Welcome to one of the most active flamenco sites on the Internet. Guests can read most posts but if you want to participate click here to register.
This site is dedicated to the memory of Paco de Lucía, Ron Mitchell, Guy Williams, Linda Elvira, Philip John Lee, Craig Eros, Ben Woods, David Serva and Tom Blackshear who went ahead of us.
We receive 12,200 visitors a month from 200 countries and 1.7 million page impressions a year. To advertise on this site please contact us.
|
|
|
RE: Algeria
|
You are logged in as Guest
|
|
Users viewing this topic: none
|
|
Login  | |
|
  
Ruphus
Posts: 3782
Joined: Nov. 18 2010
|
 RE: Algeria (in reply to Ron.M)
|
|
|
Arash,
That´s a weird perspective. Shah comparable to Mossadegh, and betrayal to the opposition who pathed one´s way equaling cleverness ...
To me killing one´s own headways and supporters would mean something completely else than out of all being clever.
And the controversy in the end between the Shah and the US interests entirely differs ethically.
Mossadegh `got in the way´for being an upright democrat.
Whereas the Shah seems to have lost his support in the aftermath of his inferiority complex as a pseudo aristocrat, because of which he after a while of being puppy in phantasy uniforms felt urged to start playing a bit of sulky independence theatre before his US leaders and before the local power of the Bazaris ( traders ). For that he eyed with selling oil to the USSR and with building a new bazar ( which would had lessened power / privileges of the established traders ), which both weren´t appreciated plans.
( That kind of a puppet-on-strings getting cheeky before the US-patronage was the same reason for Saddam´s send down. Saddam having become too self-confident, Bush senior gave him an OK for invading Kuweit, only so that the US army could then march in and rebuke. Similar drops happened to astray going underlings of other dictaturs as well, who curiously all used to ail and die right after withdrawal / exil.)
Anyway, Mossadegh was a sovereign and sincere man whose background for having been removed by remote powers can´t by any means be compared to the self-centered removal background of thelikes like Shah or Saddam, Noriega & co.
Can it be that you don´t consider ethical aspects too much with the way that you watch things?
There besides was a post of me dealing with such to which you at first intended to contribute some thoughts to, however didn´t.
Ruphus
|
|
|
|
REPORT THIS POST AS INAPPROPRIATE |
Date Feb. 6 2011 17:46:42
 |
|
Arash
Posts: 4495
Joined: Aug. 9 2006
From: Iran (living in Germany)
|
|
RE: Algeria (in reply to Ruphus)
|
|
|
quote:
ORIGINAL: Ruphus
Arash,
That´s a weird perspective. Shah comparable to Mossadegh, and betrayal to the opposition who pathed one´s way equaling cleverness ...
To me killing one´s own headways and supporters would mean something completely else than out of all being clever.
And the controversy in the end between the Shah and the US interests entirely differs ethically.
Mossadegh `got in the way´for being an upright democrat.
Whereas the Shah seems to have lost his support in the aftermath of his inferiority complex as a pseudo aristocrat, because of which he after a while of being puppy in phantasy uniforms felt urged to start playing a bit of sulky independence theatre before his US leaders and before the local power of the Bazaris ( traders ). For that he eyed with selling oil to the USSR and with building a new bazar ( which would had lessened power / privileges of the established traders ), which both weren´t appreciated plans.
( That kind of a puppet-on-strings getting cheeky before the US-patronage was the same reason for Saddam´s send down. Saddam having become too self-confident, Bush senior gave him an OK for invading Kuweit, only so that the US army could then march in and rebuke. Similar drops happened to astray going underlings of other dictaturs as well, who curiously all used to ail and die right after withdrawal / exil.)
Anyway, Mossadegh was a sovereign and sincere man whose background for having been removed by remote powers can´t by any means be compared to the self-centered removal background of thelikes like Shah or Saddam, Noriega & co.
Can it be that you don´t consider ethical aspects too much with the way that you watch things?
There besides was a post of me dealing with such to which you at first intended to contribute some thoughts to, however didn´t.
Ruphus
see, thats what i mean.
you pick out a single aspect of what i said and come to the conclusion that i don't see things from an ethical point of view.
yeah, sorry about the other thread, i forgot that. i will get back to it.
for now, i am also finished here before it gets heated
_____________________________
|
|
|
|
REPORT THIS POST AS INAPPROPRIATE |
Date Feb. 6 2011 17:56:12
|
|
Arash
Posts: 4495
Joined: Aug. 9 2006
From: Iran (living in Germany)
|
|
RE: Algeria (in reply to Ron.M)
|
|
|
look guys, at the end of the day, i don't give a damn if you are muslim, jew, yankee, satanic, agnostic, atheist, iranian, arab, german, scottish, american, eskimo or whatever...... as long as you play in Compas !
_____________________________
|
|
|
|
REPORT THIS POST AS INAPPROPRIATE |
Date Feb. 6 2011 18:18:39
|
|
 New Messages |
 No New Messages |
 Hot Topic w/ New Messages |
 Hot Topic w/o New Messages |
 Locked w/ New Messages |
 Locked w/o New Messages |
|
Post New Thread
Reply to Message
Post New Poll
Submit Vote
Delete My Own Post
Delete My Own Thread
Rate Posts
|
|
|
Forum Software powered by ASP Playground Advanced Edition 2.0.5
Copyright © 2000 - 2003 ASPPlayground.NET |
0.078125 secs.
|
Printable Version
? Is this the matrix? 
