Iran Erupts: Crowds Burn US Flags and Swear to Ayatollah

[Bradskii]

My assertion was that there's a portion of the left that will immediately hitch their wagons to whichever entity opposes a conservative interest.

Good grief...I am saying it's a dumb position to take. Period. How can I possibly make that any clearer?

 

[Lukaris]

And you think that if the Islamic Republic is overthrown the resulting new government will be pro-American? Pro Zionist?

I have no idea as far as its political alliances but I do think Iran would become more secular in its culture and politics. Women probably would be much better off. I don’t know how well Christians would fare in this, I would hope greater religious freedom would be given to Christians, Jews, Bahais, Zoroasters etc.

 

[rjs330]

They weren't fighting "so they could shed every last drop of Jewish blood in order that Mohammed can come back." That is just ignorant bigotry and I don;t like seeing it pushed as Christian doctrine, much less as our national policy.

Some are. Islamists are fighting a religious war. Which typically are the terrorists. Others just hate the Jewish people and Israel for existing.

Yes the Brits ran the area and the Ottomans before them. But the Aravs were offered a two state solution and rejected it. I guess they were gone with the Jews as long as they didnt have a state.

The general man-in-the street impression I got is that the Gaza thing is still regarded as primarily a nationalist struggle, not a religious war.

The general man on the street you were with probably wasnt an Sharia Law Islamist.

I'm sure people like that exist there, I've seen them on TV. There are people like that here, too, and some who call for death to Jews who have no great love for Palestinians.

Yes there are and in very large numbers. And yes there are some like tgat here, and in small numbers. And we've seen the trouble what a small number of those kind of people can cause. And they aren't particularly violent in the same way as the bloodthirsty cult in tge middle east.

 

[rjs330]

And you think that if the Islamic Republic is overthrown the resulting new government will be pro-American? Pro Zionist?

Who knows. But I do know i dont want to get involved in that. The Iranian people need to do it themselves.

 

[BCP1928]

I have no idea as far as its political alliances but I do think Iran would become more secular in its culture and politics.

Why should they? Their experience of what secular government is like is government under the Shah.

Women probably would be much better off. I don’t know how well Christians would fare in this, I would hope greater religious freedom would be given to Christians, Jews, Bahais, Zoroasters etc.

Maybe. We're heading in the other direction ourselves.

 

[wing2000]

And now we have Khalil doing it at Columbia again, wrapped in the Iranian flag marching and shouting in the street. I'm sure he would wear the N Korian flag too if there was an opportunity to do so.

So he's obviously one of those types.

...you're ready to lock him up and deport for daring to express an opinion? Cuz, you know, he's "one of those types."

 

[Hazelelponi]

I'll accept a reasonable response to aggression. But Gaza has not been reasonable by any stretch of anyone's imagination.

Gaza has been more than reasonable and Iran isn't Gaza, Iran isn't using human shields in front of their military sites. I at least give them that. They are bad, but at least aren't using their children for human shields and propaganda.

 

[Hazelelponi]

...you're ready to lock him up and deport for daring to express an opinion? Cuz, you know, he's "one of those types."

Yes. Foreign agents here to spread terrorist propaganda on college campuses is a danger to our national interest.

It's not some American kid simply expressing an unpopular opinion. It's an enemy foreign agent propagandizing our children on US soil and attempting to influence our foreign policy decisions against our national interests.

If he was American he could be charged with treason perhaps.

Free speech isn't that. Free speech isn't globalizing the intifada. That's just terrorism, and we don't accept it here.

Americans don't send their children to college to learn how to be suicide bombers and propagandists for terror organizations.

 

[Lukaris]

Why should they? Their experience of what secular government is like is government under the Shah.

Because it seems like the seeds for it have been there for a long time. There is definitely a large segment that probably supports the status quo but there may be more who do not.

https://nymag.com/intelligencer/article/iran-secular-shift-gamaan.html

 

[wing2000]

Yes. Foreign agents here to spread terrorist propaganda on college campuses is a danger to our national interest.

It's not some American kid simply expressing an unpopular opinion. It's an enemy foreign agent propagandizing our children on US soil and attempting to influence our foreign policy decisions against our national interests.

If he was American he could be charged with treason perhaps.

Free speech isn't that. Free speech isn't globalizing the intifada. That's just terrorism, and we don't accept it here.

Americans don't send their children to college to learn how to be suicide bombers and propagandists for terror organizations.

If my son protest the policies of the Israeli government toward Palestine, is he a terrorist?

 

[ThatRobGuy]

Why should they? Their experience of what secular government is like is government under the Shah.

I would imagine the lived experiences of those who experienced both types of leadership probably did prefer the living under the Shah. (especially women)

While not perfect, under the Shah, the country did see:
- A massive expansion of their university system
- A massive expansion of their library system
- Secondary schools were made free for all (and university students were given financial support)
- The inclusion of women in the university system and workforce
- Women gaining the right to vote
- Major infrastructure projects (electricity being expanded to parts that never had it, along with new roads and bridges)
- Hospital modernization
- Reduction of clerical influence in their judicial system and political system


And the little part that often doesn't get mentioned with regards to the conversation about "The Shah was a puppet for the US and British oil interests because Iran only got to keep 50% of the net profits", however true that may be, is that the nation of Iran actually made more money off of their oil during the Shah's partnerships with the western powers than they did during the period where their industry was nationalized under Mosaddegh (due to the fact that it opened up a massive new customer base by way of the shipping infrastructure BP was able to facilitate. In fact, that's what financed a great deal of the list above.


Getting 50% of $1.8 Billion is far superior to getting 100% of $150 million.

And the talks of the economic inequality under the Shah being the "proof" of how bad he was is another myth.

A) Their middle class was actually expanding at a faster rate than other Gulf states.

B) Their GINI Coefficient (if you're familiar with that) at that time was on par with the US's from the 50's and 60's


Financial aspects aside... do you think any of these young women said (post Islamic revolution)?...

"Well, I'm not allowed to go to school anymore, can no longer have my job, will be forced to cover myself from head to toe, and will be forced to marry a man twice my age (who will likely beat me if I argue with him)...but hey, at least the Brits aren't getting profits from our oil, and the Islamists and communists won't be censored anymore"

There were other middle eastern countries that followed the same pattern...

Have you ever noticed that many of these countries end up maligning western business interests at their own peril.

They get laser-focused on this fantasy that "nationalization of industry XYZ is the key to liberation and prosperity" and proceed to hyper-fixate on the perceived flaws of the leader that's facilitating the globalization until they run him out of town, and the end result are conditions that are worse off both socially and economically?

While Mosaddegh may have had the best of sincere intentions, he followed the pattern of flawed thinking that several South American leaders followed (Argentina, Chile, Bolivia, and Venezuela). ...assuming that nationalization of a key industry will somehow solve all economic woes via some sort of pipe dream about "this will mean we get to name our price and keep 100% of the profits", but failing to acknowledge that such a thing would only work if your country is the only one on the planet who can provide large amounts of whatever the product is.


To use a very simple analogy...

If I made tools (and I wasn't the only one, a bunch of other people were making them too -- meaning, I'm not the only game in town), I'd be much better off getting into a multi-million dollar agreement with Home Depot to carry, market, and distribute my tools where I keep 20% of the profits, than I would be keeping 100% of the profits of whatever I could sell myself trying to peddle them at flea markets and tiny local hardware stores.


Overall, compared to both his predecessors and successors, the Shah was superior. Or, perhaps it can be worded "not as bad as the others" if phrasing it that way makes it easier to swallow.

 

[BCP1928]

Because it seems like the seeds for it have been there for a long time. There is definitely a large segment that probably supports the status quo but there may be more who do not.

https://nymag.com/intelligencer/article/iran-secular-shift-gamaan.html

It's not a question which can be answered by vague reference to a status quo. The regime, as part of its revolutionary agenda, has imposed harsh social conservative policy, based on an extremist interpretation of their religion, (a policy not very different than US conservatives would like to see imposed here). On the other hand, the regime has used that same religious extremism to defend the country from the West, with some apparent success. Many people in Iran would favor a more liberal and secular social environment but are rightly suspicious of the ability of a more liberal and secular government to protect them--as the fate of Mossadegh clearly demonstrated to them.

 

[Nithavela]

View attachment 366753
View attachment 366752
View attachment 366754
View attachment 366755

Got any pictures from rural Iran of that time period?

Or perhaps something out of the torture prisons of the Schah's secret police?

Or how about the huge party he threw for foreign dignitatires while the majority of the Iranian people lived in poverty?

 

[BCP1928]

I would imagine the lived experiences of those who experienced both types of leadership probably did prefer the living under the Shah. (especially women)

While not perfect, under the Shah, the country did see:
- A massive expansion of their university system
- A massive expansion of their library system
- Secondary schools were made free for all (and university students were given financial support)
- The inclusion of women in the university system and workforce
- Women gaining the right to vote
- Major infrastructure projects (electricity being expanded to parts that never had it, along with new roads and bridges)
- Hospital modernization
- Reduction of clerical influence in their judicial system and political system


And the little part that often doesn't get mentioned with regards to the conversation about "The Shah was a puppet for the US and British oil interests because Iran only got to keep 50% of the net profits", however true that may be, is that the nation of Iran actually made more money off of their oil during the Shah's partnerships with the western powers than they did during the period where their industry was nationalized under Mosaddegh (due to the fact that it opened up a massive new customer base by way of the shipping infrastructure BP was able to facilitate. In fact, that's what financed a great deal of the list above.


Getting 50% of $1.8 Billion is far superior to getting 100% of $150 million.

And the talks of the economic inequality under the Shah being the "proof" of how bad he was is another myth.

A) Their middle class was actually expanding at a faster rate than other Gulf states.

B) Their GINI Coefficient (if you're familiar with that) at that time was on par with the US's from the 50's and 60's


Financial aspects aside... do you think any of these young women said (post Islamic revolution)?...

"Well, I'm not allowed to go to school anymore, can no longer have my job, will be forced to cover myself from head to toe, and will be forced to marry a man twice my age (who will likely beat me if I argue with him)...but hey, at least the Brits aren't getting profits from our oil, and the Islamists and communists won't be censored anymore"


View attachment 366753
View attachment 366752
View attachment 366754
View attachment 366755



There were other middle eastern countries that followed the same pattern...

Have you ever noticed that many of these countries end up maligning western business interests at their own peril.

They get laser-focused on this fantasy that "nationalization of industry XYZ is the key to liberation and prosperity" and proceed to hyper-fixate on the perceived flaws of the leader that's facilitating the globalization until they run him out of town, and the end result are conditions that are worse off both socially and economically?

While Mosaddegh may have had the best of sincere intentions, he followed the pattern of flawed thinking that several South American leaders followed (Argentina, Chile, Bolivia, and Venezuela). ...assuming that nationalization of a key industry will somehow solve all economic woes via some sort of pipe dream about "this will mean we get to name our price and keep 100% of the profits", but failing to acknowledge that such a thing would only work if your country is the only one on the planet who can provide large amounts of whatever the product is.


To use a very simple analogy...

If I made tools (and I wasn't the only one, a bunch of other people were making them too -- meaning, I'm not the only game in town), I'd be much better off getting into a multi-million dollar agreement with Home Depot to carry, market, and distribute my tools where I keep 20% of the profits, than I would be keeping 100% of the profits of whatever I could sell myself trying to peddle them at flea markets and tiny local hardware stores.


Overall, compared to both his predecessors and successors, the Shah was superior. Or, perhaps it can be worded "not as bad as the others" if phrasing it that way makes it easier to swallow.

You tell 'em Rob. I'm sure you can convince them to take the Shah back.

 

[durangodawood]

....Overall, compared to both his predecessors and successors, the Shah was superior. Or, perhaps it can be worded "not as bad as the others" if phrasing it that way makes it easier to swallow.

Its all pretty fragile though when family franchise torture state tyranny is required to maintain it. The current regime will find this out sooner or later - tho they seem to have better succession plans, which makes another revolution a bit harder.

 

[BCP1928]

Its all pretty fragile though when family franchise torture state tyranny is required to maintain it. The current regime will find this out sooner or later - tho they seems to have better succession plans, which makes another revolution a bit harder.

They should overthrow the government whose domestic policy they dislike and replace it with a government whose foreign policy we approve of. Then we can be friends again.

 

[Hazelelponi]

If my son protest the policies of the Israeli government toward Palestine, is he a terrorist?

Not if he's just protesting.

But when Hamas - an international terrorist organization -- calls him up and starts coordinating his protest activities to better align with their religious goals which are at enmity with American national security interest - even sign carrying takes on new meaning and yes, he's acting as a foreign agent for a terrorist organization and is providing them material support and should face appropriate charges.

saying "Israeli actions sadden me because..." Isn't the same thing. I have been saddened by Iran, the US, and Israel this week and stated so without anyone thinking it arose from a place of racial animosity.

Kids would be better served learning what it means to be a good citizen and neighbor instead of seeking approval from foreign radicals. Makes you wonder how bad their homes must be, when ye ole suicide bomber is the one filling some unnamed need.

Or maybe it's just ignorance of Christ, who fills all of our needs, that drives them seeking fulfillment in all the wrong places.

 

[durangodawood]

They should overthrow the government whose domestic policy they dislike and replace it with a government whose foreign policy we approve of. Then we can be friends again.

Pipe dreamy, but true.

Iran does seem to share a difficult split condition with the USA tho. An urban liberal set, and a conservative rural religious set - from which the current regime draws much of its support.

 

[BCP1928]

Pipe dreamy, but true.

Iran does seem to share a difficult split condition with the USA tho. An urban liberal set, and a conservative rural religious set - from which the current regime draws much of its support.

That sounds vaguely familiar for some reason...

 

[rjs330]

...you're ready to lock him up and deport for daring to express an opinion? Cuz, you know, he's "one of those types."

Absolutely I am for deporting him because hes more than just some random guy expressing an opinion. He's a foreign agitator with ties to to terrorist supporting organizations. He's a foreigner who is here and he is working to spread terrorist propaganda on our universities to disrupt and create unrest in our communities. No we dont need or want them here. He's providing support for terrorists. If he had been honest about tge activities he was going to be involved in to undermine our governance he wouldn't have gotten in, in tge first place. It one thing to express an opinion. Its another to deliberately be directly involved with terrorist supporters.