[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 

Brotherhood of Islam and Communism

 
Post new topic   Reply to topic    [FREE IRAN Project] In The Spirit Of Cyrus The Great Forum Index -> The Voice of Dr. Etebar
View previous topic :: View next topic  
Author Message
ViaDrEtebar



Joined: 03 Aug 2004
Posts: 91

PostPosted: Wed Jul 05, 2006 11:05 am    Post subject: Brotherhood of Islam and Communism Reply with quote

Brotherhood of Islam and Communism


Why China and Cuba always support mullahs in Iran? It is foolish if I think they don't know being a communist in Iran leads you to death and torture.

Has anybody ever heard of China/Cuba/USSR being worried about human right in Saudi Arabia for not allowing communist parties?

On the other hand the condition of Muslims in China/North Korea is far more worse than Israel, they don't even have the right to practice their religion, have you ever heard bin Ladan threat them?

Muslim fundamentalists always say they want to take revenge for their martyrs in war against USA, how about Muslims in Chechen?

You just try some Muslims randomly and ask them if they choose between China and Israel to live. If only one in ten chooses china I join Bin Ladan on condition that I don't kill anybody.

A comrade and an Ayatollah??? One theory is that perhaps they are brothers in root.


Communist Support For IRI

The Khomeinist mullahs who have imprisoned the Iranian people for over a quarter of a century appear to be very close to becoming a nuclear power. This has forced many around the world to finally take notice of the regime, and ponder what should come next. Some have supported a negotiated solution of some kind, while others have advocated a limited military strike against Iranian nuclear facilities. Neither is acceptable. Iran must be liberated. In fact, freedom for Iran should be something all who want freedom for China should support.

Lest we forget, the mullahs' military might would not exist without Communist China and its would-be colony, Stalinist North Korea. Several firms owned by the Communists, including the military-owned Northern Industrial Corporation (Norinco) sold arms to the Khomeinist regime. The Islamic regime's nuclear weapons program has received substantial help from Communist China. Finally, thanks to the Communists' veto power on the United Nations Security Council, the mullahcracy has effectively neutered the international body by allying itself to the Chinese Communist Party. The mullahs now have military might and a powerful benefactor, while Communist China has turned one of the most anti-American regimes on Earth into a loyal ally and useful tool.

This information alone would justify liberation, for it would do more than simply remove a client state from the Communists' grasp. It would also send hope to those who suffer under dictatorships around the world, including China itself, for it would show them that neither the Chinese Communist Party nor its policy of making the world safe for dictators is invincible.

However, the role of Communist China is propping up the Iranian regime is not the only reason to support its toppling, for the Khomeinists are also the leading supporters of global terrorism outside of the Chinese Communist Party itself. The Islamic regime's history of support for Hezbollah and al Qaeda is already well-known. Its removal from the scene would dry up a major source of financial, political, and military support for both.

It is this last issue - military support, namely the possibility of nuclear weapons being included - that is driving the current interest in Iran. However, on this issue anything short of liberation would, well, fall short. For starters, a negotiated solution would require taking the Iranian regime at its word about ending a nuclear weapons program it kept secret for years. A limited strike, meanwhile, might damage Iran's nuclear facilities, but our history with Saddam Hussein showed that such a "reprieve" lasts no more than a decade.

More importantly, however, both actions would leave in place a regime that is not only willing to stand with Communist China and against the U.S., but one that also has the ability through its terrorist connections to wreak havoc against the democratic world, possibly even at the Communists' request - say, during the cadres' upcoming attempt to conquer Taiwan. Of course, an Iranian regime with nuclear weapons of some kind could do terrible damage to the democratic world. However, as we found out on 9/11/01, nuclear weapons are not required to cause such damage.

In fact, the Khomeinists' support for terrorists and its support from Communist China were a dangerous enough combination to make liberation the only proper alternative before the mullahcracy's nuclear ambitions were discovered. While the nuclear issue does make Iran's liberation more urgent for the democratic world and the pro-democracy, anti-Communist movement, it does not lessen the need for liberation.

Can this liberation be done peacefully, as in Lebanon last year? I, for one, share the optimism of Michael Ledeen (National Review Online) on this question, in large part due to the fact that the Islamic regime is universally despised by the people it has imprisoned for so long. That said, we who support liberation without military action must be prepared to accept it with military action if that becomes the only way. Moreover, there must also be a major effort put forward to liberate the people of China from the regime that is the mullahs' biggest benefactor: the Chinese Communist Party.

The most important issue at hand is the goal in mind. The democratic world cannot and must not strive merely for an Iran without nuclear weapons. It can, and it must, strive for an Iran without the despotic regime that gives aid and comfort to terrorists while it brings terror and suffering to the Iranian people. There's no way around it; Iran must be liberated.



The Chinese Communist Party Won Iran’s “Election”
By D.J. McGuire

China E-Lobby
Jul 05, 2005


CHINA WINS: Iranian supreme leader Ayatollah Ali Khamenei casts his ballot in the June 24 presidential election. (AFP/Getty Images)

Iran had another “election” this month. Those in the know will tell you- and they will be right- that the actual officeholder means little: Ayatollah Ali Khameini still runs the show. However, with the ascension of Tehran Mayor Mahmud Ahmadinejad to the Iranian Presidency, I believe Khameini et al have tipped their hand. We can expect an Iran more aggressive, more anti-American, and more willing to do the bidding of their military benefactor: the Chinese Communist Party (CCP).

