Remember when Iran had a democracy? Can you recall what happened to it?
I don't know about an actual democracy, but yeah, Islamist leaders got pissed that the Shah was trying to make Iran modern and secular, so they had a little coup and went all theocratic. Score one for Islam?
What history books are you reading?
What do you think was the motivation behind the Islamic revolution in Iran, then? The Ayatollah was pretty explicit about his hatred of the West and any notion of secular rule.
Modern Man on
Aetian Jupiter - 41 Gunslinger - The Old Republic
Rigorous Scholarship
Remember when Iran had a democracy? Can you recall what happened to it?
I don't know about an actual democracy, but yeah, Islamist leaders got pissed that the Shah was trying to make Iran modern and secular, so they had a little coup and went all theocratic. Score one for Islam?
What history books are you reading?
What do you think was the motivation behind the Islamic revolution in Iran, then? The Ayatollah was pretty explicit about his hatred of the West and any notion of secular rule.
The Shah was not a democratic government. He was put in by a military coup that we funded, because of "lol communists". The Iranian Revolution restored democratic rule to Iran.
HamHamJ on
While racing light mechs, your Urbanmech comes in second place, but only because it ran out of ammo.
Remember when Iran had a democracy? Can you recall what happened to it?
I don't know about an actual democracy, but yeah, Islamist leaders got pissed that the Shah was trying to make Iran modern and secular, so they had a little coup and went all theocratic. Score one for Islam?
What history books are you reading?
What do you think was the motivation behind the Islamic revolution in Iran, then? The Ayatollah was pretty explicit about his hatred of the West and any notion of secular rule.
The Shah was not a democratic government. He was put in by a military coup that we funded, because of "lol communists". The Iranian Revolution restored democratic rule to Iran.
Yup, the Islamic rule in Iran right now is our fault for fucking up a democratic nation we had a problem with in the name of business.
Remember when Iran had a democracy? Can you recall what happened to it?
I don't know about an actual democracy, but yeah, Islamist leaders got pissed that the Shah was trying to make Iran modern and secular, so they had a little coup and went all theocratic. Score one for Islam?
Remember when Iran had a democracy? Can you recall what happened to it?
I don't know about an actual democracy, but yeah, Islamist leaders got pissed that the Shah was trying to make Iran modern and secular, so they had a little coup and went all theocratic. Score one for Islam?
What history books are you reading?
What do you think was the motivation behind the Islamic revolution in Iran, then? The Ayatollah was pretty explicit about his hatred of the West and any notion of secular rule.
The Shah was not a democratic government. He was put in by a military coup that we funded, because of "lol communists". The Iranian Revolution restored democratic rule to Iran.
Iran is a quasi-democracy, at best. The clerical counsel has the final say in all elections. And there's no way you can argue that the current theocracy is a step forward for freedom and human rights in Iran. Certainly not for women in that country.
Modern Man on
Aetian Jupiter - 41 Gunslinger - The Old Republic
Rigorous Scholarship
Remember when Iran had a democracy? Can you recall what happened to it?
I don't know about an actual democracy, but yeah, Islamist leaders got pissed that the Shah was trying to make Iran modern and secular, so they had a little coup and went all theocratic. Score one for Islam?
What history books are you reading?
What do you think was the motivation behind the Islamic revolution in Iran, then? The Ayatollah was pretty explicit about his hatred of the West and any notion of secular rule.
The Shah was not a democratic government. He was put in by a military coup that we funded, because of "lol communists". The Iranian Revolution restored democratic rule to Iran.
Iran is a quasi-democracy, at best. The clerical counsel has the final say in all elections. And there's no way you can argue that the current theocracy is a step forward for freedom and human rights in Iran. Certainly not for women in that country.
Oh no, it does suck, but its important to note that radical Islam and fundamentalism could only sneak into the country once the US fucked up the government there and installed a dictator.
Remember when Iran had a democracy? Can you recall what happened to it?
I don't know about an actual democracy, but yeah, Islamist leaders got pissed that the Shah was trying to make Iran modern and secular, so they had a little coup and went all theocratic. Score one for Islam?
What history books are you reading?
What do you think was the motivation behind the Islamic revolution in Iran, then? The Ayatollah was pretty explicit about his hatred of the West and any notion of secular rule.
The hardline religious faction won the post-revolutionary power struggle. The Islamic tone of the Iranian revolution was established after, not before or during, the actual overthrow of the Shah.
Just like not everyone who overthrew the Tzar agreed with Lenin, or everyone who overthrew British colonial rule of the American colonies agreed with Washington.
Remember when Iran had a democracy? Can you recall what happened to it?
I don't know about an actual democracy, but yeah, Islamist leaders got pissed that the Shah was trying to make Iran modern and secular, so they had a little coup and went all theocratic. Score one for Islam?
What history books are you reading?
The ones that talk about the Islamic Revolution that overthrew a monarchy focused on secular modernization and instituted a clergyman at the head of a government based 100% on Islam that crushed opposition, forbade people from using the term "democracy," banned Democratic and Republican parties, shut down newspapaers and universities, and called for all its neighboring countries to do the same.
The leader of the revolution, the revolution known as the Islamic Revolution, was, not coincidentally, the same dude, the same religious leader, who ended up as the head of the new Islamic Republic. To claim that the revolution and the ensuing power struggle were two totally different things is not even reasonable.
Remember when Iran had a democracy? Can you recall what happened to it?
I don't know about an actual democracy, but yeah, Islamist leaders got pissed that the Shah was trying to make Iran modern and secular, so they had a little coup and went all theocratic. Score one for Islam?
What history books are you reading?
The ones that talk about the Islamic Revolution that overthrew a monarchy focused on secular modernization and instituted a clergyman at the head of a government based 100% on Islam that crushed opposition, forbade people from using the term "democracy," banned Democratic and Republican parties, shut down newspapaers and universities, and called for all its neighboring countries to do the same.
