[Kaminyu]

Originally Posted by roberto

News to me

Then you must have a bad memory, so let's trace back how this conversation went:

Originally Posted by you

Explain

And in response:

Originally Posted by me

When the invaders overthrew the government and occupied Iraq to the detriment of the Iraqis, this gave an opportunity for them to start engaging in their activities, first by rebelling against the occupation, and then fighting against each other.

So, did you mean something else, when you said "explain", or are you just that daft?

[roberto]

[quote=Kaminyu;16464]

This is an even weaker response, since this would also be an example of people warring with each other, only in this case, one side would be the government.

You can't be serious, you know only too well that the warring parties were those causing anarchy by preventing the operation of government, on second thoughts this is just you being devious, how sad to have to descend to that level

Wow, if I'm a joke, then you must be an even bigger joke than I am. You're too brainwashed by propaganda to give an objective or accurate view on much of anything.

Is this childish response all that you can manage?

Every institution is either elected or appointed in Iran. The Supreme Leader is elected and can be dismissed by the Assembly of Experts, who are elected by the people, as is the President and the legislature. That's why it's referred to as a republic.

Looks like you're wrong again.

Not so, the is truth is that a network of unelected institutions controlled by the highly pwerful conservative Supreme Leader is countered by a president and parliament elected by the people.
For much of the last decade, Iranian politics has been characterised by continued wrangling between these elected and unelected institutions as a reformist president - and, at times, parliament - struggled against the conservative establishment.
But with hardliners' regaining control of the parliament in 2004 and the presidency in 2005, all the organs of government are now dominated by conservatives.That is those not elected

No, not the world, just your world. As I said, a government with absolute power to almost whatever it wants and get away with it, is what a dictatorship is. You can look it up yourself. If Pakistan's government doesn't fit the bill, then either the assessment of Pakistan's government is wrong, or the dictionary definition of "dictatorship" is wrong.

Oh dear, well we have had your claim that if world opinion, if different from yours, then it is wrong; we now have, that according to you, if the definition of words as given by dictionaries is in different from yours, then the dictionaries are wrong. Who are you today, is it Napoleon?

The only reason you're calling it "Islamic", is because it has a non-western cultured, Muslim majority. This isn't a good reason at all. If Muslim majority countries can be called "Islamic" soley based on that, then Christian majority countries can also be called "Chirstian" for the same reason.

Be my guest

Unless you're saying the "whole civilized world" only includes the current the western governments, and those who support them, then you're wrong to say they all feel that way

The accent is on civilised

[roberto]

Originally Posted by Kaminyu

Then you must have a bad memory, so let's trace back how this conversation went:



And in response:



So, did you mean something else, when you said "explain", or are you just that daft?

Kaminyu, I haven’t bothered to go back and check, really a whole posts on this, how desperate you must be to get something right, mark you that understandable, you haven’t been doing too well, have you?

Bit naughty calling me daft, have a word with ChotooMotoo she will explain at great lengths , yawn

[Kaminyu]

Originally Posted by roberto

You can't be serious, you know only too well that the warring parties were those causing anarchy by preventing the operation of government, on second thoughts this is just you being devious, how sad to have to descend to that level

Of course I know this, and I'm sure you also know that it is these warring parties alone, which sustain anarchy for any significant amount of time. If there is anarchy, then by definition, there is no government, and whatever once was the government, would then just become another warring party. They cannot be considered the government if they don't (or can't) govern.

Is this childish response all that you can manage?

Childish comments only deserve childish responses.

Not so, the is truth is that a network of unelected institutions controlled by the highly pwerful conservative Supreme Leader is countered by a president and parliament elected by the people.
For much of the last decade, Iranian politics has been characterised by continued wrangling between these elected and unelected institutions as a reformist president - and, at times, parliament - struggled against the conservative establishment.
But with hardliners' regaining control of the parliament in 2004 and the presidency in 2005, all the organs of government are now dominated by conservatives.That is those not elected

I honestly don't see the issue with the SL (who is himself elected) appointing his own staff. The US president appoints his own cabinet members. So what? It's still a far cry from classifying it as a "dictatorship".

Oh dear, well we have had your claim that if world opinion, if different from yours, then it is wrong; we now have, that according to you, if the definition of words as given by dictionaries is in different from yours, then the dictionaries are wrong. Who are you today, is it Napoleon?

Actually, if you understood anything, you'd have realized that this has nothing to do with world opinion agreeing with mine or not. It has to do with what is a dictatorship, and whether Pakistan's government fits the description of one.

So, once again here is the dictionary definition of a "dictatorship". That isn't my dictionary, and I certainly didn't put that definition there.

Now, the question for you is, "does the Pakistani government fit that definition or not?"

It makes no difference to me if it does or not, since you were the one who brought it up in the first place, when I was only discussing what a dictatorship was.

