Jump to content


Advanced Members
  • Content count

  • Joined

  • Last visited

  • Days Won


Mohamed1993 last won the day on March 14

Mohamed1993 had the most liked content!

About Mohamed1993

  • Rank

Profile Information

  • Religion
    Shia Islam

Previous Fields

  • Gender

Recent Profile Visitors

5,803 profile views
  1. end of FaceBook ?

    Who cares about what data they can or cannot get? You're being spied on in countless other ways anyway, I use facebook to get my news and I share a lot of stuff on it, and most people admittedly are apolitical and don't give a crap but some will appreciate the posts. You have to know how to play the game and beat them at it. Social media served the powers well by minimising face-to-face interaction, the less you interact the more divided they can keep you, so use it in a positive way.
  2. It makes perfect sense tbh, how else do you change things? Burn flags and yell death to UK/US yet continue to live there? That won't lead you anywhere. If you're an Iranian living in Iran it's a diff story, but if you're a Shia in Britain or America, those places are your home, you should work to change them.
  3. Easy way to feed poor people?

    You could donate to charitable organizations that do humanitarian work around the world with a focus on the middle east and Shias in particular. https://zahratrust.com/.
  4. Man, where do you begin? Ammar is somehow linked to the Iraq war in this video and that's used to tarnish his reputation, but you know who else supported that war? Iran. Iran worked with the US on Afghanistan to overthrow the Taliban, and if you listen to this guy's videos on the Iran protests, he says 9/11 was a false-flag, which would make the invasion of Afghanistan that Iran worked with the US on even more illegal than it was (it was still illegal btw, because there were diplomatic alternatives that weren't exhausted and the security council never authorised the war). So, his argument falls apart because using the logic he uses, it would make Iran a tool of the CIA and MI6 too (which it obviously isn't). As muslims in the West, we need to understand that yes the UK/US governments are tyrannical in many ways, but we can't just sit and complain that won't change anything, we need to engage politically in every which way we can. I'll give you an example of my own case, I contacted my state senator to support a resolution which would end US involvement in Yemen and end military aid to Saudi because of the war in Yemen, I didn't expect a response, but not only did he respond, he voted for the resolution which unfortunately was blocked today because too many republican senators voted no. He even stated many constituents had expressed similar concerns. Politics is tough, and you don't end up getting the results you need but I firmly believe if we want to fight for causes that we deem important in the West, we need to be involved politically, develop a relationship with your senator, talk to them on issues, not just Middle East issues but also domestic issues, make your voice heard. You won't always get what you want but political engagement can enable you to build groups, put more pressure and attempt to sway opinion. Also, be sure to have discussions on issues, share stuff on social media, use twitter, get the word out to people, many will make the effort to support you if they know the truth and that'll only aid your cause. We can sit in mosques, say death to America and stuff, but what's that going to change? I think SAN recognises this too. I can understand why Iranians use it given their history, but we live in the West not in Iran, so our approach has to be different. There have been cases in history where political pressure has forced change like with the civil rights movement for example. It wasn't easy, it took years and years of struggle but it paid off. I think we have a few Shiite lobby groups in the US, but I think their focus is exclusively on gulf states and Pakistan. If any of you know any other groups apart from ShiaPAC, let me know because I've been looking up different groups with no real luck.
  5. 8 Values Political Quiz

    Ah what's that thing called? Democracy? Of the banks, for the banks and by the banks. I say this against my own interest btw, I studied economics and I work in the field.
  6. 8 Values Political Quiz

    I know it wasn't built in a day but my point is the government provides subsidies to large wealthy corporations, and in true capitalism, it is only competition that determines who survives and who does not, but there is government intervention here with subsidies, bailouts, etc. If you're a small guy, heavily in debt, and don't have a large lobbying presence in DC, I don't think you'll get much help if any at all. I support banking regulations, but bigger banks can find ways around it and because they have significant clout over the state, they have that as a insurance policy. I remember during the crisis, the Obama administration to show it did something, it punished some small Asian bank (I believe it was a Japanese bank), but the big guys were left unpunished.
  7. 8 Values Political Quiz

    No it is about can, because the playing field isn't even for everyone. If you're goldman sachs, you have privileges that a startup small bank does not have. This is not just in terms of bailouts but also in terms of public subsidies, the bailouts are in fact a very small percentage.
  8. 8 Values Political Quiz

    Well, there is an unfair advantage there which completely goes against what free-market capitalism endorses, the idea that everyone can make it if they work hard enough, but that doesn't happen, because bailouts are an insurance policy that allows giant corporations to make risky decisions, earn higher profits even at the cost of higher risk, because that risk is insured. So, your argument is that these companies could not get credit from banks, but the question is why did they allow themselves to get to a stage where they had to be reliant on credit in the first place? They engaged in risky transactions because of an insurance policy that was inherently there. Does a regular startup have such an option? If you or me decided to start a business today, would we able to engage in shady transactions and say if that goes well, we're rich, and if not, the government will step in and rescue us anyway? No. Btw your link doesn't open. Even if the argument is the stock of the company is not doing too badly now, who does that benefit really? The same shareholders that gave themselves the bonuses and then really are in no real need of acting any differently than they did in the past.
  9. 8 Values Political Quiz

    Not quite, On Chrysler the taxpayer lost $1.2 billion dollars and on GM, $11.2 billion. Not all of it was paid back. The moral hazard issue remains, you can't defend capitalism and talk about how well we can't have single-payer or funded state college education and then have the government step in to bail out huge companies justifying it as saying well the money will come back (even though it doesn't all come back), because you could make the same argument for a well educated and healthy workforce, not being in so much debt. If the argument is if these companies fail it would devastate the workforce and the economy, then maybe the policies we have that allow companies to get to this stage need to be evaluated. Because besides giving them these bailout assurances, you're also in many ways deterring other smaller startups because they don't have the shield these bigger companies do.
  10. 8 Values Political Quiz

    Not talking about you specifically or small businesses for that matter, but GM did get bailed out, as did numerous companies in the financial crisis. http://time.com/82953/general-motors-bailout-cost-taxpayers-11-2-billion/.
  11. 8 Values Political Quiz

    It's not democratic in the sense that the shareholders bear the responsibility of irresponsible decisions made by the corporation, but the taxpayer bears the burden of bailing them out when they do so.
  12. 8 Values Political Quiz

    In the sense that the bailouts relied on taxpayer money and the returns pretty much went into CEO bonuses. Is your argument that the bailouts shouldn't have happened and that banks should've just been allowed to fail and just have the government stay-out? The argument against that is the short-term consequences of such a move may have led to disastrous outcomes.
  13. 8 Values Political Quiz

    Lol but 2008 does come into it doesn't it? And corporations are anything but democratic, is general electric democratic? Is GM? Aren't those corporations? AIG?
  14. 8 Values Political Quiz

    @hasanhh there has been some interesting research to support the notion of worker-owned enterprises, and there have been some positive results. https://hbr.org/1987/09/how-well-is-employee-ownership-working.
  15. 8 Values Political Quiz

    North Koreans don't own squat, the state controls everything. Not quite, most employees earn a wage but have little or nothing to do with how the organisation is run, the decisions that are made, numerous employees lost their jobs as a result of poor decision making made at the top of financial institutions. Unaccountable to people whose tax dollars bail them out as they did in the financial crisis. While the profits are privatised, the costs are very far from privatised.