NationStates Jolt Archive

I am deeply disgusted by some presuming forum members, presumably ultra-liberal members who have never had to live in Iran or a country run by religious groups. I find the comments that the Shah was worse then the present regime almost an insult. Mossadegh was the best of the three if I would have to choose, but the Shah was still lightyears ahead of the current Mullahs. With the Shah if you kept your hands off of politics you could do whatever you wanted literally. With the Mullahs you get in trouble for daubling in politics, being homosexual, breaking chastity laws, and quite a few other offenses.
As I mentioned in a previous thread I have quite a few Muslim cousins, some of whom I have met. So I am hardly a troll or someone who hates muslims for being religious. I am only against religion and state, I believe they should never mix.

One of the reasons why the current Mullah government needs to be gotten rid of;

http://youtube.com/watch?v=tHqnSe3EqpA

The ones who will call you a racist bigot will be along any minute now...

Yay! Flamewar time!

*grabs popcorn*

Yay! Flamewar time!

*grabs popcorn*

*sets up popcorn stand*

My corn isn't popped yet. I will have to wait for someone to start burning to cook it :(

Oh well, 'till then: *Passes out beers*

.... the Shah was still lightyears ahead of the current Mullahs. With the Shah if you kept your hands off of politics you could do whatever you wanted literally........

O Goodie! What a nice man!!!! He let people do what they wanted when it suited him....Wouldn't it be just great to be held to the whim of a supreme leader...

Didn't he try to force the women to abandon the head scarf? Thats a religous thing, isn't it? Didn't he suppress criticism? Didn't he give the lions share of the countrys oil wealth to the US, Britain and France for 25 years in turn for power?

*sets up popcorn stand*

*Steals popcorn*

*Eats it*

*Steals popcorn*

*Eats it*

hey! you're supposed to pay for that!

O Goodie! What a nice man!!!! He let people do what they wanted when it suited him....Wouldn't it be just great to be held to the whim of a supreme leader...

Didn't he try to force the women to abandon the head scarf? Thats a religous thing, isn't it? Didn't he suppress criticism? Didn't he give the lions share of the countrys oil wealth to the US, Britain and France for 25 years in turn for power?

Didn't he march hundreds of thousands of small children through minefields to their deaths?

Oh wait, that was the mullahs...

*watches popcorn start to pop*

hey! you're supposed to pay for that!

*Throws a quarter*

Eat cupronickel!

Make no mistake. The Shah was a dictator who condemned many....but the present regime in Iran are not exactly shrinking violets either...

They ruthlessly executed anyone who was not 'on message'. It is ironic that the Revolution was supported by the Communists until the Mullahs turned on them. But it was not even limited to the Communists. During the war with Iraq and after people were executed for all sorts of reasons. It was a reign of terror.

I know there are people who regard Fisk as a waste of time but as usual the reality is different. His book (Battle of Civilization) goes into some depth regarding the Iranians.

Make no mistake. The Shah was a dictator who condemned many....but the present regime in Iran are not exactly shrinking violets either...

They ruthlessly executed anyone who was not 'on message'. It is ironic that the Revolution was supported by the Communists until the Mullahs turned on them. But it was not even limited to the Communists. During the war with Iraq and after people were executed for all sorts of reasons. It was a reign of terror.

I know there are people who regard Fisk as a waste of time but as usual the reality is different. His book (Battle of Civilization) goes into some depth regarding the Iranians.

Maybe it's just not that nice of a place...

Maybe it's just not that nice of a place...

Never been there so can't really say. Know a few Iranians though...they liked the place...

Never been there so can't really say. Know a few Iranians though...they liked the place...

I haven't been to Iran, but I've been to Pakistan and India...:D

Didn't he march hundreds of thousands of small children through minefields to their deaths?

Oh wait, that was the mullahs...

*watches popcorn start to pop*

"hundreds of thousands" specifically through minefields? I'd say you added a few zeros on your scoreboard by mistake there. A source please - HRW or similar NGO.

By the way, if the mullahs ate Babies raw without salt, that still makes the Shah (a)a dictator (b) the man who helped end democracy in Iran (c) a traitor to his own.

Make no mistake. The Shah was a dictator who condemned many....but the present regime in Iran are not exactly shrinking violets either...

