MercoPress. South Atlantic News Agency
Iran's Supreme Leader announces the demise or Israel and US civilization
Iran's youth will witness the demise of Israel and American civilization, Iran's Supreme Leader Ayatollah Ali Khamenei said on Wednesday in comments published on his official website. Read full article
Comments
Disclaimer & comment rulesIt's sad that a country with such a long history of civilisation has ended up being ruled by religious nutcases.
May 23rd, 2019 - 08:10 am - Link - Report abuse 0Dunno WTF America are thinking, though.
DemonTree
May 23rd, 2019 - 08:47 am - Link - Report abuse 0REF: “Dunno WTF America are thinking, though”:
There no shortage of nutcases - in different uniforms! Luckily + to some extent, everyone is a bit afraid of everyone else; particularly, due to the inter-related economies [& f*ck the principles (+ the history too)!]
https://www.jornaldopovo.com.br/site/thumb.php?src=arquivos/charge/4779.jpg&x=420&y=3000&f=0
DT
May 25th, 2019 - 09:07 pm - Link - Report abuse 0(Contn of “Corruption Charges...”)
Ok, in a round-about way, getting rid of them would’ve been positive. Imo.
“it's immoral to kill people for disagreeing w/ you... run the country”…sure is, in the same way it's immoral for a few to try to impose their views by resorting to armed conflict.
Don’t know how many military were killed, can’t find sources on it…but logical to presume far less than the guerillas, considering the military were professionals.
“And it's not irrelevant who did what, unless you think the whole army is guilty because some of them murdered people”.
It IS irrelevant, as the freedom-fighters were volunteers ‘n all united in a common cause, whereas the military, from which only a few were involved, were obeying orders.
Dilma claims she was tortured, but there’s no evidence of that other than her word. When released (early ) she is said to have left prison in perfect physical condition.
“How would you know? Can you name all the people they killed and tortured and why?”…I can’t, but there are records on it…everyone that was taken in for questioning’, was connected in one way or the other to the resistance - perhaps not dangerous, but nevertheless stupid, knowing what might be in store for them.
As to how many military were killed and by whom, is a grey area, unlikely to be clarified, as reinforced by the govt when Dilma created the ‘Truth Commission”, to investigate “atrocities” committed by 'only' the military…why ?
May I suggest you keep things in perspective…B’s done nothing against those he disagrees with – didn’t you say “thinking isn’t the same as doing” ? (See 'Chagos Is') but the Foro de SP has turned VZ into crap.
“perhaps because people are largely ignorant ‘n badly informed?”…I am talking of BRAZIL, 'n in the last 20 yrs, ignorance has been instrumental in the advance of populism.
Populism, not necessarily left or right, succeeds better where voters are not well informed, ‘n fake news has more effect on the uneducated.
@Jack Bauer
May 26th, 2019 - 12:07 pm - Link - Report abuse 0REF: in the last 20 yrs, ignorance has been instrumental in the advance of populism.
Populism, not necessarily left or right, succeeds better where voters are not well informed, ‘n fake news has more effect on the uneducated
EXACTLY!
Technology+Ignorance+Corruption is a deadly mixture which may have been effectively used - mainly against the democracies - to manipulate the “Will of the People”!
And to make it worse; simply by using “technology” the malignant “Foreign Powers” can easily inject anarchy into the enfeebled+confused minds!
There is NO WAY of knowing “What REALLY Happened”?
“in the same way it's immoral for a few to try to impose their views by resorting to armed conflict.”
May 26th, 2019 - 04:38 pm - Link - Report abuse 0Sure, if they were trying to impose communism. Fighting to restore democracy would be different.
AIUI, there were several different groups of freedom-fighters and they didn't all have the same aims or use the same methods. Some were more pacifistic and others more violent, so you can't blame everyone for everything. And it's been well established that following orders is not a defence.
“there’s no evidence of that other than her word”
The military have never denied it, have they? And considering the hundreds of other people who testified to experiencing the same thing, there's no reason to doubt her. Bolsonaro obviously believes it.
