Just to be clear, you do know that President Obama ordered the assasination of an American citizen who was outside the arena of war, yes? And you do know that the his cited legal authority was a secret law (a memo, actually) that the public couldn't access at the time, right? And his 16-year old son, also a US citizen and with no connection to terrorism, was killed 2 weeks later by a separate drone strike. In a country we were not at war with, in an outdoor restaurant, killing 8 others as well. And you do know that all this happened without trial, and without the victim having a chance to defend himself against charges, right?
Lets peel this apart.
Anwal al Awlaki wasn't "outside the arena of war," he was in an al Qaida controlled area of Yemen. He wasn't "assassinated," he was killed. He was a senior member of al Qaida who was active in recruiting, operations, and propaganda. His involvement was directly tied to a number of attacks, including the massacre at Fort Hood. There is little mystery about his killing or its legal basis, he was killed in armed conflict against the United States as a member of the enemy forces. Armed action by the US Armed Forces against al Qaida and its allies and affiliates has been authorized by Congress through the Authorization for Use of Military Force passed after 9/11. There was no need for a trial to do this as it was a military strike against the enemy under the Law of Armed Conflict, not a law enforcement action involving criminal justice. Americans that join with the enemy to fight with them are treated like the rest of the enemy forces and are subject to being captured or killed just like them. If he wanted to face criminal justice he could have surrendered at the US embassy, which he didn't do, and showed no intention of doing.
As I recall his son regrettably made a similar bad choice having sworn his allegiance to al Qaida not long before this death. He was killed in the company of another senior al Qaida official. The son was old enough to carry a weapon, or a suicide vest. What kind of a father would bring his son in al Qaida's lair if he wanted him to live?
There should be no weeping for father who was a murderous terrorist bastard, and little for the son.
As a practical matter al-Awlaki received the same legal process as many of his follow Americans that took up arms against the United States in the service of and enemy power: You can see it here
If you want to fear for our children, fear than we mislead them about the reality of facts like these, and fear that we go astray and lose our clarity. That won't end well.
Most other violent socialist factions "just" slaughter people who disagree with the new government.
There are three informative works that are worth looking into, or at least to be aware of.
The first is the documentary The Soviet Story. (on demand) Its creation was supported by a committee of the European Parliament, among others. Review is below, and here is a trailer. I suggest watching the entire documentary some time.
The film is gripping, audacious and uncompromising. Though it starts by telling the story of the murder of 7m Ukrainians in 1933, it is no mere catalogue of atrocities. The main aim of the film is to show the close connections—philosophical, political and organisational—between the Nazi and Soviet systems.
As Françoise Thom (one of many anti-communist luminaries appearing in the film) puts it: “Nazism was based on false biology; Marxism was based on false sociology”. The Marxist dream of the “new man”, for example, mirrored the Nazi idea of racial superiority. The Nazis murdered chiefly on racial grounds, while the Soviets concentrated on class. But mass murder is mass murder
Those who keep a soft spot for Marxism may flinch to hear that the sage of Highgate referred to backward societies as Völkerabfälle (racial trash) who must “perish in the revolutionary holocaust”. Or that the Nazi party in its early days idolised Lenin (Josef Goebbels said he was second only to Adolf Hitler in greatness).
Perhaps the best sequence in the film shows pairs of posters using almost identical designs: muscular workers strike heroic attitudes in support of the party and the state, blonde little girls beam, fists smash enemies, hammers break chains. Without the swastika and hammer and sickle as clues, it would be hard to know which is which.
The illustration of the Molotov-Ribbentrop pact is compelling: Soviet radio transmitters guided German bombers in their attacks on Poland. A Soviet naval base near Murmansk helped the Nazi attack on Norway. The Soviet secret police helped train the Gestapo and discussed how to deal with the “Jewish question” in occupied Poland. . . . Read the whole thing
We find in it a great deal of history that people would like us to forget, including how fascism was admired by many, how progressives influenced and were influenced by fascist movements in Europe, and how common threads of ideas and values continue to influence events today.
