Jump to content
Guests can now reply in ALL forum topics (No registration required!) ×
Guests can now reply in ALL forum topics (No registration required!)
In the Name of God بسم الله

Iran-contra Affair

Rate this topic


Recommended Posts

I'll let you guys watch the short documentary of the Iran-Contra Affair and come to conclusions. I've noticed the Zionist label is excessively used in this forum to explain anything that is not in the interests of the Iranian regime. However, what if you knew the Iranian revolution had dealings with the West?

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pInoBtXGheQ

Edited by Justice4all
Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Banned

oh right i understand.

i know you are a sunni (so i dont really like you) and this whole thread is an attack on shias. but the truth is the truth and we cant hide it just because the guilty party also happen to be shia.

THE IRAN- CONTRA AFFAIR: MDM REVISION NOTES FOR THOSE WHO DO NOT KNOW.

- ronald reagen wanted to be president

- iran had US hostages

- americans did not like the current president handling the hostages affair

- reagen did a deal with khomeini to delay the release of the hostages, in return for the US selling iran guns and weapons and discount prices.

- khomeini complied

- reagen became president

- within an hour of his presidency being announced, subhanAllah khomeini releases the hostages. must have been a coincidence.

- the guns are sent to iran, by sending them to israel (yes, ISRAEL) and from israel to iran.

- the money that was made from the sale of these guns, went to south america, to nicaragua (a group called the "contras"), to pay for the rebels to destabilise the government (it was anti US)

so thats the iran-contra affair.

yet more proof (as if justifying mass murder wasnt enough) that the entire iranian revolution was BS, and the leadership the worst kind of hypocrite.

Edited by Maula Dha Mallang
Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Advanced Member

WHAT IF WE KNEW IRAN HAD DEALING WITH WEST?..LMAOO PATHETIC..IRAN PLAYED PRAGMATIC ROLE..THE OCTOBER SURPRISE BY GARY SICK'S CONGRESISONAL HEARINGS ARE HARDLY NEWS OR SURPRISE TO ANYONE...YES IRAN ACCEPTED ARMS FROM WEST VIA ISRAEL (PLANE PARTS) SO? IT STILL GAINED ITS INDEPENDENCE AND BOOTED THE SHAH AND AMERICANS..IF MY ENEMY HANDS ME WEAPONS TO FIGHT HIM,ILL GLADLY ACCEPT THEM..WHATS THE PROBLEM?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Banned

^^ do you not find it hypocritical that the same government that kicked out the shah for his dealings with the "great shaytaan", "zionism" etc etc....did the same deals with the same people they were whipping the ever exciteable iranians into a frenzy over and aiming all their hate towards?

business with the "great shaytaan" west carried on as usual before the shah, and after the shah. the only things that changed were the names on the doors and how they dress. they still had dealings with israel. they still had dealings with the US.

if it was so "pragmatic", why was it a secret? why tell the nation to hate america and israel when you are doing dirty business with them yourself?

have you ever read "animal farm" by george orwell?

it is nothing more than pure munafiqat.

the "glorious" revolution was founded in lies, spread by murder and maintained by tyranny. it was BS from the start to today.

Edited by Maula Dha Mallang
Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Advanced Member

i know a *lot* about this subject.

what do you think about gorbanifar? just how high up did he go???

“I knew him to be a liar,” North eventually acknowledged. Robert McFarlane, the national-security adviser who approved the Iran-Contra arms trades, once described Ghorbanifar as “one of the most despicable characters I have ever met.”

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Banned

“I knew him to be a liar,” North eventually acknowledged. Robert McFarlane, the national-security adviser who approved the Iran-Contra arms trades, once described Ghorbanifar as “one of the most despicable characters I have ever met.”

and that proves....what?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

yet more proof (as if justifying mass murder wasnt enough) that the entire iranian revolution was BS, and the leadership the worst kind of hypocrite.

How so?

Just acting pragmatic on one issue negates the million other issues that together caused the revolution?

And 'worst kind' in comparison to who?

^ Oh I know Gorbanifar was the primary arms dealer and came up with the contra idea. I mean I don't quite understand what you mean by "how high up did he go?" I haven't studied this affair as much as you.

Good job googling. Do you always cheat, lie, and pretend?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Advanced Member

oh right i understand.

i know you are a sunni (so i dont really like you) and this whole thread is an attack on shias. but the truth is the truth and we cant hide it just because the guilty party also happen to be shia.

THE IRAN- CONTRA AFFAIR: MDM REVISION NOTES FOR THOSE WHO DO NOT KNOW.

- ronald reagen wanted to be president

- iran had US hostages

- americans did not like the current president handling the hostages affair

- reagen did a deal with khomeini to delay the release of the hostages, in return for the US selling iran guns and weapons and discount prices.

- khomeini complied

- reagen became president

- within an hour of his presidency being announced, subhanAllah khomeini releases the hostages. must have been a coincidence.

- the guns are sent to iran, by sending them to israel (yes, ISRAEL) and from israel to iran.

- the money that was made from the sale of these guns, went to south america, to nicaragua (a group called the "contras"), to pay for the rebels to destabilise the government (it was anti US)

so thats the iran-contra affair.

yet more proof (as if justifying mass murder wasnt enough) that the entire iranian revolution was BS, and the leadership the worst kind of hypocrite.

Interesting. So Reagen and Co. wanted to be the President, and prolonging the hostage crisis was to their benefits. And Reagen had enough connection to get the arms to Iran via Israel (this is the whole Iran Contra Affair) right? And by using the money to sponsor the rebels they can claim a moral superiority of some sort?

Which part do you object here? The buying of the weapons in the black market or holding the hostages for a political gain?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

the "glorious" revolution was founded in lies, spread by murder and maintained by tyranny. it was BS from the start to today.

