NationStates

Frievolk wrote:

Sneudal wrote:
Nah, Iran fucked up when they didn't fight the US/UK backed coup in 1953.

The majority supported the coup. They'd been trying to throw Mossadeq out of the office for weeks at that point.

You're talking about those guys that were paid to hold pro-Shah protests?

Besides, the vast majority supported an Islamic Republic as well.

Sneudal wrote:

Frievolk wrote:The majority supported the coup. They'd been trying to throw Mossadeq out of the office for weeks at that point.

You're talking about those guys that were paid to hold pro-Shah protests?

Besides, the vast majority supported an Islamic Republic as well.

1- That was proven to be false about 3 months after the """coup""" itself though. And no. I'm talking about "those guys" who tried to put Mossadeq out of his self-proclaimed republican head-of-state office after he tried to depose the Shah and close down the Majlis, against his constitutional powers. The reason foreign intervention happened was because it was proven to be necessary eventually, and the general population did not support either Kashani or Mossadeq at the time of the coup. Mossadeqism as an ideology only rose after the Islamic Revolution when, the new regime -retarded as it is- tried to bring into prominence the least impressive and darkest parts of modern Iranian history. (though, of course, Sha'ban Jafari and his gangsters didn't help in the shitshow after Mossadeq either)

2- And... no? Not really? I mean, it is questionable that even the revolution was supported by a "Vast majority", much less that those revolutionaries supported an "Islamic Republic". The very referendum itself was against almost every single standard for a binding political referendum, with no refereeing in the first place. But sure, go on and talk about stuff you have no knowledge or context about the history of, I guess.

Frievolk wrote:

Sneudal wrote:
You're talking about those guys that were paid to hold pro-Shah protests?

Besides, the vast majority supported an Islamic Republic as well.

1- That was proven to be false about 3 months after the """coup""" itself though. And no. I'm talking about "those guys" who tried to put Mossadeq out of his self-proclaimed republican head-of-state office after he tried to depose the Shah and close down the Majlis, against his constitutional powers. The reason foreign intervention happened was because it was proven to be necessary eventually, and the general population did not support either Kashani or Mossadeq at the time of the coup. Mossadeqism as an ideology only rose after the Islamic Revolution when, the new regime -retarded as it is- tried to bring into prominence the least impressive and darkest parts of modern Iranian history. (though, of course, Sha'ban Jafari and his gangsters didn't help in the shitshow after Mossadeq either)

2- And... no? Not really? I mean, it is questionable that even the revolution was supported by a "Vast majority", much less that those revolutionaries supported an "Islamic Republic". The very referendum itself was against almost every single standard for a binding political referendum, with no refereeing in the first place. But sure, go on and talk about stuff you have no knowledge or context about the history of, I guess.

1) Sure, very false, i'm sure that's why the CIA admitted doing just that, because it never happened ofcourse…
And no, the 'foregin intervention' didn't happen because 'it was proven to be necessary'. It happend because of pressure from BP (through the UK) and because some feared that Mossadeq was a communist (which he was not).

2) Yes, really. It not a questionable matter by any means. The vast majority supported the revolution, more so than the overthrown of Mossadeq.
As for the referendum, the results were clear, and they were once more confirmed by the second referendum. You can cry all you want about so called 'standards', but it really holds no value whatsoever. But sure, go on and talk about stuff you have no knowledge or context about the history of, I guess.

Sneudal wrote:

Havarland wrote:Nah, Iran fucked up by becoming an Islamic country.

Nah, Iran fucked up when they didn't fight the US/UK backed coup in 1953.

The CIA does not have a magically coup button you know.
A coup can only happen if a largest enough and powerful enough group of local people support it.

The coup would have happened regardless. The CIA supported it, but did not cause it.
Mossadeq has collapsed the economy, so most Iranians had turned against him.

Oh and fun fact, the Islamist clerics who established the current regime SUPPORTED the coup!
Funny when they now try to claim Mossadeq was a martyr, when they supported his overthrow.

