Call on Iran to sue Israel and US in World Court over threats of military force
به زبان فارسی
PICTORY
LATEST MUSIC
SEARCH
Call on Iran to sue Israel and US in World Court over threats of military force
09-Aug-2008
CASMII Press Release
Call on Iran to sue Israel and US in World Court over threats of military force
The US and Israeli leaders have systematically violated Article 2 of the UN Charter in the past few years threatening Iran with military attacks over its disputed nuclear programme. CASMII calls on the Government of Iran to respond positively to the compelling case made by Professor Francis Boyle to sue these countries in the International Court of Justice in The Hague so as to avert an Israel/US war and further sanctions on Iran.
Iran 's nuclear plants including its enrichment facilities are all under the safeguards of the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA). Every single report of the Agency on Iran since 2003 when the inspections started – including over a period of two years when Iran voluntarily enforced the Additional Protocol's regime of intrusive inspections – has stressed that there has been no diversion of declared nuclear material into weaponization. Speaking at the World Economic Forum on the Middle East in May this year, Dr Mohammad ElBaradei, the head of the IAEA, asserted : “We haven't seen indications or any concrete evidence that Iran is building a nuclear weapon and I've been saying that consistently for the last five years”, and added that the problem is one of trust.
Conditions for reporting the nuclear file of a signatory to the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty (NPT) is spelled out in Article 12(c) of the IAEA Statute. As Michael Spies of the International Association of Lawyers Against Nuclear Arms has explained : “Verification and enforcement of the non-proliferation objectives contained in the NPT are limited, in part to maintain the balance of rights and obligations of states parties. NPT Safeguards, administered by the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA), are limited to verifying that no nuclear material in each non-weapon state has been diverted to weapons or unknown use. These safeguards allow for the IAEA to report a case of non-compliance to the Security Council only if nuclear material is found to have been diverted.”
Despite the absence of any evidence of a nuclear weaponization programme and contrary to Article 12(c) of the IAEA Statute, the US pressured the member states of the Governor's Board of the IAEA to report Iran 's file to the UN Security Council in February 2006.
Even a powerful country like India was threatened by the US Ambassador, David Mulford, who publicly declared in January 2006 that there would be no US–India nuclear deal if India did not vote against Iran in the Board. Stephen Rademaker, the then Assistant Secretary for Non-Proliferation and Global Security, boasted a year later in a public meeting that India 's vote was coerced by the US.
The decision of IAEA's Governors Board in February 2006 to report Iran 's file to the UN Security Council, which has resulted in four UN Security Council resolutions and three rounds of sanctions against Iran , has therefore no real legal basis. In the words of Michael Spies: “Under a traditional view, the authority of the Security Council is limited to cases which have been found to constitute a threat to international peace and security. But as we have seen in the case of Iran , which takes place what was formerly a legal vacuum, the Council's “innovative” approach has resulted in a(nother) de facto expansion of its role beyond the relatively narrow precepts of the UN Charter and has poised it to become the ultimate enforcer of global treaty regimes.”
Moreover, the four Security Council resolutions adopted against Iran, themselves violate the UN Charter as they are all based on Articles of Chapter 7 (Resolution 1696, 31-07-2006, under Article 40, Resolution 1373 on 23-12-2006, under Article 41, Resolution 1747 on 24-03-2007, under Article 41 and Resolution 1803 on 03-03- 2008, under Article 41) without invoking Article 39 that was required to establish that Iran's nuclear programme is a “threat to peace, breach of peace, or act of aggression”.
Michael Spies concludes from this that “it calls into question the legitimacy of [the Security] Council in intruding on matters of enforcing treaty law on matters that do not rise to the level of threat to the peace.”
The Government of Iran, representing the country in international relations, has the duty to confront coercion, unjustified pressures and sanctions against Iran 's national interests on all fronts including in the legal domain. Iran should have sued the US through the International Court of Justice at an early date and in any case certainly after the US Ambassador's well-documented public threat to coerce India against Iran in January 2006.
In the absence of any legal challenge taken up by Iran in the international sphere, Israel , the US and their European allies – the UK and France – became emboldened to threaten Iran with military intervention since 2004.
The Israeli and US leaders have made a mockery of international law and routinely declare that “all options are on the table”, which has become a euphemism for threatening “pre-emptive military strike”. Terrifyingly, in his response to a reporter, President Bush has not even ruled out a nuclear attack on Iran , a non-nuclear armed state.
More recently, Shaul Mofaz, Israel's Deputy Prime Minister, stated publicly in early June, when Israel reportedly conducted a dress rehearsal of a military strike on Iran's nuclear plants, that “Israel will attack Iran if it doesn't abandon its nuclear program”, a statement that was strongly condemned by the IAEA. Mofaz repeated the threat later in July and said “if there won't be a choice other than a nuclear Iran or a military option, it's clear what our decision has to be”, a threat he reiterated again on 1 August.
The consistent Israeli and American bellicose statements and activities in recent weeks have prompted a large group of prominent Israeli academics to set up an “Ad Hoc Group Against Israeli Attack on Iran ” which has issued a press release declaring that “There is no military, political or moral justification to initiate war with Iran ”.
The military threats contravene Article 2(4) of the UN Charter that clearly states: “All Members shall refrain in their international relations from the threat or use of force against the territorial integrity or political independence of any state, or in any other manner inconsistent with the Purposes of the United Nations.”
Israeli and American threats of using military aggression against Iran should remind us of the fundamental charge against the Nazi leaders in their trials after the Second World War. The Nuremberg Tribunal, which brought Hitler's henchmen to justice for their wars of aggression, asserted : “War is essentially an evil thing. Its consequences are not confined to the belligerent states alone, but affect the whole world. To initiate a war of aggression, therefore, is not only an international crime; it is the supreme international crime differing only from other war crimes in that it contains within itself the accumulated evil of the whole."
The case against the US and Israel has been well formulated by Professor Francis Boyle who has recommended that Iran should sue these countries in the International Court of Justice in The Hague.
By insisting on the pre-condition that Iran must suspend uranium enrichment which is Iran 's right under the NPT, the US is in effect refusing to negotiate with Iran in good faith while threatening it with further sanctions, a de facto naval blockade and military intervention. But Iran voluntarily suspended its enrichment programme and enforced the Additional Protocol under President Khatami for some two years without gaining any thing in return.
In contrast, Iran has proposed that its enrichment programme be carried out under the auspices of an international consortium with Western participation and has also offered to enforce the IAEA's Additional Protocol if its nuclear file is returned to the Agency. These two proposals, which would provide full transparency of Iran 's nuclear programme and guarantee that it would remain for peaceful purposes only, form a very reasonable ground for negotiations with the US and its European allies to remove any suspicions about Iran 's nuclear activities. It is reasonable to expect that an international court of law would issue a restraining order against the US and Israeli threats and force the US to drop its precondition and ultimatums and enter into comprehensive and unconditional negotiations for a peaceful resolution of its standoff with Iran .
CASMII calls on Iran to challenge the reckless and illegal threats against the country and wage a legal battle to sue the US and Israel in the World Court, which in the very least would bring to world public attention the facts of the nuclear issue and debunk the lies and distortions propagated against it. A lawsuit against Israel and the US is now an essential component of averting a catastrophic war in the Middle East which would have devastating repercussions for the whole world.
For more information or to contact CASMII visit //www.campaigniran.org
[END]
| Recently by CASMII | Comments | Date |
|---|---|---|
| First crack | 50 | Feb 21, 2012 |
| UK Resolution against War and Sanctions | 10 | Nov 02, 2010 |
| Hidden motives | - | Jun 01, 2010 |
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 |
Israel must be as sh*** hole. proof? I don't live there
by Q on Mon Aug 11, 2008 02:02 PM PDTsuch is the logic of the ubermensh Zion.
to the core, Fred
by Q on Mon Aug 11, 2008 02:00 PM PDTto the core...
A dung hole indeed.
by Zion on Mon Aug 11, 2008 01:55 PM PDTIrandokht, my position has been very clear about the difference between the Iranian culture and people and the regime. Nice try but... sorry. This was no slip. If you like, I`ll say it again, The Islamic Republic of Iran is indeed a dung hole. You dispute this? This is not about what Iran is, what living in Iran was like before the mullahs and lefties got the power, and it is not about what it could be like once she is free of this crap. At the moment though, this is precisely what living under that regime has been made into.
The state is a dung hole. Its ideology is what belongs to a dung hole. Its internal policies is that of a dung hole. Its international stance and policies is that of a dung hole. Its actions are what comes out of a dung hole. What it stands for in its totality belongs to a stinking rotten and filthy dung hole. It is nothing but a dung hole. The same way Nazi Germany was a dung hole. Soviet Russia was a dung hole and North Korea is a dung hole now.
You disagree? Why are you living here, then? By all means, go and pick the right side, but put your money where your mouth is.
Why not go and live back there where you belong, sister?
Resident Islamists first II
by Fred on Mon Aug 11, 2008 01:32 PM PDTResident Islamist says: “Fred, I know you think we are stupid, but here it is again. “
I, Fred, the object of fascination for this Islamist, have no inkling who this “we” that he/she constantly refers to is. If my bio and as previously requested address and phone number is at issue, lets have the “we” publish theirs first.
Fred, I know you think we are stupid, but here it is again
by Q on Mon Aug 11, 2008 12:48 PM PDTyou must be getting slow in your old age. We already had this conversation back in this thread.
//iranian.com/main/2008/unholy-alliances
I asked you to share as much the people you are obsessively stalking (NIAC, etc), but even if you share only as I publically have, it would at least mean some shred of decency. So far none has been exhibited by you.
A hypocrite to the core.
Fred, I support you
by Farhad Kashani on Mon Aug 11, 2008 11:44 AM PDTFred, I support you 100%.
Everything these IRI apologists say is out of desperation and hate. Hate for America and Iran and democratic principles, more than they love themselves.
Resident Islamists first
by Fred on Mon Aug 11, 2008 11:29 AM PDTThe resident Islamist is constantly requesting others’ personal info including addresses and telephone numbers. The utility of such requests aside, shouldn’t the Islamist set an example by publishing his true name and not just a nickname, address and phone number?
Zion, thank you for the long needed break you granted us
by Q on Mon Aug 11, 2008 11:08 AM PDTI wish you could truly take a few more days, us lowly inferior middle easterners would somehow survive your exalted absense.
Besides, it seems you have been induced into some stress upon reading these forbidden words. You could use the extra vacation.
I'm sorry on behalf of my dung-hole Iranian friends and family. We obviously overstepped our genetic inferiority trying to consider ourselves equal people with dignity at the world stage.
We should have known that Israel is above (Man's) law and cannot be bothered with international law. If we were as smart as Israelis, we would have known this based on precidence alone.
Your chosen highness should forgive our dung-hole brothers for daring to engage in writing on websites. We had no idea you considered Iranian.com so terrible that it even publishes material about Iran! Perhaps you can invite us to your own more respected forums so that we may learn what we really think and what we should say about or own country.
Would that be within your highness' generocity?
So terribly sorry to have offended you, my lord.
Dear Fred: A humble request was made of you a while back about your own background, work and expertise. Seems only fair since you are so obsessed with this info about other people. Anyway, we have been waiting a long time, can you please look into it?
Also, about "elitist tone", thanks for the laugh.
Daniel/AP/CASMII: I have to once again publically recommend you do not engage in any kind of conversation with these people. Like the Brownshirts they act like, these hypocrites are only looking for personal information for fear, intimidation and character assasination. They have already made up their mind that you are scum and need to die (have said as much many times), please don't waste your time and organizational resources on these fascists. They are only here only because this article has "Israel" in its title.
Re-Accuracy
by Fred on Mon Aug 11, 2008 10:52 AM PDTSimultaneous board memberships in NIAC/CASMII lobby and other:
Daniel M Pourkesali is an Engineer with an Aerospace company in Northern Virginia specializing in development and manufacturing of flight dynamics, engineering and control systems. He is also a columnist and board member of the Campaign Against Sanctions and Military Intervention in Iran (CASMII), National Iranian American Council (NIAC), Persian Gulf Organization, and Iranians for International Cooperation.
//iranian.com/main/blog/daniel-m-pourkesali/sanctions-warfare-0
Zion
by IRANdokht on Mon Aug 11, 2008 10:26 AM PDTPeople who are opposing CASMII are calling Iran a dung-hole . That is enough for me to know which side I want to be on!
You're not Iranian zion, are you? no Iranian would talk about Iran in that way: dung hole is referring to a space, a place, not to an entity like a government. That slip was more telling than you think.
IRANdokht
The buthcher of Tehran,
by Anonymousaaa (not verified) on Mon Aug 11, 2008 09:26 AM PDTThe buthcher of Tehran, Mortazavi, is a wanted man in Canada and Rafsanjani et al are wanted in Argentina. Some other Iranian officials have also been convicted for the murder of Kurdish leader in Germany...more than hundred assassinations of Iranians abroad and so on....and these criminals wonder why the world community doesn't want them to have nuclear weapons??
I do hope though that the Islamic Republic sue the US and Israel...and let the court determine whether this criminal entity should be given the right to have nuclear weapons to continue its domestic and international terrorism...
RE: Accuracy
by Anonymoushe (not verified) on Mon Aug 11, 2008 09:25 AM PDTDear A.P.
Most of us don't even read Fred's comments. They're usually just a copy of his previous ones, full of venom and anti-Iranian sentiments.
But thank you for clarifying some of those issues. People like Fred start accusations and false rumorss which need to be snipped in the bud.
If the Islamic Republic was
by Aaylaa (not verified) on Mon Aug 11, 2008 09:18 AM PDTIf the Islamic Republic was so interested in Iranian nuclear rights, then it would not have acted as a bully in the region. The Islamic Republic has jeopardized that very right egergiously by sponsoring terrorism and interfering in other countries affairs. The Islamic Republic cannot possibley be entrusted with promoting, preserving, and even maintaining that right; if anythibng, the IRI has lost that sovereign nuclear right (including many other important technological and industrial rights more important than nuclear rights) for the Iranian people.
Excellent. In essence, the Islamic Republic of terrorists has lost that special right for the Iranian people by being a pathetic bully in the region and calling for genocide of "stinking corpse", funding and agitating proxy wars across the region, "world without America", wiping nations off the map, or moving them to Alaska...
If anyone should be sued is the Islamic Republic for not acting responsibly in preserving that right and depriving Iranians from that right that was entrusted to them by the Iranians and the world community.
Accuracy
by A.P. (not verified) on Mon Aug 11, 2008 08:45 AM PDT"Fred" wrote: "Self proclaimed simultaneous board member of NIAC/CASMII lobby says:...", but Fred failed to state who this person might be. As someone who has been involved in both groups, I can say that there is no one currently sitting on both the NIAC board and the CASMII board. Is Fred talking about someone who might have done so at some point in the past? Is there any reason he failed to identify the person he purports to quote?
Fred says that for these groups "mum is the word when it comes to defending Iranians who are presumed to be the beneficiaries of [sovereignty]." Has he neglected to do his homework enough to read the public statements on the subject of human rights made by both groups, or does he purposely mischaracterize their position? Did he, for example, attend the recent workshop on human rights sponsored in Washington by NIAC, in partnership with Amnesty International? Did he even read the paragraph under "About Us" on the CASMII sit which makes clear its position on the rights of Iranians? Perhaps it would be more accurate to say "mum is the word when it comes to publicizing these groups' commitment to the Iranian people, in order to tear them down."
Iran's sovereign rights & CASMII/NIAC lobby
by Fred on Mon Aug 11, 2008 04:12 AM PDTSelf proclaimed simultaneous board member of NIAC/CASMII lobby says: “ it is obvious that many reflexively react negatively to any editorial piece with the slightest hint of defending Iran’s rights which requires ability for deductive and conceptual thinking as well as placing a high value on reason and order. This comment will obviously not satisfy that group and is only meant for the few who do have the capacity for detachment, objectivity, and above all tolerance and respect for other’s point of view – International laws are not subject to opinion polls and popularity contests. Every nation signatory to an international treaty must be held to the same level of accountability dictated by the terms of that accord. Iran’s rights as a nation are not owned by those currently in charge of its government. It is a sovereign right that belongs to its people and worth defending at all cost. “
Aside the elitist tone, content and judgment based on wrong assumption the multi-board member needs to explain a number of minor details for the not as bright, deductively and conceptually gifted. For instance how is it that when it comes to the two decades long clandestine full cycle dual use nuke program his self admitted limited number of lobby members are so vocal in defending “the sovereign right “of Iran but mum is the word when it comes to defending Iranians who are presumed to be the beneficiaries of such right. If the argument is that they are defending the right of Iran under international covenants, isn’t the Islamist republic a signatory to the world charter of human rights too? Once the lobby stops apologizing and whitewashing the Islamists’ crimes against humanity in the form of its murderous on the record treatment of the Iranian people, then it has earned the respect and legitimacy it so obviously is lacking.
This is a clear attempt to
by Farhad Kashani on Mon Aug 11, 2008 04:02 AM PDTThis is a clear attempt to victimize the Islamic regime. None of these IRI apologists ever mention a single word about the rights of the people of Iran that I getting violated everyday, and no mention about reaching out to any International organization to press for their rights, but they’re always promoting for what are the rights of the “regime”!
These guys call anyone who promotes for International community’s help for the Iranian people a “Khaen”, or “Gharbzadeh”, or “Neo Con”, but when it comes to the regime, its OK to resort to International institutions who themselves call ,when it comes to the rights of the Iranian people, “tools in the hands of imperialist powers”!
lol
by Zion on Mon Aug 11, 2008 04:45 AM PDTIt truly takes a lot of nerves for a bunch of degenerate lowlife full-time lobbyists of a terrorist fascist dung-hole like the Islamic Republic of Iran to babble about suing The United States and Israel. Then again, nerves seems to be the only resource in their disposal, both the Islamist regime in Iran and its retarded patch of apologists and lobbyists. For some reason they tend to regard this website as an all time niche to print their mumblings. Nowhere else prints your rubbish or what?
Anyways, good luck with that! ;-)
To : Amir Nasiri
by Mojgan 1 (not verified) on Sun Aug 10, 2008 11:46 PM PDTMy Dear , you must be confused between Iran and that other country in the neighborhood that its name also start with "I" . You know the country that France ambassador called it a "shitty little country "?!!!
The items you mentioned has nothing to do with UN since UN is only for issues among countries not the internal affairs of a any member nation . But , on the other had , that other country you confused Iran with is in defiance of zillions of UN resolution and has broken every single international law .
To : What a Silly Bunch of Mullah Loving Iranians
by Mojgan 1 (not verified) on Sun Aug 10, 2008 11:22 PM PDTPoor little you .
May be you should stop feeling "Special" and learn to live with your neighbors instead of committing ethnic cleansing , stealing land and water , holding millions of the natives hostage and Cluster Bombing your neighbors capital city and annexing their land , After all you are only "the chosen one " in your own eyes
Iranian have the rights to
by Anonymousaaa (not verified) on Sun Aug 10, 2008 09:48 PM PDTIranian have the rights to nuclear energy and even nuclear weapons but not the Islamic Republic.
First and formost, the Islamic Republic's legitimacy whether it represents the will of its people and whether the IR acts in the best interest of the soverign Iranian nation and Iranian people should be determined in the international court.
Iranian's rights to peace, life, and liberty is just as worthy to defend. Under the Islamic Republic, Iranian's lives and treasurs is and have been in constant jeopardy. The Islamic Republic constantly plays a despicable game of politics with the lives and natural resources of the sovereign nation of Iran to prolong its reign of terror. Let the international court decide if the criminal leadership represents Iran and Iranian people's natural right to nuclear energy and nuclear weapons in the first place or has it even acted responsibly in preserving that right???
If the Islamic Republic was so interested in Iranian nuclear rights, then it would not have acted as a bully in the region. The Islamic Republic has jeopardized that very right egergiously by sponsoring terrorism and interfering in other countries affairs. The Islamic Republic cannot possibley be entrusted with promoting, preserving, and even maintaining that right; if anythibng, the IRI has lost that sovereign nuclear right (including many other important technological and industrial rights more important than nuclear rights) for the Iranian people.
Iran's sovereign rights
by mike (not verified) on Sun Aug 10, 2008 09:07 PM PDTThanks for the input.
so any group/ organization may step in and pursue it in the court? NIAC or .....?
Iran's sovereign rights belong to its people
by Daniel M Pourkesali on Sun Aug 10, 2008 08:56 PM PDTAs an occasional contributor and regular reader of these columns, it is obvious that many reflexively react negatively to any editorial piece with the slightest hint of defending Iran’s rights which requires ability for deductive and conceptual thinking as well as placing a high value on reason and order. This comment will obviously not satisfy that group and is only meant for the few who do have the capacity for detachment, objectivity, and above all tolerance and respect for other’s point of view – International laws are not subject to opinion polls and popularity contests. Every nation signatory to an international treaty must be held to the same level of accountability dictated by the terms of that accord. Iran’s rights as a nation are not owned by those currently in charge of its government. It is a sovereign right that belongs to its people and worth defending at all cost.
Call on Iranians to sue the Iranian government
by Amir Nasiri (not verified) on Sun Aug 10, 2008 08:21 PM PDTThe Iranian government has violated all articles in the UN charter.
1. Killing Iranians without trial
2. Discrimination against Iranisn because of race, ethnicity, gender and religion
3. Rape
4. Murder
5. Torture
6. Corruption
7.Mismanagement
8. World Disorder
9. Blank
Lawsuit in the World Court! why not?
by Mike (not verified) on Sun Aug 10, 2008 07:33 PM PDTIt is very strange!
one would scratch his head trying to understand the rational:
why Iran does not file its formal complaint in the world Court.
Can anyone express the rational?
I see your point Q
by IRANdokht on Sun Aug 10, 2008 02:38 PM PDTThose are valid reasons to sue US and Israel, I am not condoning their bullying and constant interfering in other countries affairs. The reality however, is that whether we call on IRI to sue them or not, IRI will do what's best for its own survival.
As for George Bush's legitimacy: No he shouldn't and look what he's done in the name of this country! He's been a total disgrace to this country. Just like IRI has been to the people of Iran. That's what happens when elections and referendums are hijacked and fraudulant.
IRANdokht
I see Irandokht
by Q on Sun Aug 10, 2008 02:10 PM PDTif they do sue US and Israel it would only be a sharade pretending they represent the people of Iran or they care about the people's well-being, like only a legitimate government of the people would. I do not wish to help them take that insincere position.
Well, I feel differently. I would support this lawsuit because Iran's rights are being violated. To say that these rights should not be defended simply because I disagree with the government is to miss the big picture in my opinion. I wonder if you think Russia, China or Saudi Arabia should not defend themselves in international courts just because they will not be "representing their people". It's clear Bush stole the 2000 elections, does that mean he should not represent the US in international forums?
What's really important here? The UN or World Court does not care about Iran's government. You can oppose it without opposing Iran's rights.
If these rights are not defended they will be gone for ever, even for a future government you might actually like.
Great Idea
by Jaleho on Sun Aug 10, 2008 01:19 PM PDTThis will accentuate discussion of the US-Israeli war policies.
International institutions either have to expose themselves as the US policy tools, like the Security Council has done, or else they have to show fairness to preserve a bit of their legitimacy.
At a time that US power is beginning to fade, actions like this will clarify the real role of these institutions, and show if people and governments around the world should trust them or make them irrelevant like the SC.
Blockade and/or bombing of Iran would be a disaster
by yinzer (not verified) on Sun Aug 10, 2008 12:59 PM PDTBlockade and/or bombing of Iran would be a disaster for the Iranian people but a victory for the IRI government.
So long as there is conflict the IRI government doesn't have to answer for economic and social problems. The powerful can continue to collect thier riches while the poor suffer and die. A repeat of the Iran-Iraq conflict in some ways.
I hope the West can find a more creative solution that actually confronts those that they have issues with. The average Iranian citizen has no influence/control in this conflict.
Wow, the audacity and the
by Farhad Kashani on Sun Aug 10, 2008 12:38 PM PDTWow, the audacity and the bullyness of these fascist Mullahs and their supporters is incredible!
The biggest terrorist inspirer and supporter of all time, the biggest threat to world peace, the biggest human rights violator, the biggest chaos causing regime in the world, threatening to sue others!!!!
Dear Foaad and Q
by IRANdokht on Sun Aug 10, 2008 12:16 PM PDTMaybe I was not clear in my previous comment. Please allow me to explain:
I don't think IRI "would" sue them for the threats because it serves their purpose to allow this game to continue indefinitely.
Even if they do sue US and Israel it would only be a sharade pretending they represent the people of Iran or they care about the people's well-being, like only a legitimate government of the people would. I do not wish to help them take that insincere position.
Regards,
IRANdokht