TranceAddict Forums (www.tranceaddict.com/forums)
- Political Discussion / Debate
-- It's a Clash of Ideas.
Pages (3): « 1 [2] 3 »

quote:

Originally posted by Q5echo IN OTHER WORDS BUSH DIDN'T LIE. you found out about all this crap about the Shah and the CIA back in the 50's now your'e an apologist for the Mullahs. brilliant. because the Mullahs were the victims right? got it. anything else?

wow dude you truly are an idiot.

With the help of the U.S Ayatollah khomaini came back to Iran from exile in France.The british and and the American finger prints were all over this.Shah was just becoming way too powerful in the region and the Americans werent happy with that.
So they introduced Khomaini to the people and the people wanted freedom and freedom of speach and wanted to express their religious beliefs and khomaini promised the people just that.Once he took over the country everything changed and did the exact oposite.
Thats how the people of Iran got fucked in the ass and thats why they ll never ever would want the U.S to to anything with the future of their country.

The U.S and the British fully supported of Ayatollah Khomiani but once again their foriegn policy back fired and they created another enenmy for themselves in the region.

After that they wanted to get rid of the Mullahs so what do they do? they go and support Saddam with all sorts of weapons to try to wipe the mullahs off of Iran and again they failed.

Now STFU and go back to Iraq and fight the war on terror.

quote:

Originally posted by hardcore trancer wow dude you truly are an idiot. With the help of the U.S Ayatollah khomaini came back to Iran from exile in France.The british and and the American finger prints were all over this.Shah was just becoming way too powerful in the region and the Americans werent happy with that. So they introduced Khomaini to the people and the people wanted freedom and freedom of speach and wanted to express their religious beliefs and khomaini promised the people just that.Once he took over the country everything changed and did the exact oposite. Thats how the people of Iran got fucked in the ass and thats why they ll never ever would want the U.S to to anything with the future of their country. The U.S and the British fully supported of Ayatollah Khomiani but once again their foriegn policy back fired and they created another enenmy for themselves in the region. After that they wanted to get rid of the Mullahs so what do they do? they go and support Saddam with all sorts of weapons to try to wipe the mullahs off of Iran and again they failed. Now STFU and go back to Iraq and fight the war on terror.

Actually, the shah were supported by the US and UK while the ayatollah khomeni was the west's enemy...

{{{ Mohammad Reza Pahlavi returned to power greatly strengthened and his rule became increasingly autocratic in the following years. With strong support from the U.S. and U.K., the Shah further modernized Iranian industry, but simultaneously crushed all forms of political opposition with his intelligence agency, SAVAK. }}} wiki

wow, people in the middle east sure are easily manipulated

quote:

Originally posted by Krypton Actually, the shah were supported by the US and UK while the ayatollah khomeni was the west's enemy... {{{ Mohammad Reza Pahlavi returned to power greatly strengthened and his rule became increasingly autocratic in the following years. With strong support from the U.S. and U.K., the Shah further modernized Iranian industry, but simultaneously crushed all forms of political opposition with his intelligence agency, SAVAK. }}} wiki

You are right but all that changed when Iran was the most powerful country in the region.Believe Ayatollah didnt just come to Iran without outsiders help.

quote:

Originally posted by pkcRAISTLIN wow, people in the middle east sure are easily manipulated

Colonialism ring a bell? It definately took over the Middle East more than 100 years ago, and the colonialists are just reaping what they sowed all those years ago.

quote:

Originally posted by pkcRAISTLIN wow, people in the middle east sure are easily manipulated

I can say that exact same thing about the west.Look how easily they fell for going to war with Iraq.

quote:

Originally posted by hardcore trancer You are right but all that changed when Iran was the most powerful country in the region.Believe Ayatollah didnt just come to Iran without outsiders help.

Uh, you have me confused. Not really, but...

