Israel, US & UK Beat The Drums Of War As They Threaten Iran
international |
anti-war / imperialism |
news report 
Friday November 04, 2011 14:30
by pat c
War preparations against Iran continue. In the US, legislation, which includes sanctions against Iran's Central Bank and strict curbs on official diplomatic contacts between Washington and Tehran, was approved unanimously by the Foreign Affairs Committee of the House of Representatives.
The first bill, the Iran, North Korea and Syria Nonproliferation Reform and Modernization Act, would impose penalties against any individual or company – foreign as well as domestic – that has facilitated the transfer of equipment that could be used in Iran's nuclear programme. It also would bar access to the U.S. of any vessels that have visited ports of any of the three countries in the last two years.
Among other provisions,the second bill would sharply reduce the president's authority to waive existing sanctions against any individual, company or country doing business with Iran; expand existing sanctions against companies that sell Iran refined petroleum to include any barter transactions; and impose sanctions against any individual, company or country that conducts a transaction with the Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps (IRGC), which is believed to control as much as 40 percent of the Iran's national economy.
Sanctions are war by other means.
The UK is also preparing for War against Iran.
Britain's armed forces are stepping up their contingency planning for potential military action against Iran amid mounting concern about Tehran's nuclear enrichment programme, the Guardian has learned.
The Ministry of Defence believes the US may decide to fast-forward plans for targeted missile strikes at some key Iranian facilities. British officials say that if Washington presses ahead it will seek, and receive, UK military help for any mission, despite some deep reservations within the coalition government.
In anticipation of a potential attack, British military planners are examining where best to deploy Royal Navy ships and submarines equipped with Tomahawk cruise missiles over the coming months as part of what would be an air and sea campaign.
They also believe the US would ask permission to launch attacks from Diego Garcia, the British Indian ocean territory, which the Americans have used previously for conflicts in the Middle East.
http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2011/nov/02/uk-military-iran-attack-nuclear
Israel has successfully tested a new long range missile, the Jericho 3, capable of carrying a nuclear warhead. The Israeli military also announced that air force jets recently concluded a lengthy exercise over Sardinia, Italy, which included long-distance attacks and mid-air refuelling. The exercise involved 17 Israeli jet fighters, and was conducted together with Italian and Dutch planes. The destination enabled the jets to drill a 2,400km flight, including mid-air refuelling; impossible in Israel’s limited air space. This looks to be a dress rehearsal for attacks on Iranian targets.
However Iran has not been cowed by this display of Isreakli arrogance. Iran’s chairman of the joint chiefs of staff Hassan Fairouz Abadi warned that Tehran would retaliate with a “surprising punishment” if Israel “pursued such a mistake”. He said Iran was taking the threat seriously, even though the likelihood of such an attack was low, and he warned their retaliation would target the US as well as Israel.
Comments (68 of 68)
Jump To Comment: 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 42 43 44 45 46 47 48 49 50 51 52 53 54 55 56 57 58 59 60 61 62 63 64 65 66 67 68..into NATO ratchets a notch today as Gilmore smoke-screens the closure of the Iran embassy behind East Timor and the megaphoning of Vatican closure(but then they've an ambassador in every parish).
Canary in the mine.
..to more of the same
http://www.globalresearch.ca/index.php?context=va&aid=27471
I don’t think we should be letting the Iranian regime off the hook so lightly in all this. The US is sabre-rattling again and that obviously has to be opposed , but the mullah regime’s ongoing oppression of the Iranian people and its continuing moves towards acquiring nuclear weapons are giving the imperialists the justification they need for launching an attack . The regime in turn will use the threat of war to silence all internal opposition .
Rights campaigner ,Peter Tatchell,summed up the position this way in 2007 at a time when the Bush government was making threats to intervene in the region .
A democratic, progressive Iran would pose no threat to anyone. President Bush would therefore find it much harder to persuade the American public and military to go to war. He would lose the main argument he uses to incite public opinion in favour of military action – namely, that Iran is a dangerous, terroristic, fundamentalist, anti-Semitic dictatorship, which is striving to develop nuclear weapons and which poses a serious threat to international peace and security.
If Iran was no longer a fanatical religious tyranny, the case for war would evaporate. Bush would lose the battle for hearts and minds. Public opinion would desert him. US politicians and grassroots opponents of war would be empowered and strengthened.
http://www.hopoi.org/tatchell.html
Yes, an interesting article from 4 years ago by Peter Tatchell.
Heres an excerpt from a more up to date article by Yassamine Mather. Full text at link.
Iran’s leaders have claimed that the US needed a diversion from the Occupy Wall Street protests. Yet, as students in Tehran have pointed out, in turn the Iranian leaders themselves had every reason to embark on yet another adventure abroad to divert attention from internal problems. This news breaks in the midst of a major financial scandal in the country. A $2.6 billion fraud has shaken the government and already the heads of three of the country’s major banks have been ousted; the governor of Bank Melli has fled to Canada. Nineteen people have been arrested for a scam involving the fraudulent creation of bank letters of credit by the Amir Mansour Aria investment group and 20 members of Iran’s parliament have signed a petition to impeach economy minister Shamseddin Hosseini over the affair.
With the ‘reformists’ ousted, political conflict within the ranks of the conservative wing of the religious state have reached such a level of intensity that half of the Islamic parliament accuses Ahmadinejad and his chief of staff of masterminding the fraud.
While bank officials and associates of Ahmadinejad are stealing billions, the majority of Iranians are finding life increasingly unbearable, as inflation spiralled to 18.3% in September, while job losses and unemployment mount. In this situation the Islamic leaders might be regretting having drawn attention to the Wall Street protests: this week the slogans on Tehran campuses have been ‘Occupy Bank Melli!’ and ‘Occupy Ferdowsi Street!’ (where major Iranian banks have their headquarters)....
Clearly the clumsy "Iranian" plot in Washington was not new or particularly ominous. The culprits have been arrested and there was no ‘clear and immediate danger’, as the relevant phraseology goes. Yet some in the US administration, including secretary of state Hillary Clinton, are still talking of the need for retaliation against the Iranian state. Why?
Well, it cannot be any coincidence that the current crisis erupted just a week before Congress was to discuss sanctions against Iran’s central bank. Reports from Washington indicate that the Obama administration is now “actively” considering their implementation and has joined Republican congressmen in baying for revenge for the alleged Iranian assassination plot. A move like this would severely cripple Iran’s already enfeebled economy and potentially provoke an even more hysterical response from Tehran.
So now, once more, there is talk of attacking Iran - but this time no-one is mentioning Iran’s allegedly ominous nuclear capability in justification. The economic situation in both Iran and the US might have more to do with the sabre-rattling and the edging of both sides towards the precipice. As this paper - and Hands Off the People of Iran - has repeatedly made clear, despite the real strains and conflicts between them, the two reactionary ruling elites in Washington and Tehran also share a strange political symbiosis at this stage in history
Here is the HOPI position in favour of a Nuclear free Middle East.
For a Middle East Free of Nuclear Weapons and other WMDs
The US imperialists, flanked by their hatchet man, Israel, and by their European camp followers — masquerading as ‘the international community’ – are accusing Iran of planning to manufacture nuclear weapons.
Under this pretext, they have mounted a vicious campaign of sanctions, whose real victims are the ordinary Iranian workers and impoverished masses; and they threaten Iran with massive military action.
We have no reason to believe in the imperialists’ accusation, for which no solid evidence has been produced so far. Nor do we have any reason to trust the Iranian theocrats’ protestations that their nuclear programme is for purely civilian use and that nuclear weapons are ‘un-Islamic’. Hopi is against the Islamic Republic developing nuclear weapons.
Irrespective of these accusations and counter-protestations, it is indisputable that the existence and potential spread of nuclear weapons in the Middle East constitute a horrendous danger to the people of this volatile and conflict-ridden region, and an appalling global threat to humanity.
The imperialists’ campaign in fact adds to this danger, as one of its clear, albeit unstated, aims is to preserve Israel’s regional monopoly of nuclear weapons.
Israel, the most aggressive and expansionist state in the Middle East, launched the regional nuclear arms race in the late 1950s; in this it was secretly aided by France — as payment for Israel’s service to French imperialism in the Suez aggression of 1956. Subsequently, the US and its satellites, including Britain, have lent their tacit support to Israel’s nuclear status by joining the silent charade and studiously avoiding any official mention of it. They have tolerated Israel refusal to sign the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty (1968) and to ratify the Comprehensive Nuclear Test Ban Treaty (1996).
Israel’s massive arsenal of nuclear weapons – as well as other weapons of mass destruction – constitutes a constant grave provocation and a temptation to other states in the region to join the nuclear arms race. The suspected (albeit as yet unproven) nuclear-weapon ambition of the Iranian theocracy is just one illustration of this grave risk.
Attempts to preserve Israel’s regional nuclear monopoly by use or threat of armed force will backfire, by reinforcing the incentive of the targeted state to produce nuclear weapons, or to develop and stockpile an alternative arsenal of other weapons of mass destruction (chemical and biological), which have in fact been used in some Middle-East conflicts.
The only long-term means of preventing the peril of regional proliferation of nuclear weapons is the nuclear demilitarization of the entire Middle East.
We therefore call for a mass grass-root campaign for a Middle East free of nuclear weapons, with the following aims:
• Prevention of development and manufacture of nuclear weapons and other WMDs
• De-commissioning of all nuclear weapons and other WMDs
These must be verified by effective democratic, mass based inspection and supervision.
We call upon all progressive organizations and individuals in this country, in the Middle East and throughout the world to join this campaign. In particular, we call upon the Campaign for Nuclear Disarmament in the UK, and similar organizations elsewhere, to actively promote the above aims.
The campaign for a Middle East free of nuclear weapons is not a substitute for a campaign for global nuclear disarmament; on the contrary, the former is an integral part and a vital step towards the latter.
