Ayatollah-obsessed Robert Fisk
From the very outset, Ayatollah-obsessed Robert Fisk demonstrates jealousy and envy of the Iranian Islamic system of government as he speaks of the « the thick, dark skin of clerical rule that covers Iran » ( Ref. « Iran's old guard are poised to crush any hope of revolution », Independent 12 June 2009), and was already preparing the mindset of western Europeans in that the pro-western opposition little known leader Mir-Hossein Mousavi would be elected through a revolution that the ‘old guard was poised to crush’. This blatant lie and pure anti-Iran propaganda rhetoric permeate all of Robert Fisk’s recent articles about the elections in Iran. In the same 12th June article, putting himself in the shoes of a Zionist, Fisk alleges that « Ahmadinejad denies Hitler's greatest crime », which, according to Fisk, only boils down to the disputed figure of six million Jewish Europeans victims, with total disregard of the 60 millions killed in World War II. One wonders what an acceptance or denial of certain historical reports has to do with the conduct of the present Iranian elections. Hence, Fisk must be reminded that President Ahmadinejad never denied that there were many Jews among those killed. But, confronted with contradictory historical findings, he only asked for the contention that six million European Jews were gassed by the Germans to be academically and scientifically researched. However, it does not seem to be a matter of historical concern to Fisk that, according to many sources, Jews and Zionists funded the Third Reich, formed part of the Nazi army, signed the Haavara Agreement with Hitler and his bankers under which ship loads of Jews, under Nazi commanding officers, were sent to Palestine, then occupied by the British, and, with British approval, expelled Palestinians from their lands through genocide and terror. Fisk is not asking those occupiers to leave.
Robert Fisk is very ill-advised to lash out against and to attempt to demonise « scarved or chadored » Iranian women (Ref. « A divided country united by the spirit of democracy », Independent 13 June 2009). Perhaps he would have preferred them to show their cleavages and bare or thonged buttocks as is customary in Europe Despite more than 30 years dealing in Middle Eastern matters, it is most unfortunate to see that Fisk has such contempt for Muslim cultural attitudes and for what Muslims regard by law as fundamental decency. Muslims reject Fisk’s arrogant western-style democracy which they regard as fascism and dictatorship in disguise (Ref. Plato). Western democracy is about division, corruption, fraud and world domination, and not about unity as alleged by Fisk. Unity in Iran is about Islamic Unity.
Crystal ball journalism
Robert Fisk’s selective and bias reports and anti-clerical outbursts against Iran and the Iranian Presidential elections are most disturbing and render his analysis both lacking and untrustworthy. He does not even consider the interference of some western governments into Iranian internal affairs, and does not report on foreigners financing the Mousavi subversive movement to overthrow the Islamic government. Robert Fisk does not inform people that Mousavi, an ex-Prime Minister in Iran 20 years ago when the post of Prime Minister was abolished, was in political hibernation. He does not find it strange and very suspicious how, having entered into the Presidential race at a late stage, just one week before the elections Mousavi was acclaimed by western journalists, who allegedly had restrictions imposed upon them, to be set to win unless there were ‘vote-rigging’. Did they see that in their crystal balls? The plausible answer is that they had it all worked out as the strategy was and is to bring down Ahmadinejad, but Iranians still remember Mossadegh in 1953 who veteran reporter Robert Fisk seems to have erased from his recent reports if not from his memory. Western mainstream media are well known for their censorship as they are controlled by Zionists, a fact which Fisk is too scared to mention as he is closing in behind them in the propaganda war against Iran.
Mousavi has been described as « Iran’s ‘accidental’ opposition leader » and as « the man many Iranians knew little about until the disputed elections » by NBC’s Richard Angel (June 18, 2009). But, for mysterious reasons, Robert Fisk still has his bets on Mir-Hossein Mousavi who, even in defeat, illegally marched an alleged one million supporters in Tehran demanding the scrapping of the elections (how convenient!). And he called this illegality « Iran’s day of destiny » (Independent 16 June 2009). This is how low Robert Fisk has stooped – for whose benefit? Mind you, he does not say that dissatisfied parties should contest the elections through legal means as he is clearly for the overthrow of the Iranian government. He effectively made out that this was necessary as « Fear has gone in a land that has tasted freedom » (Independent, 17 June 2009), clearly making out that Iranians are oppressed people, which is totally and utterly false. On the other hand, why is he is not fighting, in a similar fashion, for the freedom of Palestinians, Iraqis. Afghans and innocent Muslims imprisoned and tortured in the European West under repressive and terrorist laws? Are European imperialists and descendants of slavers in any position to teach others about freedom?
The most recent lie which Robert Fisk is desperately trying to legitimise is the alleged photocopies, distributed in thousands, of an uncertified « Interior Ministry's letter to the Supreme Leader » leaked on 18th June 2009 alleging that Mir-Hossein Mousavi came first with 19,075,623 votes, Mahdi Karroubi in second place with 13,387,104 votes and Mahmoud Ahmadinejad third with 5,698,417 votes (Ref. « Secret letter 'proves Mousavi won poll' », Independent 18 June 2009). The official results are that Ahmadinejad obtained 24 million votes with Mousavi 12 million. Robert Fisk makes a very poor lawyer when he throws all his journalistic weight and credentials behind the photocopy, allegedly dated 13th June 2009 (the day after the elections) by saying « the photocopy appeared to be genuine ». But then, he goes on to say « forgery is as efficient as anywhere in the West » and finds reasons both for « distrusting and believing » the document at the same time. What a contradiction and a load of garbage coming from such an eminent journalist! Did he seek confirmation with the Iranian Interior Ministry or from CIA-MOSSAD? If he so zealously and gullibly accepts such a clearly bogus propaganda document as evidence, what kind of evidence did he then use to ‘prove’ his Armenian genocide and the disputed figure of six million gassed Jews in the Jewish European Holocaust? (Ref. Bishop Williamson on Auschwitz gas chambers). Why is Fisk not more concerned with the ongoing Palestinian Holocaust?
Having clearly lost the argument, Robert Fisk now seeks to overplay the death of Iranian rioters, who many would refer to as terrorists bent upon overthrowing President Ahmadinejad. Fisk even tells the tale of someone who allegedly rang his « Beirut mobile phone » in his « Tehran hotel room » and who allegedly called himself « a computer science student in Lebanon », to enquire about alleged massacres of students at Tehran University (Ref. « In Tehran, fantasy and reality make uneasy bedfellows », Independent 20 June 2009). This tale has striking parallels with the uncertified alleged ‘election results letter’ ‘mysteriously’ leaked to the Iranian public.
Supreme Leader Ayatollah Khamenei
In a sermon delivered at Friday prayers in Tehran on 19th June 2009, the Supreme Leader Ayatollah Khamenei praised the Iranian people for the high turnout (85%) at the 12th June 2009 Presidential elections in which 40 million people cast their votes. He said « All four candidates belong to the Islamic System » and asserted that « The Islamic Republic of Iran will by no means betray the votes of the nation » (Tehran Times, 20 June 2009). He promised that the Guardian Council would look into the complaints of Mousavi’s opposition regarding alleged irregularities at the elections, and urged them to pursue legal channels as the establishment would not entertain illegal demands. He also urged an end to illegal street protests. Ayatollah Khamenei warned against « enemy plots to sow the seeds of discord in the nation » and « foreign media outlets’ efforts to destabilize the country and blamed Britain in particular », and advised groups from refraining to go to extremes as « they are responsible for the bloodshed, aggression, and chaos ». Ayatollah Khamenei clearly stated that « the election was fair and ruled out any allegations of fraud in the presidential election, insisting that the Islamic system does not “cheat” voters ».
The Society of Iranian Jews condemned opportunists for targeting « the security, peace, and the unity of Iranians by creating chaos and damaging public properties », and denounced behaviour against « Iranian culture ».
But, Robert Fisk counter attacks and alleges that Ayatollah Khamenei’s warning against foreign meddling and pro-European extremists was « a threat », as if he were an Iranian opposition candidate himself (Ref. « Khamenei is fighting for his own position as well as Ahmadinejad's », Independent, 20 June 2009). If Fisk has his way, the Supreme Leader of Iran should leave the mob running amok and the government of Iran should step down and make way for the installation of another terrorist regime similar to that of Reza Pahlavi and the CIA-SAVAK as it was the case before the Islamic Revolution of 1979. If Fisk is not interfering in Iran internal affairs, one wonders what he is doing. The Iranian authorities must be very tolerant for not arresting him and charging him with incitement.
The main finding of the New Nationwide Public Opinion Survey of Iran conducted before the June 12, 2009 Presidential Elections was that « a plurality of Iranians said they would vote for incumbent President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad », who was always a frontrunner at those elections. The Survey also concludes that Iranians do not recognise Israel, which they consider an illegal state created in Palestine against the will of Palestinians.
Pakistan Daily, 19 June 2009, reports that, in a letter to President Ahmadinejad, Rabbi Meir Hirsh of the Neturei Karta Anti-Zionist Jews congratulates the President for his re-election, praises his stance against the Zionist State and prays that « all the rights of the Palestinian People are restored throughout historic Palestine, and a Republic of Palestine replaces the ethnocratic and racist State of “Israel,” which always violates all laws and values of the international community and all laws and values of the authentic Jewish religion ». Pakistan Daily also speaks of the « Zionists’ latest hoax : The “Stolen Election” », and states that, historically, « the entire Zionist dogma is based on hoax and myths », and quotes the book of the French philosopher Roger Garaudy « The Founding myths of Israeli Politics ».
It is amply clear that the manipulated, unsubstantiated and unproven allegation of ‘stolen election’ in Iran as propagated by Robert Fisk and his cohorts is a complete propaganda and myth in support of Zionism. Paul Joseph Watson demonstrates how the BBC manipulated a photograph of a pro-Ahmadinejad crowd and described it as « Supporters of Mir Hossein Mousavi again defied a ban on protests » after removing Ahmadinejad from the photograph (Ref. « BBC Caught In Mass Public Deception With Iran Propaganda », 18 June 2009). Thierry Meyssan confirms the fact that riots in Iran were provoked by the CIA which inundated Iranians with SMS inflammatory messages, and which he likens to « psychological warfare » (Ref. « The CIA and the Iranian Laboratory », 18 June 2009). NBC’s Richard Angel rightly stated that the little-known Mir-Hossein Mousavi was merely « Iran’s ‘accidental’ opposition leader », and nowhere near winning those elections. The Iranian authorities should rather investigate how Mousavi collected those 12 million votes and at what costs.
M Rafic Soormally
20 June 2009