T Nation

Jordanian Pilot


#1

My brother sent me the fox new piece where they show the video.
That pilot was the most brave guy facing a horrific death I can imagine.

Staring defiantly at the ISIS scum as they march him to the cage, barely making a sound or running around. Takes a fixed position in the cage and holds himself up until his body collapses.
Always amazes me the balls members of the military show the world over.

I can't imagine being that brave and dignified under the same circumstances.


#2

Any thoughts on the Jordanians’ response so far?


#3

[quote]SexMachine wrote:
Any thoughts on the Jordanians’ response so far?[/quote]

While I of course am hardly supportive of Monarchy, especially despotic and corrupt one, I think the timidity with which the west is handling it is embarrassing.
I think Jordan executing the two ISIS captives would not as a leftist would imply “making us just as bad as them” but I wouldn’t like to see western democratic nations executing captives.
I do think however we should put troops on the ground. Go after the Saudi and other financiers who have been funding these types of people since the siege of the grand mosque and try and destroy the jihadist movement.

My personal opinion which I reserve the right to change if I am given new insights would be:

  1. Troops on the ground, workable ROE.
  2. Heavily fund the Kurds and secular forces in the region
  3. Go after the finance structure, now the US and Europe are fracking we can shake the oil rich backers without worrying too much
  4. Bring the nations like Jordan closer to free democracies, mainly by using U.S and EU clout and support

I ultimately think that these issues are because of Islam and will only stop when Islam has its own secularisation process much like we did. Like when the grand Rabbi’s lost their power over the jewish communities, like when the church was separated from the state.
A reformation is needed and democratisation of the region is too. I don’t subscribe to the blame western imperialism for everything shit that gets thrown around but I do think one of the many factors to the rise of the islamic movements in the region is the American, French and British backed dictatorships and old colonial exploits.
I guess I think it is a complex and nuanced thing and how we approach it will determine our level of success. Being too timid will most assuredly lead to mishandling Jimmy Carter style. A gung ho reaction will lead to further quagmires of western lives and money G. W Bush style.


#4

I don’t know about 4. When you give these people a choice they will often vote for Islamic fundamentalists. This is what happened in Gaza. It’s a mistake to think democracy is universally aspired to. Not only do they have no tradition of democracy, for the most part they have no desire for democracy and if given the chance will vote for anti-democratic regimes. Take a look at the most stable countries in the Arab world. They’re the monarchies and the military juntas. Egypt is a case in point. Since the last Arab-Israeli War they have been the most moderate and pro-Western Arab country in the region. The MB is voted into power; chaos and instability, until the military took control again and implemented a more moderate policy.


#5

[quote]SexMachine wrote:
I don’t know about 4. When you give these people a choice they will often vote for Islamic fundamentalists. This is what happened in Gaza. It’s a mistake to think democracy is universally aspired to. Not only do they have no tradition of democracy, for the most part they have no desire for democracy and if given the chance will vote for anti-democratic regimes. Take a look at the most stable countries in the Arab world. They’re the monarchies and the military juntas. Egypt is a case in point. Since the last Arab-Israeli War they have been the most moderate and pro-Western Arab country in the region. The MB is voted into power; chaos and instability, until the military took control again and implemented a more moderate policy.[/quote]

Would you not say that the west is somewhat responsible for this? By that I mean funding dictatorships who are merely puppets of the west and oil Monarchies who provide the US with resources to ensure their continued propping up drives popular sentiment against the U.S and the west.
A prime example being Iran, we remove a democratically installed leader, install the Shah and expect nothing to happen? A huge amount of the islamic cultural movements inEgypt among students, Iran, Pakistan etc generated most of their support from two public wells of sentiment, public anger at western backed regimes and fundamentalist religiosity.

I think we need to be a lot tougher than the mainstream liberal position, but I don’t doubt unless we acknowledge past immoral behaviour then the rest of the world will never stop hating us. A lot of that hatred comes from religious fundamentalism and cultural procrastination, but to deny our part in it in my opinion is a shaky foundation to build a realistic outlook on.


#6

[quote]Musashi92 wrote:

Would you not say that the west is somewhat responsible for this? By that I mean funding dictatorships who are merely puppets of the west and oil Monarchies who provide the US with resources to ensure their continued propping up drives popular sentiment against the U.S and the west.

