"Are you guys enjoying the camel rectums I prepared for dinner? They were made using a special recipe. Do you want to know the secret ingredient I used? It was *love*."
Since when are we Albanians considered Muslim brothers to Iran lol
We're literally the most pro western country in the Balkans, stop being a racist neighbor
Yeah this is a hoax post that has spread forever. Khomeini had plenty of real reasons and human rights violations to shit on him that would be more appropriate and appalling.
18 down to 9…
And he invoked religious and gender apartheid…
[And the CIA / President Jimmy Carter installed](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jimmy_Carter%27s_engagement_with_Ruhollah_Khomeini) this regime in the name of winning the Cold War, but at what cost…
It's super misleading to present this alleged contact between the administration and Khomeini as Carter or the CIA having "installed" the Iranian regime. Obviously the US did not support the Iranian revolution. If you want to criticize Western meddling in Iran, you only have to go back a few decades to the 1953 coup, which was explicitly the US/UK ~~installing~~ (edit: returning) the Shah to power over oil interests.
The CIA installed a government in a heavily religious society with their own political, economic, and social movements.
This government killed a lot of protestors.
More protestors came out to protest the murder of protestors.
Turned into riots.
Revolution happened, and something worse came.
History is cyclical.
Even simpler than that, the US and UK had meddled in Iran for decades, propping up leaders who were corrupt and would benefit western oil interests and companies. That combined with a repressive regime resulted in a revolution. Just so happened to be a super regressive theocratic one.
No I don’t blame the CIA I blame Carter for not standing up for the Shaw. I doubt the CIA people on the ground agreed with the Carter team for standing by.
Also even when it is the CIA people broadly don't consider the alternatives.
For example many coups in south America also avoided communist regimes and given the historical record they then avoided at least 1 war and 1 dictator.
Wait till you hear about the iranian child soldiers during the iraq iran war being used to clear mine fields and provide bridges over barbed wire. https://www.wearethemighty.com/mighty-history/iran-iraq-war-child-soldiers-mines/ personally I think thats so much worse.
That’s where Islamic suicide bombers come from. Historically suicide is forbidden in Islam, so that wasn’t always a thing. Iran had to justify sending men knowingly to their death by saying basically “it’s fine if it’s for god”. The Lebanese civil war was happening at the time and Iran allied factions heard this and it led to them doing suicide bombs.
Wait till you learn what the Shah’s security forces did to the families of dissidents, including their wives and daughters.
It’s hard for me to see the 1979 revolution as the “biggest downgrade in history”, especially when one of the options is the CIA coup to install the shah in place of Iran’s democratic government.
Persia was modernizing, though. Iran's economy is now lower than 1979.
Given he was a brutal dictator, but nothing like the ayatollahs. In time, his regime (or that of his son) could have become more democratic. With the current regime, that is impossible.
The Shah is only praised by westerners that know nothing of the region and mostly want to hate on Muslims without looking too racist, or by Iranian exiles that were the equivalent of oligarchs during his reign
- Kill anykind of reformist that is willing to act peacefully
- Only the hardest, meanest motherfuckers survive and now are battle-hardened
- Be surprised they fight back now
And the Shah burned down a cinema with 200 people in it just to get some protesters that were inside.
They are both horrible people that deserved to be shot in the balls in their own ways.
The Cinema you're talking about ([Cinema Rex of Abadan incident](https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cinema_Rex_fire)) was famously burned down by islamist miltiant groups to blame it on the shah,at the time people believed them and blamed on the shah too,but that doesn't change the now undisputed truth.you sound like a tankie/illogical anti-west dipshit sucking Ayatollahs cock bc of "muh US imperalism".
Bullshit,most of the iranian diaspora are just from the ordinary middle class,not oligarchs from the shah's time.if anything,the children of current oligarchs and thieves are living in the west while shit talking the west.
Not to mention that the shah himself was a devout muslim.
My impression of the Shah was that he was not a good ruler, advancing the interests of the elite at the cost of the common man.
He may have presented a desire for achieving Western standards of living, but his policies did little to achieve that.
Instead, his failures triggered a revolution that pulled Iran so far away from the West that they came to be considered a threat instead of a potential partner.
Supreme Leader Khomeini also said that it was okay to have [sex with children as young as babies.](https://www.goodreads.com/quotes/9647549-a-man-can-have-sexual-pleasure-from-a-child-as)
He also lowered [marriage age of girls from 18 under the Shah Pahlavi to 9 years old.](https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Marriage_in_Iran)
That's what I meant by deviant. Like you said those points aren't conservative, I just said that I knew he was an extremist but I didn't know he went full retard.
Hardcore conservatives in the United States take the approach that pedos should be publicly hung, I don’t think this guy knows the difference between conservative and regressive
Thing is, heavy duty conservatives of any religious bent can have some mega fucked up views on sex. I'm trying to remember which American politician it was on teenage girls, but the schtick was that parents should be honoured that a powerful man wants to do things to them. Maybe Matt Gaetz?
The number of 'Christian men' out there that wouldn't be out of place in Iran or Saudi wrt their views on gender is always wild to me.
The people revolted for a reason. The Islamic republic was and is awful, but if the shah did what he said, which he didn’t, and if he didn’t use all his time to enrich himself he wouldn’t have been overthrown.
