• 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!

Top Revolutionary Guard commanders assassinated

Kandahar

Enemy Combatant
DP Veteran
Joined
Jul 20, 2005
Messages
20,688
Reaction score
7,320
Location
Washington, DC
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Liberal
BBC NEWS | Middle East | Iranian commanders assassinated

Several top commanders in Iran's elite Revolutionary Guards have been killed in a suicide bombing in the volatile south-east of the country.

Iranian state television said 31 people died in the attack, in the Pishin region of Sistan-Baluchistan, and more than 25 were injured.

Shia and Sunni tribal leaders were also killed. A Sunni resistance group, Jundullah, said they carried it out.
 

From the link.

"We consider the recent terrorist attack to be the result of US action. This is a sign of America's animosity against our country," Mr Larijani said, quoted by AFP.

"Mr Obama has said he will extend his hand towards Iran, but with this terrorist action he has burned his hand," he said, referring to US President Barack Obama.

The US condemned the attack, with a state department spokesman adding: "Reports of alleged US involvement are completely false."

Earlier reports on Iranian TV quoted what it called "informed sources" as saying that Britain was directly involved.

A Foreign Office spokesman said: "The British government condemns the terrorist attack... and the sad loss of life which it caused."

The Iranian government has previously accused both countries of supporting the militants.
 
From the link.

I hope the US is involved, the sooner the fascist dictatorship of thugs and murderers that is iran is wiped off the face of the earth the better.

The IRI is a tumor, a cancer in the heart of the middle east that must be destroyed.
 
I hope the US is involved, the sooner the fascist dictatorship of thugs and murderers that is iran is wiped off the face of the earth the better.

The IRI is a tumor, a cancer in the heart of the middle east that must be destroyed.


Welcome to DebatePolitics. :2wave:


I think I'm gonna like this guy.
 
I hope the US is involved, the sooner the fascist dictatorship of thugs and murderers that is iran is wiped off the face of the earth the better.

The IRI is a tumor, a cancer in the heart of the middle east that must be destroyed.


:shock: O dear...
 
I hope the US is involved, the sooner the fascist dictatorship of thugs and murderers that is iran is wiped off the face of the earth the better.

The IRI is a tumor, a cancer in the heart of the middle east that must be destroyed.

I hope we're not involved.

I'm getting sick and tired of the United States being the driving force behind coups, resistance groups and nation-building exercises that ultimately blow up in our faces.

TED,
Reminding you all that the Unites States is directly responsible for the state of Iran's government, which used to be the kind of democracy we claim we love.
 
I hope the US is involved, the sooner the fascist dictatorship of thugs and murderers that is iran is wiped off the face of the earth the better.

The IRI is a tumor, a cancer in the heart of the middle east that must be destroyed.

I hope the US is involved, as it would mean Obama is serious about regime change. Between terrorist attacks on Republican Guard commanders and Qom clerics opposing the Ayatollah, things may continue to deteriorate for the government of Iran.
 
I hope the US is involved, as it would mean Obama is serious about regime change. Between terrorist attacks on Republican Guard commanders and Qom clerics opposing the Ayatollah, things may continue to deteriorate for the government of Iran.

Iran's government is what it is because of our prior interference.

:roll:
 
Iran's government is what it is because of our prior interference.

:roll:

So, what? What's your point as it applies to now? Just like our support for Saddam's regime during the Iraq-Iran war, those were different eras. 1953 we were at war with the Soviets along the periphery of their empire. THus our actions in Iran. We're too dynamic to the changing state of the world to hold a consistent policy.
 
So, what? What's your point as it applies to now? Just like our support for Saddam's regime during the Iraq-Iran war, those were different eras. 1953 we were at war with the Soviets along the periphery of their empire. THus our actions in Iran. We're too dynamic to the changing state of the world to hold a consistent policy.

As I said in the other thread, interest in halting Soviet intrusion did indeed exist, but so do declassified CIA documents that indicate that warnings of Soviet intrusions supported by Iran's pro-Soviet Tudah were largely inaccurate and functioned as a smokescreen, as later admitted by Dean Acheson.

1952 CIA coup in Iran, by ERVAND ABRAHAMIAN

Throughout the crisis, the “communist danger” was more of a rhetorical device than a real issue — i.e., it was part of the cold-war discourse. The British and American governments knew Mossadeq was as distrustful of the Soviet Union as of the West. In fact, they often complained to each other about his “neutralism.” They knew perfectly well that the so-called “fellow-travelers” were staunch nationalists (after the coup some of them obtained refuge in the United States). They also knew that the Tudeh, even though the largest political organization, was in no position to seize power (F0 371/Persia 1952/ 98597; FO 371/Persia 1953/104573; Declassified Documents/1981/CIA/ Doc 276). Despite 20,000 members and 110,000 sympathizers, the Tudeh was no match for the armed tribes and the 129,000-man military. What is more, the British and Americans had enough inside information to be confident that the party had no plans to initiate armed insurrection. At the beginning of the crisis when the Truman administration was under the impression a compromise was possible, Acheson had stressed the communist danger and warned if Mossadeq was not helped the Tudeh would take over (FO 371/Persia 1051/1530). The Foreign Office had retorted that the Tudeh was no real threat (FO 371/ Persia 1952/98608). But, in August 1953, when the Foreign Office echoed the Eisenhower administration’s claim that the Tudeh was about to take over, Acheson now retorted that there was no such communist danger (Roosevelt, 1979, 88). Acheson was honest enough to admit that the issue of the Tudeh was a smokescreen.

I would recommend adopting a somewhat more skeptical perspective of this matter, since merely assuming that the U.S. administration of the time had some benevolent interest in preventing Soviet intrusion in the region is superficially and unduly optimistic, especially considering Mossadeq's hostility toward all varieties of foreign intervention.

But I wouldn't use a possessive pronoun to refer to the actions of a political administration that most Americans are genuinely unaware of, as that would imply some degree of culpability for the consequences of that anti-democratic action to people who don't deserve it. :shrug:
 
I hope the US is involved, as it would mean Obama is serious about regime change. Between terrorist attacks on Republican Guard commanders and Qom clerics opposing the Ayatollah, things may continue to deteriorate for the government of Iran.

I would have hoped that the U.S govt is sensibile enough not to have been involved . By supporting an openly sectarian organisation that kills shia civillians they would merely be helping to bolster the regimes legitimacy among the Shia. Even from a self interested perspective it would have been a stupid thing to do. Detoriating secuirity situations work brilliantly for authortarian regimes. Look at Stalin.
 
Last edited:
I would recommend adopting a somewhat more skeptical perspective of this matter, since merely assuming that the U.S. administration of the time had some benevolent interest in preventing Soviet intrusion in the region is superficially and unduly optimistic, especially considering Mossadeq's hostility toward all varieties of foreign intervention.

But I wouldn't use a possessive pronoun to refer to the actions of a political administration that most Americans are genuinely unaware of, as that would imply some degree of culpability for the consequences of that anti-democratic action to people who don't deserve it. :shrug:

I never said benevolent interest. But given the times, "Mossadeq's hostility toward all varieties of foreign intervention" was reason enough to replace the regime with our own. We ended up with a compliant regime in our interests for a time.

Which possessive pronoun? Could you gimme the sentence and highlight the word. I am thinking it is the work "our", but I am not sure. I disagree that it implues culpability, merely that I identify with our government, for good and bad. Hell, I wasn't even born then.
 
I would have hoped that the U.S govt is sensibile enough not to have been involved . By supporting an openly sectarian organisation that kills shia civillians they would merely be helping to bolster the regimes legitimacy among the Shia. Even from a self interested perspective it would have been a stupid thing to do. Detoriating secuirity situations work brilliantly for authortarian regimes. Look at Stalin.

I don't think they were involved, but you never know. But, "Detoriating secuirity situations work brilliantly for authortarian regimes" also work well for pro-democracy forces. The more the government cracks down, the more people will be willing to take action against them.
 
I never said benevolent interest. But given the times, "Mossadeq's hostility toward all varieties of foreign intervention" was reason enough to replace the regime with our own. We ended up with a compliant regime in our interests for a time.

If there's a central problem with your posts, it seems to be a lack of awareness that persons other than Anglo-Saxon U.S. citizens are capable of happiness and suffering. :shrug:
 
I don't think they were involved, but you never know. But, "Detoriating secuirity situations work brilliantly for authortarian regimes" also work well for pro-democracy forces. The more the government cracks down, the more people will be willing to take action against them.

Yes but obviously the shia are the majority here. If the government cracks down on people who have a habbit of trying to kill shia civillians they are likely to be more sympathetic.
 
If there's a central problem with your posts, it seems to be a lack of awareness that persons other than Anglo-Saxon U.S. citizens are capable of happiness and suffering. :shrug:

In you are going to call me a racist, you should get that into the open instead of being oblique. I'm not.

What in this post:
I never said benevolent interest. But given the times, "Mossadeq's hostility toward all varieties of foreign intervention" was reason enough to replace the regime with our own. We ended up with a compliant regime in our interests for a time.
has anything to do with Anglo-Saxons?

That others are also interested in happiness and have an aversion to suffering is secondary to the needs of my country. I'm delighted when they are congruent.
 
Yes but obviously the shia are the majority here. If the government cracks down on people who have a habbit of trying to kill shia civillians they are likely to be more sympathetic.

It's a conplex situation. The government is also cracking down on Shia.
 
So, what? What's your point as it applies to now?

My point is that we have a very bad track record when it comes to meddling in the affairs of other nations -- bad meaning that, while we may have had good intentions, our actions caused unintended consequences that end up biting us on the as for decades to come.
 
In you are going to call me a racist, you should get that into the open instead of being oblique. I'm not.

Anglo-Saxons aren't a race, so I fail to see how that one would go anywhere.

What in this post:

has anything to do with Anglo-Saxons?

I don't believe I made any specific reference to your posts in this thread so much as your posts on the board in general.

That others are also interested in happiness and have an aversion to suffering is secondary to the needs of my country. I'm delighted when they are congruent.

There's no ethical basis for such jingoism and substantially more suffering caused by jingoistic initiatives than would occur should non-nationalistic perspectives and goals have been considered.
 
My point is that we have a very bad track record when it comes to meddling in the affairs of other nations -- bad meaning that, while we may have had good intentions, our actions caused unintended consequences that end up biting us on the as for decades to come.

America's enemies love to use that argument to try to prevent us from doing anything overseas at all.
 
Anglo-Saxons aren't a race, so I fail to see how that one would go anywhere.

Really? How would you classify them?

I don't believe I made any specific reference to your posts in this thread so much as your posts on the board in general.

We were specifically talking about Manifest Destiny and the identity of people in the United States at the time was Anglo-Saxon. I happen to be American, although my roots are Anglo-Saxon. I tend to identify with "Anglo-Saxon" style democracy and economic theories, having been accused as such by Frenchmen.

My other posts to the board has made no reference to them.



There's no ethical basis for such jingoism and substantially more suffering caused by jingoistic initiatives than would occur should non-nationalistic perspectives and goals have been considered.

Ridiculous.
 
That others are also interested in happiness and have an aversion to suffering is secondary to the needs of my country.

And what are the NEEDS of your country in Iran?
 
America's enemies love to use that argument to try to prevent us from doing anything overseas at all.

Why should you?
 
Back
Top Bottom