[FREE IRAN Project] In The Spirit Of Cyrus The Great Forum Index [FREE IRAN Project] In The Spirit Of Cyrus The Great
Views expressed here are not necessarily the views & opinions of ActivistChat.com. Comments are unmoderated. Abusive remarks may be deleted. ActivistChat.com retains the rights to all content/IP info in in this forum and may re-post content elsewhere.
 
 FAQFAQ   SearchSearch   RegisterRegister 
 ProfileProfile   Log in to check your private messagesLog in to check your private messages   Log inLog in 

Rejecting Any Kind of Talks with Islamofascist
Goto page Previous  1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10  Next
 
Post new topic   Reply to topic    [FREE IRAN Project] In The Spirit Of Cyrus The Great Forum Index -> News Briefs & Discussion
View previous topic :: View next topic  
Author Message
cyrus
Site Admin


Joined: 24 Jun 2003
Posts: 4993

PostPosted: Tue Apr 04, 2006 11:23 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

Oppenheimer wrote:
On another note after reading through a few of your points above I would suggest to those who may actually seek to get miltary or other training that the US Dept of State, the CIA, and US military are actively seeking those who speak Farsi, (among other languages) and can qualify (age, physical, and background checks among those parameters).

There are legal issues surrounding the formation of a paramilitary org on US soil (whether via US sanctioned Congressional act or not).

I would very much doubt that US law would permit the kind of suggestions included in this vein you have proposed Cyrus, so I have offered the alternative above for those that would consider it.


After the regime change in Iran for establishing Free Society and secular democracy and during transition Iran needs a large Police and security forces to prevent anarchy ….
The puzzle is how and who is going to fill this gap ?
Are there enough forces inside Iran that can play this role and replace Islamofascist Militia forces and can guarantee the security for FREE Society…?
What is the US plan?
These are some of the puzzle without clear answer.

FREE Society = Social Freedom + Secular Political Freedom
When we have FREE Society then we can have Secular Democracy.
The Islamists forces of any kind can not create FREE Society as we can see it in both Iraq and Afghanistan......
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
Oppenheimer



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

PostPosted: Tue Apr 04, 2006 2:44 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

Dear Cyrus,

Some general parallels may be considered in the fact that the institutions of police and military are so corrupt in the manifestation and form they exist in today that a sort of "de Bathification" and total rebuilding of those institutions would be needed in Iran.

As well as the judicial system.

Where as in Afghanistan they simply didn't exist at all....in both cases of Iraq and Afghanistan the International community has provided training and support to stand up those institutions and screen individuals to fill the posts....

It has been for the most part, a rather successful aproach to the problem.

But as with all things, it takes time to do it right, and there is no real alternative that would suffice but to tear something down to rebuild it in cases like this.

Iran really has no outside threat to defend from....what would be at issue would be internal unrest....regime loyalists, terrorists and Basigi milita that would be a threat to any new interim government structure....

In that sense, the potential parallels with Iraq are quite real, with one exception....that there would be no outside interference such as the IRI is contributing to in Iraq today.

Whether the people can do all this on their own or international boots on the ground are needed to provide that interim security is another matter, and how each might manifest is a matter of speculation I won't get into here.

I will say this, that there's rampant speculation about "limited" military action to take out nuclear sites. This is (and if you look at recent history) totaly absurd. If a military solution is the last option left on the table it will be manifest as a complete and total top-down regime change opperation, not some limited bombing that leaves the regime in power.

Anyone in their right mind would understand why that would be the case, as the world has already seen what limited means....the leaving of Saddam in power after the 91 gulf war....the limited cruise missile strikes in 98 on al quaida terrorist camps in Afghanistan.....as example were not only precursure to future conflict, but non-effective in a permanent solution to the problems at the time.

History is a good teacher, unfortunately there's some that think half-way measures will work, but I don't think you'll find those folks in the US military establishment today.

Then of course there's the question of how the Iranian people would react to military intervention to remove the regime in general....if need be.

Personally I think it will be mixed, some opposing violently, some welcoming, with a majority getting the hell out of the way while **** hits the fan.

Given the fact that a majority have not actively opposed this regime (ie taken to the streets in vast numbers) but are intellectually opposed, I think the regime's claims that the people would rise in popular opposition to external regime change action is inflated, and exagerated.

Iranian pride not being so much a factor as much as whether the international community does right by them in the process.

You have your own history of Cyrus' liberation of Babylon to draw from in reverse....
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
Oppenheimer



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

PostPosted: Tue Apr 04, 2006 3:08 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

Quote:
The Islamists forces of any kind can not create FREE Society as we can see it in both Iraq and Afghanistan......


You may be in the camp that thinks that those of the Muslim faith are incapable of democracy, or building the institutions of democracy to serve the people.

I catagoricly regect that notion with facts to back it up with....three years ago the Iraqi people were ruled by a tyrant who used sectarian division and violence to rule Iraq with an iron fist. Today despite no experience with democracy, the ethnic groups are peacfully electing and debating the formation of a new permanent government structure despite every effort to create civil war and sectarian violence by terrorists, regime loyalists, and the outside negative influence of the IRI and Syria.

You and those who state they cannot achieve the dream of freedom that is rightfully theirs, give them no credit for achieving the progress they've made to this point.

As with any new government, tests will be put to it....as will any new government structure in a future Iran as to whether it is capable of being truly democratic in inclusiveness of the Muslim population of Iran.

I say with certainty that if this cannot be done in Iran's case, you will never see an Iran whole, free and at peace.

The strength of a nation lies in its diversity, and its government's capability to serve all the people in equal measure under the law.

Deny this if you will, at freedom's expense.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
cyrus
Site Admin


Joined: 24 Jun 2003
Posts: 4993

PostPosted: Tue Apr 04, 2006 5:30 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

Oppenheimer wrote:

Quote:
The Islamists forces of any kind can not create FREE Society as we can see it in both Iraq and Afghanistan......


You may be in the camp that thinks that those of the Muslim faith are incapable of democracy, or building the institutions of democracy to serve the people.

I catagoricly regect that notion with facts to back it up with....three years ago the Iraqi people were ruled by a tyrant who used sectarian division and violence to rule Iraq with an iron fist. Today despite no experience with democracy, the ethnic groups are peacfully electing and debating the formation of a new permanent government structure despite every effort to create civil war and sectarian violence by terrorists, regime loyalists, and the outside negative influence of the IRI and Syria.

You and those who state they cannot achieve the dream of freedom that is rightfully theirs, give them no credit for achieving the progress they've made to this point.

As with any new government, tests will be put to it....as will any new government structure in a future Iran as to whether it is capable of being truly democratic in inclusiveness of the Muslim population of Iran.

I say with certainty that if this cannot be done in Iran's case, you will never see an Iran whole, free and at peace.

The strength of a nation lies in its diversity, and its government's capability to serve all the people in equal measure under the law.

Deny this if you will, at freedom's expense.



If I clarify the difference between Muslim and Islamist then you might understand what I mean and you might agree with me.


Islamism = Islamist
Arabic: 'islāmiyya

Group of ideologies in Islam that want to use the Sharia to its full extent, meaning that secular forms of governments and institutions are considered foreign to a true Muslim society.

Islamism has been implemented as a real political alternative in modern times. Several countries have implemented Islamistic politics: principally Iran and Sudan, but also to some extent Pakistan and Libya. Saudi Arabia has had an Islamist politics for a long time, but is not regarded as Islamist by many,

Small percentage of Muslim considered as Islamist.

Example Of Islamist Groups are IRI, Mullahs, Egypt Muslim Brotherhood, Al-Qaeda, Hamas, Hizbollah, Islamic Parties in Iraq, Islamic Militia in Iraq, Some of the Militia Groups in Afghanistan.

Islamist = Islamo Fascist = Rule By Terror and Fear.


Great majority of over 1 billion Muslim don’t believe and practice Islamist Ideology …
With the above definition I have made the following statement .

Quote:
The Islamists forces of any kind can not create FREE Society as we can see it in both Iraq and Afghanistan......


Muslims can be peaceful member of society as long as they don’t follow Koran word by word ….

Islamist = Islamo Fascist = Rule By Terror and Fear = Illegal
______________________________________________________
In order to eradicate Islamist Terrorism we must learn from our mistakes without any dogma and make a correction to the future foreign policy of USA. Hiding facts about our past politician mistakes or their evil intentions from American people in the name of national interest is against spirit of freedom-loving brave American hero General George Washington and Thomas Jefferson. Is Dr. Zbigniew Brzezinski graduate of Harvard University with good knowledge of history and Isalmist ideology partially responsible for what happened in Sept 11?

