TranceAddict Forums (www.tranceaddict.com/forums)
- Political Discussion / Debate
-- Nice Job Iran
Pages (4): « 1 2 [3] 4 »

quote:

Originally posted by shaolin_Z So being a non-Western source somehow completely undermines it's credibility?

not at all. but being a government tool, i'm sure there is more fiction than fact to this story, which is not to say the story is absent of truth.

EDIT: i don't know much about the tehran times, but i do know that the story was fed to the paper by an iranian government source. you have to question the intentions of the article.

quote:

Originally posted by jerZ07002 not at all. but being a government tool, i'm sure there is more fiction than fact to this story, which is not to say the story is absent of truth.

As far as I remember, BBC is state funded. It's actually one of the better Western mainstream news sources, although I'll admit the quality has gone down in the last few years... which unfortunately seems to be a phenomenon affecting all media.

quote:

Originally posted by jerZ07002 EDIT: i don't know much about the tehran times, but i do know that the story was fed to the paper by an iranian government source. you have to question the intentions of the article.

Yes, obviously. But I don't see the Iranian goverment having much incentive or reason to make that up... nor would I find it happening to be a complete surprise given the CIA's history, including the last time it participated in tandem with MI-5 to overthrow it's demotratically elected goverment . Plus, umm, perhaps you're forgetting something... but we don't need any fabricated stories to push anti-American sentiment anywhere in the world... you can thank our foreign policy for that .

quote:

Originally posted by shaolin_Z But I don't see the Iranian goverment having much incentive or reason to make that up.

Here's a prime reason: the US government accuses Iran of funding and materially assisting terrorists. Iran is trying to discredit the US on the basis that it is funding and materially supporting groups that are similar to those that the US accuses Iran of supporting (i.e., al qaeda and hezbollah).

as shitty as our government is, i would be highly surprised if they were funding groups that were expressly intending to kill civilians. while the US has a pretty bad track record of funding counter government groups, the US also has, by far, the best track record of assisting ordinary citizens around the world.

quote:

Originally posted by jerZ07002 as shitty as our government is, i would be highly surprised if they were funding groups that were expressly intending to kill civilians. while the US has a pretty bad track record in funding counter government groups, the US has, by far, the best track record of assisting ordinary citizens around the world.

Are you serious?

There is NO DOUBT that the CIA has authorized covert action in Iran for some time now.
Special Forces and the CIA have been conducting incursions and meeting up with local resistance groups:


http://www.atimes.com/atimes/Middle_East/IK28Ak01.html


they are also supplying and arming Iranian Resistance militias like People's Mojahedin Organization of Iran (MEK) a designated Communist, terrorist group responsible for many bombing attacks on Iranian civilians:

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dy...1301782_pf.html


And here's Washington accusing Iran of sponsoring terrorism when they're blatantly doing the same thing...

Of course when America sponsors reprehensible groups and regimes it's "fighting for freedom", when anyone else does it's pure terrorism.

quote:

Originally posted by hardcore trancer Are you serious? There is NO DOUBT that the CIA has authorized covert action in Iran for some time now. Special Forces and the CIA have been conducting incursions and meeting up with local resistance groups: http://www.atimes.com/atimes/Middle_East/IK28Ak01.html they are also supplying and arming Iranian Resistance militias like People's Mojahedin Organization of Iran (MEK) a designated Communist, terrorist group responsible for many bombing attacks on Iranian civilians: http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dy...1301782_pf.html And here's Washington accusing Iran of sponsoring terrorism when they're blatantly doing the same thing... Of course when America sponsors reprehensible groups and regimes it's "fighting for freedom", when anyone else does it's pure terrorism.

you should probably take a second look at what i wrote and at the washington post article. First, i did not say that the US doesn't support anti-Iranian groups. Second, i said that i doubt that the US supports groups that are purposefully killing civilians. Third, that article doesn't state that the US supports that group in any missions against Iran (or where the group kills civilians - in other words, by supply weapons or money), only that it provides security to its compound within Iraq, which doesn't impose additional financial burdens on the US military. Furthermore, the US actually lists the group as a terrorist group, which means not only do the US not supply the group, but it has frozen any assets the group may have that is under control of american businesses (banks and investment banks). Last, the article doesn't say that the group purposefully kills civilians.

quote:

Originally posted by jerZ07002 you should probably take a second look at what i wrote and at the washington post article. First, i did not say that the US doesn't support anti-Iranian groups. Second, i said that i doubt that the US supports groups that are purposefully killing civilians. Third, that article doesn't state that the US supports that group in any missions against Iran (or where the group kills civilians - in other words, by supply weapons or money), only that it provides security to its compound within Iraq. Last, the article doesn't say that the group purposefully kills civilians.

