[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 

Islamic fundamentalist and terrorism
Goto page 1, 2  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

Joined: 10 Aug 2005
Posts: 102

PostPosted: Sun Sep 11, 2005 11:29 am    Post subject: Islamic fundamentalist and terrorism Reply with quote

A couple of moths ago, one more time a terrorist attack in the heart of
an industrial nation reminds us that the world is facing this harsh
reality that needs to be seriously addressed before it turns into an
evil super power which can impact the whole civilization on this planet.
The world has in fact entered a new era with a big bang after 9/11 event
in the Untied States. an era of uncertainty and being on the edge all
the time. an era in which an unconvetional force influences the
decisions made in civilized and democratic societies in it's own favor.
an era in which, if it is not dealt with properly, we will see the days
that terrorism will dictate the civilized world and will emerge as a
super power that will say the last word in the world's affairs.

For more than two decades after the birth of Islamic Republic system in
Iran, the civilized world is still trying to find a balance between
accepting the danger of a backwarded and fanatic system in that region
and their own economical interests. During this period, westerners have
forgotten about their own championship of human rights and democracy
while closing their eyes to all kinds of crimes commited by rulling
mullahs in Iran or deposed dictator like Sadam in Iraq, just because
they needed the $billions which they could pour into their economy.

In return, Islamic fundamentalists took this as "a gift, given by allah"
so they could fulfill the centuries old dream of establishment of their
Islamic rule all over the world and impose their own values to humanity.
They learnt about flaws and weaknesses of democracy and how to take
advantage of that in order to destory the basis of democratic societies.
They know that democratic societies are run around "law" and a
"constitution" which will protect every member of society against any
unlawful action by governments in the absence of any evidence. They live
and bread under this protection of law in democratic societies while
preparing evil plans to implement "rule of allah" through spread of fear
and terror on the earth, bit by bit.

Fundamentalist islamists, while taking advantage of lawfulness of
democratic societies, have expanded their propaganda network to promote their own cause by talking about humanitarian values in general terms and ignoring the fact that those values can never be implemented under religious laws. Living Conditions in islamic nations and the treatment of citizens in those countries where laws are taken or linked with religion, is the most obvious reason for incompatibility of values in
modern society and islamic or any other religious laws.

Now, Islamic fundamentalists among islamic nations who have a big
portion of energy sources of the world in their possession, instead of
using this situation to the dvantage of their nations for progress and
prosperity, are working hard to stop the world from moving forward
thorugh use of terror and propaganda! The crusader mentality of middle
ages, has been revived by a group of fundamentalist islamists who have
taken the so called "Islamic revolution" in Iran as a sign for final
victory of islamic values over modern values, rooted in western
civilization, in the whole world!

Exactly like any other times in the history, we have witnessed some
attempts in islamic world, to copy the easy victory of fundamentalist
islamists in Iran which failed to bear the desired fruit. But those
failures never stopped fundamentalists of their dream of crating a
truely Islamic world in which no other religion has place in it! Thanks
to presence of an Islamic government in Iran and plenty of resources in
their possession, Islamic fundamentalism has now found a strong
supporter to promote itself and perform in every corner of the world
using a complicated network for funding their activities!

Islamic regime in Iran which justifies all it's activities against
Iranian people in the name of "allah" and "Islam" and has turned Iran
into an economical disaster, has been openly funding and supporting
different fundamentalist terrorist groups while spending a lot on
expansion of their propaganda tools like Islamic & Arabic satelite TVs
and radios. Islamic fundamentalist terroris groups have been holding
their conventions in Iran under their support and protection for many
years and continue to do do so today! With all differences in views that
islamic regime's leaders have with Ben Ladin and his Al Qaeda group,
they have been providng substantial support and assistance to Al Qaeda
for many terrorist activities like khobar tower bombing in Saudi Arabia!

It only makes sense to think that Islamic regime of Iran has been successful in hiding their link to some terrorist activities as a result of their experience with illegal activities, exactly like they did with their
nuclear activities for more than 20 years!

Today, the western world is on the verge of dealing with the extremely
dangerous reality of having nuclear weapons in the hands of islamist
fundamentalists who strongly believe in expansion of their islamic
ideology to the whole world at any price! They have shown their
mentality through attacks on symbols of progress or anything which
differes from their views in the world! The attacks on WTC towers on
9/11/2001, attacks on commuter trains in Spain and England are merely a sign of what might be coming in not very distant future if this issue is
not dealt with properly! Iranian nation can emerge as a winner in this
battle of the most sensetive times in our history if they act more
responsiblly! Western nations have shown in the past that they were
willing to compromise humanitarian values when it comes to their own
economic interests in dealing with reprsssive regimes in other parts of
the world! It is responsibility of Iranian people to act on their own
national interests in order to avoid inevitable actions by the western
world which might result in enormous damages to our nation! Expecting
the western world not to act in order to remove this great danger of
their civilization is illogical and unreasonable! If Iranians do not act
on their own behalf then others will do it for them and Iranians will
have no choice but to accept the outcome and live with it!

sohrab ferdows
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
Liberty Now !

Joined: 04 Apr 2004
Posts: 521

PostPosted: Sun Sep 11, 2005 4:07 pm    Post subject: this road leads to ... Reply with quote

good job toofan. just a few questions:

If this regime is so Evil, and such great danger to western civilization,

then how come such enemies of the west get to have embassies all over Europe, and are treated as Legitimate Reps. with Full diplomatic immunity? doesn't that seem a bit odd, even to the most stupid westerner?

Either this is a terrorist regime and a threat to western civilization, or it is a legitimate government worthy of relations and trades. they can't have their cake and eat it too.

you'd think the West could at least make up its mind on this simple issue, before throwing nukes at Iranians! but no such luck yet!

wouldn't it be ironic that the day U.S is suppose to bomb Iran, the legitimate Ambassador of Islamic Republic of Terror could call upon the world from his legitimate tribune in their London Embassy, and condemn U.S as a terrorist aggressor?

and more likely the world will answer his calls and take to the streets again, with the strongest Anti-U.S sentiments ever!
knowing that even a nuclear bomb will neither end the regime's rule nor their "legitimacy", but kills many Iranian citizens, is it not possible that the regime will actually find more sympatisans inside Iran and around the Globe?

I don't know about U.S admins. but we know for sure that this is a regime which strives on wars and chaos. they would love to find such excuse to spread their wars throughout the region. and I mean including palestine.

wouldn't that be kind of counteractive to U.S middlea East plans?

and after those plans are flushed down the drain, wouldn't EU have the upper hand in the region. all they have to do is keep up their good relations with the terrorist ayatollahs and use them as their army of colonialist expansionists (same old same old), and keep up the cheap oil flowing to EU so they can sell it all over for soaring prices. what joy.

there is no use in beating U.S admin. over the head for keeping silence in past 26 years, but we can at least open their eyes to the realities of today.

perhaps, they will find more effective ways to diminish the ayatollahs,

and hopefully once they have done so in Iran, they wont have to come back and deal with ayatollah sistani or the likes in Iraq, 25 years from now!

besides, admiting that they've used khomeini for their own purpose and paid the guy to do their dirty work, will completely ruin the guy's reputation. who would want to tie a bomb to himself over a western spy? lol it will totally devestate the ayatollahs cause. think about it.

unfortunately, the way no one likes to take a look at their past mistakes and deal with them as responsible establishments of democracy, it is doubtful that they wont repeat the same mistakes over and again.

(not to mention the worst case senario in all this:
the world will accuse U.S for using nukes and of starting a nuclear world war. no one will dare accuse the poor IRI regime for even the harshest retaliation against U.S or Israel. now would'nt that be enough to start WWIII?
with China & N. Korea allied with IRI, and possibly even India, Pakistan, and Russia. afterall, EU will also have its own role to play as the usual Master of the Remote Control Wars, with proven historic capability to mobilize all the fundamentalist/ terrorist/fascist forces of the world. and why shouldn't they? afterall they'll be sitting safe and sound in their palaces, and no one will even point a finger at them, as usual.

they will be new masters of a world with half the population and all it's resources intact. all they have to do is a little bit of cleaning up! )
Paayande Iran

Last edited by Liberty Now ! on Wed Sep 14, 2005 12:24 am; edited 3 times in total
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message

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

PostPosted: Mon Sep 12, 2005 6:38 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

then how come such enemies of the west get to have embassies all over Europe, and are treated as Legitimate Reps. with Full diplomatic immunity? doesn't that seem a bit odd, even to the most stupid westerner?

1. Consular functions....if there were no diplomatic ties, how would Iranians seeking to get the heck out to a free nation ever do so?

You read SMCCDI's letter, and this is all you can offer? Look, you probably read the item regarding maintaining limited consular function under tight supervision, for the purpose of issuing emergency visas to family.

Say your your mom was in hospital, wouldn't you want to visit?

2. Embassies work both ways....EU embassies in Iran serve as points of contact , and enables the west to get at least some picture of what's going on...human rights reports...NGO's ...other things essential given the lack of western media coverage....as well, if it weren't for diplomatic dialoge, the war you claim the US is so eager to start with Iran would have taken place long ago, but not at our choosing.

In any case, you don't need to worry about a nuke being sent from the US with "best regards" written on it anytime soon....for 60 years we've dealt with a far more dangerous nation and never pushed the trigger during the entire Cold-War. Learn your history.....these things are for insurance purposes, "just in case" as I said in my post about "boomers".

It helps keep mad mullahs in a box, and their ambitions in check.

