[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 

Iranian President Denies Holocaust

 
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
Haya



Joined: 06 Nov 2005
Posts: 10
Location: Israel

PostPosted: Fri Dec 09, 2005 8:30 am    Post subject: Iranian President Denies Holocaust Reply with quote

First of all, my condolences concerning the recent air crash. I had no idea there was more to it than 'just' a crash.

I'm surprised not to see a posting concerning the President's recent remarks saying that the Holocaust did not happen and that European countries should 'make room' for Jews. How in the world did he ever get elected? I thought that the majority of Iranians don't support an extreme ideology, at least that is what I tell my friends. Maybe you're not as many as I thought you were.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
cyrus
Site Admin


Joined: 24 Jun 2003
Posts: 4993

PostPosted: Fri Dec 09, 2005 11:56 am    Post subject: Re: Iranian President Denies Holocaust Reply with quote

Haya wrote:
First of all, my condolences concerning the recent air crash. I had no idea there was more to it than 'just' a crash.

I'm surprised not to see a posting concerning the President's recent remarks saying that the Holocaust did not happen and that European countries should 'make room' for Jews. How in the world did he ever get elected? I thought that the majority of Iranians don't support an extreme ideology, at least that is what I tell my friends. Maybe you're not as many as I thought you were.


Haya wrote:
How in the world did he ever get elected?

- He is selected not elected.
- In Iran the Islamist regime Mullahs are in control of security forces and Oil money.
- The Islamist regime had support of EU in past 27 years .....
- With the profile he has , does not surprise us what he says.

Haya wrote:
I thought that the majority of Iranians don't support an extreme ideology, at least that is what I tell my friends.

- Iranian people are hostage to Islamist regime and gun rules.
- Can you show us which country helped Iranian opposition against Mullahs in past 27 years ?
- Oil , Gas other Iranian resources and milking Iran was part of G8 policy, and they have not been serious about human rights and Free society … e.g. Kazemi case, over 400 terrors outside Iran and over 100,000 execution ….
- Iranian people fought very hard against the Islamist regime in past 27 years long before Sept. 11 without much support while G8 were making deals under the tables with Mullahs.
- Mullahs could not survive in past 27 years without G8 support.
- G8 has not been serious about Free society and Secular democracy.

Islamist Mullah Khameni Great Gift's To Iranian People After 27 Years In Power, Evil President-Select Ahmadinejad With 1000s Of Terror By His Own Hand

Quote:
A Brutal Man, a Man with Blood on His Hands
He was personally in charge of some specific missions such as the 1989 execution of Dr. Ghassemlou, the Kurdish leader in Vienna, and in an assassination project against Salman Rushdie. The new President is not the modest and pious leader described at length by the media. He is a brutal man. He is a man with blood on his hands. He is a professional killer, not very well known publicly but very familiar to the intelligence community that see him rightfully as one of the agents of International Terrorism manipulated by IRI. Before him Iran was already a terrorist state. What will happen to it with him? What would you call a country whose chief is a terrorist himself?


Quote:
Ex-Hostages Say Iran's Mullahs President-Select a Captor
- "This is the guy. There's no question about it,"
- "You could make him a blond and shave his whiskers, put him in a zoot suit and I'd still spot him."
- "I can absolutely guarantee you he was not only one of the hostage-takers, he was present at my personal interrogation,"
- It's impossible to forget a guy like that,
- He was extremely cruel,
- start sending pieces ” toes and fingers of my son ” to my wife.


Quote:
Khameni and Guardian Council Selected "Ahmadinejad" as president With Very Impressive Terror Master and Torture Master Record/Profile
- As one of the pro Mullah Regime student leader Played a central role in the seizure of the United States Embassy in Tehran
- Mastermind of a series of assassinations in the Middle East and Europe, including Iranian Kurdish leader Abdorrahman Qassemlou
- Worked for some time as an executioner in the notorious Evin Prison, where thousands of political prisoners were executed in the bloody purges of the 1980s.
- As Part of Islamic Cultural Revolution, Ahmadinejad and the OSU played a critical role in purging dissident lecturers and students many of whom were arrested and later executed.
- organize Ansar-e Hezbollah, a radical gang of violent Islamic vigilantes thugs.
Ahmadinejad has impressive profile to meet with EU3 Leaders to discuss Human Rights, Torture and Iran's nuclear programme.


Quote:
Mullahs Terrorist President-Select Worked For Iran's Eichmann
In 1981 he joined the forces of Assadollah Lajevardi, the Revolutionary Prosecutor in Evin Prison (Iran's Eichmann) who executed hundreds of [political] prisoners every night
How Many Political Prisoners Executed by Terrorist President-Select?


Quote:
Khameni and Guardian Council Selected "Ahmadinejad" as president With Very Impressive Terror Master and Torture Master Record/Profile
- As one of the pro Mullah Regime student leader Played a central role in the seizure of the United States Embassy in Tehran
- Mastermind of a series of assassinations in the Middle East and Europe, including Iranian Kurdish leader Abdorrahman Qassemlou
- Worked for some time as an executioner in the notorious Evin Prison, where thousands of political prisoners were executed in the bloody purges of the 1980s.
- As Part of Islamic Cultural Revolution, Ahmadinejad and the OSU played a critical role in purging dissident lecturers and students many of whom were arrested and later executed.
- organize Ansar-e Hezbollah, a radical gang of violent Islamic vigilantes thugs.
Ahmadinejad has impressive profile to meet with EU3 Leaders to discuss Human Rights, Torture and Iran's nuclear programme.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
AmirN



Joined: 23 Sep 2005
Posts: 297

PostPosted: Fri Dec 09, 2005 11:07 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

Well said, Cyrus.



Haya wrote:
Quote:
How in the world did he ever get elected? I thought that the majority of Iranians don't support an extreme ideology


Haya, my dear, based on this comment I would say that your understanding of the Iranian Constitution and politics may be in need of expansion.

How did he ever get elected?

Anyone who thinks that in current Iran there exists any shred of real democracy is sadly misinformed. The “electoral process” is dependent first and foremost by each candidate being given “approval” to run for office by an unelected and thereby unaccountable Guardian Council. This council of clergy is no less than a group of dictators. And, they are all the lapdogs of the Supreme Leader, Khamenei, who is the ultimate unelected dictator. The Guardian Council are appointed by the Supreme Leader, and thus his complete lackeys. And how does the Supreme Leader get appointed? By yet another unelected body, the Assembly of Experts. And how do the members of the Assembly of Experts get appointed? By the Guardian Council. How can checks and balances exist in such a system? Obviously, this is a triangle which excludes any outsider or public accountability or approval. It is a circle of clergy and clergy lackeys appointing and re-appointing each other.

So you see, if every candidate is subject to disqualification simply because the Guardian Council does not approve of them, how can a democracy exist? If only people that share their ideas are allowed to run, how is that a democracy?

It is a dictatorship that goes through the charade of elections to portray itself as a democracy.

