The Father Of Modern Jihadism

[Henry Hawk]

Very interesting article.....

http://www.jpost.com/servlet/Satellite?cid=1181813077590&pagename=JPost%2FJPArticle%2FShowFull

The liberals of this country stake the mess that we are in, in Iraq and the war on terrorism as a Bush administration fiasco......but it seems that the truth can be traced back to the liberal democratic policies of Jimmy Carter, who created a firestorm that destabilized our greatest ally in the Muslim world, the shah of Iran, in favor of a religious fanatic, the ayatollah Khomeini.

[awol]

not to mention that b!tch "eve"...listening to the snake and all.


how far back do ya wanna go?

just till it's not your fault.

[Henry Hawk]

does the word "modern" mean ANYTHING to you?

anyway, poopiehead, just read the article..

I should change my title of this to something else, cause you are using that to distract the content....

[Locutus]

Errors of the Shah


    * His strong policy of Westernization and close identification with a Western power (the United States) despite the resulting clash with Iran's Shi'a Muslim identity.[22] This included his original installation by Allied Powers and assistance from the CIA in 1953 to restore him to the throne, the use of large numbers of Americans military advisers and technicians and the capitulation or granting of diplomatic immunity from prosecution to them, all of which lead nationalistic Iranians, both religious and secular[23] to consider him a puppet of the West;[24][25]
    * Extravagance, corruption and elitism (both real and perceived) of the Shah's policies and of his royal court;[26][27]
    * His failure to cultivate supporters in the Shi'a religious leadership to counter Khomeini's campaign against him;[28][29]
    * Focusing of government surveillance and repression on the People's Mujahedin of Iran, the communist Tudeh Party of Iran, and other leftist groups, while the more popular religious opposition organized, grew and gradually undermined the authority of his regime;[30][31][32]
    * Authoritarian tendencies that violated the Iran Constitution of 1906,[33][34] including repression of dissent by security services like the SAVAK,[35] followed by appeasement and appearance of weakness as the revolution gained momentum;[36][37]
    * Failure of his overly ambitious 1974 economic program to meet expectations raised by the oil revenue windfall. Bottlenecks, shortages and inflation were followed by austerity measures, attacks on alleged price gougers and black-markets, that angered both the bazaar and the masses;[38]
    * His antagonizing of formerly apolitical Iranians, especially merchants of the bazaars, with the creation of a single party political monopoly (the Rastakhiz Party), with compulsory membership and dues, and general aggressive interference in the political, economic, and religious concerns of people's lives;[39]
    * His overconfident neglect of governance and preoccupation with playing the world statesman during the oil boom,[40] followed by a loss of self-confidence and resolution[36] and a weakening of his health from cancer[41] as the revolution gained momentum;
    * Underestimation of the strength of the opposition — particularly religious opposition — and the failure to offer either enough carrots or sticks. Efforts to please the opposition were "too little too late,"[42] but no concerted counter-attack was made against the revolutionaries either.[36]
    * Failure to prepare and train security forces for dealing with protest and demonstration crowd control without excessive violence[43] (troops used live ammunition, not Plexiglas shields or water cannons),[44] and use of the military officer corps more as a powerbase to be pampered than as a force to control threats to security;[45]
    * The personalised nature of the Shah's government, where prevention of any possible competitor to the monarch trumped efficient and effective government and led to the crown's cultivation of divisions within the army and the political elite,[46] and ultimately to a lack of support for the regime by its natural allies when needed most (thousands of upper and middle class Iranians and their money left Iran during the beginning of the revolution).[47]

[edit] Failures and successes of other political forces

    * Overconfidence of the secularists and modernist Muslims, of liberals and leftists in their power and ability to control the revolution;[48]
    * Shrewdness of the Ayatollah Khomeini in winning the support of these liberals and leftists when he needed them to overthrow the Shah by underplaying his hand and avoiding issues (such as rule by clerics or "guardianship of the jurists") he planned to implement but knew would be a deal breaker for his more secular and modernist Muslim allies;[49]
    * Cleverness and energy of Khomeini's organizers in Iran who outwitted the Shah's security forces and won broad support with their tactical ingenuity — amongst other things, convincing Iranians that the Shah's security was more brutal than it was;[45]
    * The Ayatollah Khomeini's self-confidence, charisma, and most importantly his ability to cast himself as following in the footsteps of the beloved Shi'a Imam Husayn ibn Ali, while portraying the Shah as a modern day version of Hussein's foe, the hated tyrant Yazid I;[50] and so to be seen by millions as a savior figure,[51] and inspiring hundreds to feats of martyrdom fighting the regime.
    * Policies of the American government, which helped create an image of the Shah as American "puppet" with their high profile and the 1953 subversion of the government on his behalf, but helped trigger the revolution by pressuring the Shah to liberalize, and then finally may have heightened the radicalism of the revolution by failing to read its nature accurately (particularly the goals of Khomeini), or to clearly respond to it.[52][53][54]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Iranian_Revolution

[Locutus]

From the above excerpt from the Wikipedia article on the subject, it appears that far more blame can be laid at the feet of the Shah, than on Jimmy Carter.  The only item mentioning America is the one in bold.

[Locutus]

Although I tend to agree with your article HH in that these events were really a portent of modern Muslim extremism. 

[Henry Hawk]

I guess my whole point is, that, there are many fingers to point at, and many of those doing the pointing, need to realize, that imo...is water under the bridge, and the jihadist in some way, shape or form, need to be stopped, some how....because the war is on.....and simply pulling out of Iraq, will not stop these radicals from accomplishing their mission.....

[Locutus]

I agree with that statement, but I would go one step farther and say that Iraq is an unnecessary mess that W created.  His mess has left us far less secure and has created more terrorists than have been killed.

[Henry Hawk]

I agree with that statement, but I would go one step farther and say that Iraq is an unnecessary mess that W created.  His mess has left us far less secure and has created more terrorists than have been killed.

First of all, I admit it happened on W's clock, and the buck stops there....but, that is a whole new arguement for another thread...

second, let me see your proof of the statement that MORE have been created than killed....

and I believe we ARE more secure, due to the installement of the homeland security that 'W' created.....I believe we have eliminated many, many of the top al qada, that would STILL be here had we not taken the actions that was taken....

[Locutus]

second, let me see your proof of the statement that MORE have been created than killed....

One must have his head in the sand not to see it.

America's spy agencies have concluded that the invasion of Iraq has created a flood of new Islamic terrorists and increased the danger to US interests to a higher level than at any time since the 9/11 attacks.

http://www.guardian.co.uk/Iraq/Story/0,,1879940,00.html

Our own intelligence people are saying it.

[Locutus]

Here's more:

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A7460-2005Jan13.html