Hubert J. Farnsworth said:

---

LMCane said:

---

the Soviet Union communists and Frenchies brought Ayatollah Khomeini back to Iran

you can guess why.

---

The French suck so much.

---

Bigger than a French w***e. The most despised country in Europe. Literally no one likes the French, followed closely by the Germans.

Shirin Ebadi?

Yes, I think we're on the same page. Main point is there is nuance to the story. A simple narrative of "US led coup" doesn't suffice here and requires additional context.

AggieLAX said:

---

Shirin Ebadi?

---

Not ringing a bell and the face and story I see look different.

The person I am thinking of I believe has since passed but spent most of her life in exile living in London and advocating for Communism in the UK. She was also a communist while in Iran and working for the revolution.

Her stance on communism and islam was very contradictory and poorly thought out. I also recall her advocating for islam in the UK to be brought in by force along with communism.


All from memory so I may be off a bit.

Quote:

---

and while they probably cared some about the oil, they more so cared about getting paid and looking strong to their followers. The more discord among the secular ranks of government the more power their radical doctrine and position gained.

---

Can you expound on what was that "radical doctrine'? TIA

Excellent posts.

cecil77 said:

---

Quote:

---

It is just by habit. Muslims always want to fight and "struggle" so they invent reasons to do so.

---

It wasn't always this way. When Muslims went into Spain in the 7th century they were welcomed by many Christians who were under Rome's thumb. For a couple hundred years all three main faiths got along just fine. The ruling Muslims accepted them to practice their religion as they pleased. Yes, Christians and Jews had to pay some extra taxes and couldn't serve in some positions, but the three faiths coexisted peacefully. Early Muslims accepted all "People of the Book". Islam wasn't always radical.

---

Islam has been radical from the second mohammed learned he could persuade weak minds to follow him based on his made up dream. HTH.

cecil77 said:

---

Quote:

---

It is just by habit. Muslims always want to fight and "struggle" so they invent reasons to do so.

---

It wasn't always this way. When Muslims went into Spain in the 7th century they were welcomed by many Christians who were under Rome's thumb. For a couple hundred years all three main faiths got along just fine. The ruling Muslims accepted them to practice their religion as they pleased. Yes, Christians and Jews had to pay some extra taxes and couldn't serve in some positions, but the three faiths coexisted peacefully. Early Muslims accepted all "People of the Book". Islam wasn't always radical.

---

Id find it pretty radical if I had to pay an special tax to exercise my religion or face death

Watched the FOX Nation special Who is the Ayatollah last night. In a nut sell, the people who overthrew the Shah and wanted a "revolution", got more than they ask for. Basically, anyone with a brain, fled before mass executions happened. The middle class suffered, those of any military experience were executed, anyone with a brain left were executed, anyone who didn't follow the strict laws of Islam were executed. One giant FAFO to the people of Iran who thought things would be different.

Similar to what the leftist are trying to do to this country.

aggiehawg said:

---

Quote:

---

and while they probably cared some about the oil, they more so cared about getting paid and looking strong to their followers. The more discord among the secular ranks of government the more power their radical doctrine and position gained.

---

Can you expound on what was that "radical doctrine'? TIA

---

I hope I make sense expounding on this, if I don't please forgive me. I went down a rabbit hole a few years ago reading on Iran, and some of the major events of how things got to where they were/are. The 53' coup caught my fancy given how convoluted it was and how it was portrayed to Eisenhower as a great victory when in reality it was big time dicey and sowed the seeds for 79' and beyond.

By radical I was referencing that radical mullahs and ayatollahs and such have been present in Iran a long time, but prior to 53' coup they, nor their followers, were not considered a strong segment of influence.

Basically the harsh islamacists were acknowledged and recognized for what they were, but they were not felt to have power nor the ability to sway, much less control, government actions. Participate and be heard; Yes. Close to top of the political food chain; No.

Okay. Mossadegh nationalizes their oil, steal foreign oil assets such as the British interests. That seems radical to me. he's overthrown in a military coup and the Shah is given more powers but still is a secular monarchy, correct?

The Islamists are mostly Arab or under Arab control (The Brotherhood) and are not Persian by and large at that time. Again, in my head they are the radicals.

So what you were saying is that fissures between factions of secular leaders provided a vacuum into which the Islamists were able to step in? Am I getting that part correct?

Thanks for the response, BTW as I was confused as to which side was the "radical one" in your post.

AgFrogfan said:

---

Zoroastrianism was really the first official religion of Ancient Persia from what I recall. I don't know enough about the historical timeline when Islam took over but it's an interesting topic.

For anyone wanting to understand the modern radical islamic mindset, research Sayyid Qutb (1906-1966).

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sayyid_Qutb

---

bump for anyone that may have missed this. It explains a lot.

aggie93 said:

---

cecil77 said:

---

Quote:

---

It is just by habit. Muslims always want to fight and "struggle" so they invent reasons to do so.

