This cant be true

[RLENT]

So you took some questionable examples like Haditha and the collateral damage video and somehow think you have proved all the military is scum?

Nope - that's a strawman of your own construction - essentially the very same one Bahnsen is trying to tar Lew Rockwell and Ron Paul with.

Thanks for providing the exact illustration of the very point I was trying to make.

Of course, I never said, nor implied, any such thing - and I very seriously doubt Lew Rockwell or Ron Paul has either.

Try understanding what I wrote ... with the intent that I wrote it. I realize it might be tough .... but give it your best shot.

If that doesn't work, lemme know and I'll draw you a picture, if it still ain't clear.

Do you attack blacks, Hispanics, and oriental people the same way? After all we know all blacks will rob and rape, Hispanics will stab you, and we know not to talk about how bad orientals drive because they all know karate.

Do you still beat your wife ?

You found some bad apples and people that had mental breakdowns after being put in horrible situations so you are condemning the whole group, what a pile of absolute garbage that statement is.

Please show me exactly in my statement where I condemned the whole group.

Please do elucidate it ..... so all might understand and be enlightened.

You are really losing any credibility for yourself and Ron Paul if that is the type of garbage that is being used to support him.

I'm quite comfortable with my own cred.

As far as Ron Paul's cred goes, I'll give this guy below alot more weight than I will some never-heard-of Wall Street Private Banker (dug up by some turkey choker) with who knows what vested interests ....

Just remember now, this guy below, he's an official member of the "Ron Paul Legion of Loonies".

BTW, he also happens to be a 22-year veteran of the CIA and former head analyst at the CIA’s bin Laden unit, and the author of "Osama Bin Laden, Marching Toward Hell: America and Islam After Iraq" and "Imperial Hubris: Why the West is Losing the War on Terror", and several other books ..... yeah, a real kook to be sure

Interventionists ready a media lynching for Ron Paul
By Michael Scheuer
Published: SEPTEMBER 4, 2011

The past ten days have seen a spate of pieces on Google News ****ing Congressman Ron Paul for “blaming” America for the 9/11 attacks. This is just the start of what will become a wave of ever-more shrill and lie-filled attacks on Mr. Paul as long as he is seeking the Republican presidential nomination and continues to find growing public support. The attacks on Mr. Paul are and will be the work of the Neoconservatives, the Israel-First fifth column of U.S. citizens, and AIPAC and those it controls in the Congress, media, and academy.

Mr. Paul, of course, never blamed the United States for the war the Islamists started and are now waging on the United States. What he did say is merely what is true beyond any credible challenge: Our growing number of Islamist enemies are motivated to attack us because of what the U.S. government does in the Muslim world and not because of how Americans live and think here at home. Mr. Paul bravely and clearly delivers this essential message to U.S. voters, and as long as he tells this truth he will receive the venom and slander of the above mentioned people and organizations.

And worse is yet to come. On 1 and 2 September 2011, Commentary Magazine — long Israel-First’s flagship publication — identified Mr. Paul’s truth-telling in regard to the impact of U.S. foreign policy in the Islamic world as a “bizarre and twisted interpretation of events” and described him and his supporters as taking Osama bin Laden’s statements as their bible. Commentary went on to **** Mr. Paul and his supporters as follows:

“[Congressman] Paul seems intent on blaming America for the burning [Islamist] hatred directed against us, to the point that he has to disfigure history to justify it. It’s a peculiar citizen who would do such a thing. I suppose I understand why most Republicans (with the fine exception of Rick Santorum) have not taken on the noxious ideology of Representative Paul. But the dirty little secret is Ron Paul holds views that are disgraceful. It seems to me that conservatives, in the name of reaching out to those who inhabit the loony fringes of the libertarian movement, shouldn’t pretend otherwise.”

If this sounds familiar it is because it is precisely the kind of attack that was used against the America First organization when it sought to prevent America from entering the European War that began in September, 1939. Interventionists in both parties; much of the media; senior members of the Roosevelt Administration; leaders of Britain’s pro-intervention covert action program in the United States; and spokesmen for Jewish-American organizations all slandered America First members as disloyal citizens who were ignorant of the world. Together these entities misidentified distinguished Americans who were using 1st Amendment rights to defend what they saw as U.S. interests as traitors, madmen, Nazi sympathizers, and anti-Semites. In their words this week, the articles in Commentary and elsewhere have identified Dr. Paul and the millions who agree with him as “peculiar” citizens (traitors?); madmen (“loony fringes”); and bin Laden sympathizers.

If Mr. Paul continues telling the truth and his support keeps growing, Israel-First’s next step will be to begin smearing him as an anti-Semite, just as Charles Lindbergh and other America First leaders were falsely identified in the late 1930s by the sorts of people noted above. And such attacks on Mr. Paul probably will be more vicious than those on Lindbergh, et al. Some of those who opposed America First, for example, conducted a sharp but fair-minded debate over a clearly substantive and legitimate question: “Does Nazi Germany pose a threat to genuine U.S. national interests?”

Today, however, Mr. Paul’s attackers know they have no legitimate, defensible issue on their side of the debate, only their malevolent desire to see America fight all of Islam on Israel‘s behalf. Indeed, they know the United States and its interests are in large measure threatened and attacked by Islamists because of the U.S. government’s relentless and unquestioning intervention on Israel’s behalf. Thus, the combination of the fact that Mr. Paul’s words are gaining traction with some Americans, and that the Israel-First position is built on sand — that is, it is clear no U.S. interest is served by the current U.S.-Israel relationship — means that Mr. Paul’s attackers use any and every kind of slander to defame him and to ensure the United States will fight to protect Israel against the rising and uncontrollable tide of anti-Israel sentiment that is being produced by the so-called Arab Spring.

In this vein, Commentary’s description of Mr. Paul’s “noxious ideology” is a first step that probably will lead to a systematic Israel-First effort to identify Mr. Paul and those who support him as anti-Semites simply because they do not want to see America’s soldier-children die fighting in an irrelevant Israel-Muslim religious war in which no genuine U.S. interests are at risk.

The "article" (so-called, it's actually just a "hit piece" of a particularly slimey type) that Pilgrim referenced is just one of the first of probably what will be many of a similar type directed at Ron Paul.

Examine the entire article carefully and use your own good judgement.

 

[moose]

Anyone's know's R.P mailing address ?,
I'd like to send him a one dollar bill.
"in god we trust" ,
right there on our currency .
unfortunately, it is NOT the same god as our enemy's have.
which is why we are being attacked.
we are not fighting Israel's war, our military's fighting for our way of life. Israel is just a bump's in the way for the enemy, the small Satan,WE are the big Satan. they've been saying that all along.
it is, afterall, a religious war.yh'a, between fanatic Islam's & everything not a fanatic Islam.

 

[Tennesseahawk]

I don't know why the conservatives are bashing Ron Paul. He's the only meat-n-potatoes guy on the right. He's the only one, maybe besides Bachman and turncoat Gingrich, who has walked the walk. Do they seriously want another liberal Republican in office? Or maybe one who will not stand his ground? *cough Perry cough*

If you guys EVER want to see another conservative in the WH, you're not making a good case of it bashing Ron Paul. So he's got a little mold on his cheese. Who doesn't? At least his isn't limburger... or processed cheese food. *cough Perry cough*

 

[EASYTRADER]

Fact in 1950 Iran was a Democratic Republic Allied with Great Britain.

So the question for you to ask yourself is what happened to Iran between then and now and which country's CIA was responsible for it.

After you have ansered those questions perhaps you'll understand Ron Pauls position on the middle east and Islamic affairs.

My fellow Americans desire to remain ignorant an believe whatever pablum is shoveled out by "the government" is amazing.

BTW, Islamists are trying to kill us, so I disagree with some of Pauls posistion, but at least I know why he holds it. Do U?

