Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: This feature currently requires accessing the site using the built-in Safari browser.
What does your stupid mispelled signature supposed to imply?You might not care, but it seems some Egyptians care enough to believe all that silliness -- not only symbols, but didn't they think a shark spotted off the coast was a Mossad spy?Could care less about symbolism. Flag for life....
And which flag are you talking about?
Challah Hu Akbar: Palestinian Nazi Symbolics?
That's the dumbest blog I've seen, that emblem has been used long before Germany came about. Boo hoo
They took Mossadegh out and in 1979 they took the Shah out. What's the difference. You have the chronology of it all mixed up. Carter visited the Shah and praised him as an ally and told him to give more freedoms of speech (as obama did to Mubarek during his message to the Muslim world in Cairo) The riots were started by British spies and paid instigators in Iran and snowballed. The Shah not wanting to massacre his people like Assad left the country and his ungrateful people to their destiny, which was fulfilled. Khomeini arrived and then the hostages were taken with his blessing. Carter being the weak indecisive terrorist appeaser he was, turned America into a paper tiger, and an embrassment.Don't want to get off on a tangent here, but Iran's shah was a secular dictator who brought about many reforms and changes to the people. Look up the White Revolution. Where the shah gave govt land to the peasants, made women take off their veils, built roads highways, and made public education mandatory and free. In essence he and his father de-Islamicized Iran. I do agree with you that the removal of the Shah was a UK/US operation mainly, and it was all about oil.
The US would not have had to support radicals in Afghanistan had the Carter presidency not been such a disaster, that the Russians had not become emboldened to invade Afganistan. It's always good if you get the whole picture as opposed to bits and pieces. And no one can deny that Obama is Carter on steroids when it comes to foreign policy.
Whereas carter facilitated the removal of one secular dictator friendly to the US to be replaced by Islamist nutjobs, Obama has facilitated many more.
What tangent?
Again, the US/UK operation took out a democratically elected Mosaddegh and replaced him with royalty. That's the American revolution in reverse. And that was basically done because oil companies were hopping mad that Iran was going to nationalize a natural resource. What Carter did with Iran was to save the hostages. It would have done no good to send troops in. It would have been a bloody mess.
And it was the Carter Presidency that started supporting the nuts in Afghanistan. The Russians had almost the same reason for going into Afghanistan that the US had for going into Vietnam. Their puppets were in trouble. Nothing "emboldened" them to do so except maybe the Vietnam war. Carter also put up a wheat embargo. The Carter administration was pretty hellbent on eviscerating the Soviets. Only the Carter policy was to harass. Reagan changed that to "win" in Afghanistan, so with that came lots of training from the CIA and better weapons. And thanks to Reagan and George HW Bush..those folks learned enough to become a real effective group of terrorists.
Then came Reagan in a landslide, to restore pride, strength, and what America stood for.
They took Mossadegh out and in 1979 they took the Shah out. What's the difference. You have the chronology of it all mixed up. Carter visited the Shah and praised him as an ally and told him to give more freedoms of speech (as obama did to Mubarek during his message to the Muslim world in Cairo) The riots were started by British spies and paid instigators in Iran and snowballed. The Shah not wanting to massacre his people like Assad left the country and his ungrateful people to their destiny, which was fulfilled. Khomeini arrived and then the hostages were taken with his blessing. Carter being the weak indecisive terrorist appeaser he was, turned America into a paper tiger, and an embrassment.What tangent?
Again, the US/UK operation took out a democratically elected Mosaddegh and replaced him with royalty. That's the American revolution in reverse. And that was basically done because oil companies were hopping mad that Iran was going to nationalize a natural resource. What Carter did with Iran was to save the hostages. It would have done no good to send troops in. It would have been a bloody mess.
And it was the Carter Presidency that started supporting the nuts in Afghanistan. The Russians had almost the same reason for going into Afghanistan that the US had for going into Vietnam. Their puppets were in trouble. Nothing "emboldened" them to do so except maybe the Vietnam war. Carter also put up a wheat embargo. The Carter administration was pretty hellbent on eviscerating the Soviets. Only the Carter policy was to harass. Reagan changed that to "win" in Afghanistan, so with that came lots of training from the CIA and better weapons. And thanks to Reagan and George HW Bush..those folks learned enough to become a real effective group of terrorists.
Then came Reagan in a landslide, to restore pride, strength, and what America stood for.
Who's they?
The shah got "taken out" by a popular movement. The people wanted him out. They were tired of oppression and royalty. The shah was put in by spooks hiding out in the embassies. My chronology is fine. The spooks weren't involved the second time around. And as for the shah not wanting a bloodbath? Check into SAVAK.
Reagan's "landslide" happened because of the embarrassment of the hostages. And it looks as if, Reagan had a hand in keeping them there until after the election. In any case, Iran/Contra proved Reagan engaged in treason. He was pretty lucky he was so popular. He should have been impeached and removed from office.
Liberal delusions you've got it bad
What does your stupid mispelled signature supposed to imply?You might not care, but it seems some Egyptians care enough to believe all that silliness -- not only symbols, but didn't they think a shark spotted off the coast was a Mossad spy?
And which flag are you talking about?
Challah Hu Akbar: Palestinian Nazi Symbolics?
That's the dumbest blog I've seen, that emblem has been used long before Germany came about. Boo hoo
....read it a few times.
They took Mossadegh out and in 1979 they took the Shah out. What's the difference. You have the chronology of it all mixed up. Carter visited the Shah and praised him as an ally and told him to give more freedoms of speech (as obama did to Mubarek during his message to the Muslim world in Cairo) The riots were started by British spies and paid instigators in Iran and snowballed. The Shah not wanting to massacre his people like Assad left the country and his ungrateful people to their destiny, which was fulfilled. Khomeini arrived and then the hostages were taken with his blessing. Carter being the weak indecisive terrorist appeaser he was, turned America into a paper tiger, and an embrassment.
Then came Reagan in a landslide, to restore pride, strength, and what America stood for.
Who's they?
The shah got "taken out" by a popular movement. The people wanted him out. They were tired of oppression and royalty. The shah was put in by spooks hiding out in the embassies. My chronology is fine. The spooks weren't involved the second time around. And as for the shah not wanting a bloodbath? Check into SAVAK.
Reagan's "landslide" happened because of the embarrassment of the hostages. And it looks as if, Reagan had a hand in keeping them there until after the election. In any case, Iran/Contra proved Reagan engaged in treason. He was pretty lucky he was so popular. He should have been impeached and removed from office.
More delusions from the ignorant, so the Islamist were Reagan's allies, they wanted Reagan instead of Carter
Who's they?
The shah got "taken out" by a popular movement. The people wanted him out. They were tired of oppression and royalty. The shah was put in by spooks hiding out in the embassies. My chronology is fine. The spooks weren't involved the second time around. And as for the shah not wanting a bloodbath? Check into SAVAK.
Reagan's "landslide" happened because of the embarrassment of the hostages. And it looks as if, Reagan had a hand in keeping them there until after the election. In any case, Iran/Contra proved Reagan engaged in treason. He was pretty lucky he was so popular. He should have been impeached and removed from office.
More delusions from the ignorant, so the Islamist were Reagan's allies, they wanted Reagan instead of Carter
Well yeah.
They got to buy parts for all their American made weapon systems.
Seriously..do you know what Iran/Contra was all about?
Show us some examples of those ancient buzzards before Germany then.You might not care, but it seems some Egyptians care enough to believe all that silliness -- not only symbols, but didn't they think a shark spotted off the coast was a Mossad spy?Could care less about symbolism. Flag for life....
And which flag are you talking about?
Challah Hu Akbar: Palestinian Nazi Symbolics?
That's the dumbest blog I've seen, that emblem has been used long before Germany came about. Boo hoo
More delusions from the ignorant, so the Islamist were Reagan's allies, they wanted Reagan instead of Carter
Well yeah.
They got to buy parts for all their American made weapon systems.
Seriously..do you know what Iran/Contra was all about?
Yeah saving American lives..Congratulations now you know
They as in the West, consumers of oil which the Shah intended to raise the price of oil. Ask any Iranian of any religious background what life under the Shah was like, they will all tell you it was the best ever. The Savak was the Shahs secret police, but they had nothing to do with you as long as you didn't try to instigate the overthrow of the shah.They took Mossadegh out and in 1979 they took the Shah out. What's the difference. You have the chronology of it all mixed up. Carter visited the Shah and praised him as an ally and told him to give more freedoms of speech (as obama did to Mubarek during his message to the Muslim world in Cairo) The riots were started by British spies and paid instigators in Iran and snowballed. The Shah not wanting to massacre his people like Assad left the country and his ungrateful people to their destiny, which was fulfilled. Khomeini arrived and then the hostages were taken with his blessing. Carter being the weak indecisive terrorist appeaser he was, turned America into a paper tiger, and an embrassment.What tangent?
Again, the US/UK operation took out a democratically elected Mosaddegh and replaced him with royalty. That's the American revolution in reverse. And that was basically done because oil companies were hopping mad that Iran was going to nationalize a natural resource. What Carter did with Iran was to save the hostages. It would have done no good to send troops in. It would have been a bloody mess.
And it was the Carter Presidency that started supporting the nuts in Afghanistan. The Russians had almost the same reason for going into Afghanistan that the US had for going into Vietnam. Their puppets were in trouble. Nothing "emboldened" them to do so except maybe the Vietnam war. Carter also put up a wheat embargo. The Carter administration was pretty hellbent on eviscerating the Soviets. Only the Carter policy was to harass. Reagan changed that to "win" in Afghanistan, so with that came lots of training from the CIA and better weapons. And thanks to Reagan and George HW Bush..those folks learned enough to become a real effective group of terrorists.
Then came Reagan in a landslide, to restore pride, strength, and what America stood for.
Who's they?
The shah got "taken out" by a popular movement. The people wanted him out. They were tired of oppression and royalty. The shah was put in by spooks hiding out in the embassies. My chronology is fine. The spooks weren't involved the second time around. And as for the shah not wanting a bloodbath? Check into SAVAK.
Reagan's "landslide" happened because of the embarrassment of the hostages. And it looks as if, Reagan had a hand in keeping them there until after the election. In any case, Iran/Contra proved Reagan engaged in treason. He was pretty lucky he was so popular. He should have been impeached and removed from office.
Dude, I lived the Iranian revolution. You don't need to tell me the chronology of it. The US under Carter and especially the UK were totally complicit in the removal of the Shah. I listened to BBC from London on shortwave radio everyday at 7PM local time,
Ha ha ha. Whereas you're a dumbass who converted to Islam in the US, and you Still don't know the first thing about it. Which idiot converts into a religion and culture that belongs in the 7th century? Only an ignorant illiterate moron called Sunni man.Dude, I lived the Iranian revolution. You don't need to tell me the chronology of it. The US under Carter and especially the UK were totally complicit in the removal of the Shah. I listened to BBC from London on shortwave radio everyday at 7PM local time,
