People are extremely bitter about it, but don’t understand it*

[renewable]

Re: People are extremely bitter about it, but don’t understand it*

The U.S. and Britain gave Iran real democracy, not an Islamic Republic where clerics conduct a terror regime. No-one was stoned-to-death under the so-called, "tyranny of the Shah."

http://www.fas.org/irp/world/iran/savak/index.html

Shah-an-Shah [King of Kings] Mohammad Reza Pahlevi was restored to the Peacock Throne of Iran with the assistance of the Central Intelligence Agency in 1953. CIA mounted a coup against the left-leaning government of Dr. Mohammad Mossadeq, which had planned to nationalize Iran's oil industry. CIA subsequently provided organizational and and training assistance for the establishment of an intelligence organization for the Shah. With training focused on domestic security and interrogation, the primary purpose of the intelligence unit, headed by General Teymur Bakhtiar, was to eliminate threats to Shah.

Over the years, SAVAK became a law unto itself, having legal authority to arrest and detain suspected persons indefinitely. SAVAK operated its own prisons in Tehran (the Komiteh and Evin facilities) and, many suspected, throughout the country as well. SAVAK's torture methods included electric shock, whipping, beating, inserting brokon glass and pouring boiling water into the rectum, tying weights to the testicles, and the extraction of teeth and nails. Many of these activities were carried out without any institutional checks.

http://www.time.com/time/magazine/ar...#ixzz16ztT2pjU

The 5,000-member Iranian secret police force SAVAK (a contraction of the Farsi words for security and information organization) has long been Iran's most hated and feared institution. With virtually unlimited powers to arrest and interrogate, SAVAK has tortured and murdered thousands of the Shah's opponents

[renewable]

Re: People are extremely bitter about it, but don’t understand it*

http://www.democracynow.org/2008/3/3...the_us_iranian

Just very briefly, so we placed the Shah back on his peacock throne. The Shah ruled with increasing repression for twenty-five years. His repression set off the explosion of the late 1970s, what we call the Islamic Revolution. That revolution brought to power a clique of fanatically anti-American mullahs. That revolution also inspired radicals in other countries, like next-door Afghanistan, where the Taliban came to power and gave shelter to al-Qaeda with results we all know. That instability in Iran that followed that revolution also led Iran’s great enemy next door, Saddam Hussein, to invade Iran. That not only set off an eight-year war between Iran and Iraq, but it also brought the United States into its death embrace with Saddam. We were the military allies of Saddam during the Iran-Iraq War, and we were supplying Saddam with military intelligence, with Bell helicopters that he used to spray gas on Iranian positions. President Reagan sent a special envoy twice to Baghdad to negotiate with Saddam and ask him how we could help him. And, of course, that envoy was Donald Rumsfeld. So that instability set off by that revolution also led the United States into the spiral in Iraq that brought us to the point where we are now.

That revolution in Iran also spooked the Soviets. They were terrified that there would be copycat fundamentalist revolutions all along their southern flank. And to prevent that, they invaded Afghanistan. That brought the United States into its position in Afghanistan, where we brought Osama bin Laden there, we trained all these tens of thousands of jihadis in how to kill infidels, which they later became the Taliban. We later became the infidels they wanted to kill.

http://www.guardian.co.uk/uk/2005/ju...y7.development

Bin Laden was, though, a product of a monumental miscalculation by western security agencies. Throughout the 80s he was armed by the CIA and funded by the Saudis to wage jihad against the Russian occupation of Afghanistan. Al-Qaida, literally "the database", was originally the computer file of the thousands of mujahideen who were recruited and trained with help from the CIA to defeat the Russians. Inexplicably, and with disastrous consequences, it never appears to have occurred to Washington that once Russia was out of the way, Bin Laden's organisation would turn its attention to the west.

