5 ms·

> Iran has a long history of aggression, including sponsoring terrorist groups The US has a longer history of aggression and sponsoring terrorist groups: Excl

> Iran has a long history of aggression, including sponsoring terrorist groups The US has a longer history of aggression and sponsoring terrorist groups: Exclusive: CIA Files Prove America Helped Saddam as He Gassed Iran https://foreignpolicy.com/2013/08/26/exclusive-cia-files-prove-america-helped-saddam-as-he-gassed-iran/ https://foreignpolicy.com/2013/08/26/exclusive-cia-files-pro... During the Iran–Iraq War, which began with the Iraqi invasion of Iran on 22 September 1980,[1] the United States adopted a policy of providing support to Iraq in the form of several billion dollars' worth of economic aid, dual-use technology, intelligence sharing (e.g., IMINT), and special operations training.[2] This U.S. support, along with support from most of the Arab world, proved vital in helping Iraq sustain military operations against Iran.[3] The documented sale of dual-use technology, with one notable example being Iraq's acquisition of 45 Bell helicopters in 1985,[4][5] was effectively a workaround for a ban on direct arms transfers; U.S. foreign policy in the Middle East dictated that Iraq was a state sponsor of terrorism because of the Iraqi government's historical ties with groups like the Palestinian Liberation Front and the Abu Nidal Organization, among others.[6] However, this designation was removed in 1982 to facilitate broader support for the Iraqis as the conflict dragged on in Iran's favour. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_support_for_Iraq_during_the_Iran%E2%80%93Iraq_War https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_support_for_Iraq...