Sneudal wrote:

Frievolk wrote:1- That was proven to be false about 3 months after the """coup""" itself though. And no. I'm talking about "those guys" who tried to put Mossadeq out of his self-proclaimed republican head-of-state office after he tried to depose the Shah and close down the Majlis, against his constitutional powers. The reason foreign intervention happened was because it was proven to be necessary eventually, and the general population did not support either Kashani or Mossadeq at the time of the coup. Mossadeqism as an ideology only rose after the Islamic Revolution when, the new regime -retarded as it is- tried to bring into prominence the least impressive and darkest parts of modern Iranian history. (though, of course, Sha'ban Jafari and his gangsters didn't help in the shitshow after Mossadeq either)

2- And... no? Not really? I mean, it is questionable that even the revolution was supported by a "Vast majority", much less that those revolutionaries supported an "Islamic Republic". The very referendum itself was against almost every single standard for a binding political referendum, with no refereeing in the first place. But sure, go on and talk about stuff you have no knowledge or context about the history of, I guess.

1) Sure, very false, i'm sure that's why the CIA admitted doing just that, because it never happened ofcourse…
And no, the 'foregin intervention' didn't happen because 'it was proven to be necessary'. It happend because of pressure from BP (through the UK) and because some feared that Mossadeq was a communist (which he was not).

2) Yes, really. It not a questionable matter by any means. The vast majority supported the revolution, more so than the overthrown of Mossadeq.
As for the referendum, the results were clear, and they were once more confirmed by the second referendum. You can cry all you want about so called 'standards', but it really holds no value whatsoever. But sure, go on and talk about stuff you have no knowledge or context about the history of, I guess.

Even if a majority supported the original revolution, they did not necessarily support Khomeini’s coup.

Many of the revolutionaries were jailed, exiled, tortured or murdered by Khomeini’s regime.

Sneudal wrote:1) Sure, very false, i'm sure that's why the CIA admitted doing just that, because it never happened ofcourse…
And no, the 'foregin intervention' didn't happen because 'it was proven to be necessary'. It happend because of pressure from BP (through the UK) and because some feared that Mossadeq was a communist (which he was not).

2) Yes, really. It not a questionable matter by any means. The vast majority supported the revolution, more so than the overthrown of Mossadeq.
As for the referendum, the results were clear, and they were once more confirmed by the second referendum. You can cry all you want about so called 'standards', but it really holds no value whatsoever. But sure, go on and talk about stuff you have no knowledge or context about the history of, I guess.

1- Foreign intervention became necessary when Mossadeq couped, and unilaterally closed down the Majlis and attempted to depose the Shah, while the constitution didn't give the right to do that to him. Three attempts to topple him were tried, and by the time 28th of Mordad came about, he had 0 popular support (for various reasons, including but not limited to him being a republican idiot). Mossadeq was never feared to be communist. He was feared to align with Stalin (which was, for the Middle East, especially at the time, extremely dangerous), and a tinpot dictator ten times worse than Shah at any given time in history.

2- There was no "Second" referendum. The second constitutional referendum happened 8 years ago, and all it did was simplify the laws that appoint the Supreme Leader (because Khamenei wasn't qualified according to the original laws) -note that that was what was put to referendum, not the constitution, nor the regime's form and type. The vast majority were literally in their homes both in the so called revolution and in the referendum that followed it, and when Mossadeq was finally arrested people literally went to streets to celebrate lmao. Politically binding referendums have standards. "Do you want [this]: '1- Yes', '1-No'" isn't up to standard for choosing a post-revolutionary country's new political system. Doubly not so when there is no oversight for it and when the percentage announced keeps getting higher every year (on 1980, it was 95%. Last year, they said it was 98.2%). By all means, continue talking about the history of my country like you have any idea what you're on about though. It's amusing.

Novus America wrote:

Sneudal wrote:
Nah, Iran fucked up when they didn't fight the US/UK backed coup in 1953.

The CIA does not have a magically coup button you know.
A coup can only happen if a largest enough and powerful enough group of local people support it.

The coup would have happened regardless. The CIA supported it, but did not cause it.
Mossadeq has collapsed the economy, so most Iranians had turned against him.

Oh and fun fact, the Islamist clerics who established the current regime SUPPORTED the coup!
Funny when they now try to claim Mossadeq was a martyr, when they supported his overthrow.

A coup doesn't really need the support of the people, it merely needs the support of some influential people and the military.

