PDA

View Full Version : New Army Manual Orders Soldiers Not To Criticize Taliban



txradioguy
12-13-2012, 02:53 AM
New Army Manual Orders Soldiers Not To Criticize Taliban
December 11, 2012 | Judicial Watch



Here is a strong indicator that the Obama Administration’s crusade to appease Islam has gone too far; a new U.S. military handbook for troops deployed to the Middle East orders soldiers not to make derogatory comments about the Taliban or criticize pedophilia, among other outrageous things.

It gets better; the new manual, which is around 75 pages, suggests that Western ignorance of Afghan culture— not Taliban infiltration—is responsible for the increase in deadly attacks by Afghan soldiers against the coalition forces.

The soon-to-be-released Army handbook is still being drafted, but a mainstream newspaper got a sneak preview and published an article that should infuriate the American taxpayers funding the never-ending war on terror. The manual is being created because someone with authority bought the theory that cultural insensitivity is driving insider attacks on U.S. troops in Afghanistan.

More than three dozen insider attacks have killed 63 members of the U.S.-led coalition this year, according to the article, and some blame “American cultural ignorance.” The bottom line is that troops may experience social-cultural shock and/or discomfort when interacting with Afghan security forces, the new military handbook says. “Better situational awareness/understanding of Afghan culture will help better prepare [troops] to more effectively partner and to avoid cultural conflict that can lead toward green-on-blue violence.”

The draft leaked to the newspaper offers a list of “taboo conversation topics” that soldiers should avoid, including “making derogatory comments about the Taliban,” “advocating women’s rights,” “any criticism of pedophilia,” “directing any criticism towards Afghans,” “mentioning homosexuality and homosexual conduct” or “anything related to Islam.”

At least one high-ranking military official had the backbone to publicly criticize the new manual, albeit through a spokesperson. U.S. Marine General John Allen, the top commander in Afghanistan, doesn’t endorse it and rejected a proposed forward drafted by Army officials in his name. “He does not approve of its contents,” according to a military spokesman quoted in the story.

Earlier this year the Obama Administration changed the way federal agents are trained to combat terrorism and violent extremism by eliminating all materials that shed a negative light on Muslims. Under White House orders, the Federal Bureau of Investigation (FBI) destroyed instructional material that characterizes Muslims as prone to violence or terrorism in a government-wide call to end Islamophobia.

http://atlasshrugs2000.typepad.com/atlas_shrugs/2012/12/new-army-manual-orders-soldiers-not-to-criticize-taliban-pedophilia-anything-related-to-islam-or-adv.html

m00
12-13-2012, 03:08 AM
Well, that's dumb.

I mean we shouldn't be an "occupying force" and we shouldn't be "nation building." But I guess if you sign up for that, it's counter productive to piss off the population whose nation you are building. But there's a difference between saying in the manual "don't provoke the locals by openly challenging their customs we find to be backwards" and removing all reference to their customs being backwards.

It gets better; the new manual, which is around 75 pages, suggests that Western ignorance of Afghan culture— not Taliban infiltration—is responsible for the increase in deadly attacks by Afghan soldiers against the coalition forces.

Well, I have to agree with this... we are willfully ignorant that their culture wants to see western civilization (and its corrupting influence) destroyed at any cost, up to and including their lives and the lives of their children.

Elspeth
12-13-2012, 03:20 AM
So grown men can violate children and the finest Americans are supposed to go mute? This is cultural relativism run more than amok.

txradioguy
12-13-2012, 04:30 AM
So grown men can violate children and the finest Americans are supposed to go mute? This is cultural relativism run more than amok.

Yup no more jokes down range about it being "Man-love Thrusday"...can't speak the truth about the brutality of the taliban...can point out the obvious about Islam.

txradioguy
12-13-2012, 04:34 AM
It gets better; the new manual, which is around 75 pages, suggests that Western ignorance of Afghan culture— not Taliban infiltration—is responsible for the increase in deadly attacks by Afghan soldiers against the coalition forces.

Well, I have to agree with this... we are willfully ignorant that their culture wants to see western civilization (and its corrupting influence) destroyed at any cost, up to and including their lives and the lives of their children.

That's horseshit. We're fully aware of it...and to blame our alleged "ignorance" and not the taliban for the Green on Blue shootings is moronic.

m00
12-13-2012, 04:39 AM
That's horseshit. We're fully aware of it...and to blame our alleged "ignorance" and not the taliban for the Green on Blue shootings is moronic.

