Jump to content

Mohamed1993

Advanced Members
  • Content count

    1,616
  • Joined

  • Last visited

  • Days Won

    1

Everything posted by Mohamed1993

  1. Do you prefer the current "Islamic Regime" or shah

    This should be a question for Iranians to answer really. I am Shia, but as someone who doesn't live in Iran, nor will I probably ever live there, Iran's internal affairs should not be upto me or any other Shia who isn't Iranian. I find it quite hypocritical for people to be dismissive of economic issues and corruption within Iran while living comfortable lives in the West. There is corruption within Iran for sure, and being an Islamic Republic doesn't change this fact. I would disagree with you on the Shah though, the revolution wouldn't have happened if the Shah had been popular, and he was unpopular because despite the fact that he did not impose religious law, he lived in a world apart from the people, just look at his palace, and look at how majority of Iranians lived. The economic conditions in Iran just looking at statistics have improved though not nearly as much as they should've, inequality levels have fallen (gini coefficient of 0.45, compared to 0.55 before the revolution), but this has stagnated since the 1980's, so it seems like it hasn't improved much since immediately after the revolution. Poverty levels have fallen overall but it seemed that Ahmadinejad's policies have created more of it, according to statistics at least. The Islamic Republic's biggest achievement is perhaps education, especially for rural communities and women. There has also been an improvement in provision of health and basic services to rural communities compared to the Shah's time. I think the biggest challenge in economies like Iran is they are too reliant on oil, and in resource reliant economies, this revenue ends up in hands of the elite, and doesn't trickle down to all levels of society. Iran has been unsuccessful in bringing in enough investment into the country, partly because of US sanctions, but also because of corruption, not enough money invested into the economy, and a lot going into pockets of corrupt officials. Also, when economic growth is reliant on the price of oil, not on productivity which can only come about if there are enough opportunities for people in the job market (lacking due to lack of investment, both foreign and domestic), it will be hard to curb things like inflation. Iran's inflation is still pretty high at 9%. Also, there is practically no demand for Iran's currency, mainly because of uncertainty with the nuclear deal and lack of foreign investment which is causing it to depreciate in value. I wouldn't agree that the Shah was good for Iran, he is romanticized because people hate the Islamic Republic, so they have a yearning for something else, but many of them didn't even live in the Shah's Iran, so it probably is more of a feeling of the grass is greener on the other side. However, that of course does not mean the current government is anywhere near perfect.
  2. Marcon-Trump Press Conference

    Thanks bro! Btw, have you seen her on anything else recently?
  3. Balanced piece on the Assad regime by Mehdi Hasan

    The funny thing is looking at the comments on his post on facebook that are bashing him are mostly by Western communists, by which I mean Western supporters of Mao and Stalin literally. These people literally think the Soviet Union was just "demonised by the West", it wasn't that bad.
  4. Human Rights Watch has released numerous reports about Israel too. It is a Western organization so of course it won't view gay rights how Islam views them, and it will have a western view on this aspect. It has even criticized the US on many things. Like any organization, it is at times biased, but to say that it specifically has an anti-Iran agenda is wildly inaccurate. Israelis have said the same thing about the organization.
  5. Do you think the world would be in a better situation? I have seen some Shia scholars say that though the US is an imperialist and hegemonic power, and by no means of course a beacon of morality, compared to traditional imperial powers like the Brits and the Soviets, it is much more benign. Do you agree with this, if so why?
  6. US-UK-France Launch Attacks on Syria

