NationStates Jolt Archive

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/middle_east/6359971.stm
Iranian bombing kills 18 people

Eighteen people have been killed in a bomb blast near a bus in the south- eastern Iranian city of Zahedan, the official Irna news agency has reported.
The bomb, hidden in a car, killed members of Iran's Revolutionary Guard, the agency said, although it is unclear if all the dead belonged to the guard.

Qassim Rezai, a military commander, described the act as "terrorism" and blamed "rebels" for the attack.

Reports say suspects behind the bombing have been arrested.

The car apparently broke down, forcing the bus to stop. Its occupants left the scene after being picked up on motorcycles.

"In this thoughtless operation, 18 citizens of Zahedan were martyred. The bandits and the agents of insecurity in this criminal act put a bomb near the bus and martyred these people," Mr Rezai said.

Zahedan lies in the province of Sistan-Baluchestan, which borders both Afghanistan and Pakistan.

It has been hit by a string of attacks and kidnappings blamed on a hardline Sunni group called Jundallah (Allah's Brigade).

Iranian officials have accused Britain and the United States of supporting ethnic minority rebels operating in the Islamic republic's sensitive border areas.

So is this the time to ask the Iranians for an alliance in the war against terrorism?

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/middle_east/6359971.stm


So is this the time to ask the Iranians for an alliance in the war against terrorism?

HAH! Wishful thinking. That will never happen. if you are talking about co-oping with the US you must consider that A) They are not willing to co-operate with the US B) It would be like stabbing Israel in the back to have Iran as somewhat of an ally, as they support Hezbollah. oh and C) Bush called Iran part of the Axis of evil, and the Iranians are a proud people. It won't work out.

Its not gonna happen ANYTIME.

The Anti-American Iraqi Cleric Something-Sadir fled to Iran lately...

not a chance!

HAH! Wishful thinking.
Actually, it was a bit of a sarcastic joke. I'm just wondering whether the Busheviks would put this on the same level as a car bombing in Iraq targetting US soldiers.

And whether the US government might be supporting these terrorists in Iran is another interesting question...

Though just for the record, Iran helped fight the Taliban in 2001.

Busheviks

:D

Though just for the record, Iran helped fight the Taliban in 2001.

Everyone seems to have forgotten that. I think it's very much like "We are at war with Eastasia, we have always been at war with Eastasia"

This war looks more and more like a big joack in which people die (some for oil...some for ....hmmm....how was it?..for the 100 beautifull virgins in the sky?) .... jeez

Everyone seems to have forgotten that. I think it's very much like "We are at war with Eastasia, we have always been at war with Eastasia"
Your doublethink doubleplusungood suspect crimethink report miniluv.

Interesting. Haven't they been giving the Iraqi insurgents weapons and such? I wonder how they like car bombings when they happen on their own streets.

Actually, I wonder if it was US Agents.

Your doublethink doubleplusungood suspect crimethink report miniluv.

Report crimethink doubleplusgood.

Actually, I wonder if it was US Agents.
Well, this "Jundallah" group denies having anything to do with the US, but they only popped up a two or three years ago all of a sudden. So I wouldn't be all that inclined to believe them.

Actually, I wonder if it was US Agents.Well, it is not the first time that the US are would like to see a government of Iran overthrown...
Last time that resulted in the bloody rule of a Shah. Want to return to that?

I hope the US are not supplying weapons and explosives to the people doing this.

HAH! Wishful thinking. That will never happen. if you are talking about co-oping with the US you must consider that A) They are not willing to co-operate with the US B) It would be like stabbing Israel in the back to have Iran as somewhat of an ally, as they support Hezbollah. oh and C) Bush called Iran part of the Axis of evil, and the Iranians are a proud people. It won't work out.

Its not gonna happen ANYTIME.


"Tehran proposed ending support for Lebanese and Palestinian militant groups and helping to stabilise Iraq following the US-led invasion.

Offers, including making its nuclear programme more transparent, were conditional on the US ending hostility.

But Vice-President Dick Cheney's office rejected the plan, the official said. "
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/middle_east/6274147.stm

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/middle_east/6359971.stm


So is this the time to ask the Iranians for an alliance in the war against terrorism?

would oaklahome city have been the time to ask america for one?

=^^=
.../\...

would oaklahome city have been the time to ask america for one?
Hey, I'd still be up for asking them today...

I hope the US are not supplying weapons and explosives to the people doing this.

Maybe not these people but they definatly are supplying weapons and explosives to people doing these kinds of activities.

I hope the US are not supplying weapons and explosives to the people doing this.Well, if this came out, I wonder what explanation Bush or Rice would have....

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/middle_east/6359971.stm


So is this the time to ask the Iranians for an alliance in the war against terrorism?

Dream on.

What would compel the Iranians to ally with the USA?

Dream on.
I was kidding.

My intention in this thread is now clear, if it wasn't before:

1. Ask the question whether the US is funding guys like these.

2. Ask whether this terrorism is any less horrific or worthy of response than the one across the border.

But again, just on the side, Iran helped out a lot during the attack on the Taliban. More than 3,000 Iranian soldiers have lost their lives fighting them and trying to close the roads for Heroin from Afghanistan to Europe. Their reason is just as good as ours, namely to secure the region they live in.

I was kidding.

My intention in this thread is now clear, if it wasn't before:

1. Ask the question whether the US is funding guys like these.

2. Ask whether this terrorism is any less horrific or worthy of response than the one across the border.

But again, just on the side, Iran helped out a lot during the attack on the Taliban. More than 3,000 Iranian soldiers have lost their lives fighting them and trying to close the roads for Heroin from Afghanistan to Europe. Their reason is just as good as ours, namely to secure the region they live.

I daresay the US is funding the insurgents in Iran, and frankly if the US is complicit to this, it can hardly claim any moral high ground and justification.

Obviously this is absolute proof that Iran is sheltering and training terrorists to pump into Iraq, therefore they are in a de facto state of war. Thus, as they are the aggressors, we have no choice but to defend ourselves, preferably by replacing their ruler with someone who doesn't use his own army as targets for his insurgent training.

I miss the Shah. :(

I miss the Shah. :(

I miss Mossadegh.

Can't let anything get in the way of getting oil now, can we?

What the hell does that have to do with anything?

I miss the Shah. :(
Can't let anything get in the way of getting oil now, can we?

I miss Mossadegh.

I don't. He was a douchebag who nearly destroyed Iran's economy. Although, I don't think we should have overthrown him.

I miss the Shah. :(

I miss Pol-Pot. He was the only commie the U.S. supported. :(

I don't. He was a douchebag who nearly destroyed Iran's economy. Although, I don't think we should have overthrown him.

At least he didn't shoot protesters or abduct and torture political opponents.

I miss Pol-Pot. He was the only commie the U.S. supported. :(

Wrong. We also supported Ceacescu, China (after detente), Siad Barre, and the Sandinistas (until Reagan was elected).

At least he didn't shoot protesters or abduct and torture political opponents.

Still a douchebag, though.

And most, if not all, of the people the Shah allegedly killed thoroughly deserved it. Most of them were either:

A) Religious fanatics
or
B) Tudeh terrorists

I daresay the US is funding the insurgents in Iran, and frankly if the US is complicit to this, it can hardly claim any moral high ground and justification.

Mhmmm, I doubt that considering we're pretty busy dumping money into Iraq. But I think that this attack may actually have resulted because the people there don't seem to like their government very much.

Wrong. We also supported Ceacescu, China (after detente), Siad Barre, and the Sandinistas (until Reagan was elected).

Meh, well Pol Pot was definitly the worst.

Meh, well Pol Pot was definitly the worst.

Agreed. Mengistu was almost as bad, though (we supported him until about 1977-1978). And we didn't support Pol Pot while he was in power.

Dream on.

What would compel the Iranians to ally with the USA?

Money.

As much as the Iranians enjoy being perceived as America's Jimminy Cricket by most of the world, I'm sure they'd much rather have normalised relations, increased trading relations and the removal of the threat of total annihilation.

Money.

As much as the Iranians enjoy being perceived as America's Jimminy Cricket by most of the world, I'm sure they'd much rather have normalised relations, increased trading relations and the removal of the threat of total annihilation.

I think they may have finally realized that if America dies, there won't be anymore coca-cola.

I daresay the US is funding the insurgents in Iran, and frankly if the US is complicit to this, it can hardly claim any moral high ground and justification.

That's the problem.

We shouldn't.

I suppose it would depend on whether you viewed the American Revolutionaries as Terrorists, or if you thought the IRA of 1920 were freedom fighters as well.

Personally, I don't like to get too hung up on stuff like that. Generally I try to judge people by what they're fighting for and why, so if these guys are fighting for democracy, they're no different than our soldiers out in Iraq and Afghanistan.
Which is, for the most part, a good thing btw.

Money.

As much as the Iranians enjoy being perceived as America's Jimminy Cricket by most of the world, I'm sure they'd much rather have normalised relations, increased trading relations and the removal of the threat of total annihilation.

Ah, money in the macro-economic sense.

Not money as in "here's 50 grand, join our side," which caused a certain :confused: for me.

I suppose it would depend on whether you viewed the American Revolutionaries as Terrorists, or if you thought the IRA of 1920 were freedom fighters as well.

Personally, I don't like to get too hung up on stuff like that. Generally I try to judge people by what they're fighting for and why, so if these guys are fighting for democracy, they're no different than our soldiers out in Iraq and Afghanistan.
Which is, for the most part, a good thing btw.

Democracy and freedom are noble ends.

As far as whether or not some entity is a terrorist, one need ask the question: is the sole means of achieving a particular end the targeting of civilians in order to achieve victory by instilling fear in the populace?

Wrong. We also supported Ceacescu, China (after detente), Siad Barre, and the Sandinistas (until Reagan was elected).

Did we really?

Did we really?

