Jump to content
Join the Unexplained Mysteries community today! It's free and setting up an account only takes a moment.
- Sign In or Create Account -
DarkHunter

Mass protest in Iran

232 posts in this topic

Recommended Posts

RoofGardener
42 minutes ago, Farmer77 said:

Pinochet, the Talibans parents, Oh wait FREAKING IRAN :lol:

 

True about Pinochet. As for "The talibans parents".... I'm assuming you're reffering to the Mujahadeen ? (in which case you're wrong; they where NOT parents to the Taliban). As for Iran .. that was hardly a dictatorship ? 

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
third_eye
2 minutes ago, RoofGardener said:

Ahhh.. operation Condor. THOSE where the days.

Of course, while the USA did indeed offer assistance to resist Soviet Communist subversion in South America, they didn't exactly IMPOSE dictators on the populations. The dictators where already there. :)

So, yes? 

~

Just now, RoofGardener said:

True about Pinochet. As for "The talibans parents".... I'm assuming you're reffering to the Mujahadeen ? (in which case you're wrong; they where NOT parents to the Taliban). As for Iran .. that was hardly a dictatorship ? 

Still yes? 

~

Quote

Black Knight: None shall pass.
King Arthur: What?
Black Knight: None shall pass.
King Arthur: I have no quarrel with you, good Sir Knight, but I must cross this bridge.
Black Knight: Then you shall die.
King Arthur: I command you, as King of the Britons, to stand aside!
Black Knight: I move for no man.
King Arthur: So be it!
[rounds of melee, with Arthur cutting off the left arm of the black knight.]
King Arthur: Now stand aside, worthy adversary.
Black Knight: Tis but a scratch.
King Arthur: A scratch?! Your arm's off!
Black Knight: No it isn't.
King Arthur: Well what's that then? [Pointing to the knight's arm lying on the ground.]
Black Knight: I've had worse.
King Arthur: You liar!
Black Knight: Come on then, you pansy! [Charges Arthur, who chops the knight's remaining arm off.]
King Arthur: Victory is mine! [kneels and starts to pray] We thank thee Lord, that in thy-- [is kicked in the head by the armless knight.]
Black Knight: Come on then!
King Arthur: What?
Black Knight: Have at you! [Kicks Arthur]
King Arthur: You are indeed brave, good Sir Knight, but the fight is mine.
Black Knight: Oohh, had enough, eh?
King Arthur: Look, you stupid b******, you've got no arms left!
Black Knight: Yes I have.
King Arthur: Look!
Black Knight: Just a flesh wound. [Continues to kick and taunt Arthur]
King Arthur: Stop that!
Black Knight: Chicken! Chicken!
King Arthur: Look, I'll have your leg. [Recieves a very sharp kick] Right! [Chops off one of the black knight's legs]
Black Knight: Right! I'll do you for that!
King Arthur: You'll what?
Black Knight: Come here!
King Arthur: What are you going to do, bleed on me?!
Black Knight: I'm invincible!
King Arthur: You're a looney.
Black Knight: The Black Knight always triumphs! Have at you! Come on then. [Hopping on one leg towards King Arthur]
[King Arthur chops his other leg off, leaving his body upright on the ground.]
Black Knight: Alright, we'll call it a draw.
King Arthur: Come, Patsy!
Black Knight: Oh, oh I see. Running away, eh?! You yellow b*******! Come back here and take what's coming to you! I'll bite your legs off!!
[Fade to black.]

Good job... 

~

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Farmer77
10 minutes ago, RoofGardener said:

True about Pinochet. As for "The talibans parents".... I'm assuming you're reffering to the Mujahadeen ? (in which case you're wrong; they where NOT parents to the Taliban). As for Iran .. that was hardly a dictatorship ? 

I get what youre saying but in a practical sense we were instrumental in the power of militant Islam in Afghanistan. Same story with Iran unintentionally our monetary and intelligence efforts led us to where we are today.

If you can still see this over the red hot glow of the "America hater" responses :P Im not trying to make a judgement call when discussing these and the many other nasty dictators we have propped up. It just is what it is. 

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
third_eye
7 minutes ago, Farmer77 said:

If you can still see this over the red hot glow of the "America hater" responses :P Im not trying to make a judgement call when discussing these and the many other nasty dictators we have propped up. It just is what it is. 

The long and winding rope... 

Quote
Video for Trump keeps Syrian oil
 
23 hours ago · The president has criticized past administrations for not keeping control of valuable Iraqi oil ...

~

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
RoofGardener
1 hour ago, Farmer77 said:

I get what youre saying but in a practical sense we were instrumental in the power of militant Islam in Afghanistan. Same story with Iran unintentionally our monetary and intelligence efforts led us to where we are today.

If you can still see this over the red hot glow of the "America hater" responses :P Im not trying to make a judgement call when discussing these and the many other nasty dictators we have propped up. It just is what it is. 

Hmm... in regard militant Islam in Afghanistan, I would suggest that the Soviet Union had just a little bit to do with that ? :P 

Iran is a bit muddier. The rise of Ayatollah Khomeini reminds me somewhat of the rise to power of Hitler. It was all confusion and politics. America took sides, as all countries did, but it was NOT a major player. 

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
RoofGardener
1 hour ago, third_eye said:
1 hour ago, third_eye said:

King Arthur: Look, I'll have your leg. [Recieves a very sharp kick] Right! [Chops off one of the black knight's legs]
Black Knight: Right! I'll do you for that!
King Arthur: You'll what?
Black Knight: Come here!
King Arthur: What are you going to do, bleed on me?!
Black Knight: I'm invincible!
King Arthur: You're a looney.
Black Knight: The Black Knight always triumphs! Have at you! Come on then. [Hopping on one leg towards King Arthur]
[King Arthur chops his other leg off, leaving his body upright on the ground.]
Black Knight: Alright, we'll call it a draw.
King Arthur: Come, Patsy!
Black Knight: Oh, oh I see. Running away, eh?! You yellow b*******! Come back here and take what's coming to you! I'll bite your legs off!!
[Fade to black.]

 

Hmmm.... .to which I riposte...

Brave Sir Robin ran away.
Bravely ran away away.
When danger reared it's ugly head,
He bravely turned his tail and fled.
Yes, brave Sir Robin turned about
And gallantly he chickened out.
Swiftly taking to his feet,
He beat a very brave retreat.
Bravest of the brave, Sir Robin!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
third_eye
33 minutes ago, RoofGardener said:

riposte

You have no inkling as to what that means do you? 

~

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
RoofGardener
31 minutes ago, third_eye said:

You have no inkling as to what that means do you? 

~

Yes. It is a post (or bollard) that has been damaged and torn. 

Or possibly an item of mail that has been torn. 

Edited by RoofGardener

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
joc
4 hours ago, Grey Area said:

 

Fine the US did it all alone ...

 

I think you are really missing my point.  So let me clarify.  A Kingdom is tryannical.  King George of England was a tyrant.  The  Ayatollah in Iran is a tyrant.

It's easy to do your own thing when no one is telling you not to at the point of a gun.   When the guns come...that's a different story.

Those living in America were faced with the wrath and the military of King George.  The Tea Party said, We ain't takin' it anymore.  But that,  in and of itself, is about as effective as the current protests in Iran.  Enter Paul Revere.  What Iran needs if they are going to free themselves from the tyranny of the Ayatollah is Paul Revere and his ilk.  Very unlikely to happen because the Iranian's aren't coming!  They are  already there and are so entrenched that the people of Iran have no choice, no voice, any more than the people in England had over King George.  

It is tricky business dealing with Iran...no doubt.  I doubt the people can ever free themselves...and many don't want freed.  The whole idea of Nation Building is not palpable to the citizens of the United States.

 

  • Thanks 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
third_eye
56 minutes ago, RoofGardener said:

Yes. It is a post (or bollard) that has been damaged and torn. 

Or possibly an item of mail that has been torn. 

Your attempt at persnickety failed at witticism, to summarize your kalsomine substance of the bollard between fact and historical, you attempt to perpetuate lies by telling half truths so as to never admit to pretentiously lying. 

