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
Sign in to follow this  
Wahhabism4All

Iran-contra Affair

Rate this topic

Recommended Posts

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.

Nice to see you defend modern day slavery, I'm sure you also support Western mega corporation sweatshops as some alleged "blessing" for the so-called "Third World" as well!

sweatshop-cartoon-2.gif

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

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

Ok. so you want Iran to be thankful for receiving weapons that helped them fight an imposed war by the very same people. right?

Now, did they receive those weapons for free? or they paid something in return? was it a transaction or an act of charity. Because you'd have a point if and only if it was an act of charity by USrael. Which was not the case.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Nice to see you defend modern day slavery, I'm sure you also support Western mega corporation sweatshops as some alleged "blessing" for the so-called "Third World" as well!

Slaves don't get paid man. You can make arguments about the conditions but calling it slavery is false.

Ok. so you want Iran to be thankful for receiving weapons that helped them fight an imposed war by the very same people. right? Now, did they receive those weapons for free? or they paid something in return? was it a transaction or an act of charity. Because you'd have a point if and only if it was an act of charity by USrael. Which was not the case.

US charges weapons for allies all the time, that's not the point.

The point is that without US weapons Iran was in 'big trouble' (putting it mildly).

Edited by Ugly Jinn

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
... and without ME Oil US would simply have collapsed. Americans should send a thank you note to ME countries.

Again, why are you straying away from the specific topic with irrelevant examples? This is a very weak method of debating which exposes the lack of substance for a rebuttal.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Again, why are you straying away from the specific topic with irrelevant examples? This is a very weak method of debating which exposes the lack of substance for a rebuttal.

You call this debating? The very premise of your argument is faulty.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

At least 26 countries sold weapons to both sides of the gulf war.....isn't war profiteering lovely. http://articles.lati...8000_1_gulf-war

In his book Voltaire's [Edited Out]s, John Ralston Saul puts the figure at 56 or 58 I believe. He also reveals that armaments industry is the biggest industry of the industrialized countries. Its the core industry of each G8 state with the exception of Japan. Come to think of it- everything from our highways to internet to gps systems to recycling have their origins in arms industry. They account for 85% of global arms production. Its far bigger than oil industry or automobile industry. Its an estimated 1/3 of the industrialized economies.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Slaves don't get paid man. You can make arguments about the conditions but calling it slavery is false.

US charges weapons for allies all the time, that's not the point.

The point is that without US weapons Iran was in 'big trouble' (putting it mildly).

Okay so in most instances it might not be literally the exact same thing as slavery (although it is in some cases because sometimes people in these Western corporation's sweatshops actually don't get paid and are held as chattel in cages at the end of their 20 or so hour work days, etc), but being "paid" pennies to work upwards of 20 hours a day is just about the exact same thing as slavery. And don't even try to resort to pathetic excuses like "well if they didn't have these jobs, they'd starve!" It sounds exactly like what a slave owner in the Amerikkkan South would've said back in the day to try to excuse his behavior "if we didn't bring the Africans here as slaves, they'd be starving in the African jungle!" (said as the slave owner would sip his mint julep drink served to him by his abused/whipped African slave in the Amerikkkan past).

Also the Islamic Republic of Iran would not have been in "deep trouble" without the Amerikkkan weapons, Iran received significantly more support and weapons from Syria, Libya, China, and North Korea (which sold Iran weapons and supplies on their own and also acted as a source for plausible deniability for China to sell and send weapons, supplies, and support to Iran).

Edited by Basra

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

ok i want to start this.

the claim has been made that gorbanifar had no links to khomeini, i.e. the americans were trading arms (to help the iranians fight iraqis) to people opposed to khomeini. the deal was, khomeini would delay the release of hostages in return for the weapons.

how can gorbanifar had no links to khomeini, if khomeini delaying the release of the hostages was one of the terms of the sale?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

ok i want to start this.

the claim has been made that gorbanifar had no links to khomeini, i.e. the americans were trading arms (to help the iranians fight iraqis) to people opposed to khomeini. the deal was, khomeini would delay the release of hostages in return for the weapons.

how can gorbanifar had no links to khomeini, if khomeini delaying the release of the hostages was one of the terms of the sale?

I have never seen any information or sources linking Manucher Ghorbanifar (who was in and I believe still is in France) to Imam Khomeini (ra). From what I've seen and read, Imam Khomeini (ra) simply delayed releasing the prisoners/spies (whom the Iranian people captured at the den of Shaytan, aka the imperialist Amerikkkan spy embassy in Tehran that the US formerly had under their puppet the Shah before the 1979 Islamic Revolution in Iran) as another slap in the face of Jimmy Carter! Basically Imam Sayyed Ruhollah Khomeini (ra) was just getting in one last jab at Carter (as Carter had supported the Shah and refused to give the Shah back to Iran so the Iranian people could enact justice against him i.e. execution for the Shah's crimes) so Imam Khomeini (ra) waited until Carter was no longer the "President" of Amerikkka and released the prisoners the first second that Reagan was then the new Amerikkkan "President". Meaning Carter never got the prisoners released on his watch lol!

Edited by Basra

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

^^ so you believe that it is a complete coincidence, that khomeini released the hostages at the exact moment which would be the most beneficial for reagen.....?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

^^ so you believe that it is a complete coincidence, that khomeini released the hostages at the exact moment which would be the most beneficial for reagen.....?

I think your confused, the prisoner release that the Iran-Contra affair of the mid 1980s deals with is not the release of US prisoners in Iran; from when Iranian Revolutionaries captured these US spies in the US embassy the US controlled Shah allowed in Tehran during his dictatorship/monarchy. The prisoners being released in the Iran-Contra affair (for Iran to be allowed to purchase some US weapons, specifically TOW anti-tank missiles) were held by Iranian backed Hezbollah in Lebanon during the Lebanese civil war of 1975-1990 and were mainly Amerikkkans and French.

For example one of these Amerikkkan prisoners was a guy named Benjamin Weir in Lebanon http://en.wikipedia....i/Benjamin_Weir who was captured by a Shi'a Muslim armed group in Lebanon calling itself Islamic Jihad Organization (http://en.wikipedia....ad_Organization). There is a debate whether Islamic Jihad was simply a nom de guerre (or war name) for Hezbollah or whether it was a separate Shi'a Muslim group in Lebanon that then joined with Hezbollah. Islamic Jihad's leader is suppose to have been Shaheed Hajj Imad Mughniyah (ra). Islamic Jihad Organization (backed by Iran) in Lebanon particularly targeted Amerikkkans and French in Lebanon (again during the Lebanese civil war still) in the 1980s for capture as it was the imperialist US regime and France that were among those most heavily arming Saddam's Iraqi invasion of Iran.

Edited by Basra

Share this post


Link to post
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.

Sign in to follow this  

×
×
  • Create New...