Forum adverts like this one are shown to any user who is not logged in. Join us by filling out a tiny 3 field form and you will get your own, free, dakka user account which gives a good range of benefits to you: No adverts like this in the forums anymore. Times and dates in your local timezone. Full tracking of what you have read so you can skip to your first unread post, easily see what has changed since you last logged in, and easily see what is new at a glance. Email notifications for threads you want to watch closely. Being a part of the oldest wargaming community on the net. If you are already a member then feel free to login now.

 feeder wrote:

Belgians. The people that are too stuck up to even be French.

Don't say that in the north of our country, my friend. I don't guarantee your safety for insulting our Flemish neightbours in the worst possible way.


Anyway, we Belgian have no reason to send an assassin to get rid of Trump. He said Belgium was a really nice city after all. It makes sense; for American people, Belgium is such a tiny country that it can only be seen as a mere city in comparision to the size of USA.

Mdlbuildr wrote:

 Yodhrin wrote:

Mdlbuildr wrote:

The exception is Israe...

The exception always seems to be Israel.

Yep. Only Democracy in the Middle East.

Tunisia, Turkey, Lebanon, Morocco, Iraq, and Kuwait called in to say "Learn a book, Seth".

 feeder wrote:

Your Weenie Legions will flounder in the snow of our True North Winter. We will once again burn the White House and hang the orange scalp of your leader from the tallest maple tree!

and we shall keep out the northern border crossers:

This guy was a disappointment...where's Guy Fawkes when you need him!

 kronk wrote:


Tunisia, Turkey, Lebanon, Morocco, Iraq, and Kuwait called in to say "Learn a book, Seth".

LMAO, how about we dispense of the personal stabs shall we?? Once again, the passive aggressive nature of this OT forum is astounding.

I don't know any one that would consider Turkey, Morocco and Tunisia as part of "Middle East" when discussing regional conflicts.

One of Lebanon's Political parties is Hezbollah. Even though Politicos consider it a "Democratic" society, it is more Socialist and is a constant state of Political Turmoil.

Iraq and Kuwait are Democracies? Really?

Maybe I should have clarified. Israel is the only FUNCTIONAL Democracy in the Middle East. Does that make you feel better, now? If you really want to split hairs, I'm up for it.

You are the one splitting hairs.

All of the countries I listed are in the middle east.

All of the countries I listed are democracies.

I posted 100% facts.

You posted "Yep. Only Democracy in the Middle East." referring to Israel. Not only were you wrong, bu you still sound like a Glenn Beck clone.

 kronk wrote:

Mdlbuildr wrote:

 Yodhrin wrote:

Mdlbuildr wrote:

The exception is Israe...

The exception always seems to be Israel.

Yep. Only Democracy in the Middle East.

Tunisia, Turkey, Lebanon, Morocco, Iraq, and Kuwait called in to say "Learn a book, Seth".

To an extent.
Kuwait is not a democracy.
Iraq is a a tribal "thing" now.
Turkey is sliding into dictatorship as we speak unless the military does one of its every couple of decade resets.
The other ones-generally, but of course they are in West Africa, not the Middle East.

Jordan is a constitutional monarchy. IDK how democratic it is. Less than Israel.

That said, if you start by deciding that Israel is the only democracy in the area, and anything different isn't democracy, it's easy to find reasons why none of the other countries count.

Holland, Spain and the UK also are constitutional monarchies and therefore less democratic than Israel. I don't think a lot of people would seriously say these countries aren't democracies, though.

Mdlbuildr wrote:
LMAO, how about we dispense of the personal stabs shall we?? Once again, the passive aggressive nature of this OT forum is astounding.
I don't know any one that would consider Turkey, Morocco and Tunisia as part of "Middle East" when discussing regional conflicts.

I think the not so passive or aggressive statement is that there are a few places of easy reference.
If you google "Countries of the Middle East" the first quote is from the "Britannica":
" Geographers and historians do not always agree on which countries should be included in the Middle East. People commonly include the following countries: Turkey, Syria, Lebanon, Israel, Jordan, Iraq, Iran, Afghanistan, Saudi Arabia, Yemen, Oman, the United Arab Emirates, Qatar, Bahrain, Kuwait, Egypt, Libya, and Sudan.Aug 14, 2014"
At the very least it does outline that not everyone is in agreement of what all of the "Middle East" entails.