Did Dr. Zbigniew Brzezinski know the following facts about Islam or Not ?

"If the books herein are in accord with Islam,
then we don't need them.
If the books herein are not in accord with Islam,
then they are kafir (of the infidel)"
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
cyrus
Site Admin


Joined: 24 Jun 2003
Posts: 4993

PostPosted: Tue Apr 04, 2006 8:45 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

Oppenheimer wrote:
Dear Cyrus,

Some general parallels may be considered in the fact that the institutions of police and military are so corrupt in the manifestation and form they exist in today that a sort of "de Bathification" and total rebuilding of those institutions would be needed in Iran.

As well as the judicial system.

Where as in Afghanistan they simply didn't exist at all....in both cases of Iraq and Afghanistan the International community has provided training and support to stand up those institutions and screen individuals to fill the posts....

It has been for the most part, a rather successful aproach to the problem.

But as with all things, it takes time to do it right, and there is no real alternative that would suffice but to tear something down to rebuild it in cases like this.

Iran really has no outside threat to defend from....what would be at issue would be internal unrest....regime loyalists, terrorists and Basigi milita that would be a threat to any new interim government structure....

In that sense, the potential parallels with Iraq are quite real, with one exception....that there would be no outside interference such as the IRI is contributing to in Iraq today.

Whether the people can do all this on their own or international boots on the ground are needed to provide that interim security is another matter, and how each might manifest is a matter of speculation I won't get into here.

I will say this, that there's rampant speculation about "limited" military action to take out nuclear sites. This is (and if you look at recent history) totaly absurd. If a military solution is the last option left on the table it will be manifest as a complete and total top-down regime change opperation, not some limited bombing that leaves the regime in power.

Anyone in their right mind would understand why that would be the case, as the world has already seen what limited means....the leaving of Saddam in power after the 91 gulf war....the limited cruise missile strikes in 98 on al quaida terrorist camps in Afghanistan.....as example were not only precursure to future conflict, but non-effective in a permanent solution to the problems at the time.

History is a good teacher, unfortunately there's some that think half-way measures will work, but I don't think you'll find those folks in the US military establishment today.

Then of course there's the question of how the Iranian people would react to military intervention to remove the regime in general....if need be.

Personally I think it will be mixed, some opposing violently, some welcoming, with a majority getting the hell out of the way while **** hits the fan.

Given the fact that a majority have not actively opposed this regime (ie taken to the streets in vast numbers) but are intellectually opposed, I think the regime's claims that the people would rise in popular opposition to external regime change action is inflated, and exagerated.

Iranian pride not being so much a factor as much as whether the international community does right by them in the process.

You have your own history of Cyrus' liberation of Babylon to draw from in reverse....


Dear Oppenheimer,
Thank You for stating many facts in your post.

Due to the facts that I don't know how U.S. is going to execute its plan for liberation of Iran, what are their real choices and clear information regarding Internal Iranian Security Forces therefore I can not have any comments at this time.

If it is possible the Iran Liberation strategy and training Iranian people might be a better choice than classic warfare .

If Iran’s Security Forces (Police, Pasdaran and Military) do not act and help Iranian people to liberate Iran from this big Islamist Mess, regime change and replacing it with Free society and Secular Democracy they should not expect any better future than Iraqi security forces. It seems their window for action and separating themselves from the regime is very short. So far I have not seen anything encouraging regarding Iran Security Forces…..
So far Revolutionary Guards are acting as good mercenaries for protecting Mullah’s regime against Iranian people National Interest.

Regards,
Cyrus
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
cyrus
Site Admin


Joined: 24 Jun 2003
Posts: 4993

PostPosted: Tue Apr 04, 2006 9:24 pm    Post subject: Germany calls for direct US-Iran talks on nuclear program Reply with quote

Quote:

Germany calls for direct US-Iran talks on nuclear program
Tue Apr 4, 10:45 AM ET
http://news.yahoo.com/s/afp/20060404/pl_afp/usgermanydiplomacy_060404144548

WASHINGTON (AFP) - German Foreign Minister Frank-Walter Steinmeier urged the US government to address Iran's disputed nuclear program in bilateral talks with Tehran on Iraq.

Steinmeier said ahead of a meeting with US Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice later Tuesday that there was growing consensus both in Europe and in some US circles that direct negotiations between Washington and Tehran could bring a breakthrough in the protracted crisis.


Warning: The EU3 plans to drag the Bush Admin into another mess that they have created 3 years ago and reduce U.S. popularity among youth in Iran.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
Oppenheimer



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

PostPosted: Tue Apr 04, 2006 9:44 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

Quote:
If I clarify the difference between Muslim and Islamist then you might understand what I mean and you might agree with me.


Thanks for your clarification and definition. Myself I tend not to use a word like Islamist to define terrorists and their ilk....one rightly may construe also that an Islamist is simply one who is practicing or promoting the Muslim religion. "OF Islam" is how I interpret Islamist in the litteral sense.

This is far different than what those in power in Iran are doing in actuality, as their INTERPRETATION of that faith has corrupted it to its core.

In a sense we are not far off the mark from each other (save in a semantic way in this one aspect). When I say that a "de-Bathification" of sorts needs to take place within institutions, you no doubt understand I am refering to a purge of corrupt individuals that have been involved in the violation of human rights and involved in other crimes, including murder, as well as continuance of a systemic decay of civil liberties and institutions over the years. But I mean it even further than you may think....Muslim or not, it would matter not who they were or what religious belief they held....a terrorist is a terrorist is a terrorist, and action is the basis of definition, not belief or semantics.

Iran is not Iraq or Afghanistan in the sense that I do not believe that Sharia law would be in any way acceptable to the general population as a whole in any constitutional form via referendum at this point....principally because it is essentially foreign to the cultural history of Persia itself, though it is a part of its history per se, it does not serve all the people as viable law.

Iran is too much of a melting-pot of cultures to sustain that (though for the last quarter century it has, by force and repression of dissent) "dogma" (as you put it), in a representive Iranian government structure.

These cultural parameters are as I said much different than in Iraq and Afghanistan where sharia has been by popular referendum accepted as part of constitutional law....the test the nation of Afghanistan faces is today whether that set of laws can be consistant in application with the universal declaration of human rights, which in both nations has been also incorperated into the new constitutions.

The question may be rightly put in general, can one have a non-secular democracy....and it still be called democratic? I don't mean in reference to a future Iran, but simply in general intellectual terms.


Quote:
Hiding facts about our past politician mistakes or their evil intentions from American people in the name of national interest is against spirit of freedom-loving brave American hero General George Washington and Thomas Jefferson.


Aye Cyrus, I hope you are not accusing me of hiding facts here, whether Dr. Zbigniew Brzezinski knew or didn't know , I have no idea...you'd have to direct that question to him...Or perhaps the Carter Center...

In a real sense in today's world it is not even relevent...you can't change the past in any case.....nor is 1953 relevent to a future free Iran.

What is much more relevent if one wants a lesson from history is June 2005 and Antar's rise to power....this is much more relevent to solving the riddle than I have yet to see honestly addressed on this forum.

Point being when folks understand the mechanism the regime utilized and mistakes the opposition made in that time period, then you'll be making headway in solving your collective dillema- and become an effective force against this regime.

In my opinion, far too much breath is wasted playing the blame game on outside entities for the dysfunctional nature of the state of the opposition today, of Iran or related circumstance in general.

Not to say there is no blame for past policy....but read on....

It may be a comfortable release for your (and many other's) emotional frustration, but it does not serve to address the critical causaulogy of your failure to have found the unity nessesary within the opposition to remove the regime. Nor does it address or place the blame where it properly belongs...on the regime itself. Point being whether Mr. ZB knew or not, the regime sure as hell did, and that's self evident truth you seem to overlook in this instance.

And Mr. ZB is not the people of Iran who either remained silent or supported that historic catastrophy...the rest split the country did they not?

You all have been living with this collective guilt so long you've created a certain justification externally for what is essentially the responsibility of the Iranian people of that era....no more, no less...and it's a brutal truth that must be faced or risk repeating by inaction today....period.

Whatever external elements or circumstance helped or added to it is really pretty insignificant to what the Iranian people themselves did, or failed to do at that time. Just as this is the case today in whether you manage remove the regime now or not, BEFORE IT IS TOO LATE! Too late is when the regime has started a war, because it will be removed from power by external force at that point, and you'll have to simply accept the concequences of inaction at that point, not blame others.

Quote:
Quote:
The Islamists forces of any kind can not create FREE Society as we can see it in both Iraq and Afghanistan......


