7 ms·

According to Chomsky, the crucial fact about Iran that one should begin with is that, in the past 65 years not a day has passed that Iran has not been tortured

by aborsy 4y ago

According to Chomsky, the crucial fact about Iran that one should begin with is that, in the past 65 years not a day has passed that Iran has not been tortured by US (via sanctions, constant threats of being bombed, etc). The roots of the conflict date back to the decades following the WWII. Its democratic parliamentary government was overthrown in 1953 by CIA (when it sought independence, not following US orders), replaced with Shah’s regime. Credibility must be maintained; godfather cannot permit independence; so Iran had to be punished. Then, there was war with Iraq and support of West for Saddam. Following 8 years of devastating war, Iran was immediately punished by harsh economic sanctions that further destroyed its economy over the course of several decades. Iran responded seeking development of nuclear weapons, presumably as a deterrence strategy (Iran is surrounded by hostile nuclear powers in the region: Israel, Russia and Pakistan). Iranian scientists linked to its nuclear program have been frequently assassinated in public inside Iran. There have been sophisticated cyber and physical attacks on its nuclear program. The number 2-3 person in the country (head of the army) was killed by a missile a couple of years ago. Iran implemented the the nuclear agreement; as soon as its program was dismantled and its stockpile of uranium was taken out of the country, US pulled out of the agreement and doubled down on sanctions! Albany is hosting a military group that plans and conducts physical operations inside Iran (for whatever benefits it has received). A cyberattack is a minimal response, frankly.