More on US Sanctions against Iran:
House Committee Okays Sweeping Sanctions On Iran
http://www.countercurrents.org/lobe031111.htm
I agree mostly with that , Pat . It's a tricky one to call though surely. Obviously the imperialists should be opposed , but aren't the mullahs in many ways just as bad or worse than the likes of Obama ? As Peter T wrote, "both US war and Iranian tyranny should be opposed in equal measure" So long as the left isn't highlighting the ongoing crimes of the mullah regime they collude with that barbaric regime - whether consciously or not
Peter has got a good piece on his site in which he takes the SWP to task on the collusion issue. I thought his last sentence for the piece "SWP. Socialists Without Principles?" was particularly witty ( if a little OTT perhaps!)
see:
Far Left Collusion with the Islamo-Fascism of Iran's Clerical Tyranny
http://www.petertatchell.net/international/iran/islamo-...m.htm
While we're deciding..stir this through the mix
http://www.globalresearch.ca/indexphp?context=va&aid=27430
Iran is an obvious target for the oil hungry US/UK and Israel's power is challenged by a nuclear armed Iran supplying Hezbollah and Hamas. However it is quite clear that millions of Iranians want ride of the mullah. In 1982 the Argentinian junta decided it would be a bright idea to capture the Falklands Islands and stupidly invited a British military response - the islands were re-taken and the fall of the humiliated military junta soon followed and Argentina became a democracy through people coming onto the streets. The Falklands War was over oil and mineral wealth which lie beneath the waters surrounding the islands but it led directly to a political change. Today the fundamentalist Islamic Iranian government are obviously waving the nuclear card in the face of its imperialist Western enemies. If they have miscalculated and the West attack and destroy their nuclear infrastructure and cripple their air force, navy and knock out a large portions of their military hardware, the mullahs will be humiliated. This will embolden the Iranian people and a new uprising might finally sweep the mullahs from power. The aftermath would be bloody - just like events in Tunisia, Libya, Egypt and ongoing events in Syria. A democratic Iran would be able to play the West like a fiddle and its people could chart an independent course. They could say thank you very much to the West for helping to bring down the mullahs but then decide their own future. Therefore I think the sooner the attacks come the better.
http://youtu.be/lXdOReSMBVI ; a good link of some thoughts about the powers that be
Iran has exactly 0 nuclear weapons
Israel has > 200
Pakistan has plenty too.
Yet all the talk is about Iran getting a bomb. Would you blame them, given the constant threats? They'd be stupid not to.
This is bullshit. UK / US want the resources thats all. HOPI's talk will be useless when the bodies of Iranian children are being dismembered. We all know how this goes down at this stage.
Iran doesn't meddle in our affairs and try to destabilise our government. We should leave it to their people to deal with their own government.
We should just save our efforts to block meddling by UK / US / Israel in other soverign nations.
What system the Iranians wish to live under is a decision for the Iranian people alone. The CIA incidentally does not need fake left wing types assistance, in order to interfere in the internal affairs of independent states. Nor to assassinate Iranian scientists.
The Zionists have the bomb due to the assistance of Washington and Paris. Frankly, if I was a member of the Iranian government, I would be arming the country to the teeth, including nuclear weapons.
On 31 Oct the UN General Assembly passed an Iranian resolution in favour of nuclear disarmament...Israel and the US voted against.
Why are we not hearing this on Irish media...and why is Gilmore closing Iranian embassy..when it is Israel that clones our passports and attacks our aid ships on the high seas, even as it escalates its plantation policy in the West Bank and East Jerusalem??
De facto NATO by stealth.
Meantime Israel continues to refuse to allow inspection and refuses to sign up to non-proliferation. Oh and refuses to define its borders. Minor detail?
"Iran doesn't meddle in our affairs and try to destabilise our government. We should leave it to their people to deal with their own government. "
Going on that logic then we shouldn't support the Palestinian People against the Israelis or the Burmese People against their military dictatorship. Also we'd end up not supporting the Saudi people against their dictatorship.
International Solidarity is a very important activity. Iranian dissidents who are opposed to Imperialism have called for support for the struggle of Women, Workers and Students against the oppression they are suffering.
If you are building solidarity for the Iranian People against Imperialist attack then you have to have an answer for the questions about repression in Iran. The only rational answer is to say that you support the Iranian Peoples struggle for democracy. Saying that you support the right of the Iranian Regime to imprison strikers or that its none of your business is not going to garner much support.
Here are HOPIs demands:
No to imperialist war!
No to sanctions!
No to the theocratic regime!
Our campaign demands are:
No to imperialist war! For the immediate and unconditional withdrawal of US/UK troops from Iraq and all the Gulf region!
No to any imperialist intervention. The immediate and unconditional end to sanctions on Iran.
No to the theocratic regime!
Opposition to Israeli expansionism and aggression
Support to all working class and progressive struggles in Iran against poverty and repression!
Support for socialism and democracy in Iran and therefore solidarity with all democratic, working class, socialist and secular movements in Iran.
Opposition to Israeli, British and American nuclear weapons. For a Middle East free of nuclear weapons as a step towards world-wide nuclear disarmament!
You're either opposed to nuclear weapons or you aren't. Again, people detect hypocrisy very quickly. If you don't oppose all nuclear weapons then you end up with the stupid position I used to have: defending the Workers Bomb. Full Founding statement of HOPI at link.
Here are some cases in Iran which have been covered in the MSM. What would you say to people who raise these with you? That the actress should be flogged, the director imprisoned, the workers jailed/and or flogged for striking? These are ongoing issues which will not go away.
You are on a radio show facing Kevin Myers. What do you say abou these issues without losing support for the anti war campaigns? Ordinary Irish People will not support repression of women or workers. Protest against actress sentenced to 90 lashes and one year in jail
A campaigning has been launched for the freedom of Marzieh Vafamehr, an Iranian actress who has been sentenced to 90 lashes and one year in jail for her role in My Tehran for Sale, an Australian film about an actress whose theatre work is banned in Iran.
Actors’ Equity of Australia has set up an on-line petition calling for her release.
Vafamehr, wife of the acclaimed film-maker Nasser Taghvai, was arrested in July after starring in the film, which touches on many of the taboo issues of modern life in Iran. Iranian human rights activists have reacted with outrage to her conviction and in particular the fact that she faces 90 lashes. It comes only two days after a student activist, Peyman Aref, was lashed 74 times in Tehran’s Evin prison for insulting the president, Mahmoud Ahmadinejad.*
Sentence against Panahi upheld
Bad news: A Tehran appeals court has upheld a six-year jail sentence and 20-year filmmaking and travel ban against Panahi. At the moment Panahi is still free. His lawyer Farideh Ghairat says: “We have no news. The verdict has not been confirmed to us.” The government-run newspaper Iran wrote on Saturday: “The charges Panahi was sentenced for are acting against national security and propaganda against the regime.”
There are 6,500 workers on strike at Bandar Imam Petrochemical plant in Bandar Imam Khomeini (Imam Khomeini port) in Khuzestan province, southern Iran. According to the latest reports three of the Bandar Imam Petrochemical workers have been arrested he plant’s security personnel and taken to the Intelligence Ministry.
They are:
1- Mansur Abbassi, a worker employed by the Kharazmi sub-contracting company. 2- Mohammad Bagheri, a worker employed by the Sanayeh Fars (Fars Industry) sub-contracting company. 3- Jasem Badrani, a worker employed by the Kharazmi sub-contracting company.
And yes, International campaigning works:
* Detained Iranian actress Marzieh Vafamehr has been set free from jail following international pressure for her release. Shargh, the most popular reformist newspaper in Iran, reported her release yesterday (Wednesday 26 October). She had spent three and half months in custody for her role in the film My Tehran for Sale. Marzieh had received a preliminary sentence of one year in prison and 90 lashes for acting in the film. Equity general secretary Christine Payne expressed her thanks to Equity members and the wider arts community for campaigning for her release.
non interference is non interference.
We interfered bigtime in the region. Now we need to do the right thing and try to fix the mess or else let the power balance equalise. Fixing the mess means removing the weapons we supplied to the countries encircling Iran. But that will never happen, so by the game theory employed in the cold war, we need to allow the forces to equalise. MAD in other words. We all (courtesy of the RAND corporation) saw it as the only way during the cold war. what is different here?
If we didn't arm the israelis and saudis to the teeth, arm saddam with chemical weapons and get him to attack Iran, or as is now the case, build US bases with their own BUSROUTES inside Iraq then the pressure to build a nuke in Iran would be considerably less don't you think?
We all favoured MAD when it came to the "cold war" propaganda against the soviets. Funny how the rules change when it is Iran that is having a "cold war" waged against it by the US and Israel.
Israel has been supplied with quantities of the new bunker buster bombs, was shipped a huge cargo of weapons while it was still busy terrorising gaza with its invasion and use of illegal white phosphorous weapons and just recently Israel got a commitment to continue the 3 billion dollars of annual military aid from the US which is conditional on it adhering to the NPT. Of course Israel, who consider themselves gods chosen people (talk about radical nutjob religious fundamentalists with nukes!!), don't bother with things like the NPT which is why the official denial of their nukes and the harsh treatment of Mordechai Vanunu for ratting their little scam out.
I think that we in the west are responsible for the escalation in arming of "religious nutjob countries" hostile to Iran with nukes. Either we disarm them NOW as a gesture, or we should not be surprised if Iran tries to defend itself. Actually I'd like to see anyone try to disarm Israel's nukes! I'm sure the response would not be as reasonable as that of Iran!!!
But the big lie here is that weapons companies or corporations or the US government actually care one whit about religious fundamentalists in power and having weapons. They clearly don't. Look at Saudi arabia, Libya, Pakistan, or for that matter, Israel. Hell look at the US political system even. Nobody gets elected without spouting about god. Delusional with their hands on the button of global destruction.
Anyway, business friendly tyrants are business friendly tyrants. Religious fundamentalists can be as tough on wages and working conditions as any other fascists. And corporations and weapons companies just LOVE fascists! No irritating workers marches with them. Of course there are exceptions when those regimes embarrass us and need to be made an example of and are also sitting on large tasty oil reserves.
But thats really what we want here. Any flimsy excuse to go in and blow the shit out of Iran in revenge and to seize control of resources. The Irony is we'll use bunker buster mini nukes and depleted uranium tipped shells and ammo to rid iran of it's fictitious nukes.
Frankly I'm a lot more afraid of Israel or pakistan using a bomb than Iran. Iran have never invaded anyone in hundreds of years.
Interesting to note that Iran was a secular democracy under Mossadegh until we went in and turned it into a dictatorship under the Shah (which we happily armed!) which only the radical islamists had the strength to break free of.
Interesting also that we armed the radical islamists in Libya, Afghanistan (and possibly 9/11??)
If we should be afraid of radical Islam having access to a bomb well then the main people responsible for the rise of and funding of radical Islam more than anybody else is the US government. However Iran is not really as fundamentalist Islamic as the saudis or the other groups funded by the US in pakistan, afghanistan, the horn of africa etc. In fact as mentioned Iran had a strong secularist tradition. Until we interfered that is., Our interference is part of what is pushing people in a more religious direction in Iran. If we left it alone, it is my belief that it would return to it's more natural secular tradition.
HOPI is nothing in all this great game. just useful propaganda against the regime to drum up support for regime change, to be discarded when the bombs start to fall, when all rights, including those of workers and children, are rendered moot. How can workers rights be protected when the US has blown your place of work to shit and cut you and your children in half with high calibre weapons fire from a helicopter, that will not come out in the media because juliuan assange is no longer there to leak it for you?
but stop saying 'we' when its them...I dont identify with these Milo Minderbinder vermin...any more than I identify with the mullahs either in Maynooth, Rome, Jerusalem(they all got their fundamentalists, so called because they have their brains up their fundaments) or Teheran.
Also you fail to emphasise the extent to which Saudi Wahabbism is central to the Islamic strain, armed to the tonsils by the west(though not with the capability to challenge Fort Zion in the Wild East, no F-35s for you lads, strictly ours). They've been driving it for over a century..nicely paralleling both the Aryan WASP white supremacism and Zionist evolution as they developed in the pseudo-scientific acadamies of wishful preeners.
Also there is at least a three-way struggle for regional dominance between Saudi, Iran and Turkey.. the bracketing two being in the west's tent presently..but as they say nations dont do friends..they do interests..so that could change like the breeze.
I reckon you are right on the useful idiocy of HOPI(though that may be unfair to individuals who have genuine grievances)and the Pakistan nukes are a black box with the US induced disarray. Not lookin pretty. Does anyone know for sure who controls their buttons?Fragmentation going on.
And the trouble is the fuckers could rattle their sabres for effect...and then realise its too late..for just bluffing..though somehow I think they are gung-ho to go...probably have a fresh Shah on ice in the cellar.
But ultimately its still China they are stalking, both through the Libya hit and Iran. Only real contender for the neo-con century, full spectrum dominance.
"HOPI is nothing in all this great game. just useful propaganda against the regime to drum up support for regime change, to be discarded when the bombs start to fall, when all rights, including those of workers and children, are rendered moot. How can workers rights be protected when the US has blown your place of work to shit and cut you and your children in half with high calibre weapons fire from a helicopter, that will not come out in the media because juliuan assange is no longer there to leak it for you?"
But look at the track record of those involved in HOPI and its supporters. Are you really saying that David Norris is a useful idiot? How about the WSM, are they useful idiots? David Landy, Freda Hughes, Deirdre Clancy, anti-war activists, are they useful idiots?
My point is that people in the real world with a track record in anti war activity and credibility support HOPI. Those attacking HOPI choose to remain anonymous
How do you build solidarity for the Iranian People if you ignore the repression carried out by the Iranian Regime?
Iran has actually invaded somewhere: Kurdistan. Its not just hypothetical children cut in half in some possible future invasion. Kurdish children are slaughtered by the Iranian Dictatorship.
I'm an anti imperialist and I'm consistent in my anti imperialism. That means supporting the Kurds right to self as well as opposing US/UK/Israeli aggression towards Iran.
You talk about biased articles, but my article opening this thread attacks US/UK/Israeli war preparations against Iran. What do your articles say?
We must show the Department of Foreign Affairs that they are NOT doing enough either to support our friends in an Israeli prison, or to put pressure on Israel to comply with international law.
The Irish Ship to Gaza Campaign has called for a demo outside the Department of Foreign Affairs, St Stephen's Green, on Monday 7th November at 5PM.
http://www.indymedia.ie/article/100865
Not sure if thats @me up above there, suspect its more for the mullah.
My point on the HOPI front is that they will be USED as useful idiots by the dangerous idiots in NATO&Co.
Kurdistan is between a collection of rocks and hard places..Turkey, Iran, Iraq, Syria..and again for all their legitimate claims will be used as were Southern Sudan and Eastern Libya or NW Afghanistan by NATO to insert the wedge of disruption, containment and extraction.
We are down to a dangerous relativism of evils, the greater currently seems the rampant rogue of transnational corporate resource colonialsim flying the NATO/EU/Zion imperial colours. To serve that flag seems inadvisable.
As for Israel and international law..I can hear Bibi, and a few closer to home, laughing from here.
If Gilmore gave a damn its the Israeli embassy would be long-closed, not the Iranian precisely when mediation is needed as they gird for the next 'theatre' of the push to arrest China's development out of poverty and coal-dependence(not that i have any illusions on Sino corporate-state turbo-capitalism either).
Was meant for Mullah.
My point is that your accusation is without foundation. Those involved in HOPI are activists with a track record of anti imperialism. Why suspect us because we say that we support the right of Iranians to oppose their despotic regime?
You have to be consistent on supporting human rights and opposing imperialism. The Kurds are just as entitled to self determination as the Tibetans and Uighirs. Referring to Kurdistan as a bunch of rocks is the same as calling Ireland a potato field. The Kurds are entitled to have their own country too.
Look I posted that notice for the Palestine Demo. I have a consistent anti imperialist record. I wrote the article which started off this thread.
Just a quick point as I am at work.
Hopi works to support those progressives and working class militants in Iran who face a regime that is intent on oppressing them. Of course US imperialism and its allies like Israel and Pakistan are more powerful enemies internationally. I am certainly not arguing that Islam is the greater evil - it is obviously not.
The point however is not to line up with a smaller oppressor against the bigger oppressor. It is obvious that there are millions in Iran that want change. They are suffering more than us in terms of unemployment, job insecurity and lack of control over their lives. Iran is part of world capitalism, being a regional as opposed to an international capitalist power. Why should we stay silent about what such a regime does to its people. To do so would be treachery.
We are against all sanctions on Iran and all war. Iraq and Afghanistan have shown what hell holes have been created by imperialist intervention. We are an anti-war campaign.
So all talk about us being useful allies of imperialism is just rubbish, designed to damage the good name of the campaign. People can post any rubblish they want of course but our own literature is clear evidence of where we stand. It is posted by supporters of the regime it seems to me.
Go to http://www.hopi-ireland.org or http://www.hopoi.org if you want to know the truth about where we stand.
Anne
But if you read my comment It was that HOPI would USED and considered as useful tools, whatever the actuality.
I even capitalised the USED for emphasis to make that point.
Its a hard position to keep any control of the mega-puppeteers.
And those 'rocks' ,pat,are the surrounding deniers of Kurd autonomy, not the Kurds. Please try to read before jumping.
I have made no accusations as to the motives of hopi, for the simple reason i haven't yet had a chance to research them, and my general policy is always to consider motive as positive until proven otherwise. I was replying(critically I believe)to mullah. As such I was crediting what little might have foundation, also something i try to do.
My focus, presently is on the rising drumbeats for war against the Teheran regime, not, I believe, something we or the Iranian people see as any solution to the repression. I've been to Iran, I can understand how they must despise the mullahs, just as they were well aware of the Shah's predations when I visted, and I doubt they want a return to that situation, which will be the neo-con blueprint for whatever colour 'revolution' they instal. In fact it wil be more brutal.
If I am wrong, hit me again..meantime I'll go catch up on my homework at that site.Ta.
When i hit your site I was warned the security was lapsed and there could be an impersonator...I got out pronto..just letting you know.
"But look at the track record of those involved in HOPI and its supporters. Are you really saying that David Norris is a useful idiot? How about the WSM, are they useful idiots? David Landy, Freda Hughes, Deirdre Clancy, anti-war activists, are they useful idiots? "
Sadly, under the current climate, Yes.
Of The people / groups you mention, How many are actually members and active in the movement? How many have just lent their name to the Ideal?
"My point is that people in the real world with a track record in anti war activity and credibility support HOPI. Those attacking HOPI choose to remain anonymous "
I don't doubt the well meaning nature of yourself and several of the idealists you mention. But I've never been one for "proof by authority". Good people are often used as pawns by imperialist propaganda
I'm not actually attacking HOPI. The "uncontaminated by reality" ideal they espouse certainly sounds good.
I'm just expressing the opinion that in practice they are serving imperialism more than anything in the current climate, Also its naive to believe nobody in such an organisation has been turned. There's too much at stake for them to be left completely pristine. How are they funded? donations? Any big anonymous ones?
"How do you build solidarity for the Iranian People if you ignore the repression carried out by the Iranian Regime? "
Its not really possible to do so without fear of hijack (a la libya) when there is an external threat like this. First the external threat needs to go. then the internal problems should be addressed. Doing both together doesn't work. When you try, as HOPI does, one part of the message is trumpetted by media, while the other part is dropped. And whose interests does that process actually serve??
"Iran has actually invaded somewhere: Kurdistan. Its not just hypothetical children cut in half in some possible future invasion. Kurdish children are slaughtered by the Iranian Dictatorship. "
Fair enough.
I'm an anti imperialist and I'm consistent in my anti imperialism. That means supporting the Kurds right to self as well as opposing US/UK/Israeli aggression towards Iran.
You talk about biased articles, but my article opening this thread attacks US/UK/Israeli war preparations against Iran. What do your articles say?"
On this site I see mainly anti Iranian regime articles from HOPI. With somewhat less anti imperialism posts. Good to see a few lately from yourself to redress the imbalance!
I bear you no malice. I just think you are idealist and rather naive. Currently the impending invasion of Iran supercedes internal issues. An invasion destroys ALL human rights. Can't you see this?
Maybe your experience is different but when I'm campaigning on anti war issues or against imperialism in general people ask awkward questions, you have to be able to answer them. You will not be able to build support for any antiu war group by being selective in your support for human rights.
