Mahmoud Ahmadinejad

[Rising_Sun]

@D502

Don’t get me wrong, but one part of this catalyst is the longstanding intervention from the West. The western states are complicit in this conflicts 'cause they never could accept that there’re countries in this world which prefer another way of life. The support of the shah, the support of Saddam and so on, all this is an attest of the delusion the West is playing with.
The greed for oil and the arrogance to force the western worths on people who doesn’t want them, is also an catalyst.

Agree entirely.

[Rising_Sun]

@D502

For one thing, I want to accent that I’m not only talking about America if I say “The West”. That isn’t what I wrote.

…

We supported Reza Pahlavi in the sixties although we know about SAVAK, torment and oppression. The same applies to Saddam in the eighties. And this is what I meant. We can’t play with other peoples only to represent our own interests. We make other people to a pawn in the hands of the powerful.

And btw:
No one can tell me that armies moved into a country with the aspiration to affranchise the women.

Agree entirely, again.

[Adrian_Wainer]

@Rising_Sun

My bold

This is a novel view of the Islamic Revolution.

When and how did the West replace the Shah with Khomeini?

try this for starters

http://www.brusselsjournal.com/node/1857

http://www.iranchamber.com/history/rkhomeini/ayatollah_khomeini.php

@Rising Sun

Why did Khomeini turn on his alleged Western sponsors and what caused him to do it?

Khomeini may or may not have had a formal agreement with the French, but since he would likely regard them as Christian pigs, I doubt that he would have felt under obligation to adhere to the terms of such an agreement if such an agreement did exist.

Best and Warm Regards
Adrian Wainer

[Rising_Sun]

@Adrian_Wainer

try this for starters

http://www.brusselsjournal.com/node/1857

The Voice of Conservatism in Europe?

So how did the French rig the elections which brought Khomeini to power, and create the circumstances for popular hostility to the Shah which paved the way for his rise to power?

@Adrian_Wainer

Khomeini may or may not have had a formal agreement with the French, but since he would likely regard them as Christian pigs, I doubt that he would have felt under obligation to adhere to the terms of such an agreement if such an agreement did exist.

Khomeini may or may not have had a formal or even informal agreement with the Grand Poobah of the planet Xenon and since he would likely regard them as aliens of the non-human variety, I doubt he would have felt under obligation to adhere to the terms of such an agreement if such an agreement did exist (or if such an agreement existed or did not exist only in the disoriented minds of the spectral inhabitants of the planet Xenon).

Maybe it’s just me, but I am getting the feeling in recent weeks that this site is progressing steadily into the realms of utter stupidity rather than any attempt at serious debate about historical matters which, according to convention, are supported by facts rather than the possibility that someone might have felt under an obligation to adhere to an agreement which might or might not exist.

[Nickdfresh]

@herman2

…those of the intelectual capacity that have something meaninful to say.

Oh, please God, do let it be true!

[Adrian_Wainer]

@Rising_Sun

The Voice of Conservatism in Europe?

So how did the French rig the elections which brought Khomeini to power, and create the circumstances for popular hostility to the Shah which paved the way for his rise to power?

The Shah’s own mistakes weakened his position but it was the facility of being able to run a cassette tape distribution operation from France that allowed Khomeini to assume the prominence that he did.

@Rising_Sun

Khomeini may or may not have had a formal or even informal agreement with the Grand Poobah of the planet Xenon and since he would likely regard them as aliens of the non-human variety, I doubt he would have felt under obligation to adhere to the terms of such an agreement if such an agreement did exist (or if such an agreement existed or did not exist only in the disoriented minds of the spectral inhabitants of the planet Xenon).

Maybe it’s just me, but I am getting the feeling in recent weeks that this site is progressing steadily into the realms of utter stupidity rather than any attempt at serious debate about historical matters which, according to convention, are supported by facts rather than the possibility that someone might have felt under an obligation to adhere to an agreement which might or might not exist.

Hi, you’re the one who is talking rubbish here, in that e.g. in the United Kingdom there has been until 2005 a general Thirty Year Rule, as to the release of State documents and there is stuff dating back as far as Queen Victoria’s reign which has not been released and the British are no angels but in comparison to the French they look like boy scouts on best behaviour. So unless you are about twelve years old or have been hiding under a bush somewhere in Western Australia for the last thirty years or so, you should realize that a lot of stuff is never committed to paper and where it is, it is never released to the public. I presume next that you will be arguing that the French Government could not have bombed the Rainbow Warrior and murdered one of its crew because if they had intended to sink that Ship, they would have placed an advertisement in a New Zealand paper that this ship was subject to hostile action by the French Navy once it entered International Waters and if it did so, it was liable to capture or sinking by a French Warship, rather than using secret service agents to bomb it.

http://www.guardian.co.uk/politics/2005/jan/04/freedomofinformation.politics

Best and Warm Regards
Adrian Wainer