Not to mention that the incident did far more to hurt the US and help the Iranian government than the opposite.
You’ll notice that Dick doesn’t even provide a reason why the US would want to do this and what they thought they might gain from it.
I know Khomeini wanted to see Islamic revolutions all over the Middle East. But all extremist movements set out grand goals and just do what they can towards achieving them. Al Quaeda want to aee a Sunni ummah. The IRA wanted a united Ireland with a classical Trotskyist government. Khomeini and the Iranian 1980s Iranian regime wanted ideally revolutions everywhere, but even the most starry-eyed Shiite revolutionary couldn’t have looked at the Lebanese civil war and thought that there was any chance of establishing an Islamic government there. So they did what they could to further their geostrategic position, which was to create as much trouble for America and the Zionist entity as they possibly could.
America wanted to overthrow the Iranian regime and encouraging Saddam to invade and getting their local clients to support him was a good way of furthering their geostrategic aims. I don’t think taking hostages was a good thing to do but after decades of US-backed tyranny and then the Great Satan refusing to hand over the Shah for trial, totally understandable.
I didn’t live under either Iranian government so couldn’t comment on who is worse. While the vast majority of Iranian youth are against the current regime, and understandably so, it does still have a lot of support from older Iranians. I’d say they’re in the minority but that the current regime still has far more support than the Shah did circa 1979.
I know they Shah was imposed twice but the second time was because Mossadeq nationalised Iran’s oil. Britain actually asked Truman to support a coup in 1951 when Iran nationalised their oilfields but Truman said no. It was only in 1953 that Eisenhower took office and agreed to overthrow Iran and a bunch of other governments who were running resource-rich countries followed over the next few years. The threat of Mossadeq becoming an ally of the USSR was the reason given over the years for the coup but Kermit Roosevelt, Teddy’s grandson and the CIA agent in charge of the coup made the motivations for the whole thing public in later years from the Brits starting the ball rolling in 1951 to the actual coup. Like everything else we were doing in the region at the time and for the half century before, it’s all about the oil baby.
I don’t think the Bush administration were behind 9/11 and I don’t know who shot JFK. I don’t believe any conspiracy theories but I don’t believe America accidentally shot down a civilian airliner. It doesn’t matter how it made America look. The Middle East is mainly going to believe we shot it down on purpose anyway, the US public the opposite, but when has America ever given a shit about Middle Eastern public opinion?
Lots of Sunni and Christian Lebanese think that the mighty Hezbollah are freedom fighters. There was a huge outpouring of love all over the Middle East for Hezbollah after they kicked the Zionist entity out of Lebanon for a second time in 2006 but especially in Lebanon :
The stakes are high for Hizbullah, but it seems it can count on an unprecedented swell of public support that cuts across sectarian lines.According to a poll released by the Beirut Center for Research and Information, 87 percent of Lebanese support Hizbullah’s fight with Israel, a rise of 29 percent on a similar poll conducted in February. More striking, however, is the level of support for Hizbullah’s resistance from non-Shiite communities. Eighty percent of Christians polled supported Hizbullah along with 80 percent of Druze and 89 percent of Sunnis.
Lebanese no longer blame Hizbullah for sparking the war by kidnapping the Israeli soldiers, but Israel and the US instead.
The latest poll by the Beirut Center found that 8 percent of Lebanese feel the US supports Lebanon, down from 38 percent in January.*
After it was all over Sheik Nasrallah was the most popular leader in the Middle East by a country mile. And not only in the Middle East. I was in Amsterdam during the conflict with my girlfriend and in the student areas around the university the amount of Hezbollah and Palestinian flags hanging out of the windows was amazing. Lots of shops were selling flags and yellow Hezbollah T-shirts. And yes we both bought one.
Also Hezbollah deny blowing up any community centres.
