Skip to comments.Iranian Alert - January 27, 2005 - USAF playing cat and mouse game over Iran
Posted on 01/27/2005 2:56:37 AM PST by DoctorZIn
Top News Story
USAF playing cat and mouse game over IranRichard Sale, UPI Intelligence Correspondent:The U.S. Air Force is playing a dangerous game of cat and mouse with Iran's ayatollahs, flying American combat aircraft into Iranian airspace in an attempt to lure Tehran into turning on air defense radars, thus allowing U.S. pilots to grid the system for use in future targeting data, administration officials said.
"We have to know which targets to attack and how to attack them," said one, speaking on condition of anonymity. ...
"These Iranian air defense positions are not just being observed, they're being 'templated,'" an administration official said, explaining that the flights are part of a U.S. effort to develop "an electronic order of battle for Iran" in case of actual conflict. ...
A serving U.S. intelligence official added: "You need to know what proportion of your initial air strikes are going to have to be devoted to air defense suppression." ...
Ellen Laipson, president and CEO of the Henry L. Stimson Center and former CIA Middle East expert, said of the flights, "They are not necessarily an act of war in themselves, unless they are perceived as being so by the country that is being overflown."
Laipson explained: "It's not unusual for countries to test each other's air defenses from time to time, to do a little probing -- but it can be dangerous if the target country believes that such flights could mean an imminent attack."
She said her concern was that Iran "will not only turn on its air defense radars but use them to fire missiles at U.S. aircraft," an act which would "greatly increase tensions" between the two countries. ...
"They've been active in the south for some time," said former CIA counterterrorism chief, Vince Cannistraro.
The MEK are said to be currently launching raids from Camp Habib in Basra, butrecently Pakistan President Pervez Musharaff granted permission for the MEK to operate from Pakistan's Baluchi area, U.S. officials said. ...
A former senior Iranian diplomat told United Press International that the Kurds in the Baluchi areas of Pakistan can operate in freedom because the Baluchis "have no love for the mullahs of Iran." ...
In addition to the air strikes on allegedly Iranian nuclear weapons sites, the second aim of the operation is to secure the support in Iran of those "who view U.S. policy of hostility towards Iran's clerics with favor," he said.
The United States is also attempting to erect a covert infrastructure in Iranable to support U.S. efforts, this source said. It consists of Israelis and other U.S. assets, using third country passports, who have created a network of front companies that they own and staff. "It's a covert infrastructure for material support," a U.S. administration official said.
The network would be able to move money, weapons and personnel around inside Iran, he said. The covert infrastructure could also provide safe houses and the like, he said. ...
So the United States, backed by Israel, is deadly earnest about neutralizing Iran's nuclear weapons site. "The administration has determined that there is no diplomatic solution," said John Pike, president of the online think-tank globalsecurity.org. ...
"If you want on or off this Iran ping list, Freepmail DoctorZin
Join Us At Today's Iranian Alert Thread The Most Underreported Story Of The Year!
"If you want on or off this Iran ping list, Freepmail DoctorZin
LOL I say we "probe" a little harder. God Bless a Free Iran!
The only thing I don't wanna see is the US-MEK cooperation.
They are a terrorist group.
"The administration has determined that there is no diplomatic solution," said John Pike, president of the online think-tank globalsecurity.org. ...
I hope that's what the mullahs think Bush thinks. And I hope there is a face saving way for them to back down if they don't want to get bombed.
If brinksmanship won't get them to back down, nothing short of JDAMs will.
It is going to get increasingly hard for this country to fight any war as long as we have news sources providing spy services for foreign countries.
Ol' Vince must have a cell phone embedded in his skull- he never misses a chance to talk to the press.
can we all say "stealth" together...give bombing a chance.
How long has this been going on...days?
Hear's to the growing strength of freedom around the world.
I have heard reports from Iranian pilots in Iran that they were told to shot down any hostile object in the Iranian sky.
The war between Iran and the US is the last thing I want to see. That is so hard to choose between the US and Iran for the people of Iran.
Afghans, Iran linked by new road, divided by U.S.
27 Jan 2005
By Saeed Haqiqi
ISLAM QALA, Afghanistan, Jan 27 (Reuters) - The presidents of Afghanistan and Iran opened a new road between their countries on Thursday amid hopes that an increase in trade would improve their uneasy relationship.