Yup, we backed the pro-U.S. parts, ignoring Oscar Romero's plea to do otherwise. Romero was later shot for criticizing the human rights in El Salvador....

Off Topic: Was Romero gunned down by Sandinista-backed guys or the Contras?

Yup, we backed the pro-U.S. parts, ignoring Oscar Romero's plea to do otherwise. Romero was later shot for criticizing the human rights in El Salvador....

Off Topic: Was Romero gunned down by Sandinista-backed guys or the Contras?

Neither.

He was gunned by members of a far-right Salvadoran death squad reputedly connected with the government of El Salvador, the Salvadoran military, and right-wing politician Roberto d'Aubuisson, founder of the ARENA party.

Did we really?

Yes. Carter gave them $75 million in U.S. aid.

And most, if not all, of the people the Shah allegedly killed thoroughly deserved it. insertion of broken glass and pouring boiling water into the rectum, tying weights to the testicles, and the extraction of teeth and nails.. was all deserved too?

insertion of broken glass and pouring boiling water into the rectum, tying weights to the testicles, and the extraction of teeth and nails.. was all deserved too?

Never really heard any of this before, do you have a source for this stuff?

Where exactly is "Irna"?

Where exactly is "Irna"?

Where all misspelled countries are, limbo.

insertion of broken glass and pouring boiling water into the rectum, tying weights to the testicles, and the extraction of teeth and nails.. was all deserved too?

Absolutely not. No one deserves that. This is all news to me, though. May I see a source?

Absolutely not. No one deserves that. This is all news to me, though. May I see a source?

I was under the impression that the shah was one of the most modern governments of its time, improving roads, schools and even giving some rights to women.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Reza_Shah#Reign_and_modernization

Well, it is not the first time that the US are would like to see a government of Iran overthrown...
Last time that resulted in the bloody rule of a Shah. Want to return to that?

Last time I known not only would the US be happy with a regime change but also the Iranian People. I could be wrong though.

So is this the time to ask the Iranians for an alliance in the war against terrorism?

Any rapprochement with a shi'ite Iran is unlikely given Bush's relationship with the Saudi royals. Also there is the matter of Iran's proxy - the Hezbullah - still being a danger to Israel and the small matter of them blowing up those marines in Lebanon. I don't think any US prez can co-opt Iran when they are still supporting Hezb.

Ideally, Iran would be a great ally in countering the salafi movement. They can break up the nexus between Pak and KSA, both the biggest drivers of islamist terrorism of the salafi kind - the ones who did 9/11 and bombings in India, UK, Spain and elsewhere in the world.

But ironically Iran is the enemy while Pakistan and Saudi Arabia are the allies.

Would be funny if not for the lives lost....

I was under the impression that the shah was one of the most modern governments of its time, improving roads, schools and even giving some rights to women.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Reza_Shah#Reign_and_modernization

He also allowed religious freedom, granted suffrage to women, pursued land reform programs, oversaw huge economic growth, pursued a moderate and peaceful foreign policy, and was very liberal on social issues, by Middle Eastern standards. Homosexuality was legal, and there were even casinoes and liquor stores in Iran during his rule.

Any rapprochement with a shi'ite Iran is unlikely given Bush's relationship with the Saudi royals. Also there is the matter of Iran's proxy - the Hezbullah - still being a danger to Israel and the small matter of them blowing up those marines in Lebanon. I don't think any US prez can co-opt Iran when they are still supporting Hezb.

Ideally, Iran would be a great ally in countering the salafi movement. They can break up the nexus between Pak and KSA, both the biggest drivers of islamist terrorism of the salafi kind - the ones who did 9/11 and bombings in India, UK, Spain and elsewhere in the world.

But ironically Iran is the enemy while Pakistan and Saudi Arabia are the allies.

Would be funny if not for the lives lost....

I don't trust Musharaff any further than I can throw him. Counting him as an "ally" is utter stupidity, given his pro-Taliban stance prior to 9/11.

Any rapprochement with a shi'ite Iran is unlikely given Bush's relationship with the Saudi royals. Also there is the matter of Iran's proxy - the Hezbullah - still being a danger to Israel and the small matter of them blowing up those marines in Lebanon. I don't think any US prez can co-opt Iran when they are still supporting Hezb.

Ideally, Iran would be a great ally in countering the salafi movement. They can break up the nexus between Pak and KSA, both the biggest drivers of islamist terrorism of the salafi kind - the ones who did 9/11 and bombings in India, UK, Spain and elsewhere in the world.

But ironically Iran is the enemy while Pakistan and Saudi Arabia are the allies.

Would be funny if not for the lives lost....

Wow, considering Iran still chants death to America I don't see that happening any time soon.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/middle_east/6359971.stm


So is this the time to ask the Iranians for an alliance in the war against terrorism?

Nah. Bush just won't allow it.

Never really heard any of this before, do you have a source for this stuff?ever heard of the Shah secret police?

do you have a source for this stuff? of course I do.

I will post it when I am back home. (cant use yahoo here)

Wow, considering Iran still chants death to America I don't see that happening any time soon.

Well, Iran's fundamentalist leaders don't care for America. A good portion of the population, especially its younger generation, feels differently.

Well, Iran's fundamentalist leaders don't care for America. A good portion of the population, especially its younger generation, feels differently.
Although the Bush administration is working hard on changing that. The students might not particularly like their government, but they're still nationalistic enough to stand by it in case of foreign aggression.

Imagine the "liberals" in the US. They don't like the government. But if China suddenly spoke up and told the US to get rid of its nukes, and started talking about military options not being off the table, and the word "regime change" is suddenly being traded again...do you really think those "liberals" are gonna be siding with China?

Although the Bush administration is working hard on changing that. The students might not particularly like their government, but they're still nationalistic enough to stand by it in case of foreign aggression.

Imagine the "liberals" in the US. They don't like the government. But if China suddenly spoke up and told the US to get rid of its nukes, and started talking about military options not being off the table, and the word "regime change" is suddenly being traded again...do you really think those "liberals" are gonna be siding with China?

I'd have to say that there would be a few liberals who would ask our government to concede to China for the sake of "peace". There are some self-haters out there and to find an excuse to feel that way...

Now if China actually attacked us then I would say that even the most left leaning person would become patriotic which is what I am afraid of with Iran. Bush seems to be trying to find any excuse possible to attack Iran. Another preemptive attack of course. Bush of course couldn't find another better way to drive the idealistic youth into the governments hands in nationalistic fervor to protect their nation after another example of American aggression. On top of the small matter of giving the extremists more recruits for their attacks on us. Hopefully Bush will show a small amount of brain power though...

ever heard of the Shah secret police?

How is that any different from the current regime?

I'd have to say that there would be a few liberals who would ask our government to concede to China for the sake of "peace". There are some self-haters out there and to find an excuse to feel that way...

Now if China actually attacked us then I would say that even the most left leaning person would become patriotic which is what I am afraid of with Iran. Bush seems to be trying to find any excuse possible to attack Iran. Another preemptive attack of course. Bush of course couldn't find another better way to drive the idealistic youth into the governments hands in nationalistic fervor to protect their nation after another example of American aggression. On top of the small matter of giving the extremists more recruits for their attacks on us. Hopefully Bush will show a small amount of brain power though...

I don't think that will happen considering we're pretty heavily involved in Iraq. Bush has already had the sensibility to concede on some important points made by the dems: in a word even if he's dumb he's still politician and a politcian will act to maintain their political interest which in his case is setting up the next republican candidate.

How is that any different from the current regime?

The Shah's secret police arrested people who committed (or planned to commit) acts of terrorism or overthrow the government. The secret police in Iran today arrest people for "crimes" such as not praying at the right time, not being properly dressed, etc.

insertion of broken glass and pouring boiling water into the rectum, tying weights to the testicles, and the extraction of teeth and nails.. was all deserved too?

Still waiting...:rolleyes:

The Shah's secret police arrested people who committed (or planned to commit) acts of terrorism or overthrow the government. The secret police in Iran today arrest people for "crimes" such as not praying at the right time, not being properly dressed, etc.

SAVAK (http://www.fas.org/irp/world/iran/savak/) was just as rotten as its modern successors.

I was under the impression that the shah was one of the most modern governments of its time, improving roads, schools and even giving some rights to women.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Reza_Shah#Reign_and_modernization

You obviously missed the killings, torture and him signing away his countrys wealth for 25 years for his own dictatorial power then....
"SAVAK was founded in 1957 with the assistance of the United States' Central Intelligence Agency (CIA). Its mission was to place opponents of the Shah's regime under surveillance and to repress dissident movements through intimidation, exile, imprisonment, assassination, and torture. Though estimates vary widely, it was likely responsible for thousands of deaths. "
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/SAVAK

The US won't invade Iran. We do that, and we lose what credibility we have left.

This is probably internal terrorism. Hope the Iranians catch who did it.

You obviously missed the killings, torture and him signing away his countrys wealth for 25 years for his own dictatorial power then....
"SAVAK was founded in 1957 with the assistance of the United States' Central Intelligence Agency (CIA). Its mission was to place opponents of the Shah's regime under surveillance and to repress dissident movements through intimidation, exile, imprisonment, assassination, and torture. Though estimates vary widely, it was likely responsible for thousands of deaths. "
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/SAVAK

"Dissident movements" meaning mullahs, Tudeh, and other scum.

And under the Shah, Iran made huge progress. Its economy was growing rapidly, it was very liberal socially (by regional standards), and it was one of the most pro-Western countries in the world.

"Dissident movements" meaning mullahs, Tudeh, and other scum.

Yeah, those damn commies... didn't they know better than to speak out against their benevolent brutal dictator?

And how ungrateful of the Iranians, to overthrow their US-appointed savior... what insubordination.

Yeah, those damn commies... didn't they know better than to speak out against their benevolent brutal dictator?