---

It wasn't always this way. When Muslims went into Spain in the 7th century they were welcomed by many Christians who were under Rome's thumb. For a couple hundred years all three main faiths got along just fine. The ruling Muslims accepted them to practice their religion as they pleased. Yes, Christians and Jews had to pay some extra taxes and couldn't serve in some positions, but the three faiths coexisted peacefully. Early Muslims accepted all "People of the Book". Islam wasn't always radical.

---

Very true, you have to look at each Islamic empire differently and some were far more tolerant than others. Iran and Isfahan especially were a massive center of learning and advancement for a very long time highlighted with Avicenna who was basically the Persian version of Leonardo Da Vinci and his book "The Canon of Medicine" was the pivotal work on the human body for centuries and the foundation of modern medicine in many ways. The Persians were especially tolerant of Jews historically as well. When you look at history (esp from about 900-1400) in Europe and the Middle East with a truly open mind you can really get some understanding of the world.

I love historical fiction that ties in lots of research and knowledge about geography and history with a great story and have been on a kick with that lately. A couple great books I recently read were "The Walking Drum" by Louis L'amour who is so well known for his Western epics but he this is a great story of an adventurer from Brittany who goes on a search for his captured father in Persia and travels spends significant time in Muslim Spain and in Christian Constantinople along the way. Another is "The Religion" about the Knights of Malta and the main character is a German born former Janissary who was captured by the Ottomans as a child.

I've read The Walking Drum at least 5 times and i'm due for a re-read soon. I'll add The Religion to my reading list.

Best quote from The Walking Drum:

"Up to a point a man's life is shaped by environment, heredity, and movements and changes in the world about him; then there comes a time when it lies within his grasp to shape the clay of his life into the sort of thing he wishes to be. Only the weak blame parents, their race, their times, lack of good fortune, or the quirks of fate. Everyone has it within his power to say, this I am today, that I shall be tomorrow. The wish, however, must be implemented by deeds."

---

AgFrogfan said:

---

AgFrogfan said:

---

Zoroastrianism was really the first official religion of Ancient Persia from what I recall. I don't know enough about the historical timeline when Islam took over but it's an interesting topic.

For anyone wanting to understand the modern radical islamic mindset, research Sayyid Qutb (1906-1966).

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sayyid_Qutb

---

bump for anyone that may have missed this. It explains a lot.

---

Sayyid Qutb is also talked about in the book The Looming Tower: Al Qaeda and the Road to 9/11 by Lawrence Wright. Very good read for anyone interested. Never knew Sayyid was the "father " of islamic extremism.

AgFrogfan said:

---

Zoroastrianism was really the first official religion of Ancient Persia from what I recall. I don't know enough about the historical timeline when Islam took over but it's an interesting topic.

For anyone wanting to understand the modern radical islamic mindset, research Sayyid Qutb (1906-1966).

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sayyid_Qutb

---

Also I believe considered the first known monotheistic religion. Or so I remember reading once long ago.

Islam maybe 650 AD? Ish..

aggie93 said:

---

cecil77 said:

---

Quote:

---

It is just by habit. Muslims always want to fight and "struggle" so they invent reasons to do so.

---

It wasn't always this way. When Muslims went into Spain in the 7th century they were welcomed by many Christians who were under Rome's thumb. For a couple hundred years all three main faiths got along just fine. The ruling Muslims accepted them to practice their religion as they pleased. Yes, Christians and Jews had to pay some extra taxes and couldn't serve in some positions, but the three faiths coexisted peacefully. Early Muslims accepted all "People of the Book". Islam wasn't always radical.

---

Very true, you have to look at each Islamic empire differently and some were far more tolerant than others. Iran and Isfahan especially were a massive center of learning and advancement for a very long time highlighted with Avicenna who was basically the Persian version of Leonardo Da Vinci and his book "The Canon of Medicine" was the pivotal work on the human body for centuries and the foundation of modern medicine in many ways. The Persians were especially tolerant of Jews historically as well. When you look at history (esp from about 900-1400) in Europe and the Middle East with a truly open mind you can really get some understanding of the world.

I love historical fiction that ties in lots of research and knowledge about geography and history with a great story and have been on a kick with that lately. A couple great books I recently read were "The Walking Drum" by Louis L'amour who is so well known for his Western epics but he this is a great story of an adventurer from Brittany who goes on a search for his captured father in Persia and travels spends significant time in Muslim Spain and in Christian Constantinople along the way. Another is "The Religion" about the Knights of Malta and the main character is a German born former Janissary who was captured by the Ottomans as a child.

---

Have read most of L'Amour's stuff. The Walking Drum, The Lonesome Gods, The Haunted Mesa, and Sitka are probably his best works.

I had a friend who once dressed up for Halloween circa 1981 as the Ayatollah of Rock-n-rolla. On skates with an electric guitar.

