Jump to content

Recommended Posts

Posted
3 minutes ago, DogOnPorch said:

 

By 1953...yes he WAS. He as jailing his opponents without trial, employing street thugs and ruling by decree.

Christianity had nothing to do with the 1953 Coup in Iran.

You are revising the history to suit a version of history that suits you but far from truth...


 

Quote

 

According to the CIA's declassified documents and records, some of the most feared mobsters in Tehran were hired by the CIA to stage pro-Shah riots on 19 August. Other CIA-paid men were brought into Tehran in buses and trucks, and took over the streets of the city.[22] Between 200[3] and 300[4]people were killed because of the conflict. Mosaddegh was arrested, tried and convicted of treason by the Shah's military court. On 21 December 1953, he was sentenced to three years in jail, then placed under house arrest for the remainder of his life.[23][24][25] Other Mosaddegh supporters were imprisoned, and several received the death penalty.[11] After the coup, the Shah ruled as monarch for the next 26 years[10][11]until he was overthrown in the Iranian Revolution in 1979.[10][11][26]


 

There you go clearly spelled out who the thugs were and by whom they were paid...

  • Like 1
Posted
5 minutes ago, kactus said:

You are revising the history to suit a version of history that suits you but far from truth...


 

There you go clearly spelled out who the thugs were and by whom they were paid...

 

I have never denied the CIA's role in the Coup. Money for bribes and a big azz airplane to move the Shah around as needed.

It worked.

  • Downvote 2
Posted
Just now, DogOnPorch said:

By 1953...yes he WAS. He as jailing his opponents without trial, employing street thugs and ruling by decree.

Only according to conservatives. What actually happened is that Parliament granted him emergency powers to quell riots that were breaking out everywhere due to public anger and frustration at their maltreatment and impoverishment by Iran's ruling classes.

Quote

Christianity had nothing to do with the 1953 Coup in Iran.

Yes it did, the US and Great Britain are both Christian nations under God.

  • Like 2
  • Downvote 1

A government without public oversight is like a nuclear plant without lead shielding.

Posted
1 minute ago, eyeball said:

Only according to conservatives. What actually happened is that Parliament granted him emergency powers to quell riots that were breaking out everywhere due to public anger and frustration at their maltreatment and impoverishment by Iran's ruling classes.

Yes it did, the US and Great Britain are both Christian nations under God.

 

You're free to have your own alt-history where Mossadeq was a saint. No matter to me.

  • Downvote 1
Posted (edited)
22 minutes ago, DogOnPorch said:

 

By 1953...yes he WAS. He as jailing his opponents without trial, employing street thugs and ruling by decree.

Christianity had nothing to do with the 1953 Coup in Iran.

 

You were the one quoting Mossadegh jailed opponents and employed thugs. Seems now your are back pedaling.

 

I have never denied the CIA's role in the Coup. Money for bribes and a big azz airplane to move the Shah around as needed.

It worked.

Edited by kactus
  • Like 1
Posted
1 minute ago, DogOnPorch said:

 

No I'm not...you've lost this particular battle now you're tending to the wounded...and making stuff-up. It's your only recourse.

 

You make this statement about Mossadegh and then accusing me of making stuff up? Glad everyone can see this.... 

3 minutes ago, kactus said:
  24 minutes ago, DogOnPorch said:

 

By 1953...yes he WAS. He as jailing his opponents without trial, employing street thugs and ruling by decree.

Christianity had nothing to do with the 1953 Coup in Iran.

 

Posted (edited)

This is the source:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1953_Iranian_coup_d'état

 

Quote

According to the CIA's declassified documents and records, some of the most feared mobsters in Tehran were hired by the CIA to stage pro-Shah riots on 19 August. Other CIA-paid men were brought into Tehran in buses and trucks, and took over the streets of the city.[22] Between 200[3] and 300[4]people were killed because of the conflict. Mosaddegh was arrested, tried and convicted of treason by the Shah's military court. On 21 December 1953, he was sentenced to three years in jail, then placed under house arrest for the remainder of his life.[23][24][25] Other Mosaddegh supporters were imprisoned, and several received the death penalty.[11]

So it wasn't Mossadegh after all who jailed his opponents, employing street thugs according to CIA classified documents...Hmmmm!

