[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 

BBC: France most violent night - Rioters burnt 1300 Cars
Goto page Previous  1, 2
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: 03 Mar 2005
Posts: 1166
Location: SantaFe, New Mexico

PostPosted: Thu Nov 10, 2005 1:24 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

Dear Amir,

We're just going to have to agree to disagree regarding our friend Blank, see...I grew up as a minority in a biggoted community, I have a "nose" for it, I know it's symtamology, it's hypocracy, and I know every trick used in the book to justify it. I can smell it on a person a mile off, and whether it's in print or just a look.

I don't get into false assumtions or head games....I don't say things lightly, or with malice of forethought.

Karma is not the issue. Blank's words are as clear cut as Antar's, and just as reprehensible in utterance.

Something I thought you would be interested in here, as a post in a long running debate over Islam with "American Visitor" on the general discussion thread (80 posts or so) on a speech given by a mullah.


Viewpoint: The global voices reclaiming Islam
By Ziauddin Sardar
Presenter, BBC Two's Battle for Islam

Ziauddin Sardar, travelling around several Muslim countries, finds that thinkers, activists, political leaders and ordinary Muslims across the globe are refusing to be defined by the ideology of violence and intolerance, but their responses are diverse.

Pakistani-born Sardar discussed "enlightened moderation" with President Pervez Musharraf
This has been a terrible year to be a Muslim.

But, revolted by what is being perpetrated in the name of Islam, the Muslim world is bringing a whole range of new debates to the fore.

For decades the core debate in the Muslim world was about establishing an ideological "Islamic state" and returning to the Sharia, the historical body of Islamic law.

This debate, often led by so-called "Islamic movements", produced a narrow, intolerant, obscurantist, illiberal, brutal and confrontational interpretation of Islam. It is this interpretation that gave rise to what we now know as "Islamic fundamentalism".

But the fixed simplistics of fundamentalists never were the whole of the debate - even though the fundamentalists shout the loudest and dominate the globe through violent expression.

Sharia debate

Now, fundamentalism is being challenged by emerging and alternative visions of Islam, each taking shape in different ways in different countries.

Pakistan was founded as the first modern Islamic state. But it was only in 1978 under the military regime of General Zia ul Haq that Sharia was made the law of the land.


Zia Sardar presents a 90-minute documentary
Monday, 5 September, 2005
BBC Two, 2100 BST
What followed was a series of cases where the implementation of the law acquired a notorious reputation for practical injustice, especially towards women.

And it is women who are really standing up to this law.

The essence of the argument against the Sharia is much more than the fact that its interpretation and application is illiberal and contrary to contemporary ideas of human rights.

The fundamentalist position is that the Koran is the source of all legislation in Islam and therefore the Sharia is an immutable body of sacred law.

It is this concept itself that is now being challenged.

Sharia, it is being widely argued, is not divine but a "jurists' law", that was formulated and socially constructed during the early phase of Islamic history.

It can be changed, modified and reformulated - in its entirety.

Thus the Sharia, as an inherited body of rulings and precedent, is being reclaimed in Pakistan.

Muslim scholars are demanding the same right as their forebears to investigate the sources for alternative interpretations, new ways of framing and operating precepts and law.

Activists' agenda

We can see this activism not just in Pakistan but also in Morocco.

In Morocco an entirely recast family law aspect of Sharia has been produced by Islamic scholars.

It was promulgated by the King in response to widespread public demonstrations by women and, when published, became an instant best-seller.

What might the younger generation bring to Islam?
While it has its opponents, including women, its impeccable Islamic intellectual credentials - advancing the case for gender equality, poverty eradication, economic advancement and the development of free expression through civil society - are now the agenda of debate.

The irony is that neither Pakistan nor Morocco are democracies: one a thinly veiled military regime, the other a near-absolute monarchy.

But the activist proponents of this alternative interpretation of Islam are clear that it can never be fully realised without democracy; indeed that democracy is an essential hallmark of a genuine Islamic society.

Separation from state

Indonesia has the world's largest Muslim population.

Eight years ago, it threw off 30 years of dictatorship backed by the military. Democracy has led to a great outpouring of new thinking.

The reality of the Muslim world is its immense diversity

Zia Sardar
Established organisations such as Mohammadiyah and new civic society organisations such as the Liberal Islam Network - which have followings in the tens of millions - are revising the conventional views of Islam and the state.

In seeking an interpretation of Islam that is both authentic and moderate, liberal, tolerant, open and democratic, they stress the importance of separation between religion and state.

And thus they come to a vision of modernity for Muslims that is rooted in, and inspired by, Islam, yet does not lay claim to being an infallible expression of religion and therefore closed to debate.

It is these agents of civil society that are setting the pace of change.

Diverse solutions

The demands they make on governments are producing a response. But it is no longer a case of seeking one solution.

There is a diversity of responses according to the particular circumstances of different countries, with different histories and different experiences of modernising and modernity.

Countries visited for the documentary

Find out more with our clickable map
The extremists have one all-embracing, all-constraining ideology.

But the reality of the Muslim world is its immense diversity.

The new ideas battling for the soul of Islam have a clear set of common principles but they are varied and must be heard in their own context and place.

A journey around the populous periphery of the Muslim world clearly demonstrates that the extremists are not only a minority but that the fossilised traditionalism from which they derive their legitimacy is also on the retreat.

There is a new air of optimism and confidence in many places that an Islam that is moderate, tolerant and democratic not only should - but will - actually be the future.

This new spirit, and the new ideas it is producing, is not tentative.

But it would be too soon to assert that the ideas are carrying all before them and have secured their dominance.

It is, however, beyond question that to understand the changes taking place in the Muslim world, and appreciate how Islam is being reformed, one has to listen to these voices from the edge.


Thing about Antar, and his intent (and I'll post a few things that illustrate this) is that he's so deep in the 12 Imman belief system, that his whole agenda revolves around the preperation and the creation of the conditions in prophesy for his return.

Mad as a hatter he may be, but his insanity is calculated, and has purpose....to a very bad end for the Iranian people as well as the world.

This thing with IAEA referal, as a trigger point for the IRI is an excuse they will use to justify their agenda, these riots, the bombing in Jordan today, the continued threats of the IRI of unspecified "consequences" should the UN Sec. Council get involved....are all connected as part of a larger strategy being implemented to coerce the international community.

The destabilization of Iraq, Afghanistan, Sudan ( Why are there Rev. Guard "advisors" in Sudan?) and otherflash points and incidents happen when the IRI has been much in the news....thus they have by instigating these things by proxi, been able so far to distract the media from focusing on really where all this is coming from.

What I'm saying here is that I'm seeing a pattern emerge that is almost unprecedented....and yeah, there's his classic neo-nazi domestic formula to consider into the mix.

There is one hopefull note however, and that's that no one has yet given Antar what he wants the most, and that's a military strike on Iran.

I would say this as far as your scenario is concerned....in a classical warfare sense, you would be generally correct...but as Bush has said "this is like no other war in history" and it won't be fought in a classical sense with a nation possesing WMD and delivery capability.

One of the things the US has been very careful about is "collateral damage" , civillian casualties is not good for public diplomacy. I have a pretty good sense of what the US is about, and is capable of if it comes to it. And I say with certainty that we can indeed castrate the IRI's military capability in 30-90 minutes in totality without great loss of life, but it would put Iran back into 17th century living conditions for some time.

Blank says I'm "naive" ...I just have to laugh.... I sent this just prior to the 2005 UN Plenary Summit, if some of it sounds familiar, there's a good reason:


To: Conference Co-Chairs

Mine is but one small voice, speaking only for myself in this, or any other regard politically. It is my hope that the following will be found worthy of merit, and read into the record for consideration of member nations at the 2005 Summit.

"Isotope Road"

I'm probably among a dozen or so people in the world still living who has held a piece of "trinitite" in my hands. This is the fused sand from the first atomic explosion, bubbled green glass, encased in leaded crystal, given to the department heads and leading scientists at Los Alamos at the end of WW2, including my granddad. The rest has been bulldozed underground at the Trinity test site in White Sands. It is the most concrete example I can show any one of the risk of nuclear war, or the results of it.
Any leader holding this potential future in hand will have something to remember, and think about.

In my granddad's day, some of his fellow scientists at Los Alamos had a "pool" going before the Trinity test as to how large the resulting explosion (in kilotons of TNT) would be. Anyone care to guess how many "Los Alamos's" there are today on the planet? How much Gross National Product is invested? To create weapons that cannot be used, and remain civilized.

It took America just 3.5 years, from 1942-45 to build an industry from scratch, based on designs from scratch, building a city from scratch to build a bomb from scratch, with only theories to go on, in the middle of the largest and most costly war in history. Yet we did this and ended that war that had cost 50 million lives up to that point with the weapon that no one knew would even work at the time it was being produced. Just 3.5 years, from theory to reality (3.5 years from the time FDR read a letter signed by Einstein till the Trinity test).

Everyone who worked on the first bomb, being as uncivilized a weapon as it is, believed it would cause mankind to forever choose peace instead of war after it ended WW2. Unfortunately, that direction was not taken, at the expense of the environment, and to the continued threat to all life on this planet.

I stress here the biggest "what if?" is what we might have accomplished as the Human species had we chosen to live in peace, instead of fear after WW2.

Anyone who has witnessed the birth of one's child can tell you that yes indeed you create your own reality, the question is what do we wish to create for ourselves as reality on this planet, now and for our children's, and their children's future? Not just in this country, but the world as a whole, as an international vision.
Inherently, change is viewed with suspicion, as a threat to culture and ways of tradition and ethical belief systems. As it applies to developing countries in this nuclear age, the post-cold war aftermath presents a vast paradox that present no easy solutions, and has culminated in the reality of the war on terrorism as it exists today.

We in America share a concept, united we stand, divided we fall, 9/11 has forced the world to grasp this concept. Ready or not, globalization is at hand, a global response to chaos in the form of potential nuclear terrorism.

An individual’s single voice can be lost in the din of circumstance. On the flyleaf of my grandmother's book about Los Alamos that I gave to Bill Clinton the day he was first elected President I wrote, "This is a slice of times past, to give perspective on the present, so that in the future we can eliminate the threat of nuclear war. The greatest threat we face today is that terrorists will obtain nuclear weapons." Not to be partisan, this is just fact. Over a decade later, it is hopefully not too late to prevent.

So it is now out of a sense of duty to my grandfather's memory I hereby state this for the record, knowing that I am of sound mind, and good heart, and do my best to remain objective. Objectivity can be hard to come by where it concerns family, or politics, as we are all human beings, and of a species prone to emotions, at the expense of logic. I hope this adds a little perspective to the mix. So please allow me to put a citizen's NIE in your hands, as well as a possible political solution folks may consider. There's something in general to consider in the following that should wake folks up quicker than a strong cup of coffee in the morning:

If there is one thing about people that's a given, it's that they can only change themselves. You can try to understand them, change their circumstances, try to point the roads to peace, but in the end, they must want it for themselves, knowing what the alternatives are.

There is a situation soon to be pressed regarding Iran, over multiple issues outstanding, both acute and systemic, with far reaching ramifications for non-proliferation, counter-terrorism, human rights, and the general stability of the Mideast.

A situation where truly only the values of cooperation and compassion may effect a just and equitable solution not just for the Iranian people's freedom and security, but of all people of the region, as well.

Regarding the NIE that was leaked to the Washington Post, I know they cherry-picked from it to "spin" it. But in any case, 10 years is a dangerously optimistic estimate for the IRI producing a bomb on their own. Intent is not only clear, but where there's a will on the part of the IRI, there's a way. 2 or 3 years is equally dangerous and optimistic.
Anyone looking at a map can see the "book-ended" nature of the strategic position Tehran is in at the moment, with two fledgling democracies and thousands of US/coalition troops on its borders.

The reports out of the Pentagon regarding shaped explosive charges originating and shipped from Iran (of Revolutionary Guard origin) are but a manifestation of a coordinated effort between the regime in Tehran, Hizbollah, and al-quaida to ferment civil war in Iraq.

Tehran has been at "war by proxy" with the US since the bombing of the Marine barracks in Beirut, and it may only be a matter of time before there is no other option left on the table except a military one to resolve the situation.

This prospect may terrify folks more than terrorism itself, but there's only one viable solution to effectively stabilize Iraq and Afghanistan permanently. It is quite simply, "regime change" in Tehran.

How an alternate "regime change" solution manifests is fully dependent on whether the international community has the guts to support a rather extensive opposition community inside and outside Iran as they have begged and pleaded with the international community to do for some time. Given that the other options; to do nothing or go to war; are not quite as viable in solving the problem, nor the first options to contemplate, given the situation needs resolution and that war is the last option.

To this point, the only leader of free nations who's had that alternate vision of an Iran existing within the community of nations..."in larger freedom", and had the guts to voice the option is President GW Bush....".. And to the Iranian people I say tonight, as you stand for your own liberty, America stands with you." The man presented possibilities to people in so doing, as a president will on occasion.

The IRI is fast pushing the free world to another alternative that could be far worse, if the IRI does produce a nuclear weapon before the people decide their own fate, and remove the threat both to them and the international community.

Now I hear a fair amount of talk that the US is just using this as an excuse to promote "regime change". But the reality is if the regime isn't changed soon, the mullahs who are willing to martyr 10 million recruits (as noted in IRI statements), and is on record of having an agenda of obliterating Israel off the map, would certainly be willing to use such a weapon on their own people to make it look for all intents and purposes as if the Israeli's or the US had just attacked them, thereby creating the needed justification for holy war. "Regime change" in Iran is really not up to us per se, and it seems a rather moot point as the Iranian people have spoken.... it is in process, whether the international community supports it or not. But whether this popular movement is successful, or crushed, depends now upon free nation's support for the aspirations of liberty.

On February 14, 2005 a leading member of Iran’s Hizbollah, Hojjat-ol-Islam Baqer Kharrazi after years of silence delivered a harsh speech against the reformists and the administration in Iran, Iran Emrooz reported.

“I kept silent over the past 14 years, because Hizbollah needed to be restructured and I was busy with training the forces. Although no Iranian media reflected Hizbollah leaders’ recent meeting with head of Iran’s State Expediency Council, Akbar Hashemi Rafsanjani, I should say we elaborated on Hizbollah’s activities for Rafsanjani in detail and the former president was amazed with our progress.” Kharrazi claimed.

“We don’t need any guardian. And if necessary we will select our own president, ministers and parliament members. For without the Hizbollah forces the Islamic Revolution will collapse from within.” the hardliner added.

Referring to the Sunni population in Iran’s western, eastern and southern borders, Kharrazi said: “Presently the country’s borders are controlled by Sunnis. We have to counter their growth in the country.”

On Iran’s nuclear issue, Kharrazi noted: “We have oil, gas and all other natural resources and thus we don’t need interaction with other countries. We are able to produce atomic bombs and we will do that. We shouldn’t be afraid of anyone. The US is no more than a barking dog”

Let me repeat myself, as this was not the action of a “barking dog” 60 years ago, but of a nation at war. And let no one now have any illusion that the war on terror, supported by many nations and many UN resolutions is any less grave to the “larger freedom” ensconced by the UN charter, and civilization itself, than 60 years ago.

{It took America just 3.5 years, from 1942-45 to build an industry from scratch, based on designs from scratch, building a city from scratch to build a bomb from scratch, with only theories to go on, in the middle of the largest and most costly war in history. Yet we did this and ended that war that had cost 50 million lives up to that point with the weapon that no one knew would even work at the time it was being produced. Just 3.5 years, from theory to reality. (3.5 years from the time FDR read a letter signed by Einstein till the Trinity test.).}

Now Iran has had at least 18 years, lots of help from other nations, black market smugglers, and their scientists have had proven designs to work with. It's not because their scientists aren't as smart as America's, or that they lack the raw materials, the technological capability or the will to build it, that prevented them from doing so. Fact is, the only reason I can think of is that containment by western nations has been up to this point fairly successful even with the smuggling, and outside help they've had. But it has its limits, and the limit has been reached.

The Iranian Clock is ticking. While the EU3 has been messing about trading and negotiating with Tehran, two solid years have passed, allowing the IRI regime to secretly consolidate it's nuclear program, it's armed force structure, train and recruit martyr brigades for terrorist action, destabilizing the region by proxy and all of it directly flying in the face of UN resolutions, as a member and original 1948 signatory to the UN charter.

Its unelected president, coming to power in a soft-sell military coup de etat, is leading the crushing of any and all dissent, and you can see the recent State Dept taken question on the regime's actions regarding the Kurdish minority in the Northwest of Iran to illustrate this fact. A crime against humanity in its very beginning stages, among many crimes against humanity committed by this regime over the years.

His visa application to address the UN in New York this September is under State Dept. review pending the outcome of an ongoing investigation into his role in the Iran hostage crisis, as well as targeted assassinations in Europe, and his self confessed putting the coup de grace bullet into many a tortured political prisoner. Under normal circumstances a foreign leader would be granted visa, but this is not a normal situation, even as the president "expects" that the unelected leader of Iran will be granted visa to attend the September UN Summit, it will just as well be an appropriate time to serve notice on the IRI and its leadership directly, face to face in the forum of nations. Koffe Annan has alluded to this directly if the enrichment is not halted.

Take the regime's abysmal human rights record, it's support for terrorism, its WMD ambitions, and its leadership, and what you have is the perfect "test case" for UN reform in every conceivable way, including the limits of "diplomatic immunity" and the US role as host nation to the UN in any possible prosecution should the investigation warrant.

Now, the words "regime change" may be the modern political bogyman in diplomatic circles in Europe and among Democrats, but they, and the American public as well as the UN should remember and reflect on Churchill's words as he put it, "Given the choice between war and dishonor, Chamberlain chose dishonor and got war."

We shall see if the UN honors the precepts of its founding Charter, whether the EU will continue to trade and negotiate with a terrorist regime, and whether America comes together in bipartisanship to honor the words of President Bush to the Iranian people.

Logic dictates that with or without referral by the IAEA, this unelected regime should not just be sanctioned by the UN Security Council, but booted out of the UN altogether for gross violation of the UN charter, which Iran is a signatory to, believing it to be criminally negligent for any nation to support the continuance and aspirations of the Islamic Republic of Iran one day longer, and remaining "seized of the matter."

The coordination of economic and military sanction, freezing of assets, closing of embassies, banishment from the UN General Assembly, and other non-violent measures as may be found worthy under international law will be overwhelming to the Islamic Republic of Iran, providing solid legitimate purpose and support among the people of Iran to effect change from within. In confidence that an interim government and UN monitored referendum regarding a representative permanent government and constitution will be the result of the Iranian people's efforts.

"Regime change" Iranian style with a little help from their friends will be "Quartet Music" to the future's ears, played in greater freedom.

Folks have suggested that the Iranian opposition's info on the regime is politically motivated and therefore "biased". Well so it is...biased in favor of their freedom and security, just like the UN and a whole lot of other folks trying their best to find equitable solutions and justice. They well know their credibility is on the line, I doubt if they would cook the info for political purposes...as that would be self-defeating.

What motivates me personally? Aside from being a loyal and concerned US citizen...

Until I take my last dying breath on this planet, I'll do what I can at whatever personal risk, to see that not one more A-bomb is detonated by anyone, ever again. These are my personal reasons for standing solidly behind the president, as well as in supporting the legitimate aspirations of the Iranian people. It's also a "dad thing" for the sake of my children and their children's children.

I hope folks find this to be simple common sense in bipartisan and global common cause. Thanks for listening.


Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
Site Admin

Joined: 24 Jun 2003
Posts: 4993

PostPosted: Thu Nov 10, 2005 1:59 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

Dear Oppenheimer,

Please don't insult and make a "bigot" judgment on any members of this forum as you expect others to do the same.
Readers of each post can make their own decision and judgment as they wish.
We should not forget the Rules of Free Society.

Back to top
View user's profile Send private message

Joined: 03 Mar 2005
Posts: 1166
Location: SantaFe, New Mexico

PostPosted: Thu Nov 10, 2005 2:57 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

Dear Cyrus,

You wrote:
"Please don't insult and make a "bigot" judgment on any members of this forum as you expect others to do the same. "

I don't ask that other's agree with my opinion. I simply voiced my opinion and judgement based on my own personal experience over time.
Other's will draw whatever conclusions they wish, about me as well.

You wrote:
"Readers of each post can make their own decision and judgment as they wish. "

And that's exactly what I did.

You wrote:
"We should not forget the Rules of Free Society. "

I live in one Cyrus...a product of a society that is one that is intolerant of intolerance, living by the rule of law. You seem to think maybe I forget that?
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message

Joined: 23 Sep 2005
Posts: 297

PostPosted: Thu Nov 10, 2005 4:04 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

Oppenheimer, you’re right; we will disagree about blank, and let’s leave it at that. I just wanted to point out that there is a different interpretation of one's statements, and it appears you and I have very different interpretations. I for one think these “personal issues” have been over-analyzed by everyone, and given more emphasis than they deserve.

I would like to move on….

The idea you threw out there is a nightmare scenario. I cringe to consider it. If I understand you correctly, which I’m not sure I do, because on one hand you mention US throwing Iran into 17th century within 90 minutes, and on the other hand saying without great loss of life. This makes me think you are referring to a US first nuclear strike (but how would there be not a great loss of life)? Are you talking about a nuclear srtike?

A US nuclear strike would be completely unacceptable by the international community. Such a thing would change the world order immensely. It would completely undermine all efforts of the IAEA. What non-nuclear nation would feel safe in such a world? Everyone and their mother would then try to obtain nuclear weapons as a deterrent. How could non-proliferation be justified if the nuclear powers used nukes indiscriminately?

Do I think this is completely beyond the Americans? Unfortunately, not. After all, the US is the only nation to date to use nuclear weapons on another nation.

This raises an interesting point. Does Iran have the right to develop nukes as a defensive measure, a deterrent? This is a complex question. The crazy Mullahs surely should not have such power at their disposal. However, should the nation of Iran not have the ability to defend itself? But the dilemma is, how do you divorce the Mullah nuts from the nation? You can’t, at least, not at the present. It is quite a pickle.

It becomes a circular chicken or the egg argument. If Iran had a stable, rational, non-mullah government, then why should it be denied of nuclear weapons, as opposed to the current nuclear nations, such as Pakistan, India, Israel, Russia, US? But then again, if it had a stable and rational government, it would not be threatening others, and would not be at risk of attack by the other nuclear powers, and therefore would not need nukes.

So it seems, as with all other problems and dilemmas facing Iran, the answer is simple. The problem would be solved if the current Mullahs were out, and rational, secular people in. It’s interesting how many problems would be solved if this one task were achieved.

All we have to do is achieve it.
I am Dariush the Great King, King of Kings, King of countries containing all kinds of men, King in this great earth far and wide, son of Hystaspes, an Achaemenian, a Persian, son of a Persian, an Aryan, having Aryan lineage

Naqshe Rostam
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message

Joined: 03 Mar 2005
Posts: 1166
Location: SantaFe, New Mexico

PostPosted: Thu Nov 10, 2005 12:12 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

Dear Amir,

Somewhere on these news topic threads is the US Dept of State's country report on Iran's WMD compliance...which involves chem,bio, and nuclear.

As we know for a fact that the mullahs have been working with advanced delivery systems, and their intent is not "kosher" ....chuckle....

I must point out that global security is at risk from the mullahs at this moment....not some hypothetical point in the future when they have nuclear weapons.

I in fact believe they have 1 or 2 nukes at this point in time, but there's worse things than nukes, like arosolized ebola (biological) and other hemoragic fevers that they have been weaponizing.

The thing about the biological threat is that in most case scenarios it would be most effectively delivered in a clandestine manner, as the IRI has been engaged in via terrorism for many years.

I don't take their confidence that they can wipe Israel off the map, and destroy the US lightly, as some kind of rhetorical machismo. It is very real, and a very grave situation.

The question of pre-emption of intent and capability is not just one of a political nature, though at this time, as the president has said, "we are taking a multilateral diplomatic approach" to the problem.

So then, failing this....how does one go about making sure the IRI cannot use these WMD's and delivery systems, nor give the order to use them?

See, even if Iran is not armed with nuclear weapons, it is armed with WMD's that can wipe millions of people off the face of the planet, and they have the intent to use them.....to cause the kind of misery that is inherent in prophesy prior to the coming of the 12th imman.

This is not imaginary, the fact that Antar and his buddies believe this is reality is creating a situation that threatens the peace and security of the global community.

so back to the question....how to prevent this if diplomacy fails, in 90 minutes or less?

Imagine if you will, a situation that involves the cutting of all electric power, the destruction of any and all electronic devices, down to and including automobile ignition systems.

Studies have been done on the effect of a nuclear weapon detonated at high altitude over the US (and Iran, or any other country is no different).

The resulting electromagnetic pulse would knock out power grids, communication, circuitry (anything with a circuit board) , and even buried targets that have power fed through cables would be effected.

Not to mention the destruction of radar, missile guidance systems, etc.

It would put Iran back into the 17th century for quite awhile, since the only transportation would be by camel or horseback.

Not even a battery opperated radio would work.

I figure three or four very large H-bombs would do it, detonated at about 10 to 15 miles up. EMP is a line of site phenomena, and the high frequency EMP generated would be at great enough amplitude to cover the entire country.

Then this is followed up with the total physical destruction of military infrastructure in a conventional way. The US alone is capable of hitting some 5000 targets in a single sortie, if necessary.