The semantics aside Cyrus, if a nation by popular referendum chooses sharia law as its legal basis of constitutional law, neither you or I , the US or any other nation has the right to question their decision or to try and change the will of the people to suit themselves.

I would simply state that when a new constitution is debated in Iran at some point, I guarantee you what the reaction would be if the US was to do any more than try to facilitate options by presenting blueprints of working models of democracy as we did in Afghanistan and Iraq. The rampant Brit resentment I see on this site would pale in comparison.

I have heard you consistantly decrie US policy that we established Islamist republics in Iraq and Afghanistan.....when in fact the people of those nations decided that for themselves in free and fair referendum.

It seems quite odd that you appear to have expectation that the US would dictate to others what kind of representitive government they should have (or that we have some kind of moral deficit by allowing those nation freedom to determine their course of their own free will.), and by all logic Cyrus...this above accusation of your's smacks of such intellectual double-speak that I frankly have lost trust in your comittment to the concept of democracy in general.

I'm sure you'd really appreciate the US dictating to the Iranian people what kind of government they should have.

One thing you may not really understand is that a constitution is a living instrument of the people's will, our's for instance has been ammended many times over the years to better serve the will of the people, as will Iraq's and Afghanistan's as they themselves deem nessesary.


Last, just because a government may be elected by free and fair election (IE Hamas) doesn't mean that it is automaticly worthy of recognition by the US government, or worthy of support.

In other words if a terrorist is duly elected, he's still a terrorist.

Afghanistan is not exporting terrorism, yet lives with sharia law ( as an Islamic republic) incorperated into its constitution....you have to realize that the world does not cater to your set of ideals, because what works for you may not work for others, and they too have the right to determine the kind of government structure and rule of law they live by, so long as they live in peace with their neighbors as Afghanistan is doing today.

Iran of course will take its own path....and any comparison or expectation you have based on what you "see" is fraght with error by association and colored by your own preferences.

If in fact Iran is to be whole, free and at peace in the future, it must also exist free of the kind of dogma you have unconciously placed upon it in your expectations of what "democracy" is all about.

It will be what it will be, as the people will it, and that may not be as you expect nor anticipate....but I'd venture a guess that it will be at least secular by definition, devoid of Sharia in the text of constitutional law.

It may base itself on the constitution written at the turn of the 20th century, I just don't know, nor is it productive for anyone to suggest that the Brits or any other nation would determine it for you.

As long as a future Iran does not engage in the kinds of activities the current regime does (in all aspects) and re-ratifies it's committment to the UN charter and declaration of human rights, I'll give you my personal confidence that that new government will have the recognition and support of the international community, regardless of how it's structured or what the form of representitive government is in place. Or by what basis of law the people ratify a new constitution with.

Because above all, they must be free to choose that for themselves, as well as any new leadership.

I hope you understand if I have more than a simple semantic misunderstanding with you on some very basic elements expressed in your statement.

If you wish to better understand US policy, then you must go directly to the source on a consistant basis, rather than accept the third-party interpretation of others as you read it in news reports and articles.

If the press gets it wrong (as it often does) then you are bound to as well, and at a serious deficit of understanding thereby.
As are those who depend on you to post the facts on your site.

Take care,

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



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

PostPosted: Tue Apr 04, 2006 10:16 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

Germany calls for direct US-Iran talks on nuclear program
Tue Apr 4, 10:45 AM ET
http://news.yahoo.com/s/afp/20060404/pl_afp/usgermanydiplomacy_060404144548
Quote:

WASHINGTON (AFP) - German Foreign Minister Frank-Walter Steinmeier urged the US government to address Iran's disputed nuclear program in bilateral talks with Tehran on Iraq.

Steinmeier said ahead of a meeting with US Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice later Tuesday that there was growing consensus both in Europe and in some US circles that direct negotiations between Washington and Tehran could bring a breakthrough in the protracted crisis.


Warning: The EU3 plans to drag the Bush Admin into another mess that they have created 3 years ago and reduce U.S. popularity among youth in Iran.


Cyrus,

The EU3 cannot change a fundemental fact of US law....WE DON"T NEGOTIATE WITH TERRORISTS OR THEIR SUPPORTERS.

Relax, we know what we're about with the approach we've taken, and while folks may have ideas, it doesn't mean they are practical or would prove effective diplomacy.

In fact, what is working in diplomacy is that folks are in consensus on basic principals, including Russia and China....tactical differences are a different thing, and that's a simple case of how to get there from here.

Now, no one expected the IRI to suddenly do backflips with a presidential statement....it's kind of like putting a restraining order on a cumpulsive pedophile if you know what I mean....next comes the inditment after 30 days.

Now , while all this seems like so much tiptoeing around the regime....the result is that it keeps all together in unity of consensus, and that is essential to a diplomatic solution, if one is to be had at all.

I'm just waiting for Antar to open his big fat yap again....should be any time now....(chuckle).
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
Oppenheimer



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

PostPosted: Wed Apr 05, 2006 1:02 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

Quote:
Due to the facts that I don't know how U.S. is going to execute its plan for liberation of Iran, what are their real choices and clear information regarding Internal Iranian Security Forces therefore I can not have any comments at this time.


There is , by logical deduction, certain parameters that would be so highly probable as to be almost certainty. As with my statement about full-on regime top-down regime change rather than limited military action.

logically as well any "limited" action would lead to a full on war anyway...this is why I have very little regard for the kind of limited strike thinking going on in some circles.

Now, I remember when I was on SMCCDI forum (when it was up and running) that a fellow by the interesting handle "Dr. X" was actively trying to raise an armed militia of Iranian ex-pats from his website (and Liberator will no doubt confirm this as well).

the problem from a legal standpoint is very basic, and has nothing to do with the second ammendment (which is a matter of domestic policy to safeguard civil liberty and in some cases domestic security).

The only entity that can raise an armed force on US soil, soley designed to overthrow a foreign government is the government of the United States itself (having declared war by congressional act)

That is the "well organized militia" refered to which is our combined armed forces of the United States.

To raise a private army, is in direct violation of federal law, and I informed "Dr. X" at the time that he stood a good chance of the federal government coming down on him like a ton of bricks.

Within the law Cyrus, if an Iranian patriot wishes to bet on the fact that diplomacy will fail and hostilities ensue with the IRI, the only way they can personally contribute to the liberation of their homeland is by becoming a member of the US armed forces, the intel structure, or the diplomatic structure of the United States government.

Seeing as how Farsi speakers are in high demand, it's also a safe bet that Iranian patriot's services are welcomed and the kind of formal training you mentioned is indeed available.

However, the policy and the law of the US is also clear on raising private armies...can't be done.

I'm sure you can reason this out as to why that is.

As for the internal dynamics of Iranian security services, they are for the most part subject to the same kind of pressures and demographic cross section as the population of Iran, plus they too have families which influence them as individuals.
My understanding is that were there to be a popular uprising (millions strong) that the rate of desertion would be such that the regime could not sustain it's own security for more than a month at best.

The task is to reach a tipping point where the security forces realize the regime is not viably supportable and that as individuals each must make a choice whether to continue or join the people's cause.

As I once said Cyrus, you got to do this by the numbers, and the numbers do matter...not only is there reletive safety in such a huge revolt, but it becomes self sustaining and takes on a life of its own as confidence grows.

General strike? well that becomes a part of it inherently as well....but in the issue you raised of armed revolt, you don't need the US to supply arms...there's enough in Iran already...the task is to get them on your side, and that is why about 2 million willing to take the heat are needed to begin with....

I can't nor can any single individual, nor can any government help you organise this, better than you can do so yourselves by simple word of mouth inside Iran.

What that requires is the kind of trust between external and internal opposition that has up to this point been lacking between you or effectivly sabotaged by the regime.

This plus the general overcoming of the fear generated by the IRI bully that has most of the population thinking resistance is futile.

You gotta reverse that and get the security services to realize resistance is futile...and you can only do that with a vast number of people they can't effectively deal with.

I don't speak much about how it makes me feel to be witness to a few thousand folks at a time go up against impossible odds, and I don't mean to belittle the courage involved by calling those protests "piecemeal", but that strategy and those efforts are all too obviously in vain and it pains me greatly to be witness to it, saddens me no end...and because of all the failures of that strategy over the years, the general population as individuals are in a state of paralysis to act, knowing the retribution they face even if they simply stay home from work.

There's an old joke about curing a headache, Let me just kick you in the knee and you won't feel the pain in your head.
So in a similar way to cure the people's fear, the catalyst and cure may be the realization of a greater fear that the regime is hell bent on creating a war that has the potential to kill not simply 2 million, but 200 million throughout the region.