The CIA's covert operations in recent history, including Iran itself, doesn't exactly reflect that. In Iran, it included bombing mosques and school buses as false flag terrorism to further propagate the idea that Massadeq was pro-Communist and "anti-Islam," which wasn't the case but it worked enough to serve the process of installing the Shah who did not have Mossadeq's intention to nationalize Iran oil and deny a monopoly to British Petroleum. It wasn't an independent CIA op, because MI5 was involved as well. But training death squads in Nicaragua and El Salvador is a CIA op. All declassified.

quote:

Originally posted by shaolin_Z The CIA's covert operations in recent history, including Iran itself, doesn't exactly reflect that. In Iran, it included bombing mosques and school buses as false flag terrorism to further propagate the idea that Massadeq was pro-Communist and "anti-Islam," which wasn't the case but it worked enough to serve the process of installing the Shah who did not have Mossadeq's intention to nationalize Iran oil and deny a monopoly to British Petroleum. It wasn't an independent CIA op, because MI5 was involved as well. But training death squads in Nicaragua and El Salvador is a CIA op. All declassified.

who were the death squads killing? that's an honest question because i don't know, but i assume it was political figures and not random mothers and children taking a bus to school.

like i said before, i don't deny that the US has unclean hands in this dirty business. i'm just questioning the facts in that certainly inaccurate article previously posted. Also, i question anyone who says the government knowingly funded groups that purposefully killed civilians. i'm sure the groups killed people, but those people were tactical targets.

quote:

Originally posted by jerZ07002 you should probably take a second look at what i wrote and at the washington post article. First, i did not say that the US doesn't support anti-Iranian groups. Second, i said that i doubt that the US supports groups that are purposefully killing civilians. Third, that article doesn't state that the US supports that group in any missions against Iran (or where the group kills civilians - in other words, by supply weapons or money), only that it provides security to its compound within Iraq. Last, the article doesn't say that the group purposefully kills civilians.

Funny thing about MEK(Mojahedin Organization) is that they claim that they are going to "free Iran" but the fact is they are hated by almost all Iranians inside Iran.This is a very corrupt group and they are considered by many as a terrorist organization.this group is 10X more fanatic then the current regime in Iran.If they ever get their hands on Iran,they country would turn into a big disaster.

I cant understand how a country like the U.S who is extremely anti terrorism goes and shows its support for a disgusting organization like the Mojahedin.

I can dig much deeper regarding the Mojahedin and their truth behind them.Also I would like to mention that this group has tried many times to try to get the U.S. congress approval for their cause and so far they havent been very successful(except for a few Repulican members) at it.

quote:

Originally posted by hardcore trancer Funny thing about MEK(Mojahedin Organization) is that they claim that they are going to "free Iran" but the fact is they are hated by almost all Iranians inside Iran.This is a very corrupt group and they are considered by many as a terrorist organization.this group is 10X more fanatic then the current regime in Iran.If they ever get their hands on Iran,they country would turn into a big disaster. I cant understand how a country like the U.S who is extremely anti terrorism goes and shows its support for a disgusting organization like the Mojahedin. I can dig much deeper regarding the Mojahedin and their truth behind them.Also I would like to mention that this group has tried many times to try to get the U.S. congress approval for their cause and so far they havent been very successful(except for a few Repulican members) at it.

do you see your own contradiction?

quote:

Originally posted by hardcore trancer I cant understand how a country like the U.S who is extremely anti terrorism goes and shows its support for a disgusting organization like the Mojahedin.

then

quote:

Originally posted by hardcore trancer Also I would like to mention that this group has tried many times to try to get the U.S. congress approval for their cause and so far they havent been very successful(except for a few Repulican members) at it.

consistency is highly important to a successful persuasive argument.

quote:

Originally posted by jerZ07002 who were the death squads killing? that's an honest question because i don't know, but i assume it was political figures and not random mothers and children taking a bus to school.

Here is a good article from someone who got turtored by Savak.

http://www.ghandchi.com/14-Savak.htm

and this


http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Savak

quote:

Also, i question anyone who says the government knowingly funded groups that purposefully killed civilians. i'm sure the groups killed people, but those people were tactical targets.

Sure here just a little taste for you:

Korea, 1950 - 100,000 "leftists" and peasants killed by US backed regime.

Guatemala 1954 - democratically elected Jacobo Arbenz Guzm�n is overthrown, right-wing Military Junta installed, executes upto 50,000 "traitors" & "Communists"

Iraq 1963 - The Ba'ath Party led by Abdel Karim Kassem (Saddam's cousin) comes to power with the CIA's help, and is given lists, locations and weapons to rid the country of Communists.

Chile 1973 - Democratically-elected President Salvador Allende is overthrown in a coup with CIA backing and replaced by the right-wing, military dictator Augusto Pinochet who proceeds to lock up, torture or execute anyone he claims is a Communist for around 15 years.

Afghanistan 1980's - The epitome of one's mistakes biting them in the ass, CIA provides widespread arming and funding of Mujahideen militias to deter Soviet Occupation, the same Mujahideen who later formed the vicious and cruel Taliban regime and provided a save haven for Osama and Al-Qaeda.

Nicaragua 1981-1990 - CIA provides arms, funds and training to the right-wing Sandinista Regime (known as the Contras) who executed over 80,000 Nicaraguan civilians. The funding for the Nicarguan Operation came from profits made via secret arms sales to Iran during the Iran-Iraq War.

quote:

Originally posted by jerZ07002 do you see your own contradiction? then consistency is highly important to a successful persuasive argument.

Ofcourse they are are never gonna come out and say that they support this group,since it would make them look as if they support terrorism. What I was trying to say is that they very engaged with the U.S government behind closed doors all the time and they are always seeking for more money from them.

quote:

Originally posted by jerZ07002 who were the death squads killing? that's an honest question because i don't know, but i assume it was political figures and not random mothers and children taking a bus to school. like i said before, i don't deny that the US has unclean hands in this dirty business. i'm just questioning the facts in that certainly inaccurate article previously posted. Also, i question anyone who says the government knowingly funded groups that purposefully killed civilians. i'm sure the groups killed people, but those people were tactical targets.

Well then, I guess that settles it. The fact that we're the biggest sponsorers of terrorism globaly over the last few decades is irrelevant. That's not an opinion, that's a fact because instances of the US (thanks to the CIA) in engaginng in state sponsored terrorism and supporting brutal genocidal dictators far outnumbers anyone to date... and we're a pretty [edit:lol, that was an odd comment with out this word] young [/edit] nation btw... that should tell you something about the relavance of the value of human life as a consideration when formulating policy . Oh and btw, they were literally massacreing villages full of people... you know, those places with women and young children who aren't military targets and certainly don't pose a threat.

quote:

Originally posted by hardcore trancer Here is a good article from someone who got turtored by Savak. http://www.ghandchi.com/14-Savak.htm and this http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Savak

well, i don't read articles from webpages that look to be made on a basic html editor. so, i didn't read the torture article. i did glance at the wiki article which states that SAVAK was an arm of the Iranian government that was modeled by US and israeli advisers. Ok, so the US helped a friendly government create an intelligence agency, so what? what's your point?

quote:

Originally posted by hardcore trancer Sure here just a little taste for you: Korea, 1950 - 100,000 "leftists" and peasants killed by US backed regime. Guatemala 1954 - democratically elected Jacobo Arbenz Guzm�n is overthrown, right-wing Military Junta installed, executes upto 50,000 "traitors" & "Communists" Iraq 1963 - The Ba'ath Party led by Abdel Karim Kassem (Saddam's cousin) comes to power with the CIA's help, and is given lists, locations and weapons to rid the country of Communists. Chile 1973 - Democratically-elected President Salvador Allende is overthrown in a coup with CIA backing and replaced by the right-wing, military dictator Augusto Pinochet who proceeds to lock up, torture or execute anyone he claims is a Communist for around 15 years. Afghanistan 1980's - The epitome of one's mistakes biting them in the ass, CIA provides widespread arming and funding of Mujahideen militias to deter Soviet Occupation, the same Mujahideen who later formed the vicious and cruel Taliban regime and provided a save haven for Osama and Al-Qaeda. Nicaragua 1981-1990 - CIA provides arms, funds and training to the right-wing Sandinista Regime (known as the Contras) who executed over 80,000 Nicaraguan civilians. The funding for the Nicarguan Operation came from profits made via secret arms sales to Iran during the Iran-Iraq War.

in those instances the US provided support to a group for a specific purpose that did not include the purposeful killing of innocent civilians. your brief recitations are by no means solid evidence that the US knowingly provided support to groups in a quest to kill civilians.

quote:

Originally posted by jerZ07002 well, i don't read articles from webpages that look to be made on a basic html editor. so, i didn't read the torture article. i did glance at the wiki article which states that SAVAK was an arm of the Iranian government that was modeled by US and israeli advisers. Ok, so the US helped a friendly government create an intelligence agency, so what? what's your point?

point is that Shah killed and tortured many Iranians and the U.S didnt think there is anything wrong with that at all since Shah was a friend to them.

quote:

in those instances the US provided support to a group for a specific purpose that did not include the purposeful killing of innocent civilians. your brief recitations are by no means solid evidence that the US knowingly provided support to groups in a quest to kill civilians.