They ruthlessly executed anyone who was not 'on message'. It is ironic that the Revolution was supported by the Communists until the Mullahs turned on them. But it was not even limited to the Communists. During the war with Iraq and after people were executed for all sorts of reasons. It was a reign of terror.

I know there are people who regard Fisk as a waste of time but as usual the reality is different. His book (Battle of Civilization) goes into some depth regarding the Iranians.

They aren't really Allahs cuddly bunnies that way, certainly.

I am deeply disgusted by some presuming forum members, presumably ultra-liberal members who have never had to live in Iran or a country run by religious groups. I find the comments that the Shah was worse then the present regime almost an insult. Mossadegh was the best of the three if I would have to choose, but the Shah was still lightyears ahead of the current Mullahs. With the Shah if you kept your hands off of politics you could do whatever you wanted literally. With the Mullahs you get in trouble for daubling in politics, being homosexual, breaking chastity laws, and quite a few other offenses.
As I mentioned in a previous thread I have quite a few Muslim cousins, some of whom I have met. So I am hardly a troll or someone who hates muslims for being religious. I am only against religion and state, I believe they should never mix.

One of the reasons why the current Mullah government needs to be gotten rid of;

http://youtube.com/watch?v=tHqnSe3EqpAWhile you make good points, your precondemnation in the first sentence does make you look like a bigot.

O Goodie! What a nice man!!!! He let people do what they wanted when it suited him....Wouldn't it be just great to be held to the whim of a supreme leader...

Didn't he try to force the women to abandon the head scarf? Thats a religous thing, isn't it? Didn't he suppress criticism? Didn't he give the lions share of the countrys oil wealth to the US, Britain and France for 25 years in turn for power?

Not really a nice man. I suppose even better to be at the whim of a religious council noted for it's extreme views and adherence to ancient laws.

Aren't the Mullahs forcing women to wear the head scarf? That is a religious thing isn't it? Aren't the Mullah's suppressing criticism? Aren't the Mullahs impoverishing their country and people by having such a reprehensible foreign policy?

I agree that the current regime In Iran is bad but I will never support a war against Iran. It will only make things worse.

"hundreds of thousands" specifically through minefields? I'd say you added a few zeros on your scoreboard by mistake there. A source please - HRW or similar NGO.

By the way, if the mullahs ate Babies raw without salt, that still makes the Shah (a)a dictator (b) the man who helped end democracy in Iran (c) a traitor to his own.

Yes, hundreds of thousands. After the first few times, parents complained that there wasn't enough of their bodies left to bury, so the next time, they wrapped the kids in heavy blankets so that when the mines went off, there would be something they could find.

"The child-Basiji in the mine fields during the 1980-88 war with Iraq with their plastic keys hung round their necks to open the gates of heaven. They went into the mine fields. Their eyes saw nothing. Their ears heard nothing. And then, a few moments later, one saw clouds of dust. When the dust had settled again, there was nothing more to be seen of them. Somewhere, widely scattered in the landscape, there lay scraps of burnt flesh and pieces of bone.” Such scenes could henceforth be avoided, Ettela’at assured its readers. “Before entering the mine fields, the children [now] wrap themselves in blankets and they roll on the ground, so that their body parts stay together after the explosion of the mines and one can carry them to the graves.” The children who thus rolled to their deaths formed part of the mass “Basij” movement that was called into being by the Ayatollah Khomeini in 1979. "The young men cleared the mines with their own bodies," one veteran of the Iran-Iraq War recalled in 2002 to the German newspaper Frankfurter Allgemeine. "It was sometimes like a race. Even without the commander's orders, everyone wanted to be first."

The sacrifice of the Basiji was ghastly. And yet, today, it is a source not of national shame, but of growing pride. Since the end of hostilities against Iraq in 1988, the Basiji have grown both in numbers and influence. They have been deployed, above all, as a vice squad to enforce religious law in Iran, and their elite "special units" have been used as shock troops against anti-government forces. In both 1999 and 2003, for instance, the Basiji were used to suppress student unrest. And, last year, they formed the potent core of the political base that propelled Mahmoud Ahmadinejad--a man who reportedly served as a Basij instructor during the Iran-Iraq War--to the presidency.

BTW, Nodinia, Ettela’at is an official Iranian news source.

While you make good points, your precondemnation in the first sentence does make you look like a bigot.

