81–90 of 503 posts
I cant imagine the courage that is needed to take part in these protests. Most here, the most revolutionary act they will ever participate on in their life, is criticizing their boss choice of Azure as cloud provider...
Earlier quoted context omitted.
> non-violence Armed Baloch and Kurdish groups have been boasting of firing on Iranian police. The police are firing back. Hard to call them non-violent when they openly boast about armed attacks. Who knows where they are getting their weapons, with western countries also openly declaring their intent to destabilize Iran.
Just think about would have happened if protesters in USA shot and killed 150 policemen. Protesters which foreign states (China or Russia) openly boasted they are supporting, and provided them with weapons and communication technology.
At a certain point there ceases to be a middle path between violent resistance and complete surrender.
> Protesters which foreign states (China or Russia)
This type of relativism is dishonest. Of course US is speed running the path to authoritarianism but its not quite there. e.g. morally it would be perfectly acceptable to support weapons to protestors in Russia and not the other way around.
The Iranian regime is objectively evil, period. Regardless of what honest or dishonest motives foreign actors might or might not have.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
My impression is that protests in the West are largely MAGA aligned and focused more on regime change. Totally different target audience. Observe “MIGA” slogans and Trump’s face in this video from Los Angeles https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=20T6XrrLdiA&pp=ygUYbG9zIGFuZ2V... Edit: Also, the Left seems to more often pick sides when its one ethnic group oppressing another, as identity politics is prominent in their messag…
If anything it feels more surprising that the foreign protests aren't getting more coverage. They've been huge, it seems.
[flagged]
We (the US) just bombed Iran last summer. We are moving the largest buildup in decades of armament and materiel to Iran's doorstep RIGHT NOW, and it seems extremely likely we are about to bomb them again. What exactly do you want to happen here? In your view, am I taking the side of the Ayatollahs because bombing isn't enough and we should be nuking Tehran instead? It's telling that perceived tacit support of an Iran…
Earlier quoted context omitted.
> non-violence Armed Baloch and Kurdish groups have been boasting of firing on Iranian police. The police are firing back. Hard to call them non-violent when they openly boast about armed attacks. Who knows where they are getting their weapons, with western countries also openly declaring their intent to destabilize Iran.
> with western countries also openly declaring their intent to destabilize Iran As opposed to standing idly by when the regime 'stabilizes' the country by murdering thousands of people? It's well past the stage where non violent protest or resistance stopped being a viable option..
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Idk, I’ve never seen any left wing folks actively support the Iranian regime. I think the difference is what you noted, the US support for Israel vs. intervention in Iran. I, and many I know, would love to see the Iranian regime fall, just not via US regime change which tends to make things worse.
One big thing your missing is that there simply is no way imaginable that a regime change can happen without the US, it's simply impossible at this stage. I can certainly understand why many if not most Iranians want the US to intervene, it's simply the only way regime change is ever going to happen.w
Earlier quoted context omitted.
> non-violence Armed Baloch and Kurdish groups have been boasting of firing on Iranian police. The police are firing back. Hard to call them non-violent when they openly boast about armed attacks. Who knows where they are getting their weapons, with western countries also openly declaring their intent to destabilize Iran.
Just think about would have happened if protesters in USA shot and killed 150 policemen. Protesters which foreign states (China or Russia) openly boasted they are supporting, and provided them with weapons and communication technology.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
The book Brett uses as his main source, Waging A Good War , is an incredible book that I strongly recommend. It treats the Civil Rights movement as a military campaign and analyzes it from the perspective of a military historian. Not in the sense that it was viewed as a war by the protestors, but in the sense that the logistics, training, and operations of the Civil Rights movement were a well oiled machine that look…
[flagged]
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Good article. It seems like a consequence is that publicity outside Iran is only going to be effective to the extent that it mobilizes people inside Iran? (With the possible exception of getting Trump's attention, but I don't think air strikes are going to do it?) And the government of Iran seems very willing to kill people. I don't see this ending well.
> With the possible exception of getting Trump's attention Or Tel Aviv, Rihyadh, New Delhi or any other one of the hosts of Iran’s adversaries and enemies. > the government of Iran seems very willing to kill people I find it helpful to decompose states as monoliths in these cases. Besides attracting an intervention, the purpose of such a protest would also include motivating state elements to attempt a coup.
TLV (already know) and Islamabad are lobbying the US in favor of striking the regime, as can be seen with the prominence Asim Munir, Muhammad Aamer, and Asim Malik in acting as a backchannel and unofficial advisers to the US on Iran under the Trump admin as well as Netanyahu's continued lobbying for a stronger response to Iran for decades.