Myrdhale posted:These aren't my thoughts, this is analysis of the situation the middle-east has been in since the end of world war 2. The video gives them a reason, but the anger, the tension, that has been building for at least 60 years if not more. I'm pretty sure the middle east has been a massive cesspool of terrible human behavior since the dawn of time. (USER WAS PUT ON PROBATION FOR THIS POST)
|
|
# ? Sep 15, 2012 05:54 |
|
|
# ? Jun 14, 2024 13:59 |
|
OG KUSH BLUNTS posted:I'm pretty sure the middle east has been a massive cesspool of terrible human behavior since the dawn of time. Hell yea. Thanks caller, rack 'em.
|
# ? Sep 15, 2012 05:56 |
|
Best Friends posted:in short, it's one thing to say "this is why this video is so inflammatory from their perspective" but it's quite another to say "no trust me I read some Chompsky, what these dudes really mean to say is they are actually mad about the sanctions on Iraq." Alright, I take your meaning. I understand why the video would be very upsetting to them, I don't deny that. I don't see how that detracts from the greater point though; this video, distasteful poo poo that it is, is not something made, endorsed or promoted by the U.S. or it's people in general. The Embassy issued an apology for it specifically because it's such an abhorrent thing that we wish hadn't been made. But the anger isn't being expressed against the vile poo poo head who made it, it's being expressed against the united states itself, via it's symbol in the region, it's embassies and consulates. This is because the people are being misled into believing that this is the opinion of the American people at large; it's no different than the crazy bullshit rhetoric of Glenn Beck or Sean Hannity when they speak of Islam or Arabic culture. When I'm talking about the greater context, I'm not trying to dismiss their reasons for being angry and protesting, I'm trying to get people to look forward at what can be done to help the situation instead of trying to assign blame. We can't stop the video from being released, we can't stop it's dispersal, not as long as free speech is part of western culture. So all that's left is to try and continue the narrative of peace in spite of these events, so grievances and culture clashes don't take on such violent forms. The history of the Arab and Muslim world is not one inherently of bloodshed and religious fervor; like Europe, or America, or any other civilization, they have waxed and waned through periods of peace and strife, and peaceful coexistance between very divergent and different groups in the area has often occurred in the past. Peace us possible. That's what I'm trying to say here. Not that it isn't really the video that caused it, but that the way they choose to protest and see us can only be helped by trying to change their perception of us to something other than 'enemy'. Then, if another video gets produced by some bigoted shithead, at least we'll be able to deal with it in ways that don't pit us against each other. e: OG KUSH BLUNTS posted:I'm pretty sure the middle east has been a massive cesspool of terrible human behavior since the dawn of time. No more so than any other area inhabited by the Human Race. They've had periods of amazing glory and empire just as much as the west has. Times when Christians, Muslims, Jews and others have coexisted side by side without the strife we see today. But you're obviously trolling so w/e. e: VVVVV Exactly. I'm not surprised that protests over the video happened, but that they took on such a violent form is because of the current fragility of the region. How the protest happened is just as important to note as why it happened, so we can both minimize the occurrence of these kinds of things and minimize the violence that does happens when such clashes do occur. Ron Paul Atreides fucked around with this message at 06:10 on Sep 15, 2012 |
# ? Sep 15, 2012 06:05 |
|
It also seems that we have one of these every 18 months or so whenever some rear end in a top hat in Florida burns the Quran, a soldier in Afghanistan flushes one down the toilet, or someone draws an offensive cartoon. It's just that this time there are weak post-revolutionary governments in power, whose support (in Egypt) comes from conservative sectors in the society that are sympathetic to a more militantly anti-American line and whom the government doesn't want to alienate, with the added problem (in Libya) of a fuckton of military weapons floating around and limited ability to get control of them. http://www.thedailybeast.com/articles/2012/09/13/how-egyptian-president-mohammed-morsi-failed.html quote:The protests—as well as Morsi’s response—show a growing division between Morsi’s Muslim Brotherhood and the ultraconservative Salafis, two groups with significantly different ideologies. Still, it is not a division that Morsi can articulate, for fear of alienating supporters. Ivan Shitskin fucked around with this message at 06:34 on Sep 15, 2012 |
# ? Sep 15, 2012 06:07 |
Myrdhale posted:I don't see how that detracts from the greater point though; this video, distasteful poo poo that it is, is not something made, endorsed or promoted by the U.S. or it's people in general. The Embassy issued an apology for it specifically because it's such an abhorrent thing that we wish hadn't been made. Okay, that's swell and all but what about the reality of changing that? How do we instill critical thinking and analysis into countries with a massive poverty stricken uneducated populous with a poor educational infrastructure? Give them aid to build schools, that will be terrorized/destroyed by hardliners like in Afganistan? These extremists will always be there, and there will always be able to use western influences as the boogeyman. Your life sucks? It's because of that western building over there. Let's say we go the Ron Paul route and remove all of that stuff. It will be the same answer. Your life sucks? It's because of the Americans and the Jews/Zionists using their influence to destroy this country. How do you get around that major issue? Because I don't know the answer.