That I am deeply disgusted at people who support a government that hangs homosexuals, women's right activist, any woman who commits adultery, outer-marital sex, converts from Islam, etc.. That makes me seem a bigot? Perhaps I was over harsh. However I do not think highly of people who support such nations, on the same note before someone pulls random conclusions I also think very lowly of US foreign policy at the moment and religion in state in any form be it christian, muslim or other.

BTW, Nodinia, Ettela’at is an official Iranian news source.

Indeed it is. However though your article mentions it, it is not from it. I found three hits when I entered some text in google. "The new republic", where the article seems to have originated, a copy on "Regime change in Iran" and also http://www.imra.org.il/.

Now I know already that Iran used child soldiers, as did Iraq. What I don't remember is your figures. Didn't he march hundreds of thousands of small children through minefields to their deaths?

Oh wait, that was the mullahs...

From your own article "All told, some 100,000 men and boys are said to have been killed during Basiji operations. "

I'd like a source, from an NGO, detailing child casualties involved in clearing minefields. My guess is that its not going to be "hundreds of thosands".

What I find additionally funny is that it strikes you as amusing when Palestinans, including children, drown in shit, yet you suddenly develop a bleeding heart for the Iranians, not even 24 hours later.

Personally, I view the use/targeting of children under 18, and certainly under 17 as wrong.


Nor do I see how this makes the Shah less of a fuck.

That I am deeply disgusted at people who support a government that hangs homosexuals, women's right activist, any woman who commits adultery, outer-marital sex, converts from Islam, etc.. That makes me seem a bigot? Perhaps I was over harsh. However I do not think highly of people who support such nations, on the same note before someone pulls random conclusions I also think very lowly of US foreign policy at the moment and religion in state in any form be it christian, muslim or other.Indeed, but I don't know any ultra-liberals that support Iran. I don't even know any leftists that do.

you mean to say that a middle eastern country doesn’t have a good human rights record!

*watches as the fabric of existence disassembles* :p

also I'd like to see who these “ultra-liberals” are

Indeed, but I don't know any ultra-liberals that support Iran. I don't even know any leftists that do.

As I said a presumption, probably a wrong one as you pointed out. I assumed it out of the fact that since right wing whackjobs are calling for the nuking of Iran and it's invasion, hardly a constructive solution either,.... those of the opposite political views would tend to stray to the other side of the conflict just for arguements sake.

Mullah is good! Mullah is Money!

I am deeply disgusted by some presuming forum members, presumably ultra-liberal members who have never had to live in Iran or a country run by religious groups. I find the comments that the Shah was worse then the present regime almost an insult. Mossadegh was the best of the three if I would have to choose, but the Shah was still lightyears ahead of the current Mullahs. With the Shah if you kept your hands off of politics you could do whatever you wanted literally. With the Mullahs you get in trouble for daubling in politics, being homosexual, breaking chastity laws, and quite a few other offenses.
As I mentioned in a previous thread I have quite a few Muslim cousins, some of whom I have met. So I am hardly a troll or someone who hates muslims for being religious. I am only against religion and state, I believe they should never mix.

One of the reasons why the current Mullah government needs to be gotten rid of;

http://youtube.com/watch?v=tHqnSe3EqpA

What, and replaced with another Shah? Or what exactly are you saying?
Yes, the current regime is horrible. And the past regime was slightly less horrible.
But comparing the two is a bit like comparing Stalin to Tsar Nikolaus II, isn't it? Neither are anything to actually strife for...

There is one huge difference between the current regime and the Shah: The general populace seems to be on the side of the new regime.

The Shah, at the time of his overthrow, may have been the most hated dictator by his own people in history. This was one of the main reasons why the revolution was short, quick and relatively bloodless at first - the Shah had no popular support at all.

Now, it's always hard to determine popularity of a non-representative government in another nation and culture. But one way of determining the strength of popular support for a government is to measure the strength of it's political enemies - particularly revolutionary/counter-revolutionary groups.

And in Iran's case, they're practically non-existent. A couple of minor, Paris-based "intellectual movements." One "Liberation Front" - which I can find no trace of past 1990. It seems to have vanished entirely.

If Iran stopped being a tremendous thorn in the side of the major powers, I'd say the current government system was remarkably stable. You don't get that unless the populace is reasonably happy with the job the government is doing.

As I mentioned in a previous thread I have quite a few Muslim cousins, some of whom I have met. So I am hardly a troll or someone who hates muslims for being religious.

One of the more interesting versions of "Now, I once met a gay guy and he was OK so I'm not a homophobe, [but", or "not all black men want to rob you, and I know this, so don't call be a racist, but"

There is one huge difference between the current regime and the Shah: The general populace seems to be on the side of the new regime.

The Shah, at the time of his overthrow, may have been the most hated dictator by his own people in history. This was one of the main reasons why the revolution was short, quick and relatively bloodless at first - the Shah had no popular support at all.

Now, it's always hard to determine popularity of a non-representative government in another nation and culture. But one way of determining the strength of popular support for a government is to measure the strength of it's political enemies - particularly revolutionary/counter-revolutionary groups.

And in Iran's case, they're practically non-existent. A couple of minor, Paris-based "intellectual movements." One "Liberation Front" - which I can find no trace of past 1990. It seems to have vanished entirely.

If Iran stopped being a tremendous thorn in the side of the major powers, I'd say the current government system was remarkably stable. You don't get that unless the populace is reasonably happy with the job the government is doing.

Well there was a group that was based in Iraq, however they seemed to be a very strange lot indeed....http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/People%27s_Mujahedin_of_Iran

One might say that were the "West" to be less aggressive in the region, the resurgence of the Iranian hardline might well fade away.

who have never had to live in Iran or a country run by religious groups.
I live in America. :rolleyes:

The Shah was Iran's version of Pinochet. Although ruthless and stringent, his measures were necessary to salvage his country and prevent it from sliding ever deeper into the muck of socialism. He had the strength to resist the influence of the neighboring USSR which beckoned Iran to join its sphere of poverty. As a result, Iran experienced an economic boom during his tenure, as opposed to the gradual decline seen by nearby communist nations.

I'd like to see who these “ultra-liberals” aresome idiots think only an Ultra-Liberal would condemn the torture-and-murder by the Shah "special" police.

Nuke teh area!

you mean to say that a middle eastern country doesn’t have a good human rights record!

*watches as the fabric of existence disassembles* :p

breaking news: water is wet :D

One of the more interesting versions of "Now, I once met a gay guy and he was OK so I'm not a homophobe, [but", or "not all black men want to rob you, and I know this, so don't call be a racist, but"

Why an analogy? I mentioned the fact long before I came into any debate about Islam or Iran. I mentioned it because Sovietstan asked if I am a Muslim and I answerred truthfully no not myself however I have muslim family members due to my grandmother marrying someone from a muslim family, the guy she married actually converted to christianity from Islam inorder to get the grace from my greatgrandparents. However this still leaves me with all the Muslim relatives from the family of my maternal grandfather, some of whom shun my part of the family due to his conversions. Others who don't give a damn and consider family, family.
Please bother to check, especially since I said I mentioned it in a previous thread, before playing the all knowing asshole and outright insinuating bullshit.

some idiots think only an Ultra-Liberal would condemn the torture-and-murder by the Shah "special" police.Oh yes, SAVAK was very special.

some idiots think only an Ultra-Liberal would condemn the torture-and-murder by the Shah "special" police.


Read what I wrote. I said that I found it insulting that some people consider the Mullahs a lesser evil then the Shah. While both were bad, the Mullahs take the obvious straw as worse. Also because the Shah was a corporate, installed dictator. I would presume, note I even said presume in my original post that one could only logically call the Shah worse then the Mullahs if one has a political bias. The most fitting political bias to this would be far left, which would consider a corporate sellout such as the Shah on par with the devil.
I never claimed the Shah was perfect or even the preferred person in power. If you would leave it up to me, I would put Mossadegh back in power. However I just mentioned my disgust at some people considerring the Mullah ruling preferable to the Shah ruling the nation.

Iran is a democratically elected republic. If the Iranians want more freedom, they can vote more liberal politicians into office. Or they can move to the United States. It's really that simple.

I firmly believe that the invasions of Afghanistan and Iraq were the right things to do, but the last time we overthrew a democratic government in Iran, it turned out very badly...

Iran is a democratically elected republic. If the Iranians want more freedom, they can vote more liberal politicians into office. Or they can move to the United States. It's really that simple.

