3 ms·

The US just helped overthrow, with US troops on the ground, a secular government in Syria, to replace it with an al Qaeda leader who was on the US wanted terror

The US just helped overthrow, with US troops on the ground, a secular government in Syria, to replace it with an al Qaeda leader who was on the US wanted terrorist list until two months ago. What are you talking about, the US has supported Islamic fundamentalists for decades.

baxtr 7mo ago
Wait what?
- tolerance 7mo ago
  I think he meant Syria. And the more cogent interpretation is that the US has supported parties who perform as Islamic fundamentalists than they do actual ‘fundamentalists’.
apical_dendrite 7mo ago
I believe you're referring to Syria, not Iran. And I don't think you're describing the situation accurately at all. The Syrian civil war is incredibly complex, and there are many parties involved. The groups that led the offensive were supported by Turkey at various points, but not by the United States. US forces in Syria didn't really have much to do with that offensive.
- don_esteban 7mo ago
  Read a bit more about the fall of shah in Iran. At that time, there were two strong anti-shah factions in Iran. Islamists and communists. Guess which one was helped by USA? :-)
  - apical_dendrite 7mo ago
    I've actually read quite a lot about the fall of the shah and what you are saying is bullshit. See, for instance, Scott Anderson's recent book King of Kings which goes into a great deal of detail about the US government's understanding and decision-making during the Iranian Revolution.
  - pessimizer 7mo ago
    > Islamists and communists. Guess which one was helped by USA? :-) Neither was helped by the USA. The Shah was helped by the USA. What the USA did is the same thing it does in all of the Islamic dictatorships that it props up - it used its intelligence and its cash to help its dictator exterminate all of his secular opposition. Actually kill. What was left was religious fundamentalist opposition that it couldn't touch, and that the Shah himself partially relied on to stay in power. That meant that when the general population was finally at the point of exasperation, the only institutions that were 1) prepared to be the vehicle of that exasperation and 2) had an government in waiting that could take charge after the government had fallen were the religious ones. Same thing that happened in Egypt after decades of helping Mubarak kill members of the secular opposition and destroy their organizations. When the government was overthrown spontaneously by a public driven to their limit, the only people prepared to take over, and supported by the public, were fundamentalists. The US saw another Iran coming and quickly stepped in to destroy the popular will and install another dictator that they could control.
    - apical_dendrite 7mo ago
      There's some truth to what you're saying, but it's a huge exaggeration. It's absolutely incorrect to say that the US helped the Shah kill all of his secular political opponents. It's generally true that SAVAK had neutered the communist opposition, but there were many secular opponents of the Shah who contributed to the Iranian Revolution. Many of them had been imprisoned at various points, but not killed. Take Shapour Bakhtiar or Mehdi Bazargan for example. There were many, many secular people or moderate Islamists who opposed the Shah during the Iranian Revolution. What happened is that Khomeini consolidated power after the revolution and eliminated these people.
Rover222 7mo ago
[flagged]
- pessimizer 7mo ago
  You don't know that the current, US supported leader of Syria is an Islamic fundamentalist Al Qaeda terrorist who it previously had a massive bounty on the death of? Turns out, however, that he really enjoys money. And that the US has a lot of it.

baxtr 7mo ago

Wait what?

tolerance 7mo ago
I think he meant Syria. And the more cogent interpretation is that the US has supported parties who perform as Islamic fundamentalists than they do actual ‘fundamentalists’.

apical_dendrite 7mo ago

I believe you're referring to Syria, not Iran. And I don't think you're describing the situation accurately at all. The Syrian civil war is incredibly complex, and there are many parties involved. The groups that led the offensive were supported by Turkey at various points, but not by the United States. US forces in Syria didn't really have much to do with that offensive.

don_esteban 7mo ago
Read a bit more about the fall of shah in Iran. At that time, there were two strong anti-shah factions in Iran. Islamists and communists. Guess which one was helped by USA? :-)
- apical_dendrite 7mo ago
  I've actually read quite a lot about the fall of the shah and what you are saying is bullshit. See, for instance, Scott Anderson's recent book King of Kings which goes into a great deal of detail about the US government's understanding and decision-making during the Iranian Revolution.
- pessimizer 7mo ago
  > Islamists and communists. Guess which one was helped by USA? :-) Neither was helped by the USA. The Shah was helped by the USA. What the USA did is the same thing it does in all of the Islamic dictatorships that it props up - it used its intelligence and its cash to help its dictator exterminate all of his secular opposition. Actually kill. What was left was religious fundamentalist opposition that it couldn't touch, and that the Shah himself partially relied on to stay in power. That meant that when the general population was finally at the point of exasperation, the only institutions that were 1) prepared to be the vehicle of that exasperation and 2) had an government in waiting that could take charge after the government had fallen were the religious ones. Same thing that happened in Egypt after decades of helping Mubarak kill members of the secular opposition and destroy their organizations. When the government was overthrown spontaneously by a public driven to their limit, the only people prepared to take over, and supported by the public, were fundamentalists. The US saw another Iran coming and quickly stepped in to destroy the popular will and install another dictator that they could control.
  - apical_dendrite 7mo ago
    There's some truth to what you're saying, but it's a huge exaggeration. It's absolutely incorrect to say that the US helped the Shah kill all of his secular political opponents. It's generally true that SAVAK had neutered the communist opposition, but there were many secular opponents of the Shah who contributed to the Iranian Revolution. Many of them had been imprisoned at various points, but not killed. Take Shapour Bakhtiar or Mehdi Bazargan for example. There were many, many secular people or moderate Islamists who opposed the Shah during the Iranian Revolution. What happened is that Khomeini consolidated power after the revolution and eliminated these people.

Rover222 7mo ago

[flagged]

pessimizer 7mo ago
You don't know that the current, US supported leader of Syria is an Islamic fundamentalist Al Qaeda terrorist who it previously had a massive bounty on the death of? Turns out, however, that he really enjoys money. And that the US has a lot of it.