And many in the West wonder why Hezbollah are so popular - Tilted Forum Project Discussion Community

Mephisto2 · 08-17-2006, 12:40 AM

Quote:

Hizbullah gets $150m rebuilding effort under way
Declan Walsh in Bint Jbeil

MIDDLE EAST: For 34 days they doggedly fought off the mighty Israeli army but, as a three-day-old ceasefire gathers momentum, Hizbullah's hardened fighters are swapping their missile launchers for spades, brooms and briefcases of cash.

As refugees flood back to their war-ravaged villages, Hizbullah has flung itself to the front of the burgeoning reconstruction effort in southern Lebanon, funded with a deluge of petro-dollars from neighbouring Iran.

"We want to bring south Lebanon back to life and rebuild it better than it was before the war," said Nabil Kaouk, Hizbullah's top official in southern Lebanon, standing before the group's flattened headquarters building in Tyre.

In nearby villages, his supporters were already hard at work. Hizbullah activists in T-shirts and green caps cleared rubble-strewn roads and piles of rotting refuse and ferried the dead and wounded through the scrub-covered hills in shiny modern ambulances.

However the most extravagant element of Hizbullah's plan is to provide a year's rent and a set of new furniture for every family whose house has been destroyed.

The promise was made by Hizbullah's leader, Hassan Nasrallah, within hours of Monday's ceasefire. The housing scheme will benefit 15,000 families, Mr Nasrallah said, and will cost up to $150 million, according to one estimate.

Funding will come from oil-rich Iran, which until now has mostly supplied Hizbullah with thousands of missiles used against Israel.

Yesterday in Beirut, hundreds of refugees shuffled through a registration centre where officials noted their losses and made promises of help. The cash will be spent in towns such as Bint Jbeil in the south, where entire neighbourhoods have been razed.

This multimillion dollar aid drive marks a new phase in Hizbullah's struggle. The militant group has already won admiration across the Arab world for its dogged resistance to Israeli attack.

Now it is fighting to retain the support of Lebanon's Shia Muslims, who constitute about one- third of the population, and to maintain the "state within a state" that allowed the militant group to develop the military arsenal and network of village bunkers that thwarted the Israeli invasion.

The success of this strategy is evident from the proclamations of undying loyalty, even from families who have lost everything.

"When Sayed Hassan [ Nasrallah] speaks, we listen," said Amar Balhas outside the remains of his house. "If he asks, I will give my life for Hizbullah."

Other residents however are shocked by the destruction that Hizbullah's belligerence has wrought on their already impoverished lives.

"I will be sleeping in the streets tonight," said Nohead Hamoud, (46) yesterday after arriving in Bent Jbeil to find a pile of broken bricks and furniture where her home once stood. Asked her opinion of Hizbullah's popularity, she replied tersely: "That is a question I cannot answer."

Some Christian and Druze leaders resent Hizbullah's autonomy and have called for it to disarm.

That tension is one of several problems facing the 30,000- strong peacekeeping force due to start deploying to southern Lebanon today. Human Rights Watch warned that thousands of civilians were at risk from unexploded bombs and called for an urgent operation to secure and clear affected areas.

Meanwhile, the death toll continued to rise. In Srifa, a village east of Tyre, rescue workers have pulled another 32 bodies from the rubble, said mayor Afif Najdeh.

Air strikes flattened 15 houses in the village on July 19th after Hizbullah rockets were fired from the area. Municipal authorities in Tyre expect to bury more than 120 war victims in a mass grave today.

© The Irish Times © Guardian Service

REF: http://www.ireland.com/newspaper/wor...714767064.html
(registration required)

So, I'm always surprised why so many in the West (and I mean predominantly the US, the UK and Australia) are so surprised at why Hezbollah are so popular. Here we see why; their strengths in focusing on real benefits and assistance to the local communities. Simple things like rebuilding, medical and social assistance, and funding for social programs, are key in any organization or movement if it wants to engender support from local populations.

What has this war achieved? Apart from many hundreds of causalities, practically nothing positive (in the Western sense).

1) The kidnapped soldiers have not been found or released.
2) The head of the Israeli military is probably going to lose his job.
3) The political leadership in Israel has been discredited and the "left" of Israeli politics with it.
4) Syria and Iran have been strengthened.
5) Hezbollah have lost some fighters, but are incredibly more popular in Lebannon, and must of the rest of the Sunni Arab world (paradoxically).
6) The West, with the possible exception of France, are seen more than ever to be lopsided in their support for a political solution to the Palestinian question (the main source of problems).
7) Iran, the real worry in the Middle East, are now emboldened and will probably play further brinkmanship with regards to possible Security Council resolutions on its nuclear program.
8) Israel's much vaunted military are considered, generally speaking and almost universally in the Arab world, to have "lost" the war.
9) Israeli deterrence factor is in tatters.
10) Hezbollah will be rapidly rearmed with many thousands of more missiles (IMHO)

It's really a terrible state of affairs. I deplore what happened in Lebanon at the hands of the Israeli military, as I consider it a form of collective punishment and a disproportionate response to the kidnappings and provocations. I also deplore the war crimes committed by Hezbollah in their indiscriminate attacks on civilian populations. And, whilst I don't consider Hezbollah to be a terrorist organization like Hamas (or at least of the same order), I do not particularly want to see them continue to wield the influence they already had, let alone see it increased as has undoubtedly now happened.

If anything I see the results as an unmitigated disaster for the West.

What now? Has too much damage already been done? Can we salvage anything from the past few weeks?

Mr Mephisto

host · 08-17-2006, 01:53 AM

Lets just say, I was waiting for this post.

Thanks Mr Mephisto.

Not !

Quote:

www.breitbart.com/news/2006/08/14/D8JGDGBO0.html

Bush Says Israel Defeated Hezbollah....

Mephisto2 · 08-17-2006, 02:16 AM

So host, are you agreeing with my hypothesis that the "war" has in fact backfired on Israel and the US led West?

That the final result is actually the opposite of what was desired? In other words, rather than destroying Hezbollah, this has indeed only made them stronger?

I'm not sure if you are saying you agree or disagree...

For the record, I'd like to see them disarmed and emasculated. And don't even get me started on Hamas or the Iranian regime.

Mr Mephisto

highthief · 08-17-2006, 06:14 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Mr Mephisto

So host, are you agreeing with my hypothesis that the "war" has in fact backfired on Israel and the US led West?

That the final result is actually the opposite of what was desired? In other words, rather than destroying Hezbollah, this has indeed only made them stronger?

I'm not sure if you are saying you agree or disagree...

For the record, I'd like to see them disarmed and emasculated. And don't even get me started on Hamas or the Iranian regime.

Mr Mephisto

I agree that this little adventure has probably led to increased recruitment for Hezbollah and increaed animosity towards Israel, regardless of who "won" the battle. Hezbollah does what various insurgent states have done in the past, be first in with basic rebuilding efforts with respect to schools and hospitals, in order to win public support.

filtherton · 08-17-2006, 09:16 AM

Maybe we could gget hezbollah to help us rebuild iraq...

Elphaba · 08-17-2006, 09:31 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by highthief

I agree that this little adventure has probably led to increased recruitment for Hezbollah and increaed animosity towards Israel, regardless of who "won" the battle. Hezbollah does what various insurgent states have done in the past, be first in with basic rebuilding efforts with respect to schools and hospitals, in order to win public support.

That is exactly what brought Hamas into political power.

Seaver · 08-17-2006, 10:29 AM

While I agreed Israel has the right to defend herself, the war indeed has only helped her enemies. However, if the demiliterized zone allows enough room that the Ketusha (sp?) rockets no longer rain down on her major cities.. both countries can really claim victory.

absorbentishe · 08-17-2006, 01:16 PM

Israel was in a no win situation. They couldn't talk with the "terrorists", and had to defend against "terrorism". What they did was start a war, hoping all of the west would back them, esp. the US. Of course it worked, but it also backfired. Now that the "terrorists" have stood up against the aggressor, and are now the heros in rebuilding (all financed through Iran's oil money and we know where the oil money comes from), Israel really looks stupid.

At least we didn't get involved in the peace keeping!

Mephisto2 · 08-17-2006, 04:17 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Seaver

Both countries can really claim victory.

Yes, but everyone in the West, including the Israeli public, know that this would be only posturing on their part. The majority of Israelis themselves feel they did not the win the war.

Whilst, on the other hand, the vast majority of those in the Arab world, including a large proportion of Sunni peoples, now believe that Hezbollah have indeed "won"; which they have in a way.

