[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 

Rejecting Any Kind of Talks with Islamofascist
Goto page Previous  1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10  Next
 
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
AmirN



Joined: 23 Sep 2005
Posts: 297

PostPosted: Thu Aug 10, 2006 1:56 am    Post subject: Ever Dance With the Devil? Reply with quote

Mr Nasr seems to have a decent grasp of what is happening in the Middle East. He is correct in his understanding of circumstances there, but the solution he offers is clearly wrong.

Quote:
Mr. Nasr's analysis begins with the idea that the removal of Saddam Hussein in Iraq has transformed the Mideast, but not in the ways promised by President Bush. By replacing Iraq's Sunni-led dictatorship with an elected government dominated by the country's Shiite majority, the U.S. destroyed the Sunni wall that had contained the restless Shiite power to the east, Iran. The clerical regime in Tehran was immeasurably strengthened.


True. The US clearly miscalculated the reverence of the Shiite majority there, and the way that these changing circumstances would play into the hands of the current Taazi Regime. It is not that Saddam should not have been dealt with. The question is in what circumstance, and in what order. The US perhaps miscalculated its priority on whom it should have dealt with first, and who was a bigger threat: Saddam or the Taazi Mullahs.

Quote:
This power shift, Mr. Nasr argues, has reopened an ancient fault line between Shiites and Sunnis that crosses the entire region. The schism dates back to the prophet Muhammad's death in 632, when his companions -- the forebears of the Sunnis -- chose Muhammad's close friend and father-in-law, Abu Bakr, to succeed him and become Islam's first caliph. Shiites believe Muhammad's son-in-law, Ali, was more deserving.


This is also true. The bad blood between the two factions goes way back. Which takes me on a side note. What idiocy, to still be killing each other because of a dispute of who should have been the rightful successor of Mohammad over 13 centuries ago. Come on now, is that a reason to still hate and kill each other? Imagine if you will Democrats and Republicans killing each other via suicide bombings, car bombings, etc in the year 3300 because of the dispute of vote tally in the 2000 election of Gore vs. Bush. But such is the Taazi mentality.

Quote:
Shiites commemorate Hussein's murder in the holiday called Ashura, a 10-day period of mourning and self-flagellation. Their reverence for Hussein's stand against tyranny is the touchstone of Shiite political passions -- often invoked during the Iranian revolution, the ensuing war against Saddam Hussein's Iraq, and even recently by the leader of the Lebanese Shiite group Hezbollah in its war against Israel. Traditional Sunnis view Shiites as heretics, led astray by Persian Zoroastrianism and other pagan beliefs.


This is mostly true as well. More idiocy.

I don’t know about the Zoroastrian influence on Shiism though. There is nothing of a Zoroastrian nature in the sect of Shiite.

Quote:
"In the coming years, Shiites and Sunnis will compete over power, first in Iraq but ultimately across the entire region," Mr. Nasr writes in his new book, "The Shia Revival: How Conflicts Within Islam Will Shape the Future," published by W.W. Norton & Co. "The overall Sunni-Shiite conflict will play a large role in defining the Middle East as a whole and shaping its relations with the outside world."


This is true to some extent. They will compete for power…but this is nothing new. They have been bitter enemies and competing for power ever since Mohammad’s death. What Nasr is seeing is only a change in the equilibrium between the two. Because of the downfall of the Sunni Saddam regime, the balance of power has shifted more into the direction of the Shiite Taazi Mullahs. With any change of equilibrium comes greater violence and bloodshed, which is what we see occurring currently.

Quote:
Take the current crisis in Lebanon. The U.S. has long relied on its traditional Sunni Arab allies -- Egypt, Jordan and Saudi Arabia -- to keep the Arab-Israeli conflict in check. But now the Sunni axis is failing, says Mr. Nasr, because these nations are incapable of containing a resurgent Iran and its radical clients on the front lines against Israel -- Hezbollah and the Palestinian group Hamas.


Yes, the Sunnis are currently on the run because the world has been ignoring the threat of Iran’s Taazi Regime for the past three decades. While the world has been enabling Taazi Mullahs’ growing power by not checking them at crucial crossroads, it has allowed the Taazi monster to slowly gain strength and momentum. This was of course compounded by the crucial US error in dispatching Saddam prior to crippling the Taazis of Tehran first. This error has cost the Iraqi citizens the most, followed by the US military, followed by the Iranian citizens, followed now by Israel, followed by the rest of the free world.

Quote:
To adapt, the U.S. must "recalibrate" its diplomacy and re-establish contacts with Iran, he says. That would require disavowing any interest in "regime change" in Tehran -- an unrealistic aim anyway, Mr. Nasr argues -- but would offer the best hope of moderating Iran's growing influence.


Mr Nasr is great at collecting an assessment of events, but terrible at offering a plan of action. Mr Nasr needed to stop while he was ahead.

Though I respect his background, he is not the only one with an Iranian background, knowledge of Iranian and Islamic history and politics, or a realistic assessment of the Middle East dilemma.

The biggest mistake that the US could make would be to attempt to simply tame the hostile Taazis. The Taazis will never be tamed. They will only use the concessions they gain to prolong their reign and grow more powerful and present an even bigger threat in the future. The Taazis’ influence and mischief cannot be moderated, and such hopes are only an illusion.

Furthermore, it is unnecessarily pessimistic to think that changing the current regime is unrealistic. It is very much realistic, and will occur with the appropriate circumstances. You don’t believe me? Just look at the history of world civilization. What tyranny and dictatorship has survived indefinitely in all of mankind’s history? What nation, what people, have allowed their oppression to continue indefinitely without reaching a boiling point and ousting their tormentors?

Is there any doubt as to the tyrannical, dictatorial, and oppressive nature of the current Taazi regime in Tehran? If there is no doubt – and no one can honestly claim that there is – then no doubt should exist as to its downfall. Two questions only remain: when, and how?

Once a certain set of requirements are fulfilled, this regime will come crashing down like a ton of bricks, much like every other tyrannical regime before it in human history.

What Mr Nasr is proposing is not just a tactical error, but also a moral error.

First, it is a tactical error because it involves completely misunderstanding the enemy. The Taazi Mullah regime is bent upon enforcing its primitive barbaric laws upon a nation, all the while lavishly cultivating its individual members’ personal wealth at the expense of the nation. The few are currently ruling the vast many by force, fear, and intimidation. To keep their legitimacy charade, they must have an enemy. The backbone of that enemy has been the US, and supplemented by Israel. “Death to America” and “Death to Israel” has been the battle-cry of this regime since its inception, and is an empowering tool to legitimize their existence.

That, added to their self-proclaimed championship of Islam, a religion which advocates only intolerance, expansion, war, and violence has been the propaganda platform of this regime. If its desire for the destruction of America and Israel as well as the championship of fundamental Islam is removed, it will have no gimmick to draw the little support it currently has from its foot soldiers – the Pasdar and Basiji enforcers of this mafia organization.

Thus, any attempt to appease and compromise with the Mullahs will be unsuccessful. Simply because they have no interest in reaching an agreement with the West and calling off their Friday Prayer rallies, chants of “Death to America,” issuing fatwas, or waging Jihad on the infidels. They have no interest in simply diverting attention inwards to the country’s bitter domestic failure. They have no interest in peaceful coexistence. Peaceful coexistence would only hasten their downfall.

Second, it is a moral error, because we the people of the free world have a desire, nay, obligation, to oppose and combat inhumanity and immorality in this world. There can be no question as to the inhumanity and immorality inherent in the Taazi Mullah Regime. It has the second highest human rights violation record in the world, right after China – not coincidentally, one of its allies. It has one of the worst execution records in the world, whether for political reasons or for violating its “indecency laws.”

The inhumanity of this regime is not seriously disputed by any knowledgeable person in the world. The immorality of its laws, policies, abuses, and corruption cannot be seriously questioned by any person in this world that knows anything regarding Iran.

To simply engage such a monstrosity in a dialogue aimed at compromising with it would be morally shameful. It would be the same as selling one’s soul to the devil in reward for an immediate gratification. The devil must be combated, not engaged with in dialogue.

What Mr Nasr proposes is to admit defeat, throw in the towel, and hope for the best. To strike a bargain with the devil may be easier in the short term, but in the long run the devil will return to collect his prize.

Khatami, the self-portraying “kinder, gentler Taazi” mocked Iran, the US, and the rest of the world with his alleged invitation to a “dialogue of civilizations.”

He mocked the US and the rest of the world because he was never sincere in his offer. It was part of his “moderation” propaganda. A propaganda designed to pull the wool over the eyes of the Iranians that demanded reform and moderation. Mr. Khatami proved at the crucial moment that he was just trying to put on a show, while having no interest in giving the Iranians what they really wanted.

He mocked Iran on two counts. First, his insincerity regarding his intention. Second, and more importantly, in the fact that in order to have a dialogue of civilizations there must be two civilizations engaged. The proposed dialogue could never exist, because he represents no civilization. Khatami’s alleged civilization is the way of life of the Bedouin nomad warrior, his tribal customs and ethics, and the worship of the Taazi God of War called Allah. Of course, that hardly qualifies as a civilization. If Khatami meant the Iranian civilization, then he mocked Iran because the alleged civilization that he represents is not that of Iran. I know the beautiful Iranian civilization, and this is not it.

This is not 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
cyrus
Site Admin


Joined: 24 Jun 2003
Posts: 4993

PostPosted: Thu Aug 10, 2006 6:52 pm    Post subject: this nation is at war with Islamic fascists Reply with quote



Quote:
President Bush Discusses Terror Plot Upon Arrival in Wisconsin
Austin Straubel International Airport
Green Bay, Wisconsin


In Focus: Homeland Security


10:54 A.M. CDT
http://www.whitehouse.gov/news/releases/2006/08/20060810-3.html

THE PRESIDENT: The recent arrests that our fellow citizens are now learning about are a stark reminder that this nation is at war with Islamic fascists who will use any means to destroy those of us who love freedom, to hurt our nation.


"this nation is at war with Islamic fascists" is the first time used == War On Taazi
http://activistchat.com/phpBB2/viewtopic.php?t=8074

Being a Taazi is a frame of mind. Being a Taazi is a reflection of one's heart. Genetics have nothing to do with it. One is not born a Taazi by race or place of birth. One becomes a Taazi by choice.
A Taazi is someone who holds the nomadic Bedouin way of life and code of ethics above that of common human decency. A Taazi is someone who is willing to die and kill in the name of Allah. A Taazi is someone who has turned a deaf ear to his own heart and only listens to the call of hate and violence. A Taazi is someone who feels compelled to carry the Bedouin Barbarian Bylaws to ever-expanding spheres of servitude.


Last edited by cyrus on Fri Aug 11, 2006 11:44 am; edited 2 times in total
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
Oppenheimer



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

PostPosted: Thu Aug 10, 2006 8:35 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

Quote:
"this nation is at war with Islamic fascists" is the first time used == War On Taazi ?


Dear Cyrus,

I think if you look back through a number of his remarks over time, you'll find that this is not the first time used.

That he put it in such clear language is perhaps what you take as noteworthy.

He has noted that this is a clash of ideologies, freedom as opposed to tyrany, and the government structures associated with both.

He has noted that there are many definitions - words used to define those we face in the global war on terrorism-"Islamic extremists", "radical Islam" and as such, I suppose the word "Taazi" may fit as well into the list of definitions used.

Of course, words are subject to interpretation, connoting meaning as an individual understands the parameters of definition.

This brings me to some reading of note, and I think when one considers it, it will be clear that this war on terrorism is not a war on Islam , but within Islam as an identity crisis, and those who've created a sect within Islam.

"Harim" meaning "against God, or against god's will, laws etc. in application of an act or thought that is defined as "harim" and included in the Quoran, forbids the forming of sects.

In the third Shura ( Imrans) of the Quoran, it follows (*) :

" It is He who has revealed to you the Book. Some of its verses are precise in meaning- they are the foundations of the Book-and others ambiguous. Those who's hearts are infected with disbelief follow the ambiguous part, so as to create dissention by seeking to explain it. But no one knows its meaning except God."

--------

Often I have been told by those seeking to foist their interpretation upon me citing line and verse of the Quoran as evidence that all Islam is corrupt, saying that it is "not subject to interpretation", must have missed the obvious in their reading of it.

Now, obviously there is a scizm within Islam today between those that love peace and those that love jihad, and even the scizm between Sunni and Shiite present what has been layed out as "harim", for are they not sects of Islam?

Then you have the 12'vers.....a sect within a sect.....

....following a facist/ marxist political ideology with apocalyptic desires, that are so far removed from the basic scriptures the Quoran was founded upon, so far removed from the beliefs Mohammed was exposed to as a young man, that for want of a better way to articulate my thoughts on this, I can only describe what Antar, Khameni, bin Laden, and their ilk ascribe to as "Harim" for they are the "unbelievers", the true apostates of Islam and hypocrites all.

Since I am Bhuddist, ascribing to the "oneness of all" , I see it is not different than the "oneness" described in the Quoran, nor in many other religions including Judaism or Cristianity. The commonality in "oneness" between all the major religions is self-evident.

What needs be is coexistance with various definitions of oneness, for it is the names of God that divide humanity, not the oneness that is.

How can one say "My "one" is the true faith."???? It becomes a pathetic interpretation in disbelief of "oneness" as a self evident lie, serving only a divisive agenda.

If Islam and the Quoran was founded upon the same prophets and scriptures found in the Talmud and the New Testament, then the chants of "death to Zionism", are chants for the death of Islam itself.

It is a dysfunctional world that is created thereby, so we all need to just get a grip and get over it, so humanity can get on with its future coexisting in peace, having ample knowledge of the alternative throughout history.

(*)

English revised translation by N.J. Dawood
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
cyrus
Site Admin


Joined: 24 Jun 2003
Posts: 4993

PostPosted: Thu Aug 10, 2006 10:21 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

Dear Oppie,

Due to the fact that Majority (90%) of Muslim who pray 5 times a day can not read Quran, their Islam is their own version and majority of these people are not violent and most of them peaceful.
But the real Islam that is defined in Koran and by Prophet Muhammad is very violent , and unfortunately can not be reformed.
It is very interesting to note that there are two Imam Ali one created by Shite Muslim and scholars who wrote a good book on behalf of him 100 years after Ali has been killed, ..... and real Ali what the Arabs and historian documented is a kind of leader who ordered to kill 1000s of Iranians near Shiraz, 1000s of Arabs and Jews in different events.

You may consider to read the following Book to give you very good overview .


Regards,
Cyrus


Last edited by cyrus on Fri Aug 11, 2006 3:33 pm; edited 1 time in total
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
cyrus
Site Admin


Joined: 24 Jun 2003
Posts: 4993

PostPosted: Fri Aug 11, 2006 11:28 am    Post subject: 'Arc of Extremism' Reply with quote

'Arc of Extremism'
August 11, 2006
The Wall Street Journal
William Shawcross

http://online.wsj.com/public/us

It took President Bush to tell the truth to Britain about the alleged massive plot to blow U.S.-bound airliners out of the sky. In his first comment on the apparently foiled attempt, he put it simply: "This was a stark reminder that this nation is at war with Islamic fascists."

He is right, but in the first news reports in Britain yesterday, the words "Islamic" or "Muslim" were hardly mentioned, let alone the dread word "fascist." Instead the common code-words on television were that the 24 men arrested were "British-born" and "of Pakistani origin." No mention of their Islamist ideology. Does the BBC think they might turn out to be from Pakistan's embattled Christian minority? I don't think so.

In Europe, the truth is so terrible that we are in denial. Perhaps it is understandable. We simply do not know how to deal with the fact that we really are threatened by a vast fifth column, that there are thousands of European-born people, in Britain, in France, in Holland, in Denmark -- everywhere -- who wish to destroy us. You see this denial in the coverage of Israel's war against Hezbollah. The deaths in Lebanon are utterly tragic. But if you watched only British television, particularly the BBC, you would be hard-pressed to understand that Israel has been forced into a war for its survival. Last weekend people marched in an anti-Israel march though London carrying banners proclaiming "We are all Hezbollah Now."

As the historian Victor Davis Hanson recently pointed out, there is a moral madness at work here. We refuse to admit there is a pattern to global terrorism. We are terrified of being called "Islamophobic." European papers are frightened to publish cartoons which some Muslims demand we censor, but are happy to portray the Israelis as latter-day Nazis. Not for nothing does Mr. Hanson say that we have forgotten the lessons of 1938.

In a live BBC interview recently I called Hezbollah "Islamofascists." The charming interviewer said nervously, "That's a very controversial description"; I replied that it was merely accurate. She brought the interview to a swift close. But it's not just Hezbollah, of course. The same ideology of hate inspires al Qaeda, the inspiration if not the controller of the British bombers.

In Britain we are actually quite lucky. We have a prime minister who, in my view, has committed many errors at home; but abroad Tony Blair has a clear vision, both moral and pragmatic, of the threat that we face. And for this he is mocked and abused as nothing more than George Bush's "poodle."

In a thoughtful recent speech in Los Angeles, Mr. Blair spoke of fighting an "arc of extremism." That is Islamic extremism, whether it is inspired al Qaeda or by Tehran, whether its footsoldiers are Sunni or Shiite, whether they were born in Britain or southern Lebanon or Iran or Saudi Arabia. As Mr. Blair said, the battle is over the values that are to govern the future of the worlds. "Are they those of tolerance, freedom, respect for difference and diversity or those of reaction, division, hatred?"

"This is war" said Mr. Blair. Alas, it is. Wherever they were born, the men who want to blow up airliners, who want to destroy Israel and, not coincidentally, who want to kill all hope of a decent society in Iraq -- are Islamofascists who are united in hatred of us. The sooner we in Europe understand that, and that they must be defeated, the safer everyone -- Christians, Jews, Muslims, nonbelievers -- will be.

Mr. Shawcross is author of "Allies: Why the West Had to Remove Saddam" (PublicAffairs Press, 2005).
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
cyrus
Site Admin


Joined: 24 Jun 2003
Posts: 4993

PostPosted: Fri Aug 11, 2006 11:34 am    Post subject: Apocalypse Now? Reply with quote

Apocalypse Now?

August 10, 2006
National Review Online
Joel C. Rosenberg

http://article.nationalreview.com/?q=NWNmMWM5MjhhMzVjZTM0ZmI1ZmJlYzAxNzU3NDEyMWI

Is Iran planning an apocalyptic strike against Israel and/or the United States for August 22? If so, what should the U.S. do to protect Americans and our ally? Such questions are worrying a growing number of officials in the White House, at the CIA, and at the Pentagon, and for good reason.

As a devout Shiite Muslim, Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad is telling colleagues in Tehran that he believes the end of the world is rapidly approaching. He also believes that the way to hasten the coming of the Islamic Messiah known as the “Hidden Imam” or the “Mahdi” is to launch a catastrophic global jihad, first against Israel (the “little Satan”) and then against the U.S. (the “Great Satan”). What’s more, Ahmadinejad is widely believed to be pursuing nuclear weapons that would give him the ability to carry out his apocalyptic religious views. Some experts even speculate that Iran may already have several atomic bombs and the means to deliver them.

In recent days, Ahmadinejad and his advisers have said that Iran will answer the world regarding the future of its nuclear program on August 22. That happens to be a very significant date for Muslims: It is the anniversary of the supposed “night flight” by Mohammed from Saudi Arabia to the Temple Mount in Jerusalem to heaven and back again. There is a worry that Ahmadinejad is planning some sort of apocalyptic attack as his ‘“response” on August 22. If so, time is short and the clock is ticking.

It is hard for many Americans to imagine an Iranian leader (or any other world leader) actually trying to bring about the end of the world by launching a nuclear attack to destroy millions of Jews and Christians. But it is precisely this type of attack that I wrote about in my recent political thrillers, The Ezekiel Option and The Copper Scroll. One of my goals was to help people understand this brand of radical Islamic thinking and its implications for Western civilization. On page 358 of The Ezekiel Option, a fictional Islamic character insists that Israel is going to be “wiped off the face of the map forever.” Five months after Option was published last June, Ahmadinejad gave a speech vowing to wipe Israel “off the map” forever. In the novel, Iran forms a military alliance with Russia and starts buying state-of-the-art weaponry from Moscow to accomplish its apocalyptic objectives. Last December, fiction again became reality, when Iran signed a $1 billion deal with Russia to buy missiles and others weapons.

Muslims are not the only ones who have apocalyptic end-times views, of course. As an evangelical Christian from an Orthodox Jewish heritage, my novels are based on a number of “end times” prophecies that the Bible says will be fulfilled in “the last days.” For example, the Hebrew Prophet Ezekiel — writing 2,500 years ago — described a future Middle Eastern war to annihilate Israel that is known today by Bible scholars as the “War of Gog and Magog.” Jews and Christians who take Ezekiel’s prophecies seriously believe that at the last minute the God of Israel will supernaturally intervene to defeat Israel’s enemies in this war. By contrast, the Muslim version of the “War of “Gog and Magog“ found in the Koran concludes with Muslims winning. The Ezekiel Option and The Copper Scroll imagine how such prophecies could play themselves out in modern times. But suddenly this is no longer the stuff of fiction. Ahmadinejad actually seems intent on launching the “War of Gog and Magog.”

Bernard Lewis of Princeton University, arguably the world’s foremost expert on Middle Eastern history, wrote an essay for the Wall Street Journal last Tuesday warning that Ahmadinejad’s apocalyptic objectives could lead to a “cataclysmic” attack on August 22. Lewis observed that there it is not possible to say with any certainty that such an attack is planned, but he felt compelled to explain to Americans just how dangerous Ahmadinejad’s thinking is, especially in light of Islamic, Jewish, and Christian “end times” theology, such as the “War of Gog and Magog” and “Armageddon.” How, Lewis asked, can you negotiate with a man who believes it is his religious duty and mission to bring about the end of the world? How can you deter a man who wants to die and go to paradise, but believes he won’t actually die in such a war because Allah is on his side to kill millions of “infidels”?

Lewis’s warning was prudent and needed, as was his careful explanation of the apocalyptic thinking driving the Iranian leadership at present. But Lewis’s conclusion was puzzling. He writes:

“How then can one confront such an enemy, with such a view of life and death?” he wrote. “Some immediate precautions are obviously possible and necessary. In the long term, it would seem that the best, perhaps the only hope is to appeal to those Muslims, Iranians, Arabs and others who do not share these apocalyptic perceptions and aspirations, and feel as much threatened, indeed even more threatened, than we are. There must be many such, probably even a majority in the lands of Islam. Now is the time for them to save their countries, their societies and their religion from the madness of MAD [the Cold War policy of Mutual Assured Destruction].”

’This is indeed a wise “long-term” strategy, trying to win over Islamic moderates, but Lewis writes as if the danger posed by Iran is not an immediate one, as if we have the luxury of relying on far-sighted strategies. But ’Lewis himself is suggesting that Iran may be planning “cataclysmic” attacks to begin as early as August 22. That doesn’t leave a lot of time for long-term planning. We all hope and pray that August 22 is not the day Ahmadinejad has chosen to launch the apocalypse, but there is little doubt in the White House and at the CIA that the Iranian leader is feverishly trying to build, buy, or steal nuclear weapons, and that he will quite likely use them once he has them.

All of this raises very serious questions for the president and the nation. How much time do we have to pursue a diplomatic track with Iran? At what point do we have to conclude that negotiations are going nowhere? Are we prepared to live with a nuclear-armed Iran? If so, how? If not, what is the president prepared to do to protect Americans and our allies from an Iranian nuclear-strike, or nuclear blackmail?

In his famous “axis of evil” speech on January 29, 2002, President Bush made the following case:

“We will work closely with our coalition to deny terrorists and their state sponsors the materials, technology, and expertise to make and deliver weapons of mass destruction. We will develop and deploy effective missile defenses to protect America and our allies from sudden attack. And all nations should know: America will do what is necessary to ensure our nation’s security. We’ll be deliberate, yet time is not on our side. I will not wait on events, while dangers gather. I will not stand by, as peril draws closer and closer. The United States of America will not permit the world’s most dangerous regimes to threaten us with the world’s most destructive weapons.”

Today, the country is deeply divided over whether using military force in Iraq was the right thing to do. But the Iranian nuclear threat is now far worse than the Iraqi threat of having or obtaining weapons of mass destruction was then. President Bush has a decision to make and precious little time to make it. For let’s be clear: should Iran go nuclear on this president’s watch, all the gains made to date in the War on Terror will be wiped out overnight. That is not a legacy this president wants, nor one this nation can afford.

— Joel C. Rosenberg, a one-time aide to former Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu and Deputy Prime Minister Natan Sharansky, is a New York Times best-selling author of Middle East-based political thrillers. His new novel is The Copper Scroll. His forthcoming non-fiction book is entitled Epicenter: Why The Current Rumblings In The Middle East Will Change Your World.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
Oppenheimer



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

PostPosted: Fri Aug 11, 2006 2:03 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

Dear Cyrus,

Sounds like interesting reading, as was this:

You may wish to re-post elsewhere, as there's a topic devoted to it, but this too gives pause for thought in how clerics have interpreted things.

To err is human, and the Quran is subject to it, in its compilation, and content via interpretation and ambiguity.

IE: does the "infidel" exist within one's self, or outside one's self? Does the believer?

-----------------



Reflections on Iran’s constitutional revolution of 1906

and its contemporary policy implications



Presented by Kamran Beigi on committee room of US House of Representatives.

August 4, 2006






I would like to start by thanking Congressman King for his courage, vision and commitment to freedom and democracy. I would also like to thank our compatriots, my dear friends, some of them present here today, for their support of the freedom in our homeland. I am certain that with their continued support, we will revive democracy in Iran, again.



Many liberals and democrats in the media have wrongfully equated the support for democracy in Iran with imposition of President Bush’s policies on a people who do not desire American style freedom and democracy. They have equated support for democratic ideals and freedom to pursue happiness with imposition of western culture on Moslems who do not share those values. Nothing can be further from the truth.



Iran has a 2500-year written history of significant contributions to mankind. And if the current despotic regime of the Ayatollahs presents a threat to world peace, it is nevertheless true that Iranian history contains within itself evidence of democratic aspirations that do not need to be imposed from outside. Iran’s 1906 Constitutional Revolution was an indigenous movement by the people of Iran to limit the autocratic power of a corrupt regime.



The second point I would like to make is that there are many lessons in Iran’s Constitutional revolution not only for Iranian freedom fighters today, but also for western policy makers in search of an Iran policy: to make comparative analysis of what are the major obstacles in promoting democracy in the middle east and to, of course, learn from the mistakes of the past. And, I mean the recent past.



Ultimately, I would like to draw your attention to, and leave you with, a few questions. I believe that if we ask the right questions, we would be more likely to reach realistic, effective and sustainable policies.



Let us begin with these two questions:

1) What happened that a country that was a regional leader in promoting freedom and democracy in the Middle East one hundred years ago is now plagued by religious fanaticism for thirty years? And 2) going beyond Iran, how is it that the more western policy makers push for promoting democracy in the Middle East today, the more they fail and the more they cause retreat and failure for the democratic forces?



But first a bit of history:

When in 1906, Mozafaredin Shah, under pressure from the people, but willingly, signed on the constitutional limitations on his power, he in fact put an end to his autocratic rule and agreed to share his power with the people. This was a significant historic development. Implicitly, he also revoked an important article of the 1828 treaty with Russians (Torkamanchai treaty) that had given security guarantees to the absolutism of the Ghajar dynasty. However, the other powerful social force, the fundamentalist clergy, did not want to share their socio-political powers with anyone. They sought support of the wealthy and reactionary forces to block the spread of the freedoms that was the promise of Mozafaredin Shah’s celebrated August 5, 1906 decree.



What were their motivations and political vision in limiting individual freedoms? Was it their devotion to God and spirituality or was it pure self-interest? This is a good question to ask, even today.



The constitutional revolution was a social movement for progress, freedom and democracy and against tyranny and arbitrary rule. The poverty that was inflicted upon people as a result of unjust and irrational policies of the Ghajars had reached unprecedented levels. The public policy at the time was an intermixture of the arbitrary interpretations of Islamic Sharia laws and erratic and unpredictable rules of local despots.



The formation of public policy under these conditions was not in any way sufficient to counter the new challenges of a modern life that was being introduced to Iranians through expanded communications with the west. Socio-political progress that was rooted in western enlightenment had become an imperative and there was no turning back. This was the first instance of clash of two incompatible world views.



The social make up of Iran during Ghajars was comprised of the royal court and the King that held all the governmental powers, the nobles and the wealthy who usually had a history of holding powerful governmental positions, the clergy, merchants and land owners, tradesmen, and the farmers and villagers who were referred to as vassal by the royal court and ummat by the clergy and did not count in any way in any social or political equations and basically had no rights.



However, under that system, no one had any security or personal protection to his life or property. Even the first minister, the most powerful man in the government, could arbitrarily be executed and have all his properties seized. Or on the other hand, any person could have been judged by the clergy to have violated Islam and be anathematized. Only the clergy were safe from anathematization and seizure of property. The only other civil offence that carried death penalty was political offences which did not include the clergy because every thing they did or said would fall under the category of religious duties.



In Islam, the right to govern is reserved for God and under certain conditions it is transferred to some men; like prophet and his successors, Imams. Broadly speaking, there have been two major schools in Shia branch of Islamic jurisprudence. Akhbari and Osuli.



Akhbaris believe that all religious matters should be settled by referring directly to Qoran and the well documented texts and traditions of the prophet himself (hadith) and there is no need for intermediary clerics. They advocate following the political order of the day. The other, Osulis, believe that the people are not capable of interpreting religious texts and must follow, imitate, the learned clergy who would then hold monopoly on the interpretation of religion. It is called the theory of Ejtehad. Very briefly the theory holds that every person has a duty to act in accordance with the practical laws of Islam through either becoming a learned clergy himself or by following (imitating) a learned clergy.



Therefore, any person who is not a learned clergy and can not extract divine decrees and commandments from its sources must follow the learned clergy (Mujtahid) and perform his actions according to the religious decrees of the learned clergy (a Fatwa). As such, the religious duty of the majority of the people is to follow the clergy in all their practical matters because the clergy are experts in religion.



During the late 1700s and early 1800s, the Osulies, under the leadership of Vahid Behbehani, and utilizing violent means, assassinated some leaders of the Akhbari and were able to consolidate their power. Soon after, they began to challenge the political leaders directly. They violently institutionalized the role of clergy in interpreting the word of God, Qoran. This was exactly the reverse of the modern developments in Christianity by Luther and Calvin.

Why were the two developments in Iran and in Europe in such an opposite directions?



One of the Osulis first acts of saber rattling was to declare Jihad, religious war, against the Russians and to force the weak FathAli Shah to reject the Russian proposal after the death of the Tesar Alexander the First. Iran lost the war and ended up losing a huge territory to Russia under 1828 treaty (TorkamanChai treaty). Another one of their acts of grand standing was the boycott of the purchase of Tobacco throughout Iran to force Naserdin Shah to revoke his contract with British in 1891 and pay a heavy fine from Iran’s already bankrupt treasury by borrowing from the British. It is interesting to note that a much larger oil concession to the British in 1901 did not prompt any protest from the clergy. One wonders!



At any rate, towards the end of Ghajar dynasty, the political power of clergy was second only to that of the Shah.



Most of the people did not have any connection or relation with the government in general and the royal court in particular, whereas the clergy had a very strong relationship with the people. They would receive the religious dues from the people and were their pillar of emotional support. This public support added another dimension to political power of the clergy visa-vie the government and the royal court. They would use the backing of the people to confront the king directly and use their political influence on the king as a selling point in their dealings with the people.

What were the reasons, and how did it work, that clergy transformed itself from religious actors into effective political actors and agents of political change?



As a result of infighting among the powerful clergy there was not a single definition of legal terms and that what the Islamic sharia laws are. Many reform minded clergy sought a unified and central legal authority in accordance with Islamic laws. As such, some of the clergy played an important role in leading the way on the limiting the power of the government and the writing of a unified legal code. They articulated the wishes of the people and the requirements of the times by demanding for “the house of justice.” Likewise, there was no single definition of what it was meant by the house of justice, but Mohamad sadegh Fakhrol Eslam, one of the leading clerics of the time, defined it as: “an assembly of clergy that would compile the right and absolute rulings of sharia laws to be observed universally and collectively throughout Tehran and the provinces.”



Thus, the constitutional revolution started with the demand for the house of justice. With a fair degree of confidence it could be said that the purpose of clergy in pursuing this demand was uniformity of the religious laws and not writing of new laws. They did not want to relent on their powers by opening the door to writing of new laws. They did not want new laws, just a uniform interpretation of existing Sharia laws. They were against all new and modern legal concepts. They were even against equality of all people based on the Islamic discrimination between followers of other religions, in particular the Christians and the Jews in Iran.



On the other hand, however, the progress of the movement made people familiar with their new found socio-political powers. If the revolution was to become fully successful, then the people would have become an independent power above both the royal court and the clergy.



From this moment in the history, the most fundamental divide of political power sharing was articulated along the lines of fundamentalist Islam. How Iran should be governed. Will it be the government of the God or will it be the government of the people?



And from this moment in history, the fundamentalist clergy started to conspire against democracy and civil society. One of the most important battlefields that they picked was the writing of the constitution. That is how the Islamists forced Velayate Faghih, the dictatorship of Ayatolah Khomeini, under the pretext of Islam, while they are no more respectful of the religion than the previous constitution. Even today, we are witnessing this constitutional conspiracy in Iraq and Afghanestan-- The conspiracy for the control of the process of writing laws. Who shall have the power to write laws, the clergy or the people?



In 1906, this tension manifested itself just three days after Mozafaredin shah,s August 5 decree. Just after three days, Mozafaredin Shah was forced to change his decree to reflect Islamic sentiments. Specifically, the National Consultative Assembly was renamed to Islamic consultative assembly.



The debate however, continued and the democrats were able to restrain the fundamentalist clergy. The constitution that was written in 1906 and was signed by the Mozafaredin Shah, just a few days before his death, had no mention of Islam and the parliament was called National Consultative Assembly.



The back and forth debate continued under the new Shah and the constitution was amended with Islamic laws. Islam was declared the official religion of the state in 1907 constitutional amendment.



The actual text of the constitution has become an important battlefield for the Islamists to impose fundamentalist Islam on to the society. At the end of the day, it boils down to implementation of God’s orders, at the hands of the clergy. What is the legal basis for a democratic state to give a particular standing to a specific interpretation of a specific sect of a religion?



The Islamization of politics is one of the most important characteristics of the history of the democratic movement of the people of Iran. In order to solve the dilemma of democratization of Iran, we need to confront political Islam, head on. From the early days of the constitutional movement, more than one hundred years ago, all democratic concepts had to be reduced into Islamic terms that in effect, distorted the concepts beyond recognition. Freedom of speech was reduced to “Amre be Maroof, Nahy az Monkar”, which roughly translated, means order others to do good, and prevent them from doing bad. The concept of freedom was reduced to freedom to obey the rule of God. Ultimately, in the past one hundred years either all democratic concepts had to be reconciled with Islamic edicts or we ignored Islam all together to get the society moving forward. While, all along, the implicitly dominant notion in the society was individual freedom rooted in western enlightenment. The paradox of political Islam is that quite on the contrary, it is Islam that needs to reconcile itself and its commandments with the concept of individual liberty.



The paradox of democratic movement of the people of Iran, and for that matter the greater Middle East, has been that we have never faced Islam for truly what it is. It is time to have the freedom to critic Islam and to allow it to be reformed. In other words, it is time to not restrict a people to a single interpretation of Islam that serves only the personal interests of the small group of fundamentalist clergy.



Why were Iranian democrats so reluctant to critic Islam? Was that because the democrats were such true and devotes Moslem? Or was it a question of balance of power? Where did the Islamic laws come from?



What we really need is an honest to God debate on the nature of fundamentalist Islam.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
cyrus
Site Admin


Joined: 24 Jun 2003
Posts: 4993

PostPosted: Fri Aug 11, 2006 3:30 pm    Post subject: Quotes Of The Day Reply with quote

Quotes Of The Day

http://www.time.com/time/quotes

Friday, Aug. 11, 2006
“If this plot had actually occurred, the world would have stood still.”

— Mark Mershon
assistant director of the FBI, on the alleged terrorist plot to blow up aircraft flying between the U.S. and Britain
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
AmirN



Joined: 23 Sep 2005
Posts: 297

PostPosted: Sun Aug 13, 2006 7:03 pm    Post subject: Nasr the "expert" Reply with quote

http://www.csmonitor.com/2006/0809/p09s02-coop.html


from the August 09, 2006 edition

After Lebanon, there's Iran
By Vali Nasr

MONTEREY, CALIF. – When the war in Lebanon ends, the US will have to piece together a whole new strategy for dealing with Iran - especially its nuclear program. The Israeli- Hizbullah war has boldly ratcheted up Iran's regional stature at the same time it has depleted US influence and prestige.

From the outset, the Lebanese conflict was about more than just Hizbullah. Jerusalem and Washington were quick to point the finger of blame for the conflict at Iran, and it was with Iran in mind that Israel unleashed the full force of its air power in Lebanon. The US, too, saw shock and awe in Beirut as an opportunity to convince Tehran of the West's determination to bring it into compliance on the nuclear issue.

Tehran cleary received the message and viewed the US-backed Israeli war on Hizbullah as the first stage of a war on Iran. But Tehran also used the occasion to send a message of its own to Washington. While dutifully denying a direct role in the kidnapping of Israeli soldiers, Tehran nevertheless heaped praise on Hizbullah, hoping that its engagement with Israel might dampen enthusiasm for a military attack on Iran. To further drive this point home, Hizbullah surprised Israel and the US by successfully testing a number of Iranian-made advanced weapons systems.

Iran's ties to Hizbullah run deep. It was Iranian clerics and Revolutionary Guards commanders who first organized Hizbullah in the 1980s. Since then, Tehran has bankrolled and armed Hizbullah's war machine. Many among the current leadership of Iran's Revolutionary Guards have served tours of duty at Hizbullah's headquarters in the Bekaa Valley in Lebanon. Over the past two decades, Hizbullah has evolved into a Lebanese political force, but it continues to rely on Iranian support to sustain its military capabilities.

Average Iranians resent their government's generous support for Hizbullah when unemployment and poverty plague the Iranian economy, and many bristle at the risk that support for Hizbullah carries for Iran. But Iran's leaders see Hizbullah as an ally and an asset. Hizbullah is a fruit of the Iranian revolution - the only time its seed found fertile soil outside Iran. Tehran cannot back away from Hizbullah without acknowledging that the revolution is over. Iran's hard-line leaders, looking to rekindle revolutionary fervor at home, see their own values reflected in Hizbullah.

Nor will Tehran easily give up on a pro- Iranian force in the heart of the Arab world and an important instrument in confronting Israel and the US. Tehran has basked in Hizbullah's new-found glory, taking credit for a popular military adventure that has greatly weakened Iran's traditional regional rivals - Jordan, Egypt, and Saudi Arabia.

Iran had hoped that its cooperation with the US in rebuilding a post-Taliban Afghanistan would lead to an opening in the relations between the two countries. But Washington was not keen to build on that initiative. It refused to engage Iran over the future of Iraq and instead focused its energies on containing Iranian influence in the Persian Gulf and rolling back Iran's nuclear program.

In the Lebanese conflict, Iran has found an opportunity to underscore its regional importance. The Iran-Hizbullah axis has hijacked the Palestinian cause and redefined the Arab-Israeli conflict. Neither criticism by Arab governments nor fatwas (religious edicts) by radical Sunni clerics have slowed down Hizbullah's and Iran's rising stock.

As the US looks for a way out of the crisis, it is increasingly evident that it is Iran's and not Washington's traditional allies in the region that hold the key to solving the crisis, and Tehran hopes that Washington will come to realize that without Iranian cooperation it cannot ensure regional stability.

With a population of close to 70 million, more than 70 percent of which is literate, a vibrant culture, and a geographic spread from Central Asia and the Caucasus to the Persian Gulf, Iran is today a rising power in the Middle East. Its large market, economic output, industrial potential, and vast oil and natural gas reserves make it central to American geostrategic and energy interests. Over the past two decades, Tehran has nurtured cultural, economic, and political ties with various regional forces, most notably the Shiites of Iraq. These ties confirm Iran's regional status, just as they make it more difficult for the US to bring stability to the arc stretching from Afghanistan to Lebanon without Iran.

In the coming months, Washington will have to look for ways to deal with a bullish Iran. A policy of isolation and intimidation will no longer yield results and will serve to further destabilize the Middle East. Hizbullah's tenacious resistance has moreover devalued military power as a deterrent. The war has not only failed to subdue Hizbullah militarily, but has made it politically stronger. US objectives and interests would be better served by giving Iran a vested interest in stability. That means including Iran in a new regional security framework. The US should continue to demand that Iran curb its nuclear activities, abandon support of terrorism, and respect the democratic aspirations of Iranians. The difference would be that with regime change no longer a threat, Iran will be more likely to find reasons to change its course.

• Vali Nasr teaches at the Naval Postgraduate School in Monterey and is adjunct senior fellow at the Council on Foreign Relations. He recently authored "The Shia Revival: How Conflicts within Islam Will Shape the Future."


----------------------------------------------


Amir's Commentary:

I’ve noticed that the so-called Middle East “expert” Vali Nasr has gained a stronger voice among the media. As I strongly disagree with his proposed policy, I must also voice my opinion regarding the matter.

He cites relative victories in the Taazi camp in relation to Iraq and also Hezbollah’s strength in Lebanon to suggest that an approach of Taazi moderation must be attempted by the US. His recommendations, if followed, will have devastating consequences.

It is true that errors in world policy have allowed the strengthening of the Taazi Mullahs in the recent past. However, those errors were not due to the world’s lack of moderation and negotiation with the Ayatollahs. Those errors stem from the fact that the world did not take its role of isolation and opposition to the Mullahs seriously enough. Half-hearted containment policies were undermined by looking the other way when those containment policies were breached by companies, institutions, or nations looking to make a buck in the transaction. Such anemic policies have served as an enabler of the Mullahs.

What Mr. Nasr is proposing is to abandon any thoughts or hopes for containment of the Mullahs and regime change, simply because the methodology in carrying out such a goal has proven ineffective. This is madness. The goals are not to blame. The methods are to blame, and it is the methods that need to be revised. If a firefighter is losing ground because his hose is not pressurized, then he ought to check and fix the hose rather than accept the consumption of the dwelling by the flames and call it a day. Yet that is exactly what Nasr proposes: accept that the fire will engulf Iran and the Middle East, and grab a marshmallow on a stick. One cannot negotiate with the Taazis any more than one can negotiate with the flames of fire.

I am uncertain as to whether he truly has the best intentions but is simply incorrect, or whether his motives are in alignment with the IR Taazi Regime because he is supported or encouraged by them. If the latter is not the case, then the IR certainly owes a debt of gratitude to this expert, because he is blowing their horn for them and certainly deserves compensation by the Taazis.

In either case, if his advice is followed, it will mean further legitimization and enabling of this regime. It will mean that Iranians will lose their most powerful potential ally in their quest for freedom. It will also mean that the Taazi Mullahs will grow even stronger, all the while consolidating themselves before getting to the point at which their containment will be even more difficult by the world. At that time, it may be too late and the cost of resistance will be much greater than it is now. In either case, the Taazi Regime will not last indefinitely, and Iran will be freed. However, following Nasr’s scenario will mean that the date will be pushed back, and the cost will increase.

Mr. Nasr proposes that if the Taazi Mullahs are reassured that regime change will not be on the agenda and their survival is not threatened, they will behave like other members of the international community and will abandon their criminal pursuits. In a way Nasr is proposing that the way to deal with a criminal is to give him what he wants (money, power, etc) and then he will relinquish his criminal agenda. That doesn’t make sense whether a society is dealing with a criminal individual or whether a world community is dealing with a criminal government.

