Parastoo Ahmadi sang while wearing a sleeveless dress during a concert livestreamed on her YouTube channel in December 2024. Iran’s laws ban public performances by women and require them to wear headscarves and modest clothing.

Iran’s judiciary launched proceedings against the 29-year-old after the video went viral, gaining millions of views, saying the performance was “in violation of the country’s legal and cultural regulations”.

  • Maeve@kbin.earth
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    23
    arrow-down
    5
    ·
    1 day ago

    In no case of Western intervention have regular citizens fared better. Afghanistan. Iran. Iraq. Palestine. Syria is being “governed” by a CIA Al Nursa operative and Syrians are rioting, despite a brutal crackdown and Israeli mass destruction.

        • Maeve@kbin.earth
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          1
          ·
          12 hours ago

          No. Vietnam is most assuredly better off with communism. A lot of sexpats enjoy the low cost of living and services available.

      • DupaCycki@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        2
        ·
        16 hours ago

        Japan’s economy is collapsing precisely due to American intervention. The US decided that Japan was doing too well, and so made it destroy its own economy.

        West Germany would have never existed if it wasn’t for the US. It was a decision made strictly with the goal of dividing and weakening Europe.

      • Maeve@kbin.earth
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        3
        arrow-down
        2
        ·
        24 hours ago

        Japan, who gets yen bailouts at US worker expense every other year; West Germans just helped the USA hide Nazis via Operation Paperclip.

        • grue@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          6
          ·
          22 hours ago

          Are either of those worse than the non-US-intervention alternative? How would it have been better for ordinary Japanese citizens for the totalitarian imperial government to be left in charge (and without US aid)? How would it have been better for ordinary German citizens to be hit with a second Treaty of Versailles instead of the Marshall Plan?

            • grue@lemmy.world
              link
              fedilink
              arrow-up
              1
              ·
              4 hours ago

              No, I mean after the US beat them in the war, would ordinary Japanese citizens have been better off if the US hadn’t helped the country rebuild?

              Japan, of all countries, categorically doesn’t get to be lumped in with “intervention” given that they famously attacked the US, not the other way around.

          • Maeve@kbin.earth
            link
            fedilink
            arrow-up
            1
            arrow-down
            4
            ·
            21 hours ago

            The Marshall Plan was horrible for those under it’s subjugation. Versailles was also USA rubbish.

            Japan wouldn’t have been needlessly nuked and the white man’s burden doctrine seriously needs to be, since it’s ever only a wealth and resource extraction policy.

            • grue@lemmy.world
              link
              fedilink
              arrow-up
              8
              ·
              21 hours ago

              The Marshall Plan was horrible for those under it’s subjugation.

              LOLWUT? Are you seriously going to try to pretend average Germans weren’t better off after WWII than they were after WWI (because treating them the same as after WWI would’ve been the other option)?

              Japan wouldn’t have been needlessly nuked and the white man’s burden doctrine seriously needs to be, since it’s ever only a wealth and resource extraction policy.

              I can’t parse this sentence. Did you omit a word?

              • Maeve@kbin.earth
                link
                fedilink
                arrow-up
                1
                ·
                12 hours ago

                No, I said it correctly.

                From: https://www.ucpress.edu/books/the-united-states-of-war/paper (I’m sure you can search it up, if you CBA):

                “In geopolitical terms,” writes historian Alfred McCoy, the United States "became history’s most powerful empire because it was the first, after a millennium of incessant struggle, to control ‘both ends of Eurasia,’ " with bases from the British Isles through Southeast Asia to Japan. To guard the empire, the U.S. military had 2.6 million active duty troops; 2,650 ships and 7,195 Navy combat aircraft; 15,000 Air Force fighters, bombers, and transport aircraft; and nuclear weapons ready for launch from the air, the land, and the sea.9 The growing nuclear weapons arsenal of the Soviet Union played some role in the base proliferation: more U.S. bases meant more targets and dispersed forces. The growing fear of a nuclear-armed Soviet Union likewise played an important role in governments agreeing to a U.S. presence. “Viewed from one perspective, this was an act of [U.S.] benevolence,” writes foreign bases expert Amy Holmes. The United States was providing protection. On the other hand, other nations were ceding a significant degree of sovereignty to the United States (while also turning themselves into targets for Soviet missiles).10

                In Portugal “the supersensitive question of Portuguese sovereignty was constantly being raised before our negotiators,” reported Col. Lawrence C. Coddington, Air Force Deputy Assistant for Air Bases. “Every point of issue revolved around the question of sovereignty and were [sic] resolved only after lengthy discussions on many proposed drafts.” Coddington acknowledged that “the agreement as written does not meet the ultimate in Air Force desires.” But, he continued, "it must be kept in mind that the Air Force cannot hope to achieve its desired ultimate in operating rights in small foreign countries purely because of that country’s jealousy over its sovereignty."11

                The sensitivity of the Portuguese government about its loss of sovereignty was common among countries hosting U.S. bases. The rapid requests for the Yankees to leave after World War II revealed this. Even with growing fears of a clash between East and West, base negotiations were often difficult. Generally, they revolved around the degree to which U.S. forces would enjoy “extraterritoriality”—that is, the extent to which U.S. forces would be free from local laws, free from local prosecution for committing any crimes, and free to conduct military operations without restraint or consultation with the host nation. In other words, negotiations focused on how much effective sovereignty the U.S. military would have on foreign soil and thus how much sovereignty a host country would give up. Even with the United States’ closest allies, such as Great Britain, sovereignty would long remain a “focus of tension,” especially when it came to crimes committed by troops.

                • grue@lemmy.world
                  link
                  fedilink
                  arrow-up
                  1
                  ·
                  10 hours ago

                  the white man’s burden doctrine seriously needs to be _____

                  There’s supposed to be a verb after that.

                  Also, I have no idea what the fuck you’re trying to prove with those three paragraphs, since they don’t even mention ordinary Japanese citizens once. Remember, the argument you’re trying to prove is that ordinary Japanese citizens would not have fared worse if the US hadn’t helped Japan rebuild and transition to democracy after WWII.

                  • Maeve@kbin.earth
                    link
                    fedilink
                    arrow-up
                    1
                    ·
                    10 hours ago

                    Shared verb. The topic you took issue with was the Marshall Plan. Are you high?

                • FishFace@piefed.social
                  link
                  fedilink
                  English
                  arrow-up
                  1
                  ·
                  10 hours ago

                  You didn’t respond at all to the challenge that US interference in West Germany was overall positive, via comparison to the post-WWI circumstances, which would likely have been replayed.

                  • Maeve@kbin.earth
                    link
                    fedilink
                    arrow-up
                    1
                    ·
                    9 hours ago

                    I’m glad an attempted genocide of communists, Jews, LGBTQ, Roma and others were averted, while also noting that only a few Nazis were stopped, and the bulk funneled into the USA, UK, Canada, Argentina, and other states. Germany is not in great shape and finds itself kissing the bigger boot for fear of retaliation.

            • FishFace@piefed.social
              link
              fedilink
              English
              arrow-up
              1
              ·
              6 hours ago

              If you want to only look at the US intervention in Afghanistan holistically, then sure, you can make an argument that overall it has been negative, especially given the disastrous pull-out.

              But to me a “case of Western intervention” is not the complete history of one country’s interactions with another - it can be divided into separate cases. US funding of the mujahideen was one case, and the US overthrow of the Taliban was another case. Not disconnected cases. But maybe this explains a point of view that you hadn’t considered when you wrote your original comment.

              The other issue here is that when you responded on US intervention in West Germany you seemed only to really focus on Operation Paperclip. But viewed from further out, that didn’t really impact the BRD significantly in comparison to the huge effort put towards rebuilding.

              It strikes me though that probably you didn’t mean quite so absolute a statement, which to me seems outlandishly, unrealistically strong. There’s no way you’ve done the level of historical research necessary to really conclude that with any great confidence, right? Surely you’ve seen a lot of instances of harmful interventions and concluded, “they’re all, or at least mostly, harmful”? Maybe that’d be a statement a lot of people could agree with.

      • arrow74@lemmy.zip
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        5
        arrow-down
        3
        ·
        1 day ago

        I think you have to look at overall outcomes not what it was like under the occupation. In Afghanistan things were probably slightly better in the larger population centers during the occupation for the average person and especially for women. In the rural settings things were worse from the constant skirmishes. And as we saw basically everything was reversed as soon as the troops left.

    • NoneOfUrBusiness@fedia.io
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      2
      ·
      1 day ago

      Yes in general (the initial bombings pushed Iran towards hardline IRGC governance), but also:

      Syrians are rioting

      Wait really? Source?