Posted: Tue Sep 25, 2007 6:09 am Post subject: Tatchell against (Ahmadinejad for) 911 Truth
Ahmadinejad for 911 truth
Ahmadinejad joined a growing list of world leaders to openly come out for 911 truth. During his historic visit into the Jaws of his enemy he said the following:
Ahmadinejad wrote:
I think the text read by the dear gentleman here, more than addressing me, was an insult to information and the knowledge of the audience here, present here. In a university environment we must allow people to speak their mind, to allow everyone to talk so that the truth is eventually revealed by all.
If the root causes of 9/11 are examined properly — why it happened, what caused it, what were the conditions that led to it, who truly was involved, who was REALLY involved — and put it all together to understand how to prevent the crisis in Iraq, fix the problem in Afghanistan and Iraq combined
Despite being falsely called a dictator Ahmadinejad faces re-election in 2009 and is the only middle east leader democratically elected.
Time Magazine wrote:
Ahmadinejad stayed on message, appearing relaxed, reasonable, open, even charismatic.
Hugo Chavez and Fidel Castro also recently came out for 911 truth
And the often misdirected issue of the Holocaust which most scholars agree has as many holes in the official US/UK story. Ahmadinejad also met with New York Jews who agree the Holocaust has been used as a money milking exercise and needs to be properly stated as a genocide against Jews not Ashkenazis and Zionists.
_________________
Joined: 25 Jul 2005 Posts: 1959 Location: South London
Posted: Tue Sep 25, 2007 12:56 pm Post subject:
Controversy over Iran continues. Some of our supporters maintain it is the most democratic country in the Middle East; some that it is approaching an ideal Islamic society; some that it should not in any way be criticised, as to do so would play into the hands of the Neocons who want to attack it; some maintain that even desiring peaceful "regime change" in Iran is clear evidence of someone being Islamophobic; some maintain that it is a major abuser of human rights, as Saddam's Iraq was, but should not be militarily attacked; but I have not come across any supporter of ours who, like the Neocons, maintains it is a major abuser of human rights and therefore should be militarily attacked.
I think we are all agreed: Hands Off the People of Iran
The following is a recent interview and article by Peter Tatchell on this very subject.
Hands off the people of Iran
Neither Washington nor Tehran. A war against Iran would be another
disastrous neo-imperial adventure, which would strengthen the Tehran
dictatorship. The overthrow of the clerical regime by the Iranian
people - not US military intervention - is the best way to resolve the
nuclear crisis and prevent a needless, unjustified war.
Peter Tatchell interviews Mark Fischer of Hands Off the People of Iran
and Yassamine Mather of Workers Left Unity Iran, 21 September 2007.
The Iranian regime is a neo-fascist state. It is notorious for unfair
trials, detention without charge, torture, executions, media
censorship, gender apartheid, bans on non-Islamist political parties,
the violent suppression of peaceful protests and strikes, and the
persecution of left-wingers, trade unionists, students, feminists, gay
people and religious and ethnic minorities.
The case for regime change is overwhelming, but it must come from
within – by and for the Iranian people themselves - not as a result of
US neo-imperial diktat. Many Iranians are hoping for a non-violent
Czech-style 'people power' democratic revolution, involving mass
protests by socialists, liberals, secularists, democrats, women,
students, trade unionists, religious dissenters and minority
nationalities.
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.
In contrast, US military intervention would strengthen the position of
the hardliners in Tehran; allowing President Ahmadinejad to play the
nationalist card and portray himself as a heroic war leader. It would
also give him an excuse to further crack down on dissent, using the
pretext of safeguarding national security and defending the country
against US imperialism. This would setback the struggle for democracy
and human rights.
Moreover, a US attack on Muslim Iran would increase the sense of
grievance felt by Muslims worldwide; radicalising Muslim youth,
fanning the flames of fundamentalism, increasing support for Islamist
parties and resulting in thousands of new recruits to the ranks of
Jihadis and suicide bombers.
Tragically, the leadership of the UK and US anti-war movements are
sleeping walking into making the same mistakes over Iran as they made
over Iraq. They are silent about the regime's despotism and
oppression. Mirroring Bush and Brown, they refuse to show solidarity
with the Iranian peoples' struggle for secularism, democracy, social
justice, human rights and self-determination for national minorities
like the Baluch, Ahwazi Arabs and Kurds.
The new campaign group, Hands Off the People of Iran, argues that both
US war and Iranian tyranny should be opposed in equal measure. Neither
Washington nor Tehran!
I never thought I'd say this, but after watching the video which was smuggled out of Iran I say to Bush: "go and invade Iran". If I was one of those repressed people of a clerical fascist regime I'd be mightily relieved to have regime change. Time is not on the side of those people and change within may never come about.
The Iranian regime is a neo-fascist state. It is notorious for unfair
trials, detention without charge, torture, executions, media
censorship, gender apartheid, bans on non-Islamist political parties,
the violent suppression of peaceful protests and strikes, and the
persecution of left-wingers, trade unionists, students, feminists, gay
people and religious and ethnic minorities
This is completely untrue.
Iran is the only country that guarantees seats in parliament for ethnic minoritites for example this gentleman is a Jewish member of parliament.
http://www.iranjewish.com/News_e/21-2.htm
Quote:
Following many referrals of Iranian Jewish soldiers and their families including the problems in doing their religious duties and supplying Kosher food in far-reaching regions or non-Jewish dwelling cities, several visits have been made with the Parliamentary Deputy of the Disciplinary Force, and in an agreement with the Maurice Motamed the Jewish member in the parliament, it was nearly agreed that the Jewish military soldiers -after passing their training course- could pass the remaining of their military service in the cities where they live, so that they do not face problems in doing their religious duties and supplying their food.
The Iranian parliament is unique in guaranteeing seats for ethnic and religious minority groups.
Ahmadinejad is himself a left winder so banning left wing protests when he is a poster boy for the left himself?
Basically everything Tatchell said is simply UK and USA propaganda without any basis. If the Iranian people are unhappy then in 2009 they can vote for someone else as president. However, Amadinejad is popular and is highly regarded not least because his decrees have included an increase of all Government workers wages by 40%, the formation of a Government home loan scheme and also the decree that 50% of University places for certain subjects including science must be reserved for women - hence encouraging more women to attend University.
It is sad that so few have actually attempted to speak to the Iranian President or seek the true opinion of Iranian Jewry who live in peace and practice their faith throughout that nation. We have met this man who has demonstrated time and again that he is sincerely interested in the well being of Iran's Jewish community and has deep respect for world Jewry and their Torah faith, The Zionist attempt to socially isolate this man and his people is immoral and disastrous.
New York police last week denied Ahmadinejad's request to visit the World Trade Centre site of the September 11 attacks. He said on Monday he meant only to pay his respects.
I never thought I'd say this, but after watching the video which was smuggled out of Iran I say to Bush: "go and invade Iran". If I was one of those repressed people of a clerical fascist regime I'd be mightily relieved to have regime change. Time is not on the side of those people and change within may never come about.
The video nearly made me sick!
Be mindful of the power of Propaganda ay?
Is it Iran and are they real or mocked? I ask the later Q because the slipknot doesn't seem to slip? Just my view nothing else. _________________ 'Come and see the violence inherent in the system.
Help, help, I'm being repressed!'
“The more you tighten your grip, the more Star Systems will slip through your fingers.”
Joined: 13 Sep 2006 Posts: 2568 Location: One breath from Glory
Posted: Tue Sep 25, 2007 4:26 pm Post subject:
We used to have hanging for criminals in this "democratic" society. US still has the electric chair but thats no excuse for regime change. 'We' are murdering millions of unborn children every year in UK US Europe si I get really p****d off when West tries to take moral high ground over other cultures.
If as Tatchell says the Iranian people want regime change then they can bring it about themselves without US military intervention.
Sounds to me just more anti iranian propaganda to control our minds to accept US imperial moves for the middle east.
Like so many other areas of controversy (peak oil, climate change, the NP and DEW theories on 9/11, etc) we do not have to all agree about this I say this because I know there are strong and divergent views held on Iran within the movement.
My personal take is this.
Our starting point should peace and respect for human rights and for the rights of ordinary people to control their own destinies through government by the people for the people
Our solidarity should be with the people of Iran and not necessarily for its government or president
Any regime change must be from within and the fascists in the US military indutrial complex are the last people to lead a 'crusade' for 'democracy'. Hands off Iran, no ifs no buts.
Anyone familiar with Mr Ahmadinejad's election will know there were serious questions raised about their fairness and legitimacy and many were surprised by his sudden rise to power.
Call me a cynic but I can't help having serious doubts about what Mr A is up to
There are various things that make me suspect he is deliberately (because his strings are being pulled) acting in such a way as to allow the West to portray him and by association the whole regime / country as a dangerous fanatic. Just as Saddam was undoubtedly the west's puppet and convenient bogey man I suspect Mr A is being played in the same way.
Well like I say call me a cynic but just as the powers of darkness funded and supported Hitler and Saddam's rise, in order to have a demon to fight so I see parallels here.
What 9/11 should teach us is war is a scam, a money making scam for the military-industrial-political-media-banking complex. Arms companies, banks, politicians .... all benefit hugely from war. But most of us good peace loving plebs don't want to fight so we have to be persuaded that there is no choice. In order to do this the PTB need their bogey men.
Whether by accident or design or western media distortion, Mr A is certainly helping them make their case in ways that he is surely not unaware of
Joined: 25 Jul 2005 Posts: 18335 Location: St. Pauls, Bristol, England
Posted: Tue Sep 25, 2007 5:20 pm Post subject:
By ignoring the Skull and Bones & well documented Bush Family Nazi links here and magically transferring that evil tradition on to the Iranian people Tatchell is placing himself squarely on the pro-Nazi side of the debate.
How perverse! Why does anybody listen to him....? Because he tells them what the rich and powerful want to hear. It just shows how nowadays what passes for public 'debate' is in fact entirely controlled and the truth (that Iran is about to be smashed by totalitarian superpowers much like Poland was in World War II) isn't getting a look-in.
No wonder God is contemplating wiping evil from the world forever when such pernicious propaganda is peddled as truth.
It breaks my heart that I can't even get my Verint article into a British Newspaper while they merrily peddle this tripe at the drop of a hat.
Peter Tatchell wrote:
The Iranian regime is a neo-fascist state. It is notorious for unfair
trials, detention without charge, torture, executions, media
censorship, gender apartheid, bans on non-Islamist political parties,
the violent suppression of peaceful protests and strikes, and the
persecution of left-wingers, trade unionists, students, feminists, gay
people and religious and ethnic minorities.
The case for regime change is overwhelming, but it must come from
within – by and for the Iranian people themselves - not as a result of
US neo-imperial diktat. Many Iranians are hoping for a non-violent
Czech-style 'people power' democratic revolution, involving mass
protests by socialists, liberals, secularists, democrats, women,
students, trade unionists, religious dissenters and minority
nationalities.
The Iranian regime is a neo-fascist state. It is notorious for unfair
trials, detention without charge, torture, executions, media
censorship, gender apartheid, bans on non-Islamist political parties,
the violent suppression of peaceful protests and strikes, and the
persecution of left-wingers, trade unionists, students, feminists, gay
people and religious and ethnic minorities.
The case for regime change is overwhelming, but it must come from
within – by and for the Iranian people themselves - not as a result of
US neo-imperial diktat. Many Iranians are hoping for a non-violent
Czech-style 'people power' democratic revolution, involving mass
protests by socialists, liberals, secularists, democrats, women,
students, trade unionists, religious dissenters and minority
nationalities.
What utter garbage - does anybody believe this?
There is a reason why Tatchell was promoted.
He was after all a poster boy for the army in particular its most imperialistic section, Sandhurst.
The US press is now running with the alleged homosexual bias of the Iranian president. Tatchell is, after being given a platform for 9/11, when he should have been exposed, now a poster boy for a neo-con assault on Iran.
The man is/was a controlled asset. The fact that he comes out with this garbage about a neo-fascist Iran just as the Yanks are about to attack them makes him plainly a warmonger. His true colours are finally ...coming out. No irony intended there.
PELLEY: Would an attack on your nuclear sites, in your opinion, give you leave to attack U.S. forces in the region or the U.S. mainland?
AHMADEINEJAD: Who is going to attack this country?
PELLEY: President Bush has pledged that you will not be allowed to possess a nuclear weapon and will use military force if necessary.
AHMADEINEJAD: I think Mr. Bush, if he wants his party to win the next election, there are cheaper ways and ways to go about this. I can very well give him a few ideas so that the people vote for him. He should respect the American people. They should not bug the telephone conversations of their citizens. They should not kill the sons and daughters of the American nation. They should not squander the taxpayers' money and give them to weapons companies. And also help the people, the victims of Katrina. People will vote for them if they do these things. But if they insist on what they are saying right now, this will not help them. Again, nobody can hurt the Iranian people. And history tells us that the people who have been less than kind to the Iranian people, they have lost out. What I'm saying, I am being very sincere here. I'm a Muslim. I cannot tell a lie. I am supposed to tell the truth. What I'm saying is that President Bush's conduct in Iraq is wrong. And his wrong conduct is behind his party losing the previous elections. This is very clear. The American people are very much dismayed with the behavior and the conduct of the present administration. They are not dismayed with Iran. In fact, the two nations are very close to one another. An example of that would be the letter sent to me by an American scholar a few days ago.
Joined: 10 Dec 2005 Posts: 2017 Location: Croydon, Surrey
Posted: Tue Sep 25, 2007 7:47 pm Post subject:
There is probably much to loathe about the Iranian regime but things cannot be as bad as they were under the US/UK puppet, the Shah.
A short story here......in 1975/6 I was teaching at a private college in Sussex. Amongst the students was a fairly sizeable Iranian contingent. They were aged from 17-22 and they seemed to me an unusually gentlemanly, mature and likeable bunch.
After a while I couldn't help noticing something unusual about them. Out of the classroom other groups, Africans, Chinese, white...tended to 'hang around' with each other. The Iranians did not. They all went their separate ways. I asked a colleague about this. He had noticed the same thing and had asked a couple of them what was going on. They told him that in Iran nearly everyone hated the Shah, but he had his agents and there was no knowing who these agents were.
For any of them to share their true feelings was very dangerous as next time they went home to their families they might find themselves taken out of the passport queue in the airport and shot.
I was very shocked by this story but it was no surprise later to see the Shah kicked out of power in 1989. After his removal there were one or two truly disgusting Ayatollas wielding immense power inside Iran. Who remembers the 'hanging' Ayatolla, Khalkali......I remember seeing a documentary about his handling of a child sexual abuse case. The abuser was found guilty, then both he....and the child.....were executed.
In spite of such horrors who can judge Iran after all the abuse it has undergone. Can viciousness and wickedness be quickly expunged from a system? I fear not.
This wickedness must surely be closely connected to the holding and exercise of power itself, as it is in any society.
Christ said it. "Satan is Prince of this world."
.......and that is every bit as true of our noble 'democracy' as it is of Iran.....so we should be careful of condemning other societies as barbaric, at least till we have put our own house in order.
It is interesting that in countries where the barbarism is extreme and its existence an uncontestable fact, that our so-called collective will, the United Nations, is unwilling to take any action at all.
Our solidarity should be with the people of Iran and not necessarily for its government or president
Any regime change must be from within and the fascists in the US military indutrial complex are the last people to lead a 'crusade' for 'democracy'. Hands off Iran, no ifs no buts.
Anyone familiar with Mr Ahmadinejad's election will know there were serious questions raised about their fairness and legitimacy and many were surprised by his sudden rise to power.
Was his rise to power any faster than Tony Blair?
He was the Mayor of Tehran and a popular working class, left wing politician who ran AGAINST the establishment. Unlike many other curropt leaders this guy wears the same suit EVERY day and lives in a 2 bedroom flat. He is like a Ghandi type of figure.
The election was a fair poll. Unlike Mr Bush's electric voting machine scandal or Mr Blair who only recieved less than 20% of registered voters support including many vote scandals including imprisonment for several Labour councillers.
What about asking for regime change in Saudi Arabia where every week hundreds have their heads and hands chopped of in every major town centre.
The only country in the entire Middle East that has ever had open and fair elections is Iran. The only country that guarantees seats for ethnic minorities is Iran.
It has been thoroughly proven that Mr Ahmadinejad when he announced that he wanted to see an end to ZIONISM this was misquoted in all the zionist press as saying that he wanted to 'wipe Israel from the face of the Earth'
Demanding an end to ZIONISM is something most people support so whats wrong with what he said?
Remember Iran has had sanctions since 1978 ish and still has them today. How a country can survive with sanctions for 30 years is astounding.
The reason they are building their own fighter jets and missiles is purely defensive. They have American and British troops massed on each of their borders, they have aircraft carriers off the coast waiting to carpet bomb the cities. They have Israel's 200 nukes waiting to be dropped. So what do you suggest they do?
The truth of the matter is that by making whole races to be evil such has successfully been done by the media they carry this on until every country is attacked, overthrown, destroyed, etc
Was nothing learnt from the recent John Pilger film?
I am surprised that some people are repeating the propaganda parrot fashion.
How many more regime changes do you want?
Why does iran have more plastic surgeons than any other country in the world?
Because so many people were burned by chemical weapons during the west's offensive against it in 1980-1988.
Since the Anglo Persian oil company was expelled in 1953 Britain and America have been meddling in Iran's affairs. They imposed the Shah Reza Khan upon the people who was one of the most cruelest and repressive people ever.
Then when he started going against israel they overthrough him and replaced him with the Ayatollah Khomeini who everyone recognised as being a CIA asset. So much so that George Bush senior made a deal to ensure that Jimmy Carter was turfed out of the White House.
Remember Iran Contra when Bush senior supplied weapons to Iran as a reward for Iran holding Americans hostage until Reagon won the election?
Iran has started selling oil for Japanese Yen. This is the real rerason America wants to attack. Iran is dumping the dollar and others are catching on fast.
The Shah was the most evil butcher in history, but his CIA replacement the Ayatollah was even worse. So how dare we tell the Iranian people that their own choice of leader today Ahmadinejad is no good and we want to impose a dictator like the Shah's nephew or someone else to replace their democratically elected leader.
just like we did with Mossadeq _________________
please supply your source to back up the Bush/Olmert/Sarkozy propaganda
While you are looking for the link allow me to show you how the UK/USA controlled Iraq is treating 'queers' as you call them
http://www.ukgaynews.org.uk/Archive/07/April/0301.htm
Since the U.S.-led invasion, homosexuals have been increasingly targeted by militias and police, human rights groups say.
Molly Hennessy-Fiske, Times Staff Writer
August , 2007 wrote:
BAGHDAD — Samir Shaba sits in a restaurant, nervously describing gay life in Iraq. He speaks in a low voice, occasionally glancing over his shoulder.
The heavyset, clean-shaven Christian says that before the U.S.-led invasion in 2003, he frequented the city's gay blogs, online chat rooms and dance clubs, where he wore flashy tight clothes, his hair long and loose to his shoulders.
After the invasion, he and other gays and lesbians were driven underground by sectarian violence and religious extremists. Shaba, 25, packed his flashy clothes away, started wearing baseball caps and baggy T-shirts and stopped visiting clubs and chat rooms. But he couldn't bear to cut his hair.
"I cannot change everything immediately," he said, fingering his black ponytail. "I suffered because I didn't cut it."
Recently, Shaba said, police commandos spotted his hair as he was riding in a taxi through a checkpoint in central Baghdad. Suspecting that he was gay, the four commandos dragged him out of the taxi by his hair, and forced him into an armored car. They demanded his cellphone, cash and sex.
When he refused, they beat him with a baton and gang-raped him. He rubbed the back of his shirt, feeling for the scars.
"They got what they wanted because I thought otherwise I would lose my life," Shaba said, and he began to weep. "They threatened me that if I told anyone, they would kill me."
Iranian University Chancellors Ask Bollinger 10 Questions
Global Research, September 25, 2007
Fars News Agency
Seven chancellors and presidents of Iranian universities and research centers, in a letter addressed to their counterpart in the US, Colombia University, denounced Lee Bollinger's insulting words against the Iranian nation and president and invited him to provide responses to 10 questions by Iranian academics and intellectuals.
The following is the full text of the letter:
Mr. Lee Bollinger
Columbia University President
We, the professors and heads of universities and research institutions in Tehran, hereby announce our displeasure and protest at your impolite remarks prior to Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad's recent speech at Columbia University.
We would like to inform you that President Ahmadinejad was elected directly by the Iranian people through an enthusiastic two-round poll in which almost all of the country's political parties and groups participated. To assess the quality and nature of these elections you may refer to US news reports on the poll dated June 2005.
Your insult, in a scholarly atmosphere, to the president of a country with a population of 72 million and a recorded history of 7,000 years of civilization and culture is deeply shameful.
Your comments, filled with hate and disgust, may well have been influenced by extreme pressure from the media, but it is regrettable that media policy-makers can determine the stance a university president adopts in his speech.
Your remarks about our country included unsubstantiated accusations that were the product of guesswork as well as media propaganda. Some of your claims result from misunderstandings that can be clarified through dialogue and further research.
During his speech, Mr. Ahmadinejad answered a number of your questions and those of students. We are prepared to answer any remaining questions in a scientific, open and direct debate.
You asked the president approximately ten questions. Allow us to ask you ten of our own questions in the hope that your response will help clear the atmosphere of misunderstanding and distrust between our two countries and reveal the truth.
1- Why did the US media put you under so much pressure to prevent Mr. Ahmadinejad from delivering his speech at Columbia University? And why have American TV networks been broadcasting hours of news reports insulting our president while refusing to allow him the opportunity to respond? Is this not against the principle of freedom of speech?
2- Why, in 1953, did the US administration overthrow Iran's national government under Dr Mohammad Mosaddegh and go on to support the Shah's dictatorship?
3- Why did the US support the blood-thirsty dictator Saddam Hussein during the 1980-88 Iraqi-imposed war on Iran, considering his reckless use of chemical weapons against Iranian soldiers defending their land and even against his own people?
4- Why is the US putting pressure on the government elected by the majority of Palestinians in Gaza instead of officially recognizing it? And why does it oppose Iran's proposal to resolve the 60-year-old Palestinian issue through a general referendum?
5- Why has the US military failed to find Al-Qaeda leader Osama Bin Laden even with all its advanced equipment? How do you justify the old friendship between the Bush and Bin Laden families and their cooperation on oil deals? How can you justify the Bush administration's efforts to disrupt investigations concerning the September 11 attacks?
6- Why does the US administration support the Mujahedin Khalq Organization (MKO) despite the fact that the group has officially and openly accepted the responsibility for numerous deadly bombings and massacres in Iran and Iraq? Why does the US refuse to allow Iran's current government to act against the MKO's main base in Iraq?
7- Was the US invasion of Iraq based on international consensus and did international institutions support it? What was the real purpose behind the invasion which has claimed hundreds of thousands of Iraqi lives? Where are the weapons of mass destruction that the US claimed were being stockpiled in Iraq?
8- Why do America's closest allies in the Middle East come from extremely undemocratic governments with absolutist monarchical regimes?
9- Why did the US oppose the plan for a Middle East free of unconventional weapons in the recent session of the International Atomic Energy Agency Board of Governors despite the fact the move won the support of all members other than Israel?
10- Why is the US displeased with Iran's agreement with the IAEA and why does it openly oppose any progress in talks between Iran and the agency to resolve the nuclear issue under international law?
Finally, we would like to express our readiness to invite you and other scientific delegations to our country. A trip to Iran would allow you and your colleagues to speak directly with Iranians from all walks of life including intellectuals and university scholars. You could then assess the realities of Iranian society without media censorship before making judgments about the Iranian nation and government.
You can be assured that Iranians are very polite and hospitable toward their guests.
Blackbear - excellent contribution
I have read and heard so many members of 911 'truth' openly spout the anti-Iran propaganda parrot fashion that finally the spin is being countered with the reality.
Now hopefully they will start to look into the facts for themselves.
Ahmadinejad is the only democratically elected president anywhere in the middle east. Yet most 911 truthers choose to ignore this fact. Most however refer to Mossadeq as their moral yardstick yet condemn the current president. _________________
Blackbear - excellent contribution
I have read and heard so many members of 911 'truth' openly spout the anti-Iran propaganda parrot fashion that finally the spin is being countered with the reality.
Now hopefully they will start to look into the facts for themselves.
Ahmadinejad is the only democratically elected president anywhere in the middle east. Yet most 911 truthers choose to ignore this fact. Most however refer to Mossadeq as their moral yardstick yet condemn the current president.
Hi Stellios
Can I ask how you know what you know about Iranian politics and Mr A?
When you say "Ahmadinejad is the only democratically elected president anywhere in the middle east." To claim this election was free and fare and that the IRI is a model democracy (as you appear to be doing) is not an undisputed fact. It is an opinion. Just as there are counter claims that the elections were not free and fair and the IRI is not a 'democracy' but a theocracy.
You appear in danger of seeing things in a very polarised, black and white way. Bush and his neo-con, nazi chums = bad. Ahmadinejad and the Islamic Republic of Iran = good. Those who question Mr A and the IRI's record = closet neo-con muppets, those who support Mr A = shining beacons of truth and light.
Life is rarely that simple and polarised and entrenched viewpoints plays directly into the PTBs matrix. How about this option? GWB = NWO puppet disguised as saviour, Mr A = NWO puppet disguised as saviour. There are layers within layers in this deception.
Just because I know GWB is a NWO puppet does not mean that I accept that his various bogey men (Saddam, OBL, Mr A, Mr Putin, etc.) are not also NWO puppets. Now can I prove Mr A is a NWO puppet in the same way I can GWB? No, I might very well be wrong.
But I have explained why I have reasonable doubts about Mr A and that doesn't make me a supporter of the neo-cons (or any kind of externally driven regime change) nor a gullible victim of western propaganda. It means I have a healthy scepticism of 'leaders' acting as the peoples' saviour, full stop.
I seem to see a different picture
1014 candidates had registered to run. There were about 90 female candidates. The Iranian presidential election of 2005, the ninth presidential election in Iranian history, took place in two rounds, first on June 17, 2005, and then as a run-off on June 24. It led to the victory of Mahmoud Ahmadinejad, the former mayor of Tehran, with 19.48% of the votes in the first round and 61.69% in the second. Ahmadinejad is believed to have won the second round because of his populist views, especially those regarding the poor people and their economic status.
Why is Britain with an UNELECTED House of Lords composed of absolute idiots like 'Baroness Amos' who actually make the laws called a democracy?
Why is the EU ruled by a politburo of APPOINTED COMMISIONERS who are failed politicians like Peter Mandelsohn and Neil Kinnock called a democracy?
This cabal of failed politicians actually make laws that supercede and usurp the laws made by people like 'Baroness' Amos.
Who are we to criticise Iran where over 1000 candidates stood for election including 90 women and over 30 million people voted in a fair and private ballot?
Ofcourse there is an upper chamber made up up of religious leaders very much like our own house of lords. So it is not 100% democratic. But neither are we. Is the USA a democracy where there is only 2 parties and who has the most money or buys more voting machines wins. I would say that Iran is very similar to France in it's electoral system.
Most countries have a lower house and an upper house.
The fact remains people were given a free choice of 7 candidates from left wing, right wing, centre, etc. Many of the 1000+ candidates had no support, or no qualifications and were rightly excluded. Like the elections for London Mayor only about 6-8 people will end up on the ballot with 99% of the others excluded.
The bottom line is:
The Iranian democracy is no less free and fair than the UK and we must respect the choice of the Iranians. Instead of rubbishing the fledling democracy should we not encourage it and condemn the dictatorships in Saudi Arabia, Pakistan, Egypt, Burma, and the apartheid government in Israel?
Why is it that democratically elected governments like Thaksin in Thailand get happily overthrown and rubbished yet dictatorships like Mubarrek and Musharref get praised? Exactly like what John Pilger said. _________________
Last edited by karlos on Wed Sep 26, 2007 2:48 pm; edited 1 time in total
The hypocrisy is breathtaking: Ahmedinajad is the President of a country that has neither invaded nor occupied anybody else's country, nor engaged in mass murder, let alone genocide, a country that has sought its legal rights to peaceful nuclear technology and has complied with the IAEA.
In contrast, the US has invaded two countries, transforming them into blood-soaked rubble, with the survivors enjoying neither legal nor human rights, and provides financial and political support for the Israeli genocide and war crimes against a third people, the Palestinians (not to mention the vicious Israeli bombing of Lebanon last summer). Neither the US nor its "ally" Israel, are members of the nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty, nor do they allow inspections of their massive arsenal of weapons of mass destruction, which they wantonly use to commit some of the worst war crimes and crimes against humanity in human history.
I neither agree with, nor defend Ahmedinajad's statements about, nor with Iran's legal oppression of, homosexuals.
But the Bush administration, and the Zionist Judeofascists who are screaming for Iran to be turned into another Iraq, or Afghanistan, or Palestine, are not motivated by devotion to human rights, whether for Iranian homosexuals, or anybody else. Whoever believes that, has had their head up their behind during the past 60 years or so.
There is no legal, moral or rational justification for bombing Iran, whether with nuclear (!!) or conventional weapons. None. Neither is there any justification for imposing economic sanctions on Iran, unless far more severe sanctions are imposed on their accusers, who happen to include far worse criminal states, such as the U.S. and Israel.
So, as with Afghanistan, Iraq, Palestine and Lebanon, a mash of lies, half-truths, racist incitement and panic-mongering is offered up to stir hatred against another people, to demonize them in order to justify their enslavement and even mass murder.
The bottom line is:
The Iranian democracy is no less free and fair than the UK.
No disagreement from me there, since the effective censorship of the mainstream media, the tightly controlled functioning of the main parties and MI5 dirty tricks against progressive alternatives mean that I have no more faith in UK (or US) democracy than I do Iranian.
To be clear, I (and I believe everyone else here) is absolutely and 100% against any military intervention against the sovereign nation of Iran.
All I'm doing is questioning the unqualified support for Mr A. Really not that difficult to understand. As I say, my suspicions may be misplaced.
I neither agree with, nor defend Ahmedinajad's statements about, nor with Iran's legal oppression of, homosexuals.
While i agree with this sentiment it is not clear that the current administraion since 2005 of Ahmadinejad has been involved in any oppression. Like in most countries the Judiciary is seperate from the state.
And the two alleged homosexuals who were hanged are officially listed as rapists who allegedly raped an underaged boy. The same footage and the same photo is quoted by all the gay rights groups. I dont know anything other than what is reported in the media but i am pretty sure that alot more people get hanged in Saudi Arabia, China and the USA than do in Iran. I am against the death penalty in whatever country but it is important to remind ourselves that the USA under George Bush is the world's number one executer of people many of them later found innocent.
Might i remind everyone that up until 1967 homosexuality was technically illegal in the United Kingdom and ages of consent only lowered in the last 10 years. And can i further remind everyone that Blacks and Minorities were not given the vote in USA elections until after 1965. Iran today may not be the most liberal of countries but are we really saying that we are going to invade a country crippled by 30 years of sanctions and murder over a million people simply because we want to impose gay rights. Because if that is the case should we then also invade Saudi Arabia which DOES openly execute gays and what about countries like Jamaica which have zero gay rights?
ian neal wrote:
I see nothing hypocritical in this. Do you?
No you are quite right Ian and i admire your stance, i personally distrust everything my government and media says about ANY issue. I have particularly realised that their rhetoric against Iran is the same as their build up to previous invasions. Mr A may not be an angel but i am pretty sure he is not the demon he is made out to be either.
As i said before, the evil Shah was once considered the darling of the west until he came out against Israel and refused to join NATO. _________________
Last edited by karlos on Wed Sep 26, 2007 4:10 pm; edited 1 time in total
There is no legal, moral or rational justification for bombing Iran, whether with nuclear (!!) or conventional weapons. None. Neither is there any justification for imposing economic sanctions on Iran, unless far more severe sanctions are imposed on their accusers, who happen to include far worse criminal states, such as the U.S. and Israel.
So, as with Afghanistan, Iraq, Palestine and Lebanon, a mash of lies, half-truths, racist incitement and panic-mongering is offered up to stir hatred against another people, to demonize them in order to justify their enslavement and even mass murder.
I never thought I'd say this, but after watching the video which was smuggled out of Iran I say to Bush: "go and invade Iran". If I was one of those repressed people of a clerical fascist regime I'd be mightily relieved to have regime change. Time is not on the side of those people and change within may never come about.
The video nearly made me sick!
A CHANGE OF MIND
I think I have learnt something from this thread and changed my attitude. It appears that the information sent to us by Peter Tatchell can cause people to change their minds about Iran to sympathise with the Neocons who want to attack it. Gulp! Pegasus is one such person and not the only one, I imagine.
That was never my intention in posting what Peter sent and, knowing Peter as I have for many years, I am sure it is not what he intended either.
SINCERITY
Of course some will argue Peter knows perfectly well that he is encouraging an attack on Iran although he says he is doing the opposite, but some find it impossible to believe in the sincerity of anyone who disagrees with them. My position was similar to Peter’s: that human rights should never be sacrificed to other interests and therefore all violations of human rights should be exposed regardless of the consequences.
ACUTE DANGER OF WAR SPREADING
Now I feel we are threatened with a new war or, as the Neocons see it, a new stage in the War on Terror: namely an attack on Iran by the US, probably with the connivance of Britain and other countries. Due to operations getting bogged down amidst the appalling slaughter and mega-abuses of human rights in Iraq and Afghanistan, a land invasion of Iran seems unlikely. More likely is that desperation to conceal their crimes will drive the Bush government to create an excuse to bomb Iran and perhaps, God forbid, to use nuclear weapons.
POSSIBLE SCENARIOS
After the exposure of their lame excuses for attacking Iraq and the partial exposure of their justification for attacking Afghanistan, their excuse will have to be pretty believable to be effective. A number of possibilities spring to mind:
- a missile attack from within Iran on neighbouring countries such as Turkey, Israel, Pakistan, carried out by US special forces infiltrated into Iran, made to look like an attack by Iran on its neighbours; this would induce its neighbours to retaliate and perhaps invade, and to call for US aerial support
- an attack of some kind within the US, perhaps assassinating George Bush in the process, blamed on Iran and justifying a declaration of martial law by President Cheney
- any combination of these scenarios
Exposure of these possibilities will be inclined to make them less likely to occur and I fervently hope they do not.
PRECEDENTS
We should not forget that WW2 was started by Operation Himmler, a series of simulated Polish attacks on Germany all along their common border, designed to convince the German press and people to defend themselves from a Polish invasion http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Operation_Himmler Nor should we forget the bogus Gulf of Tonkin incident which was used to justify US troops being sent in to Vietnam. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gulf_of_Tonkin_Incident
FOLLY OF WESTERN ATTITUDES
We should also bear in mind that many Western writers, prior to the 2003 invasion of Iraq, argued that so appalling were human rights abuses there, that a Western invasion was necessary to spread freedom and democracy. I have no doubt that the current war in Iraq constitutes a far greater abuse of human rights than the undoubted tyranny of Saddam Hussein’s government. Any attack on Iran will doubtless unleash similar chaos or worse there and may spread the war even more widely.
DIFFICULTY OF DETERMINING TRUTH
I never thought I would find myself in favour of suppressing information, unless it was disinformation, and I am not convinced by the arguments of Stelios and others on the thread that it is disinformation. I have worked with refugees for many years and learnt from them about human rights abuses in the various countries they have fled, including Iran. Of course, in the current warmongering climate I expect truth to be the first victim and I expect both sides to put out disinformation in order to reinforce their respective positions. Therefore I take with a pinch of salt the glowing picture of Iranian freedom and democracy painted by some on this thread, though I don’t expect it is as bad as the picture painted by the Western media.
I am reminded how Comrade Lenin was so good at devising political structures which on paper looked very democratic, but in reality were authoritarian and oppressive. I travelled in Communist countries a fair amount during the Cold War and used to enjoy watching officials squirm when I publicly asked them questions such as “How can you describe your country as ‘democratic’ when all opposition is illegal?”
AN HISTORICAL PARALLEL?
I do not have a firm view on the Katyn Forest Massacre of Polish troops by Soviet Russian troops in 1940, but I have some sympathy for the way the British suppressed the truth about that in order to encourage the US to ally with them and the Russians against Nazi Germany which had taken over Europe. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Katyn_Massacre
The Russians said the Germans had perpetrated the massacre, but the British knew it had in fact been done by their allies, the Russians. Given the huge Polish population in the States, the British judged revealing the truth would scupper their efforts to persuade the US to join the war and therefore connived with Russia to censor the information. Only in 1989 did the Russians admit to the truth which had been sacrificed in the interests of defeating the Nazis.
MY DECISION
In the current atmosphere of acute sabre-rattling against Iran, I shall not be posting any more information about human rights abuses there. I know it may be a question of accepting an evil in order not to encourage an even greater evil - a position I thought I never would argue for.
Thanks to the largely level-headed posters on this excellent thread, particularly stelios, who seems to know exactly what time it is.
I cannot offer an unbiased opinion, as my life was once saved by a very perceptive Iranian doctor. Without his diagnosis, I would not be alive today.
In my dealing with Iranians, I have never experienced anything bad or untoward. This alone will probably label me an 'enemy of the State' by any Zionist reading this.
Mr ArmoredDinnerJacket came out of the Columbia Uni mess with flying colors, IMO. He did an excellent job of showing America the mass cognitive dissonance they are now struggling under, thanks to Zionist domination of their media.
It's a pity this BBS does not offer a 'Poll' function. If there were one I would be posing the following question:-
From your own researches, who do you think is responsible for the most genocidal activity in the last 100 years?
1) Communist Stalin
2) Nazi Hitler
3) Zionist Kissinger
4) CIA Fascist GHW Bush
5) Aristocrat Kitchener
6) Theocrat Khomenei
7) Oligarch Rockefeller
8) Plutocrat Rothschild
No-one is perfect but I don't see any reason beyond 'geopolitic' for the zionist generated hysteria over the last country in the middle east to hold out against western central bankers.
.
posting - take 7
Just thought i would add this although we have already read it, it is connected to this thread.
President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad met with a group of Jewish rabbis who gave him a silver grail as a sign of friendship.
The president is currently in New York to address the United Nations General Assembly.
The rabbis carried a placard which read, "I am Jewish not a Zionist."
A senior rabbi of the group said that they considered the visit to New York of President Ahmadinejad as an exceptional opportunity and would never forget it.
He referred to the Iranian president as a person who made a distinction between Jews and Zionists.
"You understand us and make a distinction between the violent behavior of Zionists and the religious beliefs of Jews," said the senior rabbi who called President Ahmadinejad "a pious man who is seeking to restore peace in the world and has humanitarian plans." Appreciating the rabbis for their gift, President Ahmadinejad said he was happy to visit them.
"All people in the world have now understood that Judaism is different from Zionism," said the president.
He added, "Zionists are a political group looking for taking advantage of the opportunities while Jews are the followers of the Moses who promoted peace and friendship."
President Ahmadinejad stressed that there was no disagreement between the followers of Judaism, Christianity and Islam as they all pray the same God and are brothers.
The president said the future belongs to the monotheist faiths and that liars would be eliminated.
He stressed that all followers of divine faiths were responsible to promote monotheism and defend peace, justice and brotherhood. _________________
Whilst the Iranian President landed in the USA the terror networks of mass propaganda for wars of conquest for the Texas oil mafias around the world continued their 'honourable' tradition of propaganda. A case in point being Radio 4.
They wheeled out V. S. Naipaul who has been awarded a Nobel prize for 'literature' and he was on record calling ..."islam a vacuous religion", promoting the 'war on terror' and the Clash of Civilisations nonsense from the US Pentagon.
To what extent people will buy this nonsense from used oil snakesmen like Brown is an issue. The media has been in overdrive promoting Miliband and making references to his academic father. As if this will stop the reaction in the Straits of Hormuz if they launch a suicidal war and will stop oil going up to $200 a barrel.
How will Radio 4 justify people travelling to work on foot when prices skyrocket beyond most peoples means if war breaks out with Iran?
This the propaganda merchants from Radio 4 haven't worked out. They require their ex-colonial ghettoised subjects like Naipaul to sell something which cant be sold. A new war.
You cannot post new topics in this forum You cannot reply to topics in this forum You cannot edit your posts in this forum You cannot delete your posts in this forum You cannot vote in polls in this forum You cannot attach files in this forum You can download files in this forum
FAQ
Search
Memberlist
Chat
Usergroups
Calendar
Register
Profile
Log in to check your private messages
Log in
