BS: 'The Face of 911' in London?

Subject: RE: BS: 'The Face of 911' in London?
From: McGrath of Harlow
Date: 24 Jul 05 - 04:29 PM

When we light a fire we carry responsibility for everything that gets burnt. That doesn't mean that other people aren't responsible too, for example the fool why keeps a can of petrol in his bedroom. But joint responsibility for a tragedy doesn't in any way mean reduced responsibility for all the consequences of our own actions.

Subject: RE: BS: 'The Face of 911' in London?
From: robomatic
Date: 24 Jul 05 - 05:34 PM

WHEN we lose our beliefs we often feel as though we've lost a part of ourselves. This is true even if those beliefs are superstitions.

IN early 2001 I attended a presentation by Thomas Friedman, columnist of the New York Times who was that day the main feature of the (Alaska) Governor's Lecture Series. Ostensibly the subject was the influence of the internet and the new electronic era, but hardly half an hour into his talk he brought up Osama as a 'super empowered individual' whom the United States had targeted with dozens of cruise missile weapons. "Imagine that, a modern country at war with an individual!"

OSAMA embodies a vision, a vision of Islamic redemption from backwardness through conquest. That vision is what makes him important in this battle of global will. Despite his methods which all civilized people condemn, his appeal is international and obvious to those who look upon him as some sort of answer to a common frustration.

HE is not waging a battle for Palestinian rights, nor for the sanctity of Saudi soil. He is attempting to impose a global 'Solution' to the perceived impotence of Islamic force in the world, and by force is meant industry, philosophy, social creed, and impact on the world stage. The world of Islam, which has some historical triumphs, has been perceived, rightly or wrongly, as moribund for generations. This has been a perceived problem in the Muslim world for a long time now, the development of the State of Israel is just a symptom on which it is possible to focus. Other symptoms would be the lack of creative institutions of learning in the Arab world as opposed to the 'Western' World, the lack of industrialization, the economy based on a single natural resource sold for export, political structures which at best simulate democratic institutions, tribal loyalties which outweigh all others at the expense of a unified political state, and government sponsored religions, or more correctly, religion sponsored governments.


OSAMA'S solution is rather than emulate the West, to go back in time to an idealized Caliphate. His tactic includes terror because that is what he's capable of at this time. His weaponry is anything he can lay his hands on. The surrealism of his views is a product of isolation and great wealth. And there are many folk who share his approach, or common sickness.

FOR a modern world society to accept this view is impossible. So with these circumstances there is no hope that "we can all just get along."

THE stresses that have led to the situation with old-world Islam has a similar resonance in any 'fundamentalist-driven' worldview. There is a passing connection between the Islamic terror campaign against secularism, and the 'faith-based' proclivities of current American politics (and truth to tell, it isn't just the United States with these forces operating, it's the world).

THERE is more than one war going on: There is the religious versus secular conflict that pits Muslim cleric against Muslim free media outlet, Muslim terrorist against Muslim policeman, Muslim suicide bomber against resort hotel (Muslim or otherwise). There is also a war of religion against religion: Christian fundy against Muslim fundy. The first war is inevitable. The second war detracts from the first war and will lead to chaos and old night.

Jed Marum's assessment of Osama on 08 July was perceptive, likewise Ladyjean's clever poetic reworking, which said in a nutshell what I'm posting here.

I have my own poets to add:

From the era in which the Christian world first had to face up to changing perceptions.

FROM Nosce Teipsum (1599)
by Sir John Davies
. . .

I know my body's of so frail a kind
As force without, fevers within, can kill;
I know the heavenly nature of my nind,
But 'tis corrupted both in wit and will;

I know my soul hath power to know all things,
Yet is she blind and ignorant of all;
I know I am one of nature's little kings,
Yet to the least and vilest things am thrall.

I know my life's a pain and but a span,
I know my sense is mocked with everything;
And to conclude, I know myself a man,
Which is a proud and yet a wretched thing.

FROM "Anatomy Of The World" (1621)
by John Donne
...
And new philosophy calls all in doubt,
The element of fire is quite put out,
The sun is lost, and th'earth, and no man's wit
Can well direct him where to look for it.
And freely men confess that this world's spent,
When in the planets and the firmament
They seek so many new; they see that this
Is crumbled out again to his atomies.
'Tis all in pieces, all coherence gone,
All just supply, and all relation;
Prince, subject, father, son, are things forgot...

AS of now, we are in the middle of the technical social revolution ushered in three generations ago with atomic engineering. We are all entering the latest phase of the new era, highly techological, with genetics enabling an acclerated re-working of every aspect of humankind from what we wear, what we eat, to how we live and who and what we are.

It makes sense to be afraid of the issues therein. One of the common reactions is to seek refuge in the imagined surety of an earlier era. This is going on everywhere. Osama is the outer bounds of that reaction. He can no more succeed than we can undo the Trinity Test of July 1945, than Adam and Eve can disgorge the apple.

The only reaction which will actually save us is to "boldly go" forward, realizing that not everything we were taught to believe in was correct, that it couldn't all be correct, but we now living are the carriers to the future, and if nothing else, we should be carrying a book of poems.

Subject: RE: BS: 'The Face of 911' in London?
From: GUEST
Date: 24 Jul 05 - 05:49 PM

Where is Peter Woodruff?

Subject: RE: BS: 'The Face of 911' in London?
From: CarolC
Date: 24 Jul 05 - 05:59 PM

I think he's in Maine.

Subject: RE: BS: 'The Face of 911' in London?
From: Ebbie
Date: 24 Jul 05 - 06:08 PM

I agree with every word of that, Robomatic. And I would add that in this country, the refusal or inability of the fundamentalists to recognize that they are trying to create a theocracy is one of the walls we keep thwacking into.

Subject: RE: BS: 'The Face of 911' in London?
From: CarolC
Date: 24 Jul 05 - 06:56 PM

I don't think I do agree with all of it. Islam was, for a time, more in the background of the countries in which it was the major religion... more like a backdrop of religious culture behind the struggle of the people in the Middle East to try to gain the same kind of self determination that the industrializing countries had already accomplished. This was being thwarted on all sides by major powers of the West such as Britain, France, and ultimately, the US.