golergka 4y ago
According to Homsky, Ukraine is full of Nazis and is fighting a civil war. Stop listening to this war criminal apologist.
- aborsy 4y ago
  Incidentally, on this topic, he has an interview with Friedman last week or so. He provides a high level analysis (different from what what you say).
- deleted 4y ago
  [deleted]
- paganel 4y ago
  Azov is a Nazi-loving organization, as is the Right Sector. They’re both taking part in this war on the Ukrainian side.
  - 22SAS 4y ago
    So is the Wagner Group and a good deal of Russian soldiers. Russia has far more Neo-Nazis than Ukraine does.
    - paganel 4y ago
      I haven't seen Nazi memorabilia and branding on current Wagner soldiers fighting in Ukraine. I know of that bold dude with lots of tattoos from Wagner that was most definitely a Nazi, but I think he has been dead for a few years now. I have seen lots of Nazi memorabilia and branding on Azov, Right Sector and other brigades that are part of today's Ukrainian Army. But, ignoring the Azov guys (even though that's hard to do), what gets me it's stuff like this [1] or this [2], i.e. Ukrainian kids being brainwashed behind the lines to adopt the Nazi ideology (because, yes, adopting the Nazi salute en masse means that you're teaching those kids to adopt the Nazi ideology). I had sincerely hoped that we had managed to come past those very dark times, that Europe's kids wouldn't have to do the Nazi salute of their own volition anytime soon. Looks like I was wrong, and it's frightening that the West takes the side of those who teach their kids the Nazi salute. Later edit: To say nothing of Bandera, whose name is still carried by lots of streets in Ukraine. But I've had this discussion before here on HN and I was told that it's totally ok for a WW2 war criminal to be idolised in this day and age, so I will not fight that battle anymore. [1] https://twitter https://twitter. com/anatoliisharii/status/1567434109886111745/photo/1 (pls. remove the white space between the . and com, not sure it is legal inside of the EU to link to people doing the Nazi salute, this looks like it's back from 2018). [2] https://twitter https://twitter. com/DeuNachrichten/status/1566044503680884737 (the same, pls remove the white spce after the ., this is from a few days ago)
      - _kbh_ 4y ago
        > I know of that bold dude with lots of tattoos from Wagner that was most definitely a Nazi, but I think he has been dead for a few years now You mean the leader of Wagner group who literally has nazi ss symbols tattooed on him and named the group after one of hitlers favourite composers?. > I have seen lots of Nazi memorabilia and branding on Azov, Right Sector and other brigades that are part of today's Ukrainian Army. There’s plenty of nazi symbology on non Wagner soldiers in Ukraine too. Here’s one example. https://www.newsweek.com/russia-ukraine-mariupol-azov-nazi-1695125?amp=1 https://www.newsweek.com/russia-ukraine-mariupol-azov-nazi-1...
- WastingMyTime89 4y ago
  As an aside, Ukraine is an extremely conservative country and really has a neo-nazis problem by the way. It has nothing in common with what the Russian propaganda pushes and doesn’t affect the Ukrainian government but it’s a significant problem nevertheless. They still need to be supported because having a state using war as a geopolitical tool at the border of Europe is unacceptable but people need to realise that what was pushed by the media at the beginning of the war doesn’t necessary paint a realistic portrait of the country. I feel this has to be said because they were made a candidate member to the EU for electoral reasons.
  - deleted 4y ago
    [deleted]
- VictorPath 4y ago
  This is something which people like Kissinger and others were writing in Foreign Policy, the New York Times etc. prior to February of this year. Chomsky also is saying the same thing he has been saying about the Ukraine since 2013 and before that.
  - JumpCrisscross 4y ago
    > something which people like Kissinger and others were writing in Foreign Policy, the New York Times etc. prior to February of this year Kissinger said Ukraine is fighting a civil war against Nazis? Really?
    - VictorPath 4y ago
      Kissinger was saying more or less what Chomsky was saying at the beginning of the year. The hysterical hyperbole you mention is from the author of this thread.
AnimalMuppet 4y ago
> According to Chomsky, Iran has been under sanctions and constant threat of being bombed by US & Israel since 1965. Why 1965? The shah was there until 1979; we didn't have a particular beef with Iran while he was running it. Why 1965? > The number 2-3 person in the country (head of the army) was killed by a missile a couple of years ago. Head of the Revolutionary Guards, which is probably politically above the army. Yes, he was killed while in the act of meeting with a terrorist organization that attacks US military personnel.
- chasil 4y ago
  1953, actually, in overthrowing Iran's government to save British petroleum assets from nationalization. https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/1953_Iranian_coup_d%27%C3%A9tat https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/1953_Iranian_coup_d%27%C3%A9...
- hobo_in_library 4y ago
  You do realize attacking an armed military inside your own country does not count as terrorism in most non-political dictionaries, right?
  - AnimalMuppet 4y ago
    Attacking an armed military that is inside your own country with the permission of the country's government? And doing so with the help of a different foreign country? More: Do you think that the US military was the only ones that militia targeted?
odiroot 4y ago
- leereeves 4y ago
  Also from Wikipedia: > The Shah's regime was seen as an oppressive, brutal,[34][35] corrupt, and lavish regime by some of the society's classes at that time.[34][36] It also suffered from some basic functional failures that brought economic bottlenecks, shortages, and inflation.[37] The Shah was perceived by many as beholden to—if not a puppet of—a non-Muslim Western power (i.e., the United States)[38][39] whose culture was affecting that of Iran. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Iranian_Revolution https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Iranian_Revolution
- jrochkind1 4y ago
  As usual, golden times for some. Why, I wonder, did so many Iranians support the revolution against such golden times? (And yes, some didn't like the outcome in the end). https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Human_rights_in_the_Imperial_State_of_Iran https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Human_rights_in_the_Imperial_S...
orange_joe 4y ago
Who cares what Chomsky thinks. He’s a genocide denier (Bosnia & Cambodia)and blames the US (via NATO expansion) for the invasion of Ukraine. Let’s be real, no one forces Iran to fund terrorists who murder innocents, to seek weapons of mass destruction, to execute gay rights activists or any of the other myriad of horrors this government have chosen to commit. Why is it when shitty countries are “Surrounded” by enemies all their evil is excused, yet any measure to contain them is seen as tyrannical. Would you have defended apartheid South Africa for building nukes? They were surrounded by hostile nations and faced foreign funded fighters. Would you applaud their forces?
