Send me bad puns. Good puns welcome too.
Why aside?
Because this is something that changed after the Shah. The other things didn’t, that’s my point.
Instead, its global database relies on states self-reporting their national figures.
And do we have reason to doubt Iran’s figures? They have no reason to fake them, and in any case the decline from 2014 isn’t something you’d find in doctored data. Besides, again this isn’t Afghanistan; the Iranian regime has no problem with women’s education.
Implying that hating America is radical and not just a perfectly normal response to its behavior in the region in general and Iran in particular.
If outlets were to be believed, major cities like Tehran featured a cosmopolitan atmosphere with active café culture, Western fashion, and mixed-gender socialization.
And how much if at all did that change in the meantime? With a source please.
Women gained the right to vote in 1963, pursued higher education in large numbers, and worked in professional fields like law, medicine, and government without any mandatory dress codes.
Still do on all counts, dress code aside, though I have to question how important the right to vote is under either brutal dictatorship. For instance here’s how the women’s tertiary education graph looks like, noting that the Shah was overthrown in 1979. This is Iran, not Afghanistan. Also in general “modernity” under the Shah only penetrated into the upper class of society; ironically the vast majority of women saw more improvement in hallmarks of women’s rights (education and such) under the Ayatollahs.
Yeah that’s true, but “Islamic takeover” is quite a bit broader than that. If I was reading too much into it then my bad, but there’s this idea on the internet that Iran was wholesome and secular before the Ayatollah showed up with their evil Islam (not to defend the Iranian regime obviously).
It was, but now it’s even more so. Even the Iranian ruling class has internal divisions, and America’s naked aggression has empowered the more aggressive faction (I wonder why). Also you say “Islamic takeover” but, like, what religion do you think most Iranians followed before 1979?
You haven’t answered my question. Quite literally no part of what you said affects the overall argument* (sabotage operations are almost all done by locals and so are irrelevant unless you can prove Russian tourist involvement).
*Just as a reminder, the original question was “what advantage would be gained by not giving them tourism visas?”
Who says they’re all civilians?
Innocent until proven guilty, you tell me how many are FSB agents and the evidence that makes you think so.
The three factions of the war god yhwh/allah/jesus have been murdering eachother for far longer than the US has been trying to enslave non-white people.
It’s almost as if neighbors go to war with each other.
but that stems from penis–aesthetics alignment.
[Citation needed]
It’s two groups of religious zealots arguing over who’s penises god finds more aesthetically pleasing,
Yeah sure, long-standing US imperialist ambitions in the region have nothing to do with it.
Having fewer Russians traveling to your country.
And?
It’s not like Putin makes them get work visas when they’re trying to sabotage shit.
Maybe he does, but in any case that’s not what I’m asking the parent commenter. My question is: Why would denying tourism visas to enemy civilians be, by default, a bad idea? Because that’s what they’re implying.
Killing Americans is the last thing Russia would want to do here, so it’ll last. Even Trump wouldn’t be able to protect the Russians if they killed US diplomats.
Because granting tourism visas is the default. What advantage would be gained by not giving them tourism visas?
You should crosspost this to c/historymemes.
These are seeds of fascism, right there. Numbers like these are mutually exclusive with democracy.
They’re not seeking to achieve them* in the same way a homeless person who’s been homeless for years might give up on not being homeless. They’re not attaining enlightenment and abandoning their mortal coil here; they’re being priced out of things they want to do.
*Says you, at least. That’s not what the article says; that’s what you seem to want it to say.
Because by and large most people do? People are essentially hardwired for the second and third, and almost nobody rents because they want to rent.
I mean, an unachievable goal is still a goal.
I’m all for shitting on Israel, and I’m sure they’ve bombed weddings before, but if anything this is a US classic.
but I can’t even begin to visualise how many products would be missing from ever y sector of the market with sanctions on Israeli goods.
Uh… not that many? Israel is a country of 10 million people; it’s not exactly the world factory.
Except it does have a reason to skew the number of casualties.
Without a concrete reason to doubt them in this case, or evidence that they’re lying, what you believe in is frankly irrelevant. If they’re reliable enough for the UN, they’re reliable enough for me; what’s your evidence that they’re lying?