Who is behind the Iran protests?

Face it: Iran will be destabilized and toppled until they accept the Zionist bankers' control. just like in the USA, where every citizen had to have over their money to the moneychangers as "bailout" money.

THIS IS ABOUT MONEY, GET IT??
 
This is where US ''promoted peace and liberty'' through bombings:

China 1945-46
Korea 1950-53
Guatemala 1954
Indonesia 1958
Cuba 1959-61
Guatemala 1960
Congo 1964
Peru 1965
Laos 1964-73
Vietnam 1961-73
Cambodia 1969-70
Guatemala 1969-70
Grenada 1983
Liban 1983-84
Libia 1986
Salvador 1980.
Nicaragua 1980.
Iran 1987
Panama 1989
Iraq 1991
Somalia 1993
Bosnia 1994-95
Sudan 1998
Afghanistan 1998, 2001
Yugoslavia 1999


This is where US ''brought democracy'' through overthrowing demrocratically elected governments:
Iran 1953
Gwatemala 1953
Gujana 1953-64
Irak 1963
Laos 1958-60 - hundreds of thousands killed
Congo 1961
Brasil 1964
Dominicana 1965
Indonesia 1965 - 500 - 700 thousand killed
Chile 1973 - 3 thousand killed
Bolivia 1964
Chad 1982 - several thousand people killed
Fiji 1987
Panama 1989 - several thousand killed


This is how US ''protects human rights'' through supporting bloody regimes, massacres and death squads:
Greece 1949-64
Philipines 1953-90.
Guatemala 1953-90. - 200,000 death toll
Cambodia 1970.
Thailand 1965-73
Congo (Zaire) 1977-78
Brasil 1964-79
Philipines 1970.-90.
South Korea 1980 - (Gwangju massacre -1 thousand killed)
Salvador 1980-92 - 75 thousand civilians killed
Haiti 1987-94
Peru since 1990
Mexico since 1990.

The above lists qualify US to be called most imperialistic (a version for those who support US foreign policy)/ terrorist (a version for those who do not support it) country in the world.
 
Quote from Tresor:

This is where US ''promoted peace and liberty'' through bombings:

China 1945-46
Korea 1950-53
Guatemala 1954
Indonesia 1958
Cuba 1959-61
Guatemala 1960
Congo 1964
Peru 1965
Laos 1964-73
Vietnam 1961-73
Cambodia 1969-70
Guatemala 1969-70
Grenada 1983
Liban 1983-84
Libia 1986
Salvador 1980.
Nicaragua 1980.
Iran 1987
Panama 1989
Iraq 1991
Somalia 1993
Bosnia 1994-95
Sudan 1998
Afghanistan 1998, 2001
Yugoslavia 1999


This is where US ''brought democracy'' through overthrowing demrocratically elected governments:
Iran 1953
Gwatemala 1953
Gujana 1953-64
Irak 1963
Laos 1958-60 - hundreds of thousands killed
Congo 1961
Brasil 1964
Dominicana 1965
Indonesia 1965 - 500 - 700 thousand killed
Chile 1973 - 3 thousand killed
Bolivia 1964
Chad 1982 - several thousand people killed
Fiji 1987
Panama 1989 - several thousand killed


This is how US ''protects human rights'' through supporting bloody regimes, massacres and death squads:
Greece 1949-64
Philipines 1953-90.
Guatemala 1953-90. - 200,000 death toll
Cambodia 1970.
Thailand 1965-73
Congo (Zaire) 1977-78
Brasil 1964-79
Philipines 1970.-90.
South Korea 1980 - (Gwangju massacre -1 thousand killed)
Salvador 1980-92 - 75 thousand civilians killed
Haiti 1987-94
Peru since 1990
Mexico since 1990.

The above lists qualify US to be called most imperialistic (a version for those who support US foreign policy)/ terrorist (a version for those who do not support it) country in the world.
More...

+1 great post.

I've been saying this many times... We are hearing about the protests in Iran ONLY because our government does not support Ahmenijhad. There has been election fraud in Egypt for over a decade and that is never in the media because our government loves their president (who is our puppet).

We are such hypocrites. It's so sad when we use the disguise of promoting democracy to put in puppets in power of other countries. The Hamas won in a democratic election and we didn't want to recognize their legitimacy, Let's not forget what our CIA has been involved in, as posted in the previous thread. We helped Musharaff overthrow a democratically elected government in Pakistan. We also helped the Shah in Iran. Our CIA has also had relations with Osama bin Laden during the Soviet-Union, Afghanistan War. We even helped Saddam Hussein get in power.

Let's stop interfering in other countries affairs.
 
Obviously the iranian jewish controlled media is running the show.

Perhaps the protestors and tired of having their kids stoned to death, wives and daughters enslaved and brainwashed and population living in fear.

Do you and the author share the same disdain at Iran's interfearing in the soverign affairs of Lebanon, Palestine and Iraq?


Quote from TorontoTrader2:

And why do our corporate controlled media flash this to us 24/7? Who gains?? Just who is this war against? Why, it's against you and I.

--------------------------------------------------------



Iran Faces Greater Risks Than It Knows
[link to www.vdare.com]
By Paul Craig Roberts
June 17, 2009

Stephen Kinzer’s book, All the Shah’s Men: An American Coup and the Roots of Middle East Terror, tells the story of the overthrow of Iran’s democratically-elected leader, Mohammed Mosaddeq, by the CIA and the British MI6 in 1953. The CIA bribed Iranian government officials, businessmen, and reporters, and paid Iranians to demonstrate in the streets.

The 1953 street demonstrations, together with the Cold War claim that the US had to grab Iran before the Soviets did, served as the US government’s justification for overthrowing Iranian democracy. What the Iranian people wanted was not important.

Today, the street demonstrations in Tehran show signs of orchestration. The protesters, primarily young people, especially young women opposed to the dress codes, carry signs written in English: "Where is My Vote?" The signs are intended for the western media—not for the Iranian government.

More evidence of orchestration is provided by the protesters’ chant, "death to the dictator, death to Ahmadinejad." Every Iranian knows that the president of Iran is a public figure with limited powers. His main role is to take the heat from the governing grand Ayatollah. No Iranian, and no informed Westerner, could possibly believe that Ahmadinejad is a dictator. Even Ahmadinejad’s superior, Khamenei, is not a dictator, as he is appointed by a government body that can remove him.

The demonstrations, like those in 1953, are intended to discredit the Iranian government and to establish for Western opinion that the government is a repressive regime that does not have the support of the Iranian people. This manipulation of opinion sets up Iran as another Iraq ruled by a dictator who must be overthrown by sanctions or an invasion.

On American TV, the protesters who are interviewed speak perfect English. They are either westernized secular Iranians who were allied with the Shah and fled to the West during the 1978 Iranian revolution or they are the young Westernized residents of Tehran.

Many of the demonstrators may be sincere in their protest, hoping to free themselves from Islamic moral codes. But if reports of the US government’s plans to destabilize Iran are correct, paid troublemakers are in their ranks.

Some observers, such as George Friedman, believe that the American destabilization plan will fail. However, many ayatollahs feel animosity toward Ahmadinejad, who assaults the ayatollahs for corruption. Many in the Iranian countryside believe that the ayatollahs have too much wealth and power. Amadinejad’s attack on corruption resonates with the Iranian countryside, but not with the ayatollahs.

Amadinejad’s campaign against corruption has brought Grand Ayatollah Hossein Ali Montazeri out against him. Montazeri is a rival to ruling Ayatollah Khamenei. Montazeri sees in the street protests an opportunity to challenge Khamenei for the leadership role.

So, once again, as so many times in history, the ambitions of one person might seal the fate of the Iranian state.

Khamenei knows that the elected president is an underling. If he has to sacrifice Ahmadinejad’s election in order to fend off Montazeri, he might recount the vote and elect Mousavi, thinking that will bring an end to the controversy.

Khamenei, solving his personal problem, would play into the hands of the American-Israeli assault on his country.

On the surface, the departure of Ahmadeinjad would cost Israel and the US the loss of their useful "anti-Semitic" boggy-man. But in fact it would play into the American-Israeli propaganda. The story would be that the remote, isolated, Iranian ruling Ayatollah was forced by the Iranian people to admit the falsity of the rigged election, calling into question rule by Ayatollahs who do not stand for election.

Mousavi and Ayatollah Montazeri are putting their besieged country at risk. Possibly they believe that ridding Iran of Ahmadeinjad’s extreme image would gain Iran breathing room.

If Mousavi and Montazeri succeed in their ambitions, one likely result would be a loss in Iran’s independence. The new rulers would have to continually defend Iran’s new moderate and reformist image by giving in to American demands. If the government admits to a rigged election, the legitimacy of the Iranian Revolution would be called into question, setting up Iran for more US interference in its internal affairs.

For the American neoconservatives, democratic countries are those countries that submit to America’s will, regardless of their form of government. "Democracy" is achieved by America ruling through puppet officials.

The American public might never know whether the Iranian election was legitimate or stolen. The US media serves as a propaganda device, not as a purveyor of truth. Election fraud is certainly a possibility--it happens even in America--and signs of fraud have appeared. Large numbers of votes were swiftly counted, which raises the question whether votes were counted or merely a result was announced.

The US media’s response to the election was equally rapid. Having invested heavily in demonizing Ahmadinejad, the media is unwilling to accept election results that vindicate Ahmadinejad and declared fraud in advance of evidence, despite the pre-election poll results published in the June 15 Washington Post, which found Ahmadinejad to be the projected winner.

There are many American interest groups that have a vested interest in the charge that the election was rigged. What is important to many Americans is not whether the election was fair, but whether the winner’s rhetoric is allied with their goals.

For example, those numerous Americans who believe that both presidential and congressional elections were stolen during the Karl Rove Republican years are tempted to use the Iranian election protests to shame Americans for accepting the stolen Bush elections.

Feminists take the side of the "reformer" Mousavi.

Neoconservatives damn the election for suppressing the "peace candidate" who might acquiescent to Israel’s demands to halt the development of Iranian nuclear energy.

Ideological and emotional agendas result in people distancing themselves from factual and analytical information, preferring instead information that fits with their material interests and emotional disposition.

The primacy of emotion over fact bids ill for the future. The extraordinary attention given to the Iranian election suggests that many American interests and emotions have a stake in the outcome.

Paul Craig Roberts email him was Assistant Secretary of the Treasury
More...
 
Quote from John_Wensink:

Obviously the iranian jewish controlled media is running the show.

Perhaps the protestors and tired of having their kids stoned to death, wives and daughters enslaved and brainwashed and population living in fear.

Do you and the author share the same disdain at Iran's interfearing in the soverign affairs of Lebanon, Palestine and Iraq?
More...

Good post. I know I would not like to be living under
those theocratic assholes. Apparently, some Iranians
are tired of it.
 
@Tresor

you can't blame america, any country with an equal amount of power would have done the same, worse or a bit better

that is what power is, the ability to change and manipulate

the iranian government abuses it's own people and has no respect towards them, why should US give a fuck about iranians when they have little respect for one another

if humans are suffering they should first and foremost blame their own stupidity, that is what they get for empowering others, that is what they get for worshiping and praising other humans

from way in the past, humans were told not to praise anyone but god, not like god needed to be praised, the consequences of praising others was and is so dire, humans have paid and continue to pay for it so dearly

people in iran praised khomeini till they brought his gay ass to power, and then they payed and continue to pay for it with their souls, yet they find someone else to praise today, and tomorrow they will continue on this painful path, same for america these people who praise obama or anyone else, will pay with their souls

----

you can put US on that list too, goes in the first list because of the civil war, and goes in the third list for the Kent State shootings

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kent_State_shootings
 
Quote from 426653478:

people in iran praised khomeini till they brought his gay ass to power, and then they payed and continue to pay for it with their souls, yet they find someone else to praise today, and tomorrow they will continue on this painful path, same for america these people who praise obama or anyone else, will pay with their souls
More...

I think that people turn to radical political and religious leaders when they are left with no other options.

I also think that US foreign policy contributed massively to creating such radical sentiments. Just look what the Monroe Doctrine brought to Latin America! Capitalism in Latin America equals economic imperialism / exploitation by US. How can one defend against capitalism (read: US imperialism)? The only option these people are left with is socialism :( Ergo, US unintentionally creates Hugo Chavezes.

Just look what US foreign policy did to Arab countries! Do you think there would be so many Bin Ladens and fanatic ayatollahs now-a-days if not for the US foreign policy in this region?
 
Quote from John_Wensink:

Do you and the author share the same disdain at Iran's interfearing in the soverign affairs of Lebanon, Palestine and Iraq?
More...

Hi John,

Correct me if I am wrong: for more than 300 years Iran was not involved in any war / military conflict that Iran started. In fact this is a very defensive country.

Can you say the same about USA?
 
Quote from Tresor:

This is where US ''promoted peace and liberty'' through bombings:

China 1945-46
Korea 1950-53
Guatemala 1954
Indonesia 1958
Cuba 1959-61
Guatemala 1960
Congo 1964
Peru 1965
Laos 1964-73
Vietnam 1961-73
Cambodia 1969-70
Guatemala 1969-70
Grenada 1983
Liban 1983-84
Libia 1986
Salvador 1980.
Nicaragua 1980.
Iran 1987
Panama 1989
Iraq 1991
Somalia 1993
Bosnia 1994-95
Sudan 1998
Afghanistan 1998, 2001
Yugoslavia 1999


This is where US ''brought democracy'' through overthrowing demrocratically elected governments:
Iran 1953
Gwatemala 1953
Gujana 1953-64
Irak 1963
Laos 1958-60 - hundreds of thousands killed
Congo 1961
Brasil 1964
Dominicana 1965
Indonesia 1965 - 500 - 700 thousand killed
Chile 1973 - 3 thousand killed
Bolivia 1964
Chad 1982 - several thousand people killed
Fiji 1987
Panama 1989 - several thousand killed


This is how US ''protects human rights'' through supporting bloody regimes, massacres and death squads:
Greece 1949-64
Philipines 1953-90.
Guatemala 1953-90. - 200,000 death toll
Cambodia 1970.
Thailand 1965-73
Congo (Zaire) 1977-78
Brasil 1964-79
Philipines 1970.-90.
South Korea 1980 - (Gwangju massacre -1 thousand killed)
Salvador 1980-92 - 75 thousand civilians killed
Haiti 1987-94
Peru since 1990
Mexico since 1990.

The above lists qualify US to be called most imperialistic (a version for those who support US foreign policy)/ terrorist (a version for those who do not support it) country in the world.
More...

Good summary !
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top