- WaxProlix 4y ago
  > He’s a genocide denier (Bosnia & Cambodia)and blames the US (via NATO expansion) for the invasion of Ukraine These claims have been debunked so many times, please stop repeating them.
- 22SAS 4y ago
  Him and people like him have the same routine: 1. Paint the US as a monster. 2. If you counter them with the "xyz is an authoritarian nation", they'll all circle back to #1 as the main reason as to why some country is authoritarian. Far left academics and their followers are some of the most annoying people.
- MichaelCollins 4y ago
  > Who cares what Chomsky thinks. Agreed. The GP is presenting a weak case for something that shouldn't be controversial. The US did overthrow Iran's democracy in 1953, and has officially admitted it. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1953_Iranian_coup_d%27%C3%A9tat#Release_of_U.S._government_records_and_official_acknowledgement https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1953_Iranian_coup_d%27%C3%A9ta...
- qsort 4y ago
  Look, as much as I despise most of what Chomsky says -- his position on Ukraine is downright embarrassing -- he's the broken clock who happens to be right. US foreign policy after the Korean War has been terrible, and Iran is the epitome of everything that's wrong with it. Iran is a country full of people of culture that could have been basically a Western country in the Middle East. It's only a dystopian religious hellhole because America went "lmao xd communism". Some of it is just basically racism: "they're arabs, they're all the same", ignoring that Iran in the 70s was on its way to become a modern society.
pdimitar 4y ago
You do of course realize that an entire country and a single dissident group are not the same entity, yes? Attacking and effectively shutting down Albania's public electronic services, or any country's public electronic services, is a very low blow that's uncalled for. Can we please not normalize extremism?
- LtWorf 4y ago
  Well the group is there on the government's invitation.
deleted 4y ago
[deleted]
GuardianCaveman 4y ago
So We should have just supported them developing intercontinental ballistic nukes while they have continued to chant death to America and called for the destruction of Israel to wipe it off the map for decades and heavily find terrorist groups. If only we had left them alone they’d have developed into a perfectly rational democracy like all the other Middle East / western Asian countries guided by principles of freedom and womens rights would have flourished? Nothing we did truly changed their path and they can complain about us destabilizing their new democracy 70 years ago but they control their destinies and they chose to follow extremist Islamic leaders violate international laws and norms torturing embassy personnel. They’re the ones committing mass executions of political prisoners, allowing 10 year old girls to marry, using chemical weapons and nerve gas etc. They can blame us for all their woes but they’ve been belligerent and working against us and burning American flags for 50 plus years.
- galdosdi 4y ago
  Well, maybe. Thing is, political/economical systems are kind of path dependent. It's easier to go from democratic to authoritarian than the other way around, for reasons that I should hope are obvious[1] The reality is that 70 years while a lot for a single creature, is not very long in historical terms. Things from very long ago can have a continuous effect that is hard to stamp out as groups and cultures form in society that benefit from the existing or new structures. It's just not realistic to treat countries, organizations, or other large groups of people the same as if they are individuals, any more than it makes sense to treat a computer program like a transistor. Of course, in the USA at least, there is a pervasive culture of pretending the past doesn't matter, but this is childish. Two books I can recommend if you want to expand your ability to think this way are Why Nations Fail and Prisoners Of Geography. [1] But since common sense isn't so common: a democracy can vote to become authoritarian, but an authoritarian place can only usually become democratic by force. Also, a democracy, to survive, needs an economy that is dominated by a relatively large, not relatively small number of interests, so they will check and balance each other and no single interest can capture the whole system. But once you become authoritarian it is easy for the economy to decline, simplify and become less diverse (and thus even better fit for authoritarians). It becomes an attractor. Have you not noticed that authoritarian states have a tendency to suppress development/innovation sometimes when it seems "irrational" to pass up economic gains? This is to avoid creating more powerful elites that would compete with the existing elites. Once you own a huge enough part of the pie, it becomes more important to keep yourself on top than to make the pie bigger.
adventured 4y ago
> Its democratic governments were overthrown in 60s and 70s (they sought independence, not following US orders), replaced with Shah Iran has never been a democracy in its entire history. The supposedly democratic leadership that was overthrown was appointed, not elected. Mohammad Mosaddegh was not elected by democratic vote of the people of Iran, he was installed by feudal lords (Majlis) and a king (the Shah). Today Iran is a theocracy, not a democracy. 70 years ago Iran was a feudal kingdom, not a democracy. The Parliament of Iran circa the early 1950s could hardly have been any less democratic.
sharikous 4y ago
Speaking of godfathers that don't allow independence Iran controls militias in Lebanon, Iraq, Syria, Yemen and the Gaza Strip, and has an history of terror attacks in Argentina, Bulgaria, and Turkey Lebanon in particular has to be subservient to the funders of Hezbollah or else. Just some months ago a couple of terror attacks were thwarted at the last moment against Israelis in Istanbul, Yemen is a mess in the middle of a civil war thanks to their meddling. But of course if they were the hegemon everything would be peaceful. That's what they claim..
2OEH8eoCRo0 4y ago
Chomsky also blames the West for the Russian invasion of Ukraine. Chomsky blames the West whenever possible.
- MichaelCollins 4y ago
  Forget Chomsky, he claimed Pol Pot was wrongfully accused for no reason other than because America said otherwise. The US Government has admitted their role in the 1953 Iranian coup: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1953_Iranian_coup_d%27%C3%A9tat#Release_of_U.S._government_records_and_official_acknowledgement https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1953_Iranian_coup_d%27%C3%A9ta...
  - MockObject 4y ago
    We shouldn't listen to anything Chomsky says, because of a very bad take of his nearly fifty years ago? Or maybe we should simply treat what he says with skepticism, as we should everyone else, as well.
    - MichaelCollins 4y ago
      We shouldn't cite Chomsky for historical claim about what the US government did or didn't do during the Cold War when there are much better sources. Citing Chomsky in a conversation like this is poisoning the well. Just look at the responses his comment got, like the one I responded to above; people doubting that America overthrew Iran's democratic government because the top level comment cited Chomsky.