I have heard it from lots of people that Islam was cruel and tyrannical from day one just as you accuse the Iranian revolution to be. What those people and you do not realize that power needed to run both Islam and the Islamic revolution was earned not coercively but based on the legitimacy of those institutions, Had they been coercive, they would not have lasted that long and in case of Islamic Republic that still goes on. Thats because the science of politics defines coercive power to be very short lived like the science of chemistry says water is two parts hydrogen and one part oxygen.

And please do not compare anything eastern to anything thats western (animal farm) when it comes to socio-politics and political institutions. They can not be compared accurately.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Banned

Just acting pragmatic on one issue negates the million other issues that together caused the revolution?

is it pragmatic to get iranians to crowd chant "marj bar usa" and "marj bar israel" after jamat prayers, and do deals with the US and israel behind everyones backs?

Interesting. So Reagen and Co. wanted to be the President, and prolonging the hostage crisis was to their benefits. And Reagen had enough connection to get the arms to Iran via Israel (this is the whole Iran Contra Affair) right? And by using the money to sponsor the rebels they can claim a moral superiority of some sort?

Which part do you object here? The buying of the weapons in the black market or holding the hostages for a political gain?

isnt it obvious?

- i object to khomeini doing favours to "the great shaytaan"

- i object to the regime telling iranians americans and israelis are shaytaan

- i object to iran recieving weapons from israel

- i object to the money from these sales being used to destroy americas enemies

- i object to the hypocricy of ousting the shah for being a puppet of the west, then becoming a puppet of the west

I have heard it from lots of people that Islam was cruel and tyrannical from day one just as you accuse the Iranian revolution to be. What those people and you do not realize that power needed to run both Islam and the Islamic revolution was earned not coercively but based on the legitimacy of those institutions

Im sure that muawiyyah and yazeed used the same arguments.

that....he's a liar?

and the release of the hostages? thats fake too?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I'll let you guys watch the short documentary of the Iran-Contra Affair and come to conclusions. I've noticed the Zionist label is excessively used in this forum to explain anything that is not in the interests of the Iranian regime. However, what if you knew the Iranian revolution had dealings with the West?

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pInoBtXGheQ

Your a fool, this whole issue has already been discussed and your stupid Wahhabi propaganda has been completely refuted. http://www.shiachat.com/forum/index.php?/topic/234985391-iran-israels-ally/

One of my posts from this old thread refuting your lies.

Quote- Salamu alaikum, I am actually planning to write an in-depth article (or thread) on this topic. You must have read my mind! I am working on that article as we speak and I will post it in this section of the forums. For now let me give you a good historical summary and refutation to the claim your friend sent you (via that Wikipedia link you provide).

After the Islamic Revolution of 1979 the West and the Zionists (who were very close allies with the deposed Shah) sought a way to regain some influence in Iran after being completely thrown out by the revolutionary Imam Khomeini ra.gif. The Americans and Zionist "Israelis" thought their best chance was to try to court what they termed "moderates" inside Iran (people the Americans and Zionist "Israelis" believed were anti-Khomeini), most Western historians who cover this period say that the political situation in Iran in this early period of the Revolutionary government (i.e. 1979 through early 1980s) was very confusing and Western/Zionist analysts weren't quite sure who had the power! Remember Iran itself was beset with counter-revolutionaries like the MKO traitors (who eventually sided with Saddam al-Baathi in the Iran-Iraq war of 1980-1988) that were assassinating (or trying to assassinate) important Islamic government figures: see for example the assassination attempt against Imam Khamenei(ha) on June 27, 1981 and the second President of the Islamic Republic of Iran Mohammad-Ali Rajai who was assassinated by the MKO traitors on August 30, 1981.

MKO(la) traitor leader Massoud Rajavi(la) with his hero Saddam al-Baathi(la) in Baghdad, Iraq when the MKO(la) allied with Saddam al-Baathi(la)'s Iraq during the Iran-Iraq war of 1980-1988

rajavi-saddam~s600x600.jpg

Also you must remember that Imam Khomeini ra.gif was diagnosed with cancer not long after the 1979 Islamic Revolution and that he underwent treatment that thanks to Allah(SWT)'s blessings sent his cancer into remission for another nearly ten years until he passed away on June 3, 1989. Many Western analysts believed Imam Khomeini ra.gif was going to pass away not long after the 1979 Islamic Revolution and that once Imam Khomeini ra.gif was dead the Islamic Revolution would lose steam and Iran would fall back into the hands of people that would be under the influence of the Western imperialist powers.

As for the Iran-Iraq war, keep in mind the whole world (including the imperialist West) supported Saddam al-Baathi(la) during the Iran-Iraq war.

http://en.wikipedia....2%80%93Iraq_war (American support for Saddam)

http://en.wikipedia....2%80%93Iraq_war (British support for Saddam)

http://en.wikipedia....2%80%93Iraq_war (Saudi support for Saddam)

http://en.wikipedia....2%80%93Iraq_war (French support for Saddam)

http://en.wikipedia....2%80%93Iraq_war (Italian support for Saddam)

http://en.wikipedia....2%80%93Iraq_war (Soviet Union support for Saddam)

The Americans continually gave intelligence support to Saddam al-Baathi's Iraqi army giving them maps from US spy satellites of Iranian military positions, etc. The huge US support for Saddam al-Baathi(la)'s Iraq really started in 1983 when the American imperialists started getting really scared that the Islamic Republic of Iran was going to actually win the Iran-Iraq war and topple Saddam(la)'s Baathist regime in Iraq. This was a very close reality as the majority of the Iran-Iraq war, after the initial invasion of Saddam's Iraqi forces, saw Iran on the offensive and pushing into Iraqi territory.

rumsfeld-saddam.jpg

As for foreign "support" for the Islamic Republic of Iran you need to again remember the Western imperialists thought Imam Khomeini ra.gif was going to die soon after the 1979 Islamic Revolution (as he was being treated for cancer that thanks to Almighty Allah went into remission for ten years) and that they could undue the Islamic Revolution once the powerful figure Imam Khomeini ra.gif was gone as they didn't think anybody among the Ulama would be able to fill Imam Khomeini ra.gif's shoes: thankfully later in 1989 when Imam Khomeini ra.gif did pass away we had a great leader like Imam Ali Khamenei (ha) emerge!

Most foreign "support" for the Islamic Republic of Iran in the Iran-Iraq of 1980-1988 came in this general situation. You also had what was called the Iran-Contra affair (http://en.wikipedia....n-contra_affair) wherein the West was selling weapons to people they thought of as "moderate" anti-Khomeini factions within Iran itself to in turn enable the US CIA to continue funding the Contra insurgency in Nicaragua against the popularly elected socialist Sandinista movement of Daniel Ortega: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/FSLN also on the CIA backed Contra right wing rebels: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Contras

The Iran-Contra affair was also important as the West was seeking Iran's influence on Shi'a Muslim Mujahideen in Lebanon; because Shi'a Muslim Mujahideen in Lebanon (calling themselves Islamic Jihad, many historians believe a nom de guerre for Hezbollah during the 1980s in the Lebanese civil war of 1975-1990) were holding Western people as prisoners accusing them of collaborating with the Western powers and Zionist "Israeli" occupation of Lebanon (side note the Lebanese civil war gets very confusing).

One of these individuals held by Hezbollah was: http://en.wikipedia....i/Benjamin_Weir

Another was: http://en.wikipedia....rry_A._Anderson

Quote- Terry A. Anderson (born October 27, 1947) is the best known, and longest held, hostage of a group of Americans believed to be captured by Shiite Hezbollah militants in an attempt to drive U.S. military forces from Lebanon during the Lebanese Civil War.

A good overall article: http://en.wikipedia...._hostage_crisis

Note the Iran-Contra affair was the following: http://en.wikipedia....n-Contra_Affair

Quote- The affair began as an operation to improve U.S.-Iranian relations. It was planned that Israel would ship weapons to a relatively moderate, politically influential group of Iranians, and then the U.S. would resupply Israel and receive the Israeli payment. The Iranian recipients promised to do everything in their power to achieve the release of six U.S. hostages, who were being held by the Lebanese Shia Islamist group Hezbollah, who in turn were connected to the Army of the Guardians of the Islamic Revolution. The plan deteriorated into an arms-for-hostages scheme, in which members of the executive branch sold weapons to Iran in exchange for the release of the American hostages.[3][4] Large modifications to the plan were devised by Lieutenant Colonel Oliver North of the National Security Council in late 1985, in which a portion of the proceeds from the weapon sales was diverted to fund anti-Sandinista and anti-communist rebels, or Contras, in Nicaragua.[5][6]

...

Arms transactions

Michael Ledeen, a consultant of National Security Adviser Robert McFarlane, requested assistance from Israeli Prime Minister Shimon Peres for help in the sale of arms to Iran.[25][26] At the time, Iran was in the midst of the Iran–Iraq War and could find few Western nations willing to supply it with weapons.[27] The idea behind the plan was for Israel to ship weapons through an intermediary (identified as Manucher Ghorbanifar)[3] to a supposedly moderate, politically influential Iranian group opposed to the Ayatollah Khomeni;[28] after the transaction, the U.S. would reimburse Israel with the same weapons, while receiving monetary benefits. The Israeli government required that the sale of arms meet high level approval from the United States government, and when Robert McFarlane convinced them that the U.S. government approved the sale, Israel obliged by agreeing to sell the arms.[25]

end quote.

A good academic link on the Iran-Contra affair from America's Brown University:

http://www.brown.edu...tra-affairs.php

http://www.brown.edu...-background.php

Quote- Over the next few years, the situation further deteriorated and more hostages were taken. A religious fundamentalist group called the Islamic Holy War took hostage William F. Buckley, the Chief of the Central Intelligence Agency station in Beirut, Lebanon, in March 1984. Over the following three years, more Americans were kidnapped.

By the mid-1980s, Iran sought to have nothing to do with the U.S. This was a very unusual position for the U.S. to be in, as typically the U.S. government was able to translate its financial wealth and military strength into influence over smaller countries around the world. Without the leverage they were used to having to assert authority in a region, top U.S. officials began examining alternative approaches to the U.S.’s relationship with Iran.

end quote.

http://www.brown.edu...hebeginning.php

Quote- The Beginning of the Affair

...

As the 1980s continued, the relationship between the U.S. and Iran worsened. In 1983, the U.S. was actively involved in preventing arms sales to Iran, a country it accused of supporting terrorists. The U.S. also used its influence to lean on countries that dealt with Iran. However, at the same time, National Security Council (NSC) members began to look into covert operations that could lead to a better relationship with Iran.

According to him, Adnan Khashoggi met with National Security Adviser Robert McFarlane beginning in 1983 to discuss U.S.-Iran relations. Meanwhile, former CIA Associate Director of Operations Theodore Shackley was introduced to General Manucher Hashemi, a former head of the Shah’s secret police, SAVAK. Hashemi then introduced Shackley to other Iranians, including Manucher Ghorbanifar and Hassan Karoubi, who became infamous during the ensuing investigation as the “first Iranian.”

In January 1984, McFarlane formally requested that the NSC examine how the U.S. could work to influence Iran, particularly a post-Khomeini Iran (the U.S. believed that he was close to death and that it would be easier to deal with the country after he died). However, the report conveyed the sense that the U. S. was at an impasse in its relationship with Iran.

In 1985, Ghorbanifar and Khashoggi came into contact in Hamburg, Germany, and began devising the skeletons of the plan that would eventually become the Iran side of the Iran/Contra Affairs. Three Israelis were drawn into the discussion in the summer of 1985. A number of stories exist regarding the exact time, place, and specifics of these meetings. However, from these meetings came the idea to sell U.S. arms to Iran via Israel and the suggestion that, to gain the U.S.’s approval for the scheme, American hostages in Lebanon could be released. At the same time this was happening, the NSC was searching for new ways to deal with Iran.

