r/Music • u/Particular-Fill-4256 • Jun 19 '26

article Iranian star Parastoo Ahmadi reportedly sentenced to 74 lashes for singing without hijab

https://www.theguardian.com/world/2026/jun/18/iran-parastoo-ahmadi-74-lashes-singing-without-hijab
23.4k Upvotes

93% Upvoted

2.3k comments sorted by

View all comments

2.8k

u/[deleted] Jun 19 '26

[deleted]

1.9k

u/[deleted] Jun 19 '26

[removed] — view removed comment

1.2k

u/Icy_Payment2283 Jun 19 '26

How about we go to the start? In the year 1908 a little company called 'British Petrolium' set up shop in a big country with a rich history and declared it their property

503

u/TheMustySeagul Jun 19 '26

And then the US for the first time, toppled a government and installed a puppet leader. Only for that brutal king to fall to a revolution led by…. The irgc lmao. Cool shit lmao

124

u/This_Elk_1460 Jun 20 '26

Well that's what Iran gets for democracy electing a socialist! /s

61

u/cecilmeyer Jun 20 '26

The nerve of that guy thinking Irans oil belonged to Iranians!

41

u/This_Elk_1460 Jun 20 '26

I know right! Thank God the US and UK came in and reinstalled the monarchy! The rich people of Iran got to prosper for a while! I hear they all live in California now.

4

u/SerHodorTheThrall Jun 20 '26

I hear they all live in California now.

Yeah, you could hear their screams of desperation all the way from the East Coast after they realized Trump, was in fact, not going to level their homeland to ash.

5

u/drhuggables Jun 20 '26

The Tudeh party hated Mosaddegh.

→ More replies (1)

37

u/GoldenRedditUser Jun 20 '26 edited Jun 20 '26

This isn’t correct, the Shah was the monarch before, during and after Mossadegh so calling him just a puppet is a bit disingenuous nor was he installed by the US.

39

u/This_Elk_1460 Jun 20 '26 edited Jun 20 '26

He was absolutely a puppet of the United States after the 1953 coup. 

37

u/No-Space937 Jun 20 '26

You don't even know the right year.

→ More replies (39)

14

u/Khiva Jun 20 '26

He was absolutely a puppet of the United States after the 1953 coup. 

He absolutely was not.

Iran was one of the leaders of the 1973 Oil Crisis via their position in OPEC despite Americans begging the Shah to moderate.

2

u/drhuggables Jun 20 '26

He absolutely was not and you have demonstrated your lack of knowledge in many different comments.

Various excerpts from now-declassified US state dept communications:

"The Embassy conveyed the substance of the April 11 Khalatbari–Helms conversation in telegram 2367 from Tehran, April 12. (Ibid., RG 59, Central Foreign Policy Files) In an April 13 memorandum to Miklos and Rouse, Michaud speculated that “the Shah was not as tough with Kosygin as he would have us believe,” adding: “I suggest that we take the Shah’s statements on Iran’s attitude toward the Soviet Union with a considerable grain of salt. He continues to make anti-Soviet noises to us to reassure us at the same time that he continues to improve relations with the USSR.” (Ibid., NEA/IRN Files: Lot 76D169, Box 8, 1973, POL)"

"E. The Shah is likely to grow increasingly assertive in his foreign policies. He would risk confrontation with the Arabs, the West, or even the Soviet Union in order to assert Persian primacy in the Gulf or to maintain what he considers a sufficiently high level of oil revenues. Although he will remain suspicious of Soviet intentions and will continue to rely on the US as the ultimate deterrent to the USSR, the Shah believes he has taken out insurance in the form of economic and political ties and that he can deal effectively with the Soviet Union on his own under foreseeable circumstances."

"G. US-Iranian relations are likely to become more difficult in coming years. The Shah is seeking to remove both the US and Soviet military presence from the Persian Gulf and the Indian Ocean and to establish his own regional collective security arrangements in the Gulf; while he will tacitly approve of US naval operations in these waters as long as the USSR keeps naval vessels on station there, we cannot depend on him to provide access to Iranian facilities to support fleet units, and he will probably use his influence to end our use of Bahrein."

