America seems to have this talent for always putting her worst foot forward, always having her biggest idiots on center stage, and somehow speaking her loudest when she has both feet firmly in her mouth.

I’m really sorry your family had such an unpleasant experience.

America has every right to act against external threats – but not when it means treating innocent people like animals. My mother doesn’t speak English, and was called stupid for it. This kind of behavior happens often to many of my friends who study in the US and love it there, dismissing this as just “airport behavior” which many people, especially Pakistanis, go through. Still it should be put to an end – where is the respect and professionalism? Is this really how America should be portrayed?

I think America is a great country just for the record, however much I disagree with its government’s policies or its mainstream media, I think it’s amazing that people can speak their minds yet still be able to roam around freely.

But it’s also worth noting how much these types of things harm the general picture we have of America. It’s not that we hate it, it’s not that we’re racists, these are personal things which happen to us and are hurtful, so they tend to toy with our opinions. 9/11 means America should be cautious. It doesn’t mean they get to treat others like 2nd class citizens whose rights can be eliminated whenever and however.

We are going to disagree on various topics; that’s only natural. But I try to be as clear as possible as much as brevity allows.

Also, I think I should mention that I’m not interested in converting anyone to my point-of-view. What I like to do is getting others, – especially in the non-western world – familiar with how westerners think, regardless of whether it pleases or not.

In other words, I’m not interested in making you angry on purpose. I’d simply like to offer you an insight into the thinking of someone with an alternative or opposing point-of-view.

I simply did not. Point to the actual quote, if you’d please.

I think you are letting your passions rule your rhetoric.

yet you play around with them by adding words like “mainly” and “necessarily.”

That’s because there are exceptions to any rule. Qualifiers are used for that. Sometimes (note the qualifier “sometimes”)… Sometimes it’s useful to make generalized comments for the sake of brevity, in the hopes that the gist of an idea is conveyed. However, it’s wise to use qualifiers, for the sake of those who resist an idea in the first place, and play rhetorical games afterwards.

You can’t continue to apply one theory to one nation and another to what you consider America’s “Enemy.

Of course I can. An enemy is exactly the kind of entity where equivalence makes no sense. That’s why they’re enemies.

And like I said many times before, “if you dislike it, change it,” maybe if you were in Iran, you can try this. And see how hard it is.

My family was very much involved with “regime change”, back in Finland. We have first-hand knowledge of the difficulties, – and the commitments needed – for such endeavors. Finland is the success it is today because of the struggles against tyranny (of the Russians, then of the communists) our forefathers went through.

And Finland did it mostly alone, without pandering to pity from the rest of the world.

Allow me to explain.

You said in your post that Iranians “mainly” represent the Iranian government, which isn’t true at all, yet you later said…

The Americans don’t “necessarily” represent the government.

Sorry, that is contradictory. There is no difference whatsoever between either statements – yet you play around with them by adding words like “mainly” and “necessarily.” BOTH nations aren’t directly responsible for their governments’ actions. Thus I agree with your 2nd statement and not your first.

Iranians have no say in current government relations. You of all people should know this. Do you see the citizens actively taking part in politics and foreign decisions? No. So in what way does it represent them?

Secondly, I wish you had finished reading the statement you used against me, where I later said “this is the implication you were making.” Keyword here being implication. In other words, this is how YOU choose to represent your country, this was your justification, hence my complaint.

As for the generalizations, please don’t let me start on the number of generalizations you made in this thread, starting with your very first comment that Iranians lead anti-USA rallies… the number of people who do this does not equal the vast majority of the Iranian population. Thus you shouldn’t jump to this hasty conclucion unless you wish to be presented with similar sweeping generalizations. Do you want me to say that just because certain Americans wrote hate articles or led hateful rallies, we should stop the whole nation from entering our countries? And our government or state security has the “right” to do whatever it wants to its “guests”? Would you approve of Americans being detained for hours, mistreated, humiliated, insulted? Wouldn’t you also complain and have 2nd thoughts about the country which did this?

You can’t continue to apply one theory to one nation and another to what you consider America’s “Enemy.” If Bahrain ever publicly stated “we hate America and declare war on it,” would you use that against me, and say “okay, don’t come to the USA!” I didn’t have a choice in my government’s position. It is simply there and I am forced to obey it. But it doesn’t represent me, not one bit. Governments, especially those that resemble dictatorships, do not represent the people at all. And if you will reply with, “if you dislike it, change it,” (with regards to Iran) maybe if you were in such a country, you can try this. And see how simplistic and impractical this statement is. Those who do “try” face executions, rape, and torture, so this is much easier for you to say this in the land of “Freedom” and “Liberty.” For us, it’s risking our entire lives. And not many are ready to do that.

They represent the government mainly, not necessarily the country.

Perhaps, but they (security) are the first public face of America seen by people arriving from overseas, and it ain’t pretty.

Unlike the savages in the West, people else where don’t like to resolve their issues with guns.

What “elsewhere” are you talking about? Iraq? Lebanon? Somalia?

attending the local KKK meetings.

I hadn’t known Finnpundit was KKK, but I guess I shouldn’t be surprised. What else would one expect from a Western “savage”?

You just contradicted yourself.

Uh, no. The words “mainly” and “not necessarily” are qualifiers which you chose to ignore.

Where I’m from, we have a policy against guest abuse. All decent nations should have this policy…. Apparently in the USA, this is average behavior.

Well there we go with blanket assumptions.

In any case, I think it’s more useful to think of countries as enemies first, and then identify areas of common interests. And we should never condone to one particular peoples’ definition of what decency is.

Umm, how about, “treat me the way I should be treated because I’m human?”

Being a guest does not mean I’m a product of your country

Where I’m from, we have a policy against guest abuse. All decent nations should have this policy.

Apparently in the USA, guest abuse is average behavior, according to your implications. You call it “state rights” or “security,” I call it a human rights violation and unnecessary over zealous behavior. All the reason why I’m glad I’m not a visitor or a resident. If this is the way your servicemen treat people, and if this is the way you are going to justify it, then you shouldn’t expect good things to be said about your country.

This is just how it is.

We get mistreated, we complain. So it goes.

They represent the government mainly, not necessarily the country.

Finnpundit said:

It’s not the actions of the few, but the actions of the Iranian government, so the answer is, of course, yes.

So when it happens in the US it’s one thing but when the exact same thing happen in Iran it’s another? Give me a break. At least Iranians live in a dictatorship, but you live in a so called democracy, yet do the same shit.

The government of Iran chose a path of hostility towards the US. The people of Iran have to face the consequences, whether political, social or economic. If they disagree with their government’s policy, then change it, using whatever means necessary and available. Or are they waiting for the US to do something about it?

Unlike the savages in the West, people else where don’t like to resolve their issues with guns. People like to improve their situations through reforms and not revolutions. If you don’t know the reforms that are happening in Iran then you might want to find out and stop watching FOX or attending the local KKK meetings.