|
|
# ? Sep 15, 2012 06:20 |
|
PT6A posted:EDIT: And before it gets blown out of proportion, "misadventures" was meant to be understatement. The USA has hosed up the Mideast and North Africa just like it's hosed up Central America, parts of the Caribbean, a significant part of Asia, and parts of Southern Africa. I don't see anyone in Cuba acting like a bunch of loving lunatics, burning flags and rioting, after a 50-year embargo. I don't see American diplomatic presence in Angola or Vietnam having their walls overrun by rioters. These Islamic extremists are a special breed of loving lunatics, and they need to be done away with. Islam is not problem, Muslims are not the problem. The problem is a bunch of backward, extremist assholes that can't scrape together two braincells between the whole miserable lot of them, and most Muslims in the West see that for what it is. Bush referred to Iraq as a crusade. Twice. The religious conflict in the Mideast goes back a long way and it's mostly fueled today by Israel. You are simplifying ludicrously by comparing it to Cuba or other recent conflicts.
|
# ? Sep 15, 2012 06:26 |
|
OG KUSH BLUNTS posted:Okay, that's swell and all but what about the reality of changing that? How do we instill critical thinking and analysis into countries with a massive poverty stricken uneducated populous with a poor educational infrastructure? Give them aid to build schools, that will be terrorized/destroyed by hardliners like in Afganistan? It's not something that will be solved within our lifetimes, at least, it's not likely. It's not an easy situation and I'm not sure if there is really a perfect answer to help. My personal opinion and belief is we build the schools, roads, hospitals, etc, reach out to the people, and do everything we can to defy the image presented of us by extremists. We keep working with embassies and consulates and try as hard as possible to be a positive force in the region, without imposing our will on them. This means people will get hurt. This means extremists will launch attacks on the works we have over there and people, good people, will likely be killed. It's a hard road, but I think it's the only road that will ever lead to reconciliation between the the middle-east and the west. The more educated, stable and prosperous the region becomes, and the more we contribute to it's prosperity, the smaller the radical elements of society will become. So we keep pushing for that, even if some in the region push back. Because we aren't trying to convince them, we're trying to convince everyone else over there that we aren't the enemy, and the more we work with them, the harder it will be convince them that we are. e: Rosscifer posted:Bush referred to Iraq as a crusade. Twice. The religious conflict in the Mideast goes back a long way and it's mostly fueled today by Israel. You are simplifying ludicrously by comparing it to Cuba or other recent conflicts. This fact cannot be overstated enough. I don't wish for the dissolution of the state or anything that extreme, there are too many citizens of it right now for that to be viable, but Israel's current policy choices and animosity towards it's neighbors are a huge contributing factor to the negative perception of the west in the region. Ron Paul Atreides fucked around with this message at 06:45 on Sep 15, 2012 |
# ? Sep 15, 2012 06:31 |
|
Myrdhale posted:But the anger isn't being expressed against the vile poo poo head who made it, it's being expressed against the united states itself, via it's symbol in the region, it's embassies and consulates. In the past five years I've had the dubious privilege of living less than a block from two different consulates in two different cities, first the consulate of Pakistan in Montreal and now the consulate of Chima in Calgary. Both have been, on many occasions, the site of demonstrations against the very real and heinous acts committed by those governments, often by people literally driven out of those countries for their political views. What I've never seen on those occasions are any manner of flag-burning, deliberate insult, or any attempt whatsoever to violate the security of those diplomatic missions. To threaten the security of a diplomatic mission of any sort is inexcusable, to the point where we don't really need to consider motivations. Diplomats are working in the cause of peace and goodwill; if, as Canada and Iran have recently demonstrated, it becomes untenable to allow a diplomatic presence in one's country, the correct course of action, after exhausting all others, is to declare the diplomats persona non grata or remove one's diplomatic presence from a country. Under no circumstances should the security of a diplomatic mission be violated or threatened, and any such violation should rightly be met with condemnation and appropriate action, as the people and government of Libya have demonstrated after what has been rightfully regarded as a terrorist attack. That other nations are not taking necessary and appropriate steps to ensure the security and safety of Western diplomatic missions in the Mideast should be considered an insult to every civilized nation, regardless of alignment, and should merit the consideration, at the very least, of the expulsion of diplomats from those nations. We cannot and should not play nicely with nations and peoples that refuse to play by the rules.
