You gotta understand something, some of these people who post on this board, are from Canada, and for some reason many, many Canadians seem to have a soft spot for dictators and for communist type leaders and the rhetoric they spew. I know he suppose to be democratically elected, still doesn't give him or any other world leader the right to preach hate.
I believe that comes from our past and present politicians, probably as we debate this, some of our past Prime Ministers are in Cuba holding the hand of Castro praying with the family.
Hell the protest held in Quebec that displayed hezbollah flags, thier were members of parliament participating.
However, I as a fellow Canadian have no use for the leaders of countries like Iran, Cuba, NK and other countries like that.
That Hezbollah flag incident was indeed fucking disgusting. Sorry, but I do not want such a display to happen in this country.
You gotta understand something, some of these people who post on this board, are from Canada, and for some reason many, many Canadians seem to have a soft spot for dictators and for communist type leaders and the rhetoric they spew. I know he suppose to be democratically elected, still doesn't give him or any other world leader the right to preach hate.
I believe that comes from our past and present politicians, probably as we debate this, some of our past Prime Ministers are in Cuba holding the hand of Castro praying with the family.
Hell the protest held in Quebec that displayed hezbollah flags, thier were members of parliament participating.
However, I as a fellow Canadian have no use for the leaders of countries like Iran, Cuba, NK and other countries like that.
Well according to someone at the demonstration there were a handful of people holding Hezbollah flags...hardly constitues the purpose of the demonstarion as disgusting...if you want to use that logic I think it is disgusting people at Pro-Israel rallies supporting current and future military actions.....however lots where there defending the right for the country to defend itslef and were not war-mongereres calling for more action...but I bet there were also a handful looking for increased strike which in my books goes hand in hand with Hezbollah...both morons...Nasralleh and Olmert both fools IMHO.....I will stay in the middle denouncing both sides....and that is what our nation should be doing.....and we are not.....
Well according to someone at the demonstration there were a handful of people holding Hezbollah flags...hardly constitues the purpose of the demonstarion as disgusting...if you want to use that logic I think it is disgusting people at Pro-Israel rallies supporting current and future military actions.....however lots where there defending the right for the country to defend itslef and were not war-mongereres calling for more action...but I bet there were also a handful looking for increased strike which in my books goes hand in hand with Hezbollah...both morons...Nasralleh and Olmert both fools IMHO.....I will stay in the middle denouncing both sides....and that is what our nation should be doing.....and we are not.....
I am OK with the idea of the protest. As usual, there were a few people there giving the thing a bad name.
I am OK with the idea of the protest. As usual, there were a few people there giving the thing a bad name.
Yeah but I fail to see how the National Post will label the demonstration as pro-terrorist but will not share the same gall to call the Pro-Israeli demonstration pro-war.....
Yeah but I fail to see how the National Post will label the demonstration as pro-terrorist but will not share the same gall to call the Pro-Israeli demonstration pro-war.....
Was there anything at the pro-Israeli demonstration that glorified the deaths of Lebanese civilians, or that otherwise suggested that the humanitarian crisis in Lebanon is a good thing? One could argue that the entire demonstration did this, but then again, one can also argue that the entire pro-Lebanon demonstration was also pro-terrorist.
Was there anything at the pro-Israeli demonstration that glorified the deaths of Lebanese civilians, or that otherwise suggested that the humanitarian crisis in Lebanon is a good thing? One could argue that the entire demonstration did this, but then again, one can also argue that the entire pro-Lebanon demonstration was also pro-terrorist.
Exactly I agree...but it is disgusting that a national newspaper because a handful of idiots labelled the entire demonstration has pro-terrorist....its brutal..all it does is sabatoge the goals of the peace movement...once again slandering a good view and objective....Im saying that would never happen at the other rally where there was undoubtly those there that support increased conflict...
BTW I think a lot of people are believing pro-Lebanon is pro-terrorist...just look at this board anything done that condenms Israel (even when you back-up a statement ripping Hezbollah is terrorist sympathizer, kooky Liberal...I am saying this absurd view by the paper is just creating more thinking along that pattern...more smearing of an actual peace movement...sickening when people for peace get slandered this way...
Exactly I agree...but it is disgusting that a national newspaper because a handful of idiots labelled the entire demonstration has pro-terrorist....its brutal..all it does is sabatoge the goals of the peace movement...once again slandering a good view and objective....Im saying that would never happen at the other rally where there was undoubtly those there that support increased conflict...
BTW I think a lot of people are believing pro-Lebanon is pro-terrorist...just look at this board anything done that condenms Israel (even when you back-up a statement ripping Hezbollah is terrorist sympathizer, kooky Liberal...I am saying this absurd view by the paper is just creating more thinking along that pattern...more smearing of an actual peace movement...sickening when people for peace get slandered this way...
Yeah, I agree that that label slapped on the entire demonstration was dumb. I am guessing it was a matter of people focusing on the one bad element in an otherwise appropriate demonstration. Questions in my mind include things like: Why would those people be waving those flags in the first place? Why would other protestors permit them to do this? Let's say, hypothetically, that I went to the earlier mentioned pro-Israel demonstration, and while I was there, some idiot started pulling out racist signs and yelling about how all those dirty Lebanese deserve what they get for harboring Hizbollah. Now, I am not sure exactly where this would get me (a fight?), but you can bet I'd tell him to shut up and stop ruining the demonstration for people who don't actually condone civilian deaths. Why would pro-peace people let their fellow demonstrators wave the flag of a terrorist organization, such an action is pretty much antithetical to peace. What's going to ruin the peace movement is its association with extremists. Bad press from the National Post wouldn't happen if people didn't give them ammo.