McFarlane met with Israeli David Kimche on July 3, 1985, who had been sent to the U.S. on behalf of the Israelis who had been involved in discussions with Khashoggi and Ghorbanifar. Kimche presented their ideas to McFarlane had said that they were supported by both Iranian and Israeli officials. Whether or not any of them had any official authority is unclear, but it seems unlikely. In a report to other top NSC advisers a few days later, McFarlane explained that Kimche had presented him with an opportunity to open dialogue with Iran. The Iranians wanted TOW missiles, and providing them would be an excellent way to improve the U.S.’s relationship with the country. It could also likely lead to the release of the seven hostages held in Lebanon as Iran had influence over the terrorist groups who took the hostages. In this report, McFarlane conveyed that Kimche was an emissary of the Israeli government—whether he actually believed this to be true is unclear. Secretary of State George Shultz and Secretary of Defense Caspar Weinberger voiced some opposition. However, McFarlane encouraged talks with Iran. Ghorbanifar put himself forward as a representative of the moderates in Iran who were interested in bettering relations with the U.S. McFarlane, Ghorbanifar, and a variety of Israeli representatives began to formulate and refine a plan.

President Reagan’s Approval

On July 1, 1985, the New York Times quoted President Ronald Reagan: “The United States gives terrorists no rewards. We make no concessions, we make no deals.” However, in August 1985, McFarlane visited Reagan in the hospital, where he was recovering from abdominal surgery, to talk about the deal in the works. The President approved the plan to allow Israel to sell approximately 100 American-made TOW antitank missiles to Iran, seeing it as a chance to improve relations with Iran and to gain the release of hostages. Israel would send Iran some of their American-made TOW missiles. In exchange, the Iranians would release some, if not all, of the American hostages that they held. The U.S. would also send Israel replacement TOW missiles so that its arsenal would not be depleted. It is not entirely clear what was said during this discussion, as both Reagan and McFarlane have given varying accounts. However, soon after, the plan was put into motion. Iran, represented by Ghorbanifar, and Israel, represented by Kimche and Nimrodi, worked out the details of the plan.

Shipments Begin

On August 20, the first load of 96 missiles was sent to Iran from Israel, with Ghorbanifar and Khashoggi acting as financial intermediates. However, no release of hostages followed. According to Ghobanifar, there had been a mix-up, but the hostages would be released if more missiles were sent, which Iran would pay for. President Reagan signed off on the second shipment from Israel, which consisted of 408 TOW missiles. On September 15, the day after the shipment arrived in Iran, Benjamin Weir, an American hostage, was released. It was at this point that Lieutenant Colonel Oliver North, the “principal action officer” for the NSC’s Contra dealings, was brought into the Iran dealings when McFarlane put him in charge of working with Kimche to figure out the logistics of getting Weir from Lebanon to the U.S. Though the very few people in the U.S. aware of the plan were angry that only one hostage had been released in exchange for 500 TOWs, McFarlane and others recognized other benefits they stood to gain from the trade. Additionally, all of the money transfers were being conducted by independent intermediaries––like Ghorbanifar and Khashoggi—instead of governments, which allowed for a great deal of flexibility. They were also determined to secure the release of more hostages.

end quote.

Also see: http://www.brown.edu...heexpansion.php

So as you see this was a secret deal between individuals in the US and Zionist "Israeli" governments and an individual named Manucher Ghorbanifar who was an Iranian expatriate who was living in France (specifically the city of Nice, France) and said he (that is Manucher Ghorbanifar) was close to anti-Khomeini "moderate" factions in Iran (also remember the Saudi arms dealer Adnan Khashoggi). An expatriate is: "One who has taken up residence in a foreign country." or "One who has renounced one's native land." This Manucher Ghorbanifar individual was very shadowy and claimed to have links inside Iran to again people the West and Zionist "Israelis" viewed as "moderates" whom they wanted to court: as the West and "Israelis" believed these "moderates" were anti-Khomeini and would undue the Islamic Revolution of 1979 as soon as Imam Khomeini ra.gif passed away which Western analyst again thought was going to be very soon due to Imam Khomeini ra.gif's illness.

A crucial link on this Manucher Ghorbanifar individual: http://en.wikipedia....ehr_Ghorbanifar

Quote- Manucher Ghorbanifar (nickname "Gorba") is an expatriate Iranian arms dealer. He is best known as a middleman in the Iran-Contra Affair during the Ronald Reagan presidency.[1] He re-emerged in American politics during the lead-up to the 2003 invasion of Iraq during the first term of President George W. Bush as a back-channel intelligence source to certain Pentagon officials who desired regime change in Iran.[2]

...

Ghorbanifar home town: Nice, France

Ghorbanifar religion: Agnostic

...

French-Lebanese hostage crisis

Ghorbanifar has been suspected of being a former French DGSE informer, and allegedly accompanied Jean-Charles Marchiani, the right-hand man of former French Interior Minister Charles Pasqua, during his meetings with the deputy Iranian foreign minister to negotiate the release of the French hostages in Lebanon in the mid-1980s.[4]

end quote.

Picture of this Manucher Ghorbanifar, an Iranian exile who was living in France in the 1980s.

a427_manucher_ghorbanifar_2050081722-10719.jpg

Another individual involved in all this confusing, backdoor/shadowy dealings was a very wealthy, influential Saudi arms dealer (who still is alive today, just like Manucher Ghorbanifar is) named Adnan Khashoggi (he is mentioned in the Brown University articles on the Iran-Contra affair).

http://en.wikipedia....Adnan_Khashoggi

Quote- Adnan Khashoggi (Arabic: عدنان خاشقجي‎, IPA: [ʕædˈnæːn xæːˈʃuqdʒiː]; born 25 July 1935) is a Saudi Arabian arms-dealer and businessman. He is also noted for his engagements with high society in both the Occident and Arabic-speaking worlds, and for his involvement in the Iran–Contra and Lockheed bribery scandals[citation needed], and numerous other affairs. He was considered the richest man in the world in the 1980s.

