• Quick note - the problem with Youtube videos not embedding on the forum appears to have been fixed, thanks to ZiprHead. If you do still see problems let me know.

A Revolution Could Soon Be Under Way in Iran

General comment: the same people here who are apologists for Hamas are apologists for the Islamic Republic. Surprise! Surprise!
 
Helen said:
In hindsight, yes, I hear that you vision becomes very sharp and clear there. But Iran was a repressive dictatorship, very harsh to women as well, and the people were suffering under the Shah. They had no idea that they were choosing an even worse devis.
Click to expand...
This. They thought they were fighting for freedom and of course that oft chased goal: fair representation in governance. What they got was objectively worse by all measures. The lesson that we should all have learnt by now is that the leopards don't change their spots.
jt512 said:
General comment: the same people here who are apologists for Hamas are apologists for the Islamic Republic. Surprise! Surprise!
Click to expand...
I.e. No one.
 
smartcooky said:
Yes, yes yes, I know about 1953, and 1905, and 1921 and 1963.

None if those incidents broke the 2,500 year run of Imperial statehood Go back and ◊◊◊◊◊◊◊ well READ what I actually said...

"1979 was the first time in its history that Imperial rule was overthrown, AND A REPUBLIC PUT IN ITS PLACE"

Now pay attention, you might learn something.

Iran/Persia had an unbroken monarchy for over 2,500 years, at least as far back as the founding of the Achaemenid Empire (c. 550) by Cyrus the Great. Some have argued that the Median Dynasty preceded them, but there is some dispute about this (that is why I said "at least").

en.wikipedia.org

Monarchism in Iran - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org en.wikipedia.org

If you want to learn something, check this out of you local library

Persians: The Age of The Great Kings : Llewellyn-Jones, Lloyd: Amazon.com.au: Books

Persians: The Age of The Great Kings : Llewellyn-Jones, Lloyd: Amazon.com.au: Books
www.amazon.com.au
Click to expand...
Perhaps if you actually read your own sources, you might not be so certain of your "facts".

I will leave that as an exercise. 😉
 
smartcooky said:
Yes, yes yes, I know about 1953, and 1905, and 1921 and 1963.

None if those incidents broke the 2,500 year run of Imperial statehood Go back and ◊◊◊◊◊◊◊ well READ what I actually said...

"1979 was the first time in its history that Imperial rule was overthrown, AND A REPUBLIC PUT IN ITS PLACE"

Now pay attention, you might learn something.

Iran/Persia had an unbroken monarchy for over 2,500 years, at least as far back as the founding of the Achaemenid Empire (c. 550) by Cyrus the Great. Some have argued that the Median Dynasty preceded them, but there is some dispute about this (that is why I said "at least").

en.wikipedia.org

Monarchism in Iran - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org en.wikipedia.org

If you want to learn something, check this out of you local library

Persians: The Age of The Great Kings : Llewellyn-Jones, Lloyd: Amazon.com.au: Books

Persians: The Age of The Great Kings : Llewellyn-Jones, Lloyd: Amazon.com.au: Books
www.amazon.com.au
Click to expand...
Why are you getting upset?

Again, this is just nonsense. I am not even sure what your nonsense is supposed to even be promoting anyway.

You have made a series of weird claims in this thread, and it is not even clear what they are supposed to add up to.

You have said:


"Iran/Persia had an unbroken monarchy for over 2,500 years, at least as far back as the founding of the Achaemenid Empire" and...
"Pre-1979, Iran was never a Muslim country in the first place" - This is simply garbage.

Iran was under the goddamned Umayyad and Abbasid Caliphates for hundreds of years. Do you really think that counts as an Iranian monarchy? (Answer: No). Do you think that maybe the Caliphates were a bit Muslim (Answer: YES!!!).

Why are you persisting in showing off and looking silly?

Also, given that you are now stanning hard for the Pahlavis, for some insane reason, do you think that the list you provided earlier is a good one. Let's see:

Yeah, things weren't great in Persia under the Shah, but at least women

- had the vote.
- could be teachers, doctors or lawyers.
- were free to wear whatever they wished.
- were not required to be subservient to their husbands.
- would not be flogged, stoned or even executed for adultery.
- weren't forced into marriage at the age of 9.
- had the right to divorce.
- had the right to custody of their own children.
- could be judges.