Again, by the numbers I do not exagerate a thing here. But taking a wait and see aproach is like having cancer and simply hoping it will go into remission on its own.

Not a good perscription for life, liberty and the persuit of happiness.

To not make a decision is also a decision made, to not act is also an action taken. The choice to act and empower yourselves is still available to the people of Iran today, tommorrow I just can't say. The IRI could make it moot for you at any time, and then you'll simply have to trust that the US and it's allies will do right by you in the end.

Either way, you'll be jumping through the flames to realize Azadi Norooz.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
cyrus
Site Admin


Joined: 24 Jun 2003
Posts: 4993

PostPosted: Wed Apr 05, 2006 12:06 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

Oppenheimer wrote:


The question may be rightly put in general, can one have a non-secular democracy....and it still be called democratic? I don't mean in reference to a future Iran, but simply in general intellectual terms.


Very interesting question, you might consider to start a new thread on this subject for other member comments..
With my current understanding the answer is NO, you can not have non-secular democracy.... unless someone can prove it otherwise
Based on what I know today and our past experience in Iran when you bring the so called religious law into constitution then it becomes non democratic.



cyrus wrote:
Hiding facts about our past politician mistakes or their evil intentions from American people in the name of national interest is against spirit of freedom-loving brave American hero General George Washington and Thomas Jefferson.


Oppenheimer wrote:
Aye Cyrus, I hope you are not accusing me of hiding facts here,


Absolutely Not.

This is something for US Government (President, Congress ….) consideration that they should study and accept past mistakes regarding helping Islamists …. and if and when they accept their past mistakes then they might look for possible solution to resolve and reverse the situation by public education …..


Last edited by cyrus on Wed Apr 05, 2006 1:35 pm; edited 1 time in total
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
Oppenheimer



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

PostPosted: Wed Apr 05, 2006 1:33 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

Quote:
This is something for US Government (President, Congress ….) consideration that they should study and accept past mistakes regarding helping Islamists …. and if and when they accept their past mistakes then they look for solution to reverse their played dangerous games by education …..



Cyrus,

We've helped a lot of Muslims regain their freedom over the years...Kuwait, the Balkans, Afghanistan, and were it comes to mistakes made, it is not as you say by "helping Islamists" as you've defined "Islamist", but in not following through with consistant US foreign policy over various administrations, or simply as in the following case, walked away before the job of nation building was completed.

Immediatly post 9/11, I had a very intense debate with a good friend (member of Afghan royal family) about the inevitable US military action soon to take place. The big worry in many minds was how to not see it turn into something resembling the Soviet disaster, and his answer was simple, direct and precient truth. He said, " Afghans remember America for two things, the humanitarian aid you've provided in the past, as well as the help given to free us from the Soviets, and we also remember you for having abandonned us completely after the Soviets were kicked out. If you do right by the Afghan people now, they will forgive you for having left us to ruin."

Mr. Bush directly makes reference to this period in the following:



President Discusses Democracy in Iraq with Freedom House
Hyatt Regency Capitol Hill
Washington, D.C.

March 29, 2006


(excerpt)


Quote:
Finally, some Americans are asking if it's time to pull out our troops and leave the Iraqis to settle their own differences. I know the work in Iraq is really difficult, but I strongly feel it's vital to the security of our country. The terrorists are killing and maiming and fighting desperately to stop the formation of a unity government because they understand what a free Iraq in the heart of the Middle East means for them and their ideology. They know that when freedom sets root in Iraq, it will be a mortal blow to their aspirations to dominate the region and advance their hateful vision. So they're determined to stop the advance of a free Iraq, and we must be equally determined to stop them.

The irony is that the enemy seems to have a much clearer sense of what's at stake than some of the politicians here in Washington, D.C. One member of Congress who has proposed an immediate withdrawal of American forces in Iraq recently explained that what would happen after American forces pulled out was this: He said, "They'll fight each other, somebody will win, they'll settle it for themselves." While it might sound attractive to some, it would have disastrous consequences for American security. The Iraqi government is still in transition, and the Iraqi security forces are still gathering capacity. If we leave Iraq before they're capable of defending their own democracy, the terrorists will win. They will achieve their stated goal. This is what the terrorists have told us they want to achieve. They will turn Iraq into a safe haven. They will seek to arm themselves with weapons of mass destruction. They will use Iraq as a base to overthrow moderate governments in the Middle East. They will use Iraq as a base from which to launch further attacks against the United States of America.

Mindful of recent history, I ask you to think about what happened in Afghanistan. In the 1980s, the United States helped Afghan freedom fighters drive the Soviet Red Army from Kabul, and once the Soviets withdrew, we decided our work was finished and left the Afghans to defend [sic] for themselves. Soon the terrorists moved in to fill the vacuum. They took over the country; they turned it into a safe haven from which they planned and launched the attacks of September the 11th.


http://www.whitehouse.gov/news/releases/2006/03/20060329-6.html

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

So as well you asked if ZB was in any way partially responsible for 9/11....the short answer to that Cyrus is that we all were, your people and mine, and all people globally. As well as true that you may consider that the dysfunctional nature of mankind over the last 60 years as manifest by the cold-war, the ability for the human race to self-exterminate itself (a totally unnatural state over the 200,000 years of past human history, creating many social ills, subtle and not so subtle on a collective psycological level) have played roles just as important as any one person or policy has.

You won't find this in the 9/11 report by the way, but it is truth.

Now I ask you, how have the Iranian people contributed to the rise of "Islamism" as you define it? You ask my government to be honest with its own people and it has been, let's be honest with each other eh?

I want to know if you are prepared to accept your own past mistakes as a people and be honest with you fellow activists about the past events you are so eager to blame on others totally.

Very few will challenge you as I am now doing on an intellectual level Cyrus, and I do so as a friend, not as adversary. A friend does not allow his friends to wear blinders to go stumbling into the future with...or off a cliff as it were.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
Oppenheimer



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

PostPosted: Wed Apr 05, 2006 2:18 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

Quote:
Very interesting question, you might consider to start a new thread on this subject for other member comments..
With my current understanding the answer is NO, you can not have non-secular democracy.... unless someone can prove it otherwise
Based on what I know today and our past experience in Iran when you bring the so called religious law into constitution then it becomes non democratic.


Two examples come to mind...the Constitutional monarchy of Great Britan with the Church of England as it's official non separated from state (or the royal family) religion....and Turkey , democratic for sure, multi ethnic, multi religious as England is yet has a state religion , as well as civil liberties in place to ensure freedom of religious practice.

Afghanistan is a young democracy yet, so I will simply say that my examples rightly are of democracies that have lived for some time under a non separated church and state to show that in some cases it is possible and time is the proof pudding if it works or not.


US pledge of allegiance..."one nation under God"....who's God and by what definition of practice non defined ....Bill of rights, Constitutional guarrantee of religious freedom and practice...or no practice or belief if individual choice.

Separation of church and state in legistlative matters, judicial practice but not always in philosophy.

One giving testimony or being sworn to office makes oath upon religious basis of belief. (IE the Bible is traditionally a part of swearing in (or it can also be the Koran or by whatever belief the individual adhears to that is being sworn into office)

In our case, I would call it a quasi separation of church and state...not in totality as defined.

"in God we trust" marked on currency is another example.

We are self evidently a democracy and a constitutional republic by definition of government structure.

What will be a far more demanding task is establishing a working separation of powers in a new Iran...traditionally power has been weilded by a select few for hundreds of years without proper representation.
Whether via the Shah or the Mullah and in rebuilding your institutions from scratch to conform to a democratic norm, ex-pats having lived and practiced democracy will be an essential force to educate and train those who've never known or experianced it.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
cyrus
Site Admin


Joined: 24 Jun 2003
Posts: 4993

PostPosted: Wed Apr 05, 2006 2:46 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

Oppenheimer wrote:
Quote:
Very interesting question, you might consider to start a new thread on this subject for other member comments..
With my current understanding the answer is NO, you can not have non-secular democracy.... unless someone can prove it otherwise
Based on what I know today and our past experience in Iran when you bring the so called religious law into constitution then it becomes non democratic.


Two examples come to mind...the Constitutional monarchy of Great Britan with the Church of England as it's official non separated from state (or the royal family) religion....and Turkey , democratic for sure, multi ethnic, multi religious as England is yet has a state religion , as well as civil liberties in place to ensure freedom of religious practice.

.


From my current understanding this is more ceremonial and they can not interfere in political system and everyday life of people. UK might not be good example.