I miss the 80s

AgFrogfan said:

---

Yukon Cornelius said:

---

It was literally our and Englands fault. No one wants to talk about it. Generally when you remove a longstanding political establishment what replaces it doesn't have staying power. And generally then what rises afterwards is incredibly radical and violent. You can see it in Nazi Germany when post WW1 France created a faux German government. You can see it in Russia after the royal family was murdered/exiled. Japan is another great example.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1953_Iranian_coup_d%27%C3%A9tat

---

Uhhh...I'm pretty sure anyone with a Romanov Royal bloodline is still on a hit list. Didn't the US send some secret agents over there to support the "Whites" over the Lenin led Bolsheviks? That went to hell in a handbasket for us. We had good intentions.
John Quincy Adams was our first U.S. Minister to Russia back in 1809. In fact, if memory serves, they were one of the first countries/empires to officially recognize the United States as a sovereign and independent nation-state.

Germany/Prussia/Austria really screwed the pooch when they "dropped the pilot" Otto Von Bismarck. Woody Wilson's League of Nations (While well intentioned) was a recipe for disaster.

WW1 - Democrat President
WWII- Democrat President
Korean War - Democrat President, Ike ended it
Vietnam War - Democrat President, Nixon ended it, Ping-Pong Diplomacy
Gulf War, Desert Storm August 1990- Jan 1991 - Republican President
- I remember being 5 years old and getting mad that we didn't take out Saddam Hussein. I had an awesome Janitor at my pre-school and I remember him telling me he was getting called to active duty. I told him to come back after his service so I could see him again. I've never seen him since. It's a terrible feeling at that age.
Iraq/Afghanistan (2001-2021) - Republican President - Like him or not, #43 established a solid presence in the Middle East that set the stage for Trump's current global flex, while Obama got the Osama feather in his cap. Putin is d*ckin around in Ukraine for no real reason.

Havana, Cuba - Get ready! We got plenty of classic cars to sell you once a stable and prosperous goverment is back in order.

---

We did more than just send secret agents, we sent an entire brigade plus. Unfortunately the idea was to land vicinity Vladivostok and march across Siberia in the winter. Never get in a land war in Asia, especially not if you have to walk across the length of Asia in a brigade formation.

George HW Bushay have been a CIA globalist swamp rat, but the smartest thing he ever did was leave Saddam in power. Saddam was weakened by the Iran-Iraq war already and had lost any ability to project power outside Iraq, but his presence plus Desert Fox ensured the region didn't spiral into death. Another victim, by the way, of British post-Ottoman failure

As for George W Bush, I could t disagree more strongly. He f'ed up at every turn. Anaconda (I was there on the mountains with victory in our sights). Approving the battle plan from that glorified Sergeant Tommy Franks with no Phase 4. Ricardo Sanchez. George Casey. The idiocy of the Thunder Run. The stupidity of banning things like benzene. Every decision that moron made from Sept 2001 onward was objectively, obviously wrong. Even in the moment without the benefit of hindsight. His record on strategic acquisition planning was even worse than his strategy in IZ/AFG

aggiehawg said:

---

Okay. Mossadegh nationalizes their oil, steal foreign oil assets such as the British interests. That seems radical to me. he's overthrown in a military coup and the Shah is given more powers but still is a secular monarchy, correct?

The Islamists are mostly Arab or under Arab control (The Brotherhood) and are not Persian by and large at that time. Again, in my head they are the radicals.

So what you were saying is that fissures between factions of secular leaders provided a vacuum into which the Islamists were able to step in? Am I getting that part correct?

Thanks for the response, BTW as I was confused as to which side was the "radical one" in your post.

---

I'll assume most don't care, but Shia clerics include both Persians and Arabs. The main schools of thought are coming from Najaf (Iraq) and Qom (Iran). The language of Islamic study is still largely Arabic, but the assertion above about Islamists being Arabs or under Arab control in reference to Iran and Shiism is way off base. This is true today and was even more true in the 50s. Take a few classes studying Islamic manuscripts and you'll understand that linguistic diversity in religious thought does also exist.

Oddly one of the best things that happened to Khomeini was getting exiled to Iraq by the Shah because he just went to Najaf and increased his religious credentials by having studied at both Qom and Najaf.

The Brotherhood never has had influence in Iran and never will. They are a Sunni group.

Final word here, it's easy to conflate Arab and Islam together and I understand why some might do that even though there are many Arab Christians and Jews, but the Persians are distinct from the Arabs and so don't let the shared confessional belief in Islam (For many Arabs) lead you to draw any connections between Arabs and Persians. As mentioned earlier, the legacy of Zoroastrianism still plays a dynamic role on the life of Persians with 2 of their biggest holidays still drawing from those ancient beliefs. (Shab Yalda and Nawrooz) Not to mention that Arabs and Persians despise one another.

Thank yall for all the responses. Yall have provided tons of info and resources, and I appreciate yall tremendously.