What you are failing to see here is that when it comes down to the US foreign policies they always think about themselves and not the consequences of their actions,and the majority of times those consequences ends up killing and devastating millions.

quote:

Originally posted by hardcore trancer What you are failing to see here is that when it comes down to the US foreign policies they always think about themselves and not the consequences of their actions,and almost the majority of times those consequences ends up killing and devastating millions.

It's also interesting to note that some people believe that policy makers have amnesia and / or no knowledge of foreign policy history.

Trancer makes some good points and observations.
That latest story about Iran busting some CIA backed terrorists though, I don't trust that story at all. Have you seen it exposed anywhere in the West? What about Al Jazeera? Did they cover this story?

As for wars dealing with commies, yes some of the regimes we backed were brutal and corrupt, though the communist parties they brought down often had their own lists of people they would have executed. Unfortunately America didnt have too many "honest Abe" type leaders to back in some of the countries of Latin America. Other times you're right - the CIA should have stayed the fuck away instead of making things a lot worse.
Some of the resentment towards the American governments and their policies do appear to make a lot of sense, but the responses of some of these anti-American governments not so much.

Some countries resent it when America or other countries "interfere" in their politics. You gotta remember though that it can be even worse when the West doesn't step in to quel the violence. Shit, it got pretty nasty in Sarajevo in the 90s, in part b/c Germany and France couldn't come to some fundamental agreements. These disagreements meant that the EU's hands were tied, and it's only once America stepped in that things got better. America is also the reason the Nazi party was brought down in Germany - America saved Europe, even though Russia played a huge part in bringing down Hitler (but then again when World War II started with Russia actually siding with Hitler).
Let's take another look at Wikitravel's website, which is usually great at telling you where to sleep and where to go in most cities. It looks pretty gloomy (and funny if you like black humor) if you read up on places like Mogadishu in Somalia:
http://wikitravel.org/en/Mogadishu

No Western backed government there it seems.

quote:

Originally posted by hardcore trancer point is that Shah killed and tortured many Iranians and the U.S didnt think there is anything wrong with that at all since Shah was a friend to them. What you are failing to see here is that when it comes down to the US foreign policies they always think about themselves and not the consequences of their actions,and the majority of times those consequences ends up killing and devastating millions.

listen, i understand how foreign policy decisions are made and where they end up going wrong. however, you need to separate the intention from the consequences. they really are two separate things. the US does not assist these groups with the intent for many of the unfavorable consequences to unfold (namely, killing civilians). after the US has provided assistance with a specific intent (i.e., to overthrow a hostile government), the US can not necessarily control the actions that unfold (i.e., random acts of civilian killings). Because those actions occurred does not mean that the US intended for those specific acts to happen. On the contrary, the US may very well not support those actions, however, after money and weapons were provided there is little the US can do to prevent those actions because the US does not want to make it known they support the overthrow of a government.

quote:

Originally posted by shaolin_Z Well then, I guess that settles it. The fact that we're the biggest sponsorers of terrorism globaly over the last few decades is irrelevant. That's not an opinion, that's a fact because instances of the US (thanks to the CIA) in engaginng in state sponsored terrorism and supporting brutal genocidal dictators far outnumbers anyone to date... and we're a pretty [edit:lol, that was an odd comment with out this word] young [/edit] nation btw... that should tell you something about the relavance of the value of human life as a consideration when formulating policy . Oh and btw, they were literally massacreing villages full of people... you know, those places with women and young children who aren't military targets and certainly don't pose a threat.

are you referring to the US as a pretty young nation? i'm not sure that's accurate if that was your statement. the middle east, africa, and parts of asia are much younger. if it wasn't for immigration the US would be up there with europe as far as ageing.

you say the US is literally massacring villages. massacring means there was an intent to indiscriminately kill a large number of people. i am certain you will have a very difficult time finding a policy directive or multiple instances (that assist in showing intent) to support that claim. you can't establish intent of an entire country or its military by random acts. you need to establish that there was a systematic process that can show the necessary intent or a directive from policy makers.

