9-11 was a completely unprovoked attack.
I suppose, if you don't consider killing hundreds of thousands of people a provocation.
Agent Ferris said:
Islam has been at war with us since nearly our founding. The Barbary pirates were attacking us and using Islam as their justification.
Those are two very different assertions.
Agent Ferris said:
Ah the hero Mossadeq who overthrew the Iranian Constitutional Monarchy by dissolving parliament through a fraudulent referendum in which he garnered a 99.9% yay vote.
The constitutional monarchy had evolved in a direction more monarchic than constitutional. Mossadegh dissolved the parliament not in order to rule by decree, but rather to establish a new parliament chosen through fair, open elections. It was a mistake, but arguably a legitimate move in a time of war.
Agent Ferris said:
As he aligned with the Soviets and the Soviet Tudeh party formed in Northern Iran during the Soviet occupation which was only brought to an end through U.S. intervention on Iran's behalf.
This is what's sometimes referred to as a "badge of ignorance," a false claim so outdated and overused that there's no excuse for it any more. Mossadegh's crime wasn't alignment with Russia. It was his nationalist policy of non-alignment and his effort to free Iran of undue influence from both Russia and the West. The idea that he was a communist is a myth created by the CIA, which engaged in false flag violence as part of its black propaganda operation against him.
Agent Ferris said:
What Parliament? There was no Parliament to have consent, because Mossadeq unconstitutionally dissolved Parliament and granted himself the power to make law by decree through a fraudulent referendum in which he garnered a 99.9% yay vote. It was only after Mossadeq dissolved Parliament that the Shah ordered his dismissal.
Wrong again. Mossadegh dissolved the Parliament after the first attempt to dismiss him had failed. True, he had already taken the referendum, but this was only because he'd learned of the plot against him.
Agent Ferris said:
Ya Mossadeq supported democracy by helping to destroy it.
This attitude toward Mossadegh in general is a good example of how Americans react to Muslim democracy when they actually see it trying to get started. It's a nice word and a good pretext for intervention, but it goes right out the window as soon as it conflicts with oil interests.
Iraq is another example. Their government was established under our watch and trumpeted by us as a legitimate democracy, yet we've constantly interfered with it and even attacked some parties when they opposed our ideas on oil rights. Most of the enemies we've fought in Iraq weren't terrorists but just people who wanted to govern themselves. It would be the same way if we went into Iran now. We claim to support the reformers (even though they don't want our help), but if it came to a choice between democracy and oil, we'd do our best to crush them as well.
Agent Ferris said:
What communications? I see no communications listing in that link.
Of particular interest is The CIA station chief's report that "our boys in Ankara did it." There's also the communication from the Turkish military to the US embassy informing them when the coup would take place.
Agent Ferris said:
So an alleged NATO war game that allegedly took place on Turkish soil with troops who took no part in the coup which the only citation for is a wiki article that cites back to a none reviewable journal published by a leftist Alternative Türkeihilfe somehow equates to evidence of U.S. complicity in the coup?
It's a factor, along with the station chief's admission and the history of American intervention in Iran, Guatemala, the Congo, etc. It's very much part of a pattern.