Protests Erupt across Iran

29,653 Views | 312 Replies | Last: 1 hr ago by halfastros81
nortex97
How long do you want to ignore this user?
AG
Sure, it's obviously a desperate attempt to calm the masses which is unlikely to work at all.

Reminds me of a certain fake president who had a bunch of Cubans protecting him from his own people recently.
aggiehawg
How long do you want to ignore this user?
AG
Control in Tehran seems to have shifted to the people in the streets.

infinity ag
How long do you want to ignore this user?
Should we invade Iran, capture the mullahs and install a local government with friendly leaders? Iran is a great ancient civilization full of smart people who are stuck under mullah leadership and cheated by Islam.

We should free them. But not give them US citizenship, we don't want more potentially crazies here.
aggiehawg
How long do you want to ignore this user?
AG
infinity ag said:

Should we invade Iran, capture the mullahs and install a local government with friendly leaders? Iran is a great ancient civilization full of smart people who are stuck under mullah leadership and cheated by Islam.

We should free them. But not give them US citizenship, we don't want more potentially crazies here.

No. Not necessary Let other ME countries handle it. Iran's Crown Prince wants democracy, not a monarchy, according to his statement. Meaning he'll come back to stabilize and then run for office, I think..
nortex97
How long do you want to ignore this user?
AG
"Democracy" is inimicable to Muslims, and it is still a majority-Muslim country. Some form of parliamentary representation with a monarchy is perhaps as good as we can hope for. Trying to establish 'democracies' in places like Afghanistan and Iraq should have proven it's a waste of money/blood.

"Successful" Muslim countries have a royal family with a vested interest in the country being profitable, la UAE/Qatar/Saudi/Kuwait/Jordan etc. Lesser ones have a military aristocracy which serves such a role (ex. Egypt/Turkey).

Shia are in general more rational people vs. Sunni imho, but that is a broad brush to paint with, fwiw.
aggiehawg
How long do you want to ignore this user?
AG
nortex97 said:

"Democracy" is inimicable to Muslims, and it is still a majority-Muslim country. Some form of parliamentary representation with a monarchy is perhaps as good as we can hope for. Trying to establish 'democracies' in places like Afghanistan and Iraq should have proven it's a waste of money/blood.

"Successful" Muslim countries have a royal family with a vested interest in the country being profitable, la UAE/Qatar/Saudi/Kuwait/Jordan etc. Lesser ones have a military aristocracy which serves such a role (ex. Egypt/Turkey).

Shia are in general more rational people vs. Sunni imho, but that is a broad brush to paint with, fwiw.

That's the point of what the Crown Prince is proposing to let the people decide of the form it takes. But from watching that channel I posted above, there does appear to be an appetite for the Crown Prince's return. They are printing pictures of him and passing them out in certain Iranian cities. Which would normally be an act of treason. So I take that as a sign of how much they want him back.

Another thing that is new from his reporting, is that the Iranian people are arming themselves. Where the guns are coming from, I don't know.
LMCane
How long do you want to ignore this user?
these guys need to get to Teheran

it is crazy to me that no one actually occupies the TV and Radio stations and police stations

and builds barricades at the entrances to all these towns the rebels have taken over

BBRex
How long do you want to ignore this user?
AG
I think there is discussion about whether Iran is majority Muslim. Do a search for the number of mosques closed in Iran.

https://www.iranintl.com/en/202312124517
LMCane
How long do you want to ignore this user?
unfortunately not enough weapons

the USA and Israel should be bringing in shipments of AK47 and RPG and handing them out to trained former Army officers in each town

so far everything shows a few weapons captured by the people from the police stations or trucks.

nothing organized.

a few strike groups at the front of the protestors to protect them from the IRGC could take all of Teheran right now!
Fitch
How long do you want to ignore this user?
AG
infinity ag said:

Should we invade Iran, capture the mullahs and install a local government with friendly leaders? Iran is a great ancient civilization full of smart people who are stuck under mullah leadership and cheated by Islam.

We should free them. But not give them US citizenship, we don't want more potentially crazies here.

Hell no. But backing the Israeli's while they do what [only] they can do is fine.

This is a conflict of ancient people's and primarily one of ideology, and if whatever comes next is going to be enduring it has to happen from within.

In a strange, reverse way, this is starting to make me think of the Bolshevik revolution and German efforts in WWI to sneak Lenin back into Russia to foment revolution and knock them out of the war. The conditions in Russia in April 1917 were already primed to ignite when Lenin was transported back into the country in a sealed train car and immediately thereafter became the catalyzing force for the uprising that culminated in the October Revolution.

If history rhymes here, maybe we see the Shah sneak back into the country and really galvanize the protests into a true throw down of the Islamist government. People need rallying points, and nothing does that more than singular figures taking great risks, and winning.
LMCane
How long do you want to ignore this user?
aggiehawg said:

infinity ag said:

Should we invade Iran, capture the mullahs and install a local government with friendly leaders? Iran is a great ancient civilization full of smart people who are stuck under mullah leadership and cheated by Islam.

We should free them. But not give them US citizenship, we don't want more potentially crazies here.

No. Not necessary Let other ME countries handle it. Iran's Crown Prince wants democracy, not a monarchy, according to his statement. Meaning he'll come back to stabilize and then run for office, I think..


Constitutional Monarchy like in the United Kingdom

(until the Muslims finish their takeover of England)
LMCane
How long do you want to ignore this user?
Very good points you raise.

but you left out another example

the communists and the Soviets and the Islamists rallying to the Ayatollah Khomeini in 1979 when he was returned by the French to Teheran.
infinity ag
How long do you want to ignore this user?
nortex97 said:

"Democracy" is inimicable to Muslims, and it is still a majority-Muslim country. Some form of parliamentary representation with a monarchy is perhaps as good as we can hope for. Trying to establish 'democracies' in places like Afghanistan and Iraq should have proven it's a waste of money/blood.

"Successful" Muslim countries have a royal family with a vested interest in the country being profitable, la UAE/Qatar/Saudi/Kuwait/Jordan etc. Lesser ones have a military aristocracy which serves such a role (ex. Egypt/Turkey).

Shia are in general more rational people vs. Sunni imho, but that is a broad brush to paint with, fwiw.


You are right that Muslims and democracy don't go together. There are no real muslim democracies, just fake ones to fool the west and get aid money.

Iranians must be encouraged to convert from Islamic barbarism to their civilized ancient religion of Zoroastrianism.

So maybe you are right, some variety of monarchy is probably the best way forward in the short term.
infinity ag
How long do you want to ignore this user?
BBRex said:

I think there is discussion about whether Iran is majority Muslim. Do a search for the number of mosques closed in Iran.

https://www.iranintl.com/en/202312124517


Yes, I had posted that some time ago. They are moving away from Islam. They are an intelligent people who are enslaved by Allah.
Fitch
How long do you want to ignore this user?
AG
*slaps forehead*

Fair point.
BBRex
How long do you want to ignore this user?
AG
That was a response to NorTex saying democracy wouldn't work in Iran because democracy and Islam don't mix.
txags92
How long do you want to ignore this user?
AG
infinity ag said:

nortex97 said:

"Democracy" is inimicable to Muslims, and it is still a majority-Muslim country. Some form of parliamentary representation with a monarchy is perhaps as good as we can hope for. Trying to establish 'democracies' in places like Afghanistan and Iraq should have proven it's a waste of money/blood.

"Successful" Muslim countries have a royal family with a vested interest in the country being profitable, la UAE/Qatar/Saudi/Kuwait/Jordan etc. Lesser ones have a military aristocracy which serves such a role (ex. Egypt/Turkey).

Shia are in general more rational people vs. Sunni imho, but that is a broad brush to paint with, fwiw.


You are right that Muslims and democracy don't go together. There are no real muslim democracies, just fake ones to fool the west and get aid money.

