Definitely.

I also believe the reporter asking that question was planted. I believe that the US wanted a way to save face, perhaps because they understood that Russia and other nations is not going to "let this one slip".

You can even see the way Kerry responds, and how he adds "but that's not going to happen, obviously" and body language etc.

USA wanted to save face so they are not shown as weak. Afterwards they also went out to say that it was a mistake etc. It's obvious.

>Gee I wonder how those psychopaths got into power. USA helped them to get power in 1979 by overthrowing the Shah. > It's not like the CIA overthrew That is correct. CIA did not overthrow anyone. Just because they say they did, does not mean they are speaking the truth. The people overthrew Mossadeq because of many reasons. One reason being his dictatorial actions. Another one being him destroying the economy of Iran by his actions. >their democratically elected leader Mossadeq was not democratically elected. >and installed The Shah was never installed. He was the Shah all the time during this whole Mossadeq business. The Shah was the king, Mossadeq the prime minister. >their own lap dog This is a common misconception. In fact all the Shah's words and actions show that he was not pro-USA at all. He had friendly relations but refused to be push around by USA.

> these muslim countries don't want freedom and democracy

Hehe. You say that as if western freedom and democracy is really freedom and democracy. I can give you a really long list of every time freedom has been overran and democracy not being democracy. I can also give you a long list of western hypocrisy.

> they want Ayatollah's and dictators.
No they do not want these. USA and it's allies have always intervened in middle east, stirring up fights and creating chaos. Most of these dictators, ayatollahs, have been put in power by your great nation that loves freedom & democracy.

> Stay the fuck out of syria. Let them use chemical weapons on each other
This has nothing to do with chemical weapons. USA have since a long time planned to remove Assad. Chemical weapons was an excuse to pretend they want to invade for humanitarian reasons. But it is not humanitarian reasons. It is all about money, power & world politics.

For example, why do you think the civil war is so bloody? USA and it's allies have provided the rebels (contentiously) with weapons, non-lethal equipment, intelligence support etc.

Come on, stop pretending you are the angels of this world.

>Why not let the Middle East countries clean up their own mess for once?

Middle East countries would not have a "mess" if western nations never interfered in it. Western nations have since early days interfered in the middle east because of, among other reasons, oil. They have intentionally caused instability to be able to exploit the nations. They have intentionally armed and trained rebels and non-rebels to put fuel on the fire etc.

Hey.

I came back to ask you if you are going to call the leaders of USA monsters as well.

See for example just today, http://yro.slashdot.org/story/13/06/06/0140252/verizon-ordered-to-provide-all-customer-data-to-nsa

I wouldn't be surprised if other things are saved as well. Facebook posts, emails, website history. Huge databases of everything about you, your political opinion etc probably even exists too. When they are collecting it all, and lying that they are not...especially in a "democratic nation"

And this is not mentiong all the torture USA is doing today. Secret prisons. Secret missions. Secret asassinations. Secret kidnappings. Mind control projects. Experiments on it's population...

They have really succeed. In order to hide their own shit they have created hate against other nations and you fell for it. But I sincerly hope you do the same thing when it comes to these so called democratic nations too.

What? I don't understand all of your text.

They did not put the Shah on his throne. What they did was forcing his father [Reza Shah the Great] to abdicate - again, imperalists.

Even today you are imperalists. But you don't have the balls to say anything about USA or UK, much worse than the Shah. Only reason for that is probably because you have the same imperalist thinking in your head and want to bash on other nations who challanged yours.

Also stop posting multiple replies when you are mad. Put it in all one tidy reply.

Also, I confused the flat earth isse with the question of earth moving arond sun. That's what I actually meant, while I was thinking of Galileo. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Galileo_Galilei#Controversy_over_heliocentrism

"Galileo was found "vehemently suspect of heresy", namely of having held the opinions that the Sun lies motionless at the centre of the universe, that the Earth is not at its centre and moves, and that one may hold and defend an opinion as probable after it has been declared contrary to Holy Scripture"

Same thing still applies there.

In all of my text, all you can comment is that part? You didn't say anything about the other parts, because you don't want to change your mind. You are probably feeling uncomfortable now knowing that what your american sources are telling you might be wrong.

Winners do write history, two posts above you wrote that "history" says so - now it's too recent to be history? History does not have to 1000 years ago. What happened yesterday is history.

Do you even know what you are doing? You are so damn close minded and brainwashed it is unbelivable.

Cherrypick? If I show a source, it's cherrypicking. If I don't, then I am lying. What? There are thousands of examples like this. It's the same situation now.

The Shah was a monster, says the guy who knows nothing about Iran, Iranian culture, Iranian kings, Iranian people. Only thing you know is what you have read from media. The same media you insult in other posts for being biased, but when it comes to this - they must be true. Thanks for once again showing the imperalist ideas that exists in your nations, then you wonder why people dislike you. Always imperalists. Obiviously the Shah must have been a monster and USA is the greatest nation in the world - except that the real monsters are there day by day taking away your right.

For someone who is active on slashdot and on the internet I am really surprised how damn close minded you are. Especially considering how almost every thread contains info about how biased sources can be. Take care.

Sorry, I messed up breaking up the text so I will repost it.



News is not always a good source sadly. Many things have been in the news, but the truth has later came out. Let me give you an example. During the revolution, someone locked the doors of a Cinema in Iran (Cinema Rex) and put it to fire. Everyone inside it died and they could not escape. Everyone blamed it on the Shah. Years years years later, despite "general knowledge" as you say, and despite news saying it was the Shah, it was revealed that it was in fact Islamists loyal to Khomeini and his clan that set it on fire. The fire on Cinema Rex heavly fueled the revolution and increased anger.

But it's not only this. Throughout history, I am sure even you, I have seen things being general knowledge, history etc. and those who say it's otherwise they have been laughed at (you have probably read about the issue with the earth being round or flat, those who said it was round were humiliated and persecuted.)

Another thing is for example the number of SAVAK agents. Generally 'everyone' thought it was around 60,000. But the truth is that it was more arond 6,000 to 8,000. But hey, remember, winners write history and if someone tires to challange it, people like you quickly try to put them down without being open minded. How many have tried in the past to explain about Cinema Rex Fire but got put down quickly because "no way man, you dumb, it's general knowledge, news said it, everyone said it, my mother his dad and their brother..."

General knowledge does not mean that it has to be true.

Why I am saying this? I want people to know the truth of everything. There are people out there who wants to spread bullshit about matters, and it's not only about this issue but many other as well. The winners write history, and so they have decided to write a history to their own liking. And I think you have probably understood that I believe that some people in west see the Shah was a bad guy. Note I said some and note I said west, because between Iranians many, and increasing, today look back to those days and think their parents did a stupid mistake.

Animal farm should be for you and not for me. I am being critical and open minded, but you refuse to believe anything else other than what your media tells you. (actually - I don't want you to believe me, I want you to be open minded and study yourself. I want you to think that everything that is being said in this world by the loudest does not neccessarily have to be the truth).

News is never, ever a good source sadly. Many things have been in the news, but the truth has later came out. Let me give you an example. During the revolution, someone locked the doors of a Cinema in Iran (Cinema Rex) and put it to fire. Everyone inside it died and they could not escape. Everyone blamed it on the Shah. Years years years later, despite "general knowledge" as you say, and despite news saying it was the Shah, it was revealed that it was in fact Islamists loyal to Khomeini and his clan that set it on fire. The fire on Cinema Rex heavly fueled the revolution and increased anger. But it's not only this. Throughout history, I am sure even you, I have seen things being general knowledge, history etc. and those who say it's otherwise they have been laughed at (you have probably read about the issue with the earth being round or flat, those who said it was round were humiliated and persecuted.) General knowledge does not mean that it has to be true. Why I am saying this? I want people to know the truth of everything. There are people out there who wants to spread bullshit about matters, and it's not only about this issue but many other as well. The winners write history, and so they have decided to write a history to their own liking. And I think you have probably understood that I believe that some people in west see the Shah was a bad guy. Note I said some and note I said west, because between Iranians many, and increasing, today look back to those days and think their parents did a stupid mistake. Animal farm should be for you and not for me. I am being critical and open minded, but you refuse to believe anything else other than what your media tells you. (actually - I don't want you to believe me, I want you to be open minded and study yourself. I want you to think that everything that is being said in this world by the loudest does not neccessarily have to be the truth).

Were you in Iran at that time? Did you see SAVAK spill any blood? I am not saying they were saints. No intelligence agency in this world is, for example both CIA and SIS are very famous for their brutal operations and all the lives they have destroyed.

I am still waiting to know exactly how SAVAK spilled blood though. There is, sadly, a lot of FUD abot SAVAK, especially for foreigners. Have you forgotten that the winners write history?

Once again, do not misunderstand me. They were not saints, but no intelligence agency in the world is. My point is that SAVAK was not as bad as people are trying to make it look. Look at USA and the torture they do, sadly - people don't have balls to protest against inhumane conditions in their own country, but only in others that they don't know anything about, besides what media tells them. It's better to compare intelligence agencies that that time though, in the 70s. And don't get me wrong, two wrong doesn't make one right but people are way too harsh when it comes to SAVAK and not when it comes to their own....

I can give some information. There is a theory between many Iranians that the US was one of the nations that actually helped stage the Iranian revolution in Iran in '79. I say a theory because, obviously, there is no direct proof, but many things that point towards it. But it is important to understand that USA was not the only involved nation, but also UK and France as well.

One example is how the french intelligence agency told the Shah that Jimmy Carter had decided to overthrow him (de Marenches). Another example is how Mike Evans writes in his book that CIA funded Khomeini. Houchang Nahavandi writes in his book as well that Chinese officials warned the Shah of US involvement in overthrowing him. The Shah writes in his book "Answer to History" that after the revolution (no direct citation) that "It was now I understand the role of USA".

Carter viewed Khomeini as more of a religious holy man in a grassroots revolution than a founding father of modern terrorism. Carter's ambassador to the UN, Andrew Young, said "Khomeini will eventually be hailed as a saint."

Carter's Iranian ambassador, William Sullivan, said, "Khomeini is a Gandhi-like figure."

Carter adviser James Bill proclaimed in a Newsweek interview on February 12, 1979 that Khomeini was not a mad mujahid, but a man of "impeccable integrity and honesty."

One of the most obivious signs of western involvement is the fact that Khomieni was flown to Iran by french authorities, on a private Air France plane. What signals do that send? Why would even France involve themselves in Iranian matters? It is obivious they wanted Khomieni in Iran.

In a book by Afkhami, you can also see the threatening USA letters to the Shah after he raises the oil prices by 3x. Of course it pissed them off, and they give him ultimatums.

"In November 1978, President Carter named the Bilderberg group's George Ball, another member of the Trilateral Commission, to head a special White House Iran task force under the National Security Council's Brzezinski. Ball recommended that Washington drop support for the Shah of Iran and support the fundamentalistic Islamic opposition of Ayatollah Khomeini." There are of course, other signs too. A good question to ask is why western nations would want to see the Shah gone. We can go into that if you want.

I can give some information. There is a theory between many Iranians that the US was one of the nations that actually helped stage the Iranian revolution in Iran in '79. I say a theory because, obviously, there is no direct proof, but many things that point towards it. But it is important to understand that USA was not the only involved nation, but also UK and France as well. One example is how the french intelligence agency told the Shah that Jimmy Carter had decided to overthrow him (de Marenches). Another example is how Mike Evans writes in his book that CIA funded Khomeini. Houchang Nahavandi writes in his book as well that Chinese officials warned the Shah of US involvement in overthrowing him. The Shah writes in his book "Answer to History" that after the revolution (no direct citation) that "It was now I understand the role of USA". Carter viewed Khomeini as more of a religious holy man in a grassroots revolution than a founding father of modern terrorism. Carter's ambassador to the UN, Andrew Young, said "Khomeini will eventually be hailed as a saint." Carter's Iranian ambassador, William Sullivan, said, "Khomeini is a Gandhi-like figure." Carter adviser James Bill proclaimed in a Newsweek interview on February 12, 1979 that Khomeini was not a mad mujahid, but a man of "impeccable integrity and honesty." One of the most obivious signs of western involvement is the fact that Khomieni was flown to Iran by french authorities, on a private Air France plane. What signals do that send? Why would even France involve themselves in Iranian matters? It is obivious they wanted Khomieni in Iran. In a book by Afkhami, you can also see the threatening USA letters to the Shah after he raises the oil prices by 3x. Of course it pissed them off, and they give him ultimatums. "In November 1978, President Carter named the Bilderberg group's George Ball, another member of the Trilateral Commission, to head a special White House Iran task force under the National Security Council's Brzezinski. Ball recommended that Washington drop support for the Shah of Iran and support the fundamentalistic Islamic opposition of Ayatollah Khomeini." There are of course, other signs too. A good question to ask is why western nations would want to see the Shah gone. We can go into that if you want.

You are supposed to give source for assumptions that you make. What did his secret police do to his enemies? I will have to correct you one matter though. If by secret police you mean SAVAK I am sorry to break it down to you but SAVAK was not 'secret' by any means. It was the national intelligence agency just like CIA/FBI and MI5/MI6 or any other intelligence agency in the world with the purpose of defending Iran.

Exactly. I do not understand, why people think Mossadegh was kind of hero. He, for example, dissolved the parliament and demand dictatorial powers. This is the problem with people nowadays. They are not critical. They believe whatever somebody that is a bit confident tells them without questioning them. Which is sad, and not something I expected of the internet generation. It can also be discussed. According to many sources, Iranian and western, the coup against Mossadegh failed and did not happen. Instead, it was the people who got fed up with his bullshit.