|
# ? Sep 15, 2012 06:45 |
|
Rosscifer posted:Bush referred to Iraq as a crusade. Twice. The religious conflict in the Mideast goes back a long way and it's mostly fueled today by Israel. You are simplifying ludicrously by comparing it to Cuba or other recent conflicts. The US has been waging economic warfare on Cuba, has bombed and mined Laos, and supported Apartheid South Africa in the Angolan conflict, and you think that is any less provocative than support of Israel? I have no great love for Israel, I assure you, but I don't think the Arab world has a more pressing grievance with the US than any number of other countries that are behaving the sane and reasonable human beings.
|
# ? Sep 15, 2012 06:51 |
|
Why are they mad at us that the Arab spring thing didn't work out? I thought we were all bros with Egypt.
|
# ? Sep 15, 2012 06:57 |
|
Rosscifer posted:Bush referred to Iraq as a crusade. Twice. The religious conflict in the Mideast goes back a long way and it's mostly fueled today by Israel. You are simplifying ludicrously by comparing it to Cuba or other recent conflicts. In a country like Syria, this was unsustainable because Syria is a Soviet-style backwater with few resources and whipping up anti-Zionist sentiment only takes you so far. One major problem is that it encourages the worst kinds of religious extremists to gain in support as a more radical alternative when no other alternatives are allowed.
|
# ? Sep 15, 2012 07:00 |
|
PT6A posted:In the past five years I've had the dubious privilege of living less than a block from two different consulates in two different cities, first the consulate of Pakistan in Montreal and now the consulate of China in Calgary. Both have been, on many occasions, the site of demonstrations against the very real and heinous acts committed by those governments, often by people literally driven out of those countries for their political views. What I've never seen on those occasions are any manner of flag-burning, deliberate insult, or any attempt whatsoever to violate the security of those diplomatic missions. To threaten the security of a diplomatic mission of any sort is inexcusable, to the point where we don't really need to consider motivations. Diplomats are working in the cause of peace and goodwill; if, as Canada and Iran have recently demonstrated, it becomes untenable to allow a diplomatic presence in one's country, the correct course of action, after exhausting all others, is to declare the diplomats persona non grata or remove one's diplomatic presence from a country. Under no circumstances should the security of a diplomatic mission be violated or threatened, and any such violation should rightly be met with condemnation and appropriate action, as the people and government of Libya have demonstrated after what has been rightfully regarded as a terrorist attack. You talk about the Mideast nations like they are on the same footing as Canada is. You're ignoring the state of fragility Libya and Egypt are in right now; the power structures and police forces that once kept the peace are no longer in a condition to keep things in order. It's not that they are not taking the necessary steps, it's that they cannot. It would be infinitely worse, however, to say that since they can't guarantee this safety we just shouldn't deal with them; the only way we'll ever reach a point where U.S. diplomats will be safe in the region is if we keep working with them. The countries of the Arab Spring are fragile, vulnerable and unstable right now, and instability in the region hurts everyone in the current age of globalization and trade. Working to help these people find stability, and being there to be an ally to whatever comes out of this process of renewal in the region, is of vital importance to the longterm peace of the entire world. Also, just gonna say, I 100% disagree with Harper's stance on Iran, and think it is a terrible, hostile action to take to throw out a nation's diplomats like this. The time for such an action was when the Iranian elections came back with very suspicious numbers and the opposition leaders were put into house arrest; To suddenly claim the government is illegitimate after ignoring the issue for years is very hypocritical. The Iranian people need support from abroad more than ever right now; Keeping the diplomatic channels open would be the best way to do that, rather than taking a hard-line stance and treating them as an enemy. This only pushes the narrative into the hands of more radical elements.