Posted with my Droid EO Forum App

 

[Pilgrim]

So you took some questionable examples like Haditha and the collateral damage video and somehow think you have proved all the military is scum? Do you attack blacks, Hispanics, and oriental people the same way? After all we know all blacks will rob and rape, Hispanics will stab you, and we know not to talk about how bad orientals drive because they all know karate. You are really losing any credibility for yourself and Ron Paul if that is the type of garbage that is being used to support him. You found some bad apples and people that had mental breakdowns after being put in horrible situations so you are condemning the whole group, what a pile of absolute garbage that statement is.
Posted with my Droid EO Forum App

Keep in mind that when the original premise of someone's position can't be refuted, the next best response is to attempt to discredit its author or source, or start other attacks that attempt to change the focus of the discussion. But the fact remains that Ron Paul has a close association with Lew Rockwell. So is Rockwell really a nutty radical? As the author suggests, we can simply check out LewRockwell.com and decide for ourselves.

Continuing with the subject of Paul's Loony Legion, here's another article that came out during his 2007 presidential campaign that introduces the neo-nazis, 9/11 Truthers, Holocaust Deniers and White Supremacists that comprise the RP Fan Club: an open letter from Michael Medved dtd 10/26/07 sums up the subject matter quite well.

[FONT=times new roman,times]Dear Congressman Paul:[/FONT]

[FONT=times new roman,times]Your Presidential campaign has drawn the enthusiastic support of an imposing collection of Neo-Nazis, White Supremacists, Holocaust Deniers, 9/11 "Truthers" and other paranoid and discredited conspiracists. [/FONT]

[FONT=times new roman,times]Do you welcome- or repudiate - the support of such factions?[/FONT]

[FONT=times new roman,times]More specifically, your columns have been featured for several years in the American Free Press -a publication of the nation's leading Holocaust Denier and anti-Semitic agitator, Willis Carto. His book club even recommends works that glorify the Nazi SS, and glowingly describe the "comforts and amenities" provided for inmates of Auschwitz. [/FONT]

[FONT=times new roman,times]Have your columns appeared in the American Free Press with your knowledge and approval?[/FONT]

[FONT=times new roman,times]As a Presidential candidate, will you now disassociate yourself, clearly and publicly, from the poisonous propaganda promoted in such publications?[/FONT]

[FONT=times new roman,times]As a guest on my syndicated radio show, you answered my questions directly and fearlessly.
Will you now answer these pressing questions, and eliminate all associations between your campaign and some of the most loathsome fringe groups in American society?[/FONT]

[FONT=times new roman,times]Along with my listeners (and many of your own supporters), I eagerly await your response.[/FONT]

[FONT=times new roman,times]Respectfully, Michael Medved
[/FONT]​

For the entire article: Archived-Articles: The Ron Paul Campaign and its Neo-Nazi Supporters

Once again we can read the article, check out the sources and evaluate its credibility according to its merits.

This cast of characters may not have come out of the woodwork yet for the 2012 campaign, but it's early yet. The bottom line is that things like this are what make Paul unelectable in spite of the good conservative positions he takes on many issues; he's just too far around the bend on critical issues like foreign policy.

 

[paullud]

Fact in 1950 Iran was a Democratic Republic Allied with Great Britain.

So the question for you to ask yourself is what happened to Iran between then and now and which country's CIA was responsible for it.

After you have ansered those questions perhaps you'll understand Ron Pauls position on the middle east and Islamic affairs.

My fellow Americans desire to remain ignorant an believe whatever pablum is shoveled out by "the government" is amazing.

BTW, Islamists are trying to kill us, so I disagree with some of Pauls posistion, but at least I know why he holds it. Do U?

Posted with my Droid EO Forum App

Fact Iran supported the Nazis until they were invaded in 1941 and Allied forces put a shah in power that liked them.

Fact Iran used a shah or monarchy until 1979 when the Iranian Revolution took place and they became an Islamic Republic.

Posted with my Droid EO Forum App

 

[paullud]

Nope - that's a strawman of your own construction - essentially the very same one Bahnsen is trying to tar Lew Rockwell and Ron Paul with.

Thanks for providing the exact illustration of the very point I was trying to make.

Of course, I never said, nor implied, any such thing - and I very seriously doubt Lew Rockwell or Ron Paul has either.

