Iran is in the throes of an unprecedented sexual revolution (2013)(foreignpolicy.com)
foreignpolicy.com
Iran is in the throes of an unprecedented sexual revolution (2013)
http://foreignpolicy.com/2013/05/29/erotic-republic/
13 comments
> When someone mentions Iran, what images leap into your mind? Ayatollahs, religious fanaticism, veiled women?
No, that's Saudi Arabia you're thinking of. You know, the "good" theocracy that's one of our biggest business partners. Despite the foreign politics a few years ago, Iran is reportedly rather moderate in practice.
No, that's Saudi Arabia you're thinking of. You know, the "good" theocracy that's one of our biggest business partners. Despite the foreign politics a few years ago, Iran is reportedly rather moderate in practice.
Isn't Iran still backing numerous terrorist organizations, including Hezbollah, while proclaiming it their goal to essentially kill everyone in Israel?
What's so moderate about having an extremely oppressive theocracy as the foundation of your political leadership? One need only look at the revolts of a few years ago and how Iran dealt with that, to see exactly how non-moderate they are in practice.
And before you jump to saying: but America does X, and Saudi does X - yes, and such things do not alter or justify the terrible things that Iran does.
What's so moderate about having an extremely oppressive theocracy as the foundation of your political leadership? One need only look at the revolts of a few years ago and how Iran dealt with that, to see exactly how non-moderate they are in practice.
And before you jump to saying: but America does X, and Saudi does X - yes, and such things do not alter or justify the terrible things that Iran does.
Islam is a bit more complex than "Iran supports Hezbollah, so they support terrorists". Look into the Sunni vs Shia split some time and then look at which organizations and countries identify with which side of that split.
Saudi Arabia is far worse than Iran. While Iran's strict theocracy is slowly falling out of favour with its population, Saudi Arabia is quite effective at perpetuating its theocracy thanks to its wealth and international relationships.
It's not just that Saudi Arabia does some bad stuff. It does the same bad stuff as Iran -- and worse -- yet we (and in this case I mean us, Germany, in particular) sell weapons and military equipment to the Saudis and buy their oil while sanctioning Iran.
I'm an atheist, so I'm strictly opposed to any form of religious influence on politics (be it Muslim, Christian or Jewish). But you have to acknowledge that Iran is taking a turn towards the better while Saudi Arabia sits comfortably in a Bronze Age form of government and legal system (with full access to the Post-Space Age technology we are selling them).
Saudi Arabia is far worse than Iran. While Iran's strict theocracy is slowly falling out of favour with its population, Saudi Arabia is quite effective at perpetuating its theocracy thanks to its wealth and international relationships.
It's not just that Saudi Arabia does some bad stuff. It does the same bad stuff as Iran -- and worse -- yet we (and in this case I mean us, Germany, in particular) sell weapons and military equipment to the Saudis and buy their oil while sanctioning Iran.
I'm an atheist, so I'm strictly opposed to any form of religious influence on politics (be it Muslim, Christian or Jewish). But you have to acknowledge that Iran is taking a turn towards the better while Saudi Arabia sits comfortably in a Bronze Age form of government and legal system (with full access to the Post-Space Age technology we are selling them).
No, if you support a terrorist organization, then you support terrorists.
I said nothing about Islam. Supporting terrorists has nothing to do with Islam. Iran supporting Hezbollah has to do with Iran supporting terrorists.
I never said Saudi or Iran were worse. That has absolutely nothing to do with what I said. This isn't an argument over what the worst country on earth is.
My point was: Iran is an oppressive theocracy that directly finances terrorism. They are, very blatantly. And if Saudi is worse, that does not mean Iran isn't still an oppressive theocracy.
I said nothing about Islam. Supporting terrorists has nothing to do with Islam. Iran supporting Hezbollah has to do with Iran supporting terrorists.
I never said Saudi or Iran were worse. That has absolutely nothing to do with what I said. This isn't an argument over what the worst country on earth is.
My point was: Iran is an oppressive theocracy that directly finances terrorism. They are, very blatantly. And if Saudi is worse, that does not mean Iran isn't still an oppressive theocracy.
I'm not really disagreeing then, I'm just failing to see your point.
Iran is an oppressive theocracy. Saudi Arabia is an oppressive theocracy. Both of them support people/groups we would call terrorists. The only regard in which Iran is somehow worse than Saudi Arabia is that they have a more outspoken hate of Israel while the Saudis are clever enough to avoid speaking too badly about a country in their region that is a close ally to the countries they're so good at doing business with.
One country being worse than another doesn't make the other country any better. I'm not saying Iran is moderate. It's just a heck of a lot more moderate (in practice) than Saudi Arabia, a country that televises PSAs that women shouldn't drive and that you better don't skip on any of your prayers throughout the day because God will literally kill you if you do that.
Iran is an oppressive theocracy. Saudi Arabia is an oppressive theocracy. Both of them support people/groups we would call terrorists. The only regard in which Iran is somehow worse than Saudi Arabia is that they have a more outspoken hate of Israel while the Saudis are clever enough to avoid speaking too badly about a country in their region that is a close ally to the countries they're so good at doing business with.
One country being worse than another doesn't make the other country any better. I'm not saying Iran is moderate. It's just a heck of a lot more moderate (in practice) than Saudi Arabia, a country that televises PSAs that women shouldn't drive and that you better don't skip on any of your prayers throughout the day because God will literally kill you if you do that.
Here is my point, the parent I initially replied to said this:
"Despite the foreign politics a few years ago, Iran is reportedly rather moderate in practice."
I disagreed. There is nothing moderate about Iran's oppressive theocracy or their support of terrorism. Iran is at the extreme far end of the scale when it comes to not being moderate, among countries.
