* * * * *
Khomeini’s real father, William Richard Williamson, was born in Bristol, England, in 1872 of British parents and lineage.
Khomeini’s real father, William Richard Williamson, was born in Bristol, England, in 1872 of British parents and lineage.
Khomeini’s real father, William Richard Williamson, was born in Bristol, England
The Clerics Lash Back As Iranians Question Their Legitimacy
Iran - By Alan Peters, Contributing Editor
Vigorous attacks on the credibility and legitimacy of the clerical leadership in Iran have continued to mount since the February 20, 2004, Majlis (Parliament) elections, which, despite the removal of so-called “reformists” from the ballot, still failed to attract a meaningful voter turnout. The elections showed the extent of electoral fraud to which the clerics were forced to turn, highlighting their tenuous hold on power. There are now signs that the underpinnings of the clerics will be attacked still further, especially as evidence is now available showing even that their claims to religious authority are open to question.
The late Soviet leader Joseph Stalin once said: "It's not who votes, but who counts the votes", a maxim which has found resonance in the February 20, 2004, Iranian national elections. A substantial cadre of ballot officials, directly answer- able to the hard-line clerical leadership of Supreme Leader Ali Hoseini-Khamene, “counted” the votes and issued results which almost nobody in Iran or abroad really believed to be accurate. 2
The credibility of the February 20, 2004, elections was essentially further under- mined when observers saw already half-filled ballot boxes "stuffed with fake votes" transferred into polling stations on election day, and artificial crowds created by reducing the number of available ballot boxes at each location to create long lines and the appearance of a large turnout. This deception was bolstered by “rent-a-crowd” groups of black “chadored” women who were called into action when any one of the 300 foreign journalists, covering the elections, appeared at a polling station.
Tehran sources report that 54 full ballot boxes disappeared and that initially the Interior Ministry offered “correct” voter turnout figures showing an attendance of about 11 percent in Tehran. This task was taken away from the Interior Ministry and the tally given as more than 30 percent for the capital and a touch more than 50 percent for the nation. Missing from all statistics are the huge number of blank votes cast by Government employees and students forced to vote to receive a “voted” stamp in their ID cards, without which they could face future difficulties.
Reformers and opposition groups of all kinds, including the leftist Iran Mujahedin Organization calculated that the hardliners only truly had the support of about 10 to 15 percent of Iran’s voters.
What bears watching more than the struggle between the hardliners and the so-called “reformers” is the turmoil, rising from the political depths, which threatens to destabilize the status quo in Iran far beyond the earlier student unrest and which now targets the legitimacy of the Islamic coup itself.
“Reformers”, with nothing left to lose and outraged by the disqualification of their candidates and the resultant takeover by the hardliners of the only nationally elected government body, have begun to poise an attack at disqualifying the ruling clerics' claim to any legitimacy; to even be in power, let alone rule. Diplomatic sources speculate that a significant nudge in this direction could well result in a speedy downfall of the Iranian clerics.
Supreme Ruler Ali Khamene‘i’s authority and ability to govern has been publicly and directly questioned in an unprecedented open letter written by members of the Majlis (parliament) and widely publicized outside Iran. Two Iranian newspapers, Yaass Noh and Shargh, which reprinted the letter within the country, were immediately closed down. This essentially unprecedented confrontation against the clerical leadership of Iran signaled an at- tempt to cut the clerics off at the knees rather than dispute election details or the misuse of existing power structures.
Nor are the hardliners still a monolithic group, sharing the same religious and ideological aims and opinions as was the case when “Ayatollah” Ruhollah Khomeini was alive and in charge after the 1979 collapse of the Imperial Government. Khomeini had demonstrated an unbending, single-minded resolve and capability to hold all institutions and individuals in line, but now, previously concealed dissent among the major players has sprung to the fore. When the veil of “democratic and fair elections” was torn away by the hardliners, it revealed more than was intended.
Significantly, the former President of Iran and head of the Expediency Council and international businessman “Ayatollah” Abbas Hashemi Rafsanjani has also openly announced his policy disagreement with Ali Khamene‘i over talks with the US, citing sorrow that Khamene’s clinging to Khomeini’s anti-US edicts rather than to pragmatic policy, had stifled Iran’s ability to advance politically.
Religious scholars can find no basis for Ali Khamene’s self-awarded ayatollah title or of Rafsanjani’s use of that appellation. Nor Khomeini’s, though he was artificially elevated and granted use of Ayatollah to save his life.
With all bets off, the reformers have now struck at the heart of the revolution and are insisting on an inquiry into the disappearance of Grand Ayatollah Mussa Sadr, some 25-years ago, during a visit to Libya. 3
The Iranian born leader of the Lebanese Shia was revered and respected above all others in the Shia world. He re- fused to accept Ruhollah Khomeini as an ayatollah and with the influence Mussa Sadr enjoyed, he became an insurmountable obstacle to Khomeini’s political plans, and of those who supported the over- throw of the Shah and needed a despot like Khomeini to be their cat’s paw.
Grand Ayatollah Sadr’s mysterious disappearance in Libya – his body was never found – opened the way for Khomeini to “invade” Iran, which accurately describes the action of a foreign national taking over a country in which he was neither born nor had any Persian blood in his veins at all, paternally or maternally. While one devout Iranian in California speaks of Khomeini reverently as a “great man, similar to Hitler”, other less friendly Persians liken him to an invader like Genghis Khan, the Mongol scourge.
Unable to strike at the hardliners on an uneven playing field, the “reformers” have now begun an all-out assault on their former clerical allies. The cornerstone and founder of the Islamic Republic of Iran, from which the present leaders draw their legitimacy to govern, was Khomeini and the structure, which he put in place. How- ever, there is compelling evidence that Ruhollah Khomeini was never an Iranian in the first place and had no right to inflict his policies on the Iranian people. Nor was his elevation to the title of ayatollah anything more than a political, face-saving expediency to prevent his being hanged for treason in 1964.
Considerable effort was made in 1979 to eradicate evidence of any record of either Khomeini’s Non-Iranian origins and the source of his use of the title of ayatollah, and one of the first actions which Khomeini took, within hours of his return to Iran after the Shah left, was to execute two prominent men who were living proof of his origin and also of his false ayatollah status. One of these was Gen. Hassan Pakravan, Head of SAVAK, the Imperial Iranian national intelligence and security organization.
