Chaikhaneh

No evidence Iran is arming insurgency

2007-09-04T01:48:00.000+01:00

The Western media rarely challenges the United States on its quite unsubstantiated accusation that Iran is arming the insurgency, even though it is demonstrably false. Iran's UN spokesman M.A. Mohammadi, said:

"the recent accusations about Iran's role in sending arms and 'explosively formed penetrators' to Iraqi extremists to foment a civil war in the neighboring country are completely false and baseless."

Commenting on Iran's role in Afghanistan and Iraq he said, "the leaders of both these countries have praised Iran's constructive, good-neighbor policy toward them," and asked the U.S. government, "to proffer evidence regarding its accusations and to provide the list of Iranian agents who it alleges are operating in Iraq," which they have to date been unable to do.

Moreover, 85 percent of the detainees in U.S. custody are Sunnis. The 15 percent of Shia detainees are mainly from the Jaish al-Mahdi. Whereas Iran is more closely associated with their rivals, the Badr organisation. Therefore it is absurd to claim that Iran is arming the insurgency, yet the media stil do.

British forces flee Basra

2007-09-02T20:13:00.000+01:00

British forces are at present withdrawing from Saddam's place, or more accruately they are fleeing Basra; a city that they could no longer hold.

The troops stationed in the airport are, to use the military parlance, marking time. There can no longer be any military justification for their continued presence, since they are doing little more than defending themselves.

The USA has ceased to be relevant

2007-08-25T02:29:00.000+01:00

The relationship between Iraqi Prime Minister Nuri al-Malaki and the U.S. dictatorship in Iraq, which has always been tempestuous, has now deteriorated further. Much to the annoyance of his U.S. overlords; al-Malaki rubbished the preposterous claims that Iran is destabilising Iraq as the U.S. Government likes to claim. In fact al-Malaki pointed out the reverse is true and thanked Iran for its “positive and constructive” role in “providing security and fighting terrorism in Iraq”.

The comment not only earned rebuke from the beleaguered U.S. President, they also led to the following threat: ”my message to him is, is that when we catch you playing a non-constructive role there will be a price to pay.”

A rebuke that Prime Minister Nuri al-Malaki is not going to heed. His response the U.S. President criticism of his administration was even more assertive. He said:

“No one has the right to place timetables on the Iraq government. It was elected by its people. Those who make such statements are bothered by our visit to Syria. We will pay no attention. We care for our people and our constitution, and can find friends elsewhere.”

This statement represents a recognition in the Iraq government of the now irrelevance of the United States: the ignominious defeat of British forces in the South and the failure of the U.S. surge to quell the rise of factional violence or the insurgency has left al-Malaki government in no doubt that the U.S. forces have to all intents and purposes already been defeated and that there is no appetite in the United States to reverse that outcome: troop withdrawal is inevitable.

Thus al-Malaki is looking to the future; a future in which the United States’ role in Iraq will be limited; he is no doubt also aware that should Hillary Clinton win the U.S. presidency he would not be able to count on her support. She said this week that Iraq needs a “less divisive and more unifying figure.”

In fact whilst politicians in the United States make much of the Iraq’s sectarian divisions and urge a national unity government, this is fundamentally undemocratic and quite fraudulent, it is not for Iraq’s sake that they wish a pluralist government. An estimated 63% of the population are Shia. However, that is only if one includes Kurdistan, which is effectively a separate entity from Iraq. Certainly the main Kurdish parties are separatists. Thus if the Kurds are discounted, and properly they should be, since they do not consider themselves Iraqis; Shia constitute nearly 79% of the Iraqi population and Sunnis only 21%. Thus the sectarian divisions in Iraq are overplayed; in truth Iraq is a Shia country.

It is this reality that the United States government continues to supress: were they ever serious about installing democracy, they would support Shia majority rule and an Iranian style Islamic democracy; instead of doing all they could to prevent it. Yet it is clear that the United States cares little for Iraqi democracy; preferring anarchy and civil war to another autonomous Shia state in the region.

As ineffectual as al-Malaki has been as premier, the fact that he was willing to publicly chastise the U.S.A. and actively court Iranian and Syrian influence, despite incurring Washington’s displeasure, is significant since it reflects the mood on the street.

First Casualty of War

2007-08-19T02:17:00.000+01:00

The British and U.S. media are reporting that Britain has lost the war in Basra and is no more than an observer in the battle for control of Basra, having been disengaged for some time. The Independent on Sunday adds that British generals are now calling for British forces to be extradited from the South without delay.

However, what is being reported here is not new; it is that which was already known. Indeed, I reported the British surrender back in February 2007, which followed the provocative British assault on the Jamiat Police Station in December 2006, this was a pivotal event, yet was not treated as such in the Western media.

It is no exaggeration to say that the British media has hitherto been complicit in the wilfully misleading of the British public about the true extent of the British military demise in Iraq.
“In war, truth is the first casualty.” (Aeschylus, 525 BC - 456 BC)

The Exploitation of Iranian Jews

2007-08-05T16:17:00.000+01:00

Jonathan Cook, a Jewish writer living in Nazareth, writes an excellent article in Al-Ahram about the exploitation of Iran's 25,000 strong Jewish population. Yet it is not the Islamic Republic of Iran whom he accuses; rather it is the Zionist regime.

The Execution of Jafar Kiani

2007-07-14T01:33:00.000+01:00

The Meydaan organisation has reported that Jafar Kiani was executed on the 6 July 2007 in Iran. They also reported that Dr. Alireza Jamshidi, the Iranian judiciary spokesman, gave a press conference on Tuesday 10 July 2007, in which he reputedly said, "Lately there has been a stoning sentence executed by a judge in Takistan branch," contrary to the existing moratorium on stoning but "the woman’s [Mokarrameh Ebrahimi] sentence is stayed now." Adding, "The extent to which the ban order can deprive a judge from independence is a long discussion, but a judge can act independently, although with the order of the Head of Judiciary, it is necessary to exercise more caution in issuing and executing these sentences."

However, this press conference does not appear to have taken place; it was not reported by either the Iranian or attended by anyone from the international media. In fact, contrary to the Maydaan assertion, the Iranian government has not confirmed the execution of Jafar Kiani, as is clear from UN rapporteur on Human Rights, Louise Arbour's statement, she in fact requests official confirmation from Iran that this event occurred.

How therefore did a Western based organisation attend a press briefing and no one else appears to?

This is not to say this execution did no take place: it may very well have done. However, if this is the case, far from the Iranian State executing this man; it is a local judge in defiance of the order of the Head of the Judiciary. Thus the Iranian State would have been powerless to prevent this and not culpabale nor indeed is stoning an offence against international law.

So what is the haste in the Western media's reporting of this incident? In the absence of facts they are bereft. Until such time as the Iranian government provides a detail account; all claims are mere conjecture and rumour. It is noteworthy that previous reports of executions by U.S. sponsored groups have transpired to be factually inaccruate.

Amnesty International and Human Rights Watch have never accruately reported an Iranian execution since 2005. Yet when the Western media quote these organisations' claims; this is never stated. This is dishonest reporting.

Iran's Success Depends on National Determination

2007-06-30T11:34:00.000+01:00

Yesterday, President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad said of the Government decision to ration gasoline, "The plan's success depends on national determination."

Quite. The decision is certainly the most courageous of his presidency and the most necessary, as Ayatollah Jannati Tehran's Substitute Friday prayers leader suggested, "The huge oil asset should be used for reconstruction," and should have been implemented long ago. Khatemi's Government were grossly incompetent for failing so to do. Iran imports 40 percent of its gasoline from 16 countries at an annual cost of $5 billion, due to a lack of refinery capacity. This is the one economic weakness that the West could have exploited.

However, the decision to do what no previous President has had the courage to do - ration gasoline - will dramatically cut national oil consumption and end Iranian dependency on foreign countries thus neutralising the threat of any UN Security Council sanctions. In effect, Iran has preempted the sanction. This is why the move has not seen widespread protest to date. The country has remained surprising unified in the face of an otherwise unpopular decision.

The widely anticipated riots and protests have not occured much to the consternation of Western powers. Instead there have been a few sporadic acts of vandalism, which were denounced by Majlis Speaker Gholam-Ali Haddad-Adel thus:

"I think it is inappropriate to consider those who vandalize public property and buildings a part of the nation. Rather, they are a deceived minority who commit such shameful acts because of the promises of the enemies".

This would clearly not have been so had Iran not faced external pressures: Iran after all, is on a war setting. Thus this a barometer of Iran's national determination, as Ahmadinejad suggests.

Yet, this is no temporary measure nor indeed should it be. Raising prices at the pump does nothing to reduce oil consumption; it only hurts the poor. Thus the only effective way to reduce oil consumption is rationing. Every country, not just Iran, should be using rationing to reduce oil consumption. Those that do not will find themselves economically vulnerable.

This is not to say that Ahmadinejad will not suffer in the next election for such a policy, however it may also play to his advantage: he took decisive action and he will be judged against the progress of the nuclear programme too. Moreover, there is another consequence of this decision, which will play to his and Iran's benefit: it will radically reduce foreign spending, which in turn will strengthen the economy.

MKO remains on European terror list

2007-06-30T11:21:00.000+01:00

The European and North American based Iranian terrorist group, the Monafiqeen-e-Khalq (MKO), is to remain on the new list of European Union terrorist groups. Last December The European Court of Justice annulled the EU decision to include the group on the proscribed organisations register in 2002 due to a procedural irregularity.

The Monafiqeen-e-Khalq had sought to legitimise itself by insisting that the court rejected the decision, yet as EU officials noted, the court did not fault the decision itself, just the manner in which is was taken.

Any other decision would have fundamentally undermined the EU's international credibility.

Oliver Stone Ahmadinejad Documentary

2007-06-30T11:10:00.000+01:00

Interestingly the Hollywood filmmaker Oliver Stone plans to direct a long documentary about Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad. Stone has made a formal request for permission from Ahmadinejad's office to launch his work.

Iranian film director Alireza Sajjadpour told ISNA, "The request was made some three months ago. Stone is a professional filmmaker on social and political issues. As a filmmaker I'd like his request to be accepted." Alas, I suspect that unlikely. After all the Iranian authorities regarded his film Alexander pornographic. Even so it will be interesting to see Stone's documentary; I hope it addresses why he is so popular in Iran; rather than solely focusing on his relations vis-a-vis the West.

Human Rights Abuse Masquerading as Human Rights Advocacy

2007-06-28T15:01:00.000+01:00

Amnesty International professes concern about human rights in Iran, yet this very organisation maintained a wall of silence about Shahist Iran, which was one of the most brutal regimes, if not the most brutal, of the Twentieth Century. Whatever one may think of the Islamic Republic of Iran, no country has improved its human rights record as much as Iran has since 1979. Whilst undoubtedly human rights abuses do still occur in Iran; it was the Islamic Revolution that introduced both democracy and civil liberties to Iran: there were neither under the despotic Western backed Shahist regime.

Amnesty International's claim to be a non-governmental organisation are palpable nonsense; throughout its history it has been indirectly funded by various Western governments, and certainly promotes Western interests. This is particularly so in the Middle East. Amnesty International is a resolutely pro Zionist organisation, which fuels its hostility towards the Islamic Republic of Iran - the only independently autonomous Islamic State.

Thus Amnesty International devotes far more energy in opposing the legitimate democratically elected government of Iran than it does any other government, even though Iran has the best human rights record of any country in the Middle East and is the only democratic State in the region. Amnesty International rarely censors illegitimate and undemocratic governments supported by the West, such as the Saudi and Israeli regimes.

The conflict of interest and inconsistency is all too obvious. Amnesty International's report, "Iran: the last executioner of children", is testament to that. The Iranian government and judiciary has resolutely said that Iran does not execute children; yet Amnesty International, which is able to exhibit no evidence to the contrary, still would has us believe that Iran does, notwithstanding that the organisation has neither offices nor investigators in Iran.

Thus Amnesty International makes these claims without corroboration or any means of reliable validation. To do so is undeniable racist, since they Amnesty would not adopt such low standards before accusing a Western government of lying. In fact, Amnesty International fails to point out that in Iraq, Afghanistan and Palestine, children are routinely executed without trial by the occupying forces.

However, a more startling piece of hypocrisy is that Amnesty International lionise Shirin Ebadi and even have gone so far as to suggest that she is a human rights lawyer. Nothing could be further from the truth; she was personally appointed by the Shah to serve as a judge at the age of 27, six months after graduating in law. Thus she has never been a lawyer of standing in Iran; rather, she acquired her position through nepotism.

More importantly, she served in the judiciary under the Shah for ten years before the Islamic revolution. The judiciary under the Shah were complicit in the torture and murder of millions. Political prisoners, including children, were: tortured to near madness on Apollo machines, sexually mutilated, raped and sentenced to death in absentia. This is the standard of justice and human rights that Shirin Ebadi, Nobel laureate, supported in Iran throughout the seventies, which is why she will always be loathed in Iran.

Prisoners were not maltreated and statements were not coerced

2007-04-06T23:20:00.000+01:00

The recently released British Royal Marine Commandos and Royal Navy Sailors detained by Iran for illegal entry into Iranian territorial waters, were "paraded" in front of the British media to deliver scripted speeches, in a press conference blatantly stage-managed by the Ministry of Defence. Contrast this to their statements given to al-Alam, that were by the former prisoners' own admission unscripted and freely given.

Moreover, their self-described treatment at the hands of Iran was by any military standard, exemplary. They were not physically coerced; threatened with physical coercion; subject to sleep deprivation; stress positions; or cruel and unusual punishment. In fact, they were only blindfolded when transported and adequately cared for. Segregation of suspects during interrogation and plea bargains are not unreasonable.

However, the British claims of harsh treatment are undermined by the recently released Iranian video.

And least we not forget; they were arrested for entering Iranian water. A point the British government can no longer sensibly contest, it now having been revealed by Royal Marine Commando Captain Air that their mission was to gather intelligence on Iran. A point buttressed by Royal Navy Lieutenant Carman's admission that Occupation forces have only made sixty-six boardings in a four week period in the Persian Gulf. Tellingly, the Royal Navy has now ceased all boardings. Carman admission that the HMS Cornwall is tasked with guarding vital Iraqi oil platforms, which are situated outside Iraqi territorial waters, cast further doubt on the British claims to be operating within Iraqi water.

Furthermore, there is no internationally recognised border between Iran and Iraq in this waterway; a point that has been clarified by the United Nations. Thus the British government suggestion to the contrary is manifestly untrue.

All of which seems to have escaped the ever compliant British media.

Prisoner negotiations

2007-04-04T22:41:00.000+01:00

The Royal Navy and the U.S. 5th Fleet have been playing chicken in Iran's territorial waters for sometime, Iran responded to this posturing with its own, hence the recent Iranian war games and the Pasdaran's recent etching of their symbol on to a U.S. warship situated in the Persian Gulf.

However after the abduction of Iranian diplomats who were serving members of the Pasdaran, the U.S. elevated it security levels and warned Britain to do the same. So it is curious they did not and continued to violate Iranian water, particularly as Sartip Dovom Qassem Suleimani, the commander of the Pasdaran al-Qods force stated that Iran would respond to these abductions. Thus the capture of 15 Royal Marine commandos and Royal Navy sailors in Iranian waters should come as no surprise.

Moreover, Iran has always been very clear that this was a preplanned move, Sartip Yahya Rahim Safavi, commander of the Pasdaran, gave the order to intercept Royal Navy and U.S. Navy vessels that stray into Iranian waters the day before. Iran has been equally clear that the intent was to deliver a message that Iran would not tolerate such violations anymore. Iran has positively avoided conflating this issue with the release of the abducted Iranian diplomats, which is of considerably less concern to Iran than violations of its territorial waters. The release today of the Iranian diplomat, Jalal Sharafi, who was abducted by the 36th Commando battalion - a death squad that operate closely with U.S. forces - was welcomed by Iran but ultimately inconsequential.

Furthermore Ayatullah al-Uzma Khamenei, ordered that the matter should be dealt with by the Supreme National Security Council, hence contrary to British claims, the Foreign Office was well aware that the matter was being dealt with by Ali Larijani, yet they maintained the facade that they was confusion. In any event, negotiations could have taken place through the Iranian Foreign Minister, Manouchehr Mottaki. Britain choose not to pursue this route.

Britain miscalculated, believing Iran would not respond to these repeated provocations, then was ill-prepared to deal with the consequences when Iran did. Blair found it politically inconvenient to acknowledge that the Royal Navy has for some considerable time been operating illegally in Iranian waters, thus he has produced a cacophony of allegations and claims, none of which he can substantiate.

The British government, for reason best known to itself, sought to internationalise the conflict and vilify Iran. Yet this was to no account. The issues was expediently resolved once British Foreign Office issued a letter to the Iranian foreign ministry, giving assurances that such an incident would not occur again and that Britain would respect Iran territorial sovereignty. Hence, agreeing not to operate inside what Iran regards as its territorial waters.

The Missing American

2007-04-03T22:23:00.000+01:00

The U.S. media is reporting that a former unnamed FBI agent has disappeared in Iran on the island of Kish. FBI spokesman Rich Kolko suggested, "at this time, there are no indications that this matter should be viewed other than as a missing-person case," and U.S. State Department spokesman Sean McCormack said, "we have been monitoring this situation for a couple of weeks now." Citing privacy concerns, McCormack declined to divulge the man's name, age or occupation.

However what is curious, is that the U.S. State Department has also not divulged this information to the Iranian government, the U.S. would be obliged to providing his name, flight details, passport number if they wished Iran to try and locate him. They have thus far failed so to do. Another curious aspect is that it is admitted that this mystery man has previously served in the FBI, which would have precluded him entering Iran, without U.S. approval and would be grounds for arrest and detention if discovered by the Kish authorities.

Iranian Propaganda

2007-04-02T02:07:00.000+01:00

The Western MSM is incensed by Iran's blatant use of the captured Royal Marine commandos and Royal Navy sailors for propaganda purposes. The occidental chauvinism and hypocrisy is astounding. one would never have thought that it was in fact the British media who first sought to use their personnel for propaganda purposes; that the British media, without any evidence, followed the British Foreign Office line that the prisoners were detained illegally in Iraqi territorial waters, failing to accurately report that Iraqi territorial waters have yet to be established and consequently the British claims have no merit in international law; the Royal Navy acknowledged that the waters they were detained in are claimed by Iran.

Instead the British media ran stories about Faye Turney and vilified Iran for holding a mother hostage. Of course, forgetting to mention that had an Iranian mother been on the crew of a fully armed Commando team entering British water, she too would have been detained. Iran's response was a calculated quid pro quo. Iran is on the one hand showing how these prisoners are unharmed and well treated, yet on the other how vulnerable and helpless they are. Knowing that this places pressure on the British government to resolve the issue.

However, having seen that despite being obviously scripted the World's media would eagerly report what they said, Iran has adeptly used the prisoners to convey messages to the World public. As much as the Western media will never admit it; it own anti-Iranian propaganda has been shamelessly, thus it is hardly surprising that Iran would respond in this way. Moreover, despite Western claims there is no treaty that prevents it. They are not prisoners of war, and whilst the environment they are in is coercive, there is no evidence of physical coercion. I imagine that Iran will continue to exploit the prisoners for propaganda purposes, whilst the British government continues to do the same.

Brinkmanship Unwise in Uncharted Waters

2007-04-02T01:51:00.000+01:00

Consortiumnews.com has published a rather good article on the eight RM Commandos and seven RN sailors detained by Iran for illegal entry into Iranian waters questioning the sense of the British strategy.

The frenzy in America’s corporate media over Iran’s detainment of 15 British Marines who may, or may not, have violated Iranian-claimed territorial waters is a flashback to the unrestrained support given the administration’s war-mongering against Iraq shortly before the attack.

The British are refusing to concede the possibility that its Marines may have crossed into ill-charted, Iranian-claimed waters and are ratcheting up the confrontation. At this point, the relative merits of the British and Iranian versions of what actually happened are greatly less important than how hotheads on each side—and particularly the British—decide to exploit the event in the coming days.

Call that humiliation?

2007-04-02T01:45:00.000+01:00

Terry Jones writing in the Guardian quips,

I share the outrage expressed in the British press over the treatment of our naval personnel accused by Iran of illegally entering their waters. It is a disgrace. We would never dream of treating captives like this - allowing them to smoke cigarettes, for example, even though it has been proven that smoking kills. And as for compelling poor servicewoman Faye Turney to wear a black headscarf, and then allowing the picture to be posted around the world - have the Iranians no concept of civilised behaviour? For God's sake, what's wrong with putting a bag over her head? That's what we do with the Muslims we capture: we put bags over their heads, so it's hard to breathe. Then it's perfectly acceptable to take photographs of them and circulate them to the press because the captives can't be recognised and humiliated in the way these unfortunate British service people are.

Iran replies to Blair's sabre rattling

2007-03-29T03:05:00.000+01:00

Faye Turney in her own words:

"My name is Faye Turney. I come from England, I live in England at present. I have served on F99. I have served in Navy nine years, I was arrested on Friday on 23rd of March which obviously has passed internal waters.

"I was treated friendly and hospitable they are nice people, they explained why we were arrested, and there is no aggression, no hurt, no harm, they are very very compassionate."

Rarely has the Pasdaran been described such. When members of the British created Jundallah terrorist group were captured they were asked to reveal all they knew, in turn they were offered a swift execution for this information: most willingly accepted the offer, which was how Iran was able to prove British links. The old adage is true, everyone talks.

The Iranian government was under no illusion that Turney appeared terrified: she was supposed to be. The purpose of the interview was not to comfort the British public; rather it was to demonstrate the reality of the Royal Marine Commandos situation: one of desperation, helplessness and fear, that it might pressure the British government to resolve this situation with an apology. Instead, of maintaining it current unnecessarly confrontational stance.

Blair's bellicose has proved counterproductive; maintaining the extraordinary fiction that they were in Iraqi waters, when they were in Iranian waters, and threatening to elevate the situation to the "next phase", has demonstrable improved Iran's international standing. The Iranian Foreign Minister received a late invite to the Arab summit after the event occurred and received support from Saudi Arabia, no less, over its position. Both Russia and China have warned The United States against military action and contrary to U.S. claims of conducting war games, the Occupation forces are being decidedly less provocative.

Britain threat to take the matter to the security council, led to Iran threatening to retract its goodwill gesture of releasing Faye Turney. It may be possible to expedite the release of the prisoners by the return of the Iranian diplomats abducted by the United States, although I am doubtful: Iran wants a straight admission that the British forces were in Iranian waters. However Blair is not prepared to do that at this stage, thus he is unnecessarily jepordising the safety of those 15 Royal marines Commandos and sailors.

British Sponsored Terrorist Release Iranian Prisoners

2007-03-27T14:56:00.000+01:00

Jundallah, the Wahhabi terrorist group released the three members of Iran's Disciplinary Force (police) that it abducted in eastern Sistan and Baluchetan, earlier this month and then took into Pakistan, where they were held hostage.

Meanwhile Blair has suggested that if the British commandos being detained by Iran for illegally entering Iranian water are not released presently, the situation will move into a "new phase".

Iran has said that Jundallah has links with British SIS, which of course Britain denies. However the release of these hostages would suggest otherwise.

Iraqi General confirms that Royal Navy were in Iranian waters when captured

2007-03-26T01:17:00.000+01:00

IRIB reports

The Commander of Iraq’s Coastal Guard Brigadier General Hakeem Jassem, in an interview with al-Alam News Network Saturday, condemned the illegal entry of British forces into Iran’s territorial waters and said the 15 British troopers were detained outside Iraq’s waters by Iran’s naval border guards.

The Iraqi Commander termed the intrusion of British forces into Iran’s coastal regions as questionable, making it clear that his forces cannot support the British claims that their forces were captured by the Iranians in the Iraqi side of the waterway.

He disclosed that British marines and sailors stopped a commercial ship inside Iran’s territorial waters and boarded it, forcing the Iranian border guards to interfere and arrest the British troopers.

The detained British forces have confessed to their illegal entry into Iran’s territorial waters.

15 Royal Navy and Royal Marines Captured in Iranian Waters

2007-03-23T15:52:00.000Z

15 Royal Navy sailors and Royal Marines from the frigate HMS Cornwall have been arrested by the Pasdaran for illegally crossing into Iranian territorial waters when they boarded a merchant vessel in the Arvand rud.

The Royal Navy routinely encroaches into Iranian territorial waters without incident. Thus the capture of these servicemen - given that the incident is set to coincide with tomorrow's UNSC vote on a resolution against Iran and President Ahmadinejad's speech before that body - was undoubtedly preplanned, set to serve as a timely reminder of the vulnerability of Occupation forces in the region. The Pasdaran etched their symbol into an U.S. warship on the 15 February 2007, a symbolic act to demonstrate their ability to sink the vessel.

Much of the Western MSM are already reporting that the incident occurred in Iraqi territorial waters, without acknowledgement that Britain dispute Iranian territorial waters in the Arvand rud, or explanation as to why the Royal Navy would be patrolling that water. They are certainly not there to prevent smuggling operations or cross border infiltration.

Iran may be prepared to trade the British servicemen for the Iranian diplomats illegally taken hostage by the United States, however I think that doubtful.

Ahmadinejad to respond to UNSC in person

2007-03-16T00:42:00.000Z

The draft resolution of sanctions against Iran agreed by the five permanent members of the UNSC and Germany, that has been submitted to the non-permanent members for consideration, will no doubt be approved. To say the additional sanctions are weak is an understatement. The resolution ammounts to little more that an unenforceable restriction on Iran exporting arms yet no ban on the sale of arms to Iran; an asset freeze on Bank Sepah, which will have little impact; an utterly meaningless call on nations to end all financial assistance and loans to Iran, save "for humanitarian and developmental purposes", which will be promptly ignored; and in the event that Iran refused to forgo its legal right to rich uranium (which of course Iran will) the matter will be returned to the UNSC for possible further "non-military" sanctions.

Yet as weak as this document is, there is every sign that Iran will reciprocate robustly, President Ahmadinejad responded thus:

"They have created a body named the Security Council and they say that it is responsible for defending world security. But thanks God, the curtains of lie were unveiled and everyone saw this council has no role but trampling upon nations' rights and voicing support for the crimes and policies of certain arrogant powers, and all nations have now found out that this council is just a tool."

"They say that they want to impose sanctions on us. But when have we asked them for anything. Have you ever rendered any help to us that you want to take it back? You must know that we will never seek your help and assistance. You boycotted us and we gained nuclear technology, now if you impose sanctions on us, you will see the Iranian nation taking the next steps of progress."

"You must know that every resolution you pass, you create more problems for yourselves and move away from the settlement of the issue."

"What Iran is doing is 100 percent legal. The Iranian people will continue their path with much power and might and no one can backtrack from this path even for an inch."

Furthermore, President Ahmadinejad has submitted a formal request to be heard in person at the UNSC meeting when the resolution is passed. There is no doubt that his intent is to respond to the resolution; such a response is likely to be significant. It is certainly not inconceivable that he plans to announce Iran's intent to withdraw from the NPT and thus hasten the inevitable. It would be advantageous to do so, when the likely consequence is an escalation in economic and political sanctions; not the use of military force.

Coming to Terms with Iran's Nuclear Programme

2007-03-04T01:06:00.000Z

Iran has no interest in developing nuclear weapons and less still of using them
Michel Rocard, the former prime minister of France, leader of the Socialist Party and member of the European Parliament writing in Haaretz contemplating military action on Iran, states:

"First, resorting to force is simply not realistic. A nuclear strike would have incalculable consequences, and the Muslim world would in this case stand together. Nor is a conventional attack possible, as Israel has no common border with Iran and most of the American army is tied up in Afghanistan and Iraq."

He further opines:

"The only possible framework for negotiations is the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty (NPT), concluded in 1968. Iran was one of the first countries to sign and it cooperated with the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) for more than 30 years - a relationship that deteriorated only in the last three years. But the current climate of mutual wariness between Iran and the self-proclaimed triad of Germany, Great Britain and France (with sporadic U.S. support) is not propitious to effective negotiations.

The West's aim, announced by the U.S. and adhered to by the triad, is to force Iran to give up uranium enrichment. Yet the NPT is clear: Any signatory that gives up nuclear weapons and accepts the IAEA's absolute and unconditional control is entitled to produce electric energy from civil nuclear sources, and to receive technical and financial support from the international community, if necessary. Iran's oil resources are not infinite and it wants to have complete control over the civil nuclear field - a basic right as an NPT signatory.

I cannot see how a negotiation aimed at getting Iran to unilaterally renounce a right recognized for all NPT signatories simply in order to build confidence in the West could be successful. Uranium enrichment is certainly the first condition for making bombs, but the level of enrichment must reach about 95 percent, compared to the 3.5 percent needed for energy production."

The solution to the current nuclear dispute is remarkably simple: the United States, Great Britain, France and Germany need to put aside their Zionist foreign policy agendas and look at the situation logically: Iran has no interest in developing nuclear weapons and less still of using them. Iran does however have a legitimate need and desire to produce its own nuclear energy. Thus the U.S. and the European troika could end this crisis, which is entirely manufactured, by simpling accepting Iran's nuclear energy programme. To do so would no doubt involve some loss of face, however there is no appetite in the United States or Europe for a war with Iran, therefore any deal that ends the crisis and averts this possibility would be widely welcomed as a victory for diplomacy.

Teachers protest against Hashemi Rafsanjani

2007-03-03T13:37:00.000Z

Hundreds of teachers staged a sit-in demonstration in front of Majlis building today, in protest of the Assembly of Experts failure to address their demand for a pay increase. The teachers hold the Assembly of Experts Chairman, Akbar Hashemi Rafsanjani, personally responsible.

It has been reported in the Western media that Hashemi Rafsanjani is in ascendancy and that President Ahmadinejad has become increasingly unpopular. In fact, the reverse is true, Ahmadinejad is more popular on the Street now, than he was when he gained 17 million votes in the 2005 presidential election, defeating Hashemi Rafsanjani. It is in the Majlis that Ahmadinejad is deeply unpopular - he always was - he represents neither the Conservative nor Reformist wings. He is Iran's political outsider.

In the Western media, Iranian politics is reduced to Conservatism versus Reformism -or "Mullahs" versus "secularists". Yet the reality is both are from the clerical classes and both support the Islamic revolution and the current Iranian model of Islamic democracy. Where Ahmadinejad differs to the Iranian political elite is that he is of the people and for the people. This in itself antagonises the clerical elite, however his rejection of oligarchy and his avocation of the redistribution of wealth, egalitarianism and ethical trade is an intolerable affront to that elite, which is represented by Hashemi Rafsanjani and Sayyed Mohammad Khatami. The alliance between the two is certainly a threat to Ahmadinejad and Iranian democracy.

However, it is utter nonsense that Iran's current diplomatic confrontations with the West have been instigated or exacerbated by Ahmadinejad; it was Britain, under directions from the United States, that sabotaged the EU troika negotiations with Iran over its nuclear programme, which incidentally the West believes to be a peaceful nuclear programme. The West willfully tried to torpedo the reformists and advance the presidential hopes of Hashemi Rafsanjani in the the belief that Hashemi Rafsanjani was a "pragmatist" (i.e. corruptible) and therefore was more susceptible to Western bribery.

This strategy failed as anyone with an once of intelligence and the slightest knowledge of Iranian politics ought to have foreseen. President Ahmadinejad was elected on domestic issues - the nuclear dispute was not a feature of the 2005 presidential elections. The current confrontation with the West plays to Ahmadinejad's advantage. Iranians have seen a war with the United States and its clients states on the horizon since the invasion of Iraq: it does not unsettle them. To report the ascendancy of Hashemi Rafsanjani or forecast that he will succeed Ayatullah al-Uzma Sayyed Khamenei, as Supreme Leader, as many Western media outlets are doing, is once again, to misread Iranian politics. It is most improbable that the Assembly of Experts would entertain the idea of electing him Supreme Leader, since he does not have the support of the Street and could not command the loyalty of the Basij or Pasdaran.

The Arrest of Sayyed Ammar al-Hakim

2007-02-24T14:13:00.000Z

Commenting on Friday's arrest and 11 hour detention of Sayyed Ammar al-Hakim - the son of SCIRI president and United Iraqi Alliance leader, Sayyed Abdul Aziz al-Hakim - spokesman for the U.S. embassy in Baghdad, Lou Fintor said:

"What I can tell you is that at this point we understand that Mr. Hakim was arrested by soldiers who were doing their duty. He was not singled out, and we understand the soldiers were following standard procedure since the border was closed."

This is simply untrue. Sayyed Mohsen Al-Hakim, said that his older brother was unlawfully arrested and detained along with several bodyguards in Badre, located in the border between Iran and Iraq on the pretext that his passport had expired, even though it expires in September 2007 and that in any event, it is not the responsibility of the Occupation forces to check passports at entry points; that responsibility belongs to the Iraqi police. Moreover, both the Iraqi President Jalal Talabani and President of the Kurdistan Regional Government Massoud Barzani, have denounced the arrest as illegal.

Talabani’s office issued a statement declaring:

"President Talabani judges that the treatment of Seyyed Al-Hakim was uncivilized and indecent, and he has demanded that the American leadership hold those behind it responsible".

Sayyed Ammar al-Hakim said of his arrest and detention: "Senior (U.S.) officials intended to arrest me, and these officials gave instructions to personnel at the site." He also asked: "Is this the way to deal with a national figure? This does not conform with Iraq's sovereignty".

This was undoubtedly a deliberate preplanned act of aggression against the SCIRI, the United Iraqi Alliance, the Iraqi government (including the PUK and KDP), Sayyed Abdul Aziz al-Hakim and the Shia. The United States has publicly accused Iran of interfering in Iraq's internal affairs and supporting the insurgency. A claim that was dismissed on Saturday by Sayyed Ammar al-Hakim as "unfounded and mere propaganda," and has never been supported by the Iraqi government, President or Prime Minister. Sayyed Ammar al-Hakim also stated that Iran is a friend of the Iraqi people and a benevolent country.

In fact, the Iraqi Prime Minister Nuri al-Maliki has previously accused the Occupation forces of destabilising region, saying: "If anyone is responsible for the poor security situation in Iraq it is the Coalition".

Moreover, if there was ever any question as to the United States implacable hostility towards Shia Islam and the Islamic Republic Iran, President George W. Bush, spelt it out in his State of the Union Speech 2007 when he stated: "In recent times, it has also become clear that we face an escalating danger from Shia extremists who are just as hostile to America, and are also determined to dominate the Middle East." Bush also attributed much of the blame for this too the Islamic Republic of Iran, notwithstanding that the elected Iraqi government is predominately Shia and pro Iranian, hence the very people whom Bush refers to as "Shia extremists". In fact, not only is the United Iraqi Alliance pro-Iranian, so too are the main Kurdish parties, the PUK and KDP.

Far from supporting the elected Iraqi government, the Occupiers are actively undermining it. The United States is not interested in stabilising Iraq; quite the reverse, the United States is opposed to an autonomous Shia government of Iraq - much of the anarchy in Iraq can be attributed to this. Thus General Sir Richard Dannatt statement, "we can’t wish the Islamist challenge to our society away and I believe that the army both in Iraq and Afghanistan and probably wherever we go next, is fighting the foreign dimension of the challenge to our accepted way of life", applies not only to the insurgents in Iraq but also to the elected "Islamist" Iraqi government.

Over eighty percent of the popular vote in Iraq's last national election went to political parties with close political connections to Iran and the Shia constitute over sixty percent of the electorate and even more of the population - individuals of Iranian descent were denied Iraqi citizenship under Saddam Hussein, a policy that has been continued by the Occupiers. Conversely the United States is regarded as a colonial occupier, which has fermented ethnic and sectarian factionalism.

Recent U.S. allegations that Iran's Pasdaran Qods force has supplied EFPs (explosively formed penetrators) to Iraqi insurgents, which have been flatly rejected by the Iraqi government, are part of a concerted propaganda campaign to demonise Iran. The United States has used these allegations as a pretext to carry out illegal raids on an Iranian diplomatic mission in Arbil, in which five Iranian diplomats were abducted, and on an SCIRI compound, in which two Iranian diplomats were abducted. Moreover, earlier this month, U.S. warplanes attacked a PUK guard post in Mosul killing eight Pesh Merga after President Talabani visited Iran. These acts were all clearly designed to serve as warnings to Iraqi politicians not to engage with Iran.

The arrest and detention of Sayyed Ammar al-Hakim has to be seen in the same light: as a warning to his father, Sayyed Abdul Aziz al-Hakim, vis-a-vis his strong political relationship with Iran. However, the United States massively underestimated the significance of abducting Sayyed Ammar al-Hakim. The reaction from within the Iraqi government has been robust and defiant. President Talabani demanding the culprits be punished and the SCIRI calling for the occupiers to leave Iraq has ended all pretense that the Iraqi government and the United States are on the same side. The U.S. Ambassador to Iraq, Zalmay Khalilzad was forced to issue a speedy apology and to preposterously claim that the United States did not "mean any disrespect to Abdel Aziz al-Hakim or his family". It is very significant that Kurdish and Shia politicians have rejected the apology and explanation; the balance of power has now firmly shifted into Sayyed Abdul Aziz al-Hakim favour.

British Surrender of Basra

2007-02-21T19:38:00.000Z

The announcement of the British surrender of Basra to Iraqi forces and the announcement of a phased troop withdrawal serves as a timely refutation of the U.S. claims that Iran is arming the insurgency and the much touted prospect of a U.S. military attack on Iran. If either was true, then it would be pure insanity for British forces to scale down or hand control of Basra over to Shia militias, when the city is situated on the Arvandrud - the easiest cross-way for Iran's Pasdaran (IRGC) to enter into Iraq.

State sponsor of terrorism

2007-02-20T01:50:00.000Z

Deputy chairman of the Iranian parliament's National Security Commission, Mohammad Nabi Roudaki said of Wednesday's terrorist attack in Zahedan, which martyred eleven and injured thirty-one members of the Pasdaran (IRGC), "the arsenals used in the criminal act were US-made, while the documents and proofs show that the terrorists were supported and led by the US."

The Security Operations chief in the Iranian province of Sistan and Baluchestan, Brigadier general Mohammad Ghaffari had previously stated that three of the terrorists have admitted under questioning links to the United States and British intelligence services.

Nasrollah Shanbe-Zehi one of the principle perpetrators was publicly hanged in Zahedan on Monday morning, after he confessed on national television and admitted to British and U.S. involvement.

War with Iran

2007-02-17T19:06:00.000Z

Despite the Bush administration’s sabre rattling, it is far from certain that the United States will go to war with Iran; in fact, there is every indication that it will not be able to do so during George W. Bush’s presidency. For it is important to recognise that for this current U.S. administration, diplomacy is war by other means. Their belligerence is not incidental, it is intentional; this administration is fundamentally Zionist and hegemonic, and have repeatedly demonstrated a disinclination for diplomacy where they believe strategic or ideological objectives could be realised through force of arms alone. Furthermore this administration is committed to the overthrow of the legitimate and democractically elected Iranian government (Iran Freedom and Support Act of 2005). From the Bush administration’s perspective, they are already at war with Iran; in fact, George W. Bush used his State of the Union Speech to emphasis that point, broadening the enemy to Shia Islam. Thus, this begs the question: why has this U.S. administration not already launched an attack against Iran?

If one sees the United States as already at war with Iran, as this administration does, then it is clear that they are losing. U.S. diplomacy and economic warfare has failed to prevent Iran from enriching uranium and will not stop Iran from continuing its nuclear fuel programme, as both the Bush administration and European Union have already conceded; in fact economic warfare has shown that Iran does not need European investment or European custom. Conversely, the European Union and Turkey are very venerable to an Iranian oil and gas embargo. Hence the avoidance of military action to date is very telling. It would be extraordinarily naïve to think that Bush has thus far been prevented from trying to emulate Alexander the Macedonian by the niceties of international law, which he ignored when he waged war on both Afghanistan and Iraq.

In fact, whilst the Bush administration has been able to manipulate a series of confrontations and fabricated confrontations with Iran to its advantage in the English speaking media – hence they have been able to present an image of Iran (and thus Islam) as inherently evil - there is still little domestic support in the United States for military action against Iran - U.S. public opinion is very much opposed to military action against Iran. Moreover, the speaker of the House of Representatives, Nancy Pelosi has stipulated, George W. Bush categorically does not have the legal authority to launch a military attack on Iran, without the House’s approval. Thus the likelihood of war with Iran during George W. Bush’s presidency is not a measure of his intent; it is a measure of the willingness of the House of Representatives to authorise such a course. The Iranian government does not believe that they would and with good cause: any attack would run contrary to the U.S. national interest unless it brought about regime change in Iran and regional stability to the Middle East, which even the most optimistic of Pentagon military strategists do not envisage.

The U.S. military is currently hampered by its occupation of Iraq and Afghanistan; even were this not so, any U.S. force invading Iran would be heavily outnumbered. Moreover, whilst 52% of the U.S. military consists of badly trained and poorly motivated reservists and National Guard (46% of the US army in Iraq in 2005), Iran conversely has a highly motivated and well trained army, Pasdaran (IRGC), and Basij (volunteers), as well as an armed civilian population, with nearly every man having served two years in the military. The recent Israeli invasion of Lebanon saw the Iranian trained Hezbullah guerrilla force, outnumbered 20 to 1, yet they defeated the U.S. armed Israeli army in the battlefield within 34 days. That is a good indicator of the utter infeasibility of a U.S. invasion and occupation of Iran - the United States simply does not have the military capability.

Moreover, not only would the United States need exponentially more men under arms to occupy Iran than it presently has to commit, the likely reduction in Iranian oil and gas production on its own would send the energy markets spiralling out of control, however the consequences of an invasion are likely to lead to anarchy and insurgency throughout the Middle East. There are 200M Shia in the World over 100M situated in the Middle East, as the map indicates Shia are sitting on the majority of the World’s oil and natural gas reserves. Even most Saudi oil is situated is the predominately Shia Eastern Province, in the Qatif and Abu Sa'fah oil fields. A Shia uprising would certainly disrupt Middle Eastern oil and natural gas exports - most the World’s natural gas reserves are held by Russia, Iran and Azerbaijan – and both the U.S. and European economies are utterly dependent on Middle Eastern oil. For this reason, any U.S. military attack on Iran that threatens Middle Eastern oil exports would be economic suicide.

Therefore the most likely scenario for a U.S. military attack would be an aerial assault against the nuclear facilities in Bushehr, Arak, and Natanz in the aim of destroying them. However, it is hard to see what strategic benefit this would be: at the most this would only set Iran’s nuclear energy programme back, although the Israeli attack on the Iraq nuclear facilities in Osirak in June of 1981 failed to set back Iraq’s nuclear programme. Iran would still have the technology and would be able to resume its nuclear energy programme unabated outside of the auspicious of the IAEA.

Moreover, Iran would almost certainly respond militarily. Iran has already demonstrated this week the ability to sink U.S. warships in the Persian Gulf at will and thus block off the passage of oil through the Strait of Hormuz. The situation in Iraq is precarious enough for the U.S. military, were the United States at war with Iran, the Shia population would rise up and the situation would be unmanageable. Furthermore, Iranian forces can easily cross the border into Iraq, should they so desire and U.S. military bases in Iraq, Afghanistan and Azerbaijan are venerable to Iranian missile attacks. Even were Iran only initially to target the U.S. military in Iraq, the potential for escalation is obvious. Thus once again raising the prospect of a conflict that would destabilise the entire Middle East, which the United States cannot afford. Hence it is more likely that the Bush administration will to continue to support terrorist attacks in Iran by groups like Monafiqeen-e-Khalq and Jundullah under the guise of the Iran Freedom and Support Act of 2005, since these are deniable and unlikely to provoke a severe response.

Recalling the Bush administration’s view that diplomacy is war by other means - whilst attacking Iran would require an even greater degree of folly than the occupation of Iraq – the more unlikely it is, the keener they will be to inflate the possibility. This strategy is foolhardy and risks the law of unintended consequence. This said it is still hard to envisage the House of Representatives disregarding all reason and authorising a military attack on Iran during Bush’s presidency.

Iran demonstrates ability to sink US warships

2007-02-16T03:16:00.000Z

President George W. Bush would have done well to heed the advice of the old British proverb, "talk of the devil, and he is bound to appear".

Yesterday the commander of the Pasdaran Ground Forces, Nur Ali Shushtari, announced that the Pasdaran emblem was etched onto US warship stationed in the Persian Gulf by the crew of a submarine that had managed to reach the warship undetected. The purpose of which is to demonstrate the capacity to sink the US vessel had Iran so desired.

Commander Shushtari also stated that in the event of a confrontation, all US forces in the gulf as well as targets inside the United States would be subject to reprisals.

US and Britain behind terrorist attack in Iran

2007-02-16T02:43:00.000Z

It was confirmed that the bombing of a Pasdaran (IRGC) bus in Zahedan, which resulted in 11 deaths and 30 other casualties, was carried out by the Jundullah terrorist group. The Security Operations chief in the Iranian province of Sistan and Baluchestan, Brigadier general Mohammad Ghaffari said that three of the perpetrators were arrested in a raid on one of the groups safe houses. The three have admitted under questioning links to the United States and British intelligence services. British SIS have previously orchestrated terrorist attacks in Khuzestan.

Iran and nuclear proliferation

2007-02-14T02:04:00.000Z

George Carty:

How would you respond to those who oppose a nuclear Iran because it might lead to further nuclear proliferation?

There is no evidence that Iran has a nuclear weapon programme and even were Iran to develop one in the future, Iran still would be a long way off from being able to produce a nuclear warhead and even further away from reaching nuclear polarity with the Pakistanis and Israelis, let alone the United States. Hence Iran does not present a nuclear threat to regional enemies.

Were Iran to develop several nuclear reactors, Iran would be in a position to realise Ahmadinejad's stated aim of supplying domestic energy consumption whilst significantly reducing petroleum and gas production. Moreover, it is also Iran's stated intention to share nuclear knowledge with other NAM countries. Iran is not alone in it assessment that the possession of a nuclear energy programme will be a strategic necessity in the future. None of theese indicates an intent to acquire a nuclear arsenal.

Furthermore, Turkey and Saudi Arabia are de facto US military outposts, which would be transformed into launch pads for US nuclear missiles in the event of an Iranian nuclear attack; in fact, Israel already has a nuclear arsenal. Moreover, neither Turkey nor Saudi Arabia would acquire nuclear weapons without the express consent of the United States.

Therefore, I view the argument as based on three false premises: namely, that Iran is pursuing a nuclear weapons programme; that US vassals are without a considerable nuclear deterrent; and that the United States would permit these vassals to acquire an independent nuclear arsenal in any event.

US fails to prove Iran is Arming Iraq Militias

2007-02-12T00:00:00.000Z

The United States pledged to produce evidence that Iran was arming Iraqi militias fighting the US and British Occupiers: yesterday they risibly failed so to do. However, they produced ample evidence of how divorced form reality the claims of the United States government have become in the "war on truth".

Holocaust Denial Laws

2007-01-29T22:51:00.000Z

Do those who favour the criminalisation of Holocaust denial and justification, also favour criminalising denial or justification of all other genocides?

If not why not?

European Holocaust Denial Law Scuppered

2007-01-28T17:51:00.000Z

Germany's attempts to use the EU presidency to persuade all 27 member states to criminalise any dissent from Germany's official "Holocaust" narrative looks set to be be scuppered. Whilst Austria, Belgium, France, Germany, Poland, Romania and Spain have various denial laws vis-à-vis acts of genocide committed during the Third Reich, and all member states endorsed the UN Grand assembly resolution passed this Friday, which unreservedly rejects "any denial of the Holocaust as a historical event, either in full or in part, or any activities to this end", they are unlikely to endorse "denial laws", which most member states view as draconian and in conflict with the European Convention on Human Rights. This Friday, the Italian Parliament rejected such legislation, after it was adamantly opposed by some 200 historians upon the grounds of suppression of academic debate and infringement of freedom of speech.

It is well that this is being resisted: the Holocaust is a conflation of the certain with the uncertain; the rational with the irrational; the subjective with the objective. There never was a "Holocaust" - the Holocaust is an illusory moral and religious interpretation of acts of genocide committed during the Third Reich. Holocaust denial laws are not concerned with the historical episode; they are concerened with State mythology.

Bush declares Shia are the enemy

2007-01-24T11:14:00.000Z

President George W. Bush, State of the Union Speech 2007:

"In recent times, it has also become clear that we face an escalating danger from Shia extremists who are just as hostile to America, and are also determined to dominate the Middle East.

Many are known to take direction from the regime in Iran, which is funding and arming terrorists like Hezbullah -a group second only to al-Qaeda in the American lives it has taken.

The Shia and Sunni extremists are different faces of the same totalitarian threat.

But whatever slogans they chant, when they slaughter the innocent, they have the same wicked purposes.

They want to kill Americans... kill democracy in the Middle East... and gain the weapons to kill on an even more horrific scale."

There are an estimated 215,959,328 Million Shia Worldwide, there are over 80 million in Iran and Iraq alone and over another 30 million in the Middle East. Shia certainly wish to have political power proportionate to their numbers: a concept known as democracy and self-determination, both of which the United States is adamantly opposed to. If the Shia are a threat to the United States it is so due to the latter waging war on the former. It is the United States that is a threat to democracy and financing terrorism in the Middle East.

Growing Opposition to Ahmadinejad

2007-01-21T17:18:00.000Z

The BBC reports:

"There are signs of growing opposition in Iran to the policies of hardline President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad."

The needless assertion of "hardline" underpins the fact that the State owned BBC is neither independent nor impartial from the British government. The BBC does not refer to the "fascist Prime Minister Tony Blair" or "fanatical President Bush", yet both are equal valid and subjective characterisations.

However, leaving aside the unprofessional and biased reporting; the entire piece is propaganda. The BBC suggests that:

"Surprisingly some hard-line newspapers have started criticising the president in recent days, asking why he has spent so much of Iran's foreign exchange and complaining about the confrontational language he uses on the nuclear issue."

Why should this be surprising? There is no such movement in Iran as hardline: there is Conservative and Reformist and Ahmadinejad is neither, although generally regarded as a religious conservative, he is an socio-economic ultra leftist. Knowing this is important, if one does not, one cannot hope to analyse Iranian politics. Moreover, the press (conservative and reformist) has never been keen on Ahmadinejad, Ayatullah-al Uzma Khamenei in 2006 rebuked various press outlets for their harsh and politically partisan criticism of Ahmadinejad's government.

The BBC, et. al., confidently predicted a landslide victory for Hashemi Rafsanjani in the 2005 Iranian Presidential election as did much of the Iranian press - much of it owned by Hashemi Rafsanjani - the conservative media outlets predicted that Qalibaf would win. Conversely, I - like many ordinary Iranians - correctly predicted the reverse; that Hashemi Rafsanjani would suffer a landslide defeat and that Ahmadinejad would win.

Anyone with a handle on Iranian politics knows that Ahmadinejad's popularity is running at an all time high and conversely (and consequently) his popularity in the Majlis is at an all time low, despite the result of the recent municipal elections which saw his conservative rivals do well and the reformists trounced. This was never a test of his personal popularity and the only candidate he endorsed during that election, Parvin Ahmadinejad, won a seat on the Tehran municipal council.

Thus the fact that as the BBC reports a "150 MPs have signed a letter urging the president to base his next budget on realistic assumptions - for example, about future oil prices which are key to Iran's economic forecasts" is no measure of unpopularity; rather it is the opposite. Even the notoriously anti-Iranian, Amir Taheri (the Shah's chief propagandist) acknowledges Ahmadinejad's popularity on the street:

"Ahmadinejad would rather people lived like him. He says we are not in this world to have a good time, we are here to serve God, to fulfil a mission. This has angered the fun-loving middle classes, but resonates with the so-called dispossessed."

In truth, those in the Majlis and Northern Tehran have a lot to fear from Ahmadinejad; he is a believer in ethical economics: he is anti corruption, anti the acquisition of wealth, pro redistribution of wealth, protectionism and self sufficiency. His economic policies are to the benefit of the masses and to the detriment of the elite. He came to power with a pledge to take on the establishment and that is exactly what he has done. Whether he can continue to do so remains to be seen, yet he is losing no support on the street for so doing; rather the reverse. Nor as the BBC suggest is he losing support for his anti-Western speeches, which are very well received in Iran and throughout the Middle East.

The Price Of Posturing

2007-01-21T16:29:00.000Z

The abduction of Sheikh Abdul-Hadi al-Darraji, a spokesman for Sayyed Moqtada al-Sadr, was more evidence of US posturing; al-Darraji has no military role, as well the US knows, however he is a visible face of the Mahdi army and Sayyed al-Sadr. Thus the United States saw some propaganda capital in taking him and his two cousins (since released) prisoner; a move which was not sanctioned by the Iraqi government. However, unlike earlier posturing in Um al-Maalef where the Mahdi army were prepared to play along, this incident, which led to the death of a bodyguard, caused real annoyance.

Falah Shanshal a Sadrist legislator reminded the Government that it was in breach of the deal to halt "attacks targeting Al-Sadr's movement," and demanded al-Darraji's immediate release. Following which, 19 US servicemen were killed in Karbala and Eight British troops were injured in Basra injured in reprisal attacks by the Mahdi army.

It is also noteworthy, that since the United States illegally abducted five Iranian diplomats, over 30 US soldiers have been killed by forces the US claimed that Iran was supporting. The US justification for taking this diplomats hostage was to prevent attacks on US soldiers, even though the Iraqi government recognises that the Iranian diplomats were not involved in any such activity.

Thus this US posturing has resulted in the forfeit of more Occupation forces and further weakened the US Government's already untenable position in Iraq. I said in an earlier post:

"This is little more than posturing and ill-advised: posturing has not served the United States well in Iraq - it has resulted in the death of over 3,000 US military personnel."

Crackdown on the Mahdi army or posturing?

2007-01-21T14:45:00.000Z

"The first causality in war is the truth"
On Wednesday, Prime Minister Nouri al-Maliki said 400 fighters from the Mahdi Army army had been arrested over the past several weeks. Although, Yassin Majid, a senior al-Maliki adviser, denied earlier reports that dozens of senior militia leaders had been detained were incorrect.

In fact, US Occupation forces and the Iraqi army raided Um al-Maalef, a Shiite neighborhood in south Baghdad, on Tuesday and, detained every man who was able to carry weapons - about 400 people in all - nearly all who have been subsequently released. The Mahdi army did not respond under orders from Sayyed al-Sadr and no weapons were recovered. US troops did not enter civilian houses during the raid. No one was killed during this raid. Compare this with the raid in al Haifa street (a Sunnite stronghold) where over 50 were killed in one day.

Al-Tikriti and al-Bandar executed

2007-01-15T09:39:00.000Z

Barzan Ibrahim al-Tikriti, Saddam's half-brother and head of the Mukhabarat and Awad Hamad al-Bandar, the chief judge of the Baathist revolutionary court were executed by hanging in the early hours of this morning. Barzan Ibrahim al-Tikriti was decapitated in the process.

The United States had initially refused to hand over the men seeking to prevent the execution, as they had done with Saddam. However, the United States, aware of al-Malaki's low standing in Da'wa let alone with the rest of the United Iraqi Alliance and mindful that the Iraqi government has strongly protested the US abduction of five Iranian diplomats, relented and handed them over to the Iraqi government, who immediately executed the two men.

The Martyrdom of Ayatullah Sayyed Muhammad Baqir al-Sadr

2007-01-14T12:57:00.000Z

This is a translation from the account given by one of the security officers present during Saddam's execution of Shaheed (martyr) Ayatullah Sayyed Muhammad Baqir al-Sadr and Shaheeda (martyr) Sayyida Bint ul Huda:

"They brought Sayyid Al-Sadr to the office of National Security in Baghdad and they bound him in chains, then Saddam arrived and said in Iraqi slang 'Muhammad Baqir, are you trying to make a government?' and then he started hitting his face and head with a strong rod. So the Sayyid said to him 'I have left the government to you' and then an argument broke out between them about this and about the Islamic revolution in Iran, which led Saddam into a fit of rage, so he ordered his henchmen to torture Sayyid Al-Sadr severely. Then he ordered the lashing of martyr Bint Al-Huda - after she had been tortured in another room - they brought here in unconscious and they were dragging her, so when the Sayyid saw her, he became upset and angry at her plight. He said to Saddam 'If you are a man, then undo my restraints'. But Saddam took a rod and began hitting the martyred Sayyida and she was senseless, then Saddam ordered for her breasts to be cut, which caused the Sayyid anger and he said to Saddam 'If you were a man, you would have faced me face-to-face and let my sister go, but you are a coward, between your bodyguards'. Saddam flew into rage and took out his gun and fired on the Sayyid and then his sister and then left like an insane man cursing and swearing"

US Abduction of Iranian Diplomats Denounced as Illegal

2007-01-13T00:22:00.000Z

Iraqi Foreign Minister Hoshiyar Zibari has described the abduction of five Iranian diplomats by The United States Occupation forces as "unacceptable" and stated that the government of Iraq is urgently working to secure the release of the five hostages and that the Iranian diplomatic mission was working with the full knowledge and support of the Iraqi Government, and had existed in the Kurdish region for over ten years.

The leader of the Iraqi Kurdish party and President of the Kurdistan Regional Government, Massoud Barzani has also condemned the US military raid on Iranian consulate building, denouncing all the US claims regarding the Iranian consulate as untrue. KDP spokesmen Shokat Bamerni said:

"The Brazani forces due to none coordination of this operation by U.S. forces have condemned this issue and prevented the air transfer of the detained Iranians. Therefore U.S. forces were forced to transfer the detained via road and the latest news is that they have been given in to Iraqi forces in Baghdad."

The city of Arbil issued a statement accusing saying the Iranian building had diplomatic immunity and demanded the immediate release of the five hostages, adding that "Kurdish citizens will never accept such behaviours which jeopardise security in their province".

The Russian Foreign ministry said, "it is absolutely unacceptable for troops to storm the consular offices of a foreign state on the territory of another state," adding, "this is a flagrant violation of the Vienna convention on consular relations. It is also not clear how this fits in with American statements that Washington respects the sovereignty of Iraq."

United States Posturing in Iraq

2007-01-12T15:09:00.000Z

The Sunni-Shia conflict in Iraq is peripheral to the real power struggle between Sayyed al-Hakim and Sayyed al-Sadr. The Shia are an estimated 63-66% of Iraq but that power struggle, should it become an open war, would not involve the Shia; all of Iraq would be drawn into the conflict. The Sunni Arabs would mainly supporting Sayyed al-Sadr whilst conversely the Kurds would support Sayyed al-Hakim.

Ayatullah al-Uzma al-Sistani has been trying to defuse this conflict and consequently flatly rejected the US plan. Last Sunday he summoned Sayyed Moqtada al-Sadr to his Najaf residence and asked for his support, he had previously conveyed to Sayyed al-Hakim that Sayyed al-Sadr must not be sidelined.

A deal has been provisionally reached where the United States deploys an additional 21,500 troops in Baghdad and Anbar province, whilst there is a redeployment of Iraq troops to Baghdad. Hence, the United States is withdrawing and despite its bravado about taking on the Mahdi army in a finally push, this is unlikely; the US cannot possibly hope to take on Sayyed al-Sadr with a positive result, nor would al-Malaki have the support to do so.

It is likely that the US will do as it did this week in in Hafia, concentrate on the Sunnite areas and leave Sadr city ostensibly to the Iraqi army but in reality it will remain firmly in the grasp of the Mahdi army. There may be some limited token clashes to give the appearance of even handedness, however it is preposterous to think that the United States envisages being able to destroy the Mahdi army with these reinforcements; there are two-and-half million in al-Sadr city, so an additional 17,500 US troops (4,000 are to be deployed in Anbar province) is not nearly enough. This is little more than posturing and ill-advised: posturing has not served the United States well in Iraq - it has resulted in the death of over 3,000 US military personnel.

British crocodile tears over Saddam

2007-01-09T05:45:00.000Z

The recent criticism of the manner of Saddam's execution by members of the British government are nothing short of a politically motivated fraud. Firstly, Britain is guilty of complicit negligence, since Blair implicitly endorsed Saddam's death sentence, when he failed to secure a guarantee off Bush that Saddam would be tried in the Hague as the price for Britain's participation in the invasion of Iraq. In failing so to do, it was not only foreseeable, it was inevitable that Saddam would be executed if captured alive.

The manner of the execution can come as no surprise, Saddam was led to the scaffold, where a noose was put around his neck. Several of the witnesses chanted "Moqtada" and Iraqi National Security Adviser Mowafaq al-Ruba’i, shouted, "Long live Mohammed Baqir al-Sadr," then the trapdoor fell as Saddam was reciting the shahada, his neck broke and he died instantly. If this execution was undignified then it is because execution is undignified.

Secondly, the United States (through its client states Saudi Arabia, Jordan and Egypt) has sought to exacerbate division in Iraq by presenting this as an Iranian Shiite execution of a Sunnite Arab leader. The Saudi media has claimed that the two hooded executioners flanking Saddam were Saadah al-Hakim and al-Sadr. The British criticism has been very much in keeping with this theme of Shia vengefulness.

Thirdly, the execution was brought forward after it was discovered that the United States was trying to ferment a deal with the Saddamis, which would have seen Saddam held in custody outside Iraq. Had Saddam not have been executed before Eid, the Mahdi army would have tried to lynch him in US custody.

Although such an assault would be easily repelled by the United States, al-Malaki's position would have become untenable if he was perceived to have prevented Saddam's execution.

Thus this execution was thrust upon the Occupation forces and signals their inability to control events. The compromise was that only the edited version of the execution be released to the World. Hence the Occupiers anger at the unedited version being put on the Internet, as British Deputy Prime Minister John Prescott's remarks illustrate "To get this kind of recorded messages coming out is totally unacceptable and I think whoever is involved and responsible for it should be ashamed of themselves." He does not express anger at the execution but at those who released the footage.

The Pope's Crusade

2007-01-08T23:43:00.000Z

After a meeting between Pope Benedict XVI and the Iranian Foreign Minister Manouchehr Mottaki, the Pope was at pains to stress that the Holy See "not as a political authority but as a religious and moral one" and did not comment on the undoubtedly unconstitutional resolution passed by the UN Security council, which was drafted by three ostensibly Christian countries (Britain, France and German) and driven by another ostensibly Christian country (the United States). The pontiff could have but did not condemn Christian violence and occupation in Muslim countries; he could have but did not denounce Christian belligerence towards Iran and Syria. Instead he chooses today - Eid al-Ghadir - to engage in politics and rebuke Iran.

The Pontiff suggested that trust in the region will also improve if, "a country like Iran, especially in relation to its nuclear program, agrees to give a satisfactory response to the legitimate concerns of the international community," despite the fact that the resolution has no legal basis in international law and not a scintilla of evidence has ever been produced that Iran has a nuclear weapons programme.

This is self-evidently not an apolitical statement and will no doubt be referred to by those who wish see a genocidal Crusade against Iran next. If he is suggesting that the "international community" (the 15 countries that sat on the UNSC as opposed to the majority of the nations of the World) have legitimate concerns about Iran nuclear programme, he is implicitly legitimising any response by the "international community" if Iran fails alleviate these concerns, which of course it will since they are bogus.

He also suggested that such action on Iran's behalf "would surely help to stabilize the whole region, especially Iraq, putting an end to the appalling violence which disfigures that country with bloodshed."

Iran would surely have preferred that he had just offered his felicitations; perhaps expressed a modicum of gratitude for Iran's stabilising role in Iraq; and a mite of regret for the chaos caused by the Christian Occupiers. The linkage between the Iranian nuclear issue and the stability of Iraq is quite alarming: the obvious implication is that those opposed to the Iranian nuclear programme are destabilising Iraq. Hence he is suggesting the Occupiers and their allies in the region are opposing the Iraqi Shia at least partly due to their concerns over the Iranian nuclear programme - which is complete nonsense - yet even if it were true, he is not suggesting that those destabilising Iraq should desist; he is suggesting that Iran should give a "satisfactory response".

The Death of Tyrant

2007-01-02T14:49:00.000Z

There is much to say about the death of Saddam. I could give an account about the Basij; the Iranian civilians shelled in Bandar-e Anzali (where my family is from); the murder of Ayatullah al-Sadr and Ayatullah al-Hakim; the succour Saddam received from the West, Israel and the Soviet Union; the genocide and ethnic cleansing of the Iraqi Shia and Kurds; or the betrayal of Saddam by his Western allies.

However to do so offers no great insight or explanation why a man should be killed for his crimes and why so many in Europe should find it abhorrent and so many in the Middle East should rejoice.

The difference is one of perception; in Western Europe judicial executions do not take place and have not done so for many years. Very few people in Europe have witnessed a public execution. Therefore there is a false expectation about what takes place. Even many of those that support the reintroduction of the death penalty were sickened by the images of Saddam's death.

In truth, Saddam's execution was more dignified than most. The condemned is not executed for the sake of the law - he is executed for the sake of justice - so that those whom he has wronged may have a tangible sense of it. Thus he dies in front of those who revile him and for whom he is the personification of his crimes. Therefore when the condemned meets his death it is to the sound of jeers of derision, then finally to roars of applause, as his body twitches, passing from life to death.

In Europe such a scene is an anathema to justice and utterly inconceivable. For this Tony Blair will never be forgiven since this death sentence will remain an indelible mark upon New Labour Government and makes a mockery of its pretensions of an ethical foreign policy.

Blair's culpability is undeniable, for Saddam's death was as an inevitability the moment Blair failed to extract a guarantee that Saddam would be tried in the Hague as his price for Britain's participation in the invasion of Iraq. Had he have done so, Saddam would not have hung.

USA forced to relase Iranian hostages

2006-12-27T00:28:00.000Z

The United States Government was exposed making fraudulent claims about Iranian interference in Iraq, when it was itself guilty of violating Iraq's sovereignty and hostage-taking.

Following a raid on a SCIRI compound, without the Iraqi Government's approval, the United States announced that it had captured senior Iranian military officials who were "meddling" in Iraq. The two senior Iranian military officials were in fact diplomats and thus had diplomatic immunity so could not be detained by the United States. Moreover far from meddling in Iraq, they were official State guests; personally invited over by President Talibani.

President Talbani furiously denounced the hostage-taking and demanded his guest immediate and unconditional release. The United States has been forced to concede that the abductions were illegal and has stated that the Iranian diplomats have been released, which is yet to be confirmed.

The Demolition of Jamiat Police station

2006-12-26T23:02:00.000Z

Over a 1,000 British occupation, with a token Iraqi Army presence, raided and demolished the Jamiat Police station in Basra, the home of the Serious Crimes Unit and the police station that British forces raided in a botched attempt to free two undercover SAS troopers in September 2005. The detained SAS troopers, much to the embarrassment of the British government, were caught trying to plant an explosive device with the intent of killing Iraqi civillians.

That the Serious Crimes Unit is aligned to the Sadrist faction and is without doubt, and this no doubt was the motive for this raid that followed the abortive attempts to form a coalition government without the Sadrist movement. British Occuaption forces are undoubtedly trying to provoke a clash with the Sadrist movement.

This act was a flagrant disregard for the rule of law. The Basra Municipal Council vote to suspend cooperation with the British occupation forces was predictably - Mohammed al-Abadi, chairman of the Municipal Council demanded an explanation of why the British forces ignored the rule of law and destroyed an "Iraq government building flying the Iraqi flag" and removed suspected terrorists. However, it is the reaction on the Street that matters.

UN Passes Diluted Sanctions Against Iran

2006-12-23T18:09:00.000Z

The United Nations Security Council voted to impose sanctions on Iran and as largely suspected the draft resolution presented by the European Troika (Britain, France and Germany) was heavily diluted.

The resolution demands that Iran halt uranium enrichment and heavy-water projects. A demand that has no legal basis under the NPT. This is reflected in the weakness of the sanctions it imposes.

It freezes the financial assets of twelve named individuals and eleven groups, including the Atomic Energy Organization of Iran, although it not clear if any such assets are held abroad. Instead of a travel ban, it call for member states to "exercise vigilance" regarding the international travel of the twelve Iranian officials and sets up a monitoring committee that will report in sixty days. The IAEA is also required to present a report in sixty days on Iran's compliance with the illegal order to halt all uranium enrichment and heavy-water projects.

Thus the resolution is in effect a deferment of the case for sixty days. There is no expectation that this resolution will have any effect, it is designed to buy the United States and the European Troika some political breathing space, without eliciting too much of response from Iran - although that remains to be seen.

U.S. Acting Ambassador Alejandro Wolff said, "we are sending Iran an unambiguous message". Indeed there are: one of utter impotence.

Iranian elections a rejection of the Western Imperialism

2006-12-18T03:45:00.000Z

Unlike the Presidential elections, turnout for the Assembly of Experts and municipal council elections in Iran is usually low. In 2002, just 12% of the electorate voted in the municipal council elections. Therefore the 60% turnout last Friday is staggering. The record turnout in Iran undoubtedly was a response to the United States, whose President, George Bush, encouraged Iranians not to vote as a sign of protest against the Islamic Republic, as did the US sponsored MKO cult and Shahists. Thus the elections not only proved that Iran has a vibrant democracy, equal to any in the West, it was a rejection of Western imperialism: Iranians firmly demonstrated their continued commitment to the Islamic revolution and the Velayat-e faqih.

Early indications show that the pro Faqih (Ayatullah al-Uzma Khamenei) Conservative wing has trounced the Reformists. Despite the reformist wing forming a single coalition, they were still unable to take a single council. Conversely, the Conservatives, who were broadly divided into two factions dominated the municipal council elections. The Conservatives have won a massive majority on the Tehran municipal council, which is divided by supporters of the Tehran Mayor Qalibaf and President Ahmadinejad. In effect, President Ahmadinejad's supporters are now the largest opposition to the Mayor on the Tehran council. The reformists have once again been pushed into the political wilderness.

Moreover, former President Ayatullah Akbar Hashemi Rafsanjani, who was defeated by President Ahmadinejad in the 2005 presidential election was resoundingly elected to the Assembly of Experts, as was his rival Ayatullah Mohammad Taqi Mesbah Yazdi, yet both are conservatives, which demonstrates that Tehranis have rejected reformism. This is a stinging rebuke for Ganji, the current darling of the MKO and the West, and for the Argentinian Government that have both made unsubstantiated allegations of Ayatullah Akbar Hashemi Rafsanjani involvement in political assassinations and terrorism, whilst he was President of Iran.

Much to the consternation of the Western imperialists, the biggest winner of these elections was the Faqih and the conservative movement that now dominates Iranian politics. There are healthy political disputes within the conservative camp but the reformist movement has wilted. This is unsurprising, Ahmadinejad has achieved more in a year, than the reformist did in eight. Three years of negotiations with Western imperialists over the nuclear issue led to nothing but Iran's three year voluntary suspension of its nuclear energy programme. Ahmadinejad's rejection of appeasement has brought dividends; Iran has completed the nuclear cycle and is now enriching uranium.

Reality is not changed through its denial. Western support for regime change is as forlorn as it is insipid; Iran is not about to abandon the Islamic revolution or Velayat-e faqih and will resist Western imperialism.

The Tehran Holocaust Conference

2006-12-16T11:51:00.000Z

Qu'ran Sura 5, Aya 32:

مِنْ أَجْلِ ذَلِكَ كَتَبْنَا عَلَى بَنِي إِسْرَائِيلَ أَنَّهُ مَن قَتَلَ نَفْسًا بِغَيْرِ نَفْسٍ أَوْ فَسَادٍ فِي الأَرْضِ فَكَأَنَّمَا قَتَلَ النَّاسَ جَمِيعًا وَمَنْ أَحْيَاهَا فَكَأَنَّمَا أَحْيَا النَّاسَ جَمِيعًا وَلَقَدْ جَاءتْهُمْ رُسُلُنَا بِالبَيِّنَاتِ ثُمَّ إِنَّ كَثِيراً مِّنْهُم بَعْدَ ذَلِكَ فِي الأَرْضِ لَمُسْرِفُونَ

Pickthal's English rendition:

"For that cause We decreed for the Children of Israel that whosoever killeth a human being for other than manslaughter or corruption in the earth, it shall be as if he had killed all mankind, and whoso saveth the life of one, it shall be as if he had saved the life of all mankind. Our messengers came unto them of old with clear proofs (of Allah's Sovereignty), but afterwards lo! many of them became prodigals in the earth."

Hence there is no greater or lesser morality in the murder of more or fewer.

A point made by Rabbi Aharon Cohen of the Neturei Karta at the "Review of the Holocaust: Global Vision" held in Tehran:

"The figure of six million is regularly quoted. One may wish to dispute this actual figure, but the crime was just as dreadful whether the millions (and there were millions) of victims numbered six million, five million or four million. The method of murder is also irrelevant, whether it was by gas chamber (and there were eye witnesses to this), firing squads or whatever. The evil was the same. It would be a terrible affront to the memory of those who perished to belittle the guilt of the crime in any way."

History is littered with genocides; many of equal and even greater magnitude than the Nazi one; for instance, the two genocides perpetrated by the British government against Iran during the Twentieth century, which remain the subject of D notices.

To question the dogmas of the Nazi "Holocaust" is not to deny the German genocide; rather it is to ask pertinent questions. Why, for instance, is the religious terminology holocaust used for this genocide? Why has this particular genocide acquired a mythological status? What makes the genocide unique? Why the focus on Jewish victims to the exclusion of all others?

To not ask these questions is an affront to reason.

It is also pertinent to question why an extrapolated figure of six million has become such an unchallengeable dogma. It is logically absurd, to place such faith in a necessarily unreliable extrapolated figure. Where is the margin of error?

Yad Vashem, "The Holocaust Martyrs' and Heroes' Remembrance Authority" in Israel can list only 3.2 million potential Jewish victims of Nazi genocide. Therefore it is impossible to say with any accuracy that six million died.

What of the path to genocide? Was it pre-planned or the corollary of Lebensraum? Did it begin with Kristallnacht?

And what of the role of Zionism in the Nazi genocide?

Another pregnant question is how and why this genocide came to be thought of as the rasion d'etre for the existence of the Jewish state? Certainly this was not so in 1948; only much later in the 1960s did the "Holocaust" came to dominate European and North American politics.

To address these questions is neither to diminish the suffering of the victims or to justify the perpotrators of this gencoide. The reaction of Western governments to the "Review of the Holocaust: Global Vision" conference in Tehran was evidence - if any was needed - of their rank hypocrisy, fanaticism and dogmaticism.

President Ahmadinejad in the Lion's Den

2006-12-12T18:16:00.000Z

When President Ahmadinejad gave a speech in Amir Kabir University, he was standing on what should have been hostile ground. The Amir Kabir University student's association is heavily linked with the reformist movement, yet the reformist President Khatami received a hostile reception during his last speech there. His movement, would therefore have expected president Ahmadinejad to receive an even more hostile reception.

However this was not to be, much to the consternation of the reformist movement, there were only a few dozen protestors, with placards saying "Down with Dictators", to which President Ahmadinejad responded, "Given the scars inflicted on the Iranian nation by agents of the US and British dictatorship, no one will ever dare to initiate the rise of a dictator."

And when some students burned his photo he stated, “Everyone should know that Ahmadinejad is prepared to be burned in the path of defending freedom and truth.”

Commenting on the Western funding of anti-Iranian terrorist groups, president Ahmadinejad said:

"My response to the opponents of our ruling system is that the nation is aware of their tricks and will not be deceived by them. Iranians will never give up their ideals".

His speech received a rapturous reception from most of the students, who began chanting his name.

The implications for the reformist movement cannot be overstated. Their hatred of Ahmadinejad is greater than their hatred of Rafsanjani. Yet even in Amir Kabir - what was their ideological heartland - there much touted demonstration amounted to less than 50 protestors. During the presidential elections the reformist had the bloggers; Ahmadinejad had the street. They underestimated then and they underestimated him now - the Basij Student Organisation is by far the most prominent student organisation in Iran. The reformist movement is dead.

A State Within A State

2006-12-10T13:36:00.000Z

The Investigatory Powers Tribunal ruled that in 1999 the Met Police Anti-Corruption squad unlawfully tapped the telephone conversations of Chief superintendent Ali Dizaei, the Met's most senior Muslim officer and legal adviser to the National Black Police Association, in 1999. The operation - codenamed Helios - was directly overseen by Met Police Commissioner Sir Ian Blair, back when he was deputy commissioner.

The team of 40 officers monitored over 3,500 phone calls made by Ali Dizaei from Kensington police station and the NBPA offices. Ostensibly the investigation was looking into unfounded allegations that Dizaei was an Iranian spy, although Keith Jarrett, president of the NBPA, cast doubt over the sincerity of the investigation:

“The significance of this judgment is to tell the Met that they can’t treat people in this way. It was an attempt to destroy the NBPA, not a corruption inquiry.”

At the time Dizaei was advising officers who were suing the Met for racial discrimination and victimisation. Moreover, despite the fact that this was the biggest police corruption case ever mounted, costing millions, it failed to substantiate any criminal allegation against Dizaei. A token prosecution was brought for an alleged £270 false expense claim but Dizaei was acquitted.

What is most alarming about this case, is not that the Met Police Commissioner headed an unlawful racist and political motivated investigation or indeed that the Met Anti-Corruption squad is itself tainted by racism and corruption; it is that the Prime Minister and then Home Secretary, David Blunkett, would have been fully appraised of the details of operation Helios yet still approved Sir Ian Blair's appointment as Met Police commissioner. This signals an approval of what amounts to a state within a state.

Iraq Study Group Report is Delusional

2006-12-08T04:19:00.000Z

Iraq politicians have been decidedly nonchalant about the Iraq Study Group's report; the Iraqi media even more so and most the public are unaware of it. Their disregard is well founded. Even if the report does make a bleaker assessment of the situation in Iraq than the US Government has hitherto been prepared to acknowledge, it is still a reiteration of many of the usual accusations, fabrications, distortions and half-truths. It is either spectacularly dishonest or spectacularly delusional in avoiding the underlying reality; namely, the United States is exacerbating the anarchy in Iraq by both its presence and continued interference. Whilst the reports acknowledges that Iraq is currently not governed as a unitary state and is quick to criticise Iraq's politicians for being sectarian, it fails to point out that the United States has been deliberately fermenting factional conflict.

Even the lexicon of the report owes more to propaganda than reality - the Shia, Sunni, Kurdish, Taqfiri and Baathist factions all have their militias, they are all involved in ethnic-cleansing and all have divided loyalties - yet in the report Shia militias are described as "death squads", the Sunni Militias as "insurgents" and the Kurdish militias as "security forces". The United States has consistently opposed the Shia majority; it is this more than anything that has led to the present state of anarchy.

It is quite apparent that the current Iraqi government - a government in name only - it is simply incapable of imposing central rule. In fact, Iraq is no longer a unitary State. Yet the United States is still trying to impose central rule. This is dangerous myopia. Yet whilst acknowledging that the situation is spiraling out of control, the report continues to advocate propping up the defunct al-Malki Government. Hence it is delusional.

The two most powerful men in Iraq are Sayyed al-Hakim (SCIRI) and Sayyed al-Sadr (Sadrists). Sayyed al-Hakim, like the Iraqi President, Jalal Talabani (PUK), Iraqi Prime Minister, Nouri al-Malaki (Dawa) and Kurdistan Regional Government President, Massoud Barzani (KDP) supports the dissolution of Iraq. Whereas Sayyed al-Sadr, like the Sunnite Iraqi Vice President, Tariq al-Hashimi (IIP) and Sheikh Harith Al Dhari (Association of Muslims Scholars) support centralism. Yet al-Malaki, like the previous elected Prime Minister, Ibrahim al-Jaafari, is dependent upon the support of Sayyed al-Sadr, which was withdrawn last week, after his meeting with Bush in Jordan. Therefore the United States will have to reappraise its relationship with the SCIRI and its Badr militia, since the al-Malaki Government is dependent upon the goodwill of Sayyed al-Hakim, without which it will fall.

The report calls for an international regional conference, a move that is strongly resisted by Sayyed al-Hakim and Jalal Talabani, since contrary to US claims, it is Saudi Arabia that is actively destabilising Iraq; not Iran or Syria. In fact, Iran is the only stabilising force in Iraq, a point that both Jalal Talabani and Sayyed al-Hakim have made last week. The report should have recommended that, as a matter of imperative, the United States should desist from making baseless accusations against Iran, since the propaganda is fuelling the Shia-Sunni sectarian conflict and undermines the current Shia led Government. Therefore until the united States is prepared to move beyond the limits of its own propaganda; it is far from clear what the Iraq Study Group expects to be gained from direct talks with Iran and Syria: the United States is certainly not about to request Iran dispatch the IRGC into Basra to bolster the Badr numbers, so that they might drive the Mahdi Army out of Southern Iraq.

Dutch Courage

2006-12-06T14:56:00.000Z

The Dutch were honour bound to fight and if necessary dieThe Netherlands prides itself on its alleged tradition of liberalism, yet the reality is a tradition of oppression, religious intolerance and Xenophobia. For its large Muslim minority, the Netherlands is arguably the most illiberal and repressive State in the European Union. However, it is not for the persecution of Muslims at home that the Netherlands is despised in the Muslim World. It is for it complicity in the 1995 Srebrenica genocide, when a Dutch UN peacekeeping forces, stood idly by when 8,000 Muslim men and boys were abducted in what was supposed to be a UN safe haven and executed by the Bosnian Serb forces led by General Ratko Mladic.

Of course the Dutch plead impotence and pointed out that they did not have the cover of air support to repel the Serb irregulars. Hence rather than carry out his duty, Tom Karremans, the Dutch commander at Srebrenica, was to be photographed socialising and drinking with his host General Mladic. The Dutch bargained away the lives of these 8,000 for the release of 14 kidnapped peacekeepers, they knew what was happening and did nothing to prevent it.

Civil Wars are always brutal. Genocide is to be expected. However what was not expected, was that having committed itself to defending this UN safe haven, the Dutch would display such cowardice. The indifference of the Dutch towards Bosnian Muslims may in part be explained by a national loathing of Islam but it was nevertheless a gross dereliction of duty: the Dutch were honour bound to fight and if necessary die. Their failure so to do, not only reflects badly upon the Netherlands, it reflects badly upon the United Nations.

Thus, when Henk Kamp, the Dutch defence minister honoured these soldiers with medals, he not only made a laughingstock of his country - which will ever after been known as a nation that rewards cowardice - he has signalled the value that the Netherlands place on Muslim life.

British interference in Lebanon

2006-12-02T17:13:00.000Z

British Foreign Secretary Margaret Beckett's intervention in Lebanese politics is delusional and insipid, she described her visit as "a chance to extend Britain's backing to the efforts of the Lebanese government in order to help protect the country's stability and democracy," described the Siniora's Government as "elected by the people of Lebanon and a government which has the constitutional authority that election gives it". A preposterous statement given that both the Lebanese President and Speaker have declared the Siniora Government to be illegal and in violation of the Lebanese constitution.

Moreover contrary to Beckett's assertion, this regime was not democratically elected. How could it be? Lebanon is not a democracy; rather it is a sectarian plutocracy established by the French to guarantee a disproportionate share of power for Lebanese Christians and to supress the Muslim majority. Lebanon only has the illusion of democracy. Hence Siniora's Government was elected with fewer votes that the opposition, yet still has a Parliamentary majority. Of the three main sectarian groups, the largest the Shia are the least represented.

The 800,000 to a million protestors (quarter of the Lebanese population) that took to the streets in protest against this illegitimate regime are demanding greater representation; a government of national unity; and an end to Western interference in Lebanese affairs. Whereas Siniora and the Hariri gang represent the status quo: an undemocratic Western sponsored tyranny, a regime that pampers to Zionist interests and will not defend its own borders.

There can be no doubt, that if Lebanon had democratic elections today, Siniora and his government would be ousted and that Hezbullah, Amal and Tayyar Al-Watani Al-Horr would form the government, hence the reason that Siniora is not prepared to go to the ballot box. Thus Beckett's comments would have been imbecilic had she made them in London, since they are patently untrue; however to make them in Beirut is deliberate attempt to interfere in Lebanese national politics and can only further exacerbate tensions. It is yet another example of Siniora's Western backers trying to impose their will on Lebanon and prop up an unpopular regime with no democratic mandate.

As General Michel Aoun said:

"Today we seek to liberate the free decision making. The decision is here when we meet as united Lebanese and agree on our internal, external and defense policies. Thus we make our free decision. A free decision does not change according to geography from a Lebanese area to a non Lebanese area. That’s why we will always seek to maintain our friendships and we want to be friends with everybody in the East and the West provided they respect our national will and let us deal with our problems on our own. We consider that any factional support to the government coming from any country whatsoever is not a friendly support but it is a support that creates confrontation in the society as conspiracy looms over the nation and its unity."

Sayyed Nasrallah call for mass popular demonstration

2006-12-01T04:55:00.000Z

We appeal to all Lebanese, from every region and political movement, to take part in a peaceful and civilized demonstration Friday to rid us of an incapable government Al Manar reports,

"The Lebanese opposition called for mass demonstrations Friday in support of its demands for government of national unity but the pro-Western cabinet swiftly rejected the move. 'The opposition forces, on the basis of their constitutional rights, call on all Lebanese, whatever their religious confession, to demonstrate peacefully in an open-ended sit-in from 3 pm Friday for a national unity government,' said an opposition statement. 'The opposition forces appeal to demonstrators to brandish only the Lebanese flag and authorized slogans,' the statement added.

Hezbollah Secretary General Sayyed Hassan Nasrallah called for a massive turnout. 'We appeal to all Lebanese, from every region and political movement, to take part in a peaceful and civilized demonstration Friday to rid us of an incapable government that has failed in its mission,' he said in a television broadcast.

But Communications Minister Marwan Hmedeh said that his unconstitutional government had no intention of giving in to pressure from the street. The opposition factions had threatened to take to the streets last week but postponed their plans after the November 21 assassination of anti-Syrian industry minister Pierre Gemayel. As well as Hezbollah, the opposition factions include the Amal Movement of parliament speaker Nabih Berri, the Free Patriotic Movement of MP General Miche Aoun, the Marada Party of former Minister Suleiman Franjiyeh, the Lebanese Democratic Party of former Minister Talal Erslan, the Syrian Nationalist Socialist Party, the People's Party of former MP Najah Wakim, the Islamic Front of cleric Fathi Yakan and many other powers and former leaders.

Lebanese Army Commander Michel Suleiman ordered his troops to be fully prepared to fulfill their role of 'protecting freedom of expression and preventing riots and attacks on public and private property.' Suleiman ordered soldiers to 'keep the same distance from everyone and safeguard the security of all citizens, including the pro-and anti-government parties.'"

Gemayel Assassination Looks like an Inside job.

2006-11-23T05:41:00.000Z

Al-manar reports:

"Lebanese Industry Minister Pierre Gemayel was shot dead in a street in a Christian suburb of the capital Beirut and rushed to hospital, Lebanese media reported. Gemayel was a member of the Phalange Party and son of former president Amin. Witnesses and reporters quoting Gemayel's bodyguards said the minister was shot in his car in Jdeideh on the northern edge of Beirut, with a silencer. The footage of the car that Gemayel was driving suggest that the perpetrator shot the minister at close range, as several bullet holes were seen on the door window. News reports said that the assassin managed to escape. Reports also said that Gemayel had a large number of bodyguards with him, but the way the assassin managed to get near the car and shoot the minister without any reaction by them is still unknown. Reports quoted sources in the Phalange party suggesting that the bodyguards of Gemayel may be infiltrated."

The implication is obvious, only those with access and influence to his bodyguard entourage, could have orchestrated the assassination: hence more likely friend than foe.

The Assassination of Gemayel

2006-11-21T21:16:00.000Z

The assassination of Pierre Gemayel, an inconsequential Lebanese industry minister and leader of the Kataeb (Phalange) party, in the Christian Sin el-Fil neighbourhood of Beirut, has been presented in the Western media as a catastrophe for Lebanese democracy and unity, which is ironic, since Pierre Gemayel is a fascist, like his grandfather and namesake, who formed the Kataeb movement, having being inspired by the Nazis in 1936. This movement has little influence amongst the Christian minority, let alone with the majority of Lebanese. Pierre Gemayel (the Grandson) recently described the majority Muslim Lebanese as inferior to minority Christian Lebanese, so he was hardly a voice of moderation, liberalism or democracy.

Moreover the Western media has rather unsubtly implied that Syria is responsible for the assassination and have reported the allegations of Saad Hariri to that effect. Notwithstanding that there has not been a scintilla evidence to substantiate these claims, and that the Hariri gang also has a motive for the assassination: Gemayel has proved more useful dead to the Hariri gang than he did when he was alive. It is simply not possible in the absence of evidence to say who murdered Gemayel.

The myth of Lebanese democracy

2006-11-21T02:15:00.000Z

Hezbullah Secretary General Sayyed Hassan Nasrallah stated, "There are two solutions to resolve the crisis -- either the formation of a government of national unity, in which all political movements take part, or early parliamentary elections...We cannot have any confidence in this government because it answers to the decisions and wishes of the American administration".

As much as the Western media and politician would like to present the Siniora regime as a legitimate and democratic, it is neither. Siniora is but a figure head for the Hariri gang, Paris and Washington; he has no political mandate, for Lebanon is not a democracy, its election process is a farce. Lebanon is governed by a tripartite system imposed upon by colonial France, which results in a Christian President, a Sunni Muslim Prime Minister and a Shia speaker of the house. Seats in the Parliament are allocated along these sectarian lines; rather than proportionally. The Shia (Hezbullah and Amal's political base) are undoubtedly Lebanon's largest sectarian group, possibly even the majority of the Lebanese population, yet Shi Muslims are effectively barred from holding either the post of President or Prime Minister.

If Lebanon was a democracy, Sayyed Hassan Nasrallah would be its leader and Hezbullah and Amal would be in government. Instead, Lebanon is run by a pro-Western oligarchy of gangsters and fascists, proped up be Western militarism. The anti-Syrian Hariri gang that sat idly by whilst Israel perpetuated a genocide against Lebanon, which was facilitated greatly by the earlier withdrawal of the Syrian Arab Army from Lebanon. It was Hezbullah that rose to the challenge and it was Hezbullah's stunning victory against Israel on the battlefield that thwarted the Zionist colonisation of Lebanon.

Therefore it is little wonder that Hezbullah enjoys the support of 70% of Lebanon according to recent polls. Despite what the Western media might say, Lebanon is asserting its independence from French, US and Zionist imperialism. The majority of Lebanese want a Government of national unity; they do not support the undemocratic and illegitimate, Western backed Hariri gang or the ineffectual Siniora.

Sayyed Hassan Nasrallah said to the Lebanese people "We must psychologically be ready to take to the streets". The number of protesters at any the planned rally against the illegitimate Lebanese government are likely to number in excess of a million: a clear demonstration of who really represents the will of Lebanese nation.

However, the Siniora regime will not concede to the democratic will; it will instead look to its Western backed for a military solution and take Lebanon into another civil war.

Saddam Hussein's Death Sentence

2006-11-05T18:33:00.000Z

the mother of all kangaroo courtsThe trial was a farce, it was flagrantly a political instrument of the United States; it was so heavily partisan that one judge resigned and one judge was removed, it was, to use the cliche, the mother of all kangaroo courts. It was the current Prime Minister, Al-Maliki's, Islamic Dawa party that claims to have organised the plan to assassinate Saddam, which precipitated the murders of a 148 people in Dujail in 1982, for which Saddam was tried with crimes against humanity. The death sentence was a forgone conclusion.

This notwithstanding, it is right that Saddam should be executed, Saddam's crimes against Iraqi Shia and Kurds are exceeded by his invasion of Iran, the war not only cost over a million lives, Saddam fought it at the behest of Britain and the United States, to oppose the spread of Islam in the region and keep the oil reserves out of indigenous Muslim control. For the great harm that he did Iraq and Iran, for the crimes against the Muslim Ummah, Sunni and Shia alike, his execution is necessary. Since, although his execution will enrage his supporters and undoubtedly exploited by the Wahhabis and most Iraqis were demanding it.

Manufacturing Dissent

2006-11-01T11:53:00.000Z

Despite serving two terms as President, Khatami is a forlorn figure in Iranian politics, his policy of engagement with the West and economic reforms failed. It was due to this policy of appeasing the West that former President of Iran, was presented with an honorary doctorate in law from the University of St Andrews. In support of the award, the University of St Andrews Students’ Association said,

"While it would be easy to oppose Khatami's award on the basis of tensions which existed in Iran during his presidency, we believe Khatami himself predominantly adopted a brave stand to promote liberal values. This personal courage, combined with his subsequent work in building inter-faith dialogue and communication, coupled with his notable achievements as a scholar, make him a very suitable candidate for such an award."

The BBC reports a dozen or so demonstrators turned up to protest the conferment of the honorary degree, which the BBC, rather disingenuously, described as a mixed reaction. There are an estimated 130,000 Iranians living in the UK, and at least 20,000 who are declared opponents of the Islamic Republic of Iran, nearly all of whom left Iran whilst Khatami was president. So the protests, could be best described as notably insignificant. Hardly a mixed reception.

However this conferment has been pilloried in the British press; the Guardian goes so far as to publish the spurious allegations and anti-Iranian drivel of notorious xenophobe, Islamophobe and proven liar Peter Tatchell, who is incidentally, a known supporter of the genocidal religious cult Mujaheddin-e Khaliq (a proscribed terrorist organisation).

Tatchell quotes the claims made by Safa Einollahi and Ali Ebrahimi of rape and torture in Iran under Khatami by agents of the state. This unsustained claims have been dismissed by the Met Police, "we consider there are insufficient grounds to make an arrest and there is not sufficient basis for a criminal investigation'', the latter part of the statement means that there is no evidence that the crime took place.

Tatchell also tellingly refers to Khuzei Arabs as "Ahwazis", anyone who uses this term either is ignorant or supports British imperialism, for it is a British term and not common amongst Khuzei, whether Arab or otherwise. Tatchell of course would not know this as he has never been to Iran nor dopes he have any contacts within Iran. He suggests that the "Ahwazis" were ethnically cleansed under Khatami, which is nonsense. Most of the Khuzeis who were forcibly displaced in Iran are not of Arab descent, in any event they were not ethnically cleansed, they were forcibly displaced due environmental necessity.

Tatchell has a proven track record of lying about Iran. He claimed that Mahmoud Asgari and Ayaz Marhoni were executed for homosexuality citing ISNA as a source when they said no such thing. In fact, the two men were executed for a series of rapes of young boys in Mashad, the oldest victim, a 13 years old, gave evidence during their trial. When it was revealed that this was the case and Human Rights Watch, Amnesty International, the European Union and the United Nations all dismissed these false claims, Tatchell continued to maintain them and suggested on the OutRage Website, that the 13 year old victim had probably consented to have sex. The website was pulled off line shortly afterwards.

United States waging war on the Iraqi Government

2006-10-28T12:50:00.000+01:00

"If anyone is responsible for the poor security situation in Iraq it is the Coalition"
The United States had begun to contemplate that which they previous said was unthinkable, defeat in Iraq, for that is what withdrawal will be. Iraq has been a military disaster: the invasion was ill-conceived and the occupation was more so. Today in an interview with Reuters, the Iraqi Prime Minister, Nuri al-Maliki, made it clear that the United States is responsible for the Iraqi Government's current state of paralysis and is instrumental in exacerbating the violence.

He dismisses the tired response of Washington and London that their withdrawal is not favoured by the Iraqi government: "They think building Iraqi forces will need 12 to 18 months for us to be in control of security. We agree our forces need work but think that if, as we are asking, the rebuilding of our forces was in our own hands, then it would take not 12-18 months but six might be enough." Thus the Prime Minister of Iraq is suggesting that the Occupiers should not need to be Iraq for any longer than six months.

Moreover, he unambiguously blames the occupiers for the current instability and chaos in Iraq: "If anyone is responsible for the poor security situation in Iraq it is the Coalition. I am now prime minister and overall commander of the armed forces yet I cannot move a single company without Coalition approval because of the U.N. mandate. So those who have the authority and could move the forces are also responsible. This should be clear". Thus dispelling the notion that Iraq is now governed by a democratically elected Government. In reality, it is administered rather than governed (under the auspicious of the UN) by an incompetent, brutal and repressive US military junta.

This is important, because if one was inclined to believe the spin comming out of Washington and London, they are the friends of the Iraqi government; this could not be further from the truth, they have sought to undermine the democratic process at every stage, the Occupiers are waging war on the Shia government, opposing both SCIRI and the Sadrists, the bulk of the government, the major part of the coalition party that al-Maliki is a member of. It was Sayyed al-Sadr, who put al-Malaki in office. The Occupiers attacks on the the Mahdi army and the Badr Brigades are a direct assault upon the sovereignty of the government.

Al-Maliki points out that the threat to Iraq does not come from the Shia militias, as the United States suggests: "Terrorism and the militias are separate issues. There is a political plan aimed at making the militias the priority." Moreover, Al-Maliki noted that Sayyed al-Sadr has forbidden the "use of force against the government and the Coalition forces" and that they are both in full agreement: "the efforts for all political groups should be focused on the most dangerous challenge, which is al Qaeda and the Saddam Baathists...At least we can talk to the militias, we know who they are. They follow Moqtada al Sadr, the Dawa party, Badr etc. We can talk to them but who are terrorists loyal too and who do they follow?"

This is point, that is infrequently mentioned that the United States is in effect siding with al-Qaeda and the Saddam Baathists insurgency in Iraq, by declaring open war on the Shia in Iraq. In fact, by trying to impose a secularist pro-Western government, the United States has abandoned any pretense of favouring democracy, and is once again trying to restore a brutal oppressive autocracy, no different in nature to the Saddam Baathists regime. To this aim the United States has re-centred its focus on targeting the Shia Militia, which is describes as "death squads" ignoring the fact that exponentially more Iraqis have died at the hands of Wahhabi, Kurdish and Baathist "death squads", than have died at the hands of the Shia militias, and that the current wave of reciprocal violence in Iraq, is the corollary of the present security situation. The truth is that without the Shia militia the South of Iraq would be ungovernable and that many of the Sunni militias fulfil the same function in the North.

The United States also operates "death squads", and on a far greater scale, al-Malaki accuses the United States of effectively engaging in terrorism: "Do you send in planes to arrest one person? There is no problem with the principle of arresting criminals but you should not harm people in the way you go to arrest people, spreading horror and at the risk of sabotaging political actions we have worked on."

When Washington and London say they are in Iraq supporting a democratically elected Government, this is simply untrue; they are waging a war against that Government and against the Iraqi people.

Belgium Foreign Minister criticises senators for supporting terrorism

2006-10-27T11:07:00.000+01:00

Following a protest from Iran, Belgium's foreign minister Karel de Gucht, has condemned utterly the meeting between Belgian senators and Maryam Rajavi, leader of the Paris-based terrorist group the MKO.

Belgian news agency, BELGA, quoted de Gucht as saying such measures undermine Belgium's position in fight against terrorism.

Belgian foreign minister expressed regret over the meeting between Belgian officials and leader of the MKO terrorist group, saying Monafeghin group have carried out terrorist operations and have practiced torture in different parts of the world while they are on the US and EU terrorist list.

De Gucht added Belgium cannot permit the wastage of its diplomatic credit through gestures which do not serve the cause of democracy and undermines the consistency of Belgium's policy.

The Argentinian Libel

2006-10-27T03:13:00.000+01:00

The Argentine public prosecutor has once again accussed Iran of involvement in the 1994 bombings at the Jewish cultural center in Buenos Aires, despite having failed to convince an Argentine court and having a British judge lambaste the Argentine government for failing to provide a shred of evidence during the extradition hearing of the then Iranian ambassador to Argentina, Hadi Soleymanpour.

In fact, former MI5 agent David Shayler revealed that the both Britain had firm intelligence that Mossad carried out the 1994 Israeli embassy bombing in London, which Jack Straw suppressed, and that this bombing was linked to the Buenos Aires bombing.

Argentina has the largest Jewish community in Latin America and close connections to the Zionist regime and the United States, the timing of this allegation is designed to coincide with the Security Council debate on imposing sanctions against Iran. Therefore one can expect the European Union, who had grown decidedly wearily of this allegation, to give it undue credence. Notwithstanding that there is not government in Europe that does not know that Mossad carried out this bombing.

Reporting Iran

2006-10-24T14:21:00.000+01:00

Most of what is reported in the Western media about Iran is negative - how much of that do you suppose to be true? How much racist, how much propaganda and how much analysis from those who have never so much as visited Iran?

For instance, lets look at Human Rights: the British media heavily quotes Amnesty International's and Human Rights Watch's plethora of reports on the country.

Yet ask the authors of these reports, how many Iranian jails and cities they visited in the course of their research. You might be surprised to find that the answer is none!!!

A fact normally obscured in a small footnote, as it is on the USA State Dept report on Iran. All these stories on Iran cite dissidents. In other words, individuals like former SAVAK agent, Amir Taheri or dubious characters like Shirin Ebadi and Akbar Ganji, who are not above sharing a platform the MeK and the KDPI, who are erronously described as "opposition groups". Although neither of these terror cults has any political support in Iran. They are no more an "opposition" in Iran than the 7th July bombers are in Britain.

Thus AI and HRW reports are awash with factually inaccruate stories about terrorists, murderer, rapists and traitors, who have been sentenced to death. You might have seen petitions on the net.

Would the British government release Ian Huntley because of a petition signed by a million Iranians?

The purpose of the petition is not to get the convicted criminal reprieved; it is a propaganda exercise, the purpose of which, is to manipualte those who sign the petition into developing an emotional involvement, so they will be less likely to question the facts, and more suspectible to anti Iranian propaganda.

Trevor Phillips adds fuel to the fire

2006-10-23T16:33:00.000+01:00

Trevor Phillips, the chairman of the CRE has suggested that the teaching assistant, Aishah Azmi, suspended by Dewsbury's Headfield Church of England Junior School School for refusing to remove her veil in front of a male teacher, "would be doing everybody, including herself, a great favour were she to decide either that she were to comply with the requirements for teaching in the classroom or to decide she didn't want to do that job."

The employment tribunal held that she had not be discriminated against but had been victimised by the school and also recognised the serious subjudice issues in this case.

Whilst, one might on the face of it think that Phillips has a point, his remarks where inconsistent with his office, he is the chair of a government agency, with statutory legal powers on race equality. This intervention, is extraordinary; he is urging a woman to abort a civil suit in the national interest.

In fact, not only does she have the right to pursue her case - all things being equal - she has every prospect of success. In fact it is startling that neither Blair nor Woolas have been held in contempt of court - unquestionably their comments were subjudice -for this reason alone, the case is a more than worthy of being a test case. Government ministers (the Prime Minister no less) really ought not to be indulging in subjudice, no matter how politic.

Hang Kobra Rahmanpour

2006-10-22T18:37:00.000+01:00

Iranians rightly regard this interference as a form of Western imperialism; an act of tyranny
In Iran, there is considerable resentment to the imbecilic, disingenuous and imperialist attitude of Western chauvinists to Kobra Rahmanpour imminent death sentence - sentence that is long overdue - she has been in custody for six years and under sentence of death for four, she has exhausted the appeal process.

A process, that the Iranian judiciary has diligently applied, and perhaps allowed to drag on too long. Rahmanpour murdered her mother-in-law, she had due process, she was convicted upon the evidence. Her pleas of victimisation are nauseating, self-pitying and unrepentant:

"I want to live! I am a human being just like you. I do not want to die. However I am now a sol less body who in fear of the execution rope has forgotten how to laugh and be happy. A lot of people say to me how come your case has been so much publicized but you are still in prison? I have to tell them that I am only steps away from execution. I too like all of you am afraid of dying. Please help me so that this would not be my last letter.

People, friends!

My mother, father and handicapped brother are very worried about me. Your supports so far have been such a comfort to them. I wish my life was different. I wish I had finished my pre-university education. I wish I did not have to be a servant for my husband. I wish I had not reached insanity. I suffered a lot and was intimidated. I am a true victim. Now they are about to hang the victim. This was not and is not my destiny.

In these dark days of fear, I urge you once again to help me. I thank all mass media and all people who supported me before. Now, may be for the last time, I urge you to do everything you can to free me from execution. I like freedom. I dream about my freedom and a good life.

I have suffered enough. Help me to get rid of the nightmare of execution which wakes me up all the time. Do what you can. There is not much time left. Every minute takes me nearer to the rope. Please help me! I am afraid of the rope and death. I hate the rope that is waiting for me on the crane. I want to live. All other doors are closed to me. Nobody helps me. My only hope is the people. I want to hold my mother and father in my arms.

I want to thank my mother, father and all who have supported me.

Kobra Rahmanpoor

From Evin prison, Tehran, Iran Shahrivar 1385 (September 2006)"

She wants to live, so too did her mother-in-law whom she brutallymurdered, with malice aforethought, repeatedly stabbing her to death with a knife. In Iran there is little sympathy for this murderess. Iranians support the death penalty. It is not hard to see why the lives or murderers would be forfeit; Iran is not the only country to apply such logic. For Iranians, it is a private matter for the victims family whether they are prepared to accept the diyeh (blood money) or demand that the sentence be executed.

It would seem that the family are adamant that Rahmanpoor should hang. Iranians will respect that, it is a pity that so many Islamophobes and Western chauvinists will not. Iranians rightly regard this interference as a form of Western imperialism; an act of tyranny.

Straw Unveiled

2006-10-21T01:02:00.000+01:00

A visible statement of separation and of differenceIt began with Jack Straw’s comments that the veil was "a visible statement of separation and of difference" but then it descended into a government attack on British Muslims under the pretext of social cohesion. Straw’s comments were banal and bordering on imbecilic; of course it is a visible barrier – that is what a veil is - yet it is a barrier between Muslim and non-Muslims, it is a barrier between male and female, like other garments of clothes. It is a personal choice that affected him not in the least. In fact, wearing the veil could not be a more non-injurious to others. The claim that this is a barrier to social inclusion is pure sophistry; for most British Muslims, the tone of their skin is a veil. Discrimination, compounded by legal inequalities, is not limited to women, who wear the veil; it is a pervasive British Muslim experience.

Jack Straw has been feted for bring the debate to the forefront, yet is far from clear what this "debate". It cannot be the debate as to whether Muslim women ought to be allowed to observe the veil, since the government has categorically stated that it has no intention of introducing any proscriptive legislation in this regard. So what is this debate about?

The government voicing its disproval of the veil is not a debate, particularly when the government are committed to women having the choice whether they veil or not; it is nothing more, than a thinly veiled pretext for a staunchly anti-Islamic government, to yet again criticise the "British Muslim community". Whether a small minority of Muslim women choose to wear the face veil makes not a jot of difference to social cohesion and integration.

Medicines Sans Frontiers Accuse Israel of War Crimes

2006-10-16T20:12:00.000+01:00

Zionist regime attacked the Lebanese people in a bid to stop popular support for the Hezbollah

Medicines Sans Frontiers has strongly rejected Amnesty International claim that the Zionist regime did not deliberate target civillians. It said in a report carried by the German news agency DPA that the Zionist regime did not differentiate between Lebanese civilians and Hezbullah fighters during their 33-day invasion of Lebanon, which it described as a gross violation of human rights.

The report noted that, contrary to international regulations prohibiting attacks on civilians, the Zionist regime attacked the Lebanese people in a bid to stop popular support for the Hezbollah.

Lebanese President Accuses US of Conspiring Against Lebanon

2006-10-16T13:45:00.000+01:00

The US government would present itself as a friend of the Lebanese people, a peace broker, looking to support liberal democracy and wrestle the state out of the hands of an undemocratic Hezbullah. This Could not be further from the truth; Lebanese President Emile Lahoud last week accused the United States has orchestrated a full-size U.S. conspiracy against Lebanon.

During her visit in Egypt on Oct. 3, U.S. Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice described the "New Middle East", as the US vision of a "future Middle East in which there is a democratic Palestine living in peace with its democratic Israeli neighbor". Lahoud derided the claim that the United States had any interest in democracy or peace, pointing to the latest press reports that over 600,000 people have died as a result of the invasion and occupation of Iraq, he said, "I wonder whether this was the new Middle East they are talking about".

He urged the Lebanese people to stay united and consolidated against this US conspiracy to undermine their democracy and sovereignty. In other words to reject the pretensions of the US puppet, Prime Minister Seniora and the Hariri gang.

Despite US claims to the contrary, Sayyed Nasrallah and Hezbullah are more popular than they have ever been, were there to be a genuine democratic election in Lebanon, rather than the existing tripartite sham democracy, Sayyed Nasrallah would be Prime Minister.

British Army Chief Endorses Crusade Against Islam

2006-10-13T02:35:00.000+01:00

Britain’s new chief of the general staff, General Sir Richard Dannatt, in an interview in the Daily Mail made two interesting concessions about the "War on Terror". The First, a concession that the Occupation of Iraq is a failure. Contrary to the assertions of the British government, he argued that the British presence in Iraq, "exacerbates the security problems...Whatever consent we may have had in the first place...has largely turned to intolerance," and that "the difficulties we are experiencing round the world are caused by our presence in Iraq but undoubtedly our presence in Iraq exacerbates them".

The analysis is hardly startling - it is self-evident - were it not for the fact that this is being said by the Chief of the British army. However there was also another frank admission that the war on terror is being fought against Islam, "We can’t wish the Islamist challenge to our society away and I believe that the army both in Iraq and Afghanistan and probably wherever we go next, is fighting the foreign dimension of the challenge to our accepted way of life". This is far more significant because The Chief of the British army is acknowledging that this is a crusade against Islam.

It is clear from his comments that he perceives the British mission as opposing Islamism, yet the Saddam Baathist regime was secular; it is the present Iraqi government is Islamist. Thus we can infer that the British mission in Iraq is to oppose the Iraqi national Government.

Supporters of Endless Wars in Congress, II

2006-10-12T02:19:00.000+01:00

Many of the MEK supporters were not even Iranians

By Paul Sheldon Foote

Al-Jazeerah, September 18, 2005

In my article, Supporters of Endless Wars in Congress (http://www.aljazeerah.info/ , September 13, 2005), I expressed my opposition to the Democrats and Republicans in Congress who have sponsored or have co-sponsored the Iran Freedom Support Act. If this act becomes law, then the American taxpayers will be paying millions of dollars to support Iranian groups claiming to be pro-democracy.

The American neo-conservatives (neo-Trotskyites) in the American Congress support America's use of military force and of other means to impose communist or totalitarian governments in the world in the name of democracy. Vice President Richard Cheney has been discussing the possibility of dropping nuclear bombs on Iran. Any Iranian living outside of Iran who supports America's dropping nuclear bombs on Iran should be deported to Iran so that they can enjoy America's exporting of nuclear bomb democracy, too. Vice President Cheney and the evil members of Congress who support the Iran Freedom Support Act should not be supported by any Iranian, American, or by any person in the world who possesses an ounce of decency.

With my satellite dish, I was able to watch the MEK channel's coverage of the MEK protest near the United Nations on September 14, 2005. I was able to see the large number of red and white MEK flags with communist symbols being waved by the MEK supporters. Many of the MEK supporters were not even Iranians. As Kenneth Timmerman has shown in his posted photographs, the MEK paid large numbers of non-Iranians from other countries to come to America for a free trip. Now that Saddam Hussein is no longer in power, there are no longer millions of dollars of money being given to the MEK through the United Nations Oil-for-Food Program. Who is financing the MEK now? You still have nearly 4,000 MEK fighters in Camp Ashraf, Iraq who must be supported.

Unfortunately, Americans who watch the evening television news or read their local newspapers are unlikely to have seen the communist flags of the MEK flying in New York City.

Fortunately, Kenneth Timmerman took photographs of two protest groups (the MEK and the monarchists) and reported the names of the other protest groups protesting at different times or locations near the United Nations. Please see: http://www.iran.org/news/24-Irandemos.htm

As Kenneth Timmerman noted, the MEK is on the terrorist list in America for a good reason. The MEK has a long history of acts of terrorism, including the murders of Americans in Iran and a terrorist attack in America in 1992. MEK fighters at Camp Ashraf, Iraq have held annual celebrations of the murders of these Americans. In Iraq, the MEK's terrorist acts and war crimes include forcing Iraqis to stand in roads so that MEK tanks could run over and crush to death innocent Iraqis. MEK leaders wanted to save all MEK bullets for the invasion of Iran. Why does the MEK need to invade Iran? The reason is that there is nearly zero support for the MEK in Iran.

Unlike Kenneth Timmerman, however, I have only contempt also for the Iranian monarchists. I was in Tehran, Iran in the summer of 1976 when the late Shah of Iran explained on Iranian television why he had abolished all political parties and had replaced all Iranian political parties with one party, the Resurgence Party. After the Soviet Union and the United Kingdom forced Reza Shah to go into exile and placed the Shah of Iran on the throne, the Shah of Iran promised the Iranian people that he would give them a constitutional monarchy similar to that of the United Kingdom's. The Shah of Iran lied. The Shah of Iran gave the Iranian people a one-party state with an absolute monarchy and a lot of corruption.

I do not support one-party systems of government anywhere in the world. The neo-conservatives (neo-Trotskyites) and American members of Congress who claim that the MEK and the Iranian monarchists are pro-democracy are liars.

President Ahmadinejad received the votes of a very large number of Iranians. There never was an election of Maryam Rajavi. Why do MEK leaders lie by claiming that she is the president-elect of Iran? MEK supporters were very active in the brutalizing of American hostages at the American Embassy in Tehran, Iran. When I was a doctoral student at Michigan State University, I attended MEK meetings. Some of the MEK students left the university to return to Iran to help the MEK supporters holding Americans hostage.

The MEK was founded in 1965 to oust the Shah of Iran from power. The Shah of Iran executed or killed in gun battles most of the original MEK leaders, except for Massoud Rajavi. The MEK is opposed to all Iranian governments except for a communist totalitarian state under the rule of Massoud Rajavi. Even the New York Times has reported about the future Pol Pot of Iran:

"This past winter in Iran, when such a popular outburst among students and others was still just a dream, if you mentioned the Mujahedeen, those who knew and remembered the group laughed at the notion of it spearheading a democracy movement. Instead, they said, the Rajavis, given the chance, would have been the Pol Pot of Iran."

--Elizabeth Rubin, "The Cult of Rajavi", New York Times Magazine, July 13, 2003

The neo-conservatives (neo-Trotskyites) and the Democrats and Republicans in Congress who support the Iran Freedom Support Act are the worst terrorists in the world today. They threaten to drop nuclear bombs on Iran and impose another Pol Pot. Pol Pot was able to murder only approximately 25% to 33% of his people until the communist government of Vietnam sent its military to stop the genocide by the communist Pol Pot.

America does not want to bomb Iran and to impose the MEK because of democracy. Instead, the Iranian people want to be free to (1) sell their oil in Euros instead of using American dollars and (2) to start an oil exchange in 2006 instead of using oil exchanges in New York.

The truth is that there is more capitalism and democracy in Iran and in many other countries today than there is in America. America's political leaders are attempting to impose a communist government in Iran today (just as they did in 1959 in Cuba with Fidel Castro, the "George Washington of Cuba"). America is making these threats against Iran (and warnings against people in other countries who dare to be free). Most Americans do not understand yet how the neo-conservatives (neo-Trotskyites) in the Democratic and Republican parties are destroying America. They do not know that countries other than Iraq and Iran will stop using the American dollar or making investments in America. When there is a major depression in America or another terrorist attack in America, American dupes will have a choice: become educated and oust the neo-conservative (neo-Trotskyite) Democrats and Republicans or respond by bombing every country in the world refusing to hold American dollars and have American-supported totalitarians as their leaders.

Recommended Books on the MEK (Rajavi Cult)

Singleton, Anne, Saddam's Private Army: How Rajavi Changed Iran's Mojahedin from Armed Revolutionaries to an Armed Cult, Iran-Interlink (UK), 2003. ISBN: 0-9545009-0-3.

Available from the United Kingdom: http://www.iran-interlink.org/files/child%20pages/book_I-I.htm

This is the best single book available today on the MEK. Unfortunately, no American publisher is promoting this book in America. You must order it from the United Kingdom. The British author and her Iranian husband spent approximately 20 years inside the MEK, including time at Camp Ashraf, Iraq. She included extensive discussions of cult techniques and of why it is difficult to leave the MEK (Rajavi Cult) even in the United Kingdom.

Banisadr, Masoud, Masoud: Memoirs of an Iranian Rebel, Saqi Books, 2004. ISBN 0863563740

Available from many sources in America, such as: http://www.amazon.com

This Iranian author spent nearly 20 years of his life in the MEK, including at Camp Ashraf, Iraq. He described brainwashing and torture of MEK cult members at Camp Ashraf, Iraq. Unlike some MEK cult members, he did not die from the punishment. After leaving the MEK (Rajavi Cult), he wrote a lengthy book explaining exactly how the MEK finds new members and how it brainwashes and tortures its members. Abrahamian, Ervand, The Iranian Mojahedin, Yale University Press, New Haven, Connecticut, 1989. ISBN 0-300-05267-7

Available from many sources in America, such as: http://www.amazon.com

While this book has not been updated since 1989, it contains the scholarly research of an Iranian-American professor who interviewed Massoud Rajavi and other MEK leaders.Democracy Betrayed: A Response to U.S. State Department Report on the Mojahedin and the Iranian Resistance, Foreign Affairs Committee, National Council of Resistance of Iran, B.P. 18, 95430 Auvers-sur-Oise, France,1995.Available for free downloading from some Web sites of the MEK or of MEK supporters, such as: http://www.iran-e-azad.org/english/special/dembet.html

This is my favorite of the free books the MEK and its front groups have posted online because: (1) this book is an excellent example of how communist groups claim to be democratic. The Democratic People's Republic of Korea and the People's Republic of China are examples of totalitarian countries claiming to be democratic (2) this book contains some of the names of the members of Congress the MEK likes, such as Senator John Kerry, 2004 Democratic Party candidate for President.

Recommended Web Sites about the MEK (Rajavi Cult)

Inter-Interlink http://www.iran-interlink.org

This is Anne Singleton's Web site in the United Kingdom. The content includes extensive documentation about the MEK (Rajavi Cult), stories of cult members who have escaped from the MEK, and a lot of European documents the American neo-conservatives (neo-Trotskyites) do not want Americans to read. Iran Didban http://www.irandidban.com/

This Iranian Web site contains massive amounts of documents on the MEK (Rajavi Cult) in English, French, Arabic, and in Persian (Farsi).

Traitors USA http://groups.yahoo.com/group/traitorsusa/

My Yahoo! Group contains all of my postings plus the postings of members who choose to join the group.

At Traitors USA, I welcome researched postings by MEK supporters and opponents. I look forward to seeing your researched posting at Traitors USA.

Khoda hafez shoma,

Professor Paul Sheldon Foote

California State University, Fullerton PO Box 6848 800 North State College Fullerton, CA 92834-6848 USA

pfoote@fullerton.edu

Christian Terrorist Hijacks Plane

2006-10-04T10:28:00.000+01:00

Hakan Ekinci, a Christian convert and deserter from the Turkish army, motivated by Pope's anti-Islamic speech, hijacked a Boeing 737 flying out of Tirana, Albania to Istanbul, Turkey. In a letter to the Pope on 30 August 2006, he had declared "I am a Christian and I don't want to serve in a Muslim army," although Turkey is a secular state ruled by a notoriously anti-Islamic military junta, so clearly the army is not Muslim.

The Pope's defamation of Islam was obviously going to lead to greater political tension between Christians and Muslims, thus it was entirely foreseeable that his words would be interpreted as an endorsement of political violence against Islam.

It will be interesting to see what the Pope's reaction will be.

Media Fabrications

2006-10-03T13:53:00.000+01:00

Reporting from Iraq is perilous, particularly for Western reporters, therefore it is perhaps no surprise that the Times would resort to embellishing the briefings they receive from the Occupation Forces. However, this is article is pure fabrication; there is no one in the Mahdi army who would call themselves Abu Bakr!

This article is a testament to the fact that the Times is inherently dishonest, and spectacularly ignorant of Islam and the Middle East.

Al Shia regard Abu Bakr, the first Caliph, as a usurper, who opposed the Prophet's (saw) chosen successor, Imam Ali (as). For this reason Abu Bakr is a detested by al-Shia.

Who is really to blame?

2006-10-03T13:50:00.000+01:00

The Iranian President, Mahmoud Ahmadinejad, has called on the international community "to help restore law and order in both Iraq and Afghanistan by ending occupation".

Iraq is in in the midst of a civil war that is fast spiraling out of control and in Afghanistan the Pashtun tribesmen in the South are rebelling against the occupation. They are not, as is widely reported, the Taliban or al-Qaeda, they are the majority ethnic population in Afghanistan.

The Occupation is central to the violence in both countries. The Occupation forces are not bringing stability, they are roundly despised. Every time a soldier from the occupying forces is killed it is met at home as a tragedy, yet in Iraq and Afghanistan, it is one less occupier. It could not be clearer: the Occupation of Iraq and Afghanistan are an abject failure and always were going to be.

Merkel's extremism

2006-09-27T23:46:00.000+01:00

German Chancellor Merkel:

"Self-censorship out of fear is not tolerable."

She was of course not referring to Germany freedom of expression laws, which must rank amongst the most draconian in the World. This after all is state-censorship. Rather, she was referring to the decision of Deutsche Oper not to deliberate offend Muslims, or Christians, in the wake of the Pope's remarks.

No threats have been made against the Deutsche Oper, but they considered imprudent to needlessly engage in faith-baiting to increase the rather poor attendance of a production that has received unfavourable reviews.

The German Chancellor, suggest that this is mistake, perhaps she will feel the need to intervene further, and insist that the production goes ahead.

Chancellor Schroeder, to his credit, understood Germany's economy depends upon gas and oil. Merkel on the other hand is a verciferous critic of Islam; she has also been one of the most vocal supporters of sanctions against Iran, notwithstanding that such a measure would amount to economic suicide. Merkel is more than impolitic; she is an extremist.

The Bombing of St Mary's

2006-09-27T13:33:00.000+01:00

On Monday morning, two car bombs went off outside the Assyrian Orthodox Church of St Mary. Typical Western media response "Muslim extremist reacting to the Pope remarks".

They failed to consider the possibilty that as Iraq is in the grips of civil war they might have been an altogether motive. Even the Assyrian Christians reject that this has anything to do with the Pope's speech.

The Assyrian Orthodox Patriarch recently visited Kurdistan, which invoked critisism from Christians and Sunnis alike. Both are effectively at war with the Kurdish militias. It was a warning to the Patriarch.

The Quagmire in Afghanistan

2006-09-24T23:43:00.000+01:00

The very public spat in the United States between General Pervez Musharraf and Hamid Karzai and exemplifies how myopic and ill-conceived US foreign policy in Afghanistan is. General Musharraf is a military dictator trying desperately to cling to power, and Hamid Karzai is little more than the US governor of Kabul, who rather pretentiously refers to himself president of Afghanistan: it was not a position he was elected to in a dmemocractic election and it is not a position he occupies.

In truth, the North of Afghanistan remains under Northern alliance control, and in the South there is a Pakhtoon uprising. It is the Pakhtoon tribesmen, which are disingenuously referred to as the Taliban. NATO is not fighting the Taliban nor are they fighting terrorists, they are fighting the indigenous population.

Little wonder then, that so many NATO countries are reticent to commit troops to the current quagmire in Afghanistan. This is not a war that NATO is going to win.

Spread by the Sword

2006-09-24T23:31:00.000+01:00

American author James Michener in his article ‘Islam: The Misunderstood Religion,’ that carried by Reader’s Digest in its May 1955 issue, says:

"No other religion in history spread so rapidly as Islam. The West thought that this surge of religion was made possible by the sword. But no modern scholar accepts this idea, and the Qur’an is explicit in the support of the freedom of conscience."

This reason that Islam spread so widely was that it differed from Christianity in two regards: firstly, the majority of Christians were illiterate their relationship with their religion was not through a personal knowledge of God or the Bible it was through the teachings of the Church; secondly, Christianity was the religion of empire. Whereas in contrast Muslims, had a personal relationship with God through the Qu'ran; and Islam was the religion of the people. In short, Christianity was imposed by Rome, it was the oppressor religion, Islam was the religion of liberation.

What is it to be British?

2006-09-24T22:57:00.000+01:00

I was born free,
free of land, free of property,
free of the shackles of ownership,
but I was not free.

I was born into bondage,
I was born in Britain,
so the white Queen laid claim to me.

"I own the land, I own all that is in it,
I own you, mind, body and soul,
you are mine," she said.

But Iranian blood,
runs through my veins,
so the Shah of Iran laid claim to me,

"I own the father, I own the son,
I own you, mind, body and soul,
you are mine," he said.

Like a sheep I was branded,
like a sheep I was owned,
but I was no sheep,
owned, mind body and soul.

Sheep are herded and sheered,
penned in and content,
they watch big brother,
and pay their taxes.

What is it to be British,
to be a slave of the white Queen?

Sayed Hassan Nasrallah - Victory Speech

2006-09-23T23:41:00.000+01:00

Sayed Hassan Nasrallah, Secretary General of Lebanese Islamic Resistance Movement, was greeted by a million strong crowd, at a ceremony celebrating the Lebanese resistance's victory over the Zionist regime. He said to the crowd,

"We are the children of the Imam who said I don't fear death, Nasrallah said downplaying the threats the Zionist officials have made to terror him.

Peace of Allah be upon you, your wounds, your wounded, your tears, your husband-less women, your father-less children, your destroyed homes".

"Which human mind could believe only a few thousand fighters stood against the bombs which were transferred from America to the Zionist regime and from there upon the Lebanese cities? Lebanon's fighters made the enemy hide like mouses."

"This was was an American war, with American weapons and American plan and decision."

He stated that the victory belongs to all Lebanon and all the free people of the world not only to Hezbollah.

Nasrallah castigated Arab states who yesterday, begged for peace in the UN:

"The Lebanese nation's resistance teaches all the nations that resistance works and that only if they are resolved they can free Palestine."

Nasrallah said that it was ilogical to forever keep the weapon of resistance but it would only be possible to abandon them after forming a powerful government to protect Lebanon, something which he said the current echelon is not competent of doing.

Nasrallah vowed to keep weapon of resistance, adding the weapon serves the nation.

The Cross and the Crescent

2006-09-22T23:38:00.000+01:00

Lord Carey the former Archbishop of Canterbury, in his speech, "The Cross and the Crescent", posits the following question:

"So allow me to ask an awkward question which I believe was hovering in the background of the Pope’s thesis and which many westerners are asking frequently these days: ‘Why is Islam associated with violence?’"

Had he rephrased his question, 'Why are Christianity and Judaism associated with violence', he would have his answer.

Islam is perceived as violent, when it reacts to Western (principally Christian and Jewish) aggression. Islam is the religion of the invaded, the occupied and the dispossessed; it is the religion of resistance; and the religion of the enemy. So long as Muslims are the victims and adversaries of Christian and Jewish imperialism, then this will remain the case. There is nothing very complicated here.

Lord Carey could look to his own statement:

"It is the firm view of most Muslims that the invasion of Iraq in 2004 is solely about oil. It is important to disabuse them of that notion by a rigid commitment to stand alongside Iraq until its infrastructure is rebuilt and there is a return to something approaching normality in that ancient land."

Thus, Lord Carey, the former spiritual leader of the Anglican Church, is giving succour to a Crusade; for what else is it when Christian nations invade a Muslim country and try and impose their values and doctrine on it? He appears not to have considered that this is Christian violence.

He then addresses the issue of martyrdom in Christianity:

"I find it difficult to understand the argument that a person can be a blessed martyr if, in the cause of his conflict, he knowingly kills innocent people. Christian martyrdom is unlike this. We have no martyrology which honours people who kill innocent people. The martyr, for Christians, is one who does not kill but is killed for her or his faith. She or he suffers for God and his people and does so, not be fighting or killing, but by suffering. A terrorist by definition cannot be a martyr."

The corollary here is startiling, if anyone who kills innocent is a terrorist, then this collectively applies to the British forces in Iraq and Afghanistan, which is interesting since he reveals that at the age of 18 he too served in an occuaption of Egypt and Iraq.

John Simpson on Iran's nuclear programme

2006-09-20T23:35:00.000+01:00

John Simpson, a longtime critic of Iran, writing for the BBC says,

"For almost 30 years, the West has concentrated on the religious, fundamentalist aspect of Iran's Islamic Republic...We have forgotten that Khomeini's revolution was also a declaration of independence from British and American control."

He also goes on to dismiss Israel's justice minister, Meir Sheetrit, preposterous suggestion that Iran plans to build a a nuclear bomb. Simpson says:

"But, if President Ahmadinejad wants to attack Israel, there are simpler ways than building a nuclear bomb.

Iran's close ally, the Lebanese Shia movement Hezbollah, armed and trained by Iran, launched a highly successful brief war against Israel.

A guerrilla movement, well supplied with low-tech weapons, out-fought and outmanoeuvred a big conventional army using tanks, planes and artillery."

He also points out, somewhat controversially given the BBC line, that Ahmadinejad is popular throughout the Muslim World:

"Instead of the old Sunni-Shia hostility, there is a new unity."

He goes on to quote Prince Hassan of Jordan:

"The populism of Ahmadinejad and Hezbollah is an alternative to civil society in the Middle East...By recruiting the poor and disenfranchised, they are closer to people's needs than governments are. Which is why they have this enormous following."

This is quite a diversion from the usual BBC line, that routinely suggest that the West believes that Iran has a nuclear weapon programme. The reality is they do not. No Western government has suggested that Iran has nuclear weapons, nor have they produced any evidence that the Iranian nuclear programme is to be used for anything other than civil purposes. This is nothing short of a pretext for belligerence towards the most powerful Islamic nation.

Even in Iraq, where the United States ostensibly invaded to bring about regime change, it now is an occupier denying Iraq the Islamist government that it voted for. The United States oppose any political manifestation of Islam calling it extremism, yet supports a political manifestation of Judaism in the same region. Its belligerence towards Iran has to be viewed in this context: the context of an anti-Islamic Crusade.

"Death to America"

2006-09-19T23:48:00.000+01:00

Why do Iranian's chant "Marg ba Emerika" (death to America)? This question was asked by Time magazine of president Ahmadinejad. His answer goes someway to explaining it:

"When they chanted that slogan, it means they hate aggression, and they hate bullying tactics, and they hate violations of the rights of nations and discrimination. I recommended to President Bush that he can change his behavior, then everything will change."

The TIME reporter then suggests:

"But if Americans shouted "Death to Iran", Iranians would feel insulted."

Ahmadinejad response:

"If the government of Iran acted in such a way, then the American people have this right."

Whilst this will be understood all over the developing World, in the US it will be seen as no more than evidence that the Iranian president is an adept rhetorician. There will be no attempt to see that such an anti imperialist slogan - for that is what it is - is directed at the USA for good reason. Reasons that hardly need spelling out. Yet ask most American when the USA illegally invaded sovereign Iran and they will assume you mean Iraq. In truth, any American who has heard of "TP Ajax" ought to be able to answer that question.

The chant is similar to burning the Stars and Stripes; if American can salute it and swear allegiance to it and for what it stands; others can burn it and curse it for what it stands. In the World today the United States stand for hegemony, genocide, tyranny, occupation and oppression. Ideologically "Death to America", means the same as "They shall not pass". They are anti imperialist and anti fascist statements.

It is notable than when Hugo Chavez's bestowed Venezuela's highest emblem, the Liberator Medal, upon Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad, he said,

"now is the time when free governments and nations of the world should stay united against US imperialism and its bullying."

Ahmadinejad described Iran and Venezuela are "pioneers in the cause of global independence, freedom and justice" and said:

"The future belongs to the unrelenting and resistant nations of the world and oppressors have no choice but defeat."

That is what "Death to America" means!

Freedom of the Press

2006-09-19T23:46:00.000+01:00

The United States has long been a critic of Iran's restriction on the press - this despite the fact that the US Gov have asked congress for an additional $75,000,000 to spend on aggressive propaganda to facilitate a coup in Iran - yet the United States today prevented Iranian journalist traveling with president Ahmadinejad, form entering the United States in violation of intenrational law.

According to a treaty signed by Washington with the United Nations, Washington has committed itself "not to impose any impediment" to the entry of officials of UN member countries to its territory to attend conferences of the world body or for UN business.

IRNA Managing Director Ahmad Khademolmelleh said,

"As the host country of the UN, the US is sacrificing goals of the global media by refusing visas to Iranian reporters who were to cover discussions and debates at the 61st annual session of the UN General Assembly"

Comming to terms with a nuclear Iran

2006-09-19T23:43:00.000+01:00

"Things have changed and they have to know it. They can scold us, they can shout at us, but they cannot damage us."

This is what President Ahmadinejad said to Kofi Annan regarding the United States and Britain. The meeting was not an easy one for Annan, Ahmadinejad made no pretense that the UN Secretary General was anything more than a messenger boy for the United States.

Moreover, in an interview with Time magazine, he was asked why Iran refuses to suspend uranium enrichment as a confidence-building measure. His answer was "whose confidence should be built?" The interviewer replied "The world's?". Ahmadinejad then responded by saying,

"The world? The world? Who is the world? The United States? The U.S. Administration is not the entire world. Europe does not account for even one-twentieth of the entire world"

In fact, NAM has strongly supported Iran's right to the use and development of nuclear energy. Thus Iran can argue that numerically, the World supports Iran position not the United States'.

President Chirac's has recently broken ranks with the United States, Britain and Germany by accepting that a suspension of uranium cannot be a pre-condition to negotiations:

"We must first find an agenda for negotiations, then during these negotiations I suggest that, on the one hand, the six [the US, the UK, France, Germany, China and Russia] renounce involving the security council and Iran renounces uranium-enrichment during the negotiations."

What is still unclear is what a temporary suspension of enrichment would achieve; Iran is not going to concede its nuclear rights an a long term or permanent basis and is not minded to do so on a temporary basis. The Iranian position is not that it will agree to suspension, as has been reported in much of the Western media, it is that suspension can be discussed during the negotiations.

Herein lies the problem, the West is incapable of persuading Iran to give up its nuclear rights through the threat of force, sanctions or the offer of economic sweeteners. Therefore, the United States has three course open to it: impose sanctions; go to war; or accept a nuclear Iran. Of the options only the last is realistic and it is the one that the United States has at present been forced to accept, albeit grudgingly.

The problem for the Bush administration, is having so talked up the Iranian nuclear issue, to now publicly accept a nuclear Iran, amounts to an admission of defeat, which he finds inconceivable. he is further hampered by the fact that this dispute cannot run indefinitely with no action. So the US is desperately looking for sanctions, that Chirac has conceded would be ineffective, simply to save face.

The Pope was not taken out of context

2006-09-18T03:11:00.000+01:00

The Vatican has been at pains to point out that the Pope's comments during his lecture at University of Regensburg have been taken out of context and that he did not intend to malign Islam. In his apology the Pope states:

"I am deeply sorry for the reactions in some countries to a few passages of my address at the University of Regensburg, which were considered offensive to the sensibility of Muslims. These in fact were a quotation from a medieval text, which do not in any way express my personal thought."

Yet unlike president Ahmadinejad, the Pope was not misquoted nor have his comments been misrepresented in the Muslim World. The Iranian newspaper Jamejam says,

"In a speech titled "Piety, Wisdom and Universities: Memories and Reactions" delivered Tuesday at Regensburg University in the German state of Bavaria, the pontiff claimed that unlike the Christian faith Islam rarely follows the rules of logic. Quoting a book titled "The Byzantine Empire," the Pope said the Prophet Mohammad (PBUH) had enjoined Muslims to spread their faith even by "such means as the sword." The Pope also ridiculed the ideas of Jihad (holy war) and other holy Islamic rituals."

Those who are taking his words out of context are those who have come to his defence. Whilst the Pope's is unequivocal that all "violence is incompatible with the nature of God", he is also equally unequivocal that Islam is violent,

'The emperor must have known that surah 2, 256 reads: "There is no compulsion in religion". According to the experts, this is one of the suras of the early period, when Mohammed was still powerless and under threat. But naturally the emperor also knew the instructions, developed later and recorded in the Qur'an, concerning holy war. Without descending to details, such as the difference in treatment accorded to those who have the "Book" and the "infidels", he addresses his interlocutor with a startling brusqueness on the central question about the relationship between religion and violence in general, saying: "Show me just what Mohammed brought that was new, and there you will find things only evil and inhuman, such as his command to spread by the sword the faith he preached".'

Thus he is at pains to assert that the Prophet Muhammad (saw) endorsed violent conversion, which is untrue, and to dismiss surah 2, 256, which contrary to his assertion in held to have been written 624 or 625, when the Prophet (saw) was in Medina. Hence it was written from a position of strength not weakness.

Moreover, the Pope clearly argued that Islam is irrational,

"The decisive statement in this argument against violent conversion is this: not to act in accordance with reason is contrary to God's nature. The editor, Theodore Khoury, observes: For the emperor, as a Byzantine shaped by Greek philosophy, this statement is self-evident. But for Muslim teaching, God is absolutely transcendent."

Again this assumption is incorrect; Christianity came to learn of Socrates, Plato and Aristotle, through the writings of Islamic philosophers such as Ibn Rashid and Ibn Sina.

Thus the Pope is accusing Islam of being "contrary to the nature of God", because he holds it to be violent and irrational; and:

"Not to act reasonably, not to act with logos, is contrary to the nature of God", said Manuel II, according to his Christian understanding of God, in response to his Persian interlocutor. It is to this great logos, to this breadth of reason, that we invite our partners in the dialogue of cultures."

The Pope is of course entitled to his view; however maligning Islam and calling it evil and inhuman, will not lead to constructive dialogue between the two faiths. The Pope seems unclear as to what position he wants to take towards Islam: one of mutual respect or one of conflict.

What Ahmadinejad Really Said

2006-09-16T00:14:00.000+01:00

In an earlier post, I pointed out that the Iranian President, Mahmoud Ahmadinejad, did not call for "Israel to be wiped off the map", and that Western news agencies were aware of this when they falsely reported that he had. He, in fact referred to the Qods Occupier regime, and in any event quoted Imam Khomeini (ra), adding,

"This sentence is very wise. The issue of Palestine is not an issue on which we can compromise."

Thus, it was the Qods Occupier regime that he suggested must be wiped from the map. Moreover, President Ahmadinejad was not saying anything new, this is not only the stated view of Imam Khomeini (ra); it is the view of Ayatullah al-Uzma Khamenei, Iran's supreme leader, and the official position of the the Islamic Republic of Iran.

Had "Qods Occupier regime" been used in the Western translation, instead of Israel, very few people would have had any difficulty grasping, that he was calling for regime change. Nor would any person who read the totality of his speech, perceive that he was suggesting that Iran has any intention of attacking Israel.

In fact during that conference, "A world without Zionism", he said:

"The Palestinian issue has not ended. It would end when a government belonging to the Palestinian people takes over, the homeless return home and a free election is held to form a government representing all people."

A point later repeated during his speech at "The Third International Conference on Qods and Support for the Rights of Palestinian People":

"Only a government chosen by the people can resolve the problem of Palestine and the people of the region. The right to govern belongs to all people of Palestine and they must decide the governing model of their choice and elect their own officials. For this purpose, there must be an opportunity for all genuine Palestinians; be they Muslims, Christians, or Jews, residing in Palestine or in Diaspora, to participate in a referendum to decide the political system of their choice and elect their leaders."

"Ever since the Palestinian nation focused attention on promotion of an Islamic atmosphere and attitude, day-to-day success and progress have been witnessed among Palestinians."

Hence what he was calling for was democracy, and the right of return; yet suggesting that Palestinians would bring this about through their own endeavor; particularly, since they had turned away from the Arab Nationalism of Fatah and turned to the Islamic political movements. He also described the withdrawal from the Gaza Strip as a "trick," designed to elicit recognition of the Zionist regime of Israel, from Islamic states.

He warned,

"The world arrogant powers founded the Zionist regime at the heart of the Muslim world as a base for their own expansionist intentions."

Moreover, what President Ahmadinejad said on the demise of this "fictitious regime" was no more or less than he said during his speech at "The Third International Conference on Qods and Support for the Rights of Palestinian People":

"The young tree of resistance in Palestine is blooming and blooms of faith and desire for freedom are flowering. The Zionist regime is a decaying and crumbling tree that will fall with a storm."

"A regime based on injustice and threat cannot survive. Today all conditions for the freedom of Palestine are on hand and available. Vigilance, unity and resistance are the keys to victory."

The truth then, is that his opposition is to a Western imperialism and a "Jewish State", which excludes the religious and racial identity of the majority of the indigenous population. He is not talking of the destruction or exclusion of Jews from Palestine; far from it, he is talking of integration; it is Israel that is committed to apartheid, ethnic-cleansing, genocide and belligerence.

Blair not welcome in Lebanon

2006-09-16T00:13:00.000+01:00

Lebanon`s most senior Shia cleric, Grand Ayatullah Mohammed Hussein Fadlallah has said in a statement that Fuad Siniora's government should have told

"Blair that he is not wanted in Lebanon, so that he, and those like him, would know that we are not so naive as to welcome him when he has contributed to killing us and slaughtering our children".

This is significant, Blair might like to think he can ignore a man whose spiritual authority extends beyond the borders of Lebanon but Grand Ayatullah Mohammed Hussein Fadlallah is Marja (spiritual guide) to millions and is one of the most respected Shia scholar in the World today.

Siniora, already tarnished, will not be forgiven for receiving Blair, unless he has the courage to publicly denounce him. Therefore, it is hard to see what Blair is looking to achieve; his visit presence is exacerbated tensions in a volatile region. One might suspect that Blair is courting martyrdom.

Israel: " Wiped off the Map"

2006-09-16T00:09:00.000+01:00

"Imam ghoft: 'een rezhim-e ishghalgar-e qods bayad az safheh-ye ruzgar mahv shavad'."

The official translation of what president Ahmadinejad said in October 2005 during the "A World without Zionism" conference is: "Imam said: 'This Qods occupier regime must be eliminated from the surface of the Earth'."

In fact, an exact translation would be "Imam said: 'This Qods occupier regime must be eliminated from the pages of history'" the offical translation is based on what Ahmadinejad intended to say rather than what he did say. He intended to say "Imam ghoft: 'een rezhim-e ishghalgar-e qods bayad az sahneh-ye ruzgar mahv shavad'" but instead misquoted nad used Imam Khomeini (ra) and used "safheh-ye" instead of "sahneh-ye". There are disputes whether this ought then to be translated as "wiped off the map"; although give the official translation of: "eliminated from the surface of the Earth," I can see no objection. However, what is clearly beyond dispute is that he did not say "Israel".

The statement is available here in Farsi:

After almost a year, the Western media are finally addressing this deliberate mistranslation, largely due to an article by Jonathan Steele in the Guardian. Steele became aware of the issue after it was highlighted in the blog of professor Juan Cole, however as he points out, even the Zionist propaganda service MEMRI, concedes in its translation (available since the 28 October 2005) that President Ahmadinejad did not say Israel; preferring, "this regime occupying Qods". Steele also suggests that the BBC were aware at the time of publication, that he had not called for Israel to be wiped off the map.

In fact, the BBC received many complaints over its translation. I provided the official translation in the comments section of a BBC article posted on the net; this comment did not pass the censor, nor did any other comments with the official translation. This lie, for this is what it is, has been often repeated in BBC broadcasts, from news programmes to the Moral Maze, all without being checked. However it was not only the BBC, which as an apparatus of British state propaganda might be forgiven for using the British foreign office mistranslation; it was a lie carried by every mainstream British and US media broadcaster or publication that cared to comment on the matter.

This ought to be shocking; that is, if one believes that Britain and the United States do not have a media that would deliberately disseminate Zionist propaganda to galvanise public into supporting wars in the Middle East. However, I doubt many people would be shocked to learn that there is a pernicious Zionist influence in the British and US media, or come to that, in the British and US governments.

It is interesting that now this lie has been exposed in the mainstream media. Ethan Bronner, writes in the New York Times, one of the publications that perpetuated this lie, still finds himself incapable of honesty:

"So did he call for Israel to be wiped off the map? It certainly seems so. Did that amount to a call for war? That remains an open question."

This is after he concedes that Ahmadinejad did not mention the word Israel, thus no amount of obfuscation or sophistry, can change the fact that he simply did not call for "Israel to be wiped off the map". This is not the first groundless accusation made against President Ahmadinejad or Iran, they are made are a daily basis.

Not only were President Ahmadinejad's words deliberately mistranslated they were flagrantly misrepresented. After quoting, Imam Khomeini (ra), he added:

"This sentence is very wise. The issue of Palestine is not an issue on which we can compromise."

Thus, it was the Qods Occupier regime that he suggested must be wiped from the map. Moreover, President Ahmadinejad was not saying anything new, this is not only the stated view of Imam Khomeini (ra); it is the view of Ayatullah al-Uzma Khamenei, Iran's supreme leader, and the official position of the the Islamic Republic of Iran.

Had "Qods Occupier regime" been used in the Western translation, instead of Israel, very few people would have had any difficulty grasping, that he was calling for regime change. Nor would any person who read the totality of his speech, perceive that he was suggesting that Iran has any intention of attacking Israel.

In fact during that conference, "A world without Zionism", he said:

"The Palestinian issue has not ended. It would end when a government belonging to the Palestinian people takes over, the homeless return home and a free election is held to form a government representing all people."

A point later repeated during his speech at "The Third International Conference on Qods and Support for the Rights of Palestinian People":

"Only a government chosen by the people can resolve the problem of Palestine and the people of the region. The right to govern belongs to all people of Palestine and they must decide the governing model of their choice and elect their own officials. For this purpose, there must be an opportunity for all genuine Palestinians; be they Muslims, Christians, or Jews, residing in Palestine or in Diaspora, to participate in a referendum to decide the political system of their choice and elect their leaders."

"Ever since the Palestinian nation focused attention on promotion of an Islamic atmosphere and attitude, day-to-day success and progress have been witnessed among Palestinians."

Hence what he was calling for was democracy, and the right of return; yet suggesting that Palestinians would bring this about through their own endeavor; particularly, since they had turned away from the Arab Nationalism of Fatah and turned to the Islamic political movements. He also described the withdrawal from the Gaza Strip as a "trick," designed to elicit recognition of the Zionist regime of Israel, from Islamic states.

He warned,

"The world arrogant powers founded the Zionist regime at the heart of the Muslim world as a base for their own expansionist intentions."

Moreover, what President Ahmadinejad said on the demise of this "fictitious regime" was no more or less than he said during his speech at "The Third International Conference on Qods and Support for the Rights of Palestinian People":

"The young tree of resistance in Palestine is blooming and blooms of faith and desire for freedom are flowering. The Zionist regime is a decaying and crumbling tree that will fall with a storm."

"A regime based on injustice and threat cannot survive. Today all conditions for the freedom of Palestine are on hand and available. Vigilance, unity and resistance are the keys to victory."

The truth then, is that his opposition is to a Western imperialism and a "Jewish State", which excludes the religious and racial identity of the majority of the indigenous population. He is not talking of the destruction or exclusion of Jews from Palestine; far from it, he is talking of integration; it is Israel that is committed to apartheid, ethnic-cleansing, genocide and belligerence.

Rise in anti-Semitism or rise in anti-Zionism?

2006-09-16T00:01:00.000+01:00

The British media in response to an All-Parliamentary Committee against anti-Semitism report, indicated that there has been an alarming rise in "anti-Semitic incidents" what they avoided doing was pointing out that this Committee rejected Police evidence in favour of the militant Jewish group, the Community Security Trust, who in fact report that there has been a 14% decline in "anti-Semitic incidents" since 2004 falling to 455.

Moreover, the media were less keen to identify that this Committee's definitions of incident and anti-Semitism and are enormously problematic. The word incident does not indicate a criminal offence; rather anything than a Jewish person finds offensive, including legitimate criticism of Israel, Zionism, modern Judaism and various Jewish individual and organisations. Hence had the committee talked of "criminal incidents" for 2005, it would have been reduced to talking about the 10 or so incidents. In short, one detective could deal with all the anti-Jewish criminal incidents in this country, with time to spare.

Furthermore, the committee itself was undeniable anti-Semitic, it failed to identify that Arabs are Semites, therefore if it the committee view that Jews are Semites and they are the victims of anti-Semitism, then the prejudice would apply equally to Arabs, if not it cannot be racism, it has to be something else: Judeophobia perhaps - a loathing of Judaism and Judaic culture. However, the focus of this committee was nearly entirely based on anti-Zionism. The committee was in effect trying to silence criticism of Israel and Zionist political organisations and lobbyists in this country and abroad.

In November of last year, in response to the same fictitious claims of a rise in anti-Semitism, I wrote the following article: "Lies Lies, and Damned Statistics"

Clare Short's call for Democracy

2006-09-15T23:29:00.000+01:00

Clare Short MP, has been threatened with expulsion from the Labour Party for the following statement:

"My conclusion is that the key to the change we need is a hung parliament which will bring in electoral reform. Then we would have a second election. Labour - with existing levels of support - would have one-third of the seats in the Commons, the Tories something similar, and we would be likely to see some Greens and others added, creating a plurality of voices and power centres in the Commons. British politics would then change profoundly. Parliament, and in turn the people, would have to be listened to, Cabinet government would return, the error-prone arrogance of Number 10 would end, and we would have a chance of creating a new politics, a more civilised country and a more honourable role in the world."

Just so that there is no doubt, what she is advocating is democratic reform. For Tony Blair was not elected Prime Minister of the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland nor was her Majesty's Government democratically elected.

The Labour party, was invited to form the government by the Queen, it was not elected to do so. Constituency elections are just that, Members of Parliament are elected to represent a constituency, nothing more. Of course, the majority of voters vote for the political party not the candidate, since we are denied any legal mechanism for us to elect the Head of State, the Prime Minister or the government.

However it is palpable nonsense to suggest that this is democratic: our constituencies are not equal in population or land mass; and have they been manufactured to give an electoral advantage to the incumbent Labour government. This is not democracy; it is election rigging. The Labour Party has a majority in Parliament, yet failed to win the support of even a quarter of the electorate. They achieved a third of cast votes, less than the number of abstentions.

Whatever one thinks of Clare Short and her motives; any political party that would expel a member for urging democratic reform, is itself undemocratic.

Ahmadinejad Criticises Western Militarism

2006-09-06T23:26:00.000+01:00

During the second 'International Conference on Mahdaviyat Doctrine' in Tehran, Iranian President, reiterating the point he made on the 29 August Mahmoud Ahmadinejad said,

"those who claim to be harbingers of democracy and human rights and allege to represent the whole world do not enjoy even the minimum level of acceptability in their own nations. But they are wrong. They do not represent the world community, and we cry out our opposition to the current method of managing world affairs, as it is based on oppression, deceit and injustice. We are opposed to the looting of the world resources by the United States and Britain."

President Ahmadinejad further asked,

"Why do you wish to resolve all the world issues through force and by deployment of weapons, why do and your nuclear arsenals form your characters?"

In reference to his recent offer to participate in an uncensored televised debate with the US President, George W. Bush, to present their respect viewpoints to the entire planet, President Ahmadinejad said,

"We have voiced our preparedness for attending a debate with those who allege to be the advocates or flag bearers of human rights, democracy and freedom in order to present our views about the world problems, but they refrained from presenting a proper response in this regard."

Whilst such a televised debate might seem unlikely, the purported purpose of the UN is to provide a public venue where nations may debate and resolve their differences. Therefore it is entirely appropriate that such a debate does take place whether at the UN or elsewhere.

Yet, the Bush administration and the European troika have repeatedly shied away from an open debate of the Iranian nuclear energy issue. The Western powers have bemoaned Iran for its intransigence, when in truth Iran has only insisted on its exerting its minimal rights under international law. The reality of the nuclear crisis, is one of Western belligerence and bellicose, passing as a foreign policy. Hence the desire that to avoid a public debate, and the preference for sabre rattling.

Consequences for Iran's Defiance

2006-08-31T23:18:00.000+01:00

"There will be consequences for Iran's defiance"

"There will be consequences for Iran's defiance". Or so President Bush has decreed. Iran must face the consequences for asserting its national sovereignty and international rights under the NPT. Iran is to be held accountable for refusing to acquiesce to the caprices of the United States; for refusing to surrender to Zionist hegemony in the region and for being an unabashed Islamic State. In short, Iran has dared to challenge the imperial authority of the United States; so in the parlance of the Bush regime, it is a "Rogue State".

Iran shall once again be associated with Islamic fanaticism, although for the Bush administration, which is itself open to accusations of religious fundamentalism and extremism, the preferred phrase is Islamic fascism. Of course the term is intellectually vacuous: it would be far more sensible to do away with the hyperbolic and pejorative suffix and simply refer to Iran as an Islamic State.

However, no amount of sophistry or religious malediction will obscure the fact that US imperialism lacks political credibility in the World today. The Bush doctrine of a "clash of civilisations" (or more accurately a clash of ideologies) in the terms of good and evil is nihilistic; it leaves no room for compromise.

The problem with this worldview is that it is dependent upon two key factors: the first that the rest of the World is prepared to be polarised along these lines; and secondly that the United States can win this conflict. This is where it falls down, even if the United States could walk the rest of the West into this apocalypse – which it was unable to do with Iraq – the US has proved more effective at projecting its power through diplomacy and intimidation than through military might.

This is where we are in the Iranian nuclear dispute; the bombast and rhetoric of the Bush administration does not veil US impotence: they are utterly incapable of preventing Iran from continuing with its nuclear energy programme, as they are well aware. All that they can do is engage in diplomacy with Iran, yet due to the ideological fanaticism at the core of the Bush administration, the US is unwilling to do this. In fact, this conflict is entirely of the United States making, yet paradoxically, having stage-managed the crisis, the US finds itself unable to resolve it.

Undoubtedly there will be consequences for Iran's defiance but they are unlikely to be to Bush's liking.

What is history?

2006-08-18T23:16:00.000+01:00

This is a question that is rarely if at all asked outside of first year undergraduate history classes and even then the question is given scant attention. Yet this is far more than a abstract philosophical question - history largely defines us - it goes along way to forming our preconceptions in life.

George Orwell famously said "He who controls the present, controls the past. He who controls the past, controls the future." Orwell's observation abounds with clarity, it is exactly so. History is on one level propaganda; an interpretation of the past, used to mirror the present, to some political end, whether that end be Machiavellian or not. This politically engineered history profoundly effects the present.

Another form of history is social collective history. The history that a society or nation believes to be true and uses to define cultural and societal attitudes. This is somewhat different form politically engineered history in that it is not artificially engineered to some political end; it evolves and becomes something which is pervasively believed.

There is however an interdependent relationship between the two, which of course, is what Orwell is alluding to.

Then there is our personal history: that which we recall of our past and that which we have been taught about our past. In short, our perception of who and what we are and the foundation of our beliefs and values. Just as collective history goes to the heart of who we are as a society, personal history goes to the heart of who we are as individuals - it forms a large part of who we think we are.

History as an academic discipline - the least interesting of all forms of history - can subdivided into scientific history and interpretative history, although the two are inextricably linked, since scientific history alone is usually to vague to be meaningful.

Scientific history is based upon inference from empirical evidence and logically deductible conjecture, whereas interpretative history goes beyond this and seeks to makes sense of history. Only a fool would mistake academic history for truth - and there are many such fools, many of whom are University professors and lecturers.

Here is where academic History should differ from personal history and collective history, academic history is an interpretation of the past, whereas collective and personal history are perceived truths.

This brings us to our penultimate form of history: folklore or myth. History has always existed not only to inform but to entertain. The noble art of oral story telling is sadly in decline in the West but the art remains alive in the cinema. More people in Britain will have watched Oliver Stone's Alexander than have read Arrian's "Anabasis Alexandri".

Finally there is essential history or the belief that history has a raison d'être. In short, essential history is the religious view of history, although Marxist history is an example of where secularist have adopted this approach too. Essential history tends to pervade all other forms of history, although often this goes unnoticed

Israel and the US object to the rebuilding of Lebanon

2006-08-18T23:14:00.000+01:00

Hizbullah is making good on its promise to rebuild Lebanon, much to the consternation of the United States and Israel. Brigadier General Yossi Kuperwasser, a senior Israeli intelligence officer, told Reuters,

"What I'm afraid of is that what is going to happen now is the Iranians will be the first people around to bring in huge amounts of money for reconstruction."

A Christian doctor interviewed by EuroNews said,

"We trust Hizbullah because when they promise something they deliver" - referring to Hizbullah's efforts to rebuild Lebanon. video

Surely the United States Government cannot be so insipid as to believe that any financial compensation it offers can compete with Hizbullah for the hearts of the Lebanese people?

The United States aided and abetted Israel in its wanton destruction, genocide and ethnic cleansing. It should be under no illusions that Israel, the United States, Britain and France are the enemy. It was Hizbullah that defeated the the Zionist invaders; it was Hizbullah that forced them to stop the bombing and shelling; it is Hizbullah who once again are rebuilding Lebanon. When the World stood idly by Hizbullah did not.

It is one thing for the United States Government to call Hizbullah a terrorist organisation and the Lebanese government legitimate and democratic, but quite another to actually believe it: it is bordering on insanity. No wonder US foreign policy is in such a malaise.

Israel's Ignominious Defeat

2006-08-17T23:09:00.000+01:00

Much has been writing in the Western media about Israel's ignominious defeat, yet scant attention has been paid to the enormity and implications of Hizbullah's victory. Yet ignoring the totality of Hizbullah victory is to ignore the new political realities in the region. This almost exclusion of Hizbullah is symptomatic of the inherent bias, chauvinism and myopia that abounds through Western journalism.

Israel's stated aims were the return of the two soldiers captured by Hizbullah in South Lebanon, the destruction of Hizbullah, the capture or assassination of Sayyed Hassan Nasrallah. None of these objectives were fulfilled. Nor were the real strategic objectives.

Although many Zionist undoubtely welcomed the opportunity to avenge the humiliating defeat that Hizbullah inflicted upon Israel in 2000, this was not the reason Israel sought its destruction. Hizbullah stand is the way of the longstanding Zionist ambition to annex South Lebanon. Whilst ultimately, the Zionist State seeks the land from "The River to the Sea", it has long viewed the River Jordan to the Litani river as natural borders and a stepping stone to that objective. Hence the Israeli invasion, ethnic-cleansing and annexation of Southern Lebanon were planned over a year in advance. In fact this plan is envisaged in UN resolution 1559.

In order to achieve this aim the destruction of Hizbullah was a the destruction of Hizbullah was a necessary tactical objective. Moreover, the destruction of Hizbullah was seen for the Zionist in Washington as a proxy war with Iran, inflicting a defeat upon Hizbullah was seen as an opportunity to arrest the growth of Shia influence in the region. Hence the United States was actively supporting Israel in this war.

The consequence of 34 days of war is that the Zionist vision is in utter disarray; not only did Israel fail to achieve any of its objectives, Hizbullah emerged from the battlefield triumphant and emboldened, its popularity and influence increased exponentially, which in turn strengthens Iran and Syria's influence in the region and diminishes that of the United States.

Even Israel's battlefield losses exceed Hizbullah's: Israel acknowledges 117 of its soldiers were killed in combat with Hizbullah and a further 450 were injured, this number excludes their special forces which would take the figure to over a 150 dead. Whereas 68 Hizbullah fighters killed during the conflict. However, more significantly the Zionist regime killed over a 1,000 civillians and wounded a further 3,700; displaced 900,000 Lebanese and 60,000 foreigners; destroyed 15,000 homes; and caused $2.5 billion worth of damage to Lebanon's infrastructure, not including the losses to Lebanon's economy. In so doing, Israel has earned the enmity of the World, thus making their defeat all the more ignominious.

Israel's international credibility is now in tatters. Conversely, Sayyed Hassan Nasrallah and Hizbullah are being feted throughout the Muslim World. To ignore the scale of this victory is delusional.

The Battle of Maroun El-Rass

2006-08-16T22:58:00.000+01:00

Hizbullah has twice inflicted an ignominious defeat upon Israel, twice it has done what no other Arab army has done humiliated Israel. On the first occasion, it took 18 years of occupation before Israel was forced to surrender its position in South Lebanon, this time it took just 34 days.

The Hariri gang, the Lebanese Army and the United Nations sat idly by and impotently watched the Zionist war machine try to obliterate the Lebanon from the air, with the active support of the United States and Britain, only Hizbullah stood in the way. It was Hizbullah - labelled a "terrorist" organisation by the United States and Israel - that defeated a Zionist force of over 30,000.

The fiercest fighting took place at Maroun El-Rass. In a battle to rival the Battle of Thermopylae, where the vastly outnumbered Spartan army under King Leonidas fought to the last and held back the Persian army for seven days in 480 BC. What would Herodotus of made of Maroun El-Rass?

Eighteen Hizbullah fighters confronted an Israeli army armoured battalion and a battalion paratroopers. They were asked to hold the town for 48 hours. They held it for four days, repelling assault after assault, three fell with two missing presumed dead.

In the first engagement, three Merkava type tanks were destroyed and four Zionist were killed. Despite four days of relentless assault, when the fighting was as close as two meters, the Zionist paratroopers could not take Maroun El-Rass and the Israeli Northern Forces Command was unable to withdraw their tanks.

Israeli unable to take Maroun El-Rass adopted a scorched-earth policy with a relentless barrage of artillery and aerial bombardment. Yet still Hizbullah were able to hold Maroun El-Rass for four days. On orders they retreated, when they were ordered to retreat.

The Israeli Central Command decided to move responsibility of the operation directly to the Central Command. They again advanced into Maroun El-Rass, this time sending in a fleet of F16 and a fleet of Apachies to support their ground forces. They entered Maroun El-Rass taking the hilltops, were they were driven out by a replenished Hizbullah force. The Battle of Maroun El-Rass lasted three weeks before the Zionist invasion force retreated, unable to take the town.

So what of Maroun El-Rass, the town the IDF calls hell?

It is little more than rubble, the Zionist laid waste to the town but still they could not take it. Maroun El-Rass epitomises the war, Israel pounded built up areas targeted civillians and Lebanon infrastructure but where unable to defeat Hizbullah in the battlefield. The destruction of Lebanese cities, schools and hospitals was in vain; it achieved nothing save to demonstrate that Zionism is a nihilistic cult that is void of humanity.

Muslim letter to Blair

2006-08-12T22:52:00.000+01:00

The letter from Muslim MPs, Peers, the MCB and others to the Prime Minister:

Prime Minister,

As British Muslims we urge you to do more to fight against all those who target civilians with violence, whenever and wherever that happens.

It is our view that current British government policy risks putting civilians at increased risk both in the UK and abroad.

To combat terror the government has focused extensively on domestic legislation. While some of this will have an impact, the government must not ignore the role of its foreign policy.

The debacle of Iraq and now the failure to do more to secure an immediate end to the attacks on civilians in the Middle East not only increases the risk to ordinary people in that region, it is also ammunition to extremists who threaten us all.

Attacking civilians is never justified. This message is a global one. We urge the Prime Minister to redouble his efforts to tackle terror and extremism and change our foreign policy to show the world that we value the lives of civilians wherever they live and whatever their religion.

Such a move would make us all safer.

If one has nothing to say it is better to say nothing.

What this letter does not say but should say, and quite unambiguously, is that if Britain visits political violence upon Afghanistan and Iraq and give succour to those who visit political violence on Palestinians, Lebanese and Iranians, then you must surely expect that there will be those who will visit political violence on the UK. However this hardly needs non representative Muslim bodies and individuals largely intertwined with the British government to spell it out.

The letter could have been bold and said that the British Muslim community supports Lebanese and Palestinian resistance to Zionist aggression and call upon the Prime Minister to adopt a policy of neutrality towards the Middle East.

It could have also pointed out that the bombers on the 7th July like the Madrid bombers were in fact Wahhabi fanatics associated with Al-Qaeda and that Wahhabism is an off-shoot of Islam that was the brain child of the British Foreign Office, looking to foster an Arab uprising against the Ottoman empire in the 19th Century and that al-Qaeda itself was set up by the United States.

The letter could also have said suggested that the anger in most of Britain's diverse Muslim communities against British foreign policy has not fueled more than one act of violence on our shores.

Moreover, it could have said that the British government's support for Israel was extremist; rather than read as a veiled threat to the British government, should it not change its foreign policy

Bush and Blair Should Apologise

2006-08-12T22:49:00.000+01:00

Jean-Pierre Lehmann, Professor of International Political Economy and founding director of the Lausanne-based Evian Group (an international coalition of corporate, government and opinion leaders) suggested in a letter to the Financial Times published Friday,

"Ideally, Mr Blair and Mr Bush should go to Tehran, ask the Iranian people for forgiveness, and then, as they say, take it from there."

He also states,

"The interventions and impositions by the 'west,' both Europe and the US, in the Middle East have been almost invariably negative, both in their motivations and in their consequences."

He urged that them to acknowledge that the UK and the US overthrew the government of Mohammad Mossadegh in 1953 and then,

"imposed and strongly supported the dictatorial monarchical rule of Mohammad Reza Pahlavi as shah of Iran until he was finally overthrown by the Iranian people in 1979."

He also pointed out that the current Iranian government was,

"chosen by the Iranian people and ultimately it is up to the Iranian people whether it wants to maintain it or not."

Professor, states that although there is much for the West to apologise for in Iran,

"the Mossadegh issue has the advantage of being quite clear-cut and could go a long way to providing a solution for the current Iranian crisis. This will be infinitely more effective than sanctions, let alone warfare."

Here I would have to disagree with with Professor Lehmann, the Western fixation with TP Ajax (the CIA/SIS operation to overthrow Mossadegh) misses the point. An apology for this one incident would satisfy the malcontents but it would do little to appease the overwhelming majority of Iranians or the current popular government.

Mossadegh appeals to Western liberals, he was a democratic, secular Iranian leader, who was deposed by the West or so the legend goes. The Iranian revolution, led to the political use of the phrase blow back. Western liberals, posing as experts on Iran, often suggest that had only the US and British not opposed Mossadegh, there would have been no Islamic revolution. However, the planners of TP Ajax knew better.

Mossadegh was not democratically elected, his popularity was his policy of nationalising Iranian oil, a policy that like the current Iranian nuclear energy policy has widespread popular support. Mossadegh as an individual had little support amongst the populous, he was largely unknown. In Iran in 1953, the BBC Persian World Service, was the only radio station that Iranian's listened to, however Iranians placed no faith in the BBC. What Iranians learned of the news, they learned in the Mosque or the Chaikhaneh (teahouse). The real populist leader was Ayatullah Kashani.

Thus the aim of TP Ajax was to destroy the coalition of Ayatullah Kashani, Tudeh (the Iranian communists) and Dr Mossadegh. Ultimately it proved all too easy, having convinced Mossadegh that the Tudeh party and Ayatullah Kashani had turned against him, Mossadegh tried to impose himself as dictator and sought to make a deal on the oil. Upon seeing this, Ayatullah Kashani and Tudeh, decided that he had betrayed the country and turned against him. Iranians sided with Ayatullah Kashani not Mossadegh.

What Professor Lehmann fails to grasp is that apologies are of no consequence whilst certain realities are ignored. The US and Britain sponsored Shahist Iran in the full knowledge that it was a predominately Jewish tyranny that oppressed and persecuted the majority Muslim population; and that more Iranians died under that Zionist regime than Palestinians who have died during the Israeli Occuaption. Until this is publicly acknowledged by Britain and the US, apologies for a conspiracy over fifty years ago will appear fickle. This is what the Clinton administration also failed to understand.

Israel threatens to attack the UN

2006-08-11T22:47:00.000+01:00

On Wednesday Israel threatened to attack UN peacekeepers if they attempted to repair bomb-damaged bridges in southern Lebanon.

UN officials contacted the Israeli army to notify them that Chinese military engineers attached to the UNIFIL in Lebanon intended to repair the bridge on the Beirut to Tyre road to enable the transport of humanitarian supplies.

The Zionist reponse was to declared that they would target the engineers if they attempted to repair the bridge. David Shearer, the UN humanitarian coordinator for Lebanon said:

"We must be able to have movement throughout the country to deliver supplies. At this point we can`t do that. The deliberate targeting of civilian infrastructure is a violation of international law."