"Despite the foreign politics a few years ago, Iran is reportedly rather moderate in practice."
I disagreed. There is nothing moderate about Iran's oppressive theocracy or their support of terrorism. Iran is at the extreme far end of the scale when it comes to not being moderate, among countries.
The only construable "turn towards the better" in Iran is that the dictator allowed Rouhani to act as figurehead President, which is meaningless. The dictator is still the dictator, Rouhani is an old hand from the inner circle, and he says exactly what was said before. Now people are suffering under economic sanctions and the wonderful peacemaking Rouhani is still stalling on a nuclear deal years later. By the way, nothing ever happened to rectify 2009, and they keep kidnapping Persians to put in Evin. Rouhani is proud of Evin just like the rest.
Just two details:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hijackers_in_the_September_11_a...
"The hijackers in the September 11 attacks were 19 men affiliated with al-Qaeda, and 15 of the 19 were citizens of Saudi Arabia."
http://www.economist.com/news/international/21640325-interna...
"THE Middle East is a black spot for free speech. Its countries come near the bottom in rankings of press freedom, and most criminalise blasphemy and apostasy (renouncing Islam). But even by such dismal standards, Saudi Arabia stands out. Penalties for transgressing its religious and political strictures, even in word, include hefty fines and jail sentences, beatings and beheadings. Human Rights Watch, a monitoring group, notes a surge in executions since August. By some counts at least ten people have been put to death so far this year."
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hijackers_in_the_September_11_a...
"The hijackers in the September 11 attacks were 19 men affiliated with al-Qaeda, and 15 of the 19 were citizens of Saudi Arabia."
http://www.economist.com/news/international/21640325-interna...
"THE Middle East is a black spot for free speech. Its countries come near the bottom in rankings of press freedom, and most criminalise blasphemy and apostasy (renouncing Islam). But even by such dismal standards, Saudi Arabia stands out. Penalties for transgressing its religious and political strictures, even in word, include hefty fines and jail sentences, beatings and beheadings. Human Rights Watch, a monitoring group, notes a surge in executions since August. By some counts at least ten people have been put to death so far this year."
Some Saudi hijackers aren't an aspect of Saudi policy, they're just a reflection of the US' lack of popularity in the entire region. There are so many kinds of people working with al-Qaeda, all different nationalities. Reassigning responsibility for 9/11 to the whole nation of Saudi Arabia is the worst kind of prejudicial ignorance.
Fundamentally, the rulers of Saudi Arabia are willing to play ball with the US and have a certain reliability. That really matters a lot, from the standpoint of US policy. If the US foreign policy is not completely insane, reliability in not attacking us should count for a lot.
It isn't the same topic as how quickly we can force them to internalize our values to satisfy aimless cultural imperialism. Saudi society is not a modern democratic society and forcible external intervention is not going to help it get better. It will have to get better on its own timetable. If you think that it was bad to remove Saddam and Gadaffi, you should renounce this nasty implication that we should attack the House of Saud, you can't imagine the consequence of that, it's totally irresponsible to suggest.
If you are going to talk about Iran, talk about Iran, don't change the subject to the Saudis.
Fundamentally, the rulers of Saudi Arabia are willing to play ball with the US and have a certain reliability. That really matters a lot, from the standpoint of US policy. If the US foreign policy is not completely insane, reliability in not attacking us should count for a lot.
It isn't the same topic as how quickly we can force them to internalize our values to satisfy aimless cultural imperialism. Saudi society is not a modern democratic society and forcible external intervention is not going to help it get better. It will have to get better on its own timetable. If you think that it was bad to remove Saddam and Gadaffi, you should renounce this nasty implication that we should attack the House of Saud, you can't imagine the consequence of that, it's totally irresponsible to suggest.
If you are going to talk about Iran, talk about Iran, don't change the subject to the Saudis.
I'm not an expert but quoting Reza Aslan who's really quite a moderate scholarly type:
“There’s no question that there has been a virus that has spread throughout the Muslim world, a virus of ultra-orthodox puritanism.”
“But there’s also no question what the source of this virus is — whether we’re talking about Boko Haram, or ISIS, or al-Qaida, or the Taliban. All of them have as their source Wahhabism, or the state religion of Saudi Arabia.”
“And as we all know, Saudi Arabia has spent over $100 billion in the past 20 or 30 years spreading this ideology throughout the world.”
Not saying we should bomb the Saudis but we might encourage them to stop spending billions on promoting extremist Islam.
http://www.inquisitr.com/1746607/reza-aslan-links-saudi-arab...
“There’s no question that there has been a virus that has spread throughout the Muslim world, a virus of ultra-orthodox puritanism.”
“But there’s also no question what the source of this virus is — whether we’re talking about Boko Haram, or ISIS, or al-Qaida, or the Taliban. All of them have as their source Wahhabism, or the state religion of Saudi Arabia.”
“And as we all know, Saudi Arabia has spent over $100 billion in the past 20 or 30 years spreading this ideology throughout the world.”
Not saying we should bomb the Saudis but we might encourage them to stop spending billions on promoting extremist Islam.
http://www.inquisitr.com/1746607/reza-aslan-links-saudi-arab...
You post that like I wouldn't know about the Saudi hijackers.
What does that have to do with Iran? I even attempted to put a stop to such replies at the bottom of my post.
Because Saudi does X, that does not relieve Iran from what they do, or the religious based oppression they enslave their people under.
What does that have to do with Iran? I even attempted to put a stop to such replies at the bottom of my post.
Because Saudi does X, that does not relieve Iran from what they do, or the religious based oppression they enslave their people under.