|
# ? Sep 15, 2012 07:03 |
|
Myrdhale posted:Unfortunately I think you may be right. I doubt it's a coordinated conspiracy, but I would hardly be surprised if a few ideologues called for and precipitated these attacks, and if they want to keep their message going, another call for bloodshed would probably makes sense (to them, I meant). Unfortunately, the regional dictators have a history of manufacturing such cynical "Attacks against Islam," to deflect attention away from their own horrible governments. In the case of the Mohammed cartoon controversy, several governments put in pornographic cartoons in order to piss people off. The fact that the Egyptian state media (Currently being run by an unpopular military dictator) decided to broadcast a trailer for a non-existent film, that nobody had ever heard of, right before 9/11, in order to rile up the populace, is a hell of a coincidence. Especially when you consider that the Egyptian State police, who were killing peaceful protesters against the Mubarak regime not that long ago, are now standing on the barricades as the thin blue line between keeping the U.S. embassy safe from protesters. These protestors are the same people the Egyptian state media riled up to go storm the American embassy in the first place. I'm cynical enough to believe that a teetering military dictatorship with a lack of popular support used state run media to manufacture an outrage to send people to protest against the nearest embassy. And when things get out of control, The horrible Egyptian Military steps in. Because we're dumb enough to fall for the Egyptian Military saving our diplomats from the riots that the Egyptian government created. thrakkorzog fucked around with this message at 08:30 on Sep 15, 2012 |
# ? Sep 15, 2012 07:44 |
|
Mradyfist posted:It's tempting to read more into your posts than you've said, but since I don't really have any context for the US embassy in Yemen it won't actually add any signal to noise. Why would Yemeni security forces let protesters get closer to a US embassy than necessary? http://www.foreignpolicy.com/articles/2012/09/14/the_silent_hand_of_saleh This is essentially the argument quote:But something was not quite right. How had a few hundred unarmed protesters managed to breach the security of one of the most fortified embassies in the world? edit: And video, you can see the soldiers are just sitting there. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nc1dZd4U3PI Xandu fucked around with this message at 07:56 on Sep 15, 2012 |
# ? Sep 15, 2012 07:52 |
|
So I think I may have drawn an overlooked conclusion from this article: http://abcnews.go.com/Blotter/glen-doherty-navy-seal-killed-libya-intel-mission/story?id=17229037#.UFQqpI1lRkZ quote:In an interview with ABC News last month, Glen Doherty, a 42-year-old former Navy SEAL who worked as a contractor with the State Department, said he personally went into the field to track down so-called MANPADS, shoulder-fired surface-to-air missiles, and destroy them. After the fall of dictator Moammar Gadhafi, the State Department launched a mission to round up thousands of MANPADS that may have been looted from military installations across the country. U.S. officials previously told ABC News they were concerned the MANPADS could fall into the hands of terrorists, creating a threat to commercial airliners. If the Libyan consulate was storing information on these MANPADS; then you've got the motivation to destroy the consulate. I'd imagine that there were a number of armed militias in Libya that would have paid, or at least contributed fighters, to an armed attack on the consulate if there was in fact information on those militias there. The videos were just the metaphoric fliers handed out before "Death-to-America Day" which is apparently a multi-nation holiday that occurs every September 11th. Matoi Ryuko fucked around with this message at 08:19 on Sep 15, 2012 |
# ? Sep 15, 2012 08:17 |
|
international owl day posted:So I think I may have drawn an overlooked conclusion from this article: If the State Department is busily tracking down the MANPADs, it means there's someone else who knows where they are who isn't in the department. It doesn't seem tactically sound to attack the consulate to discover the locations of a bunch of broken MANPADs.
|
# ? Sep 15, 2012 08:37 |
|
OneThousandMonkeys posted:If the State Department is busily tracking down the MANPADs, it means there's someone else who knows where they are who isn't in the department. It doesn't seem tactically sound to attack the consulate to discover the locations of a bunch of broken MANPADs. The attack wasn't to discover the locations of broken MANPADSs, I propose that the consulate had information on the Militias that still had operational MANPADSs, and that those militias launched the attack.
|
# ? Sep 15, 2012 08:38 |
Sucrose posted:....But he was busy killing at least 100,000 Iraqi Kurds and invading his southern neighbor at the time the UN voted to enact sanctions against him. But tell me more about how the sanctions weren't really Saddam's fault.
|
|
# ? Sep 15, 2012 08:41 |
|
international owl day posted:The attack wasn't to discover the locations of broken MANPADSs, I propose that the consulate had information on the Militias that still had operational MANPADSs, and that those militias launched the attack. Sounds like a stretch. The militias that have them obviously don't need the info, and surely they're not foolish enough to think that they could deprive us of that info by destroying it there.