I firmly believe that the invasions of Afghanistan and Iraq were the right things to do, but the last time we overthrew a democratic government in Iran, it turned out very badly...*blinks* Perhaps you should examine the Iranian political system a little closer. Iranian citizens can't just vote in whoever they want. They have to choose between vetted candidates.

What does "vetted" mean?

What does "vetted" mean?
I think it means they are chosen by someone before they can even run.

Iran is a democratically elected republic. If the Iranians want more freedom, they can vote more liberal politicians into office. Or they can move to the United States. It's really that simple.

I firmly believe that the invasions of Afghanistan and Iraq were the right things to do, but the last time we overthrew a democratic government in Iran, it turned out very badly...

Wrong. The presidents of Iran are elected. The presidents have no power. The mullahs and the Supreme Leader (may he burn in hell) are not elected. They have all the power. And you have no idea how insanely difficult it is to move to the United States- or even get a visa- from Iran. It is definitley not that simple.

There is one huge difference between the current regime and the Shah: The general populace seems to be on the side of the new regime.

The Shah, at the time of his overthrow, may have been the most hated dictator by his own people in history. This was one of the main reasons why the revolution was short, quick and relatively bloodless at first - the Shah had no popular support at all.

Now, it's always hard to determine popularity of a non-representative government in another nation and culture. But one way of determining the strength of popular support for a government is to measure the strength of it's political enemies - particularly revolutionary/counter-revolutionary groups.

And in Iran's case, they're practically non-existent. A couple of minor, Paris-based "intellectual movements." One "Liberation Front" - which I can find no trace of past 1990. It seems to have vanished entirely.

If Iran stopped being a tremendous thorn in the side of the major powers, I'd say the current government system was remarkably stable. You don't get that unless the populace is reasonably happy with the job the government is doing.


Wrong. Afraid to speak out does not equal happy. If you atually talk to Iranians in Iran, they will tell you that they are not happy with the state or government of Iran (I know because I have).

I am deeply disgusted by some presuming forum members, presumably ultra-liberal members who have never had to live in Iran or a country run by religious groups. I find the comments that the Shah was worse then the present regime almost an insult. Mossadegh was the best of the three if I would have to choose, but the Shah was still lightyears ahead of the current Mullahs. With the Shah if you kept your hands off of politics you could do whatever you wanted literally. With the Mullahs you get in trouble for daubling in politics, being homosexual, breaking chastity laws, and quite a few other offenses.
As I mentioned in a previous thread I have quite a few Muslim cousins, some of whom I have met. So I am hardly a troll or someone who hates muslims for being religious. I am only against religion and state, I believe they should never mix.

One of the reasons why the current Mullah government needs to be gotten rid of;

http://youtube.com/watch?v=tHqnSe3EqpA

Right. The shah was a complete bastard and I despise him thoroughly, but the Mullahs are much worse. Mossadegh was a true democratic leader who actually believed in helping iran instead of himself, and brought freedom and independence. What happened to him again? Oh I remember...

Wrong. The presidents of Iran are elected. The presidents have no power. The mullahs and the Supreme Leader (may he burn in hell) are not elected. They have all the power. And you have no idea how insanely difficult it is to move to the United States- or even get a visa- from Iran. It is definitley not that simple.

Links?

Links?

I'm afraid I do not know this from the news. I know it from being Iranian. And I know how hard it is to get a visa because I have family and friends who tried. And by the way when someone is called "The Supreme Leader" It's pretty clear where the power lies.

Oh yeah? Well, I'm Iranian too, and it was extremely easy for me and my family to get visas. I also live on the moon with my pet dinosaur.

See? Without links, anything that we say is worthless.

Oh yeah? Well, I'm Iranian too, and it was extremely easy for me and my family to get visas. I also live on the moon with my pet dinosaur.

See? Without links, anything that we say is worthless.

In my opinion actual people with real experience are worth more than a news link any day. And unless you are accusing me of lying, I fail to see your point. I say the facts as I know them, not as the news tells me.

And now I must go to basketball practice, we shall continue this later.

Are you saying that you are not skeptical of my claims about living on the moon with my pet dinosaur?

Read what I wrote. I said that I found it insulting that some people consider the Mullahs a lesser evil then the Shah.LOL.
you find it insulting?
You are too sensitive for this forum.. take my advice and go play in the teletubbies political forum.

Overall........shiite muslims are insane get used it

Overall........shiite muslims are insane get used it

ALL Muslims are insane.

And Christians.

And Jews.

And Hindus.

And members of pretty much every other religion.

Overall........shiite muslims are insane get used it

Shiite Muslims are no more insane than any other religion I fail to see how you come to a different conclusion

SNIP

in short everyone insane its the human condition :)

in short everyone insane its the human condition :)

No. Agnostics and atheists are quite sane, as are members of the Church of the Flying Spaghetti Monster.

No. Agnostics and atheists are quite sane, as are members of the Church of the Flying Spaghetti Monster.

um your atheist/agnostic aren’t you...

also as an apathetic agnostic I declare that I am not perfectly sane in fact I’d say that if anyone was sane they would commit suicide fairly quickly :p

ALL Muslims are insane.

And Christians.

And Jews.

And Hindus.

And members of pretty much every other religion.

No. Agnostics and atheists are quite sane, as are members of the Church of the Flying Spaghetti Monster.

I love the smell of chauvinism in the morning. Smells like....bigotry

Are you saying that you are not skeptical of my claims about living on the moon with my pet dinosaur?

I am skeptical of your claims. Are you skeptical of mine? Wether you accept my arguments depends on wether on not you believe me, and that is something for you to decide.

I know it ...
Overall........shiite muslims are insane Slythros, do you agree with that statements?

"Are shiite muslims insane(overall)"?

Wrong. Afraid to speak out does not equal happy. If you atually talk to Iranians in Iran, they will tell you that they are not happy with the state or government of Iran (I know because I have).

Nobody's that good at oppression. If people were truly dissatisfied with the Islamic Republic's government they'd actively work against it, and we'd have real opposition parties (banned or otherwise) and maybe a militant group or two. It wouldn't even be hard for them to get funding - they'd just have to go to the Wahabbists in Saudi.

Yeah, people complain. People complain about the government all the time in the US, too. And Canada, Australia, France, Germany, New Zealand, etcetera, etcetera. That doesn't mean they're really unhappy with the situation.

I just don't see any real evidence of the Iranian government being as bad or as unpopular as you're painting. Yes, nasty stuff happened under Khomeinei; but has that really continued under Khamenei?

Nobody's that good at oppression. If people were truly dissatisfied with the Islamic Republic's government they'd actively work against it, and we'd have real opposition parties (banned or otherwise) and maybe a militant group or two. It wouldn't even be hard for them to get funding - they'd just have to go to the Wahabbists in Saudi.

Yeah, people complain. People complain about the government all the time in the US, too. And Canada, Australia, France, Germany, New Zealand, etcetera, etcetera. That doesn't mean they're really unhappy with the situation.

I just don't see any real evidence of the Iranian government being as bad or as unpopular as you're painting. Yes, nasty stuff happened under Khomeinei; but has that really continued under Khamenei?

There is one militant lot, the MEK: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mujahideen_al-Khalq. They have been in a fair amount of trouble though, being a terrorist organistation (and seems to have been funded partially by the U.S).

I thought most of the complaining groups in Iran were reformists who aren't too unhappy with the state as it is (theocracy) but want it changed in some way for the populace.

That being said, I do not like theocracies.

Why an analogy? I mentioned the fact long before I came into any debate about Islam or Iran. I mentioned it because Sovietstan asked if I am a Muslim and I answerred truthfully no not myself however I have muslim family members due to my grandmother marrying someone from a muslim family, the guy she married actually converted to christianity from Islam inorder to get the grace from my greatgrandparents. However this still leaves me with all the Muslim relatives from the family of my maternal grandfather, some of whom shun my part of the family due to his conversions. Others who don't give a damn and consider family, family.
Please bother to check, especially since I said I mentioned it in a previous thread, before playing the all knowing asshole and outright insinuating bullshit.

You have 325 posts spread over a year and a bit. You expect anybody to remember what you said in a previous thread? Don't be so presumptuous. It is impossible to know the history of every poster here, especially one with such a low presence.

Anyway, you misunderstood my post; it was an observation of the way you put that bit, nothing to do with your family.

