The Big Middle Eastern Thread

[Spike]

@Dr. Gonzo Your post about Iran being formally asked to leave the WC and the basiji paramilitant squad sent me down a rabbit hole.

I’m struggling to fully understand the cause of the 79 revolution. From what I’ve read the Shah was investing heavily into the country and socialising the wealth, to me it looked liked the first step  in a Marxist plan of creating a capitalist economy that could be transitioned into socialism. So I’m assuming that this threatened the clergy and nobility of the nation causing them to undermine the authority of the Shah using orthodox Islamic identity against the Shah’s pan-Iranian identity. They feared their position was becoming untenable and and goaded the government into reacting violently against revolutionaries, and used this outrage to further undermine the integrity of the Shah. The west also pulled support for the Shah because his reforms were too ‘socialist’ in the midst of the cold war. Having no popular support from the people and no international support the Iranian Kingdom was dissolved. Replaced by a cadre nobles and clergymen that control the country through non-democratic authoritarian Islam orthodoxy.

[Dr. Gonzo]

2 minutes ago, Spike said:

@Dr. Gonzo Your post about Iran being formally asked to leave the WC and the basiji paramilitant squad sent me down a rabbit hole.

I’m struggling to fully understand the cause of the 79 revolution. From what I’ve read the Shah was investing heavily into the country and socialising the wealth, to me it looked liked the first step  in a Marxist plan of creating a capitalist economy that could be transitioned into socialism. So I’m assuming that this threatened the clergy and nobility of the nation causing them to undermine the authority of the Shah using orthodox Islamic identity against the Shah’s pan-Iranian identity. They feared their position was becoming untenable and and goaded the government into reacting violently against revolutionaries, and used this outrage to further undermine the integrity of the Shah. The west also pulled support for the Shah because his reforms were too ‘socialist’ in the midst of the cold war. Having no popular support from the people and no international support the Iranian Kingdom was dissolved. Replaced by a cadre nobles and clergymen that control the country through non-democratic authoritarian Islam orthodoxy.

Nah the Shah wasn’t really even close to a socialist - he even banned a few big socialist/left wing parties in his time.

And his relationship with the left always needs to be put back in the frame of reference of how his dynasty was restored to power in the first place. From a MI5 & CIA led coup that took out National Front’s democratically elected government - which was going to nationalise their oil industry so they could sell oil at the same price as their neighbors. So a lot of the country never really saw his rule as legitimate in the first place.

There’s a lot of reasons why the Shah’s time fell apart. He did not have a particular free society - it had similarities to today’s Iran, but it wasn’t even close to as extreme. But there was lack of political freedom, heavy censorship, a secret police (SAVAK) that beat and tortured. He tried banning hijabs (which imo is just as bad as mandatory hijabs, I think religion is stupid but people should have a choice in a free society) & reducing the political influence of the clerics. That pissed off the religious right.

Being a U.S. puppet and going hard after left wing parties and groups made him really unpopular with the left.

The 70s were a time of really bad economic times and a lot of people that weren’t incredibly wealthy saw their lives get much harder. The Pahlavi wasn’t a particularly good or competent leader… and was pretty corrupt and didn’t really care too much about the optics of opulence while many of the country struggled. So regardless of political ideology, a lot of people just didn’t like him because they felt their lives get worse and things got harder.

He ended up losing the support of most people other than the ultra wealthy & military officers (though he lost a lot of support in the enlisted).

As a US puppet he made the mistake of cozying up to one party while ignoring the other for a number of years. So when Carter took power and Iran was a big part of the OPEC pricing that created petrol shortages in the US… he didn’t have the same loyalty to Pahlavi as Nixon did. They shared the same Sec of State I believe, Kissinger, who had a good relationship with the Shah. Carter opposed Kissinger’s suggestion that Pahlavi use the military on protestors - the Shah didn’t do that.

Imo it was his incompetence and corruption that was his downfall. It’s one thing to be an unpopular puppet government, but if you alienate potential leaders of the puppet master… you only have yourself to blame when it comes crashing down.

