<p>leal: Yeah, absolutely it’s partial explanation. I only posted that justification disclaimer because of the amount of times I’ve been accused of justifying the attacks when I’m merely explaining partially what precipitated them.</p>
<p>As for 9/11 conspiracy theorists, maybe nuts is the wrong word, but I cannot take anyone who believes that 9/11 was a conspiracy seriously on anything.</p>
<p>I think the rational “blowback” theory on 9/11 is that the U.S. essentially created the infrastructure for radical Islamist militants through direct and indirect aid in the 1980s when they were deemed useful in harassing the Soviet Union in Afghanistan and in the central Asian SSRs, when Pakistan was our ally vs. Soviet-leaning India, and when in the Arab world they were subverting socialist secular governments. So, essentially, we helped a lot in creating the monster that attacked us.</p>
<p>Most Republicans would accuse you of being a terrorist-sympthasizer for saying that. Most Americans choose to ignore, or fail to understand that concept.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>That’s true, and I really don’t understand why! Why are people who try to understand the ‘other side’ terrorist-sympathizers? To refer back to my earlier analogy, if you’re going to walk thru a desert full of rattlesnakes, it’s wise to understand rattlesnake behavior.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>So you wouldn’t take seriously any of the 1000’s of college professors, scientists, engineers, architects, pilots, firefighters, and military officials on the patriots site (above) ? This is an example of the same thing: people are so quick to label anyone who questions our govt. as a ‘nut’ or a ‘terrorist-sympathizer.’ Yet these professionals are hardly ‘nuts.’</p>
<p>I contend that a true patriot is one who asks questions and holds our govt. accountable, and that includes such issues as blowback, which is a very real issue.</p>
<p>There’s a big difference between saying, “The United States interfered with internal politics in Saudi Arabia, Egypt, Afghanistan, etc., so no one should be surprised when those people come after us,” and saying, “The United States financed the organization, arming, and training of specific Islamist militants to fight the Soviet Union, so don’t be surprised if after they defeated the Soviet Union they were armed, trained, organized, experienced, and arrogant, and that we were in line to be their next great enemy.” The first is at least somewhat sympathetic to the terrorists; it implies some kind of moral eqivalency between our actions and theirs, and that our actions might have justified theirs. The second doesn’t do that at all. It just holds that it was shortsighted of us to enable allies of convenience who were fundamentally hostile to us just because they were more hostile to our enemy…</p>
<p>The 9/11 conspiracy stuff . . . well, that makes me really glad my children got all their immunizations.</p>
<p>What have immunizations got to do with anything?</p>
<p>leal please keep the 9/11 theories out of this thread, we’re not discussing that here</p>
<p>"“The United States interfered with internal politics in Saudi Arabia, Egypt, Afghanistan, etc., so no one should be surprised when those people come after us,” "–JHS</p>
<p>What is inaccurate in this statement?</p>
<p>Iran’s post Wold War II History is the best example of blowback.</p>
<p>Yeah, JHS, your claims of implication of moral equivalency are baseless, in my opinion. What moral equivalence would be is “[blah blah blah, interfered with internal politics etc] so we shouldn’t blame some of them for being ****ed and fighting back.”</p>
<p>Saying we shouldn’t be surprised doesn’t imply moral equivalence - we shouldn’t be surprised.</p>
<p>The US policy with the old regimes has little to nothing to do with the ideals of Islamic Fascism. It just provides a convenient excuse for them as they have admitted in their own writings. As I said, go read some of the recent books on the subject. They have their own plans for power which have little to do with the US except as we get in their way.</p>
<p>Here’s a little history lesson for Barrons who is well in need for one.</p>
<p>In 1953 Iran was a small and weak country in comparision to the major powers of the world. They never killed an American or a European or a Russian. All that Iran had oil which was being exploited by the British. There was a populist uprising and a democratic leader overthrew the monarch who was an absolutist tyrant. Imagine that. Rice and Bush always talked about spreading democracy. Here it was. 50 years ago. And without any need for foreign intervention. Because the new leader of Iran, whose name was Dr. Mohammad Mossadegh wanted to nationalize the resources of his own country he was harrased by the US-UK tyranny. He was no fascist, Islamic or not. He had a PHD in Political Science from a French University and was very “Western”. Actually he had an anatagonist relationship with the the Islamic clerics of his day because he did not want a theocracy. The corporate interests of the United States and the UK, along with the CIA and the MI-6 overthrew a democratic leader and re-instated the Shah *Farsi word for King. . How was this possible? They bribed hundreds of officials and created false propoganda, even extending up to the top of the military. You may ask, how could they even re-instate the King. Surely the democratic uprising would have imprisoned him or executed him for his crimes against the nation, looting and what not. No, the King fled. So he was able to work with the CIA and the MI6 to overthrow the democratically elected leader. Why is that important? The story goes ahead.</p>
<pre><code>Once the King was re-instated he was very unpopular although brief waves of economic progress calmed dissent, there was growing anger. Why? Iranians had American cars in the 1960’s and 1970’s. They listened to to the Beatles and Bee Gees. They loved American culture. Tehran was a cosmopilitan place. They asked, why can we not have a democracy like the USA? The King was overthrown…
</code></pre>
<p>If you asked most Americans in 1979 about the 1953 coup that overthew the democratically elected leader most were woefully ignorant. Why should we care if we destroyed the democratic aspirations of another country? In the resolution, as some of the older people on this Board may remember about 50 Americans were taken hostage. Women and blacks were immediately released. Only the white men were kept hostage. There was the concept that women and blacks suffered enough as it was in American society.
You may ask why the hostages were taken. There is an interesting viewpoint that is validated by history. In 1953 when the Shah was removed, he was forcibly brought back in by US=UK neo colonial interests. They feared it would happen again. They thought that keeping American hostages would prevent this. The US harbored the dictator of Iran during this period. </p>
<p>But did the United States stop and cut their losses? Would they allow the new regime, which was installed through a popular revolution tend to the needs of its people. Of course, not. The CIA was not that smart. Instead, they encouraged Saddam Hussein to invade Iran. He would not have had the resources to invade without US cover both militarily and through the UN. Although almost the whole entire world came together to try to break the will of the nascent Iranian regime, they failed. However, there was sinister things taking place. The US, through official government contractors and through private defense companies funded both sides of the war to create maximum devastation, killing a million Iranians.
Nevertheless, the war ended 8 years later. There were never apologies from t he United States for giving chemical weapons to Saddam Hussein. The same chemical weapons he was accused of having in 2003. Of course the US thought Saddam had chemical weapons, after all, we gave him to him in 80’s when it was politically expedient. Rumsfield is the one, after all, who shook hands with while making the deal. Since that time we have subject Iran to sanctions and international scrutiny, routinely blocking the entry of Iran to the WTO and refusing to supply replacement parks for an aging CIVILIAN fleet that only harms ordinary Iranians. </p>
<pre><code> So, Barrons this has nothing to do with Islamo–fascism. Let’s see what other people say.
</code></pre>
<p>"In March 2000, then-Secretary of State Madeleine Albright stated her regret that Mossadegh was ousted: “The Eisenhower administration believed its actions were justified for strategic reasons. But the coup was clearly a setback for Iran’s political development and it is easy to see now why many Iranians continue to resent this intervention by America.” In the same year, the New York Times published a detailed report about the coup based on alleged CIA documents.[10]
<a href=“Mohammad Mosaddegh - Wikipedia”>Mohammad Mosaddegh - Wikipedia;
<p>So yes blowblack has important ramifications. America may have forgot. Iranians did not. People marched with Mossadegh’s picture during the Iranian revolution. The main reason the regime in Iran is popular is because there is a perception that they are standing up to the West, which has meddled in their internal affairs for far too long.</p>
<p><a href=“Iran hostage crisis - Wikipedia”>Iran hostage crisis - Wikipedia;
<p>]</p>
<p>Coverage of the Iranian Revolution ;<a href=“http://youtube.com/watch?v=c6-ss8vwQwU[/url]”>http://youtube.com/watch?v=c6-ss8vwQwU</a></p>
<p>gottalove:</p>
<p>You are right to cite Iran as an example of long-term blowback, although you curiously omit the occupation of the U.S. Embassy and hostage-taking in passing from the Iranian revolution to the Iran-Iraq war, and the U.S. support of Saddam therein. But I wish you would be a little less condescending. I would assume that most of the adults on this board know who Mohammed Mossadegh was and what happened in 1953.</p>
<p>Iran denies the Holocaust to delegitimize Israel. If the United States were to get behind Iran then they would no longer by allies with the only democracy in the Middle East. Turkey is another one of our allies situated in/near the Middle East. If we fight to make them acknowledge the Armenian genocide, then the US will be losing a friend in an area where friends are sorely needed.
Hypocritical? I suppose, but that’s to be expected.</p>
<p>JHS I actually made the “hostage crisis” a big point. I suggest you re-read. </p>
<p>And you think most adults know who Dr. Mossadegh i s, I doubt it. There was a poll out last week 40 percent of Americans can’t name one Republican candidate. </p>
<p>bazcat,
the US does not have to pick a side. Non-intervention. Middle Eastern politiics has so many twists and turns and irrationality. Why sacrifice US soldiers? Turkey is our ally. So is the Kurds. What does the Us plan on doing in Northern Iraq?</p>
<p>
Does this have anything to do with my post? I simply explained the reasons for the the United States’ behavior in regards to the Holocaust and the Armenian genocide. As for non-intervention and so on, I don’t decide these things; why are you asking me?</p>
<p>Here’s a brief overview of the real problem and it has nothing to do with Iran or the CIA. You are swallowing the misdiredtion propaganda hook line and sinker.</p>
<p><a href=“http://www.thenation.com/doc/20011008/hitchens20010924[/url]”>http://www.thenation.com/doc/20011008/hitchens20010924</a></p>
<p>Barrons,</p>
<p>I’m sorry, can you summarize the thesis of the Hitchens article you linked to? I just read the whole thing and, either i am dense, or there is a lot of shooting with no direction in this article. I could not even discern who or what Hitchens was speaking for or against.</p>
<p>“The administration essentially wants to allow the Turks to continue to deny a historical fact that preceded even the existence of the current Turkish system of government.”</p>
<p>The Administration DOESN’T deny the million Iraqis (half of them kids) killed by Bill Clinton - it is historical fact. More kids than died in Armenia. The Adminstration also doesn’t deny that General Betrayus ran an operation that resulted in arming Al-Qaeda with tens of millions of dollars in U.S. weaponry. </p>
<p>Administrations do what they are going to do. The Democrats ignored Armenia for 90 years - do you really think it makes a bit of difference if the Republicans ignore them for an addition 15 months?</p>
<p>It’s just pseudo-Christian fascism, where government provides massive economic rackoffs to the corporate socialists who control it, while controlling its own populace through fear-mongering, and populations abroad through state-sponsored terrorism.</p>