We have no way of knowing how the countries of the Middle East would have progressed had they not been interfered with to the degree that they were. Iran does, however, give us some idea of how they might have developed, since it did, for a short time, have a fledgling democracy. That was stopped in its tracks by outside forces (powerful countries of the West). The sense of frustration that the people of the Middle East feel is probably far more a product of never having the chance to determine their own destiny (with the rejuvenation of the Muslim religion that would inevitably have accompanied it... as has happened with the other world's major religions as they have progressed in self determination during the modern era).

It should not be surprising that the Muslim religion as it is found in the Middle East would be lagging behind Islam as found in liberal democratic countries, and the other major religions as they are found in liberal democratic countries. The people and countries of that region have been interfered with too much to have had a chance to find their place in the developed world. And now, extremist Islam is being embraced as a way to accomplish what could not be accomplished through other means. Self determination.

Yes, Osama probably does not have that as his motivator... his motivator is probably more a sort of beatific madness. But that is what Muslims are increasingly turning to extremism in order to get, and the motivator that people like Osama are using to manipulate people into doing their bidding.

Subject: RE: BS: 'The Face of 911' in London?
From: Bill Hahn//\\
Date: 24 Jul 05 - 07:11 PM

We have no way of knowing how the countries of the Middle East would have progressed had they not been interfered with to the degree that they were. Iran does, however, give us some idea of how they might have developed, since it did, for a short time, have a fledgling democracy. That was stopped in its tracks by outside forces (powerful countries of the West).


(ABOVE SHOULD BE ITALICIZED, BUT I DON'T HAVE THE FUNCTION FOR THAT)

Above---Carol C. and some of her--once again-- impartial, intelligent, and fair minded comments.

OOPS---our fault again. OH those terrible Western nations. Thanks to their hope for self preservation and that of their citizenry they now have to over-react to suspects---read into tht the London tragedy of a few days ago. But---honesty by this terrible western nation in announcing the truth and the apology. I am sure I missed such comments from Carol Cs idols---the moderates in the Middle East who have been so corrupted by those nasty nasy westerners.

Perhaps she should self flagelate a few times a year as they do. Makes for more bonding.

Bill Hahn

Subject: RE: BS: 'The Face of 911' in London?
From: CarolC
Date: 24 Jul 05 - 07:16 PM

It wasn't corruption by Westerners. It was a CIA backed coup that eliminated the democratically elected government, and installed in its place, the Shah (a dictator just like Saddam).

Subject: RE: BS: 'The Face of 911' in London?
From: McGrath of Harlow
Date: 24 Jul 05 - 07:27 PM

And if you've never heard of that crucial episode, Bill p-0 and your comment there rather suggests that you haven't - just type "Mossadeq" into Google, and read all about it.

Subject: RE: BS: 'The Face of 911' in London?
From: McGrath of Harlow
Date: 24 Jul 05 - 07:28 PM

And if you've never heard of that crucial episode, Bill - and your comment there rather suggests that you haven't - just type "Mossadeq" into Google, and read all about it.

Subject: RE: BS: 'The Face of 911' in London?
From: GUEST
Date: 24 Jul 05 - 07:46 PM

Jeeze why doesn't she go and fight for the cause she supports?

Subject: RE: BS: 'The Face of 911' in London?
From: CarolC
Date: 24 Jul 05 - 08:01 PM

If you are referring to me, GUEST, 24 Jul 05 - 07:46 PM, the cause I support is freedom and democracy here in the US. And then I support US foreign policy that does not harm other countries and peoples. Firstly, because that is what is right, and secondly, that is ultimately what is good for freedom and democracy here in the US. This is my responsibility as a US citizen, taxpayer, and voter.

So I already am fighting for the cause I support.

Subject: RE: BS: 'The Face of 911' in London?
From: Bill Hahn//\\
Date: 24 Jul 05 - 08:06 PM

Yes---I do know of the Mossadegh business. Tragic. We are surely not saints. Same mistake as we made in backing Sadam. Yet there are the gray areas that no one wants to even admit exist.

Sadly, we can go into space in a joint effort and we cannot find commong ground here on Earth.   So---in the end--and, again, sadly, it comes down to self preservation---be it from a Hitler, a Stalin, a fanatic---of any ilk (Muslim, Christian, etc;).

So--as far as this thread is concerned---Guest--above---may have the right comment for Carol and her ilk.   I like that "ilk"---

You know, Carol, like your favorite radio host---he is of an "ilk" too. So great to have you as a devoted fan---loved her comments earlier---so intelligent and so subtle. Erudition personified.

Bill Hahn

Subject: RE: BS: 'The Face of 911' in London?
From: pdq
Date: 24 Jul 05 - 08:14 PM

Sorry Carol C, McGrath but your 'facts' are shakey, as usual.

No, Mossadeq was not elected. He was appointed prime minister by The Shah of Iran, Reza Pahlavi.

The Pahlavi line has an ancient and legitimate claim to rule Iran.

The Shah became ruler of Persia (later called Iran) in 1941. The eviction of his Mossadeq was in 1953.

The CIA and British intelligence Service were asked, by the Shah, to help protect the royal family and to restore his rightful place on what was sometimes called "The Peacock Throne"


The following is not in my words and is reproduced without permission:

MOSSADEQ AND OIL NATIONALIZATION

From 1949 on, sentiment for nationalization of Iran's oil industry grew. In 1949 the Majlis approved the First Development Plan (1948-55), which called for comprehensive agricultural and industrial development of the country. The Plan Organization was established to administer the program, which was to be financed in large part from oil revenues. Politically conscious Iranians were aware, however, that the British government derived more revenue from taxing the concessionaire, the Anglo-Iranian Oil Company (AIOC--formerly the Anglo-Persian Oil Company), than the Iranian government derived from royalties. The oil issue figured prominently inelections for the Majlis in 1949, and nationalists in the new Majlis were determined to renegotiate the AIOC agreement. In November 1950, the Majlis committee concerned with oil matters, headed by Mossadeq, rejected a draft agreement in which the AIOC had offered the government slightly improved terms. These terms did not include the fifty-fifty profit-sharing provision that was part of other new Persian Gulf oil concessions.

