You're truly a special kind of idiot if you think what happened during Aban riots is something that happens in a country where people are satisfied with their lives. More than 100 banks were looted, burnt down or even completely destroyed. Several gas stations were completely destroyed. Several municipalities in satellite cities of Tehran were attacked, looted and burnt down. Iran's flags were burnt down in some cities in Khuzestan. Some claim that some of the rioters were armed. Even hospitals were attacked by angry rioters and you think that people aren't on the verge of exploding? You are either truly retarded, or pretend to be so to continue your pointless arguments.
You are misquoting me. I never commented on the scientifically vague notion you bring up of whether people are "satisfied with their lives". Please read correctly what it is you are replying to.
You seem not to be entirely aware of the basic criteria underlying social upheaval, and your comment is that of a layman in this regard. When discussing these topics, one of the central concepts highlighted by scholars is that of subjectivity. Subjectivity, in turn, implies that people can be dissatisfied regardless and often in contradiction with the objective reality of their material situation.
Plus, the looters and rioters represented but a small minority of the Iranian people. There are dissatisfied people everywhere. But not everywhere are they backed, organized and constantly incited by the entire media and intelligence apparatus of the world's acting "superpower". Food for thought.
I shall reiterate my conclusion: you tend to overstate the relevance and significance of the event with respect to the stability of the political order in the Islamic Republic. If these riots are what you're pinning hopes on, well, then you'll quite assuredly end up being disappointed, not unlike those oppositionists beatifully showcased by Omid Dana.
Your insult ("idiot") was reported.
The problem with Raefipoor type lunatics like you is that you think people actually give a **** about the down fall of the IR. Nobody does. But a Syria scenario becomes more and more likely when things like the Aban riots become common. And they will become a common phenomenon if the economic situation doesn't improve drastically immediately.
Another insult ("lunatic"), reported. I'd invite you to adopt some manners, I don't know in what social environment and with what sort of people you normally converse, but this is not that place and I am not those people. Hope it sinks in this time.
I'm sorry to say but at this point your speech pretty much reminds me of those oppositionists shown in the videos I posted earlier, because of your extremely confident assurance as to what "people" want or think, when in fact you are merely issuing conjectures, and quite biased ones at that.
A Syrian scenario will unfold only if Iranians are stupid enough to let it unfold. However I trust a large proportion of Iranians are sufficiently wise to avert such a development. Besides, the IR and the Syrian Arab Republic are vastly different from numerous angles, which again makes such predictions more than unlikely, economic woes notwithstanding.
I'm afraid that with every post, you are positioning yourself as a hopeful candidate for an future entry in the best-of series of failed apocalyptic predictions. We'll talk again in a couple of months, and perhaps years.
It's a basic fact of life, that is believed to be true by sociologists and criminologists, that when people have nothing to lose, they get violent and aggressive. It is a natural defense mechanism of human beings to survive. The theories of some communist politician cannot deny what is widely believed to be true by experts and ordinary people through experience. Visit a prison and hear the life stories of people committing violent crimes and then connect the dots on your own.
This remark of yours shows you have no mastery of this partcular subject matter. Not that this would be a grave thing, after all you claimed to be a student at Sharif University, didn't you, therefore you will readily be excused for not being familiar with the scholarly sociological literature on social revolt and unrest.
However, you can't claim to be thoroughly familiar with what classic authors dealing with the topic have written if you insist on reiterating the above cited assertion. No, people do not necessarily revolt when faced with poverty. Subjectivity, perception, habit, culture, comparative evolution of the economic standing of social groups, social psychology and causal assessment all play decisive roles in determining whether or not a situation of material deprivation will or will not trigger social mobilization, which itself can take multiple shapes and forms. Which is why we can witness many cases of extreme material vulnerability that aren't followed by protests, riots, revolts or revolutions, while others are.
As said, inform yourself, read classic works from relevant scholars if you're genuinely interested in deepening your understanding of the issue. If requested, I can provide you with a succint yet useful bibliographic orientation to this effect.
By the way, Karl Marx was no "politician", but an author, a publicist. This one really ought to be public knowledge (but let's be lenient again and excuse the slight confusion, since this obviously isn't your field of specialization... to each his own).