    It's a few missiles, that'll probably be all.
  7. Is this for real? You got a video or something? Lol, wouldn't help him much to make this case today since his response to everything is I'm fighting terrorists.
  8. Israel collaborates with the US to be the regional hegemon though. This alliance goes back to 1967 when Israel proved to the US that it would be an important partner in containing and crushing Arab nationalism, which was closely allied with the Soviet union. In the 6-day war Israel defeated Egypt and Syria (both very close allies of the Soviet Union), so the US increasingly saw them as a military garrison in the region that they could use to fulfill their own interest without having to commit their own troops there. Just like Iran is no threat to the US, neither was Vietnam, nor is Cuba. Look at US policy since WW2, especially in Southeast Asia and Latin America, all the countries they invaded, governments they toppled, "rebels" they backed had to do with containing the Soviet Union, because it hindered US ability to control resources all over the world. They don't necessarily need those resources, just like they don't need middle eastern oil, but being in control of it allows you to be in a position of power, where you can determine oil prices. Why did they throw Saddam out of Kuwait? Because it was feared he might attack Saudi next and the thought of the US or one of its allies not being in control of oil production, which would impact wallstreet's profits was something they could not tolerate. Why did the CIA overthrow Lumumba in the DRC? Because the DRC has a vital resource, Cobalt which is used in every electronic device, and the ability to obtain this cheaply was important, on the other hand, a leader that would not sell-out his country to a foreign corporation could not be tolerated.
  9. Times the US and Israel have disagreed; 1956- The US forced Israel to withdraw when it attacked Egypt with the help of Britain and France. 1970's OPEC crisis- At the time the Shah's Iran and Israel were close allies, the Saudis and the other Arab states were not so much. The US made a deal with Saudi Arabia where if the Saudis sold all their oil in dollars, and then deposited the proceeds in US bond markets, the US would guarantee Saudi security even against Israel. 1980's- Iran/Iraq war, when Saddam fired scud missiles at Israel, the US prevented Israel from attacking because they had more of an interest in Iraq winning that war, Israel not so much. Israel on the other hand convinced the US not to impose harsher sanctions on Iran, because they felt it would've impeded Iran and helped Iraq. 2015- The JCPOA, which the US will now probably pull-out of because of this crazy administration, but most of the US government barring a few crazy republican senators like Cruz and Cotton is against pulling out of it even though Israel wants this. Israel has also wanted the US to do way more than it has done in Syria to contain Iran, there's no real US willingness to do so, they've been willing to fire few missiles at Assad, train fundamentalists and arm them but nothing beyond that, 2000 special ops forces is not going to contain Iran, Israel would love the US to do more and get more directly militarily entrenched, but it simply hasn't and I really doubt it is going to.
  10. So what is? If the Syrian government did these attacks what would make you believe it?
  11. Actually I read an article earlier about this, there is some rationality to it, the militants occupying this last pocket of Eastern Ghouta Jaysh al Islam don't want to move to Idlib, because HTS (Al Qaeda basically) occupies Idlib and there is fighting between them and Jaysh al Islam. And recently, the Panther forces (Quwwat al Nimr) that were involved in the operation against Jaysh al Islam in this particular battle were losing a lot of men in this fight. The Syrian Army has suffered a lot of defections, and is pretty weak, they started off with 300,000 alawite fighters in 2011, and now have maybe about 10% of those. They were so weak, militias from Pakistan and Afghanistan had to come in and fight. The regime doesn't want to lose well trained fighters, and chemical weapons are used by desperate regimes reluctant to take casualties. The use of chemical weapons tends to intimidate a population which leads to weakening of the population's support for a group occupying an area. And I think Assad may be confident enough that the US will not launch a full-scale war, maybe a few missile attacks, and so he's probably thinking this is acceptable over losing a lot of men and suffering more casualties. Point is we can theorise over logic and rationale all we want, but the only thing that suffices in the real world is evidence and unbiased investigations. We have had a UN report that has blamed the Syrian government for most of the CW attacks. Whether you want to believe that report or not is another matter, but for any neutral party, if you want to convince them of something, you need to show them evidence of your convictions, and it really seems like we don't really have that evidence that the rebels did every single CW attack. I'm not saying this particular attack was done by the regime or the "rebels", but it's worth noting that when you talk to someone who doesn't have a bias in Syria, what they will demand is evidence from a neutral organisation. Anyway here is the report; http://www.ohchr.org/EN/HRBodies/HRC/IICISyria/Pages/Documentation.aspx.
  12. Israel Kills Palestinians and Liberals Shrug

    And look at what the media is doing to him, lol, they call him an anti-semite, he attends a passover ceremony with left-wing anti-zionist jews, now he is told those are the wrong kinds of jews, and he is making anti-semitism worse.
  13. Rolex or Lamborghini

    What a stupid question, if I got 30K in my hand, I also have a choice not to spend it and keep the money, is someone holding a gun to my head telling me to buy the rolex or the lambo? Come on man! Sumerian you're better than this bro...what has happened to you? A rolex or lambo? SMH!!!
  14. Do you support any soccer team?

    Yeah, Arsenal had Gilberto and Vieira at the time, both really rock solid in midfield. When Vieira left, then it was Fabregas and Gilberto, which was still ok, but Fabregas never had the strong physical presence of Vieira.
  15. Do you support any soccer team?

    Still remember that dream team man; Henry, Bergkamp, Pires, Vieira, Ljungberg, we even had a pretty ok defence at the time.
  16. Do you support any soccer team?

