Iran back in the day

[KMack]

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/travel/travel_news/article-4148684/Stunning-photos-reveal-life-Iran-revolution.html

The stunning photos of life across the vibrant country in the 60s and 70s portray a seemingly cosmopolitan kingdom on the brink of change

[N1019]

The students shown in that article could be some of the same who later decided it would be a good idea to get rid of the Shah.

I'm surprised no-one has started a thread about Flynn and Trump putting Iran "on notice" after its latest missile test. Mustn't suit the predominant airy-fairy leftist bent on here.

[Annie999]

These pics make me sad

[Mingle]

Cherry picked photos of the cosmopolitan elite. The only way women in Iran have it worse today is they're forced to cover their head whereas back then, they weren't (although most still did for cultural/religious reasons). Iranian women nowadays are much more involved in the government and are much more educated.

[N1019]

Iranian women nowadays are much more involved in the government and are much more educated.

Do you really think that happened because of the revolution? I think it was happening anyway, and so it happened in spite of the revolution, not because of it. The revolution happened during a time of modernisation for the country, so it is convenient for the current regime to take credit for something that began before they came to power. We know politicians in Iran have to be vetted for suitability otherwise they are disqualified from elections. The Shah's regime was quite authoritarian despite the presence of a parliament and so is the current regime. So they like to boast about the presence of women and minorities in parliament, as if they have any real power. Big deal.

[Mingle]

Do you really think that happened because of the revolution? I think it was happening anyway, and so it happened in spite of the revolution, not because of it. The revolution happened during a time of modernisation for the country, so it is convenient for the current regime to take credit for something that began before they came to power. We know politicians in Iran have to be vetted for suitability otherwise they are disqualified from elections. The Shah's regime was quite authoritarian despite the presence of a parliament and so is the current regime. So they like to boast about the presence of women and minorities in parliament, as if they have any real power. Big deal.

True it would have happened anyways, but the overall treatment towards women wasn't much different in both eras afaik (minus the head covering today). Photos like the above imply it was.

[N1019]

True it would have happened anyways, but the overall treatment towards women wasn't much different in both eras afaik (minus the head covering today). Photos like the above imply it was.

Well, it was the Shah who gave women the vote to begin with, in 1963 along with more opportunities generally which were granted by MRP, his father and even the Qajar dynasty. Had the monarchy not granted women various rights and opportunities decades before the revolution, I doubt the ayatollahs would have done it out of the kindness of their hearts since the liberation of women is not exactly a priority under Islam despite Islamic law making various provisions for women. Some things have definitely gone backwards. The minimum age of marriage for women was set at 18 under the Shah but dropped to 9 and later 13 after the revolution in accordance with the accepted Islamic norm of "old enough to bleed, old enough to breed".

[Annie999]

Cherry picked photos of the cosmopolitan elite. The only way women in Iran have it worse today is they're forced to cover their head whereas back then, they weren't (although most still did for cultural/religious reasons). Iranian women nowadays are much more involved in the government and are much more educated.

Did you know women in Iran are not allowed to go a stadium to see a sport match? (football, volleyball, etc).

[Gold-Shekel]

lmao as if Iran was a shithole today, it's just that the 70's were much more colorful

[Root]

a photo session for Members' Pictures Thread?




http://i.dailymail.co.uk/i/pix/2017/01/30/13/3C808EE700000578-4148684-In_the_Isfahan_bazaar_a_young_boy_sits_stiffly_for _his_photograp-a-16_1485783474951.jpg

[Pennywise]

Was as shitty as today. This "Iran was a paradise before the revolt!" thing is just a huge ass overrrated balloon.

[Bosnjakinja]

Cherry picked photos of the cosmopolitan elite. The only way women in Iran have it worse today is they're forced to cover their head whereas back then, they weren't (although most still did for cultural/religious reasons). Iranian women nowadays are much more involved in the government and are much more educated.

Iranians are in general an educated people though, so they have a fairly large "elite" (middle to upper class). Iran before the revolution can be compared to some Latin American countries where the European-descended minority "rule" the native populations - that is, the country is largely "backwards" (in lack of a better word) with pockets of prosperity created by and for the minority middle and upper class.

And being able to dress the way you want and go wherever you want is two basic freedoms that are needed for personal fulfillment for most people. It wouldn't matter if I was the highest paid lawyer in my country, if I needed to cover my body whenever I left the house or need a permission slip from my husband to go on a vacation out of the country, I would feel depressed.

[Gold-Shekel]

Was as shitty as today. This "Iran was a paradise before the revolt!" thing is just a huge ass overrrated balloon.

It was better, but only for the elite, the people who smash Iran are usually people who were in high society.

[Dandelion]

Was as shitty as today. This "Iran was a paradise before the revolt!" thing is just a huge ass overrrated balloon.

True. These are rich bourgeois people. However, I still think if secularism spread successfully to the lower classes Iran would be far better today if not alone foreign relations-wise. Iran is a strict theocracy many people underestimate until they visit it (no I haven't visited but I've seen enough to make an educated judgement on it).

I also wonder whether islamists would've taken over if the democratically elected Mosaddegh wasn't disposed of earlier (by the CIA and SIS). Something tells me they still might've for back in the 1950s people had more admiration for the West in muslim-majority countries than back in the late 1970s or today for that matter.

[Pennywise]

It was better, but only for the elite, the people who smash Iran are usually people who were in high society.

Elites always have more privileges than to others. If you have money or title, everywhere is good to you. So let's put them out of the equation.

[Gold-Shekel]

Elites always have more privileges than to others. If you have money or title, everywhere is good to you. So let's put them out of the equation.

If we put them out of the equation, I think present day Iran is better for the majority of the population than former Iran.

[Pennywise]

True. These are rich bourgeois people. However, I still think if secularism spread successfully to the lower classes Iran would be far better today if not alone foreign relations-wise. Iran is a strict theocracy many people underestimate until they visit it (no I haven't visited but I've seen enough to make an educated judgement on it).

I also wonder whether islamists would've taken over if the democratically elected Mosaddegh wasn't disposed of earlier (by the CIA and SIS). Something tells me they still might've for back in the 1950s people had more admiration for the West in muslim-majority countries than back in the late 1970s or today for that matter.

Yeah, I have heard people who have visited it. This "Iran is oasis of Muslim world" guys should definetly pay a visit there. :rolleyes: Iran never been truely secular/westernized nation in its history, common folk always remained conservative. And the revolt's itself is prove of it. Same goes for Turkey to a degree but we have managed to establish a way more solid secular state so far.

[Bosnjakinja]

If we put them out of the equation, I think present day Iran is better for the majority of the population than former Iran.

Maybe if you're a man.

I'll never understand these men saying things like "oh it's just a cloth on your head, get over it". It's not, it symbolizes how women don't have control of their own body and don't have the right to chose what to do with their body.

