Iranian Gov’t Thugs Taking Over The Streets? And Liberal Upset With Protesters

Flopping Aces ^ | 06-22-09 | Curt

[Starman417]

You gotta love it. A liberal is a bit upset that us conservatives would have the gonads to cheer on protesters who attack the men of Basij. You know, the men who shot a innocent young girl in the heart for kicks.

Right wing blogs cheer violence by Iran protesters

Weasel Zippers calls it the "feel good video of the day."

Gateway Pundit raves that it's the "best Iran protest video ever."

Which video is he talking about? The one Fox ran where the protesters beat the living crap out of some Basij:

The libs response?

Personally speaking, I'm appalled that anyone could cheer a mob kicking a guy on the ground, but I guess that's why I'm just a silly liberal who admires the kind of non-violent protests practiced by Dr. Martin Luther King and Gandhi.

And one commenter said:

[rjp2005]

Don’t even bother. Some of them are so blinded by buying the media’s depiction of Iraq that they automatically filter everything out about Iran that is negative. Ahmadinejad is all sunshine and roses to the them and the IRGC are wonderful compatriots!

[counterpunch]

“Personally speaking, I’m appalled that...”
Don’t all comments from liberals begin that way?

[AnglePark]

...but I guess that's why I'm just a silly liberal who admires the kind of non-violent protests practiced by Dr. Martin Luther King and Gandhi.

Or Tea Party participants. All Tea Parties were peaceful, but we were called right-wing wackos by the libs. Why, oh why, didn't they admire our Tea Parties? ;-)

[I Hate Obama]

Ahmadinejad is Hitler Jr. He is a Socialist.

[TheClintons-STILLAnti-American]

"A liberal is a bit upset that us conservatives would have the gonads to cheer on protesters who attack the men of Basi"

That's because liberals have to know that it's just a matter of time before the same happens here, and the party will be over for them because they will be the targets of the frenzy.

[EagleUSA]

Community organizers???

[ßuddaßudd]

.. who admires the kind of non-violent protests ..
These dont always work in a non democratic society.... loser...

[Dixie Yooper]

How fitting that on this 30th year of having an entire race of people, the Persians completely enraged with the United States because of the mishandled turn of events by Jimmy Carter, to Obama mishandling today's turn of events. Obama could have easily won over at least half of the Persian population, but has dragged his feet enough to not provide any support for the protesters, and to make enough lame comments to keep the mullahs angry with us.

[tumblindice]

http://mashable.com/2009/06/21/neda/
First time I’ve seen this, graphic. Gunshot wound to the chest.
Obama had no comment, except that Fox was mean to him.

[wiggen]

as much as i want to see the mullahs overthrown,i can’t forget these people took our embassy,took hostages. they were out in the same size crowds shouting death to America.
They were out in equal size celebrating the fall of the towers.
So please,forgive me if i don’t get all teary eyed for protesters yelling allah akbar. I can’t imagine that whatever happens,in the end,very little will have changed.

[a fool in paradise]

Why, oh why, didn't they admire our Tea Parties? ;-)

Because they were politically incorrect.

[OneWingedShark]

Well, that’s because the higher-ups are, IMO, dumbasses.

[silverleaf]

He whined about the mean FOX network and how many problems they caused him. Then went and slurped ice cream in Alexandria. Bought treats for the dog, too.

Another newsworthy event attended by his state run media.

[BubbaJunebug]

Here Mr. Baij...a flower for you

BANG!

So much for your Ghandi

[Chances Are]

Well, ya gotta remember that (1) Gandhi had the success he did because the Brits were content, if not willing, to play along; and (2) Gandhi's acts of “non-violent civil disobedience” were at times rather violent (see 1921).

While the non-violence angle became his stock in trade, it was not all peaches and cream. He has without question earned his place in history, but today you only read about examples where non-violent civil disobedience worked. You don't read about history's examples where they didn't.

I take nothing away from Gandhi and the good Dr. King, but let's face it - what worked against the British in an atmosphere where eventually India would have gained it's independence would be totally inappropriate in Hitler's Germany, Stalin's Russia, or Pol Pot's Cambodia.

CA....

[Oldpuppymax]

.but I guess that’s why I’m just a silly liberal who admires the kind of non-violent protests practiced by Dr. Martin Luther King and Gandhi.

Yeah. And the non-violence of infants heads being ripped off by your latest martyr/hero, Doc Tiller, huh? Hypocrisy and shamelessness—prerequisites for liberalism.

[Red Boots]

I guess that's why I'm just a silly liberal who admires the kind of non-violent protests practiced by Dr. Martin Luther King and Gandhi.

When libs say this, always ask them if they also advocate, like Gandhi did, the suicide of the English so that the Nazis wouldn't have to invade and kill them ( they'd already be dead).

Most libs have such a limited and sanitized view of Gandhi, they cannot believe he actually advocated that. But he did, and not only to the English, also to the Jews of Nazi Germany.

This blows up a little bit of their self-righteousness and that can be fun.

[MrB]

I wonder how said lib responded to the Reginald Denny beating...

[MrB]

That preamble caveat is always present because it is a recognition of the denial of any absolutes of right and wrong.