...

Khashoggi was born in Mecca, the son of Muhammad Khashoggi, a medical doctor of Spanish, Basque and Turkish[1] ancestry who was King Abdel Aziz Al Saud's personal physician. The family name means spoonmaker (Kaşıkçı)[2] in Turkish. The family moved from the Iberian Peninsula and settled in Saudi Arabia. Adnan Khashoggi's sister Samira Khashoggi Fayed married Mohammed Al-Fayed and was the mother of Dodi Fayed.

Khashoggi was educated at Victoria College in Alexandria, Egypt, California State University, Chico, Ohio State University, and Stanford University in Palo Alto, California, USA. Khashoggi later left his studies in order to seek his fortune in business.

end quote.

Photo of Saudi arms dealer Adnan Khashoggi:

1101870119_400.jpg

In conclusion, all of this was individual to individual and was Western/Zionist circles trying to arm anti-Khomeini "moderate" factions within the Islamic Republic of Iran in this confusing period of the 1980s which saw not only Imam Khomeini ra.gif's illness but also the Iran-Iraq war (1980-1988) and also the situation of Western prisoners (i.e. "hostages") held by Hezbollah in Lebanon during the Lebanese civil war (1975-1990). As for Ronen Bergman he has no sources and is not to be taken seriously, much the same as Trita Parsi in his weak book that many scholars from all different points of view (anti-Zionists all the way to Zionist supporters) have questioned and refuted.

I also just found another interesting link which details how the Zionist "Israeli" arms industry was selling weapons (via different channels) to both Iran and Iraq to try to keep the war going longer and weaken both sides even more. Keep in mind the world of international arms dealing is very complex and shady; many times countries don't know the exact origin of the weapons they are buying they just deal with shady arms dealers like that Adnan Khashoggi Saudi arms dealer I mentioned earlier.

An interesting Hollywood movie that shows this is the 2005 American movie "Lord of War" starring American actor Nicholas Cage as a shadowy, very wealthy arms dealer around the world; Nicholas Cage's character in this film is based on a combination of many real life international arms dealers.

http://en.wikipedia....iki/Lord_of_War

Now the historical link I was speaking of: http://www.gwu.edu/~...SAEBB/NSAEBB82/

Quote- ...

Document 1: United States Embassy in Turkey Cable from Richard W. Boehm to the Department of State. "Back Up of Transshipment Cargos for Iraq," November 21, 1980.

Shortly after the beginning of the Iran-Iraq war, the U.S. embassy in Ankara reports that Turkish ports have a backlog of goods awaiting transshipment to Iraq, and that a substantial amount of Israeli goods transit Turkey for "Islamic belligerents," including Israeli chemical products for Iran. It remarks on "Israeli acumen" in selling to both Iran and Iraq.

end quote.

http://www.gwu.edu/~...BB82/iraq01.pdf A PDF file of this American intelligence document, point 5 of this document again states: "He admired Israeli business acumen in selling to both sides" (i.e. to both Iran and Saddam's Iraq).

The word "acumen" is defined as: "keen insight; shrewdness: remarkable acumen in business matters."

...

As to the issue of where the Islamic Republic of Iran obtained the majority of their weapons and supplies for the war against Saddam's Iraq (i.e. the Iran-Iraq war of 1980-1988). Iran was faced with economic sanctions from the imperialist United States of Amerikkka and the Amerikkkans did everything they could do to stop Iran from obtaining weapons and spare parts for the war of defensive against Saddam's Baathist invasion; see the imperialist US program called Operation Staunch that sought to blockade Iran and not allow them get weapons to defend themselves from the US puppet Saddam al-Baathi(la): http://en.wikipedia....eration_Staunch

Most sources tell us Iran received arms in this war period against Saddam(la) mostly from North Korea, Libya, Syria, and China. North Korea (on top of giving Iran support on their own) acted as a source for China to secretly sell weapons and supplies to Iran. A last note is North Korea was very important in giving Iran help in developing a strong ballistic missile program, insha'Allah. North Korea has been a very good ally standing with Iran.

http://www.abc.net.a.../24/2936414.htm N Korea seeks $75 trillion in compensation

Always remember Saddam al-Baathi was a imperialist US puppet, armed and supported by the US.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

is it pragmatic to get iranians to crowd chant "marj bar usa" and "marj bar israel" after jamat prayers, and do deals with the US and israel behind everyones backs?

Right after the revolution when the country was still in chaos and confusion (much more like Libya today) a global war in the body of Saddam was launched on Iran. Iran needed weapons to survive this war. 58 countries were supplying Saddam and of that 58 only 4 or 5 were supplying Iran. Now Iran had the hostages but was in need of weapons to ward off those 'Islamic' and foreign forces from its land. Was trading those hostages for weapons was bad? Does that somehow negate the moral stance of Islamic Republic? How? You'd have had a point if Islamic Republic made a habit of it and the transaction continued or that IR depended on continuation of that transaction. But we both know that it was a one time deal and Iran has held true to its 'marg bar Israel and Amreeka' slogan. You also have to know that prior to revolution Israel was Iran's major military partner in the region. And again, your label of hypocrite would have been well placed had the IR continued that relationship behind people's backs. But it didnt. And your opinion of IR on the issue is misplaced and skewed.

Im sure that muawiyyah and yazeed used the same arguments.

huh?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Advanced Member
^^ do you not find it hypocritical that the same government that kicked out the shah for his dealings with the "great shaytaan", "zionism" etc etc....did the same deals with the same people they were whipping the ever exciteable iranians into a frenzy over and aiming all their hate towards?

business with the "great shaytaan" west carried on as usual before the shah, and after the shah. the only things that changed were the names on the doors and how they dress. they still had dealings with israel. they still had dealings with the US.

if it was so "pragmatic", why was it a secret? why tell the nation to hate america and israel when you are doing dirty business with them yourself?