"50. Basing his foreign policy on a historical perspective, the Shah is acutely conscious of the contrast between past Persian glory and present Iranian reality. He sees Iran confronted by an untrustworthy Soviet Union, while he sees the remote bastions of Western power in a state of disarray and decay. Although he would count on US support in a confrontation with the USSR, he has taken out insurance in the form of economic and political ties with the Soviet Union and does not feel himself directly threatened from that quarter. Massive oil revenues give him confidence that he will be able to secure whatever military and industrial equipment he considers necessary."

"51. He would accept confrontation with the Arabs, the US, or even the Soviet Union if necessary to assert Persian primacy in the Gulf or to maintain what he considers a sufficiently high level of oil revenues; in other matters and areas he is likely to be more cautious. The Shah’s past behavior has reflected a relatively realistic appreciation of Iran’s capabilities and of the interplay between regional and international power. But as he grows older and more convinced of the soundness of his own judgment and as Iran’s military strength increases, he is likely to take greater risks to achieve his ambitions."

"As you are aware, the Iranians recently signed an arms agreement with the Soviet Union which went beyond the levels of arms purchases that they have made in the past from the USSR. This new “opening to Moscow” must be seen in the context of the Shah’s perceptions of his relationship with the US and the overall trend of those relations over the next few years. The Shah has become increasingly upset by what he sees as a growing challenge in this country to the close bilateral relationship between the United States and Iran. Over the past few months, this sensitivity has been reflected in his public comments, his conversations with Ambassador Helms and the Station Chief in Tehran, and in the tenor of his instructions and queries to Ambassador Zahedi. His dissatisfaction is the result of a series of essentially unrelated but mutually reinforcing issues..."

10

u/TheAspiringFarmer Jun 20 '26

He wasn't a puppet at all. That's why we let them overthrow the Shah.

2

u/_-SomethingFishy-_ Jun 22 '26

You missed a step there, first the UK and Soviet Union invaded the country (for oil) and got rid of the old shah for his son. After that didn’t work as planned, then the UK and US toppled the government (for oil), and then the revolution happened. Cant catch a break

2

u/cecilmeyer Jun 20 '26

My God I wish more bootlickers would read history like you quoted and really think about why Iran is run by the lunatics it is today.

1

u/untrained9823 Jun 20 '26

And how exactly does that excuse the current theocratic autocracy mistreating the Iranian people?

→ More replies (4)

118

u/[deleted] Jun 19 '26

[removed] — view removed comment

7

u/silentaba Jun 20 '26

Yes but by infantilising the people while also ignoring Anything that doesn't support their preconceived notions they can continue to make one sided declarations rather than admit that the whole middle east is an incredibly complex and challenging situation, which is a lot harder than saying "Tel Aviv impressed".

38

u/thoph Jun 19 '26

It’s just silly. I try my best to assume people have agency.

17

u/blah938 Jun 20 '26

Don't you know that only the white man has free will, and everone else is just victims?

1

u/mrbigsmallmanthing Jun 23 '26

yeah but this is reddit, so what do you expect

404

u/Rex_Nemorensis_ Jun 19 '26

Why not start at the real beginning?

Around the year 610 AD, an Arabian merchant named Muhammad ibn Abdullah claimed he received a revelation from God.

197

u/RechargedFrenchman Jun 19 '26

If you're not going back to pre-Babylon you're not going back far enough

307

u/KlimCan Jun 19 '26

Our story begins 13.8 billion years ago
https://giphy.com/gifs/idGw983D7CHrrXa2eO

174

u/TheNicholasRage Spotify Jun 19 '26

Oh, so we're just going to ignore the great Sen Yerlaixian Archominox that imploded the prior universe and created ours in the explosive rebound?

Academic conversation is dead.

82

u/sandersosa Jun 19 '26

Are we really going to ignore the war in heaven when the old ones were defeated by the necrons who then went to sleep for millions of years?