|
# ? Sep 15, 2012 08:43 |
|
international owl day posted:The attack wasn't to discover the locations of broken MANPADSs, I propose that the consulate had information on the Militias that still had operational MANPADSs, and that those militias launched the attack. Except again, it's not like this is the 1920s and the only copy of that (or any other) information was in the consulate. This is just one example of why pretty much every U.S. facility worldwide (military, diplomatic, or otherwise) has at least rudimentary secure communications capability because being able to share information securely is important.
|
# ? Sep 15, 2012 08:45 |
|
ReidRansom posted:Sounds like a stretch. The militias that have them obviously don't need the info, and surely they're not foolish enough to think that they could deprive us of that info by destroying it there. iyaayas01 posted:Except again, it's not like this is the 1920s and the only copy of that (or any other) information was in the consulate. This is just one example of why pretty much every U.S. facility worldwide (military, diplomatic, or otherwise) has at least rudimentary secure communications capability because being able to share information securely is important. These are both true; but they did succeed in killing at least one of the personnel who was active in hunting these MANPADs. Its from his death that I drew the conclusion the militias are undertaking measures to defend their weapons and their identities/locations. Whether they believe that they can prevent information about them from being disseminated becomes irrelevant in lieu of the militias acquiring information on the people hunting them. Whats really bothered me is that the severity of the attack seems pointless and only bound to attract more attention to the militias without some high-priority targets thrown in, and these weapon hunters seem like high-priority targets to me. Matoi Ryuko fucked around with this message at 09:12 on Sep 15, 2012 |
# ? Sep 15, 2012 08:48 |
Narciss posted:One problem with the "straw that broke the camel's back" theory are the multiple embassy attacks and such in numerous countries mere days/hours apart. Presumably Sudan and Egypt would have different tipping points if this video really would be No Big Deal if it had been released at a less tense time. I guess maybe foreigners saw the first embassy attack and that got them pumped up enough to do their own.
|
|
# ? Sep 15, 2012 08:49 |
|
Myrdhale posted:You talk about the Mideast nations like they are on the same footing as Canada is. You're ignoring the state of fragility Libya and Egypt are in right now; the power structures and police forces that once kept the peace are no longer in a condition to keep things in order. It's not that they are not taking the necessary steps, it's that they cannot. The Green Revolution was the best chance for the people in Iran to protest against the Iranian government, inspired by the Arab Spring, and the rest of the world told the Iranian protesters to go gently caress themselves, and left them hanging to whatever tortures the Iranian government has handy. During the Arab Spring, when maybe a C.I.A led coup of Iran would be useful, the C.I.A. just sat on their thumbs. The Daily Show with Jon Stewart actually made better inroads with the Iranian populace than the state department. And that's just pathetic. Not trying to sound racist, but the Persians have spent 3,000 years of being smart and kicking rear end. Locking them in Iran under a fundamentalist dictator is a waste if good talent. thrakkorzog fucked around with this message at 09:40 on Sep 15, 2012 |
# ? Sep 15, 2012 09:06 |
|
quote:Some of the people rioting may not even have enough bandwidth to play the video. I've seen a lot of smart phones in some of the riot videos, crazy new world. But I really think the guys in Libya just wanted to hit an American target and they found one, and hit the jackpot with the ambassador. Like a lot of terrorism, stupid counter-productive. They accomplished nothing but making drat sure Americans care about the outcome in their country.
|
# ? Sep 15, 2012 09:10 |
|
FuriousxGeorge posted:Like a lot of terrorism, stupid counter-productive. They accomplished nothing but making drat sure Americans care about the outcome in their country. I've been thinking the same thing since the beginning, but since learning about our counter-insurgency operations I have had a change of heart. The attack isn't counter-productive if its intention was to kill the agents active in the hunting of militias & their weapons.
