The East Marches II wrote:AiliAiliA wrote:
Ism means the US (and UK) overthrow of Mossaddegh in 1953, which didn't put the Shah in power but did crush a democratic alternative to said Shah.
Indeed, TEM, indeed.
They were seperate causes and effects. The other poster was implying one caused the other. If that were the case it'd have been the same brand as last time.
Putting the Shah on did not directly cause Khomeini. They weren't "bravely resisting a Western backed tyrant" or whatever the modern narrative is that seeks to put the blame on the West when possible.
As I said, the current state of Iran is hardly an improvement over the Shah, and I am no fan of Khomeini nor his ideology. However, to say that Khomeini did not lead a revolt against a western-backed despot, and that that requires bravery, is being willfully ignorant. Nasty people can be brave, after all. I would say the West is responsible for a great deal of the issues it currently faces abroad, imperialism alone has caused major issues and left many scars, and such things have not been forgotten. Western interference was a major factor in the collapse of Iran's democratic system, which led to the Shah becoming a despot and his policies led to the Islamic Revolution, which brings us to the current government. I fail to see how the the West, or at least the UK and US, are blameless in this.
The East Marches II wrote:Ism wrote:
People tend to get upset when you overthrow their democracies. Not that the current Iran is much of an improvement over the Shah. Not to mention the more problematic groups are Sunni salafists and Wahhabists.
It was not democratic revolution. For the record, the Iranians and their brand Shia Islam are more of a threat than the Sunnis. The Shia pioneered suicide bombers in the 1980s. They sent 12 year olds by the tens of thousands to clear minefields and launch human wave attacks. They even gave them little plastic keys before the attack calling them the keys to heaven. For all the faults of our Sunni allies, if we are to be involved the ME, it's far far better to side with them than the Iranians. The memory of people regarding the behavior of folks in the ME is really unbelievable. Sadr and his Iranian backed troublemakers did more damage to us than ISIS. We were just about to swat them as we had massive troops in country unlike when ISIS kicked off.
9/11, the Boston Marathon Bombing, and almost every other terror attack in the West has been carried out by Sunnis, not Shias. I don't deny there are radical Shias, or think the Shias are somehow better (the Sunnis doing more damage is no doubt largely due to their larger population, not ideological flaws) but the Sunnis are definitely a greater threat, again largely due to their superior numbers, but also due to greater funding. Shia groups are definitely problematic, though more so in the ME than in the West, I agree with that, but I definitely view Sunni salafism as the more pressing matter.
