4 ms·

I don’t get the downvotes either. Everything you’ve mentioned is pretty easily verifiable and not disputed.

by zjzkshz 9mo ago

bpt3 9mo ago
It's being downvoted because it's mostly nonsense based on what I'm aware of. Please enlighten us with some of this easily verifiable information.
- submeta 9mo ago
  [flagged]
  - bpt3 9mo ago
    "Western governments do not want democracy in Iran" is not the same statement as "Western policy toward Iran basically boils down to: we're fine with democracy, just not if it threatens US/Israeli regional dominance" and neither are supported by citations describing what happened in the 1950s.
  - tomhow 9mo ago
    Please don't post like this here. HN is not for political or ideological battle or grand assessments/proclamations about geopolitical history. We also don't want giant walls of copy+pasted material here. We're here to converse curiously and contribute our own original thoughts. Everyone who participates here needs to observe the guidelines. These ones in particular are relevant. Comments should get more thoughtful and substantive, not less, as a topic gets more divisive. Eschew flamebait. Avoid generic tangents. Omit internet tropes. Please don't use Hacker News for political or ideological battle. It tramples curiosity. https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html
- zjzkshz 9mo ago
  If you google about Al Jolani you can see the terrorist orgs he worked for in the first paragraph of his Wikipedia page.
  - margalabargala 9mo ago
    That's not the disputed part. The part we're all having trouble with is "and therefore the US wants to install the son of the Shah."
    - zjzkshz 9mo ago
      This is speculation, but given how cozy he is with Israel it’s not “nonsense”. And the rest of the post is verifiable, despite it being described as “mostly nonsense”. Words are cheap and politicians often do much different than they promised. Remember when Trump said no new wars? Remember when he said we were done in Iran after dropping the bombs, and now intervention is looming?
      - bpt3 9mo ago
        Unsubstantiated speculation = nonsense There is very little in that post that is verifiable. See above for what most people would call the rest of the content.
- lbrito 9mo ago
  The historical part about the shah is straightforward and uncontroversial. Pick up a history book covering 20th century Iran. What part of the comment is disputable?
  - bpt3 9mo ago
    Let's step through these one by one: > Western governments do not want democracy in Iran. This is purely speculation, and is not generally true based on statements from Western governments. What I would say is that Western governments want stability in Iran, just like virtually every other nation. If the current leaders in Iran were not sponsoring terrorists across the world, weren't actively pursuing the most dangerous military weapon in existence, and hadn't run their country into the ground, I don't think Western governments would spend much time thinking about Iran or its form of government. > They want the son of Shah back in Iran, the Shah whose father tortured and exploited Iranians, and that led to the revolution and the rise of the mullahs. The second part of this is true (the Shah was a poor ruler), but the first does not appear to be true. > The US and Israel want regime change so Israel can dominate the ME. I suspect your definition of "dominate the ME" is not very mainstream if you accept this at face value. Iran (along with some other ME nations) has a stated goal of wiping Israel off the map, which Israel strongly disagrees with. > Just like they replaced Assad in Syria by Jolani, a wanted Al Qaeda terrorist who does not oppose Israel in any way but slaughter kurds and alavites because they are moderate muslims. How did Western governments replace Assad with Jolani? Do you want the leader of Syria to oppose Israel, or should they attempt to normalize relations with a neighbor? Have you considered that he realizes that he can't win that fight and is attempting to cling to the power he seized during their civil war? > The revolts in Iran are backed by US/Israel. Any evidence of this? > They openly brag about it on every channel. Any evidence of this? > They don’t care about Iranian‘s freedoms. Any evidence of this? > They are the same who support every dictator in the region if and only if that dictator accepts Israel‘s dominance. Any evidence of this? Again, Western governments are really looking for stability first, and will accept it if a dictator can provide it based on past behavior. In short, these are a bunch of highly biased and polarizing statements of opinion, some of which might be backed by a shred of truth but then warped to fit a very specific viewpoint.
card_zero 9mo ago
Regime change might not be beneficial to the US, it might be too much trouble. https://www.bbc.com/news/live/cj691w2e840t?post=asset%3A8b0d6680-0d45-4f91-b1a8-d4821d36eaa2#post https://www.bbc.com/news/live/cj691w2e840t?post=asset%3A8b0d... "... there will be plenty of voices around Trump advising him to be careful if he does go down that route. The Trump administration would be careful, because the consequences of regime change would be extremely complex ..."
- SoftTalker 9mo ago
  Trump is going to be careful all of a sudden? That's not his MO, whether you think that's good or bad.
  - card_zero 9mo ago
    True. He's been talking about "negotiations", though.

