|
Nice Job Iran (pg. 6)
|
View this Thread in Original format
| hardcore trancer |
| 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. |
|
|
| shaolin_Z |
| 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. |
|
|
| 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?
| 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 Guzmán 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. |
|
|
| hardcore trancer |
| 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. |
|
|
| shaolin_Z |
| 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. |
|
|
| CHRles |
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 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. , 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. |
|
|
| jerZ07002 |
| 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. |
|
|
| jerZ07002 |
| 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. |
|
|
| 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. |
|
|
| Krypton |
| 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? |
|
|
| Krypton |
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 bullting once again...:rolleyes: |
|
|
|
|