What difference does it make if Iranians voted for Monkey-Nejad, or any of his other opponents? They all hold the same idiotic views. How might anyone vote, if their only choices were Adolf Hitler, Benito Mussolini, and Joseph Stalin?

Never mind that even when the time comes to go through the actual pretense of elections, thugs of the Basij and Revolutionary Guards show up to certain election posts to apply their intimidation and powers of persuasion.

I hope it is clear to you that what the “majority of Iranians” think and want is quite irrelevant as far as the practices and policies of the current regime are concerned.
_________________
I am Dariush the Great King, King of Kings, King of countries containing all kinds of men, King in this great earth far and wide, son of Hystaspes, an Achaemenian, a Persian, son of a Persian, an Aryan, having Aryan lineage

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



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

PostPosted: Tue Dec 27, 2005 2:39 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

Dear Haya,

Please excuse my Iranian friend's lack of patience with your question, Their anger and frustration is not directed at you, but at the fact that they have been hard at work trying to educate the entire world what Iranian reality entails, and so when you ask the innocent question seeking understanding, they are perhaps somewhat shocked and amazed they have not reached every individual on the planet at this point.

But to illustrate to you exactly what current Iranian "democracy" entails...the story a friend told me comes to mind, and I think rather than some intellectual description the intentional falsehood the mullahs regime tries to portray to the world, daring to call itself a "democracy", let this single on the ground example in action suffice to educate you....

My friend has family in Iran, and a well placed member in government service made a comment about the elections just prior to the vote in June.
Someone overheard, he was arrested....and then released the day of the election on these conditions....that he get 30 family members to vote...three times apiece...or he'd face a harsh sentence.

I couldn't make this up if I tried....it's far too Orwellian for my meager imagination.

Now you can tell your friends exactly what kind of "democracy" my good friends here are opposed to.....

Regards,

Oppie
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
Oppenheimer



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

PostPosted: Tue Dec 27, 2005 3:25 am    Post subject: Secretary Condoleezza Rice Interview on NBC Reply with quote

A few comments on the subject:

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

Interview on NBC with Andrea Mitchell


Secretary Condoleezza Rice
Washington, DC
December 19, 2005

(excerpt)

QUESTION: How big a threat is Iran, especially with the new Iranian President
saying that Israel should be wiped off the map and that there was no Holocaust,
denying the Holocaust?

SECRETARY RICE: I don't think there is any doubt that this Iranian President
has sharpened the contradictions greatly. He's made it very clear that whatever
was once a face of Iran that perhaps looked more diplomatic, perhaps is not
what the Iranian regime is really all about. These are outrageous statements
and they're dangerous statements. They're dangerous --

QUESTION: Do they help you persuade the Europeans to side with us against Iran?

SECRETARY RICE: I think people are clearly starting to see that it is
outrageous for the President of Iran to say these things with one breath, and
on the other breath, to say that the world can trust Iran with technologies
that would lead to a nuclear weapon. And the Iranians, of course, there's the
nuclear issue; we're working with the EU-3. But there is also Iranian support
for terrorism in the Palestinian territories with Hezbollah. There is the
decision or the ability of an unaccounted few -- unaccountable few inside Iran
to repress and frustrate the desires of its own people. But the Middle East
that Iran wants and apparently is prepared to work for is fundamentally
different than the Middle East that is emerging, and certainly one that is at
odds with American interests.

-----------end----------


Interview on CNN with Wolf Blitzer


Secretary Condoleezza Rice
Washington, DC
December 19, 2005

(excerpt)


QUESTION: How worried should Israel be about threats from Iran and its new
President?

SECRETARY RICE: Well, I think everybody ought to be worried about an Iranian
President who says these outrageous things and then expects the world to
somehow trust Iran with nuclear technologies that could lead to a nuclear
weapon. That really says it all. I think that Ahmadi-Nejad has somehow
crystallized the issue with these statements that he's made.

The EU-3 will continue their work to try to find a diplomatic solution. I have
to say I haven't seen anything that suggests that the Iranians want a solution
that would be satisfactory to the rest of the world. But it is important also
not just to speak about the nuclear program but about Iranian support for
terrorism, support for terrorism that undermines Mahmoud Abbas and the
Palestinians, that undermines the Lebanese people -- as Syria has left, but
Iran continues to support the violent activities of the Hezbollah -- and the
kind of activity in which Iran has engaged against its neighbor in Iraq. And so
we need to take a hard look at the external behavior of Iran and also at a
state that is going in the wrong direction in terms of political pluralism and
participation of its people.

-----------end-----------


Interview on Fox News Sunday With Chris Wallace


Secretary Condoleezza Rice
Washington, DC
December 18, 2005

(excerpt)


QUESTION: All right. Iran's new President says that Israel should be wiped off
the map, that the Holocaust is a myth. You've been talking about this for
months, that we've got to do something about this. And I must say, I looked
back at an interview that we did in June; we were talking about this. How
frustrating for you that you can't get the European allies, Russia, China, to
go along to isolate Iran by imposing sanctions?

SECRETARY RICE: Well, I am convinced that this will end up in the Security
Council if Iran doesn't change course, and I see no evidence that Iran is going
to change course.

QUESTION: If you'll forgive me, you were saying that last June.

SECRETARY RICE: Well, diplomacy takes some time and it is important that we do
this at a time of our choosing. Right now, the Iranians are not enriching and
reprocessing. That's good. But the more that we hear from this Iranian
Government, the more that people recognize and acknowledge publicly that this
is a government that shouldn't even expect the international community to trust
them with technologies that might lead to a nuclear weapon.

----------------------end-----------

And for Cyrus, my friend with many doubts.....have faith buddy!

This should help....

Putting Transatlantic Power to Work for Freedom


Daniel Fried , Assistant Secretary for European and Eurasian Affairs
Address to the American Enterprise Institute
Washington, DC
December 14, 2005

AMBASSADOR FRIED: Thank you for that, and it is a pleasure to be back at AEI.
The last time I was in this building, it was during the Orange Revolution; and
Radek Sikorski, before he became Defense Minister in Poland, had organized a
conference, a breakfast in support of the Orange Revolution and freedom. A few
days later, the Poles, the European Union, successfully negotiated a rerun of
the elections. The forces of democracy prevailed and Ukraine crossed a line of
freedom which had been crossed before by many countries in Europe and which
will be crossed again by countries in the future. So coming back to this room,
I recall some very good moments when transatlantic power was at work to support
freedom.

So it is a pleasure to be at AEI. This is a place where ideas matter. And I'm
here at a time when strategic thinking matters. I've just returned from Europe,
where I spent last week with Secretary Rice. The detainee and rendition issue
took up most of the media attention, as I'm sure you are aware. This issue then
threatened and still, I suppose, threatens to drown out the principal theme in
transatlantic relations of 2005, which is success in defining and advancing the
freedom agenda as America's national security strategy, and, following from
that, putting the political, economic and security assets of the transatlantic
alliance to work to support it. This is my theme today.