I don’t get the downvotes either. Everything you’ve mentioned is pretty easily verifiable and not disputed.

by zjzkshz 9mo ago

I don’t get the downvotes either. Everything you’ve mentioned is pretty easily verifiable and not disputed.

bpt3 9mo ago

It's being downvoted because it's mostly nonsense based on what I'm aware of. Please enlighten us with some of this easily verifiable information.

submeta 9mo ago
[flagged]
- bpt3 9mo ago
  "Western governments do not want democracy in Iran" is not the same statement as "Western policy toward Iran basically boils down to: we're fine with democracy, just not if it threatens US/Israeli regional dominance" and neither are supported by citations describing what happened in the 1950s.
- tomhow 9mo ago
  Please don't post like this here. HN is not for political or ideological battle or grand assessments/proclamations about geopolitical history. We also don't want giant walls of copy+pasted material here. We're here to converse curiously and contribute our own original thoughts. Everyone who participates here needs to observe the guidelines. These ones in particular are relevant. Comments should get more thoughtful and substantive, not less, as a topic gets more divisive. Eschew flamebait. Avoid generic tangents. Omit internet tropes. Please don't use Hacker News for political or ideological battle. It tramples curiosity. https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html
zjzkshz 9mo ago
If you google about Al Jolani you can see the terrorist orgs he worked for in the first paragraph of his Wikipedia page.
- margalabargala 9mo ago
  That's not the disputed part. The part we're all having trouble with is "and therefore the US wants to install the son of the Shah."
  - zjzkshz 9mo ago
    This is speculation, but given how cozy he is with Israel it’s not “nonsense”. And the rest of the post is verifiable, despite it being described as “mostly nonsense”. Words are cheap and politicians often do much different than they promised. Remember when Trump said no new wars? Remember when he said we were done in Iran after dropping the bombs, and now intervention is looming?
    - bpt3 9mo ago
      Unsubstantiated speculation = nonsense There is very little in that post that is verifiable. See above for what most people would call the rest of the content.
lbrito 9mo ago
The historical part about the shah is straightforward and uncontroversial. Pick up a history book covering 20th century Iran. What part of the comment is disputable?
- bpt3 9mo ago
  Let's step through these one by one: > Western governments do not want democracy in Iran. This is purely speculation, and is not generally true based on statements from Western governments. What I would say is that Western governments want stability in Iran, just like virtually every other nation. If the current leaders in Iran were not sponsoring terrorists across the world, weren't actively pursuing the most dangerous military weapon in existence, and hadn't run their country into the ground, I don't think Western governments would spend much time thinking about Iran or its form of government. > They want the son of Shah back in Iran, the Shah whose father tortured and exploited Iranians, and that led to the revolution and the rise of the mullahs. The second part of this is true (the Shah was a poor ruler), but the first does not appear to be true. > The US and Israel want regime change so Israel can dominate the ME. I suspect your definition of "dominate the ME" is not very mainstream if you accept this at face value. Iran (along with some other ME nations) has a stated goal of wiping Israel off the map, which Israel strongly disagrees with. > Just like they replaced Assad in Syria by Jolani, a wanted Al Qaeda terrorist who does not oppose Israel in any way but slaughter kurds and alavites because they are moderate muslims. How did Western governments replace Assad with Jolani? Do you want the leader of Syria to oppose Israel, or should they attempt to normalize relations with a neighbor? Have you considered that he realizes that he can't win that fight and is attempting to cling to the power he seized during their civil war? > The revolts in Iran are backed by US/Israel. Any evidence of this? > They openly brag about it on every channel. Any evidence of this? > They don’t care about Iranian‘s freedoms. Any evidence of this? > They are the same who support every dictator in the region if and only if that dictator accepts Israel‘s dominance. Any evidence of this? Again, Western governments are really looking for stability first, and will accept it if a dictator can provide it based on past behavior. In short, these are a bunch of highly biased and polarizing statements of opinion, some of which might be backed by a shred of truth but then warped to fit a very specific viewpoint.

card_zero 9mo ago

Regime change might not be beneficial to the US, it might be too much trouble. https://www.bbc.com/news/live/cj691w2e840t?post=asset%3A8b0d6680-0d45-4f91-b1a8-d4821d36eaa2#post https://www.bbc.com/news/live/cj691w2e840t?post=asset%3A8b0d... "... there will be plenty of voices around Trump advising him to be careful if he does go down that route. The Trump administration would be careful, because the consequences of regime change would be extremely complex ..."

SoftTalker 9mo ago
Trump is going to be careful all of a sudden? That's not his MO, whether you think that's good or bad.
- card_zero 9mo ago
  True. He's been talking about "negotiations", though.