Even Iran figured out how to just shut off the internet when everyone was demanding too much freedom for women. It’s not hard to do with social media, it’s hard to do with a populace that is accustomed to freedom.
But the protests for women’s liberation were real, and the Iranian regime shut off the internet during those protests in order to suppress them. Even if Mossad was involved in stirring up that unrest it does not justify the state crackdown, nor can it be denied that there is grassroots support for women’s liberation in Iran. If you want your country to be less susceptible to manipulation by foreign agents your best bet is to give the people what they want so that they aren’t negatively polarized against their government in the first place. Every injustice enforced is an exploitable weakness that your adversaries can seize upon.
I agree that women’s rights not only can, but should be improved in Iran. The important nuance here, though, is that social progress is severely stunted when a society is under active siege and infiltration. All states inevitably become more repressive than they otherwise would be when their legitimate security concerns are relentlessly violated. The quest of the Iranian people for social progress is interconnected with the quest of the Iranian people for sovereignty.
Mossad infiltrating the protests, that started with legitimate grievances, exacerbated the violence in an attempt to weaken the Iranian state, preceding the war. It was deliberate, and not for the benefit of women in any capacity. Iranians now are more socially cohesive than before the protests ramped up precisely due to the resistance against imperialist aggression.
I agree with all of that except for the inevitability of repression in a society under siege. Yes, that is a historical trend, but it’s also a choice that leadership makes, and it’s the wrong one. If the Iranian government made concessions on women’s rights, queer rights, etc. while holding firm on national sovereignty it would reduce the level of negative polarization the Iranian people have towards their government giving Mossad less to work with to destabilize Iran.
I can agree with it being the morally wrong decision by leadership while also understanding that the progression of history is driven primarily by material conditions, rather than the actions of individuals. The social struggle in Iran is one that is driven by the consciousness of the masses in Iran, and their struggle at this moment is principally against Israeli and Statesian aggression. Unfortunately, the fight for women’s rights in Iran cannot be genuinely struggled against when Israel and the US take every chance they can to leverage that into being able to commit genocide against the Iranian people.
Would it be excellent if women’s rights were improved from the top-down in Iran? Yes. Is it likely to happen? No. This is why taking a materialist analysis of the Iranian war and events leading up to it is so critical for understanding our historic moment.
Regardless, the Iranian people presently near-fully support the IRGC and the Iranian government. Even if some do have a desire to socially reform Iran, achieving better rights, right now it’s secondary by far to surviving the war and maintaining sovereignty. That’s why these struggles are interconnected so closely.
I’ve actually already seen this video, and it doesn’t change my stance. Iranian leadership has a choice in how they respond to foreign manipulation and they do not have to respond with repression of their own populace for fear of their adversaries taking advantage of social unrest when they could instead reduce social unrest by making concessions.
Cowbee, Iran shut off the internet because people were protesting for women’s rights. This was years before the Israeli/American bombing campaign. Stop simping for authoritarian regimes. You sound like an American liberal the way you apologize for their actions.
ran shut off the internet because people were protesting for women’s rights
Iran shut of internet because of organized attempts at insurrection using women’s rights as an excuse. UK/US want another puppet in place shitting on gold toilets selling out the country cheap.
What you are actually supporting is invading and subjugating Iran.
Also, it is amusing how you (plural) keep speaking about women’s rights when as supposedly a valid reason to invade other countries (a la the white supremacist fairy tale of “civilising savages”) while your empire actually died stuff like the overthrow of the socialist government of Afghanistan that did improve women’s rights.
I never said I supported the invasion, you’re putting words in my mouth. I said women’s liberation is a good reason for people to rise up against their government, which is what an insurrection is. The US invasion of Iran is an act of imperialism intended to subjugate and exploit it, not an insurrection.
You do support pro-NATO forces subjugating Iran for the benefit of invaders of Iraq and Afghanistan simply because of the pretense of “women’s rights”. The people that you support in this case do not care about women’s rights.
I said women’s liberation is a good reason for people to rise up against their government, which is what an insurrection is.
These people claiming that they just want women’s rights doesn’t mean that that is what they actually struggle for.
You are buying another round of Nayirah testimony/Iraq WMD and other such cases of propaganda.
What is needed first and foremost right now is liberation from NATO, as it is the most major barrier for improving, as whichever group will try to sabotage the Iranian government - even if it will genuinely want things like women’s rights - they will be used by NATO to just further (re-)subjugate Iran and wooden their living conditions.
You’re dodging the subject. Israel has been fucking with Iran for decades, that’s not the question. The question is why are you okay with Iran shutting down the internet to stop a women’s rights movement?