But on detainees, as this seems to be unavoidable everywhere I go, let me say
let me acknowledge that the detainee issue is challenging, and, for many
serious people in this country and in Europe, troubling. Secretary Rice
eloquently acknowledged the complicated challenge of fighting the war on terror
in a manner commensurate with our legal obligations and our values. And I have
nothing to add to her remarks today.

But apart from its complex and difficult substance, the handling of the
detainee issue by many in the European media is also disturbing. I'm concerned
by the reluctance on the part of some to recognize that the problem is real,
the threat is imminent and the consequences of failure to take seriously the
menace of terrorism can be fatal. And there is, I am afraid, a certain
eagerness with which some commentators seize on the opportunity to make again
their case for a European divorce from the United States.

The Concerted Effort of Free Nations

Now, in this, some Europeans mirror some Americans who have periodically
despaired on their part of the transatlantic alliance. But that is not the view
of the Bush Administration. As President Bush has said, "All the allies of the
United States can know we honor your friendship, we rely on your counsel and we
depend on your help. The concerted effort of free nations to promote democracy
is a prelude to our enemies' defeat." Let me repeat that: "The concerted effort
of free nations to promote democracy is a prelude to our enemies' defeat."


It is my contention today that since the President's Second Inaugural, which
set out the freedom agenda, we have made significant progress to develop just
this "concerted effort of free nations" and we have put it to work on an agenda
to advance freedom in the world.

Let me note some progress in this battle of ideas. Let me recall Chancellor
Merkel's Bundestag speech of November 30th, of which a major theme was freedom
her word and during which she spoke of support for NATO and common values
with the United States.

Let me note our recent agreement with the European Union, the joint EU-U.S.
promotion of democracy around the world, from Belarus to Burma, would be a
priority for joint action.

Let me emphasize the growing support of European governments for the Broader
Middle East Initiative, where countries such as Spain, Switzerland, Denmark,
Greece and Hungary have joined the effort to support democratic reform and
reformers in that region.

Finally, let me postulate that as a result of these efforts to articulate a
common transatlantic agenda, we've heard less of the counterweight theory of
Europe; that is, the curious notion that the purpose of Europe now that it is
whole, free and at peace is to check the United States, not to work with it.

I could go on, but you get the point. There exists, I contend, a developing
transatlantic consensus that our interests cannot be separated from our values,
that democratic governance has a greater legitimacy than other forms of
government, and that this is true everywhere in the world, and that the purpose
of the U.S.-European relationship is not to be a venue for value-free
competition but to support common action to support freedom.


I am aware, painfully so, of the skepticism with which European publics still
regard the United States in general, and, frankly, this Administration in
particular. We have done much more over the past year to reach out and speak to
skeptical as well as friendly Europeans.

But at the same time, so we don't wallow in occasional lurid poll results, an
enormous majority of European public opinion 74 percent according to the
famous German Marshall Fund poll supports U.S.-European joint action to
advance democracy in the world. In other words, European publics support the
number one American foreign policy objective and they support U.S.-European
cooperation to advance that objective.

Thus, Secretary Rice's argument in her op-ed last weekend that support for
democracy is a higher realism than that espoused by many self-proclaimed
realists has a willing potential audience in Europe.

Time to Put Theory to Work in the Service of Freedom

Now, this is theory. Theory is useful to the degree that it produces joint
actions. The time has come to move from converging theory to action and to put
theory to work in the service of freedom. That is our objective for 2006.

Let me report to you the actions we and Europe have taken together to advance
freedom's security, and security, and to report to you about our agenda for the
coming year.

In the Balkans, rather than wait to be overtaken by the next disaster, the
Contact Group, including the United States, Russia, EU and key Europeans, has
launched a strategy to resolve the last major open question in that region,
which is, of course, Kosovo's final status. As we do so, we are advancing
prospects for a European future for Bosnia, Croatia, Macedonia, Albania, and if
it takes the steps needed to abandon the nationalist temptations that have done
it so much damage in the past, Serbia and Montenegro as well. Having set the
stage, in 2006, we the United States and Europe will have to show strength
to bring the Balkans from post-war to pre-Europe.

In Eastern Europe and Eurasia, the United States and Europe have acted to
promote and now to consolidate democracy in Ukraine, Georgia and Kyrgyzstan; to
advance democracy in Europe's last dictatorship, Belarus; and to encourage
countries such as Azerbaijan and Kazakhstan to move more decisively and
consistently in the direction of democracy.

In 2006, we must be prepared to stand by our friends, like Saakashvili and
Yushchenko of Georgia and Ukraine, when they are under pressure, as they may
be, and to push our friends to maintain their reforms, even in the face of
difficulties that surely lie ahead.

In this vast and complex region, we will have to demonstrate clarity about our
goals democracy, and, through democracy, stability and strengthened
sovereignty while being realistic about what we can achieve in any given year
and in any given election.

We will have to be prepared in 2006 to stand up to and push back at dictators,
whether in Belarus or Tashkent. In Uzbekistan, the United States faced a choice
in this past year. We could have kept our base in Karshi-Khanabad had we turned
a blind eye to Karimov's repression and allowed him to grab the 450 Uzbek
refugees who had fled to neighboring Kyrgyzstan. We could have, but we didn't.
We chose deliberately to save lives rather than wink at a dictator.

We have advanced Israeli-Palestinian peacemaking further than almost everyone
in Europe thought possible. Israel's withdrawal from the Gaza and the opening
of the Rafah crossing with the European Union, by the way, taking on its
first major security responsibility in the region has given the Palestinian
people a chance to start building their future state in reality, not just in
rhetoric.

We have outlined the way ahead to strengthen NATO, the core of the global
democratic security community, and to give it the tools it needs to secure and
advance freedom. NATO is at the midpoint of a radical change from its Cold War
identity. It was then a security organization, wonderfully prepared to fight a
war, but not engaged in any operations at all. And now it is a military
alliance in action with operations around the world, from Pakistan,
Afghanistan, Iraq, to the Mediterranean and the Balkans.

In 2006, at NATO's November summit in Riga, we need to give NATO more of the
tools and political will it needs to do its job.

Let me mention three additional issues that will occupy much transatlantic
attention in the coming year. The American debate has escalated recently about
Iraq in a way that many find frustratingly disconnected from progress on the
ground. In the meantime, the European debate has moved forward in a welcome
direction. It sounds counter-intuitive to say the least, but Dominique de
Villepin has recently come out publicly in support of the United States
maintaining its military presence in Iraq. I never thought I would cite
Dominique de Villepin favorably on an Iraq issue, but there you are. Some sort
of corner clearly has been turned.

Whatever our disagreements with some European governments and, to be frank,
it was mostly France and Germany about the decision to remove Saddam Hussein
from power, European governments are coming to realize that democracy's failure
in Iraq would be a grave blow to our common security and to the prospects of
reform and stability throughout the Middle East, while success in Iraq would
set the stage for an advance of reform and stability throughout that region.