I don't know about here you live, but we call this freedom where I come from.
Click to expand...

By this criteria, Maduro and Chavez's regimes could be characterized as "FReeeedom!" and so could Putin's.

And yet you also have a hate boner for Starmer because the police arrested a woman calling for a hotel full of migrants to be burned down and you lost your ◊◊◊◊ over it.

But here is what the "Freedom" police of the Savak used to do:

A turning point in SAVAK's reputation for ruthless brutality was reportedly an attack on a gendarmerie post in the Caspian village of Siahkal by a small band of armed Marxists in February 1971, although it is also reported to have tortured to death a Shia cleric, Ayatollah Muhammad Reza Sa'idi, in 1970.<a href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/SAVAK#cite_note-24"><span>[</span>24<span>]</span></a><a href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/SAVAK#cite_note-25"><span>[</span>25<span>]</span></a> According to Iranian political historian Ervand Abrahamian, after this attack SAVAK interrogators were sent abroad for "scientific training to prevent unwanted deaths from 'brute force.'"
Brute force was supplemented with the bastinado; sleep deprivation; extensive solitary confinement; glaring searchlights; standing in one place for hours on end; nail extractions; snakes (favored for use with women); electrical shocks with cattle prods, often into the rectum; cigarette burns; sitting on hot grills; acid dripped into nostrils; near-drownings; mock executions; and an electric chair with a large metal mask to muffle screams while amplifying them for the victim. This latter contraption was dubbed the Apollo—an allusion to the American spacecraft of the same name. Prisoners were also humiliated by being raped, urinated on, and forced to stand naked.<a href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/SAVAK#cite_note-26"><span>[</span>26<span>]</span></a> Despite the new 'scientific' methods, the torture of choice remained the traditional bastinado used to beat soles of the feet. The "primary goal" of those using the bastinados "was to locate arms caches, safe houses and accomplices ..."<a href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/SAVAK#cite_note-27"><span>[</span>27<span>]</span></a>

Abrahamian estimates that SAVAK (and other police and military) killed 368 guerrillas including the leadership of the major urban guerrilla organizations (Organization of Iranian People's Fedai Guerrillas, People's Mujahedin of Iran) such as Hamid Ashraf between 1971–1977 and executed up to 100 political prisoners between 1971 and 1979—the most violent era of the SAVAK's existence.<a href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/SAVAK#cite_note-28"><span>[</span>28<span>]</span></a>

One well known writer was arrested, tortured for months, and finally placed before television cameras to 'confess' that his works paid too much attention to social problems and not enough to the great achievements of the White Revolution. By the end of 1975, twenty-two prominent poets, novelist, professors, theater directors, and film makers were in jail for criticizing the regime. And many others had been physically attacked for refusing to cooperate with the authorities.<a href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/SAVAK#cite_note-29"><span>[</span>29<span>]</span></a>
Click to expand...
The repression was softened thanks to publicity and scrutiny by "numerous international organizations and foreign newspapers." Jimmy Carter became president of the United States and he raised the issue of human rights in the Imperial State of Iran. Overnight prison conditions changed. Inmates dubbed this the dawn of "jimmykrasy".
Click to expand...
 
Norman Alexander said:
Perhaps if you actually read your own sources, you might not be so certain of your "facts".
Click to expand...
Ok...

First paragraph from the first source...
​
Iran, in its various known forms, beginning with the Median dynasty, was a monarchy (or composed of multiple smaller monarchies) from the 7th century BCE until 1979.​

Norman Alexander said:
I will leave that as an exercise. 😉
Click to expand...
Exercise completed!!

You failed!
 
smartcooky said:
Ok...

First paragraph from the first source...
​
Iran, in its various known forms, beginning with the Median dynasty, was a monarchy (or composed of multiple smaller monarchies) from the 7th century BCE until 1979.​


Exercise completed!!

You failed!
Click to expand...
Read on. Wasn't a continuous monarchy by any means.
 
smartcooky said:
Ok...

First paragraph from the first source...
​
Iran, in its various known forms, beginning with the Median dynasty, was a monarchy (or composed of multiple smaller monarchies) from the 7th century BCE until 1979.​


Exercise completed!!

You failed!
Click to expand...
You really should not uncritically quote Wikipedia articles, particularly when they do obviously contradict common sense.

You are claiming an unbroken monarchy for 2500 years, something that the previous Shah absurdly liked to claim as if he wasn’t just the nepo baby of someone who pulled off a coup.

But I have already pointed out that Iran was under Caliphates for much of that time and ruled from Damascus or Baghdad or Medina, so it is an empty and rather pointless boast.

And again, you have failed to acknowledge that it quite clearly was not predominantly Zoroastrian during this time as though only Khomeini brought in Islam in 1979, which is an astonishingly ignorant claim.
 
smartcooky said:
Ok...

First paragraph from the first source...
​
Iran, in its various known forms, beginning with the Median dynasty, was a monarchy (or composed of multiple smaller monarchies) from the 7th century BCE until 1979.​


Exercise completed!!

You failed!
Click to expand...
I think this link would be more useful https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_monarchs_of_Iran
Yes, Iran has had a ruler, probably called a king for 1000s of years. But not all of them are related to each other. For example Mohammad Reza Shah who was deposed in 1979, his father claim to themonarchy was that he was the former PM! He was not related to previous monarchs. Lots of other exammples in the list.
 
So, Pahlavi is hoping to go back to Iran soon, but apparently does not want the US military involved.

But you see yourself as the father or the shepherd of this process.

I think that’s exactly what people expect me to be, because it’s what gives them solace, a sense of security, that there’s somebody who will have their back, who can help stabilize the situation. Somebody they can trust, somebody that they know. And I think my track record gives me this unique role to play. As I said, it’s their ask that I step in because they always had seen the absence of leadership, and the need to have an alternative be represented by somebody who encapsulates it.

With regime collapse there’s an understandable concern, if not fear. What if it gets worse? Because it was poorly managed both in Afghanistan and especially in Iraq, regime change has a very bad name. But regime change is not a bad concept. Just because you poorly manage it somewhere else doesn’t make it the wrong solution. The solution still remains regime change.And so if somebody like Donald Trump says, “I don’t want to have any boots on the ground, we don’t want to get sucked into another adventure,” our key message has always been, we don’t need a single boot of your military on the ground in Iran. Our boots on the ground are the Iranian people in the streets of Iran. Today, we’re not counting on a single penny of your tax dollars being spent on this project. But you can help us in many areas by repurposing the frozen assets that belong to the Iranian people to fund our campaigns, including labor strikes.
Click to expand...

Link

I'm wondering if this is out of anxiety not to be seen as a stooge of the Americans, as his father was seen. The Wall Street Journal also points out to him the obvious...

My last question is about your father, the Shah. He wasn’t universally popular. And it’s fair to say he wasn’t an instinctive democrat. Would you concede that he made mistakes? How are you different from your father?

Of course mistakes were made. Nobody denies that. But when you look at the intent and you look at the circumstances of the time, you look at the fact that all of this happened during the Cold War, when we were constantly under pressure by communist forces, Marxist forces and Islamist forces, which pretty much led to the advent of this Islamic regime. When you look today, retrospectively, at where he was trying to take the nation, the level of appreciation of his intentions in Iran and his level of popularity is many times more than the hype of whatever popularity he might have had at the time. Why? Because when people look back at where the country was headed in terms of modernization, in terms of liberalization, they see the rights that women had, the fact that we didn’t have issues in Iran that would disenfranchise somebody who belonged to a religious minority, whether they were Jewish or Baha’i or what have you. But while I think that, I say, yes, perhaps the most relevant criticism could be that the level of political liberalization was not on par with the level of economic opening.
Click to expand...

Pahlavi then politely concedes that his father was an unpopular autocrat.

I have a theory!!!

Could it be that Pahlavi and Machado both are asking Trump to distance themselves from them to prevent them being seen as illegitimate flunkies?

In some way it would make sense, of course. The problem with the theory is that Trump has too big a mouth for something like that to work. He would be taking credit for installing both of them if that's what he wanted.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top Bottom