Now I believe isolating the regime by closing their embassies (other than basic consular function) is a good move, but that goes both ways as well, all other nations would be closing theirs in Iran as a result....

EU embassies have already had violence directed at them over the years, and the US example in 80 is not lost on them.

Whether you know this or not, the IRI must go through Pakistan's embassy to communicate with US reps, and we go through the Swiss on matters that are essential, like the Bonn agreements after the Taliban were removed, and an interim Afghan government was being formed.
Iran as a neighbor was party to that agreement process. And has since prove most "unhelpful" in it's interference and support for Taliban militia, Gulbadin Heyctameyer (an international terrrorist) has been on IRI payroll, receiving arms, ammunition, explosives....all documented over time.

So even if the IRI is booted out of the UN , and diplomatic sanction is implemented among member states as outlined in SMCCDI's letter, there will be a base-line communication out of neccesity. If nothing else to give them 48 hours to pack bags, as we were so kind to offer Saddam.

What is not acceptable to me as an American, is having over 400 IRI "diplomats" hanging out at the UN, violating the 25 mile travel resriction , spying on opposition groups and members in my country, and posing a security risk.
Folks protesting on the 14th should be aware and alert that these folks don't try to create an "incident". They will try, but they are also monitored by US agencies.

IRI embassy London has been known to be a point of recruitment for martyrs transiting into Iraq, and visa issued by the IRI for such purpose.
This is not by any means the only IRI embassy involved in this....it's systemic.

And documented.

And a screeching halt will be put to it.
You'll hear a lot of screeching mullahs by the time it's over. (chuckle).

One thing is that things of a covert nature are not always exposed, sometimes it takes years, sometimes not long at all....and it was through a number of very brave and determined countrymen and women of your's that risked their ass to get inside to find out what was going on....and a few westerner friends to pass the word to the respective governments to bring it to light.

Now you obviously don't appreciate westerners much, or those individuals who stand with the opposition....call them stupid if you wish....but you driveling snot-nosed little whining excuse for a pansy- assed revolutionary are by far the stupidest Iranian I have ever come across in many years.

Insulting? Moi? never, I always tell the truth, as painful as it may be to have a bull come barging into your precious little china shop that you call a brain.

Angry with you? Nah, you arn't worth getting upset over, joke that you have proven yourself to be....
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message

Joined: 04 Sep 2003
Posts: 1829

PostPosted: Mon Sep 12, 2005 11:13 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

Dear Toofan is that you? Wow

Great to have you onboard Razz , I have missed your posts for a long time.

Truly Great to have you around again!
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message

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

PostPosted: Tue Sep 13, 2005 12:42 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

Dear Spenta,

Yeah, it's like an SMCCDI reunion... Remember KIA ATRI? got an email today...I think we'll be seeing a few more folks...

BTW, thanks for reminding me...I've been remiss.

Back to top
View user's profile Send private message

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

PostPosted: Tue Sep 13, 2005 1:43 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

Dear Toofan,

Regarding this, from your post....

During this period, westerners have
forgotten about their own championship of human rights and democracy
while closing their eyes to all kinds of crimes commited by rulling
mullahs in Iran or deposed dictator like Sadam in Iraq, just because
they needed the $billions which they could pour into their economy.

Speaking on America's role in the cold-war, and post cold-war era...in reference to the failure to adequately promote democracy, President Bush has addressed the dysfuntional premis of having, as a nation, supported states that had no regard for their peoples inalienable rights for the sake of stability and peace...and by doing so failed to achieve either goal in those years prior to 9/11. (don't have his exact quote handy, but this is an accurate paraphrasing of it).

It should also be noted that the US poured billions in aid , food, humanitarian assistance and a lot of it never reached those in need due to the dysfunctional governments and institutions that lacked transparency, and where favoritism, outright corruption, and political agenda superceded and interfered with humanitarian efforts and ngo's efforts directly as a result.

Now in terms of your post, certainly economic stability was party to that premis, but political stability as a function of a "balance of power" between US/Soviet interests in the region was also a great contributing factor.

Awhile back, I came across an NGO conference forum, as part of the 2005 UN Summit, welcoming comment as they were, I put my 2 cents in for the record, then copied it and sent it direct to the co-chairs via email.

I believe it provided perspective on both the history and the solutions...been getting some really interesting and positive feedback from folks across the globe...I want you all to know that folks are aware, and supportive of the Iranian people in their current circumstance, grassroots folks, NGO's , community leaders, there's a well of support out there that goes way beyond governments...but interacts with them on a global level through the UN.

It may be "backdoor diplomacy" , but it got folks thinking....

For me it's all about getting results.

----- Original Message -----
From: (Oppie)
To: hoeffel@un.org
Sent: Monday, August 22, 2005 10:03 AM
Subject: Re: "Isotope Road"

To: Conference Co-Chairs

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

"Isotope Road"

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Regarding the NIE that was leaked to the Washington Post, I know they cherry-picked from it to "spin" it. But in any case, 10 years is a dangerously optimistic estimate for the IRI producing a bomb on their own. Intent is not only clear, but where there's a will on the part of the IRI, there's a way. 2 or 3 years is equally dangerous and optimistic.

Anyone looking at a map can see the "book-ended" nature of the strategic position Tehran is in at the moment, with two fledgling democracies and thousands of US/coalition troops on its borders.
The reports out of the Pentagon regarding shaped explosive charges originating and shipped from Iran (of Revolutionary Guard origin) are but a manifestation of a coordinated effort between the regime in Tehran, Hizbollah, and al-quaida to ferment civil war in Iraq.
Tehran has been at "war by proxy" with the US since the bombing of the Marine barracks in Beirut, and it may only be a matter of time before there is no other option left on the table except a military one to resolve the situation.
This prospect may terrify folks more than terrorism itself, but there's only one viable solution to effectively stabilize Iraq and Afghanistan permanently. It is quite simply, "regime change" in Tehran.

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

Now Iran has had at least 18 years, lots of help from other nations, black market smugglers, and their scientists have had proven designs to work with. It's not because their scientists aren't as smart as America's, or that they lack the raw materials, the technological capability or the will to build it, that prevented them from doing so. Fact is, the only reason I can think of is that containment by western nations has been up to this point fairly successful even with the smuggling, and outside help they've had. But it has its limits, and the limit has been reached.
The Iranian Clock is ticking. While the EU3 has been messing about trading and negotiating with Tehran, two solid years have passed, allowing the IRI regime to secretly consolidate it's nuclear program, it's armed force structure, train and recruit martyr brigades for terrorist action, destabilizing the region by proxy and all of it directly flying in the face of UN resolutions, as a member and original 1948 signatory to the UN charter.

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

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

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

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

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


Back to top
View user's profile Send private message

Joined: 10 Aug 2005
Posts: 102

PostPosted: Tue Sep 13, 2005 9:53 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

Dear Oppenheimer,

Thank you for the response my friend, I always enjoy reading you posts and appreciate your comments!
As far as Americans failures in providing proper support to democratic movements, specially after the cold war, I believe they could do a lot better than what they already have done! but I have no complain about that because I don't believe that democracy should have a nanny! My issue is with ourselves, the Iranians! From the time when Mirza Aghaa-Khaane Kermaani wrote his "seh maktoob" and Zeinol AAbedine Maraaghehee wrote his "safarnaameh ebraahim beyk" till today is about 130 years! and.. we are still struggling to get our most basic rights from a bunch which those brave people tried to introduce them to us perfectly and in the case of Aghaa-Khaan, cost him his lif!
I will go over the rest of your post tomorrow and will reply if neccessary!

kindest regards
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message

Joined: 10 Aug 2005
Posts: 102

PostPosted: Tue Sep 13, 2005 10:09 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

Dear Liberty Now!

I appreciate your response and comments! As far as your questions, I will try to respond tomorrow but there are couple of things which I like to mention here: first, not seeing everything in black and white! USA is not a rigid entity which never changes! it is a democracy and democracies are fluid and their behavior is affected by the mood of their society! and as far as use of nuclear bomb by Americans, I have to say that, islamic regime's information ministry has been working very hard on this as a strong propaganda tool to create scare among Iranians and make them rally behind the terrorist regime in order to affirm it's legitimacy! This is just a myth!

best regards

Dear Spenta,

Thank you for your kind words, again, and yes, it's me! it's great to see compatriots like you still care and work hard in direction of disintegration of islamic terrorist regime!

best regards
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message

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

PostPosted: Wed Sep 14, 2005 2:31 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

Same here Toofan. A healthy debate among friends, and the insight you offer in contribution is indeed a pleasure.


"but I have no complain about that because I don't believe that democracy should have a nanny! "

(chuckle) As it is said, democracy is never imposed on the people, but tyrany always is. Tyrany is like the nanny from H.e.ll

As for "doing a better job" please see the following posts, it follows with the topic thread you've started here, and graphicly illustrates how the IRI agenda is manifest with it's long time ally Syria's help.

I have not had ther opportunity to read "seh maktoob" or "safarnaameh ebraahim beyk" , but if there's a translation in English that is available, please let me know where I can find it. Many thanks....
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message

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

PostPosted: Wed Sep 14, 2005 2:51 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

Note: This is a graphic account as told by an individual litterally taking a break from battle to give this press briefing, then going right back into the thick of it.


Press Briefing on Overview of Operation Restoring Rights in Tall Afar, Iraq
(Col. McMaster briefs via video conference from Iraq. Event joined in progress . . . )

MR. WHITMAN: -- we know that it's late your time. Actually, I'm sure that the hours you've been working, it's not even very late for you. But we welcome you to the briefing room. This is the first time that you've met with our Pentagon press corps in this format.

