58
   

Are there any peaceful muslim nations?

 
 
oralloy
 
  -2  
Reply Fri 14 Apr, 2017 11:40 am
@izzythepush,
izzythepush wrote:
And that's not even mentioning the CIA/MI5 coup that ousted a democratically elected government and installed the Shah in the first place.

The role of outsiders was minimal. The coup was mainly the act of the same clerics who still rule Iran today.

But the UK did certainly have a legitimate grievance. Iran was stealing the UK's oil.
0 Replies
 
vikorr
 
  2  
Reply Fri 14 Apr, 2017 06:16 pm
@oralloy,
Quote:
In other words, our lawful self defense against Iranian crimes and aggression.
I take it you aren't aware of politics & economics behind the CIA instigated coup against Iran's President, Mossadegh?

Have a read of All the Shah's Men, and also CIA Legacy of Ashes (which is written from CIA records, as well as interviews with former operatives) on this subject. The last won a pulitzer prize, and is quite detailed and cogent in it's history of the CIA.

The reality is, this event follows similar patterns to it's previous actions, and it's latter actions, such as the events leading up to the founding of Al Qeida.
oralloy
 
  -1  
Reply Sat 15 Apr, 2017 10:20 am
@vikorr,
vikorr wrote:
I take it you aren't aware of politics & economics behind the CIA instigated coup against Iran's President, Mossadegh?

The CIA did not instigate that coup. The coup was instigated by the same clerics who rule Iran today.

The US only decided to participate in the coup once it was clear that it would be happening with or without us.


vikorr wrote:
Have a read of All the Shah's Men, and also CIA Legacy of Ashes (which is written from CIA records, as well as interviews with former operatives) on this subject. The last won a pulitzer prize, and is quite detailed and cogent in it's history of the CIA.

The second book has been denounced as a fabrication.


vikorr wrote:
The reality is, this event follows similar patterns to it's previous actions, and it's latter actions, such as the events leading up to the founding of Al Qeida.

The CIA and the US had nothing to do with the founding of al-Qa'ida.
perennialloner
 
  1  
Reply Sat 15 Apr, 2017 11:12 am
@oralloy,
Well, maybe the US didn't instigate the coup, but they carried it out. We cannot know if the situation would have unfolded as it did without the US involvement. And, the role of outsiders wasn't minimal. If the USA didn't instigate the coup, the British did. They wanted Iranian oil, and Mosaddeq threatened their control of the oil fields. The same clerics who rule Iran today vehemently opposed foreign control in the country, so even if they disagreed with Mossadeq's position on religion in the state, they supported him for other reasons.

A lot of the clerics who turned on Mosaddeq at the time of the coup were influenced by the CIA, including the Shah and Kashani, who went on to mentor Khomeini. It's not like the clerics were acting and thinking independently of the foreigners who had interests in the area. They did communicate. We don't know what would have happened if the US or outsiders in general hadn't been involved considering their involvement was hardly minimal.

oralloy
 
  -1  
Reply Sat 15 Apr, 2017 12:00 pm
@perennialloner,
perennialloner wrote:
Well, maybe the US didn't instigate the coup, but they carried it out. We cannot know if the situation would have unfolded as it did without the US involvement. And, the role of outsiders wasn't minimal.

This is all wrong. The coup was instigated by the Iranians, and they would have launched their coup even without outside help. All the outsiders did was go along with a coup that was already going to happen.


perennialloner wrote:
If the USA didn't instigate the coup, the British did. They wanted Iranian oil, and Mosaddeq threatened their control of the oil fields.

The UK had a legitimate grievance there. They had a right to that oil, and Iran was stealing it from them. But that does not mean they instigated the coup. They merely went along with a coup that was already going to happen.


perennialloner wrote:
The same clerics who rule Iran today vehemently opposed foreign control in the country, so even if they disagreed with Mossadeq's position on religion in the state, they supported him for other reasons.

The clerics didn't support him. They were the ones who overthrew him.


perennialloner wrote:
A lot of the clerics who turned on Mosaddeq at the time of the coup were influenced by the CIA, including the Shah and Kashani, who went on to mentor Khomeini.

We were not exercising mind control over anyone. The clerics who launched the coup were responsible for their own decisions.


perennialloner wrote:
It's not like the clerics were acting and thinking independently of the foreigners who had interests in the area. They did communicate.

Iranians were (and are) capable of thinking for themselves. When they decided to do something, that was their own decision. We are not at fault for other people's decisions.


perennialloner wrote:
We don't know what would have happened if the US or outsiders in general hadn't been involved considering their involvement was hardly minimal.