I am deeply disgusted by some presuming forum members, presumably ultra-liberal members who have never had to live in Iran or a country run by religious groups. I find the comments that the Shah was worse then the present regime almost an insult. Mossadegh was the best of the three if I would have to choose, but the Shah was still lightyears ahead of the current Mullahs. With the Shah if you kept your hands off of politics you could do whatever you wanted literally. With the Mullahs you get in trouble for daubling in politics, being homosexual, breaking chastity laws, and quite a few other offenses.
As I mentioned in a previous thread I have quite a few Muslim cousins, some of whom I have met. So I am hardly a troll or someone who hates muslims for being religious. I am only against religion and state, I believe they should never mix.

One of the reasons why the current Mullah government needs to be gotten rid of;

http://youtube.com/watch?v=tHqnSe3EqpA

Most people know how primitive the current Iranian regime is. The ones who dont know are hopelessly ignorant and dont merit your time.

Oh yes, SAVAK was very special.

Indeed. Especially the tinkering the Israelis did to it...testing new tortures and the like...

And to be balanced the UK and the US had a part in that as well.

There is one militant lot, the MEK: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mujahideen_al-Khalq. They have been in a fair amount of trouble though, being a terrorist organistation (and seems to have been funded partially by the U.S).

I thought most of the complaining groups in Iran were reformists who aren't too unhappy with the state as it is (theocracy) but want it changed in some way for the populace.

That being said, I do not like theocracies.

Which is outlawed both in the UK (and EU) and the US.

Which is outlawed both in the UK (and EU) and the US.

I know. They have managed to get set up pretty well in Iraq.

I know. They have managed to get set up pretty well in Iraq.

Yeah...nothing like Iraq for terror groups ;)

Well the real problem is that a sizeable percentage of this world's population have ben pushed (since Komheiny reached power and by the following wave of religious fundamentalism that spread throughout the muslim world) into taking to the letter a set of rules that really aren't much more then the social rules that worked for nomadic tribes in the arabian peninsula in the IInd century.
It's not the islamic religion itself that is to blame, of course. The same would be true if the western countries decided to use the bible to the letter and let it rule most everything about their daily lives. An eye for an eye anyone?

Yeah...nothing like Iraq for terror groups ;)

For once the whole 'Iraq is sliding into a civil war bloodbath (bath:ba'ath?)' is working well in the U.S.A's favour.

For once the whole 'Iraq is sliding into a civil war bloodbath (bath:ba'ath?)' is working well in the U.S.A's favour.

Cynical....but likely

Slythros, do you agree with that statements?

"Are shiite muslims insane(overall)"?

Where did you get that quote? I know I didnt say it in response to Independent States. And no I do not agree with that statement. The majority of my family are shiite muslim and thery are not insane. Fundamentalists, of any religion, are insane.

The majority of my family are shiite muslim and thery are not insane.

You just contradicted yourself there :)

Nobody's that good at oppression.

Do you know anything?

If people were truly dissatisfied with the Islamic Republic's government they'd actively work against it, and we'd have real opposition parties (banned or otherwise) and maybe a militant group or two. It wouldn't even be hard for them to get funding - they'd just have to go to the Wahabbists in Saudi.

There are opposition parties, and militant groups (see soleichunns post). The mahority of people are either afraid, or believe there is nothing they can do. Or both.

Yeah, people complain. People complain about the government all the time in the US, too. And Canada, Australia, France, Germany, New Zealand, etcetera, etcetera. That doesn't mean they're really unhappy with the situation.

The state of Iran is much worse than any of those countries. It is not comparable.

I just don't see any real evidence of the Iranian government being as bad or as unpopular as you're painting.

Then you are blind. You might want to actually speak to some Iranians, or even read the news once in a while.

[QUOTE=Dododecapod;12485649]Yes, nasty stuff happened under Khomeinei; but has that really continued under Khamenei?

Yes. Look it up.

You just contradicted yourself there :)

So... you know my family? How many shiite muslims do you know, personally?

So... you know my family? How many shiite muslims do you know, personally?

If a person believes that it is morally acceptable to mutilate babies because their invisible friend in the sky says so, that person is insane. End of debate.

I honestly have no idea what you are reffering to. Circumsision? By the way, most Iranian muslims do not follow every religious law, and neither do Christians or Jews. I dont see many people being stoned for gathering sticks on the Sabbath.

