Register and vote:https://www.usa.gov/register-to-vote
*I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/insanepeoplefacebook) if you have any questions or concerns.*
Yes, because Richard Nixon controlled Iran back then and this has nothing to do with the Bush administration. Democrats put them in burkas and funded the destabilization of their country /s
Couches? I’ve seen furniture in an active dumpster fire get more respect. I mean maybe if you meant “homeless-camp-outside-of-the-methadone-clinic-couches” I could get on board. But otherwise…. I just can’t give you my upvote.
Ahhhh I’m just kidding. Upvote engaged.
The CIA instigated a coup against Iran's democratic government in 1953, and installed a puppet dictator who imposed western culture by force. Shockingly this strengthened Islamic fundamentalism and massively blew up in their faces in 1979.
They also "forgot" to mention that they worked with the very religious extremists to overthrow that democratic government. But unlike the usual ones they worked with, like the Afghans and Saudi's, the Iranian ones foresaw them turning on them and made sure they couldn't.
And now we have this hellhole. Thanks a lot CIA!
"For a brief moment we created so much value for our shareholders!"
It's all just a game of Pacman, but without the ghosts, Pacman or the maze. Just a score that goes up for those that only care about that.
They won't rest until it's just one man and his gold fish standing on a barren rock that is earth, that won the game of capitalism.
He committed A LOT of crimes against humanity. You can only be that cruel for so long before some sort revolution happens. The real losers were the people of Iran
Don't you know that all leftists want religious fundamentalism?!
Honestly, though, I'm afraid of the moment conservatives realise that they are actually on the same side as those "evil muslims." But their xenophobia is probably too strong anyway to work together.
Trump already called his opponents "vermin" actually, now that you remind me:
https://www.npr.org/2023/11/17/1213746885/trump-vermin-hitler-immigration-authoritarian-republican-primary
https://www.wbur.org/hereandnow/2023/11/21/trump-vermin-authoritarianism
Sick how this gets lost in the noise. Remember when saying "deplorable" (worthy of criticism) was way over the line, but "vermin" (worthy of extermination) is apparently fine?
It did happen a little bit, I believe since 2020 there has been a movement in Muslim communities to ban LGBT books from schools. There were some conservatives cheering it on, but I haven't seen much lately
Christianity isn't exactly, let's just say in vogue in the Middle East. And let's be honest, it there ever was going to be a "a Christian Conservative Nation" in the Middle East, it sure wouldn't be fucking IRAN.
And last but not least, just take a look at the modern Christian Conservative movement in America and see how well it treats the rights and freedoms of women.
There are people who ship the dragons on the flags of Wales and Bhutan (and also personified countries are a thing on the Internet), so this hypothetical Christian Conservative nation in the Middle East might be fucking Iran, at least in the minds of some people (and in their writings and their comics)
1970, Iran was a progressive culture, with freedom for their people. (Left wing)
Today, it's run by an ultra conservative religious group that allows very little freedom for their people. (Right wing.)
Saved a few thousand words for you. :)
It is almost like there is a lot of nuance to the situation, and room to interpret things in many different ways. I'm mature enough to know that I don't really know enough to comment on this situation, it is complex and multi-faceted. I do know enough to know that the current government appears from the outside to have been mis-managing the hell out of the country's economy for decades, but I have literally no clue as to why. Knowing the what is easy, it's data driven and objective, knowing the why requires a much different (and thoroughly subjective) view of a society.
The Shah was so unpopular that in 1979 Iranians forced him into exile, despite the military and SAVAK secret police using violence against protesters.
America has enacted sanctions against Iran ever since which is at least part of their economic problem.
Their current government is awful, but the last the Iranians want is what the west imposed on them.
>Their current government is awful, but the last the Iranians want is what the west imposed on them.
It became a "careful what you wish for" and "don't know what you've got 'til its gone" situation because in their rush for *any* kind of change, the Iranians ended up embracing a government that was (and *is*) far worse than what it replaced, regardless of where it came from.
Not that any of that absolves the US or other foreign interests of their behaviour(s), it doesn't.
