Sohel Ajani
It all started in 1979, when Ayatollah Khomeini returned from Paris to Tehran after the exile of US backed Reza Shah and declared Iran as Islamic Republic after the huge public referendum. The then puppet ruler of Iran, Reza Shah, was an open puppet of US and has allowed the US embassy to perform without any restrictions in the nation. After the exile of Shah, revolutionary youths of the country invaded the US embassy, also known as ‘Den of Spies‘.

The tense ties between the Islamic Republic and The US are still bitter and constantly kept world on toes. After the Islamic Revolution in Iran, the US & its allies are constantly trying to topple the Iranian regime through any means. Initially they exerted the physical pressure in the form of attach from Saddam Hussein Regime from Iraq. They support the evil regime of Saddam Hussein openly and provided it with sophisticated weapons to harm the newly formed independent republic.

Eight years war crumpled the Iranian economy where debts were on rise and falling value of currency. With all this, the economic sanction imposed by the US government played spoil sport for the already crunching economy. However, the nation resisted and shown its real strength behind its leader, Ayatollah Khomeini.

Soon after the end of 8 years Iran — Iraq war; in 1989 nation lost its founder strong man, Ayatollah Khomeini. This served as major setback to the Iranian nation and the west started believing that the end of regime is close. These calamities turned as blessings for the striving nation in the form of leader Ayatollah Khamenei.

Iranian Revolution 1979 Fall of a Shah 1 of 10 — BBC Documentary

[ Part 2 ] [ Part 3 ] [ Part 4 ] [ Part 5 ] [ Part 6 ] [ Part 7 ] [ Part 8 ] [ Part 9 ] [ Part 10 ]

From 1989 onwards, Iranian nation has not seen backwards under the guidance of leader Khamenei. Following reports shows the growth of Iranian nation:

Iran showing fastest scientific growth of any country: Canadian report

Iran ranks first in scientific growth

The stunned West is constantly trying to downgrade the development cycle of Islamic Republic through economic sanctions, media war, spreading Iranophobia, etc. However it seems the psychological warfare is giving no positive results to west.

In recent developments, Israel is constantly warning Iran about its peaceful nuclear activities which Tehran says are meant for generating electricity and treatment of cancer patients; however Israel and West claims that it’s intended towards generation of nuclear war heads.

The latest report from IAEA (Nuclear watchdog of UN) says that there is something fishy going on in Iran in regards to nuclear development. Iran slammed this report saying its influenced by west. However, following this report, west has imposed another round of sanctions followed by other European and Asian countries like Japan.

This is one side of the scenario, however the conditions on the side of Iran is very happening. The Arab uprisings in Middle East have toppled many of the western puppet regimes like Tunisia, Egypt & Libya. And some other puppet regimes are still trying to control the uprisings in their countries; such as Bahrain & Yemen. In such scenario, other Arab monarchies can’t go directly in favor of west inviting the public uproar.

With all this, the ongoing financial crisis in Europe is acting like a trend breaker in the Western policy. The “Occupy Movement” in the US, which is actually a people’s movement, is unexpected by anyone and is a major shock for the US administration. We have seen it in the recent media pictures & videos, how the police and state are trying to control the ongoing high profile people’s uprising in western countries.

This is not the end. The actual dent in US & European economy is very visible. The natural awareness spread through the tools which the west has developed has made people much aware about the actual crises at the core of Capitalist system. Today, everyone knows the intentions of US & UK behind the attack of Iraq & Libya. This has also hampered the position of west and turned the sentiments of common people away from them.

Israel, the western puppet in the region, is constantly raising the voice over attack on Iran with the help of US. However, after the capture of drone in eastern Iranian province, Israel has to change its stand. Now we can see this kind of news in media:

Israel says Iran attack not imminent

Not to miss, the capture of drone by Iranian military holds a major importance in this psychological warfare. Till today, US drone technology considered as very sophisticated & holds very important position in the military field. Iranians not only captured the drone unaffected but also proved their superiority by capturing the most sophisticated US weapon till now. Best thing in this operation was the use of electronic waves to make the drone land.

President Obama asked the Iranians to return the captured drone and that also without any apology; this has created uproar in the social media where the Iranian supporters utilized this opportunity to make fun of the US administration.

West also knows that the war with Iran is not a war with any arrogant regime or war with a dictator like Saddam or Gaddafi, however, it’s a war of Ideology. The US can kill people, invade country and install the puppet regime, however they can’t replace the powerful stronger with the weaker one.