Subsequent negotiations with the AIOC were unsuccessful, partly because General Ali Razmara, who became prime minister in June 1950, failed to persuade the oil company of the strength of nationalist feeling in the country and in the Majlis. When the AIOC finally offered fifty-fifty profit-sharing in February 1951, sentiment for nationalization of the oil industry had become widespread. Razmara advised against nationalization on technical grounds and was assassinated in March 1951 by Khalil Tahmasebi, a member of the militant Fadayan-e Islam. On March 15, the Majlis voted to nationalize the oil industry. In April the shah yielded to Majlis pressure and demonstrations in the streets by naming Mossadeq prime minister.

Oil production came to a virtual standstill as British technicians left the country, and Britain imposed a worldwide embargo on the purchase of Iranian oil. In September 1951, Britain froze Iran's sterling assets and banned export of goods to Iran. It challenged the legality of the oil nationalization and took its case against Iran to the International Court of Justice at The Hague. The court found in Iran's favor, but the dispute between Iran and the AIOC remained unsettled. Under United States pressure, the AIOC improved its offer to Iran. The excitement generated by the nationalization issue, anti-British feeling, agitation by radical elements, and the conviction among Mossadeq's advisers that Iran's maximum demands would, in the end, be met, however, led the government to reject all offers. The economy began to suffer from the loss of foreign exchange and oil revenues.

Meanwhile, Mossadeq's growing popularity and power led to political chaos and eventual United States intervention. Mossadeq had come to office on the strength of support from the National Front and other parties in the Majlis and as a result of his great popularity. His popularity, growing power, and intransigence on the oil issue were creating friction between the prime minister and the shah. In the summer of 1952, the shah refused the prime minister's demand for the power to appoint the minister of war (and, by implication, to control the armed forces). Mossadeq resigned, three days of pro-Mossadeq rioting followed, and the shah was forced to reappoint Mossadeq to head the government.

As domestic conditions deteriorated, however, Mossadeq's populist style grew more autocratic. In August 1952, the Majlis acceded to his demand for full powers in all affairs of government for a six-month period. These special powers were subsequently extended for a further six-month term. He also obtained approval for a law to reduce, from six years to two years, the term of the Senate (established in 1950 as the upper house of the Majlis), and thus brought about the dissolution of that body. Mossadeq's support in the lower house of the Majlis (also called the Majlis) was dwindling, however, so on August 3, 1953, the prime minister organized a plebiscite for the dissolution of the Majlis, claimed a massive vote in favor of the proposal, and dissolved thelegislative body.

The administration of President Harry S Truman initially had been sympathetic to Iran's nationalist aspirations. Under the administration of President Dwight D. Eisenhower, however, the United States came to accept the view of the British government that no reasonable compromise with Mossadeq was possible and that, by working with the Tudeh, Mossadeq was making probable a communist-inspired takeover. Mossadeq's intransigence and inclination to accept Tudeh support, the Cold War atmosphere, and the fear of Soviet influence in Iran also shaped United States thinking. In June 1953, the Eisenhower administration approved a British proposal for a joint Anglo-American operation, code-named Operation Ajax, to overthrow Mossadeq. Kermit Roosevelt of the United States Central Intelligence Agency (CIA) traveled secretly to Iran to coordinate plans with the shah and the Iranian military, which was led by General Fazlollah Zahedi.

In accord with the plan, on August 13 the shah appointed Zahedi prime minister to replace Mossadeq. Mossadeq refused to step down and arrested the shah's emissary. This triggered the second stage of Operation Ajax, which called for a military coup. The plan initially seemed to havefailed, the shah fled the country, and Zahedi went into hiding. After four days of rioting, however, the tide turned. On August 19, pro-shah army units and street crowds defeated Mossadeq's forces. The shah returned to the country. Mossadeq was sentenced to three years' imprisonment for trying to overthrow the monarchy, but he was subsequently allowed to remain under house arrest in his village outside Tehran until his death in 1967. His minister of foreign affairs, Hosain Fatemi, was sentenced to death and executed. Hundreds of National Front leaders, Tudeh Party officers, and political activists were arrested; several Tudeh army officers were also sentenced to death.

Subject: RE: BS: 'The Face of 911' in London?
From: pdq
Date: 24 Jul 05 - 08:25 PM

Here are some key points to look at in the article:

       "Razmara advised against nationalization on technical grounds and was assassinated in March 1951 by Khalil Tahmasebi, a member of the militant Fadayan-e Islam."

Yep, extremists were murdering reasonable moderates even then.

       "Mossadeq refused to step down and arrested the shah's emissary."

Reza Pahlavi was the legitimate king, widely loved and respected by his people. A prime minister, appointed by the king, does not arrest the king's emissary without dire conequences.

Subject: RE: BS: 'The Face of 911' in London?
From: Bill Hahn//\\
Date: 24 Jul 05 - 08:42 PM

Which brings us back to what I had said earlier. Things are always fluid---politics and the world changes as the ocean rolls on. Right or wrong we do our best for the survival of our way of living.

It is those people who do not appreciate what they have that will then allow themselves to be engulfed by the views of those poor alleged unfortunates that are bent on destroying (killing) you.

If we were all saintly there would be no problem. We are not. They are not. Therein is the problem---We--They.

Without going into the specifics since we have re-hashed them many times and gone way off the London 9/11 subject header let me just say that the Mosadegh situation was just another piece of the ongoing things I mentioned earlier.   He was not truly elected---it was a time of Communist turmoil---and we can see the historical consequences of what transpired. Right--wrong?   In hindsight we are all brilliant.   He was no saint--not was the Shah--nor what followed---so we are back to self preservation. And hopefully, some ethical underpinings.

Bill Hahn

Subject: RE: BS: 'The Face of 911' in London?
From: CarolC
Date: 25 Jul 05 - 12:37 AM

I'm having some difficulty tracking down the source of the material you posted, pdq. You yourself have not cited a source. Here is a cached version...

G o o g l e's cache of http://www.kalabhavanshow.info/world_ref/2of3/ir0025.htm

This is the site that appears to have been the cached version's host (the page no longer exists)...

http://www.kalabhavanshow.com

This is what Wikipedia has to say about Reza Shah Pahlavi, father of Mohammad Reza Pahlavi (who was the Shah during the time of Mohammed Mossadegh)...

