People judge Islam by current practice, not ancient times.
Ancient times, it bears repeating, are over, past, kaput, done, no longer applicable.
There are zero Muslim countries where one has the freedoms we expect in the secular West. Not even Turkey, praise be to Kemal Ataturk for trying, qualifies.
I've seen the best Islam can do with an unlimited budget while deployed there (before GWoT) on a friendly basis. KSA, Turkey (limited budget but more Euro influence) Kuwait, and Abu Dhabi are all places no freedom-loving person would go unless deployed or making fat contractor money. The locals are friendly (bring social skills and a smile), but Islam sucks. Imagine the US taken over by Evangelical Christians of the Fred Phelps variety. If you are like them they like you. If not...
"I feel for those affected, but at some point the people inside the Matrix need to do more to help themselves."
They are too comfortable for violent revolt, or they would violently revolt. They aren't fighting Islam, which is the root source of all their problems, they are merely wanting their piece of the Iranian pie.
I'll be impressed when they have the balls to fight like the Jihadists they face, and wear IEDs into Republican Guard facilities.
"One of the regulars on there was attacked in Los Angeles with a bat and lost an eye."
This is why we should purge the US of pro-Mullocracy immigrants.
It should be made easy to administratively revoke residence and citizenship of immigrants administratively, without appeal, on national security grounds.
"The fact that you do not like it does not make the murder of its supporters a trivial matter."
The fact that it is an enemy of all secular thought and of modern democratic civilization makes the murder of its supporters by each other a bonus. Trivial? Yes, useful, desirable, and key to fighting them.
I don't believe that fairness to enemies is more important than defeating them. If Muslims are willing to kill each other, I'm delighted and do not advocate intererfence with their self-actualization. I approve of all the intra-Islamic violence possible, I'm delighted when Shia and Sunni are at each others throats, and I want them to destroy each other, Their superstition is bad so they deserve to die in a manner that most discredits it, so why not enjoy the show?
As to the case in point, for Iranians acting for the Iran government to kill Iranians who happen to be in America would make dandy anti-Mullocracy propaganda, but it would be silly to go to war over it, technical casus belli or no. That would not be useful to the US, because whenever the US strikes back it is seen as evil. A few dead Iranians would better serve the cause as martyrs, and perhaps help trigger revolutionary sentiment at home. American intervention would only provoke a long insurgency and benefit Islam.
I'm fine with useful violence, but not with counterproductively losing thousands of US military casualties (and many more Iranians, assuming one cares) over a few assassinations.
There are plenty of young government thugs suppressing demonstrations. The religious essentially ARE children, so there is no inherent reason Iranian religious leaders cannot work with the military to maintain power and pass it on to the next generation of their supporters.
All cultures are wonderful in this wonderful diverse world, especially if they are highly religious which makes them (well, aside from Bible Thumpers) immune to criticism.:P
Your Viet Nam example is excellent. Not only do they have an Intel chip foundry, they even run battle site tours for their former Yankee opponents. Part of THEIR culture is having the huge cojones to outlast every occupier so far, and the self-confidence that breeds. The Vietnamese are less encumbered by religion, thanks to their revolutionaries correctly seeing it as toxic.
"The US quite clearly has the ability to crush their military and destroy their cities if they wish, yet there has been no move to do so. "
The US quite clearly lacks the resources to occupy Iran, without which breaking "stuff" as a gesture isn't worth much.
Other than with nukes, the US doesn't have the capability to destroy cities, only damage them, and we have so few aircraft that we can't do much of that. Precision weapons are good against "precision targets".
There is a remedy for "Shock and Awe", which is not to be shocked or awed...
In serious revolutions against serious enemies, massive casualties and the death of a few innocents are inevitable hence acceptable. Know that, and either renounce revolution or pick opponents who don't really mind your revolt.:)
Losing the odd chemist is a cheap price to kill a king.
Wiping out a whole segment of enemy society isn't going to be neat, but collateral damage is the price of change.
Harsh methods can backfire (Cambodia) or succeed (China) in propelling the replacement society to greatness (Chinese development since 1948, the people have never been better off). The American Revolution was against a bunch of poofters who weren't serious. If they were serious they'd have destroyed the Colonies rather than lose them.
Now consider the Iranian leadership, who essentially sophisticated Taliban. Only a popular revolt can locate and deal with them in detail. They won't go quietly, making harsh measures necessary. We should be delighted if this happens. I cheer any people who free themselves from the clutches of superstition, and he who is not with them is against them.