While I dont know what specific event you are talking about (too lazy to read back several pages) I would say this about it. Peaceful protests are exactly about that. Being peaceful. Now if some yahoos like described crashed the whole thing, I would think they were idiots and give them some pretty ugly looks. Then again, that's freedom of speech for you. You cant stop these people from being there, and saying stuff. But you can ignore them in light of the larger activity around them. So that they weren't beat down by the other protesters, says nothing about the other protesters' sympathies. It might just as well be their good manners. Just saying.
Peace
Dan
"YOU [humans] NEED TO BELIEVE IN THINGS THAT AREN'T TRUE. HOW ELSE CAN THEY BECOME?" - Death
"Every judgment teeters on the brink of error. To claim absolute knowledge is to become monstrous. Knowledge is an unending adventure at the edge of uncertainty." - Frank Herbert, Dune, 1965
Yeah, I agree that that label slapped on the entire demonstration was dumb. I am guessing it was a matter of people focusing on the one bad element in an otherwise appropriate demonstration. Questions in my mind include things like: Why would those people be waving those flags in the first place? Why would other protestors permit them to do this? Let's say, hypothetically, that I went to the earlier mentioned pro-Israel demonstration, and while I was there, some idiot started pulling out racist signs and yelling about how all those dirty Lebanese deserve what they get for harboring Hizbollah. Now, I am not sure exactly where this would get me (a fight?), but you can bet I'd tell him to shut up and stop ruining the demonstration for people who don't actually condone civilian deaths. Why would pro-peace people let their fellow demonstrators wave the flag of a terrorist organization, such an action is pretty much antithetical to peace. What's going to ruin the peace movement is its association with extremists. Bad press from the National Post wouldn't happen if people didn't give them ammo.
But its their right to attend is it not...you cannot simply to ask them to leave....its their right to be there....that is one big problem...like refer to thankyougrandma he was there.....
And yes it does go against the movement...I agree with you...but the fact remains that I believe this newspaper went overboard and did not portray the real picture...why could they not single out the idioits instead of making it the headline piece...right there they are sabatoging the movement....that disturbs me cause it leads to more pro-terrorist banter when at that rally less than 0.10% of the people there were idiots.....but the NP makes it as though there were 100% idioits.....that is just not right....
But its their right to attend is it not...you cannot simply to ask them to leave....its their right to be there....that is one big problem...like refer to thankyougrandma he was there.....
And yes it does go against the movement...I agree with you...but the fact remains that I believe this newspaper went overboard and did not portray the real picture...why could they not single out the idioits instead of making it the headline piece...right there they are sabatoging the movement....that disturbs me cause it leads to more pro-terrorist banter when at that rally less than 0.10% of the people there were idiots.....but the NP makes it as though there were 100% idioits.....that is just not right....
Its their right to attend, true. And their detractors at the National Post also have a right to complain about their behavior. Anyhow, like I said ... I cannot disagree with the basic thrust of your post. It would be nice if the NP had handled their feature in a more respectful manner. Obviously not everyone there was a Hizbollah supporter, and they should have been able to decry the flag wavers without casting the entire protest in a negative light.
Personally, I think I would have attended this protest had it occured in my neck of the woods. But I'd have left when the Hiz flags started being waved.
Its their right to attend, true. And their detractors at the National Post also have a right to complain about their behavior. Anyhow, like I said ... I cannot disagree with the basic thrust of your post. It would be nice if the NP had handled their feature in a more respectful manner. Obviously not everyone there was a Hizbollah supporter, and they should have been able to decry the flag wavers without casting the entire protest in a negative light.
A little balance would have been nice....portray those dozen people as fools then say that only about another 15,000 were there for peace would have been better....
You'll have to forgive me if I don't take this guy seriously. You know, since he's already called for the destruction of Israel, and things of that nature. That's beside the point though…
I found it interesting that when I was reading his words, most of what he said seemed to echo the sentiments and rhetoric of some of those on this very message board. I think you could take elements of the quote, attribute a few board member names to it, and no one would ever be the wiser.
Fair is fair though. I think most of those same board members on here really DO want peace, whereas this jackass is just spewing crap.
how can you say he's not for these things? allow me to correctly interpret his words:
today is the era of thoughts (thoughts to kill the Israelites)
today is the era of dialogue (saying the phrase "wipe Israel off the face of the earth" is a form of dialogue)
today is the era of cultural exchange (we welcome his people into our culture and his people give us their culture, one of death and fascism)
Acting On Request Of Iranian Prez., C-SPAN To Air Unedited 60 Minutes Interview
TVNewser | August 11 2006
This Monday night, for the first time in six years, C-SPAN will air one of Mike Wallace's 60 Minutes interviews uncut and commercial-free.
Portions of Wallace's interview with Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad are set to air on Sunday. CBS has given C-SPAN permission to air the 60 Minutes segment followed by "Wallace's entire 90-minute interview." C-SPAN's press release says: "According to CBS News, the request to air the entire interview on C-SPAN came directly from President Ahmadinejad."
