What will Iran bomb first?

[Oliver]

No. In order for that argument to make any sense, I'd have to agree with Iran's assessment of the CIA, and I don't.

Did I say that Iran would use nuclear weapons against Israel? No, I didn't. Pay attention, Oliver. I'm not here to cure your stupidity, you've got to do that on your own.

What Shadowdweller said plus: So we agree that Iran's reactor and nuclear
facilities aren't a threat, even if they would build nukes - breaching the NPT?

 

[Ziggurat]

Please, bring evidence that "the military wing of Hezbollah defined as a terrorist organization by most countries".

You grow tiresome, and you're avoiding the original question. Do you consider Hezbollah's military wing to be a terrorist organization? I don't want someone else's opinion, I want yours.

It depends on how you define "terrorist activities".

Since you've been trying so hard to avoid saying whether or not Hezbollah's military wing is a terrorist organization, I'm rather curious about how you define the term. Or, for that matter, if you define the term at all.

 

[Ziggurat]

So we agree that Iran's reactor and nuclear
facilities aren't a threat, even if they would build nukes - breaching the NPT?

No, Oliver. Your attempts at characterizing the threat that I think they pose is wrong, but I said nothing about them not being a threat. I guess the cure still eludes you.

 

[WildCat]

In which case you are every bit as ignorant about the subject as Matteo Martini is about American politics. Try looking up the following subjects:

Operation Ajax (Iran)

This gets so distorted with every telling it's ridiculous. Iran's leader had managed to piss off the entire government, which he then dissolved setting the stage for a coup of which either the Communists backed by the USSR, the monarchists backed by the West, or the Islamists would eventually win out. It was clearly in the US interest (and the wewst in general) for the Monarchists to be in control. And it was a primarily Iranian operation, all the CIA did was share the list of known Communist operatives with the Monarchists. The Soviets were stunned, thinking they had Iran already in the bag as their next satellite state.

Iran wasn't some happy little democracy destroyed by the big bad US with their CIA, it was a fractured country undergoing great internal upheaval that wasn't going to continue in a democratic fashion if the west had just looked the other way.

 

[Matteo Martini]

You grow tiresome, and you're avoiding the original question. Do you consider Hezbollah's military wing to be a terrorist organization? I don't want someone else's opinion, I want yours.

Since you've been trying so hard to avoid saying whether or not Hezbollah's military wing is a terrorist organization, I'm rather curious about how you define the term. Or, for that matter, if you define the term at all.

Again, I replied to your question clarifying that it is not clear to me the definition of "terrorist organization".
What does it mean, "terrorist organization"?
Maybe it is.
Maybe, also the Government of the US can be defined as such.
I do not know, as I do not know how to classify an organization as "terrorist" with sevure criteria.
I hope that this will be enough as a reply.

Now, if you please can bring evidence that "the military wing of Hezbollah defined as a terrorist organization by most countries".

 

[Matteo Martini]

This gets so distorted with every telling it's ridiculous. Iran's leader had managed to piss off the entire government, which he then dissolved setting the stage for a coup of which either the Communists backed by the USSR, the monarchists backed by the West, or the Islamists would eventually win out. It was clearly in the US interest (and the wewst in general) for the Monarchists to be in control. And it was a primarily Iranian operation, all the CIA did was share the list of known Communist operatives with the Monarchists. The Soviets were stunned, thinking they had Iran already in the bag as their next satellite state.

Iran wasn't some happy little democracy destroyed by the big bad US with their CIA, it was a fractured country undergoing great internal upheaval that wasn't going to continue in a democratic fashion if the west had just looked the other way.

So, all the operations named by ShadowDweller are invented?

 

[WildCat]

So, all the operations named by ShadowDweller are invented?

How on earth would you come to that conclusion based on my post?

Your ability to understand English seems to come and go at your convenience.

 

[Ziggurat]

Again, I replied to your question clarifying that it is not clear to me the definition of "terrorist organization".
What does it mean, "terrorist organization"?
Maybe it is.
Maybe, also the Government of the US can be defined as such.
I do not know, as I do not know how to classify an organization as "terrorist" with sevure criteria.
I hope that this will be enough as a reply.

It is not. All I see from you is a rather pathetic attempt to try to avoid acknowleging Iran's active participation in the deliberate targeting and murder of civilians. Makes whatever excuses you want to, but your appologism for tyranny has now extended itself into appologism for terrorists. You are the definition of a useful fool.