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Reza_Pahlavi_of_Iran

"Reza Shah Pahlavi (Persian: رضا پهلوی), (March 16, 1877�July 26, 1944), also known as Reza Shah the Great, was Shah of Persia from 1925 until 1935 and Shah of Iran (as the country was renamed to Iran, the name which had always been used by its people) from 1935 until 1941.

On February 21, 1921, Reza Khan Mirpanj (رضا خان میرپنج), as was then his name and rank, staged a coup d'etat together with Seyyed Zia'eddin Tabatabaee, who became the prime minister. He was a military commander who had risen from the ranks to command the Russian trained Cossack Brigade, becoming known as Reza Khan Sardar Sepah (رضا خان سردار سپه). He later became the Minister of War, in April 1921. Ahmad Shah Qajar finally named him Prime Minister on October 26, 1923, and left for Europe. The National Assembly deposed the Ghajar Dynasty in 1925 and Reza Khan's rule was formalized when he was proclaimed Shah by a constituent assembly on December 12, 1925. He took his imperial oath on December 15, 1925 and so became the first Shah of the Pahlavi dynasty.

Out of his marriage with Taj al Molouk (1896�1982) his son and successor Mohammad Reza Pahlavi of Iran was born."


* Mohammad Reza Pahlavi was only the second member of his family to be the Shah, and as you can see, his family gained this position illegitmately through a coup. *


Mohammed Mossadegh, on the other hand, was legitimately elected to parliment...

"By 1944 Reza Pahlavi had abdicated, and Mossadegh was once again elected to parliament. This time he ran as a member of the National Front of Iran (Jebhe Melli), a nationalist organization which he had founded that aimed to end the foreign presence that had established itself in Iran following the Second World War, especially regarding the exploitation of Iran's rich oil resources."

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mohammed_Mossadeq


...and once again, we see that it is all about oil (or whatever natural resources belonging to others that the powerful countries of the West had in mind to appropriate).


And then he was elected as prime minister, and the Shah, having no other choice, rubber-stamped the vote...

"A while later, the Majlis voted for Mossadegh as new prime minister. Aware of Mossadegh's rising popularity and political power, the young Shah was left with no other option but to give assent to the Parliament's vote."


And when Mossedegh took steps to ensure that the Iranians would be the primary beneficiaries of the oil revenues of that country, Britain did everything in its power to prevent them from doing so (stuck it to them up the behind, so to speak)...

"Shortly after coming to office, Mossadegh enforced the Oil Nationalization Act, which involved the expropriation of the AIOC's assets.

Responding to the latter, the British government announced it would not allow Mossadegh's government to export any oil produced in the formerly British-controlled factories. A blockade of British ships was sent to the Persian Gulf to prevent any attempts by Iran to ship any oil out of the country. An economic stalemate thus ensued, with Mossadegh's government refusing to allow any British involvement in Iran's oil industry, and Britain refusing to allow any oil to leave Iran.

Since Britain had long been Iran's primary oil-consumer, the stalemate was particularly hard on Iran. While the country had once boasted over a 100 million dollars a year in exports to Britain, after nationalization, the same oil industry began increasing Iran's debt by nearly 10 million dollars a month. The Abadan Crisis quickly plunged the country into economic difficulties."


But this didn't prevent Mossadegh from being elected prime minister a second time...

"Despite the economic hardships of his nationalization plan, Mossadegh remained popular, and in 1952 was approved by parliament for a second term."


The CIA backed coup that removed Mossadegh from power was all about pretty much the same thing as the recent US invasion of Iraq... money and oil. It was most certainly not about restoring a legitimate government to power.

This is about some information contained in some CIA documents that have been made public...

"The CIA described the coup plan as 'quasi-legal,' referring to the fact that the shah legally dismissed Mossadeq but presumably acknowledging that he did not do so on his own initiative. These documents make clear that the CIA was prepared to go forward with the coup even if the shah opposed it."

http://www.gwu.edu/~nsarchiv/NSAEBB/NSAEBB28/

Subject: RE: BS: 'The Face of 911' in London?
From: robomatic
Date: 25 Jul 05 - 05:21 AM

The overthrow of Mossadegh by a CIA sponsored coup is recounted quite clearly and interestingly in a book that came out on the 50th anniversary of the events, "All The Shah's Men" by Kinzer. I just finished it.

Briefly, it was an era when England was still of the colonial frame of mind. To the leadership's point of view, the huge oil deposits had been discovered, developed, and run by English enterprise. The Persians were lucky to get anything at all and were ungrateful. The English were able to manipulate the Persian leaders so that they essentially served at English pleasure.

Mossadegh for his part was a brilliant and eccentric leader of his people, quite popular. He had the unfortunate disposition to be unwilling to compromise when powers much greater than his had their backs to the wall.

According to Kinzer, Truman and the US State Department were eager to arrange a compromise. They found the English colonialist and unsympathetic, and Mossadegh sympathetic but unrealistic. The next US administration, Eisenhower's, was at first of a similar opinion to Truman's, but the Churchill administration recast the threat as not economic, but political. They convinced the US that Iran would fall under Soviet influence.

The coup itself was a masterpiece of happenstance. The CIA organizer was a grandosn of President Theodore Roosevelt, and after it was over, he briefed the American President and the heads of CIA and State, the Dulles brothers. Supposedly he tried to emphasize that overthrowing regimes should not be a common policy, but the US derived the opposite lesson from this, and went merrily on its way to Guatemala.

Anyhow, it's an interesting book.

- - - - - - - - - - - -

Regarding how we'll never know what that part of the world would be like without Western interference, so what? We deal with the world as it is. That part of the world is at an earlier stage of development, and is being forced into modernity at a rate heretofore unknown. Islam is 600 years younger than Christianity, and Christianity has only recently evolved into accepting the secular/ religious wall of separation (and this is still being argued).

The point of including the poems of Davies and Donne was to emphasize how some very great writers reacted to the age of reason. Most of Europe was dragged kicking and screaming through that period and there was plenty of state on state and state within state violence, of a degree and savagery not yet duplicated by a long shot. In other words, Osama, bad as he is, is a piker compared to the Inquisition. Let's hope he stays that way.

