EPTOn June 28 2009 09:05 MYM.Testie wrote:
Moltke stop trolling.
Moltke stop trolling.
Moltke has been posting the same way on various forums for ... seven + years. He's not trolling.
Iranian protests - Page 36
| Forum Index > General Forum |
|
-_-
United States7081 Posts
Moltke has been posting the same way on various forums for ... seven + years. He's not trolling. | ||
|
Spo0ky
United States23 Posts
| ||
|
FragKrag
United States11567 Posts
On June 28 2009 13:40 Spo0ky wrote: Moltke has been trolling the same way on various forums for ... seven + years. He's trolling. Who the hell are you? | ||
|
VIB
Brazil3567 Posts
http://www.youtube.com/citizentube#play/user/7A80EC9F4C083901/0/HOMyzu6vCB8 | ||
|
D10
Brazil3409 Posts
![[image loading]](http://cloggie.org/proggold/wp-content/uploads/2009/06/ak47.jpg) sadly, the delivery is delayed due to technical problems. ![[image loading]](http://www.dailyinfo.co.uk/images/cinema/lord-of-war.jpg) | ||
|
VIB
Brazil3567 Posts
On June 28 2009 14:30 D10 wrote: I'm not sure if I understand you. Are you trying to say the Iranian protesters are not shooting people because they have no access to guns? If so, you would be wrong. They have been clearly spreading the word of a peaceful unarmed revolution since the beginning. Here's an example of many others:Theres only one thing right now that separates the iranian mob from a bunch of people who go out on the streets to die, and the motherfuckers killing them is a bunch of these. RT Iran: to supporters of Mousavi: bring flowers with yourself for today's rally at 4 in 7-tir sq to give to Basijis #iranelection #gr88 Sorry if I didn't understand what you're saying. | ||
|
D10
Brazil3409 Posts
Im starting to believe that the situation will culminate in a civil war, after some huge ass massacre by the iranian government and failure by the international community to be able to help people on the ground. | ||
|
{CC}StealthBlue
United States41117 Posts
the post #iranelection crisis has restored the congress attempts to embargo selling gasoline to Iran. (src BBCPersian) "What Will Happen To Those Arrested In Iran?" A story shared by a former student detainee http://bit.ly/17PAA6 #iranelection #neda http://tehranbureau.com/mousavis-letter/ | ||
|
{CC}StealthBlue
United States41117 Posts
http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20090628/ap_on_re_mi_ea/ml_iran_election | ||
|
Ecorin
Estonia84 Posts
| ||
|
Pika Chu
Romania2510 Posts
On June 28 2009 18:05 Ecorin wrote: I watched some videos about it yesterday. Young people getting shot and killed because they only express their opinion. There are a lot more killing going on than the videos or reports on the news. Truth is they aren't being shot and killed, it just happened a couple of times... don't generalize. And it's not about expressing their opinions, it's about how they are doing it. Large street manifestations over a couple of days isn't just expressing opinions. Another part that you don't see is that there are profiteers who take advantage of the chaos created and rob, rape, destroy public property etc. This always happens during big riots. And the police's job is the hardest there. They have to protect themselves, they have to protect the protesting citizens and they have to protect public and private property. | ||
|
VIB
Brazil3567 Posts
On June 28 2009 18:57 Pika Chu wrote: Let me guess, you didn't really see the videos you're commenting about. You just think it's smarter to give your opinion about a topic before you actually know anything about that topic.Truth is they aren't being shot and killed, it just happened a couple of times... don't generalize. And it's not about expressing their opinions, it's about how they are doing it. Large street manifestations over a couple of days isn't just expressing opinions. Another part that you don't see is that there are profiteers who take advantage of the chaos created and rob, rape, destroy public property etc. This always happens during big riots. And the police's job is the hardest there. They have to protect themselves, they have to protect the protesting citizens and they have to protect public and private property. | ||
|
MoltkeWarding
5195 Posts