The current Taazi Regime is nothing less than a criminal government and is incapable of being reformed. As the criminal that it is, nothing less than its arrest and removal will do.
_________________
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
cyrus
Site Admin


Joined: 24 Jun 2003
Posts: 4993

PostPosted: Tue Aug 22, 2006 11:09 am    Post subject: FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE & DISTRIBUTION Reply with quote

Source From: Banafsheh Zand-Bonazzi

FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE & DISTRIBUTION
Date: Tue, 22 Aug 2006 10:26:39 -0400

Hello Everyone,

The Center for Global Justice and Reconciliation, an Anglican organization,
run by Reverend Canon John L. Peterson has shamefully extended the ex-president
of the Islamic regime, the traitor Mohammad Khatami, an invitation to visit
Washington D.C. in the month of September, for a speech . The visa has not yet been
issued to this traitor of the innocent Iranian people but the U.S. government has agreed
to give him the visa.

Please contact Peterson at jpeterson@cathedral.org or (202) 537-5745 and let them know that no such action will be supported and that the time for repairing the tawdry face of the Mullahs, reformist or hardliner, is now over, once and for all.

Thank you.


PLEASE DISTRIBUTE

The Washington Post wrote:

Khatami Invited to Speak in Washington

August 22, 2006
The Washington Post
Robin Wright

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2006/08/21/AR2006082101685.html

Despite a looming diplomatic showdown with Iran over its nuclear program, the Bush administration has agreed to issue a visa to former Iranian President Mohammad Khatami to give a public address at the Washington National Cathedral next month, according to the Rev. Canon John L. Peterson, director of the Center for Global Justice and Reconciliation.

Khatami would be the most senior Iranian to visit Washington since Iran's 1979 revolution and the 1979-1981 takeover of the U.S. Embassy, which led Washington to sever relations with a country that had been one of its two closest allies in the Middle East.

The State Department said yesterday that it had not yet approved a visa for Khatami because he has not yet formally applied, which he must do outside Iran.

The White House decision to allow a prominent Iranian reformer to visit comes at a time of mounting tension with the new hard-line leadership in Tehran. Iran is expected to give its official answer today to a U.S.-backed package of incentives designed to get Tehran to give up uranium enrichment, a process in a peaceful nuclear energy program that can be converted to develop a nuclear weapon.

Undersecretary of State R. Nicholas Burns said Friday that the United States is ready to push for new international sanctions on Iran at the United Nations if it does not accept the undisclosed package. Burns's office made the decision to grant the visa, according to the cathedral.

Khatami, a former minister of culture once purged by hard-liners, was a dark-horse presidential candidate in 1997 who led a sweeping upset that began a period of freer press, talk of political reform, cultural openings and encouragement of exchanges with the outside world. American tourists even returned to Iran.

In 1998, Khatami urged an end to the "wall of mistrust" between Iran and the United States. He also made an overture to the West by calling for a dialogue of civilizations, a proposal adopted by the United Nations when it declared 2001 the Year of Dialogue Among Civilizations.

But relations between the two countries have remained locked during the Clinton and Bush administrations over Iran's support for groups that rejected the Arab-Israeli peace process, its backing of militant groups such as Hezbollah and Hamas, and its potential to subvert its energy program.

Evan Anderson, deputy director of the Center For Global Justice and Reconciliation, said the visit comes at a critical juncture in U.S.-Iran relations, particularly in light of the current crisis in the Middle East.

The Rev. Samuel T. Lloyd III, dean of the cathedral, said, "It will be an honor for the cathedral to provide a platform for President Khatami." He added: "President Khatami's commitment to a dialogue between civilizations and cultures is an important component in the peace process. This is much needed in the world today."

After serving two terms, the presidential limit, Khatami left office last year, and the clerical board that certifies candidates did not allow other reform candidates to run to replace him. He was succeeded by Mahmoud Ahmadinejad, a hard-liner, who has come into his own politically by capitalizing on tensions with the West over the nuclear issue.

Reformers have since been further sidelined, and some have been prosecuted. The new government has also ridiculed the Bush administration project to provide $75 million to foster democracy in Iran.

After leaving office, Khatami endorsed Iran's right to enrich uranium, which is legal under terms of the Non-Proliferation Treaty. But U.S. and European officials believe Iran is intent on secretly developing weapons capability.

In February, Khatami founded the International Institute for Dialogue Among Civilizations and Cultures, headquartered in Tehran. He plans to speak in Washington on the dialogue of civilizations and the role the three Abrahamic faiths -- Islam, Judaism and Christianity -- can play in the peace process. Plans call for the event, at the National Cathedral at 7:30 p.m. on Sept. 7, to be free and open to the public.

Before visiting Washington, Khatami is scheduled to attend a U.N. conference as part of the Alliance of Civilizations, led by the prime ministers of Spain and Turkey.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
Oppenheimer



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

PostPosted: Wed Aug 23, 2006 2:26 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

Quote:
He plans to speak in Washington on the dialogue of civilizations and the role the three Abrahamic faiths -- Islam, Judaism and Christianity -- can play in the peace process.


Aye well then, let him explain Antar's willingness to wipe other nations off the map, the IRI's shipping missiles to Hizbollah to be used against innocent Israli citizens, the IRI's ongoing development of biological, chemical, and nuclear weapons, in context to the perfidity of hypocracy contained within these two statements....and then explain how he personally can seek to acomplish a "dialogue of civilizations" in a peaceful context, since he personally has contributed to the problems at hand..

Quote:
Ayatollah Ali Khamenei, supreme jurist-ruler of Iran: ғKilling of people, in any place and with any kind of weapons, including atomic bombs, long-range missiles, biological or chemical weapons, passenger or war planes, carried out by any organization, country or individuals is condemned. ... It makes no difference whether such massacres happen in Hiroshima, Nagasaki, Qana, Sabra, Shatila, Deir Yassin, Bosnia, Kosovo, Iraq or in New York and Washington. Islamic Republic News Agency, September 16, 2001,


http://www.irna.com/en/hphoto/010916000000.ehp.shtml



By Lamya Hamad**
Tehran, Iran
March 27, 2005

http://www.islamonline.net/English/Science/2005/03/article08.shtml

Quote:
khatami

In the opening ceremony of the International Congress of Bioethics 2005, Tehran, the President of the Islamic Republic of Iran, Mohamed Khatami, declared the production of Weapons of Mass Destruction (WMDs) unethical.

“God gave me this opportunity to begin the Farsi New Year by speaking about ethics. Bioethics is a part of ethics,” commenced Khatami in the opening ceremony. Khatami continued his speech illustrating with various verses of poetry the importance of adhering to ethics, moral values and one’s religion.

Khatami emphasized that the “world is seriously threatened by the production and proliferation of weapons of mass destruction. Despite the fact that weapons of mass destruction are manufactured by the order of politicians and military authorities, they are unfortunately developed and tested in scientists’ laboratories.”

Elaborating further on the subject, the Iranian President continued by saying, “In the name of ethics and in the name of respecting the lives of people all over the world, we have to oppose categorically, with no exception and no precondition, the manufacturing and proliferation of WMDs at all times and in all places.”

The President elaborated on other issues such as the relation of ethics, philosophy and science to each other. He also mentioned that “science and ethics share mutual collaboration; scientific advancements pose new ethical questions.”


Perhaps then it is best that he come, to be hung by his own words in public, and the weight of evidence be his gallows.

There's more than one way to "protest" , and the US, by not blocking visa (if the invitation is accepted) has just given the democratic Iranian opposition the perfect opportunity to present a factual, and logical rebuke, of all the IRI stands for.

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


Joined: 24 Jun 2003
Posts: 4993

PostPosted: Thu Aug 24, 2006 12:17 pm    Post subject: Just Say No to Khatami Reply with quote

Just Say No to Khatami

By Kenneth R. Timmerman
August 24, 2006
http://www.frontpagemag.com/Articles/ReadArticle.asp?ID=24047


Talk is cheap. At least, that’s what we are taught to believe in a society built not just on action, but on a respect for political minorities. But in a society where political minorities are considered enemies of the state, and where political discourse is tightly controlled, talk carries a far greater weight than it does here.

The disgraced former president of Iran, Hojjat-ol eslam Mohammad Khatami, wants to speak in Washington, D.C., next month, and the State Department has already indicated it will welcome his visit.

This is pure foolishness of the type Lenin described when he famously noted that the capitalists would sell the rope with which the Communists would hang them.

Although Khatami has not yet formally applied for a visa, his talk at the Washington National Cathedral next month was approved by the office of Undersecretary of State Nicholas Burns, according to the Washington Post.

This is the same Nicholas Burns who said last Friday that the United States would push for United Nations sanctions on Iran if Tehran does not accept a U.S.-backed package of incentives aimed at halting its uranium enrichment and reprocessing activities.

Okay, so this is Washington, where talking out of both sides of the mouth is taken as a career-enhancing fashion statement. Still, it doesn’t require an exceptionally brilliant mind to understand that the terror masters in Tehran plan to use Khatami’s visit to further their goals, not undermine them.

Former president Khatami is not a private individual, as we understand the term. As a senior member of the ruling clerical elite, he can only get an exit permit if the regime determines that his trip suits their needs. (I personally know other senior members of this regime who have had their foreign travel plans cancelled by the regime for various reasons).

So for starters, we need to understand that Khatami is coming to Washington as a standard-bearer for this regime. He is the smiley-face, the beaming turban so beloved by Christian Amanpour and former Los Angeles Times reporter Robin Wright (now a Washington Postie, but still as wrong as ever).

Indeed, it was Robin Wrong who used these breathless tones to break the news of Khatami’s upcoming visit:

Khatami, a former minister of culture once purged by hard-liners, was a dark-horse presidential candidate in 1997 who led a sweeping upset that began a period of freer press, talk of political reform, cultural openings and encouragement of exchanges with the outside world. American tourists even returned to Iran.

She forgot a few key events of Khatami’s presidency.

Just one year into his term, his intelligence service murdered in horribly brutal fashion Darioush and Parvaneh Forouhar, leaders of the Iran Nation’s Party, then the best-organized opposition in Iran. The following year, Khatami quashed the student rebellion that began at Tehran University among INP members and sympathizers including Marzeporgohar (Iranians for a Secular Republic) and quickly spread to 18 other cities across Iran.

That was just the beginning of a crackdown on domestic dissent that occurred on Khatami’s watch and on his orders.

Ever since Ayatollah Khomeini seized power in a putsch on the night of Feb. 11-12, 1979, the State Department has been seeking “reformers” and “moderates” in Tehran.

Volumes have been written about these efforts. Some of them were contained in classified cables, shredded when the U.S. embassy was taken over by pro-Khomeini “students” in November 1979, and pieced together later on from the shredder sacks by Persian-carpet weavers.

In the beginning, some “moderates” truly opposed Khomeini’s Islamofascist system. Most of them were executed, wound up in jail, or have spent the rest of lives under house arrest.

But Khatami was never one of them. In 1984, as minister of culture and Islamic propagation, he presided over the creation of Hezbollah, Iran’s proxy army of terrorists in Lebanon and elsewhere. He thought that was exactly what the Islamic Republic of Iran needed to do to expand its influence around the world.

As president, Khatami never opposed Iran’s development of nuclear weapons technology, or long-range ballistic missiles to deliver them. On the contrary, it was on Khatami’s watch that Iran accelerated its once-secret nuclear weapons development, and flouted its success to the International Atomic Energy Agency.

Khatami’s top nuclear expert, Hossein Mussavian, explained the ruse in an August 12, 2005, interview with Iranian state television, just days after Ahmadinejad took over as president. Ahmadinejad supporters were arguing that Khatami had made unacceptable concessions by negotiating with the European Union over Iran’s nuclear program. But those critics did “not know that at that stage – that is, in August 2003 – we needed another year to complete the Esfahan (UCF) project so it could be operational,” Musavian reminded his viewers. (The Uranium Conversion Facility in Esfahan is where Iran today has processed more than 120 tons of enrichment feedstock, enough to manufacture between 10 to 20 nuclear weapons.)

“[T] thanks to the negotiations with Europe we gained another year, in which we completed (the UCF) in Esfahan,” Mussavian said.

Khatami is being sent to Washington by the regime with a similar purpose: use happy talk to distract the United States from crafting serious international sanctions that would inflict real pain on this regime and possibly help spark a home-grown rebellion.

Would Washington have welcomed Nazi Propaganda Minister Goebbels to address the German Bund in 1940?

I don’t think so.

All the more reason why George W. Bush should step up to the plate and Just Say No, because Khatami’is purpose is similar to that of Joseph Goebbels in spreading Nazi propaganda.

If the State Department allows Khatami to visit Washington, they will create a new “paradigm,” a thought-shift in the way the Muslim “street” looks at the United States, Israel, and the West.

“Peace in our time” – that phrase identified with the appeasers of Munich who in 1938 negotiated away the sovereignty of Czechoslovakia and paved the autobahn to Poland. – will from now on be associated in the minds of the Islamofacists with Washington, DC and the State Department of Condoleeza Rice.

What can they possibly be smoking at Foggy Bottom to come up with a decision as contrary to the U.S. national interest as this one clearly is? Or perhaps, they are so cynically short-sighted they figure that during the dog days of August, with Congress in pre-election recess, no one will notice.

“An appeaser is one who feeds a crocodile,” Winston Churchill said famously, “hoping it will eat him last.”

We cannot afford the luxury of appeasement, when this crocodile’s teeth are nuclear.

cyrus wrote:


Petition 36: Reject Invitations to Khatami As Islamofascist Reformist Servant and Shirin Ebadi As “Muslim Women” . Are We Iranians or Muslims?

Sign the Petition -
View Current Signatures

http://www.petitiononline.com/achat7/petition-sign.html





--------------------------------------------------------------------------------


To: U.S. Congress, Joan B. Kroc Institute for Peace & Justice, Center for Global Justice and Reconciliation , Universities, All Institutes for Human Rights, Free Societies and Secular Democracy

The ethics of life are the pursuit of awareness about truth for ourselves and others. The ultimate goal is total awareness by increasing public awareness about the truth .

The biggest surprise of 2003 was when an Iranian female lawyer, Ms. Shirin Ebadi, became the first Iranian ever to win a Nobel prize. Yet, the Nobel committee referred to her as the first Muslim woman, completely denying her nationality. Due to the fact that Ms. Ebadi clearly declared that she is “Muslim Woman” and many historical facts in past 1400 years indicate that Islam is based on violence and creating Fear Society therefore she has no basis for “non-violent” means within the context of Islam. Islam as defined by Prophet Mohammad the Prophet of War and invasion with nine wives and his marriage with 9 year old girl (child) is rejecting all basic rights within Free Society as we all freedom-loving people agree and respect. Due to the fact that respect for Women Rights and Human Rights within the context of Islam does not exist therefore these are just empty slogan by Ms. Ebadi and others to deceive public and appease Pro Hezbollah Islamofascist Occupiers of Iran for hidden agenda.

Mr. Khatami, former President of regime and Islamofascist Servant who can not even capable of having dialogue and engage with Iranian people as their hostage for over 27 years, is asking for dialogue between civilizations and cultures. We should not forget and forgive during his term, so called reformist and EU3 appeasers dialogue era the Pro Hezbollah Islamofascist occupiers of Iran savagely tortured and killed Ms. Zahra Kazemi, a Canadian-Iranian photojournalist, execution of the 16-year-old girl, Ms. Atefeh Rajabi and 1000s of students arrested ……

Iranian-American Writer and Poet Mr. Amil Imani stated:
“The terror and death inflicted on humanity is not the work of radical Islam, neither the political Islam, nor the militant Islam. It is Islam, period. Get it? …
How could people calling themselves sincere God-fearing religionists bring themselves to even think of acts of such barbarity, yet plan them methodically and cold-bloodedly proceed to execute them?
The answer is Islam. The life manual of Islam, the Quran, is a document of exclusion, hatred and violence that shapes the Muslims’ thinking and behaving. This stone-age document is optimally suited for people of stunted development. People who prefer to follow than to think for themselves, to hate than to love, and to seek death rather than to celebrate life.
All the excuses, grievances and reasons given for savagery of the jihadists and Islamofascists are side issues. It is Islam, dummy. It is Islam itself. Get it?” Source URL for detail:
http://activistchat.com/phpBB2/viewtopic.php?t=8208

Imam Ali the first leader of Shiite Islam:
Ali ordered to massacre the Iranians in Azerbaijan, Sisstan, Fars, Estakhr, Daylaman, Ghazvin, Rey, Hamadan. Khorasan and killed 1000s of innocent Arabs and Jews by his own sword. Source URL for detail:
http://www.derafsh-kaviyani.com/english/ali666.html

Reject Islam and Become Iranian:
Top Harvard University Scholar Professor Richard Nelson Frye stated “ Iranian Is a Culture” Source URL for detail:
http://activistchat.com/phpBB2/viewtopic.php?p=29407#29407

Our Secular Prayer:
By Bahman Aghai Diba PhD International Law - Persian Journal
Source URL:
http://activistchat.com/phpBB2/viewtopic.php?t=7957

WE, the undersigned agree with the above statements, and as members of the civilized freedom-loving people of the world demanding :
1- Reject any invitation to Mr. Khatami and condemn any dialogue with the regime.
2- Not to invite Ms. Shirin Ebadi for lecture as long as she consider herself as “Muslim Woman” and has not rejected Islam. Or if you wish to invite her for research, education, increasing public awareness and dialogue please consider to allow other Iranian human rights Activist and Scholars who are opposed to Ms. Ebadi ‘s views, to have equal time to speak to your audience before or after Ms. Ebadi .
3- Not to appease Mullahs with vast Terror Networks and stolen oil money from Iran and support freedom-loving Iranian people without Terror Network and minimum resources to free their homeland.
4- Let us work together to support freedom-loving Iranian people against Pro Hezbollah Islamofascist occupiers of Iran.
5- Let us work together to help Iranian Women to win their true freedom .
6- No "dialogue" and "engagement" with Pro Hezbollah Islamofascist occupiers of Iran who can not even capable of having dialogue and engage with Iranian people as their hostage for over 27 years.

"To sin by silence, when we should protest, Makes cowards out of men." Ella Wheeler Wilcox (November 5, 1850 -- October 30, 1919)

"Human beings are all members of one body.
They are created from the same essence.
When one member is in pain,
The others cannot rest.
If you do not care about the pain of others,
You do not deserve to be called a human being."
A Quote from Famous Persian Poet Saadi Shirazi
( 13th century Persian poet, from Shiraz the birthplace of Ms. Zahra Kazemi)


Sincerely,

http://www.petitiononline.com/achat7/petition-sign.html
-------------------------------------------------------------------





Quote:
Please contact Jean F. Duff, Managing Director of the Center for Global Justice and Reconciliation, at jduff@cathedral.org or (202) 537-2178 and protest Khatami's visit. MEHR has sent the following letter to her:

Jean F. Duff

Managing Director of the Center

The Center for Global Justice and Reconciliation



Dear Mrs. Duff,



It is a shame that your organization has extended the former President of the Islamic Regime an invitation to visit the US for a speech. It is very sad and disturbing that the Ex-President of a terrorist regime is allowed to address an institution that is supposed to stand for freedom and democracy.



The fundamental rule of international law states that a superior may be held criminally responsible for the conduct of a subordinate if he or she had reason to know that the subordinate was committing or planned to commit the crimes and the superior did not take all necessary measures to prevent or repress the crimes. This rule is reflected in international instruments such as Protocol I to the Geneva Conventions of 1949, the draft Code of the Yugoslavia and Rwanda Tribunals, Convention against Torture, and the Rome Status of the International Criminal Court (ICC). Under these laws all states must conduct an inquiry when a person alleged to have participated in torture, is present in the territory of the state. If satisfied that there are reasonable grounds, the state must take measures to ensure the person's presence on its territory, and initiate proceedings to either try them or extradite the person to a state that will try them.



Under this rule, the torture, kidnapping, political assignations, stoning, and executions that occurred during Mr. Khatami’s Presidency qualify him for being prosecuted. We urge you to honor your institution obligation to observe the international and humanitarian rules and don’t host the former President of a terrorist regime. If your institution really stands for justice, you should demand Mohammad Khatami’s arrest rather than honoring him.



Sincerely,





Mohammad Parvin, Ph.D.

Founding Director



MEHR
P.O. Box 2037
P.V.P., CA 90274
Tel: (310) 377- 4590
Tel: (818) 831- 4938
Fax: (310)377- 3103
URL: http://mehr.org

Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
blank



Joined: 26 Feb 2004
Posts: 1672

PostPosted: Thu Aug 24, 2006 5:14 pm    Post subject: Re: Nasr the "expert" Reply with quote

AmirN wrote:
http://www.csmonitor.com/2006/0809/p09s02-coop.html


from the August 09, 2006 edition

After Lebanon, there's Iran
By Vali Nasr

MONTEREY, CALIF. – When the war in Lebanon ends, the US will have to piece together a whole new strategy for dealing with Iran - especially its nuclear program. The Israeli- Hizbullah war has boldly ratcheted up Iran's regional stature at the same time it has depleted US influence and prestige.

From the outset, the Lebanese conflict was about more than just Hizbullah. Jerusalem and Washington were quick to point the finger of blame for the conflict at Iran, and it was with Iran in mind that Israel unleashed the full force of its air power in Lebanon. The US, too, saw shock and awe in Beirut as an opportunity to convince Tehran of the West's determination to bring it into compliance on the nuclear issue.

Tehran cleary received the message and viewed the US-backed Israeli war on Hizbullah as the first stage of a war on Iran. But Tehran also used the occasion to send a message of its own to Washington. While dutifully denying a direct role in the kidnapping of Israeli soldiers, Tehran nevertheless heaped praise on Hizbullah, hoping that its engagement with Israel might dampen enthusiasm for a military attack on Iran. To further drive this point home, Hizbullah surprised Israel and the US by successfully testing a number of Iranian-made advanced weapons systems.

Iran's ties to Hizbullah run deep. It was Iranian clerics and Revolutionary Guards commanders who first organized Hizbullah in the 1980s. Since then, Tehran has bankrolled and armed Hizbullah's war machine. Many among the current leadership of Iran's Revolutionary Guards have served tours of duty at Hizbullah's headquarters in the Bekaa Valley in Lebanon. Over the past two decades, Hizbullah has evolved into a Lebanese political force, but it continues to rely on Iranian support to sustain its military capabilities.

Average Iranians resent their government's generous support for Hizbullah when unemployment and poverty plague the Iranian economy, and many bristle at the risk that support for Hizbullah carries for Iran. But Iran's leaders see Hizbullah as an ally and an asset. Hizbullah is a fruit of the Iranian revolution - the only time its seed found fertile soil outside Iran. Tehran cannot back away from Hizbullah without acknowledging that the revolution is over. Iran's hard-line leaders, looking to rekindle revolutionary fervor at home, see their own values reflected in Hizbullah.

Nor will Tehran easily give up on a pro- Iranian force in the heart of the Arab world and an important instrument in confronting Israel and the US. Tehran has basked in Hizbullah's new-found glory, taking credit for a popular military adventure that has greatly weakened Iran's traditional regional rivals - Jordan, Egypt, and Saudi Arabia.

Iran had hoped that its cooperation with the US in rebuilding a post-Taliban Afghanistan would lead to an opening in the relations between the two countries. But Washington was not keen to build on that initiative. It refused to engage Iran over the future of Iraq and instead focused its energies on containing Iranian influence in the Persian Gulf and rolling back Iran's nuclear program.

In the Lebanese conflict, Iran has found an opportunity to underscore its regional importance. The Iran-Hizbullah axis has hijacked the Palestinian cause and redefined the Arab-Israeli conflict. Neither criticism by Arab governments nor fatwas (religious edicts) by radical Sunni clerics have slowed down Hizbullah's and Iran's rising stock.

As the US looks for a way out of the crisis, it is increasingly evident that it is Iran's and not Washington's traditional allies in the region that hold the key to solving the crisis, and Tehran hopes that Washington will come to realize that without Iranian cooperation it cannot ensure regional stability.

With a population of close to 70 million, more than 70 percent of which is literate, a vibrant culture, and a geographic spread from Central Asia and the Caucasus to the Persian Gulf, Iran is today a rising power in the Middle East. Its large market, economic output, industrial potential, and vast oil and natural gas reserves make it central to American geostrategic and energy interests. Over the past two decades, Tehran has nurtured cultural, economic, and political ties with various regional forces, most notably the Shiites of Iraq. These ties confirm Iran's regional status, just as they make it more difficult for the US to bring stability to the arc stretching from Afghanistan to Lebanon without Iran.

In the coming months, Washington will have to look for ways to deal with a bullish Iran. A policy of isolation and intimidation will no longer yield results and will serve to further destabilize the Middle East. Hizbullah's tenacious resistance has moreover devalued military power as a deterrent. The war has not only failed to subdue Hizbullah militarily, but has made it politically stronger. US objectives and interests would be better served by giving Iran a vested interest in stability. That means including Iran in a new regional security framework. The US should continue to demand that Iran curb its nuclear activities, abandon support of terrorism, and respect the democratic aspirations of Iranians. The difference would be that with regime change no longer a threat, Iran will be more likely to find reasons to change its course.

• Vali Nasr teaches at the Naval Postgraduate School in Monterey and is adjunct senior fellow at the Council on Foreign Relations. He recently authored "The Shia Revival: How Conflicts within Islam Will Shape the Future."


----------------------------------------------


Amir's Commentary:

I’ve noticed that the so-called Middle East “expert” Vali Nasr has gained a stronger voice among the media. As I strongly disagree with his proposed policy, I must also voice my opinion regarding the matter.

He cites relative victories in the Taazi camp in relation to Iraq and also Hezbollah’s strength in Lebanon to suggest that an approach of Taazi moderation must be attempted by the US. His recommendations, if followed, will have devastating consequences.

It is true that errors in world policy have allowed the strengthening of the Taazi Mullahs in the recent past. However, those errors were not due to the world’s lack of moderation and negotiation with the Ayatollahs. Those errors stem from the fact that the world did not take its role of isolation and opposition to the Mullahs seriously enough. Half-hearted containment policies were undermined by looking the other way when those containment policies were breached by companies, institutions, or nations looking to make a buck in the transaction. Such anemic policies have served as an enabler of the Mullahs.

What Mr. Nasr is proposing is to abandon any thoughts or hopes for containment of the Mullahs and regime change, simply because the methodology in carrying out such a goal has proven ineffective. This is madness. The goals are not to blame. The methods are to blame, and it is the methods that need to be revised. If a firefighter is losing ground because his hose is not pressurized, then he ought to check and fix the hose rather than accept the consumption of the dwelling by the flames and call it a day. Yet that is exactly what Nasr proposes: accept that the fire will engulf Iran and the Middle East, and grab a marshmallow on a stick. One cannot negotiate with the Taazis any more than one can negotiate with the flames of fire.

I am uncertain as to whether he truly has the best intentions but is simply incorrect, or whether his motives are in alignment with the IR Taazi Regime because he is supported or encouraged by them. If the latter is not the case, then the IR certainly owes a debt of gratitude to this expert, because he is blowing their horn for them and certainly deserves compensation by the Taazis.

In either case, if his advice is followed, it will mean further legitimization and enabling of this regime. It will mean that Iranians will lose their most powerful potential ally in their quest for freedom. It will also mean that the Taazi Mullahs will grow even stronger, all the while consolidating themselves before getting to the point at which their containment will be even more difficult by the world. At that time, it may be too late and the cost of resistance will be much greater than it is now. In either case, the Taazi Regime will not last indefinitely, and Iran will be freed. However, following Nasr’s scenario will mean that the date will be pushed back, and the cost will increase.

Mr. Nasr proposes that if the Taazi Mullahs are reassured that regime change will not be on the agenda and their survival is not threatened, they will behave like other members of the international community and will abandon their criminal pursuits. In a way Nasr is proposing that the way to deal with a criminal is to give him what he wants (money, power, etc) and then he will relinquish his criminal agenda. That doesn’t make sense whether a society is dealing with a criminal individual or whether a world community is dealing with a criminal government.

The current Taazi Regime is nothing less than a criminal government and is incapable of being reformed. As the criminal that it is, nothing less than its arrest and removal will do.


I agree with you Amir 100%, this guy is either in the pocket of the ragheads/mullahs of Iran, or sooooooo misguided that cannot see beyond appeasing bunch of criminals. Unfortunately, he is teaching at the Naval Post Graduate school & can influence many people. I saw him on the CSPAN Book TV, he talked for almost an hour, and tried to answer questions. He was preaching to the "choir" and answering "soft" questions. I hope you were able to e-mail him your response.

Liberty can be achieved only by spilling the blood of the tyrants.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
Oppenheimer



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

PostPosted: Thu Aug 24, 2006 7:54 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

Iran's ex-president asks for US visa
Tue Aug 22, 2006 3:32pm ET

WASHINGTON (Reuters) - Former Iranian President Mohammad Khatami applied on Tuesday for a U.S. visa to give a speech in Washington next month but the State Department said it had not decided whether to allow him to come.

The visa application to speak at Washington's National Cathedral on September 7 comes as Iran's government is in a diplomatic standoff with the United States and many of its allies over Tehran's nuclear program, which world powers want scrapped.

"We have received a visa application from the former Iranian president today," said a State Department spokesman, who declined to be named because of the sensitive nature of the issue.

Asked whether Washington would grant the visa, he replied: "We will not speculate in advance about the outcome of any visa application."

If allowed to come, Khatami would be the most high-profile Iranian to visit Washington since ties were severed between the two countries after the 1979 Islamic revolution and 52 Americans were held hostage in the U.S. embassy for 444 days.

The visa application was made on the same day as Iran gave a response to a nuclear incentives offer from major powers and said it contained ideas that would allow serious talks about its nuclear standoff with the West to start immediately.

The State Department, which has said previously that talks can only be held if Iran suspends its enrichment activities, declined comment on Tehran's response and said Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice had returned from vacation to examine the reply.

The U.N. Security Council -- frustrated with Iran's slow response to the incentives offer made by Britain, Germany, France, China, the United States and Russia in June -- has given Tehran to August 31 to freeze enrichment or face possible sanctions.

Washington's National Cathedral confirmed that Khatami, whose reformist government ceded power last year to current President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad, had been asked to give a public address at an event organized by the cathedral's Center for Global Justice and Reconciliation but there was no indication whether he would get a visa.

"He (Khatami) has agreed to attend and he is happy to come and speak at our event," said an official at the cathedral, who asked not to be named as she was not authorized to speak to the media.

The Washington Post reported on Tuesday that the Bush administration planned to grant Khatami the visa but the White House declined comment and referred queries on the issue to the State Department.


The dean of Washington's National Cathedral was quoted in the Washington Post as saying it would be an honor to provide a platform for Khatami.

"President Khatami's commitment to a dialogue between civilizations and cultures is an important component in the peace process. This is much needed in the world today," Rev. Samuel Lloyd was quoted as saying in the paper.

Before visiting Washington, the cathedral said Khatami was set to attend a U.N. conference in New York led by the prime ministers of Spain and Turkey.

There are strict restrictions in place for any Iranians wanting to visit the United States, except for at the United Nations where Iranian diplomats can travel only within a very limited area.

-----------------

Comments:

1. The Washington Post listing the Under Secretary as the source, must have misinterpreted his meaning....(accepting an aplication for visa is not the same as pre-approving it)

2. Visa issuance is done via application to Dept of State, Dept. of Homeland Security must review and approve prior to its being directly issued to the applicant by the Dept of State.

3. This is not a current head of state addressing the UN (as Antar was given visa approval by executive decree after he was deemed unfit by Homeland Security) given visa to "hang himself with his own words" as Antar did so brilliantly...therefore what you have is a former head of state who is now a private citizen applying for permission to accept an invitation from a private religious org. to give a speech.

Much different set of parameters in determining whether any exception should, or will be made in Katami's case.

4.
Quote:
Oppenheimer Posted: Wed Aug 23, 2006 2:26 am Post subject:

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Quote:
He plans to speak in Washington on the dialogue of civilizations and the role the three Abrahamic faiths -- Islam, Judaism and Christianity -- can play in the peace process.


Aye well then, let him explain Antar's willingness to wipe other nations off the map, the IRI's shipping missiles to Hizbollah to be used against innocent Israli citizens, the IRI's ongoing development of biological, chemical, and nuclear weapons, in context to the perfidity of hypocracy contained within these two statements....and then explain how he personally can seek to acomplish a "dialogue of civilizations" in a peaceful context, since he personally has contributed to the problems at hand..

Quote:
Ayatollah Ali Khamenei, supreme jurist-ruler of Iran: ғKilling of people, in any place and with any kind of weapons, including atomic bombs, long-range missiles, biological or chemical weapons, passenger or war planes, carried out by any organization, country or individuals is condemned. ... It makes no difference whether such massacres happen in Hiroshima, Nagasaki, Qana, Sabra, Shatila, Deir Yassin, Bosnia, Kosovo, Iraq or in New York and Washington. Islamic Republic News Agency, September 16, 2001,


http://www.irna.com/en/hphoto/010916000000.ehp.shtml



By Lamya Hamad**
Tehran, Iran
March 27, 2005

http://www.islamonline.net/English/Science/2005/03/article08.shtml

Quote:
khatami

In the opening ceremony of the International Congress of Bioethics 2005, Tehran, the President of the Islamic Republic of Iran, Mohamed Khatami, declared the production of Weapons of Mass Destruction (WMDs) unethical.