I'd like to see men being forced to cover themselves for two months (no matter what weather and other conditions), not being able to go to specific locations (football games etc), needing someone else's permission to leave the country. And then come and talk about how those things "don't really matter".

[Herr Abubu]

Maybe if you're a man.

I'll never understand these men saying things like "oh it's just a cloth on your head, get over it". It's not, it symbolizes how women don't have control of their own body and don't have the right to chose what to do with their body.

I'd like to see men being forced to cover themselves for two months (no matter what weather and other conditions), not being able to go to specific locations (football games etc), needing someone else's permission to leave the country. And then come and talk about how those things "don't really matter".

Note how most of this is really damn trivial stuff.

[Herr Abubu]

The Ayatollahs are the best thing that could have happened to Iran. Much better than being raped economically, politically and culturally by the West. Death to the Great Satan.

[Gold-Shekel]

Maybe if you're a man.

I'll never understand these men saying things like "oh it's just a cloth on your head, get over it". It's not, it symbolizes how women don't have control of their own body and don't have the right to chose what to do with their body.

I'd like to see men being forced to cover themselves for two months (no matter what weather and other conditions), not being able to go to specific locations (football games etc), needing someone else's permission to leave the country. And then come and talk about how those things "don't really matter".

I like how it's the only thing that matters to people, fuck going to university right? What matters is that women have to wear a headscarf.

Women make 60% of the college/uni population, while under the Shah only a limited number of women could go to Uni (higher society only ofc).

These women you see in the pictures may not have to wear a headscarf, but they were also uneducated. Access to education is the most important thing, if part of your main complaints is that women can't go to soccer matches, your views of the world and what human rights stand for are quite sad.

Uncover your legs so that your empty brain doesn't attract attention is what you are preaching.

[Jehan]

I like how it's the only thing that matters to people, fuck going to university right? What matters is that women have to wear a headscarf.

Women make 60% of the college/uni population, while under the Shah only a limited number of women could go to Uni (higher society only ofc).

These women you see in the pictures may not have to wear a headscarf, but they were also uneducated. Access to education is the most important thing, if part of your main complaints is that women can't go to soccer matches, your views of the world and what human rights stand for are quite sad.



Sorry but your exemple of the percent of women going to university is quite retard.
Back in the time far less women made high study, not only in Iran but everywhere. It has nothing to do with the shah. You can see it in all the countries.
And the high percent of women going to university nowaday in Iran isn't due to the ayatollah policy. I would say it's even the opposit, women know they will have less opportunity in working world so they study harder.

[N1019]

I also wonder whether islamists would've taken over if the democratically elected Mosaddegh wasn't disposed of earlier (by the CIA and SIS). Something tells me they still might've for back in the 1950s people had more admiration for the West in muslim-majority countries than back in the late 1970s or today for that matter.

Yes, it still could have happened anyway. The popular leftist narrative is that Mossadegh was a democratically-elected prime minister but in reality he was appointed PM by the Shah. Iran was never a proper Western-style constitutional monarchy in practice. The democratic part of his rise to power was his election to the parliament, not to the role of prime minister. I believe that distinction is significant. The Shah had the undisputed power to hire and fire. He chose Mossadegh at least partly because he was not a typical Iranian feudal figure like much of the parliament. Mossadegh challenged the Shah's authority, so the Shah's own masters eventually intervened with the assistance of the CIA. Also, it appears that Mossadegh suffered a major fall in popularity during the oil crisis, as the British attempted to leverage their global clout against the country to protect their interests (the British were considering military action but sought assistance from the CIA instead). So in the end, it appears that large swathes of the general population also wanted him out.

Now, the Shah himself was put in power by the British in 1941 after they exiled his father to Mauritius. They weren't very happy with Mohammad Reza Pahlavi's becoming the next ruler of Iran, a nation they wanted to control, but they were lacking in options. From the word go, they always reserved the right to get rid of him if necessary. Anglo-American intelligence established close contacts within the Iranian clerical community, some say including with Ruhollah Khomeini. While the average ayatollah was no fan of the Pahlavis, perceiving their modernisation policies as a threat, apparently they were also no fan of Mossadegh, so their help was made available during the oil crisis - for a price, of course. It seems highly likely that those ties were maintained and called upon again in 1979.

A look at Iran from 1900 to 2017 reveals repeated attempts by rulers - either kings, prime ministers or ayatollahs - to push back against Western interference and either reclaim Iran's sovereignty or maintain the upper hand against the imperial powers. On the first three occasions I have in mind, with Reza Shah Pahlavi, Mossadegh and Mohammad Reza Shah Pahlavi, the empire struck back and Iran got screwed. The fourth example of Iranian push-back has been going on since 1979 but could be brought to a head very soon (see below).



The Ayatollahs are the best thing that could have happened to Iran. Much better than being raped economically, politically and culturally by the West. Death to the Great Satan.

Given the fact that the US-UK hijacked the popular Iranian revolution against the Shah to put the Ayatollahs in power (and ensure the communists and secular nationalists got screwed), that's laughable.

Additionally, the Iran-Iraq war, which killed and maimed hundreds of thousands of people, probably never would have happened had the Persian monarchy survived.

Furthermore, the attitude of the current regime vis-a-vis the emerging Bush-like aggression of the Trump Administration is going to get the whole country bombed back to the stone age.


On 3 January 2017, before Trump even came to office, a Democrat introduced a new bill to Congress to authorize the use of pre-emptive military force against Iran to supposedly "prevent it from acquiring nuclear weapons". Look it up: H.J. Res. 10. Iran is going down.

I fail to see how any of those things have been/will be good for Iran.

[Herr Abubu]

Given the fact that the US-UK hijacked the popular Iranian revolution against the Shah to put the Ayatollahs in power (and ensure the communists and secular nationalists got screwed), that's laughable.

Additionally, the Iran-Iraq war, which killed and maimed hundreds of thousands of people, probably never would have happened had the Persian monarchy survived.

Furthermore, the attitude of the current regime vis-a-vis the emerging Bush-like aggression of the Trump Administration is going to get the whole country bombed back to the stone age.


On 3 January 2017, before Trump even came to office, a Democrat introduced a new bill to Congress to authorize the use of pre-emptive military force against Iran to supposedly "prevent it from acquiring nuclear weapons". Look it up: H.J. Res. 10. Iran is going down.

I fail to see how any of those things have been/will be good for Iran.

And it completely backfired on them, didn't it? Shia mysticist authoritarians is exactly what a country like Iran needed. Much better than some secular monarch who'll spread his buttcheeks if he profits from it. War against Iran is war against Russia and China, and all the smaller countries allied with them. A world war is exactly what this world needs. The Anglo-Americans are losing their grip and are taking quite desperate measures.

