BS: 'The Face of 911' in London?

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: 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: 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 - 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: 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: 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: 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 - 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: 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: 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: 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: 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: 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: 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: 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: 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: 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: 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: 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 - 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: 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 - 05:59 PM

I think he's in Maine.

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: 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: 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: CarolC
Date: 24 Jul 05 - 03:36 PM

The correct sentence of course would have been: As many as 10,000 non-combatant civilian deaths during 2003 have been reliably reported so far since the US/UK-led invasion and occupation of Iraq

No, this wouldn't be correct either. They are reporting on deaths that have occurred because of an act of war. Not, for instance, someone's ancient grandfather who died peacefully in his sleep (perhaps in an area that didn't have any bombs falling on it on that particular day).

One can only wonder why he only addresses Bruce here and not for instance Carol who had posted this before Bruce who was only parodying her: ALL of the people who died in Iraq died because of the US led invasion and occupation of that country, regardless of who killed them.

I saw the flaw in that sentence after I posted it. I expected that you would not pass up the opportunity to snipe at it, and clearly, I was correct. So here is my rephrasing of that sentance...

ALL of the deaths that occurred as a result of the invasion and occupation of Iraq by the US, Britain, and the "coalition", are the responsibility of the US, Britain, and the "coalition" countries, regardless of who did the killing.

Subject: RE: BS: 'The Face of 911' in London?
From: Wolfgang
Date: 24 Jul 05 - 03:18 PM

As many as 10,000 non-combatant civilian deaths during 2003 have been reliably reported so far as a result of the US/UK-led invasion and occupation of Iraq (iraqbodycount quoted by Carol)

If I read just that one sentence quoted prominently by Carol I wonder how anyone can take them serious anymore (One might think that Carol only quotes that sentence to criticise but it looks as if she sees nothing wrong with it). They make in a blatant way one of the worst mistakes such a site can make: They mix data and interpretation in one sentence. Reading such a one-sided sentence makes me start to distrust even their data (they have explained their method but whether they have done it correctly in detail I cannot say and have to take their word for it).

The correct sentence of course would have been:
As many as 10,000 non-combatant civilian deaths during 2003 have been reliably reported so far since the US/UK-led invasion and occupation of Iraq

The causation is a completely different question and should not be treated cavalierly in a sentence stating the facts. Post hoc ergo propter hoc is the fallacy involved here ("I only had that accident because aunt Martha wanted me to buy her some potatoes when coming back from work"). Many different causes can be argued to have led to the present situation in Iraq. The invasion is surely prominent among the possible causes. But in the wise warning words of McGrath:

Events don't just have one cause, bruce.

One can only wonder why he only addresses Bruce here and not for instance Carol who had posted this before Bruce who was only parodying her:
ALL of the people who died in Iraq died because of the US led invasion and occupation of that country, regardless of who killed them.

Wolfgang

Subject: RE: BS: 'The Face of 911' in London?
From: McGrath of Harlow
Date: 23 Jul 05 - 07:21 PM

Leaving out the capital letters on posts rather creates the same impression as green ink does in letters to papers; ie, that there's something up and you don't feel too curious about finding out what it is.

Of course Archy the cockroach (with the soul of a poet)had a good reason for avoiding the shift key, but what with modern keyboards that doesn't apply anymore...

Subject: RE: BS: 'The Face of 911' in London?
From: jpk
Date: 23 Jul 05 - 05:30 PM

only if rabbid,which a few of the imam's in britland seem to be.they intend to kill you,and don't care who or what you are,just to remain in power.
truth be told;the terrorist have already won.people letting terrorist acts dictate how they live and demanding govt. to futher restrict their freedom to control terrorist.
the only way to stop it is to prevent it from starting.
the ones promoting it,do so in the intrest of their own power over others thru fear,fear of the ones doing it and the fear of those it is being done to.
kind of like giveing up rights to protect the rights you are giving up,or taking from one to give to another.

Subject: RE: BS: 'The Face of 911' in London?
From: Ebbie
Date: 22 Jul 05 - 10:06 PM

LOL, McG.

Subject: RE: BS: 'The Face of 911' in London?
From: McGrath of Harlow
Date: 22 Jul 05 - 07:32 PM

Might be a spelling mistake, dianavan...

Subject: RE: BS: 'The Face of 911' in London?
From: dianavan
Date: 22 Jul 05 - 07:00 PM

Martin Gibson has a soul? I didn't think he existed.

Subject: RE: BS: 'The Face of 911' in London?
From: akenaton
Date: 22 Jul 05 - 06:58 PM

Right McGrath, The West was quite happy to support the terrorists against the Soviet Union.

What short memories some have..Ake

Subject: RE: BS: 'The Face of 911' in London?
From: McGrath of Harlow
Date: 22 Jul 05 - 06:41 PM

"... did they have the vote previously, did the women in Afganistan?"

Yes. They'd had it in Iraq since 1980. In Afghanistan they had the vote from 1963, up until the fall of the Russian backed regime, and the installation of the fundamentalist warlords. But of course the people backing them didn't think this kind of thing was too important.

Subject: RE: BS: 'The Face of 911' in London?
From: GUEST,Martin Gibson's Soul
Date: 22 Jul 05 - 06:00 PM

Moslems are the terrorists of the world, and Carol C and dianavan are in denial of this.

Next bombing, please, Mohammad.

There are idiots who support you in North america and deny you are the enemy. Meet Carol C and dianavan, Mohammad.

Subject: RE: BS: 'The Face of 911' in London?
From: CarolC
Date: 22 Jul 05 - 05:44 PM

Are you suggesting that all Muslims should be preemptively killed, jpk?

Subject: RE: BS: 'The Face of 911' in London?
From: jpk
Date: 22 Jul 05 - 05:23 PM

it goes to show you[in the cases in brit land the one reposable were basicly guest of the people,even if citizen]the rabid dog will bite the hand that feeds them,best to put them down early.

Subject: RE: BS: 'The Face of 911' in London?
From: dianavan
Date: 20 Jul 05 - 11:14 PM

Ahen...

Did anyone notice that the figure 25,000 Iraqi civilians, did not take into account the number of the newly formed Iraqi military who have died? Since these people are being targetted by the so
called, 'insurgency', don't you think that their deaths are a direct result of the U.S. invasion and their attempt to restructure the govt. in Iraq? I would think so. That puts the body count much higher. It is also noted that the recent rash of suicide bombings ups the figure considerably.

Anyway you shake it - the U.S. and its allies have killed alot of people in Iraq.

Subject: RE: BS: 'The Face of 911' in London?
From: CarolC
Date: 20 Jul 05 - 10:54 PM

The text of the UN document indicated that the UN was giving Iraq it's last chance. And that chance was to allow the inpectors to do their job. The US is in violation of that resolution specifically because it prevented the inspectors from doing their job (and because it did not honor Iraq's borders and sovereignty). You can twist the wording around to suit your preferances all you want, but that doesn't alter the FACT that the UN was the only body authorized under the terms of the resolution to take any kind of action against Iraq.

Subject: RE: BS: 'The Face of 911' in London?
From: beardedbruce
Date: 20 Jul 05 - 10:48 PM

CarolC,

We have argued this before. The UN declared Iraq in substantial default, AFTER which the US took the serious action required. You may not like it, but your comment "Any attempts to rationalize the use of force using the resolution is bogus." is obviously wrong, as the terms used in the text indicate that the UN was giving a LAST CHANCE, which Saddam failed to comply with.

Subject: RE: BS: 'The Face of 911' in London?
From: Frankham
Date: 20 Jul 05 - 10:42 PM

Joe you say,

"Both governments have too many honest employees who would expose that sort of conspiracy."

I'm really not sure about this. There are some who might be very afraid to expose this kind of information. The employees might be honest but they are up against the likes of Karl Rove.

It's kind of like taking on Al Capone in Chicago of the 20's. Who knows where the "hits" will fall.

Frank Hamilton

Subject: RE: BS: 'The Face of 911' in London?
From: CarolC
Date: 20 Jul 05 - 10:39 PM

The part that says that the people who were bound by the resolution (this includes the US), were required to honor Iraq's borders and sovereignty, and to allow the inspectors to do their job.

What part of "honor Iraq's borders and sovereignty" and "allow the inspectors to do their job" do you not understand? That is, after all, what the resolution required of the US, according to the wording of the resolution.

Any attempts to rationalize the use of force using the resolution is bogus. The resolution did not authorize the US to use force, and it specifically ordered the US and the other member nations to honor Iraq's borders and sovereignty. And since the inspectors were doing the job well enough to ensure that Iraq was not an imminent threat to the US (the reason given for the US invasion), the US is reponsible for the deaths of every civilian who was killed because of the US invasion and occupation, regardless of who they were killed by.

Subject: RE: BS: 'The Face of 911' in London?
From: beardedbruce
Date: 20 Jul 05 - 10:30 PM

CarolC,

What part of the phrase "last chance" do you have such a problem in understanding?

http://www.casi.org.uk/info/undocs/scres/2002/res1441e.pdf

Subject: RE: BS: 'The Face of 911' in London?
From: CarolC
Date: 20 Jul 05 - 10:21 PM

IT IS NOT THAT THEY DESERVED TO DIE- but the responsibility is upon Saddam and those who encouraged him to defy UN resolutions for 13 years.

It was the responsibility of the US to exhaust all available means of resolving the problem without the use of force before resorting to the use of force. The US did not do that. Had the US been willing to do that, it would have allowed the inspectors to finish doing their job.

