It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

The anti-Islam Conspiracy?!?

page: 4
0
<< 1  2  3   >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Feb, 23 2006 @ 07:57 PM
link   

Originally posted by Nakash
That's something which occured to me as well. Under the Shah Iran was prosperous, wealthy, and at peace with it's neighbors. Maybe a little crackdown on Jihadis here and there, but much better than under the Mullahs. Plus he was there before.


yeah, but he got forced out by the will of the people

people elected another leader, they could have kept the shah if they chose to




posted on Feb, 23 2006 @ 08:22 PM
link   
Hmm, supporting the previous shah, eh? Taking away civil liberties is OK, eh? Well, maybe you'll have sympathy to this story then:


In 1953 Iran's prime minister Dr. Mohammed Mossadegh, was removed from power in a plot orchestrated by British and US intelligence agencies to protect their oil interests (dubbed "Operation Ajax"). The operation was conducted following the Prime-Minister's nationalization of the Anglo-Iranian Oil Company. It reinstated the Iranian monarchy, handing power back to former Shah Mohammad Reza Pahlavi.

Following Dr. Mosaddegh's fall, the Shah's rule became increasingly dictatorial, particularly in the late 1970s. With strong support from the USA and the UK, the Shah further modernized Iranian industry but crushed civil liberties. His autocratic rule led to the Iranian revolution in 1979. An Islamic republic was soon established under the Ayatollah Khomeini.


en.wikipedia.org...



posted on Feb, 23 2006 @ 08:35 PM
link   

Originally posted by madnessinmysoul
yeah, but he got forced out by the will of the people

people elected another leader, they could have kept the shah if they chose to


He was not forced out by the will of the people he was forced out by Mossadeq.
Mossadeq was elected as Prime Minister, who served under the Shah, after the previous Prime Minister Haji-Ali Razmara was assassinated. Coincidentaly, Haji-Ali Razmara opposed Mossadeq's plan to nationalize the oil industry so there may have been some foul play involved, perhaps by Mossadeq's men.

After Mossadeq was elected by the Paliament the Shah still retained his power just like the Queen of England will still be the queen even after Tony Blair leaves office.

en.wikipedia.org...

[edit on 23-2-2006 by AceOfBase]



posted on Feb, 23 2006 @ 09:54 PM
link   
listen, the west says they support democracy, but here you are defending constitutional monarchies.

iran was better without the shah, we got rid of mossadaq because of the black lifeblood that flows the the veins of industry. his plan would have been good for iran but bad for the west.

post id: 2033527
has more on this



posted on Feb, 24 2006 @ 03:12 AM
link   

Originally posted by madnessinmysoul

post id: 2033527
has more on this


You gotta give the thread id as well for that to work.

Here's a template for you to use:

www.abovetopsecret.com...######&singlepost=#######

Just replace the hashes with the thread id (tid) and the post id. For example, your post that I quoted would be like this:

www.abovetopsecret.com...

Where to find the thread id? It should be in the address bar, for example the link to this whole thread is:

www.abovetopsecret.com...

That 6-digit number is the thread id.

And that's all for todays tutorial. Now carry on the discussion



posted on Feb, 24 2006 @ 06:53 AM
link   

Originally posted by madnessinmysoul
1) iran was better without the shah
2we got rid of mossadaq because of the black lifeblood that flows the the veins of industry. his plan would have been good for iran but bad for the west.
has more on this

Hey MIMS! Glad to see you back in the fray of things. Did you take a holiday or something?

1) There are many iranians here in the states and exiled around the world that would disagree with you
2) I agree on this assessment of history about the oil conspiracy. Oil drives most industry and our reliance on it needs to be curtailed so we cannot have this over our heads anymore. The major downside is platics. It doesn't matter how much we cut the gas flow by getting better cars etc. We rely on MANY items of plastic and that is derived from oil. There are a bunch of other things that are made from petroleum too. So with that in mind maybe we (in the states) might be able to supply all our needs petro-wise if we got off the teet of middle eastern oil conglomerates, the rest of the world may not be able.



posted on Feb, 24 2006 @ 07:30 AM
link   
The way I see the Islam faith is this. If they keep bombing places and blowing stuff up, then in my view, we can make fun of their spiritual leader. Sounds like a fair deal to me. One thing has been puzzling me though. Where in blazes do they get Denmark flags in the Middle East?
When you think about it, it doesn't make much sense. Do they have like a liberary of flags, just in case a country is offensive to you? Perhaps they were handed flags, by...I dunno...a long shot maybe, the Press? How to fan the flames but by some ritual flag burning? Okay, smile for the camera!
There probebly is an agenda within the worldwide media against Islam. It's the idiots who burn the flags that get the headlines. Some folk just can't take any criticism.




top topics



 
0
<< 1  2  3   >>

log in

join