8 ms·

Yeah the Shahs rule was a paradise for regular people...

sbmthakur 4y ago
Someone who opposes the current regime is automatically a supporter of Shah? This is a genuine question as I am not aware about Iran's politics.
- bogomipz 4y ago
  No, not at all. The OP's comment is a false dichotomy and an unwarranted knee jerk.
- ybinator604g3 4y ago
  > Yeah the Shahs rule was a paradise for regular people... No it's not. That's a tactic the regime used to silence any opposition for a long time after the revolution. I can't tell you how many times I have turned on the TV and heard something along these lines. Nowadays, however, they have new favorite bogeymen. Shah was a garden variety dictator backed by the United States. You can find the likes of him in today's Saudi Arabia, for example. It certainly was not paradise for regular people. But Islamic Republic on the other hand is a theocratic dictatorship. It's like an octopus that wants to wrap its tentacles around every matter of people's personal lives. From their bedroom to the women's bodies to the clothes they wear. Ironic for them, as a result, the current generation who were born after the revolution are more pro-US than ever and unfortunately are even more sympathetic to Shah than one might expect; which is not surprising. So Shah's misdeeds are no excuse for the demons who have forced themselves upon the country right now. Context: I was born and used to lived in Iran in a non-Musilm family whose members were in opposition to both Shah and the new regime alike.
  - bogomipz 4y ago
    >"Shah was a garden variety dictator backed by the United States." The support of the Shah was very much an Anglo-American concern. The coup to oust Mosaddegh was much the US as it was the the UK, Churchill and Eisenhower, MI6 and CIA.
eternalban 4y ago
Let me guess: you've never stepped foot in Iran in your life "..." https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=T4M_EJzjItk https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=T4M_EJzjItk
- sleepyhead 4y ago
  Let me guess you don't know how things were under the Shah. While the revolution obviously resulted in a much worse situation, the Shah was a dictator. https://historyofyesterday.com/the-shah-of-iran-was-not-a-saint-f8d78814f86 https://historyofyesterday.com/the-shah-of-iran-was-not-a-sa...
  - DSingularity 4y ago
    It doesn’t take much scrutinization to understand the underlying motivations of those who speak nostalgically of the rule of pro-western dictatorships. They come from families which used to profit from the theft of the colonized lands and were forced to flee (with whatever they managed to steal) once said lands were liberated. The westener who defends such rule are racists unable to grant the oriental people the right to live and organize in a manner of their choosing. It is a “the-white man’s burden” and into the “heart of darkness” brand of racism which justifies itself by painting the East as backwards. But why is the East backwards? Is it because the East does not buy up the hedonistic materialism that the West has always been peddling as “liberalism” and instead prefers its own culture? So ironic that the first intervention to claim a “public place for women” is one which paints the destruction of brothels negatively as a consequence of the religious gaining too much power. Is there any doubt that those who are claiming to be “enlightened” truly prefer a world where people in general — and women especially —remain objects of sexual desire which are used to herd people through endless cycles of aesthetically-driven consumerism?
    - barry-cotter 4y ago
      > The westener who defends such rule are racists unable to grant the oriental people the right to live and organize in a manner of their choosing. Now, now, some hold democracy in contempt generally, not just for foreigners. Others believe that people have a right to live and organise in a manner of their choosing, not that they must be governed in a manner pleasing to Westerners.
theri234234 4y ago

Someone who opposes the current regime is automatically a supporter of Shah? This is a genuine question as I am not aware about Iran's politics.

bogomipz 4y ago
No, not at all. The OP's comment is a false dichotomy and an unwarranted knee jerk.
ybinator604g3 4y ago
> Yeah the Shahs rule was a paradise for regular people... No it's not. That's a tactic the regime used to silence any opposition for a long time after the revolution. I can't tell you how many times I have turned on the TV and heard something along these lines. Nowadays, however, they have new favorite bogeymen. Shah was a garden variety dictator backed by the United States. You can find the likes of him in today's Saudi Arabia, for example. It certainly was not paradise for regular people. But Islamic Republic on the other hand is a theocratic dictatorship. It's like an octopus that wants to wrap its tentacles around every matter of people's personal lives. From their bedroom to the women's bodies to the clothes they wear. Ironic for them, as a result, the current generation who were born after the revolution are more pro-US than ever and unfortunately are even more sympathetic to Shah than one might expect; which is not surprising. So Shah's misdeeds are no excuse for the demons who have forced themselves upon the country right now. Context: I was born and used to lived in Iran in a non-Musilm family whose members were in opposition to both Shah and the new regime alike.
- bogomipz 4y ago
  >"Shah was a garden variety dictator backed by the United States." The support of the Shah was very much an Anglo-American concern. The coup to oust Mosaddegh was much the US as it was the the UK, Churchill and Eisenhower, MI6 and CIA.

eternalban 4y ago

Let me guess: you've never stepped foot in Iran in your life "..." https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=T4M_EJzjItk https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=T4M_EJzjItk

sleepyhead 4y ago
Let me guess you don't know how things were under the Shah. While the revolution obviously resulted in a much worse situation, the Shah was a dictator. https://historyofyesterday.com/the-shah-of-iran-was-not-a-saint-f8d78814f86 https://historyofyesterday.com/the-shah-of-iran-was-not-a-sa...
- DSingularity 4y ago
  It doesn’t take much scrutinization to understand the underlying motivations of those who speak nostalgically of the rule of pro-western dictatorships. They come from families which used to profit from the theft of the colonized lands and were forced to flee (with whatever they managed to steal) once said lands were liberated. The westener who defends such rule are racists unable to grant the oriental people the right to live and organize in a manner of their choosing. It is a “the-white man’s burden” and into the “heart of darkness” brand of racism which justifies itself by painting the East as backwards. But why is the East backwards? Is it because the East does not buy up the hedonistic materialism that the West has always been peddling as “liberalism” and instead prefers its own culture? So ironic that the first intervention to claim a “public place for women” is one which paints the destruction of brothels negatively as a consequence of the religious gaining too much power. Is there any doubt that those who are claiming to be “enlightened” truly prefer a world where people in general — and women especially —remain objects of sexual desire which are used to herd people through endless cycles of aesthetically-driven consumerism?
  - barry-cotter 4y ago
    > The westener who defends such rule are racists unable to grant the oriental people the right to live and organize in a manner of their choosing. Now, now, some hold democracy in contempt generally, not just for foreigners. Others believe that people have a right to live and organise in a manner of their choosing, not that they must be governed in a manner pleasing to Westerners.

theri234234 4y ago