|
# ? Sep 15, 2012 09:15 |
|
kylejack posted:1953: US overthrows a secular democracy in Iran, installs the Shah, who is brutal to the people. Sorry to dredge this up from four pages back, but turning Operation Ajax into a proximate cause of the Iranian Revolution is deeply sloppy, ahistorical thought that takes the Iranian Revolution out of its proper context in Iranian history and turns it into some sort of Cold War morality tale. Iran's entire 19th century history had been trying to preserve its independence by playing Britain and Russia off against each other. Iran had had experiments with Constitutionalism and a Majlis-based government in the 1910s after the1907 overthrow of the last of the Qajars (when Persia itself was suspended between a southern British-dominated zone and a Russian-dominated northern zone). Already, the Constitutional regime faced problems of both heavy western influence (both British and Russian formal issues and new American commercial interests) and staunch clerical opposition to the new regime embodied in Sheikh Fazlollah Noori, a cleric who viewed the new Constitution and democracy itself as antithetical to Islam and was executed for criticizing the regime in 1909, radicalizing Muslims in Persia against the Majlis and Constitutionalism in general. Though the Russian Revolution and the chaos of the Russian Civil War gave Persia a breather from imperialism from its northern neighbor for a few years, the Constitutional regime and the Majlis were totally unable to maintain control of the country in face of its own opposition from monarchists, religious figures, and communists alike, and relied on the charismatic general Reza Khan to restore order, allowing him to take the title Shah and the family name Pahlavi. Reza Shah Pahlavi's installation was designed to save Constitutionalism, not destroy it, though Reza would soon prove to be a rather capricious tyrant. Seeing as the religious movements, like the communist movements, were hostile to Reza (in particular his, along with his neighbor Ataturk in Turkey's, hostility towards the veil), Reza, who was vicious to even his erstwhile allies like Teymourtash, was even more vicious to his foes. As the USSR expanded back southwards, including taking Azerbaijan (and with it, the threat, later realized post-World War II, of claiming Iranian Azerbaijan as an integral part of the Azeri SSR), Reza found himself in the traditional Iranian role of balancing American, British, and Russian (now Soviet) imperial interests by choosing a third way, close ties with Germany. With the outbreak of the Second World War, British and Soviet interests would no longer tolerate his sympathy to the German cause and forced him to abdicate in favor of his son, Muhammad Reza Shah, in hopes that the son would be more pliable than the father. Throughout the Second World War, Iran would be a de facto puppet of the Big Three: the Big Three didn't even deign to meet with Muhammad Reza or his Prime Minister during the Teheran Conference, which was held in his capital. Muhammad Reza relied more on the Majlis (which had been there the whole time under his father) and his Prime Ministers, in particularly the savvy Ahmad Qavvam. It was Qavvam who defused the postwar crisis with the USSR, when the Soviet Union demanded nearly a quarter of Iran to join Soviet Azerbaijan. Qavvam promised the Soviets that in return for withdrawing, Iran would grant them a major oil concession, then immediately after Soviet withdrawal revoked the promise. The threat of Soviet strategic interests drove Iran closer and closer to the West. This cannot be overstated: naked and open Soviet designs on northern Iran triggered the same wariness of Russia that had characterized Iran since the 19th century and the same balancing act of trying to play Britain and America off Russia to preserve independence that Iran had utilized since the 19th century. It was Mossadegh's attempts to step out of the Soviet/US+British balancing act and strike a more independent path that resulted in his overthrow. Muhammad Mossadegh was one of many of Muhammad Reza's Prime Ministers, but had obtained power under duress after his predecessor, the Shah's pick, had been assassinated. Mossadegh had called for elections to show support, but when the results started heading against him, he froze and postponed elections indefinitely with only 79 deputies elected, enough to form a bare quorum in the Majlis a tactic that has left the "he was democratically elected" cry iffy to this day: he was appointed by Muhammad Reza, remember, and was willing to suspend elections when they did not favor his outcome. Mossadegh, facing a loss of confidence, resigned, and Qavvam, his successor, tried to backpedal on Mossadegh's nationalization of the oil industry. Faced with massive popular resistance, the Shah reluctantly invited Mossadegh back into power, whereupon he demanded a year and a half of emergency dictatorial power. It was in that context that the "democratic" Mossadegh regime, which had been appointed by a Shah and was led by a party not elected by free and fair elections, was overthrown in Operation Ajax and power restored (yes, restored), to the Shah. Mossadegh's last actions included an indefinite suspension of the Majlis. Why people characterize this government as "democratic" is highly questionable: it only is under the most polemical of purposes. Be that as it may, there's no doubt that Muhammad Reza and his subsequent governments post-Ajax were not democratic, though voting and parties continued (and, indeed, the post-Operation Ajax phase in the late 1950s was when women's suffrage arrived in Iran). There's also no doubt that the Islamist opposition to Constitutionalism that had begun under Fazlollah 50 years prior was still at work: Mossadegh likely could not have been overthrown had it not been for Ayatollah Kashani's distaste for the secular Mossadegh and refusal to support him. Bitterly hostile to the secular regime already, Iranian religious leaders grew fond of the exiled Ayatollah Ruhollah Khoemeini's idea of Guardianship of the Jurist, that the Islamic scholars and clergy are best suited to run a government in tune with the principles of sharia and that secular government, whether monarchical or democratic, would be too corrupted by the secular world to rule in accordance to Islamic law. This was certainly true