One of Lebanon's Political parties is Hezbollah. Even though Politicos consider it a "Democratic" society, it is more Socialist and is a constant state of Political Turmoil.

It is a wee bit like being a little bit pregnant: Democratic or not?
I thought Bush was heavy handed and the various corporate bailouts could have me discount the USA as socialist... splitting hairs a bit.

Iraq and Kuwait are Democracies? Really?

Iraq: http://www.irfad.org/iraq-government/ = YES.
Kuwait: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Government_of_Kuwait = "Semi-Democratic" so yes-ish.

Maybe I should have clarified. Israel is the only FUNCTIONAL Democracy in the Middle East. Does that make you feel better, now? If you really want to split hairs, I'm up for it.

Israel does not have a written constitution so that can get rather hair splitting when it comes to "functional".

I think what people are "rising to the bait" is when sweeping statements are made stated as fact that are factually incorrect or on shaky ground with no cited reference: they are fair game for "attack".

You wish to have your opinions to be received as "expert" opinions but without backing them up with fact, you will either be corrected or ignored.

Try harder!

 Talizvar wrote:

Mdlbuildr wrote:
LMAO, how about we dispense of the personal stabs shall we?? Once again, the passive aggressive nature of this OT forum is astounding.
I don't know any one that would consider Turkey, Morocco and Tunisia as part of "Middle East" when discussing regional conflicts.

I think the not so passive or aggressive statement is that there are a few places of easy reference.
If you google "Countries of the Middle East" the first quote is from the "Britannica":
" Geographers and historians do not always agree on which countries should be included in the Middle East. People commonly include the following countries: Turkey, Syria, Lebanon, Israel, Jordan, Iraq, Iran, Afghanistan, Saudi Arabia, Yemen, Oman, the United Arab Emirates, Qatar, Bahrain, Kuwait, Egypt, Libya, and Sudan.Aug 14, 2014"
At the very least it does outline that not everyone is in agreement of what all of the "Middle East" entails.

One of Lebanon's Political parties is Hezbollah. Even though Politicos consider it a "Democratic" society, it is more Socialist and is a constant state of Political Turmoil.

It is a wee bit like being a little bit pregnant: Democratic or not?
I thought Bush was heavy handed and the various corporate bailouts could have me discount the USA as socialist... splitting hairs a bit.

Iraq and Kuwait are Democracies? Really?

Iraq: http://www.irfad.org/iraq-government/ = YES.
Kuwait: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Government_of_Kuwait = "Semi-Democratic" so yes-ish.

Maybe I should have clarified. Israel is the only FUNCTIONAL Democracy in the Middle East. Does that make you feel better, now? If you really want to split hairs, I'm up for it.

Israel does not have a written constitution so that can get rather hair splitting when it comes to "functional".

I think what people are "rising to the bait" is when sweeping statements are made stated as fact that are factually incorrect or on shaky ground with no cited reference: they are fair game for "attack".

You wish to have your opinions to be received as "expert" opinions but without backing them up with fact, you will either be corrected or ignored.

Try harder!

Errr do you know what passive aggressive is? Perhaps use wikkipedia as it is sooooo true to fact all the time! (See, THAT is what passive aggressive is. Being a sarcastic SOB to get a point across. I think).

It looks I'm not the only one disputing whether some of the countries are indeed democratic or not.

Passive aggressive incoming!!! Yes, because my goal in life is to convince people on the internet they are wrong!! (See how that works?) Now comes the passive agressive people who are going to argue that I don't know what passive aggressive is.

Just FYI and BTW, you don't have to say "It's my opinion" when you write something. Unless cited with FACT (which doesn't come from FOX News or wikkipedia), it is obviously assumed that what you say is in fact your opinion.

Ergo: It is MY OPINION that Israel is the only functional democracy in the Middle East. Is that better for everyone?