      - MockObject 4y ago
        People should not use the source as an argument for or against a statement. This is illogical fallacious thinking that should be discouraged. Instead, take claims on their own merits.
  - colinmhayes 4y ago
    > The US Government has admitted their role in the 1953 Iranian coup Mistakes were made. That doesn't mean the world should accept Iran's war mongering.
hardnose 4y ago
None of the talking points you listed as Iranian grievances seem to concern Albania at all. Albania didn't have anything to do with the Shah, with the US supporting Saddam or opposing him, with US sanctions, with interference in Iran's nuclear program, or with strikes on Iranian terrorist leaders. Why is a cyberattack against a random, uninvolved country a "minimal response" to the grievances you're saying they're upset about?
- AnimalMuppet 4y ago
  I believe the logic is that Albania is in NATO, there are (I suspect) US troops stationed in Albania, therefore Albania is a participant in the US's evil deeds, and is a legitimate target for Iran to vent its anger on... or something like that.
- petre 4y ago
  > Why is a cyberattack against a random, uninvolved country It's in the article, Albania hosts a group of Iranian dissidents. Maybe the Iranian 'intelligence' thought it was a great idea to perpetrate a cyberattack on Albanian government websites and services, as this would somehow convince the Albanian government to extradite them to Iran? Instead their diplomats got kicked out of the country. About the dissidents Albania is hosting: "It was during 1988, the regime carried out its worst atrocity ever, when Khomeini ordered the deaths of 30,000 dissidents, mainly belonging to the Mujahedin-e-Khalq (MEK), who were fervent opponents of his regime, having turned against him when they realized he was replacing one dictatorship for another." https://english.alarabiya.net/features/2018/08/31/How-Iran-developed-suicide-bombers-as-poor-man-s-answer-to-smart-bombs https://english.alarabiya.net/features/2018/08/31/How-Iran-d...
MichaelCollins 4y ago
> According to Chomsky, Iran has been under sanctions and constant threat of being bombed by US & Israel since 1965. The roots of the conflict date back to the decades following the WWII. Its democratic governments were overthrown in 60s and 70s (they sought independence, not following US orders), replaced with Shah. You've got some simple facts wrong. Iran's democratic government was overthrown by the CIA and MI6 in 1953, not in the 60s or 70s. And it's not "according to Chomsky", though I'm sure he says it too. The primary source for this is the US Government, they declassified some of the documents. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1953_Iranian_coup_d'état https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1953_Iranian_coup_d'état
- googlryas 4y ago
  Their analysis, which is typical of someone quoting Chomsky, also pretends as if Iran would be a secular democracy today if the US/UK merely had not meddled. The fact is, the mullahs and the ultra-religious were already on the rise in Iran since at least the 1920s, and while they initially supported Mossadegh, by the time of the coup, they were actively moving against him. It seems likely they would have overthrown whoever was in their way - whether it was Mossadegh or the Shah.
  - 22SAS 4y ago
    Afghanistan in the 70's is proof of that. When the cities started modernizing, including education more women and giving them more freedoms, the people in the countryside and the clerics got pissed off and deemed it un-Islamic. Shah or not, Iran would have had a revolution either way.
    - MichaelCollins 4y ago
      It's a counterfactual, there is no "proof" of it at all.
      - 22SAS 4y ago
        Sure sure. You keep believing that they'd be a great example of a functional democracy.
tester756 4y ago
Why world hates Iran?
- petre 4y ago
  Probably because their leadership radicalizes and sponsors people who put bombs on planes, in theatres, kill journalists who draw mocking cartoons of their prophet and drive trucks into crowds. You see, the world likes a good laugh but they don't like being blown up while enjoying a concert. I know regular Iranians can be quite nice. We have an Iranian acquaintance. Aside from some cultural oddities he's okay. But their leadership and the Revolutionary Guards aren't anything like that.
  - MichaelCollins 4y ago
    > kill journalists who draw mocking cartoons of their prophet You're speaking of the Charlie Hebdo attack right? I'm looking over the wikipedia pages for it and I don't see any links to Iran. The two were ethnic Algerians born in France. One of them got arrested while trying to travel to Syria, presumably to fight for al-Queda in Iraq. Mentored in prison by an Algerian terrorist who had been radicalized by Jordanian and Egyptian preachers. Arrested again for recruiting fighters for a Jordanian jihadis. Trained with al-Qaeda in Arabia (AQAP, a Sunni group.) Where is the Iran/Shia connection? When I search for "charlie hebdo attack Iran" I find articles about Iran denouncing both the cartoons and the attack. Denouncing the cartoons doesn't make Iran culpable for the attack; free speech cuts both ways. The cartoons are free speech and so is denouncing the cartoons.
    - petre 4y ago
      You are right, it was the other group of jihadists, the one fighting against another Iranian backed group. That time Iran's leadership basically implied the attack was somewhow okay, without literally saying it. https://old.iranintl.com/en/world/irans-khamenei-calls-publication-prophet-muhammad-cartoons-unforgivable-sin https://old.iranintl.com/en/world/irans-khamenei-calls-publi...
  - unmole 4y ago
hobo_in_library 4y ago
The article sounds pretty sketchy on evidence that Iran even performed that cyberattack in the first place: > "Mandiant, a leading U.S. cybersecurity firm, expressed “moderate confidence” last month that the attackers were acting in support of Tehran’s anti-dissident efforts." A US based firm expresses mere "moderate confidence" that the attacks were meant to support Iran is being taken as confirmation? From the same country that claimed it was positive that Iraq had WMDs just to drum up support to go to war? Even the experts who don't like Iran say that the Iranian government is smart and only takes calculated risks when going on the offensive. Hacking a website for the sake of demanding a few bitcoins in "ransomware" hardly sounds like a surgical government led attack against it's opponents.
trynumber9 4y ago
Your post is full of errors in date. It undermines whatever it is you're trying to say. In 1941 the British and Russians invaded and occupied Iran. US armed forces were eventually deployed there too. After the war the US diplomatically worked to remove the Soviet-backed secessionist states of north Iran in 1946. Then US intelligence was involved in supporting the Shah's coup in 1953. Thereafter the US and Iranian governments had good relations until the revolution of 78-79.
some_random 4y ago
According to Chomsky, the Cambodian Genocide didn't happen and Srebrenica massacre was just a little misunderstanding. Anything he says about history or politics has to be taken into consideration alongside the fact he is fundamentally opposed to the liberal western world.