I think you missed the point of my post... which is that we have nobody in our elites who is prepared to come to grips with radical Islam. This is our own ignorance.

txradioguy
12-13-2012, 05:02 AM
I think you missed the point of my post... which is that we have nobody in our elites who is prepared to come to grips with radical Islam. This is our own ignorance.

I must have...because it cme off to me that you were saying that we soldiers are the ignorant ones.

The elites ignorance is a willful one. But IMHO some of them aren't willing to speak out because Libtards and Jihadists have something in common...they both hate America.

m00
12-13-2012, 05:08 AM
I must have...because it cme off to me that you were saying that we soldiers are the ignorant ones.

The elites ignorance is a willful one. But IMHO some of them aren't willing to speak out because Libtards and Jihadists have something in common...they both hate America.

yeah I did NOT mean the soldiers... I was kind of making a tongue-in-cheek comment. The phrase was: Western ignorance of Afghan culture— not Taliban infiltration—is responsible for the increase in deadly attacks by Afghan soldiers against the coalition forces.

When you think about that, the Washington elites & their foreign policy is completely ignorant of the threat of radical Islam (and when you get down to it, Islamic culture)... and in my mind this is the source of the vast majority of problems we are having in the ME, including the fact middle eastern countries aren't "behaving" like western ones when we occupy them.

Elspeth
12-13-2012, 01:58 PM
Yup no more jokes down range about it being "Man-love Thrusday"...can't speak the truth about the brutality of the taliban...can point out the obvious about Islam.

Or how about the abuse of little girls?




http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/pages/frontline/afghanistan-pakistan/opium-brides/when-afghan-girls-pay-the-price-for-the-crimes-of-others/

Shakila was just 8 years old when a group of men abducted her and her cousin from their beds as they slept in Naray district in Afghanistan’s Kunar province. She was held as a slave for a year — a punishment inflicted on her because an uncle had run away with the wife of a strongman associated with her abductors — before she managed to escape.

The reaction of Shakila’s father, Alissa Rubin writes, “illustrates the difficulty in trying to change such a deeply rooted cultural practice: he expressed fury that she was abducted because, he said, he had already promised her in marriage to someone else.”

Rubin tells Shakila’s harrowing story in today’s edition of The New York Times, exploring how young girls are taken and held like slaves to settle disputes in a practice known as baad in Afghanistan. “Baad is most common in areas where it is dangerous for people to seek out government institutions,” she writes. “Instead of turning to the courts, they go to jirgas, assemblies of tribal elders, that use tribal law, which allows the exchange of women.”

In our January report Opium Brides, Afghan reporter Najibullah Quraishi went deep inside the Afghan countryside to meet and film young girls given up in baad transactions when their families failed to pay debts to drug smugglers after their opium crops were eradicated by the government. In an excerpt from the film embedded above, Quraishi reveals how drug traffickers exploit the ancient cultural practice, and documents its devastating impact on families. Though exacerbated by opium eradication policies, baad is a deeply-rooted historical practice, and as we explore, efforts to address the problem are constrained by many factors.

linda22003
12-13-2012, 03:52 PM
That's fine. Don't spend time and energy badmouthing the Taliban. Just SHOOT them.

Odysseus
12-13-2012, 04:07 PM
The problem in Afghanistan is not that we lack cultural awareness, it's that we are all too aware of the nature of the culture, and we find it repellent. Whitewashing this with a PC manual won't hide the hateful, inbred, backward, violent sickness of the culture. A people who murder or mutilate little girls for the crime of wanting an education deserve our contempt. There is a reason that we are at war with the Taliban, and a reason that they harbored Bin Laden. Their worldview is one in which women and children are chattel to men, and men are kept ignorant and in thrall to the revelations of an illiterate 7th century thug. Our culture may have its problems, but they are the problems that come with liberty, and I'll take it any day over theirs.

Molon Labe
12-13-2012, 04:28 PM
The problem in Afghanistan is not that we lack cultural awareness, it's that we are all too aware of the nature of the culture, and we find it repellent.

All the more reason to ask yourself everyday why anyone would want to save any of them with even 1 American life.

Starbuck
12-13-2012, 04:32 PM
This is the sort of thing that will keep good people out of the armed services.

I left the navy in 1971. It was right after the draft had been abolished. Servicemen were looked down upon, and most of us took some effort to disguise our affiliation. And we weren't getting any good people. It was awful.

I can see it all happening again, even in my family. There is lots a "support our heroes" talk, but even more "not my son" talk.

Artois
12-13-2012, 06:06 PM
That's fine. Don't spend time and energy badmouthing the Taliban. Just SHOOT them.


The problem in Afghanistan is not that we lack cultural awareness, it's that we are all too aware of the nature of the culture, and we find it repellent. Whitewashing this with a PC manual won't hide the hateful, inbred, backward, violent sickness of the culture. A people who murder or mutilate little girls for the crime of wanting an education deserve our contempt. There is a reason that we are at war with the Taliban, and a reason that they harbored Bin Laden. Their worldview is one in which women and children are chattel to men, and men are kept ignorant and in thrall to the revelations of an illiterate 7th century thug. Our culture may have its problems, but they are the problems that come with liberty, and I'll take it any day over theirs.

We're well in agreement.

Odysseus
12-13-2012, 06:08 PM
All the more reason to ask yourself everyday why anyone would want to save any of them with even 1 American life.

A couple of years ago, I'd have argued that failed states breed terror, and the option to try had to be attempted, but I've come to the conclusion that the Romans had it right. We had no choice but to go into Afghanistan and turn out the Taliban after they harbored Bin Laden, but if we had to do it all over again, I think that leaving a salt flat where the Helmand Valley used to be makes more sense than trying to drag those troglodytes into the 21st century.


This is the sort of thing that will keep good people out of the armed services.

I left the navy in 1971. It was right after the draft had been abolished. Servicemen were looked down upon, and most of us took some effort to disguise our affiliation. And we weren't getting any good people. It was awful.

I can see it all happening again, even in my family. There is lots a "support our heroes" talk, but even more "not my son" talk.

I try to be polite when people who I don't know, and who don't know me, thank me for my service, but there are times when I wonder if they are just going through the motions. Kipling got it right in 1890:


I WENT into a public 'ouse to get a pint o' beer,
The publican 'e up an' sez, " We serve no red-coats here."
The girls be'ind the bar they laughed an' giggled fit to die,
I outs into the street again an' to myself sez I:
O it's Tommy this, an' Tommy that, an' " Tommy, go away " ;
But it's " Thank you, Mister Atkins," when the band begins to play
The band begins to play, my boys, the band begins to play,
O it's " Thank you, Mister Atkins," when the band begins to play.

I went into a theatre as sober as could be,
They gave a drunk civilian room, but 'adn't none for me;
They sent me to the gallery or round the music-'alls,
But when it comes to fightin', Lord! they'll shove me in the stalls!
For it's Tommy this, an' Tommy that, an' " Tommy, wait outside ";
But it's " Special train for Atkins " when the trooper's on the tide
The troopship's on the tide, my boys, the troopship's on the tide,
O it's " Special train for Atkins " when the trooper's on the tide.

Yes, makin' mock o' uniforms that guard you while you sleep
Is cheaper than them uniforms, an' they're starvation cheap.
An' hustlin' drunken soldiers when they're goin' large a bit
Is five times better business than paradin' in full kit.
Then it's Tommy this, an' Tommy that, an` Tommy, 'ow's yer soul? "
But it's " Thin red line of 'eroes " when the drums begin to roll
The drums begin to roll, my boys, the drums begin to roll,
O it's " Thin red line of 'eroes, " when the drums begin to roll.

We aren't no thin red 'eroes, nor we aren't no blackguards too,
But single men in barricks, most remarkable like you;
An' if sometimes our conduck isn't all your fancy paints,
Why, single men in barricks don't grow into plaster saints;
While it's Tommy this, an' Tommy that, an` Tommy, fall be'ind,"
But it's " Please to walk in front, sir," when there's trouble in the wind
There's trouble in the wind, my boys, there's trouble in the wind,
O it's " Please to walk in front, sir," when there's trouble in the wind.

You talk o' better food for us, an' schools, an' fires, an' all:
We'll wait for extry rations if you treat us rational.
Don't mess about the cook-room slops, but prove it to our face
The Widow's Uniform is not the soldier-man's disgrace.
For it's Tommy this, an' Tommy that, an` Chuck him out, the brute! "
But it's " Saviour of 'is country " when the guns begin to shoot;
An' it's Tommy this, an' Tommy that, an' anything you please;
An 'Tommy ain't a bloomin' fool - you bet that Tommy sees!

And it still holds true today:


We aren't made for cool Britannia; we leave boot marks on the floor.
We don't walk like Peter Mandelson or talk quite like Jack Straw.
Call us "forces of conservatism" if it suits your turn
But we're off like some world fire brigade when flash-points start to burn.
Yes it's Tommy this, an' Tommy that, an' spend less on defence,
But who walks the streets of Basra when the air is getting tense?
When the air is getting tense, boys, from Kabul to Kosovo
Who'll say goodbye to wife and kids, and shoulder pack and go?