Tehran has been unsettled by Afghanistan's close ties to its arch foe the United States, its massive output of drugs and a recent report has even suggested that U.S. special forces have entered Iran from Afghanistan to search for nuclear sites.
Thousands of U.S.-led troops remain in Afghanistan, three years after they helped oust the Islamic fundamentalist Taliban regime from power for harbouring Osama bin Laden, the architect of the Sept. 11, 2001, attacks on U.S. cities.
Still, all talk at the official opening of the 122-km (76-mile), $60-million road, paid for by Iran, was of brotherly ties and forging friendship. Most of Afghanistan's imports come through Iran, and the new, paved road should lead to a surge in trade.
"Afghanistan belongs to the people of Afghanistan and Iran desires a stable, modern and free Afghanistan," said Iranian President Mohammad Khatami.
"The reconstruction of Afghanistan will first of all benefit the oppressed people of Afghanistan and then its neighbouring countries," said Afghan President Hamid Karzai, who was handpicked by Washington to lead the country after the ouster of the Taliban.
The presence of 18,000 U.S. troops, including special forces, in Afghanistan, some of them close to the Iranian border, can be little comfort for Iran's leaders.
Since 2001, Iran has seen U.S. forces enter Afghanistan to its east and then Iraq to its west, and been accused by President George W. Bush of being part of an "axis of evil".
The United States is now piling pressure on the Islamic Republic, accusing it of trying to build a nuclear arsenal, aiding Iraqi insurgents and backing "terrorist" groups.
"You look around the world at potential trouble spots, Iran is right at the top of the list," U.S. Vice President Dick Cheney said last week.
An article in The New Yorker magazine this month said the United States was launching secret reconnaissance missions in Iran from Afghanistan to help identify potential nuclear, chemical and missile targets.
Iran ridiculed the report from Pulitzer Prize-winning journalist Seymour Hersh and the Pentagon denied it, but the presence of Karzai's burly American bodyguards at the border can only have served as a reminder of the gulf between the neighbours in their relations with the world's strongest military power.
Nevertheless, analysts said Iran and Afghanistan both had too much to lose by letting that get in the way of relations with each other.
"A collection of common interests and fears push Iran and Afghanistan to become friendlier with each other," said Iranian analyst Saeed Leylaz.
Iran fears the U.S. presence in Afghanistan, while Kabul fears Tehran might stir up instability inside its borders by assisting Islamic militants, he said.
"Iran tries to avoid any conflict with America in Afghanistan and Afghanistan tries not to harm Iran because of al Qaeda," he said. (Additional reporting by Parisa Hafezi in TEHRAN)
Iran won't dismantle nuclear program
From correspondents in Malaysia
Herald Sun, Australia
IRAN has vowed it will never dismantle its uranium enrichment program, a day after a confidential European Union document showed France, Britain and Germany had told Tehran they would not settle for anything less.
Iran has temporarily frozen its enrichment program, a process of purifying uranium for use as fuel in nuclear power plants or weapons, but insists atomic fuel production is a sovereign right it will never abandon.
Asked whether Iran would dismantle the program, Iranian Deputy Foreign Minister Gholamali Khoshroo, who is visiting Malaysia for a meeting of the 57-nation Organisation of the Islamic Conference, replied: "Never".
"For what reason? We are not terrified by the US.
"We have had this kind of relations with the US for 25 years. We don't want to upgrade tension with US, but we want to live as a sovereign country and nobody has the right to threaten others."
Iran says its atomic ambitions are strictly peaceful, but Washington believes it has a covert atomic weapons program and warned last week that military force was an option it would not rule out to stop Tehran from getting the bomb.
Mr Khoshroo accused the US of attempting to disrupt his country's talks with the EU.
"We are not living in the jungle, we are living in accordance with international law," he said.
"In accordance with international law, those who have force should not use it unless legitimacy by the international community is given to them.
"America wanted to put pressure on the EU not to continue negotiations (with Iran)."
The International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA), the UN nuclear watchdog, has been investigating Tehran's nuclear program for more than two years.
IAEA chief Mohamed ElBaradei says he has found no clear evidence of a nuclear weapons program in Iran.
An EU document seen by Reuters in Vienna yesterday summarised this month's talks between the European Union's "big three" (the EU3) and Iran.
It said there was no economic justification for the enrichment program, especially since Russia agreed to provide Tehran with fuel for the Russian-built Bushehr power plant.
"Iran recognises explicitly that its fuel cycle program cannot be justified on economic grounds," the document said.
In Vienna, diplomats said the lack of economic justification was a key reason why EU3 officials generally agreed with the US view that Iran's nuclear ambitions were not entirely peaceful.
In Malaysia, the Iranian minister said there were no legal grounds for the demand that his country halt its nuclear activities.
"What is the legal basis for any request to relinquish all our activities?" Mr Khoshroo said.
"The US is upset Iran is cooperating with the IAEA and Iran's activities have been peaceful.
"The US is not happy Iran's relationships with Asia and Islamic countries are developing. We are playing a peaceful role.
"The US is using extra force to overshadow the emergence of Iran as a stabiliser and as a strong country with good relationship with the west and the east."
Who would have thought the World Peace Herald, or UPI, would have such informative and talkative connections in the military intelligence community?
Does the average Iranian really see this as a "choice between Iran and the US"? I don't want to see a war between the US and anybody. Any sane soul would desire peace if at all possible. And I certainly understand the love any Iranian would have for their country. Any citizen should. BUT when a country has leaders who are sending out terrorists (weapons, etc) who desire to FORCE all folks everywhere to become muslim or die, then that "cancer" will affect the whole world unless surgery is performed.
I love my country too, but if my leaders were supporting, and sponsoring these terrorists who blow up innocent folks, including babies, I would do EVERYTHING WITHIN MY POWER to bring that leadership down, even if it meant losing my life in doing so. This is why the US is even over in Iraq. We saw the same type of evil trying to take over the world in WWII. Evil is evil, and a little evil, unchecked by good men, will (like a cancer) take over and destroy the entire world. What good is one's "homeland" if it has become a hell? Where is any "love or pride" in that? I'm sure many Germans struggled with the same feelings during Hitler's reign. If the people of Iran are trying to choose between the US and Iran, then they haven't seen the full truth yet. It wasn't a choice between Hitler and England. If Hitler had died of a heart attack one morning, a "second in command" would have taken his place, and hell would've gone on just the same. Shall Iran's MAD MULLAH's win this battle so that all the world can live as Iranians do now? I'd rather be dead.
It is past time for the precious souls in Iran to rise up against their own leaders as ONE or the world (just like in WWII) will have to do it themselves, and it won't be pretty, sigh. May God have mercy on us all.
"Freedom..."YES "Freedom" is good!!!! started Wegry 1956 Czechoslowacja 1968, Poland 1970,1979 Jan Pawel II,1981 America strong President Ronald Reagan help, 1989 itp... you do know what I write America good friend Today is Irak, tomorrow Iran is free Thank you
Michael Ledeen Communicates with Iranians
SMCCDI (Information Service )
Jan 26, 2005, 01:30
Through the combined latest digital technology of the Internet and Satellite television, many in Iran and abroad discussed President Bush's inaugural speech and relationship building issues with Dr. Michael Ledeen on Sunday January 23, 2005. The organization, hosting and translation support was provided by the "Student Movement Coordination Committee for Democracy in Iran" (SMCCDI).
A prominent scholar and the Human Rights Chairperson of the Washington DC based "American Enterprise Institute" (AEI), Michael Ledeen communicated with Iranians around the World through PALTALK.COM and X-TV. The virtual meeting room was provided by PALTALK.COM and the worldwide live satellite broadcasting was made by X-TV which is a division of SOSIRAN.COM. Several hundred Iranians in Iran and abroad gathered to listen to Mr. Ledeen's comments and answers while thousands more followed the live program by watching their televisions.
Dr. Ledeen is the author of several books and a multitude of articles on Islamic tyranny and terror, and Iran's freedom movement. Many Iranians do believe of him as one of their main supporters and most of his articles, on Iran and the plight of Iranians, have been translated and distributed by underground networks.
Focusing on Iran-US relations and the Bush Administration's moral support of Iranian secularists seeking an end to the illegitimate rule of the Islamic regime the interactive discussions were very informative.
Simultaneous voice translation was made for any non-English speaking in the audience by SMCCDI's Coordinator Aryo B. Pirouznia who was also the moderator and was assisted by several colleagues. Several Iranians living in Iran defied the Islamic regime's intelligence services and monitors by participating in discussions with Dr. Ledeen, while others sent e-mails to be read during the session.
