iirc, that 'what a wonderful world' clip is from one of michael moore's films

there's some 'truth' in there, but also a lot of untruth...

for example, the mossadegh and shah segments, and the whole bin laden / cia angles

there IS blowback, and rp is correct in stating that obl referenced some previous us actions as the basis for aq's attacks

but as a whole--and in virtually everything--if you overstate your argument, well, you're already on your way to losing it

>> ^Duckman33:

>> ^bcglorf:
I'm not sure they even needed 5 minutes, the last 5 seconds seemed to sum up the 'conspiracy' theories quite nicely.
"Ignorance is strength."
If the real world is complicated and difficult to understand, don't take the time to understand it. Embrace that ignorance as a strength and accept a conspiracy theory that draws it's strength from ignorance.

Or ignorantly believe everything you are told even when faced with all these discrepancies in the "official story". See it can go both ways.


And yet if you bother to dig deeper the evidence is clear. The ignorant masses like the clown narrating this video just don't care to do the leg work they say we should all be doing.

Example: Ahmad Shah Massoud was a leader of Afghanistan's Northern Alliance, and he spent the year prior to the Sept. 11 attacks warning western leaders of pending Al Qaeda attack, larger than anything they'd done before. He died from an Al-Qaeda funded assassination on Sept. 10, the day before the attacks on the towers. Incidentally, he was one of the top picks for anyone wanting to unite Afghanistan around against the Taliban too.

Better example: Office fires can't get burn hot enough (1000F) to weaken steel... Oh, but studying further it turns out they actually can, even ordinary house fires exceed 1000F within 10 minutes.

Another Example: Greg Mortenson, a strong opponent of the war in Afghanistan who's basically dedicated his life to building schools for the people living in Pakistan's tribal regions. He was in Pakistan's tribal region when the attacks happened. When word reached the locals, the reaction was immediate and the conviction shocked him. It was universally agreed that it was obvious that it was the work of Islamic extremists from Afghanistan's tribal areas. Essentially to the effect of, "well I'll be, he finally went and actually did it". Their follow-up reaction is important to understand as well. The understanding that a war would follow in Afghanistan, and most importantly, apprehension at wondering which side nuclear armed Pakistan would choose in the conflict. They knew and understand their own country's loyalties better than anyone over in America, and even they weren't sure if a war came whether Pakistan would side with or against the terrorists responsible for the original attacks.

I was very impressed by his exchange with Sick Santorum. So many people are unfamiliar with Iran and its history.

I have read an excellant book on the US overthrow, All the Shah's Men, which goes a little into the after-effects to the present day, including the hostage crisis.

I tried to explain this to a friend once, but it is so far from the narrative taught in schools and by the media, he thought I was spouting a conspiracy theory. Very frustrating.

So they have 'evidence' that no one is allowed to see and that wouldn't hold up in a court of law.

Come back and look at the real world. Arrest warrants for Osama were already issued in 1998 for murder. He was formally indicted by an American court that listened to first hand witness testimony and satellite phone records for the embassy bombings long before 9/11 ever happened. He was unquestionably the leader of Al Qaeda, a terrorist organization responsible for 10's of thousands of civilian deaths, even if you exclude the victims of 9/11 from the count. And you still have the audacity to question if Osama was guilty?

What is wrong with you?!?!

As to 9/11 there is no if around Osama's guilt there either, even though it matters not to his guilt as a mass murdering terrorist leader. Ahmad Shah Massoud was the leader of Afghanistan's Northern Alliance. He spent most of 2001 warning Europe and the west that Al Qaeda was planning something 'bigger' than it had done before against America, and that it would happen soon. On September 10th, 2001 he was killed by assassins working for Al Qaeda. It's worth noting that Ahmad Shah Massoud was also one of the few people that the Afghan people could have been united around in a push to remove the Taliban and Al Qaeda. But I suppose you would call that circumstantial evidence, right? It's pure coincidence that the man warning of the attacks of 9/11 and able to help in retaliating after was assassinated the day before the 9/11 attacks were carried out! So if that is insufficient, when Hamid Gil interview Osama Bin Laden AFTER the 9/11 attacks, Osama spent a great deal of time and effort showing all the evidence that he and only he could have been the one that planned and coordinated the attacks.

No, you don't see that whether at war or not, you don't just start treating people like sub humans.
No, you don't see. Killing Osama as part of a military operation against a terrorist leader is different from a routine traffic stop. In a military operation ethics around killing go as far as offering a chance for surrender when it is possible to do so without risking your soldiers lives. If that offer of surrender is refused, bullets fly. Do really advocate for a world where the American's should have called up the Pakistani police and asked them to go knock on the door and ask Osama to come out? That leads to dead police officers, and Osama's escape. Assuming of course the police officers sent weren't sympathetic to Osama and called him up so he could leave even before the police arrive. That kind of failure is NOT respecting human life. It directly results in the continued killing of Pakistani civilians by Osama's terrorist network.

You seem to fancy yourself as someone who's objections to seeing Osama dead are based on a respect for life. You need to take that thought and give it an additional 5 minutes of critical analysis. Every day Osama remained free was another day that he directly provided support and leadership to the intentional killing of innocent civilians.