I'm against any Imperialist aggression, I'm fully aware that it would result in mass deaths. But you must also accept the reality that workers, women, students and national minorities are being repressed in Iran. The part of Kurdistan in Iran is occupied and the Kurdish people are at war with the Iranian State. Should Kurds just lie down and die?
No they won't, they deserve our support as do all the rest of those who are fighting for the right to form a union, the right to quality.
You question our credibility but you choose to remain anonymous. We, individual members of HOPI can be judged by our actions in the real world. In my case in AFA, Pro Choice and fight back campaigns.
You accuse us of being naive and fake left but you are just an anonymous poster, no one can assess your record in the real world.
Finance, no anonymous donations, funded by members and collections at meetings. Presently in a dire financial state. Must organise a fund raiser, quiz maybe.
Sorry for snapping at you, I thought you were belittling the Kurds, my bad. The forces HOPI support in Iran are fighting for a Secular Socialist Republic and have no truck with neocons. The only thing I hate more than a Mullah is a neocon. Idon't see how HOPI could be used when we clearly oppose the US/UK/Israeli Axis forces.
Please try the sitres again:
http://www.hopi-ireland.org/
http://hopoi.org/
I just accessed them without any problems.
When were you last in Iran? Maybe give us a bit more of your experiences?
Another analysis of the war threats.
Israeli Leaders Press For Attack On Iran By Peter Symonds
http://www.countercurrents.org/symonds071111.htm
Over the past week, evidence has been mounting of an intense debate in Israeli ruling circles over the launching of air strikes on Iran’s nuclear facilities in the not too distant future. Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu and Defence Minister Ehud Barack have reportedly been campaigning inside the cabinet and seeking to overcome resistance within sections of the country’s military and intelligence establishment to a war with Iran
Russia: Israeli threat of strikes on Iran 'a mistake' Military action against Iran would be a "very serious mistake fraught with unpredictable consequences", Russia's foreign minister has warned. Sergei Lavrov said diplomacy, not missile strikes, was the only way to solve the Iranian nuclear problem. His comments come after Israeli President Shimon Peres said an attack on Iran was becoming more likely. The UN's atomic watchdog is expected to say this week that Iran is secretly developing a nuclear arms capability. Diplomats say the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) report, due for release on Tuesday or Wednesday, will produce compelling evidence that Iran will find hard to dispute. Iran has always insisted that its nuclear programme is exclusively to generate power for civilian purposes. Iranian Foreign Minister Ali Akbar Salehi has said the alleged evidence is a fabrication and part of a multi-pronged US smear campaign against his country
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-middle-east-15617657
It is a very sad state of affairs that you have to depend on the BBC for your 'information', still could be worse, it could be Donnybrook!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
..remain just another curate's egg..good in places..but then where is the legendary perfection?
They too have their constraints, not least their British education...but they have been more honest than D'brook on our problems over the last half century. And between the bulletins they do serious and critical reporting still.. and some good self-critical comedy..check out Radio 4's News Quiz.
Pat..if I gave details of my Iran travels you'd call me a liar.. it reads like a carry on movie. Even to me.
Very worrying news. As capitalism plunges deep into the crisis, its becoming more and more aggressive. I think that the time to come will be a time of more imperial wars, of more aggression. We cannot be equivocal on this issue. Sure, Iran is awful, I would not like living there and the people have all the right in the world to protest and people elsewhere should welcome and show solidarity with that protest.
But imperialist intervention is a different story altogether. At most, Iran is a problem for Iranians. The USA and their allies in NATO are a problem for five continents. Imperialist intervention should be opposed at any time, not only for its wreckless savagery (as we saw in Libya, the protectors of civilians ended killing 100,000 Libyans, far more than anything Gaddafi would have killed in the first place), but also because they will never allow room for a progressive alternative and they will actively crush progressives (again what they did in Libya).
There's no excuses for imperialism to attack Iran, wheteher soft or strong excuses.
Imperialism also has no excuse to hypocritically call on Iran not to develop WMD when they have amassed WMD to destroy the world 8 times and show no better judgement than what they call the "rogue states". Indeed, the only state ever to use atomic bombs were the fecking USA. Unfortunately, we live in a mad world and the only thing that keep imperialism at bay seem to be WMD (not even international solidarity, as we witnessed in Iraq).
By not actively opposing the Libyan intervention, we allow imperialis and the ideology of humanitarian intervention to receive a boost. If we let them operate now in impunity and waste our time discussing the regime of the mullahs (which is Iranian people's problem, while NATO is everyone's problem), we are doomed.
ps. By the way, I lived under a brutal dictatorship (general Pinochet) in Chile, and the least thing I would have wanted would have been self-appointed liberators to bomb us down, destroy our country and then impose a new regime on us. Sod that!
Reading through some of the comments above I can’t help but be reminded of the left’s response in the run-up to the invasion of Iraq eight years ago. Well-meaning leftists who are understandably anxious to appear “anti-imperialist” can sometimes give more solace to dictatorial regimes than they intend . I note in some of the comments to this thread a certain discomfort in discussing the plight the Iranian people face from the internal repression of the mullah regime. Readers would do well to re-read the following critical piece from Peter Tatchell from 2002 .
Had Peter’s warnings about a badly-planned attack on Iraq been acted upon at the time , much of the strife that befell that unfortunate country could perhaps have been avoided. Would it be too much to hope that lessons might have since been learned apropos the current situation in Iran?
Anti-war movement ignores Saddam's crimes
Saturday's anti-war march failed to recognise the need for regime change in Iraq, writes Peter Tatchell
Am I alone in feeling alienated from the anti-war movement? While I share its opposition to an invasion of Iraq, it is discomforting to witness the one-sided condemnation of Bush and Blair. Where are the denunciations of Saddam Hussein's human rights abuses?
I agree with my fellow protesters. A war on Iraq smacks of neo-imperialism. It has little to do with fighting terrorism or destroying weapons of mass destruction.
The US wants to grab access to Saddam's huge oil reserves, and create a pro-western client state in the Middle East.
Nevertheless, it is deeply disturbing the way the Stop The War campaign is ignoring the Iraqi government's monstrous human rights violations, and offering no counter-plan for overthrowing the murderous regime in Baghdad.
The leaflets and posters of the Stop The War coalition do not mention Saddam's repression of his own people. There is not a word about the brutalities of detention without trial, torture, execution and the ethnic cleansing of Kurds and Shiites.
Iraqi jails are full of journalists, students, lawyers, socialists, clerics, trade unionists and human rights advocates. The anti-war campaign ignores their plight and has no proposals to help to free them.
Most lamentably, the organisers of Saturday's march refused to support regime change. They demanded freedom for Palestine but not freedom for the Iraqi people. This omission is an appalling betrayal of Iraqis struggling for democracy and social justice.
The bottom line is this: there can be no toleration of any regime that violates human rights. Saddam must be removed from power.
Those who refuse to support the overthrow of the Butcher of Baghdad are, in effect, colluding with his tyranny. The issue is not whether there should be regime change, but how.
There is a credible alternative to a western-engineered invasion. It is an uprising by the Iraqi people: a Vietnamese-style guerrilla war in tandem with a 'people power' campaign of civilian resistance, like they had in Czechoslovakia and the Philippines in the 1980s. This is what the anti-war movement should be supporting loud and clear.
We must press Britain and other countries to aid Iraq's democratic opposition, in particular the Iraqi national congress.
This aid should include simple, effective things such as funding pirate TV and radio stations to break Saddam's censorship of the media and give the Iraqi opposition a means to mobilise resistance inside the country. A campaign of civilian resistance could include tactics such as workplace go-slows, mass sick leaves, industrial and military sabotage, and rent and tax refusals.
In parallel, Britain should help to train and arm a free Iraq army inside the northern and southern no-fly zones. From these safe havens, the Iraqi opposition forces could launch military operations against Saddam; creating liberated areas around the major towns, leading to an eventual assault on Baghdad.
Internally-based civilian and military resistance may take longer than a US-led war to effect regime change, but it is likely to ensure a more stable and enduring post-Saddam democracy.
Unlike a US invasion, a rebellion by the Iraqi people would lessen the likelihood of Arab states feeling obliged to rush to Saddam's defence. It would also diminish the danger that Islamist fundamentalists could respond by mobilising the whole Arab world in a holy war against the West's armies of occupation.
A democratic Iraq would be a beacon for human rights throughout the Middle East. It could give the Arab people their first taste of freedom in a region that is dominated by brutal Islamist fundamentalist regimes. Perhaps, in time, it might even encourage similar, long overdue uprisings in neighbouring tyrannies such as Saudi Arabia, Iran and Syria
http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2002/sep/30/iraq.uk
Clare Short used this argument to justify her resignation u-turn. Claiming the prime minister had "no option" but to invade Iraq, she ridiculed the idea that he "could do something different".
Tony Blair and Clare Short are wrong. The choice on Iraq was never simply for or against war. There was always a third way. We could help the Iraqi people topple Saddam. With serious military aid from the international community, Iraq's opposition movements, especially the militarily strong Kurds and Shias, are quite capable of demolishing the dictatorship and liberating themselves.
Mr Blair and Ms Short are, however, right to highlight Saddam's human rights abuses as the moral basis for supporting a change of regime. There can be no toleration of a leader who imprisons, tortures and murders. Merely removing weapons of mass destruction does not go far enough. Saddam and his Ba'ath party henchmen must be removed from power.
The issue is not whether there should be a change of regime, but how. Blair and Short are guilty of misleading the British people when they suggest that invasion is the only option.
A US and UK attack on Iraq not only smacks of neo-imperialism, it also has a big military drawback. What may begin as a knife-through-butter invasion could easily turn into a long and bloody urban war in the streets of Baghdad, with very high civilian and military casualties. Forced to engage in house-to-house street fighting, British soldiers may come home in body bags for weeks, months or even years.
Assuming, optimistically, that our troops take Baghdad relatively easily, they will have to remain in Iraq for up to three years to prevent a counter-coup by Saddam loyalists. The price could be high, with allied patrols being picked off in hit-and-run attacks by pro-Saddam terrorist squads. It could be like Belfast in 1972, only 10,000 times worse, with a daily carnage of sniper attacks, booby-traps and car-bombs.
There may be parallels with the way the French were bogged down in Algiers, and the British in Aden, during the 1960s. We could get caught up in a protracted, difficult-to-win guerrilla war against Saddam's 50,000-strong Republican Guard and remnants of his regular forces.
