Hey there! Sign in to join this conversationNew here? Join for free
    Offline

    3
    ReputationRep:
    When someone says this:

    (Original post by Polysexual Nymph)
    Erm, are you retarded?
    It's hard to not think this:

    What an uneducated cretin you are.
    Offline

    2
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by offhegoes)
    Because sending them to non-Western countries is merely frowned upon, rather than deplored?
    I hate people like you who put words in my mouth. Why don't you go and learn how to debate properly?
    Offline

    1
    ReputationRep:
    http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-middle-east-35681250

    Allies of Iran's reformist president, Hassan Rouhani, have won a landslide victory in Tehran, in the first parliamentary vote since Iran signed a nuclear deal with world powers.

    With 90% of the votes counted, the pro-Rouhani List of Hope is set to take all 30 parliamentary seats in the capital.

    The leading conservative candidate Gholamali Haddad-Adel is in 31st place.
    Reformists in Iran just won all 30 seats in Tehran in elections for the Iranian Parliament held yesterday. The top Conservative candidate couldn't even make it, complete landslide.


    Tell me more about how Iran = Saudi Arabia? :rolleyes:
    Offline

    19
    ReputationRep:
    1. Saudi Arabia and Iran are states, ISIS aren't. We have formal ways of dealing with states that we don't with ISIS.

    2. ISIS are a threat to Saudi Arabia and Iran, as well as us. In fact they are a bigger threat to Saudi Arabia and Iran than us. The most they can do to us is sporadic terrorist attacks on our civilians, they can't destabilise the UK and throw it in to civil war like they can over there.

    3. Saudi Arabia is important in terms of the world's energy supply and Iran is going to be an increasingly important player over time. We need to ensure security of supply ie reasonable relations with the national governments and prevent those countries from falling in to civil war. It is not in anybody's interests to see Saudi Arabia or Iran be destabilised, it will increase terrorism and damage the world economy.

    4. Both countries have terrible records on human rights however there are a couple of differences. Saudi Arabia has been traditionally more pro-Western in foreign affairs and has been an important ally in conflicts there. Iran has been traditionally hostile to the West although has shared our mutual enemies (Taleban, Saddam Hussein, Al Qaeda and now ISIS). However, looking forward, Iran has the more potential for being a constructive force in the region, as the society there is generally less backward, there's a conservative anti-Western regime clinging on to power in the face of forces of reform and change. Over time, there's possibility for reform in Iran that there isn't in Saudi Arabia, and if Iran does modernise then it will be a hugely significant player in the region, powerful, stacked with natural resources and with a fairly well educated and liberal population. This is why there are people in the West who want to work with Iran and reject the neo-con/Israel position of "lets bomb them", because attacking Iran will just send people rallying behind the conservative fundamentalist clerics who will say "see - West are our enemy, death to America/Britain/Israel!". Whereas if we are a bit more sensible with our approach, there is big potential for a modernised Iran to completely change the dynamics of the Middle East.
    Offline

    3
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Alcohonick)
    I hate people like you who put words in my mouth. Why don't you go and learn how to debate properly?
    This isn't a formal debate. This is an internet forum.

    I was merely aiming to highlight that, after initially asking about Saudi violence in "foreign countries", you then demanded examples of violence against "western countries" after OP had already given you an example that met your initial criteria.

    There is a name for making such a move in an argument, but since this is just an internet forum I hardly think we need to go into technicalities
    Offline

    1
    ReputationRep:
    The Anti Defamation League ("ADL" ) themselves conducted a large international study re: anti-Semitism, and found that Iranians were the least anti-Semitic population in the Middle East and North Africa (bar Israel), much less so than Turkey and more in line with European countries such as Greece.

    Perhaps the most significant aspect of the recent opinion poll is the very low percentage of respondents in Iran who agree with the statement that "Jews still talk too much about what happened to them in the Holocaust."

    In the Islamic Republic of Iran, where the ruling conservatives have been denying the Holocaust for a long time, only 18% of the respondents believe that the above statement is "probably true".

    This figure is particularly noteworthy when compared to 22% who agreed with the same statement in the United States.

    http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-middle-east-27438044


    So, yeah, other than the fact that the West haven't sold Iran weapons for decades whilst we are continue to sell Saudi Arabia billions of pounds worth of weapons with complicity in war crimes in Yemen, that we have been sanctioning Iran for decades, whilst we recently helped Saudi Arabia become the Head of a UN Human Rights Panel, that Iranians are the most liberal population in the region, and least anti-Semitic by far, that women in Iran have been voting since 1963, whereas women still can't even drive in Saudi Arabia, other than that, Iran is totally the same as Saudi Arabia.
    Offline

    2
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by offhegoes)
    This isn't a formal debate. This is an internet forum.

    I was merely aiming to highlight that, after initially asking about Saudi violence in "foreign countries", you then demanded examples of violence against "western countries" after OP had already given you an example that met your initial criteria.

