As for answering any questions about the constitution itself, it was pretty much ignored by all leaders when it was convenient. Do you think that's any of our business, or an internal affair?
What you are attempting to do here, in debate terms, is called deflection. That is, refusing to answer the question and attempting to change the subject.
Your post 359 contain no questions to me, and I did respond to it. In that post you wrote. “No, I did my own research to verify their claims.
BTW, I would like to thank YOU for the challenge to do that.”
I have done research, and I continue to do more to make certain of the facts as we discuss them. Hence my statement that I would respond to the points you made line by line, but in the interest of keeping things going while I review numerous sources, I had hoped to establish a few facts that we can both agree on. After all, everyone is entitled to their own opinions, but none are entitled to their own facts.
I think it would’ve been a waste of bandwidth, but I think I could have stated that in 1953 Muhammad Reza Palavi was the sitting shah of your Iran, Mossadegh the sitting prime minister, and that the CIA conducted covert operations inside Iran. Surely those facts would be mutually agreeable.
If we can’t agree on simple facts, then there’s no point moving on to opinions of whether or not an ouster of a regime is justified or not. After all, the revolution of 1776 is celebrated here, but the regime in London had a different opinion.
So, is it really too much to ask to agree or dispute the points I posted as facts in 360? You’ll have your chance to post examples of the shah violating the constitution, because at this time I have nothing to go on except your assertion. Again though, if the facts are not agreeable, then discussion is pointless.