There’s also this to further complicate things: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jimmy_Carter's_engagement_with_Ruhollah_Khomeini?wprov=sfti1

The first government after the Shah’s reign ended was different to what Iran has now…  but the Iran-Iraq war and some pretty brutal purges that took out the left leaning opposition and the last remaining leaders of National Front & large chunks of the military. And led to the creation of the IRGC.

But that’s why the diaspora is mostly made up of people who are super pro-monarchy or very left leaning, aside from the educated people post revolution that are just getting the fuck out because they’ve got highly sought after skills so they can. 

I don’t understand the people in the west who’s family left that are wanting the Pahlavi’s to be back in power. I don’t see what the point is, surely a democracy is more ideal than a monarch.

[Spike]

15 minutes ago, Dr. Gonzo said:

Nah the Shah wasn’t really even close to a socialist - he even banned a few big socialist/left wing parties in his time.

And his relationship with the left always needs to be put back in the frame of reference of how his dynasty was restored to power in the first place. From a MI5 & CIA led coup that took out National Front’s democratically elected government - which was going to nationalise their oil industry so they could sell oil at the same price as their neighbors. So a lot of the country never really saw his rule as legitimate in the first place.

There’s a lot of reasons why the Shah’s time fell apart. He did not have a particular free society - it had similarities to today’s Iran, but it wasn’t even close to as extreme. But there was lack of political freedom, heavy censorship, a secret police (SAVAK) that beat and tortured. He tried banning hijabs (which imo is just as bad as mandatory hijabs, I think religion is stupid but people should have a choice in a free society) & reducing the political influence of the clerics. That pissed off the religious right.

Being a U.S. puppet and going hard after left wing parties and groups made him really unpopular with the left.

The 70s were a time of really bad economic times and a lot of people that weren’t incredibly wealthy saw their lives get much harder. The Pahlavi wasn’t a particularly good or competent leader… and was pretty corrupt and didn’t really care too much about the optics of opulence while many of the country struggled. So regardless of political ideology, a lot of people just didn’t like him because they felt their lives get worse and things got harder.

He ended up losing the support of most people other than the ultra wealthy & military officers (though he lost a lot of support in the enlisted).

As a US puppet he made the mistake of cozying up to one party while ignoring the other for a number of years. So when Carter took power and Iran was a big part of the OPEC pricing that created petrol shortages in the US… he didn’t have the same loyalty to Pahlavi as Nixon did. They shared the same Sec of State I believe, Kissinger, who had a good relationship with the Shah. Carter opposed Kissinger’s suggestion that Pahlavi use the military on protestors - the Shah didn’t do that.

Imo it was his incompetence and corruption that was his downfall. It’s one thing to be an unpopular puppet government, but if you alienate potential leaders of the puppet master… you only have yourself to blame when it comes crashing down.

There’s also this to further complicate things: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jimmy_Carter's_engagement_with_Ruhollah_Khomeini?wprov=sfti1

The first government after the Shah’s reign ended was different to what Iran has now…  but the Iran-Iraq war and some pretty brutal purges that took out the left leaning opposition and the last remaining leaders of National Front & large chunks of the military. And led to the creation of the IRGC.

But that’s why the diaspora is mostly made up of people who are super pro-monarchy or very left leaning, aside from the educated people post revolution that are just getting the fuck out because they’ve got highly sought after skills so they can. 

I don’t understand the people in the west who’s family left that are wanting the Pahlavi’s to be back in power. I don’t see what the point is, surely a democracy is more ideal than a monarch.

Interesting stuff, the only thing I disagree is that I’m pro banning the hijab as it’s a tool of male religious oppression of women, and it is a double standard not applied to men. I think people should be able to choose to wear a hijab but I don’t think anyone actually chooses as it is simply a byproduct of social conditioning, and this social conditioning will remain until it’s forcefully removed. If Iran made wearing a hijab a choice tomorrow, the women that would choose to not wear it will still get their brains smashed on the street by those morality police that disagree because they’ve been conditioned to behave in such a manner.

So in saying that what is goal of these protests?

[Dr. Gonzo]

Just now, Spike said:

Interesting stuff, the only thing I disagree is that I’m pro banning the hijab as it’s a tool of male religious oppression of women, and it is a double standard not applied to men. I think people should be able to choose to wear a hijab but I don’t think anyone actually chooses as it is simply a byproduct of social conditioning, and this social conditioning will remain until it’s forcefully removed. If Iran made wearing a hijab a choice tomorrow, the women that would choose to not wear it will still get their brains smashed on the street by those morality police that disagree because they’ve been conditioned to behave in such a manner.