Arab media sources based in London are claiming that Iran is furious at Syria...for conducting peace talks with Israel.
Keep in mind that it was Turkey, not the US, that has been mediating these talks, and yet Iran is now basically threatening to meddle in this (potential) peace process.
Iranian officials have also threatened moderate Arab countries/leaders that, like Israel, they too will be vanished if they side with the West.

quote:

Originally posted by CHRles Arab media sources based in London are claiming that Iran is furious at Syria...for conducting peace talks with Israel. Keep in mind that it was Turkey, not the US, that has been mediating these talks, and yet Iran is now basically threatening to meddle in this (potential) peace process. Iranian officials have also threatened moderate Arab countries/leaders that, like Israel, they too will be vanished if they side with the West.

Care to name your source?

The name of the newspaper is Asharq Alawast
http://www.asharq-e.com/

quote:

Originally posted by CHRles The name of the newspaper is Asharq Alawast http://www.asharq-e.com/

Specifically...

quote:

Arab media sources based in London are claiming that Iran is furious at Syria...for conducting peace talks with Israel.

You gave me a link to a home page. Where's the article?

quote:

Iranian officials have also threatened moderate Arab countries/leaders that, like Israel, they too will be vanished if they side with the West.

Source? I don't want a home page. Give me the exact article where you got that that from.

Reason is, I think your bullshitting once again...

LOL, of course you would think I'm bullshitting. I haven't bullshitted on any of my posts, while you're the master of BS. Your knowledge of the Middle East is very limited in scope, and you've only taken up interest in it in the past few years. I've always followed the news, and my knowledge of global affairs is way better than yours ever will be.
Not sure if the article has been published in English yet, but go ahead and read some of the other articles there. See what this publication and its editors think of Hezbollah and Iran, as well as Syria.
This is considered a liberal Arab publication if I'm not mistaken, hugely supposrted by the Middle East's moderate leaders.
I suspect it has a bit of a Saudi Arabian and Lebanese slant to it, but it is seen as VERY credible.

quote:

Originally posted by CHRles LOL, of course you would think I'm bullshitting. I haven't bullshitted on any of my posts, while you're the master of BS. Your knowledge of the Middle East is very limited in scope, and you've only taken up interest in it in the past few years. I've always followed the news, and my knowledge of global affairs is way better than yours ever will be. Not sure if the article has been published in English yet, but go ahead and read some of the other articles there. See what this publication and its editors think of Hezbollah and Iran, as well as Syria. This is considered a liberal Arab publication if I'm not mistaken, hugely supposrted by the Middle East's moderate leaders. I suspect it has a bit of a Saudi Arabian and Lebanese slant to it, but it is seen as VERY credible.

EXACTLY...You don't have any sources. All this crap...

quote:

Arab media sources based in London are claiming that Iran is furious at Syria...for conducting peace talks with Israel. Keep in mind that it was Turkey, not the US, that has been mediating these talks, and yet Iran is now basically threatening to meddle in this (potential) peace process. Iranian officials have also threatened moderate Arab countries/leaders that, like Israel, they too will be vanished if they side with the West.

You just pulled out of your ass...

Apparently you know how to read Arabic now???

Your credibility is out the....

Here are some of the articles that make for some interesting reading:
Russia:
http://www.asharq-e.com/news.asp?section=3&id=12791

Changes (for the better) in Iraq
http://www.asharq-e.com/news.asp?section=3&id=12741

Lebanese Syrian border
http://www.asharq-e.com/news.asp?section=3&id=12560

Syria
http://www.asharq-e.com/news.asp?section=2&id=12838

Iran
http://www.asharq-e.com/news.asp?section=2&id=12757

Hezbollah
http://www.asharq-e.com/news.asp?section=3&id=12794
http://www.asharq-e.com/news.asp?section=3&id=12848
http://www.asharq-e.com/news.asp?section=2&id=12740

Barak Obama
http://www.asharq-e.com/news.asp?section=2&id=12839

Israel kills five militants
http://www.asharq-e.com/news.asp?section=1&id=12846

Kuwait
http://www.asharq-e.com/news.asp?section=3&id=12475

Saudi Arabia's youth
http://www.asharq-e.com/news.asp?section=7&id=12836


BTW, there are 3 posters on this board that likely know more about global affairs then the rest of us - George Smiley, pkcraistlin, and Lebezniatnikov

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