Ahmadinejad "wins" Iran presidential election

[Neomega]

I already gave my opinion of why I think the CIA got involved. They knew Mossadeq was falling, but they wanted to assure it would be done by the "right" people, that things would go their way.

I wonder if that is their intention this time. Of course it is.

We can't really know if they pulled the trigger;

WTF are you talking about? Yes they did pull the trigger. It cost $10,000 to start the street protests. It was the CIA directly paying protesters to protest.

The Iranians discovered a British plan to use a former pro-Nazi general (Zahidi), and this made the British helpless, and needed the CIA even more...

..wait, why am I debating with someone so ignorant on the subject? You don't know spit about this do you? You are flying by the seat of your pants and hoping nobody notices. Your ignorance is all too apparent now. The CIA, and the American and British governments played a huge part in the coup. They pulled the strings.

Your denials are nothing but steady retreats and feints. You don't know anything about this, you are just hoping you are right, to win against the "america is always evil" crowd.

I just read around 40 pages on this topic for my modern American history class a few weeks ago. The article was by a historian named John Foran... and frankly, I take his word over yours any day of the year, including christmas.

So just forget it dude... your little assumptions to fit your world view don't mean a gd thing. You had me fooled for a minute that you actually might be knowledgeable on the subject, but now I know you are full of it.

 

[El_Machinae]

That you continue to insult myself, and other posters, is inappropriate and a Mod should have taken action a long time ago, because you sir do not know how to debate.

Moderator Action: This is what the report function is for. I do not wanted to see bolded complaints about posts that have not been reported. Also, I do not want to see bolded complaints of posts that HAVE been reported.

I didn't look at the al-jazeera ones much (as none of them seemed to say anything about your kurdish uprising so i went straight for the bogus one at the bottom. Alright you call it an honest mistake. I accept that and apologise for calling you a liar (although i am still suspicious).

Moderator Action: And this is flaming, zenspiderz. If someone retracts a statement after being presented with evidence, that is appropriate discussion behaviour. It is NOT appropriate to continue to insinuate that they are lying.




Moderator Action: NEOMEGA: Do not call other posters ignorant. Your opinion on that does not need to be broadcast
Please read the forum rules: http://forums.civfanatics.com/showthread.php?t=422889

 

[luiz]

I wonder if that is their intention this time. Of course it is.

I suppose you have proof of CIA involvement in the present events? If you do, you should write the story and apply for a Pulitzer, because you're the only person on Earth

WTF are you talking about? Yes they did pull the trigger. It cost $10,000 to start the street protests. It was the CIA directly paying protesters to protest.

One has to wonder how many people you can bribe with 10,000 dollars. Seems like crap, especially considering that for protests to be effective they have tp be massive, and you can't hire a mass for 10 grand.

The Iranians discovered a British plan to use a former pro-Nazi general (Zahidi), and this made the British helpless, and needed the CIA even more...

Why would that make the british helpless?

..wait, why am I debating with someone so ignorant on the subject? You don't know spit about this do you? You are flying by the seat of your pants and hoping nobody notices. Your ignorance is all too apparent now. The CIA, and the American and British governments played a huge part in the coup. They pulled the strings.

Your denials are nothing but steady retreats and feints. You don't know anything about this, you are just hoping you are right, to win against the "america is always evil" crowd.

Quite frankly you are the one making stuff up. You have not been able to prove me wrong on a single claim. The facts are the facts; the CIA spent a million bucks in the whole thing.
If you think that's enough to bring any regime down (and that 10,000 dollars are enough to stage substantial protests ), that's your problem, not mine.

I just read around 40 pages on this topic for my modern American history class a few weeks ago. The article was by a historian named John Foran... and frankly, I take his word over yours any day of the year, including christmas.

I honestly can't believe I am reading this. Your claim to authority is something you read for your history class???
Please.

So just forget it dude... your little assumptions to fit your world view don't mean a gd thing. You had me fooled for a minute that you actually might be knowledgeable on the subject, but now I know you are full of it.

You did not fool me for a second.

 

[El_Machinae]

I honestly can't believe I am reading this. Your claim to authority is something you read for your history class???
Please.

???

I'd think that would be a decent place to begin or continue a discussion, no? I mean "it says here in my textbook that X" is certainly something that could be credible.

Assigned reading from a certified teacher is not a bad source.

 

[Neomega]

I suppose you have proof of CIA involvement in the present events? If you do, you should write the story and apply for a Pulitzer, because you're the only person on Earth.

Do you have proof they aren't involved.

One has to wonder how many people you can bribe with 10,000 dollars. Seems like crap, especially considering that for protests to be effective they have tp be massive, and you can't hire a mass for 10 grand.

1953 was very much pre-Carter.

Why would that make the british helpless?

read a book.

Quite frankly you are the one making stuff up. You have not been able to prove me wrong on a single claim. The facts are the facts; the CIA spent a million bucks in the whole thing.

that was a lot of money back in the day. They also used more than just cash, and it was more than just the CIA. NASA's budget in 1979 (26 years laeter) was merely $4 M. Also Iran was 3rd world, so people were cheaper. Finally, there was discontent, so it was not professional prices that had to be paid to start the protests.

I honestly can't believe I am reading this. Your claim to authority is something you read for your history class???
Please.

A 300 level college history class, assigned by someone with a doctorate in history. Furthermore, John Foran is a respected historian who specializes in analyzing revolutions. That's my authority. Yours is:


I already gave my opinion of why I think the CIA got involved

and

We can't really know if they pulled the trigger; all we know is that their interference was very limited.

Which is nothing more than a willful lie, or willful ignorance.

Where is all your information (or lack thereof, which is the crux of argument, "we cant know!" ) about the overthrow of Mossedeq coming from? Just because *you*
don't know, or care to look into it deeper, does not mean it is unknowable.

Your bluff has been called. You obviously know very little about the '59 revolution.

"it says here in my textbook that X" is certainly something that could be credible.

It's not even a textbook, its was a section from a book dealing specifically with revolutions, and these 40 pages specifically with the Iranian revolution.


Moderator Action: Continued flaming after warning
Please read the forum rules: http://forums.civfanatics.com/showthread.php?t=422889

 

[zenspiderz]

The first paragraph is not an apology. You do not say "I'm sorry I called you a liar, but I am still suspicious that you are one" and think its an apology.

alright so my apology is not accepted. fine by me.

As to your second paragraph, yes, that's not cool either.

Thanks for that much.

To your fourth paragraph, you're generalizing the sociological aspects of English society. I disagree with your generalizing, but note that many folks in America also view the world in the class-spectrum, though unless you're dirt poor or filthy rich, class is a murky divider. Further, you imply that anyone who is "white-collar" couldn't understand the working class. Sorry Zen, but I grew up on the poor side of town to a working class 2nd generation immigrant family. You don't get to claim a monopoly on understanding things through the eyes of the poor.

Erm i don't think i said that 'white collar' couldn't understand 'blue collar' what ever it is you think i said. I said that working class people i meet in real life seem more intelligent and honest than the people on this thread. (tho not actually making assumptions about the class background other posters but definitely assuming that working class have less education and are thicker than the 'superior' classes {a common english prejudice}. do yo uget that? anyway forget it. it doesn't matter.
Oh just to clarify although i am working class, i am self-employed and doing pretty well despite the 'elite' banksters stealing all the money. also i don't have a blue collar, i wear what i like.

On the Kurdish strikes, I typed in google "kurdish businesses strike iran" and I count 3 results on these strikes in the top 10 listings. Further, I'd like to think that I've got a reputation of not posting fallacious BS or linking to websites that also believe in Majestic 12 and the like. It's called a reputation and when you have someone who's established themselves as pretty honest and factual, you can't just say (Nah, no link, I don't beleive it).

But since you didn't, and apparently had difficulty with googling, here ya go.

http://vvanwilgenburg.blogspot.com/2009/06/iranian-kurds-strike-to-support-iranian.html
http://www.iranfocus.com/en/special-wire/iran-s-kurds-go-on-strike-18116.html
http://www.akhbar-rooz.com/news.jsp?essayId=21864

[/QUOTE]
yesterday i googled variations of 'iran election protest kurds 2009 businesses' and always got pages of stuff about iraqi kurds protesting and nothing about iran dated later than 2005. But that was yesterday. ok so today we see your links and they say that kurds are protesting the treatment of protestors by police. they don't say anything about protesting the result of the election. i guess you didn't notice that. Also it says 80% of kurdish business in one city are closed not the whole of kurdish areas.

This while interesting does not constitute proof of election fraud. at least not to an honest person who is used to working in a legal and scholarly context.

 

[REDY]

Do you have proof they aren't involved.

You should claim that ahma is puppet robot of radioactive monkeys and we would not be able prove that you are wrong. Thats problem of conspiracy theories.

 

[Neomega]

You should claim that ahma is puppet robot of radioactive monkeys and we would not be able prove that you are wrong. Thats problem of conspiracy theories.

I have used three logical attack points why I think there is definitely western influence, if not CIA backing in this:

1. Historical precedence, and not just in Iran. Since WW II, the CIA has been very active in the internal affairs of other nations, friendly nations, and even more-so with nations labeled as enemies. I know you are not so naive as to disbelieve or discount the validity of this statement, nor the weight it holds in this particular debate.

2. Current events and goals of the US and Israel

3. Mousavi was Ahmedinijad light. I just watched a debate between the two, and I assure you, this guy was no western power loving politician. for instance, he advocated the captured British sailors should have been punished, not given ties, a meal, and a send off by the Iranian president. He was just another conservative, and certainly can not be a hero to the students. They are protesting the entire system much more than Ahmedinijad winning.


Furthermore, it infuriates me you took my counterpoint against Luiz, pointing out the uselessness of "proof" of CIA involvement or lack thereof at this moment, and tried to somehow make it like I was the one genuinely thinking there was the possibility of proof for either side. There is no way to prove the CIA is or is not involved at this time... however, to think they are not, based upon three aforementioned reasons, is a tad naive, in my opinion.

Saying, "we can't know, therefore it isn't happening" is a logical fallacy.

 

[GenMarshall]

LOL, the Iranian President is claiming that the US is interfearing with Itanian affairs when Obama has only critcized the Iranian government. :/

 

[JerichoHill]

Mach,

I knew I would be flagged for talking about mod actions. I'm sorry, but I'm just frustrated as I watch discussions torn apart from good debate by trolling / flaming. I'll just PM you from now on.

@@zenspiderz
Erm i don't think i said that 'white collar' couldn't understand 'blue collar' what ever it is you think i said. I said that working class people i meet in real life seem more intelligent and honest than the people on this thread.
--You actually know people in real life. On the internet we're anonymous and there are no personal ties. That isn't surprising. Further, we tend to group among like people in real life, so you;re going to have a higher opinion of your own group than this blob. You're still throwing an insult out.

Oh just to clarify although i am working class, i am self-employed and doing pretty well despite the 'elite' banksters stealing all the money. also i don't have a blue collar, i wear what i like.
--I am fairly certain you're twisting the intent of my words here.

yesterday i googled variations of 'iran election protest kurds 2009 businesses' and always got pages of stuff about iraqi kurds protesting and nothing about iran dated later than 2005.
--Well, I got it on my first try.

But that was yesterday. ok so today we see your links and they say that kurds are protesting the treatment of protestors by police.
--That is protesting, is it not? If so, it is protesting against the current actions of the regime. I did not mean to imply that these were election result protests.

they don't say anything about protesting the result of the election. i guess you didn't notice that.
--I read the articles.

Also it says 80% of kurdish business in one city are closed not the whole of kurdish areas.
--The implication of the article is that the business closure was not localized.

This while interesting does not constitute proof of election fraud. at least not to an honest person who is used to working in a legal and scholarly context
--And that is again more flaming and trolling. I'm through with replying to you.

 

[Jawz II]

The CIA admitted to project Ajax, last time I looked there were a few unclassified documents about it on their home page.

Clinton even appologized for it some time during the 90's, I think it was 93.

I'd say that proves the CIA did Mossadeq in.



Man I miss this place until I come back and read what all the dum-dums have to say.
Then its goodbye charlie.

Till next year kids.

 

[Flying Pig]

Where you off to?

 

[luiz]

Do you have proof they aren't involved.

The number one rule of debate is that you can't ask the other party to prove a negative. You made an assertion, you prove it.
That would be analogous to a prosecuter asking in court: "can the defendant prove that he is not a pedophile?

1953 was very much pre-Carter.

Certainly. If you want to assume that 10,000 dollars then would be equivalent to 40,000 today (I don't actually know), it's still a ridiculously low sum.

that was a lot of money back in the day. They also used more than just cash, and it was more than just the CIA. NASA's budget in 1979 (26 years laeter) was merely $4 M. Also Iran was 3rd world, so people were cheaper. Finally, there was discontent, so it was not professional prices that had to be paid to start the protests.

I would like to see some source for that NASA budget, and also to what exactly it was supposed to cover. 1M USD back then was at most something like 4M USD nowadays, hardly an impressive sum.

A 300 level college history class, assigned by someone with a doctorate in history. Furthermore, John Foran is a respected historian who specializes in analyzing revolutions. That's my authority. Yours is:

That's a lame claim to authority. You're not citing specific sections of any book, you are saying "I learned stuff in history class so you have to believe me!". That's not granting you any sort of authority on the matter.

Furthermore, even if you did cite specific sections of a book to make your case (which you didn't) that also does not mean that we ought to accept it all at face value. The historical fact is that we know how much the CIA spent, we know which groups were already opposing Mossadeq and we know the actions he was taking.

Which is nothing more than a willful lie, or willful ignorance.

It's neither, note that you have not proved it wrong at all.

Where is all your information (or lack thereof, which is the crux of argument, "we cant know!" ) about the overthrow of Mossedeq coming from? Just because *you*
don't know, or care to look into it deeper, does not mean it is unknowable.

I have read quite a bit on the subject, from more than one author. But I unlike you I am not making any claims to authority, nor that my interpretation is the cannon. I am merely stating facts, and for some reason you can't deal with them.

Your bluff has been called. You obviously know very little about the '59 revolution.

You mean the Cuban Revolution of 1959? I know a thing or two about it as well.
For someone claiming to be so well read on the Iranian events of 1953, getting the year wrong is, well, quite odd.

 

[choxorn]

Okay, the CIA spent what was a decent amount of money in 1953 to overthrow a government. But even in a third world country, you can't hire a bunch of protestors for $10,000. Just think of it this way: Let's say you wanted 10,000 protestors. That's $1 per protestor. They're clearly already pissed at the government if one dollar is enough to make them protest.

 

[Jawz II]

The number one rule of debate is that you can't ask the other party to prove a negative. You made an assertion, you prove it.
That would be analogous to a prosecuter asking in court: "can the defendant prove that he is not a pedophile?


Certainly. If you want to assume that 10,000 dollars then would be equivalent to 40,000 today (I don't actually know), it's still a ridiculously low sum.



I would like to see some source for that NASA budget, and also to what exactly it was supposed to cover. 1M USD back then was at most something like 4M USD nowadays, hardly an impressive sum.


That's a lame claim to authority. You're not citing specific sections of any book, you are saying "I learned stuff in history class so you have to believe me!". That's not granting you any sort of authority on the matter.

Furthermore, even if you did cite specific sections of a book to make your case (which you didn't) that also does not mean that we ought to accept it all at face value. The historical fact is that we know how much the CIA spent, we know which groups were already opposing Mossadeq and we know the actions he was taking.


It's neither, note that you have not proved it wrong at all.


I have read quite a bit on the subject, from more than one author. But I unlike you I am not making any claims to authority, nor that my interpretation is the cannon. I am merely stating facts, and for some reason you can't deal with them.


You mean the Cuban Revolution of 1959? I know a thing or two about it as well.
For someone claiming to be so well read on the Iranian events of 1953, getting the year wrong is, well, quite odd.

Ah ffs:

https://www.cia.gov/library/center-...s/csi-studies/studies/vol48no2/article10.html

I can't find the actual .pdf files of reports and memos and stuff from 1953, but they had them on their site a few years back.

Why do you keep insisting that youre right when its very very obvious you just dont know what is that youre talking about?

Why do people do that?

 

[luiz]

The whole argument is bizarre. Yes, there was CIA interference. Yes, lets condemn it. But why must we falsify history and call the coup of 1953 a "CIA coup", when in fact the monarchist forces of Iran, which were powerful enough, were already on the march to depose Mossadeq, who had also alienated the Shia clergy and thus lost his support among the iranian lower classes?

Lets also not forget that the Shah had the constitutional power to dismiss Mossadeq as PM, which he did use, and Mossadeq refused to obey. Of course that was an authoritarian things for the Shah to do, but he had the legal right to do it, and Mossadeq was already ruling in an authoritarian manner anyway.

Facts are facts.
-CIA Budget for Operation Ajax: 1 million dollars
-Name of the Shia muslim Ayatolah who was a key supporter of Mossadeq and eventually turned against him (and not because of the CIA): Abol-Ghasem Kashani
-Fazlollah Zahedi, the general who lead the coup against Mossadeq, was named by Mossadeq and fully supported the nationalization of iranian oil reserves. Hardly the best friend of British Petroleum.
-Since 1950 Mossadeq had given himself powers to legislate, after a vote without secret ballots and with many accusations of fraud.
-Many (most) of the armed tribed were also at odds with the Mossadeq regime.

-Finally, and I know I will be hated for this, but facts are facts: the iranian economy sharply improved after the coup, which is a clear indication that Mossadeq's confrontational style was causing poverty and a was a reason for discotent against him.

 

[MobBoss]

The whole argument is bizarre. Yes, there was CIA interference. Yes, lets condemn it.

I will play some D advocate here and simply ask why should we condemn it? If other countries had our resources they would (and often do) attempt to the very same thing to us and the rest of the world.

Simply because you find it distasteful doesnt mean its wrong.

 

[luiz]

Ah ffs:

https://www.cia.gov/library/center-...s/csi-studies/studies/vol48no2/article10.html

I can't find the actual .pdf files of reports and memos and stuff from 1953, but they had them on their site a few years back.

Why do you keep insisting that youre right when its very very obvious you just dont know what is that youre talking about?

Why do people do that?

Did you read your own link? Why do people post links without reading them? Could it be that they have no idea what they're talking about?

Your link is a journalistical account of Operation Ajax, so naturally it is focused on that and not the the domestic iranian opposition to Mossadeq. And I certainly did not deny that OA happened, that the CIA bribed some iranian leadership and worked closely with others.

Nevertheless, what I find interesting is that your link (which, again, is not a CIA document but the review of a journalistical account) describes Mossadeq as a fanatical, melo-dramatical and incompetent ruler who lead his country to chaos and missed several opportunities to strenghten both his rule and tha iranian people as a whole. In short, hardly the account of a stable and democratic government overthrown by the CIA.

So, do you have any idea what you're talking about?

Just before you had said "see you next year, kids". Why don't you keep your promiss?

 

[Coral]

that was a lot of money back in the day. They also used more than just cash, and it was more than just the CIA. NASA's budget in 1979 (26 years laeter) was merely $4 M. Also Iran was 3rd world, so people were cheaper. Finally, there was discontent, so it was not professional prices that had to be paid to start the protests.

You are an impressive manipulator of numbers. NASA's budget in 1979 was four billion dollars (almost 12 billion dollars in today's money), not four million.

A 300 level college history class, assigned by someone with a doctorate in history. Furthermore, John Foran is a respected historian who specializes in analyzing revolutions.

We don't know who you are, we don't even know if you've taken such a class. You can't claim authority on that basis and say "Hey I've taken a class on it I'm right". Even though you've taken such a class--you somehow mistook the NASA 1979 budget for four million dollars instead of four billion dollars. That's a really difficult mistake to make. If you took such a class, you'd know at least a little bit about inflation in the United States and around the world, and you'd know that 4 million dollars in 1979 still wasn't a lot of money in terms of the federal budget. You've presented other evidence, but please, don't try to claim that you have any personal authority on the matter.

 

[Azale]

Man I miss this place until I come back and read what all the dum-dums have to say.
Then its goodbye charlie.

Till next year kids.

I think it would be better if you just stayed away, son.