Tags for this video have been changed from 'Pacific Media Centre, Nuclear, Chemical, Biological, Shah, UN' to 'Pacific Media Centre, Nuclear, Chemical, Biological, Shah, UN, Robert Fisk, Iraq, Iran' - edited by vaporlock

I explained the 1953 overthrow to my friend, after reading All the Shah's Men, but he thought it was a far-fetched conspiracy theory.

I explained the 1953 overthrow to my friend, after reading All the Shah's Men, but he thought it was a far-fetched conspiracy theory.

Everyone in Iran is certainly hoping that the CIA/US would leave the movement alone[1]. This is an internal soul searching, and if US deploys its old tactics, it would only serve to reinforce and prove that the current regime's mentality against the west is correct.

In 1953, US overthrew the democratic government of Iran and replaced it with the Shah. Then US supported Saddam to wage a 9 year war with Iran, which led to lose of over a million Iranian lives.

The current paranoid and oppressive regime is a reaction to past foreign policy choices of US, and as an average Iranian we hope that it won't repeat mistakes of the past.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fy3KDYE5KQE

[1] http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/world/middle_east/article6964530.ece

For those who want to know, Green movement has nothing to do with environment etc. It's a nod to Shah Pahlavi's White movement back in the 60's where he abolished feudalism, nationalized some services, gave women the vote etc. The Shah was an american puppet by all accounts and screwed things up royally, but the movement got approved in a landslide referendum.

I'm just curious if the CIA is supporting this green movement. I wonder what our government's position really is and if we'll step in and help like we did for Afghanistan back in the 80's.

Tags for this video have been changed from 'iran, usa, history, mosadegh' to 'iran, usa, history, mosadegh, shah' - edited by calvados

>> ^Diogenes:
hmmm, well the vid does present quite a few inaccuracies... but one thing i do agree with is that it's clearly apparent that the bulk of iranians, most heavily represented by supporters of their current islamic republic, begin their 'timeline of problems' at 1953, and by this i mean their blame of the united states
unfortunately, for both them and us, it shouldn't begin there... there's quite a bit of prior history that truly puts both the events of 1953 and the current situation in much better context - most notably the flawed notions: that the us 'put the shah in power' ... that 'mossadegh was popularly elected' ... and that 'the soviets weren't involved through iran's communist tudeh party or tpi'
leaving for work in a few, so don't really have the time to go into it atm... but if anyone's interested, i can go into far greater detail and give excellent sources, which might increase our understanding of this very muddled account of history


You sound distressed.

Allow me to "liberate" you.

hmmm, well the vid does present quite a few inaccuracies... but one thing i do agree with is that it's clearly apparent that the bulk of iranians, most heavily represented by supporters of their current islamic republic, begin their 'timeline of problems' at 1953, and by this i mean their blame of the united states

unfortunately, for both them and us, it shouldn't begin there... there's quite a bit of prior history that truly puts both the events of 1953 and the current situation in much better context - most notably the flawed notions: that the us 'put the shah in power' ... that 'mossadegh was popularly elected' ... and that 'the soviets weren't involved through iran's communist tudeh party or tpi'

leaving for work in a few, so don't really have the time to go into it atm... but if anyone's interested, i can go into far greater detail and give excellent sources, which might increase our understanding of this very muddled account of history

^ Yes, drink the kool-aid and then you *might* start to believe! Shah, right!

BTW, check out this fascinating lecture by Ken Miller, which is full size version of the link I included above: http://www.videosift.com/video/Biologist-Ken-Miller-on-Intelligent-Design-157

Who has nuclear weapons? Isreal.

Who has been allowed to build nukes for years? Isreal.

North Korea gets away with actually prusuing nukes. But Iran which declares for power gets shit.

Not to mention the hypocrisy http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/1/1c/Shah-nukeIran.jpg

And this was really the way you think a government would do it? First rig up buildings with explosives in secret without anyone knowing, then somehow get people to agree to be suicide pilots of planes, then have those planes be passenger planes so that they are not just killing the people in the buildings but those in the planes, and then have them be piloted into the buildings, and then demolish the buildings with explosives.


Really?


You really think they would do this? I know the governments do some seriously horrible shit, and that the attack on Irag was not driven by trying to get anyone remotely connected to 9/11... but you really think that the US government would create something this convoluted when there are plenty of simpler ways to create a reason to attack another country and make your populous afraid of an unseen bogeyman.

The problem with conspiracy theorists is that even blatant facts that kill their suppositions are treated as merely 'bogus information from the man' and discounted, whereas utter drivel masquerading as science that agrees with them is lovingly circulated ad nauseum.


>> ^NobleOne:
^ Spoco2: why is it so unbelievable really? Has there never been government conspiracies or secrets? In your context of your argument the Government never killed Kennedy even after coming up with the idea of backing money to silver, pulling out of Vietnam, or dis-banding the CIA... Though i am sure it was one shooter with one bullet that went all nimbly bimbly bouncing around the car and pushing Kennedy back and to the left. That was how long ago and we still don't know all the facts on it.... I am sure as shit not that naive to think it was one guy from a 3rd floor book depository with a bolt action rifle... or the coincidences that Martin Luther King, Malcolm X, and Robert Kennedy were all killed within the same time frame... Or how about over throwing the Shah in Iran or the contras in Nicaragua.... Man the list is overwhelming.... Trillions of dollars in Oil will make people do i am sure just about anything....