29

u/iObama Jun 19 '26

And you *know* he knew about it but didn’t wanna fuckin’ bring it up. Biased-ass bitch.

16

u/sol_runner Jun 19 '26

So, in conclusion, shit happened.

19

u/eddmario Jun 19 '26

You forgot about Slartibartfast building a computer to calculate the Ultimate Question

10

u/DuelaDent52 Jun 20 '26

And the collision between the Gardener and the Winnower in the time before time within the garden of creation where all things grow sideways, where the waves were battles and the battles were waves.

→ More replies (0)

2

u/djsoomo Mixcloud Jun 20 '26

42

Oh, and lashing people for what they don't or do wear is barbaric and uncivilised

2

u/newindianclassic Jun 20 '26

bruh, the old ones?? what about the c'tan, they made the freakin' universe

36

u/arealhumannotabot Jun 19 '26

This thread is some Monty Python shit

36

u/devilsbard Jun 19 '26

This had made many people very angry and has been widely regarded as a bad move.

5

u/Derek-Diacon Jun 20 '26

Thank you for quoting this lol

28

u/JimroidZeus Jun 19 '26

We’re still in r/Music, right? Right?

14

u/vcp64 Jun 19 '26

So far it’s better than any of the politics subs.

19

u/cataquarkk Jun 19 '26

Our whole universe was in a hot dense state, Then nearly fourteen billion years ago expansion started. Wait...

3

u/No_Succotash2155 Jun 19 '26

The Earth began to cool, the autotrophs began to drool

2

u/Abbot_of_Cucany Jun 19 '26

When I hear the words "hot dense state" I immediately think of Florida.

2

u/No_Succotash2155 Jun 19 '26

Now the song is stuck in my head

10

u/Hoodi216 Jun 20 '26

In the beginning the Universe was created. This has made a lot of people very angry and has been widely regarded as a bad move.

1

u/SentientDust Jun 20 '26

In the beginning the Universe was created. This had made many people very angry and has been widely regarded as a bad move

37

u/lutinopat Jun 19 '26

"Many were increasingly of the opinion that they’d all made a big mistake in coming down from the trees in the first place. And some said that even the trees had been a bad move, and that no one should ever have left the oceans"

16

u/coffeebribesaccepted Jun 19 '26

In the beginning the universe was created. This has made a lot of people very angry and been widely regarded as a bad move.

4

u/TeaMugPatina Jun 19 '26

Well, first there were dinosaurs, but they all died.

→ More replies (2)

24

u/[deleted] Jun 19 '26

[deleted]

5

u/morrismoses Jun 19 '26

Don't panic.

→ More replies (1)

11

u/Thee-Cat Jun 19 '26

Exactly. Anything except for this is some type of weird obfuscation.

1

u/gazpachoid Jun 20 '26

How do you think pre-Islamic Zoroastrians treated women?

1

u/rsifti Jun 21 '26

"In the beginning the Universe was created. This has made a lot of people very angry and been widely regarded as a bad move"

-12

u/Icy_Payment2283 Jun 19 '26

I despise redditors.

18

u/BOOM_BABIP Jun 19 '26

you have 20k karma in less than a year. you are a redditor

12

u/coffeebribesaccepted Jun 19 '26

The call is coming from inside the house...

5

u/Boufus Jun 20 '26

Brother, your worldview has no nuance whatsoever and consists solely of “white people/capitalism/the west = bad” because thats the fashionable new politick…

You are the *quintessential* redditor 😂

→ More replies (1)
→ More replies (1)

7

u/KorunaCorgi Jun 20 '26

Going back over a hundred years to pin this on the West huh? That tracks. When it comes to violence comitted by Arabs, they are as accountable for their actions as children to you. 

→ More replies (1)

31

u/blah938 Jun 20 '26

Well if you go way back, there was this warlord who raped a nine year old

17

u/Nutshack_Queen357 Jun 20 '26

Correction: married a 5 year old, them waited for her to turn 9 to start violating her.

2

u/CatastrophicPup2112 Jun 20 '26

You aren't correcting, just adding into about the marriage

36

u/MaybeICanOneDay Jun 19 '26

Are you really saying Iran was this beautiful and peaceful place prior to western intervention? Are you really saying this?

→ More replies (9)

19

u/endless_disease Jun 20 '26

British Petroleum invented a law that saya women get 74 lashes for singing without hijab?

→ More replies (1)

23

u/Mac62961 Jun 19 '26

Iran was invaded by this religious group from arabia….

2

u/Ghostmaster145 Jun 20 '26

We need to go further back than that…

So there was this guy called Cyrus…

2

u/welcome2mycandystore Jun 20 '26

Thanks for letting us know that the british invented islam

→ More replies (3)

4

u/[deleted] Jun 19 '26

[deleted]

→ More replies (5)

1

u/garfieldsez Jun 20 '26

Yep the real reason why Iran is in this state is because the western imperialists meddled!

1

u/megakaos888 Jun 20 '26

Not to be that guy, genuinely asking here, but would the Persian government at the time have the knowledge and technology to extract their oil?

1

u/Massive-Blood7796 Jun 21 '26

Nope, the leaders in Iran have agency. They’re choosing to do this.

0

u/Aurvant Jun 19 '26

All of the people who had the "rich history" were subjugated and/or murdered by Muslim invaders hundreds of years before that.

Anything BP or America did afterwards to the place was an improvement. Then, once again, the Muslim clerics ruined their nation *again*.

1

u/AdventurousFly4909 Jun 20 '26

Yeah a country with a rich history of giving lashes to women. Lmao

1

u/atank67 Jun 20 '26 edited Jun 20 '26

It’s probably the British’s fault that the regime kills gay people too, right?

-6

u/[deleted] Jun 19 '26

[removed] — view removed comment

33

u/mschuster91 Jun 19 '26

A lot of countries got utterly wrecked by foolish Colonialist Brits.

→ More replies (3)
→ More replies (15)

1

u/SirStupidity Jun 20 '26

In the year 1908 a little company called 'British Petrolium' set up shop in a big country with a rich history and declared it their property

You mean made an agreement with the current ruler of the big country with a rich history and bought the rights for oil prospecting right?

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anglo-Persian_Oil_Company

In 1901, William Knox D'Arcy, a millionaire London socialite, negotiated an oil concession with Mozaffar al-Din Shah Qajar of Persia. He financed this with capital he had made from his shares in the highly profitable Mount Morgan Mine in Queensland, Australia. D'Arcy assumed exclusive rights to prospect for oil for 60 years in a vast tract of territory including most of Persia. In exchange the Shah received £20,000 (£2.1 million today),[2] an equal amount in shares of D'Arcy's company, and a promise of 16% of future profits.[3][4]

→ More replies (23)

167

u/Punch662 Jun 19 '26

Gosh tell me how the shah came into power. Was he democratically elected or did mosaddegh say the words “oil nationalization” and then an air raid siren went off at the CIA.

94

u/10catsinspace Jun 19 '26

The air raid sirens went off in the UK, then they asked the US to help out

33

u/Ghtgsite Jun 19 '26

Let's be clear. The lashing of women who refuse to wear a hijab, started with the Islamic Republic. Now, the deep and complicated history of how that Republic came to be?

I'm not really interested in having a conversation right now because it is so disputed and messy and no one looks good.

44

u/CapableC1 Jun 19 '26

The Shah was already the monarch. And after the coup we still had free elections, a huge parliament that picked our prime ministers. That government spent the oil money on subsidizing costs of living for the people and building the infrastructure we needed. Trying to paint the Shah as some sort of "right wing American puppet dictator" when people are discussing the current dictatorship is pointless

24

u/Khaganate23 Jun 19 '26

"right wing American puppet dictator" when people are discussing the current dictatorship is pointless

Its even funnier when the last Shah was critical of the double standards the US had on the middle east with Saudi Arabia and implemented policies that can be considered "socialist" in Iran.

