[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
cyrus
Site Admin


Joined: 24 Jun 2003
Posts: 4993

PostPosted: Fri Dec 08, 2006 10:57 pm    Post subject: Welcome Back to September 10th. Reply with quote

Welcome Back to September 10th.

December 08, 2006
National Review Online
Andrew C. McCarthy

How many Americans do they need to kill before we get the point?


http://article.nationalreview.com/?q=N2ViMTQ1NTllMjAxZDVmNjg3ZjIyMWRlMWU5OWE3N2M=

The Iraq Study Group’s call for negotiations with Iran and Syria as “a way forward” has been widely derided. It is, abjectly, a return to September 10th thinking - to the days when terror masters like Yasser Arafat were feted as statesmen at White House galas, when terror organizations like al Qaeda operated with impunity from well-known safe havens, and when our government’s idea of countering atrocities was the filing of indictments against a handful of savages.

It is wrong, though, to lay that rap on the sages of this bipartisan, blue-ribbon panel. When it comes to “dialogue” with Iran, the ISG merely recommended a more transparent version of what the Bush administration has already been doing, just as its predecessors had long and naively done.

To be sure, in the wake of the 9/11 attacks, President Bush conveyed the right message: Terrorists and their state facilitators, animated by a murderous, totalitarian ideology, cannot be negotiated with. They must be defeated. If not, they are emboldened. That translates, always, into dead Americans.

The administration followed through on its rhetoric with respect to al Qaeda — the public would have accepted nothing less. But as for Iran, Syria, and Hezbollah, the approach has been strictly old school — as in, recklessly passive. That is a growing catastrophe. In their relentless anti-American jihad, Iran, Syria, Hezbollah and al Qaeda are one. There is no rational justification for negotiating with Tehran’s mullahs or Syria’s Bashar al-Assad that would not equally validate a sit-down with Hezbollah’s Sheikh Hassan Nasrallah, or with bin Laden himself.

Still, negotiating, appeasing, and looking the other way is exactly what we have been doing. And long before the ISG ever got involved.

IRAN AND HEZBOLLAH
Fresh from its 1979 siege of the U.S. embassy and the humiliating hostage-taking that ensued, the Islamic Republic of Iran — through the intercession of the Islamic Revolutionary Guards Corps — created Hezbollah in 1982. Primarily based in Lebanon, where American forces were massed to calm the bloody aftermath of Israel’s expulsion of Arafat’s PLO, the “Party of God” (Hizb Allah) claimed in its manifesto to be the vanguard … made victorious by God in Iran. There the vanguard succeeded to lay down the bases of a Muslim state which plays a central role in the world. We obey the orders of one leader, wise and just, that of our tutor and faqih (jurist) who fulfills all the necessary conditions: [Ayatollah] Ruhollah Musawi Khomeini. God save him!

Over the quarter century that followed, Hezbollah received billions in aid from Iran, as well as aid, logistical support, and safe haven from Syria, with which it works hand-in-glove to strangle Lebanon and wage war against Israel.

Hezbollah’s founding quickly resulted in a spate of kidnappings, torture, and bombing. (See this useful timeline from CAMERA.) In April 1983, for example, a Hezbollah car bomb killed 63 people, including eight CIA officials, at the U.S. embassy in Beirut. More infamously, the organization six months later truck-bombed a military barracks in Beirut, murdering 241 United States Marines (and killing 58 French soldiers in a separate attack). These operations, like many other Hezbollah atrocities, were orchestrated by Imad Mugniyah, long the organization’s most ruthless operative.

On December 12, 1983, the U.S. embassy in Kuwait was bombed, killing six and wounding scores of others. The bombers were tied to al-Dawa, a terror organization backed by Iran and leading the Shiite resistance against Saddam Hussein’s Iraqi regime (with which Iran was at war). The leader of Dawa’s “jihad office” in Syria at the time was none other than Nouri al-Maliki — now the prime Minister of Iraq (and who, having opposed the U.S. invasion of Iraq, currently squabbles with American authorities, draws his country ever closer to Iran and Syria, and professes his support for Hezbollah). Among the “Dawa 17” convicted and sentenced to death for the bombing was Imad Mugniyah’s cousin and brother in law, Youssef Badreddin. (Badreddin escaped in the chaos of Saddam’s 1990 invasion of Kuwait.)

Meanwhile, in 1984, Hezbollah bombed both the U.S. embassy annex in Beirut, killing two, and a restaurant near the U.S. Air Force base in Torrejon, Spain, killing 18 American servicemen. On March 16 of that year, Hezbollah operatives kidnapped William Francis Buckley, the CIA’s station chief in Beirut. He was whisked to Damascus and onto Tehran where he became one of the hostages whose detention led to the Iran/Contra affair. Under Mugniyah’s direction, Buckley was tortured for 15 months, dying of a heart attack under that duress.

Hezbollah hijackers seized a Kuwait Airlines plane in December 1984, murdering four of the passengers, including two Americans. Six months later, Hezbollah operatives hijacked TWA Flight 847 after it left Greece. The jihadists discovered that one of their hostages was a U.S. Navy diver named Robert Stethem. They beat him severely and then shot him to death before dumping his body onto the tarmac of Beirut airport. In early 1988, Hezbollah kidnapped and ultimately murdered Colonel William Higgins, a U.S. Marine serving in Lebanon.

IRAN, HEZBOLLAH & AL QAEDA
By the late 1980s, the Sunni Islamic terror network that would become known as al Qaeda was emerging in Afghanistan out of the mujahideen’s jihad against the Soviet Union. It was directed, of course, by bin Laden, with key assistance from Ayman al-Zawahiri, the emir of the Egyptian al-Jihad organization, which would ultimately be folded into the al Qaeda network.

One of al-Jihad’s most capable operatives was Ali Abdul Saoud Mohamed. A shadowy former Egyptian army officer (who ultimately emigrated to the U.S. and served in the American army for three years), Ali Mohamed became a top al Qaeda trainer and bin Laden’s personal bodyguard.

At bin Laden’s direction, Mohamed conducted surveillance in 1993 at various potential bombing targets, including the U.S. embassy in Nairobi, Kenya. Five years later, al Qaeda used his handiwork to bomb that embassy — the same day it struck the U.S. embassy in Tanzania. The bombings claimed over 240 lives.

Mohamed was ultimately charged with participation in al Qaeda’s war against the United States. When he pled guilty in 2000, among the startling revelations he made was the following:

I was aware of certain contacts between al Qaeda and al Jihad organization, on one side, and Iran and Hezbollah on the other side. I arranged security for a meeting in the Sudan between [Imad Mugniyah], Hezbollah’s chief, and Bin Laden. Hezbollah provided explosives training for al Qaeda and al Jihad. Iran supplied Egyptian Jihad with weapons. Iran also used Hezbollah to supply explosives that were disguised to look like rocks.

In hindsight, disclosure of an Iran/Hezbollah/Qaeda partnership should have come as no surprise. In the aforementioned spring 1998 indictment, the Justice Department alleged that bin Laden had “stated privately … that Al Qaeda should put aside its differences with Shiite Muslim terrorist organizations, including the Government of Iran and its affiliated terrorist group Hezballah, to cooperate against the perceived common enemy, the United States and its allies.” Thus, the indictment explained: “Al Qaeda also forged alliances … with the government of Iran and its associated terrorist group Hezballah for the purpose of working together against their perceived common enemies in the West, particularly the United States.”

This concord, according to the 9/11 Commission’s review of U.S. intelligence files, traces back to the early 1990s. The invaluable terrorism researcher Thomas Joscelyn relates that the alliance was corroborated by testimony from a former al Qaeda member, Jamal al-Fadl (at the East African embassy-bombings trial in 2000). Bin Laden, according to al-Fadl, met at a guesthouse in Riyadh City with an emissary named Nomani, representing Iran’s mullahs. It would be mutually beneficial, they concurred, to put aside their Sunni/Shiite divide and work together against the common enemy: America and the West. Other Iranian contingents, the 9/11 Commission notes, visited al Qaeda’s headquarters in Sudan — bin Laden and his top aides having been transported there under Mohamed’s protection.

Subsequently, the Commission states (p. 61), “senior al Qaeda operatives and trainers traveled to Iran to receive training in explosives. In the fall of 1993, another such delegation went to the Bekaa Valley in Lebanon for further training in explosives as well as intelligence and security.” That instruction, held at Hezbollah camps, included al Qaeda’s top military committee members and several operatives who were involved with its Kenya cells long before the 1998 embassy bombings.

FALLOUT

The deadly fallout from this collaboration becomes increasingly clear. On June 25, 1996, a bomb was detonated near the American Air Force dormitory at the Khobar Towers complex in Dhahran, Saudi Arabia. The resulting massacre claimed the lives of 19 U.S. airmen (nearly 400 other people were wounded). In this land teeming with al Qaeda operatives and supporters, Hezbollah had been conducting surveillance on the target since 1993.

In responding — with an indictment — five years later, the Bush Justice Department announced that “the Iranian government inspired, supported, and supervised members of the Saudi Hizballah. In particular, … [Hezbollah] defendants reported their surveillance activities to Iranian officials and were supported and directed in those activities by Iranian officials.” Those officials, it is clear, acted with impunity: No Iranians were ever charged for Khobar, and no meaningful U.S. action against Iran was ever taken. In the interim, it has emerged that the operation was likely carried out with al Qaeda complicity. This was the conclusion of the CIA, reported fleetingly by the 9/11 Commission (at p. 60 & n.4Cool.

Meanwhile, according to al-Fadl (the aforementioned informant), among the top al Qaeda leaders who received instruction from Iran and Hezbollah in the early 90s was Saif al-Adel. As al Qaeda’s chief of military operations, Adel was not only a driving force behind the 1998 embassy bombings. He is, in addition, a longtime bin Laden intimate, largely responsible for al Qaeda’s infrastructure in Saudi Arabia and Yemen (where the U.S.S. Cole was bombed in October 2000, killing 17 U.S. sailors), and believed to have trained some of the 9/11 hijackers.

Regarding 9/11 itself, suggestions at this point of an Iranian/Hezbollah role are sketchy but highly intriguing, while indications of Iran’s purposeful facilitation of al Qaeda are strong. As the 9/11 Commission summed up the state of play (at pp. 240-41):

[T]here is strong evidence that Iran facilitated the transit of al Qaeda members into and out of Afghanistan before 9/11, and that some of these were future 9/11 hijackers. There also is circumstantial evidence that senior Hezbollah operatives were closely tracking the travel of some of these future muscle hijackers into Iran in November 2000.

Declining to draw the obvious inference, the Commission speculates that perhaps “Hezbollah was actually focusing on some other group of individuals traveling from Saudi Arabia … rather than the future hijackers.” It admits, however, that this would be “a remarkable coincidence.” Speaking of remarkable coincidences, the Commission also details at least two occasions when senior Hezbollah operatives were on the very same Iranian transit flights as the future hijackers.

Leaving these provocative dots unconnected, the Commission says it “found no evidence that Iran or Hezbollah was aware of the planning for what later became the 9/11 attack.” That, of course, is far from a clean bill of health: The vast majority of al Qaeda members, including, the Commission concedes, many of the hijackers themselves “were probably not aware of the specific details of their future operation” during the time of their Iranian transit flights.

IRAN: AL QAEDA’S SAFE HARBOR
The sheer barbarity 9/11 prompted a vigorous American military response, routing the Taliban in Afghanistan and causing the terror network’s top ranks — i.e., those not killed or captured — to return or flee. In the aftermath, al Qaeda, as usual, found shelter from the storm in Iran. Among the many operatives still harbored in Iran — under what the mullahs laughably call “house arrest” — are Saif al-Adel and bin Laden’s own son, Saad. Indeed, the author Richard Miniter contends that Osama bin Laden himself fled to Iran for a time in 2002.The superb terrorism analyst Dan Darling relates that European intelligence services attribute the Iran/Qaeda safe-haven arrangement to the close tie between Zawahiri and Ahmad Vahidi (Commander, in 2001, of Iran’s elite Qods — or “Jerusalem” — Force).

With a soft place to land, al Qaeda reconvened the remnants of its shura (or “consultative”) council and reinvented itself. At a November 2002 summit in Iran, one of its top strategists, a Syrian named Mustafa Setmariam Nasar (aka “Abu Musab al-Suri”), urged that terrorist operations would now have to be dispersed outward to the network’s tentacles, rather than run from hubs like those al Qaeda once enjoyed in Sudan and Afghanistan. In “Current Trends in Islamist Ideology” (Vol. 2), an invaluable Hudson Institute series, terrorism researcher Reuven Paz describes Nasar as adamant that al Qaeda should redouble its efforts to attack the United States with weapons of mass destruction — to the point of openly urging Iran and North Korea to press on with their nuclear projects in the expectation that jihadists will one day reap the benefits. As Nasar has put it:

The ultimate choice is the destruction of the United States by operations of strategic symmetry through weapons of mass destruction, namely nuclear, chemical, or biological means, if the mujahideen can achieve it with the help of those who possess them or through buying them.
Here, it is worth pausing to recall a meeting just this spring between Iran’s supreme leader, Ayatollah Ali Khamenei, and Sudanese strongman Omar al-Bashir, conducted even as Iran was being pressured (at least, what passes for pressure) to abandon its nuclear ambitions. Publicly and defiantly, Khamenei asserted, “Iran’s nuclear capability is one example of various scientific capabilities in the country,” and promised that “[t]he Islamic Republic of Iran is prepared to transfer the experience, knowledge and technology of its scientists.”

Meanwhile, Adel and Saad bin Laden have thrived in the safety of their Iranian redoubt. Using the Saudi cells Adel had been instrumental in building, they orchestrated the May 12, 2003 suicide bombings of three Riyadh housing complexes, a direct challenge to the House of Saud so reviled by bin Laden. Perhaps more significantly, Adel had a house guest in 2002: Abu Musab al-Zarqawi.

AL QAEDA — AND IRAN — IN MESOPOTAMIA
Zarqawi was also placed under “house arrest” by Iranian authorities. The Jordanians had long sought Zarqawi in connection with a plot to bomb an Amman hotel on the eve of the Millennium, as well as the October 2002 murder of an American diplomat, Laurence M. Foley. Jordan thus sought Zarqawi’s extradition. Iran did not merely reject Jordan’s demand; it gave Zarqawi safe-passage into Iraq.

The rest is history: Zarqawi proceeded to lead the ranks of “al Qaeda in Mesopotamia” in a ruthless jihad — bombings, torture, beheadings, and the fomenting of sectarian strife. To this day, the rampage continues, with Iraq at the abyss despite Zarqawi’s killing by U.S. forces six months ago.

Zarqawi, however, does not begin to describe Iran’s contribution to the anti-American war effort. As the Iraq Study Group acknowledged even as it proposed negotiations, Iran has armed and trained the militias that still, day after day, fight and kill U.S. and coalition troops. It has done so brazenly, and simultaneously with the hands-on support it provided to its forward militia, Hezbollah, in this summer’s jihad against Israel — transparently, a proxy war against the United States.

DEATH TO AMERICA
In a startling October 2005 speech at Iran’s annual “World Without Zionism” conference, Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad told his audience, “We are in the process of an historical war between the World of Arrogance and the Islamic world, and this war has been going on for hundreds of years.” He elaborated:

In this very grave war, many people are trying to scatter grains of desperation and hopelessness regarding the struggle between the Islamic world and the front of the infidels, and in their hearts they want to empty the Islamic world. ... They [ask]: “Is it possible for us to witness a world without America and Zionism?” But you had best know that this slogan and this goal are attainable, and surely can be achieved.

“Very soon,” he haughtily proclaimed, Israel, “this stain of disgrace will vanish from the center of the Islamic world — and this is attainable.”

Is it any surprise Reuters and the German press reported this summer that the Iranians dispatched Saad bin Laden to the Lebanese border to assist Hezbollah’s attacks against Israelis? You’ll be shocked, I’m sure, to learn — as we mull negotiations with the Islamic Republic — that hundreds of Revolutionary Guards personnel reportedly joined in the fighting.

By the way, the Iranians have developed a missile called “Zelzad 1.” Its namesake is a Koranic verse that tells of a conflagration that precipitates Judgment Day. The missile is emblazoned with the slogan: “We will trample America under our feet. Death to America.” Meanwhile, less than a month ago, MEMRI recorded Yahya Safavi, a commander of the Revolutionary Guards Corps, repeatedly referring to the United States as “the enemy” in an interview on Iranian television. “The Americans,” Safavi brayed, “have many weaknesses. In fact, in the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan, they clearly displayed their strengths and weaknesses. We have planned our strategy precisely on the basis of their strengths and weaknesses.” He added that Iran had been studying “the enemy” and determined that there wasn’t “any motivation among the American forces in Iraq. They are very cowardly…. When their commanders encounter a problem, they burst into tears. We did not see such spectacles in the eight years of the Iran-Iraq war. I can therefore say that our advantage over the foreign forces is moral and human.”

The bravado echoes what top Iranian officials have been saying for years. “We have a strategy drawn up for the destruction of Anglo-Saxon civilization,” claimed Hassan Abbassi, a Revolutionary Guard intelligence advisor, in 2004. “[W]e must make use of everything we have at hand to strike at this front by means of our suicide operations or by means of our missiles. There are 29 sensitive sites in the U.S. and in the West. We have already spied on these sites, and we know how we are going to attack them.” It was nothing new. Ayatollah Khamenei, who, as we have seen, brags about the potential of Iran’s nuclear program, has also insisted:

We have no need for a nuclear bomb. We have overcome our enemies so far, without the nuclear bomb. The Iranian people have been defeating America for the past 25 years, is it not so? America has been defeated by the Iranian people during the past 25 years. What has it been defeated with? Have we defeated America using a nuclear bomb, or by our determination, will, faith, and awareness? The world of Islam has been mobilized against America for the past 25 years.

The peoples call, “death to America.” Who used to say “death to America?” Who, besides the Islamic Republic and the Iranian people, used to say this? Today, everyone says this.

Yes, everyone. But Iran, unlike “everyone,” has been at war with us for a quarter-century. The Islamic Republic hasn’t the slightest misgiving about it, and it is certain — with all the millennial zeal radical Islam can muster — it will win. It is, the jihadists believe, their destiny. It is what their religion commands.

In contrast, the United States declines to recognize what is plain to see. What, in fact, one must work overtime not to see.

This is not merely a failing of the Iraq Study Group. True, the notion that Iran will be brought around by negotiations is harebrained. But the ISG is simply taking its lead from the Bush administration. The president once famously, and, as we have seen, with abundant justification, placed Iran smack in the middle of the “Axis of Evil.” But the disintegration of order in Iraq — prominently fomented by Iran — has made appeasement of the Islamic Republic the order of the day.

SEPTEMBER 10th ALL OVER AGAIN
It is September 10th all over again. To its credit, the administration at least branded Iran as the culprit behind the vicious act of war at Khobar Towers, something the Clinton administration willfully suppressed in its quest for the Holy Grail of an Israeli/Palestinian settlement — the very fool’s errand now reprised by the ISG. But the Bush response to this state-sponsored carnage was the filing of an indictment, an exercise the administration once belittled as woefully insufficient to deter terrorists. No Iranians were named, and no defendant charged was ever extradited for prosecution.

Iran’s bold interference in Iraq — acts of war, killing and menacing American troops — has been ignored. Further, Iran’s patent hand behind Hezbollah’s war against Israel was not merely ignored; it was denied — for a time, the administration refused to admit that there was even a war going on, much less that Iran was pulling Hezbollah’s strings.

And finally, there is Iran’s nuclear program. The president has publicly maintained that Iran must not be permitted to obtain nuclear weapons. Yet, the administration’s tactic of choice in this facedown has been classic appeasement.

The ISG wants us to talk to the mullahs? How can we blame them? That’s exactly the course the administration has chosen for the life-and-death challenge of the jihadist nuke. To mollify “the international community,” for which no evil is beyond “dialogue,” Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice pushed for an end to the inconvenience of American moral clarity. We should abandon this notion that Iran is an implacable enemy, she insisted. We should join with our “partners.” Let’s reason with the mullahs. Ply them with breathtaking incentives: security assurances; economic aid; high-technology; aviation, energy, telecommunications and agriculture assistance.

The Bush Doctrine? You’re with us or against us? Unrealistic. No need, after all, to sour the mood by demanding an end to Iran’s terror mongering. And sticks to go with these carrots? No, not to worry. The Iranians would surely be moved to comply, and, if they didn’t, why, surely the Russians and the Chinese would back some sticks … notwithstanding that Iran is into them like a shylock.

You know, of course, the result. The Iranians laughed at us. So impressed were they by this nuanced display of soft power that … they sicced Hezbollah on Israel, armed up their Iraqi militias, and blithely went on building their nukes.

ISG Chairman James Baker, a foolish man, looked Congress in the eye on Thursday and explained his master plan. Did it seem foolish to propose negotiations with Iran, our relentless enemy? Sure. But, the “realist” doyen puttered, if we invite them to negotiate about Iraq’s future, and they demur, why, we’ll expose their intransigence for all the world to see.

Right. They slaughter and abet the slaughter of our marines, our airmen, our sailors, William Buckley, Robert Stethem, William Higgins, and countless others. They tell us their defining goal is a world without America, a world in which our allies are wiped from the face of the earth. But, at long last, we’ll know who they really are … if they don’t show up for a meeting.

Blue-ribbon panels can afford such juvenilia. They are, after all, unaccountable. What’s the administration’s excuse?

What makes a superpower super is power. If we don’t use it, what’s left? Iran believes they will destroy us and acts on that conviction every day. We … seek negotiations.

I’m not a hugger, but I hugged my four-year-old son as I wrote this. We abdicate now. We turn a blind eye as our implacable, insatiable enemies pick off our best and our bravest. We shrink from the duty a quarter century of mayhem imposes. We don’t have the will.

It will be for my son, and yours, to face down this challenge. A challenge that endures because we offer to talk while they plot to kill.

— Andrew C. McCarthy is a senior fellow at the Foundation for the Defense of Democracies.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
cyrus
Site Admin


Joined: 24 Jun 2003
Posts: 4993

PostPosted: Mon Dec 11, 2006 4:31 pm    Post subject: Iranian students burn a picture of Fascist Ahmadinejad Reply with quote

Iranian students burn a picture of Islamic Fascist Ahmadinejad

http://news.yahoo.com/news?tmpl=story&u=/061211/481/vah11412111957

Iranian students burn a picture of Iran's President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad, during his speech at the Amir Kabir Technical University, in Tehran, Iran, Monday, Dec. 11, 2006. Iranian students staged a rare demonstration against President Ahmadinejad on Monday, lighting a firecracker and burning his photograph in the audience as he delivered a speech at their university, the state news agency said. (AP Photo/ISNA, Amir Kholousi)
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
ViaHHakimi



Joined: 22 Jul 2004
Posts: 142

PostPosted: Mon Dec 11, 2006 10:11 pm    Post subject: Slick Jim Baker's solution: Buy the bastards off! Reply with quote

Dears.
No comments needed. Just read the article.
Hashem
=======================================
Dec. 11, 2006

Slick Jim Baker's solution: Buy the bastards off!
Selling out Lebanon, Israel, Iraq…and the United States


By Dan Gordon

The Iraq Study Group on the face of it seems to be a well meaning enough document put together buy a well meaning enough group of elder statespersons. That's what it seems to be. But that's not what it is. One of the Study Group's co-chairs, Lee Hamilton, is a good, decent, and principled man. The other co-chair is James Baker. James Baker is to politics and diplomacy what J.R Ewing was to oil. Thus what one has is a decent face masking a much more cynical if indeed not sinister one.


On the very first page of the report in a letter from the co-chairs one finds the following:


"Our political leaders must build a bi-partisan approach to bring a responsible conclusion to what is now a lengthy and costly war."


Well, what's wrong with that, one might ask? In an interview commenting on the Study group's report, Lee Hamilton stated that everything in the Middle East is connected. I believe that is true. The problem is that the Study Group is disconnecting the war in Iraq from America's most pressing problem in the Middle East; not America's war on terror, but Middle East Terrorists' war on America.


I am not referring to the war in Iraq, that is a battle in a larger war. That is the war that Islamo Terrorist groups have declared on us. Whether we like it or not, whether we want it or not, whether we deserve it or not, we are in it. It was not born of Bush's invasion of Iraq, nor Afghanistan, nor on 9/11.


If one is looking for a first major skirmish, one can lay it at the feet of that hypocritical, holier than thou, false prophet of peace, Jimmy Carter, who paved the way for the Iranian revolution of Shia Islamo Fascism and who received in gratitude from the Ayatollahs the capture of the American Embassy in Teheran and the kidnapping and hostage taking of all its inhabitants.


If you think that wasn't a start of a war, flash forward a few years to the killing of two hundred-forty-one Marines in Beirut by Iranian backed Hezbollah terrorists. The litany continues with the distant thud of ever closer gun fire; embassies, battleships, pin pricks to a super power, not rising, in the words of a former Secretary of Defense, to a level which demands anything more than rhetoric in response. There is a through line decades long that finally catches our attention on 9/11.


Regardless of what you think or don't think of the war in Iraq you will delude yourself if you believe that it is not a major battle in the ongoing war pitting Islamo Terrorism against us. You will delude yourself at your peril. Do not believe me, listen to the terrorists themselves. As soon as the Iraq Study Group's report was out, here was the response of Abu Ayman, a senior leader of Islamic Jihad, "The report proves this is the era of Islam and of Jihad. It is not just a simple victory it is a great one…it is no doubt that Allah and his Angels were fighting with them against the Americans. It is a sign to all those that keep saying that America, Israel and the West in general cannot be defeated on the ground, so let us negotiate with them…the next step would be a total defeat on their (American) land."


Thus when the Iraq Study Group states on its opening page that its object is to find a bipartisan approach "to bring a responsible conclusion to what is now a lengthy and costly war" they are in fact divorcing Iraq, which is but a mere battle, from the larger war in which it takes place. In so doing, they not only guarantee defeat in that battle, but they greatly enhance the prospects for defeat in that larger and I promise you far lengthier and far costlier war in which we are now engaged.


What is the strategy suggested by the report, which so encourages Abu Ayman and his like minded Jihadis? There are three big ideas: withdraw combat troops by 2008, engage Iran and Syria, and include the Israel Palestinian/Israel Syria conflict into the mix.


Withdrawing combat troops by 2008 means quite simply that by 2008 you intend to stop fighting. Clerk typists are not going to engage in combat.


But what of the notion of engaging Iran and Syria? Here one sees the Jim Baker fix in full foliage. Quoting from page 52 of the report, "Recommendation 10, the issue of Iran's nuclear programs should continue to be dealt with by the United Nations Security Council and its five permanent members (i.e. The United States, the United Kingdom, France, Russia, and China) plus Germany."


"Recommendation 11: Diplomatic efforts within the support group should seek to persuade Iran that it should take specific steps to improve the situation in Iraq."


This then is the Jim Baker back room deal. By committing the United States to assigning the issue of Iran's nuclear program to the UN Security Council, we are virtually guaranteeing that no action will be taken to stop Iran from developing a nuclear weapon! That is, as Daddy Bush liked to say, the quid pro quo. Iran gets a nuclear weapon in return for buying us just enough stability in Iraq to pull Baby Bush's ashes out of the fire and withdraw gracefully and thus stick the next administration which would either be a Democrat or John McCain, with the consequences.


But like the famed ginsu knife set commercial, that's not all! What else do you get if you're one of the first two state sponsors of terror to call the one eight hundred number? Well, if you're Iran and Syria you get Lebanon and the Golan heights! Recommendation 13: "There must be a renewed and sustained commitment from the United States on a comprehensive peace plan on all fronts: Lebanon and Syria and President Bush's June 2002 commitment to a two state solution for Israel and Palestine."


Now that's interesting. What does Israel and Lebanon, Israel and Syria and Israel and the Palestinians have to do with Shias killing Sunis in Baghdad? Well, as Lee Hamilton says everything in the Middle East is connected. Here is the connection: Syria and Iran are fomenting the violence in Iraq. Slick Jim Baker has a solution. Buy the bastards off! Cut a deal! Put in the fix.


The tip off is including Lebanon in these conversations. Lebanon is not at war with Israel and Israel is not at war with Lebanon. Hezbollah, Iran and Syria's terrorist army proxy, dragged Israel and Lebanon both into a war which neither one wanted as a way of changing the West's conversation away from the topics of Iran's nuclear aspirations and Syria's assassination of Lebanon's president. It is not a coincidence that Iran was given an ultimatum to answer the World Community about whether or not it would suspend its nuclear program at exactly the time that Hezbollah launched its attack against Israel. The world demanded an answer of Iran and Iran gave its answer in the form of Hezbollah's war. The answer was, you think you can stop us? Watch the trouble we can cause even before we have a nuclear weapon!


It also occurred at the time that the World Community was trying to gather up its courage to launch an inquiry into the assassination of Rafik Hariri. Syria's answer to the World Community was Hezbollah's war. You think you have pushed Syria out of Lebanon, watch what Syria can do. And of course it worked. As if to underscore their true aims, Hezbollah, now at the time of this writing, is actively engaged in trying to topple the democratically elected government of Lebanon.


The only reason for including Lebanon in the conversation at all is to signal to Iran and Syria that it will be offered up for grabs to them on a silver platter as well. It will be done under the guise of encouraging a more representative government in Lebanon, a truer Democracy that recognizes Hezbollah's legitimate rights and interests. It is a way of saying to Iran, help us out for just a little while only in Iraq and you will get in return a swath of Shia domination that stretches from the Persian Gulf to the Mediterranean.


But that's not all! No! If you're amongst the first two callers not only do you get the ginsu knife set, Shia domination from the Persian Gulf to the Mediterranean, and the government of Lebanon, if you're Syria YOU GET THE GOLAN HEIGHTS!. And again all you have to do is buy just enough time to give W a fig leaf and then you can stick it to the next Democrat or John McCain.


That is the Jim Baker two step. That is why from Abu Ayman to Assad to Ahmadinijad, they are breaking out the banners proclaiming "Jihad accomplished."


Will it work? The first page of the letter from the co-chairs at the very beginning of the report states "Our political leaders must build a bipartisan approach to bring a responsible conclusion to what is now a lengthy and costly war…the aim of our report is to move our country toward such a consensus."


The tone is remarkably similar to another report presented to another body of legislators "Therefore…we should quickly reach a conclusion so that this painful and difficult operation…might be carried out at the earliest possible moment and concluded as soon as was consistent with orderly procedure, in order that we might avoid the possibility of something that might have rendered all our attempts at peaceful solution useless…every one of the modifications is a step in the right direction."


That last bit of rhetoric was Neville Chamberlain as he sold out Czechoslovakia to Hitler in order to bring about peace in our time. When you think of it, from his perspective, he may have been cutting a better deal than the present one. He only sold out one country. The Baker report sells out four: Lebanon, Israel, Iraq…and the United States.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
ViaHHakimi



Joined: 22 Jul 2004
Posts: 142

PostPosted: Mon Dec 11, 2006 10:57 pm    Post subject: President Carter and Hamas Reply with quote

Dears,

Our compatriot, Sohrab Ferdows, had said what had to be said about that perverted minded mad ex President of U.S.A. Mr. Jimmy Carter.

Regards,

Hashem

==============================

Disastrous policies
President Carter and Hamas
December 8, 2006

By: Sohrab Ferdows
iranian.com

Recently, former U.S. President Jimmy Carter once again has managed to put himself in the spotlight of media attention after making some interesting comments about Palestine and other issues. View points of Mr. Jimmy Carter on Palestinian election in particular, drew my attention in which Mr. Carter complained about Palestinian people being penalized for democratically electing Hamas to represent them in Palestinian government. Mr. Carter complained that Palestinians should not be punished because of this democratic election which he insisted, was in fact in direction of spread of democracy in the region.

(Twiste logic that only a mad pervert minded man can come out with) - H.H.

Believing that Hamas was elected by Palestinian people in a truly democratic process is one thing but spreading of democracy in the region is something else. One important specification of a democracy is to work with harmony with the rest of the world while protecting its constituents and serving their interests.

Making a bad selection by constituents which happens everyday and in every corner of "democratic world" is nothing out of ordinary in an environment which true foundations of democracy are easily manipulated or non existent. If Palestinian people made an informed decision to elect Hamas as their representative then, like any other democratic society, they should live with the consequences of their own decision. Why the rest of the world should accept and respect a group of known terrorists because they were "elected democratically" to represent a people?

Germans elected Hitler as their leader and dictator in multiple "democratic elections" in 1930's but that did not stop other nations to get rid of him when conditions became unbearable. (Mr. Carter does not know & read contemporary history. HE is practically IGNORANT - H.H. This is a very clear example that a party or group in any nation which has no respect for accepted values by the rest of the world should not receive automatic acceptance by others just based on being "democratically elected". (In that case, All the sham Elections which are Selection in IRI also should be accepted!?) -H.H.

In a democratic world when a party wins a democratic election and fails to deliver the campaign promises, the consequences will be for the whole people in that society which made that choice. As a result those people, if wise enough, may decide to go with more realistic options next time. It is obvious that, depending on the situation, the resulting effects of mistakes made by a society may vary as far as magnitude and in some cases, those mistakes, could have an impact on the whole humanity.

Disastrous policies of former President Carter towards an allied nation during 1970's resulted in the rise of a fundamentalist Islamic ideology from which world may suffer for a very long time to come. Regardless of the reasons which Mr. Jimmy Carter might have had to justify his behavior at that time, the rise of another group of fundamentalists which uses terrorism as a tool to achieve objectives in Middle East, can only be described as an indirect result of his actions at the time of his presidency.

Hamas and almost any other terrorist groups in the Middle East and the rest of the world are on pay list of Islamic Republic regime in Iran which has its hands on a vast amount of wealth enough to manipulate the money hungry politicians of the world to implement their plans.

Rise of Hezbollah in Lebanon and another group in Iraq armed with Shiite radicalism could never be possible without backing of Islamic Republic regime in Iran. Use of terrorism as a tool to intimidate others combined with huge amounts of money generously distributed among terrorist groups has put Islamic regime of Iran into a position which United States and others are now considering getting into negotiation with them! This is a clear indication of seriousness of situation.

There is no question that Islamists have been working for a long time since more than a hundred years ago to find a way into governing of Islamic nations but, if it was not for incompetent policies of President Carter, they would never be as close as they are now to domination of at least a certain portion of the world.

Mr. Carter's wrong policies, has put the world on a roller coaster path in which events like 9/11 may look like a picnic one day! Mr. Carter should stop meddling with affairs which he does not know about just to promote a book full of political correctness that he published to sell and serve his own pocket only.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
cyrus
Site Admin


Joined: 24 Jun 2003
Posts: 4993

PostPosted: Mon Dec 11, 2006 11:07 pm    Post subject: Into Every Blue Ribbon Commission a Beam of Light Must Shine Reply with quote

Into Every Blue Ribbon Commission a Beam of Light Must Shine
December 11, 2006
National Review Online
Michael Ledeen
http://article.nationalreview.com/?q=OWI0ZmY2ZWI2ZWFmNTE4MDgwNGEyNDNkYjZkMzRmM2M=


At first I, too, thought the Iraq Surrender Commission Report was a total downer. But I’m more and more convinced that it was a great blessing. Not that they intended it to work out this way, but the Wise Men (and the token Lady) have elevated Iran to its rightful place in our national squabble over The war: dead center.

The Surrender Commission Report underlines the basic truth about The War, which is that we cannot possibly win it by fighting defensively in Iraq alone. So long as Iran and Syria have a free shot at us and our Iraqi allies, they can trump most any military tactics we adopt, at most any imaginable level of troops. Until the publication of the report this was the dirty secret buried under years of misleading rhetoric from our leaders; now it is front and center. Either deal effectively with Iran, or suffer a humiliating defeat, repeating the terrible humiliation of Lebanon in the Eighties when Iran and Syria bombed us out of the country (thereby providing the template for the terror war in Iraq).

The Surrender Commission members do not shrink from humiliation. They want American troops out of Iraq, and therefore they advocate appeasing the Syrians and Iranians. But a considerable number of Americans don’t want to be humiliated by the clerical fascists in Tehran, and I think it’s fair to say the recommendations have largely bombed, despite the flattering photos in Vogue, and the fawning attention from the MSM, including Time’s respectful parroting of (what they must know is) mullah disinformation, and reporting, with an obvious tone of sadness, that the Baker/Hamilton call for talks is more popular in Tehran than in America.

Most Americans are disgusted at the thought of an American president kissing the Supreme Leader’s turban, as are Jim Woolsey and Jon Kyl, who put it very nicely in an open letter to President Bush. Talking to the mullahs is wrong for many reasons, they say:

First, such negotiations will legitimate that increasingly dangerous regime and reward its violent and hostile actions against us and our allies. We should rather endeavor to discredit and undermine this regime. Second, such a course will embolden our enemies who already believe they are sapping our will to resist them. Third, such an initiative would buy further time for the Iranian mullahs to obtain and prepare to wield weapons of mass destruction. Fourth, entering into negotiations with Tehran’s theocrats will create the illusion that we are taking useful steps to contend with the threat from Iran — when, in fact, we would not be. As a result, other, more effective actions — specifically, steps aimed at encouraging regime change in Iran — will not be pursued.

Notice that Woolsey and Kyl are not just talking about Iraq; they have a commendable focus on Iran itself. They call it dangerous, violent, and hostile, they want its downfall, not its good will. They want a policy to promote regime change instead of further blithering that will give the mullahs more time to rout us and our allies all over the Middle East.

Maybe the sight of the Iranian hangman is beginning to concentrate the minds of our political class. I wish other members of the Senate had had the courage and coherence of Senator Santorum, who voted against the Gates nomination because he didn’t find Gates tough enough on Iran. A big ‘no’ vote, accompanied by criticism of appeasement of Iran and Syria, would have sent a message to the entire administration. But courage and coherence are always in short supply in this town, and it’s nice to hear a broad-based Bronx cheer for the Surrender Commission.

It would be far nicer to see some real action from this administration. For starters, the president and the secretary of state should finally educate the American public about the real dimensions of the Iranian threat:



Somalia, where the Iranian-backed “Islamic courts” have seized a large part of the country and imposed the usual medieval methods made infamous in Taliban-ruled Afghanistan. Notice the (Shiite) support for these Sunni fascists;


Lebanon, where Iranian-backed (indeed, Iranian-created) Hezbollah is laying siege to the freely elected government, demanding its surrender. Moreover, Iran has rearmed Hezbollah forces in the south, providing new rockets and missiles for another round of the ongoing war against Israel;


Palestine, where Iranian-backed Hamas, in open defiance of the usual calls for negotiations with Israel, has renewed its vow to never recognize the existence of the Jewish state. The most recent such proclamation came in Tehran, on the eve of a conference on the Holocaust, designed to both deny it ever happened and encourage its repetition;


Iraq, where, after three years of official denials, the U.S. has confirmed what our troops have long known, namely that the Iranian regime is manufacturing weapons and providing them to terrorists for use against our soldiers and Iraqi military and civilian personnel. And in recent days, the U.S. has finally confirmed that Hezbollah is training Shiite terrorists in Iraq.

In short, Iran is waging war against us and our allies throughout the region, and a real debate about Iran may, at long last, force us to face the real (regional) strategic problem. If that happens, we can take the Woolsey/Kyl letter as a starting point for a serious war-winning policy, which must have as its basic mission the removal of the regimes in Tehran and Damascus.

Faster, Please! Good old Jim Baker and Lee Hamilton have unexpectedly given us a window of opportunity, don’t run away from it.

- Michael Ledeen, an NRO contributing editor, is most recently the author of The War Against the Terror Masters. He is resident scholar in the Freedom Chair at the American Enterprise Institute.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
cyrus
Site Admin


Joined: 24 Jun 2003
Posts: 4993

PostPosted: Wed Jan 03, 2007 3:56 pm    Post subject: Iran 's Secret Plan For Mayhem Reply with quote

Iran 's Secret Plan For Mayhem
By ELI LAKE
Staff Reporter of the Sun
January 3, 2007

http://www.nysun.com/article/46032

WASHINGTON — Iran is supporting both Sunni and Shiite terrorists in the Iraqi civil war, according to secret Iranian documents captured by Americans in Iraq.

The news that American forces had captured Iranians in Iraq was widely reported last month, but less well known is that the Iranians were carrying documents that offered Americans insight into Iranian activities in Iraq .

An American intelligence official said the new material, which has been authenticated within the intelligence community, confirms "that Iran is working closely with both the Shiite militias and Sunni Jihadist groups." The source was careful to stress that the Iranian plans do not extend to cooperation with Baathist groups fighting the government in Baghdad, and said the documents rather show how the Quds Force — the arm of Iran's revolutionary guard that supports Shiite Hezbollah, Sunni Hamas, and Shiite death squads — is working with individuals affiliated with Al Qaeda in Iraq and Ansar al-Sunna.

Another American official who has seen the summaries of the reporting affiliated with the arrests said it comprised a "smoking gun." "We found plans for attacks, phone numbers affiliated with Sunni bad guys, a lot of things that filled in the blanks on what these guys are up to," the official said.

One of the documents captured in the raids, according to two American officials and one Iraqi official, is an assessment of the Iraq civil war and new strategy from the Quds Force. According to the Iraqi source, that assessment is the equivalent of " Iran's Iraq Study Group," a reference to the bipartisan American commission that released war strategy recommendations after the November 7 elections. The document concludes, according to these sources, that Iraq 's Sunni neighbors will step up their efforts to aid insurgent groups and that it is imperative for Iran to redouble efforts to retain influence with them, as well as with Shiite militias.

Rough translations of the Iranian assessment and strategy, as well as a summary of the intelligence haul, have been widely distributed throughout the policy community and are likely to influence the Iraq speech President Bush is expected to deliver in the coming days regarding the way forward for the war, according to two Bush administration officials.

The news that Iran 's elite Quds Force would be in contact, and clandestinely cooperating, with Sunni Jihadists who attacked the Golden Mosque in Samarra (one of the holiest shrines in Shiism) on February 22, could shake the alliance Iraq 's ruling Shiites have forged in recent years with Tehran. Many Iraq analysts believe the bombing vaulted Iraq into the current stage of its civil war.

The top Quds Force commander — known as Chizari, according to a December 30 story in the Washington Post — was captured inside a compound belonging to Abdul Aziz Hakim, the Shiite leader President Bush last month pressed to help forge a new ruling coalition that excludes a firebrand Shiite cleric, Moqtada al-Sadr.

According to one Iraqi official, the two Quds commanders were in Iraq at the behest of the Iraqi government, which had requested more senior Iranian points of contact when the government complained about Shiite death squad activity. The negotiations were part of an Iraqi effort to establish new rules of the road between Baghdad and Tehran . This arrangement was ironed out by Iraq 's president, Jalal Talabani, when he was in Tehran at the end of November.

While Iran has openly supported Iraqi Shiite militias involved in attacks on American soldiers, the Quds Force connection to Sunni insurgents has been murkier.

In 2003, coalition forces captured a playbook outlining Iranian intentions to support insurgents of both stripes, but its authenticity was disputed.

American intelligence reports have suggested that export/import operations run by Sunni terrorists in Fallujah in 2004 received goods from the revolutionary guard.

"We have seen bits and piece of things before, but it was highly compartmentalized suggesting the Iranian link to Sunni groups," a military official said.

A former Iran analyst for the Pentagon who also worked as an adviser to the Coalition Provisional Authority, Michael Rubin, said yesterday: "There has been lots of information suggesting that Iran has not limited its outreach just to the Shiites, but this has been disputed."

He added, "When documents like this are found, usually intelligence officials may confirm their authenticity but argue they prove nothing because they do not reflect a decision to operationalize things."

A former State Department senior analyst on Iraq and Iran who left government service in 2005, Wayne White, said he did not think it was likely the Quds Force was supporting Sunni terrorists who were targeting Shiite political leaders and civilians, but stressed he did not know.

"I have no doubt whatsoever that al-Quds forces are on the ground and active in Iraq ," he said. "That's about it. I saw evidence that Moqtada al Sadr was in contact with Sunni Arab insurgents in western Iraq , but I never saw evidence of Iran in that loop."

Mr. White added, "One problem that we all have is that people consistently conduct analysis assuming that the actor is going to act predictably or rationally based on their overall mindset or ideology. Sometimes people don't.

"One example of a mindset that may hinder analysis of Iranian involvement is the belief that Iran would never have any dealings with militant Sunni Arabs. But they allowed hundreds of Al Qaeda operatives to escape from Afghanistan across their territory in 2002," he said.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
cyrus
Site Admin


Joined: 24 Jun 2003
Posts: 4993

PostPosted: Wed Jan 03, 2007 3:59 pm    Post subject: The Time May Have Come Reply with quote

January 2, 2007
The Time May Have Come
The Iran We Cannot Avoid

http://pajamasmedia.com/xpress/michaelledeen/

There is no escape from the war Iran is waging against us, the war that started in 1979 and is intensifying with every passing hour. We will shortly learn more about the documents we found accompanying the high-level Iranian terrorist leader we briefly arrested in Hakim’s compound in Baghdad some days ago, and what we will learn–what many key American officials have already learned–is stunning. At least to those who thought that Iran was “meddling” in Iraq , but refused to believe that it was total war, on a vast scale.

Several good journalists are working on this story (see, for example, today’s article by Eli Like in the NY Sun), and the outlines are pretty clear. First, we had good information that terrorists were in Baghdad , and had gone to the compound. We did not know exactly who they were. We entered the compound and arrested everybody who looked like a usual suspect. One of them told us he was the #3 official of the al Quds unit of the Iranian Revolutionary Guards Corps, a particularly vicious group. He was carrying documents, one of which was in essence a wiring diagram of Iranian operations in Iraq . That wiring diagram included both Shi’ite and Sunni terrorist groups, and was of such magnitude that American officials were flabbergasted. It seems that our misnamed Intelligence Community had grossly underestimated the sophistication and the enormity of the Iranian war campaign.

I am told that this information has reached the president, and that it is part of the body of information he is digesting in order to formulate his strategy for Iraq. If he sees clearly what is going on, he must realize that there can be no winning strategy for Iraq alone, since a lot of ‘Iraqi’ activity—not just lethal materiel such as the latest generation of explosive devices, now powerful enough to penetrate the armor of most of our vehicles—is actually Iranian in origin. We cannot ‘solve’ the Iraqi problem without regime change in Iran .

Those of you who have borne with me for the last few years will not be surprised to hear this; what’s new is the apparently irrefutable evidence that has now providentially fallen into our hands. The policy makers will not like this evidence, because it drives them in a direction they do not wish to go. I am told that, at first, there was a concerted effort, primarily but by no means exclusively from the intel crowd, to sit on the evidence, to prevent it from reaching the highest levels. But the information was too explosive, and it is now circulating throughout the bureaucracy.

I have little sympathy for those who have avoided the obvious necessity of confronting Iran, however I do understand the concerns of military leaders, such as General Abizaid, who are doing everything in their considerable power to avoid a two-front war. But I do not think we need massive military power to bring down the mullahs, and in any event we now have a three-front war: within Iraq , and with both Iran and Syria . So General Abizaid’s objection is beside the point. We are in a big war, and we cannot fight it by playing defense in Iraq . That is a sucker’s game. And I hope the president realizes this at last, and that he finds himself some generals who also realize it, and finally demands a strategy for victory.

In passing, it follows from this that the entire debate over more or less troops in Iraq , surge or no surge, Baghdad or Anbar Province , all of it begs the central question. As long as Iran and their appendage in Damascus have a free shot at us, all these stratagems are doomed.

As it happens, this is a particularly good moment to go after the mullahs, because they are deeply engaged in a war of all against all within Iran . I wrote in NRO two weeks ago that the Supreme Leader, Ayatollah Ali Khamenei, had been carted off to the hospital–a major event, of which the Intelligence Community was totally unaware–and his prognosis is very poor. That information has now trickled out, and I found it today in the Italian press and on an Iranian web site. The mullahs are maneuvering for position, and Ahmadi-Nezhad’s ever more frantic rhetoric bespeaks the intensity of the power struggle, which includes former president Rafsanjani, Khamenei’s son, and Ahmadi-Nezhad’s favorite nut ayatollah. We should propose another option to the Iranian people: freedom.

Freedom is what most Iranians want, and, unlike their neighbors in Iraq , they have considerable experience with self-government. The Iranian Constitution of 1906 is remarkably modern, and Iranian intellectuals have in fact been debating the best form of government for their country for many years. Iranian workers are in open revolt against the regime, along with such minority groups as the Kurds, the Balouchis, the Azeris, and the Ahwazi Arabs. In other words, most of the Iranian people. It is long past time for us to speak clearly to them and support their cause.

Just as the likes of General Abizaid need to be replaced with generals who are prepared to attack targets like the terrorist training camps (especially those used by Hizbollah) in Iran and Syria, so we need civilian leadership that will attack our enemies politically. We need new men and women at VOA, at the Board of Broadcasting Governors (Ken Tomlinson, in particular, should be given a medal and replaced), and at the State Department (we should know by now that the touchy-feely approach thus far championed by Karen Hughes is not effective).

This country is loaded with talent, and the mullahs do not have a big constituency here. It cannot be hard to find a critical mass of talented people who want to support democratic revolution in Iran . We lack only the will of the president.

Faster, please.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
cyrus
Site Admin


Joined: 24 Jun 2003
Posts: 4993

PostPosted: Sat Jan 06, 2007 3:37 pm    Post subject: REUTERS FALLS FOR YET ANOTHER BIG LIE BY THE MULLAHS Reply with quote

Banafsheh Zand-Bonazzi wrote:
REUTERS FALLS FOR YET ANOTHER BIG LIE BY THE MULLAHS

Apparently Reuters has forgotten that it was under the leadership of Rafsanjani and Khatami that Iran ’s nuclear program was developed AND kept a secret. The Khatami administration has the European troika, England, France and Germany really coming and going for a few years, but then after the departure of Khatami the world realized what the Iranian people had been saying, that in fact all that all those so-called negotiations were nothing more that the Mullahs buying time and talking their way out in the typical Taqiyeh [lying and dissimulating the truth in defense of Islam] manner. There is no such thing as a reformist and the world needs to understand that THOSE are only words that the Islamic republic uses in order to differentiate various Mullahs camps…the only difference between Rafsanjani/Khatami’s camp and Ahmadinejad is that Rafsanjani/Khatami are not adamant “Twelvers” or a promoters of the idea of the emergance of the 12th Imam….otherwise, they are one and the same…thugs of a much more dangerous color as they never tell the truth and sneak behind all kinds of journalists, like the writer of this below article to do their lying for them.


BEWARE of SMILING MULLAHS FOLKS…
KHATAMI IS JUST AS DANGEROUS AS AHMADINEJAD
and if anyone tries to convince you of him being a kinder, gentler cleric, tell them that they’re being naïve.


Banafsheh Zand-Bonazzi


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

Iran reformists slam government's nuclear policy
Sat Jan 6, 2007 9:50am ET

By Alireza Ronaghi

TEHRAN (Reuters) - Iranian reformist parliamentarians on Saturday blamed President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad's government for failing to prevent United Nations sanctions.

The U.N. Security Council voted unanimously on December 23 to impose sanctions on Iran 's trade in sensitive nuclear materials and technology in an attempt to stop uranium enrichment work that could produce material that could be used in bombs.

Iran says it wants nuclear power to generate electricity.

Reformist former President Mohammad Khatami suspended Iran's nuclear work for more than two years in an effort to build confidence and avoid confrontation with the West, but resumed uranium enrichment in February last year.

"The only way to pass the crisis is to build confidence ... but a holding Holocaust conference and financing the Hamas government creates mistrust and tension," Noureddin Pirmoazzen, the spokesman of parliament's reformist faction, told Reuters.

Ahmadinejad's government hosted a conference in Tehran in December, where participants questioned the Holocaust. It also granted $250 million in aid to the Palestinian Hamas government after Western donors withheld funds.

After two election landslides that brought Khatami to office in 1997 and 2001, Iran 's reformers suffered a series on poll setbacks with voters disillusioned at their inability to carry out their policies due to conservative opposition. \

The culmination of the reformers' defeats came in 2005 when voters elected the hardline Ahmadinejad who promised to use Iran 's large oil revenues to help the poor.

But the reformers made a strong showing at local council elections in December, with many voters worried about Iran 's increasing diplomatic isolation and economic problems.

IMPEACHMENT?

Pirmoazzen said that two U.N. resolutions against Iran in the first 18 months of the government's term in office showed the foreign ministry was incapable of looking after Iran 's national interests.

"We hope to witness a return to the manner of Khatami's government and see the crisis is solved in the next 60 days, or else we will have no alternative but to impeach Foreign Minister Manouchehr Mottaki," Pirmoazzen said.

Any request to impeach a minister needs to be signed by at least 10 lawmakers. Pirmoazzen said that even without the support of majority conservative deputies, the 42-member reformist faction had enough votes to call an impeachment debate. But the impeachment motion would be unlikely to succeed.

In a separate bid, reformist lawmakers also want Ahmadinejad to come to parliament to answer questions on his government's domestic and foreign policies. But there was little chance of the motion succeeding as it would need 72 lawmakers to sign it.

"Although some 150 lawmakers may have questions from Ahmadinejad, it does not mean that the same number of signatures can be collected to support the plan," Akbar Alami, the lawmaker who has launched the plan, told Reuters.

Alami declined to elaborate on what the questions he would like to ask the president, but said they included matters of foreign policy.

"We have tried to bring up those questions in several ways but have received no convincing answers yet," Alami said, "We are waiting for appropriate timely conditions to bring up the questions," he said.

Ahmadinejad has called the Security Council's resolution a "piece of scrap paper" and has vowed to press ahead with Iran 's peaceful nuclear program, which the West fears may be a covert plan to make atomic weapons.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
cyrus
Site Admin


Joined: 24 Jun 2003
Posts: 4993

PostPosted: Sat Jan 06, 2007 4:43 pm    Post subject: Reject Any New Direction That Does Not Include Regime Change Reply with quote

Reject Any New Direction For America That Does Not Include Islamic Fascist Regime Change In Iran NOW

Pro Hezbollah Islamofascist Founders, Appeasers and supporters in Past 30 Years :
a) President Carter as Green Belt Islamofascist Strategist in the name of National Interest and Human Rights betrayed US Moral values and principles for Free Society and Secular Democracy by helping Islamic Fascism.
b) Brzezinski as Green Belt Islamofascist Strategist in the name of National Interest and Human Rights betrayed US Moral values and principles for Free Society and Secular Democracy by helping Islamic Fascism.
c) Neo Colonialists Power EU3, Russia, China and Japan ...


Our future expectations from President Bush, policy makers and leadership are defined with new set of test cases criteria for foreign policy evaluation to be able to measure success and failure results more easily. Our recommended test cases and criteria are based on Cyrus The Great Spirit, the American founding fathers vision, spirit of freedom, US constitution and can be defined as follows:

1- Have a secular democracy purpose
2- Have a Human Rights purpose
3- Have a Free Society purpose
4- Have a primary effect to increase freedom at global level.
5- Have the element of War Of Ideas to expand public awareness, education and expansion of truth.
6- Applying the U.S.A. Supreme Court accepted "Lemon test," to foreign policy decisions, strategy and conduct. According to the "Lemon test," in order to be constitutional, a law or public act must: a) Have a secular purpose. b) Have a primary effect that neither advances nor inhibits religion. c) Not result in excessive governmental entanglement with religion.
7- Islamic or Religous Parties or Governments are enemies of Free Society, Freedom, Peace and Stablity.
8- In past 60 years USA and UK helped Creating Islamic Fascist Parties for Blood Oil ... Now is the time to clean up our mess before it becomes too late.
Have we learned anything from Sept 11 by Islamic Fascists?


House Speaker Nancy Pelosi, delivers her remarks at a gathering celebrating her election as the first female speaker of the House of Representatives, Jan. 4, 2007, in Washington. The spotlight belonged to Nancy Pelosi on Thursday as she became the first woman in U.S. history to stand at the head of the House of Representatives, second in line to the presidency. (AP Photo/Manuel Balce Ceneta)


Last edited by cyrus on Sun Jan 07, 2007 1:04 pm; edited 1 time in total
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
Oppenheimer



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

PostPosted: Sat Jan 06, 2007 9:47 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

Beyond the obvious factual errors ( enrichment resumed under Antar, not Katami...) and ommisions noted in the previous post regarding Reuters level of accurate reporting, there is something to be noted in the context of the quazi- parlimentary system and surounding subject matter.