On June 28 2009 12:08 Xeris wrote: Can we please not fuck this thread up? =P I've been trying to not derail this thread any more than I need to. My original point was allusive, and I will defend its legitimacy, rather than the more concrete aspects of history. 1) To clarify myself, I was not comparing the "execution" of Louis XVI to the murder of Iranian demonstrators, but the incentive of a government to use force against rioters. To quote Pat Buchanan's reaction to the Tehran riots: Louis XVI let the mob lead him away from Versailles, which he never saw again. When artillery captain Bonaparte asked one of the late king's ministers why Louis had not used his cannons, the minister is said to have replied, "The king of France does not use artillery on his own people." To which Napoleon is said to have replied, "What an idiot." 2) More importantly, Boblion's counterarguments reveal that he is not really interested in justice, but in ideology. His responses reveal how thin his concern for constitutional legality and standards of justice are: On one hand, he is claiming that Louis XVI had no choice but to accept the restoration of Necker, the doubling of the Third Estate, the acceptance of the Charte octroyee, the forcible relocation to Paris, the constitution of 1791, and the nationalization of French churches. Of course, this conclusion is only conditionally justified; the King did not have the character of a Mazarin. However, in Boblion's interpretation, he clearly believed that the King was forced to act under duress. Actions under duress are not legally binding. On the other hand, he seems to think that the same powers usurped under duress are legally competent to try the source of their authority for treason. He seems to hold this strange notion that laws can be formulated ex post facto on arbitrary whim, previous legal definitions can be inverted by the same whim, that justice in society stems from men rather than laws, that any breach of law can be justified in the name of democracy or progress. One cannot reason with such people on the basis of shared axioms, because their entire understanding of the world is the consequence of ideas rather than principles. One question I would pose to Boblion: On the 13. Vendemiaire, Napoleon saved the Republic and National Convention by firing on the royalist mobs storming Paris with "a whiff of grapeshot." In your opinion, is government violence against mobs never justified, or are they only justified when they are directed against kings and royalists? P.S. Last night I was a little more than tipsy, I must admit  | ||
|
Pika Chu
Romania2510 Posts
On June 28 2009 19:14 VIB wrote: Let me guess, you didn't really see the videos you're commenting about. You just think it's smarter to give your opinion about a topic before you actually know anything about that topic. You failed to guess. I actually did saw the videos and did read every reply in this thread. | ||
|
Boblion
France8043 Posts
On June 28 2009 21:01 MoltkeWarding wrote: Actions under duress are not legally binding. And an absolute monarchy is "legal binding" perhaps ? La liberté ne se donne pas, elle se prend. One question I would pose to Boblion: On the 13. Vendemiaire, Napoleon saved the Republic and National Convention by firing on the royalist mobs storming Paris with "a whiff of grapeshot." In your opinion, is government violence against mobs never justified, or are they only justified when they are directed against kings and royalists? It depends if those people were armed. Anyway Moltke as i said before people during this era were way more violent than nowadays ( at least for Western standarts ) and i have already said that i'm against violence, death penalty and the slaughter of innocent civilians. However there is a difference between people asking for freedom and democracy and a minority of bigots rioting because they have been brain-washed since the dawn of time to love their king ( "de droit divin haha" ). So far the Iranian "mob" burn some police cars and throw some stones to the riot police but they have not killed anyone ( we can't say the same of the police and bassidjis ) | ||
|
MoltkeWarding
5195 Posts
