran-Contra Affair. And one last word: I know that politics is a hot button with you, Occhi. And I wasn't trolling. Just dipping you into the sauce of what might well come close to the opinion of quite a few europeans. Don't color it all black and white, man. It just isn't like that.
Oh, and to the original question: I think this p.o.v. is quite widespread in the European Union. I guess that, while ~20% don't know if growing immigration and integration of islamic people is good or bad, about 35% rather resent it, and about 55% rather welcome it, many of them thinking that it's essential to establish peace in the middle east in the long term. Course these aren't official numbers, just mine.
Greetings, Fragbait
Quote:You cannot pass... I am a servant of the Secret Fire, wielder of the Flame of Anor. The Dark Flame will not avail you, Flame of Udun. Go back to the shadow. You shall not pass.- Gandalf, speaking to the Balrog
Quote:Empty your mind. Be formless, shapeless, like water. Now you put water into a cup, it becomes the cup. You put water into a bottle, it becomes the bottle. You put it in a teapot, it becomes the teapot. Now water can flow, or it can crash! Be water, my friend...- Bruce Lee
Quote: There's an old Internet adage which simply states that the first person to resort to personal attacks in an online argument is the loser. Don't be one.- excerpt from the forum rules
Post content property of Fragbait (member of the lurkerlounge). Do not (hesitate to) quote without permission.