The US & the West is trying its level best to shake the foundations of Islamic Republic by economic sanctions, psychological pressure of attack from Israel, installing missile shield in Turkey, by removing Iranian supporters like regime of Assad from Syria, attacking Hamas & Hezbollah, etc. However Iranians are replying by their simple actions.

They can change the puppet regime, however changing the concept and deep rooted ideology of martyrdom & sacrifice is not possible for west.

History of U.S. Intervention in Iran — 1953 Until Present

   By: Robert Parry
After Israel’s lethal attack in international waters on a civilian flotilla carrying relief supplies to Gaza, a troubling question arises: Have Israeli authorities, who possess a major nuclear arsenal, become dangerously erratic? Combined with other recent incidents, like Israel’s Jan. 20 assassination of Hamas leader Mahmoud Al-Mabhouh in a Dubai hotel room and its open threats about bombing Iran, Israel might be diagnosed as suffering from a violent form of paranoia if it were a patient in a psychiatric ward rather than a nuclear-armed state.

This question can’t be posed publicly in the American mainstream news media nor in U.S. political circles, where fear of the pro-Israel lobby remains strong. But it is a concern that is being discussed quietly by foreign policy analysts around the world.

Even as America’s commentariat again generates the predictable excuses for Israeli latest actions, the political reality inside Israel is one that is shifting more and more toward a society dominated by Jewish fundamentalists, including an aggressive and racist settler bloc.

The ultra-Orthodox Shas Party is now in the Likud ruling coalition and holds important Cabinet posts such as housing. Shas leaders have made it clear that they favor a country segregated not just between Arab and Jew but between secular and ultra-Orthodox Jews.

If these fundamentalist elements continue to consolidate their political power, the world could soon be facing an isolated and paranoid religious state with some 200 to 400 nuclear warheads along with a sophisticated collection of chemical and biological weapons.

One Israeli émigré, who spent his young adulthood working for the Israeli government, told me that he fears Israel is becoming like North Korea, except qualitatively more dangerous because Israel has an advanced nuclear arsenal and sits in a more strategic part of the world.

The current government of Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu also appears excessively confident that Israel’s sophisticated propaganda network and its American neoconservative allies can overwhelm any criticism of Israeli actions in Washington and ensure eventual U.S. backing for a military strike on Iran.

Netanyahu has been dismissive toward President Barack Obama’s peace initiatives, particularly Obama’s demand that Israel stop building Jewish housing in traditionally Arab areas.

Ignoring those wishes, Netanyahu’s Shas Party allies announced new Jewish construction in Arab East Jerusalem last March as Vice President Joe Biden arrived to reaffirm U.S. solidarity with Israel.

Though Obama let his annoyance be known, Netanyahu followed up by announcing that the Jewish housing construction would go forward.

‘Kiss-and-Make-Up’

Faced with this Israeli intransigence, Obama quieted his criticism. He was reportedly looking forward to a “kiss-and-make-up” session with Netanyahu on Tuesday before Israel’s lethal assault on the “Freedom Flotilla” caused Netanyahu to cancel the meeting and rush back to Israel.

Obama also has fallen in line behind Israeli insistence that a confrontation over Iran’s nuclear program be put at the top of the international agenda and that a new Iranian offer to ship about half its low-enriched uranium out of the country be rejected.

The President had privately urged the leaders of Brazil and Turkey to draw Iran into that agreement, which they did two weeks ago. But Israel and American neocons denounced and ridiculed the deal, demanding instead stiffer sanctions and stepped-up efforts for “regime change” in Iran.

Instead of admitting that he had backed the Iran-Brazil-Turkey deal, Obama stayed silent, as he has in the wake of Israel’s middle-of-the-night commando raid on the flotilla, which left nine peace activists dead early Monday.

In a P.R. blitz on Tuesday, Israeli officials made a point of showing off knives and other hand-made weapons that some of the activists allegedly used to defend the Turkish ship, the Mavi Marmara, when the Israeli commandos landed by ropes from helicopters.

According to Israeli accounts, the resistance from the people onboard led the commandos to open fire. The Israeli government and many U.S. commentators blamed the ship’s resistance for the violence.

However, it would not be unusual ? and certainly not illegal ? for a ship’s crew and passengers in international waters to defend themselves from an armed assault, especially one launched in the dark of night. If the attackers were Somalis instead of Israelis, the ship’s defenders would be hailed as heroes.

In an e-mail to me, Marquette Professor of Moral Theology Daniel C. Maguire cited one important distinction between “Somali piracy and Israeli piracy ? Israel kills during its piracy and then claims it does so in self-defense. That is [a] first in the history of piracy.

“Traditionally, pirates have been outlaws and admit it. It is very much like a rapist saying: ‘The victim I was raping resisted and so I killed her in self-defense.’ A defense like that would make even a mob lawyer blush.”

Act of War

Craig Murray, a former British ambassador and Foreign Office specialist on maritime law, said the Israeli commando raid was a violation of international law and the Law of the Sea, since the ship under a Turkish flag was in international waters.

If “the Israeli commandoes were acting on behalf of the government of Israel in killing the activists in international waters, the applicable law is that of the flag state of the ship on which the incident occurred,” in this case Turkey.

“In legal terms, the Turkish ship was Turkish territory. So,” Murray continued, “Israel is in a position of war with Turkey, and the attack by Israeli commandos falls under international jurisdiction as a war crime.”

However, not surprisingly, the Israeli P.R. response to the intense international criticism worked wonders in winning over the U.S. news media.

After playing video of the Israeli assault and the efforts of some passengers to resist the attackers, MSNBC’s Chris Matthews came down decisively on the Israeli side, calling criticism of the lethal attack “an unfair shot at Israel.”

Matthews added that he agreed with the pro-Israeli position taken by the Washington Post’s neoconservative editorial page, which faulted Israel for the sloppiness of its attack while siding with its purpose.

“We have no sympathy for the motives of the participants in the flotilla — a motley collection that included European sympathizers with the Palestinian cause, Israeli Arab leaders and Turkish Islamic activists,” the Post wrote on Tuesday.

“Israel says that some of the organizers have ties to Hamas and al-Qaeda. What’s plain is that the group’s nominal purpose, delivering “humanitarian” supplies to Gaza, was secondary to the aim of provoking a confrontation.”

New York Times columnist Thomas L. Friedman weighed in Wednesday with an op-ed that downplayed the human tragedy in Gaza where some 1,400 Palestinians died in an Israeli month-long offensive at the end of 2008 and the start of 2009 and where a blockade has continued for three years.

“That concern for Gaza and Israel’s blockade is so out [of] balance with … other horrific cases in the region that it is not surprising Israelis dismiss it as motivated by hatred — not the advice of friends,” Friedman wrote.

So, in the view of the mainstream U.S. news media, Israel is justified in maintaining a fierce embargo on the 1.5 million people crowded into the tiny Gaza Strip and any “motley collection” of activists that tries to run the blockade is at fault for whatever happens.

Plus, it seems, when Israel launches an attack on a ship in international waters, the people onboard must accept whatever treatment they receive at Israeli hands. They must not fight back.

By contrast, one can only imagine how the U.S. press corps would rise up in collective fury if, say, Iran sent its commandos into international waters to attack and seize vessels that were on a humanitarian mission.

Lost Objectivity

What’s striking in all this is how far the U.S. news media has veered away from its supposed commitment to objectivity, even as it pretends to continue abiding by that journalistic principle.

The U.S. media also would drip with sarcasm over some of the post-facto rationales used to justify the attack, if the attacking nation wasn’t Israel.

For instance, there’s the Israeli accusation that the cargo on the ships wasn’t packed properly.

Shuki Sagis, chief executive of the Israel port at Ashdod, complained to the Jerusalem Post that the supplies ? including scooters for the handicapped, wheelchairs, stretchers, hospital beds, boxes of medicine, food products and toys ? weren’t neatly stacked.

“The cargo ships were loaded haphazardly, with all of the equipment mixed up in the large holds,” Sagis said. “Ships loaded in this way would not be accepted in any port. We are loading the equipment on the trucks far more carefully than it was loaded on to the ships.”

Other Israeli officials claimed that the humanitarian supplies on the ships were not items that were needed by the Gazans.

“I can say with great assurance,” said Colonel Moshe Levi, “that none of the equipment on board is needed in Gaza. The equipment that we found is all equipment that we have regularly allowed into the Strip over the past year.”

Levi said that fact “proves beyond a shadow of a doubt that the whole premise of the voyage was for propaganda and provocation and not for humanitarian purposes.”

However, the Israelis did concede that their searches of the vessels turned up no weapons being smuggled into Gaza. The only “contraband” was construction equipment, including sacks of concrete and metal rods, Levi said.

Levi explained that Israel won’t let construction equipment in to rebuild Gaza, which was devastated by a month-long Israeli offensive that ended in January 2009, because the material might be used to build fortifications for “terrorists.”

The notion that bombed-out Gazans must be made to survive in makeshift shanties so some future Israeli assault won’t be complicated by the existence of buildings that might be used by Gaza’s defenders could be regarded in a different context as evidence of grotesque inhumanity.

That is, if the perpetrators were some nation or group that the U.S. media didn’t like.

The Israeli Navy also claimed that it had learned an important lesson from its assault on the Freedom Flotilla.

A top Navy commander told The Jerusalem Post that the next time, Israel will use much more military force to stop the ships.

“We boarded the ship and were attacked as if it was a war,” said the officer, who wasn’t identified by name. “That will mean that we will have to come prepared in the future as if it was a war.”

Combined with other recent incidents, like Israel’s Jan. 20 assassination of Hamas leader Mahmoud Al-Mabhouh in a Dubai hotel room and its open threats about bombing Iran, Israel might be diagnosed as suffering from a violent form of paranoia if it were a patient in a psychiatric ward rather than a nuclear-armed state.

Yet, instead of addressing this growing threat to world peace — that is, Israel’s increasingly erratic behavior and deepening religious fervor — the U.S. news media continues to give this favored country a free pass.

—————————————————————————–
Reference: Was Helen Thomas Right?
—————————————————————————–

Helen Thomas Resigned After Saying This:

One View: Helen Thomas Was Right — While I can’t say I loathe this Administration (I make the distinction that one panders just to get along with everyone while the other was essentially heartless and selfish), I will agree that if the pundits held everyone who made such comments to the same standard that they held Thomas, Fox News would have been gone years ago. By [ Pryme ]

Another View: Why Israel Has No “Right to Exist” as a Jewish State — By OREN BEN-DOR

————————————————————————————————————————————————

————————————————————————————————————————————————

 Columnist – John Sammon
‘I don’t mean that has to reduce your ferocity, I just mean to say you have to be respectful.’

That’s what John McCain told a supporter at a rally in Minnesota where right wing nuts were calling for Obama’s head on a platter.

Lakeville Minnesota has always been a center of higher learning. The late Johnny Carson did his character Floyd R. Turbo, the ignorant racist duck hunter whose political views were to the right of Genghis Kahn, based on some of the people of Lakeville.

This was a high point of the entire election campaign.

Respectful ferocity?

A supporter, a woman, said Obama is an ‘Arab.’

To his credit, McCain disagreed that Obama is an Arab.

Here is a partial list of epithets Obama was called at the rally. Pervert, socialist, communist, asshole, frekazoid, mother..fuc.’er, traitor, dip-shit, jungle bunny, communist queer coon, Obie the monkey, darkee, and Senator Jerk Off.

Here’s how McCain responds to each one.

‘You can call him a pervert, but we should respect differences in sexual orientation.’

‘You can call him a socialist, but I think he’s a decent sort of fellow. For a black man.’

‘You can call him an asshole, but I don’t think you should do it when I’m around.’

‘Let’s hang him!’ Members of the crowd chant. ‘Lynch the communist nigger!’

McCain calls for calm. ‘You don’t have to lessen the intensity of your feelings. But I don’t think we should hang him.’
‘He’s a member of a mud race,’ another supporter calls.

‘Please,’ McCain chides. ‘How can a person be made of mud? Now, I know you all are patriots, but let’s channel our energy in a more positive light.’

The crowd boos McCain.

‘Wait a minute!’ McCain calls. ‘I just think that words like darkee, and communist, and Arab and traitor, and Senator Jerk Off, while there may be some validity to them. Well, I think some of them may be counter-productive. That’s all.’
The crowd hisses.

A woman screams, ‘that no-good sonofabitch (Obama) wants to teach my three-year-old daughter sex education.’

‘You see! You see!’ McCain happily calls. ‘There we go. We should focus on the issues like that rather than on personality things. I mean, calling Obama a jungle bunny. I know that your anger is there because you disagree with Mister Obama and his policies that he has proposed. I know that you feel let down by things that are happening. But we need to get our message out in a way that resonates with voters. I wouldn’t call Mister Obama a jungle bunny. I would refer to him as a LIBERAL NEGRO.’

Copyright 2008 Sammonsays.

G8 leaders enjoy 18-course meal as they discuss “how to solve the global food crisis.”

The leaders of the richest nations of the world sat down to an 18-course gastronomic extravaganza at the G8 summit in Japan to discuss world hunger.

   [Enlarge Image]

The dinner and lunch included:

1. Caviar,
2. Milkfed lamb,
3. Sea urchin and tuna,
4. Champagne and wines flown in from Europe and the U.S.
5…..and a lot more

The extravagance of the menus drew disapproval from critics who thought it hypocritical to produce such a lavish meal when world food supplies are under threat, and some parts of Africa are so war ravaged that famine is killing thousands of Human Beings daily:

Bush and company would rather lie themselves into fighting the “Oil Wars,” to promote “Peace” and “Democracy,” while conveniently forgetting that the real “humanitarian” war should be fought in places like Darfur, in the Sudan — where Arab tribes have been slaughtering black Africans mercilessly, with the help of the Arab dominated Sudanese government.

The G8 summit is a colossal waste of time.

It is nothing but an expensive “Country-Club” meeting place of “Golfing-Buddies,” where they discuss who to fleece next or who to “bomb” next or who to “sanction” next.

The “aid” that the G8 group provides Africa, for instance, is largely wasted by the numerous NGO’s “accompanying” the aid — the NGO officials live “rich” in Africa, waste resources and in many cases have been known to share the “loot” with corrupt African leaders.

Don’t get me wrong — there a many credible charities doing great work in Africa.

If it’s not these NGO’s, then it’s the World Bank or the IMF — imperialist tools which have been used for many years to “control” corrupt African governments. Add these two organizations to badly managed African governments and you have the potent-mix that has crippled many economies in Africa.

Helen Caldicott states in her book titled — “If You Love This Planet:”

Africa needs to wake up and “feed itself” — these frequent G8 “photo-ops” and grand “gastronomic extravaganzas” have never been in Africa’s best interests!.

 Columnist – John Sammon
You know what bothers me, apart from the ethics, who’s right and who’s wrong? (America is always right, right or wrong).

America only attacks small, poor countries. Look at the list of our opponents over the past thirty years or so, Vietnam, Granada, Iraq, Afghanistan, The Balkans, Lebanon, and Cuba (oops, we didn’t attack Cuba, we almost did).

Always in the name of freedom.

It makes me yearn for World War Two, the good war, where we fought competent powerful enemies worthy of the name. Now, I know because we’re America we’re always right no matter what. I know we have right on our side in every case. That we’re infallible, incapable of error.

But do we always have to fight countries much smaller than ourselves?

This will get me labeled as unpatriotic, and not one of the my-country-right-or-wrong-God-likes-me-and-not-you crowd. But it makes me uncomfortable that we’re always beating up (in the name of right) on poor small countries, countries whose gross national product is a fraction of our own.

These are people who don’t have refrigerators like we do.

To be invaded by the United States, you have to be small, poor, and have no navy and no air force like we do.

We never take on big countries like China.

Here’s a partial list of countries that because of their size and poverty can consider themselves under risk of attack from Bombs Away John McCain if they don’t conform to the American lifestyle, and fail to provide us with raw materials, or do what we want when we want, or pattern themselves after us, or seek nuclear power (that right is reserved for America and its friends like India).

And most of all, not attack their neighbors. The right to attack is reserved for America. Here’s the list:

Chad — This tiny Central African country, named for a voting stub (chad), would be easy for the United States to defeat. Hell, they don’t have anything except sand and flies. In fact, their chief commodity export are gnats.

Switzerland — If we run out of milk, we know where we can get it (lots of cows). The only problem here are the mountains (we have specialized troops that can climb those), and the sexy blondes in the villages who might prove a distraction. It can be overcome by our modern technology.

Yemen — This is a plumb ready for the taking. Think of it. Oil rich. On the ocean where the Red Sea meets the Arabian Sea. Beautiful waterfront condos overlooking the sea. Prime real estate. No air force to speak of. Navy? Can Arabs sail? Hell no. The only problem is, it’s a republic. That’s okay, we can blame 9-11 on ‘em. Yemen has another advantage. Many different tribes. We can get them to warring with each other.

Djibouti — Another Arab country in the Horn of Africa. Once again, potential oil and ocean views. We could overrun them in three days. It’s a Moslem country so this would figure in with our remaking the Middle East. But the main reason is it would give our hip soldiers (who love slang) the chance to wear tee shirts that say, “you bet Djibouti (your booty).”

Netherlands Antilles — This tiny island off the coast of Venezuela, I can’t think of one good reason to invade. Except maybe, it’s close to South America and would give us more of a presence there. We’ve always tried to boss South America.

This is only a partial list.

There are many more such countries that can be taught freedom.

© Copyright 2008 by SammonSays.com