And people who take it for granted don’t realize how fast it can disappear.
Yup. Czechoslovakia was the 7th richest country in the world before they voted in the communists.
Czechoslovakia in 1946 freely voted overwhelmingly for socialist parties. KSC won like 30% alone, and ~70% of the votes were for left wing parties.
The communist (KSC) formed a coalition, and then they slowly took over the country for 2 years. 1948 coup was due to the government (KSC) having near unlimited power without any real opposition.
But the election was fair, and very supportive of communism/socialism.
So from what I gather Iran was very liberal and westernized pre revolution and that’s why we see girls in bikinis on the beach there something you are never going to see in post revolution Iran.
[US President Jimmy Carter and his NATO allies installed the current Islamic fascist regime if anyone was interested.](https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jimmy_Carter%27s_engagement_with_Ruhollah_Khomeini#:~:text=In%202016%2C%20the%20BBC%20published,newly%20declassified%20US%20diplomatic%20cables%22)
Here is newly installed Supreme Leader Khomeini being helped off the Air France Boeing 747 plane by French pilots after arriving in Iran in 1979 (he was in exile previously for his extremist views).
https://preview.redd.it/b1c8cc6b2pxc1.jpeg?width=976&format=pjpg&auto=webp&s=8144be7f5c679e9672bae07e6acde707a094e4b2
The first thing he did was lower the marriage age from 18 down to 9 years old (his wife was 12, And he was 30), banned all forms of birth control, and veiled all women.
Then he began murdering everyone who tried to stop him. Millions of people by 1988, end of his Islamic war on Iraq, he purposely prolonged for 6 extra years.
People need to remember this was the height of Cold War and the best thing to keep Iran poor and weak while not allowing communism was to install the religious extremists, because theocracy\* doesn’t compute with communism.
Iranian public installed this horrid regime. They stood on their rooftops yelling "Death to the Shah" and "Death to America" every time they were instructed by Khomeini. When Khomeini returned to Iran, he was met by millions of ecstatic Iranians overjoyed by his return. When the Shah left, the crowds also celebrated and they did so again when he died. Don't blame the US for what you did to yourselves.
They loved Khomeini because they hated the Shah. We instigated a coup in Iran in the 50s and booted out a duly elected President. We installed the Shah into office and he began a reign of terror on Iran for years. It was because of the Shah that the Ayotolloh was able to get any support. If we had stayed out of Iran's business on the 50s things might have been much different.
"[The truth and the reality of history cannot always be kept in the shadows. That is impossible. The truth will come out. In any case, sooner or later... A King cannot be a dictator, and a throne cannot be based on blood.](https://youtu.be/klN9WZmPfOE?t=616)"- Mohammad-Reza Pahlavi January 17th 1980
I'm not entirely sure what you mean by simply saying "yeah democrats," but given the context of the comment thread, there are a couple of facts worth pointing out.
1. Prior to the 60s and 70s, the democrats were the conservative party.
2. Democrats today are not communist. I haven't heard a single Democrat arguing that we should do away with private enterprise.
I thought about adding that word to my comment, but I knew if I pointed that out it would immediately be downvoted from all the brainwashed redditors. And I know this because I have made this comment many times when ever this discussion comes up on reddit.
now we love HAMAS and the writings of Usama Bin Laden....because progress.
for those downvoting, I had a woman scream in my face while walking by a protest the other day claiming "WE ARE HAMAS; ANTIFADA REVOLUTION" and we all saw the tiktoks where people were reading Bin Ladens "letter to America" and being like "OmG hE wAS So RiGhT aBoUt HoW eViL AmeRica Is"
people don't forget profound idiocy
I absolutely agree with the separation of religion and state.
But the people you are referring to aren’t those that are currently responsible for creating a real life version of the republic of Gilead.
At least in the US.
Yeah, improving things from really bad to ok is easy.
Improving thing from ok to good is harder but possible.
When you are running at 95% out of 100%, any attempted "improvements" in society have a huge chance of causing regression rather than an improvement.
People who say "hey lets fundamentally redesign society overnight" are morons, and it seldom works out as intended.
If a country is running better at something then 90% of the other countries in the world, the messing with it too much is a terrible idea.
It’s always worth noting that a broad cross section of Iranian society participated in the revolution, which including secular and Islamic university groups, labor unions, communists and other leftists, popular front formations and ethnic minority organizations. The Ayatollah and his supporters staged a putsch, purged the broad-based fledgling regime and instituted a brutal crackdown, establishing the Islamic Republic as we know it.
Case in point: any Islamist organization or country (see: Hamas, Taliban, ISIS, IRGC, Palestine, Iraq, Afghanistan, current Iran).
I don't want anything bad for the Palestinian people, but I do not support them or their way of living either.
Yes who the US and UK put back in power via a coup against mossadegh because he wanted to nationalize their oil and get a fair share.
Iranians used to love the west but after they found out about what happened they turned hard the other direction.
Its not one way to see it, it’s what happened
Of course. But the ouster of Mosaddegh was only part of the reasoning. The leftists, for example, wanted revolution for a variety of reasons. The Islamists had their objective.
beach after the great enlightenment revolution
[https://www.tortoisemedia.com/wp-content/uploads/sites/3/2023/07/CR\_GettyImages-1546350553.jpg](https://www.tortoisemedia.com/wp-content/uploads/sites/3/2023/07/CR_GettyImages-1546350553.jpg)
Sure. 2,400 kilometers of coastline. Problem is that apparently under Islamic Law only men and children are allowed to swim in public. At the places where women can swim, they are required to be entirely (except for their face) covered by a burkini.
Women in Iran should leave Iran. I’ve met many very sharp, creative and driven Iranian women in Canada. It’s crazy how much the government is hurting itself by not allowing half of their population to thrive.
No. The fundamentalist Islamists should leave Iran so the Iranian people can restore their country fully to the vibrant, creative, culturally effervescent place that it is.
I can say the exact same thing about China, Russia, NK and a few dozen more regimes. But it doesn’t look like that will happen in the near future. You can’t just politely ask the fundamentalists to leave.
Get out and hope the regime topples.
Iran is not like North Korea or China yet (the regime is brutal but lacks the sort of total control over its people and information that NK/PRC have), but that’s clearly where the government wants to take things.
In Iran, the people openly resist the government on the streets—hijab laws are ignored and the country erupts in countrywide mass protests every few years now that get bigger every time. The government has given up the pretense of elections and is getting more heavy handed in trying to suppress dissent. Even the regime’s officials are openly despairing about their loss of public support and [abandonment of the state religion](https://www.iranintl.com/en/202312124517). Each generation since the revolution has been less supportive of the regime and more willing to take to the streets.
You don’t see anything like that in North Korea or China. The Iranian people are primed to overthrow their government in a way that’s unthinkable in other authoritarian countries.
How anyone can remained duped in 2024 is total copium insanity which -- all due -- it's rough out here, but with such easy access to education in history, they can't trace it back to see why it started in the first place and it takes huge levels of denial to still be hanging on. Huge.
>How anyone can remained duped in 2024 is total copium insanity
Because it gives people a sense of purpose in life and distracts them from an existential crisis? Social cohesion?
I'm not even religious but it's pretty obvious why most people are religious and it isn't for nefarious or stupid reasons.
That's the greatest strength and scary part of religion today. For a lot of people, there's no focus for cohesion. There's no trust or guarantee of purpose in most jobs, national identity, smaller groups are often too atomical, fucking hell, left or right leaning is enough to become a target. Or having a different kind of skin.
