Why rig the vote when you can rig the candidates?
Why rig the vote when you can rig the candidates?
Yeah, exactly. Remember that the Ayatollah has the ability to refuse any candidate he likes the right to stand (or, rather, the Guardian Council does, and he appoints that, so...). It's not like he exactly needs to fiddle the election to keep power. That was all Ahmadinejad's doing, I believe. Whilst the Ayatollah may well have supported him after the fact, there's no evidence he was involved in the rigging itself, at least not directly. And, given what happened last time, he is unlikely to support doing so again.
I cant help but think given all the unrest lately the ayatollah may be feeling a touch more vulnerable and would want to at least appear to have a leader supported by popular opinion.
Originally Posted by Bird of Hermes
Why does everyone hate him so much?
I'll ask you guys some questions
Whats the difference between him and other leaders who've attacked countries?
Why is it different when we mass murder people?
hurrrrrrrrr durrrrrrr
been boning up on the troll thread lately?
lacks effort really, I cant give you a good score
Sorry,it was a serious question.
Just like some of the fictional character in Type-moon games based on real people
Some of them are based on real people who mass murdered people!
Isn't that moeee?
*taps foot impatiently*
how are you ever going to make it as a real troll if you can't pull off a "what about all the cute things osama did" style?
thats like trolling with training wheels man!
Ah...I think I'm pretty done trying to have a serious conversation here..
Bai bai
I WASN'T CLEAR! sorry about that.
to me, he was not dead until i SEE HIS CORPSE.
so, if the press was still demanding proofs, to me this was only bullshit.
i want FACTS, not supositions.
chill down, ok? i'm not a sakura hater. let your anger for these peoples. D:
i'm ALMOST innocent.
Well, I suspect that varies somewhat, but the fundamental reason is that he ordered an attack which killed 4000 people for no reason other than to terrorise the west. Plus, he's trying to impose his way of life on us, which is something I absolutely cannot stand.
How many other "leaders" have gone out to intentionally murder innocent civilians? There's a difference between attacking a country because you have some reason (however flimsy) for wanting to take out the leader, with the intent of minimising civilian casualties as much as possible and attacking a bunch of innocent people just because they happen to live in a country you don't like.Whats the difference between him and other leaders who've attacked countries?
It's not. Any western leader who kills people as an aim and not as a side-effect of their intentions deserves every bit as much flak as he does (and, yes, that does include the people who sanctioned the totally needless firebombing of Dresden and, arguably, the use of nukes on Japan, as well).Why is it different when we mass murder people?
Of course, whether Bin Laden is truly "evil" is an interesting debate. After all, he likely actually believes in what he's doing, and thinks it's for the "greater good" of humanity. So, however awful his actions are, it's unclear whether he can truly be called "evil" by any objective definition of such. Of course, that doesn't mean he shouldn't be stopped....
Erm, what?
What, not conforming to your worldview is "trolling" now?
It's quite possible for "normal" people in certain areas to support Bin Laden, as the response to his death has shown, and further it's quite possible to hate Bin Laden and also to hate American leaders who have done essentially the same thing, only with the veneer of legitimacy that comes from being in power.
The only difference between "terrorist" and "freedom fighter", ultimately, is that a freedom fighter is a rebel we like and a terrorst is a rebel we don't. Obviously, that doesn't mean that some rebels don't do things that are most definitely wrong, but that has very little to do with how people classify them. And there is absolutely no reason why killing people is somehow more OK just because you do so on behalf of a country rather than a terrorist organisation.
Last edited by Mike1984; May 11th, 2011 at 07:32 AM.
Noooo...see, there is an actual style of trolling in which you present an inflammatory topic and then constantly deflect criticism by stating "you are trying to have a serious debate" it's very common. Usually the example given is something like I don't think hitler really did anything wrong, or something like that, given this thread, flipping to bin laden is the no brainer swap, it's absolutely textbook.
Well, yeah, but he does actually have a valid point. In particular, like I said it's not clear that Bin Laden (or even Hitler) can be truly defined as "evil", because their intentions (assuming they believed what they said) were "good", in that they wanted to help the world in their own (very twisted) way.
no he doesnt.Well, yeah, but he does actually have a valid point
their actions however can be, and are.like I said it's not clear that Bin Laden (or even Hitler) can be truly defined as "evil"
He does. He's wrong, but he has a valid point. People treat murderous actions taken by a government as somehow "more acceptable" than those taken by a private individual, even though there is absolutely no reason to do so.
Yes, but the same applies to MoS Shirou and to Kiritsugu, neither of whom could really be classed as "evil".their actions however can be, and are.
thats not even the point he is making, since he has identified it as one government the US, attacking the other, bin laden. and vice versa, of course. well, actually he wasn't making any point, since it was a troll, so I guess that would be the point he was pretending to make.Why does everyone hate him so much?
I'll ask you guys some questions
Whats the difference between him and other leaders who've attacked countries?
Why is it different when we mass murder people?
hurrrrrrrrr durrrrrrr
Well, no, he called Bin Laden a "leader". Which he undoubtedly is. I mean, he never carried out the attacks personally, so unless you consider him to be the "leader" of the plot then he surely cannot be held responsible at all. There are things you can lead other than countries, you know (such as terrorist organisations...).
If you want to say leader of a group, against another, as opposed to government, fine. That's us verse al Qaida, point stands unchanged.
"Well, I suspect that varies somewhat, but the fundamental reason is that he ordered an attack which killed 4000 people for no reason other than to terrorise the west. Plus, he's trying to impose his way of life on us, which is something I absolutely cannot stand."
Er..We do that in America all the time.
As for Hitler we've already made gender bent moe versions of him.
Edit: As for what I said about TM related characters based on real people
IE Alexander the great and the thousands he killed for silly reasons.
Last edited by fuji; May 11th, 2011 at 09:27 AM.
Err, I'm not American and have never professed anything but utter contempt for America as a country (although many of the people seem perfectly nice, and the concept of America is good, just the way it's run is utterly absurd)....
Posting Permissions
Reply With Quote