C-SPAN programming VP Terry Murphy says "we agreed with CBS News that airing this interview in its entirety is very much in the public interest and fits with C-SPAN's style of airing events as they happened and without commercials. This is also a unique opportunity for viewers to see for themselves the editorial process at a major network news organization, and find out which portions of an extended interview actually make it on air."
C-SPAN aired Wallace's uncut interviews in 1997, 1999, and 2000, as well
Acting On Request Of Iranian Prez., C-SPAN To Air Unedited 60 Minutes Interview
TVNewser | August 11 2006
This Monday night, for the first time in six years, C-SPAN will air one of Mike Wallace's 60 Minutes interviews uncut and commercial-free.
Portions of Wallace's interview with Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad are set to air on Sunday. CBS has given C-SPAN permission to air the 60 Minutes segment followed by "Wallace's entire 90-minute interview." C-SPAN's press release says: "According to CBS News, the request to air the entire interview on C-SPAN came directly from President Ahmadinejad."
C-SPAN programming VP Terry Murphy says "we agreed with CBS News that airing this interview in its entirety is very much in the public interest and fits with C-SPAN's style of airing events as they happened and without commercials. This is also a unique opportunity for viewers to see for themselves the editorial process at a major network news organization, and find out which portions of an extended interview actually make it on air."
C-SPAN aired Wallace's uncut interviews in 1997, 1999, and 2000, as well
Sehr gut!
I can't watch it though, let me know what is said.
I necessarily have the passion for writing this, and you have the passion for condemning me; both of us are equally fools, equally the toys of destiny. Your nature is to do harm, mine is to love truth, and to make it public in spite of you. - Voltaire
I think it would be benefical to listen to this guy...fuck I listen to Bush and his speeches all the time...its about expanding your thoughts...regardless if you love or hate him...listen you may hear something to further back your arguements...you may be surprised at something...I dunno...but I guess its your choice....I am just looking forward to hearing from the man who seems to be the devil in Arab clothing...see what he is about....
That's what Iran was in the 50's...a democracy...that is until Kermit Roosevelt came in, and bought America a coup...employing sympathizers to carry out acts of terror against the Iranian people in an effort to destabilize the democratically elected government.
and people wonder why the United States has zero credibility with Iran.
Not to mention the 1978 coup to take out the shah...
3/10/06
What Really Happed to the Shah of Iran
By Ernst Schroeder
My name is Ernst Schroeder, and since I have some Iranian friends from school and review your online magazine occasionally, I thought I'd pass on the following three page quote from a book I read a few months ago entitled, "A Century Of War : Anglo-American Oil Politics and the New World Order", which was written by William Engdahl, a German historianm . This is a book about how oil and politics have been intertwined for the past 100 years.
I submit the below passage for direct publishing on your website, as I think the quote will prove to be significant for anyone of Persian descent.
"In November 1978, President Carter named the Bilderberg group's George Ball, another member of the Trilateral Commission, to head a special White House Iran task force under the National Security Council's Brzezinski. Ball recommended that Washington drop support for the Shah of Iran and support the fundamentalistic Islamic opposition of Ayatollah Khomeini. Robert Bowie from the CIA was one of the lead 'case officers' in the new CIA-led coup against the man their covert actions had placed into power 25 years earlier.
Their scheme was based on a detailed study of the phenomenon of Islamic fundamentalism, as presented by British Islamic expert, Dr. Bernard Lewis, then on assignment at Princeton University in the United States. Lewis's scheme, which was unveiled at the May 1979 Bilderberg meeting in Austria, endorsed the radical Muslim Brotherhood movement behind Khomeini, in order to promote balkanization of the entire Muslim Near East along tribal and religious lines. Lewis argued that the West should encourage autonomous groups such as the Kurds, Armenians, Lebanese Maronites, Ethiopian Copts, Azerbaijani Turks, and so forth. The chaos would spread in what he termed an 'Arc of Crisis,' which would spill over into Muslim regions of the Soviet Union.
The coup against the Shah, like that against Mossadegh in 1953, was run by British and American intelligence, with the bombastic American, Brzezinski, taking public 'credit' for getting rid of the 'corrupt' Shah, while the British characteristically remained safely in the background.
During 1978, negotiations were under way between the Shah's government and British Petroleum for renewal of the 25-year old extraction agreement. By October 1978, the talks had collapsed over a British 'offer' which demanded exclusive rights to Iran's future oil output, while refusing to guarantee purchase of the oil. With their dependence on British-controlled export apparently at an end, Iran appeared on the verge of independence in its oil sales policy for the first time since 1953, with eager prospective buyers in Germany, France, Japan and elsewhere. In its lead editorial that September, Iran's Kayhan International stated:
In retrospect, the 25-year partnership with the [British Petroleum] consortium and the 50-year relationship with British Petroleum which preceded it, have not been satisfactory ones for Iran … Looking to the future, NIOC [National Iranian Oil Company] should plan to handle all operations by itself.
London was blackmailing and putting enormous economic pressure on the Shah's regime by refusing to buy Iranian oil production, taking only 3 million or so barrels daily of an agreed minimum of 5 million barrels per day. This imposed dramatic revenue pressures on Iran, which provided the context in which religious discontent against the Shah could be fanned by trained agitators deployed by British and U.S. intelligence. In addition, strikes among oil workers at this critical juncture crippled Iranian oil production.
As Iran's domestic economic troubles grew, American 'security' advisers to the Shah's Savak secret police implemented a policy of ever more brutal repression, in a manner calculated to maximize popular antipathy to the Shah. At the same time, the Carter administration cynically began protesting abuses of 'human rights' under the Shah.
British Petroleum reportedly began to organize capital flight out of Iran, through its strong influence in Iran's financial and banking community. The British Broadcasting Corporation's Persian-language broadcasts, with dozens of Persian-speaking BBC 'correspondents' sent into even the smallest village, drummed up hysteria against the Shah. The BBC gave Ayatollah Khomeini a full propaganda platform inside Iran during this time. The British government-owned broadcasting organization refused to give the Shah's government an equal chance to reply. Repeated personal appeals from the Shah to the BBC yielded no result. Anglo-American intelligence was committed to toppling the Shah. The Shah fled in January, and by February 1979, Khomeini had been flown into Tehran to proclaim the establishment of his repressive theocratic state to replace the Shah's government.
Reflecting on his downfall months later, shortly before his death, the Shah noted from exile,
I did not know it then – perhaps I did not want to know – but it is clear to me now that the Americans wanted me out. Clearly this is what the human rights advocates in the State Department wanted … What was I to make of the Administration's sudden decision to call former Under Secretary of State George Ball to the White House as an adviser on Iran? … Ball was among those Americans who wanted to abandon me and ultimately my country.[1][1]
With the fall of the Shah and the coming to power of the fanatical Khomeini adherents in Iran, chaos was unleashed. By May 1979, the new Khomeini regime had singled out the country's nuclear power development plans and announced cancellation of the entire program for French and German nuclear reactor construction.
Iran's oil exports to the world were suddenly cut off, some 3 million barrels per day. Curiously, Saudi Arabian production in the critical days of January 1979 was also cut by some 2 million barrels per day. To add to the pressures on world oil supply, British Petroleum declared force majeure and cancelled major contracts for oil supply. Prices on the Rotterdam spot market, heavily influenced by BP and Royal Cutch Shell as the largest oil traders, soared in early 1979 as a result. The second oil shock of the 1970s was fully under way.
Indications are that the actual planners of the Iranian Khomeini coup in London and within the senior ranks of the U.S. liberal establishment decided to keep President Carter largely ignorant of the policy and its ultimate objectives. The ensuing energy crisis in the United States was a major factor in bringing about Carter's defeat a year later.
There was never a real shortage in the world supply of petroleum. Existing Saudi and Kuwaiti production capacities could at any time have met the 5-6 million barrels per day temporary shortfall, as a U.S. congressional investigation by the General Accounting Office months later confirmed.
Unusually low reserve stocks of oil held by the Seven Sisters oil multinationals contributed to creating a devastating world oil price shock, with prices for crude oil soaring from a level of some $14 per barrel in 1978 towards the astronomical heights of $40 per barrel for some grades of crude on the spot market. Long gasoline lines across America contributed to a general sense of panic, and Carter energy secretary and former CIA director, James R. Schlesinger, did not help calm matters when he told Congress and the media in February 1979 that the Iranian oil shortfall was 'prospectively more serious' than the 1973 Arab oil embargo.[2][2]
The Carter administration's Trilateral Commission foreign policy further ensured that any European effort from Germany and France to develop more cooperative trade, economic and diplomatic relations with their Soviet neighbor, under the umbrella of détente and various Soviet-west European energy agreements, was also thrown into disarray.
Carter's security adviser, Zbigniew Brzezinski, and secretary of state, Cyrus Vance, implemented their 'Arc of Crisis' policy, spreading the instability of the Iranian revolution throughout the perimeter around the Soviet Union. Throughout the Islamic perimeter from Pakistan to Iran, U.S. initiatives created instability or worse."
Not to mention the 1978 coup to take out the shah...
3/10/06
What Really Happed to the Shah of Iran
By Ernst Schroeder
My name is Ernst Schroeder, and since I have some Iranian friends from school and review your online magazine occasionally, I thought I'd pass on the following three page quote from a book I read a few months ago entitled, "A Century Of War : Anglo-American Oil Politics and the New World Order", which was written by William Engdahl, a German historianm . This is a book about how oil and politics have been intertwined for the past 100 years.
I submit the below passage for direct publishing on your website, as I think the quote will prove to be significant for anyone of Persian descent.
"In November 1978, President Carter named the Bilderberg group's George Ball, another member of the Trilateral Commission, to head a special White House Iran task force under the National Security Council's Brzezinski. Ball recommended that Washington drop support for the Shah of Iran and support the fundamentalistic Islamic opposition of Ayatollah Khomeini. Robert Bowie from the CIA was one of the lead 'case officers' in the new CIA-led coup against the man their covert actions had placed into power 25 years earlier.
Their scheme was based on a detailed study of the phenomenon of Islamic fundamentalism, as presented by British Islamic expert, Dr. Bernard Lewis, then on assignment at Princeton University in the United States. Lewis's scheme, which was unveiled at the May 1979 Bilderberg meeting in Austria, endorsed the radical Muslim Brotherhood movement behind Khomeini, in order to promote balkanization of the entire Muslim Near East along tribal and religious lines. Lewis argued that the West should encourage autonomous groups such as the Kurds, Armenians, Lebanese Maronites, Ethiopian Copts, Azerbaijani Turks, and so forth. The chaos would spread in what he termed an 'Arc of Crisis,' which would spill over into Muslim regions of the Soviet Union.