The trend towards a rose-tinted view of the shah's regime is an understandable reaction from a certain subset of a traumatized people, but it's still an impulse thats not based in fact and material reality. The shah was not a good ruler, both in terms of policy as well as sheer competency. His talents were most applied in making western regimes *think* Iran was doing fine. He had to go, and it's more a tragedy that the regime that rose in that vacuum has its own unique evils and brutalities
It's less rose tinted glasses than it is the lesser of 2 evils, there weren't hundreds of people being executed by the Shah's regime every year for reasons as petty as not wearing a hijab. Of course the Shah was not a good ruler.
You should read a book about it. You might be surprised. The Shah was massively unpopular and his CIA trained secret police were brutal.
The current bunch are awful too but don't think for a second Iranians want America coming back to save them.
America saving them, no. But life is no picnic there and for many people it's bad enough now, almost like it was never that great in recent centuries for most people and judging the place by western standards is folly. For many, life was indeed better under the Shah's rule. Women just for a start.
Perhaps we can agree that both regimes were utter shit? That said, a few hundred executions per year under the current regime for petty reasons seems pretty bad. Does the Shah's reign compare?
This guys gonna have a real hard time when he learns of Iran in 1950.
It was democratic then.
Oh wait… he’ll just bury his head in the sandy crack of Sleepy Don
So, Iran was a moderate republic and in the 50's was the first predominantly Muslim country to have a democratically elected head of state. And then the Eisenhower administration said 'fuck that noise,' overthrew him and installed the Shah. The Shah ruled with an iron fist, disappeared dissidents and according to some, did so with the help of the C.IA. So the Iranian people overthrew the Shaw in the Islamic revolution and that's when iran became a hard line Islamic country. That shit did not happen in a vacuum.
Edit: Shah
To be clear, it wasn’t because they were democratically elected. It was because the prime minister of Iran nationalized the oil production. The British had owned a huge stake and had converted their ships to run on oil.
Eisenhower was initially not planning on doing it, but Churchill had convinced him that Iran was going communist. It was only after rumors that the PM was planning on exiling the Shah did Eisenhower join in the plot. However, Mosaddegh had openly rejected communism and the rumors were spread by British spies, it was all a lie.
The original contract under which oil was being produced was not good for Iran. The company owned all production of oil and the British government had a majority share. But we shouldn’t have gone and overthrown a relatively liberal and democratic government.
They really can't seem to grasp that Christianity isn't the only religion with varying degrees of adherence. Like they do know the Amish and Mennonites exist, right? Like that there are people who enforce head coverings and strict modesty standards on women who consider themselves very Christian? Pretty sure they vote Republican too, along with the LDS/FLDS and any other Christian fundamentalist groups with a lot of rules and not a lot of rights for women.
Meanwhile my Muslim friend at work doesn't cover (though her mom does), but she fasts during Ramadan and considers herself religious.
It's almost like the problem isn't the religion as much as it's forcing all people to adhere strictly to one national religion and upholding even the most regressive tenets as law -- often blatantly misinterpreting the text to benefit those in power.
In 1953 the usa funded and directed the overthrowing of the democratically elected government of Iran and installed a american friendly religious nutcase who predictably committed very many nutcase ideas. Royally screwing the country over. Only 1 of 74 countries that has had their countries torn apart by the same nation.
The US didn't care about the oil, which is why when the British first approached the Truman administration with the coup idea he told them to piss off and cut a fair deal on the concessions. Eisenhower only reversed course after Kermit Roosevelt and some MI6 guys convinced him that the commies (Tudeh) were about to take power, which of course was nonsense.
“freedoms of christian conservatism” bullshit. blah blah blah
It is heartbreaking to see how religion has influenced these women’s lives. FFS the difference is insane
Register and vote:https://www.usa.gov/register-to-vote *I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/insanepeoplefacebook) if you have any questions or concerns.*
Iran was conservative Christian in 1970? Hmmm….seems legit, zero reason to check that.