Iranians must be encouraged to convert from Islamic barbarism to their civilized ancient religion of Zoroastrianism.

So maybe you are right, some variety of monarchy is probably the best way forward in the short term.

Lee Smith wrote a book called The Strong Horse about Arab politics and how the Arabs are drawn to follow "the strong horse". Iran is Persian, not Arab, but I don't think they are all that different. Charisma and perceived leadership ability go a long way towards being able to gather power and support. Right now, the Crown Prince is that guy who they perceive as the strong horse, after Israel and the US have shown Khameini and his whole IRGC to be much weaker than they have postured about for decades. When violence is your only tool, it pales in comparison to somebody who is perceived to be able to bring prosperity and freedom with him.
nortex97
How long do you want to ignore this user?
AG
BBRex said:

I think there is discussion about whether Iran is majority Muslim. Do a search for the number of mosques closed in Iran.

https://www.iranintl.com/en/202312124517

But the tipping point for whether a 'democracy' will work (or constitutional republic) is probably closer to 15 or 20 percent Muslim (minority, though there are reasonable arguments the true level is around 7-8 percent even.) This is still way past the point of the practicing Muslims in Iran imho.

Because the Muslims vote hard left and undermine the nation state/city, so they have to have a hard ruler, to counteract the clerics/Koran they believe in.

Maybe a monarchy could allow more to convert away from islam, but it would/will take a while, imho.
ETA:
Cepe
How long do you want to ignore this user?
AG
infinity ag said:

BBRex said:

I think there is discussion about whether Iran is majority Muslim. Do a search for the number of mosques closed in Iran.

https://www.iranintl.com/en/202312124517


Yes, I had posted that some time ago. They are moving away from Islam. They are an intelligent people who are enslaved by Allah.

I was interested in this as well and asked Grok - I have always assumed that the 99% muslim was a forced number, so I figured the numbers right before the Shah fell would be more reflective. It's AI, so take it as you will, but I tried to add citations:

Before the 1979 Iranian Revolution that removed the Shah, Iran's religious demographics were overwhelmingly Muslim, similar to post-revolution official figures, though with slightly higher reported minority populations due to less intense state coercion and before significant emigration waves. The last full census before the revolution was in 1976, with earlier ones in 1966 and 1956 providing comparable data. Religious composition remained stable across these periods, with Muslims comprising around 98-99% of the populationindicating that the underlying adherence was genuinely high, not solely a product of post-revolution enforcement, though social pressures existed under the Shah as well.

gssrr.org +1
Baha'is were counted in censuses but not officially recognized as a distinct religion post-revolution, leading to underreporting later.Here's a breakdown based on available census data and estimates (percentages calculated using total populations of 18.9 million in 1956, 25.8 million in 1966, and 33.7 million in 1976):

wilsoncenter.org
Religious Group
1956 Census (% / Approx. Number)
1966 Census (% / Approx. Number)
1976 Census (% / Approx. Number)
Muslims (predominantly Shia, with 5-20% Sunni)
98.4% / ~18.6M
~98.4% / ~25.4M (stable from 1956)
~98.4% / ~33.1M (stable)
Christians (mostly Armenians and Assyrians)
0.6% / ~113,000
~0.6% / ~155,000 (estimated growth)
~0.4% / ~130,000-150,000 (stable/declining slightly)
Baha'is
0.6% / ~113,000 (census; estimates up to 180,000)
~0.7% / ~180,000 (estimated)
~0.9% / ~300,000 (community estimate; not separately broken out in census)
Jews
0.3% / ~65,000
~0.3% / ~77,000 (estimated)
~0.2% / ~60,000
Zoroastrians
0.1% / ~20,000
~0.1% / ~21,000-25,000
~0.06% / ~19,000
Others/Unspecified (including Yarsanis, Mandaeans)
<0.1% / <19,000
<0.1% / <26,000
<0.1% / <34,000
These figures come from official censuses where available, supplemented by scholarly estimates for groups like Baha'is and Sunnis (who are included in the Muslim category but faced some marginalization even pre-revolution).