Furthermore he immediately tried to assassinate the highly respected Ayatollah Shariatmadari, who, with Ayatollah Golpayegani, had in 1964 granted Khomeini the false title. They had agreed to allow Khomeini —then literally awaiting death on charges of treason — to be called an ayatollah to save his life: it was forbidden to execute an ayatollah. This took place in 1964 at the urging of the British Ambassador to Iran and Gen. Pakravan, when a face-saving legal reason had to be found not to hang Khomeini for treason. It is known that Pakravan had fought hard to avoid Khomeini’s execu- tion at that time.
Later, when the 1979 assassination attempt failed against Shariatmadari, Shariatmadari, far higher in the religious hierarchy than Khomeini, was placed, in- communicado and under house arrest, without the right to preach or receive visitors other than a handful of close relatives, whose anti-Khomeini statements could be easily impugned as biased.
Recent reports from Tehran showed the death fatwa (religious edict or opinion) issued against British author Salman Rushdi by Khomeini for writing an “anti-Islamic” book and cancelled a few years ago, had been reinstated to warn journalists or writers the clerics cannot directly control, that they risked death at the hands of devout Moslem fanatics if they uttered a word against the rulers in Iran or weakened their standing by revealing the illegitimate provenance of their power and thus contest their right to impose their theocratic despotism on a reluctant people.
Few contest that Khomeini’s mother was a Kashmiri Indian, but even fewer Iranians or otherwise know his father’s origins or his real name. The late Iranian Senator Moussavi, who represented Khuzestan Province in Southern Iran, at the time of the monarchy, knew Khomeini’s father and his four sons well, looked after their needs, used his influence to obtain their Iranian identity cards with fictitious dates and places of birth to avoid military service. Sen. Moussavi died for this help, on Khomeini’s personal orders, immediately on this mullah’s return from France after the 1979 coup.
SAVAK chief Gen. Pakravan, the man who saved Khomeini’s life in 1964, was taken that same night onto the roof of his house and shot to death for having compiled a complete background file on Khomeini. The SAVAK background file still exists, as a senior SAVAK official who defected and joined SAVAMA (the clerics’ equivalent of the SAVAK) took possession of it. This same man was reportedly head of SAVAMA in the US for quite some time, and sources indicate that he has kept the file “for a rainy day”.
Why did Khomeini return to Iran with such a bloodthirsty mind set? It seems clear that it was to exact the revenge which he said he would have. Prior to his return to Iran in 1979, Khomeini openly stated that he would kill as many Iranians he considered everyone in Iran guilty in advance as there were hairs on the head of his son, killed in a car accident, but in his mind killed by Iranian authorities.
Unable to provide an acceptable paternal background for Khomeini, a story was concocted to link his paternal heritage to that of his Kashmiri Indian mother and introduced an Indian-born father (also from Kashmir) but of Iranian heritage. In fact, no such person existed. But someone with similar and misleading characteristics certainly did, which could lend credence to this fiction of an Indian father.
* * * * *
Khomeini’s real father, William Richard Williamson, was born in Bristol, England, in 1872 of British parents and lineage. This detail is based on first-hand evidence from a former Iranian employee of the Anglo-Iranian Oil Company (later British Petroleum: BP), who worked with and met the key players of this saga. This fact was supported by the lack of a denial in 1979 by Col. Archie Chisholm, a BP political officer and former editor at The Financial Times, when interviewed on the subject at his home in County Cork, Ireland, by a British newspaper.
The then-78-year old Chisholm stated: “I knew Haji [as Williamson was later known] well; he worked for me. He certainly went native – but whether he is Khomeini’s father I could not say.”
Would not an outright, ridiculing denial have been the natural response, were there no truth to the British paternity? From Someone Who Knew Haji And Thus The Truth Well?
Chisholm obviously wished to avoid a statement leading to political controversy or possible personal retribution in the very year Khomeini took over in Iran. Nor as a former, experienced political officer himself would he be willing to drag Britain into the new Middle East conflict. But neither was he prepared to provide an outright lie instead of his “no comment”.
How it all happened: A stocky, handsome, dark-haired Bristol boy, Richard Williamson ran away to sea at the age of 13 as a cabin boy, on a ship bound for Australia. However, he jumped ship before he got there. Little is known about him until he showed up, at the age of 20, in Aden at the Southern end of the Arabian Peninsula in South Yemen, where he joined the local police force.
His good looks soon had Sultan Fazl bin-Ali, ruler of Lahej, persuading him to quit the police force to live with him. Richard later left him for another Sheikh, Youssef Ebrahim, a relative of the Al- Sabah family, which rules Kuwait today.
A few points should be remembered about the Persian Gulf and Arabian Peninsula area at that time.
Regional countries like Lebanon, Iraq, Jordan, Syria, Saudi Arabia and so forth did not exist as sovereign entities and were artificially created about 70 years ago by the British and French governments when they partitioned the area. Iran, or Persia as it was called, was soon to be controlled by Russian Cossacks in the North and the British Army in the South, although technically it remained an independent monarchy under the largely absentee Qajar dynasty.
British military presence in Iran was under Lt.-Col. Sykes (later Sir Percy Sykes), based in Shiraz, but politically con- trolled by Sir Arnold Wilson in Khorramshahr (then called Moham-mareh) with assistance from E. Elkington in Masjid-Suleiman and Dr Young, based in Ahwaz. All three were cities in Khuzestan Province, which was later rep- resented by Senator Moussavi. Col. T.E. Lawrence, who gained fame as “Lawrence of Arabia”, operated out of Basra in Mesopotamia (Iraq) and Khorramshahr during this same period.
Oilfields, far beyond the technological capability of the Arab tribes (or Persia) to develop or appreciate as a valuable commodity, were being discovered and ex- ploited by the British, including via the Anglo-Iranian Oil Company, formed to siphon off oil from Khuzestan Province in Southern Iran.
Kuwait, on the other side of the Persian Gulf was still not a country at the time. As the major player in the Middle East oil industry, Britain had to exert influence and control through its political and oil personnel. Haji Abdollah Williamson became one of these in 1924 when he joined British Petroleum as political officer. He retired under that same name in 1937, at the age of 65.
Earlier, in what is now Kuwait, Richard Williamson had very quickly converted to Islam and adopted the first name of Abdollah. Family names were still unusual and “son of the son of ” or “son of a type of worker or craftsman” was still commonly used to identify people. For 14 years he had lived among the Bedouin tribes on the Arabian Peninsula and in 1895 and 1898 he went on pilgrimages to Mecca, took on the rightful title of Haji and took on his first benefactor’s name of Fazl, adding Zobeiri to it as a distinguisher. Thus William Richard Williamson became Haji Abdollah Fazl Zobeiri.
