[candiodari]

> Plus, in a democracy ordinary citizens are also to blame for their government's decisions. They can always vote something else, protest, revolt etc. People all around the world have done it for their governments (and of course Americans at different times).

Those BASTARD Mosul Kurds ! I KNEW they did something to deserve getting mass-murdered and raped.

Thanks for clarifying that not revolting means you are guilty of whatever government happens to rule the piece of land you're currently occupying does. And of course, what it did in the past.

I must say, I was not clear on that. Well, I still am not clear on that.

[coldtea]

>Those BASTARD Mosul Kurds ! I KNEW they did something to deserve getting mass-murdered and raped.

First of all, I wrote "in a democracy". For all the sneer, you missed that part.

Second, those "Mosul Kurds" did very much rebel, and for a long long time. For all the sneer, your example doesn't match their history.

Third, even if they hadn't that would be irrelevant, as they were a minority in that country. It's the duty of the general population that first and foremost should not let its government do injustice, not of an oppressed minority, that not only doesn't control the government but also has the majority against it. For all the sneer, you missed that obvious counter-argument as well.

>Thanks for clarifying that not revolting means you are guilty of whatever government happens to rule the piece of land you're currently occupying does.

You're welcome. People in a democracy are not just random bodies occupying random pieces of land and getting on with our lives whatever happens. They are citizens, they vote, they participate in the public discussion, the voice their opinions, etc. Silence is complicity.

[candiodari]

> First of all, I wrote "in a democracy". For all the sneer, you missed that part.

Iraq was a democracy at the time. In fact this is one of the big grievances that is blamed for the creation and advance of ISIS.

Oops.

> Second, those "Mosul Kurds" did very much rebel

No they didn't. Not when it mattered. Here is the sequence of events, in the hope that it can show you just how wrong you are :

Iraq was a sectarian country. That America made it a democracy is part of the causal chain that gave us Daesh/isis. Here's what happened:

1) Saddam (gets put into power as an ally of Hitler and more generally as a product of the nationalistic ideologies sweeping the world)

2) Saddam is a Sunni muslim, and rules in sectarian fashion. This means that anybody in government jobs is a Sunni muslim too (sunni muslims, in case you don't know, are the ones behind most terrorism, the ones behind daesh/isis, and the largest group of muslims (80% or so). They are completely intolerant of other islamic groups, and of course of any other faiths and atheists).

3) Sunnis, however are a minority in Iraq. Shi'a, the "Iranian/Persian" "branch" of islam, are the majority. Other minorities include Kurds, Christians, Druze, Zoroastrians, and expats.

4) America fights two wars against Iraq. Second time, they install a democracy.

5) The democracy puts the majority Shi'a in power. They put Shi'as in power who, together with Americans, fire pretty much every Sunni in government service, which were pretty much the only remaining jobs.

6) After that, of course, those Shi'as found that over time they had been relocated to areas of the country that were unimportant economically, where Sunni's lived.

7) Sunnis react to this state of affairs by attacking everyone and everything. As a result of this, the Christian community of Iraq has essentially been murdered out of existence.

8) Shi'as remove Sunnis from those economic areas, by simply destroying their houses, villages, etc. and shooting everyone. The Shi'a police force, with help from Americans, learn to deal with the Sunni terror attacks over time and those become ineffective.

9) The Sunni band together and form Daesh/isis, and take territory. Confronted with an organized force, the Shi'a soldiers simply abandon their posts and let them take large parts of the country.

So, firstly, not only were the Kurds living in a democracy, but a democracy that was doing very unacceptable things (by our moral code, not by theirs). A racist democracy, installed and supported by the US and Iran (yes, really).

In the areas that were conquered, everyone saw it coming.

But of course outside of that we simply cannot accept that, given the chance, in the middle east (and elsewhere I might add) muslims simply immediately oppress and even massacre anyone even slightly different from them. When they get control of a government, they replace the agents on the ground, the police and the army, so that, firstly, they can do whatever they want, and second the government itself helps with the ethnic cleansing. And of course, that happens whether that government is a dictatorship or a democracy, because that fact simply has nothing to do with the problem. People might even suggest that similar things are in the very early stages of happening in cities like Paris, in a few districts.