Time for Europe to Support Iraq's Democracy

But words are not enough. It is critical that Europeans act on that
realization. The Iraqi elections this week tomorrow, well, ongoing starting
today offer an opportunity to do so. The next Iraqi government will be fully
democratic, elected on the basis of a constitution that itself was
democratically adopted. This will give Europeans the chance to support fully,
without brackets and asterisks, the Iraqi people and their elected government.
That support can take many forms military, capacity-building, political
support but it needs to be unstinting.

In 2006, the challenge posed by Iran's regime will intensify. In 2005, the
United States worked closely with the EU-3 to curtail Iran's nuclear weapons
program. We closed a major gap with Europe, but we have not solved the problem
with Iran. The problem is larger than the nuclear weapons issue. Not only is
the regime in Tehran seeking nuclear weapons, but it supports terrorism. Not
only does it support terrorism, but the regime appears hostile to democracy in
principle. When you hear Ahmadi-Nejad making bizarre remarks, for example,
about Israel, what you are hearing is just another hostile dictatorship
desperately trying to legitimize its rule by externalizing its enemy. In its
current anti-Semitic, Holocaust-denying form, this technique is as familiar to
you as it is ugly.

Notice that I speak only of the Iranian regime. Have the Iranian people chosen
the path of increasing international isolation? Do they support the regime and
its increasingly disconnected statements? We should not assume so. Iran has a
great civilization with a glorious past and great potential.

An Agenda for Hope for Iran

To draw from another context, we did not win the Cold War by assuming, as did
our adversaries, that communist regimes and their peoples were one. Thus, we
should not accept that theocracy and isolation are fate for the Iranian people.
International pressure on the regime may increase in 2006, as it should, but
the world's democracies should also reach out to the Iranian people. In
addition to our efforts to deal with the nuclear challenge, in 2006 the United
States and Europe should assemble an agenda for hope for Iran. Hostile
theocracy is not fate for Iran or for the region. Iraq's Shia community is
realizing its aspirations through democracy, and I doubt that this lesson will
be lost on either the Tehran regime or the Iranian people.

This brings me to a third major item of the U.S.-European agenda. Our combined
efforts to advance reform in the world's region with the greatest democracy
deficit: the broader Middle East. You recall I certainly recall the
skepticism and, frankly, the derision with which this initiative was greeted
when launched two years ago. Yet, at last month's ministerial meeting in
Bahrain, the Forum for the Future, officials from Europe and the region and
regional civil society leaders such as Said Ibrahim sat at one table, and one
after another lauded reform and democracy as new norms that would govern public
discourse and increasingly official policy.

Now, do the governments of the region embrace these norms with, let us say,
consistent enthusiasm? Well, of course not. But now the United States and
Europe, the two great centers of democratic legitimacy in the world, have put
our strength and our principles behind the reformers of the region, whether in
government or within civil society.

In 2006, let us reach out, assist and empower reforms in the region. Working
with them, we should seek, as Secretary Rice has said, to transform volatile
status quos that no longer serve our interests. We must not be impatient, but
we have started and we must keep faith with our values and with those in the
region who share them. Government officials frequently overestimate what can be
accomplished in the short run, but we also underestimate what we can accomplish
in the long run. We have made a start and we must continue.

One final point. Why Europe? What does Europe bring to the table? Let me
acknowledge, at the risk of igniting a debate from the first term, that
unilateral American action is, in theory, always an option, but it is not the
best option. We must do better. Together, America and Europe constitute a
single democratic civilization with common values. Together, America and Europe
constitute a quorum of democratic legitimacy. That is not a legal observation
so much as a political one, but I believe it to be accurate. When divided, we
create a moral fog over events and their significance. When united, we clarify
who are the friends of freedom.

Do we differ with Europe on tactics? Yes. Every day during the Cold War we
differed with the Europeans on tactics. But our united strategy, rooted in our
common values, led to victory. And in this present battle for freedom in the
face of this latest iteration of totalitarian ideology, our current strategy,
rooted in our values, with America and Europe together, will emerge successful.

Thank you very much.

(Applause.)

Question-and-Answer Session:

Now I am told that the rules are that I am to call on people for questions, and
without the aid of a filter, I will do my best.

MODERATOR: One small filter, though. Please identify yourself and also please
make it a question, and hopefully somewhat brief.

ASSISTANT SECRETARY FRIED: Thank you.

QUESTION: Mr. Fried, my name is Andrey Surzhanskiy. I'm correspondent with
ITAR-TASS News Agency of Russia. First of all, on energy issue, I don't know if
you're following the gas dispute between Russia and Ukraine. Russia has
threatened to cut off gas supplies to Ukraine if no compromise over pricing is
reached by January, I guess. And obviously, that would be a major blow to
Ukrainian economy. Is that a matter of concern for you?

And secondly, if I may, I never heard the reaction of the U.S. Administration
on the Russian-Germany gas project which is about construction. The gas
pipeline in Baltic Sea bypassing Poland and Baltic states. Do you have any
position on that issue?

ASSISTANT SECRETARY FRIED: Well

QUESTION: And do you share the view of the Russian officials that this project
would enhance energy security in Europe? Thank you.

ASSISTANT SECRETARY FRIED: Of course, the United States is following the issue
of energy relations in Eurasia very closely. We've obviously aware of the
discussions going on between Ukraine and Russia. We're also aware of Russian
statements about tripling gas prices to Georgia, all of this occurring right at
the beginning of the heating season.

These discussions are in progress and I think it would do little good for me to
comment on the details. I will say as a general comment that it would seem to
me to be in Russia's interests to have stable, reforming, successful countries
on its borders rather than vulnerable, insecure countries suffering from
economic crises and tensions. Russia can obviously speak to its own interests
better than I can, but I hope whatever emerges will support the Ukrainian and
Georgian efforts to advance economic reforms, to strengthen their sovereign and
to be through democracy, through economic reform and through strengthened
sovereignty better neighbors to Russia in the long term.

With respect to the gas pipeline, I have heard it said that this was not an
economically efficient way of transporting energy from Russia to Europe but had
a political purpose. I suppose you could ask former Chancellor Schroeder his
opinion, though he seems to have rather a large interest in it now.

QUESTION: (Off-mike.)

ASSISTANT SECRETARY FRIED: Yes, I gather he did. I gather he still supports it.
It seems to me, again, that it would be in Russia's interest to have close
relations of confidence rather than relations of fear with its immediate
neighbors. We have always the United States has always advocated the best
possible relations between Russia and the Baltic countries, Russia and Poland,
and it is our belief that relations that are transparent, open, without
subtexts of political pressure, are apt to produce outcomes which are in
everyone's interests.

Ma'am.

QUESTION: Carol Giacomo with Reuters. Could you explain what you mean by an
agenda of hope for Iran? And are you working on this with the Europeans now?

AMBASSADOR FRIED: We have, for some time, had discussions with the EU-3 and
other Europeans about the Iran nuclear issue. But obviously, and without
getting into the details of conversations which need to be confidential, I
think there is a general understanding that the problem is wider than just a
nuclear problem. The nuclear problem is in some sense a symptom of a wider
problem.

By agenda of hope, I mean an agenda which is directed at support for the
Iranian people and Iranian society in what we believe are universal aspirations
and therefore shared by the Iranian people and Iranian society for freedom
and democracy.

The Iranian people should not be assumed to share the rather exotic views being
uttered now, every other day it seems, by Ahmadi-Nejad, and we need to reach
out directly to them. Now, I think the United States and Europe have the
capacity to do this, and I suspect we will talk more about it as time goes on.

QUESTION: Just to follow up, are you talking about support for civil society
groups, for instance?

AMBASSADOR FRIED: All of these things are things we're talking to the
Europeans about a lot of things, including this.

Sir.

QUESTION: I'm Morris Amitay, a former Foreign Service Officer who worked with
two of your predecessors many years ago. My question is about Great Britain. I
think you would agree that the UK is our closest ally and most important ally
in Europe, but I hear many complaints from my friends who come over the pond
from the defense side who say that there are cumbersome regulations and that
there's difficulty in getting defense industrial cooperation. Is there anything
that will be done about that?

AMBASSADOR FRIED: That has been an issue that has frustrated me and others
working in this Administration for some time. It's a tough issue and we're
always looking at different ways in which we can improve our defense
relationship with the UK. That relationship is obviously very good, but there
are some bureaucratic restrictions and we would like to find ways to make it
easier. It's not an easy issue.

Sir.

QUESTION: Umit Enginsoy, NTV Turkey. What's the U.S. strategy and agenda on
Turkey in 2006?

AMBASSADOR FRIED: We have had an intensive period of relations with Turkey,
marked by a disagreement over Iraq and then more recently marked by a lot of
collaboration with respect to Iraq, increasing cooperation with respect to the
PKK.

Now, in general, I would say that we have enormous respect for Turkey's
transformation over the past generation. And it's and we have expressed and
will continue to express our support for Turkey's European aspirations. We look
at Turkey as a natural partner in the world, particularly in the broader Middle
East, where Turkey is playing a leading role in supporting democracy and
reaching out to civil society. We work with Turkey very closely to support
reforms in Azerbaijan. To support Georgia, we look to Turkey as a friend and
partner, you know, throughout the Middle East.

Our agenda with Turkey? Well, we want to see to the degree we can and our
ability to do so is rather modest we want to help Turkey succeed in its EU
aspirations. Again, this is between Turkey and the European Union. But if there
are things we can do to help, we will. We want to work with Turkey in the
broader Middle East. We want to work with Turkey and NATO, as NATO reaches out
beyond its traditional area of responsibilities. It's a very rich agenda, and I
look forward to working with my Turkish colleagues.

Ma'am.

QUESTION: Thank you. This is Tulin Daloglu with Turkey's Star newspaper. Let me
have a follow-up. You mentioned Georgia and Azerbaijan

AMBASSADOR FRIED: Yes.

QUESTION: Turkey's helping the greater Middle East initiative, but you didn't
mention anything about Turkey's relations with Iran and Syria, which is now, I
guess, one of the most important issues now that the people here in Washington
are dealing with. How do you see Turkey, or what would you like to, you know,
have Turkey to deal with the Iranian issue specifically? Thank you.

AMBASSADOR FRIED: Well, I expect that as our policy on Iran develops, we will
be consulting with Turkey as a country as a NATO ally, a country that borders
Iran, and a country which has and is having a very successful experience of
democratic transformation.

Turkey is also a country with a party of strong Muslim roots becoming, as it
were, a kind of Muslim version of a Christian Democratic Party. I mean, this is
the AKP party in the way it describes itself. I don't believe in terms of model
I don't think in terms of models, but Turkey's democratic evolution has a lot
to show the world generally.

With respect to Syria, well, the world has a problem with Syria's support for
terrorism; and without pointing fingers ahead of the evidence, the latest
murders in Lebanon have re-raised questions which are, let us say, outstanding
and are very serious. And we look forward to working with Turkey also in this
direction.

Sir.

QUESTION: Thank you. I'm Vladimir Kara-Murza with RTVI Television, Russia. When
you spoke about advancing democracy in the former Soviet region Belarus,
Kyrgyzstan you didn't mention Russia. How does that advancing democracy in
Russia, is that an issue for the U.S. Administration, especially in terms of
its relations with Putin?

And then just quickly, is the U.S. prepared to cooperate with the European
Union investigation on the detainee issue?

AMBASSADOR FRIED: Well, we have to find a phrase other than former Soviet
space. You know, the United States doesn't usually refer to itself as the
former British Colonial space. (Laughter.) It's over, okay? It's over.

Russian democracy the time is gone when nations could simply wall off the
world and say non-interference in internal affairs is an absolute condition of
state sovereignty. The United States has every every country in the world is
interested in the internal affairs of the United States.

QUESTION: (Inaudible.)

AMBASSADOR FRIED: No, no. I get we get charged with all manner of sins and
I'm trying to address it.

We care very much about the course of Russian democracy. We have learned that
our relations with a state are not independent of that state's relationship to
its own society. That is not a comment directed at Russia, but a comment about
our own foreign policy and a principle which this Administration certainly
espouses. Whether it is the issue of the law and NGOs or the issue of freedom
of the press or the issue of social freedom in Russia, these are all issues
that concern us. We believe that a strong nation is strong because it has a
strong society, not simply because it has a strong center of power. And our
commitment to democracy in Russia is well established. It will continue. Our
cooperation with the Russian Government on issues of mutual concern is also
well established. And being the United States Government, we think we have the
ability to do more than one thing at the same time. And that's our intention.

QUESTION: Detainees?

AMBASSADOR FRIED: Ah. Well, Secretary Rice was just in Europe last week and
talked about detainees at length at every stop, including devoting a couple of
hours of concentrated conversation with all of Europe's foreign almost all of
Europe's foreign ministers, both NATO and the EU, about this issue. She said a
very great deal. We have talked to European Union officials. No doubt this
dialogue will continue, but Secretary Rice was open, candid, serious, and the
reaction of the European foreign ministers was, as you've seen, extremely
positive. So that's a good beginning to a discussion which doubtless will
continue but has now been framed up in a good way.

Someone back here. Sir.

QUESTION: Tomicah Tillemann with the Senate Foreign Relations Committee. I was
hoping you could discuss the Administration's response to the failure by the
OSCE to certify election results in Azerbaijan and what you think we need to do
in order to get democracy back on track in that country.

