Iran: Carter's Habitat For Inhumanity

Status
Not open for further replies.

phoenix80

Banned
INVESTOR'S BUSINESS DAILY
Posted 5/24/2007

Leadership: In the name of human rights, Jimmy Carter gave rise to one of the worst rights violators in history — the Ayatollah Khomeini. And now Khomeini's successor is preparing for nuclear war with Israel and the West.

Profile In Incompetence: Fourth In A Series

More on this series

When President Carter took office in 1977, the Iran of Shah Mohammad Reza Pahlavi was a staunch American ally, a bulwark in our standoff with the Soviet Union, thwarting the dream held since the time of the czars of pushing south toward the warm waters of the appropriately named Persian Gulf.

Being an ally of the U.S. in the Cold War, Iran was a target for Soviet subversion and espionage. Like the U.S. in today's war on terror, Iran arrested and incarcerated many who threatened its sovereignty and existence, mainly Soviet agents and their collaborators.

This did not sit well with the former peanut farmer, who, on taking office, declared that advancing "human rights" was among his highest priorities. The shah was one of his first targets. As he's done with our terror-war detainees in Guantanamo, Carter accused the Shah of torturing some 3,000 "political" prisoners. He chastised the shah for his human rights record and engineered the withdrawal of American support.

The irony here is that when Khomeini, a former Muslim exile in Paris, overthrew the shah in February 1979, many of the 3,000 were executed by the ayatollah's firing squads along with 20,000 pro-Western Iranians.

According to "The Real Jimmy Carter," a book by Steven Hayward of the American Enterprise Institute: "Kho-meini's regime executed more people in its first year in power than the Shah's Savak had allegedly killed in the previous 25 years."

The mullahs hated the shah not because he was an oppressive dictator. They hated him because he was a secular, pro-Western leader who, in addition to other initiatives, was expanding the rights and roles of women in Iran society. Under Khomeini, women returned to their second-class role, and citizens were arrested for merely owning satellite dishes that could pick up Western television.

Khomeini established the first modern Islamic regime, a role model for the Taliban and jihadists to follow. And when the U.S. Embassy was stormed that November and 52 Americans taken hostage for 444 days, America's lack of resolve was confirmed in the jihadist mind.

On Nov. 4, 1979, some 400 Khomeini followers broke down the door of the embassy in Tehran, seizing the compound and the Americans inside. The hostage takers posed for the cameras next to a poster with a caricature of Carter and the slogan: "America cannot do a damn thing."

Indeed, America under Carter wouldn't do much. At least not until the 154th day of the crisis, when Carter, finally awakening to the seizure of U.S. diplomats and citizens on what was legally American soil, broke off diplomatic relations and began planning economic sanctions.

When Carter got around to hinting about the use of military force, Khomeini offered this mocking response: "He is beating on an empty drum. Neither does Carter have the guts for military action nor would anyone listen to him."

Carter did actually try a military response of sorts. But like every other major policy action of his, he bungled it. The incompetence of his administration would be seen in the wreckage in the Iranian desert, where a plan to rescue the hostages resulted in the loss of eight aircraft, five airmen and three Marines.

Among the core group of hostage takers and planners of the attack on our embassy was 23-year-old Mahmoud Ahmadinejad, who learned firsthand the weakness and incompetence of Carter's foreign policy, one that House Speaker Nancy Pelosi and Senate Majority Leader Reid are now attempting to resurrect.

According to then-Iranian President Abolhassan Bani-Sadr, Ahmadinejad was among the hostage takers and the liaison between them and prominent Tehran preacher Ali Khameini, later to become supreme leader of the Islamic Republic.

The shah was forced into exile and on the run from Morocco to Egypt, the Bahamas, Mexico and finally Panama. In July 1979, Vice President Walter Mondale and National Security Adviser Zbigniew Brzezinski told Carter they had changed their minds about offering the shah permanent asylum. Carter's response was: "F*** the shah. I'm not going to welcome him here when he has other places to go where he'll be safe."

In October 1979, the shah, gravely ill with cancer, was granted a limited visa for treatment at the Cornell Medical Center in New York. He would die in Cairo in July 1980, an abandoned American friend. Our enemies took notes.

If the shah remained in power, it isn't likely the Iraq-Iran War, with upward of a million casualties on both sides, a war that saw Saddam Hussein first use mass-murder weapons, would have taken place.

Nor is it likely there would have been a Desert Storm, fought after Hussein invaded Kuwait to strengthen his strategic position. That led to bases in Saudi Arabia that fueled Islamofascist resentment, one of the reasons given by Osama bin Laden for striking at America, the Great Satan.

Khomeini introduced the idea of suicide bombers to the Palestine Liberation Organization and paid $35,000 to PLO families who would offer up their children as human bombs to kill as many Israelis as possible.

It was Khomeini who would give the world Hezbollah to make war on Israel and destroy the multicultural democracy that was Lebanon. And perhaps Jimmy has forgotten that Hezbollah, which he helped make possible, killed 241 U.S. troops in their Beirut barracks in 1983.

The Soviet Union, seeing us so willingly abandon a staunch ally, invaded Afghanistan in December 1979, just six months after Carter and Russian leader Leonid Brezhnev embraced after signing a new arms-control treaty.

And it was the resistance to the Soviet invasion that helped give birth to the Taliban. As Hayward observes, the fall of Iran, hastened by Jimmy Carter, "set in motion the advance of radical Islam and the rise of terrorism that culminated in Sept. 11."
Writer Christopher Hitchens recalls a discussion he had with Eugene McCarthy. A Democrat and former candidate for that party's presidential nomination, McCarthy voted for Ronald Reagan instead of Carter in 1980.

The reason? Carter had "quite simply abdicated the whole responsibility of the presidency while in office. He left the nation at the mercy of its enemies at home and abroad. He was quite simply the worst president we ever had."

Quite simply, we concur.

http://www.investors.com/editorial/editorialcontent.asp?secid=1501&status=article&id=264899644231746
 
The Shah could easily be considered one of the worst dictators in world history. By our Declaration of Independence, any nation controlled injustly has the right to rebel--which Iran did. It's no wonder they were and still are furious at us for our long support of the leader that undermined them for years.

For being angry at the US, I don't blame the Iranians.
 
The Shah could easily be considered one of the worst dictators in world history. By our Declaration of Independence, any nation controlled injustly has the right to rebel--which Iran did. It's no wonder they were and still are furious at us for our long support of the leader that undermined them for years.

For being angry at the US, I don't blame the Iranians.

Absolutely not! The shah was not a dictator... want proof?

Read my essay with facts here

http://thespiritofman.blogspot.com/2007/08/revised-essay-on-carter.html

Moreover, Iranians are not angry at the US at all... You can't speak for people you dont know much! Indeed, President Bush and America are way popular in Iran than any where else in the world. Iranians are angry at the Dems and evil people like Carter or Clinton for being soft on mullahs of Iran.
 
Last edited:
let me get this straight...you DONT think the shah was a dictator or an abusive leader towards his people?


put down the crack pipe for a sec and go do some reading.

Secret Police, SAVAK

The Shah also authorized the creation of the secret police force, SAVAK (National Organization for Information and Security, which was organized with the help of the CIA and Mossad.).This infamous agency operated its own secret prison, used torture extensively, assassinated dissidents, and kept the CIA informed. The Shah became a despot whose secret police did use torture, as he once admitted to Time magazine, and who eventually earned the passionate hatred of his nation. Amnesty International in the 1970s described his regime’s methods of torture: electric shock, burning on a heated metal grill, and t he insertion of bottles and hot eggs into the ****. According to 1976 Amnesty International estimates 25,000 to 100,000 political prisoners were being held in Iran. The Shah's own figure was 3,000 to 3,500. Anne Burley, an Amnesty International researcher, was shown by the government a SAVAK file that she deems authentic, containing pictures of victims who had been tortured to death. Several were women, she testified, and "in each case the breasts were mutilated." William J. Butler, a New York lawyer who investigated SAVAK for the International Commission of Jurists in Geneva, spoke to Reza Baraheni, an Iranian poet who was held for 102 days by the secret police in 1973. Baraheni told of seeing in SAVAK torture rooms "all sizes of whips" and instruments designed to pluck out the fingernails of victims. He described the sufferings of some fellow prisoners: "They hang you upside down, and then someone beats you with a mace on your legs or on your genitals, or they lower you down, pull your pants up and then one of them tries to rape you while you are still hanging upside down." Baraheni himself was beaten and whipped, and released only after agreeing to make a statement on television condemning Communism. Many other SAVAK victims were tortured briefly and then released, after the secret police satisfied themselves that they would no longer oppose the Shah. Did the Shah know? He told TIME in 1976 that "we don't need to torture people any more," implying that torture had in fact been practiced earlier. In any case, as an absolute monarch he obviously was responsible for the actions of his own security forces.[13]

There is some more direct evidence of the Shah's complicity in executions too. According to TIME, SAVAK agents had testified that the Shah, under international pressure to liberalize his regime and therefore eager to hide evidence of repression, gave the secret police a terse oral order in 1975: "Don't take any prisoners. Kill them." In a confession interspersed with sobs, Bahman Naderipour described how he and other agents, in response to this order, took nine political prisoners out of Evin jail in northwest Tehran, handcuffed and blindfolded them and then machine-gunned them. He and another agent, Fereydoun Tavangari, said that SAVAK murdered other prisoners in their cells, then turned their bodies over to police medical examiners with an explanation that they had been killed in gun fights while resisting arrest. For all the torture tales, U.S. experts estimated the number of political executions under the Shah at about 150 per year. By far the greatest bloodshed under the Shah occurred in the demonstrations that convulsed the country in 1978 and early 1979. The Shah's troops several times opened fire on crowds. One prominent member of the International Commission of Jurists classifies the Shah as in a "second league" of tyrants, below Uganda's Idi Amin, Cambodia's Pol Pot and Central African Emperor Jean Bokassa I. .[14]


the shahs regime was JUST AS BAD as the one you complain about so vigorously here, AND it was propped up (in it's last years certainly) with US help


your lack of knowledge about something you profess to be an expert in is astounding
 
Last edited:
im also curious how you hold Carter responsible for the faliure of "operation eagle claw"
Rejecting Iranian demands, Carter approved an ill-fated secret rescue mission, Operation Eagle Claw. On the night of April 24, 1980, as the first part of the operation, a number of C-130 transport airplanes met up with eight RH-53 helicopters at an airstrip in the Great Salt Desert of Eastern Iran, near Tabas. Two helicopters broke down in a sandstorm and a third one was damaged on landing. The mission was aborted, but as the aircraft took off again one helicopter clipped a C-130 and crashed, killing eight U.S. servicemen and injuring several more. In Iran, Khomeini's prestige skyrocketed as he credited divine intervention on behalf of Islam for the mission's failure.[28]


although the Presidential powers are extensive, i failed to see how they could rustle up a sandstorm? adverse weather does not and incompetent leader make
 
The Shah is not a lambasted for being evil because he was our bad guy, and he cooperated with us, similar to the Saudis today.

Saddam was supported by the Americans in the Iran-iraq war. He only became the bad guy after he invaded Kuwait. He was evil before then, but he was the good guy.

The Taliban was supported by the US during the Soviet invasion of Afghanistan. We gave them weapons, and they did terrible things after the Soviets left. But they only became the bad guys after it became apparent that they were aiding the 9/11 guy.

So being on the US's good side doesn't necessarily make you good.
 
It was Jimmy Carter who ordered the chopper pilot to crash and burn, therefore he is responsible.

Have you been on the "whacky baccy" again P80?

The Shah was merely an ally of convenience, and not much better than Sadman. We do pick 'em don't we? What's more we never learn, we are now arming Sunni militias so they can "help us" then turn on us once they have achieved their current aims.

Obviously none of our leaders have read the parable of the frog and the scorpion.
 
Last edited:
The Shah is not a lambasted for being evil because he was our bad guy, and he cooperated with us, similar to the Saudis today.

Saddam was supported by the Americans in the Iran-iraq war. He only became the bad guy after he invaded Kuwait. He was evil before then, but he was the good guy.

The Taliban was supported by the US during the Soviet invasion of Afghanistan. We gave them weapons, and they did terrible things after the Soviets left. But they only became the bad guys after it became apparent that they were aiding the 9/11 guy.

So being on the US's good side doesn't necessarily make you good.

Wrong! what did the late Shah of Iran do to be a dictator?
 
It was Jimmy Carter who ordered the chopper pilot to crash and burn, therefore he is responsible.

Have you been on the "whacky baccy" again P80?

The Shah was merely an ally of convenience, and not much better than Sadman. We do pick 'em don't we? What's more we never learn, we are now arming Sunni militias so they can "help us" then turn on us once they have achieved their current aims.

Obviously none of our leaders have read the parable of the frog and the scorpion.

Well, knowing history correctly is a huge task!
 
I am betting that its a little from both groups myself.
Only read what you agree with and ignore the rest.
:)
 
Well, knowing history correctly is a huge task!

I would have thought,.... Not when it keeps turning around and kicking you in the teeth. How many times do our leaders need to have this happen before they start using their brains. Where is the wisdom in arming your adversary merely because it is convenient at this moment in time?
 
Last edited:
I would have thought,.... Not when it keeps kicking you in the teeth. How many times do our leaders need to have this happen before they start using their brains. Where is the wisdom in arming your adversary merely because it is convenient at this moment in time?

I think you're on the wrong thread, dude! Don't you think so??

Arming Saudis today is irrelevant to our discussion here... no?
 
I think you're on the wrong thread, dude! Don't you think so??

Arming Saudis today is irrelevant to our discussion here... no?

I have just searched all of your posts in this thread and nowhere do you involve Saudi Arabia, maybe it is you who is on the wrong thread??

Most of your posts have revolved around your defence of the Shah., and that is what I am responding to.
 
Last edited:
maybe he thinks that it's all just a beat up? that the SAVAK just kicked in doors at dawn to issue hugs from Irans benevolent monarchy>
 
I think Monty has him fairly well summed up. He just ignores any facts that don't suit his story. What is it the bloke says at the start of the Myth Busters TV show, "Therefore, I reject your reality and substitute my own":roll:
 
I have just searched all of your posts in this thread and nowhere do you implicate Saudi Arabia, maybe it is you who is on the wrong thread??

Most of your posts have revolved around your defence of the Shah., and that is what I am responding to.

And? This is not about arming Saudis here. Is it?
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top