Turkey is not considered as very stable democracy.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
blank



Joined: 26 Feb 2004
Posts: 1672

PostPosted: Wed Apr 05, 2006 3:39 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

Shiite Threat Draws Secret Mideast Talks

April 05, 2006
The Associated Press
Arizona Republic

http://www.azcentral.com/arizonarepublic/news/articles/0405iraq-arabs0405.html

CAIRO -- Top intelligence officers from several Arab countries and Turkey have been meeting secretly to coordinate their governments' strategies in case civil war erupts in Iraq and in an attempt to block Iran's interference in the war-torn nation, Arab diplomats said Tuesday. The meetings came after several Arab leaders voiced concerns about possible Shiite domination of Iraq and their alliance with Iran.

The four diplomats said intelligence chiefs from Bahrain, Egypt, Jordan, Kuwait, Saudi Arabia, the United Arab Emirates and non-Arab Turkey held a series of meetings over the last few weeks to assess the situation in Iraq.

They are working out plans to avoid any regional backlash that may result from sectarian conflict in Iraq.

The diplomats in several Middle Eastern capitals, speaking on the condition of anonymity because of the sensitivity of the issue, said Iran and Syria have been excluded from the talks.

One diplomat whose country is involved in the talks said the officials are focusing on the proposed U.S.-Iranian dialogue on Iraq and the implications on Arabs and Turkey of any "American-Iranian deal."

Government officials in Egypt and Jordan declined to answer questions on the meetings.

Reports in the Arab press have suggested that any agreement between Washington and Tehran will be at the expense of Arabs.

Arab nations, mostly Sunni and traditionally suspicious of Iran, are deeply concerned about what they see as Iran's growing influence in Iraq.

Turkey, also a key Sunni Muslim nation, is worried about Iraq's split into sectarian and ethnic entities.

Those splits could give rise to Kurdish ambitions for independence.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
cyrus
Site Admin


Joined: 24 Jun 2003
Posts: 4993

PostPosted: Thu Apr 06, 2006 6:18 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

cyrus wrote:
Oppenheimer wrote:

Quote:
The Islamists forces of any kind can not create FREE Society as we can see it in both Iraq and Afghanistan......


You may be in the camp that thinks that those of the Muslim faith are incapable of democracy, or building the institutions of democracy to serve the people.

I catagoricly regect that notion with facts to back it up with....three years ago the Iraqi people were ruled by a tyrant who used sectarian division and violence to rule Iraq with an iron fist. Today despite no experience with democracy, the ethnic groups are peacfully electing and debating the formation of a new permanent government structure despite every effort to create civil war and sectarian violence by terrorists, regime loyalists, and the outside negative influence of the IRI and Syria.

You and those who state they cannot achieve the dream of freedom that is rightfully theirs, give them no credit for achieving the progress they've made to this point.

As with any new government, tests will be put to it....as will any new government structure in a future Iran as to whether it is capable of being truly democratic in inclusiveness of the Muslim population of Iran.

I say with certainty that if this cannot be done in Iran's case, you will never see an Iran whole, free and at peace.

The strength of a nation lies in its diversity, and its government's capability to serve all the people in equal measure under the law.

Deny this if you will, at freedom's expense.



If I clarify the difference between Muslim and Islamist then you might understand what I mean and you might agree with me.


Islamism = Islamist
Arabic: 'islāmiyya

Group of ideologies in Islam that want to use the Sharia to its full extent, meaning that secular forms of governments and institutions are considered foreign to a true Muslim society.

Islamism has been implemented as a real political alternative in modern times. Several countries have implemented Islamistic politics: principally Iran and Sudan, but also to some extent Pakistan and Libya. Saudi Arabia has had an Islamist politics for a long time, but is not regarded as Islamist by many,

Small percentage of Muslim considered as Islamist.

Example Of Islamist Groups are IRI, Mullahs, Egypt Muslim Brotherhood, Al-Qaeda, Hamas, Hizbollah, Islamic Parties in Iraq, Islamic Militia in Iraq, Some of the Militia Groups in Afghanistan.

Islamist = Islamo Fascist = Rule By Terror and Fear.


Great majority of over 1 billion Muslim don’t believe and practice Islamist Ideology …
With the above definition I have made the following statement .

Quote:
The Islamists forces of any kind can not create FREE Society as we can see it in both Iraq and Afghanistan......


Muslims can be peaceful member of society as long as they don’t follow Koran word by word ….

Islamist = Islamo Fascist = Rule By Terror and Fear = Illegal
______________________________________________________
In order to eradicate Islamist Terrorism we must learn from our mistakes without any dogma and make a correction to the future foreign policy of USA. Hiding facts about our past politician mistakes or their evil intentions from American people in the name of national interest is against spirit of freedom-loving brave American hero General George Washington and Thomas Jefferson. Is Dr. Zbigniew Brzezinski graduate of Harvard University with good knowledge of history and Isalmist ideology partially responsible for what happened in Sept 11?

Did Dr. Zbigniew Brzezinski know the following facts about Islam or Not ?

"If the books herein are in accord with Islam,
then we don't need them.
If the books herein are not in accord with Islam,
then they are kafir (of the infidel)"


Islamist Extremism in Europe
Daniel Fried, Assistant Secretary for European Affairs
Testimony before the Subcommittee on European Affairs of the Senate Foreign Relations Committee
Washington, DC
April 5, 2006

Chairman Allen, Senator Biden, members of the Committee: Thank you for the opportunity to speak to you today about the challenge of Islamist extremism in Europe. I must emphasize from the very beginning that I am not speaking of a challenge posed by the vast number of Muslims living in Europe who, like most Muslims anywhere, have no radical agenda. As President Bush has said, "America treasures the relationship we have with our many Muslim friends, and we respect the vibrant faith of Islam which inspires countless individuals to lead lives of honesty, integrity, and morality." Rather, today I am speaking of the
"minuscule minority" who would distort Islam for political ends and defile a noble faith by committing terrorist acts against us or our European allies. In this testimony, I will describe the nature of Islamic extremism in Europe and the factors that drive it. I will conclude with a discussion of what we and our European friends are doing to combat this problem.

Europe's Muslim Population

Europe (including Russia and the states of the South Caucasus) is home to over 120 million Muslims. Over half of these live in Turkey, a key partner in our effort to counter extremism, with its secular democracy, predominantly Muslim population, and 80-year experience with modernizing reforms. Significant Muslim populations are also present in the Balkans, Russia and Azerbaijan. Within the Balkans, Albania and Kosovo have predominantly Muslim populations, while Bosnia is 40 percent Muslim and a considerable Muslim minority has lived in Bulgaria and Macedonia for hundreds of years. In Russia, the Muslim population, including immigrants from Central Asia, is growing faster than non-Muslims, however most are non-practicing. Militant extremists have been active in Chechnya and have tried to co-opt the secessionist movement or Chechen attitudes, which do not generally subscribe to the extremist agenda. Azerbaijan has a chance to emerge as a secular democracy that has a predominantly Shiia population. Approximately 15-20 million Muslims live in Western Europe.

While Islamist extremism is a global phenomenon, we find the nature of the problem in Western Europe to be distinct both in its character and in its potential to threaten the United States. Many, perhaps most Muslims in Western Europe are outside the mainstream in several respects. They are a minority, and even the third generation is still predominantly viewed as "foreign." Muslims' struggles with unemployment, discrimination, and integration have created an audience potentially open to receiving an extremist message. In many countries, this is compounded by legal institutions that struggle with the challenge of free speech that is exploited by extremists, thus leading to the phenomenon sometimes called "tolerance of intolerance." Add a deeply negative perception of U.S. foreign policy among Western Europe's Muslims, and relative freedom of movement across the Atlantic, and you have a particularly dangerous mix. Therefore, while this testimony makes reference to countries farther east, our main focus today is on Western Europe.

Muslims in Western Europe comprise only about five percent of the total population. However, this number has tripled over the last 30 years, and is expected to double again by 2025. The most common areas of origin are Turkey, North Africa, and Pakistan. The countries with the most Muslims are France (over 5 million), Germany (over 3 million), the UK (2 million), Italy (over 1 million), and The Netherlands (950,000). Western European Muslims are generally characterized by isolated diasporas, for example, Algerians or Moroccans in France, Turks in Germany, South Asians in the UK, and Moroccans in Spain. The vast majority of Western European Muslims are either mainstream followers who only wish to practice their religion in peaceful coexistence with their neighbors, or are relatively non-practicing.