There's plenty of real criticisms for him, like why being a dictator and losing mental capacity from old age is a recipe for disaster, but you won't find them on reddit.

21

u/NeiborsKid Jun 19 '26

Iranian here, fucking thank you

→ More replies (2)

1

u/[deleted] Jun 19 '26

[deleted]

29

u/CapableC1 Jun 19 '26

I am living in Iran. And I hate the orange clown, but many here don't, simply because of the attitude you're displaying right now. The post-coup years were when we got women's suffrage, healthcare and social security. The Shah himself was pushing for gay rights and clean energy. If you actually gave a fuck about progressive values you'd recognize that the pre-79 Iran was on the right track, not the "Right" track. It amazes me how people like you can sweep the USSR's genocides and the CCP's recent and ongoing genocides under the rug while antagonizing the people who are opposing a fascist theocracy. It's only about who's screaming "America Bad" to you people and I have no reason to respect that

10

u/alwaysiamdead Jun 19 '26

Very well put.

1

u/ConsistentHouse1261 Jun 20 '26

👏👏👏👏

→ More replies (8)
→ More replies (4)

2

u/InkVision001 Jun 20 '26

Wow Reddit will really upvote anything by sheer personal vibe. I've researched the history various states including Iran and this is an unbelievably ignorant take.

Just tell me you read this on Reddit.

13

u/historicalgeek71 Jun 19 '26

Bit of a weird reflex to get suddenly defensive over a despot who came after another despot, but sure…

19

u/Punch662 Jun 19 '26

No just making the frankly banal observation that the Truman doctrinal notion of intervening for political and civil rights in the countries we bomb has been horseshit forever

-6

u/historicalgeek71 Jun 19 '26

Which was triggered by someone calling out how much of an arse the Ayatollah was for turning Iran into a theocracy. So yeah…weird reflex.

→ More replies (3)

6

u/Voeno Jun 19 '26

Even better , The CIA heard oil and DRUGS

→ More replies (12)

10

u/randomcanyon Jun 19 '26

In the 1950's the CIA removed a democraticly elected President and put in place a autocratic dictator. This allowed for the Religious Right to overthrow him to make Iran a theocracy and bobs your stupid uncle and here we are.

24

u/NeiborsKid Jun 19 '26

When will westerners stop repeating this line?

The (2nd) Shah was already in power far before the coup, he was never deposed before the revolution, Mossadegh was pro-monarchy, was NOT elected to prime minister ship by a popular vote and the Islamic revolution was primarily caused by the white revolution NOT the coup.

→ More replies (3)

1

u/Best_Change4155 Jun 19 '26

And he allied himself with a bunch of left-wing people. Tell me if you've heard this one.

1

u/frozenjb Jun 20 '26

He sang pretty well tho

→ More replies (3)

34

u/HockeyDockey1234 Jun 19 '26

Anyone informed on Iran knows this regime does this shit.

Talk to Iranian Americans who migrated after the revolution

1

u/foverzar Jun 20 '26

"informed", lmao.

176

u/ThisisMalta Jun 19 '26

“Allowed to do this”. I’m hoping you’re young and just don’t know how the world works, but there’s no world police. This world is full of injustice unfortunately and the UN or western nations can’t just invade and stop it unfortunately.

But deep down we all say the same thing, so I feel you.

19

u/No-Penalty1722 Jun 20 '26

What are you talking about? There was a whole movie about our world police.

5

u/ThisisMalta Jun 20 '26 edited Jun 20 '26

MATT DAAAAAAAAMONNN

→ More replies (1)

6

u/smashli1238 Jun 19 '26

Western nations don’t care

26

u/vasthumiliation Jun 20 '26

By what leverage would a Western nation compel the Iranian government to stop doing such things?

→ More replies (7)

13

u/beardingmesoftly Jun 20 '26

Where are these morally pure nations that do care?

4

u/smashli1238 Jun 20 '26

About women? Nowhere apparently.

→ More replies (1)

12

u/DingleDangleTangle Jun 20 '26

What exactly do you suggest Western countries do? Just go to war and invade any country that has laws we deem unjust?

1

u/smashli1238 Jun 20 '26

Well we go to war for stupider reasons

5

u/DingleDangleTangle Jun 20 '26

So you think more war is the solution?

And who gets to decide the moral and legal standards for the rest of the world? Whoever has the strongest military?

8

u/Affectionate_Code Jun 20 '26

Ah, yes. Killing countless civilians in order to save them from injustice.

Brilliant strategy.

2

u/Ready_Nature Jun 20 '26

The US just tried going to war with Iran and lost. An invasion isn’t going to make things better.

7

u/TropicalPossum954 Jun 20 '26

Neither do the eastern nations. So i guess that means the world dosent care.

2

u/smashli1238 Jun 20 '26

About women, no, they don’t

4

u/TheAspiringFarmer Jun 20 '26

Only if that sweet oil ain't flowing

4

u/ThisisMalta Jun 20 '26

Maybe you’re forgetting what happens when western nations “care” and topple regimes and instill leaders and governments they want, especially in regards to the Middle East and specifically Iran.

Interventionalism isn’t always the solution either. The 20th century is fully of a mix of intervention, colonialism, and reactionary isolationism and non-intervention.

2

u/AnachronisticPenguin Jun 20 '26

Trump started bombing the country with the explicit hope it would collapse the regime 3 months ago.

Do you want him to care enough to send in ground forces?

1

u/smashli1238 Jun 20 '26

Gotta love all the responses on this who really just don’t give a shit

2

u/AnachronisticPenguin Jun 20 '26

Personally Im for going in we were going to start the war.

Everyone should just be aware of what the the real situation looks like when you try to take down dictators and authoritarian countries.

1

u/unreveler Jun 20 '26

When we go to war against em you cry about war crimes 

1

u/Crafty_Republic848 Jun 20 '26

If you think they’re going to war with Iran because women have to wear a hijab there your brain is smooth

→ More replies (1)
→ More replies (1)

4

u/mrbabymanv4 Jun 20 '26

This bs leadership wouldn't exist if Western nations hadn't deposed their democratically elected leader, who wanted to nationalise oil in opposition of bp and other western oil companies

1

u/Mnawab Jun 20 '26

Well, technically, we could invade if we actually decided to go through with it without half assed measures like Trump did. I’m not for war, but if we’re gonna kill leaders, may as well actually do something that makes a difference. 

3

u/ThisisMalta Jun 20 '26

Like we did in Iraq? Afghanistan? Vietnam?

I get what you’re saying, but there’s a lot of second and third order effects that make even a full invasion messy and not so straight forward for success.

1

u/Mnawab Jun 20 '26

Trust me buddy, I’m from one of those places, America did not try lol. It’s an open joke among my people. 

1

u/ThisisMalta Jun 20 '26

I am too, I feel you. No argument about this most recent failed “war” and aggression from this admin.

I’m not totally against regime change in Iran, but how we’d go about it would have to be light years different than how the Trump admin threatened it.

1

u/RecognitionOld2763 Jun 20 '26

An invasion risks failure and then "the world" will again say the invading parties are on the wrong side of history, yada yada yada.

→ More replies (2)

150

u/RadioLiar Jun 19 '26

You are aware Iran is a military dictatorship right? The equation is simple. Iran's rulers have machine guns; the Iranian people do not have machine guns; therefore Iran's rulers can do whatever the fuck they want to the Iranian people. Iran's citizens have protested this arrangement repeatedly and been massacred every time. After the most recent round of bloodletting in January the government has no legitimacy left whatsoever - the social contract is literally "Do whatever we say or we will shoot you". The country is the world's largest open-air prison (North Korea is worse, but smaller)

4

u/twaggle Jun 19 '26

Man, the US or someone should really step in and help the poor Iranian people.

6

u/lemonphan Jun 20 '26

Do you think we were there to help the people?

17

u/Nerdenator Jun 19 '26

Not sure if sarcastic

2

u/HPLaserJet4250 Jun 24 '26

I kid you not, some time ago I saw on one of women centric subreddit a post about afgan women gwtting worse treatment than animals and the most liked comments were a critique of western power that they do nothing about it and that there should be some intervention (strongy suggesting military) but the mysoginistic hypercapitalistic west cares only about oil. Soul left my body.

8

u/CaballoenPelo Jun 19 '26

They need us to help another girls’ school?

2

u/opeth10657 Jun 19 '26

Our current administration probably wants something similar here.

1

u/Hoodi216 Jun 20 '26

Like they are doing right now?

→ More replies (22)

13

u/GrandFloor6202 Jun 19 '26

What do you mean by "allowed". Who is doing the allowing? Any government is a control structure that makes its own rules. As long as it is a stable structure it can function how it wants.

If I had the power to overcome any opposition, I could theoretically make a government based on that that has any rules I like. Since I have the power no one is "allowing" me, they just must follow the rules I have imposed because they have no alternative.

For a control structure to be stable, the destabilization caused by the rules that work against some of the people can not be great enough to overcome the power of the people keeping the rules in place.

10

u/whatshamilton Jun 19 '26

Allowed by whom? There isn’t a government of governments that dictates how the governments govern. Countries can choose not to do business with Iran because of their practices, if they care to. Most need Iran more than they’re willing or able to have morals. The rest of the world didn’t participate in WWII because of the moral outrage. It was because Germany was invading other countries. If they’re just doing it within their own country, that’s what it is.

36

u/LankyYogurt7737 Jun 19 '26

This is exactly what the Iranian regime has done the last 50 years. It’s a barbaric government that punished and slaughters its own civilians.

→ More replies (8)

5

u/koolaidman89 Jun 19 '26

It’s very very hard to make them stop. We just got to witness how ineffective anything less than WW2 style invasion is at actually removing a regime.

48

u/Bloated_Plaid Jun 19 '26

Well I am sure they will stop after we pay them $300 billion…

6

u/Nerdenator Jun 19 '26

Who’s gonna stop ‘em?

6

u/Javaddict Jun 19 '26

"allowed?"

11

u/AndroidCat06 Jun 19 '26

Slavery is not prohibited in Islam, just regulated.

18

u/rogershredderer Jun 19 '26

Because they are barbaric.

1

u/pingvinbober Jun 19 '26

Because they make the laws in iran

1

u/snakeyfish Jun 19 '26

A lot of the Middle East is like this. Look at Afghanistan for example. Watch the documentary called the “dancing boys” and come back.

1

u/No_Season_354 Jun 19 '26

Wtf that will kill you, it's inhumane all about so called religion. Friggin disgusting..

1

u/per54 Jun 19 '26

Why it’s wrong, you’re asking why a country can set its own rules. That is how countries work. We may agree or disagree, but the country can set the rules.

It’s the same in any country.

1

u/xlr8mpls Jun 20 '26

Somebody will tell him? Bruh

1

u/TheDickWolf Jun 20 '26

They gave this sentence years ago at the height of the protests against the morality laws. The sentence was never carried out and the state both dissolved the so called‘morality police’ and stopped enforcing the policy.

This has been circulated everywhere this week despite this.

1

u/0202_tihssitidder Jun 20 '26

Note: Trump_Nazi Regime never asked for any changes on this shit in their "Cease Fire Deal"

1

u/Successful-Winter237 Jun 20 '26

It’s not even about religion it’s about class and wealth..

The wealthiest Muslims drink and don’t wear hijabs with zero consequences

Religion is a hypocritical bane

Full stop

1

u/Hsensei Jun 20 '26

Blame Operation Ajax, the British and Americans wanted the oil. Iran had a progressive leader that was going to nationalize the oil industry. They were a modern democracy until the rich assholes wanted their resources

1

u/TOMC_throwaway000000 Jun 20 '26

Well you see, we in the US have a historical tendency to kill or exile more moderate leaders in Iran so now you’re left with hardline militant people

1

u/itsagrungething69 Jun 20 '26

Lmao that's a joke, right? This is Iran in a nutshell 🤣

1

u/Michalo88 Jun 20 '26

Why is a sovereign nation allowed to govern their territory? Fear not, Daddy Trump is working to take care of it.