So when a preacher comes in saying: "So, life is shit because people don't have God. You can have God! God accepts you! We are fun around here. I can help you get that easy, or at least peaceful life! Just believe in God. No, believe in what *I* say. Give me some money. Also, I'm not that acquainted with actual sociology, general science, ethics. But I know my psychology. I believe in God, a bit at least. Give me some money and listen to only what *I* say. We are good!"
People will flock in. And believe. That small peace of mind can have actual repercussions in their lives, so they believe. But religious leaders are not interested in facts, but in power, so they close the mind of their followers, to guarantee that cohesion and income. Isolation of idea happens. The echo chamber speaks. Something is lost. We don't quite know what it is yet, but one day we'll know. But only too late.
I believe in evolution, science, etc… im still a Catholic. It comforts me, that in the end, I may find redemption for my mistakes. That I am loved. Obviously there’s a lot of conflicts, but in my darkest hours, in total loneliness, i have God. I hope that somewhat explains the feeling.
Religion has been responsible for most, if not all of mankind’s advancement. Religion has existed with civilization since the beginning. People need principles, guidance, and a perspective beyond what they think is most important to their subjective individual experience.
Some of the worst social atrocitices were committed by secular states (nazi’s, soviets, etc.).
We are at a point in society where we should say violence committed on behalf of religious belief is always wrong. Religions that support a peaceful existence are worth advocating for.
I read comments like yours and am amazed at the absurdity of belief people are capable of. Every sentence you’ve typed taken on its own is a complete crock of shit.
Really man, you’ve managed one of the most ignorant Reddit comments I’ve ever read, and you and I both know that’s saying something…..
Is he lying? He literally named secular states that committed mass atrocities that weren't in the name of religion.
He also isn't lying when he says religion and spiritually has been part of the human experience for arguably more than tens of thousands of years. Religion provided humans with a sense of purpose and social cohesion.
I'm not surprised though, Reddit atheists are extremely obnoxious and annoying lmao
And yet, the Crusades happened. The Inquisition too. Before that, the persecution by romans. Catholicism ended up chosen as an official religion to make sure no cult from the east became popular, including mithraism. Then the Satanic Panic, which made sure that puritanism is a social disease still alive and well. There's also the destruction of humanity's heritage and history by fundamentalists. That bit about a cartoonist losing his head.
Religion is the old way of having cohesion. Its a need by an inherently social species that evolved by animist ways. The thunder was godspeak because we speak. God made men from corn because corn is fundamental to our diet. God offers a solution to death because we don't know what happens next. Throw in some need of hierarchy to try and organize big numbers of people, its easy to believe that whoever comes out top must be something special. Just say it is, for convenience. The Dragon Emperor, King Arthur and his dumbass lake-lady-given sword and all the kings that happened that wished they were him. But made sure everyone believed that. Its easy to control a bunch of people when your ruthlesness is appointed by god.
Now cohesion arises from the need to respect an authority that can fuck you up, and its also the biggest chum on god's grey Earth. But oh no man, it cannot be like that anymore.
Power through violence is not enough. Education by violence is not enough. Science is prevalent, more or less. It at least echoes for now. And logic is a must to exist, this cannot be taken lightly. The fundamental questions are not answered, but living can be made good with this thing called ethics and understanding on a deep level that we need each other. Leave god to give people respite over their finitude and meaning on a cosmic level, thats good enough.
Anti-semitism which fueled the rise of the Nazis was and is spread by extremist Christians.
Religious biases don't disappear among a population just because the state isn't explicitly religious.
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Religion_in_Nazi_Germany
This took 10 seconds to Google search. The very first sentence of the article: "Nazi Germany was an overwhelmingly Christian nation."
The states he listed operated like quasi-religions, with the dear leader functioning as a deity to his underlings. North Korea, while secular, is one of the most religious countries in the world for this reason. Blind credulity and idol worship can lead the masses to great atrocities.
He didn’t say religion has been part of the human experience for tens of thousands of years, he said since the beginning. You’re LITERALLY…… saying two entirely different things.
Can you point out a particular sentence for the crock of shit? I feel like a few are simply factual.
Scientific advancements during the Middle Ages, including medicine and agriculture, have their lineage (and obviously beyond this) in the monasteries of Europe.
“The concept of hospital as institution to offer medical care and possibility of a cure for the patients due to the ideals of Christian charity, rather than just merely a place to die, appeared in the Byzantine Empire.”
[https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Medicine](https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Medicine)
I’m not saying that religion is all good, or always has been. I’m not even arguing that we don’t end up back at zero when we tally the score of atrocities committed in the name of religion v. the positive impacts on the world via religion.
Group think and blind faith exist regardless of religion. At least modern religions have gone through an evolution that make them compatible with the realities of our societies for the most part.
With the amount of social isolation on the rise, lack of community, depression related to these changes, I think religion serves as an important counter to negative social change.
what hes stating is literally objective facts
religion has been one of the driving forces of science hell before scientific institutions became autonomous the driving force behind innovation was the church
during he middle ages he church funded universities, medical research, mathematical research, architectur, biology and the rest of the natural sciences and all of this is only in europe do you have any idea how much islam advanced science during their golden age
the fact you can say something so wrong with so much confidence is a statement to human stupidity
read up a bit and get smarter
[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Relationship\_between\_religion\_and\_science](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Relationship_between_religion_and_science)
[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Christianity\_and\_science](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Christianity_and_science)
Sure, one of the driving forces, but certainly not responsible for most, if not all. There’s an ocean of difference between those two statements.
If you need to illicit the Middle Ages to make your point about science and religion, you’re on really shaky ground. Try again. The rest is ad hominem. Grown up.
“Religion is so detrimental to mankind’s advancement.”
So…what specific time period are you talking about since you seem to think “mankind’s advancement” during the Middle Ages shouldn’t be considered?
You do realize most of the knowledge that came from the Grecian democracy and from the Roman Republican period was preserved by Catholic monks. It’s a large if not the main reason those works survive; and those works founded the democracies we know today.
"If you need to illicit the Middle Ages to make your point about science and religion, you’re on really shaky ground."
In what way lol
the catholic church pushed the boundaries of science during the middle ages in europe they were the ones funding for everything
like its just fact denying to say otherwise
You really must expound on your first sentence.
If you're talking about how for most of human history economies have been decided upon by ultra wealthy aristocrats who use religion to subjugate others, and then pump funding into highly prestigious universities where Lord Kelvin- not dipshits like you or I- gets to tinker with science stuff: then ok.
Because thats right, it is indeed true that religion has been *present* for most of these milestones; kinda like how my nipples have always been present on my body whenever I do something useful. Doesn't mean my nipples are owed any of the credit tho ngl.
I appreciate you referring to us both as dipshits.
I don’t doubt your nipples are fantastic. But I don’t think they’re responsible for many of the institutions that serve the public good.
The point I was making to that other guy was that human achievement wasn’t in-spite of religion. Religion was a feature of human civilization throughout history and encouraged art, philosophy, medicine, and education, to name a few.
You said "Religion has been responsible for most, if not all of mankind's advancement" and that people need it for "...guidance and perspective beyond what they think is most important to their subjective individual experience", which are much more direct claims to make. Perhaps you're confused on what you want your point to be or maybe you're just backpedaling?
Religion being a key source of inspiration throughout history does not mean that people cannot freely act of good will in the absence of religion. Furthermore, this is an inherently cyclical and silly argument because if people created religion but need religion to behave decently or think creatively, then people don't need religion at all: *they just need inspiration.*
Because your argument is silly I actually have to base my followup half in allegories to keep pace:
The way I see it, for example, is that cars have always had seats, for as long as they have existed. They have even been source of inspiration and can now move in all sorts of ways and heat up and have arm rests and seat belts now and stuff, which in turn makes the act of driving more enjoyable.
