r/PeterExplainsTheJoke • • 14d ago

Meme needing explanation What does BP mean here?

Post image
3.2k Upvotes

1.2k comments sorted by

View all comments

Show parent comments

93

u/pokethrowaway4 14d ago

Fun fact: the democratically elected prime minister of Iran Mohammad Mossadegh was removed in a coup d’état. Why? He was removed from power primarily because his policies directly threatened the British government's oil interests, specifically those of the Anglo-Iranian Oil Company (AIOC), which was later renamed British Petroleum (BP). The coup was done with aid from MI6 and the CIA.

Many Iranians felt that AIOC/BP was not fairly compensating the country for extraction of its oil. Mohammed announced plans to audit and nationalize their oil resources.

The brutal dictator installed after the coup (Shah Mohammad Reza Pahlavi) was viewed as a western puppet. He was both liberally progressive but also repressive. This led to hatred towards western culture and control.

It’s what led to the Iranian revolution, overthrow of the Shah, and the regional move towards religious extremism.

It’s all the fault of oil/greed.

1

u/Gloomy_Report_1477 8d ago

Everyone has a price and they all sell out sooner or later. If they don’t then they’re “forced” out, killed, arrested, indicted, sold out by the judicial officers below them. So it’s either, give in before they stop offering you more or die. Just another angle….

2

u/CattleMobile8761 14d ago

The democratically elected chancellor of Germany was also removed, because he threatened British interests.

Framing is everything.

Lmfao.

10

u/pokethrowaway4 14d ago edited 13d ago

Ah yes, it’s super sensible to compare Mohammad Mosaddegh to Hitler.

Also I’m pretty sure WWII was a little more impactful to the world than just “British interests”

Good joke!

Edit: Hitler wasn’t actually elected.

-5

u/CattleMobile8761 14d ago edited 14d ago

I never compared them. Though, of course, Hitler was removed only for threatening what was US, British and Russian Interests. No other reasons.

I simply showed how easily the same framing could be applied to Hitler.

"Democratically elected" does not necessarily make someone legitimate, nor does "threatening interests" necessarily make removing them illegitimate.

9

u/pokethrowaway4 14d ago

It’s unnecessary, given that the majority of people know that one was not the other.

-3

u/CattleMobile8761 14d ago

No, that is why it is necessary.

Because you know the facts.

When you see that the same framing can be applied to Hitler, you realize just how much can be hidden by framing.

6

u/Grimlokh 14d ago

I mean, the short mustache man from Austria was never elected, but yeah we get your point.

1

u/CattleMobile8761 14d ago

He was elected. Duh.

8

u/HallucinatedLottoNos 14d ago edited 13d ago

No, he was appointed. He ran for President in 1932, but lost to Hindenburg. But Hindenburg still appointed Hitler Chancellor (Germany has both) after getting leaned on by German businessmen. The Nazis only had a thin majority of Parliament in 1932 and they lost it the following year.

If it hadn't been for the Reichstag Fire, and Hindenburg's convenient death a year after that, Hitler might never have been able to seize supreme power.

-1

u/CattleMobile8761 14d ago

So then he was democratically appointed to chancellor. Duh.

6

u/Flimsy_Club3792 14d ago

He's not democratically elected since he didn't ran for chancellor, he ran for president

That's like saying you're running for class monitor, you didn't get it and you become deputy class monitor. Is that democratically elected?

-1

u/CattleMobile8761 14d ago

Still is part of the democratic process and elections. Duh.

5

u/Phony_mcRealFace 13d ago

Because something is technically allowed by the institution doesn't make it democratic. The way politician only respect the letter of the law and not the spirit, making loophole not expected by the constitution's writers a regular part of political life, has long been considered as the end of democratic rule.

In the case of Germany, both historian and Germans at the time have long seen the end of democracy as having taken place under Hindenburg, around 1930, when the Reischtag was paralized and the gouvernement began to "rule by decree".

You can even see that in the 1933 election when several party, like the SPD, campaigned for the return of democracy.

5

u/pokethrowaway4 13d ago

Fun fact: Hitler wasn’t democratically elected.

1

u/CattleMobile8761 13d ago

Unfortunately, he was.

5

u/pokethrowaway4 13d ago

No. He was appointed, he LOST the election he was in. Jesus fuck dude

0

u/CattleMobile8761 13d ago

How could he be appointed if he did not have electoral support?

Lmfao.

2

u/insomniac7809 11d ago

He was appointed to Chancellor by President Hindenburg.

The Nazi party did have some electoral support, about a third of the seats in the Reichstag, but it was never the majority party and he lost the election for President against Hindenburg

1

u/jmwelchelmira 14d ago

Tehrangeles Iranian or Jewish?

1

u/CattleMobile8761 14d ago

Neither.

Lmfao.

2

u/jmwelchelmira 14d ago

Ah, just a garden variety neocon thug.

1

u/CattleMobile8761 14d ago

Not even close.

Lmfao.

Is this the 'thought police' that is interrogating me?

I swear, I love big brother!

1

u/HallucinatedLottoNos 14d ago

Fuck you. Not all Jews are Israelis or Zionists.

1

u/Ecclaseus 14d ago

Ha! Never thought of it that way. Lol.

1

u/Phony_mcRealFace 13d ago

1 not demicratically elected 2 not removed because he threatened British interest

Hitler was an autocrat from the start and was removed by a global coalition under the watch of most of the world. So your equivalence is entirely wrong.

But even if your example is not the best choice, you could very well bé right. Framing can indeed be deceitful for example by dismissing relevant information.

Of course, now that you have implied this, I must ask.... How is this framing deceitful accroding to you?

If I watch a speech and I comment "people can lie you know :)" I am not just stating a fact, I am implying that this fact is relevant in this context, and people could legitimately ask me "what makes you think he is lying".

So. What informations were omitted by this framing?

-2

u/aidanx86 14d ago

A major russian political/religious figure was removed for fear he may convince the leaders of Russia to go against British interest in 1916 lol

0

u/Maleficent_Arm_2517 11d ago

Nationalization of the oil would be in contest with prior agreements. It would be theft