[flagged]

nerdsniper 2 hours ago | parent | next [-]

> Iranians will be reminded

I think this comment is misguided enough / detached from reality enough to rightfully be flagged to death for being trite and not contributing anything to the discussion.

Iranians lost internet than 3 weeks ago. They are as aware now as they ever will be about how things are going outside their borders.

▲

blagie 2 hours ago | parent | prev | next [-]

> Then Iranians will be reminded how peaceful and prosperous the most other Muslim countries are.

This is factually incorrect. Top 10 majority-Muslim countries, sorted by population:

Indonesia, Pakistan, Egypt, Turkey, Algeria, Sudan, Iraq, Afghanistan, Morocco, Saudi Arabia

Now, the majority of those have problems with seeds in Western Imperialism, but the point is (a) the majority of those have problems (b) Iran's problems also have seeds in US interventions.

The gap between how peaceful and educated most people are, and how bad governments are, is a phenomenon almost unique here. Figuring out how to bridge that gap is the major challenge. The trick would be establishing a collective caliphate -- where the caliph isn't an individual but an institution -- and which spans the Muslim world.

▲

M95D 2 hours ago | parent | prev [-]

> how peaceful and prosperous the most other Muslim countries are.

Which coutries are those?

▲

3rodents 2 hours ago | parent | next [-]

UAE, Indonesia, Malaysia, Qatar, Saudi Arabia, Turkey among many others.

	▲	u_sama an hour ago \| parent [-]
		This doesnt fit either the peaceful nor prosperous except Malaysia/Indonesia maybe. UAE directly finances the sanguinary RSF in Sudan and CTS in Yemen, Saudi Arabia/Qatar has financed institutions behind the expansion of the Muslim Brotherhood/Salafism in the worlld and Turkey has a shaky economy with a large underbelly as well as engaging in their own brand of imperialism abroad.

▲

joe_mamba 2 hours ago | parent | prev [-]

[flagged]

▲

mschulze 2 hours ago | parent [-]

Take your hate elsewhere

▲

joe_mamba 2 hours ago | parent [-]

Which of those words classify as "hate"?

▲

mschulze an hour ago | parent | next [-]

I'm answering so others who read this can know my reasoning, not to explain to you, because you know exactly what you are writing.

The rhetoric that Sweden, Germany, UK and France are Muslim countries is exclusivley used by very far-right standing people to fearmonger and hate against immigrants. What would it even mean for these countries to be Muslim? Germany has literally a party with "Christian" in their name in the government. You still hear the bells of Christian churches everywhere.

	▲	joe_mamba an hour ago \| parent [-]
		Accusing people you disagree with of being "very far right" to automatically discredit them without arguments, is the ultimate bad faith cheat code of online debates. If you want, we can have this conversation over another medium where I can share you the data from government sources that prove my point as being mathematically and logically sound, and not "far right". THere's no point continuing here since HN anyway bans such discussions as inflammatory without right to appeal regardless of what data/arguments you bring to the table, so even if you win the argument, you still loose.

▲

bigyabai 2 hours ago | parent | prev [-]

> Please respond to the strongest plausible interpretation of what someone says, not a weaker one that's easier to criticize. Assume good faith.

https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html

▲

joe_mamba 2 hours ago | parent [-]

Sure, but you're beating around the bush and not answering on where was the so called "hate"?

It's one thing to accuse someone of not replying to the "strongest plausible interpretation of what someone says", and another thing to accuse someone of "hate", which is a very serious accusation that requires proof beyond a shadow of a doubt, especially in the EU where strong anti libel laws apply.

▲

bigyabai an hour ago | parent [-]

https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html

	▲	joe_mamba an hour ago \| parent [-]
		Spamming the same thing while avoiding answering the "where's the hate" question with an actual argument, makes you the one breaking the rule you referred to: >" Please respond to the strongest plausible interpretation of what someone says, not a weaker one that's easier to criticize. Assume good faith." If you had a strong plausible interpretation you'd have given one.