Try understanding what I wrote ... with the intent that I wrote it. I realize it might be tough .... but give it your best shot.

If that doesn't work, lemme know and I'll draw you a picture, if it still ain't clear.

Well I guess your intent was just to waste everyone's time by listing the convictions of the armed forces then and lines like these were just pointless:

It doesn't include the butchery and wanton slaughter contained in the Wikileaks Collateral Murder Video.

The US government and military has been repeatedly caught attempting to deny, cover up, and lie about various incidents such as above. And the above is only some portion of what is known and documented ... there's no telling how much more there may be that is still being concealed.

Oh and you are the last person that should be offering to draw a picture or insulting the intelligence of another when you used the definition of a private banker to tell all of us stupid folks that it is the same as a private client group.

Do you still beat your wife ?

Only on Tuesday.

Please show me exactly in my statement where I condemned the whole group.

I already did.

Please do elucidate it ..... so all might understand and be enlightened.

I can just picture you sitting there with a thesaurus thinking I am going to use a really big word and maybe they will think I am smarter than I am and not question the definition of private banker I copy and pasted from Wikipedia and tried to say it was the same as a private client group.

I'm quite comfortable with my own cred.

Your impression of your credibility is worthless, I'm sure Obama is fine with his as well.

As far as Ron Paul's cred goes, I'll give this guy below alot more weight than I will some never-heard-of Wall Street Private Banker (dug up by some turkey choker) with who knows what vested interests ....

So because you never heard of someone that means what they say holds no weight.

Just remember now, this guy below, he's an official member of the "Ron Paul Legion of Loonies".

BTW, he also happens to be a 22-year veteran of the CIA and former head analyst at the CIA’s bin Laden unit, and the author of "Osama Bin Laden, Marching Toward Hell: America and Islam After Iraq" and "Imperial Hubris: Why the West is Losing the War on Terror", and several other books ..... yeah, a real kook to be sure



The "article" (so-called, it's actually just a "hit piece" of a particularly slimey type) that Pilgrim referenced is just one of the first of probably what will be many of a similar type directed at Ron Paul.

Examine the entire article carefully and use your own good judgement.

Well of course there are people that won't like Ron Paul and there are people that support him 100%, there are also others like me that like a lot of what he says but aren't in agreement with things like his foreign policy. You then get attacked by some rabid Ron Paul fanboy and really start to question the sanity of voting with such a group and question your choice.

Posted with my Droid EO Forum App

 

[RLENT]

Fact Iran supported the Nazis until they were invaded in 1941 and Allied forces put a shah in power that liked them.

Actually Iran was neutral, and their connection and relations to Germany were largely out of their own self-interest, as a counter-balance to foreign domination and explotation - thru the meddling of England and the Soviets. Keep in mind that the Brits were trying to strong arm Iran and essentially steal their oil .... something that is essentially a criminal act.

Fact Iran used a shah or monarchy until 1979 when the Iranian Revolution took place and they became an Islamic Republic.

While the above contains some element of truth, it does not accurately render an adequate picture of the situation necessary for any real understanding, and is highly simplistic at best.

Around 1905 - 1907 the Iranian Constitutional Revolution took place, end result of which was to establish a constitution, and parliament, with the constitution being modeled primarily after the Belgian Constitution ..... and eventually Iran became a constitutional monarchy in order to limit the power of the Shah by establishing that the Shah was "under the rule of law, and the crown became a divine gift given to the Shah by the people."

So on one side, you had the Shahs who maintained power as the result of the backing of foreign powers (for their own greedy interests), and on the other side you had the constitutionalists, who sought to have democracy, and stand up for their rights as a sovereign nation against foreign exploitation.

Subsequent to that, Iran had democratic elections for the Parliament, and one man that was involved at the very beginning of the Iranian Constitutional Revolution, was a fellow by the name of Mohammad Mosaddegh, who at the age of 24 was elected to Parliament (served as a member from 1920 to 1948), and eventually became the democratically elected Prime Minister (twice) by a vote of the democratically elected Parliament, as well as Premier of Iran ...... also having served as Finance Minister and Foreign Minister along the way.