_DeadFred_ 6mo ago
[flagged]
- NomDePlum 6mo ago
  [dead]
- Muehe 6mo ago
  > [...] Iran targeted Americans for acts of violence. Remind me, what happened in Iran in 1953?
- bigyabai 6mo ago
  > Iran has been calling for the death and destruction of me, my family, and my country my entire life. America has been kidnapping, killing and torturing Iranian civilians since before you were born: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/SAVAK https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/SAVAK
  - _DeadFred_ 6mo ago
    [flagged]
    - bigyabai 6mo ago
      If 10 year old you was born in Shahist Iran, then you, your parents, your grandparents, your friends and your political leadership might be tortured or executed by the American regime for exercising free speech or opposing domestic policy. You are indeed luckier than those 10 year olds, for enduring death threats and not summary executions. Your fears are the ones lucky enough to be considered silly, theirs are mortal panic.
      - _DeadFred_ 6mo ago
        [flagged]
        bigyabai 6mo ago
        "You see Timmy, your kneecaps are smashed because Mr. Nixon doesn't think you deserve free speech. Don't take it personally, and don't oppose us or your teeth are next." Which Timmy would you rather be?
        _DeadFred_ 6mo ago
        Wild take but I condemn both. My nation removed Nixon in disgrace and we despise him almost universally. I condemn him and I condemn the horrible acts done by the United States. Do you not agree that supreme religious leaders shouldn't call for the death and destruction of entire societies ever? You can be against both.
- esalman 6mo ago
  By bombing an elementary school and killing 200 girls, you gave the "mullahs" enough justification to call for death and destruction.
  - HaZeust 6mo ago
    To be fair, such rhetoric in Iran was around long before this war. It is also common knowledge [1] that more-pious followers of Islam - particularly in Middle Eastern countries - are considerably more receptive to Islam's more radical teachings and commands on the topic of the treatment towards non-believers (which makes up the bulk of Western nation populations), than Jewish or Christian followers are to their respective religion's teaching and commands in regards to the same. 1 - https://www.pewresearch.org/religion/2013/04/30/the-worlds-muslims-religion-politics-society-overview/ https://www.pewresearch.org/religion/2013/04/30/the-worlds-m...
    - za3faran 6mo ago
      > Islam's more radical teachings and commands on the topic of the treatment towards non-believers Which "radical" teachings exactly? And the citation you posted says nothing of such claim either way.
      - HaZeust 6mo ago
        Sharia Law. If you don't believe in Allah and the teachings within the Qur'an, feel free to look up how Sharia law dictates your treatment from its believers. You are also mistaken, the Pew Research study explicitly lays out the percentages of individuals within Islam that believe in the death penalty for apostasy. For example, in Egypt, 86% of Muslims who favored making Sharia official law supported the death penalty for apostasy; in Jordan, it was 82%; in Afghanistan, 79%. Hardly a reasonable take. Indeed, Sharia Law is a dog-whistle in Western nation talks, but that's a luxury on our part. It's a very real belief for a very real cohort of people, however distant they are from enacting action on us today.
        za3faran 6mo ago
- brendoelfrendo 6mo ago
  In 1953, the UK and US collaborated to overthrow the democratically elected government of Iran in favor of strengthening the power of the Shah over the country. Prime Minister Mohammad Mosaddegh was unpopular with the Brits after he attempted to nationalize the country's oil interests, which were being exploited by the Anglo-Iranian Oil Company. After convincing the Eisenhower administration that Mosaddegh's government would pull Iran into the Soviet sphere of influence, the CIA and MI6 helped plan and execute the coup by the royalists. Several hundred people were killed in the riots; Mosaddegh was convicted of treason and held in house arrest for the rest of his life; many of his supporters were jailed or killed. The continuing bombing/killing of civilians in the middle east by Americans further highlights to me that the United States will never be able to overcome the violence it has inflicted on the world by continuing to inflict more violence.
  - deleted 6mo ago
    [deleted]
  - _DeadFred_ 6mo ago
    "The continued bombing/killing of Americans throughout the middle east during the 1980s furthered highlighted to me that Iran targeted Americans for acts of violence." was to say that there was actions and intent to act behind the supreme religious leaders calling for the death/destruction of my entire country/society (they weren't just words), not to say an entire peoples/society is irredeemable (as the Islamic Republican of Iran and it's supreme religious leaders have labeled mine).
- pazimzadeh 6mo ago