[Hexachordia]

We know for sometime now, that Stalin was given greenligh to rule over the eastern mass with their crackpot ideology called marxism under the agreement of YALTA. The world has been set in a downward mode since then. We are heading toward a spiritual and cultural destruction by the post-modernist garbages spearheaded with pseudoscience, alien contact-bluff, racism, atheism, all these garbages were purposefully execrated from the west to ship to the East. They will then deliberately set a stage of war between Russia and Middle East, China and Japan&SE Asia, let us destroy each other. But we must not hate them it is what they want, they need our hate to justify themself. I want all their cultures, and they shall preserve all their heritage for me, their experiences in science and management is to be shared, this my edict of exchange for my forceful forgiving.

[Mraz]

A revolution happens for a reason, what is shown on those fotos is a % of privileged people while the mass wasn't Westernized, didn't have access to education, urban comfort and got peanuts from the State. You can't expect the majority to stay silent and accept injustice.

[Hexachordia]

I serious dislike racism but would not want to see Europe turning non-white either, I just need to oppose racism as much as freedom of speech norm allows. The East was not altogather magical, stop fantasizing about mystical past glory it is why you fools got enslaved by Karl Marx, most indigenous people just deserved to be conquered, but no more major wars, seriously. There are surely minority rogue westerners always try to pit more wars because of diverse occult practices have been persisting, they and megalomaniac communist leaders all need to be warned. Iran has being rich troughout the whole colonial era, except for the aftermath with the war with Russia around 1820s, so was Thailand almost unaffacted, colonialists never really destroy its economy untill Soros did in 1998. COlonialists just helped Japan to develop and nationalist movement against Qin dynasty to happen in China. Whether it has to do the minority cult practioners, just some people have to stand up and talk reason from the eastern side. While we are not blaming everything on the west, or going
vendetta against colonialism(I like it personally), we are not stupid enough to miss the age of information and continue to swallow more neo-con garbages.

[Philip Latinowitz]

Western sugar-coating of decadent Shah regime is quite funny. Secularism was never so widespread among middle and lower Iranian classes as American and British media try to portray.
Average European had no fundamental understanding of Iran's mentality which leads to overly idealized picture of pre-revolution society.

[Amor Vincit Omnia]

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/travel/travel_news/article-4148684/Stunning-photos-reveal-life-Iran-revolution.html

The stunning photos of life across the vibrant country in the 60s and 70s portray a seemingly cosmopolitan kingdom on the brink of change

unfortunately ISLAM stop all this

[wvwvw]

Iran back in the day was more backward than it is today, save for a minority of Iranians who constituted the corrupt elite of the country, which lived at the expense of the majority of Iranians.

[wvwvw]

Islamic Republic of Iran: Posters threaten women with hellfire for not wearing hijab

https://cdn.jihadwatch.org/wp-content/uploads/2017/02/women-paradise-or-hell.jpg

In this tyrannical Islamic regime of Iran which so false and inappropriately has the word “Republic” in its heading. Still is this heinous and cruel tyranny does have the word “Islamic” in its title .This other word “Islamic” is very appropriate mullahs and ayatollahs and well as other Muslim oppressors in this Koranic/Sharia law based dictatorship.

[Wadaad]

These photos of Shahi sycophants are as relevant as posting photos of French balls from Versailles palace prior to 1789...

[Gold-Shekel]

Sorry but your exemple of the percent of women going to university is quite retard.
Back in the time far less women made high study, not only in Iran but everywhere. It has nothing to do with the shah. You can see it in all the countries.
And the high percent of women going to university nowaday in Iran isn't due to the ayatollah policy. I would say it's even the opposit, women know they will have less opportunity in working world so they study harder.

It's a fact that women in general weren't allowed to study, it didn't have anything to do with what they wanted.

And for that thing I underlined, can you contradict yourself more than that?




In this tyrannical Islamic regime of Iran which so false and inappropriately has the word “Republic” in its heading. Still is this heinous and cruel tyranny does have the word “Islamic” in its title .This other word “Islamic” is very appropriate mullahs and ayatollahs and well as other Muslim oppressors in this Koranic/Sharia law based dictatorship.

LMAO "republic" literally means that the country has a president. Iran has a president so how is it inappropriate?

[N1019]

And it completely backfired on them, didn't it?

Yes, but that's nothing new. The British were involved in the rise of Reza Shah in the 1920s and that went to shit, so in 1941 they got rid of him and installed his son as the last Shah. By the mid 1970s that too had gone to shit, so they supported the rise of the ayatollahs. By their own admission, the Anglo-Americans seem pretty much content to continue changing regimes as necessary - except when they decide to completely obliterate entire nations.


Shia mysticist authoritarians is exactly what a country like Iran needed. Much better than some secular monarch who'll spread his buttcheeks if he profits from it.

Not if it ultimately means the total destruction of the country... unless that's the outcome you're looking for.

The rise of those "Shia mysticist authoritarians" already led to an eight year war that killed at least half a million Iranians, not to mention tens of thousands directly murdered by their regime. It has been a tough 38 years for Iran. Hardly a good outcome.



War against Iran is war against Russia and China, and all the smaller countries allied with them.

That is very far from guaranteed. Ever wonder why Trump might be seeking better relations with Russia? Think about it.

As for China, the east Asian giant has virtually zero capacity to defend Iran. China does not have a proper expeditionary military force that can project power in such a manner as to defend far-distant lands.

[N1019]

save for a minority of Iranians who constituted the corrupt elite of the country, which lived at the expense of the majority of Iranians.

Which is precisely what is still happening. Sometimes, the more things change, the more they stay the same.

[Herr Abubu]

Yes, but that's nothing new. The British were involved in the rise of Reza Shah in the 1920s and that went to shit, so in 1941 they got rid of him and installed his son as the last Shah. By the mid 1970s that too had gone to shit, so they supported the rise of the ayatollahs. By their own admission, the Anglo-Americans seem pretty much content to continue changing regimes as necessary - except when they decide to completely obliterate entire nations.



Not if it ultimately means the total destruction of the country... unless that's the outcome you're looking for.

The rise of those "Shia mysticist authoritarians" already led to an eight year war that killed at least half a million Iranians, not to mention tens of thousands directly murdered by their regime. It has been a tough 38 years for Iran. Hardly a good outcome.

You think too much in terms of numbers. It doesn't work like that.



That is very far from guaranteed. Ever wonder why Trump might be seeking better relations with Russia? Think about it.

As for China, the east Asian giant has virtually zero capacity to defend Iran. China does not have a proper expeditionary military force that can project power in such a manner as to defend far-distant lands.