by aborsy 4y ago

golergka 4y ago

According to Homsky, Ukraine is full of Nazis and is fighting a civil war. Stop listening to this war criminal apologist.

aborsy 4y ago
Incidentally, on this topic, he has an interview with Friedman last week or so. He provides a high level analysis (different from what what you say).
deleted 4y ago
[deleted]
paganel 4y ago
Azov is a Nazi-loving organization, as is the Right Sector. They’re both taking part in this war on the Ukrainian side.
- 22SAS 4y ago
  So is the Wagner Group and a good deal of Russian soldiers. Russia has far more Neo-Nazis than Ukraine does.
  - paganel 4y ago
    I haven't seen Nazi memorabilia and branding on current Wagner soldiers fighting in Ukraine. I know of that bold dude with lots of tattoos from Wagner that was most definitely a Nazi, but I think he has been dead for a few years now. I have seen lots of Nazi memorabilia and branding on Azov, Right Sector and other brigades that are part of today's Ukrainian Army. But, ignoring the Azov guys (even though that's hard to do), what gets me it's stuff like this [1] or this [2], i.e. Ukrainian kids being brainwashed behind the lines to adopt the Nazi ideology (because, yes, adopting the Nazi salute en masse means that you're teaching those kids to adopt the Nazi ideology). I had sincerely hoped that we had managed to come past those very dark times, that Europe's kids wouldn't have to do the Nazi salute of their own volition anytime soon. Looks like I was wrong, and it's frightening that the West takes the side of those who teach their kids the Nazi salute. Later edit: To say nothing of Bandera, whose name is still carried by lots of streets in Ukraine. But I've had this discussion before here on HN and I was told that it's totally ok for a WW2 war criminal to be idolised in this day and age, so I will not fight that battle anymore. [1] https://twitter https://twitter. com/anatoliisharii/status/1567434109886111745/photo/1 (pls. remove the white space between the . and com, not sure it is legal inside of the EU to link to people doing the Nazi salute, this looks like it's back from 2018). [2] https://twitter https://twitter. com/DeuNachrichten/status/1566044503680884737 (the same, pls remove the white spce after the ., this is from a few days ago)
    - _kbh_ 4y ago
      > I know of that bold dude with lots of tattoos from Wagner that was most definitely a Nazi, but I think he has been dead for a few years now You mean the leader of Wagner group who literally has nazi ss symbols tattooed on him and named the group after one of hitlers favourite composers?. > I have seen lots of Nazi memorabilia and branding on Azov, Right Sector and other brigades that are part of today's Ukrainian Army. There’s plenty of nazi symbology on non Wagner soldiers in Ukraine too. Here’s one example. https://www.newsweek.com/russia-ukraine-mariupol-azov-nazi-1695125?amp=1 https://www.newsweek.com/russia-ukraine-mariupol-azov-nazi-1...
WastingMyTime89 4y ago
As an aside, Ukraine is an extremely conservative country and really has a neo-nazis problem by the way. It has nothing in common with what the Russian propaganda pushes and doesn’t affect the Ukrainian government but it’s a significant problem nevertheless. They still need to be supported because having a state using war as a geopolitical tool at the border of Europe is unacceptable but people need to realise that what was pushed by the media at the beginning of the war doesn’t necessary paint a realistic portrait of the country. I feel this has to be said because they were made a candidate member to the EU for electoral reasons.
- deleted 4y ago
  [deleted]
VictorPath 4y ago
This is something which people like Kissinger and others were writing in Foreign Policy, the New York Times etc. prior to February of this year. Chomsky also is saying the same thing he has been saying about the Ukraine since 2013 and before that.
- JumpCrisscross 4y ago
  > something which people like Kissinger and others were writing in Foreign Policy, the New York Times etc. prior to February of this year Kissinger said Ukraine is fighting a civil war against Nazis? Really?
  - VictorPath 4y ago
    Kissinger was saying more or less what Chomsky was saying at the beginning of the year. The hysterical hyperbole you mention is from the author of this thread.