And how ungrateful of the Iranians, to overthrow their US-appointed savior... what insubordination.

Tudeh weren't "damn commies." They were terrorists. I wouldn't consider murder, sabotage, bombings, attempts on the Shah's life, etc. to be "speaking out." Most of the vilification against the Shah is by assholes like Zinn and Chomsky, who vilify the hell out of any pro-U.S. government (whether democratic or not), while bending over backwards to fellate anti-Western dictators.

Tudeh weren't "damn commies." They were terrorists.

The Shah didn't only persecute the Tudeh.

I wouldn't consider murder, sabotage, bombings, attempts on the Shah's life, etc. to be "speaking out."

And I wouldn't consider a campaign of repression and murder to be the sign of competent and benevolent rule... especially when your people end up getting rid of you by force.

Most of the vilification against the Shah is by assholes like Zinn and Chomsky, who vilify the hell out of any pro-U.S. government (whether democratic or not), while bending over backwards to fellate anti-Western dictators.

Have you read either?

The Shah didn't only persecute the Tudeh.

I know.

And I wouldn't consider a campaign of repression and murder to be the sign of competent and benevolent rule... especially when your people end up getting rid of you by force.

The Shah wasn't always benevolent, but he was competent. Iran made a lot of progress in his day. IIRC, the Economist predicted Iran would become the next Japan.

Have you read either?

Yes. You'll find it surprising, but I actually enjoyed A People's History of the United States, although there were a few parts I found appalling. On the whole, though, it was a very interesting read, particularly the parts about labor movements and the indigenous people of the Americas.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/middle_east/6359971.stm


So is this the time to ask the Iranians for an alliance in the war against terrorism?

No.

Iranian officials have accused Britain and the United States of supporting ethnic minority rebels operating in the Islamic republic's sensitive border areas.

If the world seems to think that terrorists are not terrorists, but really just "militants" and "freedom fighters" who can never do any wrong, then what is good for the goose, is good for the gander.

Iran pays and trains Hezbollah to kill people in Lebanon and Israel. Why shouldn't the US pay and train "freedom fighters" and "militants" to kill people in Iran?

The Shah wasn't always benevolent, but he was competent. Iran made a lot of progress in his day.

Yeah, he was better than the people who replaced him... who continued his long tradition of imprisoning, torturing, and murdering leftists.

Yes.

Have you read Chomsky? And how does Zinn "bend over backward to fellate" anti-Western dictators? People's History - and most of his other stuff - is pretty focused on domestic affairs.

Yeah, he was better than the people who replaced him... who continued his long tradition of imprisoning, torturing, and murdering leftists.

Agreed, if I had to choose between the two, I'd pick the Shah any day.

Have you read Chomsky? And how does Zinn "bend over backward to fellate" anti-Western dictators? People's History - and most of his other stuff - is pretty focused on domestic affairs.

I've read the Chomsky Reader. In his book, Zinn praises Mao, Ho Chi Minh, and other Third World dictators, although to his credit, he is also critical of the Soviet Union.

"Dissident movements" meaning mullahs, Tudeh, and other scum.

And under the Shah, Iran made huge progress. Its economy was growing rapidly, it was very liberal socially (by regional standards), and it was one of the most pro-Western countries in the world.

As well as those evil pro-democracy secularist types....He sold his countrys wealth for power to a bunch of foriegners and lived off the remaining cream. And who was "pro-western" after that? Despite your babble about "other scum" those very people have given them more say in their countrys governance than the Shah and his lackeys ever did.

As well as those evil pro-democracy secularist types....He sold his countrys wealth for power to a bunch of foriegners and lived off the remaining cream. And who was "pro-western" after that? Despite your babble about "other scum" those very people have given them more say in their countrys governance than the Shah and his lackeys ever did.

So basically what your saying is that because Iran is an anti-western nation it justifies the arrests and killings that have continued since the Shah? Not to mention that they've made little or no progress in civil rights. At least the shah wouldn't deny that they killed people: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chain_Murders_of_Iran
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Human_rights_in_Islamic_Republic_of_Iran
At least the shah didn't discriminate against minorities.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ethnic_minorities_in_Iran
But both regimes have religious discrimination, more so in the current government in my opinion:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Religious_minorities_in_Iran#Non-Islamic
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Status_of_religious_freedom_in_Iran#Restrictions_on_religious_freedom

So basically what your saying is that because Iran is an anti-western nation it justifies the arrests and killings that have continued since the Shah? Not to mention that the only real accomplishments they've made little or no progress in civil rights. At least the shah wouldn't deny that they killed people: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chain_Murders_of_Iran

No, I'm saying that the Shah was even worse that this lot, and that praise of him bears a strange resemblance to that aimed at Benito "trains on time" Mussolini.

No, I'm saying that the Shah was even worse that this lot, and that praise of him bears a strange resemblance to that aimed at Benito "trains on time" Mussolini.

I don't see any future in the next 100 years where Iran, with any form of government, makes progress of the kind you're talking about in regards to human rights.

I don't see any future in the next 100 years where Iran, with any form of government, makes progress of the kind you're talking about in regards to human rights.

But you wouldnt, because you are utterly biased against muslims. However in fairness, I'd imagine you'd rant on against whoever the flag-waving contingent declared to be the enemy of the day.

But you wouldnt, because you are utterly biased against muslims. However in fairness, I'd imagine you'd rant on against whoever the flag-waving contingent declared to be the enemy of the day.

No, I am biased against people with no history of Western culture and the hundreds of years of warfare it took for Westerners to tire of war and killling each other.

No similar long term bloodletting has taken place in ages there. They need to live with strongmen of one sort or another for at least a few hundred more years before they get like Sweden is today.

No, I am biased against people with no history of Western culture and the hundreds of years of warfare it took for Westerners to tire of war and killling each other..

.....with the emphasis on "each other".


No similar long term bloodletting has taken place in ages there. They need to live with strongmen of one sort or another for at least a few hundred more years before they get like Sweden is today.

...according to you. And why should a Western model such as Sweden be their goal? Certainly its better than aspring to emulate the US, but theres no reason they can't have some moderate culture based on different values.

.....with the emphasis on "each other".

...according to you. And why should a Western model such as Sweden be their goal? Certainly its better than aspring to emulate the US, but theres no reason they can't have some moderate culture based on different values.

IMHO, people have to tire of war and killing. They also have to tire of the strongman.

They're nowhere close right now.

But you wouldnt, because you are utterly biased against muslims. However in fairness, I'd imagine you'd rant on against whoever the flag-waving contingent declared to be the enemy of the day.

Truly a rebel without a cause. You don't seem to have even glanced at the links I posted.
by the way more for your viewing pleasure:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sheikh_Faydh_mosque
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Christians_in_Iran#Current_situation
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Massacre_of_Iranian_political_prisoners
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Evin_Prison
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Prison_209
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gohardasht_Prison

IMHO, people have to tire of war and killing. They also have to tire of the strongman.

They're nowhere close right now.

They are remarkably closer than they were under the Shah. They are not particularily looking forward to war, but given what the US helped subject them to in the past, its hardly suprising they are prepared to fight to prevent it.

And did you just change your "sig" from "death to Islam"? Didnt you just say that No, I am biased against people with no history of Western culture and the hundreds of years of warfare it took for Westerners to tire of war and killling each other. when I stated you were biased against muslims?

Truly a rebel without a cause. You don't seem to have even glanced at the links I posted.
by the way more for your viewing pleasure:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sheikh_Faydh_mosque
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Christians_in_Iran#Current_situation
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Massacre_of_Iranian_political_prisoners
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Evin_Prison
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Prison_209
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gohardasht_Prison

And the Shah was still worse. Which says a great deal, when you think about it.

No, I'm saying that the Shah was even worse that this lot, and that praise of him bears a strange resemblance to that aimed at Benito "trains on time" Mussolini.

A modern education, equal rights for women and homosexuals, new buildings a true modernization of the country is some how comparable to making the trains run on time? If you read the links I posted you'd see that the current regime is much worse than the shah, in that it not only oppresses its people but is a threat to the security of other nations.

Your doublethink doubleplusungood suspect crimethink report miniluv.

And remember that the BB rules America and Britain...

OH MY GOD!

BB = Blair Bush!

And the Shah was still worse. Which says a great deal, when you think about it.

I would have to disagree, except for the bahais the shah really didn't discriminate based on religion or race. The current regime is a regime of hypocrisy, lying to its own people and the rest of the world.

A modern education, equal rights for women and homosexuals, new buildings a true modernization of the country is some how comparable to making the trains run on time? If you read the links I posted you'd see that the current regime is much worse than the shah, in that it not only oppresses its people but is a threat to the security of other nations.

All of those only benefitted a tiny minority.

They've far more of a say now than they ever did under that treacherous thug. What kind of rat bastard sells off his countrys wealth for quarter of a century for power?

The only threat to the security of other nations in the mid east at the moment is the US.

They are remarkably closer than they were under the Shah. They are not particularily looking forward to war, but given what the US helped subject them to in the past, its hardly suprising they are prepared to fight to prevent it.


Actually under the shah Iran never went to war, but under the current regime they expeirenced the worst war since WWII.

The only threat to the security of other nations in the mid east at the moment is the US.

You don't consider a nation trying to build nuclear weapons a threat?

Actually under the shah Iran never went to war, but under the current regime they expeirenced the worst war since WWII.

And who started that one? Why was its effort tacitly approved? Who effectively provided escorts for its tankers?

What kind of a point are you trying to make? That the current regime is worse because it was invaded?

And who started that one? Why was its effort tacitly approved? Who effectively provided escorts for its tankers?

What kind of a point are you trying to make? That the current regime is worse because it was invaded?

And who used waves of bodies against those tanks and chemical weapons? WHo sent thousands of people to die for their cause? Who used martydom in the Islamic religion in order to justify using these tactics?

They've far more of a say now than they ever did under that treacherous thug. What kind of rat bastard sells off his countrys wealth for quarter of a century for power?


What kind of basturd uses religion in order to justify the killing of millions of people? I'll tell you what kind: the supreme leader of Iran. THis position, by the way, effectively gives the Iranians no representation in their government. Basically you vote the way the government wants you to which is no better than the shah.

What kind (...)the shah.

More crap. Why do you want that nation to be subservient to the US?

Didnt you just say that when I stated you were biased against muslims?

Islam is an idea. Muslims are people.

It's possible to be against an idea without being against the people.

Or is that too difficult an idea to comprehend?

As an example, several people on this forum have argued in whole threads about how Christianity needs to be eliminated. Does it then follow that they want to kill Christians?

equal rights for... homosexuals

Can you provide a source for that?

More crap. Why do you want that nation to be subservient to the US?

Are you denying the fact that they did use waves against chemical and biological weapons or simply stating that the current government is somehow better than the shah? Either way you'd be wrong:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Human_wave_attack#Iran-Iraq_War
By the way I don't want to see the nation to be subservient to the U.S., I just don't think that the current regime is really all that great as you "anti-Israel, anti-american" people make it out to be.

Can you provide a source for that?

Under the rule of Mohammad Reza Pahlavi, the last monarch of the Pahlavi Dynasty, homosexuality was tolerated, even to the point of allowing news coverage of a same-sex wedding. In the late 1970s, some Iranians even began to talk about starting up a gay rights organization, similar to the Gay Liberation movement. Up until the revolution, there were some night clubs where gay behavior was tolerated.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/LGBT_rights_in_Iran#History_of_LGBT_Rights_in_Iran
I'd say thats much better than the current situation.

And the Shah was still worse. Which says a great deal, when you think about it.

:rolleyes:

All of those only benefitted a tiny minority.

They've far more of a say now than they ever did under that treacherous thug. What kind of rat bastard sells off his countrys wealth for quarter of a century for power?

The only threat to the security of other nations in the mid east at the moment is the US.

Translation: "I don't know jack about the Shah other than the leftist propaganda shoved down my throat, and I've never met a single Iranian that lived in Iran during his reign."

I'd say thats much better than the current situation.

Um, you said "equal rights." Bare toleration is not equal rights. And it's easy to be much better than a regime that actively murders gays; it isn't saying much about your record.

All of those only benefitted a tiny minority.

They've far more of a say now than they ever did under that treacherous thug. What kind of rat bastard sells off his countrys wealth for quarter of a century for power?

The only threat to the security of other nations in the mid east at the moment is the US.

Ah, so the Shah marched 300,000 small children into minefields?

Oh, that was the mullahs...

Um, you said "equal rights." Bare toleration is not equal rights. And it's easy to be much better than a regime that actively murders gays; it isn't saying much about your record.

Well they were to a point where same sex marriages were legal, which is much farther than the U.S. has come.

Islam is an idea. Muslims are people.

It's possible to be against an idea without being against the people.

That's true. You don't bother with that distinction though, and you know it. People like you think of Muslim nations as being backwards, barbarian, inferior. You believe their ideas - their culture - everything about them is just not as good as what you have. You have every aspect of the racial supremacist, you just deny that race has anything to do with it. Perhaps that's what you believe. Like a lot of folks today, who enjoy flouting their "culture" (wink wink) superiority over other "cultures" (wink wink). It's the easiest way to avoid racism - just use "culture" instead of "race."

I don't hate black people - I just hate "black culture."

I don't hate Muslims - just "Muslim culture."

It's a neat trick, and I suppose it works on people too stupid to realize you're trying to mindfuck them by doing a little PC-protectiveness dance around your position. But I know, and others know, that when some fascist movement takes power you'd be among the first groups to start throwing books into the fire and kicking the minorities into the gutter. Whatever distinction you may get by pretending not to be a supremacist now is ultimately irrelevant.

You have that superiority, that "We are just better, and we're going to conquer them for their own, inferior, good!" attitude that makes people like you dangerous. A threat to Civilization.

The only threat to the security of other nations in the mid east at the moment is the US.

I think they don't all agree with you.

Looks like most of the Gulf states are afraid of Iran.

Amidst growing confrontations between the US and Iran, Arab states across the Persian Gulf have begun publicly advertising their desires to increase their security capabilities.

“There has always been an acknowledgment of the threat in the region, but the volume of the debate has now risen,” said one United Arab Emirates official, who spoke on condition of anonymity because he was not authorized to speak on the subject. “Now the message is there’s a dialogue going on with Iran, but that doesn’t mean I don’t intend to defend myself.”

As tensions with Iran rise, many gulf countries have come to see themselves as the likely first targets of an Iranian attack. Analysts have reported Patriot missile batteries capable of striking down ballistic missiles have been readied in several gulf countries, including Kuwait, Saudi Arabia and Qatar.

While many of the Persian Gulf states have relied upon the United States to protect them, some have grown concerned that the US may be overstretched militarily, thus leading many to build a military deterrent of their own.

“The message is first, ‘U.S., stay involved here,’ and second, ‘Iran, we will maintain a technological edge no matter what,’ ” said Emile el-Hokayem, research fellow at the Henry L. Stimson Center, a research center based in Washington. “They are trying to reinforce the credibility of the threat of force.”

“We believe there is a need for power to protect peace, and strong people with the capability to respond are the real protectors of peace,” said Sheik Khalifa bin Zayed al-Nahyan, the president of the United Arab Emirates

The Index military trade fair, which took place this week, has become the region’s largest arms market, with some 900 weapons makers from around the world. Kuwait reportedly bought 24 Apache Longbow helicopters, while the United Arab Emirates has continued to take delivery of 80 F-16 Block 60 fighters. The biggest buyer in 2006, according to the defense industry journal Defense News, was Saudi Arabia, which has agreed to buy 72 Eurofighter Typhoon combat jets for $11 billion. It also has a $400 million deal to upgrade 12 Apache AH-64A helicopters to the Longbow standard.

This military expansion has certainly helped calm fears over a US withdrawal from the region. “If the U.S. ever does pull back, these countries in the gulf have realized, they may have to fend for themselves,” John Kenkel, senior director of Jane’s Strategic Advisory Services said.

More on the Gulf States fearing Iran - since the 1990s.

ABU DHABI, United Arab Emirates, Feb. 22 — As fears grow over the escalating confrontation between Iran and the West, Arab states across the Persian Gulf have begun a rare show of muscle flexing, publicly advertising a shopping spree for new weapons and openly discussing their security concerns.

Typically secretive, the gulf nations have long planned upgrades to their armed forces, but now are speaking openly about them. American military officials say the countries, normally prone to squabbling, have also increased their military cooperation and opened lines of communication to the American military here.

Patriot missile batteries capable of striking down ballistic missiles have been readied in several gulf countries, including Kuwait, Saudi Arabia and Qatar, analysts say, and increasingly, the states have sought to emphasize their unanimity against Iran’s nuclear ambitions.

“There has always been an acknowledgment of the threat in the region, but the volume of the debate has now risen,” said one United Arab Emirates official, who spoke on condition of anonymity because he was not authorized to speak on the subject. “Now the message is there’s a dialogue going on with Iran, but that doesn’t mean I don’t intend to defend myself.”

The Persian Gulf monarchies and sheikdoms, mostly small and vulnerable, have long relied on the United States to protect them. The United States Fifth Fleet is based in Bahrain; the United States Central Command is based in nearby Qatar; and the Navy has long relied on docking facilities in the United Arab Emirates, which has one of the region’s deepest water ports at Jebel Ali.

The United States, too, has begun a significant expansion of forces in the gulf, with a second United States aircraft carrier battle group led by the John C. Stennis now in the Persian Gulf and with minesweeping ships.

The expansion has helped calm fears among gulf governments that the United States could pull out of the region in the future, even as it has raised concerns about a potential American confrontation with Iran, accidental or intentional.

As tensions with Iran rise, many gulf countries have come to see themselves as the likely first targets of an Iranian attack. Some have grown more concerned that the United States may be overstretched militarily, many analysts say, while almost all the monarchies, flush with cash as a result of high oil prices, have sought to build a military deterrent of their own.

“The message is first, ‘U.S., stay involved here,’ and second, ‘Iran, we will maintain a technological edge no matter what,’ ” said Emile el-Hokayem, research fellow at the Henry L. Stimson Center, a research center based in Washington. “They are trying to reinforce the credibility of the threat of force.”

Military officials from throughout the region descended this week on the Idex military trade fair, a semiannual event that has become the region’s largest arms market, drawing nearly 900 weapons makers from around the world. They came ready to update their military capacities and air and naval defenses. They also came armed with a veiled message of resolve.

“We believe there is a need for power to protect peace, and strong people with the capability to respond are the real protectors of peace,” said Sheik Khalifa bin Zayed al-Nahyan, the president of the United Arab Emirates and ruler of the emirate of Abu Dhabi, at the exposition. “That is why we are keen to maintain the efficiency of our armed forces.”

The Persian Gulf has been a lucrative market for arms. Saudi Arabia, Kuwait and Oman spend up to 10 percent of their gross domestic product on the military, amounting to nearly $21 billion, $4 billion and $2.7 billion, respectively, estimates John Kenkel, senior director of Jane’s Strategic Advisory Services.

If they follow through on the deals announced recently, it is estimated that countries like the United Arab Emirates, Kuwait, Oman and Saudi Arabia will spend up to $60 billion this year. The biggest buyer in 2006, according to the defense industry journal Defense News, was Saudi Arabia, which has agreed to buy 72 Eurofighter Typhoon combat jets for $11 billion. It also has a $400 million deal to upgrade 12 Apache AH-64A helicopters to the Longbow standard. The kingdom also reportedly plans to acquire cruise missiles, attack helicopters and tanks, all for a total of $50 billion.