No, it is pretty much guaranteed that this will happen. The Russians are far too clever to be fooled by the Americans. They know that Russia is the Americans' long-term goal. We know Iran is Russia's Israel. No one in Russia but Western pawns want any real alliance with the Americans because they all know that Americans are opposed to Russia by nature and have always been.

[Sarmatian]

Looking at these photos one have to wonder why supposedly progressive and universal ideas of liberalism and democracy didn't take over minds and hearts of people in Iran. If everything was going so well and people were so happy as it's shown why there was revolution in the first place?

[N1019]

You think too much in terms of numbers. It doesn't work like that.

What exactly was that a response to?





No, it is pretty much guaranteed that this will happen. The Russians are far too clever to be fooled by the Americans. They know that Russia is the Americans' long-term goal. We know Iran is Russia's Israel. No one in Russia but Western pawns want any real alliance with the Americans because they all know that Americans are opposed to Russia by nature and have always been.

What I suggested actually had nothing to do with fooling Russia. It would be a conscious decision on the part of the Russians not to try to save Iran.

So, you actually believe that Russia would get into a direct hot war against the US to protect Iran?

[Sarmatian]

No, it is pretty much guaranteed that this will happen. The Russians are far too clever to be fooled by the Americans. They know that Russia is the Americans' long-term goal. We know Iran is Russia's Israel. No one in Russia but Western pawns want any real alliance with the Americans because they all know that Americans are opposed to Russia by nature and have always been.

Good old confrontation between naval and continental powers. So far nobody offered a viable solution to resolve it. We could only hope Trump will work in this direction cooperating with other world leaders.

[N1019]

Looking at these photos one have to wonder why supposedly progressive and universal ideas of liberalism and democracy didn't take over minds and hearts of people in Iran. If everything was going so well and people were so happy as it's shown why there was revolution in the first place?

Actually, there were secular nationalist and democratic elements to the revolution. They just didn't win. In fact, if you read deeply enough into the revolution, it appears they were deliberately snuffed out, while the ayatollahs were deliberately empowered by US-UK intelligence to ensure that they won the struggle for power in the post-Shah regime. By some reports, the CIA was still supporting what became the SAVAMA, which was the IRI's equivalent of the Shah's infamous SAVAK.

[Sarmatian]

Actually, there were secular nationalist and democratic elements to the revolution. They just didn't win. In fact, if you read deeply enough into the revolution, it appears they were deliberately snuffed out, while the ayatollahs were deliberately empowered by US-UK intelligence to ensure that they won the struggle for power in the post-Shah regime. By some reports, the CIA was still supporting what became the SAVAMA, which was the IRI's equivalent of the Shah's infamous SAVAK.

Little surprise in it. All revolutions are being made by discontent masses but later being snatched by few who know what they doing and know how state functioning.

That doesn't cancel the fact how these events are being portrayed in Western sources: Iran was democratic liberal society but later was overrun by radical backward traditionalists.

[N1019]

Little surprise in it. All revolutions are being made by discontent masses but later being snatched by few who know what they doing and know how state functioning.

Exactly. But since the mainstream media are allied with the elite or have their own ideological agenda, few are willing to cover this dark side of the Iranian revolution. For most people it requires too much digging to get closer to the truth. Most people (including many on this forum) prefer the path of least resistance and simple one-liners.


That doesn't cancel the fact how these events are being portrayed in Western sources: Iran was democratic liberal society but later was overrun by radical backward traditionalists.

Western media reports on conditions before and after the revolution are mixed. For instance, modern leftist media outlets typically portray the Shah as a brutal dictator and almost always refer back to the Mossadegh incident, making little mention of his better side. It's like a broken record. They essentially treat him in the same way that mainstream media were treating Assad - a brutal dictator killing his own people, ignoring the fact that he really did do some good things for the country. And so what if he was incredibly rich?

In the mid to late 70s Western mainstream media were often portraying the Shah as an out-of-control megalomaniac kicking the stagflation-afflicted Western economies while they were down by repeatedly pushing for oil price hikes. At the time, Kissinger stated that the US Treasury and Department of Defense were "going after the Shah" and "running a vicious campaign" against him. In the end it led to closer US-Saudi ties, the Shah's oil prices were undercut by the Gulf Arabs and he started going broke. Only then did the revolution begin - surprise, surprise.... or maybe that shouldn't be a surprise, either.

[Herr Abubu]

What exactly was that a response to?

The last part. Look at it fundamentally. Anything that's anti-America is inherently the better choice. These things can't be counted. Numbers tell very little about the fundamentals.


What I suggested actually had nothing to do with fooling Russia. It would be a conscious decision on the part of the Russians not to try to save Iran.

Russia sacrifices its greatest geopolitical ally for what? Nice words from Trump as he plants a knife in Russia's back? The Americans think they can fool people far more capable than them. It's exactly because the stakes are so high that Russia would go in and it's, again, exactly because the stakes are so high that this would cause war throughout the world. This is a war prepared for a long time ago. It was planned and destined to happen.


So, you actually believe that Russia would get into a direct hot war against the US to protect Iran?

Russia has been quite willing to fight proxy wars against America so far for less important geopolitical pieces. Iran and Russia are inseparable in the Middle East, just like America and Israel are, though for different reasons, of course. So what makes you think a Russia that's willing to fight over the Ukraine and Syria isn't going to be willing to fight for Iran? Do you think they will half-ass it by fighting America for Syria but not for Iran? Especially when Russia so far has successfully countered America's every move. Russia will fight because if he doesn't he is cornered and because they know Syria is a platform towards Iran. In Syria alone Russia showed quite a lot of guts already by f.e. targeting and bombing the US and Israeli intelligence bases that coordinate the "rebel factions". America, on the other hand, doesn't have the guts to do something so directly. Everything America does must be done through proxies helped by propaganda.

[N1019]

The last part. Look at it fundamentally. Anything that's anti-America is inherently the better choice. These things can't be counted. Numbers tell very little about the fundamentals.

Ok. So the hell that Iran has been through over the past 40 years was worthwhile just because it was anti-American, like it is simply a matter of pride and ego?

Hundreds of thousands of lives lost, billions worth of lost trade opportunities due to sanctions, billions wasted on militarism, developmental setbacks of decades. I wonder how many Iranians would agree. I've discussed it with several and I know their opinion.



Russia sacrifices its greatest geopolitical ally for what? Nice words from Trump as he plants a knife in Russia's back? The Americans think they can fool people far more capable than them. It's exactly because the stakes are so high that Russia would go in and it's, again, exactly because the stakes are so high that this would cause war throughout the world. This is a war prepared for a long time ago. It was planned and destined to happen.

This has already been discussed in other threads so I couldn't be bothered repeating it in detail beyond saying that it's not just about nice words. The US and the Europeans have more bargaining chips to play with than that, including economic sanctions and the Ukraine, military buildups and missile programmes, which are matters of concern to Russia. Russia will have the opportunity to decide what is more important.

