Protests raged for a fourth straight day across Iran on Tuesday and authorities said three people had been killed during unrest over the death of a young woman in police custody. https://www.reuters.com/world/middl...testers-attacks-least-22-arrested-2022-09-20/ The death last week of 22-year-old Mahsa Amini who was arrested by morality police for "unsuitable attire" unleashed a flood of simmering anger. I know the Ayatullas will not fall ... but some day the brave Pershian civilians will win. Inshallahhh
Read this AM that they have essentially shut off the internet, so we probably won't be getting as much info about it as we have the past few days.
16 Year old innocent girl was murdered today in her school by Iran's police. If she was Palestinian.. this forum was on fire
Iran to hold public trials of 1,000 people charged with involvement in Mahsa Amini protests. https://edition.cnn.com/2022/11/01/...c-trials-mahsa-amini-protests-intl/index.html
Iran acknowledges more than 300 are dead ( murdered !! ) from unrest from nationwide protests https://www.npr.org/2022/11/28/1139...are-dead-from-unrest-from-nationwide-protests
The family home of Iranian rock climber Elnaz Rekabi has reportedly been demolished, according to the news outlet IranWire. In October, Rekabi competed without her hijab in South Korea, following the death of Mahsa Amini amid anti-regime protests throughout Iran. Some human rights groups expressed concerns for Rekabi’s safety when she returned to Tehran. The 22-year-old Amini died after being taken into the custody of the morality police for allegedly not wearing her hijab properly. According to media reports, police destroyed the family villa in the northwestern Iranian province of Zanjan. https://nypost.com/2022/12/03/iranian-rock-climber-elnaz-rekabis-family-home-destroyed-report/ Bastards !!!
The foundation of the Iranian regime is starting to crack. Iran abolishes morality police after months of unrest
"Protests flare across Iran" * Iran had a functioning Democracy under Prime Minister, Mohammad Mosaddegh. GOOD. * This was crushed by the CIA’s political coup and was replaced by America's puppet, the murderous tyrant Shah. BAD. * The US and the Shah were finally ousted by the Islamic revolution. GOOD. * The CIA orchestrated a war between Iran and Irak. BAD. * Eventually, the Iranian population felt the Islamic government was too fundamentalist. BAD. * Now today the Iranians are protesting even more about the treatment of women under Islamic law. BAD. None of this would have happened if the US hadn’t removed Iran’s Democracy in what is now called ”regime change” and it looks to me that the choice is either to continue this government “as is” or reinstate another American-style tyrant Shah. And Democracy? No one seems to be interested any longer. The ease by which Democracy can be destroyed by American treachery everywhere in the world has left the Third World suspicious of anything pertaining to Democracy. The destruction of Democracy is history’s worse crime ever and it’s getting worse by the day, particularly in the West. VERY, VERY BAD.
@Thingamabob :Indeed. The US and the UK got this blood on their hands. They removed the democratically elected government of Iran and replaced it with a murdering oppressive fascist puppet. The only opposition that Iran had at that point, was their religious institution. And so who knew that the Iranians got their country back through that institution, right? The Iranians were always fully aware that the coup made by that murdering oppressive fascist puppet was orchestrated by the US and UK. Same thing goes that they were always fully aware the UK and US sponsored Saddam Hussein with it's geocidal WMD war against them. The hatred the Iranians got against the US, UK and their pet dog Israel is founded on the violent neo-colonial oppression those countries inflicted on Iran. Their opinion is far from being irrational.
The best "revolt" is a revolt done by the people and not one orchestrated by some foreign entity. Same thing happened in Ukraine, that ones was a buddy of Moscow and now it aint so. They did that by protest and voting. The US should take note how things go by themselves if you just give it a hell of a lot of time. By just jumping in, and shooting around for 20 years killing who ever they felt like with impunity. It got ZERO results.
The mullahs were just fine with the Shah until they stopped getting paid. In any case, the Iranians did it to themselves. What Really Happened in Iran: The CIA, the Ouster of ... Amazon.com https://www.amazon.com › What-Really-Happened-Ir... Conventional wisdom about the 1953 coup in Iran rests on the myth that the CIA toppled the country's democratically elected prime minister. In reality, the coup ...
