Iran

Forums New posts
gun ainm said:
if those numbers are anywhere near accurate that's horrific, the brutality of the regime in its crackdown on protests is disgusting no matter what the numbers (NYtimes for example estimates numbers at ~5k).

nobody in their right mind wouldn't be horrified by the stories coming out of Iran - what should be done however? I think most would say this is largely borne out of the economic crisis in the country caused by the sanctions imposed on the regime (I'm far from convinced that's the right policy - its collective punishment of ordinary people), the US president initially indicated military support for the protestors and then shied away...feels vaguely reminiscent of Iraq 91.
Click to expand...
If you dont challenge bampot regimes militarily , and also dont do so economically or diplomatically, then how do you respond to them?

Just let them do their thing without interference, perhaps? If that is your position, how do you differ from the Trump regime on Russia - apart from that you may wish to give Russia a freer hand than they do?

My own opinion is that economic travails are a catalyst - to which sanctions are a contributor along with many self inflicted things, some of which @Davy has long charted.

Underlying it though, is deepseated discontent with a totalitarian and dysfunctional regime.

As to what is to be done, that's a good question. We could at least have demonstrated unequivocal support for freedom campaigners - moral support and the pressure it exerts. Not least in response to genocide of the iranian people by the regime. Alas it appears loyalties to Hamas and thus its enablers somewhat muddled the waters here.
 
Last edited:
gun ainm said:
wild but interesting take from TC - would Iran having nukes make the region more stable?

Click to expand...
Will read when I can stomach it. Sounds fckn mental though as we would have a nuclear arms race in the worlds most fruity region

(@Keepitgreen wrt to other conversations it may be worth pondering just why it is quite so lively)

At present only Israel standing as guarantor that Iran will not go nuclear stops Saudi and the rest arming themselves to the teeth.
 
Keepitgreen said:
That is indeed wild, and interesting! But not too sure on comparisons to North Korea - the 'stability' there isn't that appealing. And Iran as it is today, well its not likely to stay quiet and insular if it got the bomb I daresay..
Click to expand...
I'm not sure either - and I'm not suggesting we should let anyone that wants nukes have them but its clear that the NPT isn't working really. disarmament amongst the 5 countries is glacial and that those who ignore it (Israel, N Korea, Pakistan etc) do so with impunity (I know they didn't sign up or withdrew). its a valid point I think that 20 yrs after Pyongyang got nukes despite the understandable angst at the time what we've actually had is the regime secured but also feeling more secure - it seems the aim was deterrent rather than national suicide and that's a logical policy given the geopolitical situation. I'm not convinced the Mullahs would pursue the latter but it is possible I suppose....a hell of a gamble. seems to me we either 1) back off the regime entirely, accept it for what it is and possibly give security guarantees/do a deal so they dont need nukes and leave it up to the Iranian people (proxy wars/skirmishes will likely continue to be a thing to be managed) or 2) use military/economic levers to provoke civil war/regime change and hope for a better outcome than what we have already. I agree with the point that stability isn't that appealing - mostly for the Iranians/N-koreans themselves but tbh I think option 2 is worse. In essence this is the classic hawks/doves debate but my feeling is in Iran's case aggressive rhetoric and/or displays of power can be self-defeating by escalating hostilities and inciting fear and I think recent regional history (Iran, Syria etc) shows that hawkish policies have made things worse? how do we judge the success of regime change in iraq and the risk that was posed by Saddam's WMD/terrorism sponsorship programme 23 yrs later? an interesting (and wild) thought experiment
 
egb_hibs said:
Just let them do their thing without interference, perhaps? If that is your position, how do you differ from the Trump regime on Russia - apart from that you may wish to give Russia a freer hand than they do?
Click to expand...
its a good question irrespective of the causes of the war we are where we are now - I'm in favour of a negotiated diplomatic settlement that ends the killing - likely it means creating autonomous regions (Donbas/crimeria) and halting any talk of Nato expansion to its borders (if Nato is still a thing anymore) - it'd be an "unsavoury" diplomatic deal but probably the only humane alternative to a long-term war of attrition that could escalate to nuclear conflict? How to punish Russia for their war crimes - thats a toughie tbh and beyond my paygrade but there has to be some that hurts a bit but not too much. Question is do we really believe Russia wants to fight a wider war with Europe or would they likely be content with this? I dunno


egb_hibs said:
My own opinion is that economic travails are a catalyst - to which sanctions are a contributor along with many self inflicted things, some of which @Davy has long charted.