Kuwait reportedly bought 24 Apache Longbow helicopters, while the United Arab Emirates has continued to take delivery of 80 F-16 Block 60 fighters, with plans to buy air tankers, missile defense batteries and airborne early warning systems. Bahrain ordered nine UH-60M Black Hawk helicopters in an estimated $252 million deal, while Oman reportedly bought 30 antitank rocket launchers in a $48 million purchase and is planning a naval overhaul.

“It is a message to enemies that ‘We are taking defense seriously,’ ” Mr. Kenkel said, emphasizing that the new arms were for deterrence.

“If the U.S. ever does pull back, these countries in the gulf have realized, they may have to fend for themselves,” Mr. Kenkel said. “As the Boy Scouts say, always be prepared.”

The most marked change is in the public nature of the acquisitions, which previously would have been kept secret, many analysts here said, itself a form of deterrence.

“They have been doing these kinds of purchases since the ’90s,” said Marwan Lahoud, chief executive of the European missile maker MBDA. “What has changed is they are stating it publicly. The other side is making pronouncements so they have to as well,” he said, speaking of Iran’s recent announcements about its weapons capacity.

Senior United States military officials say gulf countries have become more nervous as Iran has conducted naval maneuvers, especially near the Straits of Hormuz, the main artery through which two-fifths of the world’s oil reaches markets.

“A year ago you could have characterized the interaction with the Iranians as professional,” said Vice Adm. Patrick Walsh, departing commander of the Fifth Fleet. “What’s different today has been the number and amount of exercises and the proximity of those exercises to the Straits of Hormuz themselves.”

The exercises were among the reasons for the expansion of Navy forces in the region, he said, but have also raised alarm about the potential for accidents to lead to an unintended war.

Admiral Walsh said that American warships remained in international waters, and that Iranian and American ships kept close watch on one another. Some critics of the Bush administration have alleged that the increased military presence in the gulf risks igniting a conflict.

Admiral Walsh said the increased American presence was aimed at o reassuring gulf states that the United States remained committed to their security, but also welcomed their efforts to build deterrence.

“We have found that we need to be physically present to prevent such armed behavior,” he said of the Iranian maneuvers. “We’re mindful we’re not giving up any water, but also being careful not to take a provocative stance.”

Well they were to a point where same sex marriages were legal

You mean that gay couples can't have wedding ceremonies in the US?

:rolleyes:

That's true. You don't bother with that distinction though, and you know it. People like you think of Muslim nations as being backwards, barbarian, inferior. You believe their ideas - their culture - everything about them is just not as good as what you have. You have every aspect of the racial supremacist, you just deny that race has anything to do with it.
.
I believe that they have a backward government that tortures and oppresses its people and has accomplished little in the way of toleration and civil rights as well as scientific achievments. NOt to mention that they lie to their people and the rest of the world. By the way, I know someones going to make the comparison to the U.S. and before you do I'll say this: The IRanian government has lied more than the U.S. government has.

Oh, Nodinia, even the New York Times doesn't agree with you - it's evident that the Gulf States (you know, part of the Middle East), views the US as a protector, not a threat, and views Iran as the primary threat.

Of course, you can't be bothered with the truth of it.

http://www.nytimes.com/2007/02/23/world/middleeast/23gulf.html?_r=2&hp&oref=slogin&oref=slogin

You mean that gay couples can't have wedding ceremonies in the US?

:rolleyes:
No, only that they won't be recognized where as under the Shah they were.

That's true. You don't bother with that distinction though, and you know it. People like you think of Muslim nations as being backwards, barbarian, inferior. You believe their ideas - their culture - everything about them is just not as good as what you have. You have every aspect of the racial supremacist, you just deny that race has anything to do with it. Perhaps that's what you believe. Like a lot of folks today, who enjoy flouting their "culture" (wink wink) superiority over other "cultures" (wink wink). It's the easiest way to avoid racism - just use "culture" instead of "race."

Complete and utter bullshit. I dislike the Koran for the same reasons I dislike Mein Kampf or Das Kapital.

Are you saying that my dislike of Hitler's tome is anti-German racism? Or that my hatred of the work of Marx is some other form of racism?

Keep in mind that there are a myriad number of "races" that adhere to Islam. How can that be racism to oppose the idea of Islam? When it crosses so many cultures?

You're knee jerking yourself into complete ignorance.

where as under the Shah they were.

Do you have a source for that?

Do you have a source for that?

*sighs* No I don't, you've got me on that one. But even with the sources I've provided, the Shah government has still provided many more rights to homosexuals than any other twentieth century government in the Middle East. Other than Turkey maybe.

Keep in mind that there are a myriad number of "races" that adhere to Islam. How can that be racism to oppose the idea of Islam? When it crosses so many cultures?


In fact its probably fairly racist to nail Islam to one particular race.

Complete and utter bullshit. I dislike the Koran for the same reasons I dislike Mein Kampf or Das Kapital.

Because Mein Kampf and Das Kapital are the holy books of major world religions which you hold accountable for the actions of terrorism?

Huh. News to me.

Are you saying that my dislike of Hitler's tome is anti-German racism? Or that my hatred of the work of Marx is some other form of racism?

If you were using your dislike of those to justify invasions and occupations of Germanic peoples? Quite possibly. But that's a very inepty comparison as you well know.

Keep in mind that there are a myriad number of "races" that adhere to Islam. How can that be racism to oppose the idea of Islam? When it crosses so many cultures?

How interesting. I guess anti-semitism doesn't exist - after all, there are a myriad number of "races" that adhere to Judaism. Therefore it's not racist to hate Jews.


You're knee jerking yourself into complete ignorance.

I don't think so. Your positions speak for yourself. Try to hide it all you like, but you aren't fooling very many people with your disappearing elephant-shit trick. I can smell it.

Israel.

Ok besides Israel and maybe turkey. That really only helps my argument though.

any other twentieth century government in the Middle East.

Israel.

Because Mein Kampf and Das Kapital are the holy books of major world religions which you hold accountable for the actions of terrorism?


Little difference to me if someone is a political zealot who kills, or a religious zealot who kills. It's all in the name of the cause.

If you were using your dislike of those to justify invasions and occupations of Germanic peoples? Quite possibly. But that's a very inepty comparison as you well know.
It certainly helped that Hitler actually declared war on the US - but we read his book just to be sure he was crazy. So it's added to the justification for destroying and occupying Germany, and forcing Nazi party members out of office when we took over. But that was hardly racist. But you probably think it was.

In some US conflicts, the discovery of Marxist literature was sufficient to arrest or detain people. Going to say that was racist? How?

How interesting. I guess anti-semitism doesn't exist - after all, there are a myriad number of "races" that adhere to Judaism. Therefore it's not racist to hate Jews.

No, the correct thing to say is that it's not racist to hate the contents of the Torah, and declare them false (if that's what you want to do). It has nothing to do with hating the people.

Since the majority of those adhering to the jewish faith are descendants of the Israelis your point is null and void.

Oh, how interesting. Descendants of the Israelis. Cuz it says so in the Bible, right? They're the sons of Abraham. Yes, silly of me not to see that. I guess we can just dismiss and pretend the "minority" of non-Israeli Jews do not exist.

Therefore hating Jews is racism and bad; hating Muslims is just like hating Mein Kampf and is good.

Yes, quite interesting logic... very versatile. Double-jointed logic, one might say.

Little difference to me if someone is a political zealot who kills, or a religious zealot who kills. It's all in the name of the cause.

Interesting how you justify your hatred of all Muslims by the actions of those who kill for religious zealotry. I guess it's all the same to you - Islam, terrorism, terrorists, Muslims...

It certainly helped that Hitler actually declared war on the US - but we read his book just to be sure he was crazy. So it's added to the justification for destroying and occupying Germany, and forcing Nazi party members out of office when we took over. But that was hardly racist. But you probably think it was.

No I don't, but this is a very interesting strawman you keep building, burning, building and burning again. Having fun?


In some US conflicts, the discovery of Marxist literature was sufficient to arrest or detain people. Going to say that was racist? How?

Are you going to start defending McCarthyism? Do I really have to point out what is wrong with it simply because you want to shift the subject away from your position on Muslims?

Why bother? You'd probably just start blurting out some Ann Coulter drivel, like any good troll.

I suppose, however, that it's not racism to hate Christianity (the beliefs), in Trotsia's mind.

I'm not justifying McCarthyism Trotsia - I'm just saying it isn't racism.

Hating a belief system is not racism, and there's nothing you can do to make it so.

I suppose, however, that it's not racism to hate Christianity (the beliefs), in Trotsia's mind.

I suppose you'd suppose a lot of stupid things that are irrelevant to anything. I suppose it's what you do best.

I'm not justifying McCarthyism Trotsia - I'm just saying it isn't racism.

Burn, strawman, burn, burn, burn!

Hating a belief system is not racism, and there's nothing you can do to make it so.

Hating a belief system and the people who practice it, generalizing the actions of the few to the many, advocating war and conquest and subjugation of nations based on dominant religion, however, is a good sign of racism.

I don't know what you think you get by denying it. Think people would take you more seriously? You don't have to be a racist for most of your 'arguments' to fall flat on their face. I just like getting to the heart of the matter.

And the heart of the matter is people very much like you have proudly admitted that killing Muslims is better than orgasm.

Hating a belief system

and the people who practice it


Show me where I said I hate the people who practice it.
generalizing the actions of the few to the many
You have to actually defend yourself when people fly planes into buildings you know.
advocating war and conquest and subjugation of nations based on dominant religion
I haven't advocated that.

I

And the heart of the matter is people very much like you have proudly admitted that killing Muslims is better than orgasm.
So going against a religion that one considers wrong is somehow going to lead to the slaughter of muslims? Expressing a belief system that states that Islam is wrong is going to lead to the next holocaust? Personally I've got nothing against Islam but that seems rather exaggerated.

