AHMADINEJAD WON INDEED AND THE REAL SOURCE OF INTERFERENCE IN IRAN’S ELECTION IS LIKELY THE UNITED STATES
27 June 2009, 22:48, by liquidity
All of which conveniently begs the question of the images of millions of peaceful Iranians gathered in protest being intimidated, tear gassed, beaten with clubs, herded with motor bikes, arrested, and murdered by Iranian Government thugs acting at the behest of Ahmadinejad and Khameni, the same powers obviously behind any election fraud that may have occurred.
It also begs the question of why the same Government locked up foreign journalists, shut down local papers and non-managed television sources, and did its best to keep Iran in a total communications blackout. If Ahmadinejad and Khameni had their way, the only thing the world would know about the Iranian election is that they are still in charge. NO CREDIBLE SOURCE SUGGESTS THAT OPEN REPORTING OF THE ELECTION OR ITS AFTERMATH WOULD HAVE PAINTED A LESS DAMNING PORTRAIT. Government suppression of inquiry most sensible people might think evidence of something to hide.
But, to a leftist in ENVY wanting to take a shot at America, jumping on the insane Ahmadinejad story line that "AMERICA (and Great Britain) DID IT", is irresistable. That, of course, is the thinly disguised point of this piece after all.
Perhaps your readers are gullible enough to buy into its necessary premise --- the handful of deep-cover CIA agents and their assets plausibly in Iran are supermen (or superwomen). But super they indeed must be, complete with preternatural powers, to have so influenced and manipulated millions from positions in hiding in a closely watched society! The ultimate pomposity of your piece lies in its arrogant assumption that the reader is too stupid to understand the meaning of what he has seen with his or her own eyes. Your assertion requires the superhero capabilities of a children’s cartoon.
Now, if your point was that AMERICA (and Great Britain) DID IT by popularizing the many values and virtues of secular Democracy including individual freedoms as well as freedom of the press and the resulting societal openness including equality of the sexes, then I gladly claim both guilt and my share of credit for being guilty.
But that is not your point - which is a generic attack upon America.
Yes we did indeed use the atomic bomb, twice (though this fact has noting to do with the present piece). America did indeed invent it and did not fully appreciate the horror of its use beforehand. Horror and all, under the same circumstances, I would advocate using it again. Most sensible people would.
We also have worked diligently ever since to avoid using nuclear weapons again. A correct headline would be America has NOT used atomic weapons in anger for more consecutive years than any other country in the world which has had them available for use.
Yes, about 60 years ago, the American CIA did bring the Shah back to Iran from a "health related" vacation (He thought it was healthy to be out of Iran). He was after all still the Iranian head of state. And we did "assist" him in a plan to toss out his unruly, but elected and quite popular, Parliamentary leader Mossedh - an act that was arguably within the Shah’s Constitutional powers at the time.
Communists don’t much like this because the Tudeh (Iranian Communist) party was at least temporarily behind Mossedh in a coalition of leftist parties. Hidden behind and not fully revealed until the fall of the Soviet Union, the Tudeh was also executing a Stalin-supported KGB plot to paint Iran red, first with Mossedh apparently in charge to oust western nations (the US and Great Britain), and then replacing him as might be necessary in a putsch to get a more Soviet compliant head of state. Do not forget that Iran was a key route to the Persian Gulf for war material sent to Russia by the allies during WWII and the control of Iran was viewed by the Soviets as key to control of all of Asia and the middle east.
Maybe Mossedh was not ultimately a Communist and would have out-maneuvered the KGB/Tudeh plot. But Tudeh cells under KGB direction had been secretly placing members to rise in the Iranian Officer Corps begining in 1941/42 and outside of the military were being well armed by smuggled Soviet weapons as Mossedh was elected. An attempt to take control of Iran was looming. There was no other visible leadership than the Shah that was clearly anti-Soviet. Certainly I am among the many who, aware of Communism’s consistent failures, history of oppression, and multiple millions executed in just Stalin overseen atrocity, think putting the Shah back in charge as a blocking move was all in all a good idea for the WORLD at the time. Obviously, Iranian sensibility has been offended and this is unfortunate. But from the outside, it is not at all clear that Iran’s revolution has led to a better path. Green seems to say a lot of Iranians would agree.
Iranian communists in particular (and international Communists as well) hate the Shah because his forces (ulimately "SAVAK) rooted out the Tudeh Cells and their "sleeper" members in the Iranian Officer Corp. And sure, oil interests were involved. What sort of moron would think otherwise?
To the degree the Shah was "bloody", it is mostly with the blood of Soviet directed communist revolutionaries attempting to gain control of Iran. Ironically, Iranian Communists were major players in the Iranian Revolution but were anticipated and outsmarted by the Mullah’s. In the months after the evolution, more Iranian Communists were probably executed by kangaroo "Revolutionary Courts" than over 35 prior years by the Shah. Leftists always seem to remember the dead it is convenient to remember and forget the dead it is convenient to forget.
Whether or not the Iranian Election fraud was in fact great enough to steal the outcome is conjectural. But if it was, the thieves are sure behaving like they are thieves. And clearly millions of Iranians think that it was. That is what counts.
All of which conveniently begs the question of the images of millions of peaceful Iranians gathered in protest being intimidated, tear gassed, beaten with clubs, herded with motor bikes, arrested, and murdered by Iranian Government thugs acting at the behest of Ahmadinejad and Khameni, the same powers obviously behind any election fraud that may have occurred.
It also begs the question of why the same Government locked up foreign journalists, shut down local papers and non-managed television sources, and did its best to keep Iran in a total communications blackout. If Ahmadinejad and Khameni had their way, the only thing the world would know about the Iranian election is that they are still in charge. NO CREDIBLE SOURCE SUGGESTS THAT OPEN REPORTING OF THE ELECTION OR ITS AFTERMATH WOULD HAVE PAINTED A LESS DAMNING PORTRAIT. Government suppression of inquiry most sensible people might think evidence of something to hide.
But, to a leftist in ENVY wanting to take a shot at America, jumping on the insane Ahmadinejad story line that "AMERICA (and Great Britain) DID IT", is irresistable. That, of course, is the thinly disguised point of this piece after all.
Perhaps your readers are gullible enough to buy into its necessary premise --- the handful of deep-cover CIA agents and their assets plausibly in Iran are supermen (or superwomen). But super they indeed must be, complete with preternatural powers, to have so influenced and manipulated millions from positions in hiding in a closely watched society! The ultimate pomposity of your piece lies in its arrogant assumption that the reader is too stupid to understand the meaning of what he has seen with his or her own eyes. Your assertion requires the superhero capabilities of a children’s cartoon.
Now, if your point was that AMERICA (and Great Britain) DID IT by popularizing the many values and virtues of secular Democracy including individual freedoms as well as freedom of the press and the resulting societal openness including equality of the sexes, then I gladly claim both guilt and my share of credit for being guilty.
But that is not your point - which is a generic attack upon America.
Yes we did indeed use the atomic bomb, twice (though this fact has noting to do with the present piece). America did indeed invent it and did not fully appreciate the horror of its use beforehand. Horror and all, under the same circumstances, I would advocate using it again. Most sensible people would.
We also have worked diligently ever since to avoid using nuclear weapons again. A correct headline would be America has NOT used atomic weapons in anger for more consecutive years than any other country in the world which has had them available for use.
Yes, about 60 years ago, the American CIA did bring the Shah back to Iran from a "health related" vacation (He thought it was healthy to be out of Iran). He was after all still the Iranian head of state. And we did "assist" him in a plan to toss out his unruly, but elected and quite popular, Parliamentary leader Mossedh - an act that was arguably within the Shah’s Constitutional powers at the time.
Communists don’t much like this because the Tudeh (Iranian Communist) party was at least temporarily behind Mossedh in a coalition of leftist parties. Hidden behind and not fully revealed until the fall of the Soviet Union, the Tudeh was also executing a Stalin-supported KGB plot to paint Iran red, first with Mossedh apparently in charge to oust western nations (the US and Great Britain), and then replacing him as might be necessary in a putsch to get a more Soviet compliant head of state. Do not forget that Iran was a key route to the Persian Gulf for war material sent to Russia by the allies during WWII and the control of Iran was viewed by the Soviets as key to control of all of Asia and the middle east.
Maybe Mossedh was not ultimately a Communist and would have out-maneuvered the KGB/Tudeh plot. But Tudeh cells under KGB direction had been secretly placing members to rise in the Iranian Officer Corps begining in 1941/42 and outside of the military were being well armed by smuggled Soviet weapons as Mossedh was elected. An attempt to take control of Iran was looming. There was no other visible leadership than the Shah that was clearly anti-Soviet. Certainly I am among the many who, aware of Communism’s consistent failures, history of oppression, and multiple millions executed in just Stalin overseen atrocity, think putting the Shah back in charge as a blocking move was all in all a good idea for the WORLD at the time. Obviously, Iranian sensibility has been offended and this is unfortunate. But from the outside, it is not at all clear that Iran’s revolution has led to a better path. Green seems to say a lot of Iranians would agree.
Iranian communists in particular (and international Communists as well) hate the Shah because his forces (ulimately "SAVAK) rooted out the Tudeh Cells and their "sleeper" members in the Iranian Officer Corp. And sure, oil interests were involved. What sort of moron would think otherwise?
To the degree the Shah was "bloody", it is mostly with the blood of Soviet directed communist revolutionaries attempting to gain control of Iran. Ironically, Iranian Communists were major players in the Iranian Revolution but were anticipated and outsmarted by the Mullah’s. In the months after the evolution, more Iranian Communists were probably executed by kangaroo "Revolutionary Courts" than over 35 prior years by the Shah. Leftists always seem to remember the dead it is convenient to remember and forget the dead it is convenient to forget.
Whether or not the Iranian Election fraud was in fact great enough to steal the outcome is conjectural. But if it was, the thieves are sure behaving like they are thieves. And clearly millions of Iranians think that it was. That is what counts.