The Israeli's achieved nothing they set out to achieve.

The soldiers are still missing.
Hezbollah are intact.

Quote:

Originally Posted by absorbentishe

At least we didn't get involved in the peace keeping!

True, I guess. It would be crazy, and very provocative, for US Forces to be involved in te peace-keeping. No doubt you will see the majority of the forces from Europe again, as it was in the 80's.

Mr Mephisto

dlish · 08-17-2006, 07:43 PM

isnt it how every politician gets voted into power and then stays in power...

the promise of building infrastructure, schools, roads, health system etc etc etc..and then do something about it..actually fulfill those promises?

i think hezbollah are fulfilling their promises to their masses and seem to be more truthful than the politicians in western nations when it comes to fullfilling these promises... is that such a bad bad thing?

Willravel · 08-17-2006, 07:50 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Elphaba

That is exactly what brought Hamas into political power.

BRILLIANT!!! That was exactly what I was going to say!

Meinwhile, it's probably confusing for some to see such a thing as a humanitarian terrorist group. I'm not surprised in the least. Hezbollah has been doing this since it's creating in the 80s. Part of them really does care for the safety and well being of the Lebanese people. They don't really think about that when they attack Israel and bring down a malestrom of missles upon the innocent Lebanese populace, but that's the nature of being a radical. I certianally don't condone it, but I think I understand it.

Elphaba · 08-17-2006, 08:12 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by willravel

BRILLIANT!!! That was exactly what I was going to say!

Meinwhile, it's probably confusing for some to see such a thing as a humanitarian terrorist group. I'm not surprised in the least. Hezbollah has been doing this since it's creating in the 80s. Part of them really does care for the safety and well being of the Lebanese people. They don't really think about that when they attack Israel and bring down a malestrom of missles upon the innocent Lebanese populace, but that's the nature of being a radical. I certianally don't condone it, but I think I understand it.

As much as I would love to revel in the first (and likely last) time I have ever been called "brilliant", the truth is that I am merely an apt student. Will, you and a few others here make an effort to explain the position you hold and offer links that I can pursue to form my own opinion. I don't automatically accept a spoon feeding of opinion and treat it as fact. Speaking for myself, this Politics forum has challenged me in a very positive way to look deeper, question my beliefs, and hopefully move forward with additional understanding.

But, I think I will revel for a moment, just the same.

Mephisto2 · 08-18-2006, 07:42 PM

The difference between Hamas and Hezbollah are quite large.

Hamas holds as one of its core tenets the destruction of Israel. As such, despite all the good they do for local Palestinians, I hold them in contempt.

Hexbollah exists for the "liberation of Lebanon" alone, and claim they will lay down their arms once all Lebanese territory is restored.

Both exercise terrorist actions, but one holds terrorist goals as a core value.

Mr Mephisto

Ustwo · 08-18-2006, 08:10 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Mr Mephisto

The difference between Hamas and Hezbollah are quite large.

Hamas holds as one of its core tenets the destruction of Israel. As such, despite all the good they do for local Palestinians, I hold them in contempt.

Hexbollah exists for the "liberation of Lebanon" alone, and claim they will lay down their arms once all Lebanese territory is restored.

Both exercise terrorist actions, but one holds terrorist goals as a core value.

Quote:

We see in Israel the vanguard of the United States in our Islamic world. It is the hated enemy that must be fought until the hated ones get what they deserve. This enemy is the greatest danger to our future generations and to the destiny of our lands, particularly as it glorifies the ideas of settlement and expansion, initiated in Palestine, and yearning outward to the extension of the Great Israel, from the Euphrates to the Nile.

Our primary assumption in our fight against Israel states that the Zionist entity is aggressive from its inception, and built on lands wrested from their owners, at the expense of the rights of the Muslim people. Therefore our struggle will end only when this entity is obliterated. We recognize no treaty with it, no cease fire, and no peace agreements, whether separate or consolidated.

We vigorously condemn all plans for negotiation with Israel, and regard all negotiators as enemies, for the reason that such negotiation is nothing but the recognition of the legitimacy of the Zionist occupation of Palestine. Therefore we oppose and reject the Camp David Agreements, the proposals of King Fahd, the Fez and Reagan plan, Brezhnev's and the French-Egyptian proposals, and all other programs that include the recognition (even the implied recognition) of the Zionist entity.

http://www.ict.org.il/Articles/Hiz_letter.htm

First link that google gave me for 'Hezzbollah Manifesto'

Sometimes this is just to easy. I have to wonder also how many rockets they will put under civilian buildings as they 'rebuild' this time.

Mephisto2 · 08-19-2006, 12:45 AM

Thanks for the link Ustwo. Perhaps to avoid some people taking your edited extract on face value, we should clarify the following:

1) It's based on an open letter to an Israeli paper.
2) You didn't quote the section specifically called "Objectives"
3) The portion above that you did quote, in fact was not published in the letter, and does not appear on any Hezbollah websites or publications. This is admitted on the page itself.

Now, for the section that actually states the objectives:

Quote:

Our Objectives
Let us put it truthfully: the sons of Hizhallah know who are their major enemies in the Middle East - the Phalanges, Israel, France and the US. The sons of our umma are now in a state of growing confrontation with them, and will remain so until the realization of the following three objectives:

(a) to expel the Americans. the French and their allies definitely from Lebanon, putting an end to any colonialist entity on our land;
(b) to submit the Phalanges to a just power and bring them all to justice for the crimes they have perpetrated against Muslims and Christians;
(c) to permit all the sons of our people to determine their future and to choose in all the liberty the form of government they desire. We call upon all of them to pick the option of Islamic government which, alone, is capable of guaranteeing justice and liberty for all. Only an Islamic regime can stop any further tentative attempts of imperialistic infiltration into our country.

You're right. This IS too easy.

Finally, there's a very interesting article on Hezbollah and its goals by the Guardian. You may want to read it. http://www.guardian.co.uk/syria/stor...833389,00.html

You seem to want to paint me as some kind of supporter of them. Nothing could be further from the truth. I just happen to actively dislike Hamas more.

Mr Mephisto

Willravel · 08-19-2006, 07:39 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Our Objectives

Let us put it truthfully: the sons of Hizhallah know who are their major enemies in the Middle East - the Phalanges...

As a pianist, am I now in danger? My phalanges are part of who I am.

Neeways, great link MM.

Ustwo · 08-19-2006, 10:50 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Mr Mephisto

Thanks for the link Ustwo. Perhaps to avoid some people taking your edited extract on face value, we should clarify the following:

1) It's based on an open letter to an Israeli paper.
2) You didn't quote the section specifically called "Objectives"
3) The portion above that you did quote, in fact was not published in the letter, and does not appear on any Hezbollah websites or publications. This is admitted on the page itself.

Now, for the section that actually states the objectives:

You're right. This IS too easy.

Finally, there's a very interesting article on Hezbollah and its goals by the Guardian. You may want to read it. http://www.guardian.co.uk/syria/stor...833389,00.html

You seem to want to paint me as some kind of supporter of them. Nothing could be further from the truth. I just happen to actively dislike Hamas more.

Mr Mephisto

They clearly state they want israel obliterated and will accept no peace, yet you keep going.

Blindness.

streak_56 · 08-19-2006, 07:00 PM

So how about we fight hate or "terrorism" with even more hate or "terrorism."

Seems like a win-win strategy to me.

Mephisto2 · 08-20-2006, 09:03 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Ustwo

They clearly state they want israel obliterated and will accept no peace, yet you keep going.

Blindness.

The point I'm trying to make is that they deny this is their objective. The paragraph you refer to was never published, and they do not claim to want to destroy Israel.

You saying something doesn't make it true.

But I find myself boring of this argument. I'm not defending them. I just dislike them less than Hamas.

Mr Mephisto

Ustwo · 08-28-2006, 11:15 PM

Here is the mindset so many of you support...

Enjoy, you earned it.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tHqnS...om%2Fweblog%2F

host · 08-29-2006, 10:11 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Ustwo

Here is the mindset so many of you support...

Enjoy, you earned it.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tHqnS...om%2Fweblog%2F

A little history is in order, here.....

The background for the "youtube" "feature", is that the CIA, in 1953, conducted a coup in Iran that replaced the Iranian leader and Time's 1951, "Man of the Year", Mossadeq, with the unpopular and repressive Shah. The brutal and repressive Iranian secret police agency, Savak, was then set up by the Shah, with the aid of the CIA and Mossad, and was responsible for the torture and muder of many thousands of innocent Iranians.

It can be argued that the emergence of "sharia law" in Iran....that results in the "Execution of a Teenage Girl", is "blowback" from past, misguided US government intervention in the M.E. region and sepcifically, in Iran.

My question is, how many more will have to die as a result of further US intervention to "fine tune" US techniques to make the world over to our warped, christ-o-centric POV? How many more "black or white" solutions that result in the avoidable deaths of Americans and Iranians, will be required before the "conservatives" in the US, slake their thirst for blood?

Quote:

http://www.guardian.co.uk/iran/story/0,,1830835,00.html
Death of a teenager

Last year producer Monica Garnsey travelled undercover to Iran to investigate the execution of teenager Atefah Sahaaleh

Thursday July 27, 2006
MediaGuardian.co.uk

.....Day 17 - interview Shadi Sadr, lawyer

Judge Haji Rezai made, from my notes, the following procedural errors in Iranian law:

·He got Atefah's age wrong - she was 16, not 22 as he described her. (This meant that he conveniently sidestepped the freeze in place on executions of those under 18)
· He convicted Atefah for "adultery" though she was not married.
·He failed to give Atefah a chance of a second appeal
· He failed to give the family notice of Atefah's execution date
· He executed Atefah himself though the judge is meant merely to preside, with the killing being done by a separate official.

In Britain, the standard of proof needed for conviction is "beyond reasonable doubt". In sharia law it is "the knowledge of the judge".

Day 18 - Khomenei's tomb

We have now heard from five sources that Judge Haji Rezai was involved in the political purges of 1983. We sit with A as he tells us what happened to his brothers, fairly typical of the leftwing students who were initially swept up in the revolution then witnessed their friends being killed as the Islamists turned on any opposition. Mohammad Hoshi's fiancee, aged 17, was arrested for having a flyer for a political party in her bag. He never saw her again. She was executed in prison.

Judge X famously flew from place to place in a helicopter, issuing mass execution orders. Another one ordered his own son to be executed. S tells us that Haji Rezai was one of 95 judges hand-picked by the Ayatollah Khomenei to preside over the revolutionary courts in Tehran, and to orchestrate the clean-up.

If Judge Haji Rezai is indeed one of these 1983 judges, a lot falls into place. They are seen by many as virtually untouchable. Either because the revolution is grateful to them for its survival, or, more cynically, because they know where the bodies are buried and would bring others down with them.

We go back to J's to continue backing up the rushes. Brain dead, we watch Seinfeld and Friends on his illegal cable.

Day 19 - the embassy

We have seven tapes of interviews, five tapes of locations and countless transcripts of off-the-record recorded interviews.

I feel I have a very clear, if heartbreaking, idea of the chain of events in the last two years of Atefah's life. Though sadly it will be very difficult to substantiate much of what we've been told on one hand, and on the other hand we cannot reveal the identify of many of our sources, I think we can say enough to get the message through loud and clear.

I am very sad that we haven't heard from Atefah's boyfriend. But I don't blame him.

As far as everything else goes, I don't know if things have gone well because of all the careful planning, or if we've been lucky. There are lots of things I'd love to do still but the very strong and sensible message from above is - get back safely and soon, nothing else matters.

But all we have achieved so far is meaningless unless we get the tapes out.

P leaves, a couple of days earlier than me as planned, as the days when we try to get the tapes out are high risk. His girlfriend has apparently lost almost a stone in three weeks from worry about him as it is.

Day 21

The most horrible scramble imaginable. J and I are stuck for four hours at X as we pass on the tapes. The passengers have already had their last call by the time I arrive at departures. I feel sick with nerves but it absolutely must not show in front of the officials. There's another last-minute delay while J and I are questioned closely about our relationship - some official saw us hug the other day as we waved Arash off, he was understandably upset as he doesn't know when he will see him again. It is now 10.45. The plane was meant to leave at 10.15.

But bless British Airways; the plane is either late or, just possibly, waits for me. As I scramble on board, a steward says: "They didn't want to let you go, did they!"

Five tense days later, Paul Hamann breathes a huge sigh of relief as he receives the last of the rushes, which all got through safely.

· Monica Garnsey is the producer/director of Execution of a Teenage Girl, which will be shown at 9pm on Thursday July 27 on BBC2.

Quote:

https://www.cia.gov/csi/studies/vol48no2/article10.html
Intelligence in Recent Public Literature
All the Shah's Men: An American Coup and the Roots of Middle East Terror (U)

By Stephen Kinzer. New York: John Wiley and Sons, 2003. 258 pages.
Reviewed by David S. Robarge

At an NSC meeting in early 1953, President Dwight Eisenhower said "it was a matter of great distress to him that we seemed unable to get some of these down-trodden countries to like us instead of hating us."1 The problem has likewise distressed all administrations since, and is emerging as the core conundrum of American policy in Iraq. In All the Shah's Men, Stephen Kinzer of the New York Times suggests that the explanation may lie next door in Iran, where the CIA carried out its first successful regime-change operation over half a century ago. The target was not an oppressive Soviet puppet but a democratically elected government whose populist ideology and nationalist fervor threatened Western economic and geopolitical interests. The CIA's covert intervention—codenamed TPAJAX—preserved the Shah's power and protected Western control of a hugely lucrative oil infrastructure. It also transformed a turbulent constitutional monarchy into an absolutist kingship and induced a succession of unintended consequences at least as far ahead as the Islamic revolution of 1979—and, Kinzer argues in his breezily written, well-researched popular history, perhaps to today.........

The CIA's immediate target was Mossadeq, whom the Shah had picked to run the government just before the parliament voted to nationalize the AIOC.......

,,,,,,,,, The CIA's immediate target was Mossadeq, whom the Shah had picked to run the government just before the parliament voted to nationalize the AIOC. A royal-blooded eccentric given to melodrama and hypochondria, Mossadeq often wept during speeches, had fits and swoons, and conducted affairs of state from bed wearing wool pajamas. During his visit to the United States in October 1951, Newsweek labeled him the "Fainting Fanatic" but also observed that, although most Westerners at first dismissed him as "feeble, senile, and probably a lunatic," many came to regard him as "an immensely shrewd old man with an iron will and a flair for self-dramatization."7 <h3>Time recognized his impact on world events by naming him its "Man of the Year" in 1951.</h3>

Mossadeq is Kinzer's paladin—in contrast to the schemers he finds in the White House and Whitehall—but the author does subject him to sharp criticism.,,,,,,,,,,

......... Kinzer is at his journalistic best when—drawing on published sources, declassified documents, interviews, and a bootleg copy of a secret Agency history of the operation9—he reconstructs the day-to-day running of TPAJAX. The plan comprised propaganda, provocations, demonstrations, and bribery, and employed agents of influence, "false flag" operatives, dissident military leaders, and paid protestors. The measure of success seemed easy enough to gauge—"[a]ll that really mattered was that Tehran be in turmoil," writes Kinzer. The design, which looked good on paper, failed on its first try, however, and succeeded largely through happenstance and Roosevelt's nimble improvisations. No matter how meticulously scripted a covert action may be, the "fog of war" affects it as readily as military forces on a battlefield. Roosevelt may have known that already—he and his confreres chose as the project's unofficial anthem a song from the musical Guys and Dolls: "Luck Be a Lady Tonight."10

TPAJAX had its surreal and offbeat moments. Kinzer describes Roosevelt calmly lunching at a colleague's house in the embassy compound while "[o]utside, Tehran was in upheaval. Cheers and rhythmic chants echoed through the air, punctuated by the sound of gunfire and exploding mortar shells. Squads of soldiers and police surged past the embassy gate every few minutes. Yet Roosevelt's host and his wife were paragons of discretion, asking not a single question about what was happening." To set the right mood just before Washington's chosen coup leader, a senior army general named Fazlollah Zahedi, spoke to the nation on the radio, US officials decided to broadcast some military music. Someone found an appropriate-looking record in the embassy library and put on the first song; to everyone's embarrassment, it was "The Star-Spangled Banner." A less politically discordant tune was quickly played, and then Zahedi took the microphone to declare himself "the lawful prime minister by the Shah's order." Mossadeq was sentenced to prison and then lifetime internal exile.11

The Shah—who reluctantly signed the decrees removing Mossadeq from office and installing Zahedi, thereby giving the coup a constitutional patina—had fled Iran during the crucial latter days of the operation. When he heard of the successful outcome from his refuge in Rome, he leapt to his feet and cried out, "I knew it! They love me!"12 That serious misreading of his subjects' feeling toward him showed that he was out of touch already. Seated again on the Peacock Throne, the insecure and vain Shah forsook the opportunity to introduce constitutional reforms that had been on the Iranian people's minds for decades. Instead, he became a staunch pro-Western satrap with grandiose pretensions. He forced the country into the 20th century economically and socially but ruled like a pre-modern despot, leaving the mosques as the only outlet for dissent. Although the next 25 years of stability that he imposed brought the United States an intelligence payoff the price was dependence on local liaison for information about internal developments. The intelligence gap steadily widened, and Washington was caught by surprise when the Khomeini-inspired Islamist revolution occurred in February 1979.

That takeover, according to Kinzer, links the 51-year-old coup with recent and current terrorism.

With their devotion to radical Islam and their eagerness to embrace even the most horrific kinds of violence, Iran's revolutionary leaders became heroes to fanatics in many countries. Among those who were inspired by their example were Afghans who founded the Taliban, led it to power in Kabul, and gave Osama bin-Laden the base from which he launched devastating terror attacks. It is not far-fetched to draw a line from Operation Ajax through the Shah's repressive regime and the Islamic Revolution to the fireballs that engulfed the World Trade Center in New York.13

This conclusion, however, requires too many historical jumps, exculpates several presidents who might have pressured the Shah to institute reforms, and overlooks conflicts between the Shia theocracy in Tehran and Sunni extremists in Saudi Arabia, Afghanistan, and elsewhere.

Kinzer would have been better off making a less sweeping judgment: that TPAJAX got the CIA into the regime-change business for good—similar efforts would soon follow in Guatemala, Indonesia, and Cuba—but that the Agency has had little success at that enterprise, while bringing itself and the United States more political ill will, and breeding more untoward results, than any other of its activities.14 Most of the CIA's acknowledged efforts of this sort have shown that Washington has been more interested in strongman rule in the Middle East and elsewhere than in encouraging democracy. The result is a credibility problem that accompanied American troops into Iraq and continues to plague them as the United States prepares to hand over sovereignty to local authorities. All the Shah's Men helps clarify why, when many Iraqis heard President George Bush concede that "[s]ixty years of Western nations excusing and accommodating the lack of freedom in the Middle East did nothing to make us safe,"15 they may have reacted with more than a little skepticism.....

Quote:

http://www.fas.org/irp/world/iran/savak/
Ministry of Security SAVAK

Shah-an-Shah [King of Kings] Mohammad Reza Pahlevi was restored to the Peacock Throne of Iran with the assistance of the Central Intelligence Agency in 1953. CIA mounted a coup against the left-leaning government of Dr. Mohammad Mossadeq, which had planned to nationalize Iran's oil industry. CIA subsequently provided organizational and and training assistance for the establishment of an intelligence organization for the Shah. With training focused on domestic security and interrogation, the primary purpose of the intelligence unit, headed by General Teymur Bakhtiar, was to eliminate threats to Shah.

Formed under the guidance of United States and Israeli intelligence officers in 1957, SAVAK developed into an effective secret agency......

.....SAVAK increasingly to symbolized the Shah's rule from 1963-79, a period of corruption in the royal family, one-party rule, the torture and execution of thousands of political prisoners, suppression of dissent, and alienation of the religious masses. The United States reinforced its position as the Shah's protector and supporter, sowing the seeds of the anti-Americanism that later manifested itself in the revolution against the monarchy.........

.....SAVAK paid Rockwell International to implement a large communications monitoring system called IBEX. The Stanford Technology Corp. [STC, owned by Hakim] had a $5.5 million contract to supply the CIA-promoted IBEX project. STC had another $7.5 million contract with Iran's air force for a telephone monitoring system, operated by SAVAK, to enable the Shah to track his top commanders' communications.

Over the years, SAVAK became a law unto itself, having legal authority to arrest and detain suspected persons indefinitely. SAVAK operated its own prisons in Tehran (the Komiteh and Evin facilities) and, many suspected, throughout the country as well. SAVAK's torture methods included electric shock, whipping, beating, inserting brokon glass and pouring boiling water into the rectum, tying weights to the testicles, and the extraction of teeth and nails. Many of these activities were carried out without any institutional checks.

At the peak its influence under the Shah SAVAK had at least 13 full-time case officers running a network of informers and infiltration covering 30,000 Iranian students on United States college campuses. The head of the SAVAK agents in the United States operated under the cover of an attache at the Iranian Mission to the United Nations, with the FBI, CIA, and State Department fully aware of these activities.

In 1978 the deepening opposition to the Shah errupted in widespread demonstrations and rioting. SAVAK and the military responded with widespread repression that killed thousands of people. Recognizing that even this level of violence had failed to crush the rebellion, the Shah abdicated the Peacock Throne and departed Iran on 16 January 1979. Despite decades of pervasive surveillance by SAVAK, working closely with CIA, the extent of public opposition to the Shah, and his sudden departure, came as a considerable suprise to the US intelligence community and national leadership. As late as September 28, 1978 the US Defense Intelligence Agency reported that the shah "is expected to remain actively in power over the next ten years." ......

08-17-2006, 10:29 AM	#7 (permalink)
Seaver Junkie Location: Fort Worth, TX	While I agreed Israel has the right to defend herself, the war indeed has only helped her enemies. However, if the demiliterized zone allows enough room that the Ketusha (sp?) rockets no longer rain down on her major cities.. both countries can really claim victory. __________________ "Smite the rocks with the rod of knowledge, and fountains of unstinted wealth will gush forth." - Ashbel Smith as he laid the first cornerstone of the University of Texas

08-17-2006, 07:43 PM	#10 (permalink)
dlish Currently sour but formerly Dlishs Super Moderator Location: Australia/UAE	isnt it how every politician gets voted into power and then stays in power... the promise of building infrastructure, schools, roads, health system etc etc etc..and then do something about it..actually fulfill those promises? i think hezbollah are fulfilling their promises to their masses and seem to be more truthful than the politicians in western nations when it comes to fullfilling these promises... is that such a bad bad thing? __________________ An injustice anywhere, is an injustice everywhere I always sign my facebook comments with ()()===========(}. Does that make me gay? - Filthy

08-28-2006, 11:15 PM	#20 (permalink)
Ustwo Pissing in the cornflakes	Here is the mindset so many of you support... Enjoy, you earned it. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tHqnS...om%2Fweblog%2F __________________ Agents of the enemies who hold office in our own government, who attempt to eliminate our "freedoms" and our "right to know" are posting among us, I fear.....on this very forum. - host Obama - Know a Man by the friends he keeps.

08-17-2006, 02:16 AM	#3 (permalink)
Mephisto2 Junkie	So host, are you agreeing with my hypothesis that the "war" has in fact backfired on Israel and the US led West? That the final result is actually the opposite of what was desired? In other words, rather than destroying Hezbollah, this has indeed only made them stronger? I'm not sure if you are saying you agree or disagree... For the record, I'd like to see them disarmed and emasculated. And don't even get me started on Hamas or the Iranian regime. Mr Mephisto

08-17-2006, 09:16 AM	#5 (permalink)
filtherton Junkie Location: In the land of ice and snow.	Maybe we could gget hezbollah to help us rebuild iraq...

08-17-2006, 01:16 PM	#8 (permalink)
absorbentishe Boy am I horny today Location: T O L E D O, Toledo!!	Israel was in a no win situation. They couldn't talk with the "terrorists", and had to defend against "terrorism". What they did was start a war, hoping all of the west would back them, esp. the US. Of course it worked, but it also backfired. Now that the "terrorists" have stood up against the aggressor, and are now the heros in rebuilding (all financed through Iran's oil money and we know where the oil money comes from), Israel really looks stupid. At least we didn't get involved in the peace keeping!

08-18-2006, 07:42 PM	#13 (permalink)
Mephisto2 Junkie	The difference between Hamas and Hezbollah are quite large. Hamas holds as one of its core tenets the destruction of Israel. As such, despite all the good they do for local Palestinians, I hold them in contempt. Hexbollah exists for the "liberation of Lebanon" alone, and claim they will lay down their arms once all Lebanese territory is restored. Both exercise terrorist actions, but one holds terrorist goals as a core value. Mr Mephisto

08-19-2006, 07:00 PM	#18 (permalink)
streak_56 who ever said streaking was a bad thing? Location: Calgary	So how about we fight hate or "terrorism" with even more hate or "terrorism." Seems like a win-win strategy to me.