I'll leave you with a little hint that might underscore why the simplified theorem you formulated with regards to social mobilization, is hardly shared by authors of reference: look up Marx's concept of
Lumpenproletariat, and how this
Lumpenproletariat owing to its lack of
class consciousness (another concept discussed by Marx) will tend to serve the Capital (including its state superstructure).
General Hajizadeh claimed that the IRGC was in possession of video proofs of dead American troops right after the missile attack and threatened the Americans to release them. General Salami's statement completely denies the possibility of over 200 dead American soldiers, which was initially claimed by the IRGC officials and they insisted on it. When Salami says that they did not intend to kill American soldiers, it significantly strengthens the widely-believed hypothesis that no American troops were killed, meaning that all claims made after the attack were just baseless lies and hot air for propaganda purposes. Just like their out of desperation phone calls to C-Span. LOL
I don't remember Iranian officials and in particular general Hajizadeh, claiming that 200 US troops were killed in the attack. As a matter of fact I just launched a web search that did not yield any results to the contrary.
What did appear in Iranian media, however, is a statement from an unnamed IRGC official suggesting that around 80 G.I.'s were killed and 200
injured. In effect, the injured count admitted to by the US regime - after long and repeated denials, has surpassed 100. When it comes to how many were killed, as I showed, the US regime has a proven record of using lies as a tool of state policy.
So unless I missed the declaration you are referring to, it'd make for a welcome change if you got the figures you resort to right, and stopped exaggerating them to support your claims (this is after you understated/exaggerated Iran's nuclear break-out times before and after the JCPOA, respectively).
The above quote contains a faulty conclusions: "strengthening" a hypothesis and "proving" it aren't the same. Therefore, general Salami's remark does not necessarily "mean" that "all claims made after the attack were just baseless lies and hot air for propaganda purposes".
As a matter of fact, there is no absolute contradiction between the two statements you put side by side. When one says one's aim was not to primarily kill simple enemy soldiers, that doesn't imply no enemy soldiers were killed.
We don't know who made the call to C-Span. Could as well have been the work of anti-IR elements seeking to harm Iran's image. This is actually pretty common in psy-ops operations. Or it could have been some random Iranian unaffiliated with any state agency, let alone with the IRGC.
This is a common issue I came to encounter in the present discussion: some of the conclusions you reach might suit your pre-established biases and opinions, yet the things you evoke do not necessarily call for those conclusions; for in reality, there is a wide range of valid alternate explanations to said things. More on this below.
Manoto has millions of viewers too. So, what's your point? Since when having an audience makes a lunatic like Raefipoor less of a lunatic? Since when the number of viewers or having a wide audience proves that you're right? He's the same guy that talks about Jinns and superstitious stuff. It's such a sad state of affairs that a guy like Raefipoor has a large audience.
First of all, please read what you are responding to more carefully. You come accross as angered by my comments, to the point of denting your composure. There's no reason to react in this way.
The point I made (I believe it was pretty clear from my formulation, actually), was that if my views are in line with Raefipour's, and given Raefipour's popularity with the Iranian public, then your assertion that I am upsetting Iranians is a highly relative one, and many Iranians will actually be bound to appreciate what I have to say.
Hope this clears it up for you as to what the point is.
Why does it have to be a new development? That's quite irrelevant. As a matter of fact, an equilibrium point by definition is a point that the system maintains to stay in without a major change in external factors. So, the fact that this is not a new development strengthens my argument, not weaken it. The rest of your post is also just blah blah, ignoring even things that you asked from me and I answered.
It's hugely relevant to your argumentation because you claim that this is a newly occurring situation, and that prior to this, the IR's policies were indeed harming zio-American interests, as apparent in your use of the phrase "no longer" (or some synonymous expression). Unless you intend to flip flop and alter your statement into "the US in fact
never viewed Iran's actions as a challenge".
I discern some contradictions and inoperative deductions in your arguments.
Let me highlight a few:
- You claim the US wouldn't want to attack Iran even if it could do so at low cost. But elsewhere, you will gladly label the terrorist strike against Hajj Qassem a "declaration of war" (your exact words), simply because it serves your incorrect claim that Iran is entirely powerless against the US regime.
- You suggest that the US regime is benefitting from Iran's stance in that it can portray Iran as a bogeyman, thereby convincing the Saudis to purchase billions of arms from the American defence industry.