And an absolute monarchy is "legal binding" perhaps ? La liberté ne se donne pas, elle se prend. First of all, you seem to confuse "absolute monarchy" with the modern phenomenon of "totalitarianism." The most absolute monarchs of the Ancien Regime could not exercise a fraction of the total power or control of the modern bureaucratic state. The summoning of the estates general itself establishes one central limitation of absolute monarchical power: it was much more difficult for monarchs to raise revenues than for modern governments. The loosening of feudal law in the early modern age disrupted the natural checks and balances of feudal society, but without defending or accusing them in the particular, Louis XIV and XV, Louis XVI for most of his reign, Frederick II of Prussia and Joseph II of Austria were largely popular monarchs. When a monarch breaks or abuses the law of the realm, such as Richard II or Charles V of Spain, it is usually met by negative consequences. Secondly, monarchy and liberty are no more incompatible than democracy and liberty; on the contrary, perhaps the former is less a political contradiction than the latter. However there is a difference between people asking for freedom and democracy and a minority of bigots rioting because they have been brain-washed since the dawn of time to love their king The Bastille was stormed by fewer than 1000 rioters out of a population of 600 000 Parisians and 25 million Frenchmen. It is largely since the French revolution that French history has been made by a minority; by what happened in Paris. Anyhow your categories are contradictory. If I told you that Royalists in 1795 rose up against the Republic, you say that they were a "minority." If I told you that Louis XV was extreme popular in Paris as well as in the provinces, you say that the people were "brainwashed" to feel so. (Why am I reminded of False Consciousness from Marxist doctrine?) No doubt I am also brainwashed for my fondness for Franz Joseph II of Austria. Well, fairness is an English and not a French virtue. | ||
|
Boblion
France8043 Posts
On June 28 2009 22:30 MoltkeWarding wrote: First of all, you seem to confuse "absolute monarchy" with the modern phenomenon of "totalitarianism." The most absolute monarchs of the Ancien Regime could not exercise a fraction of the total power or control of the modern bureaucratic state. The summoning of the estates general itself establishes one central limitation of absolute monarchical power: it was much more difficult for monarchs to raise revenues than for modern governments. The loosening of feudal law in the early modern age disrupted the natural checks and balances of feudal society, but without defending or accusing them in the particular, Louis XIV and XV, Louis XVI for most of his reign, Frederick II of Prussia and Joseph II of Austria were largely popular monarchs. When a monarch breaks or abuses the law of the realm, such as Richard II or Charles V of Spain, it is usually met by negative consequences. Moltke you are disgusting. You want to talk about all the jacqueries and the slaughters of peasants by the monarchy ? You want to talk about the forced exile of thinkers during the 18th century ? The king had way more power than any presidents ( at least in Western democracies ). On June 28 2009 22:30 MoltkeWarding wrote: Secondly, monarchy and liberty are no more incompatible than democracy and liberty; on the contrary, perhaps the former is less a political contradiction than the latter. haha On June 28 2009 22:30 MoltkeWarding wrote: It is largely since the French revolution that French history has been made by a minority; by what happened in Paris. There were riots in the whole country. Maybe the "active" rioters were a minority, but most of the people disliked the king and the monarchy. On June 28 2009 22:30 MoltkeWarding wrote: Anyhow your categories are contradictory. ooops On June 28 2009 22:30 MoltkeWarding wrote: The Bastille was stormed by fewer than 1000 rioters out of a population of 600 000 Parisians and 25 million Frenchmen On June 28 2009 22:30 MoltkeWarding wrote: Louis XVI for most of his reign, Frederick II of Prussia and Joseph II of Austria were largely popular monarchs. Contradiction. Looks like his dear "sujets" didn't really care about his fate. Maybe he wasn't that popular ? On June 28 2009 22:30 MoltkeWarding wrote: If I told you that Royalists in 1795 rose up against the Republic, you say that they were a "minority." If I told you that Louis XV was extreme popular in Paris as well as in the provinces, you say that the people were "brainwashed" to feel so. Yea Vendéens were retarded bigots ( and some still are ). On June 28 2009 22:30 MoltkeWarding wrote: (Why am I reminded of False Consciousness from Marxist doctrine?) No doubt I am also brainwashed for my fondness for Franz Joseph II of Austria. Well, fairness is an English and not a French virtue. Moltke there is a reason why there are no more absolute monarchies in Western countries. Because it is unfair, ineffective and because people enjoy freedom. But maybe you would have enjoyed to be a peasant during the 18th century ... | ||