  Your feelings do kind of matter, but you're putting the cart way before the horse. Let me try to open your eyes: > Nov. 4, 1979 Iran took fifty two American's hostage and held them for 444 days. That was 47 years ago, yet this act still burns in your memory. For Iran, it was 26 years prior that the US & Great Britain replaced their democratically elected primer minister Mossadegh with a tyrannical monarch. Why? Because the US was afraid of Iran 'turning red' and for cheap oil. When the king of Iran publicly toughened his stance on oil and the Israel lobby (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9RH2wXQtFdo https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9RH2wXQtFdo), the US in response did nothing to stop Khomeini from taking over. When Iranian students took the US embassy, embassy staff was actively shredding documents proving US' role in the 1953 coup. The Iranians dropped mountains of shredded docs into elementary schools and asked the kids to 'solve the puzzle,' which they did. The US didn't acknowledge its role in the coup until Obama threw them an olive branch during his second term. If the embassy takeover was that bad, then maybe you should be upset at Reagan for working out a secret deal with the mullah to NOT release the hostages in order to make President Carter look weak, which cost Carter the election. The hostages were released minutes after Reagan was sworn in. In exchange, Reagan sold weapons to these muslim 'america-haters.' I've never seen Republicans upset at Reagan for selling weapons to Iran, have you? > call for my and my families deaths and the destruction of my civilization my entire life Words matter, actions matter more. The US supported the monarchy for years when it was killing and torturing Iranians. The US funded and armed Saddam against to kill Iranians between 1980 and 1988, including with chemical weapons. In 1988, the US shot down an Iranian passenger plane 655. Iranian families have lost many more people to the US than vice versa. That's probably why you've "never seen huge protests in the US calling for Iranian deaths." You also might not know that post-9/11, Iran's moderate Khatami government and the US worked closely together in special operations in Afghanistan. That's because Iran had nothing to do with 9/11 and were in fact natural enemies of the Sunnis who did 9/11. That is, until George W. Bush was instructed by his team to include Iran in the "axis of evil." In response to Bush, the mullahs ensured that the next president was equally tough (Ahmadinejad). When Obama was elected, the Iran chose the moderate Rouhani to make a deal. I looked, but couldn't find one instance of Iran chanting 'death to america' before Bush's 'axis of evil' comment. Hopefully you can appreciate why your feelings don't trump the ground truth.
  - 6mo ago
Sabinus 6mo ago
The USA sending support to a state during a war specifically for that war is not supporting terrorism, even if the recipient has supported terrorism in the past. >This U.S. support, along with support from most of the Arab world, proved vital in helping Iraq sustain military operations against Iran.
- pazimzadeh 6mo ago
  How do you ensure they only use it on that war? Is using chemical weapons on civilian targets in cities and villages not terrorism? Anyway, there are earlier and more direct instances of the US sponsoring terrorists groups.
  - Sabinus 6mo ago
    >How do you ensure they only use it on that war? Intelligence agencies. But you can't ensure it. >Is using chemical weapons on civilian targets in cities and villages not terrorism? I'm not an expert on the Iran-Iraq war and I'm a bit tired for research ATM but I'm going to assume the USA did not provide it's help for chemical weapons use, and that there was plenty of conventional conflict going on to provide assistance for. >Anyway, there are earlier and more direct instances of the US sponsoring terrorists groups. Sure, but we should point to when that happened. Not when the USA supported a government to do something at the same time as they did something bad.
    - pazimzadeh 6mo ago
      > I'm a bit tired for research ATM but I'm going to assume Hilarious but sad that this is the state of HN. After you get some rest consider reading the article. Maybe you can have it read to you like a audiobook, might be easier? Some of the original CIA documents are at the bottom. https://foreignpolicy.com/2013/08/26/exclusive-cia-files-prove-america-helped-saddam-as-he-gassed-iran/ https://foreignpolicy.com/2013/08/26/exclusive-cia-files-pro... https://archive.is/XWevr https://archive.is/XWevr I pulled some key quotes for you: In 1988, during the waning days of Iraq’s war with Iran, the United States learned through satellite imagery that Iran was about to gain a major strategic advantage by exploiting a hole in Iraqi defenses. U.S. intelligence officials conveyed the location of the Iranian troops to Iraq, fully aware that Hussein’s military would attack with chemical weapons, including sarin, a lethal nerve agent. The Reagan administration decided that it was better to let the attacks continue if they might turn the tide of the war. And even if they were discovered, the CIA wagered that international outrage and condemnation would be muted senior U.S. officials were being regularly informed about the scale of the nerve gas attacks declassified CIA documents show that Casey and other top officials were repeatedly informed about Iraq’s chemical attacks and its plans for launching more The use of chemical weapons in war is banned under the Geneva Protocol of 1925, which states that parties “will exert every effort to induce other States to accede to the” agreement. Iraq never ratified the protocol; the United States did in 1975. By 1988, U.S. intelligence was flowing freely to Hussein’s military. That March, Iraq launched a nerve gas attack on the Kurdish village of Halabja in northern Iraq

_DeadFred_ 6mo ago

[flagged]

NomDePlum 6mo ago
[dead]
Muehe 6mo ago
> [...] Iran targeted Americans for acts of violence. Remind me, what happened in Iran in 1953?
bigyabai 6mo ago
> Iran has been calling for the death and destruction of me, my family, and my country my entire life. America has been kidnapping, killing and torturing Iranian civilians since before you were born: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/SAVAK https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/SAVAK
- _DeadFred_ 6mo ago
  [flagged]
  - bigyabai 6mo ago
    If 10 year old you was born in Shahist Iran, then you, your parents, your grandparents, your friends and your political leadership might be tortured or executed by the American regime for exercising free speech or opposing domestic policy. You are indeed luckier than those 10 year olds, for enduring death threats and not summary executions. Your fears are the ones lucky enough to be considered silly, theirs are mortal panic.
    - _DeadFred_ 6mo ago
      [flagged]
      - bigyabai 6mo ago
        "You see Timmy, your kneecaps are smashed because Mr. Nixon doesn't think you deserve free speech. Don't take it personally, and don't oppose us or your teeth are next." Which Timmy would you rather be?
        _DeadFred_ 6mo ago
        Wild take but I condemn both. My nation removed Nixon in disgrace and we despise him almost universally. I condemn him and I condemn the horrible acts done by the United States. Do you not agree that supreme religious leaders shouldn't call for the death and destruction of entire societies ever? You can be against both.
esalman 6mo ago
By bombing an elementary school and killing 200 girls, you gave the "mullahs" enough justification to call for death and destruction.
- HaZeust 6mo ago
  To be fair, such rhetoric in Iran was around long before this war. It is also common knowledge [1] that more-pious followers of Islam - particularly in Middle Eastern countries - are considerably more receptive to Islam's more radical teachings and commands on the topic of the treatment towards non-believers (which makes up the bulk of Western nation populations), than Jewish or Christian followers are to their respective religion's teaching and commands in regards to the same. 1 - https://www.pewresearch.org/religion/2013/04/30/the-worlds-muslims-religion-politics-society-overview/ https://www.pewresearch.org/religion/2013/04/30/the-worlds-m...
  - za3faran 6mo ago
    > Islam's more radical teachings and commands on the topic of the treatment towards non-believers Which "radical" teachings exactly? And the citation you posted says nothing of such claim either way.
    - HaZeust 6mo ago
      Sharia Law. If you don't believe in Allah and the teachings within the Qur'an, feel free to look up how Sharia law dictates your treatment from its believers. You are also mistaken, the Pew Research study explicitly lays out the percentages of individuals within Islam that believe in the death penalty for apostasy. For example, in Egypt, 86% of Muslims who favored making Sharia official law supported the death penalty for apostasy; in Jordan, it was 82%; in Afghanistan, 79%. Hardly a reasonable take. Indeed, Sharia Law is a dog-whistle in Western nation talks, but that's a luxury on our part. It's a very real belief for a very real cohort of people, however distant they are from enacting action on us today.
      - za3faran 6mo ago
brendoelfrendo 6mo ago
In 1953, the UK and US collaborated to overthrow the democratically elected government of Iran in favor of strengthening the power of the Shah over the country. Prime Minister Mohammad Mosaddegh was unpopular with the Brits after he attempted to nationalize the country's oil interests, which were being exploited by the Anglo-Iranian Oil Company. After convincing the Eisenhower administration that Mosaddegh's government would pull Iran into the Soviet sphere of influence, the CIA and MI6 helped plan and execute the coup by the royalists. Several hundred people were killed in the riots; Mosaddegh was convicted of treason and held in house arrest for the rest of his life; many of his supporters were jailed or killed. The continuing bombing/killing of civilians in the middle east by Americans further highlights to me that the United States will never be able to overcome the violence it has inflicted on the world by continuing to inflict more violence.
- deleted 6mo ago
  [deleted]
- _DeadFred_ 6mo ago
  "The continued bombing/killing of Americans throughout the middle east during the 1980s furthered highlighted to me that Iran targeted Americans for acts of violence." was to say that there was actions and intent to act behind the supreme religious leaders calling for the death/destruction of my entire country/society (they weren't just words), not to say an entire peoples/society is irredeemable (as the Islamic Republican of Iran and it's supreme religious leaders have labeled mine).
pazimzadeh 6mo ago
Your feelings do kind of matter, but you're putting the cart way before the horse. Let me try to open your eyes: > Nov. 4, 1979 Iran took fifty two American's hostage and held them for 444 days. That was 47 years ago, yet this act still burns in your memory. For Iran, it was 26 years prior that the US & Great Britain replaced their democratically elected primer minister Mossadegh with a tyrannical monarch. Why? Because the US was afraid of Iran 'turning red' and for cheap oil. When the king of Iran publicly toughened his stance on oil and the Israel lobby (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9RH2wXQtFdo https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9RH2wXQtFdo), the US in response did nothing to stop Khomeini from taking over. When Iranian students took the US embassy, embassy staff was actively shredding documents proving US' role in the 1953 coup. The Iranians dropped mountains of shredded docs into elementary schools and asked the kids to 'solve the puzzle,' which they did. The US didn't acknowledge its role in the coup until Obama threw them an olive branch during his second term. If the embassy takeover was that bad, then maybe you should be upset at Reagan for working out a secret deal with the mullah to NOT release the hostages in order to make President Carter look weak, which cost Carter the election. The hostages were released minutes after Reagan was sworn in. In exchange, Reagan sold weapons to these muslim 'america-haters.' I've never seen Republicans upset at Reagan for selling weapons to Iran, have you? > call for my and my families deaths and the destruction of my civilization my entire life Words matter, actions matter more. The US supported the monarchy for years when it was killing and torturing Iranians. The US funded and armed Saddam against to kill Iranians between 1980 and 1988, including with chemical weapons. In 1988, the US shot down an Iranian passenger plane 655. Iranian families have lost many more people to the US than vice versa. That's probably why you've "never seen huge protests in the US calling for Iranian deaths." You also might not know that post-9/11, Iran's moderate Khatami government and the US worked closely together in special operations in Afghanistan. That's because Iran had nothing to do with 9/11 and were in fact natural enemies of the Sunnis who did 9/11. That is, until George W. Bush was instructed by his team to include Iran in the "axis of evil." In response to Bush, the mullahs ensured that the next president was equally tough (Ahmadinejad). When Obama was elected, the Iran chose the moderate Rouhani to make a deal. I looked, but couldn't find one instance of Iran chanting 'death to america' before Bush's 'axis of evil' comment. Hopefully you can appreciate why your feelings don't trump the ground truth.
- 6mo ago