[Starving Steve]

Re: People are extremely bitter about it, but don’t understand it*

Does the concept of "separation of religion from the state" mean anything to the Islamic-revolutionaries now destroying Iran? Does the concept of "limited government" mean anything to the Islamic-revolutionaries now ruling from Tehran? Does the concept of "individual privacy and individual freedom of speech" mean anything to the Islamists in Tehran? Does the concept of liberty mean anything to you? What is a human-life worth to you? What about the protection of the rights of minorities? How do you treat your Jewish population--- or have they vanished? How do you treat athiests? How do you treat homo-sexuals? How do you treat people with new ideas? How do you treat critical-thinkers? How do you treat protestors? How do you treat women?

Did you Islamic-revolutionaries learn anything about democracy at UC Berkeley? What are some basic human-rights in your Islamic-Republic of Iran? Does your Islamic Republic of Iran have an obligation to this world? to America? to UC Berkeley? to the Western World? to Isreal?

Spell all of this out to me because I am still learning........

[renewable]

Re: People are extremely bitter about it, but don’t understand it*

Spell all of this out to me because I am still learning........

Well, here's how the UK & US first got involved in the process that led to the current 'Islamic-revolutionaries now destroying Iran' getting into power. It's ironic that it all started with BP:

STEPHEN KINZER: What happened was that the first half of the twentieth century, Americans had a super good image in Iran. The only Americans there were doctors and school teachers and people who really were selflessly devoting themselves to Iranians. Meanwhile, the British and the Russians and the French and other colonial powers were ripping Iran apart and stealing and looting everything of value there. So they, people in Iran, had a very high, exalted opinion of the United States, perfect country, the ideal country. And the words of Franklin Roosevelt in all his radio speeches during the Second World War also had a big impact on Iranians. And, of course, there was a big World War II conference in Tehran that just focused Iranians on the ideals of freedom that the Allied powers said they were fighting for.

So in the period after World War II, Iranian nationalism came to focus on one great cause. At the beginning of the twentieth century, as a result of a corrupt deal with the old dying monarchy, one British company, owned mainly by the British government, had taken control of the entire Iranian oil industry.

AMY GOODMAN: The company?

STEPHEN KINZER: So, this one company had the exclusive rights to extract, refine, ship, and sell Iranian oil. And they paid Iran a very tiny amount. But essentially, the entire Iranian oil resource was owned by a company based in England and owned mainly by the British government.

AMY GOODMAN: Called British Petroleum?

STEPHEN KINZER: That was Anglo-Iranian Petroleum, later to become British Petroleum and BP.

AMY GOODMAN: So how did the US get involved? You’re talking about this special relationship between Britain and Iran. Why the United States?

STEPHEN KINZER: The British tried all sorts of things to bring Mosaddegh down. They imposed a crushing economic embargo on Iran. They required all their oil technicians to leave. Many of them wanted to stay in Iran and work for the nationalized company. The British wouldn’t allow this. So, since they had been very careful not to train anyone how to run the oil refinery, any Iranians, that was the end of the possibility of oil refining. Just in case the Iranians could figure out how to extract any oil, the British imposed a naval embargo around the port, where oil is exported from in Iran. The British took Mosaddegh to the United Nations, they took him to the World Court, both unsuccessfully. The British were arguing that the Iranian oil industry was their private property and that Mosaddegh had stolen it from them. That was their complaint, but they failed to get any redress in international fora.

So then the British decided they would have to overthrow Mosaddegh, and they started a plot to do that. But Mosaddegh figured out what was happening, and he did the only thing he could have done to protect himself: he closed the British embassy. He sent home all the British diplomats. And among those diplomats were, of course, all the spies and the secret agents that were arranging the coup. So then, the only thing that Prime Minister Churchill could think of to do was to ask Harry Truman, the American president, to do this job for us: Can you please overthrow Mosaddegh, because we don’t have anyone in Iran now that can do it? And Truman said no. Truman believed that the CIA could be a covert action and intelligence-gathering agency, but he never wanted it to get involved in overthrowing governments. So that was the end of the line for Britain, until there was regime change in the United States.