    There is a name for making such a move in an argument, but since this is just an internet forum I hardly think we need to go into technicalities
    When has the Saudi Arabian government sent its own militants to foreign countries to kill civilians?
    Offline

    5
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Polysexual Nymph)
    Funnily enough, Iran held elections for two important constitutional bodies yesterday (Parliament and the Council of Experts - the latter being the body that chooses the next SL), the results are not fully out yet, but just google 'Iran elections' and you will see who the people have voted for. You may be surprised.


    (This despite the system being rigged heavily against reformists/moderates - e.g. 90%+ of reformist candidates being barred from stand for election, the reformist leaders being under house-arrest, widespread fraud, etc.)
    Yes that is very refreshing. Can't say I'm that surprised though as 60% of Iran's population are under 30, and Rouhani has been quite popular as a moderate reformist.
    Although I am a bit surprised as I did expect there would be more backlash from the conservative and considering they are really in power (and as you rightly mentioned hardly any reformist candidates gets approved).
    Offline

    20
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by MagicNMedicine)
    1. Saudi Arabia and Iran are states, ISIS aren't. We have formal ways of dealing with states that we don't with ISIS.

    2. ISIS are a threat to Saudi Arabia and Iran, as well as us. In fact they are a bigger threat to Saudi Arabia and Iran than us. The most they can do to us is sporadic terrorist attacks on our civilians, they can't destabilise the UK and throw it in to civil war like they can over there.

    3. Saudi Arabia is important in terms of the world's energy supply and Iran is going to be an increasingly important player over time. We need to ensure security of supply ie reasonable relations with the national governments and prevent those countries from falling in to civil war. It is not in anybody's interests to see Saudi Arabia or Iran be destabilised, it will increase terrorism and damage the world economy.

    4. Both countries have terrible records on human rights however there are a couple of differences. Saudi Arabia has been traditionally more pro-Western in foreign affairs and has been an important ally in conflicts there. Iran has been traditionally hostile to the West although has shared our mutual enemies (Taleban, Saddam Hussein, Al Qaeda and now ISIS). However, looking forward, Iran has the more potential for being a constructive force in the region, as the society there is generally less backward, there's a conservative anti-Western regime clinging on to power in the face of forces of reform and change. Over time, there's possibility for reform in Iran that there isn't in Saudi Arabia, and if Iran does modernise then it will be a hugely significant player in the region, powerful, stacked with natural resources and with a fairly well educated and liberal population. This is why there are people in the West who want to work with Iran and reject the neo-con/Israel position of "lets bomb them", because attacking Iran will just send people rallying behind the conservative fundamentalist clerics who will say "see - West are our enemy, death to America/Britain/Israel!". Whereas if we are a bit more sensible with our approach, there is big potential for a modernised Iran to completely change the dynamics of the Middle East.
    Regarding point 4 doesn't that not also apply to how we tackle ISIS? I know it's harder because ISIS base of operation is in a region with little stability but the phenomenon of where bombs create more terrorists needs to be considered?
    Offline

    1
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by chemting)
    Yes that is very refreshing. Can't say I'm that surprised though as 60% of Iran's population are under 30, and Rouhani has been quite popular as a moderate reformist.
    The Presidential elections in Iran will be held next year, it's very obvious that Rouhani will win a second term (if they rig that vote like they did the 2009 elections with Ahmadinejad the regime would literally be signing their own death warrant). With a much more moderate Parliament now, he will be much better placed to deliver on his promises in the next 4(-5) years.


    And the Assembly of Experts (the other body with elections yesterday) is the body that chooses the next SL, and the fact that this body will be much more moderate now will have huge implications on the next SL (which could be soon, given that the current SL is around 80 I think), and thus the long term trajectory of Iranian politics.


    Although I am a bit surprised as I did expect there would be more backlash from the conservative and considering they are really in power (and as you rightly mentioned hardly any reformist candidates gets approved).
    Iranians want reform, the regime knows that they either compromise gradually and give some reform, or they will just be compromising their own survival.


    But also the vote-rigging really cannot be stressed enough. Even though Iran's 8 biggest cities constitute around 40% of its population, they only get roughly 15% of Parliamentary seats, inherently favouring rural voters (less educated/liberal). More than that, outside of the major cities there is less focus on the candidates, so the regime tends to most only allow Conservative candidates to run in such places, and given that these constitute the majority of seats you start to get an idea of what I mean when I say that the entire system is rigged. Many liberals in Iran also don't vote because they don't want to confer legitimacy onto the fascist regime. Moreover, the leaders of the reformist camp(s), e.g. Khatami and Mousavi, are under house-arrest, and cannot be shown on TV.


    Despite all these impediments, these election results show just how strong and wide-spread reform sentiments are among the Iranian population, and I strongly believe that in the coming decades we will see a period of (slow, and painful) gradual reform inside Iran - either that or another revolution (Iran tends to have one every 50 years, so it's tick-tock for the Mullahs...).
    Offline

    8
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Polysexual Nymph)
    The Anti Defamation League ("ADL" ) themselves conducted a large international study re: anti-Semitism, and found that Iranians were the least anti-Semitic population in the Middle East and North Africa (bar Israel), much less so than Turkey and more in line with European countries such as Greece.
    Perhaps the most significant aspect of the recent opinion poll is the very low percentage of respondents in Iran who agree with the statement that "Jews still talk too much about what happened to them in the Holocaust."