Bro MDM: Your posts are misleading and contain misinformation. It wasn't about the Shah 'dealing' with USA or Israel, the matter is much different than that. Shah in his view saw it as a beneficial relationship, thus they were allies. But, in reality many matters were anti-Iranian (if you think of it from a nationalistic view). Independence and growth in any field (manufacturing, industries) for the Iranians was prevented, ambitious people were silenced, oppressed or eliminated. The Shah being in power, was really just a 'check'. Shah himself, in his own view, he didn't think this, he thought he is bettering Iran as a country.

Second, you are completely ignoring all other events leading up to that time. USA, was playing games in Iraq and all around that region. What it was doing in the 70s in Iraq. Then on another side, putting Saddam in power essentially. Even in the late 80s...when Saddam was gassing Kurds, it was the USA that tried to hide it and pretend it wasn't going on yet still supporting Saddam (financially and militarily).

Now about the Contra-Affair:

-If Iran could have gotten it's weapons and supplies from many other countries, ask yourself why could they not get it? The USA was involved heavily in preventing Iran from acquiring it's supplies. Even though Iran did get supplies from other places, it was very difficult as they were actively being prevented.

-the Contra Affair authors say the US used supplies in a warehouse in Israel to save time in transferring, or appear more discreet. They only sent 2 plane loads.

This whole event was an incident, it's hardly enough to start claiming that they were suddenly "supported by USA and Israel".

ws

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Advanced Member

- i object to khomeini doing favours to "the great shaytaan"

- i object to the regime telling iranians americans and israelis are shaytaan

- i object to iran recieving weapons from israel

- i object to the money from these sales being used to destroy americas enemies

- i object to the hypocricy of ousting the shah for being a puppet of the west, then becoming a puppet of the west

The Iranians had to pay 3 or 4 times more to acquire those spare parts. Maybe that is why they are mad. :angry:

I don't think you can use this as an evidence that Iran were anyone puppets. If they were someone puppets they would probably have an easier time.

Also, if you see the video, the guy who testified in front of the US congress said that they felt proud to support rebels, fighting the enemies. Iran probably had nothing to do with supporting the rebels.

I am also fascinated by the idea that Reagen made a deal with the Ayatullah. Is this a well known fact? :huh:

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Banned

Right after the revolution when the country was still in chaos and confusion (much more like Libya today) a global war in the body of Saddam was launched on Iran. Iran needed weapons to survive this war. 58 countries were supplying Saddam and of that 58 only 4 or 5 were supplying Iran. Now Iran had the hostages but was in need of weapons to ward off those 'Islamic' and foreign forces from its land. Was trading those hostages for weapons was bad? Does that somehow negate the moral stance of Islamic Republic? How? You'd have had a point if Islamic Republic made a habit of it and the transaction continued or that IR depended on continuation of that transaction. But we both know that it was a one time deal and Iran has held true to its 'marg bar Israel and Amreeka' slogan. You also have to know that prior to revolution Israel was Iran's major military partner in the region. And again, your label of hypocrite would have been well placed had the IR continued that relationship behind people's backs. But it didnt. And your opinion of IR on the issue is misplaced and skewed.

i knew this was going to happen.

let me answer your post with a question.

you stir up the entire country into a tidal wave of hatred against the west, and the USA and israel in particular, to the point that they start chanting death to these countries after every jamat prayers till today.

is it right to cut a deal, in secret, with the same people you are getting the whole country to hate?

if they are such a shaytaan, why do business with them at all?

if they are your lifeline "56 countries supplied weapons to iraq 4 or 5 supplied to iran" then why go through so much effort to tell everyone to hate them? why not be honest?

Bro MDM: Your posts are misleading and contain misinformation. It wasn't about the Shah 'dealing' with USA or Israel, the matter is much different than that. Shah in his view saw it as a beneficial relationship, thus they were allies. But, in reality many matters were anti-Iranian (if you think of it from a nationalistic view). Independence and growth in any field (manufacturing, industries) for the Iranians was prevented, ambitious people were silenced, oppressed or eliminated. The Shah being in power, was really just a 'check'. Shah himself, in his own view, he didn't think this, he thought he is bettering Iran as a country.

Bro Mujahid i will ask you a similar question.

khomeini worked with ronald reagen to ensure reagens presidency, im sorry but that is the absolute definition of two allies working together. i cant believe people are even bothering to deny this. you think if the shah of iran was in the exact same position as khomeini, he would do anything different? what is the difference between the shah and khomeini, except the shah did it openly while wearing a suit, and khomeini did it in secret wearing a turban?

Second, you are completely ignoring all other events leading up to that time. USA, was playing games in Iraq and all around that region. What it was doing in the 70s in Iraq. Then on another side, putting Saddam in power essentially. Even in the late 80s...when Saddam was gassing Kurds, it was the USA that tried to hide it and pretend it wasn't going on yet still supporting Saddam (financially and militarily).

iran did not know this?

iran did business with america anyway? knowing america was supporting their enemy, and america had no good intentions towards iran?

Now about the Contra-Affair:

-If Iran could have gotten it's weapons and supplies from many other countries, ask yourself why could they not get it? The USA was involved heavily in preventing Iran from acquiring it's supplies. Even though Iran did get supplies from other places, it was very difficult as they were actively being prevented.

-the Contra Affair authors say the US used supplies in a warehouse in Israel to save time in transferring, or appear more discreet. They only sent 2 plane loads.

This whole event was an incident, it's hardly enough to start claiming that they were suddenly "supported by USA and Israel".

ws

so, you are saying what? it is wrong to say khomeini did a deal with "the great shaytaan" like a total hypocrite?

