The biggest difference between this uprising and the one 3 decades ago

[Henry Chinaski]

"This Uprising " ???? it seems i have a short memory ... or maybe i didn't weight Mousavi kos khol at all to count it as revolution as Dassh BT did.

two points , 1979 was not uprising was a pre-planned , well crafted coup against secular system of shah, as usual the big brother used sheeps marching in the streets for media propaganda , 2009 was also nothing even close to uprising , it was very well planned push to legalizing advanced public surveillance system and to be tested in real ,Mousavi jaakesh never been in to changing regime or in to soften the edge of Islamic side of it .

Look Afri jan, both were uprisings, there is no denying that. Thing is how such an uprising gets supported from the outside as in our region there is no successful uprising or revolution without the british (back then) and the american support. This is the key factor. If the americans and the carter administration didnt plan to get rid of shah (Guadaloupe conference) and if they just stood quite as they did 2009, shah would have been able to handle those motherfuckers who crowded the streets to take their filthy namaz in the middle of khiaaboon pahlavi. Miaavord baa choob o chomaagh paraakandashoon mikard, yaa aslan 100 taashono mikosht oonvaght hame chi aaaroom migereft o mamalekt 100 saal jelo mioftaad. Moshkel vali hamoon 100 saal jelo oftaadan bood. Americans needed iran to be dependent but everything under shah was pointing towards progress. Shah even started to built petrochemical centers where we would be able to manufacture our own goods using our own oil. Tolid be masraf. That would make the oil prices sky rocketing. Shah already made the europeans like Germany stop driving cars on sundays because of the high benzin prices back in 74, 75. So the americans simply found the most backward religious element and replaced shah with him. Iraq got destroyed due to similar reasons.

2009, there were even more people on the streets than back in 79 but those guys didnt have any support. The americans in support of their mullahs went mute and let them do as they wished. All in all, only the US preferences and support made sure khomeini came to power and the lack of the same support made sure people got humiliated back in 2009.

 

[Playboy]

THERE IS NO SAVAK!

This fact alone will make this revolution a lot more viable and less costly than the one in 79.

I.R might be a lot more ruthless and militaristic than Shah, but they never managed to infiltrate through the masses in secret.

Under Shah, brothers were ratting out each other, sons were ratting out their fathers, but today, we see a very united majority fighting the very visibly armed and identifiable minority. This is great.

There's no going back.

proven totally wrong.you win the worst prediction prize of the last decade.

 

[keyvan_pars]

brothers ratting out each other to whom ? savak?

 

[Bache Tehroon]

proven totally wrong.you win the worst prediction prize of the last decade.

Guilty as charged.

Underestimated the level of KHAR-KOSDEGI among fellow countrymen.

 

[ChaharMahal]

Nezam has not fallen apart because so far (less than 40 years) it shows more flexibility than Shahanshahi Nezam.

Shah's stupidest mistake was making majles totally irrelevant. if he had retained that facade (like I.R) it would have created semblance that decision making in the country can be influence somewhat by everyday people.

Khamenie thus far has played his had masterfully. (as people in the west say, he has played a weak hand very skillfully).

But I don't think the current political structure can withstand the death of Khamenie very well. Nezam will have to put many in jail for stabilize the new leader.
division and descent will just grow internally. The governing regime will have to use overwhelming force which itself create a form of instability.

Assuming khamenie is healthy for another five years, the regime is secure. but looking out 10 years, there will be a good bit of uncertainty.

 

[keyvan_pars]

Nezam has not fallen apart because so far (less than 40 years) it shows more flexibility than Shahanshahi Nezam.

Shah's stupidest mistake was making majles totally irrelevant. if he had retained that facade (like I.R) it would have created semblance that decision making in the country can be influence somewhat by everyday people.

Khamenie thus far has played his had masterfully. (as people in the west say, he has played a weak hand very skillfully).

But I don't think the current political structure can withstand the death of Khamenie very well. Nezam will have to put many in jail for stabilize the new leader.
division and descent will just grow internally. The governing regime will have to use overwhelming force which itself create a form of instability.

Assuming khamenie is healthy for another five years, the regime is secure. but looking out 10 years, there will be a good bit of uncertainty.

shah's stupid mistake was to think Iranians are not the usual apes in the middle east.

they are, just like their arab and paki neighbors, undeveloped fucking apes.

the best an average iranian can achieve in life is to go spend 5000$ in saudi arabia to circle around a fucking tent. this shows that iranians are mother fucking monkeys. and he had a slight second mistake. he didn't have balls like his dad to fucking force iranians to be civilized.

 

[Henry Chinaski]

shah's stupid mistake was to think Iranians are not the usual apes in the middle east.

they are, just like their arab and paki neighbors, undeveloped fucking apes.

Yes, most of them are not only not any better, they actually top the others in kharkosegi and have an edge in this regard because of their jense kharaab as a result of being exposed to shia indoctrination for 500 years.

As i said in that other thread, Shah as example did indeed do some injustice to Iraq but he was not shameless towards them and knew some had o marz. Yes he took away half of shat al arab, but in return he gave them 6 small stripes and hills including a few villages which had been iraqi territory anyway and he indeed kept word as he had promised according the 1975 contract and stopped supporting the separatist iraqi kurds. Iraq was very happy with this development too. What they do not tell us is that after 1975 until 1980 as khomeini declared that contract taaghooti, iran and iraq indeed had 5 years of excellent cooperation and friendship. They have started cooperating on economical issues, iraqis started to invite shah to iraq and iran did the same in return. Why? Because both countries were able to overcome their issues based on a mixture of mutual understanding, common sense and the newly born trust. Shah kept word and the iraqis appreciated it. Unfortunately many others in Iran were not trustworthy individuals, they were shia in deed and thought which has brought us an image of being untrustworthy liars and backstabbers among our neighbours which is absolutely justified when we look at how our people and so called government treat eachother let alone our neighbors. As the ex iraqi foreign minister Sadoun Hamadi once said: "We had our issues with shah aswell but we at least knew we were negotiating with a rational government. After the mullahs took over, we basically dont know who to contact and who to talk with, because we are facing an state of almost a lack of a government. These guys are bunch of irrationals."

He was very right. if he wasnt an iraqi, we would sign that statement on the spot.