Yup, the Islamic rule in Iran right now is our fault for fucking up a democratic nation we had a problem with in the name of business.
We had a hand in creating the bad setup there but that doesn't mean Iran = Frankenstein's monster, too stupid to know right from wrong. The Iranian government interprets Islam to make its rules, the Iranian government enforces the rules, the Iranian government carries most of the responsibility when things go bad.
emnmnme on
0
Options
HachfaceNot the Minister Farrakhan you're thinking ofDammit, Shepard!Registered Userregular
Yup, the Islamic rule in Iran right now is our fault for fucking up a democratic nation we had a problem with in the name of business.
We had a hand in creating the bad setup there but that doesn't mean Iran = Frankenstein's monster, too stupid to know right from wrong. The Iranian government interprets Islam to make its rules, the Iranian government enforces the rules, the Iranian government carries most of the responsibility when things go bad.
Iran is actually a fantastic example of a Frankenstein's monster. In the novel, the monster also had moral culpability for his actions, but the good doctor shared that culpability.
Remember when Iran had a democracy? Can you recall what happened to it?
I don't know about an actual democracy, but yeah, Islamist leaders got pissed that the Shah was trying to make Iran modern and secular, so they had a little coup and went all theocratic. Score one for Islam?
What history books are you reading?
What do you think was the motivation behind the Islamic revolution in Iran, then? The Ayatollah was pretty explicit about his hatred of the West and any notion of secular rule.
The Shah was not a democratic government. He was put in by a military coup that we funded, because of "lol communists". The Iranian Revolution restored democratic rule to Iran.
Iran is a quasi-democracy, at best. The clerical counsel has the final say in all elections. And there's no way you can argue that the current theocracy is a step forward for freedom and human rights in Iran. Certainly not for women in that country.
Well, sure. Radical islam (ism?) in Iran is a pretty direct reaction to the U.S.' (and to be fair, the Brit's) dismantling of secular society in Iran. The coup and installation of the Shah created a vacuum that radicals stepped right into. People in the U.S. didn't understand why Iranian revolutionaries took over the U.S. embassy, but to other Iranians it made perfect sense.
We had a hand in creating the bad setup there but that doesn't mean Iran = Frankenstein's monster, too stupid to know right from wrong. The Iranian government interprets Islam to make its rules, the Iranian government enforces the rules, the Iranian government carries most of the responsibility when things go bad.
This strikes me as a dodge. It's dumb to say the U.S. is wholly responsible for any bad thing the Iranian government does, but it isn't as though the iranian people elected them. Any discussion of how crappy things are in Iran has to ultimately address the question of "well how did it get that way?"
Eat it You Nasty Pig. on
it was the smallest on the list but
Pluto was a planet and I'll never forget
Remember when Iran had a democracy? Can you recall what happened to it?
I don't know about an actual democracy, but yeah, Islamist leaders got pissed that the Shah was trying to make Iran modern and secular, so they had a little coup and went all theocratic. Score one for Islam?
What history books are you reading?
The ones that talk about the Islamic Revolution that overthrew a monarchy focused on secular modernization and instituted a clergyman at the head of a government based 100% on Islam that crushed opposition, forbade people from using the term "democracy," banned Democratic and Republican parties, shut down newspapaers and universities, and called for all its neighboring countries to do the same.
The leader of the revolution, the revolution known as the Islamic Revolution, was, not coincidentally, the same dude, the same religious leader, who ended up as the head of the new Islamic Republic. To claim that the revolution and the ensuing power struggle were two totally different things is not even reasonable.
So you missed the part where we earlier overthrew a completly secular and democraticly elected goverment and installed said autocratic Shah. Then helped him create a secret police force that killed, tortured and exiled any secular oposition. Leaving a giant power vacum that Islamic radicals neatly step into and overthrew him in turn? AND that the Shah claimed the right to rule based on the divine islamic right of kings? (so much for him being secular).
Because thats the story you get if you read the whole history book.
Kipling217 on
The sky was full of stars, every star an exploding ship. One of ours.
The solution is a less fucking irresponsible and retarded media.
He's enabled by the internet and can practically go directly to the people. He's boosted by any single media outlet that repeats his story, and I don't see why he wouldn't be aided by politically interested media groups, either in America or abroad.
If I had wanted to start a Facebook page, I could have done that. I could have made a viral YouTube video. Anyone could have, and anyone still could. People are just kind of dicks like that. It is absolutely insane that individuals have that much power, and the media is just a tool, not the cause. As an enabler, I don't think it's integral, it's not necessary.
Welcome to the Information Age.
It is absurd that in the information age a guy with a webcam and a YouTube account could conceivably cause mass death by damaging a book.
I suppose everyone should know better than to do that, but the enablers and the culprits of the violence are fundamentally the offended parties.
Loren Michael on
0
Options
JuliusCaptain of Serenityon my shipRegistered Userregular
It takes a true retard to look at the history of Earth, the complicated web of politics and economics and how they work together, and claim that the shitty situation in Middle East is due to Islam.
Religion made the situation shittier though. Sure, it can only really grab a good hold when people are poor and uneducated but once it does it goes into the deep end.
Oh, and still waiting for someone to name a major war in Middle East where the main reason was religion.
Without religion the Arab-Israeli conflict would be far less of a clusterfuck. Just because you can sort of squint and see that it is really all about tribalism or nationalism or whatever doesn't mean that that is what people think about it themselves. You're seriously underestimating how easily people take religious arguments for granted.
The whole burning of holy books thing didn't go away after the dude decided to stop riling up the crowd and the crowd kept going.
Didn't see that coming.
What now?
EDIT: Huzzah rationality!
Police were called in when thousands of rioters, chanting 'Down with Koran desecrators' and 'Down with America', attacked a Christian school in one town and buildings in other cities.
Kashmiris defied curfews in the Indian-controlled region and took to the streets, chanting anti-India and anti-US slogans and burning effigies of US President Barack Obama.
Except, well, that's not true. The predominantly Christian parts of Africa are no democratic utopia, but they certainly do better than the Muslim world. There are 4 largish nations- Ghana, South Africa, Botswana and Namibia that are classified as free, along with a number of partly-free nations like Ethiopia, Kenya, Uganda etc. If any part of the world has an excuse for being undemocratic because of colonialism, it's sub-Saharan Africa. Yet, those countries seem to be trending better than nations in the Muslim world.
I love how you claim that being undemocratic because of colonialism is an "excuse", by the way.
Botswana, South Africa, Namibia and Ghana. Three countries that are all neighbors and very closely tied together (Namibia was part of South Africa since 1992).
Two of which, Namibia and Botswana have only four million people between them.
One of which was an apartheid dictatorship since 1994 (not an old mainstay either).
One of which was democratic since it's independence and has twice the per capita output of any of it's neighbors in West Africa (Ghana is not in Sub-Saharan Africa).
A few outliers with good reasons why they are vastly better then then any of their neighbors doesn't change the fact that most of Christian Africa are undemocratic shitholes with rulers worse then any Muslim countries with the exception of Somalia.
It's a good thing no one is claiming that, then.
No, you are just asking questions, right?
Kind of tough to do, since pretty much every country in the Middle East is predominantly, if not completely, Muslim. And I assume you're going to try and hand-wave away the Israeli-Palestinian conflict as being ethnically or economically-based or wharever. But there are plenty of countries around the world, such as Nigeria, India, the Philipines, Thailand etc. where one of the major reasons behind their internal conflicts is religion (specifically, the friction between Islam and some other religion).
It's not handwaving when it's a fact.
And said friction isn't solely the fault of Muslims, isn't usually only about religion, and is only limited to few sub-sets of the population, where majority of both Muslims and Christians stay out of it.
But name those conflicts, so we can look at them more closely.
Without religion the Arab-Israeli conflict would be far less of a clusterfuck. Just because you can sort of squint and see that it is really all about tribalism or nationalism or whatever doesn't mean that that is what people think about it themselves. You're seriously underestimating how easily people take religious arguments for granted.
It's not "sort of squinting" when other issues constantly take precedence over religion in the conflict. And I'm referring to the Israeli-Palestinian conflict.
The Arab-Israeli conflict, on the other hand, is/was pretty much 100% secular. Arabs don't claim the land to themselves in the name of Islam, they claim it to the Palestinians. Nasser, Hussein, al-Assad and the like were very secular rulers who all struggled with their own Islamic opposition movements. Egypt to this day is hounding the Muslim Brotherhood. For them it was about Arab nationalism, never about Islamism.
Remember when Iran had a democracy? Can you recall what happened to it?
I don't know about an actual democracy, but yeah, Islamist leaders got pissed that the Shah was trying to make Iran modern and secular, so they had a little coup and went all theocratic. Score one for Islam?
What history books are you reading?
The ones that talk about the Islamic Revolution that overthrew a monarchy focused on secular modernization and instituted a clergyman at the head of a government based 100% on Islam that crushed opposition, forbade people from using the term "democracy," banned Democratic and Republican parties, shut down newspapaers and universities, and called for all its neighboring countries to do the same.
The leader of the revolution, the revolution known as the Islamic Revolution, was, not coincidentally, the same dude, the same religious leader, who ended up as the head of the new Islamic Republic. To claim that the revolution and the ensuing power struggle were two totally different things is not even reasonable.
Who the fuck cares about "secular modernization" when the Shah was the worst tyrant Iran has ever seen? Have you even heard of SAVAK? The people rallied under Khomeini over that asshole. Fucking Ayatollah "Let's kill all our political prisoners overnight, mkay" Khomeini, and he was still thought of as the better choice.
It is funny how that people seem to forget the unique mix of legendary tyranny, persecution, ruthlessness and sheer, mindblogging incompetence and self-fellating opulence that characterized the large majority of the Shah's rule. You really don't get all three at the same time (it's actually quite difficult).
When you consider that the current Islamic Republic's own institutions, as tyrannical as they can be, are at most pale imitations of the Shah's own autocracy, it should be a condemnation of the US (and British and Western European) decision to remove what was probably, by comparison, the most democratic, even-handed government Iran ever had (and some argue has had since). Not "whoops, guess we didn't think this through".
Seriously, "secular modernization" isn't much of a compensation for the CIA/Mossad-trained SAVAK terrorizing the entire country for twenty decades. Especially for the Iranians, on top of the crushing poverty due to the Shah's military build-up and obsessive need to show his own wealth off to his allies. Unless the Shah turned Iran into the Persian-version of The Jetsons, with everyone served by robotic maids and living in opulence.
Synthesis on
0
Options
JuliusCaptain of Serenityon my shipRegistered Userregular
Without religion the Arab-Israeli conflict would be far less of a clusterfuck. Just because you can sort of squint and see that it is really all about tribalism or nationalism or whatever doesn't mean that that is what people think about it themselves. You're seriously underestimating how easily people take religious arguments for granted.
It's not "sort of squinting" when other issues constantly take precedence over religion in the conflict. And I'm referring to the Israeli-Palestinian conflict.
The Arab-Israeli conflict, on the other hand, is/was pretty much 100% secular. Arabs don't claim the land to themselves in the name of Islam, they claim it to the Palestinians. Nasser, Hussein, al-Assad and the like were very secular rulers who all struggled with their own Islamic opposition movements. Egypt to this day is hounding the Muslim Brotherhood. For them it was about Arab nationalism, never about Islamism.
And arab nationalism is of course not tied in any way to Islam.
Maybe I should clarify: Because most of the Arab world is muslim, and because almost every mosque there claims it's their god-given property it's silly to act like religion is not important in the conflict. Arab nationalism gets justified by religion
Without religion the Arab-Israeli conflict would be far less of a clusterfuck. Just because you can sort of squint and see that it is really all about tribalism or nationalism or whatever doesn't mean that that is what people think about it themselves. You're seriously underestimating how easily people take religious arguments for granted.
It's not "sort of squinting" when other issues constantly take precedence over religion in the conflict. And I'm referring to the Israeli-Palestinian conflict.
The Arab-Israeli conflict, on the other hand, is/was pretty much 100% secular. Arabs don't claim the land to themselves in the name of Islam, they claim it to the Palestinians. Nasser, Hussein, al-Assad and the like were very secular rulers who all struggled with their own Islamic opposition movements. Egypt to this day is hounding the Muslim Brotherhood. For them it was about Arab nationalism, never about Islamism.
And arab nationalism is of course not tied in any way to Islam.
Maybe I should clarify: Because most of the Arab world is muslim, and because almost every mosque there claims it's their god-given property it's silly to act like religion is not important in the conflict. Arab nationalism gets justified by religion
The retort to that is "well there's churches all over the US and US laws are fundamentally Christian!"
bowen on
not a doctor, not a lawyer, examples I use may not be fully researched so don't take out of context plz, don't @ me
And arab nationalism is of course not tied in any way to Islam.
Beyond the sense that most Arabs are Muslims, no. The religious heritage is important, but as a part of culture, not as the top pillar. Notice how they aren't calling for African Muslims or Iran or Pakistan to join them. Even if they adhere to the exact same branch (Sunni, Shia, whatever). Being a Berber is about the farthest from an Arab you can get to and still fall under the umbrella of Arab nationalism, Persians or Pashtun can GTFO.
There are facets to Arabs beyond their adherence to Islam, you know. A random Muslim guy in Kazakhstan is part of the exact same religion as a random Muslim guy in Jordan, but that's where the similarity ends. It's a very unique culture in itself. Islam is only a part of it.
Maybe I should clarify: Because most of the Arab world is muslim, and because almost every mosque there claims it's their god-given property it's silly to act like religion is not important in the conflict. Arab nationalism gets justified by religion
The justification behind Arab nationalism is not religion, and I can't recall any Arab nationalist who would justify his views by religion. The Ottomans were Sunnis too and resistance against them was the very birth of Arab nationalism.
And yeah, religion is important in the Israel/Palestine conflict (Old City, the Holy Land argument), but it's not the crucial part, and there are other parts far more important then that. Settlements, right of return for the refugees, border issues, water rights, military security, and so on. They aren't going to debate about religion in the peace conflict except when it comes to East Jerusalem - and even there I think the population issues will come out on top.
Religion factors in the Arab/Israeli conflict very little unless you want to extend that definition to the Palestinians as well (I like to keep them separate, considering how fucked over the Palestinians were by both sides). Hezbollah and Iran are led by clerics, but religion isn't the reason for their attacks against Israel. As for the past facets of Israel-Arab conflict...well, let's just say that if you tried to say to Nasser or Al-Assad that they should be led by a cleric they would probably shoot you in the face. U.S. being scared of the Islamic revolution did not come fucking close to the sheer terror Iran's neighboring rulers felt. Saddam probably shat his pants when he heard the news.
So you missed the part where we earlier overthrew a completly secular and democraticly elected goverment and installed said autocratic Shah. Then helped him create a secret police force that killed, tortured and exiled any secular oposition. Leaving a giant power vacum that Islamic radicals neatly step into and overthrew him in turn? AND that the Shah claimed the right to rule based on the divine islamic right of kings? (so much for him being secular).
Because thats the story you get if you read the whole history book.
Yeah ok going back a little further. The Shah was more or less in power the whole time, we just worked with him to get rid of a Prime Minister we didn't like. A Prime Minister who bankrupted the country by nationalizing oil and who has a whole string of interesting tactics that call into question the idea that he was "democratically elected." The whole thing had little or nothing to do with the topics covered in this thread. It was Cold War crap.
And arab nationalism is of course not tied in any way to Islam.
Beyond the sense that most Arabs are Muslims, no. The religious heritage is important, but as a part of culture, not as the top pillar. Notice how they aren't calling for African Muslims or Iran or Pakistan to join them. Even if they adhere to the exact same branch (Sunni, Shia, whatever). Being a Berber is about the farthest from an Arab you can get to and still fall under the umbrella of Arab nationalism, Persians or Pashtun can GTFO.
There are facets to Arabs beyond their adherence to Islam, you know. A random Muslim guy in Kazakhstan is part of the exact same religion as a random Muslim guy in Jordan, but that's where the similarity ends. It's a very unique culture in itself. Islam is only a part of it.
Maybe I should clarify: Because most of the Arab world is muslim, and because almost every mosque there claims it's their god-given property it's silly to act like religion is not important in the conflict. Arab nationalism gets justified by religion
The justification behind Arab nationalism is not religion, and I can't recall any Arab nationalist who would justify his views by religion. The Ottomans were Sunnis too and resistance against them was the very birth of Arab nationalism.
And yeah, religion is important in the Israel/Palestine conflict (Old City, the Holy Land argument), but it's not the crucial part, and there are other parts far more important then that. Settlements, right of return for the refugees, border issues, water rights, military security, and so on. They aren't going to debate about religion in the peace conflict except when it comes to East Jerusalem - and even there I think the population issues will come out on top.
Religion factors in the Arab/Israeli conflict very little unless you want to extend that conflict to the Palestinians as well. Hezbollah and Iran are led by clerics, but religion isn't the reason for their attacks against Israel. As for the past facets of Israel-Arab conflict...well, let's just say that if you tried to say to Nasser or Al-Assad that they should be led by a cleric they would probably shoot you in the face.
What DarkCrawler is saying is "Yes, but you're overgeneralizing it, it's like comparing Catholics to Mormons and blaming them all for burning a Qur'an."
bowen on
not a doctor, not a lawyer, examples I use may not be fully researched so don't take out of context plz, don't @ me
So you missed the part where we earlier overthrew a completly secular and democraticly elected goverment and installed said autocratic Shah. Then helped him create a secret police force that killed, tortured and exiled any secular oposition. Leaving a giant power vacum that Islamic radicals neatly step into and overthrew him in turn? AND that the Shah claimed the right to rule based on the divine islamic right of kings? (so much for him being secular).
Because thats the story you get if you read the whole history book.
Yeah ok going back a little further. The Shah was more or less in power the whole time, we just worked with him to get rid of a Prime Minister we didn't like. A Prime Minister who bankrupted the country by nationalizing oil and who has a whole string of interesting tactics that call into question the idea that he was "democratically elected." The whole thing had little or nothing to do with the topics covered in this thread. It was Cold War crap.
This post is so goddamn fucking stupid.
A) "We just worked with him to get rid of a prime minister we did not like" is not exactly the best word to describe a CIA/Mossad instituted military coup to put the most brutal tyrant in Iran's history to the throne. Pahlavi Dynasty was going out of the way. U.S. put it back.
Nationalizing Iran's oil was the best thing that has happened to Iran, the previous thing was a colonial leftover where the people of Iran got snippets and the company got all the profits. Before that it was a British controlled and owned enterprise. It was a british boycott after that which hurt the country, not the right thing Mosaddegh did.
How is taking the profits of oil back to the country it belongs to "bankrupting" the country? Did you just glare at the Wikipedia page, read the first few chapters, noticed the word "nationalization", immediately connected it with communism or something, and then thought "this here is a baad idea"?
C) "Whole string of interesting tactics" such as? Limiting the ridicolous budget of the monarchy, asking the Parliament to give him emergency rights by a vote? Resigning when it became obvious that the Shah couldn't be controlled? Being the most popular political person in Iran amongst the citizenry, so much that the Shah appointed him to the position?
Little or nothing to do with the thread? Besides the fact that Iran's current political situation can be directly traced back to that coup? U.S. made things so shitty in Iran that the current situation was the preferable one. How is that "some Cold War crap"? I could probably trace every single current political problem in Soviet Union and South America to the goddamn tug of war between United States and the Soviet Union, not to mention in the fucking Asia. Cold War is never crap. It was probably the most damaging thing that happened to world politics since Colonialism. Just as a pointer, list of some people U.S. supported during the Cold War. Saddam Hussein. Mohammed Omar. Osama bin-Laden. Ring any bells?
So you missed the part where we earlier overthrew a completly secular and democraticly elected goverment and installed said autocratic Shah. Then helped him create a secret police force that killed, tortured and exiled any secular oposition. Leaving a giant power vacum that Islamic radicals neatly step into and overthrew him in turn? AND that the Shah claimed the right to rule based on the divine islamic right of kings? (so much for him being secular).
Because thats the story you get if you read the whole history book.
Yeah ok going back a little further. The Shah was more or less in power the whole time, we just worked with him to get rid of a Prime Minister we didn't like. A Prime Minister who bankrupted the country by nationalizing oil and who has a whole string of interesting tactics that call into question the idea that he was "democratically elected." The whole thing had little or nothing to do with the topics covered in this thread. It was Cold War crap.
Yeah, apart from directly contradicting your version of events. Because last I checked Mossadegh was as close to a democraticly elected leader Iran has ever had. He certainly was more democraticaly legitimate and secular then a absolute monarch that CLAIMED DIVINE RIGHT OF KINGS AS A SOURCE OF POWER.
As for the Shah retaining power the whole time... You really should read the whole book... Then you would read how he was installed by the allies(The british and America) in 1941 and was their puppet for most of his reign. But I guess that is WW2 crap and therefore not worth your attention.
Kipling217 on
The sky was full of stars, every star an exploding ship. One of ours.
Except, well, that's not true. The predominantly Christian parts of Africa are no democratic utopia, but they certainly do better than the Muslim world. There are 4 largish nations- Ghana, South Africa, Botswana and Namibia that are classified as free, along with a number of partly-free nations like Ethiopia, Kenya, Uganda etc. If any part of the world has an excuse for being undemocratic because of colonialism, it's sub-Saharan Africa. Yet, those countries seem to be trending better than nations in the Muslim world.
I love how you claim that being undemocratic because of colonialism is an "excuse", by the way.
Botswana, South Africa, Namibia and Ghana. Three countries that are all neighbors and very closely tied together (Namibia was part of South Africa since 1992).
Two of which, Namibia and Botswana have only four million people between them.
One of which was an apartheid dictatorship since 1994 (not an old mainstay either).
One of which was democratic since it's independence and has twice the per capita output of any of it's neighbors in West Africa (Ghana is not in Sub-Saharan Africa).
A few outliers with good reasons why they are vastly better then then any of their neighbors doesn't change the fact that most of Christian Africa are undemocratic shitholes with rulers worse then any Muslim countries with the exception of Somalia.
You keep claiming this, but haven't provided any evidence to back this up. As I've noted, there are only two Muslim nations that Freedom House considers free, while the large majority don't even qualify as partly-free. On the other than, the majority of predominantly Christian nations in Africa are either free or partly free. If you're going to claim that "most of Christian Africa are undemocratic shitholes with rulers worse then any Muslim countries with the exception of Somalia" you're going to have to provide some actual evidence for that claim.
No, you are just asking questions, right?
No, I'm saying that Islam is a significant factor in why predominantly Muslim nations are typically oppressive and poor. And the evidence is out there, you just want to hand-wave it away and try and downplay the fact that so many Muslim countries seem to have an allergy to democracy and human rights.
Modern Man on
Aetian Jupiter - 41 Gunslinger - The Old Republic
Rigorous Scholarship
I just love how this whole circle jerk results in perpetual vindication for both sides' stupid, violent ideologies.
Iran ought to have to answer for that shit. Why is there no international accountability for countries that pull stunts like this? The people who are in charge of that cable station should be charged with manslaughter for every death that occurs as a result of their broadcast.
Because it's not? From your own source, it receives funding from a large cross-section of the ideological spectrum. Everything from the Soros Foundation, Ford Foundation, Scaife, USAID.
Of course, if you think its rankings when it comes to freedom in various countries are incorrect, feel free to use some other source. I just used it because it has a useful interactive map.
Modern Man on
Aetian Jupiter - 41 Gunslinger - The Old Republic
Rigorous Scholarship
I just love how this whole circle jerk results in perpetual vindication for both sides' stupid, violent ideologies.
Iran ought to have to answer for that shit. Why is there no international accountability for countries that pull stunts like this? The people who are in charge of that cable station should be charged with manslaughter for every death that occurs as a result of their broadcast.
Those people chose to have a riot. Yes, Iran shares some responsibility, but it's fundamentally the people who do violence who are to blame here.
You keep claiming this, but haven't provided any evidence to back this up. As I've noted, there are only two Muslim nations that Freedom House considers free, while the large majority don't even qualify as partly-free. On the other than, the majority of predominantly Christian nations in Africa are either free or partly free. If you're going to claim that "most of Christian Africa are undemocratic shitholes with rulers worse then any Muslim countries with the exception of Somalia" you're going to have to provide some actual evidence for that claim.
An oppressive autocrat whose people aren't starving and dying by the guns of a death squads sponsored by that guy is a better ruler then a slightly less oppressive but fifteen times as corrupted autocrat who has brought his country nothing but poverty, death, diseases, and the only reason his people are any more free in political or civil liberties is that he isn't too interested in the rule of law to set any?
Do I really need to list all the reasons why I would rather live in Iran then say, the Democratic Republic of the Congo? Do I really need to say why the King Abdullah, despite all his faults, is still million times better in ruling his country then Robert Mugambe? Political and civil freedoms are not everything.
No, I'm saying that Islam is a significant factor in why predominantly Muslim nations are typically oppressive and poor. And the evidence is out there, you just want to hand-wave it away and try and downplay the fact that so many Muslim countries seem to have an allergy to democracy and human rights.
And you say that, but you haven't actually explained how Islam contributes that, or posted any of this evidence. Or how it is any more of a significant factor then poverty, absolute monarchies present in many of those countries, the one-product based economy and the continuing propping up of said dictators by the west due to that one product, the short period of independence and little experience in the developing of democracy those countries have felt, and so on.
And now that you claim that Islamic nations are typically poor? I thought that the whole crux of your argument was that they can't use poverty "as an excuse" because they aren't poor enough.
You keep claiming this, but haven't provided any evidence to back this up. As I've noted, there are only two Muslim nations that Freedom House considers free, while the large majority don't even qualify as partly-free. On the other than, the majority of predominantly Christian nations in Africa are either free or partly free. If you're going to claim that "most of Christian Africa are undemocratic shitholes with rulers worse then any Muslim countries with the exception of Somalia" you're going to have to provide some actual evidence for that claim.
An oppressive autocrat whose people aren't starving and dying by the guns of a death squads sponsored by that guy is a better ruler then a slightly less oppressive but fifteen times as corrupted autocrat who has brought his country nothing but poverty, death, diseases, and the only reason his people are any more free in political or civil liberties is that he isn't too interested in the rule of law to set any?
Do I really need to list all the reasons why I would rather live in Iran then say, the Democratic Republic of the Congo? Do I really need to say why the King Abdullah, despite all his faults, is still million times better in ruling his country then Robert Mugambe? Political and civil freedoms are not everything.
Freedom House does not consider Zimbabwe or Congo to be "free", nor even "partly free". Why are you attempting to use them as a rebuttal.
I just love how this whole circle jerk results in perpetual vindication for both sides' stupid, violent ideologies.
Iran ought to have to answer for that shit. Why is there no international accountability for countries that pull stunts like this? The people who are in charge of that cable station should be charged with manslaughter for every death that occurs as a result of their broadcast.
Those people chose to have a riot. Yes, Iran shares some responsibility, but it's fundamentally the people who do violence who are to blame here.
That's kind of like sicking an angry dog on a child and saying that it was the dog's choice to attack. And it was. But the instigators are clearly guilty of fanning the flames. They knew what would happen. That's why they did it. Off with their goddamn heads.
Because it's not? From your own source, it receives funding from a large cross-section of the ideological spectrum. Everything from the Soros Foundation, Ford Foundation, Scaife, USAID.
Of course, if you think its rankings when it comes to freedom in various countries are incorrect, feel free to use some other source. I just used it because it has a useful interactive map.
You'll pardon me if I question the credibility of an organization which has counted Dan Quayle and Paul Wolfowitz among its leaders. The issue isn't funding, its staffing.
Posts
Rigorous Scholarship
The Shah was not a democratic government. He was put in by a military coup that we funded, because of "lol communists". The Iranian Revolution restored democratic rule to Iran.
Yup, the Islamic rule in Iran right now is our fault for fucking up a democratic nation we had a problem with in the name of business.
Before the Shah.
Rigorous Scholarship
Oh no, it does suck, but its important to note that radical Islam and fundamentalism could only sneak into the country once the US fucked up the government there and installed a dictator.
The hardline religious faction won the post-revolutionary power struggle. The Islamic tone of the Iranian revolution was established after, not before or during, the actual overthrow of the Shah.
Just like not everyone who overthrew the Tzar agreed with Lenin, or everyone who overthrew British colonial rule of the American colonies agreed with Washington.