Notwithstanding the fact that this proves nothing about Washington's enmity or lack thereof vis a vis Iran, since a similar argument could be made about, say, the confrontation of superpowers during the Cold War, and it would equally prove wrong: then too, US arms manufacturers profited hugely from the Soviet threat given that this led every US ally (including the deposed shah of Iran, to name a particularly obvious case) to purchase massive amounts of weapons from America; the bipolar state of affairs also allowed the US regime to exert direct control over and to hold hostage half of the planet, which is far more than it could have dreamt of prior to WW2. Yet at the same time, nobody doubts that both the USSR and the USA were doing everything in their power to bring each other down.
Of course powers will seek to gain the most from a status quo they cannot immediately or easily (read: at low cost) overturn, but this does not mean that all their current circumstancial behaviours reflect their long term goals, goals which can very well consist in turning upside down that status quo when finally given a chance to do so. States have short- and long-term objectives and strategies. The US and zionist regime's ultimate goal is to destroy both the Islamic Republic and Iran herself.
When it comes to our present discussion, your claim suggests that the Saudi leadership is utterly dumb whereas you've gotten it perfectly right (in effect, you dismissed refutation of your theory as "nonsense"). Because if Iran is incapable and unwilling to harm to US interests (governed as it is, according to you, by a Leadership that seeks nothing but self-preservation and financial profit) - and causing damage to a major US ally would definitely qualify as harming US interests in everyone's books, then the Saudis would truly have to be moronic to let themselves be fooled by such gratuitious scaremongering by the Americans, and so they'd refrain from engaging in this sort of defence overspending.
Either that, or the Saudis are subordinated US vassals, meaning they
cannot reject Washington's injunction to buy such huge amounts of weapons from America, even if it isn't their preferred choice. But in this case, it logically follows that America does
not need an Iranian bogeyman to make the Saudis buy their weapons, and would have achieved the same result had the Islamic Republic not been in power, in which case it'd be enough for Washington to invoke some other pretext and the Saudis would oblige. So once again, your initial claim would be invalidated.
No matter how one looks at it, this argument you made about Saudi arms purchases from America, does
not disprove anything about the US regime's hostile motivations against Iran, which are very real indeed.
- You insist that the IR leadership is "satisfied" with the regional and global status quo and that it has neither any interest nor any motivation to challenge it, because the present situation would allow said leadership to "rob the Iranian people of their wealth" while travelling back and forth between Iran and the west, where they'd spend their illegitimately acquired wealth.
Leaving aside the fact that this is contradicted by obvious daily events highlighting the intense, multi-dimensional conflict between Iran and the US regime (which is akin to a fully fledged unconventional war), and that neither the Supreme Leader nor IRGC commanders are known to accumulate personal wealth or to travel abroad for leisure, this does not square with the other assertion you keep making, according to which IR officials are digging their own graves through incompetent economic management of the country, which according to you might lead to a "Syrianization" of Iran pretty soon.
Everyone see the inherent contradiction here? But there's more: while domestic factors partly explain the economic woes Iran might have to cope with, it does not stand to debate that the illegal sanctions regime imposed by the US - in fact, the harshest set of sanctions ever slapped on a nation in history, plays a huge role, actually the biggest role, in this. So if as you purport, Iran's economic situation is posing an existential threat not just to the stability of the Islamic Republic but to Iranian society as a whole, then clearly the US regime is not interested in perpetuating the status quo, that is the survival of the Islamic Republic and of Iran.
You claimed that Iran had not been contained. You were disproved by telling you how the JCPOA, not only set back Iran's nuclear program for years, but also stopped Iran's space program (which goes hand in hand with our ballistic missile program) for years. You preferred to ignore it and didn't even show the decency to respond to it because you had nothing to say there.
Are you really certain you read my reply properly? Because you're plain wrong, I very much addressed both these claims in minute detail, did not "ignore" anything and am actually decent enough not to respond in kind to the ad hominem attacks you've directed at me.
Your explanations didn't disprove it, and your contentions about the nuclear and space programs do not support your claim that Iran is succesfully being contained. Refer to my previous reply for more details.
It remains a valid point that Iran has been contained after the JCPOA.
I disagree. And Iran surely has not been contained in the sense you were suggesting she had been, i. e. in such a way that henceforth, the US is satisfied with the status quo and no longer seeks "regime change" or to harm Iran in additional ways.
Our scientific growth has slowed down significantly.
It doesn't imply Iran was "successfully" contained by the US regime. Scientific growth experiences ups and downs. Nothing is permanently acquired in this field.
Our previously growing influence has now been limited to only our traditional allies and militia groups in the region.
No, it hasn't. That's an incorrect statement.
It remains a fact that currently the status quo is against Iran's interests and in favor of Iran's enemies and the Islamic Republic lacks a clear strategy to get out of it.
It remains a fact that this is your subjective take on the matter, and that this can't be corroborated with solid enough evidence. In truth, Iran's overall geostrategic situation isn't really worse than it was prior to the JCPOA, and Iran is destined to score additional geopolitical points once the current western-apologetic liberal administration is voted out of office.
It remains a fact that the minimum salary in Iran is now barely 100 USD which is unprecedented.
Does not imply Iran was "successfully" contained by the US regime. And minimum salary expressed in anything other than Purchasing power parity is a moot point, just as it is generally pretty inconclusivce to express it in US dollars given current circumstances as well as Iran's degree of self-sufficiency.
It remains a fact that Khamenei supports Rouhani's policies and he is completely responsible for the treasonous deal called the JCPOA due to his support for Rouhani and Zarif.
Decidedly wrong. As long as one doesn't fully take into account (or as long as one chooses to ignore) the entire scope of parameters the Supreme Leader has had to manage when authorizing the JCPOA, one isn't in a position to pin any responsability on him.
It remains a fact that the parliament wanted to impeach Rouhani but Khamenei didn't allow it and they stopped the impeachment.
And he had excellent reasons for doing so that have
nothing do with his personal views about Rohani's policies, but instead have everything to do with his political cost/benefit calculations, knowing that Rohani would be out of office soon after anyway.
It remains a fact that when Zarif in the parliament said that Khamenei approved the negotiations, no parliament member could deny it.
Neither do I. However, this has been addressed above (and expanded upon in prior forum comments I made).
It remains a fact that the "revolutionary" parliament has done nothing to force Rouhani to stand firm against the Western continuous aggressive policies against us.
Why force him and cause a new round of political armwrestling (which liberals might capitalize on to score points) when he's guaranteed to be removed from power in a few months time?
Finally, if you want to discuss things with me, state facts and talk about numbers please. I'm not really interested in exchange of personal opinions or theories with people.
I've countered your statements precisely enough. If there's something you're not interested in, you can just as well leave it be.
Talk about Iran's negative GDP growth for 3 consecutive years (we're talking about -7% and -6% GDP growth in two consecutive years, with forecasts for this year to be not any better).
And I wonder what exactly this proves. Well, not the conclusions you arrived at, in any case.
Talk about Iran's rising GINI coefficient. Talk about Iran's HDI which has stopped improving since 2018.
As determined by whom? Foreign institutions with insufficient access to data concerning Iran are not necessarily trustworthy.
Then again, we're talking about a measurement that is strongly affected by economic policy and that constantly evolves over time. Iran's economic policies are bound to experience drastic change in the upcoming administration, and the direction they'll take will be opposite to Rohani's neoliberal measures and welfare cuts. Which in turn is bound to reduce the GNI once again.
The gloomy and desperate picture you're painting is not only echoing (unintededly, I believe and would like to hope) the BBC / Manoto psy-ops narrative designed to destabilize Iran, it is furthermore presenting as irreversible and definite, things which by nature are everything but that.
Talk about the fact that a moving death bed called Pride is now worth 140 million Tomans, meaning that it is worth 46 months of the minimum wage. At the end of the day, numbers speak louder than what you or I believe to be true.
Numbers always hide other numbers. Numbers are always subject to contextual interpretation and to instrumentalization.
Hope I'm not dealing with another person who believes social sciences can be reduced to mathematical equations.
_____
No I didn't. Your friend has been lying to you.
Here's what I wrote back then (I'm paraphrasing): "it would be normal for patriotic Iranians to become dastboose hazrate aaghaa". And I stand by that statement.
Of course, I never included in my comment the insulting part "Dariush the Great" claims I did.
If I were you, I'd ask him to be more honest with you.
I thought he was like that because he was not Iranian and not familiar with our culture.
I'm familiar with it, no worries.
lostarmour.info