Subject: RE: BS: 'The Face of 911' in London?
From: McGrath of Harlow
Date: 25 Jul 05 - 05:39 AM

The point of drawing in history isn't to battle once again over the past, as if it was possible to change it, but rather to help put the present in proportion, so we appreciate it isn't as clearcut as it's presented to us.

And also, very often, to remind us that when we "solve" immediate problems in a realkpolitik way, disregarding the kind of ethical principles we claim to have, there is loable to be a very heavy price indeed to be paid for it a few years down the line.

It seems to me that just about every moral/political disaster of the past century, from the Holocaust on down, can be laid at the door of some decision a few years earlier to cut corners and solve some immediately pressing problem that is often now forgotten.

Subject: RE: BS: 'The Face of 911' in London?
From: robomatic
Date: 25 Jul 05 - 06:44 AM

I think that anything that we judge in hindsight is subject to reinterpretation to the extent that it loses all meaning.

Consider a quote by that paragon of history who I know you all love - (not):

"I beseech you, by the bowels of Christ, think it possible you may be mistaken."
- Oliver Cromwell


And another:

"History doesn't repeat itself - at best sometimes it rhymes."
- Mark Twain

Subject: RE: BS: 'The Face of 911' in London?
From: GUEST,Shakey
Date: 25 Jul 05 - 07:54 AM

I might, just might, be able to proud to call myself left wing once more.

Read and learn

Subject: RE: BS: 'The Face of 911' in London?
From: pdq
Date: 25 Jul 05 - 09:23 AM

GUEST, Shakey...thanks for your recent hard work here at Mudcat. You appear to be one who looks for The Truth.

Here is a statement I copied from your link above. It supports my contention that The Left seldom offers solutions to problems, and if they do, those plans seldom work.

From GUEST, Shakey's link, coppied without permission:

" Peter Tatchell (Human Rights campaigner, London)

We are witnessing one of the greatest betrayals by the left since so-called left-wingers backed the Hitler-Stalin pact and opposed the war against Nazi fascism. Today, the pseudo-left reveals its shameless hypocrisy and its wholesale abandonment of humanitarian values. While it deplores the 7/7 terrorist attack on London, only last year it welcomed to the UK the Muslim cleric, Yusuf al-Qaradawi, who endorses the suicide bombing of innocent civilians. These same right-wing leftists back the so-called 'resistance' in Iraq. This 'resistance' uses terrorism against civilians as its modus operandi - stooping to the massacre of dozens of Iraqi children in order kill a few US soldiers. Terrorism is not socialism; it is the tactic of fascism. But much of the left doesn't care. Never mind what the Iraqi people want, it wants the US and UK out of Iraq at any price, including the abandonment of Iraqi socialists, trade unionists, democrats and feminists. If the fake left gets its way, the ex-Baathists and Islamic fundamentalists could easily seize power, leading to Iranian-style clerical fascism and a bloodbath. I used to be proud to call myself a leftist. Now I feel shame. Much of the left no longer stands for the values of universal human rights and international socialism."

Subject: RE: BS: 'The Face of 911' in London?
From: Donuel
Date: 25 Jul 05 - 09:42 AM

You don't get the regieme change you want you get the regieme change you have.

What IF the Mosques that have been bombed by the CIA since the Reagan administration actually killed the people they were aiming for.

so what

robomatic you can take your military solutions and go study war for the rest of your life and you will forever miss the point.

Subject: RE: BS: 'The Face of 911' in London?
From: pdq
Date: 25 Jul 05 - 10:39 AM

...for CarolC, et al, here is more about the Pahlavi monarchy:


"The Pahlavi Era of Iran

In 1976, Iran celebrated the Golden Jubilee of the Pahlavi dynasty, a year-long festival in which the nation looked back on one of the most glorious and prosperous periods of its long and dramatic history.

On 25th April, 1926, the Pahlavi era officially began. Symbolically placing the crown on his head with his own hands, Reza Shah the Great forrnally ended a sad period of national weakness and humiliation and ushered in a new age. The events leading up to this transformation began five vears earlier. On February 22nd, 1921, Reza Khan Mir Panj, as he then was called staged a coup d'état. A military commander of exceptional genius, he had risen from the ranks to command the Cossack Division, the country's, only efficient military force.

Marching his troops from Qazvin, 150 kilometres to the west of Teheran, General Reza Khan seized key parts of the capital almost without opposition and forced the weak and inefficient government of the day to resign. His first post was as army commander, which he later combined with the post of Minister of War, taking at the same time the title Sardar Sepah. Until 1923 there were civilian prime ministers, but the future monarch soon realized that to carry out his task of national salvation he needed wider powers. In 1923 he became Prime Minister, and soon afterwards Ahmad Shah Qajar left for Europe, never to return. On 12th December, 1925, the Majlis, convening as a constituent assembly, voted to vest the crown of Iran "in the person of His Majesty the Shahanshah, Reza Shah Pahlavi... and in his male progeny generation after generation". The following April the formal Coronation took place, and at the same ceremony Mohammad Reza, Reza Shah's eldest son, was proclaimed Crown Prince.

Reza Shah had already undertaken the momentous task of unifying the country, extending the power of the central government and instituting a series of administrative reforms. These tasks completed, he then embarked on the creation of a modern economic infrastructure, building roads and railways, power stations and factories. When Iran became embroiled against its will in the events of World War II, this great monarch's plans were still far from fully implemented, but the foundations of modern Iran, on which today's impressive edifice has been built, had been securely laid till 1979.

In the summer of 1941 the German invasion of the Soviet Union caused the Allies great anxiety, as there was now no safe route to supply the Russians with desperately needed arms. Disregarding Iranian neutrality, Britain and the Soviet Union sent ultimatums to Iran regarding the presence of German nationals in Iran, whom they considered a threat to the security of the vital southern oil industry, and on August 25th invaded Iran from the south, west and north. Shortly afterwards Reza Shah abdicated in favour of his Crown Prince and left the country for exile, first to Mauritius, then to Johannesburg, where he died three years later in bitter sadness.