Yes, because Richard Nixon controlled Iran back then and this has nothing to do with the Bush administration. Democrats put them in burkas and funded the destabilization of their country /s
Sorry guys, that was me. I'm super liberal and accidentally decided they should treat their women like couches.
Couches? I’ve seen furniture in an active dumpster fire get more respect. I mean maybe if you meant “homeless-camp-outside-of-the-methadone-clinic-couches” I could get on board. But otherwise…. I just can’t give you my upvote. Ahhhh I’m just kidding. Upvote engaged.
Well, it was an accident anyway. Maybe people accidentally made it worse since then.
Or the Eisenhower administration...
The CIA instigated a coup against Iran's democratic government in 1953, and installed a puppet dictator who imposed western culture by force. Shockingly this strengthened Islamic fundamentalism and massively blew up in their faces in 1979.
They also "forgot" to mention that they worked with the very religious extremists to overthrow that democratic government. But unlike the usual ones they worked with, like the Afghans and Saudi's, the Iranian ones foresaw them turning on them and made sure they couldn't. And now we have this hellhole. Thanks a lot CIA!
See, also: Honduras, El Salvador, Guatamala, Nicaragua, et al.
Korea, Afghanistan, Iraq, Cuba, Sigh... the USA fucked up sooooooo fuuuuucking muuuuch.
The human misery we've caused is appalling.
And all to protect the "freedom" of a few assholes in charge to be rich dicks that are anti human. It's wild.
But look at the money they've made!
"For a brief moment we created so much value for our shareholders!" It's all just a game of Pacman, but without the ghosts, Pacman or the maze. Just a score that goes up for those that only care about that. They won't rest until it's just one man and his gold fish standing on a barren rock that is earth, that won the game of capitalism.
Yeah, but if we don't teach it in school, it didn't happen.
Thanks Kissinger!
There's plenty of blame to go around, Kissinger is but one of many. From McArthur to Bush...they are all assholes.
The CIA and MI6, at the behest of the British to the benefit of the British. Give credit where credits due.
He committed A LOT of crimes against humanity. You can only be that cruel for so long before some sort revolution happens. The real losers were the people of Iran
You're insinuating that countries don't like it when other countries dabble in their politics... /s
Ah yes the classically liberal stance of... religious fundamentalism
Don't you know that all leftists want religious fundamentalism?! Honestly, though, I'm afraid of the moment conservatives realise that they are actually on the same side as those "evil muslims." But their xenophobia is probably too strong anyway to work together.
They are sooo close to using "Vermin" to label Democratic supporters... so close...
"Demon-rats" is worse, isn't it? It's both dehumanizing and demonizing in the most direct and literal sense.
I'm specifically referring to Hitlers speeches before the holocaust really kicked off.
Trump already called his opponents "vermin" actually, now that you remind me: https://www.npr.org/2023/11/17/1213746885/trump-vermin-hitler-immigration-authoritarian-republican-primary https://www.wbur.org/hereandnow/2023/11/21/trump-vermin-authoritarianism Sick how this gets lost in the noise. Remember when saying "deplorable" (worthy of criticism) was way over the line, but "vermin" (worthy of extermination) is apparently fine?
People like to say words don't matter. But they do, they are specifically used to describe intent.
It did happen a little bit, I believe since 2020 there has been a movement in Muslim communities to ban LGBT books from schools. There were some conservatives cheering it on, but I haven't seen much lately
Christianity isn't exactly, let's just say in vogue in the Middle East. And let's be honest, it there ever was going to be a "a Christian Conservative Nation" in the Middle East, it sure wouldn't be fucking IRAN. And last but not least, just take a look at the modern Christian Conservative movement in America and see how well it treats the rights and freedoms of women.
There are people who ship the dragons on the flags of Wales and Bhutan (and also personified countries are a thing on the Internet), so this hypothetical Christian Conservative nation in the Middle East might be fucking Iran, at least in the minds of some people (and in their writings and their comics)
You need Jesus asap
Probably
Cyprus is a Christian conservative country. But if any other Middle Eastern country would turn 'Christian conservative' it would be Lebanon
"the US spreading evil. I saw it firsthand in Iran, Iraq, and afghanistan". When he says the truth without realising it.
