Do They (The Zio-Nazis) Deserve the Gas Chamber?

Do They (The Zio-Nazis) Deserve the Gas Chamber?

Israel has openly and repeatedly expressed it's intention to nuke/attack Iran. On the contrary Iran never said it would demolish Israel, all this despite a totally false and vindictive Israeli campaign which was assisted by the BBC and other zionised media outlets.

It is perfectly natural for the Iranian youths to demand more freedom. It also true that as is often similar to any other theocratic regimes, the mullahs of Iran are misusing their power and many people are not happy! However, the current Iranian protests are not really related to the so called election fraud. In fact it is another rerun of "Mohammad Mossadegh and Operation Ajax" conducted by Israel and USA.

The spectre of Operation Ajax was clearly revealed and it lost it's cover when Israel and the USA openly questioned and attacked the Iranian election result just recently. Like many people I pondered and I asked myself out loud the question, "why is it Charles Manson should be taking care of Sharon Tate"?

Anyway, I have posted the article below at the Yahoo Q And A forum and it has attracted many honest and valuable responses. Yet, the Zio-Nazi cliques certainly appear to have murdered and censored this link just like they have a million other links/posts that I can think of! Honestly, I am sick and tired of these types of well orchestrated and systematic Zio-Nazi (Zionist/Israeli/Israeli supporters/Jewish) attacks on free speech.

Remember, like Dr. Mohammad Mossaddeq the current bogeyman Mr. Mahmoud Ahmadinejad has done many good things for his country and his people. Both of these identities did nothing for their own personal benefit. So why have they been targeted by the so called democracy loving humanitarian and god fearing regimes like USA, UK, Australia and their master Israel?

Faruque Ahmed
Moderator, Free America Now
Mobile: 041 091 4118

Email: union_faruque@... Friday, June 19, 2009

Please watch this two minute documentary too.
“Mossadegh - Stephen Kinzer - Iranian Democracy”?

Effects of ill-advised CIA plot in Iran still haunts U.S.By John M. Crisp

11/27/06 -- - - (SH) - Now that Iran looms on our horizon, here's a story that every American should know. Journalist Sandra Mackey tells it in "The Iranians," as does Daniel Yergin in "The Prize," his monumental history of oil. But the best extended version of the story that I've read is in "All the Shah's Men" by Stephen Kinzer. Although other historians have told this story as well, I suspect that the average American has never heard of Mohammad Mossadegh and Operation Ajax. To make a long story short:
Kinzer says that democracy dawned in Iran in 1891 when the shah's wives - he had a harem of around 1,600 - gave up smoking in protest of the shah's sale of the tobacco concession to the British. In fact, the shah, Nasir al-Din, sold concessions of all sorts - mineral rights, railroads, banks - to foreigners in order to support his extravagant tastes. But the shah's son committed an even greater treachery on his own country by selling the oil concession to William Knox D'Arcy in 1901, granting exclusive rights to Iranian petroleum to the British for a period of 60 years.

The unfavorable terms of this concession, as well as many other abuses of monarchial power, led to the Iranian Revolution of 1905, the diminishment of the shah's power, the establishment of a parliament and the beginnings of a democratic tradition in Iran. In the meantime, D'Arcy discovered oil, a resource that suddenly became enormously valuable when Britain converted its coal-burning warships to oil just before World War I.

Naturally, the British favored a friendly, compliant monarchy to balance the power of the parliament, which might have other ideas about the extremely unfavorable terms of the petroleum concession. They found their man in Reza Khan and staged a coup in 1921. Reza soon became the shah, a dictatorial leader who suppressed the parliament and fathered Mohammad Reza, who Americans know as the shah of Iran.

The succession of Mohammad Reza, a weak leader with the personality of a playboy, provided an opportunity for the parliament to reassert power in Iran, which it did, under the leadership of Mohammad Mossadegh, a well-educated eccentric who had opposed the shah for many years. By 1951, Mossadegh was the prime minister, and he had emerged as an international spokesman for a global wave of anti-colonial nationalism. He addressed the United Nations and appeared on the cover of "Time" magazine. When Britain refused to renegotiate the exploitative terms of its oil concession, Iran nationalized the petroleum industry, to Britain's great consternation.

The British hinted at an armed invasion and planned a coup, but were unable to acquire the cooperation of President Truman, who had more sympathy for the emerging nationalism of the former colonies than for the old colonial powers. Things changed, however, when Eisenhower became president in 1952. The Dulles brothers, John Foster as secretary of State and Allen as CIA director, both devoted anti-Communists, convinced Eisenhower to support a coup that would depose Mossadegh and restore the power of the shah to stand as a bulwark against the U.S.S.R.

Operation Ajax, planned and financed by the CIA and orchestrated by Kermit Roosevelt, grandson of Teddy Roosevelt, was pulled off in August 1953. Hundreds died. Mossadegh was sent to prison for three years and spent the last 11 years of his life under house arrest. Supported by the U.S., the shah became a dictator who controlled Iran with secret police and terror until he was deposed in 1979, when, some historians believe, the U.S. hostages were taken in order to prevent another restoration of the Shah, like the one that occurred in 1953.

Although most Americans never knew or have forgotten this story, many Iranians have not, and the effects of Operation Ajax persist. But the point of the story isn't to berate ourselves over an unseemly intervention into Iran more than 50 years ago. We should note, however, that the story implies that the current radical regime in Iran isn't inevitable, nor does it enjoy the support of all Iranians. Our diplomacy should be careful not to weaken moderates by overly demonizing the leadership. As bad as its leadership is at present, the country itself isn't inherently evil and it retains echoes of a short-lived democratic tradition in its past.

John M. Crisp teaches in the English Department at Del Mar College in Corpus Christi, Texas. Email: jcrisp@....