Posted on 10/08/2004 9:28:39 PM PDT by neverdem
"Two words: Bandar Mahshahr."
Interesting.
I don't know how seriously to take any of that. It's just worth mentioning, based on mostly unsubstantiated commentary such as http://rescueattempt.tripod.com/id24.html and so forth. There would have been many other reasons to abandon the Shah. Zbignew Brezinsky was part of the move to use a "green belt" of Islamism against communism from as far back as the LBJ days when the Brits and the CIA took out Sukarno.
There could be foundation money involved, even indirectly.
Who funds the big-name journalism profs? Who builds the new buildings, and stocks their libraries, and rewards their internationalist, anti-western, Marxist academic agendas? These are encoded into the rules of PC, which are inculcated in the media's recruits before they arrive. Who contributes to the guilds and professional organizations to which they flock, once they have been hired? Who buys thier advertising? I see more and more "international" and "benign" public TV/radio coverage of mideast issues than ever before. Why the sudden interest?
The pro Islamofascist interest coverage/support has been there since the days of Jimmy Carter. Again, I would like to be able to follow the money from the Opecker Islamofascist Thugs to Carter, Clintoon, Kerry, the college professors and the elite of the MSM.
Yeah, I noticed some of the sites I was finding stuff on were making allegations based on unsubtantiated eyewitnesses; I'm planning to look into it more to see if there's some substantiation. If true it'd help explain some things.
On Brzezinsky, he was part of a faction in the Carter administration that represented the US oil lobby (led by John McCloy speaking on behalf of Nelson Rockefeller) and was in favor of keeping the Shah in power. The anti-Shah faction was in Cyrus Vance's State Department and was led by Ambassador William Sullivan; another key figure was Henry Precht.
Thank you. That has got to be the longest 11 months of my life. lol
Precht has some curious comments to make, suggesting that the Shah believed the CIA was working against him at the end: http://www.mideasti.org/pdfs/mejprecht5801.pdf
"OPINION, READERS WRITE", The Christian Science Monitor, August 15, 2000
Anyone wondering why State Department Arabists have gained such a bad reputation need only read retired Foreign Service officer Henry Precht's Aug. 9 opinion piece. Talk about "going native"! He sounds more Arab than the Arabs. Only a mentality such as his could perceive Washington and "lock step" media having "heavy bias in support of Israel."
More recently Precht wrote regarding Iraq:
"Think Before Leaping Into War", August 22, 2002
What is the alternative to these two depressing scenarios? Not an easy one, for it will mean climbing down from the rhetorical heights scaled by Mr. Bush and his war party. Indirect and multilateral diplomacy must be given an honest chance to work. The UN, the Europeans, and the regional Arab states are eager to weigh in with Baghdad to find ways to resume and guarantee truly effective weapons inspections. Baghdad just might be persuaded – given the prospect of yet another devastating defeat. Bush should also be persuaded – by the danger that either a bloody or rosy regime-change scenario in Iraq could lead to regime change in this country.
Precht's saying we'd better surrender our desires to defend freedom globally now, before we suffer and then are defeated anyway?
Hmm--when you put it that way, it makes me wonder if before Precht was in Iran he was ambassador to France :)
THANK YOU!!
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.