Iran before Khomeini

[QWECXZ]

Agreed. Iran needs some major reforms. I don’t think the govt should be overthrown as that would cause great suffering but it needs major reforms like how Deng changed the PRC.

Khamenei is almost 83 years old. He will pass away in a decade or less. The next Supreme Leader could potentially change Iran's relations with the United States. It could be like pressing the reset button after half a century of terrible relations. And in fact, by then, Iran will have enough leverages to sit at the negotiating table with the United States and resolve our issues directly and diplomatically. That could include a sanction-proof economy, ICBMs, a nuclear program that will make Iran a de-facto nuclear power like Japan, and a military power, industrial and knowledge base that will ensure Iran's independence. The taboo of direct negotiations with the US was shattered in 2015, but the US was not ready for a new era. And now they are regretting it because closing the doors of diplomacy during the Trump era didn't make things better for them, but only worse.

you are saying, butt-hurt is not abusive slur ?

then, why are you butt-hurt? when i was insulting someone, not you?

He said that your butt was on fire, seeing how you were jumping up and down in anger over something that wasn't even remotely related to you.

And you don't seem to know what butt-hurt means. I am not butt-hurt because you insulted someone that showed real class and ignored you. I just find your "pretend cosmopolitan" attitude contrary to your obnoxious way of discussion. There are certain principles involved. I mean, I get it. You don't like the Ayatollahs of Iran and you prefer secularism. I myself am more on the agnostic side of the spectrum, but your overall tone was rude and uncultured which derailed the topic and precluded a civil, constructive discussion.

 

[Aryzin]

I don't know about others' opinion but Islam as a religion of power and independence gave Iran every Sense of independence. Islam gave us identity, revived Zartosht culture of Iranian people such as hijab and social laws based upon religion. We developed nuclear and Space technologies along with aerospace and missile tech under sanctions solely depending on who we were/are.

West and its filthy culture gave us nothing but dependence, corruption, terrorism and lack of identity.

Couldn't agree more brother.

Hijab or covering a female were not Iranian but imported from the Greek invasions. Before that Iranian peoples gave a lot of freedom to women, at least as far as I learned in school.

 

[aryobarzan]

Hijab or covering a female were not Iranian but imported from the Greek invasions. Before that Iranian peoples gave a lot of freedom to women, at least as far as I learned in school.

Some people think that pre_islam Iran also had hijab but I disagree. A culture that allowed women to be head of state in pre-Islamic Iran would not be hijabing her women...I thought Hijab was a Turkish thing not Greek..

 

[Aryzin]

Some people think that pre_islam Iran also had hijab but I disagree. A culture that allowed women to be head of state in pre-Islamic Iran would not be hijabing her women...I thought Hijab was a Turkish thing not Greek..

Greeks were the ones that introduced veils to the conquered Persian empire peoples. In Greek culture only low class women, like prostitutes and actresses would be allowed to even be out in public without a male escort and not covered. Women were escorted out of the residence by male relatives or spouse. And covered their bodies and hair.

 

[aryobarzan]

Greeks were the ones that introduced veils to the conquered Persian empire peoples. In Greek culture only low class women, like prostitutes and actresses would be allowed to even be out in public without a male escort and not covered. Women were escorted out of the residence by male relatives or spouse. And covered their bodies and hair.

And now they have dropped all that and we the Persians got stuck with it.... never pays to be conquered..

 

[tower9]

Some people think that pre_islam Iran also had hijab but I disagree. A culture that allowed women to be head of state in pre-Islamic Iran would not be hijabing her women...I thought Hijab was a Turkish thing not Greek..

I assumed it was introduced after the Arab invasions

 

[vi-va]

Indonesia is not neutral during cold war, it is already a known fact by knowleadgeable people. Indonesia killed many communist, ban the communist party, invade East Timor in which at that time Fretilin has left ideology, send our special forces to Malaysia helping them fight the communist insurgency. We also cut diplomatic relationship to Communist China and send weapon to Afghanistan to figh USSR

Please differentiate Sukarno and Suharto. Also, please differentiate domestic power struggle and international relationship.

Indonesia under Sukarno is pro communists, nationalists. Sukarno is anti colonialism, he hates western power colonization. Sukarno supported Chinese communist guerilla in Sarawak.

Sukarno and Fidel Castro in 1960, Havana, Cuba

Bandung conference
On the international front, Sukarno organized the Bandung Conference in 1955, with the goal of uniting the developing Asian and African countries into the Non-Aligned Movement to counter both the United States and the Soviet Union.

============
While Suharto is different. He got the power by a right-wing military coup backed by CIA, where the government of Sukarno was overthrown. Suharto purged leftists, communists.

