210
This will surely not further radicalise the populace.
the populace are not the radicals
Hence why "radicalise the populace" is a phrase that makes sense.
The populace, containing many people who are radicalised and many others who are not radicalised, may become further radicalised by gaining a higher proportion of radicalised people in response to state repression.
If the populace and the radicals were the same set of people, then there would be no further radicalisation possible.
I agree with your comments, but I meant mine in an uno reverse kinda way, in that the Iranian government are the dangerous radicals.
Ooooohhh okay understood.
It won't galvanize the protestors, that's for sure.
Unfortunately, abusers don't care about bravery or persistence. They only respond to force, and if the abused doesn't have the force necessary to topple their abusers, they will continue to get abused.
It's really that simple. But yeah, thoughts and prayers. NO FOREIGN INTERVENTION. Just thoughts and prayers <3
Do you really want NATO to dismantle the government and then leave the country to sort its own shit out? Have you seen Iraq, Libya, or Afghanistan recently?
The West generally lacks the public support necessary for an occupation of the length it would take to rebuild Iran. The international community has no appetite for NATO backed regime change.
No, I want them to slowly and steadily build and fortify settlements where people can live free from the oppressive regime.
Taking the entire country at once is asinine. Build smaller settlements within it to slowly change the culture over generations.
It won't be easy, but it's the only viable solution unless a cultural shift happens from within (it won't.)
Wake me up when these problems get solved doing something I don't suggest.
You'd have to take the land first, which means dismantling the government, which means having to occupy the nation.
There's no such thing as a fortified settlement in a world where artillery and precision guided munitions exist.
Sure there is, lol.
Find a place where people welcome intervention and go from there. Start small and build out over time. Will it happen without violence? Unlikely, but I'm interested to see if the problems ever get solved doing something I don't suggest.
Let me know when that happens. I can wait.
What you are suggesting would require defeating in detail the military of Iran, which would need to be followed by an occupation of the country likely against a well armed, trained, and motivated resistance.
Countries don't tend to take losing parts of themselves too kindly, it is not possible to "start small and build out from there".
What you are suggesting is frankly not a very well thought out idea, so the smarmy "LOL LET ME KNOW WHEN THAT WORKS" just comes across as immature.
Let me know when you come up with a better idea than "huge conflict that will kill hundreds of thousands at best and continue without end for decades". I can wait.
That's okay. We'll both be waiting awhile lol.
Conservatism is a plague of oppression and death. It always has been.
The U.S. caused this conservative end-game for the Iranian people. The U.S. should remove these oonservatives from power and give the government back to the normal people.
Cause Iran was heaven before the US arrived in Iran.
It actually was quite nice. It was socially progressive and had respected universities, freedom of religion, freedom of speech, women's rights and was even quite respected for its art. It was a vacation destination for many westerners.
Unfortunately, it also had oil and you know how American conservatives are about oil. They absolutely wrecked Iran's government in an attempt to aquire their oil, manipulating the locals into installing a conservatave government.
What you see there today is a conservative win-condition; a hellscape of oppression, sickness and death. This is a glimpse at our future in the U.S. if conservatives have their way.
Unfortunately, it also had oil and you know how American conservatives are about oil.
Pretty sure US never had access to Iranian oil reserves.
You are wrong. Here's a Wikipedia article detailing US involvement in Iranian oil after leading the coup, but just before the islamic revolution.
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Consortium_Agreement_of_1954
Okay? That means it's impossible to intervene with positive results, right?
It's a literal rule of the universe, lol.
The US having involvement in Iran's oil in the past has nothing to do with future positive results from whatever intervention you are suggesting.
I'm not sure what you are so upset about. You made a false statement minimizing US involvement in the creation of Iran's current conservative hellscape and I replied with factual data showing US involvement. Conservatism is a plague of oppression. You should not defend conservatives. They do not need or deserve your defense.
If by "intervention" you mean invading Iran to liberate the citizens, I really don't know if that would be successful or not. Maybe it would be.
The citizens certainly need saving. But, I suspect US conservatives would be very opposed to an invasion to liberate people who are suffering (conservatives prefer that people suffer). I also suspect non-conservatives (normal people) in the US will be resistant to invading a country for any reason at all, based on past sentiments. So, even if an invasion would be successful, I doubt it could happen. That's why I think their best hope is revolution without intervention.
Hey man, wake me up when these problems get solved doing something I don't suggest.
I can wait.
You'll be waiting a long time because you've suggested nothing.
Read my other posts.
I've read both of your low effort shitposts, Sparky.
Uhh... what?
Why are you saying I didn't suggest anything when I clearly did.
You can keep the snide remarks to yourself, btw. Try to discuss in a civil manner.
Your first post:
Pretty sure US never had access to Iranian oil reserves.
Your second post:
Okay? That means it's impossible to intervene with positive results, right? It's a literal rule of the universe, lol.
To the untrained eye, your posts appear to lack specificity or detail. Additionally, there does not appear to be a premise suggesting a solution to any problem. However, I'm certain a knowledgable scholar would quickly decipher the coded guidance you have provided us here.