The Ayatollah spent most of his time in exile in Najaf - Iraq, a little time in Turkey, and 4 months in France. The man was never pro-western.

quote:

Originally posted by hardcore trancer With the help of the U.S Ayatollah khomaini came back to Iran from exile in France.The british and and the American finger prints were all over this.Shah was just becoming way too powerful in the region and the Americans werent happy with that. So they introduced Khomaini to the people and the people wanted freedom and freedom of speach and wanted to express their religious beliefs and khomaini promised the people just that.Once he took over the country everything changed and did the exact oposite. Thats how the people of Iran got fucked in the ass and thats why they ll never ever would want the U.S to to anything with the future of their country. The U.S and the British fully supported of Ayatollah Khomiani but once again their foriegn policy back fired and they created another enenmy for themselves in the region. After that they wanted to get rid of the Mullahs so what do they do? they go and support Saddam with all sorts of weapons to try to wipe the mullahs off of Iran and again they failed.

do you just make this shit up?

the Ayatollah was the West's symbol of freedom to the Iranians, but he was a poseur and he flipped the script on them?

from 1963 to 1978 he lived in Iraq, but youre saying he was exiled to France? who was he Napoleon? f**k you're a dumbshit.

i'm an idiot?

"their fingerprints are all over it" = paranoid douche-cock

quote:

Originally posted by hardcore trancer I can say that exact same thing about the west.Look how easily they fell for going to war with Iraq.

quote:

Originally posted by Krypton Colonialism ring a bell? It definately took over the Middle East more than 100 years ago, and the colonialists are just reaping what they sowed all those years ago.

you both miss my point.

there is no doubt that the US has backed some pretty despicable horses. but have a look at the mess in iraq and ask yourself how the US managed to be the super manipulator (apparently) in previous manipulative missions in the mid east. do you really think the US prevailed so easily in iran all by themselves? where are your cries of outrage against those inside iran that benefitted from US support? Who do you think had more power in iran in the latter half of the decade? if you answer "the US" then you're clearly deluded.

this idea that the US is the puppet master, controlling all, knowing all etc is just nonsense. it might be a shock to both of you, but there are other interests in the world that actually make a difference to the outcome of political issues.

yes yes, i know its all very chic to blame the US for everything. and in some cases its more than accurate. but ignoring everyone else to focus only on the role the US has played is rather disingenuous, and dismissing the power/influence/interests of the mullahs or the ayatollahs is pretty naive.

I did say foreign influence. I wasn't focusing US or any specific country's expeditions. British, French, Italian, German, and most recently the US have all decided they needed a piece of the middle east.

quote:

Originally posted by Q5echo do you just make this shit up? the Ayatollah was the West's symbol of freedom to the Iranians, but he was a poseur and he flipped the script on them?

you stupid Yank.here let me give you something a litle bit more easier for your shit filled of brain of yours,remember Bin Laden?how did he get his power?who supported him? and why is he the great enemy of the America now?


I never said the ayatollah was the west symbol of freedom,I said they used him to get rid of shah.

quote:

from 1963 to 1978 he lived in Iraq, but youre saying he was exiled to France? who was he Napoleon? f**k you're a dumbshit.

where da fuck do you get these so called facts from ? I said he came to Iran from France yes he was LIVING IN FRANCE.Clearly he wasnt the enemy back in those days and he had the support from the west.
Please stay the hell away from politcs and just stay in the army.

quote:

i'm an idiot? "their fingerprints are all over it" = paranoid douche-cock

I dont know the shit they are feeding you rednecks but fuck it is working good.

Here is a good link I found regarding France influence on Khomaini and their support for him.Infact they actually granted him political asylum.Surprise Surprise even tho he pubilically talked about the holy war on Israel while living there

http://www.brusselsjournal.com/node/1857


and a little history of Khomeini


http://www.iranchamber.com/history/...ah_khomeini.php


and finally a good article about how the U.S ended up backstabbing the Shah during the revolution and letting him getting overthrown by the Ayatollah.

http://homepage.mac.com/kaaawa/iblo...4615/index.html

quote:

The Iranian Shah meeting with Alfred Atherton, William Sullivan, Cyrus Vance, President Carter, and Zbigniew Brzezinski, 1977 Facing a revolution, the Shah of Iran sought help from the United States. Iran occupied a strategic place in U.S. foreign policy toward the Middle East, acting as an island of stability, and a buffer against Soviet penetration into the region. He was pro-American, but domestically oppressive. The U.S. ambassador to Iran, William H. Sullivan, recalls that the U.S. national security adviser Zbigniew Brzezinski "repeatedly assured Pahlavi that the U.S. backed him fully," however these reassurances would not amount to substantive action on the part of the United States. On November 4th, 1978, Brzezinski called the Shah to tell him that the United States would "back him to the hilt." At the same time, certain high-level officials in the State Department decided that the Shah had to go, regardless of who replaced him. Brzezinski, and Energy Secretary James Schlesinger (former Secretary of Defense under Ford), continued to advocate that the U.S. support the Shah militarily. Even in the final days of the revolution, when the Shah was considered doomed no matter what the outcome of the revolution came to be, Brzezinski still advocated a U.S. invasion to stabilize Iran. President Carter could not decide how to appropriately use force, opposed a U.S. coup, ordered the Constellation aircraft carrier to the Indian Ocean, but soon countermanded his order. A deal was worked out with the Iranian generals to shift support to a moderate government, but this plan fell apart when Khomeini and his followers swept the country, taking power 12 February 1979. Failed Nojeh Coup In July 1980, the U.S. national security adviser Zbigniew Brzezinski met Jordan's King Hussein in Amman to discuss detailed plans for Saddam Hussein to sponsor a coup in Iran against Khomeini. King Hussein was Saddam's closest confidant in the Arab world, and served as an intermediary during the planning. The Iraqi invasion of Iran would be launched under the pretext of a call for aid from Iranian loyalist officers plotting their own uprising on July 9, 1980 (codenamed Nojeh, after Shahrokhi/Nojeh air base in Hamedan). The Iranian officers were organized by Shapour Bakhtiar, who had fled to France when Khomeini seized power, but was operating from Baghdad and Sulimaniyah at the time of Brzezinski's meeting with Hussein. However, Khomeini learned of the Nojeh Coup plan from Soviet agents in France,Pakistan, and Latin America. Shortly after Brzezinski's meeting with Hussein, the President of Iran, Abolhassan Bani-Sadr quietly rounded up six hundred officers and executed many of them, putting an effective end to the Nojeh Coup [2]. Saddam would decide to invade without the Iranian officer's assistance, beginning the Iran-Iraq war on 22 September 1980.

quote:

Originally posted by hardcore trancer remember Bin Laden? how did he get his power? who supported him? and why is he the great enemy of the America now?

oh, so supporting the mujahadeen (sp?) against unwarranted soviet aggression and invasion is somehow a bad thing??

justify that line of argument to me

edit: it is this kind of selective analysis or emphasis that clearly shows your bias. i think it clouds your judgement {when the US is involved) and undermines what is otherwise justified positions.

quote:

Originally posted by pkcRAISTLIN edit: it is this kind of selective analysis or emphasis that clearly shows your bias. i think it clouds your judgement {when the US is involved) and undermines what is otherwise justified positions.

who hardcore?? no way does he approach an argument with anti-american bias... no way!!

quote:

Originally posted by hardcore trancer you stupid Yank.here let me give you something a litle bit more easier for your shit filled of brain of yours,remember Bin Laden?how did he get his power?who supported him? and why is he the great enemy of the America now?

Bin Laden came to power on his own.

HE travelled to Afghanistan from his home in Saudi Arabia.

He fought the Russians.

HE led the Mujahadeen.

WITH THE WEST'S AND PAKISTAN'S HELP with weapons, money and intel the Mujahadeen defeated the Russians.

the CIA never met Bin Laden in Afghanistan.

HE organized Al Queera in Afghanistan after the success of the Mujahadeen with the idea that if they were that successful against the Russians then he could organize a new Islamic order in what HE saw as a corrupt, fat, and western influenced Middle East.

HE used our help in Afghanistan despite his firm belief that the West was a illegitamate corrupt influence on his homeland and his religion. AND HE HAS BEEN VERY SUCCESSFUL IN THAT ENDEAVOR.

