Shah of Iran speaks the TRUTH on Zionism

[iOWNme]

Found this gem while researching. Listen to the Shah's answers to questions about the US and Israel.

This video is incredibly important.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jXeK69NEwco&feature=related

[iOWNme]

Found another great video. There are many key statements here. Please watch and listen.


http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XrCK6CD1dKM&feature=related

[MAGNES]

That's the stooge that was the useful idiot of those same Jews he fingers.

The Rothchilds and Rockefellers put him in power.

This is old but still good.

People were smarter in the past, stupidity reached it's max just before 9/11,
since then people are waking up. The older generations knew who the Jews
were far better than we did, there was more free speech, real history wasn't
banned, the Church was still leader, educated people knew their history.

Just like the money power and the Wizard of OZ, same thing, people
knew back then, same power, there was whole movements and even
parties, anti Masonic, anti " international " Bankster, all the anti FED Bank
Presidents and their followers knew who the Jews were, monopolists,
controllers, deceivers.

[mrnhtbr2232]

That's the stooge that was the useful idiot of those same Jews he fingers. The Rothchilds and Rockefellers put him in power.

And it's not even a complicated story. The British wanted Iranian oil for supply line dominance to fight Germany and keep stirring things up. The Shah's father was sympathetic to the Germans so the British and the Russians invaded Iran in force, neutralized his father's reign, and put the Shah in his place as the new ruler. Over the years he was a major intelligence asset for the Americans, British, and Israelis through SAVAK and cartel arrangements with the Rockefellers. It's all out there if you poke around. Shah of Iran = Jewish puppet.

[osoab]

Decent article with the overview of the Shah's placement. Not complete though.

http://www.fff.org/comment/com0501i.asp


An Anti-Democracy Foreign Policy: Iran
by Jacob G. Hornberger (http://www.fff.org/aboutUs/bios/jgh.asp), January 31, 2005
When Iranians took U.S. officials hostage in the U.S. embassy in Tehran in 1979, Americans were mystified and angry, not being able to comprehend how Iranians could be so hateful toward U.S. officials, especially since the U.S. government had been so supportive of the shah of Iran for some 25 years. What the American people failed to realize is that the deep anger and hatred that the Iranian people had in 1979 against the U.S. government was rooted in a horrible, anti-democratic act that the U.S. government committed in 1953. That was the year the CIA secretly and surreptitiously ousted the democratically elected prime minister of Iran, a man named Mohammad Mossadegh, from power, followed by the U.S. government’s ardent support of the shah of Iran’s dictatorship for the next 25 years.
Today, very few Americans have ever heard of Mohammad Mossadegh, but that wasn’t the case in 1953. At that time, Mossadegh was one of the most famous figures (http://www.payvand.com/news/03/aug/1106.html) in the world. Here’s the way veteran New York Times correspondent Stephen Kinzer decribes him in his book All the Shah’s Men (http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/tg/detail/-/0471678783/qid=1106758861/sr=8-1/ref=sr_8_xs_ap_i1_xgl14/102-8505170-3755335?v=glance&s=books&n=507846):
In his time, Mohammad Mossadegh was a titanic figure. He shook an empire and changed the world. People everywhere knew his name. World leaders sought to influence him and later to depose him. No one was surprised when Time magazine chose him over Harry Truman, Dwight Eisenhower, and Winston Churchill as its Man of the Year for 1951. (Kinzer’s book, published in 2003, is an excellent account of the CIA coup; much of this article is based on his book.)
There were two major problems with Mossadegh, however, as far as both the British and American governments were concerned. First, as an ardent nationalist he was a driving force behind an Iranian attempt to nationalize the Anglo-Iranian Oil Company, a British company that had held a monopoly on the production and sale of Iranian oil since the early part of the 20th century. Second, fiercely independent, Mossadegh refused to do the bidding of the U.S. government, which by this time had become fearful that Mossadegh might align Iran with America’s World War II ally and post–World War II enemy, the Soviet Union.
As Kinzer puts it,
Historic as Mossadegh’s rise to power was for Iranians, it was at least as stunning for the British. They were used to manipulating Iranian prime ministers like chess pieces, and now, suddenly, they faced one who seemed to hate them.... [U.S. presidential envoy Averell] Harriman paid a call on the Shah before leaving Tehran, and during their meeting he made a discreet suggestion. Since Mossadegh was making it impossible to resolve the [Anglo-American Oil Company] crisis on a basis acceptable to the West, he said, Mossadegh might have to be removed. Harriman knew the Shah had no way of removing Mossadegh at that moment. By bringing up the subject, however, he foreshadowed American involvement in the coup two years later.
The 1953 CIA coup in Iran was named “Operation Ajax” and was engineered by a CIA agent named Kermit Roosevelt, the grandson of President Theodore Roosevelt. Capitalizing on the oil-nationalization showdown between Iran and Great Britain, which had thrown Iran into chaos and crisis, Kermit Roosevelt skillfully used a combination of bribery of Iranian military officials and CIA-engendered street protests to pull off the coup.
The first stage of the coup, however, was unsuccessful, and the shah, who had partnered with the CIA to oust Mossadegh from office, fled Tehran in fear of his life. However, in the second stage of the coup a few days later, the CIA achieved its goal, enabling the shah to return to Iran in triumph ... and with a subsequent 25-year, U.S.-supported dictatorship, which included one of the world’s most terrifying and torturous secret police, the Savak.
For years, the U.S. government, including the CIA, kept what it had done in Iran secret from the American people and the world, although the Iranian people long suspected CIA involvement. U.S. officials, not surprisingly, considered the operation one of their greatest foreign-policy successes ... until, that is, the enormous convulsion that rocked Iranian society with the violent ouster of the shah and the installation of a virulently anti-American Islamic regime in 1979.
It is impossible to overstate the magnitude of anger and hatred that the Iranian people had for the U.S. government in 1979, not only because their world-famous democratically elected prime minister had been ousted by the CIA but also for having had to live for the following 25 years under a brutal and torturous dictatorship, a U.S.-government-supported dictatorship that also offended many Iranians with its policies of Westernization. In fact, the reason that the Iranian students took control of the U.S. embassy after the violent ouster of the shah in 1979 was their genuine fear that the U.S. government would repeat what it had done in 1953.
Imagine, for example, that it turned out that a foreign regime had secretly and surreptitiously ousted President Kennedy from office because of his refusal to do the bidding of that foreign regime. What would have been the response of the American people toward that government?
Indeed, imagine that the CIA had ousted Kennedy to protect our “national security,” given what some in the CIA believed to be Kennedy’s “soft-on-communism” mind-set, evidenced, for example, by his refusal to provide air support at the Bay of Pigs, which resulted in the CIA’s failure to oust communist Fidel Castro from power in Cuba. What would have been the response of the American people to that?
At the time of the CIA coup, Iran was in fact in crisis and chaos. But democracy is oftentimes messy and unpredictable, and it no more guarantees freedom and economic stability than authoritarianism or totalitarianism does. (Think about the crisis and economic instability during America’s Great Depression along with Franklin Roosevelt’s New Deal policies.) All democracy does is provide people with the means to bring about a peaceful transition of power. By violently injecting itself into Iran’s democratic process through its removal of their democratically elected prime minister, the U.S. government guaranteed the omnipotent dictatorship of the (unelected) shah, a dictatorship that would continue for the next 25 years, with the full support of the U.S. government. It was a convulsive event whose consequences continue to shake America and the world today.
As historian James Bill stated (quoted in Kinzer’s book),
[The coup] paved the way for the incubation of extremism, both of the left and of the right. This extremism became unalterably anti-American.... The fall of Mossadegh marked the end of a century of friendship between the two countries, and began a new era of U.S. intervention and growing hostility against the United States among the weakened forces of Iranian nationalism. Kinzer writes,
The coup brought the United States and the West a reliable Iran for twenty-five years. That was an undoubted triumph. But in view of what came later, and of the culture of covert action that seized hold of the American body politic in the coup’s wake, the triumph seems much tarnished. From the seething streets of Tehran and other Islamic capitals to the scenes of terror attacks around the world, Operation Ajax has left a haunting and terrible legacy.
Mohammad Mossadegh died in 1967 at the age of 82, having been under house arrest in his hometown of Ahmad Abad since the time of the 1953 CIA coup that ousted him from power. The shah of Iran, who would remain in power until the Iranian Revolution of 1979, would not permit any public funeral or other expression of mourning for Mossadegh.
In a speech (http://www.gasandoil.com/goc/speeches/albright-17-03-00.htm) delivered in March 2000 by Madeleine Albright (then secretary of state ), the U.S. government finally acknowledged what it had done to the Iranian people and to democracy in Iraq:
In 1953, the United States played a significant role in orchestrating the overthrow of Iran’s popular prime minister, Mohammed Mossadegh. The Eisenhower administration believed its actions were justified for strategic reasons, but the coup was clearly a setback for Iran’s political development and it is easy to see now why many Iranians continue to resent this intervention by America in their internal affairs. Moreover, during the next quarter century, the United States and the West gave sustained backing to the Shah’s regime. Although it did much to develop the country economically, the Shah’s government also brutally repressed political dissent. As President Clinton has said, the United States must bear its fair share of responsibility for the problems that have arisen in U.S.-Iranian relations. Not surprisingly, Albright’s “apology” fell on many deaf ears in Iran. While Iranians certainly have not forgotten the U.S. government’s support of Saddam Hussein and Iraq during the Iran-Iraq War (http://www.hartford-hwp.com/archives/51/220.html) during the 1980s, including its furnishing Saddam with weapons of mass destruction (http://www.fff.org/comment/com0304p.asp) to use against the Iranian people, the root of Iranian anger lies with the anti-democracy foreign policy of the U.S. government, by which U.S. officials ousted the Iranian people’s democratically elected prime minister, Mohammed Mossadegh, from office in 1953.

[iOWNme]

Good post MAGNES.

I just found it very odd for him to speak so openly about how they control everything. I wouldnt have pictured that, especially back then.

[hoarder]

Sometimes useful idiots become less idiotic and thus less useful. That's when we have to send troops in.

[mamboni]

My neighbor was one of the Shah's personal bodyguards up until the time he was deposed. He witnessed meetings with US diplomats and presidents Carter and Bush I. He spoke highly of the Shah and told me a wealth of information. The Shah walked a razor's edge between appeasing the masters who installed him on the one hand, and inexorably pushing for the national interests of the Iranian nation vis-avis disposition of it's oil wealth and the role of OPEC. He was an advocate for westernization and spent enormous sums building modernized schools to create the next generation of Iranians to compete on the world stage. The west did not care for the Shah's actions and elected to encourage the Islamic revolution, cutting it's proverbial nose despite it's face in the bargain.

The Iranians are a great and noble people with a long fabled history. They are the only nation that stood up to and enjoyed equal footing with the mighty Roman Empire, even during the latter's height of power. Iran's history of non-aggression spans millenia. America, the world's latter day Rome, cannot make the same claim, not by a long shot. Our history of unprovoked aggression, incitements of revolution, coups and regime change, and general malevolent meddling in the affairs of other nations is long and tortured.

[Twisted Titan]

I love the way how wallace suggest that truth is EXACTLY the opposite of what it is.

The same formula could be played out today.

Nothing has changed except that inbred sociopaths have even more controll

[MAGNES]

The 1953 CIA coup in Iran was named “Operation Ajax”

This is rich, I don't see Woodhouse's name in that article I skimmed. LOL

This is Woodhouse all the way.

This is a British operation, Rothchild and British Petroleum, they were
even stealing the oil from Iran without even paying for it or paying
pennies. They don't want any leaders to interfere with their operations,
like their other project Israel, this was easy for them to do considering
the butchery of their other projects like the USSR, Turkey, carving up
all of the Middle East into new countries. They created Iraq too and built
pipelines to Israel, BP and UK, Saddam their other useful idiot closed it.
They setup the whole region for conflict, today it is Libya.

Mamboni is wrong about Persian history even though I agree with the
points he is trying to make for the most part, they never stopped attacking
Western cities, Western people, they totally destroyed cities, libraries,
even as Rome fell to the Barbarians, the Persians were doing the same
to the east, the only thing that stopped the Persians permanently was the Arab Muslims,
who attacked everyone and subjugated them all. The city citizen militias
were no match for Persian attacks. By the time help came it was too late.
One of the last great battles, the Persians showed up like locusts attacking
and destroying, taking advantage of other conflict, one of the greatest
Byzantine generals had to watch cities being destroyed in the distance
so he can wait to deliver the final blow, and he did successfully, always
outnumbered. I will give you the exact dates and names if you want,
and this was happening well into the high middle ages. Those same Imperial
forces were defending Romans in other areas West.

This is why you have the operation named " Operation Ajax ".
It's payback time, I guarantee you Woodhouse was reading
pages of the Iliad every night before bed, lol . " Operation Ajax "
translates to, the translation is literal, lol, " the raiders are coming, giants,
and you can't do anything about it, we are going to smash you like a bug. "
And they did. Total piracy.

Who is Woodhouse ?

One of the foremost historians and head of all operations.

http://www.independent.co.uk/news/obituaries/c-m-woodhouse-728842.html

" After the war, he served in the Foreign Office [ LOL 1 ] and elsewhere [ LOL 2 ] before in 1955 being appointed Director-General of the Royal Institute of International Affairs [ LOL 3 ](Chatham House). "

You can't make this shit up. During and after the war he worked for Rothchild/BP/Israel. Period. Woodhouse should of read Smedley Butler or followed a greater historian who was also in SOE, his partner in war, Hammond. What would Woodhouse think today ?

[gunDriller]

when i lived in San Diego i went to a party at a neighbor's house. it turned out to be the local Hare Krishna house. good vegetarian food.

one of the leaders of the group - Caucasian - lived in Iran as a child. his father worked for the US gov.

he didn't have much to say about the Shah or politics but his description of "life in Tehran" was interesting.

he said the sheep farmers would bring their flocks to a street corner in downtown, then slaughter them then & there. sell the meat. then the wild dogs would move in to feast on the remains. sounded barbaric but efficient.