I see you quote that Iranian government is against Israel, that is indisputable. pluma started the subject of Saudis being even worse than Iran but covered completely differently by the US media, which I think is also indisputable.
Saudis beatings and beheadings news are easy to find and they are the very clear examples of religious oppression they enslave their people under. Can you quote the same acts of Iranians to their people?
Saudis beatings and beheadings news are easy to find and they are the very clear examples of religious oppression they enslave their people under. Can you quote the same acts of Iranians to their people?
When did I say anything about Saudi being worse or better than Iran? When did I deny anything that Saudi does?
You're failing on logical separation of discussion.
Because I say X, does not mean I agree with or deny or support Z.
I've even tried to specifically note this, so that I wouldn't get endless replies about how Saudi Arabia is worse than Iran.
You're failing on logical separation of discussion.
Because I say X, does not mean I agree with or deny or support Z.
I've even tried to specifically note this, so that I wouldn't get endless replies about how Saudi Arabia is worse than Iran.
The problem is that that way that's still ignoring and trying to obscure the fact that Saudis are definitely the ones that should be mentioned first as the problematic ones, exactly what the top comment wanted to bring to the attention.
It's the actions that should be criticised, no matter who does them. They shouldn't be a trigger to target only those who aren't "ours."
It's the actions that should be criticised, no matter who does them. They shouldn't be a trigger to target only those who aren't "ours."
If I discuss one country, I don't need to discuss every country - and that's not even remotely practical anyway. By failing to discuss every country, that doesn't invalidate my ability to discuss one country.
It's also not necessary to discuss human rights violations in Myanmar, in order to discuss Saudi Arabia or Iran. I would be very surprised if a lot of people here are lacking in understanding about Saudi Arabia.
The sole reason I entered the discussion on Iran, is because the parent I replied to claimed Iran was in some form moderate. Iran is the exact opposite of moderate, even if Saudi Arabia is worse.
It's also not necessary to discuss human rights violations in Myanmar, in order to discuss Saudi Arabia or Iran. I would be very surprised if a lot of people here are lacking in understanding about Saudi Arabia.
The sole reason I entered the discussion on Iran, is because the parent I replied to claimed Iran was in some form moderate. Iran is the exact opposite of moderate, even if Saudi Arabia is worse.
Of course it's no real controversy that the Islamic Republic is radical, it is a Revolution which always had radical aims and its power has always been founded on violence.
Bearing in mind that Hezbollah is a terrorist group according to the US State Department because it is engaged in military conflict with Israel, the Islamic Republic has many reasons to maintain its patronage of Hezbollah, most of which relate to Hezbollah's ability to make war whether or not we consider that terrorist.
Iranian national interest is not to try to cozy up to the US or Israel. Iranians legitimately fear reprises of the traumatic Iran-Iraq war. They have defense interests in the region. The US is not offering to defend Iran. The US can't defend anyone in the region even if it wanted to - look at what happened to poor Georgia and now Ukraine, which are not even majority Muslim countries. So we are asking Iran to cut off Hezbollah, but not replace it - there are no established alternatives. Who can offer them reliable allegiance, the bones of PLO?
The political class needs to maintain popular focus on external enemies to maintain the internal cohesion of Iran itself in spite of relatively brutal restrictions enforced with secret police and gulags. They need to feed their religious base, after all their whole legitimacy is based on religion. They also need concessions to Iranian nationalists who like to see Iran being a regional power. It also buys a certain amount of goodwill in the Ummah to make noise about helping Palestine fight Israel. When the majority of the Ummah is Sunni and a very large and important segment is Arab, that kind of goodwill is a little harder to buy for a Shiite theocracy dominated by ethnic Persians. Anyway, Iran is so entrenched in its proxy war with Israel that it can't really back out. So it needs Hezbollah.
If you are worried for Israel and you want Iran's threat to Israel to end, then Israel has to make good with Palestine with significant concessions, and then the Islamic Republic's position will be correspondingly eroded. Unfortunately it looks like Israel's political class has become dominated by an intransigent ultranationalist wing which decided to intentionally and permanently cut off any possible basis for conciliation by fragmenting any possible territory into a completely indivisible foam, which ultimately just feeds the Islamic Republic.
Bearing in mind that Hezbollah is a terrorist group according to the US State Department because it is engaged in military conflict with Israel, the Islamic Republic has many reasons to maintain its patronage of Hezbollah, most of which relate to Hezbollah's ability to make war whether or not we consider that terrorist.
Iranian national interest is not to try to cozy up to the US or Israel. Iranians legitimately fear reprises of the traumatic Iran-Iraq war. They have defense interests in the region. The US is not offering to defend Iran. The US can't defend anyone in the region even if it wanted to - look at what happened to poor Georgia and now Ukraine, which are not even majority Muslim countries. So we are asking Iran to cut off Hezbollah, but not replace it - there are no established alternatives. Who can offer them reliable allegiance, the bones of PLO?
The political class needs to maintain popular focus on external enemies to maintain the internal cohesion of Iran itself in spite of relatively brutal restrictions enforced with secret police and gulags. They need to feed their religious base, after all their whole legitimacy is based on religion. They also need concessions to Iranian nationalists who like to see Iran being a regional power. It also buys a certain amount of goodwill in the Ummah to make noise about helping Palestine fight Israel. When the majority of the Ummah is Sunni and a very large and important segment is Arab, that kind of goodwill is a little harder to buy for a Shiite theocracy dominated by ethnic Persians. Anyway, Iran is so entrenched in its proxy war with Israel that it can't really back out. So it needs Hezbollah.
If you are worried for Israel and you want Iran's threat to Israel to end, then Israel has to make good with Palestine with significant concessions, and then the Islamic Republic's position will be correspondingly eroded. Unfortunately it looks like Israel's political class has become dominated by an intransigent ultranationalist wing which decided to intentionally and permanently cut off any possible basis for conciliation by fragmenting any possible territory into a completely indivisible foam, which ultimately just feeds the Islamic Republic.
>Isn't Iran still backing numerous terrorist organizations, including Hezbolla
source?
>while proclaiming it their goal to essentially kill everyone in Israel?
source?
source?
>while proclaiming it their goal to essentially kill everyone in Israel?
source?
"Iranian Official Calls to 'Wipe Out the Zionist Regime'"
http://www.israelnationalnews.com/News/News.aspx/190543
"A chillingly detailed guide to "the proper way of eliminating Israel" – tweeted out by Iranian leader Ayatollah Ali Khamenei – is threatening to throw nuclear talks with Tehran into chaos" http://www.newsmax.com/Newsfront/ayatollah-ali-khamenei-twit...
"Israel should be wiped off map, says Iran's president" http://www.theguardian.com/world/2005/oct/27/israel.iran
Re Hezbollah
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hezbollah
"Lebanon's Hezbollah leader Sayyed Hassan Nasrallah acknowledged Tuesday for the first time that his militant movement received financial and material support from Iran, but denied it took instructions from the Islamic Republic."
http://www.reuters.com/article/2012/02/07/us-lebanon-hezboll...
http://www.haaretz.com/news/diplomacy-defense/.premium-1.637...
http://news.nationalpost.com/2013/10/24/hezbollah-ready-to-d...
http://www.jewishvirtuallibrary.org/jsource/Terrorism/hizbol...
"A chillingly detailed guide to "the proper way of eliminating Israel" – tweeted out by Iranian leader Ayatollah Ali Khamenei – is threatening to throw nuclear talks with Tehran into chaos" http://www.newsmax.com/Newsfront/ayatollah-ali-khamenei-twit...
"Israel should be wiped off map, says Iran's president" http://www.theguardian.com/world/2005/oct/27/israel.iran
Re Hezbollah
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hezbollah
"Lebanon's Hezbollah leader Sayyed Hassan Nasrallah acknowledged Tuesday for the first time that his militant movement received financial and material support from Iran, but denied it took instructions from the Islamic Republic."
http://www.reuters.com/article/2012/02/07/us-lebanon-hezboll...
http://www.haaretz.com/news/diplomacy-defense/.premium-1.637...
http://news.nationalpost.com/2013/10/24/hezbollah-ready-to-d...
http://www.jewishvirtuallibrary.org/jsource/Terrorism/hizbol...
Two points:
1. The twitter account does not really belong to Khamenei. There is no mention of it on his official website and no blue check-mark.
2. We all hate Ahmedinejad. He did a lot of things that ranged from awful, like destroying our economy, to stupid, like eliminating daylight saving time one year only to bring it back the next year, or merging two universities in the course of a week and changing his mind about it several months later.
In addition to being stupid in his actions, he was stupid about what he said. You can say he had a bit of a faux pas problem, like a certain current US politician, but much worth. For example, after his first speech in UN general assembly, he was caught on tape saying that "I felt an aurora of light engulfing me as I gave my speech", apparently mistaking the spotlight with something more supernatural. For the whole 8 years, he was a living, talking, (and unfortunately) governing joke. We learned not to take a single word out of his mouth seriously early in his term.
Quoting him regarding Iran's foreign policy is some sort of out-of-context quote or selection bias. He said a lot of stupid things. Don't take him seriously.
1. The twitter account does not really belong to Khamenei. There is no mention of it on his official website and no blue check-mark.
2. We all hate Ahmedinejad. He did a lot of things that ranged from awful, like destroying our economy, to stupid, like eliminating daylight saving time one year only to bring it back the next year, or merging two universities in the course of a week and changing his mind about it several months later.
In addition to being stupid in his actions, he was stupid about what he said. You can say he had a bit of a faux pas problem, like a certain current US politician, but much worth. For example, after his first speech in UN general assembly, he was caught on tape saying that "I felt an aurora of light engulfing me as I gave my speech", apparently mistaking the spotlight with something more supernatural. For the whole 8 years, he was a living, talking, (and unfortunately) governing joke. We learned not to take a single word out of his mouth seriously early in his term.
Quoting him regarding Iran's foreign policy is some sort of out-of-context quote or selection bias. He said a lot of stupid things. Don't take him seriously.
The Twitter account is a direct mouth piece for Khamenei.
It's five years old, has almost 100k followers, Iran has never denied its legitimacy, and pretty much every major news outlet refers to it as being legitimate. It's beyond obvious that it is theirs.
"The unverified Twitter account, widely accepted as the mouthpiece of the Ayatollah's social media campaign, often posts diatribes against the West and Israel to its more than 91,000 followers."
http://www.cnn.com/2014/12/29/world/meast/ayatollah-tweet-ab...
http://www.theguardian.com/world/2014/dec/28/ayatollah-ali-k...
It's five years old, has almost 100k followers, Iran has never denied its legitimacy, and pretty much every major news outlet refers to it as being legitimate. It's beyond obvious that it is theirs.
"The unverified Twitter account, widely accepted as the mouthpiece of the Ayatollah's social media campaign, often posts diatribes against the West and Israel to its more than 91,000 followers."
http://www.cnn.com/2014/12/29/world/meast/ayatollah-tweet-ab...
http://www.theguardian.com/world/2014/dec/28/ayatollah-ali-k...
No reason to hate Ahmedinejad more than the rest of the masks that Khamenei puts over his face. Mismanaging universities is a fine old tradition of the Revolution.