1. The level of confidence expressed in the current leadership of Iran, by members of the government.

2. The inability of the parliment to hold the leadership of Iran to account.

3. The level of confidence in , and increasing awareness of, Iran's situation in the international system, and prospects for future security.

To sum up simply, their confidence just got a kick in the teeth after two UN resolutions in one year were passed, and a third pending, perhaps one regarding Iraq in the cards as well...( IE violation of standing UN res on Iraq )

Multiple lawsuits pending, criminal inditement (Argentina, as one), financial banishment from international banking systems in preliminary stages, hemoraging stock market, flight of foreign investment, internal unrest....

We Americans have a saying, "When the chickens come home to roost, **** happens."
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
cyrus
Site Admin


Joined: 24 Jun 2003
Posts: 4993

PostPosted: Thu Feb 22, 2007 2:34 pm    Post subject: Who Do You Think Is the World’s Worst Dictator? Reply with quote

Who Do You Think Is the World’s Worst Dictator?


http://www.parade.com/articles/editions/2007/edition_02-11-2007/Dictators

Email Broadcast By Parviz Haddadizadeh
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
blank



Joined: 26 Feb 2004
Posts: 1672

PostPosted: Thu Feb 22, 2007 3:42 pm    Post subject: Re: Who Do You Think Is the World’s Worst Dictator? Reply with quote

cyrus wrote:
Who Do You Think Is the World’s Worst Dictator?


http://www.parade.com/articles/editions/2007/edition_02-11-2007/Dictators

Email Broadcast By Parviz Haddadizadeh



Everybody should vote..... I already did for the raghead Khamanei as one of the worst...
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
cyrus
Site Admin


Joined: 24 Jun 2003
Posts: 4993

PostPosted: Wed Feb 28, 2007 3:57 pm    Post subject: Shame On Fools and Appeasers Reply with quote



Ambassador Bolton wrote:
Bolton Calls for `Regime Change' in Iran, Chastises Europeans
Bolton said the Bush administration had allowed Britain, France and Germany to ``screw around'' in nuclear talks. The diplomacy has gone on for ``three and a half years, and that allowed the Iranians to make enormous progress on their nuclear-weapons program,


By Janine Zacharia and Bill Varner
http://quote.bloomberg.com/apps/news?pid=20601087&sid=a.m.58sr9RqM

March 1 (Bloomberg) -- John Bolton, the former American envoy to the United Nations, said the U.S. should pursue ``regime change'' in Iran because European governments refuse to back sanctions tough enough to halt the suspected Iranian nuclear-bomb program.

``I believe that either regime change in Iran or, as a last resort, military action is the only thing that will stop the Iranians from getting nuclear weapons,'' Bolton said in an interview today in Washington.


Bolton, a 58-year-old former arms-control official, said the Bush administration had allowed Britain, France and Germany to ``screw around'' in nuclear talks. The diplomacy has gone on for ``three and a half years, and that allowed the Iranians to make enormous progress on their nuclear-weapons program,'' he said.
President George W. Bush, who labeled Iran and North Korea part of an ``axis of evil'' in 2002, has said their nuclear programs could pose a direct threat to the U.S., and that either nation might hand over atomic weapons to terrorists. The U.S. has pursued negotiated settlements with both countries while crafting UN sanctions aimed at cutting off nuclear trade with them.

Bolton left the UN in December after failing to win congressional support to extend his tenure. He has emerged as a gadfly, criticizing the administration for its strategy on nuclear proliferation. He assailed Bush and his diplomats on Iran and for a deal with North Korea to trade energy aid for the closing of nuclear-arms-related facilities. Bolton said that accord is doomed to fail because of North Korea's record of cheating on similar arrangements.

`Fruitless' Effort

Broadly, Bolton said any negotiation with either North Korea or Iran to persuade them to abandon their nuclear ambitions won't work. ``Unless you're prepared to believe that the Iranians are voluntarily going to give up the pursuit of nuclear weapons, the idea of pursuing negotiations is ultimately going to be fruitless,'' Bolton said.

Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad, pronounced ah-ma- deen-ah-ZHAD, on Feb. 25 compared Iran's nuclear development to an unstoppable train and said there would be no turning back. Iran ``threw away a while ago the reverse gear and brakes of this train,'' he said, in remarks carried by the state-run Iranian Students News Agency.

Iranian officials insist the nuclear push is for commercial power generation, not weapons.



Kenneth R. Timmerman wrote:
Hold Iran accountable
By Kenneth R. Timmerman


Published February 28, 2007
Washington Times
http://washingtontimes.com/commentary/20070227-084728-3636r.htm

The messages we send as the world's sole superpower matter. Today, Iran 's leaders are testing us. They are testing us in Iraq , where Islamic Revolutionary Guards Corps (IRGC) networks continue to fund both Sunni and Shi'ite insurgents. They are testing us at the International Atomic Energy Agency and at the United Nations, where they continue to defy demands by the international community to verifiably suspend their nuclear programs, which constitute a clear violation of Iran 's commitments as a signatory of the Nonproliferation Treaty.
How we respond to these tests is not an academic question. Understanding the intentions and the modus operandi of this regime are life-and-death matters.
Voices are raised from all sides of the U.S. political spectrum that we should swallow our pride and negotiate with Tehran 's leaders if we want to avoid war. They call it, "a grand bargain." Whether it's proposed by the Council on Foreign Relations, the Baker-Hamilton commission, Sen. Chuck Hagel, Nebraska Republican, or various Iranian-American quislings, the outlines are virtually identical. The United States should accept Iranian offers to negotiate "all outstanding issues" generated by the regime's bad behavior. In exchange, we should provide "security guarantees" that include a steadfast promise to abandon all efforts to help Iran 's people achieve freedom.
The very terms of the bargain should be a tip-off. The one thing Iran 's regime really wants from us is a guarantee we won't support pro-democracy forces inside Iran .
Proponents of negotiations with Tehran argue that we negotiated with the Soviet Union during the Cold War while never compromising on our principled rejection of Soviet communism and its brutal suppression of freedoms at home and in occupied Eastern Europe . But the Islamic Republic of Iran is fundamentally unlike the Soviet Union during the Cold War for a host of reasons.
First and foremost, they do not have an arsenal of 10,000-plus nuclear weapons. Soviet dissidents and refuseniks understood the U.S. would engage in arms control talks with the Soviet leadership as a matter of self-preservation and that such talks in no way implied our acceptance (except for Jimmy Carter) of Soviet dictatorship.
Soviet dissidents understood the weaknesses of the Soviet state but also understood the dangers of a nuclear exchange with the United States .
Iranian dissidents, however, view the Islamic Republic as weak. They see the incompetence of its leaders, the fragility of its economy, its isolation on the world stage, and its military vulnerabilities. Why should a superpower bow before the mullahs and dignify such a weak adversary with full-fledged negotiations?
Opening negotiations with the United States may be the key strategic goal today of the government in Tehran . The ruling clerics are confident they can humiliate any American president who agrees to talk with them. They will drag out such talks endlessly, to demonstrate to the pro-freedom movement that " America can do nothing" and more importantly, will do nothing to help them.
Beyond this, we simply don't need negotiations with the regime over its nuclear program. Through U.N. Security Council resolutions, we have set out the parameters of what the Iranian regime must do to avert steadily increasing international sanctions. They can accept those conditions, shut down their programs in a verifiable manner, or suffer the consequences. The U.S. should not settle for anything less than full, unconditional compliance from Tehran . There is nothing to negotiate.
The same goes for Iran's involvement in Iraq, its support for international terrorist groups, its refusal to recognize the right of Israel to exist, and its wretched disregard for its own citizens' political and human rights. Why should we negotiate down the standards of internationally acceptable behavior?
On the contrary, we should hold Iran 's leadership accountable for its behavior by rolling up its networks in Iraq and striking the IRGC support structures across the border. We should insist Iran comply with the International Covenant of Political and Human rights that it has signed. We should enforce the huge number of judgments against top regime leaders in courts around the world for their terrorist attacks.
And for starters, we should insist that Iran comply with the U.N. Security Council demands on its nuclear programs by ratcheting up mandatory economic and diplomatic sanctions. Anything less is just not serious.

Kenneth R. Timmerman is president of the Middle East Data Project Inc., executive director of the Foundation for Democracy in Iran and author of "Countdown to Crisis: the Coming Nuclear Showdown with Iran."
Original: http://washingtontimes.com/commentary/20070227-084728-3636r.htm
--
Kenneth R. Timmerman
President, Middle East Data Project, Inc.
Author: Countdown to Crisis: The Coming Nuclear Showdown with Iran
Contributing editor: Newsmax.com
Tel: 301-946-2918
Reply to: timmerman.road@verizon.net
Website: www.KenTimmerman.com


cyrus wrote:
The Negotiations Hoax

March 01, 2007
National Review Online
Michael Ledeen

http://article.nationalreview.com/?q=OTM5MDZlN2Q4ODYwOWZhNTNjMzE5NWNmM2U2ZGYyYTI=

Talking with Iran—and we’ve done plenty of it—has gotten us nothing.

A great hoax is being perpetrated on the world, the hoax of negotiations as an untried method to “solve” the “Iranian problem.” In fact, we have been negotiating with the mullahs ever since—indeed even before—the 1979 revolution that deposed the shah and brought to power the Islamic Fascist regime of the Ayatollah Ruhollah Khomeini. In the intervening 28 years, we have participated in countless face-to-face encounters, myriad “demarches” sent through diplomatic channels, and meetings—some on the fringes of international conferences—involving “unofficial” representatives of one government or the other. The lack of any tangible result is obvious, yet the chatterers, led by James Baker and Lee Hamilton, and cheered on by intellectuals, editorialists, and instant experts on Iran, act as if none of this ever happened.





Shame On All Fools, and Appeasers Who Jump Into Islamic Fascist Invaders and Occupiers Of Iran Fast Train With No Brakes or Reverse Gear In The Name Of Detente With Mullahs Terror and Torture Masters. Betraying the cause of liberty and appeasing tyranny against True American People National Interest and American Founding Fathers Spirit Of Freedom. TRUE SECURITY AND WORLD PEACE BEGINS WITH REGIME CHANGE IN IRAN, FREE Society, Secular Democracy and FREE Iran. This Is The TRUE TEST CASE For ....


"no brakes or reverse gear" remarks By Ahmadinejad
http://www.diariolasamericas.com/news.php?nid=23719

Détente with Islamic Fascist Invaders and Occupiers of Iran is betraying the cause of liberty and appeasing tyranny. TRUE SECURITY AND WORLD PEACE BEGINS WITH REGIME CHANGE IN IRAN, FREE Society, Secular Democracy and FREE Iran . 95\% of 70 Million Iranian people must be considered as hostages and prisoners of Mullahs without any control over the key decisions and their own destination who can not open the prison door from inside the big prison of Iran without outside help (Iran under Mullahs control are far worst than Eastern European countries under communism) . Iranian people unity is very strong for freeing their Homeland from tyranny and considered as the best and most experienced fighting force to send Islamists to dustbin of history if free world is committed to peace, stability and support FREE Iran.

ANNE GEARAN wrote:
Analysis: Iraq talks may open new doors By ANNE GEARAN, AP Diplomatic Writer

WASHINGTON - The Bush administration says it's not going soft on Iran, but Washington's new agreement to talk to the clerical regime about violence in Iraq could crack the door for other discussions with the last holdout among President Bush's old axis of evil.


ActivistChat respone to Iraq talks wrote:

Based on the ActivistChat test cases and expectations any Iraq talks with
Mullahs will fail . First of all the Non Secular, Sectarian Iraqi government members have no legitamacy and no credit ....

Just as a picture is drawn by an artist, bad picture and failures are created by the activities of the officials bad decision to please lobbyists and avoiding to educate the public regarding the truth. As long as the officials are afraid of telling the truth to public they will fail with shame, many mistakes and the leaders should not expect respect and Victory …..

Our expectations from President Bush, policy makers and leadership are defined with new set of test cases criteria for foreign policy evaluation to be able to measure success and failure results more easily. Our recommended test cases and criteria are based on Cyrus The Great Spirit, the American founding fathers vision, spirit of freedom, US constitution and can be defined as follows:

1- Have a secular democracy purpose
2- Have a Human Rights purpose
3- Have a Free Society purpose
4- Have a primary effect to increase freedom at global level.
5- Have the element of War Of Ideas to expand public awareness, education and expansion of truth.
6- Applying the U.S.A. Supreme Court accepted "Lemon test," to foreign policy decisions, strategy and conduct. According to the "Lemon test," in order to be constitutional, a law or public act must: a) Have a secular purpose. b) Have a primary effect that neither advances nor inhibits religion. c) Not result in excessive governmental entanglement with religion.
7- Islamic or Religous Parties or Governments are enemies of Free Society, Freedom, Peace and Stablity.
8- In past 60 years USA and UK helped Creating Islamic Fascist Parties and governments for Blood Oil ... Now is the time to clean up our mess before it becomes too late.
Have we learned anything from Sept 11 by Islamic Fascists?




Quote:

INTERVIEW WITH KENNETH TIMMERMAN BY ELHAM SATAKI
3 min - Oct 7, 2006 - (4 ratings)
INTERVIEW WITH KENNETH TIMMERMAN BY ELHAM SATAKI, SEPTEMBER 7TH,2006. Just Say No to Khatami, August 24, 2006, By Kenneth Timmerman

http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=-3145934093794436468


Amil Imani wrote:

Petition 44: No Bombs, No Appeasement: Support the People of
Iran's Struggle for a Secular, Peaceful Democracy

Sign the Petition -
View Current Signatures


http://www.petitiononline.com/achat44/petition.html

To: Free World Elected Officials

It is only a matter of time before the confrontation between the world and Iran 's ruling Mullahs sets off a catastrophic conflagration. The Islamic Republic of Iran, in defiance of the U.N. Security Council Resolution, continues with its dangerous nuclear program, which poses dire consequences for the Iranian people and the world. We call upon the free governments of the world, as well as all other businesses, organizations and individuals to enlist in a non-violent campaign of ending the reign of terror of the belligerent Iranian clerical regime. Governments should enact the following:

* Renounce the use of force for ending the impasse.

* Declare unequivocally the commitment to respect the territorial integrity of Iran, as well as the rights of the Iranians to decide, through a democratic process, all matters pertaining to their life and country.

* Initiate, without delay or equivocation, a comprehensive program of assistance to all democratic Iranian opposition groups, both within as well as outside of Iran, in their struggle to accomplish the regime change themselves.

* Proclaim wide and far, the cardinal reason for taking these measures against the Mullahs' reign of terror is to prevent them from acquiring nuclear weapons, the threat they pose to the region as well as to the world, and the stimulus they provide for other nations to develop their own nuclear arsenal.

* Enforce the U.N. sanctions by inspecting every vessel headed for Iranian ports to make sure they are not ferrying prohibited material. Other than vessels known to be carrying foodstuff and medicine, each ship should be subjected to elaborate inspection.

* Establish an Iran Assistance Fund, from Iran’s frozen assets as well as contributions from peace-loving individuals and organizations, to assist Iranian families during the hardship that the sanctions may create.

* Persuade Saudi Arabia, Kuwait, Iraq, and other Persian Gulf oil producers to significantly increase their output and drastically cut the price. It is what they must do to help forestall the emergence of a nuclear clerical Iran bent on ruling the region.

* Every user of oil, governments, businesses, and individuals must do their share by severely curtailing their use of oil, to offset any shortages that may arise.

* Obtain court orders to freeze the overseas assets of Iranian leaders, since they are clearly ill-begotten funds that rightfully belong to the nation.

* Shut down, or severely restrict the operation of the Mullahs' businesses in Dubai and other Persian Gulf states.

* Reduce the staff or completely shut down Iranian missions. Severely restrict Iranian officials and nuclear scientists from foreign travel. Recall your ambassadors from Iran.

* Deny the Iranian airlines operation and encourage non-Iranian airlines to cease serving the country. Provide for flights that serve emergency medical and other health needs of the Iranians.

* File legal charges against the leaders of the Islamic Republic's wanton violation of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights; for their crimes against humanity, genocidal actions against religious and political groups; for support of international terrorism; for demolition of religious sites and cemeteries; for rape, torture, and summary execution of prisoners of conscience; for forgery of documents, for acts of blackmail and fraud, and much more.

* Declare and treat the clerical regime as illegitimate.

* Stop or slow down Iran's import of refined petroleum products.

* Shut down the Islamic Republic's web sites and block their television and radio broadcasts.

* Seize the regime's front organizations such as the Alavi Foundation in New York City.

* Identify the agents of the Islamic Republic and prosecute them as promoters of international terrorism.

* Investigate individuals and organizations that lobby or front for the Islamic Republic.

* Take all necessary steps to stop investments in Iran. Persuade banks to refrain from dealing with Iran and the issuance of letters of credit.

* Pressure businesses to stop dealing with Iran.

* Pressure governments to stop doing business with Iran. Warn countries such as China and Russia against circumventing the U.N. resolution and engaging in commercial adventurism.

We, the undersigned, are greatly concerned that the confrontational course of the illegitimate clerical regime of Iran may ignite the flame of war. We urge the leadership as well as people of the world to join in the non-violent campaign of dislodging the mullahs and helping Iranians to establish a secular democracy. The Iran problem is both serious and urgent. It is a world problem. A warning to the world governments and others: You need to act now. Apathy is sleep. If you sleep, we will all weep.

Sincerely,

The Undersigned

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

The No Bombs, No Appeasement: Support the People of Iran's Struggle for a Secular, Peaceful Democracy Petition to Free World Elected Officials was created by Free Iran Secular Activists and written by Amil Imani (activistchat@gmail.com). This petition is hosted here at www.PetitionOnline.com as a public service. There is no endorsement of this petition, express or implied, by Artifice, Inc. or our sponsors. For technical support please use our simple Petition Help form.


Quote:
Don't Worry! The Religious Left is Making "Peace" with Iran

February 28, 2007
FrontPageMagazine.com
Mark D. Tooley
http://www.frontpagemag.com/Articles/ReadArticle.asp?ID=27126


On Friday, Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad vowed that Iran will not backtrack on its nuclear program. And on Thursday, the International Atomic Energy Agency announced that Iran had ignored a United Nations Security Council ultimatum about potential nukes.

But do not fear! An ecumenical delegation from the U.S. is currently in Iran, meeting with the Iranian president and various ayatollahs. Peace is at hand.

"The headlines in U.S. newspapers talk about missed deadlines and stalemates," recounted Quaker official Joe Volk in his report. "But sitting here in Iran, we see a different picture." He promised that "the Iranians are willing to begin negotiations to return their nuclear program to full international safeguards." After all, the Iranian deputy foreign minister has assured Volk's delegation that this is so.

The U.S. religious representatives, representing United Methodists, Episcopalians, Quakers, Mennonites, "Sojourners," Pax Christi, and the National Council of Churches, have found an "openness to negotiations here in Iran," according to Volk. But, "sadly, the United States has not demonstrated a similar openness. The U.S. government has refused for many years to enter into any type of negotiations with Iran, focusing instead on a program of sanctions, isolation, and threats of regime change."

Worried about Iran's safety in the face of U.S. belligerance, the ecumenical delegation is meeting with whomever the Iranian theocratic police state will allow it to in Teheran, in pursuit of peace. The churchmen are in Iran at the special invitation of the Iranian dictator, anti-Semite and apocalyptic preacher, Ahmadinejad, who met with a much larger group of U.S. clerics when he was in New York last September.

Dave Robinson of the left-wing Catholic group Pax Christi explained in his dispatch from Teheran that the delegation therapeutically "plans to highlight and draw attention to the source of each nation’s pain and mistrust and to understand what divides us historically." Robinson, of course, was pleased when assured by Ayatollah Mohammad Emami Kashani that Iran’s nuclear program is not a weapons program and that in fact, nuclear weapons are incompatible with Islamic law.

"Our delegation has come to Tehran in a humble posture of listening and learning as well as to raise difficult questions," Robinson explained. But the delegation seems to be eager to accept dubious answers to its supposedly difficult questions. When the ayatollah was asked about Iran's "harsh" rhetoric about the U.S., the cleric responded, "What you mention is not against the American people. Our objection is to statements of the American government." Undoubtedly, the ecumenical delegation liked that answer. The imam even assured his visitors, "Please consider Iran as your second home for Americans." Such hospitality. The imam might be disappointed that this batch of American churchmen is likely to take his offer seriously.

Of course, sojourning in Teheran is not quite like jetting to the Virgin Islands. Jeff Carr of the evangelical left group Sojourners noted that as the delegation's plane descended, the pilot warned: “By order of the government of the Islamic Republic of Iran, all women need to cover their heads for their own protection.” Welcome to the Shiite paradise!

Before taking off for the vacation land of imams, Mennonite official Daryl Byler dashed off an urgent letter to President Bush about Iran. "I wish you were the one meeting with President Ahmadinejad." Byler wrote. "Not because I fear meeting Iran’s president. To the contrary, when I met him last fall in New York I found him to be bright and engaging. Like you, Ahmadinejad is a religious man. I believe you would enjoy one another’s company. Your conversation could signal a positive change in a relationship severed more than 25 years ago."

Bush and Adhmadinejad, as religious men, would have much in common to discuss. The American president could discuss his Methodist church and his daily prayer devotionals. And the Iranian could talk about his dreams of destroying Israel in a final holocaust that would apocalyptically usher in the the Reign of the Mahdi in a sea of blood.

Byler fretted to Bush that the U.S. has captured several Iranian diplomats inside Iraq and dispatched a second U.S. naval carrier group to the Persian Gulf. "Many see these events as provocative," he worries. "Of course, Iranian rhetoric and actions have added to the volatile mix." he reclutantly added.

Will you be a “repairer of the breach” as the biblical prophets urged of leaders long ago (Isaiah 58:12)?" Byler asked of Bush. Byler and the rest of the delegation will meet with Ahmadinejad before leaving for home to begin their "education" of the American public about the reality in Iran.

Undoubtedly, the church delegation will be as charmed as they were last September. The Iranian president likely will courteously omit any of his rhetoric about killing infidels as he serves the American Christians hot tea and Iranian pastries.

For the latest updates about the delegation's final adventures in Iran, check out: www.irandelegation.org.

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Mark D. Tooley directs the United Methodist committee at the Institute on Religion and Democracy.



Banafsheh Zand-Bonazzi wrote:

Folks,

Step right up and see what a Islamic Republic of Iran promoter-in-Armani writes…the freak who lives in the U.S., whose leftist American wife has a comfy-cozy job at the State Department, who he himself has a cushy job with the Council of Foreign Relations and whose boss/mentor is the ever-shady Zbignew Brzezinski (à a board member of some oil companies). Step right up and have a look at what a guy with a “protected and sexy” Washington DC lifestyle who goes out there bargaining for normalizing relations with the killer Mullahs, has to say…

BZB



February 27, 2007

Iran : Détente, Not Regime Change
By Ray Takeyh

A RISING STAR

http://www.realclearpolitics.com/articles/2007/02/iran_detente_not_regime_change.html



Last edited by cyrus on Thu Mar 01, 2007 10:29 pm; edited 13 times in total
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
cyrus
Site Admin


Joined: 24 Jun 2003
Posts: 4993

PostPosted: Wed Feb 28, 2007 6:24 pm    Post subject: Hold Iran accountable Reply with quote

Hold Iran accountable
By Kenneth R. Timmerman


Published February 28, 2007
Washington Times
http://washingtontimes.com/commentary/20070227-084728-3636r.htm

The messages we send as the world's sole superpower matter. Today, Iran 's leaders are testing us. They are testing us in Iraq , where Islamic Revolutionary Guards Corps (IRGC) networks continue to fund both Sunni and Shi'ite insurgents. They are testing us at the International Atomic Energy Agency and at the United Nations, where they continue to defy demands by the international community to verifiably suspend their nuclear programs, which constitute a clear violation of Iran 's commitments as a signatory of the Nonproliferation Treaty.
How we respond to these tests is not an academic question. Understanding the intentions and the modus operandi of this regime are life-and-death matters.
Voices are raised from all sides of the U.S. political spectrum that we should swallow our pride and negotiate with Tehran 's leaders if we want to avoid war. They call it, "a grand bargain." Whether it's proposed by the Council on Foreign Relations, the Baker-Hamilton commission, Sen. Chuck Hagel, Nebraska Republican, or various Iranian-American quislings, the outlines are virtually identical. The United States should accept Iranian offers to negotiate "all outstanding issues" generated by the regime's bad behavior. In exchange, we should provide "security guarantees" that include a steadfast promise to abandon all efforts to help Iran 's people achieve freedom.
The very terms of the bargain should be a tip-off. The one thing Iran 's regime really wants from us is a guarantee we won't support pro-democracy forces inside Iran .
Proponents of negotiations with Tehran argue that we negotiated with the Soviet Union during the Cold War while never compromising on our principled rejection of Soviet communism and its brutal suppression of freedoms at home and in occupied Eastern Europe . But the Islamic Republic of Iran is fundamentally unlike the Soviet Union during the Cold War for a host of reasons.
First and foremost, they do not have an arsenal of 10,000-plus nuclear weapons. Soviet dissidents and refuseniks understood the U.S. would engage in arms control talks with the Soviet leadership as a matter of self-preservation and that such talks in no way implied our acceptance (except for Jimmy Carter) of Soviet dictatorship.
Soviet dissidents understood the weaknesses of the Soviet state but also understood the dangers of a nuclear exchange with the United States .
Iranian dissidents, however, view the Islamic Republic as weak. They see the incompetence of its leaders, the fragility of its economy, its isolation on the world stage, and its military vulnerabilities. Why should a superpower bow before the mullahs and dignify such a weak adversary with full-fledged negotiations?
Opening negotiations with the United States may be the key strategic goal today of the government in Tehran . The ruling clerics are confident they can humiliate any American president who agrees to talk with them. They will drag out such talks endlessly, to demonstrate to the pro-freedom movement that " America can do nothing" and more importantly, will do nothing to help them.
Beyond this, we simply don't need negotiations with the regime over its nuclear program. Through U.N. Security Council resolutions, we have set out the parameters of what the Iranian regime must do to avert steadily increasing international sanctions. They can accept those conditions, shut down their programs in a verifiable manner, or suffer the consequences. The U.S. should not settle for anything less than full, unconditional compliance from Tehran . There is nothing to negotiate.
The same goes for Iran's involvement in Iraq, its support for international terrorist groups, its refusal to recognize the right of Israel to exist, and its wretched disregard for its own citizens' political and human rights. Why should we negotiate down the standards of internationally acceptable behavior?
On the contrary, we should hold Iran 's leadership accountable for its behavior by rolling up its networks in Iraq and striking the IRGC support structures across the border. We should insist Iran comply with the International Covenant of Political and Human rights that it has signed. We should enforce the huge number of judgments against top regime leaders in courts around the world for their terrorist attacks.
And for starters, we should insist that Iran comply with the U.N. Security Council demands on its nuclear programs by ratcheting up mandatory economic and diplomatic sanctions. Anything less is just not serious.

Kenneth R. Timmerman is president of the Middle East Data Project Inc., executive director of the Foundation for Democracy in Iran and author of "Countdown to Crisis: the Coming Nuclear Showdown with Iran."
Original: http://washingtontimes.com/commentary/20070227-084728-3636r.htm
--
Kenneth R. Timmerman
President, Middle East Data Project, Inc.
Author: Countdown to Crisis: The Coming Nuclear Showdown with Iran
Contributing editor: Newsmax.com
Tel: 301-946-2918
Reply to: timmerman.road@verizon.net
Website: www.KenTimmerman.com
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
cyrus
Site Admin


Joined: 24 Jun 2003
Posts: 4993

PostPosted: Thu Mar 01, 2007 2:58 pm    Post subject: Bolton Calls for `Regime Change' in Iran, Chastises European Reply with quote

Bolton Calls for `Regime Change' in Iran, Chastises Europeans
Bolton said the Bush administration had allowed Britain, France and Germany to ``screw around'' in nuclear talks. The diplomacy has gone on for ``three and a half years, and that allowed the Iranians to make enormous progress on their nuclear-weapons program,


By Janine Zacharia and Bill Varner
http://quote.bloomberg.com/apps/news?pid=20601087&sid=a.m.58sr9RqM

March 1 (Bloomberg) -- John Bolton, the former American envoy to the United Nations, said the U.S. should pursue ``regime change'' in Iran because European governments refuse to back sanctions tough enough to halt the suspected Iranian nuclear-bomb program.

``I believe that either regime change in Iran or, as a last resort, military action is the only thing that will stop the Iranians from getting nuclear weapons,'' Bolton said in an interview today in Washington.


Bolton, a 58-year-old former arms-control official, said the Bush administration had allowed Britain, France and Germany to ``screw around'' in nuclear talks. The diplomacy has gone on for ``three and a half years, and that allowed the Iranians to make enormous progress on their nuclear-weapons program,'' he said.
President George W. Bush, who labeled Iran and North Korea part of an ``axis of evil'' in 2002, has said their nuclear programs could pose a direct threat to the U.S., and that either nation might hand over atomic weapons to terrorists. The U.S. has pursued negotiated settlements with both countries while crafting UN sanctions aimed at cutting off nuclear trade with them.

Bolton left the UN in December after failing to win congressional support to extend his tenure. He has emerged as a gadfly, criticizing the administration for its strategy on nuclear proliferation. He assailed Bush and his diplomats on Iran and for a deal with North Korea to trade energy aid for the closing of nuclear-arms-related facilities. Bolton said that accord is doomed to fail because of North Korea's record of cheating on similar arrangements.

`Fruitless' Effort

Broadly, Bolton said any negotiation with either North Korea or Iran to persuade them to abandon their nuclear ambitions won't work. ``Unless you're prepared to believe that the Iranians are voluntarily going to give up the pursuit of nuclear weapons, the idea of pursuing negotiations is ultimately going to be fruitless,'' Bolton said.

Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad, pronounced ah-ma- deen-ah-ZHAD, on Feb. 25 compared Iran's nuclear development to an unstoppable train and said there would be no turning back. Iran ``threw away a while ago the reverse gear and brakes of this train,'' he said, in remarks carried by the state-run Iranian Students News Agency.

Iranian officials insist the nuclear push is for commercial power generation, not weapons.

Intelligence Gap

Bolton, now with the American Enterprise Institute in Washington, said one drawback of any military strike on Iran is that the Iranians may have a secret uranium-enrichment facility that weapons inspectors will never find.

``The downside of the military option is that you would incur all of the costs of having undertaken military action but potentially not gotten the benefits of decisively breaking the nuclear fuel cycle at one or more points,'' he said. ``What that says is we need better intelligence about what the Iranians are actually up to beyond what is already in the public domain.''

Because of all of this, the U.S. needs to tap the ``substantial Iranian diaspora,'' which the U.S. is ``not using as effectively as we might,'' and ``exploit'' the dissatisfaction inside Iran to topple the cleric-led government that has ruled the country since the 1979 Islamic Revolution, Bolton said.

The United Nations Security Council voted 15 to 0 on Dec. 23 to impose sanctions on Iran for its nuclear program for the first time, including a ban on acquisition of materials and technology that might be used to build an atomic bomb.

The U.S. was forced to agree to a watered-down version of what it sought in negotiations in the Security Council.

Enrichment Expands

Since the resolution's passage, Iran expanded its capacity to enrich uranium, defying a Security Council demand to halt its atomic work, and plans to install 3,000 centrifuges designed to produce nuclear fuel at its underground facility in Natanz by May, according to a Feb. 22 International Atomic Energy Agency report.

The Security Council's five permanent members plus Germany met in London on Feb. 26 to discuss a draft resolution that would impose further penalties on Iran for refusing to halt uranium enrichment.

Germany's envoy to the UN said Feb. 23 there should be only ``modest'' expansion of UN sanctions. Bolton said European reticence reflects a core problem: that those governments are ``overcome by their economic interests'' in the Iranian market.

Countries and companies from Spain to Malaysia are pursuing long-term oil and gas agreements with Iran, rebuffing Bush's campaign to turn Iran into an economic pariah.

Bolton, who blasted the agreement the U.S., China, South Korea, Japan and Russia reached with North Korea that requires the country to scrap its plutonium-based nuclear weapons program in return for energy aid, criticized scheduled talks next week.

Talks Set

Assistant Secretary of State Christopher Hill's meeting with North Korea in New York, aimed at normalizing relations between the countries, won't lead Kim Jong Il's dictatorship to abandon nuclear weapons, Bolton said. Eventually the failure of diplomacy to disarm North Korea will force the U.S. to consider a military strike, he said.

Hill is set to meet March 5 and 6 with North Korean Vice Foreign Minister Kim Kye Gwan.

``This is all a part of re-legitimizing them,'' Bolton said of the North Korean dictatorship.

Hill, the U.S. envoy who negotiated the North Korea deal, said Feb. 22, ``We ultimately decided that, even though North Korea does need to make a strategic decision to get out of this nuclear weapons business, to realize that decision is going to require a step-by-step process.''

Bolton expressed concern that the new deal doesn't address North Korea's chemical weapons arsenal. He said the U.S. government estimates North Korea has up to 12,000 artillery tubes along the demilitarized zone with South Korea and that an initial attack on South Korea would be with chemical weapons.

To contact the reporter on this story: Janine Zacharia in Washington at jzacharia@bloomberg.net ; Bill Varner in United Nations at wvarner@bloomberg.net .

Last Updated: March 1, 2007 13:12 EST
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 8 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