He was subsequently deposed thru a coup which was backed/instigated by the CIA, at the behest of the Brits because Mosaddegh wouldn't roll over and allow them to continue raping the country by robbing it of it's mineral wealth.

In 2000, The New York Times made partial publication of a leaked CIA document titled, Clandestine Service History – Overthrow of Premier Mosaddegh of Iran – November 1952-August 1953. This document describes the point-by-point planning of the coup by agent Donald Wilbur, and execution conducted by the American and British governments.

The actual CIA document referenced above, in it's entirety, can be read at the following link below:

Yet Another CIA Crime

Of course, if anyone did similar to us we wouldn't hate them for the fact that they overthrew our democratically elected leaders, and subverted our government - that can't possibly be a valid, legitimate reason ... noooooo, instead we'd have to descend into some sort of neocon fantasy land .... ignoring what was done ..... and say we hate them because we perceive their God to be different from ours (when in fact, he isn't), or we don't like some aspect of their civil society ...

One couldn't make up anything so utterly retarded ....

From the document linked above (out of their very own mouths the CIA condemns itself):

"Possibilities of blowback against the United States should always be in the back of the minds of all CIA officers involved in this type of operation. Few, if any, operations are as explosive as this type."

Clearly, there was no doubt in the minds of those who report the above report what the potential consequences could be .....

And clearly, they were correct.

"Those who cannot remember the past are condemned to fulfill it" - George Santayana

 

[Turtle]

Keep in mind that when the original premise of someone's position can't be refuted, the next best response is to attempt to discredit its author or source, or start other attacks that attempt to change the focus of the discussion.

You mean like the diversion of the logical fallacy of Guilt by Association?

But the fact remains that Ron Paul has a close association with Lew Rockwell.

Excellent example of what I was just talking about.

Continuing with the subject of Paul's Loony Legion,....

Why is that, exactly? I mean, since the OP wasn't about it, and the subject of the OP's article didn't originate there, why are we talking about Ron Paul or his Looney Legion at all?

 

[RLENT]

Keep in mind that when the original premise of someone's position can't be refuted, the next best response is to attempt to discredit its author or source, or start other attacks that attempt to change the focus of the discussion

I'm sure that as long as you continue to post such things as detailed exactly in your words above, that very thought will not be far away for any of us .....

 

[tbubster]

You mean like the diversion of the logical fallacy of Guilt by Association?

Excellent example of what I was just talking about.

Why is that, exactly? I mean, since the OP wasn't about it, and the subject of the OP's article didn't originate there, why are we talking about Ron Paul or his Looney Legion at all?

Because I posted a link from daily paul Where one can see it was written by hal turner.Then a comment was made about paul then lentie just had to start with the insults and get people all riled up.What lentie does not relize is that Ron pauls name is in fact there also.Well he does really and this is why he is up set.

Actually Iran was neutral, and their connection and relations to Germany were largely out of their own self-interest, as a counter-balance to foreign domination and explotation - thru the meddling of England and the Soviets. Keep in mind that the Brits were trying to strong arm Iran and essentially steal their oil .... something that is essentially a criminal act.


While the above contains some element of truth, it does not accurately render an adequate picture of the situation necessary for any real understanding, and is highly simplistic at best.

Around 1905 - 1907 the Iranian Constitutional Revolution took place, end result of which was to establish a constitution, and parliament, with the constitution being modeled primarily after the Belgian Constitution ..... and eventually Iran became a constitutional monarchy in order to limit the power of the Shah by establishing that the Shah was "under the rule of law, and the crown became a divine gift given to the Shah by the people."

So on one side, you had the Shahs who maintained power as the result of the backing of foreign powers (for their own greedy interests), and on the other side you had the constitutionalists, who sought to have democracy, and stand up for their rights as a sovereign nation against foreign exploitation.

Subsequent to that, Iran had democratic elections for the Parliament, and one man that was involved at the very beginning of the Iranian Constitutional Revolution, was a fellow by the name of Mohammad Mosaddegh, who at the age of 24 was elected to Parliament (served as a member from 1920 to 1948), and eventually became the democratically elected Prime Minister (twice) by a vote of the democratically elected Parliament, as well as Premier of Iran ...... also having served as Finance Minister and Foreign Minister along the way.