Until last Friday, everyone assumed the next president would be Ali Akbar Hashemi Rafsanjani, the former president. Rafsanjani was a wily politician, that is to say he played a fairly decent public relations game with the Western press while he committed unspeakable and vile acts against his own people. A re-elected Rafsanjani would have continued the game, and played it well, but it was not to be. By pushing Ahmadinejad (to the point of stuffing ballot boxes), the Iranian mullahs have all but announced that they fell they don’t need to play that game.

Why would they feel that way? Well, for starters, there is the fact that its ties to both al Qaeda and the anti-American terrorists in Iraq have had no serious consequences. There is the fact that they are very, very close to becoming a nuclear power, which would be a dead-certain deterrent against any military action by the United States. Finally, and I believe most importantly, there is the CCP.

The Iranian regime would be nowhere near where they are now on the nuclear front without the CCP. Several firms owned by the communists, including the military-owned Northern Industrial Corporation (Norinco) have sold arms to the mullahs, and what the CCP itself hasn’t done to build up the mullahcracy, its Korean puppet Kim Jong-il has done for it.

There are many who still cannot accept the idea that the CCP could have done so much for and in Iran knowing of the mullah’s support for terrorism- from Hezbollah to al Qaeda. In fact, contrary to the Uighur-smearing propaganda spewing out of Zhongnanhai, the CCP has long been a benefactor of anti-American terrorism. They have laundered drug money for al Qaeda. They sold missile components and installed an air-defense-integrating fiber-optic network to Saddam Hussein. They signed an economic agreement with the Taliban the day the World Trade Center fell.

Why would the CCP do this? For the Party, the reason is simple: the terrorists hate America, and the communists can always use anti-Americans (for anyone still believing the CCP does not consider the United States an enemy, here’s what defector Chen Yonglin had to say on the subject: “The United States is considered by the Chinese Communist Party as the largest enemy, the major strategic rival”).

This is especially true today, as the CCP faces a mass exodus inspired by the “Nine Commentaries” and rumblings of anti-Communist protests in the rural interior that are averaging over a hundred a day. We have already seen fresh reports that the CCP is looking to conquer Taiwan sometime in the next seven years- a more recent report puts the timeline at two or three- and that the invasion is seen as the Party’s panacea against the growing discontent from the Chinese people. However, such an attack would almost certainly lead to American military response- unless the U.S. military is too bogged down with nuclear threats from Iran and/or a major upsurge in the anti-American terrorist “insurgency” in Iraq.

The “election” of Ahmadinejad is the sign from the Khameini regime that the Khatami “soft sell” to America- which didn’t really work anyway, given that outgoing President Khatami was never the reformer he claimed to be and had no real power anyway- is over. The Iranian mullahs’ support for the “insurgency” in Iraq will almost certainly continue, and even increase, while Ahmadinejad himself has insisted that the nuclear program will go full speed ahead. The Islamic dictatorship’s anti-Americanism, and the American soldiers killed by it, will become front page news once more.

All the while, the hidden hand behind the Khameini regime- the CCP- will benefit enormously from the actions of its Middle East client and proxy. By continuing to strengthen the Iran mullahcracy, the CCP will be able to conduct its cold war against the United States without suffering any repercussions. The Bush Administration must make clear this arrangement is unacceptable. As the Chinese Communist Party becomes more intimately involved with America’s enemies in the war on terror- the United States must recognize that the Party is itself an enemy in this war. The American people will never be secure until the Chinese people are free.

D.J. McGuire is President and Co-Founder of the China e-Lobby, and the author of Dragon in the Dark: How and Why Communist China Helps Our Enemies in the War on Terror.


Red China Supports Terror....



The truth behind the Communist smokescreen is a very ugly one, which is exactly
why it must be exposed. The People's Republic has ties to the mullahs in Iran, Saddam
Hussein's reign of terror, and the Stalinist dictatorship of North Korea. All three
have received military technology or hardware courtesy of Communist China. However,
the PRC's support of terrorism goes well beyond the axis of evil. The Taliban and al
Qaeda have also been beneficiaries of Communist support, including an economic deal
with the former signed mere hours before the World Trade Center fell. Meanwhile,
Libya, Syria, and the Sudan have garnered Communist support for their efforts to
improve their militaries, particularly in the missile field, to the detriment of
America and her allies. Far from in the past, this support of terrorism continues to
this very day.


Double Standards and Deception: How the Left Treats Iran and the Middle East

September 02, 2003
Defense and Foreign Affairs Daily
Elio Bonazzi

http://www.iranvajahan.net/cgi-bin/printarticle.pl?l=en&y=2003&m=09&d=05&a=3

In an article that appeared in the New York Post, in early March 2003, prior to the Coalition war on Iraq, Iranian-born journalist Amir Taheri denounced what he felt were the deeply hypocritical position of the peace movement, which had, in the build-up to the 2003 US-led war against Iraqi Pres. Saddam Hussein, organized marches and rallies throughout 600 cities and 25 countries.

Stalin founded this “peace movement” movement in 1946, when the USSR was in a distinctly weak position; he was trying to consolidate the newly conquered empire in Eastern Europe without nuclear weapons to counter the military predominance of the West. Pablo Picasso designed the emblem of the movement, the famous dove, and world-renowned poets such as French Paul Eluard and Chilean Pablo Neruda composed odes inspired by Stalin. The goal of the movement was to extend the influence of the various communist parties over the more moderate center-left political formations, to push the Kremlin’s agenda in the West with the support of forces which would have transcended the meager political weight of the various communist parties operating in what was then described as “the free world”. The symbol was a dove, rather than hammer and sickle; the emblem color was white, rather than red. But the International Section of the Communist Party of the Soviet Union (CPSU), operating behind the scenes in Moscow, orchestrated the “peace movement” to fulfill their goals.

In the course of its existence, the “peace movement” never betrayed its origins.

In his article, Mr Taheri reminds us that the movement was not opposed to all wars indiscriminately, but only to those that threatened the Soviet empire. The “peaceniks” (which is the appellation by which Mr Taheri refers to them) were comfortable with the Soviet annexation of 15 percent of Finland’s territory and the Baltic States, and did not demur when the Soviet tanks entered Budapest and Prague. But when the US led a coalition under a UN mandate to prevent North Korean communists from conquering South Korea, the “peace movement” was “up in arms”, denouncing the “imperialist ambitions” of the US. Peaceniks reached their peak during the Vietnam War. And once again they were silent when the USSR invaded Afghanistan, but became very vocal about the deployment of the Pershing theater-strategic surface-to-surface missiles in Europe in the years which followed that very invasion. The missiles were a response to the Soviet deployment of entire batteries of SS-20 ballistic missiles aimed at European capitals. But the peaceniks never asked for the dismantling of the SS-20s; their protest was only aimed at impeding the deployment of the Pershing SSMs.

While the “peace movement” is probably the most evident example of double standards, tolerated and even encouraged by the left, the recent events which have occurred in Iran and the repercussion which those events had in the Western world are a revival of the hypocrisy and duplicity by those who theoretically should be staunch supporters of democracy and freedom for the Iranian people.

The Islamic Republic of Iran is an extreme-right theocracy, which has increasingly lost consensus even among the clergy. It oppresses the large majority of Iranians, perpetrating what by accepted international standards would be described as “crimes against humanity” on a daily basis. Women are stoned to death, people [especially the young] are tortured and executed in public without trial, tens of thousands of political prisoners populate highly objectionable prisons; the oppressors must resort to Muslim foreigners for help in anti-riot policing, enlisting Palestinians, Afghani Talibans and even Syrians arriving straight from Damascus to Tehran via camouflaged chartered flights, because Iranian police will no longer beat fellow compatriots during demonstrations.

It is clear that Iranians want a secular, representative government ; anything short of that is not acceptable. Surprisingly, both liberals and left wing radicals have, up until now shown little or no support for a secular democracy in Iran. It is difficult to argue that the struggle for a secular democracy in Iran is not “progressive”. After all, the Iranian opposition forces are trying to defeat religious obscurantism, which is definitely not a left-wing ideological asset; they propose a modern democracy instead, which is certainly more in line with left-wing rhetoric.

Historically, whenever a brutal dictatorship teetered on the edge of collapse, left-wing movements and media worldwide stood up in support of the “freedom fighters”. For instance, the autocracy in Nicaragua which lasted until July 1979 and proceeded the fall of the Pres. Anastasio Somoza had liberal media worldwide in a campaign which completely discredited Somoza’s Administration. The turning point was the assassination of journalist Bill Stewart by a soldier of the regular Nicaraguan Army, captured on the video camera of a fellow journalist and promptly distributed throughout the world.

Something similar has recently happened in Iran. A Canadian-Iranian photojournalist, Zahra Ziba Kazemi, was raped and murdered (at the instigation of Tehran prosecutor Saeed Mortezavi) in June 2003 while detained after being arrested for filming anti-Government riots outside the political prison of Evin in Tehran. After an initial pathetic attempt to cover up this assassination, [the Islamic Republic officials injected her body with rapid decomposing chemicals and burying her hastily] essentially refusing to return her body to Canada, in spite of an official request made by her family and demand by the Canadian Government. The murder of Ms Kazemi, however, did not provoke the same amount of public outrage which forced Nicaraguan Pres. Somoza to step down.

For weeks during the month of June 2003 and on the occasion of the July 9, 2003, anniversary of the 1999 University protests in Iran, the opposition movement inside Iran challenged the authority of the Administration, marching and rallying, chanting anti-Government slogans, defying the guns and death squads of the various mullahs in key posts. As a result, thousands of political activists, students, and others, were rounded up and packed into prisons, subjected to torture, and in some cases murdered.

It is instructive to compare and contrast the articles about Nicaragua that appeared in liberal newspapers in 1979 and the articles about Iran today. In 1979 not a single liberal journalist strove to be “neutral”. From the perspective of the political left, there was no doubt: Somoza and his Government had to go.

The situation is totally different today. If it is to succeed, the growing opposition movement inside Iran needs tangible support from the West. Freedom fighters need laptops, fax machines and cellular phones to organize the uprising. If the Iranian opposition is to succeed, it also needs support from international media. But, significantly, that is not happening. The basic ingredients of the political situation in Iran — a growing opposition movement fighting against a leadership which oppresses the vast majority of the population — would normally be considered to be the perfect ingredients for a left-wing recipe to galvanize the masses in the name of freedom and democracy. It worked for Nicaragua, at the end of the 1970s; it worked for Poland and Solidarnosc in the 1980s. The question for analysts today is why the same recipe has failed to take hold in Iran.

Mainstream US liberal media barely reported on the Iranian uprising which occurred at the end of June and beginning of July 2003. Instead of praising the opposition demonstrators who literally risked their lives, soon after the end of the uprising, The New York Times, which in spite of recent scandals still remains one of the most prestigious national newspapers, published an Op-Ed by Mr Reza Aslan, a visiting professor of Islamic Studies at the University of Iowa.

In that article, Mr Aslan argued that the Iranian opposition was fighting for a religious democracy, not secularism, and religion must play a rôle in the country. Mr Aslan completely misrepresented the reality of Iran, and could not be further from the truth. The New York Times, by publishing that article, sided with those who sought to maintain the status quo in Iran. The most prominent Shi’ite scholars, ayatollahs like Taheri and Montazeri, have distanced themselves from the “political” clergy (Khamnei and Rafsjani), openly criticizing the very concept of Islamic Republic. Hossein Khomeini, himself an ayatollah and the grandchild of the Islamic revolution’s very leader, recently joined Taheri and Montazeri, criticizing religious interference in State matters, in a significant blow to the theocratic establishment. Mr Khomeini left Iran, and is now in Najaf, Iraq, which has once again become the most prominent Shi’ite theological center, relegating the Iranian holy city of Qom to a secondary rôle. Coalition forces in Iraq recently discovered a plot to assassinate Hossein Khomeini organized by the Shi’ite extremists sent by Iran’s “Supreme Leader”, “Ayatollah” Khamene’i and former Pres. Rafsanjani’s assassination teams.

Taheri, Montazeri and Khomeini the younger understand that Islam today is losing consensus in Iran and that the harshness of the Islamic revolution backfired. As a result, it is no longer appealing to Iranian youth; they now respond with either religious apathy or by embracing Zoroastrianism [the ancient religion of Iran, before Persians were forced to convert to Islam by the Arab invaders].

The “peace movement” taught us that only wars which were threatening the Soviet Union were worth protesting. Contemporary liberals would like to sell us a similar concept: siding with the “oppressed freedom fighters” against the brutal oppressors is not always politically correct. In the case of Iran, for example, the toppling of the mullahs could potentially benefit the US Bush Administration, simplifying the process of stabilization in Iraq, and extending US and Israeli influence in the Middle East. The perceived Bush-Sharon axis would come out undoubtedly stronger, after HizbAllah and HAMAS were left without their primary source of financial and logistic support, the Iranian clerics.

It is easy to understand why it is in the interest of the left to deliberately downplay the growing opposition movement in Iran. Apart from the more evident reason explained above, as far as Iran is concerned, the left still has a few skeletons in its closet, and must come to terms with past mistakes and faulty assessments.

To begin with, the left significantly contributed to the creation of the Islamic Republic, when US President Jimmy Carter deliberately destroyed the Shah, who had been a staunch ally of the US for 27 years. In the Shah’s White House visit of November 1977, Jimmy Carter and his aides — who demanded radical changes in the way the internal affairs of Iran were conducted — met the Shah with open hostility. They asked the Shah to institute the right of free assembly, at a time when the Soviet Union was stepping up a campaign of propaganda, espionage and even sabotage inside Iran, and Islamic fundamentalists where teaming up with the Iranian Communist Tudeh party to overthrow the Government.

Nureddin Klanuri, head of the Tudeh Party, who was living in exile in East Berlin, officially sanctioned the party line in support for Khomeini:

“The Tudeh Party approves Ayatollah Khomeini's initiative in creating the Islamic Revolutionary Council. The ayatollah’s program coincides with that of the Tudeh Party.”



Furthermore, Sadegh Ghotbzadeh, a key figure in Khomeni’s entourage, was known for his strong connections with Soviet and Eastern European intelligence.

The Shah was left with little room for maneuver; he had to succumb to the blackmail of the Carter Administration and release political prisoners, ending military tribunals and granting rights of assembly in order not to lose vital US military supply and training. But the mechanism designed by Carter to provoke an escalation of the opposition to the Shah was already in motion. In addition to the support of the Tudeh party and Eastern intelligence, Khomeini could also count on US leftist radicals like Ramsey Clark, who had served as Attorney-General in the Lyndon B. Johnson Administration. Mr Clark went to Tehran and to Paris, to visit Khomeini. Upon his return to the US, he played a behind-the-scenes rôle to influence prominent senators and congressmen not to allow the US military to back the Shah in case of popular upraising against the Peacock throne.

Mr Clark is today still proud of his crusade of 1979. In a recent interview he talked of overthrowing the Shah as “the” accomplishment of his lifetime, quoting overly exaggerated numbers of supposed Shah’s victims as the moral justification for his actions. The smear campaign orchestrated by left media while the Shah was still on his throne, and which continued well after his fall, depicted the Shah as a mass murderer, responsible for the killing of 60,000 people, who died between 1963 and 1979. That number was fabricated by Khomeini, and never verified, not even by Western media, which took for granted the “official truth” of the newly installed Islamic Administration.

Only recently a respected historian, Emad al-Din Baghi, who had access to the files of the so-called “Martyrs Foundation”, told the truth about the real number of Shah’s victims. For years, The Martyrs Foundation collected the names of the victims of the revolution against the Shah, classifying them by age, sex, education, etc. The findings where never disclosed by the Islamic Republic, in order not to contradict the official number “established by decree” by Khomeini. The statistical breakdown of victims covering the period from 1963 to 1979 adds up to a figure of 3,164. Emad al-Din Baghi left the Martyrs Foundation to write books about his findings. According to his historically accurate account, the worst moment of the uprising against the Shah, culminated in the massacre at Jaleh Square, gave the “revolutionaries” the chance to grossly inflate the number of victims, from 88 to initially 3,000, which later became 4,000. Western media never bothered to verify the accuracy of the numbers, based on rumors and anti-Shah hysteria, and helped perpetuate the inflated figures.

Not only the left contributed to the creation of the Islamic Republic; in more recent years, during the US Clinton Administration, the media and left-wing politicians helped the Islamic Republic propaganda, repeating and magnifying the “Big Lie” about Iran and its “Reformist Leaders”. “Big Lie” is a term originally coined to describe a characteristic form of nazi (and later Soviet) propaganda. The essence of the Big Lie propaganda technique is that if one repeats the lie often enough over enough channels, people will soak it up deep into their pores and come to believe it as something of “common knowledge” or “fact”.

In this case, the “Big Lie” consisted of portraying current Iranian Pres. Hojjat ol-Eslam (Ali) Mohammad Khatami-Ardakani and his Government as a genuine force capable of reforming the Islamic Republic “from within”, expanding democracy and meeting the requests of Iranians who voted for change against hard-line clerics in 1997. The “Big Lie” remained credible for a short time, and even opposition forces of the Iranian diaspora initially credited Mr Khatami with good intentions. But soon after the electoral victory of May 1997, it appeared evident that Khatami was a mere façade figure, whose task was to restore an image of respectability, which the Islamic Republic had lost when Ali Akbar Hashemi-Rafsajani, the former President, had ordered the elimination of anti-Islamic Republic activists [carried out by Iranian killers] in Berlin. After several European countries recalled their ambassadors from Tehran to protest against the assassinations perpetrated on European soil and threatened to reconsider business deals with Iran, the clerical apparatus in charge of the Islamic Republic decided to give itself a new and more presentable look.

The Iranian society had already sent strong signals of deep disaffection towards Islamic rule. It was easy to maneuver the elections; spiritual leader Ali Khamene’i handpicked a fossilized, ultra-conservative mullah, Nategheh-Nouri, the Speaker of Parliament (Majlis), as the candidate of the establishment, knowing full well that the electorate would have voted for the alternative candidate.

But what kind of alternative was Khatami? One should not forget that “democratic elections” are in reality nothing more than a farce in Iran. Opposition parties that do not pledge their allegiance to the Islamic regime are banned. And as if that is not enough, the all-powerful Council of Guardians subjects all candidates to a close examination of their loyalty to the “system”. The latter represents the “will of God”, while the Parliament (Majlis) represents the “will of the People”. Needless to say, the will of God always prevails over the will of the people. The “Spiritual Leader” Ali Khamene’i, who presides the Council of Guardians, is, to all intents, an absolute monarch. Of the initial 240 candidates who wanted to run for the May 1997 election, the Council of Guardians chose four who were deemed sufficiently Islamic to run. All women candidate were filtered out, leaving Khatami, carefully screened by the establishment, as the only reasonable choice. With his image of well-spoken, clean-shaven mullah capable of debating without losing his temper, Khatami was the perfect choice to rebuild the shattered image of Iran, especially in the eyes of the European powers.

The fictitious contraposition between “conservatives” and “reformists” and the “electoral victory” of the latter was the PR stunt that allowed the Europeans, anxious to continue usurping cheap oil and gas from Iran, to feel morally justified when they restored diplomatic and business relations with the Islamic Republic. The Western media on both sides of the Atlantic did the rest, generating a false sense of confidence in the “good guys”, the reformists, who, in spite of all the obstacles erected by the conservatives, would have eventually succeeded in fulfilling the needs and the democratic aspirations of Iranians. In all fairness, it has to be said that all mainstream media, irrespective of political leaning, initially praised Khatami’s election, to the extent of giving him the nickname of “Ayatollah Gorbachev”. The mullahs benefited from the newly-found line of political credit by cracking down on internal opposition with renewed vigor. A few months after Khatami’s “landslide victory”, journalists and intellectuals were killed in what went down the annals of history as the “chain murders”. In addition, real opposition magazines and newspapers were banned and forcibly closed down.

In spite of the repression of internal dissent, Khatami was invited by the major European powers for State visits. He went to Italy in March 1999, where he delivered a speech to the Parliament, to France in October 1999, where he was welcomed by Pres. Chirac at the Elysée Palace, and to Germany in July 2000, where he met federal Chancellor Gerhard Schröder and Foreign Minister Joseph Fischer.