Arbiter[frolix]
United Kingdom2674 Posts
I don't expect to see any more posts about Louis XVI in this thread. | ||
|
MoltkeWarding
5195 Posts
Moltke you are disgusting. You want to talk about tall the jacqueries and the slaughters of peasans by the monarchy ? You want to talk about the forced exile of thinkers during the 18th century ? The king had way more power than any presidents ( at least in Western democracies ). You are obviously confused about the legal order of feudal society: the checks on monarchial power were implemented not by the peasantry, (who, in your terms, were often "brainwashed" by religious fanatics or political utopianists into revolt,) but by the aristocracy. Regarding the Jacquerie uprising in particular- it was an instance not of tyrannical monarchial power, but of the breakdown of monarchial power. The suppression was initiated not by the King of France, who was held in English captivity, but by the aristocracy (you seem to equate monarchy with aristocracy, which is a particularly fallacious attitude for the Middle Ages). Concerning the enlightenment, of course, the monarchy was the prime source of intellectual patronage. But Voltaire was not exiled for his ideas (he had no original ones of his own) but for his propensity for making domestic enemies throgh his merciless teasing. Under Louis XV, censorship and more importantly, the selective policing of philosophes was the extension of court politics. On one side stood the clerical faction, on the other side, enlightened noblemen, and Mme. de Pompador, who often protected Voltaire from the King's justice. Of course, every Kingdom was different: exiled Philosophes often migrated to liberal England, with her powerful aristocracy, and the enlightened Prussia of Frederick II. Your attribtion of every evil which occurs under a monarchy to the perils of monarchism in general is fraudulent and simple-minded. The notion that Kings had more power than presidents can be challenged very simply and directly: http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/europe/8112821.stm Could any monarch have initiated laws of this kind? Contradiction. Looks like his dear "sujets" didn't really care about his fate. Maybe he wasn't that popular ? Louis XVI reigned for eighteen years from 1774 to 1792. Anyone who understands the least thing about the fickleness of French popular sentiment will understand that it is entirely possible for the public to love a figure one day and distain him the next, particularly in France.: From the Coronation of Louis XVI: While traveling from Compiègne to Frismes—where His Majesty spent the night on 8 June–, the King received the most dazzling, the most sincere and already the most deserved proof of love from His Peoples...the King entered Reims escorted by the troops of the royal household and made his way through a People intoxicated with joy—which did not decrease but rather intensified as the procession moved along. Moltke there is a reason why there are no more absolute monarchies in Western countries. Because it is unfair, ineffective and because people enjoy freedom. This is not only wrong, but entirely unhistorical. As Tocqueville himself summarized in L'Ancien Regime: Revolutions against monarchies begin not when they are at their most oppressive, but when their grip on power has begun to relax. The Fronde failed against Mazarin, while the French Revolution succeeded in deposing the far milder Louis XVI. Nicholas I crushed the Decembrist rising with an iron fist, while Nicholas II pursued moderation, and was eventually murdered. Henry VIII brutally suppressed all domestic opposition, while Charles I was chased from his throne after granting numerous concessions to Parliament. Stalin defeated popular risings against collectivization with brutality, while Gorbachev inadvertently toppled the state he was trying to reform. Which is the better proposition? Louis XVI or Robespierre and Napoleon? Nicholas II or Lenin? Charles I or Cromwell? Freedom, efficiency and fairness indeed. P.S. By decree, this will be all I have to say on the subject, since I have nothing to say on Iran apart from the observation that it would be astonishing if protests of that magnitude were not suppressed by the government. | ||
|
SnK-Arcbound
United States4423 Posts
I'd like to see if I actually need to look back and the first 5 pages or if the person would come out themselves and give their opinion of it now. | ||
| ||