He was subsequently deposed thru a coup which was backed/instigated by the CIA, at the behest of the Brits because Mosaddegh wouldn't roll over and allow them to continue raping the country by robbing it of it's mineral wealth.

In 2000, The New York Times made partial publication of a leaked CIA document titled, Clandestine Service History – Overthrow of Premier Mosaddegh of Iran – November 1952-August 1953. This document describes the point-by-point planning of the coup by agent Donald Wilbur, and execution conducted by the American and British governments.

The actual CIA document referenced above, in it's entirety, can be read at the following link below:

Yet Another CIA Crime

Of course, if anyone did similar to us we wouldn't hate them for the fact that they overthrew our democratically elected leaders, and subverted our government - that can't possibly be a valid, legitimate reason ... noooooo, instead we'd have to descend into some sort of neocon fantasy land .... ignoring what was done ..... and say we hate them because we perceive their God to be different from ours (when in fact, he isn't), or we don't like some aspect of their civil society ...

One couldn't make up anything so utterly retarded ....

From the document linked above (out of their very own mouths the CIA condemns itself):

"Possibilities of blowback against the United States should always be in the back of the minds of all CIA officers involved in this type of operation. Few, if any, operations are as explosive as this type."

Clearly, there was no doubt in the minds of those who report the above report what the potential consequences could be .....

And clearly, they were correct.

"Those who cannot remember the past are condemned to fulfill it" - George Santayana

SO SO SO funny when someone is so full of insults and talking down to people about how stupid they are and how far up someone elses butt they have their heads,about how their links are worthless.THEN THEY USE WIKIPEDIA AS THEIR SOURCE OF INFO.Wow it is almost like they really belive everything they read on wikipedia even though anyone can add info and edit pagers.YET ONE OFFERS THE INFO AS FACTS TO PROVE HE IS RIGHT.

Wikipedia is written collaboratively by largely anonymous Internet volunteers who write without pay. Anyone with Internet access can write and make changes to Wikipedia articles (except in certain cases where editing is restricted to prevent disruption or vandalism). Users can contribute anonymously, under a pseudonym, or with their real identity, if they choose.

The fundamental principles by which Wikipedia operates are the Five pillars. The Wikipedia community has developed many policies and guidelines to improve the encyclopedia; however, it is not a formal requirement to be familiar with them before contributing.

Since its creation in 2001, Wikipedia has grown rapidly into one of the largest reference websites, attracting 400 million unique visitors monthly as of March 2011 according to ComScore.[1] There are more than 82,000 active contributors working on more than 19,000,000 articles in more than 270 languages. As of today, there are 3,735,538 articles in English. Every day, hundreds of thousands of visitors from around the world collectively make tens of thousands of edits and create thousands of new articles to augment the knowledge held by the Wikipedia encyclopedia (see also Wikipedia:Statistics.)

The actual CIA document referenced above, in it's entirety, can be read at the following link below:

What it really is is a historians note no actual documents to be found click on the historians note linke and you will see this is all it is.

Yep were are the stupid ones.

 

[RLENT]

SO SO SO funny when someone is so full of insults and talking down to people about how stupid they are and how far up someone elses butt they have their heads, about how their links are worthless.THEN THEY USE WIKIPEDIA AS THEIR SOURCE OF INFO.

OMIDGAWD Bubbie ! ..... say it ain't so !

Wikipedia is just a online reference resource that is easily accessible to everyone on the internet ...... convenient, when needing to point others to sources.

And of course, it often points to other primary sources .... as it did in this case.

Wow it is almost like they really belive everything they read on wikipedia even though anyone can add info and edit pagers.

Not quite exactly the case today .... you should consider some form of continuing education .......

What it really is is a historians note no actual documents to be found click on the historians note linke and you will see this is all it is.

