General Mohammed Zahedi & the 1953 Iran Takeover; Mousavi plays his role in the 2009 English/American Attempt - Neda Soltan's Sacrifice

ENGLISH/AMERICAN TAKEOVER JOB

In our last lesson, we studied the parallels between the 2009 English/American destabilization efforts in Iran to their successful 1953 takeover. The same tactics were used in both efforts, which were coordinated in both cases out of the English embassy.

In 1953, the English and Americans hired criminals like Sha'ban the Brainless to engage in acts of violence and crimes against the state.

Since the same playbook is being used in 2009, its important to find out just who is played Sha'ban this time around. Or, say, General Zahedi.

TRAITORS FROM WITHIN

According to an impeccable Jewish source, "Mohammad Fazlollah Zahedi (1897 - 2 September [or 1 September] 1963) was an Iranian general who named himself Prime Minister in 1953 after helping the United States and Britain overthrow Iran's elected government." (Fazlollah Zahedi, Wikipedia) He's shown in his lovely uniform at right.


GENERAL ZAHEDI 2009

"A top aide to Iran's supreme leader called the country's main opposition figure a U.S. agent and accused him in an editorial Saturday of committing crimes against the nation. While hard-line figures had previously demanded Mir Hossein Mousavi to be prosecuted for describing Iran's June 12 elections fraudulent and leading demonstrations afterward, the editorial was the first public declaration that the opposition leader was a foreign agent." (Ali Dareini, Iranian hardliner calls opposition leader US agent, AP, 4 Jul 2009)

WHERE YOU GET REAL NEWS FIRST

The AP journalist is almost right. Certainly the opposition activist Mr. Mousavi is a foreign agent, but the Kayhan exposé was NOT "THE FIRST PUBLIC DECLARATION"! No, that was the story that this website brought on 29 May 2009!! So if you want the hot, breaking news, days and weeks before those "mainstream" types get it, you come straight to JESUSLORDOFALL, and get the hard news -- often in advance!!

Having established that Mr. Mousavi is a foreign agent, we just need to find out "what kind".

RELIANCE ON TOP AUTHORITY

Naturally, we rely on expert authorities -- like Dr. Raphael Patai. "After studying at the University of Breslau Rabbinical Seminary and receiving a doctorate and a rabbinical diploma from the University of Budapest, he followed his own Zionist impulses and studied at the Hebrew University in Jerusalem, where he received the university's first doctorate, in 1936." (Robert Thomas, Raphael Patai, 85, a Scholar of Jewish and Arab Cultures, New York Times, 25 Jul 1996)

"Before embarking on our voyage into the Jewish mind we must ... come to a clear understanding of who is a Jew." (Raphael Patai, The Jewish Mind, 1996, Wayne State University Press, p 15)

Usually, this analysis is very simple. For example, the Jewish governor of Alaska, who also tried to become the American vice president, "delivered bagels to lawmakers". (Mark Thiessen, Alaska observers say Palin had gone fishin' on job, AP, 6 Jul 2009)

When we studied the narco-state in Afghanistan, there was no great question about the governor there, Mr. Karzai. We just viewed a side photo, and the nose gave him away. Combine that with an active involvement in the drug business, and a certain love of corruption, and the case is proven.

BY CONVERSION OR BIRTH

In this study, this is no need to research the obscure origins of Mr. Mousavi's bloodlines:

"The very fact that this question can arise indicates to what extent the Halakha, the traditional Jewish religious law, has lost its hold over the Jewish mind. Prior to the Jewish Enlightenment, when all Jews (with a very few exceptions) observed and obeyed the Halakha, its definition of a Jews was accepted as axiomatic. Halakhically, a Jew is an individual who was either born to a Jewish mother, or converted to Judaism." (Patai, id.)

DOES MOUSAVI'S STATE OF MIND CONFIRM THAT HE IS JEWISH?