I am deeply disgusted by some presuming forum members, presumably ultra-liberal members who have never had to live in Iran or a country run by religious groups. I find the comments that the Shah was worse then the present regime almost an insult. Mossadegh was the best of the three if I would have to choose, but the Shah was still lightyears ahead of the current Mullahs. With the Shah if you kept your hands off of politics you could do whatever you wanted literally. With the Mullahs you get in trouble for daubling in politics, being homosexual, breaking chastity laws, and quite a few other offenses.
As I mentioned in a previous thread I have quite a few Muslim cousins, some of whom I have met. So I am hardly a troll or someone who hates muslims for being religious. I am only against religion and state, I believe they should never mix.

One of the reasons why the current Mullah government needs to be gotten rid of;

http://youtube.com/watch?v=tHqnSe3EqpA

So Iran is bad because they try to apply Islamic law:confused: You say you don't hate religious Muslims but Islam is more than a faith, it is a way of life(the best imo). Islam is part of politics. To try to deny Muslims the right to have an Islamic state is wrong.not that I'm saying Iran is a true Islamic state, because it isn't, but the idea isn't a bad one.

Overall........shiite muslims are insane get used it

not insane, just kinda quirky:)

So Iran is bad because they try to apply Islamic law:confused: You say you don't hate religious Muslims but Islam is more than a faith, it is a way of life(the best imo). Islam is part of politics. To try to deny Muslims the right to have an Islamic state is wrong.not that I'm saying Iran is a true Islamic state, because it isn't, but the idea isn't a bad one.

Iran is bad because the government suppresses freedom, kills and tortures its opposition, ruins the countries economy, and forces Islamic law on others. You can live however you please, but dont force it on others,

not insane, just kinda quirky:)

Says the man who supports wife-beating.

I honestly have no idea what you are reffering to. Circumsision?

You misspelled it, but yes.

One of the worst things that humans have ever come up with, in my opinion. On the evil scale, I'd put it somewhere between Communism and genocide.

Er... So christians and Jews are insane too right? And my parents, who weren't muslim but had me circumsised anyway?

Er... So christians and Jews are insane too right? And my parents, who weren't muslim but had me circumsised anyway?

Yes, and yes.

Well, this is starting to get off-topic. A debate on religion I'm fine with, bit let's stay away from a circumsision debate.

And no, I do not know how to spell circumsision.

There are opposition parties, and militant groups (see soleichunns post). The mahority of people are either afraid, or believe there is nothing they can do. Or both.

If you notice what I said you would see that the MEK don't have popular support. They don't even have the majority of the minority supporting them. They are now primarily funded by other countries who want to limit the power of Iran.

Almost all complaining parties seem to be reformists rather than revolutionists (are not complaining about the theocracy but want some changes to the way things are run).

I'm not saying Iran is a paragon of virtue, I consider it about 1/2-2/3s the way down (of countries) in freedom to criticise the state but they do seem to allow some measure of unorganised religion for the minority.

So Iran is bad because they try to apply Islamic law:confused: You say you don't hate religious Muslims but Islam is more than a faith, it is a way of life(the best imo). Islam is part of politics. To try to deny Muslims the right to have an Islamic state is wrong.not that I'm saying Iran is a true Islamic state, because it isn't, but the idea isn't a bad one.

I prefer secular humanism with freedom of religion (but not heavy hierachial religion).

Iran is a theocratic republic. It is not a supranational caliphate state but it is an (shiite) islamic state.

The real problem with the religion in politics is that there are not enough progressive ayatollas. This means the religious laws cannot keep up with the times as well as they should.

That being said, I don't like it when religion and state get too mixed together.

One of the worst things that humans have ever come up with, in my opinion. On the evil scale, I'd put it somewhere between Communism and genocide.

First of all, communism is not evil (bit misguided, not enough ways to prevent usurping of power, thats about it).

Circumcision of the male does not actually do anything, it is just a rather old fashioned tradition (that for once doesn't actually do harm).

Now female circumcision is a completely different thing. That has been designed to make sex painful for the femals (and in some cases the clitoris is amputated as well). That is a horrible thing to have.

Personally I'd rather be rid of both of them (except for medical reasons) but I would be happy to accept no more female circumcision in return for having to keep the male form (considering that it can be used medically as well).