The accent is on civilised

The irony being how uncivilized this self-proclaimed civilized world really is, and how a terrorist rogue state like Israel, which practices racism, apartheid, genocide and ethnic cleansing left and right, can be considered a "democracy". I guess "democracy" to them, is "whatever the corporatist western governments like". They'd hate for one of their underling states to have an actual democracy and self-determination.

Kaminyu, I haven’t bothered to go back and check, really a whole posts on this, how desperate you must be to get something right, mark you that understandable, you haven’t been doing too well, have you?

Everything is "desperate" to you, roboto. The only thing I'm "desperate" about at this time, is getting my homework finished. Responding to you is something I do at my leisure.

And I actually would've included it in my last post, except the "edit" option wasn't working. I'm sure you understand how that goes. I quite honestly dislike having to make 2 posts like that.

Bit naughty calling me daft, have a word with ChotooMotoo she will explain at great lengths , yawn

I actually didn't call you "daft", I just asked if you were. So are you then admitting to being daft?

[roberto]

[quote=Kaminyu;16657]

Of course I know this, and I'm sure you also know that it is these warring parties alone, which sustain anarchy for any significant amount of time. If there is anarchy, then by definition, there is no government, and whatever once was the government, would then just become another warring party. They cannot be considered the government if they don't (or can't) govern.

What a load of pointless waffle, anarchy does not by definition, necessarily mean the absence of government , it can and in the case of Iraq it certainly means that the government cannot fully perform in the field of law and order

Childish comments only deserve childish responses.

Your adopting your parroting, yet again, your so original

I honestly don't see the issue with the SL (who is himself elected) appointing his own staff. The US president appoints his own cabinet members. So what? It's still a far cry from classifying it as a "dictatorship".

As also in the Uk the cabinet members are elected representatives of government

Actually, if you understood anything, you'd have realized that this has nothing to do with world opinion agreeing with mine or not. It has to do with what is a dictatorship, and whether Pakistan's government fits the description of one.

Well to go back to square one, the world as whole recognises that Pakistan is a dictatorship, only you disagree and of course, sadly, you continue to claim that you are right

So, once again here is the dictionary definition of a "dictatorship". That isn't my dictionary, and I certainly didn't put that definition there.

Sorry , but you claimed that you were correct and that the worlds dictionaries were wrong

Now, the question for you is, "does the Pakistani government fit that definition or not?"

Yes and so does the rest of the world apart, from you of course

It makes no difference to me if it does or not, since you were the one who brought it up in the first place, when I was only discussing what a dictatorship was.

It fits my contention that Islamic countries are dictatorships

The irony being how uncivilized this self-proclaimed civilized world really is, and how a terrorist rogue state like Israel, which practices racism, apartheid, genocide and ethnic cleansing left and right, can be considered a "democracy". I guess "democracy" to them, is "whatever the corporatist western governments like". They'd hate for one of their underling states to have an actual democracy and self-determination.

When what you think is considered incorrect by the majority does it ever occur to you that you might be wrong or does your ego prevent this?

Everything is "desperate" to you, roboto. The only thing I'm "desperate" about at this time, is getting my homework finished. Responding to you is something I do at my leisure.

Seems rather a pointless remark , or for some reason do you want me to know your doing some homework?

And I actually would've included it in my last post, except the "edit" option wasn't working. I'm sure you understand how that goes. I quite honestly dislike having to make 2 posts like that.

Well that's a relief.

I actually didn't call you "daft", I just asked if you were. So are you then admitting to being daft?

Not so, you wrote "or are you just that daft?" which claims, or certainly at least, implies that I am daft and it is only a matter of the degree that is questionable.

Don't worry ChotooMotoo will provide you with an English lesson: I always want to laugh when Americans provide lessons in English.

[Kaminyu]

Originally Posted by roberto

What a load of pointless waffle, anarchy does not by definition, necessarily mean the absence of government , it can and in the case of Iraq it certainly means that the government cannot fully perform in the field of law and order

Wrong. Anarchy, by definition, does mean that. If the Iraqi government cannot "fully perform in the field of law and order", then it is either a very weak government, or not one at all.

Your adopting your parroting, yet again, your so original

Just like your name right?

As also in the Uk the cabinet members are elected representatives of government

Well, they aren't elected in the US, they are appointed by the President.

Well to go back to square one, the world as whole recognises that Pakistan is a dictatorship, only you disagree and of course, sadly, you continue to claim that you are right

You don't even know what I'm claiming, if you think I have any interest in whether the Pakistani government is a dictatorship or not.

Sorry , but you claimed that you were correct and that the worlds dictionaries were wrong

No I didn't.

Here's what I said about dictatorships vs. Islamic leaderships:

Originally Posted by me

If a country is Islamic, it cannot be a dictatorship, because dictators can basically do almost anything they want and get away with it. This, however, is completely contrary to the role of leadership in Islam.

Here's where you introduced Pakistan, saying that this would mean that Pakistan is not a dictatorship, which you claim is against what the world says:

Originally Posted by you

So Pakinstan is not a dictatorship, woops you against the world again

To which I replied:

Originally Posted by me

No, not the world, just your world. As I said, a government with absolute power to almost whatever it wants and get away with it, is what a dictatorship is. You can look it up yourself. If Pakistan's government doesn't fit the bill, then either the assessment of Pakistan's government is wrong, or the dictionary definition of "dictatorship" is wrong.

I said what a dictatorship was, based on the dictionary definition of it, and you said that the definition I provided would mean that Pakistan wasn't a dictatorship, despite world opinion. To this, did I say if Pakistan doesn't fit the definition of a "dictatorship" then either the definition was incorrect, or world opinion was incorrect.

The mistake you made, is that you falsely assumed that since I was saying an Islamic leadership is contrary to a dictatorship, that I was also somehow saying that Pakistan wasn't a dictatorship.

I'm not sure why you had assumed this, given that I wasn't even talking about Pakistan originally, but about Islamic leadership vs. a dictatorship. I also never said I considered Pakistan to have an Islamic leadership either.

Yes and so does the rest of the world apart, from you of course

Well, considering that I never said it was or wasn't, trying to separate me from the rest of the world based on the assumption that I did, is just another in your long list of follies.

It fits my contention that Islamic countries are dictatorships

It also fits my contention that such dictatorships are always west-friendly subservient ones.

When the US-made dictatorship of the unpopular, despised Shah regime was finally overthrown in Iran back in 1979 and replaced with a religious republic, the US has had it in for Iran ever since.

By comparing the Shah regime to the current regime of Iran, we can clearly see the difference between a dictatorship and a religious republic, thus refuting forever your notion that these so-called "Islamic states" have to be dictatorships.

When what you think is considered incorrect by the majority does it ever occur to you that you might be wrong or does your ego prevent this?

It's funny that you like to talk about world opinion so much, except when it comes to the main issue, of whether Islam is compatible with democracy or not.

Israel is only a "democracy" by name, and whether it is "officially" recognized as one or not, is irrelevant, since most people know full well it is not.

Seems rather a pointless remark , or for some reason do you want me to know your doing some homework?

No, I was just pointing out how fallacious your buzzword "desperate" is becoming, when trying to describe me.

Not so, you wrote "or are you just that daft?" which claims, or certainly at least, implies that I am daft and it is only a matter of the degree that is questionable.

At best, it only implies it. In reality, it is just a question of whether you are really so daft, that you would ask a question, then forget that you ever did, while responding to its answer.

Don't worry ChotooMotoo will provide you with an English lesson: I always want to laugh when Americans provide lessons in English.

What's so funny about it? It's called diffusion. When languages diffuse over large enough areas, they tend to have variations in dialect, spelling and grammar. Give it a long enough period of time, and it would eventually evolve into something entirely different.

[roberto]

[quote=Kaminyu;16768]

Wrong. Anarchy, by definition, does mean that. If the Iraqi government cannot "fully perform in the field of law and order", then

it is either a very weak government

, or not one at all.

So you agree that it is not necessarily the absence of government, why do I have to force these admissions out of you, it's boring and tedious

Just like your name right?

A senseless comment

Well, they aren't elected in the US, they are appointed by the President.

In the UK they are also appointed, but they have been elected to represent some constituency firsts, as I understand it the the case is similar in the US

You don't even know what I'm claiming,

You claimed that Pakistan was not a dictatorship

if you think I have any interest in whether the Pakistani government is a dictatorship or not.

I can't make sense out of that comment

No I didn't

Hem , do you not remember this:"No, not the world, just your world. As I said, a government with absolute power to almost whatever it wants and get away with it, is what a dictatorship is. You can look it up yourself. If Pakistan's government doesn't fit the bill, then either the assessment of Pakistan's government is wrong, or the dictionary definition of "dictatorship" is wrong.

Here's what I said about dictatorships vs. Islamic leaderships:

????????????????

Here's where you introduced Pakistan, saying that this would mean that Pakistan is not a dictatorship, which you claim is against what the world says:



To which I replied:



I said what a dictatorship was, based on the dictionary definition of it, and you said that the definition I provided would mean that Pakistan wasn't a dictatorship, despite world opinion. To this, did I say if Pakistan doesn't fit the definition of a "dictatorship" then either the definition was incorrect, or world opinion was incorrect.

The mistake you made, is that you falsely assumed that since I was saying an Islamic leadership is contrary to a dictatorship, that I was also somehow saying that Pakistan wasn't a dictatorship.

I'm not sure why you had assumed this, given that I wasn't even talking about Pakistan originally, but about Islamic leadership vs. a dictatorship. I also never said I considered Pakistan to have an Islamic leadership either.

Your rambling incoherently

Well, considering that I never said it was or wasn't, trying to separate me from the rest of the world based on the assumption that I did, is just another in your long list of follies.

t also fits my contention that such dictatorships are always west-friendly subservient ones.

When the US-made dictatorship of the unpopular, despised Shah regime was finally overthrown in Iran back in 1979 and replaced with a religious republic, the US has had it in for Iran ever since.

By comparing the Shah regime to the current regime of Iran, we can clearly see the difference between a dictatorship and a religious republic, thus refuting forever your notion that these so-called "Islamic states" have to be dictatorships.

More rambling incoherently plus an attemp to change the subject

It's funny that you like to talk about world opinion so much, except when it comes to the main issue, of whether Islam is compatible with democracy or not.

Well why should I, everyone can look around the world and see that Islamic countries are not democratic

Israel is only a "democracy" by name, and whether it is "officially" recognized as one or not, is irrelevant, since most people know full well it is not.

Don't know who the "most people" are , what planet do they live on?

At best, it only implies it. In reality, it is just a question of whether you are really so daft, that you would ask a question, then forget that you ever did, while responding to its answer.

You havent taken up that English lesson have you, mark you, the person I recommended has just posted a message that one would expect to have come from a 5 year old

What's so funny about it? It's called diffusion. When languages diffuse over large enough areas, they tend to have variations in dialect, spelling and grammar. Give it a long enough period of time, and it would eventually evolve into something entirely different

Yes you are right and it has already happened, the funny bit is that they still call it English
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Kaminyu old chap, as is usual when you lose an argument and you usually do, you start denying that which you have written, you introduce red herrings , you attempt to side tract the issues and you employ many other devious ways to evade the real issues and sabotage the exchange: this present case is typical: well sorry, but it's become tedious and boring and unworthy of my time., If you get lonely; I have noted that others steer well clear of you, I'll try to find some time to get back to you on simpler subjects.

[Kaminyu]

Originally Posted by roberto

So you agree that it is not necessarily the absence of government, why do I have to force these admissions out of you, it's boring and tedious

No, I did not agree. Why should I, when the dictionary definition itself doesn't?

Absence of law and order = absence of government = anarchy.

A senseless comment

Actually, it was in response to one.

In the UK they are also appointed, but they have been elected to represent some constituency firsts, as I understand it the the case is similar in the US

In which case, I'm still going to say "so what?"

You claimed that Pakistan was not a dictatorship

No, you just claimed I did. That's not the same thing. I never once said Pakistan was not a dictatorship.

I can't make sense out of that comment

Maybe you should try quoting the entire sentence then.

Hem , do you not remember this:"No, not the world, just your world. As I said, a government with absolute power to almost whatever it wants and get away with it, is what a dictatorship is. You can look it up yourself. If Pakistan's government doesn't fit the bill, then either the assessment of Pakistan's government is wrong, or the dictionary definition of "dictatorship" is wrong.

Yeah, and I already explained that, to which you gave this stupid reply:

Your rambling incoherently

Do I need to dumb it down for your feeble mind to comprehend it?

You are concocting imaginary communication barriers, to avoid giving a proper response. How typical.

More rambling incoherently plus an attemp to change the subject

"rambling incoherently".

Seriously though, giving an example of what I'm talking about, is not the same thing as "changing the subject".

Well why should I, everyone can look around the world and see that Islamic countries are not democratic

But does everyone consider them to be "Islamic"? Somehow, I doubt it.

Don't know who the "most people" are , what planet do they live on?

If this were in the 1930s, I can imagine how you'd say the same thing about Nazi Germany.

You havent taken up that English lesson have you, mark you, the person I recommended has just posted a message that one would expect to have come from a 5 year old

More "rambling incoherently", right?

Kaminyu old chap, as is usual when you lose an argument and you usually do, you start denying that which you have written, you introduce red herrings , you attempt to side tract the issues and you employ many other devious ways to evade the real issues and sabotage the exchange: this present case is typical: well sorry, but it's become tedious and boring and unworthy of my time.,

You're "rambling incoherently" again, and "desperately" so.

You also seem to have a "memory problem", which you should "see a doctor" about. You must be "confused" since you're "not making any sense". Let's also not forget that you're "in denial", to the point where you're "dreaming", thinking that you actually had a point about what you were talking about, and making all these "senseless" and "childish" comments, to avoid admitting to this.

That's your idea of a discussion. I wonder how much of what you said, would apply to it. But, it seems you're finally bailing out. I guess even a troll like you has its limits. Too bad for you.

If you get lonely; I have noted that others steer well clear of you, I'll try to find some time to get back to you on simpler subjects.

Well, you noted wrong, since most of my posts here nowadays seem to involve you.