The Iranians were going to launch their coup even if they had no outside help.
perennialloner
 
  1  
Reply Sat 15 Apr, 2017 12:40 pm
@oralloy,
Sources? There's plenty of material that supports my position.

They didn't 'go along' with the coup. The CIA played an active role in carrying out the coup.

'Supported' is past tense. People have supported people but later have chosen not to. Like you did with Palestinians. For example, the CIA threatened depostion of the Shah alongside Mosaddeq if he did not support the coup. That was one reason he shifted his loyalty - on the eve of the coup, not years before.

I never implied Iranians cannot think for themselves. I said their decision-making was influenced by the involvement of the British and the Americans in their affairs.
camlok
 
  1  
Reply Sat 15 Apr, 2017 01:45 pm
@perennialloner,
You are arguing with a fact-free entity, perennialloner. An intellectual coward, a fellow who the fable Pinocchio was written about.
izzythepush
 
  3  
Reply Sat 15 Apr, 2017 02:07 pm
@perennialloner,
Oralloy is a stranger to reason. The only 'facts' he accepts are the ones he makes up, you'll get no sense from him.
perennialloner
 
  2  
Reply Sat 15 Apr, 2017 03:41 pm
On the subject of US influence on Iranians, this memo from Kermit Roosevelt from July 1953, a month before Mossadeq's overthrow, which was released under the Freedom of Information Act shows the extent of US involvement in the coup.

Quote:
Document 6: CIA, memo from Kermit Roosevelt to [Excised], July 15, 1953

Source: CIA Freedom of Information Act release

Responding to the resignation of Mosaddeq supporters from the Majles, Kermit Roosevelt fires off a plan to ensure that other Majles members keep the parliament functioning, the eventual goal being to engineer a no-confidence in Mosaddeq. The memo provides an interesting clue on the subject of whether CIA operatives ever bought votes in the Majles, about which other CIA sources are vague. Roosevelt urges that as many deputies as possible be "persuaded" to take bast in the parliament. "Recognize [it] will be necessary [to] expend money [to fulfill] this purpose and determine precisely who does what." At the conclusion of the document he appears to tie this scheme into the previously elaborated — but clearly evolving — coup plan.


http://nsarchive.gwu.edu/NSAEBB/NSAEBB435/
0 Replies
 
camlok
 
  2  
Reply Sat 15 Apr, 2017 04:10 pm
@oralloy,
Quote:
In other words, our lawful self defense against Iranian crimes and aggression.


Typical oralloy "logic". It gets more and more logical to him the more times he repeats it.
oralloy
 
  -1  
Reply Sat 15 Apr, 2017 04:35 pm
@perennialloner,
perennialloner wrote:
Sources? There's plenty of material that supports my position.

http://newrepublic.com/article/71731/the-great-satan-myth
oralloy
 
  -1  
Reply Sat 15 Apr, 2017 04:40 pm
@camlok,
camlok wrote:
You are arguing with a fact-free entity,

Says the clown who cannot show a single fact that I am wrong about.


camlok wrote:
An intellectual coward,

The only person here who is lacking in intellectual integrity is you.


camlok wrote:
a fellow who the fable Pinocchio was written about.

Says the clown who can't show a single fact that I am wrong about.
0 Replies
 
oralloy
 
  -1  
Reply Sat 15 Apr, 2017 04:41 pm
@izzythepush,
izzythepush wrote:
Oralloy is a stranger to reason. The only 'facts' he accepts are the ones he makes up, you'll get no sense from him.

Says the clown who cannot point out a single untrue thing that I've ever said.
0 Replies
 
oralloy
 
  -1  
Reply Sat 15 Apr, 2017 04:42 pm
@camlok,
camlok wrote:
oralloy wrote:
In other words, our lawful self defense against Iranian crimes and aggression.

Typical oralloy "logic". It gets more and more logical to him the more times he repeats it.

No. That is what is known as a fact.
0 Replies
 
camlok
 
  1  
Reply Sat 15 Apr, 2017 05:03 pm
perennialloner understands about you now, oralloy, you clinched it.
0 Replies
 
perennialloner
 
  1  
Reply Sat 15 Apr, 2017 06:36 pm
@oralloy,
That article, while very interesting, does not provide any new evidence to suggest the Americans played no significant role in the coup. It's simply an interpretation of events, and I'd argue a misinterpretation. This guy, Milani, for whatever reasons is siding with Americans and apologizing for their involvement but much of what he says does not add up.

Since I brought up the memo from Roosevelt, I'm going to start with what Malani says about him. I will admit he probably did stretch the truth and fabricated some of his experiences in Iran in his memoir, but that doesn't discredit his role in the coup as shown by the memo I linked.

Quote:
In no small measure, the American understanding of the event derives from a 1979 memoir published by Kermit Roosevelt Jr., Theodore’s grandson. Roosevelt, a CIA operative, had indeed slipped across the border and spent considerable sums on black propaganda intended to inflict mortal wounds against Mossadegh. But Roosevelt’s memoir inflated his own and, in turn, America’s centrality to the coup. He tells the story with the relish of a John le Carré knock-off. Although declassified CIA documents would later confirm many details of his account, his version is exceptionally self-serving. Despite having little knowledge of Iranian society and speaking no Persian, he describes launching an instantly potent propaganda campaign. Eisenhower, for one, considered reports like this to be the stuff of “dime novels.”


Malani even admits the CIA documents confirmed not few, but MANY details of his account. The guy cannot even deny that Roosevelt "spent considerable sums on black propaganda intended to inflict mortal wounds against Mossadeq," yet he spends considerable time discrediting the man for the sole purpose of playing him up to be someone who needs to be discredited when he isn't.

Few Americans have even heard of Roosevelt, let alone have read his memoir. I wonder if anyone on here has even read it so I hardly think it colored the American understanding of the coup. Besides, Roosevelt's account is one of many that have been published and are readily available to those who wish to learn about the subject.

And of course Eisenhower would consider Roosevelt's report cheap and fantastical. He died in 1969. Why would he ever admit to American dealings in a COVERT operation.

I looked on goodreads and the book has 4 reviews and 27 ratings, whereas All the Shah's Men has 553 reviews and nearly 5000 ratings, yet somehow it's Roosevelt's memoir that has an "enduring legacy." I don't think so.

This essay honestly baffles me. Malani is both trying to discredit the clerics and Mossadeq to prove that America is good, sending the message that if these bad people are wrong, then America must be right. WRONG. Malani even suggests that because corrupt clerics share the narrative that America imposed itself where it didn't belong the narrative must be wrong.

I could go through this entire thing but it's long so I won't. His point that the US didn't play a crucial role in the coup is absurd. The coup would not have happened when it did and as it did without American-backing. That's a fact. Take a look at all the primary sources if you want to see how it's true.

As much as Malani tries to frame the Americans in Iran as good people caught in a bad situation, you cannot deny despite their "great" intentions the only thing they succeeded in doing was deposing a democratically elected leader, propping up a despot who Malani as a young man actively critcized, and facilitating the rise of the Ayatollah Khomeini who needs no description.

Quote:
None of this is to defend America’s role in the coup. But it was hardly the only or even the decisive factor in his fall. Indeed, in the most obvious instance of its meddling in Iranian history, the United States actually meddled on the side of the very religious establishment that now complains so bitterly about the Great Satan.


Malani even admits the US meddled on Khomeini's side. Malani said this as a defense for American actions in Iran, but if anything it shows their involvement should absolutely not be defended.

Again, it should be noted that we do not know what Iran would like if not for the American- and British-backed coup.














camlok
 
  2  
Reply Sat 15 Apr, 2017 06:42 pm
Is there anyone on the planet who doesn't know that the US is the number one evil in the world. It has been since its genocidal/terrorist beginnings.


Quote:
The CIA has publicly admitted for the first time that it was behind the notorious 1953 coup against Iran's democratically elected prime minister Mohammad Mosaddeq, in documents that also show how the British government tried to block the release of information about its own involvement in his overthrow.

On the 60th anniversary of an event often invoked by Iranians as evidence of western meddling, the US national security archive at George Washington University published a series of declassified CIA documents.

https://www.theguardian.com/world/2013/aug/19/cia-admits-role-1953-iranian-coup
0 Replies
 
vikorr
 
  2  
Reply Sat 15 Apr, 2017 08:30 pm
@oralloy,
There are plenty of investigative journalists who disagree with you.

Further, the 'histories' listed are very consistent with US foreign policy actions, economic motivations, and political fears & motivations that the US has engaged in over the last century (if you also read from other sources)

-----------------------------------------------

One of the difficulties in engaging in such discussions is that to be properly informed, you need to be prepared to look into both sides of the histories. This is because:
- politicians have a vested interested in painting themselves and their legacy in the best possible light
- to that end, political sectors to manipulate what news reaches the populace and the slant that news takes (govt's PR departments) is an area that has grown exponentially. In Australia at least, between 1992-2007 they grew 10 times in size.
- multinationals have a similar vested interest, because it reduces oversight and facilitates profit when they are viewed favourably by their main clientele, even if what they do in 3rd world countries is extremely corrupt / undermines those local industry etc
- newspapers self interest is in generating emotion. To do this, they otherwise generate a scandal, or they play on peoples prejudices, preconceptions and fears...writing things from those perspectives. They steer away from stories that make the populace uncomfortable, or that could damage their brand / reputaton. This means distorted reporting, or non reporting of many events.

