Iran: Tricks, Lies, Oil and the Set-up; Do Not Be Fooled
Posted by fahim knight at 18:40, 04 Jul 2009IRAN: TRICKS, LIES, OIL AND THE SET-UP; DO NOT BE FOOLED
By Fahim A. Knight-EL
The so-called crisis and civil unrest in Iran was/is being instigated and acerbated by the United States Central Intelligence Agency (CIA), the Israeli Mossad, reactionary Iranians living in exile and who are considered foreign nationals in which many have received the benefits of a U.S. education. Mir- Hossein Mousavi who was the opposition candidate that ran against Mahmoud Ahmadinejad for the presidency of Iran, is nothing but an agent provocateur and a traitor against the legitimate political aspirations of the masses of the Iranian people.
This is a dangerous class of uncle toms and lapdogs because in all respect, they have betrayed the Iranian Islamic Revolution of 1979 and all that it has stood for. Many of the young people who were in the streets protesting Ahmadinejad political victory, were children and off spring of the petite bourgeoisie Iranians whose parents were old allies of Mohammed Reza Shah Pahlavi. They lost their privilege positioning in Iranian society at the ousting of the Shah and has been in quest of reclaiming that honored advantage—this recent uproar perhaps created a nostalgic moment for this reactionary class.
These agent provocateurs are disguising their dissent in the name of rallying behind so-called Iranian democracy and yet there is no religious or political document more synonymous with freedom, justice and equality than the Holy Qur'an Sharif. But these agents would be the first to condemn Islamic Sharia as being intolerable and outdated and would advocate a more secular jurisprudence system. (Reference: Qadi ‘Iyad Ibn Musa al-Yahsubi’; “Muhammad Messenger of Allah”).
They do not desire democracy, but is looking to turn this Islamic theocratic government into a cesspool of western style iniquity—where alcohol, drugs and gambling is the order of the day (anti-Islamic government). Imam Ayatollah Ruhollah Khomeini who toiled in exile for over seventeen years in Europe and in 1979 toppled the corrupted and reactionary Shah of Iran. He had ruled Iran since 1941 as a ruthless monarch and had betrayed Islam and the Iranian people on behalf of western interest. (Reference: Said Amir Arjomand; “The Turban for the Crown: The Islamic Revolution in Iran”).
Thus, what is more shocking, is that President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad won the election based on a fair and democratic process. But how can the United States exert itself as a moral and political standard barrier relative to what a democracy should or shouldn't be?
We have a very short term memory and have forgotten that in one of the most technological advanced and modern societies, we witnessed George W. Bush steal an election in 2000, as well as witnessing millions of registered Florida voters being disenfranchised right beneath our eyes. This was not supposed to happen inside of America where we pride ourselves of being a free and democratic society. (Reference: Ian Inaba; “American Blackout” (DVD); starring Cynthia McKinney and Taalam Acey).
The 2000 U.S. presidential election demonstrated how vulnerable our democratic process was—this wasn't happening in China, North Korea, Vietnam, Cuba, or Zimbabwe, etc., but right here inside the United States of America; not that I have ever believed all the United States propaganda aimed at discrediting these nations forms of government.
But the U.S. in my mind, lost national and international credibility after the 2000 and 2004 presidential political fiasco—one man and one vote did not matter because this election would be determined outside the electoral ballot box. Bush stealing an election was no different than any other foreign ruthless dictator or tyrannical ruler. Thus, to all account Vice President Al Gore had won the 2000 presidential election and was denied the right to serve as the 43rd president of the United States of America. (Reference: Ian Inaba; “American Blackout” (DVD); starring Cynthia McKinney and Taalam Acey).
Some of the traditional Civil Rights leaders protested in the streets, but it was not enough to exposed the bloodless coup d'état that took place inside of America, which in the larger sense went unnoticed by the ignorant. Perhaps the Central Intelligence Agency orchestrated this political deception and those that control political processes do not give a damn about Democracy—for them it is about power and control by any means necessary.
The United States during the Cold War era has always tried to export American style democracy to foreign countries and this eventually led to revolution after revolution and in the long run created more political instability within different regions of the world after the U.S. propped up puppet regimes. (Reference: Frantz Fanon; “Wretched of the Earth”).
The United States would not tolerate another foreign president meddling into U.S. domestic affairs and this writer does not think President Barack Obama has the right to get involved in the domestic internal affairs of the nation of Iran, a sovereign foreign government. But Iranian election is being used by the external forces of evil to create dissention and to dismiss Iran and its President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad as a lunatic and as a fundamentalist Islamic dictator who is bent on acquiring nuclear capability in order to attack the Zionist State of Israel and the United States (I guess the U.S. and Israel decides who should have nuclear weapons and who shouldn't). (Reference: Bob Woodard; “State of Denial”).
It was unfound political rumors and innuendos in that Iraq had in its arsenal Weapons of Mass Destruction that (this was odd because he purchased the majority of weapons from the U.S. Department of Defense) led the U.S. Coalition Forces into Iraq in 2003. Although, the United Nations inspection team found no Weapons of Mass Destruction, but the faulty intelligence wasn't enough to curtail U.S. aggression, which has destroyed Iraq and fractionized its people into various religious and political sects. However, none of this slowed the U.S. and the United Kingdom’s ability to steal oil and enrich themselves at the expense and misery of the Iraqi people. (Reference: George Tenet; “At the Center of the Storm: My Years at the CIA).
This unjust war in Iraq has amassed tremendous financial debt for the taxpayers of the U.S. and untold human casualties, in particular on the Iraqi side—remember this war was instigated based on a lie and false allegations. Who is going charge George W. Bush, Dick Cheney, Donald Rumsfeld, Colin Powell, George Tenet, Condoleezza Rice, etc., with war crimes against the innocent people of Iraq and most of all for betraying the trust of the American people? Now, this is amounts to a true conspiracy and high treason and none of these low level operatives have been indicted for breaking international law and United States law. Most of them are back into civilian life and are involved in the private sector. (Reference: Scott McClellan; “What Happened: Inside the Bush White House and Washington’s Culture of Deception”).