The Queen, she's sat in Windsor now for 50 years or more.
She'll see this government depart like other ones before.
And Blair and Bush and Chirac make their plans to no avail
But who remains to serve the Crown when politicians fail?
O it's Tommy change your values - now diversity's the game;
But when Christmas leave is cancelled, then whose tyrants are to blame?
There's tyrants in the mountains, boys, and tyrants in he sands,
So farewell to wives and risk your lives for them in foreign lands.

Starbuck
12-13-2012, 06:57 PM
Heh, Heh....well, I'm pretty sure Kipling didn't write the last verse, but I love the poem, says I, who can recite "The Cremation of Sam McGee" from memory. If you hadn't told me who wrote it I would have guessed Robert Service.

There is a wonderful movie out called "My Boy Jack". Not only is it the true story of Kipling's son being lost in WW I, but it was filmed on the very site where the melodrama took place - the Kipling house. The lead part is played by Daniel Radcliff, of Harry Potter fame, and he does a solid job of playing a young man not well suited for the army but resolved to act out his father's wishes.

After you see it you will want to sit in a quiet room for a long time, thinking about it.
http://ia.media-imdb.com/images/M/MV5BMTkzNDE1MDA0OF5BMl5BanBnXkFtZTcwMTQ5MTE2MQ@@._ V1._SY317_CR5,0,214,317_.jpg

Hawkgirl
12-13-2012, 07:05 PM
All the more reason to ask yourself everyday why anyone would want to save any of them with even 1 American life.

Because they multiply and are hopeful they will one day take over the world. They also preach Kill the Infidel whether we are there or not. They are a cancer, and without push back, they will spread. It's really that basic.

Starbuck
12-13-2012, 07:06 PM
A couple of years ago, I'd have argued that failed states breed terror, and the option to try had to be attempted, but I've come to the conclusion that the Romans had it right. We had no choice but to go into Afghanistan and turn out the Taliban after they harbored Bin Laden, but if we had to do it all over again, I think that leaving a salt flat where the Helmand Valley used to be makes more sense than trying to drag those troglodytes into the 21st century........................

I know what you mean. Our (your and mine) evolution on this point is why I hesitate before I call anyone a flip-flopper. The problem appears to be that we didn't take away all their guns and didn't kill enough of them.

I believer we are at war with Iran, it's just that no one talks about it. Mysterious explosions, assassinations, virus attacks, drones overhead; all of these things are my kind of war. We still need Johnny and his gun, I believe, but Johnny needs to want to be a member of SEAL Team 6, and needs to be supported by lots of quiet, resolved, professionals.

Molon Labe
12-14-2012, 09:39 AM
Because they multiply and are hopeful they will one day take over the world. They also preach Kill the Infidel whether we are there or not. They are a cancer, and without push back, they will spread. It's really that basic.

I disagree. Without Oil they are nothing. There are not enough people on the earth, even in this religion, who have the necessary numbers of suicidal tendancies to achieve this. This is pure fantasy. Nothing basic about it.

Starbuck
12-14-2012, 10:53 AM
I disagree. Without Oil they are nothing. There are not enough people on the earth, even in this religion, who have the necessary numbers of suicidal tendancies to achieve this. This is pure fantasy. Nothing basic about it.

That's pretty much how I see it. If we can develop natural gas to the point that we have eliminated middle east oil from our imports the Arab countries could dry up and blow away as far as we are concerned. As it is, we import something in the order of 3 million barrels a day from them, and a very large portion of that money ends up being used for weapons to be used against us.

No oil, no jihadists. No jihadists, no need for 5 super carrier groups to be on station. It would be a different USA, and a better one at that.

Meshuga Mikey
12-14-2012, 11:50 AM
The regime simply wants to piss everyone off!

Barry Soetero hussien Millhouse Obama's "muslim faith" appears to be the issue here.

I say we nuke all the pedophile muslims the next time they make the pilgrimage to mecca

Molon Labe
12-14-2012, 01:07 PM
That's pretty much how I see it. If we can develop natural gas to the point that we have eliminated middle east oil from our imports the Arab countries could dry up and blow away as far as we are concerned. As it is, we import something in the order of 3 million barrels a day from them, and a very large portion of that money ends up being used for weapons to be used against us.

No oil, no jihadists. No jihadists, no need for 5 super carrier groups to be on station. It would be a different USA, and a better one at that.

When people say they fear the world takeover of extreme Islamic religion, what they are essentially saying is they have no faith in Democracy, natural rights, and western liberal institutions. They are saying that the crazies are more numerous and have something better to sell the world than "Freedom".

It's bullshit and I reject it based on human nature. This isn't Indiana Jones and the Temple of Doom.....this is real life.

Novaheart
12-14-2012, 01:10 PM
So grown men can violate children and the finest Americans are supposed to go mute? This is cultural relativism run more than amok.

Do you honestly believe that a US issued manual says what Pamela Geller says it does? Or does it say, "Stop saying that Mohammed was a child molester." Big difference.

Odysseus
12-14-2012, 02:24 PM
I know what you mean. Our (your and mine) evolution on this point is why I hesitate before I call anyone a flip-flopper. The problem appears to be that we didn't take away all their guns and didn't kill enough of them.I believer we are at war with Iran, it's just that no one talks about it. Mysterious explosions, assassinations, virus attacks, drones overhead; all of these things are my kind of war. We still need Johnny and his gun, I believe, but Johnny needs to want to be a member of SEAL Team 6, and needs to be supported by lots of quiet, resolved, professionals.We are at war with Iran, or rather, they have declared war on us, and have acted on it for thirty years, while we've pretended that they can't hurt us. Meanwhile, they've armed terrorist groups that have killed Americans, provide training and safe havens for them, and forge alliances with other bad actors. The North Korean missile launch this week was a joint project with Iran, for example. Hezbollah is an Iranian proxy, and it has served to build ties to the Muslim Brotherhood via Hamas, which has become an Iranian vassal. They are a threat, but we pretend otherwise.
I disagree. Without Oil they are nothing. There are not enough people on the earth, even in this religion, who have the necessary numbers of suicidal tendancies to achieve this. This is pure fantasy. Nothing basic about it.The number of suicide bombers isn't the issue, although it is certainly greater than you assume. The problem is that Islam is gradually expanding its footprint globally, and wherever it goes, it suppresses all other faiths and doctrines, including secular western thought. This is the threat, and we ignore it at our peril.

m00
12-14-2012, 03:36 PM
We are at war with Iran, or rather, they have declared war on us, and have acted on it for thirty years, while we've pretended that they can't hurt us.

I think we really screwed up in Iran when '53 we overthrew Mosaddeq who had been democratically elected (and very popular) and re-installed the Shah (who tortured people, and was unpopular). Why? Because their democratically elected government wanted to nationalize the oil industry.

Why was that a big deal? Because Britain had a colonial-era oil industry (which is where BP -- British Petroleum comes from) which was basically extracting oil from Iranian fields and not really compensating Iran (other than keeping the Shah in power). Britain had a sweetheart deal with a dictator, and didn't want to lose it.

Meanwhile, the democratically elected Iran in the 1950s which represented the Iranian people wanted control over their own resources, especially because APOC had negotiated some very asymmetric deals with the Shah to rip off the Iranians in return for British support of the dictator.

So it's no wonder to me that in 1979 when they finally got rid of the Shah again that they were pretty pissed at us, and were expecting us to overthrow it again and reinstate the Shah again and steal their natural resources again. The Shah was Saddam-level brutality towards his people.

So I think overthrowing their democratically elected government in '53 because we wanted Britain to have access to their natural resources constitutes an act of war. Because of this, the hard-line Islamic government won out in 1979. And then we were involved in arms dealing in the Iran-Iraq war....

Odysseus
12-14-2012, 05:31 PM
I think we really screwed up in Iran when '53 we overthrew Mosaddeq who had been democratically elected (and very popular) and re-installed the Shah (who tortured people, and was unpopular). Why? Because their democratically elected government wanted to nationalize the oil industry.

Why was that a big deal? Because Britain had a colonial-era oil industry (which is where BP -- British Petroleum comes from) which was basically extracting oil from Iranian fields and not really compensating Iran (other than keeping the Shah in power). Britain had a sweetheart deal with a dictator, and didn't want to lose it.

Meanwhile, the democratically elected Iran in the 1950s which represented the Iranian people wanted control over their own resources, especially because APOC had negotiated some very asymmetric deals with the Shah to rip off the Iranians in return for British support of the dictator.

So it's no wonder to me that in 1979 when they finally got rid of the Shah again that they were pretty pissed at us, and were expecting us to overthrow it again and reinstate the Shah again and steal their natural resources again. The Shah was Saddam-level brutality towards his people.

So I think overthrowing their democratically elected government in '53 because we wanted Britain to have access to their natural resources constitutes an act of war. Because of this, the hard-line Islamic government won out in 1979. And then we were involved in arms dealing in the Iran-Iraq war....

