Is Khomeini the closest we've ever had to a philosopher king?

You're probably white, and had also probably never lived in Iran. Ever been in front of a religious inquisition? Read this shit and check your privilege.
books.google.nl/books?id=0QM7AAAAQBAJ&pg=PT156&lpg=PT156&dq=khomeini inquisition&source=bl&ots=dN_CyUStMs&sig=huYajCL0NJy_wiOzjeOJWTUzQ6U&hl=en&sa=X&ved=0ahUKEwifmaLB07TUAhWCfFAKHfNYCJcQ6AEIRDAF#v=onepage&q=khomeini inquisition&f=false

That's not Frederick II.

Is the Iranian Revolution the best example of how the Left will always fall short of its long-term goals?

why is the iranian revolution representative of
the left?

Because marxists did much of the revolutioning to oust the shah.

No. Start with the Greeks then go to the Romans.

It's another "I only read The Republic" episode

Seriously, go read The Laws, Plato essentially discarded The Republic.

why didn't you say marxists if that's you meant?

How so?

Fuck Khomeini and fuck Islam.

t. Iranian

The whole structure of your life is based on the influence of philosophers. Trickle down philosophy bitch

Khomeini wrote good poetry to I cant find any, somebody post?

you have to go back

Epic win, /pol/. Screencap this to post there and on /r/the_donald. Holy shit I just can't believe how much you BTFO him; I guess this is the power of Lauren Southern's teachings...

Looks like somebody rustled your jihadist jimmies, hajji.

...

Every permanent dictator is a philosopher-king

this post oozes reddit

>anything I don't like
>the left
Amerilard edjumakashun.

wew

Sweden has done a good job

I'm not sure how that follows, given the revolution was orchestrated by the CIA.

>khomeini
>philosopher king

You are either a retard or know nothing about Khomeini.

He's a theologer king.

>check your privelege

Pseud. Go back to your safe space. Even if you are correct about Khomeini.

>using /s to indicate sarcasm
>muh progress

Dead giveaway.

>In July 1999, Mullah Mohammed Omar issued a decree in favor of the preservation of the Bamiyan Buddha statues. Because Afghanistan's Buddhist population no longer exists, so the statues are no longer worshiped, he added: "The government considers the Bamiyan statues as an example of a potential major source of income for Afghanistan from international visitors. The Taliban states that Bamiyan shall not be destroyed but protected."[51]

>In early 2000, local Taliban authorities asked for UN assistance to rebuild drainage ditches around tops of the alcoves where the Buddhas were set.[52]

>In March 2001, the Buddhas of Bamiyan were destroyed by the Taliban under an edict issued from Mullah Omar, stating: "all the statues around Afghanistan must be destroyed."[53] This prompted an international outcry.[54] Information and Culture Minister Qadratullah Jamal told Associated Press of a decision by 400 religious clerics from across Afghanistan declaring the Buddhist statues against the tenets of Islam. "They came out with a consensus that the statues were against Islam," said Jamal. A statement issued by the ministry of religious affairs of the Taliban regime justified the destruction as being in accordance with Islamic law.[55] The then Taliban ambassador to Pakistan Abdul Salam Zaeef held that the destruction of the Buddhas was finally ordered by Abdul Wali, the Minister for the Propagation of Virtue and the Prevention of Vice.[56]

>The Taliban supreme leader Mullah Omar explained why he ordered the statues to be destroyed in an interview:

>"I did not want to destroy the Bamiyan Buddha. In fact, some foreigners came to me and said they would like to conduct the repair work of the Bamiyan Buddha that had been slightly damaged due to rains. This shocked me. I thought, these callous people have no regard for thousands of living human beings -- the Afghans who are dying of hunger, but they are so concerned about non-living objects like the Buddha. This was extremely deplorable. That is why I ordered its destruction. Had they come for humanitarian work, I would have never ordered the Buddha's destruction."[57]

Who was in the wrong here?

t. american "iranian"
Stay there, we don't need you or your shit here.

>priceless historical religious artifacts
vs
>primitives living in poor conditions, the standard living state of the majority of the world

Hmm I wonder what academics from across the world would try to save.

