The Zionism/West Syndrome.

Post Reply New Topic

Iran's supreme leader:

This kind of speech rings me a bill , it's a kind of speech that I heard a lot from the Syrian officers during the Syrian occupation and by Hezbollah and their allies.

Yes...it's the a kind of speech that we are very locally familiar with: Syria's speech, Hezbollah's speech , 8th Alliance 's speech and those neo-anti-Israel Christians who never fought Israel 's speech (FPM)...etc.

They blame it all on Israel and on the 'evil' west when they are opposed and never admit that there's something wrong in their country that causing this reaction.

Like this Ayatollah, he's never admitting that there's something seriously wrong in his society that caused his clash, and blaming it all on a some hidden Zionist agenda that only he "knows".
And he's not mentioning the fact that the results were out in four hours (hand counted) which was proved to be mathematically and humanly impossible.


That what is called the Zionist Syndrome of the Middle-east , of the Islamic world and the extremist leftist dictatorships where oppressive regimes (and parties) try to suppress their opposers by either directly accusing them of working with Israel/The West or by trying to "ethically embarrassing" them by "greater" causes (such as liberation the non-Lebanese land Chebaa cause in Lebanon and such as Liberating the holy Qods cause in Iran) or violently threating on their media usually followed by assassinations/arrests (such as the arrest of this journalist woman in Iran).

It's exactly like the Communist syndrome that ravaged the US during the beginning of the cold war.

Those regimes rule under this policy of this "Zionist/West Syndrome" and try to suppress the free will and freedom of speech by it.



As a side , here the Ayatollah saying the biggest lie:



The four candidates are obliged to "support" the Islamic revolution, otherwise they can't be nominated, they are obliged to be politically correct , the truth is that Mousawi' s supporters are not just against Najadi but they are not even accepting Ayatollah and his whole regime and even might wish him to be buried in hell underground . Period.. He knows that very well , and that's why he's siding with Ahamadinajad and that makes a big motivation for cheating.

It's like the politically correct lie in Lebanon about Hezbollah's arms, the 14M alliance people in Lebanon are against Hezbollah's weapon and want it either to be controlled under the army or to be completely removed. Period. Yet all politicians (inclduing FPM) have to fake their acceptance of this current so-called resistance because Hezbollah is literally stronger the local army.

You have to admit though western countries fall right into their trap.

Every time I see David Miliband on the TV talking about some state I find it hard to take him seriously. I mean North Korean leadership, Mugabe, etc would be laughing their asses off.

The action of the Iranian protesters speak louder than some western politician.

Exactly, that's why it's unfair to label those Iranian protesters as "Pro-western regimes".

If Iran's leaders were committed Zionists, I assure you that no United States President would describe them as members of an Axis of Evil, they would not be caricatured as villains to be destroyed...

This is the truth - for many in the West, opinion of Israel is the litmus test to decide who is Good and who is Evil. Some have even pulled a quote from the Bible to extend this idea to one's standing before God - "He who blesses them shall be blessed and he who curses them shall be cursed". Some claim that the British Empire fell because they were attacked by Zionist terrorists - when they fired back, they became "cursed". Others, like Senator Inhofe of Oklahoma, claimed Sept 11 2001 was the result of unkind words towards Israel that "opened the door" to the attack - he was re-elected in 2002 despite this "blame America" explanation for Sept 11, unlike Cynthia McKinney who was raked over the coals, accused of such an attitude.

Mousavi, who was a Prime Minister when Khomeini was Supreme Leader and Khamenei was President, does appear not unlike a Kostunica, Yushchenko or Goncharik. Kostunica is the template for this kind of game. The real power behind Mousavi is the Ayatollah Hashemi Rafsanjani, who became the real power in Iran after Khomeini's death, and engineered Khamenei's rise as Supreme Leader while he took on the Presidency. Rafsanjani is very unpopular because he is so immensely wealthy and he appears to be determined to make Iran more a part of the globalised neo-liberal order... he was also accused at one point of wanting to nuke Israel in an unprovoked attack because he said that Iran would survive an Israeli reprisal while Israel would be destroyed once and for all.

I think there's another irony to this whole situation. A fair portion of the Islamist radicals are in power thanks to Western Government attempts to counter Marxist Third World Liberation movements with Islamism. And, other times, when the situation was merely overthrowing a populist government and instating a tyrant (the Shah), Islamism still resulted.

The lack of resolution (or, rather, failure to implement the two-state solution almost all of the world agrees on) further flares this situation in many Islamist states (that is, it provides a lovely situation to be exploited by Islamist demagogues). The 2000s Iraq War itself served as a lovely catalyst to prop up tyranical regimes and deter progressive movements in the Middle East for a decade.

That detestable slaughter of Zulfikar Ali Bhutto, Muhammad Zia-ul-Haq was empowered in large part thanks to Conservatives in the West. The funding of Afgani "Freedom Fighters" in the Soviet-Afgan war itself was another instance of the West acting to shoot itself and the region in the foot.

I agree with your overall point, of course, that the theocracies of the Middle East are using the misfortunes brought about by Western Foreign Policy to deflect criticism from their own backwater and tyranical practices.

There would be less interest in Iran if not for its hostility towards Zionism. That said, any policies out of line with the "march of history" makes one a target, Zionist or not, as the coloured revolutions show, as well as the failed attempts to implement such revolutions in places like Belarus. Also it bears to remember the Mexican situation where there was 1 million protesters in central Mexico City against fraud by the ruling parties against Andres Manuel Lopez Obrador of the PRD. The protests kept going for a long time but there was a total blackout by Western media and none of this overt support by the respectable classes. AMLO was going against the "march of history" so he had to be swept aside and was.

However, don't discount the Zionism issue. Saddam Hussein, for instance, got into a lot of trouble on 1 April 1990 with some indiscreet comments before a party congress about a certain holy state and what would happen if that holy state were to attack his country again... and then came the campaign against him that didn't end until he died... now that's something Khomeini and the Zionists had in common!

Here's a thought. I don't give a rat's about Iran or Zionism or Islam or Israel.

Let them sort it out. It is none of my business.

agreed with the above.

I just don't think the Mullahs give us due credit; We put them where they are today, we hide under the bed and frighten the children, we haunt dark places and closets, and we're always ready to step up to take the blame for whatever goes wrong there.

Someday we'll stop hosting their pity party for them, and then what?...

You may not, but it's your tax money going out there to take sides.

Correct. When our CIA help depose Mosidegh back in the 50's (he was thought to be a Marxist) they started a process which lead to the overthrow of the Shah and the institution of radical Shi'ite shariah which we are seeing today. We slew the devil we thought we knew and let the Djinn out of the bottle.

As we sow, so shall we reap. Those who sow the wind, will reap the whirlwind.

Allah hu'akbar!

ruveyn

The CIA was instrumental in overthrowing Mossadegh in Iran because he nationalized the oil companies and cut out the Western oil capitalists whether or not he had communist leanings. And it's the same oil companies that fabricated the necessities for attacking Iraq and are pushing for aggression against Iran. It's oil that lubricates the Middle East conflicts.

Actually I disagree that is purely about Zionism, Iran has largely jumped on that bandwagon for it own ends. Like I said this is well known technique used by different regime like Mugabe and Kim Jung Il. They could give a rats arse about stuff like that.

Notice that the Iran regime directly blamed Britain (expelling diplomats) and not the US. This is something they have in common with Mugabe, Russia. They will do whatever they can get a away with. They have been careful not to critise Obama yet, however the US/IRAN relations are still jeopardised

There are basically two possibilities:

1. Some out of touch clerics in the regime really do believe the British single handily organised these protest and others have no choice but to go along with their paranoia.
2. This is strategy. They know people will buy it and it deflects attention from their unpopularity.

I’m going with b.

Western powers have very openly been promoting revolutions as a means of installing governments to their liking. They've made no secret of that. They've been grooming leaders in some places, making alliances with others in other places, training people to become revolutionaries, even having roving revolutionaries going from place to place to put pro-West governments in power. So when Russia, Belarus or Iran speaks of this activity, they speak the truth.

Then the sooner we build a thousand fission plants for generating electricity, the better off we and the world shall be.

We have simply got to kick the hydrocarbon burning habit. We should be using oil to make polymers, not fires.

ruveyn

The fission plant under construction in Finland is typical. It is way over budget and way behind schedule. No insurance company in the USA is willing to back fission construction so the US government is forced to do so. They are fundamentally too dangerous. The disposal of radioactive waste is a basically unsolved and very dangerous problem. Although the operation of fission plants does not generate CO2 the production of the fuel makes them no better than coal insofar as the environment is concerned. Fission plants are dangerous, expensive and environmentally negative. See http://healthandenergy.com/nuclear_dangers.htm