Most, if not all have already been identified.

since these high altitude bursts are above the troposphere, fallout will be minimal, but I would venture to guess the political fallout will be considerable, until folks realize exactly why such a method was deemed essential.

One thing for sure, it will put the internal opposition inside Iran, on a level playing field with the IRI. They won't be able to coordinate response to insurrection, and the US would be then actively supporting the overthrow of the regime in concrete ways, on the ground.

Humanitarian needs would also be addressed, as the lack of power would create food shortages etc. We did airdrops in Afghanistan, of food and medical supplies, so I would anticipate the same in Iran.

The regime is prepared for an "Iraq" style invasion. In this case we don't need to "invade" to castrate the regime.

Again, this is a hypothetical response to a very real threat that exists today. And it is the only way I think the international community can rest assured that the IRI doesn't have the capability to wage war, or retaliate with the WMD's it does have at present.

Thing is, as well, I don't think after such a scenario happens, that other countries will see the development of nuclear weapons as any kind of "safety net".

It's a heck of a thing to contemplate, but as I've said many times, the greatest threat to the Iranian people is the IRI regime, for should such a scenario happen, it will be because this regime poses a imminent threat to global peace and security.

Last edited by Oppenheimer on Thu Nov 10, 2005 8:54 pm; edited 1 time in total
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message

Joined: 03 Mar 2005
Posts: 1166
Location: SantaFe, New Mexico

PostPosted: Thu Nov 10, 2005 12:31 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote


Message to the Congress of the United States


Section 202(d) of the National Emergencies Act (50 U.S.C. 1622(d)) provides for the automatic termination of a national emergency unless, prior to the anniversary date of its declaration, the President publishes in the Federal Register and transmits to the Congress a notice stating that the emergency is to continue in effect beyond the anniversary date. Consistent with this provision, I have sent the enclosed notice to the Federal Register for publication, stating that the Iran emergency declared by Executive Order 12170 on November 14, 1979, is to continue in effect beyond November 14, 2005. The most recent notice continuing this emergency was published in the Federal Register on November 12, 2004 (69 FR 65513).

Our relations with Iran have not yet returned to normal, and the process of implementing the January 19, 1981, agreements with Iran is still underway. For these reasons, I have determined that it is necessary to continue the national emergency declared on November 14, 1979, with respect to Iran, beyond November 14, 2005.



November 9, 2005.


Notice Continuation of the National Emergency with Respect to Iran

On November 14, 1979, by Executive Order 12170, the President declared a national emergency with respect to Iran pursuant to the International Emergency Economic Powers Act (50 U.S.C. 1701-1706) to deal with the unusual and extraordinary threat to the national security, foreign policy, and economy of the United States constituted by the situation in Iran. Because our relations with Iran have not yet returned to normal, and the process of implementing the January 19, 1981, agreements with Iran is still underway, the national emergency declared on November 14, 1979, must continue in effect beyond November 14, 2005. Therefore, consistent with section 202(d) of the National Emergencies Act (50 U.S.C. 1622(d)), I am continuing for 1 year this national emergency with respect to Iran.

This notice shall be published in the Federal Register and transmitted to the Congress.



November 9, 2005.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message

Joined: 26 Feb 2004
Posts: 1672

PostPosted: Thu Nov 10, 2005 2:16 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

cyrus wrote:
Dear Oppenheimer,

Please don't insult and make a "bigot" judgment on any members of this forum as you expect others to do the same.
Readers of each post can make their own decision and judgment as they wish.
We should not forget the Rules of Free Society.


Dear Amir & Cyrus:
Thank you for your remarks, and understanding of what I am trying to convey ..something Oppenhiemer is lacking. In fact, I find his comprehension and knowledge on Iran & Iranian issues dim and borderline ignorant. The best he can do is to insult.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
Site Admin

Joined: 24 Jun 2003
Posts: 4993

PostPosted: Thu Nov 10, 2005 5:52 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

Back to top
View user's profile Send private message

Joined: 03 Mar 2005
Posts: 1166
Location: SantaFe, New Mexico

PostPosted: Thu Nov 10, 2005 9:27 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote


When you post something as ingnorant as you did, saying "the French deserve what they get" , then call me "borderline ignorant" for explaining exactly why I objected to your statement, it tells me a lot about you.

For as long as I've known you, we've both been on the same side against the mullahs, even from the old SMCCDI forum days.