It was not easy for the young Shah to reign over a country occupied by foreign troops, with his father, the founder of modern Iran, and the greatest influence on his life, abroad. But those dark days were not entirely wasted and the Shah began to develop his skills as a diplomat and statesman. Although Stalin, Roosevelt and Churchill were preoccupied with post-War European problems when they met a the Teheran Conference in 1943, the Shah succeeded in obtaining guarantees that their troops would be withdrawn from Iran after hostilities ended and full compensation paid for the use of Iran as a supply route. This was never done by the victorious allies.

Iran in fact became known to the Allies as the "Bridge of Victory", across which immense quantities of arms and other supplies were delivered to the Soviet Union, thus facilitating the ultimate Allied victory. Meanwhile, Iran's development plans came to a complete' halt and the country was racked by famine, insecurity, economic stagnation and galloping inflation.

After the War, Stalin reneged on his promise to withdraw Soviet troops. Instead he used them to support secessionist regimes in Azarbaijan and Kurdestan. When Iranian public opinion, backed by international diplomacy and United Nations pressure, forced the Red Army to withdraw, Iranian forces under the command of the Shah marched to these north-west provinces, and in December, 1946, the secessionist movements abruptly collapsed.

Political instability continued in Tehran, however, and the government of Dr. Mossadegh, a nationalist Iranian to be sure, became embroiled with the still all-powerful Anglo-Iranian Oil Company. Efforts to create a new and vigorous society where blocked. because of continuous quarrels with Britain over the nationalization of our oil industry. This period of tension and instability ended in 1953. Much of Iran still remained firmly in the grip of absentee feudal landlords, determined to keep the rural population in ignorance and economic serfdom, while in the towns industrial workers were often exploited, and corruption in government circles was rampant.

After a number of disappointments in attempting to implement reforms through parliamentary procedures, which were always blocked by vested interests in the Majlis, the Shah decided to take more positive action. Interpreting his oath of office in its fullest sense, the Shah, after deep consideration, announced the first six points of a revolutionary charter, and on January 26th, 1963, the Nation gave its resounding approval in a referendum in which more than five million persons voted. Thus, in the most democratic way possible, the Revolution of the Shah and the People, as this unprecedented social and economic transformation was called, became an accomplished fact.

Since that time, Iran went from strength to strength. The White Revolution put the finishing touches to the pioneer work of modernizing the country which Reza Shah had begun. A review of this continuous program of reform that underwent considerable development since 1963, are given in the next chapter "The Revolution of the Shah and the Nation." As for the results, and the benefits that the Iranian nation has enjoyed during the first half-century of Pahlavi rule, the rest of this Internet survey is devoted to outlining the most significant of these achievements, which amounted to a total transformation of Iran from a backward and poverty stricken country into a peaceful, dynamic and influential nation."


Note: modernization in much of the Middle East came to a grinding hault due to the incompetence of Jimmy Carter. He scolded our allies about 'human rights' while giving Islamists a free pass. Result, in 1979 we got dictator/thug Saddam Hussein in Iraq and a repressive Islamic theocracy in Iran.

Subject: RE: BS: 'The Face of 911' in London?
From: average american
Date: 25 Jul 05 - 02:47 PM

pdq: you haven't really said anything. You've parrotted some trash talk against 'leftists' which blatently smears 'em all with the same brush. It's no different than if someone named qdp suggested that all rightists were Lindbergh quoting fifth columnists who marched in common goose step.
Your unattributed quote on 'The Pahlavi' era is a blatent paen of praise for the two shahs and their short lived 'dynasty'. They served at British pleasure and in fact the British told Shah Reza to take a hike in the middle of the war when he showed too much favoritism to German Nationalism (the Nazis). His son didn't assume power without substantial covert aid from England and the US.

Check out the Kinzer book, "All The Shah's Men" as I mentioned in an earlier posting.


Now as for Hakman - Donuel, who wrote:
robomatic you can take your military solutions and go study war for the rest of your life and you will forever miss the point.

This has nothing to do with anything I have written in this thread. If you bothered to read my posts you might come up with something more to the point.

Subject: RE: BS: 'The Face of 911' in London?
From: CarolC
Date: 25 Jul 05 - 03:02 PM

Regarding how we'll never know what that part of the world would be like without Western interference, so what?

So nothing, if we don't engage in the kind of speculation that you were engaging in in your 24 Jul 05 - 05:34 PM post. Such speculation serves no useful purpose, and only tends to promote the stereotyps that are an all to common part of our daily discourse these days, and that do, ultimately, get used to justify treating Muslims and people from the Middle East as less than human, or as lesser humans. We are not in a position to judge them because of where they are now, since we contributed greatly to that particular state of affairs.

Subject: RE: BS: 'The Face of 911' in London?
From: pdq
Date: 25 Jul 05 - 03:03 PM

Here are some key statements from my last post:

       "After the War, Stalin reneged on his promise to withdraw Soviet troops. Instead he used them to support secessionist regimes in Azarbaijan and Kurdestan. When Iranian public opinion, backed by international diplomacy and United Nations pressure, forced the Red Army to withdraw, Iranian forces under the command of the Shah marched to these north-west provinces, and in December, 1946, the secessionist movements abruptly collapsed.

Political instability continued in Tehran, however, and the government of Dr. Mossadegh, a nationalist Iranian to be sure, became embroiled with the still all-powerful Anglo-Iranian Oil Company. Efforts to create a new and vigorous society where blocked. because of continuous quarrels with Britain over the nationalization of our oil industry. This period of tension and instability ended in 1953."

Yep, once again the pesky Commies in Russia had a hand in the instability, wanting oil-rich Iran in their sphere of influence.

aa- I have read part of Kinzer's book and it is vomit.

Subject: RE: BS: 'The Face of 911' in London?
From: CarolC
Date: 25 Jul 05 - 04:01 PM

More unattributed propaganda, I see, pdq.

Here are the two sites I was able to find for what you put in your 25 Jul 05 - 10:39 AM post...

Long Live The Shah

http://www.sedona.net/pahlavi/content.html


If we're going to go down that partucular road, let's try this one on for size...

