What's new

My School's Imam: "We Love Western Anti-West Theories"

Solomon2

BANNED
Joined
Dec 12, 2008
Messages
19,475
Reaction score
-37
Country
United States
Location
United States
My School's Imam: "We Love Western Anti-West Theories"
by Majid Rafizadeh
June 12, 2018 at 4:00 am


https://www.gatestoneinstitute.org/12390/anti-west-imam

  • The purpose of brainwashing their students with inciting anger and hatred clearly seems to be to instill in them the notion that they are being victimized by the West.
  • Some members of the so-called "victim" community, such as Islamist leaders, take advantage of this victimhood status. They use it as a shield and then become the victimizers by crushing people in their own countries.
  • Such ideas and values prevent ordinary people and scholars from focusing on the crimes against humanity that Islamist leaders of state and non-state entities commit.
  • The accommodation of Muslim extremists by leaders in the West not only helps them recruit more people to target Westerners, incite anti-Western, anti-Christian, and anti-Semitic sentiments, but more importantly, it tramples the millions of ordinary Muslims who seek to promote in their homelands values such as the institutions of democracy, freedom of speech, separation of religion and state, the independence of education and the judiciary, and equal justice under the law.

In my high school in Syria, which was directed by the Iranian regime through its embassy staff in Damascus (Iran has several schools in Syria and sends teachers and imams there), every student was forced to attend daily prayer at noon. We were commanded to stand behind an extremist clergyman, mimic his actions, and recite the prayer. After the prayer, we had no choice but to listen to the preaching of a fundamentalist imam who was most likely employed by the regime to advance their ideological and political interests.

Some of the words preached by this radical cleric stuck with me, especially his sharp focus on how to capitalize on some, but not all, theories that originated in the West. We could utilize these theories, he said, to advance Islamist values. For example, one of the concepts, he was adamant that we learn about was "Orientalism", is a concept developed by Edward Said, a Palestinian-American who was born in 1935 in Palestine, when it was still under the British mandate.

The theory focuses on the notion that there is a fundamental flaw in the Western world, because it views the East, specifically the Muslim world and the Middle East, through a prism of superiority.

In a short time, this concept gained significant popularity in the Western academic world, and consequently it infiltrated the media and political landscapes. Inevitably it shaped and influenced public thought.

But why would an Islamist leader applaud such ideas? Why are they teaching them extensively in their madrassas, schools and universities? From the perspective of radical Muslims, such ideas automatically create two categories: the "victims", "innocents", "oppressed" and "martyrs" versus the "oppressor" or "tyrant". In other words, the whole Muslim world is given the status of victimhood, while all Westerners are supposedly tyrants.

The purpose of brainwashing their students with inciting anger and hatred clearly seems to be to instill in them the notion that they are being victimized by the West.

This is probably one of the reasons that the well-known historian Bernard Lewis, characterized the thesis of Orientalism as anti-Western -- or, as my school's imam put it, "We Love Western Anti-West Theories".

Unfortunately, such teachings help the radical Muslims and Islamist rulers to exploit an already tense situation, and to justify their terrorist attacks against the West as acts of heroism instead of atrocities.

In addition, such simplistic views that portray every Muslim as a victim harm Westerners by preventing them from acquiring the truth about the complexities and intricacies of the Muslim world.

Even more fundamentally, these views inflict incalculable harm on the lives of the ordinary people in the Muslim world, who call it: Opposite Orientalism.

Put simply, some members of the so-called "victim" community, such as the Islamist leaders, take advantage of this victimhood status. They use it as a shield and then become the victimizers by crushing people in their own countries.

Using this status as their reason to act in violent and controlling ways, they suppress domestic oppositions and Muslim dissidents who might not agree with them.

What helps these Islamist leaders even more is another idea that began in Western academic circles, and then infiltrated the media and political spectrum. If you oppose the idea of Orientalism -- meaning if you criticize any member of the Muslim world or stand with the West for any reason -- then you will be regardedby them as "uneducated", "racist", unsophisticated, or even an imperialist. If, on the other hand, you would like to be viewed by your fellow academics and self-righteous media pundits as "educated" and be respected in the mainstream social, academic and political arenas, you must refrain from criticizing the Muslim world, and instead ratchet up your criticism against the West.

Such ideas and values prevent ordinary people and scholars from focusing on the crimes against humanity that Islamist leaders of state and non-state entities commit. Take a look at the grinding human rights violations that the Islamist state of Iran commits against its own people. The ruling mullahs of Iran have been given immunity by the international community and their unspeakable violence and lawlessness has received little attention.

While enjoying the status of victimhood, Iran's mullahs have massacred nearly 30,000 political prisoners, and yet the International Criminal Court in Hague as well as other powerful international organizations have not yet investigated the cases properly. The Islamic Republic of Iran holds the world record in executing people per capita. It is also, according to Amnesty International, a leading executioner of children.



3349.jpg

Pictured: Preparations for a public hanging in Iran, September 20, 2017. (Image source: Tasnim/Wikimedia Commons)


Theories and concepts that promote ideas such as the entire Muslim world being victims, and that "educated" people should refrain from criticizing extremist Muslims and radical Islam -- and that "intelligent" people should only blame the West for the problems in the world -- are not just simplistic; they are dangerous. They provide a platform for extremist Muslim leaders, terrorist groups, and Islamist regimes to prove to their followers that they are correct in pursuing their fundamentalist agenda.

This accommodation of extremist Muslims by leaders in the West not only helps them recruit more people to target Westerners, and incite anti-Western, anti-Christian, and anti-Semitic sentiments, but more importantly, it tramples the millions of ordinary Muslims who seek to promote in their homelands values such as the institutions of democracy, freedom of speech, separation of religion and state, the independence of education and the judiciary, and equal justice under the law.

Dr. Majid Rafizadeh, is a business strategic and advisor, Harvard-educated scholar, political scientist, board member of Harvard International Review, and president of the International American Council on the Middle East. He has authored several books on Islam and US Foreign Policy. He can be reached at Dr.Rafizadeh@Post.Harvard.Edu
 
. . . .
My School's Imam: "We Love Western Anti-West Theories"
by Majid Rafizadeh
June 12, 2018 at 4:00 am


https://www.gatestoneinstitute.org/12390/anti-west-imam

  • The purpose of brainwashing their students with inciting anger and hatred clearly seems to be to instill in them the notion that they are being victimized by the West.
  • Some members of the so-called "victim" community, such as Islamist leaders, take advantage of this victimhood status. They use it as a shield and then become the victimizers by crushing people in their own countries.
  • Such ideas and values prevent ordinary people and scholars from focusing on the crimes against humanity that Islamist leaders of state and non-state entities commit.
  • The accommodation of Muslim extremists by leaders in the West not only helps them recruit more people to target Westerners, incite anti-Western, anti-Christian, and anti-Semitic sentiments, but more importantly, it tramples the millions of ordinary Muslims who seek to promote in their homelands values such as the institutions of democracy, freedom of speech, separation of religion and state, the independence of education and the judiciary, and equal justice under the law.

In my high school in Syria, which was directed by the Iranian regime through its embassy staff in Damascus (Iran has several schools in Syria and sends teachers and imams there), every student was forced to attend daily prayer at noon. We were commanded to stand behind an extremist clergyman, mimic his actions, and recite the prayer. After the prayer, we had no choice but to listen to the preaching of a fundamentalist imam who was most likely employed by the regime to advance their ideological and political interests.

Some of the words preached by this radical cleric stuck with me, especially his sharp focus on how to capitalize on some, but not all, theories that originated in the West. We could utilize these theories, he said, to advance Islamist values. For example, one of the concepts, he was adamant that we learn about was "Orientalism", is a concept developed by Edward Said, a Palestinian-American who was born in 1935 in Palestine, when it was still under the British mandate.

The theory focuses on the notion that there is a fundamental flaw in the Western world, because it views the East, specifically the Muslim world and the Middle East, through a prism of superiority.

In a short time, this concept gained significant popularity in the Western academic world, and consequently it infiltrated the media and political landscapes. Inevitably it shaped and influenced public thought.

But why would an Islamist leader applaud such ideas? Why are they teaching them extensively in their madrassas, schools and universities? From the perspective of radical Muslims, such ideas automatically create two categories: the "victims", "innocents", "oppressed" and "martyrs" versus the "oppressor" or "tyrant". In other words, the whole Muslim world is given the status of victimhood, while all Westerners are supposedly tyrants.

The purpose of brainwashing their students with inciting anger and hatred clearly seems to be to instill in them the notion that they are being victimized by the West.

This is probably one of the reasons that the well-known historian Bernard Lewis, characterized the thesis of Orientalism as anti-Western -- or, as my school's imam put it, "We Love Western Anti-West Theories".

Unfortunately, such teachings help the radical Muslims and Islamist rulers to exploit an already tense situation, and to justify their terrorist attacks against the West as acts of heroism instead of atrocities.

In addition, such simplistic views that portray every Muslim as a victim harm Westerners by preventing them from acquiring the truth about the complexities and intricacies of the Muslim world.

Even more fundamentally, these views inflict incalculable harm on the lives of the ordinary people in the Muslim world, who call it: Opposite Orientalism.

Put simply, some members of the so-called "victim" community, such as the Islamist leaders, take advantage of this victimhood status. They use it as a shield and then become the victimizers by crushing people in their own countries.

Using this status as their reason to act in violent and controlling ways, they suppress domestic oppositions and Muslim dissidents who might not agree with them.

What helps these Islamist leaders even more is another idea that began in Western academic circles, and then infiltrated the media and political spectrum. If you oppose the idea of Orientalism -- meaning if you criticize any member of the Muslim world or stand with the West for any reason -- then you will be regardedby them as "uneducated", "racist", unsophisticated, or even an imperialist. If, on the other hand, you would like to be viewed by your fellow academics and self-righteous media pundits as "educated" and be respected in the mainstream social, academic and political arenas, you must refrain from criticizing the Muslim world, and instead ratchet up your criticism against the West.

Such ideas and values prevent ordinary people and scholars from focusing on the crimes against humanity that Islamist leaders of state and non-state entities commit. Take a look at the grinding human rights violations that the Islamist state of Iran commits against its own people. The ruling mullahs of Iran have been given immunity by the international community and their unspeakable violence and lawlessness has received little attention.

While enjoying the status of victimhood, Iran's mullahs have massacred nearly 30,000 political prisoners, and yet the International Criminal Court in Hague as well as other powerful international organizations have not yet investigated the cases properly. The Islamic Republic of Iran holds the world record in executing people per capita. It is also, according to Amnesty International, a leading executioner of children.



3349.jpg

Pictured: Preparations for a public hanging in Iran, September 20, 2017. (Image source: Tasnim/Wikimedia Commons)


Theories and concepts that promote ideas such as the entire Muslim world being victims, and that "educated" people should refrain from criticizing extremist Muslims and radical Islam -- and that "intelligent" people should only blame the West for the problems in the world -- are not just simplistic; they are dangerous. They provide a platform for extremist Muslim leaders, terrorist groups, and Islamist regimes to prove to their followers that they are correct in pursuing their fundamentalist agenda.

This accommodation of extremist Muslims by leaders in the West not only helps them recruit more people to target Westerners, and incite anti-Western, anti-Christian, and anti-Semitic sentiments, but more importantly, it tramples the millions of ordinary Muslims who seek to promote in their homelands values such as the institutions of democracy, freedom of speech, separation of religion and state, the independence of education and the judiciary, and equal justice under the law.

Dr. Majid Rafizadeh, is a business strategic and advisor, Harvard-educated scholar, political scientist, board member of Harvard International Review, and president of the International American Council on the Middle East. He has authored several books on Islam and US Foreign Policy. He can be reached at Dr.Rafizadeh@Post.Harvard.Edu
That moment when ppl conduct all the atrocities throughout the history and play the victim card. Its like bullies crying that they can no longer bully anyone.
 
.
Fundamentalism, Taliban, Al-Qaida, ISIS, Jaishe Mohammed, SSP, Khomeini’s Velayat-e-Faqih etc may claim to have esoteric objectives such doing Allah’s work but in effect, these are devices to attain political power by certain individuals.

Exploitation of the religion for political purposes is nothing new and has been going since eternity. One thing is however certain, the rise of the extremist Islamic groups during the 20th Century is directly related to actions by the great powers of the day.

The takeover of the holy cities and spread of Wahhabism is a direct result of the British sponsored Arab revolt against the Ottoman Turks during the WWI and subsequent carving out arbitrary borders from the conquered Turkish vilayats.


The rise of the Khomeini is the direct result of the American/British engineered military coup which re-instated the Pahlavi dynasty through the 28 Mordad, Coup d’état after the Shah was dethroned by Dr Mussaddeqh in 1953.

The more I delve into the historical events, more cynical I become over what is right. IMO nothing is lily white, all being different shades of grey. Thus in my old age, I consider myself simply a Muslim, no more & no less. I also try my best to be a good human being.

Let me quote one of the quatrains by the great Omar Khayyam.

O City Mufti, you go more astray
Than I do, though to wine I do give way;
I drink the blood of grapes, you that of men:
Which of us is the more bloodthirsty, pray?
 
.
It is not just in Muslim countries, the whole appeal of trumpisim is based on the same message.
You downtrodden Christian whites, you are the victims, hordes of drug using rapist non white people are coming to take your country your guns and your daughters I am the only one that can protect you. Just hand over all power to me and I will make it the 1960's again when Mexicans cleaned you pool not dated your kids.
 
.
Fundamentalism, Taliban, Al-Qaida, ISIS, Jaishe Mohammed, SSP, Khomeini’s Velayat-e-Faqih etc may claim to have esoteric objectives such doing Allah’s work but in effect, these are devices to attain political power by certain individuals.

Exploitation of the religion for political purposes is nothing new and has been going since eternity. One thing is however certain, the rise of the extremist Islamic groups during the 20th Century is directly related to actions by the great powers of the day.

The takeover of the holy cities and spread of Wahhabism is a direct result of the British sponsored Arab revolt against the Ottoman Turks during the WWI and subsequent carving out arbitrary borders from the conquered Turkish vilayats.


The rise of the Khomeini is the direct result of the American/British engineered military coup which re-instated the Pahlavi dynasty through the 28 Mordad, Coup d’état after the Shah was dethroned by Dr Mussaddeqh in 1953.

The more I delve into the historical events, more cynical I become over what is right. IMO nothing is lily white, all being different shades of grey. Thus in my old age, I consider myself simply a Muslim, no more & no less. I also try my best to be a good human being.

Let me quote one of the quatrains by the great Omar Khayyam.

O City Mufti, you go more astray
Than I do, though to wine I do give way;
I drink the blood of grapes, you that of men:
Which of us is the more bloodthirsty, pray?

The British sponsored Arab revolt against the Ottoman Empire was a direct result of the Ottoman Empire attack on Russia in October 1914. Since Russia and Great Britain were allies, this was a cause of war.

The American/British engineered military coup was a direct result of Mossadeq’s breaking of the agreement Iran had with various companies. There would have been no oil produced in Iran without investment by foreign companies. There were several rounds of negotiations providing Iran with more and more compensation each time.

Islamist Terrorism is of course directly connected to Nazis invited by Arab countries after WW2.
Yassir Arafat got his education from the notorious SS OberArschFührer Otto Skorzeny.

I guess You need to dig deeper.
 
.
The British sponsored Arab revolt against the Ottoman Empire was a direct result of the Ottoman Empire attack on Russia in October 1914. Since Russia and Great Britain were allies, this was a cause of war.

The American/British engineered military coup was a direct result of Mossadeq’s breaking of the agreement Iran had with various companies. There would have been no oil produced in Iran without investment by foreign companies. There were several rounds of negotiations providing Iran with more and more compensation each time.

Islamist Terrorism is of course directly connected to Nazis invited by Arab countries after WW2.
Yassir Arafat got his education from the notorious SS OberArschFührer Otto Skorzeny.

I guess You need to dig deeper.

Nazis and Islamic terrorism...
Two totally unrelated colors being blended here. lol
 
.
Nazis and Islamic terrorism...
Two totally unrelated colors being blended here. lol
Nope, the methods used by Islamic terrorists were developed by the Nazis and transferred personally to the Middle East by Nazi refugees.
 
. . .
The British sponsored Arab revolt against the Ottoman Empire was a direct result of the Ottoman Empire attack on Russia in October 1914. Since Russia and Great Britain were allies, this was a cause of war.

The American/British engineered military coup was a direct result of Mossadeq’s breaking of the agreement Iran had with various companies. There would have been no oil produced in Iran without investment by foreign companies. There were several rounds of negotiations providing Iran with more and more compensation each time.



Hon Richelieu,

While you are chronologically correct, your conclusions suggest that you are not aware of the full story. Your post needed a comprehensive reply and since I have been too busy watching World Cup football; it has taken this long for which I seek your indulgence.

WW1 & Ottoman Turkey.

Timeline of the WW1 is:

June 28, 1914 – Arch Duke Franz Ferdinand, Crown Prince of Austria assassinated in Sarajevo.
July 28, 1914 – Austria declared war on Serbia.
August 2, 1914 - Ottoman Empire & Germany sign a treaty of alliance. This in effect made the Ottoman Empire part of the Austria/Germany/ Turkey ‘Alliance’.
August 3, 1914 - Germany declared war on France.
August 4, 1914 – Germany forces invaded Belgium and Britain declared war on Germany.
August 10, 1914 - Austria invaded Russia.
October 29, 1914. German naval ships SMS Goeben & SMS Breslau, which had been transferred to Ottoman Navy, shelled Russian port of Odessa.
November 4, 1914. Allied Powers declared war on Turkey.

Egypt had been a very important province of the Ottoman Sultanate; her governor titled as ‘Khedive’, an equivalent of the Viceroy. However, since the time of Khedive Mohammed Ali Pasha, Egypt had been independent in all but name since the late 1830’s. Following the bankruptcy of Ismail Pasha, Disraeli has purchased Egyptian share of the Suez Canal for £4-million in 1875. British & French therefore owned & operated the Suez Canal.

After a large military demonstration against the Khedive Taufique in September 1881 resulting from the dismissal of his Prime Minister; France along with Britain sent warships in April 1882, ostensibly to safeguard lives of the Europeans, which eventually resulted in Britain controlling Egypt. In 1914, Britain dismissed the Khedive, replaced him a close relative of his and declared Egypt as a British Protectorate. Thus Britain managed to occupy Egypt with intimidation and deceit alone, without a single shot being fired.

The early part of the 20th Century was the time when colonial powers; primarily Britain & France; were at their peak, whereas Ottoman Turkey was in steep decline. The attack & subsequent destruction of Ottoman Turkey and the subsequent Sykes-Picott Agreement of May 19, 1916, can be only be described as confiscating a profitable real estate from the weak Ottomans.

Additionally, the British Royal Navy depended upon oil supplies from the oil fields of Southern Persia, controlled by Anglo Iranian Oil Company. Because Turkey had allied with Germany; the British attack on the Ottomans was also meant to eliminate the possibility of Germany acquiring the vital oil supplies with Turkey’s help. Therefore regardless of the shelling of the Russian ports, Turkey would have been attacked by the British sooner or later.

You are however free to think that Turkey deserved to be destroyed and her provinces were justly divided up between the victors.


Iranian Oil.

The story of the Iranian Oil industry is a tale of blatant use of deceit and exploitation of a naïve Asian country by a powerful European power.

A British entrepreneur D’Arcy managed to obtain a sixty-year concession to search for and produce petroleum in an area of central and southern Iran covering 480,000 square miles. In return, the Iranian government received 20,000 British pounds in cash, paid-up shares of an equal value, and a promise of 16 per cent of the annual net profits.

In 1905, after failing to find oil, D'Arcy assigned his concession rights to Burma Oil, in return for 170,000 barrels of petroleum. Oil was discovered in commercial quantity at Masjid-e Suleiman in 1908, and Burma Oil was reincorporated the following year as the Anglo-Persian Oil Company (APOC), later, the Anglo-Iranian Oil Company, and then British Petroleum. Winston Churchill as the First Lord of the Admiralty recognized the value of Iranian oil for the Royal Navy and British Gov’t acquired the controlling interest (53%) of the Anglo Persian oil company in 1914.

For the record, Masjid-e Suleiman oil field located in the Khuzestan was a considered a giant field when discovered. More than 1-billion barrels (39 API crude) have already been extracted. Understand the field is still producing about 7000 bbl. per day. I remember reading in the Oil & Gas Journal that NIOC had plans to increase the output to about 20,000 bbl. per day.

Resentment against the Anglo Persian oil company had been simmering since the beginning because despite tremendous oil flows from Masjide Suleiman field since 1908, Iran entitled to 16% of the profits, received no income. This was because to avoid paying the royalty to Iran, Anglo Persian Oil Company did not declare any profit until 1914.

To add insult to injury, Anglo Persian Oil Company claimed £400,000 from Iran as damages to the pipelines caused by Turkish sympathisers in 1915.

Royalties rose steadily until 1930 to about £1-million per year. However, Anglo Iranian Oil company dropped the payments to £300,000 in 1931 despite pumping out about nearly 5-million barrels of oil in 1930; citing international competition.

An intrigue led by Reza Khan of the Iranian Cossack Brigade in 1921 resulted in him being crowned Shah of Iran and the British strengthened their stranglehold on Iranian oil in 1933 by extending their concession by another 60 years. However, even though Reza Shah had declared his neutrality in WW2, Britain & Russia invaded and occupied Iran in Sept.1941. Reza Shah was exiled to South Africa and replaced by his young son Mohammed Reza. The main reason was to open supply corridor to Russia from the Persian Gulf and also to ensure that Iranian Oil supplies did not reach Germany.

Legislation to nationalize Iranian oil (Millie shudden sana’at naft) was moved by Dr Mossadagh, a long time left of centre politician and unanimously passed by the Iranian Majlis on April 27, 1951, and verified by the Iranian Senate on April 29, 1951.

Iranian Oil remained nationalized even after the reinstatement of the Pahlavis. Thus the real reason was not nationalization of the oil industry. This was at the height of the Cold War and with the Soviet Union bordering Iran in the North; US & Britain feared Iranian Oil falling under the influence of the Communists.

The current mess in Iraq is especially due to the short-sighted and totally irrational policies of the US & her allies. Saddam invaded Iran but the entire West sided with Iraq; even the use of chemical weapons on Iranian soldiers was completely ignored. However, when the same Saddam Hussein went against the US & Western interests, he was destroyed for having the same weapons of mass destruction. In what state Iraq is now?

Based on the above historical facts, I maintain that majority of the troubles in the world; especially in the Middle East is the direct result of unilateral action by the world powers. However, if you still believe that weaker nations need to be punished for going against the wishes of the mighty Western powers, you haven’t got a ‘Heart’.
 
.
Hon Richelieu,

While you are chronologically correct, your conclusions suggest that you are not aware of the full story. Your post needed a comprehensive reply and since I have been too busy watching World Cup football; it has taken this long for which I seek your indulgence.

WW1 & Ottoman Turkey.

Timeline of the WW1 is:

June 28, 1914 – Arch Duke Franz Ferdinand, Crown Prince of Austria assassinated in Sarajevo.
July 28, 1914 – Austria declared war on Serbia.
August 2, 1914 - Ottoman Empire & Germany sign a treaty of alliance. This in effect made the Ottoman Empire part of the Austria/Germany/ Turkey ‘Alliance’.
August 3, 1914 - Germany declared war on France.
August 4, 1914 – Germany forces invaded Belgium and Britain declared war on Germany.
August 10, 1914 - Austria invaded Russia.
October 29, 1914. German naval ships SMS Goeben & SMS Breslau, which had been transferred to Ottoman Navy, shelled Russian port of Odessa.
November 4, 1914. Allied Powers declared war on Turkey.

Egypt had been a very important province of the Ottoman Sultanate; her governor titled as ‘Khedive’, an equivalent of the Viceroy. However, since the time of Khedive Mohammed Ali Pasha, Egypt had been independent in all but name since the late 1830’s. Following the bankruptcy of Ismail Pasha, Disraeli has purchased Egyptian share of the Suez Canal for £4-million in 1875. British & French therefore owned & operated the Suez Canal.

After a large military demonstration against the Khedive Taufique in September 1881 resulting from the dismissal of his Prime Minister; France along with Britain sent warships in April 1882, ostensibly to safeguard lives of the Europeans, which eventually resulted in Britain controlling Egypt. In 1914, Britain dismissed the Khedive, replaced him a close relative of his and declared Egypt as a British Protectorate. Thus Britain managed to occupy Egypt with intimidation and deceit alone, without a single shot being fired.

The early part of the 20th Century was the time when colonial powers; primarily Britain & France; were at their peak, whereas Ottoman Turkey was in steep decline. The attack & subsequent destruction of Ottoman Turkey and the subsequent Sykes-Picott Agreement of May 19, 1916, can be only be described as confiscating a profitable real estate from the weak Ottomans.

Additionally, the British Royal Navy depended upon oil supplies from the oil fields of Southern Persia, controlled by Anglo Iranian Oil Company. Because Turkey had allied with Germany; the British attack on the Ottomans was also meant to eliminate the possibility of Germany acquiring the vital oil supplies with Turkey’s help. Therefore regardless of the shelling of the Russian ports, Turkey would have been attacked by the British sooner or later.

You are however free to think that Turkey deserved to be destroyed and her provinces were justly divided up between the victors.


Iranian Oil.

The story of the Iranian Oil industry is a tale of blatant use of deceit and exploitation of a naïve Asian country by a powerful European power.

A British entrepreneur D’Arcy managed to obtain a sixty-year concession to search for and produce petroleum in an area of central and southern Iran covering 480,000 square miles. In return, the Iranian government received 20,000 British pounds in cash, paid-up shares of an equal value, and a promise of 16 per cent of the annual net profits.

In 1905, after failing to find oil, D'Arcy assigned his concession rights to Burma Oil, in return for 170,000 barrels of petroleum. Oil was discovered in commercial quantity at Masjid-e Suleiman in 1908, and Burma Oil was reincorporated the following year as the Anglo-Persian Oil Company (APOC), later, the Anglo-Iranian Oil Company, and then British Petroleum. Winston Churchill as the First Lord of the Admiralty recognized the value of Iranian oil for the Royal Navy and British Gov’t acquired the controlling interest (53%) of the Anglo Persian oil company in 1914.

For the record, Masjid-e Suleiman oil field located in the Khuzestan was a considered a giant field when discovered. More than 1-billion barrels (39 API crude) have already been extracted. Understand the field is still producing about 7000 bbl. per day. I remember reading in the Oil & Gas Journal that NIOC had plans to increase the output to about 20,000 bbl. per day.

Resentment against the Anglo Persian oil company had been simmering since the beginning because despite tremendous oil flows from Masjide Suleiman field since 1908, Iran entitled to 16% of the profits, received no income. This was because to avoid paying the royalty to Iran, Anglo Persian Oil Company did not declare any profit until 1914.

To add insult to injury, Anglo Persian Oil Company claimed £400,000 from Iran as damages to the pipelines caused by Turkish sympathisers in 1915.

Royalties rose steadily until 1930 to about £1-million per year. However, Anglo Iranian Oil company dropped the payments to £300,000 in 1931 despite pumping out about nearly 5-million barrels of oil in 1930; citing international competition.

An intrigue led by Reza Khan of the Iranian Cossack Brigade in 1921 resulted in him being crowned Shah of Iran and the British strengthened their stranglehold on Iranian oil in 1933 by extending their concession by another 60 years. However, even though Reza Shah had declared his neutrality in WW2, Britain & Russia invaded and occupied Iran in Sept.1941. Reza Shah was exiled to South Africa and replaced by his young son Mohammed Reza. The main reason was to open supply corridor to Russia from the Persian Gulf and also to ensure that Iranian Oil supplies did not reach Germany.

Legislation to nationalize Iranian oil (Millie shudden sana’at naft) was moved by Dr Mossadagh, a long time left of centre politician and unanimously passed by the Iranian Majlis on April 27, 1951, and verified by the Iranian Senate on April 29, 1951.

Iranian Oil remained nationalized even after the reinstatement of the Pahlavis. Thus the real reason was not nationalization of the oil industry. This was at the height of the Cold War and with the Soviet Union bordering Iran in the North; US & Britain feared Iranian Oil falling under the influence of the Communists.

The current mess in Iraq is especially due to the short-sighted and totally irrational policies of the US & her allies. Saddam invaded Iran but the entire West sided with Iraq; even the use of chemical weapons on Iranian soldiers was completely ignored. However, when the same Saddam Hussein went against the US & Western interests, he was destroyed for having the same weapons of mass destruction. In what state Iraq is now?

Based on the above historical facts, I maintain that majority of the troubles in the world; especially in the Middle East is the direct result of unilateral action by the world powers. However, if you still believe that weaker nations need to be punished for going against the wishes of the mighty Western powers, you haven’t got a ‘Heart’.

Turkey made their choice when they allied with Germany. Only they are to be blamed for this.
Only 60 years earlier, both Britain and France protected the Ottomans against the Russians.
They also gave a reason for an attack.
At the end, the territory stolen over a period of a thousand years was stolen.

Going against the wishes is one thing, breaking business agreements which are voluntarily entered is another. If there had been no oil, Iranians would have been getting a lot of money for nothing.

Iranians broke International Law by occupying the US embassy.
Not surprising that the US supports any enemy of Iran, is it?
 
.
It seems the problem is not Imams but actual act of aggression on Muslim countries
  • Bomb one Muslim country do treaty with other
  • Bomb second Muslim country do treaty with adjacent country
  • Bomb third Muslim country do treaty with adjacent country
  • Bomb fourth Muslim country and Do a clapping session in UN


This 300 year cycle of treaties and bombing/killing was done also in US inception with Naïve Indian tribes and similarly was seen also in Colonization of Sub continent with alliance / war with regional governments

In 70's these treaty countries were (Jordan , Lebnoon)
In 80's the treaty country was (Iraq)
Between 2003-2011 treaty countries were (Most of Middle east and Pakistan) Temporary alliance
The present treaty countries are (Saudia (Paid 400 billion to win this right) and Egypt):dirol:


**Turkey mostly of last 40 years have been a very neutral party even it was forced to commence a war since war was brought to it's border. Same as with Pakistan war was kick started on our border


A lot of Human Right denial / wars in

Palestine/Kashmir
Afghanistan
iRAQ
Libya
Sudan (granting 1 % minority oil fields of Sudan)
Syria
Pakistan (FATA)
Parts of Africa
Yamen
Turkey (Toppling of government attempts)


:pop: Not sure what do I see with my eyes and read / see in news


Those anti tank missiles and those weapons dropped from C130 just don't grow on Masjid minarets they are manufactured in Western Countries , is there a Weapon factory in Masjid or Mosque - I don't think so

I don't know how those Terrorist (Sponsored gorillas from western countries) get those Anti Aircraft guns

Being alert on what is happening around you does not means you are of extreme view but rather , it is a process to be aware of what is taking place in world

It is like an awakening of mind

Seems like people are waking up
 
Last edited:
.

Latest posts

Back
Top Bottom