Iran before the islamic revolution

That Iran photo isnt from Iran

women in Iran don't wear Burqas/Niqabs as it's not part of Shia islam

Khomeini received backing from the Carter administration and BBC.The Carter administration was constantly complaining about the Shah's human rights abuses as a pretext to support Khomeini and the downfall of the Pahlavi Dynasty; Carter even called Khomeini a saint. (check first link). The USA/UK wanted the Shah toppled because he was no longer subservient to their economic demands near the end of his reign (check second link). I believe, the primary motivation came from the USA/UK switching from allying with Iran to KSA in 1974 due to a deal William E. Simon made; William E. Simon made a deal with KSA to "neutralize crude oil as an economic weapon and find a way to persuade a hostile kingdom to finance America’s widening deficit with its newfound petrodollar wealth", but the Shah did not agree to this deal and he was called a nut by William E. Simon. (check third link):

First link: theguardian.com/world/2016/jun/10/ayatollah-khomeini-jimmy-carter-administration-iran-revolution

Second link: payvand.com/news/06/mar/1090.html

Third link: bloomberg.com/news/features/2016-05-30/the-untold-story-behind-saudi-arabia-s-41-year-u-s-debt-secret

tl;dr: The Shah was starting to be sovereign after William E. Simon made a deal with Saudi Arabia, check the source I gave. This is why Carter was starting to oppose the Shah's rule. Both the BBC and Carter administration wanted the Shah gone for economic reasons. They switched from supporting Iran as a regional power to Saudi Arabia as the regional power.

There was always people wearing chador (or full hijab) in Iran, I'd say even more so than these days

I'd compare the pre-Revolution to Lebanon; you could see women in bikinis and full hijab walking together on the street

These are cherry picked photos so bear that in mind--the entire country didn't become Muslims overnight

I have no idea what the fuck you just said and i'm drunk.

Only Iranians with inferiority complexes like the West. Many have forsaken their national identities and pretend to be Italian.

The West has never been friends with Iran and never will be since the time of Romans.

...

So after support from other countries they fell to Islamist leadership, wow crazy how much world powers can change the fates of millions of people thousands of miles away.

I imagine some would be convincing Italians.

>this blatant conspiracy theory
The US had Heyser around the Shah at every moment. They tried to get France to arrest Khomeini. It was in everyone's best interest to keep the Shah around--the devil we know, etc

They were so butt blasted at what happened in Iran that virtually the entire international community backed Saddams war on it, except Israel ironically

>Many have forsaken their national identities and pretend to be Italian.
Italian here, they really look the part.

Sometimes the only things distinguishing these pictures from pictures from 60s-70s Italy are Islamic architecture or a few words in Arabic.

Any other compliments given by Carter to Khomeini were blatant ass-kissing and pandering in the hopes then scream death to America for its intervention in the ME

>I imagine some would be convincing Italians.
I read an article that I lost. It talked about how many Iranian diaspora change their name and always groom in order to look Italian. The article went on to argue there are a lot more Iranians living offshore than we think: they've just forsaken their identities, that's it.

>wow crazy how much world powers can change the fates of millions of people thousands of miles away.
I hate the current regime, but at least they're fighting off ISIS, supporting Assad, and exposing the hypocrisies of the West in their support of the powerhouse of Islamic fanatism, Saudi Arabia which funded 9/11 hijackers, financed ISIS and Al Qaeda, and spread fanatical Wahhabism / Salafism to destabilize the Middle East.

William E. Simon called the Shah a nut. It's people like him that have true power, not the puppets we see.

Most of these images are fake or very cherrypicked -- they usually tend to have an agenda.

Here's a more accurate contemporary Iran picture (at least, this is acutally from Iran)

>europa
>a

>Europa
>not Halal Eurabian Caliphate

youtube.com/watch?v=OATZIxEijDo

William E Simon was the Sec of Treasury, not the autocrat of the US. His opinion was eclipsed by people actually in contact with the Shah who preferred him to the MEK commies and Khomeini

He (the Shah) was weak, as he continuously left his country so the US can sort out his problems--unfortunately for him and his supporters, the last time he did it, it didn't work out for him.

>muh puppets
Yeah and Bush did 9/11.

As funny as this is, this is probably an accurate example of pre-Revolutionary Iran; some people embracing Western culture (as displayed by MC Chakosh), and others doing traditionally Islamic things (like the women seated on the floor wearing chador)

Parts of Tehran were deliberately made to be as western and modern as possible, but the vast majority of the country was incredibly backwards, hell, the government fell when THE TRIBES, mobilized by the Ayatollah ganged up on it.

off course there would be traditional muslims, it's not like they just popped out of nowhere after he got overthrown
the difference is that people back then actually had a option

this is a video from a dutch guy that went there back in the 70s minus the "westernized" propaganda from most pro-shah video's showing that both sides could coexist

youtube.com/watch?v=T-2A3p8eN3I

however, this lasted until the shah started all his wacky bans and gave the ayatoilet the spearhead he needed for his speeches to start the revolution

really, they should have stopped there and create something similar to what all the mossadegh memers envisioned, cause the guy was trying to undo a religion/culture that has been with Iran for almost 1300 years

That Iran pic isn't accurate. Sure women are supposed to wear shawls but depending on where you are, like in Tehran, or who you are women stretch the shawl waaaaaaay back to the point where it barely covers their hair. That and although you're not officially supposed to be with a nonrelative of the opposite gender, tons of people do it anyways.

if by coexist you mean the secularists had all the power and didn't use it to persecute the shiites, but as soon as teh shiites had power they waged war on the secularists, yes.

it's a funny definition of coexist though

/b/ stopped being cool 10 years ago

>The 20th century Pahlavi ruler Reza Shah banned the chador and all hijab in 1936, as incompatible with his modernizing ambitions. According to Mir-Hosseini as cited by El Guindi, "the police were arresting women who wore the veil and forcibly removing it." This policy outraged the Shi'a clerics, and ordinary men and women, to whom "appearing in public without their cover was tantamount to nakedness." However, she continues, "this move was welcomed by Westernized and upperclass men and women, who saw it in liberal terms as a first step in granting women their rights."

Eventually rules of dress code were relaxed, and after Reza Shah's abdication in 1941 the compulsory element in the policy of unveiling was abandoned, though the policy remained intact throughout the Pahlavi era. According to Mir-Hosseini, 'between 1941 and 1979 wearing hejab [hijab] was no longer an offence, but it was a real hindrance to climbing the social ladder, a badge of backwardness and a marker of class. A headscarf, let alone the chador, prejudiced the chances of advancement in work and society not only of working women but also of men, who were increasingly expected to appear with their wives at social functions. Fashionable hotels and restaurants sometimes even refused to admit women with chador, schools and universities actively discouraged the chador, although the headscarf was tolerated. It was common to see girls from traditional families, who had to leave home with the chador, arriving at school without it and then putting it on again on the way home'.

the secularists wuz good bois dey dindu nuthin

good thing history loves irony and it's the other way around today

I don't even know if there was an interface post-revolution and current republic of that kind of coexistance
I know it was a bit more lenient for men the first months but women were forced to wear the full chador until recently when it was just the scarf/rousari

I have leaked information from someone close to the CIA, and I can't really say much more.

Sassanid Zoroastrian styled theocracy would be suit Iran. Islam is not a good religion, but Christianity and Zoroastrianism can be utilized for benign theocracies.

Theocracy is the best form of government, but it's just that TRADTIONAL Islam is stupid. Neoplatonic and Zoroastrian-inspired Islam, like Shahab al-Din Suhrawardi and Mulla Sadra, are okay, but the mullahs revived a bad strand of it that hails more from Al-Ghazali -- who was a piece of shit.

>would be suit
would best suit*

and instead of simply banning secular dress when the islamists came into power, they KILLED people

fucking kill yourself you idiot

>Theocracy is the best form of government
For sure. Basing laws and system of government based on illiterates from thousands of years ago is the best idea possible.

...

Islamists wouldn't be bad if they all emulated Rumi and Hafez, really. Instead, they emulated Al-Ghazali's Orthodox bullshit.

Islam is only bearable when it becomes more unIslamic, hence why Zoroastrian and Hellenic influences were prevalent in early Islam or the philosophies of Shahab al-Din Suhrawardi and Mulla Sadra.

Orthodoxy is the problem, not theocracy.

Abandoning a normative ethics in tandem to established metaphysics is not good.

I am fine with everyone believing in the delusion of the Harvest Goddess in order to live a peaceful life and not be degenerates.

Orthodox Islam is not good for theocracy. Something like Sufism or Zen would be the most ideal.

>this is probably an accurate example of pre-Revolutionary Iran

No, actually it's from 1991

>established metaphysics
Means as much as established astrology.

>I am fine with everyone believing in the delusion of the Harvest Goddess
I don't follow my man.

>an order to live a peaceful life and not be degenerates
A "degenerate" in a theocracy could be as simple as someone who masturbates. Is it not reasonable to allow others to do as they please with the collective contract that none of it shall harm others?

>Orthodox Islam is not good for theocracy. Something like Sufism or Zen would be the most ideal.
And Theocracy is not good for progress in the 21st century.
Really, name a single thing any Theocracy has produced in the last 150 years which could compare to, say, the moon landing?

Sassanid Zoroastrianism wasn't much different from the Shi'ite theocracy it has today. You still had a hardliner class of priest-judges who were sticklers for public morals and religious purity. Had we had an Iranian Zoroastrian or Christian theocracy, we'd have people thinking 'Man, if only we had a benign Sufi/Shi'a theocracy instead.'

The reason a theocracy comes about is because there's a belief in some form of religious authority trumping others, and hippy and unorthodox religious traditions just don't form theocracies to begin with, and when they do they more resemble the hardliner theocracy almost immediately.

Why is Islam regarded as this foreign entity to Persians anyways?

Wasn't one of Muhammads original companions and prime military strategists a higher class Persian that was suppose to become a Magi before he took a spiritual journey and met the Prophet in Medina and converted?

Hell, he even became the Governor of the Sassanid empire after the conquest.

they've been at war with the shiia for a thousand and a half years now. over time, they've needed to come to rely on the state for a lot, as relying on islam to defend you when the entire world is trying to destoy you would have ended with them simply dying.

they're still relatively fanatical. just in a different way

The Shia still worship Piruz Nahavandi, #1 kebab remover and caliph remover:

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Piruz_Nahavandi

It is fascinating how many Islamic empires adopted Persian court customs and culture

>religion of "peace"
>worships assassins
>democrats see no problem with this

nothing fascinating about it. it was a superior system of governance

islam is goatfucker garbage

Piruz Nahavandi was a Zoroastrian, not a Muslim, and he is worshiped by a lot of Shia. The Sunni told the Iranians to take down his shrine, but they decided against it.

Yeah, but Islam has a stronger basis for orthodoxy than any other major religion and outside of passing and often regional eccentricities (DUDE WINE LMAO) and the Sunni-Shiia schism (also, both sides still agree on almost fucking everything) its orthodoxy has suffered negligibly since its inception. Reform is effectively impossible because the literal word of God and thus ultimate authority as far as Muslims are concerned is always out there for anyone who wants to look it up.

>both sides still agree on almost fucking everything
No. Shia worship Zoroastrian figures like Piruz Nahavandi. Mulla Sudra also combined elements of Hellenic thought and Zoroastrianism into his thought, and he was a bit influential.

Why don't you read what I actually say? Look up the shit I am talking about instead of speaking out of your ass.

>Means as much as established astrology.
Read a book.

>I don't follow my man.
Not surprised.

>A "degenerate" in a theocracy could be as simple as someone who masturbates.
No. That's not a big deal. The religion itself has to become more deep then.

Stuff like murder and shit like that are not intrinsically evil within a scientific materialist viewpoint, but we need some more transcendental metaphysics to make it evil within some kinda normativity.

>And Theocracy is not good for progress in the 21st century.
Secular Humanism is just Christianity-lite.

Theocracy can work.

>Read a book.
I did. Metaphysics is a waste of time, looking answers to questions that don't exist in the first place.

>Not surprised.
Sorry I'm not hip to whatever babble about Harvest Goddesses and Zoroastrianism you're trying to espouse. Hipster meme religion.

>murder and shit like that are not intrinsically evil within a scientific materialist viewpoint
All legitimate science is materialist and has nothing to do with morality or "degeneracy."

> we need some more transcendental metaphysics to make it evil within some kinda normativity
Good or evil is misleading. What is to be examined is what harms and what benefits society.

>Secular Humanism is just Christianity-lite.
Yes, I forgot. In the hundreds of thousands of years of humanity's existing, Christians are the only ones that made a model of how to treat others decently.

Persian culture was only adopted across Eurasia because of the spread of Islam among Mongol-Turkic courts. It was heavily tied with the religion, and could no more be separate than Christianity and a Carolingian successor kingdom.

You're under the impression that rigid orthodoxy is something intrinsic to a religion and not a result of its status as an major imperial faith. Zoroastrianism was the exact same way up until the moment its political power collapsed and was replaced by a more open and malleable religion, which then became Islam.

Not a single girl in that picture that isnt qt on some level. We gotta drop the Embargo on iran dude

Iran wasn't 'western', it was modern.

They elected a socialist in the 50's who nationalised BP so the British sent the CIA in to appoint their own appointed dictator, the Shah, as ruler. The secular resistance and educated were purged and anticommunism was rife. This however didn't end resistance, the Iranians turned back to religious authority to lead them and in the 70's the Shah was overthrown and since Iran has been lead by an Islamic Socialist government.

This brought with it a cultural change of course. Religion would not have been relevant at all if it didn't act as a form of ethno-nationalism above Iran's usual ethnic divisions.

>I have information from the CIA.

All the more reason not to believe it.

This, the CIA fucked Iran up

>Metaphysics is a waste of time
People are always relying on implicit metaphysical assumptions such as this: chrisblattman.com/files/2014/11/B2XLTWvIAAAOCKO-1.png

>Hipster meme religion.
I'm arguing normative ethics is derived from metaphysics. Most people agree on this. One needs to establish questions relating to being and so forth before he or she can answer how one ought to treat one another.

>All legitimate science is materialist and has nothing to do with morality or "degeneracy."
Hypotheses are operationalized in order to avoid implicit metaphysical claims. Null hypothesis is either rejected or not rejected and is based on the replicability of the study -- not on the intrinsic nature of reality. It is about the usefulness of the study in a pragamatic sense, not about how it deals with the inherent nature of things.

>What is to be examined is what harms and what benefits society.
That's called utilitarianism or maybe virtue ethics.

>Christians are the only ones that made a model of how to treat others decently.
Strawman.

If you were

>Rich
>Living in one of the cities
>educated
>On the good side of the regime

Then yeah there's a kernel of truth to it I suppose.

Though I forgot to note that the last two conditions tended to be mutually exclusive

That's what I suspected but they didn't have to be super rich right? Just upper middle class.

Read the post, retard.

Wealthy urbanites were Westernized. But the rural folk and certain sectors of the urban population were always religious. The Iranian revolution was in large part a student's revolution.

What makes you think they do that?
Oh right, media.

Countries like Iran and Turkey are pretty modern,you would know If you went there once.

What do you mean by that?

This guy is correct. The photos you see are of the ruling class in Iran, the working classes who lived in slums around Tehran were still traditionalist Muslims who hated the Western-leaning Shah with a passion.

>Good or evil is misleading. What is to be examined is what harms and what benefits society.

Replacing one set of normative terms with another.

>Yes, I forgot. In the hundreds of thousands of years of humanity's existing, Christians are the only ones that made a model of how to treat others decently.

Not the point - the point is that literally, historically, secular humanism's are just christian ethics (with their metaphysical basis and all) redescribed with the metaphysical assumptions of christianity hidden away. As you suggested, there are no materialistic norms whatsoever and that includes any kind of determination of what is "harmful" or "beneficial" for society. Materialism cannot acknowledge "harm" or "benefit" because those are normative assertions and norms don't exist in a materialistic system.

I recommend Persepolis by Marjanne Strapi to get an idea about what's it like as a girl to grow up in Islamic Iran.

I'm the ginger guy

It's worth pointing out that it was the Shiite mullahs who played an instrumental role in unseating Mossadegh.

>But why such a drastic change
Because America and Russia.

>united states of america
>not los estados unidos de norte

What's BBC in this context?

One of my favorite animated movies.
Here it is for those who have an interest in watching it:
watchcartoonsonline.eu/watch-persepolis-2007-full-movie-online/

There is also an autobiographic graphic novel/comic, for those who prefer reading.

>Replacing one set of normative terms with another.
No it's not. Good or evil can vary from religion to religion. All religions will agree that a bomb landing in one of their towns is harmful.

If you think you're going to convince me of the merits of theocracy on metaphysical gibberish, it's not going to happen.

>secular humanism's are just christian ethics
If we were following christian ethics, then we would be selling our raped daughters back to the rapist, burning "witches" and oppressing homosexuals. Spare me.

>Materialism cannot acknowledge "harm" or "benefit"
Yes it can.
I get an accidental cut on my hand. Serration of flesh, blood loss, pain, and now there's a small infections. There ya go: harm.

Now, I some healing ointment and apply it, then put on a bandage. The infection is gone, the cut seals, my skin is as good as new. Benefit.

Fuck off, you are the cancer killing Veeky Forums. Hang yourself.

The British Broadcasting Corporation? Are you retarded?

>All religions will agree that a bomb landing in one of their towns is harmful.
Nope, not all religions believe that, such as some crazy paganism.

>If we were following christian ethics, then we would be selling our raped daughters back to the rapist, burning "witches" and oppressing homosexuals.
That's where abrogation comes into play. Catholicism, for example, abrograted the Old Covenant laws, and now they accept evolution and treat homosexuals with respect. Abrogation is essential -- Islam has to go through it too.

>Yes it can...
Nope, materialism cannot acknowledge the attribution of positive or negative to harmful or beneficial sensation. They are intrinsically devoid of positive or negative content within a reductive materialist worldview.

>tfw you will never impregnate a fertile Persian qt with your Christian seed

>Was Iran really like this before the 80's all western looking and stuff?
Yeas and no. Teheran was, the countryside was not.
The revolution brought the countryside into the capital.

the deeper I get into this islam problem the more I realize: everybody lies. everyone twists things to fit their agenda. you can't trust anyone.

from the most "enlightened" atheist to the most hardcore promuslim leftie no one tells the honest truth.

>missing the point

You don't sound like a Christian

oh im sorry

>ooga booga where the gold at wherever i go i must also kill

>browses /b/
>tripfags
>tripfags with "therealOP"

OP, you're a fucking faggot of immeasurable amounts, and you need to go away and read some books, then come back. Before all of this, you should probably neck yourself too.

Someone's angry. Why though man? Are you against questions? Against curiosity? What is wrong with you. I made myself identifiable so that people, like you would know who was responding. Why does that bother you? Why do you care?

no, you are the cancer killing Veeky Forums

>I made myself identifiable so that people, like you would know who was responding

Not all boards are a constant circle-jerk like /b/ or /v/.

You posted a question in your original post.
People who have the answer will reply to it with that.

If you have questions regarding their post, you reply to them and they reply to you.

You don't need to have a fucking tripcode to ask a question on a board, especially if the thread in question doesn't require you to be identified as if you're providing new sources or information.

Eat a dick, man.

He's namefagging, for the sole, original purpose of names and trips on this site.

I kind of wish the revolution never happened.

Though really, I'd like to see a revitalization of relations between Iran and the West, so we can tell Saudi Arabia to go suck a camel's dick.

p.s. Iran were the good guys in the Iran-Iraq war and our support for Iraq was a disgrace, though France getting BTFO after Saddam fell (because he'd never paid for his jets) is quite funny.

The USA has been sucking Saudi dick since just after WW2.

Furthermore, why in 1974 would Saudi want to neutralize oil as an economic weapon? They were using it as such a weapon because of US support for Israel in the 1973 war.

(and desu we should've invaded them and hanged the saud family from their palaces for that little stunt.)

Yeah, there was a growing western influence which is part of what triggered the reactionary sentiments that lead to the revolution.