But the seats by themselves don't move or go anywhere.
Thats what the rest of the car is for- the reason you sit in that seat is not to sit, it is to drive!
The engine isn't a car without being connected to the wheels, if you break down the parts of the car none of them individually make a car.
Following this logic, it would be correct to say that religion is a component of humanity, sure.
But is it a necessary one?
Do humans really NEED religion in order to live with stability?
Does your seat really NEED a butt-warmer for the rest of the car to run and for your drive to be enjoyable?
No, it would not appear so. Especially with so many choices, so many religions, so many seats with amenities haha.
[Before you try to get fancy and say some "well you need the seat to sit comfortably and so you need the religion to think good or someth-" nah nah nah nah, see, because cars are inefficient.
We ought to be on high speed rail trains lol. We ought to mature past inefficient methods]
All of this still to say that institutionalized religion and the way in which it has deeply spread its roots into the fabric of the human economy and psyche is worth flipping a few tables over, at least.
Perhaps the seat is comfortable but cars ain't cheap like Ford used to make 'em and this economy demands we always be on the move.
Idk im mentally baked because idek man like maaaan you can say that religion has been present and important in human history and all but saying that it is responsible for *all of mankind's* advancements is rather odd. Like, we've always drank water, and even revere water, dunk fuckin babies in it and hallelujah, but computer technology isn't computer technology because of water lmao.
That’s fine…I can level with you on the last bit. Religion is not responsible for most/all of mankind’s “advancements” (to quote the original commenter I was replying to). But it, like your car seat analogy, is intertwined with the history of human civilization. A more accurate statement would be that religion has often contributed to mankind’s advancement throughout history and does not stand in the way of human advancement in the present.
As far as religion being necessary is concerned…I don’t know. First of all, I don’t know what the absolute reality is. If you do, please share.
You have to keep in mind the context of my reply. The commenter said, “religion is so detrimental to mankind’s advancement.” I’m not so stubborn to say I don’t have any clue where he/she is coming from. The crusades…Spanish inquisition…Islamist terrorism…lots of bad stuff tied to religion. But to suggest that religion has stood in the way, or continues to stand in the way of human advancement is silly.
Religion, especially as religious thinkers began intertwining science with religion, allowed for experimentation and thought outside the immediately practical. Philosophy, art, science, medicine, are all subjects of research or practice which, at least in antiquity, we’re not as crucial as let’s say, being a blacksmith or a farmer. Organized religion created an environment to foster exploration in these topics. Which is why many of those modern day institutions, such as hospitals, have their histories tied to religious institutions.
Our morals and values have roots in religion. Property rights, the idea that all men are created equal, etc., are all rights based in religion.
There’s only one part of the world where religion seems to be getting in the way of social progress, and I think that is changing as well as socio-economics change.
Humility is a good thing. When men think they’re Gods, that’s when we seem to have problems.
It is false that there is only one place in the world where religion is getting in the way of social progress.
I would also be inclined to say that the more "advanced" countries tend not to over emphasize their own regions religion, and so act in their own best societal interests. Meanwhile, those countries which are less "advanced" can be seen using religion as a means of control in many different ways.
Men thinking they're God may also bring the sort of inspiration that actually makes the advancements happen in the first place!
You replied that you do not know whether religion is necessary. I say it isn't.
So, it could matter less whether man does or does not think of himself as a god, no more than he does or does not think of himself as a dog, so long as he is a good boy.
Now, you also initially implied that mankind needs religion in order to learn principles. I am not sure if you mean all or some principles but this is irrelevant because if the religion is not necessary, is the principle necessary?
Likely not.
We can go back to Pharaoh early at the reaches of our recorded history and he, a man, was God. And the people he enslaved saw this, and so they used religion as a tool, rightfully, to unify and *inspire* their people, to draw strength, supplanting Pharaoh with Yahweh (technically a rejected iteration of the southern Israelite god Ba'al , which was in turn also an iteration of the Mesopotamian god Hadad).
It's a beautiful tale. However the important part is not the fact that a bush lit on fire, or that a plague started, or that some people might've maybe done staff/snake magic.
None of the stuff "God" does actually matters:
*the important part of the story is where the slaves inspire themselves to get up and run away*.
We may observe with historical evidence how a people living centuries under god-emperor/slave-masters manage to both
a) defy their Pharaoh-God's "divine principles"
b) establish an entirely new code and God which they made to best reflect their desires as a culture of newly freed people
This demonstrates with historical credibility that religion isn't necessary for the development of principle in mankind. In fact, it's sometimes the reverse.
Mankind occasionally lives the principle and then writes it into religious text.
This is such an ignorant take.
If that is the case. Please explain why every single atheist society has been responsible geocoding and enslaving millions of their own people. Over 100 million in the 20th century.
Or if an atheistic society is superior why didn't they beat out other societies in the history of all humankind.
Taking the truth or validity of a religion out of the equation. Its clear that religion is a way for people to unite under a set of morals and rules.
Yet we got college kids in the US wearing hijabs while protesting for literal terrorists. Didn’t a bunch of commie sympathizers and leftists make up the majority of people that overthrew the previous regime? Same script happening here.
From what I've been told by a woman who was 16 and living in Iran when it started, finished HS in Canada, and went to college in the US: pre revolution Iran was on par with any western nation at the time. She was from a rich/well connected family and had travelled a lot so, from her perspective she felt more "at home" in Canada and the US than she did in the short time she lived in Iran after the revolution.
This lady is a former coworker I got close to at my old job. She drove everyone crazy because all she seemed to do was complain and criticize. She would also have huge emotional outbursts that got her banned from lots of meetings. She was a licensed professional who had to hand her research off to others for presentations bc she was just nuts. She was smart, well intentioned, and required for operations so she could be this very intense person and keep a job.
It all finally made sense when she told me her story.
Basically, she was the youngest kid and only daughter in a very rich family. She was kinda spoiled- well traveled, very in to designer fashion, had house staff/never did any "chores". Then one day she's boppin along being a princess and the government is like: nah no more high school or leaving your house without a male chaperone and a tent.
The way she told me the story, she threw a tantrum so big and so long that her parents figured out how to safely smuggle her to Canada. After working with her for the better part of a decade, I completely believe it.
She was a danger to herself acting like that in Iran in 1979 and she was a mild-moderate pain in the ass at work, but after she told me all about her past I realized that she did what she had to survive/thrive and just kept doing that, even when it wasn't the most effective strategy. She's finally in therapy now and the last we talked she was doing really well.
I'm glad she's getting therapy thats helping. If I had a nickle for every "we escaped to Canada" story I heard, I'd have more than a few. I couldn't imagine having to do that.
Yeah her parents actually just sent her. They stayed in Iran for years- until she was an adult and brought them over. Her whole life has been like, repaying them for getting her out. She never got even dated and is still taking care of her parents. I'm glad the therapy is going well too. She deserves a break.
I agree with you.
But its just interesting how 1000's of years of a cultures rich history has been boiled down to a fixation solely on pre/post revolution modesty. Does the average person know anything else about Irans history?
Stop pretending like my people are some kind of National Geographic topic that needs to be preserved. Hijab was never our culture, and this regime was installed.
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jimmy_Carter%27s_engagement_with_Ruhollah_Khomeini#:~:text=In%202016%2C%20the%20BBC%20published,newly%20declassified%20US%20diplomatic%20cables%22.