 

[FireGarden]

This gets so distorted with every telling it's ridiculous. Iran's leader had managed to piss off the entire government, which he then dissolved setting the stage for a coup of which either the Communists backed by the USSR, the monarchists backed by the West, or the Islamists would eventually win out. It was clearly in the US interest (and the wewst in general) for the Monarchists to be in control. And it was a primarily Iranian operation, all the CIA did was share the list of known Communist operatives with the Monarchists.

They did more than that according to CNN:
http://transcripts.cnn.com/TRANSCRIPTS/0004/19/i_ins.00.html

When Iran nationalized the industry, the British government, under Prime Minister Winston Churchill, was furious. London set out to topple the man it blamed - the democratically elected prime minister, Mohammed Mossadegh.

[...] [Britain and the US] chose a general to lead the coup and worked hard to convince the reluctant and vacillating shah to take part. The U.S. even paid for violence and demonstrations to sow confusion.

[...] MADELEINE ALBRIGHT, U.S. SECRETARY OF STATE: The coup was clearly a setback for Iran's political development, and it is easy to see now why many Iranians continue to resent this intervention by America in their internal affairs.

[...] I think that's one of the most surprising aspects that I found in this history is the contempt that the CIA held for the shah, and the degree to which they saw him as a vacillating coward who had to be constantly bucked up to do what the CIA wanted him to do.

The CIA really didn't ask him to do very much. All they wanted him to do was to sign a couple of royal decrees, one dismissing Mr. Mossadegh and the second appointing General Zahedi, who was a retired Iranian general who the CIA and British intelligence had handpicked to be Mr. Mossadegh's successor as prime minister. And they couldn't get the shah to even do that for weeks.

Iran becoming more influenced by the USSR was a factor:

And as you pointed out earlier, they really were - there did seem to be a genuine concern by the Eisenhower administration about the Soviet threat in Iran. And while the British seemed overly concerned about oil and their access to Iranian oil, the Eisenhower administration really did seem to be worried that the Soviet influence would increase as the instability - political instability in Iran increased under Mossadegh.

And that seemed to be their - the motivating factor behind the decision to overthrow Mossadegh.

 

[Matteo Martini]

It is not. All I see from you is a rather pathetic attempt to try to avoid acknowleging Iran's active participation in the deliberate targeting and murder of civilians. Makes whatever excuses you want to, but your appologism for tyranny has now extended itself into appologism for terrorists. You are the definition of a useful fool.

Ziggurat, you are lying.
I have apologized nothing.
I was talking about the definition of "terrorist organization".
The CIA deliberately targeted civilians too.
I did not apologized that in the case of the CIA and I do not apologized it in the case of Hezbollah.

You have got caught with your pants down with your sentence "the military wing of Hezbollah defined as a terrorist organization by most countries".

Ah! So much time wasted talking to you..
In my opinion, you are joining dubalb in the list of the people with who it is not possible to have a rational discussion.
Let`s see if WildCat also joins that list soon..

 

[Matteo Martini]

How on earth would you come to that conclusion based on my post?

Your ability to understand English seems to come and go at your convenience.

Why did the US got involved in a coup d` etat against a democracy, then?

 

[WildCat]

In my opinion, you are joining dubalb in the list of the people with who it is not possible to have a rational discussion.
Let`s see if WildCat also joins that list soon..

Priceless!

 

[Ziggurat]

Ziggurat, you are lying.
I have apologized nothing.

Sure you have. Every single time you compare the US to one of our enemies, you try to make that comparison favor our enemies. You are entirely predictable in the stances you take: if it involves a conflict between the US and an enemy, you always favor the enemy. Make whatever excuses you want to about how you don't actually like those enemies either, but the pattern is rather clear.

Ah! So much time wasted talking to you..
In my opinion, you are joining dubalb in the list of the people with who it is not possible to have a rational discussion.

That's rich, coming from you.

 

[WildCat]

Why did the US got involved in a coup d` etat against a democracy, then?

The democracy was ending amidst an enormous power struggle, and in the peak of the Cold War it was feared that Mossadegh was leaning towards the Marxists and the Soviets. His opposition were the Islamists and the Monarchists. It was in the US interest that the Monarchists won out in this power struggle.

