7 ms·

Iranian culture is beautiful. Food, architecture, music, literature. All corrupted by the ayatollah and fanatic religious powers that dominate the country. It i

by voz_ 3y ago

Iranian culture is beautiful. Food, architecture, music, literature. All corrupted by the ayatollah and fanatic religious powers that dominate the country. It is unfair to blame the west for its misconceptions when the outward presentation of that country is currently so anti-western, corrupt, and oppressive.

soperj 3y ago
They were replacing a West installed dictator... Don't know if it's entirely the Ayatollah's fault here.
- voz_ 3y ago
  It's been 44 years, I think we need to stop giving countries a pass like this, at a certain point, their destiny is their own.
  - forgetfulness 3y ago
    The Iranian regime is absolutely brutal at repressing revolt, the revolts are also violent but of course nothing can match a state apparatus that has to shut the country to the outside world to hide the massacre; the country has been in a state of civil unrest for the better part of the past 6 years and I count the Wikipedia estimates at some 4000 dead from the response of state actors.
  - user982 3y ago
    For all of those 44 years, the US has been continuously sanctioning, attacking, isolating, and threatening Iran.
    - voz_ 3y ago
      Maybe if they didn't sponsor terrorism around the world, while oppressing their own people, they wouldn't get sanctioned? The find out part of fuck around doesn't mean they don't control their own destiny. Plenty of normal countries to look at for example.
      - andrepd 3y ago
        That's a weak argument, as we (the West) sponsor many terrorist or oppressive regimes as long as it is in our economic or political interest. The US sponsored brutal and even genocidal regimes from Guatemala to Timor. Talking about morality and "fighting terrorism and oppression" is laughable.
      - erenyeager 3y ago
        The Us is a terrorist supporting inhumane regime that puts a pretense of being moral on the world stage. In reality it’s a very rotten country internally and as an American I really hope we can change that but all evidence seems opposite.
  - istajeer242 3y ago
    You do realize that western policies to this day have emboldened the mullahs in power? These sanctions just increase their control, and US govt obviously knows it. So much border trade occurs in spite of the actions, and mullahs garner more control. Nuclear deal was another case.
  - andrepd 3y ago
    Counties live in the shadow of things that happened thousands of years ago... 44 years is barely a generation.
  - mkoubaa 3y ago
    Yeah, why haven't they overthrown a brutally repressive regime? Haven't they heard of Ghandi? Please - don't do this. You don't know how hard it is for revolutions to succeed
- eternalban 3y ago
  There was no installation. Please stop repeating IRI's propaganda line. Iranian society was divided between nationalists, fundamentalists, and communists. The "Ayatollah's" in fact started the mess by assassinating the previous prime minister (who is never discussed) who was also "democratically elected". This was not the first Islamist terror in Iran. Again this is before the counter-coup of '53. (Yes, the first coup detat was by the famous "democratically elected PM", Mr. Mossadeqh.) Iran had a constitution that precisely defined the roles of the Majlis (parliament) and the monarch. This monarch was sworn in as king in the Majlis way before '53. Kindly explain how he was "installed" in '53 by the CIA. The "Islamic Republic" is a blight in the history of Iran and Islam. Their little project of creating the Islamist Vatican is an abomination in Islam. Their ridiculous "Supreme Leader" is another abomination, both for Iran and again for Islam. Islam is the religion of deliberation of assemblies and no man is "supreme" amongst the Muslims.
  - dragonwriter 3y ago
    > This monarch was sworn in as king in the Majlis way before ’53. Kindly explain how he was “installed” in ’53 by the CIA. Basically, the Shah assumed direct rule in an autocoup (after a first failed autcoup) in an effort he was threatened with being deposted by the CIA into participating in, with US- and UK- and their Iranian pawns both orchestrating pro-Mossadegh anti-Shah demonstrations and violence, then pro-Communist anti-Shah anti-Mossadegh demonstrations and violence, and, ultimately, the pro-Shah military moves directed against the waves of violence and lawlessness that they themselves had sponsored.
    - eternalban 3y ago
      The extent of Shah's concessions to US security concerns was allowing CIA to create monitoring stations north of Iran: listening posts. A section of the secret service in Iran (SAVAK) was specifically tasked with keeping tabs on Western intelligence in Iran. The second one, which was withdrawn after public pushback lead by Khomeini, was exempting American servicemen and workers (mostly aerospace in Isfahan) from legal jeopardy for any offences in Iran. That was rather toady. Former enemies: https://www.mofa.go.jp/region/n-america/us/q&a/ref/2.html https://www.mofa.go.jp/region/n-america/us/q&a/ref/2.html "Cousins": https://www.files.ethz.ch/isn/176895/SN06808.pdf https://www.files.ethz.ch/isn/176895/SN06808.pdf (it's a question of power asymmetries. Really did the poor Shah have any choice? Related thoughts: Is the Japanese PM "Installed" by US? Is the UK PM a "puppet" of US?) And to be quite frank, as an Iranian born, the assertion that some American (Kermit Roosevelt) gets off the plane with a briefcase full of dollars and overnight "installs" the constitutional king of Iran is bascially a hidden insult to Iranians. What sort of a entirely pushover nation are they, these Iranians? It's a bad propaganda joke. Secondly, the fact remains that the roughly 14 years (60s-early70s) that Mohammad Reza Pahlavi, yes as an autocract oversteppingn the bounds of the constitution, ran the place, Iran experienced its singularly most spectacular years in the 20th century. And the social progress, specially women's rights, are all due to the efforts of that man and his "regime". US has nothing to apologize to Iran about viz a vis the Shah other than backstabbing a loyal ally in a time of crisis, and actively helping to usher in an entirely alien system, the "Islamic Republic of Iran"*, to power. US chose Islamic Fundamentalism as a stretegic tool to further its geopolitical goals, and unleashed the hords on the world. US does need to come clean about that. * (3 lies in one name, a world record!): It is not a republic. It is not Islam. And it certainly is not Iranian.

by voz_ 3y ago

soperj 3y ago

They were replacing a West installed dictator... Don't know if it's entirely the Ayatollah's fault here.

voz_ 3y ago
It's been 44 years, I think we need to stop giving countries a pass like this, at a certain point, their destiny is their own.
- forgetfulness 3y ago
  The Iranian regime is absolutely brutal at repressing revolt, the revolts are also violent but of course nothing can match a state apparatus that has to shut the country to the outside world to hide the massacre; the country has been in a state of civil unrest for the better part of the past 6 years and I count the Wikipedia estimates at some 4000 dead from the response of state actors.
- user982 3y ago
  For all of those 44 years, the US has been continuously sanctioning, attacking, isolating, and threatening Iran.
  - voz_ 3y ago
    Maybe if they didn't sponsor terrorism around the world, while oppressing their own people, they wouldn't get sanctioned? The find out part of fuck around doesn't mean they don't control their own destiny. Plenty of normal countries to look at for example.
    - andrepd 3y ago
      That's a weak argument, as we (the West) sponsor many terrorist or oppressive regimes as long as it is in our economic or political interest. The US sponsored brutal and even genocidal regimes from Guatemala to Timor. Talking about morality and "fighting terrorism and oppression" is laughable.
    - erenyeager 3y ago
      The Us is a terrorist supporting inhumane regime that puts a pretense of being moral on the world stage. In reality it’s a very rotten country internally and as an American I really hope we can change that but all evidence seems opposite.
- istajeer242 3y ago
  You do realize that western policies to this day have emboldened the mullahs in power? These sanctions just increase their control, and US govt obviously knows it. So much border trade occurs in spite of the actions, and mullahs garner more control. Nuclear deal was another case.
- andrepd 3y ago
  Counties live in the shadow of things that happened thousands of years ago... 44 years is barely a generation.
- mkoubaa 3y ago
  Yeah, why haven't they overthrown a brutally repressive regime? Haven't they heard of Ghandi? Please - don't do this. You don't know how hard it is for revolutions to succeed
eternalban 3y ago
There was no installation. Please stop repeating IRI's propaganda line. Iranian society was divided between nationalists, fundamentalists, and communists. The "Ayatollah's" in fact started the mess by assassinating the previous prime minister (who is never discussed) who was also "democratically elected". This was not the first Islamist terror in Iran. Again this is before the counter-coup of '53. (Yes, the first coup detat was by the famous "democratically elected PM", Mr. Mossadeqh.) Iran had a constitution that precisely defined the roles of the Majlis (parliament) and the monarch. This monarch was sworn in as king in the Majlis way before '53. Kindly explain how he was "installed" in '53 by the CIA. The "Islamic Republic" is a blight in the history of Iran and Islam. Their little project of creating the Islamist Vatican is an abomination in Islam. Their ridiculous "Supreme Leader" is another abomination, both for Iran and again for Islam. Islam is the religion of deliberation of assemblies and no man is "supreme" amongst the Muslims.
- dragonwriter 3y ago
  > This monarch was sworn in as king in the Majlis way before ’53. Kindly explain how he was “installed” in ’53 by the CIA. Basically, the Shah assumed direct rule in an autocoup (after a first failed autcoup) in an effort he was threatened with being deposted by the CIA into participating in, with US- and UK- and their Iranian pawns both orchestrating pro-Mossadegh anti-Shah demonstrations and violence, then pro-Communist anti-Shah anti-Mossadegh demonstrations and violence, and, ultimately, the pro-Shah military moves directed against the waves of violence and lawlessness that they themselves had sponsored.
  - eternalban 3y ago
    The extent of Shah's concessions to US security concerns was allowing CIA to create monitoring stations north of Iran: listening posts. A section of the secret service in Iran (SAVAK) was specifically tasked with keeping tabs on Western intelligence in Iran. The second one, which was withdrawn after public pushback lead by Khomeini, was exempting American servicemen and workers (mostly aerospace in Isfahan) from legal jeopardy for any offences in Iran. That was rather toady. Former enemies: https://www.mofa.go.jp/region/n-america/us/q&a/ref/2.html https://www.mofa.go.jp/region/n-america/us/q&a/ref/2.html "Cousins": https://www.files.ethz.ch/isn/176895/SN06808.pdf https://www.files.ethz.ch/isn/176895/SN06808.pdf (it's a question of power asymmetries. Really did the poor Shah have any choice? Related thoughts: Is the Japanese PM "Installed" by US? Is the UK PM a "puppet" of US?) And to be quite frank, as an Iranian born, the assertion that some American (Kermit Roosevelt) gets off the plane with a briefcase full of dollars and overnight "installs" the constitutional king of Iran is bascially a hidden insult to Iranians. What sort of a entirely pushover nation are they, these Iranians? It's a bad propaganda joke. Secondly, the fact remains that the roughly 14 years (60s-early70s) that Mohammad Reza Pahlavi, yes as an autocract oversteppingn the bounds of the constitution, ran the place, Iran experienced its singularly most spectacular years in the 20th century. And the social progress, specially women's rights, are all due to the efforts of that man and his "regime". US has nothing to apologize to Iran about viz a vis the Shah other than backstabbing a loyal ally in a time of crisis, and actively helping to usher in an entirely alien system, the "Islamic Republic of Iran"*, to power. US chose Islamic Fundamentalism as a stretegic tool to further its geopolitical goals, and unleashed the hords on the world. US does need to come clean about that. * (3 lies in one name, a world record!): It is not a republic. It is not Islam. And it certainly is not Iranian.