>>>>>>>Well they do have some beef with the USA - which is another such lamb. Their democratically elected government was overthrown courtesy of the West, and they were saddled with that ridiculous Shah for a couple of decades. Now if someone just revoked the US constitution and set a kingdom here, with the explicit intent to make sure the Texas and Gulf oil (and profits thereof) flow into their general direction, and then the US managed to get back to be a republic again, everything would be forgotten after just one generation, right?
>>>>>>
>>>>>>The idea that 'West' (USA?) is somehow responsible for Iran coup in 1953 is created/supported by apologists of current Tehran regime.
>>>>>
>>>>>So? Nazis, communists, ultra-right wingers and anarchists agree that the Earth is round. That some of them are wrong on many other issues doesn't make the Earth flat.
>>>>
>>>>So concentrate more on geological issues.
>>>
>>>Mohammad Reza Shah Pahlavi
>>>
>>>
>>>born Oct. 26, 1919, Tehrn, Iran
>>>died July 27, 1980, Cairo, Egypt
>>>
>>>Shah of Iran (1941–79), noted for his pro-Western orientation and autocratic rule.
>>>
>>>After an education in Switzerland, he replaced his father, Reza Shah Pahlavi, as ruler when the latter was forced into exile by the British. His rule was marked by a power struggle with his premier, Mohammad Mosaddeq, who briefly succeeded in deposing him in 1953; covert intervention by British and U.S. intelligence services returned him to the throne the next year. His program of rapid modernization and oil-field development initially brought him popular support, but his autocratic style and suppression of dissent, along with corruption and the unequal distribution of Iran's new oil wealth, increased opposition led by exiled cleric Ayatollah Ruhollah Khomeini. In 1979 Pahlavi was forced into exile.
>>>
>>>Now you guess the source.
>>
>>I don't believe that you misunderstood me to such an extent that you think that your innocent copy and paste may change the topic. It is not about who will find more web links to fit the argument. It is about more serious thing.
>>My point was that you willingly use 50-years old link to justify and support words and deeds of today's extremism. I don't question your right to have these opinions. However, you should not expect from me any resemblance of respect to your views.
>
>I can't believe you think 50 years is a long time in the minds of people who are still fighting over perceived injustices over a millennia old.

I think you are mistaken. People fight because of more 'modern' considerations but they are always willing to use millenia arguments if it fits their agenda.