Good job, best of luck to you and please do carry on. 

~

Edited by third_eye
I dunno
  • Confused 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Grey Area
1 hour ago, joc said:

I think you are really missing my point.  So let me clarify.  A Kingdom is tryannical.  King George of England was a tyrant.  The  Ayatollah in Iran is a tyrant.

It's easy to do your own thing when no one is telling you not to at the point of a gun.   When the guns come...that's a different story.

Those living in America were faced with the wrath and the military of King George.  The Tea Party said, We ain't takin' it anymore.  But that,  in and of itself, is about as effective as the current protests in Iran.  Enter Paul Revere.  What Iran needs if they are going to free themselves from the tyranny of the Ayatollah is Paul Revere and his ilk.  Very unlikely to happen because the Iranian's aren't coming!  They are  already there and are so entrenched that the people of Iran have no choice, no voice, any more than the people in England had over King George.  

It is tricky business dealing with Iran...no doubt.  I doubt the people can ever free themselves...and many don't want freed.  The whole idea of Nation Building is not palpable to the citizens of the United States.

 

No, I got the point, I just thought the comparison to the revolutionary war was...  Interesting.

  • Haha 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
spartan max2
2 hours ago, Grey Area said:

No, I got the point, I just thought the comparison to the revolutionary war was...  Interesting.

A more accurate comparison might be the French revolution.

Start taking some gullotines out for the royalty :gun:lol

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Setton
4 hours ago, joc said:

I think you are really missing my point.  So let me clarify.  A Kingdom is tryannical.  King George of England was a tyrant.  The  Ayatollah in Iran is a tyrant.

It's easy to do your own thing when no one is telling you not to at the point of a gun.   When the guns come...that's a different story.

Those living in America were faced with the wrath and the military of King George.  The Tea Party said, We ain't takin' it anymore.  But that,  in and of itself, is about as effective as the current protests in Iran.  Enter Paul Revere.  What Iran needs if they are going to free themselves from the tyranny of the Ayatollah is Paul Revere and his ilk.  Very unlikely to happen because the Iranian's aren't coming!  They are  already there and are so entrenched that the people of Iran have no choice, no voice, any more than the people in England had over King George.  

Yes, England has always been completely at the mercy of whoever inherited the throne and totally unable to do anything about it. 

Oh.

Um.

Wait.

Hmm

You don't actually know any history before your little revolution, do you? 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Grey Area
5 minutes ago, Setton said:

Yes, England has always been completely at the mercy of whoever inherited the throne and totally unable to do anything about it. 

Oh.

Um.

Wait.

Hmm

You don't actually know any history before your little revolution, do you? 

King George was quite loony by all accounts and England had a parliament during those times and it was parliament that levied the taxes following the 7 year war.  George was simply the facade of tyranny.  Tyranny identified, I might add, by wealthy individuals, who’s bottom lines were the ones being tyrannised.

For the record as an Englishman I don’t begrudge the US it’s independence, I think for the most part America has been very successful and I am thankful that over the decades that have passed we have largely settled our differences, but I think we have to be honest about our historical origins, we cant change the past but we can use the past to better ourselves.

  • Thanks 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Great Old Man

Democracy in Iran could be successful?

Well, at least Iran should be out of Islam fundamentalism.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
joc
1 hour ago, Grey Area said:

Yes, England has always been completely at the mercy of whoever inherited the throne and totally unable to do anything about it. 

Actually I do know a bit about the history of the Crown...

Furthermore...Your insinuation is false.  I never even said anything remotely like the above.  I was specific...I said King George was a tyrant and he was.  I said the Government of Iran is a tyranny...and it is.

And by the way...England is not ....A Kingdom.  I think you drew conclusions from where I said, Kingdoms are tyrannical.  England, as you know, is a Constitutional Monarchy.  Constitutional Monarchy's are not tyrannical.

 

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Setton
4 minutes ago, joc said:

Actually I do know a bit about the history of the Crown...