Another important point is that the US has the capacity to portray Iran as the bad guy in a manner that would make Russian material support untenable in the eyes of the global community. I'm talking deliberate provocative actions that give the US an excuse to attack, false flag events blamed on Iran etc. There are many options.


And if you're going to call Iran "Russia's greatest geopolitical ally", it's not much for Russia to boast about. I don't believe Russia would ever classify Iran as such. At least in the middle east, Syria was Russia's greatest ally, not Iran. It was never Iran. But look what happened to Syria. Despite that strong relationship with Russia, Syria was still destroyed.




Russia has been quite willing to fight proxy wars against America so far for less important geopolitical pieces.

A proxy war is one thing. We're talking about direct hot war here. Very different. That is, American B-52s dropping their payloads over Iranian cities, etc. How many Western aircraft have been shot down while bombing Syria?


Iran and Russia are inseparable in the Middle East, just like America and Israel are, though for different reasons, of course.

I don't believe the Iran-Russia relationship runs deep enough to make them inseparable. Their relationship is mostly due to their mutual opposition to American hegemony and trade opportunities that Iran only bothered pursuing because it was cut off from the West by sanctions. Historically, Russia and Iran were enemies. There's little depth to the relationship. I can guarantee you that Russia doesn't trust Iran at all, and the reverse is probably also true.



So what makes you think a Russia that's willing to fight over the Ukraine and Syria isn't going to be willing to fight for Iran?

You cannot seriously be putting Iran on the same level as the Ukraine. The Ukraine was practically part of Russia. No other territory is dearer to Russia than the Ukraine. Despite that, the US was still able to overthrow the Ukrainian government and cause all hell to break loose, right on Russia's doorstep.

And with Syria, as I mentioned above, Syria was Russia's closest ally in the middle east, with a long relationship that went way beyond what Russia has with Iran. Iran is not on the same level as the Ukraine or Syria in terms of its relationship with Russia.



Do you think they will half-ass it by fighting America for Syria but not for Iran? Especially when Russia so far has successfully countered America's every move. Russia will fight because if he doesn't he is cornered and because they know Syria is a platform towards Iran. In Syria alone Russia showed quite a lot of guts already by f.e. targeting and bombing the US and Israeli intelligence bases that coordinate the "rebel factions". America, on the other hand, doesn't have the guts to do something so directly. Everything America does must be done through proxies helped by propaganda.

Syria still got destroyed despite Russian intervention, so I'd say Russia went half-arsed in Syria. By the time Russian intervention began, a huge amount of damage had already been done. Sure, Assad is still in power, but look at his country - it's in ruins. Russia's capacity to influence affairs in Iran will be much more limited.


Another variable you may not have considered is Israel. While it is unlikely that Russia would want to get into a direct hot war with the US over Iran, Russia would also be reluctant to attack Israeli forces if they spearheaded the war with Iran. Russia supports the existence of Israel and Putin has stated that Iran should not say that Israel will be destroyed or any words that could be interpreted in that way. Israel has been positioning itself for attacks on Iran in self-defence for quite some time. All it needs to do is come up with a convincing case that Iran is a serious and immediate threat to the existence of Israel and they will have the green light for war, with the full support of American and allied forces, of course. Meanwhile, with H.J. Res. 10 the US is on the way to having a green light for pre-emptive strikes on Iran.

[Sarmatian]

Ok. So the hell that Iran has been through over the past 40 years was worthwhile just because it was anti-American, like it is simply a matter of pride and ego?

Hundreds of thousands of lives lost, billions worth of lost trade opportunities due to sanctions, billions wasted on militarism, developmental setbacks of decades. I wonder how many Iranians would agree. I've discussed it with several and I know their opinion.

Would you agree that personal opinions of people who fled the country aren't the best to judge general public attitudes in the country?



Another important point is that the US has the capacity to portray Iran as the bad guy in a manner that would make Russian material support untenable in the eyes of the global community. I'm talking deliberate provocative actions that give the US an excuse to attack, false flag events blamed on Iran etc. There are many options.

You should know by now Russians have little concerns when it comes to the 'eyes of the global community'. Mostly because these claims of it being global are nothing but propaganda, vast majority of human population do not fall for Anglo dominated media.


And if you're going to call Iran "Russia's greatest geopolitical ally", it's not much for Russia to boast about. I don't believe Russia would ever classify Iran as such. At least in the middle east, Syria was Russia's greatest ally, not Iran. It was never Iran. But look what happened to Syria. Despite that strong relationship with Russia, Syria was still destroyed.
...
I don't believe the Iran-Russia relationship runs deep enough to make them inseparable. Their relationship is mostly due to their mutual opposition to American hegemony and trade opportunities that Iran only bothered pursuing because it was cut off from the West by sanctions. Historically, Russia and Iran were enemies. There's little depth to the relationship. I can guarantee you that Russia doesn't trust Iran at all, and the reverse is probably also true.
...
And with Syria, as I mentioned above, Syria was Russia's closest ally in the middle east, with a long relationship that went way beyond what Russia has with Iran. Iran is not on the same level as the Ukraine or Syria in terms of its relationship with Russia.

While claim of Russia and Iran being greatest geopolitical allies could be called a stretch by some, claims of them being historical enemies are even less credible. Rus and Persia had centuries of relationships, mostly based on mutually beneficial trade. Assault and destruction of Khazar kaganate by Rus prince in 10th century was prompted by Khazars blocking entry into Caspian sea and starving Rus and the rest of Europe of Persian dinars, the world trading currency of the time. Capturing Kazan and Astrakhan down Volga river by Muscovy in 16th century was prompted by need to control direct trading route to Persia. Sure both sides were willing to rob each other of possessions or lands when given a chance but that was the norm of life at the time.

Today relationships between Russia and Iran are based on more than just opposition to US and trade interests. For Russia today Iran is like a guard keeping stability in the region and holding off hordes of radicals. If Iran will fall into chaos those radicals will take over and will be free to enter Russia almost unchallenged. Survival of Russians as cultural and historical entity heavily relies on Iran's integrity.

But there is even more than that. Both Russia and Iran are continental powers will very old history and tradition. In both countries societies present a complex mix of modernism and traditionalism, sometimes humorous, sometimes bizarre. But these countries have many points of contacts in culture and tradition. With Turkey turning more and more towards maintaining friendly relationships with its neighbors these three countries have a potential to form a new power structure in the region. Something US and its friends will have to acknowledge. Especially given the fact those 'friends' seems to be in trouble themselves.

[Herr Abubu]

Ok. So the hell that Iran has been through over the past 40 years was worthwhile just because it was anti-American, like it is simply a matter of pride and ego?