So in saying that what is goal of these protests?

The goal of the protests at first was for equal rights but now it seems to have shifted to wanting a secular government.

[Spike]

2 minutes ago, Dr. Gonzo said:

The goal of the protests at first was for equal rights but now it seems to have shifted to wanting a secular government.

Secular is stupid when it will be the same old codgers in charge afterwards. Equal rights are an impossibility when their is a discrepancy in the elite and the masses.

[Dr. Gonzo]

28 minutes ago, Spike said:

Secular is stupid when it will be the same old codgers in charge afterwards. Equal rights are an impossibility when their is a discrepancy in the elite and the masses.

This government is the furthest thing from secular, so theoretically it shouldn’t have any of the same people in charge.

Who knows what will happen. These protests have been happening every so often for as long as I’ve been alive basically. This is the longest they’ve gone on for though, by far.

[Spike]

Just now, Dr. Gonzo said:

This government is the furthest thing from secular, so theoretically it shouldn’t have any of the same people in charge.

Who knows what will happen. These protests have been happening every so often for as long as I’ve been alive basically. This is the longest they’ve gone on for though, by far.

The USA is secular and look how much legislation is dominated by religious dogma. Theoretically it doesn’t matter if the government just states it is secular. 

[Azeem]

The Western centric way of thinking like Spike, forced hijab bad but ban hijab kinda good so maybe let's try it is exactly the reason why reactionary movements come as a push back with severe repercussions like Iran 1979. 

Erdogan's rise in Turkey is a reaction to the brute witch hunt against conservative population in Turkey from 1997-2007. Women were striped and beaten in and around parliament just for wearing hijabs. Like now there is a reaction against theocracy in Iran.

Imagine going to India and be straight up like I'm gonna ban your caste system. Once it's 'forcefully removed' no one will choose it since it's social conditioning. Good luck with that cause you're in for a surprise that you may expect people lower in that hierarchy to be repulsive of that system but many are actually fine with it. They recreate it further down the line.

Don't disturb the social fabric of societies based on a whimp otherwise there will be a severe backlash.

[Dr. Gonzo]

3 hours ago, Beelzebub said:

The Western centric way of thinking like Spike, forced hijab bad but ban hijab kinda good so maybe let's try it is exactly the reason why reactionary movements come as a push back with severe repercussions like Iran 1979. 

Erdogan's rise in Turkey is a reaction to the brute witch hunt against conservative population in Turkey from 1997-2007. Women were striped and beaten in and around parliament just for wearing hijabs. Like now there is a reaction against theocracy in Iran.

Imagine going to India and be straight up like I'm gonna ban your caste system. Once it's 'forcefully removed' no one will choose it since it's social conditioning. Good luck with that cause you're in for a surprise that you may expect people lower in that hierarchy to be repulsive of that system but many are actually fine with it. They recreate it further down the line.

Don't disturb the social fabric of societies based on a whimp otherwise there will be a severe backlash.

I’m not even sure it’s really a western value. It’s just the idea of forced secularism tbh & in places like France, it’s also rooted in just not liking Muslim people.

I think religion has no place in modern society - but obviously people are still religious and that’s got to change naturally with time & educating people more rather than by just trying to force it.

Free societies value freedom and choice. I think the hijab is fucking stupid and oppressive but banning it takes freedom and choice away from religious people.

[Spike]

Forced radical interior change isn’t ‘western’ way of thinking lmao btw I wasn’t talking about interventionism, I wasn’t implying a foreign power needs to do this. Seemed to happen an awful lot in East-Asia. I understand you’re point of conscientious natural change but that isn’t always possible when people often wilfully engage in systems that work against their own interests. Look at the American lower class for an example.

[Spike]

6 hours ago, Dr. Gonzo said:

I’m not even sure it’s really a western value. It’s just the idea of forced secularism tbh & in places like France, it’s also rooted in just not liking Muslim people.

I think religion has no place in modern society - but obviously people are still religious and that’s got to change naturally with time & educating people more rather than by just trying to force it.