The leader of the revolution, the revolution known as the Islamic Revolution, was, not coincidentally, the same dude, the same religious leader, who ended up as the head of the new Islamic Republic. To claim that the revolution and the ensuing power struggle were two totally different things is not even reasonable.
You should scroll up and read some more.
We had a hand in creating the bad setup there but that doesn't mean Iran = Frankenstein's monster, too stupid to know right from wrong. The Iranian government interprets Islam to make its rules, the Iranian government enforces the rules, the Iranian government carries most of the responsibility when things go bad.
Iran is actually a fantastic example of a Frankenstein's monster. In the novel, the monster also had moral culpability for his actions, but the good doctor shared that culpability.
Well, sure. Radical islam (ism?) in Iran is a pretty direct reaction to the U.S.' (and to be fair, the Brit's) dismantling of secular society in Iran. The coup and installation of the Shah created a vacuum that radicals stepped right into. People in the U.S. didn't understand why Iranian revolutionaries took over the U.S. embassy, but to other Iranians it made perfect sense.
This strikes me as a dodge. It's dumb to say the U.S. is wholly responsible for any bad thing the Iranian government does, but it isn't as though the iranian people elected them. Any discussion of how crappy things are in Iran has to ultimately address the question of "well how did it get that way?"
Pluto was a planet and I'll never forget
So you missed the part where we earlier overthrew a completly secular and democraticly elected goverment and installed said autocratic Shah. Then helped him create a secret police force that killed, tortured and exiled any secular oposition. Leaving a giant power vacum that Islamic radicals neatly step into and overthrew him in turn? AND that the Shah claimed the right to rule based on the divine islamic right of kings? (so much for him being secular).
Because thats the story you get if you read the whole history book.
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/worldnews/article-1311785/Indian-police-kill-18-Kashmir-Koran-burning-riots.html?ito=feeds-newsxml
There's a Ron Paul video on youtube (broken clock, twice a day, etc) that brings people up to speed
So whatever the Islamic Republic does, we're at least somewhat responsible
The whole burning of holy books thing didn't go away after the dude decided to stop riling up the crowd and the crowd kept going.
Didn't see that coming.
So what are they protesting today, September the 14th? Protesting for the fun of it?
I suppose everyone should know better than to do that, but the enablers and the culprits of the violence are fundamentally the offended parties.
Without religion the Arab-Israeli conflict would be far less of a clusterfuck. Just because you can sort of squint and see that it is really all about tribalism or nationalism or whatever doesn't mean that that is what people think about it themselves. You're seriously underestimating how easily people take religious arguments for granted.
What now?
EDIT: Huzzah rationality!
3DS: 1521-4165-5907
PS3: KayleSolo
Live: Kayle Solo
WiiU: KayleSolo
I love how you claim that being undemocratic because of colonialism is an "excuse", by the way.
Botswana, South Africa, Namibia and Ghana. Three countries that are all neighbors and very closely tied together (Namibia was part of South Africa since 1992).
Two of which, Namibia and Botswana have only four million people between them.
One of which was an apartheid dictatorship since 1994 (not an old mainstay either).
One of which was democratic since it's independence and has twice the per capita output of any of it's neighbors in West Africa (Ghana is not in Sub-Saharan Africa).
A few outliers with good reasons why they are vastly better then then any of their neighbors doesn't change the fact that most of Christian Africa are undemocratic shitholes with rulers worse then any Muslim countries with the exception of Somalia.
No, you are just asking questions, right?
It's not handwaving when it's a fact.
And said friction isn't solely the fault of Muslims, isn't usually only about religion, and is only limited to few sub-sets of the population, where majority of both Muslims and Christians stay out of it.
But name those conflicts, so we can look at them more closely.
It's not "sort of squinting" when other issues constantly take precedence over religion in the conflict. And I'm referring to the Israeli-Palestinian conflict.
The Arab-Israeli conflict, on the other hand, is/was pretty much 100% secular. Arabs don't claim the land to themselves in the name of Islam, they claim it to the Palestinians. Nasser, Hussein, al-Assad and the like were very secular rulers who all struggled with their own Islamic opposition movements. Egypt to this day is hounding the Muslim Brotherhood. For them it was about Arab nationalism, never about Islamism.
Who the fuck cares about "secular modernization" when the Shah was the worst tyrant Iran has ever seen? Have you even heard of SAVAK? The people rallied under Khomeini over that asshole. Fucking Ayatollah "Let's kill all our political prisoners overnight, mkay" Khomeini, and he was still thought of as the better choice.
We are talking about Mosaddegh.
When you consider that the current Islamic Republic's own institutions, as tyrannical as they can be, are at most pale imitations of the Shah's own autocracy, it should be a condemnation of the US (and British and Western European) decision to remove what was probably, by comparison, the most democratic, even-handed government Iran ever had (and some argue has had since). Not "whoops, guess we didn't think this through".
Seriously, "secular modernization" isn't much of a compensation for the CIA/Mossad-trained SAVAK terrorizing the entire country for twenty decades. Especially for the Iranians, on top of the crushing poverty due to the Shah's military build-up and obsessive need to show his own wealth off to his allies. Unless the Shah turned Iran into the Persian-version of The Jetsons, with everyone served by robotic maids and living in opulence.
And arab nationalism is of course not tied in any way to Islam.
Maybe I should clarify: Because most of the Arab world is muslim, and because almost every mosque there claims it's their god-given property it's silly to act like religion is not important in the conflict. Arab nationalism gets justified by religion
The retort to that is "well there's churches all over the US and US laws are fundamentally Christian!"
Beyond the sense that most Arabs are Muslims, no. The religious heritage is important, but as a part of culture, not as the top pillar. Notice how they aren't calling for African Muslims or Iran or Pakistan to join them. Even if they adhere to the exact same branch (Sunni, Shia, whatever). Being a Berber is about the farthest from an Arab you can get to and still fall under the umbrella of Arab nationalism, Persians or Pashtun can GTFO.