    In the Islamic Republic of Iran, where the ruling conservatives have been denying the Holocaust for a long time, only 18% of the respondents believe that the above statement is "probably true".

    This figure is particularly noteworthy when compared to 22% who agreed with the same statement in the United States.
    http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-middle-east-27438044
    In 2015:

    Iran - 30%
    USA -20%

    http://global100.adl.org/#country/iran/2015
    Offline

    1
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by admonit)
    In 2015:

    Iran - 30%
    USA -20%

    http://global100.adl.org/#country/iran/2015
    Ah, thank you. I will edit.


    One cannot see that statistic without considering the incomprehensible amount of propaganda the population are subjected to by the fascist regime on a daily basis. And, in that context, their scores (lowest in the region, which one would not expect from the way Iranians are talked about, and considering Western relations with Turkey and Saudi Arabia etc, whom have far higher levels of anti-Semitism) go far in reflecting the disparity between the Islamist regime, and the reform-minded population.


    It goes without saying that the scores are still sickeningly high, but this goes for many supposedly progressive countries; context is everything.
    Offline

    15
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by 713Wave)
    They are fighting off Houthi terrorists in Yemen, try again.
    yes and russia is bombing isis only in syria
    Offline

    16
    ReputationRep:
    The sooner we cut ties with Saudi the better.
    Offline

    13
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by HucktheForde)
    yes and russia is bombing isis only in syria
    ISIS and opposers of Assad, because Russia supports the current murdering regime.
    Offline

    5
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by 713Wave)
    ISIS and opposers of Assad, because Russia supports the current murdering regime.
    I think that was sarcasm... because Saudi isn't JUST fighting Houthi tribes, they are targeting civilians and markets, hospitals etc... or if you want to use the age old excuse: Saudi's air-strikes are killing civilians as "collateral damage"
    Offline

    13
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by chemting)
    I think that was sarcasm... because Saudi isn't JUST fighting Houthi tribes, they are targeting civilians and markets, hospitals etc... or if you want to use the age old excuse: Saudi's air-strikes are killing civilians as "collateral damage"
    'Saudi isn't JUST fighting Houthi tribes, they are targeting civilians and markets, hospitals etc' - evidence?
    Anyways the Houthi's forcefully fought to take over most of Yemen and the displaced government asked for help from Saudi. the same happened in Iraq.

    secondly David Cameron and other western countries consider Syrians as collateral damage. Personally I think its disgusting.
    • Thread Starter
    Offline

    3
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by 713Wave)
    'Saudi isn't JUST fighting Houthi tribes, they are targeting civilians and markets, hospitals etc' - evidence?
    Anyways the Houthi's forcefully fought to take over most of Yemen and the displaced government asked for help from Saudi. the same happened in Iraq.

    secondly David Cameron and other western countries consider Syrians as collateral damage. Personally I think its disgusting.
    you mean the David Cameron who has contributed the most aid as per capita basis?

    (Original post by Polysexual Nymph)
    http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-middle-east-35681250


    Reformists in Iran just won all 30 seats in Tehran in elections for the Iranian Parliament held yesterday. The top Conservative candidate couldn't even make it, complete landslide.


    Tell me more about how Iran = Saudi Arabia? :rolleyes:
    I was going to put a caveat in the post about having hope for the Iranian people (looking at photos of 1970s Iran is depressing at how beautiful it used to be).
    Regardless, the regimes are pariahs. Just as if ISIS formed a country the people living under it probably wouldnt be anywhere as bad the *******s running it.
    Offline

    1
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by skeptical_john)
    I was going to put a caveat in the post about having hope for the Iranian people (looking at photos of 1970s Iran is depressing at how beautiful it used to be).
    You stated: "we are quite happy to sell weapons to SA and Iran."


    Can you provide a source for that claim (re: 'us' (Britain) selling Iran weapons anytime in the last, say, 30 years)?
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    Name:  mosa.png
Views: 22
Size:  186.7 KB
 
 
 
  • See more of what you like on The Student Room

    You can personalise what you see on TSR. Tell us a little about yourself to get started.

  • Poll
    Would you like to hibernate through the winter months?
    Useful resources
  • See more of what you like on The Student Room

    You can personalise what you see on TSR. Tell us a little about yourself to get started.

  • The Student Room, Get Revising and Marked by Teachers are trading names of The Student Room Group Ltd.

    Register Number: 04666380 (England and Wales), VAT No. 806 8067 22 Registered Office: International House, Queens Road, Brighton, BN1 3XE

    Quick reply
    Reputation gems: You get these gems as you gain rep from other members for making good contributions and giving helpful advice.