The program started at 22:00 (Iran local time = 01:30 PM US EST) with the broadcast of the "Ey Iran!" (Oh Iran!) the banned Iranian National Anthem. Interestingly, popular opposition interest in "Ey Iran!" has resulted in the Islamic regime's official media to start to play this song while avoiding any kind of national value. With President George W. Bush's 2nd Inaugural speech broadcasted for the audience as a backdrop a Persian translated version was initially read to the audience.
After being introduced, Dr. Ledeen proceeded to focus on America's promise of liberty and freedom for all mankind, and its' support of Iranians while praising the US President's "Freedom Speech." Emphasizing that the Bush Administration is determined to create conditions for a non-military regime change in Iran and that America will not let the Iranians down in their quest for putting an end to the Islamic rule of tyranny and terror. Specifically, he, Dr. Ledeen, added that the Bush Administration will back the Iranians when they collectively demand their freedom and democratic rights. Emphasizing that a real and well-planned internationally monitored referendum must take place in Iran, so as to avoid any chance that the current regime might subvert this popular aspiration. Expanding further, Dr.Ledeen stated, "all conditions must be met before a referendum wished by Iranians and accepted by them can take place in Iran."
Continuing, Dr. Ledeen said, "in the weeks ahead and as outlined in the President's great speech, Iranians will witness increased support and a firm policy against today's rulers of Iran. There are at this time propositions in discussion in the U.S. Senate and House of Representatives to generate a law for regime change in Iran by empowering its' people and opposition groups." he added.
An active verbal question and answer (Q&A) session with participants, who were chosen at random, took place until the end of the program which ended at midnight (Iranian time = 03:30 PM US EST). Questions, or comments received by E-mail and FAX were read to Dr. Ledeen with his responses being sent back by SMCCDI's members.
While the absolute majority of participants endorsed the Bush administration in its policy against the Islamic republic, several expressed concerns of a U.S. military attack, or invasion of Iran. Categorically rejecting that any type of U.S. military strike, or invasion of Iran will occur, Dr. Ledeen stated: "no such thing is on Washington's agenda." "No one in Washington would like to do so and, while such an option must stay on table, no one wants to do this. We do, however, believe that Iranians will be able to free Iran by themselves".
Other participants asked about rumors of a covert American effort to fragment the country as meaningless independentist groups have started to become active in recent months. This problem which helps the Islamic regime's propaganda machine is worrying many Iranians while such phenomenon is also existing in some European countries and even in the State of Texas. The American scholar responded with by saying: "The U.S. is not using such a tactic and we do not seek the splitting of Iran."
One participant asked about secret business deals between some U.S. companies, like Halliburton, and the Islamic regime. Ledeen responded by stating : "what has happened is against U.S. laws, it is disgusting and the people involved in this transaction must be put in jail, according to American law."
Several other questions were asked by participants about the possibility of American financial support of Iranian workers and opposition groups to increase the Iranian civil disobedience movement. Dr. Ledeen answered with " I've made the proposal to U.S. and European Worker Syndicates to help their Iranian colleagues. Purpose of the effort is to provide funding to workers so that they can provide for their families when they shut down the regime's industrial machine. As mentioned earlier, a senatorial resolution named "Santorum-Cornyn" has been introduced and a law should be voted for the financial support of opposition groups and media by the American Congress."
The Sunday's event has been the subject of many talks in Iran and among the Iranian Diaspora. It seems to have been able to contribute a little more to the increasing friendship of Iranians toward Americans and the build up of a bridge of trust toward the Bush Administration.
Closing the Neocon Circle
George W. Bush has unveiled a new vision for U.S. foreign policy. His inspiration: Israels Natan Sharansky
Jan. 25 - Natan Sharansky can bestow no higher praise than to call George W. Bush an honorary dissident. And the Israeli cabinet minister says he is elated that the U.S. president, in his second inaugural speech last week, appeared to fully embrace Sharanskys vision of foreign policy. Its clear to me that he read my book, Sharansky, a squat cannonball of a man with a heavy Russian accent, told NEWSWEEK. I only wish that my mentor, Andrei Sakharov, were alive to see this, Sharansky added, referring to the Soviet nuclear scientist who risked his life and career to help open up the Soviet Union.
Bush, in his Jan. 20 address, did prove himself a dissident in one sense. When the president declared that the survival of liberty in our land increasingly depends on the success of liberty in other lands, he was delivering a dissent from traditional U.S. foreign policy, one that could have been lifted whole from the pages of Sharanskys new book, The Case for Democracy: The Power of Freedom to Overcome Tyranny and Terror. (Public Affairs; New York). Bush, in fact, has been pressing the book on aides and friends in recent weeks and urging them to read it. And it is clear that Bushs speechas well as Sharanskys influencecould have huge consequences for America in the coming years.
In Bushs speech, drafted by chief White House speechwriter Michael Gerson with input from an old Sharansky ally dating to the Reagan years, National Security Council official Elliott Abrams, Bush in effect declared an end to a three-decade-old debate in foreign-policy circles. Fittingly, it is a debate that dates back to the fights over détente versus confrontation with the Soviet Unionand, not coincidentally, to Sharanskys earlier incarnation as a jailed Soviet dissident. In a single, eloquent line, Bush sought to declare a truce to the old ideological struggle between U.S. government realiststhose who believe protecting vital national interests has little to do with spreading democracy and freedomand the so-called neoconservatives, who crusaded for these values. America's vital interests and our deepest beliefs are now one, he said.
In practice, of course, this battle of ideas will go on as U.S. officials wrangle over how to deal with recalcitrant regimes like Iran and North Korea. Administration officials were quick to play down the practical impact of Bushs rhetoric, noting that the president declared the policy of spreading freedom to be the concentrated work of generations. But it is hard to avoid the conclusion that U.S. policy toward Iran and North Korea has now been resolved in favor of regime change--just as Bush once signed onto Sharanskys goal of regime change in the Palestinian Authority in June 2002 when, in another speech heavily influenced by the Israeli, he said he would negotiate not with the autocratic Yasir Arafat but only with a newly elected Palestinian leadership.
At the very least, Bushs rhetoric strengthens the hand of hardliners from the Pentagon and the office of Vice President Dick Cheney who see no way around the use of force or covert activity against such tyrannical regimes. As Sharanskys old friend, onetime Pentagon advisor Richard Perle, told NEWSWEEK on Jan. 24, the current policy toward Iran has been one of paralysis. And, he says, the presidents speech caused elation among dissidents in Iran. You read those words and the reaction is likely to be similar to Sharanskys reaction when [as a dissident] he read Ronald Reagans words calling the Soviet Union an evil empire.
Thanks to Bushs speech, there may now be less willingness to cut a deal with the recalcitrant Iranian mullahs or the autocratic Kim Jong Il. A senior U.S. official denies this. He says the Bush team continues to hope for behavioral change like they got from Libyas Mohammar Khaddafi--whos off the regime change list since giving up his WMD. But in reality they dont expect much from Tehran or Pyongyang. The danger is that yet more drift and paralysis in U.S. policy will ensue as Iran and North Korea get closer to becoming nuclear powers. Just as the hardline Sharansky has been criticized from his left for setting an impossibly high threshold for negotiating with the Palestinianshe opposes Ariel Sharons disengagement plan for GazaBush could turn the totem of democracy into a convenient excuse for persisting in his stony refusal to talk directly to Iran and North Korea. There is also a danger of unintended consequences. Will the soaring rhetoric of freedom help bring regime collapsean outcome few would mournor will it help to harden the nuclear ambitions of two regimes that Bush has declared to be moribund (the mullahs and Kim) but which have proved to have greater staying power than many thought?
Why is Sharanskys influence so deep? In part because he didnt pop out of nowhere. Sharansky has been speaking out in neocon forums for years, stiffening the spines of his former allies from the Reagan era. Chief among them is Perle who, in an interview, identified Sharansky as one of his two heroes, together with his old mentor, Sen. Henry Scoop Jackson. Their relationship is decades old. Back in the 1970s, when the Israeli was still a Russian named Anatoly Sharansky, Perle was the notorious attack dog for Jackson, fighting for Jewish emigration from the Soviet Union by pushing through the famous 1974 Jackson-Vanik bill, the opening shot fired against Cold War détente.