for Muhammad Reza, whose ostentatious regime developed a fondness for ignoring Islam altogether and celebrating its connections with pre-Islamic Persia (his infamous birthday party for the 2,500th anniversary of Persian monarchy being the most notorious example) as the brutal SAVAK secret police cracked down on opponents of the regime, secular leftists and religious fundamentalists alike. The Majlis and the government was just as dominated by secular Westernized elites and technocrats as ever. Reza was still in the background, though no Minister dominated him to the extent that Qavvam or Mossadegh had. In short, there was a long-standing (75 year old by the time of the 1979 Revolution) tradition of clerical hostility towards the Iranian Constitutional movement, with widespread support. The brutal murder of Fazlollah by the "secular democratic" Constitutional regime in 1909 set the pattern for religious martyrs bemoaning the corrupt secular state and demanding the principles of Islam take their proper place in governance. Mossadegh's feud with Kashani shows the same issue at play. Khoemeini's solution spoke to the heart of a very long standing and traditional movement against secularism in Iran, which had become irrevocably entangled with brutal repression from the Constitutional government to Reza Khan to, yes, Mossadegh, to Muhammad Reza. Furthermore, Ajax is best placed in a continuation of Iran's perpetual struggle between British (and by extension/replacement, American) interests and Russian/Soviet interests, and Ajax itself placed as an event immediately following Iran very nearly losing massive amounts of territory and oil concessions to the USSR in 1947. I'm sorry for the gigantic effortpost, but I'm sick and tired of people lazily drawing the 1953-1979 link without any actual understanding of what they're arguing. It's unfair to the narrative of Iranian history and it's unfair to the Iranians themselves as actors in their own history to turn Iranian history into a sort of subaltern field to US history.
|
# ? Sep 15, 2012 09:27 |
|
international owl day posted:I've been thinking the same thing since the beginning, but since learning about our counter-insurgency operations I have had a change of heart. The attack isn't counter-productive if its intention was to kill the agents active in the hunting of militias & their weapons. Yes I posted that because I think your theory is silly.
|
# ? Sep 15, 2012 09:28 |
|
FuriousxGeorge posted:Yes I posted that because I think your theory is silly. I felt your theory overlooks the deaths of what could be considered high-priority targets to local militias which would make this attack do more than simply accomplish "nothing". It makes more sense for the militias to be actively defending themselves and their assets than it does for the militias to be purposefully attracting more attention to themselves. Matoi Ryuko fucked around with this message at 09:38 on Sep 15, 2012 |
# ? Sep 15, 2012 09:34 |
|
international owl day posted:I felt your theory overlooks the deaths of what could be considered high-priority targets to local militias which would make this attack do more than simply accomplish "nothing". All the people killed were just cogs in a big wheel though. It's not like the former navy seal guy hunting for MANPADS was the only person tasked with that assignment. I'm sure others were too and he was info sharing with a group of people. Hitting high profile targets like the ambassador just ensured their own destruction in what will probably be a lengthy and terrible campaign by the U.S. military and cooperating libyan forces.
|
# ? Sep 15, 2012 09:42 |
|
The highest priority target was the ambassador. It makes more sense that if the attackers actually had an individual target he was the one. I just don't see specific contractors who fly in and out of the country being well known enough to be located and targeted and even if they were an individual can be easily replaced. I just don't see how you can read this as a targeted strike at individual contractors and not a political, terrorist targeting of a diplomatic station. It would be easier to hit the individual when he was out doing his job if that was all you wanted to do. FuriousxGeorge fucked around with this message at 09:46 on Sep 15, 2012 |
# ? Sep 15, 2012 09:44 |
|
Modus Operandi posted:All the people killed were just cogs in a big wheel though. It's not like the former navy seal guy hunting for MANPADS was the only person tasked with that assignment. I'm sure others were too and he was info sharing with a group of people. Hitting high profile targets like the ambassador just ensured their own destruction in what will probably be a lengthy and terrible campaign by the U.S. military and cooperating libyan forces. It may have even accelerated their own destruction. FuriousxGeorge posted:The highest priority target was the ambassador. It makes more sense that if the attackers actually had an individual target he was the one. I can't imagine any militia would be haphazard enough to aggressively pin and kill an ambassador just for fun or pride. I have difficulty accepting that the motive was to further destabilize a country that america has been actively attempting to stabilize; the obvious outcome of an attack on a consulate would be a quickening of retaliatory efforts by the US. Why do I make such leaps of logic, or assert such outlandish ideas? Because I'm angry and confused, that's why. I think it would be more difficult to kill him if he was moving through the country, instead of spying on the counsluate, awaiting his return. The same could be said about the Ambassador, who was most likely in charge of the program. The shock factor is too low for the level of brutality. If you want to shock and scare people you kill hundreds in church bombings, you don't assassinate intelligence agents. Matoi Ryuko fucked around with this message at 10:11 on Sep 15, 2012 |
# ? Sep 15, 2012 09:44 |
|
Patter Song posted:
Thanks for this. The way Iranian history is reduced to Operation Ajax and everything after that is very similar to the embassy attack: there is a state of tranquility where no discord exists until the West takes an action that causes strife to appear seemingly out of nowhere. Any efforts to prevent further strife should only be aimed at the West as no one else posesses the agency to alter their ways.
