But thanks for pointing it out. It's a testament to the general knowledgable level of this board.
No need to be condescending. The opposite of knowledge, isn't ignorance, but the illusion of knowledge which you have on full display in your post.
Not sure whom you are referring to here. Afaik he took office after his father was forced to abdicate right in the middle of WW2.
Well maybe instead of complaining about the knowledge level of this board, you should read about Mohammad Mosaddegh and the 1953 coup to oust him and give full power to Shah.
Here are a couple of tidbits from that revolution:
The 1953 Iranian coup d'état was the overthrow of the Prime Minister Mohammad Mosaddegh in favor of strengthening the monarchical rule of Mohammad Reza Pahlavi on 19 August 1953, orchestrated by the United Kingdom (under the name "Operation Boot") and the United States (under the name TPAJAX Project)
Mossadegh had sought to audit the books of the Anglo-Iranian Oil Company (AIOC), a British corporation (now BP) and to change the terms of the company's access to Iranian petroleum reserves.
In August 2013, 60 years after the coup, the American Central Intelligence Agency (CIA) admitted that it was involved in both its planning and its execution, including the bribing of Iranian politicians, security and army high-ranking officials, as well as pro-coup propaganda
I'll leave the rest the research to you.
However I did read the rest of your post, and not sure where it aligns with what I said.
When it comes to pawns vs puppets, it literally the same thing. From the Cambridge dictionary:
A pawn is also a person who is controlled by others and used for their own advantage
I want to emphasize this word: Controlled. Doesn't sound like free will to me like you've implied in your post. And if they break free, then they are not pawns. They might have cooperated because of mutual goals, however that doesn't make them pawns.
George Washington, Napoleon, Hitler, Stalin, Gadaffi, Saddam, bin Laden and on and on
On this list only Hitler and bin Laden were pawns. Again, not sure what this has to do with Iran.
I am not sure why you think I was being condescending. We are both in violent agreement that Shah of Iran was a Globalist pawn and I have respect for Anons who know their history. As a moderator of this board, I also take a certain amount of pride in the fact that users here are in general more knowledgable than most other communities.
The only point we differ on is that you believe Khomeni came to power organically to overthrow the Banksters whereas I provided you with enough information to be able to question that assumption.
Here is something I will leave you with that might make your head spin. Look into what Khomeini said about Mosadegh. Then look into what Ayatollah Kashani's role was in toppling Mosadegh, and finally look into what Khomeni homself was doing when Mosadegh was toppled over. You will finally understand everything is a Banker's war and everyone is a Banker's pawn. Infact, try and see if you can dig into who Khomeini was before he changed his name to Khomeini.
I use the words Puppets vs Pawns because they literally describe what I am explaining. A puppet needs a string pull to make every move, and can be made to do anything. A pawn has rules and cannot go in arbitrary directions, and yet can be carefully manoeuvred into doing what you need it to do.
BTW, I don't take credit for that term - I borrowed the word "Pawn" from William Carr's book title "Pawns in the Game".
No need to be condescending. The opposite of knowledge, isn't ignorance, but the illusion of knowledge which you have on full display in your post.
Well maybe instead of complaining about the knowledge level of this board, you should read about Mohammad Mosaddegh and the 1953 coup to oust him and give full power to Shah.
Here are a couple of tidbits from that revolution:
I'll leave the rest the research to you.
However I did read the rest of your post, and not sure where it aligns with what I said.
When it comes to pawns vs puppets, it literally the same thing. From the Cambridge dictionary:
I want to emphasize this word: Controlled. Doesn't sound like free will to me like you've implied in your post. And if they break free, then they are not pawns. They might have cooperated because of mutual goals, however that doesn't make them pawns.
On this list only Hitler and bin Laden were pawns. Again, not sure what this has to do with Iran.
I am not sure why you think I was being condescending. We are both in violent agreement that Shah of Iran was a Globalist pawn and I have respect for Anons who know their history. As a moderator of this board, I also take a certain amount of pride in the fact that users here are in general more knowledgable than most other communities.
The only point we differ on is that you believe Khomeni came to power organically to overthrow the Banksters whereas I provided you with enough information to be able to question that assumption.
Here is something I will leave you with that might make your head spin. Look into what Khomeini said about Mosadegh. Then look into what Ayatollah Kashani's role was in toppling Mosadegh, and finally look into what Khomeni homself was doing when Mosadegh was toppled over. You will finally understand everything is a Banker's war and everyone is a Banker's pawn. Infact, try and see if you can dig into who Khomeini was before he changed his name to Khomeini.
I use the words Puppets vs Pawns because they literally describe what I am explaining. A puppet needs a string pull to make every move, and can be made to do anything. A pawn has rules and cannot go in arbitrary directions, and yet can be carefully manoeuvred into doing what you need it to do.
BTW, I don't take credit for that term - I borrowed the word "Pawn" from William Carr's book title "Pawns in the Game".