ASSISTANT SECRETARY FRIED: Well, look at the OSCE statement carefully. It is
true that the OSCE found that the elections in Azerbaijan did not meet the
standard of free and fair. That's what they found. We think that's right. But
they also noted that the elections had been in many aspects an improvement over
previous ones. We were we followed the we, the U.S. Government, followed
those elections very, very closely. We had exit poll results which gave us a
good sense of the size, the magnitude of the problems. To put it rather
crudely, these elections were not free and fair, but neither were they a
complete joke. And there is a big difference between elections which are flawed
and elections which are a total travesty.

The Azerbaijan the Government of Azerbaijan has agreed to rerun elections in
most, if not all, of the districts in which problems were so great that doubt
was cast on the actual results. If these elections are rerun fairly, then the
government will have gone a long way, though not all the way, in addressing
some of the international community's concerns. Now, it's more than just how
you count the ballots. There are a lot of elements of democracy. And in the
case of Azerbaijan, we have to be and in the case of other countries whose
elections were not free and fair but not a travesty perhaps Kazakhstan is in
that category we need to be very clear about what it is we want, which is
democracy, and not just plebiscite dictatorship or authoritarianism but a
culture of democracy.

But also we need to work with governments which are working themselves to
improve things. If the Azerbaijan Government invites the OSCE in, if they give
space for ODIHR to make its reports, we have to take that into account as well.
There are other governments who have made it clear they have no intention of
inviting ODIHR in, that they don't care about the opinion of the international
community.

So this is a place where moral clarity needs to be maintained, but also
tactical realism about what it is you want to accomplish this year and with
this election and we have to be clear about both relentless in our pursuit of
our objectives, but also willing to work with governments that are moving, and
as long as they are moving in roughly the right direction.

Yes.

QUESTION: (Inaudible) Voice of America. The Polish Foreign Minister is going to
be in Washington next week. According to reports, the Poles are trying to
obtain certain increased benefits from the American side in the area of
military cooperation, but not only. Are relations with the new Polish
Government more complicated than with the previous one?

ASSISTANT SECRETARY FRIED: We have we know the leaders of the incoming Polish
Government, whether it's Prime Minister Marcinkiewicz or President Kaczynski,
Foreign Minister Meller and, of course, you know, AEI's former employee, Radik
Sikorski. These are good people. We know them well. We've worked with them.
They know us. This is a relationship that's close, but Poland is an important
ally. Poland is a serious country.

Of course, Poland wants to develop its military cooperation with the United
States. This is perfectly natural. Our military cooperation, because of
Poland's rather successful leadership in Iraq, has grown. This year, our
assistance for Poland has reached $100 million. Frankly, would I like to see
even more assistance? Well, it could be put to good use. The Poles know what
they're doing in the military sphere.

What we will succeed in doing and how we sort this out, I couldn't say. But we
look forward to good relations with the Polish Government and good cooperation.
And it isn't, of course the U.S.-Polish relationship is not a function of how
many dollars come out of the U.S. budget to Poland. We are allies and not just
in name. The United States and Poland see many critical issues, such as support
for Ukrainian democracy and sovereignty as common issues of common concern. I
have no doubt that we will work successfully with the current Polish
Government, as we have worked with every Polish Government since 1989.

Sir.

QUESTION: Alberto (inaudible) with the Embassy of Italy. In your opinion, which
role will be played by Belarus in the short- to mid-term in transatlantic
relations and how this will affect the transatlantic relations? Thank you.

ASSISTANT SECRETARY FRIED: What role Belarus will play. Well, Belarus is, in
fact, the last dictatorship in Europe. It is an issue of common concern. We
want to see we believe that the Belarusian people deserve better than a
dictatorship, which is isolating them from their natural place, which is in
Europe, a nation among nations. This is an issue of common concern. The United
States and Europe, and then key countries in Europe, want to support the
Belarusian people. I would think that Russia would also want to see Belarus
begin to develop in a democratic direction. That seems to me to be something
that would suit Russia's interest, but again, Russia has to speak for itself.

I believe the United States and Europe will intensify efforts to support the
Belarusian people and Belarusian society in 2006 because this is when
Lukashenko has proclaimed his intention to hold so-called elections.

Sir.

MODERATOR: Excuse me, why don't we take two more questions, if Ambassador Fried
has the time, and then we'll wrap it up. Thank you.

QUESTION: Harry Dunphy, AP. You mentioned Dominique de Villepin's statement as
Europe having turned the corner on Iraq. Could you be more specific as to what
you would like to see the Europeans do there after the elections? Thank you.

ASSISTANT SECRETARY FRIED: Well, it depends on the country. There are some
countries like Germany who have made it clear they cannot send their own forces
to Iraq, and we're not asking the impossible. But every European country,
whether it has troops in Iraq or not, should support the next government. There
are various ways countries can do so politically, through capacity-building,
through more police training and through the hardest method of support to
describe is political support for the Iraqi people, to remove this lingering
sense that Iraqi democracy is somehow suspect because of disagreements over the
removal of Saddam Hussein.

It strikes me as strange, to say the least, that one of the most democratic
constitutions in the Arab world and certainly the strongest democratic mandate
in the region does not capture greater and more unambiguous support. It's
really time to remove the brackets around Iraq and time for Europe to get
behind the next Iraqi government, the one to come out of these elections.

QUESTION: Hasan Hazar, Turkiye Daily. Has the United States left the idea of
"new Europe, old Europe" stated many times, and what do you think about that?
Is the United States interested in full cooperation with full EU or just some
countries within the EU? Thank you.

ASSISTANT SECRETARY FRIED: You haven't heard much about old Europe and new
Europe. You have heard the President say that he wants to work with a strong
Europe, with a strong European Union. He said so repeatedly and unambiguously
two days after his reelection in November '04. You heard him say this
unambiguously and repeatedly in his trip to Europe in February '04 February
of this year, '05 and repeatedly since.

We want a strong Europe as a partner. That's without qualification, without
buts, without footnotes. A strong Europe as a partner, not a counterweight. A
partner. A partner to work with us in advancing freedom in the world. That is
the purpose of our European foreign policy is to put this partnership to work
in the world in the service of freedom.

Not a bad note to end on. Thank you.

(Applause.)


Released on December 16, 2005

************************************************************
See http://www.state.gov for Senior State Department
Official's statements and testimonies
************************************************************
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
Oppenheimer



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

PostPosted: Tue Dec 27, 2005 3:46 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

A soft-sell warning with a hard edge:

Interview With Anne Gearan of Associated Press


Secretary Condoleezza Rice
Washington, DC
December 16, 2005

(excerpt)

QUESTION: Moving to Iran, given the rhetoric coming from Iran's President and
the resumption of some nuclear activities, do you think there's any life left
in the EU-3 negotiations, any hope for a negotiated deal?

SECRETARY RICE: Well, everybody continues to hope so; but I haven't seen any
evidence that the Iranians are interested in a deal that is going to be
acceptable to an international community that is extremely skeptical of what
the Iranians are up to. The Iranians -- we forget that one way that we got here
was that the Iranians cheated on their obligations to report what they were
doing, that this is a country that has had dealings with A.Q. Khan. And A.Q.
Khan was not, by the way, in the business of civilian nuclear power.