Saddam has presumably learned lessons from the first Gulf war. He will avoid battles in the open desert, where his forces are vulnerable to superior allied fire-power. Instead, he is likely to concentrate his troops in densely populated cities, especially Baghdad, using the population as human shields.
Most of his Republican Guard will discard their uniforms and go underground, posing as civilians, to fight a guerrilla war with no big military hardware and no set-piece battles. Defeating this shadowy, invisible enemy in unfamiliar terrain may be difficult for our troops.
There is also the problem of Iraqi public opinion. To sustain a change of regime in Iraq, we need the Iraqi people on-side. Right now, only a minority of Iraqis favour a western invasion. Although they hate Saddam, most are also against a US and UK attack. They fear civilians will suffer greatly and rightly dislike the neo-imperial connotations of an allied "liberation" where they are treated like pawns, with no say or control over their own destiny.
Saddam is already successfully exploiting nationalist sentiment. Playing the patriotic card against the "western imperialists", he is deflecting and defusing opposition to his regime. High civilian casualties in a war would make matters worse, provoking hostility towards our forces. A US and UK occupation of Iraq could easily become a Vietnam-style fiasco, where we lose the hearts and minds of the civilian population and face growing popular resentment and eventual outright rebellion.
There is, however, a credible alternative to western invasion. The international community could aid an uprising by the Iraqi people - a Vietnam-style guerrilla war in tandem with a "people power" campaign of civilian revolt.
This "change-from-within" strategy would involve providing massive material aid to the Iraqi opposition forces with a genuine base of popular support inside the country: the Kurdish nationalists of the KDP and PUK, the Iraqi Communist party, and the Shi'ite Supreme Council for Islamic Revolution in Iraq. Instead of creating proxy forces, as the US did with the contras in Nicaragua, the aim must be to empower the authentic voices of dissent inside Iraq to achieve their own home-made democratic revolution.
Compared to western invasion, a domestic insurrection would be far more popular with the people of Iraq. Fiercely nationalistic, they rightly dislike the idea of a US-imposed regime. Saddam's troops are also more likely to defect to an internal revolt than to the armies of "imperialism".
Modelled on the non-violent "people power" methods that bought down the dictatorships in Romania and Czechoslovakia in the 1980s, an organised campaign of civilian resistance could seriously undermine Saddam s ability to govern, weakening his authority and strengthening the Iraqi people's confidence that he can be overthrown. This resistance could include workplace go-slows, mass sick leaves, industrial and military sabotage, and the non-payment of rents and taxes.
However, given Saddam's ruthless repression, it is unlikely that civilian resistance alone would be sufficient to overthrow him. Armed struggle is now, regrettably, the only certain way to get rid of Saddam.
The international community should train and arm the Iraqi opposition forces, especially the Kurds and Shias who already have viable armies. This military assistance could be along the lines of the support we gave the Free French forces and the French resistance from 1940-45 - only more substantial.
An even better model of successful military aid is the assistance given by the Russians and Chinese to the Vietnamese people, which enabled them to defeat the technologically superior US forces. If Vietnam can defeat the mightiest military power in history, then surely, with a little help, the Iraqi people can get rid of Saddam?
The Kurds have 80,000 troops, and the Shias have 5,000 to 10,000 fighters. Both are desperate to take on Saddam. But they need more training and better weapons: tanks, helicopter gun-ships, fighter planes, heavy artillery and anti-tank and anti-aircraft missiles.
The west sold Saddam many of the weapons he uses to murder his own people. Isn't it now time we redressed the balance by arming his victims so they can fight back?
Equipped with the latest weaponry, guerrilla armies could be assembled in the northern and southern no-fly zones, where Saddam's air force cannot penetrate. From these safe-havens, the Kurds in the north and the Shias in the south could launch military strikes; taking most of the rural areas and small towns with relative ease. This would create large liberated areas around the big cities, freeing millions of Iraqis from Saddam's control and bringing tens of thousands of new recruits into the ranks of the free Iraqi forces. With pincer movements from the north and south, Baghdad could be encircled and under siege within months.
The liberation of most of Iraq would leave Saddam holed up in the capital - isolated, surrounded and doomed. With his aura of invincibility shattered, there would be mass defections by his troops and the civilian population would be emboldened to open revolt; paving the way for the guerrilla armies to liberate Baghdad.
This internally based civilian and military rebellion would avoid the taint of neo-imperialism and lessen the likelihood of Muslim states rushing to Saddam's defence. It could also reduce the danger of a wider conflict, drawing in Israel and its Arab neighbours, and minimise the risk of provoking a global Islamic jihad against the west.
Regime change cannot, ethically, be imposed from outside in a flourish of revived western imperialism. Removing Saddam should lead to a democratic state, and not to a new form of autocratic rule by a US military governor and a US-imposed puppet regime. A home-grown change of regime by Iraqis and for Iraqis is the key to democracy, human rights and regional peace.
A democratic Iraq could become a beacon for human rights throughout the Middle East; giving the Arab people their first taste of freedom in a region that is dominated by semi-feudal Islamist dictatorships, notorious for their brutality, nepotism and corruption. Perhaps, in time, it might even encourage similar, long overdue regime change in neighbouring tyrannies such as Saudi Arabia, Iran and Syria.
I don't think you should be dismissive Paul in treating so patronisingly "well-meaning" (but probably not as brainy as you?) left-wingers who try to "appear" anti-imperialist (don't you think that some people actually do want to be coherent in their politics, instead of being rhetorically anti-imperialist while actually turning a blind eye on imperialist intervention as some sectors of the left often do? This is more than just trying to pose as).
Try to keep intellectual arrogance at bay for a second or two and engage meaningfully with the arguments.
Should I repeat my arguments? I'll keep the core of it.
"<em>Very worrying news. As capitalism plunges deep into the crisis, its becoming more and more aggressive. I think that the time to come will be a time of more imperial wars, of more aggression. We cannot be equivocal on this issue. Sure, Iran is awful, I would not like living there and the people have all the right in the world to protest and people elsewhere should welcome and show solidarity with that protest.
But imperialist intervention is a different story altogether. At most, Iran is a problem for Iranians [ie., and should I also mention the Kurdish people, whom I've been in support of for a long time, whether in Iran or Turkey, while again, the left has been equivocal on this issue, making spurious accusations to the PKK reproduced from the mainstream media]. The USA and their allies in NATO are a problem for five continents. Imperialist intervention should be opposed at any time, not only for its wreckless savagery (as we saw in Libya, the protectors of civilians ended killing 100,000 Libyans, far more than anything Gaddafi would have killed in the first place), but also because they will never allow room for a progressive alternative and they will actively crush progressives (again what they did in Libya).
There's no excuses for imperialism to attack Iran, wheteher soft or strong excuses."
And I stick to the bottom line, irrespective of how brutal and bad the regime may be. Imperialism is brutal in all cases.
ps. hope to see people genuinely interested i opposing imperialism in the talk we are organising on Colombia in the Pearse Centre on Thursday, at 7pm. Everyone is welcome.
Peter's argument that imperialist countries can (provided enough pressure from the public opinion) in good faith support "revolutionaries" fighting for people's power is also starting from the false and groundless premise that there are legitimate motivations for imperialism to intervene -that in fact, ultimately imperialists are (were) interested in toppling a terrible dictator and not on oil and securing imperialist hegemony.
Indeed, when faced with a genuine insurrection in 1990, the Bush administration showed they prefered the "butcher of Bagdad" (paraphrasing the article) than people's power. That's historical fact, not an idealistic pondering based on desire and not in facts.
If imperialism arm rebels in any country, it will be "their" rebels (they learned the lesson after Cuba) and they will support them in crushing any form of genuine popular force that could challenge their plans. This was true with the Kurds in Southern Kurdistan (the cliques of Barzani and Talabani were thrown to crush PKK fighters and have been heavily supported for that prupose) and also is what we are witnessing in Libya with the NATO boys keeping Libya quite similar to Gaddafi times plus fiercer neoliberalism and sharia law.
Imperialism is interested in regime change NEVER in revolution and they will NEVER support a progressive force of the people. To think otherwise, as Peter does, is pie in the sky politics.
I am extremely concerned at news of your Iranian travels, put you hands up immediately! Any food or clothing you need will have to be cleared with the UNSC and you know who gives the orders there.
On a more serious note, we still have individuals turning up on this site attempting to justify imperialist aggression. I don't think that the brits or washington were concerned about the Iraqi population or their human rights when they overthrew the elected government in the fifties. Nor were they concerned when they overthrew Saddam via sanctions (only a modest half million children died, a price worth paying according to Albright) or murdered a million plus Iraqis during their 'liberation'. The 'human rights' nonsense is a thinly veiled cover for resource wars. There is of course, no concern for 'human rights' in Saudi or Bahrain.
"The 'human rights' nonsense is a thinly veiled cover for resource wars. "
So human rights is nonsense to you? HOPI is quite clear in in its demands, it opposes all Imperialist interference in the Middle East. However it doesn't think that human rights are nonsense. Like Pepe above we support the right of Iranian workers, women & students to overthrow the Iranian dictatorship.
" There is of course, no concern for 'human rights' in Saudi or Bahrain."
Your dishonesty knows no bounds. All people have to do is scroll up to see my comment supporting those who are fighting the Saudi dictatorship. I oppose the dictatorships in Bahrain, Saudi Arabia, Burma, I support the right of the Tibetan and Ughir peoples to Self Determination.
What motivates people like you? If you're not working for the Iranian Embassy then you are a useless idiot because not even a fool would be taken in by your rantings in particular your contempt for human rights.
Iranian workers deserve the right to form unions and strike without being imprisoned, Iranian women should not have to fear death by stoning if they have sex outside of marriage, candidates for the presidency and parliament should have to be vetted by mullahs.
Lets oppose imperialism and support human rights.
Latest from Ahmadinejad:
Mahmoud Ahmadinejad, who has insisted that his country "does not need a bomb" and accused the head of the International Atomic Energy Agency of being a US puppet.
In comments broadcast on state television ahead of the release of a report on Iran's nuclear capabilities, Ahmadinejad reportedly lashed out at IAEA chief Yukiya Amano:
This person does not publish a report about America and its allies' nuclear arsenals. If America wants to confront the Iranian nation, it will certainly regret the Iranian nation's response. If you think by pressuring the Iranian nation, you can change the situation in the world, you are very much mistaken. They are saying that Iran is seeking the atomic bomb. But they should know... we do not need a bomb. Rather, we will act thoughtfully and with logic.
I note that instead of commenting on the massive loss of life in Iraq and Afghanistan, and a similar scenario if the imperialists launch an attack on Iran, you are instead reduced to childish personal abuse. Grow up and take some of your leaflets around to a certain building in Ballsbridge, perhaps the ambassador may be touched by your antics which provide ammunition for so called 'regime change' in Iran. I am not surprised that you do not seem to appreciate that when Washington. London and others use such words, there is a slight degree of insincerity involved.
"was approved unanimously by the Foreign Affairs Committee of the House of Representatives."
We have a VERY different system of government than you do. We are NOT a parliamentary democracy. The composition of subcommittees of the House and Senate are determined by seniority, not even by what party might have a majority of that body. So whether legislation passes that initial hurdle(or fails to) tells you little about what would happen when reaches the floor for debate and voting. Legislation that could easily pass if voted upon can be blocked by failure to get out of committee and plenty is approved by some committee but DOA on the floor of the full body.
All I am saying is WAY premature.
Especially when you consider that stuuf needs to be able to pass in BOTH the House and Senate. Often things pass easily in the House but can't even get voted on in the Senate (where 40% can block a vote).
Last week or the week before I remember a front page tabloid story about a certain notorious character known as the Viper who stopped to help a young woman who had collapsed. He apparently performed CPR on her and then heroically raced her to hospital but to no avail. The girl died. Would you have said: 'Hey! I know you! You are that notorious Viper character everybody talks about! You aren't putting a finger on this girl!'? That is in effect is what you are saying when you do not support an attack on Iran. This brutal regime has gunned down its own people in the streets when they demanded freedom and democracy. Its quite clear if the Iranian people can't get their hands on arms with which to overthrow the government and take on the security forces then they are obviously going to need some outside help. If US/UK/Israeli military action is really an oil grab, then who cares right now? The Iranians would be better off with anyone right now rather than the scum ruling them. Did the Libyans give a damn who was bombing the hell out of Gaddaffi and his goons? They used the opportunity to overthrow the regime. If the West is doing it for selfish reason then so what? If Ireland was ruled by a dictatorship I would welcome military action so the people could overthrow the regime.
Love this comment - "The Iranians would be better off with anyone right now rather than the scum ruling them". Yeah trying saying that to the iraqi people who were raped, beaten and killed by american soldiers with the invasion. Jaysus.
Klingon - you are some tool.
"I note that instead of commenting on the massive loss of life in Iraq and Afghanistan, and a similar scenario if the imperialists launch an attack on Iran, you are instead reduced to childish personal abuse. "
You are the one who is being childish. When I posted info on threats to Iran you mocked it because it was on the BBC. I have consistently posted articles about the slaughter in Iraq and Afghanistan . They are there for Indy readers to access. *
"Grow up and take some of your leaflets around to a certain building in Ballsbridge, perhaps the ambassador may be touched by your antics which provide ammunition for so called 'regime change' in Iran. I am not surprised that you do not seem to appreciate that when Washington. London and others use such words, there is a slight degree of insincerity involved"
More nonsense, I am often protesting at US and Israeli Embassies in Ballsbridge. Unlike you I have a track record of Anti-War activity in the real world. I have proven my sincerity through my activities and through the articles I have written on Indy and elsewhere. Where are your articles?
You are just an anonymous troll.
Effectively you are supporting the repression of the Iranian people, workers, women, students. By doing so you are making it harder to build anti war activity. Why would Irish people trust any group or person that said that repression in Iran is none of their business?
* Some articles by me on Iraq and Afghanistan:
US & Iraqi Troops Occupy Iraq National Library & Archives
< http://www.indymedia.ie/article/83829
Oil Workers Union in Iraq Condemns Anti-Union Repression
http://www.indymedia.ie/article/88771
Iraq war 'could kill 500,000'
http://72.232.163.18/article/17646
Iraq: workers protest IMF policies
http://72.232.163.18/article/89736
Workers Action Forces Iraq Government To Reverse Wage Cut Order
http://torrents.indymedia.ie/article/89148
Iraqi Labor Leaders Denounce US Occupation & Iraq’s Anti-Labor Laws
http://torrents.indymedia.ie/article/94248
US Airstrikes Kill Scores Of Civilians In Afghanistan
http://www.indymedia.ie/article/92242
Afghanistan: Civilian Deaths From Airstrikes http://www.indymedia.ie/article/89033
US Troops Executing Prisoners In Afghanistan
http://www.indymedia.ie/article/96632
The Drones Are Coming: New War On Civilians
http://www.indymedia.ie/article/92352
Hi. I’m noticing that some of the same attacks that are directed against us in Palestine solidarity are being directed against HOPI: ‘You’re not really interested in the human/political rights of the people of Iran/Palestine, you’re at best useful idiots, and probably worse.’ Of course there is a difference – we’re accused of being the tools (willing or otherwise) of Islamofascism, HOPI of being the tools of imperialism. Although, since a fair few HOPI people are also in Palestine solidarity, they’re probably confused at being labeled Islamofascists and imperialists, depending on whose rights they support.
Can’t people see there is a world of difference between the views of folks like Klingon and that of HOPI who oppose imperialist interventions, and yet also support the struggles of Iranian people against their regime. Is it inconceivable that an organization can hold two thoughts in its mind? – imperialist intervention is bad, popular struggle against an oppressive regime is good and should be supported.
Those who supported the invasion of Iraq had one compelling (if dishonest) argument – that those who opposed it didn’t care about how Saddam’s regime was oppressing the Iraqi people. By removing this argument away from those who would invade Iran, HOPI is, as far as I can see, practicing true solidarity with Iranian people, and far more intelligent anti-war activism than those who say: ‘the Iranian regime, right or wrong.’
Pepe refers to a death toll in Libya of 100,000. Where does this figure come from?
Wikipedia have a what looks like a serious attempt to calculate deaths at http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Casualties_of_the_2011_Lib...l_war
From this
Based on the numbers, between 5,668 and 7,060 opposition members/fighters (including some civilian supporters) and between 2,306 and 3,224 Gaddafi loyalists had been killed by November 2, 2011.
In addition, another 1,350 opposition fighters and activists have been confirmed as missing in the fighting in the east,[92] 781-900 were reported to be missing in the Battle of Misrata, of which 155 were later confirmed dead when found in two mass graves,[93] 136 went missing during the Nafusa Mountains Campaign, 74 were missing following the Battle of Brega–Ajdabiya road and up to 700 rebels were missing following the Battle of Bin Jawad, for a total of 2,886-3,005 rebels reported missing.
There had been at least 4,996 to 6,657 reported civilians killed by November 2, 2011. However, a number of civilians were also killed during the Second Battle of Benghazi and during the campaign in the Nafusa mountains, so the number could be far higher. Also, the number of civilians reported to had been killed in NATO air-strikes could be smaller because it was proven that some of the previous government-announced tolls from individual strikes were exaggerated.
In the end, according to the numbers presented, a total of 12,967 to 16,937 deaths have been reported, of which some have not been independently confirmed, and 4,000 people[2] have been reported as missing.
Nobody, at least on the left would be opposed to supporting issues such as trade union rights or gender equality. In the context of the strong possibility of Iran being subjected to an example of shock and awe, with horrendous causalities, such issues would mean little to the victims of regime change.
Regarding demos, I have been on countless ones; never saw the need to make announcements.
To close on a lighter note, I must vehemently deny that I am an Iranian secret agent and any way you can’t prove it. Such an allegation may or may not be childish but it is certainly hilarious.
About the death toll Reaper, I am based on different and conflicting versions and no one, up to know proves. According to your rather conservative figures (which do not count fro people dying for lack of access to health, food, water, etc.) we are talknig of a total of around 20,000 dead (including disappeared which are most likely to be dead). For the sake of my argument, I will accept those figures (which my best judgement say they are underestimates) and they don't affect the bottom line of my argument. Still do you think Gaddafi would have killed 20,000 people in retaliation? Even in his worst moments, it is improbable that would have happened. So from the perspective of "protecting civilians" the imperialist intervention was a remedy worse than the original problem.
And it is a remedy that will have long standing impacts for the future political development. An article from the Guardian puts it much better than I can possibly do:
"David Cameron and Nicolas Sarkozy won the authorisation to use "all necessary means" from the UN security council in March on the basis that Gaddafi's forces were about to commit a Srebrenica-style massacre in Benghazi. Naturally we can never know what would have happened without Nato's intervention. But there is in fact no evidence – including from other rebel-held towns Gaddafi re-captured – to suggest he had either the capability or even the intention to carry out such an atrocity against an armed city of 700,000.
What is now known, however, is that while the death toll in Libya when Nato intervened was perhaps around 1,000-2,000 (judging by UN estimates), eight months later it is probably more than ten times that figure. Estimates of the numbers of dead over the last eight months – as Nato leaders vetoed ceasefires and negotiations – range from 10,000 up to 50,000. The National Transitional Council puts the losses at 30,000 dead and 50,000 wounded.
Of those, uncounted thousands will be civilians, including those killed by Nato bombing and Nato-backed forces on the ground. These figures dwarf the death tolls in this year's other most bloody Arab uprisings, in Syria and Yemen. Nato has not protected civilians in Libya – it has multiplied the number of their deaths, while losing not a single soldier of its own.
(...)
The Libyan precedent is a threat to hopes of genuine change and independence across the Arab world – and beyond. In Syria, where months of bloody repression risk tipping into fullscale civil war, http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052970203405504....html to protect civilians. And in Africa, where Barack Obama has just sent troops to Uganda and http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-africa-15446110, the opportunities for dressing up a new scramble for resources as humanitarian intervention are limitless.
(...)
What the Libyan tragedy has brutally hammered home is that foreign intervention doesn't only strangle national freedom and self-determination – it doesn't protect lives either."
