Price protests turn political in Iran as rallies spread - Page 21 - Politics Forum.org | PoFo

Wandering the information superhighway, he came upon the last refuge of civilization, PoFo, the only forum on the internet ...

Talk about what you've seen in the news today.

Moderator: PoFo Today's News Mods

#14913956
noir wrote:This is a reasonable mind. But he was almost the sole Muslim voice who thought that way. It's quite surprising to hear a reasonable and moral Muslim cleric.

This was pre-revolution I think? At that time he was dependent on Western support. He hadn't quarreled with the US. Condemning Hitler was the politically correct position to take. Once in Power, his organization and positions became notably similar to the Nazis.

Zam
#14913967
@Zamuel

Your version of education is backing up your own assertions.

"Oh, I can't be bothered provide sources to back up my own beliefs, you just have to find them yourself! Think of it as 'education'."

@Zamuel

>Post-revolutionary Iran
>Dependant on the US

Choose one.

Although with the advent of the Iranian government's attempts at neo-liberalizing Iran I think we may become puppets as well... *shudders*

Also, while you are right that this quote was pre-revolution, the Ayatollah still maintained such beliefs after the revolution. In May 9, 2005, the Ayatollah stated in a speech that "the crimes perpetuated by Hitler were not mere lies". However he followed up by saying that concentration camps might not have been a thing so that puts any chance of the Ayatollah being a decent human being to a halt (although he did allow some democracy so that was a plus).

http://english.khamenei.ir/news/3715/Th ... -Ayatollah

He also talked about a new, worse version of Nazism (dubbed Hitlerism) which is taking over the West so it's clear that he didn't like Hitler nor his anti-antisemitism despite the fact that he is, to some extent, antisemitic himself.

http://english.khamenei.ir/news/5651/A- ... after-WWII

If you want to know whether or not these are viable sources I'll have you know that these links are directly from the horse's mouth. This is Khamenei's official website and I bet that these articles will be neither liberal nor attempting to pretend that the Ayatollah is a progressive, quite the contrary actually. So I think that it's safe to assume that these articles are a pretty accurate representations of what's going on in Khamenei's head.

BTW, just look at all that blue. How can you call someone who loves blue so much a anti-Semite? /s
#14914002
Oxymandias wrote:"Oh, I can't be bothered provide sources to back up my own beliefs, you just have to find them yourself!."

Yes, a common educational technique (here in the US anyway) Maybe ask 1 degree if you want details. Personally, I don't believe in belief. Belief is what you want to think but cannot establish as fact. I "know things," or I don't, belief is not required. I've shared reliable facts, all supported by multiple sources.

If you want to know whether or not these are viable sources

I'm not interested in your facts, much less your sources.

Zam
#14914011
@Zamuel

Belief is what you want to think but cannot establish as fact.


That's exactly what you're doing. You have a set of beliefs about the Shah regime and you refuse to establish it as a fact. Furthermore, you tell other people to establish it as a fact for you despite that it isn't a fact to begin with.

I've shared reliable facts, all supported by multiple sources.


What you've shared is a narrative and none of the sources presented here can prove that fact. The only thing that provides your narrative with some sort of legitimacy was data on Iran's literacy rates which still doesn't prove that the Shah regime was all sunshine and rainbows as you assume it to be.

I'm not interested in your facts, much less your sources.


I don't understand how someone like you can be in a debate forum yet dislike sources backing up information. It seems to me you're exactly the type of person to fall victim to dogmas such as Islam or Christianity but you still refuse to accept them for whatever reason, maybe out of your dogma against them.

Personally, I don't believe in belief


That itself is a contradiction, especially in regards to how you define "belief".
#14914014
@Zamuel

Yes, a common educational technique (here in the US anyway)


Then the American educational system must be a disaster.


Timmy: "Mrs. Kowalski, why does 1+1 equal two?"

Mrs. Kowalski: "Shut up Timmy! Why don't you find out by yourself?!"



Or it'll get even in high school:


Mr. Simmons: "Then George Washington attacked the British during Christmas."

Jonathan: "Why did George Washington attack the British during Christmas?"

Mr. Simmons: "Are you questioning my authority?"

