For example, during the late 1950s in protection of American oil interests, we sent CIA operatives into Iran in support and protection of the Shah. The Muslims, who hated the Shah for giving loyalty to western money and power, deposed him in favor of the religious leader Ayatollah Khomeini. The new government was strongly anti-American, and in the late 1970s they took hostages because we hospitalized and hosted the Shah to protect him from trial in Iran.
There are several more examples like the one above where we, the US, tried to protect our interests by “intervening” in other national affairs and it ended up back in our faces.
Like Ronald Reagan said after he pulled our troops out of Lebanon in the 80s, we don’t understand the mindset of the region. They are a tribal and territorial people. The tribes have been warring for thousands of years over familial territory. Like brothers who were previously feuding, they have banded together as a Muslim family to fight against intruders.
Because they are willing to travel to other countries and blow themselves up, we have two choices - either wipe them off the face of the earth, which is inhumane and unnecessary, or respect the wishes of the people in their own region and stop imposing our will on them.
Then provide, them, please. I hope they're clearer-cut; the matter of the Shah is open to dispute. The accounts of his rule over Iran that I've read make him sound like an enlightened and beneficent despot who was reasonably popular with most of his subjects.
Freedom, Wealth, and Peace,
Francis W. Porretto
Eternity Road
That should go hand in hand with repealing all gun control legislation so that if any of them do come here looking to start something, they can face a population with enough firepower to deal with them. But it's not like that's at all likely in this sissified land.
Cue the Stuck Mojo "Open Season" and tell CAIR to go to hell.