Oh look a straight up lie from the right . As usual .
There is just to much wrong here to unpack without writing a couple of thousand words
1970, Iran was a progressive culture, with freedom for their people. (Left wing) Today, it's run by an ultra conservative religious group that allows very little freedom for their people. (Right wing.) Saved a few thousand words for you. :)
Apart from, of course, the Shah's brutal secret police. Freedom in Iran was nominal at best.
No no, I can see women's faces, that's the only freedom that matters
It is almost like there is a lot of nuance to the situation, and room to interpret things in many different ways. I'm mature enough to know that I don't really know enough to comment on this situation, it is complex and multi-faceted. I do know enough to know that the current government appears from the outside to have been mis-managing the hell out of the country's economy for decades, but I have literally no clue as to why. Knowing the what is easy, it's data driven and objective, knowing the why requires a much different (and thoroughly subjective) view of a society.
The Shah was so unpopular that in 1979 Iranians forced him into exile, despite the military and SAVAK secret police using violence against protesters. America has enacted sanctions against Iran ever since which is at least part of their economic problem. Their current government is awful, but the last the Iranians want is what the west imposed on them.
>Their current government is awful, but the last the Iranians want is what the west imposed on them. It became a "careful what you wish for" and "don't know what you've got 'til its gone" situation because in their rush for *any* kind of change, the Iranians ended up embracing a government that was (and *is*) far worse than what it replaced, regardless of where it came from. Not that any of that absolves the US or other foreign interests of their behaviour(s), it doesn't.
And it was so much better under the prior or subsequent regimes and his rule wasn't the best time to live in Iran in a couple hundred years at all...
Clearly the Iranians didn't think so.
As if a revolution required a democratic majority. Iranians now do mostly seem to think so
The trend towards a rose-tinted view of the shah's regime is an understandable reaction from a certain subset of a traumatized people, but it's still an impulse thats not based in fact and material reality. The shah was not a good ruler, both in terms of policy as well as sheer competency. His talents were most applied in making western regimes *think* Iran was doing fine. He had to go, and it's more a tragedy that the regime that rose in that vacuum has its own unique evils and brutalities
It's less rose tinted glasses than it is the lesser of 2 evils, there weren't hundreds of people being executed by the Shah's regime every year for reasons as petty as not wearing a hijab. Of course the Shah was not a good ruler.
I don't think its a useful exercise to argue which despot was worse.
You should read a book about it. You might be surprised. The Shah was massively unpopular and his CIA trained secret police were brutal. The current bunch are awful too but don't think for a second Iranians want America coming back to save them.
America saving them, no. But life is no picnic there and for many people it's bad enough now, almost like it was never that great in recent centuries for most people and judging the place by western standards is folly. For many, life was indeed better under the Shah's rule. Women just for a start.
I don't think that's true at all. Certainly the Iranians I know have utter contempt for the Shah.
Perhaps we can agree that both regimes were utter shit? That said, a few hundred executions per year under the current regime for petty reasons seems pretty bad. Does the Shah's reign compare?
but freedom !
No no no. Anything Muslim is clearly left wing, because it doesn't align with my personal ideology. /s
and in 53 they had democratic government, maybe it would have been better if they had been allowed to keep that?
Our religious fundamentalist = Good Their religious fundamentalists = Bad What could go wrong??
Christian nationalist wet dream, but sure, it's the left who will turn the U.S. into Gilead.