Jonathan: "No, I just want to know why George Washington did it."

Mr. Simmons: "Just look it up yourself! You kids these days have all this fancy technology and you're not using it!"

Jonathan: "If I can learn everything about George Washington without some dickhead telling me to figure it out myself on the internet then what is the fucking point of going to school?"



Or even worse, this means that teachers are able to saying anything they want and just tell students to figure it out themselves:


Mr. Simmons: "And so George Washington destroyed the British riding a T-Rex while dual wielding machine guns which shoot out Bill Clinton bobbleheads."

Jonathan: "What? How is that even possible? The T-Rex was extinct and Bill Clinton hasn't even been born yet! Hell, his parents haven't even been born yet!"

Mr. Simmons: "What I am saying is backed up by several reputable sources."

Jonathan: "Which sources?"

Mr. Simmons: "Well you just have to look them up yourself. That's what you have Google for."

Jonathan: "So what your telling me is that I can get a better education through Google than I can at school?"



This isn't an education system because students aren't learning anything and teachers aren't teaching anything either. What is the point of American schools if teachers are just going to direct students to and establishment which doesn't even primarily focus on educating people? If this is how your schools are, then goddamn do you need to reform them.
#14914017
Oxymandias wrote:That's exactly what you're doing. You have a set of beliefs about the Shah regime and you refuse to establish it as a fact.

Nope, I have established the facts to my satisfaction, and shared them for consideration by others.

Furthermore, you tell other people to establish it as a fact for you

No, for themselves. I don't expect anyone to accept my word for it.

none of the sources presented here can prove that fact.

How many times have I said it ? "I'm not trying to prove anything."

data on Iran's literacy rates which still doesn't prove

Yes someone spent a little time to confirm the facts after you got all fanatical in denying them. Took em a couple of minutes.

Ignorance certainly is stubborn.

Image

Zam
#14914020
@Zamuel

Nope, I have established the facts to my satisfaction, and shared them for consideration by others.


You haven't done anything of the sort. Of course you won't bother to prove it either because "it's clearly there!". Oh well, whatever let's you sleep at night.

No, for themselves. I don't expect anyone to accept my word for it.


And if it turns out not to be a fact? There is a reason why people provide sources to back up their claims because you are effectively telling people to take your word for it.

How many times have I said it ? "I'm not trying to prove anything."


Had you been capable of doing so, you would've done so. I have talked with you and seen your posts in the past. When you can provide sources for your claims, you do. It is only in this instance that you don't do so.

Yes someone spent a little time to confirm the facts after you got all fanatical in denying them. Took em a couple of minutes.


First, I admitted that I was mistaken. I did the same thing as you did, take information based on my own previous experiences and that ended up screwing me over when actual evidence proved otherwise. It screwed you over as well. The only difference between you and me is that you refuse to admit that the information taken out of your experiences may be false while I have. Second, Rugoz had no right to provide you with sources which you should be providing yourself. He could've used that those 5 minutes for something more beneficial in life. Third, literacy rates do suggest that the Shah values education, even women's education but the literacy rates after the revolution also indicate that Islamic regime also valued women's education.
#14914063
Oxymandias wrote:Third, literacy rates do suggest that the Shah values education, even women's education but the literacy rates after the revolution also indicate that Islamic regime also valued women's education.

As I said the Shah initiated Female education. It's continuance after the revolution does not denote any effort to extend or enhance the program. All it demonstrates is that the revolution had other priorities and avoided the conflict that would have ensued had they tried to shut it down.

Zam
#14914090
Don't know the history exactly but one of the main reasond the led to current Iran Israel relation is Ahmadinejad presidency. Out of sudden, this troll started to mock the Jewish genocide (the Holocaust), hosting "revisionists" confrence with David Duke and his ilk and announcing international Holocaust cartoon competition. Just for the lulz. Since then, Iran seemed an odd country with a strange culture.

Now this troll is saying that it was all for "internal consumption". For 40 years, since the revolution, the Iranians have strange pastime, to chanting feath for this and death for that. You may get away with it when you shout against internal player but on outside world it provoke reaction.


Image
#14914097
Oxymandias wrote:
@noir

Then why did Israel refuse all positive diplomatic relations with Iran?



Khamenei: Israel won’t survive next 25 years
Taking to Twitter, Iranian leader says Zionists won't find serenity until destruction, calls US 'Great Satan' and rejects any talks with Washington beyond nuke deal

9 September 2015,




Image

Israel will not survive the next 25 years, Iran’s Supreme Leader Ayatollah Ali Khamenei said Wednesday, making a series of threatening remarks published online.

In a quote posted to Twitter by Khamenei’s official account, Khamenei addresses Israel, saying, “You will not see next 25 years,” and adds that the Jewish state will be hounded until it is destroyed.

The quote comes against a backdrop of a photograph apparently showing the Iranian leader walking on an Israeli flag painted on a sidewalk.

After negotiations, in Zionist regime they said they had no more concern about Iran for next 25 years; I’d say: Firstly, you will not see next 25 years; God willing, there will be nothing as Zionist regime by next 25 years. Secondly, until then, struggling, heroic and jihadi morale will leave no moment of serenity for Zionists,” the quote from Iran’s top leader reads in broken English.

The quote was apparently taken from a speech given earlier in the day.

The remarks came as US lawmakers began to debate supporting a recent nuclear agreement between Tehran and six world powers. Critics of the deal have pointed to fiery anti-US and anti-Zionist rhetoric as proof that the regime should not be trusted.

The White House and other deal boosters argue that the pact, meant to keep Iran from acquiring a nuclear weapon, is based on verification, not trust.

Khamenei’s statements also reaffirmed his view that the US is a “Great Satan” and that there would be no detente with Washington beyond the nuclear talks.

“We approved talks with the United States about [the] nuclear issue specifically. We have not allowed talks with the US in other fields and we [do] not negotiate with them,” Khamenei said in statements published on his website.

Khamenei is quoted as saying any other talks would be “a tool for penetration and imposing their demands.”

On Twitter, Khamenei said talks with the US were a “means of infiltration and imposition of their wills.”

Quoting the founder of the Islamic Republic and his predecessor as Supreme Leader Ayatollah Ruhollah Khomeini, Khamenei tweeted: “@IRKhomeini stated “US is the Great Satan,” some insist on depicting this Great Satan as an angel.”

The Twitter handle @IRKhomeini is an Iranian government account dedicated to Khomeini’s statements.

Some have pointed to the nuclear deal as an opening for Iran to repair long-frayed ties with the West.

Several senior European officials have traveled to Iran since the nuclear deal was reached to boost economic and diplomatic ties, including Austrian President Heinz Fischer, who on Monday became the first European leader to visit Tehran in over a decade.

On Tuesday, Iranian President Hassan Rouhani signaled that Iran is ready to hold talks with world powers on ways to resolve Syria’s civil war — provided such negotiations could secure peace and democracy in the conflict-torn country, he said.

Iran, together with Russia, backs the embattled regime of Bashar Assad, who is opposed by much of the West.

AP contributed to this report.
#14914118
@Zamuel

As I said the Shah initiated Female education


That's not true. Female education was first introduced to modern Iran through the Qajars. The Shah only modernized the policies.

http://www.iranicaonline.org/articles/e ... jar-period

Furthermore, I did actually find the source I was looking for on women's education in Iran. Apparently in Shah Iran, only a limited number of women went to male dominated universities and many traditional families did not send their children to school because either the teachers were men or because it weren't Islamic. Here is the link below:

https://www.rferl.org/a/1105054.html

It's continuance after the revolution does not denote any effort to extend or enhance the program.


Well given that women's education began to rise significantly after the revolution the government did care about women's education. Furthermore, there were large women's rights movements in Iran that sought to acquire education for women. and no, they weren't killed off. In fact, they were eventually supported by the Iranian government. Under Rafsanjani's presidency, a new institution in the government known as the Women's Social and Cultural Council was created to understand and solve the problems of women. The council along with Islamic feminists worked to lift all restrictions on women entering any field of study in 1993. Today, women make up 60% of universities' student body in Iran (more than men) and women dominate certain high-tech fields of study such as engineering or computer science.