For those of you in the briefing room, this is, of course, Colonel H. R. McMaster. He is the commander of the 3rd Armored Cavalry Regiment. It is the regiment that's currently assigned to Multinational Forces Northwest in Iraq. But more importantly, he is currently participating in Operation Restore Rights in Tall Afar. And he's today to give us a brief update and overview of what his forces as well as what the Iraqi security forces have been doing during this operation.

He has for the last several days been totally consumed in this particular operation. And so, I would ask that we keep our questions combined to -- confined to the current operation that we're here to talk about today.

With that, I'll turn it over to you, Col. McMaster, and you can give us kind of an overview, and then we'll get into the questions here.

COL. MCMASTER: Great. Okay, I'll begin by talking about the purpose of the operation and then describe the enemy that we're facing here, and then summarize the effects I think we've had on the enemy over the past couple of weeks.

First of all, the purpose of this operation is the secure the population of Tall Afar from the terrorists who have infiltrated this city and set up a safe haven support base here in Tall Afar. The whole purpose of the operation is to secure the population so that we can lift the enemy's campaign of intimidation and population -- intimidation and coercion over the population and allow economic and political development to proceed here and to return, really, to normal life.

The enemy in this area is -- this is the worst of the worst in terms of people in the world. The enemy here was drawn to Tall Afar for a couple of reasons.

First of all, Tall Afar is positioned along routes that lead from Mosul into Syria. So it was important to the enemy to have freedom of action, not only in Tall Afar, but in western Ninevah province, so they could access sources of external support in Syria. Also, this area is important to the enemy because this enemy -- al Qaeda in Iraq -- wants to foment ethnic and sectarian violence and wants a chaotic environment so that they can operate freely in this area, and ultimately what they hope is that Iraq will fail and descend into civil war. And this area is conducive to those sort of efforts because you have an ethnic minority here: the Turkmen. You have - that - ethnic minority is further divided between a majority of Turkmen Sunna and a minority of Turkmen Shi'ia. And this city of Turkmen exists in an area that also includes other ethnic and sectarian groups, including Sunni Arabs and Izedis, and then also Kurds in the region.

So the enemy moved into here to establish this support base and safe haven. They also moved into this area because there's very dense urban terrain in the city of Tall Afar. It's difficult for our forces, organized as we are as a mechanized force, primarily, to access these areas. And so the enemy went into this safe haven and used it not only to access sources of external support, but they also used this area to train, organize, and equip their forces for employment not only locally here in Tall Afar, but without (sic) the region and potentially throughout the country. So it was very important for us to deny the enemy the ability to use this safe haven and to terrorize this population.

To protect themselves here, what the enemy did is they waged the most brutal and murderous campaign against the people of Tall Afar.

I'd like just to briefly characterize the enemy, describe who we're fighting here. This is an enemy, who when they came in, they removed all the imams from the mosques, and they replaced them with Islamic extremist laymen. They removed all the teachers from the schools and replaced them with people who had a fifth-grade education and who preached hatred and intolerance. They murdered people. In each of their cells that they have within the city has a direct action cell of about 100 or so fighters. They have a kidnapping and murder cell; they have a propaganda cell, a mortar cell, a sniper cell -- a very high degree of organization here. And what the enemy did is to keep the population from performing other activities. To keep the population afraid, they kidnapped and murdered large numbers of the people here, and it was across the spectrum. A Sunni Turkmen imam was kidnapped and murdered. A very fine man, a city councilman, Councilman Suliman (sp), was pulled out of his car in front of his children and his wife and gunned down with about 30 gunshot wounds to his head. The enemy conducted indiscriminate mortar attacks against populated areas and wounded scores of children and killed many others. The enemy here did just the most horrible things you can imagine, in one case murdering a child, placing a booby trap within the child's body and waiting for the parent to come recover the body of their child and exploding it to kill the parents. Beheadings and so forth.

So the enemy's grip over this population to maintain the safe haven was based on fear, coercion, and these sort of heinous acts. And not only were they targeting civilians, brutally murdering them, torturing them, but they were also kidnapping the youth of the city and brainwashing them and trying to turn them into hate-filled murderers.

So, really, there could be no better enemy for our soldiers and Iraqi army soldiers to pursue and defeat and deny the enemy the safe haven in this area.

So I just want to quickly summarize what's occurred here, and then talk about some of the reasons for the success we've had thus far. The regiment began operating here on the 1st of May with our lead squadron, 2nd Squadron. They partnered with the unit that was doing a very effective job at disrupting the enemy here and reinforced their efforts. That was the 1st of the 14th Cavalry.

They began to conduct aggressive offensive operations and reconnaissance operations in the city. The enemy noticed that we're challenging this support base, a base that they desperately wanted to hold onto, so they began to attack our forces in large numbers. And we had stand-up conventional fights against the enemy in this dense urban terrain, where up to 200 of the enemy were attacking our troopers as they conducted operations in this urban area.

The result of those operations were that Iraqi security forces and armed forces killed large numbers of the enemy in those engagements, 30 to 40 of the enemy at a time. So the enemy realized this tactic isn't working, so they went back into harassment attacks -- IEDs, roadside bombs, mortar attacks, sniper attacks against our forces, and attempted to do sort of hit-and-run operations against us.

But our troopers were very aggressive in maintaining contact with the enemy. We have an air/ground team here, so our aerial scouts were able to maintain contact with the enemy as they tried to move into the interior of the city. So we pursued them very effectively.

And we were able to gain access to intelligence here by a very good relationship with the people, who recognized this enemy for who they are and were very forthcoming with human intelligence. In one raid in the beginning of June, for example, we were able to capture 26 targeted individuals, some of the worst people here in Tall Afar, within a 30-minute period. And the enemy began to realize this isn't working either, they can't hide in plain sight anymore.

So what the enemy did in response -- and this was part of this continuous interaction we've had with them since our arrival in this area -- is they intensified their campaign of intimidation over the people. They conducted more sniper attacks against innocent civilians, more mortar attacks.

And in response, we targeted their mortar teams. We killed four of their mortar teams and captured two. We killed about 12 of their sniper teams. And we relentlessly pursued the enemy until the enemy realized that a lot of our power was building now toward Tall Afar because we wanted -- as we were figuring this enemy out, we were preparing for operations to destroy their safe haven in a particular neighborhood of the city.

So as the specter of coalition operations became apparent to the enemy, as we isolated the city, as we improved the effectiveness of our traffic control points to limit their movement, as we continued to pursue the enemy, the enemy responded by sending their fighters, many of them, into the outlying communities to hide in the outlying communities until the operation was over.

But what we did is we conducted effective operations in the outlying areas. Simultaneous with our operations in Tall Afar, we were establishing a permanent security capability along the Syrian border in Rabiya, south of Sinjar Mountain and the town of Sinjar. We took over the town of Bosh (phonetic) from the insurgents and established -- reestablished the police force and the Iraqi army there. We went to the town of Afgani (phonetic) about 12 kilometers north of here. We captured, just out of that one town, one small town of Afgani (phonetic), about 116 of the enemy in three separate operations.

One operation -- that was the most effective -- was an Iraqi army exclusive operation, and then that we established two Iraqi companies and recruited police. The police are done training and now there's a permanent security presence there. The enemy is denied that area. We operated in other outlying communities and captured many more of the enemy. So now, the enemy had that option taken away from them, and they resolved then to defend this safe haven in Sarai. I had a chance to walk downtown today and found a lot of their propaganda in their abandoned fighting positions. And this propaganda was: we cannot afford to lose Tall Afar; we're going to defeat, you know, the coalition forces and Iraqi security forces here. It was exhorting their forces to defend Tall Afar at all costs.

So the enemy then -- as we continue to concentrate our efforts on Tall Afar, we've brought in some very capable Iraqi security forces to help us. The 3rd Iraqi Army Division, which is our partnership unit -- which over the past four months has gained a tremendous amount of capability -- integrated them into our operations completely, and then, we also brought in some additional Iraqi army battalions as well some Iraqi police formations. And the enemy then moved into some of these outlying neighborhoods outside of their support base, and they wanted to take the fight there to divert our attention. They also tried some diplomatic efforts to call off attacks for a couple of weeks and to act as if the problem was solved -- again, a desperate attempt to avoid the removal of this safe haven in Tall Afar.

But we conducted very effective combat operations against the enemy, we being the Iraqi security forces and our forces. These were very complex defenses in neighborhoods outside of the Sarai neighborhood, which was the center of the enemy's safe haven here. They had their command and control in a safe house in the center that was very heavily defended. Outside of that, they had defensive positions with RPG and machine gun positions. Surrounding those positions, they had homes that were rigged to be demolished by munitions as U. S. and Iraqi soldiers entered them, and then, outside of those, they had Improvised Explosive Devices, roadside bombs, implanted, buried into the roads.

But our forces aggressively pursued the enemy in these areas. They were able to defeat these IEDs based on the human intelligence we developed. We exploded many of them with attack helicopter fire or detonated them with our engineers. We penetrated that defense. Our tanks led with our Iraqi infantry in support. We absorbed any energy from their rocket-propelled grenades and machine guns, continued the assault into these safe havens and destroyed their leadership throughout the city. The word then went out that -- to the enemy that put other elements on notice: look, we're being slaughtered here; we need to avoid these very effective combined forces of Iraqi and U. S. forces. But we continued to relentlessly pursue them as we moved to isolate the Sarai district.

And the main engagements in this fight happened really between the 2nd and the 6th of September, a period of time during which we killed 118 terrorists and captured 137 of them. And we think at this point the enemy realized the futility of their defensive efforts.

In Sarai, the most dense urban terrain you can imagine, there was a very complex defense prepared there, with, again, these roadside bombs, buildings rigged for demolition, machine gun positions, sniper positions, and mortars integrated into this. But with our intelligence, our precision fires capability, we were able to severely disrupt that defense and really collapse it all around the enemy.

We had some very heavy fighting on the 5th and 6th of September, during which we killed many of the enemy, who engaged us from their forward defensive positions. And it was at that point that the enemy shifted their approach again to essentially running away from the area. They gave the word to retreat. They did everything they could to blend in with the civilians who were evacuating from this dense urban area to protect them, and we caught them. We were integrated with the population. The people were pointing out who the enemy was. We had Iraqi army who was very good at sensing something isn't quite right when this man is walking down the street with children, and the children look very nervous. This one man in particular was a beheader who had beheaded over 20 people. And we were able to capture him as the children fled, as we came up to talk to this individual, and the children related to us this man said that they had to walk with him or he would kill them.

We captured five of the enemy dressed as women, trying desperately to get out of the area. Just yesterday we captured 104 of the enemy in these outlying areas.

So we relentlessly pursued the enemy as they attempted to break contact with our forces. But we're maintaining contact with them, and we're continuing to hunt them down.

Okay, I want to get to questions. I know you do, too, so I'm just going to quickly summarize why I think this operation has been extraordinarily effective.

The first reason is the close integration with Iraqi security forces, especially our partnership division, the 3rd Iraqi Army Division. I mean, we are really complementary in our capabilities, and we have achieved a very high degree of synergy in our efforts as a result of that.

These Iraqi soldiers are brave. They're courageous. They're building capabilities every day. And we draw strength from their example. I mean, these are men who, like our soldiers, are committed to this mission. They're doing it at great risk to themselves. And in this case, based on the ruthlessness of this enemy, they're doing it at great risk to their families as well. So we're proud, very proud to serve alongside these brave Iraqi soldiers.

Also, we achieved, I think, an unprecedented level of cooperation between civil officials and our partnership units: the police, the mayor and the people. (Laughs. ) I think the people are sick and tired of this violence, of this enemy, and they are very grateful for our efforts, and the Iraqi army's efforts in particular, to rid them of this enemy. The cooperation with the people, again: another important element of our success here, the access to the intelligence that that relationship we've developed with the people has given us.

And then, I'll tell you -- (laughs) -- the American soldier: the American people have got to be so proud of our soldiers. I can't tell you how proud I am of the troopers of this regiment. They have relentlessly pursued this enemy in continuous combat operations for well over 14 days. They are tough, they are disciplined, they are compassionate. And America ought to be proud of the Cavalry troopers of this regiment and the soldiers more broadly in our army and the armed services.

We have been joined by a very effective organization, the 3rd -- the 2nd of the 325, the White Falcons from the 82nd Airborne Division. They've gotten into this fight and have done a tremendous job. We're coordinating our efforts with the 1st of the 72nd Infantry in Mosul, who is pursuing the enemy relentlessly in their area as the enemy attempts to flee. They are hunting them down in that area. But the American soldier is pursuing the enemies of Iraq, they're pursuing the enemies of our nation. We are committed to this mission to bring freedom and security to 26 million people here. And it is very clear to our soldiers as we go into these areas, as we see these caches, as we see the horrible acts that these people have committed, as we see the extremist literature and the intolerance and the hatred that this enemy possesses, it is very clear to us that these are enemies of our nation, and we are proud to be here to pursue them and defeat them in Tall Afar and broadly throughout this region.

So I'd like to just end with that and then see what questions anybody has about the operation, what our troopers are doing, and what the brave Iraqis are doing alongside our soldiers.

MR. WHITMAN: Well, thank you, Colonel, and we'll get right into it.

And we'll start with Charlie here.

Q: Colonel, Charlie Aldinger with Reuters. A couple of brief questions. First of all, what does the "H. R. " stand for? What name do you go by besides your initials?

COL. MCMASTER: I can't tell you. It's -- I go by H. R. , really, but it's Herbert Raymond. So -- and my mom named me H. R. , you know? So everybody calls me H. R.

Q: You've painted an extremely rosy picture of your campaign so far. Have you taken and secured Tall Afar, and are you going to be able to hold it and keep it?

COL. MCMASTER: Yeah. Those are great questions. Nothing's rosy in Iraq, okay? So I don't want to give you an unrealistic perspective here. What I tried to describe with you was a continuous interaction with the enemy that we've had since our arrival, but an interaction that has been in our favor. We've maintained the initiative over this enemy.

So is Tall Afar secure? No, it's not secure. Is the enemy on the run in Tall Afar? Yes, the enemy's on the run. And we're going to conduct some follow-on operations in the next week or so to relentlessly pursue the enemy across the city.

The standard for success for us here is to ensure that the enemy can no longer wage an effective campaign of intimidation over the population of Tall Afar. And to get to your question, in terms of can we permanently secure it, the answer is, yes, and we're taking all measures to do that. In fact, it's the most complicated part of the mission, is how we provide permanent security. We're introducing Iraqi security forces into the center of the city. Iraqi army will have access to the population. They'll be in patrol bases in the interior of the city.

One of the main local grievances here is that the police force is not representative of the population. In fact, although the Sunni- Turkmen population is 75 percent of the city's population, there are virtually no policemen who are Sunni-Turkmen, and the reason is, if they had joined the police force, their families would have been murdered. So now that we've lifted this ball of fear from the people, we're recruiting police right now. They're going to go to school here in the next couple weeks. We're going to introduce them into Tall Afar with Iraqi army and coalition force backup. So building the capability of the security forces, introducing them into the city, controlling the return of civilians, developing sources within the communities to make sure that we have early warning of these terrorists if they come back -- these are all things that are very much on all of our leaders' minds as we continue to set conditions for permanent security for the people of Tall Afar.

So is it done, yet? No. Will it happen? Yes. It's going to happen. And this operation is setting the conditions for establishing that kind of security, so these people -- these good people in Tall Afar no longer have to suffer. I mean, there are the most beautiful children I've ever seen in my life in this city. I mean, there's Turkmen kids in these multicolored dresses. They've suffered for way too long, and all of us, the Iraqi soldiers, the Iraqi police, our forces are committed to make sure they don't have to suffer anymore. And these terrorists will not come back. They won't come back to Tall Afar.

Q: Hey, Colonel. Bret Baier with Fox News Channel. Just to follow on Charlie's question, do you have enough U. S. troops in western Iraq to continue these operations and hold these cities? The criticism, as you know, has been that you have successful operations and then have to go back and do them again because the insurgents and terrorists come back and infiltrate these cities and towns.

COL. MCMASTER: Well, Bret, what gives us the ability to sort of clear-and-hold as a counterinsurgency strategy is the capability of Iraqi security forces. And I think we have to remember, you know, that the enemy attacked the Iraqi security forces in a very focused manner over the last couple years. Why was that? Because that's their greatest danger to them. So I think we tend to give the enemy, you know, too much credit, not ourselves credit sometimes. You know, we've got the right strategy here, which is to build Iraqi security forces, which can secure the population from these terrorists and these murderers. And the key thing is for us to be able to reconstitute in this area, and that's what we're really doing, is rebuilding, reconstituting police forces, which suffered from a focused attack by the enemy last fall, so that the police can be the primary level of security. And now what has fundamentally changed from operations conducted previously is that we have a capable Iraqi army formation to provide them with backup.

Now is the Iraqi army ready to do that on their own yet? No. I mean, they're not. They have some additional capabilities they've got to develop, some of these longer-term capabilities that they need -- the ability to command and control operations over these wide areas. They need some more mobile protected platforms, you know, so that they can overmatch the enemy in tactical engagements. They need some greater logistical capabilities. And they need to develop some more experienced and effective leadership, junior leadership, sergeants -- you know, the strength of our Army. I mean, it hasn't existed in this army previously, and it takes some time to develop that. Some junior officer leadership.

But we're doing the work on all those things. And for example, we just graduated another 54 noncommissioned officers from the NCO academy that we're running here at the division headquarters at Al- Kisik. It was the second of those classes. We started an officer training class the next week.

We've got MNSTC-I, who is helping us with equipping this force better and giving them some mobile protected platforms. And we're working on the logistical and command-and-control issues.

So just, you know, as the question previously -- you know, it's not all rosy, but it's positive, it's in the right direction, and we've got to see it through. And will it take coalition forces to back up the Iraqi army until they develop those capabilities? Yes. When will the Iraqi army have those capabilities? I think we've got to understand that the future course of events depends not only on what we do but on enemy actions and initiatives, which are difficult to predict.

So I think what our Iraqi brothers need to know is, we're going to stand by them until they develop these autonomous capabilities. And we have communicated to them we're committed to doing that. And I'll tell -- our relationship is extraordinarily positive with our Iraqi army counterparts, and they're getting more effective every day.

We learn from them as much as they learn from us. And you understand what the language and cultural barriers are here. They bring a much deeper level of cultural understanding than we could achieve even through our cultural training programs.

And they bring us a tremendous infantry capability to combine with our combined arms capability within the cavalry formations that we've been employing here.