“God gave me this opportunity to begin the Farsi New Year by speaking about ethics. Bioethics is a part of ethics,” commenced Khatami in the opening ceremony. Khatami continued his speech illustrating with various verses of poetry the importance of adhering to ethics, moral values and one’s religion.

Khatami emphasized that the “world is seriously threatened by the production and proliferation of weapons of mass destruction. Despite the fact that weapons of mass destruction are manufactured by the order of politicians and military authorities, they are unfortunately developed and tested in scientists’ laboratories.”

Elaborating further on the subject, the Iranian President continued by saying, “In the name of ethics and in the name of respecting the lives of people all over the world, we have to oppose categorically, with no exception and no precondition, the manufacturing and proliferation of WMDs at all times and in all places.”

The President elaborated on other issues such as the relation of ethics, philosophy and science to each other. He also mentioned that “science and ethics share mutual collaboration; scientific advancements pose new ethical questions.”


Perhaps then it is best that he come, to be hung by his own words in public, and the weight of evidence be his gallows.

There's more than one way to "protest" , and the US, by not blocking visa (if the invitation is accepted) has just given the democratic Iranian opposition the perfect opportunity to present a factual, and logical rebuke, of all the IRI stands for.


Correction:
Quote:
(if the invitation is accepted)
should have read: " (If the visa application is accepted)"

If the opposition wishes to be most effective in stopping Katami from entering the US, the weight of evidence for refusing his visa should be sent directly to the Office of Consular Affairs, Dept. of State via the following:

Quote:
The Office of Policy and Public Affairs functions as the Consular Affairs press office and carries out media relations, outreach and public information activities. This office is also the point of contact for Consular Notification and Access for arrested foreign nationals.

The Office of Policy and Public Affairs can be reached by telephone at 202-647-1488.


Or contact Dept of Homeland Security at:

Quote:
To reach the Department of Homeland Security headquarters please write to or call:


Mailing Address:

U.S. Department of Homeland Security
Washington, D.C. 20528

Citizen Line:

Operator Number: 202-282-8000
Comment Line: 202-282-8495


-------------------

If he is granted visa, then you can always "take it to the streets" ...

-Oppie


P.S. If you all think about it and seize the opportunity that exists, it may be that no favor has been done to Katami by the US letting him enter the country (if it happens), but rather that the US has done the opposition a favor by "bringing" him to you....

But that all depends on how you want to percieve it...and act in response.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
cyrus
Site Admin


Joined: 24 Jun 2003
Posts: 4993

PostPosted: Fri Aug 25, 2006 1:10 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

Oppenheimer wrote:
Iran's ex-president asks for US visa
Tue Aug 22, 2006 3:32pm ET

WASHINGTON (Reuters) - Former Iranian President Mohammad Khatami applied on Tuesday for a U.S. visa to give a speech in Washington next month but the State Department said it had not decided whether to allow him to come.

The visa application to speak at Washington's National Cathedral on September 7 comes as Iran's government is in a diplomatic standoff with the United States and many of its allies over Tehran's nuclear program, which world powers want scrapped.

"We have received a visa application from the former Iranian president today," said a State Department spokesman, who declined to be named because of the sensitive nature of the issue.

Asked whether Washington would grant the visa, he replied: "We will not speculate in advance about the outcome of any visa application."

If allowed to come, Khatami would be the most high-profile Iranian to visit Washington since ties were severed between the two countries after the 1979 Islamic revolution and 52 Americans were held hostage in the U.S. embassy for 444 days.

The visa application was made on the same day as Iran gave a response to a nuclear incentives offer from major powers and said it contained ideas that would allow serious talks about its nuclear standoff with the West to start immediately.

The State Department, which has said previously that talks can only be held if Iran suspends its enrichment activities, declined comment on Tehran's response and said Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice had returned from vacation to examine the reply.

The U.N. Security Council -- frustrated with Iran's slow response to the incentives offer made by Britain, Germany, France, China, the United States and Russia in June -- has given Tehran to August 31 to freeze enrichment or face possible sanctions.

Washington's National Cathedral confirmed that Khatami, whose reformist government ceded power last year to current President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad, had been asked to give a public address at an event organized by the cathedral's Center for Global Justice and Reconciliation but there was no indication whether he would get a visa.

"He (Khatami) has agreed to attend and he is happy to come and speak at our event," said an official at the cathedral, who asked not to be named as she was not authorized to speak to the media.

The Washington Post reported on Tuesday that the Bush administration planned to grant Khatami the visa but the White House declined comment and referred queries on the issue to the State Department.


The dean of Washington's National Cathedral was quoted in the Washington Post as saying it would be an honor to provide a platform for Khatami.

"President Khatami's commitment to a dialogue between civilizations and cultures is an important component in the peace process. This is much needed in the world today," Rev. Samuel Lloyd was quoted as saying in the paper.

Before visiting Washington, the cathedral said Khatami was set to attend a U.N. conference in New York led by the prime ministers of Spain and Turkey.

There are strict restrictions in place for any Iranians wanting to visit the United States, except for at the United Nations where Iranian diplomats can travel only within a very limited area.

-----------------

Comments:

1. The Washington Post listing the Under Secretary as the source, must have misinterpreted his meaning....(accepting an aplication for visa is not the same as pre-approving it)

2. Visa issuance is done via application to Dept of State, Dept. of Homeland Security must review and approve prior to its being directly issued to the applicant by the Dept of State.

3. This is not a current head of state addressing the UN (as Antar was given visa approval by executive decree after he was deemed unfit by Homeland Security) given visa to "hang himself with his own words" as Antar did so brilliantly...therefore what you have is a former head of state who is now a private citizen applying for permission to accept an invitation from a private religious org. to give a speech.

Much different set of parameters in determining whether any exception should, or will be made in Katami's case.

4.
Quote:
Oppenheimer Posted: Wed Aug 23, 2006 2:26 am Post subject:

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Quote:
He plans to speak in Washington on the dialogue of civilizations and the role the three Abrahamic faiths -- Islam, Judaism and Christianity -- can play in the peace process.


Aye well then, let him explain Antar's willingness to wipe other nations off the map, the IRI's shipping missiles to Hizbollah to be used against innocent Israli citizens, the IRI's ongoing development of biological, chemical, and nuclear weapons, in context to the perfidity of hypocracy contained within these two statements....and then explain how he personally can seek to acomplish a "dialogue of civilizations" in a peaceful context, since he personally has contributed to the problems at hand..

Quote:
Ayatollah Ali Khamenei, supreme jurist-ruler of Iran: ғKilling of people, in any place and with any kind of weapons, including atomic bombs, long-range missiles, biological or chemical weapons, passenger or war planes, carried out by any organization, country or individuals is condemned. ... It makes no difference whether such massacres happen in Hiroshima, Nagasaki, Qana, Sabra, Shatila, Deir Yassin, Bosnia, Kosovo, Iraq or in New York and Washington. Islamic Republic News Agency, September 16, 2001,


http://www.irna.com/en/hphoto/010916000000.ehp.shtml



By Lamya Hamad**
Tehran, Iran
March 27, 2005

http://www.islamonline.net/English/Science/2005/03/article08.shtml

Quote:
khatami

In the opening ceremony of the International Congress of Bioethics 2005, Tehran, the President of the Islamic Republic of Iran, Mohamed Khatami, declared the production of Weapons of Mass Destruction (WMDs) unethical.

“God gave me this opportunity to begin the Farsi New Year by speaking about ethics. Bioethics is a part of ethics,” commenced Khatami in the opening ceremony. Khatami continued his speech illustrating with various verses of poetry the importance of adhering to ethics, moral values and one’s religion.

Khatami emphasized that the “world is seriously threatened by the production and proliferation of weapons of mass destruction. Despite the fact that weapons of mass destruction are manufactured by the order of politicians and military authorities, they are unfortunately developed and tested in scientists’ laboratories.”

Elaborating further on the subject, the Iranian President continued by saying, “In the name of ethics and in the name of respecting the lives of people all over the world, we have to oppose categorically, with no exception and no precondition, the manufacturing and proliferation of WMDs at all times and in all places.”

The President elaborated on other issues such as the relation of ethics, philosophy and science to each other. He also mentioned that “science and ethics share mutual collaboration; scientific advancements pose new ethical questions.”


Perhaps then it is best that he come, to be hung by his own words in public, and the weight of evidence be his gallows.

There's more than one way to "protest" , and the US, by not blocking visa (if the invitation is accepted) has just given the democratic Iranian opposition the perfect opportunity to present a factual, and logical rebuke, of all the IRI stands for.


Correction:
Quote:
(if the invitation is accepted)
should have read: " (If the visa application is accepted)"

If the opposition wishes to be most effective in stopping Katami from entering the US, the weight of evidence for refusing his visa should be sent directly to the Office of Consular Affairs, Dept. of State via the following:

Quote:
The Office of Policy and Public Affairs functions as the Consular Affairs press office and carries out media relations, outreach and public information activities. This office is also the point of contact for Consular Notification and Access for arrested foreign nationals.

The Office of Policy and Public Affairs can be reached by telephone at 202-647-1488.


Or contact Dept of Homeland Security at:

Quote:
To reach the Department of Homeland Security headquarters please write to or call:


Mailing Address:

U.S. Department of Homeland Security
Washington, D.C. 20528

Citizen Line:

Operator Number: 202-282-8000
Comment Line: 202-282-8495


-------------------

If he is granted visa, then you can always "take it to the streets" ...

-Oppie


P.S. If you all think about it and seize the opportunity that exists, it may be that no favor has been done to Katami by the US letting him enter the country (if it happens), but rather that the US has done the opposition a favor by "bringing" him to you....

But that all depends on how you want to percieve it...and act in response.



Reject Visa to Khatami and Any Official Member Of Regime


In Past 10 years the EU3 appeasers and number of Iranian American professors traitor who sold their soul to Islamofascist and worked as mercenaries created the concept of reformer, conservative within the Islamofascist regime and sold it to free world public opinion to delay freedom in Iran. Finally Antar showed the hidden true face of regime in past 27 years to the world.

If State Dept. does not reject Visa for Khatami then US is loosing high moral ground and opens a can of warm…..

- Khatami is indirectly responsible for the death of Akbar Mohmmadi few weeks ago.

Over the past 27 years the Islamic regime's agents, courts, judges and vigilantes have all committed acts of: murder, stoning, torture, assault, theft, destruction of property, arson, perjury, falsification of testimonials and material evidence, illegal surveillance, kidnapping, rape, blackmail, fraud, obstruction of justice, conspiracy to commit all of the above crimes, cover-ups and every other form of butchery and depredation.

No US Visa for any official members of regime at any level.
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 -> News Briefs & Discussion All times are GMT - 4 Hours
Goto page Previous  1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10  Next
Page 4 of 10

 
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