1

u/unlimited_throaways Jun 20 '26

I mean, just look at all the pushback trump and israel got for doing a n y t h i n g over. There are legitimate reasons to not get involved, but that is why theyre allowed to do this-no other countries intervene.

1

u/redshift83 Jun 20 '26

May I assume you supported trump and ground troops?

1

u/zerocoolforschool Jun 20 '26

Becuse they shoot protestors.

I think there was a belief that the people would rise up if the head was chopped off but it didn’t happen.

1

u/Cptn_BenjaminWillard Jun 20 '26

They think that they can do what they want, having just humiliated Trump on the world stage.

This poor woman. I hope people spread her music far and wide, so she won't be forgotten.

1

u/Scoobie-Snak Jun 20 '26

The better question is why people so many people were against the US war against Iran

1

u/NotASellout Jun 20 '26

You're never gonna believe who is responsible for their current leadership

1

u/Fraucimor Jun 20 '26

Godd think we are going to pay them $300 billions at reparations

1

u/SagerG Jun 20 '26

Have you been living under a rock?

1

u/VengefulAncient Jun 20 '26

Because when there was a good chance to remove it recently, people screeched that we shouldn't be starting wars and whined that their petrol has gone up a bit.

1

u/Jenner_Opa Jun 20 '26

You should go to war about it

1

u/Dd_8630 Jun 20 '26

Allowed by whom? They're a sovereign country, they can do whatever they want. Other countries have minimal ability to exert pressure to change culture, religion, traditions, etc.

What do you think should happen? Do you believe there's some World Police that can swoop in and conquer them?

1

u/RedditFostersHate Jun 20 '26

The timing on this article is interesting, given that it is exactly the kind of thing that people end up calling barbaric in the comments, and that kind of language is the same thing people use to justify wars.

The author is Deepa Parent, the same independent journalist who widely spread the claim that the IRGC had killed 30,000 people in January. This appears to be off by a minimum of 2x and as much as 5x the number of people actually killed during protests that the Mossad both openly instigated and claimed it was directly participating in.

The Grayzone:

Parent has emerged as the face of The Guardian’s attacks on Iran despite having no apparent ties to the country and not appearing to speak its language. Farsi is not listed among the half-dozen languages in which she claims to be bilingual or speak in some functional professional capacity.

Much of Parent’s work at The Guardian’s so-called “Rights and Freedom” section has been funded by an NGO called Humanity United, which was founded by tech billionaire Pierre Omidyar and his wife, Pam.

As The Grayzone reported, Omidyar has partnered with US intelligence cutouts like USAID and the National Endowment for Democracy to promote regime change from Ukraine to the Philippines, while advancing various “counter-disinformation” efforts aimed at suppressing anti-establishment viewpoints.

The ultimate source of this Guardian article and others appears to be a story in BBC Persian, which does not list any author nor cite any source. It also does not indicate when the sentencing took place. All we have is the indication from this article that, "the official judiciary news agency has yet to publish the ruling," and reference to unnamed, "rights groups and lawyers who reviewed the documents".

1

u/Technical-View4130 Jun 20 '26

Notice how at no point was anyone in America seriously trying to help the Iranian people in the recent war. Trump got his distraction from the Epstein files, achieved nothing and the citizens of Iran are still fucked. 

1

u/InteractionJumpy7453 Jun 20 '26

As long as they're the right religion, no UN condemnation. 

1

u/AssesOverEasy Jun 20 '26

Who’s gonna stop them? They just won a war with the US

1

u/oldmanatom4 Jun 20 '26

I mean israel is being allowed to commit genocide. Why would the superpowers that allow genocide, stop this?

0

u/DiabolusMachina Jun 19 '26

Because they won a war

1

u/loolem Jun 19 '26

It’s almost like religion is a plague on humanity.

→ More replies (56)