If you put both Sukarno and Suharto into consideration, Indonesia has the freedom of foreign policy, anti-western colonialism or anti communism.

Why? Because Indonesia has no shared border with Soviet, so you can do anti communism. Also, because Indonesia is far away from world power struggle center, you can do anti-western colonialism.

If Indonesia was in Gulf during Cold War, you will be forced to choose side, or invaded by either Soviet or US.

 

[Indos]

Please differentiate Sukarno and Suharto. Also, please differentiate domestic power struggle and international relationship.

Indonesia under Sukarno is pro communists, nationalists. Sukarno is anti colonialism, he hates western power colonization. Sukarno supported Chinese communist guerilla in Sarawak.
View attachment 798382
Sukarno and Fidel Castro in 1960, Havana, Cuba

Bandung conference
On the international front, Sukarno organized the Bandung Conference in 1955, with the goal of uniting the developing Asian and African countries into the Non-Aligned Movement to counter both the United States and the Soviet Union.

============
While Suharto is different. He got the power by a right-wing military coup backed by CIA, where the government of Sukarno was overthrown. Suharto purged leftists, communists.

If you put both Sukarno and Suharto into consideration, Indonesia has the freedom of foreign policy, anti-western colonialism or anti communism.

Why? Because Indonesia has no shared border with Soviet, so you can do anti communism. Also, because Indonesia is far away from world power struggle center, you can do anti-western colonialism.

If Indonesia was in Gulf during Cold War, you will be forced to choose side, or invaded by either Soviet or US.

Here we go again another deluded member who think USA is God. CIA contribution is not significant in overthrowing Soekarno regime. Just take a look on Iran, supported USA regime is easily overthrown by popular uprising lead by Khameinei.

The fact that Communism is the anti thesis of Islam is the main thing of why Soekarno can be overthrown. Islamic power is very strong in Indonesia and Soekarno ban Islamist political party, Masyumi, since 1959, despite Islamic party controlled Indonesian parliament and Indonesia PM since 1945 is Muhammad Hatta, West Sumatran politician and he was the one who do the diplomatic struggle during Independence war.

 

[Musalman]

Was Iran more self sufficient, educated and Industrialized during shah, or measure of progress is how much naked woman get ????????

 

[Muhammed45]

Some people think that pre_islam Iran also had hijab but I disagree. A culture that allowed women to be head of state in pre-Islamic Iran would not be hijabing her women...I thought Hijab was a Turkish thing not Greek..

Leave that idiot, bro. Take a look at this

حجاب در آیین زرتشت؛ فعالیت اجتماعی زنان در حجاب کامل و پرهیز از اختلاط‌های فسادانگیز - تسنیم

زنان هر چند با آزادی، در محیط بیرون خانه رفت و آمد می‌‏کردند و همپای مردان به کار می‌‏پرداختند، ولی این امور با حجاب کامل و پرهیز شدید از اختلاط‌های فسادانگیز صورت می‌یافت.

www.google.com

Zartosht was a true prophet and his teachings were forged by his greedy followers.

No invading forces from Mongols to Greeks could change Iranian culture and language, the reason why Iranians completely adopted to Islamic standards was the fact that they found Islam so similar to their own traditions. Iranians didn't become Muslims through swords.

 

[Aryzin]

Leave that idiot, bro. Take a look at this

حجاب در آیین زرتشت؛ فعالیت اجتماعی زنان در حجاب کامل و پرهیز از اختلاط‌های فسادانگیز - تسنیم

زنان هر چند با آزادی، در محیط بیرون خانه رفت و آمد می‌‏کردند و همپای مردان به کار می‌‏پرداختند، ولی این امور با حجاب کامل و پرهیز شدید از اختلاط‌های فسادانگیز صورت می‌یافت.

www.google.com

Zartosht was a true prophet and his teachings were forged by his greedy followers.

No invading forces from Mongols to Greeks could change Iranian culture and language, the reason why Iranians completely adopted to Islamic standards was the fact that they found Islam so similar to their own traditions. Iranians didn't become Muslims through swords.

Why are you lying? Arab invasion led to a genocide and destruction of so much of Iran’s past .

 

[alee92nawaz]

It started with Zulfi Bhutto, giving space to the religion right to get legitimacy and then his nationalisation that killed the Pakistani Economy in such a manner that we have yet to recover from it.