AnimalMuppet 4y ago

> According to Chomsky, Iran has been under sanctions and constant threat of being bombed by US & Israel since 1965. Why 1965? The shah was there until 1979; we didn't have a particular beef with Iran while he was running it. Why 1965? > The number 2-3 person in the country (head of the army) was killed by a missile a couple of years ago. Head of the Revolutionary Guards, which is probably politically above the army. Yes, he was killed while in the act of meeting with a terrorist organization that attacks US military personnel.

chasil 4y ago
1953, actually, in overthrowing Iran's government to save British petroleum assets from nationalization. https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/1953_Iranian_coup_d%27%C3%A9tat https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/1953_Iranian_coup_d%27%C3%A9...
hobo_in_library 4y ago
You do realize attacking an armed military inside your own country does not count as terrorism in most non-political dictionaries, right?
- AnimalMuppet 4y ago
  Attacking an armed military that is inside your own country with the permission of the country's government? And doing so with the help of a different foreign country? More: Do you think that the US military was the only ones that militia targeted?

odiroot 4y ago

leereeves 4y ago
Also from Wikipedia: > The Shah's regime was seen as an oppressive, brutal,[34][35] corrupt, and lavish regime by some of the society's classes at that time.[34][36] It also suffered from some basic functional failures that brought economic bottlenecks, shortages, and inflation.[37] The Shah was perceived by many as beholden to—if not a puppet of—a non-Muslim Western power (i.e., the United States)[38][39] whose culture was affecting that of Iran. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Iranian_Revolution https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Iranian_Revolution
jrochkind1 4y ago
As usual, golden times for some. Why, I wonder, did so many Iranians support the revolution against such golden times? (And yes, some didn't like the outcome in the end). https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Human_rights_in_the_Imperial_State_of_Iran https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Human_rights_in_the_Imperial_S...

orange_joe 4y ago

Who cares what Chomsky thinks. He’s a genocide denier (Bosnia & Cambodia)and blames the US (via NATO expansion) for the invasion of Ukraine. Let’s be real, no one forces Iran to fund terrorists who murder innocents, to seek weapons of mass destruction, to execute gay rights activists or any of the other myriad of horrors this government have chosen to commit. Why is it when shitty countries are “Surrounded” by enemies all their evil is excused, yet any measure to contain them is seen as tyrannical. Would you have defended apartheid South Africa for building nukes? They were surrounded by hostile nations and faced foreign funded fighters. Would you applaud their forces?

WaxProlix 4y ago
> He’s a genocide denier (Bosnia & Cambodia)and blames the US (via NATO expansion) for the invasion of Ukraine These claims have been debunked so many times, please stop repeating them.
22SAS 4y ago
Him and people like him have the same routine: 1. Paint the US as a monster. 2. If you counter them with the "xyz is an authoritarian nation", they'll all circle back to #1 as the main reason as to why some country is authoritarian. Far left academics and their followers are some of the most annoying people.
MichaelCollins 4y ago
> Who cares what Chomsky thinks. Agreed. The GP is presenting a weak case for something that shouldn't be controversial. The US did overthrow Iran's democracy in 1953, and has officially admitted it. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1953_Iranian_coup_d%27%C3%A9tat#Release_of_U.S._government_records_and_official_acknowledgement https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1953_Iranian_coup_d%27%C3%A9ta...
qsort 4y ago
Look, as much as I despise most of what Chomsky says -- his position on Ukraine is downright embarrassing -- he's the broken clock who happens to be right. US foreign policy after the Korean War has been terrible, and Iran is the epitome of everything that's wrong with it. Iran is a country full of people of culture that could have been basically a Western country in the Middle East. It's only a dystopian religious hellhole because America went "lmao xd communism". Some of it is just basically racism: "they're arabs, they're all the same", ignoring that Iran in the 70s was on its way to become a modern society.

pdimitar 4y ago

You do of course realize that an entire country and a single dissident group are not the same entity, yes? Attacking and effectively shutting down Albania's public electronic services, or any country's public electronic services, is a very low blow that's uncalled for. Can we please not normalize extremism?

LtWorf 4y ago
Well the group is there on the government's invitation.

deleted 4y ago

[deleted]

GuardianCaveman 4y ago

So We should have just supported them developing intercontinental ballistic nukes while they have continued to chant death to America and called for the destruction of Israel to wipe it off the map for decades and heavily find terrorist groups. If only we had left them alone they’d have developed into a perfectly rational democracy like all the other Middle East / western Asian countries guided by principles of freedom and womens rights would have flourished? Nothing we did truly changed their path and they can complain about us destabilizing their new democracy 70 years ago but they control their destinies and they chose to follow extremist Islamic leaders violate international laws and norms torturing embassy personnel. They’re the ones committing mass executions of political prisoners, allowing 10 year old girls to marry, using chemical weapons and nerve gas etc. They can blame us for all their woes but they’ve been belligerent and working against us and burning American flags for 50 plus years.