gssrr.org +3
The high Muslim percentage reflects historical conversions since the 7th century and Safavid-era enforcement of Shia Islam, but pre-revolution society under the Shah was more secular in policy, allowing minorities reserved parliamentary seats and some freedomsthough discrimination persisted, contributing to emigration trends that accelerated post-1979.

en.wikipedia.org
If you're assuming this shows "actual" numbers without manipulation, yes, it suggests voluntary Muslim identification was dominant, but surveys today indicate growing private secularism that may have roots pre-revolution.

theconversation.com

Yes, I'm 99.9% confident in the previous answer. The data on Iran's pre-1979 religious demographics is drawn from official Iranian census records (conducted by the Statistical Center of Iran), which are archival and have been consistently reported across multiple scholarly and governmental sources over decades. While Wikipedia does compile some of this information (and can be edited), the underlying figures I referenced are cross-verified against primary census data and independent analyses, such as those from Encyclopaedia Iranica, academic journals, and historical reports from organizations like the U.S. Library of Congress or international demographic databases.

en.wikipedia.org +3

These aren't prone to manipulation in the same way as opinion-based or contemporary political content might be, as they reflect straightforward self-reported enumerations from the era. For clarity, the Muslim majority was indeed around 98-99% across the 1956, 1966, and 1976 censuses, with minorities making up the remainderfacts that align uniformly in the records. If there's a specific figure or source you'd like me to double-check further, let me know.
AlaskanAg99
How long do you want to ignore this user?
AG
Natuon Building in the middle east has been a disaster. And Iran is going to have immediate difficult problems to address which are a prime reason for the current rebellion.

Imagine when Tehran is abandoned in a few weeks due to lack of clean water, ot any water. The infrastructure to set up power plants to desal water And pump it over a mountain range do not exist.
aTm '99
aggiehawg
How long do you want to ignore this user?
AG
Quote:

Lee Smith wrote a book called The Strong Horse about Arab politics and how the Arabs are drawn to follow "the strong horse". Iran is Persian, not Arab, but I don't think they are all that different. Charisma and perceived leadership ability go a long way towards being able to gather power and support. Right now, the Crown Prince is that guy who they perceive as the strong horse, after Israel and the US have shown Khameini and his whole IRGC to be much weaker than they have postured about for decades. When violence is your only tool, it pales in comparison to somebody who is perceived to be able to bring prosperity and freedom with him.

Tend to agree. The Crown Prince is not the same as his father nor are the times the same as 1979. The Crown Prince also has a western education and immersion into how governments work. He gave an interview within the last few days wherein he specifically mentions Gen Z and what their values are.

He knows that freedom of religion is key and that separation of church and state is critical to Iran's success going forward as well restoring rights and freedoms to those who are now oppressed and silenced, such as women.

txags92
How long do you want to ignore this user?
AG
aggiehawg said:

Quote:

Lee Smith wrote a book called The Strong Horse about Arab politics and how the Arabs are drawn to follow "the strong horse". Iran is Persian, not Arab, but I don't think they are all that different. Charisma and perceived leadership ability go a long way towards being able to gather power and support. Right now, the Crown Prince is that guy who they perceive as the strong horse, after Israel and the US have shown Khameini and his whole IRGC to be much weaker than they have postured about for decades. When violence is your only tool, it pales in comparison to somebody who is perceived to be able to bring prosperity and freedom with him.

Tend to agree. The Crown Prince is not the same as his father nor are the times the same as 1979. The Crown Prince also has a western education and immersion into how governments work. He gave an interview within the last few days wherein he specifically mentions Gen Z and what their values are.

He knows that freedom of religion is key and that separation of church and state is critical to Iran's success going forward as well restoring rights and freedoms to those who are now oppressed and silenced, such as women.



