[FREE IRAN Project] In The Spirit Of Cyrus The Great Forum Index [FREE IRAN Project] In The Spirit Of Cyrus The Great
Views expressed here are not necessarily the views & opinions of ActivistChat.com. Comments are unmoderated. Abusive remarks may be deleted. ActivistChat.com retains the rights to all content/IP info in in this forum and may re-post content elsewhere.
 FAQFAQ   SearchSearch   RegisterRegister 
 ProfileProfile   Log in to check your private messagesLog in to check your private messages   Log inLog in 

Are we going to war with Iran?

Post new topic   Reply to topic    [FREE IRAN Project] In The Spirit Of Cyrus The Great Forum Index -> Noteworthy Discussion Threads
View previous topic :: View next topic  
Author Message

Joined: 22 Jul 2004
Posts: 142

PostPosted: Tue Oct 18, 2005 4:49 pm    Post subject: Are we going to war with Iran? Reply with quote

Dan Plesch, Ritter, Seymour Hersh are the out spoken anti war front. In this article Dan Plesch has almost repeated every senteces of Mr. Ritter.
Refer to my previus mail.

Banafsheh Zand-Bonazzi wrote:

Mr. Plesch,

IF anyone goes to war with Iran it would be ALL because of the mess that you greedy Brits created. You cleptocratic elistists who go around the world, doing your magnificent cultural imperialist, arbiter elegantiarum dog and pony show. Why don't you go ask your Baroness Emma Nicholson of Winterbourne WHY she supports filthy killer fascists hiding behind Islam, WHY she has helped prop up the oil companies that you Brits snort up like Cocaine, going out of style?

SHAME ON YOU lot of high and mighty, opportunist Marie-Antoinettes who sit there thinking you're ALL so innocent. Low and behold...the one thing ALL people in the Mid East who have a half a brain agree upon is that you are THE nastiest nation on the planet. Luckily many of your friends have started to realize JUST what obfuscating cads you all are.

NO ONE cares what you think because it is all YOUR hubris that has got us all in this place.

You lot will never be forgiven and if you think that by browbeating the idiot Americans, you will make your point, you're wrong. Brits will NEVER have a place in a clam mid east and it is due to that FACT that your government has continued to empower the bastard Mullahs.

Banafsheh Zand-Bonazzi

Activist, Writer and eldest daughter of Iranian Journalist, intellectual AND POLITICAL PRISONER, Siamak Pourzand.

Brooklyn, New York

Are we going to war with Iran?

The Guardian
Dan Plesch evaluates the evidence pointing towards a new conflict in the Middle East

Tuesday October 18, 2005

Source: http://www.guardian.co.uk/iran/story/0,12858,1594977,00.html?gusrc=rss

The Sunday Telegraph warned last weekend that the UN had a last chance to avert war with Iran and, at a meeting in London last week, the US ambassador to the UN, John Bolton, expressed his regret that any failure by the UN security council to deal with Iran would damage the security council's relevance, implying that the US would solve the problem on its own.

Only days before, the foreign secretary, Jack Straw, had dismissed military action as "inconceivable" while both the American president and his secretary of state had insisted war talk was not on the agenda. The UN's International Atomic Energy Agency inspectors have found that Iran has not, so far, broken its commitments under the nuclear non-proliferation treaty, although it has concealed activities before.

It appears that the UK and US have decided to raise the stakes in the confrontation with Iran. The two countries persuaded the IAEA board - including India - to overrule its inspectors, declare Iran in breach of the non-proliferation treaty (NPT) and say that Iran's activities could be examined by the UN security council. Critics of this political process point to the fact that India itself has developed nuclear weapons and refused to join the NPT, but has still voted that Iran is acting illegitimately. On the Iranian side there is also much belligerent talk and pop music now proudly speaks of the nuclear contribution to Iranian security.

The timing of the recent allegations about Iranian intervention in Iraq also appears to be significant. Ever since the US refused to control Iraq's borders in April 2003, Iranian backed militia have dominated the south and, with under 10,000 soldiers amongst a population of millions, the British army had little option but to go along. No fuss was made until now. As for the bombings of British soldiers, some sources familiar with the US army engineers report that these supposedly sophisticated devices have been manufactured inside Iraq for many months and do not need to be imported.

But is the war talk for real or is it just sabre rattling? The conventional wisdom is that for both military and political reasons it would be impossible for Israel and the UK/US to attack and that, in any event, after the politically damaging Iraq war, neither Tony Blair nor George Bush would be able to gather political support for another attack.

But in Washington, Tel Aviv and Downing Street, if not the Foreign Office, Iran is regarded as a critical threat. The regime in Tehran continues to demand the destruction of the state of Israel and to support anti-Israeli forces. In what appeared to be coordinated releases of intelligence assessments, Israeli and US intelligence briefed earlier this year that, while Iran was years from a nuclear weapons capability, the technological point of no return was now imminent.

Shortly after the US elections, the vice-president, Dick Cheney, warned that Israel might attack Iran. Israel has the capability to attack Iranian targets with aircraft and long-range cruise missiles launched from submarines, while Iranian air defences are still mostly based on 25-year-old equipment purchased in the time of the Shah. A US attack might be portrayed as a more reasonable option than a renewed Israeli-Islamic confrontation.

The US army and marines are heavily committed in Iraq, but soldiers could be found if the Bush administration were intent on invasion. Donald Rumsfeld has been reorganising the army to increase front-line forces by a third. More importantly, naval and air force firepower has barely been used in Iraq. Just 120 B52 and stealth bombers could target 5,000 points in Iran with satellite-guided bombs in just one mission. It is for this reason that John Pike of globalsecurity.org thinks that a US attack could come with no warning at all. US action is often portrayed as impossible, not only because of the alleged lack of firepower, but because Iranian facilities are too hard to target. In a strategic logic not lost on Washington, the conclusion then is that if you cannot guarantee to destroy all the alleged weapons, then it must be necessary to remove the regime that wants them, and regime change has been the official policy in Washington for many years.

For political-military planners, precision strikes on a few facilities have drawbacks beyond leaving the regime intact. They allow the regime too many retaliatory options. Certainly, Iran's neighbours in Saudi Arabia and the Gulf who are worried about the growth of Iranian Shia influence in Iraq would want any attack to be decisive. From this logic grows the idea of destroying the political-military infrastructure of the clerical regime and perhaps encouraging separatist Kurdish and Azeri risings in the north-west. Some Washington planners have hopes of the Sunnis of oil-rich Khuzestan breaking away too.

A new war may not be as politically disastrous in Washington as many believe. Scott Ritter, the whistleblowing former UN weapons inspector, points out that few in the Democratic party will stand in the way of the destruction of those who conducted the infamous Tehran embassy siege that ended Jimmy Carter's presidency. Mr Ritter is one of the US analysts, along with Seymour Hersh, who have led the allegations that Washington is going to war with Iran.

For an embattled President Bush, combating the mullahs of Tehran may be a useful means of diverting attention from Iraq and reestablishing control of the Republican party prior to next year's congressional elections. From this perspective, even an escalating conflict would rally the nation behind a war president. As for the succession to President Bush, Bob Woodward has named Mr Cheney as a likely candidate, a step that would be easier in a wartime atmosphere. Mr Cheney would doubtless point out that US military spending, while huge compared to other nations, is at a far lower percentage of gross domestic product than during the Reagan years. With regard to Mr Blair's position, it would be helpful to know whether he has committed Britain to preventing an Iranian bomb "come what may" as he did with Iraq.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message

Joined: 22 Jul 2004
Posts: 142

PostPosted: Tue Oct 18, 2005 5:02 pm    Post subject: Inviting Trouble by Olivier Guitta Reply with quote

A very good example of Brits double crossing!
Read the article, please.

Inviting Trouble
By Olivier Guitta
Source : http://www.techcentralstation.be/101805A.html

[img]http://www.techcentralstation.be/images/tariqlondon.jpg [/img]

Tariq Ramadan, the Swiss Islamist denied entry to the US last summer and to France in 1995, has been offered the red carpet treatment by our British cousins. Indeed, not only did he get a fellowship at Oxford University but was also picked by Tony Blair's government to be a member of its committee on tackling extremism. And all this after the July 7 bombings.

Obviously, even if Blair affirmed that "the rules of the game have changed" after the attacks on London, they clearly have not when it comes to extremist preachers. And that, quite clearly, is what Tariq Ramadan is. He is the grandson of Hassan Al Banna, who founded the Muslim Brotherhood in 1928. Said Ramadan, Tariq's father, was one of the group's leaders in the 1950s before he was expelled from Egypt by Nasser. Most European intelligence agencies are convinced that, at the end of the 1980s, the Muslim Brotherhood picked Tariq Ramadan to be its European representative. In France, during most of the 1990s, Ramadan preached to young Arabs the solution to their everyday problems: Islamic fundamentalism. Coincidentally the slogan of the Muslim Brotherhood is: "Islam is the solution." Ramadan's concept worked very well and explains partly the radicalization of the young French Muslim community.

Regarding his views on terrorism, Ramadan wants us to believe that he forcefully called on Muslims to condemn the September 11 attacks. But consider that in an interview on September 22, 2001, Ramadan explained with his usual gifted vagueness that he couldn't say for sure that Bin Laden was behind the attacks. He then asked the question: "who profits from the crime?" and answered that no Arab or Muslim cause would be better off. This is exactly the argument of Islamists who accused Israel and the Jews of masterminding the September 11 atrocities. In a 2004 interview with French newsmagazine Le Point, Ramadan evoked what he called the "interventions of New York, Bali or Madrid." So, September 11 was not a terrorist attack, it was rather just an "intervention." Of course, nowhere in this interview did Ramadan condemn terrorism. Also when recently asked by an Italian magazine if car bombings against US forces in Iraq were justified, he was quoted as saying: "Iraq was colonized by the Americans. Resistance against the army is just."

Ramadan's links to terrorism are many: In 1995, in the midst of a series of terrorist attacks in Paris orchestrated by the GIA -- the Algerian Islamist terrorist movement -- Jean Louis Debre, then French interior minister, forbade Ramadan from coming to France because of his links to the Algerian terrorist group. According to Roland Jacquard, president of the International Observatory of Terrorism, Ramadan is not directly involved in terrorist activities but most of his supporters are. His links to shady individuals or networks are numerous.

Some troubling allegations can be found in a lawsuit filed by the victims of the September 11 attacks: Ramadan greatly influenced Djamel Beghal, a French citizen arrested for plotting to bomb the US Embassy in Paris. According to Sylvain Besson from the Swiss daily Le Temps, the court papers show that Djamel Beghal "was in charge of preparing Tariq Ramadan's speeches." Ramadan has always answered that he never met Beghal and refused to comment after Besson left numerous messages at his home. Also, Beghal was living in Leicester in 1998, while (surprise!) Ramadan was studying at the Islamic university of Leicester. Lastly, regarding Ramadan's terrorist links, Daniel Pipes, the renowned Middle East expert, reported that he met a senior Department of Homeland Security official a few weeks ago who looked him hard in the eyes and assured him, "The evidence we have is damning."

Prominent moderate Muslims also accuse Ramadan of double talk. For instance, the head of the French Muslim Council, Dalil Boubakeur, declared: "when one invites Tariq Ramadan, it is not to listen to what Allah and the angels said; Ramadan is the vehicle of fundamentalist Islam." Also the head of the largest French anti-racism association, SOS Racisme, Malek Boutih, incidentally an Arab Muslim, told Ramadan after meeting him at length: "Mr Ramadan, you are a fascist."

One example of his contempt for the West can be found in a performance on a 2004 Swiss TV talk show. When asked by a Swiss politician of Algerian origin about the condition of woman regarding slavery, excision, polygamy, and stoning, Ramadan lost it. First, he answered that he should not have to justify his positions; he is not sitting at his trial. Then when cornered by this legislator about the obligation imposed on Muslim women and girls to wear the hijab, Ramadan fired back in a despicable tone: "you and your Western arrogance." So much for a moderate who supposedly wants to build bridges between the West and Islam.

If Blair is looking for someone who is going to elaborate plans for British Muslims to integrate, he is in for a surprise. As Ramadan declared in one of his tapes, "I accept the laws as long as they do not force me to do something against my religion. If to be a good Frenchman, one has to be a bad Muslim, I say no."

In the mid 1990's, Hassan al Turabi, the Sudanese Islamist who invited and hosted Osama Bin Laden, declared: "Tariq Ramadan is the future of Islam." This is not an endorsement to be proud of. It looks like our British friends did not do their homework before inviting Ramadan to the tea party. As a European diplomat declared to Radio France Internationale: "It's like putting a diabetic in the middle of a pastry shop."

Olivier Guitta is a freelance writer specializing in the Middle East and Europe.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
Display posts from previous:   
Post new topic   Reply to topic    [FREE IRAN Project] In The Spirit Of Cyrus The Great Forum Index -> Noteworthy Discussion Threads All times are GMT - 4 Hours
Page 1 of 1

Jump to:  
You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum
You cannot vote in polls in this forum

Powered by phpBB © 2001, 2005 phpBB Group