Oh, how interesting. Descendants of the Israelis. Cuz it says so in the Bible, right? They're the sons of Abraham. Yes, silly of me not to see that. I guess we can just dismiss and pretend the "minority" of non-Israeli Jews do not exist.



Sorry about that, what I ment to say was that if you hate the people in the religion it is far different from hating the religion itself.

Show me where I said I hate the people who practice it.

It's apparent. Show me that up is the opposite of down.

You have to actually defend yourself when people fly planes into buildings you know.

Ah yes, 9/11. This doesn't actually address anything I wrote, it's not an argumentative point, but it does manage to dig up the ghosts of about 3000 dead people, anally-rape them and collect the milky residue for propaganda use via appeal to emotion. Good work, champ.

I haven't advocated that.

Of course. You advocate choosing the nations based on how "threatening" they are to the US. And it just so happens that you hate the Koran, hate Islam, and that you think Islam represents a threat, and... gosh, just a pile of coincidences that has absolutely nothing to do with your Islamophobic bigotry. Yawn!

It's apparent. Show me that up is the opposite of down.



Ah yes, 9/11. This doesn't actually address anything I wrote, it's not an argumentative point, but it does manage to dig up the ghosts of about 3000 dead people, anally-rape them and collect the milky residue for propaganda use via appeal to emotion. Good work, champ.



Of course. You advocate choosing the nations based on how "threatening" they are to the US. And it just so happens that you hate the Koran, hate Islam, and that you think Islam represents a threat, and... gosh, just a pile of coincidences that has absolutely nothing to do with your Islamophobic bigotry. Yawn!
Just for the record are going for the current government in Iran or against the current government Iran in this overall debate?

And the Shah was still worse. Which says a great deal, when you think about it.

Thats the most rediculous thing I've ever heard. All the Mullahs have done for Iran is oppress women, outstrip even the worst atrocities of SAVAK a thousand times over, institute barbaric Islamic justice, and crush the economy. Sure, the Shah put Communists and Mullah-lovers in prisons, where they rightfully belonged, but he gave so much to Iran: a stable economy, personal freedom, a progressive society, and economic development. Saying the Shah is bad for simply oppressing people who opposed good things like that is simply rediculous.

Well, it is not the first time that the US are would like to see a government of Iran overthrown...
Last time that resulted in the bloody rule of a Shah. Want to return to that?

As bloody as the Iran-Iraq war?

Translation: "I don't know jack about the Shah other than the leftist propaganda shoved down my throat, and I've never met a single Iranian that lived in Iran during his reign."

Really.....I'm glad your psychic abilities enable you to know what I've learned, how, and who I've met.

Is there a little boy stuck down a well somewhere that needs saving? Don't let me hold you here, your powers are needed elsewhere.

Ah, so the Shah marched 300,000 small children into minefields?

Oh, that was the mullahs...."

So out of the million plus casualties of the Iran-Iraq war, nearly a third were "small children"?

Lets say though, that its true, and imagine that you just don't hate anything muslim related. How would that make the Shahs elite leeching off his own people and his brutal torture and dissappearnces of those who oppossed him any better? Is it ok becuase he sold his countrys wealth to America and the West?

Oh, Nodinia, even the New York Times doesn't agree with you - it's evident that the Gulf States (you know, part of the Middle East), views the US as a protector, not a threat, and views Iran as the primary threat....."

The collection of monarchies/dictatorships that have thrown their lot in with the US? I wonder why........


Little difference to me if someone is a political zealot who kills, or a religious zealot who kills. It's all in the name of the cause

Now theres fucking irony.....


You have to actually defend yourself when people fly planes into buildings you know.

What has that to do with Iran? Did not those people mostly come from the various "Gulf states" which you said fear Iran as the greatest threat in the region?

Sure, the Shah put Communists and Mullah-lovers in prisons, where they rightfully belonged, but he gave so much to Iran: a stable economy, personal freedom, a progressive society, and economic development. .

You get an internet doughnut if you can spot the contradiction in your own statement. Btw, the Shah imprisoned whoever he wanted, and did not allow a "progressive society", as he ran a police state.

IMHO, people have to tire of war and killing. They also have to tire of the strongman.

They're nowhere close right now.
1) Ah, in the same way as the US, which has been in a fairly major conflict essentially every 10 years since the end of WW2, right?

2)Just remember that the landscape is very, very different in the Middle East to that of Europe and the US.

It's very easy to farm, and live in Europe and most of the US than it is in the Middle East - water, good arable land etc. is much scarcer there, and hence why there is a near-constant war going on in the Middle East, as well as the presence of oil and hence foreign intervention one way or another.

It's not just about culture - Iran's culture is actually fairly similar to that of a lot of western states. People go out to work, come home, chill out for a bit, and live their lives. Yeah, fine, no alcohol. Oh no.

It certainly isn't anything like as repressive as Pakistan, the UAE and Saudi Arabia, strangely the allies of the US, whilst they adhere to Taliban-esque regulations at times.

Just for the record are going for the current government in Iran or against the current government Iran in this overall debate?

Neither. Iran's government is of no business of mine. I am against invading, attacking and demonizing foreign nations, mostly because I don't like being one of the bad guys. So in the context of "You are either in support of attacking Iran, or you are a Muslim Terrorist who hates America," I would be a Muslim Terrorist who hates America. :)

I'm used to the pro-Israeli crowd, but I'd no idea there was a pro-Shah mob lurking in the wings....

Really.....I'm glad your psychic abilities enable you to know what I've learned, how, and who I've met.

Your disinformation on the Shah makes it abundantly clear.

You get an internet doughnut if you can spot the contradiction in your own statement. Btw, the Shah imprisoned whoever he wanted, and did not allow a "progressive society", as he ran a police state.

Considering he's an actual Iranian, I'd think he has far more credibility than anyone else on NS.

Your disinformation on the Shah makes it abundantly clear..

So you're saying that he didn't round up all dissidents, he just targeted the ones you don't like (Communists and Islamists)? Are you also stating that its ok to torture and kill communists and Islamists?

Was it a dictatorship?

Did he agree to give the lions share of Irans oil wealth to Foreign interests (Britain, France, the US) for 25 years?

Wasn't the most expensive party in history held by the Shah and his elite?



Considering he's an actual Iranian, I'd think he has far more credibility than anyone else on NS.

So if the current Iranian leader turned up here, he'd have far more credibiliity that him, following on that logic

So if the current Iranian leader turned up here, he'd have far more credibiliity that him, following on that logic

Come off it. The Iranian leader obviously has a good reason to make himself look good; as far as I know, our Iranian poster here has no reason to say anything other than how he sees it.

You're taking that logic, and then beating it senseless. Try again.

I haven't advocated that.

Not conquest no. Just extermination.

Come off it. The Iranian leader obviously has a good reason to make himself look good; as far as I know, our Iranian poster here has no reason to say anything other than how he sees it.

.

.....Unless of course the "Iranian poster" is in exile due to being a supporter of the Shah during his regime.

The facts are that there is a very large body of evidence to show that the Shah was in fact a bastard. Somebody of Iranian descent saying that that is not the case does not negate the existence of those facts, which can be independently verified.

Not conquest no. Just extermination.

Nope.

So you're saying that he didn't round up all dissidents, he just targeted the ones you don't like (Communists and Islamists)? Are you also stating that its ok to torture and kill communists and Islamists?

Was it a dictatorship?

Did he agree to give the lions share of Irans oil wealth to Foreign interests (Britain, France, the US) for 25 years?

Wasn't the most expensive party in history held by the Shah and his elite?

Only the ones who posed a threat to national security. And FYI, I don't dislike communists. The ideology, yes, the followers, no. And torture is almost never justified.

Depends on your perspective.

No.

So if the current Iranian leader turned up here, he'd have far more credibiliity that him, following on that logic

No, he wouldn't. Holocaust deniers have no credibility. Ever.

.....Unless of course the "Iranian poster" is in exile due to being a supporter of the Shah during his regime.

The facts are that there is a very large body of evidence to show that the Shah was in fact a bastard. Somebody of Iranian descent saying that that is not the case does not negate the existence of those facts, which can be independently verified.

Most "facts" come from very dubious sources.

Most "facts" come from very dubious sources.

Like the "fact" that Saddam Hussein had fully operational WMDs.

Like the "fact" that Saddam Hussein had fully operational WMDs.

Exactly. In other words, sources with no credibility at all.

Most "facts" come from very dubious sources.

Yet even the people who used support the Shah knew he was using the secret police to enforce a dictatorship. Face up to it - he was a power hungry bastard who sold his country down the river for his own benefit.

Yet even the people who used support the Shah knew he was using the secret police to enforce a dictatorship. Face up to it - he was a power hungry bastard who sold his country down the river for his own benefit.

And the current president of Iran is a power hungry basturd that sold his country down the river to religious fundementalism.

Really.....I'm glad your psychic abilities enable you to know what I've learned, how, and who I've met.

Is there a little boy stuck down a well somewhere that needs saving? Don't let me hold you here, your powers are needed elsewhere.


So out of the million plus casualties of the Iran-Iraq war, nearly a third were "small children"?

Lets say though, that its true, and imagine that you just don't hate anything muslim related. How would that make the Shahs elite leeching off his own people and his brutal torture and dissappearnces of those who oppossed him any better? Is it ok becuase he sold his countrys wealth to America and the West?


The collection of monarchies/dictatorships that have thrown their lot in with the US? I wonder why........



Now theres fucking irony.....



What has that to do with Iran? Did not those people mostly come from the various "Gulf states" which you said fear Iran as the greatest threat in the region?


You get an internet doughnut if you can spot the contradiction in your own statement. Btw, the Shah imprisoned whoever he wanted, and did not allow a "progressive society", as he ran a police state.