    I am an Arsenal fan, I used to be way more into football than I am now, I guess the disappointment of not winning a meaningful trophy for 14 years tends to make you apathetic.
  17. This is the thing, I used to defend Assad a lot more than I do. My views have evolved over time because the more civilians that die, the more you lose this moral high ground of justifying it by saying he's fighting terrorism. This completely ignores the role the government has played in radicalising its population, whether it was torturing its own citizens at the behest of the US government in the rendition program in the war on terror, or the brutality, executions and savagery for anyone that dares to criticise the baathist one party state way prior to 2011. Moreover, it is undeniable that even though violent elements existed in the early protests, peaceful protestors were gunned down and indiscriminate tactics have been used to fight the islamist rebellion that have killed so many people and displaced millions. You see when the Israelis say Hamas uses human shields or the US says so when they bombed ISIS strongholds in places like Mosul, we point out (correctly) how it's not an excuse and it isn't true most of the time, yet in Syria, this excuse is constantly used to legitimate what the government does. The argument is often it's Assad vs. ISIS/AQ, so we must support Assad otherwise the extremists will take over and carry out a genocide of all religious minorities like the Shia, but then you're saying its ok to slaughter as many innocent people as needed to achieve that goal, so how exactly do you have the moral high ground in that case? The point is Hafez (Assad's father) had 30 years to make reforms, Assad had 11 before this war, why didn't they make significant reforms in enabling people to voice their grievances, in dismantling the security apparatus etc.? Yes, foreign players got involved and hijacked everything and fighters from all over the world flooded the country, but the point is this might've failed or not have made this conflict so bloody and long had there not been as much discontent within the population for foreign players to exploit for their own selfish agenda in the first place. I think a question I often ask myself is if Imam Hussein or Imam Ali were alive today, would he support the Assad government despite his enemies being mostly horrible? I find myself being very doubtful especially given the tactics his army has deployed.
  18. Your statement being true doesn't make mine less true. And millions living in Government held areas does not necessarily mean they all support the government, it could just mean that they don't want to have to be under threat of aerial bombardment and they don't want to go live in a refugee camp in Turkey/Jordan/Lebanon. The only other choice is to live in a government held area. I'm not disputing that Assad has a good share of support given the alternatives, which again doesn't mean he is liked but that the alternative is feared more, but I'm disputing the tactics being used to reclaim areas and the years of torture, executions etc. that you can't really blame anyone else for but Assad and the Syrian government.
  19. Is Trump Assembling a War Cabinet?

    Trump's legacy is undoing the good that Obama did. Though Obama's foreign policy was a disaster, this and Cuba were perhaps some of his biggest achievements. Republicans have to be against it for partisan reasons. It really seems like that's what governs how US government works now, everyone just votes with their party, nothing ever gets done, republicans block democrat bills and vice versa, and hence congress has a 15% approval rating.
  20. Is Trump Assembling a War Cabinet?

    The only hope is to have a broad protest movement, I think unlike in Iraq where the people were still emotional after 9/11 and bought into some of the lies, I would hope that the lies told then would make people very skeptical. The only issue is they can orchestrate a false flag operation to get people to support such a war. Patrick Clawson, who worked at this think tank called Washington Institute for Near East Policy, a think tank founded by AIPAC itself called for sinking Iranian nuclear submarines to get Iran to react then use that as an excuse to start a war. There's not much congress can do, and it is dominated by republicans anyway, no wars have been declared by congress since WW2. I would hope American servicemen would refuse to serve in such a war, in the event of a full-invasion they would need to reinstate the draft, Iran is huge. However, if it is just air attacks on nuclear facilities, which is what I suspect, then it depends how Iran responds, they might respond in a way to leave invasion as the only choice, like if they escalate attacks against US troops in Iraq/Afghanistan, attack oil tankers in the gulf and Hezbollah attacks Israel from Lebanon. Some analysts also believe Iran has the ability to carry out terrorism in the West, and though they would not use this except if they are attacked, it is not unfathomable to believe they would use it to coarse the US into a full-scale invasion and then wear them out in the same way Afghanistan is doing. On the other hand, Iran could benefit politically if the US attacks Iran when every other country barring Israel and Saudi Arabia doesn't want a military engagement, this time the US won't even have UK/Australia/EU/NATO (it had UK/Australia in Iraq) on its side. The US would lose big in terms of soft-power, global legitimacy and it would further relegate its position in the world. Many say Russia and China would not tolerate something like this, but for them, this would be a great way to gain legitimacy against a country that sees no qualms about attacking anyone it wants for whatever reason it makes up. If the US seeks to weaken the Iranian government, attacking Iran is the worst thing you can do, no matter how much discontent there is in Iran (and we can't tell exactly because of lack of unbiased sources), an attack by a foreign hostile power would get people unify around their country and government, just as 9/11 did in the US.
  21. I don't think the CIA put him in power. I have seen some evidence that the US saw the Shah could not be saved, and they had to try to prevent the marxists from gaining power, because that would empower their biggest enemy at the time, the Soviet Union, so they may have made contact with Ayatollah Khomeini to try and undermine the communists. They were hoping to maintain their alliance, but obviously this didn't happen. Iran however did not ally with the other power at the time either, the Soviet Union. This doesn't mean they supported him or put him in power but rather they may have seen him as a lesser problem than the marxists coming to power.
  22. Do you ever cry?

    Not cry, cry but there are times when I read the news or something where I feel really sad and wonder how much longer the world can go on in the manner that it is going. I feel helpless, at the same time I can't help the fact that I am complicit in everything as is pretty much anyone in any position of privilege. It feels unfair to live in a world where some benefit at the expense of others.
  23. John Bolton to replace McMaster- Iran war coming?

    @hasanhh, bro speaking of facebook, do you know Jeremy Mcclennan, the comedian? They issued him a warning because he made a statement about white terrorists, saying it is offensive language, if used again he would be banned. This sounds like a nazi-controlled site now lol.
  24. John Bolton to replace McMaster- Iran war coming?

    He makes Hillary Clinton look like an angel.
  25. John Bolton to replace McMaster- Iran war coming?

    False flag is all it takes.
×