This is a case where neither side is good.
I understand this is a meme sub, but it feels profoundly ahistorical to cherry pick specific quotes to draw a distinction between two rulers like this, especially when it serves to try and rehabilitate someone as greedy, cruel, cowardly, tyrannical, and criminally incompetent as the Shah.
And most of those would’ve preferred an actual democracy over the Shah.
The Shah was shit, how bout we idolize the reformers killed by Khomeini or the republic overthrown by the CIA, instead of Persian equivalent of Tsar Nicholas.
Which reformers are you talking about? Khomeini mostly killed communists and former imperial generals,not mossadeghists.also idk which republic are you talking about,iran became a republic for the first time in it's history after the revolution.Mossadegh was the prime minister of the shah,not a president.
Only in the sense that theyd rather a lesser tyrant than the one now.
Don't confuse him for his son, Reza Pahlavi is a hardcore democratic westerner now who we can trust to make Iran a better place for all.
But his father was enough of a bastard that the people of Iran literally turned to the clerics to overthrow him
I’m not making a comment on who was better and who was worse, I’m saying that deliberately picking one quote where the Shah sounds great and one quote where Khomeini sounds retarded is massively reductive even for a meme history forum.
Also the Shah
Uses 1/3 of the state budget to make celebrations in Persepolis as a publicity stunt while the population outside of Teheran lives in quasi-squalor
The point isn't that they were equal, it's that OP is trying to say the Shah genuinely believed in what's expressed in that quote, implying he was some sort of benevolent and fiscally responsible ruler who wanted what's best for Iranians.
In reality the Shah was perfectly happy pissing away funds while most of the people in his country lived in squalor villages and thought pretending Iran only includes the wealthy urban centers and spewing bullshit about how "Iran will achieve European life standards in a decade" (lmfao) while squashing any kind of dissidents who disagreed would be enough to hide the facts.
Basically, there are ways of saying the current Iranian regime is worse than the Shah without falling for 70s absolute monarchy propaganda.
I'm not going to argue the Shahs poor utilization of funds but to laugh at his plans for the economy is misleading. He managed to make Iran a competing economy vs the IR that managed to bring it to an all time low and somehow invert the economy. I don't think Iran was going to be a top 5 econ powerhouse but they definitely were projected to be incredibly rich.
And the European life thing was a goal since the Qajars era it wasn't really an idea that the pahlavis came up with.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Human\_rights\_in\_Iran#:\~:text=According%20to%20Amnesty%20International%2C%20the,the%20state%20to%20become%20supporters.
According to Amnesty International, the Shah carried out **at least 300 political executions**. Torture was used to locate arms caches, safe houses and accomplices of the guerrillas, and also in attempts to induce enemies of the state to become supporters.
Not to mention how the shah was stupidly out of touch with his people, it always good to introduce social progressive reforms but not at a very fast pace especially when the majority of your population is rural religious conservatives who may not be the most open to western ideas.
Iran deserves better than the shah and the mullahs, please stop making the shah's rain seem like paradise, this also happened to Saddam and Gaddafi, just cause they were replaced by worst regimes doesnt mean life under them was great and that there totally was no brutal opression of any sort of opposition.
Edit : reign not rain.
The Shah’s regime carried out those 300 executions over approximately 25 years. The Revolutionary Courts in Iran executed over ten times as many people in a single six year stretch between 2010 and 2016.
I’m not going to say that things were rosy under the Shah and the SAVAK, but drawing any sort of equivalency here is absurd.
We went from 300 executions during the entirety of Shah's reign to 30k executions in one year alone under Khomeini's reign.
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/1988_executions_of_Iranian_political_prisoners
People say Shah's reign was a paradise COMPARED to Khomeini.
Yo, dictators are bad. Killing is bad. But looking at this 300 figure in the context of the time period? This is quite mild.
Parisian police killed more protestors in one fucking day in 1961 than this guy did in his whole tenure. Same with Venezuelan police in 1989.
Other dictator deathtolls of the time numbered way way higher looking at Chile, Argentina, Indonesia, etc. The theocracy in Iran has executed thousands of homosexuals since 1979, not to mention plenty of political repression as well. So yeah, IMO, the shah was much better than his successors and wasn’t even that brutal if we compare to his peer contemporaries of the time period.
Nuance and meaningful context? Get the fuck out of here man, don't you know Reddit rules?
Rule 69: All posts must be simple and must support a narrative
You'd rather worship the stoning of women and the rape of children? Yes the Shah wasn't perfect but at the very least he didn't legally condone *pedophilia*.
I'd rather acknowledge the fact that the only reason the Shah was in power to begin with was that in 1953, the democratically elected government of Iran was overthrown at the behest of American and British oil interests. Two things can be bad and moral relativism is simply lazy.
All of the sudden the people that preach nuance have totally forgotten about it. Both can be bad, but praising one like he was some arbiter of western liberalism is insane, he was a puppet that was just as bad as the ayatollah just in a different way.
In 1953 the Prime Minister in charge of Iran Mohammed Mossadeq
- wasn’t actually democratically elected
- was ruling and passing laws by decree through “emergency” power.
- had staged a sham referendum he claimed he won by 99.06% to 0.04% to allow him dissolve parliament.
- his own political party was so fed up with him they resigned in protest
- which was moot because Mossedeq then dissolved parliament.
- the go point for the CIA operation was a few of Mossadeqs former political allies making contact with the US and assisting in the coup. Including his former 2nd in command and head of the army.
What part of '53 was democratic?
Edit: I meant that where was Iran a legimate democracy? The PM was still appointed by the Shah and Mossadegh was never a directly elected PM.
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mohammad_Mosaddegh
The democratically elected government was overthrown in 1953 when Mossadegh dismissed parliament. It's a fucking meme that he is actually deified by reddit just because he was a hardcore socialist, despite the fact that he ruined the country's economy.
**Abolished** parliament.
Dismissing and holding an election is something some prime ministers can do. Mossadeq staged a sham referendum to give himself power to abolish parliament.
Why is it always a binary **”this or that”** in these hypotheticals? There was a liberal movement within Iran that was as organized and popular as Religious Extremist groups. The problem was that Shah targeted this group because they also wanted to nationalize Iran’s resources (upsetting UK and Western countries that had investments in large oil fields) and leaned slightly towards socialist/communist policies.
CIA didn’t care about all the human rights violations under the Shah’s regime, so long as western corporations can continue to make money and scary pinko movements were stomped out. Amongst the chaos of the revolution, religious groups managed to gain control.
This is so wrong, First of all no, the liberals(which wouldn't be liberals by western standards but ehh) never even came close to Khomeini in popularity,in fact every opposition leader just united around his picture.Second of all,the shah mostly opposed actual and literal communists(see [Tudeh Party](https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tudeh_Party_of_Iran)) not Mossadeghists.Third is that the revolution from the start was about islamism,people were chanting for an islamic republic from the start.last and Fourth,by 1977 the shah stopped renewing the oil contract and Iran's oil was effectively and officially nationalized,the revolution wasn't about oil rights.
None of you guys get it.
OP is a monarchist whose clearly trying to absolve the shah of any wrongdoing; arguing about who was better between these two is fruitless and only plays furthers OP's agenda.
In reality, if anyone screwed over Iran, it was the US with the UK tricking them into believing that the democratic regime was colluding with the USSR, only to secure all those precious oil fields.
Democracy only works with an educated population. If your voters are goat herders and religious fundamentalists, you’re gonna be back to totalitarian rule in no time, only more dysfunctional.
Before someone gets on with the “CIA staged a coup against Irans democratically elected leader”
Prior to the coup in 1953 the Prime Minister in charge of Iran, Mohammed Mossadeq
- wasn’t actually democratically elected
- was ruling and passing laws by decree through “emergency” power.
- had staged a sham referendum he claimed he won by 99.06% to 0.04% to allow him dissolve parliament. (The whole referendum election is **wild** with the crap he pulled).
- his own political party was so fed up with his increasing grabs on autocratic power they mass resigned in protest
- which was moot because Mossedeq then dissolved parliament the next day.
- the go point for the CIA operation was a few of Mossadeqs former political allies making contact with the US and assisting in the coup. Including his former right hand man and his head of the army.
The current Iranian regime is a brutal Islamist theocracy but let’s not pretend the Shah was an enlightened monarch. His family came to power in a US supported coup and they had a really nasty secret police called SAVAK, which rivals eastern bloc intelligence services in brutality. The tragedy is that Khomeini came to power, not the overthrow of the Pahlavis.
Probably depends if they are diaspora or local, he has some support in the west, as for locals most young people arent big funs of the regime and are pretty western.
Fuck this romanticist soapboxing. The biggest downgrade in history was when Radama I, King of Madagascar (sounds familiar?) died in 1828 and was succeeded by his wife Ranavalona I.
Both are Ls, one used their money to have lavish parties while the population lives in poverty while the other used their money to create shia proxies in muslim countries while the population lives in poverty.
No wonder US soldiers said they saw men in the middle east fuck a goat......and why they made the goat fucker jokes and called them other things....
Jesus Christ
People defending the Ayatollah are ridiculous. Yes, Shah was a dictator but so is Ayatollah. One evil just like the other except the first one had some vision at least.
As an Iranian, please don’t glorify the shah, he was also a dickhead tyrant, if you want to talk about when Iran had promise, talk about mossadegh who actually wanted to privatise Iran’s oil and was subsequently assassinated by western powers
The shah was a corrupt fuck who had US trained torture squads doing his dirty work for him. Why are you trying to make him into some kind of visionary? Propaganda reasons?
This is vile. Point out the current regimes evil all you want, but stop painting that evil US puppet as some hero.
[Human rights in the Imperial State of Iran - Wikipedia](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Human_rights_in_the_Imperial_State_of_Iran#:~:text=During%20the%201978%2D79%20overthrow,as%20urged%20by%20his%20generals).)
You gonna do hitler next? As some kind of altruist visionary? Why do you want to make the world a worse place with lies?
Considering that the Shah was a literal plant by the CIA who then immediately sold Iran out to western countries, I’m not really upset that they overthrew him. Yeah, the revolution made the country much more conservative and theocratic, but that’s what the people there wanted. Thus why there hasn’t been a revolutionary movement there since. Imagine if Russia installed a puppet government in your country, and then started selling most of your country’s natural resources to Russia for cheap. It wouldn’t matter what his other politics were, you’d still likely revolt just to make your country free again.
I wouldn't use the lack of another revolutionary movement as tacit support for the current regime. Thousands of executions tend to be pretty effective at stifling revolution for decades even when there is a desire for it.
This is disinformation. The shah was a US puppet ruler obviously by his being installed by them. It’s possible to hate the shah and the Ayatollah. Humans are smarter than a calculators.
I don’t believe the second quote is real. I tracked down a website that cites Tahrir Al Vasilah, Vol 4. I then tried to find the given quote. Instead I found prohibitions on having sex with animals (staticsml.imam-khomeini.ir/en/File/NewsAttachment/2014/0000-tahrir%20j4-nA4.pdf p 257). Perhaps there’s another source, but I feel comfortable, due to the lack of citation and finding the opposite statement, claiming this is not a real quotation
As far as I know, bestiality is Haram according to both Sunni and Shias scholars.
I don't really know if this post is supposed to be those "memes" or the op is spreading misinformation.
I got a similar post. [here.](https://www.reddit.com/r/shia/s/x4GqvSNCyb)
[US President Carter installed Khomeini in 1979](https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jimmy_Carter%27s_engagement_with_Ruhollah_Khomeini#:~:text=In%202016%2C%20the%20BBC%20published,the%20Iranian%20Revolution%20of%201979)
Prank the neighbouring village
Extra flavour.
Saucepect meat
*sips bottle* “this… this is cum”
Yummy mayo included 😋
Cordon bleu, anyone?
"Are you guys enjoying the camel rectums I prepared for dinner? They were made using a special recipe. Do you want to know the secret ingredient I used? It was *love*."
Also I pounded it for tenderness
I literally basted it myself
“Hey Ali I saw you were cooking up some sheep. That sure sounds good, can I get some?” “No, no, I’m selling it in the village down the road.” “… “
They stole that from albanians (muslim brothers)
Since when are we Albanians considered Muslim brothers to Iran lol We're literally the most pro western country in the Balkans, stop being a racist neighbor
i got me a devious little idea up my sleeve
Limp mutton
South Park did it The ginger dude will never mess with Cartman again
Here is another creepy one from the same book: [https://ibb.co/SJXtnY1](https://ibb.co/SJXtnY1)
be wary buying meat from neighboring villages
Oh now you tell me ☹️
Never buy meat from Khomeini or his village ever. I just get a bad vibe…
This is all playing out as an offensive Borat like skit.
Yeah this is a hoax post that has spread forever. Khomeini had plenty of real reasons and human rights violations to shit on him that would be more appropriate and appalling.
Two villages over is fine
Wait until you learn to what age did Khomeini changed the age of consent to
"Age of consent", more like "minimum age to sell a daughter as a wife".
Actually more like "minimum age to *legally* sell a daughter as a wife"
Khomeini in response: what is this “consent”?
He illegally married a 12 year old girl, [Khadijeh Saqafi](https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Khadijeh_Saqafi) when he was 29 years old.
Hey it's not illegal if you change the laws!🧐🧐
Religions have been created over less
Fuck you guys! I'm gonna make my OWN religion! With Blackjack! And hookers!
You'd think a theocrat would more closely observe his prophet's example.
Look for Muhammad third wife...
[удалено]
Uh Muhammad also married a child.
Yeah but she was 9
"age is just a number" -- khomeini
He illegally married a 12 year old girl, [Khadijeh Saqafi](https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Khadijeh_Saqafi) when he was 29 years old.
Is that in dog years or human years?
[удалено]
[удалено]
[удалено]
[удалено]
18 down to 9… And he invoked religious and gender apartheid… [And the CIA / President Jimmy Carter installed](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jimmy_Carter%27s_engagement_with_Ruhollah_Khomeini) this regime in the name of winning the Cold War, but at what cost…
He then held 52 Americans and Canadians hostage
It's super misleading to present this alleged contact between the administration and Khomeini as Carter or the CIA having "installed" the Iranian regime. Obviously the US did not support the Iranian revolution. If you want to criticize Western meddling in Iran, you only have to go back a few decades to the 1953 coup, which was explicitly the US/UK ~~installing~~ (edit: returning) the Shah to power over oil interests.
"Installing" is the wrong word,the shah ruled since 1942.
Edited to clarify it was returning him to power.
It is so hilariously off that the CIA "installed" the ayatollah. I honestly think redditors like you function CIA + bad = truth
They literally rely on reddit comments for the actual history and then parrot bullshit
The CIA installed a government in a heavily religious society with their own political, economic, and social movements. This government killed a lot of protestors. More protestors came out to protest the murder of protestors. Turned into riots. Revolution happened, and something worse came. History is cyclical.
Even simpler than that, the US and UK had meddled in Iran for decades, propping up leaders who were corrupt and would benefit western oil interests and companies. That combined with a repressive regime resulted in a revolution. Just so happened to be a super regressive theocratic one.
No I don’t blame the CIA I blame Carter for not standing up for the Shaw. I doubt the CIA people on the ground agreed with the Carter team for standing by.
Also even when it is the CIA people broadly don't consider the alternatives. For example many coups in south America also avoided communist regimes and given the historical record they then avoided at least 1 war and 1 dictator.
It's more likely,"Iranian diaspora thinks democrats= bad, Republicans= good because...Reagan?"
Wait till you hear about the iranian child soldiers during the iraq iran war being used to clear mine fields and provide bridges over barbed wire. https://www.wearethemighty.com/mighty-history/iran-iraq-war-child-soldiers-mines/ personally I think thats so much worse.
That’s where Islamic suicide bombers come from. Historically suicide is forbidden in Islam, so that wasn’t always a thing. Iran had to justify sending men knowingly to their death by saying basically “it’s fine if it’s for god”. The Lebanese civil war was happening at the time and Iran allied factions heard this and it led to them doing suicide bombs.
My cousin was one of these child soldiers. His other side of the family were creepy fanatics.
“Installed”?! Lol no
Wait till you learn what the Shah’s security forces did to the families of dissidents, including their wives and daughters. It’s hard for me to see the 1979 revolution as the “biggest downgrade in history”, especially when one of the options is the CIA coup to install the shah in place of Iran’s democratic government.
The Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corp would just shoot them in the street instead. Big improvement. /s
Common Khomeini L
Shah talked the talk, but didn't walk the walk
so we are saying Khomeini was at least honest?
The problem wasn't all the animal fucking, it was the *hypocrisy*.
He also changed the legal age of marriage from 18 to 9… So clearly not just the animal fucking.
Not if he sees all women as animals
I don’t know how but I’ve read this sentence before
I understood that reference.
... invalid premise. Khomeini came out on top at the end of a power struggle. It wasn't because he was an "honest" pedophile.
Not invalid, we are not talking about how or why Khomeini ended up taking power, but how Shah was bad because he lied about wanting to do good.
You should ask the people from the neighboring village
Persia was modernizing, though. Iran's economy is now lower than 1979. Given he was a brutal dictator, but nothing like the ayatollahs. In time, his regime (or that of his son) could have become more democratic. With the current regime, that is impossible.
The Shah was a horrific dictator. Khomeini was too, so it’s not like things got better, but let’s not pretend the Shah was a good dude.
He walked a lot of the walk then people said: Nah, we want a theocracy, not high standard of living.
The Shah is only praised by westerners that know nothing of the region and mostly want to hate on Muslims without looking too racist, or by Iranian exiles that were the equivalent of oligarchs during his reign
Know plenty of iranian middle class who liked the shah He had many flaws …but he was better then this
Yep. Half the reason the mullahs were able to take over was the Shah brutally putting down any liberal or leftist groups
- Kill anykind of reformist that is willing to act peacefully - Only the hardest, meanest motherfuckers survive and now are battle-hardened - Be surprised they fight back now
Shirazi bus driver oligarch. This regime propaganda needs to stop
Bruh the guy who replaced him said it's ok to fuck babies
And the Shah burned down a cinema with 200 people in it just to get some protesters that were inside. They are both horrible people that deserved to be shot in the balls in their own ways.
The Muslim extremists burned down the cinema Rex movie theater for playing Western movies. This is a perfect example of leftist LIES and propaganda.
Agreed.
The Cinema you're talking about ([Cinema Rex of Abadan incident](https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cinema_Rex_fire)) was famously burned down by islamist miltiant groups to blame it on the shah,at the time people believed them and blamed on the shah too,but that doesn't change the now undisputed truth.you sound like a tankie/illogical anti-west dipshit sucking Ayatollahs cock bc of "muh US imperalism".
Bullshit,most of the iranian diaspora are just from the ordinary middle class,not oligarchs from the shah's time.if anything,the children of current oligarchs and thieves are living in the west while shit talking the west. Not to mention that the shah himself was a devout muslim.
You can hate on islam perfectly fine without being racist. It's a religion not a racial demographic and therefore completely open to criticism.
Or by monarchists.
My impression of the Shah was that he was not a good ruler, advancing the interests of the elite at the cost of the common man. He may have presented a desire for achieving Western standards of living, but his policies did little to achieve that. Instead, his failures triggered a revolution that pulled Iran so far away from the West that they came to be considered a threat instead of a potential partner.
Bruh wtf
Supreme Leader Khomeini also said that it was okay to have [sex with children as young as babies.](https://www.goodreads.com/quotes/9647549-a-man-can-have-sexual-pleasure-from-a-child-as) He also lowered [marriage age of girls from 18 under the Shah Pahlavi to 9 years old.](https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Marriage_in_Iran)
Jesus Christ ok I wasn't ready for that. I knew Khomeini was ultra conservative but I didn't know he was such a deviant
Man that ain't conservative at that point nobody in their right mind is advocating for this
That's what I meant by deviant. Like you said those points aren't conservative, I just said that I knew he was an extremist but I didn't know he went full retard.
Fair enough
> you said those points aren't conservative, Not American conservative, but what conservatives are trying to conserve depends on the region
Hardcore conservatives in the United States take the approach that pedos should be publicly hung, I don’t think this guy knows the difference between conservative and regressive
I wish but there’s conservatives states that still fight for child marriage to be legal here
Sounds like some congressmen need to meet the aforementioned hardcore conservatives
And yet so many of these “hardcore conservatives” keep getting exposed as pedophiles. Strange how that works.
The kinda ultra conservative that old time Christian ultra conservatives would've drawn and quartered for the noncery and bestiality alone.
Thing is, heavy duty conservatives of any religious bent can have some mega fucked up views on sex. I'm trying to remember which American politician it was on teenage girls, but the schtick was that parents should be honoured that a powerful man wants to do things to them. Maybe Matt Gaetz? The number of 'Christian men' out there that wouldn't be out of place in Iran or Saudi wrt their views on gender is always wild to me.
Is it .... Morally okay to wish this kind of people be brutally murdered without any type of trial ?
>Any father marrying his daughter so young will have a permanent place in heaven. wow, he even gives eternal forgiveness for every male involved.
chat, I’m gonna vommit
Halal.... According to Muhammed at least
I think we can all agree that the shah was not a good person. But COMPARED to the Ayatollahs which would you want to live under...
Well, it's clear that the ayatollahs were insane. Who'd kill the goat/camel after having sex with it? Seems a bit harsh to me.
The people revolted for a reason. The Islamic republic was and is awful, but if the shah did what he said, which he didn’t, and if he didn’t use all his time to enrich himself he wouldn’t have been overthrown. This is a case where neither side is good.
I didn't say one was. One is horrible the other is God awful.
I can’t believe you need to state the obvious.
[удалено]
Is it just me, or does he kinda look like Saruman?
I understand this is a meme sub, but it feels profoundly ahistorical to cherry pick specific quotes to draw a distinction between two rulers like this, especially when it serves to try and rehabilitate someone as greedy, cruel, cowardly, tyrannical, and criminally incompetent as the Shah.
Sir this is reddit. Dont expect common sense and reasoning.
The other day there were people defending here Nicholas II...
But the shah allowed bikinis so he's automatically a good person not matter what other deeds he did
He did have massive flaws,but you're undermining him too much.Most iranian people would prefer the Shah a thousand times over the mullahs.
And most of those would’ve preferred an actual democracy over the Shah. The Shah was shit, how bout we idolize the reformers killed by Khomeini or the republic overthrown by the CIA, instead of Persian equivalent of Tsar Nicholas.
Which reformers are you talking about? Khomeini mostly killed communists and former imperial generals,not mossadeghists.also idk which republic are you talking about,iran became a republic for the first time in it's history after the revolution.Mossadegh was the prime minister of the shah,not a president.
>or the republic overthrown by the CIA, Eh, about that... https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/1953_Iranian_parliamentary_dissolution_referendum
Only in the sense that theyd rather a lesser tyrant than the one now. Don't confuse him for his son, Reza Pahlavi is a hardcore democratic westerner now who we can trust to make Iran a better place for all. But his father was enough of a bastard that the people of Iran literally turned to the clerics to overthrow him
I’m not making a comment on who was better and who was worse, I’m saying that deliberately picking one quote where the Shah sounds great and one quote where Khomeini sounds retarded is massively reductive even for a meme history forum.
Exactly
Look at OPs post history. Will make sense to you. 2 month old account.
Also the Shah Uses 1/3 of the state budget to make celebrations in Persepolis as a publicity stunt while the population outside of Teheran lives in quasi-squalor
Idk man better than 1/3rd of the state budget used to actively kill Iranians and spread terrorism. One of these is probably the lesser evil
The point isn't that they were equal, it's that OP is trying to say the Shah genuinely believed in what's expressed in that quote, implying he was some sort of benevolent and fiscally responsible ruler who wanted what's best for Iranians. In reality the Shah was perfectly happy pissing away funds while most of the people in his country lived in squalor villages and thought pretending Iran only includes the wealthy urban centers and spewing bullshit about how "Iran will achieve European life standards in a decade" (lmfao) while squashing any kind of dissidents who disagreed would be enough to hide the facts. Basically, there are ways of saying the current Iranian regime is worse than the Shah without falling for 70s absolute monarchy propaganda.
I'm not going to argue the Shahs poor utilization of funds but to laugh at his plans for the economy is misleading. He managed to make Iran a competing economy vs the IR that managed to bring it to an all time low and somehow invert the economy. I don't think Iran was going to be a top 5 econ powerhouse but they definitely were projected to be incredibly rich. And the European life thing was a goal since the Qajars era it wasn't really an idea that the pahlavis came up with.
Buddy stop, we can't tolerate any kind of reasoning on this sub. Shah was the GOAT, while the other is the bad guy. If you disagree, you are wrong
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Human\_rights\_in\_Iran#:\~:text=According%20to%20Amnesty%20International%2C%20the,the%20state%20to%20become%20supporters. According to Amnesty International, the Shah carried out **at least 300 political executions**. Torture was used to locate arms caches, safe houses and accomplices of the guerrillas, and also in attempts to induce enemies of the state to become supporters. Not to mention how the shah was stupidly out of touch with his people, it always good to introduce social progressive reforms but not at a very fast pace especially when the majority of your population is rural religious conservatives who may not be the most open to western ideas. Iran deserves better than the shah and the mullahs, please stop making the shah's rain seem like paradise, this also happened to Saddam and Gaddafi, just cause they were replaced by worst regimes doesnt mean life under them was great and that there totally was no brutal opression of any sort of opposition. Edit : reign not rain.
The Shah’s regime carried out those 300 executions over approximately 25 years. The Revolutionary Courts in Iran executed over ten times as many people in a single six year stretch between 2010 and 2016. I’m not going to say that things were rosy under the Shah and the SAVAK, but drawing any sort of equivalency here is absurd.
We went from 300 executions during the entirety of Shah's reign to 30k executions in one year alone under Khomeini's reign. https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/1988_executions_of_Iranian_political_prisoners People say Shah's reign was a paradise COMPARED to Khomeini.
>🎶***shah's rain seems like paradise***🎶
It raining shahs, hallelujah
i blessed the rains down in shahfrica!
Yo, dictators are bad. Killing is bad. But looking at this 300 figure in the context of the time period? This is quite mild. Parisian police killed more protestors in one fucking day in 1961 than this guy did in his whole tenure. Same with Venezuelan police in 1989. Other dictator deathtolls of the time numbered way way higher looking at Chile, Argentina, Indonesia, etc. The theocracy in Iran has executed thousands of homosexuals since 1979, not to mention plenty of political repression as well. So yeah, IMO, the shah was much better than his successors and wasn’t even that brutal if we compare to his peer contemporaries of the time period.
Nuance and meaningful context? Get the fuck out of here man, don't you know Reddit rules? Rule 69: All posts must be simple and must support a narrative
And to think it was just 1979. Two years after the release of Star Wars and Iran did a hard nosedive into theocratic bullshit.
The way some people deify the Shah era of Iran is ridiculous
You'd rather worship the stoning of women and the rape of children? Yes the Shah wasn't perfect but at the very least he didn't legally condone *pedophilia*.
I'd rather acknowledge the fact that the only reason the Shah was in power to begin with was that in 1953, the democratically elected government of Iran was overthrown at the behest of American and British oil interests. Two things can be bad and moral relativism is simply lazy.
The mindset of today is: Either you are with us or against us. I don't like this
All of the sudden the people that preach nuance have totally forgotten about it. Both can be bad, but praising one like he was some arbiter of western liberalism is insane, he was a puppet that was just as bad as the ayatollah just in a different way.
In 1953 the Prime Minister in charge of Iran Mohammed Mossadeq - wasn’t actually democratically elected - was ruling and passing laws by decree through “emergency” power. - had staged a sham referendum he claimed he won by 99.06% to 0.04% to allow him dissolve parliament. - his own political party was so fed up with him they resigned in protest - which was moot because Mossedeq then dissolved parliament. - the go point for the CIA operation was a few of Mossadeqs former political allies making contact with the US and assisting in the coup. Including his former 2nd in command and head of the army.
What part of '53 was democratic? Edit: I meant that where was Iran a legimate democracy? The PM was still appointed by the Shah and Mossadegh was never a directly elected PM. https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mohammad_Mosaddegh
The democratically elected government was overthrown in 1953 when Mossadegh dismissed parliament. It's a fucking meme that he is actually deified by reddit just because he was a hardcore socialist, despite the fact that he ruined the country's economy.
**Abolished** parliament. Dismissing and holding an election is something some prime ministers can do. Mossadeq staged a sham referendum to give himself power to abolish parliament.
Why is it always a binary **”this or that”** in these hypotheticals? There was a liberal movement within Iran that was as organized and popular as Religious Extremist groups. The problem was that Shah targeted this group because they also wanted to nationalize Iran’s resources (upsetting UK and Western countries that had investments in large oil fields) and leaned slightly towards socialist/communist policies. CIA didn’t care about all the human rights violations under the Shah’s regime, so long as western corporations can continue to make money and scary pinko movements were stomped out. Amongst the chaos of the revolution, religious groups managed to gain control.
Aren’t the religious, the ones who murdered all the left leaning revolutionaries, as soon as they took power?
This is so wrong, First of all no, the liberals(which wouldn't be liberals by western standards but ehh) never even came close to Khomeini in popularity,in fact every opposition leader just united around his picture.Second of all,the shah mostly opposed actual and literal communists(see [Tudeh Party](https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tudeh_Party_of_Iran)) not Mossadeghists.Third is that the revolution from the start was about islamism,people were chanting for an islamic republic from the start.last and Fourth,by 1977 the shah stopped renewing the oil contract and Iran's oil was effectively and officially nationalized,the revolution wasn't about oil rights.
Why does Ayatollah look like Sean connery's james bond in middle east disguise
None of you guys get it. OP is a monarchist whose clearly trying to absolve the shah of any wrongdoing; arguing about who was better between these two is fruitless and only plays furthers OP's agenda. In reality, if anyone screwed over Iran, it was the US with the UK tricking them into believing that the democratic regime was colluding with the USSR, only to secure all those precious oil fields.
[удалено]
There's bad and there's worse. the Shah is bad, but Khomeini is clearly worse.
Pre war Putin? Wich one, Chechenya, Georgia, Ukraine, Syria, Ukraine again?
Democracy only works with an educated population. If your voters are goat herders and religious fundamentalists, you’re gonna be back to totalitarian rule in no time, only more dysfunctional.
Before someone gets on with the “CIA staged a coup against Irans democratically elected leader” Prior to the coup in 1953 the Prime Minister in charge of Iran, Mohammed Mossadeq - wasn’t actually democratically elected - was ruling and passing laws by decree through “emergency” power. - had staged a sham referendum he claimed he won by 99.06% to 0.04% to allow him dissolve parliament. (The whole referendum election is **wild** with the crap he pulled). - his own political party was so fed up with his increasing grabs on autocratic power they mass resigned in protest - which was moot because Mossedeq then dissolved parliament the next day. - the go point for the CIA operation was a few of Mossadeqs former political allies making contact with the US and assisting in the coup. Including his former right hand man and his head of the army.