WHAT YOU CONTINUE TO BELIEVE IS A CONVIENIENT INTERNET FALACY THAT IGNORES COMMON SENSE AND FACTS.

quote:

I never said the ayatollah was the west's symbol of freedom

sure

quote:

they introduced Khomaini to the people and the people wanted freedom and freedom of speach and wanted to express their religious beliefs and khomaini promised the people just that.

what?

quote:

where da fuck do you get these so called facts from ? I said he came to Iran from France yes he was LIVING IN FRANCE.

sure

quote:

Ayatollah khomaini came back to Iran from exile in France.

what?

quote:

I dont know the shit they are feeding you rednecks but fuck it is working good.

i'm Asian, so forget EVER, that you are smarter than me. EVAH!

quote:

Originally posted by hardcore trancer Here is a good link I found regarding France influence on Khomaini and their support for him.Infact they actually granted him political asylum.Surprise Surprise even tho he pubilically talked about the holy war on Israel while living there http://www.brusselsjournal.com/node/1857 and a little history of Khomeini and finally a good article about how the U.S ended up backstabbing the Shah during the revolution and letting him getting overthrown by the Ayatollah.

look Hardcore, it is no secret that the Carter administration was no real friend of Israel. Carter favored the Palestinian cause. he still does. he was no fan of the Shah of Iran either. but, back then Iran was a blip on the American foriegn policy radar screen.

Carter was, at best, complacent to the situation happening Iran. Carter probably didn't understand the scope of what was about to happen in Iran. and for the most part, Reagan didn't really understand either. Reagan had bigger problems on his plate when he took office and he underestimated the situation too.

the Iranian Revolution was going to happen regardless of what we did to not help the Shah.

quote:

Originally posted by hardcore trancer you stupid Yank.here let me give you something a litle bit more easier for your shit filled of brain of yours,remember Bin Laden?how did he get his power?who supported him? and why is he the great enemy of the America now? I never said the ayatollah was the west symbol of freedom,I said they used him to get rid of shah. where da fuck do you get these so called facts from ? I said he came to Iran from France yes he was LIVING IN FRANCE.Clearly he wasnt the enemy back in those days and he had the support from the west. Please stay the hell away from politcs and just stay in the army. I dont know the shit they are feeding you rednecks but fuck it is working good.

He was in France a meer 4 months on a traveler's visa. Your facts are completly not accurate. Khomeani spent most of his exile in Najaf Iraq. Additionally, the takeover of the American embassy was very much triggered by the US allowing the Shah to come to the United States for treatment of cancer. This enraged the Iranian people who wanted to try the shah in court.

I find it repulsive that you provide blog posting as evidence for your arguments, which are in themselves not accurate.

quote:

Originally posted by Q5echo Bin Laden came to power on his own. HE travelled to Afghanistan from his home in Saudi Arabia. He fought the Russians. HE led the Mujahadeen. WITH THE WEST'S AND PAKISTAN'S HELP with weapons, money and intel the Mujahadeen defeated the Russians. the CIA never met Bin Laden in Afghanistan. HE organized Al Queera in Afghanistan after the success of the Mujahadeen with the idea that if they were that successful against the Russians then he could organize a new Islamic order in what HE saw as a corrupt, fat, and western influenced Middle East. HE used our help in Afghanistan despite his firm belief that the West was a illegitamate corrupt influence on his homeland and his religion. AND HE HAS BEEN VERY SUCCESSFUL IN THAT ENDEAVOR. WHAT YOU CONTINUE TO BELIEVE IS A CONVIENIENT INTERNET FALACY THAT IGNORES COMMON SENSE AND FACTS.

precisely. the people that think otherwise are those that hadn't heard of him before 2001

quote:

Originally posted by pkcRAISTLIN precisely. the people that think otherwise are those that hadn't heard of him before 2001

TAR AND FEATHER.. yea

ps: are you seriously "rolleyes"ing when you haven't heard of the ****** before 2001 either?