Standard fact checking:
[
](http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/9983810/ns/world_news-terrorism/)
And a bit on Hezbollah and and their lunatic leader, Nashrallah (readers can ponder, for themselves, why people support an organization like that):
[
](Hassan Nasrallah: In His Own Words | CAMERA)
[
](In the Party of God | The New Yorker)
[
](http://www.iheu.org/node/2390)
[
No suspects have been convicted of the bombing and there have been many allegations made, including those blaming the government of Iran.[citation needed] These investigations were marred by incompetence;[citation needed] former President Nestor Kirchner called them a “national disgrace” in 2005. In 1999 an arrest warrant was issued against Hezbollah member Imad Mugniyah in connection with the attack.[16] Argentine justice accused Tehran in 2006 of being behind the attacks, allegedly because of Buenos Aires’ decision to suspend a nuclear material delivery and technology transfer.[citation needed]
[edit] Ibrahim Hussein Berro
Israeli diplomatic sources who read the “final” report by SIDE on the attack said in 2003 that the attack was a suicide bombing carried out by Ibrahim Hussein Berro, a 29-year-old Muslim who has been honored with a plaque in southern Lebanon for his martyrdom on July 18, 1994, the date of the bombing. SIDE and the U.S. Federal Bureau of Investigation confirmed this in November 2005.[17]
Berro’s two brothers, however, had denied this version in April 2005 before a US prosecutor, stating that Berro had died on September 9, 1994 during combat in Lebanon. No proper autopsies or DNA tests were done. The police had dumped a head, thought to be that of the bomber, into a bin.[6][18]
Colbert had Samer Shehata, a Georgetown professor and an Egyptian, on a couple night ago. He claims the “Muslim Brotherhood” is poorly named and is not as religious or strident as most westerners think. He sees them as more middle of the roaders who want Mubarak out.
Umm… what makes you so sure. The Shia were the largest group in Lebanon, were persecuted and were looking to get revenge for how they’d been treated.
Beyond that the Iranian regime does lots of things that are extremely irrational.
Saying that the Shah was less popular than the current regime is hardly evidence that the Shah was worse. Lots of people who backed the overthrow of the Shah wound up finding out the hard way that the Mullahs were much worse.
Also, the claim that the rule of the Ayatollahs is more brutal than the Shah is an objectively true statement. The Iranian regime has executed far more people and kept far more political prisoners than the Shah. The Iranian regime has also gone to much greater lengths to control the population in its daily lives(I.E. banning ties and short sleeved shirts for men and requiring women to wear the Chador). Moreover the treatment of religious minorities in Iran, Christians, Jews, and Zoroastrians has gotten far worse.
As for the Bahai, they’re “unpersons” as far as the Iranian government is concerned. They’re not allowed to hold property or have any recognized rights. In fact, the killing of a Bahai is not even technically murder in Iran.
I’m sorry, but the idea that it’s subject to debate whether the Shah’s government was worse is ridiculous.
What are you talking about. Kermit Roosevelt always insisted that overthrowing Mossadegh was because they thought he’d become a Soviet ally. He actually wrote a book proclaiming this called* Countercoup* in which he argued that.
Now, whether or not he’s right is a different story, but he never deviated from that claim.
That’s an extremely short-sighted statement. If it was “all about the oil baby” we certainly wouldn’t have supported the UN partition plan and the creation of Israel and we wouldn’t be giving massive amounts of aid to Israel for the last several decades.
Have you ever actually been to Lebanon?
Yes, many Christians and Sunnis were happy with the Hezbollah when they fought against Israel in 2006, but both before and afterwards most Christians and Sunnis didn’t like them because Hezbollah has made it clear that they’re about the Shia over both. You might as well claim many Shia like the Amal.
Lebanon is a much more complicated place than people think. Remember when Israel invaded Lebanon back in the early 80s they were quite literally greeted by crowds of Shia throwing flowers, just as Hezbollah got lots of Christian and Sunni support in 2006.
Neither lasted for the same reasons.
I notice you’re refusing to give any evidence to support this conspiracy theory of yours.
And OJ insists he didn’t kill his wife.
Wikipedia is not a reliable source. There’s a reason most college professors either don’t let their students cite it or strongly discourage it’s use.
That’s especially true of any wikipedia page strewn with as many “citation needed” as that one is.
Since you’ve made it clearly you’re a staunch opponent of bigotry why would you possible want to support an organization that used to allow on it’s website the downloading of The Protocols of the Elders of Zion?
Why would you want to support such an obviously bigoted organization or do you not consider treating The Protocols of the Elders of Zion as a valid historical document as being anti-Semitic.
I like the idea that the words “Muslim” and “Brotherhood” are somehow crazy inflammatory. I mean, it’s not like they are called the “Scourge of Doom” or something. It’s funny that the very word “Muslim” is enough to give us the heebie-jeebies.
That’s hardly fair. Some of us have heard of the Muslim Brotherhood before this week.
I’d get the ‘heebie-jeebies’ over any organization whose official goal is to institute a theocracy, no matter what religion they were advocating for - even if it officially opposes violence, and those advocating violence have to form splinter groups.