Can you define the criteria on which you based your opinion?

I'm asking because clearly you have excluded Jordan and I am interested as to the reasons why.

Mdlbuildr wrote:
Errr do you know what passive aggressive is? Perhaps use wikkipedia as it is sooooo true to fact all the time! (See, THAT is what passive aggressive is. Being a sarcastic SOB to get a point across. I think).

Your unwillingness to expand your knowledge and look something up, but happy to tell others to do, is rather presumptuous.
"Passive aggressive is sullen behavior coupled with procrastination and stubbornness.", just for you I checked Wikipedia.
I would add my opinion it is used by those who wish to avoid confrontation.
I will give a hint: If anyone replies back: they have no problem with confrontation.

It looks I'm not the only one disputing whether some of the countries are indeed democratic or not.
Passive aggressive incoming!!! Yes, because my goal in life is to convince people on the internet they are wrong!! (See how that works?) Now comes the passive agressive people who are going to argue that I don't know what passive aggressive is.

See how this works: you are incorrect on so many of your statements and seem to be making every effort to make a smoke screen like the statements above.
You do not even try to prove your statements, that is rather lazy which I am sure you will confuse it with "cant be bothered".

Why do you fear being wrong?

Just FYI and BTW, you don't have to say "It's my opinion" when you write something. Unless cited with FACT (which doesn't come from FOX News or wikkipedia), it is obviously assumed that what you say is in fact your opinion.

You lose that comfortable assumption when you shoot down what someone has to say and are dismissive about it.
Then some matter of proof is needed so that you do not appear to be "making it up as you go". FYI and BTW if you wish to join a debating group any time soon.

Ergo: It is MY OPINION that Israel is the only functional democracy in the Middle East. Is that better for everyone?

I unfortunately seemed to have missed what you had to say as evidence to summarize your opinion.
BUT I can say with no sarcasm (not being passive aggressive!) it is great that you have been able to clearly state an opinion.
I would be interested to hear from those of a similar opinion...

Nothing passive here... more attack bordering on bad manners on my part.

What is being strongly refuted is that Israel has not cornered the market in the Middle East for governments that represent "the people" rather than a King or dictator.
Democracy is not the sole means for the general population to be heard in politics, it is like dismissing people based on their religion.
Looking into their political system can assist in understanding why a country behaves the way it does and their people.

So with all this political and religious pressure: why did Michael Sandford want to kill Trump so bad?

 Talizvar wrote:


So with all this political and religious pressure: why did Michael Sandford want to kill Trump so bad?

I suspect he wanted to end his life and this is a way of going out in a blaze of glory.

The amount of reckless hyperbole at this election may have led this young man to think he was doing a noble deed.

 feeder wrote:
I suspect he wanted to end his life and this is a way of going out in a blaze of glory.
The amount of reckless hyperbole at this election may have led this young man to think he was doing a noble deed.

I hate to say many have died for less.
Good point.

 Talizvar wrote:

... more attack bordering on bad manners on my part.

Not allowed on these forums, my good man.

Rule#1 remember?

Thanks.

To answer your question:
http://www.jewishvirtuallibrary.org/jsource/talking/36_liberal.html

Also a couple of posts up, I talk about Lebanon and Hezzbollah and also the fact that it is sliding to more a Socialist state as a reason I don't consider that particular country is a Democracy. Another poster similarly wrote something to that effect. Did you not read that? DId you just not agree with it and decide to discount what I said just because?? Another problem in this OT forum is things like what you just did. Is there a reading comprehension issue?

Let's turn this around. What do YOU consider a democracy?? That people vote for their Leaders? Which people? How old? What gender? Show your cards.

Yep, Turkey sure is Democratic.

For the second year in a row the Government banned the Gay Pride Parade and when people tried to march anyway, the Police shot tear gas at them. Now THAT'S a Democracy!!

How is that a functional Democracy for those arguing with me about it?

Sort of like when the Southern Civil Rights marchers had tear gas shot at them in the USA during the '60's? Were we not a functioning democracy then?
Democracy is not a one size fits all concept and certainly doesn't get practiced and applied evenly throughout the world. Calling one functional or non-functional is way too simplistic and subjective, at best.

Mdlbuildr wrote:
Yep, Turkey sure is Democratic.

For the second year in a row the Government banned the Gay Pride Parade and when people tried to march anyway, the Police shot tear gas at them. Now THAT'S a Democracy!!

How is that a functional Democracy for those arguing with me about it?

So the Government uses their power as representatives of the people to ban the Gay Pride Parade, people break the law, and the Police stopped them with tear gas. How is that not democracy? It's illiberal, bigoted, and anti-humanist, but it's not undemocratic.

You're conflating "democracy" with "liberal" or "progressive".

Mdlbuildr wrote:
Yep, Turkey sure is Democratic.

For the second year in a row the Government banned the Gay Pride Parade and when people tried to march anyway, the Police shot tear gas at them. Now THAT'S a Democracy!!

How is that a functional Democracy for those arguing with me about it?

There is goal post moving, and then there is Mdlbuildr.

Bravo, sir.

Whether you admit it or not, Turkey is a Democracy, as is Jordan and all of the other countries I posted. Was the US not a democracy during the Jim Crow laws, or right now when the LGBT community is being denied rights in the south?

Let me get this straight.

A country excludes women from voting or having any rights, in this day and age, and this is still considered a Democracy?

A country is clearly Socialist with a Terrorist group as a Party within their Government, and it is still considered a Democracy?

A country outright bans a celebration because of Sexual Orientation, and this is still considered a Democracy?

It's illegal to be Homosexual somewhere and this is considered a Democracy?

This is what Democracy has come to?

Yeah, oooookaaaaaaay...

Mdlbuildr wrote:
Let me get this straight.

A country excludes women from voting or having any rights, in this day and age, and this is still considered a Democracy?

A country is clearly Socialist with a Terrorist group as a Party within their Government, and it is still considered a Democracy?

Yeah, oooookaaaaaaay...

You do realise that being socialist does not in any way preclude you from being a democracy?

 A Town Called Malus wrote:

Mdlbuildr wrote:
Let me get this straight.

A country excludes women from voting or having any rights, in this day and age, and this is still considered a Democracy?

A country is clearly Socialist with a Terrorist group as a Party within their Government, and it is still considered a Democracy?

Yeah, oooookaaaaaaay...

You do realise that being socialist does not in any way preclude you from being a democracy?

You do realize that if a country is Socialist through and through it can't be called a Democracy, right?

Mdlbuildr wrote:


You do realize that if a country is Socialist through and through it can't be called a Democracy, right?

I'd love to hear your reasoning for that.

http://www.governmentvs.com/en/democracy-vs-socialism/comparison-1-27-0

Mdlbuildr wrote:
http://www.governmentvs.com/en/democracy-vs-socialism/comparison-1-27-0

Are you actually serious?

Is that your "evidence"?

Evidence?

That is my reasoning. You don't like it? Show me different.

Mdlbuildr wrote:
Evidence?

That is my reasoning. You don't like it? Show me different.

Scandinavia.

 kronk wrote:

There is goal post moving, and then there is Mdlbuildr.

Bravo, sir.

I really have no idea what this means. Don't take stabs at me. If you have something to say, say it. You don't like what I have to say, that's okay, but cut the crap. Thanks.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Co'tor Shas wrote:

Mdlbuildr wrote:
Evidence?

That is my reasoning. You don't like it? Show me different.

Scandinavia.

Socialism in Democracy is different than a Socialist Government. Read a bit.

Mdlbuildr wrote:

 Co'tor Shas wrote:

Mdlbuildr wrote:
Evidence?

That is my reasoning. You don't like it? Show me different.

Scandinavia.

Socialism in Democracy is different than a Socialist Government. Read a bit.

So what describes a "socialist government", or are you just going to play "no true Scotsman"?

So back to the topic, whichis the assassination attempt, this popped up on my News Feed

http://www.theladbible.com/articles/british-man-explains-his-reason-for-attempting-to-assassinate-donald-trump-260616