The US and Britain didn't create the power struggle so much as they managed it to their benefit. You know, just as some here have claimed Iraq would have been better managed by Saddam remaining in power rather than the war necessary for it to get the democratically elected government it has now.

 

[Matteo Martini]

The democracy was ending amidst an enormous power struggle, and in the peak of the Cold War it was feared that Mossadegh was leaning towards the Marxists and the Soviets. His opposition were the Islamists and the Monarchists. It was in the US interest that the Monarchists won out in this power struggle.

The US and Britain didn't create the power struggle so much as they managed it to their benefit. You know, just as some here have claimed Iraq would have been better managed by Saddam remaining in power rather than the war necessary for it to get the democratically elected government it has now.

Mohammad Mosaddeq has been elected prime minister by regular elections in Iran in 1951.
Even conceding that he was "leaning towards the Marxists and the Soviets" (thing I do not know), who gave the US the authority to interfere in Iran`s own country affairs?
If an elected Prime Minister wants to lean torwards Mars, is not it a business only of that Prime Minister and the citizens of that country?

 

[Ziggurat]

Mohammad Mosaddeq has been elected prime minister by regular elections in Iran in 1951.

And was re-elected by non-regular elections with non-secret ballots in 1953. Surprise, surprise: he won over 99% of the vote. Kinda like Saddam.

 

[RandFan]

Offering nuclear fuel to another country is a threat?

?

I never said it was.

Oh, and despite cowards, those [including UN-]guys just visited Iran:
Former global leaders in Iran to support Khatami

Does't disprove my claim.

 

[Shadowdweller]

This gets so distorted with every telling it's ridiculous. Iran's leader had managed to piss off the entire government, which he then dissolved setting the stage for a coup of which either the Communists backed by the USSR, the monarchists backed by the West, or the Islamists would eventually win out. It was clearly in the US interest (and the wewst in general) for the Monarchists to be in control. And it was a primarily Iranian
operation, all the CIA did was share the list of known Communist operatives with the Monarchists. The Soviets were stunned, thinking they had Iran already in the bag as their next satellite state.

This is very simply, flat out wrong. Declassified CIA documents show the CIA and SIS pouring literally millions of dollars into pro-shah elements. Covert deception and initimidation campaigns were initiated to destabilize support for Mossadegh. The CIA lists techniques such as making fake bomb threats against third party leaders supposedly on behalf of Mossadegh's supporters or the Tudeh (communist) party. Militia groups beating anti-shah demonstrators. Reams of false criticism against Mossadegh were disseminated into the press. One passage baldly states that 1,000,000 rials per week (90 rials per dollar) were authorized toward buying out members of the Majlis (parliament).

Furthermore the Shah, originally and rightly (although not perhaps in the manner originally conceived of) suspicious of British and American influence had to be extensively manipulated by the joint intelligence agencies before he agreed to even marginal co-operation. CIA accounts make it clearly apparent that the operation was very tightly orchestrated by the CIA and SIS.

Examples of said documents themselves may be read here:
http://www.gwu.edu/~nsarchiv/NSAEBB/NSAEBB28/#documents

Mossadegh was not some heavy-handed would-be dictator refusing to leave office after many years and terms of service. He was originally appointed in 1951. He resigned in 1952 when the Shah refused to allow him to appoint cabinet members via emergency powers. When his successor started to cave in to the British with respect to oil, Iranian political parties (specifically the National Front and Tudeh) revolted and had him reinstated. He was wildly popular at the time.

And was re-elected by non-regular elections with non-secret ballots in 1953. Surprise, surprise: he won over 99% of the vote. Kinda like Saddam.

A special election which occurred AFTER Mossadegh's supporters had figured out that the US and Britain were conducting covert manipulations in their territory.

ETA: For the record, I did NOT list the extent and severity of CIA misdeeds during the operation. Only examples relevant to my responses.

 

[Ziggurat]

A special election which occurred AFTER Mossadegh's supporters had figured out that the US and Britain were conducting covert manipulations in their territory.

So because we were interfering with their democracy, Mossadegh decided to just do away with it. That's one hell of a poster boy for democracy you picked there.

 

[Shadowdweller]

So because we were interfering with their democracy, Mossadegh decided to just do away with it. That's one hell of a poster boy for democracy you picked there.

In the face of a foreign power sending militia groups out to strongarm government factions, pouring vast amounts of money into an impoverished nation to conduct bribes, and spreading huge amounts of disinformation throughout the press? Grow up.