The Big Lie represented a perfect win-win situation for Iranian officials and European powers. It legitimized the Islamic Republic and its crackdown of the opposition, while justifying the Europeans in their renewed business interests with Iran, because, as German Foreign Minister Fisher claimed: “any opposition to Khatami only benefits his conservative opponents”. Khatami visited Germany exactly one year after the July 1999 student protests, during which security forces and Islamic militia murdered several young people. Khatami explicitly supported the repression of the protest, and in spite of receiving thousands of petitions; he did not intervene to stop the tortures and the arrests if students who were then sentenced to death after mock trials. But that was not enough to defeat the Big Lie; the sad reality of Iran was not convenient for liberal media and European politicians, anxious to clear the way to lucrative business deals with Iran.

The latest elections held in Iran on February 2003 also showed that the Emperor had no clothes; in Tehran only 10 percent of voters cast their votes, in other parts of the country the percentage of voters was higher, but in average no more than 25 percent. That sent Iranian authorities and the world a strong message of the distaste the Iranian public felt towards Islamic rule. Initially, only the Council of Guardians was labeled “the unelected few”; today the same can be said about the entire ruling class.

US non-liberal mainstream media finally woke up and started questioning the Big Lie, reporting on the June/July 2003 uprisings, realizing that Iran needed a secular democracy and not the false promises of a better future by a powerless mullah. In several occasions, however, liberal media still described the Iranian situation in terms of internal fighting between reformists and conservatives, demanding that the US State Department open a dialogue with “reformist forces” to reach a compromise on the Iranian interference in Iraq and the nuclear facility being built in central Iran.

Left-wing radical fringes recently gave birth to a Committee called the “International Committee for Transition to Democracy in Iran”. Radical celebrities like Noam Chomsky, Costa Gavras and the Nobel Laureate Jose Saramago were among the founders of the committee, which mixes anti-US and anti-Imperialist rhetoric with legitimate requests for a genuine democratization in Iran. It is now time for the more moderate mainstream left to start the long overdue process of self-criticism of past mistakes, and to recognize that the only reasonable political position is to side with the growing opposition movement that wants to overthrow the mullahs to create a secular democracy in Iran. The left opposed the war in Iraq using morally charged messages like “no blood for oil”. In order not to lose its credibility, the left can no longer ignore the legitimate aspiration of Iranians for a secular democracy. If the left insists on perpetuating its mistakes as far as Iran is concerned [trading long term benefits for myopic short term anti-Bush gains], it will be caught, once again, on the wrong side of history. It is not too late for the left to recognize its mistakes and to rectify its position on Iran, after a factual and honest debate; but that must begin now.

The Author:

Elio Bonazzi is an Italian-born political scientist and IT professional, with extensive experience covering Iranian issues.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
ViaHHakimi



Joined: 22 Jul 2004
Posts: 142

PostPosted: Tue Jul 11, 2006 8:04 pm    Post subject: Beren statement on terrorist attacks against India Reply with quote

Beren statement on terrorist attacks against India

Steve Beren for Congress (WA - 7th CD)
www.berenforcongress.com
1916 Pike Place, #12567
Seattle WA 98101

Today's terrorist attack in Mumbai has all the earmarks of an Al Qaeda attack. The death toll in India is now over 160, and continues to mount.

Manmohan Singh, the Prime Minister of India said "we will work to defeat the evil designs of terrorists and will not allow them to succeed." I agree with Prime Minister in characterizing the plans of the terrorists as "evil designs." India has been attacked because it is a democracy, because the Islamic terrorists seek to destroy freedom and prevent the growth of liberty.

Like the attacks in Madrid, Bali, and London; like the terrorism perpetrated against Israel; like 9/11 itself, such murderous brtuality shows that the threat of terrorism is real. This war against terrorism is a real war, not a "so-called war."

I support our troops, and I support their mission. I am sure all Americans stand in sympathy and solidarity today with the people of India. Together, we will defeat the "evil designs" of those who seek to destroy democracy.


Steve Beren for Congress (WA - 7th CD)
www.berenforcongress.com
1916 Pike Place, #12567
Seattle WA 98101

Associated Press wrote:
Chronology of major attacks in India

By The Associated Press
Tue Jul 11, 2:31 PM ET

Some of the major attacks carried out in India, many of them blamed on Islamic militants opposed to New Delhi's rule in Kashmir:

• 1993: Muslim underworld figures tied to Pakistani militants allegedly carried out a series of bombings that struck Bombay's stock exchange along with trains, hotels and gas stations in the city, killing 257 people and wounding more than 1,100.

• December 2001: Islamic militants attacked India's Parliament in New Delhi, leaving 14 people, including several gunmen, dead. India blamed Pakistan, which denied involvement.

• September 2002: Militants attacked a Hindu temple in the western state of Gujarat, leaving 33 people, including two attackers, dead. Police blamed Indian Muslims recruited by Kashmiri militants.

• March 2003: A bomb exploded on a passenger train in Bombay, killing 10 people. The attack was blamed on Islamic militants.

• August 2003: Two taxis packed with explosives blew up outside a Bombay tourist attraction and a busy market, killing 52 and wounding more than 100.

