Saturday, June 16, 2007


The late Shah followed the Islamic code in Iran and commuted the court imposed death sentence of an Ayatollah.

Actually of a mid-level cleric artificially elevated to that rank for this purpose alone.

Happened to be his biggest mistake. The “ayatollah” was Khomeini, who returned about a decade and a half later, with Jimmy Carter’s help, from exile to trigger the “flesh eating bacteria” syndrome of his personal version of Islam.

Something jihadists of Salafist, Wahabbi and Hojatien Shia persuasions have turned into a reverse crusade against Christianity, Judaism and the West as a whole.

Ayatollah Boroujerdi, son of prominent Ayatollah of the same name under the late Shah was arrested (and 80 followers) last October, tortured mercilessly and now faces execution for charges that suit his accusers not him.

Charges levelled by the inheritors of clerics who insisted it was illegal to execute an Ayatollah. Do as I say not as I do.

Fearing opposition by women as promoted by AntiMullah and aired over a Zorostrian TV (audio only), they arrested 150,000 women in a matter of three days to terrify them into submission before they got going.

The Islamic regime’s ability to handle this huge number of prisoners in such a short time speaks volumes.

This followed an arrest of 10,000 protesting teachers (mostly women) for better pay, not anything politicial.

While the least generous estimate puts dissatisfaction in Iran at about 85% of the population, probably over 90% today, open dissent by a citizenry cowed by unimaginable. immediate, merciless brutality by mostly Arab origin mercenaries - imported to do just this - prevents overt anti-regime activity.

In addition to the fear, deeply imbedded into the populace’s psyche over a full generation, with about 65% of the population under the age of 30 or 35 at most, they do not know for what to fight. Whom to follow when even an Ayatollah is arrested and soon to hang.

They were barely born or under ten years old when the Khomeini disaster happened, have no first hand knowledge of life other than under the clerics - certainly only fearful rumors from fuddy-duddy parents/family of life under the monarchy - and have been spoonfed disinformation from as far back as they can remember.

Nor is there any leader younger than about 65 or 70-years-old from “before” who has a clue how to manage any part of the country or who has the energy or desire to lead an overthrow.

So, for whom should they rise up? Replace what’s there with what? Endure torture for immediate flimsy Western freedoms to listen to music or wear less restricitive clothing?

They doubt the wishy-washy “West” they see as willing to appease the clerics for money (oil, road, rail, nuclear, business projects) will not sell them out. Will not replace one harsh horror with another based on inabiility and corruption instead of repression.

In American efforts to try to have a dog in the hunt, we have turned to accepting, grooming and advocating pro-Mullah infiltrators like Abbas Fakhravar and Akbar Ganji and listening to pro-Mullah advocates like Trita Parsi and a host of others, who ponrificate - inevitably in a misleading fashion.

All young enough for future duty but street level rabble rousers - not future leaders of a country or even any major administrative office. And none with real pro-Western interests and philosophies beyond a temporary comfortable life away from Iran.

Our intelligence capabilities fail repeatedly to penetrate the bullet proof cover stories the clerics have prepared for such persons and we dream of “turning” them.

Preparing them to be our “dogs” in the hunt. Why should they turn?

The jihadists, the Iranian Hojatieh and other terrorist movements are winning the public relations war, the influence war, the threat leverage war, the use of Western liberties to defeat efforts to stop them. And the forced change by contamination of Western cultures in countries where they demand obeissance to Moslem sharia laws, codes and customs.

And meet an almost eager desire to accomodate them.

And the inevitable result (in their eyes) of an Islamic Caliphate ruling the world.

Why do we expect them to abandon the winning side and join our weakness?

They may tag along with us for a “more comfortable life” in the West as they play us for fools but why expect them to turn away from what and whom they see as the winners?

Remember, they respect strength, not “weak” western liberty and justice, when our concepts may often cost them their family’s life and freedom (held loosely hostage) in the short run and not becoming part of the power structure in Iran or Islamic Caliphate in a decade or two.

No comments: