Immediate Threat is a Lie!

[Jack Hays]

No, I'm just bright enough to be able to join the dots from 1953. Are you?

www.foreignaffairs.com › articles › middle-east › what-really-happen...

[h=3]What Really Happened in Iran - Foreign Affairs[/h]

Jun 16, 2014 - Conventional wisdom about the 1953 coup in Iran rests on the myth that the CIA toppled ... By Ray Takeyh ... was held by the Anglo-Iranian Oil Company, whose majority shareholder happened to be the British government.

 

[ecofarm]

No, I'm just bright enough to be able to join the dots from 1953. Are you?

You praise and slurp a totalitarian theocracy. You have no space whatsoever to criticize Republicans.

 

[snakestretcher]

You praise and slurp a totalitarian theocracy. You have no space whatsoever to criticize Republicans.

Don't lie please. I have not praised anyone.

 

[ecofarm]

Don't lie please. I have not praised anyone.

I saw praise.

 

[Jack Hays]

Iran sowed the wind and now reaps the whirlwind.

World
Associated Press
[h=3][FONT=&quot]Masked gunmen kill local commander of Iran's security forces[/FONT][FONT=&quot]
[/FONT]
[/h]

 

[justabubba]

Iran sowed the wind and now reaps the whirlwind.

World
Associated Press
[h=3][FONT="]Masked gunmen kill local commander of Iran's security forces[/FONT][/URL][FONT="]
[/FONT]
[/h]

any chance those assassins spoke hebrew during the hit

 

[Jack Hays]

any chance those assassins spoke hebrew during the hit

A local commander would not normally be important enough for their target list.

 

[justabubba]

A local commander would not normally be important enough for their target list.

could he have been in line to ratchet up to a position closer to soleimani's

 

[Jack Hays]

could he have been in line to ratchet up to a position closer to soleimani's

Unlikely, but I don't know.

 

[justabubba]

Unlikely, but I don't know.

could be an inter-tribal conflict ... but such a clean hit so soon after soleimani causes me to consider the mossad as the possible perpetrator

 

[Jack Hays]

could be an inter-tribal conflict ... but such a clean hit so soon after soleimani causes me to consider the mossad as the possible perpetrator

To their credit if true, but as I said, I don't think he was worth their time.

 

[Jack Hays]

Alarmists Were Wrong About the Soleimani Strike
Hassan Hassan, National Review

 

[snakestretcher]

Iran sowed the wind and now reaps the whirlwind.

World
Associated Press
[h=3][FONT="]Masked gunmen kill local commander of Iran's security forces[/FONT][/URL][FONT="]
[/FONT]
[/h]

No, I think you'll find the seeds were sown when your CIA, with the collusion of Great Britain, overthrew a legitimate democratic government in Iran and installed a vicious and murderous, US-friendly, puppet dictator in its place. The rest, as they say, is history...
We, the West, and our incessant meddling where we have no business, created the conditions for today's Iran.

 

[Jack Hays]

No, I think you'll find the seeds were sown when your CIA, with the collusion of Britain, overthrew a legitimate democratic government in Iran and installed a vicious and murderous, US-friendly, puppet dictator in its place. The rest, as they say, is history...
We, the West, and our incessant meddling where we have no business, created the conditions for today's Iran.

Nope. That's fake history.

www.foreignaffairs.com › articles › middle-east › what-really-happen...

What Really Happened in Iran - Foreign Affairs

Jun 16, 2014 - Conventional wisdom about the 1953 coup in Iran rests on the myth that the CIA toppled ... By Ray Takeyh ... was held by the Anglo-Iranian Oil Company, whose majority shareholder happened to be the British government.

 

[snakestretcher]

Nope. That's fake history.

www.foreignaffairs.com › articles › middle-east › what-really-happen...

What Really Happened in Iran - Foreign Affairs

Jun 16, 2014 - Conventional wisdom about the 1953 coup in Iran rests on the myth that the CIA toppled ... By Ray Takeyh ... was held by the Anglo-Iranian Oil Company, whose majority shareholder happened to be the British government.

Whose 'fake history'? Sorry mate, I don't deal in revisionist propaganda. Every competent historian understands exactly what happened.

CIA Confirms Role in 1953 Iran Coup

Operation Ajax | Lapham’s Quarterly

 

[Jack Hays]

Whose 'fake history'? Sorry mate, I don't deal in revisionist propaganda. Every competent historian understands exactly what happened.

CIA Confirms Role in 1953 Iran Coup

Operation Ajax | Lapham’s Quarterly

There's no doubt the CIA was active. It just turns out it didn't matter. The story is nonetheless useful to the mullahs.
Speaking of whom: For years after taking power the Shah paid the mullahs to keep quiet. They were glad to take the money and they did indeed keep quiet. One complication was that they would not take the cash directly from him, so American intermediaries were needed to actually pass the funds. Then Jimmy Carter was elected President of the US. He decided Americans shouldn't be paying off clergymen, so the payments stopped. The Iranian revolution began the next year.

 

[snakestretcher]

There's no doubt the CIA was active. It just turns out it didn't matter. The story is nonetheless useful to the mullahs.
Speaking of whom: For years after taking power the Shah paid the mullahs to keep quiet. They were glad to take the money and they did indeed keep quiet. One complication was that they would not take the cash directly from him, so American intermediaries were needed to actually pass the funds. Then Jimmy Carter was elected President of the US. He decided Americans shouldn't be paying off clergymen, so the payments stopped. The Iranian revolution began the next year.

Fact remains that had we not been greedy for Iran's oil, we wouldn't be in the situation that we find ourselves today, and Iran would no doubt have continued to be a pro-Western democracy.

 

[Jack Hays]

Fact remains that had we not been greedy for Iran's oil, we wouldn't be in the situation that we find ourselves today, and Iran would no doubt have continued to be a pro-Western democracy.

Nope. The US actually was on Iran's side vs the Brits until Mossadegh alienated Persian opinion, to include the mullahs, btw.

www.nationalreview.com › 2015/07 › what-really-happened-shahs-iran

[h=3]Iran: The Shah, Mossadegh, and the CIA | [site:name ...[/h]

Jul 24, 2015 - The Shah refused; Mossadegh resigned, and began to organize ... Iran did not fall to the mullahs because of “the hated Shah,” as Ron Paul has ...

 

[snakestretcher]

Nope. The US actually was on Iran's side vs the Brits until Mossadegh alienated Persian opinion, to include the mullahs, btw.

www.nationalreview.com › 2015/07 › what-really-happened-shahs-iran

[h=3]Iran: The Shah, Mossadegh, and the CIA | [site:name ...[/h]

Jul 24, 2015 - The Shah refused; Mossadegh resigned, and began to organize ... Iran did not fall to the mullahs because of “the hated Shah,” as Ron Paul has ...

Sorry, I'm not about to accept any 'facts' from a source with a known far-right bias; your National Review-especially when an article goes on to describe the work of one of our foremost and most respected historians, Noam Chomsky, as "nonsense". At that point all credibility gets flushed.

 

[Jack Hays]

Sorry, I'm not about to accept any 'facts' from a source with a known far-right bias; your National Review-especially when an article goes on to describe the work of one of our foremost and most respected historians, Noam Chomsky, as "nonsense". At that point all credibility gets flushed.

Noam Chomsky? No wonder you've everything backwards.

newcriterion.com › issues › a-disgraceful-career

[h=3]A disgraceful career | The New Criterion[/h]

One of the main reasons Noam Chomsky's political views are taken seriously in ... to give up the principle and simply avoided mentioning Ross's critique.

 

[snakestretcher]

Noam Chomsky? No wonder you've everything backwards.

newcriterion.com › issues › a-disgraceful-career

[h=3]A disgraceful career | The New Criterion[/h]

One of the main reasons Noam Chomsky's political views are taken seriously in ... to give up the principle and simply avoided mentioning Ross's critique.

Great, more right-wing opinion. Got anything non-partisan to offer, or are you going to persist with bias?

 

[Jack Hays]

Great, more right-wing opinion. Got anything non-partisan to offer, or are you going to persist with bias?

I do not consider New Criterion to be especially right wing.
Regardless, you continue to evade the historical record.

 

[snakestretcher]

I do not consider New Criterion to be especially right wing.
Regardless, you continue to evade the historical record.

What 'historical record', the right-wing biased revisionist one you presented earlier, which no competent historian concurs with (including the CIA, by the way)?

 

[Jack Hays]

What 'historical record', the right-wing biased revisionist one you presented earlier, which no competent historian concurs with (including the CIA, by the way)?

Please start with #664 and go forward from there. Regarding the CIA, the point is not that they were not active, but rather that their activity didn't matter.

 

[snakestretcher]

Please start with #664 and go forward from there. Regarding the CIA, the point is not that they were not active, but rather that their activity didn't matter.

You're serious? The CIA virtually bought the Shah into power; bribing, funding and organising mass street protests! Their activity was critical in the overthrow of Mossadegh's democratically elected government. It appears that only pro-Shah revisionists, for their own reasons, disagree with the facts on the ground which even the CIA finally admitted to. Only Britain has never admitted to her part in the entire sordid affair.