- cross-posted to:
- [email protected]
- cross-posted to:
- [email protected]
You must log in or # to comment.
Well, Iran had a democratic government before the U.S. and U.K. orchestrated the coup in 1953 that installed the Shah. The government was led by Prime Minister Mohammad Mosaddegh, who was democratically elected and nationalized the oil industry.
I heard this too but what was the justification for deposing that guy and installing the shah.
And?
We are talking about what is now, and not what was before
I like the idea of remembering history and who the real villains are. These scum are just a result of American work.
Ah, but the Americans are only there because of the British. And the British, only because of the Normans.
Or were you hoping to stop history wherever supports this conclusion?
I like this extra information. Why do you have a problem with it?
Hey, they never said they had a problem with it. They just asked for a connection back to the subject.
A nice little reminder that, even with everything else, Iran is still a shit hole.
That’s right. Trump shouldn’t have started a war with Iran, but it’s still a shithole country.
No, the war was a good idea and the consequences of it proved that.
If Iran had nukes (which it would soon have, thanks to Trump, who in first term closed nuclear dearment agreement with Iran) and the control over Hormuz Strait and Russia as an ally, it could close the strait just because it felt so, which would be way worse than the current situation.
Get fucked, idiot. There’s no evidence that iran was actually close to getting nukes. Trump was just a massive cunt in starting a war with Iran.
They had almost 10 years of almost uninterrupted development and 2 nuclear countries as allies.
They must’ve been close.
The war didn’t start over just nukes, but also because of the Iranian people, supporting Israel and not letting Iran control such important geopolitical point as the hormuz strait.
Or at least how I see it.
Imagine being such a shit hole that the world is rooting for Iran.
This mentality exhausts me. If people can stop treating geopolitics like a fucking sports match that would be great. We don’t have to root for anyone in a given conflict. We can acknowledge both sides are bad and not matter the outcome it will be bad for common people.
If we ever are able to do this we might actually have some progress. But until then we continue to worship inherently evil states
Imagine being so morally bankrupt, you can’t pick a side. It’s called critical support. I don’t support the actions of the Iranian state, but I support them in their defensive war against the global hegemon.
Lmao, campism is for losers. Get on board with the west being the best or fuck off to whatever illiberal shithole you prefer.
Die, fascist.
How confrontational, you people really are just the most sanctimonious skin suit wearers on the planet. Makes the fascists look downright noble by comparison, at least they’ll stab you in the front.
Funny how your type will double down on how there’s no moral choice between democrats and Republicans
Yet somehow you can find the “moral” choice between a theocratic dictatorship (also capitalist btw) and an imperial nation.
Death to America.
A) nobody mentioned any political party affiliation; if you want to fight people you’ve made up in your head, I recommend some grippy socks.
B) nobody has to support Iran. People support peace, which by definition means opposing the US in this conflict. Seeing as how this conflict literally has 2 sides, that definitionally means “supporting Iran.” If anything, YOU’RE the one boiling a desire for peace and stability down to “team sports.”
Well said. Critical support for the defending nation doesn’t mean total support for the government.
a) it’s an example to illustrate a point. You only have to be a very moderate lemmy user to know what I’m talking about.
b) The first sentence was correct. The rest you made up, but that’s okay you are right for the most part. Unfortunately some people don’t just mean supporting Iran in terms of the conflict with the US/Israel. If you look at the comment that I replied to you can see the user says that Iran should be supported because they oppose global hegemony. That extends far beyond the recent conflict.
In their mind the USA is the “enemy team” so whoever is up against them they will then be the “good team”. That’s exactly what the person I replied to is saying. It’s frankly sad and morally bankrupt.
Isnt that basically an execution by torture? I dont think anyone could survive 74 actual lashes if they do it like other countries with lashings.
They don’t whip them like the Americans whipped their slaves.
Thank God you’re here to tell us the correct way to whip our troublesome women 🙏
Yeah they’re both bad. One killed 100,000 or more people. Guess which one.
I don’t remember the history very well, but I remember that just in January, Iranian regime killed 40 000 of it’s people, because they dared to protest.
This is the regime all these Iran apologists on Lemmy are rooting for. There are no good guys in this war.
People are not rooting for Iran, but more like everyone knows attacking Iran is illegal and distraction from the Epstein file. This made Iran look like a less shitty looking shit.
You definitely interpret people wanting the Iranian people to succeed vs the Iranian regime. Good on you for getting the nuance completely correct without a single ounce of error on your part. Terrific job.
Try to find an actual mistake in my reasoning rather than sarcastic nonsense
Your premise is flawed. You can’t have a founded argument with a flawed premise.
You still can’t do it…. Maybe try to find out how it is flawed
Since you cant decypher sarcasm (you cant seem to make sense of it, you admitted), your premise is “people want the iranian regime to succeed” which is a straw man. You need to do a steel man instead. You have no founded argument because you chose to do a straw man instead of a steel man.
If you have any trouble interpreting or comprehending that let me know.
I never said such a thing, so maybe it is your own understanding that is flawed: I said that what you said was nonsense, while also being sarcastic, i.e. ”sarcastic nonsense”.
And no, I’ve met actual –not straw but flesh and bones– people on here who said Iran were the good guys, as well as Hamas and that the October 7 attacks were justified.
So maybe, if you want to have a normal discussion, next time don’t start out by acting like a massive jerk.
“all these”
How many have you found to say “all these” iran regime apologists? Give me the huge number you have found. Whats the percentage of political comments on the iran war on lemmy that confirms your assertion that you claim is not flawed at all. Surely you have copious amounts of comments you can definitely say there is no nuance and unequivocally want the regime to win over the people of iran winning. Especially when Iran is just defending itself from aggressors.
Until you do that, you haven’t done shit. I will act however I want. I dont care about your feelings, I demand you to defend your assertions with facts and data. But you fail to provide it time and time again. You are a straw manning and have no ability to attempt a steel man.
You gave two earlier and one was just a dude from turkey saying “go iran!”
I dont know if counting is your strong suit, but seeing two comments is not a lot, certainly not enough to warrant “all these”