Underlying it though, is deepseated discontent with a totalitarian and dysfunctional regime.

As to what is to be done, that's a good question. We could at least have demonstrated unequivocal support for freedom campaigners - moral support and the pressure it exerts. Not least in response to genocide of the Iranian people by the regime. Alas it appears loyalties to Hamas and thus its enablers somewhat muddled the waters here.
Click to expand...
you're no doubt right that a significant part of the population do feel that way - seems a significant part support the IRI too though

whose loyalties to Hamas?

do you really want to reopen the genocide debate re Gaza by silly comparisons? I don't.
 
this is perhaps a good summary of the debate on why some focus much more on the atrocities in Gaza than Iran without it falling into petty name calling and inference of dark motives - from many years ago (1988) when perhaps there was room for nuance - fair play to Frum for posting it

Frum vs Chomsky

To view this content we will need your consent to set third party cookies.
For more detailed information, see our cookies page.

key point:
Frum says, when we think what we focus on as Americans (or westerners) in terms of our foreign policy concerns, Frum says there should be, ‘an equality of corpses,’ by which he means we should treat all deaths in which people are killed by a regime equally, irrespective of who does it.

And Chomsky argues against that. Chomsky says, actually, we should care more about those deaths that are committed with American (or wider western) participation, with American complicity. Not, of course, because the lives matter more, but simply because we have a greater moral obligation because we participated in their killing. And Chomsky says, ‘it’s a very simple ethical point. You’re responsible for the predictable consequences of your actions. You’re not responsible for the predictable consequences of somebody else’s actions.’
Click to expand...

obviously that's a very different thing from denying terrible human rights abuses in Iran for example - as I said above though no one (not even the demonic Greta) is doing that right?
 
I will pick up the rest later @gun ainm but I am using the term genocide in accordance with the new definition i have been educated on: a large number of casualties.

You may argue there are differences such as the Iranians deliberately targeting people for extermination and killing at a rate which, if sustained, might eventually meet the old definition. But we have left the latter behind and these things would be hairsplitting.

Based on locally accepted usage its either a large number of casualties or casualties incurred by jews. Im told its not the latter so im using in line with the other possibility.
 
The thing with Iran is it's a bit different from other Islamic states.

The old Shah was a sucker for western fashions and actively suppressed Islamic overreach. His absolute monarchy was supported by the West (well, ok, US & UK) and the dynasty went back 2500 years in history.

Iran uses a version of Arabic script for its alphabet but is not an Arab nation and the language, Farsi, is a member of the huge Proto Indo-European group, making it distantly related to English and Greek, for example.

The Iranians voted in the Islamic Revolution by referendum in 1979 but this was coloured by the poor rule of the last king who, despite great oil reserves, managed to make the average joe much poorer and the elites much richer such that any alternative seemed like a plan.

Well, now they have had 40 years of the 'plan', the question is, what have they learned?

Will the disgust amongst the people at recent crippling water shortages and other civil mismanagement by the mullahs be enough to continue the protests in the face of mass killings?

Will the West intervene? Should it?

I really hope they can find a way through the shittiness of their current hopeless-seeming situation and find some in-between way which might even be a blueprint for other such impasses.

They, the people, certainly deserve support for all they have suffered, mainly over the last couple of decades.
 
HaarlemShuffler said:
The thing with Iran is it's a bit different from other Islamic states.

The old Shah was a sucker for western fashions and actively suppressed Islamic overreach. His absolute monarchy was supported by the West (well, ok, US & UK) and the dynasty went back 2500 years in history.

Iran uses a version of Arabic script for its alphabet but is not an Arab nation and the language, Farsi, is a member of the huge Proto Indo-European group, making it distantly related to English and Greek, for example.

The Iranians voted in the Islamic Revolution by referendum in 1979 but this was coloured by the poor rule of the last king who, despite great oil reserves, managed to make the average joe much poorer and the elites much richer such that any alternative seemed like a plan.

Well, now they have had 40 years of the 'plan', the question is, what have they learned?

Will the disgust amongst the people at recent crippling water shortages and other civil mismanagement by the mullahs be enough to continue the protests in the face of mass killings?

Will the West intervene? Should it?

I really hope they can find a way through the shittiness of their current hopeless-seeming situation and find some in-between way which might even be a blueprint for other such impasses.