The coup against the Shah, like that against Mossadegh in 1953, was run by British and American intelligence, with the bombastic American, Brzezinski, taking public 'credit' for getting rid of the 'corrupt' Shah, while the British characteristically remained safely in the background.
During 1978, negotiations were under way between the Shah's government and British Petroleum for renewal of the 25-year old extraction agreement. By October 1978, the talks had collapsed over a British 'offer' which demanded exclusive rights to Iran's future oil output, while refusing to guarantee purchase of the oil. With their dependence on British-controlled export apparently at an end, Iran appeared on the verge of independence in its oil sales policy for the first time since 1953, with eager prospective buyers in Germany, France, Japan and elsewhere. In its lead editorial that September, Iran's Kayhan International stated:
In retrospect, the 25-year partnership with the [British Petroleum] consortium and the 50-year relationship with British Petroleum which preceded it, have not been satisfactory ones for Iran … Looking to the future, NIOC [National Iranian Oil Company] should plan to handle all operations by itself.
London was blackmailing and putting enormous economic pressure on the Shah's regime by refusing to buy Iranian oil production, taking only 3 million or so barrels daily of an agreed minimum of 5 million barrels per day. This imposed dramatic revenue pressures on Iran, which provided the context in which religious discontent against the Shah could be fanned by trained agitators deployed by British and U.S. intelligence. In addition, strikes among oil workers at this critical juncture crippled Iranian oil production.
As Iran's domestic economic troubles grew, American 'security' advisers to the Shah's Savak secret police implemented a policy of ever more brutal repression, in a manner calculated to maximize popular antipathy to the Shah. At the same time, the Carter administration cynically began protesting abuses of 'human rights' under the Shah.
British Petroleum reportedly began to organize capital flight out of Iran, through its strong influence in Iran's financial and banking community. The British Broadcasting Corporation's Persian-language broadcasts, with dozens of Persian-speaking BBC 'correspondents' sent into even the smallest village, drummed up hysteria against the Shah. The BBC gave Ayatollah Khomeini a full propaganda platform inside Iran during this time. The British government-owned broadcasting organization refused to give the Shah's government an equal chance to reply. Repeated personal appeals from the Shah to the BBC yielded no result. Anglo-American intelligence was committed to toppling the Shah. The Shah fled in January, and by February 1979, Khomeini had been flown into Tehran to proclaim the establishment of his repressive theocratic state to replace the Shah's government.
Reflecting on his downfall months later, shortly before his death, the Shah noted from exile,
I did not know it then – perhaps I did not want to know – but it is clear to me now that the Americans wanted me out. Clearly this is what the human rights advocates in the State Department wanted … What was I to make of the Administration's sudden decision to call former Under Secretary of State George Ball to the White House as an adviser on Iran? … Ball was among those Americans who wanted to abandon me and ultimately my country.[1][1]
With the fall of the Shah and the coming to power of the fanatical Khomeini adherents in Iran, chaos was unleashed. By May 1979, the new Khomeini regime had singled out the country's nuclear power development plans and announced cancellation of the entire program for French and German nuclear reactor construction.
Iran's oil exports to the world were suddenly cut off, some 3 million barrels per day. Curiously, Saudi Arabian production in the critical days of January 1979 was also cut by some 2 million barrels per day. To add to the pressures on world oil supply, British Petroleum declared force majeure and cancelled major contracts for oil supply. Prices on the Rotterdam spot market, heavily influenced by BP and Royal Cutch Shell as the largest oil traders, soared in early 1979 as a result. The second oil shock of the 1970s was fully under way.
Indications are that the actual planners of the Iranian Khomeini coup in London and within the senior ranks of the U.S. liberal establishment decided to keep President Carter largely ignorant of the policy and its ultimate objectives. The ensuing energy crisis in the United States was a major factor in bringing about Carter's defeat a year later.
There was never a real shortage in the world supply of petroleum. Existing Saudi and Kuwaiti production capacities could at any time have met the 5-6 million barrels per day temporary shortfall, as a U.S. congressional investigation by the General Accounting Office months later confirmed.
Unusually low reserve stocks of oil held by the Seven Sisters oil multinationals contributed to creating a devastating world oil price shock, with prices for crude oil soaring from a level of some $14 per barrel in 1978 towards the astronomical heights of $40 per barrel for some grades of crude on the spot market. Long gasoline lines across America contributed to a general sense of panic, and Carter energy secretary and former CIA director, James R. Schlesinger, did not help calm matters when he told Congress and the media in February 1979 that the Iranian oil shortfall was 'prospectively more serious' than the 1973 Arab oil embargo.[2][2]
The Carter administration's Trilateral Commission foreign policy further ensured that any European effort from Germany and France to develop more cooperative trade, economic and diplomatic relations with their Soviet neighbor, under the umbrella of détente and various Soviet-west European energy agreements, was also thrown into disarray.
Carter's security adviser, Zbigniew Brzezinski, and secretary of state, Cyrus Vance, implemented their 'Arc of Crisis' policy, spreading the instability of the Iranian revolution throughout the perimeter around the Soviet Union. Throughout the Islamic perimeter from Pakistan to Iran, U.S. initiatives created instability or worse."
Want to clarify that i dont support Ahmadinejad whatsoever..he's a POS along with the other fundamentalist in Iran that are you using religion to hold power....Isnt it funny though, that that's exactly how Bush got re-elected? Religious fundamentalisim.
Want to clarify that i dont support Ahmadinejad whatsoever..he's a POS along with the other fundamentalist in Iran that are you using religion to hold power....Isnt it funny though, that that's exactly how Bush got re-elected? Religious fundamentalisim.
I taped it but I haven't watched yet. I need to get some barf bags first.
In all seriousness, I plan on watching it later tonight.
I thought it was interesting.....he really takes control of the interview...the barf bags are not necessary I watched it last night with someone who usually disagrees with me and he found that he was engaging and seemed truthful and passionate.....so wanted to add that in that I watched it with a person on the other side of the fence....but the thing is how many people will take him seriously....we live in a world where we know no actual foreign diplomacy...just cheap threats and weapons as back-up....
You'll have to forgive me if I don't take this guy seriously. You know, since he's already called for the destruction of Israel, and things of that nature. That's beside the point though…
I found it interesting that when I was reading his words, most of what he said seemed to echo the sentiments and rhetoric of some of those on this very message board. I think you could take elements of the quote, attribute a few board member names to it, and no one would ever be the wiser.
Fair is fair though. I think most of those same board members on here really DO want peace, whereas this jackass is just spewing crap.
When I see this pic from "The World without Zionism" conference..it immediately reminds me of the Moving Train...they seem to have something in common....
I thought it was interesting.....he really takes control of the interview...the barf bags are not necessary I watched it last night with someone who usually disagrees with me and he found that he was engaging and seemed truthful and passionate.....so wanted to add that in that I watched it with a person on the other side of the fence....but the thing is how many people will take him seriously....we live in a world where we know no actual foreign diplomacy...just cheap threats and weapons as back-up....
Its hard to take even good arguments seriously when they come from someone who believes in Holocaust revisionism and genocide. I mean, you could probably get a white supremist on there that sounds passionate, articulate, and truthful. Even if the guy said the sky was blue, I'd still find him revolting.
Comments
No biggie.
That Hezbollah flag incident was indeed fucking disgusting. Sorry, but I do not want such a display to happen in this country.
Well according to someone at the demonstration there were a handful of people holding Hezbollah flags...hardly constitues the purpose of the demonstarion as disgusting...if you want to use that logic I think it is disgusting people at Pro-Israel rallies supporting current and future military actions.....however lots where there defending the right for the country to defend itslef and were not war-mongereres calling for more action...but I bet there were also a handful looking for increased strike which in my books goes hand in hand with Hezbollah...both morons...Nasralleh and Olmert both fools IMHO.....I will stay in the middle denouncing both sides....and that is what our nation should be doing.....and we are not.....
I am OK with the idea of the protest. As usual, there were a few people there giving the thing a bad name.
Yeah but I fail to see how the National Post will label the demonstration as pro-terrorist but will not share the same gall to call the Pro-Israeli demonstration pro-war.....
Was there anything at the pro-Israeli demonstration that glorified the deaths of Lebanese civilians, or that otherwise suggested that the humanitarian crisis in Lebanon is a good thing? One could argue that the entire demonstration did this, but then again, one can also argue that the entire pro-Lebanon demonstration was also pro-terrorist.
Exactly I agree...but it is disgusting that a national newspaper because a handful of idiots labelled the entire demonstration has pro-terrorist....its brutal..all it does is sabatoge the goals of the peace movement...once again slandering a good view and objective....Im saying that would never happen at the other rally where there was undoubtly those there that support increased conflict...
BTW I think a lot of people are believing pro-Lebanon is pro-terrorist...just look at this board anything done that condenms Israel (even when you back-up a statement ripping Hezbollah is terrorist sympathizer, kooky Liberal...I am saying this absurd view by the paper is just creating more thinking along that pattern...more smearing of an actual peace movement...sickening when people for peace get slandered this way...
Yeah, I agree that that label slapped on the entire demonstration was dumb. I am guessing it was a matter of people focusing on the one bad element in an otherwise appropriate demonstration. Questions in my mind include things like: Why would those people be waving those flags in the first place? Why would other protestors permit them to do this? Let's say, hypothetically, that I went to the earlier mentioned pro-Israel demonstration, and while I was there, some idiot started pulling out racist signs and yelling about how all those dirty Lebanese deserve what they get for harboring Hizbollah. Now, I am not sure exactly where this would get me (a fight?), but you can bet I'd tell him to shut up and stop ruining the demonstration for people who don't actually condone civilian deaths. Why would pro-peace people let their fellow demonstrators wave the flag of a terrorist organization, such an action is pretty much antithetical to peace. What's going to ruin the peace movement is its association with extremists. Bad press from the National Post wouldn't happen if people didn't give them ammo.
Peace
Dan
"Every judgment teeters on the brink of error. To claim absolute knowledge is to become monstrous. Knowledge is an unending adventure at the edge of uncertainty." - Frank Herbert, Dune, 1965
But its their right to attend is it not...you cannot simply to ask them to leave....its their right to be there....that is one big problem...like refer to thankyougrandma he was there.....
And yes it does go against the movement...I agree with you...but the fact remains that I believe this newspaper went overboard and did not portray the real picture...why could they not single out the idioits instead of making it the headline piece...right there they are sabatoging the movement....that disturbs me cause it leads to more pro-terrorist banter when at that rally less than 0.10% of the people there were idiots.....but the NP makes it as though there were 100% idioits.....that is just not right....
Its their right to attend, true. And their detractors at the National Post also have a right to complain about their behavior. Anyhow, like I said ... I cannot disagree with the basic thrust of your post. It would be nice if the NP had handled their feature in a more respectful manner. Obviously not everyone there was a Hizbollah supporter, and they should have been able to decry the flag wavers without casting the entire protest in a negative light.
A little balance would have been nice....portray those dozen people as fools then say that only about another 15,000 were there for peace would have been better....
how can you say he's not for these things? allow me to correctly interpret his words:
today is the era of thoughts (thoughts to kill the Israelites)
today is the era of dialogue (saying the phrase "wipe Israel off the face of the earth" is a form of dialogue)
today is the era of cultural exchange (we welcome his people into our culture and his people give us their culture, one of death and fascism)
see, the dude wasn't joking...
TVNewser | August 11 2006
This Monday night, for the first time in six years, C-SPAN will air one of Mike Wallace's 60 Minutes interviews uncut and commercial-free.
Portions of Wallace's interview with Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad are set to air on Sunday. CBS has given C-SPAN permission to air the 60 Minutes segment followed by "Wallace's entire 90-minute interview." C-SPAN's press release says: "According to CBS News, the request to air the entire interview on C-SPAN came directly from President Ahmadinejad."
C-SPAN programming VP Terry Murphy says "we agreed with CBS News that airing this interview in its entirety is very much in the public interest and fits with C-SPAN's style of airing events as they happened and without commercials. This is also a unique opportunity for viewers to see for themselves the editorial process at a major network news organization, and find out which portions of an extended interview actually make it on air."
C-SPAN aired Wallace's uncut interviews in 1997, 1999, and 2000, as well
Sehr gut!
I can't watch it though, let me know what is said.
ROFLMAO! Anyhoo.. on 2nd thought, I might have to watch this side show. Just for kicks and grins. Why not.
Not me, Im holding out for Truthout.org's interview with Kim Jong-Il.
www.myspace.com/jensvad
almost spit out my coke
I knew you'd like that one.
www.myspace.com/jensvad
Not to mention the 1978 coup to take out the shah...
3/10/06
What Really Happed to the Shah of Iran
By Ernst Schroeder
My name is Ernst Schroeder, and since I have some Iranian friends from school and review your online magazine occasionally, I thought I'd pass on the following three page quote from a book I read a few months ago entitled, "A Century Of War : Anglo-American Oil Politics and the New World Order", which was written by William Engdahl, a German historianm . This is a book about how oil and politics have been intertwined for the past 100 years.
I submit the below passage for direct publishing on your website, as I think the quote will prove to be significant for anyone of Persian descent.
"In November 1978, President Carter named the Bilderberg group's George Ball, another member of the Trilateral Commission, to head a special White House Iran task force under the National Security Council's Brzezinski. Ball recommended that Washington drop support for the Shah of Iran and support the fundamentalistic Islamic opposition of Ayatollah Khomeini. Robert Bowie from the CIA was one of the lead 'case officers' in the new CIA-led coup against the man their covert actions had placed into power 25 years earlier.
Their scheme was based on a detailed study of the phenomenon of Islamic fundamentalism, as presented by British Islamic expert, Dr. Bernard Lewis, then on assignment at Princeton University in the United States. Lewis's scheme, which was unveiled at the May 1979 Bilderberg meeting in Austria, endorsed the radical Muslim Brotherhood movement behind Khomeini, in order to promote balkanization of the entire Muslim Near East along tribal and religious lines. Lewis argued that the West should encourage autonomous groups such as the Kurds, Armenians, Lebanese Maronites, Ethiopian Copts, Azerbaijani Turks, and so forth. The chaos would spread in what he termed an 'Arc of Crisis,' which would spill over into Muslim regions of the Soviet Union.
The coup against the Shah, like that against Mossadegh in 1953, was run by British and American intelligence, with the bombastic American, Brzezinski, taking public 'credit' for getting rid of the 'corrupt' Shah, while the British characteristically remained safely in the background.
During 1978, negotiations were under way between the Shah's government and British Petroleum for renewal of the 25-year old extraction agreement. By October 1978, the talks had collapsed over a British 'offer' which demanded exclusive rights to Iran's future oil output, while refusing to guarantee purchase of the oil. With their dependence on British-controlled export apparently at an end, Iran appeared on the verge of independence in its oil sales policy for the first time since 1953, with eager prospective buyers in Germany, France, Japan and elsewhere. In its lead editorial that September, Iran's Kayhan International stated:
In retrospect, the 25-year partnership with the [British Petroleum] consortium and the 50-year relationship with British Petroleum which preceded it, have not been satisfactory ones for Iran … Looking to the future, NIOC [National Iranian Oil Company] should plan to handle all operations by itself.
London was blackmailing and putting enormous economic pressure on the Shah's regime by refusing to buy Iranian oil production, taking only 3 million or so barrels daily of an agreed minimum of 5 million barrels per day. This imposed dramatic revenue pressures on Iran, which provided the context in which religious discontent against the Shah could be fanned by trained agitators deployed by British and U.S. intelligence. In addition, strikes among oil workers at this critical juncture crippled Iranian oil production.
As Iran's domestic economic troubles grew, American 'security' advisers to the Shah's Savak secret police implemented a policy of ever more brutal repression, in a manner calculated to maximize popular antipathy to the Shah. At the same time, the Carter administration cynically began protesting abuses of 'human rights' under the Shah.
British Petroleum reportedly began to organize capital flight out of Iran, through its strong influence in Iran's financial and banking community. The British Broadcasting Corporation's Persian-language broadcasts, with dozens of Persian-speaking BBC 'correspondents' sent into even the smallest village, drummed up hysteria against the Shah. The BBC gave Ayatollah Khomeini a full propaganda platform inside Iran during this time. The British government-owned broadcasting organization refused to give the Shah's government an equal chance to reply. Repeated personal appeals from the Shah to the BBC yielded no result. Anglo-American intelligence was committed to toppling the Shah. The Shah fled in January, and by February 1979, Khomeini had been flown into Tehran to proclaim the establishment of his repressive theocratic state to replace the Shah's government.
Reflecting on his downfall months later, shortly before his death, the Shah noted from exile,
I did not know it then – perhaps I did not want to know – but it is clear to me now that the Americans wanted me out. Clearly this is what the human rights advocates in the State Department wanted … What was I to make of the Administration's sudden decision to call former Under Secretary of State George Ball to the White House as an adviser on Iran? … Ball was among those Americans who wanted to abandon me and ultimately my country.[1][1]
With the fall of the Shah and the coming to power of the fanatical Khomeini adherents in Iran, chaos was unleashed. By May 1979, the new Khomeini regime had singled out the country's nuclear power development plans and announced cancellation of the entire program for French and German nuclear reactor construction.
Iran's oil exports to the world were suddenly cut off, some 3 million barrels per day. Curiously, Saudi Arabian production in the critical days of January 1979 was also cut by some 2 million barrels per day. To add to the pressures on world oil supply, British Petroleum declared force majeure and cancelled major contracts for oil supply. Prices on the Rotterdam spot market, heavily influenced by BP and Royal Cutch Shell as the largest oil traders, soared in early 1979 as a result. The second oil shock of the 1970s was fully under way.
Indications are that the actual planners of the Iranian Khomeini coup in London and within the senior ranks of the U.S. liberal establishment decided to keep President Carter largely ignorant of the policy and its ultimate objectives. The ensuing energy crisis in the United States was a major factor in bringing about Carter's defeat a year later.
There was never a real shortage in the world supply of petroleum. Existing Saudi and Kuwaiti production capacities could at any time have met the 5-6 million barrels per day temporary shortfall, as a U.S. congressional investigation by the General Accounting Office months later confirmed.
Unusually low reserve stocks of oil held by the Seven Sisters oil multinationals contributed to creating a devastating world oil price shock, with prices for crude oil soaring from a level of some $14 per barrel in 1978 towards the astronomical heights of $40 per barrel for some grades of crude on the spot market. Long gasoline lines across America contributed to a general sense of panic, and Carter energy secretary and former CIA director, James R. Schlesinger, did not help calm matters when he told Congress and the media in February 1979 that the Iranian oil shortfall was 'prospectively more serious' than the 1973 Arab oil embargo.[2][2]
The Carter administration's Trilateral Commission foreign policy further ensured that any European effort from Germany and France to develop more cooperative trade, economic and diplomatic relations with their Soviet neighbor, under the umbrella of détente and various Soviet-west European energy agreements, was also thrown into disarray.
Carter's security adviser, Zbigniew Brzezinski, and secretary of state, Cyrus Vance, implemented their 'Arc of Crisis' policy, spreading the instability of the Iranian revolution throughout the perimeter around the Soviet Union. Throughout the Islamic perimeter from Pakistan to Iran, U.S. initiatives created instability or worse."
Want to clarify that i dont support Ahmadinejad whatsoever..he's a POS along with the other fundamentalist in Iran that are you using religion to hold power....Isnt it funny though, that that's exactly how Bush got re-elected? Religious fundamentalisim.
Thanks for the article...interesting....
I taped it but I haven't watched yet. I need to get some barf bags first.
In all seriousness, I plan on watching it later tonight.
I thought it was interesting.....he really takes control of the interview...the barf bags are not necessary I watched it last night with someone who usually disagrees with me and he found that he was engaging and seemed truthful and passionate.....so wanted to add that in that I watched it with a person on the other side of the fence....but the thing is how many people will take him seriously....we live in a world where we know no actual foreign diplomacy...just cheap threats and weapons as back-up....
When I see this pic from "The World without Zionism" conference..it immediately reminds me of the Moving Train...they seem to have something in common....
http://hcgtv.com/media/news/iran_twwz.jpg
Its hard to take even good arguments seriously when they come from someone who believes in Holocaust revisionism and genocide. I mean, you could probably get a white supremist on there that sounds passionate, articulate, and truthful. Even if the guy said the sky was blue, I'd still find him revolting.
haha, sly...
I like this statement, I like it a lot.