“perhaps not dangerous, but nevertheless stupid”
Stupidity isn't a crime.
“As to how many military were killed and by whom, is a grey area”
There should be records of who was killed and when, even if they don't know the culprits. Would you like to see the amnesty lifted, and both the military and revolutionaries investigated, and prosecuted where they committed serious crimes?
“thinking isn’t the same as doing”
Yeah, but we were talking about the damage words can do, spreading hate etc, and also what they reveal about the speaker.
Re populism, if it was mainly due to ignorance then it should have
become less common in Brazil since since the 60s, when many people were illiterate. But that doesn't seem to be the case. On the other hand, maybe you can argue that fake news spreads ignorance by drowning out the truth. :o)) has a point.
DT
May 27th, 2019 - 08:36 pm - Link - Report abuse 0“Sure, if they were trying to impose communism”.....and that is EXACTLY what they were doing...or do you still have any doubts ?
As far back as the 40s there were groups of communists, which rehearsed some form of resistance but got nowhere (that made any difference)....but I am talking specifically about the “survivors” of the armed resistance against the military which took over in 1964. The 'believers' who did not get involved with the freedom fighters (stupid name really, communists would be more appropriate), or the 'pacifists' represented no danger and were mostly left alone. I am not blaming “everyone” ....I'm blaming the hard-core commies who resorted to armed resistance in the 60s.
“The military have never denied it, have they?”...no, and they never admitted to it either.....as to the “100s” who testified to experiencing the same thing.....gives the notion some credibility....but how she was actually treated may well have been slightly exaggerated in order to bring on 'sympathy' for the poor woman who never 'held a gun'....
On the other hand, if you are prepared to believe her story - and I'm not saying she lied (about all of it) - and changing the subject, then why don't you believe what the 100s of witnesses claimed about Lula being corrupt ?....and I'm inclined to believe D WAS tortured, but NOT that Lula is innocent of big-scale corruption.
Never said stupidity was a crime....just stupid.
Dima's govt prohibited the military from giving their version of the conflict.....I wonder why, and there's no plausible answer....so I don't think that info will be readily found as it might upset the Truth Commission's apple cart.
The military HAVE been investigated, and 100s of leftist-militants were given huge indemnities (by Dilma's govt) .....what about the military ? not one.
“damage words can do, spreading hate etc”. So now you agree that words can spread hate ?
Agree. Fake news does spread ignorance, 'n ignorance makes it easier to spread.
Yeah. I still have doubts. Not that there were groups trying to impose communism, but that that was the aim of all of them, and even more so that the pacifists were left alone. Speaking out can be just as dangerous as acting.
May 27th, 2019 - 11:00 pm - Link - Report abuse 0Re Dilma, I looked it up and she testified in court years before she became President. She didn't go to the papers with her story, they found the transcript and printed it, so I don't think she was looking for sympathy.
“Never said stupidity was a crime”
Well then, they did take innocent people in for 'questioning' who were only guilty of being stupid. It's inevitable. Even with evidence and proper trials, innocent people end up going to jail sometimes. How much more does that happen when suspicion is enough and no evidence required?
The military should have been able to publish deaths at the time. But how do you mean the government stopped them giving their version?
“The military HAVE been investigated”
But no one in Brazil has been prosecuted, or gone to jail, like happened in Argentina, right?
“So now you agree that words can spread hate ?”
I already agreed to that. You just don't want to think Bolsonaro or Trump could be doing it.
@Jack Bauer
May 28th, 2019 - 10:03 am - Link - Report abuse 0REF: “Populism, not necessarily left or right, succeeds better where voters are not well informed, ‘n fake news has more effect on the uneducated”:
Isn't it frustrating to watch technology feeding more ignorance to the already brainwashed ignorants; instead of helping the feeble-minded to get well educated/informed?
https://4.bp.blogspot.com/-l9KpD5wliyg/WQwBnnycvDI/AAAAAAAALXM/kRSSgHtM6bQx_qWkXHP1hNL068qR8V4vACLcB/s1600/genildo.jpg
DT
May 29th, 2019 - 04:17 pm - Link - Report abuse 0“still have doubts. Not that there were groups trying to impose communism, but that that was the aim of all of them”...let me put your mind at ease...communism was their 'common', 'n declared objective.
”She (Dilma) didn't go to the papers with her story“....no, she didn't...why would she if it would only bring up her nefarious past, with no benefit....but once she became president, she didn't lose an opportunity to claim she was tortured, because then, with the story out, she had everyone's attention 'n could claim to be a victim...it's all as clear as crystal. She is now asking for compensation.
”Well then, they did take innocent people in for 'questioning' who were only guilty of being stupid”..pls don't twist my words....referred to people stupid enough to keep contact and indirectly cooperate with the freedom-fighters. And in the situation prevalent back then, you'd think that they'd have more sense. But they thought they'd go unnoticed.
At the time (60s/70s) there was no reason to publish “stats”....for what purpose ?
When Dilma created the “truth commission”, the military thought they would have the opportunity to give their version of the facts....and Dilma said NO. Only what the nasty military did to the poor freedom-fighter/collaborators would come to light....which ended up in billionaire indemnities for Petistas and/or heir families. clear enough ?
One of the conditions for Dilma to get away with her not allowing the military to tell their story, was that none would be prosecuted. Although the left has tried to take a few to trial, without success, no surviving freedom-fighters were prosecuted either...instead they got tons of money.
Re Trump and Bolsonaro : OK, what they have said, may offend many....which, if you want to be fair, probably best unsaid....however, when Lula, J. Dirceu (and now Gleisi H) speak, their messsage has one purpose, which is to reinforce the hate between the lower/higher social classes, 'n maintain their influence.
I don't think we're ever going to agree on this. Sounds like you want to put all the blame on the 'freedom fighters' and make out the army did nothing wrong. And the same with disbelieving Dilma, you just don't want to accept it happened. If they hadn't committed crimes, they wouldn't have been willing to forgo telling their stories, let alone let the communists off in order to get amnesty for themselves.
May 29th, 2019 - 10:37 pm - Link - Report abuse 0As for the military deaths, I didn't mean stats but accounts of the deaths themselves, either as articles or obituaries. And the military themselves would normally keep records of anyone killed in the line of duty.
I can't see any reason to disbelieve Dilma except for disliking her.
Re Trump and Bolso, I see their speeches exactly the way you see the PT leaders'; to maintain their influence and give their listeners a scapegoat to hate.
DT
May 30th, 2019 - 06:43 pm - Link - Report abuse 0Get this straight : communism was a real threat, the Army killed it, 2 sides fought each other, both comitted atrocities, the weaker side lost, had more 'victims” than the other (expected). What I'm against, is that Dilma allowed the freedom fighters to tell their story, to be regally compensated for their “suffering”, while the military had to shut up. Simple as that.
Regarding Dilma, on a previous post I said I WAS inclined to believe her, but she chose the right moment to tell everyone how she'd been treated - once president. That she was an incompetent idiot has nothing to do with it.
I never said the military did not commit crimes (killing those who went against them - either in arms, or collaborating with those who did), 'n the fact they weren't allowed to tell their story, was because the Truth Commission was instituted by Law (2011) 'n dictated that the military would only be allowed to testify when being questioned about the deaths of the freedom-fighters etc. But of course, not at all one-sided.
That was negotiated yes, but why do you think that condition was imposed by Dilma ? Did she 'n her pals have nothing lose if all the shit came out ?
Have not come across any accounts by the military...the dictatorship was a very sore point in the 90's, and I think the military preferred to back down, as no one - on either side - was too keen on digging it all up. The military acknowledged they'd exaggerated on occasions, 'n the civilians made a point of only those excesses coming to light. Of course the military have records, but don't think making them public- illegal at the time (2011) - would've been to much avail.