That was the first big battle over human rights in American foreign policy. Until then, the Cold War had been about realpolitik and detente, mainly managing the Soviet Union. Both men had been irrevocably changed by the experience of taking on what their mutual hero, Ronald Reagan, called the evil empire. Now each is in the midst of a new incarnation, fighting against Arab terror, yet they are animated by the same ideas as in the old days. Sharanskys personal suffering under tyrannyand triumph over ithas made him a zealous campaigner for democracy in the Arab world, to the right even of his fellow Likudnik hawks in Israel. Perle and a small group of fellow neoconservatives have made it their mission to drag along Washingtons remaining realists.
In his book, Sharansky makes a powerful case that there is a common thread tying together the anti-Western hostility of old regimes like the Soviet Union and that of new enemies like the Islamist terrorists and their sponsors, including the Iranian mullah state and the Palestinian Authority under the late Arafat. While the mechanics of democracy make democracies inherently peaceful, the mechanics of tyrannies make nondemocracies inherently belligerent, he writes. Whether they are communist or Islamist, he argues, they must achieve legitimacy by creating external enemies, he argues. Thats a recipe for eternal conflict, he argues--as the autocratic Arafat proved by consistently sidestepping a peace deal.
So Sharanskys influence represents a closing of the circle for the neocons who began battling for their ideas in the late 70s and early 80s. Sharansky himself says it is all a continuum, including the cast of characters, among them Abrams, Perle, Defense Department senior officials Paul Wolfowitz and Douglas Feith and Cheneys chief of staff, Scooter Libby. If you check their background, most of them were connected either to Senator Jackson or to the Reagan administration or to both, says Sharansky. And thats why, by the way, many of them are my friends from those years. And in the last 15 years, we kept talking to one another.
It is possible that Americas new embrace of Sharanskyism will also prove to be a recipe for eternal conflict. America will now be accused of hypocrisy every time it fails to live up to Bushs promise to seek and support the growth of democratic movements and institutions in every nation and culture. In China, Russia and Taiwan, in Egypt, Saudi Arabia and Pakistan, Washington has shrunk from pursuing that policy too forthrightly, mainly because it needs friends. And Bush is unlikely to depart dramatically from this cautious course. That means, in turn, that his new statement of American policy is certain to come back to haunt him, just as Woodrow Wilsons promise of self-determination haunted American foreign policy-makers after World War I. Especially when Natan Sharansky is out there, reminding him of his promise.
With Dan Ephron in Jerusalem
Cancelled play turns into political demo
By SMCCDI (Information Service)
Jan 26, 2005, 12:51
Islamic regime's special forces intervened, yesterday evening, in order to smash a begining of protest and avoid its spread to neighboring areas.
The brutal intervention and consequent sporadic clashes happened as hundreds of spectators gathered outside the Capital's main theater and started to shout slogans against the regime following the cancelation of the last show.
Several protesters were beaten up or arrested by the regime's militiamen who had closed all the perimeters.
More and more Iranians are seizing any occasion in order to show their rejection of the Islamic republic regime.
Protest Against the Genocide of Iran's Youth
SMCCDI (Urgent Action)
January 26, 2005
Dear Freedom Lovers, Dear Human Rights Activists,
The Islamic regime's judiciary has sentenced another young
Iranian, named Satar, to be executed in the next coming
days. Aged seventeen, he has officially been accused of
murdering a man in the rebellious City of Eslamshar which
is a poor suburb of Tehran.
Eslamshahr has been the scene of violent and bloody
governmental crackdowns on peaceful protesters who
exasperated by their conditions had preferred to raise
against the Islamic State. Satar's crime is beleived to
have been a legitimate act of self defense against bad
The exact date of his execution has not been announced yet
but last week another young Iranian, named "Iman Farokhi",
was executed in Evin Political jail, located in north of
the Capital. His official crime was to have killed a
militiaman. In reality the militiaman was seen agressing
Farokhi's young girlfriend during a Friday mountain walk in
Tehran's mountains. Farokhi's execution followed the
backing off of the Islamic regime from executing five other
young Iranians due to unprecedented International pressure
created by an active campaign to save their lives.
Like many other victims of Islamic regime, Farokhi had the
bad luck to have stayed unknown till after his execution!
Please to intervene, by contacting your country's
officials, the UN and any NGO, in order to request for
their immediate intervention for putting a stop to this new
wave of massacre.
