While revealing new details about one of the most famed CIA operations of all times — the spiriting out of six American diplomats who escaped the 1979 U.S. Embassy seizure in Iran — the intelligence agency for the first time has acknowledged something else as well.
The CIA now officially describes the 1953 coup it backed in Iran that overthrew its prime minister and cemented the rule of Shah Mohammad Reza Pahlavi as undemocratic.
Other American officials have made similar remarks in the past, but the CIA’s acknowledgment in a podcast about the agency’s history comes as much of its official history of the coup remains classified 70 years after the putsch. That complicates the public’s understanding of an event that still resonates, as tensions remain high between Tehran and Washington over the Islamic Republic’s rapidly advancing nuclear program, its aiding of militia groups across the Mideast and as it cracks down on dissent.
The “CIA’s leadership is committed to being as open with the public as possible,” the agency said in a statement responding to questions from The Associated Press. “The agency’s podcast is part of that effort — and we knew that if we wanted to tell this incredible story, it was important to be transparent about the historical context surrounding these events, and CIA’s role in it.”
“Better mass murder than the fiction I invented in my head” is the comeback you think it is. All it underlines is that you’re doubling back on the support of violence and destruction of democracy when it fits your extremist ideology.
If the reality of communist genocides is “in my head” I’ve got a sound head tbh, thank you.
Allende didn’t carry out any mass murder. Pinochet did. Hence your purported “knowledge” about what Allende might have done had your preferred mass murderer not taken power is only in your head.
Trying to set up strawmen by pointing to entirely different regimes that nobody in this thread have expressed support for does not change the fact that you’re still the only one here repeatedly arguing in favor of someone who actually carried out mass murder.
Already addressed this
You’ve only “addressed this” by repeating your imaginary scenario of thought crime as justification for arguing that bringing mass murderer into power was right, just like the supporters of every brutal dictator in history though their favourite mass murderer did what they needed to as well.
It’s not actually “addressing” anything - all you’ve done is doubling down on trying to justify actual, real murders that happen with your fear of something hypothetical. This irrational fear of hypothetical harm and willingness to preemptively harm the other first, driven by a relentless bloodlust lies at the core of the fascist psyche.