The Biography of Dr. Mohammad Mossadegh

"- Dr. Mossadegh was elected to the Parliament from Tehran, and it was during this period that the Qajar dynasty was overthrown and Reza khan declared himself the King of Iran. Mossadegh strongly criticized the Kingship of Reza khan, and when the sixth Majlis ended, and Reza Khan became the absolute dictator of Iran, Mossadegh was forced to stay at home for many years. During the last years of Reza Shah's reign, when most of the political figures were either deceased or had surrendered to the Pahlavi regime, Mossadegh was arrested and exiled for several months, but finally he was sent back to his Ahmad Abad country estate under house arrest. After the occupation of Iran by the British and Russian armies in 1941, Reza Shah was forced to abdicate and exiled to South Africa until his death, and Mossadegh returned to Tehran...

... - The people of Iran who were angered by Mossadegh's dismissal, revolted in favor of him and Ayatollah Kashani (who was a close ally of Mossadegh at that time), and against the new government and the Shah. After 4 days of bloody revolt, the people defeated the Ghavam's government and the shah's army, and once again Mossadegh became Prime Minister...

... - By controlling the Defense Ministry (previous War Ministry), Mossadegh succeeded in cleaning the army from corrupted officers, and this act angered the Royal Court.

    - In March of 1953, the Royal Court with the help of a group of clergies, expelled army officers, and ruffians, decided to perform a conspiracy plan against Dr. Mossadegh. The plan was that on the first day of March, the Shah would leave the capital for Europe and pretend that Mossadegh had forced him to leave the country. On the other hand the ruffians and expelled army officers would gather in front of the Royal Palace to avoid the Shah's departure. At the same time when Mossadegh comes out of the Royal Palace, they would attack and murder him. But since Mossadegh suspected the conspiracy at the last moment, he escaped the scene.

    - General Afshar-Toos, the loyal police chief of Mossadegh's government, was brutally murdered by the Royal Court's agents and the expelled officers.

    - Because of the continues disputes between the Parliament and the cabinet, and following the Majlis member's abdications, Mossadegh declared a national referendum to let the people choose between dissolvement of the Parliament, or cabinet's abdication. In this referendum (which was criticized by many figures, because of the separation of the Yes and No ballot boxes, and not being held at a same time in Tehran and other cities), the majority of the votes were for dissolvement of the Majlis, and it was dissolved in August of 1953.

    - On August 16, 1953, with accordance to an American-British designed plan, the Shah issued Dr. Mossadegh's dismissal, and the chief of the Royal Guards carried the formal notice to Mossadegh's house (which was also his Prime Ministry office) and was ordered to occupy the house by the Royal troops. But when the troops reached the Mossadegh's house, Mossadegh's guards immediately arrested the Royal Guard's chief and his troops. The coup was publicized and the Shah escaped the country for Italy.

    - On 17th and 18th of August 1953, people poured to the streets in support of Mossadegh and the status of Mohammad Reza and Reza Shah were pulled down all over the country.

    - On August 19, 1953, the intelligence services of U.S.A. and Britain (CIA - MI6), enforced a more precise and expensive coup d'etat plan, and this time succeeded in overthrowing Mossadegh's government. On this day, after bribing some of the grand Ayatollahs, army officers, ruffians, and the prostitutes, the coup makers pulled large mobs into the streets to demonstrate against the national government of Dr. Mossadegh. Because of the police chief treachery, the coup makers reached the house of the Prime Minister and after several hours of bombarding the house and bloody battle with the small group of Mossadegh's loyal guards, they entered the house and after plundering it, they burned the house."

Subject: RE: BS: 'The Face of 911' in London?
From: GUEST
Date: 25 Jul 05 - 04:09 PM

Thread drift extraordinaire

Subject: RE: BS: 'The Face of 911' in London?
From: pdq
Date: 25 Jul 05 - 04:33 PM

Quite true, GUEST, but one cannot let CarolC's 'fact-opinions' go unchallenged.

CarolC...compare the two stories of the same events and you will see how propaganda works. In your posts, the US and Britain are always wrong. I say, most politely, that is not so.

Subject: RE: BS: 'The Face of 911' in London?
From: CarolC
Date: 25 Jul 05 - 04:46 PM

Your first and second were propaganda. My second was propaganda. But I think it's pretty difficult to argue with declassified CIA documents, and I tend to see Wikipedia as a more reliable (although not infallible) source of information than the unattributed material that has no known source (as in your first link), and sites that exist specifically for the purpose of glorifying the Shah.

The US and Britain are responsible. As is was the Soviet Union while it still existed.

Subject: RE: BS: 'The Face of 911' in London?
From: CarolC
Date: 25 Jul 05 - 04:52 PM

P.S. I wouldn't say that the US and Britain are always wrong (although they usually are). The way I would tend to put it is that the US and Britain almost always have a self-serving hidden agenda that is pursued at the expense of the civilians of many countries less powerful than them. (And this is what makes them wrong... because it is wrong to kill people and/or subjugate them for money/oil/power, etc.)

Subject: RE: BS: 'The Face of 911' in London?
From: GUEST,Peter Woodruff
Date: 25 Jul 05 - 05:20 PM

Dear Guest,
   You got it right! "Thread drift extraordinaire."

Peter

Subject: RE: BS: 'The Face of 911' in London?
From: jpk
Date: 25 Jul 05 - 05:42 PM

seem to me carol, that they say persia and the diff peoples of that area where the center of the world long ago,they fell and lost it carol.
had it befor mohammed,lost it after they found him.hmmmmm.

Subject: RE: BS: 'The Face of 911' in London?
From: CarolC
Date: 25 Jul 05 - 07:51 PM

I need to correct this (or Wolfgang will do it for me)...

Your first and second were propaganda. My second was propaganda.

It should read...

Your first and second were propaganda. The biography of Mossadegh that I provided a link to in my 25 Jul 05 - 04:01 PM post was propaganda.

Subject: RE: BS: 'The Face of 911' in London?
From: GUEST
Date: 25 Jul 05 - 08:58 PM

pdq: I read the book by Kinzer and would like you to supply more than 'vomit' as a reaction to it. He was a NYT correspondent and the book appared to be researched and quite definitive. On the other hand, your glistening review of the military dictators called the Shahs runs counter to every secular Iranian I've ever met, and I met a lot of them in school.