The message is crystal clear: because we care about people in Iran (or Libya, or Syria) we oppose imperialist aggression, while we support their own efforts to struggle for a new system.
Here it is a full version of the article. I think it is of interest for those arguing FOR humanitarian intervention.
If the Libyan war was about saving lives, it was a catastrophic failure
As the most hopeful offshoot of the "http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/arab-and-middle-east-pr...tests" so far flowered this week in successful elections in Tunisia, its ugliest underside has been laid bare in Libya. That's not only, or even mainly, about the YouTube lynching of Gaddafi, courtesy of a Nato attack on his convoy.
The grisly killing of the Libyan despot after his captors had sodomised him with a knife, was certainly a war crime. But many inside and outside Libya doubtless also felt it was an understandable act of revenge after years of regime violence. Perhaps that was Hillary Clinton's reaction, when she joked about it on camera, until global revulsion pushed the US to call for an investigation.
As the reality of what western media have hailed as Libya's "liberation" becomes clearer, however, the butchering of Gaddafi has been revealed as only a reflection of a much bigger picture. On Tuesday, http://www.hrw.org/news/2011/10/24/libya-apparent-execu...rters, military and civilian, in Gaddafi's last stronghold of Sirte, apparently executed – with their hands tied – by former rebel militia.
Its investigator in Libya, Peter Bouckaert, told me yesterday that more bodies are continuing to be discovered in Sirte, where evidence suggests about 500 people, civilians and fighters, have been killed in the last 10 days alone by shooting, shelling and Nato bombing.
That has followed a two month-long siege and indiscriminate bombardment of a city of 100,000 which has been reduced to a http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-africa-15454033 by newly triumphant rebel troops with Nato air and special-forces support.
And these massacre sites are only the latest of many such discoveries. Amnesty International has now produced compendious evidence of http://www.amnesty.org/sites/impact.amnesty.org/files/P...n.pdf, http://www.amnesty.org/en/library/info/MDE19/025/2011/en by the rebel militias Britain, France and the US have backed for the last eight months – supposedly to stop exactly those kind of crimes being committed by the Gaddafi regime.
Throughout that time African migrants and black Libyans have been subject to a relentless racist campaign of mass detention, lynchings and atrocities on the usually unfounded basis that they have been loyalist mercenaries. Such attacks continue, says Bouckaert, who witnessed militias from Misrata this week burning homes in Tawerga so that the town's predominantly black population – accused of backing Gaddafi – will be unable to return.
All the while, Nato leaders and cheerleading media have turned a blind eye to such horrors as they boast of a triumph of freedom and murmur about the need for restraint. But it is now absolutely clear that, if the purpose of western intervention in Libya's civil war was to "protect civilians" and save lives, it has been a catastrophic failure.
David Cameron and Nicolas Sarkozy won the authorisation to use "all necessary means" from the UN security council in March on the basis that Gaddafi's forces were about to commit a Srebrenica-style massacre in Benghazi. Naturally we can never know what would have happened without Nato's intervention. But there is in fact no evidence – including from other rebel-held towns Gaddafi re-captured – to suggest he had either the capability or even the intention to carry out such an atrocity against an armed city of 700,000.
What is now known, however, is that while the death toll in Libya when Nato intervened was perhaps around 1,000-2,000 (judging by UN estimates), eight months later it is probably more than ten times that figure. Estimates of the numbers of dead over the last eight months – as Nato leaders vetoed ceasefires and negotiations – range from 10,000 up to 50,000. The National Transitional Council puts the losses at 30,000 dead and 50,000 wounded.
Of those, uncounted thousands will be civilians, including those killed by Nato bombing and Nato-backed forces on the ground. These figures dwarf the death tolls in this year's other most bloody Arab uprisings, in Syria and Yemen. Nato has not protected civilians in Libya – it has multiplied the number of their deaths, while losing not a single soldier of its own.
For the western powers, of course, the Libyan war has allowed them to regain ground lost in Tunisia and Egypt, put themselves at the heart of the upheaval sweeping the most strategically sensitive region in the world, and secure valuable new commercial advantages in an oil-rich state whose previous leadership was at best unreliable. No wonder the new British defence secretary is telling businessmen to "pack their bags" for Libya, and the US ambassador in Tripoli insists American companies are needed on a "big scale".
But for Libyans, it has meant a loss of ownership of their own future and the effective imposition of a western-picked administration of Gaddafi defectors and US and British intelligence assets. Probably the greatest challenge to that takeover will now come from Islamist military leaders on the ground, such as the Tripoli commander Abdel Hakim Belhaj – kidnapped by MI6 to be tortured in Libya in 2004 – who have already made clear they will not be taking orders from the NTC.
No wonder the council's leaders are http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2011/oct/26/nato-stay-i...jalil, and Nato officials have let it be known they will "http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2011/oct/05/nato-debate...a-war.
The Libyan precedent is a threat to hopes of genuine change and independence across the Arab world – and beyond. In Syria, where months of bloody repression risk tipping into fullscale civil war, http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052970203405504....html to protect civilians. And in Africa, where Barack Obama has just sent troops to Uganda and http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-africa-15446110, the opportunities for dressing up a new scramble for resources as humanitarian intervention are limitless.
The once savagely repressed progressive Islamist party An-Nahda won the Tunisian elections this week on a platform of pluralist democracy, social justice and national independence. Tunisia has faced nothing like the backlash the uprisings in other Arab countries have received, but that spirit is the driving force of the movement for change across a region long manipulated and dominated by foreign powers.
What the Libyan tragedy has brutally hammered home is that foreign intervention doesn't only strangle national freedom and self-determination – it doesn't protect lives either.
"Nobody, at least on the left would be opposed to supporting issues such as trade union rights or gender equality. In the context of the strong possibility of Iran being subjected to an example of shock and awe, with horrendous causalities, such issues would mean little to the victims of regime change."
And how are we going to build support against the Imperialist threats if we ignore the repression in Iran? Irish people are not stupid and the MSM are also covering these issues. what do you say if someone asks you about that repression? Say its irrelevant? Iranian workers women and students are asking for support now.
Also, I've posted stuff here about Iranian human rights since 2006 and the argument you use above is always used. Will there ever be a time when its right for you to support human rights for Iranian people?
"Regarding demos, I have been on countless ones; never saw the need to make announcements."
But I'm talking about articles and credibility.
"To close on a lighter note, I must vehemently deny that I am an Iranian secret agent and any way you can’t prove it. Such an allegation may or may not be childish but it is certainly hilarious."
No. I make the point that you come across as too useless to be an Iranian agent. You described human rights as nonsense. Thats the stuff the neocons love to hear. You suggest that I am supporting imperialism. I have shown you examples of articles I have posted here since 2002 about Iraq, Iran & Afghanistan.
Where are your articles? What have you got to back up your allegation that I am a tool of the imperialists?
In the real world I have a track record of anti war activity. On Indy and elsewhere I have posted anti war articles for the last ten years. Yet you try to smear me as a tool of imperialists.
Pepe, Dave Landy, Anne McShane and I are known anti war activists and activists in other stuggles. We are the people with the public track records.
The runaway train came over the hill...
http://www.globalresearch.ca/index.php?context=va&aid=27584
bit of update on the coalition of the less willing...and more worried.
Strangelove seems to have taken the wheelhouse. With a little help from AIPAC of lobbying shekel-shakers.
Really not interested in a public track record, never felt the need for self-publicity. You have never commented on the massive loss of life in Iraq and Afghanistan, not to mention Libya, where ‘humanitarian’ intervention included shooting the head of state in the back of the head.
You seem unable to appreciate that your ‘campaign’ to criticise the current government in Iran can be used by US imperialism (in very minor way of course) as a propaganda tool to justify another effort at ‘regime change’ with more loss of life.
Your arrogant attitude would indicate that you seem unable to tolerate anyone having the audacity to actually disagree with you.
You will not have to worry about the Iranian embassy any more; comrade Gilmore has solved that problem for you.
"Really not interested in a public track record, never felt the need for self-publicity. "
Track records give people credibility. Its not self publicity, its a question of proving a dedication to a cause. over years
"You have never commented on the massive loss of life in Iraq and Afghanistan, not to mention Libya, where ‘humanitarian’ intervention included shooting the head of state in the back of the head. "
Thats a lie, not just a mistake, you you are deliberately lieing. All people have to do is scroll back up to see that I did write such articles. What motivates you to do this? You are not even fooling yourself.
"You seem unable to appreciate that your ‘campaign’ to criticise the current government in Iran can be used by US imperialism (in very minor way of course) as a propaganda tool to justify another effort at ‘regime change’ with more loss of life."
How can it be used when I also oppose all imperialist aggression against Iran. Did you even read the article w
hich starts off this thread? More lies from you. "Your arrogant attitude would indicate that you seem unable to tolerate anyone having the audacity to actually disagree with you." Any arrogance here is coming from you. You have repeatedly lied on this thread. Three other people with track records in the real world have backed up my points, Pepe, Dave Landy and Anne McShane.
"You will not have to worry about the Iranian embassy any more; comrade Gilmore has solved that problem for you."
What is that stupid remark supposed to mean?
Every point you make has already been answered. The fact that continue to peddle the same lies proves that you are just a troll.
Military intervention by imperialist powers solves nothing - just changes the power structure pretending to protect human rights and human lives.
Coming late to this massive thread I may have missed some of the nuances but it appears in general that people with similar passions and beliefs are in-fighting.
All those who genuinely support human rights, who oppose tyranny or injustice, and who really want to help create a better world can only do so much - IMHO, very little. But continuing to struggle on with that little is vital.
When abuses are highlighted in any country in the world - and they are happening in every country including our own - a letter or phone call or the signing of a petition is the best that most people can do. Marching and protesting are also extremely important as well as discussion and information.
When people march against war or work against famine they are on the same road. Don't get discouraged.
Thanks for the intervention.
I have no desire to quarrel with other anti-war activists. I know that Mullah has posted many, many, anti war articles under other names and is an activist in the real world.
I have my suspicions about Des because he keeps smearing me. Telling lies. Even when I have posted links to articles I have written about Iraq and Afghanistan. He continues on as if I'd never posted the comment
You have to ask: why would he do that? What could be his motivation?