The Extremist Minority

Extremists comprise a very small minority of Muslims living in Europe, with only one to two percent of Western Europe's Muslims involved in any kind of extremist activity. Of these, only a small fraction has the potential to cross the critical threshold into terrorism. Still, a mere handful of extremists can carry out a devastating terrorist attack.

Pockets of Islamic extremists exist in a broad range of European countries. Some mujahideen who fought in the Bosnian war remained in Bosnia after the fighting, acquiring citizenship and propagating anti-Western interpretations of Islam that run counter to the country's secular traditions. With U.S. urging, the Bosnian Parliament recently enacted legislation that strengthens the government's authorities to de-naturalize foreign-born fighters that fraudulently obtained citizenship during and after the war. But Islamic extremism remains a threat in Bosnia and beyond. And of course it exists in many European cities. In Germany, a small group of radical Islamist students led by Egyptian immigrant Mohammed Atta plotted the September 11 attacks from an apartment in Hamburg.

A variety of transnational groups seek to spread extremism across Europe by claiming to be non-violent and moderate, while appealing to the idealism of socially alienated and/or spiritually hungry Muslims in Europe. One such group is Hizb ut-Tahrir (Party of Liberation). Founded in the Palestinean territories in the 1950's, Hizb ut-Tahrir is secretive, organized around cells
of 4 or 5 people. Its European headquarters is in London, from which it transmits a hateful, anti-Semitic and anti-American call for the overthrow, albeit non-violent, of existing governments and the reestablishment of a single Islamist theocracy (or Caliphate). While it claims to be non-violent, Hizb ut-Tahrir's websites have deemed justified the killing of Americans or Jews,
and even the flying of airplanes into office buildings. Germany banned Hizb ut-Tahrir in 2003 for urging violence against Jews. The UK is now instituting a similar ban, and recently prohibited Hizb ut-Tahrir's splinter group, the radical youth movement Al-Muhajiroun. We lack evidence of Hizb ut-Tahrir having organized terrorist actions, but we know it skillfully uses Western freedoms to provide the ideological foundation for Islamist terrorists.

Other groups operating in Western Europe more actively blur the distinction between non-violent extremism and terrorism. These include the Salafist Group for Preaching and Combat (GSPC), which seeks to overthrow the Algerian government and institute an Islamic state, and the Moroccan Islamic Combatant Group (GICM), which has similar aims in Morocco.

At the outright terrorist end of Europe's continuum of Islamist extremist groups is al Qaida. Since al Qaida's structure and training camps were destroyed in Afghanistan following September 11, al Qaida and its affiliates have claimed responsibility for several terrorist acts on European soil. In some cases, attacks appear to have been carried out by terrorists who are
inspired by al Qaida rather than tied to a central leadership structure. These include the double suicide bombings in Istanbul in November 2003 that killed 57 people, the March 2004 attacks on four trains in Madrid that killed 191 commuters, and the London subway and bus bombings that killed 52 in July of last year. With its extremist message and multiple, highly visible attacks, al Qaida has inspired a global movement that has spawned other small, non-aligned groups, some operating in Europe. One example is The Netherlands-based Hofstad Group, a cell of Islamist militants, mostly second-generation Muslims of North African ancestry. In November 2004, Hofstad's leader, a 27-year-old Dutch Muslim of Moroccan descent named Mohammed Bouyeri, murdered filmmaker Theo Van Gogh on the street in Amsterdam.

We and our European allies are vigilant concerning the potential consequences of the insurgency in Iraq on European Muslim populations, but to date there have been only a handful of European-residing Muslims who have gone to become foreign fighters. A November 2004 suicide bomb attack in Baghdad was perpetrated by a young man from near Paris. We also know that Western Europe has served as a stopover point for radical fighters wounded in Iraq. Spanish court papers show that, as early as February 2002, Abu Musab al-Zarqawi was laying out plans for a pipeline to send European recruits to Iraq in one
direction, and recruiters to Europe in the other. Since June 2005, Spanish police have broken up three networks dedicated to sending suicide bombers to Iraq. Prior to the Iraq war, extremists traveled from Western Europe to enlist in Bosnia, Afghanistan or Chechnya.

The Causes of Islamist Extremism

Secular Alienation

A variety of factors is driving Islamist extremism in Europe by creating a sense of alienation from mainstream, secular society in Europe. These include: demographics; high rates of poverty and unemployment; anti-Muslim discrimination and racism; a strict adherence by many Muslims to the language and traditions of their countries of origin; and issues of identity. In addition, a general opposition to U.S. and Western policies in the Middle East, including support for Israel and the operations in Afghanistan and Iraq, has given focus to Islamist extremism and helped increase its attractiveness among Europe's alienated Muslim population.

Poverty and a lack of jobs create a pool of disaffected Muslims from which extremists can draw recruits. In the 1950s and 60s, when the European economy was growing faster than the local populations, the need for additional unskilled labor skyrocketed. Guest workers were recruited en masse, initially from then-poorer countries of southern Europe, and later mostly from Turkey and North Africa. They came largely from rural backgrounds and had little education. This wave of predominantly Muslim legal immigrants was followed by a large influx of illegal immigrants seeking the promise for a better life in Europe. After several successful decades of earning enough to support themselves and send money back home, economic slowdown in Europe coupled with large-scale family reunification and high birth rates led to rising unemployment. Over time, minorities increasingly found themselves segregated, living in poor neighborhoods, and holding low-paying jobs with little room for advancement. European Muslims tend to have lower levels of education, higher rates of unemployment, and lower incomes than the general population across Europe, even in countries such as the UK, which have more stringent
anti-discrimination laws.

This lack of opportunity is compounded by employment discrimination and, at times, racism from native populations. We Americans are familiar with these problems from our own history. While racial, ethnic and religious discrimination is officially banned across Europe, Muslims routinely find themselves turned down for jobs, particularly in the service industry. This is
true for second- and third-generation children of immigrants as well as first-generation workers who may have language barriers or lack adequate training for certain jobs. There are few opportunities for these Muslims to interact with or learn about Muslims in the West who are successful and have found a balance between living in a Western country and practicing Islam. Further, many of these immigrants lack support networks to help them integrate into their societies. The 2005 civil unrest in France brought to light the immense frustration shared by young, unemployed and disaffected minorities living in the Paris suburbs, many of whom are second- or third-generation children of immigrants.

Muslims are severely underrepresented in Europe's national parliaments and governments, as well as at the municipal level. However, there are some signs that political participation among European Muslims is increasing. For example, in local elections last month in The Netherlands, a record number of Muslims went to the polls and elected immigrants to various city councils, demonstrating that immigrants are seeking change through healthy, democratic means.

Poverty, lack of education, and anti-immigrant discrimination alone do not create extremists; alienation does. Alienation and radicalization are phenomena related to urbanization, education, cultural uprooting and isolation, and the combinations of communications technology with literacy on a historically isolated, traditional culture. Many extremists are poor; but poverty is not a requirement for radicalization. Ahmed Omar Saeed Sheikh, the Briton of Pakistani descent who was convicted for the kidnapping and murder of journalist Daniel Pearl, attended private schools and studied at the London School of Economics. In fact, many militant extremists come from the first generation of educated European Muslims, often with technical training. Most are men. But Muslim women can also become extremists, often exposed to radical ideology by their husbands. Muriel Degauque, a 38-year-old Belgian woman from a troubled background, conducted a suicide bomb attack in Baquba, Iraq, in
November 2005; her family claimed she had been "brainwashed" by her Moroccan husband. We have also seen non-Muslim, European-born converts to radical Islam, such as convicted "shoe bomber" Richard Reid, who was born in London to an English mother and a Jamaican father, and converted to Islam while in prison in his early 20s. The majority of Europe's Muslim extremists do not have a madrassa education or a background in Middle East conflicts, but all share the same sense of being marginalized by society.

Spiritual Alienation

We believe that marginalized European Muslims who cross the threshold to extremism are also driven by a sense of spiritual alienation. Less concerned than were their parents with economic survival, many of Europe's second- and third-generation Muslims seem to long for spiritual fulfillment. But many times their parents are unable to provide cultural or spiritual guidance, while their communities may lack imams with a modern, democratic orientation. Foreign financiers and religious activists often fill this spiritual vacuum by building local mosques and supplying them with extremist imams. Disconnected
from often tolerant traditions of their families' original homelands, these second- and third-generation Muslims are susceptible to foreign propaganda and sermons that preach narrow and hateful interpretations of Islam.

The Tolerance of Intolerance Trap

Many European governments hesitate to take action against extremist preaching in the name of defending religious tolerance and free speech. They often fear that crackdowns will only drive radical elements underground. Extremists take advantage of European freedoms to proselytize and recruit from radical mosques and they have taken over several major mosques. In the early 2000s, London's Finsbury Park Mosque was attended by Algerian-born UK citizens loyal to Chechen Shamil Basayev, who claimed responsibility for the September 2004 Beslan school attack in Russia. In February 2006 a judge sentenced the mosque's former imam, Abu Hamza al-Masri, to prison for inciting followers to kill non-Muslims. French citizen Zacarias Moussaoui attended London's Brixton Mosque for a time but was eventually expelled for exposing younger members to his extremist views. Brixton was also attended by "shoe bomber" Richard Reid. Mohammed Atta and other Hamburg Cell members began attending Hamburg's Al-Quds Mosque in late 1997.

The European debate can fall into a trap of seeking a defensive solution, such as formulas to define and ban hate speech. These kinds of legal bans may well be a dead end. A better solution is to develop norms that challenge and expose extremist thought as with other forms of anti-democratic ideology.

Failed Integration Models

The two most common models of integration, assimilation and multiculturalism, have proven difficult to implement in Europe. Assimilation, the approach taken by France, seeks to counter alienation by minimizing cultural or religious differences and forging a national identity, based on common citizenship. This approach has strong arguments in its favor, in principle. In practice, it has proven difficult to implement. The policy generated France's controversial "headscarf law," which bans the wearing of conspicuous religious symbols in public schools. Many Muslims believe their needs are often ignored, and, in
fact, they often believe themselves to be pushed to the margins of society.

Multiculturalism, the approach taken by The Netherlands and the UK, acknowledges the cultural, religious and racial diversity of a nation's citizens. This approach also has theoretical merits. In practice, however, multiculturalism has not eliminated, as it intended, elements of xenophobia, racism and anti-Islamism in mainstream society. The alienation of Muslim populations has persisted. Shaken by the 2004 murder of filmmaker Theo Van Gogh by an Islamist extremist, The Netherlands is now reassessing multiculturalism and pressing its immigrants to adopt "Dutch values" if they wish to attain residency. In the UK, the July 7, 2005, bus and subway bombings are leading to a rejection of multiculturalism and a questioning of British society's approach to integration.

Most countries in Europe have not pursued a conscious integration policy. Until recently, mainstream Europeans viewed Muslim immigrants as guest workers who would someday go "home." This leads to Europe's third-generation Muslim being seen as "foreign," despite being born in Europe, as were their parents. Again, given our history, and even our current debates about illegal immigration, Americans must be careful and modest in assessing others' efforts to deal with challenges of national identity in multi-ethnic and multi-religious states.

Extremist Recruitment

The recruitment of alienated European Muslims into extremist networks is a "bottom-up" process. Just as the Islamist movement is largely a loose, non-hierarchical, global network of disaffected radicals, there is also no real structure or process for enlisting recruits in a conventional military sense. Often, prospective terrorists undergo a process of "self-radicalization" by seeking out extremist mentorship among friends and acquaintances, or over the Internet.

Much of the recruitment also occurs in mosques. Self-selected radicals begin attending a radical mosque, eventually find each other, and start forming friendships among small groups. As a fledgling extremist group grows more fervent, less-committed individuals are weeded out, and the most hard-core members leave the mosques for more covert meeting places, including private homes, which are less likely to be under surveillance. While radical elements are still present in some mosques, they have become less attractive as recruiting venues in the wake of September 11 and the subsequent attacks on European soil, because extremists suspect that mosques are being closely monitored.

Extremist recruiters also seek out vulnerable second- and third-generation Muslim youths in their neighborhoods. The recruiter, who is likely a few years older, takes the younger ones under his wing, organizing bonding activities like camping trips and sporting events. He gradually isolates the recruits from their families and steps into the role of mentor. In this newfound clique, young recruits find the social integration and spiritual meaning they have yearned for, radicalism intensifies, and bonds tighten around a shared worldview.

Another site of extremist recruitment is the European prison system. For example, at least one-half of France's prison population is believed to be Muslim. According to a recent study by the French Interior Ministry, radical Muslims are actively trying to convert other prisoners in approximately one of three French prisons. Despite the large Muslim population in French prisons, only seven percent of prison chaplains are Muslim. Religion is one of the few sanctioned outlets for passing time and forming connections among inmates. In an effort to tamp down the surge in extremist preaching behind bars, in September 2005 the French Council for the Muslim Faith (CFCM) named a Moroccan-born moderate the first national Muslim chaplain for prisons; nominations for other Muslim chaplains are forthcoming. In Spain, police are aware of significant extremist recruitment efforts among the 7,000 Muslim prisoners in that country. One such prison-based cell, indicted two weeks ago,
had prepared plans to bomb Spain's National Court. A series of petty crimes committed in his early 20s led "shoe bomber" Richard Reid to London's Feltham Young Offenders' Institution in London. There, he converted to Islam and was radicalized before being released. In the early 2000s, Jamal Ahmidan, a young non-practicing Muslim Moroccan living in Spain, became radicalized in a Spanish prison where he was serving for petty criminal offenses. After his release, Ahmidan ultimately joined the cell that perpetrated the Madrid train bombings.

Cultural and ethnic associations with particular Muslims in the Middle East further the impression of hostility by the West against disenfranchised Muslims in Western Europe. Conflicts in Chechnya, Afghanistan, Iraq and the Middle East provide fuel for extremist recruiters, who portray these conflicts as an assault on Muslim religion, culture and society.

The European and U.S. Response

The transatlantic community has a deep and legitimate interest in the outcome of the "battle of ideas" between moderate and extremist voices in the Muslim world, including in Europe. Those few radicals that cross over into terrorism pose a grave danger to the United States, as well as Europe and the rest of the world. Responsibility to address the extremist trend also rests with the legitimate Muslim leadership. Healing the rifts within the Muslim community as well as outlining precisely what the extremists want will go a long way to de-legitimizing radicals who interpret Islamic principles in ways that support violence.

The United States cooperates closely with our European allies on counterterrorism measures, such as cutting off terrorist finances, intelligence sharing, law enforcement, and aviation and port security, including through formal working groups with the UK, France and Russia. But we must also intensify our efforts to counter the extremist ideas that drive Islamist terrorism. Defeating extremism requires us to work with our allies to connect European Muslims with the cultures of their adopted countries and fend off extremist recruiters. It also requires us to demonstrate through our own nation's experience that Muslims can be patriotic, democratic and religious at the same time. It is not one or the other. Using examples of a minority population of Muslims in our country, India, and other nations, we can help European Muslims who feel left out understand that it is possible to balance religious identity and European identity.

European leaders are devoting more energy to integrating Muslim communities into the secular mainstream, with a focus on economic development, job creation, and improved social services. While this is appropriate and necessary, it does not go far enough, as many European leaders recognize. For European Muslims to believe they are full members of society, both the majority and minority populations need to better understand and respect each other. Prejudice and discrimination need to be countered. At the same time, we need to bolster moderate voices and appreciation for democracy in Muslim communities as part of a greater effort by minorities to fulfill the obligations of living in a Western country. Achieving these goals will require a difficult discussion within European societies, similar to our own debate over civil rights and diversity. Drawing from the lessons of the U.S. civil rights experience, which is still a work in progress, Europe has a chance to meld the positive aspects of various integration approaches. In this way European Muslims would be viewed as wholly European even while retaining some of the values of their "original" cultures.

European governments are not passive. Last year, Azouz Begag was appointed France's first Minister Delegate for the Promotion of Equal Opportunity, and a High Authority for the Fight Against Discrimination and for Equal Opportunity was created. The UK created several committees, with a mixture of government and Muslim members, to improve dialogue and explore concrete measures. The Dutch government launched a comprehensive program for empowerment and integration. All of these initiatives are in their early stages, and have had mixed reactions from both majority and minority observers, but it is a beginning.

At the same time, the United States is taking its own initiatives. One of our main goals is to improve European Muslims' understanding of the United States and deepen their appreciation for our relative success in achieving integration. To this end, we use exchange programs and innovative outreach efforts at our Embassies. By dispelling misperceptions about the United States, these programs may help us secure the trust of Europe's Muslim populations.

Many foreign policy professionals regard exchanges as our single most effective public diplomacy mechanism. These programs were, without doubt, one of our most potent tools during the Cold War, as Eastern European alumni frequently stress. Our two flagship exchange programs are the Fulbright academic exchange, which brings visiting students and scholars to the United States and sends Americans overseas for study and research, and the International Visitor Leadership Program, which brings emerging leaders to the United States for several weeks.