Subject: RE: BS: 'The Face of 911' in London?
From: Bill Hahn//\\
Date: 25 Jul 05 - 09:19 PM

So let me see now---the thread is London and the tragedy inflicted by the "terrorists"---though the term may not be proper for Carol C and her cohorts. But now we are into Mossadegh, Israel, ---you name it.

So--Carol---are you a "hijacker" or not? thankfully not of airliners only threads that end up as ---your term--propoganda---aka Bullshit.

All in the eye of the beholder---you behold logic---I behold propoganda and Bullshit. You behold intransigence and narrowness on my part---and I of you.. So--you see---we agree. We both think the other is just spouting Bullshit---oh, sorry---you call it propoganda when you disagree.

Bill Hahn

Subject: RE: BS: 'The Face of 911' in London?
From: Ebbie
Date: 25 Jul 05 - 11:52 PM

I'll grant your consistency, Bill Hahn, but it's still misspelt. I saw it as 'poopooganda'. If the shoe don't pinch...

Subject: RE: BS: 'The Face of 911' in London?
From: McGrath of Harlow
Date: 26 Jul 05 - 05:35 AM

It is very easy to throw out allegations and comments without checking up on whether these are actually in accordance with the evidence, and some people do it constantly, even when it would only take a couple of seconds to check.

When we make some factual assertion about some issue which is relatively obscure, or subject to controversy, it is elementary good manners to provide links to sources.

And yet when Carol does that she is repeatedly attacked and insulted as if doing that kind of thing was a mark of obsession and imbalance. I wish that some of the people who lay into her would take a bit more care to check up on their facts, and to indicate their sources.

Subject: RE: BS: 'The Face of 911' in London?
From: Wolfgang
Date: 26 Jul 05 - 08:47 AM

non-combatant civilian deaths

can include according to Carol

someone's ancient grandfather who died peacefully in his sleep.

Interesting. Each day I learn something new in English.

Carol,

I never would have bothered with your or Bearded Bruce's way of expressing the causes of the deaths in Iraq. McGrath of Harlow's (or should it be McGrath's of Harlow?) one-eyed selectivity in when or whom he criticises in these threads was my target. In particular, since the two sentences were so close to each other in form and time. His critique of such sentences is of course correct.

Wolfgang

Subject: RE: BS: 'The Face of 911' in London?
From: CarolC
Date: 26 Jul 05 - 11:52 AM

non-combatant civilian deaths

can include according to Carol

someone's ancient grandfather who died peacefully in his sleep.

Interesting. Each day I learn something new in English.

Combined with...

If I read just that one sentence quoted prominently by Carol I wonder how anyone can take them serious anymore

Seems to be the crux of your inability to converse coherently in English, Wolfgang. The idea is to take things IN context rather than out of them. For instance, my advice to you would be to not read just that one sentance, but to read the whole article or page in which the sentance is found.

"Wolfgang has no brain"

...means something entirely different than...

"Wolfgang has no brain samples from monkeys in his lab"

Subject: RE: BS: 'The Face of 911' in London?
From: Wolfgang
Date: 26 Jul 05 - 11:58 AM

argumentum ad hominem instead discussing the issue.

Wolfgang

Subject: RE: BS: 'The Face of 911' in London?
From: CarolC
Date: 26 Jul 05 - 12:07 PM

Not really, Wolfgang. The issue is you going around correcting people all the time, and then turning out to be wrong yourself, as I have just demonstrated.

Subject: RE: BS: 'The Face of 911' in London?
From: pdq
Date: 26 Jul 05 - 08:39 PM

While Mudcat was down, I picked out a few quotes. They are absolutely not aimed at any individual.

From Branch Rickey, Dodgers general manager who broke baseball's color barrier:

                He that will not reason is a bigot.
             He that cannot reason is a fool.
             He that dares not reason is a slave.

From me, I suppose:

             Back in the '60s, people often used the term 'heavy'. I once suggested that

                   "Sometimes 'heavy' just means that you've overlaoded your wagon with shit!"

From comic Don Rickles:

                   "Don't cross swords with someone who knows how to use one."

Subject: RE: BS: 'The Face of 911' in London?
From: GUEST
Date: 27 Jul 05 - 10:40 AM

Seems to be the crux of your inability to converse coherently in English, Wolfgang.

Is this a sentence Carol?

Subject: RE: BS: 'The Face of 911' in London?
From: GUEST
Date: 27 Jul 05 - 10:44 AM

"not read just that one sentance, but to read the whole article or page in which the sentance is found."

Carol, did you mean sentence?

I believe Wolfgang's spelling is correct.

LOL

Subject: RE: BS: 'The Face of 911' in London?
From: Wolfgang
Date: 27 Jul 05 - 12:12 PM

Some may be interested to read what a quite conservative German newspaper (Frankfurter Allgemeine Zeitung) has written recently about Blair/Iraq/London. Yes, it is really conservative, but keep in mind McGrath's warning that European conservatives don't look so conservative to Americans.

"Blair is a master at denying claims that no one has made and making demands to which no one can object. First, he denies that the Iraq war has been a cause of terrorism and then he demands that we combat terrorism, condemn its methods and pull out its roots. Indeed, the only concession Blair has made is to admit that Iraq is becoming a recruiting ground for terrorists...The Iraq war was neither approved by the UN nor backed by the Arab world, and that's why people are able to propagandistically denounce it as an 'imperial crusade'. It's true that this war did not create terrorism, but it has encouraged it." (I pinched the translation from DER SPIEGEL)

Wolfgang

Subject: RE: BS: 'The Face of 911' in London?
From: GUEST,Shakey
Date: 27 Jul 05 - 12:23 PM

Wolfgang, it's interesting but what are you trying to show with this?

Let's face it, for all sorts of reasons, TB isn't popular there anyway.

Subject: RE: BS: 'The Face of 911' in London?
From: GUEST,Curious
Date: 27 Jul 05 - 12:47 PM

Why do these threads so often degenerate into personal slanging matches ?

Subject: RE: BS: 'The Face of 911' in London?
From: Leadfingers
Date: 27 Jul 05 - 12:49 PM

Hey !! 300 !!