What. a. hypocrite. holy. SHIEEEEEET.

quote:

Originally posted by DJ Shibby TAR AND FEATHER.. yea ps: are you seriously "rolleyes"ing when you haven't heard of the ****** before 2001 either? What. a. hypocrite. holy. SHIEEEEEET.

of course i had you fool. the late night football show turned off and CNN coverage interrupted. i looked at the towers in flames. i heard that two planes had hit them. i said "my money is on bin laden". i had already finished my terrorism hons course.

not sure why you enjoy parading your ignorance and stupid assumptions??

quote:

Originally posted by pkcRAISTLIN oh, so supporting the mujahadeen (sp?) against unwarranted soviet aggression and invasion is somehow a bad thing?? justify that line of argument to me

why is it that everytime U.S supports an individual or a regime for their own benefits it ends up back firing at them later on?
You telling me that Bin Laden was a loving peaceful guy back in those days?

quote:

Originally posted by LazFX who hardcore?? no way does he approach an argument with anti-american bias... no way!!

Right Iam just cool like that dont you know?

quote:

Originally posted by Q5echo the CIA never met Bin Laden in Afghanistan.

wow

so ok maybe just maybe the CIA never met with Bin Laden face to face but the sure as hell did support his cause to fight the Russians.

http://www.conspiracyarchive.com/NW...eated_Osama.htm

quote:

From the article: Milt Bearden, the CIA's station chief in Pakistan from 1986 to 1989, admitted to the January 24, 2000, New Yorker that while he never personally met bin Laden, �Did I know that he was out there? Yes, I did ... [Guys like] bin Laden were bringing $20-$25 million a month from other Saudis and Gulf Arabs to underwrite the war. And that is a lot of money. It's an extra $200-$300 million a year. And this is what bin Laden did.� In 1986, bin Laden brought heavy construction equipment from Saudi Arabia to Afghanistan. Using his extensive knowledge of construction techniques (he has a degree in civil engineering), he built �training camps�, some dug deep into the sides of mountains, and built roads to reach them. These camps, now dubbed �terrorist universities� by Washington, were built in collaboration with the ISI and the CIA. The Afghan contra fighters, including the tens of thousands of mercenaries recruited and paid for by bin Laden, were armed by the CIA. Pakistan, the US and Britain provided military trainers. Tom Carew, a former British SAS soldier who secretly fought for the mujaheddin told the August 13, 2000, British Observer, �The Americans were keen to teach the Afghans the techniques of urban terrorism � car bombing and so on � so that they could strike at the Russians in major towns ... Many of them are now using their knowledge and expertise to wage war on everything they hate.�

quote:

Originally posted by Q5echo HE organized Al Queera in Afghanistan after the success of the Mujahadeen with the idea that if they were that successful against the Russians then he could organize a new Islamic order in what HE saw as a corrupt, fat, and western influenced Middle East. HE used our help in Afghanistan despite his firm belief that the West was a illegitamate corrupt influence on his homeland and his religion. AND HE HAS BEEN VERY SUCCESSFUL IN THAT ENDEAVOR.

So you are admitting that your government helped this "evil terrosist" to help them to defeat the Russians and didnt care about the future consequences of their action.

quote:

Originally posted by hardcore trancer why is it that everytime U.S supports an individual or a regime for their own benefits it ends up back firing at them later on? You telling me that Bin Laden was a loving peaceful guy back in those days?

i dont know. perhaps they choose their "allies" by getting the best of a bad bunch? i really dont understand your point.

im sure there are numerous occasions of US influence not backfiring, but we don't hear nearly as much about them because we dont have people like you reminding us all the time

the enemy of my enemy is my friend. what happens when there is no mor enemy? the friend can often fulfill that role. i dont see how you can lay the blame of bin laden's militarism at the feet of the US. like you imply, he was already a nasty-pasty...i think if you expect all governments to avoid contact with undesirables to be a pretty naive notion.

and again, you havent actually justified how aiding the afghans in their war against the soviets was a bad thing at the time.

Powered by: vBulletin
Copyright © 2000-2021, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.