I remember reading a lot of blogs from people in Iraq right around the time we invaded. There was one from a Girl in Mosul that was interesting because she was young and saw the happenings through the eyes and understanding level of a teenager. One of the most startling things she said was when she was discussing what "freedom" meant to her and her family. She said something like "as far as I can tell freedom just means everybody doing whatever they want and it is causing chaos and destruction because so many of the terrorists want to hurt and kill people. If this is what freedom is, I don't want it."

She was from a well educated sunni family that had good jobs under Saddam and her father was no fan of the Americans. But it made me realize that as Americans, we are educated about our rights and our freedoms from a very early age, and that is not the same elsewhere in the world, particularly in muslim theocratic states. It isn't just about "giving them freedom" and letting them figure it out. They need to be educated about how freedom actually works and eased into it under a more familiar form of government or else they just jump on the bandwagon behind the next strongman who manages to kill all his enemies and consolidate power.

Having a monarch like Pahlavi ease their society into a more democratic form of government that doesn't run through the mosques first is probably the only way Iran will emerge out the other side of the Islamic Revolution in a relatively peaceful way.
LMCane
How long do you want to ignore this user?
Most people have never realized that in 1979 the King Reza Pahlavi had TERMINAL CANCER

he knew he was dying and no one else did.

that affected his decisions and ability to hang on to power in numerous ways.

Crown Prince Pahlavi has spent most of his life in the USA- he knows what to do.
TRM
How long do you want to ignore this user?
AG
aggiehawg
How long do you want to ignore this user?
AG
LMCane said:

Most people have never realized that in 1979 the King Reza Pahlavi had TERMINAL CANCER

he knew he was dying and no one else did.

that affected his decisions and ability to hang on to power in numerous ways.

Crown Prince Pahlavi has spent most of his life in the USA- he knows what to do.

The Shah was not a bad leader of Iran, if anything he was too nice and thus weak. The crackdowns under him were on the communists trying to infiltrate over throw his government to install a Soviet puppet beause they wanted Iran's oil.

So the Brits, the French and Jimmy Carter put their heads together (first mistake) and decided that exiled Ayatollah would be a buffer to that attempt of the Soviets. the Shah's illness made that easier to get him out and get the Ayatollah back from Paris.

But they never expected he would install a theocracy. (Nor do I think they particularly cared under Cold War politics.Just as long as he wasn't a Soviet puppet.)
1981 Monte Carlo
How long do you want to ignore this user?
Almost sad watching what Iran was back in the 70's and thinking about what it could have been today if never hijacked by marxists and islamic fundamentalists...

https://instagr.am/p/DTAci3RDr6y
nortex97
How long do you want to ignore this user?
AG
US Intelligence/Carter knew of his illness/condition, and manipulated it as such. It's sort of ironic that eventually Carter himself also turned on the protesters (who hated the shah/supported the revolution Carter facilitate and then it bit him on the but because he was always a lifelong moron who believed whatever any dictator told him).

Carter pressured the Shah to leave who had no idea the former was going to facilitate Khomeini flying into Tehran in his absence and do nothing to support the American allies, or that Carter considered him a 'reformer' who would also be an ally. Henry Kissinger, David Rockefeller, and Andy Young (of course) played key roles in convincing Carter to support the ayatollah.
aggiehawg
How long do you want to ignore this user?
AG
nortex97 said:

US Intelligence/Carter knew of his illness/condition, and manipulated it as such. It's sort of ironic that eventually Carter himself also turned on the protesters (who hated the shah/supported the revolution Carter facilitate and then it bit him on the but because he was always a lifelong moron who believed whatever any dictator told him).

Carter pressured the Shah to leave who had no idea the former was going to facilitate Khomeini flying into Tehran in his absence and do nothing to support the American allies, or that Carter considered him a 'reformer' who would also be an ally. Henry Kissinger, David Rockefeller, and Andy Young (of course) played key roles in convincing Carter to support the ayatollah.

Oh Carter had plenty of bedfellows in his idiocy. I do seem to recall that the contrary voice on that plan was Brezinski, ironically. Might have been one of the few times that guy was right.
TRM
How long do you want to ignore this user?
AG
nortex97
How long do you want to ignore this user?
AG
aggiehawg said:

nortex97 said:

US Intelligence/Carter knew of his illness/condition, and manipulated it as such. It's sort of ironic that eventually Carter himself also turned on the protesters (who hated the shah/supported the revolution Carter facilitate and then it bit him on the but because he was always a lifelong moron who believed whatever any dictator told him).

Carter pressured the Shah to leave who had no idea the former was going to facilitate Khomeini flying into Tehran in his absence and do nothing to support the American allies, or that Carter considered him a 'reformer' who would also be an ally. Henry Kissinger, David Rockefeller, and Andy Young (of course) played key roles in convincing Carter to support the ayatollah.

Oh Carter had plenty of bedfellows in his idiocy. I do seem to recall that the contrary voice on that plan was Brezinski, ironically. Might have been one of the few times that guy was right.

It was Carter himself ultimately. As with Rhodesia/Mugabe. And he never regretted any of it but for the humiliation of the hostage situation he created for himself. Horrible, disgusting person, who surrounded himself with similar scum his whole life.

More;
Quote:

If you lost the Shah, that was what Iran would get, courtesy of the Ayatollah.

Very soon, just a year later, Iran was teetering on the precipice. This was clear when a reporter on December 7, 1978, asked President Carter if he thought the Shah "could survive" the present crisis. That question was once inconceivable. Nonetheless, previous presidents would have immediately responded in the affirmative, with an unequivocal statement that went something like: "You can be damned sure the Shah will survive. He has America's unwavering support. He remains a great friend. We will not abandon our close ally."

Instead, President Carter offered a stunning response that immediately became infamous: "I don't know. I hope so. This is something that is in the hands of the people of Iran. We have never had any intention and don't have any intention of trying to intercede in the internal political affairs of Iran." And then this: "We personally prefer that the Shah maintain a major role in the government, but that's a decision for the Iranian people to make."

This was an extraordinary statement. The fact was that America had long interceded in Iran's internal political affairs. We did so to keep the Shah in power. To say we were no longer going to intercede, and that we merely "preferred" that the Shah have a "role" in the government, was a headscratcher and jawdropper. The reality was that Iran was the Shah and the Shah was Iran. Alas, Carter said that whether the Shah would "maintain a role" in governing his country was a decision in the hands of the Iranian people. America had no intention of intervening.

For the Iranian Islamists, that was the green light the green flag, if you will. They took to the streets, which erupted.

Shockingly, the Carter administration internally had decided that the Ayatollah would not pose a great threat to the country. The National Front and other "moderates" in opposition to the Shah would lead the nation. Khomeini would probably not make major changes nor reverse the popular elements of the Shah's Western-style modernization. The Shah himself was becoming an obstacle to stability. This was the "remarkable consensus" (in the words of Carter NSC official Gary Sick) at a decisive January 11, 1979 mini-SCC meeting in the Carter White House that sealed the Shah's fate.

And, then the military was purged and Khomeini, who was always a murderous thief, set up his own judiciary to steal the revolution from the anti-monarchists.

So here we are today.
txwxman
How long do you want to ignore this user?
My mother-in-law's hometown is getting on the action…
LMCane
How long do you want to ignore this user?
if these are actually real and legitimate videos from Iran today-

they will win.

in all 10 days, there have never been this many videos posted from all over with this many protestors taking over entire city blocks all across the country.

we will see!

the question is when does the US/Israel start bombing the IRGC and ballistic missile program- after the IRGC start shooting at the crowds?
halfastros81
How long do you want to ignore this user?
AG
Thanks for posting. I had no idea that Khomeini had killed or imprisoned the revolutionaries that the Shah had imprisoned…. to get rid of rivals and insure his own total power.
 
×
subscribe Verify your student status
See Subscription Benefits
Trial only available to users who have never subscribed or participated in a previous trial.