All it demonstrates is that the revolution had other priorities and avoided the conflict that would have ensued had they tried to shut it down.


They did restrict it down for a while and women's literacy still increased. :lol:

@noir

Anti-Israel rhetoric in Iran came after anti-Iran rhetoric in Israel. Apparently in Israel, if you don't want to diplomatically negotiate with someone, you start spreading propaganda about them. By that point, Iran did the same thing.

Your second post literally proves my point. After Israel refused all forms of relations with Iran did Iran immediately see it as a merely a US puppet, held at the whims of it's puppeteer.

BTW, if you think that we can't be trusted then you have to review the Middle East's politics. Iran at least has sane political actions although they are abit Machiavellian.
#14914140
@noir

No, they weren't. The guy who is the main authority of the mullahs believes that Hitlerite ideology is the worst thing ever and he even uses it as a way to push his own political goals.

Iran has always been called Iran by it's people. Persia is merely the name of a Greek province which the Greeks were exposed to and so the Greeks dubbed the nation Persia. Not only that but the word "Aryan" is a racial term taken from Iranians. Ayran originally meant "anyone who lives in Iran" regardless of race. Eventually Europeans took the term and made it into a racist pile of garbage.

I'm still surprised that you believe in that racist pile of garbage.
#14914184
Oxymandias wrote:That's not true. Female education was first introduced to modern Iran through the Qajars. The Shah only modernized the policies.

You wish to start picking pinfeathers? I said "Modern Iran." You know, with things like electricity and automobiles … You can credit western missionaries if you wish, they were educating 20 -50 girls a year as early as the 1920s … The Shah sponsored a system of National education for girls.

They did restrict it down for a while and women's literacy still increased.

Which should tell you that it wasn't driven by revolutionary support, it had it's own impetus, which like it or not was started by the Shah.

Zam
#14914193
@Zamuel

You wish to start picking pinfeathers? I said "Modern Iran." You know, with things like electricity and automobiles … You can credit western missionaries if you wish, they were educating 20 -50 girls a year as early as the 1920s … The Shah sponsored a system of National education for girls.


Qajar Iran was modern Iran and you'll be hard pressed to find any self-respecting scholar saying otherwise. It already had electricity and automobiles and they were widespread. Furthermore, the idea that you think that western missionaries had any popularity in Iran is ridiculous let alone the idea that there would be that many western missionaries in Iran at all which itself is laughable. During the Constitutional era of Iran, there was a national education system for both boys and girls so national education existed in Iran for ages. The first modern university in Iran was the Dar ul-Funun which was established in 1851, a whole decade before the University of Tehran.

Which should tell you that it wasn't driven by revolutionary support, it had it's own impetus, which like it or not was started by the Shah.


That was my point although it did increase significantly after the restrictions were alleviated and there is now more communication between the needs of Iranians and the government through the Women's Social and Cultural Council. Women's education is a cultural value of Iran and most Islamic societies pre-colonialism so if you're talking about education as a value, that wasn't started by the Shah. If you're talking about women's education as an institution that was started in the Qajar era with the establishment of a public education system and the first universities in Iran.
#14914206
@Oxymandias

Education in Iran was a bad joke. Literacy remained at insignificant levels and was not improving (largely due to clerical opposition). In 1962 the Shah resolutely established a program to resolve the problem. He created the "Literacy Corps." Over it's life it recruited around 200,000 "teachers" (anyone who could read or write qualified as a teacher) and sent them into rural Iran to educate the population. It was an option to military service for young men. 2.2 million children (both boys and girls) and over 1 million adults learned to read.

I'm not really concerned with previous feeble attempts to start an educational system in Iran. The Shah got the job done. By the time of the revolution around 70% of the men in Iran and 50% of the women could read and write. After the revolution, the clerics immediately shut the program down.

Zam
  • 1
  • 19
  • 20
  • 21
  • 22
  • 23
  • 25

Isn't oil and electricity bought and sold like ev[…]

@Potemkin I heard this song in the Plaza Grande […]

Russia-Ukraine War 2022

The "Russian empire" story line is inve[…]

I (still) have a dream

Even with those millions though. I will not be ab[…]