And since we have a self-described socialist running for office:
I thought the reason the French police were able to find the attacker's apartments, accomplices, and so on very quickly was because the attackers used regular unencrypted methods of communication, such as SMS?
So the possibility that the different people in different parts of the group responsible for this attack might have used different means of communication with or without encryption at various times is just too many variables to keep in your mind at once? How about we simplify it to: some of them used encryption at times. Is that easy enough to understand?
What some political dimwits are not getting is that no trained attacker would be stupid enough to make the information publicly available.
What some technical dimwits are not getting is that not all attackers are trained (especially among the self-radicalized), not all of the ones trained in mayhem are trained in infosec, not all of the ones trained in mass murder and infosec are equally competent in both. Beyond that they may be undisciplined, too busy, or inattentive to do everything right, consistently. But it appears that much of the technical community on Slashdot will keep working away until terrorists communications are solid, strongly encrypted, and foolproof, and will feel no small amount of self-satisfaction in doing it. I imagine that will last right up to the point where it is their skin at risk.
Be it through encryption, obscurity or just by having the plans drain in the sea of useless information surrounding it... there are always methods of getting something done in secrecy.
And those methods can be more or less successful depending on many factors. It seems much of Slashdot's technical community wants to see the terrorists as successful as possible. Given the tendency of much of the West to hold its heritage and values in contempt this likely will not end well.
They keep trying, however the true fact remains no encryption was used by these terrorists.
Nor would it have helped prevent 9/11. Encryption is nothing. Intelligence and cooperation are everything.
Brilliant..... just brilliant. "Encryption is nothing. Intelligence and cooperation are everything." Encryption significantly degrades the ability of the intelligence agencies to obtain information. After the unprecedented data breaches by Bradly Manning and Edward Snowden now cooperation is harder due to reintroduced or new controls on information and its handling. Everything isn't quite what it used to be, is it?
Of course nobody on Slashdot thinks they have skin in the game until it is too late.
Oh, 9/11 - a key block there was procedural, the sort of thing that Manning and Snowden's data breaches attacked.
Just like there are multiple dimensions to politics (fiscal, social, economic, civil rights, foreign policy,...) instead of just one (hates black people, doesn't hate black people) * there is more than one dimension in which recess appointments can be measured. Here's a question for you: which recent US president received a 9-0 smack down at the US Supreme Court over recess appointments? Clinton? Bush? Obama?
Do you think that the Supreme Court did this because it is "racist"? Just "trying to keep the black man down"? Or is there something else going on there? Well, there is something different than "hates the black man" in striking down Obama actions there, just as there is something different going on in opposing Obama's other policies and actions by members of Congress. Frankly, attributing opposition to VERY LIBERAL DEMOCRATIC president Obama to "just racism" is more than a little stupid and dishonest.
Obama is a Democrat president, and one that has been aggressive in using recess appointments to evade confirmation in the Senate. Senators aren't going to like that, especially senators from the opposition party. Senators from either party that are attached to the prerogatives of the Senate aren't going to be thrilled either.
There is no duck, there is no quacking, there is no waddling. That is a bunch of crap. But hey, if you want to show some actual evidence be my guest.
I have one question first, is it your contention that there have never been any controversies over recess appointments until Obama made them? That would seem to be a precondition for the "racist" duck bull.
The do show up it is just that they are not that great and we demand more of them as well.
You're right about the increasing demands. I carried an S5 phone for a while. With the default setting and everything turned on I had to recharge it pretty much every day. Turning off almost everything but the bare minimum of what I needed let me go almost two full weeks without a recharge.
As to "how likely is it for the criminals to get the keys?"... well, pretty much every system (FBI, DHS, Apple, etc) that could theoretically hold the keys has been breached at some point.
Those breaches tend to involve exploits of bugs or weaknesses in the operating system or applications, not an actual breaking of encryption schemes. Big difference.
Na, they could just fire up the Cray XMP supercomputer they bought. (Assuming they still have it.) It's not anywhere as impressive as it used to be, but it is an honest to goodness supercomputer.