Bubbie,

See if'n by perchance, you can overcome the undoubtedly large woodie that you obtained when your eyes glazed over on the words "HISTORIAN'S NOTES" ....... and - backing up just a bit - raise your gaze to the top of the document where you will find the following:

CLANDESTINE SERVICE HISTORY

OVERTHROW OF PREMIER MOSSADEQ OF IRAN

November 1952-August 1953

Date written : March 1954
Date published : October 1969
Written by : Dr. Donald N. Wilber​

Do you know who, in fact, Dr. Donald R. Wilbur - the author - was ?

If not, perhaps the following will shed a little light on it for you, although getting to it would have required reading further past that which is causing your arousal - something I realize may be very difficult in your present state:

"This paper, entitled Overthrow of Premier Mossadeq of Iran, was written in March 1954 by Dr. Donald N. Wilber who had played an active role in the operation."

Yep were are the stupid ones.

What is this "we'" crap, kemo sabe ?

.... nah .... you're out there all by your lonesome on this one baby .....

BTW, I do have one question:

So like ..... what exactly were you expecting .... a clandestine services whitepaper to be written on actual CIA letterhead ..... complete with the Langely address ..... or what ?

 

[tbubster]

The actual CIA document referenced above, in it's entirety, can be read at the following link below

Yet Another CIA Crime


Well lets see you used wikipedia as your source of info then you post a link trying to pass it off as the ACTUAL CIA DOCUMENT When in fact it is just a Historians note Hell it even says some information could not be located.It also goes on to talk about the new york times artical and how the summary and the main document are incsistent on a few dates and facts,

Yes when you post a link that your words call a actual CIA document yes I as im sure others would,would like something that says its real not just someone who worked for the CIA and says hey this is what happend.ACTUAL CIA DOCUMENT your words not mine.

Yep were the stupid ones refers to the few that dare question you or that dont buy into your crap then you start insulting and calling namesYEP ACTUAL CIA DOCUMENT THATS FUNNY RIGHT THERE

 

[Turtle]

...trying to pass it off as the ACTUAL CIA DOCUMENT When in fact it is just a Historians note...

Actually, it's not a "historian's note", meaning a note from an historian, but rather it's a "note to historians", a directive or heads up for historians to note the following information.

In addition, while many things at Wiki should be taken with a grain of salt, you need to further familiarize yourself with the actual editing, documentation and discussion process of how edits are done on there. No, not just anyone can go in and make edits as they please.

 

[tbubster]

Actually, it's not a "historian's note", meaning a note from an historian, but rather it's a "note to historians", a directive or heads up for historians to note the following information.

Well no matter really as it is not the ACTUAL CIA DOCUMENT that relent claims it to be in order to back up what he claims to be as facts.

In addition, while many things at Wiki should be taken with a grain of salt, you need to further familiarize yourself with the actual editing, documentation and discussion process of how edits are done on there. No, not just anyone can go in and make edits as they please.

Help:Editing - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Wow anybody really can add or delete and edit a wiki page as long as its not protected.If you or anyone for that matter wants they can see the links rlent posted are not protected.Click on them and you will see I added on word to both links heck its even something you like.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Iranian_Constitutional_Revolution

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mohammad_Mosaddegh

It took all of 60 seconds

 

[Turtle]

Good for you.

 

[RLENT]

Boobala,

Well lets see you used wikipedia as your source of info

Actually, I used the Wikipedia and the document itself as two of my sources of info .... and they were the ones I choose to link to (.... oh the horror !)

then you post a link trying to pass it off as the ACTUAL CIA DOCUMENT When in fact it is just a Historians note ........

I guess you've never seen an original document reproduced that has had additional text added as say, a forward, to serve as explanation or "background info" ...

Dude, you really need to stop being so literal .... and use your own mind a bit more ....

Of course, seeing that you came to the entirely incorrect conclusion - that the document was merely "a historians note", and not an actual history written by the very CIA agent, one Donald N. Wilbur, who was "one of the "leading planners" of the operation "TP-Ajax", mebbe using your mind ain't such a good idea.

Hell it even says some information could not be located. It also goes on to talk about the new york times artical and how the summary and the main document are incsistent on a few dates and facts,

Yeah .... so ?