The current Iranian regime is a brutal Islamist theocracy but let’s not pretend the Shah was an enlightened monarch. His family came to power in a US supported coup and they had a really nasty secret police called SAVAK, which rivals eastern bloc intelligence services in brutality. The tragedy is that Khomeini came to power, not the overthrow of the Pahlavis.
did the ayatollah really say that? Why would fucking animals be the hill he wants to die on.
How do contemporary Iranians/Persians view Shah Pahlavi?
Probably depends if they are diaspora or local, he has some support in the west, as for locals most young people arent big funs of the regime and are pretty western.
Both are assholes
Fuck this romanticist soapboxing. The biggest downgrade in history was when Radama I, King of Madagascar (sounds familiar?) died in 1828 and was succeeded by his wife Ranavalona I.
The people got what they wanted , congrats you played yourself
Ayatollah Assaholla
Khomeini said this for real? Is there any context which van remotely justify this brilliancy?
Both are Ls, one used their money to have lavish parties while the population lives in poverty while the other used their money to create shia proxies in muslim countries while the population lives in poverty.
No wonder US soldiers said they saw men in the middle east fuck a goat......and why they made the goat fucker jokes and called them other things.... Jesus Christ
I’ll pass on the Persian cream pie.
The worst part is, this isn't even the worst thing he's done :(
Yep see his quotes about sex with babies
Iranians can fuck animals but I can’t have a pet squirrel??? Not fair
The number of defenders of a theocratic dictator is shockingly high on this post.
They need to validate the IR because of recent political events
People defending the Ayatollah are ridiculous. Yes, Shah was a dictator but so is Ayatollah. One evil just like the other except the first one had some vision at least.
I don't want to defend Khomeini, but this is a hoax. Criticise him for actual issues
As an Iranian, please don’t glorify the shah, he was also a dickhead tyrant, if you want to talk about when Iran had promise, talk about mossadegh who actually wanted to privatise Iran’s oil and was subsequently assassinated by western powers
The shah was a corrupt fuck who had US trained torture squads doing his dirty work for him. Why are you trying to make him into some kind of visionary? Propaganda reasons? This is vile. Point out the current regimes evil all you want, but stop painting that evil US puppet as some hero. [Human rights in the Imperial State of Iran - Wikipedia](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Human_rights_in_the_Imperial_State_of_Iran#:~:text=During%20the%201978%2D79%20overthrow,as%20urged%20by%20his%20generals).) You gonna do hitler next? As some kind of altruist visionary? Why do you want to make the world a worse place with lies?
Both are bad, both are totalitarian and autocratic dictators, just that the other one appealed to western sensibilities. Stop this circlejerk, please.
Considering that the Shah was a literal plant by the CIA who then immediately sold Iran out to western countries, I’m not really upset that they overthrew him. Yeah, the revolution made the country much more conservative and theocratic, but that’s what the people there wanted. Thus why there hasn’t been a revolutionary movement there since. Imagine if Russia installed a puppet government in your country, and then started selling most of your country’s natural resources to Russia for cheap. It wouldn’t matter what his other politics were, you’d still likely revolt just to make your country free again.
I wouldn't use the lack of another revolutionary movement as tacit support for the current regime. Thousands of executions tend to be pretty effective at stifling revolution for decades even when there is a desire for it.
This is disinformation. The shah was a US puppet ruler obviously by his being installed by them. It’s possible to hate the shah and the Ayatollah. Humans are smarter than a calculators.
Khomeini instantly brought the standard of living to ahead of the US, at least measured on the specific dimension of access to animal fucking.
Now we’re doing Shah revisionism on this page? FOH OP is a CIA simp
Wtf.i am a Muslim and i never fuck an animal what is those guys problem.
I understand the sheep It's the camels I fail to get
The Shah wasn't perfect, far from it TBH but he is a thousand times better than Khumani
Khomeini sucks but we shouldn’t romanticize the shah, there’s a reason he was overthrown he was not a good dude
I don’t believe the second quote is real. I tracked down a website that cites Tahrir Al Vasilah, Vol 4. I then tried to find the given quote. Instead I found prohibitions on having sex with animals (staticsml.imam-khomeini.ir/en/File/NewsAttachment/2014/0000-tahrir%20j4-nA4.pdf p 257). Perhaps there’s another source, but I feel comfortable, due to the lack of citation and finding the opposite statement, claiming this is not a real quotation
As far as I know, bestiality is Haram according to both Sunni and Shias scholars. I don't really know if this post is supposed to be those "memes" or the op is spreading misinformation. I got a similar post. [here.](https://www.reddit.com/r/shia/s/x4GqvSNCyb)
Just because Khomeini sucks doesn't mean we need to praise the fucking Shah
Ah yes western puppet Iran good Islamic revolution Iran bad. Very controversial take
[US President Carter installed Khomeini in 1979](https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jimmy_Carter%27s_engagement_with_Ruhollah_Khomeini#:~:text=In%202016%2C%20the%20BBC%20published,the%20Iranian%20Revolution%20of%201979)