The Iranian people chose Islamic government and now they are getting what they asked for.
We should let them stew until they either explode and violently take power or are defeated. Let's not forget how much savage abuse by Christians it took for Europe to largely free itself from superstition.
If you don't want a priests foot on your neck, you emulate the French (and the Russians) and butcher the priest because nothing else will do.
No one has freed themselves of Mullahs yet, but it will require the same revolutionary will to fight superstition. Unless the people of Iran kill the Mullocracy they deserve no sympathy. Jihadists are willing to kill and die, so unless those who oppose them are even tougher they will lose. Ghandi was effective because the British hadn't the sense to kill him. Jihadists don't have that problem.
The Taliban aren't well-off, and THEY are willing to suicide to fight a regime they oppose.
If you want power in those regions, that level of toughness, dedication, and utter ruthlessness sets the bar. Play in those leagues or be enslaved to those who will.
"I don't think bloody revolution is the only path to democracy."
It may not be the only path, but the required path is decided by the opposition.
If they are friendly and weak, the Ghandi method works.
If they eventually tire of their political charade, they shut it down (Gorbachev is heroic for doing this.)
If they think they are anointed by their imaginary celestial friend, they require enthusiastic liquidation in the manner of the French Revolution. (A beautiful act, and worthy of emulation.)
If they are inherently logical and nationalistic, they can be seduced by capitalism and the tasty wealth reform brings with it. (Beijing.)
"There is a reason there is freedom of religion in America."
That reason is to keep religionists from killing each other, not that there is anything good about religion.
Islam is demonstrably, by the societies it creates, a very toxic and savage religion. Islam may be judged by what Muslims believe, do, support, and regard as infallible word of their imaginary friend.
I'm not being "xenophobic" any more than if I deplored Communism. I specifically object to and revile Islam. It has done nothing to advance mankind in centuries, is hopelessly regressive, and does not support the degree of personal freedom that I demand.
Why should superstition get the slightest bit of respect beyond that accorded to secular political ideology?
It makes the believer able to not only make sense of the world, but feel religiously exalted by their special insight which elevates them above the herd. Conspiracy is much less frightening to the simple mind than an uncertain world.
"If Iranian expatriates or Americans of Iranian descent can prove that they are the victims of physical violence against themselves or their property while on American soil, that would be a legitimate reason for the United States to invade Iran."
Not at all. A few attacks on individuals, especially those who hail from an enemy culture and religion but left because their CIA-installed monarch got tossed, are not nearly enough to bother with invading Iran. Real Americans aren't Muslims and don't care what happens to them any more than we'd care if some thoughtful soul was murdering Communists.
BTW, The resources to invade Iraq don't exist, so any "provocation" would have to be massive. Nothing to see here.
They are not going to "reform" their government because the vast majority of Iraqis are Muslims and Islam is Fundamentally anti-democratic.
A single theocracy won't work because of the Shia-Sunni schism (fortunately for those not Muslims) so expect Iraqis to behave as usual.
Only a Hafez Assad or a Saddam Hussein can impose secular government on such people, and the necessary methods exclude freedom. For Muslims, democracy can only be a road to theocracy as demonstrated by Iran. (Turkey is in remission solely due to the waning influence of Ataturk and is not a counterexample.)
If you imprison people for a very long time they are not damaging anything but other worthless convicts. Prison works on those who stay there and never get out, so it is reasonable to protect those of us who are good by incarcerating those who are bad. Bonus when they kill each other in prison.
As a good citizen, I don't need convicts to be pardoned. Pardoning someone who is not actually innocent is identical to expressing approval of their crimes.
Slashdot Mirror
"So decency dies: from the fear for one's reputation."
I'll trade decency for not getting spitroasted in prison.
Ain't my brat, ain't my business.
Why not stick a toe in the water? It wasn't long ago that desktops bogged running VMs, and now we can run many of them.
As cell phones become more like multi-purpose computers, expect more capability.
People judge Islam by current practice, not ancient times.
Ancient times, it bears repeating, are over, past, kaput, done, no longer applicable.
There are zero Muslim countries where one has the freedoms we expect in the secular West. Not even Turkey, praise be to Kemal Ataturk for trying, qualifies.
I've seen the best Islam can do with an unlimited budget while deployed there (before GWoT) on a friendly basis. KSA, Turkey (limited budget but more Euro influence) Kuwait, and Abu Dhabi are all places no freedom-loving person would go unless deployed or making fat contractor money. The locals are friendly (bring social skills and a smile), but Islam sucks. Imagine the US taken over by Evangelical Christians of the Fred Phelps variety. If you are like them they like you. If not...
"I feel for those affected, but at some point the people inside the Matrix need to do more to help themselves."
They are too comfortable for violent revolt, or they would violently revolt.
They aren't fighting Islam, which is the root source of all their problems, they are merely wanting their piece of the Iranian pie.
I'll be impressed when they have the balls to fight like the Jihadists they face, and wear IEDs into Republican Guard facilities.
"One of the regulars on there was attacked in Los Angeles with a bat and lost an eye."
This is why we should purge the US of pro-Mullocracy immigrants.
It should be made easy to administratively revoke residence and citizenship of immigrants administratively, without appeal, on national security grounds.
"The fact that you do not like it does not make the murder of its supporters a trivial matter."
The fact that it is an enemy of all secular thought and of modern democratic civilization makes the murder of its supporters by each other a bonus.
Trivial? Yes, useful, desirable, and key to fighting them.
I don't believe that fairness to enemies is more important than defeating them. If Muslims are willing to kill each other, I'm delighted and do not advocate intererfence with their self-actualization. I approve of all the intra-Islamic violence possible, I'm delighted when Shia and Sunni are at each others throats, and I want them to destroy each other, Their superstition is bad so they deserve to die in a manner that most discredits it, so why not enjoy the show?
As to the case in point, for Iranians acting for the Iran government to kill Iranians who happen to be in America would make dandy anti-Mullocracy propaganda, but it would be silly to go to war over it, technical casus belli or no. That would not be useful to the US, because whenever the US strikes back it is seen as evil. A few dead Iranians would better serve the cause as martyrs, and perhaps help trigger revolutionary sentiment at home. American intervention would only provoke a long insurgency and benefit Islam.
I'm fine with useful violence, but not with counterproductively losing thousands of US military casualties (and many more Iranians, assuming one cares) over a few assassinations.
There are plenty of young government thugs suppressing demonstrations. The religious essentially ARE children, so there is no inherent reason Iranian religious leaders cannot work with the military to maintain power and pass it on to the next generation of their supporters.
1500 casualties is not many.
Consider the scale of wars near the time (1919) when tens of thousands (or more) would die in individual battles.
Most modern scuffles don't generate many casualties, so 1500 dead looks impressive.
All cultures are wonderful in this wonderful diverse world, especially if they are highly religious which makes them (well, aside from Bible Thumpers) :P
immune to criticism.
Your Viet Nam example is excellent.
Not only do they have an Intel chip foundry, they even run battle site tours for their former Yankee opponents.
Part of THEIR culture is having the huge cojones to outlast every occupier so far, and the self-confidence that breeds. The Vietnamese are less encumbered by religion, thanks to their revolutionaries correctly seeing it as toxic.
"I guess I'm kind of surprised how much manpower crumbling, despotic regimes are able to muster in order to squelch dissent from small players."
Islam is the world largest religion. Manpower isn't a problem. It's not just a "regime", it's a holy regime.
"The US quite clearly has the ability to crush their military and destroy their cities if they wish, yet there has been no move to do so. "
The US quite clearly lacks the resources to occupy Iran, without which breaking "stuff" as a gesture isn't worth much.
Other than with nukes, the US doesn't have the capability to destroy cities, only damage them, and we have so few aircraft that we can't do much of that. Precision weapons are good against "precision targets".
There is a remedy for "Shock and Awe", which is not to be shocked or awed...
Islam is a BELIEF, and it is provably an enemy of all other belief systems.
"Muslim" is not an ethnic or racial term, it's an IDEOLOGICAL term.
You wouldn't call me a "bigot" for attacking Communism, so how dare you call me a bigot for attacking another belief, Islam?
In serious revolutions against serious enemies, massive casualties and the death of a few innocents are inevitable hence acceptable. :)
Know that, and either renounce revolution or pick opponents who don't really mind your revolt.
Losing the odd chemist is a cheap price to kill a king.
Wiping out a whole segment of enemy society isn't going to be neat, but collateral damage is the price of change.
Harsh methods can backfire (Cambodia) or succeed (China) in propelling the replacement society to greatness (Chinese development since 1948, the people have never been better off). The American Revolution was against a bunch of poofters who weren't serious. If they were serious they'd have destroyed the Colonies rather than lose them.
Now consider the Iranian leadership, who essentially sophisticated Taliban. Only a popular revolt can locate and deal with them in detail.
They won't go quietly, making harsh measures necessary. We should be delighted if this happens. I cheer any people who free themselves from the clutches of superstition, and he who is not with them is against them.
The Iranian people chose Islamic government and now they are getting what they asked for.
We should let them stew until they either explode and violently take power or are defeated. Let's not forget how much savage abuse by Christians it
took for Europe to largely free itself from superstition.
If you don't want a priests foot on your neck, you emulate the French (and the Russians) and butcher the priest because nothing else will do.
No one has freed themselves of Mullahs yet, but it will require the same revolutionary will to fight superstition. Unless the people of Iran kill the Mullocracy they deserve no sympathy. Jihadists are willing to kill and die, so unless those who oppose them are even tougher they will lose.
Ghandi was effective because the British hadn't the sense to kill him. Jihadists don't have that problem.
"Only people hiding in shacks and never speaking to other humans are vulnerable to personalized misinformation."
Does the basement of my mother's shack count?
"LOL at the useless cockpit bulge."
Probably houses sensors. Given the extreme importance of loiter time it would be absurd to have a fake cockpit and additional drag.
The Taliban aren't well-off, and THEY are willing to suicide to fight a regime they oppose.
If you want power in those regions, that level of toughness, dedication, and utter ruthlessness sets the bar. Play in those leagues
or be enslaved to those who will.
"I don't think bloody revolution is the only path to democracy."
It may not be the only path, but the required path is decided by the opposition.
If they are friendly and weak, the Ghandi method works.
If they eventually tire of their political charade, they shut it down (Gorbachev is heroic for doing this.)
If they think they are anointed by their imaginary celestial friend, they require enthusiastic liquidation in the manner of the French Revolution.
(A beautiful act, and worthy of emulation.)
If they are inherently logical and nationalistic, they can be seduced by capitalism and the tasty wealth reform brings with it. (Beijing.)
"How's that cyber-revolution turning out?"
It had an unfortunate encounter with the Religion of Peace.
"There is a reason there is freedom of religion in America."
That reason is to keep religionists from killing each other, not that there is anything good about religion.
Islam is demonstrably, by the societies it creates, a very toxic and savage religion. Islam may be judged by what Muslims believe, do, support, and regard as infallible word of their imaginary friend.
I'm not being "xenophobic" any more than if I deplored Communism. I specifically object to and revile Islam.
It has done nothing to advance mankind in centuries, is hopelessly regressive, and does not support the degree of personal freedom
that I demand.
Why should superstition get the slightest bit of respect beyond that accorded to secular political ideology?
Conspiracy is comforting.
It makes the believer able to not only make sense of the world, but feel religiously exalted by their special insight which elevates them above the herd. Conspiracy is much less frightening to the simple mind than an uncertain world.
"If Iranian expatriates or Americans of Iranian descent can prove that they are the victims of physical violence against themselves or their property while on American soil, that would be a legitimate reason for the United States to invade Iran."
Not at all. A few attacks on individuals, especially those who hail from an enemy culture and religion but left because their CIA-installed monarch got tossed, are not nearly enough to bother with invading Iran. Real Americans aren't Muslims and don't care what happens to them any more than we'd care if some thoughtful soul was murdering Communists.
BTW, The resources to invade Iraq don't exist, so any "provocation" would have to be massive. Nothing to see here.
They are not going to "reform" their government because the vast majority of Iraqis are Muslims and Islam is Fundamentally anti-democratic.
A single theocracy won't work because of the Shia-Sunni schism (fortunately for those not Muslims) so expect Iraqis to behave as usual.
Only a Hafez Assad or a Saddam Hussein can impose secular government on such people, and the necessary methods exclude freedom. For Muslims, democracy can only be a road to theocracy as demonstrated by Iran. (Turkey is in remission solely due to the waning influence of Ataturk and is not a counterexample.)
Until they renounce Islam they won't "reform" anything.
Too bad Communism has no traction in Iran, because the only way to loosen the grip of religion is to use Bolshevik or Maoist methods.
If you imprison people for a very long time they are not damaging anything but other worthless convicts. Prison works on those who stay there and never get out, so it is reasonable to protect those of us who are good by incarcerating those who are bad. Bonus when they kill each other in prison.
As a good citizen, I don't need convicts to be pardoned. Pardoning someone who is not actually innocent is identical to expressing approval of their crimes.