Yes when you post a link that your words call a actual CIA document yes I as im sure others would, would like something that says its real not just someone who worked for the CIA and says hey this is what happend.

Well, the document was authored for the CIA by an individual who was a covert CIA operative, who had participated in the operation, while he was employed by the agency ..... and at the time of original publication in the New York Times - April 16, 2000 - it was still classified.

ACTUAL CIA DOCUMENT your words not mine.

Fair enough - I'll give you this much:

My statement would have been precisely accurate had I said "the text of the actual CIA document"

Sorry, my bad ......

In the final analysis, that omission on my part is fairly inconsequential - when compared to say, drawing the entirely inaccurate conclusion that the document is merely "a historical note" ..... (seriously, ya can't make it up)

I'd say: Rejoice in any small triumph ... as they may be all that comes your way ....

Yep were the stupid ones refers to the few that dare question you or that dont buy into your crap then you start insulting and calling names YEP ACTUAL CIA DOCUMENT THATS FUNNY RIGHT THERE

Well, if it really makes a difference to you, please feel free to review the scanned copies of the originals, which can be viewed at the link below.

Feel free to compare the text contained in those documents to the text in the document at the link I originally posted.

Feel free to realize that by making the statements you have thus far in regards to this matter, you provided everyone reading here with great insights into your ability (or lack thereof) to observe, understand, and to comprehend what I assume is your own native language .... English.

Electronic Briefing Book: The Secret CIA History of the Iran Group

Bon appetit !

 

[tbubster]

Boobala,


Actually, I used the Wikipedia and the document itself as two of my sources of info .... and they were the ones I choose to link to (.... oh the horror !)


I guess you've never seen an original document reproduced that has had additional text added as say, a forward, to serve as explanation or "background info" ...

Dude, you really need to stop being so literal .... and use your own mind a bit more ....

Of course, seeing that you came to the entirely incorrect conclusion - that the document was merely "a historians note", and not an actual history written by the very CIA agent, one Donald N. Wilbur, who was "one of the "leading planners" of the operation "TP-Ajax", mebbe using your mind ain't such a good idea.


Yeah .... so ?


Well, the document was authored for the CIA by an individual who was a covert CIA operative, who had participated in the operation, while he was employed by the agency ..... and at the time of original publication in the New York Times - April 16, 2000 - it was still classified.


Fair enough - I'll give you this much:

My statement would have been precisely accurate had I said "the text of the actual CIA document"

Sorry, my bad ......

In the final analysis, that omission on my part is fairly inconsequential - when compared to say, drawing the entirely inaccurate conclusion that the document is merely "a historical note" ..... (seriously, ya can't make it up)

I'd say: Rejoice in any small triumph ... as they may be all that comes your way ....


Well, if it really makes a difference to you, please feel free to review the scanned copies of the originals, which can be viewed at the link below.

Feel free to compare the text contained in those documents to the text in the document at the link I originally posted.

Feel free to realize that by making the statements you have thus far in regards to this matter, you provided everyone reading here with great insights into your ability (or lack thereof) to observe, understand, and to comprehend what I assume is your own native language .... English.

Electronic Briefing Book: The Secret CIA History of the Iran Group

Bon appetit !

Wow another link from a government watch group from a liberal school

 

[RLENT]

Wow another link from a government watch group from a liberal school ....

Most people, after having poked themselves directly in one eye with a sharp iron poker, usually get the idea that it can be painful and simply refrain ....... you however, seem to want to deliberately stick the poker into the fire, heat it until it is white-hot .... and then just continue stabbing furiously in the other eye as well ..... and any other bodily orifice you can find.

Good job !

 

[clcooper]

i went to the Bugs Bunny web site and i didnt find anyting about the ACTUAL CIA DOCUMENT . so it must not be true . then i talked to a guy that was 5,000 miles away when this was happen and he said he never seen or heard anything about it . so it is in fact NOT TRUE .

I found a guy that is said to be part of this and he said it did happen . well i wont believe him because he was there and was paid by the CIA .then the CIA got rid of him now he is just saying that because he is mad