There are facets to Arabs beyond their adherence to Islam, you know. A random Muslim guy in Kazakhstan is part of the exact same religion as a random Muslim guy in Jordan, but that's where the similarity ends. It's a very unique culture in itself. Islam is only a part of it.
The justification behind Arab nationalism is not religion, and I can't recall any Arab nationalist who would justify his views by religion. The Ottomans were Sunnis too and resistance against them was the very birth of Arab nationalism.
And yeah, religion is important in the Israel/Palestine conflict (Old City, the Holy Land argument), but it's not the crucial part, and there are other parts far more important then that. Settlements, right of return for the refugees, border issues, water rights, military security, and so on. They aren't going to debate about religion in the peace conflict except when it comes to East Jerusalem - and even there I think the population issues will come out on top.
Religion factors in the Arab/Israeli conflict very little unless you want to extend that definition to the Palestinians as well (I like to keep them separate, considering how fucked over the Palestinians were by both sides). Hezbollah and Iran are led by clerics, but religion isn't the reason for their attacks against Israel. As for the past facets of Israel-Arab conflict...well, let's just say that if you tried to say to Nasser or Al-Assad that they should be led by a cleric they would probably shoot you in the face. U.S. being scared of the Islamic revolution did not come fucking close to the sheer terror Iran's neighboring rulers felt. Saddam probably shat his pants when he heard the news.
What DarkCrawler is saying is "Yes, but you're overgeneralizing it, it's like comparing Catholics to Mormons and blaming them all for burning a Qur'an."
This post is so goddamn fucking stupid.
A) "We just worked with him to get rid of a prime minister we did not like" is not exactly the best word to describe a CIA/Mossad instituted military coup to put the most brutal tyrant in Iran's history to the throne. Pahlavi Dynasty was going out of the way. U.S. put it back.
How is taking the profits of oil back to the country it belongs to "bankrupting" the country? Did you just glare at the Wikipedia page, read the first few chapters, noticed the word "nationalization", immediately connected it with communism or something, and then thought "this here is a baad idea"?
C) "Whole string of interesting tactics" such as? Limiting the ridicolous budget of the monarchy, asking the Parliament to give him emergency rights by a vote? Resigning when it became obvious that the Shah couldn't be controlled? Being the most popular political person in Iran amongst the citizenry, so much that the Shah appointed him to the position?
Little or nothing to do with the thread? Besides the fact that Iran's current political situation can be directly traced back to that coup? U.S. made things so shitty in Iran that the current situation was the preferable one. How is that "some Cold War crap"? I could probably trace every single current political problem in Soviet Union and South America to the goddamn tug of war between United States and the Soviet Union, not to mention in the fucking Asia. Cold War is never crap. It was probably the most damaging thing that happened to world politics since Colonialism. Just as a pointer, list of some people U.S. supported during the Cold War. Saddam Hussein. Mohammed Omar. Osama bin-Laden. Ring any bells?
Yeah, apart from directly contradicting your version of events. Because last I checked Mossadegh was as close to a democraticly elected leader Iran has ever had. He certainly was more democraticaly legitimate and secular then a absolute monarch that CLAIMED DIVINE RIGHT OF KINGS AS A SOURCE OF POWER.
As for the Shah retaining power the whole time... You really should read the whole book... Then you would read how he was installed by the allies(The british and America) in 1941 and was their puppet for most of his reign. But I guess that is WW2 crap and therefore not worth your attention.
No, I'm saying that Islam is a significant factor in why predominantly Muslim nations are typically oppressive and poor. And the evidence is out there, you just want to hand-wave it away and try and downplay the fact that so many Muslim countries seem to have an allergy to democracy and human rights.
Rigorous Scholarship
Iran ought to have to answer for that shit. Why is there no international accountability for countries that pull stunts like this? The people who are in charge of that cable station should be charged with manslaughter for every death that occurs as a result of their broadcast.
Of course, if you think its rankings when it comes to freedom in various countries are incorrect, feel free to use some other source. I just used it because it has a useful interactive map.
Rigorous Scholarship
Those people chose to have a riot. Yes, Iran shares some responsibility, but it's fundamentally the people who do violence who are to blame here.
An oppressive autocrat whose people aren't starving and dying by the guns of a death squads sponsored by that guy is a better ruler then a slightly less oppressive but fifteen times as corrupted autocrat who has brought his country nothing but poverty, death, diseases, and the only reason his people are any more free in political or civil liberties is that he isn't too interested in the rule of law to set any?
Do I really need to list all the reasons why I would rather live in Iran then say, the Democratic Republic of the Congo? Do I really need to say why the King Abdullah, despite all his faults, is still million times better in ruling his country then Robert Mugambe? Political and civil freedoms are not everything.
And you say that, but you haven't actually explained how Islam contributes that, or posted any of this evidence. Or how it is any more of a significant factor then poverty, absolute monarchies present in many of those countries, the one-product based economy and the continuing propping up of said dictators by the west due to that one product, the short period of independence and little experience in the developing of democracy those countries have felt, and so on.
And now that you claim that Islamic nations are typically poor? I thought that the whole crux of your argument was that they can't use poverty "as an excuse" because they aren't poor enough.
Freedom House does not consider Zimbabwe or Congo to be "free", nor even "partly free". Why are you attempting to use them as a rebuttal.
Research is your friend, friend.
That's kind of like sicking an angry dog on a child and saying that it was the dog's choice to attack. And it was. But the instigators are clearly guilty of fanning the flames. They knew what would happen. That's why they did it. Off with their goddamn heads.
You'll pardon me if I question the credibility of an organization which has counted Dan Quayle and Paul Wolfowitz among its leaders. The issue isn't funding, its staffing.