We did not overthrow Mossadegh, and he was not democratically elected. We backed the Shah, but he was the head of state, so we didn't overthrow anything. The most that can be said is that we sided with the winner of Iran's civil war, a war that Mossadegh instigated. The full history of the conflict is revealing. First, Mossadegh was only elected by the majlis, or parliament, after the assassination of his predecessor (who was an ally of the Shah and who opposed the nationalization of Iran's oil industry). This is the democratic election that his supporters claim, but it was not a national election (more on that later). Mossadegh then used his position to nationalize Iran's petroleum sector, resulting in the refusal of the British to continue running the refineries and wells. Mosaddegh called elections, but when he saw that the opposition would take the vast majority of seats, he stopped the voting and called a quorum, claiming electoral manipulation by "foreign agents." Still, Mossadegh had enough support within the Majlis (after ensuring that the opposition didn't get their votes counted) to become the prime minister. Essentially, he formed a Rump Parliament and acted as if it had the legitimacy of the whole, making him a sort of Iranian Oliver Cromwell, but at least Cromwell could claim to have won the war that put him in power.

When he demanded that the Shah give up his authority over the army, the Shah refused and Mossadegh resigned and called for a general uprising, which forced the Shah to reinstate him. He then began to consolidate power, got the Maslis to permit him to rule by decree and attempted to eliminate the rest of the Iranian government and opposition. Meanwhile, the economy collapsed around him due to his attempts at collectivizing farming and his ouster of the British from the petroleum industry. Eventually, his support collapsed, his coalition turned on him and the Shah fired him as PM. The army and the public supported the Shah and drove Mossadegh from his office. He was arrested and eventually convicted of treason.

Also, the Shah was not the monster that the left claims that he was. He was a rather typical Middle Eastern monarch, nowhere near as bad as Saddam, or the mullahs who followed him. If anything, he was more like the Russian Romanovs, autocratic, but open to reform, which is why the mullahs came out against him. He was also an ardent anti-communist, which is why he was attacked by American leftists in the media. Wikipedia's summary of his reforms is telling:


The Shah made major changes to curb the power of certain ancient elite factions by expropriating large and medium-sized estates for the benefit of more than four million small farmers. In the White Revolution, he took a number of major modernization measures, including extending suffrage (http://www.conservativeunderground.com/wiki/Suffrage) to women, in accordance to the Islamic Law, the participation of workers in factories through shares and other measures, the improvement of the educational system through new elementary schools and literacy courses set up in remote villages by the Imperial Iranian Armed Forces (http://www.conservativeunderground.com/wiki/Imperial_Iranian_Armed_Forces). The latter step was called "Sepāh e Dānesh", "Army of Knowledge". As part of the White Revolution, the Armed Forces were engaged in infrastructural and other educational projects throughout the country ("Sepāh e Tarvij va Âbādāni") as well as in health education and promotion ("Sepāh e Behdāsht"). Moreover, he instituted exams for Islamic theologians to become established clerics. As a further step, in the seventies the governmental program of a free of charge nourishment for children at school ("Taghzieh e Rāigān") was implemented. Under the Shah's reign, the national Iranian income showed an unprecedented rise. In the field of diplomacy, Iran realized and maintained friendly relations with Western and East European countries as well as the state of Israel (http://www.conservativeunderground.com/wiki/Israel) and China (http://www.conservativeunderground.com/wiki/China) and became, especially through the close friendship with the United States (http://www.conservativeunderground.com/wiki/United_States), more and more a hegemonial power in the Persian Gulf (http://www.conservativeunderground.com/wiki/Persian_Gulf) region and the Middle East (http://www.conservativeunderground.com/wiki/Middle_East). The suppression of the communist guerilla movement in the region of Dhofar (http://www.conservativeunderground.com/wiki/Dhofar) in Oman (http://www.conservativeunderground.com/wiki/Oman) with the help of the Iranian army after a formal request by Sultan Qaboos (http://www.conservativeunderground.com/wiki/Qaboos_bin_Said_al_Said) was widely regarded in this context.

The introduction of women's suffrage, the institution of exams for Muslim clerics, the literacy programs and the establishment of relations with Israel and the US infuriated the mullahs. His anti-communism provided fodder for the left to attack him. He wasn't a democrat as we understand the term, but he was much closer to it than the mullahs who followed him, or Saddam Hussein.