By 1953, economic tensions caused by the British embargo and political turmoil began to take a major toll upon Mossadegh's popularity and political power. The people were increasingly blaming him for the economic and political crisis. Political violence was becoming widespread in the form of street clashes between rival political groups.[7][9] Mossadegh was losing popularity and support among the working class which had been his strongest supporters. As he lost support, he became more autocratic.[59][60] As early as August 1952, he began to rely on emergency powers to rule, generating controversy among his supporters.[60] After an assassination attempt upon one of his cabinet ministers and himself, he ordered the jailing of dozens of his political opponents. This act created widespread anger among much of the general public, and led to accusations that Mossadegh was becoming a dictator.[7][9] The Tudeh party's unofficial alliance with Mossadegh led to fears of communism, and increasingly it was the communists who were taking part in pro-Mossadegh rallies, and attacking opponents.[7][9]
By mid-1953 a mass of resignations by Mossadegh's parliamentary supporters reduced the National Front seats in Parliament. A referendum to dissolve parliament and give the prime minister power to make law was submitted to voters, and it passed with 99.9 percent approval, 2,043,300 votes to 1300 votes against*.[61] The rigged referendum was widely seen by opponents as a dictatorial act, and the Shah and the rest of the government were effectively stripped of their powers to rule. When Mossadegh dissolved the Parliament, his opponents decried this act because he had effectively given himself "total power". Ironically, this un-democratic act by a democratically elected prime minister would result in a chain of events leading to his downfall.[7][9] . . .
The official pretext for the start of the coup was Mossadegh's decree to dissolve Parliament, giving himself and his cabinet complete power to rule, while effectively stripping the Shah of his powers.[7][8][9] It resulted in him being accused of giving himself "total and dictatorial powers." The Shah, who had been resisting the CIA's demands for the coup, finally agreed to support it.[7][8][9] Having obtained the Shah's concurrence, the CIA executed the coup.[62] Farmans (royal decrees) dismissing Mosaddegh and appointing General Fazlollah Zahedi (a loyalist who had helped Reza Shah reunify Iran decades earlier)[8] were drawn up by the coup plotters and signed by the Shah. On Saturday 15 August, Colonel Nematollah Nassiri,[8] the commander of the Imperial Guard, delivered to Mosaddegh a firman from the Shah dismissing him. Mosaddegh, who had been warned of the plot, probably by the Communist Tudeh party, rejected the firman and had Nassiri arrested.[63] Mosaddegh argued at his trial after the coup that under the Iranian constitutional monarchy, the Shah had no constitutional right to issue an order for the elected Prime Minister's dismissal without Parliament's consent. However, the constitution at the time did allow for such an action, which Mossadegh considered unfair.[9][64]
* At the time of the vote, Time magazine pointed out that neither Joseph Stalin in the Soviet Union nor Adolph Hitler in Germany was able to match that lop-sided outcome. Fraud, per chance?
It is a pity that you couldn't have been a little more specific on the exact nature of your disagreement with my post. That would have made it easier to reply, but I'll make a wild guess: you think more of Iran's history should have been included? That wasn't really needed, the question was a fairly narrow one: the overthrow of democracy in Iran in the early 1950s, and who was responsible. The answer I gave was adequate for that question. If you think more history should have been included then make a case for that.
You're also mistaken about me being "one of the.... least credible posters." Nonsense. It isn't that my answers are wrong, but that they aren't liked, they aren't politically correct. That is an entirely different question. Besides, if I'm posting links to major media coverage of an issue, how do you think that isn't "credible"? Has it crossed your mind that the nature of the world and society isn't quite what you think it is? That is a fairly common problem on Slashdot.
The question we were commenting on was the overthrow of democracy in Iran in the early 1950s, and who was responsible. Let's see how your post contributes to that discussion.
You have your history confused even more, which is not surprising, due to your your political views and general stupidity.
Mockery. It doesn't add any useful facts to the topic under discussion: the overthrow of democracy in Iran in the early 1950s, and who was responsible.
The shah was installed by the Brits in first place by invading Iran and forcing the previous shah to abdicate.
An irrelevant factoid not related to the topic under discussion: the overthrow of democracy in Iran in the early 1950s, and who was responsible.