Whose economic and political interest did these poor young United States soldiers were galvanized to fight for? I am quite sure Bush, Powell, Tenet, Cheney, Rumsfeld, etc., children would never be recruited or drafted into the U.S. Arm Forces infantry squads (frontline killers) in Iraq and Afghanistan. This writer cannot imagine these low level operatives sending their children to die on foreign battlefields in order to secure the position of the superrich. Also they are not willing to be duped into believing that these wars are being fought to make the so-called world safer for democracy (this rhetoric is strictly for the patriotic poor).
This privilege (the poor throughout history is always sacrificed for the interest of the rich) is forever reserved for the poor who is considered expendable and not for the Elite. Surely poor African Americans, Latinos, and poor white soldiers, etc., did not benefit from this war (the beneficiaries are always the hidden Dynastic Families), but I do not excuse them in their culpability and their willingness to be used as tools of United States Foreign Policy. (Reference: Thomas Leon: “Fighting Other People's Wars: A History Of America's Involvement, Sacrifice And Failure In Battling Foes In Distant Lands”).
Perhaps these Middle East conflicts are mere smokescreens and sophisticated diversionary tactics used to divide and conquer while they neutralize and isolate foreign governments deemed to be so-called potential threats to United States national security. The United States created enough propaganda around Iraq and Saddam Hussein that initially there were little opposition toward this travesty of justice. (Reference: Noam Chomsky: “Hegemony or Survival: America’s Quest for Global Dominance”).
The United Nations has never put forth a resolution condemning the U.S. illegal war and occupation of Iraq. Oh! Also Paul Bremer and Paul Wolfowitz are worst criminals than former president George W. Bush—these two are of a different mindset and had no equal in their level of chicanery. The invasion of Iraq was never about ridding Baghdad of Weapons of Mass destruction, it has always been about oil and strategic military positioning. (Reference: Richard A. Clarke; “Against All Enemies: Inside America’s War on Terror”).
Bush and Cheney left office, a lot more filthy rich than when they took the oath of office in 2000. But two of their high ranking Negro ex-slaves Powell and Rice will never be long standing financial beneficiaries of these high level crimes or be invited into their circle of money and perceived power (their skin color and their lack of understanding of how the game is really played will forever preclude them)—
They will only receive a U.S. Government civil servant pension and public accolades for their criminal roles (these 'Negroes' do not understand the value of their treachery and the their reward is minimum); while Bush and Cheney's great, great, great grandchildren will inherited lives of wealth and royalty based on the raiding of the second largest oil reserve in the world (they will never cut Rice and Powell into this pie). They (the powers that-be) and their lineage will always be rewarded handsomely by the Seven Oil Sisters—ExxonMobil, Royal Dutch Shell, BP, Chevron, Gulf Oil, and Texaco for their loyalty. But you can not pass a civil servant pension on after you are dead. (Reference: John Coleman; “Conspiracy Hierarchy: The Story of the Committee of 300”).
The United States has to find a way to neutralize Islam because there is no other force that pose a legitimate and formidable threat to their world domination. But, this is more about attempting to covertly overturn the revolution and rolled the clock back to when Mohammed Reza Shah Pahlavi (better known as the Shah of Iran) had turned Tehran into the Paris of the Middle East where westerners visited and vacationed to party, play and have fun. There was no respect for Islam and the teachings of Caliphate Ali Ibn Talib (May Allah be please with him) or Prophet Muhammad Ibn Abdullah (PBUH).
The Persian culture is ancient and majestic and the 1400 year old Islamic tradition was corrupted by these reactionary agents of the west. This was the ultimate agenda, which was to once again set a puppet in the seat as president of this strategic Persian nation. Moreover, who would capitulate and be in complicit with United States political aspirations and foreign policy interest throughout the Middle Eastern region. The CIA has been using this same strategy and tactic in Iran since the overthrow of the Shah in 1979. (Reference: Tariq Ali; “The Clash of Fundamentalisms: Crusades, Jihads and Modernity”).
Thus, do not forget the X-factor, which is, Iran is an oil wealth nation and this is the most vital commodity to the U.S. and western governments (addicts and certified oil junkies). How quick do we forget that the United States Government thirty years later is still showing its dissatisfaction towards the Iranian Islamic Revolution? The Shah of Iran for over 38 years amassed a personal fortune off of allowing western governments to exploit Iranian oil while very few of the oil revenue ever returned to masses of the people of Iran. This political and economic contradiction created the fuel and stirred a will in the Iranian people, which to bring about change and liberation. (Reference: Michael T. Klare; “Blood and Oil: The Dangers and Consequences of America’s Dependency on Imported Petroleum”).
The United States in 1979 after the Iranian hostage crisis, acerbated and created political tension between Iran and Iraq. This led to the CIA cutting a deal with Saddam Hussein which to use him to thwart Imam Khomeini and to turn back the gains that the Iranian Revolution was making inside its country and within the region. From 1980-1988 Hussein was a U.S. Government agent and CIA puppet who was commissioned to do their military and political bidding in the Middle East and the Persian Gulf. He was well financed, rewarded with military technology and the Iraqi arm forces were the beneficiaries of top level U.S. military training. (Reference: Ralph W. McGhee: “Deadly Deceits: My Twenty-Five Years in the CIA’).
The United States propaganda machines led us to believe that the conflict was rooted in religious ideology—Shia versus Sunni and a border dispute between the two adversarial Islamic nations. But failed to mention that the Seven Oil Sisters and the U.S. had a monopoly on Iranian oil and after thirty-eight years this illegal arrangement came to an abrupt end. This action automatically disrupted the huge U.S. financial incentives that they were receiving from this corrupt TRIANGLE; which after the revolution they no longer had control over how Iranian crude would be priced, distributed and even lost control over how the politics of Iranian oil would be used as leverage in the game of rewarding and punishing (the revolution to a lesser extent took this control out of U.S. hands). (Reference: Andy Stern: “Oil: From Rockefeller to Iraq and Beyond”).
The Iranian Revolution devastated U.S. national and foreign interest, because they had their tentacles wrapped around this valuable commodity—thanks to Mohammed Reza Shah Pahlavi. The CIA would use Saddam Hussein as a hired gun; he was given one mission, which was to attack Iran and engaged them into a military conflict with an objective of weaken their political, economic and social infrastructures.
Thus, with an ultimate objective of disrupting the flow of Iranian oil, which to neutralize their most valuable commodity asset and, therefore controlling Iran's foreign oil market access and weaken the country economically. Also, the United States was betting that the war would take a political, economic and psychological toll on the people of Iran and this would have dire internal consequences, which would lead to the overthrow of the Islamic fundamentalist Imam Ayatollah Ruhollah Khomeini or perhaps even having him assassinated. (Reference: Alvin and Heidi Toffler; “War and Anti-War: Survival at the Dawn of the 21st Century”).
This did not occur and after the Iran-Iraq War this furthered isolated U.S. and Iran relations, and normalization was nowhere insight. Khomeini called the United States the “Great Satan” and called on a unified Islam to stand together against the evils of the western world. Iran’s perceived victory over the U.S. Government backed Iraq was essentially a moral victory over the world’s foremost superpower. Thus, this was being viewed no different than the Afghan Muslims defeating the former Soviet Union in a ten year protracted war in Afghanistan. (Reference: Richard Nixon; “Seize the Moment: America’s challenge in a One-Superpower World”).
Iran was being punished for overthrowing the Shah and sending the CIA man into exile in Panama and for nationalizing the Iranian oil (the coup amounted to a loss of huge dollar amounts for the U.S.). This infuriated President Jimmy Carter and President Ronald Reagan, after all the U.S. was losing billions of dollar and strategic alliances because of the revolution. The Iran-Iraq conflict only strengthen the resolve of the spirit of the Iranians to throw off the shackles of neo-colonialism and take whatever necessary step to insure national self-determination; and at the same time it exposed the Sunni Islamic nation of Iraq as an enemy of Islam and as a puppet government who was under the dictates of the CIA.
This reality, would later comeback to haunt Saddam Hussein and Iraq; in particular after the ex-CIA director and President George Herbert Walker Bush turned on his longtime bosom buddy and CIA operative Saddam Hussein during the first Gulf War (1990/1991) Desert Shield and Desert Storm. This marked the beginning and downfall of Hussein’s ascension and fall from power and grace.
Many of the Islamic Arab nations could not forget Hussein’s reactionary military actions against the Shia Muslims in Iran—brother Muslims. He killed innocent Muslims for eight years in an unjust war instigated by the enemies of Islam, which amounted to mass murder in the name of western interest. Therefore, when the United States turned against him and the Iraqi people, it became evident that he had lost credibility within the Muslim world and not many were willing to put their reputations on the line for a traitor and former opportunistic agent of the CIA.
Iran and President Ahmadinejad surely even in 2003 had an axe to grind with Hussein and Iraq, but gracefully did not take a proactive position against Hussein relative to supporting U.S. actions against the man that brought death and destruction to the people of Iran. This present day Iranian crisis, if you can call it that, is an artificial crisis orchestrated by external forces and it has the same objective of 30 years ago—oil and working to create internal conditions to restore a puppet regime in Tehran .
President Ahmadinejad from the western perspective is bad for big oil business and although a politician he embraces the principles imbedded in the Islamic theocracy. But do not be fooled, sanctions or not the U.S. is still buying Iranian crude. For example, you remember President Reagan and Colonel Oliver North, don’t you? Reagan was condemning Imam Khomeini in the public (Khomeini was public enemy number one inside the U.S.) while heading up an elaborate criminal scheme between the United States, Iran and Nicaragua–Contras (Iran-Contra Affair) in the late 1980s. (Reference: Lawrence E. Walsh; “Firewall: The Iran-Contra Conspiracy and Cover-up”).
Perhaps many do not remember this illegal business triangle, which consisted of Dope (Nicaragua), Oil (Iran-Khomeini) and Weapons (United States), which Reagan and North had adverted U.S. law and was in violation of U.S. imposed sanctions and embargoes policy by engaging Iran in an illegal business transaction (oil, dope and weapons). (Reference: Lawrence E. Walsh; “Firewall: The Iran-Contra Conspiracy and Cover-up”).
North and the CIA was financing a secret and a private war in Nicaragua between the Contras and the Sandinistas in which the United States Congress had no knowledge that the U.S. taxpayers money was being used in this criminal based triangle enterprise.
Iran, America’s so-called enemy was receiving U.S. made arms in exchange for oil to be transferred to the Contras (who were in a war against Daniel Ortega) along with arms in exchange for dope to be transferred to the United States. This was a sophisticated bartering system, although the U.S. had sold Imam Khomeini’s arch nemesis Saddam Hussein of Iraq his arsenal. They would later seize the moment to arm Imam Khomeini and Iran because they have never had any loyalty to either side. The only thing mattered to the United States was protecting their oil interest in the Middle East and the Persian Gulf. (Reference: Lyndon LaRouche; “Dope, Inc: The Book that Drove Henry Kissinger Crazy”).
We have a precedent in front us which is Iraq and they are using the same propaganda to gear the people up for an eventual U.S. military attack against Iran. These western criminals will justify an attack by convincing the ignorant American people that Iran is getting closer to perfecting some aspect of nuclear capability and this so-called poses a direct military threat to Israel and the United States. President Ahmadinejad seems always to be defiant and based on the recent history of Iran this writer understands his demeanor and disposition. However, this nation in my opinion, does not pose a threat to the U.S. or Israel, but remains in imminent danger of being attacked by these two powerful political allies.
This writer supports the principles of democracy and believes in the right to dissent even if that dissension is aimed at the state. One having the right to openly disagree is essential to a healthy democracy. The right to have a fair and participatory government where the people are apart of a legitimate electoral process and is free from coercion and intimidation. Moreover, allowing them to exercise their will, regardless of how they see fit to exercise that will and without the fear of personal or political consequences and repercussions being exerted by an entity of power and authority.
However, this writer questions the motive of those who were leading the civil unrest in Iran, which was motivated over their candidate Mir Hossein Mousavi apparent lost to incumbent President Ahmadinejad in the Iranian elections. It is difficult for me to ignore the history of the U.S. and Iran’s relations and it is even more difficult to ignore the antagonistic relations between Iran and the Zionist State of Israel. These factors and variables can not be viewed independently of the recent political crisis in Iran—whether or not they are the true instigators and the provocateurs is perhaps mere speculation on my part. But this is not above or beneath either nation to create this type of tension and confusion in order to remove any impediment relative to their political goals and objectives.
Iran from their vanish point has been a defiant nation for over thirty years and its controversial President Ahmadinejad embodies a hatred for the west and they further want us to believe that he poses a threat to the United States and Israel’s national security. But Ahmadinejad critics have never given any credible evidence to truly support their contention; it is all based on conjecture and speculation. Iran does not have the military capability to pose a legitimate threat to these two superpowers.
Fahim A. Knight-EL Chief Researcher for KEEPING IT REAL THINK TANK located in Durham, NC; our mission is to inform African Americans and all people of goodwill, of the pending dangers that lie ahead; as well as decode the symbolisms and reinterpreted the hidden meanings behind those who operate as invisible forces, but covertly rules the world. We are of the belief that an enlightened world will be better prepared to throw off the shackles of ignorance and not be willing participants for the slaughter. Our MOTTO is speaking truth to power. Fahim A. Knight-EL can be reached at fahimknight@yahoo.com.
Stay Awake Until We Meet Again,
Fahim A. Knight-EL
- fahim knight's blog
- Login or register to post comments




Comments
12 April 2007
2 min 41 sec
they have betrayed the Iranian Islamic Revolution of 1979 and all that it has stood for.
So what were the ideals in which the Iranian revolution was launched? Maybe I'm too simplistic, but I though the main purpose was to overthrow a tyrant —the Shah— but not just to be replaced by other tyrants —the Mullahs.
Do you really think the elections were clean and fair? When the opposition leader supposedly lost in his home city?
Is a government that cares more about attaining military power and dealing with ideological enemies, instead of actually increasing the well-being of its citizens, a fair government?
Are we to believe that religious leaders are the most capable for running a country, because they know what God wants?
But we can a gree with something, Fahim: Western democracy is not exactly the greatest of role models; but, at least it is a more advanced form of social system that what the Iranians are currently enjoying. I only wish they could find a democratic system that suits them best.
I'm not saying the Arab emirats or Kuwait are better examples of what a modern Islamic nation should be. Clearly, there are more Mercedes Benzes and luxury hotels there, but the economic disparity between the upper and lower classes is staggering.
But let's assume you're right: that the CIA orchestated the whole thing, and that Moussavi is an agent provocateur. Does that give the Iranian government the right to brutally repress the protesters? Are they so stupid as to do exactly the thing the foreign espionage services —you claim— were hoping they would do —i.e. act as the bad guys yet once again?
-----
It's not the depth of the rabbit hole that bugs me...
It's all the rabbit SH*T you stumble over on your way down!!!
Red Pill Junkie
22 December 2007
3 hours 1 min
Red Pill: Remember if the U.S. Government lied about Iraq having weapons of mass destruction and they used the media to convince us that Saddam Hussein was a threat to the Middle East and the Persian Gulf. This lie and misleading led to the unjust attack on the innocent people of Iraq.
But the premises of this lie in 2003 was merely based on U.S. oil interest, which ultimately led to the U.S. and the Coalition Forces invading Iraq without due cause. Thus, after being exposed and caught Bush and the boys would later admit that Iraq and Hussein had no weapons of mass destruction.
So, I do not put anything above or beneath the CIA and the U.S. Government. They are using similar propaganda against President Ahmadinejad of Iran in order to discredit him and besmirch his character because he and Iranian Government will not allow western interest to exploit Iranian oil.
The United States lost serious petroleum interest in Iran in 1979 after the people overthrew the Shah, a U.S. puppet who had betrayed the political, economic and social interest of the masses of Iranian people.
Your characterization of the present day Iranian Government and its president is atypical of U.S. propaganda.
I think each nation has the right to self-determination and whether, I agree with the Islamic theocracy or not, is not the issue, but this sovereign government has the right to govern their society as they please.
I respect the Islamic culture and tradition and I do not try to compare it with western democracy—it is different and unique. But the west has always has this Euro-ethnic and Judeo-Christian worldview relative to how they view the rest of the world is suppose to act and behave.
Stay Awake Until We Meet Again,
Fahim A. Knight-EL
22 November 2004
3 days 20 hours
It is true that
So has the current government in Iran. This is a dictatorial government, controlled by a group of angry old men. These angry old men are now also filthy rich, while a large oil producing country has to import fuel.
They haven't managed to build up refinery capacity in 30 years, while they have good trade relations with many countries who can help them with that.
Fact is the mullahs don't give a shit about their population, as long as Islamic society standards are enforced. No wonder many Iranians don't like them.
As long as women are treated as almost human (remember the 3/5th value of black men?), I do not respect their brand of Islamic culture and tradition.
----
No amount of cursing at the round earth will make it flat.
22 December 2007
3 hours 1 min
Red Pill, I am on a family outing at the moment, but I will like to give you an answer to your last response when I get back into the house.
Stay Awake Until We Meet Again,
Fahim A. Knight-EL
12 April 2007
2 min 41 sec
But that wasn't me; that was earthling. although I actually agree with pretty much everything he wrote ;-)
Right now I feel a strong kinship with the young Iranian people that went out and demanded a fair recount fo the votes. I feel that I am a brother of Neda, the poor woman that was killed during the protests; that the same thing would have happened to me; that the same thing could happen to me in the days after tomorrow Sunday. Tomorrow I will annull my vote not just for my sake and the sake of my Mexican brothers & sisters, but to honor HER memory.
PS: I forgot to wish you a happy 4th of July. That goes to all the American Grailers too, BTW. Remember: you don't celebrate it in honor of what the United States is; but on the promise of what it can become.
...And because fireworks and BBQs are so god-damned cool :-P
-----
It's not the depth of the rabbit hole that bugs me...
It's all the rabbit SH*T you stumble over on your way down!!!
Red Pill Junkie
22 December 2007
3 hours 1 min
Your comments have no basis, they are mere conjecture and speculation and a subtle attack against the religion of Islam.
Your negative inference against Islam represents a slanderous disposition. Thus, Christianity has done some horrible things in the name of God and Faith. It was the Catholic Church that sanctioned Chattel Slavery (1555-1865) and it was Christians in Germany who sided with Adolph Hitler and the slaughtering of six million Jews. Christianity has no moral position, as far as I am concern.
The Catholic Church covers for their Clerics (leaders of the congregations) who are pedophile and sexual predators. My man, under Sharia (Islamic Law) this will not be tolerated or justified (chopping bloc).
Now, you have very little understanding of Iran and Islam. Let me start here: The United States at the end of the Iranian Islamic Revolution in 1979 froze and confiscated over 25 billion dollars of the nation of Iran's money (hard core currency) and they froze other assets belonging to the people of Iran.
The U.S, even to date has not relinquished this illegal confiscation. Iran has had to deal with U.S. imposed economic sanctions and embargoes, which has hindered some of their international trade efforts.
Imam Khomeini nationalized the oil and kicked the bloodsucking western nations out of Iran and turned the business of oil back over to the indigenous people of Persia. Europeans such as yourself constantly come across with this Eurocentric perspective and has a disdain for other people's cultures and religion.
I respect AL-Islam and do not have a problem with people who perhaps live and believe different than I.
Your comments are flawed and atypical of western thought. Perhaps you should read the history of Persia, definitely a superior culture and tradition to the Europeans.
Stay Awake Until We Meet Again,
Fahim A. Knight-EL
22 November 2004
3 days 20 hours
My basis is the observation that in some Islamic cultures, women don't count for much. In particular, women's lives are wirth less than men's lives. Women's status in law is different, that is to say less, than men's status.
This is the case in Iran today. It's also the case in many other places, such as Saudi and parts of Nigeria. It also has historically been the case in many other cultures, nothing unique about it. It is present in a lot of Turkish families in Germany, and can have brutal effects on the women.
I believe that cultures which still formally support this deserve a certain amount of criticism, and yes a certain amount of disrespect. They are behind the times in terms of fairness towards all members of society. What their religion is, I don't really care. I care about the standards of the societies.
And in judging a government, I take into account how well it manages the country. And the Mullahs are doing a bad job of that.
So on those two counts they deserve some disrespect. This has nothing to do with disrespect for Islam. It is not slanderous if it is true. And I think you know that it is true.
You on the other hand don't seem to respect anybody who disagrees with you in the slightest. That's fine, you don't have to.
The Iranian enmity towards the US and the UK didn't start in 1979. It's much older than that.
Persia has a very long and fascinating history. Mostly as one of the most influential empires, both with much military success and with philosophical progress. Zoroastrianism flourished there, a very interesting religion. Of course the military success involved the usual brutality, but nothing out of the ordinary for the times. Of course most of this is pre-Islam.
I am sure that a lot of societal norms in Islamic countries pre-date the foundation of the religion. In other words one cannot really blame Islam for causing faults in all societal norms. It is just that some faults haven't been fixed at this point.
I don't believe that Islamic societies should be immune from criticism just because they are Islamic. I am not critical of the prophet (although he is not immune either), I am critical of current politicians and religious rulers.
----
No amount of cursing at the round earth will make it flat.
12 April 2007
2 min 41 sec
Today I read in the paper that a vast majority of religious leaders oppose Iran's decisions regarding the election. I find this to be very telling an interesting.
How is this dissent possible, if they are all faithful Muslims?
Are they on the CIA's payroll too? That seems very unlikely; what I think it signals is that the Iranian structures of power are not as homogeneous as they wanted us to belive in the outside, nor should they be, as a matter of fact, since dissent and tolerance are the two roots of democracy.
-----
It's not the depth of the rabbit hole that bugs me...
It's all the rabbit SH*T you stumble over on your way down!!!
Red Pill Junkie
22 December 2007
3 hours 1 min
President Richard Nixon in his book titled, “Seize The Moment, America’s Challenge In a One World-Superpower World” stated, “had we not intervened, an international outlaw would today control more that fifty percent of the world’s oil. While the United States could survive, if necessary without Persian Gulf Oil, Western Europe and Japan could not. What happens to the economics of the other industrial democracies directly affects the health of our economy. We therefore, could not have afforded to allow Iraq to have access to Gulf Oil and blackmail the world through its choke hold on our lifeline”.
It was very disturbing in 2003 as I watched U.S. Secretary of State Colin Powell address the United Nations; as an African American permitted himself to be used as a puppet and as a tool of U.S foreign Policy by the reactionary regime of President George Bush.
Powell knew that there were no political justification to attack the tiny nation of Iraq (the intelligence reports told him that Iraq had no weapons of mass destruction) and worst yet Russia and France who have permanent seats on the United Nations Security Council were not in agreement with the United States military action against Iraq.
Moreover, the United Nations as a whole had spoken strongly and truly desired to see the U.N. Weapon’s Inspectors continue their task and allow peaceful diplomacy as a reasonable resolution.
The U.S had accused the nation of Iraq of violating various U.N Resolutions, but failed to tell the American people that they helped Hussein to violate U.N. law and international policy and had armed him in the past with U.S and Israeli weapons of mass destruction. Why was President Bush so bent on going to war with Iraq?
His war motive was about controlling the Ramallah Oil fields and enriching the Seven Oil Sisters of Exxon, Mobile, British Petroleum, Royal Dutch Shell, Standard Oil, and Arco whom the Bush family have had business ties to for generations (Reference: “The Immaculate Deception: The Bush Crime Family Exposed” by Russell S. Bowen).
How quick do we forget, in 1979 the United State Department of State, United States Justice Department and the Central Intelligence Agency (CIA) armed and gave the Iraqi Government and its leader Saddam Hussein military technology, as well as weapons of mass destruction to kill the innocent people of Iran.
Hussein for eight (8) years was a hired United States gun with one objective, which was to further U.S. Foreign policy within the Persian Gulf region.
The United States Government used false propaganda against Iran and Ayatollah Ruhollah Khomeini persuading the ignorant masses to view Khomeini as a “boogieman” and the mass mediums of both electronic and print demonized him as such.
The United States Government used U.S. Citizen’s tax dollars in the name of foreign aid from 1980-1988 to boaster Iraqi's military might in order to curtail the Iranian Islamic revolution, which had nationalized the Iranian oil fields and the Central Intelligence Agency (an arm of the Hidden Hand) had an objective of containing and isolating Iran from spreading this idea in the region.
Shah Mohammad Reza Pahlavi better known as the Shah of Iran who for almost three decades had betrayed the Iranian people and had turned this Persian Islamic society into a den of decadence.
Khomeini called America the "Great Satan" and U.S. foreign policy at that time had an objective of destroying the Iranian Government by any means necessary.
Hussein used chemical and biological warfare against the Iranians and guess what most of it came from the United States Department of Defense.
Stay Awake Until We Meet,
Fahim A. Knight-EL
12 April 2007
2 min 41 sec
We're talking about what's happening on iran, not Iraq.
It may be kind of stupid, but I recommend to watch the movie "Persepolis", by Marjane Satrapi. It gives an interesting viewpoint of what it is like to be inside this oppresive political system creaed by the religious hierarchy in Iran. Unless you see this as more propaganda; in that case, nothing we say here cannot be disclaimed as propaganda, since none of us are Iranians or living in Iran.
Anyway, the movie is beautiful; it is worth seeing.
-----
It's not the depth of the rabbit hole that bugs me...
It's all the rabbit SH*T you stumble over on your way down!!!
Red Pill Junkie
22 December 2007
3 hours 1 min
It is all relative. I am given you my perspective of the U.S. Government and the CIA propensity to lie and mislead the American people and the world. There is no better example, than what took place in Iraq.
They are attempting to use similar disinformation tactics and strategy against Iran and President Ahamadinejad. I know the core of our subject is Iran, but truth is relative and I am showing the interconnection with how the deceiver operates.
What have we learnt from Iraq as far as U.S. Foreign Policy relative to Oil in the Middle East and the Persian Gulf?
They lied and have killed millions of innocent Arab Iraqis in name of White Christian manifest destiny (Bush said the U.S. was a Christian nation in a war against the "infidels").
So I see this propaganda against Iran as a political pattern; no different than what I saw taking place in Iraq.
They are working extremely hard to turn public opinion against Iran to justify a war and stealing more oil, just as they did in Iraq in 2003. Lies, lies, lies,!!!!!!!
Stay Awake Until We Meet Again,
Fahim A. Knight-EL
22 November 2004
3 days 20 hours
And you believe that whatever Ahmadinejad and his masters say is true?
Why?
----
No amount of cursing at the round earth will make it flat.
22 December 2007
3 hours 1 min
No. But the U.S. Government admitted to lying and intentially misleading the American people in Iraq.
I do find President Ahmadinejad of having much more credibility than the puppet President Barack Obama who is also control by the masters who rules over humanity.
This den of thieves desire to steal Iranian oil. Yes, I believe that with all of my heart.
Stay Awake Until We Meet Again,
Fahim A. Knight-EL
22 November 2004
3 days 20 hours
I find it unlikely that Ahmadinejad (don't know the right spelling, it's a transliteration anyway) is an honest man. But your mileage may vary.
Have you thought about the women's issues?
Not treating every human equally, at least before the law, is a deal breaker for me. I don't respect societies that formally have separate classes of human beings. It was wrong 500 years ago, it was wrong in 1862 and in 1962, it is wrong now. I don't care what political system it is, what religion.
It is wrong, period.
----
No amount of cursing at the round earth will make it flat.
22 December 2007
3 hours 1 min
http://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/...
Please review link: Very Interesting
Stay Awake Until We Meet Again,
Fahim A. Knight-EL
22 November 2004
3 days 20 hours
If the Ayatollah's cat surprises Khamenei (sp?) the cat is a CIA agent.
These people are just laughable.
----
No amount of cursing at the round earth will make it flat.
22 December 2007
3 hours 1 min
That is your Eurocentric perspective. Thus, you are trying to disguise your contempt for other people's culture and religion in the name of a feminist argument. There are Christian Churches and Denominations that still will not ordained or permit women in the pulpit right here in the United States.
Women suffer serious discrimination even in the western world (this contradiction is not just partial to Islam). But I do not hear you attesting and detesting these social practices.
I respect the Islamic culture and if we had Sharia (Islamic Law) inside America, I willing to bet you, our national crime rate will reduce itself to almost haft in one year.
Stay Awake Until We Meet Again,
Fahim A. Knight-EL
22 November 2004
3 days 20 hours
In many countries women have the same legal status as men. In Iran and many other countries they don't.
Apparently you find that acceptable. Maybe you find that it is a good idea, because they use the label "Islam".
A system that explicitly makes women second-class people is chauvinist, by definition.
The western world is at least trying to solve the problems of inequality. Iran is not, and neither are some other countries.
Indeed you respect Islamic culture. But you don't respect anything else. No other cultures, no other people.
----
No amount of cursing at the round earth will make it flat.
12 April 2007
2 min 41 sec
Aside from some yet-to-perfect issues —e.g. Abortion— the level of rights that women enjoy in most Western countries is unparalleled. Empowering women is the best tool to attain a better environment and economy, too.
Of course, there are Muslim countries, like Turkey, where women are equal to men in most areas. There's always the matter of religion, and as you say that's not so different in the West. Well... the Hell with them.
-----
It's not the depth of the rabbit hole that bugs me...
It's all the rabbit SH*T you stumble over on your way down!!!
Red Pill Junkie
22 December 2007
3 hours 1 min
You are still displaying the epitome of Eurocentric thinking and just because people have a different tradition from Europeans and other westerners do not make their culture any less superior or inferior to other societies, in particular European societal practices.
Europeans are not a in a position to be a cultural standard barrier for the rest of the civilize world.
Islam from my understanding is a way of life and it is very tolerant of all men, women, and children and their customs evolve from the Holy Qur’an and from the Sunna of Prophet Muhammad (PBUH).
You two are just running off at the mouth and truly know very little about Islamic life and practices other than what you heard in the media and read on Internet.
I have engaged Muslims in many, many conversations and I have visited Masjids/Mosques in many different regions.
I am just not echoing the Internet and western propaganda.
Islam came to the United States on a large scale by an African American named Elijah Muhammad and because of his teachings many blacks in the 1930s and beyond converted to Islam.
So, in every major city in America there are pockets of Muslims (Sunni, Shia and the Nation of Islam). Yes, I do respect work that the Honorable Elijah Muhammad and Minister Louis Farrakhan of the Nation of Islam has done and is doing, as far as resurrecting the spiritually and mentally dead amongst our people.
I applaud Islam for doing some good work in America, in spite of negative western propaganda.
Stay Awake Until We Meet Again,
Fahim A. Knight-EL
22 November 2004
3 days 20 hours
Personally I found your first post to echo the view of the Iranian government.
Further I don't see why I should respect people who preach hate against Europeans based on race and religion. Such people include the Iranian government. And based on your writings, I think you know some others who do that.
----
No amount of cursing at the round earth will make it flat.
22 December 2007
3 hours 1 min
Earthling, what inference are you making? Lets not go down that road. Thus, just present your argument and not make bigot inferences. Your last comment is loaded and I reject the inference that you are making.
Stay Awake Until We Meet Again,
Fahim A. Knight-EL
22 November 2004
3 days 20 hours
re-read your own posts, and try to imagine someone saying this to you from an opposite direction. I won't repeat hate speach.
----
No amount of cursing at the round earth will make it flat.
12 April 2007
2 min 41 sec
Have you talked to Muslim women as well?
If you ask me the same question, I would have to answer "NO". So, if you have departed with Muslim women to learn their point of view, it would be interesting to know how they feel about their place in a Muslim society.
I don't know if it's Eurocentric, Fahim (our aversion to societies that belittle women, that is). In fact, I know that there are other cultural examples where women enjoy the same status as men, that have nothing to do with Western tradition. Take for example the Tehuanas, women in Oaxaca that have authority over men, and enjoy a big social status because they are in charge of Economic transactions —and, mind you, in that cultural example, homosexuality is not persecuted or criticized; which of course is not the same in patriarchal societies like the ones influenced by Abrahamanic religions.
That is another thing we left out: tolerance to sexual diversity.
-----
It's not the depth of the rabbit hole that bugs me...
It's all the rabbit SH*T you stumble over on your way down!!!
Red Pill Junkie
1 May 2004
42 min 24 sec
I think the three of you guys are ignorant of Islam actually. Maybe you are getting culture and tradition mixed up with religion. Islam, at it's core, doe's not percecute women. All are equal and tolerance of all peoples are taught. It's when traditions are blended with religion that we get these intolerences. Christianity is no different, in fact it is less tolerant of others then Islam.
If a Muslim commits a crime it becomes a terrorist attack. If a Christian commits a crime it is the induvidual that has commited it. That is persecution of a religion.
If you want to judge anything, judge the traditions of the country and NOT the religion of the country. If all Muslims lived by the teachings, which I might add are full of contradictions not unlike the Christian Bible, then there would not be these problems that we see around the world.
If you wish to critisise Culture,Tradition,Religion, then at least gain a full understanding of them.
"Life can be whatever you want it to be, as long as you do what your told."
LRF.
12 April 2007
2 min 41 sec
That's fair enough. We should then judge the traditions of Iran regardless of their religion; or, the way their view of their religion has shaped their traditions.
And in that sense I think that they need to make a lot of advances in order to have a more fair society.
And that the current Iranian government repress their people; regardless of whether those protesters are being influenced in any degree by foreign powers. A government that needs to repress in order to maintain their authority is a sad government indeed.
-----
It's not the depth of the rabbit hole that bugs me...
It's all the rabbit SH*T you stumble over on your way down!!!
Red Pill Junkie
1 May 2004
42 min 24 sec
could you give me an example of a goverment that doe's not repress it's people.
I live in Australia, most believe they are free. We actually have less civil rights then Russians had before the wall came down. There just different ones.
Until a true democratic society is developed with full transparency, no person will be truely free.
"Life can be whatever you want it to be, as long as you do what your told."
LRF.
12 April 2007
2 min 41 sec
No, but I could perhaps give you a few examples of societies that doesn't use repressive governments, or a government structure the way we understand it. These societies, ironically, are the ones we tend to dismiss as "primitive", "pre-industrial"; maybe they have more to teach us than we have to teach them, right?
I think we all can agree that there will never be perfect human societies or perfect systems of governments, since we human beings are not perfect ourselves. The only thing we can do is to look upon ideals of what we want to do and where we want to go as a species, and try to come as closer as we can humanly can.
-----
It's not the depth of the rabbit hole that bugs me...
It's all the rabbit SH*T you stumble over on your way down!!!
Red Pill Junkie
22 November 2004
3 days 20 hours
At it's core perhaps. But that's about it, in practice several Islamic societies do that today, including Iran.
It is probably true that a lot of pre-Islamic traditions simply persisted when a society was converted to Islam. Same thing happened with Christianity.
You say
No this is not true in Europe or in North America. Individual crimes are individual crimes. And Christians are treated as terrorists when appropriate. Take the Oklahoma City bombing, or the Atlanta Olympics bombing. Both are called terrorism, rightly so. Both committed by people who say they are Christians.
There are individual crimes committed by Muslims, just like there are by anyone else. Theft, murder, robbery, driving under the influence, you name it. These are usually treated as ordinary crime.
There are some crimes, called honour killings, which seem to occur more in Islamic societies (or sub-cultures in the West). Those are treated as ordinary crimes. My guess that this isn't a Muslim thing, it seems to be more of a clan problem. The victims are often young women, killed by family members. But again this is not called terrorism.
So no, your generalization is not correct.
What I believe is a big problem historically is the mixture of religion and government. This is similar to religion and tradition, but it's probably worse.
When you mix religion and government, you pollute the religion with selfish people on power trips and greed. At the same time you pollute government with people who claim a moral justification given them by God, and sometimes they even believe it themselves.
Give me the old fashioned Roman-style or Persian-style governments, pre-Christian and pre-Islam. They honestly said they did it for the power and glory of Rome and Persia, respectively.
And give me the old fashioned preachers who tell us about the moral path that will save our souls.
But keep them separate.
----
No amount of cursing at the round earth will make it flat.
1 May 2004
42 min 24 sec
in a court of law, yes they are treated that way depends on the crime. But you talk to the average Joe in the street and mention that it was a muslum that did the crime, then their responce would be "terrorist". European people are not a good example. Europe has a fairly good mixture of religions, but the US with it's "In God We Trust" mindset, and also many places in OZ have a limited understanding of Islam and believe the media spin. Not good.
It's mis-information and ignorance that creates the problem.
As with all you have said in earlier posts on this thread. Citing Islam as a form of intolerence.
Iran has a history of male domination and that is tradition.
Many cultures in the past have had similar traditions, even our own.
You are absolutly correct when you say the problem is the mixture of religion and politics. Sprinkle in a little tradition and you have a suppressive leading body.
This will change eventually. One culture that did with the right influence was Japan.
The mindset of arab cultures needs to change before their leaders will change. It's not to do away with culture but to merge culture into the 21st centuary.
"Life can be whatever you want it to be, as long as you do what your told."
LRF.
12 April 2007
2 min 41 sec
Ah! excellent example of a country whose cultural background slowly changed to accommodate more social equality, and benefited greatly because of it.
We're trying to have that same transition here in Mexico, as a matter of fact. We men are trying to learn that women deserve respect not just because they are our mothers and sisters :)
-----
It's not the depth of the rabbit hole that bugs me...
It's all the rabbit SH*T you stumble over on your way down!!!
Red Pill Junkie
1 May 2004
42 min 24 sec
we would be lost if not for the perspective given by our women. Men and women look at situations differently. This gives an allround perspective. Once, womens perspective was only given in the bedroom. Now they are in positions of power and give their perspectives in the open.
All men should respect this and learn from it.
All we need to happen is all cultures understand this and prosper from it.
"Life can be whatever you want it to be, as long as you do what your told."
LRF.
22 November 2004
3 days 20 hours
Actually the US doesn't have much of a problem with the local Muslims. There are something like 2 million of those (just looked that up, i thought it was more).
European Muslims are mostly there as guest workers (in Germany) and from the former colonies (France, UK, Netherlands). They do have problems with those.
But even in the US, no it is not true that ordinary crimes committed by Muslim Americans are viewed as terrorism. A robbery is a robbery. Perhaps the news reporting in Oz does not reflect that.
It pays to read a whole sentence, rather than just the odd word: I cited Islamic societies as being intolerant, and Iran and Saudi are very intolerant, especially with respect to women. Or with respect to non-Muslims.
Islam is used as an excuse by those in power there, that is a sad fact. They are in control, and they get to say what Islam is. See my comment on politics re polluting the religion.
Do you really know the average Joe in the US? I do.
One simple thing about Christianity vs Islam is just the time that has passed. It took Christian societies about 1700 years to come up with separating religion and state. Islam is not that old. Assuming that Islamic societies can learn from others' mistakes, perhaps they can do it a little faster.
----
No amount of cursing at the round earth will make it flat.
1 May 2004
42 min 24 sec
It pays to read a whole sentence, rather than just the odd word: I cited Islamic societies as being intolerant, and Iran and Saudi are very intolerant, especially with respect to women. Or with respect to non-Muslims.
I believe I was acurate in what I said. Read your own sentence again.
PS.2 million out of 300 million is an extremely small percentage.
"Life can be whatever you want it to be, as long as you do what your told."
LRF.
22 November 2004
3 days 20 hours
I did re-read all my posts in this thread
And I still say you misunderstood what I wrote.
The 2 million is from this list:
Protestant 51.3%, Roman Catholic 23.9%, Mormon 1.7%, other Christian 1.6%, Jewish 1.7%, Buddhist 0.7%, Muslim 0.6%, other or unspecified 2.5%, unaffiliated 12.1%, none 4% (2007 est.)
and from 307 million people in the US. As I said, I thought there were more, perhaps they are part of the "unspecified".
But my point is that they are better integrated than in Europe. They don't seem to form sub-cultures, in Europe they do to a significant extent.
----
No amount of cursing at the round earth will make it flat.
1 May 2004
2 hours 27 min
The United States was created on a set of ideals. It is possible to originate anywhere on earth and become an American by ascribing to those ideals and following the naturalization process.
European nations have an identity based on genetics. While it is possible to move to, say, England and legally gain citizenship, you cannot become an Englishman. You are essentially an outsider, no matter what you do.
Moslems in both the U.S. and Europe are mostly transgressors in the eyes of Islam. They have abandoned jihad (and Islam) in the pursuit of personal economic and political advantage. I would except American Moslem converts. This is where Islam found them.
Islam is extremely intolerant of other religions. The Koran spends a great deal of time mocking Christians and pagans and their beliefs. Islamic society does not allow the full practice of other religions. Conversion from Islam merits the death penalty. Mohammad condemns Jews to extermination.
Islam tends to provide a background that elevates Arabs by race. Arabic is praised as a perfect language and, as I recall, Egyptians' commitment to Allah is questioned. We see this embraced in Darfur by Sudanese Arab militia who have been killing African Moslems. Otherwise, Islam is generally inclusive from a racial standpoint.
Similarly, Islam reinforces mistreatment of women but does not specifically seek it out. You may be familiar with the concept of four wives. In the Koran, this is an allotment of women captured by victorious Moslem conquerors. Each man is permitted a limit of four, provided they convert. Moslem men are allowed to verbally divorce their wives. Women are required to cover themselves, however the burqah is not prescribed clothing in the Koran.
I know I'll be blistered for this opinion, so what? I have read the Koran and am working my way through the hadith (sayings attributed to Mohammad).
1 May 2004
42 min 24 sec
this is very informative. A question though......where would you say tradition has influenced the interpretation of passages in the Koran?
The Koran does teach intolerence on one hand and then respect of all life on the other. Not unlike the Bible.
If I were a preacher, I could easily pick out passages to fit my own agenda.
At least Moslems are encouraged to read the Koran.
"Life can be whatever you want it to be, as long as you do what your told."
LRF.
1 May 2004
2 hours 27 min
I would say the burqah issue is an excellent example. Traditional Islamic societies don't all require women to be totally covered up. Modest dress and a headscarf seem to be sufficient to satisfy hijab (cover) in most circumstances. In the Arabian desert, the burqah is sensible dress for a nomadic Arab woman, just as men there wear long robes and head covering.
I suspect it is easy to justify the burqah as mandatory if you consider a woman to be a jealously guarded possession and it is also traditional dress. Then you use a passage in the Koran to make it law. So you have a combination of tradition and male possessiveness influencing the interpretation.
In the Old Testament we see women holding positions as judge or prophet, conducting business, and holding property. Historically however, men found it more convenient to use other passages to assert control over women and deny them their due in these matters.
I have found the Bible to be far more tolerant than many of its practitioners would prefer. "God said so" is all too often an easy copout. I wish more in the West would read the Bible as in days gone by. Protestant denominations used to be fairly good about it. Even if one doesn't believe, it is culturally foundational.
12 April 2007
2 min 41 sec
The movie "Persepolis" has a delightful part where Marjane Satrapi confronts the leaders of the student council (at the University of Teheran), who are asking the women to be more modest in their dressing. Marjane demands why shouldn't the men conduct themselves in the same manner; are women not subject to urges of physical desire when seeing a handsome youth in his prime exhibiting his hairy chest with an open shirt? Were they not equally guilty of the sin of scandal? ;-)
-----
It's not the depth of the rabbit hole that bugs me...
It's all the rabbit SH*T you stumble over on your way down!!!
Red Pill Junkie