[/quote]

Not really. The West’s mistake was in how we divided up the region after The First World War. The problems started when the Ottoman Empire collapsed and when France and Britain pulled out of the former colonies in the region. Also, I wouldn’t describe any of these phoney monarchies as “puppets” of the West. They’re only as respectful of us as they absolutely need to be. And I do not believe that they fuel resentment against us. I don’t believe the Muslim world has any legitimate grievances against us. I think it’s a mistake to think in those terms.

Lol! I’ve had this conversion a number of times over the years about Iran. Unfortunately, as the left dominate academia a revisionist version of history dominates. The Iranians have no legitimate grievances against the West.

The Islamists who have been in power since 79 would’ve assassinated said “democratic leader” just as they assassinated his predecessor. The Islamists don’t want a secular, democratic leader.

We trade with them and we sell them arms and give them money. But we do that with just about every country on earth. That’s not really “propping them up” or “backing them”. That’s just rhetoric. I know it’s counterintuitive but they don’t actually have any legitimate grievances. They just hate us and are aggressive and belligerent. Think of Hitler in the 30’s. All his “grievances” about ethnic Germans being persecuted in Czechoslovakia and Danzig and so on were entirely false and he knew them to be false. They were just a casus belli for his wars of aggression.

Ha ha ha! I really can’t help but laugh. You need to get rid of that mindset my friend. We have grievances against them; not the other way around.

Well, I’ve looked into it. I study modern history. And I’ve come to a different conclusion.


#7

[quote]SexMachine wrote:

[quote]Musashi92 wrote:

Would you not say that the west is somewhat responsible for this? By that I mean funding dictatorships who are merely puppets of the west and oil Monarchies who provide the US with resources to ensure their continued propping up drives popular sentiment against the U.S and the west.

[/quote]

Not really. The West’s mistake was in how we divided up the region after The First World War. The problems started when the Ottoman Empire collapsed and when France and Britain pulled out of the former colonies in the region. Also, I wouldn’t describe any of these phoney monarchies as “puppets” of the West. They’re only as respectful of us as they absolutely need to be. And I do not believe that they fuel resentment against us. I don’t believe the Muslim world has any legitimate grievances against us. I think it’s a mistake to think in those terms.

Lol! I’ve had this conversion a number of times over the years about Iran. Unfortunately, as the left dominate academia a revisionist version of history dominates. The Iranians have no legitimate grievances against the West.

The Islamists who have been in power since 79 would’ve assassinated said “democratic leader” just as they assassinated his predecessor. The Islamists don’t want a secular, democratic leader.

We trade with them and we sell them arms and give them money. But we do that with just about every country on earth. That’s not really “propping them up” or “backing them”. That’s just rhetoric. I know it’s counterintuitive but they don’t actually have any legitimate grievances. They just hate us and are aggressive and belligerent. Think of Hitler in the 30’s. All his “grievances” about ethnic Germans being persecuted in Czechoslovakia and Danzig and so on were entirely false and he knew them to be false. They were just a casus belli for his wars of aggression.

Ha ha ha! I really can’t help but laugh. You need to get rid of that mindset my friend. We have grievances against them; not the other way around.

Well, I’ve looked into it. I study modern history. And I’ve come to a different conclusion.[/quote]

Oh don’t get me wrong, I understand most of the Sunni wahhabi hatred for the west has nothing to do with our actions, at all. Just a look at Bin Baz and the likes in Saudi Arabia who were preaching Jihad without any political reason.
For example when the far left say Osama stated the reasons for 9/11 being western military presence in the Gulf, they don’t realise it was so offensive because infidels in the holy land is worth killing for, not because of any national or political offense.
However when you say the Iranians had no reason to hate the west, that I can’t understand.

We removed their democratic leader who had mass support. We installed the shah who removed the nationalisation of oil and sold to the west. I am sorry but that is reason to be angry.
If it was America who had that happen to them I would imagine most Americans would want to kill the nation doing that to them.
I would sure want to.


#8

[quote]SexMachine wrote:

[quote]Musashi92 wrote:

Would you not say that the west is somewhat responsible for this? By that I mean funding dictatorships who are merely puppets of the west and oil Monarchies who provide the US with resources to ensure their continued propping up drives popular sentiment against the U.S and the west.

[/quote]

Not really. The West’s mistake was in how we divided up the region after The First World War. The problems started when the Ottoman Empire collapsed and when France and Britain pulled out of the former colonies in the region. Also, I wouldn’t describe any of these phoney monarchies as “puppets” of the West. They’re only as respectful of us as they absolutely need to be. And I do not believe that they fuel resentment against us. I don’t believe the Muslim world has any legitimate grievances against us. I think it’s a mistake to think in those terms.

Lol! I’ve had this conversion a number of times over the years about Iran. Unfortunately, as the left dominate academia a revisionist version of history dominates. The Iranians have no legitimate grievances against the West.

The Islamists who have been in power since 79 would’ve assassinated said “democratic leader” just as they assassinated his predecessor. The Islamists don’t want a secular, democratic leader.

We trade with them and we sell them arms and give them money. But we do that with just about every country on earth. That’s not really “propping them up” or “backing them”. That’s just rhetoric. I know it’s counterintuitive but they don’t actually have any legitimate grievances. They just hate us and are aggressive and belligerent. Think of Hitler in the 30’s. All his “grievances” about ethnic Germans being persecuted in Czechoslovakia and Danzig and so on were entirely false and he knew them to be false. They were just a casus belli for his wars of aggression.

Ha ha ha! I really can’t help but laugh. You need to get rid of that mindset my friend. We have grievances against them; not the other way around.

Well, I’ve looked into it. I study modern history. And I’ve come to a different conclusion.[/quote]

I know the Islamists in Iran would of assassinated the democratic leader, if they could, however seeing as Mosaddegh was elected 79-12 and had a huge majority who supported him. The Islamist movement at that time in Iran had no support at all. It was the British and U.S coup that caused the Islamists to gain support.

Even the most vehement anti muslim scholars and writers acknowledge that without the overthrow the Islamists were barely even present on the political scene in Iran.


#9

[quote] Musashi92 wrote:

For example when the far left say Osama stated the reasons for 9/11 being western military presence in the Gulf, they don’t realise it was so offensive because infidels in the holy land is worth killing for, not because of any national or political offense.
However when you say the Iranians had no reason to hate the west, that I can’t understand.

[/quote]

I can’t understand why you do. As I said, I’m talking about the current regime; the Khomeinists. As I said, they had assassinated Mossadeq’s predecessor and a few weeks into his term they tried to assassinate him. The Stalinist Tu’deh party was also involved in assassinations during this period. The whole country was in turmoil with Stalinist and Islamist terrorism. As I asked before, why would the Islamists be upset that we removed Mossadeq when they were trying to assassinate him?

At the end of The Second World War Stalin had agreed to remove his forces from Iran but when the time came he reneged. He(Stalin) then did what the Soviets always did; seed Communist organisations to subvert and overthrow the government. Feda’ian Islam was involved in numerous high profile assassinations and attempted assassinations including:

  • 1946 - Ahmad Khasravi - A famous author, journalist, secular reformist and supporter of the Shah. He was accused of “unIslamic” writings and then he and his assistant murdered by two members of Feda’ian Islam

  • 1948 - Mohammad Masoud - Islamists were suspected at the time but it has since come out the Stalinist Tudeh party was involved.

  • 1949 - Tudeh assassination attempt on the Shah

  • 1949 - Abdol-Hossein Hazhir - Politician and former Prime Minister assassinated by Feda’ian Islam

  • 1950 - Ahmad Dehghan - Journalist assassinated by Tudeh

  • 1951 - Ali Razmara - Prime Minister assassinated by Feda’ian Islam member

  • 1951 - Abdol Hamid Zangeneh - Minister of Education and Dean of Law School assassinated by Feda’ian Islam

  • 1952 - Hossein Fatimi - Mossadeq’s Foreign Minister. Assassinated by Feda’ian Islam

  • 1955 - Hossein Ala - The Shah’s court minister. Nearly killed by bullet to the head from an Feda’ian Islam member

^^ That’s just the tip of the iceberg. Feda’ian Islam was the predecessor of Khomeini’s revolutionary party. They did not want “democratically elected” leaders. When they came to power they forbid any demonstrations or commemorations of Mossadeq and banned his image being shown in public.

The one they tried to assassinate?

I don’t know about “mass support”. The Islamists certainly didn’t support him and that’s who we are talking about. It’s the Islamists who are “pissed off” at us right? The secular, democratic reform types aren’t the ones angry at us are they?

Who’s angry? The current regime? The Islamists? [b]They’re the ones who tried to assassinate Mossadeq and assassinated his Ministers. Try to think logically, the US has done similar things to countries all over the world. Why would the Islamists be angry at us because we removed a leader they were trying to assassinate over 60 years ago?

Doing? We’ve hardly even spoken to them in over 30 years! We’re not “doing” anything.

You’d want to what? Again, the Islamists tried to assassinate Mossadeq and succeeded in assassinating several leaders in his government.


#10

[quote]SexMachine wrote:

[quote] Musashi92 wrote:

For example when the far left say Osama stated the reasons for 9/11 being western military presence in the Gulf, they don’t realise it was so offensive because infidels in the holy land is worth killing for, not because of any national or political offense.
However when you say the Iranians had no reason to hate the west, that I can’t understand.

[/quote]

I can’t understand why you do. As I said, I’m talking about the current regime; the Khomeinists. As I said, they had assassinated Mossadeq’s predecessor and a few weeks into his term they tried to assassinate him. The Stalinist Tu’deh party was also involved in assassinations during this period. The whole country was in turmoil with Stalinist and Islamist terrorism. As I asked before, why would the Islamists be upset that we removed Mossadeq when they were trying to assassinate him?

At the end of The Second World War Stalin had agreed to remove his forces from Iran but when the time came he reneged. He(Stalin) then did what the Soviets always did; seed Communist organisations to subvert and overthrow the government. Feda’ian Islam was involved in numerous high profile assassinations and attempted assassinations including:

  • 1946 - Ahmad Khasravi - A famous author, journalist, secular reformist and supporter of the Shah. He was accused of “unIslamic” writings and then he and his assistant murdered by two members of Feda’ian Islam

  • 1948 - Mohammad Masoud - Islamists were suspected at the time but it has since come out the Stalinist Tudeh party was involved.

  • 1949 - Tudeh assassination attempt on the Shah

  • 1949 - Abdol-Hossein Hazhir - Politician and former Prime Minister assassinated by Feda’ian Islam

  • 1950 - Ahmad Dehghan - Journalist assassinated by Tudeh

  • 1951 - Ali Razmara - Prime Minister assassinated by Feda’ian Islam member

  • 1951 - Abdol Hamid Zangeneh - Minister of Education and Dean of Law School assassinated by Feda’ian Islam

  • 1952 - Hossein Fatimi - Mossadeq’s Foreign Minister. Assassinated by Feda’ian Islam

  • 1955 - Hossein Ala - The Shah’s court minister. Nearly killed by bullet to the head from an Feda’ian Islam member

^^ That’s just the tip of the iceberg. Feda’ian Islam was the predecessor of Khomeini’s revolutionary party. They did not want “democratically elected” leaders. When they came to power they forbid any demonstrations or commemorations of Mossadeq and banned his image being shown in public.

The one they tried to assassinate?

I don’t know about “mass support”. The Islamists certainly didn’t support him and that’s who we are talking about. It’s the Islamists who are “pissed off” at us right? The secular, democratic reform types aren’t the ones angry at us are they?

Who’s angry? The current regime? The Islamists? [b]They’re the ones who tried to assassinate Mossadeq and assassinated his Ministers. Try to think logically, the US has done similar things to countries all over the world. Why would the Islamists be angry at us because we removed a leader they were trying to assassinate over 60 years ago?

Doing? We’ve hardly even spoken to them in over 30 years! We’re not “doing” anything.

You’d want to what? Again, the Islamists tried to assassinate Mossadeq and succeeded in assassinating several leaders in his government.[/quote]

You keep saying the islamists would of tried to kill him, I keep saying of course, but what does that have to do with my point?
My point was the reason lots of Iranian civilians started to support the islamists was because they hated the US and the west removing their democratic leader and installing a puppet.
If that had not of happened the Islamists would have no mass support. The coup enraged the population and drove them into the arms of the Islamists who took advantage of the vacuum


#11

[quote]SexMachine wrote:

[quote] Musashi92 wrote:

For example when the far left say Osama stated the reasons for 9/11 being western military presence in the Gulf, they don’t realise it was so offensive because infidels in the holy land is worth killing for, not because of any national or political offense.
However when you say the Iranians had no reason to hate the west, that I can’t understand.

[/quote]

I can’t understand why you do. As I said, I’m talking about the current regime; the Khomeinists. As I said, they had assassinated Mossadeq’s predecessor and a few weeks into his term they tried to assassinate him. The Stalinist Tu’deh party was also involved in assassinations during this period. The whole country was in turmoil with Stalinist and Islamist terrorism. As I asked before, why would the Islamists be upset that we removed Mossadeq when they were trying to assassinate him?

At the end of The Second World War Stalin had agreed to remove his forces from Iran but when the time came he reneged. He(Stalin) then did what the Soviets always did; seed Communist organisations to subvert and overthrow the government. Feda’ian Islam was involved in numerous high profile assassinations and attempted assassinations including:

  • 1946 - Ahmad Khasravi - A famous author, journalist, secular reformist and supporter of the Shah. He was accused of “unIslamic” writings and then he and his assistant murdered by two members of Feda’ian Islam

  • 1948 - Mohammad Masoud - Islamists were suspected at the time but it has since come out the Stalinist Tudeh party was involved.

  • 1949 - Tudeh assassination attempt on the Shah

  • 1949 - Abdol-Hossein Hazhir - Politician and former Prime Minister assassinated by Feda’ian Islam

  • 1950 - Ahmad Dehghan - Journalist assassinated by Tudeh

  • 1951 - Ali Razmara - Prime Minister assassinated by Feda’ian Islam member

  • 1951 - Abdol Hamid Zangeneh - Minister of Education and Dean of Law School assassinated by Feda’ian Islam

  • 1952 - Hossein Fatimi - Mossadeq’s Foreign Minister. Assassinated by Feda’ian Islam

  • 1955 - Hossein Ala - The Shah’s court minister. Nearly killed by bullet to the head from an Feda’ian Islam member

^^ That’s just the tip of the iceberg. Feda’ian Islam was the predecessor of Khomeini’s revolutionary party. They did not want “democratically elected” leaders. When they came to power they forbid any demonstrations or commemorations of Mossadeq and banned his image being shown in public.

The one they tried to assassinate?

I don’t know about “mass support”. The Islamists certainly didn’t support him and that’s who we are talking about. It’s the Islamists who are “pissed off” at us right? The secular, democratic reform types aren’t the ones angry at us are they?

Who’s angry? The current regime? The Islamists? [b]They’re the ones who tried to assassinate Mossadeq and assassinated his Ministers. Try to think logically, the US has done similar things to countries all over the world. Why would the Islamists be angry at us because we removed a leader they were trying to assassinate over 60 years ago?

Doing? We’ve hardly even spoken to them in over 30 years! We’re not “doing” anything.

You’d want to what? Again, the Islamists tried to assassinate Mossadeq and succeeded in assassinating several leaders in his government.[/quote]

You are not addressing the points made. You keep implying I am saying the Islamists were angry because we removed Mossaddegh, I did not say that, I said the Iranian public was furious the west overthrew a democratic leader and replaced him with a puppet.
Seeing as the west had just removed their democratic choice, this drove many to support hardline islamic uprisings as they saw it as the only was to rid western control of their nation. When you remove secular democratic government you drive people to extreme movements.

How was the US and the west not the cause of the islamic uprising in Iran? The Iranian public supported in the majority a secular nationalist, the US and Europe chose to overthrow him, install a shah who removed the nationalisation project. The public then turned to the hardline islamic movement seething with hatred for the US who curtailed their democratic choice and removed their soverignity by forcing political and economic figures and choices they wanted.

I will ask again, if the Iranian government overthrew Ronald Regan and installed a puppet who carried out their interests over the American peoples would the Americans hate Iran and would they support violent action against them?

Of course they would, any man who loves his country and has self respect would.


#12

[quote] Musashi92 wrote:

You keep saying the islamists would of tried to kill him,

[/quote]

They did try to kill him.

Precisely this: why would they care we removed him from office when they were trying to do the same thing?

If they wanted democracy and a democratic leader why would they support a profoundly anti-democratic group that tried to kill their democratic leader? I can answer that for you. They wouldn’t. The secular Iranians would never support Islamic fundamentalists and they’re friendly to the West. Many of them liked the Shah. As I said, try to use logic. Iran, in the Middle of Asia; nothing to do with America. Why would they suddenly, 60+ years later become Islamic fundamentalists? To get back at some country that was involved in one of many coups over 60 years ago? Seriously, think about what you’re saying. It doesn’t make any sense.

Really? Can you show me any evidence of well known secular, democratic reform journalists, writers, politicians, political activists who were “driven into the arms” of the Islamists? Which ones? All the ones I know are pro-Western. I have an Iranian friend who fled the revolution. He’s pro-Western and loved the Shah. The secular, democratic reformists were not “driven into the arms” of the Islamists. Think about how insane that is. There were half a dozen coups and a dozen coup attempts after the war as Islamist, Communists, monarchists and nationalists fought for control. You’re saying that a quarter of a century later, secular democratic reformists decided to become Islamic fundamentalists to get back at America? Seriously? Why wouldn’t they want to get back at the Russians who did far, far more harm and created chaos in the country? What sort of logic is it anyway? A secular, democratic reformist becomes an Islamic fundamentalist to get back at America for their involvement in a coup 60+ years ago?

So my question is which ones? Where are these secular, democratic reformists who were pushed “into the arms” of the Islamists? Can you name any? Any journalists? Political activists? Politicians who switched from secular reformists to Islamists?


#13

I’m not going to address all the other stuff. Let’s just keep it to one thing at a time. Keep it simple.


#14

[quote]SexMachine wrote:

[quote] Musashi92 wrote:

You keep saying the islamists would of tried to kill him,

[/quote]

They did try to kill him.

Precisely this: why would they care we removed him from office when they were trying to do the same thing?

If they wanted democracy and a democratic leader why would they support a profoundly anti-democratic group that tried to kill their democratic leader? I can answer that for you. They wouldn’t. The secular Iranians would never support Islamic fundamentalists and they’re friendly to the West. Many of them liked the Shah. As I said, try to use logic. Iran, in the Middle of Asia; nothing to do with America. Why would they suddenly, 60+ years later become Islamic fundamentalists? To get back at some country that was involved in one of many coups over 60 years ago? Seriously, think about what you’re saying. It doesn’t make any sense.

Really? Can you show me any evidence of well known secular, democratic reform journalists, writers, politicians, political activists who were “driven into the arms” of the Islamists? Which ones? All the ones I know are pro-Western. I have an Iranian friend who fled the revolution. He’s pro-Western and loved the Shah. The secular, democratic reformists were not “driven into the arms” of the Islamists. Think about how insane that is. There were half a dozen coups and a dozen coup attempts after the war as Islamist, Communists, monarchists and nationalists fought for control. You’re saying that a quarter of a century later, secular democratic reformists decided to become Islamic fundamentalists to get back at America? Seriously? Why wouldn’t they want to get back at the Russians who did far, far more harm and created chaos in the country? What sort of logic is it anyway? A secular, democratic reformist becomes an Islamic fundamentalist to get back at America for their involvement in a coup 60+ years ago?

So my question is which ones? Where are these secular, democratic reformists who were pushed “into the arms” of the Islamists? Can you name any? Any journalists? Political activists? Politicians who switched from secular reformists to Islamists?[/quote]

OK so America overthrowing the democratic leader and installing a puppet dictator had nothing to do with the anti American sentiment that spread across Iran bringing the Islamists to power.

“If they wanted a democratic leader why support Islamists”

Hmmm I don’t know, maybe this is the process of radicalisation that happens when a super power overthrows your government so it can have open access to your resources, all the while claiming to support democracy. That might lead people to think the only way to deal with such aggression is with a hardline radical movement.
Yep the U.S and Europe might of had something to do with it. Again what would America do if Iran overthrew their president and installed a pro iranian dictator? Would they just protest with signs about missing their democratic leader or would hardline movements based on violence arise?


#15

Yeah, no way in hell am I watching any of that. Even the front page pictures mess me up. If I saw a minute of the video I probably wouldn’t sleep for weeks.

If what you say is true though, I hope the guy was buoyed by his faith in Islam. That would seem poetic and noble.


#16

[quote]SexMachine wrote:

[quote] Musashi92 wrote:

You keep saying the islamists would of tried to kill him,

[/quote]

They did try to kill him.

Precisely this: why would they care we removed him from office when they were trying to do the same thing?

If they wanted democracy and a democratic leader why would they support a profoundly anti-democratic group that tried to kill their democratic leader? I can answer that for you. They wouldn’t. The secular Iranians would never support Islamic fundamentalists and they’re friendly to the West. Many of them liked the Shah. As I said, try to use logic. Iran, in the Middle of Asia; nothing to do with America. Why would they suddenly, 60+ years later become Islamic fundamentalists? To get back at some country that was involved in one of many coups over 60 years ago? Seriously, think about what you’re saying. It doesn’t make any sense.

Really? Can you show me any evidence of well known secular, democratic reform journalists, writers, politicians, political activists who were “driven into the arms” of the Islamists? Which ones? All the ones I know are pro-Western. I have an Iranian friend who fled the revolution. He’s pro-Western and loved the Shah. The secular, democratic reformists were not “driven into the arms” of the Islamists. Think about how insane that is. There were half a dozen coups and a dozen coup attempts after the war as Islamist, Communists, monarchists and nationalists fought for control. You’re saying that a quarter of a century later, secular democratic reformists decided to become Islamic fundamentalists to get back at America? Seriously? Why wouldn’t they want to get back at the Russians who did far, far more harm and created chaos in the country? What sort of logic is it anyway? A secular, democratic reformist becomes an Islamic fundamentalist to get back at America for their involvement in a coup 60+ years ago?

So my question is which ones? Where are these secular, democratic reformists who were pushed “into the arms” of the Islamists? Can you name any? Any journalists? Political activists? Politicians who switched from secular reformists to Islamists?[/quote]

Your “friend” loved the shah? He loved a dictator who used acid, rape and electrocution on protesters? He loved his country having another country install an unelected unaccountable gangster who whored the national resources to the US after the people of Iran supported oil nationalisation?

Is your friend real? Really?


#17

[quote]SexMachine wrote:
I’m not going to address all the other stuff. Let’s just keep it to one thing at a time. Keep it simple.[/quote]

Fair enough.


#18

[quote]DoubleDuce wrote:
Yeah, no way in hell am I watch any of that. Even the front page pictures mess me up. If I saw a minute of the video I probably wouldn?t sleep for weeks.

If what you say is true though, I hope the guy was buoyed by his faith in Islam. That would seem poetic and noble.
[/quote]

I believe there were minute silences all over the Islamic world and lots of services to “honour the martyr”

The Ulama (leaders of the sects) have almost universally come out and claimed his martyrdom.


#19

People always used to bring up hypotheticals about the worst way to die and the old line about burning not being as bad as drowning because after ten seconds your nerve endings burn is complete bullshit.
It took a very long time for him to die and his skin literally melted down his face and fat bubbled and created foamed patches. He looked like a black statue and after around two minutes of horrific pain he collapses backwards and they dumb rubble over him. Absolutely revolting and maddening.


#20

[quote]Musashi92 wrote:

[quote]SexMachine wrote:

[quote] Musashi92 wrote:

You keep saying the islamists would of tried to kill him,

[/quote]

They did try to kill him.

Precisely this: why would they care we removed him from office when they were trying to do the same thing?

If they wanted democracy and a democratic leader why would they support a profoundly anti-democratic group that tried to kill their democratic leader? I can answer that for you. They wouldn’t. The secular Iranians would never support Islamic fundamentalists and they’re friendly to the West. Many of them liked the Shah. As I said, try to use logic. Iran, in the Middle of Asia; nothing to do with America. Why would they suddenly, 60+ years later become Islamic fundamentalists? To get back at some country that was involved in one of many coups over 60 years ago? Seriously, think about what you’re saying. It doesn’t make any sense.

Really? Can you show me any evidence of well known secular, democratic reform journalists, writers, politicians, political activists who were “driven into the arms” of the Islamists? Which ones? All the ones I know are pro-Western. I have an Iranian friend who fled the revolution. He’s pro-Western and loved the Shah. The secular, democratic reformists were not “driven into the arms” of the Islamists. Think about how insane that is. There were half a dozen coups and a dozen coup attempts after the war as Islamist, Communists, monarchists and nationalists fought for control. You’re saying that a quarter of a century later, secular democratic reformists decided to become Islamic fundamentalists to get back at America? Seriously? Why wouldn’t they want to get back at the Russians who did far, far more harm and created chaos in the country? What sort of logic is it anyway? A secular, democratic reformist becomes an Islamic fundamentalist to get back at America for their involvement in a coup 60+ years ago?

So my question is which ones? Where are these secular, democratic reformists who were pushed “into the arms” of the Islamists? Can you name any? Any journalists? Political activists? Politicians who switched from secular reformists to Islamists?[/quote]

Your “friend” loved the shah? He loved a dictator who used acid, rape and electrocution on protesters? He loved his country having another country install an unelected unaccountable gangster who whored the national resources to the US after the people of Iran supported oil nationalisation?

Is your friend real? Really?[/quote]

Clearly you’re not aware that there were a lot of supporters of the shah and most the Iranians who fled the revolution were supporters of the shah.