Furthermore...Your insinuation is false.  I never even said anything remotely like the above.  I was specific...I said King George was a tyrant and he was.  I said the Government of Iran is a tyranny...and it is.

And by the way...England is not ....A Kingdom.  I think you drew conclusions from where I said, Kingdoms are tyrannical.  England, as you know, is a Constitutional Monarchy.  Constitutional Monarchy's are not tyrannical.

 

The United Kingdom is not a Kingdom. 

Even for you, that's pure gold :lol:

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
joc
1 hour ago, Grey Area said:

King George was quite loony by all accounts and England had a parliament during those times and it was parliament that levied the taxes following the 7 year war.  George was simply the facade of tyranny.  Tyranny identified, I might add, by wealthy individuals, who’s bottom lines were the ones being tyrannised.

For the record as an Englishman I don’t begrudge the US it’s independence, I think for the most part America has been very successful and I am thankful that over the decades that have passed we have largely settled our differences, but I think we have to be honest about our historical origins, we cant change the past but we can use the past to better ourselves.

 You said England had a parliament.   But was it a Constitutional Monarchy as what you have today?  Btw, I did not say I am an expert in the history of England.  I said I know a bit...so...educate me. :)

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
and then
6 hours ago, third_eye said:

Your attempt at persnickety failed at witticism, to summarize your kalsomine substance of the bollard between fact and historical, you attempt to perpetuate lies by telling half truths so as to never admit to pretentiously lying. 

Good job, best of luck to you and please do carry on. 

~

:w00t:  I finally placed the character you remind me of. He was a mayor in a children's animated Christmas story.  He was the MASTER of circumlocution.  He'd use 10 words where 3 were needed and wound up confusing more than communicating.  Carry on, Mayor!  :w00t:

  • Haha 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
joc
10 minutes ago, Setton said:

The United Kingdom is not a Kingdom. 

Even for you, that's pure gold :lol:

It isn't a Kingdom in the sense that if the King doesn't like you he will chop off your head even if you are his wife......

And obviously not a Kingdom in the sense that if Queen Elizabeth said...we are not doing Brexit...that would suffice as the word of the century.

In the true since of the word...The United Kingdom is not a Kingdom...i.e.  it is not ruled by Kings.

 

Edited by joc
  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
acidhead

 

  • Like 3

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Setton
39 minutes ago, joc said:

It isn't a Kingdom in the sense that if the King doesn't like you he will chop off your head even if you are his wife......

And obviously not a Kingdom in the sense that if Queen Elizabeth said...we are not doing Brexit...that would suffice as the word of the century.

In the true since of the word...The United Kingdom is not a Kingdom...i.e.  it is not ruled by Kings.

The UK is ruled by the Queen. All decisions taken by parliament require her approval. 

Seems you're as clueless about UK governance as you are about its history. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Setton
54 minutes ago, joc said:

 You said England had a parliament.   But was it a Constitutional Monarchy as what you have today?  

Yes. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
third_eye
4 hours ago, and then said:

:w00t:  I finally placed the character you remind me of. He was a mayor in a children's animated Christmas story.  He was the MASTER of circumlocution.  He'd use 10 words where 3 were needed and wound up confusing more than communicating.  Carry on, Mayor!  :w00t:

Still Christmas in your head eh? 

Consonance still not restored with your prophecies and reality I take it, doesn't matter really if it's three or less if more, when your then, won't wren nor warrant, your constant confused state of communication... As you were... 

~

  • Haha 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
joc
6 hours ago, Setton said:

The UK is ruled by the Queen. All decisions taken by parliament require her approval. 

Seems you're as clueless about UK governance as you are about its history. 

 The Parliament tells the Queen the best course of action.  The Parliament writes her speeches.  The Parliament decides how you are going to be ruled.  The Queen goes along with what ever The Parliament decides is in the best course of action for the country.

Turns out...you don't really know a damn thing about how your own Monarchy works. The Queen is a ruler in name only.  She actually Rules over the Royal Family.  The Parliament rules over the United Kingdom.  Get a clue before you start telling me what is what about what about what you are apparently so clueless about.  

  • Thanks 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.