Novus America wrote:

Sneudal wrote:

1) Sure, very false, i'm sure that's why the CIA admitted doing just that, because it never happened ofcourse…
And no, the 'foregin intervention' didn't happen because 'it was proven to be necessary'. It happend because of pressure from BP (through the UK) and because some feared that Mossadeq was a communist (which he was not).

2) Yes, really. It not a questionable matter by any means. The vast majority supported the revolution, more so than the overthrown of Mossadeq.
As for the referendum, the results were clear, and they were once more confirmed by the second referendum. You can cry all you want about so called 'standards', but it really holds no value whatsoever. But sure, go on and talk about stuff you have no knowledge or context about the history of, I guess.

Even if a majority supported the original revolution, they did not necessarily support Khomeini’s coup.

Many of the revolutionaries were jailed, exiled, tortured or murdered by Khomeini’s regime.

They did, as show by the referendum results

So? How is that relevant?

Frievolk wrote:

Sneudal wrote:1) Sure, very false, i'm sure that's why the CIA admitted doing just that, because it never happened ofcourse…
And no, the 'foregin intervention' didn't happen because 'it was proven to be necessary'. It happend because of pressure from BP (through the UK) and because some feared that Mossadeq was a communist (which he was not).

2) Yes, really. It not a questionable matter by any means. The vast majority supported the revolution, more so than the overthrown of Mossadeq.
As for the referendum, the results were clear, and they were once more confirmed by the second referendum. You can cry all you want about so called 'standards', but it really holds no value whatsoever. But sure, go on and talk about stuff you have no knowledge or context about the history of, I guess.

1- Foreign intervention became necessary when Mossadeq couped, and unilaterally closed down the Majlis and attempted to depose the Shah, while the constitution didn't give the right to do that to him. Three attempts to topple him were tried, and by the time 28th of Mordad came about, he had 0 popular support (for various reasons, including but not limited to him being a republican idiot). Mossadeq was never feared to be communist. He was feared to align with Stalin (which was, for the Middle East, especially at the time, extremely dangerous), and a tinpot dictator ten times worse than Shah at any given time in history.

2- There was no "Second" referendum. The second constitutional referendum happened 8 years ago, and all it did was simplify the laws that appoint the Supreme Leader (because Khamenei wasn't qualified according to the original laws) -note that that was what was put to referendum, not the constitution, nor the regime's form and type. The vast majority were literally in their homes both in the so called revolution and in the referendum that followed it, and when Mossadeq was finally arrested people literally went to streets to celebrate lmao. Politically binding referendums have standards. "Do you want [this]: '1- Yes', '1-No'" isn't up to standard for choosing a post-revolutionary country's new political system. Doubly not so when there is no oversight for it and when the percentage announced keeps getting higher every year (on 1980, it was 95%. Last year, they said it was 98.2%). By all means, continue talking about the history of my country like you have any idea what you're on about though. It's amusing.

For somebody claiming to know all about it, you make quite the fool out of yourself and your so called knowledge.

1st referedum: 30 & 31 March 1979
2nd referendum: 2 & 3 December 1979

Sneudal wrote:

Novus America wrote:
The CIA does not have a magically coup button you know.
A coup can only happen if a largest enough and powerful enough group of local people support it.

The coup would have happened regardless. The CIA supported it, but did not cause it.
Mossadeq has collapsed the economy, so most Iranians had turned against him.

Oh and fun fact, the Islamist clerics who established the current regime SUPPORTED the coup!
Funny when they now try to claim Mossadeq was a martyr, when they supported his overthrow.

A coup doesn't really need the support of the people, it merely needs the support of some influential people and the military.

Novus America wrote:
Even if a majority supported the original revolution, they did not necessarily support Khomeini’s coup.

Many of the revolutionaries were jailed, exiled, tortured or murdered by Khomeini’s regime.

They did, as show by the referendum results

So? How is that relevant?

Frievolk wrote:1- Foreign intervention became necessary when Mossadeq couped, and unilaterally closed down the Majlis and attempted to depose the Shah, while the constitution didn't give the right to do that to him. Three attempts to topple him were tried, and by the time 28th of Mordad came about, he had 0 popular support (for various reasons, including but not limited to him being a republican idiot). Mossadeq was never feared to be communist. He was feared to align with Stalin (which was, for the Middle East, especially at the time, extremely dangerous), and a tinpot dictator ten times worse than Shah at any given time in history.

2- There was no "Second" referendum. The second constitutional referendum happened 8 years after, and all it did was simplify the laws that appoint the Supreme Leader (because Khamenei wasn't qualified according to the original laws) -note that that was what was put to referendum, not the constitution, nor the regime's form and type. The vast majority were literally in their homes both in the so called revolution and in the referendum that followed it, and when Mossadeq was finally arrested people literally went to streets to celebrate lmao. Politically binding referendums have standards. "Do you want [this]: '1- Yes', '1-No'" isn't up to standard for choosing a post-revolutionary country's new political system. Doubly not so when there is no oversight for it and when the percentage announced keeps getting higher every year (on 1980, it was 95%. Last year, they said it was 98.2%). By all means, continue talking about the history of my country like you have any idea what you're on about though. It's amusing.

For somebody claiming to know all about it, you make quite the fool out of yourself and your so called knowledge.

1st referedum: 30 & 31 March 1979
2nd referendum: 2 & 3 December 1979

... That wasn't a referendum about whether the regime should be an Islamic Republic or not. That was the first constitutional referendum, the second of which happened 8 years later -as I said, and boldened for your further reference here as well. What you were referring to originally was the March Referendum (12 Farwardin 1358), with the question "Do you want an Islamic Republic? Yes, No" (I'm paraphrasing)... which, as I said, had no "second" referendum.

Thank you for making a fool of yourself again.

Sneudal wrote:

Novus America wrote:
The CIA does not have a magically coup button you know.
A coup can only happen if a largest enough and powerful enough group of local people support it.

The coup would have happened regardless. The CIA supported it, but did not cause it.
Mossadeq has collapsed the economy, so most Iranians had turned against him.

Oh and fun fact, the Islamist clerics who established the current regime SUPPORTED the coup!
Funny when they now try to claim Mossadeq was a martyr, when they supported his overthrow.

A coup doesn't really need the support of the people, it merely needs the support of some influential people and the military.

Novus America wrote:
Even if a majority supported the original revolution, they did not necessarily support Khomeini’s coup.

Many of the revolutionaries were jailed, exiled, tortured or murdered by Khomeini’s regime.

They did, as show by the referendum results

So? How is that relevant?

Frievolk wrote:1- Foreign intervention became necessary when Mossadeq couped, and unilaterally closed down the Majlis and attempted to depose the Shah, while the constitution didn't give the right to do that to him. Three attempts to topple him were tried, and by the time 28th of Mordad came about, he had 0 popular support (for various reasons, including but not limited to him being a republican idiot). Mossadeq was never feared to be communist. He was feared to align with Stalin (which was, for the Middle East, especially at the time, extremely dangerous), and a tinpot dictator ten times worse than Shah at any given time in history.

2- There was no "Second" referendum. The second constitutional referendum happened 8 years ago, and all it did was simplify the laws that appoint the Supreme Leader (because Khamenei wasn't qualified according to the original laws) -note that that was what was put to referendum, not the constitution, nor the regime's form and type. The vast majority were literally in their homes both in the so called revolution and in the referendum that followed it, and when Mossadeq was finally arrested people literally went to streets to celebrate lmao. Politically binding referendums have standards. "Do you want [this]: '1- Yes', '1-No'" isn't up to standard for choosing a post-revolutionary country's new political system. Doubly not so when there is no oversight for it and when the percentage announced keeps getting higher every year (on 1980, it was 95%. Last year, they said it was 98.2%). By all means, continue talking about the history of my country like you have any idea what you're on about though. It's amusing.

For somebody claiming to know all about it, you make quite the fool out of yourself and your so called knowledge.

1st referedum: 30 & 31 March 1979
2nd referendum: 2 & 3 December 1979

I never said a coup needs the support of the majority of people. I simply said it could not happen only because of outside influences.
The CIA supported the coup.
They did not cause it.

Umm the referendum was blatantly fraudulent. Also there was no secret ballot.
If you hold an election without a secret and jail, torture, kill and exile your opponents, it was not possibly free or fair.

Also the government turned out to be very different than what the referendum promised.
It was a lie.

If everyone so loves the Iranian regime, why does it need to be so oppressive?

Am I right in thinking th3 coup came in at 20 times under budget for the CIA, or did I make that up?

Good God willing air strikes are next

Frievolk wrote:

Sneudal wrote:
A coup doesn't really need the support of the people, it merely needs the support of some influential people and the military.



They did, as show by the referendum results

So? How is that relevant?



For somebody claiming to know all about it, you make quite the fool out of yourself and your so called knowledge.

1st referedum: 30 & 31 March 1979
2nd referendum: 2 & 3 December 1979

... That wasn't a referendum about whether the regime should be an Islamic Republic or not. That was the first constitutional referendum, the second of which happened 8 years later -as I said, and boldened for your further reference here as well. What you were referring to originally was the March Referendum (12 Farwardin 1358), with the question "Do you want an Islamic Republic? Yes, No" (I'm paraphrasing)... which, as I said, had no "second" referendum.

Thank you for making a fool of yourself again.

Please show me where i stated that it were two referendums regarding the same subject. I'm waiting for you to make a fool out of yourself, again.

Novus America wrote:

Sneudal wrote:
A coup doesn't really need the support of the people, it merely needs the support of some influential people and the military.



They did, as show by the referendum results

So? How is that relevant?



For somebody claiming to know all about it, you make quite the fool out of yourself and your so called knowledge.

1st referedum: 30 & 31 March 1979
2nd referendum: 2 & 3 December 1979

I never said a coup needs the support of the majority of people. I simply said it could not happen only because of outside influences.
The CIA supported the coup.
They did not cause it.

Umm the referendum was blatantly fraudulent. Also there was no secret ballot.
If you hold an election without a secret and jail, torture, kill and exile your opponents, it was not possibly free or fair.

Also the government turned out to be very different than what the referendum promised.
It was a lie.

If everyone so loves the Iranian regime, why does it need to be so oppressive?

People could've boycotted it. Some revolutionairy parties did. Still didn't made any difference.

If everyone loved the Shah so much, why did he need to be so oppressive? If everyone loves Kim Jong-Un so much, why is he so oppressive? Oh boy the list goes on and on. Some regimes simply tend to be oppressive in one way or another. Not good, no, but it doesn't say jack shit about their popularity.

Khataiy wrote:Good God willing air strikes are next

Lol, have fun screwing up even more.

Bigots

Iran is aligned with Russia, which offered to join NATO and the EU and was rebuffed, with rude laughter

So, the EU and NATO are not about protecting the West from communism, they are only about regional politics.

Which is why the US should not pay so much of their freight.

Pope Joan wrote:Bigots

Iran is aligned with Russia, which offered to join NATO and the EU and was rebuffed, with rude laughter

So, the EU and NATO are not about protecting the West from communism, they are only about regional politics.

Which is why the US should not pay so much of their freight.

Nobody worth mentioning ever claimed that the E.U. or N.A.T.O existed to 'protect' 'the west' from 'communism'.

Sneudal wrote:

Frievolk wrote:... That wasn't a referendum about whether the regime should be an Islamic Republic or not. That was the first constitutional referendum, the second of which happened 8 years later -as I said, and boldened for your further reference here as well. What you were referring to originally was the March Referendum (12 Farwardin 1358), with the question "Do you want an Islamic Republic? Yes, No" (I'm paraphrasing)... which, as I said, had no "second" referendum.

Thank you for making a fool of yourself again.

Please show me where i stated that it were two referendums regarding the same subject. I'm waiting for you to make a fool out of yourself, again.

Novus America wrote:
I never said a coup needs the support of the majority of people. I simply said it could not happen only because of outside influences.
The CIA supported the coup.
They did not cause it.

Umm the referendum was blatantly fraudulent. Also there was no secret ballot.
If you hold an election without a secret and jail, torture, kill and exile your opponents, it was not possibly free or fair.

Also the government turned out to be very different than what the referendum promised.
It was a lie.

If everyone so loves the Iranian regime, why does it need to be so oppressive?

People could've boycotted it. Some revolutionairy parties did. Still didn't made any difference.

If everyone loved the Shah so much, why did he need to be so oppressive? If everyone loves Kim Jong-Un so much, why is he so oppressive? Oh boy the list goes on and on. Some regimes simply tend to be oppressive in one way or another. Not good, no, but it doesn't say jack shit about their popularity.

