If you’ve noticed some protests for solidarity with Iranians going on, this is one of the groups organizing them!geminimad4 t1_j9br5k8 wrote
Reply to comment by Lemonio in If you’ve noticed some protests for solidarity with Iranians going on, this is one of the groups organizing them! by ShahsMan
I saw a gathering of people holding signs in Watertown Square on Saturday and wondered the same; also was a little confused by an "Ayatollah Biden" sign in the mix.
whatsabrooin t1_j9cebbj wrote
If it’s who I think it is, he is always out there with an anti-Biden sign of some flavor and variety.
Persianproud t1_j9djwpj wrote
The group isn’t anti Biden, they are just disappointed that Biden administration continues negotiating with the Islamic regime who is not only murdering its own people but also sending drones to Ukraine to kill innocent people there too. The group is non partisan and only seek yo bring awareness to their communities and help free Iran.
whatsabrooin t1_j9dr8r6 wrote
I am aware. This is in reference to a specific individual who is always at Watertown Square with the same type of signs throughout the year. Whether he is actually in support of the group is anyone's guess, but the man never passes up an opportunity to talk about Joe Biden.
ShahsMan OP t1_j9cnxdf wrote
I honestly cannot even remember this sign, but I’ll keep an eye out for it at the next event I’m able to attend. I would rather anyone interested show up with their own sign that doesn’t bring up partisan things!
We are not looking for partisan points, we are looking to help the Iranian people 😁
ShahsMan OP t1_j9cnpb7 wrote
Also let’s clarify, that was one sign amongst many, and this organization is not dictating to people what they can or cannot bring, that sign was not endorsed by any organizers. This is not a partisan issue, let’s not make it one.
ShahsMan OP t1_j9btb9f wrote
I think that particular individual may just have been expressing dismay at any idea that a U.S. President might negotiate with Islamic republic during these protests.
I myself was at the protest, they are not anti-USA or anti anything besides anti-Islamic republic and anti-MEK.
I invite you to show up if you can, I won’t be at this next event sadly but I’ll be at the next, they’ll be holding weekly protests in solidarity for Iran in different locations!
OperationSpringAwake t1_j9cmmui wrote
Why are you being downvoted? Kerry and Obama literally sent a plane of cash over to Iran. Biden, and many of the corporate dems (Markey, Warren, etc.) want to negotiate with Iran to get the nuclear deal back on the table. Many Iranians in the US, I would presume the majority of which are liberal, support cutting all relations with the current Iranian govt.
ShahsMan OP t1_j9cn57l wrote
I’ve said in other comments I don’t even like this be a partisan issue, I don’t care democrat or Republican I just want Iran to be free.
We can’t know unless someone that feels the need to downvote would tell us, but that’s okay with me, I just hope more people show up to the protest :)
Opposite_Match5303 t1_j9f120u wrote
Cutting off all dialogue with Iran is a good way to encourage the Ayatollah to go all-in on a nuke. That path leads to Iran becoming North Korea of the Middle East: not a great outcome for the Iranians currently fighting for freedom.
OperationSpringAwake t1_j9f18b0 wrote
It could also lead to the overthrow of the regime.
Opposite_Match5303 t1_j9f1ip5 wrote
It literally never has. Not in Cuba, not in North Korea etc. It just gives the regime an easy common enemy to blame for the suffering of their people and an excuse to engage in further repression.
OperationSpringAwake t1_j9f24bq wrote
But it’s happened twice in Iran. First the early 50s and again in 1979?
Opposite_Match5303 t1_j9f2l9w wrote
How are you reading the 1979 revolution as US pressure leading to the overthrow of the regime?
OperationSpringAwake t1_j9f3dlo wrote
Well the 50s one was, no? And the US could’ve ended 1979, but decided not to step in.
Opposite_Match5303 t1_j9f5tpg wrote
Even looking at 1953, supporting 1 side in an internal power struggle is pretty different from the North Korea/Cuba methods you are advocating against Iran. And if the Ayatollah thought he had a credible internal challenger the US could support, it would certainly push him to get a nuke as fast as possible.
OperationSpringAwake t1_j9g5689 wrote
You said it literally never has - 1953 says otherwise.
In 1979, was it internal though? Khomeini was in France. The US propped up the Shah then took away support. The US could support a govt-in-exile.
If the Ayatollah wanted a nuke, he could get one. He knows doing so would immediately be the end of his country, so he only uses it as threat.
Opposite_Match5303 t1_j9mkmzv wrote
It wasn't the end of North Korea. Who would attack a country with a nuke?
You're being too unspecific with "it": yes, CIA-caused regime changed happened dozens of times in the last century. Yes, targeted sanctions work for convincing a regime to change concrete policy: the original JCPOA was a great example. But what you're describing is sanctions and external pressure convincing a regime to dissolve its own existence, which has arguably literally never happened (maybe the end of Apartheid in South Africa would count).
Viewing a single comment thread. View all comments