During his service with British Petroleum in the Persian Gulf, Haji Abdollah took his vacations in Indian Kashmir, to rest from the relentless Gulf heat and in this timeframe married at least seven times — to Arab and Indian women — each under Muslim marriage rituals. He sired 13 children of whom seven were boys and the rest girls with most of the children dying in early childhood.
His repeated Kashmir excursions and Indian wives and use of the name Abdollah Fazl Zobeiri probably give rise to the “Kashmir Indian” father misconception. With dark-haired Haji Abdollah a fanatically devout Muslim, a characteristic he imposed on his children, this fervent religious attitude and Arab nomenclature would not normally be an expected combination for a foreigner, especially an Englishman.
He insisted his four surviving sons attend religious school in Najaf (in Iraq) under the tutelage of Ayatollahs Yazdi (meaning of the city of Yazd) and Shirazi (of the city of Shiraz). Two of them, Hindizadeh (meaning Indian born) and Passandideh (meaning pleasing or approved) studied well and eventually became ayatollahs in their own right.
The third boy, a troublesome young man, failed to make his mark in Najaf and went to the Iranian holy city of Qom, where he studied under Ayatollah Boroujerdi. When family names became a requirement by law under His Majesty Reza Shah, the young man chose the city of his residence — Khomein — as the designator and took on the name Khomeini (meaning “of Khomein”).
The fourth son hated theology and went across the Persian Gulf to Kuwait and opened up two gas (petrol) stations using the paternal family name of Haji Ali Williamson, though it is unclear if he ever performed the Haj pilgrimage. This in itself links Khomeini — through that brother — with Haji Williamson. Why, otherwise, would Rouhallah Khomeini’s undisputed brother use the Williamson family name?
The patriarch of this brood, Haji Abdollah Fazl Zobeiri (aka Haji Abdollah Williamson in BP), was thrown out of Iran by Reza Shah along with three other British political officers for anti-Iranian activity and joined his son in Kuwait. Here he took on the duties of Oil Distribution for the Anglo-Iranian Oil Company.
With his longstanding contacts in the Arab world and his Muslim religion, he forced a 50/50 agreement between US oil interests in Kuwait and the Anglo-Iranian Oil Company as well as in 1932 pursuing the exclusive exploration rights for British Petroleum in Abu Dhabi.
His lack of a formal education forced British Petroleum to send out Archie H. T. Chisholm, a senior executive, to conclude the Abu Dhabi contract and together with Haji Abdollah’s political influence they overcame competition from Major Frank Holmes, Sheikh Hussein and Mohammad Yateen to successfully land the exclusive contract. Chisholm, as he said, got to know Khomeini’s father well.
Back in Iran again in 1960, Khomeini saw an opportunity to exact revenge for his father having been thrown out of Iran and to impose his Islamic fundamentalist philosophy onto an Iran struggling with budget problems, caused mostly by its oil being in the control of foreign oil companies, which decided — not Iran — how much oil the country was allowed to produce and at what price it had to be sold.
With his own and his family’s theological background, he began to foment an anti-monarchy revolt through the mosques, which by 1964 resulted in imposition of martial law and finally with his arrest and his being sentenced to death by hanging. And consequently being given the life-saving ayatollah title, which he had not earned.
After formally being exiled to Turkey, he ended up in Iraq where he wrote some philosophical and social behavior dissertations, which were so bizarre by religious standards that, where possible, the tracts were bought up and destroyed by the Iranian Government when he took over in 1979. The most damning were in Arabic language versions and then later, “cleaner” texts appeared as edited translations in Farsi.
Some linguists, who studied his public speeches in 1979 and 1980, concluded his Farsi vocabulary to be less than 200 words, so not only did he not have Persian blood, he did not even speak the language. With the number of Iranians who have died be- cause of him and his successors over the past 25 years going into the hundreds of thousands, if not well over a million if the death toll from the eight-year Iran-Iraq war is included, this Anglo-Indian with Arab Sunni Muslim theological and philosophical roots may have had no love or compassion for Iranians either.
In the Iran Air aircraft flying Khomeini back from France to Tehran in early 1979, with cameras rolling, a journalist asked: “What do you feel about returning to Iran?” He replied: “Nothing!” The question was repeated, and again he replied: “Nothing!”
Footnotes:
1. Alan Peters is the nom de plume of a correspondent who spent many years engaged in security and intelligence issues in Iran. This report is copyright © 2004 by Alan Peters.
2. See Defense & Foreign Affairs Daily February 23, 2004: Iranian Elections Reinforce Short- Term Clerical Grip; Heighten Political Instability.
3. Editor’s note: See Defense & Foreign Affairs Daily March 1, 2004: Iranian Leadership Seeks Ways to Circumvent IAEA, and to Suppress Possible Libyan Revelations About Iranian Involvement in PA103 and WMD. Significantly, while this report deals with the concern of the Iranian clerics over the possibility of launching terrorist or insurgent attacks against Libyan leader Mu’ammar al-Qadhafi of Libya over matters related to Iran’s involvement in WMD programs and the PA103 terrorist bombing, it is possible that the clerics also feel concern that the transformation of Libya’s relations with the US could also reveal unpalatable truths about the disappearance of Lebanese Grand Ayatollah Mussa Sadr.
® © Copyright 1995 - 2004 Earth's Common Sense Think Tank All Rights Reserved
Iran - By Alan Peters, Contributing Editor
Vigorous attacks on the credibility and legitimacy of the clerical leadership in Iran have continued to mount since the February 20, 2004, Majlis (Parliament) elections, which, despite the removal of so-called “reformists” from the ballot, still failed to attract a meaningful voter turnout. The elections showed the extent of electoral fraud to which the clerics were forced to turn, highlighting their tenuous hold on power. There are now signs that the underpinnings of the clerics will be attacked still further, especially as evidence is now available showing even that their claims to religious authority are open to question.
The late Soviet leader Joseph Stalin once said: "It's not who votes, but who counts the votes", a maxim which has found resonance in the February 20, 2004, Iranian national elections. A substantial cadre of ballot officials, directly answer- able to the hard-line clerical leadership of Supreme Leader Ali Hoseini-Khamene, “counted” the votes and issued results which almost nobody in Iran or abroad really believed to be accurate. 2
The credibility of the February 20, 2004, elections was essentially further under- mined when observers saw already half-filled ballot boxes "stuffed with fake votes" transferred into polling stations on election day, and artificial crowds created by reducing the number of available ballot boxes at each location to create long lines and the appearance of a large turnout. This deception was bolstered by “rent-a-crowd” groups of black “chadored” women who were called into action when any one of the 300 foreign journalists, covering the elections, appeared at a polling station.
Tehran sources report that 54 full ballot boxes disappeared and that initially the Interior Ministry offered “correct” voter turnout figures showing an attendance of about 11 percent in Tehran. This task was taken away from the Interior Ministry and the tally given as more than 30 percent for the capital and a touch more than 50 percent for the nation. Missing from all statistics are the huge number of blank votes cast by Government employees and students forced to vote to receive a “voted” stamp in their ID cards, without which they could face future difficulties.
Reformers and opposition groups of all kinds, including the leftist Iran Mujahedin Organization calculated that the hardliners only truly had the support of about 10 to 15 percent of Iran’s voters.
What bears watching more than the struggle between the hardliners and the so-called “reformers” is the turmoil, rising from the political depths, which threatens to destabilize the status quo in Iran far beyond the earlier student unrest and which now targets the legitimacy of the Islamic coup itself.
“Reformers”, with nothing left to lose and outraged by the disqualification of their candidates and the resultant takeover by the hardliners of the only nationally elected government body, have begun to poise an attack at disqualifying the ruling clerics' claim to any legitimacy; to even be in power, let alone rule. Diplomatic sources speculate that a significant nudge in this direction could well result in a speedy downfall of the Iranian clerics.
Supreme Ruler Ali Khamene‘i’s authority and ability to govern has been publicly and directly questioned in an unprecedented open letter written by members of the Majlis (parliament) and widely publicized outside Iran. Two Iranian newspapers, Yaass Noh and Shargh, which reprinted the letter within the country, were immediately closed down. This essentially unprecedented confrontation against the clerical leadership of Iran signaled an at- tempt to cut the clerics off at the knees rather than dispute election details or the misuse of existing power structures.
Nor are the hardliners still a monolithic group, sharing the same religious and ideological aims and opinions as was the case when “Ayatollah” Ruhollah Khomeini was alive and in charge after the 1979 collapse of the Imperial Government. Khomeini had demonstrated an unbending, single-minded resolve and capability to hold all institutions and individuals in line, but now, previously concealed dissent among the major players has sprung to the fore. When the veil of “democratic and fair elections” was torn away by the hardliners, it revealed more than was intended.
Significantly, the former President of Iran and head of the Expediency Council and international businessman “Ayatollah” Abbas Hashemi Rafsanjani has also openly announced his policy disagreement with Ali Khamene‘i over talks with the US, citing sorrow that Khamene’s clinging to Khomeini’s anti-US edicts rather than to pragmatic policy, had stifled Iran’s ability to advance politically.
Religious scholars can find no basis for Ali Khamene’s self-awarded ayatollah title or of Rafsanjani’s use of that appellation. Nor Khomeini’s, though he was artificially elevated and granted use of Ayatollah to save his life.
With all bets off, the reformers have now struck at the heart of the revolution and are insisting on an inquiry into the disappearance of Grand Ayatollah Mussa Sadr, some 25-years ago, during a visit to Libya. 3
The Iranian born leader of the Lebanese Shia was revered and respected above all others in the Shia world. He re- fused to accept Ruhollah Khomeini as an ayatollah and with the influence Mussa Sadr enjoyed, he became an insurmountable obstacle to Khomeini’s political plans, and of those who supported the over- throw of the Shah and needed a despot like Khomeini to be their cat’s paw.
Grand Ayatollah Sadr’s mysterious disappearance in Libya – his body was never found – opened the way for Khomeini to “invade” Iran, which accurately describes the action of a foreign national taking over a country in which he was neither born nor had any Persian blood in his veins at all, paternally or maternally. While one devout Iranian in California speaks of Khomeini reverently as a “great man, similar to Hitler”, other less friendly Persians liken him to an invader like Genghis Khan, the Mongol scourge.
Unable to strike at the hardliners on an uneven playing field, the “reformers” have now begun an all-out assault on their former clerical allies. The cornerstone and founder of the Islamic Republic of Iran, from which the present leaders draw their legitimacy to govern, was Khomeini and the structure, which he put in place. How- ever, there is compelling evidence that Ruhollah Khomeini was never an Iranian in the first place and had no right to inflict his policies on the Iranian people. Nor was his elevation to the title of ayatollah anything more than a political, face-saving expediency to prevent his being hanged for treason in 1964.
Considerable effort was made in 1979 to eradicate evidence of any record of either Khomeini’s Non-Iranian origins and the source of his use of the title of ayatollah, and one of the first actions which Khomeini took, within hours of his return to Iran after the Shah left, was to execute two prominent men who were living proof of his origin and also of his false ayatollah status. One of these was Gen. Hassan Pakravan, Head of SAVAK, the Imperial Iranian national intelligence and security organization.
Furthermore he immediately tried to assassinate the highly respected Ayatollah Shariatmadari, who, with Ayatollah Golpayegani, had in 1964 granted Khomeini the false title. They had agreed to allow Khomeini —then literally awaiting death on charges of treason — to be called an ayatollah to save his life: it was forbidden to execute an ayatollah. This took place in 1964 at the urging of the British Ambassador to Iran and Gen. Pakravan, when a face-saving legal reason had to be found not to hang Khomeini for treason. It is known that Pakravan had fought hard to avoid Khomeini’s execu- tion at that time.
Later, when the 1979 assassination attempt failed against Shariatmadari, Shariatmadari, far higher in the religious hierarchy than Khomeini, was placed, in- communicado and under house arrest, without the right to preach or receive visitors other than a handful of close relatives, whose anti-Khomeini statements could be easily impugned as biased.
Recent reports from Tehran showed the death fatwa (religious edict or opinion) issued against British author Salman Rushdi by Khomeini for writing an “anti-Islamic” book and cancelled a few years ago, had been reinstated to warn journalists or writers the clerics cannot directly control, that they risked death at the hands of devout Moslem fanatics if they uttered a word against the rulers in Iran or weakened their standing by revealing the illegitimate provenance of their power and thus contest their right to impose their theocratic despotism on a reluctant people.
Few contest that Khomeini’s mother was a Kashmiri Indian, but even fewer Iranians or otherwise know his father’s origins or his real name. The late Iranian Senator Moussavi, who represented Khuzestan Province in Southern Iran, at the time of the monarchy, knew Khomeini’s father and his four sons well, looked after their needs, used his influence to obtain their Iranian identity cards with fictitious dates and places of birth to avoid military service. Sen. Moussavi died for this help, on Khomeini’s personal orders, immediately on this mullah’s return from France after the 1979 coup.
SAVAK chief Gen. Pakravan, the man who saved Khomeini’s life in 1964, was taken that same night onto the roof of his house and shot to death for having compiled a complete background file on Khomeini. The SAVAK background file still exists, as a senior SAVAK official who defected and joined SAVAMA (the clerics’ equivalent of the SAVAK) took possession of it. This same man was reportedly head of SAVAMA in the US for quite some time, and sources indicate that he has kept the file “for a rainy day”.
Why did Khomeini return to Iran with such a bloodthirsty mind set? It seems clear that it was to exact the revenge which he said he would have. Prior to his return to Iran in 1979, Khomeini openly stated that he would kill as many Iranians he considered everyone in Iran guilty in advance as there were hairs on the head of his son, killed in a car accident, but in his mind killed by Iranian authorities.
Unable to provide an acceptable paternal background for Khomeini, a story was concocted to link his paternal heritage to that of his Kashmiri Indian mother and introduced an Indian-born father (also from Kashmir) but of Iranian heritage. In fact, no such person existed. But someone with similar and misleading characteristics certainly did, which could lend credence to this fiction of an Indian father.
* * * * *
Khomeini’s real father, William Richard Williamson, was born in Bristol, England, in 1872 of British parents and lineage. This detail is based on first-hand evidence from a former Iranian employee of the Anglo-Iranian Oil Company (later British Petroleum: BP), who worked with and met the key players of this saga. This fact was supported by the lack of a denial in 1979 by Col. Archie Chisholm, a BP political officer and former editor at The Financial Times, when interviewed on the subject at his home in County Cork, Ireland, by a British newspaper.
The then-78-year old Chisholm stated: “I knew Haji [as Williamson was later known] well; he worked for me. He certainly went native – but whether he is Khomeini’s father I could not say.”
Would not an outright, ridiculing denial have been the natural response, were there no truth to the British paternity? From Someone Who Knew Haji And Thus The Truth Well?
Chisholm obviously wished to avoid a statement leading to political controversy or possible personal retribution in the very year Khomeini took over in Iran. Nor as a former, experienced political officer himself would he be willing to drag Britain into the new Middle East conflict. But neither was he prepared to provide an outright lie instead of his “no comment”.
How it all happened: A stocky, handsome, dark-haired Bristol boy, Richard Williamson ran away to sea at the age of 13 as a cabin boy, on a ship bound for Australia. However, he jumped ship before he got there. Little is known about him until he showed up, at the age of 20, in Aden at the Southern end of the Arabian Peninsula in South Yemen, where he joined the local police force.
His good looks soon had Sultan Fazl bin-Ali, ruler of Lahej, persuading him to quit the police force to live with him. Richard later left him for another Sheikh, Youssef Ebrahim, a relative of the Al- Sabah family, which rules Kuwait today.
A few points should be remembered about the Persian Gulf and Arabian Peninsula area at that time.
Regional countries like Lebanon, Iraq, Jordan, Syria, Saudi Arabia and so forth did not exist as sovereign entities and were artificially created about 70 years ago by the British and French governments when they partitioned the area. Iran, or Persia as it was called, was soon to be controlled by Russian Cossacks in the North and the British Army in the South, although technically it remained an independent monarchy under the largely absentee Qajar dynasty.
British military presence in Iran was under Lt.-Col. Sykes (later Sir Percy Sykes), based in Shiraz, but politically con- trolled by Sir Arnold Wilson in Khorramshahr (then called Moham-mareh) with assistance from E. Elkington in Masjid-Suleiman and Dr Young, based in Ahwaz. All three were cities in Khuzestan Province, which was later rep- resented by Senator Moussavi. Col. T.E. Lawrence, who gained fame as “Lawrence of Arabia”, operated out of Basra in Mesopotamia (Iraq) and Khorramshahr during this same period.
Oilfields, far beyond the technological capability of the Arab tribes (or Persia) to develop or appreciate as a valuable commodity, were being discovered and ex- ploited by the British, including via the Anglo-Iranian Oil Company, formed to siphon off oil from Khuzestan Province in Southern Iran.
Kuwait, on the other side of the Persian Gulf was still not a country at the time. As the major player in the Middle East oil industry, Britain had to exert influence and control through its political and oil personnel. Haji Abdollah Williamson became one of these in 1924 when he joined British Petroleum as political officer. He retired under that same name in 1937, at the age of 65.
Earlier, in what is now Kuwait, Richard Williamson had very quickly converted to Islam and adopted the first name of Abdollah. Family names were still unusual and “son of the son of ” or “son of a type of worker or craftsman” was still commonly used to identify people. For 14 years he had lived among the Bedouin tribes on the Arabian Peninsula and in 1895 and 1898 he went on pilgrimages to Mecca, took on the rightful title of Haji and took on his first benefactor’s name of Fazl, adding Zobeiri to it as a distinguisher. Thus William Richard Williamson became Haji Abdollah Fazl Zobeiri.
During his service with British Petroleum in the Persian Gulf, Haji Abdollah took his vacations in Indian Kashmir, to rest from the relentless Gulf heat and in this timeframe married at least seven times — to Arab and Indian women — each under Muslim marriage rituals. He sired 13 children of whom seven were boys and the rest girls with most of the children dying in early childhood.
His repeated Kashmir excursions and Indian wives and use of the name Abdollah Fazl Zobeiri probably give rise to the “Kashmir Indian” father misconception. With dark-haired Haji Abdollah a fanatically devout Muslim, a characteristic he imposed on his children, this fervent religious attitude and Arab nomenclature would not normally be an expected combination for a foreigner, especially an Englishman.
He insisted his four surviving sons attend religious school in Najaf (in Iraq) under the tutelage of Ayatollahs Yazdi (meaning of the city of Yazd) and Shirazi (of the city of Shiraz). Two of them, Hindizadeh (meaning Indian born) and Passandideh (meaning pleasing or approved) studied well and eventually became ayatollahs in their own right.
The third boy, a troublesome young man, failed to make his mark in Najaf and went to the Iranian holy city of Qom, where he studied under Ayatollah Boroujerdi. When family names became a requirement by law under His Majesty Reza Shah, the young man chose the city of his residence — Khomein — as the designator and took on the name Khomeini (meaning “of Khomein”).
The fourth son hated theology and went across the Persian Gulf to Kuwait and opened up two gas (petrol) stations using the paternal family name of Haji Ali Williamson, though it is unclear if he ever performed the Haj pilgrimage. This in itself links Khomeini — through that brother — with Haji Williamson. Why, otherwise, would Rouhallah Khomeini’s undisputed brother use the Williamson family name?
The patriarch of this brood, Haji Abdollah Fazl Zobeiri (aka Haji Abdollah Williamson in BP), was thrown out of Iran by Reza Shah along with three other British political officers for anti-Iranian activity and joined his son in Kuwait. Here he took on the duties of Oil Distribution for the Anglo-Iranian Oil Company.
With his longstanding contacts in the Arab world and his Muslim religion, he forced a 50/50 agreement between US oil interests in Kuwait and the Anglo-Iranian Oil Company as well as in 1932 pursuing the exclusive exploration rights for British Petroleum in Abu Dhabi.
His lack of a formal education forced British Petroleum to send out Archie H. T. Chisholm, a senior executive, to conclude the Abu Dhabi contract and together with Haji Abdollah’s political influence they overcame competition from Major Frank Holmes, Sheikh Hussein and Mohammad Yateen to successfully land the exclusive contract. Chisholm, as he said, got to know Khomeini’s father well.
Back in Iran again in 1960, Khomeini saw an opportunity to exact revenge for his father having been thrown out of Iran and to impose his Islamic fundamentalist philosophy onto an Iran struggling with budget problems, caused mostly by its oil being in the control of foreign oil companies, which decided — not Iran — how much oil the country was allowed to produce and at what price it had to be sold.
With his own and his family’s theological background, he began to foment an anti-monarchy revolt through the mosques, which by 1964 resulted in imposition of martial law and finally with his arrest and his being sentenced to death by hanging. And consequently being given the life-saving ayatollah title, which he had not earned.
After formally being exiled to Turkey, he ended up in Iraq where he wrote some philosophical and social behavior dissertations, which were so bizarre by religious standards that, where possible, the tracts were bought up and destroyed by the Iranian Government when he took over in 1979. The most damning were in Arabic language versions and then later, “cleaner” texts appeared as edited translations in Farsi.
Some linguists, who studied his public speeches in 1979 and 1980, concluded his Farsi vocabulary to be less than 200 words, so not only did he not have Persian blood, he did not even speak the language. With the number of Iranians who have died be- cause of him and his successors over the past 25 years going into the hundreds of thousands, if not well over a million if the death toll from the eight-year Iran-Iraq war is included, this Anglo-Indian with Arab Sunni Muslim theological and philosophical roots may have had no love or compassion for Iranians either.
In the Iran Air aircraft flying Khomeini back from France to Tehran in early 1979, with cameras rolling, a journalist asked: “What do you feel about returning to Iran?” He replied: “Nothing!” The question was repeated, and again he replied: “Nothing!”
Footnotes:
1. Alan Peters is the nom de plume of a correspondent who spent many years engaged in security and intelligence issues in Iran. This report is copyright © 2004 by Alan Peters.
2. See Defense & Foreign Affairs Daily February 23, 2004: Iranian Elections Reinforce Short- Term Clerical Grip; Heighten Political Instability.
3. Editor’s note: See Defense & Foreign Affairs Daily March 1, 2004: Iranian Leadership Seeks Ways to Circumvent IAEA, and to Suppress Possible Libyan Revelations About Iranian Involvement in PA103 and WMD. Significantly, while this report deals with the concern of the Iranian clerics over the possibility of launching terrorist or insurgent attacks against Libyan leader Mu’ammar al-Qadhafi of Libya over matters related to Iran’s involvement in WMD programs and the PA103 terrorist bombing, it is possible that the clerics also feel concern that the transformation of Libya’s relations with the US could also reveal unpalatable truths about the disappearance of Lebanese Grand Ayatollah Mussa Sadr.
® © Copyright 1995 - 2004 Earth's Common Sense Think Tank All Rights Reserved
Comments
Hide the following comment
Behind the Scenes of Islamic Fundamentalism: The Colonialists
03.05.2004 20:22
1- Ever since the rise of the so called Islamic Fundamentalist which was planned and executed by the combined efforts of the intelligence Services of Certain Countries, in particular the English MI5, and a certain so called rouge elements within the CIA of United States who due to their on going relationship with their English Counter Part, facilitated and help the rise of Islamic Fundamentalist, who in fact are nothing but a bunch of Murdering, thieves and bullies who if any thing, they should be called the true Hezbe-Satan, in contrast to what they like to call themselves which as every one knows is Hezbollah or Party of God, which in fact based on their deeds they are most definitely deserve to be within the camp of Satan .
Then if one believes in God and also in the devil, then if and only if the followers of the Devil or Satan had some how organized themselves into a collection of like minded Murderers, Thieves and Liars, would they call themselves the Party of Satan or Hezbollah (the Party of God)?
2-The natural question for those who are not familiar with the political and economy of the past 30 to 35 years is why did Britain and United States, two of the leading Western countries through their intelligence Services would want to devise a Plan, to create and support a movement of so called “Islamic Fundamentalist”, that on the face of things, and with respect to the current status of the world events, having proven and shown their true identity can only be considered to be detrimental to our way of life, threatens / destroys our livelihood and can eventually destroys Civilizations. The only logical explanation is that the Greed and thievery of Government of England, which does not recognize any boundary, frontier or rights of other countries, and who are willing to steal, assassinate, deceive, lie and cheat and every other characteristics that can be affiliated with followers of Satan on one hand and the Greed of International Oil Companies, with the help and assistance of the hired hands from the Intelligent operatives of MI6, MI5, and their bodies, and friends in the CIA, managed to orchestrate and produce the scenario and the theater and the acts that we have witnessed to date.
Background
and the Mollahs rank as good Servants of their Great Grand Master, Satan.
3-During the late 1960’s the British Economy was in shambles and to some extent the US Economy was in relative weakness, where the English Government was forced to apply and solicit for Large Loans/ funds from the International Banking Circles, with little or no success. During this period, the labor Government was in Power and there were a considerable unrest within the various Labor Unions and the English Government was constantly on the brink of major shakedown.
4-It was during this particular period that a group of White Hall Civil Servants, of English decent, decided to take the Matters into their own hand and to use whatever mean necessary to remedy the economy and the political unrest, which included but not limited to manipulating the election in England, dirty tricks / or assassination or disappearance of key labor union personnel and hence thereafter resulting in the Conservative Party’s winning of the Election.
5-It is worth noting that the so called Defense Industry in England is a major Exporter of Arms to almost any one who wishes to place purchase Orders, and in the early 70’s among the many contracts that were in place was the Limited Production and final Assembly of the Chieftain Tanks in a City in the Western Iran. This contract like most other Contracts was signed by the Shah of Iran, a true friend to the United States. At the same time there was a Financing arrangement whereby the City of London was the recipient of a one Billion Dollar Loan from Iran to repair the aging sewer and Water Distribution system, the first installments of $ 300 Million having been paid . Some time during the 1976 -1977 Period there was a complain against the British Company involved in the Chieftain Tanks project as to not doing the work satisfactorily per signed Contract/ agreement and this issue was brought up to the attention of the Higher ups all the way to the Shah, who wanted to know why the English Company was not performing the Work per their Contractual obligation and Schedule. As it is generally the Case, the English Company did not respond in a Satisfactory Manner, resulting in Shah stopping the second payment of the
$ 300 Million of the $ 1.00 Billion loan to the City of London.
Devil at work
6-Subsequently, James Callaghan, the British Prime Minister at the time flow to Tehran wanting to meet with the Shah of Iran, to inquire why the $ 300 Million was not paid out. Once in Tehran he was kept in waiting for almost two hours before meeting with the Shah, where both sides discussed the Issues, but James Callahan Left this meeting with the notion that they (The British Government, and in particular the Civil Servants of the English Government who work in the White Hall) have to topple the Shah, one way or another. Of course, then all the dirty tricks, lies, deception, black mail, assassinations and what ever else, which are the Standard tools of the Intelligence Service, can be employed in order to achieve their set objective.
7- Roughly at the same period, on the other side of Atlantic, The worst president in the History of United States, the brainless, Jimmy the Teeth, Jimmy Cater had been elected. Some fellow Georgians, who had gotten excited by this election and who were very close friends and supporters of Jimmy Cater, convinced Jimmy Cater, that this is their time to get rich and for Jimmy to Contact the Shah, and arrange for Shah to cancel a large Contract for a Project to Construct a Major Port in Southern Part of Iran. This contract had been given to a leading well know Construction Company in United States, namely Brown and Root and then shah was asked to add ten percent to the Contract value and sign a new contract with the Corporation owned by friends of Jimmy Carter, then in turn these friends of Jimmy Carter were to sign a Contract with Brown and Roots for the same amount as before, and pocket the ten (10) percent, with obvious kick backs to Jimmy Carter, or his Lackey brother, Billy Carter.
8-Somehow or rather Shah did not accept this arrangement and declined to cancel the Brown and Root Contract, resulting in Jimmy Carter feeling rejected, thinking to himself that since he is the President of a Super Power, and he deserves the Kick back. From that time Jimmy Carter had adequate personal reason to start his Human Right Campaign, against the Shah. This is a demonstration of well know human weaknesses
“Pure Greed”, from there Jimmy Carter’s Campaign of Human Rights against the Shah of Iran was orchestrated, with all the necessary support from the White House.
9-On the other side of the Atlantic, the English Government with the use of their intelligence services such as MI5 and MI6 and through their Network of Spies found out about the failed attempt by Jimmy Carter at extortion by his Georgian cronies and knew that they have a solid allay in the President of United States , and the British Government( MI5, MI6 Staff and the Civil Servants in white Hall) devised a plan where by they would use the resources of United States as well as their own assets, and told their lackey’s the Turban wearing murdering thieves the in Iran that since they were far removed from Power, and they have to rely on Government’s Hand outs, if the British Government ( MI5, MI6 and the Civil Servants in White Hall) are successful in dethroning the Shah , then all the proceeds and the resulting Revenue from the Sale of Iranian Oil would be paid to the English Government. Then the so called Clergy or Mollahs, having every thing to gain and nothing to lose, agreed to this proposition. Another Ally of this British Plot was Shah of Iran’s closest American friend David Rockefeller of Exxon, who financed the Iranian Upheaval to the Tune of more than one Billion Dollars whose company Exxon continued to purchase 300,000 Barrel Per Day of Iranian Crude Oil at considerable discount for many years after the fall of the Shah, which by the way was then against the then laws of the United states.
10-The rest of events have been adequately documented, except since the American Companies were no loner able to openly deal in Iran, the British MI5, who were instrumental in bringing to Power a Brutal Bunch of Turban wearing Murderers, and thieves under the well promoted and advertised slogan of Islamic Revolutionaries ( a creation of MI5, MI6) proceeded to instruct the Mollahs to keep the anti- American Fever alive, and if they think to do otherwise, then they will have to face the wrath of the Americans as well as the Iranian People if and when they make a come back to power. The creation of the Islamic Schools or Maderssa in neighboring and /or other countries such as Pakistan, and Turkey were part of the same plan, to change or influence the Politics of these countries and reduce or Eliminate the Reach of US Government and US Corporation in that part of the world, resulting in a environment that there are no safety for a United States Passport holders to travel.
11- However, it is worth noting that those U.S Corporation that could make the necessary arrangements could still go and work on various projects in Iran using Canadian Passport. This British Plan has been in effect, and since they are getting extremely rich by stealing the Iranian Oil Revenue, the estimated amount of which is well over a Trillion Dollars resulting in not needing to borrow any money, and to be able to renovate the entire Public infrastructure in England. Also this infusion of sudden wealth has pushed the price of the Real Estate to very high levels, increases of over 500 % or more over the 1979 Values, since the fall of the Shah, all over England, including Northern England. Obviously they have not invented any thing drastic to become so Rich, except being Good at what they have been doing, Stealing other peoples money and Wealth.
12- From the point of view of the English Civil Servants in White Hall it pays to steal the wealth of other countries, other people’s money, and the English have a very long and distinguished history in that whether to Partner with Pirates of the High Seas, and award them with Knighthood such as Captain Drake or steal the wealth of the Other Countries under the pretext of Common Market.
13-One should not ignore that if for whatever reason the access of British Government ( Civil Servants in White Hall) to this wealth of Iranian Oils, which by any and all interpretation of International law is being stolen by illegal means every day, then it is only common sense that one should realized that the British Government will do its out most to prevent any and all things that may effect this arrangement , in fact based on the recent events it appears that they want to expand this arrangement to Iraq, whereby they are working with the assets of United States ( The full United States Military), but the end result within a few years could be a similar Government of Turban Wearing Thieves and Murderers as that of Iran, and the Oil Revenues of both Iran as well as Iraq would be paid to the Accounts under the control of British Government in London or else where, which the English Civil Servants in White Hall may refer to as a “Bounty” which they have earned/ deserved , and they may even offer kick backs to their allies or counter parts working with them in various positions of Power within the United States establishment, including but not limiting to US Congress, US Mass Media, and Writers of Political Column, or pens for Sale etc.
14-It is worth noting that the Sales Office of National Iranian Oil Company is and has been in London, England, since the events of 1979 and the proceed from the Sale of Iranian Oil is deposited into various accounts designated by the British Government, and is used like a huge slush Fund.
15-Therefore the only way to prevent the spread of the terrorism is to stop this theft and the financial arrangement between the Thieves in London and their lackey’s in Tehran and to deposit these funds into a Trust account to be used by the rightful Government of Iran once a free election can take place.
16-Now, it seems that some time after September 11, the United States Government confronted the British Government about their hanky Panky dealings with the Turban wearing thieves and Murderers in Tehran, and wanting to know about the financial arrangement and how much money the British Government are making and as always they lied and said that they are only getting 50 %, the actual number is 100 % of Oil Revenue as well as financing all the purchases and Letters of Credit issued by the so called national Iranian Oil Company at 20 % Interest through various well known Banks in London.
17-One should see the way the British Government through their Intelligence Services has set up this financial arrangement, they would in a heart beat and gladly sacrifice their Own Government or Prime Minister in order to keep the financial arrangement of Stealing other peoples money or as they may feel “the free Money”, and to allow it continue for as long as possible. Knowing that the British Government has the biggest lobby in the United States, They are able to influence the election in United States, if need be, defeat President Bush in the election of 2004, in the mean time using the instrument of the United Nations to arrange for the so called free election in Iraq, and then by the shear numbers as well as the dominance of the predominately Shiae majority, a Government , very sympathetic to the religious majority with discreet ties to the British Government would come to Power. As result of the previous events United States will be promoted to the most hated nation which was not the original intention, but resulted from behind the scene manipulation while pretending to be the stead fast ally of the United States, mean while stabbing the United States in the back.
18- It is a well know fact that after 1979, several of the British Television programs where referring to the fall of the shah in a way as that the United States has been Kicked out of Iran and the British have revenged their loss of 1953, when the Government of Mosadegh nationalized the Iranian Oil, and kicked the British out of the Country.
19- In fact, let’s for a moment assume that all the above statements are true, and put ourselves in place of continuously scheming MI5, the tool of White Hall and British Government. What would we do, what are the actions that we should instigate that would be financially beneficial for the British Government, in the short term as well as the Long Term security for the criminal Enterprise that has been established under the auspices of the British Government? We would encourage as much buffer as possible between those who serve our interest such as the Turban wearing Murderers and thieves in Tehran and those who would like nothing better than getting rid of these animals. Then it would become obvious that the Civil Servants in White Hall and the Staff of MI5 would provide their lackey’s all type of weapons through third parties, and encourage these Cronies to reach out and expand their own circle of influence, thereby the British sphere of influence.
20- The moral choice lies with the free people of United States; who in the opinion of some English Men are considered still to be living in the Colony, whose independence was never signed off by the British Crown.
21- In our opinion the fathers and mothers of the US Military should know the full picture and know why their sons and daughter are in Middle East fighting against the Terrorist and who are the true Masters and beneficiary of the Terror that we are all faced with.
22- It may require the might of United States to be used against the Civil Servants in White Hall and the MI5 and MI6 Agents to prevent any further escalation in the War against Terrorist. The English Government are the only one who can tell their hired hand, the turban wearing thieves and Killers that they have to vacate the seat of power in Tehran and stop the support of terrorist Groups. Otherwise Iraq, will be a battlefield where a lot of brained wash people will perish and the world will further destabilize and again the only Party that is financially benefiting from this situation will be the lazy English Government, who by their genetic nature will always resort to theft than working their way to a relative economic prosperity.
23- It would be relatively easy to confirm the above through the investigative process, for all to know, who are the true Terror Masters, sitting behind a desk in White Hall and their so called MI5 & MI6 agents who are without any and all scruples, and there is nothing that they would not do, including lies and deceit.
24- During the early stages of the War in Afghanistan after the fall of Taliban, on of the reports in the News paper described how the British forces are unable to find any person from the Taliban or Al Qaeda, and they are able to sit very relaxed in local Tea Houses, while the US Military Personnel have to watch each other back as they move through the streets, for they would be fired upon. Then soon after the British forces were sent home. This can only be possible if the understanding exist that the British are the true Friends and the United States are the True Enemy.
25- It is relatively easy for the United States Congress to initiate a fact finding mission to verify where have the British Government been receiving all these funds and their position as the True Terror Masters of the World.
At end of the day one should watch “What They Do”, and not just lesson to “What They Say”.
26- Due to the shear size of the Oil and Gas Fields of the both Iran and Iraq, it is important that true Democracy is brought to both Iran and Iraq, and let them both freely flourish, to the benefit of cross section of Industries, and do not allow the interest of International Oil and Energy Companies to supersede the other sector of Industries. Otherwise if the world allows that the Greed and thievery of one nation which by no means equals to the damage done to the US Economy as result of the Sept. 11 , then
This event was also a off shoot of the so called Islamic Fundamentalist, except this time, it is a Wahabi , Sunni imitative, Which in the over all scenario is another layer to prevent the broader US economy to have a effect in that region.
27- The Government of Britain under the pretext of Pro- Freedom has been housing political Extremist in England. The plot to assassinate Ahmad Shah Massoud was hatched in England, and the British system of Government vouched for the two assassins as legitimate Newspaper Reporters / Film Crew. Please be aware that denial is another weapon. It is like catching a liar, or thieve and expecting truthful response / honesty.
28- Let us assume that it is the battle of Good against Evil, well we know who is on the side of Evil, perhaps the Grand Master of Evil. But don’t expect to roll call and any body to stand up and introduce themselves as such. The problem with the British Establishment is very deep and probably genetic. If one looks at any of the recent video tape of The British Ambassador to United Nations or for that matter Tony Blair, one can see that they taste the wealth, which is being deposited into their various accounts every day.
29- For the purpose of informing the uninformed, one of the results of this thievery by the English Civil servants has been the biggest Exodus in history, whereby close to 4.5 million people from Iran have left their country, that is how truly close the English
...
God Bless.
Mostean
009