It was definitly more of a progressive society than the current regime. Read any of the links I've posted on this thread and You'll see thats true.

Yet even the people who used support the Shah knew he was using the secret police to enforce a dictatorship. Face up to it - he was a power hungry bastard who sold his country down the river for his own benefit.

I fail to see how creating a prosperous and progressive (by M.E. standards) nation is "selling it down the river."

You get an internet doughnut if you can spot the contradiction in your own statement. Btw, the Shah imprisoned whoever he wanted, and did not allow a "progressive society", as he ran a police state.

There is no contradiction, putting dissidents in jail is not an assault on personal freedom, it's an assault on political freedom, and quite honestly, in the third world I would say a justifiable one. Without a strong central government, there is little ability for development, and the only products of the state can be unending populism and poverty.

Progressivism, and personal freedom, as I mention it, did exist, as he improved the position of women, giving them a level of freedom roughly equitable to those in the West, permitted the traditionally un-Islamic activities of alcohol consuption and gambling, and generally allowed people to live their lives as they pleased without excessive government morality legislation.

I'm used to the pro-Israeli crowd, but I'd no idea there was a pro-Shah mob lurking in the wings....

There is no contradiction, putting dissidents in jail is not an assault on personal freedom, it's an assault on political freedom, and quite honestly, in the third world I would say a justifiable one. Without a strong central government, there is little ability for development, and the only products of the state can be unending populism and poverty.

Progressivism, and personal freedom, as I mention it, did exist, as he improved the position of women, giving them a level of freedom roughly equitable to those in the West, permitted the traditionally un-Islamic activities of alcohol consuption and gambling, and generally allowed people to live their lives as they pleased without excessive government morality legislation.
@ Nodinia: Just check out Syriana.:rolleyes: The "Committee for the Liberation of Iran," a RL group IIRC, is a major part of the backdrop to George Clooney's storyline. They fly the Shah's flag, and that leads one to wonder indeed just whose side they're really on in the end...
@ The Parthians: True. However, despite Mohammed Reza Shah's liberality compared to the clerical regime, he was still far from the equal of Kurush Shah (aka Cyrus The Great) that the Pahlevi modernization programme would've required to see through against such widespread ethical opposition from the largely young and devout general population at the time. Movement to a republican form of government was long overdue, and unfortunately the 1953 coup basically eviscerated the progressive republicans as a viable option in favor of the Islamists.
Do I like the Mullahs? Heck. No. Granted, I think the USSR could've then and other socialist states could even now benefit from aping Iran's "dual government" structure in secular leftist form, rather than going through that whole one-party nonsense and making it still worse with command economics. But I wonder if Mohammed Reza Shah's heir (can't recall his name) might've ultimately been forced to cut a deal with Khomenei in the end and give us the worst of both worlds long term. As usual for the Middle East, hindsight regarding the Iranian Revolution is always 20-20 and the options are poor at best; but if revolutionaries are bad enough it stands to reason that reactionaries are almost certainly worse (for trying to rebuild that which cannot be). Given the Bush administration's record of unconditionally praising and believing opposition groups simply because they are such (Remember the INC's role in the Iraq WMD fiasco, not to mention where and how the current evidence against Iran's weapons program mostly originated?:rolleyes:), I'm skeptical this new movement is that great an option either.

It was definitly more of a progressive society than the current regime. Read any of the links I've posted on this thread and You'll see thats true.

"progressive" and "police state" are mutually incombatible.


There is no contradiction, putting dissidents in jail is not an assault on personal freedom, it's an assault on political freedom, and quite honestly, in the third world I would say a justifiable one. .

Always justifiable when its some other guy, isn't it.....

Progressivism, and personal freedom, as I mention it, did exist,.

...entirely upon the whim of the Shah, hence none at all.

and generally allowed people to live their lives as they pleased without excessive government morality legislation.,.

Free to graze where they may unless they raise their heads that bit too high....

I fail to see how creating a prosperous and progressive (by M.E. standards) nation is "selling it down the river.".,.

He overthrew a democratically elected regime with the aid of the West, and rewarded them with the lions share of his nations oil wealth for 25 years.

He overthrew a democratically elected regime with the aid of the West, and rewarded them with the lions share of his nations oil wealth for 25 years.

No, he didn't. Iran received more than half the oil wealth.

"progressive" and "police state" are mutually incombatible.

Neither are "fundementalist theocracy" and "republic".

Free to graze where they may unless they raise their heads that bit too high....



Better than they are now where they're forced to graze on mud and have their heads lowered by burkas.

No, he didn't. Iran received more than half the oil wealth.

Yes, he did. And "more than half"? Why the fuck should a man who gave away any of his nations wealth as a reward for overthrowing a democratically elected government be given any praise whatsover?

Yes, he did. And "more than half"? Why the fuck should a man who gave away any of his nations wealth as a reward for overthrowing a democratically elected government be given any praise whatsover?

Actually, Iran was never a republic before the current regime and of course it really is only in name. I think you're referring to Mohammed Mossadegh, but it was him who was trying to overthrow the shah, not the opposite way around. The Shah was the current government and Mohammed Mossadegh was elected prime minister. He attempted to force the Shah into exile. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mohammed_Mossadegh

Neither are "fundementalist theocracy" and "republic".

Better than they are now where they're forced to graze on mud and have their heads lowered by burkas.

Actually, Iran was never a republic before the current regime and of course it really is only in name. You really have no conception of Iranian history do you?

So a government can do anything they want as long as another state is/was doing things that are worse?

So a government can do anything they want as long as another state is/was doing things that are worse?

Thats actually what my opponents are arguing. After seeing the last king of Scotland I can actually draw a lot of comparisions between uganda under Idi Amin and the current IRanian government. Especially the argument that because the Shah is some how worse, that the current regime is allowed to do what it wants.

What do Scotland & Uganda have to do with Iran?

Thats actually what my opponents are arguing. After seeing the last king of Scotland I can actually draw a lot of comparisions between uganda under Idi Amin and the current IRanian government. Especially the argument that because the Shah is some how worse, that the current regime is allowed to do what it wants.

Cutting through the Ugandan stuff, I haven't seen anything in this thread saying that the present Iranian government is fine and can do anything they want, all I'm seeing is people arguing that the Shah was a bastard, and other people arguing that he was the best thing since sliced bread...

What do Scotland & Uganda have to do with Iran?

I'm glad you asked that. Scotland doesn't really have anything to do with this but Uganda definitly does. Both regimes have horrendous records on civil rights. Both claim the moral high ground by saying that they forced out an "evil" pro-western regime. Both claim that they will do good things for their country unlike those who came before them. The list goes on and on.

Cutting through the Ugandan stuff, I haven't seen anything in this thread saying that the present Iranian government is fine and can do anything they want, all I'm seeing is people arguing that the Shah was a bastard, and other people arguing that he was the best thing since sliced bread...

HAve you read through the entire thread? there are definitly posts where people attempt to defend the current regime. That aside, I'm only trying to argue that the Shah is better than the current regime, no more no less.

I'm only trying to argue that the Shah is better than the current regime, no more no less.

Condemned from your own mouth.

Condemned from your own mouth.

Eh? First of all, if anything it would be from my fingers, since we're not actually talking. Secondly, I fail to see this condemenation you write of.

Eh?

You're arguing that a monarchist/dictatorship, ruled by a westernised muppet with a secret police force, who bought power by offering his nations oil wealth to foriegn powers, is "better" than the current regime. A man who overthrew a democratically elected regime, I might add. Thus, you are condemned out of your own mouth.

HAve you read through the entire thread? there are definitly posts where people attempt to defend the current regime. That aside, I'm only trying to argue that the Shah is better than the current regime, no more no less.

While that's all very interesting, these are the internal affairs of foreign, sovereign nations, and no amount of back-and-forthing here on General is liable to change much of anything.

Eh? First of all, if anything it would be from my fingers, since we're not actually talking.

Metaphorically. And I'm rapidily coming to the conclusion that most of what comes from you has its origin in neither fingers or mouth.

You're arguing that a monarchist/dictatorship, ruled by a westernised muppet with a secret police force, who bought power by offering his nations oil wealth to foriegn powers, is "better" than the current regime. A man who overthrew a democratically elected regime, I might add. Thus, you are condemned out of your own mouth.

Not really, considering that the current regime is far worse. You claim it was a dictatorship and yet there still was the majilis. The overthrowing of the regime was because the man attempted to exile the shah, which in case you didn't know exiling the legitamete government is treason in most countries. Of course once again you're claiming the moral high ground for this regime just like Idi Amin, lets see how many people die this time.

Not really, considering that the current regime is far worse. You claim it was a dictatorship and yet there still was the majilis. The overthrowing of the regime was because the man attempted to exile the shah, which in case you didn't know exiling the legitamete government is treason in most countries. Of course once again you're claiming the moral high ground for this regime just like Idi Amin, lets see how many people die this time.

Mossadegh was overthrown because he was a socialist and we were worried he would give the Soviets access to Iranian oil and because he cut ties with the U.K.

Not really, considering that the current regime is far worse. You claim it was a dictatorship and yet there still was the majilis. The overthrowing of the regime was because the man attempted to exile the shah, which in case you didn't know exiling the legitamete government is treason in most countries. Of course once again you're claiming the moral high ground for this regime just like Idi Amin, lets see how many people die this time.

He was crucial to the overthrow of a democratic regime. He took part and agreed to give out the nations oil wealth, as was asked for by the Brits and US. This is a matter of public record. Now thats treason.

Just because the scaborous leeching fuck was a bit westernised, you seem hell bent on awarding him some form of sainthood. He might as well have been a colonial governor. A muppet, with first a british, then an American hand up his ass.