Hundreds of thousands of lives lost, billions worth of lost trade opportunities due to sanctions, billions wasted on militarism, developmental setbacks of decades. I wonder how many Iranians would agree. I've discussed it with several and I know their opinion.




This has already been discussed in other threads so I couldn't be bothered repeating it in detail beyond saying that it's not just about nice words. The US and the Europeans have more bargaining chips to play with than that, including economic sanctions and the Ukraine, military buildups and missile programmes, which are matters of concern to Russia. Russia will have the opportunity to decide what is more important.

Another important point is that the US has the capacity to portray Iran as the bad guy in a manner that would make Russian material support untenable in the eyes of the global community. I'm talking deliberate provocative actions that give the US an excuse to attack, false flag events blamed on Iran etc. There are many options.


And if you're going to call Iran "Russia's greatest geopolitical ally", it's not much for Russia to boast about. I don't believe Russia would ever classify Iran as such. At least in the middle east, Syria was Russia's greatest ally, not Iran. It was never Iran. But look what happened to Syria. Despite that strong relationship with Russia, Syria was still destroyed.




A proxy war is one thing. We're talking about direct hot war here. Very different. That is, American B-52s dropping their payloads over Iranian cities, etc. How many Western aircraft have been shot down while bombing Syria?



I don't believe the Iran-Russia relationship runs deep enough to make them inseparable. Their relationship is mostly due to their mutual opposition to American hegemony and trade opportunities that Iran only bothered pursuing because it was cut off from the West by sanctions. Historically, Russia and Iran were enemies. There's little depth to the relationship. I can guarantee you that Russia doesn't trust Iran at all, and the reverse is probably also true.




You cannot seriously be putting Iran on the same level as the Ukraine. The Ukraine was practically part of Russia. No other territory is dearer to Russia than the Ukraine. Despite that, the US was still able to overthrow the Ukrainian government and cause all hell to break loose, right on Russia's doorstep.

And with Syria, as I mentioned above, Syria was Russia's closest ally in the middle east, with a long relationship that went way beyond what Russia has with Iran. Iran is not on the same level as the Ukraine or Syria in terms of its relationship with Russia.




Syria still got destroyed despite Russian intervention, so I'd say Russia went half-arsed in Syria. By the time Russian intervention began, a huge amount of damage had already been done. Sure, Assad is still in power, but look at his country - it's in ruins. Russia's capacity to influence affairs in Iran will be much more limited.


Another variable you may not have considered is Israel. While it is unlikely that Russia would want to get into a direct hot war with the US over Iran, Russia would also be reluctant to attack Israeli forces if they spearheaded the war with Iran. Russia supports the existence of Israel and Putin has stated that Iran should not say that Israel will be destroyed or any words that could be interpreted in that way. Israel has been positioning itself for attacks on Iran in self-defence for quite some time. All it needs to do is come up with a convincing case that Iran is a serious and immediate threat to the existence of Israel and they will have the green light for war, with the full support of American and allied forces, of course. Meanwhile, with H.J. Res. 10 the US is on the way to having a green light for pre-emptive strikes on Iran.

What the Iranians have suffered are material hardships, but it could have been much worse. Their women could have been whores, their men could have been weak and effeminate and their children could have been dysfunctional. That is, they could have been average citizens of the American world.

They don't have any bargaining chips to play with because the Russians know that the long-term goal of the Americans is Russia itself. They understand that America's goals in the Middle East will have great consequences on Russia itself.

Iran is a stronger country and a heavyweight in the Middle East. They play it very smart. For a long time now Iran has kept on winning more and more ground in the Middle East, even when the Americans have acted in the ME they have won. The West realizes this, that's why they are so scared of Iran.

They are also scared of what happens if the growing bloc of China, Russia and Iran formalizes properly. They are working on the One Belt, One Road, the New Silk Road, project with the intention of breaking away from American-Western control of trade. It will be faster, more efficient and will make America's ability to control naval routes irrelevant. It means a turn away from the economic system America has created for the world. They are doing this on so many levels.

Russia is willing to fight those proxy wars because not doing so means . It has done so despite the great Anglo-American propaganda machine painting them as the bad guys, which has failed completely considering that no one outside of the West believes them, and many, many people inside the West prefer RT and "fake news" to the BBC and America's Big Five. No one has faith in the Western establishment, not even Westerners.

If Russia and China lets it slide, they might as well give their geopolitical goals up completely. It would be a complete show of weakness. Who will go under their wing if they aren't willing to fight for their interest? It's just not going to happen when they so far have worked exactly for this.

If America attacks Iran it's not going to be just a local war. The world is in such a precarious situation, where we see America becoming more desperate in maintaining hegemony, that the situation can only become a desperate one. Personally I hope for it like I hope for the last resort of the falling empire of nihilism.

[N1019]

Would you agree that personal opinions of people who fled the country aren't the best to judge general public attitudes in the country?

Not necessarily. Many Iranians who fled their homeland are still very patriotic and while they might not like the current government are still broadly supportive of its foreign policies, and they aren't all Shah-lovers, either. Meanwhile, many who still live there who seemed to want a transition from the Shah to a secular democratic republic, not the Islamic republic that they got. I've dealt extensively with both. Fleeing the country in itself does not disqualify opinions on whether the revolution, war etc. was a good thing.



You should know by now Russians have little concerns when it comes to the 'eyes of the global community'. Mostly because these claims of it being global are nothing but propaganda, vast majority of human population do not fall for Anglo dominated media.

When it comes to international law, which is something over which the international community has oversight via the UN, Russia does at least claim to be more concerned about following it than the US. We hear that directly from the Russians themselves, and we do have access to the English versions of Russian media in the West, too. For the Western powers, international law is only to be adhered to where it suits their agenda. If the law doesn't suit their agenda, they come up with a story, blow something up in a false flag attack etc. to dodge it. Everyone knows it's BS, but that's what they do.

We know one of the likely triggers for war is an attack on Israel. Israel has been positioning itself for retaliatory or self-defence attacks.
If Israel blows something up, blames it on Iran, then decides to retaliate against Iran, it will be more politically difficult for Russia to intervene, not least because Russia supports the existence of Israel. Israel is always carrying on about Iran's existential threat. All they have to do is make that existential threat look real and opposition to war in the global community will be reduced.



While claim of Russia and Iran being greatest geopolitical allies could be called a stretch by some, claims of them being historical enemies are even less credible. Well, I was looking at relatively recent history, i.e. the last two centuries or so. Have a look at what happened. It didn't go too well for the Persians, and since they remember their great history, they certainly haven't forgotten it. Major land grabs and occupations, even attempts to form a breakaway soviet republic. And then, the "threat" of communism persisted throughout the Shah's regime and was apparently the reason why the CIA backed the ayatollahs in 1979.