Subject: RE: BS: 'The Face of 911' in London?
From: CarolC
Date: 20 Jul 05 - 10:16 PM

Ok. I'll restate...

It's not the US they hate, nor the UK, it's western liberalism

This may be true (and then again, it may not), however, the pool of available recruits, which grows ever larger with every act of aggression against Muslims by the governments of countries that practice "western liberalism", are not thus motivated. They are becoming radicalized by the violence they see visited upon their loved ones, their countries, and their people by these very governments, and that is what is making them easy prey for the real extremists.

Subject: RE: BS: 'The Face of 911' in London?
From: Shakey
Date: 20 Jul 05 - 08:22 PM

Just because something is unconvincing doesn't make it sophistry.


which has of course been advanced so effectively in Iraq by the invasion.

Did I say it had?

But as you brought it up, did they have the vote previously, did the women in Afganistan.

Subject: RE: BS: 'The Face of 911' in London?
From: McGrath of Harlow
Date: 20 Jul 05 - 08:08 PM

Sophist Captious or fallacious reasoner, quibbler.

Or, as I'd put it, someone who doesn't really believe the arguments they are putting forward, but is going through the motions because it's their job. Which seems pretty evidently to be the situation of the representatives of the British Government on this issue.
.........................

"If we really believe in the basic truths of equality for women..." which has of course been advanced so effectively in Iraq by the invasion...

Subject: RE: BS: 'The Face of 911' in London?
From: Shakey
Date: 20 Jul 05 - 07:48 PM

Dear nanoo nanoo,

I'm standing here, leaning on my spade, having a fag, just wondering exactly what it is about you that makes me want to sit you on my knee and tell you a story while at the same time feel a burning desire to give your arse a kick.


I have stated a number of times that Blair's policy probably did increase the terrorist risk, at least in terms of when it would happen
I have stated a number of times that Blair's policy probably did increase the terrorist risk, at least in terms of when it would happen

No that wasn't a mistake, I'm just hoping that given enough chances to read something it might sink in.

Terrorism can't be defeated by military force. Alone.

Of course Islamic terrorism is a scourge, but how can we stand up to it when the terrorists are our own children,and the children of our neighbours

Oh, OK, let's do nothing then.

Well thankfully "our" values have spread far and wide, and, to be frank, we won't settle this completely until these same values are spread world-wide. You see, Islam is rule based,i.e. it's based on following rules, a small group of people make the rules and you follow them, not only in a religous context but in your daily life. Western liberalsim (are you listening carol) has grown out of that other scourge of mankind, christianity, but christianity was based upon individual conscience i.e. people made their own mind up about things, at least once they freed themselves from the bishop of rome, freedom to do what you want but having to answer for it later. We value our personal freedom to decide our own fate and it's been rather successful, unfortunately this deep seated idea of personal freedom has led to a situation (in the west) where we tolerate anything and evrything because we want to respect the personal freedom of others. Our greatest strength and our greatest weakness.

If we really believe in the basic truths of equality for women and across all races etc why do we (the UN) tolerate what happens in other cultures: people have human rights, groups do not.

So finally we can agree. There will be no quick fix.

Subject: RE: BS: 'The Face of 911' in London?
From: beardedbruce
Date: 20 Jul 05 - 07:44 PM

CarolC
"you seem to be saying that all of those innocent civilians deserved to die because Saddam didn't jump when we told him to. "

No more so than you are saying they deserved to die because Bush wanted to invade-

IT IS NOT THAT THEY DESERVED TO DIE- but the responsibility is upon Saddam and those who encouraged him to defy UN resolutions for 13 years.


McGrath of Harlow -

"Events don't just have one cause, bruce. There is a whole combination of circumstances and a chain of events leading up to something like 7/7. Making out that the invasion of Iraq wasn't a major part of the events leading up to the bombings is unconvincing sophistry. "

And something I have never claimed. But to blame the US invasion of Iraq for all the evils of the world is unconvincing idiocracy.

Subject: RE: BS: 'The Face of 911' in London?
From: akenaton
Date: 20 Jul 05 - 07:04 PM

Shakey As far as I can see the only one digging a hole for themselves is you.
You have ignored the point made by numerous people on this thread...That Blairs policy increased the terrorist risk. and where were the terrorists in Iraq before the invasion?

We don't have to "stand up to terrorism" in other countries, there are thousands of people in the UK who could turn to terrorism to-morrow if they so wished.

Terrorism cant be defeated by military force, history tells us that, and for all your simplistic jingoism the current situation will be no different.
Of course Islamic terrorism is a scourge, but how can we stand up to it when the terrorists are our own children,and the children of our neighbours?

I still believe what I said before the war, we should pull back , stop trying to export our values to other countries.
The Islamic religion is stronger than the terrorists, and if given time and not hindered by Western interference, can absorb all the hate death and destruction.

This may not be the quick fix so beloved of the politicians and the military ,but in my opinion its our only hope...Ake