None of your sources demonstrate a "goal to essentially kill everyone in Israel". In particular the "wiped off the map" Ahmadinejad quote has long been proven a mistranslation and yet is still pushed by the warmongers years after the fact.
You stated (in rhetorical question form) that "Iran [is] still backing numerous terrorist organizations", yet your links only refer to Hezbollah. Where are the "numerous" organizations?
Also it is pretty disingenuous to dismiss anything done by other countries. Hezbollah? They're small potatoes compared to the greatest terrorist organizations on earth, namely western militaries. If Hezbollah has killed 1000s the militaries of the west have easily killed 100x that.
You stated (in rhetorical question form) that "Iran [is] still backing numerous terrorist organizations", yet your links only refer to Hezbollah. Where are the "numerous" organizations?
Also it is pretty disingenuous to dismiss anything done by other countries. Hezbollah? They're small potatoes compared to the greatest terrorist organizations on earth, namely western militaries. If Hezbollah has killed 1000s the militaries of the west have easily killed 100x that.
FWIW, it's safe to say that (like many countries in that part of the world), Iran isn't particularly fond of Israel still being around.
I think it's safe to say that it's no coincidence that Saudi Arabia is treated favourably by us ("the West") than Iran, when Saudi Arabia generally doesn't object to whatever Israel does while Iran would prefer to see it gone.
Also, while we're talking theocracies: Iran (and Hezbollah) is a Shia while Saudi Arabia (and various groups we like to think of as terrorist organizations) is Sunni. Shia and Sunni generally don't get along very well and Saudi Arabia hates Iran's guts.
But googling for "Iran Saudi Arabia" I just noticed the Guardian went ahead and saved me the trouble of spelling this out any further: http://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2015/jan/28/iran-sa...
I think it's safe to say that it's no coincidence that Saudi Arabia is treated favourably by us ("the West") than Iran, when Saudi Arabia generally doesn't object to whatever Israel does while Iran would prefer to see it gone.
Also, while we're talking theocracies: Iran (and Hezbollah) is a Shia while Saudi Arabia (and various groups we like to think of as terrorist organizations) is Sunni. Shia and Sunni generally don't get along very well and Saudi Arabia hates Iran's guts.
But googling for "Iran Saudi Arabia" I just noticed the Guardian went ahead and saved me the trouble of spelling this out any further: http://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2015/jan/28/iran-sa...
Eliminating the "Zionist regime" would require destroying Israel. What do you suggest Iran's plan for doing that is, other than killing vast numbers of Israelis?
When did I dismiss anything done by other countries? I didn't. You're not only misquoting me, but failing like so many others in this thread when it comes to logical separation. Because I say X, does not mean I also say Z or agree with Z or deny Z - if I say Iran is an oppressive theocracy, that does not mean I claim that Napoleon didn't do terrible things while invading Russia.
Iran supports lots of terrorist organizations. They backed and financed terrorism against US targets in Iraq as one obvious example, but they're active all around the world and have been implicated in supporting terrorism in numerous countries.
http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2013/may/30/feds-say-ira...
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Iran_and_state-sponsored_terror...
"In July 2012, The Times of India reported that New Delhi police have concluded that terrorists belonging to a branch of Iran’s military, the Iranian Revolutionary Guards, were responsible for an attack on 13 February 2012, during which a bomb explosion targeted an Israeli diplomat in New Delhi, India, wounding one embassy staff member, a local employee, and two passers-by. According to the report, the Iranian Revolutionary Guards may have planned other attacks on Israeli targets around the world as well"
"Iran supplies political support and weapons to Hamas,[14] an organization classified by Israel, the United States, Canada, the European Union and Japan as a terrorist organization."
"Iranian proxies killed an estimated 1,100 US troops in Iraq.[35] In addition, insurgents supported by Iran reportedly committed acts of terrorism"
"Aggrey Adoli, Kenya's police chief in Kenya's coastal region, said on 22 June 2012 that two Iranians, Ahmad Abolfathi Mohammad and Sayed Mansour Mousavi, believed to members of Iran's Revolutionary Guards' Quds Force,[39] were arrested and suspected of being involved in terrorism."
http://www.cfr.org/iran/state-sponsors-iran/p9362
http://www.brookings.edu/blogs/markaz/posts/2013/11/21-iran-...
http://www.state.gov/j/ct/rls/crt/2012/209978.htm
https://www.washingtoninstitute.org/html/pdf/Iran-Testimony-...
When did I dismiss anything done by other countries? I didn't. You're not only misquoting me, but failing like so many others in this thread when it comes to logical separation. Because I say X, does not mean I also say Z or agree with Z or deny Z - if I say Iran is an oppressive theocracy, that does not mean I claim that Napoleon didn't do terrible things while invading Russia.
Iran supports lots of terrorist organizations. They backed and financed terrorism against US targets in Iraq as one obvious example, but they're active all around the world and have been implicated in supporting terrorism in numerous countries.
http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2013/may/30/feds-say-ira...
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Iran_and_state-sponsored_terror...
"In July 2012, The Times of India reported that New Delhi police have concluded that terrorists belonging to a branch of Iran’s military, the Iranian Revolutionary Guards, were responsible for an attack on 13 February 2012, during which a bomb explosion targeted an Israeli diplomat in New Delhi, India, wounding one embassy staff member, a local employee, and two passers-by. According to the report, the Iranian Revolutionary Guards may have planned other attacks on Israeli targets around the world as well"
"Iran supplies political support and weapons to Hamas,[14] an organization classified by Israel, the United States, Canada, the European Union and Japan as a terrorist organization."
"Iranian proxies killed an estimated 1,100 US troops in Iraq.[35] In addition, insurgents supported by Iran reportedly committed acts of terrorism"
"Aggrey Adoli, Kenya's police chief in Kenya's coastal region, said on 22 June 2012 that two Iranians, Ahmad Abolfathi Mohammad and Sayed Mansour Mousavi, believed to members of Iran's Revolutionary Guards' Quds Force,[39] were arrested and suspected of being involved in terrorism."
http://www.cfr.org/iran/state-sponsors-iran/p9362
http://www.brookings.edu/blogs/markaz/posts/2013/11/21-iran-...
http://www.state.gov/j/ct/rls/crt/2012/209978.htm
https://www.washingtoninstitute.org/html/pdf/Iran-Testimony-...
>Eliminating the "Zionist regime" would require destroying Israel
No it doesn't. A "regime" is a synonym for a government. Ironically your previous link to Khomeini's plan for getting rid of the "Zionist regime", refutes your point. (The interesting part about that article is if you read the "controversial" document, it really is, more or less, pretty mild. In contrast you read Netanyahu's comments about the document and you'd think it was Mein Kampf)
As for all the talk of "terrorism" the word is so politically charged as to make it almost worthless. All your links to "terrorist" activities are, as I said previously, small potatoes. Israel uses "terrorist" tactics against Iran, Iran uses "terrorist" tactics back. U.S. uses "terrorist" tactics against Iran, Iran uses "terrorist" tactics back. I'm not sure what else you would expect.
And suppose they were funding the most egregious "terrorist" organization in the world, what's your point? What does that have anything to do with the article? Don't the poor serfs get enough of the war mongering propaganda through the myriad of other channels? Do you really need to echo it here?
No it doesn't. A "regime" is a synonym for a government. Ironically your previous link to Khomeini's plan for getting rid of the "Zionist regime", refutes your point. (The interesting part about that article is if you read the "controversial" document, it really is, more or less, pretty mild. In contrast you read Netanyahu's comments about the document and you'd think it was Mein Kampf)
As for all the talk of "terrorism" the word is so politically charged as to make it almost worthless. All your links to "terrorist" activities are, as I said previously, small potatoes. Israel uses "terrorist" tactics against Iran, Iran uses "terrorist" tactics back. U.S. uses "terrorist" tactics against Iran, Iran uses "terrorist" tactics back. I'm not sure what else you would expect.
And suppose they were funding the most egregious "terrorist" organization in the world, what's your point? What does that have anything to do with the article? Don't the poor serfs get enough of the war mongering propaganda through the myriad of other channels? Do you really need to echo it here?
Eliminating the government of Israel would require destroying the country of Israel, which would very obviously require killing vast numbers of Israeli citizens.
Feel free to now explain how Iran would wipe out Israel's government, while not killing huge numbers of Israelis.
I don't regard any terrorism as small potatoes, no matter who does it. I think it's unfortunate you hold such a view.
What's my point? My point was obvious: I replied to a parent comment that claimed Iran was moderate. Iran is the exact opposite of moderate, they're an oppressive theocracy that supports terrorism globally. And they're regarded by pretty much every first world country as being a leading State sponsor of terrorism.
Feel free to now explain how Iran would wipe out Israel's government, while not killing huge numbers of Israelis.
I don't regard any terrorism as small potatoes, no matter who does it. I think it's unfortunate you hold such a view.
What's my point? My point was obvious: I replied to a parent comment that claimed Iran was moderate. Iran is the exact opposite of moderate, they're an oppressive theocracy that supports terrorism globally. And they're regarded by pretty much every first world country as being a leading State sponsor of terrorism.
>Eliminating the government of Israel would require destroying the country of Israel, which would very obviously require killing vast numbers of Israeli citizens.
>Feel free to now explain how Iran would wipe out Israel's government, while not killing huge numbers of Israelis.
Because no government in the entire history of the world has ever fallen without the extinction of its citizens. /s
Perhaps if you read the Khomeini document you referenced you could answer your own question.
>I don't regard any terrorism as small potatoes, no matter who does it. I think it's unfortunate you hold such a view.
The "small potatoes" comment is one of comparison, not of acceptance.
>What's my point? My point was obvious: I replied to a parent comment that claimed Iran was moderate. Iran is the exact opposite of moderate, they're an oppressive theocracy that supports terrorism globally. And they're regarded by pretty much every first world country as being a leading State sponsor of terrorism.
The term "moderate" is a term of comparison. So despite your disingenuous claims of "logical separation", in order to make a judgement call of whether Iran is "moderate" it must be compared to other countries. Hence my "small potatoes" comment. If Iran's "terrorism" makes it the "exact opposite of moderate" then many of the first world countries you refer to must be off the spectrum.
>Feel free to now explain how Iran would wipe out Israel's government, while not killing huge numbers of Israelis.
Because no government in the entire history of the world has ever fallen without the extinction of its citizens. /s
Perhaps if you read the Khomeini document you referenced you could answer your own question.
>I don't regard any terrorism as small potatoes, no matter who does it. I think it's unfortunate you hold such a view.
The "small potatoes" comment is one of comparison, not of acceptance.
>What's my point? My point was obvious: I replied to a parent comment that claimed Iran was moderate. Iran is the exact opposite of moderate, they're an oppressive theocracy that supports terrorism globally. And they're regarded by pretty much every first world country as being a leading State sponsor of terrorism.
The term "moderate" is a term of comparison. So despite your disingenuous claims of "logical separation", in order to make a judgement call of whether Iran is "moderate" it must be compared to other countries. Hence my "small potatoes" comment. If Iran's "terrorism" makes it the "exact opposite of moderate" then many of the first world countries you refer to must be off the spectrum.
Moved. (Previously HN was not letting me reply to your deeper comment)
I remember seeing plenty of pictures of Iran in ~1960 that looked like the us in the 60's. So, plenty of people living in Iran recall a much more liberal time period.
ex: http://izismile.com/2014/02/26/a_look_at_life_in_iran_during...
I suspect the current regime is in many ways a backlash in the first place.
ex: http://izismile.com/2014/02/26/a_look_at_life_in_iran_during...
I suspect the current regime is in many ways a backlash in the first place.
Iran is only a very "young" country (by which I mean lots of young people) while at the same time the ruling class seem to be mainly the older people. So I wouldn't be surprised if there is a very big disconnect between the rulings of the state and the desires of the general populace.
For Dutch people the VPRO documentary "Onze Man In Teheran"[0] (Our Man In Teheran) might be interesting. It's a documentary about a Dutch reporter that married to an Iranian woman and emigrated to Iran.
---
[0] http://www.vpro.nl/programmas/onze-man-in-teheran/onze-man.h...
For Dutch people the VPRO documentary "Onze Man In Teheran"[0] (Our Man In Teheran) might be interesting. It's a documentary about a Dutch reporter that married to an Iranian woman and emigrated to Iran.
---
[0] http://www.vpro.nl/programmas/onze-man-in-teheran/onze-man.h...
There's a big difference between Tehran and the rest of the country though. I wonder how much of what is said in the article is true in a city like Esfahan, for example. In fact, there's even a big difference between the North and the South of Tehran itself.
Definitely! I don't think these cultural freedoms will have reached Qom, for example...
I'd recommend anyone to visit Iran and explore the country. It's not all ayatollahs, you know...
I'd recommend anyone to visit Iran and explore the country. It's not all ayatollahs, you know...
"The cure for poverty has a name, in fact: it's called the empowerment of women. If you give women some control over the rate at which they reproduce, if you give them some say, take them off the animal cycle of reproduction to which nature and some doctrine - religious doctrine condemns them, and then if you'll throw in a handful of seeds perhaps and some credit, the floor of everything in that village, not just poverty, but education, health, and optimism will increase. It doesn't matter; try it in Bangladesh, try it in Bolivia, it works - works all the time. Name me one religion that stands for that, or ever has. Wherever you look in the world and you try to remove the shackles of ignorance and disease stupidity from women, it is invariably the clericy that stands in the way." — Christopher Hitchens
When someone mentions Iran, what images leap into your mind? Ayatollahs, religious fanaticism, veiled women?
Having been friends for a time with an Iranian, the thing I think of is politeness: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Taarof
The second thing I think of is that Farsi is a genderless language: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gender_neutrality_in_genderless...
I knew this person well and I learned that Persian culture, unlike American culture, has concepts for sucking up to female authority figures as well as male. The expressions I learned were pretty sexually explicit and I don't know if I remember them well. But I was very struck by the fact that the culture had egalitarian qualities my own culture lacks. For me, it was a growth experience and provided much needed mental models for my own life.
No culture is a monolith. The modern government in Iran is being transposed over a culture that is thousands of years old. It is a rich culture and has many fine qualities.
Having been friends for a time with an Iranian, the thing I think of is politeness: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Taarof
The second thing I think of is that Farsi is a genderless language: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gender_neutrality_in_genderless...
I knew this person well and I learned that Persian culture, unlike American culture, has concepts for sucking up to female authority figures as well as male. The expressions I learned were pretty sexually explicit and I don't know if I remember them well. But I was very struck by the fact that the culture had egalitarian qualities my own culture lacks. For me, it was a growth experience and provided much needed mental models for my own life.
No culture is a monolith. The modern government in Iran is being transposed over a culture that is thousands of years old. It is a rich culture and has many fine qualities.
Coincidentally, I recently meet a group of 5 Iranian women (all here on student visas) while at happy hour in Miami. When I asked if there was any comparable night life in Iran, I was informed that in Iran nightclubs where men and women to commingle are non-existent and more generally women may not consume alcohol. There is a thriving underground scene of house parties where young men and women interact (and drink socially), but these too are illegal gatherings that are often broken up and lead to multiple arrests.
>Declining birth rates, for example, signal a wider acceptance of contraceptives and other forms of family planning
I would theorize the declining birth rates is not a signal of a wider sexual revolution, including, the adoption of contraceptives, rather a signal that State suppression of socializing of the sexes is succeeding. This would probably also account for the increase in average age of getting married.
>Declining birth rates, for example, signal a wider acceptance of contraceptives and other forms of family planning
I would theorize the declining birth rates is not a signal of a wider sexual revolution, including, the adoption of contraceptives, rather a signal that State suppression of socializing of the sexes is succeeding. This would probably also account for the increase in average age of getting married.
> declining birth rates ... suppression of socializing of the sexes
I can see why you would think that, but it's actually the opposite. The sexes do not need to socialize to have children - instead they marry.
It's really the other way around: Once you have contraception, you can have socialization, and a low birth rate. So easy socialization is an indicator, not a cause.
I can see why you would think that, but it's actually the opposite. The sexes do not need to socialize to have children - instead they marry.
It's really the other way around: Once you have contraception, you can have socialization, and a low birth rate. So easy socialization is an indicator, not a cause.
"I would theorize the declining birth rates is not a signal of a wider sexual revolution, including, the adoption of contraceptives, rather a signal that State suppression of socializing of the sexes is succeeding. This would probably also account for the increase in average age of getting married."
That conclusion does not follow. The US for example saw a substantial decline in its birth rate over 40-50 years, and it was not due to State suppression of sexuality or socializing. In fact the exact opposite occurred, sexuality was drastically liberalized in the 1960s and 1970s. Women acquired a lot more freedom when it came to divorce, joining the work-force, contraception, and abortion. Divorce rates climbed substantially. I suspect many countries in Europe saw the exact same general trend line as the US during that time.
That conclusion does not follow. The US for example saw a substantial decline in its birth rate over 40-50 years, and it was not due to State suppression of sexuality or socializing. In fact the exact opposite occurred, sexuality was drastically liberalized in the 1960s and 1970s. Women acquired a lot more freedom when it came to divorce, joining the work-force, contraception, and abortion. Divorce rates climbed substantially. I suspect many countries in Europe saw the exact same general trend line as the US during that time.
Errr... a high birth rate is usually due to women having multiple children. i.e. they are married.
Also, people marrying late is not usually due to 'suppression of socializing of the sexes'... in western countries the opposite effect has been seen. If I were to follow the logic of your argument then we should expect western countries where teenagers mingle freely to have people marrying early... that is clearly not the case.
Also, people marrying late is not usually due to 'suppression of socializing of the sexes'... in western countries the opposite effect has been seen. If I were to follow the logic of your argument then we should expect western countries where teenagers mingle freely to have people marrying early... that is clearly not the case.
> If I were to follow the logic of your argument then we should expect western countries where teenagers mingle freely to have people marrying early... that is clearly not the case.
That is not a logical extension of my position.
Logic:
if the government does not allow commingling of the sexes, then people will get married at an older age (if p, then q)
You are extending that to:
The US government does not prohibit commingling of sexes, therefore we should expect people getting married earlier (not P, therefore not q)
That is a logical fallacy.
I think we can both agree the US average age of marriage is increasing, and certainly it can be for different reasons. To follow my argument is very easy, there can be other explanations for decreased birthrates and increased average age of marriage, than a sexual revolution, especially if the government is prohibiting men and women from socializing (something I don't think other western countries ever did)
That is not a logical extension of my position.
Logic:
if the government does not allow commingling of the sexes, then people will get married at an older age (if p, then q)
You are extending that to:
The US government does not prohibit commingling of sexes, therefore we should expect people getting married earlier (not P, therefore not q)
That is a logical fallacy.
I think we can both agree the US average age of marriage is increasing, and certainly it can be for different reasons. To follow my argument is very easy, there can be other explanations for decreased birthrates and increased average age of marriage, than a sexual revolution, especially if the government is prohibiting men and women from socializing (something I don't think other western countries ever did)
Prosititution is technically semi-legal in Iran. There is a temporary marriage / dowry arrangement where you can be "married" for as little as 15 minutes. I think it is also okay to have an actual wife in addition to the temporary wife. I have no idea how much this loophole is used in practice.
Almost never. The part about temporary marriage most westerners seem to oblivious about is after the end of marriage (for any reason: death, divorce or end of the term of temporary marriage), the woman cannot get married for 4 months and 10 days. It makes "legal" prostitution impractical, as the cost for a "15 minute" sexual encounter should be high enough to cover 4+ months of unemployment.
That and the fact that it's the most socially unacceptable thing around here.
There is only one situation where temporary marriage is acceptable, maybe even expected. Because of the economic realities of the recent decades, young people may stay engaged for more than a year before they can afford to get married. So, many people "temporarily marry" their fiancé/fiancée upon engagement in order to be able to hang out without offending social and religious values.
(Even with temporary marriage, it's still taboo for engaged people to move in together or have sex, but this is different from family to family and from town to town.)
That and the fact that it's the most socially unacceptable thing around here.
There is only one situation where temporary marriage is acceptable, maybe even expected. Because of the economic realities of the recent decades, young people may stay engaged for more than a year before they can afford to get married. So, many people "temporarily marry" their fiancé/fiancée upon engagement in order to be able to hang out without offending social and religious values.
(Even with temporary marriage, it's still taboo for engaged people to move in together or have sex, but this is different from family to family and from town to town.)
I was surprised when I visited Iran years back how different it was on the street to what you might imagine from TV news. I'd just come from Pakistan where all the women are covered up or mostly kept at home and in comparison Iran felt a bit like France, modern and with women wandering about fairly normally, maybe with some head scarfs. The Iranian people I think are pretty normal and modern. It it the dictatorial government that is all 'death to apostates' and hardline Islamic and quite different in outlook to the populace.
In the 60s, many Western hippies went through Iran on their Hippie Trail (Silk Road) tours. Many minds were bent. See Magic Bus: On the Hippie Trail from Istanbul to India by Rory MacLean (2008, Penguin).
That website is broken, I had to use links to read it.
Not that surprising given that for most of the time, back when it was Persia, the culture of the region was considered practically synonymous with hedonistic pleasure and luxury.
And how does this relate to US foreign policy? Or any foreign policy? Or how about HackerNews?
I'd like to comment though on the awfulness of the sign up pop up (popsign?) and the clunky website. It's awful.
I'd like to comment though on the awfulness of the sign up pop up (popsign?) and the clunky website. It's awful.
[deleted]
Studying abroad is an important thing for Iranian students, but this presents some huge problems for a theocracy where sexual discrimination is so firmly entrenched. For every student that leaves and never returns, there are probably several who go home and try to change things for the better.
The fact that Iran allows students, especially female students, to study abroad suggests that things are not as dire there as one would expect from consuming U.S. media. The U.S.'s policy of confrontation with Iran's leaders is, strangely enough, probably one of the few things keeping them afloat. Fear of foreign powers is a powerful tool, as anyone in the U.S. should now know. The best course of action over the next few years may be to reduce the level of confrontation with Iran's leaders and let the Iranian people, who are increasingly at odds with their country's policies, take care of their leaders on their own.