Oh by the way, that previous shah was also installed by the Brits 20 years before.
An irrelevant factoid not related to the topic under discussion: the overthrow of democracy in Iran in the early 1950s, and who was responsible.
And Mosaddegh was democratically elected.
A mostly irrelevant factoid not strongly related to the topic under discussion: the overthrow of democracy in Iran in the early 1950s, and who was responsible. A pity you couldn't have at least mentioned he was Prime Minister.
It seems that despite your implied mental superiority you didn't really manage to contribute in a meaningful way to the topic under discussion. I'm pretty sure you've managed to accomplish that before.
No, that is the excuse of the British legal system. The reason they want a word is because they want to ship him speedily to the US.
If they wanted to do that they would have done it from the UK years ago. Going to Sweden only makes things more complicated. To extradite Assange from the UK only takes agreement from the UK. To extradite Assange from Sweden takes agreement from both the UK and Sweden under EU treaties. The idea is nonsense, a ruse used by Assange to whip up his supporters.
Slashdot Mirror
Just to be clear, you do know that President Obama ordered the assasination of an American citizen who was outside the arena of war, yes?
And you do know that the his cited legal authority was a secret law (a memo, actually) that the public couldn't access at the time, right?
And his 16-year old son, also a US citizen and with no connection to terrorism, was killed 2 weeks later by a separate drone strike. In a country we were not at war with, in an outdoor restaurant, killing 8 others as well.
And you do know that all this happened without trial, and without the victim having a chance to defend himself against charges, right?
Lets peel this apart.
Anwal al Awlaki wasn't "outside the arena of war," he was in an al Qaida controlled area of Yemen. He wasn't "assassinated," he was killed. He was a senior member of al Qaida who was active in recruiting, operations, and propaganda. His involvement was directly tied to a number of attacks, including the massacre at Fort Hood. There is little mystery about his killing or its legal basis, he was killed in armed conflict against the United States as a member of the enemy forces. Armed action by the US Armed Forces against al Qaida and its allies and affiliates has been authorized by Congress through the Authorization for Use of Military Force passed after 9/11. There was no need for a trial to do this as it was a military strike against the enemy under the Law of Armed Conflict, not a law enforcement action involving criminal justice. Americans that join with the enemy to fight with them are treated like the rest of the enemy forces and are subject to being captured or killed just like them. If he wanted to face criminal justice he could have surrendered at the US embassy, which he didn't do, and showed no intention of doing.
As I recall his son regrettably made a similar bad choice having sworn his allegiance to al Qaida not long before this death. He was killed in the company of another senior al Qaida official. The son was old enough to carry a weapon, or a suicide vest. What kind of a father would bring his son in al Qaida's lair if he wanted him to live?
There should be no weeping for father who was a murderous terrorist bastard, and little for the son.
Terrorist cleric Anwar al-Awlaki, , in U.S. death threat video - 8 Nov. 2010
As a practical matter al-Awlaki received the same legal process as many of his follow Americans that took up arms against the United States in the service of and enemy power: You can see it here
If you want to fear for our children, fear than we mislead them about the reality of facts like these, and fear that we go astray and lose our clarity. That won't end well.
Show where I'm wrong. I assume you can't otherwise you would be making an argument instead of calling names.
Might I suggest you consider FIRE for a donation? They do good work, including much that the ACLU seems to have little appetite for.
Most other violent socialist factions "just" slaughter people who disagree with the new government.
There are three informative works that are worth looking into, or at least to be aware of.
The first is the documentary The Soviet Story. (on demand) Its creation was supported by a committee of the European Parliament, among others. Review is below, and here is a trailer. I suggest watching the entire documentary some time.
Telling the Soviet story - A new film about Nazi-Soviet links
The film is gripping, audacious and uncompromising. Though it starts by telling the story of the murder of 7m Ukrainians in 1933, it is no mere catalogue of atrocities. The main aim of the film is to show the close connections—philosophical, political and organisational—between the Nazi and Soviet systems.