Mossadegh was overthrown because he was a socialist and we were worried he would give the Soviets access to Iranian oil and because he cut ties with the U.K.

In August 1953 Mossadegh attempted to convince the Shah to leave the country. The Shah refused, and formally dismissed the Prime Minister, in accordance with the foreign intelligence plan. Mossadegh refused to leave, however, and when it became apparent that he was going to fight, the Shah, as a precautionary measure foreseen by the British/American plan, flew to Baghdad and on from there to Rome, Italy, after hesitantly signing two decrees, one dismissing Mossadegh and the other nominating General Fazlollah Zahedi Prime Minister, subsequent to pressure from the US and UK intelligence agencies. The choice had fallen on Zahedi, whom in the months before, Roosevelt and Wilbur had identified as perfectly suitable to carry out strong-armed tactics [citation needed], during and following the coup. Fazlollah Zahedi was to prove that they had backed the right horse, after all he had fallen out with Mossadegh and resigned from his post as minister of the interior, as well as having been briefly detained already on suspicions of planning a coup of his own, by Mossadegh's orders in February of 1953.[citation needed] Fearing imminent re-arrest, Zahedi went into hiding, with another affair, the torture death of Tehran's chief of Police, General Afshartus being blamed on him by the authorities. [citation needed]

Once again, massive protests broke out across the nation. Anti- and pro-monarchy protestors violently clashed in the streets, leaving almost 300 dead. Funded with money from the U.S. CIA and the British MI6, the pro-monarchy forces, led by retired army General and former Minister of Interior in Mossadegh's cabinet, Fazlollah Zahedi, gained the upper hand on 19 August 1953 (28 Mordad). The military intervened as the pro-Shah tank regiments stormed the capital and bombarded the prime minister's official residence. Mossadegh managed to flee from the mob that set in to ransack his house, and, the following day, surrendered to General Zahedi, who had meanwhile established his makeshift headquarters at the Officers' Club. A tearful Dr. Mossadegh was received in dignity however and placed under arrest in a comfortable apartment [9] at the Officers' Club and transferred to a military jail shortly after.

Shortly after the return of the Shah on 22 August 1953 from the brief self-imposed exile in Rome, Mossadegh was tried by a military tribunal for high treason. Zahedi and the Shah were inclined, however, to spare the ailing man's life (the death penalty would have applied according to the laws of the day). Mossadegh received a sentence of 3 years in solitary confinement at a military jail and was exiled to his village, not far from Tehran, where he remained under house arrest until his death, on 5 March 1967.

The man attempted to overthrow the shah and was subsequently defeated. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mohammed_Mossadegh#Shah.27s_Exile

Mossadegh was overthrown because he was a socialist and we were worried he would give the Soviets access to Iranian oil and because he cut ties with the U.K.

Aha. Or thats what they say the Brits conned them into believing. Not that the US neglected to end the AIOC monoploy and get its own in there either.

http://www.nytimes.com/library/world/mideast/041600iran-cia-index.html

He was crucial to the overthrow of a democratic regime. He took part and agreed to give out the nations oil wealth, as was asked for by the Brits and US. This is a matter of public record. Now thats treason.


A democratic regime? You seem to award sainthood to Mossadegh just because he was anti-western.
Mossadegh became aware of the plots against him and grew increasingly wary of conspirators acting within his government. He set up a national referendum to dissolve parliament. Some purport that the vote was rigged, with Mossadegh claiming a 99.9 percent victory for the "yes" side. Allegations that Mossadegh was resorting to dictatorial tactics to stay in power were in turn cited by US- and British-supported opposition press as a reason to remove Mossadegh from power.[citation needed] Parliament was suspended indefinitely, and Mossadegh's emergency powers were extended.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mohammed_Mossadegh#Operation_Ajax

In August 1953The man attempted to overthrow the shah and was subsequently defeated. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mohammed_Mossadegh#Shah.27s_Exile


Why did you only post the events from August 1953 on? Why did you omit this, and the other precding sections detailing the actions taken to oust mossadergh?

Plot to depose Mossadegh

Soldiers surround the Parliament building in Tehran on 19 August 1953.The government of Britain had grown increasingly distressed over Mossadegh's policies and were especially bitter over the loss of their control on the Iranian oil industry. Despite Mossadegh's repeated attempts to negotiate a reasonable settlement with them they refused outright the same terms, and later total control over Iranian oil.

Unable to resolve the issue singlehandedly due to its post second world war problems, Britain looked towards the United States to settle the issue. The United States was lead to believe by the British that Mossadegh was increasingly turning towards Communism and was moving Iran towards the Soviet sphere at a time of high Cold War fears. [8] [4][5][6]

Debate by selective c&p is rather dishonest, in that it shows you know theres something that you should be admitting.....

-SNIP-

You neglected to show the part where the CIA and MI6 plotted to overthrow Mossadegh, long before he asked the Shah(who was sympathetic to both the U.S. and the U.K.) to leave.

The government of Britain had grown increasingly distressed over Mossadegh's policies and were especially bitter over the loss of their control on the Iranian oil industry. Despite Mossadegh's repeated attempts to negotiate a reasonable settlement with them they refused outright the same terms, and later total control over Iranian oil.

Unable to resolve the issue singlehandedly due to its post second world war problems, Britain looked towards the United States to settle the issue. The United States was lead to believe by the British that Mossadegh was increasingly turning towards Communism and was moving Iran towards the Soviet sphere at a time of high Cold War fears. [8]

In October 1952 Mossadegh declared that Britain was "an enemy", and cut all diplomatic relations with the United Kingdom. In November and December 1952 British intelligence officials suggested to American intelligence that the prime minister should be ousted. The new US administration under Dwight Eisenhower and the British government under Winston Churchill agreed to work together toward Mossadegh's removal. In March 1953 Secretary of State John Foster Dulles directed the US Central Intelligence Agency, which was headed by his younger brother Allen Dulles, to draft plans to overthrow Mossadegh [7].

On 4 April 1953 CIA director Dulles approved $1 million to be used "in any way that would bring about the fall of Mossadegh". Soon the CIA's Tehran station started to launch a propaganda campaign against Mossadegh. Finally, according to The New York Times, in early June, American and British intelligence officials met again, this time in Beirut, and put the finishing touches on the strategy. Soon afterward, according to his later published accounts, the chief of the CIA's Near East and Africa division, Kermit Roosevelt, Jr. arrived in Tehran to direct it. [citation needed]

Why did you only post the events from August 1953 on? Why did you omit this, and the other precding sections detailing the actions taken to oust mossadergh?



Debate by selective c&p is rather dishonest, in that it shows you know theres something that you should be admitting.....

But was he ousted? No. Not until he attempted to take over the government and push out the shah.

. Some purport that the vote was rigged, [/url]

O I'd say theres dozens of cheque-books worth of those that did...

"A shah-General Zahedi combination, supported by C.I.A. local assets and financial backing, would have a good chance of overthrowing Mossadegh," officials wrote, "particularly if this combination should be able to get the largest mobs in the streets and if a sizable portion of the Tehran garrison refused to carry out Mossadegh's orders."
http://www.nytimes.com/library/world/mideast/041600iran-cia-chapter1.html

But was he ousted? No. Not until he attempted to take over the government and push out the shah. THey only attempted to raise anti-Mossadergh sentiment,

Operation Ajax was planned in April 1953, Mossadegh asked the Shah to leave in August 1953, go back to school and learn the calendar...

O I'd say theres dozens of cheque-books worth of those that did...


http://www.nytimes.com/library/world/mideast/041600iran-cia-chapter1.html

"But according to the history, planners had doubts about whether the shah could carry out such a bold operation."

But was he ousted? No. Not until he attempted to take over the government and push out the shah. THey only attempted to raise anti-Mossadergh sentiment,

"only"....."only". Dear me.


In early August, the C.I.A. stepped up the pressure. Iranian operatives pretending to be Communists threatened Muslim leaders with "savage punishment if they opposed Mossadegh," seeking to stir anti-Communist sentiment in the religious community.

In addition, the secret history says, the house of at least one prominent Muslim was bombed by C.I.A. agents posing as Communists. It does not say whether anyone was hurt in this attack.

Mr. Roosevelt left the embassy and tracked down General Zahedi, who was in hiding north of Tehran. Surprisingly, the general was not ready to abandon the operation. The coup, the two men agreed, could still work, provided they could persuade the public that General Zahedi was the lawful prime minister.

To accomplish this, the history discloses, the coup plotters had to get out the news that the shah had signed the two decrees.

The C.I.A. station in Tehran sent a message to The Associated Press in New York, asserting that "unofficial reports are current to the effect that leaders of the plot are armed with two decrees of the shah, one dismissing Mossadegh and the other appointing General Zahedi to replace him."

The C.I.A. and its agents also arranged for the decrees to be mentioned in some Tehran papers, the history says.

Using travel papers forged by the C.I.A., key army officers went to outlying army garrisons to persuade commanders to join the coup.

http://www.nytimes.com/library/world/mideast/041600iran-cia-chapter3.html

Looks like material assistance and direct action to me....

Operation Ajax was planned in April 1953, Mossadegh asked the Shah to leave in August 1953, go back to school and learn the calender...

actually it was planned in october 1952 so I believe it is you who should "learn" the calender.

"But according to the history, planners had doubts about whether the shah could carry out such a bold operation."

And the point of that quote is to illustrate...?

actually it was planned in october 1952 so I believe it is you who should "learn" the calender.

So you knew it was planned, and did leave it out deliberately then. Tut tut. We can read you know. Some of us may have even read about this all before....we might know what we're on about...which would make throwing out large carefully selected c&p's suicide, debate-wise....

What is it about this leech that endears him to you, might I ask? It escapes me.

actually it was planned in october 1952 so I believe it is you who should "learn" the calender.

So in other words a full year before Mossadegh asked the Shah to leave, thanks for proving my point.