So you know, is there enough force here right now to secure this area permanently? No. Are there opportunities for the enemy in other areas within our region? Yes. But we are focused every day on taking those options away from the enemy, clearing additional areas. And the enemy is on the run. I mean, they're losing -- they don't have many places to go now. You know, they still have some places to go, but we're going to take them away from them next. And we'll continue to conduct operations in those outlying areas to disrupt their ability, until we can establish a permanent security capability with police and army.

MR. WHITMAN: Let's go to Bob Burns.

Q: Colonel, Bob Burns from Associated Press. Have you captured or killed any known associates of Zarqawi in this operation? And also, as the extremists have fled the city, have they left behind -- have you found any unconventional weapons or other unusual items?

COL. MCMASTER: That's a great question. Yes, we have. We have captured many associates of Zarqawi. We have captured many of the leaders who we had targeted during this operation. And I don't know what has been released so far so I'm not going to really comment on the specifics, but we have been very effective with a broader team here and specialized capabilities to track down the enemy leadership. And this is a very important part of this campaign because these are the intimidators, these are the worst of the worst. And we have been very effective against them. They are associates of Zarqawi. They are some of the worst human beings on the face of the Earth. And it gives us no -- there is no really greater pleasure for us than to kill or capture these particular individuals.

In terms of specialized weapons, some crude attempts, I think, in the western part of the city. We've been able to put this picture together now. The enemy had rigged a lot of buildings for destruction, and they wanted to time the destruction of these buildings with the entry of our forces. In one of these buildings the enemy had big barrels of chemicals that had explosives implanted in the chemicals, wires running around, and the whole house was rigged for demolition.

Around this house a lot of families were living. Our soldiers were conducting an area reconnaissance operation. They went into this house. Immediately their eyes began burning, their throat began burning, so they withdrew out of the house immediately and then we conducted reconnaissance with some chemical protective gear and with a remote reconnaissance capability into the house and we could tell that the thing was rigged with chemicals.

We stopped all of our operations. We were actually pursuing a particular enemy, but this was more important. We evacuated the civilians from the area and then we demolished that building without a hazard to the people.

I don't know if you've been following some of the enemy's propaganda. You know, one of the cells in this enemy's structure here, this very well developed enemy structure, is a propaganda cell. And on the sort of jihadist and extremist websites, they've been saying, you know, that coalition forces are using chemical weapons. I think what they had hoped to do was detonate this building, kill innocent civilians in this neighborhood and then blame it on coalition forces. But we preempted their ability to do that by evacuating the civilians from that building. That's one example of it.

We found some manuals that describe how they could make sort of these kind of chemical dirty bombs and so forth. But, you know, if the enemy had the capability to use it, I mean, this enemy is absolutely unscrupulous and I have no doubt that they would use it against innocent civilians and armed forces. So all the more important reason to make sure they don't have a place to develop these kind of plans, to conduct this kind of training. And that's, I think, one of the greatest success of this operation, is the safe haven is gone for them.

MR. WHITMAN: Let's go over here to Jamie.

Q: Colonel, Jamie McIntyre from CNN.

Just a couple of basics: How many troops are involved in this overall operation? What is the mix between U. S. and Iraqi? And you talked about the casualties that you've inflicted on the enemy, but can you tell us what sort of casualties you've taken over these 14 days?

COL. MCMASTER: This operation includes over 5,000 Iraqi security forces; about 3,500, growing maybe to about 3,800, of our forces. That number fluctuates from day to day as units arrive and as units depart.

We have suffered casualties. It depends on what period of time to talk about the numbers of casualties. I gave you some specific numbers for a specific window of time. The most recent U. S. casualties involved one of our troopers who was killed in action in the western part of the city several days ago. Since the beginning of this operation -- you know, this operation has been going, as I mentioned, since really May -- but this focused part of the operation over the last two weeks, we've had 11 of our troopers wounded, most of whom who have courageously returned to duty to continue to pursue the enemy.

In terms of brave Iraqis who have been killed in action during this operation, it is eight of our brothers who've fallen alongside of us. They have been killed in some cowardly attacks involving a suicide bomber on one occasion, and a couple of IED attacks. Nineteen Iraqi troopers - soldiers have been wounded during this operation. And for civilians, we think that caught in the crossfire during this operation that three to six, depending on where these casualties occurred, of civilians were killed during this operation.

Now, the enemy has attacked and killed more civilians, as they had, you know, consistently in Tall Afar. I think one of the things that all of us are proudest of in this operation is how the discipline of our soldiers and their ability to overwhelm the enemy in every tactical engagement, but apply firepower with discipline and discrimination, has saved civilians' lives. I mean, far more civilians have been killed in Tall Afar on a daily basis just by the terrorists who were attacking them than have fallen during this operation itself.

So I hope that answers your question. I can probably get through -- through Bryan some more specific details in terms of time and that sort of thing, if you need that information.

MR. WHITMAN: Over here, Thom Shanker.

Q: Colonel, it's Thom Shanker from The New York Times. I know that every mission is different. But as you describe the insurgent defenses, their order of battle, where they fought and faded away, I couldn't help but hear resonance of Fallujah. I'm just curious whether the insurgency you faced in Tall Afar was the same insurgency -- broadly, of course -- whether they have grown and learned or are doing something different now. And, of course, for you, were there things that you did differently in this operation because you learned your own military's lessons of Fallujah?

COL. MCMASTER: Well, I'll tell you, we always -- we're learning every day here, you know? We learn from our fellow units, we've learned from operations in Fallujah. But we read a lot about that. We read a lot about previous operations in Tall Afar. And no, it's not the same enemy, I don't think. It's a similar enemy. It's an enemy that has combined radical Islamic extremism and influences from transnational terrorist organizations and Saddamists -- you know, former regime elements. Much of the population here who was complicit with the terrorists are former members of the old regime's Republican Guard. Many of their senior warrant officers, for example, which is equivalent to senior NCOs in our army. So you have this melding together of an extremist enemy with a significant amount of military experience.

I mean, basically, you know, in a lot of areas of this city, it was -- it was the schoolhouse for the enemy. And they would go in -- they took over schools. They would go into schools, have classes on how to do an IED. I mean, literally, chalkboards. We've got photos of students and teachers standing in front of chalkboards. And, you know, in one engagement we had about a month ago we were able to gain observation of the enemy having an IED class outside of a school with, you know, 30 people gathered around, digging up a hole, and showing how you put in an IED. Now, we disrupted their class with an artillery attack that resulted in 30 of the enemy being killed on that occasion. But it's another example of what the enemy was using this area for.

So we found these classroom environments. We found the -- you know, we found training ammunition, you know, for AK-47s, sniper manuals, mortar manuals.

And so that the function of this place was different from Fallujah, the dynamics here were completely different in terms of the nature of the operation because we had the active cooperation of such a large percentage of the population. And that's what really -- that's what really allowed us to defeat the enemy at such a low cost, was that we had very precise information.

So we knew what houses were rigged to explode, and destroyed them in advance. We knew what defensive positions they were in, and we killed the enemy in those defensive positions before we closed with them. We knew where their IEDs were in the roads, so we exploded those IEDs with helicopter fires.

Now, we're still finding, you know, more and more of these positions after the enemy attempted to retreat out of this area, and we're exploiting those areas now and developing a more full picture of what the enemy was about in this area, but -- so I would say there are similarities with the way the enemy attempted to defend here and the way the enemy defended in Fallujah, but the enemy just couldn't get there. They couldn't pull it off. And I think that a lot of that has to do with the effectiveness of Iraqi security forces operating with us. And really the main issue, I guess, the main difference would be the access to human intelligence and the cooperation of the population.

MR. WHITMAN: We've reached the end of our time, but if I could ask you to indulge with one more question, we'll go to the Los Angeles Times.

Q: Hi, Colonel. It's Mark Mazzetti with the Los Angeles Times. You said a little while ago that right now there wasn't enough coalition force to secure the area permanently. And I'm wondering whether -- how long do you think it will take to really effectively do the hold part of the clear-and-hold operation? Is this months before Iraqis can actually hold this territory permanently? Or what's your assessment?

COL. MCMASTER: You know, I'll tell you frankly, it's difficult to predict how long it's going to take because there are so many factors that bear on this thing. It has to do a lot with how capable these forces are as we build them. So we've got to really make sure that they can withstand the enemy's intimidation.

And it has a lot to do with the enemy. I mean, one of the things we wanted to do with this operation was set conditions for the establishment of Iraqi security forces so that they get some time, some breathing space to develop some confidence, some cohesion within their police and army formations, develop some leadership, and that they're able to operate more effectively in a more permissive environment. So I don't -- I couldn't hazard a guess, because of this continuous interaction with the enemy.

You know, the progress that we're going to have in Iraq is not going to be linear. And I think everybody wants to -- or some people want to say that, you know, the enemy's, you know, enjoyed a great success somewhere because there's been an effective attack on Iraqi security forces, for example. But, I mean, that's what the enemy's job is, is to come back at us. And we've got to recognize that what we have to do is we've got to accelerate our operations against them. We've got to maintain the initiative. We've got to continue to pursue them.

And so, are we making progress in this area security-wise? Definitely. Definitely. Did we severely disrupt this enemy right here and deny them their safe haven and sort of atomize their organization, kill and capture large numbers of them, kill and capture their leadership? Yes, we did. Is it over? No. I mean, the others are going to try to come back at us. They're going to try to coalesce. They're going to try to figure out ways to come back and re-establish this intimidation campaign. But we're not going to let them do it. I mean, we're going to continue to increase our effectiveness by thinking hard about this problem, by partnering effectively with Iraqi security forces. And so, I know it's a non-answer. You know, I'm sorry, but I can't predict how long it's going to take. But I'll tell you, we're committed to doing it. Our soldiers are committed to doing it, and the Iraqi soldiers are committed to doing it.

MR. WHITMAN: Well, Colonel, we want to thank you for taking the time this evening to be with us. We appreciate that you are very busy, and -- but it is very helpful for us back here to hear from commanders on the ground that are actually involved in these operations from time to time. So we thank you very much, and we wish you the best.

COL. MCMASTER: Hey, thanks. And please, everybody, just please tell the American people how great their soldiers are. You've got to tell them. I mean, it is unbelievable what they're doing. I mean -- and I know I can't keep you any longer, but I just want to tell you, they're fighting. They're defeating the enemy. They are partnered with Iraqi security forces. They're building Iraqi security force capability. They're providing humanitarian assistance. They're organizing reconstruction right now. They are taking care of the people of the city as they're pursuing the enemy. I mean, it is extraordinary the quality of the young men and women who we have here pursuing the enemies of our nation and helping to secure the people of Tall Afar and western Ninevah. So you got to tell them.

And thanks for this opportunity to talk with you.

MR. WHITMAN: Thank you, Colonel.


Source: US Dept of Defense News
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message

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

PostPosted: Wed Sep 14, 2005 3:14 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

U.S. Ambassador to Iraq Zalmay Khalilzad on Reconstruction Efforts

(11:15 a.m. EST)

MR. ERELI: Welcome, everybody. We have the pleasure today to welcome our Ambassador to Iraq, Ambassador Zalmay Khalilzad who is here to brief us on developments in Iraq, his tenure there so far, progress that we've made and where he sees things going. So without further ado, we have Ambassador Khalilzad. Thank you.

AMBASSADOR KHALILZAD: Thank you very much. As you know, I'm here to accompany President Talabani on his visit to Washington. And I have been in Iraq for about five or six weeks before then. What I'd like to do is to make four points and then I'll take your questions.

Point one is that what's at stake in Iraq is extremely important. Iraq is the centerpiece of the defining challenge of our time. During the Soviet era, Soviet Communism was a defining challenge of our time; now it's terrorism and extremism that's the defining challenge of our time and Iraq is at the very center of it. And there's a huge struggle going on there. It's not only a struggle for Iraq itself, people of different regions, but also regional forces are involved in Iraq in order to shape and determine the outcome. And what happens there will affect us all, because Iraq itself is very important. It's a rich country, you know, in terms of oil, in terms of water, in terms of land, in terms of people, the numbers of people, the education level of the people, their sophistication.

But also Iraq is part of this region that we call a vital part of the world. So therefore, what happens in Iraq will affect the region. And what will happen in that region will affect us all. We are all very dependant on the region. If people like Zarqawi were to dominate Iraq, it will make Afghanistan under the Taliban look like a picnic, given the resources of Iraq -- given the resources of Iraq, the location of Iraq. So the American public needs to know that what's involved here is huge, as what we did with the Soviet Union was huge and what we did in World War II was huge -- point one.

Point two, that we're making progress in terms of our goals. What are our goals in Iraq? We want a democratic Iraq. We want a unified Iraq. We want a self-reliant Iraq, an Iraq that can look after its own security, and an Iraq that's prosperous and it's a successful country, that's a model for the broader transformation that's absolutely necessary of this region. It will take a long time. It will take a long time to do. Transforming regions, such as the Middle East, is not easy, but it's absolutely necessary. It's a region of the world that's producing most of the security problems of this era, and, therefore, we need to deal with it. And the way to deal with it is to get Iraq right, first, as we work on other problems of the region, too. Whether it's Israel-Palestine, whether it's Lebanon, whether it's other problems of the region, we need to shape the region environment towards positive change and Iraq is very important.

What are we doing, point three, with regard to moving towards our goals?

One, in the security domain: We're trying -- our goal is to get Iraq to stand on its own feet, as I said before. We're making progress: 190,000-plus Iraqis have been trained in police and military forces. Positively, too, we see Iraqis beginning to fight for themselves who are not even part of the security forces. You've probably seen in recent days that in places like Qaim, that tribes like Albu Mahal are fighting against Zarqawi. And it's critical for success of Iraq that Iraqis, whether Sunni, Shia or Kurd, protect their country, defend their country. And the sign that I see in these tribes, in Sunni tribes, standing up to Zarqawi are a positive development. We are discussing with the Iraqis over the transfer of security responsibility more and more to Iraqis.

We have formed a joint committee since I have been there with the Iraqi leaders and ourselves to define conditions for increased transfer of responsibility, and we will come to some agreement with them in the next couple of months as to a vision of transfer of responsibility and a plan for transfer of responsibility. It will be condition driven and we'll make that known to every one. But the trend is towards increased transfer of responsibility to Iraqis and a decrease in the security responsibilities for the United States and the coalition.

One key other factor that links to the initial point that I made with regard to security is the role of external players, particularly Syria. People are coming out from Syria to Iraq. People are coming from other parts of the region to Syria, whether it's to Damascus or whether it's to Latakia, whether it's to Aleppo, and then from there, they come to Iraq to kill Iraqis. The vision of these people, the Zarqawi people, for Iraq is not a democratic, unified, self-reliant, successful Iraq. It's an Iraq that's very much what we saw in Afghanistan under the Taliban -- an Islamic caliphate with a dark vision to take the region back, where women will not have the right to vote, where there will be no democracy, where there will be a center of international terror in a rich, powerful country. That's their vision. And Syria is allowing forces to advocate that, who want to prevent Iraq from succeeding to come across.

Our patience is running out with Syria. They need to decide: Are they going to be with a successful Iraq or are they going to be an obstacle to the success of Iraq? Iraq will succeed. Iraq will succeed. Syria has to decide what price it's willing to pay in making Iraq success difficult. And time is running out for Damascus to decide on this issue.

Politically, which is the other key prong of our strategy for success in Iraq, is a constitution. The draft of the constitution has been produced. The TNA in the next two to three days will vote on a final draft. The TNA is the transitional assembly in Iraq. It's an enlightened document. It's a good document.

As far as the Sunnis are concerned, there are discussions going on with them. I understand their difficulties. Because of the terrorist threat there, some of the people who support the document cannot say it publicly because they're afraid. Some are brave enough to -- who are saying with some additional minor adjustments, they would be willing to take the risk of standing up and supporting the document. The discussions are going on and the Iraqi people need to look at the final version of the document and when it's voted out of the assembly and decide.

I'm very, very happy with the trend in terms of Iraqis registering to vote. That means that politics is coming to Iraq, that people will participate in the process. You know, the Sunnis did not participate in the previous election and now they recognize that was a mistake. They're registering. I think the numbers are above 85 to 90 percent of people, who are qualified to vote, are registering to vote and that's extremely positive.

And then there will be an election. The referendum will be on the 15th of October -- elections in December. A permanent government will come about and that permanent government will have a broad mandate because all communities will participate in the elections, indications are. And a permanent government will be able to deal with some of the challenges that Iraq faces, particularly on the economic front.

It will be helpful obviously politically, because in order to win against the insurgency, not only you need qualified Iraqi forces to deal with the threat -- with support of the coalition, but you also need to win the people away from the insurgents through their participation in the political process. Indications are that that is a trend.

But they also need to deal with the economic needs of the people. And a lot of economic changes have taken place. Many new companies have been formed. Many projects have been carried out that I'd be glad to talk about if you have questions. But there are some issues that have not been dealt with yet: subsidies, whether it's oil, electricity, other issues that a permanent government will be in a better position to deal with.

On my final point, Iraq is going through a difficult transition, it's clear. It's a difficult transition because, you know, change in authoritarian regime, a one-man rule system, where one man was the constitution to a system where the people are deciding for themselves their political system, participating in the process, respecting each other's rights, compromising, self-relying more and relying less on government. These are processes that ordinarily would take decades. We are, in Iraq, learning how to crawl, walk and run at the same time. We're doing multiple things simultaneously that ordinarily would take -- be done sequentially over a very extensive period of time.

We're making progress but there are significant challenges that remain. I believe we have a good plan for how to proceed, and we need to stick with it and resource it. With that, I'd be glad to take questions that you might have.

Yes, ma'am.

QUESTION: Mr. Ambassador, you mentioned Syria. What are the consequences if Syria doesn't -- I mean, you said time is running out. Well, what does that mean? What are the consequences for Damascus? What would you like to see the United States or other countries do if Syria does not act the way you would like it to?

AMBASSADOR KHALILZAD: Well, I would not like to elaborate any more than that. I think they'll -- they should understand what I mean. It simply is not tolerable that they, with impunity, can allow terrorists to come from other countries in the region, get training or just either pass through -- or Baathists want to have the old order returned, get trained in places like Latakia or Aleppo or near Damascus and then come across the border, kill Iraqis and pursue policies or actions that are unhelpful to the success of Iraq.

As I said, our patience is running out; the patience of Iraqis are running out. The time for decision is arriving -- has arrived for Damascus. It simply must close the training camps. It should not allow youngsters, misguided by al-Qaida, from Saudi Arabia, from Yemen, from North Africa, to fly into Damascus International Airport. It shouldn't be that hard, if you see young men between the ages of 18 and 28, who are coming without a return ticket, landing in Damascus Airport, to control that. If they cannot control that, if they need help to control inflow and processing of people, well, they should ask for help. I'm sure help can be provided. But it's gone on for too long and it simply needs to be dealt with.