As Françoise Thom (one of many anti-communist luminaries appearing in the film) puts it: “Nazism was based on false biology; Marxism was based on false sociology”. The Marxist dream of the “new man”, for example, mirrored the Nazi idea of racial superiority. The Nazis murdered chiefly on racial grounds, while the Soviets concentrated on class. But mass murder is mass murder
Those who keep a soft spot for Marxism may flinch to hear that the sage of Highgate referred to backward societies as Völkerabfälle (racial trash) who must “perish in the revolutionary holocaust”. Or that the Nazi party in its early days idolised Lenin (Josef Goebbels said he was second only to Adolf Hitler in greatness).
Perhaps the best sequence in the film shows pairs of posters using almost identical designs: muscular workers strike heroic attitudes in support of the party and the state, blonde little girls beam, fists smash enemies, hammers break chains. Without the swastika and hammer and sickle as clues, it would be hard to know which is which.
The illustration of the Molotov-Ribbentrop pact is compelling: Soviet radio transmitters guided German bombers in their attacks on Poland. A Soviet naval base near Murmansk helped the Nazi attack on Norway. The Soviet secret police helped train the Gestapo and discussed how to deal with the “Jewish question” in occupied Poland. . . . Read the whole thing
The second work is, The Black Book of Communism
There are multiple reviews at the link for the book, but this is also informative: So, how many did Communism kill?
The third work is this book: Liberal Fascism: The Secret History of the American Left, From Mussolini to the Politics of Change
We find in it a great deal of history that people would like us to forget, including how fascism was admired by many, how progressives influenced and were influenced by fascist movements in Europe, and how common threads of ideas and values continue to influence events today.
And since we have a self-described socialist running for office:
Communist Party USA Chairman Vows Cooperation With Democratic Party
I thought the reason the French police were able to find the attacker's apartments, accomplices, and so on very quickly was because the attackers used regular unencrypted methods of communication, such as SMS?
So the possibility that the different people in different parts of the group responsible for this attack might have used different means of communication with or without encryption at various times is just too many variables to keep in your mind at once? How about we simplify it to: some of them used encryption at times. Is that easy enough to understand?
What some political dimwits are not getting is that no trained attacker would be stupid enough to make the information publicly available.
What some technical dimwits are not getting is that not all attackers are trained (especially among the self-radicalized), not all of the ones trained in mayhem are trained in infosec, not all of the ones trained in mass murder and infosec are equally competent in both. Beyond that they may be undisciplined, too busy, or inattentive to do everything right, consistently. But it appears that much of the technical community on Slashdot will keep working away until terrorists communications are solid, strongly encrypted, and foolproof, and will feel no small amount of self-satisfaction in doing it. I imagine that will last right up to the point where it is their skin at risk.
Be it through encryption, obscurity or just by having the plans drain in the sea of useless information surrounding it... there are always methods of getting something done in secrecy.
And those methods can be more or less successful depending on many factors. It seems much of Slashdot's technical community wants to see the terrorists as successful as possible. Given the tendency of much of the West to hold its heritage and values in contempt this likely will not end well.
They keep trying, however the true fact remains no encryption was used by these terrorists.
Nor would it have helped prevent 9/11. Encryption is nothing. Intelligence and cooperation are everything.
Brilliant. .... just brilliant. "Encryption is nothing. Intelligence and cooperation are everything." Encryption significantly degrades the ability of the intelligence agencies to obtain information. After the unprecedented data breaches by Bradly Manning and Edward Snowden now cooperation is harder due to reintroduced or new controls on information and its handling. Everything isn't quite what it used to be, is it?
Of course nobody on Slashdot thinks they have skin in the game until it is too late.
Oh, 9/11 - a key block there was procedural, the sort of thing that Manning and Snowden's data breaches attacked.
So you basically have a difficult time understanding risk factors.
So what is it here that you think are the "hysterical half-truths"?
Actually, the ideology for that sort of thing belongs on one side of the American political spectrum: the Left
Just like there are multiple dimensions to politics (fiscal, social, economic, civil rights, foreign policy, ...) instead of just one (hates black people, doesn't hate black people) * there is more than one dimension in which recess appointments can be measured. Here's a question for you: which recent US president received a 9-0 smack down at the US Supreme Court over recess appointments? Clinton? Bush? Obama?
SCOTUS strikes appointments
Do you think that the Supreme Court did this because it is "racist"? Just "trying to keep the black man down"? Or is there something else going on there? Well, there is something different than "hates the black man" in striking down Obama actions there, just as there is something different going on in opposing Obama's other policies and actions by members of Congress. Frankly, attributing opposition to VERY LIBERAL DEMOCRATIC president Obama to "just racism" is more than a little stupid and dishonest.
By the way, are you familiar with the writings of one of Barack Obama's friends and mentors? Kind of "outside" the mainstream, huh?
* You following this?
Obama is a Democrat president, and one that has been aggressive in using recess appointments to evade confirmation in the Senate. Senators aren't going to like that, especially senators from the opposition party. Senators from either party that are attached to the prerogatives of the Senate aren't going to be thrilled either.
There is no duck, there is no quacking, there is no waddling. That is a bunch of crap. But hey, if you want to show some actual evidence be my guest.
I have one question first, is it your contention that there have never been any controversies over recess appointments until Obama made them? That would seem to be a precondition for the "racist" duck bull.
Been to San Francisco lately?
The do show up it is just that they are not that great and we demand more of them as well.
You're right about the increasing demands. I carried an S5 phone for a while. With the default setting and everything turned on I had to recharge it pretty much every day. Turning off almost everything but the bare minimum of what I needed let me go almost two full weeks without a recharge.
They didn't use "organic," that would have sealed the deal.
As to "how likely is it for the criminals to get the keys?"... well, pretty much every system (FBI, DHS, Apple, etc) that could theoretically hold the keys has been breached at some point.
Those breaches tend to involve exploits of bugs or weaknesses in the operating system or applications, not an actual breaking of encryption schemes. Big difference.
Na, they could just fire up the Cray XMP supercomputer they bought. (Assuming they still have it.) It's not anywhere as impressive as it used to be, but it is an honest to goodness supercomputer.
APPLE USES CRAY X-MP AND UNIX TO DESIGN YOUR NEXT MACINTOSH
The funny thing is that the performance difference between that and a modern supercomputer in cracking AES probably doesn't really make a difference.
Oh what a cruel society you live in to be sanctioned for exposing your genitals to random people on the street or in the park.
Curly, his face covered in pie. ;)
Bwahahaha! I expect better out of you, Cold Fjord!
From Wikipedia:
In 1951, Mohammad Mosaddegh was elected as the prime minister. He became enormously popular in Iran, after he nationalized Iran's petroleum industry and oil reserves. He was deposed in the 1953 Iranian coup d'état, an Anglo-American covert operation that marked the first time the US had overthrown a foreign government during the Cold War.
I see where you went wrong, you didn't use the best source on that topic.
1953 Iranian coup d'état
By 1953, economic tensions caused by the British embargo and political turmoil began to take a major toll upon Mossadegh's popularity and political power. The people were increasingly blaming him for the economic and political crisis. Political violence was becoming widespread in the form of street clashes between rival political groups.[7][9] Mossadegh was losing popularity and support among the working class which had been his strongest supporters. As he lost support, he became more autocratic.[59][60] As early as August 1952, he began to rely on emergency powers to rule, generating controversy among his supporters.[60] After an assassination attempt upon one of his cabinet ministers and himself, he ordered the jailing of dozens of his political opponents. This act created widespread anger among much of the general public, and led to accusations that Mossadegh was becoming a dictator.[7][9] The Tudeh party's unofficial alliance with Mossadegh led to fears of communism, and increasingly it was the communists who were taking part in pro-Mossadegh rallies, and attacking opponents.[7][9]
By mid-1953 a mass of resignations by Mossadegh's parliamentary supporters reduced the National Front seats in Parliament. A referendum to dissolve parliament and give the prime minister power to make law was submitted to voters, and it passed with 99.9 percent approval, 2,043,300 votes to 1300 votes against*.[61] The rigged referendum was widely seen by opponents as a dictatorial act, and the Shah and the rest of the government were effectively stripped of their powers to rule. When Mossadegh dissolved the Parliament, his opponents decried this act because he had effectively given himself "total power". Ironically, this un-democratic act by a democratically elected prime minister would result in a chain of events leading to his downfall.[7][9] . . .
The official pretext for the start of the coup was Mossadegh's decree to dissolve Parliament, giving himself and his cabinet complete power to rule, while effectively stripping the Shah of his powers.[7][8][9] It resulted in him being accused of giving himself "total and dictatorial powers." The Shah, who had been resisting the CIA's demands for the coup, finally agreed to support it.[7][8][9] Having obtained the Shah's concurrence, the CIA executed the coup.[62] Farmans (royal decrees) dismissing Mosaddegh and appointing General Fazlollah Zahedi (a loyalist who had helped Reza Shah reunify Iran decades earlier)[8] were drawn up by the coup plotters and signed by the Shah. On Saturday 15 August, Colonel Nematollah Nassiri,[8] the commander of the Imperial Guard, delivered to Mosaddegh a firman from the Shah dismissing him. Mosaddegh, who had been warned of the plot, probably by the Communist Tudeh party, rejected the firman and had Nassiri arrested.[63] Mosaddegh argued at his trial after the coup that under the Iranian constitutional monarchy, the Shah had no constitutional right to issue an order for the elected Prime Minister's dismissal without Parliament's consent. However, the constitution at the time did allow for such an action, which Mossadegh considered unfair.[9][64]
* At the time of the vote, Time magazine pointed out that neither Joseph Stalin in the Soviet Union nor Adolph Hitler in Germany was able to match that lop-sided outcome. Fraud, per chance?
It is a pity that you couldn't have been a little more specific on the exact nature of your disagreement with my post. That would have made it easier to reply, but I'll make a wild guess: you think more of Iran's history should have been included? That wasn't really needed, the question was a fairly narrow one: the overthrow of democracy in Iran in the early 1950s, and who was responsible. The answer I gave was adequate for that question. If you think more history should have been included then make a case for that.
You're also mistaken about me being "one of the .... least credible posters." Nonsense. It isn't that my answers are wrong, but that they aren't liked, they aren't politically correct. That is an entirely different question. Besides, if I'm posting links to major media coverage of an issue, how do you think that isn't "credible"? Has it crossed your mind that the nature of the world and society isn't quite what you think it is? That is a fairly common problem on Slashdot.
The question we were commenting on was the overthrow of democracy in Iran in the early 1950s, and who was responsible. Let's see how your post contributes to that discussion.
You have your history confused even more, which is not surprising, due to your your political views and general stupidity.
Mockery. It doesn't add any useful facts to the topic under discussion: the overthrow of democracy in Iran in the early 1950s, and who was responsible.
The shah was installed by the Brits in first place by invading Iran and forcing the previous shah to abdicate.
An irrelevant factoid not related to the topic under discussion: the overthrow of democracy in Iran in the early 1950s, and who was responsible.
Oh by the way, that previous shah was also installed by the Brits 20 years before.
An irrelevant factoid not related to the topic under discussion: the overthrow of democracy in Iran in the early 1950s, and who was responsible.
And Mosaddegh was democratically elected.
A mostly irrelevant factoid not strongly related to the topic under discussion: the overthrow of democracy in Iran in the early 1950s, and who was responsible. A pity you couldn't have at least mentioned he was Prime Minister.
It seems that despite your implied mental superiority you didn't really manage to contribute in a meaningful way to the topic under discussion. I'm pretty sure you've managed to accomplish that before.
Do you have any theories as to why they didn't do that in the years that Assange was in the UK working through this issue? You believe a fairy tale.
No, that is the excuse of the British legal system. The reason they want a word is because they want to ship him speedily to the US.
If they wanted to do that they would have done it from the UK years ago. Going to Sweden only makes things more complicated. To extradite Assange from the UK only takes agreement from the UK. To extradite Assange from Sweden takes agreement from both the UK and Sweden under EU treaties. The idea is nonsense, a ruse used by Assange to whip up his supporters.
Race has nothing to do with it.
Could you take the STUPID race baiting somewhere else?