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

    14
    ReputationRep:
    Not enough criticism is given towards Iran. While they're obviously not as bad as ISIS, they are a scumbag entity and everyone who supports, defends them and represents them are scumbags. Including Jeremy Corbyn, who regularly accepted money to appear on their propaganda network Press TV.

    A lot of simple-minded idiots bang on (rightly) about Saudi but refuse to condemn Iran. You can identify these people accurately in as much as they usually said jack about even Saudi until Owen Jones did and it became fashionable as they're too pussy to have opinions for themselves. There are multiple members of TSR this applies to.
    Offline

    5
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by KimKallstrom)
    Not enough criticism is given towards Iran. While they're obviously not as bad as ISIS, they are a scumbag entity and everyone who supports, defends them and represents them are scumbags. Including Jeremy Corbyn, who regularly accepted money to appear on their propaganda network Press TV.

    A lot of simple-minded idiots bang on (rightly) about Saudi but refuse to condemn Iran. You can identify these people accurately in as much as they usually said jack about even Saudi until Owen Jones did and it became fashionable as they're too pussy to have opinions for themselves. There are multiple members of TSR this applies to.
    You seem like the sort of person who will criticise Russia for doing certain things but give the US a pass...

    Other than that, I agree with you on the Saudi thing, not enough people (specially Muslims) call them out... but I think Iran has more potential for reform than Saudi Arabia...
    Offline

    1
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by KimKallstrom)
    A lot of simple-minded idiots bang on (rightly) about Saudi but refuse to condemn Iran.
    Actually, I think the opposite is true.


    Even if we accept your premise, it would be a logical stance to take, given that the UK has outstanding relations with, and sells billions of pounds worth of weapons to (with possible complicity in war-crimes), one of those countries, whereas we have only recently removed decades-long crippling sanctions on the other.


    If we just talked about what countries were the 'worst' we would only talk about North Korea, Iran, Sudan, etc. But there's no need for this, as we already have no/limited relations with these countries. It makes sense to discuss most the rogue nations that we do have ties with, that perhaps we ought not to - e.g. Israel and Saudi Arabia.
    Offline

    5
    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.
    Have you notseen the news, Saudi has bombing hospitals,markets anddropping clusterbombs (designed to indiscriminately kill over a large area). There has beena UNreport, saying Saudi Arabia has been systematically attacking civilians,and they have been accused of starvationas a technique (I agree that last one may be just accusation). Needless tosay the Saudi coalition completely deny all of this, and we are supposed tobelieve them like the MPs… Furthermore, I am sure the UN Human Rights Council(which Saudi is obviously not a part of...) will sort this out.
    (Original post by 713Wave)
    secondly David Cameron and other western countries consider Syrians as collateral damage. Personally I think its disgusting.
    Cameron is an Eton-educated Bullingdoner who stuck his penis in a pig's mouth... exactly how does this excuse Saudi...?
    Offline

    13
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by chemting)
    Have you notseen the news, Saudi has bombing hospitals,markets anddropping clusterbombs (designed to indiscriminately kill over a large area). There has beena UNreport, saying Saudi Arabia has been systematically attacking civilians,and they have been accused of starvationas a technique (I agree that last one may be just accusation). Needless tosay the Saudi coalition completely deny all of this, and we are supposed tobelieve them like the MPs… Furthermore, I am sure the UN Human Rights Council(which Saudi is obviously not a part of...) will sort this out.


    Cameron is an Eton-educated Bullingdoner who stuck his penis in a pig's mouth... exactly how does this excuse Saudi...?
    ok you have a point for the first part, however the reason why there is a war is because the Houthi's tried overrunning the country because they didn't like the democratically elected president.

    secondly it doesn't excuse Saudi. Considering human beings as collateral damage is disgusting .... which is what I said.
    Offline

    5
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Polysexual Nymph)
    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.



    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...).
    Ah yes, I can't say I am an expert on Iranian politics so this clears up a lot. Thank you . PRSOM.

    I understand vote-rigging and corruption seems to be a massive problem in Iran and Mullahs deciding the candidates is also huge (Funny how this is similar to the US where the donor class decide the candidates), but I think even if there is one reform and 10 principalist candidate, the young population would still go for the one reform (but as you rightly say, that's in and around cities like Tehran, where the reformist won all the seats)

    The Supreme Leader is key, and I've heard he has been falling ill recently (according to certain articles). I don't wanna will ill on the man but I have no love lost...

