zlacker

>>mhb+(OP)
The source (Iran International) is backed by Saudi money and has a bias to dunk on Iran.

That said, I'm sure the death count numbers from the Rasht Massacre are staggeringly higher than the initial tallies of 2-5k.

>>camina+j6
It is a source run by expatriate Iranians of the diaspora.. the fact that so many people just discount their point of view it's pretty frustrating. If you speak to Iranians that you work with it's pretty illuminating

>>redwoo+o8
The “Iranians that you work with” in the west are highly self-selecting. They’re like Cubans in Florida or Vietnamese—people who fled in the aftermath of the revolution and are extremely antagonistic towards the regime. My family left Bangladesh the year after the dictator made Islam the official religion. My dad is apoplectic about the Islamist parties being unbanned recently after the government was overthrown. By contrast many of my extended family, who came much later for economic reasons, are happy about that. The people who disliked the Islamization of the country and had the financial means to do so left while the people who were fine with it stayed.

My daughter’s hair stylist is Iranian (she was an accountant in old country). When Jimmy Carter’s wife died, she said “I’m happy she’s dead.” I’ve never seen anyone else say a negative thing about the Carters personally. Even die hard Republicans who think he was a weak President don’t hate him as a person. But this is not an uncommon sentiment among the Iranian diaspora.

>>rayine+tl3
How come they blame carter instead of REAGAN over this shit?

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1980_October_Surprise_theory

>>Der_Ei+oq4
President Nixon was an outspoken friend of the Shah. It was Carter administration that stabbed him in the back and negotiated with Khomeini in the first place. The hostage crisis happened about 9-10 months after Khomeini was in power and only towards the end of that crisis you could argue Reagan was in the picture at all. The love for Islamists by the Democrats in power never ended and Clinton, Obama, and Biden all were desperate in appeasing the Mullah regime. It's the ousting of the Shah and appeasing the Mullahs that garners the hate.

>>tgma+Eu4
Clinton using executive orders and legislation to keep Russia and Iran from cooperating on defense was a desperate act of "Mullah" appeasement? It was the iranians that called for the Negev summit?

>>cess11+lx4
Yes, it is all relative. It is appeasement compared to war and much heavier sanctions that ended up being necessary. Clinton and even Bush II administrations were hoping internal change would come up during Khatami era and hoping for him to be Gorbachev. Regardless of Bush II harsh rhetoric, the real animosity only really started after Ahmadinejad was installed in Iran. You are correct that Clinton was still not as friendly as the other two, who very explicitly played into their hands.

In any case I was simply responding to OP's "why" question and that their theory on blaming Reagan allegedly vs Carter on a narrow point, highlighting that particular case is temporally much later, and has no relevance to the underlying reason Carter is hated over there.

>>tgma+276
Fine, show some quotes from "Mullahs" where they acknowledge this supposed appeasement.

>>cess11+kj6
I don't think them acknowledging anything in public is either necessary or relevant to the discussion. None of this is germane to the original question posed and I have no intention to change the narrative in your head so I'm out of here.

>>tgma+ap7
What "narrative"? You made a claim about "desperate appeasement", and if that was true, I imagine that iranian politicians and twelver clergy would brag about it incessantly.