QUESTION: Following on that, I mean, would you like to UN Security Council action on the line of 1559 against Lebanon -- this time talking about --

AMBASSADOR KHALILZAD: Well, the range of options -- everything is on the table.

Yes, sir.

QUESTION: Mr. Ambassador, I was struck by your opening statement where you felt a need to make the case that the United States must stay with Iraq, that it's an important issue. Do you feel -- have you sort of -- do you see a change in the mood here in the time you're here in terms of the priority of Iraq and the nation's larger priorities?

AMBASSADOR KHALILZAD: Well, I have -- during my confirmation hearing and my calls on the senators, I got a sense that there was a beginning of sort of a crisis of confidence, perhaps, in what we're doing in Iraq, whether we know what we're doing. I've gone there now. I've taken a look at the situation, both in terms of what's at stake and also working very hard with our military folks, with our political folks, economic folks to develop a strategy that has specific goals, not only long-term goals but interim goals. And also not only a strategy but a plan with timelines and with an attitude, with an approach that seeks to under-promise and over-deliver.

And I'm confident now, having spent some time, that we are putting a plan together on the economic front, on the political front, on the security front that can do the job. And hopefully in the coming weeks, we'll have the opportunity to present that more broadly. And therefore, my point to the U.S. audience is it's very important that we succeed. And we can succeed if we follow, as we will, an integrated plan that brings the various instruments of our power -- influence together in a way that can deliver for the American people. You know, I had the same experience in Afghanistan.

Before going to Iraq, as you know, I was the Ambassador there for a period. And based on lessons learned there as to on the integration, on sequencing, on the importance of defeating an insurgency through a joint effort that is political, that is military, that's economic, that we can do the job here as well. But the stakes are much higher here. The set of players is much larger. The external factor, although in Afghanistan, too, we had the issue of the sanctuary in Pakistan that I spoke about when I was there often. But here, I think, and the interference, particularly from Syria, is much more blatant than what one saw in Pakistan. And that's why I've put a great deal of emphasis in my opening statement that this must be dealt with, and it will be dealt with, and that the Syrians have to know that, you know, it's time for them to decide on this -- which way they want to go.

QUESTION: (Inaudible) may I follow up?


QUESTION: What I'm trying to get at is you saw a crisis of confidence during your hearings last summer.


QUESTION: Now we have a whole new problem here in the United States and public attitudes toward Iraq have changed in the last 10 days. Do you worry that things are even worse in terms now than they were last summer, in terms of how the United States will view this?

AMBASSADOR KHALILZAD: I can understand in the aftermath of the terrible tragedy that we have experienced as a nation that there will be a focus, as there should be, on dealing with this crisis. But I believe the American people to be very wise, to be very pragmatic. I believe the stakes are such that they will stay with the Administration, if they believe that we have a strategy and a plan that can deliver. And I believe we do have a strategy and a plan that can deliver. And I believe that if properly explained, I believe in the, as I said, in the wisdom of the American people. They know what's at stake here. They will stay with it. My concern was that perhaps if there is a sense that we don't know what we're doing.

QUESTION: On Anne's question on Syria, doesn't your vague response that all options are on the table lack credibility? I mean, this message has been sent to the Syrians for a long time now. I remember Armitage's visit late last year. So what's the -- you know, where's the beef? I mean, what are you telling them that's different from what was being told to them a year ago?

AMBASSADOR KHALILZAD: Well, let me tell our Syrian friends that they should not miscalculate -- that they need to decide. And Iraq will, as I said before, will succeed. Iraq is a neighboring state of Syria. Iraq is going to be a rich country. It's going to be a strong country, a powerful country. It behooves Syria to have good relations with such a country. Iraqis do not want interference in the affairs of -- in their affairs and they are saying they will not interfere in other countries' affairs. There is blatant interference by Syria in Iraqi affairs by allowing these terrorists to come across.

And as I said before, our patience is running out, theirís is running out. We have given them every opportunity to mend their way, to change. They have not done that. I think -- while I see some positive signs in other parts, with regard to other countries. Jordan, for example, there is a positive change in Jordanian attitude -- the Prime Minister's visit to Iraq, Jordan and the Prime Minister visit the day before yesterday was very positive. Some of the latest discussion in the Arab League on Iraq was positive two days ago. So there are positive things that are happening with regard to the region. Syria is out of step. Syria -- as I said, we have given it every opportunity. It simply needs to -- time is running out for more of the same.

QUESTION: Do the options include a military option?

AMBASSADOR KHALILZAD: As I said, everything is on the table.

QUESTION: Mr. Ambassador, President Talabani has called the Iraqi-Iranian relationship as "good and friendly." What is your assessment of the Iranian actions in Iraq? Are they helpful in bringing security and stability to Iraq?

AMBASSADOR KHALILZAD: I think Iran is following a two-track policy. There is a track of engagement and positive relations with the government, but there is also a track that has ties with groups that are not as helpful to the development of the kind of Iraq that I described. And -- but at this point, the number one offender, in terms of in a regional context to impede the success of Iraq, to make it more difficult, to complicate it, is Syria. And I want to make sure that that is understood in Damascus, as well as here.

QUESTION: But aren't you concerned about the Iranian influence in Baghdad?

AMBASSADOR KHALILZAD: Well, we don't -- we are not against Baghdad having good relations with all of its neighbors. America's agenda is not an Iraq thatís hostile in terms of its relations with neighbors. We want Iraq to have good relations with their neighbors and we also want the neighbors to have good relations with Iraq and that means non-interference. And that means helping Iraq succeed, not to take advantage of this difficult transition that Iraq is going through. And not to add fuel to the fire, but to assist a neighbor in need, to -- for Iraqis to be able to make their own choices through a political process that has started building for their own security and for their own prosperity, which will have a positive effect on the region as a whole.

Yes, sir.

QUESTION: Ambassador, I'd like to return to the issue of the "hearts and minds" question that you talked about a little bit in your comments, that from the outside, I mean, we've read in the papers just in the last couple of days this major offensive that was taken by Iraqi and U.S. forces with some success, although it seems like a lot of the insurgents have kind of disappeared and gone somewhere else. And so we'll probably have a similar action at some other point, you know, somewhere down the road.

But the question is people from the inside are saying that some of these actions, even with or without Iraqi forces, create a great deal of animosity among the population. They see that breaking into the houses and everything, which is necessary militarily in such an action, as something that is aimed against them. And so it seems to me that we have not really tackled this issue, that we do not have the minds and hearts of the people at this point.

And the difficulties over the constitution especially among the Sunnis may very well, indeed, be many people who don't want to support it because of fear of terrorism, but a lot of others who feel that the Sunnis kind of are getting left out in this, that they are going to get the raw end of the deal. And if we would launch some kind of action against Syria, military or otherwise, wouldn't that also tend to inflame the situation? Again, I mean, we seem to be in a catch-22, because you can't get the economic stuff going unless you deal with the terrorism and we don't seem to be able to do that effectively in bringing the people on our side.

AMBASSADOR KHALILZAD: Well, for winning the war against the terrorists and the insurgents, it's very important to separate the people from them. And you can do that through, one, the approach to them politically, encouraging them to participate, engaging them, indicating to them through not only word, but action that you want an Iraq in which every community can see itself or all Iraqis can see themselves in the picture. And on this one, we are very much proactively involved with the Sunnis engaging them, talking with them.

I have myself personally, during the constitutional process when my help was sought, talked with the Sunnis and there were issues that they raised of concern to them with regard to the constitution that we pressed hard with the others and they got quite a number of things that they were asking for dealt with in the constitution. And I think they now, more and more of them believe that we are not there on an anti-Sunni agenda, that we want an Iraq that can succeed. And Iraq can only succeed if all the communities in Iraq see themselves as part of this bouquet that President Talabani describes his country -- his communities. So we have enhanced that engagement with them.

Second, on the military track, we're reviewing our tactics both unilaterally as well as part of this transfer of responsibility activities and how we might address our counterinsurgency strategy to provide security for people so that they can freely decide for themselves, and to avoid things that inflames dislike of the United States or of the coalition. When we go to a place like Talafar with the Iraqis, as you saw, it was a joint operation of Iraqis and coalition, that there has to be a plan for afterwards, that there has to be great care taken, that the political means to resolve the issue has been exhausted, that the application of forces is as precise as possible and that is very quick reconstruction effort because, unfortunately, in any use of -- significant use of force, there is collateral damage, there's destruction to property, sometimes innocent people get caught in the crossfire. So that we need to be sensitive and responsive to circumstances that are produced by a situation like that.

And also to have an integrated approach that I talked about, not only you want to make sure the intelligence is good. Not only you have a military plan that is integrated into a political plan that has exhausted the alternative, but also that you have economic opportunities -- steps that need to be taken after an operation has been carried out.

I think we're making progress on our approaches with Sunnis, but I think the threat, the intimidation that they feel is a real significant issue that we need to deal with. And that's why I've emphasized Syria. But also it's very important to be able to provide security for the people.

Yes, ma'am, and you'll be the last one.

QUESTION: Mr. Ambassador, Janine Zacharia of Bloomberg News.


QUESTION: Two questions: One on the Syria issue, has the U.S. resolved the issue of Iraqi money in Syria bank accounts? And can you give a sense of the scope of how much you estimate is still there?

And secondly, President Talabani was quoted as saying that U.S. forces would have to be there, I think, until 2007. He said this on the eve of his visit here. Can you give us a sense of what you expect to come out of his meeting with President Bush? Will he try and win an assurance, you think, that troops will stay there? It's sort of a follow-up on what Joel was asking about, you know, the lasting power of the U.S. commitment there.