Edited by kactus
  • Like 1
Posted
4 minutes ago, kactus said:

This is the source:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1953_Iranian_coup_d'état

 

So it wasn't Mossadegh after all who jailed his opponents, employing street thugs according to CIA classified documents...Hmmmm!

 

This morning, you didn't know who or what the Tudeh Party is.

Yet, you feel yourself an expert on the Coup of 1953...lol.

I stand by my posts.

  • Downvote 1
Posted
2 minutes ago, DogOnPorch said:

 

This morning, you didn't know who or what the Tudeh Party is.

Yet, you feel yourself an expert on the Coup of 1953...lol.

I stand by my posts.

Get back to me when you have understood that it wasn't Mossadegh that employed those riots...lol

The rest is just drivel...

  • Like 3
Posted (edited)
32 minutes ago, DogOnPorch said:

 

You're free to have your own alt-history where Mossadeq was a saint. No matter to me.

No one said Mossadegh was a saint, what was said however is that the Anglo-American overthrow of a democratically elected government and installation of a monsterous dictatorship instead was an act of depravity that should be dealt with as a crime against humanity.

Puppet dictators make WMD's look like a reasonable alternative.

 

Edited by eyeball
  • Like 3

A government without public oversight is like a nuclear plant without lead shielding.

Posted
1 minute ago, eyeball said:

No one said Mossadegh was a saint, what was said however is that the Anglo-American overthrow of a democratically elected government was an act of depravity that should be dealt with as a crime against humanity.

 

 

LOL...well, you get right on that. I'm sure you can gather lots of support re: your Crusade to protect innocent Iran from the USA.

 

 

Posted

Have been told by a moderator that revision of history is "off topic" as it is not a competition in history lesson and get a warning for that...This is totally uncalled for as some of the debates here is trying to revise the history even though evidence has been provided...

 

 

 

  • Like 2
Posted

If that's the case the mods should present us with the MLW approved version of history so we can proceed from there.

Otherwise they should follow or stay out of the way.

  • Like 4

A government without public oversight is like a nuclear plant without lead shielding.

Posted
13 minutes ago, DogOnPorch said:

 

Press TV and their ilk...you can watch 'em and tell me what they said. Sound good?

Good.

There are several issues in this way of thinking I believe.

1- You don't want to know the facts and discredit everything others tell you. You were provided with several sources and discredited them all.

2-  You have already made up your mind to have the argument for the sake of winning no matter what. If so, go ahead but do not expect a response...

3- You do have a point in which case will be happy to hear it.

  • Like 1
Posted
11 minutes ago, DogOnPorch said:

LOL...well, you get right on that. I'm sure you can gather lots of support re: your Crusade to protect innocent Iran from the USA.

It's the support for eroding a principle that goes back to the Peace of Westphalia that should be at issue and especially the grotesque means by which it's being eroded.

  • Like 4
  • Downvote 1

A government without public oversight is like a nuclear plant without lead shielding.

Posted
37 minutes ago, DogOnPorch said:

 

Press TV and their ilk...you can watch 'em and tell me what they said. Sound good?

Good.

You are assuming I watch Press TV.  You know what happens when you ASSume.

  • Like 2
Posted
On 09/02/2017 at 2:27 AM, kactus said:

I mean seriously how ridiculous is the argument put forth by some OP...

An Iranian infant requires a delicate surgery whose uncle is an AMERICAN CITIZEN and this is such a big national security to the Orange Oligarch and his supporters that it needs attention on this forum....

Get a grip and get out of your comfort zone and perhaps do a bit of travelling instead of coming up with literally nothing to warrant a ban ordinary citizens....

This is preposterous!

What OP are you talking about? This one referred a dangerous and unstable regime having a nuclear arsenal in a dangerous and unstabe region yet you turn it into tanning choices. Not sure how you made that leap.

  • Like 1
  • Downvote 2
Posted
On 02/02/2017 at 3:22 PM, kactus said:

This is not fact just your opinion framed by anger, hatred and frustration to take on a middle eastern country....

Sorry; the question was not framed in any of those contexts.

Iran is on the verge of being a nuclear power. This concerns me this this thread.

If it doesn't concern you why are you following this thread?

 

  • Like 1
  • Downvote 2
Posted (edited)
7 hours ago, drummindiver said:

What OP are you talking about? This one referred a dangerous and unstable regime having a nuclear arsenal in a dangerous and unstabe region yet you turn it into tanning choices. Not sure how you made that leap.

Israel has initiated and attacked more countries and territories in the region and has killed, displaced more innocent people than any country in the region, including Iran. They have illegal nuclear weapons. But you're okay with that dangerous and unstable 'regime' having nukes and unleashing their military every few years. However, you can't sleep at night thinking about Iran wanting to possess any sort of power to oppose the thug and bully of the region.

There are three types of people when it comes to these discussions:

1) Fanboys who practice hypocrisy. (Example: It's okay for one country to have nukes, destabilize and bully the region, but if another country stands up for themselves, OMG!!!1) 
2) Ignorant people who know very little but love to give their superficial opinions
3) People who are willing to express the truth

We all have a choice.

 

Edited by marcus
  • Like 2
  • Downvote 2

"What do you think of Western civilization?" Gandhi was asked. "I think it would be a good idea," he said.

Posted
9 hours ago, marcus said:

Israel has initiated and attacked more countries and territories in the region and has killed, displaced more innocent people than any country in the region, including Iran. They have illegal nuclear weapons. But you're okay with that dangerous and unstable 'regime' having nukes and unleashing their military every few years. However, you can't sleep at night thinking about Iran wanting to possess any sort of power to oppose the thug and bully of the region.

There are three types of people when it comes to these discussions:

1) Fanboys who practice hypocrisy. (Example: It's okay for one country to have nukes, destabilize and bully the region, but if another country stands up for themselves, OMG!!!1) 
2) Ignorant people who know very little but love to give their superficial opinions
3) People who are willing to express the truth

We all have a choice.

 

Yes,  Israel is such a bully. 8 million ppl in a country a little bigger than PEI making those hundress of millions of hostile muslims shake. How dare they,  right?

Never heard Israel declare their goal is the genocide of the entire muslim community.

Hitler and the leaders of Iran on the other hand.

Superficial opinion? Israel has a right to be there. The Muslim community wants her gone. Israel is not going to use nukes on a reckless way. Iran sure as hell would.

That's the truth.

  • Like 1
  • Downvote 1
Posted (edited)
19 hours ago, drummindiver said:

What OP are you talking about? This one referred a dangerous and unstable regime having a nuclear arsenal in a dangerous and unstable region yet you turn it into tanning choices. Not sure how you made that leap.

This conversation moved on. What you are referring to was discussed much earlier and to be able to follow it you need to read the subsequent posts...

There is no point being selective and hung up one post when so much more has been discussed since...

Edited by kactus

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.

Guest
Unfortunately, your content contains terms that we do not allow. Please edit your content to remove the highlighted words below.
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.


  • Tell a friend

    Love Repolitics.com - Political Discussion Forums? Tell a friend!
  • Member Statistics

    • Total Members
      10,909
    • Most Online
      1,403

    Newest Member
    miawilliams3232
    Joined
  • Recent Achievements

  • Recently Browsing

    • No registered users viewing this page.
×
×
  • Create New...