    Although how much do people believe the media propaganda in Iran? I understand that's conservative controlled?

    Ha. you are right about Iran and revolutions... maybe Rouhani's approach to trading with western nations will drive it.... but then there is Saudi Arabia and the gulf states, I expect they'll do everything in their power to keep Iran as isolationist as possible.
    Offline

    1
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by chemting)
    I understand vote-rigging and corruption seems to be a massive problem in Iran and Mullahs deciding the candidates is also huge (Funny how this is similar to the US where the donor class decide the candidates), but I think even if there is one reform and 10 principalist candidate, the young population would still go for the one reform (but as you rightly say, that's in and around cities like Tehran, where the reformist won all the seats)
    The issue is that there 290 Parliamentary seats, but only 200 moderate candidates were approved by the Guardian Council (the body that vets the candidates) to run. And given that there are an average of 15 candidates vying for each seat, your example proves truer than you think.

    The Supreme Leader is key, and I've heard he has been falling ill recently (according to certain articles). I don't wanna will ill on the man but I have no love lost...
    If you won't say it, I will: I hope the fascist son of a ***** dies a slow and painful death. He has destroyed a beautiful civilisation and set it back decades.

    Although how much do people believe the media propaganda in Iran? I understand that's conservative controlled?
    Iran has one of the highest rates of internet penetration in the region, and most Iranians watch foreign TV and have FB. I can't say for sure, but I feel pretty confident in saying that although State TV controls the narratives, the population are proving ever more resilient to their propaganda.


    And yes, that is Conservative controlled - PressTV, for example merely peddles the establishment (SL/hardliner) line. There are major reformist papers, but their journalists do not operate under good conditions (frequently arrested to put pressure on them etc), and many reformist papers get shut down for no reason.

    Ha. you are right about Iran and revolutions... maybe Rouhani's approach to trading with western nations will drive it.... but then there is Saudi Arabia and the gulf states, I expect they'll do everything in their power to keep Iran as isolationist as possible.
    Rouhani doesn't seek a revolution, he's very much an establishment man. At the same time, he lived through the Iran-Iraq war, so he knows better than most what isolation is like, and that's why he's been fighting so hard within Iran to end its isolation.


    The Iranian people are not stupid, though. They know the regime don't represent them and are fanatical tyrants. The way I see it, the regime has two options: (i) compromise and accept gradual reforms, or (ii) give rise to another revolution (that latest attempt was in 2009, which was brutally dealt with by the regime, and ignored by the world). I lean toward the former; I think Iranians know better than most the cost of revolutions, the latter is to preferred at all costs.
    Online

    15
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by KimKallstrom)
    Not enough criticism is given towards Iran. While they're obviously not as bad as ISIS, they are a scumbag entity and everyone who supports, defends them and represents them are scumbags. Including Jeremy Corbyn, who regularly accepted money to appear on their propaganda network Press TV.

    A lot of simple-minded idiots bang on (rightly) about Saudi but refuse to condemn Iran. You can identify these people accurately in as much as they usually said jack about even Saudi until Owen Jones did and it became fashionable as they're too pussy to have opinions for themselves. There are multiple members of TSR this applies to.
    well done to those who supported the iran islamic revolution
    Offline

    1
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by HucktheForde)
    well done to those who supported the iran islamic revolution
    Why 'well done'?


    Well done for destroying the lives of an entire generation of Iranians? Well done for setting the country back decades?
    Online

    15
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Polysexual Nymph)
    Why 'well done'?


    Well done for destroying the lives of an entire generation of Iranians? Well done for setting the country back decades?
    i made 2 sarcastic remarks in this thread and twice people didnt understand it.

    fml
    Offline

    1
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by HucktheForde)
    i made 2 sarcastic remarks in this thread and twice people didnt understand it.

    fml
    Well, then I would still rebuke it somewhat.


    It is important to note that the SL seized power in 1979 by taking advantage of the hugely widespread anti-Shah sentiment that manifested in popular uprising. The Shah had brought many great things to Iran, but ruled as a dictator. The ayatollahs took advantage of the uprising by populist slogans and promises (free education/food/oil etc), and people flocked to him. However, in 1980 Iraq, under Saddam Hussein, invaded Iran and this allowed to new regime to unite the population under them and to use the invasion as an excuse to curtail liberties and crack down on dissent.