So I think there are good reasons that people are suspicious of Iranian
activities and I think that suspicion is demonstrated in the way that the IAEA
reports on Iranian compliance and Iranian cooperation. I think it's evident in
the way the Russians have structured their Bushehr nuclear deal with the fuel
take-back provision, which would not allow the Iranians to have enrichment and
reprocessing capability on their soil.

The Iranians have shown no recognition that they have to deal with those
suspicions; and until they do, you're not going to get a deal. And so I'm
hopeful that perhaps this will come -- I would hope that it's going to come
out. I haven't seen any evidence so far.

QUESTION: But if you're at that point, why not push the Security Council option
harder?

SECRETARY RICE: Well, we believe that the Security Council option is there and
that, in fact, we have the votes. We also recognize that it is important for
others to also come to the conclusion that we've exhausted the diplomatic
possibilities. But I think it was Mohamed ElBaradei who said that, you know,
there isn't going to be -- I don't want to paraphrase him -- but "endless
patience" is something along the lines. And so I think the day is coming when
people are going to take a hard look at this and say, "Is there any life left
in the negotiating tack?"

QUESTION: If diplomacy fails, is it reasonable to think that economic sanctions
could deter Iran from developing nuclear weapons or, I mean, if Iran stays on
its present course?

SECRETARY RICE: Well, I think the question is: does Iran want to find itself in
a position of international isolation? Countries get isolated for all kinds of
reasons. Syria is really isolated internationally now. And Iran has, because
it's a great culture, it's a great people, has tended not to want to be
isolated. There's a reason they're working so hard not to go to the Security
Council, because they don't want to be isolated.

The nature of that isolation, what tools could be used to impress upon the
Iranians that they cannot simultaneously pursue technologies that would lead to
a nuclear weapon and play an integrated role in the international system --
what tools you'd use to impress it upon them, I think we'll have to see. But
I'm quite confident that Iran will have to take a hard look when it sees how
isolated it really could become.

QUESTION: Is the Iranian nuclear program more dangerous, in your view, than
North Korea's?

SECRETARY RICE: Well, I don't think we have to choose between the two here.
They're both problems. The North Koreans have been pursuing this for a really
long time, since probably the late 1960s most people believe. And the North
Koreans do live in a different neighborhood in that you have a significant
deterrent on the North Korean Peninsula -- on the Korean Peninsula. And -- but
we are not taking it, by any means, lightly. That's why it's important to have
the six-party talks. But an Iranian nuclear program in the midst of the Middle
East and all of the volatility that is there, I think has particularly
dangerous characteristics.

QUESTION: You saw, I'm sure, what an Israeli Government spokesman said the
other day about Israel having the means to bring about an end to the Iranian
nuclear experiment. Would you counsel Israel one way or another about launching
an airstrike, and under what circumstances might the U.S. do it themselves?

SECRETARY RICE: Well, I think the speculation is not really very helpful. But
obviously, what this points out is that Iran and a nuclear weapon, even the
ability to have a nuclear weapon, is simply too destabilizing to the
international system in the midst of what is probably the world's most volatile
region. It's simply not acceptable, and it was never acceptable. But when you
look at the behavior and the rhetoric of the current Iranian President, he has
certainly given people many more reasons to worry about Iranian intentions and
the Iranian acquisition of nuclear technology. He's certainly sharpened that
picture.

QUESTION: Would you expect the Israelis to tell you or ask you before they
launched an airstrike?

SECRETARY RICE: Israel is, of course, a sovereign state and we're not in the
habit of telling the Israelis how to defend themselves. However, we've said to
everybody that this region is very volatile and it's best -- and I think the
Israelis have said this, too; Prime Minister Sharon has said this -- it is best
to resolve this issue through diplomatic means, and that's where we're all
focused.

Diplomacy doesn't just mean negotiation. That's part of diplomacy. But
diplomacy also means an international effort, a multilateral effort to impress
upon the Iranians the cost of pursuing this course. And so we have a ways yet
to go with the diplomacy.

---------end---------


Note to reader: All interviews and public statements can be accessed via http://www.state.gov/

complete, and unedited transcripts, archives, history, and more....

I have simply pulled relative text in reference to Iran from each interview and posted it, as complete question and answer.

Regards,

Oppie
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
Oppenheimer



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

PostPosted: Fri Dec 30, 2005 3:08 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

http://www.un.org/


Press Statement: Remarks about Israel and the denial of the Holocaust attributed to Dr Mahmoud Ahmadinejad, President of the Islamic Republic of Iran.
by Sir Emyr Jones Parry, President of the Security Council, 9 December 2005


The members of the Security Council condemn the remarks about Israel and the denial of the Holocaust attributed to Dr Mahmoud Ahmadinejad, President of the Islamic Republic of Iran.

The members of the Security Council fully support the Secretary General's statement of 8 December, in which he recalled that the General Assembly had recently adopted a resolution rejecting denial of the Holocaust as a historical event, either in full or in part, and urged all member states to educate their populations about the Holocaust.

The members of the Security Council reaffirm the rights and obligations of the State of Israel as a full and long-standing member of the United Nations, and reaffirm that, under the United Nations Charter, all Members have undertaken to refrain from the threat or use of force against the territorial integrity or political independence of any State.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
Haya



Joined: 06 Nov 2005
Posts: 10
Location: Israel

PostPosted: Thu Jan 05, 2006 5:06 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

From Fried's remarks:
-------------------------
We have advanced Israeli-Palestinian peacemaking further than almost everyone
in Europe thought possible. Israel's withdrawal from the Gaza and the opening
of the Rafah crossing with the European Union, by the way, taking on its
first major security responsibility in the region has given the Palestinian
people a chance to start building their future state in reality, not just in
rhetoric.
--------------------------

First of all, I apologize for not having come here sooner. So much has happened. As to the above - What a crock! - There has been nothing but chaos since the expulsion of the Jews from Gush Katif. The Rafah crossing has become a doorway through which more and more terrorists have been coming into Gaza, including Al Qeaeda. Now, with Ariel Sharon affectively no longer Prime Minister, there will be serious discussions about what to do concerning Iran's nuclear program and its (the President's) wish to "wipe Israel off the map." If only the Iranian people themselves would topple this 'government,' there would be no need for any action! My heart goes out to all of you.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
blank



Joined: 26 Feb 2004
Posts: 1672

PostPosted: Thu Jan 05, 2006 5:40 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

[quote="Haya"]From Fried's remarks:
-------------------------
We have advanced Israeli-Palestinian peacemaking further than almost everyone
in Europe thought possible. Israel's withdrawal from the Gaza and the opening
of the Rafah crossing with the European Union, by the way, taking on its
first major security responsibility in the region has given the Palestinian
people a chance to start building their future state in reality, not just in
rhetoric.
--------------------------

"First of all, I apologize for not having come here sooner. So much has happened. As to the above - What a crock! - There has been nothing but chaos since the expulsion of the Jews from Gush Katif. The Rafah crossing has become a doorway through which more and more terrorists have been coming into Gaza, including Al Qeaeda. Now, with Ariel Sharon affectively no longer Prime Minister, there will be serious discussions about what to do concerning Iran's nuclear program and its (the President's) wish to "wipe Israel off the map." If only the Iranian people themselves would topple this 'government,' there would be no need for any action! My heart goes out to all of you".

Dear Haya:
They have tried, you may not be aware of the genocide committed by the these ragheads, similar to what PolPot did in VietNam. Now they have realized they cannot do it alone just like in South Africa, Poland, and other countries, they need world (mostly the EU & US) support. The same with all people under many dictatorships, Red China, Cuba, Syria they cannot do it by themselves. Iraqi's coulden't do it, the only reason they got rid of Sadam was US intervention. Just like the US freed the world from Nazism and fascism. We need strong support and boycott by Europeans and the US, to bring these ragheads to their knees....believe me they will not go out without a fight, they would rather destory Iran, and cause civil war and blood bath than to leave peacefully......


Last edited by blank on Thu Jan 05, 2006 6:07 pm; edited 1 time in total
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
blank



Joined: 26 Feb 2004
Posts: 1672

PostPosted: Thu Jan 05, 2006 6:05 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

How long can we wait?

First they came for the Jews, but I did not speak out because I was not a Jew. Then they came for the Communists, and I did not speak out because I was not a Communist. Then they came for the trade-unionists, and I did not speak out because I was not a trade-unionist. Then they came for the Catholics, and I did not speak out because I was not Catholic. And then they came for me, and there was no one left to speak out for me. Pastor Niemoller (Berlin, 1939)
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
Oppenheimer



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

PostPosted: Fri Jan 06, 2006 2:04 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

Dear Blank,

Thanks for the quote, I'd forgotten who its author was...but considering the kind of information age we live in, I doubt that such a crime could be perpetrated in silence at this point.

There are times when it seems that the waiting is endless, that no one is listening, despite the headbanging on the wall to get the world's attention...

Let me then say that the opposition's message has not only been delivered, but has been heard loud and clear. More so, the intent, and truth of the situational analysis and prayers of suggestion put forth by members of the opposition, such as SMCCDI to various governments has been reinforced and emphasised by Antar's intent to ferment jihad throughout the muslim world.

The support of the EU and US is essential to the opposition, not because , or in order to promote regime change from within (it's too late for that...and the world doesn't have several years to wait for that option to bear fruit) It is essential for the post-regime restoration and rebuilding of transparent institutions of government, that may ultimately serve the Iranian people, and reflect their cultural and historical foundations that once made Persia the flower of civilization under Cyrus the Great.

One can say, why did the world wait till it was too late? I would push back on that by reflecting on my own experience trying for a long time to help the opposition find a path to inclusiveness, and the end to personality conflicts and infighting. This is still a big problem, and as in one letter by SMCCDI's coodinator last year to Pres Bush stated very clearly taking on this issue, that -
"We of the opposition should have been able to jointly
prepare a correct and specific program during these last
years. We need now to seize these current internal and
external opportunities that exist, to free our country and
respond to our people's legitimate aspirations, and to the
world's concerns.
And through this, we hope to create a coordinated effort to
obtained the necessary moral and financial support that
will lead to the downfall of the Islamist Republic regime."


What was welcome to see happen was many of the ideas and prayers of suggestion contained in that letter were then subsequently adopted in whole, if not in spirit, by a large portion of various diverse opposition groups....and today, despite diferences, the opposition is a more cohesive, unified force to be reconned with, and worthy of support than it was at the time this letter was written just under a year ago.

Antar has also had a hand in this, though I'm sure it was a case of uninteded concequences of his own diatribes.

As in love just as in war....timing is everything....and the timing will "be of our choosing".

One never lets the enemy choose the time or place of battle.

Haya voices her concern because she knows what her nation is capable of if pushed against a wall...and as recently stated by a Sharon aid, "Now is not the time to mess with us."

True enough, but Antar can't resist, as he stated that he hoped Sharon wouldn't survive the stroke.

Israel wouldn't be alone in any case, as the US and NATO would make the outcome certain, and it wouldn't be simply taking out nuclear sites...but a top-down removal of command, control, communications, capabilities, and retaliatory infrastructure.....full-on "regime change".

All this in 90 minutes or less with very little "collateral damage" i.e. civilian casualties.

Trust me, I know what my nation is capable of if pushed to the wall.

Antar is pushing too hard for his health...


You may remember this excerpt from a post of mine on SMCCDI's forum, from back in the summer of 2004.....

What is lacking as yet is the catalyst to motivate the masses to take action.
In '79, it was the Ayatollah's return, sparking the religious fanaticism that was the catalyst at the time.

I see a broader and more powerful catalyst that lies beneath the surface of current events, just waiting to be triggered.

That is that the mullahs are pushing the West to confrontation (perhaps military), and when the vast majority of Iranians realize the danger they face in a war started by the mullah's failed two-faced diplomacy, then you folks will have your catalyst for change, out of dire necessity.

They say necessity was the mother of invention, I say it's father was desperation.

Many think that if the mullahs get the bomb, they'll use it (probably on Israel) and not just in my country (US) is that the general consensus, but it is in the mullah's own words to that effect.

Now, anyone who's finished his morning cup of coffee, and is reasonably alert, will no doubt call that kind of mullacratic foreign policy "suicidal". For good reason...because when the favor's returned in kind, Persia will no longer exist.

So, I ask any reasonable Iranian, as a US citizen...but more as simply one human to another, is self preservation from the intent of one's leaders enough of a catalyst?


So what remains is the basic question all Iranians must ask themselves at this point after all this misery under the mullahs, and the future path they have chosen to subject you good folks to....I think is simply: "Are we but sheep?"

And now I've probably pissed off a whole lot of folks, but the question remains.... and the answer is up to you.

The question my country, as well as the rest of the world ponders is "Do we have time to wait for the Iranian people to answer the previous question?"


Blank, the Iranian people are not sheep, but time has flat run out for folks to effect change on their own before Antar and his buddies wreck havoc on any chance for peaceful change, or peace in the region for that matter.

Haya states the ambassador's statement is "a crock"....well no it isn't...those that recall the situation from 2001-on would say that he is exactly correct. The "chaos" she referes to is indeed part and parcel to those elements, including the IRI that have no wish to see a peacefull co-existance take place, because it directly undermines their ideology, and therefore theit legitimacy (in their eyes) of existance.

What they deny is a basic truth, that Muslim, Cristian and Jew, every one are all decendants of the three sons of Abraham.

A very dysfunctional family, to say the least, but one that in order to survive, must learn to co-exist in peace.

It may very well take a war to drive that point home.
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
Page 1 of 1

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


Powered by phpBB © 2001, 2005 phpBB Group