Iran Loves its Jews???

[SAYIT]

The Shah was installed by both US and English agents. After that, the Shah put together a secret police known as the "SAVAK".

SAVAK - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

These guys were charged with eliminating and liquidating all opposition to the Shah..and they were very efficient. The one place they didn't go into..were mosques. So, more radical leaders seeking to overthrow the shah..started meeting there. In turn...it inspired a nationalism in religious leaders. Which is why you have this marriage of Religion and Government in the region.

Marriage of religion and government; the blending of the two, is not unique to Iran but is consistent with islamist theology. That theology, such as it is, is inseparable from its political program: suppression / oppression of all competing faiths and to make islam supreme over all people.

It's not unique with Muslim theology.

You forget about the Dark Ages..and Kings like Charlemange? Or the 1930s and the Nazi Movement? Or the Christian Coalition?

Israel is a Jewish state..it's not secular.

Almost all religions seek some hand in governance.

In fact Europe's Christians (with her Jews in tow) accepted the findings of Luther and Calvin which established biblical justification for separating the laws between God and man from those between man and man. The advent of liberal democracy over 5 centuries ago marked the moment when the West really began it's ascension while the Muslim World jogged in place.
http://www.google.com/url?sa=t&rct=...s9jMBg&usg=AFQjCNEhOoWmUjlMSSXoa_zpVGGHSurbdg

 

[Sallow]

Marriage of religion and government; the blending of the two, is not unique to Iran but is consistent with islamist theology. That theology, such as it is, is inseparable from its political program: suppression / oppression of all competing faiths and to make islam supreme over all people.

It's not unique with Muslim theology.

You forget about the Dark Ages..and Kings like Charlemange? Or the 1930s and the Nazi Movement? Or the Christian Coalition?

Israel is a Jewish state..it's not secular.

Almost all religions seek some hand in governance.

In fact Europe's Christians (with her Jews in tow) accepted the findings of Luther and Calvin which established biblical justification for separating the laws between God and man from those between man and man. The advent of liberal democracy over 5 centuries ago marked the moment when the West really began it's ascension while the Muslim World jogged in place.
http://www.google.com/url?sa=t&rct=...s9jMBg&usg=AFQjCNEhOoWmUjlMSSXoa_zpVGGHSurbdg

Jews in tow?

Are you serious?

Europe's been doing it damndest to eliminate Jews from the continent for quite some time.

I just can't believe some of the things you guys post.

 

[SAYIT]

You do know it's a violation of international convention to have spies in embassies, correct?

It's also a violation of international convention to engineer a coup d'etat against a duly elected government.

Both those factors nullify your argument.

I was just giving you back some of your snarkiness, but do you infer the storming of our embassy there and subsequent holding of our people was not a violation of international convention or simply that you were ok with it?

I'm not "okay" with it..but neither am I okay with the crime to preceded it.

I don't know why you give one thing a pass..and the other condemn.

I don't think either action was right. But then again..what would you recommend as a remedy for the removal of a puppet government?

Back in the day when it was not unusual for advanced nations to meddle in the affairs of second and third world nations, any gov't which did not act in what was perceived to be the best interests of their country was invariably replaced by one which would. That isn't to say it was right but rather that it was the norm. You have the luxury of sitting back in your 21st century lounger and judging them harshly. I can't say to what extent Iran's revolution was anti-Shah vs. pro-Islamist but certainly the rise of Islamism, a search for their lost "golden age" upon which Muslims embark every 50 or 100 years, played a major role.

 

[Sallow]

I was just giving you back some of your snarkiness, but do you infer the storming of our embassy there and subsequent holding of our people was not a violation of international convention or simply that you were ok with it?

I'm not "okay" with it..but neither am I okay with the crime to preceded it.

I don't know why you give one thing a pass..and the other condemn.

I don't think either action was right. But then again..what would you recommend as a remedy for the removal of a puppet government?

Back in the day when it was not unusual for advanced nations to meddle in the affairs of second and third world nations, any gov't which did not act in what was perceived to be the best interests of their country was invariably replaced by one which would. That isn't to say it was right but rather that it was the norm. You have the luxury of sitting back in your 21st century lounger and judging them harshly. I can't say to what extent Iran's revolution was anti-Shah vs. pro-Islamist but certainly the rise of Islamism, a search for their lost "golden age" upon which Muslims embark every 50 or 100 years, played a major role.

Actually..it is you that is judging without context.

It's fair to say that some elements of Middle East and the Muslim religion have become radicalized.

What's not fair..is to point out that is because the people are religion are somehow different and "evil".

This stuff didn't happen in a vacuum. There were triggers along the way.

And understanding that..would go a long way in dealing with some very real problems.

 

[SAYIT]

It's not unique with Muslim theology.

You forget about the Dark Ages..and Kings like Charlemange? Or the 1930s and the Nazi Movement? Or the Christian Coalition?

Israel is a Jewish state..it's not secular.

Almost all religions seek some hand in governance.

In fact Europe's Christians (with her Jews in tow) accepted the findings of Luther and Calvin which established biblical justification for separating the laws between God and man from those between man and man. The advent of liberal democracy over 5 centuries ago marked the moment when the West really began it's ascension while the Muslim World jogged in place.
http://www.google.com/url?sa=t&rct=...s9jMBg&usg=AFQjCNEhOoWmUjlMSSXoa_zpVGGHSurbdg

Jews in tow?
Are you serious?
Europe's been doing it damndest to eliminate Jews from the continent for quite some time.
I just can't believe some of the things you guys post.

I can't believe how silly you become when confronted with real facts. We aren't talking about the treatment of Jews by some Europeans but rather the Protestant Reformation as spearheaded by Luther (an avid anti-Semite) and Calvin and the separation of church and state it produced.
Despite many spasms of individual or regional intolerance toward Jews, many communities thrived under the new liberal democratic societies. Prior to the Nazis, the Jews in much of Europe were productive and generally accepted citzens of their countries.

 

[SAYIT]

I'm not "okay" with it..but neither am I okay with the crime to preceded it.

I don't know why you give one thing a pass..and the other condemn.

I don't think either action was right. But then again..what would you recommend as a remedy for the removal of a puppet government?

Back in the day when it was not unusual for advanced nations to meddle in the affairs of second and third world nations, any gov't which did not act in what was perceived to be the best interests of their country was invariably replaced by one which would. That isn't to say it was right but rather that it was the norm. You have the luxury of sitting back in your 21st century lounger and judging them harshly. I can't say to what extent Iran's revolution was anti-Shah vs. pro-Islamist but certainly the rise of Islamism, a search for their lost "golden age" upon which Muslims embark every 50 or 100 years, played a major role.

Actually..it is you that is judging without context.

It's fair to say that some elements of Middle East and the Muslim religion have become radicalized.

What's not fair..is to point out that is because the people are religion are somehow different and "evil".

This stuff didn't happen in a vacuum. There were triggers along the way.

And understanding that..would go a long way in dealing with some very real problems.

In fact, I'm the only one in this discourse using context. As I just told you, radical Islamism comes around every 50 or 100 years (and generally fades in about 20) and it's not necessarily a function of outside influences or actions. Despite your search for deeper more significant factors and reasons, it's really just that simple.

 

[Roudy]

No doubt Iran has become a good deal more radical.

But why was there a need for the Islamic revolution?

Any idea on that?

Now you move on to another subject. I thought we were talking about Iranian Jews.

It's almost identical to what Obama did in Egypt. Jimmy Carter basically forced an ally out to be replaced by Islamist animals far more oppressive and barbaric than the Shah could ever be.

The underlying cause was that the Shah of Iran, although an ally of the US and the West, as the leader of OPEC was raising oil prices and encouraging members to be courageous with their own country's oil and not cave in to Western pressures. It is also believed that USSR was on the march at the time, and the West believed Islamists would put up a better fight if The Russians decided to invade Iran as well.

You forget all about Operation Ajax?

The 1953 Iranian coup d'état (known in Iran as the 28 Mordad coup[3]) was the overthrow of the democratically elected government of Iran Prime Minister Mohammad Mosaddegh on 19 August 1953, orchestrated by the intelligence agencies of the United Kingdom and the United States under the name TPAJAX Project.[4] The coup saw the transition of Mohammad-Rezā Shāh Pahlavi from a constitutional monarch to an authoritarian one who relied heavily on United States support to hold on to power until his own overthrow in February 1979.[5]
1953 Iranian coup d'état - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Or was it something you had no idea about?

How about the United States backing another CIA plant, Saddam Hussien, to use Poison Gas on Iran?

Seriously..would you put up with that sort of shit?

1953? The Islamic revolution happened in 1979. You need to brush up your Middle East history. The Islamic Revolution was actually a plot hatched by the Carter administration and the West to undermine the Shah, so if you're complaining about "Western Interference" the Islamic Revoution would be an example of one of the Biggest Democratic Fuckups in history. And the Iran / Iraq war was more about Shiite vs Sunni more than anything else. The Sunnis and the Shiites have been butchering each other from the second Shiite Islam began. But it's interestinghow you have a problem staying on subject. You started with Iranian Jews, then the revolution, and now we're moving in the Iran / Iraq war. Does Halloween costume man have ADD?

 

[Roudy]

In response I'll simply use a bit of what you call discourse:
Riiiight!

There was nothing in the response that castigated you as a person, rather it was quick snarky refutation of the "facts".

Iran, essentially, was radicalized by outside influences that essentially believe that Iran's natural resources belong to them.

That's not some sort of conspiratorial, outlandish theory..that's the history.

Even Jimmy Carter let it be known to Iran that an interuption in the flow of oil to the US would be tantamount to an act of war.

I have to disagree with that. As I understand it, the expulsion of the Shah and ascendancy of the Iranian (shia) mullahs was a result of disgust with Western influences and a return to piety by following fundamentalist islamist values.

Persian (shia) Iran was also envisioned by the mullocrats as a bulwark against majority sunni Gulf Arab states.

That is true. The Shah and especially his father were very much anti Islamism. They passed laws even banning women to wear Hijab. The Shahs father Reza Shah was a military strongman much like Kamal Attaturk of Turkey who transformed and Westernized the country. The West used this animosity to get rid of the Shah when he decided to go rogue on them. The revolution was planned and implemented by the Carter administration and the British, who would broadcast the Ayatollah's message to the rioters via BBC London everyday, and of course the French. The Ayatollah was put on an honorary Air France plane on his first trip back to Iran.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ruhollah_Khomeini
Opposition to the White Revolution
In January 1963, the Shah announced the "White Revolution", a six-point programme of reform calling for land reform, nationalization of the forests, the sale of state-owned enterprises to private interests, electoral changes to enfranchise women and allow non-Muslims to hold office, profit-sharing in industry, and a literacy campaign in the nation's schools. Some of these initiatives were regarded as dangerous, Westernizing trends by traditionalists, especially by the powerful and privileged Shi'a ulama (religious scholars).[50] Ayatollah Khomeini summoned a meeting of the other senior marjas of Qom and persuaded them to decree a boycott of the referendum on the White Revolution. On 22 January 1963 Khomeini issued a strongly worded declaration denouncing the Shah and his plans. Two days later the Shah took an armored column to Qom, and delivered a speech harshly attacking the ulama as a class.

On the Air France flight on his way to Iran, Khomeini was asked by Jennings: "What do you feel in returning to Iran?" Khomeini answered: "Hichi" (Nothing).[72]. Some consider this a warning to Iranians who hoped he would be a "mainstream nationalist leader" that they were in for disappointment.[73] To others, it was a reflection of an unfeeling leader incapable or unconcerned with understanding the thoughts, beliefs, or the needs of the Iranian populace.[74][75]

http://www.discoveringislam.org/Khomeini_british_agent.htm

Khomeini's Background & His British Father

With all bets off, the Iranian reformers have now struck at the heart of the revolution and are insisting on an inquiry into the disappearance of Imam (Ayatollah) Musa Sadr, some 25-years ago, during a visit to Libya. The Iranian-born leader of the Lebanese Shia, Imam Musa Sadr, was revered and respected above all others in the Shia world. He refused to accept Khomeini as an Ayatollah. With the influence Imam Musa Sadr enjoyed, he became an insurmountable obstacle to Khomeini’s political plans, and of those who supported the overthrow of the Shah and needed a despot like Khomeini to be their cat’s paw. Imam (Ayatollah) Musa Sadr’s mysterious disappearance in Libya - his body was never found- opened the way for Khomeini to invade Iran, which accurately describes the action of a foreigner like Khomeini taking over a country in which he (Khomeini) was neither born nor had any Persian blood in his veins at all, paternally or maternally.

While one devout Iranian in California speaks of Khomeini reverently as a great man, similar to Hitler, other less friendly Persians liken him to an invader like Genghis Khan the Mongol scourge. The cornerstone and founder of the Islamic Revolution of Iran was Ayatollah Khomeini and the structure which he put in place. However, there is compelling evidence that Khomeini was never an Iranian in the first place and had no right to impose his policies on the Iranian people. Nor was his elevation to the title of ayatollah anything more than a political, face-saving expediency to prevent his being hanged for treason in 1964. Considerable effort was made in 1979 to eradicate evidence of any record of either Khomeini's non-Iranian origins and the source of his use of the title of Ayatollah.

 

[Roudy]

There are many ways to explain it. It’s expensive to leave what little you may have and move overseas. That can mean leaving friends and /or family. Without a guarantee of a job, it’s a risky move. Elderly people simply may not be able to start over with a new life in unfamiliar circumstances.

Since 1948, the Jewish population has declined by 75%. How do you explain that?

Could it somehow be connected to the history of the Iranian mullocrats vilifying Jews and spewing the most poisonous hatreds for them?

His numbers are also totally incorrect. There are more Jews in USA, Canada, UK, France, Italy, India, Australia, etc. than currently in Iran. What you see is basically the last generation of Iranian Jews with a 2500 year history of living in Iran. I don't think a revolution and removal of the current regime would bring them back to live there, to be under Muslim rule again. You simply can't trust what they will do next. Sad but true.

In fact, Iran's Jewish community is, as Sallow stated, the 3rd largest in the Mideast behind Israel's and Turkey's. You gotta give even the "big, bad wolf" credit when it's due. That said, his belief that the reluctance of what is left of the community to leave reflects the love they get from their Muslim neighbors or their gov't is disingenuous at best. He's just trolling for dollars.

Sounds like Halloween man needs to have a talk with a few Iranian Jews.

 

[Intense]

Back in the day when it was not unusual for advanced nations to meddle in the affairs of second and third world nations, any gov't which did not act in what was perceived to be the best interests of their country was invariably replaced by one which would. That isn't to say it was right but rather that it was the norm. You have the luxury of sitting back in your 21st century lounger and judging them harshly. I can't say to what extent Iran's revolution was anti-Shah vs. pro-Islamist but certainly the rise of Islamism, a search for their lost "golden age" upon which Muslims embark every 50 or 100 years, played a major role.

Actually..it is you that is judging without context.

It's fair to say that some elements of Middle East and the Muslim religion have become radicalized.

What's not fair..is to point out that is because the people are religion are somehow different and "evil".

This stuff didn't happen in a vacuum. There were triggers along the way.

And understanding that..would go a long way in dealing with some very real problems.

In fact, I'm the only one in this discourse using context. As I just told you, radical Islamism comes around every 50 or 100 years (and generally fades in about 20) and it's not necessarily a function of outside influences or actions. Despite your search for deeper more significant factors and reasons, it's really just that simple.

I'd agree with you there. If not for the focus on us, they'd be beating up on themselves...... No wait, they already do that.

 

[Hollie]

The Shah was installed by both US and English agents. After that, the Shah put together a secret police known as the "SAVAK".

SAVAK - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

These guys were charged with eliminating and liquidating all opposition to the Shah..and they were very efficient. The one place they didn't go into..were mosques. So, more radical leaders seeking to overthrow the shah..started meeting there. In turn...it inspired a nationalism in religious leaders. Which is why you have this marriage of Religion and Government in the region.

Marriage of religion and government; the blending of the two, is not unique to Iran but is consistent with islamist theology. That theology, such as it is, is inseparable from its political program: suppression / oppression of all competing faiths and to make islam supreme over all people.

It's not unique with Muslim theology.

You forget about the Dark Ages..and Kings like Charlemange? Or the 1930s and the Nazi Movement? Or the Christian Coalition?

Israel is a Jewish state..it's not secular.

Almost all religions seek some hand in governance.

My comments were directed (although not explicitly stated so), to the here and now. The Dark Ages, Charlemange, 1930s and the Nazi Movement and the Christian Coalition, at least in the West, are past tense. I can't really imagine a single North American or Western European nation deciding to implement a theocracy.

Speaking to the here and now, what Westerners are largely not taking away from the theocratic Crusades (falsely described as the “Arab Spring”) sweeping the Middle East is that fundamentalist islamist social mores and sharia are viewed as the preferred societal construct as opposed to Western values of equality under the law, separation of church and state, rule of law, and principles whereby the rights of the few are not usurped by the will of the majority. I just find it remarkable that Moslems by and large want to be ruled by fundamentalist Islamist regimes, this, in spite of their propensity for social inequities, economic malaise, denigration of religious / secular minorities and gender apartheid!

 

[Intense]

Marriage of religion and government; the blending of the two, is not unique to Iran but is consistent with islamist theology. That theology, such as it is, is inseparable from its political program: suppression / oppression of all competing faiths and to make islam supreme over all people.

It's not unique with Muslim theology.

You forget about the Dark Ages..and Kings like Charlemange? Or the 1930s and the Nazi Movement? Or the Christian Coalition?

Israel is a Jewish state..it's not secular.

Almost all religions seek some hand in governance.

My comments were directed (although not explicitly stated so), to the here and now. The Dark Ages, Charlemange, 1930s and the Nazi Movement and the Christian Coalition, at least in the West, are past tense. I can't really imagine a single North American or Western European nation deciding to implement a theocracy.

Speaking to the here and now, what Westerners are largely not taking away from the theocratic Crusades (falsely described as the “Arab Spring”) sweeping the Middle East is that fundamentalist islamist social mores and sharia are viewed as the preferred societal construct as opposed to Western values of equality under the law, separation of church and state, rule of law, and principles whereby the rights of the few are not usurped by the will of the majority. I just find it remarkable that Moslems by and large want to be ruled by fundamentalist Islamist regimes, this, in spite of their propensity for social inequities, economic malaise, denigration of religious / secular minorities and gender apartheid!

Try looking at the concept of "Separation of Church and State" as a Christian concept.

Render unto Caesar what is Caesar's, and unto God, what is God's. Caesar has no Patent on Conscience.

 

[King]

Anti-Semitism in Iran: Worse than you thinkPosted by Karmel Melamed

In Tehran last month, during a ceremony marking the International Day Against Drug Abuse and Illicit Trafficking, Iran’s current vice president, Mohammad-Reza Rahimi, launched an anti-Semitic tirade.

I am fluent in Farsi and understood 100 percent of what he said from watching his speech online. Rahimi blamed the spread of drugs on the teachings of the Talmud, claiming that “the Talmud teaches Jews how to destroy non-Jews and that 80 percent of America’s wealth is in the hands of 6 percent of the world’s Jewish population.” Likewise, he blamed an unnamed Jewish gynecologist in America for once sterilizing 8,000 Native Americans, which he claimed was in accordance with the teachings of Talmud. At the same time, Rahimi went on to blame the Jews for a series of other world calamities, including the long laundry list that can, by and large, be found in the classic 1880s Russian anti-Semitic book “The Protocols of the Elders of Zion.” (By the way, the Farsi copies of “Protocols” have long been best-sellers in Iran, with more than 400 pages added to the original 1880s Russian version.)

While the international media surprisingly gave substantial coverage to this vile speech made by an Iranian government official, making headlines worldwide, I was frankly not surprised to hear these comments from Rahimi. The truth of the matter is that 99.9 percent of the Iranian regime’s officials make such anti-Semitic comments regularly and believe every single word that comes out of their mouths in public. Yet, what should worry the Western world is the vile anti-Semitic accusations made by supposed “reformists” and “green party” leaders in Iran’s regime against one another or their opponents who also work in the Iranian government. The most classic and detrimental way Iranian government officials can attack one another is to claim that the “such and such official was born a Jew, or was once a Jew who converted to Islam, or his family was Jewish a generation ago and then converted.” The “Jewish identity label” is thrown around as a type of public insult or verbal assault. Officials in Iran and in most Islamic nations use it against one another in smear campaigns. For one Iranian government official to call or accuse another government official of being Jewish is the equivalent of individuals or groups in the United States accusing an elected official in America of being a child molester or pedophile.........


--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
http://www.jewishjournal.com/irania...nti-semitism_in_iran_beyond_todays_headlines/ Edited. Please Link Each Copy and Post. Try to keep them short.
Karmel Melamed, an attorney, writes the “Iranian American Jews” blog at jewishjournal.com.

 

[Hollie]

It's not unique with Muslim theology.

You forget about the Dark Ages..and Kings like Charlemange? Or the 1930s and the Nazi Movement? Or the Christian Coalition?

Israel is a Jewish state..it's not secular.

Almost all religions seek some hand in governance.

My comments were directed (although not explicitly stated so), to the here and now. The Dark Ages, Charlemange, 1930s and the Nazi Movement and the Christian Coalition, at least in the West, are past tense. I can't really imagine a single North American or Western European nation deciding to implement a theocracy.

Speaking to the here and now, what Westerners are largely not taking away from the theocratic Crusades (falsely described as the “Arab Spring”) sweeping the Middle East is that fundamentalist islamist social mores and sharia are viewed as the preferred societal construct as opposed to Western values of equality under the law, separation of church and state, rule of law, and principles whereby the rights of the few are not usurped by the will of the majority. I just find it remarkable that Moslems by and large want to be ruled by fundamentalist Islamist regimes, this, in spite of their propensity for social inequities, economic malaise, denigration of religious / secular minorities and gender apartheid!

Try looking at the concept of "Separation of Church and State" as a Christian concept.

Render unto Caesar what is Caesar's, and unto God, what is God's. Caesar has no Patent on Conscience.

I can appreciate the argument. I just feel safer when that principle in spelled out in a written constitution such as ours in the U.S. Being a non-believer, it helps me sleep better at night.

But I can distinguish that in contrast to the islamist koran and islamist sharia, there is no inherent conflict within the Christian or Judaic gospels between living a devout life and peacefully co-existing in equality and living in relative harmony under the rule of law. That hasn’t always been achieved with reference to the history of both faiths, but I’ll note that nowhere in the NT (to my limited knowledge) are Christians commanded to make war against non-Christians to establish the supremacy of the Christianity. That same principle holds for Judaism, as well (to my understanding).

 

[Intense]

There was nothing in the response that castigated you as a person, rather it was quick snarky refutation of the "facts".

Iran, essentially, was radicalized by outside influences that essentially believe that Iran's natural resources belong to them.

That's not some sort of conspiratorial, outlandish theory..that's the history.

Even Jimmy Carter let it be known to Iran that an interuption in the flow of oil to the US would be tantamount to an act of war.

I have to disagree with that. As I understand it, the expulsion of the Shah and ascendancy of the Iranian (shia) mullahs was a result of disgust with Western influences and a return to piety by following fundamentalist islamist values.

Persian (shia) Iran was also envisioned by the mullocrats as a bulwark against majority sunni Gulf Arab states.

That is true. The Shah and especially his father were very much anti Islamism. They passed laws even banning women to wear Hijab. The Shahs father Reza Shah was a military strongman much like Kamal Attaturk of Turkey who transformed and Westernized the country. The West used this animosity to get rid of the Shah when he decided to go rogue on them. The revolution was planned and implemented by the Carter administration and the British, who would broadcast the Ayatollah's message to the rioters via BBC London everyday, and of course the French. The Ayatollah was put on an honorary Air France plane on his first trip back to Iran.

Ruhollah Khomeini - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Opposition to the White Revolution
In January 1963, the Shah announced the "White Revolution", a six-point programme of reform calling for land reform, nationalization of the forests, the sale of state-owned enterprises to private interests, electoral changes to enfranchise women and allow non-Muslims to hold office, profit-sharing in industry, and a literacy campaign in the nation's schools. Some of these initiatives were regarded as dangerous, Westernizing trends by traditionalists, especially by the powerful and privileged Shi'a ulama (religious scholars).[50] Ayatollah Khomeini summoned a meeting of the other senior marjas of Qom and persuaded them to decree a boycott of the referendum on the White Revolution. On 22 January 1963 Khomeini issued a strongly worded declaration denouncing the Shah and his plans. Two days later the Shah took an armored column to Qom, and delivered a speech harshly attacking the ulama as a class.

On the Air France flight on his way to Iran, Khomeini was asked by Jennings: "What do you feel in returning to Iran?" Khomeini answered: "Hichi" (Nothing).[72]. Some consider this a warning to Iranians who hoped he would be a "mainstream nationalist leader" that they were in for disappointment.[73] To others, it was a reflection of an unfeeling leader incapable or unconcerned with understanding the thoughts, beliefs, or the needs of the Iranian populace.[74][75]

Khomeini - British Agent

Khomeini's Background & His British Father

With all bets off, the Iranian reformers have now struck at the heart of the revolution and are insisting on an inquiry into the disappearance of Imam (Ayatollah) Musa Sadr, some 25-years ago, during a visit to Libya. The Iranian-born leader of the Lebanese Shia, Imam Musa Sadr, was revered and respected above all others in the Shia world. He refused to accept Khomeini as an Ayatollah. With the influence Imam Musa Sadr enjoyed, he became an insurmountable obstacle to Khomeini’s political plans, and of those who supported the overthrow of the Shah and needed a despot like Khomeini to be their cat’s paw. Imam (Ayatollah) Musa Sadr’s mysterious disappearance in Libya - his body was never found- opened the way for Khomeini to invade Iran, which accurately describes the action of a foreigner like Khomeini taking over a country in which he (Khomeini) was neither born nor had any Persian blood in his veins at all, paternally or maternally.

While one devout Iranian in California speaks of Khomeini reverently as a great man, similar to Hitler, other less friendly Persians liken him to an invader like Genghis Khan the Mongol scourge. The cornerstone and founder of the Islamic Revolution of Iran was Ayatollah Khomeini and the structure which he put in place. However, there is compelling evidence that Khomeini was never an Iranian in the first place and had no right to impose his policies on the Iranian people. Nor was his elevation to the title of ayatollah anything more than a political, face-saving expediency to prevent his being hanged for treason in 1964. Considerable effort was made in 1979 to eradicate evidence of any record of either Khomeini's non-Iranian origins and the source of his use of the title of Ayatollah.

Before the Shah was ousted, I was living in Charlotte N.C. with Two Iranian Roommates. Their group total was probably 14 or more. When the shit hit the fan, it was pretty devastating for them. We should have backed the Shah. No doubt about it.

 

[MHunterB]

Intense, that is an interesting article.

Unfortunately, upon looking at other parts of the site, I found another article which I regard as deeply disturbing, expressing conspiranutter BS hate speech. Where such vile filthy lies abound, it's too difficult for me to trust in the accuracy of their information on any other topic. Such conspiranuttery is the product of pathologically distorted world views. Without a great deal of study - which I don't care to do! - there is no knowing how far the pathology extends.



http://www.discoveringislam.org/terror_evil.htm:


Terror & Evil Forces


1. Islam & Terrorism Islam's position on Terrorism.

2. 9/11 & Terrorism Falsely blamed on Muslims. What happened on Sept. 11, 2001 ? Who did it ?

3. Victor Thorn identifies Zionist plotters of 9/11 on Texe Marrs Radio Show

4. Great Conspiracy a refreshing new look at 9/11

5. Ring of Power This is an excellent 5-hour documentary video that gives a new interpretation of World events and sheds light on the evil forces behind them, such as Zionists, FreeMasons, Illuminaties, etc. (Highly Recommended !)

 

[Roudy]

Intense, that is an interesting article.

Unfortunately, upon looking at other parts of the site, I found another article which I regard as deeply disturbing, expressing conspiranutter BS hate speech. Where such vile filthy lies abound, it's too difficult for me to trust in the accuracy of their information on any other topic. Such conspiranuttery is the product of pathologically distorted world views. Without a great deal of study - which I don't care to do! - there is no knowing how far the pathology extends.



http://www.discoveringislam.org/terror_evil.htm:


Terror & Evil Forces


1. Islam & Terrorism Islam's position on Terrorism.

2. 9/11 & Terrorism Falsely blamed on Muslims. What happened on Sept. 11, 2001 ? Who did it ?

3. Victor Thorn identifies Zionist plotters of 9/11 on Texe Marrs Radio Show

4. Great Conspiracy a refreshing new look at 9/11

5. Ring of Power This is an excellent 5-hour documentary video that gives a new interpretation of World events and sheds light on the evil forces behind them, such as Zionists, FreeMasons, Illuminaties, etc. (Highly Recommended !)

Marg I agree with you on the site but the fact that BBC radio would broadcast every afternoon on shortwave radio, giving Khomeini's message to the protesters, remains. In other words the British basically engineered the revolution and acted as Khomienis messenger.

 

[MHunterB]

Not to be too fussy - but can we get documentation of the Beeb actually doing that from some site *not* so marinated in vintage Jew-hatred?

That site is pretty whacked, given that they're shilling for Texe Marrs and all!!!

 

[MHunterB]

Sorry, should have added that despite the 'conspiranutter' flavoring, I think there may actually be some substance underlying the hype.....

The rest of Intense's analysis seemed pretty reasonable to me, yes.

 

[Sallow]

Now you move on to another subject. I thought we were talking about Iranian Jews.

It's almost identical to what Obama did in Egypt. Jimmy Carter basically forced an ally out to be replaced by Islamist animals far more oppressive and barbaric than the Shah could ever be.

The underlying cause was that the Shah of Iran, although an ally of the US and the West, as the leader of OPEC was raising oil prices and encouraging members to be courageous with their own country's oil and not cave in to Western pressures. It is also believed that USSR was on the march at the time, and the West believed Islamists would put up a better fight if The Russians decided to invade Iran as well.

You forget all about Operation Ajax?

The 1953 Iranian coup d'état (known in Iran as the 28 Mordad coup[3]) was the overthrow of the democratically elected government of Iran Prime Minister Mohammad Mosaddegh on 19 August 1953, orchestrated by the intelligence agencies of the United Kingdom and the United States under the name TPAJAX Project.[4] The coup saw the transition of Mohammad-Rezā Shāh Pahlavi from a constitutional monarch to an authoritarian one who relied heavily on United States support to hold on to power until his own overthrow in February 1979.[5]
1953 Iranian coup d'état - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Or was it something you had no idea about?

How about the United States backing another CIA plant, Saddam Hussien, to use Poison Gas on Iran?

Seriously..would you put up with that sort of shit?

1953? The Islamic revolution happened in 1979. You need to brush up your Middle East history. The Islamic Revolution was actually a plot hatched by the Carter administration and the West to undermine the Shah, so if you're complaining about "Western Interference" the Islamic Revoution would be an example of one of the Biggest Democratic Fuckups in history. And the Iran / Iraq war was more about Shiite vs Sunni more than anything else. The Sunnis and the Shiites have been butchering each other from the second Shiite Islam began. But it's interestinghow you have a problem staying on subject. You started with Iranian Jews, then the revolution, and now we're moving in the Iran / Iraq war. Does Halloween costume man have ADD?