Good sir or madam, perhaps you could elucidate us on which of your fine comments have suggested a solution. And also, perhaps you could also state the problem you believe your solution would solve. I shall wait here in the sitting room.
Good day to you.
You have linked to a comment that does not exist for me when I click the link. I am using the Connect App and am on Lemmy.World. I'm not sure how a removed post should look, but I'm guessing this may be it.
Try opening it in a browser.
Ok. That worked. Wow. I'll give you this... Your suggestion is fascinating. Not because I think it could work, but because you think it could work.
Also, I'm genuinely fascinated by your repeated use of some variation of "Wake me up when these problems get solved doing something I don’t suggest." You've punctuated numerous comments in the same thread this way. I really don't mean this to sound insulting at all. Are you, by chance, on the spectrum? If so, please forgive my previous abrasiveness as I thought you were just a conservative.
Yeah. Because until these problems get solved doing something I don't suggest, you don't really have a reason to think my suggestions are impossible to work.
Let me know what that happens and I'll concede. Not a moment before.
More insults, lol. Clearly you're not capable of engaging in a respectful manner. Probably because you don't feel confident in your argument and have to attack me personally instead of what I'm saying.
I see it all the time.
Gonna have to block you now. Goodbye.
It really wasn't meant as an insult. I am being genuine. I know folks on the spectrum and I thought your language pattern looked similar.
Maybe your ideas would work, and I actually like the creativity and drive behind them. I just doubt any country would put forth such immense effort and expense. Especially the west where we are so greed driven.
No one believes that. Maybe Russians.
It's not about "belief". It's reality. Here are some photos to show you what Iran looked like in the 1960's. Any basic web search will explain Iran's history to you. No need to take my word for it.
https://www.theguardian.com/world/iran-blog/gallery/2014/sep/10/iran-swinging-sixties-in-pictures
Stories like these tend to leave out the parts about the extreme disparity in progressiveness between urban and rural populations. While these photographs were taken the majoirty of the population still lived culturally at least as they had during the middle ages.
But the US went to Iran a long time after that
Are you still here?
Solidarity with the Iranian people. Down with Khamenei!
But no foreign aid, right?
Brown people have to solve their own problems? Even if it doesn't work?
Short of a military invasion, how might we send aid to the people of Iran protesting their own government?
It will take military intervention.
It's either that or we do nothing effective.
Wake me up when this problems get solved with something else.
this post was submitted on 28 Aug 2023
210 points (99.5% liked)
World News
38563 readers
4301 users here now
A community for discussing events around the World
Rules:
-
Rule 1: posts have the following requirements:
- Post news articles only
- Video links are NOT articles and will be removed.
- Title must match the article headline
- Not United States Internal News
- Recent (Past 30 Days)
- Screenshots/links to other social media sites (Twitter/X/Facebook/Youtube/reddit, etc.) are explicitly forbidden, as are link shorteners.
-
Rule 2: Do not copy the entire article into your post. The key points in 1-2 paragraphs is allowed (even encouraged!), but large segments of articles posted in the body will result in the post being removed. If you have to stop and think "Is this fair use?", it probably isn't. Archive links, especially the ones created on link submission, are absolutely allowed but those that avoid paywalls are not.
-
Rule 3: Opinions articles, or Articles based on misinformation/propaganda may be removed. Sources that have a Low or Very Low factual reporting rating or MBFC Credibility Rating may be removed.
-
Rule 4: Posts or comments that are homophobic, transphobic, racist, sexist, anti-religious, or ableist will be removed. “Ironic” prejudice is just prejudiced.
-
Posts and comments must abide by the lemmy.world terms of service UPDATED AS OF 10/19
-
Rule 5: Keep it civil. It's OK to say the subject of an article is behaving like a (pejorative, pejorative). It's NOT OK to say another USER is (pejorative). Strong language is fine, just not directed at other members. Engage in good-faith and with respect! This includes accusing another user of being a bot or paid actor. Trolling is uncivil and is grounds for removal and/or a community ban.
-
Rule 6: Memes, spam, other low effort posting, reposts, misinformation, advocating violence, off-topic, trolling, offensive, regarding the moderators or meta in content may be removed at any time.
-
Rule 7: We didn't USED to need a rule about how many posts one could make in a day, then someone posted NINETEEN articles in a single day. Not comments, FULL ARTICLES. If you're posting more than say, 10 or so, consider going outside and touching grass. We reserve the right to limit over-posting so a single user does not dominate the front page.
We ask that the users report any comment or post that violate the rules, to use critical thinking when reading, posting or commenting. Users that post off-topic spam, advocate violence, have multiple comments or posts removed, weaponize reports or violate the code of conduct will be banned.
All posts and comments will be reviewed on a case-by-case basis. This means that some content that violates the rules may be allowed, while other content that does not violate the rules may be removed. The moderators retain the right to remove any content and ban users.
Lemmy World Partners
News !news@lemmy.world
Politics !politics@lemmy.world
World Politics !globalpolitics@lemmy.world
Recommendations
For Firefox users, there is media bias / propaganda / fact check plugin.
https://addons.mozilla.org/en-US/firefox/addon/media-bias-fact-check/
- Consider including the article’s mediabiasfactcheck.com/ link
founded 1 year ago
MODERATORS