[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 

What's in a letter? (Antar's hypocritical diatribe to Bush)

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

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

PostPosted: Tue May 09, 2006 7:57 pm    Post subject: What's in a letter? (Antar's hypocritical diatribe to Bush) Reply with quote

The link will provide the reader to the full unedited text of Antar's letter to President Bush....all 18 pages or so.



I found it interesting that the suggestion put forth in the following was in fact voiced by RP in interview shortly after this following letter was written, and the history of Cyrus the Great was employed by RP in the same manner suggested to the Sec. of State.

Given the content of Antar's letter above (link), much of his diatribe may be seen in the following context "in anticipation" via the following letter I wrote not long ago.

So then, my suggestion to my fellows in opposition to the IRI is to implement my thoughts to the Secretary of State, and use the letter Antar wrote to prove him a hypocrite in the eyes of the world.



04/24/2006 05:57 PM

To: Dr. C. Rice, Secretary of State; Counter disinformation Team , DOS, and those it may concern:

I believe there is but one truly effective answer to the president of the Islamic Republic of Iran's comments regarding the history of the Jewish diaspora, as well as his blatent disinformation campaign.

Prove him a hypocrite in the eyes of the world.

In fact it was Cyrus the Great, who some 2500 years ago led a "regime change" in what is now Iraq. In fact he is mentioned some 7 times in the old testament as having freed Jews enslaved in those part, and ordered the reconstruction of Jewish holy places in present day Jerusulem.

Noting the fact that Cyrus created the first Postal service, created the first "federal" political system in recorded history, allowed freedom of worship, instituted the first "democratic" system of government on Earth, and created the first human rights document in history, which a copy of is on display at the UN building in New York; It is safe to say logicly that Persia has a long history of recognising Israel's right to exist, in the teritory that is now in "dispute".

I think this simple, straitforward matter of history must be brought to the public attention, globally, as a proper response, in order that the global mindset is concurrent with the truth.

There is I think a certain "victim" mindset both manifest individually and sociologicly within repressed societies that creates the pietri-dish for disinformation construction..and runs across the board both with the tyrants, and the repressed.

Those repressed seeing themselves sometimes as victims of outside influence, rather than accepting that the population itself was not pro-active in having a say in their affars, for whatever reason.

Thus is the case with some in certain Iranian mindsets that the US and Great Britan are chiefly responsible for de-throning the Shah of Iran, and creating the nightmare reality of the Islamic Republic of Iran.

They blame the Carter administration, the BBC, the British Government, and often regard Khomeni as a British agent, or at the very least, ascribe to the old saw that ""Underneath every mullah's beard is written, "Made in UK"".

Fair enough to say that there is a very good legitimate gripe in the fact that EU nations, Russia and China have been (in many Iranian Eyes)self-serving their economic interests at the expense of the people of Iran by supporting a criminal regime via trade and other relations for decades.

However, this painful part of Iranian history is emotionally subject to exaggeration, and outright disinformation, urban legend, breeding mistrust over almost 30 years in the process. Despite the general support for the US position taken to isolate the regime over these years.

The regime as well uses this old mistrust for it's own political ends, dividing democratic opposition groups, dividing those we might support in their trust that the US will do right by the people of Iran.

Many times I've posted full transcipts of Madam Secretary's and other official's statements as well as Library of Congress info on democratic opposition sights such as activischat.com; So that folks will have direct and accurate source information in context to illuminate the issues reported via the press and other sources.

In any movement, religion, or social reaction to change, there will be extremes between those that are "hot heads" and "cool heads" and I have found that opinion runs the gamut, ideas abound, and that generally things political can be viewed "self-evident only after it has survived ridicule and violent opposition". To paraphrase someone with a fair insight.

Folks in the Public Diplomacy department will probably understand my opinion that democratic change is not a finite destination. It evolves.

The victim mindset among those we seek to support as a nation in their aspirations for liberty can only be changed if that hope we lend to them becomes manifest as "empowerment".

In implementation, it is essential to include everyone in dialogue so that civil society may have voice in the matter. At the same time as isolating the repressors of free speech.

Noting the efforts of transformational diplomacy as a positive construct for change, in a holistic approach to nation building , "by for and of the people", it is my hope that those who may take interest in these matters I've brought up will consider the possibilities, and offer constructive imput and information so that I may be better able to "myth-bust" a few stereotypical illusions, including my own...(chuckle)..if that be deemed the case.

Time is what must be had in order to gain trust, and by example addressing outrage with common sense, as the outrage of having the president of Iran speak at the UN, and my simply telling folks, "Wait for it, what you think is appeasment or a mistake you must protest will become self-evident as a proper policy once he hangs himself with his own words."

He did not dissapoint, and so if this American has gained trust with the Iranian ex-pat community, it is due to efforts like this to engage, immerse in full understanding, and provide perspective over a number of years now, as a matter of dialogue as an American.

Time is the proof pudding whether it makes a difference or not, as people can only change their own mindsets, nor should they carry old baggage into the future, weighed down by doubt or fear. This is not the path to the four freedoms, nor conducive to life, liberty, and the persuit of happiness.

History is a great teacher, and historical perspective is part of political landscape, as are those who take historical fact and twist them for political end.

The regime recently stated, "The Iranian people have been weaving carpets for thosands of years." That speaks volumes about the regime's public diplomacy efforts, and disinformation campaign.

If folks in Congress declare confusion due to lack of transparency of this regime, I venture to guess this may be also seen as proof positive the regime is violating its commitments to the NPT, as well as many UN resolutions on variable issues.

Speaking as one who has done much "red-team" thinking regarding regime intent, researched the history and the issues, I am compelled by logic to ask the following:

If the regime cannot move forward against the will of the international community and survive, and has dug itself such a deep political hole that it cannot retract its statements and actions, and survive;

What better way do they have but to start a war and make it look like the US started it to bolster political support, internally and externally?

Can anyone in reasonable confidence make assurance the regime has not already aquired a nuclear weapon or two, by hook or by crook, over the last 18 years or so?

And given the regime's statements and policies, can anyone avoid considering whether the regime would be willing to use one (making it look like we launched a suprise attack) on its own people to discredit the US and or its allies in the war on terrorism?

Reasonable questions I think, given the circumstances involved today.

Noting Secretary Rumsfeld's level of confidence in US intel assesment of the regime's nuclear timeline as nill, due to variable parameters, engaging in probability and common sense is about all anyone can do with such a lack of information, avoiding pure speculation in the process of logic.

So it is as well with this letter.

Best Regards, and keep up the good work,

Eric Jette (AKA Oppenheimer)
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message

Joined: 22 Jul 2004
Posts: 142

PostPosted: Tue May 09, 2006 8:23 pm    Post subject: The 23 page rant and obfuscation of the sociopath Taazinejad Reply with quote

The 23 page rant and obfuscation of the sociopath Ahmadinejad to George W. Bush


If any body had slightest doubt that this fellow Ahmadinejad is out of his mind, should read HIS letter to G. W. Bush to make sure that HE really is mad. 23 pages of rubbish one after another!?

Back to top
View user's profile Send private message

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

PostPosted: Fri May 12, 2006 1:25 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

To H Hakimi,

As you live in Norway, thought I'd offer you a bit of New Mexican perspective on what you term "Rubbish".

I have a slightly different term for the letter's content that you may find unique and possibly far more accurate:

"Sticky biscuit tricks"

That's when you take half-baked s.h.i.t. and throw it against the wall to see what will stick.

How a mother raises a son capable of hanging himself with his own words on such a consistant and prolific basis is beyond my understanding......but she seems to have been quite talented at it.

Back to top
View user's profile Send private message

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

PostPosted: Fri May 12, 2006 4:08 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

President says his letter to President Bush was invitation to Islam
Jakarta, May 11, IRNA

Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad said here Thursday that his letter to President George W. Bush did not concern the nuclear dossier, but rather was an invitation to Islam and the prophets culture.

He made the above remarks in reply to a reporter while attending press conference on his letter to President Bush in Jakarta in the afternoon of the third day of his stay in Jakarta.

Stressing that the letter was beyond the nuclear issue, the chief executive said that in principle, the country's nuclear case is not so significant to make him write a letter about it.

"We act according to laws and our activities are quite clear. We are rather intent on solving more fundamental global matters.

"The letter was an invitation to monotheism and justice, which are common to all divine prophets. If the call is responded positively, there will be no more problems to be solved," added the president.

The president said that the letter actually contained a clear message of invitation to human beliefs, adding that its response will determine the future.

Concerning Iran's readiness to hold talks with the US, he said that Iran is in favor of dialogues, but it depends on the conditions.

"We hold talks with our allies, such as Indonesia, quite smoothly. However those intending to speak to us with authority should attempt to change their attitude," he added.

About the possibility of military attack on Iran, he said that psychological war is quite likely and expressed his doubt about the military option.

In response to a question about suspension of enrichment, the president said that Iran will agree to suspend the process only if all those having access to nuclear fuel will suspend theirs and let their relevant facilities be inspected.

"Otherwise, we do not find it necessary to suspend our uranium enrichment and consider the call for it as unfair and will continue to reject it,"
In reply to another question whether Iran will need the assistance of other Islamic states in its nuclear issue, he said that the country has the potential to defend itself.

"However, given that we do not merely defend our own nation, we wish to feel the presence of our allies, including Indonesia as one of our closest friends," he added.

In response to a question about Indonesia's mediation between Iran and the US, he said that if such dialogue has to take place for the sake of global peace and detente, Iran prefers Indonesia to be one of the negotiators.


"We act according to laws and our activities are quite clear. We are rather intent on solving more fundamental global matters.

Indeed, the "law of the gun" , clear and undebatable support, recruitment, training and deployment of terrorists in their activities, and the intent of solving fundementalist matters by wiping other nations "off the map".

Must be the "if you can't beat them...convert them" strategy....and "let's be oh so reasonable to do make the offer before wiping out the infidels." -simmian diplomacy effort.

More sticky biscuit tricks to come....stay tuned on "Loonytunes" IRI channel 1 world-wide broadcasting network....
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message

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

PostPosted: Sat May 13, 2006 2:56 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

(as posted on regimechangeiran.com by Dr. Zin)

Thursday, May 11, 2006
Iran Declares War

The New York Sun: Staff Editorial http://www.nysun.com/article/32594

President Ahmadinejad's letter to President Bush, widely interpreted as a peaceful overture, is in fact a declaration of war. The key sentence in the letter is the closing salutation. In an eight-page text of the letter being circulated by the Council on Foreign Relations, it is left untranslated and rendered as "Vasalam Ala Man Ataba'al hoda." What this means is "Peace only unto those who follow the true path."

It is a phrase with historical significance in Islam, for, according to Islamic tradition, in year six of the Hejira - the late 620s - the prophet Mohammad sent letters to the Byzantine emperor and the Sassanid emperor telling them to convert to the true faith of Islam or be conquered. The letters included the same phrase that President Ahmadinejad used to conclude his letter to Mr. Bush. For Mohammad, the letters were a prelude to a Muslim offensive, a war launched for the purpose of imposing Islamic rule over infidels. READ MORE

Much of the rest of Ahmadinejad's letter is devoted to portraying Mr. Bush as an infidel. Given that Mr. Bush is not about to convert to Islam, what the letter presages is, if anything, an Islamic attack. So the thing to think about is what this implies for American policymakers. For one thing, no step short of converting to Islam will avert the planned attack so long as the regime in Tehran remains in power. All the "carrots" that the doves in the American foreign policy establishment want to offer - abandoning Israel, offering Iran "security guarantees" and economic and political relations - fall short of what Iran's president demands. He demands that America "follow the true path," that is, convert to Islam. Short of that, America will not receive peace from the Iranian regime.

Mr. Bush has been clear that America wishes the Iranian people well and supports them in their quest for freedom from their clerical regime. He needs to do everything he can to help the Iranian people oust the regime in Tehran before the regime has a chance to launch its offensive against America. Such an offensive by Iran would be dangerous enough with conventional weapons; we certainly don't want to permit a nation that is about to attack us to have nuclear weapons. And our president would do us all a service by telling Americans about this Iranian declaration of war. When Al Qaeda issued its February 1998 fatwa, only a few Americans recognized its significance as a declaration of war. That took until September 11, 2001. This time around, let's not miss the warning.

posted by DoctorZin @ 10:14 PM
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message

Joined: 11 Mar 2005
Posts: 164
Location: Winnipeg, Canada

PostPosted: Fri May 19, 2006 12:52 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

so does that mean the Vatican is next?
"Riding the SNAFU wav(e)"
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Visit poster's website
Display posts from previous:   
Post new topic   Reply to topic    [FREE IRAN Project] In The Spirit Of Cyrus The Great Forum Index -> News Briefs & Discussion 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