Our Assistant Secretary for Educational and Cultural Affairs, Dina Powell, attended a symposium last November with government officials and Fulbright Commission representatives from Denmark, France, Germany, The Netherlands, Spain, and the UK. They discussed ways to expand our exchanges into non-traditional communities, and increase diversity in exchanges in European nations with significant Muslim and other minority populations. We have also launched pilot projects with several Western European bi-national Fulbright Commissions to build bridges to Muslim communities. Additionally, we are developing programs to prepare Muslims and other minorities to compete successfully, given that only small numbers of Muslim students in Europe reach the level of university study that could lead to a Fulbright grant. Our outreach efforts have resulted in more minority applications from The Netherlands and the UK. We are also developing initiatives that would reach future secondary school teachers from minority communities in Germany and young student leaders from six European countries with large Muslim and other minority communities.

We are also increasing the number of Muslims participating in International Visitor Leadership Programs (IVLP). The Bureau of European and Eurasian Affairs and the Bureau of Educational and Cultural Affairs jointly designed a Muslim incentive program for FY-06 to encourage selected West European posts to nominate more Muslims for the IVLP on all topics. In FY-05 the first all-Muslim European Regional IVLP was very successful, and such programs continue to attract nominees across the European region. In February of this year, we hosted a regional group comprised of young Muslim leaders, including nine participants from Western Europe, the Balkans, and Turkey. A second group, under the title "Managing Diversity in a Multi-Ethnic Society," brought to the United States more than a dozen nongovernmental organization (NGO) leaders, officials, journalists and academics from a variety of backgrounds.

We also help improve understanding of the United States through a network of educational advising centers, which help attract thousands of Europeans who pursue university study in the United States each year. More than 12,000 students from Turkey attend U.S. universities annually, which is the most of any country in Europe. Such programs can have an important impact in Europe and in the broader Muslim world.

Active and innovative outreach by our European Embassies also helps to build bridges among Americans, European minorities, and European governments. U.S. Ambassador to Belgium Tom Korologos, who is a witness on the next panel, pioneered one such effort last November. Embassy Brussels co-sponsored a conference that brought together American and Belgian Muslims and other representatives from both societies to discuss Muslim identity, civic life, economic opportunity, media portrayal, youth development, and women's issues. The conference spawned dialogue and forged relationships on a personal level among people from all walks of life who deal with issues of Islam and integration on a daily basis. Our Embassy in Slovenia recently held a similar conference. In May, our Embassy in Rome is co-hosting an international seminar addressing models of Islamic integration in Europe and the United States. Other embassies are considering similar events. We could advance these efforts
by arranging discussions among American and European Muslims to exchange shared stories, compare concepts of identity and faith, and clarify the varying experiences of European Muslims from varying ethnic backgrounds.

Several of our Embassies are working innovatively with host governments, civil society, and the business community to share our experience with integrating immigrants and minorities into our mainstream society. We are finding a growing receptivity among European mayors and other officials to listen to thoughtful explorations of our own past, stressing our own long struggles and ultimate relative success in fostering "tolerant integration." In The Netherlands, our Consulate General in Amsterdam consults with local police and community leaders on efforts to connect at-risk Muslim youth with Dutch society
and thus, resist extremist recruiters. Our Embassy in The Hague has launched a speaker series with veterans of the civil rights movement, who help Dutch municipal officials and Muslim community leaders better understand our experience with anti-discrimination law, justice, affirmative action, and grassroots activism. Our Ambassador to Denmark is supporting a Danish initiative that uses basketball to build cross-cultural connections between Muslim and non-Muslim youth. In addition, his visit to a bazaar in a Muslim area highlighted our embassy's focus on promoting tolerance and understanding. Our embassies in Denmark and The Netherlands are partnering with the local American Chambers of Commerce to launch an internship program for minority youth with the threefold aim of anchoring young Muslims in the mainstream economy, affording them a sense of hope and pride in their European and Muslim identities, and fostering tolerance among European business leaders for their Muslim co-workers and neighbors. The business community can also do more to help in this important effort. We should encourage the many successful Muslim businesspeople in Europe and the United States to share their success stories more publicly and to serve as role models.

Traditional public speaking events and media outreach reinforce the above efforts. As part of our U.S. Speakers and Citizen Dialogue programs, we send both Muslim and non-Muslim American experts as well as Embassy officers to speak to students and community groups throughout Europe. When traveling to Europe, my deputies and I make a point of meeting with Muslim community leaders. Our Ambassadors and press officers do interviews and contribute opinion pieces to newspapers, and help counter disinformation and conspiracy theories that propagate among Muslim communities on satellite television and the Internet.

The Danish cartoons controversy vividly illustrates the divide between European Muslims and the broader societies in which they live. Thankfully in Europe the protests, demonstrations, and other reactions connected with the cartoons were mostly peaceful, although there were threats against the newspaper and at least one report of a violent attack against a Muslim in response to the controversy. We encourage dialogue, respect and tolerance in our public statements and in our conversations with government officials, Muslim leaders and the media. We defend the right of free _expression, including the right to publish drawings of the Prophet, but this right carries a responsibility, and gratuitously offensive publications do not advance the cause of press freedom. To reconcile the conflicting views that publication of these cartoons generated, we call upon representatives of all of Europe's communities, secular and religious, to emphasize and build on the common ground they share: respect for religion and freedom of _expression. We do not believe that there is, or needs to be, a fundamental clash in Europe between these two ideals.

Countering Extremist Recruiters

European governments are trying to stymie extremist recruiters who prey on young, vulnerable Muslims whose political and economic alienation, coupled with their lack of contact with their own Muslim cultures, stimulate an identity crisis. Left unchecked, this identity crisis can translate into a spiritual vacuum, which extremist recruiters fill with their own, narrow interpretations of Islam via the Internet and direct interaction. Both American and European government (non-Muslim) officials lack theological knowledge, credibility, and legal authority to influence religious thinking. This is not our job in any event. But we can have a positive impact on political thinking by embracing and cooperating with partners among European Muslims who share our desire for tolerance to triumph over extremism.

A reliable way to counter European Muslims' spiritual alienation may be to anchor them in their own traditions of honor, respect, diversity and tolerance. This requires careful work in the countries from which second- and third-generation immigrants' families emigrated, identifying partners who will reinforce local traditions of tolerance. In the rough Amsterdam neighborhood that was home to the murderer of Theo Van Gogh, local police bring a group of Muslim boys each year to volunteer at an orphanage in their families' native Morocco. The boys often return from such trips with a new recognition of their Muslim identity, and a sense of pride in their adopted European homeland.

Most government officials are just learning to identify extremists who cloak themselves in tolerant rhetoric. The Governments of France and the Netherlands are trying to counter extremist recruiters through local training of imams. In both countries, institutes are being set up to train imams in local languages, history and democratic values. Dutch officials are looking for ways to work with Turkish community leaders and embassy officials to draw on Turkey's successful experience in training imams who reinforce traditions of secular democracy and tolerant faith. Such efforts could be expanded to secular and religious schools in Morocco and Algeria, provided reliable partners can be identified.

U.S. Missions encourage Europeans to treat Islam as a co-equal religion. This will help to undermine the extremist message that Muslims are not welcome in Europe. Our embassies sponsor Iftar dinners and inter-faith dialogue. Consistent with our philosophy that Muslims should be treated as mainstream members of the societies in which they live, we strive to integrate them in our exchange programs along with non-minority citizens. We can do more. The Europeans could provide or ease the establishment of Muslim cemeteries (a municipal function in many European countries), add Muslim chaplains in the military and in prisons, and organize cultural exhibitions of the Muslim traditions of Turkey, Morocco, Algeria, and Pakistan. Working with our European Allies, we might also identify partners among European Muslims who are willing to sponsor moderate Islamic scholarship and transparent charities to counter extremists' inroads in Europe's poor Muslim communities.

Finally, we also need to expand training of U.S. officials posted abroad to understand the cultural context and motivations of European Muslims. We will need additional funding to expand our training programs, as well as the outreach programs outlined above.

Mr. Chairman, Senator Biden, members of the Committee, I am grateful for the opportunity to speak before you today. I look forward to your questions, and to working with you on this complex issue.

Released on April 6, 2006
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
Display posts from previous:   
Post new topic   Reply to topic    [FREE IRAN Project] In The Spirit Of Cyrus The Great Forum Index -> News Briefs & Discussion All times are GMT - 4 Hours
Goto page Previous  1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10  Next
Page 2 of 10

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


Powered by phpBB © 2001, 2005 phpBB Group