you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[–] 0 points 15 hours ago (1 child)

Two things can be true. Personally I think women's rights are a great reason for insurrection.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 2 child comments
  • [–] 1 point 13 hours ago (1 child)

    They weren't a reason. They were an excuse.

    What you are actually supporting is invading and subjugating Iran.

    Also, it is amusing how you (plural) keep speaking about women's rights when as supposedly a valid reason to invade other countries (a la the white supremacist fairy tale of "civilising savages") while your empire actually died stuff like the overthrow of the socialist government of Afghanistan that did improve women's rights.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 2 child comments
  • [–] 1 point 11 hours ago (1 child)

    I never said I supported the invasion, you're putting words in my mouth. I said women's liberation is a good reason for people to rise up against their government, which is what an insurrection is. The US invasion of Iran is an act of imperialism intended to subjugate and exploit it, not an insurrection.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 2 child comments
  • [–] 0 points 10 hours ago (1 child)

    I never said I supported the invasion

    You do support pro-NATO forces subjugating Iran for the benefit of invaders of Iraq and Afghanistan simply because of the pretense of "women's rights". The people that you support in this case do not care about women's rights.

    I said women’s liberation is a good reason for people to rise up against their government, which is what an insurrection is.

    These people claiming that they just want women's rights doesn't mean that that is what they actually struggle for.

    You are buying another round of Nayirah testimony/Iraq WMD and other such cases of propaganda.

    What is needed first and foremost right now is liberation from NATO, as it is the most major barrier for improving, as whichever group will try to sabotage the Iranian government - even if it will genuinely want things like women's rights - they will be used by NATO to just further (re-)subjugate Iran and wooden their living conditions.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 2 child comments
  • [–] 0 points 2 hours ago (1 child)

    You're ridiculous. The people I support are the Iranian people themselves, who did in fact protest over women's rights. Even if the goal of Mossad's support for the protests was to destabilize Iran in preparation for the US invasion, that does not make the protesters "pro-NATO forces," nor does it mean women's rights are nothing but a pretense. While that's certainly the case for Mossad, the protests were undeniably carried out by the Iranian people themselves to advance the cause of women's liberation.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 2 child comments
  • [–] 0 points 52 minutes ago

    The people I support are the Iranian people themselves

    You (plural) say this, but every time it is some CIA/NED-backed group. And inevitably it turns out that the only reasons you (plural) do so, is because your empire told you that those are the "good ones".

    Even if the goal of Mossad’s support for the protests was to destabilize Iran in preparation for the US invasion, that does not make the protesters “pro-NATO forces,”

    Yes, it does. They are literally used by NATO to maintain or strengthen colonial subjugation of the Global South.

    nor does it mean women’s rights are nothing but a pretense.

    For these groups, it is. Their actual goals are not to improve living conditions, but bring their countries under the heel of Washington.

    While that’s certainly the case for Mossad, the protests were undeniably carried out by the Iranian people themselves to advance the cause of women’s liberation.

    As in, the low-level members of the group thought that those were the group's goals?

  • source
  • parent