Navy Cruiser Seizes Huge Iranian Arms Cache in Arabian Sea

That's a nice college boy slogan but it is in fact not true, I would expect someone that takes good care to check the color of the terrorist beard to say if he's a good guy or bad - to know that the WB is not part of Israel and there are 3 regions in the WB, A, B and the notorious C, none is part of Israel and in some there is a military occupation.

 

My position is not lost - Your claim that Saudi Arabia is not a state sponsor of terror is the position that is completely lost.

So hopelessly lost is your position that you are now claiming that Al Qaeda and ISIS are not terrorist groups in order to defend El Saud.

This is upside down loopy doopy on steroids.

 

I agree that "apartheid state" was somewhat sloganish - but in this case - the slogan is somewhat correct - although overstated as sloganized. ... so point taken.

The poster I was responding to was claiming that taking an embassy hostage for political reasons was a far greater sin than mass war crimes, atrocity and crimes against humanity - so that convo was all over the place.

 

Go source this

 

From the Wikipedia entry regarding Mossadegh

According to Ervand Abrahamian: "Realizing that the opposition would take the vast majority of the provincial seats, Mosaddegh stopped the voting as soon as 79 deputies – just enough to form a parliamentary quorum—had been elected."[35]

 

He didn't fill the empty seats with his own folks as far as I know.
And it's FAR more democratic than what the US did,... which was to install thug fascist terrorist rule.

 

calling the Shah of Iran a "fascist terrorist thug" is a gross exaggeration. His treatment of his Iranian subjects was relatively mild and he didn't sponsor any attacks on the U.S. or its allies.

 

He was a paid stooge by the US... so of course he did not attack the US. The US made him torture and execute his fellow countrymen by the 10.000's in order to rule Iran. That makes him a fascist terrorist thug, and the US is to blame for it. Serves the US right that a protest in Iran got so far out of hand, that the Iranian people took control of their own country by uprooting everything American in their country. The US still hasn't gotten over it that Iranians got their own country back and are ones again sovereign. And so I fail to see how to see the shah in any other light.

 

Prove it. From an unbiased source.

 

The US admitted that they made that coup happen against that elected government, to place the Shah at the helm.
I'm not going to source such a general knowledge thing. lol

 

I didn't ask you to source that.

Please learn to read. It might open your eyes

 

If the current Iranian state wasn't infinitely worse than the Shah you might have a point. But he was a bloody angel compared to the Ayatollah!

 

"Upside loopy doopy on steroids"? What are you 8 or something?

I said no such thing, the Saudis are sponsoring a wide variety of rebel groups against Assad, some religious extremists but making common cause against the dictatorship. You try and draw false analogy between them and Iran sponsoring international terrorist groups like Hamas and Hazbollah. Come on, give it up, the Saudis are far from perfect but infinitely better than the Iranians who are downright evil, realpolitik demands them as our allies.

 

What a load of rubbish! international terrorist groups like Hamas and Hazbollah? Why don't you list that international terrorism they have carried out in the last 10 years.

 

Sure!

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hamas#Violence_and_terrorism

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hezbollah#Military_activities

 

Internatioal terrorism in the last 10 years! try again

 

[/QUOTE]


There is no international terrorism international terrorism in the last 10 years in your link - You are confusing Hamas with your beloved Al Qaeda.

 

No but that is the level of your posts.

You are lost an confused - such that you do not even realize what you are claiming - either that or completely bereft of logic.

1) You claimed that Saudi Arabia is not a state sponsor of terrorist groups
2) Saudi Arabia armed and supported Al Qaeda in Syria and Yemen - and this was shown to you.

So by your logic - Al Qaeda is not a terrorist group.

3) Your claim that Iran is more evil that El Saud is unsupported - and patent rubbish. You are talking nonsense. Iran is no pillar of virtue by any stretch - but El Saud is a whole lot worse than Iran.

4) Your claim that Iran sponsors international terrorism over the last 10 years is completely false - Your own links refute you. You are living in a made up fantasy world.

 

Why did Reagan support the use of chemical weapons against Iran ? I forgot what Iran did to merit this kind of treatment.

 

Reagan did not "support" the use of chemical weapons against Iran. At worst the U.S. turned a blind eye to the Iraqis use of them.

At any rate, there were massive fears that a powerful Iran would attempt to dominate the Persian Gulf region. Something that the U.S. tries to avoid to this day.

And it isn't like the use of chemical weapons made any difference in the Iran/Iraq War.

 

Saddam was our ally - and we were supporting his war effort against Iran - including giving him intel on Iranian troop positions and so on.
This took place prior to and after Saddam's use of chemical weapons - meaning we knowingly provided Iraq with Iranian troop positions in full knowledge that he may use chemical weapons.

So yes - Reagan admin supported the use of Chemical weapons.

Iran was not in a position to dominate anything at the time.

So we orchestrated a coup in 1953 - installed a totalitarian Islamist theocratic regime. decades later - there is a revolution to overthrow that regime. During the revolution some students occupy the US Embassy and hold it hostage for 444 days - demand that the US stay out of the affairs of Iran being the basis justification. All is resolved - no one dies.

You believe that this action justified waging all out war - via a proxy - including the use of chemical weapons - and you are welcome to your opinion.

A failed state undergoing a revolution was in no position to dominate the region - so this justification fails.

 

1. It's spelt 'International'

2. Yes, my links specify international terrorism in the last 10 years.

 

He didn't, no one had any doubts as to the evil of Saddam, just that an Iranian victory was the infinitely worse of 2 evils.

 

There is no international terrorism international terrorism in the last 10 years in your link - You are confusing Hamas with your beloved Al Qaeda.[/QUOTE]

Nope, there's plenty in my links and AQ and Hamas are equally abhorrent.

 

You seriously expect anyone to believe the Shah of Iran was "Islamist" or "theocratic"

You're joking.