Never underestimate the human disposition to be stupid and evil.
Remember this Iranian man licking the Islamic shrine in Qom, Iran — a country that is a hotbed of the Wuhan virus, claiming he wanted to catch, and spread, COVID-19?
Here in the United States, people are encouraged by a new social media fad called the “coronavirus challenge” to lick toilet seats and other public surfaces in order to spread the virus.
As examples, on March 14, 2020, Ava Louise, a 21-year-old white woman who fancies herself a social media “influencer,” posted a video of herself licking the toilet seat on a plane, with the the caption “Please RT this so people can know how to properly be sanitary on the airplane.”
The man was later identified as 26-year-old Cody Pfister of Warrenton, Missiouri, who was arrested on terror charges. Court documents say Pfister “knowingly caused a false belief or fear that a condition involving danger to life existed” and accuse him of acting with “reckless disregard of the risk causing the evacuation, quarantine or closure of any portion”. (Metro)
On April 2, another video was posted to Twitter showing another young black male sipping from three different bottles of juice, then returning them to the supermarket shelf.
Today at work since I had nothing to do, I started thinking about this pandemic and how quick it has been for local and state governments to shut down our economy and our freedoms.
(Side note: Our city building is closed to the public so it’s just employees. My boss is doing the AM shift and I’m working my regular afternoon shift so we aren’t in the office together. We are practicing that “social distancing.”)
Why is it NOW that we have had such a dramatic reaction to the Wuhan virus? Is it really going to be much worse than SARS, MERS or any other virus we’ve faced throughout the world? Are we going to end up with thousands of deaths like Italy? Has the media hysteria frightened people to panic?
I guess the “experts” know best by ordering “shelter in place” and the shutdown of thousands and thousands of businesses. Why can’t we just quarantine the most vulnerable (except the homeless and inmates, of course), postpone large public gatherings, and recommend some higher level of hygiene?
It is understandable that we need to be aware of the public’s safety and control this virus yet are we not a country with inherent freedoms such as economic pursuit and that of movement?
There’s risk and reward for living a life of freedom and I’m wondering if the risk of shutting down our economy is worth more than the anticipated reward (“flattening the curve”).
In America, you are free to pursue the job of your dreams or start your own business. Imagine the government comes in and demands to shut down your employer or business for public safety. You are now forcibly being robbed of your economic freedoms. Does that not make you some form of an economic slave of the government?
You can’t shut down businesses and expect them to re-open with their regular customers. Those customers have now lost their jobs and will not have any disposable income to spend once the economy is back open for business. That “social distancing” will be long gone when unemployment has reached massive levels.
The “shelter in place” order also has an effect on our freedom to move throughout this country. What will be the psychological and future effects on our interpretation of “freedom of movement” when this finally comes to an end? How many people will suffer depression during their self quarantine and end up costing thousands in the medical field or commit suicide?
I also believe this reaction sets a bad example for our enemies who want to inflict some form of bioterrorism upon us. They now know how easy it would be to cause a panic and economic shutdown of this country. Just. Like. That.
Just some of my random thoughts. There are many differing opinions as to how best to handle this and I am no expert on this, by any means. I just have a terrible feeling that the coming economic result of this is going to be devastating for many, many Americans. Only time will tell if the reaction offered more reward than risk.
Free to use. No advertising. No tracking. No porn. No worries. Just 13,083,277 documents from 38 Qanon related data sources. No loaded pages from other domains. Research with privacy.
If you are into Qanon or just want to see some of the information we have, this is the best place to look. No login. No joining. No vetting. Just click the link provided at the bottom and start searching.
It’s not like the 8 chan that got shut down. It’s not like the new 8 Kun. It’s very simple to use. You will see the following links at the top of the page for a general search.
Woman screams at sky because Trump was elected POTUS
This takes Trump Derangement Syndrome to a whole new level.
A study by two Canadian scientists at the Leadership Sinai Centre for Diabetes, Mount Sinai Hospital, Toronto, found that stress — similar to stress from traumatic societal incidents like terrorist attacks — from the 2016 election of Donald Trump actually led to Canadian leftists (“liberals”) giving birth to fewer male babies.
The scientists are Ravi Retnakaran and Chang Ye; Retnakaran is also with the Division of Endocrinology, Department of Medicine, University of Toronto. Their study is published as “Outcome of the 2016 United States presidential election and the subsequent sex ratio at birth in Canada: an ecological study,” BMJ Open, vol. 10, issue 2.
Below is an excerpt from their article:
In this study, we demonstrate two main findings. First, Canada’s most populous province experienced a decline in the sex ratio at birth 4 months after the 2016 US presidential election, with subsequent recovery in the 5 months thereafter. This time course of changes in the sex ratio matches that which has been previously described after adverse societal events, such as terrorist attacks. Second, the transient decline in the overall proportion of boys to girls born in Ontario in March 2017 was observed in politically liberal-leaning jurisdictions but not in conservative-leaning regions of the province. Taken together, these data suggest that the unanticipated outcome of the 2016 US presidential election was associated with a temporary reduction in the sex ratio at birth in Canada that may have related to its perception as an adverse societal event by the politically liberal-leaning population.
In humans, despite relative balance in the proportion of spermatozoa carrying a Y-chromosome to those carrying an X-chromosome,22 there is typically a slight preponderance of boys at delivery. This imbalance at birth has been attributed to sex-specific differences in fetal vulnerability during specific time periods in pregnancy.23 Indeed, after initial balance at conception, the sex ratio in humans varies at different timepoints across gestation, with total female mortality in utero ultimately exceeding male mortality (thereby yielding the slight excess of boys at delivery).23 Thus, changes in the sex ratio at birth can reflect the impact of sex-specific differences in fetal loss during pregnancy.
In this context, enhanced loss of male fetuses has been proposed as the mechanistic basis by which adverse societal stressors (such as disasters, terrorism and economic collapse) may lead to a reduction in the sex ratio at birth.3 5 6 From the perspective of evolutionary biology, it has been suggested that, under adverse conditions, the loss of frail male fetuses may be beneficial to the species by yielding a ‘culled cohort’ of healthier males that are better able to reproduce and hence increase the likelihood of survival of the population.5 6 24Among such societal stressors in humans, discrete events such as terrorist attacks have typically induced a characteristic pattern consisting of a transient decline in the sex ratio 3–5 months later that is believed to reflect comparatively greater male fetal loss during a vulnerable window in mid-pregnancy at around 20–25 weeks’ gestation.10 17 In other words, the greater loss of male fetuses who are within this vulnerable window at the time of the event results in a depression of the sex ratio 3–5 months later when these babies would otherwise have been born. For example, after the terrorist attacks of September 11, 2001, the sex ratio fell 3–5 months later in New York,13 California14 and the entire US,15 accompanied by greater male fetal deaths in the intervening months.15 Indeed, this post-event loss of male babies has emerged as an under-recognised contributor to the overall casualty toll after terrorist attacks such as 9/11, the 2011 Norway attacks, and the 2012 Sandy Hook Elementary School shooting.17
Against this background, we hypothesised that the unexpected victory of the nationalist, right-leaning Republican nominee in the 2016 US election and its resultant uncertain global implications could have been perceived as a societal stressor in left-leaning nations and thereby affected the sex ratio in a country such as Canada. Although we cannot definitively ascertain causality with the current study design, three lines of evidence arising from these data support this hypothesis. First, the hypothesised pattern of a transient decline in the sex ratio at birth followed by recovery thereafter was indeed observed in Ontario. Second, although other unrecognised societal factors may also affect the sex ratio, the anticipated decline occurred precisely within the predicted window of 3–5 months following the election, as did the recovery in the 5 months thereafter. Third, this effect was observed in liberal-leaning regions where the population may have perceived the outcome of the election as an adverse societal stressor, but not in conservative-leaning jurisdictions (where it may not have been perceived in this way). It is notable that the pattern of change in the sex ratio in the liberal regions precisely matched that which would occur after a discrete adverse event, with both the nadir 4 months post-election and continuous rise (recovery) over the 5 months that followed (figure 2A and table 2). In contrast, the sex ratio pattern in conservative regions showed neither of these characteristic features (figure 2B and table 2).
Drudge Reporthas gone to the dark side. Check out Whatfinger News, the Internet’s conservative frontpage founded by a military veteran!
Last January, President Trump ordered the killing of Iranian general Qassem Soleimani, described by an ex-CIA operative as “the single most powerful operative [terrorist] in the Middle East today,” on the grounds that Soleimani posed an “imminent” threat to America’s national security.
Reacting to the Soleimani assassination, some in the blogosphere are convinced that Trump had caved in to Israel’s wishes, and that a U.S. invasion of Iran was next, which could ignite nothing less than a third world war.
According to World Socialist Web Site, however, although Sanders presents himself as an opponent of war, responding to a survey from the New York Times, his campaign said as president, Bernie Sanders would be prepared to launch a “preemptive strike” against Iran and North Korea. Below are excerpts from the World Socialist Web Sitearticle:
Bernie Sanders has won the popular vote in both the New Hampshire and Iowa presidential primary contests in considerable part by presenting himself as an opponent of war. Following the criminal assassination of Iranian General Qassem Suleimani last month, Sanders was the most vocal of the Democratic presidential aspirants in criticizing Trump’s action. His poll numbers have risen in tandem with his stepped-up anti-war rhetoric.
He has repeatedly stressed his vote against the 2003 invasion of Iraq, reminding voters in the Iowa presidential debate last month, “I not only voted against that war, I helped lead the effort against that war.”
However, when speaking to the foremost newspaper of the American ruling class, the New York Times, the Sanders campaign adopts a very different tone than that employed by the candidate when addressing the public in campaign stump speeches or TV interviews.
The answers provided by Sanders’ campaign to a foreign policy survey of the Democratic presidential candidates published this month by the Times provide a very different picture of the attitude of the self-styled “democratic socialist” to American imperialism and war. In the course of the survey, the Sanders campaign is at pains to reassure the military/intelligence establishment and the financial elite of the senator’s loyalty to US imperialism and his readiness to deploy its military machine.
Perhaps most significant and chilling is the response to the third question in the Times’ survey.
Question: Would you consider military force to pre-empt an Iranian or North Korean nuclear or missile test?
A Sanders White House, according to his campaign, would be open to launching a military strike against Iran or nuclear-armed North Korea to prevent (not respond to) not even a threatened missile or nuclear strike against the United States, but a mere weapons test. This is a breathtakingly reckless position no less incendiary than those advanced by the Trump administration….
Moreover…the so-called progressive, anti-war candidate fully subscribes to the doctrine of “preemptive war” declared to be official US policy in 2002 by the administration of George W. Bush. An illegal assertion of aggressive war as an instrument of foreign policy, this doctrine violates the principles laid down at the Nuremberg Trials of Nazi officials after World War II, the United Nations charter and other international laws and conventions on war. Sanders’ embrace of the doctrine, following in the footsteps of the Obama administration, shows that his opposition to the Iraq war was purely a question of tactics, not a principled opposition to imperialist war.
The above question is preceded by another that evokes a response fully in line with the war policies of the Obama administration, the first two-term administration in US history to preside over uninterrupted war.
Question: Would you consider military force for a humanitarian intervention?
Among the criminal wars carried out by the United States in the name of defending “human rights” are the war in Bosnia and the bombing of Serbia in the 1990s, the 2011 air war against Libya that ended with the lynching of deposed ruler Muammar Gaddafi, and the civil war in Syria that was fomented by Washington and conducted by its Al Qaeda-linked proxy militias.
The fraudulent humanitarian pretexts for US aggression were no more legitimate than the lie of “weapons of mass destruction” used in the neo-colonial invasion of Iraq. The result of these war crimes has been the destruction of entire societies, the death of millions and dislocation of tens of millions more, along with the transformation of the Middle East into a cauldron of great power intervention and intrigue that threatens to erupt into a new world war.
Sanders fully subscribes to this doctrine of “humanitarian war” that has been particularly associated with Democratic administrations.
In response to a question from the Times on the assassination of Suleimani, the Sanders campaign calls Trump’s action illegal, but refuses to take a principled stand against targeted assassinations in general and associates itself with the attacks on Suleimani as a terrorist….
Sanders thus supports the continued presence of tens of thousands of US troops on the Korean peninsula, just as he supports the deployment of US forces more generally to assert the global interests of the American ruling class.
On Israel, Sanders calls for a continuation of the current level of US military and civilian aid and opposes the immediate return of the US embassy from Jerusalem to Tel Aviv….
Sanders…attacking Trump from…for failing to aggressively prosecute the conflict with Russia and China….
In a recent interview Ro Khanna, a Democratic congressman and national co-chair of the Sanders campaign, assured Atlantic writer Uri Friedman that Sanders would continue provocative “freedom of the seas” navigation operations in the Persian Gulf and the South China Sea, while committing a Sanders administration to “maintain some [troop] presence” on the multitude of bases dotting “allied” countries from Japan to Germany.
Millions of workers, students and young people…attracted to Sanders because they have come to despise and oppose the vast social inequality, brutality and militarism of American society…will soon learn through bitter experience that Sanders’s opposition to the “billionaire class” is no more real than his supposed opposition to war.His foreign policy is imperialist through and through, in line with the aggressive and militaristic policy of the Democratic Party and the Obama administration….
Sanders is no more an apostle of peace than he is a representative of the working class….
Today in Jacksonville, Florida six Trump Campaign volunteers were intentionally targeted while registering voters.
At approximately 2:45 p.m. a multi-colored brown and gold van driven by what is described as a white male in his 20s or 30s, accelerated into a crowd of volunteers at the Kernan Village shopping center located at 11900 Atlantic Boulevard.
Thankfully, Republican volunteers narrowly avoided being struck by the accelerating van. The driver sped away after making an obscene gesture toward the crowd.
“We are outraged by this senseless act of violence toward our great volunteers,” said Duval GOP Chairman Dean Black. “The Republican Party of Duval County will not be intimidated by these cowards and we will not be silenced. I call on every Republican in our great city to stand up, get involved, and show these radicals that we will not be intimidated from exercising our Constitutional rights.”
The Republican Party of Duval County plans to redouble its efforts to register voters and will continue it’s fight with renewed intensity to re-elect President Donald Trump.
Jacksonville police say a driver intentionally crashed a van through a tent where Duval County GOP volunteers were registering voters Saturday afternoon.
Nobody was injured in the 3:45 p.m. incident at the Walmart Supercenter, 11900 Atlantic Boulevard, near Kernan Boulevard in the Sandalwood neighborhood, Lt. Larry Gayle of the Jacksonville Sheriff’s Office told reporters at the scene.
Several Duval County GOP volunteers were working at the registration tent when a white man in his early 20s driving an older — possibly 1980s — brown van pulled up toward the tent.
He then drove through the tent, endangering the lives of the workers and damaging the tent and tables,Gayle said.
The driver then stopped, got out of the van and took a video of the scene before he “flipped off” the victims and fled, Gayle said.
President Donald Trump tweeted about the incident Saturday night: “Law Enforcement has been notified. Be careful tough guys who you play with!”
Because the investigation was in the early stage, police didn’t know the motive. However, detectives with the Sheriff’s Office Intelligence Unit were en route to the scene, Gaye said.
“We are investigating this as a aggravated assault,” Gayle said. “Several people were in the area and could have been seriously hurt.”
Gayle also said police are looking into the incident “as in reference to interruption of the political process.”
Anyone with information can contact the Sheriff’s Office at (904) 630-0500 or email JSOCrimeTips@jaxsheriff.org. To remain anonymous and receive a possible reward of up to $3,000, contact Crime Stoppers at (866) 845-TIPS.
On January 3, at the direction of President Trump, missiles shot from American drones killed Iranian general Qassem Soleimani in Baghdad, Iraq.
Soleimani was a major general in Iran’s Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps and commander of its Quds Force, a division primarily responsible for military and clandestine operations outside of Iran. He was described by an ex-CIA operative as “the single most powerful operative in the Middle East today” and the principal military strategist and tactician in Iran’s effort to combat Western influence and promote the expansion of Shiite and Iranian influence throughout the Middle East.
Trump justified the assassination on the grounds that Soleimani was a terrorist who posed an “imminent threat” to American lives. The U.S. Defense Department said Soleimani had approved the attacks on the U.S. embassy in Baghdad on December 31, 2019, and was planning further attacks on American diplomats and military personnel.
The January 3 drone attacks incinerated the two vehicles carrying Soleimani and his companions. We are told that what remained of Soleimani was his hand wearing a ring with a large, oval, red stone like the one seen in countless photos of Soleimani.
Add to the intrigue and mystery is the discovery by eagle-eyed netizens like Mimi B that American celebrities (Oprah Winfrey, Tom Hanks) and political elites (Hillary Clinton, Rep. Sheila Jackson-Lee, John Podesta), as well as the current president of Iran, Hassan Rouhani, have also been seen wearing rings with a large oval red stone similar to Soleimani’s. (Note: Arnold Schwarzenegger should not be included in the composite pic below — the ring he was wearing has a blue stone.)
Go here for close-ups of the red rings on Oprah, et al.
What does the red ring signify? Membership in some secret organization?
More intrigue still.
According to the jewelry website La Blingz, Soleimani’s ring is a Free Masons ring — the Sterling Silver Masonic Masonic Red Onyx Statement Ring, now marked down from $150 to $69.99.
Tweeter Mike Bravo points out Soleimani’s associates also sport the red Masonic ring.
Notice how in the picture above, Soleimani was wearing THREE similar-looking rings with red oval stones? Below is a close-up of his two hands:
Since he owned and sometimes wore several big red-stone rings at the same time, the ring on the severed hand said to be Soleimani’s may be one of them. Does this mean the hand did belong to Soleimani and he is dead after all?
“MIAMI – A senior U.S. official confirmed to FOX News that the severed fingers of five Western hostages were delivered to U.S. government officials in Iraq, giving the men’s relatives hope that they are still alive.
The Austrian weekly magazine News first reported the delivery of the five fingers in Wednesday’s edition, citing unidentified authorities working on the case.
One of the kidnap victims in Iraq was a University of Florida student. The hostages have been missing for more than a year and U.S. authorities in Baghdad recently were sent their severed fingers.
Four of the men had been working as contractors when they were captured in a brazen ambush of their 43-truck supply convoy on Nov. 16, 2006.The men were working for Crescent Security Group, a Kuwait-based private security company.
They were kidnapped by men in Iraqi police uniforms who ambushed the convoy they were escorting near the southern city of Safwan.Patrick Reuben, a Minneapolis police officer whose twin brother, Paul Reuben, is among the missing, said late Wednesday the FBI told his family that “the fingers were confirmed to be those of the hostages.”
DNA samples had been identified 4 of the hostages. “John Young of Kansas City, who was seized with them. None of the fingers belonged to him”.
The story also informs us that the Western hostages appeared in two hostage videos released in December 2006 and January 2007 where demands were made for the United States to withdraw troops from Iraq and to free all Iraqi priosners.
“NEW YORK (AP) _ A kidnapped 12-year-old boy whose finger was cut off to persuade his drug- dealing brother to pay ransom was found dead in a pile of plastic bags just days after the brother was killed, police said Monday.”
In this case the family was able to identify the body without the need for DNA testing.
Hostages severed fingers or other body parts delivered with the kidnappers demands is not a new concept. The problem is that it doesn’t really prove the hostage is the person they say it is. The only way to know for sure it’s the person is through DNA testing. This is common knowledge. It’s the same procedure when it comes to identifying remains of mangled bodies in car accidents, fire victims or a foot found in the woods without a body attached to it. If the body is missing or destroyed beyond recognition the only way to get a positive identification is with a DNA test. In some cases the victim may have some form of identification on them but that is not a 100% guarantee.
“Okay, DNA, two stories from 1990 and 2008. What’s the point?”
These two stories are just 2 examples out of thousands of how body parts have been used to identify people. The severed fingers story is more relevant to what I am discussing today. There are 2 main points to keep in mind. DNA testing was required to identify the identity of the fingers owners. Second point just proof that people in Iraq completely understand how body parts can be used to prove identity when a complete body is not present. (Shiite Muslim militias alegedly were the kidnappers of the 4 men)
It’s not inconceivable that people in the Middle East could fake a persons death and leave a body part behind to to identify the body. Perhaps a hand with a ring on one it’s fingers.
“People have faked their own deaths”
TOM CAREW, author of “Jihad!” Carew was really Philip Sessarego. Served in the regular British army, not the SAS. Sessarego had faked his death in a car bombing in Croatia and reinvented himself as the dashing Carew in 1993.
DAVID FRIEDLAND, New Jersey state senator. Faked his death in a scuba-diving accident in the Bahamas.
JOHN STONEHOUSE, British Labour lawmaker. Faked his own death by leaving his clothes in a bundle on a Miami beach in 1974. (20 years after his death it was revealed that Stonehouse had been a Czech spy throughout the 1960s)
KEN KESEYK, published novel “One Flew Over the Cuckoo’s Nest”. Parked on a cliff-side road in California. In his truck was suicide note. He wrote “Ocean, Ocean, I’ll beat you in the end” . A friend smuggled him into Mexico in the trunk of his car.
These are just a few examples of people that have faked their own deaths. Three of these examples were facing jail time. Each felt they had to escape in order to keep their freedom or to stay alive.
In 2011 Igor Vorotinov’s dead body was found. He turned up alive a couple of years later. He used someone elses body to fake his own death.
Could Iranian general Qassem Soleimani fake his death if someone gave him a hand?
There is no doubt in my mind that the the drone nailed the vehicles that it targeted. In case you missed it, below is a video of the airstrike and the aftermath.
As you can see in the video both vehicles are destroyed. Obviously, everyone in those vehicles were killed. So the question is “who were in the vehicles?”
There are mixed stories as to how many people were in the vehicles. My focus is on just one of the people that we are told was riding in one of the vehicles and is now dead. That would be Qassem Soleimani.
We are told the missle strike killed him. I found these 2 photos on Twitter along with the following message,
“Bad Death With One Hundred Virtues Do you, your father, be a martyr of anything? This fate awaits the rest of the IRGC commanders and those around them “
*second image is a link because the image is pretty gruesome
The tweet didn’t say if the body in the second image was Qassem Soleimani. To the best of my knowledge, the hand with the ring is all that’s left of him.
This is the part that where I see some problems. Besides being told Soleimani was in one of the cars, all we have is a hand with a Ring. They have confirmed they belonged to Soleimani simply because he wore a ring with a red stone.
For all we know that hand and ring could belong to this guy, He has a hand. He has a red ring,
I went ahead and found some images of Soleimani while he was wearing his rings. I tried to match them with the ring on the severed hand My results were that none of the images I found matched the severed hand. I’ve provided two images of my comparisons. You will notice the the setting of the severed hand is different the the rest. I found additional images and had the same results.
Here is a closer view.
Sorry, but a severed hand with a ring with a red stone is not enough to convince me. It’s disappointing that so many people do not question this. DNA?
I’m sure Trump and Pompeo think the evil general is dead. That was their mission. The airstrike was a perfect hit. Looks like a perfect kill. I would bet there were US assets on the ground to verify the hit. But there are some questions that should be asked.
It’s this not a perfect time to take advantage of Trump’s huge ego?
I Did anyone pay attention to the plane that Soleimani flew in on?
Did anyone see who got off the plane when the two cars departed?
Did anyone check the passenger log/crew log?
Where was the planes next destination and were it’s passengers?
Why did Iran respond with such a weak attack?
The US killed their most loved general. Iran responded by killing how many Americans? Zero. I really find that hard to believe?
In a head to head war, the US would crush Iran and bring it to it’s knees in a few days at the most. Why is Iran being made out as some huge threat to the USA?
The U.S. has pursued Soleimani for decades The State Department revealed last year that his operations within Iraq since 2003 killed more than 600 American personnel. He has been sneaking around organizing terrorist groups or years. As untounhable as Soleimani thinks he is, he’s not stupid. He has to know he is a target. So why was his trip to Iraq not kept in secret?
We are told Soleimani went to Iraq to meet with politicians and military allies. Trump had planned 8 months ago to take out Soleimani. Around June or July of 2019 Iran claimed to have captured 17 CIA agents. Is it not possible that some of those captured agents talked?
Is it possible Soleimani learned about the hit on him and took precautions. Maybe the two cars were decoys and he stayed on the plane. Did he fool the world?
Soleimani has been reported dead on several occasions in the past. It didn’t get much attention. Why all the attention now?
Where is the DNA proof?
These are all important questions that require answers.
What it gets down to is either you trust the information presented to you from the MSM, our government, Iran, Iraq or any other government or you don’t trust it.
Will you accept a severed hand wearing a ring with a red stone as unconditional truth? Keep in mind that no match was found for the ring.
Remember that In April ,1979, the current regime had taken control of Iran.
In November, 1979, Iranian students seized US embassy personnel. Fifty-two hostages were held for 444 days until January 1981. This was done right after they learned that the Shah of Iran(ex-leader and king of Iran) went to the United States for cancer treatment. The current regime has no love for the USA.
No matter how you look at it, this is something that should be discussed and investigated.
Additional General information on Iran.
This does not include any current spy vs spy, CIA, etc operations that may or may not exist. I like to think this is the minimun amount of knowledege a person should before they can make any sort of accurate analysis on Iran. Some will say more, some will say less.
FACTUAL KEY HISTORICAL INFORMATION ON IRAN
This is just review of what I felt were the key events. Many events were left out. The data is still accurate. And the end result the same.
The Nazis were in Iran in WWII. Iran didn’t kick them out. During its occupation by the Nazi’s Iran was controlled by monarch Rezā Shāh. At the Tehran Conference of 1943, the Allies(USA, USSR,GB, France,Australia, etc) issued the Tehran Declaration. It gave Iran independence and boundaries when war ended.(USSR didn’t leave until 1946). Mohammad Reza Pahlavas had taken his fathers place as Shah(King of Iran). In 1949 He was able to get the Senate of Iran formed. In 1951 Reza(the Shah) appointed Mohammad Mosaddegh as Prime Minister(PM) after he was approved by the Parliament.
Mosaddegh took control of the British built/owned oil refineries which caused problems for Iran. A British boycott of Iran’s oil had been iniated and enforced. . During Mosaddeh time as PM part of his land reform act was that land owners give 20% of their land to its tenants. During his time as PM Iran he implemented his socialist ideologies and was destroying Iran’s economy.
In 1951, Realizing that the opposition would take the vast majority of the provincial seats, Mosaddegh stopped the voting when it reached 79 deputies. Just enough to form a parliamentary quorum. He suspended the elections using Foreign influence as the reason.
In 1952. Mosaddeh made some requests to parliament that would have given him more power in the government, while weakening the Shah’s position. After being denied the request, he resigned.
Mosaddegh loyalist, the National Front, Islamist, Tudeh. socialist parties along with various Nationalist started protest and causing problems. They called for the assassinations of the Shah and other royalists. Major strikes broke out in all of Iran’s major towns, with the Bazaar closing in Tehran. Over 250 demonstrators in Tehran, Ramadan, Ahvaz, Isfahan, and Kermanshah were killed or suffered serious injuries. After 5 days the military quit trying to maintain order.
The shah put Mosaddegh back as PM. Mosaddegh then managed to get full control of the military. He then continued to work against the Shah until he was removed.
As his dictatorial powers grew, his political supporters were turning on him, By 1953 Mosaddeh had lost a lot of support from members of parliment and others throughout the government, including one of his key political allies, House Speaker Ayatollah AbolGhasem Kashani.
Iranians distrust in Mosaddeh grew. Largley because of the failing economy. Britain had been boycotting Iran after he took control of British refineries so no money had been coming in from oil.
In April, 1953 in America funds were appoved to be used to pay for activities, operations that could assist in the removal of PM Mosaddegh. Britain wanted its refineries back. America was worried about his close ties to communism(so we are told). Mosaddeh had supporters that were socialist and communist supporters. Part of the CIA’s plan was to make it appear like Mosaddegh he was a communist.
In August 1953, the Shah formally dismissed the prime minister in a written decree, an act that had been made part of the constitution during the Constitution Assembly of 1949. Mossadegh escaped and then turned himself in. He ended up getting 3 years solitary confinement in a military prison in December, 1953. He died under house arrest in 1967. They buried him in his living room. He wasn’t allowed to have a funeral.
Martial law ended in 1957. Iran began modernization economic growth at an unprecedented rate. The US paid for a large part of Irans reconstruction.
In early June 1963 several days of massive rioting occurred in support of Ayatollah Ruhollah Khomeini following the cleric’s arrest for a speech attacking the shah.
In the early 70s region’s strongest military power. Iran had problems with leftist guerrilla groups such as Mujaheddin-e-Khalq (MEK)that attacked the regime along with foreign targets. We are told 1978 the first major demonstrations took place of the Islamic Revolution. The movement, itself, had started long before this date.
In January 1979 Mohammad Reza Pahlavi left the country after strikes and demonstrations paralyzed the country.
In February 1979 Ayatollah Khomeini returned to Tehran.
On February 11, 1979 Iran’s military gave up again declared itself “neutral” after guerrillas and rebel troops overwhelmed troops loyal to the Shah in armed street fighting.
In April 1979 officially became an Islamic Republic.
Ayatollah Ruhollah Khomeini became Supreme Leader of Iran until his death in 1989.
Mohammad Mosaddegh was removed because he abused his power. The Shah could have ruled with an Iron Fist, but he chose the route where his country prospers. When the Shah had regained control of the country. Iran had did exactly that, prosper. Mosaddegh desire for power held Iran back. He reduced the size of the army, Iran’s army couldn’t even keep control of country. Two times we witnessed this. Ultimately, this is how the Shah lost control of the country. Too small of an army. ( Exactly what Obama was trying to do with the military in the USA. Reduce our army so it could be overpowered.)
Attempting to overthrow a king of a country is usually a penalty of death. Mosaddegh got very lucky.
MORE OBVIOUS TRUTH THAT GET SKIPPED
People keep referring to Mohammad Reza Shah Pahlavi as a dictator. That simply isn’t true. From 1501 until 1979 Iran had been a monarchy ruled by an emperor almost without interruption. When Mohammad Reza Shah Pahlav replaced his father initially there were hopes that post-occupation Iran could become a constitutional monarchy.
The Shah willingly gave up some of his power and kept a” hands-off role” in government. allowing parliament to hold a lot of power.
“Some elections were held in the first shaky years, although they remained mired in corruption. “Parliament became chronically unstable, and from the 1947 to 1951 period Iran saw the rise and fall of six different prime ministers. Pahlavi increased his political power by convening the Iran Constituent Assembly, 1949, which finally formed the Senate of Iran, a legislative upper house allowed for in the 1906 constitution.”
“His father, Rezā Shāh was all about moderization. He encouraged women not to wear their hijabs. He wanted his people to wear the same type of clothing the people in the west were wearing. He wanted his people to evolve. His mistake was not kicking out the Germans in WWII. They had him convinced that they were going to win the war. His son Mohammad Reza Shah Pahlav gave Iranians even more freedom.”
The Shah was the one that was overthrown by a dictator, Say yid Ruhollah Khomeini(9 years as Supreme Leader of Iran).
The Supreme leader is above the president in Iran. The current one is Say yid Ali Djamena. Almost 31 years as Supreme Leader.
The Supreme Leader is elected and overseen by the Assembly of Experts. Candidates for membership at the Assembly of Experts (including the President and the parliament are appointed by the Guardian Council, whose members in turn, are appointed by the Supreme Leader.
All directly-elected members of the Assembly of Experts still require the Supreme Leader’s approval even after the Guardian Council’s vetting process.
The supreme leader is considered always right.
The Supreme leader is never questioned.
The Supreme Leader is the commander-in-chief of the armed forces and the provisional head of the three branches of the state the Judiciary, the Legislature, and the Executive
Elections in are currently for show in Iran.
The Supreme leader is a dictator.
People should be perfectly clear that from the years 501 to 1979 Iran had been controlled by a king or emperor. Much like Great Britain with an Islamic twist. The current form of government has only existed since 1979. They like to call it a theocracy and presidential democracy. The truth is the country is controlled by 1 man, the Ayatollah. He has final say and controll of everything. He cannot be questioned. How would you define him and his role?
The problem is not Iran in general. The problem is Islamic agression. Qassem Soleimani isn’t loved because of the country he is from. He’s not loved because he defends Iran. All Iranians don’t love him. He is only loved by Muslims. He is a soldier of Islam. He fights for Islam. That is why Muslims in other countries love him.
You will not find one christian in the Middle East that loves Soleimani. Not unless they are from America and are a liberal or democrat. Christian democrats and Christian liberals in America seem to love Soleimani. Actually, I’ll rephrase that. Satan worshipping democrats and Satan worshipping liberals love Soleimani. Iran’s army isn’t the army of Iran, to protect Iran. It’s the army of Islam, to protect Muslims.
Islam becomes the religion of peace only when every person on the planet is Muslim.
Always fact check and do your own research.
Respectfully, Deplorable Patriot
*CIA operation “Ajax” took place during the year of 1953