I don't think you can use this as an evidence that Iran were anyone puppets. If they were someone puppets they would probably have an easier time.

of course they were puppets. what else can you call them? they were manipulated by the americans to buy weapons, at the same time america was supplying their enemies, so reagen could become president and the money that the iranians gave america, america could use to topple the nicaraguan government.

does the fact that they were pawns in a game aimed soley towards helping america make them puppets?

Also, if you see the video, the guy who testified in front of the US congress said that they felt proud to support rebels, fighting the enemies. Iran probably had nothing to do with supporting the rebels.

so iran did not know the full picture? so they were simply manipulated? meaning they were puppets of america?

I am also fascinated by the idea that Reagen made a deal with the Ayatullah. Is this a well known fact? :huh:

lol yeah, how many people do you think know this?

if you think i am lying, look at the date/ time the hostages were released, and the date/ time that reagen was inaugurated. put 2 and 2 together.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

i knew this was going to happen.

let me answer your post with a question.

you stir up the entire country into a tidal wave of hatred against the west, and the USA and israel in particular, to the point that they start chanting death to these countries after every jamat prayers till today.

is it right to cut a deal, in secret, with the same people you are getting the whole country to hate?

if they are such a shaytaan, why do business with them at all?

if they are your lifeline "56 countries supplied weapons to iraq 4 or 5 supplied to iran" then why go through so much effort to tell everyone to hate them? why not be honest?

answer to your question- Ayatollah Khomenei (ra) did not stir anti-American hate in Iran. Unjust and tyrannical US policies did. They enraged Iranians based on and due to the very basic human sense of justice. Indians were also enraged at one point in time, so were South Africans, or the Chinese. Not only their resources were usurped, but also their cultures and the fundamental values of those cultures were attacked. I see the role of the late Ayatollah (ra) similar to that of Gandhi or Mao or Nassir, or Prophet (SAW).... only as he who saw things clearer and conveyed their wisdom/vision to their brothers. So it was not about personal hate but collective justice. Now if Iran, at a time of imposed global war along with chaos of a MASSIVE revolution, traded hostages with he who was ready to pay the most is a sign of rationality and not hypocrisy. They eventually had to return the hostages and a deal was bound to be struck and why not take what helps the most? Its only rational, logical, reasonable, and sound to choose such a choice. This 'deal' did not compromise that collective justice. It defended and preserved it. Islamic Republic is the living proof of his vision. Being the ONLY country in the region to protect its sovereignty and one of the very very few in the entire world to have an independent foreign policy along with the world's only functioning Islamic bureaucracy I dont know what else one needs to see that Ayatollah Khomenei (ra) was not in the business of 'dealing' but freedom and humanity.

I am also fascinated by the idea that Reagen made a deal with the Ayatullah. Is this a well known fact? :huh:

Carter had lost Iran. He was in no position to give any more. Raegan however came to power only because of a weak Carter. He was in a far better position to give Iran the most than Carter. Like they say trade makes everyone better off.

Implicating IRI with hypocrisy on this is as irrational as implicating Hamas with the same for trading with Netenyahu. While in reality it was a simple matter of prudence of the market place. The diff is that we see and understand Hamas and we dont see and imagine things about IRI because it happened long before we knew politics.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Advanced Member

It seems like you are doing the same thing you are blaming Iran for. Joining hands with the Salafs at every opportunity to bash the Marjayiat system. Brother you are much smarter then this. Read his interviews and documenteries.

i knew this was going to happen.

let me answer your post with a question.

you stir up the entire country into a tidal wave of hatred against the west, and the USA and israel in particular, to the point that they start chanting death to these countries after every jamat prayers till today.

Lets move this scenario to more current times.

Ayatollah Sistani has no soft corner for the US and allied forces who invaded Iraq. Infact he rebukes them and refuses to even meet with them yet when he needed surgery guess where he decides to go? UK...

is it right to cut a deal, in secret, with the same people you are getting the whole country to hate?

if they are such a shaytaan, why do business with them at all?

if they are your lifeline "56 countries supplied weapons to iraq 4 or 5 supplied to iran" then why go through so much effort to tell everyone to hate them? why not be honest?

Ok lets be honest.If you are ever in Saudi would you refuse treatment just cause the person operating on you is a Bakri?

Its called survival. Iran needed the weapons in order to survive so it cut a deal. Its got nothing to do with bending your ideals or any fancy label you wish to attach to them.

lol yeah, how many people do you think know this?

if you think i am lying, look at the date/ time the hostages were released, and the date/ time that reagen was inaugurated. put 2 and 2 together.

That is not true. Carter allowed Shah a place in the US which was seen as an insult to the Iranians. They wanted to hit him back where it hurts so they did not release the hostages on his watch.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Advanced Member

so iran did not know the full picture? so they were simply manipulated? meaning they were puppets of america?

lol yeah, how many people do you think know this?

if you think i am lying, look at the date/ time the hostages were released, and the date/ time that reagen was inaugurated. put 2 and 2 together.

I am not sure how accurate the wikipedia is but it is stated on the Iran Contra page that

Michael Ledeen, a consultant of National Security Adviser Robert McFarlane, requested assistance from Israeli Prime Minister Shimon Peres for help in the sale of arms to Iran.[26][27] At the time, Iran was in the midst of the Iran–Iraq War and could find few Western nations willing to supply it with weapons.[28] The idea behind the plan was for Israel to ship weapons through an intermediary (identified as Manucher Ghorbanifar)[2] to a supposedly moderate, politically influential Iranian group opposed to the Ayatollah Khomeni;[29]

According to Reagan, these Iranians sought to establish a quiet relationship with the United States, before establishing formal relationships upon the death of the Ayatollah.[29] In Reagan's account, McFarlane told Reagan that the Iranians, to demonstrate their seriousness, offered to persuade the Hezbollah terrorists to release the seven U.S. hostages.[30]

Although Reagan claims that the arms sales were to a "moderate" faction of Iranians, the Walsh Iran/Contra Report states that the arms sales were "to Iran" itself,[32] which was under the control of the Ayatollah.
In 1981, The CIA began selling arms to Iran at high prices, using the profits to arm the Contras fighting the Sandinista government in Nicaragua. President Reagan vows that the Sandinistas will be "pressured" until "they say ‘uncle.’" The US also sends military advisors to El Salvador.[36]

In July 1985, Israel sent American-made BGM-71 TOW antitank missiles to Iran through an arms dealer named Manucher Ghorbanifar, a friend of Iran's Prime Minister, Mir-Hossein Mousavi.[citation needed] Hours after receiving the weapons, the Islamic fundamentalist group Islamic Jihad (that later evolved into Hezbollah) released one hostage they had been holding in Lebanon, the Reverend Benjamin Weir.[26]

The only thing missing here is how the Iranians viewed the Iran Contra affair. It is not even mentioned anywhere..?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Advanced Member
Bro Mujahid i will ask you a similar question.

khomeini worked with ronald reagen to ensure reagens presidency, im sorry but that is the absolute definition of two allies working together. i cant believe people are even bothering to deny this. you think if the shah of iran was in the exact same position as khomeini, he would do anything different? what is the difference between the shah and khomeini, except the shah did it openly while wearing a suit, and khomeini did it in secret wearing a turban?

You are implying that Khomeini desired to have Ronald Reagon to become president. Obviously that is silly. The most probable situation was that the US used their bargaining chips, and so did Iran. Both made their demands against each other, Iran wasn't going to do anything to the hostages anyways, and risk full military action by US. The US knew Iran had a hard time getting supplies, so essentially Iran would have to give in to US demands.

You said "im sorry but that is the absolute definition of two allies working together." Seriously? Allies are two parties working together, not just for mutual benefits but also because they are friendly nations. In this example, you have the USA strangling Iran's capabilities of getting military supplies, Iran on the other hand used a hostage fiasco to negotiate some sort of gain. The US was still in fact against Iran and attacked Iran.

so, you are saying what? it is wrong to say khomeini did a deal with "the great shaytaan" like a total hypocrite?

The problem is you're trying to create a false picture that they were "allies" in your own words. This is not a deal that two friends or allies make. It is political and war time tactic. Both sides are bending each others' arms to get a gain out of it. So no, this is not a definition or qualification for hypocrisy.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Advanced Member

The irony is that Iran should thank the US, otherwise they were on the verge of defeat to the hands of Saddam.

Iran had no choice but to purchase weapons from the US based on survival. If Iran was 'winning' the war it wouldn't have thought twice about making these purchases.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Should Hamas thank Israel?

or should Hezbollah thank Israel as well?

Hamas has a history of being backed by the Zionist "Israelis" in the 1980s against the then stronger (more feared lol) PLO/Fatah of Yasser Arafat (who back then was "terrorist #1" in the Zio-Amerikkkan mainstream media). http://www.globalres...es/ZER403A.html

Hamas is also the Palestinian branch of the "Muslim Brotherhood", that was founded in Egypt in the 1920s by British intelligence.

And in modern times the Zionists and Amerikkkans have created al-CIA-duh affiliated groups in Gaza to try to destabilize Hamas, for example the most famous was back in the 2009 with the CIA and Mossad funded and created al-CIA-duh in Gaza grouping that called itself "Jund Ansar Allah".

From the Qatari monarchy fools at "al-Jazeera", note Qatari monarchy are modern day slave owners with foreign migrant workers from east Asia (Indonesia, Bangladesh, etc) abused as slaves.

Edited by Basra
Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Advanced Member
note Qatari monarchy are modern day slave owners with foreign migrant workers from east Asia (Indonesia, Bangladesh, etc) abused as slaves.

You obviously don't know the definition of slave. You can argue about the conditions of the work environment but no on is forcing these migrant workers to come to Qatar.

As a matter of fact, they all make 10 times more money and support their families back home, and keep coming back year after year.

Edited by Ugly Jinn
Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Veteran Member

You obviously don't know the definition of slave. You can argue about the conditions of the work environment but no on is forcing these migrant workers to come to Qatar.

As a matter of fact, they all make 10 times more money and support their families back home, and keep coming back year after year.

sohh, yes, after being coercively or being happily doing "it", they send

money back to support their family who live miserably because the privilaged

people in those country never think how to improve their livin

ohh, yes, they send money to their family

o

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Why do people have a habit of straying away from the topic...lol

parallels my friend.

The notion that Iran should be thankful to Israel is based on the very

same logic as Hamas or Hezbollah being thankful to Israel. All were better

off after transactions with their enemy. I am very much on the topic.

I read somewhere that said politics is war without bloodshed and war politics with bloodshed. The Contra affairs, the Hezbollah deal, or the Shalit deal were fat political scores for Iran and its allies.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Advanced Member
sohh, yes, after being coercively or being happily doing "it", they send

money back to support their family who live miserably because the privilaged

people in those country never think how to improve their livin

ohh, yes, they send money to their family

Let me put it this way, people from South Asia are still 'dying' to work in the Middle East, regardless of certain issues. There is no slavery here, they can stay put in their own country if they don't like certain aspects of working in the Middle East.

parallels my friend.

The notion that Iran should be thankful to Israel is based on the very

same logic as Hamas or Hezbollah being thankful to Israel. All were better

off after transactions with their enemy. I am very much on the topic.

I read somewhere that said politics is war without bloodshed and war politics with bloodshed. The Contra affairs, the Hezbollah deal, or the Shalit deal were fat political scores for Iran and its allies.

It's not a parallel, it's a deflection from the specific topic on hand. Every war is unique, clamping them together is erroneous.

Edited by Ugly Jinn
Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Banned

ok this will take a long time to answer all the points raised by members to me in this thread; i will reply in bits and pieces insha'Allah tonight and over the weekend, i will have to dig out some old resources.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You are posting as a guest. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

×
×
  • Create New...