Key facts to keep in mind while opposing war against Iran
Phil Wilayto | 29.09.2009 09:16 | Analysis | Anti-militarism | Social Struggles | World
Representatives of Iran and six of the world's most powerful countries are scheduled to meet this week in Geneva, one of a series of events that increasingly looks like a rerun of the build-up to the 2003 U.S. invasion of Iraq.
Now is the time to reaffirm a simple principle that ought to be the bedrock of our anti-war movement: every country that has been oppressed by U.S imperialism has the right to determine its own destiny.
Now is the time to reaffirm a simple principle that ought to be the bedrock of our anti-war movement: every country that has been oppressed by U.S imperialism has the right to determine its own destiny.
Nicholas Sarkozy, Gordon Brown and Barack Obama at the G-20 Summit in Pittsburgh
Representatives of Iran and six of the world's most powerful countries are scheduled to meet this week in Geneva, one of a series of events that increasingly looks like a rerun of the build-up to the 2003 U.S. invasion of Iraq.
As we prepare for a barrage of anti-Iranian media spin, it would be good for anti-war activists to remember five basic facts:
One: There is absolutely no evidence that Iran is trying to develop a nuclear weapon.
Two: The U.S. has not discovered a “secret nuclear facility” in Iran.
Three: The recent Iranian tests of long-range missiles is a purely defensive exercise.
Four: Despite what we all have repeatedly heard, Iran's President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad does not deny the Holocaust. (Please see quotes below.)
Five: Iran has a lot of oil. A whole lot.
On Oct. 1, a senior Iranian diplomat is to meet with representatives of the five permanent members of the U.N. Security Council: the U.S., U.K, France, Russia and China, plus Germany, a group dubbed the G-5-plus-1. These will be the first international talks to address Iran's nuclear program in more than a year.
During these negotiations, Iran will attempt to discuss a wide range of issues. The six countries – or at least the U.S., U.K., France and Germany – will make demands on Iran's nuclear program that they already know will be rejected. These four most powerful Western nations will then move to impose even harsher sanctions than the three sets they have already rammed through the U.N. Security Council.
There may even be a military attack on Iran by Israel, a move already given the green light by U.S. Vice President Joe Biden.
And this will all be in violation of international law.
Is Iran trying to develop a nuclear weapon?
Iran has a program to develop nuclear power for peaceful energy purposes. Part of that program involves enriching uranium to power nuclear reactors. Enriched uranium is also an essential component in building a nuclear bomb, but the enrichment process is so different that it would be virtually impossible to conceal it, and Iran is the most inspected country in the world.
Further, Iran was one of the first countries to sign the U.N.'s Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty (NPT), under which it renounced the right to build nuclear weapons in return for not only the right to develop nuclear power, but to receive help in doing so from the world community.
There is absolutely no evidence that Iran is trying to develop nuclear weapons. None. Zip. Not from the International Atomic Energy Agency, or IAEA, the U.N. body charged with making sure NPT members abide by that treaty. Not from the U.S. and its 16 separate intelligence agencies, nor from Israel and its Mossad intelligence agency nor from counter-revolutionary Iranian organizations such as the Mujahideen-e-Khalq (MEK), all of which have been working overtime to come up with any fact, report, material or rumor with which to indict Iran.
Meanwhile, of course, none of the G-5, G-5-Plus-1, G-20 or G-We-Rule-the-World countries are saying “boo” about Israel's estimated 200 nuclear weapons, let alone the U.S. with its 10,000.
It's true that Iran has a lot of oil, but oil is a finite resource. Even Iran's vast reserves will someday run out. So it's developing alternative sources of energy, including solar and wind, as well as nuclear.
The U.S and other Western powers are opposed to Iran developing nuclear power because that would ensure Iran can remain independent. And strong. And influential in its own region. And that is unacceptable to the world's former colonizing powers.
Iran, like Cuba, Venezuela, Bolivia, Ecuador, North Korea, Zimbabwe, the Sudan and many other countries, rejects the status of a “second-tier” country. These countries refuse to accept the authority of the Empire.
They have thrown off the yoke of colonial oppressors and have charted their own independent courses on the world stage. Their peoples are like runaway slaves who have established their own modern maroon colonies and as such are viewed as a threat to the orderly administration of the New World Order.
And they must be brought back under control, lest they serve as dangerous examples for those peoples still enslaved.
That's why keeping those countries from developing technologically is a prime goal of U.S. foreign policy.
Has the U.S. discovered a “secret nuclear facility” in Iran?
On Sept. 21, the Iranian government sent a letter to the IAEA in Vienna describing the construction of a plant designed to enrich uranium, up to 5 percent in purity, sufficient for energy production but well below the 90 percent level required for weapons-grade material. “Further complementary information will be provided in an appropriate and due time,” the letter stated.
According to the provisions of the NPT, Iran and other treaty signatories are required to inform the IAEA six months before a uranium enrichment facility becomes operational. President Ahmadinejad later told a news conference that the new facility won’t be up and running for 18 months.
In other words, Iran was a year early in fulfilling its treaty obligations to provide notice to the IAEA.
But on Sept. 25, U.S. President Barack Obama, British Prime Minister Gordon Brown and French President Nicolas Sarkozy interrupted their G-20 meeting in Pittsburgh to hold a press conference at which they charged Iran with constructing a secret nuclear fuel facility.
Sarkozy, whose country depends on nuclear power for 80 percent of its energy needs, detailed intelligence information that Brown said would “shock and anger the whole international community.” Obama charged Iran with “breaking rules that all nations must follow ... and threatening the stability and security of the region and the world.”
The next day, Iran announced it would place the plant under the IAEA's supervision.
So: Iran built a nuclear facility. Then, fully one year before the required deadline mandated by the U.N.'s NPT, it informed the IAEA about the plant's existence. But, just days before the Oct. 1 seven-nation negotiations, the leaders of the U.S., U.K. and France decided to hold a dramatic press conference to denounce Iran for breaking the rules.
A Sept. 26 story in The Washington Post noted that “the rapidly escalating confrontation provided (Obama) with a fresh opportunity to project toughness and success on the world stage. Obama's detractors have long called him naive for his willingness to engage diplomatically the nation's adversaries, including Iran. Republicans say his decision to change the deployment of a missile shield for Eastern Europe demonstrates weakness, and critics have chastised him for taking time to weigh a decision on sending additional troops to Afghanistan.
“The announcement also provided a boost for the CIA at a time when the agency is facing harsh attacks - and possible prosecution - for detainee interrogations.”
Are the recent Iranian missile tests an offensive move?
Starting on Sept. 26, Iran began testing a number of missiles, including its medium-range Shahab-1 and Shahab-2 and, on Sept. 28, its longer-range Shahab-3. The latter missiles are believed to have a range of up to about 1200 miles, far enough to reach Israel, U.S. bases in the Middle East and parts of Europe.
So the question is, are the missiles meant to be defensive or offensive?
Defensive, according to Major General Mohammad Ali Jafari, commander of Iran's Islamic Revolution Guards Corps, as quoted by the semi-official Fars News Agency: “As a result of this capability, those who used to speak of attacking Iran are now declaring that they entertain no such desires or thoughts, for they have realized that attacking Iran is an extremely dangerous act.”
It's a little hard to argue with that logic, since Israeli officials have now toned down their threats to attack Iran, citing an increased international concern after the revelation that Iran had been building a new uranium enrichment facility.
Yes, the missiles could be used to attack as well as defend or retaliate. But Iran hasn't attacked another country for hundreds of years. For it to launch a war now against nuclear-armed opponents would be a complete departure from 30 years of foreign policy into the realm of insanity, something for which there is no recent historical precedent.
Does President Ahmadinejad deny the Holocaust?
Every time I read somewhere that President Ahmadinejad has denied the Holocaust, I try and go back and find his original quote. That's not easy, because most of the time the alleged denial is paraphrased or partially quoted.
This month, I finally got a break.
On Sept. 24, Steve Inskeep, host of National Public Radio's Morning Edition program, interviewed President Ahmadinejad at his hotel in New York. The transcript says Ahmadinejad's remarks were delivered via a translator. (see
http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=113175352&ps=rs)
Here's the relevant section of that interview:
...
INSKEEP: We have, in a previous interview, discussed how you feel (the Holocaust) is being used unjustly to justify Israel, so we need not cover that ground again. But if you would like to describe to me what specifically you believe happened between 1942 and 1945, I would be interested.
AHMADINEJAD: But then 1942 to 1945 is still about the Holocaust, right? I do raise a couple of questions about the Holocaust, and you are a member of the media, and I believe that you should actually tell people what these questions are, and try to receive answers from them as well.
The first question is, is the Holocaust a historical event or not? It is a historical event. And, having said that, there are numerous historical events. So the next question is, why is it that this specific event has become so prominent? Normally, ordinary people and historians pay attention to historical events. Why are politicians giving so much attention to this particular event? Why are they so biased about it? Does this event effect what is happening on the ground this day, now? What we say is that genocide is the result of racial discrimination. Sometimes we look at history to learn the lessons of history.
INSKEEP: Are you acknowledging that millions of people were killed? Millions of Jews, specifically, were killed during World War II?
AHMADINEJAD: If you bear with me so that I can complete my statements, you will receive your answer. I'm asking, and I'm asking a number of serious questions. And I'm not addressing these questions to you, but to a wider audience — everyone — anyone who cares about the fate of humanity; who care about human beings and the rights of people. These are serious questions. If we are looking at history with the aim to learn — derive lessons from it, then what this indicates is that in the future, we should not carry out the same mistakes that were done in the past. While I personally was not alive 60 years ago, I happen to be alive now, and I can see that genocide is happening now under the pretext of an event that happened 60 years ago. So the fundamental question I raise here is that, if this event happened, where did it happen? As a form of an objection question, who was it carried by? Why should the Palestinian people make up for it?
...
Venezuelan President Hugo Chavez recently pointed out that, before the European Conquest, the Americas were home to some 90 million indigenous people. A few hundred years later, there were 4 million.
Up to 100 million Africans died as a result of the Trans-Atlantic Slave Trade.
Surely these also were “holocausts.”
Six million Jews were systematically murdered in what has come to be known as The Holocaust. And, although it is rarely mentioned, that diabolically efficient mass murder also took the lives of up to 5 million political prisoners, trade unionists, communists, gays and Roma people. Truly, this was one of the world's great atrocities – an atrocity committed in Europe, by Europeans, against Europeans.
It had absolutely nothing to do with Palestinians. Or Iran.
So why, after being elevated to a status above all other mass murders in history, is it used to justify the establishment of what basically is a European colony on Arab land?
Ahmadinejad isn't calling the Holocaust a myth – he's asking why the mythology that has been built up around it is used as a weapon against the Palestinian people and those who support their struggle for self-determination.
Iran has oil
Iran has a lot of oil. And that oil has been off-limits to the world's private oil companies since it was nationalized after the Iranian Revolution of 1979. Huge potential profits are at stake. Further, whoever controls the flow of oil – whether or not that involves actual ownership – can control the development of world production, commerce and politics. And the U.S is determined that, rather than allow a multi-polar world to develop, it will be the only country to play that role.
Tasks facing the U.S. anti-war movement
After an unfortunate year-long ebb, the anti-war movement in the U.S. is again beginning to show signs of life. This October there will be many local and regional protests against the U.S-led wars in Iraq and Afghanistan. Most will also address the expanding war in Pakistan and the Israeli occupation of Gaza and the West Bank.
While some of these protests also will demand no war against Iran, there seems to be less enthusiasm for addressing this issue. The barrage of media attacks, charges and misinformation has taken its toll. The controversy around the Iranian presidential elections and their aftermath have also played a role. Taken together, these factors have to a certain extent disarmed the anti-war movement, even as the possibility of a new war grows ever more serious.
Now is the time to reaffirm this one simple principle that ought to be the bedrock of our movement: every country that has been oppressed by U.S imperialism has the right to determine its own destiny. It has the right to determine its own form of government, choose its own leaders, decide on its own relations with the rest of the world. And the U.S., as the world's foremost imperialist power, ought to be the last country on earth to presume to dictate to any other how to conduct itself.
It's not necessary to agree with every pronouncement of the leaders of oppressed countries in order to demand loudly and determinedly “No war, sanctions or internal interference!” If we were anti-slavery activists in the 1800s, would we stand by as Nat Turner or John Brown were about to be hung, arguing about tactics or controversial statements? Or would we defend the oppressed and their defenders?
This is how we need to approach the issue of defending Iran.
This October, as we denounce the wars against Iraq, Afghanistan and Pakistan and the continuing oppression of the Palestinian people, we must also raise our voices loud and clear to demand “No war, no sanctions, no internal interference in Iran!”
* Phil Wilayto, is a writer and organizer based in Richmond, Virginia, USA. A civilian organizer in the Vietnam-era GI Movement, he is the author of “In Defense of Iran: Notes from a U.S. Peace Delegation's Journey through the Islamic Republic” (December 2008) and “An Open Letter to the Anti-War Movement: How should we respond to the events in Iran?” (June 2009) He can be reached at
DefendersFJE@hotmail.com.
(c) 2009 - Permission to reproduce with attribution.
As we prepare for a barrage of anti-Iranian media spin, it would be good for anti-war activists to remember five basic facts:
One: There is absolutely no evidence that Iran is trying to develop a nuclear weapon.
Two: The U.S. has not discovered a “secret nuclear facility” in Iran.
Three: The recent Iranian tests of long-range missiles is a purely defensive exercise.
Four: Despite what we all have repeatedly heard, Iran's President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad does not deny the Holocaust. (Please see quotes below.)
Five: Iran has a lot of oil. A whole lot.
On Oct. 1, a senior Iranian diplomat is to meet with representatives of the five permanent members of the U.N. Security Council: the U.S., U.K, France, Russia and China, plus Germany, a group dubbed the G-5-plus-1. These will be the first international talks to address Iran's nuclear program in more than a year.
During these negotiations, Iran will attempt to discuss a wide range of issues. The six countries – or at least the U.S., U.K., France and Germany – will make demands on Iran's nuclear program that they already know will be rejected. These four most powerful Western nations will then move to impose even harsher sanctions than the three sets they have already rammed through the U.N. Security Council.
There may even be a military attack on Iran by Israel, a move already given the green light by U.S. Vice President Joe Biden.
And this will all be in violation of international law.
Is Iran trying to develop a nuclear weapon?
Iran has a program to develop nuclear power for peaceful energy purposes. Part of that program involves enriching uranium to power nuclear reactors. Enriched uranium is also an essential component in building a nuclear bomb, but the enrichment process is so different that it would be virtually impossible to conceal it, and Iran is the most inspected country in the world.
Further, Iran was one of the first countries to sign the U.N.'s Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty (NPT), under which it renounced the right to build nuclear weapons in return for not only the right to develop nuclear power, but to receive help in doing so from the world community.
There is absolutely no evidence that Iran is trying to develop nuclear weapons. None. Zip. Not from the International Atomic Energy Agency, or IAEA, the U.N. body charged with making sure NPT members abide by that treaty. Not from the U.S. and its 16 separate intelligence agencies, nor from Israel and its Mossad intelligence agency nor from counter-revolutionary Iranian organizations such as the Mujahideen-e-Khalq (MEK), all of which have been working overtime to come up with any fact, report, material or rumor with which to indict Iran.
Meanwhile, of course, none of the G-5, G-5-Plus-1, G-20 or G-We-Rule-the-World countries are saying “boo” about Israel's estimated 200 nuclear weapons, let alone the U.S. with its 10,000.
It's true that Iran has a lot of oil, but oil is a finite resource. Even Iran's vast reserves will someday run out. So it's developing alternative sources of energy, including solar and wind, as well as nuclear.
The U.S and other Western powers are opposed to Iran developing nuclear power because that would ensure Iran can remain independent. And strong. And influential in its own region. And that is unacceptable to the world's former colonizing powers.
Iran, like Cuba, Venezuela, Bolivia, Ecuador, North Korea, Zimbabwe, the Sudan and many other countries, rejects the status of a “second-tier” country. These countries refuse to accept the authority of the Empire.
They have thrown off the yoke of colonial oppressors and have charted their own independent courses on the world stage. Their peoples are like runaway slaves who have established their own modern maroon colonies and as such are viewed as a threat to the orderly administration of the New World Order.
And they must be brought back under control, lest they serve as dangerous examples for those peoples still enslaved.
That's why keeping those countries from developing technologically is a prime goal of U.S. foreign policy.
Has the U.S. discovered a “secret nuclear facility” in Iran?
On Sept. 21, the Iranian government sent a letter to the IAEA in Vienna describing the construction of a plant designed to enrich uranium, up to 5 percent in purity, sufficient for energy production but well below the 90 percent level required for weapons-grade material. “Further complementary information will be provided in an appropriate and due time,” the letter stated.
According to the provisions of the NPT, Iran and other treaty signatories are required to inform the IAEA six months before a uranium enrichment facility becomes operational. President Ahmadinejad later told a news conference that the new facility won’t be up and running for 18 months.
In other words, Iran was a year early in fulfilling its treaty obligations to provide notice to the IAEA.
But on Sept. 25, U.S. President Barack Obama, British Prime Minister Gordon Brown and French President Nicolas Sarkozy interrupted their G-20 meeting in Pittsburgh to hold a press conference at which they charged Iran with constructing a secret nuclear fuel facility.
Sarkozy, whose country depends on nuclear power for 80 percent of its energy needs, detailed intelligence information that Brown said would “shock and anger the whole international community.” Obama charged Iran with “breaking rules that all nations must follow ... and threatening the stability and security of the region and the world.”
The next day, Iran announced it would place the plant under the IAEA's supervision.
So: Iran built a nuclear facility. Then, fully one year before the required deadline mandated by the U.N.'s NPT, it informed the IAEA about the plant's existence. But, just days before the Oct. 1 seven-nation negotiations, the leaders of the U.S., U.K. and France decided to hold a dramatic press conference to denounce Iran for breaking the rules.
A Sept. 26 story in The Washington Post noted that “the rapidly escalating confrontation provided (Obama) with a fresh opportunity to project toughness and success on the world stage. Obama's detractors have long called him naive for his willingness to engage diplomatically the nation's adversaries, including Iran. Republicans say his decision to change the deployment of a missile shield for Eastern Europe demonstrates weakness, and critics have chastised him for taking time to weigh a decision on sending additional troops to Afghanistan.
“The announcement also provided a boost for the CIA at a time when the agency is facing harsh attacks - and possible prosecution - for detainee interrogations.”
Are the recent Iranian missile tests an offensive move?
Starting on Sept. 26, Iran began testing a number of missiles, including its medium-range Shahab-1 and Shahab-2 and, on Sept. 28, its longer-range Shahab-3. The latter missiles are believed to have a range of up to about 1200 miles, far enough to reach Israel, U.S. bases in the Middle East and parts of Europe.
So the question is, are the missiles meant to be defensive or offensive?
Defensive, according to Major General Mohammad Ali Jafari, commander of Iran's Islamic Revolution Guards Corps, as quoted by the semi-official Fars News Agency: “As a result of this capability, those who used to speak of attacking Iran are now declaring that they entertain no such desires or thoughts, for they have realized that attacking Iran is an extremely dangerous act.”
It's a little hard to argue with that logic, since Israeli officials have now toned down their threats to attack Iran, citing an increased international concern after the revelation that Iran had been building a new uranium enrichment facility.
Yes, the missiles could be used to attack as well as defend or retaliate. But Iran hasn't attacked another country for hundreds of years. For it to launch a war now against nuclear-armed opponents would be a complete departure from 30 years of foreign policy into the realm of insanity, something for which there is no recent historical precedent.
Does President Ahmadinejad deny the Holocaust?
Every time I read somewhere that President Ahmadinejad has denied the Holocaust, I try and go back and find his original quote. That's not easy, because most of the time the alleged denial is paraphrased or partially quoted.
This month, I finally got a break.
On Sept. 24, Steve Inskeep, host of National Public Radio's Morning Edition program, interviewed President Ahmadinejad at his hotel in New York. The transcript says Ahmadinejad's remarks were delivered via a translator. (see
http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=113175352&ps=rs) Here's the relevant section of that interview:
...
INSKEEP: We have, in a previous interview, discussed how you feel (the Holocaust) is being used unjustly to justify Israel, so we need not cover that ground again. But if you would like to describe to me what specifically you believe happened between 1942 and 1945, I would be interested.
AHMADINEJAD: But then 1942 to 1945 is still about the Holocaust, right? I do raise a couple of questions about the Holocaust, and you are a member of the media, and I believe that you should actually tell people what these questions are, and try to receive answers from them as well.
The first question is, is the Holocaust a historical event or not? It is a historical event. And, having said that, there are numerous historical events. So the next question is, why is it that this specific event has become so prominent? Normally, ordinary people and historians pay attention to historical events. Why are politicians giving so much attention to this particular event? Why are they so biased about it? Does this event effect what is happening on the ground this day, now? What we say is that genocide is the result of racial discrimination. Sometimes we look at history to learn the lessons of history.
INSKEEP: Are you acknowledging that millions of people were killed? Millions of Jews, specifically, were killed during World War II?
AHMADINEJAD: If you bear with me so that I can complete my statements, you will receive your answer. I'm asking, and I'm asking a number of serious questions. And I'm not addressing these questions to you, but to a wider audience — everyone — anyone who cares about the fate of humanity; who care about human beings and the rights of people. These are serious questions. If we are looking at history with the aim to learn — derive lessons from it, then what this indicates is that in the future, we should not carry out the same mistakes that were done in the past. While I personally was not alive 60 years ago, I happen to be alive now, and I can see that genocide is happening now under the pretext of an event that happened 60 years ago. So the fundamental question I raise here is that, if this event happened, where did it happen? As a form of an objection question, who was it carried by? Why should the Palestinian people make up for it?
...
Venezuelan President Hugo Chavez recently pointed out that, before the European Conquest, the Americas were home to some 90 million indigenous people. A few hundred years later, there were 4 million.
Up to 100 million Africans died as a result of the Trans-Atlantic Slave Trade.
Surely these also were “holocausts.”
Six million Jews were systematically murdered in what has come to be known as The Holocaust. And, although it is rarely mentioned, that diabolically efficient mass murder also took the lives of up to 5 million political prisoners, trade unionists, communists, gays and Roma people. Truly, this was one of the world's great atrocities – an atrocity committed in Europe, by Europeans, against Europeans.
It had absolutely nothing to do with Palestinians. Or Iran.
So why, after being elevated to a status above all other mass murders in history, is it used to justify the establishment of what basically is a European colony on Arab land?
Ahmadinejad isn't calling the Holocaust a myth – he's asking why the mythology that has been built up around it is used as a weapon against the Palestinian people and those who support their struggle for self-determination.
Iran has oil
Iran has a lot of oil. And that oil has been off-limits to the world's private oil companies since it was nationalized after the Iranian Revolution of 1979. Huge potential profits are at stake. Further, whoever controls the flow of oil – whether or not that involves actual ownership – can control the development of world production, commerce and politics. And the U.S is determined that, rather than allow a multi-polar world to develop, it will be the only country to play that role.
Tasks facing the U.S. anti-war movement
After an unfortunate year-long ebb, the anti-war movement in the U.S. is again beginning to show signs of life. This October there will be many local and regional protests against the U.S-led wars in Iraq and Afghanistan. Most will also address the expanding war in Pakistan and the Israeli occupation of Gaza and the West Bank.
While some of these protests also will demand no war against Iran, there seems to be less enthusiasm for addressing this issue. The barrage of media attacks, charges and misinformation has taken its toll. The controversy around the Iranian presidential elections and their aftermath have also played a role. Taken together, these factors have to a certain extent disarmed the anti-war movement, even as the possibility of a new war grows ever more serious.
Now is the time to reaffirm this one simple principle that ought to be the bedrock of our movement: every country that has been oppressed by U.S imperialism has the right to determine its own destiny. It has the right to determine its own form of government, choose its own leaders, decide on its own relations with the rest of the world. And the U.S., as the world's foremost imperialist power, ought to be the last country on earth to presume to dictate to any other how to conduct itself.
It's not necessary to agree with every pronouncement of the leaders of oppressed countries in order to demand loudly and determinedly “No war, sanctions or internal interference!” If we were anti-slavery activists in the 1800s, would we stand by as Nat Turner or John Brown were about to be hung, arguing about tactics or controversial statements? Or would we defend the oppressed and their defenders?
This is how we need to approach the issue of defending Iran.
This October, as we denounce the wars against Iraq, Afghanistan and Pakistan and the continuing oppression of the Palestinian people, we must also raise our voices loud and clear to demand “No war, no sanctions, no internal interference in Iran!”
* Phil Wilayto, is a writer and organizer based in Richmond, Virginia, USA. A civilian organizer in the Vietnam-era GI Movement, he is the author of “In Defense of Iran: Notes from a U.S. Peace Delegation's Journey through the Islamic Republic” (December 2008) and “An Open Letter to the Anti-War Movement: How should we respond to the events in Iran?” (June 2009) He can be reached at
DefendersFJE@hotmail.com. (c) 2009 - Permission to reproduce with attribution.
Phil Wilayto
Homepage:
http://www.campaigniran.org/casmii/index.php?q=node/8679
Comments
Hide the following 34 comments
Iranian statement on new plant
29.09.2009 10:41
Danny
Ahmadinejad and Holocaust
29.09.2009 11:11
It's true he doesn't deny the Holocaust, but he does question it and has brought Holocaust deniers to Iran and endorsed some of their views. Lately he has been toning it down since Khamenei has been getting irritated with his confrontational rhetoric which doesn't serve the regime's interests and only gives ammunition to the Western allies and Israel hawks.
The important thing to consider is that if Ahmadinejad claims he is not interested in sparking war, then why does he insist on confrontational rhetoric about issues that have nothing to do with Iran, such as the Holocaust? He is just as much a warmonger as the hawks in Israel and the US.
The vast majority of Iranians are not interested in the Israel-Palestine conflict or having Ahmadinejad get up on his podium and talk about his offensive views on the Holocaust.
Nima Mohammadi
"Wiped Off The Map" - The Rumor of the Century
29.09.2009 11:45
excerpt from: "Wiped Off The Map" - The Rumor of the Century
by Arash Norouzi, Global Research, 20 January 2007
THE ACTUAL QUOTE:
So what did Ahmadinejad actually say? To quote his exact words in Farsi:
"Imam ghoft een rezhim-e ishghalgar-e qods bayad az safheh-ye ruzgar mahv shavad."
That passage will mean nothing to most people, but one word might ring a bell: rezhim-e. It is the word "Regime", pronounced just like the English word with an extra "eh" sound at the end. Ahmadinejad did not refer to Israel the country or Israel the land mass, but the Israeli regime. This is a vastly significant distinction, as one cannot wipe a regime off the map. Ahmadinejad does not even refer to Israel by name, he instead uses the specific phrase "rezhim-e ishghalgar-e qods" (regime occupying Jerusalem).
So this raises the question.. what exactly did he want "wiped from the map"? The answer is: nothing. That's because the word "map" was never used. The Persian word for map, "nagsheh", is not contained anywhere in his original farsi quote, or, for that matter, anywhere in his entire speech. Nor was the western phrase "wipe out" ever said. Yet we are led to believe that Iran's President threatened to "wipe Israel off the map", despite never having uttered the words "map", "wipe out" or even "Israel".
THE PROOF:
The full quote translated directly to English:
"The Imam said this regime occupying Jerusalem must vanish from the page of time".
Word by word translation:
Imam (Khomeini) ghoft (said) een (this) rezhim-e (regime) ishghalgar-e (occupying) qods
(Jerusalem) bayad (must) az safheh-ye ruzgar (from page of time) mahv shavad (vanish
from).
Here is the full transcript of the speech in farsi, archived on Ahmadinejad's web site
www.president.ir/farsi/ahmadinejad/speeches/1384/aban-84/840804sahyonizm.htm
THE SPEECH AND CONTEXT:
While the false "wiped off the map" extract has been repeated infinitely without verification, Ahmadinejad's actual speech itself has been almost entirely ignored. Given the importance placed on the "map" comment, it would be sensible to present his words in their full context to get a fuller understanding of his position. In fact, by looking at the entire speech, there is a clear, logical trajectory leading up to his call for a "world without Zionism". One may disagree with his reasoning, but critical appraisals are infeasible without first knowing what that reasoning is.
In his speech, Ahmadinejad declares that Zionism is the West's apparatus of political oppression against Muslims. He says the "Zionist regime" was imposed on the Islamic world as a strategic bridgehead to ensure domination of the region and its assets. Palestine, he insists, is the frontline of the Islamic world's struggle with American hegemony, and its fate will have repercussions for the entire Middle East.
Ahmadinejad acknowledges that the removal of America's powerful grip on the region via the Zionists may seem unimaginable to some, but reminds the audience that, as Khomeini predicted, other seemingly invincible empires have disappeared and now only exist in history books. He then proceeds to list three such regimes that have collapsed, crumbled or vanished, all within the last 30 years:
(1) The Shah of Iran- the U.S. installed monarch
(2) The Soviet Union
(3) Iran's former arch-enemy, Iraqi dictator Saddam Hussein
In the first and third examples, Ahmadinejad prefaces their mention with Khomeini's own words foretelling that individual regime's demise. He concludes by referring to Khomeini's unfulfilled wish: "The Imam said this regime occupying Jerusalem must vanish from the page of time. This statement is very wise". This is the passage that has been isolated, twisted and distorted so famously. By measure of comparison, Ahmadinejad would seem to be calling for regime change, not war.
Arash Norouzi
Homepage:
http://www.globalresearch.ca/index.php?context=va&aid=4527
that's an easy one ...
29.09.2009 12:00
European war - European 'holocaust' - Palestinian suffering, dispossession and death.
Why the hell is asking questions about events 65 years ago "confrontational rhetoric" that might 'spark war'?
War with whom? With those who become uncomfortable with questions about the origins of the zionist entity obviously.
So, to rephrase: why is the zionist entity contemplating war with Iran?
Is it
a) because they dislike freedom of investigation of history?
b) because they are afraid of a a new balance of power that will rob the zionist entity of its ability to strike and murder with impunity the people of the Middle east?
c) because they wish to see the fulfilment of their plan for greater israel on the lands of Jordan, Syria, Lebanon and Palestine?
d) all of the above
jackslucid
President Ahmadinejad's speech at the UN General Assembly
29.09.2009 12:10
Islamic Republic of Iran
Permanent Mission to the United Nations
Address by H.E. Dr. Mahmoud Ahmadinejad
President of the Islamic Republic of Iran
Before the 64th Session of the United Nations
New York, 23 September 2009
Mr. President, Excellencies, Ladies and Gentlemen,
I thank the Almighty God for granting me, once more, this opportunity to address this important international meeting.
I wish to begin by congratulating you, Mr. President, for having assumed the presidency of the 64th Session of the UN General Assembly and wish you all the success. I also extend my thanks to H.E. Mr. Miguel d'Escoto Brockmann, President of the 63rd Session of the General Assembly, for his excellent stewardship of the work of the General Assembly during his term.
Over the past four years I have talked to you concerning the main challenges facing our world. I have talked about the roots and underlying causes of these challenges and the need for the world powers to review their outlook and workout new mechanisms to address the pressing international problems. I have talked about the two conflicting outlooks prevailing in our world; one that is based on the predominance of its materialistic interests through spreading inequality and oppression, poverty and deprivation, aggression, occupation and deception, and tends to bring the entire world under its control and impose its will on other nations. This outlook has produced nothing but frustration, disappointment and a dark future for the entire humanity.
The other outlook is the one that spouses with the belief in the oneness of the Almighty God, follows the teaching of His messengers, respects human dignity and seeks to build a secure world for all members of the human community, in which everybody can equally enjoy the blessings of sustainable peace and spirituality.
The latter is an outlook that respects all human beings, nations, and valuable cultures in defiance of all types of discrimination in the world, and commits itself into a constant fight to promote equality for all before the law on the basis of justice and fraternity, laying a solid foundation to guarantee equal access for all human beings in their quest to excel in knowledge and science.
I have laid emphasis time and again on the need to make fundamental changes in the current attitudes towards the world and the human being in order to be able to create a bright tomorrow. Friends and Colleagues;
Today, I wish to share with you a few points about the changes that should take place.
First,
Clearly, continuation of the current circumstances in the world is impossible. The present inequitable and unfavorable conditions run counter to the very nature of human kind and move in a direction which contravenes the truth and the goal behind the creation of the world.
It is no longer possible to inject thousands of billions of dollars of unreal wealth to the world economy simply by printing worthless paper assets, or transfer inflation as well as social and economic problems to others through creating sever budget deficits. The engine of unbridled capitalism with its unfair system of thought has reached the end of road and is unable to move. The era of capitalist thinking and imposition of one's thoughts on the international community, intended to predominate the world in the name of globalization and the age of setting up empires is over. It is no longer possible to humiliate nations and impose double standard policies on the world community.
Approaches in which realization of the interests of certain powers is considered as the only criteria to weigh democracy, and using the ugliest methods of intimidation and deceit under the mantle of freedom as a democratic practice, and approaches through which sometimes dictators are portrayed as democrats, lack legitimacy and must be totally rejected.
The time has come to an end for those who define democracy and freedom and set standards whilst they themselves are the first who violate its fundamental principles. They can no longer sit both the judge and the executor and challenge the real democratically- established governments.
The awakening of nations and the expansion of freedom worldwide will no longer allow them to continue their hypocrisy and vicious attitudes. Because of all these reasons most nations including the people of the Untied States are waiting for real and profound changes. They have welcomed and will continue to welcome changes.
How can one imagine that the inhuman policies in Palestine may continue; to force the entire population of a country out of their homeland for more than 60 years by resorting to force and coercion; to attack them with all types of arms and even prohibited weapons; to deny them of their legitimate right of self-defense, while much to the chagrin of the international community calling the occupiers as the peace-lovers, and portraying the victims as terrorists.
How can the crimes of the occupiers against defenseless women and children and destruction of their homes, farms, hospitals and schools be supported unconditionally by certain governments, and at the same time, the oppressed men and women be subject to genocide and heaviest economic blockade being denied of their basic needs, food, water and medicine.
They are not even allowed to rebuild their homes which were destroyed during the 22-day barbaric attacks by the Zionist regime while the winter is approaching. Whereas the aggressors and their supporters deceitfully continue their rhetoric in defense of human rights in order to put others under pressure.
It is no longer acceptable that a small minority would dominate the politics, economy and culture of major parts of the world by its complicated networks, and establish a new form of slavery, and harm the reputation of other nations, even European nations and the U.S., to attain its racist ambitions.
It is not acceptable that some who are several thousands of kilometers away from the Middle East would send their troops for military intervention and for spreading war, bloodshed, aggression, terror and intimidation in the whole region while blaming the protests of nations in the region, that are concerned about their fate and their national security, as a move against peace and as interference in others' affairs. Look at the situations in Iraq and Afghanistan.
It is no longer possible to bring a country under military occupation in the name of fight against terrorism and drug trafficking while the production of illicit drugs has multiplied, terrorism has widened its dimensions and has tightened its grips, thousands of innocent people have been killed, injured or displaced, infrastructures have been destroyed and regional security has been seriously jeopardized; and those who have created the current disastrous situation continue to blame others. How you can talk about friendship and solidarity with other nations while you expand your military bases in different parts of the world including in Latin America. This situation cannot continue. It is all the more impossible to advance expansionist and inhuman policies on the basis of militaristic logic. The logic of coercion and intimidation will produce dire consequences, exacerbating the present global problems.
It is not acceptable that the military budget of some governments exceeds far larger than those of the entire countries of the world. They export billions of dollars of arms every year, stockpile chemical and biological weapons, establish military bases or have military presence in other countries while accusing others of militarism, and mobilize all their resources in the world to impede scientific and technological progress of other nations under the pretext of countering arms proliferation.
It is not acceptable that the United Nations and the Security Council, whose decisions must represent all nations and governments by the application of the most democratic methods in their decision making processes, be dominated by a few governments and serve their interests. In a world where cultures, thoughts and public opinions should be the determining factors, the continuation of the present situation is impossible, and fundamental changes seem to be unavoidable.
Second;
Any change must be structural and fundamental both in theory and practice, involving all domains of our life. The outdated mechanisms which themselves were instrumental in and the root cause for present problems in human societies can never be used to bring changes and create our desired world. Liberalism and capitalism that have alienated human beings from heavenly and moral values will never bring happiness for humanity because they are the main source of all misfortune wars, poverty and deprivation.
We have all seen that how the inequitable economic structures controlled by certain political interests have been used to plunder national wealth of countries for the benefit of a group of corrupt business giants. The present structures are incapable of reforming the present situation.
The political and economic structures created following the World War II that was based on intentions to dominate the world failed to promote justice and lasting security.
Rulers whose hearts do not beat for the love of humankind and who sacrificed the spirit of justice in their minds never offer the promise of peace and friendship to humanity. By the grace of God, Marxism is gone. It is now history. The expansionist Capitalism will certainly have the same fate. Because based on the divine traditions referred to as a principle in the Holy Quran, the wrong like the bubbles on the surface of water, will disappear. There remains only what that can be used forever towards the interest of human societies.
We must all remain vigilant to prevent the pursuit of colonialist, discriminatory and inhuman goals under the cover of the slogans for change and in new formats. The world needs to undergo fundamental changes and all must engage collectively to make them happen in the right direction, and through such efforts no one and no government would consider itself an exception to change or superior to others and try to impose its will on others by proclaiming world leadership.
Third,
All problems existing in our world today emanate from the fact that rulers have distanced themselves from human values, morality and the teachings of divine messengers. Regrettably, in the current international relations, selfishness and insatiable greed have taken the place of such humanitarian concepts as love, sacrifice, dignity, and justice. The belief in the One God has been replaced with selfishness. Some have taken the place of God and insist to impose their values and wishes on others. Lies have taken the place of honesty; hypocrisy has replaced integrity and selfishness has taken the place of sacrifice. Deception in interactions is called foresight and statesmanship; looting the wealth of other nations is called development efforts; occupation is introduced as a gift towards promotion of freedom and democracy, and defenseless nations are subjected to repression in the name of defending human rights.
Friends and colleagues;
Settlement of global problems and administration of justice and maintenance of peace will only be materialized with collective determination and cooperation of all nations and states. The age of polarizing the world on the premises of the hegemony or domination of a few governments is over.
Today we must rise together in a collective commitment against the present challenges; we must take change seriously and help others through collective work to return to the basic moral and human values. Messengers were sent by God to show the light of the truth to human kind, they came to make people aware of their individual and social obligations. Piety, having faith to Allah and its judgment of human behavior or conduct in the next world, belief in the primacy of justice in both lives, seeking one's happiness, well being and security in the happiness, well-being and security of others, respecting human kind, making efforts to expand love and compassion against hostility were all on top of the teachings offered by the Messengers of God from Adam to Noah, from Noah to Abraham, Moses, Jesus Christ and the last one Prophet Mohammad (PUH). All of them came to do something to eliminate war and ignorance, to eradicate poverty and uproot discrimination in order to spread happiness in the entire world. They are the best gifts that God Almighty has granted to human beings.
If the belief in Entezar A waiting patiently for the Imam to return) will turn into a common and we join hands to achieve prosperity for all, then there will be more real and increasing hopes for reform.
Fourth;
In my opinion, we have several important agendas in front of us. The Secretary-General and the UN General Assembly can take the lead by undertaking necessary measures for the fulfilment of our shared goals on the basis of:
1- Restructuring the United Nations in order to transform this world body to an efficient and fully democratic organization, capable of playing an impartial, equitable, and effective role in the international relations; reforming the structure of the Security Council, specially by abolishing the discriminatory privilege of veto right; restoration of the inalienable rights of the Palestinian people by organizing a referendum and free elections in Palestine in order to prepare a conducive ground for all Palestinian populations, including Muslims, Christians and Jews to live together in peace and harmony; putting an end to all types of interferences in the affairs of Iraq, Afghanistan, Middle East, and in all countries in Africa, Latin America, Asia and Europe.
As our great Prophet said, a government may survive with blasphemy, but never with oppression. Oppression against Palestinians and violation of their rights still continue; a new group of Palestinians who lived in al-Qod al-Sharif were again forced out of their homes as the destruction of their residential homes continues by the occupiers; bombings in Afghanistan and Pakistan have not yet sopped; and Guantanamo Prison has not yet been shut down and there are still secret prisons in Europe.
Continuation of the present situation adds to hostilities and violence. Oppression and military aggression must be stopped. Regrettably, official reports concerning the brutalities of the Zionist regime in Gaza have not been completely published. The Secretary-General and the United Nations have crucial responsibilities in this respect and the international community is impatiently waiting for the punishment of the aggressors and the murderers of the defenseless people of Gaza.
2- Reforming the current economic structures and setting up a new international economic order based on human and moral values and obligations. A new course is needed that would help promote justice and progress worldwide by flourishing the potentials and talents of all nations thus bringing well-being for all and for future generations;
3- Reforming the international political relations based on the promotion of lasting peace and friendship, eradication of arms race and elimination of all nuclear, chemical and biological weapons;
4- Reforming cultural structures , respect for diverse customs and traditions of all nations, fostering moral values and spirituality aimed at institution of family as the backbone of all human societies;
5- Worldwide efforts to protect the environment and full observance of the international agreements and arrangements to prevent the annihilation of nature's non-renewable resources.
Fifth;
Our nation has successfully gone through a glorious and fully- democratic election, opening a new chapter for our country in the march towards national progress and enhanced international interactions. They entrusted me once more with a large majority this heavy responsibility.
And now, I want to declare that our great nation that has made great contribution to the world civilization, and the Islamic Republic of Iran as one of the most democratic and progressive governments of the world is ready to mobilize all its cultural, political and economic capabilities to engage into constructive process aimed at addressing the international concerns and challenges. Our country has been a main victim of terrorism and the target of an all-out military aggression during the first decade of the revolution.
All through the past thirty years we have been subject to hostile attitudes of those who supported Saddam's military aggression and his use of chemical weapons against us, and then they took military action in Iraq to get rid of him. Today, our nation seeks to create a world in which justice and compassion prevail. We announce our commitment to participate in the process of building a durable peace and security worldwide for all nations based on justice, spirituality and human dignity, while being dedicated to strongly defending our legitimate and legal rights.
To materialize these goals, our nation is prepared to warmly shake all those hands which are honestly extended to us. No nation can claim to be free from the need to change and reform in this journey towards perfectness. We welcome real and humane changes and stand ready to actively engage in fundamental global reforms.
Therefore, we emphasize that:
-The only path to remain safe is to return to Monotheism (believing in the Oneness of God) and justice, and this is the greatest hope and opportunity in all ages and generations. Without belief in God and commitment to the cause of justice and fight against injustice and discrimination, the world architect would not get right.
Man is at the center of the universe. The man's unique feature is his humanity. The same feature which seeks for justice, piety, love, knowledge, awareness and all other high values. These human values should be supported, and each and every fellow humans should be given the opportunity to acquire them. Neglecting any of them is tantamount to the omission of a constituting piece of humanity. These are common elements which connect all human communities and constitute the basis of peace, security and friendship.
The divine religions pay attention to all aspects of human life, including obedience to God, morality, justice, fighting oppression, and endeavor to establish just and good governance. Prophet Abraham called for Oneness of God against Nimrod, as Prophet Moses did the same against Pharaohs and the Jesus Christ and Prophet Muhammad (Peace be upon them) did against the oppressors of their own time. They were all threatened to death and were forced out of their homelands.
Without resistance and objection, the injustices would not be removed from the face of the earth.
Sixth;
Dear friends and colleagues;
The world is in continuous change and evolution. The promised destiny for the mankind is the establishment of the humane pure life. Will come a time when justice will prevail across the globe and every single human being will enjoy respect and dignity. That will be the time when the Mankind's path to moral and spiritual perfectness will be opened and his journey to God and the manifestation of the God's Divine Names will come true. The mankind should excel to represent the God's "knowledge and wisdom", His "compassion and benevolence", His "justice and fairness", His "power and art", and His "kindness and forgiveness".
These will all come true under the rule of the Perfect Man, the last Divine Source on earth, Hazrat Mahdi (Peace be upon him); an offspring of the Prophet of Islam, who will re-emerge, and Jesus Christ (Peace be upon him) and other noble men will accompany him in the accomplishment of this, grand universal mission. And this is the belief in Entezar (Awaiting patiently for the Imam to return). Waiting with patience for the rule of goodness and the governance of the Best which is a universal human notion and which is a source of nations' hope for the betterment of the world.
1 They will come, and with the help of righteous people and true believers will materialize the man's long-standing desires for freedom, perfectness, maturity, security and tranquillity, peace and beauty. They will come to put an end to war and aggression and present the entire knowledge as well as spirituality and friendship to the whole world.
Yes; Indeed, the bright future for the mankind will come.
Dear friends,
In waiting for that brilliant time to come and in a collective commitment, let's make due contributions in paving the grounds and preparing the conditions for building that bright future. Long live love and spirituality; long live peace and security; long live justice and freedom. God's Peace and blessing be upon you all.
full transcript
Homepage:
http://www.un.org/ga/64/generaldebate/IR.shtml
Re: that's an easy one ...
29.09.2009 12:18
1) The hawks in Israel and US are looking for an excuse to launch military strikes against Iranian nuclear facilities to stall the Iranian nuclear program.
2) Ahmadi makes confrontational speeches about Israel and the Holocaust which cause nothing but international outrage and provides ammunition for the Israeli and US hawks who use this rhetoric to justify listing Iran as a "existential threat" to Israel and US-allied Arab states like Saudi Arabia and Emirates.
Is that easy enough to understand? The rhetoric by Ahmadi only creates more problems for Iran and distracts Majlis from addressing the domestic issues of poverty, welfare, and upholding rule of law. Ahmadi promised the poor of Iran to distribute oil wealth to the masses, which he hasn't fulfilled and cannot fulfill since Rafsanjani and family own a majority stake of National Iranian Oil Company.
Saudi Arabia and Emirates are using Ahmadi's rhetoric to push US to sell them arms and kickstart their own nuclear programs. The US is bowing to their demands.
Who wins? The West, Israel, and the anti-Iranian Arab states of the Persian Gulf and Saudi Arabia. Who loses? Iran and the Iranian people.
Nima Mohammadi
And the winner of this year's Orwell prize is ...
29.09.2009 17:51
'Three: The recent Iranian tests of long-range missiles is a purely defensive exercise.'
Of course. How could one think otherwise.
eric blair
Orwell prize?
29.09.2009 18:44
Back up your comment or it really can't be news can it.
eejit blair
Eejit is right ...
29.09.2009 19:07
Iran hasn't attacked anyone yet, so any weapons it has can therefore be classisfied as 'defensive'.
Ah, Orwell still lives!
eric blair
Blair and double standards
29.09.2009 21:07
Danny
Jumping to conclusions ...
30.09.2009 09:08
Who said I didn't?
Although presumably you are against the war in Afghanistan. If NATO troops do withdraw, the Taliban would take over again. No doubt you would be happy for that to happen.
eric blair
More Tony than Eric
30.09.2009 13:32
The Taliban would take over what - Kabul? A couple of wee army bases in Helmand?
Yes I did oppose the war, and the subsequent, ongoing, pointless slaughter of civilians hasn't changed my opinion. Did you notice the two year old child killed yesterday by a British propaganda drop? Lots of media report it. None of the media report any criminal investigation for manslaughter. Yet I bet if I killed a child of the people responsible - from the RAF guy who dropped the box, to his boss who ordered him to do it and their bosses right up to Brown, I guess I'd be prosecuted.
Why aren't Afghans considered humans under British law?
Danny
thinking through your statements ...
30.09.2009 14:28
'Why aren't Afghans considered humans under British law?' Another Danny classic. Thus, by this logic, Germans were not considered humans in 1914, or in 1939; Koreans were not humans in 1950, Iraqis in the First Gulf War, and so on. To quote someone - don't you know there's a war on?
eric blair
Thought about this for eight years now
30.09.2009 15:34
The only Afghans who want our troops there are the insurgents who want to avenge lost relatives but can't afford to travel to Kabul let alone the UK - they appreciate our presence. Life expectancy in Afghanistan, after eight years of liberation is 43 years and dropping. The Afghan womens groups don't want us there, we haven't improved their lot a jot, there is a huge surge in women setting fire to themselves. They have two rights under the current government, the right to obey their husbands and the right to pray at home. Sure, there a set number of women in Paliament but the only female MPs left are proxies for the warlords.
Why are we fighting a tribal grouping with no global or even regional aspirations anyway in your opinion?
Danny
Maybe you should think too
30.09.2009 15:41
The UK is at war with Afghanistan and it's people? I missed that declaration, got a link to it? Or are you suggesting the child was an enemy fighter? Or are you admitting what is implicit but unstated in every news report, that British soldiers can kill innocent children without any investigation, and that it is silly of me to even mention it? Thats one more child who will never be stoned to death. Can you even tell me how many civilians we have killed to stop the Taliban killing them?
You probably don't care, maybe you care about the British troops though. An army too small to do more than take an area then retreat back to base. Soldiers who have to moonlight on leave to be able to afford to buy their own kit so that the defence budget can afford two new supercarriers that are white elephants in wars like this. Hundreds of doubtless brave, doubtless heroic young men losing their limbs and lives while achieving absolutely nothing. Sweet fuck all. The country is worse than 2001 and we still don't even have an exit strategy or any expectation that this will end before 2050.
"You have a choice - you either do your best to keep the Taliban out and some semble of a democratic government in, or allow the Taliban free reign"
Except we don't have that choice. The Taliban are in real control of the country, they are winning the war, and where they aren't they have been replaced with mysogynist opium warlords who are just as brutal, just as despicable but they happen to pay lipservice to Washington.
You support the current 'semble of a democratic government', choosing your words wisely. A semble is an imitation, a fake, a fraud. You are admitting that there is no democracy in Afghanistan. The populace don't vote in fake elections that are imposed on them at gunpoint. 150 British soldiers were killed or injured to clear an area for an election where only 150 people voted out of an electorate of 80,000.The puppet President stuffed the ballot boxes while his drug smuggling brother pockets the opium production - opium that destroys tens of thousands of lives and which the Taliban destroyed.
The only Afghans who want our troops there are the insurgents who want to avenge lost relatives but can't afford to travel to Kabul let alone the UK - they appreciate our presence. Life expectancy in Afghanistan, after eight years of liberation is 43 years and dropping. The Afghan womens groups don't want us there, we haven't improved their lot a jot, there is a huge surge in women setting fire to themselves. They have two rights under the current government, the right to obey their husbands and the right to pray at home. Sure, there a set number of women in Paliament but the only female MPs left are proxies for the warlords.
Why are we fighting a tribal grouping with no global or even regional aspirations anyway in your opinion?
Danny
Declaring war is so nineteenth century ...
30.09.2009 16:58
Of course, Chamberlain did talk 'of a quarrel in a far-away country between people of whom we know nothing.' We could say the same as Chamberlain, and do as Chamberlain did. You support Chamberlain's comments?
eric blair
@Tony Blair
30.09.2009 17:41
Any military man would know that, which means you are a 'chicken-hawk', someone without the courage to fight who insists others go to war. You don't think, you can't write and you won't fight, and therefore you have fuck all in common with Eric Blair and everything in common with Tony Blair.
And the MoD reaction to this latest of their child-murders ? “If her family request compensation, we will obviously give it consideration" [3]
Now it seems Group Captain Edward Jackson Stringer OBE murdered this particular lass, and I'd like to pay him and his family a visit to consider what compenstation they think is appropriate for their lives.
[1]
[2]
[3]
Danny
oh, a radio broadcast ....
30.09.2009 18:40
Chickenhawk? Snigger. If the Government were conscripting every able bodied man in the country, I'd still be near the end of the queue. And evidence for your asssertion ... that I hadn't realised Chamberlain's broadcast gave him the right to kill Germans with impunity. Fill in the blanks - conclusions ... jumping to ...
And I notice you didn't follow up the point about a far away country of which we know little ...
Personally, I don't think the war is worth it - in the words of an earlier age, let the poor benighted heathens fight it out between themselves. But then, that's your viewpont too.
eric blair
Tony Mussolini
30.09.2009 19:02
Danny
Not a boat n sight ....
30.09.2009 19:32
The Taliban ruled from 1996 to 2001.
One could go on at length about the barbaric nature of the regime, but comparing it with the Italian invasion of Abyssinia is simply perverse. But then, as I have said, perhaps you're content with letting them being nasty to each other. Far away country of which we know little.
eric blair
A resprung trap
30.09.2009 20:29
A couple of bad things we associate with the Nazis were their tendency to invade weaker countries on false pretences, and their troops lack of concern at killing children.
I don't think the solution to "them being nasty to each other" is for our troops to 'be nasty' to them.
A "far away country of which we know little", your reference to the invasion of Czechoslovakia by Nazi Germany has not a single parallel with the UK invading Afghanistan, unless again you are casting the UK as the fascists.
Nigeria, Saudi-Arabia and the United Arab Emirates all pass sentences of stoning and we're not going to invade them because of that - our government don't even criticise them so that isn't why we are occupying Aghanistan. I did ask you and you haven't responded. The 'Operator' here ( "it does what it says on the tin" ) says we are occupying it because of Al Qaeda but the taliban offered to extradite Bin Laden and General Pretaeus says there aren't any Al Qaeda there now.
Anyway, it's not a "far away country of which we know little", they've beaten the British army a few times in history. Plus, the British army trained the Taliban, in Scotland, back when they were called the Mujahadeen and were our pals, and thought they were great fighters. Back when Reagan was given them the Stinger missiles - that presumably is the reason the propaganda leaflets are dropped by boxes, because the RAF can't fly low enough just to drop the leaflets. The reason the Reagan regime did that was to "set a trap" for the Soviet Union, to destroy it financially and grind it down in a bloody, pointless war. Zbigniew Brzezinski didn't realise the same trap would trap the US too. The US has spent $1 trillion dollars on it, since they do equip their troops. Nearly 4,500 dead US troops though. The British political class were smart and independent enough not to be bullied into the disaster that was the Vietnam war but Blair has sold us down shit creek for his millions of yankee dollars.
Danny
Teaching pigs to sing ...
30.09.2009 21:17
Mind you, it does take an utter and complete ignoramus not to see the parallels between Chamberlain in 1938 and Blair in 2001. Both could have walked away, washed their hands of it, done a Pontius Pilate, saying, 'What are these people to us? What do we care? Let them fight it out between themselves and keep us out of it.' One of them did walk away .... now let's think, which one was it?
And so you say there is no threat to us ... so we should turn a blind eye. Oh, true, if we decided to invade every country of whose human rights we disagreed with, we'd be quite busy. It does amuse me that when some egregious massacre/whatever occurs in a far off place in which we know little, then people shout, 'Something must be done!' The 'something' usually involves the embassy concerned and Trafalgar Square and damn all else. Possibly a Twitter group. Still, I suppose it assuages people's consciences ... There is a saying about putting your money where your mouth is.
Yes, Afghanistan was used as part of the 'Great Game'. Yes, it became a nightmare for the Russians. It's becoming a nightmare for us. Let's leave them to it ... I'm sure the public executions in the market square may become a tourist attraction - you never know.
Aha! We trained the mujahadeen in Scotland? Surely not. They'd have found those funny dresses worn by the Black Watch most improper, wouldn't they?
eric blair
@Cherie Blair
30.09.2009 22:24
And totally unlike the Taliban who happen to be native to Afghanistan and who never invaded anywhere. That fact alone makes your Blair/Chamberlain analogy utterly silly.
It was the (unkilted) SAS who trained the Mujahadeen in Scotland, not the Black Watch.
Today the SAS are training the Libyans, but of course there is no way that is going to come back to haunt us...
Danny
Cherie baby ...
30.09.2009 22:58
True, the Taliban never invaded anyone. They gave a considerable amount of help and assistance to someone who did cause rather a lot of damage elsewhere, however (New York). And their influence in Pakistan is not inconsiderable either. Their offer to hand over bin Landen was so circumscribed with conditions as to make it worthless. They aided and abetted bin Laden in other activities such as the bombing of American embassies in Africa. So they are not quite the insular gentlemen you portray them as.
And as to Insidejob - well, there's not a lot to say, really ... except that I'm sure the BNP would welcome you with open arms.
eric blair
And for the information of Mr Wilayto, original poster:
01.10.2009 07:55
"Speaking from Delhi, Mr ElBaradei warned Iran that the failure to declare the plant to the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) was a serious breach of the law and said it must urgently address legitimate international concerns. “Iran has been on the wrong side of the law,” he told Indian television. “Iran was supposed to inform us on the day it was decided to construct the facility.” He demanded that UN inspectors should be given access as soon as possible to determine the purpose for the plant."
Rather knocks out a good chunk of your argument, don't you think?
eric blair
Top Things you Think You Know about Iran that are not True
01.10.2009 08:57
Thursday is a fateful day for the world, as the US, other members of the United Nations Security Council, and Germany meet in Geneva with Iran in a bid to resolve outstanding issues. Although Iranian president Mahmoud Ahmadinejad had earlier attempted to put the nuclear issue off the bargaining table, this rhetorical flourish was a mere opening gambit and nuclear issues will certainly dominate the talks. As Henry Kissinger pointed out, these talks are just beginning and there are highly unlikely to be any breakthroughs for a very long time. Diplomacy is a marathon, not a sprint.
But on this occasion, I thought I'd take the opportunity to list some things that people tend to think they know about Iran, but for which the evidence is shaky.
Belief: Iran is aggressive and has threatened to attack Israel, its neighbors or the US
Reality: Iran has not launched an aggressive war modern history (unlike the US or Israel), and its leaders have a doctrine of "no first strike." This is true of Supreme Leader Ali Khamenei, as well as of Revolutionary Guards commanders.
Belief: Iran is a militarized society bristling with dangerous weapons and a growing threat to world peace.
Reality: Iran's military budget is a little over $6 billion annually. Sweden, Singapore and Greece all have larger military budgets. Moreover, Iran is a country of 70 million, so that its per capita spending on defense is tiny compared to these others, since they are much smaller countries with regard to population. Iran spends less per capita on its military than any other country in the Persian Gulf region with the exception of the United Arab Emirates.
Belief: Iran has threatened to attack Israel militarily and to "wipe it off the map."
Reality: No Iranian leader in the executive has threatened an aggressive act of war on Israel, since this would contradict the doctrine of 'no first strike' to which the country has adhered. The Iranian president has explicitly said that Iran is not a threat to any country, including Israel.
Belief: But didn't President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad threaten to 'wipe Israel off the map?'
Reality: President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad did quote Ayatollah Khomeini to the effect that "this Occupation regime over Jerusalem must vanish from the page of time" (in rezhim-e eshghalgar-i Qods bayad as safheh-e ruzgar mahv shavad). This was not a pledge to roll tanks and invade or to launch missiles, however. It is the expression of a hope that the regime will collapse, just as the Soviet Union did. It is not a threat to kill anyone at all.
Belief: But aren't Iranians Holocaust deniers?
Actuality: Some are, some aren't. Former president Mohammad Khatami has castigated Ahmadinejad for questioning the full extent of the Holocaust, which he called "the crime of Nazism." Many educated Iranians in the regime are perfectly aware of the horrors of the Holocaust. In any case, despite what propagandists imply, neither Holocaust denial (as wicked as that is) nor calling Israel names is the same thing as pledging to attack it militarily.
Belief: Iran is like North Korea in having an active nuclear weapons program, and is the same sort of threat to the world.
Actuality: Iran has a nuclear enrichment site at Natanz near Isfahan where it says it is trying to produce fuel for future civilian nuclear reactors to generate electricity. All Iranian leaders deny that this site is for weapons production, and the International Atomic Energy Agency has repeatedly inspected it and found no weapons program. Iran is not being completely transparent, generating some doubts, but all the evidence the IAEA and the CIA can gather points to there not being a weapons program. The 2007 National Intelligence Estimate by 16 US intelligence agencies, including the CIA and the Defense Intelligence Agency, assessed with fair confidence that Iran has no nuclear weapons research program. This assessment was based on debriefings of defecting nuclear scientists, as well as on the documents they brought out, in addition to US signals intelligence from Iran. While Germany, Israel and recently the UK intelligence is more suspicious of Iranian intentions, all of them were badly wrong about Iraq's alleged Weapons of Mass Destruction and Germany in particular was taken in by Curveball, a drunk Iraqi braggart.
Belief: The West recently discovered a secret Iranian nuclear weapons plant in a mountain near Qom.
Actuality: Iran announced Monday a week ago to the International Atomic Energy Agency that it had begun work on a second, civilian nuclear enrichment facility near Qom. There are no nuclear materials at the site and it has not gone hot, so technically Iran is not in violation of the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty, though it did break its word to the IAEA that it would immediately inform the UN of any work on a new facility. Iran has pledged to allow the site to be inspected regularly by the IAEA, and if it honors the pledge, as it largely has at the Natanz plant, then Iran cannot produce nuclear weapons at the site, since that would be detected by the inspectors. Secretary of State Hillary Clinton admitted on Sunday that Iran could not produce nuclear weapons at Natanz precisely because it is being inspected. Yet American hawks have repeatedly demanded a strike on Natanz.
Belief: The world should sanction Iran not only because of its nuclear enrichment research program but also because the current regime stole June's presidential election and brutally repressed the subsequent demonstrations.
Actuality: Iran's reform movement is dead set against increased sanctions on Iran, which likely would not affect the regime, and would harm ordinary Iranians.
Belief: Isn't the Iranian regime irrational and crazed, so that a doctrine of mutally assured destruction just would not work with them?
Actuality: Iranian politicians are rational actors. If they were madmen, why haven't they invaded any of their neighbors? Saddam Hussein of Iraq invaded both Iran and Kuwait. Israel invaded its neighbors more than once. In contrast, Iran has not started any wars. Demonizing people by calling them unbalanced is an old propaganda trick. The US elite was once unalterably opposed to China having nuclear science because they believed the Chinese are intrinsically irrational. This kind of talk is a form of racism.
Belief: The international community would not have put sanctions on Iran, and would not be so worried, if it were not a gathering nuclear threat.
Actuality: The centrifuge technology that Iran is using to enrich uranium is open-ended. In the old days, you could tell which countries might want a nuclear bomb by whether they were building light water reactors (unsuitable for bomb-making) or heavy-water reactors (could be used to make a bomb). But with centrifuges, once you can enrich to 5% to fuel a civilian reactor, you could theoretically feed the material back through many times and enrich to 90% for a bomb. However, as long as centrifuge plants are being actively inspected, they cannot be used to make a bomb. The two danger signals would be if Iran threw out the inspectors or if it found a way to create a secret facility. The latter task would be extremely difficult, however, as demonstrated by the CIA's discovery of the Qom facility construction in 2006 from satellite photos. Nuclear installations, especially centrifuge ones, consume a great deal of water, construction materiel, and so forth, so that constructing one in secret is a tall order. In any case, you can't attack and destroy a country because you have an intuition that they might be doing something illegal. You need some kind of proof. Moreover, Israel, Pakistan and India are all much worse citizens of the globe than Iran, since they refused to sign the NPT and then went for broke to get a bomb; and nothing at all has been done to any of them by the UNSC.
Juan Cole (repost)
Homepage:
http://www.juancole.com/2009/10/top-things-you-think-you-know-about.html
4 false assertions
01.10.2009 11:31
No, they weren't involved in 911, they merely hosted Bin Laden, and in return his fighters fought for them against the Northern Alliance.
>And their influence in Pakistan is not inconsiderable either.
The Pashtun tribal area crosses the border.
>Their offer to hand over bin Landen was so circumscribed with conditions as to make it worthless.
No, they offered to extradite Bin Laden if the US provided any evidence against him - a standard condition for extradition for every country except the UK.
>They aided and abetted bin Laden in other activities such as the bombing of American embassies in Africa.
No, neither the State Department nor any of the trials mention that the Taliban were involved. You are making all that up which is why you don't provide supporting links.
Danny
how dare you!
01.10.2009 12:32
Are they not aware that good Jewish fingernails are at stake if we don't bomb Iran back into the stone age and kill a large proportion of their anti-semitic people? [humour]
And yes, let us scream hysterically when asked to contemplate the historic events said to have taken place before most of our lifetimes even began, let us wring our hands in angst when asked to scientifically, logically, demographically and systematically focus on the sole horror of 6 years of that brutal war to end all wars (er ... sorry, that was the one before that ) - the death of Jews. [humour]
Obviously there is nowhere to discuss these things - why, everything has already been worked out - we just need to sit back and passively recieve it from our masters. [dark humour]
Oh, and if you do want to discuss it? Well you could always pop over to the stormfront site - or some other similarly vile and unredeemably racist site - probably a 'moderated' venue, but unfortunately, 'moderated' by the antithesis of decency and factual accuracy, so that will not help you become informed. [not remotely humorous]
Shame that such legitimate historical investigation is left to those loons though innit? [fact]
'operator', you are a disgrace. I have no idea why you would want to alert people to holocaust denial material and then play the 'pull the advertising' trick here. I can only imagine it is a complete and sober decision to close down discussion and disrupt as much as possible. [opinion]
Now lets turn the tables on you and your ilk and watch as now, you become the 'holocaust denier' when we start talk of the ethnic origin, religious affiliation and political outlook off those who murdered scores of millions of Russians, Ukrainians, Cossacks etc. [supposition]
No no, you cry, you cannot say that just because the architects of this genocide (sorry, the 'holocaust' is a trade marked sign of suffering) were all linked by some mysterious thing (now what was it again ... ?), that this is in anyway an indication that the 'lights of the world' are unfit to sit over us in judgement [humour]
I am a holocaust denier. I demand that this is my right and damn any and all that would legislate against my right to:
a] believe what the hell I like
b] research anything I want
[very very dark humour, barely detectable really considering]
the rest of you intellectual pip squeaks, cowards and lazy convenient position seekers can do what your told. [pure ego posturing]
ps. I reject and am deeply suspicious and critical of all forms of human identity based on meaningless classifications and exclusions, such as race, class, gender, nationality, sexual orientation, religious beliefs, bodily ability and age ... so you will have to be pretty inventive in your horrified denunciations of me as being - well, less than human - for my obdurate intransigence on the matter of historical accuracy! [ethic]
I understand that this will very likely join the ranks of 'the hidden. I can not ask for any special treatment. If the words offend, strike them out. I ask only to considered. [pathos]
Love and respect to all that have earned it.
Non-operational
links for Danny
01.10.2009 13:40
From that source of all wisdom, Wikipedia.
The rest of it is all here:
But maybe they make it all up too.
eric blair
Ta, did you read them yourself?
01.10.2009 19:11
Bin Laden and his enourage weren't Afghani, they lived there as paying guests and now they've left we're bombing the hosts. Eire and the UK didn't go to war when they're government were complict with cross border terrorst raids hosted from their territory.
The US never offered the Afghan Chief Justice any evidence- and this was after the US had killed 20 Afghans by cruise missiles attacks.
Your wikipedia quote links to this on CNN
Abdul Salam Zaeef, the Taliban ambassador to Pakistan..."Our position on this is that if America has proof, we are ready for the trial of Osama bin Laden in light of the evidence."
This on the BBC
"Afghanistan's Chief Justice, Noor Mohammed Saqib, told the Associated Press news agency no evidence had been produced against him. "Without any evidence, bin Laden is a man without sin ... he is a free man," he said. The Taleban Information Minister, Amir Khan Muttaqi, said the Taleban had now fulfilled their obligations concerning Osama bin Laden. However, he said the Taleban had ordered him not to use Afghan soil for any activities against other countries and that he had accepted this...Earlier this month, the Taleban challenged the United States to provide evidence to back its allegations that the militant Saudi millionaire had masterminded the bombing of its embassies in Kenya and Tanzania. Shortly after the embassy bombings in August, the US launched cruise missile attacks against what it said were Osama bin Laden training camps in south Afghanistan and a factory in Sudan.
Wright concludes that none of these claims made sense, and that bin Laden's actual goal was "to lure the United States into Afghanistan, which had long been called 'The Graveyard of Empires.'"[5] According to a 1998 memo authored by Mohammed Atef and seized by the FBI, around the time of the attacks, al-Qaeda had both an interest in and specific knowledge of negotiations between the Taliban and the American-led gas pipeline consortium CentGas.
Danny
How many angels can dance on the head of a pin?
01.10.2009 19:43
Okay, we'll leave them to it. Perhaps a few more videos of women being shot in the back of the head in a football stadium may leak out onto the internet, but hey, who cares? Danny has proved we shouldn't be there. Only please, never, EVER, complain about human rights abuses again unless you're prepared to put your money where your mouth is.
eric blair
Fools say yea
01.10.2009 21:46
You can learn expert opinion on the internet though, and it is good to back up assertions with relevant links that can be challenged rather than just personal opinion. It's not just my opinion that the taliban were no threat abroad, Rory Stewart contradicts you:
"The Taliban are domestically motivated. By and large they are conservative Pushtun people who want to take control of bits of Afghanistan territory and implement their own social and religious codes in Afghan territory but do not not have a primary interest in mounting terrorist attacks in the United States"
Danny
Eggsperts
01.10.2009 22:53
eric blair
Experts
01.10.2009 23:34
Anand Gopal ,Afghanistan Correspondent
Wall Street Journal
"Pressure on both has tended to fuse the two of them together, but I want to caution that they are seperate organisations and we are making a mistake if we think of them as being manifestations of the same organisation".
Robert Grenier, Former CIA Station Chief, Islamabad
Former Director, Counterterrorism Centre
Danny