What a faggot. The statues are more important, but even if they weren't it wasn't an either/or situation. He was just being a bitter asshole.

pretty sure iran is terrorists and saudia arabia is good

>>What a faggot. The statues are more important,
only to powerless normies who praise icons and idols.

wrong coup dickhead

so instead of accepting the offer and letting the statues be restored, potentially increasing tourism, which would have positive effects for the economy and probably for the living conditions of the people he dying of hunger, he decided to destroy the statues as a matter of principle? what's worse, westerners who care about statues over random afghani people, or some war chief idiot who cares more about his principles than about his own people?

kys

>tfw the major difference in the Laws is that Plato denounced homosexuality

based af.

...

>/s

kys

>we don't want to have some to offer to westeners in return, we just want handouts

typical sandies

I dont care what you want, cletus

I have been to Iran. Never met a more warm and hospitable people. Genuinely happy to receive a stranger in their homes. And the politeness!

You're not an Iranian. You're some privileged kid whose father was probably working with the shah while he was suppressing the Iranian people in favour of a small minority of Americans and Brits for muh oil.

>Never met a more warm and hospitable people

No, I was born there, but consider myself American first. (Lucky to come here before my 2nd birthday)

My dad was actually imprisoned by the shah, so im no fan of him either. I just HATE islam and the damned islamic revolution.

Depending on when you were in Iran, this POV isn't that rare.

So you probably are a commie fucker lol this is even worse. Don't come back kudasai.

Excellent deduction, sherlock. But you are incorrect. Not a fan of commies either.

not the retard you were chatting with, but where do you place Islam in a hundred years? Reformed (either theologically or culturally, or both), crippled by civil war, or pretty much unchanged from its present manifestation?

Unchanged. My biased opinion is that its an inherently evil religion thats ultimately a blight on mankind.

Sure, there may be genuinely decent muslims, but thats a reflection of their own personal humanity, that they choose not to follow their religion at face value.

At its most basic, out of all the big religions, islam exploits the worst of humanity for its growth and expansion. This is it at its core, and IMO cant ever be reformed.

To follow up. Best case scenario? It slowly loses adherents due to the appeal of other superior societies and cultures.

See: Aesop's contest between the sun and the north wind.

Having read the Quran and some Hadiths, I fully agree. Since you're an ex-muslim I was hoping you wouldn't as the task is much more difficult if our diagnosis is correct. Being that it's the only Abrahamic religion that deems its scripture not only as the word of god imparted through revelation, but the actual SPEECH of god, its resistance to secularism is much stronger than any other religion. Couple that with the context surrounding the life of the prophet and you get a mess. There are ''moderate muslims'', but very very few. I also have a hard time not suspecting them of agnosticism...

So, if we were to deal with Islam, as Westerners, you think a strong consistent pull towards atheism would do more good than forcing a compatibility with Enlightenment values?

ie: attack it as you would attack deism or maybe a non-descript form of theism and pull towards atheism, rather than challenging the tenets of Islam and engaging in theological discussions until Islam is interpreted in accordance with western values (or even better fatwas on certain hadiths, verses, but this is naive of me I know)?

I wouldnt call myself an ex muslim, as my parents were already disillusioned with it from the 60s. I was never raised in it.

And i wouldnt say athiesm is the only path out. I personally find a lot of solace in Zoroastrian scriptures. My wife is a baptised Christian. I find religion to be a key component of the human experience.

Not sure what you mean by forcing enlightenment values, but at face value, i believe they are a good think. Next to Cyrus the Great, my historical heros are the American Founding Fathers.

Well, we agree on the problem of Islam. I was merely asking for a strategic tip in dealing with it since I assumed you'd be closer to its roots. Is it a better strategy to engage muslims by challenging deism, or theism in general and hoping to convert them to atheism, or is it more realistic to give a larger platform to the very few muslim reformers that acknowledge the problems within Islam and hope to reform it through heuristics and theology?

I'm slightly worried about this, as the reality of those famously damning Pew Research polls that documented British muslims' moral attitudes on various actions is reflected in my day to day life more often than I'd like to.

His hyperbole was apparent, but USA support of Saudis and hatred of secular regimes in the middle east, all because of domino theory and petrodollars... really is a god damn shame.

How are secular regimes any better?

Well they don't fund and export jihad, for starters.

They typed from their slavery-manufactured electronic devices in defense of a terrorist leader destroying priceless historical treasures.

The majority of the world is in poverty. Whining because some foreign academics didn't offer token support to futile attempts at alleviating poverty in Afghanistan and destroying the subject they were interested in forever because of it is peak fag/womanly spite.

>WOW HE CARESS ABOUT PEOPLE. HES A GOOD GUY AFTERALL

lol @ your disney channel morality

I can imagine the cozy sheltered shitlib nodding his head in knowing approval "hmm. guess he's not the barbarian our culture makes him out to be" before sipping on his Ye Olde Brewe IPA, some dribbling down his soft soy-thinned beard.

>being on this many levels of moral relativism

>WOW IF I PUT WORDS IN PEOPLES MOUTHS WILL LOOK SO MUCH SMARTER THAN THEM
lmao @ yr 'life'

>being this angry someone called you out accurately and even read your mind

this is impressively stupid
well done

Understood. I believe directly challenging their views will result in them holding even tighter to them and feeling more justified to defend their faith.

The better option is to live a better, happier, more productive life. If they have half an ounce of reason, they will abandon it on their own.

I dont believe it to be something to logically talk people out of, as logic didn't bring them to their position initially.

Again, i feel the aesop north wind v. Sun fable to be the best parable at explaining the best approach.

That said, i think the US has (in years past anyways, say 80s through the turn of the century) has done a better job of welcoming and assimilating immigrants and thus stands a more succesful chance of this approach. We visited london in the 90s and i was a little terrified of some of the immigrants there. It really felt at times like a 3rd world country.

That said, we agree that islam at its core uses the worst aspects of humanity to propagate itself. As a result, they will inherently have practitioners who are drawn to it BECAUSE of their evil nature. These people are the problem, in my estimation cant be saved, and make me understand why the welcome and assimilate strategy is so unpaletable.

JIDF spotted

friendship with merkel ended now abdullah is my new best friend

Marxists were a major force in fermenting revolution and overthrowing the Shah.

After the Shah was gone they were suppressed and told to fuck off by Khomeini who co-opted the revolution and claimed it as his.

I love how there at least seems to be a correlation between Trump's trip to Saudi Arabia and a huge chunk of the Arab world turning on Qatar. You can't deny that shit is actually happening and moving with Trump as president. Maybe not for the better, but it IS happening.

Keeping with the theme of the board, i recommend "reading lolita in Iran" for a good insight on this.

Saddam and Assad were/are secularists. Their regimes were/are famous for "human rights abuses" and costly wars.

Secularism doesn't somehow guarantee that everyone gets democracy and freedom of speech and a transgendered bathroom.

See what I mean?

>because of oil
Not exactly, because oil is traded in dollars.

It's FOMENTING not FERMENTING you peasant.

lmao, i'm about halfway through Plato's work chronologically. Good to now he stops talking about gay shit all the time

Yeah it's strange how eager we are to topple secular governments in the middle east. Probably nothing to that. Best to just believe what our politicians tell us.

Assad used chemical weapons on the very day the UN was there to inspect just as they were turning the tide on the "moderate" terrorists! They were wrong before, but for sure they're telling the truth this time when it's strategically useful for attacking Assad. Not suspicious at all.

>Minister for the Propagation of Virtue and the Prevention of Vice
More western countries need this

It is nowhere like Plato's republic, only if you envision a diabolical version of the idea that the republic expounds upon.
Also; he advocated (Plato's republic I mean) the rights of women. Where are they in Iran?

W H E W

Are you guys implying the Tudeh were marxist at all?

>super-charged quad 7s

yikes

Saddam was not a secularist, and he catered towards islamists (even housing some of the jihadi thugs knowingly), EVEN changing the flag to include the takbir.
Have you not read anything on the subject?

The only thing preventing him was a desire for cash. When he realised that his hellhole was not going to turn into Paris overnight, he cashed in on the statues in the only other way available, by destroying them for publicity, like the sleazy little peasant that he is.

The Republic is not political theory you stupid cunt.