I doubt 'parts' of Dilma's story, not because I don't like her, but because the whole thing investigation was one-sided. Give me some credit for being able to separate things. Don't blindly believe anyone.
Re “Trump & B...exactly same way u see PT speeches”...You forget one thing - I've lived /
/ heard /seen all the PT crap...you haven't
Could you link to an article about this Truth Commission and why the military weren't allowed to 'tell their story'? Cause that doesn't make much sense to me.
May 30th, 2019 - 09:15 pm - Link - Report abuse 0“Have not come across any accounts by the military”
There's nothing stopping any individual from writing a book about it, is there? Or being interviewed by a journalist? Seems kind of strange if they haven't, tbh.
”don't think making them public- illegal at the time (2011) - would've been to much avail.“
Or it might've been too incriminating. What did this law really say if even publishing casualty figures was illegal?
Re Dilma, this was the article I read earlier, it says they found some earlier testimony she gave long before becoming president:
https://www.em.com.br/app/noticia/politica/2012/06/17/interna_politica,300586/documentos-revelam-detalhes-da-tortura-sofrida-por-dilma-em-minas-na-ditadura.shtml
”I've lived / heard /seen all the PT crap”
I've seen and heard enough of Trump, he's all over the news here too. Saying he offends people is IMO a cop-out. He knows what he's doing and it's a way to make people bond by giving them someone/something else to blame their problems on: illegal immigrants or Muslims or China doing something nefarious. According to him Americans are always the victims, and that's a bad mentality to get into.
DT
May 31st, 2019 - 05:58 pm - Link - Report abuse 0May not make sense to YOU....but who instituted the Truth Commission (CNV) ? Dilma & her ex-pals in arms. Take a look at :- https://pt.wikipedia.org/wiki/Comissão_Nacional_da_Verdade
It's long, but go to 7th paragraph under “manifestações de apoio e criticas a instituição da CNV” (military 'n police were not allowed representatives in the CNV etc)....and a paragraph further on, “manifestações de apoio e critica ao relatório” (1st line : 126 civilians 'n military were killed by the terrorists....less than the terrorists, as expected, considering the military were mostly, but not all, professionals . As you read on it becomes very clear only the military would be investigated, not the terrorists.
Writing a book ? what the hell for ? but the lefties wrote a lot, telling their version of events.
Me :””don't think making them public- illegal at the time (2011) - would've been to much avail.“
You :“Or it might've been too incriminating ?” Not at all....didn't all the shit come out anyway, when the military had to describe what they had done ? They were obliged to say what they'd done, and in exchange would get immunity from prosecution, later...but they were not allowed to form their own commission to interrogate surviving terrorists, or to give their 'official' version.
Accuse Trump of whatever you want, but how different is his rhetoric (if you want to call it crazy, or lies) to that of the Dems....the new crazy trio, and a few of the old-timers, such as Elizabeth Warren (Pocahontas), Kamala Harris, Maxine Waters, Sheila Jackson Lee (a black woman, with two names from Confederate Generals ? weren't they slave-owners, and th4 racist ?)
The link on Dilma does not say “ they found earlier testimony”...it says that she gave her testimony in 2011(as prez), recalling events as she remembered them 'n based on old docs found in files in a room used by Human Rights, in MG.
Trumps putting the USA first, 'n wanting LEGAL immigrants, is hardly a bad mentality.
That really was long. According to the article it was first proposed by Lula, then changed several times due to various objections. Eventually it was approved by Congress during Dilma's presidency, after several amendments. Also it said it was FHC who pushed for the truth commission to only investigate crimes committed by the state. Surprising.
May 31st, 2019 - 11:41 pm - Link - Report abuse 0And so the military did publish their casualty list at the time. Why write a book? To tell their version of events.
But I still don't feel like I know more than the outline of what happens. Reading individual cases is easier to grasp, but it's all pretty disturbing to be honest.
RE Dilma's torture, I was referring to this bit:
”Dilma's personal account, which now becomes public, is prior to this. Date of October 25, 2001, when she was still Secretary of Mines and Energy in Rio Grande do Sul, affiliated to the PDT and did not dream of taking the chair of the Presidency of the Republic. Before the young philosopher Robson Sávio, who was in charge of coordinating the Conedh-MG State Commission for Compensation for Victims of Torture (Ceivt), without payment, Dilma revealed details of the humiliation sessions in Minas.“
”how different is his rhetoric“
I don't know how crazy or dishonest any of them are, but they're not president. I've at least heard of Warren, what's she supposed to have done?
”Trumps putting the USA first, 'n wanting LEGAL immigrants, is hardly a bad mentality.”
I didn't say it was. I was referring to the victim mentality, which Trump likes to encourage. Before you say it's also popular on the left, I know, but that doesn't make it a good thing.
@DemonTree
Jun 01st, 2019 - 09:46 am - Link - Report abuse 0Doesn't it take TWO to Tango/Samba?
https://pbs.twimg.com/media/Dwd9r6WWoAAHfUw.jpg:large
DT
Jun 01st, 2019 - 04:46 pm - Link - Report abuse 0”...it (CNV) was first proposed by Lula, then changed several times....Eventually approved by Congress during Dilma's presidency....also it said it was FHC who pushed for the truth commission to only investigate crimes committed by the state. Surprising“.
Surprising ? not all all, considering it was proposed by left-wingers...if it was to be an even playing field it would never have been approved.
With the people already indoctrinated with leftist ideas, blaming the military for everything, believing the PT was the solution, who would give any credit to what the military might have to say ? it would be seen as excuses, sour grapes.
Re ”Dilma's personal account, which now (2011) becomes public, is prior to this”....in 2001, Dilma was a nobody on the national scene...unlikely account would not interest anyone except her immediate friends 'n familiy...my point being, she took advantage of her position (Prez) to plug away at her version of events, and now hopes to benefit from it, as if her actions were totally excusable...not in my book, they aren't.
Warren tried to ingratiate herself with the American indigenous groups, by claiming she was part indian....later tests (DNA ?) proved she lied....reason why she is sarcastically called Pocahontas.
Ok, Comparing Trump's rhetoric to B's, to BO's, to Hilary's , is going nowhere. However they all play the victim....they even may be, to a lesser (or larger) extent, but it seems that is how politicians - of ALL sides, with a few rare exceptions - act. They usually do it to deflect fault....blame the previous government, not just making slight references to previous (obvious) blunders, but using them as the sole reason why things are as they are...some I agree with (partially, or fully), others, not....but regardless of the presidents, members of Congress are just as bad, probably even more so, as they are not always under the spotlight.
I was surprised it said it was FHC who wanted the truth commission to stick to investigating state crimes, and not the PT since that contained several former militants.
Jun 01st, 2019 - 11:57 pm - Link - Report abuse 0“in 2001, Dilma was a nobody on the national scene”
That's why I thought she'd have no reason to exaggerate in the account she gave back then. But how does she hope to benefit now, or do you mean when she was President? Gotta say though, if I was her I probably wouldn't've said anything, but just arranged some unfortunate accidents for the people that tortured me.
“who would give any credit to what the military might have to say ?”
You, for a start. The military must have had a fair amount of support at the time in order to stay in power, did all those people just change their minds after? Or, perhaps, they didn't know/believe what was really happening until it was over?
Re Warren, don't half of Americans claim to have an Indian acestor somewhere? Probably a lot of them are just family legends, so why is it a big deal that she was wrong? If she didn't believe it was true, she wouldn't have taken a DNA test.
“members of Congress are just as bad, probably even more so, as they are not always under the spotlight.”
Normally the really crazy ones don't get elected President, but it's easier to get into Congress so you'd expect more nutcases there. And lots of politicians play the victim, it's whether they encourage voters to do it too.
Commenting for this story is now closed.
If you have a Facebook account, become a fan and comment on our Facebook Page!