AMBASSADOR KHALILZAD: Right, sure. Well, with regard to how much money there is -- estimates I've received from Iraqis exceed $500 million -- there may be more than that as well. And there have been discussions between Iraqis and Syrians about the return of those assets. Iraqis have other concerns, too -- the presence of senior Baathists in Damascus or in Syria. They have concerns about the media in Damascus glorifying the terrorists as resistance fighters, being anti-Iraq, anti-new Iraq, and, of course, being a transit point, as I focused on; training of opposition. So the list of concerns is great, but on the economic front they've talked to me about something around half a billion.

With regard to President Talabani's visit, he has some ideas as to how the transfer of responsibility ought to take place, with Iraqis taking more and more responsibility for security, U.S. stopping to do some things that are being done. These are good ideas and, as I said, we have a joint committee with the leadership of Iraq on the very issue of transfer of responsibility. We believe that substantial withdrawal can take place of U.S. forces within the next two years. This is precisely one of the issues that we're looking at together. And I'm sure these issues, you know, issues having to do with security, issues having to do with the constitution, issues having to do with elections, will be part of the agenda that he will cover with President Bush tomorrow.

Yes, ma'am.

QUESTION: You say that all the options are open against Syria. Would you be ready to present proofs of the accusation, for example, the training camps? Do we have proof of that?

AMBASSADOR KHALILZAD: Well, I wouldn't say anything that I wasn't sure about with regard to what's happening in Syria: the transit point, flights coming in bringing in people through Damascus International Airport, training that takes place, presence in cities such as Aleppo, Latakia, Damascus. The Syrians know better than we do what's going on in Syria. We are in touch with them. We will be in touch with them, but it's simply unacceptable.

It's intolerable for this to go on indefinitely. And it's unacceptable to Iraq and Iraqis and it's certainly unacceptable also to us. So, it's time for Damascus to change its way and to assist this new Iraq, rather than be an impediment to it.

Syria has to know that Iraq will succeed. They can affect, perhaps, the speed of success, but it will inevitably succeed because of our determination and the determination of the Iraqi people. You've seen it in the registration that they want to participate. They want to move forward. You've seen them in the elections. Of course there is one community that has not participated as much in the political process -- the Sunni Arab community that a couple of you have referred to, and it's changing there as well.

As you see in the registration, that they believe that the Shiites made the mistake in the 1920s when the Brits were there by not getting involved in politics. And they don't want to repeat that mistake -- they say that themselves. And that their lack of participation in the previous election was a mistake -- that they will participate and that makes me very hopeful. That's a very positive development and that's what we want -- the differences to be resolved politically and not by tanks, as was the case in the previous era in Iraq. I mean changes came through coups. They called it a revolution, but they were mostly coups. I mean military coups and very violent coups for the most part.

Well, thank you very much.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
Liberty Now !

Joined: 04 Apr 2004
Posts: 521

PostPosted: Wed Sep 14, 2005 4:47 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

Jalal Talebani on C-Span interview:

* wont meet with Israeli Officials!

* Praises IRI !


so much for that.
U.S and Israel will never have an ally like the shah in the whole region.

besides knowing how U.S dealt with the Shah, why should anyone follow his example? never again!

by the way, have you notices the BOLD ALLAH sign right behind Bush at his mtg. with talebani? lol
Paayande Iran
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message

Joined: 03 Feb 2005
Posts: 1455
Location: USA

PostPosted: Wed Sep 14, 2005 7:59 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

Dear Liberty,

How 'the US' dealt with the Shah? Or, do you mean the feckless and long-gone Carter administration, of whom Bush is the antithesis? As Oppenheimer pointed out to you yesterday, democratic nations shift leading personnel often and policies sometimes.
The Sun Is Rising In The West!Soon It Will Shine on All of Iran!
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message

Joined: 10 Aug 2005
Posts: 102

PostPosted: Thu Sep 15, 2005 9:38 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

Dear Liberty Now!

Q: ".. how come such enemies of the west get to have embassies all over Europe, and are treated as Legitimate Reps. with Full diplomatic immunity? doesn't that seem a bit odd, even to the most stupid westerner? .."

A: islamic republic, whether we like it or not, is recognized as government of Iran by international community because there is no other government for Iran! this matter that they are not "elected" in a democratic process and are not true representatives of Iranian people, is another issue which should be taken care of by the people of Iran themselves! as a government, representing a nation, international community will have to deal with them. same thing has been done with similar systems in the past and will continue to be the same in future! You need to remember that the most important thing for ruling parties in western world is to make sure they win the next election! the policies of every western government is affected by this important issue which has a strong link with their economy and, mullahs are very willing to offer attractive deals which has allowed them to keep these greedy people busy but this will not last much longer! Westerners either will have to accept the nuclear terrorism of islamic regime and their allies or forget about their temporary economic gains from mullahs and do something to resolve the current impass!

Q: ".. wouldn't it be ironic that the day U.S is suppose to bomb Iran, the legitimate Ambassador of Islamic Republic of Terror could call upon the world from his legitimate tribune in their London Embassy, and condemn U.S as a terrorist aggressor? ..."

A: I answered that in my previous post. the story of Americans attacking Iran using nuclear bombs is the myth which is propagated by islamic terroristv regime's information ministry! Yourself have also given one of the reasons in your next question where you say: ".. knowing that even a nuclear bomb will neither end the regime's rule nor their "legitimacy", but kills many Iranian citizens .." which is very true! as I mentioned, nuclear attack on Iran is propagated or even provoked by islamic terrorist regime but it will no happen! Any attack by American or any other interested nation will definitely impose a lot of damages (no need for nuclear bomb) but at the end, it will be Iranian people who will have to pay the price, after all, it's their government and they revolted for it! The only way to avoid this problem if upto Iranian people themselves and the opposition to islamic terrorist regime!

Q: ".. I don't know about U.S admins. but we know for sure that this is a regime which strives on wars and chaos. they would love to find such excuse to spread their wars throughout the region. and I mean including palestine.
wouldn't that be kind of counteractive to U.S middlea East plans? ..."

A: one of the issues on the table in negotiation of EU reps with islamic regime has been their meddling in the middle east conflicts and also support of terrorist groups like hamas and hezbollah! I am certain that they are aware of all of these!

regarding the way that Americans deal with the likes of Sistani, we need to remember that Iraqi society, like many other nations in the region, has strong religious tendencies! no one can change that kind of mentality overnight! Sistani and other mullahs have a great influence over a big portion of society and that's undeniable! if you want to have a democracy (or start one) you can not draw lines and say democracy is up to here or there! democracy goes all the way to the end! that is it's strength, as well as it's weakness! One of the most important factors to have a democracy which works for the interests of any society is to have greater number of educated people in that society who are familiar with the concept! If they can continue on the same path in Iraq for a few more years, I am sure they will get there! In the case of Iran, even though the society is still very strongly islamic but, Iranian people a lot more familiar with the concept of democracy than surrounding nations and if islamic regime was removed today in a peaceful way, Iran would become a fully functional democracy with turbo speed on the path of progress!

best regard

p.s. I appologize for delay
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message

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

PostPosted: Fri Sep 16, 2005 12:46 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

Westerners either will have to accept the nuclear terrorism of islamic regime and their allies or forget about their temporary economic gains from mullahs and do something to resolve the current impass!


Dear Toofan,

The whole of your post is absolutely correct, and in the premis above I just want to elaborate a bit on it.

If it were an either-or proposition I would not be saying this:

1. The IRI will never be allowed to build nuclear weapons, or be allowed to obtain or keep the technology or infrastructure to do so.

This is on record as public statement by a number of world leaders in various forms.

2. These short-term economic interests are Kaput, one way or another, and if I were an EU leader, or any foreign leader for that matter, I'd have no doubt that my long -term economic interests and investments were fundementally not with the IRI, but with the people of Iran.

The IRI is not a stable trading partner. So if I was seeking permanent trade agreement in the energy sector, as China and others are, I'd be looking at a pragmatic aproach to this by supporting the people of Iran's desire to rid themselves of the regime, because:

1. The regime cannot offer long-term stability in any contract entered into.

2. The people will remember who supported them when the regime is gone.

The EU has had just such an experiance in Iraq..in negative connotation..and it would be hoped they had learned that lesson well.

Investing and trade with a government that is dragging itself and it's people into a hole of diplomatic and economic isolation as a result of militaristic agenda that will ultimately result in sanction (blocking any trade and investment) is illogical.

One may say that "OH, China will simply veto any UN SEC. Council resolution." but there are concequences in US/China bilateral relations if this is the case. Relations China cannot afford to jepordize at this point in it's economic and political development and goodwill with the US.

Russia runs parallel to this premis , as it's relations with the EU and US are far more established and run risk of the effects of such a veto.

EU could do far more trade with Iran if US sanctions were lifted..Sanctions that place companies on notice that if they trade with the IRI , they do not do business with the US...

But as long as the IRI exists...these sanctions will remain in effect.

International Sanctions stand to be put into effect before the year is out, at the rate things are going.

And in this other sources of oil, and related energy markets are being assessed for being able to take up the slack by increasing production capacity, refining capacity, to make up for any global shortfall that might result from a trade embargo on Iran as mandated under sanctions pending in these coming months.
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 1, 2  Next
Page 1 of 2

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

Powered by phpBB © 2001, 2005 phpBB Group