Though often I have seen you take a more extremist tact in regards to those you disagree with, as well as having made numerous statements on SMCCDI and this forum that give me reason to believe over time that you are extremely intolerant of other's points of view, as well as intolerant of Muslims in general.

That's not an "insult" Blank, that's just stating an experiential fact, as I've been witness to it, and now subject to it.

Your statementb that "the French deserve what they get was out of line, and I addressed it properly. So sue me if I lack "political correctness" as you envision it.

If you don't wish to engage in a debate with me, that's your problem. I do however reserve the right to respond to your posts as I see fit.

I called you on that statement so you would consider, and think about revising your mindset. There was no mis-interpretation on my part, of your words, or in my comparisons, as you will see in the following article (in red).


Police fear curfew alone won't quell source of riotingBy Jennifer Joan Lee
November 10, 2005
ESSONNE, France -- Government-ordered curfews imposed on France's troubled suburbs might have eased the storm of rioting that blazed through the country for 13 consecutive nights, but police who regularly patrol the country's troubled suburbs said the cause of the violence is far from extinguished.
"Yes, the framework of the curfew law is broad enough to allow us to maybe stamp out the rioting," said Jean-Christophe Carme, head of the Action Police trade union. "But enforcing measures that simply involve increased security does not solve the problem. The rioters were controlled by criminal gangs operating out of ghettos. And these ghettos remain no-go zones that have completely seceded from the republic."
Mr. Carme and his colleague Michel Thooris spoke to The Washington Times while patrolling the troubled region of Essonne, about 15 miles south of Paris. Stopping in front of a sprawling cluster of housing projects known as Les Tarterets, Mr. Thooris said it was one of the many ghettos that even police do not dare to enter.
"This is one of the most dangerous and violent housing projects in France," he said. "It's also a cradle of radical Islam, controlled by professional criminals involved in drug and weapons trafficking and who have links to al Qaeda. We cannot even stop here for long because they are always surveying the area for police, and if they see us, there will be serious trouble."
As Mr. Thooris spoke, a car drove by slowly -- twice. Mr. Thooris didn't hang around to find out why.
Constant references to the Muslim origins of some rioters have brought out suspicions that Islamic radicals had a hand in organizing the rampage, which has left one man dead, dozens injured and hundreds of vehicles and public buildings destroyed.
Muslim leaders, though, refute any link between the rioting and religion. Earlier this week, the Union of French Islamic Organizations (UOIF) issued a religious edict, or fatwa, condemning the disorder and destruction and forbidding "any Muslim seeking divine grace and satisfaction to participate in any action that blindly hits private or public property or could constitute an attack on someone's life."
The group also has sent out people at night to try to restore calm.
"These events have nothing to do with Islam. It is a purely social and political problem," said Lhaj Thami Breze, president of the UOIF, one of France's largest Islamic groups, which also has links to the Muslim Brotherhood, the international Islamist movement. "In fact, all these events are being exaggerated, exploited by people who are hostile to Muslims and Islam and who want to give us a bad image."
Christophe Bertossi, an Islam and immigration specialist at the French Institute of International Relations, also rejects any connection between Islam and the unrest.
"The youngsters who were involved in the riots do not even practice Islam. They don't read the Koran, they don't go to mosques," he said. "They identify with the Muslim community simply because they feel excluded from any other one."
Government officials have stopped short of attributing any of the unrest to Islamic elements. But Interior Minister Nicolas Sarkozy has suggested that Islamic radicals could profit from the power vacuum created by the riots.
Both Mr. Carme and Mr. Thooris, however, are convinced there is a link. They said that some of the affected areas are controlled by Islamists and that the level of coordination involved suggests organization and power that only the radicals have.
Minutes after arriving in Essonne last night, the two men were alerted to a fire that had been set off in a trash bin in the basement of housing project. Firefighters were in place when police arrived.
"This is a classic ploy that's been happening all week," Mr. Carme said as he arrived on the scene while scanning the building's rooftops for falling objects. "They set a fire, which brings in the firemen, and later, the police who always come as reinforcement. And when everyone is in place, they begin attacking, either shooting from the balconies and throwing rocks or other objects from the roof."
Not wanting to provoke the building's residents, Mr. Carme decided to leave the premises. On turning the corner, however, as feared, his car was pelted with rocks, hurled by a mob of youths on the street, apparently waiting for just such an opportunity.
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
Goto page Previous  1, 2
Page 2 of 2

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