• October 2005: Three bombs placed in busy New Delhi markets a day before a major Hindu festival killed 62 people and wounded hundreds. India blamed Kashmiri militants.

• March 2006: Twin bombings at a train station and a temple in the Hindu holy city of Varanasi killed 20 people. Kashmiri militants were blamed.

• July 2006: Eight bombs on Bombay trains killed more than 140 people and wounded hundreds more.

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


Joined: 24 Jun 2003
Posts: 4993

PostPosted: Tue Jul 11, 2006 8:57 pm    Post subject: Re: Beren statement on terrorist attacks against India Reply with quote

ViaHHakimi wrote:
Beren statement on terrorist attacks against India

Steve Beren for Congress (WA - 7th CD)
www.berenforcongress.com
1916 Pike Place, #12567
Seattle WA 98101

Today's terrorist attack in Mumbai has all the earmarks of an Al Qaeda attack. The death toll in India is now over 160, and continues to mount.

Manmohan Singh, the Prime Minister of India said "we will work to defeat the evil designs of terrorists and will not allow them to succeed." I agree with Prime Minister in characterizing the plans of the terrorists as "evil designs." India has been attacked because it is a democracy, because the Islamic terrorists seek to destroy freedom and prevent the growth of liberty.

Like the attacks in Madrid, Bali, and London; like the terrorism perpetrated against Israel; like 9/11 itself, such murderous brtuality shows that the threat of terrorism is real. This war against terrorism is a real war, not a "so-called war."

I support our troops, and I support their mission. I am sure all Americans stand in sympathy and solidarity today with the people of India. Together, we will defeat the "evil designs" of those who seek to destroy democracy.


Steve Beren for Congress (WA - 7th CD)
www.berenforcongress.com
1916 Pike Place, #12567
Seattle WA 98101

Associated Press wrote:
Chronology of major attacks in India

By The Associated Press
Tue Jul 11, 2:31 PM ET

Some of the major attacks carried out in India, many of them blamed on Islamic militants opposed to New Delhi's rule in Kashmir:

• 1993: Muslim underworld figures tied to Pakistani militants allegedly carried out a series of bombings that struck Bombay's stock exchange along with trains, hotels and gas stations in the city, killing 257 people and wounding more than 1,100.

• December 2001: Islamic militants attacked India's Parliament in New Delhi, leaving 14 people, including several gunmen, dead. India blamed Pakistan, which denied involvement.

• September 2002: Militants attacked a Hindu temple in the western state of Gujarat, leaving 33 people, including two attackers, dead. Police blamed Indian Muslims recruited by Kashmiri militants.

• March 2003: A bomb exploded on a passenger train in Bombay, killing 10 people. The attack was blamed on Islamic militants.

• August 2003: Two taxis packed with explosives blew up outside a Bombay tourist attraction and a busy market, killing 52 and wounding more than 100.

• October 2005: Three bombs placed in busy New Delhi markets a day before a major Hindu festival killed 62 people and wounded hundreds. India blamed Kashmiri militants.

• March 2006: Twin bombings at a train station and a temple in the Hindu holy city of Varanasi killed 20 people. Kashmiri militants were blamed.

• July 2006: Eight bombs on Bombay trains killed more than 140 people and wounded hundreds more.



Appeasing the Terror Master By Indian Officials




Taazi Terror Master Ahmadinejad welcomes India's Minister for External Affairs K. Natwar Singh in Teheran on September 3. Natwar Singh conveyed the European Union's concerns to his hosts but said India supported Iran's pursuit of nuclear technology for peaceful purposes.

______________________________________________________

Bush condemns attacks on trains in India
By GEORGE GEDDA, Associated Press Writer
http://news.yahoo.com/fc/world/india

WASHINGTON - President Bush expressed outrage Tuesday at the deadly attacks on commuter trains in India and said the United States stood with India in the war on terror.

"The United States stands with the people and the government of India and condemns in the strongest terms these atrocities, which were committed against innocent people as they went about their daily lives," Bush said in a written statement issued Tuesday evening while he was traveling in Wisconsin.

"Such acts only strengthen the resolve of the international community to stand united against terrorism and to declare unequivocally that there is no justification for the vicious murder of innocent people," he said.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
cyrus
Site Admin


Joined: 24 Jun 2003
Posts: 4993

PostPosted: Fri Jul 14, 2006 11:47 am    Post subject: Who is Hezbollah? Reply with quote

Who is Hezbollah: Violence mixed with social mission

Thursday, July 13, 2006; Posted: 4:07 p.m. EDT (20:07 GMT)
http://www.cnn.com/2006/WORLD/meast/07/13/hezbollah/index.html

Hezbollah is a Shiite militant group in Lebanon, regarded by the U.S. and Israel as a terrorist organization.

It opposes Israel and the West, and supports a fundamentalist Muslim government.

It is dedicated to eliminating Israel and has formally advocated ultimate establishment of Islamic rule in Lebanon, according to the U.S. State Department.

It garners popular support among Lebanese by setting up schools, hospitals and other social services.

It has become a social/political movement, holding 14 seats in the 128-member Lebanese parliament, according to the parliament's Web site.

The word "hezbollah" means "party of God" in Arabic.

Sheik Hassan Nasrallah is the head of Hezbollah.

Hezbollah fighters operate with almost total autonomy in southern Lebanon, and the government has no control over their actions, according to The Associated Press. But Lebanon has long resisted international pressure to disarm the group.

Hezbollah has often launched shells and fired rockets into northern Israel and into the disputed Shebaa Farms area.

Islamic Resistance is the name of Hezbollah's military wing.

Hezbollah is known or suspected to have been involved in numerous terror attacks against the U.S., Israel or other Western targets, including the 1983 suicide truck bombings in Beirut that killed 241 U.S. Marines at the Marine barracks and 58 at the French military barracks.

The United States and Israel say that Hezbollah is given financial and political assistance, as well as weapons and training, from Iran and Syria. Syria says it supports Hezbollah, but denies supplying it with weapons.

Hezbollah was founded in 1982 in response to the Israeli invasion of Lebanon.

It absorbed most of the 1980s umbrella coalition of terrorist groups known as Islamic Jihad, according to Jane's Terrorism and Insurgency Center.

In 2004, Hezbollah exchanged prisoners with Israel in a deal that took three years to negotiate. Israel released more than 400 prisoners and returned 59 bodies of Lebanese fighters. Hezbollah released a kidnapped Israeli businessman and the bodies of three Israeli soldiers.

The 1996 suicide bombing of the Khobar Towers in Saudi Arabia, in which 19 are killed, was attributed to Hezbollah.


Hezbollah was blamed for the 1994 bombing of a Jewish community center in Argentina, in which 85 were killed.


The State Department estimates Hezbollah has "several thousand supporters and a few hundred terrorist operatives."
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
ViaHHakimi



Joined: 22 Jul 2004
Posts: 142

PostPosted: Sat Jul 15, 2006 11:00 am    Post subject: : Americans To Blame Or The British? Reply with quote

Dears,

It seems this Lady is either ignorant of the history or She is out right British agent trying, as usual, to blame the Americans for the disaster that the Brits have created for the entire world!

Hashem


Thanks to: Reza Pardisan

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

Middle East Problems,

Americans To Blame Or The British?



Dear Ashly,

Thanks for your E-mail.
I am sorry to disagree with you on the cause or the causes of the recent troubles in the Middle East.
The Middle Eastern problems was not created by the Americans. Lets not forget that it was the filthy tricky Brits who destroyed the Ottoman Empire and it was the British who in 1923, redrew the map of that region.

It was the Brits who created the Muslim Brotherhood of Egypt, (Ekhwan-ol moslemin), in 1928. The Brits than helped the creation of the Fadaaiyaan-e Eslaam, the Iranian version of the MBH in Iran in 1946.

In Egypt Hassan Al- Banna and in Iran Navvaab Safavi were the leaders of those organisations. Both like Ayatollah Khomeini were known British agents in their respective countries.

Than again it was the British who with the aid of the BBC, planed and plotted the overthrew of the progressive and peace loving government of the late Shah of Iran in 1979.

Britain has been the main supporter of the terrorist regime of the Mullahs ever since.

Than it was the terrorist Mullahs of Iran who in the early 80's created, funded armed and supported the terrorist networks such as Hamas and Hezbollah. There is no doubt that the Brits were fully aware of the Mullahs involvement in Lebanon and Palestine but they did nothing to stop them.

I am sure that the Brits knew but turned a blind eye on this and other crimes of the Mullahs regime.

Today it is a hard but disturbing fact that for many years, the top experts from the British foreign Office and While Hall meet every wednesday in Tehran with the the thugs of the Islamic Republic in Iran's foreign Office, giving them step by step guidance and advice.


The Brits brought nothing but death, destruction, division, poverty and disaster where ever they set foot. Instead they took away nations wealth, unity and pride from them.

The Middle Eastern and the African countries are suffering for over 50 years thank to Britain's continued direct and indirect aggression and interference.

Look at India or Pakistan today, once Britain's milking cows. Look at Africa and the Middle East today.

Look at Iran 28 years after the mad Khomeini, the British Bulldozer was returned to Iran.

In one word, Americans only inherited the troubles in four corners of the world which was created by the filthy Brits in the first place.

Once again thank you for your E-mail.

Mohammad-Reza Pardisan, London.
Hassan Al- Banna, The British agent.

Founder of Muslim Brotherhood of Egypt. 1928.
A dangerous ideology which is threatening the world.

+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++

Navvaab Safavi, The British agent.

Founder of the terrorist movement of Fadaayiaan-e Eslaam in Iran. 1946.
He was responsible for many political assassinations in Iran.

++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++


Ruhollah Hindi Khomeini, The British agent.
Wrath of God & British Bulldozer.Merciless, cold hearted, ruthless bloodsucker.

Destroyer of progressive & modern Iran. 1979. Khomeini and his thugs murdered executed, tortured, imprisoned displaced millions of Iranians.

+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++




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



Dear Iranian and other friends,

Again defenseless people in the middle east are being attacked and killed by barberian forces. Lets do our best to make world aware of this criminal power created by the US government in the ME with the sole purpose of creating unstability, chaos, destruction, rape and killing of children and women.



Thanks,

Ashly

===================
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 -> The Voice of Dr. Etebar 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