Today relationships between Russia and Iran are based on more than just opposition to US and trade interests. For Russia today Iran is like a guard keeping stability in the region and holding off hordes of radicals. If Iran will fall into chaos those radicals will take over and will be free to enter Russia almost unchallenged. Survival of Russians as cultural and historical entity heavily relies on Iran's integrity.

Iran has very little ability to "keep stability in the region" or hold off hordes of radicals from the region generally. I mean, just look at "the region". It's a mess and there are still hordes of radicals at large. If the US, KSA etc. decided they could unleash thousands more terrorist mercenaries. Iran wouldn't be able to stop it. All it could do would send more troops and proxy forces over to try to contain the damage, incurring heavy costs in the process.

If Iran is really that important to Russia, as a vital buffer zone to protect Russia from being overrun by terrorists, for starters I would have expected their military ties to be much closer. Significantly, while Russia and Iran entered a new military co-operation agreement in 2015 they still don't have a proper mutual defence pact. If Iran was really that important to Russia, and really a strong ally, I would expect far more in terms of their strategic ties but I'm just not seeing it.

May I suggest that Russia probably doesn't want a full-blown mutual defence pact with Iran due to the high likelihood of Iran's being attacked by the US or allies at some point, which could force Russia to make a very dangerous and costly entrance on the front line when it might prefer to take the backseat or sit it out entirely. In other words, for Russia, a mutual defence treaty with Iran would be a high risk undertaking that would offer Iran more than it could ever offer Russia, and could end up costing Russia dearly. Doesn't sound too good to me.



If Iran will fall into chaos those radicals will take over and will be free to enter Russia almost unchallenged. Survival of Russians as cultural and historical entity heavily relies on Iran's integrity.

I'm sure great bear has thought about how to reinforce its soft underbelly in case Iran turns to shit. While the fall of Iran would be a concern for the reasons you stated, I think Russia is in a good position to deal with it. The fronteirs are varied, relatively narrow and protected by buffer zones that Russia could manage.

The way I see it is an Iran isolated from the West needs Russia more than Russia needs Iran, and Russia can live without Iran.


But there is even more than that. Both Russia and Iran are continental powers will very old history and tradition. In both countries societies present a complex mix of modernism and traditionalism, sometimes humorous, sometimes bizarre. But these countries have many points of contacts in culture and tradition.

If Iran and Russia really trusted each other and had long-running close ties, the parallels and cultural contacts between them might have some superficial value. Alas, that is not the case. Essentially, what you have presented here is just fluff. Wank on, mate.



With Turkey turning more and more towards maintaining friendly relationships with its neighbors these three countries have a potential to form a new power structure in the region. Something US and its friends will have to acknowledge. Especially given the fact those 'friends' seems to be in trouble themselves.

A Russia-Turkey-Iran power structure? We're getting way off the thread topic here but no. More wanking.

[N1019]

What the Iranians have suffered are material hardships, but it could have been much worse. Their women could have been whores, their men could have been weak and effeminate and their children could have been dysfunctional. That is, they could have been average citizens of the American world.

Actually, there is plenty of prostitution and homosexuality in Iran.



They don't have any bargaining chips to play with because the Russians know that the long-term goal of the Americans is Russia itself. They understand that America's goals in the Middle East will have great consequences on Russia itself.

We'll see about those bargaining chips.



Iran is a stronger country and a heavyweight in the Middle East. They play it very smart. For a long time now Iran has kept on winning more and more ground in the Middle East, even when the Americans have acted in the ME they have won. The West realizes this, that's why they are so scared of Iran.

Iran is a regional heavyweight, but what are you really comparing it to? It's more powerful than some of its neighbours but no match for the militaries of world powers.

And what exactly do you mean by "winning more and more ground in the middle east"? Iran's borders haven't changed. A large number of senior Iranian military officers were killed in Syria, along with over a thousand ordinary soldiers. By destroying Syria and encouraging Iran to deploy its forces, the US has successfully imposed heavy costs on Iran.



They are also scared of what happens if the growing bloc of China, Russia and Iran formalizes properly. They are working on the One Belt, One Road, the New Silk Road, project with the intention of breaking away from American-Western control of trade. It will be faster, more efficient and will make America's ability to control naval routes irrelevant. It means a turn away from the economic system America has created for the world. They are doing this on so many levels.

Yeah, smashing the Russia-China-Iran triangle. The US uses its military to protect the petrodollar system, as it appears to have done elsewhere. Add that to the list of reasons why war with Iran could happen.



Russia is willing to fight those proxy wars because not doing so means . It has done so despite the great Anglo-American propaganda machine painting them as the bad guys, which has failed completely considering that no one outside of the West believes them, and many, many people inside the West prefer RT and "fake news" to the BBC and America's Big Five. No one has faith in the Western establishment, not even Westerners.

Proxy wars, sure. But what about direct hot war? I mean American/allied forces fighting directly against Russian troops over Iran. Would they be willing to do that? In the past, they have just had mutual occupations.



If Russia and China lets it slide, they might as well give their geopolitical goals up completely. It would be a complete show of weakness. Who will go under their wing if they aren't willing to fight for their interest? It's just not going to happen when they so far have worked exactly for this.

I'd just like to know exactly what you think China would do if B-52s started unloading over Iran. And even Russia. Would they try to shoot them down?

What if Israel blows something up, blames it on Iran, then decides to attack Iran in "self-defence"? Who is going to stand in their way? No-one. Even Russia would find it very difficult. You won't see Russians shooting down Israeli aircraft, either.

This is the problem. This is what we are looking at. The US, UK, Israel, etc. have been looking at this for years. They have so many options that would make Russian intervention on Iran's side difficult.



Anyway, I know I'm going to continue facing this sort of opposition to my belief that the US will attack Iran as it has attacked other nations right up to the instant that the bombs start raining down on Tehran. Only then will people believe it. And the supposed gamechanger of Russia? So what if Russia does come in to support Iran? It won't stop wholesale destruction just as it failed to stop wholesale destruction in Syria.

[Norse]

God damn Mossad and jewish lobby decided the Shah had been to independent and got him removed. The Ayatollah was a CIA plant.

This is why the Shah was removed:


https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6kySR3fpa5s

[Norse]

Also Islam is a cancer on the world and an affront against beauty and happiness.

A darkness that consumes everything.

[mustang981]

I consider Iranian immigration to the United States more of a nuisance than Islam being practiced in Islamic countries. In fact I could care less what goes on in Iran, just as long as they stop moving to America.

[Amor Vincit Omnia]

I have a weakness for Iran
even it is considerated a dangerous country for his politic view
even it is full of muslims ( they are shiite so they re not dangerous for us unless u are a jew )
Iranians are really specials as their culture
Iran is so special that can make a islamphobic as me be in love with it .it is a miracle :-)):-)) it is endeed !

