Synopsis

[Follow Ups] [Post Followup] [Our Discussion Forum]

Posted by Alexander from 92.52.26.24.cfl.rr.com (24.26.52.92) on Friday, September 05, 2003 at 6:28PM :

In Reply to: My response....... posted by Alexander from 92.52.26.24.cfl.rr.com (24.26.52.92) on Friday, September 05, 2003 at 6:21PM :

So then Fred, how does that post about the CIA fiftieth anniversary tie in? Honestly, do you still think the CIA is so powerful? I told you it is not, and I think Sadie knows that. It is not that successful, like you said in your posts. I still hold to my view that the US involvement in Iran is not as influential as they would like to think it is. Like when it is said Reagan succeeded in defeating the Russian Empire, that is nonsense, Russia would have broken off anyway, but they like to think they are bigger.
So I still say CIA did not have to much power, or influence, only wanted to, and was able to do some things, but in general is not so successful and is rather incompetent. In the post you posted just last few days about fifty year CIA anniversary, you see how CIA and its involvement was more "incidental" and just happened to be there at the right time, that someone else took the initiative. Simply, by waiting around till something happens and funding it, is not the same thing as actually doing it. So they got tired of the Shah, but did *they* get rid of him? No, they seem to be involved more than they are, but Iranian revolution still took place, and would have, with or without US intervention.
It was brewing for a long time, and "so-and-so" who was at the US living in New York at the time did not go to Iran to fight for US ideals, but to oust the shah, and whether the US wanted it or not did not affect "his" position in the matter. There are more events taking place than meets the eye, and the CIA is simply one more eyesore, they are not supreme, they are not rulers of the world, they would "like" to be.
You said to me that there was a blue-eyed Iranian acting as a revolutionary, and who says no Iranians have blue eyes? You were making it sound like everyone was staged. Not all were, only a few, if any. But that is beside the point. I am just wondering how your view has changed or remained the same.
--D

-- Alexander
-- signature .

Follow Ups:

Re: Synopsis - farid 8:32PM 09/06/2003 () (8)

Here we go..... - Alexander 11:57PM 09/06/2003 () (7)
- Re: Here we go..... - farid 1:23PM 09/07/2003 () (2)
  - Well... - Sadie 3:17PM 09/07/2003 () (1)
    - Re: Well... - Alexander 4:15PM 09/07/2003 () (0)
- you're right - Sadie 0:23AM 09/07/2003 () (3)
  - Re: you're right - Alexander 1:10AM 09/07/2003 () (0)
  - furthermore - Sadie 1:06AM 09/07/2003 () (1)
    - No, your words ring a tune..... - Alexander 1:18AM 09/07/2003 () (0)

Post a Followup

Name:
E-Mail:	( default )
Subject:
Message:	: So then Fred, how does that post about the CIA fiftieth anniversary tie in? Honestly, do you still think the CIA is so powerful? I told you it is not, and I think Sadie knows that. It is not that successful, like you said in your posts. I still hold to my view that the US involvement in Iran is not as influential as they would like to think it is. Like when it is said Reagan succeeded in defeating the Russian Empire, that is nonsense, Russia would have broken off anyway, but they like to think they are bigger. : So I still say CIA did not have to much power, or influence, only wanted to, and was able to do some things, but in general is not so successful and is rather incompetent. In the post you posted just last few days about fifty year CIA anniversary, you see how CIA and its involvement was more "incidental" and just happened to be there at the right time, that someone else took the initiative. Simply, by waiting around till something happens and funding it, is not the same thing as actually doing it. So they got tired of the Shah, but did they get rid of him? No, they seem to be involved more than they are, but Iranian revolution still took place, and would have, with or without US intervention. : It was brewing for a long time, and "so-and-so" who was at the US living in New York at the time did not go to Iran to fight for US ideals, but to oust the shah, and whether the US wanted it or not did not affect "his" position in the matter. There are more events taking place than meets the eye, and the CIA is simply one more eyesore, they are not supreme, they are not rulers of the world, they would "like" to be. : You said to me that there was a blue-eyed Iranian acting as a revolutionary, and who says no Iranians have blue eyes? You were making it sound like everyone was staged. Not all were, only a few, if any. But that is beside the point. I am just wondering how your view has changed or remained the same. : --D

Optional Link ( default )
URL:
Title:
Optional Image Link ( default )
URL:

This board is powered by the Mr. Fong Device from Cyberarmy.com