It's like comparing apples with oranges. Not the point. Zia started the shia sunni fasad by promoting jhngvi etc. Sold kids to mullahs in name of jehad. All that shariat nafiz thing etc. Gotta read some history

 

[SaadH]

BTW, Bhutto had the national mandate for 'socialism'. It was fakery, for sure, but even that 'socialism' was not real in practice. While 'nationalization' was done in large sectors but the there was still tons of private enterprises in Pakistan. Under Bhutto, in his late years, trying to calm the Mullahs, some cosmetic 'Islamization' was introduced (banning alcohol, gambling...) but never the path of Pakistan changed so drastically as when Zia cynically used 'Islam' to prolong his rule and joined the war against the Soviets. The Pakistan of 1989 was much different from the Pakistan of 1979.

Not sure why everyone has a selective understanding of Bhutto-Zia dynamic and even rarer view of history...national mandate of socialism was nothing but establishment ensuring their horse won by hook or crook, there was no mandate, just the establishment pushing the scales in the favor of their candidate of choice.

If anything Zia was a poor man's Bhutto. Bhutto was the OG islamist, not Zia. The fight/war against Bhutto was instigated by Bhutto in the first place...He had his ISI undertake subversive actions in Afghanistan long before Zia came on the scene. Under Bhutto, Naseerullah Babur recruited two of the foremost Islamist student leaders, Masood and Hikmetyar to the Islamist cause and oppose the commie gov't in Afghanistan. Lastly, it was US and Saudis that joined the anti-commie/Soviet project initiated by Bhutto in the early 70's, not the other way around. Bhutto was also the original instigator of the notion of Ummah with his Islamic Conference of '74.

Furthermore, Bhutto didn't just do cosmetic reforms late in his rule to appease the Mullahs. Infact he laid the foundation of Islamic rule and character of Pakistan with the '73 constitution which not only deemed sovereignty belonging only to Allah but also makde Quran/Sunnah as the supreme law of the land. And then he executed the ultimate Islamist coup de grace by declaring Qadianis as non-muslims, something no Mullah or even 100 Zias could have ever accomplished.

Bhutto's only flaws were his meglomania and poor grasp of economics. If he was even a mediocre in these two aspects, he would have been the greatest Muslim/Islamist leader of the latter part of the 20th century.

It's like comparing apples with oranges. Not the point. Zia started the shia sunni fasad by promoting jhngvi etc. Sold kids to mullahs in name of jehad. All that shariat nafiz thing etc. Gotta read some history

O bhai, shariat was nafized more or less by your beloved Bhutto back in '73...

No one sold kids to Mullahs, the shia sunni fasad was instigated by Mullahs in Iran attempting to export their revolution to the neighboring countries...

Zia was a protector of Shias in Pakistan, he refused Saudi requests to remove Shia officers from the PA brigade that's permanently stationed in Saudi Arabia. The two pilot flying his fateful last flight were shia.

Shias tend to have visceral hatred of all strong Sunni leaders be they the Khulafa, Sahabas or even Aurangzeb. Zia was no exception.

 

[vi-va]

Here we go again another deluded member who think USA is God. CIA contribution is not significant in overthrowing Soekarno regime. Just take a look on Iran, supported USA regime is easily overthrown by popular uprising lead by Khameinei.

The fact that Communism is the anti thesis of Islam is the main thing of why Soekarno can be overthrown. Islamic power is very strong in Indonesia and Soekarno ban Islamist political party, Masyumi, since 1959, despite Islamic party controlled Indonesian parliament and Indonesia PM since 1945 is Muhammad Hatta, West Sumatran politician and he was the one who do the diplomatic struggle during Independence war.

You missed my point. My point is not how US is powerful to organize a coup, it's all about Indonesia freedom of foreign policy to some extent.

You can't deny that CIA fingerprints were all over the Suharto military coup. Also, Suharto massacred hundreds of thousands of Indonesians, especially the Chinese. But US kept being nice.

Never mind, forget what I posted.

 

[Indos]

You missed my point. My point is not how US is powerful to organize a coup, it's all about Indonesia freedom of foreign policy to some extent.

You can't deny that CIA fingerprints were all over the Suharto military coup. Also, Suharto massacred hundreds of thousands of Indonesians, especially the Chinese. But US kept being nice.

Never mind, forget what I posted.

Nope, Chinese who become victims in 1965 communist massacre only few, only the ones who become the member of Communist party. The members are quite many, Indonesia communist party wants to create an Armed Force with 1 million strong men. This is easy to locate those 1 million members as the data base IMO has been breached by Army who supported Soeharto, Kostrad, Kopassus, and Siliwangi.

The large majorities of the victims are Indonesian natives. Just think PKI has become fourth largest political party in Indonesia, Chinese Indonesian usually not interested on politics, 99 % of Indonesia communist party members are native Indonesian.

Soeharto based on his formal statement, never killed the Communist members, the killing most probably done by the mobs (people)

Soeharto defended his action to catch and prison Communist members, but he denied killing the Communist members.