Comments by "Omer عمر" (@Omer1996E.C) on "The Coming Iranian Population Crisis" video.
-
27
-
@JSM-bb80u we've heard all this before. Even that the Jordanian king was freedom fighter, or the baathist regime wasn't radical.
You definitely don't know about middle eastern leaders, they're officially anti-colonial, in reality colonial westerners. Especially that borgiba scum, he used to call the French ambassador to tell him how many Tunisians didn't fast, left hijab or got drunk.
And ataturk, got educated in italy, not in turkey, and he imposed his ideas without ever listening to the people, as he installed corrupt officials that helped Turkey to stay poor, and only after 2000 some development was seen. And that Reza was the beginning of westernisation, secularisation and anti-culturalism of Iran, tho better than the brits, he was not much better, just better because you know he wouldn't sell his country at least, but look at how bad teacher/father he was
17
-
Notice, Iran's population drop is happening mainly among the irreligious people, which means that only religious people will keep procreating, and so only religious population will grow, unless the religious themselves grow irreligious, which is happening.
So, there's a balancing act, which will make seeing a secular Iran further than we expect.
Iran's problem is the corrupt government system, which was THE reason for the islamic revolution. Most irreligious people in Iran are irreligious due to the past monarchy harsh secularisation effect, not due to grievances from the current regime, especially since most blanes can be appropriately placed on foreign sanctions, though there are grievances from the current system, even among the religious, as we can see in the Iranian elections, when the khameni himself elected the progressive party.
17
-
15
-
@JSM-bb80u I'm not arguing, but what I want to say is that it's colonial to think like the coloniser, you've effectively become him, just of a different race, and race wasn't the reason why Tunisians fought. Second, tell me which part of sharia for example? You just say things without knowing.
The DRC is among the poorest nations on earth, so democracy is bad. Is that true? Or is it because DRC didn't implement democracy well?
So, saying islamic law is bad is very illogical, considering that no muslim country implements the sharia well.
So, if islamic law is implemented well, it's good. If democracy is implemented well, it's good.
12
-
7
-
6
-
3
-
@JSM-bb80u lol, now you're defending fornication? I bet you cheat on every partner you get, because the law of stoning is applicable only to married adulterers, while beating is for the unmarried. Don't you believe that sex out of marriage causes decadence and social destruction? Well, we do, and that's it's legitimate. You think drugs are bad, even if the user wants it by his free will? We also think adultry is bad even if it was wanted. The only difference is that adultery's effects are very slowly seen, so they may not be noticed as drugs.
And about taliban, if the french can ban the freedom to clothing and covering, then taliban should also be able to ban the freedom to clothing and covering, right?
Plus, the law is for the public, not private areas, and public area laws are more legitimate than private.
I thought you'd bring me an economic or political argument, you gave me some aesthetic and socially subjective ones.
2
-
2
-
1
-
@DM5550Z many arab countries realised?! Peace?!
First, as we can see, is real doesn't want peace, except to further its ambitions. Why are you so delusional, or perhaps just trying to fool others.
Second, arab governments realised that if they want to protect their thrones from democracy and revolutions, they have to ally with the west, rather than allying with their peoples. The alliance between israel and the arab governments is just a consolidation of autocracy, which the west prefers, because you know what? Because everytime democracy comes to us, we elect islamists or semi/hybrid-islamists, and they win sweeping majorities every single time, and that's why the west deliberately fund our submissive autocratic regimes, rather than our ambitious and assertive democratic regimes. I'm sure you as a westerner minded person also hate democracy coming to the middle east because you know we are even better civilizational rivals than China, if we got equal opportunity.
Peace with the occupation isn't an option, because simply, zionists doesn't want it. Not even a 2 state solution. They only want zionists like the current ruler of the UAE, unlike his more assertive father.
We are being sold for the thrones of our rulers, we shall overthrow them soon and zionists shall see no peec.
1
-
@DM5550Z many arab countries realised?! Peace?!
First, as we can see, is real doesn't want peace, except to further its ambitions. Why are you so delusional, or perhaps just trying to fool others.
Second, arab governments realised that if they want to protect their thrones from democracy and revolutions, they have to ally with the west, rather than allying with their peoples. The alliance between israel and the arab governments is just a consolidation of autocracy, which the west prefers, because you know what? Because everytime democracy comes to us, we elect islamists or semi/hybrid-islamists, and they win sweeping majorities every single time, and that's why the west deliberately fund our submissive autocratic regimes, rather than our ambitious and assertive democratic regimes. I'm sure you as a westerner minded person also hate democracy coming to the middle east because you know we are even better civilizational rivals than China, if we got equal opportunity.
Peace with the occupation isn't an option, because simply, zionists doesn't want it. Not even a 2 state solution. They only want zionists like the current ruler of the UAE, unlike his more assertive father.
We are being sold for the thrones of our rulers, we shall overthrow them soon and zionists shall see no peec.
1
-
1
-
@DM5550Z many arab countries realised?! Peace?!
First, as we can see, that occupying state (i can't say its name) doesn't want peace, except to further its ambitions. Why are you so delusional, or perhaps just trying to fool others.
Second, arab governments realised that if they want to protect their thrones from democracy, they have to ally with the west, rather than allying with their peoples. The alliance between the occupying state and arab governments is just a consolidation of autocracy, which the west prefers, because you know what? Because everytime democracy comes to us, we elect islamists or semi/hybrid-islam ists, and they win sweeping majorities every single time, and that's why the west deliberately fund our submissive autocratic regimes, rather than our ambitious and assertive democratic regimes. I'm sure you as a westerner minded person also hate democracy coming to the middle east because you know we are even better civilizational rivals than China, if we got equal opportunity.
Peace with the occupation isn't an option, because simply, occupiers doesn't want it. Not even a 2 state solution. They only want occupier mind people like the current ruler of the UAE, unlike his more assertive father.
We are being sold for the thrones of our rulers, we shall overthrow them soon and these occupiers shall never see peeec.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1