[cryptome] Re: Fw: "The Battle for Iran," 1953: Re-Release of CIA Internal History Spotlights New Details about anti-Mosaddeq Coup
- From: Neal Lamb <nl1816a@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
- To: "cryptome@xxxxxxxxxxxxx" <cryptome@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
- Date: Sat, 28 Jun 2014 07:19:44 -0700
http://billmoyers.com/content/10-big-fat-lies-and-the-liars-who-told-them/
On Saturday, June 28, 2014 5:50 AM, doug <douglasrankine2001@xxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
Hi Jeremy,
Tx for your contribution and background information..."every
little helps" as they say at Tescos. (the slogan of a large
supermarket chain here in the UK...henceforth renamed Tescoland,
to the uninitiated). And you are right of course regarding the
Iranians not trusting the British or the Americans. The problem
with trust is who does one trust, or what does one trust. I don't
even trust meself at times...And just think, if we lived in one of
those worlds where everyone trusted one another...life would be
boring and there would be nuffink for us to write about.
I used to feel the same way about communism...as some people felt
about fascism or religious extremism...Can you imagine even a
thousand year reich of Hitler salutes and goosestepping troops, or
a millenium of sticking up the right fist, marching by the million
past the Kremlin and hailing Uncle Jo Stalin...or bowing and
scraping to some heirarchical religious organisation...far less an
infinite one...perish the thocht...but some people believe in
it...good luck to em. Someone once said to me that the only
difference between conservatism and communism was the colour of
the gold inlaid carpets which led up to their head office front
door...an observation which has stuck with me ever since.
ATB,
Dougie.
On 28/06/14 04:46, Jeremy Compton wrote:
>My understanding of this from reading the events of the time when it came to
>Shah of Iran II was that around this time with Mossadeq getting thrown out,
>the Shah had asked for help or advice from both the British and the Americans
>and they apparently said that they wanted the Shah to stay in power and so the
>Sevak were introduced to keep the Shah in power. As, the Shah became more and
>more insecure then he used the Sevak to crack down more and more.
>
>One thing to note about the area of the world was that before
Shah I Ahmad Shah Qajar (a young guy who had deposed his apparently
deposed his father) was deposed by a British bloodless Coup. Previous to that
the support was Russian support to the weak Iranian/Persian rule in the
country. They asked from British empire support as it was the power of the day.
Reza Shah was installed in 1925 and booted in 1941 and his son was installed in
his place.
>
>There was an interesting corrolation between the change of
Turkey under Kamil Attaturk and that of the country we know of
today as Iran under Shah I was they were both doing there own
bit of modernising of the country, removing the religious system
and the feudal land structure as well as tribal system and
placing a more western style of government. This l believe as
far as Iran was concerned was the background eventually that led
to the down fall of Shah II. Also a factor was was the oil and
gas redistribution to the lower levels of society who felt they
were not getting their fair share. They also felt very
disenfranchised with the redistribution of land and the rapid
westernisation of their country.
>
>When one considers these underlying issues is it hardly
suprising why the Iranians dont trust either the British or the
Americans?
>
>Jeremy
>
>At 06:18 PM 6/27/2014, you wrote:
>
Other related posts:
