[Osx-nutters] AHMADINEJAD

[guy hammond]

Well, OK, here's the thing. If you live under the hated Bush (or Bliar) 
regime, you can actually be pretty vocal in your criticism of them. You can 
do so openly, with your real name, in a communications medium that is easy 
for their minions to snoop on, and guess what, *nothing will happen to you*. 
Yes that's right. Try that in Iran/Saudi Arabia/North Korea/Cuba/any one of 
dozens of other countries beloved of the Western liberal elite. This is why 
it is reasonable to say that there is no moral equivalence between the the 
Presidents of Iran and the US. 

If you can openly complain about being oppressed - you aren't. If you can 
open call your (elected) leader an evil psychopath in his own territory - he 
isn't one. If he was the secret police would just disappear you. It's like 
comparing a stubbed toe to a broken leg.

OMG HE SAID THAT PRESIDENT AHMADINEJAD WAS LIKE A BROKEN LEG! JIHAD JIHAD!!


G

-- 
grh at dsl.pipex.com
http://www.grh-photo.com/

"First things first, but not necessarily in that order" -- The 
Doctor, "Doctor Who" 


Quoting Mark Smith <mark at bbprojects.net>:

> 
> On 22 Sep 2006, at 18:22, guy hammond wrote:
> 
> > So your entire argument is based on you being a telepath? You win. No
> > religious dogma can compete with that...
> 
> Religious dogma can't "compete" with anything, but I don't think that  
> was your main point, so I won't waste any more time on it.
> 
> I'm basing my assumptions (and I made it clear that they were  
> assumptions by use of phrases like "it seems to me" and "I suspect")  
> on appearances and circumstantial evidence.
> 
> That that wasn't my entire argument, just the one little snippet that  
> I could be bothered dashing off about a facet of the comparison  
> between the two nutjobs that is certainly true, very likely to have a  
> strong influence on the behaviour of both and what hadn't been  
> mentioned in the thread so far.
> 
> The conjecture about Bush's fanaticism, *is* conjecture, but its  
> hardly unreasonable. His stance and behaviour invites such  
> conjecture. If he doesn't want thinking individuals to consider him  
> to be such a maniac, he should desist from reinforcing the impression  
> that he is one.
> 
> Most of what others have written to the effect that Bush is nowhere  
> near as bad as Ahmadinejad may be concisely explained by their social  
> contexts. Its only a small step from there (granted, its  
> hypothetical), to assume, that in effect, they are two chips from the  
> same block. Everything points to this being close to the truth.
> 
> As you astutely point out (though I doubt there are many here who  
> hadn't figured it out for themselves - I know I had), we'd need to  
> get inside their respective heads to be really sure.
> 
> So, eh, back to thread ?
> 
> Mark.
> _______________________________________________
> OSX-Nutters mailing list | OSX-Nutters at tit-wank.com
> http://www.tit-wank.com/mailman/listinfo/osx-nutters
> Join us in #ramblingwaffles on irc.23x.net
>