[Virgil]

What is it?

[Virgil]

What is it?

ps. no wikipedia or other links.

[stratos]

Is that not when they over threw the Sha and brought to power the Ayatollah? Back in the late 70's

[Tman1]

It's when Iran transformed from a crappy poor insignificant yet normal nation of a monarchy to a crazy, hardcore, yet modern and strong Islamic republic with fanatics and people with dementia. Whether that outweighs the good, who will know.

Basically, they overrulled the Shah and made the Ayatollah Khomeini the leader.

After reading it several times, it still makes no sense at all. What those people "revolutionized" for themselves is beyond me. Basically the people wanted to let go of their freedom and into a repressive regime. I'm sure I don't need to tell you the intelligence the people need to have in order "revolutionize" that.

It doesn't make sense is because one wonders why those people would do that? It's like communist China. The people either like the government or don't care at the cost of their freedoms. Who knows what goes on in their heads.

[stratos]

Why did you start this thread twice?

[Tman1]

Why you made two threads on this I don't know but I'll C & P my initial response:

It's when Iran transformed from a crappy poor insignificant yet normal nation of a monarchy to a crazy, hardcore, yet modern and strong Islamic republic with fanatics and people with dementia. Whether that outweighs the good, who will know.

Basically, they overrulled the Shah and made the Ayatollah Khomeini the leader.

After reading it several times, it still makes no sense at all. What those people "revolutionized" for themselves is beyond me. Basically the people wanted to let go of their freedom and into a repressive regime. I'm sure I don't need to tell you the intelligence the people need to have in order "revolutionize" that.

It doesn't make sense is because one wonders why those people would do that? It's like communist China. The people either like the government or don't care at the cost of their freedoms. Who knows what goes on in their heads.

[Tman1]

I might also add that the "reasons" for the revolution pale in comparison to other revolutions and their causes. Obviously the Shah was an idiot, didn't care about his country and a puppet for western ideals but still, if these people didn't knwo what they were walking into, they deserve it.

[Virgil]

Tman1 wrote:

It's when Iran transformed from a crappy poor insignificant yet normal nation of a monarchy to a crazy, hardcore, yet modern and strong Islamic republic with fanatics and people with dementia. Whether that outweighs the good, who will know.

Basically, they overrulled the Shah and made the Ayatollah Khomeini the leader.

After reading it several times, it still makes no sense at all. What those people "revolutionized" for themselves is beyond me. Basically the people wanted to let go of their freedom and into a repressive regime. I'm sure I don't need to tell you the intelligence the people need to have in order "revolutionize" that.

It doesn't make sense is because one wonders why those people would do that? It's like communist China. The people either like the government or don't care at the cost of their freedoms. Who knows what goes on in their heads.

Would you happen to know any dates? From what I've been reading, the revolution of 1979 where the Ayatolla becomes head of state appears to be termed the "Islamic revolution" and is consistently referred to as the beginning of the "Iranian revolution". I had always been under the impression that 1979 was quite simply the Islamic revolution, and I had never even heard the name "Iranian revolution" until my social teacher used it for the revolution of 1979 yesterday.

And right then, sorry for starting the topic twice, pressed back button, my bad.

[stratos]

Basically they are the same thing the Iranians brought in a very strict Islamic regime. Thus the two terms for the same revolution.

[sandorski]

Dictatorship->Theocratic Democracy(ish)

Progress of sorts, but they would benefit by dropping the Theocracy and just go with Democracy. More specifically, turfing the Ayatollah or relegating the Ayatollah to a similar position as the British Monarch would be better.

[Tman1]

Virgil wrote:

Tman1 wrote:

It's when Iran transformed from a crappy poor insignificant yet normal nation of a monarchy to a crazy, hardcore, yet modern and strong Islamic republic with fanatics and people with dementia. Whether that outweighs the good, who will know.

Basically, they overrulled the Shah and made the Ayatollah Khomeini the leader.

After reading it several times, it still makes no sense at all. What those people "revolutionized" for themselves is beyond me. Basically the people wanted to let go of their freedom and into a repressive regime. I'm sure I don't need to tell you the intelligence the people need to have in order "revolutionize" that.

It doesn't make sense is because one wonders why those people would do that? It's like communist China. The people either like the government or don't care at the cost of their freedoms. Who knows what goes on in their heads.

Would you happen to know any dates? From what I've been reading, the revolution of 1979 where the Ayatolla becomes head of state appears to be termed the "Islamic revolution" and is consistently referred to as the beginning of the "Iranian revolution". I had always been under the impression that 1979 was quite simply the Islamic revolution, and I had never even heard the name "Iranian revolution" until my social teacher used it for the revolution of 1979 yesterday.

And right then, sorry for starting the topic twice, pressed back button, my bad.

Well, I don't have any specific dates or events but all of the events go from 79 to 81. Pay particular attention to the hostage crisis of the captured Americans after 444 days.

[hwacker]

The Iranian revolution, ha. how's the 1300's going ?

[Tman1]

sandorski wrote:

Dictatorship->Theocratic Democracy(ish)

Progress of sorts, but they would benefit by dropping the Theocracy and just go with Democracy. More specifically, turfing the Ayatollah or relegating the Ayatollah to a similar position as the British Monarch would be better.

Hardly progress at all. From autocratic to probably more repressive. The elections and presidential position in Iran is a joke anyways as the real power is in the Ayatollah. Not much of a change is it?

Relegating the Ayatollah to a figurehead would be good but hardly acceptable for them. For Iranians, the Ayatollah is almost next to Allah.

From autocratic absolute ruler to another absolute ruler through religion.