Slashdot Mirror

First of all: Wikipedia is not a source. But even if we say Wikipedia is correct, the only source that Operation TPAJAX/AJAX happened is from CIA. How trustworthy is CIA? How come you believe CIA on this matter, but not on other matters?

Secondly, there are many other articles that prove that Operation Ajax is a lie, and never happened.

Thirdly, the Shah appointed Mossadegh according to the Iranian constiution. Therefore he was not "democratically elected".

How did Shah rely on support from US? The Shah was against US in many points. The Shah sided with Russia on many points, which pissed US of. There are sadly, a lot of propaganda here against the Shah. There are people though who try to stop this.

On a side note, Mossadegh was a retard who destroyed the nation. He forced women to wear hijab again, he wanted 18 months of dictatorial powers from the parliament, and when they did not approve it he closed the parliament. Even his close friends took distance from him. The treasury became empty, and the sales of Iran's oil did not equal the revenues of 1949.

If CIA is a trustworthy source for you, surely you can see these as trustworthy too. Read the other side of the story too: http://aryamehr.org/eng/19august/19august.htm

It is also worth to notice that the Shah pardoned Mossadegh after all his play.

So all I am saying is: Look at the other side of the story too. Anything your wonderful nation USA tells you does not mean its correct.

USA did not do shit. Stop being so imperalistic and act as if you owned every country in this whole world. Stop reading american propaganda books. Read neutral books where you will find out how pissed USA was because of the way Shah acted, for example by raising the oil prices. Idiot.

1953 coup never happened.

1- Mossadegh was not democratically elected.
2- He was never a president. Iran never had a president before 1979. You mean prime minster.
3- The Shah appointed Mossadegh himself according to the the Iranian consitution (note: there was no election) Under the constitution of 1906 the Shah had the power to name and dismiss prime ministers.
4- The only source about the 1953 coup is CIA. CIA is not trustable at all. CIA is an intelligence agency. Intelligence agencies lie, disinform, manipulate etc.

Richard Helms, long time CIA director, told a BBC television program that '' the agency did not counter rumours of in Iran because the Iranian episode looked like a success. At the time, of course, agency needed some success, especially to counter fiascos as the Bay of Pigs.''

Gary Sick writes ''The belief that the United States had single-handedly imposed a harsh tyrant on a reluctant populace became one of the central myths of the relationship, particularly as viewed from Iran.''

Loy Henderson , the US ambassador to Tehran at the time, makes it abundantly clear in his dispatches to the State Department that Mussadeq was overthrown by a popular uprising which started from the poorest districts of the Iranian capital. HendersonÃf(TM)s reports have been published in a book of more than 100 pages, translated into Persian and published in Iran.

Now that you had time to read CIA sources, read these two articles too: http://aryamehr.org/eng/19august/19august.htm [aryamehr.org]

Mossadegh was a retard who destroyed the nation. He forced women to wear hijab again, he wanted 18 months of dictatorial powers from the parliament, and when they did not approve it he closed the parliament. Even his close friends took distance from him. The treasury became empty, and the sales of Iran's oil did not equal the revenues of 1949.

1953 coup never happened.

1- Mossadegh was not democratically elected.
2- He was never a president. Iran never had a president before 1979. You mean prime minster.
3- The Shah appointed Mossadegh himself according to the the Iranian consitution (note: there was no election) Under the constitution of 1906 the Shah had the power to name and dismiss prime ministers.
4- The only source about the 1953 coup is CIA. CIA is not trustable at all. CIA is an intelligence agency. Intelligence agencies lie, disinform, manipulate etc.

Richard Helms, long time CIA director, told a BBC television program that '' the agency did not counter rumours of in Iran because the Iranian episode looked like a success. At the time, of course, agency needed some success, especially to counter fiascos as the Bay of Pigs.''

Gary Sick writes ''The belief that the United States had single-handedly imposed a harsh tyrant on a reluctant populace became one of the central myths of the relationship, particularly as viewed from Iran.''

Loy Henderson , the US ambassador to Tehran at the time, makes it abundantly clear in his dispatches to the State Department that Mussadeq was overthrown by a popular uprising which started from the poorest districts of the Iranian capital. HendersonÃf(TM)s reports have been published in a book of more than 100 pages, translated into Persian and published in Iran.

Now that you had time to read CIA sources, read these two articles too: http://aryamehr.org/eng/19august/19august.htm [aryamehr.org]

On a side note: Wikipedia is not source. If you go start studying at university you will learn that.

1953 coup never happened.

1- Mossadegh was not democratically elected.
2- He was never a president. Iran never had a president before 1979. You mean prime minster.
3- The Shah appointed Mossadegh himself according to the the Iranian consitution (note: there was no election) Under the constitution of 1906 the Shah had the power to name and dismiss prime ministers.
4- The only source about the 1953 coup is CIA. CIA is not trustable at all. CIA is an intelligence agency. Intelligence agencies lie, disinform, manipulate etc.

Richard Helms, long time CIA director, told a BBC television program that '' the agency did not counter rumours of in Iran because the Iranian episode looked like a success. At the time, of course, agency needed some success, especially to counter fiascos as the Bay of Pigs.''

Gary Sick writes ''The belief that the United States had single-handedly imposed a harsh tyrant on a reluctant populace became one of the central myths of the relationship, particularly as viewed from Iran.''

Loy Henderson , the US ambassador to Tehran at the time, makes it abundantly clear in his dispatches to the State Department that Mussadeq was overthrown by a popular uprising which started from the poorest districts of the Iranian capital. HendersonÃf(TM)s reports have been published in a book of more than 100 pages, translated into Persian and published in Iran.

Now that you had time to read CIA sources, read these two articles too: http://aryamehr.org/eng/19august/19august.htm [aryamehr.org]

1953 coup never happened.

1- Mossadegh was not democratically elected.
2- He was never a president. Iran never had a president before 1979. You mean prime minster.
3- The Shah appointed Mossadegh himself according to the the Iranian consitution (note: there was no election) Under the constitution of 1906 the Shah had the power to name and dismiss prime ministers.
4- The only source about the 1953 coup is CIA. CIA is not trustable at all. CIA is an intelligence agency. Intelligence agencies lie, disinform, manipulate etc.

Richard Helms, long time CIA director, told a BBC television program that '' the agency did not counter rumours of in Iran because the Iranian episode looked like a success. At the time, of course, agency needed some success, especially to counter fiascos as the Bay of Pigs.''

Gary Sick writes ''The belief that the United States had single-handedly imposed a harsh tyrant on a reluctant populace became one of the central myths of the relationship, particularly as viewed from Iran.''

Loy Henderson , the US ambassador to Tehran at the time, makes it abundantly clear in his dispatches to the State Department that Mussadeq was overthrown by a popular uprising which started from the poorest districts of the Iranian capital. HendersonÃ(TM)s reports have been published in a book of more than 100 pages, translated into Persian and published in Iran.

Now that you had time to read CIA sources, read these two articles too: http://aryamehr.org/eng/19august/19august.htm

Many people have tried to change it on Wikipedia. But here are a few reasons:

1) People don't have time. Instead they spread the word through forums, chats etc, where their message, like Wikipedia, can not be removed.
2) Since this is a controversial issue with two sides, and as you can see the other side of the story is not written!, it means a lot of fights and reverts.
3) People who are active there and "good" at this got an advantange to say, than new people who come to edit. So if you check the history you can see that many people have tried to edit it, but it gets reverted. Many have even started discussions.

Again, how do you know that they don't want you to see it? We are talking about CIA. Their job is to trick, lie, manipulate and to do that they are very good at convicing people as well.

Two articles about what really happened: http://aryamehr.org/eng/19august/19august.htm

For example some hardcore proof:
(Note that these are not in Wikipedia, which explains all the biased people editing these pages. Wikipedia is not good for controversial issues....)

* Under the constitution of 1906 the Shah had the power to name and dismiss prime ministers
(So there was no election, so the Shah was not "put out of power" etc.) Why is this hardcore proof? You can not fake a consitution. It is on the internet, go read it.

Richard Helms, long time CIA director, told a BBC television program that '' the agency did not counter rumours of in Iran because the Iranian episode looked like a success. At the time, of course, agency needed some success, especially to counter fiascos as the Bay of Pigs.''

So if you trust CIA, surely you must trust a long time CIA director, no? I hope you can make up your mind.

Gary Sick writes ''The belief that the United States had single-handedly imposed a harsh tyrant on a reluctant populace became one of the central myths of the relationship, particularly as viewed from Iran.''

Loy Henderson , the US ambassador to Tehran at the time, makes it abundantly clear in his dispatches to the State Department that Mussadeq was overthrown by a popular uprising which started from the poorest districts of the Iranian capital. Hendersonâ(TM)s reports have been published in a book of more than 100 pages, translated into Persian and published in Iran.

Surely you must trust the US ambassador, no?

The coup never happened. Only source about the coup are documents from CIA. How trustworthy is CIA? How can you trust an intelligence agency where one of its missions is to lie and disinform?

Wikipedia is not a good source. Especially when it comes to controversial issues like this. Many people have many times edited that article to put out the other side of the story too, but there are people who apparently take this way too personal and revert the changes. Maybe they are one of those internet warriors on the internet. Articles that do not bring up both sides of the story are not to be trusted. Wikipedia articles are not even qualified as a real source, if you study in a university you will understand.

Do look at the other side as well: http://aryamehr.org/eng/19august/19august.htm

On a side note, Mossadegh was a retard who destroyed the nation. He forced women to wear hijab again, he wanted 18 months of dictatorial powers from the parliament, and when they did not approve it he closed the parliament. Even his close friends took distance from him. The treasury became empty, and the sales of Iran's oil did not equal the revenues of 1949.

It is really funny to see foreigners decide and talk for a nation they do not know shit about, especially using CIA as the source. Would you trust if the Iranian intelligence agency said something? Haha.

I have read and it all seems to come from CIA whos job is to spread disinformation. What about you read the other side story a bit? Once you read these two parts, please come back as I have more articles, books and so on. http://aryamehr.org/eng/19august/19august.htm Sadly, western media do not want to show the other side.

Oh. Interesting to see you use wikipedia, but I am sorry to tell you that you are wrong. Since you just give me a link, I will give you one link that contains two links so you can read the other side: http://aryamehr.org/eng/19august/19august.htm No, we did not put theocrats in power. If you go through the events, there is no way. Explain why the American general Huyser visited Iran prior to the "revoluton" and talked to Iranian generals without the Shah knowing he was in Iran? Later it was exposed that Huyser told them to say "neutral" during the "revolution". Please read this: http://www.studien-von-zeitfragen.de/Eurasien/Shah_of_Iran/shah_of_iran.html and http://www.thenewamerican.com/history/world/1111 to learn what really happened.

Another uneducated american who will hopefully prove to me how he was a puppet of USA? http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hCMftp2bdJA It's ok. I can wait, leave a comment on my profile. I don't request evidence, just tell me how he was a puppet. What exactly did he do to become a puppet of USA. Perhaps by not giving Carter private property in Iran? http://aryamehr.org/eng/carter/carter.htm