|
# ? Sep 15, 2012 10:44 |
|
So are people in this thread really claiming Arabs had no access to the internet? I'm pretty sure Arabs could go to youtube before the revolution. Do you think they assume Youtube Poops are state released videos?
|
# ? Sep 15, 2012 10:55 |
|
Xandu posted:http://www.foreignpolicy.com/articles/2012/09/14/the_silent_hand_of_saleh That's pretty fascinating stuff, actually. Now I feel like a dick for thinking of Yemen as just being some place across the ocean with fantastic coffee.
|
# ? Sep 15, 2012 11:04 |
|
Mradyfist posted:That's pretty fascinating stuff, actually. Now I feel like a dick for thinking of Yemen as just being some place across the ocean with fantastic coffee. Pretty good drugs, too. Foreign staff here just had a meeting about the elevated risk of getting killed in a drive-by this week, especially after AQAP threatened to start killing US diplomats in Yemen. Gonna be an interesting few days...
|
# ? Sep 15, 2012 11:13 |
|
Patter Song posted:Sorry to dredge this up from four pages back, but turning Operation Ajax into a proximate cause of the Iranian Revolution is deeply sloppy, ahistorical thought that takes the Iranian Revolution out of its proper context in Iranian history and turns it into some sort of Cold War morality tale. Thanks for this. Perhaps this request is like looking a gift horse in the mouth but these kind of posts would own even more if they had recommendations to relevant books about the subjet...
|
# ? Sep 15, 2012 11:17 |
|
Hey, looks like the protests have hit here in Australia too. Tiny mob, but still it's going to be horrible politically for the next several weeks. http://www.abc.net.au/news/2012-09-15/anti-us-protests-hit-sydney/4263372
|
# ? Sep 15, 2012 11:39 |
|
Brown Moses posted:Something a bit lighthearted from Syria, a brigade announcement video getting interupted by a spinach seller Patter Song posted:Long Thing Anyway, yeah. ReindeerF fucked around with this message at 12:01 on Sep 15, 2012 |
# ? Sep 15, 2012 11:45 |
Patter Song posted:Sorry to dredge this up from four pages back, but turning Operation Ajax into a proximate cause of the Iranian Revolution is deeply sloppy, ahistorical thought that takes the Iranian Revolution out of its proper context in Iranian history and turns it into some sort of Cold War morality tale. This was a great post, thanks for making it. I'm not nearly as versed in contemporary Iranian history as I ought to be.
|
|
# ? Sep 15, 2012 12:27 |
|
|
# ? Jun 14, 2024 13:59 |
Chiming in with thanks for this post, good stuff. What is known about Iranian popular opinion around the time of Mossadegh's overthrow? If free and fair elections had been held, who would have come out on top? CeeJee posted:Thanks for this. The way Iranian history is reduced to Operation Ajax and everything after that is very similar to the embassy attack: there is a state of tranquility where no discord exists until the West takes an action that causes strife to appear seemingly out of nowhere. Any efforts to prevent further strife should only be aimed at the West as no one else posesses the agency to alter their ways. I do think that, for those of us living in the West, if we want to avoid further strife we absolutely should focus on changing Western policies, because that's the area where we have the greatest chance of making a difference (since we live in (nominal) democracies and all). Clipperton fucked around with this message at 13:05 on Sep 15, 2012 |
|
# ? Sep 15, 2012 13:03 |