I’m okay with Iran shutting down the internet to stop a Mossad-backed color revolution intended to pave the way for the modern war against it. Do you think between the protests and the bombing of Minab elementary school that Israel and the US suddenly decided to get involved, or do you realize that this was a part of the actual plan the entire time?
The people of Iran should be able to chart their own course, free from the interference of the genocidal US and Israeli attacks.
And by listing the three major US enemies (currently) in two comments, with reasoning provided by their very media apparatus, you’re the prime example on how the tighter control on media (and social media) actually affects the populace. Thanks for participating.
You declared I was “the prime example on how the tighter control on media (and social media) actually affects the populace” solely for the reason that I “list[ed] the three major US enemies”. This is akin to how Trump supporters declare every criticism of Trump as “TDS”, or how Israelis claim every criticism of their country is “anti-semitism”. You can’t shut down a conversation like that here, maybe on .ml, but not here, people are more curious, more prone to individual thought, more prone to asking questions.
Trump’s word isn’t gospel, his actions are too, like how he fought his own party to prevent sanctions being placed on Russia, or how they are the only country he hasn’t placed tariffs on.
No, I declared you a prime example, because you were immediately using Whataboutism hinged on these three main adversaries (and none other), which only exist as a narrative because the US government declared them as such and you combined these name drops with western propaganda talking points in an attempt, and as the sole reason to comment at all, to discredit a well formulated critique of the US … on a post about the US committing war crimes. It’s like a learned behaviour.
listen to what Trump is saying about Putin.
Trump’s word isn’t gospel, his actions are
It’s getting confusing.
Russia is not “the only country he hasn’t placed tariffs on”, as the US actually has placed tariffs on Russia, as well as heavy sanctions. But you know, the importance of tariffs vanishes, if you can just sanction a country out of the market and into compliance, anyway? There’s also almost no tariffs on the DPRK or Cuba, because they are heavily sanctioned already. Namely secondary sanctions (which are against international law), that disallow other countries to trade with the sanctioned countries.
how he fought his own party to prevent sanctions being placed on Russia
Maybe it’s me, but I find this to be theatre. But maybe you can write down your actual thinking on how the overall dynamics work here., you sound like you’re heavily on the Krasnov theory.
Even Iran figured out how to just shut off the internet when everyone was demanding too much freedom for women. It’s not hard to do with social media, it’s hard to do with a populace that is accustomed to freedom.
Iran shutting off the internet ultimately helped prevent Israeli penetration. Mossad had active elements stirring up unrest and terrorism in Iran.
But the protests for women’s liberation were real, and the Iranian regime shut off the internet during those protests in order to suppress them. Even if Mossad was involved in stirring up that unrest it does not justify the state crackdown, nor can it be denied that there is grassroots support for women’s liberation in Iran. If you want your country to be less susceptible to manipulation by foreign agents your best bet is to give the people what they want so that they aren’t negatively polarized against their government in the first place. Every injustice enforced is an exploitable weakness that your adversaries can seize upon.
I agree that women’s rights not only can, but should be improved in Iran. The important nuance here, though, is that social progress is severely stunted when a society is under active siege and infiltration. All states inevitably become more repressive than they otherwise would be when their legitimate security concerns are relentlessly violated. The quest of the Iranian people for social progress is interconnected with the quest of the Iranian people for sovereignty.
Mossad infiltrating the protests, that started with legitimate grievances, exacerbated the violence in an attempt to weaken the Iranian state, preceding the war. It was deliberate, and not for the benefit of women in any capacity. Iranians now are more socially cohesive than before the protests ramped up precisely due to the resistance against imperialist aggression.
I agree with all of that except for the inevitability of repression in a society under siege. Yes, that is a historical trend, but it’s also a choice that leadership makes, and it’s the wrong one. If the Iranian government made concessions on women’s rights, queer rights, etc. while holding firm on national sovereignty it would reduce the level of negative polarization the Iranian people have towards their government giving Mossad less to work with to destabilize Iran.
I can agree with it being the morally wrong decision by leadership while also understanding that the progression of history is driven primarily by material conditions, rather than the actions of individuals. The social struggle in Iran is one that is driven by the consciousness of the masses in Iran, and their struggle at this moment is principally against Israeli and Statesian aggression. Unfortunately, the fight for women’s rights in Iran cannot be genuinely struggled against when Israel and the US take every chance they can to leverage that into being able to commit genocide against the Iranian people.
Would it be excellent if women’s rights were improved from the top-down in Iran? Yes. Is it likely to happen? No. This is why taking a materialist analysis of the Iranian war and events leading up to it is so critical for understanding our historic moment.
Regardless, the Iranian people presently near-fully support the IRGC and the Iranian government. Even if some do have a desire to socially reform Iran, achieving better rights, right now it’s secondary by far to surviving the war and maintaining sovereignty. That’s why these struggles are interconnected so closely.