We had the election of 1952. Dwight Eisenhower took office. John Foster Dulles became his secretary of state. And Dulles had spent his whole adult life working as a lawyer for giant international corporations. And the idea that a country should be able to get away with nationalizing such a big company, such a big corporate resource, was, as Dulles very well understood, a great threat to the system that he had been representing all his life, the system of multinational enterprise. And he realized that it was in the interest of the United States, as he saw them, to make sure that no such example could be set. So the new administration, the Eisenhower administration, reversed the policy of the Truman administration. They agreed to send a CIA agent, Kermit Roosevelt, to Iran in the summer of 1953. And that’s the story that I tell in my book.

It just took Kermit Roosevelt three weeks in August of 1953—

AMY GOODMAN: With a bag of money.

STEPHEN KINZER: Bag of money and a few other very interesting resources. He was a real-life James Bond. This guy was a real intrepid secret agent, and the story is just amazing how he did this. But it’s really an object lesson in how easy it is for a rich and powerful country to throw a poor and weak country into chaos. So at the end of August 1953, Mosaddegh was overthrown. At the moment, that seemed like a great success. So we got rid of a guy that we didn’t like, and we replaced him with someone else, the Shah, who would do anything we wanted. It seemed like the perfect ending.

[GRG55]

Re: People are extremely bitter about it, but don’t understand it*

What is the hard evidence that 9/11 was not caused by Islamic militants?

You have every right to be skeptical of anything to-day. But you have to have solid evidence to re-write the history of 9/11. What is the solid evidence that you have to offer here? And conspiracy theories are not solid evidence.

I am not a conspiracy theorist, and I don't think the history of 9/11 needs to be "rewritten". But I also think that history is incomplete.

There's no damn way that the people who piloted those aircraft into the WTC did that with a few hours of dual instruction in a Cessna 172 taken at some midwestern flight academy. And they didn't learn how to do that playing around with Microsoft Flight Simulator either. Somebody provided the commercial flight simulator access on those specific aircraft types for them to practice those maneuvers. Who?? The only other plausible explanation is that each plane had a commercially trained suicide pilot, with time on type, on board, in addition to the kids...

[ThePythonicCow]

Re: People are extremely bitter about it, but don’t understand it*

A third plausible explanation is that each plane (which may or may not be the same physical plane as first took off as the flights we know) was remotely controlled from the ground, with the pilot's inputs (whomever the pilots were, if any) overridden. I'm pretty sure that some Boeings by that time could be overridden from the ground in the event of a hijacking ... or in this case, perhaps, to facilitate the "final mission" of a hijacking.

The Pentagon crash is the most difficult to explain assuming it was the actual alleged AA Flight 77, a Boeing 757, being flown by an actual human, on-board, pilot. Experienced pilots with many hours in that plane have said that they very much doubted they could have pulled off that downward spiraling flight path ending with near perfect precision at ground level, while still not touching the lawn in front of the building, at that speed. All available evidence suggests that it was a smaller, more maneuverable, aircraft/drone/missile/... that hit the Pentagon. All evidence to the contrary, except for a few suspect eye witnesses, was aggressively suppressed by the FBI and other authorities, within minutes of the impact. There were many surveillance cameras in the area on various buildings, all of which were confiscated immediately. Some people had started to look at the video from one of them that morning; but to this day they won't talk. Someone took their video and made them an offer they chose not to refuse. If any of those videos showed a real AA Boeing 757 hitting the Pentagon, that video would have been released to the public, beyond any doubt that I can imagine. That all videos have been aggressively suppressed tells me that some of them show the wrong thing.

P.S. -- The site http://www.rense.com/general86/complete.htm has much detail, but I am not even "remotely" competent to review its claims.

[GRG55]

Re: People are extremely bitter about it, but don’t understand it*

...The Pentagon crash is the most difficult to explain assuming it was the actual alleged AA Flight 77, a Boeing 757, being flown by an actual human, on-board, pilot. Experienced pilots with many hours in that plane have said that they very much doubted they could have pulled off that downward spiraling flight path ending with near perfect precision at ground level, while still not touching the lawn in front of the building, at that speed...

LOL. Of course all those experienced pilots doubt they could have pulled off that maneuver. Flying an airplane in a "clean" cruise configuration into something close to the ground isn't exactly the sort of thing that forms part of a normal flight training curriculum...not a single one of them would have EVER practiced anything like that, because the maneuver is very different from landing an airplane [where the airplane is in a "dirty" configuration and is flared in a nose high attitude to arrest the vertical descent rate and bleed off most of the remaining airspeed above stall just before the touchdown point].

The closest thing I can think of to what was needed to hit the Pentagon is an aerobatic pilot coming out of an upper air maneuver and flying the airplane in ground effect down the show line. Quite a commonplace part of an act. Of course, I am not aware of any aerobatic performers that use Boeing commercial jets in their act.

That is why I remain convinced that the pilots on each of those airplanes had access to a commercial simulator and practiced those highly unusual, but not fundamentally difficult, maneuvers over and over and over again until they could do them perfectly. Who supplied access to those simulators is one of the key unanswered questions...

[ThePythonicCow]

Re: People are extremely bitter about it, but don’t understand it*

I didn't mean to say that the pilots said they couldn't fly it just because they had not practiced it, but that they figured it would be not be "fundamentally difficult" once practiced.

I meant to say that the pilots said it was a difficult maneuver, period. A few weeks prior to 9/11, the alleged pilot, Hani Hanjour, was refused rental of a Cessna 172 because he couldn't control it at 65 knots.

But read for yourself. One place to start on this would be http://pilotsfor911truth.org/pentagon.html, and their 50 minute video 9/11: ATTACK ON THE PENTAGON.

From the end of this web page:

So, to sum up. Hani Hanjour, took a 757, with zero time in type, did the maneuver described above, a 400 knot 330 degree sprialing dive at 2500 fpm, only gaining 30 knots, then 30 knots more descending from 2200 feet at full power, with a very steady hand as to not overshoot or hit the lawn, inside ground effect, at 460 knots impact speed, but was refused to rent a 172 cause he couldnt land it at 65 knots?

Other aspects of this, explained in the video, show unresolvable inconsistencies between the official reports and the actual evidence (ground obstructions, observed damage to light poles on the ground, and several eye witness reports.)

pilotsfor911truth.org just released a re-mastering of that video. I'm about to order it now ($11.95 to download, a bit more for the DVD.)

[c1ue]

Re: People are extremely bitter about it, but don’t understand it*

There's no damn way that the people who piloted those aircraft into the WTC did that with a few hours of dual instruction in a Cessna 172 taken at some midwestern flight academy.

Besides having access to a simulator - what about setting the autopilot?

I'm sure some safety protocols would have to be overcome, but nonetheless I doubt it is a physical impossibility to set unrealistic autopilot targets.

The commercial pilot that I know agrees that moderate to expert level control of a commercial airliner is extremely unlikely given even a few months of standard training, but also noted that only 1 WTC jet liner achieved its 'swerve' before hitting (the swerve was to maximum impact effect). The other just plowed in.

To set an autopilot and then pull on the stick at the right time - that's monkey see, monkey do level.

[GRG55]

Re: People are extremely bitter about it, but don’t understand it*

I didn't mean to say that the pilots said they couldn't fly it just because they had not practiced it, but that they figured it would be not be "fundamentally difficult" once practiced.

I meant to say that the pilots said it was a difficult maneuver, period. A few weeks prior to 9/11, the alleged pilot, Hani Hanjour, was refused rental of a Cessna 172 because he couldn't control it at 65 knots.

But read for yourself. One place to start on this would be http://pilotsfor911truth.org/pentagon.html, and their 50 minute video 9/11: ATTACK ON THE PENTAGON.