Free societies value freedom and choice. I think the hijab is fucking stupid and oppressive but banning it takes freedom and choice away from religious people.

You guys seem to think I'm caught up in the secular concept of the 'hijab' - I don't give a fuck about the hijab, it's just an example of systems that are used to oppress people in one way or another. What is the purpose of it? It's just a tool used by those of a different social class to oppress another, that being male to female oppression - if I'm missing the point, why else does it exist? I understand the idea of religious freedoms and choosing to wear the hijab - I've never had an issue with it, I don't care if people wear it, if they want to; let them, but when I observe it as a subject, I can only see it exists as symbol of the hypocrisy and double standards of religions, no different than Catholicism banning women from the clergy, or 'the sanctity of life' while denying other's their identity and right to exist.  It's the same as any other tool of control to me, like forced private insurance in the USA, or subversive media reporting.

It's a bunch of men telling a woman to behave, because they see them as inferior.

Edited November 1, 2022 by Spike

[Dr. Gonzo]

1 minute ago, Spike said:

You guys seem to think I'm caught up in the secular concept of the 'hijab' - I don't give a fuck about the hijab, it's just an example of systems that are used to oppress people in one way or another. What is the purpose of it? It's just a tool used by those of a different social class to oppress another, that being male to female oppression - if I'm missing the point, why else does it exist? I understand the idea of religious freedoms and choosing to wear the hijab - I've never had an issue with it, I don't care if people wear it, if they want to; let them, but when I observe it as a subject, I can only see it exists as symbol of the hypocrisy and double standards of religions, no different than Catholicism banning women from the clergy, or 'the sanctity of life' while denying other's their identity and right to exist.  It's the same as any other tool of control to me, like forced private insurance in the USA, or subversive media reporting.

It's a bunch of men telling a woman to behave, because they see them as inferior.

I think we're ultimately on the same page - especially if you say you don't care if they want to wear it or not & let them to. And I agree with you, the hijab is just a form of oppression and a means of exerting control over people.

Honestly, I believe religion itself is just a tool to oppress and control the masses, imo. But at the end of the day, people in a free society have a choice as to whether they want to be religious or not. They have a choice to decide what they're going to wear or not.

I think burkas and chadors are even more oppressive, but if a woman wants to wear one because of her beliefs... I don't think it's my place or anyone else's place to say "no, that's forbidden." It's different if they're being forced by their husbands, fathers, etc... but if it's their own belief and their own choice & it's not hurting anybody else there's no real legitimate reason to tell people they can't.

But banning religious garb (or forcing religious garb) as a way to try to "force" secularism isn't a good move imo. Education is the way forward to free people from the shackles of oppression through religion. Banning it takes a way choice, so it's not really indicative of a free society... and it doesn't let people learn why or how religion is used to control people.

[Spike]

21 minutes ago, Dr. Gonzo said:

I think we're ultimately on the same page - especially if you say you don't care if they want to wear it or not & let them to. And I agree with you, the hijab is just a form of oppression and a means of exerting control over people.

Honestly, I believe religion itself is just a tool to oppress and control the masses, imo. But at the end of the day, people in a free society have a choice as to whether they want to be religious or not. They have a choice to decide what they're going to wear or not.

I think burkas and chadors are even more oppressive, but if a woman wants to wear one because of her beliefs... I don't think it's my place or anyone else's place to say "no, that's forbidden." It's different if they're being forced by their husbands, fathers, etc... but if it's their own belief and their own choice & it's not hurting anybody else there's no real legitimate reason to tell people they can't.

But banning religious garb (or forcing religious garb) as a way to try to "force" secularism isn't a good move imo. Education is the way forward to free people from the shackles of oppression through religion. Banning it takes a way choice, so it's not really indicative of a free society... and it doesn't let people learn why or how religion is used to control people.

That's the problem though. Sometimes issues have to be forced, I don't like radical action at all but people are ultimately irrational and can and will act against their own interests. No matter how much education their is, no matter how many dead kids are in the school hallways, no matter how many people die on the streets, people will not give up their guns in the USA, this will never voluntarily happen. The removal of guns is also counter-productive to a 'free society', as through the process of gun control or banning people's rights really are restricted in that sense.

Any sort of forced action will have an equal counter-action,, and that's bad, that creates disenfranchisement and stokes the ideas of radicalisation, but at the same time without any action there will never be a change, something will remain as a constant unless it is challenged, sometimes the discourse is civil, sometimes it isn't. How many civilisations go through radical reform versus those that go through radical forced changed?

I don't want it to happen in this manner but what other recourse has a country like Iran have besides radical changes to society and hanging the oppressors from the town square on a butcher's hook? What can these people do besides die or butcher the government? How can they force the sort of change they want without using the extreme measure of violence and authoritarian control? This isn't colonial India forcing out a minority occupant, this is an internal ideological war, like Russia, China, the USA, France, and so on. Women have immolated themselves in protest, I don't see an end to this that isn't radical

Edited November 1, 2022 by Spike

[Dr. Gonzo]

2 minutes ago, Spike said:

That's the problem though. Sometimes issues have to be forced, I don't like radical action at all but people are ultimately irrational and can and will act against their own interests. No matter how much education their is, no matter how many dead kids are in the school hallways, no matter how many people die on the streets, people will not give up their guns in the USA, this will never voluntarily happen. The removal of guns is also counter-productive to a 'free society', as through the process of gun control or banning people's rights really are restricted in that sense.

Any sort of forced action will have an equal counter-action,, and that's bad, that creates disenfranchisement and stokes the ideas of radicalisation, but at the same time without any action there will never be a change, something will remain as a constant unless it is challenged, sometimes the discourse is civil, sometimes it isn't. How many civilisations go through radical reform versus those that go through radical forced changed?

I don't want it to happen in this manner but what other recourse has a country like Iran have besides radical changes to society and hanging the oppressors from the town square on a butcher's hook? What can these people do besides die or butcher the government? How can they force the sort of change they want without using the extreme measure of violence and authoritarian control? This isn't colonial India forcing out a minority occupant, this is an internal ideological war, like Russia, China, the USA, France, and so on. Women have immolated themselves in protest, I don't see an end to this that isn't radical

I don't really think gun regulation is quite the same as a blanket ban on religious clothing, though.

You can see on videos that basijis and police are getting beaten, stabbed, shot - this rebellion won't be successful without violence. They're up against people who are keen to gun them down to shut them up. This isn't a free country where the right to protest is respected. When protests are met with force, the only way for the people to really voice how they feel is to respond in kind.

But I think history shows that if this government is to fall, it's better to not isolate large swaths of the population. And that's what a blanket ban over the hijab would do, for sure. The cities in Iran may be very non-religious (many people I'd even say are anti-religious) - but Islam is still by far and away the most practiced religion in the country.

Even the IRI knew they couldn't start their version of the country up by isolating a large chunk of the population. It wasn't until about a year later that they started purging the secular and left-wing voices.

For Iran not to go the way of Syria or Iraq post-Saddam, there's got to be a decent amount of unity if the IRI goes. Otherwise it's going to be an absolute shitshow. And inviting religious extremists to go mental on Iran is probably not the greatest way to start a potential life-after-the-IRI.

[Spike]

1 minute ago, Dr. Gonzo said:

I don't really think gun regulation is quite the same as a blanket ban on religious clothing, though.

You can see on videos that basijis and police are getting beaten, stabbed, shot - this rebellion won't be successful without violence. They're up against people who are keen to gun them down to shut them up. This isn't a free country where the right to protest is respected. When protests are met with force, the only way for the people to really voice how they feel is to respond in kind.

But I think history shows that if this government is to fall, it's better to not isolate large swaths of the population. And that's what a blanket ban over the hijab would do, for sure. The cities in Iran may be very non-religious (many people I'd even say are anti-religious) - but Islam is still by far and away the most practiced religion in the country.

Even the IRI knew they couldn't start their version of the country up by isolating a large chunk of the population. It wasn't until about a year later that they started purging the secular and left-wing voices.

For Iran not to go the way of Syria or Iraq post-Saddam, there's got to be a decent amount of unity if the IRI goes. Otherwise it's going to be an absolute shitshow. And inviting religious extremists to go mental on Iran is probably not the greatest way to start a potential life-after-the-IRI.

Again, I’m not specifically referring to the hijab but anything that can be used as control. More things can be changed and banned than religious clothing.

[Dr. Gonzo]

9 minutes ago, Spike said:

Again, I’m not specifically referring to the hijab but anything that can be used as control. More things can be changed and banned than religious clothing.

Imo the biggest things changes to hope for are:

1.) Banning/ending Velayat-e Faqih (which means guardianship of the jurist - but this is basically the justification used for religious clerics having full control over the country)

2.) Removing the Supreme Leader & Guardians Council from the structure of Iranian government. Outside of these 2 things, Iran's got the framework for a robust democracy... so long as parties and candidates aren't barred from running (which getting rid of the guardians council would do) and as long as the president and majlis (their parliament) doesn't have to ultimately answer to a dictator.

3.) Banning IRI officials from holding elected office for at least 20 years (maybe for life). This one's maybe hypocritical because I've been an advocate for letting people make choices. The thing is, these people have demonstrated that if you let them they will take away all choice from people.

4.) Unbanning banned political parties (except MEK): Many of these political parties still exist, even though they are ultimately meaningless because they can never have power as things currently stand. Opposition groups are pointless unless they can back the opposition with representation.

These would be massive changes that would fundamentally change life in Iran, political and otherwise, pretty drastically. Anything else, imo, should be addressed after Iran's figured out wtf it would be doing next if they are able to free themselves from the IRI.

[Spike]

1 minute ago, Dr. Gonzo said:

Imo the biggest things changes to hope for are:

1.) Banning/ending Velayat-e Faqih (which means guardianship of the jurist - but this is basically the justification used for religious clerics having full control over the country)

2.) Removing the Supreme Leader & Guardians Council from the structure of Iranian government. Outside of these 2 things, Iran's got the framework for a robust democracy... so long as parties and candidates aren't barred from running (which getting rid of the guardians council would do) and as long as the president and majlis (their parliament) doesn't have to ultimately answer to a dictator.

3.) Banning IRI officials from holding elected office for at least 20 years (maybe for life). This one's maybe hypocritical because I've been an advocate for letting people make choices. The thing is, these people have demonstrated that if you let them they will take away all choice from people.

4.) Unbanning banned political parties (except MEK): Many of these political parties still exist, even though they are ultimately meaningless because they can never have power as things currently stand. Opposition groups are pointless unless they can back the opposition with representation.

These would be massive changes that would fundamentally change life in Iran, political and otherwise, pretty drastically. Anything else, imo, should be addressed after Iran's figured out wtf it would be doing next if they are able to free themselves from the IRI.

I didn't know the specifics but things like this is more what I was in reference to and hijab was just a poor example.

[Dave]

Just read about how FIFA could chuck Iran out of the World Cup due to governmental influence and issues around inclusivity with women.

Firstly, the thought of chucking a country out on human rights laws when you're hosting the tournament in Qatar is ridiculous.

Secondly, despite them having these inclusive issues with women and football for 40+ years this has stemmed from Iran allegedly selling drones to Russia. So if Iran get banned I'd expect Harry Kane can put his rainbow captain armband in the bin behind because England shouldnt be allowed to go because of the UK deals with selling firearms to Saudi Arabia.

Whilst the governmental influence is a fair point which caused India to be suspended, we're less than a month from the tournament starting and those players for Iran have qualified on merit and have no influence what happens at a governmental level. Even if you were to replace them with the next deserving team from Asia it would be UAE. Are we going to dig up there human rights records? The whole moral stance may project an initial healthy image to the world but for Fifa it would be like putting on an armoured vest that's had the armour taken out.

[Dr. Gonzo]

6 hours ago, The Palace Fan said:

Just read about how FIFA could chuck Iran out of the World Cup due to governmental influence and issues around inclusivity with women.

Firstly, the thought of chucking a country out on human rights laws when you're hosting the tournament in Qatar is ridiculous.

Secondly, despite them having these inclusive issues with women and football for 40+ years this has stemmed from Iran allegedly selling drones to Russia. So if Iran get banned I'd expect Harry Kane can put his rainbow captain armband in the bin behind because England shouldnt be allowed to go because of the UK deals with selling firearms to Saudi Arabia.

Whilst the governmental influence is a fair point which caused India to be suspended, we're less than a month from the tournament starting and those players for Iran have qualified on merit and have no influence what happens at a governmental level. Even if you were to replace them with the next deserving team from Asia it would be UAE. Are we going to dig up there human rights records? The whole moral stance may project an initial healthy image to the world but for Fifa it would be like putting on an armoured vest that's had the armour taken out.

Tbh I’m not even sure it was right to ban Russia from international tournaments for invading Ukraine. I obviously think their invasion was wrong - it’s clearly a crime against humanity.

But it’s a bit fucking weird when countries have invaded other countries in our living memory… and they don’t get the same kind of treatment. I’m sure any Iraqis who saw Russia get banned for an illegal invasion probably thought “what the fuck?”

At best, it comes off as just hugely hypocritical. At worst, it’s Europe & FIFA signaling to countries with brown people that their lives just aren’t worth as much as white peoples.

And it’s a disgrace that the sale of weapons to Russia is what manages get the world pissed off about the Iranian government. Not like they hadn’t been slaughtering kids in the street for a month before this talk of kicking them out of the World Cup… and like you say, all the involvement in government & sport & women inclusion have been issues since this government came into power.

[Dr. Gonzo]

Netanyahu back in charge in Israel...

[Dr. Gonzo]

Karaj (west of Tehran) is an absolute bloodbath after today. But the good news is many protestors were able to overpower basijis, despite being fired on by live rounds (which means these people just swarmed the basijis like zombies, I imagine many died - but holy shit, how brave)... beat them and got their guns.

[Spike]

7 hours ago, Dr. Gonzo said:

Karaj (west of Tehran) is an absolute bloodbath after today. But the good news is many protestors were able to overpower basijis, despite being fired on by live rounds (which means these people just swarmed the basijis like zombies, I imagine many died - but holy shit, how brave)... beat them and got their guns.

Reports say it was birdshot which can be used against humans in a  non-lethal capacity, which is good because that certainly limits the death potential. One basij was killed reportedly as well. 

[Dr. Gonzo]

Today and the next 2 days are probably going to be the biggest days of the protests so far. Nationwide strikes resuming in nearly every industry & people protesting on the streets of the cities since 11am (it's nearly midnight right now).

[6666]

Some decided to turn "15,000 protestors arrested" into "15,000 protestors sentenced to death". Apparently that's not true or at least there isn't a credible source confirming it.

There's enough reason to dislike these psychotic governments. Don't know why there are people that still feel the need to make shit up. People are weird.

[Dr. Gonzo]

1 hour ago, 6666 said:

Some decided to turn "15,000 protestors arrested" into "15,000 protestors sentenced to death". Apparently that's not true or at least there isn't a credible source confirming it.

There's enough reason to dislike these psychotic governments. Don't know why there are people that still feel the need to make shit up. People are weird.

Well the majlis (their parliament) did vote that anyone arrested in the civil unrest should be sentenced to death in a summary trial (I'm not quite sure what a summary trial is - but my guess is they just haul you up in front of a judge, say you were arrested in these protests, then give you a death sentence). They started issuing the first death sentences yesterday - but there's no way all 15k have been sentenced yet.

That's what they did in the 1980s when they purged political dissidents, academics, military officers... so it's not really beyond the realm of possibility. Honestly, that's what Raisi - the current president - was probably most famous for in Iran, his role in the purges. This is a government that has people fire indiscriminately into crowds to disperse riots. Now that people no longer seem afraid of getting beaten and shot, they need to make people afraid to challenge them again.

I do think the government is very much in panic because these large organised protests are the biggest since 1979. And national strikes, especially oil & steel workers striking & the bazaars in big cities shutting down, where a big part of what spread the 1979 revolution.

But the youth no longer seems afraid. And mass incarceration and the threat of mass executions... I think is likely to provoke an angry reaction from their parents.

So yeah, there's no reason to make stuff up about this government. They are evil and while they definitely haven't sentenced 15,000 people to death... it's basically a given that LOADS of people will receive death sentences over this. And honestly, at least 300+ people have already received their death sentences before these summary trials started - because the government has already killed 300+ people who have taken to the streets demanding for a better life.