Ayatrollah Khamanei getting at the U. S. about racism on twitter :lupe:

2Quik4UHoes

Why you had to go?
Supporter
Joined
Apr 30, 2012
Messages
62,638
Reputation
18,060
Daps
231,819
Reppin
Norfeast groovin…
Yes, but also it's :troll:ing. He doesn't really care about black people in America. It's propaganda. Sort of like it's propaganda when people here were pretending they care about "liberating" Iraqis.

Hasn't China done shyt like this before too? :skip:

I love it when America's bigotry is on the world stage for all to see. :ahh:
 

☑︎#VoteDemocrat

The Original
Bushed
WOAT
Supporter
Joined
Dec 9, 2012
Messages
302,255
Reputation
-34,076
Daps
611,786
Reppin
The Deep State
:mjpls:








Whataboutism
Come again, Comrade?
Jan 31st 2008 | Online extra
SOVIET propagandists during the cold war were trained in a tactic that their western interlocutors nicknamed “whataboutism”. Any criticism of the Soviet Union (Afghanistan, martial law in Poland, imprisonment of dissidents, censorship) was met with a “What about...” (apartheid South Africa, jailed trade-unionists, the Contras in Nicaragua, and so forth).

It is not a bad tactic. Every criticism needs to be put in a historical and geographical context. A country that has solved most of its horrible problems deserves praise, not to be lambasted for those that remain. Similarly, behaviour that may be imperfect by international standards can be quite good for a particular neighbourhood.

medvedevREU.jpg
No legal nihilist, heReuters
But it can be overdone—and in the case of Soviet propagandists, it was, and gave rise to subversive jokes For example: A caller to a radio program asks, “What is the average wage of an American manual worker?” A long pause ensues. Then the answer comes: “U nich negrov linchuyut” (“Over there they lynch Negroes”)—a phrase that, by the time of the Soviet collapse, had become a synecdoche for Soviet propaganda as a whole.

Bagehot: In the red cornerJan 24th 2008
Related topics
Whataboutism seemed to have died a natural death at the end of the cold war. But now it seems to be making a comeback. Your columnist took part in a live television conversation with some Russian colleagues last week, supposedly to discuss the bad image of Russia in the British press. It would be possible to make some quite reasonable points from the Russian side: is the media reaction to the Kremlin's treatment of the British Council selective or disproportionate? Are there angles to this story that nobody is exploring that might put Britain's stance in a different light?

Instead, the viewers were treated to a lively display of whataboutism. How could the West criticise Russia for sabre-rattling, asked the eloquent Aleksei Pushkov, when America and its allies had not just rattled sabres, but actually used them in Iraq. And so on and so forth.

It would help if Russia had a word for whataboutism. Literally, it could be kaknaschyotism. A crisp remark about lynching also raises a laugh and makes the point.

But the bigger problem is finding a way to discuss Russia's problems in a way that does not immediately lead to a sterile argument reminiscent of the ponderous tirades of the 1980s.

One solution is to use points made by Russian leaders themselves. Guess who said this: “Russia is a country of legal nihilism at the level...that no European country can boast of…Corruption in the official structures has a huge scale”. That sounds as though it came from some opposition politician such as Garry Kasparov—the sort of marginal (or marginalised) figure that Russians often say gains far too much western attention. But the speaker was Dmitri Medvedev (pictured above), successor-designate to Vladimir Putin.

Another is for outsiders to show a bit more self-criticism. It is worth noting early on in the discussion some outrageous flaws in American (or British, or German, or French) foreign policy, as well as recent scandals involving corruption and abuse of power.

The most powerful western asset during the last cold war was not bigger nukes or higher living standards, but self-criticism. However bad western governments may be, they risk trouble eventually—from the media, the courts or the voters. That is not something that one can say with much confidence about Russia now.
 
Joined
Jun 24, 2012
Messages
39,797
Reputation
-105
Daps
65,092
Reppin
NULL
Yes, but also it's :troll:ing. He doesn't really care about black people in America. It's propaganda. Sort of like it's propaganda when our government was pretending they care about "liberating" Iraqis.

Strong statement like "He doesn't care about black people in America" without actual proof. Yet he took the time to post various scenarios and I haven't heard not one African leader speak on this nonsense.
 

Dusty Bake Activate

Fukk your corny debates
Joined
May 1, 2012
Messages
39,078
Reputation
5,980
Daps
132,639
Strong statement like "He doesn't care about black people in America" without actual proof. Yet he took the time to post various scenarios and I haven't heard not one African leader speak on this nonsense.
Leave it it to you to stan a supreme cleric of a repressive theocracy. :mjlol:
 

godkiller

"We are the Fury"
Joined
Mar 21, 2013
Messages
26,151
Reputation
-4,690
Daps
35,640
Reppin
NULL
Strong statement like "He doesn't care about black people in America" without actual proof. Yet he took the time to post various scenarios and I haven't heard not one African leader speak on this nonsense.

Khamanei is only using this incident as a poignant opportunity to rail against the US. The Russians and Chinese have used African American unrest as a launching point to attack the US too. Do you then assume the Chinese and Russians care about blacks too? The same Russians whose people and plutocrats normally attack blacks with racist caricatures and mockery out of nothing but hatred and enmity. Russia Today has highlighted the Ferguson issue like Khamanei is doing right now and damned the government for abusing African Ameicans. Do you assume the Russians are sincere in this belief?



The Iranians, Chinese and Russians are more anti-black than Americans, and would simply wipe out African Americans.
 
Last edited:
Joined
Jun 24, 2012
Messages
39,797
Reputation
-105
Daps
65,092
Reppin
NULL
Iranians do not care about blacks. They have people with ancestry in their country with no rights or representation. Arabs despise blacks on a similar or higher level to whites. Khamanei is only using this incident to rail against the US states in order to take away the sting of the USA's attacks on Iran.

I love uneducated people.

1. I guess you never heard of Afro-Iranians
2. Iranians are Persians, not Arabs.
3. U.S. has always thought about attacking Iran and has never thought twice about it. Your theory is clearly irrelevant.
 

godkiller

"We are the Fury"
Joined
Mar 21, 2013
Messages
26,151
Reputation
-4,690
Daps
35,640
Reppin
NULL
I love uneducated people.

1. I guess you never heard of Afro-Iranians
2. Iranians are Persians, not Arabs.
3. U.S. has always thought about attacking Iran and has never thought twice about it. Your theory is clearly irrelevant.

1. Afro-Iranians are a small mixed population whom the majority Arabs (not just in Iran but in other Arab countries) oppress and reduce to menial labor (i.e. like slavery, right?) and begging. They have no representation and no rights.

2. The distinction between Persians and Arabs is in name only. If it wasn't obvious enough already, Iran is bordered on all sides on Arab nations; practice Arabicized religion and culture; have similar or the same beliefs as respects blacks.

3. China, Russia and Iran all castigate the US for civilr ights abuse. The Chinese wrote a long report on US human rights abuses, particularly against minorities. The Chinese do not care about blacks; they care about powerful opportunities to attack the US.
 
Top