You should watch Johnny Harris’ video about the Western puppet regimes installed in Iran.
Maybe worry a little more about US laws restricting freedom for women lately.
I’ve actually already seen this video, and it doesn’t change my stance. Iranian leadership has a choice in how they respond to foreign manipulation and they do not have to respond with repression of their own populace for fear of their adversaries taking advantage of social unrest when they could instead reduce social unrest by making concessions.
Cowbee, Iran shut off the internet because people were protesting for women’s rights. This was years before the Israeli/American bombing campaign. Stop simping for authoritarian regimes. You sound like an American liberal the way you apologize for their actions.
Iran shut of internet because of organized attempts at insurrection using women’s rights as an excuse. UK/US want another puppet in place shitting on gold toilets selling out the country cheap.
Two things can be true. Personally I think women’s rights are a great reason for insurrection.
They weren’t a reason. They were an excuse.
What you are actually supporting is invading and subjugating Iran.
Also, it is amusing how you (plural) keep speaking about women’s rights when as supposedly a valid reason to invade other countries (a la the white supremacist fairy tale of “civilising savages”) while your empire actually died stuff like the overthrow of the socialist government of Afghanistan that did improve women’s rights.
I never said I supported the invasion, you’re putting words in my mouth. I said women’s liberation is a good reason for people to rise up against their government, which is what an insurrection is. The US invasion of Iran is an act of imperialism intended to subjugate and exploit it, not an insurrection.
You do support pro-NATO forces subjugating Iran for the benefit of invaders of Iraq and Afghanistan simply because of the pretense of “women’s rights”. The people that you support in this case do not care about women’s rights.
These people claiming that they just want women’s rights doesn’t mean that that is what they actually struggle for.
You are buying another round of Nayirah testimony/Iraq WMD and other such cases of propaganda.
What is needed first and foremost right now is liberation from NATO, as it is the most major barrier for improving, as whichever group will try to sabotage the Iranian government - even if it will genuinely want things like women’s rights - they will be used by NATO to just further (re-)subjugate Iran and wooden their living conditions.
Mossad openly admitted to being active in Iran:
If Mossad’s official Twitter account admitted this, how can you say that this wasn’t a critical factor?
You’re dodging the subject. Israel has been fucking with Iran for decades, that’s not the question. The question is why are you okay with Iran shutting down the internet to stop a women’s rights movement?
I’m okay with Iran shutting down the internet to stop a Mossad-backed color revolution intended to pave the way for the modern war against it. Do you think between the protests and the bombing of Minab elementary school that Israel and the US suddenly decided to get involved, or do you realize that this was a part of the actual plan the entire time?
The people of Iran should be able to chart their own course, free from the interference of the genocidal US and Israeli attacks.
And by listing the three major US enemies (currently) in two comments, with reasoning provided by their very media apparatus, you’re the prime example on how the tighter control on media (and social media) actually affects the populace. Thanks for participating.
I’m not American. Russia is no longer a US enemy, listen to what Trump is saying about Putin.
Since when is Trump’s word gospel? Also, who cares, if you’re US-American.
You declared I was “the prime example on how the tighter control on media (and social media) actually affects the populace” solely for the reason that I “list[ed] the three major US enemies”. This is akin to how Trump supporters declare every criticism of Trump as “TDS”, or how Israelis claim every criticism of their country is “anti-semitism”. You can’t shut down a conversation like that here, maybe on .ml, but not here, people are more curious, more prone to individual thought, more prone to asking questions.
Trump’s word isn’t gospel, his actions are too, like how he fought his own party to prevent sanctions being placed on Russia, or how they are the only country he hasn’t placed tariffs on.
No, I declared you a prime example, because you were immediately using Whataboutism hinged on these three main adversaries (and none other), which only exist as a narrative because the US government declared them as such and you combined these name drops with western propaganda talking points in an attempt, and as the sole reason to comment at all, to discredit a well formulated critique of the US … on a post about the US committing war crimes. It’s like a learned behaviour.
It’s getting confusing.
Russia is not “the only country he hasn’t placed tariffs on”, as the US actually has placed tariffs on Russia, as well as heavy sanctions. But you know, the importance of tariffs vanishes, if you can just sanction a country out of the market and into compliance, anyway? There’s also almost no tariffs on the DPRK or Cuba, because they are heavily sanctioned already. Namely secondary sanctions (which are against international law), that disallow other countries to trade with the sanctioned countries.
Maybe it’s me, but I find this to be theatre. But maybe you can write down your actual thinking on how the overall dynamics work here., you sound like you’re heavily on the Krasnov theory.
Source Tariffs
Source Sanctions