Meanwhile, Iran has been actively fomenting terrorism against us and anyone else who doesn't toe their Islamist line. A list of Iranian-directed terror attacks would include:


November 04, 1979 American diplomats were taken hostage and held for 444 days in Tehran.
1980 A car bomb detonated in London killing two people. Kourosh Fouladi, a MOIS member was arrested and imprisoned until 1989 for carrying out the attack. In 1996 Fouladi became a member of Iran's Majlis (Parliament).
April 1983 A truck loaded with explosives blew up in front of the American embassy in Beirut. Sixty-one were killed and 120 more were injured.
August 1983 An Air France 747 jumbo jet was hijacked after it took off from Vienna Airport en route to Tehran. The plane was blown up by the hijackers on the tarmac of Tehran's Mehrabad Airport.
October 23, 1983 The headquarters of the U.S. Marines in Beirut was destroyed in a suicide attack by Iran's terrorist surrogates, resulting in 241 dead, 80 seriously wounded.
July 1985 Two bombs planted in two restaurants in Kuwait resulted in the death of 10 people and the injury of 80.
March 18, 1986 Tunisian authorities announced that a terrorist group linked with Iran had been uncovered and 20 of its members had been arrested. The group called itself Hizbollah Al-Mokhtar
August 28, 1986 A large quantity of explosives, plastic bombs, and weapons was discovered in the luggage of Iranian "Pilgrims" arriving in Saudi Arabia for the annual Haj Pilgrimage. Saudi police arrested 100 of the undercover agents sent by the mullahs' regime
September 1986 A wave of bombings in public places shocked Paris. Fouad Ali Saleh was convicted of killing 12 and injuring hundreds. He was arrested in March 1987 while transferring explosives into a car in Paris.
July 1987 A DC-10 plane belonging to Air Afrique was hijacked by terrorists of the mullah regime. During the hijacking of the plane a French passenger was killed in the Vienna Airport. The president of Switzerland said the Iranian government was responsible.
August 01, 1987 Agents of the Iranian regime staged a riot in Mecca during the Muslim annual Hajj pilgrimage as part of a wider plan to destabilize the Saudi regime. The Saudi government said 402 persons were killed and 650 were wounded; 85 Saudi policemen were among the dead.
August 01, 1987 Embassies of Saudi Arabia and Kuwait in Tehran were occupied by government-organized mobs, and a diplomat was killed.
April 05, 1988 A Kuwaiti 747 jumbo was hijacked in Bangkok and landed in Mashhad, eastern Iran. One of the mullahs' terrorists of Lebanese origin boarded the plane in Iran and led the terrorist operation. During the 15-day ordeal, two passengers were killed by hijackers.
May 27, 1989 The Turkish daily Hurriyet reported that a 14-man group trying to infiltrate Turkey from Iran to carry out terrorist attacks had been arrested. The group's leader, Esmat Kamal, had been involved in the assassination of a Saudi diplomat in Ankara
July 31, 1989 Colonel William Higgins, an American officer working for the United Nations in Lebanon, was abducted and executed by the Iranian regime's agents. A video recording of his hanging was given to international news agencies.
1989 During the Muslim annual Hajj pilgrimage, three bombs were exploded around the holy site of Mecca. Scores of people were injured.
January 30, 1990 French Television Channel 1 broadcast an interview with Lotti Ben-Khala, a terrorist agent who was trained in Iran. He said the mullahs planned a terrorist attack on a French nuclear facility that would have resulted in 10,000 deaths.
December 29, 1991 Following the arrest of one of the mullahs' terrorists in Bern, the regime barred the employees of the Swiss embassy from leaving Tehran
March 1992 Relations between Bern and Tehran were severed after an Iranian terrorist was arrested in Switzerland. A Swiss businessman disappeared in Tehran. Later it was discovered that he had been taken hostage.
March 17, 1992 An attack against the Israeli embassy in Buenos Aires resulted in the death of 20 and the injury of 250 people.
November 21, 1992 French police announced the arrest of two Iranians involved in several assassinations in Europe.
April 25, 1993 The New York Times reported that at least $100,000 had been deposited in the account of the prime suspects of the February 1993 World Trade Center bombing. The money primarily came from Iran.
June 02, 1994 AFP reported that U.S. intelligence officials said Iran has secretly planted 400 members of the Revolutionary Guards in Bosnia in order to set up terrorist cells in the former Yugoslavia
July 18, 1994 A bomb at the Amia Jewish Center in Buenos Aires left 85 civilians dead and 230 injured. Argentine intelligence officials later announced that the Qods Force’s former commander, Ahmad Vahidi, helped plan the bombing.
June 05, 1996 Bahrain's Interior Minister exposed a plan to topple the ruling family by fundamentalist Shiites. The leader of the group, Ali Kazem Almottaqavi, had been living in Iran since 1983. He was led by Brigadier General Ahmad Sharifi of the Revolutionary Guards. (Brigadier General Sharifi, commander of the Qods Force's Sixth Brigade, was one of the eight main operational commanders of the Qods Force).
June 1996 The government of Bahrain announced the discovery of a local Hizbollah terrorist cell, whose members were trained and sponsored by the Iranian regime.
September 24, 1996 An Iranian diplomat was arrested and later expelled by the government of Tajikistan for his role in exporting fundamentalism and terrorism to this country.
February 02, 1997 The Turkish government expelled an Iranian diplomat for active involvement in exporting fundamentalism and terrorism to turkey.
February 02, 1997 Terrorists were trained in Imam Sadeq's training base near Qom. They were flown to a third country from Tehran in spring 1996. They were transferred to Saudi Arabia and implemented their plans.
August 23, 1999 The written testimony of Argentina's vice-President to the judiciary of this country cited evidence pointing to the Iranian regime's role in the bombing of the Jewish Community Center in Buenos Aires in July 1994.
May 12, 2003 The Washington Post reported on Oct. 14, 2003 that Saad bin Laden was managing the Al-Qaeda organization from Iran under the protection of the Qods Force. "Saad bin Laden and other senior al Qaeda operatives were in contact with an al Qaeda cell in Riyadh, Saudi Arabia, in the days immediately prior to the May 12 suicide bombing there that left 35 people dead, including eight Americans, European and U.S. intelligence sources say." It added that the contacts have led to the conclusion that the Riyadh attacks were planned in Iran and ordered from there. Also under the Jerusalem [Qods] Force’s protection is Saif al-Adel, al Qaeda’s chief of military operations; Abdullah Ahmed Abdullah, the organization’s chief financial officer, and perhaps two dozen other top al Qaeda leaders, the officials said."
January 23, 2005 The Sunday Telegraph reported that Pakistani officials blamed Iran for fuelling a growing insurgency in Baluchistan. "Officials in Islamabad believe Iran is encouraging 'intruders' from its own Bal-och community to cross the 550-mile border with the Pakistani province, and give support to the rebels. All this violence is a part of a greater conspiracy, a senior government official told The Telegraph. 'These militants would not be challenging the government so openly without the back-up of a foreign hand.' ... Pakistan's ISI intelligence service set up a unit in the provincial capital, Quetta, last year to monitor suspected Iranian activity in Baluchistan. Officials say that in addition to directly supporting the insurgency, Teheran's state-controlled radio has launched a propaganda campaign against Islamabad."