They, the people, certainly deserve support for all they have suffered, mainly over the last couple of decades.
Click to expand...
Great post H
 
EH17 Jimmy said:
Ayaan Hirsi Ali on the ‘progressive’ handmaidens of Islamist misogyny.

www.spiked-online.com

‘Western feminists are worse than useless for Iranian women’

Ayaan Hirsi Ali on the ‘progressive’ handmaidens of Islamist misogyny.
www.spiked-online.com www.spiked-online.com
Click to expand...
When you see footage from these marches where some glowering saracen bellows a war cry, to be echoed by a shrill chorus of cut glass accents , I can't help wondering about the psychology at work.

Perhaps with all the unhappiness their ideology brings them, and with all their male colleagues become soy boys, these young ladies are at some level seeking a real man? Many of the soy boys too, now I come to think of it, whether as role model or otherwise?

I envisage a decent number of 'reversions' in due course.
 
Jimmy it might be darkly humorous but for the avoidance of doubt, I'm not kidding. I suspect there really is an element of this in the mix.
 
Dark humour has always been around eegie especially when looking at situations where folk are being murdered enmasse and certain sections of society couldn't give a toss.

She is quite right about feminists who ignore women when it suits them.
 
Islam - the mask of Arab Imperialism.

Without it, Egyptians would be Coptic, Moroccans would be Berber, Libya and Algeria would be Amazigh, Syria and Lebanon would be Aramaic speaking, and partly Phoenician. Iraq would be Mesopotamian, Assyrian, Babylonian, Sudan would be Nubian, Tunisia would be Carthaginian-Punic or Amazigh, Iran would be Persian Zoroastrian, Kurdistan would be Median/Zoroastrian, Somalia would be Kushitic, there would be no Palestine movement. The arab conquest erased civilisations and destroyed many cultures and without this imperialism, the middle east would remember its own name.

Islam needs chased
 
emerald green said:
Islam - the mask of Arab Imperialism.

Without it, Egyptians would be Coptic, Moroccans would be Berber, Libya and Algeria would be Amazigh, Syria and Lebanon would be Aramaic speaking, and partly Phoenician. Iraq would be Mesopotamian, Assyrian, Babylonian, Sudan would be Nubian, Tunisia would be Carthaginian-Punic or Amazigh, Iran would be Persian Zoroastrian, Kurdistan would be Median/Zoroastrian, Somalia would be Kushitic, there would be no Palestine movement. The arab conquest erased civilisations and destroyed many cultures and without this imperialism, the middle east would remember its own name.

Islam needs chased
Click to expand...
Mixing religion and ethnicity in places there EGers, but you do capture the great sweep.

Without this great imperialist campaign - which has proved much more durable than European efforts due to obliteration of native culture- most of the above would probably be Europe now and UEFA tournaments taking us to much sunnier climes than we are left with.
 
egb_hibs said:
Mixing religion and ethnicity in places there EGers, but you do capture the great sweep.

Without this great imperialist campaign - which has proved much more durable than European efforts due to obliteration of native culture- most of the above would probably be Europe now and UEFA tournaments taking us to much sunnier climes than we are left with.
Click to expand...
We probably still wouldn't qualify anyway.
 
emerald green said:
Islam - the mask of Arab Imperialism.

Without it, Egyptians would be Coptic, Moroccans would be Berber, Libya and Algeria would be Amazigh, Syria and Lebanon would be Aramaic speaking, and partly Phoenician. Iraq would be Mesopotamian, Assyrian, Babylonian, Sudan would be Nubian, Tunisia would be Carthaginian-Punic or Amazigh, Iran would be Persian Zoroastrian, Kurdistan would be Median/Zoroastrian, Somalia would be Kushitic, there would be no Palestine movement. The arab conquest erased civilisations and destroyed many cultures and without this imperialism, the middle east would remember its own name.

Islam needs chased
Click to expand...

Many of these people's are still in place it's just largely they converted to Islam at the point of a sword or willingly. Striking similarities with central and southern Americas and Catholicism's roll out. Plenty other analogous examples around the world. I'd be speaking better Gaelic and living under the lord of the isles if it wasn't for the dammed Anglo Norman central belters 😣
 
gun ainm said:
Many of these people's are still in place it's just largely they converted to Islam at the point of a sword or willingly. Striking similarities with central and southern Americas and Catholicism's roll out.
Click to expand...
Partial parallels. There were indeed forced conversions in South America, alongside conversions through missionary work.

However that was secular imperialism with missionaries following in its wake, and the conquistadors happily ignored injunctions against enslavement of the population. They didnt operate under a theocratic system indeed theocracy is almost - but not totally - absent from Chrisitian history because its not how it is set up.

Nevertheless imperialism in the americas is absolutely another example of culture being replaced by new arrivals with the power to do it. No more human sacrifices etc these days.

But Islam spread entirely by the sword in the middle east and north africa and was designed for it - ie it was led initially by its founder.

Its written into its formula unlike Christianity, which originally and mostly has spread through conversion (including converted secular rulers making it the official religion). Secular colonisation of Islamic territories by Christian powers, has not resulted in their reChristianisation, for example French colonies in africa. Islamisation is a permanent quest, where conditions allow, and with provisions for handling it.
gun ainm said:
Plenty other analogous examples around the world. I'd be speaking better Gaelic and living under the lord of the isles if it wasn't for the dammed Anglo Norman central belters 😣
Click to expand...
There are indeed. Seldom at the behest of the original population or their leaders, which makes our own time so novel.
 
gun ainm said:
this is perhaps a good summary of the debate on why some focus much more on the atrocities in Gaza than Iran without it falling into petty name calling and inference of dark motives - from many years ago (1988) when perhaps there was room for nuance - fair play to Frum for posting it

Frum vs Chomsky

To view this content we will need your consent to set third party cookies.
For more detailed information, see our cookies page.



obviously that's a very different thing from denying terrible human rights abuses in Iran for example - as I said above though no one (not even the demonic Greta) is doing that right?
Click to expand...

Nice rhetorical trickery for undermining opposition to the bad guys he reliably supports. This essentially the argument of neo nazis who want to shift focus onto RAF bombing campaigns and the like.

But where does it leave him personally, in respect of everyone from Pol Pot to Jeffrey Epstein?

Greta is like so many, a daft wee go along, of the kind that make nazism and communism possible. Amazingly, she simultaneously manages to be Jean D'Arc for a certain kind of middle aged white man.
 
Last edited:
egb_hibs said:
Nice rhetorical trickery for undermining opposition to the bad guys he reliably supports. This essentially the argument of neo nazis who want to shift focus onto RAF bombing campaigns and the like.

But where does it leave him personally, in respect of everyone from Pol Pot to Jeffrey Epstein?

Greta is like so many, a daft wee go along, of the kind that make nazism and communism possible. Amazingly, she simultaneously manages to be Jean D'Arc for a certain kind of middle aged white man.
Click to expand...

That's a cynical take amigo it's an entirely reasonable position imo and I agree with the logic.
 
gun ainm said:
That's a cynical take amigo it's an entirely reasonable position imo and I agree with the logic.
Click to expand...
Come on, it was used throughout the cold war to benefit the russkis.

Its one of these things that sounds good but is at best daft if you think about it. And more likely used as I suggested.
 
Doc Shrink said:
He's no happy with Bruce Springsteen either.
The Boss should stay away from open windows.

No wait, that's the other mad dictators modus operandi.

@Greenmachine you need to get one last concert in....
Click to expand...
Don't give him ideas, he will send ICE
 
baggageandfibs said:
Looks like this is going to go off this weekend.
Click to expand...
Back out in Iraq for work. We had a security briefing last night and they told us it's business as usual. They usually have pretty good intel if anything is imminent. Usually if it kicks off between Iran and Israel and airspace gets closed they get us home via Kuwait, but there's every chance Kuwaiti airspace could be closed too. Just have to wait and see
 
Hibee Kev said:
Back out in Iraq for work. We had a security briefing last night and they told us it's business as usual. They usually have pretty good intel if anything is imminent. Usually if it kicks off between Iran and Israel and airspace gets closed they get us home via Kuwait, but there's every chance Kuwaiti airspace could be closed too. Just have to wait and see
Click to expand...
Stay safe Kev.
 
Hibee Kev said:
Back out in Iraq for work. We had a security briefing last night and they told us it's business as usual. They usually have pretty good intel if anything is imminent. Usually if it kicks off between Iran and Israel and airspace gets closed they get us home via Kuwait, but there's every chance Kuwaiti airspace could be closed too. Just have to wait and see
Click to expand...
Apparently Israel have started hitting Tehran Kev.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
  • Menu
  • Home
  • Hibs Chat
  • New Posts
  • Just Back
  • Chatroom