A) Amnesty International:
1) In UK:
2) In US:
Fax: +1/212/463 9193
B) Human Rights Watch:
1) In UK:
2) In US:
C) United Nations Commission on Human Rights:
D) Your local officials and Statesmen
The World must intervene against the persistent genocide of
Iranian people and rescue its helpless and exasperated
Save Satar !!!
Save Iran's Youth!!!
Make the difference!!!
You're their only and last hope!!!
The real Referendum is the one held After the Removal of the Islamic Regime.
The neo-reformist platform
Some Iranians have exhibited a weak memory in regards to historical events that pertain to Iran. Today we are seeing yet again an attempt of neo-reformists to let Iranians forget about the folly of 8 years of reforms from within and accept their new experiment with a referendum.
We have absolutely nothing to discuss with the occupying power we call the Islamic Republic, and while some are ready to sit down and have dialogue with the theocracy, we remember that there exists a sea of blood between Iranians and the Islamic Republic. While many who advocate a referendum frequently state that a persons background has no importance no matter what kind of treachery they have committed, so long as they advocate some kind of referendum, they should know that it is they who have washed their hands in blood, and we in fact view them as the enemies of Iran.
In order for us to achieve and preserve freedom, democracy and independence we must be ready and willing to pay the price it comes with. Independence from foreign powers is one point that the pro-referendum mob has kept a big distance from. The pro-referendum crowd already know that a referendum to overthrow the Islamic Republic is not possible; however, they want to reach a point where they can declare to the world that they tried to go about it non-violently. Once the pro-referendum mob is ready to concede that a referendum is not possible they will invite foreign governments to attack Iran and have power delivered to them, very similar to what happened in Iraq.
During this century many revolutions have triumphed with minimal costs to the people, but can the same be said of military foreign intervention. It is well known that some factions among the pro-referendum crowd would like Iranians to believe that a peoples revolution will bring unimaginable damage to Iranians, implying that foreign troops should invade Iran, as opposed to Iranians cleaning out their own house. At the same time, another faction among the referendum advocates would like to demonstrate the futility of a referendum, consequently bringing international powers into full acceptance of the present regime, including its hard-line factions.
Those that are engaged in the referendum campaign are either traitors, collaborators with the Islamic Republic, individuals with criminal histories, or at best, are naïve and power-hungry.
We reiterate that our objections to the referendum issue are not confined to their intentional oversight regarding the issue of religious dictatorship and secularism. Rather, our concern is that our country is already being occupied by a non Iranian power. There are monumental problems in front of us, much bigger then the amendment of the Islamic Republics constitution. Our flags Lion and Sun has been replaced with Arabic scriptures, our compatriots have been shot and imprisoned for defending Iran, and all the referendum crowd can do is advocate amending the constitution?
In the history of our precious Iran, history has shown that referendums in Iran have never benefited Iran and have in fact worked against its interests. The fake and illegal referendum that never actually took place in either Iran or Bahrian and whose architect is one of Irans greatest traitors, nevertheless made it possible for Bahrain to separate from Iran in 1970, just as the fake referendum that brought about the Islamic Republic has resulted in Iran being occupied for 25 years by tyrants who have always denied nationhood and national interest. What expectations can we have from the collaboration of the very same groups of people who were behind those past referendums who are today masterminding todays referendum?
We have on numerous occasions reiterated the importance of various matters such as the defense of the Persian Gulf and we will not compromise on matters that deal with the preservation of Iranian territorial integrity, national honor (such our flag and the Persian Gulf) and issues of national deception.
We view this statement as a historical document demonstrating that we will always try our hardest to inform our fellow compatriots regarding the dead-end that is the referendum hoax.
We sincerely hope that the vigilance of the Iranian people will defeat this new scheme much sooner then the eight year charade of reforms from within.
Long Live Iran.
Compiled by the Foreign Policy Council of the Marze Por Gohar Party
Genocide? Like 12,000,000 killed by the nazis in the camps? Or like 1,000,000 hacked to death in Rwanda? Or 4,000,000 in Cambodia? Or 4,000,000 Tamils? Is that what's happening in Iran?
This smccdi exaggerates a lot
This thread is now closed.
Join Us At Today's Iranian Alert Thread The Most Underreported Story Of The Year!
"If you want on or off this Iran ping list, Freepmail DoctorZin