[N1019]

I have a weakness for Iran
even it is considerated a dangerous country for his politic view
even it is full of muslims ( they are shiite so they re not dangerous for us unless u are a jew )
Iranians are really specials as their culture
Iran is so special that can make a islamphobic as me be in love with it .it is a miracle :-)):-)) it is endeed !

You have been seduced and are clearly under some sort of spell. :crazy::rofl_002:

[Norse]

What the Iranians have suffered are material hardships, but it could have been much worse. Their women could have been whores, their men could have been weak and effeminate and their children could have been dysfunctional. That is, they could have been average citizens of the American world.

They don't have any bargaining chips to play with because the Russians know that the long-term goal of the Americans is Russia itself. They understand that America's goals in the Middle East will have great consequences on Russia itself.

Iran is a stronger country and a heavyweight in the Middle East. They play it very smart. For a long time now Iran has kept on winning more and more ground in the Middle East, even when the Americans have acted in the ME they have won. The West realizes this, that's why they are so scared of Iran.

They are also scared of what happens if the growing bloc of China, Russia and Iran formalizes properly. They are working on the One Belt, One Road, the New Silk Road, project with the intention of breaking away from American-Western control of trade. It will be faster, more efficient and will make America's ability to control naval routes irrelevant. It means a turn away from the economic system America has created for the world. They are doing this on so many levels.

Russia is willing to fight those proxy wars because not doing so means . It has done so despite the great Anglo-American propaganda machine painting them as the bad guys, which has failed completely considering that no one outside of the West believes them, and many, many people inside the West prefer RT and "fake news" to the BBC and America's Big Five. No one has faith in the Western establishment, not even Westerners.

If Russia and China lets it slide, they might as well give their geopolitical goals up completely. It would be a complete show of weakness. Who will go under their wing if they aren't willing to fight for their interest? It's just not going to happen when they so far have worked exactly for this.

If America attacks Iran it's not going to be just a local war. The world is in such a precarious situation, where we see America becoming more desperate in maintaining hegemony, that the situation can only become a desperate one. Personally I hope for it like I hope for the last resort of the falling empire of nihilism.

All this was true, but things are changing with Trump.

Trump/Bannon are going to break that alliance and work for a future alliance with Russia to take on China. Russia knows the Chinese covet Siberia.

[mustang981]

I have a weakness for Iran
even it is considerated a dangerous country for his politic view
even it is full of muslims ( they are shiite so they re not dangerous for us unless u are a jew )
Iranians are really specials as their culture
Iran is so special that can make a islamphobic as me be in love with it .it is a miracle :-)):-)) it is endeed !

How many Iranians live in your area? I'm guessing not even a hundred. You Europeans love the MENA groups who don't reside in your country (in any significant numbers). I DISLIKE Iranians since there are so many living in my country.

[Babak]

How many Iranians live in your area? I'm guessing not even a hundred. You Europeans love the MENA groups who don't reside in your country (in any significant numbers). I DISLIKE Iranians since there are so many living in my country.

youre a faggot

[Pahli]

How many Iranians live in your area? I'm guessing not even a hundred. You Europeans love the MENA groups who don't reside in your country (in any significant numbers). I DISLIKE Iranians since there are so many living in my country.

You're an Indo-Brachid gypsy, the U.S is just as much their country as yours lol. Now go back and clean sewers.

[Amor Vincit Omnia]

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=60IDTAg33K0

[Biometrik]

You're an Indo-Brachid gypsy, the U.S is just as much their country as yours lol. Now go back and clean sewers.

Keep dreaming pal. I'd prefer Indian immigration (Indo-Brachids included, whatever that means) over Iranians anyday.

[Pahli]

Keep dreaming pal. I'd prefer Indian immigration (Indo-Brachids included) over Iranians and even Southern European anyday.

Because you're Indian yourself you dimwit, don't go full retard now.

[Biometrik]

Because you're Indian yourself you dimwit, don't go full retard now.

Prove it.

[Pahli]

Prove it.

Ross, we know its you :laugh:

[Biometrik]

Ross, we know its you :laugh:

Where is the Kebab removal unit?

[Pahli]

Where is the Kebab removal unit?

Kek, I'm not muslim so save it for yourself, your skin colour resembles kebab more than I do :lol:

[Biometrik]

Kek, I'm not muslim so save it for yourself, your skin colour resembles kebab more than I do :lol:

You're a Caucasian I'm guessing. Chechen or whatever.

[Amor Vincit Omnia]

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cLEV-IVBMb0

[Amor Vincit Omnia]

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nfBVAhqX-qI&t=75s
ENGLISH subtitles

videos don't work here

this is the link
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nfBVAhqX-qI&t=75s&spfreload=1

[Biometrik]

You're an Indo-Brachid gypsy, the U.S is just as much their country as yours lol. Now go back and clean sewers.

lol this is funny coming from you. Slavs (including Balkanites), South Europeans,and Caucasians are considered lower than Indians in the U.S.. (economically but not socially). Not even a comparison.

Don't get me started on Iranians, no one wants them around either.

[Amor Vincit Omnia]

How many Iranians live in your area? I'm guessing not even a hundred. You Europeans love the MENA groups who don't reside in your country (in any significant numbers). I DISLIKE Iranians since there are so many living in my country.

several iranians live here since long time ago ,almost every single one is very nice and educated person who never live thanks welfare .they gave much more than received from my country. and so in the rest of europe . if all the immigrants were as themm who came here after the iranian revolution there was no protest against immigration from middle east.( most part of them are moderate liberal shiite or atheists )

[N1019]

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cLEV-IVBMb0

You have to be very careful with any BBC material on Iran (and any other mainstream accounts of the revolution). They have an agenda of covering their tracks and making the revolution look like a totally organic, grassroots event, when it was not.

The BBC was instrumental in the rise of Khomeini.

The British put the last Shah in power and helped get rid of him a few decades later, after they lost control of him.



several iranians live here since long time ago ,almost every single one is very nice and educated person who never live thanks welfare .they gave much more than received from my country. and so in the rest of europe . if all the immigrants were as themm who came here after the iranian revolution there was no protest against immigration from middle east.( most part of them are moderate liberal shiite or atheists )

Those who left Iran due to the revolution were mostly the men of means, the cream of the crop who had done well under the Shah, most likely with above average IQs for Iran hence the so-called brain-drain the country has faced ever since. The best of the best get the hell out of there as soon as they can, although some keep a family house in Iran so they can return at will. They are perhaps not quite the same type of people as we see seeking entry to the West as refugees.

[Amor Vincit Omnia]

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fM28Q9QDb1w

IMAN MALEKI , Painter

https://s-media-cache-ak0.pinimg.com/originals/fa/12/44/fa12445b3355906bf64b104d4851abb1.jpg