galdosdi 4y ago
Well, maybe. Thing is, political/economical systems are kind of path dependent. It's easier to go from democratic to authoritarian than the other way around, for reasons that I should hope are obvious[1] The reality is that 70 years while a lot for a single creature, is not very long in historical terms. Things from very long ago can have a continuous effect that is hard to stamp out as groups and cultures form in society that benefit from the existing or new structures. It's just not realistic to treat countries, organizations, or other large groups of people the same as if they are individuals, any more than it makes sense to treat a computer program like a transistor. Of course, in the USA at least, there is a pervasive culture of pretending the past doesn't matter, but this is childish. Two books I can recommend if you want to expand your ability to think this way are Why Nations Fail and Prisoners Of Geography. [1] But since common sense isn't so common: a democracy can vote to become authoritarian, but an authoritarian place can only usually become democratic by force. Also, a democracy, to survive, needs an economy that is dominated by a relatively large, not relatively small number of interests, so they will check and balance each other and no single interest can capture the whole system. But once you become authoritarian it is easy for the economy to decline, simplify and become less diverse (and thus even better fit for authoritarians). It becomes an attractor. Have you not noticed that authoritarian states have a tendency to suppress development/innovation sometimes when it seems "irrational" to pass up economic gains? This is to avoid creating more powerful elites that would compete with the existing elites. Once you own a huge enough part of the pie, it becomes more important to keep yourself on top than to make the pie bigger.

adventured 4y ago

> Its democratic governments were overthrown in 60s and 70s (they sought independence, not following US orders), replaced with Shah Iran has never been a democracy in its entire history. The supposedly democratic leadership that was overthrown was appointed, not elected. Mohammad Mosaddegh was not elected by democratic vote of the people of Iran, he was installed by feudal lords (Majlis) and a king (the Shah). Today Iran is a theocracy, not a democracy. 70 years ago Iran was a feudal kingdom, not a democracy. The Parliament of Iran circa the early 1950s could hardly have been any less democratic.

sharikous 4y ago

Speaking of godfathers that don't allow independence Iran controls militias in Lebanon, Iraq, Syria, Yemen and the Gaza Strip, and has an history of terror attacks in Argentina, Bulgaria, and Turkey Lebanon in particular has to be subservient to the funders of Hezbollah or else. Just some months ago a couple of terror attacks were thwarted at the last moment against Israelis in Istanbul, Yemen is a mess in the middle of a civil war thanks to their meddling. But of course if they were the hegemon everything would be peaceful. That's what they claim..

2OEH8eoCRo0 4y ago

Chomsky also blames the West for the Russian invasion of Ukraine. Chomsky blames the West whenever possible.

MichaelCollins 4y ago
Forget Chomsky, he claimed Pol Pot was wrongfully accused for no reason other than because America said otherwise. The US Government has admitted their role in the 1953 Iranian coup: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1953_Iranian_coup_d%27%C3%A9tat#Release_of_U.S._government_records_and_official_acknowledgement https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1953_Iranian_coup_d%27%C3%A9ta...
- MockObject 4y ago
  We shouldn't listen to anything Chomsky says, because of a very bad take of his nearly fifty years ago? Or maybe we should simply treat what he says with skepticism, as we should everyone else, as well.
  - MichaelCollins 4y ago
    We shouldn't cite Chomsky for historical claim about what the US government did or didn't do during the Cold War when there are much better sources. Citing Chomsky in a conversation like this is poisoning the well. Just look at the responses his comment got, like the one I responded to above; people doubting that America overthrew Iran's democratic government because the top level comment cited Chomsky.
    - MockObject 4y ago
      People should not use the source as an argument for or against a statement. This is illogical fallacious thinking that should be discouraged. Instead, take claims on their own merits.
- colinmhayes 4y ago
  > The US Government has admitted their role in the 1953 Iranian coup Mistakes were made. That doesn't mean the world should accept Iran's war mongering.

hardnose 4y ago

None of the talking points you listed as Iranian grievances seem to concern Albania at all. Albania didn't have anything to do with the Shah, with the US supporting Saddam or opposing him, with US sanctions, with interference in Iran's nuclear program, or with strikes on Iranian terrorist leaders. Why is a cyberattack against a random, uninvolved country a "minimal response" to the grievances you're saying they're upset about?

AnimalMuppet 4y ago
I believe the logic is that Albania is in NATO, there are (I suspect) US troops stationed in Albania, therefore Albania is a participant in the US's evil deeds, and is a legitimate target for Iran to vent its anger on... or something like that.
petre 4y ago
> Why is a cyberattack against a random, uninvolved country It's in the article, Albania hosts a group of Iranian dissidents. Maybe the Iranian 'intelligence' thought it was a great idea to perpetrate a cyberattack on Albanian government websites and services, as this would somehow convince the Albanian government to extradite them to Iran? Instead their diplomats got kicked out of the country. About the dissidents Albania is hosting: "It was during 1988, the regime carried out its worst atrocity ever, when Khomeini ordered the deaths of 30,000 dissidents, mainly belonging to the Mujahedin-e-Khalq (MEK), who were fervent opponents of his regime, having turned against him when they realized he was replacing one dictatorship for another." https://english.alarabiya.net/features/2018/08/31/How-Iran-developed-suicide-bombers-as-poor-man-s-answer-to-smart-bombs https://english.alarabiya.net/features/2018/08/31/How-Iran-d...

MichaelCollins 4y ago

> According to Chomsky, Iran has been under sanctions and constant threat of being bombed by US & Israel since 1965. The roots of the conflict date back to the decades following the WWII. Its democratic governments were overthrown in 60s and 70s (they sought independence, not following US orders), replaced with Shah. You've got some simple facts wrong. Iran's democratic government was overthrown by the CIA and MI6 in 1953, not in the 60s or 70s. And it's not "according to Chomsky", though I'm sure he says it too. The primary source for this is the US Government, they declassified some of the documents. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1953_Iranian_coup_d'état https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1953_Iranian_coup_d'état

googlryas 4y ago
Their analysis, which is typical of someone quoting Chomsky, also pretends as if Iran would be a secular democracy today if the US/UK merely had not meddled. The fact is, the mullahs and the ultra-religious were already on the rise in Iran since at least the 1920s, and while they initially supported Mossadegh, by the time of the coup, they were actively moving against him. It seems likely they would have overthrown whoever was in their way - whether it was Mossadegh or the Shah.
- 22SAS 4y ago
  Afghanistan in the 70's is proof of that. When the cities started modernizing, including education more women and giving them more freedoms, the people in the countryside and the clerics got pissed off and deemed it un-Islamic. Shah or not, Iran would have had a revolution either way.
  - MichaelCollins 4y ago
    It's a counterfactual, there is no "proof" of it at all.
    - 22SAS 4y ago
      Sure sure. You keep believing that they'd be a great example of a functional democracy.

tester756 4y ago

Why world hates Iran?

petre 4y ago
Probably because their leadership radicalizes and sponsors people who put bombs on planes, in theatres, kill journalists who draw mocking cartoons of their prophet and drive trucks into crowds. You see, the world likes a good laugh but they don't like being blown up while enjoying a concert. I know regular Iranians can be quite nice. We have an Iranian acquaintance. Aside from some cultural oddities he's okay. But their leadership and the Revolutionary Guards aren't anything like that.
- MichaelCollins 4y ago
  > kill journalists who draw mocking cartoons of their prophet You're speaking of the Charlie Hebdo attack right? I'm looking over the wikipedia pages for it and I don't see any links to Iran. The two were ethnic Algerians born in France. One of them got arrested while trying to travel to Syria, presumably to fight for al-Queda in Iraq. Mentored in prison by an Algerian terrorist who had been radicalized by Jordanian and Egyptian preachers. Arrested again for recruiting fighters for a Jordanian jihadis. Trained with al-Qaeda in Arabia (AQAP, a Sunni group.) Where is the Iran/Shia connection? When I search for "charlie hebdo attack Iran" I find articles about Iran denouncing both the cartoons and the attack. Denouncing the cartoons doesn't make Iran culpable for the attack; free speech cuts both ways. The cartoons are free speech and so is denouncing the cartoons.
  - petre 4y ago
    You are right, it was the other group of jihadists, the one fighting against another Iranian backed group. That time Iran's leadership basically implied the attack was somewhow okay, without literally saying it. https://old.iranintl.com/en/world/irans-khamenei-calls-publication-prophet-muhammad-cartoons-unforgivable-sin https://old.iranintl.com/en/world/irans-khamenei-calls-publi...
- unmole 4y ago

hobo_in_library 4y ago

The article sounds pretty sketchy on evidence that Iran even performed that cyberattack in the first place: > "Mandiant, a leading U.S. cybersecurity firm, expressed “moderate confidence” last month that the attackers were acting in support of Tehran’s anti-dissident efforts." A US based firm expresses mere "moderate confidence" that the attacks were meant to support Iran is being taken as confirmation? From the same country that claimed it was positive that Iraq had WMDs just to drum up support to go to war? Even the experts who don't like Iran say that the Iranian government is smart and only takes calculated risks when going on the offensive. Hacking a website for the sake of demanding a few bitcoins in "ransomware" hardly sounds like a surgical government led attack against it's opponents.

trynumber9 4y ago

Your post is full of errors in date. It undermines whatever it is you're trying to say. In 1941 the British and Russians invaded and occupied Iran. US armed forces were eventually deployed there too. After the war the US diplomatically worked to remove the Soviet-backed secessionist states of north Iran in 1946. Then US intelligence was involved in supporting the Shah's coup in 1953. Thereafter the US and Iranian governments had good relations until the revolution of 78-79.

some_random 4y ago

According to Chomsky, the Cambodian Genocide didn't happen and Srebrenica massacre was just a little misunderstanding. Anything he says about history or politics has to be taken into consideration alongside the fact he is fundamentally opposed to the liberal western world.