• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

Shots fired in Iranian anti-government protests

Unitedwestand13 said:
Was the Tudeh interested in a millitary coup? Yes or no?
Click to expand...

Do you not possess basic reading comprehension?

Of course the Tudeh was interested in taking power. And the funny thing about communism is that once you have power, you don’t give it back. Ever.
 
Tigerace117 said:
Do you not possess basic reading comprehension?

Of course the Tudeh was interested in taking power. And the funny thing about communism is that once you have power, you don’t give it back. Ever.
Click to expand...

I am demanding evidence, I want actual documentation.
 
Tigerace117 said:
I hate to break it to you, but once more the guys who replaced him did kill political dissidents as well as scores of other innocent people, not to mention sponsored a multitude of terrorist attacks and trained such groups across the globe.

Your delusional comparison of the Shah to Stalin lacks any sort of basis in fact.

Oh, I know all about the Savak. Considering you are defending a regime whose secret police far exceed them in body count, I find your hypocrisy amusing.

And yes, Pinochet was another ruler who took power in the face of a “legitimate government” which was getting in bed with the Soviets. The KGB considered Allende an asset and bribed potential opponents not to run against him.

https://www.amazon.com/World-Was-Going-Our-Way/dp/0465003133
Click to expand...

So your justification is oppression terrorism and genocide are acceptible as long as it stops socialists in russia from having any influence.

Well let us see reality, iran was worse off rights wise under the shaw, less freedom under the shah. the only thing they had better was their economy, and that was heavily subsidised by the united states britain and israel. bBut pinochet was never officially elected, the guy elected was a leftist and overthrown against the will of the people, the shah was pretty much there despite the will of the people, the current iran is not a pure democracy, but it is a republic and more democratic than the vast majority of the middle east.

Iran hated the western world for the shah, instead of simply sating america screwed the pooch and should have chose better you go oput of your way to defend a brutal dictator with no respect for human rights and imprisoned or killed his political dissidents.
 
Tigerace117 said:
No, the only “Western Power” involved was France, which at that time was taking pride in carving an independent path from the rest of the West.

I don’t care how “superior” your enemy is, it doesn’t justify forcing kids to run into minefields.
Click to expand...

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_support_for_Iraq_during_the_Iran–Iraq_war


took less than 5 seconds to show the us backed iraq during that war, at this point you are going out of your way to deny reality as it seems to be in conflict of the reality you wish as true.
 
Unitedwestand13 said:
I am demanding evidence, I want actual documentation.
Click to expand...

Reports from 1953 detailing the actions of the Tudeh in support of Mossadegh

https://partners.nytimes.com/library/world/mideast/082353iran-reversal.html

“By 1953, Mossadeq, however, stood too strong for other Iranians as well as in the view of other countries, in particular the United States.

Mossadeq flew to close to the fire, being the communist Tudeh Party, a party known as the most well-organized political organization in the country. He tolerated the party for their support in the July 1952 incident with the Shah and for their close affiliation to Moscow, sending message to other countries he had the option to ask the Soviets for assistance when necessary. His closeness to the Tudeh worried both players at home and abroad.

The Premier worried the Americans' sense of security. He threatened the American containment of the Soviets by showing he had no qualms in asking for Moscow’s assistance. His toleration threatened to open the flow of communism from Iran to the rest of the Middle East and South Asia.”

https://exploringhist.blogspot.com/2016/08/the-fall-of-mohammad-mossadeq.html?m=1(Sources listed at bottom)


It’s actions in 1953

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tudeh_Party_of_Iran#1953_coup

The Soviets’ actions

http://www.uva.nl/binaries/content/...viet-union-and-mosssadegh-a-research-note.pdf


Here’s a CIA report on the party from the early days of the “Islamic Republic” after the Shah.

https://www.cia.gov/library/readingroom/docs/CIA-RDP81B00401R000500110001-7.pdf
 
beerftw said:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_support_for_Iraq_during_the_Iran–Iraq_war


took less than 5 seconds to show the us backed iraq during that war, at this point you are going out of your way to deny reality as it seems to be in conflict of the reality you wish as true.
Click to expand...

And yet, none of what you said changes the fact that your beloved regime forced children soldiers to run through minefields.

Your own source even admits that the US didn’t do more than provide intelligence and precursors.
 
Tigerace117 said:
Reports from 1953 detailing the actions of the Tudeh in support of Mossadegh

https://partners.nytimes.com/library/world/mideast/082353iran-reversal.html

“By 1953, Mossadeq, however, stood too strong for other Iranians as well as in the view of other countries, in particular the United States.

Mossadeq flew to close to the fire, being the communist Tudeh Party, a party known as the most well-organized political organization in the country. He tolerated the party for their support in the July 1952 incident with the Shah and for their close affiliation to Moscow, sending message to other countries he had the option to ask the Soviets for assistance when necessary. His closeness to the Tudeh worried both players at home and abroad.

The Premier worried the Americans' sense of security. He threatened the American containment of the Soviets by showing he had no qualms in asking for Moscow’s assistance. His toleration threatened to open the flow of communism from Iran to the rest of the Middle East and South Asia.”

https://exploringhist.blogspot.com/2016/08/the-fall-of-mohammad-mossadeq.html?m=1(Sources listed at bottom)


It’s actions in 1953

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tudeh_Party_of_Iran#1953_coup

The Soviets’ actions

http://www.uva.nl/binaries/content/...viet-union-and-mosssadegh-a-research-note.pdf


Here’s a CIA report on the party from the early days of the “Islamic Republic” after the Shah.

https://www.cia.gov/library/readingroom/docs/CIA-RDP81B00401R000500110001-7.pdf
Click to expand...

Why did the shah ban all other political parties except for the one he controlled? Why were the Iranian people denied the right to democratically elect other people.

The United States had a nasty habit of screwing over countries who tried to remain neutral during the Cold War.
 
Tigerace117 said:
And yet, none of what you said changes the fact that your beloved regime forced children soldiers to run through minefields.

Your own source even admits that the US didn’t do more than provide intelligence and precursors.
Click to expand...

If your home was under direct threat of invasion and possible destruction, would you fight againist the invaders using every thing at your disposal?
 
beerftw said:
So your justification is oppression terrorism and genocide are acceptible as long as it stops socialists in russia from having any influence.

Well let us see reality, iran was worse off rights wise under the shaw, less freedom under the shah. the only thing they had better was their economy, and that was heavily subsidised by the united states britain and israel. bBut pinochet was never officially elected, the guy elected was a leftist and overthrown against the will of the people, the shah was pretty much there despite the will of the people, the current iran is not a pure democracy, but it is a republic and more democratic than the vast majority of the middle east.

Iran hated the western world for the shah, instead of simply sating america screwed the pooch and should have chose better you go oput of your way to defend a brutal dictator with no respect for human rights and imprisoned or killed his political dissidents.
Click to expand...

There was no “terrorism and genocide” going on. You have fallen down the rabbit hole into total delusion because you are upset the communists didn’t get to take over and slaughter hundreds of thousands of people.

You should ask the children forced to run into minefields if they think they were “more free” before they died. Oh wait... you aren’t anything more than another individual with a crush on a brutal, totalitarian regime because you don’t have to live there.

Despite your delusions, the people didnt want to be under a pro soviet tyranny which murdered hundreds of thousands of innocents. Iran is only “Democratic” in any sense of the word if you think outright murder of dissidents or anyone else who doesn’t toe the line is Democratic.

And you defend a regime which is far, far worse than the Shah. Your hypocrisy is truly amazing.
 
Unitedwestand13 said:
If your home was under direct threat of invasion and possible destruction, would you fight againist the invaders using every thing at your disposal?
Click to expand...

No, I would not commit war crimes no matter what, and those were war crimes. And even by general war crime standards they were particularly despicable ones.
 
Unitedwestand13 said:
Why did the shah ban all other political parties except for the one he controlled? Why were the Iranian people denied the right to democratically elect other people.

The United States had a nasty habit of screwing over countries who tried to remain neutral during the Cold War.
Click to expand...

Gee, I wonder why he would ban the group’s actively plotting against him. Hmm.....:roll:

Perhaps because the last one they elected nearly ensured that communists could take over Iran?

Americans still have a nasty habit of justifying the actions of all sorts of despicable regimes to try to support the “US is wrong” narrative.

And no, nobody who relied on Tudeh support could honestly be considered “neutral”.
 
Tigerace117 said:
No, I would not commit war crimes no matter what, and those were war crimes. And even by general war crime standards they were particularly despicable ones.
Click to expand...

I don’t think the Iraqi’s are clean in this area either, but overthrowing the ayatollah for War-crimes is hypocritical considering the fact we supported the tyrannical governments of the shah, Pinochet, And francisco Franco.
 
Tigerace117 said:
And yet, none of what you said changes the fact that your beloved regime forced children soldiers to run through minefields.

Your own source even admits that the US didn’t do more than provide intelligence and precursors.
Click to expand...

Might want to read it again, the link shows dumb bombs from the us being transferred to iraq through saudi arabia, as well as reagan admin fully aware of saddam gassing kurds, but the admin decided it was worth it for genocide to occur so long as iran did not win that war. did you even read the part with the us selling saddam anthrax?
 
Tigerace117 said:
Gee, I wonder why he would ban the group’s actively plotting against him. Hmm.....:roll:

Perhaps because the last one they elected nearly ensured that communists could take over Iran?

Americans still have a nasty habit of justifying the actions of all sorts of despicable regimes to try to support the “US is wrong” narrative.

And no, nobody who relied on Tudeh support could honestly be considered “neutral”.
Click to expand...

Why didn’t he just ban the Tudeh only?

The shah could have allowed other political parties to exist.
 
Unitedwestand13 said:
I don’t think the Iraqi’s are clean in this area either, but overthrowing the ayatollah for War-crimes is hypocritical considering the fact we supported the tyrannical governments of the shah, Pinochet, And francisco Franco.
Click to expand...

You do realize that US volunteers fought against Franco in the Civil War.....right? Hell, the Shah, Pinochet and Franco put together were far less oppressive than even minor communist regimes like Romania or East Germany.

Now that’s we’ve gotten over your “forcing children to charge through minefields isn’t that bad because Franco” shtick out of the way....
 
Tigerace117 said:
Gee, I wonder why he would ban the group’s actively plotting against him. Hmm.....:roll:

Perhaps because the last one they elected nearly ensured that communists could take over Iran?

Americans still have a nasty habit of justifying the actions of all sorts of despicable regimes to try to support the “US is wrong” narrative.

And no, nobody who relied on Tudeh support could honestly be considered “neutral”.
Click to expand...

But Mosaddegh was nuetral in the sense that he did not want any part of the Cold War conflict and was willing to cater to one side.
 
Unitedwestand13 said:
Why didn’t he just ban the Tudeh only?

The shah could have allowed other political parties to exist.
Click to expand...

The other political parties.....which had already shown their willingness to ally with the Tudeh?

Those political parties?

That’s like asking why the Allies didn’t let the, day, French Popular Party(guys who ran Vichy) stick around.
 
Tigerace117 said:
There was no “terrorism and genocide” going on. You have fallen down the rabbit hole into total delusion because you are upset the communists didn’t get to take over and slaughter hundreds of thousands of people.

You should ask the children forced to run into minefields if they think they were “more free” before they died. Oh wait... you aren’t anything more than another individual with a crush on a brutal, totalitarian regime because you don’t have to live there.

Despite your delusions, the people didnt want to be under a pro soviet tyranny which murdered hundreds of thousands of innocents. Iran is only “Democratic” in any sense of the word if you think outright murder of dissidents or anyone else who doesn’t toe the line is Democratic.

And you defend a regime which is far, far worse than the Shah. Your hypocrisy is truly amazing.
Click to expand...


Wait despite my delusions they did not want to be under pro soviet tyranny? so the people voted did not know what they wanted and you knew better than they did? I somehow doubt it was those people who did not want it as much as other govts not wanting it, if the people were so against it they would not have supported it, but rather it seems out guys have to overthrow elected officials and supported govt officials.

Um you need to use google again, the child soldiers were not forced, they all volunteered which is easy with islamic people, they had no shortage of volunteers.
 
Unitedwestand13 said:
But Mosaddegh was nuetral in the sense that he did not want any part of the Cold War conflict and was willing to cater to one side.
Click to expand...

Being willing to cater to one side directly contradicts the entire concept of neutrality. The man knew full well what the Tudeh stood for and still allied with them.
 
beerftw said:
Wait despite my delusions they did not want to be under pro soviet tyranny? so the people voted did not know what they wanted and you knew better than they did? I somehow doubt it was those people who did not want it as much as other govts not wanting it, if the people were so against it they would not have supported it, but rather it seems out guys have to overthrow elected officials and supported govt officials.

Um you need to use google again, the child soldiers were not forced, they all volunteered which is easy with islamic people, they had no shortage of volunteers.
Click to expand...

Buddy, I rather doubt the Chilean people would have voted for Allende had they known the KGB was paying off his rivals not to oppose him. But hey, in your delusional worldview people want corruption to go with their mass killings.

Oh really? They “volunteered” is that it? What a pathetic cop out attempt by you. You do realize it’s against international law to use child soldiers for a reason....right? Kids are easily brainwashed; do you actually think those kids wanted to be blown to pieces of their own free will?

Your claim is absolutely despicable.
 
Tigerace117 said:
You do realize that US volunteers fought against Franco in the Civil War.....right? Hell, the Shah, Pinochet and Franco put together were far less oppressive than even minor communist regimes like Romania or East Germany.

Now that’s we’ve gotten over your “forcing children to charge through minefields isn’t that bad because Franco” shtick out of the way....
Click to expand...

A tyrant is a tyrant is a tyrant is a tyrant.

Franco, the shah, and Pinochet were all tyrants that killed the people of their nations.

It doesn’t matter if they weren’t communists, they were still tyrants.
 
Tigerace117 said:
Buddy, I rather doubt the Chilean people would have voted for Allende had they known the KGB was paying off his rivals not to oppose him. But hey, in your delusional worldview people want corruption to go with their mass killings.

Oh really? They “volunteered” is that it? What a pathetic cop out attempt by you. You do realize it’s against international law to use child soldiers for a reason....right? Kids are easily brainwashed; do you actually think those kids wanted to be blown to pieces of their own free will?

Your claim is absolutely despicable.
Click to expand...

Isn’t agent orange also outlawed by international law?
 
Lovebug said:
Been watching it on the news. I wish the Iranian people the best of luck.
Click to expand...

They are sheep. It’s an unarmed population, with no historical concept of freedom. He’ll, the protestors are probably chanting “Death to the Great Satan” or some dumb **** like that.
 
Unitedwestand13 said:
A tyrant is a tyrant is a tyrant is a tyrant.

Franco, the shah, and Pinochet were all tyrants that killed the people of their nations.

It doesn’t matter if they weren’t communists, they were still tyrants.
Click to expand...

It does matter rather a lot that some tyrants kill far more people than others.

You can be a nasty regime but still be a far better alternative to any other option around.

And “tyranny” is a relative term. You might think the Shah was a tyrant; somebody who had their kid brainwashed into clearing mines by running into them would think very differently.
 
chuckiechan said:
They are sheep. It’s an unarmed population, with no historical concept of freedom. He’ll, the protestors are probably chanting “Death to the Great Satan” or some dumb **** like that.
Click to expand...

As opposed to the heavily armed sheep who committed treason en masse to try and keep owning other human beings here in the US?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom