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
Ruq

Cia, Khomeini, & Secrets Of The Islamic Revolution

Rate this topic

Recommended Posts

 

To say someone is a troll is not a threat. Trolls are those who deliberately spread misinformation even after they know it to be untrue. It is simply a statement regarding their behavior. 

 

Maybe try dictionary.com 

 

threat·en
ˈTHretn/
verb
 
  1. state one's intention to take hostile action against someone in retribution for something done or not done.
    "the unions threatened a general strike"
    synonyms: menaceintimidatebrowbeatbullyblackmailterrorize
    make/issue threats to
    "how dare you threaten me?"
    • express one's intention to harm or kill (someone).
      "the men threatened the customers with a handgun"
    • cause (someone or something) to be vulnerable or at risk; endanger.
      "a broken finger threatened his career"
      synonyms: endanger, be a danger to, be a threat to, jeopardizeimperil, put at risk, put in jeopardy
      "these events could threaten the stability of Europe"

 

 

 

Better. You are welcome to consider me anything you like, i however wouldn't call sharing what i have read a mistake on grounds of morality or authenticity. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Yes truth finds its way but how many ppl get misguided and never find the truth bcoz of such and other propaganda.

U read smthg somewhere,didn't research it and post it here...that's spreading cuz it's a public forum.

 

 

UGHHH It is NOT propaganda. I have shared what i have read which happened to hurt your sentiments and was given a name. EVERYONE IS MOST WELCOME TO MAKE WHATEVER THEY WANT TO OF IT. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

This is not anti Iranian. It's anti USA to be accurate. 

 

I have read these things somewhere, which you might call a salafi website but this woman here is not a salafi , i do not see/understand her interest in writing this book. Facts become relative when it's two/three sets of them out there. You can relax since i am not the one who came up with the conspiracy it's already out there.

i looked up this weird theory of khomaini-sadr, i found it only in salafi/saudi sites. A book called the miserable revolution is attributed to musa sadr.

 

if this claim is true, shia sites would report it because the disagreement and arguments between shia groups are all public and pretty much heated topics.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Well, as long the relations between KSA and the USA are friendly and as long the IRI is accused of being anti-Zionist and because of that is isolated and condemned by the world-community I believe it's all good. 

KSA is trying to white-wash itself by blaming Iran for the things they are guilty of themselves (KSA). Which is playing an active role in the Zionist/Imperialist agenda.

Edited by Iskandarovich

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Anyone who is thinking to bring pop corn hush hush. Nothing to watch here. :P

 

Hey guys, i am sorry if what i posted made some of you upset but that's just information i read somewhere and it seemed relevant. It wasn't any sort of propaganda or trolling. 

 

I am always open to learning new things, no matter how contradictory or controversial they sound, i usually base my sources on controversies which i screen for truths. I didn't mean offence. 

 

P.S: Illuminati are real, Vaccines cause more sickness than prevention. None of that is a conspiracy.

Edited by FromShiaSunniBrotherhood

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Friends, I suggest we start anew.

 

Dear brother FromShiaSunniBrotherhood:

 

I do not think you had bad intentions. I am basing this on your other topic which shows that you have respect for Hezb.

 

I am more inclined to believe that you have been misled by certain groups or individuals to have certain incorrect beliefs about the Islamic revolution and its leader.

 

 

 

 

Let's put aside the "Imam Khomeini is Indian," issue, for a moment. I mean, it's not true; other members explained this matter. But let's put it aside for a moment, because it's irrelevant. Even if he were Indian, that doesn't make the Islamic revolution a CIA plot. These are completely irrelevant and fabricated issues which counter-revolutionary forces keep hammering over and over again, because that's all they got.

 

Ignore it for a moment. We can come back to that later if necessary.

 

 

The question at hand is: was the CIA involved in the Islamic revolution?

 

 

It doesn't take extensive research to get a substantive answer to this question. It just takes a little bit of info and some application of reason.

 

Firstly: Was it in the interests of the US government to overthrow the previous regime?

Secondly: If indeed this was the case, how would the US government go about doing this? (i.e. would they have created a popular revolution)

Thirdly: The proof is in the pudding. If the CIA was so into doing this, can we name some ways in which they benefited from the revolution (if any)?

 

 

 

This is predicated on the assumption that a superpower or empire acts in accordance to its interests of perceived interests, rather than willy nilly. (I know the Shahis think the Americans did this just because they couldn't bear to see Iran so great and mighty...we will get to that in a moment).

 

Answering the first question: Iranian oil was all controlled by American and British companies. US arms were flowing into Iran like the river (and Iranian money into the US arms industry, likewise). Wesrern big business was making a lot of money by setting up shop in Iran. Iran had no industries to speak of, aside from crude oil, and had little interest in investing in such. It was a model dependent country; a model satellite state. Content in its position and deluded in thinking itself in grandiose terms.

 

The proponents of the "Khomeini CIA" theory say that towards the end, the Shah was doing "gholdor bazi" towards the US and taking strongman stances. I myself have seen no actual examples of this. However... even if it were true...

 

The second question: It is not uncommon for a previously coddled leader to fall out of favor with US government. It happened many times. Let's take the example of South Vietnam. They were ruled by a guy named Diem, who everyone hated. He wasn't performing his duty the way the US liked, so they had him assassinated. Very simple. There was no need for inventing a popular revolt which takes a lot of resources and knowledge about the populace.

 

Hell, the Shah's father was exiled by the British when he fell out of favor. It was not an uncommon thing to happen amongst puppet rulers.

 

Even if the conditions were present for the US to wan to oust the Shah, a popular revolution was the least practical way. Think about it: the Islamic revolution in Iran was the most popular revolution in history. 99 percent of the population voted for the establishment of an Islamic Republic. A third of the population marched on Tehran, during one of the major anti-regime protests. A third of the country's population, not Tehran's!!! The revolution and its leader was incredibly popular. Even the most successfu velvet revolution of nowadays, cannot produce such results. (And back then, velvet revolutions were not really in style yet anyway).

 

Of course, toward the end when the writing was on the wall, the US wanted reforms to be done in Iran... but this was to AVOID a revolution and to avoid the end of the regime. This is why they threw their support behind the provisional government of Shapour Bakhtiari.

 

 

 

Now the last question: did they benefit?

 

Did they benefit from losing control of Iranian oil?

Did they benefit from the creation of an independent country which defies them politically, militarily, and economically?

Did they benefit from losing their "regional policeman?"

 

And:

 

Why would they provide so much assistance -- in the form of chemical weapons, AWACS, satellite imagery, etc. -- to Saddam, when he attacked Iran?

 

Why would they bombard the world populace with propaganda against Imam Khomeini (who, in 1978 was a figure who had captivated the world... and by 1979 became a scourge on the level of Stalin)?

 

Why would they implement sanctions on this country whose government they supposedly hand picked?

 

And so on...

 

Just ask yourself these questions and the answer becomes bleeding obvious.

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.


×
×
  • Create New...