The CIA admitted it in public. https://www.theguardian.com/world/2013/aug/19/cia-admits-role-1953-iranian-coup And the Shah was the puppet of the CIA. You can go and visit the old embassy of the US that Iran turned into a museum for all to so that the CIA pulled the strings of the Shah from within that compound. Everybody knows that, even "backward" Iran.... but there is you. Somebody ones called the Shah a "wretched miserable man" who had "embarked on the [path toward] destruction of Islam in Iran". As a result of that he got arrested for that free speech, and the Shah killed 15,000 people who protested against it in a 3 day killing spree. That somebody became their leader and that's what's behind why they got rid of that American puppet. The US is to blame for all of it and got that massive amount of blood on their hands. Your attempts to white wash it all, is like reading Don Quichot.
No one disputes US and UK activity. The point is that it didn't matter. And the mullahs were fine with it as long as they got their cash. When that stopped they turned against the Shah. Of course they have no interest in examining their role.
It did, because the coup by the Shah was orchestrated by the CIA and not by the people of Iran. The CIA admitted that they were behind it, in public. Period. You say this I got him saying he did not agree with the Shah on religious grounds, and that he got arrested over it. And 15.000 of religious protesters got killed as well over it. The US went across the globe to rage war when a 1/5 of that got killed. But I guess we are not on the same page with the value of a human life when it's a brown Muslim. That's alright, but the Iranians disagree and kicked that Islamic hating US and its puppet out of Iran. ... the end. What the US did, was simply breaching their sovereignty. A country can violently revolt against such a breach. I'm even not seeing any problem this was brought to even the soil of the US / it's embassy. ... Is is so because the US took it to Afghanistan when their sovereignty got breached. Nothing odd about it.
The CIA has confirmed their involvement. Mr. Roosevelt claimed that was decisive. Mr. Takeyh says that's false; the coup would have happened without the CIA. As for the mullahs: According to these accounts, from 1953 to 1977 millions of CIA dollars were used to subsidize Iran's Islamic religious affairs in an effort to maintain support for the Shah among the nation's ayatollahs and mullahs. CIA-RDP90-00552R000302910010-7
According to your sweet source, the Shah took the income their way of taxation and also much of their land and so axed their income. And it set of a lot of anger towards the Shah. Thanks for sharing.
1953-1977: CIA payments to the ayatollahs and mullahs. 1977: Payments stopped by President Carter. 1978-1979: Iranian revolution.
I be referring to your own source and my quote about how the Ayatollah fought about the regime all along.
Except that's not what it says. Meanwhile: New Findings on Clerical Involvement in the 1953 Coup in Iran The George Washington University https://nsarchive.gwu.edu › briefing-book › new-findi... Mar 7, 2018 — Recently declassified British and CIA documents provide new evidence on the Iran 1953 coup including on the role of Iranian clerics. ". . . . In recent years, new interpretations of the coup have called into question the accuracy of various U.S. archival records and first-person accounts, discounting the importance of the CIA and British intelligence role in the operation and casting doubt on any connection between Iranian clerics and the Western powers.[2] The principal aim of the latter contention is to bolster the case that Iranians, including leading mullahs, acted essentially (if not entirely) on their own in bringing about Mosaddeq’s ouster. . . . "
Except your own source says the Shah caused the Mosques to lose their income through taxes, AND the Shah also stole their land. That's besides that they already hated him. With that, I'm not denying what you're saying. It's just not significant compared to that the Shah did to them
The Shah's action on mosque lands was part of a land reform meant to benefit the people. The mullahs indeed lost their feudal privileges. This is why, in the larger scheme of Iranian history, the Shah was on the side of progressive reform. For the mullahs it was always about the money, not the people, which is why the CIA funds were important.
Ah.. "land reform". When Cuba did that, at the expense of American owned companies, it sure made a lot of Americans upset and set up policies to punish that government to even accommodate coup attempts against that government. And for the sake of Iran you just downtalk it all as if it was that wasn't it at all. I'm not at least convinced in your opinion when your source blasts around what the Shah did to the mosques. FYI. The term Mullah is not correct. That's just the honorable title of the highest clergy. While what the Shah did attacked the livelihood of all the clergy.