No, instead we just need to examine the objective, public-record evidence of his commitments: "The discussion so far should have made it clear that, whatever the Law of Return or halakhic law says, to be Jewish is primarily a matter of feeling, of emotional commitment." (Patai, supra, p 23)

Mr. Mousavi was an "accomplice in riots" (Fars news agency cited in Iran daily calls for Mousavi to be tried for treason, AFP, 4 Jul 2009) Mr. Mousavi was talking a lot about "reforms", while at the same time working with the MI6 agents from the British Embassy to burn Iranian property.

STREET TERRORISM AND THE 1863 GENERAL UPRISING

In 1861, the Jews started another revolution in Poland. (Henri Troyat, Zar Alexander II., Societaets-Verlag, 1990, p. 80) A Jew, Jaroschinski, who was a tailor, tried to shoot the Russian governor in Poland, Grand Prince Konstantin.

Another Jew put a bullet through the jaw of the tsar’s representative Lueders. (id., p. 84)

The Jew Jaroschinski and several other terrorists were executed. (id., p. 85) The Jewish people was irritated by these developments. So the Jews launched a general uprising in January 1863. (id., p. 85) Needless to say, the Jewish press in France took the part of the rebels. They called the Russians bloodthirsty barbarians. (id., p. 88)

FAST FORWARD TO 2009

Barbarians: "ferocious Iranian government backlash against the protesters". (Julian Borger and Ewen MacAskill, Barack Obama condemns 'unjust' crackdown on Iran protests, Guardian, 23 Jun 2009)

VERSION 1: SHOT BY SNIPER

But wasn't there actually a shooting? "Obama spoke of the "searing image" of the dying moments of Neda ­Soltan, a young female protester shot by a sniper and now an icon of the revolt." (id.)

VERSION 2: SHOT BY MILITIA ON MOTORCYCLE WITH TWO RIDERS

But was she really shot by a sniper? "Reports of how she was killed vary — from a rooftop sniper's bullet to a passing shot by two Basij militiamen on a motorcycle" (Neda Soltan, Young Woman Hailed as Martyr in Iran, Becomes Face of Protests, FOX, 22 Jun 2009)

VERSION 3: SHOT BY ONE MILITIA MAN

"A crowd of demonstrators had caught the basij — an Islamic volunteer militaman — who shot her from his motorbike. He was a big, strong man in his forties, clean-shaven except for a moustache.

“I heard him shouting, ‘I didn’t want to kill her. I didn’t want to kill her. I meant to shoot her in the leg’.” The crowd were furious. Some were trying to lynch him. Others were saying: “We’re not killers. Don’t harm him.”

All agreed that there was no point in handing the man to the police so they simply took his identify card and let him go." (Martin Fletcher, Doctor tells how Neda Soltan was shot dead by Ahmadinejad's basij, The Times, 26 Jun 2009)

SO WHAT DOES ALL THIS TELL US?

When riots are going on, police never go out alone. They're always in groups. (as shown at left)

So the story that this boy was out alone, and was a real policeman, is a lie.

And then the story that the crowd caught a "big, strong man". With a gun.

This doesn't happen either. Police anywhere in the world have authority to open fire when their lives are threatened.

But the clincher? "they simply took his identify card" (Fletcher, supra) And this is what makes it so hard for the English Embassy. If their agents took the ID card, why aren't there any pictures of it?

Of course, we also note that the chances for a single heart shot from a moving motorcycle are virtually nonexistent. This was a one-bullet job. While a shooter on a moving motorcycle could spray the crowd with fire, that isn't what happened here at all.

SO THE STORY ABOUT THE "BASIJ" SHOOTING NEDA SOLTAN FROM THE MOTORCYCLE IS A TOTAL LIE.

WHEN ENGLAND MOBILIZES FOR ACTION

Which brings us right back to 1953: "The intelligence staff at the British embassy in Tehran were reinforced, and their domestic contacts mobilized for action against the government." (Homa Katouzian, Musaddiq and the struggle for power in Iran, I.B.Tauris & Co Ltd, 1990, p 177)

Since the foreign (Jewish) press is circulating a demonstrably false story about how Neda Soltan was shot, we just need to ask who might have been "mobilized". Who was there with a camera to photograph Neda Soltan as she died, but just forgot to take pictures of that big, strong policeman? Or, for that matter, of that identity card.

Exactly the same people who urged Mousavi/General Zahedi into action: "Middleton, the British chargé d`affaires in Teheran, had begun to prompt Major-General Zahedi into action early in 1952. C. M. Woodhouse (of Britain's MI6) was running the operation to overthrow the government (code-named Operation Ajax). The American embassy in Tehran took direct control of these activities in October 1952, when the Iranian government closed down the British embassy precisely in the hope of curtailing British plotting. Britain's efforts have now been so well-documented in books, memoirs, documentary programmes, etc., that it is unnecessary to reproduce the details in the present volume." (Katouzian, supra, p 178)

We have the minor difference that in 2009, the American embassy in Tehran is closed, and all the activities are being run out of the British embassy, but other than that, the playbook is the same:

FALSE PROPAGANDA IN THE PRESS

"The plotters had been active without pause. They controlled four-fifths of the press and put out false propaganda as well as anti-government articles, some of which were written by CIA experts." (Katouzian, supra, p 188)

Wow. Those CIA "experts" messed up again. They couldn't get their story straight on the murder of Neda Soltan. Too bad they had to make that false claim about the policeman's ID card. Really too bad.

THOSE SHOOTERS -- AGAIN

So who would shoot down Neda Soltan in cold blood? How about the same people who went after Grand Prince Konstantin and Lueders.

"Dead babies, mothers weeping on their children's graves, a gun aimed at a child and bombed-out mosques - these are a few examples of the images Israel Defense Forces soldiers design these days to print on shirts they order to mark the end of training, or of field duty. The slogans accompanying the drawings are not exactly anemic either: A T-shirt for infantry snipers bears the inscription "Better use Durex," next to a picture of a dead Palestinian baby, with his weeping mother and a teddy bear beside him. A sharpshooter's T-shirt from the Givati Brigade's Shaked battalion shows a pregnant Palestinian woman with a bull's-eye superimposed on her belly, with the slogan, in English, "1 shot, 2 kills." A "graduation" shirt for those who have completed another snipers course depicts a Palestinian baby, who grows into a combative boy and then an armed adult, with the inscription, "No matter how it begins, we'll put an end to it."" (Mary Rizzo, Israeli Army's Heart of Darkness, Palestine Think Tank, 20 Mar 2009)

THE FOREIGN AGENT -- AMERICA'S TOP REPRESENTATIVE IN THE COUNTRY

Which brings us back to the "foreign agent" Mousavi, who has been "murdering innocent people, holding riots, cooperating with foreigners and acting as America's fifth column inside the country." (Hossein Shariatmadari, cited in Dareini, supra)

Or, to put it another way, the sort of man like General Zahedi, who "was in contact with both military and civilian leaders of the coup from his hideout in an American ‘safe house’ in Tehran."(Katouzian, supra, p 191)

There is a military component -- holding riots and murdering innocent people. And, since the same old playbook is being used, we just need to ask, Who is playing General Zahedi this time around? Of course, its Mir Hossein Mousavi.

"The discussion so far should have made it clear that, whatever the Law of Return or halakhic law says, to be Jewish is primarily a matter of feeling, of emotional commitment." (Patai, supra, p 23)

Is Mr. Mousavi committed to the Iranian people, as he and his MI6 handlers try to burn down the town?

Certainly, based on this brief but adequate study of Mr. Mousavi's actions, we have to say that he has ZERO "emotional commitment" to the people of Iran.

So, what non-Iranian people might Mr. Mousavi just happen to be loyal to?

SAME PLAYS -- SAME TYPE OF PLAYERS

This is just a replay of the 711 takeover of the Visigoth Kingdom in Spain. The fifth column (Hossein Shariatmadari, cited in Dareini, supra) has been in place for years. And once again, the English embassy is coordinating a takeover of Iran. With the help of a traitor inside the country. "General Zahedi".

"Mohammad Fazlollah Zahedi (1897 - 2 September [or 1 September] 1963) was an Iranian general who named himself Prime Minister in 1953 after helping the United States and Britain overthrow Iran's elected government." (Fazlollah Zahedi, Wikipedia)

In Iran, in 2009, there were elections. And the result? A popular government was elected. Just not the one that England wanted.

And so they are working with their man on the inside. Plenty of lying atrocity propaganda, as usual (and as shown above).

"Nevertheless, the suspicious activities in Tehran of foreign agents during the past two weeks together with their internal counterparts [Mir Hossein Mousavi] show that a secret organization is ... working against Dr Musaddiq's government, and the American and British imperialists have not yet lost faith in the use of their last card." (Katouzian, supra, 189)

We've studied lots and lots of history in the pages of this website. The parallels between the 1953 takeover and the efforts of 2009 are so obvious. "Thus history has supplied a profound justification for the taxonomical dichotomy of mankind into Jews and Gentiles". (Patai, supra, p 4)

There is a certain group of people who just love to get revolutions going. Sweep out those "tyrants" and replace them with "reformist" leadership.

REFORMS

The sort of people who will bring in gay marriage, legalize pornography, and arrange for "easy credit".

Since "not all Jews were the descendants of Abraham, that conversions to Judaism have occurred at all times, and that non-Jewish blood has entered the Jewish aggregate in numerous other ways as well." (Patai, supra, p 19), its not a matter exclusively of blood.

No, its a matter of values: "Albert Einstein, a German Jew, not only influenced more than any other scientist the development of both the warlike and the peaceful utilization of atomic power". (Patai, supra, p 14) You see a war going down. Or, say, a takedown of a democratically-elected government like the one in Iran, and you can just know that its Jewish values at work.

But isn't there some requirement of Passover observance and synagogue membership? Not at all: "There are many individuals who will answer "Yes" to the question "Are you a Jew?" and who not only belong to no Jewish congregation or organization, but observe nothing of Jewish religion. Even if an individual born to Jewish parents takes the step of formally converting to another religion, he does not thereby automatically cease being Jewish." (Patai, supra, p 16)

We've given the most careful study to conversos masquerading as Christians in Spain, and the colonies. But what about Iran? Could there be conversos operating there as well?

Of course there are: "the forced conversion of Jews to Islam in seventeenth- and eighteenth-century Persia resulted in seperate "New Muslim" communities." (id.)

As usual, these "New Muslims", like Mr. Mousavi, will protest that they are loyal to the Iranian Nation and are not working to overthrow the country.

But this sort of thing was going on back in 694, when the Visigoth Kingdom had to bring in severe laws because Jews were conspiring with external powers to overthrow the kingdom. (Roger Collins, Early Medieval Spain, MacMillan Press, 1983, p. 135-136) Naturally, the Jews denied this. The pretension was that they were loyal citizens.

In 711, when they led Arab armies to complete the takeover of Spain, everyone knew that was a lie.

The proofs are complete. There is an unquestionable loyalty to those core traditional values. "Thus history has supplied a profound justification for the taxonomical dichotomy of mankind into Jews and Gentiles". (Patai, supra, p 4)

"Which of the prophets have not your fathers persecuted? and they have slain them which shewed before of the coming of the Just One; of whom ye have been now the betrayers and murderers: " (Saint Stephen, Acts 7:52, Holy Bible)

1. "A method of operating or functioning.
2. A person's manner of working." (modus operandi, answers.com)
   

So rest in peace, Neda Soltan.