Khataiy wrote:Good God willing air strikes are next

Lol, have fun screwing up even more.

Sure boycotting a blatantly rigged election did not make a difference...

Did anyone ever claim the Shah was loved by most Iranians?
He was a corrupt and authoritarian ruler.

Does not make the current Iranian regime any less authoritarian and corrupt.

Sneudal wrote:

Pope Joan wrote:Bigots

Iran is aligned with Russia, which offered to join NATO and the EU and was rebuffed, with rude laughter

So, the EU and NATO are not about protecting the West from communism, they are only about regional politics.

Which is why the US should not pay so much of their freight.

Nobody worth mentioning ever claimed that the E.U. or N.A.T.O existed to 'protect' 'the west' from 'communism'.

NATO is literally an organisation created to counter the threat of Russia in Europe.

Pope Joan wrote:Bigots

Iran is aligned with Russia, which offered to join NATO and the EU and was rebuffed, with rude laughter

So, the EU and NATO are not about protecting the West from communism, they are only about regional politics.

Which is why the US should not pay so much of their freight.

Umm Europeans opposing Iranian and Russian foreign policy is not “bigotry” by any means.
Not everyone who does not completely despise the West is a bigot you know.

Here Iran did something that pissed Europe off, so they responded as they had every right to do.
So what? Europe has every right to sanction Iran if they feel it is within their interests to do so.’

What the heck does Communism have to do with anything? Iran brutally crushed it’s communists decades ago.

Sure NATO and the EU are about regional politics. But why is that necessarily a bad thing?

Sneudal wrote:

Shofercia wrote:
I never said that the UK/France don't kill people; I said that you failed to provide proof for that. And, once again, you failed. Nowhere in that article does it say that the UK actually killed the person. Rather, it says that the US killed said people. You've previously learned that Russia is neither the UK, nor France. Do you also realize that the US is also, neither the UK, nor France? Because, Sneudal, you seem to be quite confused about that. I should also point out that you didn't originally quote the paragraph. In order for words to be read, you actually have to post them. It's a complex concept, so I'll understand if it takes you a while to grasp it.

Oh, in that case we can safely say that Iran never killed or tried to kill anyone. After all, the assassinations weren't carried out by Iran itself, but Iran merely hired people to do it for them. Just like the UK let's the US do most of the dirty work.
Giving the info to the one doing the dirty work is pretty much the same as killing them yourself.

And why exactly should i quote that part? For your lazy ass i assume? Nah mate, you can use the extra reading.

You should quote the part that supports your argument, because it's the intelligent thing to do... wait did you just compare people to countries? Are you claiming that the UK hires the US as a contract killer? You do realize that countries aren't actual human beings, right? Judging by some of the other posts you've made, probably not. And yes, Iran, the country, didn't kill anyone; Khamenei's faction probably did. So after learning that the UK and France aren't Russia, you've learned that the UK and France aren't the US, you've learned that people aren't countries. You're making so much progress Sneudal, I'm so proud of you!

Sneudal wrote:

The European Union penalized Iran on Tuesday over allegations that the country’s intelligence service orchestrated a series of assassination plots in Europe in recent years, including the killing of two Iranians in the Netherlands with ties to anti-government extremist groups.

In a letter outlining its justification for sanctions, the Dutch Foreign Ministry cited “strong indications that Iran was involved in the assassinations of two Dutch nationals of Iranian origin,” one in 2015 in the city of Almere and another in 2017 in The Hague.

European intelligence officials have also linked the Iranian government to unsuccessful plots in Denmark and France.

“In the Dutch government’s opinion, hostile acts of this kind flagrantly violate the sovereignty of the Netherlands and are unacceptable,” the letter said.

https://www.nytimes.com/2019/01/08/world/europe/iran-eu-sanctions.html
https://www.france24.com/en/20190109-eu-sanctions-iran-over-assassinations-peoples-mujahedeen-france-bomb-plot

What do you think of this? Do you think it is the right move of the E.U.?

Personally i don't think it's right. Ofcourse Iran wants justice done to them, and it knows very well that the E.U. won't extradite them due to the death penalty, and thus they choose to take them out in another way. Now surely assassinating other people on foreign soil (or home soil for that matter) is not okay, but what i find far worse is the fact that the E.U. is harboring, and now also effectively protecting well known terrorists.

Fucking lol.

Izaakia wrote:

Sneudal wrote:
Nobody worth mentioning ever claimed that the E.U. or N.A.T.O existed to 'protect' 'the west' from 'communism'.

NATO is literally an organisation created to counter the threat of Russia in Europe.

1) Nope.
2) Russia =/= Communism.

Shofercia wrote:

Sneudal wrote:
Oh, in that case we can safely say that Iran never killed or tried to kill anyone. After all, the assassinations weren't carried out by Iran itself, but Iran merely hired people to do it for them. Just like the UK let's the US do most of the dirty work.
Giving the info to the one doing the dirty work is pretty much the same as killing them yourself.

And why exactly should i quote that part? For your lazy ass i assume? Nah mate, you can use the extra reading.

You should quote the part that supports your argument, because it's the intelligent thing to do... wait did you just compare people to countries? Are you claiming that the UK hires the US as a contract killer? You do realize that countries aren't actual human beings, right? Judging by some of the other posts you've made, probably not. And yes, Iran, the country, didn't kill anyone; Khamenei's faction probably did. So after learning that the UK and France aren't Russia, you've learned that the UK and France aren't the US, you've learned that people aren't countries. You're making so much progress Sneudal, I'm so proud of you!

Try again next time.

Sneudal wrote:

Izaakia wrote:
NATO is literally an organisation created to counter the threat of Russia in Europe.

1) Nope.
2) Russia =/= Communism.

The North Atlantic Treaty Organisation is a half-century old multinational alliance of states set up to directly oppose the Soviet Union and its Warsaw Pact allies. Its deeply explicit goal was defence of Western Europe (ie, NATO) from invasion by the Soviet Union and Warsaw Pact forces, principally under the direction of Soviet Russia (the RSFSR).

So NATO did exist to "protect the west from communism", but only in the abstract sense, and in soundbytes from politicians. But Izzy's statement was entirely factually correct.

Pope Joan wrote:Bigots

Iran is aligned with Russia, which offered to join NATO and the EU and was rebuffed, with rude laughter

So, the EU and NATO are not about protecting the West from communism, they are only about regional politics.

Which is why the US should not pay so much of their freight.

I'm fairly certain you should know better than to assert Russia would try to (honestly) join NATO.
It has offered to join the EU, vaguely, and certainly to co-operate with NATO repeatedly (and on other occasions, rudely rebuff them), and has its own EU-with-blackjack-and-hookers-in-fact-forget-the-EU in the CIS, comprising largely of ex-Soviet states and former Warsaw Pact states, or those that haven't since been accepted into the EU.

Probably just an excuse to follow Trumps orders with sanctions on Iran - assasination attempt? Probably more like our establishment are just as scared of Donald Trump as they are of Hassan Rouhani...

Matthewstownville wrote:Probably just an excuse to follow Trumps orders with sanctions on Iran - assasination attempt? Probably more like our establishment are just as scared of Donald Trump as they are of Hassan Rouhani...

Why is the thought of assassinations by the state in another country so outlandish to you?

For starters, it is literally what a drone strike is.

Imperializt Russia wrote:

Pope Joan wrote:Bigots

Iran is aligned with Russia, which offered to join NATO and the EU and was rebuffed, with rude laughter

So, the EU and NATO are not about protecting the West from communism, they are only about regional politics.

Which is why the US should not pay so much of their freight.

I'm fairly certain you should know better than to assert Russia would try to (honestly) join NATO.
It has offered to join the EU, vaguely, and certainly to co-operate with NATO repeatedly (and on other occasions, rudely rebuff them), and has its own EU-with-blackjack-and-hookers-in-fact-forget-the-EU in the CIS, comprising largely of ex-Soviet states and former Warsaw Pact states, or those that haven't since been accepted into the EU.

CIS? That's a relic of the past. It's basically EEU+SCO with Moldova (who's there for economic aid) and Azerbaijan (who's there to counter Armenia) - but that's about it. SCO's much more powerful, and the CoE really fucked up in taking Russia's voting rights away. Talk about a shift towards Asia, and scoring an own goal.