Iran under the Shah was a more stable, peaceful and benevolent presence in the world than it is under the mullahs.

Molon Labe
12-14-2012, 07:50 PM
We did not overthrow Mossadegh, and he was not democratically elected.

There aren't too many students of history who still believe that today, especially in the internet age when information is so available on the subjects to anyone who even wants to know the truth. Even Eisenhower's secret documents on the discussions are open sourced now and confirm how very much we did overthrow Mossadegh.

I can't remember the last time I read a legitimate study of American foreign policy that didn't acknowledge the CIA's involvement in virtually every major American military intervention abroad. since it's inception...starting with Mossadegh in 47'. I've studied this particular subject thoroughly. I've posted some important links that should clear up anyones misconception about this event. Some of them are scholarly books you would have to check out of your local library for more insight into the truth about this. I can provide more links and information if you wish.

http://www.gwu.edu/~nsarchiv/NSAEBB/NSAEBB126/index.htm

http://iran.sa.utoronto.ca/coup/web_files/markcoup.html

http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1111/j.1467-7709.2004.00446.x/abstract;jsessionid=9DC608B678E723839790ABCC1E40EE 8C.d01t01?systemMessage=Wiley+Online+Library+will+ be+disrupted+on+15+December+from+10%3A00-13%3A00+GMT+%2805%3A00-08%3A00+EST%29+for+essential+maintenance&userIsAuthenticated=false&deniedAccessCustomisedMessage=

Operation Ajax Declassified reports (http://wearechangecoloradosprings.org/docs.php)

http://transcripts.cnn.com/TRANSCRIPTS/0004/19/i_ins.00.html

http://www.nytimes.com/1997/05/29/us/cia-destroyed-files-on-1953-iran-coup.html

http://www.nytimes.com/2000/04/16/world/secrets-history-cia-iran-special-report-plot-convulsed-iran-53-79.html