    Since the end of the war in 1988 (in which the West heavily backed Iraq, providing Iran's leaders with ammunition to use to prove how evil the West is), people have come to realise that none of the Ayatollah's promises have come to fruition, and that they have instead been left with an autocratic, Islamist, isolationist regime that is ideologically anti-Western and this has led to severe consequences for the Iranian people (1, 2).


    The lack of free and fair elections (the SL has never been subjected to a vote since the Revolution, and the Presidential/Parliamentary votes are rigged), culminated in 2009 where the Green Movement took to the streets in their hundreds of thousands protesting the blatant fraud of the 2009 elections, triggering a brutal crackdown on their protests (not too dissimilar to that of Assad in the early stages of the Civil War in Syria).


    See my recent posts on this thread to see how the population are overwhelmingly reform-minded. But, ultimately, my point is that those supporting the Revolution cannot be blamed for being misled as to its consequences today. In fact, Christopher Hitchens referred to the Islamic Revolution as the 'counter-revolution', as the revolution's original aim had been to oust the dictatorial Shah in favour of democracy, but this was *******ised by the Mullahs whom seized power and have consolidated their grip through brutal crackdowns and repression ever since.
    Offline

    5
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by HucktheForde)
    i made 2 sarcastic remarks in this thread and twice people didnt understand it.

    fml
    (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"
    I did
    Online

    15
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Polysexual Nymph)
    Well, then I would still rebuke it somewhat.


    It is important to note that the SL seized power in 1979 by taking advantage of the hugely widespread anti-Shah sentiment that manifested in popular uprising. The Shah had brought many great things to Iran, but ruled as a dictator. The ayatollahs took advantage of the uprising by populist slogans and promises (free education/food/oil etc), and people flocked to him. However, in 1980 Iraq, under Saddam Hussein, invaded Iran and this allowed to new regime to unite the population under them and to use the invasion as an excuse to curtail liberties and crack down on dissent.


    Since the end of the war in 1988 (in which the West heavily backed Iraq, providing Iran's leaders with ammunition to use to prove how evil the West is), people have come to realise that none of the Ayatollah's promises have come to fruition, and that they have instead been left with an autocratic, Islamist, isolationist regime that is ideologically anti-Western and this has led to severe consequences for the Iranian people (1, 2).


    The lack of free and fair elections (the SL has never been subjected to a vote since the Revolution, and the Presidential/Parliamentary votes are rigged), culminated in 2009 where the Green Movement took to the streets in their hundreds of thousands protesting the blatant fraud of the 2009 elections, triggering a brutal crackdown on their protests (not too dissimilar to that of Assad in the early stages of the Civil War in Syria).


    See my recent posts on this thread to see how the population are overwhelmingly reform-minded. But, ultimately, my point is that those supporting the Revolution cannot be blamed for being misled as to its consequences today. In fact, Christopher Hitchens referred to the Islamic Revolution as the 'counter-revolution', as the revolution's original aim had been to oust the dictatorial Shah in favour of democracy, but this was *******ised by the Mullahs whom seized power and have consolidated their grip through brutal crackdowns and repression ever since.

    What is this :facepalm:
    Online

    15
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by chemting)
    I did
    well done
    Offline

    1
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by HucktheForde)
    What is this :facepalm:
    An explanation as to why lamenting those whom supported the 1979 Revolution (as you did) is overly simplistic.

    But, ultimately, my point is that those supporting the Revolution cannot be blamed for being misled as to its consequences today.
    Online

    15
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Polysexual Nymph)
    An explanation as to why lamenting those whom supported the 1979 Revolution (as you did) is overly simplistic.
    Whatever mate, i just wanted to say well done.
    Offline

    1
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by HucktheForde)
    Whatever mate, i just wanted to say well done.
    I am sure there will be more intellectually-minded individuals reading this thread that can benefit from my explanation, even if you can't.
    Online

    15
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Polysexual Nymph)
    I am sure there will be more intellectually-minded individuals reading this thread that can benefit from my explanation, even if you can't.
    They have problems if they need your explanations. Thank you (not really lol)
    Offline

    1
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by HucktheForde)
    They have problems if they need your explanations. Thank you (not really lol)
    I think your immaturity, both intellectual and otherwise, is clear for all to see.
    Online

    15
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Polysexual Nymph)
    I think your immaturity, both intellectual and otherwise, is clear for all to see.
    says the guy who couldnt understand sarcasm.
 
 
 
  • 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.