Customize

What are they (and we) fighting for?

Discussion in 'Protest Advice' started by Bard, Jun 26, 2009.

  1. Bard Member

    Theocracy is everywhere now. It isn't restricted to the Middle East. It has
    already started in the USA and Canada. It takes many forms, but the common
    thread is the downgrading of women and the use of torture. Newcomers to this
    issue may not realize that beatings in Iran and the Middle East are not new.
    They have been continuing for many years, enforced by the religious police.

    Here are the goals for a new reform agenda in the form of a slogan:

    "Return Persia to the Persians!"
  2. Hopes Member

    I think most Westerners are very aware that the violence against citizens has been going on for many years. But it's up to the oppressed citizens to seek freedom by rising up against a government peacefully or otherwise. Nobody can do it for them.
  3. You have choice all your life

    The fight is for choice. Do not say lesser evil, do not say your western country is a religious dictatorship. So many complain about the west, and Bush and Obama, and you think you did not have a choice! YOU DO NOT RECOGNIZE CHOICE!

    This fight is the Iranian people making a decision, and carrying out the choice, standing by their choice.

    THAT is what is important. There was a choice, and now everyone must adhere to that choice, it was by the people. Do not let anyone tell you otherwise.

    The Basiji made their choice when they took hostages 30 years ago, and make a choice now to believe they can fight their own people and win again.

    They have made the wrong choice.

    موش
  4. Hopes Member

    Your outlined goals for reform are commendable. But how do you propose a society gets to the point of achieving those goals? They can only make the choice for themselves. Even if they are oppressed, have limited access to modern political thinking, they still need to make the decision to take action to have something better.

    I don't believe people need access to modern political thinking to conceive their own concept of freedom. Many societies throughout history embraced modern ways of thinking on their own. It's not like the forefathers of the United States had a blueprint written out for them. They conceived those ideals on their own.
  5. Hopes Member

    Our government system provides us with basic rights of freedom.

    We might complain about our politics.

    We might complain about Bush.

    We might complain about Obama.

    But we are FREE to complain!
  6. Ray Murphy Member

    It wasn't always that way.
    In the U.S. students were shot during protests several decades ago. I was the same in South Africa.

    Ray
  7. Hopes Member

    I'm very aware. I was responding to موش 's present tense post. As for the violent government reaction to protests a few decades ago in the United States, the basis of our freedoms were already in place. The entire country didn't need to take weapons to the streets to correct where government went wrong. Iranians needs to form a government that provides basic human rights before they can even compare these events to what happened in Kent State or LA. There is no comparison. What's happening in Iran is far worse because the oppression and violence is widespread and permanent whereas Kent State and LA were isolated.
  8. Ray Murphy Member

    Iranian citizens already have the right to protest peacefully. I'm sure you are be aware of it, but it seems that not everyone is.

    Ray
  9. Hopes Member

    I'd also like to add that Kent State was not a peaceful protest. I'm not justifying the shootings, but I think people need to acknowledge that Kent State students were being violent. Another difference is that there were protests at 450 other colleges that didn't result in violence or death (with the exception of two additonal students). Americans from all over the country protested. The American government didn't try to oppress everyone from speaking out against the student shootings. That's a big difference from what's happening in Iran where nobody has a right to speak freely and any who do are at risk.
  10. Hopes Member

    I wasn't aware. That's why I'm here, to learn.

    Apparently it's a sudo right.

    It seems most of their rights aren't real.

    .
  11. LibertyHawk Member

    It should at least be a fair fight. The theocratic regime restricts guns from the people, and severely punishes gun smugglers, lest the people use the guns to overthrow their rule. The secular democratic nations should at least intervene by supplying guns to the people.
  12. Ray Murphy Member

    The leader of the opposition said that the right of citizens to protest peacefully is in the Constitution.
  13. Hopes Member

    Since we're on the subject, this is a perfect example of why liberals should embrace the right to bear arms. While I'm fairly liberal on many social issues, I fully support our constitutional right to bear arms. It boggles my mind why liberals try to restrict gun ownership in the United States.

    Isn't that how we got into the mess with Saddam? We supplied him with guns and look what he did! We have no guarantees that a new Iranian government will be better.

    Why the secular democratic nations? If you consider the negative image the west has in Iran, it would probably be more beneficial for support to come from elsewhere. For instance, Mandella got support from China.
  14. Hopes Member

    I'd also like to add that the demonstrators say they do not wish to overthrow the government. They merely want their vote counted. And who says they should respond to violence with violence? King succeeded with a peaceful movement. Mandella embraced a peaceful movement, but felt there was a point where nonpeaceful means were necessary. But the demonstrators in Iran just started . And what happened to a nationwide strike? A strike would be a very effective non-violent protest.
  15. Ray Murphy Member

    Ok, we've heard that guns don't kill people - people kill people; so if that's true then why not carry hand grenades - or didn't they exist when the Constitution was written?
  16. Ray Murphy Member

    Nelson Mandela was a fearless warrior who headed a sabotage organization in the early days. It was fascinating to read an article on the net by one of his friends who told what happened when Nelson and his fellow accused were permitted to discuss a possible last minute deal with the prosecution shortly before sentencing and possible execution. I forget exactly how it went, but they asked what should they do, and his reply was to die rather than admit guilt. They asked if he was serious and sure enough he was.

    I found it interesting to look back on my thoughts [and the same newspaper clippings] when Mandela and King were both jailed on different sides of the globe at the same time - within hours of each other on one occasion. I was young and it was a time before I had learned much about injustice in the world, and those two were just a pair of trouble-making losers :))
  17. Hopes Member

    The Iranians lack a King or Mandela. The 'opposition leader' is not truly a leader of the protesters' ideals. He's merely an old politician who didn't receive a fair election. He's no freedom fighter.
  18. Ray Murphy Member

    He has however put his life on the line for justice in Iran. Is there any other public figure who has done that yet?

Share This Page

Customize Theme Colors

Close

Choose a color via Color picker or click the predefined style names!

Primary Color :

Secondary Color :
Predefined Skins