Pope pisses off Muslims

That’s not true. History demonstrates how the use of military force can crush a galvanized populace.

Populations are galvanized when they have a newfound sense of hope and confidence that gins up their ethnic/religious/national pride. Look at the economies of the Middle East and Latin America. Economic boom times, for sure. Propaganda that makes people feel they are better than other people is usually backed up with periods of unprecedented economic advancement. That’s what happened in Germany and Japan prior to WWII and many countries prior to WWI.

People don’t become galvanized because they believe America sucks and America is screwing them over with its military, policies, and superpower arrogance. That's a Leftist mirage. And there were always America-haters. But they didn’t rise up until recently because they now feel stronger and sense America is no longer a dominate influence. And like both world wars, people begin to fight when their power and influence are relatively matched and equal.

The Mullahs in Iran are popular because Iran is enjoying a rise in economic power and political influence, not what the U.S. did a half century ago.

 

Quote from Sam123:

Populations are galvanized when they have a newfound sense of hope and confidence that gins up their ethnic/religious/national pride. </b>

I agree with this also. I am not making an either/or argument.

<b>The Mullahs in Iran are popular because Iran is enjoying a rise in economic power and political influence, not what the U.S. did a half century ago.

I'm not talking about popularity. Operation Ajax directly led to the 1979 Islamic revolution. Can't get anymore linear than that. Do you agree or disagree with this fact of history?

<b>People don’t become galvanized because they believe America sucks and America is screwing them over with its military, policies, and superpower arrogance. </b>

Now look at the leftist revival coming out of Evo Morales and Chavez. Notice how they referrence both the failed neo-liberal economic policies of the West and things like Allende's assassination, El Salvador, etc. The people of Latin America know more about U.S. involvement in the region, support of brutal paramilitaries, etc. than U.S. citizens.

It's Americans that forget what their country did 50 years ago.

 

Operation Ajax was a success. You can’t pin the screw-ups in the 70’s on that operation. What directly led to the revolution was a weak regime, a dying Shaw, and an American president too impotent to do anything about it. But the Shaw managed to run the joint for 25+ years after Operation Ajax and before the Revolution. Yes, the Shaw was viewed as a Westernized transplant and when Iran’s economy was doing well in the late 70’s, people latched onto their ethnic/national/Islamic pride, and gravitated toward an Islamist populist.

People of Latin America don’t know anything more about U.S. involvement than what their Leftist teachers shove down their throats. Every year, U.S. colleges get a bunch of arrogant Latin students boasting their ethnic superiority on the subject as if it’s their birth right, and Americans “can’t possibly understand,” and so forth. But they are simply taking the Leftist point of view, and the Americans who “never seem to understand” are those who support America’s interests, including operations designed to slow the spread of communism as well as efforts to interfere with dictators who try to nationalize their oil fields, which causes the price of oil to rise.

Yes, we supported forces that killed people. But what do you think the Communists would have done? They would kill people too, especially those who support capitalism, free markets, and American interests, would they not? It all depends on which side people are on.

Perhaps what Americans don’t realize is how America lost its gall to protect its interests today. And look what is happening as a result. The price of oil shoots up and we can’t go anywhere anymore without smelling Chavez’s farts. What do you think Eisenhower would be doing about all this today?

 

Wow, you have some colorful opinions. I can tell this won't go too far, but I just want to focus on this one issue.

In your opinion the 1979 overthrow of the "Shaw" was not a popular nationalist reaction against a brutal dictator. Grassroots support for the movement had no basis in a reaction to U.S. meddling. None at all. People don't overthrow dictators installed by foreign countries for that reason.

You're saying the revolution was because the dictator <b>was not powerful enough</b>, people were feeling good because of the money the "Shaw" was bringing in, and Carter was not willing to install a better dictator (or invade?). In other words -- none of what ended up happening was the responsibility of the U.S. and the U.K. Am I reading you right?

Your ethical principles are clearly Stalinist realpolitik only, so let me ask you something: if a country nationalizes something another country wants cheap like its oil wells or its copper mines, any country has the duty to either invade that country or install an oppressive dictator without hope of democratic reform to keep the price low. This is both a pragmatic and ethical course of action.Yes?

Just curious, but where did you go to college? And what work did you do before trading?

 

Hey Doggie, will you admit that Islam might have had something to do with the, as you yourself called it, ISLAMIC revolution, or is it all about poverty and being disenfranchised?

____________________________

Member of the ET Anti-Troll Brigade

Iustus ignarus troll

 

Listen, you're a pest and I have no interest in feeding your impoverished ego by giving you attention. Please use your "cerebellum" elsewhere.

 

There's one major problem with this - after 9/11, Bush was even more popular in American than Bin Laden was in the Muslim world.

If you have any other explanation other than "people are f*cking stupid", I would be interested to hear it.

 

lol...

Ok, so, back to the topic at hand. You claimed that there is nothing in the Qu'uran that specifically promotes violence. I responded with three examples. You responded... by cutting and pasting a post of mine 9 times in a row.

Were you throwing a tantrum or was that meant to be a response? If it was a response, I didn't understand it, I don't have the key to the code.

Also, you keep saying my IQ is low, so I challenged you to match audited Wechsler or Stanford-Binet results, with the loser agreeing to stop posting on ET forever. You have yet to respond. Can I take it that this means you decline the challenge?

I've never had a reason to challenge anyone to an IQ throwdown but you're such a pathetic fucking loser and troll, and I have had such success owning you in the past, I thought this would be another nice trophy for my mantle.

Just another fight that you started but then didn't have the balls to finish...

______________________________

Member of the ET Anti-Troll Brigade

iustus ignarus troll

 

What I am saying is that any scripture is up to the reader to interpret when the author is not available.

So a violent man sees a call to violence and acts on it, and a peaceful man may or may not see the same thing but doesn't act in a violent manner. A truly spiritual man sees the message as completely spiritual in nature, not of this world.

With nearly all religions, the followers look to the current leaders for "right" interpretation of the scriptures they follow.

So, in essence, they are following the mind of the leaders of the religion, not the religious text, or necessarily the real and intended meaning of the text, and may in fact be 100% wrong in their interpretation.

For example, for those with a brain (I know this leaves out many ET members) it is logically possible that Mohammed was speaking only to his tribe---not future generations.

It is also possible that Mohammed was speaking completely in a spiritual sense, that the infidel is not external, but the inner nature of mankind, and man's need to develop his inner spirituality by killing the inner infidel that keeps him from God.

Who can say I am wrong? Who can "channel" Mohammed to prove that I am wrong in my read of the Koran? Who is to say the Koran is exactly what Mohammed said? Who is to say that what we read hasn't been changed and altered many times through translation?

The bottom line is that it all gets filtered though the mind of man, and man has free will to believe whatever he likes.

So I always blame the man for violence, and blame the leaders who incite such violence, I never blame God or His Prophets.


p.s. You could have the highest IQ ever, and would still be a dumbass, and your "challenge" is proof of that fact....man, do you think you have a lot to prove...which means you must truly have a lot to prove...

 

So what you're saying is, Islam MIGHT have had something to do with the ISLAMIC revolution in Iran.

Now we're making progress...