Apr 19, 2008
A discussion with an Iranian about the Shah.
Perhaps it may seem inappropriate to criticize a man who cannot defend himself, but for practical purposes this is useful, in terms of a future post mullah regime, and where 'we' went wrong. Finally for all the faults the Shah actually possessed (how money of us would do better than him?), the main criminals in this saga are and always have been the mullahs in Iran who have destroyed their country for their Western masters, and the British. Period. The amount of mess this saga has created around the world, and could still cause.
I made some casual remarks on a blog about the Shah which resulted in the blog owners response, and my counter points.
______________________________________
"You seemingly have a strong need to criticize without thinking things through and putting things into context when analyzing them."
Just my point of view in a 'comment page'---it wasn't meant to be a deep analysis. A deep analysis with footnotes and quotes can be done. Instead it was a cursory passing comment/criticism of the Shah/what went wrong---I am not an Iranian political affairs expert.
" Simply because someone doesn't agree with you it doesn't mean he then must "idolize your enemy". It's ironic that you chose to launch your mostly unsubstantiated tirade against the late Shah of Iran under this particular post - where my intent is not to idolize but to prove wrong popularized and unfounded claims by individuals such as those brought up by yourself."
No I don't think people who disagree with me are my enemies; My language is a little abrupt, but that is influenced by circumstances and personal experience. I appreciate the complex world is quite nuanced, and nothing we can say or do can change that; and yes I am quite well educated--------if you go to my site and read. I'm not an extremist, though I have been the victims of them. I don't think you idolize the Shah but that for you he represents what was good about Iran, in comparison to the mullahs of today. He is something to hold on to and cherish in comparison to the nightmare of the present regime. Yes he was better than the mullahs but that he had flaws, some of which were quite fundamental, which later contributed to his down fall. Its OK to talk about the Shah's flaws through our own perceptions and acknowledge without being a Ph.D students. Its not just a case that the British/Carter/French got rid of him, but that through his own flaws HE ALLOWED THEM TO TOPPLE HIM. My over all point is all Third World societies if they have the will and power to resist, can over come First World interference.
"It's ironic that you chose to launch your mostly unsubstantiated tirade against the late Shah of Iran under this particular post - where my intent is not to idolize but to prove wrong popularized and unfounded claims by individuals such as those brought up by yourself. If you took time and listened to the clips you'd quickly realize that your whole argument that modernization/progress were "superficial" is a long-shot with all the progress and diversification that was taking place during the short-lived Pahlavi Era."
Just my point of view on a comment section---I'm not sitting an undergraduate exam. I don't think you idolize him, though by having his picture on your blog that may be the perception of some. I wouldn't say reigning Iran from 1921 when Colonel Reza Khan actually came to power, to 1979 when the last Shah left, was a short period of time. In terms of Persian history it might be, but more than enough time to modernize a country. Malaysia---a Second World country now modernized in just two decades, during the 1980's/90's; South Korea 1970's/80's. Taiwan 1970's/80's. Singapore 1970's/80's. Hong Kong 1960's/70's. Japan 1870-1905. Reza Shah and his son had plenty of time, even with evil British interference. All these countries just mentioned achieved success in two decades, and yes it helped that they were largely not Muslim, and the British/Americans weren't working against them-------------but the point is it is a fallacy that you need 'time' to develop. Yes, the Persian race can do/achieve as much if not more than these countries, as the average Iranian's performance has shown in America. The trick is to crack the British problem---and then you are partially on your way to success. Once strong willed Iranians recognize this and organize, a solution will be found.
" You seem to be one of those who expected nothing but flawless miracles when in reality substantial change requires time and will inevitably endure pro's and con's. The Pahlavi Era lasted 50 years which in historical terms is very little. The Pahlavi's succeeded in this short time-frame in rescuing Iran from the disastrous economic, political, and social state brought about by the incompetent Qajar Dynasty."
Few regimes are perfect; they all have their flaws; obviously since the Shah ruled for 26 years he would have his fair share of faults, which would allow anybody like me to pick on. In addition if you are a dictatorship, and all substantive decisions are made by one person, again more than the usual amount of mistakes must be made--------I take it you are implying that he did make mistakes. Let us thus agree that the best form of government for Iran is a secular democracy, as long as the British/Israelis/Americans aren't out to get you. They ruled for 58 years; long enough time to shift Iran from a Third World society to the Second World.
" As for your statement that too much was concentrated around the oil industry I only refer you to the Shah's "White Revolution" and the programs that were adopted to steer Iran AWAY from being an oil-dependent economy of which some issues are addressed in the clips posted here. Again the foundations had been laid and things were progressing but obviously not as quickly as the high expectations from some of our compatriots."
Yes I repeat that he did not industrialize the economy away from oil; By 1979---- 90% of all exports were still from the sale of oil and gas------please check the stats, and come back to me on that one. Since the inception of the 'White Revolution' in the early sixties into 1979-----he had ample time to industrialize Iran if you take the model of the Asian Tiger economies. UNLIKE THE ASIAN TIGER ECONOMIES he had access to a huge oil sale windfall, but where were the great steel mills, machine tools factories; heavy engineering factories; power plants; chemical plants-------NOTHING! NOTHING! NOTHING!----Where was the infrastructure?-----Iran in 1979, beyond the superficial glitter of Tehran was still a basket weaving country.
"Also it would not be fair nor rational of me to "idolize" anyone since every human being has his or her flaws. The Shah indeed had flaws and I can agree with you that in the beginning of his reign he was still young and indecisive (sorry I'm not a very good "idolater" even though you seem to think I am). Yes, he was not as strong-willed as his father. But what these two Great personalities in Iranian history had was love for their country and people and a strong will to improve the political, economical, and social standards in their motherland which both of them achieved to different lengths starting from scratch."
Know I don't think you idolize him. Yes we are all human, and we all make mistakes-----The Shah's picture half naked with a towel-----duh!---we are modern because we are half naked wearing just a towel ?---------was this his understanding of being modern ? As leader you must be decisive, and love for your country in itself is not enough to justify your rule over that country. I imagine of the 75 million Persians world wide at least 50 million must love their country-----------love of country is not a unique trait for a leader to have, though important.
"However if you want to criticize the late Shah you better do so on sound reasons. In the early 1970's the Shah had been diagnosed with cancer and up to the day that he passed away his health was deteriorating - being decisive and taking rational decisions in such a state is simply not something one should count on or expect. That is why I have said that from the time the late Shah was diagnosed with cancer he should have transferred powers to an Imperial Regency Council until his illness was cured or until the time the Crown Prince was fit to succeed him. However I believe the Shah had worked too hard to so easily abandon control of his honorable vision and plans for Iran. A negative issue related to this is that the late Shah had set up a system in which he was the ultimate decision-maker. Although this (centralized system) might have been a feasible option in the early years of building "modern Iran" it backfired in 1979 when Iranian Generals were not only ordered not to open fire on demonstrators but also because they weren't used to taking initiative on their own without seeking the counsel of the Shah and getting his go-ahead. Before addressing your other points let me make it clear here that after it had been deemed that society had reached political maturity I believe that many of the executive powers vested in the Shah should have been transferred to the Prime Minister and a transition to a real Constitutional Monarchy should have taken place."
Yes he was killed by the British defacto slowly--as articles in the Observer newspaper state, and probably his daughter too on her visit to London in 2001. As to the incidents of 8th September 1978, I do not know the full story---the mullahs say thousands of people were killed; perhaps as many as 15,000 by the Shah's security apparatus immediately before the Revolution whilst her Imperial Highness states it was just a few hundred, and that a lot of these were carried out by the mullahs to discredit the Shah, and SAVAK. Yes his decision making was deteriorating after the early seventies----so you acknowledge-----yes, decision/policy made by many is better than decision made by one---especially in a country like Iran.
"What me or you would have done when confronted with what you refer to as "British backed agitators" (i'd add that the U.S. Carter Administration was not that innocent either nor the French Government) might very well have been different but His Imperial Majesty's reason not to open fire on crowds was equally justifiable - that of HIM never keeping his throne by massacring Iranians and shedding Iranian blood - if he had done so then all these leftists/islamists and the misled crowds would indeed be correct with their slogans and references of the Shah being a "bloody dictator", which he was far from being."
I would do a lot better--but thats being wiser after the event I guess. I would have closed the British embassy in late 1977, and ejected all their citizens from Iran, and the same with the American embassy and their citizens. I wouldn't have sent 219,000 my students abroad to the UK/USA to be recruited as spies. I would have banned tourism. I would restrict all Iranians leaving and traveling abroad. I would installed powerful radio-transmitter jammers to prevent all broadcasting from the BBC, VOA...................a billion other Stalinist/North Korean counter espionage measures, WITHOUT being Communist. I would have established mass concentration camps capable of holding a few million people--------and executed a few mullahs, and burnt their bodies just to impress them. I would have eliminated Khomeini in Iraq, instead of wasting time killing his numerous sons. Then I would have turned on the Carter administration and sorted them out tactfully. He is still going around the world doing his pseudo- redemption work.
Nothing like doing a little fantasy fascist dictator game from a distance!
"You make an accusation (point 3) that the Shah executed one of his own cabinet members? Who was this? If you are referring to PM Hoveyda you are twisting the facts. PM Hoveyda along with other politicians were to be tried to ease tension created by the inflamed and radical demonstrators that were destabilizing the country (PM Hoveyda was accused of corruption if i'm not wrong). The trials would have proved the accusations, fed to the crowds, wrong and the tensions were supposed to have eased. However this didn't happen since in hindsight those who wanted the Shah removed didn't care of proving their baseless accusations but were rather only focused on removing the Shah. PM Hoveyda had the chance to leave his prison cell but chose to stay and face his accusations - which resulted in an Islamic kangaroo court in which a muslim cleric in the newly installed Islamic Republic issued his death sentence without any due process."
This episode is unclear, but in essence you protect your own through thick and thin, and don't throw them to the wolves when the going gets tough.
"Knowing the true intents of the architects of the Islamic takeover or so-called "Islamic Revolution" do you honestly think that social welfare programs would have averted what was about to take place? Seriously? Please do give some due consideration to your recommendations - this issue is much more complex than your recommendations suggest."
Lack of food has triggered many revolutions. When people have no food they become senseless, desperate, and loose their inhibitions. The French Revolution 1789 was triggered by lack of food; as was the Russian revolution of 1917/18-------too many troops had been mobilized to fight up the front, so that nobody was left to till the land. The stupid mullahs recognize this fact, and hence they make basic food virtually free in parts of Iran and heavily subsidies it to the poor. We are not talking of huge amounts of money here, in comparison to the Shah's defense budget, but a little organization and thoughtful planning. Sometimes it is the gesture that counts. Social welfare work could have softened the pressure of the artificial revolution created by the British/Americans, so that the Shah could have handled the situation from a stronger position.
"You also accuse his late Majesty of spending too much on arms. If it wasn't for those arms you'd probably be speaking arabic today and living under Saddam Hussein's rule. It was the Imperial Armed Forces of Iran formed by Reza Shah the Great and his son Shahanshah Aryamehr who defeated the Iraqi troops and defended the territorial integrity of Iran during the 8 year war. Iran is a country of strategic importance and being able to defend itself is an issue of top priority and your accusations don't do justice to the realities faced by our country."
Please don't exaggerate! Don't give me that----------The Shah's defense budget was a big fraud -----allowing his cronies to make money buying none-existent military hardware. Do you know what makes a nation's great military? Do you think simply importing state of the art equipment from first world nations turns you into a super power. If that were so, Saudi Arabia would be a super power by now, but isn't. There are many complex factors which contribute to making a great military. 60% of the Shah's military personnel had deserted by September 1980, when the Gulf war started, and from my understanding a good deal of the initial fighting was done by volunteers and not regular forces-------Revolutionary Guards, Basij and local people, with what ever they could muster--including sticks, knives, rocks..........the conventional military was conspicuously absent, and the mullahs wouldn't allow former exiled officers to fight for their country. As to Saddam invading ALL Iran----come on, his objective was Khuzestan, the Arabic part of Iran, with its oil, thats all. As a military leader he was mercifully incompetent, and his invading force of 500,000 were not very effective, so that the rag tag Iranian defense force with mixed units of military, paramilitary and civilians were able to eventually push back the Iraqis to the border.
"It's easy to criticize in hindsight and putting things out of context of the times they actually occurred in only serves to distort the real picture even more, I believe you should take these things into consideration in your analysis."
Yes indeed hindsight would be wonderful. My brief comments was NOT analysis, it was passing comment----------analysis, serious analysis is where you give references for your assertions, with footnotes. I don't think I am important enough, or widely read enough for me to be able to 'distort the picture' whatever that may be.
Failures of the Shah and others.
Reasons for the Iranian "Islamic revolution"
The article below was taken from wikipedia and attempts to explain why the Shah was toppled, and the mistakes he and others in the full Iranian political spectrum running up to his overthrow made. There are better sources, but for me this is a start as I analyze the whole area in depth a little bit more, covering the fall of the Shah to the sheer criminality of the mullahs, and their eventual over throw in the near future.
In that sense it is natural to ask where the Shah went wrong. The wikipedia article does not cover the whole aspect of the so called misnomer 'Islamic revolution' which was carefully directed by Western Intelligence agencies, as I have argued here on this blog consistently, but I didn't expect it to, as such a theory would undermine a major pillar of Western geo-strategic policy in relation to the Greater Middle East, and in a sense the rest of the world since the seventies.
Just imagine if one day in the future we were to find out that Khomeini rather than being the courageous Third World spiritual leader that he is portrayed was in fact nothing more than another amoral British intelligence asset, who in the pursuit of power for his own ends sacrificed his country and its interests, responsible for the death of a million men and children in the war front, and the death of hundreds of thousands of political activists. Or the fact that al-Qaeda does not exist, but is in reality an elaborately constructed hoax/front/boogie for explaining covert Israeli, and Western intelligence operations against Muslim and non-Muslim countries.
(Saudi Arabia, Egypt, Algeria, Morocco, Tunisia, Libya, Jordan, IRAQ, Syria, Yemen, Pakistan, Indonesia, AFGHANISTAN,Turkey, SOMALIA, Philippines,USA,9/11----an inside operation with Israeli assistance, and finally the UK,7/7------inside operation with Israeli assistance. As you can see from this small list the main VICTIMS of "al-Qaeda" have been MUSLIM countries)
I hope many other writers join me in this useful pure endevour around the world as we all seek genuine peace and justice which frees us to address the real issues which so much in reality vexes the world, which were to an extent being addressed, until 9/11.
______________________________________
The Iranian Revolution (also known as the Islamic Revolution,[1][2][3][4][5][6] Persian: انقلاب اسلامی, Enghelābe Eslāmi) was the revolution that transformed Iran from a monarchy under Shah Mohammad Reza Pahlavi to an Islamic republic under Ayatollah Ruhollah Khomeini, the leader of the revolution and founder of the Islamic Republic.[7] It has been called "the third great revolution in history," following the French and Bolshevik revolutions,[8] and an event that "made Islamic fundamentalism a political force ... from MoroccoMalaysia."[9]
(blogger---another good reason why the 'Iranian Islamic revolution' needs to be debunked; the number of misguided people in Third World societies who think that it was a genuine great peoples revolution, against a Western backed oppressor---we need to see what the Shah did for his country, against what the mullahs have actually done since)
Although some might argue that the revolution is still ongoing, its time span can be said to have begun in January 1978 with the first major demonstrations to overthrow the Shah,[10] and concluded with the approval of the new theocratic Constitution — whereby Khomeini became Supreme Leader of the country — in December 1979. In between, Mohammad Reza Pahlavi fled Iran in January 1979 after strikes and demonstrations paralyzed the country, and on February 1, 1979( Blogger: Co-incidentally and of course not related this date is also my D.O.B) Ayatollah Khomeini returned to Tehran to a greeting by several million Iranians. (Blogger: A few million rent a mobs with the clueless sheep can be organized as they did in the 1953 coup against PM Mosaddegh, though of course not in the millions back in 1953, but the point is the presence of a few million greeting Khomeini out of a population of 38 million is not in itself conclusive proof of a popular "Popular peoples Islamic revolution", but merely that the Western intelligence agencies and their local Iranian dogs were well organized)[11]
The final collapse of the Pahlavi dynasty occurred shortly after on February 11 when Iran's military declared itself "neutral" after guerrillas and rebel troops overwhelmed troops loyal to the Shah in armed street fighting. (Blogger: No 'The rebels' did not over whelm the military consisting of 400,000 well armed men who were totally loyal to the Shah--60% of them subsequently deserted after the Islamic revolution. That is a piece of classic historical disinformation to cover the fact that top NATO commanders and the USA ambassador in Tehran told the Iranian army to stand down and not get involved, as they should have. Pretty much what the Americans did with General Musharaf in Pakistan more recently, when top Corps commanders did not back him in his declaration of Marshal law, as these senior Pakistani officers preferred to take orders from Washington, and visiting interfering officials from the USA-----how many times did Fallon go over there in 2007?)
Iran officially became an Islamic Republic on April 1, 1979[12](blogger: Obviously given the date the British handlers had a cocky sense of humor. They seem to have a fascination for dates in a masturbatory kind of a way, and one can imagine them and their officials huddled around the QuiJa board in Somerset House in their suspenders and bowler hats in the dead of Midnight, on Kosher Saturday, with copies of the ancient Babylonian Talmud for guidance, carefully seeking out British state policy in a Harry Potter kind of way, and creating much mischief once again around the world)
when Iranians overwhelmingly approved a national referendum to make it so.(blogger: eerr ahem---actually there is such a thing as voter fraud, which we find in America----when you have a Iranian population of 38 million in 1979, with probably 15 million actually eligible to vote, but the referendum registers 21 million plus voters, with one choice---yes or no for a Islamic republic, and all of them regardless of their political affiliation, Monarchists, Communists, and 'can't be bothered to vote today'...........somehow all voted for the Islamic regime! Then it seems something is profoundly wrong here; More like over egging the pudding)
The revolution was unique for the surprise it created throughout the world:[13] it lacked many of the customary causes of revolution — defeat at war, a financial crisis, peasant rebellion, or a disgruntled military;(blogger: You don't say!)[14] produced profound change at great speed;[15] overthrew a regime thought to be heavily protected by a lavishly financed army and security services;(blogger: what happens when powerful regime insiders within the security apparatus such as SAVAK are turned against the Shah by Western intelligence)[16][17] and replaced an ancient monarchy with a theocracy based on Guardianship of the Islamic Jurists (or velayat-e faqih). Its outcome — an Islamic Republic "under the guidance of an 80-year-old exiled religious scholar from Qom" — was, as one scholar put it, "clearly an occurrence that had to be explained.…"[18]
Not so unique but more intense is the dispute over the revolution's results. For some it was an era of heroism and sacrifice that brought forth nothing less than the nucleus of a world Islamic state — "a perfect model of splendid, humane, and divine life… for all the peoples of the world."[19] At the other extreme, disillusioned Iranians explain the revolution as a time when "for a few years we all lost our minds,"[20] and as a system that, "promised us heaven, but ... created a hell on earth." [21]
________________________________________________
Explanations advanced for why the revolution happened and took the form it did include actions of the Shah and the mistakes and successes of the different political forces:
Errors of the Shah
- His strong policy of Westernization and close identification with a Western power (the United States) despite the resulting clash with Iran's Shi'a Muslim identity.[22] This included his original installation by Allied Powers and assistance from the CIA in 1953 to restore him to the throne, the use of large numbers of US military advisers and technicians and the capitulation or granting of diplomatic immunity from prosecution to them, all of which led nationalistic Iranians, both religious and secular[23] to consider him a puppet of the West;[24][25]
- Extravagance, corruption and elitism (both real and perceived) of the Shah's policies and of his royal court;[26][27]
- His failure to cultivate supporters in the Shi'a religious leadership to counter Khomeini's campaign against him;[28][29]
- Focusing of government surveillance and repression on the People's Mujahedin of Iran, the communist Tudeh Party of Iran, and other leftist groups, while the more popular religious opposition organized, grew and gradually undermined the authority of his regime;[30][31][32]
- Authoritarian tendencies that violated the Iran Constitution of 1906,[33][34] including repression of dissent by security services like the SAVAK,[35] followed by appeasement and appearance of weakness as the revolution gained momentum;[36][37]
- Failure of Mr. Deschamps overly ambitious 1974 economic program to meet expectations raised by the oil revenue windfall. Bottlenecks, shortages and inflation were followed by austerity measures, attacks on alleged price gougers and black-markets, that angered both the bazaar and the masses;[38]
- His antagonizing of formerly apolitical Iranians, especially merchants of the bazaars, with the creation of a single party political monopoly (the Rastakhiz Party), with compulsory membership and dues, and general aggressive interference in the political, economic, and religious concerns of people's lives;[39]
- His overconfident neglect of governance and preoccupation with playing the world statesman during the oil boom,[40] followed by a loss of self-confidence and resolution[36] and a weakening of his health from cancer[41] as the revolution gained momentum;
- Underestimation of the strength of the opposition — particularly religious opposition — and the failure to offer either enough carrots or sticks. Efforts to please the opposition were "too little too late,"[42][36] but no concerted counter-attack was made against the revolutionaries either.
- Failure to prepare and train security forces for dealing with protest and demonstration, failure to use crowd control without excessive violence[43] (troops used live ammunition, not Plexiglas shields or water cannons),[44] and use of the military officer corps more as a powerbase to be pampered than as a force to control threats to security;[45]
- The personalised nature of the Shah's government, where prevention of any possible competitor to the monarch trumped efficient and effective government and led to the crown's cultivation of divisions within the army and the political elite,[46] and ultimately to a lack of support for the regime by its natural allies when needed most (thousands of upper and middle class Iranians and their money left Iran during the beginning of the revolution).[47]
Failures and successes of other political forces:
- Overconfidence of the secularists and modernist Muslims, of liberals and leftists in their power and ability to control the revolution;[48]
- Shrewdness of the Ayatollah Khomeini in winning the support of these liberals and leftists when he needed them to overthrow the Shah by underplaying his hand and avoiding issues (such as rule by clerics or "guardianship of the jurists") he planned to implement but knew would be a deal breaker for his more secular and modernist Muslim allies;[49]
- Cleverness and energy of Khomeini's organizers in Iran who outwitted the Shah's security forces and won broad support with their tactical ingenuity — amongst other things, convincing Iranians that the Shah's security was more brutal than it was;[45]
- The Ayatollah Khomeini's self-confidence, charisma, and most importantly his ability to cast himself as following in the footsteps of the beloved Shi'a Imam Husayn ibn Ali, while portraying the Shah as a modern day version of Hussein's foe, the hated tyrant Yazid I;[50] and so to be seen by millions as a savior figure,[51] and inspiring hundreds to feats of martyrdom fighting the regime.
- Policies of the American government, which helped create an image of the Shah as American "puppet" with their high profile and the 1953 subversion of the government on his behalf, but helped trigger the revolution by pressuring the Shah to liberalize, and then finally may have heightened the radicalism of the revolution by failing to read its nature accurately (particularly the goals of Khomeini), or to clearly respond to it[52][53][54]
OK that was wikipedia, and my side comments. Here are further very superficial random criticisms of the Shah by me, in response to a comment praising him on a blog:
Lets not idolize a man who ran away from his, nation, people, throne and responsibilities twice; once in 1951 and again in 1979. As a king you stand your ground and face the music, WITH THE PEOPLE.
He was a weak minded playboy, and a shadow of his father (Bush junior). However he was far better then the mullahs, but that is not a complement, as the mullahs are British run DOGS.
1. He was indecisive, in the late seventies when SAVAK was telling him who was destabilizing him, he should have taken strong counter measures against the British and Americans, but instead he was going, why? Why? Why? Please don't hurt me, I'm your friend, please don't hurt me.
2. He should have been more ruthless with the British backed agitators in Iran, but instead he flipped between being firm sometime, and on other occasions giving in to the rent a mob. This gave mixed messages to his true followers in Iran, and was read as weakness by the opposition.
3. He punished one of his own cabinet members to please the opposition---supreme cowardice!
4. He should have transfered all the money of Iran deposited in Western banks into Iran, to fund social welfare programs and appease the crowds in 1978, and rent a mobs by the British/Americans. Instead when he left power, there were $10-15 billion still deposited in Western banks belonging to Iran. At todays prices its worth about $40-60? billion, which has since been frozen by the West and not returned to Iran.
5, Whilst in exile he did not organize a counter coup. He gracefully WITHOUT A FIGHT let the mullah puppets into power; the same with his son. Has the Shah's son to date organized one single coup against the mullahs? No.
6. He did not take any measures to protect his people, who were subsequently executed by the mullahs-----a real monarch protects his subjects especially those close to him; he should have seen to their safety instead of allowing them to become 'sheep to the slaughter' ---such a waste of talented people for Iran.
7. He did not diversify the economy away from oil, so that when BP embargoed his country YET AGAIN as in the early 1950's, by refusing to sell 3 million barrels in 1978, his finances experienced major problems in 1978.
8. He did not understand economics and his modernization programs were superficial------no real industrialization, especially focusing on non-oil sectors.
9. He spent between 1969-79---some $30 billion on arms imports of unnecessary weapons systems which whilst good profits for the American arms industry, was not what Iran needed. He bought them at highly inflated prices----80 F-14 Tomcats for $3.8 billion!1974 --to save Grumman the USA manufacture from bankruptcy----excuse me, who is he suppose to serve? He didn't build up a credible domestic arms industry. Finally on this point he was spending 15% of the GDP ON defense---too high, when Iran had no real external threat, and he had signed an agreement with Saddam via the Algiers accord for better relations. The army was too small, even though such a huge amount was being spent---285,000 by 1979,when it should have been twice as large, and the air force 100,000, his personal hobby horse-way too large.
10. He should have taken stronger counter measures against the Carter administration, when he saw what was happening, and not submitted passively.
11. When you are a leader of a Third World Muslim country, you have got to keep your mouth shut, and not say untoward things against the 'sensitive' things in the West, or even the paranoid Israelis/Jews. On the one hand he recognized Israel diplomatically, gave them oil at preferential rates, bought most of his American arms through Israeli middlemen, allowed one of his most sensitive state institutions to be trained by them--SAVAK. Then he blows it all by going on air, in a matter of fact way and telling one of them that the Jewish lobby has too much power, and its not good for Israel in the long term! Which objectively speaking may be correct, and may even be genuinely well meant from an ally, but in the crazy paranoid world of Zionist (Likud) politics it would be wholly unwelcome, on air. Did the Israelis offer him sanctuary after his fall?
12. The Shah gave $1,000 billion to the British in 1976, to save the country from bankruptcy, when the UK had to go cap in hand to the IMF. So if the Shah knew the British were at it again against Iran, why didn't he use this fact to coerce them, to gain leverage? The British in pursuit of their empire and business interests can be slippery amoral creatures (read the previous blogs/articles), but like any other country they do have to maintain a public face in the international community. Why didn't the Shah state loudly to the world with personal interviews with the global media how the 'ungrateful British' were destabilizing his country, and how they were aggressively negotiating with him over oil sales? Cry and you cry alone, so why didn't he mobilize the world to his point of view?
13. The level of corruption in the Shah's regime was appalling. Just appalling. What made it worse was that it was accepted by the Shah as normal. He knew which ministers were corrupt, and what they were up to, but he did not do anything because they were deemed loyal to him personally; that is not a good system of government, and will eventually be doomed. His defense budget was bogus, as much as the American defense budget is now---a huge gravy train which benefited a few well placed officials buying phantom arms that never materialized, but enriched certain officials who later fled the country with the nations assets. In one sense the level of corruption in the Shah's Iran is what you would find in many other Third World countries---Saudi Arabia for example, where the misuse is worse, however when your puppet master goes on a whim against you, corruption within the state structure is a weakness don't need at such a critical time.
14. One man trying to run everything, just not physically possible--he should have decentralized and delegated his responsibilities. Then less mistakes would have been made.
___________________________________________
Apr 10, 2008
The Imperialism of Jewish Capital
by Henry Makow Ph.D.
A book published in 1889 "The Red Dragon" by L.B. Woolfolk suggests to me that British (and American) imperialism originated in the need of Jewish bankers and their Gentile confederates to translate money they could create out of nothing (thanks to their control of credit), into real wealth (i.e. world ownership.)
The book confirms my assertion that "the Jewish Conspiracy is British Imperialism." (May 2004)
When these bankers finagled a credit monopoly in England in 1694, they turned into a monster that now has highjacked humanity. The London-based banking cartel literally has gobbled up the planet, and will not be content until it owns everything, and enslaves mankind, mentally and spiritually, if not physically. This, in a nutshell, is the New World Order.
The last push came from a secret society Cecil Rhodes started in 1891 to "absorb the wealth of the world" and "to take the government of the whole world."
A recent UN study says 2% of the world's population own 50% of the wealth, while half own barely 1% of the wealth. Needless to say, the richest 2% are mainly the London-based bankers and people associated with them.
Today British, American and Zionist imperialism manifest the banker agenda for "world government" through the destruction of religion, nation, race and family. This imperialism does not express the interests or wishes of ordinary English, American or Jewish people who are being colonized themselves.THE RED DRAGON
L.B. Woolfolk was an American Baptist preacher who traced the machinations of the banking cartel in the decades after the Civil War. He confirmed his assertions by contacts with members of this cartel during visits to London . He says "the Great Red Dragon" is the symbol of the "Jew London Money Power."
In his book, which is on line, he describes how this cartel bought up the US economy through intermediaries, and controlled it long before the passage of the Federal Reserve Act in 1913.
By 1864, almost 150 years ago, Woolfolk claims the wealth of the world already was concentrated in their hands.
"The Imperialism of Capital to which I allude is a knot of capitalists—Jews almost to a man—who make their headquarters in the Money Quarter of London, in Threadneedle street, Lombard, and other streets in that vicinity, where bankers have their habitat. These Jew capitalists have succeeded in centralizing in their own hands the industry and commerce of the earth. —They own almost all the debts of the world, —the debts of nations, states, counties, municipalities, corporations and individuals, —amounting in the aggregate, it is estimated, to seventy-five billion dollars, on which they are annually receiving about four billion dollars of interest. —They own the manufactories, the shipping, and the commerce of Great Britain, and most of the manufactures, shipping and commerce of the whole world. —They have attained control of the industry and trade of the whole earth; and are rapidly centralizing all business in their own hands. They hold possession of all the great lines of trade and business of all kinds, and they regulate all prices by their own arbitrary methods. This Money Power of the Money Quarter of London is the only grand pre-eminent Imperialism existing on the earth."
Woolfolk traces the beginnings of this cartel to the British East India Company in the early part of the Eighteenth Century.
"In 1764, the British East India Company was the grandest and richest corporation in the world. It was the only corporation, which ruled a territorial empire. It was enriched by traffic, by the extension of its trade through the conquest of the trading stations of its Continental rivals and by the wholesale plunder of India....it came to pass that the greater part of the stock of the East India Company, and of the other companies afterwards organized out of the dividends of that great company, fell into the hands of the Jews. The Jews became the great Money Kings of the world.... History presents no career of conquest, in which fraud, deceit and rapine were so blended as in the conquest of India by the East India Company. It was the first example in the history of the world of a trading corporation becoming an imperial power; and its imperial rule was marked by the rapacity, chicane and fraud that characterize a great corporation in the soulless and conscienceless pursuit of gain."
With the invention of the steam engine in 1775, only the capitalists of the British East India Company had the means to profit from the industrial revolution. They set up hundreds of joint stock companies—manufacturing companies of all kinds, coal and iron mining, railways and ships, real estate-- which concealed their ownership.
"In commercial crises, often originated, and always manipulated by them, they managed systematically to break down rival companies, and buy them out, and to rob and plunder the minority stockholders; until, in the end, these organized capitalists got into their own hands and very cheap, all, or the greater part of the stock of the various companies, manufacturing, mercantile and shipping, that originated in steam manufactures. They thus reduced to a system and a science the art of crushing rival companies, and freezing out minority stockholders."
Woolfolk speculates that the Rothschilds did not act alone but represented a syndicate of Jewish bankers.
"The rise of the house of Rothschild is memorable as the first grand combination of the Jews in a syndicate, for the transaction of a vast business in which all their capital might be combined. The Rothschilds became the head of the Jew Money Kings, and have ever since been the head of the Jews, acting as a syndicate. That house is probably at the head of the Jew Money Power of the world. The wealth of the Money Power is simply beyond calculation. It cannot amount to less than $160,000,000,000. It is probably nearer two hundred billions.... The Money Power has so much money, now, that it can not find investment for it. In one more double it will about have all the property of the earth. In the beginning of its career, a double of its capital meant $100,000,000. Now a double of its capital means $400,000,000,000. And all the property of the world is less that $600,000,000,000."
According to Woolfolk, the Rockefellers and most great American industrialist-financiers were merely agents of the London Money Power. Standard Oil is a classic example of how it established a monopoly in every enterprise. Owning the railroads needed to transport oil, the Money Power put competitors out of business by undercutting their prices.
This cartel of cartels kept the business class in line by creating the specter of Communism:
"It is their policy to keep up a hot agitation for Communism and Socialism in the great cities; so that the businessmen, in their antagonism to those ideas, will keep on the side of the Money Power. It is a significant fact that most of the agitators for Socialism are Jews, who are most probably the agents of the Money Power to keep up this agitation for their own purposes... It is a part of the consummate craft of these Money Kings."
CONCLUSION
"The Red Dragon" is an important reminder that even 150 years ago, wealth and power were concentrated in a relatively few hands. Modern history reflects the hidden machinations of this Money Power to advance their "world government." The whole world is being colonized.
We see evidence today that one hand directs all the great multinationals. For example, they all sing from the same songbook of diversity and feminism. All US Presidents are front men for this banking cartel. Their Cabinets are chosen from the ranks of the Rockefeller-controlled CFR. Presidents who defy the Money Power are eliminated. (i.e. most recently JFK and Nixon.) All the Presidential candidates support Israel which was created by the banking cartel to be their world government capital.
I have always thought this cartel was mostly motivated by a desire to consolidate its power, but I now wonder if the Sabbatean Jewish heresy is a major factor in their design. Anyone who creates something out of nothing thinks he is God, and. as the Satan promised, these bankers have inherited the whole world!
This lethal problem arose because the nations of the world apparently relied on a network of Jewish bankers to create their money supply. No nation had the power or wit to break away from this worldwide imperialist system which is tightening its grip.
We must reject this juggernaut in all its manifestations. Common sense eventually will prevail not because it is common sense, but because continuous violation of common sense produces collapse.
Communism - A Ruse for Illuminati Jewish Theft & Murder
I'm not sure if this another sophisticated psy-ops, i.e we Jews control a lot of things, and get this, this is how we use to do it in the good old days. But it is very informative in terms of getting into the minds of Jews and their various schemes for 'success' in a lot of sectors--which turn out to be little more that grubby communal mafia tactics.
In terms of Iran, the shades of the Russian revolution resemble what happened in Iran in 1978-1979; The destruction of the middle class; The destruction of the old elite; Capital flight to Jewish bankers in London; The constant false propaganda fed to the masses by the mullahs without fail in Iran to distract them from the real issues, so you have.............Uranium enrichment is our right......Salman Rushdie........the plight of the Palestinians.........Holocaust inquiry............strange Islamic laws that do not make sense, and to make matters worse, they are arbitrarily applied without any legal consistency.........beyond the sanctimonious talk massive criminality by the ruling elite...................so on, so on, so on and so on. The terror against the good Iranian people by the mullahs, the like of which Iran has not experienced since the Mongols invasion 800 years ago.
The writer correctly identifies the Rothschild's at the center of it all----the grand daddy of them all from London in 'The City', but does the classic disinformation maneuver/feed, by doing a Naom Chomsky stating that they are in league with an evil elite of 'Satanists' in the West, specific names not offered:
"We already powerful Jews who control the world are not alone, but that we are in league with rich powerful aristo's in the West-------- in short we are indestructible, and resistance is futile, cus how can you resist us? Right?"
"Everything happens the way we want them to happen--as we are God. Look what we have done to Russia over 70 years. Look what we can do to America, and we will do to America in the future. The most powerful nation on earth"
Couple of disputed points from me before you go on to read the article:
Jews aren't the Chosen---overall humanity has been given a brief chance, thats the reality on the ground.
The concept of 'Satanism' as the ultimate evil in which only some rich powerful Jews are involved is a lie.
Judaism in essence is in fact at the heart of Satanism.
Jews are not indestructible, otherwise why would they had to flee 79 countries over 3,000 years of their illustrious history? More like they are a bit too clever for their own good.
Everything the Jews touch and dominate implodes eventually into a total mess.
Jews as individuals can be very reasonable, or seem so, but as a collective group of two or more soon become obnoxious and scheming.
Jews as HUMANS aren't the problem, but Jews as a collective race with their Talmudic cult that is the overall problem. Though we always have the few rotten apples an otherwise a good cart full of em argument which Henry and his ilk push. Such an argument states that Jews are just like any other race doesn't add up to the realities of tragedy of history created by them in the nineteenth, twentieth, and twenty-first century and is I think misleading disinformation. It is the mentality and culture of this evil religion that produce these people, and it is the religion with its followers that is the overall fundamental problem.
If Jews think they can dominate the world then we should ALL be concerned because nothing but utter death and destruction has followed their crazy endevours.
_________________________________________________
Same article by Judicial-inc
By Dr. Henry Makow.
In 1869, Jacob Brafmann, a Jewish convert to Christianity published a book in Russian about the Jewish communal organization, "The Kahal" which suggests that - unknown to many Jews and non-Jews --organized Jewry indeed was conspiring against the Gentile population. Like most books of this kind, it is now unavailable.
Luckily, in Nov. 1881, Mme. Z.A. Ragozin published a thorough account of it in "The Century Magazine" ( Vol. 23 Issue I) under the title "Russian Jews and Gentiles (From a Russian Point of View.)" (This remarkable essay is online.)
Ragozin was a scholar of ancient Near Eastern history who, in the 1880's, published a half dozen books on the Chaldeans, Persians, Assyrians etc.
"THE KAHAL"
Brafmann's book was based on a thousand internal documents of the Kahal. Its most startling revelation:
The Kahal followed the Talmudic prescription that Gentile property is a "free-for-all" for Jews who, for a fee, are pre-authorized by the town council ("The Kahal") to finagle it. Obviously a source of anti-Semitism, it may also explain the true predatory nature of Communism (and the New World Order) behind the idealistic-sounding window dressing.
For example, Brafmann, who Jewish historians refer to "an informer," explains Jew "N" buys the rights to Gentile "M"'s house:
"He has acquired 'khazaka' i.e right of ownership over the house of gentile "M," in force thereof he is given the exclusive right , guaranteed from interference or competition from other Jews, to get possession of the said house...'by any means whatever.' Until he has finally succeeded in transferring it to his official possession, he alone is entitled to rent that house from its present owner, to trade in it, to lend money to the owner or to other gentiles who may dwell in it-to make profits out of them in any way [that] his ingenuity may suggest...."The second part may provide a model of how individuals became subjects of a Jew.
"Sometimes the Kahal sells to a Jew even the person of some particular Gentile without any immovable property attached. [This is called 'meropie'.] It is in some places forbidden for Jews to enter into relations with that person with prejudice to the first; but in other places it is free to every Jew to...lend him money, give him bribes, and despoil him, for it is said that the property of a Gentile is 'hefker. [free to all] and whoever gets possession of it, to him it shall belong." (p.912)
According to Brafmann, the documents "show as clearly as possible in what way and by what means the Jews, notwithstanding their limited rights, have always succeeded in driving alien elements from the towns and boroughs where they have settled, to get into their hands the capital and immovable property in those places, and to get rid of all competition in commerce and trades, as has been the case in the western provinces of Russia, in Poland, Galicia, Romania...
"Selling alcohol and money lending were ways to finagle property. The Jewish vodka dealers would show up at harvest time and sell alcohol to farmers on credit. Before long the drinking habits of the peasants and compound interest combined to transfer the property and future harvests into the vodka dealers hands. (E. Michael Jones, "Russian Roulette" Culture Wars, May 2006, p. 24.)
A REVOLUTIONARY WAY OF STEALING
Fifty years after "The Kahal" was published, Christian Russian civilization was brutally destroyed by the Bolshevik Revolution which was a front for the Illuminati Jewish bankers. The salient aspects of this revolution, apart from the imposition of a ghastly and depraved police state, was the confiscation of untold Gentile wealth and the slaughter of millions of non-Jews mostly by Jews. This holocaust gets little notice because Illuminati Jews control the mass media and education system using self-righteous and highly-paid dupes of the "neo-con," "liberal," "feminist" "socialist" and "Marxist" stripe to enforce an intellectual tyranny.
The Rothschild front Kuhn Loeb & Co. got a handsome return of their $20 Million financing of the 1917 revolution. In 1921 Lenin gave them $102 million. ( NYTimes Aug. 23, 1921.) As well, they may have kept wealth and bank accounts the (Tsar) Romanov's foolishly entrusted to them.
In addition, Illuminati Jewish bankers took ownership of Russian industry. German Secret Service documents instructed the Bolsheviks to "destroy the Russian capitalists as far as you please, but it would by no means be possible to permit the destruction of Russian enterprises.
"The German Imperial Bank sent the Bolsheviks in excess of 60 million roubles. In this context, A. N. Field cites Documents 10 and 11 between the bankers and the Bolsheviks: "They give a complete synopsis of the terms on which the German banks after the war were to control Russian industry." "The Truth About the Slump" (1931) by A.N. Field. (pp.62-72)
"THE RED TERROR"
Lenin and Trotsky created the infamous secret service "Cheka" (later renamed OGPU, then NKVD and finally KGB) to steal property and crush resistance.
"The first Cheka units set up in every city or town were engaged first and foremost in the extermination of Tsarist bureaucrats, gendarmes and high ranking officers, the families of White Guards and all citizens whose property was valued at 10,000 roubles or more. There were thousands of scientists and engineers who were killed as "exploiters" and about half the country's doctors were either killed or forced to emigrate. People were murdered at home, in the streets, and in the cellars of Cheka headquarters irrespective of their age." (Slava Katamidze, "Loyal Comrades, Ruthless Killers -The Secret Services of the USSR 1917-1991" p. 14)
Thousands of Christian priests and monks were sent to the Gulag and slaughtered.
"The Church became the target of Bolshevik hostility from the very beginning. Resistance to the confiscation of church properties, especially silver and gold items, was especially fierce...Now priests called on their parishes to resist confiscation, accusing the authorities of pocketing most of the proceeds." (Katamidze, p. 25)
It is estimated that the Cheka was responsible for at least 20 million deaths, according to courageous Jewish writer Steve Plocker who says the Cheka was led and staffed mainly by Jews. The Cheka was empowered by Lenin and Trotsky, who were Illuminati Jews and financed by Illuminati Jewish bankers.
"Many Jews sold their soul to the devil of the Communist revolution and have blood on their hands for eternity," Plocker writes. "We mustn't forget that some of the greatest murderers of modern times were Jews."
"TWO KINDS OF JEWS"
In "Russian Jews and Gentiles," Mme Rogozin writes:
"There have of old been Jews of two descriptions, so different as to be like two different races. There were Jews who saw God and proclaimed His law, and those who worshipped the golden calf and yearned for the flesh-pots of Egypt; there were Jews who followed Jesus and those who crucified Him..." (909)
Not to excuse the murderers, many rank-and-file Jewish and non-Jewish Communists truly were duped into thinking Communism represented poor workers, the sharing of wealth and social justice. Much like today, Illuminati Jews had brainwashed the flock. However, other Jews did see through the deception and heroically fought against Communism.
The Illuminati puppetmasters work arms-length in order to maintain the illusion that history is unfolding in a random fashion. Thus at various times, Stalin did rebel against his handlers and did persecute their Jewish agents. Many believe Stalin was ultimately murdered when he attempted a final crack down.
There are definitely Jews who are part of the Illuminati and those who are not. Of course the former routinely prey on the latter. Bob Chapman recently described how this played out in the sale of Jewish investment banker Bear Stearns.
"Note how Lehman Brothers has been able to raise $4 billion in capital and to take advantage of the Term Securities Auction Facility and the Primary Dealers Credit Facility initiated by the Fed to keep it from going under. Bear was never given these opportunities even though financially it was much stronger than Lehman Brothers. Why, we ask, was there a run on Bear Stearns assets but not on those of the much weaker Lehman Brothers? We'll tell you why. Bear, as a non-insider thorn in the Illuminist side, was forced out and cannibalized by its peers before it had a chance to recover. This is how insiders are allowed to survive and non-insiders are raped and wiped out or merged."
"CONCLUSION"
Since the English Revolution, history reflects the gradual process by which mainly Jewish finance and its satanic Gentile allies have used Freemasonry, "revolution" and war to overthrow Christian civilization and replace it with their economic, social, political and cultural hegemony, i.e. "The New World Order."
I doubt if Illuminati Jewish bankers have a monopoly on avarice but they certainly have been its best exponents. (Haven't they converted most of us?) I suspect the Talmudic spirit ( a Chosen People monopolize wealth at the expense of the vast majority who are considered animals) inspired imperialism and still motivates the Illuminati today.
As I have said, the Illuminati Jewish bankers use Jews as pawns and agents. ( Henry they are at the center of it, and you know it; you even admit it in a way in your writing so why this double speak---they are one and the same, stop pretending that they are two separate entities who come from two separate planets ?) Their partners are Satanists from all ethnic backgrounds who also subvert and betray their own people. Their plan is to disinherit and domesticate ("educate," social engineer, brainwash) the human race to their purpose.
They are behind 9-11, the "War on Terror" and the Iraq War (bloggers comment: 1993 WTC, 1995 Oklahoma City bombing, Afghanistan, Somalia and possibly a few more). They are behind hate-laws, feminism, multiculturalism, and diversity --all this is mind control & social engineering. (Ever hear (about) multiculturalism foisted on Israel or China?)
Bloggers comment--------but Henry the Chinese are intelligent,extremely xenophobic, won't take kindly to being reduced to playing bit players in a Jewish master plan, and mercifully for them there isn't a large Jewish community living there--------they won't accept any plans to reduce the global population to a 1 billion from the present levels.
A cancer is destroying Western civilization. That cancer is the Illuminati Jewish central bankers who control our economic, political, cultural and spiritual institutions. In other words, our "leadership" represents an occult imperial power at war with us; and we can't even recognize it because our institutions have been subverted.
America today can be compared to Russia before the Revolution. According to W. Schulgin, "the brain of the nation was in [Illuminati] Jewish hands. and it became business as usual to think in Jewish categories....In spite of all the restrictions, the Jews controlled the mind of the Russian people." (Jones, Culture Wars, p. 42)
Of course, the Illuminati control the Jewish mind.A real Jew (and Christian and Muslim) stands for God and a universal Moral Order. Thus, world government can never be "good for the Jews" no matter what elite status they enjoy.
Secular humanism cannot replace God. It is a foil for a demented satanic agenda and for more of the bestiality that characterizes the past. Individual Jews will have to decide which kind of Jew they are.
_________________________________
1. "Imperialism of Jewish Capital"
2. "Rothschilds Conduct Red Symphony"
3. "Stalin's Willing Executioners"
4. "The Revolutionary Jew"
___________________________________
The writer is the inventor of the game "Scruples", and a critic of certain aspects of Judaism/Zionism/Israel, after living their early in his life.
Apr 9, 2008
Pakistan army: How to break free with our obsession with nutjob fundies in conducting delicate state operations.
I think the writer has an axe to grind given that his leader, Ahmed Shah Massoud was killed by Al-Qaeda, who in turn were created/run by the ISI, with the help of certain Western intelligence agencies including Israel.
A fundamental flaw of the article is that it fails to explore the wider, deeper issue of Western intelligence involvement in the Pak/Afghan theater at least from 1979, if not earlier under operation 'Green belt' and 'operation Cyclone'. We may never know, but the total funds for such operations could be anything from $10-15 billion running from 1979---2001, when the Taliban and Al-Qaeda were eventually smashed. Involving the Gulf states, Saudi, Pakistan, USA, UK and of course little helpless Israel.
Small sum not worth mentioning Mr. Mir? A small insignificant operation, disconnected to the Taliban issue?
By failing to mention such fundamental factors, the overall remedy is compromised, because if you Mir saab don't address the fundamental issue, that powerful Western nations made it their policy to specifically fund and funnel aid to extremist Islamic groups, and not just the Taliban from 1994, against whom you might have a clear personalized justifiable gripe, then how do you begin to address the fundamentals of the deeper problem?
If these Western elements can persuade a 'liberal' modern Western educated leader like Benazir to support such groups, then how much luck do think these Westerners will have persuading the same failed policies with hardened military men in the Pakistan security establishment, who have a tract record of working with fundies before especially in 1971, with devastating consequences for the civilians? Right wing shadowy militias working with the military isn't a specifically Pakistani phenomenon--------operation Gladio in Europe and Turkey; death squads in Central/South America backed by military juntas. Its universal, but the operations in Pakistan/Afghanistan were a little bigger than before.
Its not about targeting/blaming the ISI is it? The problem is deeper isn't it?
The problem is people from the West coming and telling Pakistanis what to do in relation to sensitive internal/external state policies, and the Pakistani elite accepting these ideas without first screening them for their full future consequences. Or even evaluating why guys from the other side of the world would come over with such weird ideas.
Now the situation has reached a critical point, many Pashtun soldiers have died, or have deserted, and the powers that be Pakistan, civilian mainly are scratching their heads finally, and not too late, and have decided that perhaps another strategy might be adopted, before the country disintegrates, and American and NATO forces pour across the border to 'save' the situation, and nuke bombs.
The solution is simple---Pakistan distances itself from America; closes American bases, and stops importing American arms. Pours money into Baluchistan and NWFP finally, and stops using the military in situations which are essentially created by socio/economic tensions.
By Haroun Mir
in the Pakdefence forum.
In 1994 when Pakistani officials decided to create a dreadful monster called the Taliban, they didn't bother to estimate its impact on their own society.
In fact, Pakistan's Inter-Services Intelligence's (ISI) militaristic policies, which consisted of bleeding the Indian army in Kashmir and turning Afghanistan into their virtual fifth province, have blinded them to the consequences.
Their ill-conceived strategy has failed once again. Consequently, the Indian military has emerged stronger from the long conflict in Kashmir and the coalition forces have assisted Afghans to liberate Kabul from the grasp of the Taliban.
Eventually, Pakistan has become the biggest loser because the same radical movements, which its military leaders have created, threaten its very existence.
In the spring of 1992, the communist regime fell and Ahmad Shah Massoud's forces entered Kabul. Pakistani officials instructed their trusted man and surrogate Gulbudin Hekmatyar (leader of Hezb-e-Islami), who had just been appointed the prime minister of the newly established coalition government in Kabul, to burn down the city.
From 1992 to 1994, the Afghan capital became a living hell. Despite intensive efforts, Hekmatyar's forces were stuck in the southern and eastern parts of Kabul and were unable to make significant progress. Pakistani authorities decided to shift their support from Hekmatyar to a then-unknown radical movement — the Taliban.
Along with the ISI the late Benazir Bhutto and Nasrullah Babar — then respectively the prime minister and interior minister of Pakistan — are also to blame because the movement was created under their direct watch.
Few politicians in Pakistan and in the rest of the world ever questioned Pakistan's dangerous policy of purposely nurturing a radical Islamist group.
In September 1995, Colonel Imam (a senior ISI official), with impunity and consent of western officials who had an interest in the Turkmen pipeline project, personally led Taliban forces to capture Herat, which is the largest city in western Afghanistan.
In 1996 when Bin Laden's airplane landed in the Afghan city of Jalalabad, no alarm went off in the capitals of the West.
When the Taliban were beating women, destroying schools, and holding public executions, Pakistani officials were trying to convince the rest of the world by saying that Afghanistan was a backward, fragmented, and ethnically divided country which needed an iron hand to stabilise it.
Today, the same ills that destroyed Afghanistan plague Pakistan. Pakistani society today has become fundamentally divided. The home to Pakistan's intellectuals and moderate middle class is Punjab and Sindh, while radicalism, terrorism and poverty thrive in the Pashtun heartland and in Baluchistan province.
Up to the present moment, Pakistan's military authorities have favoured radical Islamist groups at the expense of moderate and democratic movements.
For example, President Musharraf didn't hesitate to jail lawyers who protested in favour of rule of law and democracy but appeased murderous radical Islamists and Taliban leaders under the phony Pashtun code of conduct enforced in the tribal area.
Until now, Pakistani authorities have been able to avoid a full confrontation with local Taliban groups for fear of alienating Pashtuns who constitute over 15 per cent of Pakistan's popu-lation, but are intentionally over-represented up to 25 per cent in Pakistan's army.
Despite continuous pressure from the US, Pakistan's military authorities have resisted bringing their Punjabi elite units to the tribal battlegrounds against the Pashtun radical movements.
Instead, they heavily relied on militia forces from the tribal zone to secure the area. Pakistani leaders rigorously want to avoid a rift and direct confrontation between Punjabis and Pashtuns.
Indeed, there is a real risk that the "war on terror" in Pakistan might transform into a full war for autonomy or independence of Pashtun tribes from Islamabad.
Pakistani authorities have broken the status quo in the tribal zone by promoting radical Islam and extremist religious leaders at the expense of traditional tribal leaders and institutions.
Pakistan's policy in the tribal zone has been a continuation of former British colonial policy, which consisted of keeping Pashtun tribes economically dependent, politically fragmented, and intellectually backward.
The government in Islamabad has continued to subsidise them and bribe their leaders, instead of creating a sustained economy and providing modern education.
The ageing Al-Qaida leaders and Afghan veterans of the Soviet war are ceding leadership to much younger and emerging local Taliban leaders.
Baitullah Mehsud is the best example of the new leaders, who want to set the agenda rather than follow anyone's orders.
Despite the efforts of ISI and Pakistani religious leaders to force him to fight against "infidel troops" in Afghanistan, Mehsud persisted with his goal to take the battle to Islamabad instead of Kabul.
Many fellow Afghans praise him for taking on Pakistani forces. Indeed, Pakistani authorities created Taliban to protect their interests in Afghanistan and in Kashmir, but are now faced with uncalculated consequences, which seriously threaten Pakistan's own existence.
The newly elected civilian leaders will have a hard time setting right the mistakes committed by the military over more than three decades.
(The writer served as a special assistant to late Ahmad Shah Massoud, Afghanistan's former defence minister.)
Apr 7, 2008
Fitna--------racial provocation, Jewish style.
The strategy is transparent, from outer space.
Get your dogs in Europe and else where to bait Muslims, and when the Muslims do react inevitably, especially the illiterate ones or their funded agent provocateurs then shout as loudly as possible through your media, 'The Muslim hordes are at the gates'. Demonize the Muslims, as reckless savages who go into rage for inexplicable reasons-----and don't do any background checks or research about the substantive issues why people behave this way, just transmit the images, and some banal side comments as news. Then drive the hell out of the Palestinians, and justify your action against them because these are after all savages, right?
Hence we have had this promotion of Islamic fundamentalism by sections of the West, and Israel. The secular Muslims have to fight back against both, as both are the enemies.
http://amconmag.com/2007/2007
http://www.payvand.com/news/06
http://www.larouchepub.com
http://www.counterpunch.org
In relation to the article/blog in point and the wider issue of Fitna and Van Wilder.
Obviously Jews are doing a propaganda drive, with the help of elements of the Far Right in Europe (which I always thought was manipulated by the Jews themselves traditionally to scare and keep in line the Jew masses) The Mohammad cartoon episode was initiated by a Mossad agent by the name of Fleming Rose, working for the Danish newspaper which supported the far right, and accepted as OK from the right wing government of Denmark----Fleming Rose is not his real name ------actually an Ukrainian Jew:
http://petras.lahaine.org
http://www.rumormillnews.com
The French Arab riots on the surface looks like crazy Arabs going on the rampage, but a closer investigation looks like the right wing French MOSSAD agent, Nicholas SARKOZY as interior minister staged highly provocative action calculated to incite Arabs. Look it up people...............
<="http://www.wakeupfromyourslumber.com/node/4280">wake up from your slumber
The Dutch saga looks like more MOSSAD activity to give Muslims a bad name to justify Israeli inhuman activity against the Palestinians, in collusion with Right Wing elements in Europe:
http://judicial-inc.biz/van
It is quite simple people. The strategy is simple, using shaven headed, working class yobs, with low education/IQ to garner support for Israel and its genocidal actions in the Middle East. The question is how much is the general media going to accept this as fact.
Iraq developments, General Patraeus and the Zionist lobby
http://judicial-inc.biz/Ge.neral_petraeus.htm
http://judicial-inc.biz/a_word_or_two_about_petraeus__by.htm
http://judicial-inc.biz/83petreaus..vs...fallon.htm
So the phony drum beat of war against Iran is being increased, and if the reports out of London are to be believed, Patraeus will tell Congress that the Iranians were involved physically in fighting side by side with Sadr's militia's against regular Iraqi forces.
So let me see if I got this right, and you kids at the back I want to pay special attention, because I am going to read a very special fairy tale:
So the Iranian government sends their forces across the border illegally (according to them) to join a Shi'ite militia, which is on record as being staunchly nationalist and thus not too pro-Iranian (i.e let me spell it out for our American friends---no foreigners in Iraqi soil thank you---no Americans, and definitely no Iranians) to fight against a pro-Iranian Iraqi Shia dominated government!
Now it could be the mullahs in Tehran are banana's, with no logical line of thinking, you know the 'mad mullah's' thing, but I doubt it. They are a pretty cold calculating political bunch of people, who have been in power for 29 years. In fact they are not that ideological as you might think, but rather more interested in staying in power. So why on earth would they want to unsettle things in Iraq right now when everything is peachy, where the USA has wisely yet again delivered for them all they wanted------Saddam gone, hung, and their puppets running the government of Iraq. In fact the rapid reflex covert Iranian attempts to save the apple cart, verified by the press in Washington, points to the opposite and proves that they want to protect the status quo, and not start a shooting match against their own trained and backed puppets, and thus the USA, using proxies who want all foreigners out of Iraq.
So whats up? A couple of things.
American policy in Iraq is an abject failure because of the conflicting interests of the Jews who want one thing, and the interests of America which is given superficial lip service, and the actors involved in the theater reading several different scripts creating the inevitable contradictions. Fallon was part of that as much as Patraeus and the policy makers in Washington.
The absurd accusations against Tehran tells us more about the level of desperation of the Americans then what is the truth of what they state.
When you make big mistakes from the beginning and continue with them for the better part of five years without any adjustment and reflection, then the chances are your next decision will also be an abject failure. Failure builds on failure; lies builds on lies.
Patraeus may be another crypto-Jew battling for Israel, and his career and ambition. Nothing to do with American strategic interests.
Within the Pentagon the WASP military, told Bush the reality, that the American army was a spent force, and the situation was dire; the call for reduction in Iraq would inevitably come from this. But the Jews have other plans of course. Thus false accusations against Iran is the latest silly justification for keeping the present troop levels in Iraq. Its been done before, but the Jewish media haven't taken them to account, and asked hard questions-----i.e IED's from Iran.
What gives the London media out burst against Patraeus? The mullahs are British installed puppets and obviously the UK wants to protect them from an out right invasion, and over throw. Huge amounts of Iranian assets have been transfered from Iran to British financial houses, ----Capital flight-- $100 of billions ; 1) Via the middle class and old elite leaving the country 2) Direct control over the mullahs-----who besides physically owning money in their own accounts, and state capital, don't understand the intricacies of national sovereign finance, but the Jew in London do.
It would save a lot of bother if the British told the Americans outright that the mullahs were their puppet, and verify that the mullahs were not developing nuclear weapons, but that would be tantamount to stating:
1) Our puppets in Iran invaded your embassy and held the 52 hostage for 444 days with our knowledge and pleasure.
2) We knocked you out, and your controlling interests in Iran, and have done so for the better part of 29 years successfully.
3) We have people at the highest level in your political and administrative system who work for us, and our interests.
4) It gives new meaning to the 'special relationship' and you have been suckered.
http://www.informationclearinghouse.info/article19679.htm
http://www.informationclearinghouse.info/article19678.htm
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)