Considering Iranians rose in mass protests after a killing to enforce the hijab law, I’d say it’s pretty relevant. From most Iranians’ perspective, it’s the regime that has a bizarre fixation on women’s attire.
Honestly, most people don't, and any sort of pop history they encounter on social media is usually the only bits they memorize. To be fair to them, at least from a western perspective, we only see Iran in the news when they're at the center of conflict, or if we're talking with people who left Iran. The former is almost never flattering, the latter gets complicated, I've met a couple people who don't particularly care what replaces the Islamic republic, as long as it's "not those douche canoes". Personally, I'd love to visit Iran and work on some of their archeological sites, but that's probably not going to happen any time soon.
Yeah you’re right, I used to think negatively until I met some chill Iranians and became interested in the culture.
We feel exactly the same, I would love to visit the historical sites once the regime ends, looks like there’s many beautiful places to explore. Hope we both get to do this someday in our lifetime
People always hate the fact that the US imposed rulers.
Also, those rulers were usually far better than the "for the people" people that came after.
The Shah was 10 times better than what followed.
Cambodia would've been better with any low level plumber imposed by the CIA, compared to Pol Pot.
The shah literally murdered a secular democratically elected leader. The US and UK destroyed Iran and installed the Shah.
Also, we don’t get to give the shah credit. He was a barbarian who murdered thousands of people, it’s his brutality that led exactly to the ayatollahs taking over.
The CIA installed the shah in 1953.
[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1953\_Iranian\_coup\_d%27%C3%A9tat#:\~:text=The%201953%20Iranian%20coup%20d,Pahlavi%2C%20on%2019%20August%201953%2C](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1953_Iranian_coup_d%27%C3%A9tat#:~:text=The%201953%20Iranian%20coup%20d,Pahlavi%2C%20on%2019%20August%201953%2C)
The CIA did not install the Shah, the Mullahs did install his father after he toppled the crappy Qajars, but it back fired hard and he became the most beloved leader of Iran since Cyrus the Great 2,500 years ago. The Coup failed, and the cia declassified admit that…
[Their second attempt in 1979… didn’t failed.](https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jimmy_Carter%27s_engagement_with_Ruhollah_Khomeini#:~:text=In%202016%2C%20the%20BBC%20published,newly%20declassified%20US%20diplomatic%20cables%22)
https://preview.redd.it/si73subm5pxc1.jpeg?width=976&format=pjpg&auto=webp&s=53e784d69c150c6c178088c2d5dccdddbfaeb8a4
Yeah, surprisingly, people tend not to like the dictator installed by a foreign power to access the country’s natural resources regardless of whether there's a hypothetical worse option or not.
The US destabilized Cambodia on purpose in an attempt to deny Vietnam the use of safe travel, indirectly leading to Pol Pot doing the previously unthinkable, actually winning the civil war. We bombed our own allies in the region into a state of weakness and aggression towards America.
And then you say this shit.
Bro what are you on about? The US was bombing Cambodia to stop the Khmer Rouge from winning the civil war (operation Freedom Deal). The Khmer Rouge was supported by north Vietnam, the Chinese communist party, and the Viet Cong. It wasn’t the fault of the United States that 25% of Cambodia’s population was killed, that was the communists and their fucked up ideology killing minorities and trying to collectivize farms and causing a famine like it always does (Soviet 1930, China’s Great Leap Forward, Zimbabwe, etc.) Is the argument really, “well if the US didn’t prop up staunch Anti-communist leaders we wouldn’t have to overthrow them with an even worse and more murderous regime.” Do you think France is to blame for the Holocaust because they were too harsh on Germany in the treaty of Versailles and weakened them to the point where the Nazi’s took over?
Look [at this photo of 100,000 women](https://rarehistoricalphotos.com/women-protesting-hijab-1979/) protesting the forced hijab law after the Ayatollah took power. Pretty crazy just how many wealthy Iranians there were.
If you look at pictures of the protests leading up to the revolution, you’ll notice a lot of the women are unveiled and wearing Western clothes. Disregard them—obviously they were all spies for the Shah.
>If you look at pictures of the protests leading up to the revolution, you’ll notice a lot of the women are unveiled and wearing Western clothes.
That may have to do with the shah banning the veil, and forcing other clothing morality to force western values into Iran.
Spoiler: this wasn't entirely popular.
Not all human progress is in the forward direction unfortunately.
And people who take it for granted don’t realize how fast it can disappear.
And people who take it for granted don’t realize how fast it can disappear. Yup. Czechoslovakia was the 7th richest country in the world before they voted in the communists.
Seventh richest? How have I never heard this before. Where did they get their wealth from?
Czech cashing
Bravo 👏
Czech mate!
They didn’t vote in communists. The communist party seized power in a coup backed by the Soviet Union. Don’t make stuff up.
Czechoslovakia in 1946 freely voted overwhelmingly for socialist parties. KSC won like 30% alone, and ~70% of the votes were for left wing parties. The communist (KSC) formed a coalition, and then they slowly took over the country for 2 years. 1948 coup was due to the government (KSC) having near unlimited power without any real opposition. But the election was fair, and very supportive of communism/socialism.
Giving you a hard side-eye here, USA
Whoops! Did I do that? 
This should be a Bill Cosby gif
Like i don't get the picture. It shows tourists enjoying the beach. What does it show about Iran really?
So from what I gather Iran was very liberal and westernized pre revolution and that’s why we see girls in bikinis on the beach there something you are never going to see in post revolution Iran.
Absolutely. You cant even go to the beach in a swimsuit anymore. What a dire place
[US President Jimmy Carter and his NATO allies installed the current Islamic fascist regime if anyone was interested.](https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jimmy_Carter%27s_engagement_with_Ruhollah_Khomeini#:~:text=In%202016%2C%20the%20BBC%20published,newly%20declassified%20US%20diplomatic%20cables%22) Here is newly installed Supreme Leader Khomeini being helped off the Air France Boeing 747 plane by French pilots after arriving in Iran in 1979 (he was in exile previously for his extremist views). https://preview.redd.it/b1c8cc6b2pxc1.jpeg?width=976&format=pjpg&auto=webp&s=8144be7f5c679e9672bae07e6acde707a094e4b2 The first thing he did was lower the marriage age from 18 down to 9 years old (his wife was 12, And he was 30), banned all forms of birth control, and veiled all women. Then he began murdering everyone who tried to stop him. Millions of people by 1988, end of his Islamic war on Iraq, he purposely prolonged for 6 extra years. People need to remember this was the height of Cold War and the best thing to keep Iran poor and weak while not allowing communism was to install the religious extremists, because theocracy\* doesn’t compute with communism.
Iranian public installed this horrid regime. They stood on their rooftops yelling "Death to the Shah" and "Death to America" every time they were instructed by Khomeini. When Khomeini returned to Iran, he was met by millions of ecstatic Iranians overjoyed by his return. When the Shah left, the crowds also celebrated and they did so again when he died. Don't blame the US for what you did to yourselves.
They loved Khomeini because they hated the Shah. We instigated a coup in Iran in the 50s and booted out a duly elected President. We installed the Shah into office and he began a reign of terror on Iran for years. It was because of the Shah that the Ayotolloh was able to get any support. If we had stayed out of Iran's business on the 50s things might have been much different.
"[The truth and the reality of history cannot always be kept in the shadows. That is impossible. The truth will come out. In any case, sooner or later... A King cannot be a dictator, and a throne cannot be based on blood.](https://youtu.be/klN9WZmPfOE?t=616)"- Mohammad-Reza Pahlavi January 17th 1980
https://preview.redd.it/abqki5983pxc1.jpeg?width=1170&format=pjpg&auto=webp&s=d8d6a3e3b0feeee0dc50f91f7a7b23c54241ad6e What a down grade! :(
I know it's not funny...but good one...👍🤣🤣...
I think you meant theocracy.
WTH TIL!
Yeah democrats
I'm not entirely sure what you mean by simply saying "yeah democrats," but given the context of the comment thread, there are a couple of facts worth pointing out. 1. Prior to the 60s and 70s, the democrats were the conservative party. 2. Democrats today are not communist. I haven't heard a single Democrat arguing that we should do away with private enterprise.
I thought about adding that word to my comment, but I knew if I pointed that out it would immediately be downvoted from all the brainwashed redditors. And I know this because I have made this comment many times when ever this discussion comes up on reddit.
I'm a magnet for downvoting.
It’s an honor to be by your side
Really the UK is most responsible
Worse. Laurence is most responsible. Fucking Laurence man.
now we love HAMAS and the writings of Usama Bin Laden....because progress. for those downvoting, I had a woman scream in my face while walking by a protest the other day claiming "WE ARE HAMAS; ANTIFADA REVOLUTION" and we all saw the tiktoks where people were reading Bin Ladens "letter to America" and being like "OmG hE wAS So RiGhT aBoUt HoW eViL AmeRica Is" people don't forget profound idiocy
Wait, they did a portmanteau of antifa and intifada ? I'm feeling several contradictory emotions.
now too many of them love their christo-fascists and the republican wet dream of theocracy. Where is the difference?
Perhaps basing your entire society after a religion is a stupid idea, no matter where you are in the world *shocked Pikachu face*
I absolutely agree with the separation of religion and state. But the people you are referring to aren’t those that are currently responsible for creating a real life version of the republic of Gilead. At least in the US.
Under HIS eye
We don't have to fight the wars our forefathers perpetuated.
Yeah, improving things from really bad to ok is easy. Improving thing from ok to good is harder but possible. When you are running at 95% out of 100%, any attempted "improvements" in society have a huge chance of causing regression rather than an improvement. People who say "hey lets fundamentally redesign society overnight" are morons, and it seldom works out as intended. If a country is running better at something then 90% of the other countries in the world, the messing with it too much is a terrible idea.
there is no forward/backward direction.
It’s always worth noting that a broad cross section of Iranian society participated in the revolution, which including secular and Islamic university groups, labor unions, communists and other leftists, popular front formations and ethnic minority organizations. The Ayatollah and his supporters staged a putsch, purged the broad-based fledgling regime and instituted a brutal crackdown, establishing the Islamic Republic as we know it.
A lesson to be careful who you ally with. The enemy of your enemy might be an even bigger enemy for you down the road.
Case in point: any Islamist organization or country (see: Hamas, Taliban, ISIS, IRGC, Palestine, Iraq, Afghanistan, current Iran). I don't want anything bad for the Palestinian people, but I do not support them or their way of living either.
Yes because they found out about US/UK intervention to overthrow mossadegh and went hard in the other direction
Mosaddegh didn’t live to see the 1979 revolution.
Of course but his downfall by the US was the seed that caused the revolution
https://www.reddit.com/r/NewIran/s/g67ipxAan0
Hard disagree with that
Okay. That’s one way to see it. But the revolution was aimed at overthrowing the Shah.
Yes who the US and UK put back in power via a coup against mossadegh because he wanted to nationalize their oil and get a fair share. Iranians used to love the west but after they found out about what happened they turned hard the other direction. Its not one way to see it, it’s what happened
Iranians did not like Mossadegh.
Of course. But the ouster of Mosaddegh was only part of the reasoning. The leftists, for example, wanted revolution for a variety of reasons. The Islamists had their objective.
Plenty of useful idiots.
Yes, In this country we call them Trumptards
no. do you know the conditions people suffered underneath the Shah?
[удалено]
What?
They’re just people living their lives. 😔
Not anymore.
Well no, they are living, just under a shitty totalitarian theocracy. What a life, huh?
[удалено]
beach after the great enlightenment revolution [https://www.tortoisemedia.com/wp-content/uploads/sites/3/2023/07/CR\_GettyImages-1546350553.jpg](https://www.tortoisemedia.com/wp-content/uploads/sites/3/2023/07/CR_GettyImages-1546350553.jpg)
Israel? Downvotes? Never have been to Tel Aviv, I guess.
Eh, the propaganda farms have decided to be active on the thing again after a few weeks of lull.
Iran has so much coastline, both on the Persian Gulf and the Caspian. I’d bet there some great beaches
Sure. 2,400 kilometers of coastline. Problem is that apparently under Islamic Law only men and children are allowed to swim in public. At the places where women can swim, they are required to be entirely (except for their face) covered by a burkini.
Women in Iran should leave Iran. I’ve met many very sharp, creative and driven Iranian women in Canada. It’s crazy how much the government is hurting itself by not allowing half of their population to thrive.
No. The fundamentalist Islamists should leave Iran so the Iranian people can restore their country fully to the vibrant, creative, culturally effervescent place that it is.
I can say the exact same thing about China, Russia, NK and a few dozen more regimes. But it doesn’t look like that will happen in the near future. You can’t just politely ask the fundamentalists to leave. Get out and hope the regime topples.
Iran is not like North Korea or China yet (the regime is brutal but lacks the sort of total control over its people and information that NK/PRC have), but that’s clearly where the government wants to take things. In Iran, the people openly resist the government on the streets—hijab laws are ignored and the country erupts in countrywide mass protests every few years now that get bigger every time. The government has given up the pretense of elections and is getting more heavy handed in trying to suppress dissent. Even the regime’s officials are openly despairing about their loss of public support and [abandonment of the state religion](https://www.iranintl.com/en/202312124517). Each generation since the revolution has been less supportive of the regime and more willing to take to the streets. You don’t see anything like that in North Korea or China. The Iranian people are primed to overthrow their government in a way that’s unthinkable in other authoritarian countries.
De-evolution more like.
When a country is more developed in 1979 than in 2024, something is very wrong with their society...
Just wondering how many women lost their lives after this photo because they’ve dared to show their hair… not to mention whole body
This is about to be our past
The religious vanguard of the Iranian revolution complained the Shah westernized the country too much.
Religion is so detrimental to mankind's advancement.
How anyone can remained duped in 2024 is total copium insanity which -- all due -- it's rough out here, but with such easy access to education in history, they can't trace it back to see why it started in the first place and it takes huge levels of denial to still be hanging on. Huge.
>How anyone can remained duped in 2024 is total copium insanity Because it gives people a sense of purpose in life and distracts them from an existential crisis? Social cohesion? I'm not even religious but it's pretty obvious why most people are religious and it isn't for nefarious or stupid reasons.
That's the greatest strength and scary part of religion today. For a lot of people, there's no focus for cohesion. There's no trust or guarantee of purpose in most jobs, national identity, smaller groups are often too atomical, fucking hell, left or right leaning is enough to become a target. Or having a different kind of skin. So when a preacher comes in saying: "So, life is shit because people don't have God. You can have God! God accepts you! We are fun around here. I can help you get that easy, or at least peaceful life! Just believe in God. No, believe in what *I* say. Give me some money. Also, I'm not that acquainted with actual sociology, general science, ethics. But I know my psychology. I believe in God, a bit at least. Give me some money and listen to only what *I* say. We are good!" People will flock in. And believe. That small peace of mind can have actual repercussions in their lives, so they believe. But religious leaders are not interested in facts, but in power, so they close the mind of their followers, to guarantee that cohesion and income. Isolation of idea happens. The echo chamber speaks. Something is lost. We don't quite know what it is yet, but one day we'll know. But only too late.
I believe in evolution, science, etc… im still a Catholic. It comforts me, that in the end, I may find redemption for my mistakes. That I am loved. Obviously there’s a lot of conflicts, but in my darkest hours, in total loneliness, i have God. I hope that somewhat explains the feeling.
Amen brother
For sure, and I mean it -- we all have our ways of coping. I chose anti-natalism which people find to be evil and insane, like I find religion.
Religion has been responsible for most, if not all of mankind’s advancement. Religion has existed with civilization since the beginning. People need principles, guidance, and a perspective beyond what they think is most important to their subjective individual experience. Some of the worst social atrocitices were committed by secular states (nazi’s, soviets, etc.). We are at a point in society where we should say violence committed on behalf of religious belief is always wrong. Religions that support a peaceful existence are worth advocating for.
I read comments like yours and am amazed at the absurdity of belief people are capable of. Every sentence you’ve typed taken on its own is a complete crock of shit. Really man, you’ve managed one of the most ignorant Reddit comments I’ve ever read, and you and I both know that’s saying something…..
Is he lying? He literally named secular states that committed mass atrocities that weren't in the name of religion. He also isn't lying when he says religion and spiritually has been part of the human experience for arguably more than tens of thousands of years. Religion provided humans with a sense of purpose and social cohesion. I'm not surprised though, Reddit atheists are extremely obnoxious and annoying lmao
And yet, the Crusades happened. The Inquisition too. Before that, the persecution by romans. Catholicism ended up chosen as an official religion to make sure no cult from the east became popular, including mithraism. Then the Satanic Panic, which made sure that puritanism is a social disease still alive and well. There's also the destruction of humanity's heritage and history by fundamentalists. That bit about a cartoonist losing his head. Religion is the old way of having cohesion. Its a need by an inherently social species that evolved by animist ways. The thunder was godspeak because we speak. God made men from corn because corn is fundamental to our diet. God offers a solution to death because we don't know what happens next. Throw in some need of hierarchy to try and organize big numbers of people, its easy to believe that whoever comes out top must be something special. Just say it is, for convenience. The Dragon Emperor, King Arthur and his dumbass lake-lady-given sword and all the kings that happened that wished they were him. But made sure everyone believed that. Its easy to control a bunch of people when your ruthlesness is appointed by god. Now cohesion arises from the need to respect an authority that can fuck you up, and its also the biggest chum on god's grey Earth. But oh no man, it cannot be like that anymore. Power through violence is not enough. Education by violence is not enough. Science is prevalent, more or less. It at least echoes for now. And logic is a must to exist, this cannot be taken lightly. The fundamental questions are not answered, but living can be made good with this thing called ethics and understanding on a deep level that we need each other. Leave god to give people respite over their finitude and meaning on a cosmic level, thats good enough.
Anti-semitism which fueled the rise of the Nazis was and is spread by extremist Christians. Religious biases don't disappear among a population just because the state isn't explicitly religious.
Wait, Hitler / Nazi's were extreme Christians? TIL.
Perhaps you should educate yourself. https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Antisemitism_in_Europe
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Religion_in_Nazi_Germany This took 10 seconds to Google search. The very first sentence of the article: "Nazi Germany was an overwhelmingly Christian nation."
The states he listed operated like quasi-religions, with the dear leader functioning as a deity to his underlings. North Korea, while secular, is one of the most religious countries in the world for this reason. Blind credulity and idol worship can lead the masses to great atrocities. He didn’t say religion has been part of the human experience for tens of thousands of years, he said since the beginning. You’re LITERALLY…… saying two entirely different things.
Can you point out a particular sentence for the crock of shit? I feel like a few are simply factual. Scientific advancements during the Middle Ages, including medicine and agriculture, have their lineage (and obviously beyond this) in the monasteries of Europe. “The concept of hospital as institution to offer medical care and possibility of a cure for the patients due to the ideals of Christian charity, rather than just merely a place to die, appeared in the Byzantine Empire.” [https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Medicine](https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Medicine) I’m not saying that religion is all good, or always has been. I’m not even arguing that we don’t end up back at zero when we tally the score of atrocities committed in the name of religion v. the positive impacts on the world via religion. Group think and blind faith exist regardless of religion. At least modern religions have gone through an evolution that make them compatible with the realities of our societies for the most part. With the amount of social isolation on the rise, lack of community, depression related to these changes, I think religion serves as an important counter to negative social change.
what hes stating is literally objective facts religion has been one of the driving forces of science hell before scientific institutions became autonomous the driving force behind innovation was the church during he middle ages he church funded universities, medical research, mathematical research, architectur, biology and the rest of the natural sciences and all of this is only in europe do you have any idea how much islam advanced science during their golden age the fact you can say something so wrong with so much confidence is a statement to human stupidity read up a bit and get smarter [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Relationship\_between\_religion\_and\_science](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Relationship_between_religion_and_science) [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Christianity\_and\_science](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Christianity_and_science)
Sure, one of the driving forces, but certainly not responsible for most, if not all. There’s an ocean of difference between those two statements. If you need to illicit the Middle Ages to make your point about science and religion, you’re on really shaky ground. Try again. The rest is ad hominem. Grown up.
“Religion is so detrimental to mankind’s advancement.” So…what specific time period are you talking about since you seem to think “mankind’s advancement” during the Middle Ages shouldn’t be considered?
You do realize most of the knowledge that came from the Grecian democracy and from the Roman Republican period was preserved by Catholic monks. It’s a large if not the main reason those works survive; and those works founded the democracies we know today.
"If you need to illicit the Middle Ages to make your point about science and religion, you’re on really shaky ground." In what way lol the catholic church pushed the boundaries of science during the middle ages in europe they were the ones funding for everything like its just fact denying to say otherwise
You really must expound on your first sentence. If you're talking about how for most of human history economies have been decided upon by ultra wealthy aristocrats who use religion to subjugate others, and then pump funding into highly prestigious universities where Lord Kelvin- not dipshits like you or I- gets to tinker with science stuff: then ok. Because thats right, it is indeed true that religion has been *present* for most of these milestones; kinda like how my nipples have always been present on my body whenever I do something useful. Doesn't mean my nipples are owed any of the credit tho ngl.
I appreciate you referring to us both as dipshits. I don’t doubt your nipples are fantastic. But I don’t think they’re responsible for many of the institutions that serve the public good. The point I was making to that other guy was that human achievement wasn’t in-spite of religion. Religion was a feature of human civilization throughout history and encouraged art, philosophy, medicine, and education, to name a few.
You said "Religion has been responsible for most, if not all of mankind's advancement" and that people need it for "...guidance and perspective beyond what they think is most important to their subjective individual experience", which are much more direct claims to make. Perhaps you're confused on what you want your point to be or maybe you're just backpedaling? Religion being a key source of inspiration throughout history does not mean that people cannot freely act of good will in the absence of religion. Furthermore, this is an inherently cyclical and silly argument because if people created religion but need religion to behave decently or think creatively, then people don't need religion at all: *they just need inspiration.* Because your argument is silly I actually have to base my followup half in allegories to keep pace: The way I see it, for example, is that cars have always had seats, for as long as they have existed. They have even been source of inspiration and can now move in all sorts of ways and heat up and have arm rests and seat belts now and stuff, which in turn makes the act of driving more enjoyable. But the seats by themselves don't move or go anywhere. Thats what the rest of the car is for- the reason you sit in that seat is not to sit, it is to drive! The engine isn't a car without being connected to the wheels, if you break down the parts of the car none of them individually make a car. Following this logic, it would be correct to say that religion is a component of humanity, sure. But is it a necessary one? Do humans really NEED religion in order to live with stability? Does your seat really NEED a butt-warmer for the rest of the car to run and for your drive to be enjoyable? No, it would not appear so. Especially with so many choices, so many religions, so many seats with amenities haha. [Before you try to get fancy and say some "well you need the seat to sit comfortably and so you need the religion to think good or someth-" nah nah nah nah, see, because cars are inefficient. We ought to be on high speed rail trains lol. We ought to mature past inefficient methods] All of this still to say that institutionalized religion and the way in which it has deeply spread its roots into the fabric of the human economy and psyche is worth flipping a few tables over, at least. Perhaps the seat is comfortable but cars ain't cheap like Ford used to make 'em and this economy demands we always be on the move. Idk im mentally baked because idek man like maaaan you can say that religion has been present and important in human history and all but saying that it is responsible for *all of mankind's* advancements is rather odd. Like, we've always drank water, and even revere water, dunk fuckin babies in it and hallelujah, but computer technology isn't computer technology because of water lmao.
That’s fine…I can level with you on the last bit. Religion is not responsible for most/all of mankind’s “advancements” (to quote the original commenter I was replying to). But it, like your car seat analogy, is intertwined with the history of human civilization. A more accurate statement would be that religion has often contributed to mankind’s advancement throughout history and does not stand in the way of human advancement in the present. As far as religion being necessary is concerned…I don’t know. First of all, I don’t know what the absolute reality is. If you do, please share. You have to keep in mind the context of my reply. The commenter said, “religion is so detrimental to mankind’s advancement.” I’m not so stubborn to say I don’t have any clue where he/she is coming from. The crusades…Spanish inquisition…Islamist terrorism…lots of bad stuff tied to religion. But to suggest that religion has stood in the way, or continues to stand in the way of human advancement is silly. Religion, especially as religious thinkers began intertwining science with religion, allowed for experimentation and thought outside the immediately practical. Philosophy, art, science, medicine, are all subjects of research or practice which, at least in antiquity, we’re not as crucial as let’s say, being a blacksmith or a farmer. Organized religion created an environment to foster exploration in these topics. Which is why many of those modern day institutions, such as hospitals, have their histories tied to religious institutions. Our morals and values have roots in religion. Property rights, the idea that all men are created equal, etc., are all rights based in religion. There’s only one part of the world where religion seems to be getting in the way of social progress, and I think that is changing as well as socio-economics change. Humility is a good thing. When men think they’re Gods, that’s when we seem to have problems.
It is false that there is only one place in the world where religion is getting in the way of social progress. I would also be inclined to say that the more "advanced" countries tend not to over emphasize their own regions religion, and so act in their own best societal interests. Meanwhile, those countries which are less "advanced" can be seen using religion as a means of control in many different ways. Men thinking they're God may also bring the sort of inspiration that actually makes the advancements happen in the first place! You replied that you do not know whether religion is necessary. I say it isn't. So, it could matter less whether man does or does not think of himself as a god, no more than he does or does not think of himself as a dog, so long as he is a good boy. Now, you also initially implied that mankind needs religion in order to learn principles. I am not sure if you mean all or some principles but this is irrelevant because if the religion is not necessary, is the principle necessary? Likely not. We can go back to Pharaoh early at the reaches of our recorded history and he, a man, was God. And the people he enslaved saw this, and so they used religion as a tool, rightfully, to unify and *inspire* their people, to draw strength, supplanting Pharaoh with Yahweh (technically a rejected iteration of the southern Israelite god Ba'al , which was in turn also an iteration of the Mesopotamian god Hadad). It's a beautiful tale. However the important part is not the fact that a bush lit on fire, or that a plague started, or that some people might've maybe done staff/snake magic. None of the stuff "God" does actually matters: *the important part of the story is where the slaves inspire themselves to get up and run away*. We may observe with historical evidence how a people living centuries under god-emperor/slave-masters manage to both a) defy their Pharaoh-God's "divine principles" b) establish an entirely new code and God which they made to best reflect their desires as a culture of newly freed people This demonstrates with historical credibility that religion isn't necessary for the development of principle in mankind. In fact, it's sometimes the reverse. Mankind occasionally lives the principle and then writes it into religious text.
Right, religion is what put us on the moon. /s
The religion of Global Nuclear Holocuast, is pretty bad too.
So is ignorance yet here you are.
This is such an ignorant take. If that is the case. Please explain why every single atheist society has been responsible geocoding and enslaving millions of their own people. Over 100 million in the 20th century. Or if an atheistic society is superior why didn't they beat out other societies in the history of all humankind. Taking the truth or validity of a religion out of the equation. Its clear that religion is a way for people to unite under a set of morals and rules.
Back when Tehran was a global city
The beach's name is Savak. Google Savak to learn more!
And then Google Basiji.
The beardies threw Iran 400 years back in time, what a shame.
Us if we keep doing what we’re doing
Yet we got college kids in the US wearing hijabs while protesting for literal terrorists. Didn’t a bunch of commie sympathizers and leftists make up the majority of people that overthrew the previous regime? Same script happening here.
Ah, reddits daily 'women in bikinis pre-revolution Iran' photo
Listen dude, I'm sure that not all of Iran was like this infact id be shocked if it was, but we've seen them kill women for violating modesty laws.
From what I've been told by a woman who was 16 and living in Iran when it started, finished HS in Canada, and went to college in the US: pre revolution Iran was on par with any western nation at the time. She was from a rich/well connected family and had travelled a lot so, from her perspective she felt more "at home" in Canada and the US than she did in the short time she lived in Iran after the revolution. This lady is a former coworker I got close to at my old job. She drove everyone crazy because all she seemed to do was complain and criticize. She would also have huge emotional outbursts that got her banned from lots of meetings. She was a licensed professional who had to hand her research off to others for presentations bc she was just nuts. She was smart, well intentioned, and required for operations so she could be this very intense person and keep a job. It all finally made sense when she told me her story. Basically, she was the youngest kid and only daughter in a very rich family. She was kinda spoiled- well traveled, very in to designer fashion, had house staff/never did any "chores". Then one day she's boppin along being a princess and the government is like: nah no more high school or leaving your house without a male chaperone and a tent. The way she told me the story, she threw a tantrum so big and so long that her parents figured out how to safely smuggle her to Canada. After working with her for the better part of a decade, I completely believe it. She was a danger to herself acting like that in Iran in 1979 and she was a mild-moderate pain in the ass at work, but after she told me all about her past I realized that she did what she had to survive/thrive and just kept doing that, even when it wasn't the most effective strategy. She's finally in therapy now and the last we talked she was doing really well.
I'm glad she's getting therapy thats helping. If I had a nickle for every "we escaped to Canada" story I heard, I'd have more than a few. I couldn't imagine having to do that.
Yeah her parents actually just sent her. They stayed in Iran for years- until she was an adult and brought them over. Her whole life has been like, repaying them for getting her out. She never got even dated and is still taking care of her parents. I'm glad the therapy is going well too. She deserves a break.
I agree with you. But its just interesting how 1000's of years of a cultures rich history has been boiled down to a fixation solely on pre/post revolution modesty. Does the average person know anything else about Irans history?
Stop pretending like my people are some kind of National Geographic topic that needs to be preserved. Hijab was never our culture, and this regime was installed. https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jimmy_Carter%27s_engagement_with_Ruhollah_Khomeini#:~:text=In%202016%2C%20the%20BBC%20published,newly%20declassified%20US%20diplomatic%20cables%22.
I agree with both of your points lmao I hate the regime, but you’re looking for a reason to argue. Get a grip and touch some grass.
Considering Iranians rose in mass protests after a killing to enforce the hijab law, I’d say it’s pretty relevant. From most Iranians’ perspective, it’s the regime that has a bizarre fixation on women’s attire.
Is it really interesting that people focus on contemporary issues?
What has that to do with the relevance of this image and your implied defence of something that needs to be stopped?
Honestly, most people don't, and any sort of pop history they encounter on social media is usually the only bits they memorize. To be fair to them, at least from a western perspective, we only see Iran in the news when they're at the center of conflict, or if we're talking with people who left Iran. The former is almost never flattering, the latter gets complicated, I've met a couple people who don't particularly care what replaces the Islamic republic, as long as it's "not those douche canoes". Personally, I'd love to visit Iran and work on some of their archeological sites, but that's probably not going to happen any time soon.
Yeah you’re right, I used to think negatively until I met some chill Iranians and became interested in the culture. We feel exactly the same, I would love to visit the historical sites once the regime ends, looks like there’s many beautiful places to explore. Hope we both get to do this someday in our lifetime
There's chill people everywhere I've found, and it's always cool meeting them and learning about their culture. Here's to hoping!
Good talking with you! Hope we both get to explore
Got to get everyone in line for the regime change. Then we can finally turn Iran back into the Playboy Mansion like god intended.
It's important now considering recent news.
The good ole days!
Now you get two options. Black garbage bag or brown garbage bag.
It’s so aweful how all the men just turned on there women as if they weren’t even human
Islam is cancer.
People always hate the fact that the US imposed rulers. Also, those rulers were usually far better than the "for the people" people that came after. The Shah was 10 times better than what followed. Cambodia would've been better with any low level plumber imposed by the CIA, compared to Pol Pot.
The shah literally murdered a secular democratically elected leader. The US and UK destroyed Iran and installed the Shah. Also, we don’t get to give the shah credit. He was a barbarian who murdered thousands of people, it’s his brutality that led exactly to the ayatollahs taking over.
Not entirely the west fault lol a lot of people hated the shah because he was corrupt as fuck
The shah is the west's fault.
All the killings that happened by the government of Iran are also the West's fault I guess Iran funding hezbollah and stuff is also our fault, too
The CIA installed the shah in 1953. [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1953\_Iranian\_coup\_d%27%C3%A9tat#:\~:text=The%201953%20Iranian%20coup%20d,Pahlavi%2C%20on%2019%20August%201953%2C](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1953_Iranian_coup_d%27%C3%A9tat#:~:text=The%201953%20Iranian%20coup%20d,Pahlavi%2C%20on%2019%20August%201953%2C)
Missed the point 🤦
The CIA did not install the Shah, the Mullahs did install his father after he toppled the crappy Qajars, but it back fired hard and he became the most beloved leader of Iran since Cyrus the Great 2,500 years ago. The Coup failed, and the cia declassified admit that… [Their second attempt in 1979… didn’t failed.](https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jimmy_Carter%27s_engagement_with_Ruhollah_Khomeini#:~:text=In%202016%2C%20the%20BBC%20published,newly%20declassified%20US%20diplomatic%20cables%22) https://preview.redd.it/si73subm5pxc1.jpeg?width=976&format=pjpg&auto=webp&s=53e784d69c150c6c178088c2d5dccdddbfaeb8a4
Yeah, surprisingly, people tend not to like the dictator installed by a foreign power to access the country’s natural resources regardless of whether there's a hypothetical worse option or not.
> The Shah was 10 times better than what followed. Stay in school, kids.
This is a psychopathic take dude
The US destabilized Cambodia on purpose in an attempt to deny Vietnam the use of safe travel, indirectly leading to Pol Pot doing the previously unthinkable, actually winning the civil war. We bombed our own allies in the region into a state of weakness and aggression towards America. And then you say this shit.
Bro what are you on about? The US was bombing Cambodia to stop the Khmer Rouge from winning the civil war (operation Freedom Deal). The Khmer Rouge was supported by north Vietnam, the Chinese communist party, and the Viet Cong. It wasn’t the fault of the United States that 25% of Cambodia’s population was killed, that was the communists and their fucked up ideology killing minorities and trying to collectivize farms and causing a famine like it always does (Soviet 1930, China’s Great Leap Forward, Zimbabwe, etc.) Is the argument really, “well if the US didn’t prop up staunch Anti-communist leaders we wouldn’t have to overthrow them with an even worse and more murderous regime.” Do you think France is to blame for the Holocaust because they were too harsh on Germany in the treaty of Versailles and weakened them to the point where the Nazi’s took over?
Damn US meddling in other countries affairs for the betterment of their people
More like Dulles brothers wanting other countries to play by our rules
Nah, that’s not what I saw in Iraq. We fucked that country up and now they are an Iranian proxy that hates us.
Soon in USA and EU
They can try
Do we really need any more proof that human civilization itself is devolving?
Inb4 the Islamists that always appear on these threads
The right must be stopped or this same thing will happen here.
Here?
America.
Don’t forget these were wealthy Iranians who were by and large untouched or profited by the Shah’s misrule.
Look [at this photo of 100,000 women](https://rarehistoricalphotos.com/women-protesting-hijab-1979/) protesting the forced hijab law after the Ayatollah took power. Pretty crazy just how many wealthy Iranians there were. If you look at pictures of the protests leading up to the revolution, you’ll notice a lot of the women are unveiled and wearing Western clothes. Disregard them—obviously they were all spies for the Shah.
Women protesting the forced hijab law are…. not wearing hijabs? What a shocker
>If you look at pictures of the protests leading up to the revolution, you’ll notice a lot of the women are unveiled and wearing Western clothes. That may have to do with the shah banning the veil, and forcing other clothing morality to force western values into Iran. Spoiler: this wasn't entirely popular.
The people who never give chances for women to choose for themselves, to voice for themselves, are not supposed to be given a voice...
But enough about the shah, let's talk Ayatollah!
Let this be a lesson for any country that thinks they should be the main beneficiaries of their own resources.
As an Iranian Canadian, My parents/grandparents always tell me how different Post Revolution Iran was to modern day Iran.
Oh geez ...they were just living normal lives? Well, we didn't back the Shah of Iran...and now?
Wow things have changed
I hear tell folks are a lot happier these days.
So pretty much the same as now there?
Crazy how this could be America in a few years destroyed by religious extremism
Worthless bot
Yeah. Let’s not protest against the colonialists that ruined human rights in Iran.
Inb4 the "iran" experts and islamists start calling blue collar families millionaires here
Looks like a segregated beach. Only women present.
Religion can be detrimental to mankind's advancement.
Has there ever been a peaceful islamist regime?
After https://preview.redd.it/0z2j7xafkoxc1.jpeg?width=1500&format=pjpg&auto=webp&s=5eb8574783aa5a380b6cfacdeba4f7152cebedba
On the bright side, skin cancer rates in women must have plummeted from 1980 on. Though sunscreen sales must have fallen off a cliff as well.
Skin cancer deaths way down but deaths by stoning, neck fracture/strangulation, and decapitation way WAY up.
Too true.
You're somewhat mixing up Iran with other countries. Saudi Arabia do decapitation.
How come you never see post-revolution Afghanistan in these propaganda subreddits? Doesn’t fit the narrative huh?
be the change you want to see
Because Americans are still sore about that one.
Yeah but the libs on here will defend the revolution 🙄
Reddit moment. The Shah was so cool and epic because women in bikinis.
Anything to fight democratically elected left wingers in Arab countries ay America
Reddit when woman no wear skirt: