Tehran '79

[Jack]

Could all this nonsense have been avoided if we leveled Tehran in 79?

[alex]

I don't know about that, but it could have been avoided if we levelled DC, NYC, langley et al in 1969!!! :smile:

[Anonymous]

It certainly could have been avoided if we didn't turn our back on the Shah. It's widely known that the reason he left and allowed Khomeini to come into power is because Carter turned his back on him. Carter did this to punish the Shah for human rights abuses. Good ol' Carter.

[Laocoön]

I mean, what kind of friendship is it that can't overlook a policy of ramming bottles into opponents' rectums and then breaking them? What kind of friend was President Carter that he would let something as little as that come between the US and the Shah? We need to remember what's important: friendship. We don't need to hear about broken bottles in people's rectums, or how they got there. If you're going to be someone's friend, you need to trust him. And back him up militarily. Trust him and back him up militarily. And no questions about broken bottles in people's rectums. So once again, that's trust, military backup, and no questions about broken bottles in people's rectums. Shouldn't this be the basis for all US foreign policy?

You wouldn't hold it against Jimmy Olsen, would you, Superman, if he were to ram a kryptonite bottle into your rectum and break it, would you? I don't think you would, because you know the meaning of friendship, unlike a certain peanut farmer we all know...

Oops! I guess that was one of those "q-a-b-b-i-p-r's," wasn't it? Sorry, Superman!

[Dr T Non-Fan]

Solution: don't make friends.

[Anonymous]

Laoco'on, now let's not get your S&M fantasies confused with real life. You show me one bit of evidence that what you wrote ever happened. Also, upload an AVI file if you have one.

<font size=-1>[ This Message was edited by: Superman on 2001-10-03 15:01 ]</font>

[Laocoön]

Too easy.

http://www.fas.org/irp/world/iran/savak/


Over the years, SAVAK became a law unto itself, having legal authority to arrest and detain suspected persons indefinitely. SAVAK operated its own prisons in Tehran (the Komiteh and Evin facilities) and, many suspected, throughout the country as well. SAVAK's torture methods included electric shock, whipping, beating, inserting brokon glass and pouring boiling water into the rectum, tying weights to the testicles, and the extraction of teeth and nails. Many of these activities were carried out without any institutional checks.


You're not thinking that it was maybe okay for that unfaithful President Carter to have turned his back on the Shah, who, after all, never rammed a bottle into his (Carter's) rectum and broke it? Where's the love, Superman!?

[Laocoön]

On 2001-10-03 14:49, Superman wrote:
Also, upload an AVI file if you have one.



You're a sick son of a b**ch.

[Anonymous]

I was kidding! Are you Iranian?

[Laocoön]

No, I'm not Iranian. Are you? Would you be kidding if you had a broken bottle rammed into your rectum?

Do you still think it was wrong to abandon the Shah? Would your head even leave enough room for that broken bottle?

[Anonymous]

I thought you said they rammed it, then broke it. Now you're saying they break it, then ram it. Which is it?

Besides, people (I said people, not including me) pay leather clad ladies $500 and hour for some of those services.

Last but not least, who wouldn't take a broken bottle up the *** for a study free FSA?

[Laocoön]

Shouldn't have neglected this snippet from my earlier link on the Iranian broken-bottle-in-your-rectum secret police organization, SAVAK:


Formed under the guidance of United States and Israeli intelligence officers in 1957...

[Anonymous]

Is this just Marxist dialectics?

We support some evil b******, and some lunatic fringe or the communists take over. The lunatic fringe promote their own brand of violent oppression, or the communists instill a totalitarian state. Later, the pendulum shifts again, with our help.

Granted, the U.S. has been on the side of wrong more than once in the past; and we have seen countries fall to evil regimes that we opposed.

On balance, are we aiding the development of balanced and stable democracies? Are there countries which are not ready for democracy?

When was the last time a country fell to an opposition government (one that we opposed) where the people were generally better off due to the new government? In other words, what examples are there of U.S.-opposed governments that seem to have developed a stable and prosperous country for the people?

[Guerilla poster]

Cuba :wink:

[Anonymous]

Master Po and GP, stay on topic.

[alex]

Laoc, whatever bad things the shah did, and he did alot of bad things, you gotta admit, the guy knew how to dress! I saw some footage of him in stylish shades, very cool suits that would have looked garish on evryone else, you know how people say kennedy was the first handsome president, that's why his death was so tragic, well I say the shah reza pahlavi goes down as the best dressed leader in recorded history! hands down! Worst dressed?? maybe castro, what do you think?

[alex]

Most iranians were sick of the shah's crap, and supported the revolution, like more than 90 percent. They brought back the ayatollah, not because they wanted him to be their leader, but as an "in your face" move to the shah, who'd exiled him years earlier. The ayatollah seized the opportunity to get into power and get the country in his stranglehold. The clerics have had it ever since. When the revolution was happening, the cia just sat around watching, to see whose butt they would have to kiss after the smoke cleared. And on a humorous note, iranians bitter about american involvement in the 1954 coup that restored the shah's family took a bunch of american hostages. Some iranians say they wish they still had the shah, though they opposed him then. The clerics are alot worse. Alot of iranians have to live outwardly like good muslims, but behind closed doors they have a non muslim lifestyle. This country was very progressive, western whatever you want to call it, till the revolution. The us did bomb iran indirectly - we gave saddam hussein anything he wanted for about 10 years in exchange for attacking iran. America is pretty much by itself in opposing iran with sanctions. Why? your guess is as good as mine.

[golgo13]

The Iranian revolution (I think) was more of a "rainbow coalition" between leftists, liberal republicans & the mullahs.

What happened afterwards was similar to what happened after the Russian Revolution, i.e. the most brutal element seized power & eradicated the moderates.

<font size=-1>[ This Message was edited by: golgo13 on 2001-10-04 11:35 ]</font>