(October 20, 2014 at 1:42 am)Minimalist Wrote:(October 17, 2014 at 10:31 pm)Thumpalumpacus Wrote: Many revolutions have been foisted upon nations by minorities; this was not very different. The main difference is that the clerics used the Tudeh Party to mobilize the people, and then when the revolution succeeded, they turned on the Tudehs because they were no longer needed. Kind of like what the Bolsheviks did to Kerensky and the Kadets in revolutionary Russia.
The Iranians I've known were friendly, tolerant of us Christians in their country, and against the Shah much more than for the mullahs. That doesn't really fit the American propaganda screed, I know.
All I know is they made a big fuss over the fuckhead when he came back.
http://abcnews.go.com/Archives/video/feb...s-12769714
So what? Americans make a big fuss over the Rose Queen every New Year's Day in Pasadena. If you knew the history of that Revolution, you'd understand that they weren't cheering radical Islam, but the architect of their revolutionary victory.
Here's another view, this from 2009, and speaks at least as well about the popular opinion of the government there:
As I said in the last line of the post you quoted, I understand that my view doesn't really fit the American propaganda screed. You're free to dismiss my opinion as you see fit, of course. You're also free to question your premises.