Now, whether or not you agree with the above tactics or not is beside the point. The point is that such things above lead to very one sided report, and often non reporting of many events.

Basically, you can't get both sides of history from the mainstream western sources (ie TV news, Newspapers). Without properly looking into such, all you are doing is allowing yourself to be brainwashed. Of course, when you look into both sides, the main question for both sides (the for & against) is

- 'does this make sense fit coherently into the bigger picture?'

The follow up question is to test it's veracity:

- does this hold true for historical, and future events

If the answer is 'yes', then you have something you can use as a guide...

------------------------------------------------------------

I find exactly the same problem with the discussion on Islamist terrorism. News is happy to report people shouting Allahu Akbhar while blowing themselves and other people up...but not to investigate the causes, nor to discuss solutions (other than sloganism)

To find that out for yourself, you need to be willing to look into other sources, and vett both sides versions for consistency with events.
sky123
 
  1  
Reply Sun 16 Apr, 2017 11:16 am
@perennialloner,
Dear perennialloner
Dr Abbas Milani, solely and individually, cannot be viewed as a reliable source for describing the events of that coup. He has been hardly criticized inside the country as an oriented historian. From high school to Phd he has studied in US. Some say he wrote his book " The Shah", while he was living in US, without access to documents and evidences inside the country. You know what I mean? It's not math. It's history. When you write a book about a very important part of the history of a country, you have to go there, find every clue, evidence, document..., discuss with other historians , etc.
In my opinion, sometimes what he writes, is rather a joke than the history...
Whatever that coup was, Dr. Mosaddeq was, is, and will be a very popular and beloved character in the heart of Iranians. His legacy is nationalization of our oil.
But the truth is, our history is full of patriots like Mosaddeq who have been threatened, exiled, banished or killed. We don't have to go deep inside the history to see the US enmity.
During the final periods of Iraq-Iran war, when they saw Iran, growing in strength, under the approval and consent of US, If my memory serves me, Germany, gave chemical weapons to Saddam Hussain. Just have a read on Halabja chemical attack. So bitter. So bitter...
During recent years, one of the imposed sanctions is forbiddance of selling drugs to Iran. DRUGs.
Can anybody believe it? If it is not terrorism, so what is it?
oralloy
 
  -1  
Reply Sun 16 Apr, 2017 05:01 pm
@perennialloner,
perennialloner wrote:
That article, while very interesting, does not provide any new evidence to suggest the Americans played no significant role in the coup.

The point is not whether we provided a role. It was that we were not the driving force behind the coup as is often wrongly portrayed.


perennialloner wrote:
It's simply an interpretation of events,

A bit more than that. Malani points out things like the centrality of the Iranian clerics as the driving force behind the coup.


perennialloner wrote:
and I'd argue a misinterpretation.

I think it will turn out that his facts are all in order.


perennialloner wrote:
This guy, Milani, for whatever reasons is siding with Americans and apologizing for their involvement but much of what he says does not add up.

Again I think it will turn out that his facts are all in order.

His reason is to counter untrue claims and set the record straight.


perennialloner wrote:
Since I brought up the memo from Roosevelt, I'm going to start with what Malani says about him. I will admit he probably did stretch the truth and fabricated some of his experiences in Iran in his memoir, but that doesn't discredit his role in the coup as shown by the memo I linked.
Quote:
In no small measure, the American understanding of the event derives from a 1979 memoir published by Kermit Roosevelt Jr., Theodore’s grandson. Roosevelt, a CIA operative, had indeed slipped across the border and spent considerable sums on black propaganda intended to inflict mortal wounds against Mossadegh. But Roosevelt’s memoir inflated his own and, in turn, America’s centrality to the coup. He tells the story with the relish of a John le Carré knock-off. Although declassified CIA documents would later confirm many details of his account, his version is exceptionally self-serving. Despite having little knowledge of Iranian society and speaking no Persian, he describes launching an instantly potent propaganda campaign. Eisenhower, for one, considered reports like this to be the stuff of “dime novels.”

Malani even admits the CIA documents confirmed not few, but MANY details of his account.

Yes. But the fact that Roosevelt included many true things in his account does not change the fact that the account itself is misleading.


perennialloner wrote:
The guy cannot even deny that Roosevelt "spent considerable sums on black propaganda intended to inflict mortal wounds against Mossadeq,"

Well since it is true, he didn't want to deny it. The point was that Roosevelt had little knowledge of Iranian society and spoke no Persian, yet claims that his propaganda campaign was instantly potent. Roosevelt's claim is simply not believable.


perennialloner wrote:
yet he spends considerable time discrediting the man for the sole purpose of playing him up to be someone who needs to be discredited when he isn't.

The reason for discrediting him is to show that the myth about "the US being the driving force behind this coup" is untrue.


perennialloner wrote:
Few Americans have even heard of Roosevelt, let alone have read his memoir. I wonder if anyone on here has even read it so I hardly think it colored the American understanding of the coup.

Roosevelt's memoir is the source of the myth about the US being the driving force behind the coup.

Anyone who believes that the US came along and imposed this coup on Iran from the outside, has had their understanding colored by his memoir.


perennialloner wrote:
Besides, Roosevelt's account is one of many that have been published and are readily available to those who wish to learn about the subject.

Yes, but his was the one that created the myth that the US came along and imposed this coup on Iran.


perennialloner wrote:
And of course Eisenhower would consider Roosevelt's report cheap and fantastical. He died in 1969. Why would he ever admit to American dealings in a COVERT operation.

It wasn't a matter of admitting to a covert operation. It was a matter of Roosevelt's claims simply not being plausible. Roosevelt made the coup sound like a James Bond film, with Roosevelt playing the role of James Bond.


perennialloner wrote:
I looked on goodreads and the book has 4 reviews and 27 ratings, whereas All the Shah's Men has 553 reviews and nearly 5000 ratings, yet somehow it's Roosevelt's memoir that has an "enduring legacy." I don't think so.

The book's legacy is all the people who seem to think that the US imposed this coup on Iran. That unfortunate legacy seems so far to have endured for a bit.


perennialloner wrote:
This essay honestly baffles me. Malani is both trying to discredit the clerics and Mossadeq to prove that America is good, sending the message that if these bad people are wrong, then America must be right. WRONG.

I didn't see anything about good and bad. What Malani did was show that the clerics were going to have this coup even without outside help.


perennialloner wrote:
Malani even suggests that because corrupt clerics share the narrative that America imposed itself where it didn't belong the narrative must be wrong.

I'm not sure what part you are referring to here. Malani is suggesting that the narrative is wrong because it is factually untrue.


perennialloner wrote:
His point that the US didn't play a crucial role in the coup is absurd. The coup would not have happened when it did and as it did without American-backing. That's a fact. Take a look at all the primary sources if you want to see how it's true.

The Iranian clerics were clearly set on having this coup even without American help.

Would it have unfolded a bit differently without American backing? Probably. But it still would have happened.


perennialloner wrote:
As much as Malani tries to frame the Americans in Iran as good people caught in a bad situation, you cannot deny despite their "great" intentions the only thing they succeeded in doing was deposing a democratically elected leader, propping up a despot who Malani as a young man actively critcized,

Well that is what the coup achieved. Crediting the coup to the US is a bit of a stretch.


perennialloner wrote:
and facilitating the rise of the Ayatollah Khomeini who needs no description.

It is a bit of a stretch to credit the coup for creating Khomeini.


perennialloner wrote:
Quote:
None of this is to defend America’s role in the coup. But it was hardly the only or even the decisive factor in his fall. Indeed, in the most obvious instance of its meddling in Iranian history, the United States actually meddled on the side of the very religious establishment that now complains so bitterly about the Great Satan.

Malani even admits the US meddled on Khomeini's side. Malani said this as a defense for American actions in Iran, but if anything it shows their involvement should absolutely not be defended.

What Malani is pointing out here is the fact that the Iranian clerics were the driving force behind the coup. The "meddling" that he refers to here was our participation in the coup.


perennialloner wrote:
Again, it should be noted that we do not know what Iran would like if not for the American- and British-backed coup.

Without US and UK backing, Iran would have a had a coup without international backing (unless they'd secured backing from a different party, perhaps the Soviets).

I'm sure that Iran would have liked "the Shah under Soviet backing" a lot less than they liked "the Shah with the US prodding him towards democracy".
 

Related Topics

 
Copyright © 2021 MadLab, LLC :: Terms of Service :: Privacy Policy :: Page generated in 0.04 seconds on 11/30/2021 at 06:43:25