From the end of this web page:
Other aspects of this, explained in the video, show unresolvable inconsistencies between the official reports and the actual evidence (ground obstructions, observed damage to light poles on the ground, and several eye witness reports.)

pilotsfor911truth.org just released a re-mastering of that video. I'm about to order it now ($11.95 to download, a bit more for the DVD.)

This is the sort of inconsistency that makes it easy to dismiss all the elaborate conspiracy stuff:

"...a 400 knot 330 degree sprialing dive at 2500 fpm, only gaining 30 knots, then 30 knots more descending from 2200 feet at full power..."

At "full power" there isn't anyone in the world, including those hijackers, that could put a jet aircraft into a descent and limit the gain only 30 knots of airspeed...that's just not physically possible so the report itself is full of shzt.

[GRG55]

Re: People are extremely bitter about it, but don’t understand it*

Besides having access to a simulator - what about setting the autopilot?

I'm sure some safety protocols would have to be overcome, but nonetheless I doubt it is a physical impossibility to set unrealistic autopilot targets.

The commercial pilot that I know agrees that moderate to expert level control of a commercial airliner is extremely unlikely given even a few months of standard training, but also noted that only 1 WTC jet liner achieved its 'swerve' before hitting (the swerve was to maximum impact effect). The other just plowed in.

To set an autopilot and then pull on the stick at the right time - that's monkey see, monkey do level.

They could not have used the autopilot for the entire descent profile as they weren't making an approach to an ILS runway, so imo there was no small amount of hand flying the airplane involved. Regardless, whether they used the autopilot to assist or not, someone still had to have practiced the maneuver over and over until they knew exactly how to fly it.

And this is my last word on the subject as we are waaaay off macro economics now...

[flintlock]

Re: People are extremely bitter about it, but don’t understand it*

This is the sort of inconsistency that makes it easy to dismiss all the elaborate conspiracy stuff:

"...a 400 knot 330 degree sprialing dive at 2500 fpm, only gaining 30 knots, then 30 knots more descending from 2200 feet at full power..."

At "full power" there isn't anyone in the world, including those hijackers, that could put a jet aircraft into a descent and limit the gain only 30 knots of airspeed...that's just not physically possible so the report itself is full of shzt.

Yes, they make it really easy to shoot this stuff down don't they?

[ThePythonicCow]

Re: People are extremely bitter about it, but don’t understand it*

This is the sort of inconsistency that makes it easy to dismiss all the elaborate conspiracy stuff:

As I said, there are other irreconcilable inconsistencies in the official story.

If you refuse to spend some time examining the rather substantial body of evidence on this subject with a somewhat open mind, and instead look for the first detail that you can misinterpret in some way to be nonsensical, then you will remain deceived.

The extent of the deception and fraud from the powers that be is deeper than you are willing to admit. A proper understanding of this is essential to a proper understanding of our economic, political, financial and monetary circumstances.

[ThePythonicCow]

Re: People are extremely bitter about it, but don’t understand it*

Yes, they make it really easy to shoot this stuff down don't they?

"They" do indeed do that.

[Starving Steve]

Re: People are extremely bitter about it, but don’t understand it*

I might comment that I have never had any use or respect for John Foster Dulles. But I have the highest respect for former President, Dwight David Eisenhower.

The Cold War was designed and executed by U.S. Secretary of State, John Foster Dulles. In my view, the Cold War was absurd, and the spending on the Cold War including the Vietnam War (part of the Cold War) was a complete waste of money.

My grandfather in Duluth hated John Foster Dulles, and now I understand why. Dulles was the ultimate Repuke.

For kids or people who are just dropping in to view this post, a "Repuke" is a Republican. Puke in English means vomit. We now refer to Republicans for what they really are and always were. But President Eisenhower was not the typical Republican; he was outstanding and honourable. He was also an outstanding and most honourable general in WWII.