Maybe hes just a sad lonely troll. But I wonder why he is so intent on disrupting anti-war activities.
I really don't think that it is a good idea to indulge the trolls. Some people seem more inteerested in smearing genuine anti-imperialists than in fighting oppression wherever it happens and whoever it comes from. I'd ask readers to remember the recent attempt to smear Yassamine Mather of HOPI as well as the homophobic attacks on Peter Tatchell who is another HOPI founding member . You'd wonder what these people have to fear from a relatively small organization like HOPI.
There doesn't have to be an either or situation in regard to the imperialists and the mullah regime in Iran and its attempts to build a nuclear capability in a tectonically prone area like Iran.
But the complexity has to be recognised. Its not any nuclear arsenal thats drawing Israeli and NATO ire, its the Saudi sectarian bias against Shia Islam, coupled to the drive to exclude China from Gulf oil and slow its modernisation.
And Saddam was certified nuke-free, but they painted the necessary evidence; and once Gadaffi dropped his they waited their chance for revenge..precisely Iran's logic for mutual deterrence against the primed and pointed Israeli arsenal.
I reckon a priority should be to not further destabilise the region...whatever the mullah agenda....the motives of NATO are NOT benign. If they were, their members would have healthier records. I doubt Libya will be run for its population(love to be proved wrong)and glance at Iraq, Afghanistan, Pakistan, Lebanon and Gaza tells us the rest.
Junior Cert question: Compare and Contrast the Occupy reaction in US/EU to Tahrir. No news there then. The neo-con century is still the program, no change. Global Nam a la carte.
..on the nuclear issue
http://www.globalresearch.ca/index.php?context=va&aid=27687
May be Israeli involvement in explosion at Iranian military base. The WSWS give a good analysis, more than just conspiracy theory. https://www.indymedia.ie/article/100928
cui bono?
I have been contributing on the other thread but have been aware that this post is put up by a definite Israel hater, PatC.
In his opening he shows that he is very sympathetic to Iran getting its Nuclear Bomb.
The discussion should deal with, but does not, the nature of the Iranian regime. I invite you to look at the entry on The Jewish Virtual Library and weigh up the information there in a serious manner.
http://www.jewishvirtuallibrary.org/jsource/biography/A....html believes the most important task of the Iranian Revolution was to prepare the way for the return of the Twelfth Imam, who disappeared in 874, bringing an end to http://www.jewishvirtuallibrary.org/jsource/biography/M....html lineage. This imam, the Mahdi or “divinely guided one,” Shiites believe, will return in an apocalyptic battle in which the forces of righteousness will defeat the forces of evil and bring about a new era in which http://www.jewishvirtuallibrary.org/jsource/History/isl....html ultimately becomes the dominant religion throughout the world. The http://www.jewishvirtuallibrary.org/jsource/Bible/shia.html have been waiting patiently for the Twelfth Imam for more than a thousand years, but Ahmadinejad believes he can now hasten the return through a nuclear war. Ayatollah Hussein Nuri Hamdani explicitly said in 2005 that “the Jews should be fought against and forced to surrender to prepare the way for the coming of the Hidden Imam.” It is this apocalyptic world view, Middle East scholar Bernard Lewis notes, that distinguishes Iran from other governments with nuclear weapons
This may be hard for many people who hate Israel and have been taught to hate Israel to take on board.
There is much more material on that source (simply Google) but if there is truth in this claim concerning The Twelfth Iman and the return of this figure, and if the Iranian leadership is based on this, then THIS is the explanation as to why Israel and the Jews of Israel (the vast, vast majority of them) and why many, many Arab leaders and their governments, are very, very scared of Iran.
There are also many, many threats of the Iranian leaders to destroy Israel. This is not just the one threat (translation by Memri disputed) from Ahmadinejad, but many, many threats.
It is this aspect to Iranian leaders that I think people in Ireland must focus on. All religions are based on faith and non-reason, but there is something different here that I think needs to be gone into.
In dealing with Iran, and the Iranian Nuclear Bomb, if it is developing a Bomb (all has to be examined in as scientific a manner as possible) it would be very wrong to take our mind off the big picture…and Libya…and the CIA spy/agent provocateur in the SWP and in the Irish Left, but especially Libya.
This raises the issue of the US and Iran. It has to be kept in mind that the US is involved in these issues not because it is a friend of Israel, because the US does not have friends, no more than Ireland has friends, but the US like all these states has “interests”.
I do not accept that the US was not involved in 9/11, I say that everything has to be examined in a scientific manner and there are no areas that the workers cannot go into.
This is a quote from Jared Israel. It deals wioth the events behind the first US interventions in Afghanistan, and predates Iraq and the present crisis on Iran.
Zbigniew Brzezinski: It's not exactly like that. We didn't push the Russians to intervene but we knowingly increased the probability that they would do it.
Le Nouvel Observateur: When the Soviets justified their intervention with the statement that they were fighting against a secret US interference in Afghanistan, nobody believed them. Nevertheless there was a core of truth to this...Do you regret nothing today?
Zbigniew Brzezinski: Regret what? This secret operation was an excellent idea. It lured the Russians into the Afghan trap, and you would like me to regret that? On the day when the Soviets officially crossed the border, I wrote president Carter, in essence: "We now have the opportunity to provide the USSR with their Viet Nam war." Indeed for ten years Moscow had to conduct a war that was intolerable for the regime, a conflict which involved the demoralization and finally the breakup of the Soviet Empire.
Le Nouvel Observateur: And also, don't you regret having helped future terrorists, having given them weapons and advice?
Zbigniew Brzezinski: What is most important for world history? The Taliban or the fall of the Soviet Empire? Some Islamic hotheads or the liberation of Central Europe and the end of the cold war?
Le Nouvel Observateur: "Some hotheads?" But it has been said time and time again: today Islamic fundamentalism represents a world-wide threat...
Zbigniew Brzezinski: Rubbish! It's said that the West has a global policy regarding Islam. That's hogwash: there is no global Islam. Let's look at Islam in a rational and not a demagogic or emotional way. It is the first world religion with 1.5 billion adherents. But what is there in common between fundamentalist Saudi Arabia, moderate Morocco, militaristic Pakistan, pro-Western Egypt and secularized Central Asia? Nothing more than that which connects the Christian countries...
http://emperors-clothes.com/interviews/brz.htm
He Brzezinski is saying in the above that what came first (For the US Imperialists…remember INTERESTS come first) was the fall of the Soviets and that he did not mind one little bit the rise of the Taliban, and the terrible suffering we know they brought onto many people, especially women and girls, as a result of the US actions.
I think it is very wise to keep this in mind in relation to the US and Iran...and Israel and the plight of the Jews as they contemplate an Iranian Nuclear facility.
I agree therefore with William Engdahl that the overall GLOBAL aims of the US have to be kept in mind and go further than Engdahl...these aims are related to the world economic crisis, and to the defeat of the very dangerous to them 99 per cent youth protest movement.
I doubt if the US will attack Iran. Certainly I do not think they want to attack Iran. It would be far better for their interests to co-opt these savage Mullahs and to bring them in on THEIR side against China and Russia (JUST AS THEY DID IN TUNISIA, EGYPT AND ABOVE ALL IN LIBYA)
But I believe that Iranian leadership is not based on reason, and can be likened to Hitler and the Nazis in their hatred of Jews as a people with their own nation and state, that drives these anti-Semites into a blind fury. Anything is possible with those emotions. The Jews of Israel are very scared of Iran and have a right to be scared. The Jews of Israel also need to be very scared of US Imperialism and that is the big, big lesson of the way that US and EU turned against Muammar Gadhafi and supported the Sharia Muslim Brotherhood which is heavily represented among whom Gadhafi called “The Rats”. Exactly the same applies to Syria...Assad must be defended unconditionally by the Irish Left.
I EMPHASISE ON IRAN ALL THE TIME THIS ISSUE OF NON REASON
Remember that Hitler and Eichmann (Eichmann actuall wondered at it) were speeding up the gassing of all Jews even when they knew by mid 1944 that their War was lost. the murdering of the Jews was in no way rational. I emphasise that on this issue of the Jews there is nothing rational about the Iranian leaders.
In relation to the Jews of Israel having a right to be scared about the role of US Imperialism, this is precisely why I am so opposed to Mark Humphrys on Libya (again simply Google) because Humphrys ties the Jews to US Imperialism and if not opposed will hasten the Jews to their end.
In short, Israel HAS TO defend itself by whatever means are necessary and must be prepared to act alone and place no trust whatsoever in US Imperialism. But for Israel and the Jews the Iranian Nuclear Bomb IS an existential issue.
I have been contributing on the other thread but have been aware that this post is put up by a definite Israel hater, PatC.
I hate the Zionist State of Israel. I do not hate the people of Israel be they Jewish, Muslim or Christian. In an ideal world there would be no states, In a better world than we have there would be a Democratic State of Israel-Palestine. We live in the real world however and in this benighted world perhaps the best we'll get is a two state solution.
"In his opening he shows that he is very sympathetic to Iran getting its Nuclear Bomb.
I'm not. I stand for total nuclear disarment, if that wasn't obvious from the opening story then it should have been from my comments.
However, Iran doesn't have a nuclear bomb. Israel has 300 nuclear bombs. now which one would you see as threal danger to world peace?
I may come back further on your comments on Syria etc but I'm going to publish a story on Syria first.
Seymour Hersh writes on the IAEI report. Full text at link.
Iran And The I.A.E.A.
By Seymour M. Hersh
The new report, therefore, leaves us where we’ve been since 2002, when George Bush declared Iran to be a member of the Axis of Evil—with lots of belligerent talk but no definitive evidence of a nuclear-weapons program...
to stop anyone talking about the Israeli nuclear jumbo destabilising the entire region..again, cui bono?Its like the schoolyard bully who comes up to his selected target and says 'you hit my little brother'. Bang.
the neighbourhood bully rounded up his gang
http://www.globalresearch.ca/index.php?context=va&aid=27731
and the profits from the tooling-up military/industrial mafiosi.
Indymedia Ireland is a media collective. We are independent volunteer citizen journalists producing and distributing the authentic voices of the people. Indymedia Ireland is an open news project where anyone can post their own news, comment, videos or photos about Ireland or related matters.