Sabinus 6mo ago

The USA sending support to a state during a war specifically for that war is not supporting terrorism, even if the recipient has supported terrorism in the past. >This U.S. support, along with support from most of the Arab world, proved vital in helping Iraq sustain military operations against Iran.

pazimzadeh 6mo ago
How do you ensure they only use it on that war? Is using chemical weapons on civilian targets in cities and villages not terrorism? Anyway, there are earlier and more direct instances of the US sponsoring terrorists groups.
- Sabinus 6mo ago
  >How do you ensure they only use it on that war? Intelligence agencies. But you can't ensure it. >Is using chemical weapons on civilian targets in cities and villages not terrorism? I'm not an expert on the Iran-Iraq war and I'm a bit tired for research ATM but I'm going to assume the USA did not provide it's help for chemical weapons use, and that there was plenty of conventional conflict going on to provide assistance for. >Anyway, there are earlier and more direct instances of the US sponsoring terrorists groups. Sure, but we should point to when that happened. Not when the USA supported a government to do something at the same time as they did something bad.
  - pazimzadeh 6mo ago
    > I'm a bit tired for research ATM but I'm going to assume Hilarious but sad that this is the state of HN. After you get some rest consider reading the article. Maybe you can have it read to you like a audiobook, might be easier? Some of the original CIA documents are at the bottom. https://foreignpolicy.com/2013/08/26/exclusive-cia-files-prove-america-helped-saddam-as-he-gassed-iran/ https://foreignpolicy.com/2013/08/26/exclusive-cia-files-pro... https://archive.is/XWevr https://archive.is/XWevr I pulled some key quotes for you: In 1988, during the waning days of Iraq’s war with Iran, the United States learned through satellite imagery that Iran was about to gain a major strategic advantage by exploiting a hole in Iraqi defenses. U.S. intelligence officials conveyed the location of the Iranian troops to Iraq, fully aware that Hussein’s military would attack with chemical weapons, including sarin, a lethal nerve agent. The Reagan administration decided that it was better to let the attacks continue if they might turn the tide of the war. And even if they were discovered, the CIA wagered that international outrage and condemnation would be muted senior U.S. officials were being regularly informed about the scale of the nerve gas attacks declassified CIA documents show that Casey and other top officials were repeatedly informed about Iraq’s chemical attacks and its plans for launching more The use of chemical weapons in war is banned under the Geneva Protocol of 1925, which states that parties “will exert every effort to induce other States to accede to the” agreement. Iraq never ratified the protocol; the United States did in 1975. By 1988, U.S. intelligence was flowing freely to Hussein’s military. That March, Iraq launched a nerve gas attack on the Kurdish village of Halabja in northern Iraq