If they were called the “Christian Brotherhood” or “Jewish Brotherhood”, I’d like them no better.
The Fifteen Priniciples of the Islamic Brotherhood
Let’s see, government by the consent of the governed; participation in free and fair elections and a representative parliment (four times!); freedom of religion (twice!); freedom of speech, and of the press; freedom to form political parties; an independent judiciary; freedom of peaceful assembly and peaceful demonstration; and civilian control of the military and police.
Yeah that’s some pretty radical stuff. Better send in Blackwater to exterminate them before it spreads.
Well, all that sounds grand, but you didn’t quote this part:
I don’t think that the IB is the boogie man, and they seem less radical than some, but you need to really look at ALL of their proposals, and then you need to put them in context of the time and the region. They aren’t the Founding Fathers, looking for a mostly secular solution to their countries ills…they are a group of educated and intelligent guys (and I use that term literally) who are working within the context of their religion, and their religious believes.
-XT
People who worship Hassan Al-Banna and Sayyid Qutb are lots of things, but they’re not moderates.
That’s fine, but this has nothing to do with what gonzomax posted.
Anyway, if your goal is " the most important thing is that every government in the Middle East shall be entirely secular," you are fighting a long, losing, and ultimately counter-productive battle. Political secularism, frankly, is not a universally shared value and you are not going to sell it to people who don’t value it. The people of some regions overwhelming support a role for religion in the government. I’m an agnostic and as uncomfortable with religion as you are, but clearly many people in Egypt are not.
The question becomes, “how can you have a religiously grounded government that still ensures basic human rights.” This is not an impossible task. Every religion is a matter of interpretation. There is nothing in the Quran that is permanently, irreconcilably at odds with providing a level of human rights that are, say, above those of China. Of course there will probably be things we object to- but there is a difference between an obnoxious law on dancing and stoning rape victims to death. A state that is okay with keeping it at the former really wouldn’t be much worse than any of the countless less-than-perfectly-idea-to-our-sensibilities states out there.
Personally, I would love to see the creation of a modern, relatively equal, relatively free Islamic state that could act as a model for others.
From what I have read of the demonstrators they seem to want less poverty and a better job market. These are secular desires. Unfortunately, there is no way a government can easily decree a better economy. The per capita gross domestic product in Egypt is much lower than in the United States.
https://www.cia.gov/library/publications/the-world-factbook/rankorder/2004rank.html?countryName=Egypt&countryCode=eg®ionCode=af&rank=136#eg
There is also less economic inequality.
https://www.cia.gov/library/publications/the-world-factbook/rankorder/2172rank.html?countryName=Egypt&countryCode=eg®ionCode=af&rank=90#eg
Consequently, there is not very much wealth that a left wing alternative to Mubarak could spread around.
Those on the right maintain that all one needs to achieve a prosperous economy is cut taxes and reduce the size of government. Nevertheless, countries with lower taxes and less government than the United States nearly always have lower standards of living.
Those who expect a secure, satisfying, and well paying job to result from the overthrow of Mubarak will almost certainly be disappointed. Fanaticism, whether it is political or religious, is the cry of pain of those who want what they cannot have.
Yeah, 'cause being wary of those advocating a theocracy is exactly the same as calling for their extermination.
Methinks that judging the group entirely by a document such as this is a trifle naive. Look for example at the title preceeding the “15 terms” in your link:
In short, the “15 terms” are provided expressly as a counter to the charge, in the Western media, that the MB are extremist fanatics. Not so, they say - look at our “15 terms”. Why, we are as democratic and secular-friendly as any Washington!
How this meshes with creating a sharia state and a universal caliphate is, of course, an interesting question.
One is reminded of:
See, how can Stalin be a bad guy? He’s guaranteed democracy and all sorts of freedoms and rights!
I’m not of the opinion that it is an impossibility, but I am of the opinion that being wary of those advocating a universalist theocracy isn’t exactly without legitimate basis.
Whatever government comes next in Egypt, it is going to want that $1.3 billion a year in U.S. aid to continue, which will be contingent on playing nice with Israel. How much Islamism can they afford?
Ever read Tuchman’s March of Folly? Governments don’t always act in their own interest.
Well, it may be more in the interests of the individuals involved to be in power without the country having that $1.3 billion, than to be out of power.
Again I stress, Islamist parties have been elected in Iraq and Afghanistan, even in Jordan, I don’t see what the big deal is.