WAR
به زبان فارسی
PICTORY
LATEST MUSIC
SEARCH
Mission possible
31-Jul-2008
The war between the United States and Iran is on. American taxpayer dollars are being used, with the permission of Congress, to fund activities that result in Iranians being killed and wounded, and Iranian property destroyed. This wanton violation of a nation's sovereignty would not be tolerated if the tables were turned and Americans were being subjected to Iranian-funded covert actions that took the lives of Americans, on American soil, and destroyed American property and livelihood.
Many Americans remain unaware of what is transpiring abroad in their name. Many of those who are cognizant of these activities are supportive of them, an outgrowth of misguided sentiment which holds Iran accountable for a list of grievances used by the U.S. government to justify the ongoing global war on terror. Iran, we are told, is not just a nation pursuing nuclear weapons, but is the largest state sponsor of terror in the world today.
Much of the information behind this is being promulgated by Israel, which has a vested interest in seeing Iran neutralized as a potential threat. But Israel is joined by another source, even more puzzling in terms of its broad-based acceptance in the world of American journalism: the Mujahadeen-e Khalk, or MEK, an Iranian opposition group sworn to overthrow the theocracy in Tehran. The CIA today provides material support to the actions of the MEK inside Iran. The recent spate of explosions in Iran, including a particularly devastating "accident" involving a military convoy transporting ammunition in downtown Tehran, appears to be linked to an MEK operation; its agents working inside munitions manufacturing plants deliberately are committing acts of sabotage which lead to such explosions. If CIA money and planning support are behind these actions, the agency's backing constitutes nothing less than an act of war on the part of the United States against Iran.
The MEK traces its roots back to the CIA-orchestrated overthrow of the democratically elected Prime Minister Mohammed Mossadeg. Formed among students and intellectuals, the MEK emerged in the 1960s as a serious threat to the reign of Reza Shah Pahlevi. Facing brutal repression from the Shah's secret police, the SAVAK, the MEK became expert at blending into Iranian society, forming a cellular organizational structure which made it virtually impossible to eradicate. The MEK membership also became adept at gaining access to positions of sensitivity and authority. When the Shah was overthrown in 1978, the MEK played a major role and for a while worked hand in glove with the Islamic Revolution in crafting a post-Shah Iran. In 1979 the MEK had a central role in orchestrating the seizure of the U.S. Embassy in Tehran, and holding 55 Americans hostage for 444 days.
However, relations between the MEK and the Islamic regime in Tehran soured, and after the MEK staged a bloody coup attempt in 1981, all ties were severed and the two sides engaged in a violent civil war. Revolutionary Guard members who were active at that time have acknowledged how difficult it was to fight the MEK. In the end, massive acts of arbitrary arrest, torture and executions were required to break the back of mainstream MEK activity in Iran, although even the Revolutionary Guard today admits the MEK remains active and is virtually impossible to completely eradicate.
It is this stubborn ability to survive and operate inside Iran, at a time when no other intelligence service can establish and maintain a meaningful agent network there, which makes the MEK such an asset to nations such as the United States and Israel. The MEK is able to provide some useful intelligence; however, its overall value as an intelligence resource is negatively impacted by the fact that it is the sole source of human intelligence in Iran. As such, the group has taken to exaggerating and fabricating reports to serve its own political agenda. In this way, there is little to differentiate the MEK from another Middle Eastern expatriate opposition group, the Iraqi National Congress, or INC, which infamously supplied inaccurate intelligence to the United States and other governments and helped influence the U.S. decision to invade Iraq and overthrow Saddam Hussein. Today, the MEK sees itself in a similar role, providing sole-sourced intelligence to the United States and Israel in an effort to facilitate American military operations against Iran and, eventually, to overthrow the Islamic regime in Tehran.
The current situation concerning the MEK would be laughable if it were not for the violent reality of that organization's activities. Upon its arrival in Iraq in 1986, the group was placed under the control of Saddam Hussein's Mukhabarat, or intelligence service. The MEK was a heavily militarized organization and in 1988 participated in division-size military operations against Iran. The organization represents no state and can be found on the U.S. State Department's list of terrorist organizations, yet since the U.S. invasion of Iraq in 2003, the MEK has been under the protection of the U.S. military. Its fighters are even given "protected status" under the Geneva Conventions. The MEK says its members in Iraq are refugees, not terrorists. And yet one would be hard-pressed to find why the 1951 Geneva Convention on Refugees should confer refugee status on an active paramilitary organization that uses "refugee camps" inside Iraq as its bases.
The MEK is behind much of the intelligence being used by the International Atomic Energy Agency in building its case that Iran may be pursuing (or did in fact pursue in the past) a nuclear weapons program. The complexity of the MEK-CIA relationship was recently underscored by the agency's acquisition of a laptop computer allegedly containing numerous secret documents pertaining to an Iranian nuclear weapons program. Much has been made about this computer and its contents. The United States has led the charge against Iran within international diplomatic circles, citing the laptop information as the primary source proving Iran's ongoing involvement in clandestine nuclear weapons activity. Of course, the information on the computer, being derived from questionable sources (i.e., the MEK and the CIA, both sworn enemies of Iran) is controversial and its veracity is questioned by many, including me.
Now, I have a simple solution to the issue of the laptop computer: Give it the UNSCOM treatment. Assemble a team of CIA, FBI and Defense Department forensic computer analysts and probe the computer, byte by byte. Construct a chronological record of how and when the data on the computer were assembled. Check the "logic" of the data, making sure everything fits together in a manner consistent with the computer's stated function and use. Tell us when the computer was turned on and logged into and how it was used. Then, with this complex usage template constructed, overlay the various themes which have been derived from the computer's contents, pertaining to projects, studies and other activities of interest. One should be able to rapidly ascertain whether or not the computer is truly a key piece of intelligence pertaining to Iran's nuclear programs.
The fact that this computer is acknowledged as coming from the MEK and the fact that a proper forensic investigation would probably demonstrate the fabricated nature of the data contained are why the U.S. government will never agree to such an investigation being done. A prosecutor, when making a case of criminal action, must lay out evidence in a simple, direct manner, allowing not only the judge and jury to see it but also the accused. If the evidence is as strong as the prosecutor maintains, it is usually bad news for the defendant. However, if the defendant is able to demonstrate inconsistencies and inaccuracies in the data being presented, then the prosecution is the one in trouble. And if the defense is able to demonstrate that the entire case is built upon fabricated evidence, the case is generally thrown out. This, in short, is what should be done with the IAEA's ongoing probe into allegations that Iran has pursued nuclear weapons. The evidence used by the IAEA is unable to withstand even the most rudimentary cross-examination. It is speculative at best, and most probably fabricated. Iran has done the right thing in refusing to legitimize this illegitimate source of information.
A key question that must be asked is why, then, does the IAEA continue to permit Olli Heinonen, the agency's Finnish deputy director for safeguards and the IAEA official responsible for the ongoing technical inspections in Iran, to wage his one-man campaign on behalf of the United States, Britain and (indirectly) Israel regarding allegations derived from sources of such questionable veracity (the MEK-supplied laptop computer)? Moreover, why is such an official given free rein to discuss such sensitive data with the press, or with politically motivated outside agencies, in a manner that results in questionable allegations appearing in the public arena as unquestioned fact? Under normal circumstances, leaks of the sort that have occurred regarding the ongoing investigation into Iran's alleged past studies on nuclear weapons would be subjected to a thorough investigation to determine the source and to ensure that appropriate measures are taken to end them. And yet, in Vienna, Heinonen's repeated transgressions are treated as a giant "non-event," the 800-pound gorilla in the room that everyone pretends isn't really there.
Heinonen has become the pro-war yin to the anti-confrontation yang of his boss, IAEA Director General Mohamed ElBaradei. Every time ElBaradei releases the results of the IAEA probe of Iran, pointing out that the IAEA can find no evidence of any past or present nuclear weapons program, and that there is a full understanding of Iran's controversial centrifuge-based enrichment program, Heinonen throws a monkey wrench into the works. Well-publicized briefings are given to IAEA-based diplomats. Mysteriously, leaks from undisclosed sources occur. Heinonen's Finnish nationality serves as a flimsy cover for neutrality that long ago disappeared. He is no longer serving in the role as unbiased inspector, but rather a front for the active pursuit of an American- and Israeli-inspired disinformation campaign designed to keep alive the flimsy allegations of a nonexistent Iranian nuclear weapons program in order to justify the continued warlike stance taken by the U.S. and Israel against Iran.
The fact that the IAEA is being used as a front to pursue this blatantly anti-Iranian propaganda is a disservice to an organization with a mission of vital world importance. The interjection of not only the unverified (and unverifiable) MEK laptop computer data, side by side with a newly placed emphasis on a document relating to the forming of uranium metal into hemispheres of the kind useful in a nuclear weapon, is an amateurish manipulation of data to achieve a preordained outcome. Calling the Iranian possession of the aforementioned document "alarming," Heinonen (and the media) skipped past the history of the document, which, of course, has been well explained by Iran previously as something the Pakistani nuclear proliferator A.Q. Khan inserted on his own volition to a delivery of documentation pertaining to centrifuges. Far from being a "top-secret" document protected by Iran's security services, it was discarded in a file of old material that Iran provided to the IAEA inspectors. When the IAEA found the document, Iran allowed it to be fully examined by the inspectors, and answered every question posed by the IAEA about how the document came to be in Iran. For Heinonen to call the document "alarming," at this late stage in the game, is not only irresponsible but factually inaccurate, given the definition of the word. The Iranian document in question is neither a cause for alarm, seeing as it is not a source for any "sudden fear brought on by the sense of danger," nor does it provide any "warning of existing or approaching danger," unless one is speaking of the danger of military action on the part of the United States derived from Heinonen's unfortunate actions and choice of words.
Olli Heinonen might as well become a salaried member of the Bush administration, since he is operating in lock step with the U.S. government's objective of painting Iran as a threat worthy of military action. Shortly after Heinonen's alarmist briefing in March 2008, the U.S. ambassador to the IAEA, Gregory Schulte, emerged to announce, "As today's briefing showed us, there are strong reasons to suspect that Iran was working covertly and deceitfully, at least until recently, to build a bomb." Heinonen's briefing provided nothing of the sort, being derived from an irrelevant document and a laptop computer of questionable provenance. But that did not matter to Schulte, who noted that "Iran has refused to explain or even acknowledge past work on weaponization." Schulte did not bother to note that it would be difficult for Iran to explain or acknowledge that which it has not done. "This is particularly troubling," Schulte went on, "when combined with Iran's determined effort to master the technology to enrich uranium." Why is this so troubling? Because, as Schulte noted, "Uranium enrichment is not necessary for Iran's civil program but it is necessary to produce the fissile material that could be weaponized into a bomb."
This, of course, is the crux of the issue: Iran's ongoing enrichment program. Not because it is illegal; Iran is permitted to enrich uranium for peaceful purposes under Article IV of the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty. Not again because Iran's centrifuge program is operating in an undeclared, unmonitored fashion; the IAEA had stated it has a full understanding of the scope and work of the Iranian centrifuge enrichment program and that all associated nuclear material is accounted for and safeguarded. The problem has never been, and will never be, Iran's enrichment program. The problem is American policy objectives of regime change in Iran, pushed by a combination of American desires for global hegemony and an activist Israeli agenda which seeks regional security, in perpetuity, through military and economic supremacy. The specter of nuclear enrichment is simply a vehicle for facilitating the larger policy objectives. Olli Heinonen, and those who support and sustain his work, must be aware of the larger geopolitical context of his actions, which makes them all the more puzzling and contemptible.
A major culprit in this entire sordid affair is the mainstream media. Displaying an almost uncanny inability to connect the dots, the editors who run America's largest newspapers, and the producers who put together America's biggest television news programs, have collectively facilitated the most simplistic, inane and factually unfounded story lines coming out of the Bush White House. The most recent fairy tale was one of "diplomacy," on the part of one William Burns, the No. 3 diplomat in the State Department.
I have studied the minutes of meetings involving John McCloy, an American official who served numerous administrations, Democratic and Republican alike, in the decades following the end of the Second World War. His diplomacy with the Soviets, conducted with senior Soviet negotiator Valerein Zorin and Soviet Premier Nikita Khrushchev himself, was real, genuine, direct and designed to resolve differences. The transcripts of the diplomacy conducted between Henry Kissinger and Le Duc Tho to bring an end to the Vietnam conflict is likewise a study in the give and take required to achieve the status of real diplomacy.
Sending a relatively obscure official like Burns to "observe" a meeting between the European Union and Iran, with instructions not to interact, not to initiate, not to discuss, cannot under any circumstances be construed as diplomacy. Any student of diplomatic history could tell you this. And yet the esteemed editors and news producers used the term diplomacy, without challenge or clarification, to describe Burns' mission to Geneva on July 19. The decision to send him there was hailed as a "significant concession" on the part of the Bush administration, a step away from war and an indication of a new desire within the White House to resolve the Iranian impasse through diplomacy. How this was going to happen with a diplomat hobbled and muzzled to the degree Burns was apparently skipped the attention of these writers and their bosses. Diplomacy, America was told, was the new policy option of choice for the Bush administration.
Of course, the Geneva talks produced nothing. The United States had made sure Europe, through its foreign policy chief, Javier Solana, had no maneuvering room when it came to the core issue of uranium enrichment: Iran must suspend all enrichment before any movement could be made on any other issue. Furthermore, the American-backed program of investigation concerning the MEK-supplied laptop computer further poisoned the diplomatic waters. Iran, predictably, refused to suspend its enrichment program, and rejected the Heinonen-led investigation into nuclear weaponization, refusing to cooperate further with the IAEA on that matter, noting that it fell outside the scope of the IAEA's mandate in Iran.
Condoleezza Rice was quick to respond. After a debriefing from Burns, who flew to Abu Dhabi, United Arab Emirates, where Rice was holding closed-door meetings with the foreign ministers of six Arab nations on the issue of Iran, Rice told the media that Iran "was not serious" about resolving the standoff. Having played the diplomacy card, Rice moved on with the real agenda: If Iran did not fully cooperate with the international community (i.e., suspend its enrichment program), then it would face a new round of economic sanctions and undisclosed punitive measures, both unilaterally on the part of the United States and Europe, as well as in the form of even broader sanctions from the United Nations Security Council (although it is doubtful that Russia and China would go along with such a plan).
The issue of unilateral U.S. sanctions is most worrisome. Both the House of Representatives, through HR 362, and the Senate, through SR 580, are preparing legislation that would call for an air, ground and sea blockade of Iran. Back in October 1962, President John F. Kennedy, when considering the imposition of a naval blockade against Cuba in response to the presence of Soviet missiles in that nation, opined that "a blockade is a major military operation, too. It's an act of war." Which, of course, it is. The false diplomacy waged by the White House in Geneva simply pre-empted any congressional call for a diplomatic outreach. Now the president can move on with the mission of facilitating a larger war with Iran by legitimizing yet another act of aggression.
One day, in the not-so-distant future, Americans will awake to the reality that American military forces are engaged in a shooting war with Iran. Many will scratch their heads and wonder, "How did that happen?" The answer is simple: We all let it happen. We are at war with Iran right now. We just don't have the moral courage to admit it.
Scott Ritter is a former U.N. weapons inspector and Marine intelligence officer who has written extensively about Iran. This article was first published in truthdig.com.
RECENT COMMENTS
IRANIANS OF THE DAY
| Person | About | Day |
|---|---|---|
| نسرین ستوده: زندانی روز | Dec 04 | |
| Saeed Malekpour: Prisoner of the day | Lawyer says death sentence suspended | Dec 03 |
| Majid Tavakoli: Prisoner of the day | Iterview with mother | Dec 02 |
| احسان نراقی: جامعه شناس و نویسنده ۱۳۰۵-۱۳۹۱ | Dec 02 | |
| Nasrin Sotoudeh: Prisoner of the day | 46 days on hunger strike | Dec 01 |
| Nasrin Sotoudeh: Graffiti | In Barcelona | Nov 30 |
| گوهر عشقی: مادر ستار بهشتی | Nov 30 | |
| Abdollah Momeni: Prisoner of the day | Activist denied leave and family visits for 1.5 years | Nov 30 |
| محمد کلالی: یکی از حمله کنندگان به سفارت ایران در برلین | Nov 29 | |
| Habibollah Golparipour: Prisoner of the day | Kurdish Activist on Death Row | Nov 28 |
" The IRI has been provoking
by Anonymous-than (not verified) on Fri Aug 08, 2008 12:38 PM PDT" The IRI has been provoking the U.S. for 30 years with all their misdeeds, including forcing young student to enter school treading on the American flag and chanting death to America on a daily basis
Can't the Iranians do what they wish?? If they want to tread on a flag they can...just as you can tread on an Iranian flag and if you don't feel like it then you don't have to...is this your basis for war?? You stepped on my flag and now I'm going to bomb you??
bombing embassies and supporting terrorism worldwide.
Which embassy was bombed by Iran?? Wasn't it was american cia along with some iranian agents that overthrew mossadegh and installed the shah?? Wasn't it American that shot down an Iranian passenger plane in the 1990's?? I don't know if you have it correct as to who the agrressor is??
..Geopolitics of Energy (to Anonymous4now)
by Anonym7 (not verified) on Wed Aug 06, 2008 11:19 AM PDTAnonymous4now, it is a well established fact that Iraq war was started by Iraq (and...) to take advantage of at the time weak Iran. Even if there were any doubts about IRI provocations etc .... Saddam vindicated IRI when he attacked Kuwait!
Going back to the "aerial attack" theory, it will be a better use of your time if you read this article in Nation which is very much related to the topic (WAR) ..... Iraq, Iran, China, Russia ....
The New Geopolitics of Energy
//www.thenation.com/doc/20080519/klare
You are welcome Not Anonymous
by Anonymous4now on Wed Aug 06, 2008 10:55 AM PDTIf each one of us took the burden of responsibility for democratic ways upon himself/herself we would never again stand in awe of the so called intellectuals and let them digest things for us according to their own agendas. We should all strive to stay informed enough to question the validity of assertions, the motives, and the balance in making arguments, before we accept them, realizing full well that new and developing realities may change the validity of the original assertions and the strength of the arguments. In other words, avoid dogma at all costs.
Thank you for your kind words.
anonymous4now: thank you for
by Not Anonymous (not verified) on Wed Aug 06, 2008 09:51 AM PDTanonymous4now: thank you for the informative response to anonym7. In fact, there are documented evidence that some faction of IRGC was involved in terrorist activities in Iraq before the Iran-Iraq war, including the explosion in a major university in Iraq.
Anonym7
by Anonymous4now on Wed Aug 06, 2008 09:30 AM PDTYou have a distorted view of history. The Iran Iraq war started at the instigation of the revolutionary government of Iran which insisted on exporting its revolution, and in particular into Iraq, during the Carter administration, in 1980. Gary Sick who was on Carter’s National Security Council, chronicles the events in his book “The October Surprise”.
“In the initial rush of exhilaration after the overthrow of the Shah, bands of clerics and other revolutionaries formed teams to export the revolution beyond their own borders.” (p40).
“At almost the same time, but unrelated to the growing Iran –Iraq tensions, President Carter finally broke diplomatic relations with Iran and called for international economic and military sanctions.”(PP41-41)
“One of the most important targets for subversion was Iraq, where Shiites formed the majority of the population, …….
The festering dispute between Iran and Iraq erupted in April 1980. On April 1, an Iranian attempted to assassinate Tariq Aziz and Latif Nasif Jasim, two close associates of Saddam Hussein. The attempt failed, but two other Iraqis and the assailant were killed. Immediately the Iraqis arrested Ayatollah Mohammad Baqir al-Sadr, an internationally respected Shi’i clergyman, presumably as a warning to Iran. On April 5, at a funeral procession for those killed in the earlier attack, another Iranian threw a grenade that killed an Iraqi bystander. Two days later seventy Iraqi commandos attacked a western Iranian province with rockets and missiles, and Iraqi officials began deporting thousands of individuals of Iranian origin. On the eighth Khomeini made a speech openly calling for the people of Iraq to “wake up and topple this corrupt regime”.(p41)
Wikipedia has this account of the events relating to the war.
For about a year after the Iraqi offensive stalled in March 1981 there was little change in the front, but in mid-March 1982 Iran took the offensive and the Iraqi military was forced to retreat. By June 1982, an Iranian counter-offensive had recovered the areas lost to Iraq earlier in the war. An especially significant battle of this counter-offensive in the Khuzestan province was the liberation of Khorramshahr from the Iraqis on May 24, 1982.A Saudi Arabia-backed plan to end the war agreed to by Iraq included $70 billion in war reparations to be paid by Arabian states of the Persian Gulf on behalf of Iraq, and complete the Iraqi evacuation from Iranian territory - an offer called by some critics of Iranian government as "extraordinarily favorable to Iran."[21] Iran rejected Iraq's offer, demanding the removal of the Saddam Hussein regime, the repatriation of 100,000 Shi'ites expelled from Iraq before the war, and $150 billion in war reparations.It is unlikely that anyone in Iran seriously expected that Iraq would accept these terms and only offered them as a way of getting Saddam to refuse peace, thus making him continue to look like the aggressor. In fact, many within the Iranian government were demanding that the war be expanded into Iraq. On 21 June, Khomeini hinted that the expulsion of Iraqi troops would not be followed by a cessation of Iranian attacks, but by an invasion of Iraq. The following day, the Iranian Chief-of-Staff Shirazi said that the war would continue "until Saddam Hussein is overthrown so that we can pray at the Shi'ite holy city of Karbala and Najaf.". This matched a comment made by Khomeini on the issue of a truce with Iraq: "There are no conditions. The only condition is that the regime in Baghdad must fall and must be replaced by an Islamic Republic."[22]//en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Iran-Iraq_War
So you see anonym7, the so called “imposed war” was imposed on Iranians by Khomeini and his goons from the beginning, by antagonizing Iraq, and then shamelessly continuing when they clearly could have stopped and started to think about rebuilding the country. Reagan had nothing to do with the sanctions and if anything he was busy making under the table deals with Iran for transfer of military hardware to Iran, via Israel. The world looked the other way because they disliked the grotesque nature of the Iranian regime and were happy to see Saddam remove them from power. The Iranian government had ridiculed and ignored the UN and no country was willing to speak on behalf of Iran. Clearly, after Iran became the aggressor, in 1982, everyone jumped to Iraq’s help because one Islamic Republic was enough for the world to worry about; two could not be tolerated.
You still have not answered my question. Do you believe Iranians will fight the Americans or finish off the IRI if the opportunity should arise?
new paradigm (to Manny)
by Anonym7 (not verified) on Wed Aug 06, 2008 05:22 AM PDTThis article in Nation: //www.thenation.com/doc/20080519/klare
has most of what you are looking for. In a nutshell Michael (a professor of peace and world security studies) argues that U.S needs new ways to secure its interests...
(very well worth reading). I just accessed the link you should be able to ...
Reply to Anonym7
by Manny Roote (not verified) on Tue Aug 05, 2008 11:18 PM PDTI do not know what to make of your response. My point is really USA concentric - Has nothing to do with Iran or IRI. My point it our issue is more of a global issue here at US of A. I'm worried about weak $$$$; I'm worried about outsourcing jobs and technology; I'm worried about use of force to get our share; The world just does not accept it anymore; I think #1, #2, #3 enemies of US power is EU, Russia and China. These are the sleepers slowly taking the power away from this country. Will they be a better superpower? Hell, No way!
Can we wake up?
Iran not looking for a war (to Anonymous4now)
by Anonym7 (not verified) on Tue Aug 05, 2008 09:04 PM PDTAnonymous4now says: " The IRI has been provoking the U.S. for 30 years.."
IRI may have been provoking U.S for the past 30 years! .... on the other hand U.S (under Reagan) imposed a long and devastating war on Iran through Saddam (with active support of other Arab puppet regimes), has imposed embargoes and sanctions to destroy Iranian economy and to break the Iranian will for independence .....
Personally I wish U.S had just provoked Iran!
As I said before, IRI is not looking for war; it has not had time to look for a war! as it has always been in defensive mode against foreign (Iraq etc) or internal (e.g., MEK) forces.
Anonymous7
by Anonymous4now on Tue Aug 05, 2008 07:55 PM PDTThe U.S. has legally been in a state of war with the IRI ever since they took American diplomats hostage. The IRI has been provoking the U.S. for 30 years with all their misdeeds, including forcing young student to enter school treading on the American flag and chanting death to America on a daily basis, bombing embassies and supporting terrorism worldwide. Even today, as we speak, they not only turned down the offer to negotiate, they double dared the U.S. by claiming they would shut down the Strait of Hormoz. Do you still think they are not provoking the U.S. and do not yearn a war? Have you asked yourself, why the war mongering, blood thirsty U.S. administration (s) have been picking on the IRI and not any European countries or any Asian countries, or any African Countries, and other middle Eastern countries such as Saudi Arabia, Egypt, Jordan, the Persian Gulf states, and more recently Libya? Please don’t mix the issues by bringing up Afghanistan and Iraq. The U.S. went into Afghanistan after an ultimatum to hand over Osama Bin Laden and chased out one of the most barbaric regimes in the history of mankind. The Case for Iraq, whether you believe the removal of Saddam was a good thing or bad, can have an ambiguous outcome, because of the way the war was implemented. So ask yourself, why is the U.S. after the IRI? Is it not because the IRI has been provoking the U.S. for 30 years? Do you believe that had the situation been reversed and the U.S., a wannabee world power, antagonized and provoked a super power, the IRI, with chants of death to Iran, there would have been as much restraint as the U.S. has exercised?
not true Anonymous4now
by Anonym7 (not verified) on Tue Aug 05, 2008 06:19 PM PDTAnonymous4now says: "The IRI has been yearning for a war..."
That is not true. I haven't seen any evidence that IRI is yearning for a war. On the other hand there are plenty of explicit statements from people such as Mofaz, John Bolton, ..., Benny Morris (//www.huffingtonpost.com/david-bromwich/benny...) ... that Israeli extremists and AIPAC/necon supporters have been yearning for war. In fact if the war in Iraq had gone as well as Rumsfeld thought ("It could last six days, six weeks. I doubt six months," //news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/middle_east/2738089.stm) U.S. would be in Iran now.
I not only believe that IRI has not been yearning for a war, I believe it has to some degree underestimated those who want to be the absolute power in the region .... that is why it is said that IRI does not want the bomb but wants the capability to have the bomb (in case it needs it to defend itself) ... naively thinking that Israelis and U.S would allow it!?
Anonym7
by Anonymous4now on Tue Aug 05, 2008 05:28 PM PDTI did not get your point. Please elaborate.
You said Iran does not want war. I broke up Iran into its constituent components, the Government or the IRI and Iranians. The IRI has been yearning for a war because they think that Iranians will unite and defend the IRI, and as we speak the news of their rejection of the prconditions for talks is coming in.
I am certain Iranians do not want war any more than any other nation, and my hypothetical question to you was IF Aerial attacks should take place, do you believe Iranians will pick up arms to fight the Americans or finish off the IRI?
aerial attacks! (to Anonymous4now)
by Anonym7 (not verified) on Tue Aug 05, 2008 01:52 PM PDTAnonymous4now says: "I challenge anyone to claim that if aerial attacks were to take place and weaken the regime’s grip on the nation, Iranians would pick up arms to fight Americans rather than finish off the regime."
Anonymous4now, your statement above proves that I have already challenged you.
regards,
- Mentally
Anonym7
by Anonymous4now on Tue Aug 05, 2008 12:51 PM PDTYou state that: “--Iran does not want war,”
Well evidence suggests otherwise. The IRI has been violating international laws for 30 years and is now playing a game of chicken with the West and in particular the U.S. believing war will unite Iranians with the regime. I challenge anyone to claim that if aerial attacks were to take place and weaken the regime’s grip on the nation, Iranians would pick up arms to fight Americans rather than finish off the regime.
“--Iran is seriously suffering by all these sanction,”For 30 years the IRI has been plundering the oil wealth of the nation without any regards for building or rejuvenation the industrial infrastructure they inherited from the previous regime, which they destroyed by confiscation and otherwise, in the 80s.
“--Iran wants to sell the oil and use it to build the country,”
There is no evidence in the past 30 years for this. Plenty of oil has been sold at much higher prices than in the 70s, but 40% of the population is below the poverty line, and the only building that has been going on is in the form of mansions for the Aghas and the agha zadehs. A good deal of money has been spent on buying decrepit and outdated military equipment from Russia and China, and on supporting terrorist groups in the Mid East. There have been no well intended programs to “build the country”. “--Iran really wants American/European companies invest in Iran,-Iran needs $billions (the last estimate I know of is about 400-500), and I know if U.S companies invest in Iran they will have a very good return”Not really. No doubt American companies can bring investment money into Iran, But increasing American investment in Iran with push the Human Rights issues into the background and out of international visibility. Iran will become another Saudi Arabia. It will legitimize an illegitimate regime that is in power by force.
time for an apologist to say something (to havatans)
by Anonym7 (not verified) on Tue Aug 05, 2008 11:22 AM PDTHamvatans, I have been called an apologist many times. I thinks it is a perfect time for me to apply my apologistics. Personally I apologize to everyone. I particularly apologize to peace loving people who believe in Zionism and felt insulted when Fred was called "Fred the *io*ist".
Hoping for peace between Iranians, Israelis, and Americans ...., and everyone else.
Dear Mammad
by Hamvatan (not verified) on Tue Aug 05, 2008 09:18 AM PDTThe term Haji in these instances are not "racist" as you claim bur rather disrespectful and unprofessional- especially for the US military which claims to be the most "professional". In WWII the Americans called the Germans "Krauts" while many of the American serviceman were of German background. Soldiers do it all the time from all backgrounds during war. I am not saying it is right. It is totally wrong. However, in no way is it racist. Maybe the term "gook" could pass the racist test but not Haji.
Please don't turn this into an African American thing where its OK for Blacks to call each other "nigger" but not OK for anyone else to do it.
I understand that you find it offensive and it is your right to ask someone not to call you by the term Haji.
But please remember that when you are liberally using the term "Zionist" you are raising the defensive shield of many people who may find it offensive as well. This name is code word for "Jews" these days in many circles
and is used by many anti Semites (like David Duke and our own dear president Ahmadinejad).
I have seen many instances of Iranian leaders mixing up
the word "zionist" and "jew" in their Friday sermons. I am sure you have seen them as well.
From Charlie to Haji
by Mammad on Tue Aug 05, 2008 07:28 AM PDTTo all those who are interested to read about how the word Haji is used in Iraq by U.S. soldiers in a racist manner:
www.isn.ethz.ch/news/sw/details.cfm?ID=19010
It took me exactly 30 seconds to find just one source out of many many.
Charlie was the word U.S. soldiers used in Vietnam to refer to all the poor Vietnamese in a racist manner.
Same with Haji in Iraq and even in Afghanistan.
Mammad
I'm concerned about furure of USA (to Manny/Mammad)
by Anonym7 (not verified) on Tue Aug 05, 2008 06:41 AM PDTManny Roote says: "Hw does this connect to the article?"
Manny, I know that
--Iran does not want war,
--Iran is seriously suffering by all these sanction,
--Iran wants to sell the oil and use it to build the country,
--Iran really wants American/European companies invest in Iran,
-Iran needs $billions (the last estimate I know of is about 400-500),
and I know if U.S companies invest in Iran they will have a very good return
.... However my above statements don't give a comprehensive answer to your question. We have to beat up on Mammad for a comprehensive answer!
American style
by Fred on Tue Aug 05, 2008 02:28 AM PDTThere you go again. You say:” I simply find it impossible to believe that Fred has, all of a sudden, felt compelled to use the word Haji as a sign of respect, after all the things that he has written about Muslims and Islam. He makes things up about me and my work as he goes, without having an iota of expertise about things on which I have worked for 30 years, but he wants to respect me by calling me a Haji? It defies logic.” Excluding Islamism which is oppressing and murdering ala Khomeini and his gang I’ve already challenged you to cite one case Just one in which I’ve disrespected anyone’s belief or any faith. The burden is on you to prove your claim about Haji having negative connotation and if it does what about millions who gladly and appreciatively use it regularly at least in your Islamist republic? And what has been made up about your “work”?, the “world renowned” title?
Since you, just like your Islamist republic, demand to be taken as an absolute authority on everything and anything that you utter and view a slight resistance or challenge with gravity I have news for you. Welcome to democracy American style where everyone and everything in public is a legitimate subject for examination and discussion. Unlike the Islamist republic in this land of the free no one can make up self preservation rules or come up with wacky definitions for old titles as they go. One president tried to redefine “is” or another one tried to hide his knowledge of a burglary only to be exposed. All this you know too well but in your anonymous persona do not practice.
I'm concerned about furure of USA
by Manny Roote (not verified) on Mon Aug 04, 2008 11:02 PM PDTAs a permanent resident of this good ol country, I'm much worried about the future. It looks like USA is at it's weakest point in the recent history. I'm not sure what is happening to my house, equity and future as a person who chose this land as a residence.
Hw does this connect to the article?
Well, my concerns is as internationally echoed as it domestically is. How is it hard to accept "The new world order" and go with it. Don't we have enough medical, environmental, over-population and cosmic problems on hand to satisfy the urge of capitalists to open new markets to expoit? Or, is the killing The EASY route?
Peace is essential.
To all commentators
by Mammad on Mon Aug 04, 2008 08:25 PM PDT(1) I am happy to be the unifier here, so that anybody who wishes can beat up on me to feel better. At least some of you now agree on one thing: I am isuch a terrible failure. After all, I am insecure; I write crappy things; I argue bogusly; I am an IRI supporter or appeaser, ...... Glad to be of service to you.
(2) As I said in a previous comment, I am a practicing Muslim and as such I'll consider myself extremely fortunate if one day I become a Haji. However, as I also explained, this word has been used in Iraq by US soldiers in a racist manner. Check the internet for yourself. Since I am not sure about Fred's motivation for all of a sudden calling me a Haji, I asked him to stop it.
I simply find it impossible to believe that Fred has, all of a sudden, felt compelled to use the word Haji as a sign of respect, after all the things that he has written about Muslims and Islam. He makes things up about me and my work as he goes, without having an iota of expertise about things on which I have worked for 30 years, but he wants to respect me by calling me a Haji? It defies logic.
(3) Hamvatan did have a partially valid point. On rare occasions, I have used inappropriate words to describe people. To that extent, I apologize. Unlike many, I am not afraid or reluctant to apologize, if one is warranted.
Ever since I declared that I am on the left side of the political spectrum, many people have called me a leftist. Am I offended? Absolutely not. I am, in fact, proud of it. Likewise, I do not consider calling someone a Zionist an offense. Zionism is a political ideology. It is the basis for the state of Israel. It is something that a very large majority of Jewish people identify with.
I am a strong and forceful critic of Israel. I have never shied away from being one. But I am not against Israel, only against its excesses. Therefore, calling Zion or Fred a Zionist is not an offense by me; at least that is not my intention. However, if I am told that I should not use it, I gladly oblige. In fact, if you look at my last two responses to Fred, you will see that I stopped using it.
(4) Now, let's go back to beating up on me!
Mammad
Anonym7
by AnonymousHaha on Mon Aug 04, 2008 07:58 PM PDTOK- I appologize.
Anonym 7: I hear you! ;)
by Not Anonymous (not verified) on Mon Aug 04, 2008 07:29 PM PDTAnonym 7: I hear you! ;)
AnonymousHaha
by Anonym7 (not verified) on Mon Aug 04, 2008 07:09 PM PDTAnonymousHaha, I wasn't referring to your statement. I was referring to someone who insulted Mr. Kashani that way.
Incidentally that person's (the guy who insulted Kashani) political view is more similar to mine and opposite to yours!
Dear Anonym7
by AnonymousHaha on Mon Aug 04, 2008 07:19 PM PDTI find this silly but I never referred to Mr. Mammad as Subhuman. I actually respect him alot even though he is such a dissapointment with his politics and views. Please go read what I said again before accusing me of this. I referred to a beloved IRI politician as subhuman. You, on other threads, have called many politicians names yourself so please try an be a little more accurate before accusing others.
Regards,
Haha
Hey listen up will you? Someone once called me Miss Shalom
by Rosie T. on Mon Aug 04, 2008 04:49 PM PDT(I can't stand it anymore, hear me out)
in his SUBJECT LINE. He called me Miss Shalom iand then accused me oof being a closet Muslim basher for spending so much time on a Muslim basher's thread trying to stop him from doing it! I'm not kidding. I said that is SO aniti-Semetic. And he said, Miss Shalom is a compliment. What's wrong with you? You should be proud to be Jewish. I'm not kidding..
It is OBVIOUS that when people feel adversarial ttoward someone hey use language that normally might not be offensive or even respectful in an offensive way. ON ALL SIDES. NOT ROCKET SCIENCE. Sometimes it's intentional, sometimes it's not, sometimes it's subconscous. Sometimes MISCONSTRUED. But you people are LUCKY. At least you think a little out of the box. You're not like ooh ooh surgicals trike! and you're not the NIAC crowd either. You're not going to forge alliances or make a strategy together on this thread but you certainly have some meat to debate and perhaps could even learn a thing or two from each other.
SO WHY CAN'T YOU JUST AGREE TO SAY I DON'T LIKE WHEN YOU CALL ME THAT AND THE OTHER PERSON SAYS OKAY I WON'T. NO QUESTIONS ASKED. NO EXPANATIONS OR APOLOGIES DEMANDED. JUST STOP.
You're losing the entire substance of the debate. You're getting involved in a HERMENEUTICS of third grade schoolyard name-calling masquerading as "intellectual discourse". But it is what it is. And it's BORING.
Just STOP. And go back to the substance!
It's boring.
Robin
PS C'mon-MKO!!!??? 90% of the people on this forum call MKO traitros! I have SATIRIZED it. I've said..you attack each other all day and then you take a lunch break and attack the MKO together..HERMENEUTICS about someone calling the MKO traitors??????????
More on Yaghoub Mehr-Nahad
by Not Anonymous (not verified) on Mon Aug 04, 2008 04:06 PM PDTA journalist and civil activist condemned to death in Iran!
A journalist and civil activist in the Sistan and Baluchestan province of Iran has been condemned to death. Yaghoub Mehrnahad is a journalist and the secretary of Javanan Sedaye Edalat (Youth, the Voice of Justice) NGO.
In April 2007, after holding a conference called "Youths question, Officials reply" in Zahedan, the young journalist, who is also a student, was arrested last at the end of a debate organised, capital of Baluchestan, he was arrested together with other members of the NGO and later condemned to death.
According to Meghdad Barimani, the former secretary of the Islamic Society of Sistan and Baluchestan University, the Javanan Sedaye Edalat society is one of the most active of the NGOs in the whole province and has been active regarding various issues, including the fight against diseases like AIDS, hepatitis and disease prevention for the children and women of the area.
None of these activities could be considered a crime, let alone needing the death penalty! No precise information or documented reasons have been presented on Yaghoub Mehrnahad's "crimes" - but it has been rumoured that he has been co-operating with "obstinate" groups.
During Yaghoub Mehrnahad's trial neither he, nor his family, nor his lawyer, nor a jury were present! His family last saw him in Zahedan prison last December saying he showed obvious signs of torture.
Sistan and Baluchestan has experienced a great deal of unrest during the past two years, including terrorist attacks. Mehrnahad is accused of having had contact with the armed Jondollah group, which operates in Iranian Baluchestan.
RIP Yaghoub-e- Aziz
//www.iwsn.org/campaigns/yaghoub-mehrnahad-13...
yes there are those who loose the debate! (Not Anonymous)
by Anonym7 (not verified) on Mon Aug 04, 2008 03:28 PM PDTNot Anonymous says: "Anonym7: I have not witnessed any debate on this thread to be won or lost."
I have witnessed people who loose the debate; some of them loose the debate at the outset when they call those who disagree with them "fascist", "islamofaschists", "fascist lefty", "Islamist ***", "ZioNazi", "moozdoor" .... and in case of uncle Fred "Haji"!
In fact I have a post down below addressed to one of these guys who is fascinated with the word "fascist" ...
...... and yes there are some who have lost the debate BIG time by calling their opponent "subhuman"!
in short any shade or shape
by Not Anonymous (not verified) on Mon Aug 04, 2008 02:33 PM PDTin short any shade or shape of it has to go. So talking about the Caspian Sea or the amount of gas the Emirate is taking out from the joint fields while the Islamist republic can’t even muster the technology for exploration -or today’s execution of Yaghoub Mehr-nahad for the crime of “waging war against God on earth” a weblogger and journalist who riled against oppression in his postings,
I had no idea about the gas that the Emirate is taking or the Yaghoub Merh-Nahad...very sad indeed. Thank you for sharing.
Anonym7: I have not
by Not Anonymous (not verified) on Mon Aug 04, 2008 02:26 PM PDTAnonym7: I have not witnessed any debate on this thread to be won or lost.
It is regrettable that as mature adults we have to engage in slight and belittling of each other to prove our point. If we can't control our emotions and frustrations how can we expect to have a secular democracy when we can't even have peace among ourselves.
Are we to build democracy and a secular government when we show no empathy toward each other and our views. When we have no inner peace to build on. It will never happen. Haven't we learned our lessons in the past 50 years?
"A foolish consistency is the hobgoblin of little minds, adored by little statesmen, philosophers, and diviners." --Ralph Waldo Emerson
I implore everyone to be kind to each other and forgive and remember that "only the weak can never forgive--Ghandi
I also think this quote by Mattieu Ricard is appropo:
"When will the world listen? its not about ending war "over there", it's first about ending wars within."One who is at peace with herself will contribute spontaneously to establishing peace within her family, her neighborhood, and , circumstances permitting society at large."~
By the way, am I the only woman on this thread?? There is entirley too much testostrone on this thread. I will stop and I wish all of you a peaceful afternoon and night.
May God give us all peace, compassion and serenity!
Take your pick
by Fred on Mon Aug 04, 2008 02:05 PM PDTBeing prolifically politically incorrect and not shy about revealing it I assume you are familiar with my position visa vie the Islamist republic. The only productive way to discuss anything in regards to the Islamist republic before others with ulterior motives do it militarily is conferring on ways to get rid of it and overthrow it lock, stock, and barrel. The Islamist regime and all its many versions that includes “reformist, pragmatist,…” in short any shade or shape of it has to go. So talking about the Caspian Sea or the amount of gas the Emirate is taking out from the joint fields while the Islamist republic can’t even muster the technology for exploration -or today’s execution of Yaghoub Mehr-nahad for the crime of “waging war against God on earth” a weblogger and journalist who riled against oppression in his postings, is all just a waste of time. There is not one, literally not one aspect of the Islamist republic that can not be condemned for its treachery to the Iranian national interests.