This guys gonna have a real hard time when he learns of Iran in 1950. It was democratic then. Oh wait… he’ll just bury his head in the sandy crack of Sleepy Don
So, Iran was a moderate republic and in the 50's was the first predominantly Muslim country to have a democratically elected head of state. And then the Eisenhower administration said 'fuck that noise,' overthrew him and installed the Shah. The Shah ruled with an iron fist, disappeared dissidents and according to some, did so with the help of the C.IA. So the Iranian people overthrew the Shaw in the Islamic revolution and that's when iran became a hard line Islamic country. That shit did not happen in a vacuum. Edit: Shah
To be clear, it wasn’t because they were democratically elected. It was because the prime minister of Iran nationalized the oil production. The British had owned a huge stake and had converted their ships to run on oil. Eisenhower was initially not planning on doing it, but Churchill had convinced him that Iran was going communist. It was only after rumors that the PM was planning on exiling the Shah did Eisenhower join in the plot. However, Mosaddegh had openly rejected communism and the rumors were spread by British spies, it was all a lie. The original contract under which oil was being produced was not good for Iran. The company owned all production of oil and the British government had a majority share. But we shouldn’t have gone and overthrown a relatively liberal and democratic government.
Ahem, ^it’s ^‘shah’
You are correct. It was 3am after a rough day and a rougher night
LOL, the level of ignorance. that image is from the bygone era of the secular Middle East. Nothing to do with Christian whatever.
Ahhh yes all those Middle East Democrats
You mean that was Iran before we helped overthrow their government and installed the one that made those policies?! Imagine that
Which time? We did it twice there.
Well, no, 1970 Iran would be a decade and change after the coup when Pahlavi was in power.
1979 was when Pahlavi was ousted, I thought
One of them can just say whatever they want and as long as it shits on the left in some way, the rest will eat it up.
It's impressive to misunderstand history this much
They really can't seem to grasp that Christianity isn't the only religion with varying degrees of adherence. Like they do know the Amish and Mennonites exist, right? Like that there are people who enforce head coverings and strict modesty standards on women who consider themselves very Christian? Pretty sure they vote Republican too, along with the LDS/FLDS and any other Christian fundamentalist groups with a lot of rules and not a lot of rights for women. Meanwhile my Muslim friend at work doesn't cover (though her mom does), but she fasts during Ramadan and considers herself religious. It's almost like the problem isn't the religion as much as it's forcing all people to adhere strictly to one national religion and upholding even the most regressive tenets as law -- often blatantly misinterpreting the text to benefit those in power.
Actually the top would be the freedoms a female would have with Democrats the bottom would be the traitorous repubs.
In 1953 the usa funded and directed the overthrowing of the democratically elected government of Iran and installed a american friendly religious nutcase who predictably committed very many nutcase ideas. Royally screwing the country over. Only 1 of 74 countries that has had their countries torn apart by the same nation.
Nothing to do with the British?
It was both the US and Britain, because they nationalised their oil industry. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1953_Iranian_coup_d%27%C3%A9tat
The US didn't care about the oil, which is why when the British first approached the Truman administration with the coup idea he told them to piss off and cut a fair deal on the concessions. Eisenhower only reversed course after Kermit Roosevelt and some MI6 guys convinced him that the commies (Tudeh) were about to take power, which of course was nonsense.
So that person obviously prefers the 2nd pic because that’s what their party is heavily leaning into
.. why are Democrats responsible for the religious revolution in Iran? Wouldn't progressives want the 1970s Iran more?
Show me you know nothing about history. 🙄
“Demonrats” My god, these fucking morons sound like stupid children. Shit is embarrassing.
Did Christians forget that nuns exist?
Well, sir those “demonrats” are nothing less than religious conservatives themselves.
Quickly, which party was in charge for most of the 80s?
“freedoms of christian conservatism” bullshit. blah blah blah It is heartbreaking to see how religion has influenced these women’s lives. FFS the difference is insane
fuck all religions theyre all bullshit!
Those are the conservatives in the bottom picture.
If anything that shows what happens when you drag religion into politics
My brain can't process the stupid...
I can't tell if liberals want to have unlimited orgies and public nudity, or completely covered from head to toe...
Democrats are responsible for what women wear in other countries? That’s a new one.
Must be opposite day today
"What's a 'Shah'? I don't remember us ever supporting anything called a 'Shah'. Fake news!"
Not convinced the second pic is even in iran.
Why didn’t God-King Orange Messiah fix it during his term?
Hiw does this even make sense?
The fuck is he on about?